[rad-green] Is it Time for a New Labor Center in the United States?

*https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/is-it-time-for-a-new-labor-center-in-the-united-states/
<https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/is-it-time-for-a-new-labor-center-in-the-united-states/>ZNET
        February 19, 2020Is it Time for a New Labor Center in the United
States?By Kim Scipes*

The failures of the labor movement in the US are legion over the past 40
years.  It’s not needed to repeat the failures nor the efforts to
revitalize the labor movement, most of the latter which have been
unsuccessful to date.  (For the best compilation of writings on these and
related issues, while not complete, please see the “Contemporary Labor
Issues” bibliography, on-line and with many links to original articles at
https://faculty.pnw.edu/kim-scipes/contemporary-labor-issues-bibliography/#ChangesintheUSLaborMovement
.)

Yet while the labor left–using the term broadly–has fought to address
weaknesses in the AFL-CIO, and has won some victories over the past 40
years, we have overwhelmingly failed to change the structure, leadership
operation or foreign policy of the US labor movement.  And, truthfully,
about the only “strategy” that is being proposed today by and for labor
activists in face of this general failure is “more militancy.”

I’m wondering if it is time to “think out of the box,” recognize our
failures, and try to come up with something new…?

—

I’ve been working on a manuscript that examines the difference between
union organizing in steel and meatpacking in the Chicago area (including
Northwest Indiana) between 1933-1955, and how these unions addressed white
supremacy and racism in the workplace, union and community.  It’s an effort
to publish my Ph.D. dissertation, which I completed in 2003.  I think
there’s a lot that labor activists can learn from this study.

Basically, it is argued that there were two different forms of economic
trade unionism developed within the CIO: business unionism and social
justice unionism.  (In other words, that the CIO was not just one glorious
crusade of workers, as is often projected by labor activists, but that
there were serious political differences contained within the CIO from the
beginning.)  There were two different conceptualizations of trade unionism:
  one saw control of the union in the hands of officials and the scope of
unionism limited almost exclusively to the workplace (business unionism),
while the other saw control of the union in the hands of the rank and file
and the scope of unionism to include the workplace as well as the
communities in which workers lived (social justice unionism).  Ultimately,
the business unionists prevailed, and in 1949-50 expelled most of the
social justice unionists, somewhere between 750,000 and 1 million workers.  The
labor movement has yet to recover from the purges in 1949-50.

We face the consequences of these purges today.  Basically, the AFL-CIO is
composed of business unionists who think that power to control the
organization belongs in the hands of senior elected officials, with the
scope of unionism limited to the workplace.  Over the past 40 years, these
senior elected officials have lurched from one defeat to another, with
major victories few and far between.  Some unions survive today, largely
because they have been able to defend what they have; the idea of expanding
unionism to new workers appears all but dead.

Yet there are a growing number of workers who are recognizing the need to
unionize, and want to create new unions; think of the upsurge among
teachers, for one, challenging reactionary state-level politicians and
oftentimes current union leaders, as well as various workers’ struggles
taking place around the country.  From what can be determined, however, is
that most of these new unionists want to create unions that are
democratically led by rank and file leaders, and who encompass an idea of
unionism that extends beyond the workplace to include their various
communities.  In other words, they seek an organizational outlet other than
the established AFL-CIO unions, which generally cannot meet their needs
and/or concerns.  It’s time union activists take this new approach
seriously.

For this argument to make sense, we have to divert for a moment, so we can
talk about “labor centers.”  A labor center is a combination of unions,
joined together by an overarching organization, so as to advance the
well-being of all of the member unions.  In international labor
terminology, the AFL-CIO is a labor center.

The number of labor centers internationally varies from one per country (as
in the US, the UK, Australia, China, Germany, New Zealand, Vietnam) to more
than one (Brazil, Canada, France, the Philippines, South Africa, Sweden).  It
is not uncommon to have three or four labor centers in a single country.  And
around each labor center are its supporters; together constituting a labor
movement.

In the United States, we’ve generally only had one labor center, although
the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) and the CIO (Congress of
Industrial Organizations) also served as competing labor centers to the AFL
(American Federation of Labor), at least for a while.  Ultimately, the AFL
has prevailed.

Key to the AFL’s domination has been Samuel Gompers’ idea that there should
only be one labor center in this country; others were denigrated as “dual”
unions.  And the AFL has always worked in a determined manner against
competing labor centers; it has sought to maintain control over the labor
movement, whether this was good or bad for workers.

What is being argued is that one labor center in this country only hurts
workers today, and impedes new efforts to unionize.  The argument is that
the AFL-CIO and its current hidebound leadership cannot and will not meet
the needs of the new unionism emerging today–and trying to channel this new
unionism into the AFL-CIO will only kill it.

[There are those supporting the possible election of Sara Nelson of the
Flight Attendants to be the next President of the AFL-CIO.  It appears that
her election would be a very positive development.  Nonetheless, even if
she is elected, the AFL-CIO will still be controlled by the Executive
Committee, which is dominated by the men (and a few women) who have so
successfully led labor over the past 40 years.]

—

What is being suggested?  It looks like it is time for us to consider
creating a new labor center in the United States, not to compete with the
AFL-CIO, but to do the job they have shown themselves incapable of doing,
especially without a challenge from outside.

It looks like it is time for those of us who believe in unionism to step
up, reject the failed leadership of the AFL-CIO, and try to create a new
labor center to which today’s unionists will join.  This, it is argued,
must be built on the concept of social justice unionism, where the unions
in this new labor center will have to be controlled by each union’s rank
and file, where all members have equal say in the development of their
union, and with a vision that not only includes each workplace, but the
union and workers’ communities as well.  It is argued that we need a viable
social justice unionism alternative to today’s AFL-CIO.

Is this proposal controversial?  Undoubtedly.  Serious trade unionists will
object that adopting a proposal such as this will “split” the labor
movement, and there is almost no doubt the AFL-CIO leadership will rail
against it for this reason, although it is thought that AFL-CIO leaders
will be more concerned with losing control of the labor movement than
meeting the needs of these newly mobilizing workers.  This argument cannot
withstand much serious scrutiny, however:  we haven’t had a vibrant labor
“movement” for at least 40 years, if not 70, so “splitting” a dead House of
Labor does not appear so detrimental.  Nonetheless, it is recognized that
there is a serious argument here, and discussion and debate is welcomed.

Accordingly, it is proposed that at the Labor Notes conference in Chicago
in April 2020 that we have a wide-ranging discussion of this idea.  Should
activists then think this proposal is worth exploring further, it is
suggested that we elect from the conference membership a body that will be
widely representative of all conference members and will meet after the
conference over the next two years, to recommend the development of a new
labor center, and lay the ground work to do advance a firm proposal at the
subsequent Labor Notes conference in 2022.

This new labor center is not considered to be antagonistic to the existing
unions or to the AFL-CIO itself, although it is hoped that it will reject
federal funding, such as that which funds the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED).  In fact, the hope is we can work with the AFL-CIO’s
unions, who have much experience and knowledge from which we can learn.  And
that we can unite in joint struggle when it can advance the interests of
members of both labor centers.

But, most of all, it is hoped that we can create a labor center with unions
that can meet the increasing needs of workers today.

*Kim Scipes is former elected Chicago Chapter Chair and long-time member of
the National Writers Union, UAW #1981.  He’s previously been a member of
the Graphic Communications International Union, the National Education
Association, and the American Federation of Teachers.  He lives and works
in Northwest Indiana, teaching at Purdue University Northwest for the past
16 years.  He has published three books, and over 225 articles and book
reviews, mostly on labor, in the US and around the world.  His latest book,
Building Global Labor Solidarity:  Lessons from the Philippines, South
Africa, Northwestern Europe and the United States, will be published late
this summer.  His writings–many with links to the original article–can be
accessed at https://faculty.pnw.edu/kim-scipes/publications/#2
<https://faculty.pnw.edu/kim-scipes/publications/#2>.*

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sid-l/CACKppczFbF3qs1Y29TeJ1EJgXFUWt7D845_upUkiAPzFnapYsw%40mail.gmail.com.

---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>