Conversation with Gregory Butler re: associate membership programs

Sam Calvin
New Union Approach in New Zealand (2 articles) "undertaking...to build a modern union movement capable of offering easy, low threshold membership to any worker that wants to participate, including having plans and capacity to support unions to change and organize in new sectors."
LISTSERV 16.0 - PORTSIDELABOR Archives
https://lists.portside.org/cgi-bin/listserv/wa?A2=ind1109A&L=PORTSIDELABOR&F&S&P=92
LikeUnlike • • Share • Sunday at 4:37pm
Sam Calvin Also: "Together is a values based organization - by its nature and by the nature of the workplaces of its members, bargaining is not an option at this stage for most members but participation and organization is."
Sunday at 4:38pm • LikeUnlike
Gregory A. Butler
This sounds a LOT like the various "associate membership" schemes that the AFL-CIO have tried over the last 30 years.

Those schemes have to date been a resounding failure.

Bottom line, if a unoin can't get workers more money in their paycheck and protect them from abuses on the job, its useless to them.

Workers aren't stupid. They aren't going to join some amorphous labor social club and pay their hard earned money in dues unless it does something concrete for them.See More
Sunday at 5:10pm • UnlikeLike • 1 person

Sam Calvin OK - I see where you're coming from. But early unions actually did have a lot in common with social clubs. Don't you think having a place where people can gather and communicate is an important step in building unions among the unorganized?
Monday at 8:04am • LikeUnlike
Gregory A. Butler It doesn't matter what you or I think. Do non union workers think that's important?
Monday at 8:06am • LikeUnlike

Sam Calvin Way to duck the question ;)
Monday at 8:07am • LikeUnlike


Gregory A. Butler Actually it isn't. Are non union workers looking to join a labor social club? The evidence seems to say NO
Monday at 8:08am • LikeUnlike

Sam Calvin What evidence is that?
Monday at 8:09am • LikeUnlike


Gregory A. Butler The fact that every "associate membership" program in this country in the last 30 years has been a failure.
Monday at 8:11am • LikeUnlike

Sam Calvin The past and the future are not identical, though...and consider the fact that many many workers belong to churches, which are "values based" organizations par excellence!
Monday at 8:14am • LikeUnlike
Sam Calvin If you're arguing that many general membership programs are structurally crippled, I agree with you. No one likes being in an organization as an inferior. But look back at the history of the so-called Federal Unions of the AFL. Throughout the 20s, they "failed," and yet they played an important role in the developments of the 30s.
Monday at 8:30am • LikeUnlike
Gregory A. Butler Federal Unions were actual unions that fought for their members. Churches, synagogues and mosques also provide real world services for their members. "Associate membership" programs don't.
Monday at 9:39am • UnlikeLike • 1 personLoading...
Sam Calvin Do you apply the same critique to worker centers?
Monday at 9:54am • LikeUnlike


Gregory A. Butler Worker centers that actually help their members in real material ways are quite useful. The ones that don't aren't.
Monday at 11:47am • LikeUnlike

Sam Calvin Ok - so do you think there's no potential to expand the model of worker centers to be national in scope?
Monday at 11:50am • LikeUnlike

Gregory A. Butler Even the best worker centers (the ones that work as proto-unions) work best among tightly knit groups of very recent immigrants.

Due to that factor, I don't see them as a model for the restoration of unions in the broader labor force.
Monday at 12:13pm • LikeUnlike
Sam Calvin So what about general membership unions, like the Federal Unions or the CIO's area unions?
Monday at 6:11pm • LikeUnlike

Gregory A. Butler If they are actual bona fide labor unions that negotiate contracts, handle grievances and lead strikes, yes of course I approve.

If not, they are a waste of time and effort.
Monday at 6:27pm • LikeUnlike
Sam Calvin But both of those examples have worked and not worked, often at the same time with different groups of workers...by analogy, do you consider a strike which fails a waste of time?
Monday at 6:38pm • LikeUnlike
Gregory A. Butler
‎Sam, American workers have loudly and clearly rejected "associate membership" again and again for the past 40 years. From Walter Ruther's "community unions" back in 1968 to the Machinists Union's "U Cubed" today, workers have shunned these groups again and again and again.

The opinion polls are clear - about 60% of workers want unions.

Those workers want REAL UNIONS unions that lead strikes, sign binding contracts, get them higher wages, better benefits and protection on the job.

They want unions for pork chop reasons. Workers need more money and they want some organization to unite them to struggle for more cash. It really is that brutally simple and the harsh lives of workers don't leave us much room for any kind of idealism. We have to fight to make every dollar and that's priority one at all times when it comes to work related stuff.

American workers take care of their spiritual needs by either going to a church, synagogue or mosque or praying by themselves when they get up in the morning.

They take care of their social needs in bars or hanging out on the stoop or in the backyard with friends and family. Since America is a racist segregated country, this socialization tends to be monoracial. For many Americans, their social lives are further compartmentalized by tribe and ethnicity.

Any attempt by American labor to set up social affinity based pseudolabor organizations is destined to be racially and ethnically segregated.

Just look at the workers centers, which, with few exceptions, are based on race, tribe and nationstate of origin.

We need to build real unions, not to go down the failed road of "associate membership" which workers have already rejected.See More
Monday at 10:35pm • LikeUnlike
Sam Calvin
Your point is well taken, but I'm trying to figure out how union development occurs BEFORE the point that a union is in a position to lead a strike, sign a contract, etc - all the things that you say are the signs of a real union.

This development period, of course, should ideally be as short as possible - perhaps this is your point. But I'm not convinced that swift progress through this limbo is always possible. If your point is that we need to not lose sight of the "pole star" of unions capable of winning wage gains, you may be right that "associate" status acts as an impediment rather than a facilitator towards that vision.

Certainly, Reuther's notion of community unions seems a substantial step towards confusing what are distinct forms - unions and community organizations. I think it is worth looking further at this historical example.

On the other hand, you confuse the issue by bringing up U-cubed, which is an organization of the unemployed (unless, of course, you are just objecting to their use of the word union).See More
Yesterday at 7:49am • LikeUnlike
Gregory A. Butler
U Cubed is quite clearly an "associate membership" type structure. It's part of the same school of thought, is quite clearly dreamed up by the same kind of professional union staffers who keep bringing up this failed concept and it is very ...much on topic to bring it up here.

The meta concept here seems to be that it's a bad thing for unions to fight for higher wages and to fight abuses on the job. I'm sure a LOT of middle class union staff types feel that way.

After all, in their class, it's considered gauche and uncouth to talk about money. Only the vulgar rich, ignorant and crass small businesspeople and the selfish, stupid and uneducated working class and poor openly talk about money. Respectable middle class college educated professional people NEVER talk about anything so vulgar as money and income.

Also, if you're a middle class white collar professional, you've had limited experience with truly abusive working conditions. Maybe you had an abusive summer or part time job when you were a student. Even then, in your mind, the solution was an individual one - to study hard and get good grades so you'd do well in school and never have to have a job like that again.

So, to someone coming from that mindset, unions that focus on collectively fighting for higher wages and better working conditions for workers as a group is unseemly and vulgar.

Unions exist to funnel money into the Democratic Party and to provide jobs to folks who majored in labor relations at Cornell, Harvard, the University of Michigan and the University of California.

Also, the modern school of thought seems to be that the only way to grow unions is to build them with management's permission. Of course, management will only promote unions that they see as safe company unions that won't fight for the workers.

Associate membership programs and hybrid forms like U Cubed come out of the same mindset and that is why I'm so dead set against them.See More
Yesterday at 9:34am • UnlikeLike • 1 personLoading...
Gregory A. Butler Bottom line, the working class have clearly voted with their feet against this concept. Anybody who is still proposing it needs to take a step back and listen to what the class has already said on this topic.
Yesterday at 9:35am • LikeUnlike
Sam Calvin
I definitely agree that there are a great number of delusions going into the types of project you're describing - worst of all, that union expansion requires only a change in "the old-fashioned way we're thinking about it."

It is definitely unsupportable to portray the growth of unions as something that can happen gradually, with management's permission, and without decisive struggles.

But I think it is important to be clear as to what we're talking about. Maybe this is "old hat" for you, and you are using a shorthand that I'm simply not acquainted with, but it is not obvious to me what the key characteristics of the associate membership programs are that you feel are a decided issue.

In short, there seem to be numerous "hybrid" forms which have surfaced in union history - perhaps not as stable or unambiguous entities - and played a useful role. I'm trying to get a better grasp on which ones can lead to something worthwhile, and what the obstacles and pitfalls to look out for.See More
Yesterday at 10:12am • LikeUnlike
Gregory A. Butler When I say "associate membership" I mean any type of "union membership" that does not involve the union negotiating for better wages and benefits for that worker and protecting him/her from abuses at work. That type of bogus "unionism" is worthless. Workers agree with me on that, as the last 43 years of "associate membership" programs show us clearly.
Yesterday at 10:32am • LikeUnlike
Sam Calvin So you regard this as a post-sixties delusion?
Yesterday at 10:35am • LikeUnlike


Gregory A. Butler I wouldn't phrase it like that. It is part of the decay and death spiral of modern trade unionism.
Yesterday at 10:52am • LikeUnlike

Sam Calvin And you regard the clear recognition that wages, benefits, and abuses should be the focus of union attention as a key component of the path out of this death spiral? Or do you think that it is likely to continue unabated?
Yesterday at 11:00am • LikeUnlike
Gregory A. Butler Well, the reason that the death spiral of the unions is even relevant to workers is the collapse of wage scales and benefits and the increase in workplace abuses that it's caused. If we want to enlist workers in the cause of rebuilding labor, we have to give them a REASON to get on board. More money, better benefits and a fight against abuse at work are the only reasons that even matter from our class' perspective.
Yesterday at 11:26am • LikeUnlike
Gregory A. Butler If we can't stop the falling standard of living for our class and we can't prevent abuse at work, what's the point of even bothering with unions?
Yesterday at 11:27am • LikeUnlike

Sam Calvin I hear what you're saying - but I've also heard the argument from many folks that unions are a dead letter and not capable of stopping the falling standard of living. I'm trying to understand what your perspective is on the possibility of a renewal of the union movement...
Yesterday at 12:00pm • LikeUnlike
Gregory A. Butler If they're right, then we have to build brand new revolutionary unions from the ground up.
Yesterday at 12:46pm •