The future of the USA Labor Movement
north america / mexico |
workplace struggles |
feature
Friday August 19, 2005 19:30 by Patrick Star - Northwest Anarchist Federation
The proposal for restructuring the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organization
This decline in union membership across the USA is being felt through the decline of the standard of living. Wages have not kept up with the increased cost of living. There is a crisis in the labor movement and workers are going to have to devise strategies that will lay the foundations for the eventual upsurge in organizing at work.
The Ivy League labor aristocrats at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) think they can solve workers problems. Their proposal called for a restructuring of the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organization (AFL-CIO). These proposals may seem radical and pushing towards creating an upsurge in the labor movement, yet, all it really means is a bureaucratic restructuring of the labor movement.
Don't Take the Purple Pill
From the New York Times to the lunch room at work, people are
seriously debating the future of the U.S. Labor Movement. A look at
some statistics show where this concern is coming from. In 1948 31.8
percent of workers were organized into union and since the 1960's
this number has been on a steady decline. 1980 saw only 23.2 percent
of workers organized and in 2004 only 12.5 percent of the U.S
workforce held membership in unions.
This decline in union membership is being felt through the steady
decline of the standard of living in the U.S. Wages have not kept up
with the increased cost of living and the labor movement is no longer
setting the standards for wages, benefits, and work conditions. The
problem is obvious, workers need to organize. Yet, the proposed
solution thus far is not coming from workers, it is coming from
pencil pushing labor aristocrats who think they can solve the crisis
in the labor movement through statistics and grand sounding
strategies created by people who have hardly worked a day in their
lives, people who don't know first hand the problems we workers face
when it comes to power at work. There is a crisis in the labor
movement and workers are going to have to devise strategies that will
lay the foundations for the eventual upsurge in organizing at work.
The Solution From Above
The Ivy League labor aristocrats at the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU), folks who've never cleaned floors for a
living, think they can solve workers problems. Andy Stern (the old
New England money bags) president of SEIU came out with a proposal
for the labor movement called Unite To Win. This proposal called for
a restructuring of the American Federation of Labor-Congress of
Industrial Organization (AFL-CIO). The main points of this proposal
are centered on industry wide organizing, union density, and more
money put towards organizing. Although these may sound like some good
ideas, there are some serious problems with them. But first, I'll
overview the two main points of the proposal:
Granting the AFL-CIO the authority to require
coordinated bargaining and to merge or revoke union charters,
transfer responsibilities to unions for whom that industry or craft
is their primary area of strength, and prevent any merger that would
further divide workers strength.
Rebate 50 percent of the dues unions pay to the AFL-CIO if
unions put 10 percent of their budget towards organizing new workers.
These proposals may seem radical and pushing towards creating an
upsurge in the labor movement, yet, all it really means is a
bureaucratic restructuring of the labor movement. The first point
basically is a preventative measure against unions raiding other
union's membership, or, a way for unions like SEIU to justify their
current raiding wars against unions like the American Federation of
State, County, and Municipal Employee's (AFSCME) and officially move
those members into SEIU. The first point will create larger
industrial unions and destroy smaller unions, as well as put a stop
to unions like the United Auto Workers organizing university workers.
This may seem like a reasonable re-organization of unions and a
refocusing of union organizing to their specific industry, yet, it
does not take into account what workers want and the plain and simple
fact the workers get organized from their own self-activity, not the
sole efforts of union organizers.
The second point is simply that unions should put more money into
organizing and less into servicing their members. Sure, I would
rather my union dues go towards organizing my fellow workers as
opposed to fat cat salaries for union officers. Yet, I beg the
question: what kind of organizing are we talking about here? SEIU is
real fond of organizing the bosses, not workers. A case in point is
their Justice for Janitors campaign. Instead of trying to organize
all the janitors in a city, SEIU is pressuring building owners to
give cleaning contracts to union janitorial companies. My union, the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters (UBC) does the same thing. UBC
organizers pressure non-union contractors to sign up with the UBC
through secondary picketing.
For example, in Portland, Oregon, my union is picketing the U.S.
Bank Tower because non-union carpenters are doing the Tenant
Improvement work in the building. The UBC organizers are attempting
to get the building owner to use a UBC contractor instead of the
non-union contractor, Russell Construction. And I wouldn't dare leave
out the sham method shamefully titled organizing called market
recovery. My union actually gives money to union contractors, my
dues, so they can underbid non-union contractors for jobs. Hey, I'm a
union member; I buy my right to work union (about $20 a week)!! These
are the models of organizing that unions 'at the forefront' of the
labor movement in terms of organizing, are using. The labor
aristocrats have forgotten where our strength as workers comes from,
US, THE WORKERS!
The Change To Win Coalition
In the month preceding the AFL-CIO convention in July, six or so
unions signed up with the Change To Win Coalition. The basic tenants
of the coalition are the same as the Unite To Win proposal. Put more
money towards organizing. As argued above, the fundamental question
is what kind of organizing is this and is it real worker organizing?
And the answer is still no.
The last week of July saw the Teamsters, SEIU, and the UFCW
withdrawal from the AFL-CIO. UNITE-HERE, The Laborers, and The United
Farm Workers, all members of the new coalition, are also threatening
to pull out of the AFL-CIO, but as of yet, they are still making up
their minds.
The Change To Win Coalition is still very new. In the next months
we will see what it has to offer, but many are doubtful they will
fundamentally change to labor movement. The structure of the Change
To Win Coalition is just as undemocratic as the AFL-CIO, hell, there
was no membership vote over affiliation with this new coalition. Andy
Stern and Jimmy Hoffa junior, with approval from their national
executive boards, not local unions, made the undemocratic decision to
withdraw from the AFL-CIO and join the coalition. There has been no
democratic vote from the membership of the coalition unions over
affiliation. Once again, the labor aristocrats are deciding the
future of the labor movement, not us rank and file union members.
There once was a time when workers felt like they had the power to
fundamentally alter the economic and political structure of the U.S.
In the 1930's workers started to organize themselves and create their
own organizations, their own unions. The 1930's saw the largest
upsurge in worker organization ever in the U.S. When you look into
how these elders of the labor movement accomplished this, you'll see
that it was because they were self-organized. They were the power at
work, through direct actions, strikes, and generally a willingness to
put their economic power into action, the workers of the 1930's
wielded real power to better their lives. Coming out of the 1930's,
the statistics show the militancy of the newly organized workers to
take action to maintain and grow their power. In 1945, 1,435,000
workers were out on strike. In 2004, only 171,000 workers took to the
picket line to maintain and grow their power.
Many factors play into this dismal crisis in our power. The two
largest factors in the minds of many labor militants is workers
complacency due the acceptance of the middle class mindset that what
matters in life is two cars, a house in the suburbs, and fancy toys;
the American Dream, and the second factor is the lack of ownership of
our unions due to their good ol'' boy structure (the labor
aristocracy) and upper class take over by the likes of people such as
Andy Stern.
As proven by the experiences of the 1930's, we rank and file
militants are the ones who have the power to turn this crisis into an
upsurge. We have to develop strategies around organizing our fellow
workers in a way that builds power on the job, not just a collective
bargaining agreement. It is high time for us to shake the
hopelessness from our minds and start engaging in militant tactics
and strategies that hold the potential for an upsurge in our power. I
don't pretend that I know what the answers are, but I do know we have
to start looking and acting. An upsurge in Labor Movement will most
likely come out of economic crisis that takes years of development
and hardship until workers start to stand up and fight. We must
prepare the militant bare bones structure that will facilitate this
upsurge. This means testing tactics, building organizations of rank
and file militants, and recognizing that we don't have to get this
all done right now. We have time, keep a long term outlook or we'll
get lost in the seeming futility of it all.
Patrick Star is a member of the Firebrand Collective, a member
collective of the Northwest Anarchist Federation. He is also a rank
and file member of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 247.
From Unfinished Buisness No 2: Agitational publication of the
NORTHWEST ANARCHIST FEDERATION - NAF U..B.. B U P.o. Box 112
Portland, O R 97232
View Full Comment Text
save preference
Comments (33 of 33)