• edge [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    Overall good article, but this bit seems self defeating:

    It would be great if labor took action overnight, but due to these contractual traps, undoing labor’s habits is more likely a long term project. Unions need to be rebuilt from the ground up, by the rank & file, in a way that preserves the freedom to strike. Then we will have the freedom to move in situations like this.

    The idea is to no longer comply with the government system designed to neuter unions, but we can’t do it yet because of union contracts with the government? Basically capitulating the main point from the very start.

    • dustcommie [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I don’t think it is saying “oh they can’t because they have a contract that says they can’t”, especially based off the context of the rest of the article. I think it is basically saying unions don’t really have class conscience or militancy and are more worried about getting a contract even if that includes “signing away” your right to strike and have generally been tamed. Then it is saying that unions need their own “mini revolutions” where they wouldn’t even rely on contracts(and have the capacity and organization to fight without relying on and being tamed by the NLRB) but that is likely a long term project. Basically, being critical of how many unions work and them relying on contracts but breaking this “habit” won’t happen overnight.