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

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

"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."

And people think that Blascoe can't see the bright side of things.

First of all, thank you Ron for putting this forum together. I think we really have the potential to have a broad and democratic conversation about movement building and bringing the union forward.

Second, I think it is spot-on for us to look at our strengths and wonder at our losses. Certainly, the loss at Tyson and a lot of the private sector concession-driven bargaining can be blamed on radically anti-worker federal law, and MTI is stuck with the QEO while state employees have had to deal with a rabidly anti-union Republican Legislature and a Democratic Governor who used us as political whipping boys for his entire first term. The problem with looking for blame with these unjust structures is that it doesn't give us the opportunity to figure out what else we can be doing to win despite them. I certainly don't think it's defeatist to ask what additional tactics we can deploy to strengthen ourselves as workers and I certainly don't think it minimizes our wins to review our losses as well.

So, I guess I should come up with some concrete suggestions for new strategies and tactics to do those great things I just wrote about. Here is a VERY rough list that I hope lots of other people will rip apart and flesh out:

1. Recruit! Let's work on getting new bodies at SCFL and at our own union meetings. The more members we get to attend events increases our pool of potential new leadership and new ideas.

2. Organize (Internal)! OK, so very similar, but let's come up with new ways to get our existing members educated and agitated and taking charge of the conditions of their employment. Combine low-level activism with every grievance by getting everyone in the shop to wear a themed button the day it's filed or have a really short rally before the shift starts to show that it's not some pesky steward, it's the entire workforce.

3. Organize (external)! Let's look at the shops and industries here in town that are ripe for unionization (or in desperate need) and go after them. Let's have conversations at SCFL and in our own locals about how to do this in a coordinated fashion. Let's have part of that conversation include the possibility of raising union dues or SCFL per caps to ensure that we have the resources we need to implement a strategy.

So, that's pretty vague still, so everybody go at it and come up with better, more detailed and more workable ideas.

Solidarity,

Mike Quieto

Anonymous said...

I'll echo Mike and thank Ron for initiating what, hopefully, will be a great opportunity to help rejeuvenize the labor movement here in Madison.

And I also think that Ron started us off on the right (or left) foot by pointing out some of our many weaknesses and losses. As Marx once said, we must begin with a 'ruthless criticism of everything in existence'.

I agree with Mike to a certain extent. I would say that while we need to develop strategies that will allow the working class to wrangle concessions from employers at this point in history, it is AS important to point out the structural impediments to working class democracy.

What I have found is that even the more 'progressive' union activists think that a Dennis Kucinich type will save them - a patently unwarranted assumption. The less progressive types would tie their fortunes to any Democratic candidate - candidates who have, despite our ability to elect them, sold us out at every opportunity.

Ultimately, every struggle of the working class is a political struggle; Unions, as such, are then not a totalizing answer, but a piece of a much broader process by which workers must take power themselves, as opposed to farming such responsibilities out to rich, white men. They are but one tool in a vast arsenal of weapons which working people have at their disposal. And if we fail to build a movement which understands that the halls of power do not, have not, and will not look out for our interests, then we will continue to lose....and lose.....and lose.

I think that Mike's suggestions are great ones. I would like to suggest that we take this issue even further. I think we have to start by recognizing two, fundamental truths.

First, that many Unions have devolved into degenerate organizations ruled as fiefdoms by an internal bureaucratic elite. My own experiences at SEIU 1199 Wisconsin has driven this point home in a way that will never allow me to forget.

While there are notable and bright exceptions, Union leaders are in the main divorced from the reality of workers. This leads to a model of unionism typified by SEIU at both the local and national levels - these are glorified company unions that the National Manufacturers Association fought tooth and nail to retain in the early 20th century. This is what we've become.

Second, that the problems which Unions are facing are not simply the problems of Unions, but of the entire working class - represented and non-represented workers. If we really are invested in building a future in which working class people control their own destinies, then we must be willing to begin working outside of unions, as well. We have to go where workers are at; and unfortunately, most workers are not in Unions.

Should we organize; absolutely. Should we consolidate represented workers internally; no doubt. We also need to recognize, however, that the vast majority of workers will not be reached simply by working within Unions.

This being said, however, I would like to devote time, to the first point as this is intended to be a conversation on how to revitalize organized labor here in Madison.

1. The problem with Unions is the leadership, not the workers.

We should focus on setting the example as stewards, rank and file activists, etc. If we actively, vocally, and approachably advocate for what is in our interests. Bad leadership will discredit itself if they are forced to explain a backroom deal, etc.

Unfortunately, I have to run; I will finish this up later, but hope that this will serve as a positive first contribution.

In Solidarity,
Chrisitan Hainds

The Marquister said...

Echoing Mike and Christian, many thanks for setting this up Ron and spreading the word.

I'll weigh in with just a few quick thoughts. You mentioned the fact that strikes are becoming less effective and that we as unions hold out for a long time and then often end up accepting what management was offering all along or a minor improvement on it. In my view, for a strike to be effective, it must be better organized and have a greater impact on management and corporate structure than the relatively minor effect of picketing. Solidarity during strikes is important not only in the striking union and within the community via picketing, but other locals and unions MUST NOT do business with the corporation or management while a strike is on going. I haven't seen enough of this kind of solidarity and part of the blame does go to leadership. But a much larger factor is tied up with the union culture in our area, state, and nation. There is an extreme lack of education relating to unions, strikes, and the benefits of working a union job in schools.

I grew up in Wisconsin and went to public grade, middle and high schools. There was basically no curriculum focusing on the importance of unions, and what they have achieved socially, politically, culturally, and on the job. Most mentions of unions came only when there was a a particularly violent strike. So, of course the unconscious tendency is to associate unions with violence then.

I believe incorporating a strong curriculum focusing on the history and accomplishments (and weaknesses) of the labor movement in K-12 should be a major goal of the labor movement. Not only will it have some immediate impact via kids talking to their parents about what they learned in school, but it will also stave off the decline of the union movement and almost certainly strengthen it over the next 20 years.

Sorry, not my best writing effort, but its been a long week.

-Mark Supanich
TAA

Anonymous said...

This is an important effort and I feel we must organize outside of the unions and the Democratic Party. Both have broken my heart. As an activist in my local and chief steward I faced the cowardice of my fellow leaders at our convention. Having served on the bargaining support committee I could tell we need to strike but they would not even give me a chance to explain my reasoning.

Then I ran for Governor as a labor activist. Who did my federation and international support? The guy who is laying us off and contracting out our future.

Please consider joining the Four Lakes Green Party, which will never take a corporate bribe. We stand on principles that are not negotiable. The country is ripe for a new party that treats everyone fairly, is devoted to peace, environmental sanity, social justice, including living wages, universal health care and all other good values.

Join us at:http://www.fourlakesgreenparty.org/

Anonymous said...

Much thanks for organizing this page. Such an internal discussion within the movement is long overdue.

I think one of the major issues here is risk; this plays into the tactics used by bosses to union bust and force compromise contracts, and by politicians to further strip away labor rights. Let's face it, most people aren't prepared to head into battle, they have mouths to feed at home and need the job, no matter how shitty the wages are. But in this case, wouldn't it be worth it to risk a little to gain higher wages?

My current experience with labor is in Oaxaca, Mexico, where last year the teachers' union went on strike, camping out in the public square for a month and a half until they were attacked by police. Those who were at home heard the call for help, and the entire group was instantly mobilized to physically fight away the police. Then they continued to sleep in the square for the next several months.

This union, the SNTE has its own colorful past. In the 60s and 70s, in the face of clear corruption (the union heads were appointed by the one-party government) the teachers rose up to demand democratic change, especially the statewide section in Oaxaca. Even now, when the state president goes against the wishes of the base, he is physically confronted by flying chairs. Graffiti calling him a traitor can be found on the inside walls of the union hall.

So what is my point? Clearly other models exist which we can build upon and examine. One obvious solution to this problem is militance. It exists in certain sectors in Madison, but in general isn't strong enough anywhere. But what can be done to change that?

- John Bruning, SLAC

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Labor Left Manifesto said...

I removed a recent comment because it contained an attack on two individuals. Let's try to keep comments focused on issues.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"Anonymous," in response to having a comment deleted, posted:

If we cannot name our enemy, why talk at all?

update: while editing this post, anonymous' second post was deleted

I would respectfully propose that if we are to engage in criticism of our union brothers and sisters, that we should follow a few simple guidelines:

1. Never criticize someone by name in an anonymous post.

2. Never engage in personal attack, invective or hyperbole (such as calling our brothers "enemies" who "do more to hurt working people than WMC.")

3. Always provide specific actions, policies, decisions, strategies, votes, etc that can be critiqued on their own merits or lack thereof.

4. Try to assume the best possible interpretation of events and facts as well as assuming each others' best motives when criticizing one another.

As labor folks, we are not immune to making bad decisions or engaging in poor strategy (in fact, sometimes we excel at it). When I screw something up, I want my sisters and brothers to explain why they disagree so that I can be a better educated and more effective unionist. If we are to fruitfully correct one another and help each other learn how to be better activists and leaders, we need to engage in such criticism respectfully and in a spirit of solidarity.

Solidarity,

Mike Quieto
on lunch break, not on the clock, the site seems to be assuming I'm in a different time zone when I post

Labor Left Manifesto said...

Thanks, Mike. (I gotta figure out how to fix that clock thing.)

I axed the last comment again because it attacked two individuals who are active in the local labor movement by name.

We need some discusson of the rules for this site.

The zapped comments named two individuals and labled them our "enemies." One suggested they should be "retired." Neither explained what is was that they did to deserve the label. Both were anonymous.

Here's my take: Maybe these guys are "enemies," as the comment said. (Given our histories, it's ironic that I should be coming to their defense!) But, if they are the enemies of the working class, it's because of what they represent and what they do. It seems appropriate--essential--that we talk about that.

We'd be better off, it seems to me, with a descriptive label, like "Democratic Party hacks who put the interests of the DP ahead of the interests of the working class." Now that doesn't name them--it doesn't have to--and it makes the point in a way that is more useful to anyone who isn't a regular at Fed meetings.

So, how about a comment explaining what these guys have done that has hurt our cause and, maybe, what we might do about it?

I certainly don't want to be in the role of the censor of the local labor movement. So, does anyone else have some ideas on this?

~~Ron

Anonymous said...

What if we could go even "nicer" and say that if you disagree with these folks, it's not that they are "Democratic Party hacks who put the interests of the DP ahead of the interests of the working class" but rather that they believe that supporting the interests of the DP is in the best interests of organized labor. Then you could go on to explain why you feel that that's the wrong strategy

That way we can debate the ideas without getting into the personalities at all and without questioning the motives of others. I'm sure you have plenty of good reasons to disagree with the electoral strategy without needing to prove malice on the part of fellow unionists.

And how is it again that Ron and I are the lead defenders on this one?

Anonymous said...

Hello fellow lefties,
I want to start by thanking the creators of this blog. A friend of mine sent this link to me and from the moment I read the first line of the Manifesto I wanted to be involved. I am a member of the International Socialist Organization in Madison and we publish the Socialist Worker newspaper that I am very glad to see linked to this blog. I am glad to see that McCarthy is truly dead. We have several members in SCFL and I write to express my full support and the support of our membership in the aims of this blog. I too wish to dedicate my efforts to rebuilding a fighting left tradition of the working class not seen for some time in this country. I feel that we must do this if we will ever see the living conditions of workers improve and that the time to start is now. In the United States we have seen more than 30 years of working class defeats and the steady drop in real wages that comes with it. It is time to reverse this trend and I am glad to see that we all agree. The next step then is to figure out how. I see that a debate of sorts has started about the role of the Democrat Party and organized labor. I must say that I feel the same way about that party as I do about most labor bureaucrats. The corporate fat cats have much more influence over all politicians than you or I at this point so I think that it is in our interest to organize independently. We should not limit our debate and strategies to what corrupt officials don’t mind, it won’t be enough to win and it is part of what got us into this shit in the first place. We have to start fighting.
Socialists fight in every struggle they possible can for things that benefit the working class as a whole and we pay attention to what is going on in the big picture so we can fight more effectively. A recent development has opened up a pillar of struggle in the entire country around the issue of affordable healthcare. As most of you probably know healthcare is a huge burden for many Americans. We see this as a result of the healthcare system being run the way it is, by putting profits before people. Recent estimates state that 50 million have no coverage at all with another 50 million having pathetic coverage plans that are grossly inadequate. The point is that a lot of collective frustration has been built up that awaits a spark. This spark may have just happened in the form of Michael Moore’s Sicko. This movie lays bare the disgusting practices of wealthcare firms forbidding coverage of many people at their time of need just to save money. It has just brought this issue to the foreground and people across the country are interested in doing something about it. Here in Madison, we leafleted outside of Sicko showings and brought 80 people to a meeting about healthcare aimed at discussing how we can fix it. At a second meeting we planned to organize a set of rallies at the state capital demanding the passage of Healthy Wisconsin. This bill would guarantee coverage for everyone in the state regardless of preexisting conditions and employment. We think that this is a step in the right direction to be followed by demanding a single payer, national healthcare plan HR 676 which is similar to plans in virtually all other industrial nations and covers everyone and would reduce cost. This fight is definitely a class issue and a victory would empower everyone who knows about it. The next rally is at the Capital Rotunda (the center part of the building where the tree is) from 5pm to 7pm on Monday July 30th. It will be a speak out with people telling healthcare horror stories and demanding change. Bring others so we can make a big impact and shake things up a bit. History tells us that mass working class struggle is the only thing brings progress and it starts right here right now.
Solidarity,
Your comrades in the ISO.

Anonymous said...

Mike and Ron,

What is your take on the upcoming AFT election? I understand that the 'factions' are battling it out. Who do you think is going to come out on top? Just curious.

Christian Hainds

fluff said...

Now and then when people talk about
organizing they invoke SCFL and getting more delegates to the meetings and so on. I'm not sure that
the structure of SCFL is exactly the ideal for that. Should we be looking to create a meta-structure above SCFL instead, strictly for organizing and strictly independent of any international?

SCFL is an aflcio institution limited to whatever policies come from aflcio; unions can and do get barred from being involved in aflcio operations and directives can and do come _down_ from aflcio and via its affiliates about what can be done in its opinion.

Secondly I'm not convinced central labor council coverage is that good. A labor council is not every
union in that area and most importantly not every union that _could_ be in that area but it isn't [yet]. It's instead every aflcio union that cared to join that labor council, right? (Altho I have heard that now non-union organizations can join labor councils, which actually might not be viewed as a plus in some cases.) And there are many unions that are not affiliated with AFLCIO, NEA being a very large one. Locally the minority union WUU http://www.wuu.info/ which is
a union primarily dedicated to a membership self-insurance legal fund is affliated with no other union. (If they were they'd not have any money. That's my point!)

I think this is important because I personally think the future of unionization is to start minority unions and build up from that. It is not feasible to build a minority union and pay percaps to a typical east coast based high percap union. What presumably flew ok in a high wage state like New York does not fly even half an inch here. I'll say it again: people who do not have collective bargaining and do not have a critical mass of influence in their wage sector now, and most importantly are not happy with their current wages and job satisfaction and that's why they'd like to form a union (hugely well-off employees rarely care to rock their boat) are by definition, not making enough money to pay percaps set in the most unionized state in the US, New York. The system of pay all kinds of money to the national union and then beg to get a portion back for organizing locally is a completely infeasible construct.

Anonymous said...

One reason we keep on losing is because of the presence of so many worthless (or worse) business/company unions such as OPEIU Local 39.