the Closed Shop .. good or bad?

[Knotted]

This 1922 article by Big Bill Haywood is of interest if the historical context is taken into account.
Current Phases of the Class Struggle in the US

It criticises the AFL for running "closed shops" but really meaning "closed unions". But at the same time the IWW's broad based industrial unionism was certainly not "open shop". Perhaps its a non-question. The real question is whether unions should be prepared to clamp down on employers who pay non-union rates.

Edit to add: One thing that I do reject, though, is the idea that closed shop is a "bad thing" because it is coercive. This is something in its favour.

 

[Cobbles]

I was strongly against the dismantling of the closed shops when Thatcher and her henchmen forced it through,

Who were her "henchmen"?

The millions of voters who put her into power perhaps?

Isn't it a disgrace that anyone who has a Parliamentary majority can "force" things through Parliament!

 

[neprimerimye]

Shop stewarts can be bastards. For that matter bosses can be pretty decent.

I'm unsure as to what a 'shop stewart' might be but shop stewards are elected workplace representatives. It follows that if you don't like what any given stward does then it is possible to vote that person out of opffice.

Bosses decent or not are not elected. They tell workers what to do because they have stolen from the working class in the past.

 

[Knotted]

I'm unsure as to what a 'shop stewart' might be but shop stewards are elected workplace representatives. It follows that if you don't like what any given stward does then it is possible to vote that person out of opffice.

Bosses decent or not are not elected. They tell workers what to do because they have stolen from the working class in the past.

My point exactly, even if I didn't put it very well. You shouldn't expect stewards to be genuine worker representatives just because they are stewards. You should attempt to enforce this through union democracy.

Unions aren't necessarily bureaucratic, but show me a union that isn't. To reject closed shop on grounds of anti-bureaucraticism is the same as rejecting unions.

 

[audiotech]

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

is it achievable though?

 

[neprimerimye]

My point exactly, even if I didn't put it very well. You shouldn't expect stewards to be genuine worker representatives just because they are stewards. You should attempt to enforce this through union democracy.

Unions aren't necessarily bureaucratic, but show me a union that isn't. To reject closed shop on grounds of anti-bureaucraticism is the same as rejecting unions.

Unions need not be bureaucratic I agree. But other than those that lapse into sectrarianism I doubt that the union can exist, other than in a pre-revolutionary situation, that does not succumb to bureaucratisation.

After all the watchword of the unions is 'a fair days pay for a fair days work' which slogan is reactionary as it accepts the continued existence of the wage labour system. Better that labour inscribe on its banners abolition of the wage labour system.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Who were her "henchmen"?

The millions of voters who put her into power perhaps?

Isn't it a disgrace that anyone who has a Parliamentary majority can "force" things through Parliament!

Thatcher and her henchmen (in this case Airey Neave, Nicholas Ridley, Sir Keith Joseph and a few other "like minds") had already decided on the dismantling of trade union legislation and the supression of union activity before Thatcher came to power, a policy she and her henchmen chose not to publicise prior to the '79 election). I wonder why?

Which makes your point about the voters seem pretty ignorant, and your point about parliamentary majorities fatuous.

 

[neprimerimye]

Thatcher and her henchmen (in this case Airey Neave, Nicholas Ridley, Sir Keith Joseph and a few other "like minds") had already decided on the dismantling of trade union legislation and the supression of union activity before Thatcher came to power, a policy she and her henchmen chose not to publicise prior to the '79 election). I wonder why?

Which makes your point about the voters seem pretty ignorant, and your point about parliamentary majorities fatuous.

Which reminds me that the 'old' Labour Party also had some anti-union measures planned back in the 1960's. That is until those nasty unions with their closed shops and restrictive practices told Castle and Wilson exactly where to get off.

Odd too that the Tory anti-union laws, largely sold on democratising the unions, did no such thing and actually made it harder for the union members to control our own unions.

Parliamentary democracy? A contradiction in terms.

 

[newbie]

Thatcher and her henchmen (in this case Airey Neave, Nicholas Ridley, Sir Keith Joseph and a few other "like minds") had already decided on the dismantling of trade union legislation and the supression of union activity before Thatcher came to power, a policy she and her henchmen chose not to publicise prior to the '79 election). I wonder why?

Which makes your point about the voters seem pretty ignorant, and your point about parliamentary majorities fatuous.

tbh the henchmen I was thinking of were the likes of Murdoch, Shah, McGregor and so on. People who weren't elected by anyone.

 

[Cobbles]

Thatcher and her henchmen (in this case Airey Neave, Nicholas Ridley, Sir Keith Joseph and a few other "like minds") had already decided on the dismantling of trade union legislation and the supression of union activity before Thatcher came to power, a policy she and her henchmen chose not to publicise prior to the '79 election). I wonder why?

Apart from the fact that it was in the Conservative party Manifesto for the 1979 election. Um..... even the abolition of the closed shop was specifically mentioned.

So yes you're right that the Conservative Party had decided to curb the power of the Unions who were totally out of control in the 70's (even the Labour Party recognised this as their defeat was a backlash from the "winter of discontent") however you're dead wrong about them not publicising it.

Apology accepted!

 

[KeyboardJockey]

You are a SCAB.

<yawn> put another record on this ones stuck.

I scabbed reluctantly if you will recall myprevious posts. Given the choice and being able to afford it I would most probably be off.

With monothought black and white attitudes such as yours its not wonder people deserted the union movement in droves.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

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

How about not making a vote for a closed shop in a particular workplace permanant say ithas to be renewed every five years. That makes it more dynamic and allows people to change and choose their system of representation.

Properly regulated 100% unionisation is a good thing the abuses of the 70's etc are not a good thing.

.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

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.
.

Thats what I've been saying all along.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

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

Agree that rights have to be fought for. The fact that individual rights are on the ascendent means that unions have toprove their relevance. I don't see the point in one or two people strikeing and getting fucked over if everyone else is stil working. Its the job of the union now to prove why the worker should be bothered with joining. Rather than debating esoteric points it would be better for people to think how to do this.

It is realism to see what the lie of the land is and to go with it.

Yes you can change things but we need to build a new type of activism if we are to rebuild some semblance of solidarity.

For your information: Even though I disagreed with the strike (or rather thought it pointless) if I was in the position to afford to be off I would have been off.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

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?

When I was self employed if some union activist had tried to stop me from earning a crust I would have defended myself vigourously and would probably have gone to law over it.

This also doesn't answer the situationin my work place which is where the MAJORITY scab.

In that situation it is the strikers who get pushed out.

Also what about situations where people choose to not join a union for political or religious or other reasons, should they be vicitimised.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Apart from the fact that it was in the Conservative party Manifesto for the 1979 election. Um..... even the abolition of the closed shop was specifically mentioned.

So yes you're right that the Conservative Party had decided to curb the power of the Unions who were totally out of control in the 70's (even the Labour Party recognised this as their defeat was a backlash from the "winter of discontent") however you're dead wrong about them not publicising it.

Q: When does a manifesto get published?
A: When a general election is called (in this case, 1979).

Did you miss the bit in my post (you know, the post you quoted?) where I said "...a policy she and her henchmen chose not to publicise prior to the '79 election" (my emphasis)?

Apology accepted!

Why would I offer an apology to someone who argues from a false premise and obviously doesn't have much of an understanding of the written English language?

 

[neprimerimye]

I scabbed reluctantly if you will recall myprevious posts. Given the choice and being able to afford it I would most probably be off.

With monothought black and white attitudes such as yours its not wonder people deserted the union movement in droves.

You scabbed by your own admission it makes no difference that you did so 'reluctantly'.

As for your lie that people deserted the unions there is not a shred of evidence for that. The evidence we do have sugests that the unions lost members in indisutries devastated by closure and have since failed to recruit among younger generations due to undemocratic anti-union laws.

 

[neprimerimye]

double post

 

[neprimerimye]

So yes you're right that the Conservative Party had decided to curb the power of the Unions who were totally out of control in the 70's (even the Labour Party recognised this as their defeat was a backlash from the "winter of discontent") however you're dead wrong about them not publicising it.

Right wing bullshit. The phrase 'union power was out of control' is code for the unions were effective in fighting for the rights of their members. The truth is that in the 1970's membership participation in the unions and in such democratic bodies as strike committees was far higher than it is today. In opther words the unions were controled by their members and that is what counts as there is no right in a enuine democracy for them to be 'controlled' by any force external to them.

Tht the cowardly misleaders of the Labour Party bought the lies told by the yellow press is no accident as they were as much opposed to workers power as any of the other bourgeois parties. The truth is that the 'Winter of Discontent' was an heroic struggle by low paid workers to protect their living standards threatened by inflation. Its a shame that the then stronger blue collar unions did not take solidarity action with them.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

You scabbed by your own admission it makes no difference that you did so 'reluctantly'.

Bollocks. If Id come on here and said 'I've scabbed, fuck you jack', then your assertion would be somewhat correct. As it is I really didn't want to scab but I had no fucking choice. Well I did, I could have been targetted by managment as a trouble maker at a time when I was having to reapply for my own job and also have to go to a fucking loan shark to make up the money I would have lost. It does make a difference and if you can't see that then you are showing all the atributes of someone who doesn't understand how the real world works.

As for your lie that people deserted the unions there is not a shred of evidence for that. The evidence we do have sugests that the unions lost members in indisutries devastated by closure and have since failed to recruit among younger generations due to undemocratic anti-union laws.

I'm a reasonable person and up to a point I'd agree with you about the loss of traditionally unionised industries and the effect of anti union laws but where I disagree is the fact that people have deserted unions. There are a whole load of new industries in the UK which are to be frank 100% non union. This is partly because people look at what the unions have to offer and say 'no thanks' and partly because the habit of being in a union has been lost.

 

[neprimerimye]

If Id come on here and said 'I've scabbed, fuck you jack', then your assertion would be somewhat correct. As it is I really didn't want to scab but I had no fucking choice.

You are a SCAB.

You had a choice but by your own admission chose to scab.

 

[Cobbles]

Q: When does a manifesto get published?
A: When a general election is called (in this case, 1979).

Did you miss the bit in my post (you know, the post you quoted?) where I said "...a policy she and her henchmen chose not to publicise prior to the '79 election" (my emphasis)?

Why would I offer an apology to someone who argues from a false premise and obviously doesn't have much of an understanding of the written English language?

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that a manifesto was a document issued by a political party before an election setting out that party's stall, so to speak.

In which case, the Conservative landslide government of 1979 had a full mandate to get rid of it. They did.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

You are a SCAB.

You had a choice but by your own admission chose to scab.

Sometimes choices are not as they seem if you only see the world as either / or.

Some of us didn't have any fucking choice! Lose money that I'd have had to make up by going to a shark? Being the one who ends up on a managment hit list? Even if I did do that what guarantee have I got that the union would back me up in any sort of effective way. From observing my local branch and how we were sold down the river over the staff cuts issue I reckon I could have expected very little help.

I might have scabbed reluctantly but at least I'm not some sort of plastic revolutionary shouting the odds when they plainly know bugger all about modern workplaces and workplace attitudes both of managment and non management staff. If you are some sort of union activist and supporter that you seem to be painting yourself as then you would get far more positive results by working out why people don't support strikes. My directorate had 80%+ scabbing how do you address this situation? How do you build solidarity in a fragmented workplace where staff feel under threat.

What you fail to see is that we have a whole generation who either can't be bothered to join unions and support them, do not see their relevance, are frightened of joining or supporting unions or have believed the red top bullshit that some of our resident right wing posters on here spout. If you and others on here could give positive suggestions on how to reverse this then I would probably respect the vehement opinions more. As it is becuse it seems to be all brain in neutral but mouth in gear guff then I really cant be bothered to engage with people who just shout 'scab' without any thought about what is going on in the background in many workplaces.

At the moment I'm fighting what seems to be a pointless battle with my own steward just to get them to listen to positive ideas about rebuilding the activism within the branch.

When I see no brain black and white thinking like what is coming out of some of the supposedly left posters on here it makes me understand some of the reasons why there are moribund branches and an apathetic membership. Sometimes it seems that the unions worst enemies are its staunchest supporters.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Right wing bullshit. The phrase 'union power was out of control' is code for the unions were effective in fighting for the rights of their members. The truth is that in the 1970's membership participation in the unions and in such democratic bodies as strike committees was far higher than it is today. In opther words the unions were controled by their members and that is what counts as there is no right in a enuine democracy for them to be 'controlled' by any force external to them.

Neprimerimye, I don't know if you remember the big 'front gate' votes of the 70s. There was intimidation of those workers who didn't want to strike to force them to vote for strikes. Although I detest Thatcher and all she stood for it could be argued (and I'd be interested in hearing the counter argument) that postal ballots did reduce intimidation. So I don't totally agree that all was fluffy and democratic in 70's unionism

I don't buy in to the right wing bullshit and I agree that the unions were not 'out of control' but there were abuses and if we are to move forward then this must be acknowledged. Demarcation disputes were a case in point.

 

[neprimerimye]

Sometimes choices are not as they seem if you only see the world as either / or.

Some of us didn't have any fucking choice! Lose money that I'd have had to make up by going to a shark? Being the one who ends up on a managment hit list?

The trouble with your self justificatory whining is that the question of whether or not to SCAB is an either/or question. And you made the wrong choice and as a result became a SCAB.

Moaning that if you had acted like a man and lost pay or been placed on a management shit list is rubbish. That after all ha always been the reward offered to those with spines.

 

[neprimerimye]

Neprimerimye, I don't know if you remember the big 'front gate' votes of the 70s. There was intimidation of those workers who didn't want to strike to force them to vote for strikes.QUOTE]

What you, a SCAB, describe as intimidation some would see as education.

 

[neprimerimye]

After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, and the vampire, he had some awful substance left with which he made a scab.

A scab is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a water brain, a combination backbone of jelly and glue.

Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles.

When a scab comes down the street, men turn their backs and angels weep in heaven, and the devil shuts the gates of hell to keep him out.

No man (or woman) has a right to scab so long as there is a pool of water to drown his carcass in, or a rope long enough to hang his body with.

Judas was a gentleman compared with a scab. For betraying his master, he had character enough to hang himself. A scab has not.

Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.

Judas sold his Savior for thirty pieces of silver.

Benedict Arnold sold his country for a promise of a commision in the british army.

The scab sells his birthright, country, his wife, his children and his fellowmen for an unfulfilled promise from his employer.

Esau was a traitor to himself; Judas was a traitor to his God; Benedict Arnold was a traitor to his country.

A scab is a traitor to his God, his country, his family and his class.

Author --- Jack London (1876-1916)

NO SCABS!

 

[Cobbles]

Neprimerimye, I don't know if you remember the big 'front gate' votes of the 70s. There was intimidation of those workers who didn't want to strike to force them to vote for strikes.QUOTE]

What you, a SCAB, describe as intimidation some would see as education.

How is chucking rocks at people on a bus "educating" them?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

How is chucking rocks at people on a bus "educating" them?

Its people like neppy who make me think why bother when it comes to unions. If seeing the big picture causes slime like this to crawl out of the woodwork then its no wonder people say fuck it and just look after number one.

I'm not going to go into the area of the miners strike because that was a special case but what I'm referring to is people being verbally and physically threatened during works gate votes. People who may have genuine reasons for not supporting a strike found themselves silenced.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

After God had finished the rattlesnake, ..................

NO SCABS!

Oh look he can cut and paste.