Organize the Unorganized/Chapter 3
Chapter III.
THE A. F. OF L. AND INDEPENDENT UNIONS.
A MOST important question for T. U. E. L. militants to understand in order to carry through sucessfully our work of organizing the unorganized, is our relationship to the A. F. of L. and Independent Unions. Our goal must be to build mass labor organization of the workers, and to bring or maintain these unions in affiliation with the general labor movement, the American Federation of Labor. This involves the two-sided policy of: (a) stimulating the existing unions into organizing campaigns; and (b) forming new unions in industries where there are no unions or where the existing unions are hopelessly decrepit. The two evils we have to guard against are on the one side, the devil of dual unionism, and on the other, the dogma of unity with the old trade unions "at any price."
The advantages of bringing the newly organized workers into the existing labor movement are manifest, save in certain exceptional cases. In most instances positive and direct support for these workers in their initial crucial struggles is gained by such affiliation. But even where this is not the case, there are certain negative advantages of affiliation to the A. F. of L. For one thing, the workers are shielded from the disastrous attacks of the bureaucracy, which are always leveled against dual unions. To a certain extent, also, the conservative name of the A. F. of L. saves the workers from the attacks of the employers and the state, even though their policies be as militant as those of any independent union.
But perhaps the most important asset of affiliation to the A. F. of L. is the feeling of the newly organized workers that they are connected up with the mass labor movement of the country. This ordinarily gives them far greater confidence and staying power. It is a feeling they do not acquire in independent unions. Among a certain section of unorganized workers there is a deep hostility towards the American Federation of Labor. The T. U. E. L. militants must not allow themselves to be dominated by this antagonism. They must and can liquidate it wherever the interests of the workers dictate that they shall be affiliated to the A. F. of L. unions.
Formation of New Unions.
In the industries where there are no A. F. of L. unions our course is clear. We must form new unions and bring them into affiliation with the broad labor movement as quickly as practicability permits. Or if there be independent unions in such industries we must give them our active support and work for their affiliation to the A. F. of L. In those fields where the I. W. W. functions more or less effectively, such for example as among the lumber, general construction, and agricultural workers, we must support it.
In industries where there are A. F. of L. unions, but where these unions are so weak and decrepit, with corrupt leadership, hidebound agreements, etc., that it is impossible to stimulate them into the necessary activity to mobilize the mass militant organization campaigns or to defend their interests in strikes arising therefrom, our problem is more complicated. There the advantage of affiliation may easily be outweighed by the disadvantages. Such situations raise the question of independent unionism in its most intricate form. In spite of our most urgent desire for unity with the general labor movement, we will often, under these circumstances, be compelled to form independent unions.
But wherever we form such new unions, whether because there are no A. F. of L. unions in the field or because those that may exist are absolutely decrepit, we must from the outset follow a program for the affiliation of these unions to the A. F. of L. We must be keenly on our guard not to get into a dual union position, by declaring against the A. F. of L. in principle or by permitting an open warfare to develop against it. Experience teaches us that dual unionism means sectarianism, isolation from the broad labor movement, and eventually disintegration. One of the outstanding contributions of the Communist International and the Red International of Labor Unions to the American labor movement is their categoric condemnation of dual unionism.
Dualism must be fended off by a two-sided policy of: (a), teaching the membership of the new unions from the start that their place is in unity with the mass of workers in the A. F. of L.; and (b), to begin a series of maneuvers to get into affiliation with the A. F. of L.
The Fight for Affiliation.
Such a policy is bound to be successful. On the one hand it checks the dangerous and ever-present spirit of sectarianism, and on the other hand it either leads to amalgamation and affiliation, or it gives the new union many of the advantages of affiliation by breaking up the official bureaucratic opposition. When per-capita-tax-hungry trade union officials see a fat independent union that wants to affiliate to their organiaztion, they are much inclined to look upon it with some degree of friendliness and tolerance, even though, for the time being, they are afraid to accept its affiliation. Negotiations for affiliation by independent unions give them standing in the broad labor movement by making that movement understand that the new union feels itself to be a part of the main body of organized labor. This, in turn, strengthens the rank and file of the new union by a knowledge of the general friendliness of the mass labor movement.
But while militantly propagandizing amalgamation and maneuvering for its accomplishment, the new unions must make every effort to work in harmony with the old unions, by the initiation of joint organization campaigns, by assisting them in their strikes, etc. Its aim must be to generally create a spirit of friendly co-operation which shall culminate in an amalgamation.
Where independent unions have been set up, and especially where there are already existing A. F. of L. unions in the field, our greatest danger comes from a dual union tendency to repel the old organizations and to maintain an independent existence of the new union. This bases itself upon various illusions and wrong policies, such as utopian hopes for the future of the new union, under-estimation of the power and importance of the old unions, the tendency to seek reasons to quarrel with the old unions rather than to co-operate with them, neglect of amalgamation and maneuvers to bring about a consolidation, the presentation of impossible programs as the basis of amalgamation or affiliation, etc.
This whole dual union tendency must be relentlessly combatted and the policy pursued of coming more closely into co-operation and affiliation with the old unions. The T. U. E. L., militants must also guard against the opposite tendency of making affiliation with the old unions a fetishism, or develop a "unity-at-any-price" program. Such a policy is wrong and might easily do big damage by resulting in a surrender off-hand of the leadership of strikes, organizing campaigns, and new-formed unions to ultra reactionary leaders who would destroy them.
Often these leaders will propose such terms of affiliation as to make their acceptance tantamount to the sacrifice of the interests of the workers. We must fight for affiliation to the A. F. of L. unions, but we also must fight for honest and militant leadership, and mass industrial organization. Our growing left wing leaders must be provided a place to function in the unions, and above all, at this stage, we must retain the initiative in carrying on the great work of organizing the unorganized.
In working out propositions of affiliation, or operating within the trade unions, these ends must not be lost sight of. One of our most delicate tactical problems will be to judge when we can best further these ends by affiliation to the existing unions, and when it will be necessary to form or maintain independent organizations.
But again I emphasize, the greatest danger that the left wing confronts in such situations is the persistent dual union tendency to pull away from the old unions and to establish new and independent organization which isolate our forces from the main body of organized workers.
Jurisdictional Problems.
Under the general head of left wing relationship to the old unions, must be considered the problem presented by the jurisdictional claims of these organizations. First, the question of open jurisdictional fights. In many cases left wingers, taking the points of view of their respective craft unions, become deeply immersed in the jurisdictional quarrels of their organizations, with the result that their arguments and programs are almost indistinguishable from those of the ordinary craft unionist. This is fundamentally wrong. We must rise above such petty, short-sighted quarrels and base our policy upon the interests of all the workers in the totality of the unions involved.
Then there is the situation, common in many industries, where a score of unions, most of them with little or no organized membership in the industry, claim jurisdiction over the workers of their respective trades in the industry. The left wing cannot support such ridiculous jurisdictional claims, nor can we wait until these reactionary unions decide to amalgamate with stronger and more basic unions in the industry. Sometimes it will be necessary, in such situations, for the left wing to ignore the claims of these dog-in-the-manger unions, and support the basic unions at the expense of the weaker ones.
Thus, for example, in the steel industry, we must at this time insist that the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers take in all workers in and around the steel mills regardless of the claims of a score or more of other unions for certain categories of these workers. Also, in the metal industry generally, we must more and more apply such a policy with regard to the Machinists' Union.
In thus precipitating amalgamation from the bottom, and the realignment of the unions according to industrial lines, we must, however, take care not to provoke open jurisdictional struggles between the unions.
In the general problem of our left wing attitude towards the A. F. of L. and the independent unions, the T. U. E. L. policy must be: in industries with strong unions, we shall build up these organizations; in industries with no unions or with incurably decrepit unions, we shall form independent organizations and then affiliate them, or seek persistently to affiliate them to the A. F. of L. This is the basic program which the necessities of the present situation dictate.