To: Detroit/Seattle
Workers' Voice mailing list
November 30, 2021
by Joseph Green, Detroit Workers' Voice
American unions are dominated by a class-collaborationist leadership that has presided over the steady decline of unionism. Wages have deteriorated; two-tier wage systems are common, in which newer workers are paid much less than other workers; working conditions have deteriorated; and worker protests have been hobbled by deals between the union leadership and the exploiters.
On Thursday, November 18, the hope for change manifested itself throughout every region of the giant Teamsters Union, as the old leadership went down to defeat in the leadership elections. The O’Brien-Zuckerman Teamsters United slate, backed by the major reform group Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU), swept the top positions, receiving two thirds of the votes (although only about one-sixth of Teamsters voted), and will be in office starting in March next year. A number of articles in the left press have been ecstatic over an expected new day in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
But John Reimann of Oakland Socialist has posted two articles showing that the situation is a bit more complicated than how it might seem at first sight. The president-to-be of the Teamsters, Sean O’Brien, has a long-history of being a member of the corrupt old guard in the Teamsters. The TDU contained vocal critics of O’Brien, and the TDU’s endorsement of O’Brian was questioned by several prominent leaders of the TDU. Moreover, only eight of the 24 candidates in the O’Brien-Zuckerman Teamsters Unite slate were known as reformers, and only three of them were TDU members. (See “Where is the TDU Going?”, consisting of an introduction by John Reimann and an article by Edgar Esquivel, https://oaklandsocialist.com/2021/11/26/where-is-tdu-going/)
This means that teamsters are likely to face a continual struggle inside their union if there is to be a renewed fight against bowing down to capitalist demands. The overthrow of the Hoffa leadership may provide an important chance for renewed struggle, but it isn't guaranteed. The TDU, which regards itself as a coalition partner in the new leadership, is unlikely to have a major say in the new leadership. It will take an upsurge among the rank-and-file Teamsters to ensure that there is preparation for strikes and the development of mass struggle. A critical attitude to the new leadership is important for ensuring that the membership not find itself betrayed at crucial moments. Otherwise the reformers risk becoming the PR men for the new union leadership. Meanwhile a worrying development is that, in the TDU's own convention last month, changes in the TDU constitution were proposed that would drop support for the “Rank-and-File Bill of Rights” that had been a point of pride for the TDU from its start; according to Joe Allen, this change was in fact made. (1)
What’s happening in the Teamsters reflects what has happened in various reform movements in other unions, when those movements had hopes that backing different factions of the old-guard leadership could bring change. Oakland Socialist carries an article on this history, entitled “The Union Democracy Movement: An Analysis”, which deals with Miners for Democracy, Teamsters for Democracy, and the autoworkers’ organization Unite All Workers for Democracy (UAWD, which is in the UAW).
It sums up that
“Working through official channels, including union elections, is important. However, the struggle to make the unions really fight for the members and for all workers will not be won if we confine ourselves strictly to that arena. … Taking matters into our own hands is vital. As Western Washington carpenters showed for a brief moment, that even includes wildcat strikes when and where possible.”
This is an important part of what needs to be done. But it is not everything. It is certainly is true that radical workers must not restrict themselves, in union work, to relying on the elections. But it should also be pointed out that taking matters into the workers' own hands involves not only militancy, such as wildcat struggles, but creating workplace organization that is independent of the union structure, as well as working within the unions. It’s not just that, when working in the unions, one has to avoid being absorbed in “official channels”, but that even at the workplace, militant workers also need class organization that goes beyond the unions, that is concerned with all aspects of the workers’ struggles, and that isn’t restricted to the legalism that smothers current unions. Perhaps that’s what Reimann means by not restricting oneself to “legal channels”, but it would be better to draw this out more clearly.
Reimann says that “the unions are the only mass working class organizations that US workers have ever known”, and thus his article concludes only with the demand for going beyond official channels. But political organizations--including anti-capitalist parties, anti-racist organizations, women’s organizations and others--have had mass support in the working class. The political left is in crisis, disoriented, and fragmented, but it’s not non-existent. And with political and economic crises coming more and more frequently, the state of the radical left will become more and more important. While workers can’t wait for radical political organization to improve, and in fact increased strike activity and workplace organizing would reinvigorate the political left, in the long run there also needs to be increased independent organization at the workplace. Without that, the current style of work of the current union reform groups is likely to continue.
At its height, when it still had a revolutionary standpoint and didn’t bow down to the Democratic Party, the Communist Party of the USA had workplace organization in many industries. This workplace organization was responsible for much of the impetus leading to the formation of industrial unions in the Great Depression of the 1930s, as well as for carrying on political work. The workplace organization added backbone to the union organization, and pushed the struggle against reformist leadership, while not being restricted to simply union issues.
Unfortunately, the CPUSA changed its overall orientation as the 1930s wore on, and increasingly relied on this or that faction among the class-collaborationist union leaders. (For a discussion of CPUSA work among auto workers before and after the change in its standpoint, see “The CPUSA’s work in auto and the change in line of the mid-1930's”, http://www.communistvoice.org/WAS8703CPUSA-UAW.html) This shift by the CPUSA has had great influence in the work of most left-wing organizations today, even those who sharply oppose the CPUSA and denounce Stalinism, and in particular influences the present union reform movements.
I recommend reading the two articles from Oaklandsocialist.com on what’s going on in the TDU, and on the history of the reform union movements. (https://oaklandsocialist.com/2021/11/26/where-is-tdu-going/ and https://oaklandsocialist.com/2021/11/28/the-union-democracy-movement-an-analysis/) They have important information that needs to be considered. But the conclusion, as far as what the radical left should do, has to be more than not restrict work inside the unions to official channels.
Congratulations to the Teamsters for defeating the Hoffa leadership!
For a renewed struggle to improve Teamster wages and working conditions! <>
(1) See Joe Allen, "The Teamster Election: Change, opportunities, and troubling trends", November 29, 2021, Tempest, for the claim that the TDU constitutional changes passed. See https://www.tdu.org/rank-and-file-bill-rights for the text of the Rank-and-File Bill of Rights, https://www.tdu.org/how-reform-movement-has-changed-teamsters-union-tdu-history-1976-1979 for its role in the TDU, and https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/teamstersforademocraticunion/mailings/1763/attachments/original/Proposed_Changes_to_TDU_Constitution_August_2021.pdf for the proposed changes in the TDU Constitution. <>
Back to main
page,
how to order CV,
write us!