|
|
  |
A
Proposal for a 21st Century Trade Union Education League An
attempt to solve the current crisis of organizing the
unorganized Judy
Atkins,Past President, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America
(UE), District 2 David
Cohen, International Representative, United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America (UE) As
published in WorkingUSA Winter 2003-4 Please
send comments or criticisms to davidjc@comcast.net How
do we increase the ranks of the labor movement? Countless articles by
activists in the labor movement have been posing this question for at least the
last decade. The total number
of union members is rapidly shrinking, now down to 13.6% of the total workforce
1 and the political establishment of Republicans is hell bent on destroying
organized labor while the Democrats sit silently by, doing absolutely nothing.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under the ideological leadership of
the Republicans for the last 20 years has transformed the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA) into an impediment to organizing, allowing an estimated 4%
of all workers who attempt to organize into unions to be fired by their
employers. 2 Employer
terror and harassment effectively end 50% of all union organization attempts
before they ever get to an election. Employer
tactics which are common now, but were illegal when the NLRA was passed, cause
unions to lose 49% of union elections that do go to an NLRB supervised
election.3 When
the NLRA was first passed there were strict limitations placed upon employer
conduct during the election period. Since it was assumed that the right to
decide on whether or not to have a union was the employees’ choice, employers
were limited to one letter that could be given to employees stating the employer
objections to a union. Of course in real life there was much more that went on
behind the scenes, but much of the anti-union propaganda was done by
pro-employer workers. What tactics can employers now use? First and foremost are
“captive audience meetings”, that is, employer run meetings that are
mandatory for employees where workers are subjected to anti-union movies, slide
shows, lectures etc. The NLRB reasons that if the employer is paying employees
they can make employees sit through these meetings. Their
rational is also based upon Supreme Court rulings, dating back to the 1880’s
that declared corporations to be “persons” in the eyes of the law, and
therefore the government, in the form of the NLRB, cannot deny corporations
(people) their right to free speech. Employers
can declare that no employees may speak their opinions and ideas and under
threat of discipline silence pro-union employees. What about the employees’
rights to free speech? As many anti-union consultants point out, the
Constitution only applies to the government abridging the right of free speech,
not corporations. They also can keep out pro-union employees from these meetings
if they so desire. Although the
NLRB says employers cannot interrogate employees about their union position,
once an employee begins talking about the subject, then anything goes. Foremen
are trained to get employees into conversations, one on one, and then make
threats and innuendos.4 The
NLRB has also ruled that employer lies are to be expected, as long as there is
enough time for the union to answer. The NLRB says an employer may not threaten
to shut down their facility if the workers vote for a union, but they may say if
a union makes outrageous demands on them they will be forced to close their
facility. For workers the effect is the same, if they vote for the union the
employer threatens to close the business. Place this threat in the context of
massive job loss to Mexico with the advent of NAFTA, and there is a credible
threat, which is perfectly legal under current NLRB rules.
Since
the NLRA does not mandate that employers bargain with a union to the end result
of a union contract, only 50% of union elections that are won by unions ever
result in a union contract. Employers make good use of this fact and frequently
tell workers during the election process that they will bargain fairly but since
they are not required to give anything, the union will have to go on strike to
get anything and that the employer will replace all strikers with scabs. This
too is an effective deterrent to workers who wish to exercise their democratic
rights to have a union. Employers
and their political allies have succeeded in turning the NLRB from a mechanism
whereby workers could decide amongst themselves on whether or not they would
form a union into an impediment to that process. As a result, many in the labor
movement have begun to investigate and experiment in ways to form unions without
going through the NLRB process. We
expect that the readers of this article are well aware of the plight that the
labor movement finds itself in these days, so we will not spend time on the
recitation of familiar facts. The
purpose of this article is to address two parts of the problems we face. 1)
How do we begin to organize in a broader “more massive” manner and so
that, while organizers may use the NLRB, they are not bound to it. 2)
How do we ensure that this form of organizing will result in workers
forming unions that are democratic member run organizations? We
also realize that many in the labor movement will agree on point one but do not
agree with the necessity of point two. We
however see them as inseparable. We
propose as part of the solution the task of building committees of workers who
will establish local unions that are committed to engaging the boss in struggles
to improve the workers wages, hours and conditions of employment. These
committees will not wait until there is an NLRB certified majority but will
begin the struggle when they can. The
very nature of such a struggle builds a basis for democratic unionism because it
is the workers themselves who will make the decisions of when and how to engage
the employer. While this does not guarantee democratic unionism it lays a good
foundation. The goal of these committees will be to win, through practice, a
majority of workers to be a part of a democratic fighting union. The next goal
will be to win recognition and a contract from the employer. This can be done
outside the NLRB or using the NLRB procedures from a position of strength. We
see this form laying the organizational basis for mass organizing in the future,
just as the TUEL in the 1920’s laid a basis for the mass organizing in the
1930’s. What
Was The Tuel And Why Does It Matter? The
Trade Union Educational League was an organization of militant left wing workers
that was formed in the early 1920’s and led by William Z. Foster, the
organizer of the 1919 Steel Strike and the 1917 packinghouse workers strike.
The purpose of the TUEL was to fight within the AFL for more progressive
politics, labor unity (transforming craft unions in the same industry into
single industrial unions) and to build union organization in industries where
there were none or the AFL unions were hopelessly corrupt. The
history of the TUEL led directly to the mass organizing of the CIO in the
1930’s. In most industries it was
workers who were schooled in organizing throughout the 1920’s by the TUEL that
became the core for organizing the CIO unions. Local unions started by the TUEL
in major industries such as electrical, radio, machining, farm equipment, auto,
the needle trades & rubber became the founding local unions of the United
Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America, UE; the United Auto Workers,
UAW, the Farm Equipment Workers, the United Rubber Workers among others.
These workers were schooled in the TUEL philosophy of organizing all
workers into industrial unions, which meant black and white workers in the same
locals, skilled and unskilled in the same local, men and woman, English speaking
and non-english speaking all fighting together.5 Writing
in 1925 William Z Foster said; “The
organization of the unorganized millions of workers is primarily the task of the
left wing. There is no other section of the labor movement possessing the
necessary courage, energy, and understanding to carry through this basic work.
This is a prime lesson that TUEL militants must understand. The left wing
alone has a realization of the organization of the unorganized. It speaks
primarily in the name of the unskilled and semi-skilled who make up the mass on
the outside of the unions, and it habitually leads a militant struggle to
unionize them. It is the champion of industrial unionism and the labor party,
the fate of both of which is bound up in the general question of organizing the
unorganized. It realizes that only
when the great masses are mobilized in the unions can effective assaults be made
against capitalism. Hence, it is the life of every organizing campaign, and it
must be such, whether these campaigns are carried on through the new medium of
the existing trade unions, or by the launching of new organizations.”6 Many
current writers have raised the historical example of the TUEL because we appear
to be in a similar period as the 1920’s, i.e. a declining number of union
members, and severe corporate and governmental opposition to unions.
There are of course many differences which are fundamental, such as the
greater global reach of capitalism and the existence of the NLRA. These changes
in the nature of capitalism create some problems for a 21st century TUEL.
Capital is more mobile, factories open and close. It is rare today to find
workers who spend 30 years in the same workplace. The
establishment of TUEL affiliated local unions was very much an ebb and flow
situation. When there were
important workplace issues the membership would swell and battles for higher
wages or better working conditions would erupt. In other times the membership
would be reduced to the hard core of committed activists, usually those with
working class political views, socialists, communists or anarchists. They
provided the grounding and core that kept the unions alive. How
would a modern TUEL act in workplaces? In
making these proposals and/or observations we are not creating them out of thin
air. There has been experimentation in this kind of organizing going on for the
last decade or more by various unions. The Communication Workers of America has
been building committees of workers within IBM Corporation during this period.
Our experience comes from the UE and its efforts to organize plastic
workers in the early 1990’s, and in building a union of public employees in
North Carolina where unions for public employees are illegal. The
UE experiences in plastics. After
the recessions of the 1980’s and the massive industrial restructuring that
went along with it, the UE leadership began to look intensively at new
organizing targets and methods. The
UE method of organizing had always been grounded in trying to first build a
union that fought on issues and then proceed with an NLRB election. Even with
this tradition it was apparent that something more was needed in the face of an
NLRB that allowed corporations to use any means possible to defeat unions, and
labor law that grants to corporations the right of free speech and association
during organizing campaigns, while denying these rights to workers.
This coupled with the massive job loss in traditional UE industries, such
as machine tools, cutting tools, machining, and electrical appliances forced
this re-examination. One
of the industries that Ed Bruno, UE Director of Organization, targeted was the
plastics industry. Plastic components were replacing many parts that were
previously made out of metal and machined in UE represented shops. It was a
growing industry and was situated in many areas that had a UE presence.
A key part of the plan was to build Plastic Worker Organizing Committees
(PWOC’s) in as many plastic shops in key concentrations as possible. These
PWOC’s would fight on issues, be membership based (it cost $1.00 to join the
PWOC)and lead the fight for union recognition. They would not only be factory
based but would meet on a regional or city wide basis to plan common struggles
amongst workers in different factories and to provide a larger support base for
the workers. One aspect of the plastic industry was that there were no 5000
worker factories. A large plastic shop had 500 workers, with most around 100. From
1989 to 1993 the PWOC’s recruited several thousand members. There were 12-15
regional PWOC committees formed. There were 3 national PWOC meetings held at the
UE office in Pittsburgh. There were elected delegates from the regional PWOC’s
and from established UE Locals in the plastics industry. Campaigns
were launched around the fight for single-payer health insurance, a dollar an
hour wage increase, and on health and safety issues. During the $1.00 per hour
campaign we were able to identify close to 100 factories that gave workers pay
raises in direct response to this campaign. During
this period UE developed the tactic of holding community elections to prove the
unions had majority status and to try to force employer recognition.
When a PWOC in a given factory had achieved majority status, through
actual membership or other open displays of support, the PWOC committee would
demand recognition. This was always refused by the employers. Next the committee
would ask the employer to take part in a “community run election”.
This simply meant that some outside neutral party would conduct a secret
ballot election to see if there was a union majority. The advantage to the union
was that a quickly held election eliminated the 4-6 months of legal maneuvering
via the NLRB that usually went on while the workers were threatened and
terrorized. Most employers refused to take part, though not all. When
an employer refused to take part the UE would arrange for the election to happen
anyhow. A local figure would run the election. In some elections we had well
known religious figures run the election, elected officials and even a police
chief in one small town. A table would be set up outside the factory with a
voting booth and the official presiding would have a list of all eligible
voters. In all aspects these election were run as tightly as an NLRB election.
The results were similar in most cases, when union elections were run
free from pressure and terror, the union won overwhelmingly. It was UE policy to
encourage the NO votes to take part in the election as a unanimous vote seemed
to most people to be unrealistic. We also want those workers who were opposed to
the union to be a part of the democratic union process. In
some cases based upon the community election the workers would then strike for
recognition. This ran into problems as the employers would then petition the
NLRB for an election. In
most cases after the community election the union would petition for an NLRB
election. The effect of the community election was to change the parameters of
the NLRB election. We were no longer taking part to see if we had a majority,
but taking part of the NLRB process to defend the union which the majority had
already been proven. A small edge
when faced with the anti-union campaigns that employers would then put on, but
it often times proved to be the winning component. At
OEM, a plastic factory in Erie the community election provided the edge the
union needed to get through the NLRB election.
This was a shop of about 150 workers, who came to the UE after the
factory was leafleted. A broad committee was formed with every department and
shift being represented. After several months of working with the committee we
felt that time was right, so a delegation of workers went to the boss and
demanded recognition of the union. This of course was refused and then an offer
was made to hold a community election. The management also refused to take part
in this. A local priest agreed to conduct the election. Early one morning,
before workers went into work a table and voting booth was set up at the factory
gates. The priest was supplied with a list of all eligible voters, which was all
production and maintenance workers. The voting then started. The workers,
including those opposed to the union knew that the election would take place
that day. The priest returned before each shift and at the end of the day he
counted the ballots, which showed the union had won with 85% yes votes. Management
continued to refuse to recognize the Union and started a campaign along the
lines of, “If the UE really won that election they shouldn’t be afraid of an
NLRB election.” Management also put out the word that they would agree to a
quick election. The union committee soon felt that we should agree to take part
in the NLRB election, or the union would appear to some people as stalling. Of
course the quickest the NLRB would set up an election was 45 days, so the
workers were then subjected to the usual company anti-union campaign.
In the end the UE again prevailed but by a smaller margin. The staff who
were involved and the committee all felt that it helped to be in a position of
DEFENDING the union that workers already voted yes for, as opposed to voting for
the union under adverse conditions. This
is a very brief overview of the history of the PWOC’s.
What was learned from this? •
Workers could be set into motion inside factories to fight for their
rights and for improvements in wages, hours and working conditions and victories
could be won. As many people would
suspect, employers often times gave in on issues to kill the union movement.
This was successful many times but it did not outweigh the benefits from waging
struggle. •
There was a benefit from bringing workers together from different
unorganized workplaces, there was strength in unity. •
While in the manufacturing setting we could not free ourselves entirely
from the NLRB, the community election approach had great merit. 7 •
This would not be a quick fix, a long term vision was needed, especially
to provide staff support. •
Some of the problem were: some workers committees became cliquish and
they excluded workers form joining and thus were not able to see when changes
were taking place among the other workers. •
Union staff were not always flexible enough in implementing the strategy
and often times missed chances for agitation or for going for an NLRB election. •
The use of Section 7 of the NLRB was important for exerting what little
legal rights workers do have for organizing. (See below for a more detailed
discussion of Section 7). •
It was important to try to establish democratic procedures as soon as
possible, i.e. electing PWOC leaders, voting on departmental stewards, selecting
delegates to meeting, voting on what issues to fight on. All this made the
organization belong to the workers. Was
there ever any tension between elected PWOC leaders and the UE staff? Of Course!
That is life. In only one case did the UE have to intervene. In one
factory it became apparent that some of the PWOC leadership, (who were the first
workers involved) were excluding women and Black workers from participating.
When they would not correct their ways, they were removed from office for
violating the UE constitution.8 There should be built into the 21st century TUEL
a set of principals that stands against racism, sexism and any anti-immigrant
prejudice. In addition some basic principles of democratic structure need to be
adopted, such as yearly elections and no financial gain accruing to elected
officers. •
Through the PWOC effort and efforts at other individual factories it also
appears that it is hard to sustain this effort for longer then several years
without either steady union staff presence (which is expensive) or there must be
workers with a political consciousness that allows them to see their effort as
part of the effort to change the exploitative nature of society itself, and thus
they are motivated for the long haul. What
is needed is a core of TUEL type workers.
Use Of Concerted Activity And Section 7 Of The
NLRB Section
7 of the National Labor Relations Act states; “Employees
shall have the right to self-organization, to form, to join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the
right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8 (a) (3)” Thus
Section 7 is the legal basis for workers taking concerted action against their
employer. “Concerted action” means action taken by more then one worker on
behalf of themselves or other workers. It is the basis for workers wearing
stickers, signing grievances, petitions, striking or walking off the job (under
certain conditions), in short, for workers doing things to make the boss know
they are upset and want changes. The
important concept for us is that Section 7 does not mandate that a union have
majority status, or that there even be an official union. Workers coming
together for “mutual aid or protection” is sufficient enough to place
workers under the protection of Section 7. The one kicker is that the employer
must know about the action and the reason behind the action for workers to come
under Section 7 protection. The courts and the NLRB have through the years put
many restrictions on the use of Section 7, but it remains a vehicle for
struggle. So
we envision that a modern TUEL could take advantage of Section 7 and engage in
struggle with an employer. Will people be fired illegally? YES, but if workers
receive proper training in how to use Section 7, the danger is less. It will
mean that some union or group will have to be ready to help workers pursue NLRB
charges against employers who violate Section 7, and to raise hell with the
employer on behalf of any fired workers. Most unions that don’t cut out when
an organizing drive gets in trouble, are familiar with using the NLRB in these
cases. The problem is, of course, the agonizingly slow process and the fear that
spreads in a workplace as a result of the firing.
Community publicity and support on behalf of the continuing struggle is
necessary. Jobs with Justice in Boston provides some good examples of this kind
of defensive work. Workers’ Centers, such as the one in Barre, Vt., provide an
example of effective and imaginative defense of worker’s rights. In
one factory where there was an active UE committee for several years they had to
use Section 7 in this manner. The employer had a phony grievance procedure in
place. Workers could sign a grievance and then it would proceed through several
steps, with the plant manager having the final say. The UE committee began have
large groups of workers sign grievances. The company finally reacted by changing
the grievance procedure so that only individuals could sign and the foreman had
to “approve” any grievance before it could be filed. The workers among other
things filed charges with the NLRB that this change was done in order to limit
their ability to use concerted activity and it was done to hamper the union
effort. Although it took many
months, the NLRB finally ordered the company to re-institute the previous
grievance procedure and allow for mass grievances. To the workers this was a
good victory. Although
Section 7 provides a current legal basis for these struggles there is an
absolute need to begin these struggles with an expanded view of workers’
rights. Workers need to assert that they have basic, fundamental constitutional
rights to organize to improve their lives. In Erie, Pennsylvania during the PWOC
campaigns an effort was made to organize thousands of workers in 25 different
plastic shops at once. At one point a temporary agency issued a notice to its
employees that they could not join a union. The PWOC organized a march on the
agency and staged a reading of the US Constitution. The Agency caved in under
this general pressure of workers exerting their rights.
What Else Could Workers Use In Their Fight? Laws
in most states provide some protection for workers. It is surprising how many of
these basic laws are violated by employers. TUEL committees can become versed in
these rights and fight to have them enacted. The benefit of this type of action
is that often times victory is assured. The key is to not have just the TUEL
committee involved in taking action, or for them to become jail house lawyers,
but to have many workers involved, with the TUEL committee providing some
leadership based upon knowledge. Here
are some of the State and Federal laws that can be used; • Health and Safety issues either via OSHA or
State health and safety boards •
Workers Compensation •
Laws regulating holidays, •
overtime pay, •
use of surveillance cameras, •
use of lie detector tests • drug testing either under the Department of
Transportation or State laws • State laws on payroll issues, such as when checks
must be issued or garnishing of paychecks •
EEOC rulings on discrimination based upon race, sex and age •
Regulations on 401K deposits •
health insurance coverage •
minimum wage laws •
Maternity coverage and leave from work •
Family Medical Leave Act •
Laws covering break times, clean bathrooms, •
The Americans with Disabilities Act •
The right of employees to access their own personal records In
some states there may be enterprising pro-labor lawyers that put out guides to
workers compensation laws, or pro-worker laws in general. If not it will be up
to unions or other groups to compile this information in a coherent manner so
that TUEL committees can be trained to use these laws in their fights. In
addition, existing Worker’s Rights Boards, usually affiliated with Jobs with
Justice chapters, could be enlisted in these fights. The
other avenue of struggle is in using the employer’s own handbook, their own
rules and regulations as a basis for struggle. Most of these handbooks contain
disclaimers that this is not a contract and can be changed at any time by the
employer. Leading fights against some of these rules or for the equal
enforcement of the rules often times exposes the unjust character of the
handbooks and sets an example as to why a union contract that is binding is
necessary.
Engaging Workers in Political Struggles
Most
unions realize that many of the problems workers face in the United States
cannot be solved contract by contract, workplace by workplace, but must be
addressed politically. TUEL committees should seek to involve workers from their
workplaces in these political struggles. The fight against NAFTA, for single
payer health insurance, for real pension reform, protecting Social Security,
against anti immigrant legislation, for good public education all are issues
that should be taken up. The TUEL needs to create opportunities for workers to
engage in real political action work, not just manning telephones for Democratic
Party candidates who will ignore the labor movement immediately after they are
elected. In fact, it would be important to incorporate the CIO’s principle of
political independence of the working class into this political action work, and
Labor Party style “extra-electoral” political work on these issues. (For
examples, see various UE resolutions on political independence and the Labor
Party)
How the TUEL union could function on a larger scale. There
would need to be some sort of national coordinating committee, NOT to issue
directives and commands but to synthesize the different experiences and to try
to draw some conclusions that would aid other workers in their efforts. What we
propose below seems to make sense, but real life may evolve differently, with
individual unions experimenting with TUEL type organizations and not linking
them with other similar efforts. We
see TUEL committees functioning in their own workplaces but not separated from
the rest of the labor movement. We
would hope that in given geographical areas there would be regional meetings, to
provide a larger base of support for the workers. There
could be sectoral meetings on a national basis, workers in the same industry
getting together to compare notes and plan campaigns. Tied in with this would be
corporate meetings, i.e. workers who work for the same boss getting together.
Some
sort of newspaper or newsletter could link all these different workers together. A
national legal aid committee could exist to provide some legal support and to
work on the key task of planning and setting the stage for challenging the legal
restrictions on workers. We would envision a legal strategy that would go on the
offensive and be geared towards changing the fundamental basis of labor law in
this country.9 There will need to be a strong educational component to the
building of a TUEL. Our experience in the UE is that workers crave education
that gives them basic facts and analysis. It remains true that there is power in
knowledge. In
this age of regional and global trade accords, workers must have an
internationalist outlook, one that says workers in other countries are not our
enemies but multinational corporations that exploit all workers are the enemy.
Sending US workers to meet with their counterparts from other countries will be
invaluable in developing this outlook. There is already a lot of good work being
done in the labor movement in this area, especially the UE/FAT (Frente Autentico
del Trabajo-Authentic Workers Front) organizing alliance, so the TUEL committees
will have good examples to follow.
Unions,the Left and Socialists We
do not see that any blueprint exists for the creation and sustaining of the type
of movement we have been talking about. We have tried to draw some conclusions
based upon our experiences, but we do not endow these conclusions with gospel
authority. There remains much experimentation to be done and if we try, life
itself will provide the lessons we need to learn. We
do see that an effort like this will not succeed without many forces trying to
initiate, sustain, but not own, the resulting committees. There will be a need
for unions with their resources, especially their members to take a leading
role. It is workers already organized in unions who can make contacts in local
workplaces and provide moral, legal and some financial solidarity to these
committees. We
also see the need for the “left” in this country to make this an integral
part of their work. As has been stated before, there is a need for a politically
conscious element amongst the workers to provide a stable core for the
committees. Progressive local organizations that fight for peace, for social
justice, against racist discrimination, for fair and affordable housing, for the
Labor Party, etc. would take up discussions leading to an agreement to
experiment with the implementation of a modern TUEL. These locally based groups
could focus on one or more unorganized workplaces in their area with the goal of
developing contacts and then introducing these contacts to the idea of a modern
TUEL as a tool to fight collectively for grievances in the workplace. We also
project that the rebuilding of the left along with the organization of the
working class would result in a stronger, healthier left which simultaneously
has created a broad base. Will
there be problems of left sectarians trying to seize control of the workplace
committees and use them to push their own “line?” Probably, in some cases,
but most often we have observed that those people never attract any following
for long and neither are they in it for the long haul. There
will also be problems of some unions trying to use this movement for their own
narrow self-interest. It will be natural that if unions are providing money,
time and staff in this effort that they will lay claim to the committees they
initiate. That is ok. Hopefully they will allow other forces to participate and
not try to dominate the national effort. Eventually all workplace committees
will have to decide what union they wish to affiliate with, and hopefully they
will bring to that union some new traditions based upon struggle and democracy.
Union participation in this effort should be based upon real work being done,
not who is the best at pontificating. The
leadership in this effort will be won by those who can most successfully learn
the lessons that the workers and the situations themselves will teach and thus
are able to further refine this strategy for union organization.
1
Bary T. Hirsch, David MacPherson, Wayne Vroman, “Estimates of Union Density by
State.” Monthly Labor Review, July 2001: 51. 2
Bruno, Ed, Kellman,Peter and James Pope; “Toward
a New Labor Law-A Labor Party Discussion Paper” footnote
1. 3
In the fiscal year 2000, unions won
51.2% of the elections that were held by the NLRB. This however only represented
46% of the workers involved. In 2000, only 77,490 new workers were added to the
labor movement via the NLRB when you deduct the number of workers lost to
decertification elections from the number of workers won. “NLRB election
Report” “6 Month summary April 2000 through September 2000” pg. 9
“Fiscal year 2000 Summary of Elections” 4
For more details on modern union busting tactics see, “Confessions of a Union Buster”,Levitt, Martin.
Crown Publisher 1993) 5
For more information on the TUEL see, “American Trade Unionism” William Z
Foster, International Publishers, NY 1978; “History of the American Labor
Movement:T.U.E.L. 1925-1929” Foner, Philip. International Publishers, New York
1991. 6
Foster, Wm. Z, American Trade Unionism, (International Publishers, NY, 1978),
157-8 7
In the service sector, where workplaces are more visible, the community
election approach was used to more success and in many cases employers agreed to
abide by the results. This was true not only in UE but when it was adopted by
other unions such as the Hotel Workers Union (HERE). 8
Organizing under NLRB conditions is never a “democratic experience”.
With all the technicalities, legal hurdles and with the intensity of the
employer attacks, necessity means that unions exert much control over the
decision making process, especially regarding strategy and tactics. This is
especially true when unions are trying to run “quick” elections, and the
time isn’t available to sufficiently train workers to be prepared for what is
to come. 9
See the Labor Party’s “Toward a New Labor Law-A Labor Party
Discussion Paper” for a good discussion on the need to change the
constitutional basis of labor law from the Interstate Commerce Clause to the
clauses’ guaranteeing freedom of association and speech. Available at www.campaignforworkerrights.org
or from the Debs-Jones-Douglas Institute, 1532 16th St.N.W.
Washington DC 20036 |
|
E-mail Webmaster@unity.caamwu.org This Web Site Sponsored By Carolina Auto, Aerospace & Machine Workers Union / UE 150 |