Our Friends With Benefits: On The Union Question

Share on Facebook6Share on LinkedIn0Share on Tumblr0Share on Reddit0Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

By Jocelyn Cohn of Unity and Struggle and James Frey

Authors’ Note: This piece represents one perspective in Unity and Struggle, and is intended to be part of the ongoing discussion on unions, particularly in response to Advance the Struggle. The authors are concerned with the role of revolutionaries in unions. A second piece will be released by two other Unity and Struggle members in the next week that may represent divergent views from this piece. By posting both pieces, we are hoping to clarify our own positions as well as contribute to the ongoing discussion outside of our organization.

Introduction

As communist workplace organizers serious about praxis, the authors find ourselves debating the strategic importance and political composition of trade unions in the United States. We find what could be called “the union question” to be in fact a number of questions surrounding the composition of capital in general, capital in its in its present incarnation, as well as the composition of trade unions and their relationship to capital and the state. Most immediate to our investigation is the question of how this arrangement can be interpreted by revolutionaries, in the workplace and outside of it. After engaging these questions it is our finding that working explicitly within the existing trade union structure to defend, change, or strengthen them is not a compliment to working toward consolidating class-wide organizations capable of effective revolutionary struggle, but rather that these two objectives stand in irreducible antagonism.

I. The Historical Context

The use of rebellion, for the purpose of developing capital with ‘renewed energy and vitality’ is not new and not confined to women.  For capitalism to co-opt every aspect of struggle, to renew itself with our energy and our vitality, and with the active help of a minority of the exploited, is central to its nature.

Selma James, “Women, the Unions, and Work” 1972

We understand that this debate is re-emerging from the relative torpor it has enjoyed since the 1970s due to the ongoing transformation of the processes of production and reproduction in the United States. This shift is alternatively referred to as “neoliberalism” and “austerity”, but these terms are emblematic of a deep-seated shift in the relations of production, the novelty of which is done no justice by comfortable buzzwords which claim its content as already definable.

Historically speaking, we find the roots of the transformation which comprises our present epoch in the 1950s and 1960s. In this period the state took on the role of regulating the value of labor power through public welfare and unemployment programs which kept unemployed people from uniting with the rest of the working class and allowed for a flexible workforce that could work seasonally and in many jobs, as well as through certain wage and benefit protections provided through Collective Bargaining Agreements and shifts in labor law, which simultaneously coerced workers into de-skilled, repetitive, and unrewarding factory jobs,  and kept a caste of workers slightly above another while styming at least some labor unrest. Most importantly, it kept worker activity contained by union bosses at least as much as by company bosses.

These provisions were possible, as all welfare state policies, due to a high rate of exploitation and the enjoyment of massive profits by the bourgeoisie which contributed to a steady tax flow and mass of surplus value for the state to work with.

While this arrangement doubtless improved the material situation for many workers and surely angered many bosses, these effects were only incidental to the primary necessities of capital: a stable market for the purchase of the commodities produced by capitalists engaged in production of means of consumption, and the guarantee of a stable supply of labor-powers at relatively low costs to individual capitals. The state was to carry the cost of this investment in the means of consumption, but as is typical of the the social democratic dream, not only was the well being of the working class secondary to the interest of optimizing its role in capital, but this relative prosperity was only a temporary lacunae from the raging storm of the anarchic cycle of crisis which perennially looms on the horizon.

Additionally, these benefits served primarily a rising class of white working class men and a much smaller number of the black working class; this provided enough symbolic shifts in the racial division of labor for the ruling class to claim victory in civil rights, further dividing and exploiting the majority of the people of color working class. Women were mostly employed in non-union workplaces or working unwaged at home; and in fact their transition into trade unions by the 1980s and ‘90s represented a huge step backwards for the revolutionary feminist tendency of the 1960s and 70s, especially since this transition had little to no effect on patriarchy as a whole. The division of labor in workplaces was mimicked and enforced by division of rights in unions, which allowed new workers into the same shops at varying rates and benefits, or kept some workers out of unions while still working in the same workplaces. Splits along race and gender that still exist in the working class today were entrenched in these moments.

The social welfare programs that emerged in this period were deliberately formulated against the menace of US communist labor organizing that had its heyday in the 1930s. We can understand the struggle of certain communists, black militants, and feminists against the trade unions in the 1960s as a response to this attempt to alleviate the inherent contradictions between labor and capital, and combat the patriarchal and white supremacist aspects of capitalism that remained strong throughout the “Golden Age” of capital. From the perspective of the capitalist state, it was clear that the mediating role of these institutions so instrumental to rescuing American capitalism in the preceding decades was not assured when workers began to strike back against the welfare state and unions.

To this period we can trace the faint murmurings of the present moment, when capital began to transform itself to new forms of exploitation and new forms of production in response to these uprisings, as well as in the general pursuit of its necessity to expand in more creative and brutal ways.

More broadly, over the last fifty years heavy industry and production of means of consumption have increasingly left the US to be produced more cheaply by highly exploited labor overseas, the conditions of which are maintained by large international finance apparatuses and ongoing wars (allowing for a decrease in the value of labor-power here as well). Likewise commodity production in the US occurs more and more in the category of luxury goods and services for the capitalist class, within which the process of production looks very different from the large scale industry that dominated the mid-20th Century. Additionally, capital increasingly finds new forms of accumulation in those industries previously monopolized by the state, perhaps typified in the massive non-profit complex, in which private capitalists compete to provide services previously incumbent on the welfare state, and capture many well-meaning crusaders for “social justice” in the mechanisms of capitalist social reproduction.

This change in the composition and mode of domination of capital has lead to the subsumption of prior forms of maintenance of the working class, including trade unions and the welfare state, to new forms such as increased policing and imprisonment.

Despite the role of trade unions in managing the sale and purchase of labor power, the role of the welfare state in driving down wages, and the role they share in neutralizing collective struggles, the loss of these institutions certainly concerns the US working class.

Because of the near monopoly by unions on halfway decent working conditions and healthcare (largely unavailable to non-unionized workers then and now), non-unionized workplaces face harsher conditions and are ground zero for new strategies to devalue labor-power. Because unions were are not class struggle organizations, but organizations for the protection of some workers over others, the loss of those unionized positions and of the unions themselves means the loss of the promise of job protections and healthcare for many in the working class, who relate to unions merely as the possible agents of improving their individual material situation.

This is especially the case since through their divisive nature, these same trade unions helped prevent the kinds of broad-based struggle throughout the working class which is now being called upon to save them. It is the very limits of the trade unions to begin with, their structural incapacity to perform any function other than capitalist protectionism of certain workers, which has led to their destruction in the face of a rapidly changing social relations of production.

The loss of unionized workplaces and the general weakening of legal protections for workers, as well as the strengthening of the disciplinary aspects of welfare provisions for the class, have undoubtedly caused a general decrease in the living conditions for the class, and a corresponding decrease in the value of labor power for the capitalists. The working class as a whole, and revolutionaries in particular certainly are left asking: “What is to be done?”

II. What Is Meant By “Exploitation”? What Is The Contradiction Inherent In Capitalist Society?

In order to understand the historic and contemporary role of unions, as well as the current composition of capital today, we must begin by laying out a clear understanding of the relationship between labor and capital.

The relationship between labor and capital is a contradictory one. Naturally the capitalist class seeks to minimize pay and maximize the use of labor power, and the working class seeks the opposite. However, the capitalist class also needs the working class to constantly reproduce itself, in order to repeat its role in the process of production. And what’s more, the consumption of the working class is required to circulate capital, outside the narrow realm of luxury commodities. Although the health, welfare, and wages of workers may be opposed to the interests of individual capitalists, it is necessary for the movement of capitalism itself. Contradictions between the ruling class and the reproduction of capitalism itself are a historical mainstay of the capitalist mode of production.

This contradiction plays itself out every day in capitalism: The capitalist needs to produce a use-value that is also an exchange value; therefore he needs labor-power which has a use-value, but one that has as low an exchange value as is possible. It is not in the capitalist’s best interest to reduce to nothing the capacity of the use-value of labor power in the interest of increasing its exchange value, although they attempt to do so, through mechanization and so forth. Nor is it in the capitalist’s interest to spurn forth disruptive strike actions unnecessarily. The union form was seen as a resolution to this. Just like the struggle for the working day was a struggle between the classes that allowed for capitalism to continue at the same time that it materially improved the lives of workers, the struggle to keep workers organized in unions with collective bargaining agreements allowed for a period of relatively peaceful harmonization between workers and bosses in some sectors. But this is not necessarily the same as creating harmony between labor and capital.

“Capital” is not simply the actions of its individual personification in the form of a capitalist. Instead, capital dominates the capitalist. This is a point Marx makes consistently throughout the volumes Capital and is a methodological point without which the texts are misunderstood. Capital describes the alienated form of labor in all its stages of production and exchange. Capital encompasses labor power itself and all institutions which aim at the regulation or negotiation of its sale, if they are not oriented toward eradicating its alienated form and ending the extraction of surplus value. Adjusting the terms of the sale of labor power is perfectly consistent with capital. And negotiating with the capitalist over the terms of this sale is not inherently anti-capitalist, although it has its place in the class struggle.

Capital is powerful because it is reproduced daily through workers’ activity. The more we work, the more we are enslaved. This is the basis of the capitalist mode of production. At times control over capital in the form of means of production and the ability to purchase labor power has been spread out more or less among the classes over time, but the fundamental fact that capital in the form of dead labor dominates living labor has not changed. Selling labor for a higher wage or lower wage does not impact this fact.

Like any commodity, the value of labor power is determined by the amount of labor time it takes to produce—this includes the labor-power embodied in all the commodities that workers consume to go back to work, which also include services like care, cleaning, sex, and childbirth (the cost of which is constantly driven down by the assumption that this work should be done for free and is “natural”).

Like any other commodity, capitalists are forced to pay more or less the value for the commodity labor-power; but this always evens out, as with any other commodity, either through social measures, steps taken by employers’ organizations or the state, or steps taken by employees’ organizations. The source of exploitation is not that labor-power is paid for at less than it is worth, but that the competitive nature of capitalism and the necessity for capital to expand constantly drives down the value of labor power. This is accomplished in two ways: 1) by driving down the actual value of means of subsistence by forcing workers to produce more value in less time by changing the process of production and 2) by driving down the quality of life for workers and increasing divisions within the class.

The former is accomplished through a variety of changes in the production process itself, and ranges from Taylorization, to mechanization, to isolation, and while the latter is similarly done in a variety of ways, it is particularly maintained through white supremacy, patriarchy, policing, imprisonment, and the general degradation of the working class on a social level.

Therefore, we see the site of struggle in the process of production and reproduction of labor power itself. Capitalism itself is comprised of the struggle between the classes. Attempts to continue to force capitalists to pay workers the ever-diminishing value of their labor-power are not fighting exploitation, whether they come from the union, the state, or from the forces of crisis of falling rates of profit. They are another day in the life of capitalism. We must not confuse the contradiction between different poles of the ruling class, or the contradiction between bosses and workers with the contradiction between labor and capital.

It is for these reasons that we reject the notion supported by free-trade economists, presidents, and at times our own comrades that “Rising tides lift all ships”. It is not those at the top of the working class (for example, the somewhat mythologized “unionized public sector worker”) who determine the value of labor-power for the rest of us, but rather the other way around. The standard for the lives of the working class will consistently be driven down to meet those at the lowest level of subsistence, and the level of subsistence will continually be driven down. Today, as in previous generations those at the lowest level of subsistence remain women, black and brown people, and undocumented immigrants. They include women of all races performing unwaged reproductive labor at home and then doing it for a low wage for someone else in the same day; undocumented immigrants working construction, textiles, agriculture or in restaurants at rates half the legal wage; low-waged disposal workers on “unionized” job sites doing the jobs that nobody else will touch; college students working for free in “internships”, and even paying for the pleasure.

The role of revolutionaries, then, is to develop themselves in the class to seize on contradictions and expand them to a level where control of political power can be grasped by the working class, especially the parts of the class that face the most serious depression of conditions. Our role is not to celebrate every move that allows for the harmonious march of capitalism for one more day; there are entire paid institutions, non-profits, think tanks, and union staffs to do this!

III. The Structure And Role Of Unions

It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self- organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.

National Labor Relations Act Section 1.[§151.]

Over the more than 100 years of debates over the role of unions in revolutionary struggles, or the role of revolutionaries in union struggles, there has been much focus on the role of the union bureaucracy in stifling worker struggles, and the possibility of dismantling this bureaucracy. Attempts to “democratize” trade unions have been at the center of left organizing, especially by certain Trotskyist groups, as well as by independent workers. While these are good-hearted attempts which accurately acknowledge the repressive nature of the structure of unions toward effective class struggle, efforts to change these structures from within represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the form of unions and the political content through which they developed and are maintained.

We must understand that contemporary trade unions, defined as those that are recognized by the NLRB, have the explicit purpose of restricting worker organizing that if left unchecked, can lead to obstructions in commerce. Legally speaking, these unions are steam valves for class struggle, and they allow the contradictions between labor and capital space in which they can move without rupturing violently. Collective activity is limited in favor of individualized, legalistic, and representative mitigation of any interruption to the process of creation of surplus value through the exploitation of waged and non-waged workers. The goal of every union struggle, whether “won” or “lost”, is for the workers to go back to work.

The NLRA recognizes this as such:

The denial by some employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by (a) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentalities of commerce; (b) occurring in the current of commerce; (c) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flow of raw materials or manufactured or processed goods from or into the channels of commerce, or the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or (d) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing from or into the channels of commerce.

The role of unions is therefore to ensure the circulation of commodities, especially the commodity of labor power and the social reproduction it requires: health care, wages enough to purchase means of subsistence, and time.

In fact, unions are not collective organs of struggle at all, but instead are the institutions that maintain legal agreements between workers and bosses. Unions do not exist on a social basis, nor do they form “fighting organization” against bosses. They are instead the representative force that maintains equilibrium between workers and bosses, necessary for the continuation of capital. They exist to maintain the conditions defined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), most often through closed door negotiations, and sometimes through strikes, the goal of which is always make sure the CBA remains intact and workers go back to work.

Throughout their history, unions have existed as companies in and of themselves, with investment interests, employees, and a necessity to produce value through the exploitation of their own workers and the workers they “represent”, who pay a significant amount of their wages in union dues. These interests far out way concerns over actual workers who make up the shop, and this is proven by any close investigation into the changes in union structure organized workshops over time (a great example being the expansion of the UAW to organize academic and legal labor following the shuttering of much of the auto industry).

The development of unions as companies in and for themselves that are run through bureaucratic mechanisms is not due to subjective failures on the parts of those individuals building unions, but rather due the structural development inherent in the union form itself. Well-meaning organizers who attempt to change these mechanisms through the sheer force of their personal commitment to revolutionary struggle will discover, like countless others before them, the more they work to change the union, the more the union will work to change them.

As stated in the first section of this piece, unions are institutions that emerged historically to protect certain workers in either individual workplaces or specific trades. In the US, three different basic kinds of unions emerged in the early 20th century: craft unions, the role of which was to protect skilled work from being de-skilled and therefore comprised a smaller number of iron workers, textile workers, masons, and others; industrial unions which organized workers in the growing factory and large industrial workplaces of the early 20th century into the same union, regardless of skill level but based on industry; and class-wide unions of the IWW for example, which attempted to organize the entire class into one organization, but which after internal debates eventually abandoned openly pushing communist politics.

The CIO was the largest workers’ organization in the US that attempted to struggle on the basis of production, rather than consumption. Early actions fought againstlegal formalization and long labor contracts, working instead for control of production by workers themselves, the logical conclusion of which would be a subversion of the capitalist system of domination as living labor took control over dead labor. However, capital outpaced the struggles of the CIO, and by the 1950’s, the AFL-CIO had merged, communists were purged from the institution, and the focus of the institution became purely the consumption of the working class: wages, benefits, pensions, education. With the triumph of the new phase of capitalist production, Fordism, over its corollary of struggle in the working class, the trade unions developed with the grain of capitalist accumulation instead of against it, and became thoroughly enmeshed in capital.

The meaning of all this for revolutionaries seeking organize in unionized shops is twofold: First, because unions themselves are institutions that work under a certain set of agreements with the state, and have a structure that reflects this (shops or “chapters” are part of locals, locals function as parts of large international unions, internationals are parts of federations…and so on), attempting to change the form of individual shops, locals, or even unions to something more “democratic” is impossible and those activities will be subsumed either through direct discipline of the union bosses, or through the capitalist structure of unions themselves which would not allow anything diverging from the above structure to exist as a union.

Second, because unions act as the representative agents for provisions of certain means of subsistence for some workers in some workplaces, they are not organs of struggle themselves, and in fact serve to divide the working class, especially in this period of their demise. By maintaining a competition with the rest of the working class, unions are able to ensure some basic means of subsistence for some of the workers they represent; but this is only at the expense of others. The call to expand unions is similarly a faulty argument. Revolutionaries struggling for the benefits of unionized workers, and to preserve industries and workplaces that are unionized, will find themselves necessarily in competition with the rest of the class.

To reiterate, the divisions which unions instill within the class emanate from within their very structures. According to a 2008 report, twenty-five percent of unions in the United States operate on a two-tiered pay structure, which fosters an underclass within a workplace. The bottom tier languishes in a sort of purgatory, receiving lower wages and awaiting benefits while after watching contract after contract (if they work at the company long enough) they only see their ranks increasing, their dues piling up, and their wages and benefits diminishing.

While this is quite common in the private sector, and perhaps most reported in the auto industry (see Insurgent Notes: “The Sky is Always Darkest Just Before Dawn” for the 2011 agreement between UAW and Chrystler-GM), it also occurs in the much lauded “public sector”, which faces the same if not even more intense repression of value. A widespread example of this is adjunct professors in public colleges, who make up well over 60% of teaching faculty, and are either outside of faculty unions or are the lower tier in these unions.

The same is true for many workers in the American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees (AFSCME), where, for example, mostly immigrant custodians are in the same local as mostly white skilled trades but have drastically lowered rates. It is also the case for health care workers organized by shop but divided by gender, education, race, and job. And as the “bottom rung” of two-tiered labor is pressed down further and further, new standards for treatment of workers emerge, and the total value of labor power decreases—usually on the shoulders of people of color, immigrants, and women.

IV. How Do We Organize In Unionized Shops

There are many who argue that the best way to organize in a unionized shop is to defend the union, and work to change its structure, or that working independently of the union and within the union are not contradictory. But given our above findings, it is clear that any threat to the hierarchical, alienating, and bureaucratic structure of unions is a threat to unions as a whole, whether it is from the “right” or the “left”. Their political content—as counter-revolutionary, representative, and liberal—is indistinct from their form, and no amount of goodwill, ink spilled, or cries for democracy will change this.

Workers attempting to take over power with caucuses will find themselves defeated, or if they win, repeating more or less the activities of the old union bureaucracy, or at least caught in the same exact contract negotiations, in a matter of months. For those trying to both reform the union from within, and change their conditions from without, they will find their activity inside co-opted, and their activity outside squashed; they will either be alienated by the union officials they thought were their friends, or see their own literature and slogans being used to make concessions with management while appeasing the agitated shop members. We cannot emphasize enough that this is in no way a subjective failure of union officials, or of the militants attempting change. This is inherent in the union structure, and their political content can only be adjusted by small degrees and never broken in the union form.

The contradiction faced by the union form is that the very benefits they seek to defend have in fact primarily been won by fights that often occur outside their jurisdiction: wildcat strikes, illegal slowdowns, direct action against bosses that bypasses the union. In these situations, unions have to make the choice to co-opt and calm down the independent worker activity, full-out put an end to it, or most often some combination of the two. As they continue to restrain working class activity, the basis for their existence disappears.

Those of us who have attempted to organize in our unionized workplaces, whether through the mechanism of the union or without it, have had these points driven home to us again and again. Any attempt to fight collectively against management with other workers, without going through a lengthy and alienating grievance process or seeking out mediation, is met with at best indifference and at worst admonishment. Meanwhile union officials, paid and “voluntary”, negotiate “for” us without us ever knowing, putting our jobs in danger without our knowledge or consent.

We have found that to organize in unionized shops we must build workplace groups that focus on the most highly exploited members of our shop, and if we are in a multi-shop workplace (or one with both unionized and non-unionized workers), we must build organizations that include as equal and full members of our organizations others not in our shop. We must create demands that go beyond our contract (which is not difficult to do, since the demands we need most are most often not included in our contracts) both in terms of scope, and job description. We must be able to act autonomously against management, even if management is in the same union as us.

We must do this by taking direct action: slowing down work, work stoppages, occupations, and activities that build camaraderie, analysis, and capacity. We must always assert our autonomy, even if we demand legal protection from our union (which we are entitled to, even if organizing independently from them). We can, if its prudent, make demands on the union; to take control of the capital we invested in it, because it is our own. This may mean taking over the union hall, taking back our strike funds, and/or taking over closed door negotiations. But we must never be alluded by the power this might afford us. Our activity must lead to our continued independence, or we will just repeat the politics we are fighting against.

The primary goal of unions and CBAs is to maintain peaceable relationships between bosses and workers through legal means, and since the law is developed as a mechanism to exploit and coerce people into alienating their labor power, any negotiations made through a union will only be within these parameters. As the dynamic between labor and capital continually forces changes in the relationship between workers and bosses, the processes of production, and especially reproduction, the form and content of unions is no longer acceptable. Their failure is not that they are not strong enough or lack the right members in rank in file or leadership, but is encompassed within their very form.

Capitalism will expand, dissolving institutions which are no longer useful to it, and thus setting the grounds for the new terrain of class struggle. We must recognize this new terrain and struggle accordingly.

V. Labor In The Present

Once industrial development has attained its highest possible point and capitalism has entered its descending phase on the world market, the trade-union struggle will become doubly difficult… Trade union action is reduced of necessity to the simple defense of already realized gains, and even that is becoming more and more difficult.  

Rosa Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution

The antagonism between labor and capital is nonetheless the relationship between a total social process, capital, and one of its components, the labor-power of the proletariat. To understand labor as standing against capital with no remainder is to imagine the revolution accomplished. In the present, however, the two are necessarily intertwined, and the possibilities for revolutionary activity on the part of labor are found precisely within process of capital—in which the contradictions between labor and capital, the motor for capitalist development, are given relative space to move. This is the terrain on which we fight.

We find statistical data to be a problematic form of representation of knowledge due to its inability to understand the nuances of social relations contained in its own figures, and often force us to rely on the bourgeois state or private companies for our information. However, we found the following recent numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics striking:

While 14 million people in the United States are members of unions, 20 million are reported unemployed (unreported unemployment estimates are around twice that).

While 13.5 percent of black people are unionized, as opposed to 11.3 percent of white people, only 2 million black people are unionized as opposed to 11 million whites. Furthermore the unemployment rate for black people is 14.4 percent, and the number of black people not in the labor force is over 11 million, not including incarcerated people.

In 2012 there were 102 million full time workers and 24 million (documented) part time employed people. Of these, 12 million full time workers were union members while only 1.4 million part time workers were union members. Both of these numbers have decreased since 2011. This means while approximately 1/5 of all workers are part time, only 1/12 of these workers are union members.

In the preceding decades, with the transition from welfare state policies to what is called “neoliberalism”, and vast deskilling of many trades in the United States, capital has won many victories in the battle to remake the labor force in its own image. Driven by the abstraction from all particularities in the name of general exchangeability, capital bristles impatiently when confronted with skilled labor-power, even more so the laborer in a position to bargain, and not just because of the strategic power this affords to workers who can not be immediately and seamlessly replaced should they begin to agitate. To ensure the optimum circulation of capital, labor should be as abstract and exchangeable as exchange value itself, and though this has yet to be accomplished in practice, it is a principle of operation that bears on labor like a patient daily tide, slowly but incessantly smoothing its particularities.

This is by no means a new process. It echoes the destruction of the guilds and the transition to large-scale industry and agriculture. Just as then, the political task facing the working class is not to cling to old forms, demanding the protection of forms of production fast becoming archaic, and waging defensive battles vainly against the tide of history. We find that the disappearing trade union form does not correspond to the nature of labor in the present, and still less does it correspond to the direction in which labor is heading. Against this claim will be sounded the rally cries of defensive struggles, but in these we hear only denials of the reality in which we must struggle.

Capitalism has reached a stage where it no longer needs to regulate the activity of workers through unions. The coercive nature of capital is strong enough that worker organizing is at an extreme low, and capital can maintain order in other ways: prison, immigration laws, the limiting of health care, and repression of access reproductive options for women to name a few. The discipline that made welfare necessary is similarly carried out in other forms and institutions that can more deftly accumulate capital than the state: non profits, churches, and charities specifically.

Understood in this way, it is no mystery that we are facing the demise of unions all over the world. As they consistently move within capital, they disappear as they become unnecessary. Since they explicitly limit the activity of the workers who may be capable of defending the benefits provided by them, they also work towards their own destruction. Institutions outside the class but supposedly for it will always fail in this way to do anything other than push the march of capital forward.

As it continues to decline and its very structure prevents it from becoming general to the class, the trade union form is increasingly inconceivable for a growing number of Americans forced to juggle multiple part time jobs which make each other difficult or impossible, work on a freelance basis with no job security, return to school or stay in school indefinitely due to a dismal job market, cobble together public assistance programs to make ends meet, depend on their parents as un/deremployed adult children, work unwaged as interns in the off chance of landing wage labor, or otherwise provide unwaged labor toward the reproduction of the working class. This final item, including housework, childcare, care for the elderly and the disabled, and so forth, is increasingly balanced with one or more waged occupations in fields which may be similar or completely different, quite arbitrarily.

The workshop or the office as the site of the singular career, in which one is invested sufficient to wage long-term struggles for better conditions, benefits, gradual wage increases, and so forth, is disappearing in nearly every sector, from production, to education, to reproductive work. And beyond the diminished desire to wage struggle in these particular job sites, these jobs are so exchangeable that workers can be terminated at the slightest hint of agitation, or in the increasingly pervasive paradigm of precarious work, not terminated, but simply not called back to work again. No legislation or union protection can even comprehend this phenomenon, which runs common throughout many “freelance” trades.

Circulating constantly between multiple sources of income, some short-term, some even one-time, some retained only for benefits, others cherished for paying “off the books” so as to simultaneously draw state benefits, the modern precariat bares little resemblance to the centralized industrial proletariat or the “skilled professionals” on which the trade union system was built.

Regardless of trade or wage the work site is increasingly fragmented and isolated, with the virtual realm of the Internet being perhaps the apotheosis of this stage of alienation and literal radical separation. Thanks to networks for precarious employment like Craig’s List, the workforce of the 21st Century increasingly resembles a digital shape-up more than a shop floor of career manufacturers. It is not uncommon for a worker to know few if any of their co-workers, or to have never met their boss in person. Even in giant sites of cooperative work like Wal Mart, increasingly the model for the sphere of working class consumption, workers are deliberately kept on a part-time basis and their schedules are rotated endlessly.

This terrain taken in total poses an unpleasant reality for those of us who believe the site of value production to therefore be the primary site for the struggle of the proletariat against capital. The disintegration of the centralized workplace, the disappearance of the single paycheck, and the death of the career for a growing number of the working class creates a situation of aporia for those of us seeking to assist in the formation of revolutionary organizations of the working class rooted in its relations of production. The question is certainly legitimate: What is to be done?

But for the reasons outlined above, we cannot agree with the sentiment of many of our comrades, that the fate of the revolutionary in the present is bound up with that of the trade union. To the contrary, our work is to be done outside the restrictions of this moribund form, irrelevant to a vast and growing majority of the working class, and inimical to the aims of class-wide struggle.

VI. Conclusion

The union is nothing more than the legislative body which upholds the concessions made by capitalists in order to keep the status quo, and maintain capitalist order. We see debates in the ruling class play out that effect our material lives, but our strategy is not to convince one side or the other that they are correct. We do not wish to destroy “the union” more or less than we wish to destroy the supreme court, which currently maintains our legal rights to abortions, freedom of speech and assembly, and ensures due process. But just as we see our constitutional rights being eroded away and our solution is not to defend the supreme court, but rather to build a fighting working class; as we see our benefits being diminished, our primary response is to build analysis and organization of the working class that can fight directly against capital itself.

To this end, we do not believe the “correct form” for contemporary working class struggle has yet been discovered. But we know that whatever forms emerge must be the dialectical response to the current mode of capitalism, not a flat opposition that attempts to bring back the old days, impossible to resurrect anyway, instead of confronting the new. The current working class faces a new kind of “double freedom”: we work many jobs at once, we stay at jobs for short periods of time, we work under the table to get health benefits and food stamps from the state, we seek diminishing housing subsidies. We are so “free” that each day of work could be our last through no fault of our own. This is not a condition which the trade union form can comprehend.

The lives of the working class are thus simultaneously more isolated and more connected than ever before. No longer organized by the massive cooperation of the industrial factory, whether the factory of GM or the factory of the steno pool, we work for ourselves, by ourselves, on our bosses’ schedules. We work from our own cars or our tiny apartments, we purchase our own cleaning supplies to clean someone else’s office or apartment, we rent our own trucks to move someone’s furniture. We discover that the comfortable-sounding notion of “working at home” is instead the reality of a world in which we are always at work in some form or another.

We feel so isolated, so particular, so endlessly individualized. But when we meet one another in the welfare office, on the bus, or passing in the hallway of the company building we work, we find our experiences are almost identical. We work on a rotating basis for the same bosses or the same kinds of bosses, and when we confront the similarities of our situations, the particularities fade into the background. This is the basis for collective struggle.

There are more of us, the lowest rung of the working class, than perhaps any other time in the last fifty years, and we are directly involved with the production and reproduction of capitalism. It is this that we must seize on; not the protection of an institution that is itself dying. We will fight tooth and nail to hold on to health insurance, for those few who have it, and wage and security benefits, for those few who have it, but we will not do this from the isolation of our jobs. We will do this as a class, and for the class, not to demand simply a better price for the sale of our labor power, but to force a change in the entire mode of production itself.

At times, we may decide this means holding a union sign, and other times, it may mean holding our own picket signs in protest to the union. Most of the time, and for 86% of us who are not in unions, the over 10% of us who are unemployed, and the several million of us who are living on disability, or barely living at all, we will fight directly against capital, recognizing our own conditions and pushing the struggle forward, on the terrain of class struggle furnished by the present and the future.

 

Share on Facebook6Share on LinkedIn0Share on Tumblr0Share on Reddit0Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

9 thoughts on “Our Friends With Benefits: On The Union Question”

  1. Really great essay. Thanks for your hard work on this. It definitely adds a lot to the debate. I have some thoughts I’m still working out but for now I’m wondering if you can explain a bit more on your argument that the union reinforces a hierarchy within the class that actually worsens working conditions of non-unionized workers. Specifically, you write:

    “Because of the near monopoly by unions on halfway decent working conditions and healthcare (largely unavailable to non-unionized workers then and now), non-unionized workplaces face harsher conditions and are ground zero for new strategies to devalue labor-power. Because unions were are not class struggle organizations, but organizations for the protection of some workers over others, the loss of those unionized positions and of the unions themselves means the loss of the promise of job protections and healthcare for many in the working class, who relate to unions merely as the possible agents of improving their individual material situation.”

    and argue that unions merely dovetail the gains of the (majority non-unionized) class as a whole:

    “It is not those at the top of the working class (for example, the somewhat mythologized “unionized public sector worker”) who determine the value of labor-power for the rest of us, but rather the other way around. ”

    Can you say more about this? It is a really interesting concept but here it is not historically rooted, and could be interpreted as a moralistic judgement about the self-activity of the class.

  2. Comrades, this is a very articulate and well-stated counter-polemic. This is a fine contribution to the ongoing debate. Beyond the IG article, I haven’t seen any A/S comrade actually state their support for the old Trotskyist “boring-from-within” strategy as is referenced in the first paragraph:

    “As communist workplace organizers serious about praxis, the authors find
    ourselves debating the strategic importance and political composition
    of trade unions in the United States. We find what could be called “the
    union question” to be in fact a number of questions surrounding the
    composition of capital in general, capital in its in its present
    incarnation, as well as the composition of trade unions and their
    relationship to capital and the state. Most immediate to our
    investigation is the question of how this arrangement can be interpreted
    by revolutionaries, in the workplace and outside of it.”

    Could you cite specifically where they have said they wish to work “within” unions? Also, what does that in fact mean?

  3. hey comrades,
    I really enjoyed this piece. Thanks for writing it.

    “We find what could be called “the union question” to be in fact a number of questions”
    Well put.

    The piece says that the state became engaged with the regulation of the value of labor power via welfare and unemployment programs in the 1950s and 60s. I was under the impression that these programs dated largely from the 30s and 40s. I could be totally wrong though and I don’t know that anything hangs on the difference, I just wonder. Could you say what you’re thinking of here? And what shifts in labor law do you have in mind?

    I like the point that nonprofits “capture many well-meaning crusaders for “social justice” in the mechanisms of capitalist social reproduction.” I think that’s true a lot of the time for unions as well. I think part of what this points to is that reformism can have a genuine (and combative, but still none the less reformist) base within the working class. I think this is not as apparently important given that, as you put it, “prior forms of maintenance of the working class, including trade unions and the welfare state” have been replaced by “new forms such as increased policing and imprisonment”, and I’d consumer debt as well. While those institutions are leading the way, reformism is less pressing, and I think also less easy to identify. If the capitalists and their state start to shift to governing with a few less sticks and few more carrots, though, this will become more pressing.

    I think this is quite important: “unions are not class struggle organizations, but organizations for the protection of some workers over others.” I think it’s worth pointing out that these organizations of sectoral interests (organizations of some workers) can still be quite combative, and speak a vocabulary of solidarity and universality (along the lines of ‘this struggle is one for the whole class, stand with us!’)

    This strikes me as very important: “It is not those at the top of the working class (for example, the somewhat mythologized “unionized public sector worker”) who determine the value of labor-power for the rest of us, but rather the other way around. The standard for the lives of the working class will consistently be driven down to meet those at the lowest level of subsistence, and the level of subsistence will continually be driven down.”

    I think this presents a false dichotomy:

    “Unions do not exist on a social basis, nor do they form “fighting organization” against bosses. They are instead the representative force that maintains equilibrium between workers and bosses, necessary for the continuation of capital.”

    It seems to me that there could fighting organizations that exist on a social basis that are at the same time representative forces that maintain equilibrium. I would argue that the current prevailing private sector industrial relations system arose in response to struggles that sought to be both at once. (I would say we can see a similar dynamic in Marx’s account of the struggle for the limits on the working day in England, in section 6 of chapter 10 of Capital v1.)

    “the IWW (…) attempted to organize the entire class into one organization, but (…) after internal debates eventually abandoned openly pushing communist politics.” This seems incorrect but I’m willing to have my mind changed. What is this referring to?

    “Early actions [of the CIO] fought against legal formalization and long labor contracts, working instead for control of production by workers themselves.” This too seems incorrect to me. What are you thinking of here? There’s a very good critical piece on the CIO on libcom that’s relevant here – libcom.org/library/cio-reform-reaction

    It’s my understanding that the CIO fought for contracts from day one. It’s true that communists were later purged from the CIO, but the presence of communists doing organizing in the CIO doesn’t mean the CIO was doing communist work. No more than the presence of communists doing organizing in the AFL-CIO today means the AFL-CIO is doing communist work.

    This point seems poorly made to me: “the divisions which unions instill within the class emanate from within their very structures. According to a 2008 report, twenty-five percent of unions in the United States operate on a two-tiered pay structure.” That 25% of unions do something is a poor argument that this thing is structural.

    “The contradiction faced by the union form is that the very benefits they seek to defend have in fact primarily been won by fights that often occur outside their jurisdiction: wildcat strikes, illegal slowdowns, direct action against bosses that bypasses the union. In these situations, unions have to make the choice to co-opt and calm down the independent worker activity, full-out put an end to it, or most often some combination of the two. As they continue to restrain working class activity, the basis for their existence disappears.”

    This discounts the notion that unions might play any role in genuinely combative working class struggles which are none the less reformist and sectorally specific (ie, not class-wide). That seems to me a mistake. I think the CIO’s early days are examples of union officialdom playing a pro-struggle role (which is not to say radical, because not all struggle is radical). And those were only one part of a long history of strikes for recognition (which happen way less nowadays of course, but doesn’t mean they’re impossible – the CIO militant but reformist upsurges didn’t look particularly possible let alone probable before they happened, similar things could happen again).

    That said, I agree with what this piece suggests for organizations of struggle in already unionized workplaces – independent organizations.

    I think this is inaccurate: “the modern precariat bares little resemblance to the centralized industrial proletariat or the “skilled professionals” on which the trade union system was built.”

    It’s my understanding that prior to the waves of unionization of the 1930s, unemployment and uncertainty characterized the lives of industrial workers and that the trucking industry prior to the boom of the Teamsters looked a good deal like fast food today (lots of small proprietors and workers spread out across shops of only a few workers per location). I think here you are mistaking the effects of unionization for causes: ‘precarity’ was the rule for nonunion workers, and absence of precarity has only really been the case for unionized workers.

    I find the union and supreme court comparison rhetorically effective but it also raises as many questions as it answers. If there was a referendum tomorrow to ban the supreme court, I would vote no. Likewise if there was a referendum to ban unions. More to the point: the supreme court and union comparison can easily be read as implying that if possible people ought to oppose unionization, so that if a union election happens in our workplaces we should vote no. I’m sure you don’t think that, given that you say later that sometimes struggle “means holding a union sign”. I think it would be clarifying if you said why you don’t think that.

    Finally, I think the piece uses the term ‘union’ to mean basically ‘union as defined by the NLRA’ or something like that. I don’t see why the term ‘union’ should mean only that. I agree with you when you say that “negotiating with the capitalist over the terms of this sale is not inherently anti-capitalist, although it has its place in the class struggle.” I use the term ‘union’ to mean something like “organization of workers for the purposes of negotiating with capitalists,” which means the term includes a wider range of politics and activities for me. It seems to me that the article on here called “A Moving Story” is a story about an effort of workers to unionize. (It’s certainly, and in the documents included at the end, explicitly, a story about workers seeking to bargain collectively.) I’m less invested in defining terms – I’m fine to agree to disagree here, you can say union your way and I can say it my way – than in getting at the core of the political issue, which I think is about the relationship between anticapitalist politics and grouping of workers that seek to negotiate over the terms of life under capitalism. The piece suggests, with that quote about how negotiating has a place in class struggle, that there’s a relationship between these two. I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on what what relationship is.

    Thanks again for writing this piece.

    take care,
    Nate

  4. you keep on talking about independent class wide struggle through out the piece, and mention that you do not think we can answer what the correct form of struggle for today is (which sure i can agree with that, an openness to pluralism) but could not such forms of struggle generally be considered versions of the class unionism mentioned midway through the piece as seen historically by the IWW and other such formations???

  5. Hi all, JF and I will write responses this weekend. These are so far really thought provoking and great questions that will take serious thought and time to respond to fully. Just wanted to let folks know we are paying close attention even if we do not respond right away.

  6. In general, I enjoyed this piece, although it strikes me as very different from other contributions to the ongoing union debate. While historicizing unions as an organizational form for the working class is a key move, I don’t think you adequately demonstrate that they function primarily as conveyor belts facilitating surplus value extraction on a mass scale (which seems to be your claim). This type of argument wants to have it both ways: unions organize workers for capital, but capital has eviscerated unions. If they are such effective capitalist institutions, why are they under attack *by* capital? You do give a preliminary account of the transformation of the labor landscape in the neoliberal epoch, but you do so at the expense of industrial workers, focusing almost entirely on the service sector precariat as the predominant (or most strategic?) fraction of the working class. Given that a sixth of private sector jobs remain in manufacturing in the US, this doesn’t strike me as a useful move. I’m no industrial worker fetishist, but I don’t see how this account is generalizable to the majority of American workers.

    In narrating the story of the neoliberal onslaught, you seem to be arguing that the objective makeup of capital in terms of OCC/capital intensity is no longer conducive to unions: fragmented occupational structure, therefore no unions. This strikes me as a very odd claim for two reasons. First, the fragmentation of the occupational structure is partially a *result* of the evisceration of union power that began with Taft-Hartley. Second, there’s nothing inherent in service sector work that inhibits unionization. Certainly the increasing prevalence of working from home, telecommuting from odd locations, and the like does, but the main thing preventing unions in the largest service sector employers — think Walmart here — is class power pure and simple, backed by the armor of labor law. Your new reading of Marx’s double freedom goes too far, effectively equating casualization/flexibilization with individualization, but you don’t actually demonstrate why atomization is a necessary result of the current organization of production, at least since the late 1960s. There’s nothing preventing organization at Walmart, Target, or fast food chains other than sheer class power. A class struggle is under way, and we’re losing.

    Look, I’m very sympathetic to an historicized critique of unions, and I think other contributors to this debate — Advance the Struggle in particular — would do well to historicize their own arguments. But with that said, you seem to be putting forward a Manichean analysis of unions — good or bad — that strikes me as patently undialectical. As Althusser taught us all too well, public education not only forms productive workers, but even stratifies the workforce on behalf of capital. Fine. But does this mean we should *oppose* public education? Of course it has a capitalist function, but it is also one of the key sites for working class organization *against* capital. Someone in California wrote that the university is like a reading room in a prison. If anyone tries to touch my reading room while I’m stuck in this prison, then I’m going to defend it with all I’ve got.

    ***

    Quick point of clarification. I’m not sure I understand what you’re implying when you write:

    “While 13.5 percent of black people are unionized, as opposed to 11.3 percent of white people, only 2 million black people are unionized as opposed to 11 million whites.”

    Why are these absolute numbers surprising given that only 13 percent of the US population is identified as “black”? Aren’t the relative numbers — the percentages that you provide — what really matter?

  7. We appreciate the engagement with our piece. There has been a breadth of engagement in the comments on Advance the Struggle’s blog that we are unable to address in the time and space provided, but are grateful for the height of the debate. We apologize for comments left unaddressed, but we plan to respond to much of what’s left unsaid (especially Nate’s challenging points) in subsequent writing. Also we tried to address multiple questions in our responses to particular questions. Other comments seem to reflect a lack of thorough reading or misreading of our piece, and we urge their authors to give our piece a charitable reading before attempting to engage.

    We are responding in three parts: the first addresses misunderstandings or mischaracterizations, the second addresses a few of the questions raised in the comments sections, and the third is a series of general responses which help elucidate the purpose of the piece. All of this points to a need to critically interrogate the present moment in its generalities and particularities, toward concrete activity. We staked out a clear theoretical domain, as a position piece requires, but it was our intention to raise questions rather than make pronouncements. The discussion so far has borne this out very well.

    Part 1: Clarification

    1) We did not call unions “a lost cause”. A/S added that title to our piece. We deliberately did not use this language to discuss unions, and we offer a far more nuanced perspective. We do not seek to undermine or destroy unions but to recognize their status as a tool of class struggle which must be assessed according to its efficacy. There is a major difference here that a serious treatment of our text quickly reveals..

    2) It is not a surprise that this document has been read as an “undermining” of unions, because this is the false dichotomy presented by those who wish us to simply “defend” unions. We discuss the relationship of our theory to concrete organizing strategies (though not necessarily tied to specific form). We deliberately took a more nuanced stance than “rejection” or “defense” of unions, as we believe this dichotomy fetishizes the form and disempowers those attempting to build revolutionary associations in unionized shops. We understand that we do not disagree that unions are not organs of revolutionary class struggle but rather see the question as, in the course of their transcendence CAN and SHOULD trade unions be strengthened, based on their form and content and also based on the current and future composition of capital. This is where our differences lie, and that is what this piece was meant to elucidate.

    JD asserts: “Thus they are still swimming in the same stream as their alleged Trotskyist or workerist opponents when they posit that the class struggle is about which form to reject or include.”

    This is a misreading of the text. We do not discuss “which forms to reject or include”; instead, we reveal the history through which the trade unions developed, and the present under which they struggle have solidified a form that cannot be changed from within and is not consistent with revolutionary class struggle–a perspective which has been uncontroversial among left communists for over a century. (And not just left communism. “[T]rade unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers to the bourgeoisie” observed VI Lenin, with whom we have a few theoretical divergences.) We write that the conception of a “correct form” does not allow us to understand the movement of the class, and that instead we must watch closely in order to be flexible.

    Regarding the comparison to TC (who we leave aside, and ask folks to engage our actual text instead of making scholastic comparisons), we have no interest in “waiting and seeing”. We are not academics. None of this is abstract to us. The history we write is our history. We are actively engaged in experimenting with forms outside of the dead-end that is making the trade unions revolutionary. We need all the help we can get, and more specifically, we need to discredit the harmful binary of “for”/”against” unions in order to do so. Beyond this, if we are proven wrong on particular matters of praxis we welcome the strengthening of our position an improve our work.

    Part 2: Engagement

    Mara wrote:
    “Do we think that healthcare, education and transportation are important industries for revolutionaries to engage in? If so (and by no means do I think that there is agreement by the authors on this point), then how do we propose to organize alongside these workers (or as these workers for those of us who work in these industries) without interventions in the union?”

    We understand that an analysis held by many revolutionaries is that certain industries hold a place in capitalism that if well organized, are more effective for creating disruptions in the flow of capital than others. We do not entirely share this analysis. Insofar as the industries above require the exploitation of the working class to continue existing, and furthermore that these industries themselves serve the reproduction of the working class, we feel that it is necessary for workers employed by those industries to organize politically. We may choose to organize in certain industries because of who is employed in those industries: so for example healthcare largely employs people of color and women in the lowest paid positions. Therefore organizing in healthcare is crucial. But we would not use this as an argument for not organizing in transportation, which is a largely male-dominated industry. To put it bluntly, the organization of the working class as a whole is necessary; there are important qualitative differences in conditions of different industries, and these differences should be considered if revolutionaries decide to implant in industries, or focus their attention on one industry over another. This also runs the risk of valorizing certain aspects of the working class to the dismissal of others, including unwaged workers, and low wage white collar workers for example.

    In terms of engagement with unions, first, not all workers in these industries are unionized. For example, the transportation industry includes unionized workers (in the Teamsters and ATU for example), non unionized workers, and undocumented workers. The gaps between workers in this industry, as well as in healthcare (think doctors vs. CNAs), education public school teachers vs. charter school teachers, substitutes, adjuncts, and teachers’ aides, are extreme. At times, the official union line, as well as sentiments expressed by unionized workers, is to marginalize non-unionized workers, or to not engage with non-unionized workers in an effort to stop union busting. This make sense from the perspective of protecting particular shops but has no place in class-wide unity. Charter school teachers are proletarians.

    In these circumstances we see the necessity for unionized workers to reject strategies that marginalize non-union workers, and instead struggle to raise the level of conditions at least to, and beyond those enjoyed by some unionized workers. If transport workers are fighting against the diminishing of their wages and end of their job security, they will find that their non-union co-workers are already facing conditions much worse than the cuts aimed at them.Their position should not simply be to defend their positions, but to unite with their co-workers in exploitation to develop strategies and demands that encompass the industry and/or workplace as a whole and go beyond the demands of their contract. This strategy will be rejected by union bureaucrats, and union and non-union workers will have to form independent organizations; these organizations may engage in union activity such as open meetings and union protests, but will inevitably need to organize independently, and their activity will only grow insofar as they refuse to join all their activity to the union. Furthermore, non-unionized workers may find if they reach out to their exploited unionized friends and co-workers, their efforts are rejected in the interest of individual protectionism. This is a real condition created by capitalism, in which antagonisms between labor and capital take the form of antagonisms within the class.

    Instead of trying to ask the unions or unionized rank and file for help, the non-unionized workers must create their own fighting organizations which welcome their unionized fellows, but on the terms of fighting for all, not only for some. And for unionized workers to be able to struggle effectively against capital, they will have to join up with these outside of the union form.

    Also, we’d like to add that several objections have been made against our position by pointing to what unions could have done but didn’t do, e.g. teachers building meaningful unity beyond their union. We don’t find this to be a matter of coincidence, bad leadership, or lack of foresight by organizers. This is a main point of our piece and we hope it will be revisited in this context.

    Nate:
    You present an immense and challenging set of questions. Responding entirely would require another work of perhaps equal length. We’ve answered some and tabled others with the intention of returning to them in a more formal setting soon. Thank you for your invaluable engagement!

    “The piece says that the state became engaged with the regulation of the value of labor power via welfare and unemployment programs in the 1950s and 60s. I was under the impression that these programs dated largely from the 30s and 40s. I could be totally wrong though and I don’t know that anything hangs on the difference, I just wonder. Could you say what you’re thinking of here? And what shifts in labor law do you have in mind?”

    In our admittedly schematic history (in no way meant to supplant reading of the scrupulous work that’s been done on the history of unions) we saw the anti-communist social policies of the New Deal and so forth come to fruition following World War II toward the apex of the welfare state apparatus in the 1950’s and 60’s. This is because the programs lagely developed to combat the Great Depression sunk to a low during World War II, when the war became the primary fix for the crisis of capitalism. Following the end of WWII, the state re-vamped a variety of social programs, and introduced new ones (perhaps most notably the GI Bill (established in 1944 and its effects felt through the 1950’s), and introduced new ways of dealing with women pushed back out of the workforce as men returned home. In this period (post WWII, the percentage of the national budget spent on welfare programs rose. This is admittedly schematic, deserves much further investigation, and could perhaps be more accurately dated to the mid-1940’s. As for labor law, we were thinking of the Wagner Act (‘35), Taft Hartley Act (’47), up through the Taylor Law (’67).

    “I think this is quite important: ‘unions are not class struggle organizations, but organizations for the protection of some workers over others.’ I think it’s worth pointing out that these organizations of sectoral interests (organizations of some workers) can still be quite combative, and speak a vocabulary of solidarity and universality (along the lines of ‘this struggle is one for the whole class, stand with us!’)”

    We agree that sectoral organizing is important. However, workplace organizing by sector or workplace that has potential implications for the rest of the working class is different than trade union organizing, that organizes sectors (or really, sections of sectors) to the EXCLUSION of others. We think here for example of the building trades, whose unions organize by restricting non-union contracts rather than by organizing workers industry-wide against the working conditions suffered by non-union workers. This question also requires more debate, but we hope this is a start to addressing the question of unions and solidarity. We discuss this further in our response to Mara.

    “the IWW (…) attempted to organize the entire class into one organization, but (…) after internal debates eventually abandoned openly pushing communist politics.” This seems incorrect but I’m willing to have my mind changed. What is this referring to?”

    This section requires a longer response and detailed research. But we are referring to early documents and histories of the IWW (largely available on their website and in the book “IWW: The First Thirty Years” by Thompson; additonally, we are referring to current trends in the IWW, that we recognize there are debates within, about discussing communist or even anti capitalist politics specifically, versus discussions of organizing “workers” against “bosses.” We appreciate that you pointed out the need for more detail in this section and believe more writing on the IWW and solidarity unionism in general is necessary. I know there are several pieces as well on Libcom.org that people can refer to. Again, we admit this section as underdeveloped and welcome more discussion and study.

    “Early actions [of the CIO] fought against legal formalization and long labor contracts, working instead for control of production by workers themselves.” This too seems incorrect to me. What are you thinking of here? There’s a very good critical piece on the CIO on libcom that’s relevant here – HYPERLINK “http://libcom.org/library/cio-reform-.” libcom.org/library/cio-reform-…
    It’s my understanding that the CIO fought for contracts from day one. It’s true that communists were later purged from the CIO, but the presence of communists doing organizing in the CIO doesn’t mean the CIO was doing communist work. No more than the presence of communists doing organizing in the AFL-CIO today means the AFL-CIO is doing communist work.”

    This is an important point. We should clarify we do not think the early CIO was communist, but are instead trying to understand the historical development of trade unions as highly legalized institutions whose role is to mediate through primarily legislative means, and recognize the differences in the early development of industrial unions. We were referring specifically to accounts by CLR James and Raya Dunayevskaya in State Capitalism and World Revolution, reflections by Marty Glaberman in “Punching Out”, and accounts by members of STO. Again, this deserves more focus than we can provide here.

    “This point seems poorly made to me: “the divisions which unions instill within the class emanate from within their very structures. According to a 2008 report, twenty-five percent of unions in the United States operate on a two-tiered pay structure.” That 25% of unions do something is a poor argument that this thing is structural.”

    The point being made (however poorly) is that the division between non-union and union workers one finds on the job site is not simply between union and non-union, but is contained within the union structure itself. 25% is a large portion of the unionized workforce and weakens the already bleak union statistics. More important to us than statistics is the idea that this is something reinforced by the unions rather than something which unionizing can fix. Furthermore, it reinforces our position that trade unions as they exist are incapable of being flexible to the new forms of work being imposed by changes in the composition of capital and in the processes of production themselves. Rather than lifting all workers up when they join a union, the union becomes another mechanism for the division of these workers.

    “I find the union and supreme court comparison rhetorically effective but it also raises as many questions as it answers. If there was a referendum tomorrow to ban the supreme court, I would vote no. Likewise if there was a referendum to ban unions. More to the point: the supreme court and union comparison can easily be read as implying that if possible people ought to oppose unionization, so that if a union election happens in our workplaces we should vote no. I’m sure you don’t think that, given that you say later that sometimes struggle “means holding a union sign”. I think it would be clarifying if you said why you don’t think that.”

    We don’t aim to tell people whether to vote yes or no on unions as a platitude, but to recognize the strategic use of unions toward a broader class struggle. For example, a strong independent organized workplace could face a vote on a weak union. This is not desirable. It is our attempt in this text to transcend the “for/against?” nature of this discussion, though A/S didn’t do us any favors by adding the polemical title “A Lost Cause”.

    “Finally, I think the piece uses the term ‘union’ to mean basically ‘union as defined by the NLRA’ or something like that. I don’t see why the term ‘union’ should mean only that. I agree with you when you say that “negotiating with the capitalist over the terms of this sale is not inherently anti-capitalist, although it has its place in the class struggle.” I use the term ‘union’ to mean something like “organization of workers for the purposes of negotiating with capitalists,” which means the term includes a wider range of politics and activities for me. It seems to me that the article on here called “A Moving Story” is a story about an effort of workers to unionize. (It’s certainly, and in the documents included at the end, explicitly, a story about workers seeking to bargain collectively.) I’m less invested in defining terms – I’m fine to agree to disagree here, you can say union your way and I can say it my way – than in getting at the core of the political issue, which I think is about the relationship between anticapitalist politics and grouping of workers that seek to negotiate over the terms of life under capitalism. The piece suggests, with that quote about how negotiating has a place in class struggle, that there’s a relationship between these two. I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on what what relationship is.”

    Again, this is a crucial distinction. We defined union based on NLRA because we were trying to remain consistent with AS’s call to defend these trade unions, and saw this as their definition. We are interested in and involved in developing workplace organizations that are organized by industry as well as connecting these class wide (including to the “lumpen” and unemployed). If in a struggle we use the word “union” to define a well organized group of people (working or not) with a formal structure, we will differentiate ourselves from Trade Unions with formal ties to nationals and internationals, AND NGOs/non-profits in our content, activity, and affiliation. It’s also important to add that when organizing outside of the official trade unions is considered anti-union, this kind of work is very difficult, and we can be slandered by supposed comrades.

    EM:
    “I’m wondering if you can explain a bit more on your argument that the union reinforces a hierarchy within the class that actually worsens working conditions of non-unionized workers.”

    Great question. This is a place that needs a lot of development and we are really glad you brought it up. While we do not have extensive historical evidence, we can look back at the historical documents that discuss the labor movement of the 1960’s as a primarily white, male movement. We are thinking specifically about Sex, Race, and Class, where Selma James goes into discussion of the need to break through this notion reinforced by trade unions and organize independently. It can also be found in “Organizing Working Class Women” by Sojourner Truth Organization, and in accounts of DRUM’s organizing, specifically discussions of the prevention of employees of the UAW itself, who were mostly immigrants and people of color, being prevented from organizing and/or fired for striking. Again, this requires serious study, but our evidence is documented mostly by these organizations, particularly the STO and writing from the Marxist women’s movement.

    Part 3: General Responses

    Several respondents have noted that our piece offers little in the way of a positive conception of moving forward. We reply that our piece itself is an integral first step in moving forward, for our practical work, and hopefully yours. We wrote this piece for concrete practical reasons.

    We are both organizing in New York City and are trying to lay the basis for the kind of class-wide organizations that can transcend the trade union form. This is of course a long-term project. In addition to contributing to the general development of the revolutionary left, we were interested in several directives bearing on our immediate work:

    First, it offered us a chance for self-clarification, which we must thank A/S for providing everyone in this discussion. We are laying the theoretical basis for our activity and it is strengthened by elucidation and critique.

    Second, it allowed us to address in a sustained way a question that bears directly on our own organizing efforts, and to critique a false binary of “for/against” trade unions which has hampered our efforts and will only continue to do so as long as it is taken seriously. We find that when one starts critiquing the unions, even from an advanced theoretical standpoint, the discussion can get ugly and personal very quickly. This is rooted in the mistaken idea that a critique of unions must be an attack on unions by a class enemy. We agree that enemies of unions from the right deserve no such civility, but this confusion can not be allowed to stand. It is necessary to discredit this equation before serious work can be done, or else the discussion itself will be uncivil, unproductive, and unbecoming of serious revolutionaries.

    Third, it allows us a vehicle to advance our position with the hopes of winning more dedicated militants over to the pressing need we find for broad organizations of the class outside the trade union form. It is not our intention to transplant our inchoate form to the West Coast but we feel the critique we offered was missing in the discussion on A/S.

    We do not expect or desire pure political cohesion, but we hope to elevate the discussion beyond who is right or wrong, and through engagements like this, generate a more advanced theory which is not reducible to any singular position which has been offered. We see this already happening and its very exciting.

    In Solidarity,

    Jocelyn and James

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *