Conference on Organized labour
Responses to the Conference Paper
Steven Deutsch
University of Oregon, USA.
6 November 1998
I commend you for the initiative and the initial report on "Organized Labour in the 21st Century." It should be an important stimulus for creating an international network and nurturing important analysis with research, action and policy agendas.
I am part of a small EU working party on "the new unionism" which is exploring strategic unionism for new technology and the changing workplace. I was invited to the group to bring a perspective from the USA, but my activities over recent decades has been comparative and international in scope.
My sense is that even in high union density nations (such as Sweden), for years the adage, "management acts; labor reacts" has been true. Employers have initiated reforms and unions largely have responded. For that reason the union-driven, pro-active approach to work place change developed by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (starting with 1987 report "Australia Reconstructed") has been particularly inspirational.
In 1997, after years of divided views on the part of American unions over whether the European concept of co-determination made sense, the AFL-CIO established the Center for Workplace Democracy as part of a larger strategic unionism restructuring of the labor federation. The fundamental view is that globalization and the power of multinationals, the recent record of mismanagement leading to enormous job loss and economic retrenchment for workers, the poor design and use of microelectronic technology, the failure to invest in skills upgrading and workforce development, all gives evidence that "management is too important to leave to managers" and that unions must assert new leadership on issues of work and the economy.
The list of economic shifts and challenges which you outlined in your working paper is accurate as a descriptor, and sobering for those committed to promoting active unions to sustain democratic societies and advance human and worker rights. I would suggest a few points of emphasis as a complement to what you have written.
First, it is important to stress that worker rights are human rights. This may be self-obvious to some, but in this 50th anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, it is sadly true that employers around the world are in violation of the tenets which affect humans in their working roles. In N. America this is especially true, and significant given the power of American based multi-nationals and the renewed arguments in favor of market-driven economies. It behooves all who believe in democratic systems to emphasize the rights of workers as basic human rights. This means labor laws must be designed to protect those rights and guarantee workers the right to organize and engage in collective negotiations at work, be free of physical, sexual and other harassment and threats. The EU effort to develop homogenous social and labor directives are laudable; but the push to extend fundamental labor standards and worker protections international must be part of a research and action/policy agenda.
Second, most labor movements have tended to focus on worker training either directed at young workers and their special needs to successful enter the labor market, or those who are dislocated and made redundant. The high levels of unemployment, especially for young workers, in Europe makes this clear. However, the reality is that while both of those needs are real, the greatest need is to shift away from the past and assumptions of secure employment and develop policies--public and private--to invest heavily in workforce skills development. This should be pursued by collective negotiations, joint labor-management training programs, payroll contributions to fund training, and governmental schemes to mandate continuous skills upgrading and worker training. Therefore it becomes both a union goal and focus for policy making. Evaluations of national training schemes and experiments are important, as well as case analyses of union success in bargaining.
Third, in the working paper there is reference to but perhaps insufficient emphasis on the changing workforce and special challenges for unions in organizing new members and serving a changing population. The growing proportion of women, racial/ethnic/linguistic minorities, young and old workers are significant for the ways in which unions operate in the next century. This is an international phenomenon and not just applicable to nations which everyone knows are multi-cultural and multi-linguistic, such as the USA. The huge numbers of world refugees and migration have altered not only the populations of Germany or France but nations such as Sweden, Norway. The changes in the roles of women and their needs at the workplace and in work/family relations are dramatic and recent organizing drives in the USA, Australia, and elsewhere give clear evidence to the need for unions to alter tactics and recognize these shifts. Finally, the needs for young workers is apparent, and the unionization victory led by 17 year old workers at McDonalds in British Columbia, Canada illustrates challenges for labor organizations. In brief, a changing workforce and changing expectations re work time and work/family relationships command special new strategies for the labor movement and tactical points of focus for the growth and sustainability of unions.
Fourth, I think the issue of technology per se needs emphasis. There have been illuminating cases of unions working with researchers to develop a worker-oriented technology (Scandinavia), or collective negotiations to established a union center on new technology and work organization (Australia), or a union educational program focused on technology and work organization issues (USA-Machinists Union). But what is clear is that a corporate "systems approach" to computing and microelectronic technology comes with a heavy overlay of tayloristic management ideology and practice. Forward looking unions must devise ways to shape the technology and intervene in its design and application, in work environment protection, in employment security and training opportunities, and all other features of technology and its impact at the workplace.
Finally, I believe that in large, bureaucratic industrial societies, it is imperative for labor organizations to be creative in their efforts to build worker activation and mobilization both in their union and workplace. Highly centralized systems of labor-management relations have historically produced much apathy. In the more decentralized systems there also has been reliance on the "servicing model" of unionism. What is needed is an "organizing model" which is both union empowering and starts with an approach to mobilizing workers, building a one-on-one effort to engage workers in their unions and actively pursue decision-making in the workplace. That calls for an internal organizing or mobilizing strategy with internal union education as its foundation. Many unions around the world, especially as the union density rate has declined in most nations, have shifted resources significantly into external organizing. But what must be equally examined is internal organizing and education. Are there good models and strategies? What can we learn from them?
Thank you again for your initiative and invitation to respond. I look forward to hearing more from others.
|
