Striking for Power
One of the key factors determining whether or not strikes occur is simple: can they be sustained?
There are a lot of factors that go into sustaining strikes: a clear understanding of strike goals, morale, and community support, among others. But the biggest factor is simple: money. Without a ready reserve of funds to pay strikers, it’s difficult for workers to even make the decision to strike.
The higher rate of strike action in K-12 schools, in spite of the right to strike being relatively uncommon, is illustrative. Typically, K-12 educators will make up their pay and will not be out money as a result of striking. State laws usually require a certain number of instructional days, and days lost to strike action will often result in days added at the end of the year. In other words, no pay (or minimal pay) is typically lost: something almost singularly unique in organized labor.
That’s not the case for anyone else; at best, unions may negotiate signing bonuses into agreements that offset the wages lost during a strike. But those are far from guaranteed. That means the ability to sustain a strike is directly related to the ability to sustain the workers and their families. The price tag of doing so can be huge, especially in large strikes, and especially if employers shut down healthcare contributions, forcing unions to pick up the bill.
So if we assume that the decision to strike is connected to the ability to sustain a strike, and we assume that many unions lack that ability, building strike reserves is key to increased labor militancy. But what kind of price tag are we even talking about?
Strikes Need $$
Typically, access to strike funds requires active participation in picketing. If you don’t picket, you don’t get strike payments. The UAW requirements are as follows:
In good standing (current on dues and initiation fees, if any) on the day before the strike starts
On active pay roll at start of strike: members laid off, on workers compensation or receiving sick and accident benefits are not eligible
Member must participate in the strike: picket assignments, strike committee, etc.
These are reasonable requirements, though leaning on requirements too heavily to incentivize picketing participation can become a problem. Workers should understand the importance of picketing, rather than participating solely for strike payments.
What about rates of pay? The UAW have a standard weekly strike rate of $250 — about 1/6th the gross weekly pay of a top rate GM assembly worker working 40 hours a week, or a little under 1/3rd of the gross average weekly rate of a GM assembly worker.
If we take that as a ballpark measure of strike pay, the problems are immediately apparent. GM workers are admittedly better compensated than the majority of production workers, but even if we assume $15 an hour, $250 a week is less than half of the weekly gross for a worker working 40 hours. It’s unsustainable, especially for lower waged workers that may not have savings to draw on.
What would a higher rate look like? Let’s say a union created a tiered structure based on median pay rates. A sample structure could work as follows:
Weeks 1-3: 2/3rds entry-level bargaining unit classification pay.
Weeks 4-6: 2/3rds median bargaining unit classification pay.
Weeks 6+: 2/3rds median bargaining unit classification pay, and access to supplemental hardship funds.
What does that look like in real numbers? Let’s assume a bargaining unit of 600, with 350 in Classification “A” and 250 in Classification “B.”
The result: a nine week strike will have a base price tag of $4.6 million dollars, even without potential healthcare payments. Based on the average monthly PPO premium nationwide, assuming healthcare payments could add over $300,000 per month.
This is a hefty price tag, and well beyond the ability of most unions to sustain. Understanding that, how do we try to build the financial power to strike?
One Big Strike Fund
One of the solutions proposed by Hamilton Nolan: one big strike fund.
On the face of it, it’s a great idea. In reality, it’s a non-starter. There are a number of immediate issues:
Who pays in? How do we determine what they pay in? Is that an additional assessment on per cap payments? What determines whether a strike is “eligible” for using the fund? What happens if there’s more draw than resources available? Will there be a limit?
Who has a say in administration? Is voting weight scaled by membership/contribution? What will stop big unions from ruling the fund? What will stop smaller unions engaging in prolonged strike actions from draining the fund?
Will unions be expected to sign over their strike funds? What incentive do they have to do so? If they maintain independent funds, what incentive do they have to participate?
How will payments be determined? Will the fund assume healthcare costs as needed?
Will members/unions be willing to give the Federation and other unions influence over their strike actions by tying their strike funds to one centralized fund?
Aside from logistical problems, one centralized strike fund presupposes a level of solidarity that simply doesn’t exist in organized labor, for all our protestations to the contrary. The basic premise isn’t wrong — pooling resources is helpful. Doing so on a localized level or through voluntary multi-local trusts is worth exploring. But one national strike fund isn’t a viable solution.
But the thought exercise does gesture at some better solutions, and ones that are more practically attainable — even if they require building internal buy-in (a difficult task for even the most moderate change in direction).
Assessments. Union locals and internationals need to propose and vote on dues assessments to build up strike funds. The United Auto Workers have a strong system for ensuring permanent funding for a nearly billion dollar strike fund (limitations identified above notwithstanding).
Fundraising. Labor loves a good golf tournament to fundraise for Committees on Political Education (COPE). Strike funds should be of equal, or even greater, importance.
Matching funds. Internationals (or even the AFL-CIO) can incentivize the growth of strike funds by providing matching funds or grants for locals that create permanent strike funds, implement assessments, etc.
Internal rapid response fundraising. Ensuring that affiliates are aware of strikes immediately and are provided with information to donate to strike funds can provide a much-needed source of revenue. Many of the primary donors to the UMWA strike in Alabama are other UMWA locals. More generally, the AFL-CIO at various levels can ensure that strike fundraisers are made quickly available to affiliates, and promoted to allied organizations and the general public.
Solidarity payment agreements. State Federations, Area Labor Federations, and Central Labor Councils can build programs committing participants to a minimum donation level in the event that another participant strikes. A solidarity payment scheme pools money like a centralized fund, but avoids the issues of administration and control of the fund.
Expanding unemployment compensation. In most states, striking workers can’t draw on unemployment — they can only file in the case of employer-driven lockouts. A few states, such as New York, have amended this to provide access to striking workers. This should be a major political goal for organized labor, and will help significantly in sustaining strikes.
Strike insurance. The legalities of this approach may be difficult (or even impossible), as it would likely need to be run through benefit funds. But approaching strike payments as a form of insurance payment — members pay a “premium” into the fund, and can draw upon it in the event of a strike, much like unemployment compensation — could be a potential approach, or a supplement to more traditional approaches. Locals could opt into strike insurance trusts through remitting premiums on behalf of membership, either in lump payments or as part of a dues surcharge.
Strike loans. Offering zero interest loans to members as a supplement to strike pay is a financially neutral (other than lost interest) way to supplement other approaches, and is a method used by some unions.
All of these elements are significantly more achievable than a centralized fund, and range from the relatively simple (improving fundraising) to the more difficult (solidarity schemes, grant schemes, strike insurance, and extra assessments).
Externally facing goals, like unemployment compensation, should be a given in Democratic controlled states. Relatively few bills authorizing it have been passed; California Assembly member Lorena Gonzalez, a champion of labor issues, introduced a bill (AB 1066) in 2019, only for it to be vetoed by Governor Newsom. To date, it appears few if any states outside of New York have expanded unemployment compensation to striking workers.
The credible threat of a strike is necessary to fully exercise power within the collective bargaining process — which means we have to be ready to deliver. Building the financial capacity to deliver on that threat is a necessity.