Skip to main content


Joe Burns, author of Reviving the Strike, writes on the Talking Union blog.

To some the passage of the right to work for less legislation in the union stronghold of Michigan signals the strength of labor’s enemies. Sure enough, the passage of the right to work for less bill in Michigan represents the power of money and influence. Even though they lost in the election, the right wing continues its relentless attack against what remains of the labor movement. But that is nothing new.

To others, the passage signals union weakness. Certainly this was the main message of the mainstream news, with NPR and the New York Times running pieces discussing how the passage demonstrated union weakness. Again, that is too obvious to be our takeaway. With lockouts at record levels and employer-provoked strikes successfully garnering concessions, that we are getting our asses kicked should be readily apparent.

No, the main lesson we should take from the Michigan defeat is how completely and utterly messed up labor’s current strategies are and have been for decades. It should be a wakeup call for the labor movement that no business as usual will be tolerated and an opportunity to question the underlying premises of modern trade unionism.

Our enemies are constantly thinking bigger thoughts. They plot and they scheme and they focus on changing “the rules of the game” relentlessly. Even when we are down and barely breathing, they have the sense to try and exterminate us. That is the difference between us and them, and in reality, why they are winning.

In and of itself, the passage of the right to work law in Michigan will have little effect on the future of trade unionism in the United States. Sure the labor movement will lose money and thus be weakened and it truly is a bad thing for the representation of the workers involved. And on the level of ideology, the idea that alleged rights of individual workers can trump class solidarity is repugnant. Yet, the Michigan right to work for less law is a symptom rather than a cause of labor’s problem.

For labor’s problem is not one of money or resources. Certainly, for the unions involved the loss of the dues involved will likely hurt representation, as free riders will no longer be required to pay for the benefits of unionism. But in terms of labor’s future, our problem is not the lack of resources. Labor unions have hundreds of millions of dollars in strike funds and collect hundreds of millions in dues every year. The loss of the dues in question will not materially affect labor’s future.

Our bigger problems are really ones of ideology and overall strategy. The right to work for less legislation is but one piece of a decades-long project of employers to strip trade unionism of solidarity and twist it to conform strictly to the workings of market economics. So to truly understand the origins of the right to work for less push requires discussing some basic labor economics.

Trade unions originally arose because workers understood that selling their labor on the open market only led to poverty. Unlike other “things” that could be sold, human labor was indivisible from human beings. Workers could not simply store their labor until they could sell their labor for a better price. Capital of course wanted to pay as little for labor as possible, using competition between workers to drive the cost of human labor down. So of necessity, successful trade union efforts required stopping or altering the market in human labor.

Unionists did that by asserting that an employer did not have the right to buy an individual’s labor for cheaper than the union set standard, and relatedly that individual workers did not have the right to undercut union labor. The collective rights of workers outweighed the individual “rights” of scabs and business owners. Unions fought for industry-wide agreements designed to take labor out of competition. The closed shop, the picket line, and the boycott were the tools that labor utilized to ensure that scab labor was not allowed to undercut union labor or similarly that non-union shops were not allowed to undercut union shops.

These methods were essential in establishing effective unionism. Employers were forced to reluctantly allow unionism because of the militancy of the labor movement during the 1930s and beyond. They, however, fashioned labor law into their own vision, eventually eliminating all of the essential elements of trade unionism discussed above.

Over the last 80 years they have succeeded in gutting solidarity by:

    Outlawing the effective picket line, a necessary tool to raise wages above “free market” rates.
    Allowing employers to permanently replace striking workers thus converting the strike into an act of collective quitting.
    Outlawing solidarity and along with it mechanisms to standardize wages across industry.
    And, they used right to work as a wedge within workplaces to destroy internal solidarity.

Of all of these restrictions, the elimination of the requirement to pay dues is arguably the least important. These are, however, all parts of the same overall ideological and legal project, the destruction of solidarity and the imposition of Corporate America’s version of labor economics upon the labor movement.

After a decade and a half of confusion, we have some hopeful signs within the labor movement. We have as yet, however, had relatively little discussion of the necessity of breaking free from the restrictions imposed by labor law. We cannot revive the labor movement without addressing this question and reviving true labor solidarity. Perhaps we can use the imposition of right to work laws to question the fundamental pro-employer premises embedded in modern labor law.

Joe Burns, a former local union president active in strike solidarity, is a labor negotiator and attorney.  He is the author of Reviving the Strike:  How Working People Can Regain Power and Transform America (IG Publishing, 2011), which was reviewed on Talking Union by Carl Finamore. Burn’s website is here.

Originally posted to Talking Union on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 09:30 AM PST.

Also republished by In Support of Labor and Unions.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Great diary! (0+ / 0-)

    You're absolutely right: labor cannot be viewed as a market commodity.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 09:58:12 AM PST

  •  Union dues and free riders (0+ / 0-)

    The issue is that "failure to give representation" suits can kill a union. I would really hate to have my dues wasted in paying for what ultimately is litigation caused by instigators.

    If I can think of this so have the Koch funded union busters before the "RTW" movement ever got rolling.

  •  Corporations are getting what they want, but at a (0+ / 0-)

    cost beyond their their ability to pay.

    As poverty increases and income inequality grows, people will eventually come to the realization that they either join in mass solidarity and fight for real, or lose their right to citizenship.

    A lot of people are waking up, but still not enough.

    I truly believe that once the final tilt in the war on workers comes, a backlash of immense proportions will commence, based solely upon common sense.

    Once a State, corporation or federal government places the worker in a no-win situation, they will have laid the groundwork for civil war and the people will wage it out of desperation.

    I may not live to see it, but it will come, hell or high water.

    Hope has a hole in it when Republicans come, bringing shackles and sorrow; branding their greed on the backs of the poor. - Wendy Connors

    by Wendys Wink on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 10:31:50 AM PST

  •  Mirror the gayrights movement start talking to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brae70

    young folk. There is a real danger many of them will never know a single person who worked in a private sector union in the "good old days". Education is the key.

    -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)!

    by dopper0189 on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 10:50:56 AM PST

  •  As a non-union member but supporter of unions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    splashy

    I am frustrated when labor undercuts each other.  The 6 Michigan ballot proposals were not uniformly supported or opposed (except 2), depending on what a union's interests were.  Either we support good jobs with fair wages for all workers, or there is no solidarity.  This is what those outside of the unions see.

    Imagine all the people, living life in peace. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. John Lennon

    by GwenM on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 11:15:22 AM PST

    •  Yes, when you see the unions that are (0+ / 0-)

      Mostly male going along with the corporatist line, there is a problem.

      Firefighters, law enforcement, and others that side with the Republicans/business/owners are a big part of the problem. They don't seem to realize that they are siding with the ones that will eventually destroy their unions too if they can.

      Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 01:42:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site