Frank Joyce questions whether my mention of newly 'militant' union leaders at the Screen Actors Guild and Writers Guild West is a good thing in and of itself. On this, I agree with Frank. Militancy for militancy's sake is not useful; it may even prove counterproductive, but militancy as a strategy that includes thoughtful, targeted organizing tactics is a useful thing and it's my sense, at least so far, that that is precisely what the new leadership in the entertainment unions is seeking.
The question of whether or not the Change ot Win Federation is different enough from the AFL-CIO--or democratic enough to foster change is something else again.
I have always believed that the problem with America's unions was not the lack of union democracy. That's not because I disapprove of union democracy. On the contrary. But moreso, I believe that unions need strong, visionary leaders who are willing to buck the system to represent their members. That's what the American labor movement has been lacking-at least in the recent past and present. More democracy within unions is not sufficient to enhance workers' power; strong, representative leadership is.
Is Change to Win offering that type of leadership? The future will surely tell. What we do know is that the old way hasn't worked. Even the best meaning folks at the AFL-CIO and the affiliated unions there have been part of a regime that has not admitted the failures and weaknesses of the current U.S. union movement. If nothing else, Change to Win has stepped out of the scripted optimism of the AFL-CIO, an optimism that is undeserved and blinding, to say that we must try something different. If we don't, the labor movement is headed for extinction. The onus is now on Change to Win to show they can do it differently. We should all wish them well. And, we should
hope for cooperation and coordination with the AFL-CIO. Perhaps, outside the tent, it will be easier to join hands. But the critical thing is to stop the erosion of unionized workers.
And...an under-reported happening at the recent Change to Win convention, the Laborers' Union, which had, until this week, said that it would stay inside the AFL-CIO, is now poised to leave and join Change to Win. This means that Change to Win has a fairly hefty mass of building trades and service and food workers in its ranks, ready to push for coordinated, mass campaigns.
Hi Jo-Ann,
I really wanted to go to bed, but I can't pass up your recent posting. I think we all want the same thing, a much stronger, vibrant, and relevant Labor Movement. With these intentions in mind, I couldn't disagree with you more.
First, I rather liked Frank's point regarding mitiancy... Ala' that militancy has been a major factor in innumerable defeats over the past 40 odd years. Going a little deeper though, what one can find in virtually every one of these defeats is a schism that involves a locally dominant militancy that is willing to call a charge against the corporate powers at hand, while a far more conservative international union leadership has done everything in its power to undercut and defeat this local militancy. This rather ugly state of affairs has included sometimes, flat out cooperation between international leaderships and corporate interests in suppressing these local militant flare-ups.
The rather ugly state of affairs cited above is the direct result of a dire lack of democracy inside the unions themselves. This lack of democracy has precluded any open discussion of the available options as workers confront increasing corporate power. It has precluded any clear shared understanding between a union's leadership and its militants (activists is an equally valid term for these very important leaders on the ground) regarding objectives, expectations and direction.
Second, and this is a major disagreement I have with the CtW gang, is the lack of importance placed on workers' own sense of direction as a meaningful ingredient (in my mind, the most essential ingredient) in a powerful labor movement. I'm a little perturbed with all the rhetoric coming out of St. Louis's CtW convention regarding comparisons with the 1930s CIO.
Briefly, the state of affairs on the ground could not have been more dissimiliar. By 1935, when the CIO unions walked out of the AFL, workers had been battling corporate "blue blood" interests for roughly five years. John L Lewis did not make the militancy that was the CIO. Instead, he capitalized on the militancy that had heretofore been led almost entirely by various left-wing labor groupings while the AFL sat on the sidelines or actively cooperated to thwart these labor actions. If you doubt this analysis and the militancy of pre-CIO workers, I would suggest you take a look at the West Coast water front strikes, the Toledo Autolite strike, southern textile strike, city-wide unemployment councils, etc.
When you look at things in the trenches of the labor movement, which does matter to my mind, I'm pretty damned sure that CtW has inspired very little. Indeed, the vast majority of CtW affiliated workers had not that least sense as to what the CtW/AFL split was about, even as the Teamsters and SEIU walked out of the convention doors. Indeed, the SEIU local I came out of is just now, starting to think about how to talk to its members about the CtW project... Well after the barn door has closed.
Frank said a "lack of vision, a lack of democracy, a lack of direction", a lack of a whole lot of things; and I agree 100%. All these "lacks" come down to one thing, and that is a lack of thought as to how to build a militant working class that has some idea as to what it wants, and has enough confidence to try and go out and get it.
I guess I'll drop my point of view when someone can explain to me how a powerful labor movement can be built while labor's constituency, the working class, sits on the sidelines and yawns at a set of unions that heretofore, have offered nothing and produced less. The CtW unions have however come no closer to answering this question than had George Meany or Lane Kirkland, who really never did want a strong labor movement.
I don't think Frank is arguing for the "old way" of doing union business. I certainly know I'm not! Instead, Frank and I are asking, what kind of "new way"? And, as per the long history of the American Labor Movement, we are being ignored by a leadership that would simply like to avoid the hard questions. And its awfully easy to avoid the hard questions when your culture is one of a patronage based bureaucracy designed to ward off democracy, discussion, and a cross-fertilized labor movement, in the interests of protecting a self-involved leadership. And this is every bit as true of a lot of the CtW unions as it is of the most sclerotic old-line AFL union.
Chuck Wynns
Salem, OR/USA
September 29, 2005 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink