Why Labor Unions?
The Worker’s Tool Against Exploitation
IWW members protesting Donald Trump.
THE POWER OF A LABOR UNION
A capitalist's goal is always to make as much money as possible. To do this, a capitalist sets their materials in motion to produce goods or services to sell, called commodities. But business owners don’t do this on their own. They hire employees to produce the commodities for them. Workers sell their time and capacity to work, just like any other commodity, to bosses in exchange for a payment (wage, salary, etc.). Capitalists always aim to pay their employees less than the value of what they produce. They can do this because the cost of labor is not determined by the value it produces, but by the cost needed to maintain it, which often amounts to little more than what is needed to keep workers alive. The difference between the value produced by the worker and what the worker is actually paid is called profit or surplus-value, and is pocketed by the capitalist.
While some of this surplus goes to buying lavish yachts or second homes for the business owner, some of it is used to maintain or expand the business operation so that more money can be made, and the cycle repeats. In this process, the capitalist continually exploits the worker by claiming ownership over what is produced by the worker. The worker has no choice but to accept the capitalist’s terms of employment, because the only choice the worker has is to “work or starve.
OUR UNIONS MUST BE MILITANT
All worker protections we enjoy today are attributed to militant unionism. A militantly unionized working class knows its enemy is the capitalist ruling class, and fights with collective, direct action. One of the most powerful tactics to fight the bourgeoisie comes from masses of workers collectively withholding their labor-power to halt capitalist profits. As individuals, workers don’t have much leverage when negotiating terms with employers, since an employer can easily go out and find someone else willing to do the job. But collectively, workers have the power to win demands for better pay and working conditions. The eight-hour day and five-day work-week were won by labor unions in their persistent struggle against their employers. By organizing together, the working class can fight for better working conditions and better lives, and eventually seize power themselves and bring an end to capitalist exploitation.
As the government rolls worker protections back, we need to come to terms with the state of the organized labor movement in the US. While there has been a relative resurgence of union activity in recent years, the labor movement today holds only a fraction of its former strength. The truth is that today’s multinational labor unions have long been co-opted by the bourgeoisie and their representatives in the labor movement—the labor aristocracy, which is a section of the working class that is bought-off by the capitalists in order to stave off their revolutionary fervor. They are no longer engaged in class struggle, but in class collaboration, which has historically resulted in the stifling of progressive movements and rollbacks of workers’ rights. Class collaboration, one of the main pillars of fascism, is impossible because both classes, the capitalist class and the working class, have contradicting material interests, whereby one's benefit will be at the cost of the other. We must understand the history of how capitalists have co-opted the labor movement in order to move past collaboration and refit modern labor unions with the strength of militant unionism in the class struggle.
THE FAILURES OF CLASS COLLABORATION
Throughout the history of organized labor in the US, most unions began on the path of militancy, but through their interfacing with the class struggle, most (if not all) have fallen into the pitfalls of class collaboration. From the AFL, to the CIO, IWW, ILA and even ALU, the temptation to work in harmony with the capitalist class and the state can be an enticing prospect for some. However, history shows that it’s a short-sighted strategy. It's not the union leadership that feels the brunt of the failures inherent to it, but rather the working class who must struggle again for a new union to represent their interests.
In the early 1900s, following the collapse of the militant Knights of Labor, the AFL decided to readily accept the wage-labor system, becoming the capitalist-approved version of labor organizing. The anti-Communist AFL molded itself into the compliant union; often colluding with the government to achieve favorability among the bourgeoisie. To legitimize this non-militant approach and provide the illusion of harmony between classes, the government gave into a few demands of the organization, often at a price to its rank-and-file. Author Jeff Schuhrke provides an example of this approach in a discussion outlining the AFL-CIO’s involvement with the CIA,
In both World War I and World War II, AFL leadership struck a deal with the US government, promising not to disrupt industrial production by striking during the war. In exchange for not going on strike, the AFL achieved a level of legitimacy in the eyes of the government and won some real gains … This experience really affected top labor officials in the AFL, who learned that when you go along with US government foreign policy, you can win gains, legitimacy, and protection.
Rather than collective, direct action for all working people, the AFL organized its actions to benefit one industry at a time. This manner of industrial organization created a profitable unionizing model, but it did not create equitable protection for its workers. Dues were raised and higher standards for admittance were enforced, until only a specific kind of worker was able to achieve union membership.
While we should criticize the AFL for its many failures, it’s also necessary to understand the US labor climate at its inception. For a period of about 15 years in the late 19th century, unionized railroad workers across the United States would call general strikes immobilizing commerce until workers’ demands were met. Often, the companies would sic private armed militias on the picket line, only to be met with combat-ready strike supporters. Seeing that private enforcement agencies were not enough to stifle worker’s efforts, the bourgeoisie began to brandish another weapon in its toolkit: the government.
Following the Pullman company’s refusal to recognize the American Railway Union (ARU), ARU workers initiated a boycott against all trains using Pullman rail carts. The railroad company refused to negotiate. Sympathy strikes broke out nationwide, effectively grinding all commerce to a halt. In response, Pullman preyed on division, hiring Black strikebreakers to provoke racial violence from striking workers. Eventually, President Grover Cleveland and the Pullman company colluded to issue the first major federal injunction against organized labor. Under the Sherman Act, the colluding capitalists alleged the railroad stoppage interfered with federal mail routes, and sicced thousands of federal troops on striking workers. Violence against the striking workers ensued, and in 1894, the leadership of ARU was arrested and framed for conspiracy. Eugene V. Debs, one of the leaders arrested for the strike, spent his time in jail gaining class consciousness – awareness among individuals that they share similar socioeconomic conditions and interests that are always directly opposed with capitalists, leading to the recognition of the need for a united political struggle with their class to bring about social revolution.
After the Pullman Strike, federal action went from protecting corporate property to waging war on militant union activities. The Sherman Antitrust act was the judicial instrument of choice against unions. Feds issued conspiracy injunctions against any militant strike against capital, crushing principled action and imprisoning (largely Socialist) union leadership.
While the world went to war, militant unionists of the International Workers of the World (IWW) strategically unionized and radicalized workers across industry lines. Mining, lumber, agricultural, and textile workers — of all races and genders — rallied behind the IWW’s message:
These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.
Needless to say, the bourgeois government could not stand to let a militant union inspire class consciousness. Enter the creation of “criminal syndicalism” laws, which criminalized militant organizing. The leadership of the IWW was imprisoned en masse. Many were put to death. The AFL, of course, rejoiced over this win for conservative unionism. McCarthyist persecution of union leaders and communists following WWII further dismantled the IWW, inevitably leading to a diluted version of what it used to be. The Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) lost much of its leadership during the Red Scare as well, meaning the two largest unions adopted a conservative, anti-militant stance. In 1947, a more fine tuned instrument of oppression was created to smother the growing militant labor movement in its crib: the Taft-Hartley Act.
Formerly militant unions and communist parties were not immune from the reactionary backlash following their turn towards class collaborationist tactics. Following the second world war, US corporate hegemony was well situated to launch an attack on organized labor. The following restrictions crushed militant labor with the passage of the Taft Hartley Act:
Required all union officers above shop stewards to file an affidavit swearing they were not Communist
Criminalized closed shops, secondary boycotts, and strikes by federal employees
Established Right-to-Work laws
Required Unions to announce intentions of a strike 60 days in advance
Instructed the President to issue injunctions against strikes claimed to affect general “health and safety”
All of this followed the unions while many communist and socialist parties chose to work with the government during WWII against the threat of fascism abroad. Conservative union leadership was happy to oblige to the government’s demands, to the horror of rank and file members. In fact the AFL-CIO aided the US government in disrupting left-wing labor movements in other countries, including US military coups d’etat in Chile and Brazil. Dubbed the “AFL-CIA”, organized labor became a weapon for the imperialist state, working abroad to oust Communists from power and retrain union membership in its docile image. Meanwhile, at home, the union did little to actively organize its own membership.
The ILA’s 2024 strike provides us with a recent example of the weaponization of unions for the interests of imperialism. The union pledged to continue shipping military cargo during the strike, Union President Harold Daggett’s decision to make an exception for weapons shipments during the strike directly aids and abets both Palestinian genocide and US imperialism — the international arm of the capitalist ruling class.
On Sept. 25, 2024, the ILA released a statement quoting Daggett:
Dating back to World War 1, the ILA was always proud to note that ‘ILA Also Means Love America’ when it came to its “No Strike Pledge” in handling U.S. military cargo at all its ports,” said ILA President Harold Daggett, who served in the U.S. Navy and saw combat duty during the Vietnam War. “We continue our pledge to never let our brave American troops down for their valour and service and we will proudly continue to work all military shipments beyond October 1st, even if we are engaged in a strike.
American patriotism, or “ultranationalism” – an ideology, used to deceive the American working class to think their interests are aligned with America’s capitalist ruling class interests, that promotes the specific interests of “America” over all others — has remained a tool for our bourgeoisie to engender class collaboration. The capitalist class’ geopolitical interests to expand markets and exploit the world proletariat, and accumulate capital, will never align with the international working class. Their ability to bribe the workers in the US is diminishing owing to the ever deepening profitability crisis. Since paying off the workers at home with a fraction of the super-profits extracted from the Global South to keep them content is no longer a sustainable option, our bourgeoisie propagandizes the workers to believe their safety and livelihoods are at risk from this “other” (scapegoating Palestinians, trans people, immigrants, communists, etc.), which paves the way for the preservation of the social hierarchy under capitalism, and, ultimately, contributes to the growth of fascism.
HOW THE CAPITALIST RULING CLASS UNDERMINES THE POWER OF MILITANT LABOR UNIONS
While it's true that many workers in the US hold patriotic, conservative and even anti-worker beliefs, this doesn’t mean we should abandon the working class or the organized labor movement. On the contrary, this makes the propagation of militant class consciousness among the working class all the more necessary. To politically abandon the proletariat because a large section of it supports Trump, as some liberals have, is objectively a reactionary position because it cedes the leadership of the working masses to the representatives of capital. The working class, despite the reactionary ideas of some workers which can and should be combated, embodies infinitely more revolutionary potential than every petty-bourgeois liberal. The union is a vehicle for the working class to realize some of that potential.
The capitalist class publically undermines the power of militant unionism and paints it as a form of corrupt bureaucracy and utopian idealism, making workers believe that unions are detrimental to workers. The bourgeoisie throws any accusation at organized labor it can in order to see what sticks and uses that as a wedge to drive between their growing solidarity. Within the workplace, this includes portraying union dues as a scam going into the pocket of grifters and, ironically, hammers on the internal “lack of democracy” within a union. These accusations are obviously made in bad faith; the bourgeoisie has no interest in safeguarding the working class from a good grift. While it’s been demonstrated that union leadership hasn’t always faithfully served their rank-and-file, these problems can be overcome when class collaborationist leaders are replaced by those who are willing to fight for the interests of the workers alone.
This anti-union propaganda results in denunciations of union activity. Longer wait times, slower deliveries, and less public access to goods are seen as inconveniences, as bourgeois ideology has trained people to view themselves as consumers first and workers second, while any shared humanity is rarely considered. From utilizing major media, the state and even class collaborationist unions, the bourgeoisie uses every tool at its disposal to keep the working class unorganized and divided.
UNION CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT ENOUGH
In 1901, V.I. Lenin wrote the pamphlet “What Is to Be Done? Burning Questions of Our Movement” explaining why union consciousness — the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. — is not nearly enough to change the social or economic structure of capitalism.
Revolts, strikes, and fighting for better working conditions, he says,
shows that the “spontaneous element”, in essence, represents nothing more nor less than consciousness in an embryonic form. Even the primitive revolts expressed the awakening of consciousness to a certain extent. The workers were losing their age-long faith in the permanence of the system which oppressed them and began... I shall not say to understand, but to sense the necessity for collective resistance, definitely abandoning their slavish submission to the authorities. But this was, nevertheless, more in the nature of outbursts of desperation and vengeance than of struggle. The strikes of the nineties revealed far greater flashes of consciousness; definite demands were advanced, the strike was carefully timed, known cases and instances in other places were discussed, etc. The revolts were simply the resistance of the oppressed, whereas the systematic strikes represented the class struggle in embryo, but only in embryo. Taken by themselves, these strikes were simply trade union struggles, not yet [Socialist] struggles. They marked the awakening antagonisms between workers and employers; but the workers, were not, and could not be, conscious of the irreconcilable antagonism of their interests to the whole of the modern political and social system, i.e., theirs was not yet [Socialist] consciousness.
This is not to toot the horn of Socialists nor to say that they know better than workers themselves, but it is to say that union consciousness on its own does not aim at emancipating the working class from capitalist exploitation. It aims to force partial concessions from the ruling class, not challenge the capitalists' status as ruling class. Any reforms within the workplace will be just that, reforms. Workers will still toll the day away making money for their boss for a wage, enhancing capital for the rich whilst being exploited in exchange for the bare minimum (and sometimes less than). Spontaneous movements within one workplace must expand and connect with other workplaces and other social and political movements outside of it because there is one enemy that is the cause of everyone’s hardships — from working conditions to police brutality to lack of housing/food/healthcare to the destruction of our planet to imperialist conquests across the globe.
History, Lenin claims, has shown that
Working-class consciousness cannot be genuine political consciousness unless the workers are trained to respond to all cases of tyranny, oppression, violence, and abuse, no matter what class is affected — unless they are trained, moreover, to respond from a [Socialist] point of view and no other. The consciousness of the working masses cannot be genuine class-consciousness, unless the workers learn, from concrete, and above all from topical, political facts and events to observe every other social class in all the manifestations of its intellectual, ethical, and political life; unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist analysis and the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata, and groups of the population. Those who concentrate the attention, observation, and consciousness of the working class exclusively, or even mainly, upon itself alone are not [Socialists]; for the self-knowledge of the working class is indissolubly bound up, not solely with a fully clear theoretical understanding — or rather, not so much with the theoretical, as with the practical, understanding — of the relationships between all the various classes of modern society, acquired through the experience of political life.
This is not without the understanding that the material conditions of the working class during both Tsarist Russia in the early 20th century and present day America make this an incredibly difficult feat, but it must be done. As days go by, more and more individuals and families are one paycheck away from dire straits. If we no longer want to live under an authoritarian capitalist regime that causes us to choose between working and starving, the working class must prepare to respond with force to every indignity the capitalist ruling class puts us through.
Due to the prevalence of co-opted trade union rhetoric, rather than fully meeting the demands of the workers, unions — historically — will enter into bargaining talks with the company – effectively declaring the two parties equal in the collective struggle. Militant organizing rejects this pseudo equality. As the Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers of the World puts it: “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.”
We cannot work with our class enemies, the capitalist class. We must commit to active and consistent class struggle between these two classes in order to win any material gains for the working class. The capitalist class is a parasite living off the prosperity the working class has built for others all throughout history. It is the historical mission of the proletariat to emancipate itself from this capitalist enslavement.
Class collaboration tightens capitalism’s grip around our throats. Only class struggle and rejecting the myth of class peace can lead to the liberation of the working class. There is currently no “correct” answer of how to build militant unions in the 21st century, but we must continue to study the history of the labor movement and class struggle both in the US and abroad, and learn from its successes and failures. We must persevere through trial and error with a thorough analysis of our current material conditions.