AFL-CIO report covers up no-win union strategy

Scan page 16

One thousand rally at San Francisco airport on June 14. 16 SOCIALIST ACTION JULY 1985 The Changing Situation of Workers and Their Unions: A Report by the AFL-CIO Committee on the Evolution of Work, Publication No.165, 815 Sixteenth Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20006.

The AFL-CIO's report on the state of the unions, issued early this year, has been widely heralded in the media as a "new approach" to the problems caused by a declining union membership and the changing composition :of the workforce.

The underlying premise of this report is that the objective situation-the decline in the proportion of manufac turing and construction workers in the work force-is responsible for the setbacks the labor movement has been dealt in recent years.

This argument is false to the core. The decline of union power is not due to changes in the composition of the workforce but rather to failure of official labor strategy.

The top union leaders, as the report confirms, accept the false conception that a basic partnership exists between capital and labor. They believe that labor must collaborate with its enlightened capitalist allies to keep the ship of industry profitably afloat:

The unions have been in steady retreat due to this long-term class-collaborationist policy, which plays into DALITO -11=31 PIY INVES the hands of the employers' game of divide and conquer.

The recent strike by pilots against United Airlines is an example of this. They were effectively isolated from the other unions in their industry-with the notable exception of flight attendants, who honored their their picket linesthrough the insidious effects of widespread inclusion of no-strike clauses in union contracts.

These disastrous prohibitions of solidarity between sister unions, compelling the different crafts to cross each other's picket lines, have been systematically inserted into virtually all union contracts.

The powerful International AssociaSOCIALIST ACTION tion of Machinists, the union representing the mechanics, continued to work for struck United Airlines. Without mechanics, the few planes flown by scab pilots would soon be grounded.

The I.A.M. meekly asked a court if it could circumvent its no-strike clause because, it pleaded, its vital interests as a union were at stake. The judge, ignoring the patently obvious truth of the union's plea, ruled that labor solidarity was illegal.

The union bureaucrats, who have slipped the no-strike clauses past generally uninformed and unsuspecting memberships, hypocritically strive to shunt the blame away from themselves. But this deadly weapon, handed over to the bosses to guarantee that workers' needs will not interfere with profits during the life of the contract, keeps coming back to haunt them all.

Attacks are bipartisan

The report also blames the federal government for "encouraging hostile employer attacks by providing less and less protection to workers who exercise their right to organize and by setting an example for the most virulently anti-union employers."

First of all, the effectiveness of laws "protecting" workers derives entirely from the independent power of unions. The strategy of relying on government agencies for settling disputes with employers leads to the atrophy of union muscle-the less muscle, the fewer PILOTS favorable rulings by government labor boards.

Secondly, no mention is made of the role of the Democratic Party, without which the federal government could not carry out its antilabor role. Instead the report focuses on the Republican Reagan administration as if it were the sole agent of the antilabor offensive.

This strategy, known historically as "class collaboration," finds its clearest expression in labor's dependence on the Democratic Party wing of the capitalist class to defend workers' interests.

It is a strategy that relies on the fox to guard the chicken coop against the wolf. This strategy flows from the labor bureaucracy's acceptance of the holy principle of the profit system; i.e., the god-given right of foxes and wolves to eat chickens!

There is, of course, a decline in the proportion of industrial workers in the workforce. But the potential power of workers in the United States to bring the entire economy to a grinding halt remains undiminished. The basic economic power of the industrial workforce, along with the economic and political power of millions of workers in the service sector and in government employment, is greater than ever.

Moreover, the rise of independent social and political movements in the last 30 years-Blacks, women, and the broad opposition to nuclear insanity and imperialist military interventionhas created powerful potential allies for working people. The working class together with its natural allies would be an invincible power.

But to be realized, labor solidarity must be backed up by independent political action in the streets and in campaigns to elect labor candidates, mobilizing the entire class behind its economic and social objectives.

New tactics?

There is not a single new idea contained in this report-program of the top union leadership.

Most of the tactics proposed as brand new are at best routine measures. This is the case with the much-publicized "corporate campaigns" to mobilize public opinion. The report exaggerates the STP STR Socialist Action/Joe Ryan potential of publicity campaigns, by themselves, to bring pressure to bear on the bosses. It treats the issue as if it were a mere technical problem.

At the same time, the AFL-CIO report implicitly downgrades the deçisive tactic of effective picket lines and other forms of mass action.

The report correctly points to "the failure of the law" to protect workers' rights. But while noting the trend toward an ever-more open pro-employer bias on the part of the federal government, the report points the finger of guilt only at the Reagan administration.

The authors choose to ignore the other Democratic and Republican party administrations-all of whom have participated in the gradual ero sion of labor's legal position since the Wagner Act was enacted by Congress in 1935.

The report quotes from the Wagner Act:

"Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection."

But the report fails to note that assistance to union organization provided by this act was granted only "No-strike clauses because the workers at the time were in open rebellion against laws that declared union organization and strikes illegal. And even after unions and strikes were nominally legalized, it required a mass, and often bloody, struggle to be actually put into effect.

Policies that built CIO Here we get to the heart of the matter. The enormous potential of working-class power was unleashed only through a strategy that relied on strikes, marches, and other mass action, in defiance of anti-union laws.

The labor principle "an injury to one is an injury to all" was the force driving union policy. It was symbolized in the inspiring example, repeated many times, of thousands going on strike in defense of one or two union militants victimized by the boss.

The solidarity practiced by the fighting American working class was the glue that united millions of individuals into one indivisible army. It was systematically eroded by the concerted action of all wings of the employing class-Democrats and Republicans, as well as "pro-union" and anti-union bosses.

The Taft-Hartley time bomb In 1947 Republican and Democratic party legislators joined together to ram through Congress the infamous TaftHartley Act, which made some of the most vital forms of solidarity between unions illegal. The bosses, however, implemented their new legal weapon selectively, craftily holding off bringing to bear its full force, while labor was lulled into complacency during the lon post-war boom.

One of the first blows was a flanking attack aimed at industrial workers. The ruling class's first move was to block solidarity between the building-trades unions and the industrial unions.

Shortly after Taft-Hartley was passed, for example, the powerful United Auto Workers went on strike against Koehler Corporation, a plumbing supply manufacturer. The strike went on for years. It was ultimately broken with the help of Taft-Hartley.

This legislation, among other things, banned "secondary boycotts" —prohibiting construction unions from honoring UAW picket lines when scab-made plumbing supplies were brought onto construction sites.

Once solidarity was effectively barred between the building trades and the unions making products used in construction, the employers moved to bar (continued on page 17)

Scan page 17

SOCIALIST ACTION JULY 1985 17 (continued from page 16)

solidarity between construction unions as well.

Today, a life-and-death battle is being waged in the building industry over whether special "gates" where picketing is "illegal" can be artificially designated on construction sites.

The legal trick is to create one gate for scabs and another for unions. Picketing at the "union" gate is then treated as a violation of the ban on secondary boycotts. Non-striking union members could then be fired for refusing to scab.

This legal bar to labor solidarityfirst accepted, without a fight, to stop construction worker solidarity with auto workers-now threatens the very existence of building-trades unions.

The industrial unions, too, have been compelled to cross each other's picket lines because of Taft-Hartley-imposed restrictions on the constitutionally guaranteed right to refuse to work.

The labor officialdom gave in to this united capitalist offensive without a real fight against the undemocratic and unconstitutional violations against free speech (picketing) and the right to refuse to sell one's labor power (the right to strike). They relied, instead, on promises from their capitalist "allies" in the Democratic Party.

No-strike clauses The labor bureaucracy facilitated the strategic assault by the bosses and their government by voluntarily accepting no-strike clauses in union contracts. They deliberately failed to inform their members of the far-reaching and harmful consequences of these clauses.

The no-strike clause, which the bureaucracy welcomed for its own reasons (to tame the militancy of the rank and file), served as a deadly supplement to the Taft-Hartley Act.

The labor misleaders' maneuvers against their own members reduced their fulminations against anti-strike laws to empty bluster. Capitalist lawmakers got the message sent by the acceptance of no-strike clauses. It assured them that the labor bureaucracy had capitulated to the new ground rules for the class struggle.

Like a silent plague, no-strike clauses spread into contract after contract.

Besides stopping solidarity between unions, the no-strike clause did other great damage. The right to strike to stop employers from violating contracts has been replaced by elaborate arbitration procedures that put the "interpretation" of union contracts into the hands of "impartial" arbitrators.

Not surprisingly, union contractual gains have since been systematically and steadily "interpreted" away by the "impartial" arbitrators.

Solidarity in support of social progress Labor support to progressive social legislation-like public education, publicly financed old-age pensions, health and welfare, racial and sexual equality-has taken a back seat to electing fake "allies" who sometimes give lip-service to these demands, but refuse to implement them.

The labor bureaucracy long ago made the fatal decision that this is the price it must pay for being on the same team with the "good" capitalists.

The harmful consequences of this painting of enemies as "friends" is multiplied when the next election comes up and labor bureaucrats must cover up for the rotten record of "labor's candidates."

In a chapter entitled "Structural changes to enhance the labor movement's overall effectiveness" the report proposes the adoption of "guidelines for use of affiliates contemplating mergers."

Instead of grappling openly and directly with the breakdown of even the most elementary forms of solidaritykey to any serious effort to reverse labor's current retreat-the authors choose a deliberately vague approach.

The report encourages. union mergers. It correctly deplores the ludicrous competition between cliques of bureaucrats raiding each other's dues-paying members and competing-rather than cooperating—in organizing efforts. The report correctly promotes the objective of uniting small unions into more effective associations.

But the report's authors are unable to go beyond the superficial question of organizational centralization and get to the heart of the matter: How to unite the millions of organized workers in a counteroffensive to the ongoing antilabor offensive.

The balance sheet On the plane of electoral action, the labor bureaucrats realize they have lost what they like to call their "clout."

The labor movement could once convince millions of Blacks and other natural allies to cast their votes for Democratic candidates endorsed by labor, under the misconception that the common interests of all the exploited and oppressed would thereby be served.

Today, however, even substantial numbers of workers no longer take their cue from offical labor endorsements. The explanation is plain to see. Few believe that there is a "dime's worth of difference" between Democrats and Republicans.

For years the labor bureaucracy campaigned vigorously for the election of Democrats because they "pledged" to repeal Taft-Hartley or some of its more offensive sections. Of course, the Democrats never did any such thing.

When the Democrats had the presidency and a majority in both houses of Congress, they failed to carry out such repeated pledges to repeal anti-labor laws.

Democrats played a cynical shell game, such as when President Gerald Ford vetoed the repeal of the ban on situs picketing in 1974. But three years later, the Democrats elected Jimmy Carter president, and captured large majorities in both houses of Congress. The Democrats-who had pledged to repeal the picketing ban-conveniently were "unable" to muster a simple majority.

The postwar tradeoffs In the postwar years of economic expansion and greatly increased labor productivity, the the U.S. capitalists enjoyed a profit bonanza. The employers could easily afford to give a small portion of the superprofits they reaped to U.S. workers. Wage increases, in fact, were routinely granted without any real fights. But the wily American ruling class demanded concessions in exchange.

In addition to the no-strike clause, the bureaucrats scabbed on workers in Vietnam and elsewhere by supporting imperialist foreign policy. And in their zeal to prove their loyalty to their capiJOBS talist partners, the bureaucracy shamelessly betrayed the democratic aspirations of Blacks, women and other natural constituencies of the labor movement at home as well.

Instead of being in the front ranks of the struggle for social justice, the bureaucrats kept labor in the rear— when not openly on the side of reaction.

A little of the moral capital of the workers' movement was given up for every cent granted in wage increases.

But the labor bureaucrats deliberately fostered the illusion that the wage gains were won by their skillful bargaining, political sagacity and "clout."

They concealed the fact that the working class as a whole was losing, not gaining ground.

This strategy of class collaboration worked to isolate the labor movement, paving the way for a direct offensive against the unions themselves.

Which way forward?

A break from the policy of supporting capitalist politicians would be tantamount to a declaration of independence for the labor movement. Today the labor movement is being pushed by the growing assault on living standards toward such a break.

The labor bureaucracy consciously resists this objective pressure. But it is pressed on both sides: The bosses demand more concessions and the workers are driven to resist. Cracks and divisions within the bureaucracy will open up. Organized class-conscious workers will know how to take advantage of such openings.

In the meantime the labor bureaucracy strives to induce the capitalist class to retreat from its antilabor offensive with whining appeals, bluffs, and half-hearted threats. That is what is meant "The AFL-CIO report has no answer to the antilabor offensive."

when prominent labor officials talk of "one-sided class war, and others publicly discuss the option of labor candidates and an independent labor party.

Even the AFL-CIO's endorsement of Mondale for president before the primaries is too "uppity" for capitalist politicians-despite its containment within the bounds of the Democratic Party.

Kirkland's open squabble with the new head of the Democratic Party is another feeble threat. [See story on page 8.] But it is one that nevertheless foreshadows things to come. Increasingly the possibilities for pressuring the capitalist class, while staying within the framework of the Democratic Party, appear less credible to growing numbers of people.

Independent working class political action is inevitable despite the intentions Cocialist Action/Joe Rvan of the official labor leadership. The historic fightback now gestating will most likely be expressed first in more determined strikes marked by militant resistance to unconstitutional legal restrictions on picketing. This will mark the transition from the past phase of class collaboration to the coming period of intensified class struggle.

Labor's historic mission

It will be out of such picket line battles that a new leadership of fighters will first emerge. Ultimately they will be forged into a class-struggle left wing. It will be as a result of such experiences that labor's need to fight with both fists, economic and political, will become widely understood.

The future leaders of the workers' movement will not restrict themselves to picket line battles. They will come to grips with the need for a broad working class political offensive. They will absorb the lessons, underscored in recent history, that their struggle is a political and social struggle as well as a fight for wages and better working conditions.

Karl Marx wrote over a hundred years ago that on the exclusively economic plane of struggle between capital and labor, capital is the stronger. He explained that only in the course of a generalized économic (i.e., political) struggle is labor the stronger.

We can be certain that if the next wave of labor insurgency does begin on the picket lines it will swiftly move onto the political arena, where, through an independent party based on the unions, all the forces of labor power can be brought to bear.

The coming battles between contending classes can only be resolved with the victory of one side or the other. A labor victory will be won only if the working class leads all the oppressed and exploited in a common struggle for a socialist future based on genuine freedom, equality, and fraternity.

The AFL-CIO report ends disingenuously with a statement from Eugene V. Debs, the great American socialist and workers' leader, after the defeated Pullman strike in 1894:

"Ten thousand times has the labor movement stumbled and bruised itself. We have been enjoined by the courts, assaulted by thugs, charged by the militia, traduced by the press, frowned upon in public opinion, and deceived by politicians.

"But notwithstanding all this and all these, labor is today the most vital and potential power this planet has ever known, and its historic mission is as certain of ultimate realization as is the setting of the sun."

Eugene V. Debs was certainly right. Labor's historic mission will be realized. Unfortunately, the latest AFL-CIO report is an obstacle in this path.

Scan page 18

face din for co of American INDE

----- pull-quotes -----

THIS RIKE EXT? UNITEE

block solidarity-as pilots strike shows."