By Richard Mellor
Afscme Local 444, retired
The IAMAW
(International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) suffered a
stunning defeat at the Boeing factory in Charleston South Carolina as workers
voted against joining a union. The
turnout was strong with 2,828 of approximately 3000 workers eligible to vote
doing so and 2,097 voting against according to The
Post and Courier.
The defeat comes after a unionization drives failed at a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga Tennessee in 2014 (see UAW leadership responsible for the defeat at VW) and production and maintenance workers at R. J. Reynolds Tobacco in North Carolina in 2011. South Carolina is also a Right-To Work state which is undoubtedly a hurdle but by no means an insurmountable one.
One
of the so-called labor experts, more often than not academics that give an intellectual
legitimacy to the labor hierarchy’s disastrous policies, pointed out that this
was an opportunity for the union as favoritism was prominent at the plant and
talks of layoffs and cutbacks, “…had
given the IAM its best shot at gaining a foothold.”.
The
IAMAW’s goals were addressing favoritism and inconsistency, “…fairer evaluations, more consistent work instructions, and higher wages
for production and maintenance workers in South Carolina…” according to the
New
York Times
Why would
these workers vote against a union, against their own self- interest some might
say?
Perhaps
the most anti-worker answer to that question comes from Dave Macaray, a former
union staffer who writes regularly for the liberal online magazine,
Counterpunch. As is usually the case
with former staffers and other liberal types who write on labor issues, the
role of the labor hierarchy, not only their refusal to fight in any serious way
but their outright class collaboration, is completely missing in Macaray’s
report on the election today. Instead he blames the rank and file:
“So before these non-union South Carolinian Boeing workers congratulate themselves on their self-reliance and old-fashioned American “individualism,” they need to realize that without the presence of organized labor acting as their de facto accomplice, they would be one step away from “respectable poverty.” Big Union Vote at South Carolina’s Boeing Plant
“So before these non-union South Carolinian Boeing workers congratulate themselves on their self-reliance and old-fashioned American “individualism,” they need to realize that without the presence of organized labor acting as their de facto accomplice, they would be one step away from “respectable poverty.” Big Union Vote at South Carolina’s Boeing Plant
How
enlightened he is. How condescending. This is the view of a union
bureaucrat---blame the members, blame the worker. He basically puts them in the
“free rider” status which is what workers
at unionized workplaces who opt to not pay dues are called. But why would these
workers vote to join a union in such a hostile climate?
And according to the New York Times article quoted above, production and maintenance workers in South Carolina. “….make about $23 per hour on average, versus about $31 per hour for comparable workers in Washington State.”. The cost of housing, a huge percentage of a workers’ income, is probably significantly lower in SC and from what I can tell, the median wage for a cashier in SC is $8.16, a customer rep, $12.09, a Licensed Practical nurse, $18.35 so wages may not be the most important issue, it is also a question of union power on the job.
Macaray is wrong. It has little or nothing to do with “old fashioned American individualism” why the vote went in Boeing's favor. It is the bosses’ and their politicians’ aggression and the refusal of the labor hierarchy to combat it. We know by experience that management and the right wing politicians in SC waged a massive anti-union campaign. Boeing and the South Carolina Manufacturers Alliance bought hundreds of spots for anti-union TV ads. They wage a media war of terror against workers in these situations.
I do not know all the details yet but it’s not uncommon to sign neutrality agreements with employers in unionizing drives as the UAW at Volkswagen did. It seems unlikely given the media blitz, but we know that the employer is never neutral. In the Volkswagen defeat, the union leadership even gave up the right to visit members in their own homes in exchange for access to them on the job.
The heads of organized labor are wedded to the Team Concept, the view that workers and bosses have the same interests and approach these disputes, which are really the class struggle over the share of wealth that workers create, as spats between teammates. The bosses’ use the term team members when they refer to their employees. But workers know differently.
In this case, in response to the ideological assault from Boeing in the media, claiming that the union would create a hostile labor/management environment at the workplace and likely lead to the loss of jobs if Boeing cut costs or left the state, IAMAW organizers replied in part saying that, “workers could seek the help of a union steward if they had a problem on the job but that they would otherwise be free to deal with managers on their own.”
That instills confidence does it? “Nice unions finish last” Micah Uetricht's article about the UAW’s failure to organized Volkswagen in Tennessee is right on. He too was a former union organizer but at least he criticized the leadership’s strategy in that fiasco.
And according to the New York Times article quoted above, production and maintenance workers in South Carolina. “….make about $23 per hour on average, versus about $31 per hour for comparable workers in Washington State.”. The cost of housing, a huge percentage of a workers’ income, is probably significantly lower in SC and from what I can tell, the median wage for a cashier in SC is $8.16, a customer rep, $12.09, a Licensed Practical nurse, $18.35 so wages may not be the most important issue, it is also a question of union power on the job.
Macaray is wrong. It has little or nothing to do with “old fashioned American individualism” why the vote went in Boeing's favor. It is the bosses’ and their politicians’ aggression and the refusal of the labor hierarchy to combat it. We know by experience that management and the right wing politicians in SC waged a massive anti-union campaign. Boeing and the South Carolina Manufacturers Alliance bought hundreds of spots for anti-union TV ads. They wage a media war of terror against workers in these situations.
I do not know all the details yet but it’s not uncommon to sign neutrality agreements with employers in unionizing drives as the UAW at Volkswagen did. It seems unlikely given the media blitz, but we know that the employer is never neutral. In the Volkswagen defeat, the union leadership even gave up the right to visit members in their own homes in exchange for access to them on the job.
The heads of organized labor are wedded to the Team Concept, the view that workers and bosses have the same interests and approach these disputes, which are really the class struggle over the share of wealth that workers create, as spats between teammates. The bosses’ use the term team members when they refer to their employees. But workers know differently.
In this case, in response to the ideological assault from Boeing in the media, claiming that the union would create a hostile labor/management environment at the workplace and likely lead to the loss of jobs if Boeing cut costs or left the state, IAMAW organizers replied in part saying that, “workers could seek the help of a union steward if they had a problem on the job but that they would otherwise be free to deal with managers on their own.”
That instills confidence does it? “Nice unions finish last” Micah Uetricht's article about the UAW’s failure to organized Volkswagen in Tennessee is right on. He too was a former union organizer but at least he criticized the leadership’s strategy in that fiasco.
No comments:
Post a Comment