12) UE LEADERS CALL FOR RANK AND FILE UNIONISM

(The following article is from the August 1-31, 2008, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St., Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

Excerpts from "Rank and File Activism: A Viable Alternative," an article in Labour Portside by John Hovis, president of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) since 1987, and Chris Townsend, UE Political Action Director since 1993.

     Over time, fads come and go, yet for organized labour certain basic principles hold true. In the "big picture" search for answers to the problems faced by labour today, outspoken contemporary labour leaders and well-meaning academics either inadvertently overlook, or chose to dismiss, the obvious reality: namely, there is likely to be no meaningful revival of the labour movement until rank-and-file members have a fundamental role in running their unions. Those who ignore - or choose to ignore - this truth, instead promoting union mergers, creating gigantic mega-locals, forging "partnership" agreements with employers, or continuing to pursue failed political strategies - will not find the path to revival. They are looking in the wrong direction.

     The ongoing destruction of good paying unionized jobs and the current anti-worker political climate have set back a generation of working people and their unions, sentencing the next generation to a poorer and more difficult life. This crisis begs for a map to guide us forward, yet we find little comfort in the direction prescribed by the self-proclaimed masterminds endeavouring to define labour's agenda today. The absence of any appreciable membership input into the highly-charged "debate" about the future of our movement over the past several years leads us to conclude that we are not alone in our skepticism.

     We suggest that an alternative approach exists to build strong unions. We call it "rank-and-file" unionism, but there are other names for the same thing. This form of unionism has always existed, and was often the dominant form during the times when unions grew and developed most rapidly. Rank and file unionism - as opposed to "business unionism," where the conduct of union affairs is patterned on a corporate model - constantly pushes member involvement and fosters a higher understanding of the political and economic context in which we live...
    
     Our objective is to offer constructive alternatives to those being put forward by others; proposals that our years of experience in the movement lead us to conclude are a better way forward. Our path to a stronger labour movement is based on two crucial ingredients we find absent from those proposed by others, namely enhanced union democracy, and a deeper involvement of the rank and file in the affairs of their union. We propose strengthening, rather than diminishing, internal union democracy and activism. We suggest expanded education and training to develop rank-and-file leadership as the way to build real union power...

The Failure of Business Unionism

     In recent decades any number of labour's leaders have perfected the art of applying failed solutions to the wrong problems. Their response to the crisis in organizing is a prime example. The inability, failure, or outright refusal of union leadership to devote time and money to organizing has led to the pooling of resources through the merging of often-time incompatible organizations. More often than not, these union mergers lack legitimate purpose, serving merely as salary and pension protection for top officers and staff. They are justified by "bigger is better" sloganeering, regardless of the reality. While this trend toward administrative centralization has yielded a number of mergers and combinations, the ability of the movement to organize on the vast scale required still does not exist. In fact, with some small exceptions, union membership continues to decline as employers skillfully destroy existing unions faster than new members can be organized by whatever means, traditional or avant-garde.

     An equally disturbing phenomenon is the combining of already large local unions into mammoth statewide or multi-state units. While such combinations may afford some administrative efficiencies, those efficiencies have come at significant cost. Workers rarely organize and form unions with the primary objective of creating cost-efficient organizations bereft of democracy or on-the-job representation. "Local" unions made up of tens or even hundreds of thousands of members stretching over vast geography makes it all but impossible for members to participate in any practical way in the functioning of their union...

     Most destructive of all, however, is that rather than being viewed as a strength, democracy is today seen by many business unionists as an inefficient hindrance to both setting internal union policy and building new union organization. One national union leader recently proclaimed, "What good is democracy if union density is only 12 percent?" The curtailment of democracy and member involvement has become a calculated objective in the much publicized "new direction" for labour. Unfortunately, what a number of the new breed of union leaders are asking workers to accept is little more than a rehash of the centralized, top down, and stagnant structures that existed in many AFL craft unions prior to the inception of the Congress of Industrial Organization (CIO)...

The Rank And File Alternative

     Finding solutions to the multiple crises facing the labour movement today is not easy. Finding a way forward begins by recognizing that leadership does have a critical place in the functioning of any union, but there is also no substitute for active, informed members. In particular, those seasoned rank-and-file activists who understand the value of unified action to engage both the employer in the workplace and political opponents in the community and the political arena. Building a strong organization requires much more than selecting a high profile contract negotiation or political issue to generate short-lived press coverage through an expensive staff or consultant generated media campaign.

     Elected rank-and-file leadership is key, including shop stewards. Building an effective organization requires people who encourage and empower members to grow and develop by providing educational opportunities, support, and the inspiration for members to step out of their comfort zone and advance to a new and higher level of responsibility. Leadership means fostering an environment that encourages the rank and file to tackle increasingly more difficult and challenging aspects of our work...

The Road Ahead

      In summary, the problems facing working people, and by extension the labour movement, are many. We are increasingly under attack from employers and government agencies alike, while in apparent possession of a diminished desire and ability to resist. Member involvement and mobilization is therefore indispensable to tackling and resolving the vast majority of these problems. We see internal union democracy and education as critical to encouraging this process. Member activism enhances the probability of successful collective bargaining and new organizing, which in turn increases the much needed political effectiveness of our movement.
    
     For too many years individual union leaders have viewed union democracy and member involvement as a threat and liability, rather than an asset. Open, frank discussion is stifled and constructive criticism is often equated with disloyalty. And despite recent rhetoric about the need for "change", unfortunately it's been mostly just talk. Until the labour movement critically reassesses its operations from within, little progress will be made.

     Organized labour will attain greater strength when its leaders get back to their roots as the elected representatives of the working class. Economic and political gains for members and nonmembers alike will be won when the labour movement commits itself to a more involved, more active membership...

Ignoring Labour History

     There is a clear and present danger in ignoring our history. The search for a substitute for rank-and-file involvement, or completely ignoring it as an option, is on its face a denial of labour's rich history. Answers will not be found in the rehash of "old hat" failed policies, or in new-age technical shortcuts, such as video conference membership meetings or call centers to report grievances...

     The aversion to militant struggle among many in labour is obvious, and costly. Recently the president of a large public employee local stated that unions have become ineffective because they are considered "troublemakers" and "creators of problems." His recommendation that even greater cooperation with the boss was the "solution" is nothing more than a suggestion that workers surrender and hope for favourable treatment at the hands of their employer. He went on to say that when it comes to strikes, "nobody has really won". We would not be so quick to dismiss the victories of those tens of thousands of autoworkers who sat down and struck General

Motors factories from Georgia to Flint, Michigan during the incipient CIO period. It would be just as wrong to write off the more than one million workers in the auto, steel and electrical industries who took to the picket lines in 1946 to recoup wages lost during wartime wage controls. Labour victories by the United Mineworkers against the Pittston Coal Company and by the Teamsters at UPS were not won by labour leaders seeking "cooperation" with belligerent employers. These and other battles were won by working people who were mobilized in organizational structures led by leaders who understood the value and necessity of activism. Those workers deserve our praise, not a rewriting of union history to conclude their sacrifices were made in vain. Turning one's back on our history does not open the door to the future.

     Strikes are not the only weapon. When conditions have precluded the use of a strike, other forms of direct, militant actions by workers have won more battles and settled better contracts than "cooperation" and "partnership" has, or ever will. To believe otherwise is to fail to understand our movement. Employers settle with unions on terms favourable to the membership because they fear imminent or widespread disruption to their day-to-day operations. Period. Offering to surrender on whatever terms tendered has never scared a boss into submission...

     As a longtime UE leader once said when referring to the role of rank and file union leadership, "Our job is to get something for the members, not to get something from the members."