Fordism and the "New Unionism"

[zodiac <zodiac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi again --

The latest _Monthly Review_ has an article on the Dec 95 French general
strike. The author asks (and answers) the question: What gives French
unions a capacity to move with such forcefulness, whereas most other
western unions are torpid and timid?

Among those tidbits of answers, the author touches upon the different
social construction of existent French unions -- as compared to the
top-down unionism we are much more familiar with, certainly in Canada.

All of which put me in mind of an article from the latest edition of
the Canadian mega-mag _Labour/Le Travail_ (#36, Fall 1995, it comes out
twice a year -- They have a web site: http://www.mun.ca/cclh).

I mentioned this labor history article briefly once before. I'd like to
mention it more fully now. If Canadian labor history bores you, hit delete
now. It only gets much much worse.

It's called "The impact of the postwar compromise on Canadian Unionism"
(by Don Wells). It analyzes _on the ground_ how the "birth" of a union
entirely alters the "being" of a union.

... That notion alone is hardly mindblowing, but such things are always
more striking when you see it in action... rather than abstr-action.

Here's a key passage or two, tracing the pathology of at least one viral
strain that can turn unions into such toothless wonders:

    A second key feature of Canada's Wagner model was the arbitration
    award by Supreme Court Justice Rand after the momentous 1945 Ford
    strike in Windsor Ontario.

    Rand's award provided the United Auto Workers (UAW) with automatic
    deduction of union dues, applicable to all workers in the workplace,
    irrespective of whether they belonged to the union. In this way, the
    Rand Formula solved the problem of 'free riders' who benefited from
    union contracts without paying union dues. [...]

    The union's new financial security, however [...] required union
    leaders to become more responsible to employers than to their
    members. It weakened the ties between union leaders and members,
    especially because union representatives no longer collected dues
    from each worker.

    Rand also put teeth in union leaders' obligation to repudiate
    workers' direct action. Failure to do so could lead to the
    forfeiture of union dues payments. The resulting institutional
    separation of union leaders from their members became increasingly
    embedded in Canada's Wagner model. [...]

    This model legitimated and stabilized unions at the cost of
    confining them in a web of legalistic obligations which limited
    their members' ability to engage in militant action.

    In this context, a more hierarchical, bureaucratic and legalistic
    unionism arose to replace the more militant, rank-and-file centred,
    and class-oriented unionism of the 1930s and 1940s. Senior union
    leaders generally facilitated this shift. In 1949, for example, the
    UAW International Executive Board gained the constitutional power
    to discipline workers when local leaders refused.

    Collective bargaining gains were increasingly based on productivity
    improvements that required workers and unions to cooperate with
    overall managerial control. [...]

    [It] was thus a compromise in which industrial unionism shifted
    from a greater emphasis on mobilizing workers through militancy and
    class solidarity to one which centred on bargaining multi-year
    contracts that guaranteed labour peace. This required workers to
    drop any ambitions they had for greater participation in
    decision-making in their workplaces and in their own unions. [...]

    This new unionism took shape during the late 1940s and throughout
    the 1950s. While many analysts have focused almost exclusively on
    union elites, the import of this transition is most evident at the
    local union level. This can be seen most clearly in the formation
    of new locals which lacked the traditions of wartime militancy and
    solidarity. [...]

    This paper centres on the formation of UAW Local 707 at a Ford
    assembly plant in Oakville, Ontario in the early 1950s, when the
    transition to the new unionism was more advanced. Local 707 has the
    advantage, for analytical purposes, of being created in the context
    of a partial transfer of operations from Ford Windsor [local 200].
    This organic relation between the two locals provides a unique
    vantage point for assessing the shift from one kind of unionism to
    another.

And, true to his word, the author then compares the behavior of UAW
locals 200 and 707. All very instructive, imho.

Ken.

P.S. I append the opening paragraphs. The full article is available
upon request, should anyone share my interest in these kind of issues.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

       THE IMPACT OF THE POSTWAR COMPROMISE ON CANADIAN UNIONISM:
           THE FORMATION OF AN AUTO WORKER LOCAL IN THE 1950S

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                                   by
                                DON WELLS



     The only way Ford is going to get union protection in his plans
     ... is to have the UAW transformed into a strongly centralized
     organization exerting iron discipline over is constituent locals
     and over its rank and file.

                                         Business Week 79, June 1941.


                   CANADIAN FORDISM AND THE NEW UNIONISM

AFTER WORLD WAR II, Canada's political economy was stabilized by a
far-reaching compromise between labour and capital. This essay centres
on the role this compromise played in creating the kind of unionism
which came to dominate postwar Canadian industrial relations. The
compromise changed not only relations between unions and employers but
also between workers and their unions. The principal focus for
understanding the nature of this new unionism is the founding of a
United Auto Workers (UAW) local at a Ford assembly plant in the early
1950s.

The postwar compromise was built around a 'Fordist' framework for mass
production based on a Taylorist division of labour. Under Taylorism,
semi-skilled workers performed repetitive tasks while managers and
technical staff, such as engineers, exercised a near monopoly not only
over day-to-day workplace governance but also over strategic decisions
concerning technological innovation, new investments, and the
organization of work.

[ ... ]




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---