Of graduate school unions and an anarchist utopia

Probably, one of the most remarkable oddities in the scene of progressive politics in the USA is that progressivism almost always appears to accompany a mistrust of any and all forms of authority. Even in organisations that are not intended to represent the personal politics of their members or to function(or attempt to function) as a governing body over their members, this sentiment appears to prevail in a ruthless drive toward “grassroots democracy” that is neither effective nor democratic and often inflicts a heavy cost upon the organisation. A trade union is one such example; it is specifically the economic interests of its members that the trade union seeks to represent, and while it may choose to engage in other activvities, collective bargaining and labour-related legislative processes must be their primary focuses. A successful union must increase their membership for greater bargaining power and attempt to be on equal footing with the employer when it comes to investments into the bargaining process, even though this may result in reduced amount of resources into other needs of the union menbers.

That given, the general political inclination of many graduate student union activists worry me very deeply not because of any “crisis mentality” but because it seems to have fallen deeply into this anti-authoritarian tendency. My reservations against anarchist leanings undoubtedly is a factor in my concerns, but regardless of my personal stance on a particular political ideology, I find it undeniable that a proposed course of action toward “grassroots democracy” will drive our union into decline without any clear advantages to compensate for those losses. While I do not doubt the good-will of my colleagues who have decided to make such demands a primary focus, I find the campaign and objectives of anarchist unionists extremely problematic.

First and foremost, we must examine the possibility that “grassroots democracy” will reduce the bargaining capacity of a graduate student union. The minor increase in membership that may or may not occur in response to the popular appeal of horizontal decision-making processes is not significant enough to offset the potential dangers of allowing bargaining decisions to be made by members who are not familiar with the legal and financial details of bargaining. Contract-writing is demanding for anyone who is not familiar with the process, and it is not difficult for the administration to deliberately obscure the details by ambiguous language that is not readily accessible to an average academic worker. It is unreasonable to demand that every member learn this language simply to have a more active role in critical decision-making, and it is just as unreasonable for our union to seek major input on bargaining decisions from students who are relatively uninformed. As the administration has greater expertise in thse matters to begin with, we must not prioritise internal conflicts over effective decision-making. Instead, we must work toward enhancing our knowledge on these processes and actively seeking out expert opinion for a contract that actually represents our economic interests instead of only nominally doing so.

A “grassroots” model of organisation also does not necessarily allow greater opportunities for participation in the decision-making process, but merely favours certain people with certain personalities over others. In the small, tight-knit communities often idealised by the proponents of grassroot democracy, it becomes much easier for a small number of charismatic figures to form a cult of personality ,as such a community depends as much on personal connections as it does on a political agenda. The ability to befriend fellow members and “organise” them at a personal level becomes of primary importance, which benefits members with certain personalities and social skills over others — a tendency much less pronounced in representative democracy. Moreover, this will further disadvantage our members from smaller departments, from atypical backgrounds, and members less familiar with spoken English. For our members who are suffering from ccertain psychological conditions that interfere with socialisation and verbal communication, especially, such a mode of organisation will effectively act as a silencing measure. When we attempt to present ourselves as a union that seeks to support our more vulnerable members, we must not further estrange them from the decision-making process. After all, we must remember that small, regional, “grassroots” communities are often the ones most vulnerable to violence and opacity.

Even if we find a way to negate (or ignore) these concerns, we must also address the costs associated with any administrative changes. Becaushe it requires the establishment of new decision-making and executive bodies and processes to alter the structure of any organisation, structural changes are costly whenever they take place, regardless of the direction of the particular change. That is where the nationwide hostile climate toward trade unions becomes especially problematic. If it is likely that the current political climate will result in decreased revenues and reduced financial capacity for our union, it is clear that changes that are not directly connected to defending our rights as workers must be even more carefully evaluated. Anyone proposing such a change must first estimate the costs of new administrative structures and processes and disclose them to our members. When the costs inflicted upon the union by a longer, less centralised process that necessiates “grassroots” input for every minor decision and also for every urgent matter at hand coincides with the cost intrinsic to structural changes in an organisation, we face what is tantamount to a death sentence.

Trade unions must represent the common interests of their members. However, such representation stems not from the ability to imagine the most horizontal decision-making process ever, but to understand and address our common economic and social interests and to represent those interests in a contract. For our union to function as such, we must treat our union as, first and foremost, a union, not an apparatus through which a utopian anarchist dream will be realised.