When in Doubt, Blame Unions
Auld Bob
Posted by Jim Stanford under labour market, unions.
June 29th, 2009
The economy is in trouble, and millions of people around the world are
suffering (in various ways and to various extremes), because of the
failure of a deregulated profit-driven private-sector financial
industry.
I think that statement is largely unquestionable.
You would think, logically, that this fact should put the free-market
private sector on the defensive. Ironically, however, the reverse
seems to be happening in terms of a rising nasty mood in popular
culture. Instead of blaming financiers (and the government regulators
who let them play without adult supervision) for the mess, many
commentators and many members of the public-at-large are turning
instead on another scapegoat: unions and their members. Instead of
blaming the market system for what ails them, they are blaming a high-
profile, close-to-home institution (unions) that has tried to put
limits on the market system.
If the recent auto restructuring bargaining had been determined by
public opinion (rather than at the bargaining table), CAW members at
GM and Chrysler would be working for just over minimum wage today.
And if the City of Toronto civic worker dispute was settled in the
court of public opinion (rather than at the bargaining table), there’s
no doubt that the union would lose much more than the sick-leave-
payout scheme that has been the focus of the employer’s concession
demands so far. Safe to say, in both cases, that public opinion runs
at least 5-to-1 against the union. And this is a mystery to me.
No-one can claim that unions caused this recession. And I haven’t
seen a credible story that union concessions can solve this
recession. No-one can even claim that unreasonable union demands have
caused the mini-wave of labour turmoil that is turning up the heat in
some communities this summer (from striking city workers in Toronto
and Windsor, to ambulance drivers in B.C.). In every one of these
cases, the conflict was sparked by a management demand for
concessions, not a “greedy” union demand for “more, more, more.” The
same was true in most of the other tough contract talks that ended up
being settled (with much less fanfare, of course) — such as the
Ontario liquor store workers, the Bombardier aircraft workers, or the
five Air Canada contracts. In every case the workers were trying to
hang onto something, not win more.
(Re the Ontario liquor near-strike: While Toronto may be stinky this
summer, at least it won’t be sober!)
None of this stops the knee-jerk anti-union political apparatus from
kicking into high gear, whenever there is an opportunity to point the
finger at unions.
Why on earth is it so easy to blame unions for whatever inconvenience
or economic harm results from these work stoppages? Unions didn’t
cause the underlying economic problem. Unions didn’t make the demands
that led to the work stoppages. Unions giving up stuff won’t help the
economy turn around (in fact, it would only lengthen the downturn, by
further eating into mass purchasing power). Yet the overwhelming
storyline out there is that unions are a pain in the ass, they should
“get a grip” (in the words of the newly-crowned Ontario Conservative
leader Tim Hudak), they should come down and joint the rest of us in
the real world (where getting screwed by the boss is a normal state of
affairs — so get used to it already!).
I am an economist, not a psychologist, but I am very interested in why
it happens this way — not to mention any suggestions for how unions
(including my own) can respond more effectively to the backlash.
Is it simply that misery loves company? Sure, I may have a lousy deal
in life. And taking away something from relatively better off
unionized workers won’t make me any better off. But somehow it makes
me feel better. Is there a nasty politics of envy underneath? Why
can’t unions be supported for trying to win (and, these days, hang
onto) stuff that every worker deserves? And why isn’t anger at the
current state of affairs directed at those who actually caused it:
immediately at the financiers and speculators, and more broadly at the
architects of market-driven neo-liberalism that have controlled our
economic destiny for coming on three decades now?
There is one obvious answer to this puzzle, helpful but incomplete.
Somehow (partly, not solely, because of their own failures) unions
have come to be seen as protecting the special interests of unionized
workers, rather than fighting for the interests of ALL workers. So
anti-union forces take advantage of this space to try to turn $10 Tim
Horton’s workers against $25 city workers and $34 autoworkers — even
though busting the auto and city unions would simply ensure continuing
poverty for the Tim Horton’s worker (partly because there will be less
money circulating to pay for coffee and donuts, but more importantly
because the prospects of workers uniting to make themselves better off
will seem even more remote).
Unions can do better at overcoming this stereotype (which isn’t
exactly accurate). The CAW tried this with some success in our
campaigning this spring for pension protections — not just for
autoworkers (whose pensions were in immediate jeopardy), but for all
workers for whom the pension promise is like a light at the end of the
tunnel of a long, hard working life. We must position our goals as
aimed at bettering the quality of life for working people,
establishing principles of fair treatment in work that everyone can
fight for (rather than begrudging).
But we shouldn’t be naive about what difference this will make. The
enemies of unions have always tried to portray union members as a
pampered elite, to undercut any sense of working class identity. So I
guess the only thing unions can do is keep fighting: to protect what
some workers have won, to extend the fight on behalf of workers who
have won very little, and to provide an alternative story-line about
the current crisis that helps people direct their anger in directions
that are more sensible — and in ways that can actually help us change
things for the better, rather than pulling us all down into cynicism
and bitterness.
Here are a couple of links on this point that may be of interest.
First, I had a good old-fashioned knock-em-down-drag-em-out debate
over unions with Catherine Swift of the CFIB on CBC’s The Current last
week. She very often imparts a tone of sarcastic arrogance to her
remarks that gets my goat — tapping into the prior assumption that her
small business constituency is always efficient, hard-working, and job-
creating (as opposed to tax-evading, under-paying, union-busting). We
had, as they say in diplomatic circles, a “full and frank exchange of
views.” Here’s the link to judge for yourself:
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2009/200906/20090625.html
Second, Tom Walkom wrote a lovely piece in The Star about the ironies
of poor, pissed-off people blaming unions for their woes, rather than
the ones who actually made them poor:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/656836
http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2009/06/29/when-in-doubt-blame-unions
Scotius
Here in Windsor, where I live, the CUPE people who went on
strike had very little support, and for good reason.
Firstly, the guys mowing grass were already making from $20.00
to $23.00+ per hour, and the guys picking up garbage were making a bit
more.
I am reliably informed that it's rare for them to work an 8
hour day, although they get paid for 8 hours regardless.
Aside from leaving clothes hangers in parks to ruin the mowers
of anyone who dared try to provide their kids a place to play, they
delayed people taking garbage to public drop off sites, etc.
To say this is ridiculous goes a bit short of what it actually
was. The police should have charged them with extortion for trying to
stop private contractors from picking up garbage from downtown
businesses; they had no business legal or otherwise doing so.
Jean Fox, idiot extraordinaire, suggested that it's all okay,
because after all they'd be spending that money downtown, and helping
to revitalize Windsor businesses.
Apparently she doesn't understand the difference between a
privately owned, for profit company that contributes to the economy,
and picking the pockets of taxpayers.
You can gripe all you want about people who are "anti-union"
Bob, but make sure you don't lump people in who are just
"anti-ridiculousness".
igore larianov
>
> Here in Windsor, where I live, the CUPE people who went on
> strike had very little support, and for good reason.
> Firstly, the guys mowing grass were already making from $20.00
> to $23.00+ per hour, and the guys picking up garbage were making a bit
> more.
> I am reliably informed that it's rare for them to work an 8
> hour day, although they get paid for 8 hours regardless.
> Aside from leaving clothes hangers in parks to ruin the mowers
> of anyone who dared try to provide their kids a place to play, they
> delayed people taking garbage to public drop off sites, etc.
> To say this is ridiculous goes a bit short of what it actually
> was. The police should have charged them with extortion for trying to
> stop private contractors from picking up garbage from downtown
> businesses; they had no business legal or otherwise doing so.
> Jean Fox, idiot extraordinaire, suggested that it's all okay,
> because after all they'd be spending that money downtown, and helping
> to revitalize Windsor businesses.
> Apparently she doesn't understand the difference between a
> privately owned, for profit company that contributes to the economy,
> and picking the pockets of taxpayers.
> You can gripe all you want about people who are "anti-union"
> Bob, but make sure you don't lump people in who are just
> "anti-ridiculousness".
The union guys doing the garbage in Toronto make an average of $45,000
a year. I'm not defending them. The non-union guys in Etobicoke
(grandfathered from the pre-Mike Harris unification days) make about
$27,000 a year.
I would prefer no garbage strikes any more. And the day care, and the
pools, and the rest of the tax payer funded shit that I pay for, but
don't use, to run full time.
But, at least, you need to realize that the garbage collectors don't
make massive bucks.
However, in Vancouver, back in 2000. They found money from an old
pension fund and bought out the fucking shit that they're asking
for. No more stored sick days, ect.
Toronto needs to do the same. I don't mind them making a living
wage, and $45,000 is not what I would expect to make in a year! I'd
be living in a bloody rooming house on that kind of shitty money. But
the rest of the union shit can go.