Why Unions Matter

Rating:
Summary: Another Important Michael Yates Book
Review: Over the past decade, economist Michael Yates has written a number of books for working people -- "Power on the Job," "The Labor Law Handbook," "Longer Hours, Fewer Jobs: Employment and Unemployment in the United States" and now "Why Unions Matter." Yates manages to write in a clear readable style and, at the same time, talk about complex matters. He is also one of the very few nonlawyers who has an understanding and grasp of the role of law. "Why Unions Matter" manages to provide a lot of information about union history, labor economics, and even how to organize a union and bargain a contract in a very concise book. While I might differ with Yates on some details, I think this book makes a valuable contribution. It and his other books should be on every unionist's bookshelf, and unionists should lobby their public libraries to carry Yates' books.

As a final note, it is a very rare thing for academics, such as Yates, to write for a popular audience. All the pressures in academia are to write for other academics. It takes imagination, caring and courage to do what Yates does, and he deserves our gratitude for it.

Rating:
Summary: On Further Review
Review: The author makes it abundantly clear that without the backing of a labor union, most workers stand little chance of countering unilateral and capricious employer actions. A collective bargaining agreement is a quasi-constitution that provides for due process for workers in many workplace situations. Otherwise, employees simply work "at the will" of employers with no recourse to challenge decisions.

The author explores the steps that generally need to be taken to form a union under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. Beyond those procedures, he repeatedly stresses the class and workplace solidarity needed to form an effective union. But the main American labor movement in its evolution has never developed a coherent stance on the class nature of capitalism. Bureaucratic, bread-and-butter, business unionism describes the American labor movement after WWII. It is an orientation that does not seek to transform the essential dominance of American capital over the American working class.

It is clear that the American labor movement has since the Civil War faced incredible opposition from both employers and the state, including the police, the armed forces, and the judiciary. In addition, the various media empires portray unions as un-American or criminal in nature. Nonetheless, the author is unhappy with the conservatism of the labor movement regardless of any practical reasons for that stance. He views the purge of left-wing elements from unions and the lack of union internal democracy as developments that greatly weaken the ability of unions to fully represent the working class.

The key structure of unions is the local union that is centered on one or more workplaces in a geographical area. Naturally their concerns are with local issues and generally not on broader working class concerns. The author wishes to see a far more aggressive labor presence in the political realm. Issues such as employment as a right, national health care, shorter work hours, greater equality in pay, and democratization of workplaces need to appear on the political agenda of organized labor. The author does not really address the issue of what would be the role for labor unions if the American working class actually became powerful enough to implement pro-worker legislation. For example, what would the role for unions be in worker-dominated firms?

Yes, unions do matter. No other organizations even remotely afford workers the voice and protection that unions do within workplaces. But there is wide variability in their effectiveness. Furthermore, it is rather obvious that the labor movement as presently conceived has been quite limited in its ability to counter the global forces of capitalism that have been playing havoc with the world's working classes. Basically, the author is not quite as pro-union as it might seem at first glance.

Rating:
Summary: For some, unions matter; for most, unions are an irrelevancy
Review: Yates does present a good basic review of the trials and tribulations and the benefits of unions over the last century or so. But there is much disingenuity in this book. He points out that much of the basis of early unions was an urban-based solidarity of workers who lived, worshipped, and worked in close proximity in the early decades of the 20th century. He calls for a renewed, if not similar, solidarity among mainstream workers today; but the demographics of US workers and the structure of industries are far different. The closest example today of old time solidarity may be the relationship of black churches and neighborhoods and municipal workers. Other than workers from union families and left-liberal college professors, most US workers in many segments of the economy don't have a clue about unions and what they know is negative. His calls for worker activism in the political process and within workplaces have to be reconciled with the reality of political apathy and workplace authority. That is the ground that must be tilled for solidarity. For the one in ten workers that are in unions, the NLRA and NLRB and well as union officialdom probably contain and constrain as much as empower workers. For example, changing national union affiliation is not viewed with equanimity. Yates is too accepting of US-style unionism; for example German-style works councils could have been contrasted with US unions in terms of giving workers agency. Also, it seems that Yates derives far too much satisfaction from the fact that the AFL-CIO will now talk to left-liberal academics. He needs to appreciate better that the activists of bygone eras were generated from within the working class which reflected an inherent understanding of their class condition. How many Americans today even have a notion of class? As stated, Yates' book does a good job of showing the state of AFL-CIO unionism. But the book would not be satisfying for those who have critically examined that terrain.