Monday, October 22, 2007

Relevent and Timely

With this coming Saturday's conference titled Labor Now and it's theme of exploring the role of organized labor in the 21st century, I thought it timely to find a great piece in the Fall Issue of Dissent titled The Future of Global Unions: Is solidarity still forever? by Alan Howard. Mr. Howard does a good job dissecting the problems and opportunities in the field of global unionism and I wish conference participants could all read this piece but I will try to summarize the main points and give us a base for future discussion.

The article points out what most realize, unionism has been slow to adapt to a rapidly changing global economic environment and it pinpoints the reason for this failure , accurately ,in my opinion, with the unflexible, hierarchical structure of traditional unions and associations of unions. Howard states "Union structures look much as they did a hundred years ago, rigid but not necessarily coherent hierachies, from the broad, sprawling base of increasingly diverse workplaces to local union hall to national headquarters reaching a pinnacle in the recently formed International Trade Union Confederation", which represents 168 million workers in 153 countries. Within these structures , unfortunately, "all to often the energy and creativity of many talented and selfless people is smothered by a lethal bureacratic mentality and more than a few leaders whose first priority is is to defend their own fuedal powers.."

Examining the myriad difficulties unions have had in adjusting to new global realities, Howard points first to his own experience as an organizer for UNITE and it's attempts to "follow the work" around the world as garment manufacturers began moving to Mexico, Central America and the Carribean. They found they were unprepared to deal with complicated cultural, legal and political issues nor could they answer the question: Once you crossed the Rio Grande, where did you stop? "Because whether you are a corporation, a union, a person looking for work-or an imperial army-crossing any national border means a new and often unpredictable complexity.." Neither European nor American unions understood what they were doing by allying with "their" employers to restrict imports or agreeing to all kinds of concessions to save jobs that eventually dissapeared anyway. The question is; Is it to late?

Certain unions are forging effective programs of international work such as the Teamsters, with it's Global Strategies department, SIEU, which has launched a high profile campaign to organize property service workers in dozens of cities around the world and the Steelworkers, which are attempting a merger with UK workers unions and have embraced the anti-sweatshop movement. Unfortunately, there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of national unions which thwarts efforts towards any profound change and this relates to the meaning of solidarity. Take for instance the debate within the AFL-CIO only a decade ago,"when any activity associated with international solidarity was characterized..as little more than "labor tourism" and a waste of money" ( How could we fight for the rights of Guatemalan workers when their employment took our jobs?) The new efforts that seem to be effective, for instance the United Electrical workers union's alliance with Mexico's FAT federation or the AFL-CIO's Solidarity Center, have these traits in common, according to Howard. "They are fluid networks in which the agenda is set by participants directly linked to the shop floor.Sometimes they include organizations that are not unions but are integral to the process.They can turn on a dime and discuss anything they think is relevent." Very unlike traditional union structures.

The article then goes into some interesting detail about how " for more than a century , unions in the USA have cooperated , reluctantly or enthusiastically ,with the US governments foreign policy." To me , this points to another fundamental contradiction because US foreign policy is always in the service of capitalism. Whether we are talking about the Cold War, Vietnam. decades of Latin American intervention (continuing with the AFL-CIO meddling in Venezuela and it's taking government funding for international work) this subservience has undermined unionisms credibility and there are valid questions as to it's ability "to provide an effective counterweight to the inequities of capitalism. This is a race against time, and the stakes are very high. As weak as it is, organized labor, with it's global reach, it's billions in assets, tens of millions of members, thousands of employees and historic vocation for uplifting the downtrodden, is the largest social movement on the planet and perhaps the last, best hope we have for averting the rendezvous with disaster that our profit-crazed economic system seems determined to keep."Obviously then it needs more seperation from government policy and ideology , both at the leadership level and within it's rank and file.

Will unions find the sophistication necessary to deal with China? Will they find a coherent strategy or the semblance of a practicle program for organizing and raising the living standards of the 1.5 billion workers of the Global South ? Efforts such as the revived IWW, the Brussels based textile global union federation , the nine other federations doing such work (previously known as international trade secretariats) , or the new ITUC may be hopeful signs and the "labor movement" is much bigger and more inclusive than simple "organized labor". Wworker centers, NGO's womens ,immigrant, community and research organizations worldwide defend the rights of workers and function as their advocates before governments and the general public.

"Whether we are talking about formal and official mergers of entire institutions or the global networks growing organically with specific campaigns, unions have begun a process of global integration that could prove to be historic." This could also prove to be our last chance to save our societies from the barbaric predations of globally rampaging capital. The very concept of justice is under attack and losing. How many members do we want in our union? At least 30 million!

Labels:

6 Comments:

At 9:36 PM, Blogger Graeme said...

where I get stuck on is education. How to bring up such issues with buddies over the big game. I have a few times and many are pro-union. I am thinking of taking cues from the evangelicals and asking how they go about "witnessing" to others. they seem rather successful.

 
At 10:39 AM, Blogger troutsky said...

They are indeed successful, graeme, and I think it is because they stick to First Principles, the values they assume they are upholding. I would never expect most people I work with to wade through this academic material,(Dissent or New Left Review, etc)I actually enjoy it but not everyone wants to work that hard.The condensed version for conversation rather than conference would go something like: What if we stopped competing with workers overseas (and next door) and started working with them to defeat the real enemy? Why should a boss or investor make so much more than us for sitting on their asses?Why should their children get the silver spoon if our society values self reliance? How can this be a democracy when idiots are spending all our money on a war no one wants?

 
At 10:32 PM, Blogger Frank Partisan said...

In the US support for the ideas of unionism, is higher than actual union membership. That is because of repressive laws as Taft-Hartley in the US.

One of the best developments is in New Orleans, a candidate for city council named Malcolm Suber, is running as the Reconstruction Party. It has the support of the embryonic American Labor Party. It might start the path of labor breaking from the Democrats. If it breaks from the Dems, than it would break from its reactionary foreign policy.

The United Elecrical Workers is a progressive union. It didn't bow to anti-communism as the Electrical Workers did.

Dissent magazine?

 
At 7:47 AM, Blogger A Wiser Man Than I said...

Troutsky,

If I may attempt a suggestion or two:

1) Reading through the heady pseudo-intellectual speak isn't any fun. I don't know where you dig up these writers, but I confess that they bore me. One shouldn't need a dictionary full of socialist vocab words to understand what an essay is saying.

2) Without love, one is, to quote Paul, "a resounding gong". It doesn't make one stupid to dislike reading socialist rags. And, in any case, you're going to need the stupid people on your side.

To draw a parallel, most Catholics don't sit around reading Aquinas. It would be futile for me to scoff at those who do not; for one, because they're often better Catholics than I am.

3) I'd also recommend trying to find a way to synthesize some of your ideas with, say, Christianity.

 
At 9:07 AM, Blogger troutsky said...

I know ren, Dissent magazine editors are incensed anyone accepts that there could be an Israeli lobby,and Waltzer and Cohen are not above calling such folks anti-semites.Still, good articles show up occasionally.

Wiser, This is a tricky question because I do not want to condescend or assume workers cannot grasp complex ideas. I have no formal education, work with my hands, yet grasp "socialist vocab words". Just as we could all understand basic physics or calculus if someone is willing to teach just a little.That this lexicon is foreign to a college student tells me a great deal about the state of education in political economy.On the other hand, denying that the streets are filled with ignorant people makes no sense either. To me, it is a subtle form of capitalist oppression, keeping folks docile through bread and circuses.

A synthesis with Christian values is brilliant and necessary. The communal form of monastic life, the witnessing to those less fortunate, the rejection of usery (sp?)joy of sharing, less emphasis on consumption, ecological understanding etc.. You wouldnt want to write a column on it would you ?

 
At 4:07 PM, Blogger Yodood said...

Not trusting, underestimating the intelligence of the "common man" seems to be the common problem of both the government we have now and all the rest of you wanna-be-in-control types.
Trout, you specialized in social studies due to what ever influenced your passion along the way, does that mean those who didn't are betraying their possibilities or yours? I gotta go with wiser on the exclusionary effect of socialist jargon, which is quite defeating of its inclusionary ideal, and seems like just more condescending crap from above.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home