Customer Reviews

A New Labor Movement for the New Century

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The editor provides a wide selection of essays on the subject of the potential growth of American labor in the United States without substantiating any real insurgency. While hindsight is always 20-20, we now see that labor has declined since the publication of this book, perhaps the book's optimism and lack of critical analysis is its major weakness. The labor movement cannot rely on empty phrases. The writers are drawn from well known new left academics and labor leaders that optimistically predict a rosy future for a new revitalization of the American labor movement. Unfortunately, the editor takes for granted the writers' assertions that are unsubstantiated without a critical analysis. Labor has clearly changed from the cold war era. However, no nuance is detected here, given that exhortation does not bring about revival nor does it make it true that organized labor has emerged from its past bureaucratic and territorial character. The book is interesting, but larded with hubris and hopeful expectations. More helpful would be a prospective assessment of labor's problems. If readers are interested in what labor intellecuals were thinking in the aftermath of Sweeney's rise to power, this book provides interesting commentary. To understand how a new labor movement is constructed, the editor and authors must understand how capital remakes labor.

The labor movement in the U.S. in 1994 was reeling from at least two decades of shrinking membership and loss of political and economic influence. The election debacle in the Fall of 1994 was the final blow that forced an acknowledgement that their leadership and manner of operation were hopelessly ineffectual. The new "New Voice" leadership of the AFL-CIO, elected in 1995, hit the ground running with ambitious aims for a labor turnaround. In a decided change from past practice, John Sweeney, the new president of the AFL-CIO, called for open debate and a critique of the labor movement from both within and without the labor movement. This volume contains the input of 27 individuals who participated in a labor symposium in anticipation of the transition. If not officials in labor unions, almost all of the contributors work within the labor movement in some capacity.

These contributors all see the traditional union approach of firm-centered collective bargaining conducted by union officials and staffers as a guaranteed prescription for further union decline. But what do they think the labor movement should be doing or become? Their emphasis is on organizing both for workplaces and within communities, on the inclusion and expansion of opportunities for ethnic and gender minorities both in terms of membership and leadership positions in unions, on the impact of globalization and its main strategic initiative neoliberalism on working people throughout the world, on the need for renewed and independent political action, and on counterpoising worker democracy and solidarity against what amounts to the class warfare of capitalism.

There is a great deal of idealism and optimism but unfortunately not a lot of realism and pragmatism that permeates this collection. Of course, that is somewhat understandable in that the New Voice leadership has given the labor movement renewed hope of a turnaround.

Perhaps the vaguest notion put forward in these essays is the notion that unions, or the labor movement, need to become some sort of society-wide institution concerned with issues of the working class in general regardless of union membership. This concept is termed social movement or community unionism. One tactic proposed is for the labor movement, itself a rather vague concept, to form coalitions with social and political groups. Except in a few inner-city areas there is hardly any overlap between specific workforces and geographic communities. Despite the fact that some union-community coalitions have been successful, there is no discussion of the feasibility or the mechanics of unions becoming broad social institutions in most communities.

There is general recognition from most of the authors that political power is essential to advance the position of working people. Disassociation from the Democratic Party and independent political action is urged. But what is lacking is any real assessment of the political orientation of the working class. One author comments on the lack of coherent political thinking among working people. It seems that the notions of social movement unionism and political power are intertwined in some manner but at this point this seems to be more of a partially formulated ideal than a possibility.

Advocacy of greater inclusion of immigrants and ethnic and gender minorities can hardly be disagreed with. But the huge increase in semi-professional and technical workers, who are largely unrepresented, is ignored by these authors. What little overlap there is between workplaces and communities most probably exists among immigrants and ethnic groups. Perhaps the labor movement, as a practical matter, sees the potential for recruitment of members as far greater in these urban areas.

Given the background of the contributors, it is understandable that there is no commentary on the entire structure of workplace representation. Much union representation is based on fairly sizeable groups of workers with common functions, a situation that does not pertain in hundreds of thousands of workplaces. The European system of legislated workplace-based works councils that are in turn of a part of supra-works councils makes a lot of sense. The consultation and codetermination aspects of works councils go a long way toward the workplace democracy that some of the authors advocate. Throw in tri-partite discussions at the highest levels of the works councils and the potential exists for a representation system that exceeds the sparse, rather ad hoc, and limited system of union representation in the U.S.

There is no doubt that these authors are well aware that the labor movement is at best only minimally serving the working class in the U.S. They point out many of the problems and make considerable effort to describe where the labor movement needs to be. But the optimism engendered by the New Voice leadership seems to have clouded and limited the perspectives on what is attainable. Perhaps those authors would have a different assessment from today's vantage point. More recent works such as "State of the Union" or "The Future of Private Sector Unionism" offer somewhat more sobering accounts of the labor movement in the U.S.

How could a book about labour ignore the most important issues of social class, race, and gender? The book is really a collection of rah-rah essays on unions in America lacking in any analysis and rigor about the lives of workers in the U.S. An obsequious effort to gather all perspectives without taking a position. Why is there no critical examination of issues of race in this work? The work does not have any essay by rank-and-file workers and seems to see the unions moving ahead by continuing in their old ways.