I believe these two are incompatible with each other as to the direction and recipient of the effect (fear and anger).
Fear works against the employees. Anger --as I can assume from how you put it-- works against the company. So I can't see how you can select between the two ... — Alkis Piskas

"working against the company" is a bit of a stretch, I'd say. "the company" is primarily comprised of employees, after all. But the union is for the employees, so it doesn't make sense to say "against the company" from that standpoint. (against management, now...)

Anger works against fear that management uses in its negotiations. Once you're at the point of a strike that's pretty much the emotional spark which will drive a person to select one side or the other -- or the professionals will stand back and wish people could just get along without acknowledging that there are simply differences in desire due to social position.

For a lot of professionals or independent contractors they have a hard time understanding this stuff because they're simply treated differently than workers who are viewed as replaceable or as not really worth being paid enough to live or just enough to live. They've had roughly fair dealings with employers and opportunities they can move onto if something goes south at their current place of employment. The social position of the workers just isn't something that clicks for a lot of people until they have felt it.

The other thing that's missing from the scenario is the build-up to the strike. By the time you get to a strike you've already exhausted pretty much every other option. What a union really does is negotiate -- striking is just a tactic in that process of negotiation, and it's basically the last resort.

But most negotiations are not conducted on such strong lines that warrant a strike. But by the time you get to a strike... I mean, avoid it at all costs, but my answer remains the same because I prefer to have power in a negotiation rather than not.

@javi2541997 Here's some Spanish history on unions and how you got an 8 hour workday.

In February 1919 the Catalan Regional Conference (part of the CNT, an anarcho-syndicalist union) organized a strike at the Barcelona offices of a Barcelona electrical company, because they fired people for attempting to form a union.

When they didn't listen the CNT escalated and organized a strike at the electricity generation plant. This plunged Barcelona into darkness and stranded trams on the streets.

So the Spanish state send in the military to restore power.

So naturally this caused the strike to further escalate now including most of the city's gas, water, and electricity workers. Not to mention the solidarity strikes, outside of Barcelona, happening in Sabadell, Vilafranca and Badalona.

On March 8 the Spanish state responded by militarizing the reservists working in these fields, threatening them with being confined to barracks, if they don't break the strike.

Which of course ended in the only obvious consequence. The tram workers and carters who transported essential goods also joined the strike.

And almost none of the militarized workers broke the strike leading to the government locking 800 of them up.

These workers were than supporterd by the printers union, which refused to publish the proclamations of the Spanish state or articles that opposed the strike.

Not even the statement by the company saying that everyone who wouldn't return the work would be fired was printed.

Throughout this whole strike the CNT sought to win their demands by mobalising a lot of large amounts of workers and using tactics like sabotaging the transformers and power cables.

At this point the CNT's strike committee were in a position where they could negotiate with the ruling class and force them to increase wages, pay worker's wages for the period that they had been on strike, recognise the union, grant an eight hour day and reinstate fired workers.

This whole thing was so threatening that the prime minister declared the 8 hour day for the whole construction industry (and later expanded it to all industrie) just to calm them down.

This is a great example of how solidarity can be an extremely strong weapon, being able to shut down whole city's.

A following strike to release a number of prisoners who were not released sadly failed, through state repression using martial law, but what was achieved is still incredible. And it is also absurd how much the strike grew. Remember this conflict started with a company firing a couple of people for trying to build a union. — Lonely_traffic_light

Viva la Unión!

What a union really does is negotiate -- striking is just a tactic in that process of negotiation, and it's basically the last resort. — Moliere

Exactly! It's a huge gamble for the members: the strike pay is much less than they have been accustomed to live on, and lower-level jobs don't pay enough to accumulate savings; if the company has pension and health plans, they cease when the job does. The management, on the other hand, has huge salaries, lots of assets and a very comfortable severance package in case the company is dissolved. The workers have nothing to fall back on.
And that's one way conservative governments break unions: issue a legal back-to-work order and mandatory arbitration, or what they do in the US: declare union membership 'optional'

Research shows that states with RTW laws see higher employment but lower wages for workers (but higher executive pay). Studies also point to lower unionization rates.

... or just, like in the good old days, send in the cops.

In 2012, the Guardian had made the link with a previous South Yorkshire police operation, this one against thousands of striking miners, which took place near Rotherham on 18 June 1984 and was notoriously dubbed the Battle of Orgreave. Scenes of police violence, including horse charges and officers beating miners with truncheons, dominated television news that day. No police were charged for their actions. Instead, the incident led to the prosecution of 55 miners who were arrested at Orgreave and charged with riot.

The CNT was a key actor in the development of workers' rights in the 20th Spain. My grandparents were members, like most of the families, because back in the day only the bourgeois were able to run a company or even the country. So, I understand the context of the necessity of being part of such collectivism.

Although, CNT considers itself anarchist, it had a big participation of the Second Republic and lefties brigades against Franco, which in the same period time emerged another trade union of the regime: J.O.N.S. a syndicate of the working class but with conservative and far-right vibes.

After Franco's death, both trade unions disappeared. It is true that CNT remains "active" but it is no longer important because in 1977 were born the two main syndicates of Spain: UGT (Unión General de Trabajadores) and CC.OO (Comisiones Obreras). These two are Marxist, and they refuse to recognise other classes of trade unions, such as UFPOL (a police syndicate, that it is fascist, supposedly)

Conclusion: Despite CNT had a good start defending the rights of the Spanish middle-class, their "children" ended up fighting each other because they became in political lobbies.

End of this class of History.

"working against the company" is a bit of a stretch, I'd say. "the company" is primarily comprised of employees, after all. But the union is for the employees, so it doesn't make sense to say "against the company" from that standpoint. (against management, now...)
Anger works against fear that management uses in its negotiations — Moliere

Not quite clear to me, esp. the last statement, but it's OK.

Nice slice of history. Thanks.

Events like the CNT strike in Spain, the Russian Revolution, and various other events, fueled the 1919-1920 "Red Scare" in the United States--the vicious campaign by conservative companies and organizations as well as government agencies to suppress labor organizing and black civil rights. That wasn't the first anti-labor or anti-black suppression, of course. In the Ludlow Massacre in 1914, Colorado National Guard and anti-labor militia fired on a camp of striking miners, killing 25, including 11 children. (Rockefeller owned the mine.) In 1921 a white mob burned down Tulsa, Oklahoma's black community, killing about 300 of the residents. Tulsa wasn't the only such event.

The forces of repression correctly intuited that letting underlings get too far ahead anywhere leads to more undesirable social agitation and change-- like the advancement of labor, civil rights, progressive movements, and the abomination of higher taxes on the wealthy.

Yes, and given such history it's so annoying you get these ideological fundamentalists proclaiming the evils of collective action when it's unions and governments but when it's corporates it's all "no problem mate! Markets are super efficient!". Which is true, I guess, if you don't give a shit about your fellow man.

Not quite clear to me, esp. the last statement, but it's OK. — Alkis Piskas

Employers exploit the worker's financial insecurity to keep them from complaining about conditions and pay: they're afraid of losing their jobs. This fear is used by employers all of the time; if it's not enough, they use more direct intimidation, and sometimes police.
If the workers are angry enough and united in their anger, they overcome their fear and move against the employer in spite of the dangers.

But I imagine you still have police and fire departments, roads, bridges, harbours, traffic lights, schools, hospitals, old age pensions, media and communication network, electricity, public transit and sanitation, running water and sewer systems... those benefits. — Vera Mont

Those are public services which are covered up by taxes. I do not know why it should be related to trade unions.

[ if you want the benefits of a society, pay your dues and mind the rules.]

Which are those "benefits"? — javi2541997

[police and fire departments, roads, bridges, harbours, traffic lights, schools, hospitals, old age pensions, media and communication network, electricity, public transit and sanitation, running water and sewer systems.]

Those are public services which are covered up by taxes. — javi2541997

Yes. In a society. With dues and rules.
A club, a union, a country, a fraternity, a professional organization - they are all societies that have constitutions, laws, obligations and membership fees.

If the workers are angry enough and united in their anger, they overcome their fear and move against the employer in spite of the dangers. — Vera Mont

You make it sound like a simple phsychological game. I'm afraid there's much more to it than just that. One does not risk his job, his income and the support of his family because he gets angry.
(Except if he's a total idiot, of course.)

BTW, have you taken on Moliere's defense? :grin:

Not quite clear to me, esp. the last statement, but it's OK. — Alkis Piskas

You make it sound like a simple phsychological game. I'm afraid there's much more to it than just that. One does not risk his job, his income and the support of his family because he gets angry.
(Except if he's a total idiot, of course.) — Alkis Piskas

There are always more details, and often times they're important to a particular circumstance. I presented a simplification which was meant to highlight how emotion, rather than duty, would be the reason a person decides one way or another. The simplification fits with the scenario of a strike.

The "more" would be the lead-up to the strike, what other tactics had been tried, the sorts of demands the workers are making, how long the contract has been in place, what relationships there are between union members, union leadership, and management, what the wider circumstances are in which the conflict is taking place....

In short, the sorts of things that a historical account would take care of better than a hypothetical.

One does not risk his job, his income and the support of his family because he gets angry. — Alkis Piskas

You have evidently not seen collective rage at a long-suffered injustice. That's the stuff revolutions are made of.

OK

OK

These two are Marxist, and they refuse to recognise other classes of trade unions, such as UFPOL (a police syndicate, that it is fascist, supposedly) — javi2541997

So much for that workers solidarity!

Are these the largest trade unions and are they really Marxist?

Are these the largest trade unions and are they really Marxist? — ssu

Yes, they are the largest trade unions and represent the most workers of different areas in the country. They also act as a mediator when they have to negotiate with employers and Ministry of Labour.

On the other hand, they are recognised Marxists absolutely! But I am not the one who says so, it is written in their bylaws with subtle words.

Comisiones Obreras: CCOO claims the principles of justice, freedom, equality and solidarity. It defends the demands of working men and women; It is oriented towards the suppression of capitalism and the construction of a democratic socialist society.

UGT (Unión General de Trabajadores) UGT: The Unión General de Trabajadoras y Trabajadores is a progressive, committed, vindicating, democratic and independent organization with presence in all sectors of activity and throughout Spain. A society in which fundamental social rights have priority over economic freedoms and in which the benefits derived from digital or technological development revert to society as a whole. To reach this stage, the role of social dialogue and greater worker participation in company's decisions will be essential.

Yep, they seem to be pretty Marxist to me...

Ok, well there's a problem here. I don't think that the majority of Spaniards and of the Spanish workforce are Marxists.

Percentage of workers that are trade union members (2018):

Iceland: 90,4%
Sweden: 66,1%
Finland: 64,6 %
Spain: 13,9%

Membership in Spain is below OECD average (16,1%)

especially Americans are hung-up on the mob influence on the unions in the past. — Benkei

I think there's been a concerted effort to undermine unions.

There's a lot of images of unions, like the mob (but so, so many others), which are popular because they make a splash and feed into people's preconceptions. There are even law firms dedicated to busting union drives. There's also been a long-term concerted effort to defund unions through what are called "right to work" laws such that people who benefit from a given contract can opt in or out of whether they'll pay union dues, which -- due to human nature -- most people prefer free things to not-free things and it takes about one generation before a union is unable to hire enough staffers to appropriately service the contract and it becomes something of a limping organization that, with appropriate activism, can be strong -- but everyone at this point is used to the more bureaucratic form of labor unions and they really do just want a fee-for-service model (without paying for the fee-for-service model).

And with fewer numbers comes less influence within the political realm, which in turn means that politicians are more likely to ignore the demands of labor even while unions contribute to the democratic political party. It's a feedback loop.

Which is why I say the capitalists have become better at divide and conquer -- that's basically what's happened over the course of the last half of the 20th century as a concerted political effort to undermine the democratic base in favor of capital.

Yep, they seem to be pretty Marxist to me... — javi2541997

Any social democrat, eg. centrist and anything to the left of that has similar ideas. It's not really marxist.

Any social democrat, eg. centrist and anything to the left of that has similar ideas. It's not really marxist. — Benkei

I would think so too, to be marxist would be way off, but they surely are ideologically on the left. I think the bitter civil war and the Franco's regime still has made the divide in Spain a painful issue. Unlike Finland, Spain didn't have it's "Winter War" that would have united the people to fight a common enemy and thus create social cohesion between the left and the right. Hence I wouldn't underestimate here the impact of Spanish history.

Some large unions in Finland are indeed close to the Social Democrats, but for example the AKAVA (Confederation of Unions for Professional and Managerial Staff in Finland) where for example teachers, professors, and the military officers that I gave as an example aren't leftist.

I think that if the trade unions are apolitical would be better as then their members understand that the union is simply for there for their salaries and working conditions (a thing tha Marx himself feared).

I think the bitter civil war and the Franco's regime still has made the divide in Spain a painful issue. Unlike Finland, Spain didn't have it's "Winter War" that would have united the people to fight a common enemy and thus create social cohesion between the left and the right — ssu

I agree :up:

We are so divided that it is impossible for us to agree on the lyrics of the national anthem. But the division goes further in all possible areas. I am not an expert in the history of my country, but I bet that if we had never developed as well as the rest of EU countries it is for the next reasons:

1. Catholic culture instead of protestant. Having wannabe Vatican lovers have always been a pain in the ass.

2. The Bourbon dynasty won over Habsburg in the succession war. Some of us believe that our culture would be totally different if our kingdom had centre-European roots.

3. Not allowing Catalonia and Basque country decide their own destiny. Believe it or not, (probably) the polls would result on NO to independence. But the block from the state to celebrate a referendum only leads us to regional conflicts and having citizens who hate Spain because their father did so, and grandparents, and so on...

I think that if the trade unions are apolitical would be better as then their members understand that the union is simply for there for their salaries and working conditions — ssu

I agree too, and I wish trade unions simply act in such a way.

I think that if the trade unions are apolitical would be better as then their members understand that the union is simply for there for their salaries and working conditions — ssu

They can't do that in North America. The moneyed interests have political power through campaign financing and lobbying. That's why they're able to control governments and defeat trade unions - as well as working people and poor people; that's why they are able to take more and more and more.

Oxfam report : Poverty has increased for the first time in 25 years. At the same time, these multiple crises all have winners. The very richest have become dramatically richer and corporate profits have hit record highs, driving an explosion of inequality.....
he richest 1 percent grabbed nearly two-thirds of all new wealth worth $42 trillion created since 2020, almost twice as much money as the bottom 99 percent of the world’s population,

Should working people not have political representation to defend themselves?

We are so divided that it is impossible for us to agree on the lyrics of the national anthem. But the division goes further in all possible areas. — javi2541997

Not to be Spain basher here, we must also remember that Spain is the example of how a fascist state then can transform itself to a democracy. Hence if Spain (and Portugal) could transform themselves, why couldn't Russia? Spain was an empire too! Spain had to endure many wars and humiliations in losing it's empire and becoming the Spain we know now.

1. Catholic culture instead of protestant. Having wannabe Vatican lovers have always been a pain in the ass. — javi2541997

I always loved Max Weber, his "Protestant ethic" argument is important.

2. The Bourbon dynasty won over Habsburg in the succession war. Some of us believe that our culture would be totally different if our kingdom had centre-European roots. — javi2541997

Interesting, a bit off the topic, but I would love to hear just why some think so.

I count that the House of Bourbon has been deposed three times from the Spanish throne in history. Yet wasn't this "Whack-a-mole" family, that has every time bounced back, actually important in the transformation after Franco's death?

They can't do that in North America. The moneyed interests have political power through campaign financing and lobbying. — Vera Mont

Anybody who doesn't believe this should see for example the movie American Factory.

That's why they're able to control governments and defeat trade unions - as well as working people and poor people; that's why they are able to take more and more and more. — Vera Mont

The first thing when talking about trade unions in the US, people usually think about Jimmy Hoffa and the mobsters. Not encouraging, actually. And people believe the mantra: "If the job sucks, then just get a new job!".

"If the job sucks, then just get a new job!". — ssu

...which sucks in all the same ways, since the owners are sleeping together - with the senator at the foot of their bed.

If you think all collectivism is socialism, then you get what you deserve.

If you think all collectivism is socialism, then you get what you deserve. — ssu

What? Why would I think that?

that has every time bounced back, actually important in the transformation after Franco's death? — ssu

First of all, the monarchy always bounces back because Spain is not mature enough to be a Republic. All republicans dream that Spain would be like France and Germany if we get rid of the king. Well, this has zero basis and our left (where republicans are allocated the most) tend to copy the behaviour of socialist Latin American countries rather than Western Europeans. I agree, in short, that, thanks to our monarchy, there won't be a Coup de Etat because the military structure is loyal to him.

Interesting, a bit off the topic, but I would love to hear just why some think so. — ssu

The Habsburg family represents the Golden era of Spain worldwide. Unification of the country, moors are kicked off from the peninsula, empire, resources from colonies, literature and art flowing around and a big presence in both European and Vatican power relationships. A pure nostalgic would feel nostalgic of this royal family. Since Charles II (the witched) dead without descents, the fall of Spain started on. His successors inherited an empire that remained largely intact, but Philip of Anjou had little sense of Spanish interests and needs. When a conflict came up between the interests of Spain and France, he usually favored France. Ferdinand VII was the worst of them: Spain lost nearly all of its American possessions. Incompetent, despotic, and short-sighted.

But again, Spain is not ready to be responsible for a republican state.

What? Why would I think that? — Vera Mont

Unlikely you don't think that way, but those that think that changing your job is the cure if your salary / working conditions suck and think it's all about the individual, do usually think so.