On July 3rd, we posted Part III of Nick Unger’s series on union structures, labor history and union member consciousness. What follows is a response to that piece.
From Martin Morand, Professor Emeritus, Industrial and Labor Relations, Indiana University of Pennsylvania:
Nick’s (rare?) compliment (“Morand is right”) encourages me to plunge in and ahead.
Yes, “The Wagner Act promise of ‘labor peace through collective bargaining’ rings hollow.” How come? Not just because, “….we stopped using the tools that worked” — the sit down and general strikes — but because Wagner Never gave us ANYTHING MORE than the right to say to the boss, a la Oliver Twist, “Please sir, may I have some more?” It never gave a union a contract nor a worker a dime — except where, backing it up, was the power and threat of a strike. We became seduced and addicted to a process, to recognition of our right to exist, to legitimacy. To nothing more substantive than that.
I saw this dramatically in a 1968-69 14 month ILGWU organizing strike in Selma, AL. Friendly, supportive, decent unionists kept coming by our picket lines to support us and advise us. “Go to the NLRB and have an election — then he has to negotiate with you!” Despite arrests and jailings the workers held out — and won a contract!
Since I (and Nick) point a negative finger at Wagner, it behooves me to confess that it was copied up in Canada, word for word, yet, somehow, works better. Again, how come?
Something there makes the Canadians take their labor laws more seriously than do we. Is it that, never having lived with slavery, embraced it, embedded it into the Constitution, as did we, that they are therefore not as blinded to class by color? That’s not to say that they are better humans! It’s just too damn cold up there to make a plantation economy, our most profitable export for many decades, feasible. Lucky bastards.
When Radio Shack did to its workers in Toronto nothing worse than is routinely done here below, it was fined more money than was even proposed in our union-sponsored EFCA law for “egregious” violations. We know what happens (or doesn’t) when Jamie Dimon gets off from his illegal acts with a slap on the wrist. Has any employer you know spent even one day in jail for lawbreaking?
It’s this, but much, much more: “The connection of Canadian and European unions to social democratic political parties changes their culture and ideology, and impacts how they engage employers. The framework is larger than one group of workers against one employer. Giving money to Democrats and cranking up a GOTV operation is no substitute for a political structure that places collective bargaining in a broader social context.”
Sure, that’s One Big Edge. But that multi-party political system seems to have had other impacts on union strength (through union militancy, awareness, participation) in much of the industrialized — and more successfully unionized — world. We rail against one-party states and close our eyes, blinding ourselves in the name of of “solidarity” and “unity” to the effects of one-party unionism.
Nick observes, “capitulation-ist autocratic leadership” in unions. What is to be done? How? By whom? He see Glimpses That Make [Him] Less Forlorn: “It is some glimpses of new labor, not just union, energy that make me a bit less forlorn.”
Consider: Why is there no UAW in Canada? US unionists from Detroit had ventured north and organized a UAW there. Then, Detroit (Solidarity House!!!) made a deal giving second class benefits to newly hired workers, permanently dividing the working class. Canadians would not swallow it. And they bolted.
Wonder: US unions won — for their members —health care. Canadian unions won (and have) single payer for all Canadians. How come? And, more importantly, how do we get more than a glimpse? What do we do next?
Occupy was great — it changed the conversation to the 1% vs the 99%. And offered not a clue as to next steps.
Too much akin to Tom Jefferson whose “Declaration” is a great list of grievances. But, because it was not connected with a futuristic vision, a dozen years later when a Constitution was written, it was so reactive to a strong monarchial system that it constructed the states rights-based damn-near-impotent federal system we see floundering now.
Tom Paine, on the other hand, went from grievances to prescription for a representative (i.e. republican, small R) system of, by and for the people.
Nick has given us Ten Points (Commandments?) to weigh and consider. He concludes:
“The inability of today’s unions to lift working people through the on-the-job fight of union workers is not a dead end for unions and unionists. The broader struggles of the rest of the working class have to create the conditions, culture, visions and organizations needed to lift us all. A good lesson from labor history: in times of crisis, like today, the attitude of unions, union leaders and activists toward the rest of the working class is decisive.”
And claims that this is his final statement.
IMPOSSIBLE! There can be no rest for the weary. Once more, into the fray, my friend. It is manifest that we need a plan, even a sketchy one, that goes beyond listing the issues to be considered.
