Belly

The 300 was a reference to a small but growing revolutionary socialist group. The number of union militants or wanna be militants is much larger but of course they are in the main isolated and corralled away from action by the paid officials.

I hope your campaign for lawfully mandated conditions is successful.

Andrew Leigh's article in OLO today (wed) - the decline of an institution - has an interesting two graphs at the end. To me they seem to show a correlation between strike activity and membership - the more strikes the more members. Because strike days have been in free fall for the last 25 years, so have membership numbers.

Passy Gday, I understood what you meant by the 300, it shouts at us both that things have changed.
300? in 1950 it may have been 30.000.
My whole point is unions can never convince members to strike other than as last resort.
The law would destroy forever the union involved if they did.
The fight must never be abandoned but we must not re fight yesterdays battles.
Shop floor reality is many will not again join unions, many think we exist only to strike.
And those who do want nothing to do with us.
I only yesterday had allegations that a water cart filling from muddy farm creeks was used to empty out without a second thought and fill drinking tanks with town water.
Once it could never have happened now? the fight continues.

Belly

I think you are correct to say that strikes as a last resort is an argument often used. But over the last 25 years the argument appears to have become strikes are not justified at all. There have been examples of justifiable strikes not supported by the leaders of that union or by other unions.

I think the coming economic crisis further weakens the ability of unions to defend wages, jobs and conditions as it weakens the confidence of workers. Fear is not an organising tool. There will be some powerful sections of the union movement who may be able to use strikes to retain jobs and wages and conditions, but given the disgraceful leadership approach of the last twenty five years, most unions will capitulate I think.

I hope to the heavens I am wrong, and know that the CPA during the 30s did build fighting organisations (eg Unemployed Workers Union, which actually won better suss,) and the CPA itself, and built up some unions and won them to militancy. So the model I have in mind is just that (without the Stalinism) - rebuilding unions through hard slog political and economic work, and gathering together more and more socialists to help in this task, and joining with militants to do just that.

That's one aim of socialist alternative, what Trotsky called the primitive accumulation of cadre. Another aim is to re-ignite the flame of militancy in rank and file members of unions (or some at least). I see these two as symbiotic.

The interesting thing about strikes is that they are a luxury the genuine working poor simply cannot afford.
When you talk about the strikes of 25 years ago, remember people had more 'disposable income' 25 years ago.
In the seventies, I worked construction sites. The hours were long, but the pay was high. On one site in Tasmania, we worked six days a week, including saturdays and sundays. Wednesdays we held a rolling strike for several months (on ordinary time). I can't even remember what we were on strike for.
In the eighties, during a period of high unemployment, I found myself working for a local council. The union was agitating for a 38 hour week (something I had already won as a boilermaker, 5 years before). Most of the labourers on the council were reluctant to even hold a stop work meeting, much less a strike.
Even the loss of just one hour's pay would have blown out their weekly budget.
This is the real 'trickle down' scenario. the high paid workers strike for better conditions, and the low paid workers get the flow on.
Except now, all the high paid workers are on enterprise bargain agreements, and there is no flow on.
the gap between rich and poor keeps getting wider, even within the working class.

On entering one of these threads on unions I pointed out I would not be popular.
And that I am union till death and an activist.
Yes unions have much to do, some more than others.
And past strikes won great gains, in just the fashion grim spoke of.
But the reality's of today are far different, we may well be headed for unemployment in numbers most alive today have never seen.
We however are not now or ever going to see the rebirth of the very left in numbers in this country.
Constantly in trouble for saying this, but the truth is while our members have moved on some unions have not.
Current laws would bankrupt unions who strike out side it.
Such a strike if called on todays construction sites would not bring 10% out the gate.
Two days ago a construction union held a well documented lunch time meeting on a site of 280 workers.
It was to talk about lost conditions 4 attended.
Yesterday I walked around lunch rooms asking for slave laborers, casuals to give me their names to add to a list telling of one shirt being total PPE issue in three months.
It was hard long work, fear filled men did not want to get involved.
Passy while we tread different paths I am sure we both cry for them.
Unions have much work to do but we must not stray far from reality.
My reality is these workers just have to have a win, if I fail they will never respect unions.
And the firm has to have a loss, no other way for those who treat men like that, it will happen.