5 ms·
Here's another reason for unions to become defunct over time, as explained by Steve Bruce in his book Sociology: A Very Short Introduction. "Any kind of group
by jasim 10y ago
Here's another reason for unions to become defunct over time, as explained by Steve Bruce in his book Sociology: A Very Short Introduction.
"Any kind of group activity requires organization. But as soon as one starts to organize one creates a division within the movement between the organized and the organizers, between ordinary members and officials. The latter quickly acquire knowledge and expertise that set them apart and give them power over ordinary members. The officials begin to derive personal satisfaction from their place in the organization and seek ways of consolidating it. They acquire an interest in the continued prosperity of the organization. For ordinary trade unionists, their union is just one interest in which they have a small stake. But for the paid officials the union is their employer. Preserving the organization becomes more important than helping it achieve its goals. As radical action may bring government repression, the apparatchiks moderate."
- germinalphrase 10y agoOf course, many small - and still influential - unions are actively made up of their members. For instance, teachers unions (outside of large metropolitan areas) commonly vote their presidents and other officials directly from the teaching ranks. These leaders often receive little/no compensation for their additional duties.
- achamayou 10y agoBut zeal in preserving an organisation isn't necessarily motivated by money (see various organised religions).
- subsys 10y ago>organized religions >not motivated by money
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoMoney->power->action->legitimacy
- crdoconnor 10y agoEmployers looking to divide and conquer will try everything in their power to pit employees against unions, including lying about the integrity of the paid trade union officials. Media owners will similarly run false stories, exaggerate and blow out of proportion any instances of union corruption whilst simultaneously downplaying and ignoring vastly worse instances of corruption by the owners and managers.
- SpaceDingus9000 10y agoI don't know why this was downvoted. This shouldn't be that controversial. It's in the employer's interests, and the media's interests are often in sync with the same corporations.
- nugget 10y agoFunny you mention that quote. I'm half way through Jefferson Cowie's bestseller about the demise of the American working class starting in the 1970s [http://fave.co/2j8L5pI http://fave.co/2j8L5pI] and the first part of the book recounts the struggle of young west virginian coal miners against the entrenched, oppressive, borderline-criminal leadership of their union. At some point in time certain unions started to operate as political machines and the incentives of members and leaders did seem to substantially diverge. It's interesting to think about how organized labor has evolved across different sectors (physical labor, knowledge workers like teachers, Government workers, law/medicine) through this perspective of divergent incentives.
- 208Gi 10y ago"But as soon as one starts to organize one creates a division within the movement between the organized and the organizers, between ordinary members and officials. The officials begin to derive personal satisfaction from their place in the organization and seek ways of consolidating it." There have always been unions that organized in a manner that avoids this situation. (The CNT, the IWW, the Zapatistas (1990s) and, more.) In fact, this act of holding on to power has always been one of the major Anarchist critiques of Marxism. And, Anarchists were very present in the unions of the early 1900s. One of Capitalism's and Authoritative Communism's finest achievements has been burying the history of unions. They've done it so well that many current unions are unaware of alternative power structures.
- noam87 10y agoHow do you avoid this division between organiser and organised, at a large scale? (thousands, millions of people)
- mlmlmasd 10y agoThere are so many ways. The Zapatistas have tens of thousands of members/supporters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy
- AndrewKemendo 10y agoThe surest case against a capably Anarchist existence is it's lack of efficacy in the face of powerful organizations. It's unfortunate because there is so much to love about Anarchism.
- afpx 10y agoDemocracies are 'design by committee', and that's a feature not a bug. Democracies are ugly, inefficient, buggy, and bloated. Most people don't get what they want, but they agree to form a union because they know that they'll get more than if they were ruled by an autocrat. Democracies are pragmatic. However, some people naturally want to push their vision onto others. And, there are constant forces at play to do so. I think the democracies that work best have some common culture. They seem to work better because the core differences are more tightly clustered.