|
Papers
Labor Media, Neoliberalism, and the Crisis in the
Labor Movement
by Sid Shniad
Presented at Labortech Conference November 18, 2006
www.labortech.net
This panel is called Corporate Media Assault and Developing a Labor
Media Strategy. In my view, the issue should be framed as a discussion
of the overall corporate assault on organized labor and the rest
of
society, and the role that labor media can play in mounting an effective
response to that assault.
Thanks to a
highly sophisticated, multi-pronged corporate effort, the
labor movement today is in crisis. How bad is the situation? Really
bad.
In the U.S. today, the portion of the working population that's
represented by unions today is at its lowest level since the 1920s
while
corporations are on the rampage.
How did we end
up in this situation, with working people facing
increasingly precarious employment, declining living standards,
lack of
medical care, and inability to organize? To answer that question,
we
have to look at a bit of history.
After the Second
World War, Western governments embraced expansionist
Keynesian economic policies in order to avoid a repeat of the Depression
of the 1930s. During the resulting economic expansion, which lasted
nearly three decades, unemployment remained relatively low. As a
result,
fear of unemployment -- which normally acts as a disciplinary force
keeping workers in line -- ceased to play its traditional role.
By the late
1960s, a significant number of workers who were dissatisfied
with their working conditions and confident of their ability to
find
employment in the ever-expanding economy began to exhibit levels
of
labor militancy and strike activity not seen since the 1930s. This
militancy, together with the social spending that had characterized
Keynesian policy, combined with rising real wages to threaten corporate
profitability. From capital's perspective, this constituted a major
crisis.
In 1973 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973>,
David Rockefeller
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller>, working
with Zbigniew
Brzezinski <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski>
and
representatives of the Brookings Institution
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution>, the
Council on
Foreign Relations
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations>,
and the
Ford Foundation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Foundation>,
convened
meetings of prominent business figures, academics, and politicians
to
address the crisis. Out of these meetings an organization known
as the
Trilateral Commission took shape. The Commission, whose membership
is
comprised of prominent business, political, and academic figures,
has
addressed issues of concern to the corporate establishment ever
since.
In 1975 the
Commission published a book called The Crisis of Democracy.
The book's authors -- Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and
Joji
Watanuki -- took up the concerns that were preoccupying big capital.
They bemoaned the effects of government spending in the areas of
education, welfare, social security, health and hospital care.
Expressing the views of the rich and powerful, they blamed the crisis
of
profitability on what they called "an excess of democracy."
Over the past
thirty years, the concerns raised in The Crisis of
Democracy have been taken up by a variety of right-wing think tanks,
politicians, and institutions. Inspired by this analysis, governments
around the world have attacked the welfare state that was constructed
in
the post-war era, waging relentless war on society generally and
the
working class in particular, by curbing wages, gutting social programs,
privatizing government holdings and services, deregulating corporate
activity, and instituting "free trade" agreements in an
overall policy
framework that became known as neoliberalism.
These same forces
simultaneously mounted an unrelenting attack on
organized labor, employing sophisticated union-busting tactics and
putting in place an assortment of legal barriers designed to prevent
workers from joining unions or achieving contracts. In the words
of a
2000 Human Rights Watch report, "[American] Workers who try
to form and
join trade unions to bargain with their employers are spied on,
harassed, pressured, threatened, suspended, fired, deported or otherwise
victimized in reprisal for their exercise of the right to freedom
of
association."
Internationally,
the neoliberal policies that the Trilateral Commission
and other, similar groups began promoting in the 1970s have been
institutionalized through organizations like the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. All
have
a common purpose: to ensure that profitability is not jeopardized
by the
action of organized labor or government pursuit of progressive social
policy. How? By redefining the role of government and restructuring
the
political process to impede governments' ability to generate progressive
social and economic programs.
In my view,
the labor movement's response to the comprehensive attack
that capital has mounted over the past 30 years has been grossly
inadequate. The AFL-CIO has made little or no effort to address
the
political and economic problems besetting society as a result of
neoliberalism and how addressing these problems might influence
labor's
response. Instead, the AFL and many of its prominent labor critics
have
largely restricted their response to the crisis that has overtaken
organized labor to a focus on the issue of declining union membership.
The highly restricted
debate about the crisis besetting the labor
movement began when the SEIU released its "Unite to Win"
plan for
labor's revitalization. SEIU's plan focused on merging unions to
reduce
inter-union competition, improving use of union resources, and
organizing workers in different organizations' respective core areas.
Neither the
SEIU and its allies nor their critics within the AFL-CIO
have focused on the political and economic forces that workers are
up
against and the strategies needed to confront them. The prevailing
approach assumes that the decline of unions can be adequately addressed
by changing the structure of the AFL-CIO. Instead of grappling with
the
wider challenges, the discussion focuses on whether the AFL-CIO
should
give dues rebates to unions that are focusing on organizing and
whether
the size of the AFL-CIO Executive Council should be larger or smaller.
Thanks to labor's inadequate response, capital has been left free
to
wage unilateral class struggle.
In my view,
the labor movement should be talking about:
* Challenging
globalization, i.e. both the movement of jobs abroad
and the institutionalization of corporate power at the expense of
the rest of society
* Addressing the activities of right-wing governments and their
attacks on workers, unions, and the rest of society
* Organizing in regions and sectors where unions are weak
* Aligning labor's efforts with those of the African American,
Latino, Asian, and immigrant communities
* Fighting racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of oppression
and intolerance that are critical to overcoming divisions among
workers
* Creating a political strategy that goes beyond the prevailing
narrow focus on electoral politics to advance a broader
progressive political agenda
* Building mutual support with workers in other countries
In addition
to its other shortcomings, the prevailing bureaucratic focus
ignores problems rooted in unions' internal cultures and structures:
their highly restricted, largely formal commitment to internal
democracy; their lack of strategic focus; the absence of an inspiring
moral vision; and their failure to address the barbarism1
<http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/shniad191106.html#_edn1>
that is
overtaking society as a consequence of the application of neoliberal
policies.
Instead of a
discussion of vision and strategy, we see union leaders
attacking each other, spending time and energy impugning each others'
motives and character. (I have witnessed this personally in the
aftermath of the disastrous defeat that the union I work for suffered
at
the hands of the Telus corporation.)
The labor movement
badly needs a debate about its future and its
relationship to the broader society. This is a debate to which
electronic communications media can make an enormous contribution
in the
context of prevailing union culture, which tends to squelch
thoroughgoing, honest debate. Ordinary members are not enlisted
in
free-ranging discussion. Instead, too many labor leaders surround
themselves with political allies and staffers whose job it is to
screen
out bad news and suggestions that challenge prevailing practices.
When
dissenting views are raised, those who raise them often find themselves
isolated and undermined. With many leaders staying in office
indefinitely and with internal dissent actively suppressed, members
who
might be interested in making change are ignored or sidelined.
A debate is
desperately needed, but it should be one which is completely
reframed. It should be a debate about a vision for the future of
workers
and their role in the broader society. It should discuss strategies
that
might work in the face of the dramatic changes that are sweeping
the
economy, including the way that work is done and the fact that many
people are not working at all. The debate should include a discussion
of
how to stop the use of working people as cannon fodder in unjust
wars
and why so many citizens living in wealthy societies find it
increasingly difficult to afford basics like housing and health
care.
Activists in
the labor movement who are proficient in the use of
electronic media have an invaluable role to play in stimulating
such
debate within unions and beyond. But if that is to happen, the users
of
these media must deploy them in a manner which challenges the status
quo
mentality that dominates the labor movement today. This means using
these media to shed light on unions' restrictive practices, raising
taboo ideological questions, and mobilizing support for elements
that
are serious about making necessary changes.
I do not make
these suggestions lightly. There are forces in society,
including those within the labor movement, that have a major stake
in
maintaining the status quo. They are likely to respond to efforts
to
challenge the status quo with extreme hostility. But we should not
allow
that to deter us from doing what is necessary to rebuild our
institutions and to rescue our society from strangulation at the
hands
of rampaging corporate capital.
Those who have
demonstrated courage in the face of similar adversity can
provides us with inspiration for this effort. So in concluding,
I would
like to recount a story I encountered while vacationing in Spain
recently. In the course of my trip, I visited the University of
Salamanca where there is a statue dedicated to Fray Luis de Leon
in the
courtyard. In 1572, Fray Luis was teaching at the university when
he was
charged by the Inquisition
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition> with distributing
a
translation he had made of the Song of Songs from Latin to Spanish
so
that it could be accessible to ordinary people. For this crime,
Fray
Luis was tortured and imprisoned.
The story has
it that when he regained his freedom five years later and
returned to his teaching position at the university, Fray Luis resumed
his lecture at the point where it had been interrupted by his arrest
and
remarked "As I was saying. . . ."
I'm not religious,
but I believe that Fray Luis's courage and
determination in insisting upon people's right to information unfiltered
by Church officials can provide a model for media activists who
want to
be part of the effort to transform organized labor into a progressive,
activist movement capable of rescuing society from the predations
of
neoliberalism.
1 <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/shniad191106.html#_ednref1>
The
following item from the March 2006 issue of Harper's Magazine
<http://harpers.org/> may serve to illustrate my comment about
barbarism:
[Confession]
ROCK OF AGES
From a statement
made in September 2005 by George Earl Lewis of
Chickasha, Oklahoma, who had been arrested after selling two grams
of crack cocaine to an FBI informant. Lewis, who is seventy-four
years old, receives about $600 per month in retirement benefits
and
pays $350 a month for his wife's cancer medication. He was given
a
ten-year suspended sentence.
I, Mr. George
Earl Lewis, do agree that what I've done was not right
concerning the law. I do not deny the fact whatsoever. However,
I
did what I did simply to keep my wife Thelma up in her medications
and to pay any bills owed due to her illness. She was diagnosed
with
cancer. Her Medicare doesn't pay all of her expenses. So what I
did
was simply trying to meet the needs of my wife, whom I love very
much. I can assure you that I have learned a valuable lesson. I
will
do all I can simply to live on our income, which is my retirement
check . And pray that God will have mercy on me, to see me through
this ordeal.
If granted
probation, I plan to continue to mow yards during the
summer and fall, and, whenever I am able, to pick up cans. I will
continue to live with my wonderful wife whom I been married to for
twenty-nine blessed years. I will slowly learn how to read and write
the best way I can. I will spend time at home with my wife, looking
at TV, and sitting outside together. Mainly the only activities
I
have are mowing yards, running people around, looking at TV, and
sitting in the yard with my wife in the cool of the evening.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sid Shniad is Research Director of Telecommunications Workers Union
<http://www.twu-canada.ca/>.
|
