The argument in favor of contracting out (with reference to the Boeing strike) is very similar to the argument against unionism in general. Conservative opponents of unions claim that they are simply organizations designed to privilege their own members, erecting a wall against competition from other, less fortunate workers. (See, for instance, Milton Friedman's writings on unions.) Of course, there can be truth to this criticism. Much depends on the policies adopted by unions themselves. If they are narrowly self-interested, they can have negative effects on the rest of the working class. If they adopt a "social movement approach" (more typical of countries with centralized bargaining) then the negative effects are much smaller or nonexistent. At the same time, the negative effects of unions on non-members have to be balanced against their positive effects--including positive effects on non-members. By increasing labor's role within companies, they not only increase the share of value added going to labor (which can force nonunion employers to increase wages too), they also (potentially) increase the power of workers over economic decision-making. My sense is that the same arguments apply, approximately, to unionism in an international context. Social movement unionism needs to become international labor solidarity, but an abstract concern for equality within the global working class should not stand in the way of struggles that have the potential to swing the balance of power toward labor within sectors of capitalism (or at least prevent it from swinging the other way). Peter Dorman
