Corporatization of Unions – a Threat to Workers Everywhere
By: John E. Peck (UW Infoshop - IWW I.U. 620)
On June 4th, 2002 the U.S. Labor Dept. (www.union-reports.dol.gov) posted for
the first time the financial reports from labor unions, including
salaries. This self-serving disclosure by the Bush Whitehouse triggered
a predictable avalanche of irate media coverage about labor bosses raking
in six digit salaries while their rank-and-filers struggled for a living
wage. On the defensive, Teamsters spokesman, Bret Caldwell, countered
that while James P. Hoffa’s “official” $228,000 salary in 2000 may be a
bit “high” compared to that of the average union member, a much better
barometer he suggested would be comparing union leaders to corporate
executives – such as former UPS chairman, James P. Kelly who enjoyed a
base salary of $1.1 million before his retirement in 2001 (Washington
Post 6/4/2002). Still, it was a bit much to swallow for a typical big
city teacher to learn that their average salary of $52,000 was only one
sixth of that earned by Sandra Feldman, president of the American
Federation of Teachers (AFT) or for the average grocery cashier to
discover that the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) has over 75
officers and directors earning between $100,000 and $300,000 per year
(www.reapinc.org).
That supposed advocates for workers would even try to excuse these
bloated compensation packages with flimsy CEO parallels also speaks
volumes about the insidious influence of corporatization within the
mainstream labor movement. In the May 2002 issue of the L.A. Labor News
(www.lalabor.org), Jim Smith published a long overdue critique on this
very topic which has since appeared in other alternative press such as Z
Magazine (July-Aug. 2002) Despite their populist origins and democratic
pretenses, unions – like cooperatives or universities – are highly
susceptible to corporatization. Jerry Mander in his book, In the Absence
of the Sacred, outlines several defining characteristics of corporate
behavior – principal among these being insatiable growth, profit motive,
aggressive competition, and stifling hierarchy. While at the turn of the
20th century grassroots empowerment was typical of radical unions such as
the Western Federation of Miners (WFM) and the Industrial Workers of the
World (www.iww.org), the rise of the American Federation of Labor (AFL)
under Samuel Gompers led the bulk of unions down a divergent trajectory
with labor eventually becoming a “junior partner” to capital.
To expand on Smith’s article, this slippery slope began with a glass
ceiling - a chauvinistic preference for organizing in skilled trades
dominated by white males, while abandoning and marginalizing other
workers. Probably one of the lowest points in this sordid history was
the deal cut between the AFL, the Farm Bureau, and Roosevelt’s New Deal
to exclude migrant farmworkers and domestic servants from collective
bargaining under the Wagner Act. Later, when a rightwing Congress passed
the Taft-Hartley Act over Truman’s veto, the mainstream labor movement
found it more pragmatic to not seek a repeal and instead collaborated
with big business to ferret out “communists” and accepted federal
prohibitions on such effective tactics as secondary boycotts and sit down
strikes. This “industrial peace pledge” between union leaders and
corporate executives greased the skids for the Cold War, while
understandably breeding alienation and cynicism among many U.S. workers.
Meanwhile, in Europe workers never gave up their basic rights to organize
or take direct action – with or without a union endorsed by the state.
Walking into a typical mainstream union headquarters today, one would be
hard put to distinguish it from a corporate facility. There is the
chauffeured limousine fleet, posh hardwood interiors, weekend golfing
junkets, and a prevailing utilitarian mentality that at best reduces the
operation into a “service provider” and former “brothers and sisters”
into hapless clients. Money is siphoned off from far flung locals and
kept under tight national control, often finding its way into rather
dubious real estate investments, exploitative mutual funds, and insider
stock options. When under-paid over-worked field organizers try to join
or form their own unions, they often face a familiar union-busting wrath
from their in-house managers. Successful organizers that “go native” and
lead locals in open revolt will find themselves ostracized and their
adopted union fettered by a colonial-style “trusteeship” – as happened to
uppity janitors in L.A. under the thumb of Service Employees
International Union (SEIU). If the going really gets too tough on the
ground – as in Decatur, IL during the Staley strike – headquarters may
well decide to downsize and abandon the subsidiary altogether, with
hardly any local input or outside sympathy.
Corporatization goes even further with leveraged buyouts and merger mania
in the labor movement, often carefully orchestrated to rein-in excessive
militancy. One recent example cited by Smith is the progressive Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers (OCAW) – which helped launched the Labor
Party – being consumed by the reactionary Paper, Allied-Industrial,
Chemical and Energy Workers (PACE). Dispelling the Horatio Alger
mystique, union leaders are also routinely appointed or nominated from an
elite inner circle rather than working their way up from the shopfloor
and being openly elected by the general membership. These executives then
serve out their cushy terms with minimal transparency or accountability.
As Smith notes, the Sweeney “revolution” in the AFL-CIO was more a kin to
a palace coup, since no locals or members were ever invited to the
official nomination convention. Current SEIU leader, Andy Stein, has
been quite frank in describing the drawbacks of too much democracy in a
union – it will politicize staffers, cost too much, and become a
distraction from business as usual in the office (Chicago Tribune, 4/7/
1997).
Lofty rhetoric about “an injury to one is an injury to all” also suffers
when corporatization leads to short-term fixation on “not rocking the
boat” and just getting ones paycheck. Ex AFL-CIO chief, George Meany’s
personal profiteering from Dominican sweatshops is now almost legendary.
The much ballyhooed post Seattle “Turtles and Teamsters” alliance quickly
fell apart when union leaders rushed to reaffirm their stake in the
status quo. The Machinists Union is now a cheerleader for Star Wars, the
United Auto Workers (UAW) simply adore landmines and SUVs, the Teamsters
are all gung ho about drilling in the Arctic (who cares if the oil will
be sold in Asia and never reach U.S. markets). AFL-CIO willingness to
undermine radical labor movements overseas as a proxy for covert
activities by the CIA and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has
apparently not disappeared either – as witnessed by recent meddling in
countries such as Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Hopefully, the WI State AFL-
CIO’s recent resolution to support the World Bank Bond Boycott campaign
will “trickle up” and usher in a more sincere attempt at global
solidarity.
Purging this corporate mentality from the mainstream labor movement will
not be easy, especially when so much of the entrenched union leadership
has “grown up corporate” – to paraphrase Ralph Nader. Wayne Price offers
a refreshing “to do list” for radical labor activists (Northeastern
Anarchist, Spring/Summer 2002) that would reclaim such reliable tactics
as the wild cat, workplace occupations, and the general strike. Workers
may just be ready to up the ante against capital if their pathetic co-
opted leadership would get out of the way. Last year alone the Teamsters
had to scramble to do “damage control” in the wake of several wild-cats –
from barge workers at Jeffboat in Jeffersonville, IN (Industrial Worker,
June 2001) to meat packers with Tyson-IBP in Amarillo, TX (Labor Notes,
Nov. 2001). Hopefully, the next generation of labor activists are also
taking notes from successful general strikes that have recently swept
across Italy, Argentina, Zimbabwe, and Spain - to name a few labor
hotspots. Smith’s own unabashed recommendation is a return to labor’s
radical roots – a democratic community-based organizing model still
embodied in the ideals and practices of the IWW. If not us – who? If
not now – when?