Global Labor Strategies

Four Steps to Global Unionism

How do we move global unionism from idea to reality? It’s not an easy task. There are major obstacles to building a global labor movement as we pointed out in a previous blog.

Cementing relationships, fostering solidarity, and developing the strategic knowledge for unions to provide mutual aid in the global arena must begin long before battles are joined. The haphazard international labor cooperation of the past must be buttressed by proactive horizontal linkages between unions and workers at all levels. 

Here are four concrete steps unions can take to make international labor cooperation less haphazard and more proactive:

1. Create efficient communication channels at all levels

•    Increase exponentially the amount of information flowing among workers and their organizations at all levels.  This will require significant resources for everything from research to translation services.  Regular information exchanges with unions in other countries can be facilitated by internet-based knowledge networks; a Global Labor Solidarity E-Newsletter presenting experiences and analyzing lessons of cooperative efforts; and periodic conferences.  Communication-- swapping stories and reflecting on issues, strategy and tactics-- should involve local unions, staff at all levels, and the membership.

•    Institute regular work-to-worker exchanges: Traditional labor connections are funneled through national and international federations.  But to build support for the radical shift toward a global labor movement, workers need to be continually “rubbing shoulders” with workers from other countries who work in the same companies, industries, and occupations.  Such exchanges will not only build trust and solidarity, but also position workers to assist and encourage their own unions to go global.

•    Build trust overseas by offering concrete services to workers and unions in other countries: One way to overcome suspicions and cement relationships is to begin offering services to unions and their allies abroad.  At a recent conference on outsourcing, for example, Indian unionists asked US unionists to provide on-demand information about US companies.  Latin American labor networks have similarly requested regular updates on American trade policy and political developments.  Initiating networking overseas by offering such services will begin opening doors and building the trust needed for on-going coordinated action.   

2. Create global networks and alliances before the battles begin

•    Start reaching out to potential allies. Unions need to connect with national and local unions to build relationships far in advance of asking workers in other countries to commit risky acts of solidarity.  Such pre-battle networking should also include foreign civil society organizations and allied government officials.

•    Develop “intelligence” about countries, unions, and industries around the globe to spot new trends and construct new strategies. As any global corporation knows, going global requires staying abreast of an increasingly complex set of variables, such as national labor laws, political developments, and economic conditions.  Seeking regular “intelligence” about specific countries and global industries can ensure unions that they are not “flying blind” in the global arena.

•    Utilize immigrant members.  In the US, for instance, 15% of the workforce are immigrants.  They are playing a critical role in the growth of unions in low wage service industries.  They also form a vital resource for forming links to established and nascent labor movements around the world.  Unions should provide resources to help them utilize their ties with their home countries to promote on-going international connections.

3. Connect the local and the global

•    Build a global strategy at the local level.  Today even local unions must confront global corporations either at the collective bargaining table or in organizing campaigns as multi-national corporations extend their reach in the economy.  Unions should develop a set of practices and protocols at all levels to build global perspectives and global action into local campaigns. This should include creating task forces of workers specializing in bringing international pressure to bear in local campaigns through direct contact with unions and workers in other countries.

•    Establish educational programs about globalization so that workers can participate in an informed way in building a global labor movement. Unions need to begin telling workers the facts demonstrating what they already know viscerally: globalization is affecting their lives and is here to stay.  Such education is politically essential for dialogues about shifting resources into global networking and campaigns.

4. Take the offensive on global public policy issues

•    Promote alternatives to neoliberal policies at local, state, and national levels.  In the US, globalization has baffled both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.  This is an opportunity for unions to take the lead in defining solutions to outsourcing, contingent work, privatization, and other public policy issues.  By framing public debates, developing expertise, and proposing alternative solutions unions have an opportunity to be perceived as innovative and aggressive in solving workers’ problems.

•    Utilize immigrant members to educate the public, media, and politicians.  Immigrant workers are a rich source of knowledge and experience about the global economy.  They can help labor spearhead a progressive global agenda on migration in the global economy; develop alternatives to destructive trade deals that harm workers in both the North and the South; and launch a new discussion about human, labor, and citizenship rights in the age of globalization.

Unions have tried, with varying success, to utilize international solidarity in particular struggles.  Building a global labor movement next requires something further: proactive approaches designed to make international communication and cooperation part of the daily practice of the labor movement at local, national, and international levels.

In our next blog we will take a look at more detailed proposals to build capacity to deal with global issues at the regional, local union, and bargaining unit level.

Big Trouble for Auto Workers

The North American automobile industry looks more and more like a crash scene-- each day seems to bring more bad news for auto workers and their communities. The debris is everywhere.

In the past few months

•    GM announced that it will shut 12 plants and lay-off 30,000 workers over the next few years. Ford followed suit with a plan to close14 plants and lay-off 30,000 workers. Since 2000, 140,000 jobs have been lost in the old Big Three auto companies.

•    Both GM and Ford asked for and got mid-contract concessions on benefits from the UAW. GM now plans to ask for even more concession to help bail out its North American operations.

•    The parts industry continues to implode. Delphi—GM’s largest supplier and a company it spun off in 1999 in an earlier restructuring-- is now in Chapter 11 and has asked the courts to allow it to get rid of its union contracts covering 33,000 hourly workers. The company wants huge pay and benefit cuts. Many of Delphi 44 plants in North America are likely to close.  Tower Automotive, another large parts producer, is also on Chapter 11 and has also petitioned to dump its contract covering thousands of workers. . The outlook for parts workers is grim: some experts say that one-third of the parts industry is headed for bankruptcy court. Expect the massive shift to off-shore production to intensify.

•    Further “downstream”, car hauler Performance Transportation, which operates Leaseway and two other companies, has also filed for Chapter 11, citing reduced business as a reason. The fate of its 1,900 Teamster drivers is uncertain.

This crash has been a long time coming. The big US auto companies have been in a perpetual state of reorganization for decades as they struggled to come to grips with global competition. Each re-organization has been bad news for workers and each has failed to stabilize the companies or the industry.

The old integrated corporate structure has been replaced by much more decentralized “just-in-time” systems based on complex global supply chains. Some of companies in these supply chains—like Delphi--are spin-offs from the Big 3. On the shop floor work has been reorganized and intensified to increase productivity.

Meanwhile, Asian and European car companies built assembly plants in the US and gained a growing share of the US market. More are planned. They bring tons of money, build modern plants; institute state of the art production systems; hand-pick a more compliant workforce mostly in the non-union US South; and successfully use union avoidance schemes to stave off organizing drives. They have none of the “legacy’ costs of the Big 3 and provide much less generous benefits than those the UAW has negotiated over the years. To take one example: GM health care premiums add $1500 per car; non-union Toyota health care costs adds $300.  The newcomers also build higher quality products that people want to buy. Today, “transplant” account for 40% of sales in the US market.

But let’s not forget that Ford and General Motors are also global companies that produce and sell cars around the world and quite profitably. Last year GM sold more cars outside the US than it did within the US. It’s now the leading producer of cars in the growing Chinese market, where its plants operate at capacity. Ford turned a profit on its far-flung overseas operations as well.

The continuous reorganizations of the last two decades are part of a powerful and highly successful campaign to roll back wages and benefits for auto workers throughout the world. Global companies operating in global markets are outflanking auto workers and their unions everywhere. Despite the relative power of auto worker unions in many countries, conventional national union strategies are proving inadequate for blocking the auto companies attack.

That’s why, in the US, even though by the conventional measures of union strength—high density, active organizing, and good collective bargaining agreements—auto workers should be well positioned to resist the corporate attacks, they have been unable to do so.

Consider the following:

High density  60% of all of the cars and trucks sold in North America are assembled by union workers.(2003 numbers) While this is down from the 82% level of the late 1970s, it’s still a union density that is unimaginable in most sectors.

In the parts industry, union density is much lower. As a former division of GM, Delphi’s North American operations are essentially unionized wall to wall. Contracts basically carried over from GM meant that Delphi workers have wages and benefits up to core industry standards.  But Delphi and other union producers are competing against a growing number of companies producing in Mexico and other low wage countries and with non-union plants in the US. In the late 1970s some 56% all parts workers in the US were unionized, today it’s more like 25%.

Organizing There is active organizing in the parts sector and it’s meeting with some success. The UAW has been able to use its leverage with big auto makers to help organize 17,000 workers at parts suppliers like Johnson Controls and Metaldyne in the last few years. Union density rates actually increased in the parts sector from a low of 23% to 25% in 2004.  But workers have been unable to achieve wages and benefits at anything like those that have historically prevailed in the auto industry. The union has had little room to maneuver: in a highly competitive system since the alternative to pay cuts is often unemployment.

The UAW has made several unsuccessful runs at organizing the “transplant” assembly plants in the South. It’s still trying, but it’s likely to be tough going if workers perceive that the union can’t maintain wages and benefits or protect their jobs from going elsewhere.

Collective bargaining. The high union density in the auto industry gave the UAW the muscle to negotiate good collective bargaining agreements. But over the last two decades bargaining has been defensive--focused more on preserving rather than improving wages and benefits.

It’s difficult to say what more the union can do within the confines of the existing industrial relations system. Most of the key issues facing auto workers today can’t be adequately addressed through collective bargaining as it is currently practiced.

•    Management incompetence and poor product selection are both legally and customarily outside the scope of traditional collective bargaining.
•    A global glut of cars makes it difficult for companies to make adequate profit margins.
•    Preserving a private welfare system  puts union companies at a competitive disadvantage.
•    Global competition puts downward pressure on wages, especially in the parts industry.
•    Macro economic factors like the strength of the US dollar affect the cost of production in the US

The fact is, despite the best efforts of workers and their unions—despite high union density, aggressive organizing, and good collective bargaining agreements—auto workers are bumping up against the limits of conventional trade union strategies.

The situation is tough but not at all hopeless. Auto workers and their unions have been fighting corporate attacks on their wages, working conditions, and benefits for a long time. The lessons they have learned will serve them in the defensive battle that they must fight. But alongside that defensive fight new strategies must be created. A first step is building strong global alliances with other unions and allies to resist corporate attacks on wages and working conditions. These global alliances need to fight for new international agreements that reduce the ability of corporations to blackmail workers with threats of job mobility and disinvestment. And these alliances must be built into the fabric of the union at all levels. With the framework of such global alliances it will begin to be possible to  develop a labor alternative for the big questions that face the international auto industry and its workers.

In coming blogs we will look at what’s now being done to build alliances, how workers around the world are confronting the assault on wages and working conditions, and at suggestions from a variety of perspectives on what more could be done.

Obstacles to Globalizing the Labor Movement

Once employers were mostly local; so were unions.  When local companies became national corporations, unions too had to go national.  Now capital has gone global.  Today, there is little disagreement in the labor movement that unions now have enter the global arena. But this is easier said than done.

In order to jump-start a discussion on globalization and track some new global labor strategies, a consortium of labor centers and unions are meeting in New York City on Feb. 9-11 for the "Global Companies - Global Unions - Global Research - Global Campaigns" conference, to discuss new forms of "international organizing and bargaining campaigns and strategic research." (The conference promises to be excellent, although for whatever good reasons conference organizers had, the high registration fee of $350 feeds the sense among workers and lower level union staff that global issues are the concern of those at the top and not for those on the front lines.)

In last decade, unions have made intermittent efforts at international cooperation, but the obstacles to globalizing the labor movement are considerable.  Indeed, cooperation can be tough even among unions in the same country.  Over the last year we have been in  discussion with labor activists around the world in order to identified obstacles that arise when unions try to cooperate across international borders.  Here are some examples of what we found (Later we will lay out some of our proposals for overcoming these obstacles):

Beggar-your-neighbor

Unions are constantly tempted to pursue an aggressive economic nationalism, demanding that their own countries close their markets to foreign goods and services or that other countries open theirs.  But in the era of globalization the global economy is less a collection of nations trading with each other than a single market in which corporations compete to exploit labor anywhere.  This often renders economic nationalism counter-productive.  Bush’s pre-election tariff on steel imports promoted by steel companies and unions, for example, created few jobs for union steelworkers, but led to widespread job losses for American auto workers dependent on cheap imported steel.  Recent European restrictions on textile imports from China led not to jobs in Europe but rather to jobs in Bangladesh and Vietnam.

However ineffective in protecting jobs, such approaches have a devastating effect on international labor cooperation.  They replace solidarity against employers with a struggle among workers over which countries can keep or lure corporate investment.    Employers don’t have to worry about workers in different countries ganging up on them if those workers are ready to cut each others’ throats to beat each other out for jobs.  When one of us recently identified ourselves to a Bangladeshi activist as someone involved with the American labor movement, their immediate response was, “Oh, you’re the people who are trying to keep workers in my country from getting textile jobs.”

Global union diversity

Why not simply extend unions from one country into “global unions” representing workers in other countries?  This indeed has happened in the US and Canada, where law, politics, business structures, and labor traditions are similar.  But in most cases, differences in the labor movement, industrial relations institutions, and labor law deter such an approach.

In Scandinavia, for example, bargaining tends to be much more centralized than in the US.  Unions negotiate broad sectoral agreements with employer associations.  As is the case in much of the world, health care, vacations, and aspects of the grievance procedure – subjects for collective bargaining in the US -- are addressed by national legislation.  In Japan, in contrast, there are more than 30,000 unions, each representing white and blue collar employees of one employer.  Joint bargaining is rare.  Any group of workers in a company has the right to organize, demand recognition, and bargain with their employer, leading to forms of minority unionism unknown in the United States.  Strategies that are crucial in one country may be worse than useless in another. 
 
Accumulated distrust

Mutual solidarity is grounded in trust.  When American unions approach unions abroad, they face important – and in many cases well-grounded –reasons for distrust.

For many decades, US unions worked hand-in-glove with the CIA and other agencies of the US government to overthrow foreign governments, bribe politicians, break strikes, and favor unions that cooperated with US corporations.  Even in the Bush era, most of the money for AFL-CIO international operations continues to come from the US government.  How could foreign unionists not be suspicious of US labor activities abroad?  (The recent action by the AFL-CIO to demand the withdrawal of troops from Iraq as soon as possible may help open the door to greater trust by foreign unionists.)

More surprisingly, we have learned in conversations with ranking trade union officials in the US, Asia, Europe, and Latin America in the service, manufacturing, and telecommunication sectors, that global corporate campaigns can themselves sometimes be a source of distrust.  In such campaigns, which have been used during strikes and organizing drives for more than a decade, embattled unions often ask unions in other countries for help pressuring an employer. Sometimes those they ask have good relations with the employer, or are at a sensitive stage in a collective bargaining process, or are reluctant to pressure the employer for other reasons. This can lead to hard feelings rather than long term alliances. 

Campaigns initiated and controlled by unions in one country can generate distrust concerning their long-term commitments and agendas.  For example, European trade unionists and allied NGOs questioned us sharply about whether US unions would go the distance in a global Wal-Mart campaign.  Their big worry was that US unions are so focused on recruiting new members that as soon as they have organized a few US stores, they’ll call Wal-Mart a model employer and call off the campaign—leaving workers in the supplier firms in China and the developing world high and dry.

US Labor and the McCain-Kennedy Bill

The debate within the US labor movement over support for the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill is necessary and appropriate. People of good will are on both sides of the issue. In previous posts we argued that labor needed a comprehensive program of its own on immigration reform.  Migration is a global issue. That is why we think that labor's program should emerge from a broad transnational discussion among US unions and immigration activists, progressive Mexican unions and social movements, and activists from other countries impacted by US immigration policies. Over time, we will make our contribution to that debate. But in this post we focus narrowly on the McCain-Kennedy bill and the issues it raises.

The McCain-Kennedy bill is a good faith attempt to head off far more draconian legislation being promoted by the Right, such as that which passed the House last month. McCain-Kennedy offers itself as a “comprehensive” approach to the immigration crisis.

Here are the key provisions.

•    It establishes a guest worker program that would create a new temporary work visa—H-5A—for 400,000 unskilled workers each year. The number of visas would be adjusted as conditions change. To obtain a visa, workers would need to have a job waiting for them in the US, pass a security check, and pay $500 plus application fees. A job index would determine whether US workers were available to fill jobs before visas would be granted.

The visa would be good for 3 years with a one time renewal for a total of 6 years. After that, a worker would either have to be in line for a green card or leave the country. Workers could be sponsored for a green card by an employer or, after 4 years, a worker could apply on his/her own. The Bill calls for protections to be put in place to prevent abuses by labor contractors or employers.

Visas would be portable but workers who are out of work for more than 60 days would be ordered to return home.

•    It allows undocumented workers now in the US to register for an H-5A visa good for 6 years. Spouses and children will also be eligible for a visa. Workers will have to pay fines of $2,000 or more per adult for their current/past violation of immigration laws. They would then become eligible to apply for a green card.

•    The Bill mandates new security measures along the US border.

•    It creates a new work authorization system to replace the current I-9 system. The system would be universal--random audits of employers would be conducted to ensure compliance with labor laws.

•    The Bill requires that countries sign migration agreements with the US to regulate the flow of workers. The US government would be directed to work with Mexico to promote jobs in Mexico and encourage return of guest workers after their visas expire.

•    It speeds up the reunification of families by taking immediate family members of US citizens off the annual quota of family related green cards and increases the number of visas for employers wanting permanent workers.

A number of questions have been raised about the bill beginning with whether it is a good idea to give this President and this government a blank check for additional security mandates and the authority to establish new work authorization regulations.

But by far, the most controversial part of the bill is the creation of a guest worker program.

Supporters of McCain-Kennedy in the labor movement believe that the only realistic hope of enacting an amnesty program that would normalize the immigration status of millions of undocumented workers currently working in the US is to create a broad coalition. To be politically viable, that coalition must include businesses interested in dependable access to cheap labor—hence the alliance with the US Chamber of Commerce. This simple argument, based on political realism is compelling--given that there are as many as 8 million undocumented workers currently in the US desperately in need of legalization.

Opponents say it is a Faustian deal that would further undermine standards for all workers. At one time, most Americans worked in a so-called “primary labor market” in steady jobs provided by large employers. Immigrants were not in direct competition with native workers because they largely filled marginal, contingent jobs in the so-called “secondary labor market". But that’s changing. Over the past few decades corporations have developed staffing strategies that divide the workplace into a shrinking group of workers in permanent jobs with decent wages and benefits and an expectation of long term employment and a growing workforce of contingent workers in temporary jobs with inferior wages and benefits and little expectation of long term employment. The creation of a guest worker program would further institutionalize and intensify this trend without adding new safeguards.

If current experience with the staffing industry is any guide two channels will emerge to bring guest workers to the US. First, big temp agencies like Manpower, already well established in countries like Mexico, will “fill orders” for workers in the US. Second, a smaller group of marginal temp and employment agencies will seek to compete for niche business. In either case, guest workers will constantly face the threat of being fired and blacklisted by abusive employers thus sending them underground or back home. And given current US labor law, for both practical and legal reasons, guest workers will be unable to form unions to protect themselves from abuse.

Opppnents say that it is unrealistic to think that the Department of Labor would prevent worker abuse. The DOL lacks both the will and the way, since it does not even have the agents needed to enforce current laws let alone new ones.

So here we have the issue. Pick your poison or start working on alternatives

Labor's Necessary Debate on Immigration

Yes, politics does make strange bedfellows. Last week Andy Stern of SEIU, Terrence O’Sullivan of Laborers International Union, along with representatives from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Health Care Association, and the US Chamber of Commerce, held a press conference to announce the formation of a coalition to promote passage of the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

Key features of the bill include provisions for undocumented workers already in the US to normalize their immigrations status and for the creation of a guest worker program to allow hundreds of thousands of workers to come to work in the US under a new short-term visa program. After 4 years they would be eligible to apply for a green card.

“Most times we’re on opposite ends of the issue on Capitol Hill, but on this one we are in agreement. We agree that to fix this immigration system that is completely broken we need to legalize the people who are here and find a legal way for workers to come in the future” said Eliseo Medina of SEIU.

But the coalition highlights the state of confusion and dissention within the labor movement about immigration reform. Not even all of the coalition partners are united in total support for McCain-Kennedy. The Laborers, for instance, do not support a key provision of the bill—the establishment of a guest worker program. “We will not agree point on point on immigration reform. But the majority of the major components we do agree upon. And there’s strength in numbers” according to O’Sullivan.

Shortly after the press conference, the AFL-CIO jumped into the debate with sharply worded criticism of union support for a bill that includes a guest worker program. “We’re   turning permanent jobs into jobs that are temporary, staffed by temporary workers. It’s really troubling that any labor union is just sitting back and conceding that this is something that needs to happen,” said Ana Avendano of the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO supports amnesty for undocumented workers but has been lobbying hard against any guest worker programs.

We think it’s fair to say that no one in the labor movement likes all of the provisions of the McCain-Kennedy Bill. It’s a compromise bill that tries to bring together enough interest groups to make passage of an immigrant friendly bill possible. And the problem with fashioning such a compromise in this case is that the interest groups needed for passage have contradictory agendas: the Chamber of Commerce’s wants cheap labor; SEIU’s wants protection for its growing immigrant membership. For labor the real question, then,  is whether this bill is worth the compromises need for passage.

The whole brouhaha is in part a regrettable result of the labor failure to develop its own comprehensive immigration plan. Fashioning such a plan should involve not just the US labor movement, but progressive elements of the Mexican labor movement, and other labor and social movements affected by US immigration policies. If there ever there was an issue for “global unionism”, to use a current buzz word, it is the global migration of people looking for jobs.

N.B. Labor is not alone in its confusion and dissention. We reported in an earlier blog that the Republicans are also spilt on immigration reform. The corporate wing of the party, represented by the Chamber of Commerce, wants a guest worker program. But the anti-immigrant Right wants a lock-down at the borders. Within the past month a draconian immigrant reform bill pushed by the Right that would build a wall along the border (literally) and make felons out of undocumented workers passed the house.

The division between the corporate and the hard-Right factions of the Republican Party may lead to paralysis on immigration reform, especially in the run-up to next year’s Congressional elections. Labor should take the time to step back and organize a transnational discussion to come up with its own plan for immigration reform and a campaign to implement it.

The McCain-Kennedy Bill and the debate which it triggers can be part of Labor’s discussion. In our next blog we will discuss the bill and the questions it raises.

ILO Complaint Filed by US Union

Here’s a new global labor strategy: US unions filing ILO complaints against the US government for violation of international labor law.

In December, the UE (the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America) and Mexico’s FAT (Authentic Labor Front) “formed part of a delegation of labor leaders from six states and three countries who delivered an ILO complaint to North Carolina Governor Mike Easley.”  The delegation included labor leaders from Quebec, Mexico, and Japan, as well as from North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, and Pennsylvania.  According to the UE International’s Mexican Labor News & Analysis:

“At the heart of the complaint is North Carolina General Statute 95-98, which makes it illegal for the state, counties, cities, or any other political subdivisions of the state to enter into contracts or agreements with any labor union or other bargaining agent. While public-sector workers in North Carolina have technically been free to join labor organizations since 1969, the prohibition of collective bargaining agreements has largely undermined workers' main objective in exercising their freedom to associate in the workplace. UE contends that this violates ILO Conventions 87 (Freedom of Association and the Right to Organize), 98 (the Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively), and 151 (the Right of Public Workers to Organize and Procedures to Determine Conditions of Employment in the Public Sector)…

"International law is clear: workers have a right to organize and to bargain collectively to protect and improve their wages and working conditions," said Robin Alexander, UE Director of International Labor Affairs. "General Statute 95-98 flies in the face of that, specifically denying those basic rights to the people who provide services to North Carolina taxpayers. The governments of the United States and the State of North Carolina owe workers the protections of international law and have failed to deliver. UE wants them to answer for their failures."

Other US labor activists have been discussing similar strategies, including filing an ILO complaint on behalf of US contingent workers. For workers interested in viewing an example of an ILO complaint, a copy of a 1998 Korean Federation of Trade Unions filing against the Korean government on behalf of Hyundia workers is available here.

One final note: the UE’s international innovations didn’t come out of thin air. The UE has been at the forefront of building bridges with their Mexican counterparts for more than a decade.  In the early 1990s, faced with the passage of NAFTA, the UE entered into what it called a “Strategic Organizing Alliance” with the Mexican FAT.  Together the two unions instituted regular worker-to-worker exchanges, published a monthly electronic periodical, built worker centers and joint organizing teams, and regularly informed their members about what they were doing and why it mattered to them.

The UE/FAT alliance has worked to ensure that workers on both sides of the border benefited from coordinated activities.  FAT members, for example, traveled to Milwaukee to provided support for the UE organizing campaign at a local foundry, where they allayed Mexican immigrant workers’ concerns that the UE might be similar to “company” unions they knew all too well in Mexico.  On behalf of FAT members, the UE filed the first complaint under the Mexico-US labor rights “side agreement” that accompanied NAFTA – charging General Electric and Honeywell with labor rights violations.  It has also built a tri-national alliance between unions in the US, Canada, and Mexico to enforce the organizing rights of Mexican workers at the Echlin auto parts company.

Unions need to build more of these long-term strategic alliances.  Why? Because solidarity isn’t built overnight.

Immigration Backlash?

In our last post, we wrote about a possible backlash on immigration in the US and concluded that:

As the number of undocumented immigrants in labor’s ranks grows, it’s not too much of a stretch to imagine a situation in which one part of the labor movement is demanding the deportation of the other half.

In a recent article in the American Prospect journalist Harold Myerson writes about how Republicans may use immigration as an issue during next year’s election:

The conventional wisdom is still unpersuaded that the Republican Party is about to mount a full-force attack on American's undocumented immigrants -- of whom, by some counts, there are 11 million. After all, the Republicans are the party of employers -- large (agribusiness), medium (construction companies), and small (restaurateurs) -- who have long depended on immigrants for cheap labor. The cheap labor sectors of American capitalism are a huge source of donations for the GOP. How could the Republicans turn their back on them?

But the conventional wisdom is wrong. Republicans are coming up on a midterm election in which their control of both houses of Congress is very much at stake…... With control of Capitol Hill very much in the balance, they will beg the forbearance of their longtime friends at the building contractor, big agra, and restaurant lobbies, and go after the immigrants tooth and nail.

And no wonder. Fear and resentment of the effects of an open border -- primarily the economic effects, and only secondarily the cultural ones -- are rampant throughout the American working class. That is clear from all available polling, and to any journalist who writes about the economy and gets responses from his or her readers.

There is a response to this argument that is popular among both employers and pro-immigrant liberals: that immigrants take jobs that no native-born workers would want. Among affluent liberal professionals, comfortably cocooned, it is almost possible to see how this illusion could be sustained: immigrants mow the lawns and take care of the kids, something nobody else in the neighborhood would do. But this belief is utterly wrong, and pro-immigrant liberals who invoke it are doing their cause, and themselves, no favor.

Myerson is right.  Today, immigrants—documented and undocumented -- work in many jobs once held by long-established workers. They work in hotels, in construction, in retail, in fast food, in food processing, in manufacturing—sometimes in jobs that were once decent paying, even unionized. And it is not just unskilled workers that have been affected by immigration.  In the last few years, many workers in the high-tech industry suddenly found themselves competing with temporary workers from around the world working in the US on short term visas. These workers often expressed their resentment by supporting  anti-immigrant organizations and legislation.  In addition to those directly affected, jobs that once were held by teenagers and younger workers are now held by immigrant workers sometimes provoking resentment in working class families.

Over the past decade or more we have worked directly with both new immigrant workers (some documented, most not) and with native US workers employed in a whole range of jobs. We have generally been struck by how tolerant people are of the newcomers. That tolerance—build in part on a shared history of immigration--is something US workers can be genuinely proud of, something that we can build on, and something we can offer a world struggling with migration. But the tolerance is wearing thin as jobs become scarcer.

It is easy to dismiss the fear and resentment that Meyerson talks about as “xenophobic” and “right-wing”-- a lot of it is. But a lot of it is legitimate fear-- particularly among those directly in competition with immigrants -- that wages will be driven down even further by competition with immigrants willing to work for less.  While this fear can be exploited by xenophobes and right-wingers, it often reflects the actual ability of employers to create and then exploit a labor surplus.

As we noted in our previous blog, the labor movement today is often a leader in the fight for immigrant rights. But we will need to do more to prevent a great split in the membership.

Ironically, there is a bit of old fashion trade unionism involved in the talk about restricting access to jobs: whether externally through hiring halls and closed shops, or internally through job ladders, bidding rights and seniority systems, restricting access to jobs has been a traditional way that unions have raised wages and improved working conditions.

The problems associated with immigration will not be solved by simple public policy fixes. Nor with the threat of a backlash. These are complex issues that require complex solutions. We suggest the labor movement should take the following steps:

•    Frame immigration as a global issue—workers must leave home to find work because of a global economy dominated by footloose corporations that roam the world looking for cheap labor costs.
•    Develop a full public policy and action program on immigration that matches the complexity of the issue, including support for amnesty; opposition to the militarization of the borders; opposition to global economic policies  that force people to migrate; support for effective economic development  strategies here and abroad; support for a global bill of employment rights for all workers regardless of their immigration status; and support for a global labor dialogue on immigration in the labor movement and beyond.
•    Conduct a vigorous education program for union members—all of the good institutional intentions in the world will mean nothing if there is no support among the membership.

In future blogs we will explore in detail the elements of an action program. Failure to tackle this problem head on could lead to divisions that could tear the labor movement apart.

Globalization, Immigration, and Organizing

The US labor movement has staked its future on aggressive organizing, and it has scored some recent successes. But fundamental shifts in the global economy ranging from increased outsourcing to massive immigration could reverse those successes and undermine labor’s organizing efforts. There is an urgent need for new strategies not only to confront the global challenges that threaten labor, but to take advantage of new opportunities for building a global labor movement.

Consider this:
•    Following the purchase of AT&T by Cingular Wireless, CWA has organized 16,000 former AT&T workers, many of them in call centers, around the country.
•    In the face of chaos in the car industry, the UAW has actually increased union density in the auto parts sector in the past year or so reversing a long decline.
•    SEIU recently won recognition-- involving 5,300 workers-- at the major contractors that clean 70% of Houston’s big buildings. It’s the biggest private sector union victory in years in the South.

These victories have, for the most part, been the result of sophisticated organizing strategies that leverage the muscle of existing union members, along with community and political support, to get card check recognition agreements.

In Houston, for instance, SEIU won a card check agreement after the union built strong community and labor support and threatened action by the contractors’ unionized workforces in other cities. 

It’s easy to see how globalization could affect the CWA’s call center workers and the UAW's auto parts workers: corporations are already outsourcing many of these jobs to lower wage regions of the world. What to do about outsourcing has bedeviled labor for decades. (We will discuss our suggestions for strategies to deal with outsourcing in later blogs. But see our report, “Outsource This? American Workers, the Jobs Deficit and the Fair Globalization Solution” for a more detailed look at the problem and possible solutions.)

But how does globalization affect the janitors in Houston? Well, Houston’s janitors represent the other side of the same coin: while cleaning jobs may not be highly mobile, the people that fill those jobs are.

Houston’s janitors are nearly all Latino immigrants, many are undocumented.  They are part of a massive global migration of people in search of work that has reshaped labor markets around the world. The global south is now in the global north. As Frank Sharry wrote recently in the American Prospect, “We [already] have an integrated labor market with Latin America.”  More immigrants (in absolute numbers) came to the US during the decade of the 1990s than during any other decade in the history of the US—including the decades of the mass migrations at the end of the 19th and early 20th century.

Undocumented immigrants coming into the US now outnumber those with visas.  Despite an economic downturn in 2001 and a severe clampdown following 9/11, the flow of immigrants has continued unabated. The percentage of immigrants in the workforce actually increased from 13 to 15% from 2000 to 2004.

But if the labor markets are becoming globally integrated, the laws and institutions which regulate them are not. Existing laws and institutions are simply inadequate to the task of regulation.

Now, natavist and xenophobic forces are moving fast to fill this regulatory vacuum. While Houston’s largely undocumented janitorial workforce was organizing, the House of Representatives was passing draconian legislation that would make many of them felons subject to arrest and deportation. Across the country there is a potential tsunami of nativist, anti-immigrant sentiment building that is finding an audience-- and not only among the usual xenophobes but in working class and low income communities where workers are forced to compete with the newcomers for jobs.

As the number of undocumented immigrants in labor’s ranks grows, it’s not too much of a stretch to imagine a situation in which one part of the labor movement is demanding the deportation of the other half.

Unions have come light years in the past decade or so on immigration issues. Today most unions understand that immigrants—documented or undocumented—are an integral part of the US workforce. Most unions seek to organize immigrants and most advocate for immigrant rights. Now it’s time to develop strategies that match the complexity of the problems immigration presents.

Most migrants are looking for work, therefore the world's labor movements are in a special position to lead a global discussion on immigration. And the US labor movement is in a good position to kick off such a global discussion. First, it was largely build by previous waves of immigrants and can draw on positive cultural imagery about immigration, and secondly, because the US is experiencing a surge of newcomers that unions are trying to organize. Today, the question of immigration reform can no longer be separated from the question of organizing.

We will look at the discussion about immigraton reform in and around the labor movement in future blogs.

Concession Bargaining and the Race to the Bottom

In our last post we reported on the wave of concession bargaining that is transforming German unions and labor markets. Last year IG BCE, the German Union that represents workers at Continental Tire, signed an agreement cutting wages in exchange for job security guarantees. A few months later Continental shut one of its plants anyway. That shutdown caused a furor in Germany. Even some corporate executives were critical. One CEO quoted in the Financial Times said…. “[Continental] is highly profitable and firing people….is irresponsible.” No wonder he’s worried, the unions have threatened to end concessionary bargaining unless the companies live up to their end of the agreements. Continental may have fouled the waters for everyone.

Continental has refused to back down on the plant closing. One reason: the company has a global strategy. As the Financial Times reported: “More is at stake for Conti than just its operations in Germany. It is also trying to force through deep a restructuring of its US tire factory in Charlotte, North Carolina. ‘The unions in Charlotte are looking very carefully at what we do here and will pounce if we back down [over the closure plan]’, [a company] official says.”

Now for the rest of the story.

On Monday, January 10th, Continental announced plans for its Charlotte plant: unless workers accept pay and benefit cuts of 35%, the company will lay off half its workforce or about 500 workers. The company offered no guarantees that the workers would be retained even if the terms were accepted.

The announcement comes as Continental and Local 850 of the Steelworkers Union are nearing the end of their current contract. The Company has been seeking $32 million in give backs from the union. Continental is the one largest employers in the Charlotte area with roughly 1,000 workers. It is a rare unionized company in the South. Wages currently average $21 an hour and benefits about $19.

A couple of years ago Continental shut one of its unionized plants in Kentucky. Meanwhile, Continental is building a new plant in Brazil. It’s also investing $60-70 million in an existing non-union plant in Mount Vernon Illinois. Although, as part of its global strategy to cut wages and benefits wherever it can,  Continental is cutting wages and benefits by 23% for it’s non-union workers in Illinois, according to press reports.

This is a classic story in today’s global economy.  German based Continental is the 4th biggest tire maker in the world, producing tires under the Continental, UniRoyal and General Tire brands. It has production facilities in countries around the world. The company approached its unions and demanded that workers accept concessions or loose their jobs to lower cost plants. In this situation, each plant acting alone has almost no leverage, since global companies like Continental can shift production to other plants, or in some cases, outsource production entirely.

The Steelworkers Union says that Continental needs the cuts to restore profitability for its Charlotte operations because it has incompetent management and no “rational marketing strategy” nor did it “…make adequate investments in product research and development”. This is probably true—but all too often even profitable companies that have good business strategies decide to pack up—or threaten to pack up-- and move to lower cost areas where they can make even more money. In a situation like this, the only action a union can take is to bargain more concessions. But this only buys time—since there will always be someone, someplace who will work cheaper.

The trade union movement has been down this road before and it found an answer---coordinated concerted action across an entire industry. In the late 19th and early 20th century as production and markets became national, unions understood that they too had to become national or wages and working conditions would be pitted against each other in a race to the bottom. In the core industries unions were able to do build national industry-wide unions which, at least for a time, limited whipsawing. Today, we need to repeat the process, but in vastly more complicated global markets.

It won’t be easy given the differences in national laws, trade union structures and cultural differences. It’s especially hard to develop new strategies when unions have their hands full fighting for survival. Yet it’s precisely at these times when new strategies and tactics are most necessary since the old ones aren’t working. The first step is obvious---the establishment of regular detailed consultation among unions within each global corporation—and to share knowledge about the company and about strategies and tactics used to fight the company. Continental understands the power of concerted action---they said as much when they refused to back down in Germany because of its effect on workers in Charlotte.

Unless German, American, Brazilian and other workers employed by Continental begin talking with each other on a regular basis to devise plans for concerted action there is little to stand in the way of the company moving all of its operation to low-wage areas. For Continental workers, and for residents of communities like Charlotte, that would be a disaster.  Perhaps more importantly, pitting workers against each other to drive down labor costs is a standard business practice in a global economy dominated by global corporations. Workers and their unions must join together to resist corporate blackmail or the future is bleak for world's labor movements.

German Unions Face Tough Times

A “hidden revolution” is rapidly changing German labor markets and German unions. That’s the conclusion of three important articles in the Financial Times. (Comment and Analysis, January 6, 2006. www.ft.com  subscription required)

The German system has been based on industry wide bargaining between powerful unions and broad based employer organizations. Negotiated agreements are made standard throughout an entire industrial sector. Elected works councils-- heavily influenced by the unions-- represent workers at the workplace level. Strong labor laws, including employee representatives on the boards of corporations support this structure. As a result of industry wage agreements the classic trade union strategy of taking wages out to competition was largely achieved and destructive competition between firms to cut wages was reduced or eliminated.

Now that has changed. The industry wide agreements are giving way to concessionary bargaining at the firm level often by works councils operating on their own.  Two years ago IG Metal signed an industry agreement with an “opt out” clause that opened the way for “flexibility” agreements at more than 500 companies. According to the FT a survey of works council members revealed that flexibility agreements exist in up to ¾ of all German firms. They are especially common in the Mittelstand sector—the thousands of small to medium size family owned firms that play an important part in the German economy.

Just as it is in the US, concessionary bargaining has become standard and for the same reasons—globalization and the threat of job migration, in Germany’s case especially to Eastern Europe. While there has been a steady drumbeat of attacks in recent years on the “inflexibility” of the German labor market, and the public policies that regulate the labor market, according to the FT, the changes brought by the “hidden revolution”  have been so extensive that “[e]ven proposals on wage bargaining by Chancellor Angela Merkel ….are seen as largely superfluous by many executives.”

A Siemens executive says about this “hidden revolution”: “There is far greater labor flexibility at German companies than people think. It is just that nobody has any interest in talking about it.” Union officials echo this view.

Meanwhile German unions have lost 40% of their membership since 1990. Today only about 20% of the workforce is unionized. Although-- because of sectoral bargaining-- about 68% of the workforce in the West and 53% of the workforce in the East  is covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Of course, it’s important to note, that German unions still have considerable political clout and derive power from their mandated seats on corporate Boards of Directors.

Unions are beginning to adapt.  “We have been slow to recognize this trend, but now we are trying to control the processes, ” says one IG Metal official. Another adds that with the shift away from sectoral to company level bargaining, “We have to activate our members and make them realize that the union [headquarters]  cannot always come to the rescue.”  IG Metal has launched membership consultation campaigns to help workers cope with the changing bargaining environment. According the FT these campaigns have resulted in some recent membership gains.

Has the concessionary bargaining worked? According to the FT, “Increased flexibility has done little to stem the decline in Germans employed in industry…. Companies involved in commodity products—such as Ina Schaeffler, a bearing manufacturer and Continental in tires—argue that no matter what level of flexibility is achieved, it is difficult to fight against lower-cost countries.”

Last year Continental asked and got a concessionary agreement with its workers that added 3 hours to the work week with no additional pay. A few months later the firm shut down one of its plants. The action caused a furor which may put a brake on some concessionary agreements. An official from the IG BCE union which represents Continental workers says “If this is allowed to set an example, then co-operation in Germany will not be possible any more between workers and companies.”

There is another angle to the Continental story: “More is at stake for Conti than just its operations in Germany. It is also trying to force through deep a restructuring of its US tire factory in Charlotte, North Carolina. ‘The unions in Charlotte are looking very carefully at what we do here and will pounce if we back down [over the closure plan], [a company] official says.”

On January 9, 2006, three days after the stories appeared in the Financial Times, Continental announced plans for the restructuring of its Charlotte plant. In our next post we will take a look at what the company has in mind for its unionized Charlotte workforce.