The rise of the Trade Union Bureaucracy - Labour's enemy within

| Friday May 3, 2013 00:00

 

One of the distinguishing factors in the contemporary development of organised labour has been the rise of a social layer within the ranks of the trade union movement with a contradictory socio-economic status, ideology and agenda.It has been termed the 'Trade Union Bureaucracy' by several writers, notably Alex Calinicos and Dan Gallin.

This class within-a-class has also been termed a 'labour aristocracy' in some quarters, owing to the authority and control it wields over the rest of the workers. Hence, the term 'union bosses', which is a usage by the liberal media.'Labour aristocracy' and 'labour aristocrats' has been used more broadly by others, to refer to a privileged or elitist sub class among the working population, to distinguish it from the institutional formation of trade unions.In Botswana the latter usage is popularly associated with prominent sociologist, Professor Monageng Mogalakwe.

he 'Trade Union Bureaucracy', which is what it is called in trade circles, is a global phenomenon, trend or tendency, which has been rising since the collapse of the Rank-and-file and Shopstewards movements. It has now grown to unprecedented levels in major economies such as the USA, UK and South Africa, driven by the ascent of 'Business Unionism' as a dominant form of trade union organisation.

In the USA, the term 'Business unionism', refers to the form of activity that emphasises 'boardroom politics' over 'street politics'. On our shores, beginning with South Africa's COSATU, it means something different - the dominance of Union investment wings over the core mandate of trade unions, that is, the abandonment or derailment of traditional functions and objects, which have defined the purpose and existence of trade unions since the Industrial Revolution. 

Researchers in mining labour relations have traced the Marikana inter-union rivalry to the growth of the bureaucratic tendency among the Shopstewards of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), giving rise to a 'social space' that was filled by a union (AMCU), which was practicing simple trade unionism that appealed to the rank-and file. But what is this the 'Trade Union Bureaucracy', where does it come from and how do we identify it?

Defining the Trade Union Bureaucracy and its salient featuresIt is a combination of political leaders, business leaders and union employees who constitute trade union management. The Union bureaucracy is a paradoxical sub class with strong economic links with the upper classes in modern capitalist societies, but which retains its source of livelihood in the organisation of the workers below. Its advantage, which is the sad thing, is that the bureaucracy in most cases is not a foreign element, but a by-product of labour's growth and success.

At individual level, its source is the social mobility mechanisms provided by the trade unions as a career and source of wealth, as appendage economic and social institutions of capitalist production. It emerges from the leadership of the trade unions, whenever the democratic worker control of unions is compromised. Thus, over time the bureaucracy has perfected the language and mannerisms of the oppressed classes to the point where it passes as the legitimate leadership of the working class, without having to undergo any 'class suicide' as leftist writers would demand. And this is where it has the greatest threat to the unions - its ability to gain eternal control and to reproduce itself from among the ranks of the union movement.

Gallin posits that the union bureaucracy is a parasitic sub class akin to the privileged sub classes common in socialist countries with a deficit in popular democracy, such as the Soviet Union before Gorbachev's reforms. He says it is a form of 'Stalinism', the lords of labour, so to speak.As a mirror of the class society it emerges from, the Union bureaucracy tends to be a parasitic, exploiter group with similar class interests as the employers and other sections of the bourgeoisie classes. Due to its potential and actual destructive effects, the bureaucracy is an enemy lurking within that eats at the fabric and value system of organised labour, derailing and manipulating unions in the business, administrative and political sphere, while carrying out lawful and legitimate trade union duties. Armed with resources, experience and monopoly of knowledge and information, the bureaucracy can be a boastful undefeatable sub class of millionaires, which answers to no one but itself. This is usually the case where a country ratifies ILO Conventions on Freedom of Association, especially C87 and C98, without corresponding self regulation capacity of trade unions. ILO Conventions provide a secure environment since they are largely protected from advanced economies where the self regulation may be a reality of established democratic traditions.

Several conditions explain the emergence of the union bureaucracy; Deficit of internal organisational democracy; The growing importance of union investments and its de mobilisation effects; The dominance of pluralistic labour relations with emphasis on bargaining at the expense of mass popular actions controlled by the rank and file; The absence of structured labour education in trade union values, organisation and working class consciousness and ideology; Weak social democratic traditions in broader society; The political subordination of trade unions in national politics (weakness of class independence); The decline of shopstewards' influence in union organisation and; The dominance of business values in popular consciousness

The rise of union investments The rise of Botswana's union bureaucracy came via the expansion of South African capital, in the insurance, micro-lending, and other financial products as a result of BEE's effect. On one hand experienced private financial investors brought sophisticated membership packages based on templates signed with COSATU affiliates. On the other hand COSATU affiliates see Botswana as an investment destination alongside private capital. Both team up with local unions where the target consumer is the local union member.Common examples are POPCRU's business partnerships with the biggest unions. It is this transaction line which first introduced the concept of an 'indigenous' Workers bank, which sounds intriguing at face value. It is very difficult for workers to realise that the union investment arm or the union as an investing entity is not directly controlled by the workers themselves, as is the case with a cooperative.  The business ties are cemented through political alliances. The line between union businesses and politics becomes blurred and union coalitions are built on business alliances which are stronger than ideological bonds. So the bureaucracy is a powerful economic and social group which could run unions into the future as unions become more and more like businesses. The business arms control the political side and the bureaucracy determines who gets into the leadership of the unions. While Union leaders become rich and join the propertied class sections of the ruling class, they still shout slogans of the working class below and remain in control of the unions.

A critical behaviour of the union bureaucracy is to identify and isolate individuals and unions which try to promote the opposite trend of worker control.  Those who have the potential to bring some radical thinking to challenge the power of the bureaucracy are swept aside or co-opted. Thus the union bureaucracy is a permanent class of experienced, full-time activists who are not easily defeated. They know the terrain.  The worst case scenario is when a union splits into factions or a rival union is born as it happened recently with SATAWU in South Africa and it nearly happened with POPCRU itself in 2010. The bureaucracy maintains its power through purging those who are not aligned to it. Ironically when purging it uses revolutionary labels on its erstwhile internal enemy, like 'betrayal of the revolution' etc. They align with radicalism and build false images of opposition politics etc.

What are the implications of its growth?The union bureaucracy has specific effects on the trade movement; False orientation towards union commercial activities, which become the source of inter-union competition and retention of members; Development of a social space between the leaders and the members; Political manipulation of members based on the class aspirations of the bureaucracy; De-emphasis of education and grassroots organisation; The dependence on institutionalised bargaining  and; Factions and divisions within the labour movement based on the bureaucracy's accumulation agenda.  How could trade unions deal with the union bureaucracy?  Genuine Trade Unionists cannot deal with this rising trend unless they go back to basics.

* Edward Tswaipe is Vice President at Trainers and Allied Workers Union.  He writes in his personal capacity.