The independence of unions has been debated throughout the history of the labour movement.  The term ‘independent union’ usually evokes expectations of innovation that challenge the limitations of the traditional labour movement, and even of the broader social movement. The exact nature of the independence may depend on the contemporary context, but that independence is supposed to generate new possibilities for genuine representation and social transformation.

Independence and the Interests of Workers

Depending on the political context, a union could establish its independence from a variety of limiting boundaries and affiliations, such as from the national government or the state, political parties, international political and ideological structures or specific crafts, and employers. An independent union could also be independent of biases that limit the broader movement potential of traditional unions. Their openness makes them better collaborators with non-union organisations such as community organisations, NGOs and new social movements such as identity-based organisations (for example, race, caste, gender, sexual orientation), environmental organisations, migrant rights and anti-racist organisations. 

Independent unions have historically fought to genuinely and primarily represent the unified interests of workers without deference to divisive affiliations. At the same time, these promise openness to a multi-dimensional understanding of labour itself because no worker is a uni-dimensional labourer. Independent unions may take responsibility for social issues that go beyond the conventional bread-and-butter labour issues. ‘Social movement unionism’ is a recent term that describes a commitment to internal democratic practices as well as to a broader democratic and socialist transformation by working with non-class-based social movements.

As far back as in 1866 in the U.S., amidst the mass killings of Blacks and racist and sexist divisions among trade unions, William H. Sylvis, one of the founders of the American labour movement, spoke about unifying all people in the fight against the growing power of capital.  He wrote, “The line of demarcation is between the robbers and the robbed, no matter whether the wronged be the friendless widow, the skilled white mechanic or the ignorant black. Capital is no respecter of persons and it is in the very nature of things a sheer impossibility to degrade one class of labor without degrading all.” (Labor’s Untold Story). At that time, Sylvis’s arguments went against the regressive tendency of a majority in the union movement – but history was to prove him right.

Similarly in 1905, Big Bill Haywood, Eugene Debs and others founded the Industrial Workers of the World (the ‘Wobblies’), going against the regressive grain of the then craft-based American Federation of Labor (AFL). They called for the unity of all working people regardless of sex, race, craft and skill.  They believed in militancy, industrial unions and independence from any one political party and also from the AFL.

Such union leaders believed that it is against the interest of workers to build an exclusive, undemocratic and divisive labour movement.

Independence and Control

Today, the AFL-CIO, radically different from its original formation as the AFL, itself faces attacks on its survival from a rabid anti-union state. In the U.S., the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) — a government appointed body — oversees the recognition of unions.  Workers sign cards, and if a minimum 30 per cent sign them, the signed cards are submitted to the NLRB. Under current U.S. law, even if a majority of employees sign cards, the employer need not recognise the union as its employees’ collective bargaining representative; instead, employers may require a secret-ballot vote overseen by the NLRB. Usually the election period is used by the employer to carry on a full-fledged anti-union campaign through intimidation, coercive meetings and other means. The official ‘election’ procedures have made a joke of democracy.  Under the NLRB election process, management has full access to employees, while union supporters have almost none. Unions in the U.S. are fighting for the recognition of unions, against the de-certification of recognised unions and unfair labour practices that threaten the very existence of the labour struggle. They assert their independence from the state that is bent on destroying labour organizations that do not rubber stamp the state’s policies and blindly turn out voters.

In Mexico, independent unionism has been the ray of hope for workers in the twentieth century. It is well known that a majority of Mexican unions are state-run and closely affiliated to political parties. These unions operate with little democracy and, in fact, control their so-called members through the use of state-sanctioned force. Dan La Botz in Mask of Democracy writes, “The hierarchical state-party-union system of control means that the official labor unions have as one of their principal tasks the defense and promotion of party and government policy, including economic policy.” Although workers are supposed to voluntarily take up party membership, this seldom occurs in a political climate where authoritarianism and party-union relations remain entrenched. Mexico also has a significant number of ‘company unions’ dominated by the employers themselves.  Needless to say, they too are unable to represent workers’ interests.

Among independent unions, the most important is the Frente Autentico del Trabajo (FAT, in which the ‘a’ is pronounced ‘aah’), or the Authentic Labor Front. Independent unions in Mexico face significant state-sponsored barriers. For example, they regularly face the denial of legal recognition (El Registro).  According to Graciela Bensusan, “Registration was converted into one of the most important forms of state control over labor organisation because it was an essential document in order for the unions to acquire legal standing and, thus, to be able to exercise their collective rights.” In practice, this amounted to state and party control, and the denial of recognition to independent unions.

Mexican labor law recognises the majority union for the contract agreement.  In a situation in which an independent union challenges the official union in a workplace, an election by labor authorities is required to determine the majority union. Such elections are regularly witness to the intimidation of workers, supervision by employers, lack of secret ballots, and violence.  Contracts produced by so-called majority official unions are essentially ‘protection contracts’ signed without workers being aware of them, and acting as a placeholder to block other unions.

The FAT’s survival and growth, in alliance with other social movements in Mexico, is a testament to its grit and commitment to building a genuine labour movement.

The Struggle for Independence in India

Before independence, as we know, India used to have only one central trade union federation – the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) — founded in 1928 through rank-and-file struggle.  However, in the two decades after independence, the trade union movement began to take shape in consonance with political parties and the split in parties. The Indian Trade Union Congress (INTUC), Centre for Indian Trade Unions (CITU), Hind Mazdoor Sangh (HMS) and Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) emerged. The independence of unions from political processes suffered greatly, and the militancy of the trade union movement was blunted. 

In the 1980s and 1990s, this began to change. Independent unions rose at the local workplace level in the private sector, which did not affiliate themselves with the central federations.  Gradually these grew to 30 per cent of the organised workforce. At the same time, neo-liberal economic reforms were introduced in 1991 under the pressures of global competition and international financial institutions. The Indian government began to withdraw support for labour, and began to aggressively open up the Indian economy according to the dictates of global capital.

With the government’s gradual withdrawal from the interests of labour, traditional trade unions that had relied on political support began to face new crises. Privatisation, contract labour, anti-unionism, growth of multinationals and overall changes in employment structure and management practices threw open a whole set of new problems for the Indian workers and their unions.

The unorganised sector grew. In the organised sector, regular employment began to be increasingly replaced by contract labor. These unorganised workers are often the most vulnerable people in society – women, Dalits, migrants and so on. Multinationals and large Indian business houses, not governments, began to control industries. The scope of the problem was no longer local, and not even always national, but international.

Features of Independence

Independent unionism in the contexts described above in the U.S., India and Mexico can been seen to have some common themes: worker unity and interest as primary focus; internal democracy; connection between labour and social issues of race, caste and gender; maintaining a secular view of institutions and structures that would prevent workers’ interests from becoming secondary; industrial focus; and attention to innovative organising to respond to changing economies.

Unions may also assert their independence at the local levels for democracy, workers’ interests, genuine representation and so on.  For example, in the U.S., Teamsters for Democratic Union (TDU) is often confused with the official Teamsters’ union, but they could not be more different.  TDU has helped Teamsters’ locals in many places to wage fights for union democracy in the face of the official union’s violent hostility. In India, too, there are examples of unions originally belonging to central federations, becoming independent unions when they found that union democracy, worker involvement in negotiations and workers’ interests were being compromised.

Union Recognition and Registration

Recognition of a union, anywhere in the world, is at the core of its existence and power. The registration and verification processes of unions – whatever the term may be in different countries to denote the granting of recognition – are critical to the existence and the survival of unions. These processes, although necessary, can become levers of control over labour to be used by the state, especially in situations where labour chooses to remain independent of the state and political parties.

In the case of Mexico, it is clear that registration of a union and the recognition of the majority union are processes that are used by the state to keep independent unions out and ‘official’ unions in.  In the case of the U.S., the recognition of a union and its right to a contract are the levers through which the state controls the formation and effectiveness of unions. 

Independence and Political Struggles

In Brazil and South Africa, independent unionism played a key role in building a broad social movement which then went on to successfully define the national struggle for liberation from military dictatorship and the apartheid regime, respectively. The Central Única dos Trabalhadores (CUT-Brasil) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) of South Africa now walk a fine line to maintain their independence because the political parties of liberation, which they are aligned with, are now actually in power. 

The CUT-Brasil is the main federation of unions in Brazil. The CUT was formed in 1984 and was one of the key organisations to challenge the two-decade-long military dictatorship. The CUT is close to the Workers’ Party (PT), which is now part of the ruling coalition government in Brazil and from which comes the President of Brazil, popularly known as Lula. A portion of the CUT has now broken off to define itself more independently of the PT.

The COSATU was launched in 1985 in South Africa. From its inception, the federation is based on principles such as non-racialism, worker control, industrial unionism and political participation. COSATU is part of an alliance with the African National Congress and the South Africa Communist Party. COSATU’s role in the alliance has been the subject of debate, since it has been critical of some of the ANC government’s policies. While some affiliates want more independence from the ruling political party, others believe that being part of the alliance gives COSATU a political influence that is helpful. COSATU states, “Our socio-economic policy is based on the need to eliminate economic inequities and poverty in society and in the workplace.” This is not always consistent with the ruling party’s macro-economic policies.

Seeking Independence

We see that independence is a shifting state, depending on the political context of the union movement and can mean different things in different countries.  It is also a continually negotiated state – sometimes fighting for its survival and recognition, sometimes fighting for the very independence that it is committed to. The common thread through all efforts to assert independence is that it continues to raise hopes for militancy, democracy, social as well as economic transformation, and visionary movement building.