“Wisconsin Uprising Labor Fights Back” Book Review by Chris White

 

above:  In his work 'Wisconsin Uprising - Labor Fights Back - Michael Yates puts the case for labour movement militancy against austerity and abrogation of the rights of labour. The struggle for workers rights and public sector jobs in Wisconsin, America, mobilised tens and tens of thousands.  And in this book review of Yates' work - Australian labour movement authority and activist, Chris White examines the lessons from that struggle, including those lessons relevant for the labour movement in Australia as well.

Readers are also welcome to join our Facebook Group at the following URL:  http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/58243419565/

 

“Wisconsin Uprising Labor Fights Back” edited by Michael D Yates (Monthly Review Press) http://monthlyreview.org/press/books/pb2808/

 

 

Book Review by Chris White

In February 2011 at the same time as millions were rising up in Tunisia and Egypt in the ‘Arab Spring’, the workers’ uprising in Wisconsin with 150,000 militantly protesting and the occupation by union members and social justice activists of the state capitol in Madison electrified and inspired the US labor movement.

Wisconsin workers showed their colossal display of solidarity and outrage after decades of union passivity and defeat.

In Part One, ‘On the Ground in Madison’ five chapters record the excitement. Michael D. Yates:

 

‘First, as one who was there much of the time and who participated as one of the throng, not as a leader, there was most definitely something special happening, and everyone present knew it. For much of my adult life the actual prospects for social change seemed slender…The Wisconsin protests reaffirmed what many Americans had forgotten or never knew: that when people come together in solidarity directed toward social justice they are capable of great sacrifice and unrivaled joy. When there is a sense of solidarity, of hope, of dynamism, everything changes. The feeling this engenders, this bonding, is like breathing fresh air for the first time.’

 

Workers responded to the ruthless ruling class assault by ‘Tea Party’ rightwing Republican Governor Walker destroying collective bargaining rights and public sector services.

 

Connor Donegan in the first of 16 chapters in ‘Disciplining Labor, Dismantling Democracy: Rebellion and Control in Wisconsin’ describes Walker’s Budget ‘Repair’ Bill:

 “It was a monstrosity designed to destroy public sector unions, expand executive power over all government agencies, and slash health and social services by $50 million while restricting eligibility, raising fees, and excluding undocumented workers. He also aimed to privatize public utilities in no-bid sales.

…the entire public sector will be ‘right to work’, the state will no longer deduct union dues from paychecks, contracts will expire if union representatives fail to receive support from a majority of members in annual elections, employees’ contributions to pensions will increase to half the actuarial costs, and collective bargaining will be limited to wages. Certain university and health care workers will have no right to organize whatsoever. The legislation promised to land a deadly blow to all of Wisconsin’s public sector unions, on top of an immediate drop in take-home pay totaling roughly $1 billion each year.

…an equally monumental offensive on public education is pushing its way into law….that will defund public schools while establishing a parallel system of private schools, funded by the state.

…Then the downward pressure on public sector wages and conditions and taking away union collective bargaining rights.’

Connor Donegan gives begins with the occupation of the Madison capitol building with some 300 teachers and students attending the public sessions of the Budget ‘Repair’ Bill, and then calling on others to attend. They did in their thousands.

‘On February 15^th 2011 700 students marching in the snow for miles to join an already huge number of 10,000 protesters, with teachers already organizing rallies, and the Wisconsin Education Association calling out for sick days teachers and the closing of schools, and then this infecting others with urgency and militancy. When the Senate was to vote those occupying organized blockades of doors and stairways and the Democrats left the Chamber and the State to try to ensure there was no quorum to vote and the police were powerless. Left groups demands of ‘Tax the Rich’ and ‘No Concessions’ became popular. But Governor Walker tactically changed so that a quorum was not needed and the Bill was ready to pass.

Despite calls for a strike, union leaders backed down arguing for a movement to collect signatures for an electoral recall of Republican Senators.

Despite the following days seeing 150,000 rallying, the scene was set for the mass movement to follow the Democrats down the electoral path, while many new solidarity actions and groups and large May Day rallies followed, the efforts were on the raising of signatures for successful recalls but ended in by-elections that disappointingly fell short by one of ending the Republicans’ Senate majority…(I add as well, after this book was published, the result of the mobilization to recall Walker, saw him later defeat his Democrat opponent.)

After the measures became law, public sector unions offered concessions on wages and conditions in return for their existence, but Walker refused winning the day getting both.’

‘Subjecting public sector workers to such conditions is a central component of the ruling class’s strategy to manage capitalism’s crisis. This is the same worldwide with “austerity measures” on working people while the rich and corporations do not bear the burden, and the high unemployment has the labour market disciplining workers further.’

In the Afterward, after the Wisconsin uprising, Michael D. Yates is encouraged by militant actions of the left OWS movement targeting the 1% ruling class:

‘One especially important opening is the possible alliance between those who are organizing OWS efforts and the labor movement.’ He recounts unions both joining OWS and attempting to co-opt the struggle. 

In Ohio a referendum defeated similar anti-union legislation.

In Oakland, the OWS and unions shut the port of Oakland with controversial debates. ‘Another problem is that organized labor has to confront legally binding collective bargaining agreements and a hostile labor law that usually prohibits various kinds of strikes and solidarity action. The ILWU, for example, has issued a statement saying, “To be clear, the ILWU, the Coast Longshore Division and Local 21 are not coordinating independently or in conjunction with any self-proclaimed organization or group to shut down any port or terminal, particularly as it relates to our dispute with EGT in Longview [Wash].” Members were advised as well that a public demonstration was not a picket line as defined by the collective bargaining agreement.’ 

Left socialist mobilisation was evident and how to develop class unionism is back on the agenda debated by a number of writers in the 16 chapters.

Chapters include analysis by Andrew Sernatinger on ‘Capitalist Crisis and the Wisconsin Uprising’ providing the context of the 2008 capitalist financial and public debt crisis and the Wisconsin response. He gives his account of the events, the first week mobilization without union and Democrat leaders and then the drama of the occupation of the capitol, the debates on whether to strike or not and assessment of in the end the lack of capacity of the working class to sustain the action.

‘After decades of neoliberal attacks and union demobilization, there was a serious lack of working-class organization, historic memory, and collective experience. Most people who showed up in February and March had never been to a protest in their lives, and fewer had been part of a strike. If there had been another strike of any kind, it would have been miraculous, but a general strike was solely a point of agitation; even so, it should give us pause that throughout the struggles in France and Greece the mass strikes that did materialize were not capable of repelling austerity measures.

 In the Wisconsin moment, there were no standing networks of rank-and-file unionists who could agitate to make it more likely that their unions would do what was needed to navigate a militant course for the movement.

Nor were there channels for community members and unorganized workers to meet and develop their own plans.

 …Despite setbacks and defeats, each struggle informs the next in kind, and statements of solidarity are sent from place to place in an understanding of common struggle. If we learn something from these places, it is that a radically democratic, “from below” orientation is not just a good idea or something we would like to see, but critically necessary for success in the battles to come. There is no simple move or strategy to take us out of this situation, but clearly we will have to prepare ourselves for patient, committed organizing and movement building.’

 

Lee Sustar in ’Who Were the Leaders of the Wisconsin Uprising?’ gives a detailed recounting of actions of rank and file unionists, from every sector of organized labor both public and private. Lee argues the recent Wisconsin history of resistance in the private sector helps explains why workers acted in solidarity. Public sector unions had to fight against former Democrat cutbacks.

 Militant unionists debated with union leaders over concessions or not, for more rallies and to widen the fight broader than collective bargaining. Appeals for strike action are hotly pressed with discussion on how to build a general strike - but not taken up. The turn to electoral recall politics is contested.

 ‘After a thirty year anti-union offensive by corporate America and its public sector counterparts, there is at last a two-sided class war.’

 

Dan La Botz in a ‘A New American Workers’ Movement Has Begun’ develops the important rise of service and public sector workers and their unions, combined with Wisconsin’s history of union struggle.

 He argues…’when a real labor movement arises, that is, a movement not merely of thousands or even tens of thousands but millions, it necessarily becomes transformative. Labor union officials who hesitate, who waver, or who knuckle under will soon find themselves challenged by new, younger leaders who will either force those officials to fight or push them aside. Such a movement will change the unions—often by changing the leadership first and sometime by changing the very institutions themselves….’

 

He recalls the debates over union leaders who channeled worker mobilization into the electoral recalls and to support the Democrats. One difficult debate is that of developing a party for working people. 

Frank Emspak analyses the right wing media appalling ‘reports’ but also importantly left media channels presenting the workers’ account. He tells of much of the excitement in the struggle, how workers organised and the efforts needed in the recall campaigns where all the eggs were put in this basket.

 ‘The Lessons of Wisconsin’ are summarized in the beginning of Part Two:

 

‘Grassroots, rank-and-file organization is critical to the success of any program of action; workers should always seize the moment and stay on the offensive as long as possible; compromise with capital is futile, given that capital wants the whole ball of wax and the working class is disorganized, confused, and insecure, easily manipulated and exploited; aggressive actions such as strikes are never outdated; traditional labor politics is a problem for and not a solution to the plight of workers; and workers always have power, whether they are in unions or not. A key lesson of Wisconsin is that a radically new labor movement will have to be built, from the ground up, if successful class struggle is to be waged.’

Rand Wilson and Steve Early in ‘Union Survival Strategies in Open Shop America’ survey how unions survive right-wing Republican anti-union States. They show the problems of public service unions with union dues dependence and workers as passive consumers of services who are not surviving. Where laws take away collective bargaining rights, they recount examples of how unions can survive with democratic organization and centres of mobilization for workers’ needs.

 

 Stephanie Luce in ‘What can we learn from Wisconsin’ promotes 5 lessons.

1. Mobilizing a Fightback Takes Organization

 

‘But despite some claims to the contrary, the upsurges are not built from scratch on Facebook and Twitter. No doubt these are tools that organizers can use, but whether it’s Egypt or Wisconsin, the large-scale protests were built upon existing movement infrastructure and organization.

 

Madison is well known as a center of antiwar and student organizing in the 1960s and 1970s, and the city and state had a progressive tradition long before that. In the 1990s, Wisconsin unions and community groups built Progressive Wisconsin, a statewide independent third party connected to the national New Party.’ She recounts more radical history of struggle.

‘…The key point is that the structures of organizations were in place. Though they are not all strong, they have access to resources, including politicians and staff in the legislature, steward systems in the unions, long lists of contacts, and some independent media. …activists sometimes want to find some kind of technical solution or magic bullet to organizing, and though the Internet and blogs can be useful, they cannot take the place of good old-fashioned person-to-person outreach and organizational structures.’

 

2. The Right Wing is making this the Fight of a Lifetime.

 

‘The Republicans have employed a number of other outrageous tactics.
I am not saying this to suggest Democrats don’t also pull dirty tricks. I am simply pointing it out to remind us that the opposition may stop at nothing to push their agenda. Just as organizers do during a unionization campaign, we need to be prepared to inoculate potential supporters—warning them of the range of tricks the opposition will likely try, including ones that are illegal.’

 

3. We have to be Bold.

‘Because the right has been so powerful, the left has often been timid, afraid of alienating “the middle” and losing everything. We temper our demands to sound “reasonable” but usually end up just ceding all ground. The protests in Madison did not start from a position of “reasonable.” Graduate students and public school teachers marched to the capitol to demand, “Kill the Bill.” They did not wait to see what focus groups or polls said about their message.

The head of the state’s largest police union defied orders to kick out the
protesters at one point, saying that despite what the legislature told them, they knew the difference between right and wrong.

 The solidarity was not just between unions. The protests against the bill were from workers angry about cuts in their health care and attacks on their unions, but also from thousands of people worried about the impact of the bill on public services overall.

 

…Protesters did not just oppose Walker’s plan, but asserted, “We are Wisconsin”—that public employees themselves, along with their allies, were the heart and soul of the state. In this way they did not start by ceding ground to the Tea Party/Republican mantra of smaller or no government.

 

…Of course, not all participants took such a bold stand. Leaders of the large statewide unions immediately and unilaterally agreed to the fiscal concessions in Walker’s proposal, against the wishes of local leaders and members. …Some Democratic Party officials tried to get the protesters occupying the capitol to leave so that others could negotiate a settlement…and tried to convince protesters to leave things in the hands of the lawyers pursuing legal challenges.

But the message here is that taking a bold stand can often build more support than pragmatic leaders might have you believe. …The realm of what is possible can change quickly. …There is also a lesson for political leaders, and this is that you sometimes need to step out of the way of the members…The status quo is against us, and many of the rules are not in our favor. Building a fightback movement will require us to disrupt the status quo, to break the rules, and to take risks.’

4. Hold Politicians Accountable from the Left

 

‘This highlights the question of accountability. One thing we learned in third-party work in Wisconsin and which the Tea Party seems to highlight is the need for a left pole: social movements and organizations that steadfastly make demands for what is necessary, and not just what is possible.’

 As well amongst the left…’ I am not saying that the differences in positions do not matter, because they do. …But instead of focusing so much energy on trying to persuade one another, we need to spend a lot more time talking to the millions of people who do not usually engage in political organizations and actions.’

 

5. Our Movement has to be Inclusive.

‘One of the reasons the Wisconsin fightback was inspirational is because it was so broad. Whereas the trigger point for many was the attack on collective bargaining, the protests were about more than that. The protesters at the capitol did not just talk about their unions, but about a whole way of life in Wisconsin. Teachers’ rights were connected to students learning.  Public sector bargaining was attached to the bigger vision of democratic rule. Unfortunately, too many of our unions have become narrowly focused on the immediate needs of their members.’

 

‘We are fighting for a democratic society in all aspects, and where our economy is centered around human need. We are for fighting collective problems with collective solutions. We cannot accept the lure of framing our demands to play best with focus groups or highlighting only the most “respectable” parts of our movement. This will only serve to divide us and then weaken us, and to limit our dreams.’

 

Recurring themes are that US unions have too much political reliance on the Democrats. Often Democrats in government fail to protect the public sector, go down the privatization road, and do not defend union collective bargaining rights. Michael D. Yates:

 ‘The Democratic Party has delivered next to nothing to labor for decades, except the knowledge that Democrats are not Republicans. Labor and progressives have been triangulated…Both options, it is now obvious, are dead-end streets, and the Wisconsin revolt only crystallized the point.’

 

The US politics is now consumed with the election and whoever wins the Presidency - and I believe Romney has to be defeated and Obama re-elected, even though he did not deliver for improved workers’ rights - many workers are now more schooled in these struggles and debate alternatives.  

 

Part three is on broadening and deepening the struggle. Key debates are on whether public sector unions struggling will survive or re-bound, changed, membership driven and militant. After Wisconsin, the September 2012 Chicago teachers 7 day strike won against Democrat Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who wanted to erode the power of the union insisting on concessions and advancing a billionaire backed “education reform” agenda. The Chicago teachers’ win shows union direct action and militancy grows – see http://chriswhiteonline.org/2012/09/assessing-chicago-teachers-strike/.

Michael Hurley and Sam Gindin in ‘The Assault on Public Services: Will Unions Lament the Attacks or Fight Back’ using Canadian experiences has important challenges for our public sectors in struggle now against the same right-wing policies. 

 

‘... We are living in one of those historic moments that cry out for rallying the working class to build new capacities, new solidarities, and concrete hope. The crucial question is not how far the attacks on the public sector will go. The question is how far we will let them go. How will working-class activists inside and outside the unions respond?’

‘An effective response requires a social movement much stronger than we currently have; and this raises the issue of the attack on unions. We obviously need to fight back; we know from experience that if we don’t, it only invites the other side to be even more aggressive.

But given what we are up against—a state determined to change the rules—it’s also clear that “business as usual,” even if more militant, won’t be enough….

 

The point is that “politics” needs to be redefined as building the kind of working-class organizations and capacities that can ensure that our needs are taken seriously. This means public sector unions using their significant resources to advance a political agenda that includes the entire working class.’

I argue similarly that changes are needed in Australia for workplace and political organizing by public service unionists to take more strike action, militant community protest and with a class orientation.

 

David Bacon in ‘Marching Away from the Cold War’ reports on the necessity to involve millions of immigrant workers joining revived huge May Day rallies.

 

‘One sign carried in almost every May Day march of the last few years says it all: “We Are Workers, Not Criminals!” In the largest U.S. May Day event in 2011, marchers were joined by the public workers who had protested in Wisconsin. May Day marches and demonstrations over the last five years have provided a vehicle in which immigrants protest their lack of human rights and unions call for greater solidarity among workers facing the same corporate system. The marches are usually organized by grass-roots immigrant rights groups, which have been increasingly cooperating with labor unions and the AFL-CIO.’

 

Michael Zweig in ‘Seeking New Priorities as Labor Challenges War’ argues for the importance of US Labor against the War http://uslaboragainstwar.org

and the unions’ campaign to shift military spending to health, education, housing, welfare priorities and impose a millionaires tax and tax on financial transactions. See http://newprioritiesnetwork.org/ Organizations like USLAW and New Priorities are necessary in Australia with US marines in Darwin and the upgrading of US bases in the containment for war with China.

 

Fernando  Gapasin details Union City experiences in ‘Building Communities of Solidarity’. Ellen Leary argues that ‘Wisconsin is overwhelmingly white, and most of the protesters were white. It is not possible to build a labor movement without the active participation and leadership of people of colour.’

 I met the ILWU International Longshore and Warehouse Union in San Francisco and learnt how this union implements “An Injury to One is an Injury to All”. The union takes militant direct action against the anti-union laws winning against a corporate attempt for a greenfield non-union site as recounted by Michael D. Yates ‘Class Warfare in Longview, Washington: “No Wisconsin Here”. The ILWU did not rely on the Democrats and class unionism was victorious.

 

I agree with editor Michael Yates. ‘These essays are outstanding. The accounts of the events in Madison in the winter and early spring of 2011 are the best I have seen in writing, with context, detail, and analysis…the connections of the Wisconsin revolt to the existential questions facing the labor movement are handled with a clarity, intelligence, perspective, and urgency that is exactly appropriate to the task. This book is a fundamental historical document in its own right and will stand the test of time. … The writers, high quality US labor journalists and scholars, on the ground at the time, examine the causes and impact of the revolt, and debate lessons to be learned by union leaders and left activists on how the labor movement might proceed in this new era of union militancy.’

 

These debates for Australian unionists and left activists are similarly pressing. Much of our corporate and LNP’s right-wing politics with state governments O’Farrell, Newman etc are from the same Republican tactics, no more so in their attack on workers rights and wages and conditions, their laws to destroy public sector unionism and savage ‘austerity’ cuts to public education, health, welfare etc services. Abbott as PM will try on the same attacks. See http://chriswhiteonline.org/2012/09/right-to-wear-union-badge-and-queensland-unions-in-struggle/

 

The lessons for Australian workers and their unions are the same in developing the fight for mass struggle against this rich class assault. Like US unions, the ALP political dominance over unions, ‘laborism’ and voting in ALP governments in Australia demands a debate to change the politics of our unions.

 While Australian unions defend more strongly workers’ interests with wins with community unionism campaigning, like US unions, we are not developing class unionism - needed in the challenges working families face against the ruling class assault.

 

Michael D. Yates concludes: ‘Those of us who have written for this book have, to use Gramsci’s memorable phrase, always had an “optimism of the will.” It might be time for an “optimism of the intellect” as well.’

Connor ends with Rosa Luxemburg: ‘The organization does not supply the troops for the struggle, but the struggle, in an ever growing degree, supplies recruits for the organization.’

With this book we can join in the debates and assist in showing why workers struggle.

 

I posted reports on the uprising. I now have these chapters on my blog http://chriswhiteonline.org - search for ‘Wisconsin Uprising’.

 

Chris White worked for unions for 27 years and was Secretary of the UTLC of SA. He now lives in Darwin and is an Honorary Senior Research Fellow at The Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University.

 

 

Important Book Review: Reviving the Strike

Over recent decades the right to strike  in Australia and elsewhere has been steadily eroded.   The consequence:  a lack of bargaining power for workers under pressure from aggressive employers and Conservative/neo-liberal governments.  In this latest 'Left Focus' article, life-long labour movement activist, Chris White reviews Joe Burns ‘Reviving the Strike: How Working People Can Regain Power and Transform America’ (2011 IG Publishing)  The implications of this review for Australian unions are obvious and important.

nb also: If you find this article interesting PLS join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.

see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

A review by Chris White

Joe Burns has a stimulating analysis and conclusion in this readable and topical book on US strikes.

I conclude as well that we can revive the strike in Australia and working people can regain power and transform Australia.

Australia’s labour relations system differs historically and institutionally from the US, but working people experience the same repression of strikes (just recently Qantas, Victorian Nurses, Baiada Chicken etc) and the decline of the strike.

 Our corporate and state rulers dominate the labour law system, and as in the US, deny workers and their unions any effective right to strike.

PM Gillard’s regime the ‘Fair Work Act’ retains the ‘Work Choices’ excessive legalistic penalising of strikes and the Building Industry Act (2005) with the ABCC severely threatens and penalises building and construction workers organising. (See arguments on my blog http://chriswhiteonline.org and put in search ‘ABCC’ and ‘the right to strike’.)

 After reading this book, the same arguments apply in Australia - that unions have to revive the strike weapon.

 US and Australia has experienced the near disappearance of strike struggle, although there are some recent struggles.

 The task is how the strike revival is to be done. 

This is a serious challenge for Australian unionists in this era of capitalist instability, corporate attack, a likely Abbott government and more repression.

Yet resistance grows, the Occupy Wall Street movements and strike waves in many countries against severe austerity and/or dictatorships and strikes to improve workers economic and social lives.

 More workers power

Burns argues that US history shows the working class became more powerful and improved their lives by winning strikes.

“By wielding the threat of a powerful, production halting strike, trade unionists forged a better way of life for millions of working class Americans during the roughly fifty year period from 1930 though 1980. …The strike is by far the most important source of union power…Collective bargaining made little sense unless it was backed by the threat of a strike that halted production.”

Burns cites US labour relations scholars with stories of union leader militancy, solidarity and secondary boycott strikes, industry-wide and pattern bargaining strikes, mass pickets to stop ‘replacement workers’, sit-down strikes and occupations.  Such strategies are to cripple economically the corporations and force management to negotiate until union demands are met.

From the 1930s unions organised militant strikes in response to management’s serious class war. Unions defeated employer solidarity. Industrial action ensured wage increases and standardisation.

Unions defied unjust anti-strike laws. Despite key defeats some worker control prevailed against management despotism.

From the 1980’s, with capital’s fierce attack on unionism, union leaders retreated from these strike tactics. Unions became weaker. The employers’ counter offensive cut wages and conditions.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in the early 1990s,

“Unions need their only true weapon—the right to strike. Without that weapon, organized labour in America will soon cease to exist.” (p20)

The US labour control system, like Australia, allows only a limited lawful strike.

Arbitrators and judges interpret labour laws within the acceptably narrow ‘free market’ enterprise bargaining. Orders are made for strikers to return to work and legal sanctions against industrial action deemed “unlawful” are enforced. Corporate lawyers with the state’s legal forces penalise strikers and their unions. Withdrawing your labour is risky and largely ineffective.

The effective picket?

Burns gives one illustration with the legal restrictions on the picket line - similar to Australia, e.g. at Baiada – see posts http://chriswhiteonline.org).

 Due to the law, the picket as practiced is ineffective with protesting strikers having to walk around in a circle with placards, while watching scabs walk through taking their jobs.

Burns goes through the legal decisions that enforce for the employer the right to use ‘replacement labour’, scabs.

Pickets to be effective have to peacefully block all access for the strike to win.

But judges rule the effective picket line ‘unlawful’.  

In past strikes, winning meant defying judicial injunctions.

Despite the strengths of today’s union leaders, Burns argues they do not use the strike to seriously challenge employer power - stopping production and work is a fringe idea.

 Young radical union organizers today organize social campaigns with community support. But union leaders working within the system do not allow these organizers to plan industrial action to defy the law as being too risky.

Earlier, industry or pattern bargaining with mass strike pressure to make labour costs uniform was achieved. But this is union bargaining is also ‘unlawful’ and rarely attempted today – the same as in Australia.

The extreme Tea Party Republican Governors in 2011 passed legislation where the public service unions are denied the right to collectively bargaining at all, leading to mass protests such as in Wisconsin - but this movement, with some success, was channelled into community organizing for re-call ballots and Democrat politics, but not strike action. (See Wisconsin in http://chriswhiteonline.org ).

Solidarity strike?

Burns regrets the demise of the solidarity strike.  “Solidarity Forever” is indeed just a song.

“Solidarity is the heart and soul of unionism—the only force capable of confronting power and privilege in society. To revive unionism, we must recover labour’s long-lost tools of workplace-based solidarity.”

Today, union activists join each other’s picket lines and hold fundraisers for striking workers. While important, these acts of solidarity are largely conducted away from the workplace.

In contrast, labour’s traditional forms of workplace-based solidarity allowed workers to join across employers and even industries to confront bosses with tactics of secondary strikes and industry-wide solidarity strikes.

 What’s a secondary strike? Say workers at a small auto parts plant in Indiana walked out. If they enlisted the support of the Teamsters to refuse to transport the parts, the United Auto Workers to refuse to assemble a car with the parts, and employees of car dealerships to refuse to sell the cars, their power would be multiplied. The original strike would be a primary strike and the others would all be secondary strikes.

In the past, solidarity tactics allowed workers to hit employers at multiple points in the production and distribution chain. By impeding the flow of supplies into a plant, unions pressured the employer to settle a strike or recognize the union. Similarly, secondary boycotts pressured retailers to stop selling struck goods.

Solidarity tactics expanded the site of the conflict, allowing workers to confront employers as a class.” http://www.labornotes.org/2010/10/secondary-strikes-are-primary-labor-revival

 Burns documents how the US judicial system outlawed the secondary and solidarity strike.

“At a deeper level, modern labour law forces unions to bargain with individual employers rather than establish standards on an industry basis.”

Australia’s outlawing of secondary boycotts began in the 1970's through the Trade Practices law and remains a key part of the employers’ legislative armoury to weaken and penalise union solidarity actions. 

US labour control system

As I have a law degree and write on labour law, I learnt from Burns’ recounting the history of the US labour control legislation.  Burns discusses the Taft-Hartley 1947 Act know as the ‘Slave Labor Act’, the judicial cases against basic union organising such as allowing companies to move to defeat union drives and years of courts penalizing union action, such as employers’ rights to permanently replace strikers, see in Chapter 6.

The corporate lawyers and judges have indeed worked remorselessly to limit unions’ ability to have workers organize and win.

The US restrictive labour control shows how difficult it has been for unions getting workers to join - let alone assisting members to organize a successful strike.

Today union leaders do not risk defying judicial injunctions against strike activity because of the penalties.

But union leaders did so before - with some wins and some serious defeats depending on the contested conflict.

Burns makes this telling point.

“To be clear, the downfall of solidarity cannot be attributed solely to legal factors. Unions willingly agreed to no-strike clauses.

Over the years, many focused on just the needs of their own members, failing to embrace a social unionism that looked out for the interests of all workers. In the 1980s and afterwards, unions often failed to defend their pattern agreements, allowing special deals for particular “troubled” employers until the pattern was no more. And union officials all too often squashed rank-and-file attempts to join together across bargaining units, even at the same employer.”

What has occurred with current union leaders is an abandonment of the practice of the strike and class politics.

Although the AFL-CIO is strong rhetorically, the labour movement is trapped in no strike business and social unionism. 

Burns looks at inadequate union alternatives to the strike in chapter 4.

 "With the production-halting strike becoming a relic of the past, union activists of the last 20 years have had to turn to other mechanisms to try to pressure employers during collective bargaining. Thus, we have seen the rise of strike ‘alternatives’ such as the one-day publicity strike, the corporate campaign and the inside strategy. “

Each strategy, while supposedly an attempt to revive trade unionism, instead adheres to a system that has been established over the past 75 years to guarantee labour’s failure.

Without the traditional tactics of solidarity and stopping production behind them, none of these strategies had proven powerful enough to make an employer suffer economically.

In many ways, these strategies are a reflection of the current state of the labour movement.  

Rather than putting forth bold ideas calculated to challenge the current system of labour relations in this country, contemporary trade unionists have instead adopted a philosophy of pragmatism, of making do with what the existing system offers, instead of trying to break free of that system, as traditional trade unionists once did. (p71)"

“Nonetheless, in recognizing the limitations of these tactics, we must still acknowledge how creative and refreshing they have been in an era of union busting and decline. They have kept alive the fighting spirit in the labour movement, particularly in situations where a traditional strike would have meant crushing defeat.”

One-day publicity strikes

“In a one-day publicity strike, the union informs management that its workers will be going on strike, but will return to work in 24 hours. Due to the short duration of the ‘strike’ and the advance notification of the return to work, there is no opportunity for the employer to permanently replace the strikers.

However, due to their limited timeframe, one-day strikes have little impact on the operations of a company. Since the union announces its intention to strike in advance, the employer is typically able to make alternate arrangements to cover the work for the day that the workers are on strike. 

The main goal of the one-day publicity strike is, as the name implies, publicity, as the union tries to bring public and media attention to the grievances of its workers. Consequently, one-day publicity strikes have generally been used against employers who are susceptible to public pressure. Frequent targets have included hospitals, universities and public employers. (p72)"

The one-day protest strike strong in the public sector became the only strike action for many US unions, with some gains, but anti-union employers survived, as the union economic pressure was not sufficient.

“…The one-day strike supplies the illusion of struggle, distracting from the real problems facing the labour movement, which is the lack of an effective traditional strike. (p73)”

Working to rule keeps within employer boundaries but has limited success.

On the job go-slows or the ceaseless rolling intermittent strikes, in and then out and return and effective bans  - again made illegal - have greater bargaining force.

 Union strategists for decades used anti-corporate campaigns, with a range of community and public lobbying tactics to pressure the employers and governments. Despite some impressive wins, they are not as effective as the strike weapon.

 Social unionism ineffective

Burns supports the organising strength of social unionism with union and community coalitions, union media and public pressure on employers.

 But he argues such a strategy, without the strike, has not seen the union renewal promised.

“Social unionism is not a replacement for direct struggle against employers. In social unionism, the strike is abandoned, and in the process, the central role of workers at the point of production is lost.

Although appearing progressive, social unionism in fact represents a shift in power from workers to union officials and non-profit staff…social unionists also sidestep the key economic concerns that must be at the centre of labour’s revival, namely that any trade union strategy must be capable of redistributing wealth and power. Organization and community ties alone do not lead to power. (p81)”

 Burns’ criticism is levelled not only at the conservative and right wing ‘business unionist’ leaders but the left union leaders and progressive labour academics.

 As I implemented with other unions social unionism in Australia with many good campaigns, Burns’ arguments means I reconsider past practices.

Burns takes us through key examples of successful strikes with members’ democratic control of the union and the militant strike struggle. Strengthening unions relies on internal union democracy (p92). 

Organizing model not working

Chapter 5 “Why organizing cannot solve the Labor crisis” is important for the debate on new strategies.

Despite union leaders successfully shifting resources to organizing the un–unionized sectors from the 1990s until now, Burns argues this strategy has failed to revive unions.

“In fact, the idea that the labour movement can resolve its crisis simply by adding new members - without a powerful strike in place - actually constitutes one of the greatest theoretical impediments to union revival (p95).”

Burns does not reject the practice of increasing union density and organizing in the industry of competitors. He argues it is not sufficient without the effective industry or pattern-bargaining strike and the ability to have sufficient power at work to force the collective agreement. Unions may succeed at times with skilled or professional workers able to control the supply of labour in any industrial action.

But with the low levels of unionization continuing, union leaders - and I was one of them – just advocating organizing the unorganized is not good enough. I admit more clearly past weaknesses in my union practice.

Even when union density increases, the power to beat the employer does not necessarily follow. In the US, the labour laws allow aggressive employers to wage successful anti-unionizing drives and to defeat union elections.

Burns accuses the union reformers’ organizing model as “abandoning the goal of creating the type of labour movement capable of transforming society (p113).”

 He gives historical examples of militant strikes that had surges in workers joining unions. In 2011 during the Wisconsin struggles many workers joined unions.

In Australia, employers and particularly those powerful corporations that used AWAs under Work Choices still have in the FWA many legal weapons to weaken unionism.

 What about amendments to labour legislation?

President Obama promised unionists labour law reform ‘The Employee Free Choice Act’. Such a reform was to make it easier for workers to unionise and bargain. Burns argues that this is not sufficient for union revival. In any event, President Obama failed to even look like delivering.

Labour rights

In Chapter 7 Burns cites principles of labour rights.

“Labour must develop a working class perspective that establishes a set of principles that clearly justify the refusal to follow unjust and illegitimate restrictions on the right to strike. (p137) …it was labour’s agitation and the open and principled defiance of judicial orders, that won workers the right to strike and stop production.”

Unionists use key principles to argue the case - such as

“labour is not a commodity”,

“labour creates wealth”,

“the right to strike is a basic freedom that distinguishes us from the slave or bonded labour”

Regarding progressive principles from socialists and those political activists with a class analysis: these principles are returning.  But the struggle is to reform the labour relations system so these principles predominate over HRM ideology and employer power.

“Trade unionists need to envision a world where labour’s conception of striking prevails over that of management. Otherwise, labour can construct a solidarity grounded in weakness.”

International strike action

 The US government constantly ignores international labour rights from the ILO, but Burns does not take this breach up. Australia agreed to the ILO standards to protect workers’ rights to strike, but our FWA is in breach (see my posts).

With the power of giant US multi-national corporations, the unions challenge is not only to develop the ability to take strike action locally but internationally. International strike action is done but mostly limited to a day’s protest stoppages or across regions industrial action for collective agreements.

International labour solidarity has to challenge global corporate power. “The real question is whether a strike based on stopping production and international work-place solidarity could successfully combat global corporations.(p134)” Can the effective strike be organized across countries?

Where do we go from here?

 Burns in chapter 8 argues a labour movement in the US is possible if we learn lessons.

The details are instructive and the conclusion is critical - rejecting the whole labour control system is necessary.

I conclude by citing sections from Chapter 9  “Where do we go from here?” 

“After watching the labour movement—and the strike—wither over the past 30 years, trade unionists today need to answer several big questions if they wish to revitalize unions in this country. How should the labour movement deal with the current system of labour control? How should human labour be treated in relationship to capital? How can workers act as a class to advance their common interests?  What are the best forms of organization to carry on the fight for workers’ rights? And finally, what is the role of the strike?”

The answers—or non-answers—to these fundamental questions will shape labour’s future in America.”(p171)  

“To point the labour movement in a new direction will require a large group of people willing to challenge the status quo, people who have the ideas, organizational skills and self-confidence to give voice to a workers’ movement capable of transforming America.

This will have to start with the activists in the movement—shop floor militants, progressive union staffers and officers, worker centres’ activists, and friendly academics.

However, the debate over the future of trade unionism must grow beyond this committed, but small group if the there is to be a true labour revival in this country.”

 So how does one build such a trend? Again, we can learn from labour history.

In the 1920s and early 1930s, the labour movement was stuck in a narrow form of craft unionism that was unable to win gains from employers. Craft unionists viewed only skilled workers as deserving of union representation, and they rejected attempts to organize all workers into one union.

 However, a counter current developed that argued that industrial unionism was the road forward for the labour movement. This trend industrial unionism toward was driven by the political left of the era (socialists, anarchists and communists), who had a program that, although varying in its approaches, shared one guiding principle: the strength of the overall trade union movement.

Eventually, the years of agitation paid off as the idea of industrial unionism gained popularity, first at a grassroots level, and then broadly within the entire working class. Thus, when the economic crisis of the 1930s hit, workers were ready to embrace a new form of unionism…

The task today is to build such a broad-based understanding within the labour movement of the need to change the present system.

 How can this be done? During the decades-long push to establish industrial unionism in the first half of the twentieth century, industrial union activists repeatedly raised their issues at union conventions.

 Following their historical lead, trade unionists today could adopt the position that the system of labour control is illegitimate, and support efforts to break free from it. Just as it was once official AFL policy to disobey injunctions, trade unionists today could debate whether or not to comply with the different facets of the system of labour control.

 No matter the issues, reviving the strike — and by extension, the labour movement — will require a single-minded focus by trade unionists.

 Right now, the left wing of the labour movement lacks a common agenda, as it advances a hodge-podge of ideas of what it will take to save unionism in this country. If one agrees with the analysis in this book, then the one unifying factor that can achieve the myriad goals of the labour movement is the revival of the effective, production-halting strike. This must become labour’s primary focus.

Additionally, if trade unionists ever decide to embrace a new militancy in order to smash the system of labour control, they will need the support of their union brothers and sisters.

Historian Nelson Lichtenstein, in the conclusion of his influential history of the labour movement, ‘State of the Union’, lists the failure to support militancy as one of the major weaknesses of the modern labour movement. Discussing what the movement needs to succeed, Lichtenstein writes,

‘The first is militancy. The union movement needs more of it, but even more important, American labour, as a whole needs to stand behind those exemplary instances of class combat when and if they occur.

The 1980s were a tragic decade for unions, not because workers did not fight, but where labour did take a stand…their struggles were both physically isolated and ideologically devalued.

Instead of being engulfed in the solidarity of their fellow trade unionists, workers today who choose to fight back often do so on lonely picket lines, with little support from the official labour movement. Without a broad trend that promotes effective tactics, striking workers are not exposed to ideas that can help them win strikes, nor are they supported when they engage in militancy.”

 While the strike might seem like a relic of the past too much of the contemporary labour movement, as labour historian Peter Rachleff writes,

“it would be a mistake to leap to the conclusion that strikes are on their way to the dustbin of history. As long as the capitalist economy rests on the employment and exploitation of labour, the organized withdrawal of labour is bound to remain a central expression of working class protest and power.”

Remember that the strike is only a means and work resumes with greater strength for workers. Whether workers control prevails is another project.

With militant right-wing management attacking workers with the lock out, then workers have to also learn militancy by winning the strike. Such education will take years – such as the preparation in Australia in the 1960’s that defeated the then penal powers with the O’Shea national strike. We can do it again.

If working people are to regain power and transform the US and Australia, the winning strike has to be revived.

Chris White was the Secretary of the United Trades and Labor Council of SA and worked for unions for 30 years.  He now lives in Darwin. Read his daily Left Union blog on http://chriswhiteonline.org