I’m announcing the formation of a new campaign committee: Labor for Huckabee.
Sure, he’s a right-wing pig. He supports “free enterprise” and claims to be guided by spirits. But, then, so do all the rest of the candidates from the two major parties. They differ only in degree.
Fact is, if working people make any serious gains in the next four years, it will be because we managed to build a militant mass labor movement. And, if we do that, it won’t much matter who is president.
So, all things being equal, why not go for the one with the funniest name?
Huckabee. Huck-a-bee. It sounds like a name made up by Monty Python. “Today President Huck-a-bee announced his nominee for Secretary of the Department of Silly Walks.”
Just think of the fun we’ll have protesting President Huckabee for the next four years. We’ll need chants and songs for rallies and picket lines. And, what rhymes with Hillary? Pretty much nothing.
But, Huck- Huck- HUCK-a-bee. Imagine the possibilities. This could trigger a Radical Renaissance. Usher in a Golden Age of Protest.
Labor for Huckabee meets regularly on the third Monday of the month in the Labor Temple Bar. Meetings are called to order immediately after the third pitcher.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
What next for anti-war labor?
US Labor Against the War (USLAW) is running a letter-writing campaign to pressure Congress to cut off war funding. In May, dock workers in California honored an anti-war picket line and shut down a section of the port for two days.
These very diverse events raise the question whether labor has a strategy to end the war. And, if we do, what are the chances it will work?
One of the things that make the current war in Iraq unique is that so many labor unions came out against it. The South Central Federation of Labor joined locals, councils and internationals to oppose the war before it began in 2003. And, to date, unions representing 13 million workers have made some statement against the war.
Yet, after five years, we seem lost as to how to proceed. USLAW began by getting labor organizations to affiliate with their organization and to pass anti-war resolutions. It helped organize demonstrations and publicized the plight of brave Iraqi unionists. And USLAW is largely responsible for getting the message out that the so-called “oil sharing law” is really about denationalizing Iraq’s oil and handing it over to western corporations.
But, in the fall of 2006, the anti-war movement in general morphed into the various campaigns to elect an anti-war (read Democratic Party) Congress. After the election, USLAW and others shifted to lobbying the newly-elected Democrats to cut off funding for the war.
By now, anti-war forces largely understand that the Dems and Congress are not going to end the war. So, what’s the plan? More rallies, petitions, letters to Congress?
Or do we start gearing up to elect an anti-war president in 2008? It’s no coincidence that the USLAW website reproduces speeches by Democratic Party (very) dark horse presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. Do we support Kucinich until the Democratic Party selects someone else and then fall in line behind the Lesser Evil? Even if that Lesser Evil pledges only to “redeploy” in Iraq and continues to support the war in Afghanistan and the dozens of military actions in places like Palestine, Colombia, Cuba, Korea, Somalia, Ethiopia and the nations of the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union? Even if the Lesser Evil says that nuking Iran is “on the table”?
Or, as one writer to this blog suggested, should we get behind an independent left candidate for president and register a protest vote against the war?
Is this the best we can do?
Late in life, someone asked Marxist historian Isaac Deutscher what he thought of a huge rally in D.C. to protest the Vietnam War. Deutscher reportedly said it was well and good, but that he’d trade it all for one good dock strike against the war.
On one level, we know Deutscher was right. A solid general strike could not only end the war, but it would fundamentally alter class relations in this country. Of course, if we called one today, only a handful of unionists would respond, right?
Don’t be too sure. The decision to not cross the anti-war picket line in Oakland back in May was made by rank and file members who had strong anti-war feelings and were willing to give up a couple of days pay to make their point.
We have an old Wobbly friend who goes to anti-war rallies and tries to start up a chant “General Strike to End the War.” Only a few of us take it up. But he’s not discouraged. “Sure, we’re not there yet,” he says, “but we never will be unless someone starts calling for it.”
It’s hard to argue with that logic.
So, if we agree that lobbying Congress, electing Lesser Evils or registering protest votes won’t stop the war, and that a general strike is what we need, isn’t it our responsibility to push for that idea in the unions?
These very diverse events raise the question whether labor has a strategy to end the war. And, if we do, what are the chances it will work?
One of the things that make the current war in Iraq unique is that so many labor unions came out against it. The South Central Federation of Labor joined locals, councils and internationals to oppose the war before it began in 2003. And, to date, unions representing 13 million workers have made some statement against the war.
Yet, after five years, we seem lost as to how to proceed. USLAW began by getting labor organizations to affiliate with their organization and to pass anti-war resolutions. It helped organize demonstrations and publicized the plight of brave Iraqi unionists. And USLAW is largely responsible for getting the message out that the so-called “oil sharing law” is really about denationalizing Iraq’s oil and handing it over to western corporations.
But, in the fall of 2006, the anti-war movement in general morphed into the various campaigns to elect an anti-war (read Democratic Party) Congress. After the election, USLAW and others shifted to lobbying the newly-elected Democrats to cut off funding for the war.
By now, anti-war forces largely understand that the Dems and Congress are not going to end the war. So, what’s the plan? More rallies, petitions, letters to Congress?
Or do we start gearing up to elect an anti-war president in 2008? It’s no coincidence that the USLAW website reproduces speeches by Democratic Party (very) dark horse presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. Do we support Kucinich until the Democratic Party selects someone else and then fall in line behind the Lesser Evil? Even if that Lesser Evil pledges only to “redeploy” in Iraq and continues to support the war in Afghanistan and the dozens of military actions in places like Palestine, Colombia, Cuba, Korea, Somalia, Ethiopia and the nations of the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union? Even if the Lesser Evil says that nuking Iran is “on the table”?
Or, as one writer to this blog suggested, should we get behind an independent left candidate for president and register a protest vote against the war?
Is this the best we can do?
Late in life, someone asked Marxist historian Isaac Deutscher what he thought of a huge rally in D.C. to protest the Vietnam War. Deutscher reportedly said it was well and good, but that he’d trade it all for one good dock strike against the war.
On one level, we know Deutscher was right. A solid general strike could not only end the war, but it would fundamentally alter class relations in this country. Of course, if we called one today, only a handful of unionists would respond, right?
Don’t be too sure. The decision to not cross the anti-war picket line in Oakland back in May was made by rank and file members who had strong anti-war feelings and were willing to give up a couple of days pay to make their point.
We have an old Wobbly friend who goes to anti-war rallies and tries to start up a chant “General Strike to End the War.” Only a few of us take it up. But he’s not discouraged. “Sure, we’re not there yet,” he says, “but we never will be unless someone starts calling for it.”
It’s hard to argue with that logic.
So, if we agree that lobbying Congress, electing Lesser Evils or registering protest votes won’t stop the war, and that a general strike is what we need, isn’t it our responsibility to push for that idea in the unions?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Why labor got it right about the war
It was five years ago this month that South Central Federation of Labor delegates first voted against the war in Iraq. By the time the war started in March, 2003, dozens of state federations, locals, internationals and councils across the country had done the same.
But, while labor was voting against the war, Congress was voting for it: first to give George Bush a blank check to invade Iraq and then voting to continue funding.
This raises a very important question: Why did labor get it right while Congress got it so wrong?
The Democrats’ official alibi is that they were lied to by the President and the media failed to do a critical job in reporting the truth.
But, of course, the President and the corporate-owned media lied to us too, so it brings us back to the question: Why did we get it right while they got it wrong?
If you think back to that time just before the U.S. attacked Iraq, you’ll recall getting a dozen emails a week from anti-war sources, with articles from print and electronic media, explaining the great folly of going to war.
We knew what German intelligence was saying about “Curveball.” We knew the truth about the aluminum tubes and the mobile biological weapons labs. Somebody sent around the phony Nigerian documents, with the forgeries circled and explained. We knew that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were blood enemies. And, week after week, we listened to the weapons inspectors on Amy Goodman’s program tell us there were no WMDs to be found.
Sure, we also listened to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Powell lie through their teeth. But we knew the difference between their lies and the truth. So, again, why did we figure it out but Congress didn’t?
You don’t have to be too cynical to realize that they did know all along. That the truth was out there for all to see, but that Congress chose to act on the lie instead. Because the lie allowed them an opportunity to grab Iraq’s vast nationalized oil reserves.
And only now—after it is apparent that the oil grab didn’t work, that the war is lost, that continued occupation of Iraq is ruining the U.S. military and economy and that voters are sour on the project—many in Congress want to distance themselves from their earlier decisions.
But, to do that they have to claim that they were duped, victims of a great lie and a lax media.
History shows that Congress and the Democrats, no less than the President and the Republicans, are willing to wield military might in order to secure resources and markets in the interest of U.S. imperialism. And, history shows that they are more than willing to act on obvious lies to go to war.
The difference between them and us comes down to class. The working class has no material interest in stealing resources from other countries or in securing foreign markets. We’re not going to share in the corporate profits. And, since it is our “blood and treasure” that they’re talking about spending on the war, we have a strong interest in avoiding imperialist adventures.
Congressional action on the Iraq war is another example of why the capitalist class and their representatives are unfit to govern…as if yet another example was necessary.
PS, to read a prophetic article about the coming war from the December 2002 Union Labor News, click here.
But, while labor was voting against the war, Congress was voting for it: first to give George Bush a blank check to invade Iraq and then voting to continue funding.
This raises a very important question: Why did labor get it right while Congress got it so wrong?
The Democrats’ official alibi is that they were lied to by the President and the media failed to do a critical job in reporting the truth.
But, of course, the President and the corporate-owned media lied to us too, so it brings us back to the question: Why did we get it right while they got it wrong?
If you think back to that time just before the U.S. attacked Iraq, you’ll recall getting a dozen emails a week from anti-war sources, with articles from print and electronic media, explaining the great folly of going to war.
We knew what German intelligence was saying about “Curveball.” We knew the truth about the aluminum tubes and the mobile biological weapons labs. Somebody sent around the phony Nigerian documents, with the forgeries circled and explained. We knew that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were blood enemies. And, week after week, we listened to the weapons inspectors on Amy Goodman’s program tell us there were no WMDs to be found.
Sure, we also listened to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Powell lie through their teeth. But we knew the difference between their lies and the truth. So, again, why did we figure it out but Congress didn’t?
You don’t have to be too cynical to realize that they did know all along. That the truth was out there for all to see, but that Congress chose to act on the lie instead. Because the lie allowed them an opportunity to grab Iraq’s vast nationalized oil reserves.
And only now—after it is apparent that the oil grab didn’t work, that the war is lost, that continued occupation of Iraq is ruining the U.S. military and economy and that voters are sour on the project—many in Congress want to distance themselves from their earlier decisions.
But, to do that they have to claim that they were duped, victims of a great lie and a lax media.
History shows that Congress and the Democrats, no less than the President and the Republicans, are willing to wield military might in order to secure resources and markets in the interest of U.S. imperialism. And, history shows that they are more than willing to act on obvious lies to go to war.
The difference between them and us comes down to class. The working class has no material interest in stealing resources from other countries or in securing foreign markets. We’re not going to share in the corporate profits. And, since it is our “blood and treasure” that they’re talking about spending on the war, we have a strong interest in avoiding imperialist adventures.
Congressional action on the Iraq war is another example of why the capitalist class and their representatives are unfit to govern…as if yet another example was necessary.
PS, to read a prophetic article about the coming war from the December 2002 Union Labor News, click here.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Those Busts on La Hacienda Picket Line
By now everybody knows that two picketers were busted at La Hacienda restaurant on September 15. It’s worth talking about what happened and what it means for building a more militant labor movement here in Madison.
Here’s what went down. We had been picketing all day. The boycott was working. Very few people went in the restaurant and we got a lot of support from passers-by. The armed private security guard hassled us some, but there were no incidents.
Then Patrick arrived about 2 p.m., from leafletting at another site. The rent-a-cop immediately got on the phone and soon the parking lot was full of Madison city police cars. The city cops gathered around as the private cop pointed and gestured toward the picket line. Two city cops broke from the huddle and came toward us.
“You, come here!” the tall one yelled, pointing at Patrick. Patrick walked up to the edge of the parking lot and told the cops that he was told he’d be arrested if he set foot across the line.
At that point the tall one went berserk. “Shut up and get your ass over here!” he shouted. He lunged and grabbed Patrick and two city cops shoved him over the nearest police car and handcuffed his hands behind his back. While getting roughed up, Patrick dropped his water bottle. The tall cop angrily kicked it across the parking lot.
The picketers were shocked but composed. We began chanting “Shame, shame” and “Madison is watching.” Those with cameras started taking pictures.
A few minutes later the cops grabbed another man who had been leafletting the back entrance. Both were cited for blocking sidewalks and released.
Now, you can learn what to expect from the police during a labor dispute from reading Fredrick Engels or, if you’re not the bookish type, by walking a few picket lines.
The rent-a-cop was obviously waiting for Patrick, who is perceived as the leader and instigator of the boycott. When Patrick arrived he called the city cops and told them who to arrest. The city cops had just arrived, so they hadn’t seen anything first hand. They just followed the hired cop’s instructions.
We here in everybody’s-liberal-and-middleclass Madison get lulled into thinking our cops are different from those vicious, club-wielding thugs we see in news clips from other cities or Third World countries. Our cops are polite. They hand out sports cards to the kids.
But, ask anyone who’s spent much time on a picket line in Madison and they’ll report the true nature of Madison’s Finest. At bottom, they’re like cops everywhere. They’re just doing their job. It just so happens that their job is to defend the interests of the employing class.
The chain of command is usually more obscured than it was in that parking lot at La Hacienda, where the employer hires a private cop, who tells the city cops what to do to the picketers. But we should have no illusions about how it works. And, if we intend to do any effective picketing, we should proceed accordingly.
One final note: Both men took their arrests with dignity, and the people on the picket line responded with courage and resolve. I’d walk a picket line with any of them.
Here’s what went down. We had been picketing all day. The boycott was working. Very few people went in the restaurant and we got a lot of support from passers-by. The armed private security guard hassled us some, but there were no incidents.
Then Patrick arrived about 2 p.m., from leafletting at another site. The rent-a-cop immediately got on the phone and soon the parking lot was full of Madison city police cars. The city cops gathered around as the private cop pointed and gestured toward the picket line. Two city cops broke from the huddle and came toward us.
“You, come here!” the tall one yelled, pointing at Patrick. Patrick walked up to the edge of the parking lot and told the cops that he was told he’d be arrested if he set foot across the line.
At that point the tall one went berserk. “Shut up and get your ass over here!” he shouted. He lunged and grabbed Patrick and two city cops shoved him over the nearest police car and handcuffed his hands behind his back. While getting roughed up, Patrick dropped his water bottle. The tall cop angrily kicked it across the parking lot.
The picketers were shocked but composed. We began chanting “Shame, shame” and “Madison is watching.” Those with cameras started taking pictures.
A few minutes later the cops grabbed another man who had been leafletting the back entrance. Both were cited for blocking sidewalks and released.
Now, you can learn what to expect from the police during a labor dispute from reading Fredrick Engels or, if you’re not the bookish type, by walking a few picket lines.
The rent-a-cop was obviously waiting for Patrick, who is perceived as the leader and instigator of the boycott. When Patrick arrived he called the city cops and told them who to arrest. The city cops had just arrived, so they hadn’t seen anything first hand. They just followed the hired cop’s instructions.
We here in everybody’s-liberal-and-middleclass Madison get lulled into thinking our cops are different from those vicious, club-wielding thugs we see in news clips from other cities or Third World countries. Our cops are polite. They hand out sports cards to the kids.
But, ask anyone who’s spent much time on a picket line in Madison and they’ll report the true nature of Madison’s Finest. At bottom, they’re like cops everywhere. They’re just doing their job. It just so happens that their job is to defend the interests of the employing class.
The chain of command is usually more obscured than it was in that parking lot at La Hacienda, where the employer hires a private cop, who tells the city cops what to do to the picketers. But we should have no illusions about how it works. And, if we intend to do any effective picketing, we should proceed accordingly.
One final note: Both men took their arrests with dignity, and the people on the picket line responded with courage and resolve. I’d walk a picket line with any of them.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
On Immigrant Workers and Missed Opportunities
It was probably the most significant labor action in this country in 50 years. And the most underappreciated.
On May Day 2006 as many as 10 million people engaged in a one-day general strike, demanding basic democratic rights for immigrant workers.
Despite a lot of weasel-wording, this was a general strike. That is, it involved workers from different employers, all withholding their labor, to achieve political goals. Class against class. A fundamental recognition that laws are made and enforced by the employing class and that workers’ power comes from our ability to withhold our labor at the point of production. And on International Workers Day, no less.
Immigrants have an advantage of sorts over their U.S.-born counterparts. They usually come from places where workers are more class conscious and the logic of a general strike more obvious. They haven’t endured generations of class collaboration and lesser-evilist politics that has dumbed down their U.S. brothers and sisters—ironically, here in the land where May Day was born in a general strike.
The fact that this and subsequent immigrant worker rights events were organized almost entirely outside of the structure of the AFL-CIO/CtW tells the story. Sure, labor officials were asked to speak to the crowd (usually in English) and here in Madison the rally of maybe 20,000 included a handful of unionists. But they were mostly paid staffers, a few retirees and a host of radicals. No one from an AFL-CIO/CtW union in Madison was expected to give up a day’s pay.
Now, consider the potential.
What if the AFL-CIO/CtW had seized this opportunity to unionize this active mass of “unorganized” immigrant workers? Drop everything and hire and train 10,000 bilingual organizers?
Each side has much to bring to such a campaign. The unions could put up resources and provide political cover for the immigrant workers. A huge influx of immigrant workers could reverse the 54-year decline in private sector unionism in this country and bring a fresh sense of consciousness and militancy to the largely moribund U.S. unions.
Here was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
But it didn’t happen. And there are no visible signs that it will happen anytime soon.
Essay Question: What can be done, nationally and locally, to unite the U.S. labor and immigrant workers movements?
Extra Credit: Would this even be a good idea?
PS, there are links to articles about union support for immigrant workers in the Links to Recent Labor Stories section below.
On May Day 2006 as many as 10 million people engaged in a one-day general strike, demanding basic democratic rights for immigrant workers.
Despite a lot of weasel-wording, this was a general strike. That is, it involved workers from different employers, all withholding their labor, to achieve political goals. Class against class. A fundamental recognition that laws are made and enforced by the employing class and that workers’ power comes from our ability to withhold our labor at the point of production. And on International Workers Day, no less.
Immigrants have an advantage of sorts over their U.S.-born counterparts. They usually come from places where workers are more class conscious and the logic of a general strike more obvious. They haven’t endured generations of class collaboration and lesser-evilist politics that has dumbed down their U.S. brothers and sisters—ironically, here in the land where May Day was born in a general strike.
The fact that this and subsequent immigrant worker rights events were organized almost entirely outside of the structure of the AFL-CIO/CtW tells the story. Sure, labor officials were asked to speak to the crowd (usually in English) and here in Madison the rally of maybe 20,000 included a handful of unionists. But they were mostly paid staffers, a few retirees and a host of radicals. No one from an AFL-CIO/CtW union in Madison was expected to give up a day’s pay.
Now, consider the potential.
What if the AFL-CIO/CtW had seized this opportunity to unionize this active mass of “unorganized” immigrant workers? Drop everything and hire and train 10,000 bilingual organizers?
Each side has much to bring to such a campaign. The unions could put up resources and provide political cover for the immigrant workers. A huge influx of immigrant workers could reverse the 54-year decline in private sector unionism in this country and bring a fresh sense of consciousness and militancy to the largely moribund U.S. unions.
Here was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
But it didn’t happen. And there are no visible signs that it will happen anytime soon.
Essay Question: What can be done, nationally and locally, to unite the U.S. labor and immigrant workers movements?
Extra Credit: Would this even be a good idea?
PS, there are links to articles about union support for immigrant workers in the Links to Recent Labor Stories section below.
Friday, September 14, 2007
How to Win Strikes--Part 2
By Harry DeBoer
Harry DeBoer was a leader of the 1934 Minneapolis General Strike and he spent the next 60 years of his life teaching and agitating for militant unionism. This is the first of two parts of a pamphlet he wrote in 1984. In the first installment, DeBoer made the case that “nothing has fundamentally changed in the relationship between employer and employee” since the great class battles that built the CIO. In Part 2 he shows how union leaders can activate and mobilize members to fight and win strikes and, in so doing, to rebuild a militant mass working class movement in this country.
Leaders Can Make a Difference
Some union leaders content that we cannot turn out masses of workers these days. The workers are too passive, such leaders say. But that is not so. There have been a number of major strikes in the United States in recent years where thousands of workers and their supporters have marched and rallied outside their plants. It’s a reflection of the new militancy we see developing. Unfortunately, though it is clear in some cases that workers are prepared to take action, the leadership in some strikes stop short of closing down the plant. The scabs keep going to work and the strike is lost. The leadership must take a fundamental step: Organize mass picketing and prevent scabs from entering the workplace.
“How do you get thousands of workers out on the street to take such action?” you might ask. It’s a good question.
First, it requires leadership willing to take such steps. If you don’t’ have fighters for leaders in your union, then you are going to have to elect new leaders. You need to put up slates of candidates who believe in union democracy and are willing to take on the employers.
Second, you must develop a comprehensive strategy. No pamphlet can spell out all the problems and all the solutions to win a labor struggle. I can only lay out a method. However, there are some key factors to any comprehensive plan.
Successful strikes require the participation and support of the entire labor movement. Building that kind of broad-based support can actually prevent strikes. If the employer thinks that he is going to have to take on the whole labor movement of a city or state, he may think long and hard before forcing the workers out on strike. Local union leaders should approach city and state labor officials, explain what the bosses are trying to do to their union, and seek the support of these officials. Ask them to help and give them full credit when they do.
Think big. Hold one or more mass rallies before the strike deadline with prominent labor speakers, using well-made leaflets and posters. Invite all the labor unions, not just your own. Be conscious of all aspects. Be sure that women and minorities play a big role. In some of our labor organizations in the 1930s, we sent organizers in among the unemployed and organized them as unemployed contingents of our union to join us on the picket lines. That should be done today. If the unemployed are organized on our side, it is far harder for the boss to use them as scabs. And they are the group employers approach first to break strikes.
Placing big ads where possible in commercial and labor press to explain the union’s case and list the unions that support you. Send representatives from your union to meetings of other unions to explain what you are fighting for. Get top labor leaders to write letters to all unions in the state, spelling out the issues, and ask them to endorse the rally, to send members to the rally, and to join picket lines if a strike occurs. Think big. Then think bigger.
Have workers throughout your plant and city wear buttons with slogans of support. See that articles about the issues are placed in the labor press and other news media. Hold news conferences with prominent labor people backing you up. Present union members to the public who are examples of workers who can barely make ends meet on the wages they are paid.
A strike should be well organized and the 1934 Minneapolis strike is a classic case. A book, Teamster Rebellion by Farrell Dobbs, gives the full story, and I highly recommend it to you. [Teamster Rebellion is available from Rainbow Bookstore in Madison.]
We had a commissary to feed strikers and their families. We served hot meals daily with food donated by sympathetic farmers and grocers. This became a way of sustaining the strikers as well as a means of deepening solidarity among workers.
The strike committee had a doctor and nurses on hand at the strike headquarters for workers who might be injured in the picketing. This proved extremely valuable.
For the first time anywhere in the country, we put out a daily strike newspaper. It was called The Organizer. During the strike you can frequently count on the editors of the pro-business media to try and distort the issues. You need your own publication to explain the issues and get out the truth about the strike. A daily strike newspaper can be a means to rally the strikers and their supporters and educate the public, winning new allies to the strikers’ side.
All kinds of solidarity efforts will be necessary. You will want to approach other local unions, women’s groups and community organizations. The object is to isolate the employer until the mass public pressure forces him to back down.
Indeed, the greater the planning before the strike and the more solidarity you have from the rest of the labor movement, the less likely there will be a strike. The company may see that you are prepared and see the array of forces on your side and will be less inclined to take the union on.
There also needs to be special concern for the welfare of the workers facing the most sever financial plight. A welfare committee should prepare to meet with bill collectors or mortgage companies to forestall any problems. Workers should be reassured on these issues. Looking after the neediest workers becomes a top priority in a strike. I have seen walkouts where militants neglected those workers who then tried to go through the picket lines. What a tragedy! Such people would become the stoutest defenders of the union if the union took the time to be concerned about them. And that is the union’s job.
How We Can Activate Our Union
“How can we activate our union?” you may ask. “Many of our members don’t even attend union meetings. All these ideas are great but our members won’t participate.”
I believe the backbone of any union should be union democracy. The more democratic the union, the stronger it is. Frequently, members don’t attend meetings because, when they do, it seems that all the decisions have already been made. Meetings must be opened up and made more democratic. All major decisions of the union should be made only after a discussion and vote of the membership. If you have undemocratic leaders, you must vote them out and elect democratic ones. Leaders who are fighters with a commitment to union democracy will attract increased activism from the rank-and-file. Union leaders should discuss their strategy openly with the membership. Rank-and-filers should be encouraged to take on major responsibilities in a comprehensive strategy. Discuss, plan and vote! As you find your union becomes more democratic, you will find many of your members wanting to participate in the decisions that affect their lives.
In Teamsters Local 574 we had elected stewards that represented members in the various shops. We had an elected grievance board that met twice a month and listened to any worker who had a potential grievance. We had an elected negotiating committee. And in the 1934 truck divers strike in Minneapolis, we had an elected Committee of 100. This committee was a sounding board that met between regular union meetings. Proposals by the leadership during the strike were first brought to the Committee of 100. The committee sifted through the proposals and reached decisions and carried those decisions back to the mass of workers. This democratic process strengthened the strike and kept the leadership in touch with what the membership wanted.
Some union leaders disagree with this open style of democracy. During a strike or negotiations, they argue for utmost secrecy. Often, I’ve found that such secrecy is really a ploy to make an unsatisfactory compromise behind the backs of the workers. Every settlement involves compromise. But the decisions of the union must be made by the membership. The demands should be voted on by the membership. The members should determine when a demand is removed by the union from the bargaining table. The more democratic the union, the more involved the workers will become in the union. The less democratic the union, the less enthusiasm the members will have in the leadership when the employer forces the union into a showdown.
Shutting it Down
There are various ways to shut down a business and this pamphlet can’t begin to address all of them. But here are some key methods.
Mass Picketing. This should be part of all strikes. By your very numbers you can prevent he plant from operating
Sit-down outside the plant. Sometimes to overcome the presence of large numbers of police or National Guard, the best tactic might be to set several thousand people down in front of the key doors or gates. They may haul you away in mass arrests. The union bails you out and you sit down again.
Sit-down inside the plant. Sit down strikes, a tactic used in the 1930s, ought to be considered a viable strike method today. It’s much harder for bosses to get workers out of the building, once they are sitting inside.
Fink drives. Finks are scabs and fink drives were something we used when employers used scabs to reopen plants that were on strike. We took some of our best militant workers, entered the plant and drove the finks out.
Mass marches and rallies as a way of building toward the mass picketing and other actions to shut the operation down.
Talking to Workers
Carl Skoglund, who later became president of our local, was the architect of the 1934 Minneapolis strike. He had been through many labor battles. He had a bad leg and I remember the night before the coal strike in February 1934, he put his arm on my shoulder for support as we walked back to our apartments.
“Harry,” he said to me, “a lot of workers may not understand what we are fighting for at first. We’ll need to talk to them. Explain to them what this strike is about. Give them a chance to understand. Don’t write them off before you’ve given them a chance.”
One of the first non-union drivers we stopped the next day proved Carl’s point.
We had followed a truck out of the coal yard and a few blocks away we converged on it. We explained to the driver what we were fighting for and why we were on strike. The man got angry. He told us that the boss had lied to him about what we were striking for. He jumped out of the truck and helped us dump his own load of coal on the street! That night, he went down to the union hall and joined the union. After the strike, he became a loyal union steward.
There is a lesson in this. It’s necessary to explain to workers why you are on strike. And that goes for workers who have been hired as scabs. Many times, if you talk to these workers, they will end up siding with you. If they don’t, of course, it is another story. But many times in this society, with so much anti-union propaganda, people develop hostile attitudes toward unions. Often times, explaining the issues can turn them around.
That same open-mindedness is important in dealing with your coworkers who may not at first recognize the necessity of militant action, but will come around, once they see that it works.
Organizing the Unorganized
Many of the most important battles of the future will be on behalf of the unorganized workers. New mass efforts must be made to organize these workers into unions. Unions today tend to be made up of higher paid workers and union leaders sometimes forget where their unions came from.
The same mass approach to victory on the picket line must extend to union organizing. Mass mobilizations of workers is needed for organizing drives. There should be rallies and participation of the entire membership in these drives, and efforts to get the support of the rest of the labor movement.
During contract talks, bosses sometimes try to terrorize workers into submission. Employers threaten unions that are demanding higher wages with the possibility that the company will move away and seek cheaper, non-union markets elsewhere. If the company has a trained workforce locally, it may be nothing more than a scare tactic. But the union’s response should be quick. If the boss moves his plant somewhere else, the union leaders should say, “We will send union organizers to your new location and organize them, there. If you go abroad, our international union will work to see that you are organized wherever you set up shop. Wherever you go, we will follow you. We will not allow you to exploit your workers. So you better put a reasonable package on the bargaining table, because it is not going to get any better for you elsewhere.”
A clear commitment to organizing is the best way to assure good contracts at workplaces that are organized. We had a motto in Local 574: “Every member an organizer.” Over-the-road drivers would encourage workers to unionize wherever they went throughout the Midwest. It’s a motto we should adopt today.
The more workers we have in unions, the harder it will be for the employer to find workers who can break strikes. And it will help to make the union a greater force for progress and social justice.
The union must be the champion of the underdog, the poor and the suffering. We must be concerned with single-parent families, the child who does not have enough to eat, the disabled, the victims of discrimination. We must speak out for the elderly, many of whom cannot eke out a living on their small pensions and social security.
Fighting for them, we can restore the union to greatness. Their cause becomes our cause when we stand up for decent wages and conditions for all.
This is the second part of Harry DeBoer’s classic pamphlet entitled How to Win Strikes. The first half is printed in a previous posting on this site.
How to Win Strikes is available in pamphlet form, with additional material from the International Workers League, at www.wellreduse.com.
To leave a comment on this article, or on a previous posting, hit “comments” below.
And visit www.LaborLeft.blogspot.com in two weeks when the topic is Immigrant Workers and the Union Movement.
Harry DeBoer was a leader of the 1934 Minneapolis General Strike and he spent the next 60 years of his life teaching and agitating for militant unionism. This is the first of two parts of a pamphlet he wrote in 1984. In the first installment, DeBoer made the case that “nothing has fundamentally changed in the relationship between employer and employee” since the great class battles that built the CIO. In Part 2 he shows how union leaders can activate and mobilize members to fight and win strikes and, in so doing, to rebuild a militant mass working class movement in this country.
Leaders Can Make a Difference
Some union leaders content that we cannot turn out masses of workers these days. The workers are too passive, such leaders say. But that is not so. There have been a number of major strikes in the United States in recent years where thousands of workers and their supporters have marched and rallied outside their plants. It’s a reflection of the new militancy we see developing. Unfortunately, though it is clear in some cases that workers are prepared to take action, the leadership in some strikes stop short of closing down the plant. The scabs keep going to work and the strike is lost. The leadership must take a fundamental step: Organize mass picketing and prevent scabs from entering the workplace.
“How do you get thousands of workers out on the street to take such action?” you might ask. It’s a good question.
First, it requires leadership willing to take such steps. If you don’t’ have fighters for leaders in your union, then you are going to have to elect new leaders. You need to put up slates of candidates who believe in union democracy and are willing to take on the employers.
Second, you must develop a comprehensive strategy. No pamphlet can spell out all the problems and all the solutions to win a labor struggle. I can only lay out a method. However, there are some key factors to any comprehensive plan.
Successful strikes require the participation and support of the entire labor movement. Building that kind of broad-based support can actually prevent strikes. If the employer thinks that he is going to have to take on the whole labor movement of a city or state, he may think long and hard before forcing the workers out on strike. Local union leaders should approach city and state labor officials, explain what the bosses are trying to do to their union, and seek the support of these officials. Ask them to help and give them full credit when they do.
Think big. Hold one or more mass rallies before the strike deadline with prominent labor speakers, using well-made leaflets and posters. Invite all the labor unions, not just your own. Be conscious of all aspects. Be sure that women and minorities play a big role. In some of our labor organizations in the 1930s, we sent organizers in among the unemployed and organized them as unemployed contingents of our union to join us on the picket lines. That should be done today. If the unemployed are organized on our side, it is far harder for the boss to use them as scabs. And they are the group employers approach first to break strikes.
Placing big ads where possible in commercial and labor press to explain the union’s case and list the unions that support you. Send representatives from your union to meetings of other unions to explain what you are fighting for. Get top labor leaders to write letters to all unions in the state, spelling out the issues, and ask them to endorse the rally, to send members to the rally, and to join picket lines if a strike occurs. Think big. Then think bigger.
Have workers throughout your plant and city wear buttons with slogans of support. See that articles about the issues are placed in the labor press and other news media. Hold news conferences with prominent labor people backing you up. Present union members to the public who are examples of workers who can barely make ends meet on the wages they are paid.
A strike should be well organized and the 1934 Minneapolis strike is a classic case. A book, Teamster Rebellion by Farrell Dobbs, gives the full story, and I highly recommend it to you. [Teamster Rebellion is available from Rainbow Bookstore in Madison.]
We had a commissary to feed strikers and their families. We served hot meals daily with food donated by sympathetic farmers and grocers. This became a way of sustaining the strikers as well as a means of deepening solidarity among workers.
The strike committee had a doctor and nurses on hand at the strike headquarters for workers who might be injured in the picketing. This proved extremely valuable.
For the first time anywhere in the country, we put out a daily strike newspaper. It was called The Organizer. During the strike you can frequently count on the editors of the pro-business media to try and distort the issues. You need your own publication to explain the issues and get out the truth about the strike. A daily strike newspaper can be a means to rally the strikers and their supporters and educate the public, winning new allies to the strikers’ side.
All kinds of solidarity efforts will be necessary. You will want to approach other local unions, women’s groups and community organizations. The object is to isolate the employer until the mass public pressure forces him to back down.
Indeed, the greater the planning before the strike and the more solidarity you have from the rest of the labor movement, the less likely there will be a strike. The company may see that you are prepared and see the array of forces on your side and will be less inclined to take the union on.
There also needs to be special concern for the welfare of the workers facing the most sever financial plight. A welfare committee should prepare to meet with bill collectors or mortgage companies to forestall any problems. Workers should be reassured on these issues. Looking after the neediest workers becomes a top priority in a strike. I have seen walkouts where militants neglected those workers who then tried to go through the picket lines. What a tragedy! Such people would become the stoutest defenders of the union if the union took the time to be concerned about them. And that is the union’s job.
How We Can Activate Our Union
“How can we activate our union?” you may ask. “Many of our members don’t even attend union meetings. All these ideas are great but our members won’t participate.”
I believe the backbone of any union should be union democracy. The more democratic the union, the stronger it is. Frequently, members don’t attend meetings because, when they do, it seems that all the decisions have already been made. Meetings must be opened up and made more democratic. All major decisions of the union should be made only after a discussion and vote of the membership. If you have undemocratic leaders, you must vote them out and elect democratic ones. Leaders who are fighters with a commitment to union democracy will attract increased activism from the rank-and-file. Union leaders should discuss their strategy openly with the membership. Rank-and-filers should be encouraged to take on major responsibilities in a comprehensive strategy. Discuss, plan and vote! As you find your union becomes more democratic, you will find many of your members wanting to participate in the decisions that affect their lives.
In Teamsters Local 574 we had elected stewards that represented members in the various shops. We had an elected grievance board that met twice a month and listened to any worker who had a potential grievance. We had an elected negotiating committee. And in the 1934 truck divers strike in Minneapolis, we had an elected Committee of 100. This committee was a sounding board that met between regular union meetings. Proposals by the leadership during the strike were first brought to the Committee of 100. The committee sifted through the proposals and reached decisions and carried those decisions back to the mass of workers. This democratic process strengthened the strike and kept the leadership in touch with what the membership wanted.
Some union leaders disagree with this open style of democracy. During a strike or negotiations, they argue for utmost secrecy. Often, I’ve found that such secrecy is really a ploy to make an unsatisfactory compromise behind the backs of the workers. Every settlement involves compromise. But the decisions of the union must be made by the membership. The demands should be voted on by the membership. The members should determine when a demand is removed by the union from the bargaining table. The more democratic the union, the more involved the workers will become in the union. The less democratic the union, the less enthusiasm the members will have in the leadership when the employer forces the union into a showdown.
Shutting it Down
There are various ways to shut down a business and this pamphlet can’t begin to address all of them. But here are some key methods.
Mass Picketing. This should be part of all strikes. By your very numbers you can prevent he plant from operating
Sit-down outside the plant. Sometimes to overcome the presence of large numbers of police or National Guard, the best tactic might be to set several thousand people down in front of the key doors or gates. They may haul you away in mass arrests. The union bails you out and you sit down again.
Sit-down inside the plant. Sit down strikes, a tactic used in the 1930s, ought to be considered a viable strike method today. It’s much harder for bosses to get workers out of the building, once they are sitting inside.
Fink drives. Finks are scabs and fink drives were something we used when employers used scabs to reopen plants that were on strike. We took some of our best militant workers, entered the plant and drove the finks out.
Mass marches and rallies as a way of building toward the mass picketing and other actions to shut the operation down.
Talking to Workers
Carl Skoglund, who later became president of our local, was the architect of the 1934 Minneapolis strike. He had been through many labor battles. He had a bad leg and I remember the night before the coal strike in February 1934, he put his arm on my shoulder for support as we walked back to our apartments.
“Harry,” he said to me, “a lot of workers may not understand what we are fighting for at first. We’ll need to talk to them. Explain to them what this strike is about. Give them a chance to understand. Don’t write them off before you’ve given them a chance.”
One of the first non-union drivers we stopped the next day proved Carl’s point.
We had followed a truck out of the coal yard and a few blocks away we converged on it. We explained to the driver what we were fighting for and why we were on strike. The man got angry. He told us that the boss had lied to him about what we were striking for. He jumped out of the truck and helped us dump his own load of coal on the street! That night, he went down to the union hall and joined the union. After the strike, he became a loyal union steward.
There is a lesson in this. It’s necessary to explain to workers why you are on strike. And that goes for workers who have been hired as scabs. Many times, if you talk to these workers, they will end up siding with you. If they don’t, of course, it is another story. But many times in this society, with so much anti-union propaganda, people develop hostile attitudes toward unions. Often times, explaining the issues can turn them around.
That same open-mindedness is important in dealing with your coworkers who may not at first recognize the necessity of militant action, but will come around, once they see that it works.
Organizing the Unorganized
Many of the most important battles of the future will be on behalf of the unorganized workers. New mass efforts must be made to organize these workers into unions. Unions today tend to be made up of higher paid workers and union leaders sometimes forget where their unions came from.
The same mass approach to victory on the picket line must extend to union organizing. Mass mobilizations of workers is needed for organizing drives. There should be rallies and participation of the entire membership in these drives, and efforts to get the support of the rest of the labor movement.
During contract talks, bosses sometimes try to terrorize workers into submission. Employers threaten unions that are demanding higher wages with the possibility that the company will move away and seek cheaper, non-union markets elsewhere. If the company has a trained workforce locally, it may be nothing more than a scare tactic. But the union’s response should be quick. If the boss moves his plant somewhere else, the union leaders should say, “We will send union organizers to your new location and organize them, there. If you go abroad, our international union will work to see that you are organized wherever you set up shop. Wherever you go, we will follow you. We will not allow you to exploit your workers. So you better put a reasonable package on the bargaining table, because it is not going to get any better for you elsewhere.”
A clear commitment to organizing is the best way to assure good contracts at workplaces that are organized. We had a motto in Local 574: “Every member an organizer.” Over-the-road drivers would encourage workers to unionize wherever they went throughout the Midwest. It’s a motto we should adopt today.
The more workers we have in unions, the harder it will be for the employer to find workers who can break strikes. And it will help to make the union a greater force for progress and social justice.
The union must be the champion of the underdog, the poor and the suffering. We must be concerned with single-parent families, the child who does not have enough to eat, the disabled, the victims of discrimination. We must speak out for the elderly, many of whom cannot eke out a living on their small pensions and social security.
Fighting for them, we can restore the union to greatness. Their cause becomes our cause when we stand up for decent wages and conditions for all.
This is the second part of Harry DeBoer’s classic pamphlet entitled How to Win Strikes. The first half is printed in a previous posting on this site.
How to Win Strikes is available in pamphlet form, with additional material from the International Workers League, at www.wellreduse.com.
To leave a comment on this article, or on a previous posting, hit “comments” below.
And visit www.LaborLeft.blogspot.com in two weeks when the topic is Immigrant Workers and the Union Movement.
Friday, August 31, 2007
How to Win Strikes--Part 1
By Harry DeBoer
Harry DeBoer was a leader of the 1934 Minneapolis General Strike and he spent the next 60 years of his life teaching and agitating for militant unionism. This is the first of two parts of a pamphlet he wrote in 1984. In the first installment, DeBoer makes the case that “nothing has fundamentally changed in the relationship between employer and employee” since the great class battles that built the CIO. In Part 2 he shows how union leaders can activate and mobilize members to fight and win strikes and, in so doing, to rebuild a militant mass working class movement in this country.
Corporations are increasingly taking advantage of workers. Despite huge profits, companies are demanding—and getting—big concessions.
When unions are able to get wage raises, many times the increases are small and don’t keep pace with inflation.
The standard of living is falling. Many workers can barely get by and their debts continue to climb.
Non-unionized workers are especially hard hit. Low paid jobs are proliferating. Without the job protection of unions, unorganized workers face all kinds of attacks on their job conditions. Their hours are cut. They are laid off at the employers’ whim with no seniority rules in force.
A New Mood
It need not be this way. The era of concessions can, must and will come to an end. There’s evidence of a new mood among workers. Unions report that some unorganized workers are asking for organizing drives. They want higher wages, better working conditions and on-the-job protections that come with union membership. One senses a greater desire among rank-and-filers to fight back. Big battles are ahead and I predict a major labor upsurge in the near future. This pamphlet is aimed at the leaders and participants of the battles to come. Strikes can be won.
A strike is always a last resort. That’s how it should be. But these days, unless workers are prepared to strike, employers will not give workers a fair deal at the bargaining table. Workers need to be prepared to withhold their labor in order to obtain a just settlement.
In the past few years, significant strikes have been lost. Workers who walk off the job are replaced by scabs. Major strikes have been broken. Workers have permanently lost their jobs.
This has led some in the labor movement to wrongly conclude that strikes can no longer succeed. They point to the recent defeats and say, “What’s the point of fighting?” As a result, unions have signed contracts with wholesale concessions, even though the employer could afford good wage raises and improved working conditions.
Some unions, fearful of strikes, have resorted to alternative tactics such as public pressure campaigns. Some union leaders have proposed such tactics as a substitute for strikes. But while public pressure campaigns can help, if the employer knows that the union is not prepared to strike, such campaigns have much less chance of success. The employer will squeeze the union dry if he knows the union is not going to strike.
The 1934 Strike was a Model
I have confidence in the new generation of workers. I believe they will begin to turn toward labor militancy in order to achieve a decent standard of living for themselves and their families.
The 1934 truck drivers strike in Minneapolis was a model of how to fight and win. We brought truck traffic to a standstill in the city, we drove the scabs off the streets and we won a decisive victory. We gained union recognition, won our first contract and came away with wage increases and improved conditions.
Strikes in Minneapolis, Toledo and San Francisco in 1934 set off a wave of militant job actions that led the way to the formation of the great unions in this country. Those militant strikes of the 1930’s forged the industrial unions that exist today.
But during the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s, unions became more complacent. The picket line battles of earlier times subsided. Unions set up picket lines, generally expecting them to be honored and they were. But in the late 1970s and the 1980s, that changed.
Employers became more aggressive. They tested the waters and found they could break strikes without too much trouble. Scabbing became more common. Years ago, no one dared cross a picket line. Today, in cities across the nation, workers can recount stories of employers who broke strikes by sending in scabs.
A Brief History of the Strike
There is only one way to win a strike: Shut the operation down. If it is a factory or other business, it cannot operate. If it is a transportation industry, it cannot move. A strike means all work must stop. It means that supervisors cannot be permitted to keep things going. It means scabs must be prevented from taking over the workers’ jobs. Today, a strike cannot be won with a handful of pickets. It requires mass action in the street, led by the striking union.
The 1934 Minneapolis truckers strike was, in reality, three strikes: the coal drivers strike in February, a broader strike in May, and a resumption of the strike in July in which we finally achieved victory. In the coal divers strike, we did not have enough pickets at the beginning of the walkout to successfully close all the yards that were being struck. I organized what became known as cruising pickets. We could picket a gate, and let trucks that were still operating out of the coal yards so police would think the trucks were home free. We’d let the trucks get two or three blocks from the yard, drive up in cars, force the trucks to stop and pour the coal on the street. In several days, virtually all the coal truck driving operations had come to a halt. It was a bitterly cold winter, families and businesses needed coal. The companies caved in and we won.
Farrell Dobbs, another young Teamster leader and myself, were assigned to stay at the union hall in the evenings and sign up new members. They came by the thousands to join our union, Teamster Local 574 (it’s now called Local 544). When workers see a leadership that knows how to fight and win, they will not hesitate to join. The February victory had made our union considerably stronger.
In the May strike, the police recruited several deputies and handed them clubs to drive the strikers off the street. In one incident, some of our pickets were ambushed by police and a number of men and women pickets were beaten badly. We got some sticks in self-defense and, in a major street battle, drove the special deputies off the streets. It became knows as The Battle of Deputy’s Run.
In the July strike, which began after the companies reneged on their agreement with the union, the police open fired on unarmed strikers. Two workers were killed and nearly 60 strikers were wounded, many of them shot in the back.
This brutal attack backfired. Instead of weakening the union, it strengthened the workers’ resolve, and drew even more public support to our side. Finally, in August 1934, the company accepted a settlement, a giant victory for the Teamsters and the entire labor movement. The strike put Minneapolis on the road to becoming a union town, spurring organizing drives throughout the city and state and across the Midwest.
The School Books
The school books today don’t tell much about labor’s story. They have little to say about the rise of unions and the enormous sacrifices of workers in order to make this a better world. The employers would like workers to forget their past.
Indeed, the bosses like to say that things are different now. They contend that the old fighting days are behind us, that militancy is ancient history. Some companies show workers expensive films, touting labor-management cooperation and “quality circle” meetings that encourage workers to meet with managers to solve the company’s problems. Work faster, produce more, and above all don’t fight us—that’s the company’s line.
These employers, with their slick appeals for collaboration, are invariably the same ones who go to the bargaining table to demand concessions and wage freezes from the union.
The truth is that nothing has fundamentally changed in the relationship between employer and employees. The boss is still the boss. Only today, he hires high-priced union busting consultants who coat the union busting message in syrup. “Collaborate with management” are often code words for undermining and breaking the union.
Union leaders should understand the capitalist system. Our leaders in 1934 knew that the profit system drove the business leaders to try to break our union. While the union leadership did not attempt to press its revolutionary perspective on the membership, that perspective—and organization—were important to winning the strike.
What Workers Learned
What workers learned in the 1930’s was that standing together in large numbers, they could beat back the union busters, and win the necessary wage increases and improved conditions. Fifty years later that still applies. Workers today must take a militant stance in order to achieve success. Token picket lines are insufficient. Unions must organize mass picketing with hundreds or thousands of workers to stop any possibility of scabbing. Some union leaders say that’s impossible today. Within a day or two, they argue, the employer will go to court and obtain an injunction to limit the number of pickets to three or four per gate.
My answer: In 1934 we papered the wall with injunctions. The employer can always find some anti-union judge to sign a piece of paper. But strikes come down to a relationship of forces. If our forces are bigger and more powerful than theirs, we will win.
But, if we ignore the injunction and continue to mass picket, the police will arrest us, some union leaders argue.
My answer: So be it. Let them fill the jails to overflow. The union should bail them out and get the mass of workers back on the picket lines, joined by fresh forces that have been angered by the arbitrary actions of the authorities. We must keep the workplace we are striking shut down.
In Part 2, DeBoer talks about how union leaders can overcome passivity of the members and mobilize militant mass actions. Look for Part 2 at LaborLeft Blog in two weeks.
How to Win Strikes is available in pamphlet form, with additional material from the International Workers League, at www.wellreduse.com.
To leave a comment on this article, or on a previous posting, hit “comments” below.
Harry DeBoer was a leader of the 1934 Minneapolis General Strike and he spent the next 60 years of his life teaching and agitating for militant unionism. This is the first of two parts of a pamphlet he wrote in 1984. In the first installment, DeBoer makes the case that “nothing has fundamentally changed in the relationship between employer and employee” since the great class battles that built the CIO. In Part 2 he shows how union leaders can activate and mobilize members to fight and win strikes and, in so doing, to rebuild a militant mass working class movement in this country.
Corporations are increasingly taking advantage of workers. Despite huge profits, companies are demanding—and getting—big concessions.
When unions are able to get wage raises, many times the increases are small and don’t keep pace with inflation.
The standard of living is falling. Many workers can barely get by and their debts continue to climb.
Non-unionized workers are especially hard hit. Low paid jobs are proliferating. Without the job protection of unions, unorganized workers face all kinds of attacks on their job conditions. Their hours are cut. They are laid off at the employers’ whim with no seniority rules in force.
A New Mood
It need not be this way. The era of concessions can, must and will come to an end. There’s evidence of a new mood among workers. Unions report that some unorganized workers are asking for organizing drives. They want higher wages, better working conditions and on-the-job protections that come with union membership. One senses a greater desire among rank-and-filers to fight back. Big battles are ahead and I predict a major labor upsurge in the near future. This pamphlet is aimed at the leaders and participants of the battles to come. Strikes can be won.
A strike is always a last resort. That’s how it should be. But these days, unless workers are prepared to strike, employers will not give workers a fair deal at the bargaining table. Workers need to be prepared to withhold their labor in order to obtain a just settlement.
In the past few years, significant strikes have been lost. Workers who walk off the job are replaced by scabs. Major strikes have been broken. Workers have permanently lost their jobs.
This has led some in the labor movement to wrongly conclude that strikes can no longer succeed. They point to the recent defeats and say, “What’s the point of fighting?” As a result, unions have signed contracts with wholesale concessions, even though the employer could afford good wage raises and improved working conditions.
Some unions, fearful of strikes, have resorted to alternative tactics such as public pressure campaigns. Some union leaders have proposed such tactics as a substitute for strikes. But while public pressure campaigns can help, if the employer knows that the union is not prepared to strike, such campaigns have much less chance of success. The employer will squeeze the union dry if he knows the union is not going to strike.
The 1934 Strike was a Model
I have confidence in the new generation of workers. I believe they will begin to turn toward labor militancy in order to achieve a decent standard of living for themselves and their families.
The 1934 truck drivers strike in Minneapolis was a model of how to fight and win. We brought truck traffic to a standstill in the city, we drove the scabs off the streets and we won a decisive victory. We gained union recognition, won our first contract and came away with wage increases and improved conditions.
Strikes in Minneapolis, Toledo and San Francisco in 1934 set off a wave of militant job actions that led the way to the formation of the great unions in this country. Those militant strikes of the 1930’s forged the industrial unions that exist today.
But during the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s, unions became more complacent. The picket line battles of earlier times subsided. Unions set up picket lines, generally expecting them to be honored and they were. But in the late 1970s and the 1980s, that changed.
Employers became more aggressive. They tested the waters and found they could break strikes without too much trouble. Scabbing became more common. Years ago, no one dared cross a picket line. Today, in cities across the nation, workers can recount stories of employers who broke strikes by sending in scabs.
A Brief History of the Strike
There is only one way to win a strike: Shut the operation down. If it is a factory or other business, it cannot operate. If it is a transportation industry, it cannot move. A strike means all work must stop. It means that supervisors cannot be permitted to keep things going. It means scabs must be prevented from taking over the workers’ jobs. Today, a strike cannot be won with a handful of pickets. It requires mass action in the street, led by the striking union.
The 1934 Minneapolis truckers strike was, in reality, three strikes: the coal drivers strike in February, a broader strike in May, and a resumption of the strike in July in which we finally achieved victory. In the coal divers strike, we did not have enough pickets at the beginning of the walkout to successfully close all the yards that were being struck. I organized what became known as cruising pickets. We could picket a gate, and let trucks that were still operating out of the coal yards so police would think the trucks were home free. We’d let the trucks get two or three blocks from the yard, drive up in cars, force the trucks to stop and pour the coal on the street. In several days, virtually all the coal truck driving operations had come to a halt. It was a bitterly cold winter, families and businesses needed coal. The companies caved in and we won.
Farrell Dobbs, another young Teamster leader and myself, were assigned to stay at the union hall in the evenings and sign up new members. They came by the thousands to join our union, Teamster Local 574 (it’s now called Local 544). When workers see a leadership that knows how to fight and win, they will not hesitate to join. The February victory had made our union considerably stronger.
In the May strike, the police recruited several deputies and handed them clubs to drive the strikers off the street. In one incident, some of our pickets were ambushed by police and a number of men and women pickets were beaten badly. We got some sticks in self-defense and, in a major street battle, drove the special deputies off the streets. It became knows as The Battle of Deputy’s Run.
In the July strike, which began after the companies reneged on their agreement with the union, the police open fired on unarmed strikers. Two workers were killed and nearly 60 strikers were wounded, many of them shot in the back.
This brutal attack backfired. Instead of weakening the union, it strengthened the workers’ resolve, and drew even more public support to our side. Finally, in August 1934, the company accepted a settlement, a giant victory for the Teamsters and the entire labor movement. The strike put Minneapolis on the road to becoming a union town, spurring organizing drives throughout the city and state and across the Midwest.
The School Books
The school books today don’t tell much about labor’s story. They have little to say about the rise of unions and the enormous sacrifices of workers in order to make this a better world. The employers would like workers to forget their past.
Indeed, the bosses like to say that things are different now. They contend that the old fighting days are behind us, that militancy is ancient history. Some companies show workers expensive films, touting labor-management cooperation and “quality circle” meetings that encourage workers to meet with managers to solve the company’s problems. Work faster, produce more, and above all don’t fight us—that’s the company’s line.
These employers, with their slick appeals for collaboration, are invariably the same ones who go to the bargaining table to demand concessions and wage freezes from the union.
The truth is that nothing has fundamentally changed in the relationship between employer and employees. The boss is still the boss. Only today, he hires high-priced union busting consultants who coat the union busting message in syrup. “Collaborate with management” are often code words for undermining and breaking the union.
Union leaders should understand the capitalist system. Our leaders in 1934 knew that the profit system drove the business leaders to try to break our union. While the union leadership did not attempt to press its revolutionary perspective on the membership, that perspective—and organization—were important to winning the strike.
What Workers Learned
What workers learned in the 1930’s was that standing together in large numbers, they could beat back the union busters, and win the necessary wage increases and improved conditions. Fifty years later that still applies. Workers today must take a militant stance in order to achieve success. Token picket lines are insufficient. Unions must organize mass picketing with hundreds or thousands of workers to stop any possibility of scabbing. Some union leaders say that’s impossible today. Within a day or two, they argue, the employer will go to court and obtain an injunction to limit the number of pickets to three or four per gate.
My answer: In 1934 we papered the wall with injunctions. The employer can always find some anti-union judge to sign a piece of paper. But strikes come down to a relationship of forces. If our forces are bigger and more powerful than theirs, we will win.
But, if we ignore the injunction and continue to mass picket, the police will arrest us, some union leaders argue.
My answer: So be it. Let them fill the jails to overflow. The union should bail them out and get the mass of workers back on the picket lines, joined by fresh forces that have been angered by the arbitrary actions of the authorities. We must keep the workplace we are striking shut down.
In Part 2, DeBoer talks about how union leaders can overcome passivity of the members and mobilize militant mass actions. Look for Part 2 at LaborLeft Blog in two weeks.
How to Win Strikes is available in pamphlet form, with additional material from the International Workers League, at www.wellreduse.com.
To leave a comment on this article, or on a previous posting, hit “comments” below.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Un-accomplishments in a Union Town--Part 3
Madison, Wisconsin, has a reputation as a Union Town. In Part 1 of this series we noted the slow decline in the standard of living of unionized workers in the area and our ineffective efforts to stop that slide. In Part 2 we examine the non-existent organizing. In Part 3 we look at labor’s political work, here in our Union Town
With Friends like These
In his first term, Democratic Party Governor Jim Doyle froze our wages and shifted $65 a month in health insurance costs our families. He refused to support the state AFL-CIO’s universal health care plan, froze in place tax give-aways to corporations and continued one of the most oppressive welfare systems in the country. He contracted out janitorial jobs to an anti-union outfit, killed local minimum wage ordinances and promised to cut 20% of our members’ jobs.
Last fall our union spent an estimated $200,000 to get him re-elected.
This spring, several high-ranking union officials held a series of “listening sessions” across the state, not so much to listen as to sell the idea of adopting the AFL-CIO’s New Alliance model. The presentation included talking points backed up by PowerPoint, complete with maps of the state showing various densities and trend charts.
The problem the New Alliance was intending to address was that we weren’t electing enough Democrats. This, although the presenter noted, labor had experienced some recent successes in that we managed to re-elect the Democratic Party Governor and a Democratic Party majority in the state Senate.
The solution was to divide the state into electoral districts, hire political operatives in areas without functioning labor councils and begin year-round electoral organizing. Timelines were stated in terms of electoral cycles.
With all of the problems facing our movement—falling standard of living of our members, union busting, our inability to organize—the AFL-CIO’s only initiatives in recent years have been designed to elect more Democrats. When called on that from the floor, speakers began substituting “progressives,” “family friendly politicians” or “friends of labor” for the word “Democrats,” and it was noted that the New Alliance model could aid in organizing and strike support work as well. But no one lost the meaning.
How Subordination Works
For the past several years in Wisconsin, labor’s stated number one legislative priority has been universal health care. The state AFL-CIO and its associated think tanks have come up with a sophisticated plan we call Healthy Wisconsin.
But we didn’t hear much about that plan in the months leading up to elections. We could have gotten the plan on a statewide referendum or we could have made labor endorsements contingent on support for the plan. We could have held mass rallies and chained ourselves to the Capitol door. But our number one legislative issue seemed to have been lost, at least until after the elections.
The reason is obvious. Many of the candidates the unions endorsed—and spent millions of dollars and millions of volunteer hours to elect—don’t support the unions political agenda and have long records of screwing working people. If we had made support for labor’s political agenda the test, we wouldn’t have had a candidate for governor.
Or, maybe we would have endorsed Nelson Eisman, a Chief Steward for his union and Green Party candidate for Governor. There was no doubt that Eisman support labor’s stated political agenda.
Eisman seemed genuinely surprised that he didn’t even get an endorsement hearing from labor. But he should have known better. Unions’ COPE committees are tightly controlled by two-carders: people who hold a union membership card and a Democratic Party membership card. And there’s never a question of which card trumps.
Direct Action off the Table
One thing you get from reading the left and international press is that unionists in the rest of the world tend to take direct action in the face of political attacks. When the Indian congress threatened privatization and cutbacks a couple of years ago, 10 million workers staged a 1-day general strike. When the Greek government proposed changes in overtime pay, transportation unions shut the country down. When Berlusconi tried to cut retirement benefits, millions of Italian workers walked off the job. In France, England, Mexico, Ireland, Korea, Iraq…just about everywhere except the U.S., workers respond in the past few years to reactionary government policies with direct action.
[Yes, of course, immigrant workers in the U.S. and their allies staged general strikes on the past two May Days. That will be the subject of an up-coming discussion.]
In the U.S. unions generally respond to political attacks with strongly-worded press releases. Followed by unconditional support for the Democrats.
In 1992-93, the AFL-CIO’s stated number one legislative priority was defeat of NAFTA. But passage of NAFTA was President Bill Clinton’s number one legislative priority. And it was left to his vice president, Al Gore, to line up enough Democratic Party votes to pass it in the Senate.
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney was mad when NAFTA passed. But a couple of years later he was endorsing, (his words) “that great friend of labor Bill Clinton.” Next time around it was that “great friend of Labor” (and NAFTA Senate ramrod) Al Gore. Next time it was the “great friend of labor” (and pro-NAFTA voter) John Kerry.
What if, instead of sending out a strongly-worded press release and then supporting NAFTA supporters, U.S. labor had announced a general strike if the Senate passed NAFTA?
That Which Cannot be Spoken
The obvious response to this sad situation is for labor to form its own political party.
Based on nothing but the material interest of the working class, we could put together a platform that would appeal to organized and unorganized workers, the unemployed, retired people, immigrant workers, women, environmentalists and minorities.
With 400,000 union members as the core and the money we now spend on the Democrats, we could put together a powerful grassroots organization in every legislative district of the state. Such a party could lead the fight for a working class government that would put the Republicans and Democrats out of business.
Perhaps because the need so great, the solution so obvious—and the threat to the status quo so palpable—it is an idea that cannot be spoken in the union halls of this Union Town.
In this 3-part series Un-accomplishments in a Union Town we discussed the inability of unions to defend our standard of living, the lack of organizing and the state of our political work.
Starting in the next edition of LaborLeft we will run a classic 1985 essay entitled How to Win Strikes by long-time labor activists Harry DeBoer. We think his analysis offers some perspective and direction as we consider how to build a militant, mass labor movement here in Madison and across the country.
As always, this project relies on responses from labor activists like you. Click on “comments” and share your ideas with your brothers and sisters. Click on the envelope icon to send this to a fellow union activist.
In solidarity,
Ron Blascoe
Steward AFT 4848
With Friends like These
In his first term, Democratic Party Governor Jim Doyle froze our wages and shifted $65 a month in health insurance costs our families. He refused to support the state AFL-CIO’s universal health care plan, froze in place tax give-aways to corporations and continued one of the most oppressive welfare systems in the country. He contracted out janitorial jobs to an anti-union outfit, killed local minimum wage ordinances and promised to cut 20% of our members’ jobs.
Last fall our union spent an estimated $200,000 to get him re-elected.
This spring, several high-ranking union officials held a series of “listening sessions” across the state, not so much to listen as to sell the idea of adopting the AFL-CIO’s New Alliance model. The presentation included talking points backed up by PowerPoint, complete with maps of the state showing various densities and trend charts.
The problem the New Alliance was intending to address was that we weren’t electing enough Democrats. This, although the presenter noted, labor had experienced some recent successes in that we managed to re-elect the Democratic Party Governor and a Democratic Party majority in the state Senate.
The solution was to divide the state into electoral districts, hire political operatives in areas without functioning labor councils and begin year-round electoral organizing. Timelines were stated in terms of electoral cycles.
With all of the problems facing our movement—falling standard of living of our members, union busting, our inability to organize—the AFL-CIO’s only initiatives in recent years have been designed to elect more Democrats. When called on that from the floor, speakers began substituting “progressives,” “family friendly politicians” or “friends of labor” for the word “Democrats,” and it was noted that the New Alliance model could aid in organizing and strike support work as well. But no one lost the meaning.
How Subordination Works
For the past several years in Wisconsin, labor’s stated number one legislative priority has been universal health care. The state AFL-CIO and its associated think tanks have come up with a sophisticated plan we call Healthy Wisconsin.
But we didn’t hear much about that plan in the months leading up to elections. We could have gotten the plan on a statewide referendum or we could have made labor endorsements contingent on support for the plan. We could have held mass rallies and chained ourselves to the Capitol door. But our number one legislative issue seemed to have been lost, at least until after the elections.
The reason is obvious. Many of the candidates the unions endorsed—and spent millions of dollars and millions of volunteer hours to elect—don’t support the unions political agenda and have long records of screwing working people. If we had made support for labor’s political agenda the test, we wouldn’t have had a candidate for governor.
Or, maybe we would have endorsed Nelson Eisman, a Chief Steward for his union and Green Party candidate for Governor. There was no doubt that Eisman support labor’s stated political agenda.
Eisman seemed genuinely surprised that he didn’t even get an endorsement hearing from labor. But he should have known better. Unions’ COPE committees are tightly controlled by two-carders: people who hold a union membership card and a Democratic Party membership card. And there’s never a question of which card trumps.
Direct Action off the Table
One thing you get from reading the left and international press is that unionists in the rest of the world tend to take direct action in the face of political attacks. When the Indian congress threatened privatization and cutbacks a couple of years ago, 10 million workers staged a 1-day general strike. When the Greek government proposed changes in overtime pay, transportation unions shut the country down. When Berlusconi tried to cut retirement benefits, millions of Italian workers walked off the job. In France, England, Mexico, Ireland, Korea, Iraq…just about everywhere except the U.S., workers respond in the past few years to reactionary government policies with direct action.
[Yes, of course, immigrant workers in the U.S. and their allies staged general strikes on the past two May Days. That will be the subject of an up-coming discussion.]
In the U.S. unions generally respond to political attacks with strongly-worded press releases. Followed by unconditional support for the Democrats.
In 1992-93, the AFL-CIO’s stated number one legislative priority was defeat of NAFTA. But passage of NAFTA was President Bill Clinton’s number one legislative priority. And it was left to his vice president, Al Gore, to line up enough Democratic Party votes to pass it in the Senate.
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney was mad when NAFTA passed. But a couple of years later he was endorsing, (his words) “that great friend of labor Bill Clinton.” Next time around it was that “great friend of Labor” (and NAFTA Senate ramrod) Al Gore. Next time it was the “great friend of labor” (and pro-NAFTA voter) John Kerry.
What if, instead of sending out a strongly-worded press release and then supporting NAFTA supporters, U.S. labor had announced a general strike if the Senate passed NAFTA?
That Which Cannot be Spoken
The obvious response to this sad situation is for labor to form its own political party.
Based on nothing but the material interest of the working class, we could put together a platform that would appeal to organized and unorganized workers, the unemployed, retired people, immigrant workers, women, environmentalists and minorities.
With 400,000 union members as the core and the money we now spend on the Democrats, we could put together a powerful grassroots organization in every legislative district of the state. Such a party could lead the fight for a working class government that would put the Republicans and Democrats out of business.
Perhaps because the need so great, the solution so obvious—and the threat to the status quo so palpable—it is an idea that cannot be spoken in the union halls of this Union Town.
In this 3-part series Un-accomplishments in a Union Town we discussed the inability of unions to defend our standard of living, the lack of organizing and the state of our political work.
Starting in the next edition of LaborLeft we will run a classic 1985 essay entitled How to Win Strikes by long-time labor activists Harry DeBoer. We think his analysis offers some perspective and direction as we consider how to build a militant, mass labor movement here in Madison and across the country.
As always, this project relies on responses from labor activists like you. Click on “comments” and share your ideas with your brothers and sisters. Click on the envelope icon to send this to a fellow union activist.
In solidarity,
Ron Blascoe
Steward AFT 4848
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Labor Law v. Labor Movement
A number of postings have taken up the fact that US labor laws are anti-labor.
I think that, in normal times, people tend to obey an unjust law not so much because they are fooled into thinking the law is just or even out of fear of punishment but, rather, out of a sense that breaking it would be futile.
But, when people start breaking the unjust law in a big, dramatic way, and when they get away with it and win, others want to join in. It’s that spark that causes a movement to be born. Most everyone knew that Jim Crow was wrong and then Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus. Most everyone knew that scabherding was wrong and then Teamsters Local 574 shut down Minneapolis.
A new labor movement will be born when someone, somewhere, pulls off a big, dramatic militant mass action and scores a clear victory. To paraphrase the t-shirt: If not now, when? If not in Madison, where? If not us, who?
I think that, in normal times, people tend to obey an unjust law not so much because they are fooled into thinking the law is just or even out of fear of punishment but, rather, out of a sense that breaking it would be futile.
But, when people start breaking the unjust law in a big, dramatic way, and when they get away with it and win, others want to join in. It’s that spark that causes a movement to be born. Most everyone knew that Jim Crow was wrong and then Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus. Most everyone knew that scabherding was wrong and then Teamsters Local 574 shut down Minneapolis.
A new labor movement will be born when someone, somewhere, pulls off a big, dramatic militant mass action and scores a clear victory. To paraphrase the t-shirt: If not now, when? If not in Madison, where? If not us, who?
Friday, August 3, 2007
Autopsy of the Whole Foods Union
Throughout 2002-2003, workers at Whole Foods in Madison were engaged in a tough organizing drive and support for that campaign became a major focus of area labor activists. That drive eventually failed and the fledgling union was crushed.
It’s taboo to talk about our losses. Some think it’s demoralizing. Others are concerned that any critique of what went wrong in a campaign will come off as criticism of internationals and local affiliates. So we burry our dead and march on, never learning the lessons of our failures.
But the losing campaign at Whole Foods has some important things to teach us. So, let’s have that discussion.
As a refresher, in the spring and summer of 2002 workers at Whole Foods organized themselves. Wages, benefits and working conditions weren’t all that bad compared to other stores in town. It is worth noting, I think, that a work rule against piercing was one of their initial complaints. Not your average gripes. Worker empowerment seemed to be the overarching demand.
Some of us met with the organizers and offered advice. We told them the company would engage in an anti-union campaign and gave them an idea of what that would look like. That there would be union-busting consultants, captive audience meetings, a company-organized anti-union campaign among co-workers and some of them would probably get fired. I also suggested that they avoid affiliating with an international at this point, at least until they got organized and had some experience running their own affairs. Instead of hooking up with an international, they should reach out to local union activists for assistance.
They listen politely but simply didn’t believe us. Whole Foods management was progressive and green, they said, too cool to engage in old-style union busting. And they had been talking to the United Food and Commercial Workers union, who offered them expertise and legal help.
Of course, by that time Whole Foods had already hired a slick legal firm out of Chicago and they ended up running a textbook union-busting campaign. They stonewalled negotiations, fired union leaders, discriminated against union supporters on the job and eventually organized a decert campaign.
The UFCW’s reputation turned out to be a millstone around the neck of the new union. The union-busters assembled data on the fat salaries of union officials, the cost of dues and the fact that the UFCW contracts in the area weren’t really better than what was already in place at Whole Foods.
The turning point came on November 20, 2002, when the company fired two key organizers. Debbie Rasmussen was working the coffee bar and mistakenly made a latte with soy milk instead of skim milk. Rather than toss it, she gave it to co-worker and fellow union supporter Julie Thayer. It was common practice in the store. But a fink turned them in and both were fired for “theft from the employer.”
It was obvious to everyone who worked there that the only reason these two were fired was because of their union activities. Everyone waited to see what the union would do. Would the boss get away with it?
It was the fork in the road for the campaign. What would the union do?
Some of us argued that, come Saturday morning, we should fill the Whole Foods parking lot with a thousand pickets, demanding that the two be rehired. The lot would eventually be cleared, but we’d come back. We’d be on the news. Some customers would stay away out of solidarity. Others for fear of being tear gassed. Whole Foods business would suffer and we wouldn’t let up until they rehired the union supporters.
The UFCW lawyers told the workers to rely on the law. Mass picketing would bring an Unfair Labor Practice charge against the union. Instead the union filed Unfair Labor Practices charges against the company for the firings. Time passed and eventually the fired workers got a hearing. Of course, the NLRB takes a dim view of “theft from an employer” and upheld the firings.
At that point, the union was all but busted. The company only had to bide its time. Following the consultants’ advice, the company simply wouldn’t agree to anything at the bargaining table. Negotiations dragged on for months and the union had no strategy to force concessions. Workers saw that the union was ineffectual and that it couldn’t win concessions from the boss. That it couldn’t even protect its own leaders from retaliation.
By September 2003, “team members” at the store (the union-busters’ euphemism for the anti-union organization they’d created) petitioned to get rid of the union. The enlightened green capitalist who run Whole Foods announced that “the best way to respect the wishes of our Madison team members is to withdraw recognition from the union.”
The course of the Whole Foods campaign had been predicted from the beginning. But, it didn’t have to be that way. We know how to win. The question is: What will we do next time?
It’s taboo to talk about our losses. Some think it’s demoralizing. Others are concerned that any critique of what went wrong in a campaign will come off as criticism of internationals and local affiliates. So we burry our dead and march on, never learning the lessons of our failures.
But the losing campaign at Whole Foods has some important things to teach us. So, let’s have that discussion.
As a refresher, in the spring and summer of 2002 workers at Whole Foods organized themselves. Wages, benefits and working conditions weren’t all that bad compared to other stores in town. It is worth noting, I think, that a work rule against piercing was one of their initial complaints. Not your average gripes. Worker empowerment seemed to be the overarching demand.
Some of us met with the organizers and offered advice. We told them the company would engage in an anti-union campaign and gave them an idea of what that would look like. That there would be union-busting consultants, captive audience meetings, a company-organized anti-union campaign among co-workers and some of them would probably get fired. I also suggested that they avoid affiliating with an international at this point, at least until they got organized and had some experience running their own affairs. Instead of hooking up with an international, they should reach out to local union activists for assistance.
They listen politely but simply didn’t believe us. Whole Foods management was progressive and green, they said, too cool to engage in old-style union busting. And they had been talking to the United Food and Commercial Workers union, who offered them expertise and legal help.
Of course, by that time Whole Foods had already hired a slick legal firm out of Chicago and they ended up running a textbook union-busting campaign. They stonewalled negotiations, fired union leaders, discriminated against union supporters on the job and eventually organized a decert campaign.
The UFCW’s reputation turned out to be a millstone around the neck of the new union. The union-busters assembled data on the fat salaries of union officials, the cost of dues and the fact that the UFCW contracts in the area weren’t really better than what was already in place at Whole Foods.
The turning point came on November 20, 2002, when the company fired two key organizers. Debbie Rasmussen was working the coffee bar and mistakenly made a latte with soy milk instead of skim milk. Rather than toss it, she gave it to co-worker and fellow union supporter Julie Thayer. It was common practice in the store. But a fink turned them in and both were fired for “theft from the employer.”
It was obvious to everyone who worked there that the only reason these two were fired was because of their union activities. Everyone waited to see what the union would do. Would the boss get away with it?
It was the fork in the road for the campaign. What would the union do?
Some of us argued that, come Saturday morning, we should fill the Whole Foods parking lot with a thousand pickets, demanding that the two be rehired. The lot would eventually be cleared, but we’d come back. We’d be on the news. Some customers would stay away out of solidarity. Others for fear of being tear gassed. Whole Foods business would suffer and we wouldn’t let up until they rehired the union supporters.
The UFCW lawyers told the workers to rely on the law. Mass picketing would bring an Unfair Labor Practice charge against the union. Instead the union filed Unfair Labor Practices charges against the company for the firings. Time passed and eventually the fired workers got a hearing. Of course, the NLRB takes a dim view of “theft from an employer” and upheld the firings.
At that point, the union was all but busted. The company only had to bide its time. Following the consultants’ advice, the company simply wouldn’t agree to anything at the bargaining table. Negotiations dragged on for months and the union had no strategy to force concessions. Workers saw that the union was ineffectual and that it couldn’t win concessions from the boss. That it couldn’t even protect its own leaders from retaliation.
By September 2003, “team members” at the store (the union-busters’ euphemism for the anti-union organization they’d created) petitioned to get rid of the union. The enlightened green capitalist who run Whole Foods announced that “the best way to respect the wishes of our Madison team members is to withdraw recognition from the union.”
The course of the Whole Foods campaign had been predicted from the beginning. But, it didn’t have to be that way. We know how to win. The question is: What will we do next time?
Monday, July 30, 2007
Un-accomplishments in a Union Town--Part 2
In Part 1 LaborLeft noted the slow decline in the standard of living of unionized workers in the Madison, Wisconsin, area and our ineffective efforts to stop the slide. In Part 2 we examine the abysmal state of organizing. In Part 3 we will look at labor’s political work in this Union Town.
Where’s the Organizing?
Ten years ago, the South Central Federation of Labor’s Organizing Committee put together a list of over 200 large employers in the Madison, Wisconsin, area that were not unionized. At the time, there was no organizing going on at any them.
That was 10 years ago. And, there still has been no organizing at any of those 200 shops.
Although there have been a handful of sporadic organizing campaigns in Madison, the last significant organizing win was my own local 15 years ago!
But organizing is the Life Blood of the Labor Movement. Job One. We hear it all the time. That’s why we have organizing departments and organizing line items in our budgets, right?
So, how is it, then, that there’s no organizing going on in this Union Town?
Two Current Drives
We need to acknowledge two current organizing drives going on in the Madison area. UNITE-HERE is running a campaign to organize laundry workers at Superior Linen and the SEIU is running a campaign to organize janitors at CleanPower.
But these are two cases in point. The staff and members working on these campaigns are as good as they come. They’re dedicated and talented and they work tirelessly. The workers are mercilessly exploited and threatened by their employers. Most speak Spanish as their first language.
In both instances, there is little visible rank-and-file participation in the drives. They appear to be run essentially from the outside. The strategy, in both cases, seems to be to pressure secondary users of the service (American Family Insurance Company in the case of CleanPower and St. Mary’s Hospital in the Superior Linen case) to, in turn, put pressure on the employers to voluntarily recognize the union.
There are obviously limits to what a handful of dedicated and talented staff and courageous workers can do, even if they work day and night.
What Would We Do?
If you ask around union officialdom, the reason there’s no organizing going on in town is because we have no hot leads. But a former Fed staffer hit the nail on the head: “What would we do with a hot lead if we got one?”
What we know happens now is that when someone calls the Fed office and wants to talk about forming a union, they are turned over to a staffer from the “appropriate” international…after which they disappear.
I know many of the staffers who get these leads and they’re all dedicated union people. But, they are busy bargaining half a dozen contracts, doing arbitrations and running trainings. They just don’t have the time or, frankly, the orientation to follow up. When they get an organizing lead, they may make a call or two, maybe set up a meeting, but it’s clear that this approach won’t result in any new organizing drives in Madison anytime soon.
So, if there’s no one to handle hot leads when they come up, there’s no reason to go out and generate leads in the first place.
Business Union Organizing Model
The Business Union Organizing Model assumes that organizing drives must be run by paid professional union staffers. Drives need big budgets, not only for flown-in and put-up specialized staff but for office space, computers, professional survey services, phone banks, professionally-designed mailings and a well-stocked office refrigerator. From the accounting perspective of the internationals, it would be fiscally irresponsible to make that kind of investment for a few hundred workers in Madison, Wisconsin.
And, what’s to think we’d win? Under the Business Model, you’re selling the customer a service. But, as we’ve seen in Part 1, current union settlements are nothing to brag about. Furthermore, if the union expects to get a quick first contract (so that they can begin collecting dues), members’ expectations must be lowered to the point that they’ll vote for a bad deal. Even with a fully-staff and fully-funded drive, that’s a hard sell.
Where’s the Upsurge?
This in stark contrast to the days of yore, when labor was a true mass movement. When, as we’ll see in an up-coming article entitled How to Win Strikes, workers organized themselves and leaders had to pull double shifts just to sign up new members.
In The Next Upsurge, available from Rainbow Books in Madison , Dan Clawson presents some sobering numbers. Even if the AFL-CIO/CtW could organize twice as many members as they do now (which they can’t), it would take 30 years to return to the levels of union membership 30 years ago. Statistically, Business-Unionism-as-usual isn’t going to turn things around.
What Clawson and others point out is that unions don’t grow in slow increments but in sudden bursts. Throughout history we have seen resurgent unionism only when labor becomes a mass movement for social justice and goes on the offensive by winning big strikes with militant tactics.
We have to go back to the 1930’s to witness the beginnings of the last upsurge in this country. And, maybe that’s not a bad place to start figuring out what we need to do today.
In Part 3 we will look at labor’s political work, here in our Union Town. And, watch for How to Win Strikes, coming next month.
In the meantime, this is a forum. So, weigh in on the discussion by clicking on “comments.” To send this to a fellow union activist, click on the envelope icon below.
In solidarity,
Ron Blascoe
Steward AFT 4848
Where’s the Organizing?
Ten years ago, the South Central Federation of Labor’s Organizing Committee put together a list of over 200 large employers in the Madison, Wisconsin, area that were not unionized. At the time, there was no organizing going on at any them.
That was 10 years ago. And, there still has been no organizing at any of those 200 shops.
Although there have been a handful of sporadic organizing campaigns in Madison, the last significant organizing win was my own local 15 years ago!
But organizing is the Life Blood of the Labor Movement. Job One. We hear it all the time. That’s why we have organizing departments and organizing line items in our budgets, right?
So, how is it, then, that there’s no organizing going on in this Union Town?
Two Current Drives
We need to acknowledge two current organizing drives going on in the Madison area. UNITE-HERE is running a campaign to organize laundry workers at Superior Linen and the SEIU is running a campaign to organize janitors at CleanPower.
But these are two cases in point. The staff and members working on these campaigns are as good as they come. They’re dedicated and talented and they work tirelessly. The workers are mercilessly exploited and threatened by their employers. Most speak Spanish as their first language.
In both instances, there is little visible rank-and-file participation in the drives. They appear to be run essentially from the outside. The strategy, in both cases, seems to be to pressure secondary users of the service (American Family Insurance Company in the case of CleanPower and St. Mary’s Hospital in the Superior Linen case) to, in turn, put pressure on the employers to voluntarily recognize the union.
There are obviously limits to what a handful of dedicated and talented staff and courageous workers can do, even if they work day and night.
What Would We Do?
If you ask around union officialdom, the reason there’s no organizing going on in town is because we have no hot leads. But a former Fed staffer hit the nail on the head: “What would we do with a hot lead if we got one?”
What we know happens now is that when someone calls the Fed office and wants to talk about forming a union, they are turned over to a staffer from the “appropriate” international…after which they disappear.
I know many of the staffers who get these leads and they’re all dedicated union people. But, they are busy bargaining half a dozen contracts, doing arbitrations and running trainings. They just don’t have the time or, frankly, the orientation to follow up. When they get an organizing lead, they may make a call or two, maybe set up a meeting, but it’s clear that this approach won’t result in any new organizing drives in Madison anytime soon.
So, if there’s no one to handle hot leads when they come up, there’s no reason to go out and generate leads in the first place.
Business Union Organizing Model
The Business Union Organizing Model assumes that organizing drives must be run by paid professional union staffers. Drives need big budgets, not only for flown-in and put-up specialized staff but for office space, computers, professional survey services, phone banks, professionally-designed mailings and a well-stocked office refrigerator. From the accounting perspective of the internationals, it would be fiscally irresponsible to make that kind of investment for a few hundred workers in Madison, Wisconsin.
And, what’s to think we’d win? Under the Business Model, you’re selling the customer a service. But, as we’ve seen in Part 1, current union settlements are nothing to brag about. Furthermore, if the union expects to get a quick first contract (so that they can begin collecting dues), members’ expectations must be lowered to the point that they’ll vote for a bad deal. Even with a fully-staff and fully-funded drive, that’s a hard sell.
Where’s the Upsurge?
This in stark contrast to the days of yore, when labor was a true mass movement. When, as we’ll see in an up-coming article entitled How to Win Strikes, workers organized themselves and leaders had to pull double shifts just to sign up new members.
In The Next Upsurge, available from Rainbow Books in Madison , Dan Clawson presents some sobering numbers. Even if the AFL-CIO/CtW could organize twice as many members as they do now (which they can’t), it would take 30 years to return to the levels of union membership 30 years ago. Statistically, Business-Unionism-as-usual isn’t going to turn things around.
What Clawson and others point out is that unions don’t grow in slow increments but in sudden bursts. Throughout history we have seen resurgent unionism only when labor becomes a mass movement for social justice and goes on the offensive by winning big strikes with militant tactics.
We have to go back to the 1930’s to witness the beginnings of the last upsurge in this country. And, maybe that’s not a bad place to start figuring out what we need to do today.
In Part 3 we will look at labor’s political work, here in our Union Town. And, watch for How to Win Strikes, coming next month.
In the meantime, this is a forum. So, weigh in on the discussion by clicking on “comments.” To send this to a fellow union activist, click on the envelope icon below.
In solidarity,
Ron Blascoe
Steward AFT 4848
Monday, July 9, 2007
Un-accomplishments in a Union Town--Part 1
We here in Madison, Wisconsin, have one of the better labor councils around. The South Central Federation of Labor represents 35,000 dues paying members, the organization is run democratically and well. Many of our local activists are leaders of national organizations. By current standards, that earns us the reputation as a “Union Town.”
Each January the Fed publishes a list of accomplishments over the past year. It’s impressive. It includes mobilizing in support of struggling unions, educational events and electoral victories. No doubt, the working people in the Madison area are better off because of some of those accomplishments.
Yet, if we’re as good as it gets, why do we keep losing? Contract battles, political action and organizing…across the board. And if we’re doing what we do well and still keep losing, it seems that we must be doing the wrong things.
I always thought that a forward-looking movement would want to focus on urgent work that still needs to be done. Perhaps, in addition to publishing a list of accomplishments, we should be publishing an annual list of Un-accomplishments.
Such a list would, of course, draw fire. It would imply criticism of organizations and their leadership. It would come off as “negative” and the compiler might be castigated for airing dirty laundry and undermining the labor movement.
So be it. In this and the next two edition of LaborLeft we will lay out a list of Un-accomplishments in this Union Town, obviously not as an effort to undermine unions, but as a way to focus our attention on the urgent work to be done. And, while this list is specific to Madison, Wisconsin, we suspect that a similar list could be compiled anywhere in the country.
But the goal here is to build a more militant labor movement. So, in upcoming posts we will offer alternatives to business (unionism) as usual. More importantly, this is a forum so that you and other unionists can weigh in on the issues. It’s an opportunity and a challenge. For, if there’s a solution to our current state of affairs, it will come from people like you.
In this first article we will discuss recent contract settlements. The next will focus on organizing. The final article in the series will consider political action.
The Slow Slide
Madison city teachers, represented by an NEA local, recently settled for a 1 percent a year raise. Last winter local Steelworkers settled with Goodyear for a 2-tier wage and benefit structure and the loss of unionized jobs.
In 2004, members of UFCW Local 538 accepted a contract with Tyson Foods that froze wages, set up a 2-tier system and cut benefits. The “agreement” came just short of the first anniversary of a bitter strike when, under the law, scabs could have voted to decertify the union.
IBEW Local 2304, perhaps one of the better-run unions in the area, recently settled with Madison Gas and Electric for a modest wage increase and a 2-tier retirement system.
Madison is the home of a large number of state employees, represented by AFSCME, AFT, SEIU, Building Trades and a host of unaffiliated unions. We did relatively well in the most recent contract, averaging about 9 percent over two years. Of course, it was an election year, so we expected no less. But this comes after the previous contract that saw a first year wage freeze, a 1 percent raise in the second year and a huge increase in out-of-pocket health insurance costs. All things taken into account, average real wages for state employees went down by about 8 percent over the past four years.
Obviously, if we didn't have unions, the cuts would have been sudden and more severe. Indeed, without unions, we wouldn't have had decent wages and benefits to cut. But, there's no denying the fact that the general trend is in the wrong direction.
Ironically, some of the bright spots were among non-union workers. Under pressure from unions and radical students, many hourly workers at the University of Wisconsin got a “living wage” raise and many “limited term” jobs were converted to permanent unionized jobs. And one of the largest janitorial firms in the city and a large commercial laundry gave modest raises to their workers as “fix-ups” to undercut union organizing campaigns.
The Quality of the Fight
So, on average, the standard of living for unionized workers in this Union Town continues to slide. But it would be incorrect to say workers accepted concessions without a fight.
The Steelworkers struck Goodyear for 12 weeks. Tyson workers held out for almost a year. IBEW organized large informational picket lines and publicly embarrassed MG&E management. Many state employee locals worked without a new contract for two years during which time Teaching Assistants went on strike and a militant rank-and-file coalition organized a number of creative events to embarrass the Governor.
Union members proved they were ready and willing to fight concessions. The problem is that the tactics and strategies they used just didn’t work.
Several hundred Steelworkers and supporters from other unions massed on the picket lines in front of the Goodyear plant. A lone cop stood at the side of the gate while union marshals escorted scabs across the line. When some of us got a little aggressive in front of scab cars, union officials warned us off. I was told, “We don’t want bad publicity or an injunction.” Throughout the strike, the union engaged in protectionist China-bashing, as though Chinese workers somehow were responsible for their plight. Meanwhile, Goodyear kept up limited scab production while strike benefits stretched thin and insurance ran out.
Area unions organized mass support for the beleaguered Tyson strikers. There were huge rallies at the plant gate on Sundays, when the plant was closed. Come Monday morning, the picket lines were thinned and union officials made sure that scabs could get in to take their members’ jobs. There was a feeble attempt at a boycott of Tyson products. But the union wasn’t even able to compile a list of items to be boycotted. At one point we were told to buy Hormel products instead, an ironic reminder for those of us who organized support for the bitter strike against that company in 1984. Meanwhile, Tyson kept up scab production as the 1-year anniversary approached.
Officials of the state employee and teachers’ unions never utter the S-word. It’s illegal for government employees to strike in Wisconsin. This, although there was a massive and effective (and illegal) strike led by AFSCME Council 24 in 1977 and several short strikes by Teaching Assistants at the University of Wisconsin over the years. The TAs struck again in opposition to the zero/1 proposal and a coalition of rank-and-file activists pulled off several direct actions. But the official public employee union strategy seems to be to hold out for a long time and then accept whatever the employer chooses to offer us.
To add insult to injury, shortly after having the zero/1 and increased health insurance costs contract rammed down our collective throat, state employees began getting mailings and automated phone calls from our union urging us to support the re-election of the “friend of labor” Governor.
The point is: many unionists in our area are ready to fight back to stop our sliding standard of living. But what we are doing simply doesn’t work.
It’s not enough to just criticize the status quo. Starting next month, LaborLeft will begin a series entitled How to Win Strikes. Watch for it.
In the meantime, this is a forum. So weigh in on the issues raised here by clicking on “comments” at the end of this article. Click on the envelope icon to send this to a fellow union activist.
In solidarity,
Ron Blascoe
Steward, AFT 4848
Each January the Fed publishes a list of accomplishments over the past year. It’s impressive. It includes mobilizing in support of struggling unions, educational events and electoral victories. No doubt, the working people in the Madison area are better off because of some of those accomplishments.
Yet, if we’re as good as it gets, why do we keep losing? Contract battles, political action and organizing…across the board. And if we’re doing what we do well and still keep losing, it seems that we must be doing the wrong things.
I always thought that a forward-looking movement would want to focus on urgent work that still needs to be done. Perhaps, in addition to publishing a list of accomplishments, we should be publishing an annual list of Un-accomplishments.
Such a list would, of course, draw fire. It would imply criticism of organizations and their leadership. It would come off as “negative” and the compiler might be castigated for airing dirty laundry and undermining the labor movement.
So be it. In this and the next two edition of LaborLeft we will lay out a list of Un-accomplishments in this Union Town, obviously not as an effort to undermine unions, but as a way to focus our attention on the urgent work to be done. And, while this list is specific to Madison, Wisconsin, we suspect that a similar list could be compiled anywhere in the country.
But the goal here is to build a more militant labor movement. So, in upcoming posts we will offer alternatives to business (unionism) as usual. More importantly, this is a forum so that you and other unionists can weigh in on the issues. It’s an opportunity and a challenge. For, if there’s a solution to our current state of affairs, it will come from people like you.
In this first article we will discuss recent contract settlements. The next will focus on organizing. The final article in the series will consider political action.
The Slow Slide
Madison city teachers, represented by an NEA local, recently settled for a 1 percent a year raise. Last winter local Steelworkers settled with Goodyear for a 2-tier wage and benefit structure and the loss of unionized jobs.
In 2004, members of UFCW Local 538 accepted a contract with Tyson Foods that froze wages, set up a 2-tier system and cut benefits. The “agreement” came just short of the first anniversary of a bitter strike when, under the law, scabs could have voted to decertify the union.
IBEW Local 2304, perhaps one of the better-run unions in the area, recently settled with Madison Gas and Electric for a modest wage increase and a 2-tier retirement system.
Madison is the home of a large number of state employees, represented by AFSCME, AFT, SEIU, Building Trades and a host of unaffiliated unions. We did relatively well in the most recent contract, averaging about 9 percent over two years. Of course, it was an election year, so we expected no less. But this comes after the previous contract that saw a first year wage freeze, a 1 percent raise in the second year and a huge increase in out-of-pocket health insurance costs. All things taken into account, average real wages for state employees went down by about 8 percent over the past four years.
Obviously, if we didn't have unions, the cuts would have been sudden and more severe. Indeed, without unions, we wouldn't have had decent wages and benefits to cut. But, there's no denying the fact that the general trend is in the wrong direction.
Ironically, some of the bright spots were among non-union workers. Under pressure from unions and radical students, many hourly workers at the University of Wisconsin got a “living wage” raise and many “limited term” jobs were converted to permanent unionized jobs. And one of the largest janitorial firms in the city and a large commercial laundry gave modest raises to their workers as “fix-ups” to undercut union organizing campaigns.
The Quality of the Fight
So, on average, the standard of living for unionized workers in this Union Town continues to slide. But it would be incorrect to say workers accepted concessions without a fight.
The Steelworkers struck Goodyear for 12 weeks. Tyson workers held out for almost a year. IBEW organized large informational picket lines and publicly embarrassed MG&E management. Many state employee locals worked without a new contract for two years during which time Teaching Assistants went on strike and a militant rank-and-file coalition organized a number of creative events to embarrass the Governor.
Union members proved they were ready and willing to fight concessions. The problem is that the tactics and strategies they used just didn’t work.
Several hundred Steelworkers and supporters from other unions massed on the picket lines in front of the Goodyear plant. A lone cop stood at the side of the gate while union marshals escorted scabs across the line. When some of us got a little aggressive in front of scab cars, union officials warned us off. I was told, “We don’t want bad publicity or an injunction.” Throughout the strike, the union engaged in protectionist China-bashing, as though Chinese workers somehow were responsible for their plight. Meanwhile, Goodyear kept up limited scab production while strike benefits stretched thin and insurance ran out.
Area unions organized mass support for the beleaguered Tyson strikers. There were huge rallies at the plant gate on Sundays, when the plant was closed. Come Monday morning, the picket lines were thinned and union officials made sure that scabs could get in to take their members’ jobs. There was a feeble attempt at a boycott of Tyson products. But the union wasn’t even able to compile a list of items to be boycotted. At one point we were told to buy Hormel products instead, an ironic reminder for those of us who organized support for the bitter strike against that company in 1984. Meanwhile, Tyson kept up scab production as the 1-year anniversary approached.
Officials of the state employee and teachers’ unions never utter the S-word. It’s illegal for government employees to strike in Wisconsin. This, although there was a massive and effective (and illegal) strike led by AFSCME Council 24 in 1977 and several short strikes by Teaching Assistants at the University of Wisconsin over the years. The TAs struck again in opposition to the zero/1 proposal and a coalition of rank-and-file activists pulled off several direct actions. But the official public employee union strategy seems to be to hold out for a long time and then accept whatever the employer chooses to offer us.
To add insult to injury, shortly after having the zero/1 and increased health insurance costs contract rammed down our collective throat, state employees began getting mailings and automated phone calls from our union urging us to support the re-election of the “friend of labor” Governor.
The point is: many unionists in our area are ready to fight back to stop our sliding standard of living. But what we are doing simply doesn’t work.
It’s not enough to just criticize the status quo. Starting next month, LaborLeft will begin a series entitled How to Win Strikes. Watch for it.
In the meantime, this is a forum. So weigh in on the issues raised here by clicking on “comments” at the end of this article. Click on the envelope icon to send this to a fellow union activist.
In solidarity,
Ron Blascoe
Steward, AFT 4848
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)