Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why Unions Are Like Typewriters

By Frank Joyce, AlterNet. Posted July 14, 2005.


In the 21st century, unions have become outdated, weak and self-serving. But we have an opportunity to build a new labor movement, in which unions can again become a voice for workers.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Frank Joyce

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

From the mid-1930s to about the mid-'70s, U.S. unions prospered because of several favorable forces. During the Depression, workers were incensed by abysmal working conditions and poor pay. After World War II, they were agitated by a sense of postwar entitlement in the context of the great wealth they were creating. Workers were restless and militant -- their struggles were seen as universally beneficial, and they enjoyed broad public support.

Capitalists believed that unions were preferable to a working class oriented toward Soviet socialism. (Had there been no Soviet Union, would anything like the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 have passed in the first place?) It's forgotten now, but before, during and after WWII, the political environment gave some latitude to "socialist" ideas, governments and organizations.

Throughout this period, mass production was creating a need for mass consumption. Capital had its own reasons for increasing the purchasing power of workers. It was a period of "primitive consumer accumulation." Industrial production was concentrated -- making the strike a very powerful weapon.

Beginning in the 1960s, civil rights, feminist and anti-war movements generated a different kind of social struggle, shifting energy away from the labor movement, but also dominating the attention of labor's natural enemies. Unions were more or less left alone.

But by the end of the 1970s, those conditions were no longer in play. Socialism was in rapid decline. Workers had achieved much of the prosperity and respect they sought, as well as the contentment that comes with it. Credit cards and other forms of consumer debt replaced unions as the main means of getting homes, cars, TVs and other "stuff" of the middle-class. Increased work time and low prices also offset falling wages.

Capital had become highly mobile. Unions were increasingly perceived as special interests whose gains came at the expense of other workers or the general public. Multiple production sites, replacement workers and other factors undermined the power of strikes. Visionary union leaders gave way to pragmatic union bureaucrats with significant institutional interests to defend. Union growth took a back seat to defending previously won gains. And when organizing was attempted, employer opposition that had previously been ineffective was replaced with opposition that to this day, prevents or defeats organizing drive after organizing drive.

Meeting New Challenges

The 20th-century labor movement has every reason to be proud of its achievements. But the new century presents workers with a radically different set of challenges -- and opportunities. Can a new labor movement take us to an even better place? Absolutely.

We now have the opportunity to build a movement for a radical new idea -- democracy in the workplace. In the process, unions can be reinvented, either by changing existing unions or starting new ones. That's exactly what the coal miners, autoworkers and steelworkers did with their own "new" economy at a comparable point in the 20th century.

Because unions in the 20th century experienced significant growth and power, an illusion was born: that workers had won the struggle for rights. But despite the successes of recent worker demonstrations -- such as the Flint sit-down -- workplace rights have yet to be won in the US.

It has taken decades for most unions to realize that the 1935 Wagner Act is actually not the Magna Carta of workplace democracy. As is now obvious, in the hands of dedicated anti-union employers, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is at least as effective at preventing unions as permitting them.

A Voice For Workers

In the global economy of capitalist hegemony, a workplace without some form of guaranteed worker representation is like a city without a city council. Citizens don't have to fight tooth and nail to create city councils -- it's assumed that every city has an elected body. So it should be in the workplace.

What might this look like? Existing workplace democracy models include the co-determination that is the law of the land in Germany and the "Team Act" arrangements proposed in Congress in response to the 1994 Dunlop Commission report. (The Dunlop Commission was appointed by President Clinton to look into the state of labor-management relations. Its recommendations were rejected by organized labor.)

American unions are already engaged in redefining and repositioning themselves as a voice for workers. One example: the member growth strategies and political maneuvers currently being used by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The rhetoric of SEIU supports organizing over politics. But what SEIU says and what SEIU does are quite different. Almost all of SEIU's high-profile growth spurts have come from leveraging governors and other elected leaders -- not from the mobilization of incensed workers.


Digg!

Frank Joyce is a journalist and labor communications consultant. He is writing a book on reinventing unions.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Participation in decision-making is a job
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 14, 2005 2:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My experience is that folks do not like to attend meetings. It's no wonder that socialism has had such limited success. It requires meetings and even meetings about meetings, etc. Yawn.

Still it's hard for me to believe that the idea of workers being paid to participate more widely in workplace decision-making has not already been thoroughly considered. I assume that just as it was initially difficult to get employers to agree to paying some union leaders for performing union functions, no employer wants to pay employees for time spent in worker meetings -- unless that increases profit.

This is not a good time to ask stockholders and owners for an increased share of the profits. We have a glut in the world labor force. But there may never come a better time.

It may be that we have defined the notions of job and work too narrowly. Participatory democracy is work. I suspect, also, that it's a little like marriage counseling, where there's a good chance it will lead to more disagreements than resolutions.

My experience also is that folks don't like to change. Changing how and what we do is called education. That also is avoided, because few people want demands made on them -- unless it is absolutely necessary.

So is workplace democracy necessary? Better believe it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unions are Like a Box of Chocolate
Posted by: TheJacksonFive on Jul 14, 2005 4:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unions ultimately destroy themselves with their collective greed. They have existed as wallets and ego trips for the leadership and not much else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unions are Like a Box of Chocolate Posted by: TheJacksonFive
» RE: Unions are Like a Box of Chocolate Posted by: TheJacksonFive
» RE: Unions are Like a Box of Chocolate Posted by: TheJacksonFive
Egregious leadership has been and is organized labor's primary problem
Posted by: FrankCorey on Jul 14, 2005 4:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unions illustrate that you can have all the ingredients, but if you don’t know what you have and use it, you have nothing.

In the USA there is no such thing as the union movement just as there is no such thing as the capitalist movement. Unions are businesses—partnerships to sell services. These partnerships posited an economic system based on the contract, a universal middle class, and a market system. A market system and a trade system are different just as apples and airplanes are different.

The country is an economic basket case today because business, political, and academic elites used their positions to substitute a system that served workers, businesses, and the country with lunacy. These elites have defined themselves as business quacks. The country has a business void.

Why would unions oppose NAFTA and GATT? Because these agreements undermine the business environment that the companies they have contracts with operate in, and unions are committed to the profitability of the companies with which they have contracts. If a company can’t make money, there aren’t going to be any jobs. And unions are patriotic; these agreements hurt the country so unions oppose them.

The number one problem of unions is the stupidity (i.e. incompetence) of the leadership. Unless union leaders shake off the endemic incompetence and articulate the product that worked and market it, unions will continue to decline, when they could be in the forefront of American business and the country in the twenty-first century. Copyright © 2005

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TURNING POINT IN LABOR EVOLUTION
Posted by: tsb713 on Jul 14, 2005 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have reached a critical juncture in the evoultion of Labor in this country. The continuation of the viability of unions is what is at stake. The AFL-CIO Convention is right around the corner. Follwing that is the UBC (United Brotherhood of Carpenters) General Convention, where the poster boy of corporate unionism, Doug McCarron, is hoping to be re-elected. The Restoration Slate is challenging the McCarron Group for leadership of the UBC.
We could not have asked for a better campaign document that what Frank Joyce has written here. These are the exact points that have formed our platform as we bid for the leadership of the UBC. We are rank and file members who are concerned about where the current "union bosses" are taking us. We realize that the unions will continue to decline as the "leadership" squabbles about how to divide the ever dwindling supply of "spoils"
I want to thank Frank Joyce for this very thoughtful and insightful piece into the inherent problems with 21st Century Corporate Unionism. Please click the link to our website, www.ranknfile.net Thank You.

In Brotherhood and Solidarity
T. Scott Brineman
Candidate for Western District VP / UBC

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Member participation is the key
Posted by: Beaner on Jul 14, 2005 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unions are only as srong as their membership involvment. Attendance at meetings is imperative to provide the kinds of checks and balances required to make things run equitably. Without member driven focus, leaders do tend to fall into the traps of power. My experience is that people want the rights and privledges of membership without the responibilities of memebership. It's like being a citizen - there is a built in responsiblity to uphold the princples of your organization. Yet how many union workers will still shop at Wal-Mart? Americans feel it is part of their god-given way of life to pay someone else to pay atttention for them. Unless workers wake up and reclaim their place in the process, they will continue to be swallowed by the capitalist machine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Member participation is the key Posted by: Pearl in Colo
A fair critique of the labor movement
Posted by: sausage on Jul 14, 2005 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, a note on labor histroy by way of clarifying Joyce's statement:"Capitalists believed that unions were preferable to a working class oriented toward Soviet socialism."

The modern American labor union movement is not the creation of Eugene V. Debs, founder of International Workers of the World and later Socailist Party presidential candidate, but of two conservative Republicans of the Lincolnesque mold, Samuel Gompers and John L. Lewis.

I also take issue with Joyce's statement:"Here's a radical idea -- why not encourage those members who are self-defined Republicans or independents to form their own caucus within their union?"

Obviously Joyce forgets that the federal air traffic controllers union, PATCO, endorsed Ronald Reagan's run for the White House in 1980. PATCO's subsequent illegal strike, federal employees unions are contractually obligated to binding arbitration hearings, gave the Gipper an excuse to fire the lot , unlocking the floodgates to further union busting.

Moreover, in 1988 the Teamsters Union endorsed Republican Vice-President George H.W. Bush over Democrat George Dukakis. It should also be noted that in the same year the Democratic Party dropped its quadrennial pledge to repeal the odious Traft-Hartley Act.

On a more personal note, my branch of the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) was dominated by a clique of very reactionary Republicans of the post-Vietnam All Volunteer Force veteran, fundamentalist Christian sort. The branch newsletter regularly featured anti-Clinton diatribes during that administration. At one time during this reign of error one board member, who yet serves as a branch trustee, was appointed "chaplin" and offered "Christian" counseling and prayer services in the union hall.

Righting the course of the American labor movement is going to be like correcting the course of an oceanliner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Union Reform is not the answer
Posted by: chitijdth on Jul 14, 2005 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While many of the criticisms of the unions leveled by Frank Joyce are correct and should be addressed, there are a number of gaps in his reasoning. There is – and always has been – a cultural divide in the U.S. which separates professionals from blue-collar workers. Both may be unionized, but the perspectives have always been quite different. Professionals, whether union members or not, rarely consider themselves “workers.” With a few exceptions, their unions are ineffectual, and were never in the forefront of bringing any benefits to the general working population. This is far less true in the industrialized European countries, where anyone who is not a proprietor considers himself/herself a worker. This creates much greater solidarity…when the Air Traffic Controllers were fired, not one union struck or even objected. I cannot imagine that happening in France or Germany.

Capitalism – without social responsibility - is now so entrenched in the legal and cultural fabric of this country that its power over workers is almost absolute. Almost all blue-collar jobs that paid a “middle class” wage are long gone. Those benefiting from this will not relinquish their power and profit without a real and unified protest and outcry from a majority of workers. Reforming and/or modernizing unions will certainly not accomplish that. The country would have to undergo major changes, particularly in philosophy. It would have to re-dedicate itself to being a nation that does not pander to powerful corporations.

As an aside - Mr. Joyce makes the inexplicable statement that for manufacturers, e-tailers and service providers “customer satisfaction” is a byword. Everyone I deal with has only bitter complaints about the complete lack of caring for customer service exhibited by most companies. The only place that one really sees satisfied customers are in their advertisements. And this is understandable if one looks at the fact that so many providers are now owned by a larger company, owned by a conglomerate. Competition for customers is no longer a major concern if a company owns all – or most - of the competition. A simple example of the lack of caring for customer satisfaction is the automated telephone system now utilized by almost every business. Does Mr. Joyce know many people who like going through the myriad options, frequently, not addressing their problem, and never being able to speak with a real person?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joyce is interesting, but rarely mentions that basic thing called "organizing".
Posted by: nathanhj on Jul 14, 2005 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I like aobut Joyce is that he is willing to take on many of the sacred cows of organized labor and offer interesting, if not alway innovative ideas. I also like that he will challenge the best unions to do better such as SEIU's recent victory in IL, for example.

What I find interesting is that he rarely talks about organizing, which is the only way that new members are going to come into the labor "movement". He says the NLRA regime is a barrier. Yes this is true. He says that many dedicated organizers are working hard in the workplace.

But I would say that one of the chief reasons for labor's decline has been their neglect of organizing from the 60's-90's and then their inability to move beyond the NLRA conventions when they actually are organizing.

One of the reasons unions thrived in the 1930's was not just because workers were mad; workers are always mad because they are always being jerked around, which posits the question of why aren't we invovled in labor strife all the time? Because social instituions are designed to suppress dissent and enforec compliance with the estblished regime. But the reason that unions tryived in the 30's was because they were oriented to involving the workers themselves in the struggle. They were led by rank-and-filers, they were militant, and they were willing to struggle. Before the Wagner Act, unions scored huge orgnaizing vicotories, so the question is, what did they do then, that we can copy now?

I think the mult-union Wal-Mart campaign that is in its early stages is one of the best signs of what needs to happen if unions are to regain their ability to organize. They need to give their members a stake in the campaign, responsibility in the workplace, education in economics and campaigns, and the structure to sustain their struggles.

This means worker-leardership, even if it does not necessarily mean formalistic democracy (though it can mean that as well). It means adopting techniques from community organizing groups like ACORN and an abandonment of the shop-floor election as the only way to gain members and represent workers' interests.

Unions are dying because they can't organize. Does that mean worrying about "customer satisfaction"? Maybe. But I think it means worrying a lot more about leadership development and buliding a culture of solidarity and struggle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here's a better model Posted by: hagwind
Why Unions Are Destroying Themselves
Posted by: RMS54 on Jul 14, 2005 10:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm disappointed with the articles about labor on Alternet, and not for the reasons people would think.

I've seen lots of articles in this publication about unions, with SEIU being the national example. And that needs to change.

The current trend in organizing is exciting, don't get me wrong. The changes being made are incredible, and it's about time that labor got an overhaul. But at its core is an organizing plan that uses the youth of the social justice movement like gasoline: burning their energy and love for the cause until there's nothing left but funky smelling remnants.

The slash and burn attitude of organizing departments is leaving those who are working for the cause empty and angry, and there's NO attention being paid to it. There is, however, lots of praise bestowed upon Stern and the other leaders of the NUP, with no mention of the tireless work of hundreds of organizers who, at the end of the day, usually face a future full of illness from overwork and lackluster pay.

Where's the articles about the organizers who were fired for trying to defend their own contracts? Why hasn't Huffington blasted union officials for their use of trainees as "project staff," basically making them nothing more than temporary employees? What about the rampant racism that the use and disposal of Black and Hispanic organizers when they don't follow the "program"?

Why, after all this talk of caring and supporting the movement, have people not come to the defense of the kids fueling it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While we're reinventing things
Posted by: ConnecttheDots on Jul 14, 2005 11:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reinventing unions would be a good thing.

Reinventing corporations would be a better thing.

Reinventing the employer/employee relationship would be the best thing of all.

Give me a company-owned house to live in, a company car to drive, an unlimited expense account, per diem pay, unlimited credit, fully-funded medical and dental, and a golden parachute, and I'll work for free.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Waterman
Posted by: happybear on Jul 14, 2005 2:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My past association has been as both a Union Officer (3 different positions) and as a Manager (2 different companies). In both cases I found two general conflicts to over come before effective relations could be accomplished.
1. The management must understand that if the employees are treated well, there will be no need for a union to represent them.
2 The union membership must understand that the management needs to earn money over and above the cost of doing business, or there cannot be a business to work for.
If either group chooses to ignore the needs of the other, especially to the point of antagonism, then the union, and possibly the company, will fail. Unions and Companies can work together to the improvement of both, but only with mutual respect. Although the general thought is that unions are out only for excessive pay, and companies are out to enslave the workers, neither is usually the case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Small Real Life Story
Posted by: sterlingwisdom on Jul 14, 2005 5:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have only been a member of a union once in my "career." The union was SEIU. I got a new job with the govermental agency I work for. A few months in I began to realize that I was paid far less than individuals doing the same work for other govermental agencies. My agency allows employees to request a "reclassification" if they believe their job is wrongly classified and, thus, wrongly paid. The process is user unfriendly but I persevered. The union offered no help when I told them what I was doing. After 18 months and an outside consultant the agency agreed to reclass my position as a "management" position. About a dozen of my fellow union members petitioned the union to oppose my reclassification. Their motive? Jealousy. Instead of telling these fools that the union is supposed to support workers who are seeking justice the union opposed my reclassification. The union rep who spoke against the reclassification at the civil service board meeting was utterly humiliated when, at the conclusion of his totally illogical argument against the reclass, he was asked by the board chair to, "Run that by us again, it doesn't make any sense." The reclass was approved with no dissenting votes.
Just one small story but indicative, I believe, of a type of thinking that hampers both workers and unions in this country today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unions Have Determined their own fate
Posted by: fjames on Jul 14, 2005 5:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greedy union leadership, overpaid employees, crashing pension plans... All of this horror and unions represent something like 10-12% of the American workforce?
I like MOST earn a living and am rewarded for performance. NO Guarantees.
Unions had a purpose when they were formed in the beginnning of the industrial era.
Time to go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

elsie
Posted by: trurel on Jul 15, 2005 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've wondered for a long time why unions haven't made more of an effort to include the unemployed, the street people, etc., even if they don't pay dues. These are the people who SEE and FEEL a need for change and support of one another.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Labor remarks not too insightful
Posted by: japsey1817 on Jul 15, 2005 4:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Frank Joyce seems to have absolutely no understanding of socialism although he was a socialist leader in the 1970s in Detroit. Socialists have left Frank Joyce in the backwaters of the privilege of union bureaucrats and in the wastewater of liberal thought to which he has degraded. Sorry to see this awful move of Frank Joyce from socialist leader to capitalist apologist and supporter.

Today we know of the impact of the computer chip in every aspect of industrial, institutional and just everywhere in society. In a speech recently given by General Baker at the Central United Methodist Church he reminded us all of how the computer chip has resulted in the automobile body shop going from hundreds of people to no people working there in the body shop today. Go to the Ford Rouge tour to see it for yourself. This fact alone creates problems for unions which Frank has never considered or even realized. At least from reading Frank's comments and those who have responded so far to his 'retreat back to capitalism' article for which he will perhaps gain financial support for his new book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why unions are like typewriters
Posted by: clashu2greenday on Jul 16, 2005 9:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems obvious you have an agenda. By your acceptance that jobs are temporary, you play into the corporate plan of not providing full healthcare and pensions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's Try The Third Option: Democracy
Posted by: tlaney on Jul 18, 2005 4:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Frank Joyce was one of the leading dog eat dog propagandists in the corporatized UAW. He made a living attacking democratic rebellion but now says of his defense of the UAW's dictatorship: "I was wrong."

We knew that.

Joyce ignores those workers in all the world's workplaces who always stand up for each other.

Each day of my 31 years as a Ford worker I witnessed ordinary workers doing friendly things for each other. They, and the wonderful things they continue to do for each other, in spite of all the competitive programs FordUAW throws at them, are the basis of work democracy and solidarity and the answer to capitalism.

They are the beginning of a solidarity society, not a retreaded UAW or AFL-CIA.

Elitists like Joyce ignore these good people until they are able to connect themselves well enough to stop speedup or outsourcing or -God forbid - launch a promising strike. Then they attack them.

We need a conversation that recognizes the goodness of ordinary workers, the values they practice in their families, communities and on the job; and a democratic discussion about how we support and connect these folks in the workplace, between our workplaces, states and countries.

Workers themselves - absent the interference of the Big Sellout Labor Bosses - will forge the deepest friendships and trust and come up with plenty of ideas on how to win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]