Carl Cowl Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From The Militant, Vol. VI No. 33, 1 July 1933, p. 2.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
“The correctly understood task of the Communist party does not consist solely of gaining influence over the trade unions, such as they are, but in winning, through the trade unions, an influence over the majority of the working class. This is possible only if the methods employed by the party in the trade unions correspond to the nature and the tasks of the latter ... If the party buys its influence in the trade unions only at the price of a narrowing down and a factionalizing on the latter, converting them into auxiliaries of the party for momentary aims and preventing them from becoming genuine mass organizations, the relation between the party and the class is wrong ... Out of this springs the policy of combinations behind the scenes of hushing up, of adaptation to the ideas and slogans of others, and finally the complete passage to the positions of opportunism.” – Leon Trotsky.
American industry is beginning to stir into open class struggle. Uppermost in the mind of the working class is the burning question: How can these miserable depression wages meet the rising cost of living. Spontaneous, elemental strikes and protests break out with increasing frequency from unexpected quarters and in a surprising manner. What distresses the bosses and annoys the trade union burocrats is that this upsurge does not wait for the unions to act, nor does it wait for the “busy season”, or for the “better moment”, or for the thousand and one excuses of the conservative labor “strategists” for delay. It bursts out for wage increases; it bangs its fist, even in anticipation of the “season”; it gives the bosses a foretaste of what is to follow in the “season”.
The furniture industry is no exception to the trend of the day. On the contrary it strikingly illustrates how determined, militant action, in most cases without union leadership, can wrest conditions and wage increases from the bosses by sporadic strikes and stoppages.
Of the three to four thousand upholsterers in greater New York, barely three hundred are organized into both unions: The Furniture Workers Industrial Union and Local 76 of the Upholsterers International, of which the latter though smaller in actual number, has signed agreements with three or four shops. Local 70, in the manner of all A.F. of L. unions, is based on the “job trust”, that is, the control of certain shops through agreement with the employer which allows the latter to use the union label on his goods and limits the membership to little more than those working in these shops. This gentlemen’s agreement between the union and the boss, while it maintains wages and conditions in the union shops above the general level of the unorganized industry, and offers protection in the form of a strike fund and other considerations ; nevertheless, it quite effectively creates a barrier between the unorganized mass, to whom the “union cannot give jobs”. This condition stimulates the development of reactionary policy, machine control ignoring of the unorganized and the stilling of the rank and file in the union.
The Furniture Workers Industrial Union was born out of the old Left wing of Local 70 under the leadership of the T.U.U.L. Under the hysterical lash of the Stalinist “third period” policy, it was not difficult to break off (or have expelled) a substantial group of the union who together with a number of rank and filers who had lost their confidence in the reactionary A.F. of L. union formed the Left wing union. In the period of its existence it has advocated the principle of one union for the entire industry and has stressed the shop as the basic unit of the union. It has championed the democratic rights of the rank and file and the idea of an international revolutionary movement of labor. On the other hand, it has succumbed to the adventurist practice of the united front from below and the theory of “social Fascism”, which has produced within the union the atmosphere, and without, the policy, of the revolutionary sect.
The discontent and unrest among the furniture workers of New York has had a marked effect on both unions. Suddenly Local 76 announces an organization drive. The Industrial union intensifies its efforts. Local 76 makes some headway; the F.W.I.U. leads some small strikes and stoppages. But each, naturally, must undermine the basis of the other union in order to proceed. And they are both met with stony indifference and cynicism on the part of the furniture workers who say: Two houses divided against each other cannot stand. A plague on both your houses.
Realizing the burning need for the unification of the industry, the Left wing elements in both unions have come forward with the demand for trade union unity on the basis of a fighting policy against the boss upholsterers in the coming season. In the Industrial Union, we have fought for close to six months to put the question of the unity of the unions on the agenda of the union. Our proposals were ridiculed and rejected. “No united front with the social Fascist leaders”, was the demagogic cry, “only with the rank and file!” And so the Stalinist leadership in the Industrial staved off the responsibility of approaching the A.F. of L. organization.
But so vital is the issue among the rank and file of the union that it could not be postponed for long. On May 8, after ordering the Left wing proposals stricken from the minutes and without much confidence in the outcome of the negotiations, the Stalinist leaders of the union sent a unity proposal to Local 76. Why was it necessary to conceal our policy from the membership by expunging it from the record and then resurrect it as though it were their own? Unquestionably because it was “Trotskyist contraband”. And second, because it didn’t jibe with the party line ...
In our next article, we will conclude the account of the fight for unity of the furniture workers together with the Left wing program for its achievement.
Carl Cowl Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 24 October 2015