arndt@lymph.DEC (02/09/85)
A while ago I did a research paper on American Unionism. For what it is worth here is the outline as best as I remember. Start with a definition of what a union is. It is an organization of workers who group together to present the united power of their numbers to management in order to get the fairest possible exchange for their labor. Small craft trade unions were the start of unionism in Colonial America. These were small, LOCAL groups of craftsmen who joined together in order to ensure a certain price for the product of their labor (ie. shoes, etc.). If their price was not met they did not work. They also controled who entered or practiced their craft locally. With the rise of more extensive communication (canals, railroads, etc.) the local labor organizations had to become regional and national organizations. They had to do this in order to maintain control over the labor pool. The Civil War also brought vast changes with its masses of semi-skilled factory workers. There was a big clash as these semi-skilled workers came to realize their need for repersentation to management. The skilled craft organizations did not want to let anyone below them in. So the factory workers united under their own banners. Both types of organizatons later united in the AFL/CIO, I believe it was, in the face of mounting pressure from employers. WWI and WWII, and laws passed by Congress that took the side of both labor and management had an impact on American unionism. The important point to understand is that the American experience with labor organizations and management relations nearly always moved toward COMPROMISE. In the European experience the relationship between labor and management was nearly always one of trying to BREAK the other side (along the lines of class warfare). American Unionism has had a history of being able to CHANGE and ADAPT to meet the new environment and move on. The position that I took in the paper was that based upon this ability of American unionism to change and adapt they would find their way into the future despite current events like declining membership and 'give-backs',etc. There will always be a need for labor to organize and so face management with the power of a united front. The exact form this will take is not certain nor does it need to be. Well, that's my 2 cents. Keep chargin' Ken Arndt
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (02/11/85)
-- > The important point to understand is that the American experience > with labor organizations and management relations nearly always moved > toward COMPROMISE. In the European experience the relationship > between labor and management was nearly always one of trying to BREAK > the other side (along the lines of class warfare)... > > Ken Arndt That's American trade unionism in a nutshell--well said. (Oh, Ken, here I am agreeing with you. I'm so sorry--I'm so ashamed.:-) There have been, of course, indigenous labor movements that have felt that this compromise relationship was totally co-optive. Foremost was the I.W.W., which pushed for "One Big Union!", and refused to bargain for contracts because these legitimized wage slavery. Since American society has never been permeated with real class barriers as Europe had (and still has), the I.W.W. did not inherit a naturally sympathetic audience. Still, the brutal excesses of the mine and lumber bosses surpassed the dreams of real aristocrats, and it took the demented patriotic fervor of The Great War to put the kabosh on the Wobblies. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 10 Feb 85 [22 Pluviose An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (02/13/85)
Arndt says: > Start with a definition of what a union is. It is an organization of > workers who group together to present the united power of their numbers > to management in order to get the fairest possible exchange for their labor. One *slight* correction: make that the *maximum* possible exchange for their labor. > Small craft trade unions were the start of unionism in Colonial America. > These were small, LOCAL groups of craftsmen who joined together in order to > ensure a certain price for the product of their labor (ie. shoes, etc.). > If their price was not met they did not work. They also controled who entered > or practiced their craft locally. And how did they do that? Beating up prospective competitors? > With the rise of more extensive communication (canals, railroads, etc.) > the local labor organizations had to become regional and national organizations. Otherwise, competitors could simply move elsewhere to avoid being beaten up and use the new transportation facilities to ship their goods all over the place. > They had to do this in order to maintain control over the labor pool. Ah, you admit it. > WWI and WWII, and laws passed by Congress that took the side of both labor and > management had an impact on American unionism. Perhaps you'd like to provide us with a list of the laws which took the side of management. The only one which I can think of was the Taft-Hartley Act, which really only took the side of the government, not management. On the side of labor, however, we got laws for the establishment of the minimum wage, laws preventing management from firing strikers, laws allowing strikers to block plant entrances, etc. > The important point to understand is that the American experience with labor > organizations and management relations nearly always moved toward COMPROMISE. Yeah, UAW workers have compromised with management. Instead of the unlimited amount they really want, they've settled for only $20/hr and enough benefits to cost management $50/hr. Of course, many UAW workers are now out of work since American automobiles cannot compete with imports at these rates. And they wonder why it's economical to replace them with expensive robots. > There will always be a need for labor to organize and so face management with > the power of a united front. The exact form this will take is not certain > nor does it need to be. I agree. It's just that I think that unions currently have too much power. I guess that comes from having watched them 'work' while I was working for Chevy's Tonawanda forge. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Is everybody happy?" -- M. de Sade
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (02/15/85)
>From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) > Yeah, UAW workers have compromised with management. Instead of the >unlimited amount they really want, they've settled for only $20/hr and enough >benefits to cost management $50/hr. Of course, many UAW workers are now out >of work since American automobiles cannot compete with imports at these rates. >And they wonder why it's economical to replace them with expensive robots. > It's just that I think that unions currently have too much >power. I guess that comes from having watched them 'work' while I was working >for Chevy's Tonawanda forge. This last comment is simply inane. There are several million unionized workers in the U.S. Do you mean to imply that none of them work? These kind of comments add nothing to the dialog. Regarding the vaunted international competition argument, why don't you just look at the wage havens U.S. corporations flee to when they shut down U.S. plants. Surprise, surprise, they often turn out to be U.S.-backed dictatorships like South Korea or the Phillipines, where the power of the state is used to do exactly what you would apparently like the U.S. government to do at home -- prevent workers from forming unions. That's called "cultivating a good foreign investment climate", by the way. Mike Kelly
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (02/18/85)
>= Mike Kelly > >From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) > > Yeah, UAW workers have compromised with management. Instead of the > >unlimited amount they really want, they've settled for only 20/hr and enough > >benefits to cost management $50/hr. Of course, many UAW workers are now out >>of work since American automobiles cannot compete with imports at these rates. > >And they wonder why it's economical to replace them with expensive robots. > > It's just that I think that unions currently have too much >>power. I guess that comes from having watched them 'work' while I was working > >for Chevy's Tonawanda forge. > >This last comment is simply inane. There are several million unionized workers > in the U.S. Do you mean to imply that none of them work? These kind of > comments add nothing to the dialog. The last comment was included to let people know that I really *have* worked in a union plant and actually observed the way one union worked in action. Nowhere did I imply that none of them work. Actually, most of the UAW workers in this particular plant worked at least 4-5 hrs/day. I'm not exagerrating with that number either. How did they get away with it? They had a system called a 'peg', which was a given number of pieces which had to be turned out in one day. The peg for any given machine was set so that it could be met in 4-5 hrs of work. The worker could then sit around in the employee lounge, or go to the cafeteria to have coffee with people on their twice-daily 15 minute breaks (which typically lasted much longer. Nobody minded as long as each man produced his peg.) Why was the peg so low? I asked that question too, when I first got there, and found out that if the peg for a given type of machine is raised high enough to consume 6 or more hours of a workers day, all of the workers mysteriously become *less* productive, and unable to even meet the *origional* peg. > > Regarding the vaunted international competition argument, why don't you just > look at the wage havens U.S. corporations flee to when they shut down U.S. >plants. Surprise, surprise, they often turn out to be U.S.-backed dictatorships > like South Korea or the Phillipines, where the power of the state is used to > do exactly what you would apparently like the U.S. government to do at > home -- prevent workers from forming unions. I guess you're really not as good at reading minds as you thought, Mike. (You certainly never got that idea from my article, but you must have gotten it somewhere.) I recognize the right of workers to form unions, and perceive that it is good for workers to be able to collectively bargain, and to join together to prevent unsafe working conditions, unfair practices, etc. However, I *do* think that unions currently have too much power in our country. Why should they be able to block plant entrances while striking? Why should companies be prevented from firing strikers? Why should companies be prevented from paying high-quality workers more than low-quality workers? Why should companies be forced to 'call back' people from layoffs in order of seniority rather than order of employee quality? Why should unions be able to prevent the hiring of non-union personell (even to do jobs which none of the union people have been trained for)? Now if you want to continue this disagreement, Mike, fine. But please disagree with what I've *said*. Don't make up things and say that that's what I want any more, o.k.? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Once more, into the breech!" -the human cannonball
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/20/85)
I'd include the section that I have to question you on,
but my editor isn't working all that hot right now.
But, I remember you saying that American Unionism has been
conciliatory in nature. WRONGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you look back in the history of American unions,
look to the railroad worker strike(the year fails me).
Cops were used to attack the strikers.
Also, after the First World War, Union leaders were locked up
as Socialists. I would say to you that Unionism in the U.S.
has had as much mud in its past as that of the Europeans.
Sincerely yours,
DAVE BROWN
================================================================================
WHO SAID HISTORY ISN'T RELEVANT?
================================================================================
P.S. Canadian union history is just as murky.ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (02/26/85)
> If you look back in the history of American unions, > look to the railroad worker strike(the year fails me). > Cops were used to attack the strikers. I am not sure if Dave Brown is referring to the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, the Knights of Labor strike agains the SW line (won), the second SW strike (lost) or the Pullman strike of 1894; but in at least one case not only were cops sent in, but the president sent in federal troops to break the strike, in direct violation of various and sundry laws....(cf. Salvatore's biography of Eugene Debs). -Ellen