I have real mixed feelings about this myself. From my past experience in Canada, I knew a lot of young activists who were trying quite hard to get jobs in unions, often without much luck. My sense was that Canadian unions pretty much strictly hired internally. There are a lot of good arguments for this, but on the other hand, it's often very difficult for a young person to get a rank and file union job. Outside of government, our best job prospects are often in service, office or retail workplaces, precisely the same workplaces where unions are weakest. Besides which, while rank and file experience is tremendously important for a lot of union work, recent college graduates also often have a lot of special skills and interests that could be useful to a union. And if they've just spent four years studying something like Labour Studies, or working as an organizer in student government or a social movement, I don't really see why they should have to spend another 10 years working on the shop floor before we can say they have enough "credibility" to actually work for the union.

With that in mind, my experience with the unions here in the US was quite refreshing. Because of the sense of "crisis" we are in, a lot of union leaders are willing to be a lot more experimental, try new things, and bring in new people under them.

On the other hand, Steve Early from the Communication Workers of America recently put out a major piece critiquing the new "student-labor" connection. He argues that unions "staffing up" with "outsiders" fosters a top-down bureaucratic culture and distances the union leadership from their members. Lance Compa, another
longtime labor activist and professor of international labor issues the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, responded by pointing out that the new, young activists certainly aren't the cause of bureaucratic unionism, and in many cases, their skills and idealism can actually help matters.

Anyway, I was really interested in hearing what people here thought of this debate, as well as whether any of these issues are beginning to emerge in Canada, too.

Here is a link to Steve Early's May 2003: "Thoughts on the 'Worker-Student Alliance'"

Here is Lance Compa's reply: "More Thoughts on the 'Worker-Student Alliance'"

And here is Steve Early's reply back to Lance Compa: Reply to Lance Compa's Response

All of the above articles were published in Labor Notes, the premier independent labor magazine here in the USA.

[ 28 March 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

"In any union, when we look closely at what is touted as a purely indigenous rank-and-file initiative, we usually find in the background key roles played by university- trained strategists. This is natural, and there's nothing wrong with it. Most rank-and-file workers and indigenous union leaders are glad to have help from highly educated, skilled, trade union professionals to help them fight the bosses' lawyers and consultants. This receptivity on the part of union members is what creates opportunities for idealistic students to aspire to trade union work. It should not be forsaken for a purist notion of anti-elitist union staff recruitment."

Didn't that old shit-disturber, Karl something-or-other, write about the "fresh, new elements" that came to the wc cause by virtue of the changes in the workplace, a kind of Braverman-like analysis before Braverman?

I'm not closely enough connected to the labour movement to form an opinion about such trends in Canada. We have a much higher unionization rate, mainly reflecting a public sector organization rate that is much higher than in the U.S. Our politics, i.e., the fact that we have a social-democratic party that runs in parliament and forms the occassional provincial government in Canada, makes things different as well.

First, one quick thing:

quote:

---

labour (that's how we spell it up here!)

---

My apologies. Usually when I am on this board I adopt the Canadian spelling, but since I was referring to a publication "Labor Notes" that uses the USian spelling, I decided to stick with it for consistency. But by no means did I wish to repress that distinctive "u" in Anglo-Canadian words like "labour," "honour," colour" etc.

Or, for that matter, other neat words like "cheque" (always wondered if that was a Quebecois influence on Canada, or if the English spell it that way, too.)

These days, though, Labor Notes has also been including a lot of Canadian content, so if you get a chance you really should start checking out that publication again.

As to the more general point - it is true that a lot of things are different in the Canadian labour movement, but there are still a lot of similarities. The basic labour relations model is the same. And many unions represent workers on both sides of the border. SEIU is the biggest union here in the US right now, and the focus of a lot of Steve Early's criticism. I understand that a few years ago SEIU got in a big dustup with CAW when eight of its locals wanted to leave the International. I wonder if the SEIU's attitude towards hiring students reflects a difference in that union's overall bureaucratic orientation compared to a union like CAW, or if I am reading too much into this?

[ 28 March 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:

...it is true that a lot of things are different in the Canadian labour movement, but there are still a lot of similarities. The basic labour relations model is the same. And many unions represent workers on both sides of the border. SEIU is the biggest union here in the US right now, and the focus of a lot of Steve Early's criticism. I understand that a few years ago SEIU got in a big dustup with CAW when eight of its locals wanted to leave the International. I wonder if the SEIU's attitude towards hiring students reflects a difference in that union's overall bureaucratic orientation compared to a union like CAW, or if I am reading too much into this?

[ 28 March 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

---

I'm glad to hear that there is some Canadian coverage. ...the spelling issue is more a reflection of my Brit heritage. My dad was an English teacher to boot.

Is the labour relations model really the same? We have mostly automatic checkoff...my understanding it that there are a whole pile of "right-to-work" states in the USA which makes organizing a really difficult job...kinda like the circumstances when unions were illegal...Perhaps I am mistaken. How bad is it in such states?

What we call "international" unions...that is to say, unions that represent workers on both sides of the border with a US HQ, have a long history in this country. CAW is a case in point. Further, don't forget that our Quebec brothers and sisters have their own labour central bodies. I've never been a CAW member...though I tried f*cking hard to get the members of my local to join them..but I also don't really know much about the SEIU and CAW conflicts. But what I do know about the CAW is that they have an admirable education system, even, I think, their own college or something. And I remember them promoting their own "family values" which had bugger all to do with the right wing version of that phrase...

quote:

---

Is the labour relations model really the same? We have mostly automatic checkoff...my understanding it that there are a whole pile of "right-to-work" states in the USA which makes organizing a really difficult job...kinda like the circumstances when unions were illegal...Perhaps I am mistaken. How bad is it in such states?

---

There are lots of differences like automatic checkoff, right-to-work, etc., but the broad contours are the same. For example, in both Canada and the US union representation is based on the individual workplace (rather than whole company or industry). Also, a "bargaining agent" is selected by a majority vote of a "bargaining unit" and the employer deals exclusively with that agent vis a vis those workers (rather than, usually, having multiple unions in the same workplace). And the government plays a largely hands-off role in the process, except to set up an administrative apparatus (the Labor Boards) to play referee between the unions and the employers.

Anyway, this could be a whole theoretical discussion about industrial relations systems that I didn't really want to have on this thread. Send me a PM if you want to talk about this further, though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:

As for the subject of this thread - you mentioned that you had worked as a union organizer. If you don't mind my asking, was that a paid, staff position? Were you a member of the union first, before you got that job, or were you hired from the "outside?" This kind of stuff was what I was really hoping to get at.

---

From your description of bargaining units it sounds like you know the law. Me too...a little. I am happy to report I once organized a workplace of ten people...with nine in the bargaining unit! Ha Ha! The boss was whining about the shit-kicking he took. I tried to be...magnanimous. But the boss got the last laugh...he shut the plant down.

Me...I was paid. But I was only paid an honararium. I still had my regular job. On the other hand, I was a labour studies student as well, prior to getting the job. I guess I was a ...hybrid with emphasis on being an "outsider."

Getting the respect of your co-workers is a premise to being a good organizer...and it doesn't really matter where you come from. It just takes longer if you are an outsider. In my case...the workplace was also...unusual.

That wasn't what I was getting at, actually, but that's an interesting subject, too. Here in the US, it is legal to get paid by a union while taking another job in another workplace, for the express purpose of organizing that workplace. And you're right, a few salts sure can catch the employer by surprise!

I think Steve Early would probably be a quite supportive of "salting" as a way for young people to get involved in the labour movement. I know some people who are doing salting right now, and they're pretty shrewd, radical folks.

quote:

---

"Salting" is the deliberate act of getting a job at a specific workplace with the intent to organize a union.

Most union campaigns start with a lone individual or small group of individuals with no union experience deciding to organize a union from scratch. Sometimes, a union campaign can be strengthened if you know of a friend with union organizing experience. By applying for open positions at your workplace, your friend can secretly help you organize your workplace.

There are other circumstances where salting is used. Once you have organized a union at your workplace, you will usually discover that it is in your best interest to organize other workplaces in the same industry. Remember that there is strength in numbers. Unions do not necessarily have to be limited to one workplace, and salting is one method of organizing additional workplaces in your industry. If you don't have any contacts at these other workplaces, you, a friend, or a fellow union member may attempt to get a job there in order to find potential union contacts or begin organizing themselves.

The employers will argue that by salting, unions are being "deceitful". Nothing could be further from the truth. Employers are always spying on their workers (even to the point of hiring specialists to pose as difficult "customers" in order to "test" a worker's "loyalty" to the company, or encouraging favoritism by having one worker spy on another). Because the employing class has a well documented history of using deceitful tactics (including lies and intimidation) to undermine (legally protected) union organizing efforts by workers, salting is how workers can fight back against repressive and often illegal union busting tactics.

This doesn't mean that the salt gets a job and immediately starts talking union. An in-your-face, blunt approach such as that not only tips off the boss, it usually alienates potential union contacts among the rank & file workers. A successful salting campaign requires patience, subtlety, and the ability to listen to one's co-workers. That doesn't mean a salt's job is to deceive their coworkers. Quite the opposite. A salt must first deal with the mindset fostered by the employing class that the working class has a common interest with the bosses (they don't).

---

[ 29 March 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Rather, though, the major model of organizing that SEIU and others use relies on a cadre of outside organizers, hired by the union, who "blitz" a targeted workplace with information, visit workers homes and encourage them to sign union cards, drum up publicity and generally put a lot of pressure on the employer to cut a deal. It works. And when it does, it can really lead to some gains for the workers in question. But it's not exactly "grassroots."

Another issue is that when most of the paid, outside organizers come straight out of college, they don't necessarily have a lot of work experience themselves. They've most likely never been union members. Their introduction to the labour movement is that they got hired directly by a union in order to advance that union's "cause."

By contrast, the traditional way that unions operated was that they didn't hire many people from outside at all. Before you got a job working directly for the union, you probably started out as a member of that union. You got active in your workplace, maybe you originally helped organize your bargaining unit, maybe you were a shop steward or something. At the same time, you got busy ingratiating yourself to the entrenched leadership of the organization. If you worked hard, and proved your loyalty, eventually
you were rewarded with a full-time staff job, which got you off the shop floor and into a nice clean office, where you could show up at 9 am instead of 7, wear a suit, act like a big shot and get a union car to drive around.

There's always been tensions between the people who get hired on staff and the people who stay working on the shop floor. I think that really exposed itself on the CLC strike thread. I think those tensions and that complex relationship gets even more interesting when unions start hiring non-members for the staff jobs. Organizer is
usually the entry level position, and if people survive that rough initiation, they can move up to more prominent and strategic positions, or run for elected leadership. But here, very much, the
outside-hired non-members are going to view their positions as "professional" where they have had to work very hard and develop special skills in order to succeed; rather than viewing their
positions as essentially "political" and at least in part a reward for their earlier activities as rank and file members.

Thoughts?

[ 29 March 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Lance Compa, another longtime labor activist and professor of international labor issues the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, responded by pointing out that the new, young activists certainly aren't the cause of bureaucratic unionism, and in many cases, their skills and idealism can actually help matters.

---

What matters is the culture they're joining, not where they're coming from although each would have their own strengths to exploit and weaknesses to develop. However, new staff will acclimate to their environment, whatever their initial intentions may have been. If the culture stinks (e.g. top-down, service-oriented, male-dominated, ass-kissing, pigs at the trough, etc) most people will either adapt or leave.

Many "change the world" types quickly realize that the "world" also includes the union and are caught in a major contradiction. Some of them might try to change the union but will end up either quitting, getting fired, getting assimiliated by the borg (star-trek reference) or leading a fairly isolated existance.

This is the experience in my union and I don't purport to speak for any others but the phenomenon is the same.

For organizing drives, isn't it possible to bring people in for these kinds of blitzes on a temporary basis - e.g. 2 or 3 year contracts? Do they have to be full-time jobs. I would lean toward the "do whatever it takes" to get organized approach but as has been pointed out, if there's no internal, organic leadership in the workplace, you cannot build the kind of local that it takes to address all of the challenges. It becomes inherently dependant on head office for everything. Workers need to see the union at work all the time, challenging the employer and instilling confidence in workers that it is THEM, not the union, that hold the power to collective bargaining. If "blitz"-type organizing doesn't plan for this - post-certification - it will hard to ever organize a successful strike.

The type of union (e.g. service model vs. organizing model) one has defines the relationships between the top elected leaders, paid staff and rank and file activists. Too often, rank and file activists are shunted to the side by full-time staff suffering from superiority complexes amplified by their remote distance from actual working people. And that applies to internal and external hirees.

The further the "union" is from the workplace, the less relevant it is to its members. From this experience, I lean strongly toward the position that as many staff jobs as possible be elected from the membership - i.e. that we need to weaken and eliminate the notion of unions as a "profession".

[ 29 March 2004: Message edited by: Non-partisan partisan ]