When Political Action Trumps Direct Action Working People Lose

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

A GOP- and venture capitalist-backed initiative to limit union spending on elections has collected sufficient signatures to make next year’s November ballot in California, according to the Sacramento Bee. The bill would prevent unions and corporations from using automatic payroll deductions for funding candidate-controlled committees. However, the bill primarily targets public sector unions, leaving large loopholes for corporations, which outspent unions by a ratio of 15 to 1 over the past decade, even without this new law.

California Teachers Association President Dean Vogel complained that the new law would only worsen the political spending gap between Wall Street and unions. “We can’t create a better future for our students and our state by silencing the voices of California’s working class—especially teachers, firefighters, police and nurses.”

The problem is that working people need far more than a voice—they need real power, something they already have through their ability to withhold their labor. Direct Action (e.g., strikes, slow-downs, work-to-rule, boycotts) is far more powerful than campaign contributions as it puts pressure directly on employers, rather than indirectly through legislators. Unfortunately, this power is largely ignored by the unions, which rarely strike anymore, devoting far more resources to political campaigns than to organizing, educating and mobilizing their members. Yet these are the key building blocks necessary for successful job actions.

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

 While it could be argued that preserving the automatic payroll deduction is better than losing it, as it gives unions a “fighting chance” against the corporations, this is hardly an inspiring or compelling argument, as it merely ensures that workers’ voices remain 15 times less audible than their bosses’ because of the campaign spending gap. It is also pretty convoluted, as it is a de facto acceptance of a system in which union members are compelled to “donate” money from their paychecks whether or not they want to, so that union representatives for whom they did not necessarily vote can give money to political campaigns they do not necessarily support, in order to elect political representatives who may (or most likely will not) vote for legislation that might or might not help them. And even then, the legislation might not even pass.

Workers are much more likely to get their interests met by going directly to their bosses and backing their demands with the threat of a strike. This method has fewer middle men and steps and it directly empowers workers.

Political Action is a Dead End for Working People

While labor can sometimes get “their guy” elected, they will never be able to get enough of “their guys” into office to make any significant impact. In the long term, labor can never win the campaign financing game. The corporations and the wealthy have far bigger war chests, and always will, so long as an economic system persists that allows the few to get rich by paying their employees a fraction of the value of their labor.

Ironically, and against their own economic interests, workers indirectly help fund the same political campaigns supported by their bosses, since their bosses’ ability to fund campaigns comes from underpaying their employees. Employees of Koch Industries, for example, contributed to the campaign of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker simply by working for the Koch brothers, who used their profits to help get Walker elected and push his union-busting legislation.

Union activists have argued that this is exactly why they must use their members’ dues to support pro-labor candidates, that this is the only foil to the union-busting efforts of the right. This simply is not true. The best foil to union busting is a strong labor movement that is willing and able to quickly mobilize direct actions that halt profits and force the bosses and/or politicians to back down. This can only happen through organizing, not through political action. At the same time, this argument—that the union bosses must take a cut of workers’ paychecks without their consent in order to counter the political effects of the money stolen from their paychecks by the bosses—is completely irrational and does not inspire much trust or faith in the union and probably contributes to the declining public support for trade unionism.

Campaign funding by unions can be alienating and divisive. Many workers do not want their dues spent in this way at all. Others may support different campaigns and candidates than their unions. And the decisions on which campaigns and initiatives to support are generally made from the top down, without rank and file input. All of these factors have the potential to weaken workers’ support for their unions, thus undermining future efforts to mobilize them for protests, pickets and strikes. This is one of the reasons why the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) eschewed political action not long after its founding, emphasizing direct action instead.

Campaign funding is also a phenomenal drain on union resources for an incredibly indirect and fickle goal: getting someone elected who might propose and vote for a modest reform that might not even pass. If unions spent the same time and money on organizing, educating and mobilizing their members, strikes and other direct action tactics would be far more common and far more effective, not only at winning grievances against specific employers, but also at influencing public policy, potentially even leading to the prevention or termination of wars.

The biggest problem with unions’ obsession with political action, however, is their incorrect presumption that the political system truly is “of, for and by the people,” and that they merely need to get “their guys” elected in order to achieve the American Dream. According to this logic, if we get enough of “our guys” elected, the laws will be changed to benefit us and everyone will become a member of the middle class, with material security, home ownership and access to the good things in life for all.

However, even if a majority of Congress was pro-labor—which could never happen because the capitalist class would never permit it—inequality would still persist because the fundamental relations between bosses and workers would remain unchanged. Workers would continue to have to sell their labor to the bosses at whatever price bosses were willing to pay. Bosses would continue to make huge profits by selling their goods and services for far more than they paid their workers. The wealthy would retain control over the machinery of production, with the power to hire and fire. Workers would therefore have to continue prostrating themselves out of fear of being fired, leaving them without any control or influence over their working and living conditions. The fundamental laws of the land would remain unchanged, thus ensuring that private property and profits remain sacrosanct in the courts and Congress, and dominant over human needs.

Contrary to popular belief, the political system never really was “ours” to take back. It is and always has existed to serve the interests of the wealthy and promote the profitability of their businesses. On the rare occasions in which laws have been passed that seemed to benefit working people, as has been claimed for the National Labor Relations Act, these laws were merely social bandages designed to mollify the working class and get them back to work after periods of protracted strikes and unrest. They were not the result of “our guys” being elected and acting in our interests, and certainly not a solution to inequality and exploitation. Unemployment, poverty, homelessness and other social ills continued to plague society.

As the Wobblies noted in the preamble to their constitution back in 1904:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life . . . [The] struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class [and prepare] not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, [but] take possession of the means of production [and] abolish the wage system.

Unions Strike Out With Big Bankrolls and Tactical Bankruptcy

California’s largest labor union, the SEIU, is planning on making big donations to “moderate” Republicans, in a sign that mainstream unionism is for all practical purposes dead. It’s not so much that they are supporting Republicans, who are infamous for their disdain for unions, but that they continue to labor under the delusion that they can purchase the loyalty of politicians of any stripe. In this case, the SEIU believes that by supporting “moderate” Republicans they can purchase their support for regressive tax extensions that would essentially buy the state one more year of the status quo and save a few jobs and services, primarily on the backs of the state’s poorest and most vulnerable residents.

According to the Bay Citizen, the SEIU has created a new political action committee that will make political donations exclusively to the GOP. Leaders of the union said they want to “increase the number of moderate Republicans in Sacramento.”

In the past, such talk would have been anathema to unions. Rather than calling for “good” Republicans, they would have called for more Democrats, who are naively presumed to be allies of labor simply by virtue of their party affiliation. In contrast, rather than demanding austerity for their members and allies (the lower one’s income, the greater percentage of their income goes into a regressive tax), a fighting union would have demanded that the affluent and privileged members of society bail out the state (e.g., a 1-2% tax on families earning $500,000 or more per year). Furthermore, they would have avoided campaign financing entirely and started organizing for a General Strike months (or years) ago.

SEIU officials bring up the fact that 87,000 of their members are Republican, as if this justifies funneling members’ dues into the pockets of wealthy Republican candidates. However, rather than pandering to conservative members’ partisanship, unions would be much more effective and powerful if they got out of the politics game entirely. By not supporting any candidates or parties they would much more effectively (and accurately) demonstrate that they do not favor some members’ views of others. More importantly, the millions of dollars saved could be used for organizing and education campaigns, not only for members, but for society as a whole. For example, ads and commercials demanding higher taxes on the rich, and higher wages, affordable housing and free healthcare for everyone else, would be a much more effective use of union resources since the message would reach everyone, not just the politicians. It would have the potential of building solidarity among larger numbers of working people and it would plant the seed for increased labor militancy.

The Business of Unions

While such a change in tactics by the SEIU might seem shocking to liberals and trade union members, it is nothing more than the logical next step in a failed strategy the trade unions have followed since their inception.  Not only does it reflect their acceptance of the political and economic status quo (e.g., Democrats could never win in certain districts, so let’s hedge our bets with the lesser-evil “moderate” Republicans), but their acceptance of the battle rules set forth by the ruling elite: The only legitimate method to air grievances is through the ballot.

                                                                                                                                      

This strategy highlights the fact that the public sector unions (like virtually all trade unions) are essentially business unions (i.e., the union is a business that sells labor and whose leaders align themselves with the leaders of business). As such, their primary goal is to keep their members on the job (not laid off OR on strike). Secondarily, it is to achieve immediate short-term improvements to wages and working conditions. They do not care if there is a wealth gap or if some members of society control the majority of wealth and power, even though this reality creates the conditions for unemployment and declining living standards. If their goal is to maintain employment and wages for their members, then their focus must necessarily be on those who control hiring and the purse strings: the bosses (in the private sector) and the politicians (in the public sector). Furthermore, this narrow-minded and egocentric perspective creates competition between unions and between workers, rather than solidarity, as well as shutting out large sectors of society from the hope of union representation (e.g., initially, no unions were willing to represent graduate students because they didn’t want to invest resources into workers who would leave the industry and the union within a few years; only the IWW initially was willing to represent unskilled workers or accept non-white  workers in the early 20^th century).

By increasing political financing, the SEIU has indicated that they are no longer interested in the strike or other forms of direct action. One reason for this is that organizing for strikes and job actions is difficult and time consuming. It requires an investment in organizers who meet regularly with workers, listen to their grievances, and collaborate with them to develop tactics. It requires taking risks and getting one’s hands dirty. It is not as cushy and relaxing as wining and dining with members of the ruling elite. It requires union bosses to relinquish some power and control and occasionally defer to the rank and file, who they (like their wealthy politician and corporate buddies) generally view as ignorant, angry, and dangerous hordes. Strikes, particularly general strikes, are disruptive to the comfortable, safe and luxurious lifestyles of the privileged members of society, including the union bosses. They are undignified, particularly when workers must confront scabs, goons, and state violence. In effect, a strike not only disrupts life for the ruling elite, but for the union bosses, too.

It is commonly, but incorrectly, assumed that union leaders share the same interest as their members. In reality, the leaders of the big unions (and even many local presidents) no longer (if ever) work in the industry they represent. They generally receive much larger salaries than their members (Randi Weingarten, boss of the AFT, receives over $600,000 per year in compensation) and they do very different work. They do not face the day to day risks and threats that their members endure, nor do they suffer pay and benefits cuts when they encourage compromises or discourage strikes.

On the other hand, when workers go on strike, they suffer more than anyone (including their employers and union bosses). However, it is a short-term sacrifice they recognize they must make in order to improve their working or living conditions. Not doing so not only means a continuation of unacceptable circumstances, but increased attacks by the bosses who see them as weak and frightened. Regular and ongoing strikes send the message to the bosses that workers are organized and willing to fight for their  interests and that they are not to be taken for granted. When the bosses fear an organized labor force, they are much less likely to propose cuts to pensions or the abolishment of collective bargaining and they are much quicker to come to the bargaining table to discuss other grievances.

It is clear what workers stand to gain from strikes and direct action and it is clear why bosses fear them. What do union bosses get for their trouble? Unfortunately, nothing but headaches, potential lawsuits, perhaps even jail time. They have no interest in going on strike and nothing to be gained by it, except possibly the support and respect of their members. But this does not keep their six-figure salaries flowing or their seat at the ruling elite’s banquet table. In the short-term, workers who want to see improvements in their working and living conditions have no other choice but to organize themselves and prepare for wild cat actions, since their leaders will do everything possible to avoid a strike, including making sell-out compromises. In the long-term, workers need to abandon trade and business unions entirely and start organizing militant industrial unions that include all members of an industry (e.g., teachers, custodians and secretaries in the same union), that eschew politics, and that have representative delegates who continue to work in the industry and who are instantly recallable.

Most importantly, workers need to start regularly and proudly using (and doing) both S-words: Solidarity and Strike!