The minimum wage is under attack, and not just in the US, not just on the Netherlands, not just in Britain. You may ask yourself “how did it come to this? Where did it start?”
I’ll tell you where: it started when prisoners were forced to work for pennies and many of us didn’t really try fight it because they were probably bad people, right? It started when disabled people were forced to work for pennies and many of us didn’t really try fight it because their work was just inferior to us, right? It started when unemployed and students were forced to do internship and ‘work experience jobs’ for free and many of us didn’t really fight it because we wanted to focus our intention on ‘real workers’.
But the bosses noticed, and learned, and looked for ways to expand these groups. Because they knew: if you don’t fight for one exploited worker, why fight for the next? If you let me have one forced worker for pennies, why not all of them? So when we say ‘no’ to that, we need to be sure to say it for all of us.In danger of going all Lefty Labour on you guys: THIS IS WHY WE NEED UNIONS.
Actually, most unions do jack shit to fix any of this because they only fight for their own particular group of workers and they will only start fighting once their own members are the target of this, by which time it is far too late.
The basics of unions, that the workers directly effected are the ones that go on strike, doesn’t work here. Prison unions and other unions of super exploited groups have existed and have been effective but they are far harder to organize and those who participate in it pay a far higher price. When prisoners have to organize their own strikes alone, they risk isolation cells and other forms of torture. When migrant workers have to organize their own strikes alone, they risk deportation and death, when disabled people have to organize their own strikes alone they also risk death. The strike funds, the basic human rights,etc. lie with the rest of the workers.
This is why we need radical revolutionary unions that fight for all of us. (or ya know, revolution in general would be good too)
I should note, I can only talk with authority on Great Britain, and to some extent to Republic of Ireland. I believe my statements also apply to most of mainland Europe, but I lack the direct knowledge to certify this.
This is actually ignoring one of the key points of the labor movement *Solidarity*. The way the process is supposed to work is when one union goes on strike *all* unions stand in solidarity with them. So, say the union of a particular factory goes on strike suddenly all deliveries stop, the catering staff refuse to serve the factory, the cleaners refuse to touch it, etc. This continues until the end of the strike crippling that place.
The last thing we need is a government whom supports the workers. Unfortunately in Britain this system has been dismantled by successive neo-liberal governments since the 80s, but if we look at the 1970s – for instance – there existed a time in which the government backed up your right to strike. Indeed, the government saw its role as to act as a mediator between the two parties to resolve the conflict.
Now, this has not raised the issue of disenfranchised groups in part because I have little historical information of them inside of my range of expertise. Here, prisoners largely do not participate in production so strikes are not an effective means of protest. There are however several support and advocacy groups that have worked in the union structure to encourage better living conditions. As for migrant workers… Historically that has been less of a problem for Britain. Seasonal migration is a comparatively rare thing, and until comparatively recently (the 20th century) the vast majority of migrants were already full British citizens on arrival due to the Empire / Commonwealth.
The last group, whom I feel deserve special mention is the disabled. I feel this needs to be split into two points. Firstly, Disabled workers are still workers!! They are just as welcome to join the same unions for thire fields as any other worker. So the teacher who requires a wheelchair can completely be a member of the National Union of Teachers, and chances are thire union representative will fight just as passionately about thire issues as they would any others (of course, if they do not then that’s a failure of the rep and time to replace them). As for those who are unable to work, then you have much the same situation as with prisoners – advocacy groups and pushing for the government to protect them.
A final note should be made, however, for those who received thire disability on the job. It was common practice for, say, the miners unions to keep those who were out of work due to disability on in the books. It was common for them to advocate for the disabled, and to use thire position with the labour party to push for the government to support these individuals. Of course, it was not just these causes they supported. The film Pride (2014) is an excellent adaption for cinema of a real life event. In it, a London based gay-rights advocacy group decides to stand in solidarity with the striking minors. There is a considerable amount more to the story, but the long and short if it is that as a result when it came to the issue of gay rights few have supported it more than the minors union. Still to this day, the old lodges march in gay rights parades, the union practically forced the labour party to include changes to law restricting LGBTQ+ individuals, and Wales (were the majority of the mines are and the mining community this group interacted with is) is very oddly pro-LGBTQ+ considering its rural, cut-off nature, and ageing population.
In short, Solidarity means if you have my back when I need it now, when the time comes I shall have yours.
That is one long winded answer.
I don’t really know where to start, with the idea that ‘prisoners don’t do production’, the idea that the British labor movement would back prisoners if only they did production work, the idea that work should be production related for a strike to work, the idea that a union focussed on production workers would have any meaning in the 21st century economy, the idea that migrant labor isn’t a thing in Britain, the idea that if you go on strike all unions will just automatically back you no matter what, or that fact that you’re using one romanticized movie which, if I remember correctly also shows how limiting the union can be when it disagrees with your cause.
And that’s just in your post, without even going into things like the disappointing lack of a union response to 21st century labor circumstances or the complicitnesd of unions in the mess that is the Labour Party.
That’s one hell of an overromanticized version of the labor movement you’ve got there.
I will freely admit it is an oversimplification (although I would avoid calling it an over-romanticisation) which leaves a hell of a lot of the nuance out simple because I was trying to defend the idea itself. As you already mentioned, it was long winded enough (I actually cut it down by about half of what I originally wrote).
Yes, the unions were not and are not (indeed right now they are anything but) perfect, but the principals they are based upon are worth not simply dismissing out of hand. Yes, they have issues in a 21st century context (for instance the focus on production, which likely comes from the movements association with early Socialism / Marxism in Merthyr Tydfil, commonly thought to be the movements birthplace and frankly a hive of radicalism in the mid-19th century until the mid 20th century) but a good idea is a good idea in my opinion. I strongly believe that the unions did get results and could again if we could reform them.
Also, I never stated that they don’t back prisoners because they do not do production work I meant it more as one of the reasons why they were not traditionally associated with the labour movement. Same with migrant labour, I’m not saying it wasn’t / isn’t a thing, I’m more saying that it’s complicated and more the kind of thing I’d want to deal with in an article on the subject than a Tumblr post. For the most part, its easier to see it in a grand oversimplification particularly when one is defending the values.
I also feel it should be noted that we find more-or-less consistently that the times the unions failed to stand in solidarity were the times the causes failed although I accept this might not be causal – frankly I’ve not researched it enough.
As for the modern Labour Party… Eh. To be perfectly frank, I fail to see what they have to do with the Labour movement particularly since New Labour removed its fundamental principals from the party constitution.
Many of the large unions in Britain are still Labour Party affiliated trade unions supporting the Labour Party financially as well as through public support and keeping institutional links with the Party. Wikipedia has a long list under ‘Labour Party (UK) affiliated trade union’
As I said, I absolutely agree that unions are a good, indeed a GREAT thing and an essential part of the workers struggle.
But most unions have limits, such as their inflexibility in the face of a changing working class, their tendency to centralize power, their frequent lack of solidarity towards marganilized workers especially if these are not yet unionized, and their tendency to be curtailed and coopted by electoral political parties.
There is some cause for optimism in Europe. Recently some unions have learned how to unionize service workers and temps and how to picket ‘flexible’ work places. Unions are learning on the need for translaters and a strong anti-xenophobix anti-racist stand. But much of it is very little, very slow, very late.
And in the end real justice for all workers doesn’t just require better wages or more security, it requires an end to all oppression, an end to borders, an end to prisons and an end to capitalism. Unless a union sets these things as its goals it is always leaving its most marganilized behind.
QueerAnarchism 