Labor Unions SP10

The Purpose of Unions

conflicts

Labor Unions in the United States are the means in which the working class can fight against the conflicts of the capitalist system. It must be established that capitalism is a system of conflicts; in fact, conflict is one of the driving forces in Capitalism. One of conflict of focus is between the working class and the owning class. These two groups are set against each other because they are striving for opposing goals [1]. The owning or capitalist class is looking to secure more profit in order to grow. Therefore, they always attempt to pay the lowest wage for the highest amount of labor time. Yet, the working class is striving to work the least amount of hours while obtain the highest possible wages, in an effort to advance their position in society [2].However, historically this struggle has not been an even one. Since Capitalists’ are the owners of the means of production, they have an intrinsic advantage because they have control over the workers’ wages, hours, and benefits and usually are able to overpower any individual worker.

How Unions Work

When a union is able to form between those in the working class, their ability to change their position as subordinates to the owning class becomes possible. A union is a group of workers who unite in order to advance their situation in the work place. As Karl Marx stated in 1875, “It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself as a class…” [3] What Karl Marx is trying to explain is the power of the owning class is overwhelming because they own the property, the facilities and the product being produced. However if the working class can unite in an effort to secure certain goals they can become quite powerful. Since they are the ones doing the physical work in the factory the workers keep the businesses going and therefore, as a group, have the ability to stop working and cause the capitalist to lose profits. This can be devastating to any capitalist endeavor and ideally will cause him to negotiate with the workers for a better wage and better hours. Yet, it is not that simple because when the workers stop working, they are not being paid and the working class cannot survive long with out their wages. This means that in order for workers to gain anything through forming a union and striking, they must also make great sacrifices and risk their livelihood.[4]

Rise of Unions in the United States

The Labor movement first began in 1872 in Philadelphia with the founding of what is called the Knights of St. Crispin. This was a group of radical laborers whose “membership mounted to 40,000 or 50,000, whereas the next largest unions of the time claimed only 10,000 to 12,000.”[5] Such movements were motivated by the complete lack of regulation of the capitalist system as well as no laws that prohibited social discrimination or exploitation. [6] This meant that the working class at the time was living in such horrible conditions that they were became radicalized. This is a very important aspect in the rise of labor unions because until conditions became horrible for the working class, no one thought to create a union. <ref name="example web reference">text, additional text.</ref> The United States did however, have the advantage of looking at other countries industrial revolutions and realizing that capitalism is very exploitative and therefore, unions are a necessity for the working class to establish, before conditions become unbearable. Through out the 1900s the labor unions slowly gained power, mostly due to an influx in immigration during the time. <ref name="example web reference">text, additional text.</ref> These immigrants were heavily exploited and impoverished. Yet, because the idea of unions had already been established in other countries, Americans were able to form unions like the Knights of St. Crispin, the National Labor Union and the Knights of Labor. <ref name="example web reference">text, additional text.</ref>

Prominent Unions throughout History

AFL

The AFL or American Labor Federation was formed out of a dispute with the Knights of Labor. The founders of the ALF claimed that the Knights of Labor’s anti-strike policies were detrimental to certain workers and that capitalist firms were taking advantage of the fact that those workers part of the Knights of Labor were not going to strike. Once the AFL became an official union, which was willing to strike, they established support through out the country. Eventually, under the leadership of Samuel Gompers, the AFL became one of the most popular unions in the country. As the AFL became better known, they also solidified their stance as very anti-communist, which angered some labor unionist and others on the left who were working for the working class. [7]

CIO

The CIO or Congress of Industrial Organizations was formed out of a dispute with the AFL in 1936. Their dispute was over inclusion of different types of laborers who many felt were under represented. While under the leadership of John L. Lewis, the CIO became a union whose focus was on inclusion of anyone who wished to advance the cause of the working class. One example of this was when the CIO’s inclusive policies was when it organized strikes with the help of several well known communist groups throughout America. During World War Two the CIO was the peak of its power and established factions all over the country among many different craftsmen. However, as the war ended the CIO became increasing more anti-communist, as that was national attitude at the time. However, once this began it became clear that the CIO would need to rejoin the AFL, which it did in 1956.[8]

Knights of Labor

The Knights of Labor began as a secrete society in the late 1860s. They were inspired to declare themselves a union from the actions of the National Labor Union, although their organization actually began slightly before the National Labor Union. The Knights of Labor was revolutionary in the fact that they were not discriminatory against African American workers. The mission of the Knights of Labor is as follows:

“We believe that the Knights of Labor [KoL] were on the right path of organizing Labor and in the justice of their economic and social demands. Three factors, uniquely distinguish the KoL from other labor unions. First, the Knights of Labor called for the creation of a single labor union for skilled and un-skilled workers alike to strengthen the Union against all opposition. Second, the Knights strongly opposed to the use of the strike. Strikes lead to misery and hardship for workers, and as history proves -- ultimate defeat. Thirdly, the Knights' goal was to establish co-operative businesses owned and operated by members of the union.” [9]

The practices and the goals the Knights of Labor established were not just influential to every union thereafter. However, there were aspects of the knights of Labor that were quite controversial and are rejected today. The main example of this is the Knights of Labor’s anti-strike ideas. They believe that strikes hurt the worker, yet they do not establish any type of forceful method in which a union asserts its opinions. [10]

National Labor Union

The National Labor Union formed in 1866 and dissolved in 1873. Although this Union was short lived, it was the first official union of the industrial revolution in America. The National Labor Union was critical in establishing what could be achieved when workers form a union. With out the creation of the National Union in the 1860 is many other unions would not have been able to form. The reason for the dissolving of this union was its overly complex system of selecting leaders as well as a very volatile economic climate in the 1870s. [11]

Knights of St. Crispin

The Knights of St. Crispin were a group of radical skilled laborers who stood against the unfair labor practices of capitalists in 1867. The member of this early union advocated for a complete abolition of child labor and for a better living wage. By 1870, this union had about 50,000 members and was by far the largest union in the United States. However, soon after it became so large it disintegrated due to racist activities against Chinese workers and weak leadership. [12]

AFL-CIO

The AFL-CIO is the merging of the AFL and CIO into one union. The merging of these two powerful unions in 1953 made the AFL CIO one of the most powerful Unions in the country and controlled vast numbers of laborers. Today the AFL-CIO remains a prominent and although it is often criticized for not being radical enough it certainly has proven that it will always be one of the strongest unions in America.[13]

UMW

The United Mine Workers began in 1890 in Ohio. Originally, these miners were a part of the Knights of Labor but due to their anti-strike policies the coal miners chose to form their own union. Coal mining was one of the most dangerous and difficult jobs in the United States and because of this the workers involved knew that they needed a union in order to make better their already arduous job. Luckily for the United Mine Workers their leadership was superb. Both Mother Jones herself and the famed John L. Lewis were major leaders of the UMW and brought the coal miners cause on to the national spot light. The UMW peaked during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, were the UMW’s leaders were able to have their voices herd by the federal government. [14]

Labor Unions and the Great Depression

As the Great Depression ravaged the United States, all aspects of life seemed bleak. There was no money to be made anywhere. At first, unions were even having trouble growing there it was more of a priority to get a job then to worry about if that job was unionized. However, that was to change when President Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to office. [15] It was clear to President Roosevelt that the lives of the working class in the United States needed to be better and that meant unions were going to be encouraged by the federal government for the first time. One way Roosevelt did this by proposing and eventually passing the National Labor Relations Act or NLRA of 1935. [16] The goal of this act was to force companies into paying higher wages to workers while also offering them substantially more job security. In other words, “Roosevelt believed that the severity of the Depression was due to excessive business competition that reduced prices and wages, which in turn lowered demand and employment.” [17] Therefore, the NLRA was an effort to “(limit) competition and allow labor to capture some of those rents(money) by exempting industry from antitrust prosecution if the industry immediately raised wages and accepted collective bargaining with labor unions.”[18] It is clear that the volatile economic times of the Great Depression created not only the right climate for workers to become angry and demand change but it also sent a message to the federal government. That if the country was going to recover then the struggles of the working class must be recognized and under Roosevelt, those struggles became a major focus of his presidency. What Roosevelt also did for unions in the United States was lay the ground for them to have a strong set of legal supports, which would make the United States have large, unified and active unions for years to come.[19]

The fall of Unions in the United States

As time progressed and the global economy became a more prevalent part of the United States economy, unions began to lose power. [20] As authors, James Crotty, Gerald Epstein, and Patricia Kelly argue in their most recent book Globalization and Progressive Economic Policy:

“The corporate attack on labor was multidimensional. It include, among other things, war on unions, political support for stripping workers of their legal rights, the widespread use of replacement workers during strikes for the first time in the post-World War II era, outsourcing, and FDI [foreign direct investment].” [21]

The rise of Neo-liberal ideas in America has caused a backlash against unions. Such anti-union views have also been greatly perpetuated by Republican president Ronald Reagan. An example of Reagan’s anti-union strategies was to:

“First, in the summer of 1981, striking air-traffic controllers were dismissed by President Reagan and non-union employees were hired as replacements. This event held out as demonstrating a new strategy of employer oppositions to industrial action. Second, in the 12 months following the election, two seats on the five-seat National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) were filled by Reagan appointments. These and subsequent appointments to the Labor Board were to establish a solid pro-managements majority that expanded employers' rights to oppose union organizing.” [22]

In other words, Reagan used his position as President of the United States to weaken the connection between unions and the federal government, which was previously established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. [23] Reagan’s efforts have since greatly weakened the power unions have to advocate for their workers. He both legally and organizationally weakened all unions in the United States and to this day union participation is extremely low compared to other industrialized countries.

Labor Unions and Social Justice

Labor Unions are particularly complex in their relation to social justice. This is because the idea of labor unions and the reality of labor unions are very different. On an ideal level, labor unions are the strongest and most well organized way for the working class to combat our oppressive capitalist system. Unions are literally the ultimate examples of what a unified majority can do. Throughout their existence unions have been able provide health benefits, higher wages and better working hours to many of their employees. With out unions in place the workers would be powerless to advocate for themselves. We can also see that when unions are seen favorably by the general population and by the federal government, they can achieve long lasting and significant benefits for all members of the working class. However, unions have also had crippling problems, which has lead to their current day woes. At first, unions had significant problems with racism. [24] Many unions during the turn of the century and up until the civil rights movement of the 1960s did not allow African American workers into their unions. [25] This caused great resentment among the African American community, who felt that they would most benefit from union membership and yet, because of their exclusion they were placed into the very situations which unions were meant to prevent. [26] Such racism directly conflicts with the goal of establishing a socially just society, because racism, just like class, creates hierarchy and therefore exploitation in a capitalist society. Another problem with unions is their politics. Many criticize unions for aligning too much with the Democratic Party in the United States, although the Democrats are more favorable of labor unions than the Republican party, they are not as committed as many would like. This is because the Democratic Party is very associated with large corporations and neo-liberal economic ideas, which are primarily beneficial to the owning class. Over all we can establish that the very concept of unions was a very important step in the goal of achieving a socially just society. There are many examples of unions fighting tirelessly for the rights of their working class members. However, recently unions have become less popular, several presidential administrations have had anti-union policies and the global economy is only becoming stronger, making the future for unions seem quite grim.

America Beyond Capitalism

Alperovitz claims that the decline in union membership can affect the functionality of the democratic process in America. As the percentage of unionized workers has declined since the 1950’s, there has also been a decline in labor’s political power and influence. Without representation, it has become difficult to pass pro-labor social legislation and redistributive programs. However, corporation leaders can easily sponsor specific candidates or laws that can benefit their company. The globalization of economic activity further increases corporate supremacy. The viable threat to outsource allows for increased bargaining power, making labor surrender more of their limited say in the relationship. Also, the competition for investments has forced governments to reduce business tax rates. With less tax revenue, governments have a reduced ability to fund social programs. As a result of corporate influence on politics, democracy loses its ability to affect everyday life. Alperovitz also suggests a reduction of the workweek to provide a boost to the ailing economy. It would create more full-time jobs, as well as give each worker more free time. This would allow for time to receive further education, develop new skills, increase home and volunteer work, and provide more family and community time. Unions would be ideal to help pass this type of legislation. The organization and understanding of labor relations could quickly maximize the transfer to the new hour schedule. The United States has a much longer workweek than comparable European countries and significantly shorter vacation privileges. This extra time could help both the home and community institutions, leading to an improved egalitarian society. This could also increase democratic participation, making people more active in the improvement of their own neighborhood. The freedoms granted by the democracy are pointless if there is not enough time to enjoy them.<ref name=" Alperovitz, Gar ."> America beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy, Hoboken, N.J.: J. Wiley, 2005. Print. </ref>

Under Standing Capitalism

Employees suffer due to the inherent conflict between owner and worker in the capitalist system. Employers wish to minimize compensation for the most amount of work, while workers want just the opposite. Better working conditions such as improved health and safety regulations, higher wages, and slower pace of work have a direct negative effect on the rate of profit. Since corporations are only competitive when they are profitable, there are constant disagreements over these subjects. Capitalists view labor as just another input towards their product, and easily replaceable if they ask for too much. Labor unions are workers only allies against the oppressive capitalists. Through commitment to solidarity, unions force companies to respect and react to employees’ demands. The capitalist system, specifically the private ownership of the means of production, leads to wealth inequality. This allows for manipulation of institutions by the wealthiest of the society. The influence on the political system undermines the principles of democracy. If both the elected officials and the owners of businesses have their own agenda, who is left to listen, much less support, the desires and requests of the working population? Labor unions are the only organization committed to helping the families and communities of the working class. <ref name=" Bowles, Samuel, Richard Edwards, and Frank Roosevelt."> Understanding Capitalism: Competition, Command, and Change, New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print. </ref>

Labor Unions vs. the Ideas of Domhoff

G. William Domhoff, a research Professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz [27], is a well known theorist who focuses on the concept of class dominance and its affects in the United States. He has published several enlightening books on his stance concerning the upper class including; The Power Elite and the State: How Policy is Made in America (1990), Who Rules America?: Challenges to Corporate and Class Dominance (2009), and many more. [28] Within his literature, Domhoff constantly questions why corporations have so much power in the United States. He links his curiosities to how well the corporate community remains band together, creating a dominating group known as the power elite. This party consists of those corporate owners and managers who have attained not only financial power, but, political influence as well. Domhoff has emphasized the idea that, because of their economic resources and their ability to make substantial contributions to the political parties of their choosing, they have become a driving force in the policy decision making process that affects the financial market. Domhoff characterizes this state of affairs as being a crucial problem in the United States; one that denies Americans from achieving equal opportunity in a democratic nation.<ref name="Domhoff, G. William">America?: Challenges to Corporate and Class Dominance,6th Edition,New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010.</ref>

Public Opinion and Social Activism

In terms of combating the dominance that the power elite have achieved, Domhoff has focused on the efforts of public opinion and the reasons for its failure. He emphasizes the fact that, without immense protest or social movement, public opinion will have no influence in policy decision making.<ref name="Domhoff, G. William" /> The power elite have concentrated their efforts in creating opinion-shaping networks to sway the public into agreeing with their policies. They do so by inducing threats, distributing hand outs, and holding educational speeches for opposing citizens.<ref name="Domhoff, G. William" /> In his works, Domhoff highlights the fact that this lack of social activism has given employers the upper hand over employees, leaving them powerless in the firms they work for.

Stance on Labor Unions

In efforts to fight the power that corporations have attained, the public has witnessed the formation of labor unions in the United States. Domhoff has written about the topic of labor unions in his book, Who Rules America?: Challenges to Corporate and Class Dominance (2009), more specifically, about the reasons for their demise. In his views, Domhoff see’s the problem with labor unions beginning with the formation of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.<ref name="Domhoff, G. William" /> He has stated that, although it was the biggest setback that the corporate community has ever faced, it was made up of several limitations when finally passed.

In 1900, the first policy-discussion group was formed known as the National Civic Federation.<ref name="Domhoff, G. William" /> The purpose of this council was to enhance the concept of collective bargaining, meaning, certain members of the labor force would be able to discuss issues relating to pay, hours, and working conditions with representatives of the businesses they worked for. Though this seems appropriate, Domhoff expresses that it merely gave corporate leaders the power to neglect any larger changes that employees insisted upon before the formation of this federation (including having a say in the production process).<ref name="Domhoff, G. William" /> This led to further conflicts between employers and employees, thus, indicating that additional acts needed to be implemented for the sake of the workers. It seemed from the outside, Domhoff stresses, that the government was performing a civil duty to the labor force, however, it simply publicized evidence for corporate dominance in the federal government. Domhoff concludes that the establishment of the National Labor Relations Act, though thought to have been a major win for workers, was a way for the power elite to gain a closer connection with the United States government, thus giving them a distinct advantage over their workers.<ref name="Domhoff, G. William" />

Domhoff backs his argument by illustrating a graph depicting wealth distribution from 1922 to 2007 in connection with the failures of labor unions. Though workers seemed to be winning the fight in terms of wages, the power elite remained in their authoritative stance and continued to flourish.

Labor Unions vs. the Ideas of Yates

Michael D. Yates, an Associate Editor of Monthly Review and Editorial Director of the Monthly Review Press, has focused his attention on the issue of labor studies in the United States. Yates has taught at several universities including the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Cornell University. He is well known for his writings on the topic of labor unions, more specifically, for his published books Longer Hours, Fewer Jobs (1994), and Why Unions Matter (1998).<ref name=" Yates, Michael D."> Why Unions Matter, 2nd Edition, New York: Monthly Review Press, 2009. </ref> Yates’s approach on the subject matter is focused on the importance of labor unions in the United States, while also emphasizing the reasons for their failure.

Why Labor Unions are Important

In his book Why Unions Matter, Yates begins his argument by highlighting the importance of numbers in the work place. He stresses that most people understand the fact that although they want their voice to be heard individually, it presents more influence when there is strength in numbers. Yates states that with the forming of unions, employees gain a sense of power within the business. <ref name=" Yates, Michael D." /> By unionizing, they increase their benefits dramatically more than an individual worker can do on their own. These benefits can include an increase in wages, a better work environment, and more flexible hours. From an outside stance, unionizing can also stimulate spending in the economy as a whole, which in turn can increase employment. Yates concludes his outlook by explaining the idea of bargaining power in the work place. Not only does this concept add to the benefits of workers, but it also leads to a reduction in inequality. Unions have the power to assist minorities and women as they create the best opportunities for those that are oppressed.<ref name=" Yates, Michael D." /> Although Yates demonstrates a strong position on the importance of unions, he goes into testifying why they have failed over the years due to forces both external and internal.

Why Unions Have Failed: Labor Decline

External Forces

Unions have been trying to create equality in the workplace for decades, however, they never seem to have the type of impact on the economy that they wish to attain. In Yates’s view, part of this problem has to do with external forces that keep labor unions from achieving success. The first force, Yates explains, is a shift away from the production of goods and toward services. <ref name=" Yates, Michael D." /> There are more unionized workers in the producing industries, rather than those in the service industry. Because of this, Yates writes that unions are losing their influence with concerns to bargaining power. Another external force that Yates details is the idea that workers in the U.S have a declining demand for the services that labor unions have to offer.<ref name=" Yates, Michael D." />More people are starting to believe that they can achieve the American dream on their own, rather than with the help of unions. This has to do with the economies shift towards service businesses, as well as an overall outlook on the lack of authority that unions have versus the power elite. Yates’s third external force has to do with the international mobility of capitol. <ref name=" Yates, Michael D." /> Employers have been given a distinct advantage when fighting unions due to the fact that they can move their plants to cheaper countries when they wish. Once again, Yates emphasizes that this benefit for employers decreases the bargaining power that unions fight to achieve. Yates concludes his list of external forces by underlining the harsh legal climate in which unions must function.<ref name=" Yates, Michael D." /> The laws that unions have to follow are very different (more strict), than those of employers. Due to these legalities, corporate leaders are free to campaign very aggressively against unions, far more aggressively than how unions themselves can behave.

Internal Forces

Despite there being a large number of external influences, Yates lists several internal forces that can be held equally responsible for the failure of labor unions. Yates first asserts the idea of power distribution and how it has negatively affected the U.S labor movement. <ref name=" Yates, Michael D." /> In 1970, those appointed to the leadership positions in unions were well paid, they coincided with others in the upper class, and their roles as officers were never in jeopardy. Because of this, Yates explains, collective bargaining power became a centralized affair <ref name=" Yates, Michael D." />, leaving the workers with little control in the decision making process. Some unions at this time were even labeled as dictatorships, in which punishment was issued to any worker that complained, sometimes even by means of violence.<ref name=" Yates, Michael D." /> Officers of labor unions began to focus on making financial improvements for existing members, and distributed less money on their organizing budgets for local sectors. Yates argues that the authority that unions had became more centralized on increasing wages and less focused on improving other factors such as work environments. Unions were created in order to serve the working class and promote equality, however, they became a movement influenced by Democratic politics. Though this was said to be the beneficial party of the working man and woman, it merely assisted in providing corporations with control in politics.<ref name=" Yates, Michael D." /> Yates emphasizes that the internal problems that some unions face is what prevents them from accomplishing the goals they have set out to reach. When one union faces internal conflicts, all unions are to blame, and though it may seem unfair, it has caused for the decline of the U.S labor movement.

References

Web References

1. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

2. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/79_01_05.htm

3. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/reviews_in_american_history/v024/24.2hill.html

4. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2115101

5. http://www.google.com/books?id=AAQXAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

6. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpedu/features/timeline/depwwii/unions/unions.htlm

7. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/421169

8. http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/issues/globalization/readingtable/labor.shtml

9. http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Journal_Samples/BJIR0007-1080~40~3~240%5C240.pdf

10. http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/history/history/100years.cfm

11. http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/history/history/timeline.cfm

12. http://www.knightsoflabor.org/

13. http://www.umwa.org/?q=content/brief-history-umwa

Book References

Domhoff, G. William. Who Rules America?: Challenges to Corporate and Class Dominance. 6th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. <references/> Yates, Michael D. Why Unions Matter. 2nd Edition. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2009. <references/> Alperovitz, Gar. America beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy. Hoboken, N.J.: J. Wiley, 2005. Print.<references/>

Bowles, Samuel, Richard Edwards, and Frank Roosevelt. Understanding Capitalism: Competition, Command, and Change. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.<references/>