New Worker Power Structures, Not a Fortress...

Thanks, Jeff, for the apt reminder that as we build a new source of worker power, we must build it as a global one. Your point goes to this larger question of how we define success.

I applaud Rich for putting forth a specific idea for getting us out of the mess that we’re in. Yet in his essay on fortress unionism, Rich defines success as, “to organize enough workers so that union density increases significantly, or at least keeps pace with workforce growth.” But organize workers into what? Traditional unions in which workers’ source of power is through a one-on-one collective bargaining relationship with one employer? Is that the best we can do? We must build new worker power structures that are better suited to today’s challenges than is the current collective bargaining sytem.


I organized in the clothing and textile union in the South throughout the 1990s, and we won a lot of campaigns - - Tultex (5000 workers in Martinsville, VA), Healthtex, Springs Fashions. We won contracts, too. Every shop I helped organize is gone today because of the global turn in the industry, and when the employer went, the local union dissolved because there was no longer a collective bargaining agreement. What if we had spent the 1990s building an organization that could continue to mobilize those workers, perhaps in an industry or regionally-based organization? Impossible the leaders said. But now there is nothing…


There’s no point building a fortress, hoping one day to increase union density, if all we have to offer is today’s weakened system of collective bargaining. When workers do begin to militantly mobilize, they will remain ill equipped for today’s economy, and will be crushed.


Worker militancy does not solve the kinds of structural problems which Rich points out - - today we have smaller work places, a mobile workforce and global capital. History can serve as a guide here. Rich spotlights the worker militancy in 1937 and the Republic Steel strike in which 18 workers were murdered for standing up for a union. But militancy alone does not cut it. Workers also need the appropriate structure and strategy. Steel workers tried for decades to organize and were crushed – aka Homestead in 1892 and the Great Steel Strike in 1919. It was only in the post-Wagner Act period that hundreds of thousands of steelworkers were able to form unions - - and they were able to do so because of the new-fangled industrial unionism and state-backed collective bargaining. I agree that FDR signed Wagner because he was pushed by striking workers to do so. Nevertheless, those workers needed that particular new structure in order for their militancy to stick.


I just attended the Labor Research Action Network (LRAN) conference in Washington, DC - - and I was struck that many of the young people who attended that conference are way beyond us on this - - especially the ones in what Rich calls “alt labor.” They have taken many of these ideas and are running hard, building a worker power movement and trying out a host of new ways for workers to leverage power. (And, Jeff, be cheered by the fact that they're leagues ahead of us on the global power issue.)

Yes, yes… they struggle with sustainability. And, yes, many of the organizations that work best are the ones that combine collective bargaining with new tactics. But maybe we can take a break from brick-and-mortaring our fortress to really … REALLY… help them wrestle with how to build sustainability. Someone asked Saru Jayaraman (co-director and founder of ROC – the Restaurant Opportunity Center) what labor could do to help and her answer… she wants help making a 25-year plan. She wants labor leaders to sit down and help this new movement build a plan. Seems like we can do that, right, everyone?


We need to stop defining success according the Bureau of Labor Statistics union density figures. Success is about worker power. Maybe that means fixing collective bargaining somehow. Maybe it means finding another source of leverage. But whatever path we choose, now is the time to expand our vision of success, not narrow it.

Should We Adopt "Fortress Unionism" - An Answer to Yeselson's Thoughtful Essay

In a recent essay on "fortress unionism" Richard Yeselson argues that given the realities of today's political economy, unions should hunker down and defend our strongholds and wait for another worker-led union surge. While the essay is provocative, I have some different ideas.

Here's Yeselson's essay: http://www.democracyjournal.org/29/fortress-unionism.php

Here's my response:

Yeselson may be correct that a solid defense is the labor movement’s best move in 2013; nevertheless, there are two major considerations that we should take into account as we have this discussion.
First, we should consider a broader definition of success than expanding union density. Who cares if unions are big, as long as the movement makes this world a better place to live for workers and their families? Our goal is economic and social justice, not necessarily big unions. For example, the dominant narrative on the women’s association 9to5 seems to be – “great idea, but they didn’t succeed.” Really? Yes, they did not make unions get bigger. But they helped put sexual harassment on the map as a workplace issue and helped transform the working experience for entire future generations of women workers. Seems like success to me.

Second, Yeselson highlights the big moments of union growth, and asserts that we should hang tight and “wait.” Do we really think that workers just built those moments of union growth out of the blue? They built those growth moments on decades of slow and persistent organizing. The seeds of the 1930s uprising were planted throughout the entire Progressive Era, starting in the late 19th century. Workers learned to form organizations, work in broad coalition, and that “success” would have to come through changes in federal law ( a fairly new concept then.)

Now is not the time to wait. Now is the time to understand that the unions in which all of us have been working for 20, 30, 40 years are specific creatures born of the New Deal and the Wagner Act, and that we need new creatures that are more fitting for the Wal-Mart economy that Yeselson describes so well. Yes, real change can’t happen without worker activism and passion. But workers need structures and tools. And the tools - - the unions - - we are offering them today are the wrong shape and size. So what should today’s worker power organizations look like? That’s the conversation I’d really like to see us engaged in.