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.

The Not So Shocking Truth About the Crackdown on Occupy Wall Street

Image from Flickr, Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com

Naomi Wolf’s expose on the federal role in the crackdown on the Occupy Wall Street movement, “The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy,” has been making the rounds in the liberal blogosphere, getting replayed here and here, for example. In her piece, Wolf calls the violent crackdown on OWS protesters a “civil war” by the U.S. government against its own constituents. She believes that Congress is colluding with Obama to suppress the people they are “supposed to represent” and they are doing it because they have “started entering the system as members of the middle class (or upper middle class) – but they are leaving DC privy to vast personal wealth.”

In other words, Wolf sees a conspiracy by an upstart class of 1%-er wannabes to keep secret the fact that they are enriching themselves on the backs of the 99% so that the 99% will continue to vote for them and so they can continue their nefarious plot to become members of the ruling elite.

Of course there are numerous sinister and disturbing aspects to the crackdown, not the least of which has been its level of violence and the use of military hardware. But the violence is not unprecedented, as Wolf and others decry, nor even deadly.

So far, no one has been killed by the police at OWS protests, though hundreds of workers and activists were killed by the police in other protests and strikes over the past 130 years.  In the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, for example, 10 workers were shot dead by militias just in Maryland and 20 more in Pittsburgh. Many others were killed and injured by militias, police and federal troops in other cities, too. There were numerous other labor struggles in which labor activists were shot and killed by police, militias, private security or vigilantes, on behalf of the bosses (e.g., Homestead, Everett, Columbine, Ludlow, the Battle of Virden, the Colorado Labor Wars of 1903-4, the Battle of Blair Mountain). There were also the massacres of the 60s and early-70s, like Kent State, Jackson State, Southern University and Orangeberg, and the political assassinations (e.g., Fred Hampton, Bobby Hutton, members of MOVE).

Wolf also complains about how the movement has been infiltrated by local and federal law enforcement and vigilantes, while local police responses have been coordinated by the feds. However, none of this is new either, while the “organized and coordinated by the feds” angle isn’t even necessarily true. COINTELPRO, HUAC, McCarthyism and the Palmer raids were all federally-coordinated police responses to domestic activism and infiltration of movements is so routine that one would have to be very naïve to think their political meetings and protests were free of infiltrators and provocateurs.

In order to get to the bottom of this “unprecedented federal coordination” of attacks on the OWS movement, Wolf asked OWS what their message was. Within 15 minutes she received 100 responses. The number one demand was “get the money out of politics.”

This is hardly radical or revolutionary and cannot be the reason for the suppression of the movement. In fact, the demand to reform the political system indicates that they accept and embrace the existing political order. It presumes that the system is inherently good and did, or would, serve the interests of the 99% if only it weren’t so corrupt. Indeed, the goal of reducing the influence of money in politics is such a mainstream idea that it has been sought by mainstream politicians and 1%-ers like John McCain and Russ Feingold.

Their number two demand, according to Wolf, is that the banking system be reformed, by implementing new rules to prevent fraud, for example, and restoring the Glass-Steagall act. Again, this is hardly radical or revolutionary and indicates that they embrace the existing economic order, including the 1%’s right to be much richer than the rest of us. Banks can still exist and make money by exploiting labor; they just need to follow the law.

While none of this is revolutionary, radical or even a remote threat to the hegemony and wealth of the ruling elite, the rich do not want to give up any of their wealth or power. When the rabble rises up, even with modest demands, it is like an uppity housekeeper or an insubordinate employee. The proper response is to aggressively discipline them or else they might get bigger ideas and their contagion might spread. What if OWS decides that banking and political reforms aren’t enough? What if they decide to elect a bunch of greens or demand higher wages or free healthcare for all? What if they manage to organize a real General Strike?

The Shocking Truth is that biggest threat may not be what the OWS protesters are currently demanding, but the sympathy they have garnered among the rest of Americans. According to Michael Moore, 72% of Americans want to increase taxes on the rich. While Moore is not the most trustworthy source, the point is that average Americans are pissed off about their declining wealth, material security and chances of being able to retire in comfort (or at all), and the OWS movement feels to them like the best expression of this angst. They do want the wealthy to pay more in taxes and they want that extra revenue to rejuvenate their schools, parks, libraries and other services.

However, they seem to also want another New Deal, or something like it, and this would really set the rich back.  Under Roosevelt, the marginal tax rate increased to 94%. The corporate tax rate increased from 12% in 1931, to 40% in 1942.  New rules regulating banking, including Glass-Steagall, were passed, that nominally restrained their ability to make profits. The Wagner Act (NRLA) was passed, which nominally restrained employers’ ability to interfere in unions and labor organizing.

It also resulted in a massive increase in government spending on public works, which put people back to work and income into their pockets. This, too, the wealthy cannot stand, as it would require a realignment of government priorities away from subsidizing the wealthy and their businesses and toward subsidizing the 99%.

However, it is just plain absurd to say that this is all about Congress trying to keep the public from learning their dirty little secret and helping them to become members of the 1%. Most members of Congress were already members of the ruling elite well before becoming members of Congress. They came from jobs as CEOs, bankers and large-firm attorneys. And the public has always known that they were enriching themselves further while in Congress. This is probably why their approval of Congress has been so low for so long. With the exception of a blip in 2002, the Congressional approval rating has consistently been less than 40% for the past 36 years.

The 1% Pays Only 10% of Their Profits to Feds

According to the Harper's Index, corporations paid only 10% of their profits in taxes last year, compared with 40.6% in 1961.

What's changed?

The ruling elite have been able to slash business taxes over the last 25 years. Simultaneously they've increased their profits by working their employees harder, longer and faster, while paying them less. According to Harper's, 3/4 of their increased profit margin is due to depressed wages.

What hasn't changed?

The ruling elite then, like today, had a monopoly on political power and the machinery of production, compelling the rest of us to sell them our labor under whatever conditions they dictated. There was still homelessness, unemployment, poverty, hunger, want and privation. They were befouling the air and water, poisoning low income communities, pillaging poor countries in the global south, and slaughtering civilians whereever U.S. hegemony was being challenged.

Labor Standing With (A Safe Distance From) Occupy Oakland

Labor continues to assert that it is standing with the Occupy movement. They have even thrown their support behind the November 2 General Strike, sort of. The Alameda Labor Council and the California Labor Federation are encouraging members to participate in noon-time work site actions and a 5 pm mobilization, according to the UFO-CIA Blog. Additionally, the Peralta teachers union and the ILWU have publicly stated they won't call for a strike on November 2, according to the Atlantic Wire.

In other words: no General Strike, no work stoppage, and no risk.

Many workers are entitled to duty-free lunches and can picket, march, meet, or rally during their lunches without risk of retaliatory actions. Workers whose day officially ends at 5:00 should likewise be able to participate without reprisals, theoretically.

However, none of this makes a General Strike, which requires the majority of businesses to be shut down completely, and can only happen if the majority of workers refuse to do any work at all.

So Why So Much Theoretical Solidarity, And So Little Actual Solidarity?

It is illegal for unions to join in solidarity strikes under the Taft-Hartley Act, which was enacted after America's last great General Strike, which occurred coincidentally in Oakland, in 1946. Officially supporting the General Strike could result in millions of dollars in fines and legal expenses to the unions. 

However, even before Taft-Hartley, trade unions were serving as Capital’s occupation police, helping the bosses to keep the rabble in line by resisting, weakening and limiting strikes and job actions and through compromises with the bosses that water down contract protections, benefits and pay. Leaders of the big unions typically earn six-figure salaries, but only so long as they and their members remain subservient to the bosses. It is a relationship that keeps the workers working and earning, even if at a perpetually declining rate. As long as the workers are working, and especially if they are doing it more efficiently and productivity is increasing, the corporate bosses are happy and will reaffirm their compact with the labor bosses.

General Strikes place this relationship at risk. General Strikes have the potential to radicalize workers. Historically, General Strikes have empowered and emboldened workers to increase their demands. When workers recognize their power through a General Strike, especially one opposed or unsupported by their union leadership, they may move toward dumping the union bosses off their backs.

What remains to be seen is whether workers will ignore their wimpy union leaders and engage in a wildcat General Strike or, if they do not, how this will affect the Occupy Movement. By calling for a General Strike, the movement hoped to send a strong message to the police and the ruling elite that they are powerful. They are, after all, the 99% and, therefore, the larger army—much, much larger army.

If the 99% wanted to, they could shut down the entire capitalist system, dismantle the class relations that exist, redistribute the wealth, and create a new system free of wages, bosses, landlords, capital accumulation, speculation, and elite power.

By threatening a General Strike, they laid their cards on the table: "This is who we are and what we are capable of doing." However, if a General Strike does not occur or is not effective, they send the message that they are disorganized, weak and do not really have the support of the 99%, at least not in action. Without the actions to back up the demands (or non-demands), the ruling elite, the 1%, the politicians, bosses and police, will likely  continue to ignore, ridicule, arrest and/or dismantle the Occupation encampments.

Strike Wave 2011: SoCal Grocery Workers Ready to Strike

As so typically happens in these situations, the negotiators for the supermarkets have stonewalled, bullied and generally blown off Southern California grocery workers during their contract negotiations. Fed up, the grocery workers have issued a 72-hour notice canceling the contract extension they had conceded to the bosses, the OB Rag reported this morning, setting the groundwork for a strike.

The contract negotiations have been going on for the past nine months. The union, by its own admission, has agreed to numerous concessions to help keep the food giants (Ralph’s, Vons and Albertson’s) highly profitable. Yet management continues to insist on a health care plan that would effectively eliminate access entirely for 62,000 workers.

Many of the workers recognize that this is no longer just about them versus their bosses, but part of the largest assault on working and living conditions for all workers. The ruling elite, including the grocery bosses, see this as an historic moment, when unions are weaker than they’ve been in generations and when the public has little sympathy for them. They believe they can successfully make whatever demands they choose on employees and that employees will graciously accept these demands rather than face unemployment.

However, you can only push people so far before they start to fight back. Apparently, completely gutting health care was that point for grocery workers.

If grocery workers do go on strike next week, it would be the largest U.S. strike in years, bigger than even the recent Verizon strike. However, a strike is not yet certain. Cancellation of the contract is a step in that direction, but negotiations could continue with a contract and a deal (or sell out) being worked out before a strike occurs.

Nevertheless, it seems that some of the union presidents have given up on a settlement. Greg Conger, president of UFCW Local 324 in Orange County, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times saying, "It's time to bring these negotiations to an end. . . The talks have been going at a glacial pace. . . If the employers don't snap out of it, and give our members a proposal that we can live with, the only option we have left is a strike."

Grocery workers last struck in California in 2003. The strike lasted 141 days and cost the employers an estimated $2 billion, according to the Times. However, it also cost employees a bundle since they were without work for nearly five months. The struggle ended with a sell-out contract negotiated by the union bosses after a very weak effort by the union bosses to build solidarity with other unions.

Grocery workers face many of the same difficulties today. Many of the jobs can be done by scabs with little or no experience. In today’s climate of high unemployment, it should not be difficult for the grocery bosses to find an army of eager strike breakers. Therefore, simply refusing to work and picketing the stores will be insufficient. They will have to also convince teamsters to refuse to deliver products to the stores. They will need the ILWU to refuse to unload cargo destined for the stores. They will need to convince shoppers to take their business else, which will not be easy, since everyone is struggling right now, and few have the time, money and options to shop elsewhere.