💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › red-and-black-notes-unions.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:33:36. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Unions Author: Red and Black Notes Date: Autumn 2004 Language: en Topics: unions, critique, revolutionary syndicalism, libertarian communism Source: Retrieved on 2020-06-25 from https://libcom.org/library/unions-revolutionary-critique-red-black-notes Notes: First Published in Red and Black Notes #20, Autumn 2004, this article has been archived on libcom.org from the Red and Black Notes website. The following article is based on talks on unionism given in Toronto and Montreal in spring 2004.
Unions probably prevent more strikes than they precipitate. Given our
adversarial system, where it is often assumed, incorrectly, that every
gain by the worker is a loss for management — it’s surprising there are
not more strikes. The fact is that unions are an essential vehicle for
lessening the frustration many workers feel — three out of every four
workers say they don’t trust their employers. Good unions work to defuse
that anger — and they do it effectively. Without unions, there would be
anarchy in the workplace. Strikes would be commonplace, and
confrontation and violence would increase. Poor-quality workmanship, low
productivity, increased sick time, and absenteeism would be the
preferred form of worker protest. By and large, unions deflect those
damaging and costly forms of worker resistance. If our critics
understood what really goes on behind the labour scenes, they would be
thankful that union leaders are as effective as they are in averting
strikes. In my view, the wonder of the collective bargaining process in
Canada is that we have so few strikes.
— Buzz Hargrove Labour of Love
Toronto: Macfarlane, Walter & Ross, 1998.
The quote from the leader of the Canadian Auto Workers, considered by
many, to be one of the most militant unions in Canada, and certainly one
which prides itself on its ‘social unionism’ hardly needs explanation.
The image that many people have of unions is drawn from the historical
battles working people fought for better pay and better working
conditions. Today, the picture is very different. Union membership is
often a condition of employment, [1] and dues are collected by the
employer and forwarded to the union. Unions own real estate, employ vast
numbers of workers, and occasionally come to resemble in structure, the
corporations with whom they negotiate.
This was not always the case. Once upon a time, even in shops with union
contracts, dues were collected on payday by a shop steward. If the union
was not seen to be defending the workers, the workers refused to pay
their dues. A similar situation exists in France, where in many
workplaces, three or more unions compete for the same dues and workers
can switch their memberships — this means that the union must be a
little more responsive to the base). But in North America, after World
War II, the pattern was for the establishment of a permanent union
apparatus, which was detached from the shop floor, and functioned as a
part of the machinery of capital. How did this happen?
The unions are a product of the struggle between workers and capital.
These organizations developed, in many cases, in the 18^(th) and 19^(th)
centuries out of skilled guilds in an effort to protect their wages and
professions. And they were savagely resisted. Nova Scotia was the first
province in Canada to pass laws forbidding unions, in 1812. Recently in
Iraq, the provisional authority forbade workers in government owned
industries (which is most of them) forming unions, because a law based
by the Ba’ath Party had made them illegal. Finally, something Saddam
Hussein did that the imperials like! The battles fought by the working
class are too many to name. But even in this period, the unions showed
their conservatism. They were defence organizations, not revolutionary
organizations. Karl Marx, writing in his famous pamphlet Value, Price
and Profit criticized the conservatism of the unions for seeking “a fair
day’s wages for a fair day’s work” instead of demanding the abolition of
the wage system.
Trade unions, although they were defence organizations, were always
about negotiation over the sale of labour power. But, at the same time,
the unions reflected and maintained the existing divisions in class
society: skilled workers vs. unskilled workers; manual vs. mental; men
vs. women; “native” labour vs. immigrants, etc. etc. The Knights of
Labor opposed strikes, the American Federation of Labor was opposed to
organizing blacks or immigrants, and produced virulently racist
anti-Chinese propaganda.
Of course this was not true of every workers organization. The
Industrial Workers of the World, which was founded in 1905, sought the
destruction of the capitalist system. It organized everyone it could, it
refused to sign contracts, and everywhere agitated for revolution. Other
anarchist and syndicalist unions followed this same course. In fact, the
IWW was also to have a significant impact on the European council
movement, in particular in Germany after World War I.
But for these were the exceptions. And the identification with capital
reached its climax during the war in 1914, when the unions supported the
slaughter. (While this for many is proof of the unions’ character, many
leftists argue the opposite and point to the fact many unions opposed
the recent war in Iraq — so did Jean Chretien!)
Why did the character of the unions change? Part of the answer lies in
the changing form of capitalism. Early capitalist society was little
different from feudal society. Instead of working on the land, new
proletarianized workers went to the factory — and one of the hardest
battles for the newly emerging capitalists was getting workers to
actually go to work. But while this struggle went on there was a great
deal of “social space.” Mass working class political parties came into
existence in the 19^(th) century, along with newspapers, co-operative
societies, cultural organizations, mutual aid societies etc. But over
time, as capital strengthened its grip, as the law of value extended its
reach, as capital made its transition from being formally to really
being dominant over society, those social spaces disappeared too. Except
on a very small scale. Those existing organizations were either absorbed
into the machinery of capital (like the unions and the political
parties) or squeezed out of existence (like the IWW).
In a sense, the problem with unions today, is the problem with social
democratic governments. Many activists and leftist militants realize
that social democracy is not the answer, but honestly believe it will be
better than what is offered by the other parties. Once elected of
course, the social democrats offer precisely the same as the other
parties. But it is not a question of betrayal. They were never on our
side. What is at issue is the role they play in the system of capital.
The unions are little different.
When a contract is signed with an employer, the union, in effect,
becomes the cop in the workplace, ensuring that the employer and most
importantly the workers live up to the document. Anything outside of the
contract is forbidden. Filing a grievance essentially means handing the
problem over to lawyers and committees outside of the shopfloor. Any
worker having trouble sleeping might well consider reading their
contract, assuming the union has provided one, in order to ensure
restful sleep. The first contract the UAW signed with General Motors was
one page. Today a contract might run to hundreds of pages, all written
in impenetrable legal jargon. And lest it be forgotten, it was John L.
Lewis the first head of the more militant Congress of Industrial
Organizations who said, “the best guarantee against a sit-down strike is
a CIO contract.”
It should be understood that this is not a conspiracy theory. All unions
are not uniformly bad. There are “good” unions and there are “bad”
unions, but they are not qualitatively different. Once upon a time
workers, often as a last resort, went on strike to fight for something
they believed in, even though they often paid for their raises by saving
the company wages; today, it seems that people go on strike in order to
give up things.
The unions today are tied to a system of social development that has
many names. The welfare state, Fordism, Keynesianism, the post-war
compromise. It is also clearly a system, which is dissolving in the
twenty- first century. Few people would deny that the welfare state has
positive aspects. Being able to go to a doctor and have your child
recover from a simple treatable disease, rather than dying for the sake
of a few pennies is good. But it’s the same Welfare State that evicts
tenants, that cuts off benefits, that closes hospitals etc. when it is
necessary. It is a means of social control. Unions are a part of this
social control, and very effective. In the old totalitarian countries,
the unions were not effective because they were simply seen as part of
the government and therefore distrusted. But in so-called democratic
countries we have the illusion of participation and choice. In many ways
a democracy is a lot easier and cheaper to run — brute force is messy
and expensive. Thus, for decades capital and unions could get along
easily.
But capital is changing. Outsourcing, temp work, lean production have
all contributed to the changing nature of work and therefore undercut
the need for the employers to use unions. Hence the rise of union
busting. And although in the short run, they may be a wave of support
for and organizing of unions to combat these trends, ultimately the
unions will be unable to prevent changes in the system, just as they
have been unable to prevent layoffs and plant closures.
Where does this leave us? Some militants argue it is possible to reclaim
the unions, and with a better leadership the unions can become effective
fighting organizations, but this leaves out what it is that unions do.
Others argue for leaving the “business” unions in favour or “red”
unions. Unfortunately, it might be very lonely, and even if there were a
breakaway revolutionary grouping, in order for the union to be
effective, the same patterns of negotiation would appear. There is a
third alternative. Class struggle occurs without pause. Sometimes, the
struggle is large and visible, as in the case of strikes, general
strikes and even the emergence of workers councils; at other times, the
struggle is “underground” and takes the form of absenteeism, sabotage,
and informal go-slows. The place for the revolutionary is to be a part
of these struggles, assisting and deepening where possible. For as Marx
noted, the final goal is not a rise in the minimum wage, but the
abolition of this corrupt, exploitative system in favour of a New World.
[1] Readers should bear in mind that this article is primarily focused
on Canada. However we believe that while some points do not apply
elsewhere, the main points of the article are universal.