Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 15:40:25 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: (ICT-JOBS): Re: New Forms of Trade Unions
Let me comment on some of the replies to my remarks about new forms of
unionism-- particularly the long and thoughtful remarks of Pursey and
Kyloh. When I mentioned the strategy of the trade unions as ceding
direct control of the workplace I was referring to the transformation in
the American labor movement around the turn of the century. This was
the transformation from reform unions (e.g., the National Labor Union
and the Knights of Labor) that challenged the wage system to the trade
or business unions that accepted the wage system and wanted "more, more,
more" within the wage system (e.g., AF of L). The AFL (together with
the employers) managed to defeat the rival reform unions and thus the
"labor movement" ceded to the employers direct control of the workplace.
For instance,
"The trade-union ideology as thus much more limited and restricted in
terms of its basic objective than the reform union ideology. In a sense
it represented a tacit quid pro quo between labor and industry. In
return for labor nonsupport of revolutionary theories, industry promised
the worker a rising standard of living and a respected though
subordinate position in the community." [Grob, Gerald 1961. "Workers and
Utopia: A Study of Ideological Conflict in the American Labor Movement
1865-1900." Chicago; Quadrangle Books. p. 9]
It is these "trade unions" that I was "bashing", not the reform unions
or the labor movement as a whole.
Today the goal of firms being directly controlled by the people who work
in them, i.e., democratic firms (or worker cooperatives in the language
of the older movement) seems almost to be eradicated from the
consciousness of the trade-union movement--as if unions always were and
always would be welfarist organizations operating through collective
bargaining and consultations.
As I pointed out before, shareholders have been euthanatized by their
own mechanism of insuring liquidity, the stock market, so for about
three quarters of the century there has been a separation between share
ownership and the effective control in the hands of management. Thus
the power wielded by management is not even legitimate by the standards
of the system itself. This has presented and still presents a historic
opportunity for Labor to challenge the employment relationship and the
whole idea of the corporation as a property "owned" by shareholders and
management as "agents" of the shareholders. Yet, where is this
challenge?? The US labor movement has, for example, so thoroughly
bought into the divine rights of capital that its most avant-garde and
progressive strategy in the AFLCIO is a "capital strategy" based on
workers owning shares through pension funds and the like. This even
raises the pathetic spectacle of labor unions possibly trying to improve
the effective control of absentee shareholders (such as labor-influenced
institutional investors) over corporations! There is even a group of
labor-oriented activists and intellectuals (to which I belong) that has
just formed and that is named the "Capital Ownership Group."
Well, at least that is better than just straight collective bargaining
since it puts ownership-type questions on the table, quite an
accomplishment in America. It's great for Labor to do something
somewhat "out of the box." But my point is that Labor and
labor-oriented intellectuals cannot find the public courage to lay a
direct claim based on democratic rights to self-government in the
workplace or on people's direct rights to the fruits of their labor.
The "public space" just isn't there for them to find that voice. No,
Labor feels it must make claims based on CAPITAL ownership. The "space"
is there for the claims of capital. All this has particular irony as
Clinton returns from lecturing the Chinese on "human rights" and the
Left in America has trouble voicing workers' claim to control of their
worklives or ownership of the fruits of their labor as HUMAN rights,
only as capital rights.
Let me make an analogy to be even clearer. The democratic franchise in
the political sphere was at one time restricted to land owners. What
would you think of a "citizens' movement" that based its claim for a
broader franchise on a broader ownership of land rather than on human
rights to self-determination regards of land ownership?
You are right to point out the enterprise-level involvement of unions
mostly in the European context where there is a works council tradition.
My remarks were based mostly on the US case since I know it best and
since the US Labor Movement is in "deep crisis."
One of the ICT impacts is the increasing intellectualization of the
workplace (processing information as much as things) which increases the
potential for a productivity payoff from greater worker involvement.
That presents another opportunity and leverage point to redefine the
"company" around its increasingly important human element ("intellectual
capital" or "human capital" in the capital-laden metaphors of the day)
as has been argued by Margaret Blair in her book "Ownership and Control"
(Brookings, 1995). Yet here again, US Labor on the whole has not
grabbed this bull by both horns and tried to control the process.
Instead it has held back and has to be dragged into it by management
(and even management has been dragged into it by the competition from
Japanese-style production systems). As you rightly mention, "unions
remained suspicious that 'new forms of participation' would be abused by
employers and lead to the legalisation of company unions." But that is
not a sufficient explanation. To say that something can be "abused" is
only to say that it is part of the real world and that it might fail.
And if the design and control of the "new forms of participation" is
ceded to management, then I can guarantee it will be abused.
I think that a deeper explanation for Labor's reluctance is still the
mental model of unions as bargaining about an input supplied to the
firm. Labor still thinks of the firm as "someone else's" firm so one
must be careful about being sucked into taking responsibility and thus
lose one's independence to object to and bargain about the rules. There
is a mental "continental divide" to be crossed here before Labor can
approach the question with the attitude that this is OUR firm and that
we speak to what is best for the firm itself. (Heaven's to Betsy!
"Enterprise Consciousness!")
Let's take another analogy to be clearer and to help break out of the
mental stereotypes that "business unions" have accumulated over the last
century. When people are fighting against undemocratic control of say a
city or a country, they won't get far by ceding any design on democratic
control and aiming only to "bargain about" how the autocrats will govern
them. Instead of ceding the city or country to their rulers, they
should assert that it is "their city" and "their country" and that they
speak to what is best for the city or the country. That can be
denigrated as "city consciousness" or "national consciousness" as
opposed to "international solidarity," but acting locally is the
beginning of real social change.
In the American civil rights movement, a large solidaristic movement was
necessary to get the critical mass to change laws and practices at the
national, state, and local levels. But when the legal paths were
cleared, it remained for black people to then exercise their rights
locally to get elected to or represented in the townhalls, cityhalls,
and state houses that had previously been the hated symbols of
oppression. When will workers and union leaders cross that mental
continental divide to see the boards and managing councils of THEIR
firms not as symbols of the enemy but as places where they rightfully
belong?
You make the point that unions are discussing teamwork systems with
management but that unions are still necessary due to the power
disparity between an individual worker and management. Clearly
organizations are necessary in any democratic polity and union-like
structures would be needed even in democratic firms (as I argued in:
"The Legitimate Opposition at Work: The Union?s Role in Large Democratic
Firms." Economic and Industrial Democracy: An International Journal.
Vol. 9, No. 4 (Nov. 1988), 437-53.). The problem is that they would
need to get beyond their current collective bargaining mechanism and its
legal framework in order to function in a democratic framework. If
there was a democratic structure in a firm, then one could not have each
subgroup jumping over the "agreed-upon" machinery for collective
decision-making and cutting a legally enforceable contractual side-deal
with the firm of which the subgroup is a part. That is why
employee-owned companies with two or more strong unions are very very
tricky. This also raises the problem that US labor law has poured
concrete over the collective bargaining model so much that having a
strong controlling union in an employee-owned firm runs afoul of
legislation originally designed to avoid captive unions.
To summarize, I have noted the increasing intellectual content of work
(of which ICT is a part) which can increase the voice of labor and I
have coupled that with the much older weakening of the voice of capital
by the separation of ownership and control in the large publicly traded
companies (and thus the illegitimacy of management's effective rights by
the standards of the system). These two trends again raise the
possibility of getting the Labor Movement back on track to establish
democracy in the workplace, and not just to get a better deal as hired
hands.
Many thanks for the opportunity to experiment with the Internet to have
these discussions and to raise these issues. I am off on six weeks of
business and holidays and will be "unplugged" until mid-August.
__________________________
David Ellerman
Senior Advisor, DECVP
Room MC4-335
Ph: 202-473-6368
Fx: 202-522-1158
Em: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
