[Marxism] Sam Gindin on the crisis in labor

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Mon Jun 18 12:01:04 MDT 2012

Doug Henwood interviews Sam Gindin

Sam Gindin on the crisis in labor

[This is a lightly edited transcript of my interview with Sam 
Gindin, first broadcast on June 14, 2012. The audio is here. 
Thanks a million to Andrew Loewen for doing the transcription.]

My next guest is the excellent Sam Gindin. Sam is an economist who 
spent more than 20 years in the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) Union, 
first as a researcher and then as an adviser to the president. He 
retired from the CAW in 2000 and has since been teaching in the 
wonderful political science department at York University, 
Toronto. He frequently collaborates with another Behind the News 
favorite, Leo Panitch.

The debacle in Wisconsin is deeply symptomatic of the crisis in 
American labor, and there’s no smarter commentator on that topic 
than Sam, even though he lives north of the 49th parallel.

Q: Welcome Sam. The defeat of the Walker recall in Wisconsin has 
prompted some reflections on the state of the labor movement. What 
are your initial thoughts on that? I know you’re across the border 
in Canada, but it certainly has repercussions across North America.

A: Yeah, I’m interested for the same reasons everybody else is. It 
has repercussions here, and also my wife’s family is in Wisconsin, 
so we’ve been in touch with them. The main thing is—and it’s a 
point that you’ve made—that we have to take a look at what 
happened and ask ourselves some hard questions. I’m sympathetic to 
people who feel like “Walker won the election through the amount 
of money he put in; we have to try to defend the labor movement; 
we have to hope that people don’t get demoralized.”

But the real thing we have to do is be honest about what’s 
happened. And being honest means talking about the real, serious 
crisis in the labor movement. And it’s a crisis that’s actually 
been there for at least a quarter of a century. And it was 
especially evident when the financial crisis happened. And instead 
of being able to go on the offensive, labor was on the defensive. 
And it was revealed again with Occupy, when the labor movement 
supported Occupy but what was really called for was a question of 
labor showing that it can occupy things and that it had the power 
to do things.

So this is a serious crisis. And I think we really have to be 
honest and step back and address the seriousness of the crisis. We 
have to stop talking about just the economic crisis and just how 
bad the rightwing is when it does all the things that we expected 
them to do—and actually have that kind of discussion about the 
labor movement.

How similar are things in Canada to things in the US? I mean a lot 
of people will say this is an American issue, an American 
problem—you’ve got American individualism, the brutality of 
American repression of labor activism throughout the course of the 
last century or so.

Of course there are differences in Canada. In some ways the attack 
hasn’t been as aggressive. Canada doesn’t play the same imperial 
role that the United States plays and that leads to some 
differences, but the fact of the matter is that the differences 
are not that great in Canada. If anything we’ve been kind of 
converging to that same notion: of limited options, and ‘there’s 
nothing you can do about this,’ and lowering our expectations so 
that whatever happens ‘it could have been worse,’ or the 
Democrats—you know, ‘you have to make a choice between whoever is 
worse and whoever is worser.’

So I don’t think the differences are that great here and I’d even 
go further: I don’t think the differences are that great generally 
in Europe, except for some places like Greece, where there’s been 
a particular kind of resistance because of how much they’ve been 
attacked. But I think there’s been a general crisis in the trade 
union movement everywhere. And I think we should talk more about 
‘what is it’ exactly; but I think it’s also wrapped up with a 
crisis on the left, which is an integral part of this.

Some of the criticisms I’ve gotten for the things I’ve written is 
that, first of all, not having been an organizer myself I don’t 
understand how difficult things are. I think I do understand how 
difficult things are—but the other thing is that there’s some 
people who seem to think what we need to do is keep doing the same 
thing with increased dedication and intensity. What do you think? 
Is that the way out of the crisis?

No. That’s part of the problem. I respect everybody who’s feeling 
like they’re put upon. It is difficult, and workers have immediate 
struggles. But seeing this as a problem of “let’s just plug on, 
let’s just be a little bit more committed”—if there’s anything we 
should learn it’s that that doesn’t get us anywhere.

This is a really serious, radical problem. Let me just say what I 
think it is, and what we have to talk about. There is a problem in 
unions, that in their very formation they were sectional 
organizations, that the essence of unions is that you’re defending 
a group of workers. You’re not actually thinking about the class 
as a whole, or about other dimensions of workers’ lives. On 
occasion, in spite of that sectionalism, you see the potential of 
workers because they go beyond it, as they did when they were 
mobilizing in Madison. But the problem is that the structure of 
unions, and their culture and their logic, takes them back to 
returning to being very instrumental. The problem with being 
sectional and just thinking about yourself is you also tend to 
think instrumentally. You look to your leaders as—you pay some 
insurance for being in the union, you give them some dues, and 
they’ll deliver. And the leaders think in terms of “well, we 
occasionally have to mobilize the workers but we shouldn’t 
exaggerate that or really open the door to mass mobilization, 
because we just want to mobilize them enough to make a deal.”

That problem is fundamental to what we’re seeing in this crisis. 
After World War II, this wasn’t obvious, because then you could in 
fact make gains by being sectional. And in fact some of those 
gains would spread to others. The defeat after the war was the 
defeat of the left inside unions, and part of that was promising 
people that “well, you can just win things within capitalism and 
just being instrumental, and you don’t really need a left.” And a 
lot of workers accepted that.

When neoliberalism came, in the absence of a wider vision, in the 
absence of a left, that sectionalism was dead. You just couldn’t 
make gains when you’re facing not just an employer but you’re 
facing the state, and you’re facing the employer in an entirely 
different context. I don’t think the trade union movement ever 
came to grips with that fact. They stumbled on doing what you just 
raised: “well, we’ll just have to try harder, this is cyclical, 
it’ll get a little bit better, maybe we’ll elect somebody else.” 
They didn’t realize that that whole era was over and unions really 
had to reinvent themselves.

And then came the financial crisis, the biggest crisis we’ve seen 
since the 1930s. In the 1930s, unions at least had recognized the 
limits of craft unionism and developed a new organizational form 
in terms of industrial unionism. The question that was being posed 
by the financial crisis is: okay, what are you going to do this 
time? What is the new organizational form that workers might come 
up with, given that the organizational form that that they have, 
sectional unionism, isn’t capable of doing it. The public sector 
unions can say “we’ll put up billboards to say we support the 
public sector,” but nobody really believes them—they see it as 

So there’s a real question of, what might a different unionism 
mean? I don’t think that people who are trying to defend unions—by 
saying “they’re okay, don’t attack them, just plug along”—are 
actually doing the unions any favor. I think what really needs to 
be done is we have to challenge unions. And I think that was the 
excellent part of what you were writing about.

There’s a perception in the broad public that unions are mostly 
interested in themselves. The leaders seem to be very interested 
in their own salaries and perks, too. But it seems that the 
leadership thinks it has a product to sell. That product is a 
contract and certain privileges in wages and benefits. That seems 
to foster a perception among the broad public that unions just 
don’t care about the working class as a whole. Is that a fair 
perception on the part of the public?

Yes and no. If you tested the unions compared to the ruling class, 
to other sections of society, they might in fact be more 
progressive on these issues. But the reality is that it’s not 
enough. It’s not enough that unions might in general—that their 
members might in general vote more progressively, or they might 
care more about these things. Unions have to prove it. And you 
don’t prove it by passing good resolutions, and even donating some 
money to good causes, or putting up billboards that say we support 
public services. Unions have to prove it. And to prove it they 
have to be radically different.

So, for example, they have to consider, when we’re in bargaining 
maybe we actually have to put the quality and level and 
administration of services on the bargaining table. Unions don’t 
do that. In other words, we would actually be ready to strike for 
something that we consider a fundamental right in society. Now 
when you start doing that you have to educate your members 
differently, you have to change all your structures, your research 
has to be different, how you mobilize and organize has to be 
different. But, you know, starting to think about that would mean 
a radical change and a chance to actually win the public over. And 
when I say win the public over I actually include other unions, 
who are also skeptical of this, who see this as “well they just 
want to raise their wages, and that means raising my taxes.”

So you’ve got to win people over. And it means you have to develop 
a class perspective. You have to be driven by a class perspective. 
You can’t say “we’re organizing but the point of organizing is we 
want to just get more dues,” because that effects what kind of 
commitment you have, what kind of energy you put into it, whether 
you’re going to cooperate with other unions to organize people 
even if you don’t get them. If you have a class perspective you’d 
have a different take on unionization—you have to deal with this 
question of, “Hey, wait a second, we’re saying that we support the 
public but then we go on strike and take away the service, isn’t 
that a contradiction?” You have to start thinking about, “Well, 
maybe we have to do other things, so that when we really go out on 
a full-scale strike people will get it.”

And by other things I mean such as if it’s a garbage strike, and 
they’re asking you to drop the garbage off in a park while the 
strike is on, maybe you drop it off on Wall Street, because you 
want to make a connection between austerity and the strike. Maybe 
you actually think about—we’re not going to pick up garbage in 
rich neighborhoods because we want to make that connection. We’ve 
had examples of workers coming up with that sporadically, but the 
problem is it’s only sporadic. It has to get to what the 
organization is actually about.

I should say, I don’t know that you can transform unions as they 
are to being more than that. But I’ve been trying to think through 
what it might mean to think about intermediate organizations. By 
an intermediate organization I mean something that would be a new 
form of working-class organization, that would see workers as 
joining them, linking them across unions. Having networks of 
activists across unions, so it isn’t just a union with a sectional 
interest, but it’s workers joining something because they see it 
as a class interest, and that it also expresses all the other 
dimensions of their lives. So it’s linked to the community.

So it’s not a political party but it is explicitly trying to take 
on the question of class and educate around the fact that unions 
face systemic problems that are more than facing a particular 

Q: What do you make of the fact that something like a third of 
union members voted for Walker?

A: I think there’s a division between the public and the private 
which is part of that, with people being won over to isolating the 
public sector. But it completely reflects the fact that if unions 
are only instrumental, sectionalist organizations, and then people 
are voting on the basis of “does this help me in particular, even 
if it screws other workers?,” with no sense of if you’re screwing 
other workers how that might come back to bite you in the longer 
term perspective. If you accept the fact that, well look, in 
practical terms I do want to support business because the only 
model we have for growth and therefore for financing public 
services is to support business, then workers can make a very 
sensible and rational decision that this is best for me given that 
there’s actually no alternative. No one’s talking about 
challenging business. No one’s talking about an alternative way of 
creating jobs that isn’t just some stimulus, but is actually 
thinking about questions of planning and conversion.

So I think that as long as people have a limited perspective on 
how you define the problem that shouldn’t surprise us. And the 
reality is that unions don’t see their role as developing that 
kind of a broader perspective, for the longer term. My argument 
would be that that kind of narrow perspective which worked in the 
past isn’t even actually practical anymore. It’s not that you can 
make an argument that “well it’s practical to just be small.” 
That’s what we find out is impractical. You lose your own members. 
They see the solution not working. And we have to start thinking 
bigger and more radically, because that’s the only thing that’s 
practical right now.

That would a revolution inside unions—a massive cultural change. 
And I don’t think this can happen without a left that is both 
inside and outside the unions, pushing this kind of thing and 
getting unions, even if you don’t win them over, but getting them 
to at least put on their own agenda strategic questions about “how 
should we respond?”

If you think of the Wisconsin uprising, there should have been 
some structures formed as this was happening, like assemblies. 
Where people are actually discussing things. What do we do? How do 
we get neighbors on side? What do we when they say this? How do we 
answer these questions? How do we get into the high schools and 
develop people because is this is going to be, you know, we’re 
talking about another generation that’s going to be affected. When 
that was ignored, and everything just got channeled into an 
election—which at this point you’re simply operating on their 
terrain—yeah, the end result isn’t that surprising. And you’re not 
really building things.

You can also ask the question well what would’ve happened if 
unions won? In these circumstances even if unions won, it would’ve 
been a very important victory in terms of bargaining, but the 
Democrats would’ve been there to make sure that you have 
bargaining but that you couldn’t bargain over anything 
significant. They would’ve reinforced that image. I mean the main 
thing that the Democrats did in this election was run away from 
actually speaking about class, defending workers, defending 
unions, and thinking that you could win just by demonizing the 
other side. So there wasn’t even that kind of education and 
buildup during the election.

Q: When you say things like this a lot of union people say, “Yeah 
that’d be very nice but we operate under a very severe set of 
legal constraints. We can get fined, we can go to jail, we can be 
destroyed. So we just have to operate by some rules that are very 
much stacked against us.” What do you say to that?

A: Part of the problem is people not knowing their own history. 
Unions didn’t come out of people sitting down and practically 
saying, “what are the rules, what are the constraints, and how do 
we operate within them?” They figured out how you actually have to 
break rules, how you have to change them, how you have to mobilize 
broadly. When you look at these problems in very small ways, like 
workers saying, “If I just walk out of my workplace, I’ll be 
fired”—yeah, you will be fired, so you shouldn’t do that. But you 
should figure out what would we have to do so we actually have a 
mass base. How do we build that base?

They showed that in Wisconsin. They were sitting in on the 
legislature—a massive act of defiance. All the things that we 
cheer when they happen elsewhere are acts of defiance. Everything 
about our history was an act of defiance. That requires being 
sober about it. It’s not just romantic. Let’s do it—it actually 
means asking, ‘If we can’t do certain things now, how do we 
prepare so that we can do them?” It does mean saying that if you 
want to change things, these are the kind of risks you have to 
take. How do we prepare ourselves to take those risks and pull it off?

Because if you accept the status quo then the thing you have to 
remember is that you’re not just protecting yourself right now. 
You’re sending a signal to them that they can keep doing it to 
you. And that’s what’s been going on for the last quarter of a 
century. You know, first they lower expectations, then you have 
the crisis, so then now you have to pay for the crisis and bailing 
out the banks. Now you get defeated. What’s going to come out of 
this Wisconsin thing is that there are going to be further attacks 
on workers in other states, and workers will be relieved because 
they weren’t as bad as what Walker was promising.

This is going to keep going on; it’s going to get worse. There’s 
no future in it. There’s no future in it for people’s kids. People 
have to start thinking in terms of: you have to take a stand, you 
have to think about what this means, and you have to prepare for 
it. And it is going to be risky. Everything that you raise should 
be addressed, you know, right on, instead of pretending that if 
you do these things it’ll be easy.

Q: You’ve also said that the labor movement needs a left and the 
decay of the left has really damaged the labor movement. Could you 
elaborate on that?

A: It’s really difficult for me to imagine unions being 
transformed completely through their own dynamic. We just haven’t 
seen it happen. We’ve seen attacks on unions consistently now 
since the early eighties. And we haven’t seen bad times leading to 
something new. People just lower their expectations and hope that 
if there’s a crisis you just fix it so you can get back to what 
was normal before, even if that wasn’t so great. The leadership 
have no pressure on them to change. In fact, a lot of them have 
learned that since nobody blames them, maybe it’s more comfortable 
to be able to blame big money, or globalization, or neoliberalism. 
The leadership has gotten comfortable—and the membership finds it 
very hard to rebel when you’re looking at the world from one 
particular workplace and you don’t have connections to others. You 
know your leaders are worldly; they travel around; they know 
what’s going on in other places. But the workers are overwhelmed 
in terms of time, so it’s very hard for me to imagine that kind of 

What a left has to offer is making connections between people 
across workplaces, bringing in a class analysis so they seem it’s 
not just them. They can never win if it’s just a few of them 
against the state. They have to see there’s actually a class 
involved here. Giving them some alternatives, you know, giving 
them some historical memory, so they see how workers did this—in 
fact in more difficult circumstances in the past. Giving them some 
comparative analysis of what’s going on in Greece and 
elsewhere—how did people organize. So the left can play that role, 
in terms of bringing a class perspective, resources, memory into 
the picture. The truth is the left that we have now isn’t capable 
of doing that. So I think one of the questions that comes out of 
Wisconsin is not just “what’s wrong with unions?,” but “what kind 
of a left could actually do that?”

And the answer to that isn’t that we’ve got to convince workers 
that the politically right thing to do is to go into the 
Democratic Party. Because that will not develop capacities. In 
fact, it constrains the development of working-class capacities.

Q: Some practical types would listen to what you just said and 
say, “well that’s all very nice but, you know, it’s too 
highfalutin’. We need some action on the ground. And all this 
stuff about making connections and international comparisons and 
class analysis is just over-intellectualizing what needs to be a 
much more activist approach to the problem.” What do you say to that?

A: At one level of course they’re right. The point of organizing 
isn’t that you phone up a worker and you say, “Hello, I’m 
so-and-so. I think we need a revolution and we need a class 
analysis and can you come and join me?” That’s not how people get 
organized. You do have to be on the ground. But you have to be on 
the ground in a way that has a class perspective behind it. If 
you’re talking about organizing and you’re thinking in terms of 
class, one of the questions is, “If there are so many people being 
laid off, what are unions doing about their members who’re being 
laid off?” If they can’t even organize people who were just 
recently their members, how would you expect them to organize 
anybody? And the reason they don’t do that, is because there’s no 
money in it.

There’s money in getting new members but there’s no money in 
helping your members once they stop paying dues. But if you have a 
class perspective it leads to something else. It leads to actively 
organizing the unemployed that were formerly your members. And if 
you don’t do it that’s where you get a lot of the rightwing 
populist response that you mentioned earlier. Workers say, “Well, 
they cared about me when I was paying dues; they don’t give a shit 
anymore.” And they don’t end up being very sympathetic to labor. 
That’s very on the ground.

If you’re talking about making a breakthrough and organizing 
homecare workers, who do exactly the same thing as homecare 
workers in institutions that are unionized do but do it privately, 
you have to get cooperation among unions. It would be a massive 
project. And if you got cooperation, it’d be a very on-the-ground, 
hands-on response to organizing low-paid, immigrant women. It’s 
very concrete. But to do that you’d need this cooperation among 
unions. And you’d actually have to talk about, “What kind of a 
union do you want, where does class fit in, why are you doing 
this?” And if you don’t want to talk about that you won’t do it. 
This notion of ‘let’s just go out and do it the old way and it’s 
on-the-ground’—that’s what I consider really idealist. It’s not 
working! You do have to think bigger.

That’s part of the role of the left: it’s to be a 
bridge—responding to practical and immediate things, but putting 
them in that kind of a larger context. Because without that kind 
of larger context we’re losing and we’re going to continue to 
lose. What’s really abstract is pretending that these kinds of 
questions don’t matter.

Q: Is there really any hope for a model in which the goal of union 
activity is organizing a group of workers to get a contract and 
then have them pay dues for union membership? This is the central 
model of American unionism. Could this survive another generation, 
or has this got to go?

A: I don’t know if it has to go. But we need another kind of 
organization, which doesn’t mean this one has to go. It might mean 
that if we in fact had workers’ assemblies and spaces and places 
where workers were actually mobilizing and organizing around 
class, that might begin to have an impact on unions. Injecting 
that into unions might actually demonstrate to them that you 
actually need some kind of strategic thinking to even be effective 
at what you’re trying to do. So it may be that there’s a way of 
renewing unions—but only because you’ve actually responded to the 
times, and learned something, and said, “We need new forms of 
working-class organization.”

I just got back from Montreal. It’s fascinating because it’s one 
of those moments where in retrospect you can say it was 
predictable—there was a lot of student organizing and mobilizing 
before. But they’ve had marches of around 300,000 people. They’ve 
been fighting around the cost of tuition. Quebec has the lowest 
cost of tuition in the country and yet they’ve been fighting 
around it because they think it should be a public good that’s 
free. So what recently happened is they began to actually go into 
neighborhoods, banging pots, and what’s happened is neighbors have 
come out to join them. Nobody would’ve predicted this. They 
would’ve thought they’d be, you know, isolated as spoiled 
university kids.

You begin to see that once people begin to see that something’s 
possible, it opens everything. There are people on the streets 
supporting them. People in the bars run out and join the demo, 
There are all kinds of discussions taking place. People are 
actually talking about capitalism, because they’re being forced to 
as they do this. And the students have been running 
assemblies—democratic spaces in every university, in different 
faculties, to make decisions about where to go and what to do and 
about tactics. And then this is now being imitated to some extent 
in some of the communities, where people are forming community 
assemblies to talk about broader issues. Not just tuition fees but 
the educational system or why there are cutbacks. As struggles 
take place, you get surprised and things emerge. Then the question 
is well what do you do next to sustain it?

If you’re sober you have to be pessimistic. But there’s a quote 
that’s usually attributed to Gramsci—I don’t know if he actually 
said it—that the challenge is to have no illusions but not get 
disillusioned. That’s the trick. It’s just one of those historical 
moments where we have to figure out how to do something. If you 
think of the periods since The Communist Manifesto it’s always 
been as if there were some answers that somebody had: 
unionization, insurrection, forming communist parties, forming 
social-democratic parties.

Now we have to come up with our own answers because those answers 
weren’t real answers. It’s very difficult to live through this 
period because there’s no answer on any shelf to take, and we 
don’t have an example abroad to say why don’t we just do it like 

It’s an incredibly difficult period, but I think capitalism has 
really been delegitimated. I don’t have any trouble talking to 
workers, telling them that capitalism is a barrier to human 
development. They nod their heads. They’re just not sure how to 
change it or have confidence in changing it; but it does mean that 
there’s an opening if we can organize and figure out how to 
organize and take advantage of it. And that’s a difficult 
challenge. It is crucial that we take our heads out of the sand, 
stop pretending that if we just keep trying, and defend workers, 
that things will change. That’s actually becoming a barrier to 
change. I say that with real respect for the fact that while 
you’re doing this of course all kinds of struggles are going to 
take place, and of course we should support them. But we should 
also be pointing to their limits.

More information about the Marxism mailing list