By Robert L. Hill,

URW Organizational Director, United Rubber Worker

(November 1972)

On Nov. 9 AFL-CIO Organizational Director William Kircher was in Akron to address the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. As I listened to him speak to this group of professionals on the assets of banding together for the sake of collective bargaining, I became more and more aware of the benefits of unionism to all workers, no matter what their position or profession.

Kircher did not make a sales pitch for the engineers to join the AFL-CIO All he did was lay the facts of collective bargaining under their noses. And, as he confessed to the group, he knew first-hand that management oriented professionals sometimes rebel at the first hint of organizing, unionism and collective bargaining, so there could be no reaction by the engineers that would surprise him.

"My files are full of quotes from your various magazines and management-dominated groups who are more and more saying that "unionism is all right but only as a last resort and that time hasn't come yet'," said Kircher.

But such an attitude, continued the AFL-CIO representative, is stupid and matched only by the narrow-mindedness of some unionists who feel that the presence of professionals in unions would prostitute unionism.

"It seems to me that the essential point is whether or not industrial engineers, in this case, have common problems whose solutions are susceptible to the collective bargaining machinery," Kircher said.

"And, from the number of professional organizations, societies, or whatever they're being called these days that exist in your field, it appears that collective action and security is advantageous to chemical engineers."

A major asset of the collective bargaining system--in every situation--is its flexibility, according to Kircher.

"The very best usages of the methods and procedures of collective bargaining have not yet been explored in your profession," Kircher told the engineers. "It is certainly worth investigation, I am sure."

Whether the chemical engineers choose the AFL-CIO, a professional society, or the status quo, is not Kircher's concern. If a group of workers--professionals or otherwise--have common work situations and goals, collective bargaining is a logical solution.

Naturally, a union of chemical engineers would not be run the same way that the United Rubber Workers is run. But the pulp and paper workers operate in a different manner than us, so such reasoning for refusing to consider collective bargaining is invalid. Unions have individual problems that must be dealt with as such.

If there is collective need, collective bargaining could very well be the answer, for chemical engineers, rubber workers, everyone.