the Closed Shop .. good or bad?

[KeyboardJockey]

KJ - you seem to be presuming that either I'm calling for a wholesale return to the TU practices of the 1970s, or that such a wholesale return would inevitably follow from the reintroduction of closed shops in the situation I described; that is as a result of pressure from people in their own workplace. Neither is the case; I don't want to see TU corruption and you can't re-make the UK of three and a half decades ago.

I don't think that people in workplaces would accept a return to the 1970's TU practices. Thanks for making clearer your pov.

What I said is that it would be a sign of progress (which here I'm taking as meaning an increase in working class self awarness and confidence) if it (the re-emergence of the closed shop) was to happen.

If it was something that was agreed by all workers in a workplace / industry sector then that is a different story.

You strke me as a rather strange sort of trade unionist who prefers to concentrate on the limited downsides of the closed shop in the past, rather than the benefits it has delivered in that same past, and those it might deliver in the future.

I'm not strange I'm a realist.

Perhaps I shouldn't be suprised as you also think it's ok for a trade unionist to cross a picket line. If a union is to be anything more than a glorified insurance and discount provider then notions of mutual responsibility, solidarity and democracy need to be taken on board.

But what if the democracy is faulty? Even as a trade unionist I reserve my right to tell people to fuck off if what they are telling me to do will cause me to starve. I'm now lucky I've managed to juggle my finances / arranged loan in advance etc so that I can afford to support the next strike (I might even join the picket line). But no mouthy bastard with a comfortable life and a secure job in union headquarters is going to tell me to go without food etc to go on strike. Everyone has to eat.

I didn't say that unions should be a glorified insurance and discount provider I said that if a particular workplace union was hopelessly fucked then people should feel free to change unions.

You don't build things like mutual solidarity etc if the union is useless and unresponsive. We now have a consumer society, if we want to rebuild unions then we have to accept that this consumer society exists and work within its framework to convince people that having solidarity will not irrepairably fuck over the worker whilst not touching the union high ups. If people see benefits from being a union member then they will join if they don't then they won't.

I would be very happy if people felt confident enough where they worked to demand of their employer that anyone recruited would have to join the relevant workplace organisation (and to do so in the expectation that this demand would be met); it isn't going to happen anytime soon...but that doesn't' mean it wouldn't be a good idea .

Louis MacNeice

I'm very wary of the closed shop for the reasons I gave earlier. Unions have to win arguments democratically if they can't then they have to accept that.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

The whole point of a union is that you make yourselves stronger by making decisions together and sticking to those decisions. Every time someone opts out, because the policy doesn't suit him or her, the union is weakened.

Agreed. But I'm still concerned how unions can be more responsive to members. Say for example that a national union is spread over four or five different workplaces where four have a genuine reason for dispute but the fifth doesn't. It is the job of the union to CONVINCE the fifth workplace to support the action and outline the reasons why the action should be supported and what would be in it for them. We have a generation or two who have no understanding of solidarity at all and it we want to rebuild it we must rebuild it on their terms and provide support or resentment will occur which will just mean more strike breaking which mean the employers win.

Union democracy is imperfect, no doubt, but unions have democracy. Your relationship to your employer is not democratic.

I agree there. The answer is to provide better union democracy and recognise that striking causes hardship and allocate funds to make it easier for waverers to strike.

Many years ago, I was a member of SOGAT 82 (the plebs compared to you more skilled lot in the NGA, as I'm sure you remember ) and worked for a smal printing company in north London. Pay and conditions would have been much worse if it had not been for the power of the print unions.

Agree there. But we should be talking about the future not the past. The print game was a moribund, technologically backward area until the power of the print unions was reduced. The print unions is a very poor example to give for the positivity of the closed shop.

That's not to say that everything was great. There were many things wrong. Worst of all was that the workforce was split into three chapels: an NGA one and two different SOGAT 82 ones (in practice, one was for men and one for women).

Agree there. There was a lot of reactionism in CS's at that time.

 

[Cobbles]

Workers should have the freedom to choose what associations they will belong to and pay dues to.

Thankfully anything else (e.g. 19th Century closed shop practices) is probably contrary to current Human Rights Legislation.......

 

[nightbreed]

Thankfully anything else (e.g. 19th Century closed shop practices) is probably contrary to current Human Rights Legislation.......

Do Trolls operate a closed shop?

 

[nightbreed]

The print game was a moribund, technologically backward area until the power of the print unions was reduced. The print unions is a very poor example to give for the positivity of the closed shop.


.

So Eddie Shah,Murdoch and Wapping was a positive thing then?

 

[audiotech]

So are unions themselves.

Yep.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So Eddie Shah,Murdoch and Wapping was a positive thing then?

Of course it wasn't, and he hasn't claimed that it was.

 

[oake]

If the policy of not doing overtime was made democratically, the bloke was right to abide by the policy. It's a pity he only did so out of fear.

If the policy was not made democratically, then it could and should have been challenged using the democracy of the union.

From what I recall, there was nothing democratic about it, more a petty power struggle between the foreman and the SS.

The foreman had approached the bloke directly to see if he would be prepared to work the overtime, and the steward took exception to this, insisting that all such requests must go to him first.

He apparently liked to dole out any available overtime to his 'favourites', and this incident put my bloke to the bottom of his list.

I'm sure my experience of the closed shop wasn't unique - it must be the ideal setup for the 'petty dictator' type to thrive.

 

[neprimerimye]

I'm not strange I'm a realist.

You are a SCAB.

 

[neprimerimye]

Thankfully anything else (e.g. 19th Century closed shop practices) is probably contrary to current Human Rights Legislation.......

Then fuck so called Human Rights Legislation. Which legislation is bourgeois by definition in that it defends INDIVIDUAL rights, such as the right of private property, but denies COLLECTIVE proletarian rights such as the post-entry closed shop.

Concretely scabs have the 'right to work', protected by the states own thugs of course, but workers do not have the right to enforce and defend effective pickets.

In short universal human rights are so much bullshit. Rights have to be fought and defended and this society only defends the rights of the boss class.

 

[nightbreed]

Of course it wasn't, and he hasn't claimed that it was.

Ok VP, maybe I was a bit rash in my challenge, but Wapping was a struggle about control. Who controlled the print industry. The Closed shop was central to this and while there might have been some backward elements to the closed shop, I believe the positives outnumber them.To Murdoch the print unions and their whole culture didnt fit in to his business plan to politically support Thatcher.It had to go.

Trotsky once made criticism of people who ' treated the important as unimportant and the unimportant as important'.(dont ask me for the link, I cant remember!!)
While the Closed Shop had its faults which I believe could be challenged and changed, there is no disputing the fact that it was a power that employers found difficult to challange until Thatcher got in.

No one has really talked about how the Closed shop could have been improved and modernised.

 

[nightbreed]

Then fuck so called Human Rights Legislation. Which legislation is bourgeois by definition in that it defends INDIVIDUAL rights, such as the right of private property, but denies COLLECTIVE proletarian rights such as the post-entry closed shop.

Concretely scabs have the 'right to work', protected by the states own thugs of course, but workers do not have the right to enforce and defend effective pickets.

In short universal human rights are so much bullshit. Rights have to be fought and defended and this society only defends the rights of the boss class.

Hear, hear.

 

[nightbreed]

From what I recall, there was nothing democratic about it, more a petty power struggle between the foreman and the SS.

The foreman had approached the bloke directly to see if he would be prepared to work the overtime, and the steward took exception to this, insisting that all such requests must go to him first.

He apparently liked to dole out any available overtime to his 'favourites', and this incident put my bloke to the bottom of his list.

I'm sure my experience of the closed shop wasn't unique - it must be the ideal setup for the 'petty dictator' type to thrive.

So it ok for Foreman/supervisors to be petty dictators.Which is the situation now.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Then fuck so called Human Rights Legislation. Which legislation is bourgeois by definition in that it defends INDIVIDUAL rights, such as the right of private property, but denies COLLECTIVE proletarian rights such as the post-entry closed shop.

Concretely scabs have the 'right to work', protected by the states own thugs of course, but workers do not have the right to enforce and defend effective pickets.

In short universal human rights are so much bullshit. Rights have to be fought and defended and this society only defends the rights of the boss class.

It's not often you'll hear me say this but quite right Nep; even if it is written in a somewhat 'shouty' style. Rights are not abstract givens, but rather specific fought for victories. Currently individual rights are in the ascendancy over collective ones; the fact that KJ apparently feels quite comfortable defending his picket line crossing behaviour is evidence of this. Fortunately, people are able to change the times they live in, not simply acquiesce to them saying all the while 'I'm just being a realist'.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Knotted]

A more pressing question is whether the closed shop is a necessary thing. We can argue the positives and the negatives until the cows come home.

Closed shops are needed when there is little job security, when there is a high turn over of staff, when companies use subcontractors and agencies, when being a member of a trade union means you could lose your job. If you've ever worked in such an environment then frankly all the whining about union bureaucracy seems piffling. Besides a democratic union operating a closed shop would be far more powerful and therefore more democratic than a democratic union operating an open shop.

 

[Knotted]

You expect it from bosses, you don't (and shouldn't have to) expect it from your comrades.

I'm sorry to say that if you expect that then you are pretty naive. Shop stewarts can be bastards. For that matter bosses can be pretty decent.

The first well unionised workplace I worked in, on the first day, I overheard the stewart bitching to the foreman about a worker skiving off early for his teabreak. The foreman just brushed him off. From that moment I expected better from the individual foreman than I did from the individual stewart. Not that this says anything about the union, which I was glad of.

 

[nightbreed]

A more pressing question is whether the closed shop is a necessary thing. We can argue the positives and the negatives until the cows come home.

Closed shops are needed when there is little job security, when there is a high turn over of staff, when companies use subcontractors and agencies, when being a member of a trade union means you could lose your job. If you've ever worked in such an environment then frankly all the whining about union bureaucracy seems piffling. Besides a democratic union operating a closed shop would be far more powerful and therefore more democratic than a democratic union operating an open shop.

Exactly my point.

 

[durruti02]

In practice doesn't undercut the ability of the workers to act independently of the union- i.e. bolsters the power of the union over the class?

i have heard many anarchos and ultra left say this .. in the reality i see we have totally impotent unions, low union membership and little 'independants' or repressed independant action. i would argue that campaigns for the closed shop would do far more positive than negative

Maybe there is an arguement that past 'closed shops' helped destroy this current

 

[durruti02]

Yeah, it effectively turns the unions from bureacratic institutions that parasite off of working class struggle into some kind of second boss.

I know I wouldn't want to work somewhere where I couldn't risk pissing off the union officials in case I lost my job, anyway.

evidence mate evidence ..

how do you explain the coal industry which was a closed NUM shop .. and the most militant and most independant in action

 

[durruti02]

I am not convinced 'closed shop' are progressive. There is nothing more likely to turn workers off unionising than compulsion. And nothing more likely to make the union bureaucracy complacent and inactive than knowing that their membership cannot quit.

I take on board your arguments that closed shops were supposed to defend against blacklisting of union-militants. But even in closed shops, militants can be picked upon, especially with a passive membership. Its not the existence of a particular trade union that gives workers greater opportunities and freedoms, but organisation, solidarity and co-operation between the workforce. This is often best achieved through unions (trade or industrial syndicate) but not the sole or only way. And like I say compulsion can often cut against this.

One can gain near 100% union membership if the union is well run, demiocratic, cheap to join, and provides tangible benefits. Closed shops are a bureaucratic attempt to achieve solidarity without the ground work.

i would like to agree with your fluffy approach but see NO evidence for it.

I agree that compulsion is not nice but when a tiny minority can undecut a clear majority what are you supposed to do?

note also that doing away with the closed shop was one of thatchers first acts ..

 

[durruti02]

double post

 

[durruti02]

A closed shop system would be great if it worked in favour of all workers, but they never have and never will, because the principle of the closed shop is subject to manipulation by and of the bureaucracy that administer it.

I'm just old enough to still remember people going into particular trades or getting jobs in particular fields because of trade union nepotism, and I'd hate to see that happen again. It was socially divisive.

but why then did thatch prioritise doing away with it and how else do we regain power at the workplace?

 

[durruti02]

Any 'leftie' would support the 'closed shop' from arguments to the right.

From a revolutionary Marxist perspective, it don't go far enoough and is more likely to be a conservative pull on workers political aspirations.

fair play .. do you think we should be it a priority in campaigning?

 

[durruti02]

An insignificant risk compared to that of employers throwing you out!

absolutely .. its funny how a few people have brought this up! the unions as more of a threat than employers!

 

[durruti02]

Workers should have the freedom to choose what associations they will belong to and pay dues to.

but what should workers do if their employer maintains shot wages / conditions by using a minority of non union workers??? what else can they do but try to push those people out?

 

[durruti02]

That, along with seeing the abuses of the closed shop (NGA rant rant rant), is part of the reason why I dislike it.


Good point. I've worked in closed shop trades and I fucking hated it. Hated the compulsion, the petit beauracracy, abuse of power by stewards, the nepotism and prejudice and the feathering of nests by keeping newcomers and new technoligy and innovation out of the workplace. I had no alternative to join the NUJ and I really resented having to pay excessive subs for a pisspoor performance only to see FOC's and MOC's swanning round pushing their own agenda.

Much better to get people involved because they WANT to be involved and can freely see the benefits.


Even if the CS was legal again I would never willingly choose to work in one. No fucker is going to swagger round and tell me when and where to work without a bloody good reason.

Persuasion works much better. I'm finding that after flouncing from PCS and then rejoining and outlining my reasons for doing so and getting involved is getting far more respect in the workplace than being a member because I feel I have to or becuase I'm compelled to.

but they had power! they stopped murdoch/mackenzie producing scummy frontpages at the sun etc .. your pcs is impotent isn't it??

i do though acknowledge all your criticisms but is this inevitable in closed shops? that is the question i think

 

[durruti02]

!)Spot on. I will always remember the terror on the guys face when he knew that I knew he had a wire machine in his house. Workers shouldn't fear other workers like that. That is not solidarity it is bullying.

2)What the abolition of the closed shop has done had shown up the GENUINE level or support for Trade Unions in the UK and it has taken a lot of union activists by surprise that it is as low as it is.

1) but have you also not seeen the look on workers faces when managemnet have had to back down in the face of 100% shops???

2)that is a very interesting point .. i agree that wokers DO need to make themselves relevent BUT i think that if you can not offer SUCCESS/POWER then you will always be irelevent

 

[newbie]

Rights are not abstract givens, but rather specific fought for victories. Currently individual rights are in the ascendancy over collective ones;

I was strongly against the dismantling of the closed shops when Thatcher and her henchmen forced it through, but I was in a clear minority of those in the one I worked in. It's worth remembering that she got elected & re-elected by working class votes at a time when the w/c was very aware of the closed shop- many, many of us had direct experience of working in one. Many others felt their prospects were blighted because they couldn't gain entry to one.

Those who voted for her, and indeed many who voted against her, would have argued at the time that the right to not belong to a closed shop was something worth fighting for. The memory of the working conditions of the time may be the backdrop for the current ascendancy of individualism and the deep distrust of unions (and powerful shop stewards in particular).

 

[ViolentPanda]

but why then did thatch prioritise doing away with it...

Do you specialise in fatuous questions that you should already know the answer to?
She "got rid of it" because even though she was well aware of the abuses made of the closed shop by both bosses and bureaucrats, she was also aware that a properly run closed shop system, by and for the workers, was a highly effective instrument of political struggle.

...and how else do we regain power at the workplace?

Rather than merely re-instituting a closed shop system, unions need to "sell" trade union membership to workers, rather than just expecting them to join, or coercing them into joining merely to get a job. Unions have to prove their value, their necessity even, to the people they see as possible members.
If all a union is offering me for my dues is patchily-effective legal advice and cheap insurance there's little point to them.
If what they're offering is democratically-derived representation in collective bargaining, support in struggle, and a political activism based on the needs of the members, not on the whims of the union's heirarchy, then I'm all for supporting them.

What I don't believe in is this Utopian vision you appear to have of the re-institution of the closed shop as some kind of panacea for community social ills. It's nonsensical and nostalgist.

 

[Knotted]

Thinking some more about this, I would say that the deciding factor for me is whether the closed shop is about being exclusive or not. If union dues are high or the union is geared towards a section of the workforce or its a case of 'jobs for the boys' then closed shop is reactionary sectionalist. If its a militant attempt to establish and/or defend collective bargaining then its a positive thing.

The question of union democracy is not decisive, just highly desirable.

Also I don't believe there is necessarily a great contradiction between open shop and closed shop. If a union is run properly it should be effectively closed shop in any case.

But in any case I think that, in workplaces which rely heavily on casual labour or agency workers, the closed shop or something similar (union shop anyone?) is simply necessary.