Technological changes in printing: union response in three countries

Monthly Labor Review, July, 1985 by Michael Wallace

Recent developments in union organization in the newspaper printing industry in three countries--the United States, Great Britain, and the Federal Republic of germany--demonstrate considerable variety in the degree to which workers have been able to retain control over the immediatee labor process in the face of unprecedented technological change. Much of the variability is a function of adapting older organizational styles to new circumstances. Whereas the interests of workers in the industry formerly were well-served by a "craft unionism" model, the urgency of moving toward an "industrial unionism" model is becoming apparent.

The classic craft model of industrial organization is best exemplified by the situation in the United States and Great Britain prior to the onset of the major technological changes of the past two decades. Under this model, each of the major crafts in the industry--compositors, stereotypers, platemakers, and press operators--maintains its own union organization and apprenticeship program. I will argue that there are two intermediate phases in the transition to industrial unionism: a quasi-craft model, best exemplified by the current position of U.S. printing unions, and a quasi-industrial model, which is approximated by the situation in Great Britain today. The industrial model of union organization, historically rare in printing and similar industries, is best demonstrated by the Federal Republic of Germany throughout the entire post-World War II era.

The United States

Traditionally, one could expect to encounter as many as 10 unions at a single major U.S. newspaper. While this situation still exists at a few papers, the trend has been toward either industry-level mergers of major craft unions or decertification of one or more bargaining units in a given plant. Today there are three major unions in the industry: The Newspaper Guild, composed of reporters, editors, and a few other white-collar workers; the International Typographical Union (ITU), consisting mainly of composing room and mailroom workers; and the recently created Graphic Communications International Union (GCIU), representing pressroom and ancillary workers.

A survey of the ITU's Typographic Journal over the past 10 years reveals the reasons for the spate of mergers and for the current disarray among workers in the U.S. printing trades. New technology has radically altered traditional roles among the various function of the newspaper, eroding craft jurisdiction over many jobs and creating the need for a more united front against employers. Nowhere has this been more true than among composing room workers, as technological advances threaten to eliminate all composing room functions within the next generation. ITU leaders have called for the formation of "one big union" for the industry, but old cleavages have provided difficult to overcome.

After a merger with the Mailers Union in 1979, the ITU twice was unsuccessful in completing merger negotiations with the Guild. The second failed attempt in 1983 set the tone for a turbulent year during which the national leadership of the union as well as the rank and file became deeply divided over the future course of the union. The incumbent president sought a merger with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a noncraft union that spans many industries. Other ITU members, fearing that their union's identity would be lost in the Teamsters organization, sought a merger with the only other major craft union in the industry, the newly formed GCIU. In the regular election for the ITU executive board in 1983, the incumbent president and his plan for merger with the Teamsters were voted down. But the president, seeking to close the impending deal with the Teamsters, asked the union's canvassing board to overturn the results of the election on a technicality, which it did.

The national Labor Relations Board, however, stepped in and declared that a new election would have to be held. In a separate action, six dissatisfied ITU members were granted an injunction to block the merger vote with the Teamsters pending the outcome of the new election. In the rerun of the election, held in July 1984, the anti-Teamster challenger and many of his supporters were voted into the union leadership. The new president immediately recanted all past negotiations with the Teamsters and vowed to pursue negotiations with the GCIU. Shortly thereafter, there were were claims that the Teamsters were "raiding" ITU locals. In December 1984, in a decertification election in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Teamsters gained representational rights from the ITU in the composing room and mailroom. The ITU's leadership cautioned members that this was part of a national campaign by the Teamsters to gain a toehold in the printing industry at the expense of their own organization.

Propsects for the transition to an industrial union in the U.S. newspaper industry are not good. A large segment of the labor force remains unorganized. Longstanding rivalries among composing room workers and pressroom workers do not bode well for the merger negotiations between the ITU and the GCIU. Differences among journalists and composing room workers over jurisdiction of cold-type technology remain a point of friction between the Guild and the ITU. The current configuration of union organization in this country can best be labeled a quasi-craft model: Instead of many craft unions in the industry, there are now only three, but the contentiousness inherent in the classic craft system is still evident. Each of the three unions continues to be organized along occupational lines and (in the case of the ITU and GCIU) there are continuing sources of internal friction based on earlier organizational structures (as between mailroom workers and composing room workers in the ITU).