avevale_intelligencer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
avevale_intelligencer) wrote2011-02-21 12:40 am
avevale_intelligencer) wrote2011-02-21 12:40 am
On unions
I grew up in a staunchly Conservative household. My dad, though working class by birth, believed that hard work and honesty could get you all the way to the top, and proved it in his own case; and he also believed that unions were the thin end of the Communist wedge, irredeemably corrupt and out to smash the British economy and pave the way for an economic takeover by Russia.* Or something like that. He read the Daily Express, which could always be relied upon for a trenchant editorial or a pithy cartoon about slacking workers holding the country to ransom, singing The Red Flag while their bloated, cigar-puffing shop stewards were carried about on litters and fanned by overalled punkah wallahs. And for a while I was taken in.
But the only way to maintain that kind of knee-jerk view of unions and their activities is to close your eyes and your mind to reality, to imagine yourself into the boss's chair, seeing the world through his reversed telescope in which the workers who sustain the productivity of his company, who are the reason for its existence and the masters he was placed on high to serve, are as tiny and negligible as ants, and he is the only significant person in the whole place. Not all bosses are like this, I am happy to acknowledge; but as long as even one is--and the newspapers, even the Conservative ones, bring us reports of the enormities of such bosses every day--then it is vitally necessary that the ants, sorry, I mean the workers, have an organisation which can loom large enough in the telescope to make the boss take notice. Unions are necessary.
I've now seen two contrasting views of the Wisconsin protest, one from California, by someone who thinks the way my dad did, and one from Wisconsin, by someone who is one of the protesting workers. (I'm not linking to either post, because one of them is flocked, but here's the New York Times on the subject.) The former is full of figures proving that the workers in Wisconsin are perfectly able to take a real-terms ten per cent pay cut to pay for their health care and benefits and therefore should do so cheerfully. The latter talks not about money, but about the actual provisions of the bill, whose purpose seems to be less about "budget repair" and more about stripping away collective bargaining rights, forcing cuts in education, destroying Medicare statewide, and other horrors. The latter poster also points out that the same administration which is trying to persuade government employees to "pay their fair share" has pushed through more in tax cuts for, you guessed it, big corporations, than the amount the NYT quotes as the current deficit they're facing; in other words, if the corporations paid the tax they should, the government could balance its books quite happily.
So this is the usual conservative agenda, as we've seen it time and time again; more money and no tax for the government's wealthy cronies, and the rest of us can fuck off and die. If the unions are fighting that, then sorry, but I'm with them, and always will be; and anyone who tells me that unions are not vitally necessary is talking utter rubbish, because as long as it is possible for governments to be conservative (and right now it doesn't seem possible for them to be anything else), the people will need organisations to represent them, to oppose the depredations of the robber barons.
Support your union. Support your friends' union. If you think your union's corrupt, join it and vote for change, or become an officer yourself and do better. If you think it's toothless, join it and give it at least an extra gum. If you think it's in the bosses' pocket, definitely join it and get it out. But don't dare to enjoy the rights you have as a worker while condemning unions, because each and every one of those rights was fought for; if not in your industry, then in others, so that they became accepted as a standard. I believe, though I have no proof, that without unions, no workers' rights would exist, anywhere. I really would hate to find out that I was right.
*Which, given that the Conservative Party and its pale shadow "new" Labour have presided over the asset-stripping of the British economy and the sale to foreign interests of every major industry and utility they could actually shift, is pretty funny in itself. Or, you know, not.
But the only way to maintain that kind of knee-jerk view of unions and their activities is to close your eyes and your mind to reality, to imagine yourself into the boss's chair, seeing the world through his reversed telescope in which the workers who sustain the productivity of his company, who are the reason for its existence and the masters he was placed on high to serve, are as tiny and negligible as ants, and he is the only significant person in the whole place. Not all bosses are like this, I am happy to acknowledge; but as long as even one is--and the newspapers, even the Conservative ones, bring us reports of the enormities of such bosses every day--then it is vitally necessary that the ants, sorry, I mean the workers, have an organisation which can loom large enough in the telescope to make the boss take notice. Unions are necessary.
I've now seen two contrasting views of the Wisconsin protest, one from California, by someone who thinks the way my dad did, and one from Wisconsin, by someone who is one of the protesting workers. (I'm not linking to either post, because one of them is flocked, but here's the New York Times on the subject.) The former is full of figures proving that the workers in Wisconsin are perfectly able to take a real-terms ten per cent pay cut to pay for their health care and benefits and therefore should do so cheerfully. The latter talks not about money, but about the actual provisions of the bill, whose purpose seems to be less about "budget repair" and more about stripping away collective bargaining rights, forcing cuts in education, destroying Medicare statewide, and other horrors. The latter poster also points out that the same administration which is trying to persuade government employees to "pay their fair share" has pushed through more in tax cuts for, you guessed it, big corporations, than the amount the NYT quotes as the current deficit they're facing; in other words, if the corporations paid the tax they should, the government could balance its books quite happily.
So this is the usual conservative agenda, as we've seen it time and time again; more money and no tax for the government's wealthy cronies, and the rest of us can fuck off and die. If the unions are fighting that, then sorry, but I'm with them, and always will be; and anyone who tells me that unions are not vitally necessary is talking utter rubbish, because as long as it is possible for governments to be conservative (and right now it doesn't seem possible for them to be anything else), the people will need organisations to represent them, to oppose the depredations of the robber barons.
Support your union. Support your friends' union. If you think your union's corrupt, join it and vote for change, or become an officer yourself and do better. If you think it's toothless, join it and give it at least an extra gum. If you think it's in the bosses' pocket, definitely join it and get it out. But don't dare to enjoy the rights you have as a worker while condemning unions, because each and every one of those rights was fought for; if not in your industry, then in others, so that they became accepted as a standard. I believe, though I have no proof, that without unions, no workers' rights would exist, anywhere. I really would hate to find out that I was right.
*Which, given that the Conservative Party and its pale shadow "new" Labour have presided over the asset-stripping of the British economy and the sale to foreign interests of every major industry and utility they could actually shift, is pretty funny in itself. Or, you know, not.
no subject
Unions need to exist it would be nice if they didn't need to but this is not a perfect world. All that follows is Canadian based. That said their are some issues I have with some unions. Big unions are dangerous, CUPE "With 600 000 members across Canada, CUPE represents workers in health care, education, municipalities, libraries, universities, social services, public utilities, transportation, emergency services and airlines." That's from their web site. It's a monster union. Then there is CAW Canadian Auto Workers. from their web site "CAW members work in aerospace, mining, fishing, auto and specialty vehicle assembly, auto parts, hotels, airlines, rail, education, hospitality, retail, road transportation, health care, manufacturing, shipbuilding and other sectors of the economy"
When I worked as a TA in Mississauga I worked on the negotiating board for the unions new contract. We were one of the few unions that was for the Teaching Assistants only. I was approached by the stewards of the other unions in the board. One was CUPE, the other I don't remember. To take the offer of joining them back to our union. Now Our Union president knew most of our members if not by name then by face, she knew all our issues, she knew our job. I talked to the CUPE rep. At length. I asked him if he knew what our issues where. How many TA reps would we get in negotiations, all that stuff. I asked him if I could talk to the CUPE president. Or some one on the board. It was quite funny to see his response. I was not left alone after I told him were were not interested.
Unions need to represent the needs and interests of the workers they are made for. A union that represents auto workers should not be representing anyone else, at all. I still don't get how CAW can understand the needs of Janators, or Teaching Assistants, or Ambulance Drivers.
I also think that unions should not be allowed to have any political affiliations at all. They should not be able to donate to them or speak for them or anything. Rules in Canada have changed recently so donations are not allowed. But ads are still made, and union leaders still make statements supporting different leaders.
As long as a union is small, and non political. It's safe. Once it gets big and political it when it gets dangerous. At least in my books.
no subject
I also think that unions should not be allowed to have any political affiliations at all. They should not be able to donate to them or speak for them or anything.
Then neither should bosses. But if a boss is allowed to donate $,$$$,$$$ to the Soandso Party, which then, when it gets into power, introduces a law preventing a union from negotiating fairer conditions for its members, and if the union is also prevented by law from donating $,$$$,$$$ to the Hoojimaflip Party which, if it gets into power, will reverse that, then there's no way the union can be effective.
I'd be happy with a total ban, rigorously enforced, on political donations over, say, a hundred dollars/pounds in a given year, from anyone or any corporation however large. But if bosses and unions are going to play hockey, then both teams need sticks.
no subject
I have an alternate to that, though -- how about if the organization were allowed to contribute 100 Whatsits per person in it who gave up their own contribution? That is, it would still be 100 Whatsits per person, but if a person wanted to give that to the organisation to used as the organisation (in practice, its leaders) wants then they could do that. So yes, an organisation with 10 thousand members could donate on the order of a million Whatsits, but so could 10 thousand individuals who donated in opposition to it.
However, the problem I see for a union doing political donations is -- to whom? I don't see any political party which wouldn't just take the money and run (or turn round and screw the unions). The only political clout the unions have now, as far as I can see, is by pulling a general strike, which will hurt the ordinary people (and their own members) much more than it will the politicians in their comfy chairs and guaranteed wages (which they vote to put up). It used to be nice and simple (Tories anti-union, Labour pro-union, no one else need apply) but NuLab showed that didn't apply any more, they were just as anti-people as any of the others.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that only direct action will change anything...
no subject
I'm absolutely sure you're right in the historical sense: that had there never been unions, no workers' rights would currently exist, anywhere.
I am slightly less sure, but only slightly less, that you're right in the present-day sense: that if unions were to be abolished today and not replaced, then sooner or later no workers' rights would exist, anywhere.
I hope we don't see that demonstrated.
no subject
It might take longer, granted, because a lot of people are uncomfortable about abortions even if they're technically pro-choice (and fully half of humanity will never under any circumstances need one) whereas most people have a more positive feeling towards worker's rights, but it could be done.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I work in an industry which does not have unions, and have done just fine negotiating my own salary and benefits based on my professional skills and experience. I have worked in companies with as few as 6 employees, and as many as 100,000. I have been lucky enough to work in the parts of America where state laws about work hours and safety are strict, and enforced. Some of those laws were the result of labor union pressure, but others were passed as a reaction to the excesses of labor unions which tend to forget that in return for good pay and good conditions one must actually do good work.
If you think your union's corrupt, join it and vote for change
Excellent long-term advice for those who belong to a union. But what about those of us who are paying too much for goods and services provided by those corrupt unions?
no subject