Good article, too long , but some interesting thoughts. There are some conflicting sentiments that i'm never quite sure what the answer is. Whenever we reveiw the history of the labor movement, we end up talking about the differences between the afl and the cio. On one hand you had the broader movement that was open to eveyone and on the other, the craft unions who looked out only for their own. Why this is interesting is that we often see statements on mfd lamenting the largeness of unions.There is some sense that smaller craft sensitive unions would be better. However, that flies in the face of what the knights of labor or the IWW tried to do. So, which is it?
Beyond that discussion, we assume the conversion to biz-unions was a premedatated outcome planned to make union leaders rich. i would argue, it was more the evolution of a bureaucracy that happened simply over the passage of time. Perhaps the push that spurned the growth was the union wasn't the member, but the union rep and officers who were supposed to take care of business. I watched for years as union leaders hired not necessarily the best , but often the most loyal to serve. In retrospect, maybe it didn't matter. The minute the membership reliquished its role as the power source, we may have doomed ourselves to failure.
There's plenty more food for thought, but i think there's enough here to chew on for a while. Maybe later, we can have some fun with his suggestions to "save" the movement.
The Corporatization of Unions
Since the 1970's, work - for the vast majority of us - has become less secure and less rewarding. Why then are workers not joining unions in large numbers? Labour mainstreamers put the blame squarely on business and government but there is an additional obstacle - one that the mainstreamers are having a lot of trouble acknowledging. In this article, which appeared last month in the L.A. Labor News, author Jim Smith talks about it.
The Corporatization of Unions
by Jim Smith
L.A. Labor News
May 2002
Every day across the industrialized world there are countless class battles taking place on the shop floor, in the office and public enterprise. Workers - unionized or not - stand up for their rights in both subtle and forceful ways, often employing creative tactics to resist management incursion on their conditions and prerogatives, to defend the weaker among them, or to 'train' an incompetent manager. All of this goes unreported by the press, and often seems unremarkable to the participants. It's just part of the job. Yet, it is these small actions that build the solidarity upon which unions are founded. Without the thousands of small, heroic acts, there would be no base upon which to build the mighty international unions.
Nearly every poll shows that workers favor having a union by a large majority. According to an Associated Press poll (August 30, 2001) 'General approval for unions runs by a nearly 3-1 ratio, roughly the same as in recent years but higher than 20 years ago, when it was less than a 2-1 ratio.' Yet, unions continue to stagnate or lose membership and also lose elections at an alarming rate. Can this be attributed solely to employer resistance?
My experience in leading organizing campaigns for a period of more than 20 years inclines me to believe that fundamental problems within labor are also to blame. Beginning with Samuel Gompers and the founding of the AFL, a corporate model has been embraced by much of labor. This development parallels the growth of the modern corporation. It is characterized by a 'top-down' decision-making structure, relatively high salaries for those on the top and low salaries at the bottom, an ever expanding staff at the top levels, a reduction in autonomy at lower levels (think trusteeship), an exclusionary structure, a broad agreement with corporate political goals and an intolerance for democratic dissent at all levels.
More...
I don't agree the power source has relinguished anything. We're still kickin, even tho we have been beaten back.
quote:
Why this is interesting is that we often see statements on mfd lamenting the largeness of unions.There is some sense that smaller craft sensitive unions would be better. However, that flies in the face of what the knights of labor or the IWW tried to do. So, which is it?
Whichever works. Why does it have to fit into a box?
quote:
I don't agree the power source has relinguished anything. We're still kickin, even tho we have been beaten back.
I think back to the late 70s, and i found more and more members who thought by virtue of paying their dues, it absolved them of any further responsibilities. I didn't help matters, cause i thought i was a pretty good policeman and could fix everything for them. Wrong. We came to that point where the pendulum swung back towards mngmt and it got ugly. Too many members looked at membership as an insurance policy and not as a way of life. Then the whole me generation exploded, and no-one gave two shits about the next guy. Labor leaders gave themselves fat increases and members resented the gouging. It was a relationship made in hell. We've been trying to dig ourselves out, but those darn employers just don't co-operate anymore.Now all of the boomers are getting to retirement and they were are core. The younger members, the ones we've been ignoring so we could take care of the old timers are coming of age. That's one of the reasons its crunch time. We need to make believers of them, and quickly. Its not too late, there's just no time to dick around.
quote:
Whichever works. Why does it have to fit into a box?
It doesn't have to fit into a box, we just have to figure out which direction we are going in. Someone made the point recently, unions need to set long and short term goals, and then lay out a plan to get there. If we're not sure where we are going or what we are doing, we have no chance. That's been the strategy for the last 30 years and look where it got us.
One big union doesn't necessarily mean one big bureaucracy. It's the large locals that control the vote that contribute to corruption. How does a guy who drags down a quarter million a year relate to someone making $12 thousand? How does a guy who regularly stays in $300 a night hotel suites relate to a single mom with three kids living in a $400 per month basement suite? How does a guy riding in a leased $800 a month SUV relate to the part-timer who rides public transit. How does the guy behind the fancy desk relate to a guy standing up to his ankles in blood on the kill floor?
The larger the local union, the more corporatized it becomes. The larger the local, the less the so-called leaders relate to the Power Source. The corporatization of local unions rarely happens in small workplace-based local unions.
quote:
It doesn't have to fit into a box, we just have to figure out which direction we are going in.
Turn left and drive hard 'til you come to Solidarity.
Information, lots of it, will lead them to the kind of organization they need. Freedom to choose is a goal, and it doesn't have boundries.