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.

Comments

[JoeyK]

International Unions are but an Utopian dream until the very UNDEMOCRATIC nature of unions themselves as presently structured are changed. Since NOT a single one of the the top officers of the AFL-CIO are nominated, voted on, or elected by the rank and file workers they represent their own agendas' but not that of the workers and therefore are never real ever held accountalbe to the people (workers) Until the are direct FREE elections and nominations BY the workers ONLY Labor "INSTITUTIONS" will appear and not the true labor"MOVEMENT" you seem to be seeking either globally or national.

[Ryan]

You're crazy if you think GM or Ford are 'casualties' of unions. Without worker's rights, it might as well be slavery. Unionize the world, and things will have no choice but to balance out.

[dbh]

JustaDog: Are you for real? Do you have any idea how small a percentage of the overall costs that labour represents in auto manufacturing. This is one of the reasons that auto was the backbone of the postwar compromise in NA - paying higher wages to keep labour peace did not increase costs in the same way that it would in the service sector. Furthermore, I don't see how one could find any evidence for your statement in the actions of labour leaders in auto who have agreed to many large concessions in recent years as they did in the '80s. Think before you write please.

[Jan Wiklund]

About 131 years ago European trade unionists met in London to agree about international strike support - to collect money inernationally to workers on strike, and to block international blacklegging.
This was the beginning of the famous First International. It was a resounding success - its campaigns led to the formation of trade unions in all Europe.
Couldn't this be done again?

[JustaDog]

You forgot to mention the biggest obstacle to your grand goals - unions themselves. Unions cause the eventual destruction of companies, and without companies to employ workers you have no labor force.

If in doubt ask GM or Ford - they are the most recent casualties of unions.