Labor Pains

I am a big fan of both Eric Loomis at LG & M and Laura Clawson at Daily Kos -- we union folks have to stick together.  But I want to respectfully disagree with them about their views on organizing in the construction industry and the relationship between union and employers.  Both Loomis and Clawson express distaste for the retirement of Scabby the Rat -- the large inflatable rat used as a prop in protesting against non-union construction companies -- and some rather poorly phrased words from the head of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO to the effect that Scabby is not the face that the unions want to present to employers. (Not to mention how it might make the prospective members feel.) 

Loomis has some good points in his piece about the importance of a culture of solidarity and what he deems the folly of unions attempting to appeal to CEOs.  Clawson echoes these sentiments.  Both of them see a lack of militancy undermining the future of unions. 

My experience in the industry suggests that they are wrong.  I have been involved in a few "bottom up" organizing campaigns over the years.  Non-union workers persuaded, authorization cards obtained, NLRB elections successfully held -- the entire path that advocates of the organizing model of unionism urge upon us.  I then sat down with the employers to negotiate an initial agreement and got exactly nowhere.  They had no interest in reaching agreement, but went through the motions of good faith bargaining until the point where they could declare an impasse.  And then the choice arrives for the employees -- most of whom in recent campaigns in which I have been involved have been primarily immigrants from Mexico and Central America and were simply not interested in striking.  Absent the threat of a strike, the organizing campaigns came to an end with a whimper.

I am afraid that I have become a proponent of top-down organizing these days -- that is organizing in the construction industry that is dependent on attracting an employer to sign what is known as a pre-hire agreement with a union.  This entails selling the benefits of a relationship with a union directly to the employer -- maybe the employer wants the ability to hire twenty-five certified welders at one time, maybe he wants access to people with specialized training or apprentices, maybe the appeal is to be able to man up for a large job and then lay off a work force that is used to returning to a union hiring hall at the completion of a project.  Hell, some employers even want to be union because they would like their employees to have medical and pension benefits.  

Basically a building trades local union is only as successful as the contractors with whom it has relationships.  The ability of employers to win work and perform it effectively in a hideously competitive environment is the key to keeping union members employed at good wage rates.  In such an enviroment, a posture that is overly adverserial is likely to be self-defeating in a profound way.  Right now, unionized employers and unions in the building trades are allied in a fierce battle with the non-union employers, many of whom eagerly exploit undocumented workers in a manner that undermines wages and benefits in entire sectors of the construction economy.  (There is precious little enforcement of federal or state laws that would prevent this exploitation from occurring.)  It is distressing to watch companies that have been long time model employers -- yes, there is such a thing -- get eviscerated by these bottom feeders out there, something I feel like am constantly witnessing these days.

I understand the visceral appeal of militancy while we are in the midst of the new guilded age.  But most unionized construction employers are not Jaime Diamond or Bill Gates.  They are typically small to medium sized companies -- the vast majority with fewer than 100 employees -- often owned by former union members who went into business.  My experience with most of them -- and I deal with them constantly -- is that they are pretty fair people with some sense of obligation to their employees and a willingness to accept unions as their partners.  

As for the commited bottom feeders out there, I see little hope for organizing them under existing law.  It is much too easy to lay off union adherents in the construction industry when an organizing campaign is ongoing and even where an election is won, efforts to get a contract from an unwilling employer are usually futile.  The best approach to employers like this in good construction markers is "stripping" them, i.e. attracting their most skilled employees to the union and referring them to a good contractor..  During times of slack employment, we need to be able to rely on the authorities to enforce laws against phony subcontracting, failure to pay overtime, worker misclassification on prevailing wage jobs, and the use of undocumented workers, although the latter causes discomfort among a lot of folks on the left.  

Ultimately, I think being a union employer can be sold to a receptive company, but it is almost impossible to jam down the throat of a business that resists unless circumstances are exceptionally favorable.  I don't mean to sound tepid or defeatist, but 27 years of experience with the trades leads me to think I'm correct here.   

 

Comments

[T.R. Donoghue]

Thank you, very well said.

I'm a big fan of Prof. Loomis' blogging and he's obviously a very smart man. I'm certain that he knows more about labor history than I do. But I usually find his tactical advice wanting and his knowledge of the inner workings of today's movement as pretty detached from the day to day work I see.

A couple of weeks ago I asked in comments over there if he had ever worked in labor, apparently he has but the question was obviously a sore spot. It reminds me of the law professors who've never sat for the bar, brilliant folks with lots to teach me but they are missing a key component of the actual experience. They are just one level removed from so much of the on the ground day to day existence of a lawyer, or a labor union.

And Sir Chuck, I was thinking of you tonight and wondering your thoughts on the proposed immigration reform as it relates to the trades. Coming from a building trades family but working for the catalyst union for immigration reform leaves me conflicted.

[Sir Charles]

T.R.

How goes it friend?

I am very much in favor of immigration reform because I think it is the only plausible path beyond the present shadow economy.

I find the unwillingness to discuss the enormous damage being done to working class living standards by the use of undocumented workers to be a bit frustrating.

I think Loomis knows a ton about labor history and I really enjoy reading his stuff. But, yes, I don't get the impression he has much in the way of experience with actual tactical decision making.

Moreover, even if you have some generic union experience, it does not necessarily translate well into work with the trades, which is its own special universe.

[Crissa]

I think the rat has its place, but generally, it doesn't. Sure, the vast majority of non-union construction employers I've known gladly employ illegally. But what good does it do to point that out when those on the street have no legal way to help intervene?

[janinsanfran]

I see the rat used in hotel worker fights in San Francisco and I was just hearing from a friend the other day about seeing it in a Chinese restaurant fight in New York. It may have more resonance there.

Sir Charles -- I love it when you write about the building trades and the construction industry. I worked in non-union construction for 15 years in the 70s and 80s and find what you say about the employers rings true. These too are, relatively speaking, mostly little guys and many want to be good bosses because many have had bosses. Not that they can always pull it off and survive ...

[nancy]

Last evening 'American Experience' broadcast its episode about Henry Ford, which I found fascinating. I'd guess that few people have much recollection of how violent and coercive the industrial North continued to be, long after the reforms of the progressives. I was shocked at how physically brutal the enforcement of 'attitude' was at River Rouge, to say nothing of union talk and politicking of any sort. Father-son and son-surrogate story is the stuff of Greek tragedy. Ford finally yielded to unionization only because his wife threatened to leave him. He was willing to crash his company rather than relent. Sound familiar?

I found it a refresher in just what our corporate overlords wouldn't mind restoring -- in a sanitized way -- state by state, with the help of today's GOP. Seems like immigration reform should logically lead to a resurgence of union activity in solidarity. Especially if apprenticeships were strong parts of the package. So much catch-up to do -- there ought to be work for all.

A friend just returned from a trip to Seoul and reported that coming home felt like arriving in a second world country vis-a-vis infrastructure. American not-exceptionalism.

[Sir Charles]

jan,

Thanks. I sometimes shy away from writing about the trades because I spend so much time thinking about them and worrying about them in my daily life.

The guys enjoy the rat -- no doubt -- but I tend to see it as counterproductive these days.

nancy,

The brutality of Ford and his fellow plutocrats was pretty astonishing. They were murderers and thugs, with the respectability that money can buy you.

Your Seoul comments made me laugh, because it sounded just like a conversation I had with my wife yesterday. We flew together to NYC yesterday, into LaGuardia and out of JFK, and I was noting how decrepit and second rate both airports were and wondering what the many international travelers -- many from Asia -- made of this shabby gateway to the world's most prosperous country.

[Joe S]

Funny story about unionization here in Illinois. My old boss told me that when he first started out in school law, the school districts would negotiate collective bargaining agreements with the IEA (NEA affiliate here) because it was easier that way-- even though there was no labor relations act for public school teachers at the time. In the 1970's, the Republican governor of Illinois issued an executive order requiring bargaining with AFSCME for state employees- because it was easier. The Labor Relations Acts came after bargaining with unions in the public sector was commonplace.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

That's interesting. One of the things that people often forget is that public sector unions are a much newer phenomenon than their private sector counterparts. I remember the State Police in Massachusetts unionizing during my Dad's time back in the late 60s/early 70s when I was just a kid. It really was a big step and it changed their lives for the better in really profound ways.

[Phil Perspective]

Sir Charles:
You're probably right but it's just the way McGarvey(I think) termed it. Sadly, shitty business school thinking has replaced what's best for workers. Maybe the guys you work with are willing to deal with unions but most places obviously aren't. Most employers, especially outside the building trades, would rather eat glass.

[Sir Charles]

Phil,

I totally agree that the business school babble is unappealing.

But I think the essential need for a symbiotic relationship between building trades unions and their employers is actually correct.