In The Face of the Capitalist Offensive, Union Popularity Declines

Above: Anti-Union Propaganda

Two recent studies reveal the crisis that organized Labor finds itself in.  A Gallup Poll found that only 52% of Americans have favorable views of Unions, "the second-lowest ever recorded since Gallup  began documenting this trend 70 years ago." according to In These Times. *  An earlier survey by the Pew Research Center found that a mere 41% of Americans viewed Unions in a good light.  When the massive level of anti-Union propaganda that exists in US society is taken in to account this is still an amazing figure. By comparison,  in 1953 75% of the public approved of labor Unions and throughout the post war upswing, a period during which the Union hierarchy were able to produce the goods to a certain extent for a significant section of the population, Unions remained favorable. But after years of defeats and declining living standards, Unions have also been on the decline.  What the article doesn't point out, (I haven't read the survey's in full) is that many, many Union members are extremely dissatisfied, not so much with Unions, but with the concessionary and outright collaborationist policies of their leaders, which is sometimes manifested in a rejection of Unions in general.

"What seems to be missing," the Times article suggests, "is an inclusive message that unions have been fighting to guarantee the rights of all workers, union or non-union, at a time when employers are implementing wage and benefit concessions across the country."

But this is not the case.  The reason so many Union members have a negative attitude toward the Union is that the Union has no significant presence on the job and that it does not fight for them; as Union dues go up as wages and living standards decline, why pay Union dues? Workers built Unions to defend and improve our material well-being, not as an exercise in civics.  It is one thing to oppose something in words, but what that means in action is the issue.  In These Times goes on to say, "But labor has had a difficult time getting this message across (that it fights for all workers) . Instead, the perception exists that unions are insular and self-serving entities that are only helping out their own rank and file." (My added emphasis)

Unfortunately this is true and one of the main reasons that public sentiment, during a major assault on all workers, is where it is.  I have written on numerous occasions about this failing. In fact, the heads of organized Labor, those with the resources at their command at the moment, refuse to even defend their own members, never mind workers as a whole.  Their program is one of concessions and assisting the employers in maintaining profits and in defense of the so-called free market; damage control is their strategy.  During the 5 month grocery strike here in California, I remember being on informational picket lines up here in Northern California and one of the dominant issues was benefits.  Striking workers were asking people not to shop in order to keep their benefits. The response I heard on many occasions was "Benefits, what benefits?  I don't have any benefits." It's the same when the contract for the transit workers comes up.  They are terrified of striking because their economic power is such that they can cause severe disruption to the Bay Area economy and the public will not be able to get to work.  The employers know this and use it all the time.

The Union leadership has no response to this other than if they go out, the "moral" thing to do is support them.  The young man or woman earning $12 an hour and no benefits can't get to work because workers earning $30-$35 an hour with benefits want to keep them and need their support.  The way to win that support and make the sacrifice worth while is to generalize the struggle, take it in to the communities, fight for a $15 an hour minimum wage, free transportation, more jobs and point to where the money is for this. If we want people to join us, we have to fight for them.  The Union officials refuse to do this because they accept the employer's arguments and have the same world outlook, capitalism needs help and we have to sacrifice to help it. (They don't include themselves in the "we".  The obscene salaries and perks of the top Union hierarchy is a secondary factor in their refusal to fight.

This doesn't mean we would be better off without Unions as the fact that they exist at all has been a brake on the bosses' increasingly aggressive offensive. But they are less and less so, especially when the system goes in to crisis and the leadership more openly cooperates with the employers in undermining workers wages and benefits that took decades to win.

This is one thing that is missing in the In These Times article.  It is to be expected that given the level of propaganda day in and day out that is directed against workers and Unions without any serious counter offensive (The US capitalist class  spends more total money on all aspects of the war against its own working class than against foreign terrorists you can bet on that) it will have an effect.  Every day there are articles and editorials about public sector workers and our exorbitant pensions (you might be able to actually live on some of them), the same assault is waged against all workers that earn a half decent wage and have a half decent retirement.

The employer's propaganda, their view of the world, their explanation about why there is no money and why we have to take cuts, this not only goes unanswered by the Labor leadership that have millions of dollars in the banks and 15 million people in their ranks, they endorse it. Sure they fight; they tell us to vote for Democrats.  But the reality is that people's lives are deteriorating.  Reading the big business press reveals the level of despair that exists in the absence of a social movement that can fight back.  The End of American Optimism, Voters Back Tough Steps to Reduce Deficit, Another Threat to Economy: Boomers Cutting Back, Worried Americans Look Inward, articles like these just this week and numerous editorials about the greedy public sector and how our wages and benefits are the cause of the present crisis are the cause of the decline in Union popularity among the public.  

While it is obvious that the response, or lack of it, to this offensive of capital on the part of the strategists atop the Labor movement allows this to happen, leaders of individual Union locals and other rank and file activists have a responsibility too.  Caucuses must be built in Locals and between Locals that openly challenge the disastrous methods of the top leadership; we cannot avoid a struggle within our Unions.   A $15 an hour minimum wage, a shorter workweek to create jobs to put the 30 million or so to work that capitalism has abandoned would get an echo among the public and help organize the unorganized.  Free education at all levels, free health care and transportation, lowering the retirement age not increasing it which is on the agenda.  We also cannot move forward without building our own independent political organization as an alternative to the two parties of capital.

These are issues that will galvanize public support. During the height of the student movement here in California, the AFL-CIO should have joined in a statewide work stoppage and organized for it; it would have tranformed the mood among Union members and society as a whole. But there is nothing more terrifying than a victory, who knows where it might lead.

There is plenty of money in society, it is simply a matter of allocation. It is not difficult to point to where the money is, ending the predatory wars in Afghanistan and Iraq alone would save a trillion or so. 

I was spurred to comment on this as what In These Times does, talk about the Labor movement, about Unions as if there are no leaders, as if in the "Union" all have the same responsibility and influence, is common and is a flawed approach.  Members have responsibility no doubt, but the role of the leadership is crucial, every member that's tried to change the situation and have come up against the wall of opposition from an entrenched bureaucracy knows this.

It is most likely given the role of the trade Union leadership that a mass movement of opposition will be borne outside of the Union structures but organized Labor will be engulfed by such a development.
The propaganda war against workers, and the public sector in particular  is winning because the leaders of the workers' movement give support to the employers and their system  This has delayed the fight back, the building of a generalized movement that will transform US society.

But it can't prevent it indefinitely.

*Labor’s Popularity Declines Amid Criticism Of Public-Sector Unions: In  These Times 8-18-10
Note: Do a  Public Sector or Union search on this blog for further reading