Interesting article and very important discussion. I look forward to reading the book. However, I must take issue with the claim that ALU “had neither the capacity nor organizing vision to onboard” workers reaching out after the election victory. As one of he leaders of that particular project at that time, I must correct you that there was a vision and there was capacity, but that Chris Smalls deliberately dismantled it and prevented the capacity from being deployed and the vision from being fulfilled. This fact has mostly been covered up, but it was reported at the time (albeit superficially): https://time.com/6197364/amazon-union-pauses-nyc-campaign/#
Over the past 3 years, a lot of poor analysis has been drawn from a misunderstanding of what happened immediately after the JFK8 election victory—namely, a systematic internal dismantling of organizing capacity by Chris Smalls and a few loyalists to centralize and maintain his grip on power (which required legal intervention and the organizing of a democratic caucus to extricate the union from). Any narrative of that campaign that doesn’t include this essential truth will only mislead people about what the actual shortcomings of the independent union were and why it failed. (The poor conclusions of Erik Loomis about ALU and the viability of independent unions, for instance: https://newlaborforum.cuny.edu/2023/04/28/independent-unions-the-allure-of-a-failing-strategy/)
Nice to hear from you. I guess I see it both ways, if the capacity & vision was there to support you all, the petty personalities & gatekeeping wouldn't have been so relevant.
I agree that the ALU certainly was lacking in the structural capacity of democratic decision-making, transparency, accountability, as well as many other capacities. But it was not lacking in organizing vision or capacity to execute on that vision. A capacity sabotaged is not evidence of a lack of that capacity. “Petty personalities” is not an adequate characterization of the plainly corrupt, abusive, and illegal behavior that Smalls engaged in, which was enormously destructive to the capacity and momentum of the union and toxic to all of its social relations. The behavior was also relevant because it was backed by even larger corrupt structural power, against which all independent unions truly are vulnerable. That story may never be told. Only solid ethical principles and practices can keep labor campaigns on the narrow path of engaged democracy and worker power.
I agree. The original point was that it’s incorrect to say that ALU lacked the organizing capacity and vision to onboard new worker organizers who reached out after our election victory. We had an entire plan and resources developed to carry out the plan, and the people delegated to carry it out, and that was all aggressively dismantled by Chris Smalls, who wielded absolute power without accountability. And organizers objected at the time, and some reporters reported on it at the time, but certainly not enough, since folks continue to sweep all that dirty business under the rug. What the union lacked was something entirely different than vision or organizing capacity. It lacked democratic safeguards against abusive leadership. And that is an important lesson for independent unions.
Nice article, defending and clarifying a nice book. I'll pass on some technical points on the service economy I dashed off in response to a friend who asked me about it, as I've been emphasizing the degree to which the "deindustrialization and service economy" story is overstated by many who wish to dismiss labor. (see eg the section on deindustrialization here on this https://cosmonautmag.com/2024/03/who-are-the-workers-and-why-does-it-matter/)
"I found the arguments compelling in context, but i think starbucks and similar corporations are not at the heart of america's political economy. empirically, 3.3% of america's gdp is accommodation and food services, and its a similar fraction of the workforce, though somewhat larger.
the service sector is a large part of the u.s. economy, but when you break that out, that's largely professional, technical and scientific, and then janitorial and maintenance. some of it is also finance and real estate, which isn't industry at all but rents.
the error blanc makes, to be fair, is the error that everyone on all sides of the debate mainly makes, which is that people don't interrogate what "services" means, and the category just turns out to not be composed the way people imagine it is.
on the other hand, is starbucks in particular a "fortress at the heart of america's political economy"? well, in a sense yes, despite the relatively demure position of food and accommodation services as whole. it is around the 100th largest u.s. company by market capitalization, a tad ahead of intel and nike, and just behind welltower, which people haven't heard of, but invests in real estate for healthcare and senior homes, and behind southern company, which is a gas and electric utility rollup. it also is the 15th largest u.s. company by employees globally. so there are different ways to measure importance, and slaughter is overdismissive of it for that reason as well. so blanc is on the more right side of the argument than slaughter, but with arguably sloppy reasons why."
I think you're asking the right questions… but given the vulnerability of those socially powerful workers to lock out, we must be able to connect with more economically powerful trade unions in manufacturing, energy, & along the supply chain. I think that your worker to worker approach allows us to organically develop a proletariat that's ready to lead, Eric. I am less sanguine about the value of service work unless its public service or healthcare though. The consumer sector at the shop level is far too vulnerable to lock out.
Interesting article and very important discussion. I look forward to reading the book. However, I must take issue with the claim that ALU “had neither the capacity nor organizing vision to onboard” workers reaching out after the election victory. As one of he leaders of that particular project at that time, I must correct you that there was a vision and there was capacity, but that Chris Smalls deliberately dismantled it and prevented the capacity from being deployed and the vision from being fulfilled. This fact has mostly been covered up, but it was reported at the time (albeit superficially): https://time.com/6197364/amazon-union-pauses-nyc-campaign/#
Over the past 3 years, a lot of poor analysis has been drawn from a misunderstanding of what happened immediately after the JFK8 election victory—namely, a systematic internal dismantling of organizing capacity by Chris Smalls and a few loyalists to centralize and maintain his grip on power (which required legal intervention and the organizing of a democratic caucus to extricate the union from). Any narrative of that campaign that doesn’t include this essential truth will only mislead people about what the actual shortcomings of the independent union were and why it failed. (The poor conclusions of Erik Loomis about ALU and the viability of independent unions, for instance: https://newlaborforum.cuny.edu/2023/04/28/independent-unions-the-allure-of-a-failing-strategy/)
Nice to hear from you. I guess I see it both ways, if the capacity & vision was there to support you all, the petty personalities & gatekeeping wouldn't have been so relevant.
I agree that the ALU certainly was lacking in the structural capacity of democratic decision-making, transparency, accountability, as well as many other capacities. But it was not lacking in organizing vision or capacity to execute on that vision. A capacity sabotaged is not evidence of a lack of that capacity. “Petty personalities” is not an adequate characterization of the plainly corrupt, abusive, and illegal behavior that Smalls engaged in, which was enormously destructive to the capacity and momentum of the union and toxic to all of its social relations. The behavior was also relevant because it was backed by even larger corrupt structural power, against which all independent unions truly are vulnerable. That story may never be told. Only solid ethical principles and practices can keep labor campaigns on the narrow path of engaged democracy and worker power.
Again, when properly structured & executed, workers hold vastly more power than the snakes, rats, & hogs that sabotage our organizing efforts.
I agree. The original point was that it’s incorrect to say that ALU lacked the organizing capacity and vision to onboard new worker organizers who reached out after our election victory. We had an entire plan and resources developed to carry out the plan, and the people delegated to carry it out, and that was all aggressively dismantled by Chris Smalls, who wielded absolute power without accountability. And organizers objected at the time, and some reporters reported on it at the time, but certainly not enough, since folks continue to sweep all that dirty business under the rug. What the union lacked was something entirely different than vision or organizing capacity. It lacked democratic safeguards against abusive leadership. And that is an important lesson for independent unions.
Nice article, defending and clarifying a nice book. I'll pass on some technical points on the service economy I dashed off in response to a friend who asked me about it, as I've been emphasizing the degree to which the "deindustrialization and service economy" story is overstated by many who wish to dismiss labor. (see eg the section on deindustrialization here on this https://cosmonautmag.com/2024/03/who-are-the-workers-and-why-does-it-matter/)
"I found the arguments compelling in context, but i think starbucks and similar corporations are not at the heart of america's political economy. empirically, 3.3% of america's gdp is accommodation and food services, and its a similar fraction of the workforce, though somewhat larger.
the service sector is a large part of the u.s. economy, but when you break that out, that's largely professional, technical and scientific, and then janitorial and maintenance. some of it is also finance and real estate, which isn't industry at all but rents.
the error blanc makes, to be fair, is the error that everyone on all sides of the debate mainly makes, which is that people don't interrogate what "services" means, and the category just turns out to not be composed the way people imagine it is.
on the other hand, is starbucks in particular a "fortress at the heart of america's political economy"? well, in a sense yes, despite the relatively demure position of food and accommodation services as whole. it is around the 100th largest u.s. company by market capitalization, a tad ahead of intel and nike, and just behind welltower, which people haven't heard of, but invests in real estate for healthcare and senior homes, and behind southern company, which is a gas and electric utility rollup. it also is the 15th largest u.s. company by employees globally. so there are different ways to measure importance, and slaughter is overdismissive of it for that reason as well. so blanc is on the more right side of the argument than slaughter, but with arguably sloppy reasons why."
I think you're asking the right questions… but given the vulnerability of those socially powerful workers to lock out, we must be able to connect with more economically powerful trade unions in manufacturing, energy, & along the supply chain. I think that your worker to worker approach allows us to organically develop a proletariat that's ready to lead, Eric. I am less sanguine about the value of service work unless its public service or healthcare though. The consumer sector at the shop level is far too vulnerable to lock out.