|
We
Are All Leaders:
The Alternative Unionism of the Early 1930’s by Greg Queen Alternative
unionism,
according to Staughten Lynd
was “democratic, deeply rooted in mutual aid among workers in different
crafts
and work sites, and politically independent. The
key to the value system of alternative unionism was
its egalitarianism
(3).” Rank and file workers turned to
each other and created horizontal networks
which
“generated a distinctive organizational culture and set of attitudes
(3).” In contrast, the AFL and
CIO were more
accommodating to corporate In the
essays that Lynd organizes, he attempts, I
think, to make a case for
horizontal unionism in contrast to the vertical, bureaucratic unionism. In each case, through the essays, Lynd demonstrates that once the spontaneous
community-based
labor actions entangled with national unions, the fate of the union
shifts from
the grassroots bottom up decision making to top-down decision making. When this happens, the power of the union is
divided and channeled into fewer hands. The
rise and fall of the Independent Union of All Workers
(IUAW)
demonstrates this thesis. The
tactics of workers
and the organizing techniques of the IUAW were democratic, inclusive, participatory and called for direct action. The initial organizing efforts of the IUAW
used direct action as a tactic to have demands heard and met. For example, when the IUAW attempted to gain
union recognition by the Hormel meat packing company, the leader of the
union
demonstrated the power of the union by having the owner of Hormel sign the
contract in front of a crowd of workers. Again,
once union recognition was achieved, direct action
was the
primary method for resolving grievances. Workers
would “sit-down” and not work until the issue was
resolved. Because of the success of this
style of
worker action, it spread throughout the region. In
addition to the direct, spontaneous worker actions, the
union created
a web of connections between the union and community and between
communities. Activist
within the
union would publish newsletters and leaflets,
provide
material aid to strikers and their families, use creative picketing
like
blocking unsuspecting roads, and create solidarity with the farmers and
other
workers. In terms of educating and
creating a distinct culture of workers and their families, the IUAW
published a
free newspaper that was distributed to every house in The
Albert Lea Chamber
of Commerce used their power and influence to line up the local
government
apparatus to prevent the unionization and/or demands of workers. In the early months of 1935, when workers
went on strike in a Woolworths store and
the American
Gas Machine plant, the judge issued an injunction to force them back to
work,
the local newspaper berated them for violating the rights of private
property,
a private police force was hired to harass the workers and some of the
IUAW
leaders were arrested. After several
months of successful striking where solidarity was maintained, the IUAW
decided
to follow the court’s injunction by vacating American Gas Company plant
only to
have sixty-two workers arrested and the IUAW union hall destroyed. Because of the network developed by the IUAW
organizing techniques, word quickly spread back to Austin and about 400
workers
from the Hormel plant armed themselves with assorted weapons and left
for
Albert Lea. They went directly to the
jail, demanded the release of the union members. As
workers were prying open bars and doors,
the “labor friendly” governor pulled up, got the key from the sheriff,
opened
the jail and freed the workers. The
workers then ran the deputies off and surrounded them in a plant. The IUAW was “in command of the entire
situation, from the plant itself to the very streets of Albert Lea.” At this point the governor
attempted to
work out a negotiated settlement (62-65). Unfortunately,
the governor and the workers of the IUAW
agreed to a
settlement that would ultimately lead to the demise of the IUAW and
demonstrate
the thesis of this paper. The union
would call off the strike and return to work immediately, all striking
workers
would be rehired, the employers would recognize the IUAW and bargain
with them
and the IUAW would affiliate itself with a national union.
It was this last condition that caused the
dissolution of the IUAW. The
IUAW was an
organization that included all types of workers from meat packing to
waitresses. When the
IUAW leadership and workers agreed to affiliate themselves to national
unions
that were organized vertically by type of work, the IUAW, organized
horizontally, would inevitably become divided.
For example, the truckers joined the
Teamsters, the meat packers joined the CIO, and steel workers joined
the UAW. Although these organizations were
effective
in negotiating decent pay for workers, the power of workers was
lessened. The solidarity between different
unions based
on type of work was not as strong as the solidarity within one union
despite
the type of work. “It was distressingly
easy for organizational distinctions to become the basis for
hostilities
(64-65).” I think that Elizabeth Faue,
in her essay about the paths of unionization in Minneapolis applies to
the IUAW
and provides an excellent summary of the consequences of accepting
bureaucratic, top down unionism over bottom up participatory unionism. When…new
forms of
industrial relations that emphasized national authority over local
autonomy and
stability over militancy, they alienated many of the rank and file
members who
were the heart of the drive to ‘organize the unorganized.’
Centralization … changed the nature of both
men’s and women’s labor activism as unions closed down possibilities for grass-roots
leadership and direction of union affairs. This
bureaucratic transformation regendered
the labor movement by limiting the scope and meaning of protest and
organization in which women had been involved; it
also redirect the activism of men into bureaucratic
channels of
communication, action and authority (189). The larger
national unions like the CIO fought against grassroots actions in other
ways
besides channeling their energy into bureaucratic paths.
During
the mass
organizing drives where many workers in industries joined and/or formed
unions,
there was mass support for creation of an independent labor party that
was not
tied to the two dominant political parties. The
leadership within the CIO felt that it was necessary
to abandon its
political neutrality but instead of independent political action that
many rank
and file members supported, the unions should tie their fate to the
Democratic
Party. Again, the participatory
democratic practice of the labor movement was bureaucratized. The agenda of the labor movement was
secondary to that of the Democratic Party whose interest was not to
protect
labor but capital. From
reading Lynd’s collection of essays and
from my experience, it
seems that far more is achieved though methods of alternative unionism
than
working through bureaucracies, although the risks appear to be higher. In each essay of Lynd’s
book, the story was the same. The local
unions developed a strong sense of solidarity amongst not only those
within the
union but with the surrounding community. This
strength manifested itself when particular local
unions went on
strike and the community supported the strike through sympathy strikes,
boycotts, providing provisions, etc. When
the local union attached itself to a national union,
support turned
from horizontal to vertical; thus instead of looking to your side
(neighbor),
you had to look up. In other words, power
was not shared across the horizon of a community, but centralized and
narrowed
into a vertical structure. |