Democracy Goes Amok at Douglas

A bitter internal battle in a Long Beach local union is a dramatic example of a problem facing all union members: where to draw the line between healthy democratic debate and destructive internecine warfare fueled by struggles for leadership.

Dissidents in the United Auto Workers Local 149 at Douglas Aircraft Co. haven’t learned where to draw that line. They have been furiously denouncing the union’s top national officers and many local ones in a fight over a new contract with the company. The dissidents are being condemned, in turn, as lying troublemakers.

Absorbed in their own intense battles, dissidents in the UAW and other unions pay relatively little attention to labor’s powerful external enemies: profit-hungry corporate executives, their conservative political allies and union-busting management consultants.

Last week, dissidents at Douglas won what seems to be a Pyrrhic victory. For the second time they persuaded a majority of the 20,000 local members to reject a contract proposal that was negotiated and approved unanimously by the local’s bargaining committee and by the international union.

The proposed pact was strongly backed by Bruce Lee, who is the UAW’s Western regional director and the target of a harsh political attack by the dissidents, who complain that he is much too cooperative with management.

The local’s president, Richard Rios, is a political opponent of Lee who seemed confused at times. He and all other members of the negotiating committee agreed in writing that they would recommend acceptance of the contract. But then, perhaps for political reasons, Rios reversed himself and vigorously opposed the contract.

It wasn’t hard to get the negative vote. The members were told that they had nothing to lose by rejecting the contract because the union would not strike and would simply go back to the company and ask for a better deal.

Now, however, the contract that expired last month is in limbo and no one seems to know what to do next, because the financially troubled company says it will not improve its offer and the feuding unionists agree that they will not strike.

Although the fight at Douglas is limited to a few thousand workers at one company, more is at stake than simply another labor contract.

The UAW dissidents are also opposed to close labor-management cooperation and a Japanese-style system of teams in which workers are given decision-making roles in the company.

The system was started at Douglas and encouraged by the top national UAW leaders, but it is floundering largely because of inept company management that doesn’t know how or perhaps doesn’t really want to share power with workers.

But it is also floundering because of opposition from the dissidents. If they win, they will strengthen a national UAW splinter group called New Directions that opposes labor-management cooperation, which, when done properly, can do wonders for workers and employers. Unfortunately, there is no neat answer to the question that faces not just unions but all democratic institutions: what to do when democracy disintegrates into chaos.

In organized labor’s salad days, unions were large enough and had powerful enough political allies that they could thrive despite frequent internal battles over jurisdiction or ideology.

But unions today are less able to withstand the weakening effects of such infighting. They represent only 12% of U.S. non-government workers, compared to more than 40% a few decades ago.

Dissension in any democratic organization is usually healthy, although sometimes unrestrained opposition is necessary to eliminate entrenched, corrupt leaders.

Dedicated unionists, like those on both sides of the dispute in the UAW, must take seriously the critical need to unite their forces today. They cannot afford to continue bashing each other while their real foes look on with delight.