DSA: Democratic Discussion on Union Work Essential

Feb. 2018 West Virginia Teachers Kick off the biggest strike wave in years. In a state where strikes are illegal

Richard Mellor

Afscme Local 444, retired

Member, DSA

"He's not just going to be the big business president; he's going to be the president of everybody here," Teamster leader James Hoffa on Trump.

I have written more than once on the difference in approach that myself and Facts For Working People has with groups like Labor Notes, to whom unfortunately, the leadership of DSA has contracted out guidance of the organization's trade union work.

I have also had numerous discussions with activists about this. We have pointed out that the main difference is that these groups and individuals who practice the same methods, absolutely refuse to discuss the role of the trade union leadership in general. This omits or obscures their responsibility in the decline of union power and defeat after defeat of strikes despite heroic sacrifice on the part of the rank and file union member. I can only assume this refusal to discuss the leadership’s role to any extent is to avoid a conflict with them. Yet this is the crucial group that determines policy, practice, how strikes are run and how the organization relates to the bosses and their political organizations. We saw in the recent Teamster/UPS dispute how the Teamster leadership was able to overrule a no vote on the contract. It is crucial for DSA to conduct a healthy and friendly discussion about this among the membership

This does not mean that groups, (which includes most self styled socialist organizations,) with this approach----ignoring the leadership altogether------don’t offer logistical and other support for workers on strike. When I was in the leadership of my local we found much of Labor Notes’ literature very useful and purchased stuff for our activists and Labor Notes organizes some very good conferences. But this refusal to challenge the leadership is very damaging as it doesn’t prepare rank and file members wanting to change the union, for the inevitable conflict with the leadership that results. Writing in Democratic Left, the DSA’s Magazine, Jane Slaughter , a prominent member of Labor Notes staff, stressed that, “…the members have to take over and transform their unions”. We agree with that sentiment, but she doesn’t say from whom and this is no accident.

One way the reader will see the difference is to read the article in the latest issue of Labor Notes Magazine about the UAW ‘s third attempt to unionize the workers at the Volkswagen factory in Chattanooga Tennessee.  I wrote about that defeat and the title of the piece that was absolutely appropriate was, UAW leadership responsible for the defeat at VW.  It’s not that I have a principle of attacking the union leadership, just the opposite. But I don’t have a principle of never talking about their role either or holding them responsible for their actions. Leadership has consequences. Any worker with an ounce of sense or class consciousness sees the weaknesses in the UAW leadership’s strategy and practices in that failed drive.  The recent Labor Notes article as far as I could see in the section on the 2014 organizing drive, never mentioned the leadership once. Most likely the idea that the UAW has a leadership at all was absent throughout as the term UAW or the union is always used. This is a conscious decision to avoid a conflict with the leadership.

The writer of the Labor Notes article is Chris Brooks, and like most of the staffers, organizers and policy makers at Labor Notes, is a former employee of a union. Staffers and other employees of unions are not the rank and file of the union movement and I can say without hesitation, that you won’t get a job with a union if you are a rank and file union member who has a base among, and support from, your co-workers/members and you are intent on transforming and taking over the union as Jane Slaughter advises.

Here’s a list of Labor Notes personell. Being dominated by former union staffers is not a bad thing in and of itself but I know as any worker with an ounce of sense and experience in the movement, you do not get these jobs in the present climate unless you are safe. It is your job after all, to ensure the concessionary policies of the right wing bureaucracy atop organized labor that supports the Team Concept, are carried out, generally against the wishes of the membership.

The 2014 VW defeat was a disaster and it was a disaster because of the UAW leadership’s strategy, read my article on that organizing drive here. Brother Brooks refers to one aspect of the disaster, the neutrality agreement the UAW leadership (he avoids the term “leadership” referring to the “union” as if the members loved the agreement and selected it) entered in to with VW as having some “downsides”.  Then he adds, “The agreement barred organizers from visiting workers at home to talk about the union and assess their support. A non-disparagement clause prohibited the union from publicly organizing around the issues that workers faced in the plant.”

Downsides is putting it mildly. Apart from that, neutrality agreements are bad for workers. The employer is never neutral and neither should we be. In my article linked I quote a young guy who worked for a union as an organizer and he learned good organizational skills from it. The problem was that because of a neutrality agreement the union leadership had agreed to with the employer, whenever the workers, who had justifiable anger toward their boss and wanted to express it openly through a flier or other means, he found himself having to suppress it because their leaders had agreed to be neutral. He found himself suppressing the righteous anger that the workers had about their conditions from being expressed openly. In actuality, the approach of the leadership was designed to hold back real rank and file power and ensure that justifiable anger didn’t find organizational expression. Hopefully, in the UAW leadership's view, if they made enough concessions, bent over backwards to please the VW bosses, the Union would be allowed in and would gain new members and most importantly, revenue in the form of dues money.

Brother Brooks’ limited understanding of the real class struggle is evident when he gives credence to the claim that VW stayed fairly neutral in 2014 leaving the anti-union attacks to “Republican” groups on the outside. It is wishful thinking at best to think the heads of VW had no influence or connection whatsoever with the anti-union efforts to keep the UAW out.

I stress again, the main difference we have at Facts For Working People with this approach is that the leadership and its role, an extremely important part of the organization, is off limits when it comes to discussing the process.

When I spoke at a DSA meeting to get support for the Oakland teachers strike recently, I stressed, for the benefit of the many young people present that are new to the labor movement and want to make it a stronger more democratic movement, that there will be resistance to this from the hierarchy and that they should be prepared for it. A prominent member of the DSA labor caucus was extremely hostile to me after my remarks and it is precisely because he too wants to avoid a conflict with the hierarchy. Some might genuinely think you can “transform” the unions that way but it becomes obvious early on you can't. Others do it as they are looking for a job in the hierarchy, it’s called opportunism.

The main adversary of working people is the capitalist class or the boss, every class conscious worker understands that. But the reason the bosses have been able to savage working conditions and the material conditions of workers and the middle class in general, which includes public services, is that the policies and practices of the heads of organized labor from the top down has allowed them to. In fact, the trade union leadership has willingly participated in this decline as they see no other alternative but to do so.

As I said, groups like Labor Notes have resources and these resources are important to workers when we are on strike or need help. But we cannot transform the unions by ignoring the present leadership and acting like they don't exist; they won't allow that. What is most frustrating is that any individual or grouping that tries to get an open discussion of the leadership’s role and why they do what they do, is met with hostility from groups like Labor Notes that practice it and the DSA leadership that has adopted it. Having the resources to provide assistance to workers does not exempt the provider from criticism.

I believe this hostility is because these individuals and groups know their method is wrong. If they thought otherwise surely they would welcome a discussion like that. And would defend their ideas and approach.

Here is a link to Labor Notes staff and organizers.  While LN has the resources to organize great conferences attracting many rank and file union members and offers help to workers in struggle, those who determine policy and practice are not traditionally rank and file union members. 

It’s clear that the UAW leadership, as all of them do, look towards friendly politicians (Democrats) the courts, and so-called good employers to get a contract rather than the power of their own members, the working class as a whole and our communities. The UFCW here in California one time picked the CEO of a major retailer as their person of the year. Not a steward, a genuine rank and file worker fighting in the workplace where the "rubber meets the road".

This refusal to mobilize the potential power of labor and bring it to the table is why we have suffered decades of defeats. It’s not that the boss is all powerful and its certainly not because workers/union members won’t and haven’t sacrificed. It’s the leadership’s policies and that has to be discussed if we want to turn the tide.

As we have previously, we welcome a comradely and honest debate about these differences in approach to organized labor.  

More on this subject and some historical context here