Preface - J.H.

This little pamphlet concerns itself with the life of the working class in the process of production. Its purpose is to understand what the workers are thinking and doing while actually at work on the bench or on the line.

Romano, himself a factory worker, has contributed greatly to such an understanding by his description, based upon years of study and observation, of the life of workers in modern mass production. The profundity of Romano's contribution lies not in making any new discovery but rather in seeing the obvious-the constant and daily raging of the workers against the degrading and oppressive conditions of their life in the factory; and at the same time, their creative and elemental drive to reconstruct society on a new and higher level. Many have seen the manifestations of revolt in the workers' actions but have failed to analyze them and draw the conclusions. On the basis of Romano' s report, Ria Stone is able to probe the problems of modern society and to see in the struggle of the men in production not only the struggle against the cancerous and destructive weight upon them of capitalist production, but also the basis for the emancipation of all humanity.

The ideas and experiences related in this pamphlet correspond closely to my observations as a worker, as a trade unionist, and as a union committee-man in Detroit for many years.

The two most fundamental questions of importance to workers are the amount of production and the regularity of employment. Few things will arouse workers to strike action like speed-up. A strike against a speed-up invariably draws the enthusiastic support of non-production workers.

Most of the spontaneous sit-downs in the early days of the union were against the speed-up and for the right of the men to determine the speed of the line. It is important to note that not the wage demands were primary to the auto and rubber workers in the formation of their unions but rather the right to determine the conditions of their employment through instruments of their own. It is further important to note that the standard of living of the workers has either improved very little or actually deteriorated since the rise of the CIO. Yet the burning problems in the shops today are centered not around wages so much as around the bitter hostility of the workers to their role in production.

In the process of developing the means of production, the capitalist mode of production also developed the force that would one day successfully challenge it. One chief characteristic that runs like a red thread through the whole history of capitalism is the constant series of revolts and rebellions against the mode of production itself. These revolts and rebellions were not serious challenges to American capitalism so long as they were not able to find expression outside the factory, due to peculiar historical factors. The explosion of the CIO in the mid-thirties was the first decisive social organization of this historic tendency of revolts and rebellions against life in the factory. Until the coming of the CIO, the American capitalist class held undisputed sway, politically, socially and economically.

The workers in building their unions thought that they were creating instruments of organizing and controlling production in their interest. The capitalists, aware of this, insisted that the unions recognize the capitalist mode of production. This is the basic conflict. It is this conflict that the labor leadership is unable to resolve. This is the dilemma that destroys innumerable leaders who have risen out of the working class. This conflict arises constantly in many different forms. It plagues the union leader on the local level constantly.

Production schedules are rarely constant. The workers are very hostile whenever standards are revised upwards and severely castigate the union if it doesn't have a say in this matter. I have heard hundreds of workers complain: "If the union doesn't have something to say about how much we produce, what's the use of having a union?"

Whenever jobs are time-studied, the men are always dismayed when they learn that the union doesn't have the right to decide with the company the standards of production. When the company raises the number of units to be produced on a given line, the demand the workers immediately make of the committee-man is:

"What is the union going to do about this? Does the company have the right to change production like this?" Whenever changes in production methods are made and they result in the use of fewer workers, the first thing the men want to know is: "Why don't we benefit from this as well as the company?"

The men expect the committee-man to perform his function of defending their interests on the job. On the basis of the contract, this is sometimes extremely difficult. Unless the committee-man is very cautious, he may end up by helping the company to maintain order, efficiency and uninterrupted production at the expense of the men.

For example, a production standard is established. The man assigned to the job refuses to perform according to standards. He is sent to the Labor Relations office where he is disciplined, docked for time off the job and ordered to produce as required. The committee-man who is there to represent the man can only chime in and tell the worker that on the basis of the contract, he must produce according to production standards or face discharge.

Another example: Production is set for a whole line of, say, 200 men. The men protest the production that is set and are ready to strike. Either the company or the men call the committee-man. He tells the men that on the whole the production set is correct; that the company has the right to set the production; that it is illegal to strike; and that the men should accept the standard. He tells them, finally, that in individual cases where the standard might be excessive, corrections will be made. Meanwhile, production must continue without interruption.

The company establishes a series of rules and regulations to enforce discipline, order and to maintain uninterrupted production. These the union must accept or at least accept the company's right to discipline the men. So if a man or some men are violating some rule, say, loitering, smoking, showing "disrespect', to supervision, or refusing to do some disagreeable task, the foreman, in order to appear to be a good guy, calls in the committee-man to caution the workers to respect whatever rule is being violated. The committee-man in one form or another must comply.

The higher levels of the leadership try to solve this dilemma by fighting for concessions outside the process of production. They give the impression of social workers in and out of the plant. The workers in the shop are aware of this. Here is an illustration of how they react. One day a worker was protesting a speed-up and said to me: "What are you guys going to do about it? I know, nothing as usual. What good is the union? Now don't tell me about the local's grocery store or about us being able to get women's clothes cheaper. Do something about the speed-up." The unions have devised elaborate systems of seniority to guarantee certain rights in regularity of employment, overtime, layoffs, recall and job rights. Yet in large plants, as for example the one in which I work, only a very small fraction of the workers attend union meetings. Whenever I have approached workers and asked why they didn't attend union meetings, they invariably answered: "They never talk about our conditions in the shop." As a matter of fact, workers prefer departmental meetings where they can bring up and discuss problems that pressingly affect them on the job.

The attitude of the workers in the shop to the union varies. The majority of the workers support the union and would defend it. A large section of the workers, although in favor of the union, are hostile to the union bureaucracy. On the one hand, they are aware of the powerful social role played by men like Lewis, Murray and Green. On the other, they see how little these men intervene in the process of production in the interests of the workers.

The apparent contradictions in the workers and the stresses pulling the committee-man in opposing directions, are precisely the contradictions and stresses of capitalist production itself. The capitalists are primarily interested in uninterrupted production. The worker wants to produce under conditions where he can decide what is to be produced and how it is to be produced, where he can do the work he likes, and most important of all, where he has the knowledge that his worth is recognized and that he is playing an important and necessary role. Under present conditions, the most powerful and at the same time the most frustrating tendency of the workers is to produce and to cooperate for production as little as possible. The workers realize that a certain minimum of production on their part is necessary in their own interest. They also realize that they must not produce above the minimum. They therefore agree among themselves to set such production quotas as will subject them to as little exploitation as possible. Anyone who violates these quotas is bitterly resented.

These contradictions demonstrate the necessity of basing the working class struggle and the reconstruction of society on the fundamental opposition of the workers to the capitalist process of production. It is not for more to eat nor for the right to vote for one bourgeois politician against another, but rather to tear himself loose from the oppressive conditions of capitalist production that the worker is willing to wage battle. This incessant revolutionary struggle will be unabated as long as capitalism lasts. So long as the problems of the workers remain, the problems of society remain. The problems of society can be understood only by understanding the basis of society-the working class. They can be solved only by the working class organization of the productive forces on a socialist basis.

J. H.