IWW Organizes Sandwich Chain

[syndicat]

Press Release:

Jimmy Johns Sandwich Workers Join Union to Increase Minimum Wage Pay

Fast Food Chain Rocked by Work Stoppages in Sign of Mounting Economic Frustration among US Workers

MINNEAPOLIS- Service was anything but 'freaky fast' at Jimmy Johns today as workers walked off the kitchen floor in an unprecedented move to demand improved wages and working conditions at nine Minneapolis franchise locations. Announcing the formation of the IWW Jimmy Johns Workers Union, the workers are seeking a pay increase to above minimum wage, consistent scheduling and minimum shift lengths, regularly scheduled breaks, sick days, no-nonsense workers compensation for job-related injuries, an end to sexual harassment at work, and basic fairness on the job.
"I have been working at Jimmy Johns for over two years and they still pay me minimum wage and schedule me one-hour shifts," said Rikki Olsen, a union member at the Block E location. "I'm working my way through school and can barely make ends meet. I'd get another job, but things are just as bad across the service industry. Companies like Jimmy John's are profitable and growing, they need to provide quality jobs for the community."
The Minneapolis franchise, owned and operated by Miklin Enterprises, Inc., pays the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr, offers no benefits, and has no full-time positions outside of management. Jimmy Johns corporate website lists $264,270 as the average yearly net profit for operating a franchise. Union members estimate that Rob and Mike Mulligan, owners of Miklin, Inc. made an annual profit of at minimum $2.3 million in the last year alone. The Miklin franchise plans to open four new locations this year at an estimated cost of over $1.2 million.
Jake Foucault, a delivery driver at the Riverside store, said, " If Mike and Rob Mulligan have the money to open four new stores, then they have the money to pay us more than minimum wage. We hope Rob and Mike do the right thing and come to the negotiating table."
A negotiating committee of Jimmy Johns workers plans to meet with the Mulligans at the Block E central office of the franchise to begin discussions at 4:00pm today.
The fast food workers' move to unionize is emblematic of mounting frustration amongst US workers with the sluggish pace of recovery from the Recession. With unemployment rates hovering around 9.5%, many workers view low wage service jobs as their only option. Employment in the food service industry is expected to grow 8.4% from 2008 to 2018, higher than the 7.7% rate predicted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for all industries. Wages and working conditions in the fast food industry are widely regarded as substandard; in 2009, 25% of workers in the service industry made less than $7.55 an hour, the highest percentage of any occupational group.
The union campaign at Jimmy Johns could hold deep implications for other companies in the fast food industry, a sector known for the lowest rates of unionization- and lowest wages- in the United States. Only 1.8% of food service workers were represented by a union in 2009, far below the nation-wide figure of 12.3%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The question of unionization of the food and service industries is assuming greater focus as employment in these non-union sectors increases, while manufacturing, the traditional stronghold of unionization, slides further into decline.
The Jimmy Johns Workers Union, open to employees at the company nationwide, is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World labor union. Gaining prominence in recent years for organizing Starbucks workers, the IWW is a global union founded over a century ago for all working people.

[Lolshevik]

All right! Congratulations to the Jimmy Johns workers & the IWW as a whole on this. I've never had to put up with a one hour shift (wtf is that about?) but I've had three hour shifts, so I know what they mean.

what can onlookers do for these workers, solidarity-wise?

[genstrike]

Nice job, Minneapolis wobs!

Also, remind me to punch the next Trot who tells me that the IWW "isn't a real union"

[syndicat]

more info at the new union's website:

http://jimmyjohnsworkers.org/ (http://jimmyjohnsworkers.org/)

I talked with one of the on-the-job organizers when I was in Minneapolis in May. This is a multi-racial campaign. a significant number of the workers are African-American.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Excellent - it's things like this that can help to turn things around once people see the effectiveness of working class politics, organization, and militancy.

Companies demonize service workers as (kids who need some extra spending cash) but that's bullshit - walk into any Wal-Mart or whatnot and it's people with families and retired people and teenagers who actually do need the income.

Working service now is like being on an assembly line - and just like the AFL said that industrial workers were not possible to organize, that's what the unions say today about service workers. Also nice that the article mentioned not only the wage increase but the basic respect and human dignity demands - I think that's a big part of service-demands.

[Nachie]

This is a multi-racial campaign. a significant number of the workers are African-American.

well don't trip all over yourself in a hurry to tokenize them, now.

[La Comédie Noire]

For someone who works at a sandwich shop this is inspiring.

[fa2991]

According to my local delegate, the Jimmy Johns strike will be extending into Omaha next week. This rash of IWW activity lately is making me proud of my state for probably the first time ever. :thumbup1:

[syndicat]

well don't trip all over yourself in a hurry to tokenize them, now.

what are you talking about? is it that you prefer to ignore the fact that the working class is racially divided and needs to develop campaigns that bring people together? if so, that would be worse then "tokenizing" (whatever the fuck you mean by that). the on the job organizer i talked to seemed to think that the racial dynamics of the organizing were important, that is, ensuring that different groups were brought into the effort and so on. like me he is an advocate of the concept of "intersectionality." how do potshots like this show that RAAN is "non-sectarian" as you claim?

[syndicat]

press release after today's picket line:


Spirited Picket at Jimmy Johns Brings Block E Business to a Standstill as Management Refuses to Meet with Workers




Sandwich Workers to Announce Plans Tomorrow to Escalate Union Campaign


Press Conference: 11am September 3, Block E Jimmy Johns, Minneapolis

MINNEAPOLIS- Spirits were high and the air full of song on picket lines outside Jimmy Johns this afternoon as over 100 workers and supporters brought business to a near standstill. The picket was prompted by the refusal of Mike and Rob Mulligan, owners of the Miklin Enterprise franchise, to meet with their employees to discuss improvements in wages and working conditions.

Union members say they are undiscouraged by the owners' absence from the negotiating table. “We'll be out here until the Mulligans realize that workers can't make it on these poverty wages. We need consistent scheduling and more respect on the job. We need sick days. We need change. We're fired up and we're not going away until we see the changes we want,” said Rikki Olsen, a union member at the Block E Jimmy Johns.

So far, the only response from the company has been a craigslist post advertising openings at all locations, with starting pay at $7.50, 25 cents more than current workers make.

Workers walked off the kitchen floor and presented demands this morning at all nine Miklin franchise locations, declaring their membership in the IWW Jimmy Johns Workers Union.

Representatives of the Jimmy Johns Workers Union will hold a press conference at 11AM to announce further actions to bring management to the table.

The demands of the IWW Jimmy Johns Workers Union include a pay increase to above minimum wage, consistent scheduling and minimum shift lengths, regularly scheduled breaks, sick days, no-nonsense workers compensation for job-related injuries, an end to sexual harassment at work, and basic fairness on the job.

The Minneapolis Jimmy John's franchise, owned and operated by Miklin Enterprises, Inc., pays the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr, offers no benefits, and has no full-time positions outside of management. Jimmy Johns corporate website lists $264,270 as the average yearly net profit for operating a franchise. Union members estimate that Rob and Mike Mulligan, owners of Miklin, Inc. made an annual profit of at minimum $2.3 million in the last year alone. The Miklin franchise plans to open four new locations this year at an estimated cost of over $1.2 million.

The fast food workers' move to unionize is emblematic of mounting frustration amongst US workers with the sluggish pace of recovery from the Recession. With unemployment rates hovering around 9.5%, many workers view low wage service jobs as their only option. Employment in the food service industry is expected to grow 8.4% from 2008 to 2018, higher than the 7.7% rate predicted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for all industries. Wages and working conditions in the fast food industry are widely regarded as substandard; in 2009, 25% of workers in the service industry made less than $7.55 an hour, the highest percentage of any occupational group .

The union campaign at Jimmy Johns could hold deep implications for other companies in the fast food industry, a sector known for the lowest rates of unionization- and lowest wages- in the United States. Only 1.8% of food service workers were represented by a union in 2009, far below the nation-wide figure of 12.3%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The question of unionization of the food and service industries is assuming greater focus as employment in these non-union sectors increases, while manufacturing, the traditional stronghold of unionization, slides further into decline.

The Jimmy Johns Workers Union, open to employees at the company nationwide, is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World labor union. Gaining prominence in recent years for organizing Starbucks workers, the IWW is a global union founded over a century ago for all working people.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

According to my local delegate, the Jimmy Johns strike will be extending into Omaha next week. This rash of IWW activity lately is making me proud of my state for probably the first time ever. :thumbup1:
Thanks, Comrade. I'm going to try and inform a few of my friends (I use to live in Omaha and know plenty of people who work at JJ's in the city). I'm sure they'll be happy to hear this.

[Rusty Shackleford]

exactly why i still have respect for the IWW. even though their hay day is long gone, they are coming back.
i dont care if they are anarchists or leninists, they are a working class organization.

good job wobblies!!

[Nachie]

is it that you prefer to ignore the fact that the working class is racially divided and needs to develop campaigns that bring people together?

No, I just prefer some context to statements like that (which you admirably actually started to give in your reply) as opposed to just "oh and by the way y'all, a whole bunch of these folks is african-american!" which reeks of white activists patting themselves on the back for having organized some people of color. no thank you.


how do potshots like this show that RAAN is "non-sectarian" as you claim?

don't front dude, you hate us. there's no reason to pretend we're ever going to get along with you, so whatevs.

[Magón]

I hope this trend the Wobblies are giving people, will start to spread more and more, and finally get out of the food business. (Or at least move onto other places too, besides just JJs and Subway.) I'm glad they're doing this stuff, but the IWW needs to start getting back to what they used to be, with something big I think? Not with explosions or something like that, but like a major nation wide walkout of all Working Class Americans, along with Students. Like France, 1968! That'd be something to see, and be apart of too.

But I say good luck and good job to those at various Minneapolis JJs and the IWW.

[syndicat]

No, I just prefer some context to statements like that (which you admirably actually started to give in your reply) as opposed to just "oh and by the way y'all, a whole bunch of these folks is african-american!" which reeks of white activists patting themselves on the back for having organized some people of color. no thank you.


so in other words you'd intervene with pot shots in a positive thread about a worker struggle based on a misinterpretation due to YOUR assumptions. i would say that's petty and self-indulgent.


don't front dude, you hate us. there's no reason to pretend we're ever going to get along with you, so whatevs.

what an ass. i did not start out "hating" you all. but you seem determined to create that result. I started out challenging you all by asking questions to get you to explain your viewpoint, since I didn't know what it was. politics isn't about personal "liking" or "disliking". but what it does require, in order to be effective, is the skill to have conversations and debates with people who you disagree with in a comradely or at least civil manner. you seem to not "get" the fact that there is a distinction between disagreeing with someone's politics and "hating" them.

[Nachie]

very well, in that case it is simply I who don't like you.

and yes, kudos to the IWW.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This is good news. :thumbup1:

[fa2991]

I hope this trend the Wobblies are giving people, will start to spread more and more, and finally get out of the food business. (Or at least move onto other places too, besides just JJs and Subway.) I'm glad they're doing this stuff, but the IWW needs to start getting back to what they used to be, with something big I think? Not with explosions or something like that, but like a major nation wide walkout of all Working Class Americans, along with Students. Like France, 1968! That'd be something to see, and be apart of too.

These are just the most newsworthy campaigns.

http://www.iww.org/unions/dept300/iu330

http://www.iww.org/unions/dept500/iu530

(^Both have newspapers that are worth a read)

[MarxSchmarx]

I want to hear more about how this was done. Spcifically

- Were the organizers also Jimmy John's workers?

- How did you reach out to employees who were non-citizens?

- How did you deal with employer propaganda?

- What sort of external community groups were involved?


I'm sure many other comrades here share these questions, if somebody who involved on the ground level can give us some ideas for what they did and what they thought they could improve, this would be very helpful on a concrete level.

[P. Gage]

Hey MarxSchmarx, I'm not a Jimmy John's worker I bet they are all really busy right now. We've got to be careful sharing a lot of really specific information about campaigns in these discussions so I apologise if my answers are really vague and a lot more general than you would like but I think everyone understands the need for security on these matters when discussing strategy. What I can do is talk in general about what we do in the IWW to develop these campaigns and the model called Solidarity Unionism that we use to build direct action based unions run by the workers themselves.

-The campaign, like the vast majority of IWW campaigns is organised by the workers themselves on the floor. We have no paid full time organisers even our use of stipends for short periods of time is used extremely sparingly and I know of no stipends used in this campaign. All of our organising is on a shoe string budget.

-On Thursday the IWW held a 100 person picket in front of a Jimmy John's location, while the Twin Cities IWW does have a very large membership you don't pull an action like that off without allies in the community.

-We train our members to deal with employer propaganda in the IWW through innoculation. Part of the hundreds of 1 on 1 meetings that happen between member organisers and workers on the floor is telling them what the employer is going to say before they say it. We use handouts from previous campaigns with other employers, and talk about the various techniques bosses use to bust up unions (captive meetings, counter organising committees, threats and bribes etc). This is part of the IWWs organiser training program that is available to all IWW branches through the Organiser Training Committee.

-On the non citizen question I can't really answer that as I'm not a Jimmy John's worker, and not an American, however the methods all start the same. Find out their name, try and get a place to talk to them out of work and then find out what their concerns are and try and work that into the strategy.

[crashcourse]

- Were the organizers also Jimmy John's workers?
- How did you reach out to employees who were non-citizens?
- How did you deal with employer propaganda?
- What sort of external community groups were involved?


I'm not a JJ worker but I'm on the solidarity committee, am a member of the IWW here in Twin Cities, and have been aware of this for a long time in the lead up so I can answer somewhat. To answer your questions:
1. yes; I'd like to know what the significance of the question is though, no disrespect intedned
2. just like any others.
3. campaign's still on so can't get into this at the moment
4. ditto

The same goes for your "what to do better" questions. Not trying to be evasive, comrade, just a ton of work to do plus some security concerns.

If folk would do informational pickets as requested by the campaign and donate (these folks make minimum wage so a lot goes a long way) that's super helpful.

[crashcourse]

another too brief follow up but that's all I got time for. Picket saturday night was awesome. well attended and super lively. momentum and all. Many hands make light work though, comrades, so please do what you can to lend your support.

[thriller]

We are having a picket line tomorrow at Jimmy John's in my home town of Madison, WI. We are expecting a large turn out.

[thriller]

So we picketed Jimmy John's yesterday, and it was sort of successful. People still ended up going in to the restaurant, however many people stopped to talk to us about the IWW and the Socialist Party, since most of the picket line was made up of SP members. The owner came out to talk to us, try and get our names and even asked if we got paid for this. We of course said we were here because workers are being exploited and we stand with them in solidarity. He then noticed the crowd we drew and came out to "counter" us by giving out free subs! The only people who took them were the homeless group near by. At least the owner fed the hungry!

[RED DAVE]

As an advocate of the "orthodox" labor movement, I will confess that I am extremely skeptical about efforts such as this. While it is possible, under limited circumstances, to win short-term gains under this strategy, the same objection goes as was leveled against the IWW nearly 100 years ago.

Once gains are won under circumstances of extreme militancy, in the absence of a contract, the retention of these gains is dependent on the maintenance of this militancy. Should the militancy of the workers slacken, what is to stop the capitalists from rolling back the gains?

Now, of course, it will be argued that more "traditional" forms of militancy have been unsuccessful in recent years, buy at least part of this is due to the hideous politics of the trade union bureaucracy and was by no means "necessary."

Doubtless this debate will go on for awhile. However, I can't say that I'm impressed by a few actions at Jimmy John's or Starbucks. Victories are by no means clear nor is the staying power of these efforts.

RED DAVE

[MarxSchmarx]

Congratulations on a midly successful picket. I'm surprised the SPUSA came out for it as well, given the IWW's skepticism of working w/ political parties.


I'm not a JJ worker but I'm on the solidarity committee, am a member of the IWW here in Twin Cities, and have been aware of this for a long time in the lead up so I can answer somewhat. To answer your questions:


- Were the organizers also Jimmy John's workers?
- How did you reach out to employees who were non-citizens?
- How did you deal with employer propaganda?
- What sort of external community groups were involved?
1. yes; I'd like to know what the significance of the question is though, no disrespect intedned
2. just like any others.
3. campaign's still on so can't get into this at the moment
4. ditto


Yes I am cognizant of the needs to be guarded during a campaign so no conc3ern.


In re: 1 as P. Gage already answered it, but my primary interest was in getting a feel for the effectiveness of organizing efforts by employees v.s. professional full time organizers.

[Devrim]

Once gains are won under circumstances of extreme militancy, in the absence of a contract, the retention of these gains is dependent on the maintenance of this militancy. Should the militancy of the workers slacken, what is to stop the capitalists from rolling back the gains?


The bosses are always trying to 'roll back the gains', and the working class always has to struggle to maintain anything that is won. Whilst this is most obvious with wage rises, which are constantly being eaten away by inflation, it applies to terms and conditions too. In 1936 in the mass strike in France, one of the demands was a 40 hour week. They won it. In 1968 the workers involved in the mass strike had to raise the same demand. Obviously that means that the gains had been 'rolled back', but this isn't some small company in some marginal sector. It happened across the entire French working class.

As for contracts, the Turkish state is currently changing contracts for masses of its employees. I would suggest that if people on such stable contacts as state employees were seen to have in this country can suddenly find that terms and conditions are changing, then a small company with a large turnover of staff can manage to change a contract pretty easily.

The bosses will always try to take back whatever gains are won by workers, and class struggle is always the only way to maintain any gains.

Devrim

[RED DAVE]

The bosses will always try to take back whatever gains are won by workers, and class struggle is always the only way to maintain any gains.The only way? Sorry, Devrim, but your militancy is leading you into posturing. For good or for ill, during a period of a contract, the pace of class struggle goes down. Yes, the latent militancy of the workers is the final guarantee of the gains, but the principle of victories without contracts means that the workers have to be constantly in a struggle. And given the fact that the IWW is working in places likes Starbucks and Jimmie John's, which traditionally have high turnover, this means that there will be even more ongoing pressure.

It's easy to self-righteous about workers militancy. What we are looking for is a successful organizing strategy. In looking at the website of the IWW Starbucks union, there are three news items in the past six months, and one of them refers to work with the National Labor Relations Board. So the IWW is not averse to appealing to organx of the bourgeois state in aiding in their struggle.

http://www.starbucksunion.org/

The gains listed, considering the size and scope of Starbucks, and the fact that the IWW has been engaged in this work for six years, are trivial. I see not one instance listed of a wage increase, a shortening of hours or an improvement in benefits, all during a time when Starbucks has been showing profits.

During the 6 years that the IWW has been organizing at Starbucks, over 18,000 jobs were lost. Now during this period the US economy as a whole has been trashed, and the unions have by and large rolled over and played dead, when they didn't actually die. However, we're talking about a group that has is supposed to have a new, winning strategy for the working class, and which has, in fact, done no better than the old strategy.

I don't see it.

RED DAVE

[Devrim]

During the 6 years that the IWW has been organizing at Starbucks, over 18,000 jobs were lost. Now during this period the US economy as a whole has been trashed, and the unions have by and large rolled over and played dead, when they didn't actually die. However, we're talking about a group that has is supposed to have a new, winning strategy for the working class, and which has, in fact, done no better than the old strategy.

I don't see it.


No, neither do I. I am certainly not an advocate of the IWW's strategic plan.


The only way? Sorry, Devrim, but your militancy is leading you into posturing. For good or for ill, during a period of a contract, the pace of class struggle goes down. , but the principle of victories without contracts means that the workers have to be constantly in a struggle. And given the fact that the IWW is working in places likes Starbucks and Jimmie John's, which traditionally have high turnover, this means that there will be even more ongoing pressure.

I think that is is not 'posturing' to sat that workers' wages and conditions are dependent on their collective strength. It is as you say true:


Yes, the latent militancy of the workers is the final guarantee of the gains

Devrim

[RED DAVE]

BREAKING NEWS: THE IWW NO LONGER OPPOSES CONTRACTS!

http://www.iww.org/organize/laborlaw/rights2.shtml#five

(Click into the section on union contracts)

In my raggedy-assed opinion, this represents a big, important, positive shift in IWW strategy. If they are now operating like a regular union, this means that they do have the possibility of winning some concrete victories. At least they are not shooting themselves in the foot any more on the contract issue.

RED DAVE

[genstrike]

As an advocate of the "orthodox" labor movement, I will confess that I am extremely skeptical about efforts such as this. While it is possible, under limited circumstances, to win short-term gains under this strategy, the same objection goes as was leveled against the IWW nearly 100 years ago.

Once gains are won under circumstances of extreme militancy, in the absence of a contract, the retention of these gains is dependent on the maintenance of this militancy. Should the militancy of the workers slacken, what is to stop the capitalists from rolling back the gains?

That's the exact same thing going on in the rest of the labour movement though. Inflation means that workers constantly have to struggle for a few percent wage increases every year just to stay where they are. At a local university and across the public sector where I live, workers are having wage freezes forced upon them - and not because they've organized with the IWW.


Doubtless this debate will go on for awhile. However, I can't say that I'm impressed by a few actions at Jimmy John's or Starbucks. Victories are by no means clear nor is the staying power of these efforts.

Is it not impressive that the IWW has been able to


BREAKING NEWS: THE IWW NO LONGER OPPOSES CONTRACTS!

http://www.iww.org/organize/laborlaw/rights2.shtml#five

(Click into the section on union contracts)

In my raggedy-assed opinion, this represents a big, important, positive shift in IWW strategy. If they are now operating like a regular union, this means that they do have the possibility of winning some concrete victories. At least they are not shooting themselves in the foot any more on the contract issue.

This is hardly breaking news. I don't think "The IWW opposes contracts" is a statement that could possibly be true as of late. People for some reason get confused on this - the IWW is not opposed to signing contracts or filing with the NRLB or it's equivalents, we just see it as one tool in our toolbox, and we recognize that there are sometimes tradeoffs with using the legalistic approaches. Often they take a lot of time - for example, if you have the power to take some sort of direct action to get a fired fellow worker his job back now, why would you go through the state proscribed legal route, which could take months? And there are other drawbacks, for example, in Canada, labour law is structured in such a way that signing a contract implies a no-strike clause. I don't know why so many people talk out of their ass about the IWW on the contract issue, I just talked to someone this week who was telling me how the IWW "opposes contracts"

[genstrike]

The only way? Sorry, Devrim, but your militancy is leading you into posturing. For good or for ill, during a period of a contract, the pace of class struggle goes down. Yes, the latent militancy of the workers is the final guarantee of the gains, but the principle of victories without contracts means that the workers have to be constantly in a struggle. And given the fact that the IWW is working in places likes Starbucks and Jimmie John's, which traditionally have high turnover, this means that there will be even more ongoing pressure.

It's easy to self-righteous about workers militancy. What we are looking for is a successful organizing strategy. In looking at the website of the IWW Starbucks union, there are three news items in the past six months, and one of them refers to work with the National Labor Relations Board. So the IWW is not averse to appealing to organx of the bourgeois state in aiding in their struggle.

http://www.starbucksunion.org/

The gains listed, considering the size and scope of Starbucks, and the fact that the IWW has been engaged in this work for six years, are trivial. I see not one instance listed of a wage increase, a shortening of hours or an improvement in benefits, all during a time when Starbucks has been showing profits.

During the 6 years that the IWW has been organizing at Starbucks, over 18,000 jobs were lost. Now during this period the US economy as a whole has been trashed, and the unions have by and large rolled over and played dead, when they didn't actually die. However, we're talking about a group that has is supposed to have a new, winning strategy for the working class, and which has, in fact, done no better than the old strategy.

I don't see it.

RED DAVE

Yes, the IWW is small right now. But the IWW has been growing and organizing in places which have been essentially written off by the mainstream labour unions.

IWW = growing, organizing very difficult places
Most mainstream labour unions = shrinking, writing off whole sectors

Yet somehow the IWW is the failure?

Also, you obviously didn't look very hard if you don't see a single instance of the IWW making gains: http://www.starbucksunion.org/node/1174

[crashcourse]

Red Dave is misinformed. The IWW has had contracts for a long time and has them in several shops today, including two metal recycling facilities in California where the contracts do not contain no strike clauses.

Over all, I'm part of the anti-contractual tendencies within the IWW, but that's not my point here. My point is that Red Dave is misinformed. Furthermore, about Red Dave's skepticism and his preferences for other unions and so forth -- good for you Dave. Good luck in your projects. I will point out, however, that your only comments here have been to suggest that the workers organizing here are fighting a relatively unimportant struggle and are doing so with the wrong union. Notice as well that no one said anything about the IWW having a key revolutionary role and so forth. You're the one who imputed the idea that the IWW thinks it has "a new winning strategy." I'm quite active in the IWW internationally and locally, I know many, many members. I think few people in the organization think that we are the royal road to revolution. All I've seen in this thread are people merely put up a link to this struggle as one which is worthy of some attention and support. Furthermore, your criticisms of the IWW - look at all the jobs lost, etc - apply equally well to those unions that you support. If you want to be taken seriously as a critic, start by being self-critical. Otherwise you sound like you're just trying to score points.

As for wage rises and so on, Starbucks responded to the union drive by paying a dollar more per hour across the company and with larger pay rises in Manhattan where the initial concentration of stores was. We've also been able to reverse firings. None of this is settling the heavens on fire - but then as I said, we haven't claimed to be the shining path to a new society - but show me unions that are achieving comparable gains in private sector food service before you make these criticisms of this campaign.

All of that said, given the rhetorical sophistication you display here, I am sure that you are quite the asset to those unions and workers which you do support.

[crashcourse]

In re: 1 as P. Gage already answered it, but my primary interest was in getting a feel for the effectiveness of organizing efforts by employees v.s. professional full time organizers.


MarxSchmarx, that's a subject for longer discussion and is also a subject of discussion in some circles within the IWW. I think you draw the distinction overly neatly, however. The employees at Jimmy John's are leading the effort but they receive support in a variety of ways from other IWW members who do not work there, including IWW members who have been through organizing drives as workers and as staff. The IWW also provides organizer training. So it's not as simple as "the employees themselves or professional full time organizers." It's also worth pointing out that "professional organizer" is a job and not necessarily a mark of ability - turnover rates among professional organizers are quite high so that the rates of experienced staff are quite low. My workplace is currently being targeted by a large union using several staff (the campaign is not public yet so I can't go into any more details). From seeing these staff in action, there are several members of my IWW branch who are as good or better at organizing. All of that said, it is worth discussing if there are benefits to having people released from waged labor in order to devote themselves full time to organizing. In this particular campaign, given that the employer does not allow full time jobs, the volunteer organizers who work there are able to put in time that matches that of many union staff. That doesn't mean organizing staff are never useful - that's a larger discussion. That larger discussion would probably benefit from a comparative case, do you have one you would suggest?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, the IWW is small right now. But the IWW has been growing and organizing in places which have been essentially written off by the mainstream labour unions.

IWW = growing, organizing very difficult places
Most mainstream labour unions = shrinking, writing off whole sectors

Yet somehow the IWW is the failure?

Also, you obviously didn't look very hard if you don't see a single instance of the IWW making gains: http://www.starbucksunion.org/node/1174

The IWW is the red union "brand" for those who don't want to transform the World Federation of Trade Unions into a World Federative Trade Union. :(

[genstrike]

The IWW is the red union "brand" for those who don't want to transform the World Federation of Trade Unions into a World Federative Trade Union. :(

Ummmmmmmmm... what?

[syndicat]

Red Dave:

Once gains are won under circumstances of extreme militancy, in the absence of a contract, the retention of these gains is dependent on the maintenance of this militancy. Should the militancy of the workers slacken, what is to stop the capitalists from rolling back the gains?


I told Red Dave long ago in another thread that the IWW does not have a position of opposing contracts, and has some contracts as crashcourse points out.

Also, ultimately the absence of participation and mass struggles will in fact make workers organjizations vulnerable to counter-attack...contracts or no contracts. The employer offensive that got underway in the '70s/80s period, and which has made various changes that define the neoliberal period, happened then because the conservatizing and bureaucratization of the labor movement -- a process going back to the imposition of AFL-style top down constitutions on the new '30s workers movement via CIO etc -- weakened the working class because it diminished the real social power of the working class. The widespread contractualism of the bureaucratic business unions didn't save them.

i think crashcourse puts his finger on a flaw in Red Dave's argument: where are the business unions organizing minimum wage or low paid workers in fast food chains?

[redasheville]

I'm with Syndicat on this one, more or less.

The IWW's attempt at organizing low wage service employees is inspiring. The IWW's commitment to rank and file led, class struggle unionism is inspiring. We need more, not less, of this kind of initiative.

I have been arguing lately that in order to revitalize the American labor movement on a mass scale workers will need to organize unions on a new basis, like how the CIO built on a new, different basis from the AFL*. I don't think the IWW is capable of doing this on its own, but they are taking positive steps in that direction and deserve the support of every labor militant in this country.

*Just to be clear, I still believe that radicals can and must push for a class struggle orientation in existing unions and organize rank and file caucuses for this purpose.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ummmmmmmmm... what?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/world-federative-trade-t141175/index.html

[genstrike]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/world-federative-trade-t141175/index.html

I'm still in the "Ummmmmmmmm... what?" stage

EAjRLLa5YFE

[Die Neue Zeit]

If it were to become a single global union, it would instantly become the largest union in the world, with over 100 million working-class members:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Federation_of_Trade_Unions

[crashcourse]

The IWW's attempt at organizing low wage service employees is inspiring. The IWW's commitment to rank and file led, class struggle unionism is inspiring. We need more, not less, of this kind of initiative.

Thanks.


in order to revitalize the American labor movement on a mass scale workers will need to organize unions on a new basis, like how the CIO built on a new, different basis from the AFL*. I don't think the IWW is capable of doing this on its own, but they are taking positive steps in that direction and deserve the support of every labor militant in this country.

*Just to be clear, I still believe that radicals can and must push for a class struggle orientation in existing unions and organize rank and file caucuses for this purpose.

I agree with all of this though I am probably more pessimistic than you are about the ability to turn AFL and CtW unions toward an explicitly class struggle orientation. In my view, workers need to struggle where they are. Some few will be able to pursue deliberate industrial concentration strategies and other approaches which require a greater uprooting/reconfiguring of their lives than it does to 'just' organize where we find ourselves. Those of us (like me) who can't pick and choose among where to work should struggle in our jobs and alongside others on their jobs. For some of us, the IWW is a good way to do this, including some people who are members of other unions as well.

About the IWW's limits -- I am highly committed to the IWW and I am proud of what we accomplish with the resources we have, but I think we should also be modest and realistic about what we do and don't achieve. There's this Lenin quote that I like, "politics begin where millions of men and women are; where there are not thousands, but millions" -- I think there's an important point here, that at the moment we are in a pre-political phase, in terms of class politics. When the class enters a political moment, where millions of workers are on the march, the IWW is not going to be the center. We are not going to instigate a new class-wide revolutionary upsurge. We may play important roles in some locales, like in my city, but even in locations where we're strong both quantitatively and qualitatively, the reality is that we are going to be one pole within a multi-tendency/multi-organizational and contradictory process, as the working class begins to re-organize itself.

For my closest comrades (I'm in the IWW and belong to the political organization the Workers Solidarity Alliance), our orientation is toward drawing out new leadership and dedicated cadre through experiences of struggle. I think that it is very likely that once we reach a moment the class being political in the sense of that Lenin quote - the masses moving in the millions - it is likely that many of the most dedicated revolutionaries will have passed through the IWW in some fashion, just like how many of the militants of the CIO were former IWW members or people mentored by IWW members. In terms of accomplishing the tasks of leadership and cadre development, for comrades who come to us out of the political left without much experience in mass work (which is most but not all of the people we have run into from the left), this primarily involves learning mass work. We're pretty good at teaching this but we will soon enter a phase where the knowledge and planning we have already systematized is outstripped by the scale of our organizing -- as our most advanced layers continue to advance and as our organizing gets larger in scope and more high stakes, the organization will develop new needs and face new challenges that we will have to be prepared to meet. This will require us to begin systematizing again and it's likely that we will have a hard time for a while keeping up with the organization's needs. Two steps forward, one step back, forever (until the final conflict).

For workers who are less politicized, alongside the mass work there's a level of political education that has to happen as well because struggle teaches but it is not a sufficient teacher. So far this is insufficiently systematic and formalized within the IWW. We have a surprisingly good track record none the less; I wish we had a better grasp on what it is we're doing with people along these lines -- we succeed fairly well on this but I don't think we know what it is we're doing to get these results. I also think that as we grow larger we will succeed less at this until we get a more formal and systematic education program.

For now, though, in the short term, we're doing something that very few other organizations are, at least in North America. That's exciting, and a bit nervewracking. I can't speak for anyone else but I for one would certainly welcome other formations taking up similar tasks, especially if they were committed to sharing lessons and coordinating struggles in solidarity with each other. We've had some support, for example, from some of the IWA unions in Europe around our international days of action again Starbucks, and at least the British IWA formation (Solidarity Federation) has been experimenting with organizing models similar to the noncontractual organizing we do in the IWW in the US and Canada.

[crashcourse]

Sorry to post twice in a row, but I have more to say.

If people want to organize with other unions than the IWW, either as staff or as workers, I encourage that. Hell, try both. Few people stay organizing staff for very long, for a variety of reasons. Go the staff route then organize as a worker, or vice versa. Both are good learning experiences for revolutionaries (and I think revolutionaries who have strong opinions about what unions should do are not likely to be taken seriously if they haven't done one or the other).

For people who can't do the staff thing, like me, the IWW allows us to still play a role in organizing. That's personally gratifying and it's also a way that we can make some contribution that we couldn't otherwise make. Also, the IWW allows people who other unions won't organize to still organize themselves. As I said, no one else is organizing fast food workers. And it's not just fast food workers. I know someone at a PetCo who got a complete list of coworkers and wanted to unionize, but couldn't find a union to affiliate with. I know someone else who worked at a major shipping depot in Illinois, he and two friends got a complete list of coworkers and called the Teamsters. They were told that unless they could get a list for another facility also, about an hour away, then the Teamsters couldn't do anything. Now these may well be sound decisions on how to spend members' dues, I don't know (it certainly makes sense for unions to be strategic in their targeting, and given the low rate of unionization in the US I can understand why most workers are not in workplaces that are immediate strategic priorities for any unions). Still, it just is the case that for many workers there really aren't opportunities to organize via one of the AFL or CtW unions.

I don't say any of this in praise of the IWW. I just think that sometimes people are quick to point out that the IWW is not whatever other organization they think IWW members ought to organize with instead. And often those organizational preferences that other people express are not actually feasible for the workers who organize as IWW members.

[RED DAVE]

Dave, you checked with that person before posting this online right?No, fool that I was. :crying: Thanx for catching that, crashcourse. I was overly enthused by the reply.

For those who didn't see the original post before I deleted it, the gist of it was that I communicated with the IWW Jimmie John's organizing drive, and they confirmed that, in fact, they are seeking a contract with the company under NLRB auspices.

My very bad.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Dave, I'm pretty sure I know the person who answered your query. If you write back and say "hey can I put this on a public web forum? We're having a discussion about the IWW and NLRB elections, I personally think it's an advance that you're doing this" they will probably say yes, and no shame in asking, but it's good to be sure.Will do.

RED DAVE

[redasheville]

I think that it speaks highly of the IWW that they are willing to have tactical flexibility about the contract thing (I do agree with Dave that workers need contracts to solidify their gains for the long term), instead of turning their historic suspicion of collective bargaining into a dogma.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Contracts can and should be desirable, as long as they don't contain a No-Strike clause.

[crashcourse]

Contracts are pieces of paper. They're power is not in the paper. It's in the organization behind them, and to a much less extent, the enforcement of the laws related to them. Contracts don't build organization and worrying about contracts prior to building organization is some major cart-before-the-horse.

I also think it's worth thinking seriously about the fact that the US system of contracts was made the norm with the Wagner Act which had a preamble stating that the purpose of the US industrial relations system was to ensure labor peace. So, arguments for contracts are arguments largely agreed upon by the dominant fraction of the US ruling class in the 1930s. Staughton Lynd's writings are good on this stuff.

[RedTrackWorker]

I also think it's worth thinking seriously about the fact that the US system of contracts was made the norm with the Wagner Act which had a preamble stating that the purpose of the US industrial relations system was to ensure labor peace. So, arguments for contracts are arguments largely agreed upon by the dominant fraction of the US ruling class in the 1930s. Staughton Lynd's writings are good on this stuff.

It's just just the preamble, but the constitutional basis of the Wagner Act is the interstate commerce clause--i.e. labor peace is good for interstate commerce. This is another exposure of the idea that the repeal of Taft-Hartley is what is needed for labor law reform, because the whole legal foundation and political motivation for the Wagner Act is, as crashcourse said, "labor peace." In the 30's, labor peace meant convincing some capitalists, "Look, just recognize the union already, jesus." Now it means peaceful pickets and numerous other legal obstacles to collective action. The much-vaunted by the labor left EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act) would provide even more legal impediments to workers' collective action (see article on lrp website, I still can't post links I don't think). So right now, we're stuck with much of the far left and almost all of the so-called labor left supporting a bill that would block workers' collective action (and many of them telling them to vote for the Democrats in order to pass the bill), truly a wretched situation.

[syndicat]

thru laws, court interpretations and NLRB rulings, many of the most effective forms of worker action were declared illegal. here you have the state doing what we should expect...working for the benefit of the capitalists.

so what's really required is that workers in large numbers be willing to break these laws that violate their freedom and labor rights. a good example was the Republic Windows & Doors occupation, which was successful, and shows the strength of that tactic.

EFCA would probably simply facilitate more top-down organizing. getting people to sign cards without doing worker training, building on the job worker committees, building worker leadership capacity etc. And it doesn't provide any easy way to leave a union for another. Taft-Hartley outlawed use of direct action to change from one union to another. (Admittely this had been used by mob-controlled unions in some cases. in its mob-conrolled days IATSE used jurisdictional strikes to break the radical Conference of Studio Unions (a branch of the Painters union).)

a beneficial provision of EFCA would be to finally create penalties for victimization for union activity. Right now there are no penalties. Just re-instatement and back pay. EFCA would provide for penalties up to $20,000. But even this is no guarantee. Consider OSHA for example. OSHA allows fines but in most cases...even where deaths have occurred...OSHA makes back room deals with management to reduce their fines to very minimal amounts. If EFCA were passed, since penalty levels are not mandatory, the NLRB would probably lower then to minimal amounts.

it's not really very useful to call for repeal of Taft-Hartley because to have the political clout to get that done, there'd already need to be a very massive working class rebellion, with active involvement of millions, shaking up the whole system. so it's the concrete on the job and in the neighborhood organizing that is primary.

[crashcourse]

I agree with Cat here. If we had the power to end Taft-Hartley we'd have a whole lot more power to where we wouldn't need to settle for just ending Taft-Hartley. Anyway, part of my point was that Taft-Hartley was in my view not about ending the communist potentials of the Wagner Act, it was about channeling the US toward a different model of capitalist accumulation than the Wagner Act unmodified would have involved. So the Wagner Act was still about maintaining capitalism. About EFCA, I have mixed feelings about it, because I think there are benefits that would have come with it, but among other things it would have created a two-speed NLRB, one that dealt more favorably with representation and elections. None of the proposed changes (I read through the legislation at one point, I can find my notes if people are interested) would have increased protections for workers exercising concerted activity (I believe this is section 7a of the NLRA but I can't remember off the top of my head).

[Amphictyonis]

We need much more of this in the western service sector economy! Small steps in the right direction. I'll take it.

[RedTrackWorker]

I agree with Cat here. If we had the power to end Taft-Hartley we'd have a whole lot more power to where we wouldn't need to settle for just ending Taft-Hartley. Anyway, part of my point was that Taft-Hartley was in my view not about ending the communist potentials of the Wagner Act, it was about channeling the US toward a different model of capitalist accumulation than the Wagner Act unmodified would have involved. So the Wagner Act was still about maintaining capitalism. About EFCA, I have mixed feelings about it, because I think there are benefits that would have come with it, but among other things it would have created a two-speed NLRB, one that dealt more favorably with representation and elections. None of the proposed changes (I read through the legislation at one point, I can find my notes if people are interested) would have increased protections for workers exercising concerted activity (I believe this is section 7a of the NLRA but I can't remember off the top of my head).

I agree with syndicat and crashcourse that calling for the repeal of Taft-Hartley as a labor law reform is a strategic mis-focus because it will require a extra-legal strategy of struggle to get to the point that's an option such that the law itself would already have had to have been overcome in important aspects in practice.

I oppose EFCA outright because of the binding arbitration. The benefits crashcourse lists are there (and one could interpret the increased fines and faster resolution of firings do increase protection for concerted activity indirectly). I agree with syndicat that the card check provision will facilitate the kind of union organizing revolutionaries shouldn't want, but it would still be a legal gain (and I don't think syndicat is saying it isn't, not sure though), but the binding arbitration is a legal obstacle to workers' struggles and it is no accident that that is not the provision they're talking about compromising (though the bill seems quite dead now), because, as the LRP statement says, "In the union tops’ vision of organizing dues-payers without struggle, card check means little without binding arbitration." The provision would apply to any first contract--meaning even if the IWW, say, won recognition through a strike, the binding arbitration provision would be available to their employer. This clause would increase legal obstacles to striking and other collective action (known as "self-help") leading up to the first contract (which will itself almost certainly have a no-strike clause). "Self-help actions" are currently considered "unfair labor practices" if they occur before bargaining has reached an "impasse." Mediation and binding arbitration mean an "impasse" is impossible and therefor workers' collective action would be ruled an "unfair labor practice" (which is not the same as making it illegal, but the company could seek an injunction and in this climate, would almost certainly get it). Politically it represents the trade union federations agreeing in advance not to undertake collective action. Legally the binding arbitration clause presents new legal obstacles to collective action and as such EFCA as it is must be opposed by revolutionaries and all those who seek to further workers' independent organization, self-confidence and collective action, so I was surprised that I couldn't find the IWW taking a clear position against it but I don't know much about the IWW in its current incarnation.

[syndicat]

i agree with RedTrackWorker that binding arbitration is dangerous for the reasons he cites. this is the worst provision in EFCA. the penalty provision of EFCA would be the most important legal gain, I think, from EFCA. There was a version of EFCA in congress without card check. But I don't know if it included binding arbitration. If so, it would be quite dangerous.

[RED DAVE]

If you've ever been involved in union organizing, you'd know how useful card check would be. Even with the arbitration procedure, it's a vast improvement over the present procedure, which is a bureaucratic and tactical nightmare.

I'm currently involved in a very tricky organizing drive, and if we had card check, we'd have a union right now. Asis, because of the current procedure, a few recalcitrant workers are blocking the whole thing as the union won't proceed without about 65%.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

even better than card check...especially if EFCA entails binding arbitration...would be interpreting Section 7 of NLRA as implying "members only" union recognition. As mentioned in the last issue of Labor Notes, there is a group of labor lawyers who have argued this is implied by the concerted activity right in Section 7, and was actually implemented this way in the '30s on various occasions where employers signed "member only" agreements, i.e. that applied only to the members of a union that in some cases included only a minority of the workforce. for example first GM contract at Flint when UAW had only a minority of GM workers there.

[RED DAVE]

even better than card check...especially if EFCA entails binding arbitration...would be interpreting Section 7 of NLRA as implying "members only" union recognition. As mentioned in the last issue of Labor Notes, there is a group of labor lawyers who have argued this is implied by the concerted activity right in Section 7, and was actually implemented this way in the '30s on various occasions where employers signed "member only" agreements, i.e. that applied only to the members of a union that in some cases included only a minority of the workforce. for example first GM contract at Flint when UAW had only a minority of GM workers there.Cool. But for such an interpretation to become the law, it would have to go to the Supreme Court, which would probably end up re-instating chattel slavery, capital punishment for pick-pocketing and jus primae noctis for factory workers! :D

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

well this brings us back to the point that crashcourse and i made: there won't be labor law reform to our advantage unless there is a very massive upturn in worker protest, strikes and so on. working class social power is at extremely low ebb right now, and this is built through direct self-activity and collective organization.

[crashcourse]

Yup - what Syndicat said.

Red Dave, I agree about card check, it'd be good for getting contracts and recognition more easily and would I think over all be good for workers. I wasn't keen on EFCA still though because the card check components came with baggage as I said. And really a lot of this wouldn't be necessary if the NLRB had teeth - more funding and a mandate on enforcement. Here too we're not going to see gains until the class is advancing.

Also, on this point about the relationship between labor law and the class advancing, I tried to raise this before about the preamble of the Wagner Act...

the state does sometimes act against some capitalists to raise standards for the working class, depending on who is in office and which capitalist class fractions are dominant; for instance if the rate and manner of labor power consumption is too great so as to be unsustainable, it's in the long term interests of all capitalists to see this changed even though it's not in the interests of any particular capitalists in the short term. This is what happened with the creation of workmen's compensation law around the world. Capitalism sets up a sort of prisoner's dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma) between capitalists much of the time. One important function the state often plays is to get people beyond this dilemma.

Anyway, I say all this because I think it's worth thinking about what state concessions on labor law would mean. As I said, the Wagner Act explicitly called for collective bargaining because it was in the interest of labor peace. Often social democratic measures as similar - they're good for workers individually and of course I'm all for people having better lives, but they're in large part motivated by interests in maintaining capitalism.

[RED DAVE]

Received this press release today from the Jimmy Johns Workers Union (Industrial Workers of the World)


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Jimmy Johns Workers Union (Industrial Workers of the World)
Contact: Davis Ritsema, 612-281-9772

September 25, 2010

Jimmy Johns Employee on the Chopping Block for Refusing to Serve Rotten Meat

Sandwich Workers and Customers Unite in Support of Working Class Hero

Press Conference and Delegation: 1pm Sunday September 26, Calhoun Square Jimmy Johns, 3001 Hennepin Ave. S.

MINNEAPOLIS– When Shift Supervisor Margaret Brickely began her morning prep work at Jimmy John's last Monday, she noticed that all of the meat and produce she pulled out of the cooler was warm and beginning to rot. The coolers had broken, leaving the meat at room temperature overnight. Margaret refused to serve the meat. Now, Jimmy John's is threatening her job in retaliation.

“The vegetables were shriveled, the meat hot, and the bread dough semi-cooked. This is not something I was willing to serve” says Margaret. “I called my District Manager Jason Effertz to inform him that the meat was rotten, and he ordered me to slice it and serve it. When I refused, Effertz came in and sliced the meat himself, preparing to sell it to customers.”

With the support of the newly-organized Jimmy Johns Workers Union, Margaret and her coworkers called the City of Minneapolis Health Department. A City Health Inspector came to the store, condemned the meat as unfit for human consumption, and forced management to throw it all away.

Had Margaret not taken a stand for proper sanitation, hundreds of customers would have been served rotten meat.

Jimmy Johns workers and customers from across the city are organizing a public delegation to the store on Sunday at 1pm to thank Margaret for her courage and demand an end to Jimmy John's rotten business practices of retaliating against employees who put sanitation and safety first.

“Margaret is a working class hero. She did the right thing by refusing to sell spoiled meat and we’re backing her up. No one should have to worry about getting fired for preventing customers from being served rotten food. We formed a union to protect ourselves in exactly these kinds of situations,” says Jaim’ee Bolte an employee at the Ninth Street Jimmy John's Location.

Jimmy John’s Workers at the Minneapolis franchise recently filed for a National Labor Relations board union election, the first at the growing sandwich chain and a rare move in an industry with a union density of 1.8%. The demands of the union include paid sick days, minimum shift lengths and fair scheduling, job security, tip jars, fair raises and wages, an end to sexual harassment and a voice on the job.

The Jimmy Johns Workers Union, open to employees at the company nationwide, is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World labor union. Gaining prominence in recent years for organizing Starbucks workers, the IWW is a global union founded over a century ago for all working people.

##

JimmyJohnsWorkers.orgRED DAVE

[pranabjyoti]

Can anybody give some brief about International Labor Union?

[RED DAVE]

Can anybody give some brief about International Labor Union?Could you be more specific. As far as I know, there is currently no such group in the US.

Do you mean the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World)? Here's their website:

http://www.iww.org/

RED DAVE

[YSR]

Hey all, member of the TC IWW and working with the JJs campaign here. Just wanted to drop a note about some reasons why this campaign is really exciting and offer concrete ways for folks to get involved if they feel encouraged.

1. The vast majority of JJs workers are under 30. This is not a knock on older folks, but I think its really exciting to see a group of young workers organizing around shop floor issues and engaging with these rotten bosses. Obviously our branch has given them lots of support on issues like dealing with the NLRB etc, but it's still really great to talk with other young people who are having high level conversations about the union's strategy and its plans. I joke that I'd like to see the IWW become more like a youth movement than a union sometimes, because the energy of these JJs workers is really inspiring. The other side of the coin is that many of them don't have families of their own and don't have big responsibilities to other people, so that makes it easier for them to use their time for organizing. Either way, its an interesting part of this struggle.

2. Solidarity. For the JJs union right now, if you're not in the Twin Cities, a really big help would be donations. You can make a donation by getting in touch with the FWs at their website jimmyjohnsworkers.org. Otherwise, keeping an eye out for their press releases relating to further needs for specific support could be useful. The big nation-wide picket on Labor Day week was great because it spread the energy around to lots of different locations and made corporate realize that this is indeed a serious deal. I'm not a huge fan of the picketing outside a shop model because it generally just confuses and/or angers the workers inside, but combining that with serious outreach to workers could really yield some concrete results in terms of publicity and even contacts.

[RED DAVE]

The latest news:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Jimmy Johns Workers Union (Industrial Workers of the World)

Contact: Mike Wilkow, 612-807-6633

September 28, 2010

Historic First in Nation's Fast Food Industry, 200 Jimmy Johns Workers to Vote in NLRB Union Election on October 22

Potential Turning Point for Labor as Millions in Service Sector Face Deepening Poverty

MINNEAPOLIS– The National Labor Relations Board confirmed today that it will conduct a union election for 200 workers at ten Minneapolis-area Jimmy John's on October 22, an historic first in the nation's almost entirely non-union fast food industry. The secret ballot union election could be a turning point for labor at a time of deepening poverty for millions of Americans affected by the recession, many of whom are employed in low-wage service sector jobs.

“People who thought of themselves as middle class or upwardly-mobile two years ago are now making minimum wage at Jimmy John's, with no real prospects for moving up. If these are the kinds of jobs that American workers will be stuck with, then we are going to make them quality jobs for working families,” said Mike Wilkow, a union member at Jimmy Johns.

If a majority of workers vote in favor of unionization, the company will be legally bound to negotiate with a bargaining team elected by its employees.

The unprecedented fast food union campaign at Jimmy John's comes at a time of deepening economic misery for US workers. According to a recent report by the US Census Bureau, a record-breaking 43.6 million Americans– 1 in 7 people– are living in poverty. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the unemployment rate at 9.6%, with 14.9 million people out of work and uncounted millions more too discouraged to look for work. Layoffs and outsourcing have decimated higher-paid jobs, particularly strongholds of unionization such as manufacturing and construction, forcing many workers to seek employment in low-wage areas of the economy once reserved for teenagers and students. For many, it feels like food service and retail are the only jobs left.

While many workers are forced to seek employment in food service, industry wages and working conditions are widely regarded as substandard; in 2009, the median wage in the fast food industry was $8.28/hr and as of July 2010, the average workweek in fast food was only 24.3 hours. The median annual income for fast food workers is $10,462, or $871 per month. This is less than half the federal poverty line of $21,954 for a family of four, and below the federal poverty line of $ 10,830 for an individual. Jimmy John's is below industry standards, paying most workers the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr, scheduling most workers less than 20 hours/week, and offering no benefits.

Unionization has clear allure to poverty-wage food service workers. According to figures released by the Bureau of National Affairs, union members in the food service industry earned on average $2.36 more per hour, a 32% difference, than non-union workers in the same industry in 2009.

Despite the appeal of higher wages and better benefits, union density in the fast food industry is stuck at only 1.8%, far below the national average of 12.3%. Unionization efforts have been stymied by stiff employer resistance and professional “union avoidance” firms that specialize in thwarting NLRB election campaigns. 75% of employers avail themselves of third-party anti-union consultants when their employees petition for an NLRB election, according to a recent study by noted Cornell University labor scholar Kate Bronfenbrenner. The study demonstrates that many employers embark on union-busting campaigns consisting of threats, intimidation, firings, interrogation, and even spying. Due largely to these factors, only 45% of NLRB elections conducted from 1999-2003 resulted in a union victory.

Success for the union at Jimmy John's could be a major breakthrough for labor in an industry known for low union density and deplorable working conditions. Jimmy John's workers say they possess the resolve to see through what they acknowledge will be a tough fight. Jaim'ee Bolte, a member of the union, says, “People say fast food is unorganizable. We say failure is not an option. Service industry jobs are the future and our future needs to have quality jobs for working families with living wages, affordable healthcare, paid time off, consistent hours, and basic respect. It's time for change in America, we hope this will be a turning point for all workers.”

The Jimmy Johns Workers Union, open to employees at the company nationwide, is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World labor union. Gaining prominence in recent years for organizing Starbucks workers, the IWW is a global union founded over a century ago for all working people.


##

JimmyJohnsWorkers.org

Related:

US Census Bureau- Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

Economic Policy Institute- No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing

http://www.epi.org/page/-/pdf/bp235-fact-sheet.pdf


Bureau of Labor Statistics- Union Members 2009

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htmRED DAVE

[crashcourse]

Just want to re-iterate: please donate and please forward the call to donate.

[RED DAVE]

The latest:



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


Jimmy Johns Workers Union (Industrial Workers of the World)
Contacts: Ayo Collins, 612-281-0882; Erik Forman, 612-598-6205

October 1, 2010

At Jimmy Johns, Allegations of Illegal Union-Busting as NLRB Election Approaches

Labor Rights Violations Stack up as Sandwich Chain Turns to 'Union Avoidance' Consultants

MINNEAPOLIS– Jimmy John's will face a government investigation of 14 alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act at ten Minneapolis locations, the IWW Jimmy John's Workers Union announced today. The sandwich workers union has filed an Unfair Labor Practice charge accusing company owners Mike and Rob Mulligan of engaging in a pattern of labor rights violations ranging from physical intimidation and threats against union members, to tightening of company policies in retaliation for union activity.

“When we formed the union, we were hoping to just be able to sit down with Mike and Rob to talk about some basic improvements- sick days, basic respect, and a pay raise above minimum wage. We are dismayed that Jimmy John's has opted to bring in high-priced anti-union consultants and attempt to illegally union-bust rather than just come to the table,” said Ayo Collins, a member of the union.

Franchise owners Mike and Rob Mulligan have refused to meet with their employees to discuss their issues, prompting the sandwich workers to file for a National Labor Relations Board union election. The Labor Board recently announced that the election will be held on October 22. If a majority of Minneapolis Jimmy Johns workers vote in favor of the union, the Mulligans will be legally required to negotiate in good faith over the terms of a contract.

In response to the union campaign, Jimmy Johns has contracted with Labor Relations Institute, Inc., a third party anti-union consultancy firm, to mount a comprehensive attack on union supporters. With the aid of Labor Relations Institute, the Mulligans have begun a series of 'captive audience meetings,' requiring their employees to watch anti-union videos in an attempt to break support for unionization. Other aspects of the anti-union campaign have crossed over into illegality, with reports of management threats, intimidation, and retaliation against union members surfacing across Minneapolis.

According to a 2009 report on employer responses to union organizing by noted Cornell University labor scholar Kate Bronfenbrenner, 63% of employers interrogate workers in mandatory one-on-one meetings about support for the union, 54% of employers threaten workers in such meetings, 47% of employers threaten to cut wages and benefits, 34% of employers fire workers, and 28% attempt to infiltrate the organizing committee. Due to these factors, only 45% of NLRB elections conducted from 1999-2003 resulted in a union victory.

In large part because of harsh employer opposition, union density in the food service industry hovers around a mere 1.8%. A union victory at Jimmy Johns could be a major breakthrough for labor in an industry where unions have struggled to gain a foothold, even as an increasing number of Americans find themselves employed in fast food.

The Jimmy Johns Workers Union, open to employees at the company nationwide, is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World labor union. Gaining prominence in recent years for organizing Starbucks workers, the IWW is a global union founded over a century ago for all working people.

##

Related:
Cornell University Report- “No Holds Barred: the Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing”
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp235RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

The latest:


Student Debt Dance-a-thon. Time to Drop Debt like it's Hot!

Thursday October 7th:

4pm Dance-a-thon starts at the Dinkytown Jimmy Johns, 404 14th Ave SE
-Dance through campus!-
5pm Dance-a-thon ends at the Riverside Jimmy Johns, 2037 Riverside Ave

WHY? Because:
• Tuition is increasing.
• Service industry workers are forced to take out student loans to attend school.
• With better-paying jobs hard to find, service industry workers end up buried in student debt with no way out.

Join student-workers in the IWW Jimmy Johns Workers Union for a Dance-a-thon against low wages and high tuition!

Allied with the Oct. 7 National Day of Action to Defend Education.

Sponsored by the Jimmy Johns Workers Union and Lorelei Soundsystem.


http://jimmyjohnsunion.orgRED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

The latest:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Jimmy Johns Workers Union (Industrial Workers of the World)
Contact: Erik Forman, 612-598-6205, Emily Pzybylski, 414-477-9803

October 6, 2010

Student Debt Dance-a-Thon in Dinkytown Protests Low Wages and
Skyrocketing Tuition

Jimmy Johns Workers Join National Day of Action in Defense of Education

MINNEAPOLIS– Dinkytown will resound with protest chants and techno
beats at 4pm this afternoon as Jimmy Johns workers and student allies
join in a dance party protest of low service industry wages and
skyrocketing tuition at the nation's colleges and universities.

“There's no way you can pay for school or pay off student loans on the
poverty wages workers like us make at Jimmy John's and other fast food
businesses,” said Emily Pzybylski a delivery driver at the Dinkytown
Jimmy Johns and student at the University of Minnesota. "High tuition
and low wages turn these into dead-end jobs," she added.

Many Jimmy Johns workers are either attending college, paying back
student loans, or hoping to go back to school for additional job
training in order to escape low-wage service industry employment. As
college and university tuition has increased, the dream of higher
education has become an unreachable mirage for many. Tuition at the
University of Minnesota has more than doubled in the last decade. At
the same time, university graduates have found fewer and fewer job
opportunities, prompting BusinessWeek to dub today's young workers
“The Lost Generation” because of high rates of joblessness and chronic
underemployment.

“People say 'get a better job.' What they don't realize is that places
like Jimmy Johns are some of the only jobs that are left. We decided
to organize a labor union at Jimmy Johns because if we're going to be
stuck in this service economy, then it needs to provide quality jobs
for working families. We are not going to be a 'lost generation',”
said Ayo Collins, a worker at the sandwich chain.

The National Labor Relations Board will conduct a union election for
200 Jimmy Johns employees at 10 Minneapolis locations on October 22, a
historic first for the nation's largely non-union fast food industry.
If a majority of Minneapolis Jimmy Johns workers vote in favor of the
union, franchise owners Mike and Rob Mulligan will be legally required
to negotiate in good faith over the terms of a contract. The Jimmy
Johns Workers Union is seeking improved wages, sick days, consistent
scheduling, and basic respect for workers.

The Jimmy Johns Workers Union, open to employees at the company
nationwide, is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World
labor union. Gaining prominence in recent years for organizing
Starbucks workers, the IWW is a global union founded over a century
ago for all working people.

##

JimmyJohnsWorkers.orgRED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

The latest:

WOW!


Minneapolis AFL-CIO Endorses Jimmy John's Workers Union

Support Builds for Sandwich Workers in Run-up to Historic Union Election with Rally Planned for Monday

Rally and Press Conference: 5:30pm Monday 10/18, Block E Jimmy John's

MINNEAPOLIS– The Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation has voted to endorse the IWW Jimmy John's Workers Union, throwing the weight of its 75000 members in 125 affiliated labor unions behind the unprecedented effort to unionize franchised fast food. 200 Jimmy John's workers at 10 Minneapolis locations will vote in an historic NLRB union election on October 22nd. If a majority of workers vote in favor of unionization, 10 Minneapolis Jimmy John's will become the first union fast food franchise in the United States.

“We are so grateful for this support. The franchise owner Mike Mulligan has been saying we aren't a 'real' union. If we're not 'real,' then why does the largest union federation in this city support us? We are very real, and we are going to win our demands for fair wages, consistent scheduling, sick days, and respect,” said Ayo Collins, a member of the union at the Ninth St. Jimmy John's.

Franchise owner Mike Mulligan has refused to address the workers grievances over pay hovering around minimum wage, shifts as short as one hour, and pressure on workers to work while sick. Instead, Mulligan has employed a third-party union-busting firm at an estimated cost of $3000 per day to undermine the unionization effort with a campaign of captive audience meetings, misinformation, and misrepresentations, often crossing over into illegality.

In response, the IWW Jimmy Johns Workers Union has filed Unfair Labor Practice charges over 22 alleged labor rights violations. The National Labor Relations Board is investigating the charges.

Despite a harsh employer response, the sandwich workers remain confident of victory.

“You can only keep people down for so long. We are standing up for better wages, consistent hours, and a better life for ourselves and our coworkers. And we know that millions of fast food workers across the country are watching. We will win,” said David Boehnke, a union member at the Skyway Jimmy John's.

The Jimmy Johns Workers Union, open to employees at the company nationwide, is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World labor union. Gaining prominence in recent years for organizing Starbucks workers, the IWW is a global union founded over a century ago for all working people.

##

JimmyJohnsWorkers.orgRED DAVE

[syndicat]

TIME Newsfeed piece on JJ campaign:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/10/05/first-fast-food-workers-union-planned/

[syndicat]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Jimmy Johns Workers Union (Industrial Workers of the World)
Contacts: Emily Przybylski, 414-477-9803; Ayo Collins, 612-281-0882
October 18, 2010

Rally Kicks off Final Countdown to Historic Fast Food Union Election at Jimmy John's
A Sign of Hope for a Nation Reeling from Recession

MINNEAPOLIS– Jimmy John's workers and supporters will rally this afternoon, kicking off the final countdown to an unprecedented NLRB union election at the Minneapolis-based franchise of the national sandwich chain on Friday. If a majority of workers vote in favor of unionization, 10 Minneapolis Jimmy John's that employ total 200 workers will become the first union fast food franchise in the United States.

"A union in fast food is an idea whose time has come. There are millions of workers in this industry living in poverty, with no consistent scheduling, no job security, and no respect. It's time for change and we are leading the way," said Emily Przybylski, a union member at Jimmy John's.

A victory for the union would force franchise owner Mike Mulligan to negotiate with workers over their grievances, which include pay hovering around minimum wage, shifts as short as one hour, and pressure on workers to work while sick.

Since the launch of the union campaign on September 2nd, the IWW Jimmy John's Workers Union has been buoyed by an outpouring of public support from a nation reeling from the deepest recession in decades. Supporters have picketed and leafletted Jimmy John's locations across the country, while endorsements and donations have come pouring in from scores of unions and community groups.
Propelled by deep-seated frustration with a stagnant economy and record levels of poverty, the IWW Jimmy Johns Union has broken new ground for America's labor movement in a sector known for the lowest union density– and lowest wages– in the United States. Only 1.8% of fast food workers are represented by a labor union, far below the nation-wide average of 12.3%. With union workers in the fast food sector making on average $2.36 more per hour than their non-union peers, unionization has the potential to lift millions out of poverty.

The sandwich workers have succeeded in unknown territory for unions by tapping into deep-seated disenchantment with economic elites with an innovative organizing model that puts workers in full control of every aspect of their own union campaign, rather than relying on professional paid staff.

"At Jimmy John's, we are the union, the workers are the union. We built our union from scratch, just like in the early days of the labor movement. We expect to win this election, and expect to keep growing as long as workers continue to suffer because of corporate greed," said Ayo Collins, a delivery driver and union member at Jimmy John's.

The Jimmy Johns Worker's Union, open to employees at the company nationwide, is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World labor union. Gaining prominence in recent years for organizing Starbucks workers, the IWW is a global union founded over a century ago for all working people.
##
JimmyJohnsWorkers.org

[syndicat]

Election is this Friday. the company has been doing captive audience anti-union meetings. people connected with the campaign tell me red-baiting is the company's main tack: "this is an anarchist/socialist organization", referring to the anti-capitalist part of the Preamble to the IWW constitution. It's very doubtful this "patriotic appeal" will resonate with these workers, who tend to be poor folks, counter-cultural people, students. intimidation and sowing fear are more important as far as why campaigns get defeated. Showing they have support from others is an important way to counter this.

on the counter-cultural theme, this Thurs at 8 pm there is going to be a benefit concert at Paper Moose (945 Broadway NE) in Minneapolis for the Jimmy Johns Workers Union. It's called Jimmy Jams because it features Jimmy John's workers' bands.

the campaign has made the pages of the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/business/21union.html?pagewanted=1

[crashcourse]

hi all,

Thanks for the support. After the election the struggle will continue so please make a donation here:
http://www.jimmyjohnsworkers.org/donate

This campaign is entirely run on volunteers' labor so our overhead is low but there are expenses and every dollar helps, honestly. Another way to put it is that since w're all volunteer, even small donations go very far. And if any of you are members of other unions, the workers very much appreciate resolutions of support, if your local would be willing to make one.
Thanks.

[RED DAVE]

I find it fascinating that members of various left tendencies, especially but not exclusively Americans, who keep their eyes on the prize in other countries, have nothing to say about this development. (Nothing much to say about France, either.)

RED DAVE

[Sosa]

This is really encouraging to me and my fellow workers. As I mentioned before, we are currently organizing our own workplace with the IWW and it is not easy.

[RED DAVE]

This is really encouraging to me and my fellow workers. As I mentioned before, we are currently organizing our own workplace with the IWW and it is not easy.Can you give us some details about how you are going about organizing.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Jimmy Johns Workers Union (Industrial Workers of the World)
Contact: Erik Forman, 612-598-6205, Ayo Collins 612-281-0882
October 22, 2010
Unfazed by near tie, Jimmy John’s Workers vow to continue campaign
Workers report widespread illegal activity by company
MINNEAPOLIS – Workers at 10 Jimmy John’s franchise locations in Minneapolis are crying foul after a near tie in a union certification election marred by misconduct by owner MikLin enterprises. 85 workers voted in favor of unionization and 87 against, with two unknown contested ballots. Under the National Labor Relations Act, a tie goes to the employer.
Workers reported strong evidence of several violations of the National Labor Relations Act on and before election day, including attempted bribes of workers, management asking workers to wear anti-union pins, threats of mass firings, and anti-union firings. MikLin Enterprises currently stands charged with 22 alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act.
"We are extremely disappointed with the company’s conduct in this matter; rather then letting simply letting us vote, management chose to break the law repeatedly during the last six weeks. They spent over $84,500 on a vicious anti-union smear campaign, that's over $1000 per vote. We do not recognize these election results as legitimate and will continue to fight for our demands," said Erik Forman, a worker at Jimmy John’s and a union member.
Ayo Collins, a delivery driver, says the union "hasn’t put all their eggs in one basket" and has multiple avenues of action still open to them. He says the union is considering taking legal action against the company over their misconduct in the runup to the election.
"In a company with turnover approaching 50% each month, a majority at any given moment only means so much. We have a mandate- more than 85 of us are committed to continuing the fight for decent wages, consistent scheduling, sick days, and the basic respect and dignity that all workers deserve. This is just the beginning of the fight," said Collins.
The Jimmy Johns Workers Union, open to employees at the company nationwide, is the first fast food union in the nation, and is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World labor union. Gaining prominence in recent years for organizing Starbucks workers, the IWW is a global union founded over a century ago for all working people.
##
JimmyJohnsWorkers.org

[Blackscare]

I FUCKING WORKED AT JIMMY JOHNS!

The owners I worked for were total pricks and ripped off employees like mad. I was a delivery guy and they didn't even have proper insurance. The problem being that if I got in a wreck with their sign on my car, my insurance wouldn't cover me. The motherfucker played dumb about it when I confronted him and then said "well if you get in a crash, pull off the sign." As if if I fucking got t-boned and crippled I could hobble over and pull it off.



Fuck yea to the IWW! This was seriously needed, those people (corporate and franchised ones) are exploitative bastards to the max.


That and they deck their cheesy ugly ass stores out with Trump and Bloomberg right-wing quotes, which always pissed me off.

As a former employee, I salute them. I only wish I was still there to help organize.

[crashcourse]

Sosa - drop me a line privately if you;d like to talk on the phone about your organizing.

All, I want to point out that management carried out a massively funded union busting campaign and flagrantly illegal actions and just barely scraped by with two votes. This speaks to how much Jimmy Johns workers want justice. Round two is going to play out differently.

[Os Cangaceiros]

All, I want to point out that management carried out a massively funded union busting campaign and flagrantly illegal actions and just barely scraped by with two votes.

That's very disappointing. Hopefully you guys will prevail in this fight.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

This isn't over. It isn't surprising they started to play their dirtiest tricks when voting time came.
I applaud everyone that contributed to the campaign, and to those keeping up the fight. We will prevail.

[syndicat]

Whether to go the route of an NLRB election is always a difficult question because it poses a risk of losing the vote. However, the important thing is the actual organizing and the formation of an actual union there, which does already exist, having been formed by the workers, and they will continue their fight. The union has the support, based on the vote, of about half the workers. As they point out in their press release, turnover is constant in this type of business, and the mistreatment, low wages and lack of hours is one of the reasons.

so even if they had won this vote, they would have had to constantly organize to retain a majority. the employer could have maintained intransigence and waited and decerted the union later. It's the actual solidarity and activity of the workers and their support in the community that counts in being able to obtain concessions from the employer.

it's a bad idea to encourage the idea that you "win a union" by an NLRB vote. the real union lies in the workers themselves being "in union" with each other...that is what an authentic union is. an NLRB victory would have strengthened their position by adding a certain legal legitimacy and giving them an addition lever. but in the end they would still have needed to build the actual solidarity and willingess to support each other and be disruptive to win concessions.

[RED DAVE]

Whether to go the route of an NLRB election is always a difficult question because it poses a risk of losing the vote.I have to disagree with you. In this period, to avoid the NLRB route is a mistake. In the absence of continuous, high-level worker involvement, without a union, it is virtually impossible to win needed short-term victories.


However, the important thing is the actual organizing and the formation of an actual union there, which does already exist, having been formed by the workers, and they will continue their fight.I think you are being idealistic here. What you have is a strong organizing committee not a viable union.


The union has the support, based on the vote, of about half the workers. As they point out in their press release, turnover is constant in this type of business, and the mistreatment, low wages and lack of hours is one of the reasons.All true. But in this period, in the absence of a legally-recognized union, consistent struggle is virtually impossible.


so even if they had won this vote, they would have had to constantly organize to retain a majority. the employer could have maintained intransigence and waited and decerted the union later.Although enforcement is not automatic, once an NLRB election is won, the bosses are required to bargain "in good faith." I know how much bullshit is involved. I've been involved in three organizing efforts in the last ten years.


It's the actual solidarity and activity of the workers and their support in the community that counts in being able to obtain concessions from the employer.True. And let's not forget the support of organized labor, for what it's worth at this time.


it's a bad idea to encourage the idea that you "win a union" by an NLRB vote.It's also a bad idea to encourage the idea that the strength gained by winning an election isn't real and the ground lost by losing one isn't real.


the real union lies in the workers themselves being "in union" with each other...that is what an authentic union is.Don't forget that that "in union" involves an ongoing organization.


an NLRB victory would have strengthened their position by adding a certain legal legitimacy and giving them an addition lever.Right.


but in the end they would still have needed to build the actual solidarity and willingess to support each other and be disruptive to win concessions.True as can be.

It's this kind of nuts and bolts organizing that we need, thousand times over. Maybe we'll win the next one or the next, or the next, but our tactics will improve, our resources will accumulate, and the victories will come.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

I have to disagree with you. In this period, to avoid the NLRB route is a mistake. In the absence of continuous, high-level worker involvement, without a union, it is virtually impossible to win needed short-term victories.


And i disagree with you here, as I do with all your harpings on the alleged necessity of staying with the framework of the rotting corpse of bureaucratic business unionism.


All true. But in this period, in the absence of a legally-recognized union, consistent struggle is virtually impossible

and you are being unrealistic in the way that you overestimate the importance of this "legal recognition". the basic thing is the willingness of people to work together and engage in collective action.


It's also a bad idea to encourage the idea that the strength gained by winning an election isn't real and the ground lost by losing one isn't real.


yes, losing a vote poses the danger of demoralizing people. It was for this reason that some people in this campaign who I agree with were against going the NLRB election route. but they lost the vote in the union on this. the majority decided to take the risk in order to gain the leverage of being legally recognized. it's particularly a risk in this type of workplace, characterizied by high turnover.


Don't forget that that "in union" involves an ongoing organization.


There is an ongoing organization here. It's called the Jimmy Johns Workers Union and is a part of the IWW.

I've seen you write about NLRB elections where you say that the union is created by winning an election. That is mistaken; it's an overly legalistic, bureaucratic way of looking at unionism. back before the Wagner Act was passed, workers did create unions. by your logic, they couldn't have.

[crashcourse]

That's very disappointing. Hopefully you guys will prevail in this fight.

Thanks comrade. 85 to 87, management spent about $1000 per no vote on the union busting consultants alone, not included lawyers etc. Our budget, well, let's just say it was significantly smaller...!


What you have is a strong organizing committee not a viable union.

Dave, respectfully, you don't know what we do or don't have here.



in this period, in the absence of a legally-recognized union, consistent struggle is virtually impossible.

I think the concept of "period" here is a fetish. I mean, a lot of people say "in this period, food service workers are unorganizable." I know this election was a loss but it being so close IMO proves this industry is organizable. At the same time, legal recognition and 'consistent struggle' are independent of each other. I think you're overgeneralizing in terms of strategy.



Although enforcement is not automatic, once an NLRB election is won, the bosses are required to bargain "in good faith."

We had massive ULPs in this campaign, management doesn't care about the law, the "good faith" bargaining requirement is a piece of paper. This reminds me of that great Dixie Chicks song, "Earl," where Earl walks right through a restrainig order...

I also think that, other than the thing about good faith negotiations, what you've mostly argued about here is the need for recognitions and contracts. NLRB elections aren't the only way to get those. Look at SEIU's Justice For Janitors campaigns, and some of UNITE-HERE's pressure campaigns, these are both ways to get out of the NLRB election framework but still going for recognition and contracts. I mean, that was the whole argument in favor of the EFCA, that NLRB elections just don't work. According to this, relatively recently, 1/3 of union elections ended in failure -
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2009/05/nlrb-election-statistics.html

According to these --
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/resource-library/why-mediation--arbitration-rules-are-needed.html
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/dmdocuments/sequential_failures_in_workers_right_to_organize_3 _25_2008.pdfz

even with successful elections, less than half of unions get a contract in the first year, and more than a 1/3 still don't have it after 2 years. Only 1 in 5 petitions for union election end in a contract. And if there's a ULP involved, the chance drops to just under 1 in 10 -- I don't think that's primarily because the way the board handles ULPs gums up the process, I think it's more likely that the presence of a ULP is a sign of a boss being really intractable and fighting. So it seems to me that with the NLRB election route, if bosses really want to fight, they're probly going to win - they do, 90% of the time. So I don't think we should see staying within the NLRB election route as a general strategic principle for our era, as you seem to suggest. If it makes tactical sense to file for an election, fine, but we should also be experimenting like crazy on other models, because the election model is more broken than it is functional.



let's not forget the support of organized labor, for what it's worth at this time.

I was happy that came but I don't think it made any impact on the campaign, really.


"in union" involves an ongoing organization.

Yes. Which we had before, built here, and will continue to build.


It's this kind of nuts and bolts organizing that we need, thousand times over. Maybe we'll win the next one or the next, or the next, but our tactics will improve, our resources will accumulate, and the victories will come.

I agree here 100%. I'm not a believer in the IWW as One Big Union -- we're not going to become the OBU for the whole class etc. I think that it's more likely that the working class will have multiple types of organizations and multiple examples of each type, multiple models etc, and these all have to relate to each other, sort of like an ecosystem. I think the IWW's approach to organizing has an important role to play especially for fast food and other low waged high turnover industries - this campaign was entirely volunteer run, 100%. Whatever else there is to say about that, it's cheap. It's simply not cost effective in terms of the costs of staff time to organize a lot of places, so for a lot of industries either the organizing involves training workers to organize themselves (in the same basic ways unions train their organizing staff), or it doesn't happen. That also means that the lessons people learn from experience are potentially better utilized. What I mean is, workers in struggle do things that build skills. Sometimes those skills go under-used in unions. For all our flaws, I think our approach in the IWW means we have to use that sort of resource of workers' skills basically entirely since we have a volunteer-centered organizing model. Over all personally I think radicals should work to become very good organizers (not activists, though I think activism is important I think people conflate those things too much), I think that would give radical ideas more credibility as well as the benefits the working class would get of having more organizers. I wrote letter sort of about this recently, to the New Socialist Group, in case anyone's interested, it's here -

http://www.newsocialist.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=278:a-letter-about-workplace-organizing&catid=53:blog&Itemid=68

[Die Neue Zeit]

And so far my own comment to your letter hasn't been published yet. :(

[Sosa]

Can you give us some details about how you are going about organizing.

RED DAVE

To be honest I'd rather not give any specific details, I don't know if that's ok with my comrades. However, I will say that it all started with one person talking to another person and it went from there.


Sosa - drop me a line privately if you;d like to talk on the phone about your organizing.

All, I want to point out that management carried out a massively funded union busting campaign and flagrantly illegal actions and just barely scraped by with two votes. This speaks to how much Jimmy Johns workers want justice. Round two is going to play out differently.

Don't take it personal but I'm a bit paranoid about talking in detail about it until we go public. This is a first for me so I'm trying to be as careful as I can.

[crashcourse]

To be honest I'd rather not give any specific details, I don't know if that's ok with my comrades. However, I will say that it all started with one person talking to another person and it went from there.



Don't take it personal but I'm a bit paranoid about talking in detail about it until we go public. This is a first for me so I'm trying to be as careful as I can.

I don't take it personally. You're being smart, don't talk publicly until your campaign is public. I meant let's talk privately. Contact me and we'll figure out how I can get someone to vouch that I'm not a spy etc.

[DaringMehring]

I just want to congratulate the organizers on their efforts. Keep fighting, comrades!

[syndicat]

The franchise owners in Minneapolis posted this right-wing article in all the stores, entitled "Would you like a union with that, Comrade?"

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/19/would-you-like-a-union-with-th

[DaringMehring]

http://www.peoplesworld.org/jimmy-john-workers-still-fighting-despite-vote-setback/

I know the author... any questions or additional info, can be passed to me

[syndicat]

In These Times article, "Jimmy John’s Workers Narrowly Reject Union—and Underscore Potential Power of EFCA"

http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6585/narrow_defeat_of_union_vote_at_jimmy_johns_shows_w hy_we_need_efca/

[bretty]

Good luck with this campaign. I work in a non-unionized factory I know how unfair management can be on a day to day basis. I wish there were more organizations active in my area.

-B

[RED DAVE]

Good luck with this campaign. I work in a non-unionized factory I know how unfair management can be on a day to day basis. I wish there were more organizations active in my area.

-BTime to start organizing. Here's a good place to start.

http://www.labornotes.org/

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=879576&catid=391



Sandwich workers to continue to press for improved working conditions

Workers Union has filed a 12-page Objection to the Oct. 22 NLRB election at 10 Minneapolis sandwich shops, outlining a pattern of pervasive and systemic labor rights violations that prevented the possibility of a free and fair vote.

The union election, a first in fast food in the US, was as close as they come, with 85 votes in favor of the union, 87 against, and 2 challenged ballots.
"Franchise owner Mike Mulligan decided to go beyond the pale. His managers asked workers to wear anti-union pins, fired pro-union workers, threatened a mass firing, implemented an illegal wage freeze, tightened policies and retaliated against union members, offered bribes, and pressured workers to vote no. He broke the law repeatedly in order to win, and he just barely won. That's not right. We are calling on the NLRB to set aside the results of this election," said worker and union member Emily Przybylsky.
In response to his employee's union campaign, franchise owner Mike Mulligan hired a third-party anti-union consulting firm, Labor Relations Inc., to prevent employees from winning an NLRB Union election. According to documents obtained from the Department of Labor, Mulligan spent over $84,500 on an anti-union campaign intended to prevent workers from unionizing.
Tim Louris, of Minneapolis labor firm Miller O'Brien Cummins, is assisting the union pro-bono in navigating the tricky waters of labor law.
Union spokespeople say the written objection to the election results will be available to the public within a few days.
While filing with the NLRB to have the election results nullified, the workers also plan to mount a campaign to win their demands without union recognition.
"85 yes votes, in spite of 6 weeks of vicious union-busting, is a mandate for change," said "There are a thousand ways we can put pressure on Jimmy John's to win our demands for fair wages, sick days, consistent hours, and respect. We're fired up, this fight is just beginning," said Ayo Collins, another worker and union member.
The Jimmy Johns Workers Union, open to employees at the company nationwide, is the first fast food union in the nation, and is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World labor union.
Gaining prominence in recent years for organizing Starbucks workers, the IWW is a global union founded over a century ago for all working people.

(Copyright 2010 by KARE. All Rights Reserved.)

[syndicat]

I work in a non-unionized factory I know how unfair management can be on a day to day basis. I wish there were more organizations active in my area.



other resources:

http://www.iww.org

http://www.ueunion.org/stwd_idx.html

[syndicat]

IWW has filed a petition with NLRB to nullify the Jimmy Johns election due to systematic illegal behavior & intimidation:

Bribes, threats, punches alleged in Jimmy John's unionization effort

http://www.startribune.com/business/106354738.html

[bretty]

Thanks for the resources. I'm going to look into this.

Would anyone recommend joining the IWW?

-B

[RED DAVE]

Thanks for the resources. I'm going to look into this.

Would anyone recommend joining the IWW?

-BThat is a serious and difficult question. On the one hand it's the fucking IWW: One Big Union! And who wouldn't want to be involved? And the organizing drive at Jimmy John's was real; the workers almost won; and there's a good chance they'll win in the future.

On the other hand, if it hadn't been the IWW, and management couldn't red bait them, but only union bait them, they probably would have won. I know that to IWW supporters, this sounds like a bureaucratic argument in the extreme. However, I can't see the IWW winning a bargaining election in a relatively stable work environment, like a factory with low turnover, right now.

Someone convince me I'm wrong. Right now, I know someone who's trying to organize a small private school under the aegis of the AFT. He's having the devil's own time due to the personal relationship between the staff and management. If the union were the IWW, it would be that much more difficult.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

Although my political group has quite a few members in the IWW, including people involved in the Jimmy Jonns campaign, we don't make a fetish of the IWW. We're open to other ways to organize in workplaces.

To take an example, in the '70s I helped organize a union, which had about 350 members at its high point, that was run in a highly grassroots way, like the IWW. no paid officers or staff. Even tho our newsletter was called "Don't mourn organize!" and the president and some other members like me were libertarian socialists, we didn't consider affiliatiing to the IWW. Not for the reason Red Dave mentions. There were a lot of radicals in this workplace, including people belonging to various Marxist-Leninist groups (including members of the predecessor group of the group Red Dave belongs to). They would have objected to going with IWW. So an independent union was the best framework to allow people to cooperate who had different political views.

But I don't think red-baiting was the exclusive reason the IWW didn't get a majority in this case. The intimidation was fierce. This kind of thing happens no matter how conservative the union is. Moreover, the AFL-CIO unions will give management other ammunition. If it's the Teamsters they will talk about violence and mob contacts. They will talk about how unions are controlled by bureaucrats who just suck down your dues money. And the fact is, there is quite a bit of working class anti-unionism...especially among people who have been in AFL-CIO unions. This is why so many NLRB elections are defeated. And I think the IWW has a good answer to some of the usual attacks. For example as a very unbureaucratic grassroots union, the "you'll just be giving your money to an unresponsible bureaucracy" line isn't going to work.

I also think that the vision of workers managing industries -- which is the IWW's program -- is an attractive vision that helps to sustain opposition to employers. The labor movement has to ultimately come to the point of working out a vision for worker empowerment.

That said, i'm not saying I'm opposed to going with an AFL-CIO union. it depends on the circumstances. when i tried to organize a weekly newspaper I decided to go with the GCIU. this made the most sense since the workers who print the paper were in the GCIU. in another case a member of my political group helped to organize the clerical workers at his hospital into the SEIU. this was because the other workers at the hospital were already in the SEIU. however, he very soon had to organize an opposition rank and file group and produce a rank and file newsletter, due to the SEIU local's unresponsive bureaucracy.

[YSR]

Red Dave,

Being close to the situation and talking to workers after the election, I think my original thoughts about the red-baiting were really overstated. It seems like despite lots of red-baiting propaganda and bullshit from the owners, very few Jimmy John's workers at our franchise responded negatively to it. Some anti-union workers used the language of red-baiting to express their opposition to the union, but mostly the election was lost because of classic anti-union tactics by the bosses. If it hadn't have been red-baiting the IWW, it would have been talking about big salaries for bureaucrats in the AFL-CIO or the lack of democracy in SEIU or corruption in the Teamsters, etc etc.

I think that the proof is actually the opposite of how you put it. I'd like to be convinced why any revolutionary should try to organize a union of workers into a bureaucratic contractualist union as opposed to a rank-and-file solidarity union like the IWW. To me it seems clear that revolutionaries should be building independent organizations of class power. To do that means facing some hard questions from workers about our politics, but also gives us a perfect opportunity to discuss those questions in the context of struggle. What easier way to talk about the class war than reference the intimidation and firings associated with a union drive?

[syndicat]

interesting that what YSR says about the JJ campaign fits in with my impressions.

in regard to the larger point, I agree with YSR but with a qualification. It's also possible to have an independent worker organization in the context of a workplace where an AFL-CIO union is entrenched. in this case this would be more likely to take the form of a rank and file or base committee or network of active workers. this might be what some people would call an "intermediate" organization...intermediate in its degree of political unity between a revolutionary political organization and a mass union organization. but a "minority union" formation in a workplace might also be an "intermediate" organization in this sense also. or a grassroots workers center or solidarity action committee, like Seattle Solidarity Network.

[RED DAVE]

Latest from the IWW Jimmy Johns struggle


Here to Stay: Jimmy Jams Vol. 2
A Benefit for the IWW Jimmy Johns Workers Union

9pm Sunday November 7

The JJWU is going strong! Come support Jimmy John's workers in their
fight to bring democracy to the fast food industry!

Featuring:
Terracide
Nice Purse
Del Cabo
Anders Ponders
True Mutiny
Sarah Bonneville

18+, but the bar will still be open

Doors open at 8 pm, music starts at 9

$5 donation at the door, or pay what you can. The union gets 90% of
the proceeds from this benefit!

Hope to see you there!RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

The latest:


Sandwich shop union waits for ruling over labor claim

Jimmy John’s workers decry alleged “anti-union” activities.
http://www.mndaily.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/article_aside/images/photos/2010/11/10/p1jimmyjohns.jpg (http://www.mndaily.com/sites/default/files/images/photos/2010/11/10/p1jimmyjohns.jpg)

By Jennifer Bissell (http://www.mndaily.com/user/1178)

(http://www.mndaily.com/user/1178)Losing by only two votes in the union election Oct. 22, the Jimmy John’s Workers Union is continuing its fight for “basic fairness on the job.”

It will submit a condensed 10-point list of demands to the franchise owners within the next few weeks, and soon the National Labor Relations Board will begin ruling on the alleged unfair labor practices filed by employees in objection to the unionization vote.
“We’re not, right now, pressuring them to recognize us,” union member Erik Forman said. “We’re just going to pressure them to meet our demands.”

Union members say they lost the election primarily because of the “anti-union” campaign tactics used by the franchise owners, which the union detailed in a 12-page objection to the election sent to the NLRB.

The objection, dated Oct. 29, cites specific instances when the franchise owners allegedly fired, threatened and retaliated against union advocates.

Mike Mulligan, one of the franchise owners, adamantly denied the claims.
“We are going to vigorously defend ourselves in each and every single one of them,” Mulligan said. “They are full of fabrications and misrepresentations and, in a couple of cases, what we consider outright lies.”

Forman said he had heard Mulligan and the franchise’s responses before.

“They can keep living in that fairy tale for maybe another week or two, until the NRLB starts ruling on some things,” Forman said.

Forman also defended the union against the allegation that its members were lying, saying the union has a policy against sabotage, and only participates in traditional union tactics such as work stoppages, pickets and boycotts.

Of the alleged fair labor violations cited in the objection, one details an instance when a manager allegedly offered an employee money to vote against the union.

The manager offered to drive the employee to the election site and stop on the way to get something to eat if the employee voted against the union, according to the objection.

Mulligan said the allegation of was an “outright lie,” adding that the employee had been fired since the incident for allegedly stealing from the company, which Mulligan said is on tape.

The objection also stated other anti-union employees received rides when no union advocates did. The objection notes one instance when a manager-in-training drove two hours away to pick up an anti-union employee.

The objection continues that employees were required to attend weekly meetings with representatives from the Labor Relations Institute as a part of a union avoidance program prior to the union election.

According to the institute’s website, the program promises employers the following:

“You don’t win, you don’t pay! If you don’t win your campaign using the proven combination of LRI employee information videos, on-site consultation, LRI support tools and union-specific research, you pay nothing.”

Though the union alleges the hiring of the consulting firm violated fair labor practices, both Mulligan and a spokesman for the institute said that the program was legal and a protected right for employers.

“I assure you, if it had been a violation of the Labor Act, we wouldn’t have done it,” Mulligan said. “We are perfectly entitled to hold meetings, informational meetings, with our employees. We paid our employees when they attended those meetings and it’s perfectly, not only legal, but appropriate for us to do so.”

Currently, employees are submitting their testimonies against the franchise owners, and in two weeks the NLRB will announce if a hearing will be held.

Regardless of whether there will be a hearing, Forman said that if the owners don’t respond to the union’s newest list of demands, members will begin informing customers of the “sub-standard” labor practices at the sandwich shops to persuade customers to boycott.

Mulligan said that since the union has filed an objection, the franchise wouldn’t be in a position to — or be required to — negotiate with the union before the issue is settled.

“At this point, we can’t,” Mulligan said, noting that the company didn’t want to anyway. “We prefer to maintain the direct contact relationship we have with our employees.”http://www.mndaily.com/2010/11/11/sandwich-shop-union-waits-ruling-over-labor-claim

RED DAVE

[Sosa]

http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6693/the_jimmy_johns_defeat_and_the_trouble_with_union_ elections/

[syndicat]

Jimmy John’s Workers Union—Here to Stay!

http://ideasandaction.info/2010/12/jimmy-john%e2%80%99s-workers-union-here-to-stay/

[syndicat]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Jimmy Johns Workers Union (Industrial Workers of the World)
Contact: Micah Buckley-Farlee, 612-845-9290

December 20, 2010

Jimmy John’s Workers Demand Holiday Pay

Sandwich Workers Bounce Back from Union Election Setback with Protest of Sub-Standard Pay

MINNEAPOLIS- Jimmy John's workers will call on Minneapolis franchise owners Mike and Rob Mulligan today to honor the spirit of the season by offering holiday pay to their employees on federal and major religious holidays. Workers plan to ask customers to sign 'Holiday Cards' asking the Mulligans to open their hearts and their wallets for workers who will spend Christmas Eve, New Year's Day, and other holidays selling sandwiches rather than enjoying the company of their families.

Although time and half pay on holidays is a standard benefit in almost all workplaces, Jimmy John’s falls short of industry standards by paying most workers minimum wage to work through the holidays.

“The Mulligans expect us to come in to work for minimum wage on Christmas Eve and New Year's Day instead of spending time with our families. It's not like time and a half is even that much money when you are making $7.25 an hour. This is really about respect. It feels like we're working for Scrooge,” said Brittany Koppy, a worker at the
Dinkytown Jimmy John's.

For bicycle delivery drivers, the pressure to work through the holiday season carries additional risk.

“Everyone is stressed during the this time of year and the roads are brutal. I fell three times and injured myself while working on Christmas Eve last year,” said Micah Buckley-Farlee, a bicycle delivery driver at the Dinkytown store, adding, “Holiday pay is an issue of both safety and respect.”

Company owners have ignored previous requests for holiday pay. David Boehnke, a worker at the Skyway store, asked franchise co-owner Rob Mulligan last week if the company would give workers time and half on the holidays. “Rob Mulligan responded, ‘What holidays?’ When I started listing holidays, He just walked away from me,” explained Boehnke.

The campaign for holiday pay is the latest step in an historic union campaign at Jimmy John's, a first in franchised fast food in the United States. In October, the Jimmy John’s Workers Union came within two votes of winning an National Labor Relations Board union election, losing 85-87 after management paid professional anti-union consultants over $84,000 to undermine their employees' organizing efforts. The Union has filed a legal challenge to the election process, alleging over 30 separate labor rights violations. The National Labor Relations Board is expected to rule on the charges in the coming weeks.

As the charges are investigated, the sandwich workers are forging ahead with demands for better pay and working conditions. In the new year, the Union plans to unveil a 'Ten Point Program for Justice at Jimmy John's,' outlining a comprehensive package of reforms to bring respect, dignity, and democracy to the fast food workplace.

The Jimmy Johns Workers Union, open to employees at the company nationwide, is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World labor union. Gaining prominence in recent years for organizing Starbucks workers, the IWW is a global union founded over a century ago for all working people.

##

JimmyJohnsWorkers.org

[RED DAVE]

MINNEAPOLIS- Jimmy John's workers will call on Minneapolis franchise owners Mike and Rob Mulligan today to honor the spirit of the season by offering holiday pay to their employees on federal and major religious holidays. Workers plan to ask customers to sign 'Holiday Cards' asking the Mulligans to open their hearts and their wallets for workers who will spend Christmas Eve, New Year's Day, and other holidays selling sandwiches rather than enjoying the company of their families.With all due respect the the fellow workers, it doesn't strike me that calling up employers "to open their hearts" is the greatest possible strategy.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

my reading of this is that it's outreach for support to the customers. it gives bad publicity to the franchise, and puts public pressure on them.

[RED DAVE]

my reading of this is that it's outreach for support to the customers. it gives bad publicity to the franchise, and puts public pressure on them.Maybe so, but it sounds pretty lame.

RED DAVE

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

With all due respect the the fellow workers, it doesn't strike me that calling up employers "to open their hearts" is the greatest possible strategy.

RED DAVE


That's the kind of thing you get from what remains of the IWW nowadays.

[syndicat]

well, the sectarians have spoken.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yep. Either that or a former member / delegate is providing an honest observation.

Of course some people will never accept it. It's like Chavistas who make one excuse after another, because "the Venezuelan project" is "socialist." The IWW can do no wrong because it's "run by workers" even when leading positions are filled by labor lawyers and non-profit hucksters and it appeals to the bosses and bourgeois popular opinion and signs contracts with no strike pledges.

By all means keep plugging along. Any day now the other 99.999999999% of the rest of the working class will wake up and come together in a syndicalist union that has puttered on in insignificance for decades. Any criticism can only be a distraction.

[syndicat]

The IWW can do no wrong because it's "run by workers" even when leading positions are filled by labor lawyers and non-profit hucksters and it appeals to the bosses and bourgeois popular opinion and signs contracts with no strike pledges.


this is lying bullshit. i'm not a member of the IWW, by the way. i'm just saying that what you say is crap. so, yeh, you betray your sectarianism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Since you're calling me a liar can you back up your statement? I can certainly back up mine.

[syndicat]

the burden of proof is on you.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sure thing.

Labor lawyers and non-profit hacks in leading positions?

1. A current General Executive Board member is a lawyer.

2. A prominent/leading member of the union (who for example, served on the Committee on Industrial Classification), is also a lawyer.

3. A de facto leader of the "Starbucks Union," is "Executive Director" of a NYC non-profit.

Contracts with no-strike pledges?

http://libcom.org/forums/organise/no-strike-clauses-iww-16122007

The bit about appeals to bosses and bourgeois public opinion was already proven in this thread before I mentioned it.

The disintegration of the IWW

See: 1924-present.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I didn't mention specific names in case those folks don't want their "public" identities associated with their positions in the IWW on a website like this.

[syndicat]

two lawyers elected to national exec board. BFD. Dan Gross is no longer involved in SBWU AFAIK.

the bit about no strike contracts at some nonprofits that were organized back in the '80s is old news. that was in an era when the IWW had only a few hundred members. to preserve the org they pursued easy targets like organizing weak nonprofits such as recycling centers, or getting coops to sign up. this is not a significant part of the orientation of the American IWW that exists today. in that era I and my organization (WSA) were critical of the IWW, and most of us didn't belong to it.

and none of this is the least bit relevant to the Jimmy Johns Workers Union or the Twin Cities IWW branch. if you know anything at all about the IWW, it is a diverse organization and different branches have different orientations.

so this is just the usual ultra-left crackpot mud slinging.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Your faith in the IWW as an organization rivals my grandma's faith in the Catholic Church.

BTW, what is it I was lying about again?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

if you know anything at all about the IWW

I just mentioned past and present GEB members, contracts, etc. Not to mention that I was a member for a few years, a delegate and a branch parliamentarian. And that I arrived at my position on the IWW and groups like it after studying everything I could get my hands on for the last few years. But yea, you're right. I don't know anything about the IWW.

And they aren't appealing to the bosses in the Twin Cities.

[Leo]

Also, I remember the bosses and workers in the same-union thing and there was a discussion on libcom about it, but I don't have the link.


so this is just the usual ultra-left crackpot mud slinging. I would say this is just the usual trotskyist method of dismissing criticism, yet you are supposed to be an "anarchist" of some sort, aren't you?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sure thing.

Labor lawyers and non-profit hacks in leading positions?

1. A current General Executive Board member is a lawyer.

2. A prominent/leading member of the union (who for example, served on the Committee on Industrial Classification), is also a lawyer.

3. A de facto leader of the "Starbucks Union," is "Executive Director" of a NYC non-profit.

There may be a problem with the third, and I have issues with the first two, but having workers with legal expertise or even labour paralegals isn't problematic at all. Even labour lawyers proper tend to be more left-leaning.

[syndicat]

There may be a problem with the third

as i pointed out, dan gross is no longer a part of SBWU. i don't know if he's even still an IWW member.

[syndicat]

I would say this is just the usual trotskyist method of dismissing criticism,

except that i answered the criticism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Also, I remember the bosses and workers in the same-union thing and there was a discussion on libcom about it, but I don't have the link.

Is this it?

Class collaboratinist branches in the IWW (http://libcom.org/forums/libcom-wobblies/class-collaboratinist-branches-iww-27122007) [sic]


(http://libcom.org/forums/libcom-wobblies/class-collaboratinist-branches-iww-27122007)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There may be a problem with the third, and I have issues with the first two, but having workers with legal expertise or even labour paralegals isn't problematic at all. Even labour lawyers proper tend to be more left-leaning.

There's a difference between being lawyers for the union and lawyers that lead the union.

Regardless, the IWW doesn't offer a way forward for the working class.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

as i pointed out, dan gross is no longer a part of SBWU. i don't know if he's even still an IWW member.

I'm not sure about that. I left the union a while ago and haven't kept up on it. I know that his non-profit still works closely with the IWW.

He was a member at least up until September 2010 (http://www.iww.org/en/node/5168). Just this month "comrade and legal adviser" Gross was working with and/or through the union: http://www.iww.org/en/node/5285

But it's not so much a question of whether or not he's still a member as much as whether like people like him can and do lead the organization.

BTW, I'm still waiting to find out what I lied about.

[syndicat]

this thread is about the Jimmy Johns Workers Union. your comments were put forth as if they were about that campaign or the Twin Cities branch. i'm not a member of IWW and haven't said the IWW is the greatest thing since sliced bread. what the overall prospects of the IWW are are a different subject.

then we see that in fact your comments had nothing to do with that campaign, but old news and this and that bit of ultra-left sniping...like obsessions about some labor lawyers being members of the IWW or some member of the IWW having formed a nonprofit. but you didn't say originally merely that some member of the IWW had formed a nonprofit. you said this was somehow some kind of emphasis of the organization or a strategy of the union, implying that this somehow had something to do with the JJ campaign.

i don't have any problem with people forming a nonprofit in itself. i've helped to do that myself and was on the board of a nonprofit. so what?

so you were playing fast and loose with the truth. this is the kind of distortion and mud-slinging i've learned to expect from ulta-left whackos.

[crashcourse]

I don't know what contracts Nothing Human's referring to that have no strike clauses, he should specify. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true though. Far and away the majority of union contracts in the US have these clauses. The IWW has a handful of shops with contracts that don't have these clauses, which is really rare in the US (though management has been pushing to try to get management rights/prerogatives clauses added, which will be the thin end of the wedge for no strike clauses). No strike clauses are one reason I and many other IWW members argue against the IWW signing contracts. Just because we believe in overthrowing capitalism doesn't mean we will magically avoid the problems of contractualism if we go down that route. We're a democratic organization, though, so people do have the option to pursue contracts in their campaigns. I think they shouldn't, just like I think the NLRB election route is a mistake, as I was arguing about with Dave.

Nothing Human is right on a few counts (a stopped clock is right once a day, after all). One member of the General Executive Board of the IWW is employed as a lawyer at a law firm. I believe he's very low on the totem pole (not a partner or any part of management). He's also at least a decade in IWW membership, well before he became a lawyer, and lots of evidence of his loyalty and service to the union and organizing on the job as an IWW member in his past workplaces. That's all really easy to prove if any IWW members have questions about it. I'm not going to get into any of that publicly, though, for obvious reasons. I'm also like 99% sure he's not serving on the GEB in 2011. I'm traveling so I don't have my most recent organizational bulletin with me to confirm this, and I'm quite tired because my baby's been teething so my memory is fuzzy.

The same goes for Dan Gross, who is still part of the Sbux campaign - he helps with the organizing and continues to be an asset to the campaign - and who has long been a loyal IWW member with no evidence to the contrary. As for Dan being the ED of a nonprofit, that's true too. It's my understanding that that organization has no other employees, so "executive director" doesn't mean what people think it means (ie, boss).

The person he refers to as "a prominent/leading member of the union (who for example, served on the Committee on Industrial Classification)" is also a lawyer though I believe he's been working for some time via temp agencies that supply attorneys to law firms. I could be wrong about that, I haven't talked to him in quite some time - he is no longer an IWW member, I'm sad to say. While he was arguably prominent within the IWW, I know he'd be surprised to hear himself referred to as a "leading member." I think he felt really unpopular and whatever the opposite of being a leader is (I served on a committee with him for a while a few years ago).

There's also a long history of the IWW including attorneys. There was debate at the first convention about whether or not allow a lawyer to be a delegate, the founding convention proceedings are online at iww.org if anyone wants to look it up. That shows it was controversial from the get-go but it's not like some major departure.

Also these three members have all worked hard and all but their influence shouldn't be overestimated. The IWW is a highly decentralized organization (overly so, in my personal opinion) with no one person or group of people able to exert strong influence or leadership. So it's inaccurate to say that any of these people "lead the union."

So, some elements of truth. Some distortions and falsehoods. That's often the most effective way to attack someone, mix some truth in with distortions. Nice job there, dickhead. You might consider calling up the union busting consulting firm that we just went up against up here, you're good at their truth plus lies cocktail, maybe they'd hire you to protect workers from the IWW. And because I know you'll ask what falsehoods you said, - one is the claim that these cats are leading the IWW. One was never a leader. Another is someone who has been an officer on the GEB last year, which is an important role but he doesn't "lead the IWW." The IWW doesn't accept leadership from the GEB in general -- I wish it did, personally -- it tends to buck any attempt from officers to lead. The third person is an organizer who has played a leading role in organizing in one specific campaign but has never been involved in setting policy or leadership roles beyond that campaign. The reason he is a leader in that campaign is that he does good work that organizers in the campaign respect - those organizers are almost all Starbucks workers, though there are former Sbux employees involved too. You also remarked that someone has suggested the IWW can do no wrong. The IWW does plenty wrong. We're a democratic working class organization. We screw up. I don't think we try to pretend we always do everything right. I think we're a good worthwhile organization, no one said we're perfect or that the revolution stands or falls with us, though you've been pretending that we've made bigger claims. Those are falsehoods. You either made them deliberately, which makes you a liar, or you made them without checking your facts, which makes you irresponsible at best.


A few other things:
Yes, the JJ's union put out a press release that said something about calling on the bosses to look into their hearts etc. That's an appeal to the public. If Nothing Human disagrees he could contact the campaign and suggest other ideas. I personally could care less about the opinion of an anonymous internet asshole who threw in the towel on the IWW, I'm only responding here because these distortions should not go unanswered. I'd also be keen to know what branch(es) Nothing Human supposedly belonged to that make him such an authority, and when he left, and what he did to actually build the IWW ("I was a delegate and a parliamentarian" is the kind of thing that a lot serious IWW organizers I know would laugh at -- ooh, you were a delegate?! you did parliamentary procedure?! you must have been a really serious member of the IWW!!!!). Personally I'm a 5 or 6 year member of the Twin Cities branch, founding member I'm proud to say, conducted lots of organizer trainings, mentored younger organizers including some of the core of the JJ's campaign, served on several committees set up by General Assemblies/Conventions, and organized at my own jobs several times as IWW. Plus things have changed dramatically in the past few years - in my branch, several other branches I have friends in, and in the international. So even if he really does have past experiences that matter to speak from -- which I highly doubt -- I'm skeptical that they're still relevant at all to the IWW as it currently stands.

On the IWW as the way for the whole working class or whatever -- Nothing Human says "the IWW doesn't offer a way forward for the working class." I think we do offer *a* way forward. We're one stream for some workers. What we need as a class is a class-wide flood, though. The IWW won't produce that. I don't think any serious, active current IWW member things we will. Maybe there's a whacko individual inactive member or ex-member here or there who thinks that, but I know like 200 current IWW members and none of them think this. I think serious radicals who organize with the IWW generally try to make a point not to overestimate our organization and our activity. Of course, if Nothing Human has better ideas and examples of better projects, though, I'm all ears.

Finally on whether or not to join the IWW, that's a long conversation. If anyone wants to talk on the phone about it, send me a private message. If you're not sure about the IWW and would rather organize somewhere else, good luck to you. If you want to organize seriously and can't get another union to commit to your campaign, we can help. Our model is all volunteer-driven, though, so it's not like we're going to parachute staff in for weeks on end to help you. We can provide training, advice, moral support, and a push. We can also provide mobilization support once your campaign is public. If you feel like you have a better option, go for it and see what happens. Debates about this or that organization being the single shining path are foolish and counterproductive. The working class's path to emancipation will have a lot of routes in it, and those routes will mainly be worked out in practice.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Ask the lawyer on the GEB about this "anonymous asshole." I consider him a friend. He's represented me and members of my family in court. :thumbup1:

(No, that is not a joke).

I was involved in some organizing (including at my job, which I and others depended on), outreach to SBUX workers and various other things that went on in the branch. I spent way too much of my time arguing against hair brained schemes that had nothing to do with the union (coming in via our resident Kucinich supporters, a liberal who wanted to tie us to every activist event that happened in the city, and a plethera of lifestylists). As a delegate I signed a few people up. When I got back to NYC I was already coming to the understanding that the IWW was done for but still participated in meetings, helped out with some general organizational stuff, and walked a 5 AM picket line or two.

Additionally, members of my family from my grandparents down were / are union workers in key industries. I worked in one of those industries, and have had plenty of dealings with both of those unions.

But that's really here nor there. I haven't been in a pissing contest since I was a kid, and it wasn't even that fun back then.

The point I'm making about the IWW is that it's basically moribund. It will never be able to fulfill its stated missions (for "the workers of the world to organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth," "Abolition of the wage system," & "forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old."), and isn't even that effective as a union (when it actually acts like one, and not a talking shop or historical reenactment group).

I also find the point about not having leaders a bit funny. The more "leaderless" the body in the IWW, the more it's under a de facto individual or collective leadership.

Like the warehouse campaigns in Long Island City which were basically under the control of one man who would go around the room, let everyone speak, and then come to a decision on his own -- and when confronted about it claim his was a "democratic dictatorship."

Like the SBWU (which itself flies in the face of the industrial organizing model) too, which, no matter what you want to say, was largely under the influence of Daniel Gross -- a guy who was fired from SBUX years ago and apparently went on to become a non-profit executive and labor lawyer.

In the end I wouldn't tell anyone not to join the IWW if they thought it was going to help them improve their conditions on the job, just as I wouldn't tell them not to join the Teamsters or the UMWA. I would simply advise that it's not some sort of "special" union.

The IWW has sort of proved the point on unions.

The choices are: (1) radical union that gets destroyed, (2) official union run by bureaucrats that at best gets co-opted, (3) insignificance in the margins between.

Once organic bodies of the working class, they needed to add attorneys, permanent staff, etc., to deal with negotiations and legal wrangling within the capitalist system. Once staffed with all sorts of people that were completed separated from the working class and operating like "respectable organizations," capitalist states largely accepted and even at times integrated them into the wages system. Of course capitalists on their own attacked them, based on their struggle for better conditions. But the bureaucrats in charge of the unions (who often now hold stakes in the businesses "their workers" labor in) would and do only allow such struggles when it can help them without putting the source of dues in jeopardy. And when and if struggles get out of their control and directly confront capitalism, they're the first to try to put them down.

The IWW tried, in principle at least, to be a honest to goodness rank-and-file union that would not give up on the class struggle. For that, and some other reasons, it was literally beaten into submission. Once physically destroyed it was allowed to meander on in insignificance. Its meager "resurgence" over the past few years has been largely predicated on the forsaking of its stated principles. It grows (albeit however so slightly in real world numbers) almost in direct proportion to its abandonment of its original goals. The de facto and official leaderships of attorneys, leftish activists and managers in training (however "radical") is only a symptom of this.

Today, the best the IWW can do is organize a few shops in the periphery of production. And to be honest, it can't even do that well. The more it tries to mainstream itself the more it fails. It stands between its original forms based on proletarian militancy which is no longer feasible and official unionism in which it is mostly unsuccessful.

The mainstream unions themselves can at best hold on to what they have, while their managers continue to live off the dues and investments of the workers they supposedly represent.

So, if you're a worker.. sure, join a union if you can. You may even get better pay and benefits out of it. But don't expect much. Especially if you're a worker seeking liberation from this wretched system.

[syndicat]

The de facto and official leaderships of attorneys, leftish activists and managers in training (however "radical") is only a symptom of this.


well, this was already shown to be a distortion.

i note that you offer no alternative. you could as well reach the conclusion that no liberation from capitalism is possible on the grounds that the defects are inherent to the working class itself. and to suppose that things will suddenly, spontaneously change without organization is the worst sort of magical thinking.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone without blinders on that the IWW is pushed forward and actually led by activists, lefty managers, lawyers, etc. The "regular" non-political folks they bring in usually come through personal relationships and organizing drives tend not to be that active in the union itself and are much less likely to stay in the union for any real period of time.

I also think the point is that the revolution won't come through or via unions -- "red" or "yellow;" that unions aren't even great at the defensive measures which they were best for, and probably can't be at this stage; and that the accumulation model (recruit people to an organization or union until 50%+1 of the working class holds a membership card, at which point revolution will occur) should be abandoned.

Of course you obviously reject that since you identify yourself as an anarcho-syndicalist. So, having made my point about the IWW and unions in general, I really have no interest in continuing this. Feel free to keep slandering me as an ultra-left sectarian wacko liar.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Both of you share a councilist model with regards to how workers should take power, which means delaying political organization until what is deemed by both of you to be a "revolutionary" period.

[syndicat]

Both of you share a councilist model with regards to how workers should take power, which means delaying political organization until what is deemed by both of you to be a "revolutionary" period.


that is false. i belong to Workers Solidarity Alliance. it is a political organization. you don't understand dual organizationalism. this is the view that there are different roles for mass and political organizations.

Nothing Alien seems to view any participation by politically motivated organizers and activists in mass organizing as "management", i.e. vanguardism. there is a certain kind of highly unrealistic anarchist or marxist view that looks at things that way.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

as i pointed out, dan gross is no longer a part of SBWU. i don't know if he's even still an IWW member.
This doesn't confirm his current status in the IWW, but in January he's releasing a new book/pamphlet titled "Solidarity Unionism at Starbucks (https://secure.pmpress.org/index.php?l=product_detail&p=302)"
That still shows he's showing interest in the movement, or at least SBWU.

[syndicat]

yeah, well, Nothing Human had tried to portray him as a boss, by using his title of "Executive Director" of a nonprofit...without mentioning that he has no employees, combined with the claim that he's really running the SBWU. given his advocacy of solidarity unionism, it means Nothing Human is trying to portray him as being inconsistent with his own principles.

[crashcourse]

NoOneIsIllegal, you must not have read my reply. My fault for being too wordy. Like I said -- Dan Gross is still an IWW member and still involved in the Starbucks Campaign.

Nothing Human, I'm well aware of many problems with the IWW, including the problems you name in the New York branch and that warehouse workers campaign. I tried to say that but wasn't clear, apparently: the IWW's really imperfect. I agree with you on that. None of the conclusion you draw follow from this, though. You made a decision to walk away, fair enough, no one's asked you back. That says little about what other people should do. As I said, folk should organize where it makes sense for them. If people want to talk about the specifics of why the IWW would or would not be a good fit for their organizing, we can and should do that. Generalities like 'The IWW is the thing for everyone!' and 'The IWW is moribund!' are stupid.

Also, I didn't say the IWW doesn't have leaders. The IWW has lots of leaders. The IWW has not single center of leadership, and the GEB is rarely if ever an important body of leadership in the organization. IWW members generally have a reflex against the GEB exercising leadership, in my opinion.

About the Sbux campaign - Dan Gross started the campaign when he was an Sbux worker. After a while he got fired. After a while of being unemployed he went to law school and started a non-profit as a way for him to be self-employed. I already pointed out that he's only one employee there, so you're being deliberately misleading when you call him "a non-profit executive." As for his continuing role in that campaign, you're right that he's remained important in it. Here's why: he's done a lot of organizing at Starbuck and he still does work to help build the campaign. That makes the organizers involved respect him and take him seriously. It's in no way the case that Dan calls the shots in it, the way you imply. He's one voice in the campaign among others.

About the difficulties the IWW has in member retention, that's true as well. It's gotten better in the past five years, though for every advance there are new problems and new setbacks. I facilitated an organizer training a couple weeks ago in my branch, I also set up the first one we ever did like 5 or 6 years ago. The difference in the two was really striking, much younger and the vast majority this time came in through organizing. We need better retention but the retention rate has gotten better. And in my opinion it's much better to lose people than to have people be paper members - better to be small and have our membership numbers be real than to look large but not be effectively so. We've also taken some good steps on member education, but we have a lot farther to go. Over all we've repeatedly seen that our organizing radicalizes working class people who weren't previously particularly radical, develops in people a taste for collective action, and gives people some important practical skills. That's why I stay involved, because those things are important.

It's also false that in the IWW there is a "de facto and official leaderships of attorneys, leftish activists and managers in training."
It's noteworthy that you make no alternative suggestions. It's really easy to point out the distance between others' projects and perfection when you don't put out any other examples of activity. As I said repeatedly, our work is far from perfect. It's still good. If you have better ideas, I'm all ears, but I won't be holding my breath. You seem much more interested in grinding axes than anything else. I'm curious, where were you a member before New York? The Bay? I ask because you sound a good deal like the person on the famous Libcom "gunshow thread," same axe to grind and habit of making dubious polemical claims about the IWW. http://libcom.org/forums/organise/iww-unemployed-17042009

[syndicat]

thanks to that post by crashcourse. he's a member of the IWW and so he is more informed about it than me, as I've never been a member. i just want to underline one point crashcourse made. those of us in WSA don't say the IWW is the only solution or the right thing for everyone. we don't say we should put all our eggs in that basket. we are well aware of its imperfections. but we support it insofar as it is an actual path for organizing on the job by people. when WSA was formed we had quite a few people who'd quit the IWW out of disagreements. we didn't push the IWW as an alternative. in more recent years it has become more of a viable alternative, as crashcourse points out. but there are other viable approaches to organizing. some of our members are involved in grassroots workers centers, and some in community organizing. but it isn't very helpful for someone to simply damn the IWW without putting forward any alternative.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

he's a member of the IWW and so he is more informed about it than me, as I've never been a member.

But that doesn't apply in my case, right?


It's also false that in the IWW there is a "de facto and official leaderships of attorneys, leftish activists and managers in training."

So non-political rank and file wage workers are in charge of the union and its various campaigns, the newspaper and website, etc.?


After a while of being unemployed he went to law school

Must be nice.


and started a non-profit as a way for him to be self-employed.

And there's no problem with "self-employed" attorneys who serve as executives of non-profits not only belonging to but leading "rank-and-file" unions?


The IWW has not single center of leadership

I never said it did.

I'm talking about the people who really run the union and push it forward (insofar as it makes forward progress) as a whole.


It's noteworthy that you make no alternative suggestions.


you don't put out any other examples of activity.


i note that you offer no alternative.


but it isn't very helpful for someone to simply damn the IWW without putting forward any alternative.

Who says there isn't an alternative (besides you and the other IWW supporter who say I do... in nearly all your posts)?

Just because I haven't posted the Full and Final Path to Revolution in every post in this thread that means I have no other suggestions?

Does your need to "DO SOMETHING" outweigh your ability to look at things objectively? That sounds a lot like activism for the sake of activism, or to help you sleep well at night knowing you're doing "the right thing."

If we know that the IWW can't do what it sets out to do, but don't know what can, should we throw ourselves into the IWW anyway for the sake of "DOING SOMETHING"?

Even if I was unsure about how the working class will overthrow capitalism how would that invalidate my criticisms of the IWW as a model?

I can know a car is broken and unable to get me where I'm going without knowing how to fix the car, or even how to get where I'm going.

But I do have some idea.

I have spent the last few years reflecting and clarifying a lot of things. It's been a difficult process. It's still ongoing. I don't have any ready-made answers. I have come to some conclusions based on pretty serious study. I'm definitely not in any position to stand atop a mountain and proclaim The Righteous Path.

I've made plenty of suggestions here and elsewhere based on what I've learned from my own experiences, the experiences of people I've been around and worked with, and a continuing and objective look at history. The more I learn, the more I know I need to learn. A few things I do know.

I know what it is we need to fight for. I know what doesn't and can't work. I know there are pitfalls that need to be avoided. I know that unions, including the IWW, don't offer a way forward and that the accumulation model of revolution is no good.

[syndicat]

But that doesn't apply in my case, right?


he's someone I also know in person and is a member of the same political organization. in case you haven't noticed this thread is about the Jimmy John's Workers Union. you haven't indicated that you know jack shit about that campaign. I've met two people involved in that campaign and have been following it and talking to people who are supporters or who work there.

instead you jumped into this thread to just bad mouth the IWW. you seem embittered by some experience you had. both crashcourse and myself have said we're aware of the imperfections of the IWW. I've pointed out that I have my own criticisms of the IWW. but it's not clear why your "critique" is supposed to be relevant to this thread. and you've still offered no positive alternative.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I actually harbor no ill will toward the IWW at all. I didn't resign in disgust after a dispute or anything like that. I simply stopped paying dues and participating in the union when I came to realize that it was moribund. I guess you aren't able of understanding something as simple as objective criticism when it's leveled at you or something you support. That's a shame, really.

This is a discussion board. Discussions often progress into other details and subjects which are related to the OP. In this case it was why the IWW was addressing itself to bosses, organizing by chain instead of industrially, etc.

And the point isn't that the IWW is imperfect. You can continue to build up strawmen like that if you please though. I know it's much easier to tear such things down than to address core questions, especially when you're so vested in an ideology and/or strategy.

The point was and is that the IWW is incapable of achieving its originally stated goal of abolishing the wages system, no longer functions as it once did, and barely functions as it is trying to now.

That's all.

[syndicat]

I actually harbor no ill will toward the IWW at all. I didn't resign in disgust after a dispute or anything like that. I simply stopped paying dues and participating in the union when I came to realize that it was moribund. I guess you aren't able of understanding something as simple as objective criticism when it's leveled at you or something you support.

once again you're lying. in this case about what i've said. I never said I support the IWW in general or believe that it is "the" strategy for workers emancipation or whatever. what I do support is this campaign, the Jimmy Johns Workers Union. none of the socalled "evidence" you cite has any bearing on that campaign.

you say:

So non-political rank and file wage workers are in charge of the union and its various campaigns, the newspaper and website, etc.?


it would be completely naive to believe that militant, highly democratic worker organizations have ever been created by some non-existent ideal of "non-political rank and file wage workers." certainly this was not true of the IWW in its heyday. it was not true of the mass assemblies and factory councils in Italy during the biennio rosso of 1919-1920 or of the CNT in Spain the '20s-'30s. These were highly political working class movements where active radical workers and rank and file organizers were there on the spot and workers who were involved had varying degrees of informal influence among their coworkers. in fact the high degree of participation and direct democracy came out of the political commitment of those activist workers to a revolutionary ideal of a movement of equals and a society of equals as the aim.

so you talk about strawmen, well, there's your strawman.

and in the case of the JJ campaign, the fact this is being run in a highly grassroots way by workers there, not any paid staff or whatever, also is not independent of the revolutionary commmitments of at least a few of the workers there.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

once again you're lying. in this case about what i've said. I never said I support the IWW in general or believe that it is "the" strategy for workers emancipation or whatever.

You think syndicalism is.


what I do support is this campaign, the Jimmy Johns Workers Union.

What does that mean concretely? It seems like a pretty meaningless statement to me.

I support workers at Jimmy John's winning better wages and conditions. I'm sure everyone here does.

The real questions are whether they'll get that from this campaign, whether unions -- "radical" or otherwise -- can deliver the goods in the present day, and how to abolish the wages system entirely.

[syndicat]

You think syndicalism is.


but your socalled "evidence" isn't about syndicalism...as understood by WSA.

you ***** about some IWW members being Kucinich liberals who came up with hare brained schemes. you don't consider this might reflect the low level of class consciousness & revolutionary consciousness in the working class in this country at this time. In the workplace organizing I've done I've run into worse problems than that, conservatives who don't give a damn about others. In one workplace one of my closest supports, and very pro-solidarity, pro-grassroots union, was an American Indian woman (grew up on a reservation) who was a supporter of the social-democratic political machine in Berkeley where she lived. so what? I take it for granted, based on my experience, that there will be a range of viewpoints present in workplaces.

But you leap to a pessimistic conclusion based on what appears to be to be a completely static conception of class consciusness. if the working class isn't revolutionary and class conscious now, champing at the bit for revolution, it's hopeless.

you're reaching a sweeping generalization based on a very tiny base of data in limited time and place.

it would be more relevant to ask, how does consciousness change? because the current level of consciousness within the mass of the population is very far away from what is necessary to effectively challenge the plutocracy for control of society.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Wrong again.

The point is exactly that the majority of the working class is not revolutionary in the present period. If it was, we'd be facing a revolutionary situation.

You can't build a permanent mass organization in non-revolutionary times like the present and expect it to be or become revolutionary. When you have an organization like the IWW in a period when the vast majority of the working class is not revolutionary, you end up attracting all sorts of leftish activist (e.g. unemployed lifestylist, liberal college campaigners for 'left' Democrats, historical reenactors, wannabe middle class leaders and saviors, etc.), because that's who's "active" right now, while not really attracting much of the working class. When you do get rank-and-file workers in the IWW, they usually don't take the forward initiative and often leave soon after. They don't become militant fighters for "the abolition of the wages system." If you could get a large number of rank-and-file workers in the IWW it could only be based on a regression from the IWW's original stated goals, and moves towards being a "real" or "regular" union.

You think that people can be "recruited" to "consciousness" like an infidel can be recruited to faith in god. If they are just "educated" or "agitated" or -- here's a favorite -- "organized," they will become "class conscious." I don't think that's how it works.

I think the last couple hundred years back up what I'm saying.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I forgot to mention earlier in response to crash course that I've never lived in California or posted on Libcom. I just wanted to clear that up. From what I know of the IWW, my criticisms are valid across the board.

[YSR]

Well, I'm excited to say that this push for holiday pay is a really cool thing and we're having lots of success getting workers fired up about it. It's a crazy part of the service industry that we don't get holiday pay where most other workers in the U.S. do.

Hopefully the press and forthcoming actions associated with the holiday pay push and other forthcoming demands will start getting to other workers in the service industry. We've already had good responses from this stuff being out there and I'm thinking it will continue. Building energy around industrial demands is a really great way to grow our organization locally and internationally, so I'm hoping that we'll be able to use this energy to push for more demands and build union density through that.

@ Nothing Human: *Yawn* Ultra-leftist blah blah blah may make you feel important but it makes everyone else roll their eyes at you.

[x371322]

I don't think that's how it works.

Then how does it work?


You think that people can be "recruited" to "consciousness" like an infidel can be recruited to faith in god.

Because believing in an omnipotent invisible sky man is exactly the same thing as workplace organizing. Way to show everyone what a strawman argument really looks like. Great job! :thumbup1:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That's basically what "consciousness raising" and the accumulation model of revolutionary organizing amounts to.

You aim to convince people that revolution is the way to go (by way of propaganda, agitation, bringing them into your group, etc.), they agree, and now you have another revolutionary. Then they do the same, and the process goes on until you've got a majority of workers, and revolution ensues. You see, any worker can be made into a revolutionary at any time. They just need to be brought the word of Revolution.

This is the prevailing organizational model used by leftists across the board.

It's similar to the model used by religious zealots out to "save" people. You see, everyone can be saved. They just need to be brought the word of God.

Now if you're just trying to organize a regular union, that's a different ballgame. It's a long way from the IWW's original mission to "abolish the wages system" of course. So is organizing by geographical area or a single chain, both of which are at variance with the industrial organizing the IWW once based itself on. And the IWW isn't very good at that either.

It's got the appealing to the bosses and "popular opinion" part down pat though.

[syndicat]

You think that people can be "recruited" to "consciousness" like an infidel can be recruited to faith in god. If they are just "educated" or "agitated" or -- here's a favorite -- "organized," they will become "class conscious." I don't think that's how it works.



again, you're lying, that is, misrepresenting what i've said. if you wanted to know my opinion on how consciousness does change, you could always ask.

the stark division you make between "leftish activists" and the working class shows, again, your tendency to a romanticized notion of the working class. in fact there are sections of the class who are active and do organizing, and some of them have leftish views.

anyway, I think you've fallen into the ultra-left trap with your pronouncement (based on what evidence?) that an ongoing mass organization controlled by workers isn't possible in this period.

working class consciousness changes when people break thru their fatalism and passivity and get together with coworkers to take action. in the current period this is likely to be more limited and episodic. but it does happen. the Jimmy Johns workers union is an example. in the NLRB election half the workers who voted voted for the union...after weeks of an onslaught of intimidation and red-baiting.

the situations where people do get together and organize this affects class consciousness because it can give people some sense of power, if they are able to bend the will of management, some sense of being able to run things themselves, to the extent they control the organization.

in the current situation groups of workers who sustain organizations like this over time may not be a majority, may be militant minority organizations, even if they have a mass character, in terms of a relative looseness of the principles they use to unite them.

to the degree that more examples emerge of workers taking militant action, figuring out ways to make some progress pushing back against employers, landlords, government entities, this will tend help to change class consciousness. that's because more workers will begin to see that maybe it is possible to "fight city hall". people aren't likely to believe in the possibility of collective working class action unless they begin to see around them. so to the extent it is nonexistent or rare, as now, people will tend to think "You're on your own" and individualist coping strategies will prevail in the class.

so the process of changing class consciousness is inevitably going to be a protracted process. various kinds of ongoing mass organizations, even if minoritarian or limited in scope, will come to exist at various points. another factor that is important is that these various struggles, to the extent they do draw in working class people, are schools for learning about the system through experience, learning how to organize, how to be active. and it is helpful here also if there is greater visibility for revolutionary ideas, for "making the system the issue." that's because the presence in workplaces of revolutionaries has always been important to the building of mass democratic workplace organizations.

but mass class consciousness is certainly NEVER going to come about all of a sudden, in some magical manner, as ultra-lefts imagine. there has to be a protracted process of mass learning that goes on, thru struggle. ths is why attempts like the JJ workers union are important.

WSA does not say that the IWW will be "the" vehicle of workers self-emancipation or even that it will still exist when we get to a period when social transformation is on the agenda. and we also say that there are a variety of different kinds of organizations and areas for organizing that can contribute potentially to that mass learning and confidence building process.

and we reject the "conversion" model of change in consciousness, of converting people thru "agitation", that you falsely attribute to me & our organization. as I said, it is a protracted self-learning process. people have to become active and gain an interest in learning about the system through their desire to fight back. revolutionaries can help this process, as catalysts, by making their critique of the system and the case for an alternative. but ultimately it's an up by the bootstraps affair for the class.

but you're only good for dumping on people trying to do organizing at their workplace, as with the JJ workers union. you're not here to contribute anything positive. and don't come back with the bullshit about how you "wish the IWW well."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Then how does it work?

I don't think you can "convert" individual workers to some revolutionary ideology until you have a majority and then have a revolution.

I think the working class is forced into conflict with its exploiters through the very workings of the capitalist system. I think forward looking elements can offer advice and arguments based on their knowledge and experience, which includes pointing out pitfalls. I think we can take part in the struggles of our class. I think we can pour gasoline on the fire.

[syndicat]

I don't think you can "convert" individual workers to some revolutionary ideology until you have a majority and then have a revolution.


this statement is self-contradictory. if there is already a majority of the working class for revolution, why will they need to be "converted"? and how does that "majority" come about?

purely spontaneously?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

again, you're lying, that is, misrepresenting what i've said. if you wanted to know my opinion on how consciousness does change, you could always ask.

I'm actually just summing up the underlying idea of nearly all leftist organizing activity.


the stark division you make between "leftish activists" and the working class shows, again, your tendency to a romanticized notion of the working class.I think it shows a recognition that "left" and "right" are just political positions with no class content (i.e. the bourgeoisie has a left and right, so does the petty-bourgeoisie), that most leftists are outside of the working class, and that leftist organizations of all sizes are more often run by bureaucrats that not.


in fact there are sections of the class who are active and do organizing, and some of them have leftish views.Right. That doesn't mean that "organizing" things like the IWW or falling under the influence of leftists is going to lead to revolution. It also doesn't mean that they are in charge of such organizations (by dint of the need to work to survive they often don't have time to, for one.. which leads to permanent positions like union president which are separated from the class, or to people with time like college kids and leftist activists who get money from their parents, investments, etc., to taking control).


anyway, I think you've fallen into the ultra-left trap with your pronouncement (based on what evidence?) that an ongoing mass organization controlled by workers isn't possible in this period.It would be up to the people claiming that revolutionary mass organizations can be built, remain under the control of the working class and lead to revolution to provide proof for their assertion, not up to me to disprove it.

Regardless, I would say the last 300 years provides pretty good evidence.


working class consciousness changes when people break thru their fatalism and passivity and get together with coworkers to take action. in the current period this is likely to be more limited and episodic. but it does happen. the Jimmy Johns workers union is an example. in the NLRB election half the workers who voted voted for the union...after weeks of an onslaught of intimidation and red-baiting.

the situations where people do get together and organize this affects class consciousness because it can give people some sense of power, if they are able to bend the will of management, some sense of being able to run things themselves, to the extent they control the organization.

in the current situation groups of workers who sustain organizations like this over time may not be a majority, may be militant minority organizations, even if they have a mass character, in terms of a relative looseness of the principles they use to unite them.

to the degree that more examples emerge of workers taking militant action, figuring out ways to make some progress pushing back against employers, landlords, government entities, this will tend help to change class consciousness. that's because more workers will begin to see that maybe it is possible to "fight city hall". people aren't likely to believe in the possibility of collective working class action unless they begin to see around them. so to the extent it is nonexistent or rare, as now, people will tend to think "You're on your own" and individualist coping strategies will prevail in the class.

so the process of changing class consciousness is inevitably going to be a protracted process. various kinds of ongoing mass organizations, even if minoritarian or limited in scope, will come to exist at various points. another factor that is important is that these various struggles, to the extent they do draw in working class people, are schools for learning about the system through experience, learning how to organize, how to be active. and it is helpful here also if there is greater visibility for revolutionary ideas, for "making the system the issue." that's because the presence in workplaces of revolutionaries has always been important to the building of mass democratic workplace organizations.This is basically a version of gradualist organizing. It's the accumulation model.

As I've said, I don't think it's possible to build actual revolutionary mass organizations (meaning they are made up of masses of workers) in non-revolutionary periods like this. You can either build a mass organization that is not revolutionary, or maintain a small group with revolutionary principles. If the majority of the working class was revolutionary, we'd be in a revolutionary situation.


but mass class consciousness is certainly NEVER going to come about all of a sudden, in some magical manner, as ultra-lefts imagine. there has to be a protracted process of mass learning that goes on, thru struggle. I don't think anyone thinks revolution will "magically" occur. For someone who likes to claim their positions are being misrepresented so much, you do quite a good job of creating caricatures of others.

Obviously the working class utilizes its experiences to move forward. But it doesn't come in conflict with its exploiters because of leftist activists or organizations that individual members belong to, and it doesn't liberate itself from exploitation because of them either.

The Great Strike of 1877 didn't happen because a majority of workers belonged to a radical union or left group. Things like pay cuts enacted by capitalists coming out of a crisis of capitalism set it in motion.

The same goes for the Paris Commune, the Hungarian Revolution, etc.

Left organizations and unions and their leaders have done more to curtail and derail the struggles of the working class than anything.


ths is why attempts like the JJ workers union are important.So, should we actually attempt to learn from this attempt and offer any advice we can to the workers involved or simply cheer it on?


WSA does not say that the IWW will be "the" vehicle of workers self-emancipation or even that it will still exist when we get to a period when social transformation is on the agenda. and we also say that there are a variety of different kinds of organizations and areas for organizing that can contribute potentially to that mass learning and confidence building process.I know about the WSA.

"Our view is that such a society will be brought about only by working people building their own self-managed mass organizations from the ground up. Independent working class organization exists to some extent today in the form of rank-and-file committees, tenants unions, workers centers and other formations that might represent the forerunner of such a movement. We participate in current struggles and in the existing unions to fight for the rights of working people in the here and now, while working to build new, self-managed unions in the workplace and self-managed community organizations."

This is a version of the accumulation model of revolution.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

this statement is self-contradictory. if there is already a majority of the working class for revolution, why will they need to be "converted"?

I don't think you understand what you've read.

This is the basis for most leftist organizing. The idea is to gradually build up, convincing more and more workers of the need for revolution (in one way or another) until the majority "agree." I don't think it happens like that.

It's a process that is set in motion by material conditions.

As I said:

I think the working class is forced into conflict with its exploiters through the very workings of the capitalist system. I think forward looking elements can offer advice and arguments based on their knowledge and experience, which includes pointing out pitfalls. I think we can take part in the struggles of our class. I think we can pour gasoline on the fire.

[syndicat]

I'm actually just summing up the underlying idea of nearly all leftist organizing activity.



thanks for admitting that you were lying. you concoct some conception from your own brain and then attribute it to me, not by showing how it follows from what i've said.


This is a version of the accumulation model of revolution.

you seem to be operating under the delusion that giving a tag to a viewpoint is a way to engage with it and respond to it, which of course you don't do.

and what does "accumulate" mean here? i wasn't talking about gradually accumulating members in an organization. I was giving a brief schematic understanding of how class consciousness changes. I didn't say this was a uniform process. In fact experience suggests it goes faster in certain periods.

you explain:
The idea is to gradually build up, convincing more and more workers of the need for revolution (in one way or another) until the majority "agree." I don't think it happens like that.


again, you're misrepresenting what I've said and what WSA says. we do not suppose that a revolutionary working class comes into being by the process you just define. this is pure strawman. you need to go back and pay closer attention to the schematic description i gave of how class consciuosness changes.

i don't define "class concsiousness" in relation to agreement with an ideology. it has to do with the dispositions of members of the class. so it has to do with things like the willingness to get together with others to fight the employers, landlords, state. it has to do the development of skills and knowledge in the class that come from being active and having experience at organizing and so on. it has to do with the stance towards the system and the powers that be, on the job and off. to the extent that people develop more defiance and a clearer idea of the system, that is development of class consciousness. it has to do in other words with the development of the confidence, independence in ideas, and organizational strength of the class, it's capacity to develop its own forms of counter-power. part of this is about developing anti-capitalist ideas and ideas about the feasibility of a worker-managed socialist alternative. and revolutionaries in working class communities and struggles can and do play a catalytic role. ultimately, to be able to liberate itself, the working class does need to construct its own mass movement, its own ongoing organizations that it controls, so that it has a vehicle through which to bring about a transformation of the society.

and an anti-capitalist consciousness and ideas are by definition "left". and I don't buy the bit about leftist organizations inevitably being "bureaucratic." A bureaucracy, as I understand it, is some kind of top-down hierarchy, especially a paid hierarchy. if a group elects a branch secretary, that's not a "bureaucracy" as I understand the term. if a group sets up a commmission of members to work on a particular issue, that's coordination, not bureaucracy, as I see it.
the bit about the working class fighting "because it has to" or is forced to appears to be the old bit about class consciousness coming about as some automatic reaction to things getting worse. except that there's no evidence of that. the massive strike wave of 1916-20 came about during a period of economic boom and low unemployment. workers took advantage of the lower unemployment level, which gave them more leverage, to press the fight, and in that period, this mainly took the form of building new organizations, in the USA (with the "new unionism" of which the IWW was an expression) and in other countries.

but it would be a mistake to suppose these strikes occurred in a purely spontaneous mannger. in the various mass strikes, where the IWW was brought in, in 1909-1920, the IWW first had cells there in those workplaces typically for a number of years before.

And the whole history of socialism and socialist consciousness in the working class in Hungary is relevant to understanding why the workers in Hungary in 1956 organized their struggle thru workers councils.

the Paris Commune would not have followed the path it did without the history of the earlier French revolution, which the Commune follows in some ways, and not without the influence of socialist ideas in the French working class in that period.

positive examples are very important to the development of class consciousness. this is a point that EP Thompson makes for example in "The Making of the English Working Class." the English working class began to develop its concsiousness of itself as a class and more of a critique of the system as it developed a wide variety of more or less democratic organizations, such as cooperatives and unions in the 19th century.

making headway in resistance to the employers and state and landlords, and building collective struggles and organizations they control is important to the development of a positive consciousness, of there being an alternative.

also, i will point out that if you want to talk about this, you should introduce a separate thread and not derail a thread that was set up about the JJ workers union.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's all tied in. The "JJ workers union" is a part of the IWW. I criticized both. This is a discussion forum. Discussions often evolve into other areas related to the OP. I don't think that should be stifled.


positive examples are very important

I agree. Especially when we can draw lessons. That's not really a case for attempts to build permanent mass revolutionary organizations as a path toward revolution though. Lessons and ideas don't require such things to circulate and develop.


also, i will point out that if you want to talk about this, you should introduce a separate thread and not derail a thread that was set up about the JJ workers union.

I don't really want to talk about it. (Least of all with people who cling to it so dearly that they're not even up for a serious discussion. On top of that, I think a lot of leftists are obstacles to revolution that need to be passed over than elements that can be "won over" to the side of the working class, especially through internet discussions.)

It came up in the course of discussion, with you dismissing a criticism of the IWW out of hand.

[crashcourse]

there's no problem with "self-employed" attorneys who serve as executives of non-profits not only belonging to but leading "rank-and-file" unions?


You're using "leadership" in a vague and loaded way. Dan works hard in the Starbucks campaign. He has ideas that the people who work with him respect. To that degree, he's a leader, in the sense that he's someone respected and taken very seriously within the campaign. He's one well-respected person among many who are working on that campaign. That's the sense in which he's a leader in the IWW. And no, that's in no way a problem in my view. Why should it be?



I'm talking about the people who really run the union and push it forward (insofar as it makes forward progress) as a whole.

Here's that loaded terminology - you talk about people "running" the IWW. There isn't any clique or stratum who "run" the IWW in the sense of exercising undemocratic control. What there is is an uneven distribution of work in the IWW. It's definitely a minority of the organization who does most of the work. Those people don't control things, though. I put in loads of work on several multi-year committees of the international, way more work than most IWW members do I think. I didn't have any meaningful control over the organization, though. Actually, we were carrying out instructions via the general assembly.

I also think it's hilarious that someone who posts on revleft is like "the activists! not the regular workers!"



Just because I haven't posted the Full and Final Path to Revolution in every post in this thread that means I have no other suggestions?


Have you made any suggestions? I just saw misleading disses on the IWW.



we know that the IWW can't do what it sets out to do, but don't know what can, should we throw ourselves into the IWW anyway for the sake of "DOING SOMETHING"?


I'm not losing any sleep that you're not in the IWW and I haven't tried to recruit anyone here. If people want to talk about joining the IWW they can do so, or can contact me privately and we can talk on the phone. I have no interest in trying to recruit off of a commie web board. As for "know[ing] that the IWW can't do what it sets out to do", you're ignoring most of what I've said in this thread about the role of the IWW and are offering up strawmen to attack the IWW. I'm gonna get back to this below.


Even if I was unsure about how the working class will overthrow capitalism how would that invalidate my criticisms of the IWW as a model?


I must have missed the criticisms among your misleading and loaded remarks, and you must have missed the part where I said something like "I'm very aware of the IWW's many limits and I think we're generally quite upfront about them."

Reading over my comments again and your reply, I get the impression that I came off like I was being like "oh yeah?! what have YOU done?!" in a kind of "let's measure dick size" kind of way. That wasn't my intention. My point when I said you aren't offering alternatives was this: I think right now there are only faltering and imperfect steps forward. I don't think anyone has all or most of the answers for our class. We're still figuring a lot of stuff out. The distance between present practices and perfect practices are really obvious. That's true of any attempt to do anything in the present right now. If you offered examples of activity you're part of or that others are doing that you admire, I'd bet we could find similar limits. I think that's just where our class is at currently. I think emphasizing the distance between present practice and perfect practice has an important place, but your remarks (especially given the misleading elements of your comments) don't sound particularly comradely so it's hard to take them seriously, they don't sound like a reminder of limits in service of the ultimate goal, they sound like point scoring.


(...) majority of the working class is not revolutionary in the present period (...) You can't build a permanent mass organization in non-revolutionary times like the present and expect it to be or become revolutionary. (...) When you do get rank-and-file workers in the IWW, they usually don't take the forward initiative and often leave soon after. They don't become militant fighters for "the abolition of the wages system."

I actually agree with some of this. This is why it's good that the IWW is set up to have people leave when they stop agreeing with the preamble. Our membership turnover and the structure that feeds into that is a strength in the sense that it prevents an inactive membership that is represented by elected officers.

You're wrong about the "rank and file workers don't become militant fights for the abolition of the wage system" part though. It doesn't happen in the thousands or even the hundreds, but it does happen, I think in about the dozens. That's why I stay involved in the IWW. I've seen this happen with a great many people (again not in the hundreds or whatever) in my branch since we were chartered 5 or 6 years ago. Once again you're info isn't really correct.


I actually harbor no ill will toward the IWW at all.

Doesn't seem like it from reading your comments here. I'll take your word for it though. You might email your comments here to that lawyer friend of yours and see what he thinks. I'm serious about that (I consider him a friend too), he's an evenhanded guy, see if he thinks you come off here as having no ill will toward the IWW.



the IWW is incapable of achieving its originally stated goal of abolishing the wages system, no longer functions as it once did, and barely functions as it is trying to now.

Three points here. I'll take them in reverse order.
* The IWW barely functions as it is trying to now.

That's more or less true. The organizing is hard, the bosses have way more resources to use against us than we do against them, sometimes our members quit for silly political/pseudo-political reasons (or more likely they burn out then give those as excuses), and we have a lot of learning to do. In my view we particularly need to improve in terms of member education and building a culture and infrastructure for discussion and debate. As I said, the IWW has lots of limits. No one has ever denied this point, you act like it's news or something which has some important relevance. I don't see what you're trying to make of this.

* The IWW no longer functions as it once did.

True, for sure. The IWW very nearly died, several times. No one has ever claimed otherwise. Here too you act like this is more relevant than it is. I don't know any serious IWW member who would disagree with this point.

* The IWW is incapable of achieving its originally stated goal of abolishing the wages system.

That's the heart of what you think is an important criticism. I actually think you're totally right on one key point here: the IWW will not abolish the wage system. Let me say that again: the IWW is not going to abolish the wage system. When you were a member did you seriously think the IWW was going to carry out that task? I've never once thought the IWW was going to accomplish that. I'd be shocked to find out that any serious IWW member thought that. I know there's the whole "One Big Union" thing, I don't remember ever hearing someone say that they thought the IWW was going to grow to be that. That's a really laughable idea. (YSR and I are slowly working on a pamphlet about what "One Big Union" does mean, instead of that silly idea.) Did you used to believe in that idea? If so I can see why you'd reject it, and if you thought that was IWW official views I can see why you'd pack it in. The IWW preamble says "It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism." It doesn't say "it is the historic mission of the IWW" or "the IWW will be the vehicle through which the working class carries out its historic mission."

I recently read the IWW founding convention proceedings. They're online at iww.org and at marxists.org, I recommend them highly to everyone on RevLeft. The IWW was started by some of the most experienced revolutionaries in the US left and some of the most militant people from the fighting sections of the working class movement in the US. They had a lot of ideas worth engaging with and are not taken seriously enough today, including by the current IWW. It's not at all clear to me that the original IWW ever agreed that *the IWW* was going to abolish the wage system. From my reading of the founding proceedings and early pamphlets (there's a good web site of early IWW literature online maintained by one of those lawyers you mentioned, you may have seen it) I think the much more common perspective among members of the IWW was more like Marx's view: the emancipation of the working class will be the act of the working class itself. No single organization will carry that out or control it. I'm not all that sure what the role of the current IWW will be in that process, or the role of any other organization (or body of ideas for that matter). That doesn't really bother me. In my view, it's an open question or set of questions to keep thinking about.

[crashcourse]

hey Leo, I just wanted to point out an irony here. Syndicat says basically "Your criticisms are just typical ultraleftism." You say "your response is just typical trotskyism." Cake, Leo, have it or eat it, not both.


Also, I remember the bosses and workers in the same-union thing and there was a discussion on libcom about it, but I don't have the link.

I would say this is just the usual trotskyist method of dismissing criticism, yet you are supposed to be an "anarchist" of some sort, aren't you?

[syndicat]

Nothing Human:
I don't really want to talk about it. (Least of all with people who cling to it so dearly that they're not even up for a serious discussion. On top of that, I think a lot of leftists are obstacles to revolution that need to be passed over than elements that can be "won over" to the side of the working class, especially through internet discussions.)

It came up in the course of discussion, with you dismissing a criticism of the IWW out of hand.

but you refuse to take seriously what I say. instead you simply impose your pre-cooked ulra-left formula. so it's actually you who are "not up for serious discussion." a serious discussion means you pay attention to what the other person says and don't attribute to them things they don't say.

i used to encounter prople in the IWW who seemed to hold that the way to build a "revolutionary union" movement was simply to build up the IWW. their idea was that a revolutionary working class movement somehow can be brought into being by recruiting more and more people to the IWW. this sounds very like your idea of "the model of accumulation." but i don't think that was necessarily the general view in the IWW.

but, the thing is, the WSA has always rejecrted that model. you cite the following quote from WSA:


"Our view is that such a society will be brought about only by working people building their own self-managed mass organizations from the ground up. Independent working class organization exists to some extent today in the form of rank-and-file committees, tenants unions, workers centers and other formations that might represent the forerunner of such a movement. We participate in current struggles and in the existing unions to fight for the rights of working people in the here and now, while working to build new, self-managed unions in the workplace and self-managed community organizations."


but you misinterpret it. note that this is talking about "self-managed mass organizations." it's not talking about "revolutionary unions" or a "revolutionary labor movement" today.

this emphasis on encouraging workers to build organizations they control, and control their own struggles, independent of the bureaucratic business unions, is because of the role that this plays in the development of class consciousness, not because we expect these organizations today being "revolutionary" in an ideological sense or "being the organizations that will do away with exploitation".

we do hope that as class consciousness develops and people acquire more confidence, this may be expressed also in an increasing criticism, or deepening of criticism, of the system.

this is also how some of us in WSA tend to see the IWW. we see it as an organization that can sometimes be a vehicle for workers controlling their struggles, a form of self-managed base unionism. and this is why we -- or at least, I -- support the SBWU and JJ workers union campaigns. It's also true that there are a number of revolutionaries in the IWW who favor this form of worker organizing, and the revolutionary legacy of the union can sometimes inspire people this way.

but we do not suppose that a revolutionary movement is simply going to be brought into being by recruitment to the IWW. that would be ridiculous. The mere existence of the IWW does not guarantee that it will be "the" vehicle of worker struggle. the '30s demonstrated that.

We support the building of worker-controlled independent organizations because organized, collective struggle is a way that workers develop some social power, and thru the building and exercise of this power, even in small or episodic bits, it tends to encourage more people to think along these lines, and thus contributes to the development of class consciousness.

but this is not going to be "accumulated" as a possession of some one organization.

we believe there are a variety of ways that working people can organize themselves to gain some control over their struggles. the IWW is just one such way.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

I've been keeping up-to-date with this struggle and was wondering if there's any likelihood that this will spread to the south. Admittedly, the climate isn't great for unionizing as far as the law goes but we've had some decent success with organizing the employees of university contractors that provide food and transportation services with the SEIU and Teamsters respectively. I'd love to get a chance to work with union organizers who aren't just looking for new membership dues and actually care about the working class for a change.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

but this is not going to be "accumulated" as a possession of some one organization.

Right. I understand that. You think it will be multiple organizations. It's still an accumulation model of revolution.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Admittedly, the climate isn't great for unionizing as far as the law goes

Unions themselves were illegal when they were originally formed.

[syndicat]

Right. I understand that. You think it will be multiple organizations. It's still an accumulation model of revolution.

nice try for another distortion. you refuse to pay attention because your purpose isn't discussion. I never said that any of the organizations built now will necessarily be the basis of a future revolutionary labor movement. to repeat, the role they play today is in the struggle today, and their contribution to towards class consciousneess, today. but, you won't listen because your purpose is a smear job, not discussion.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Is it or is it not an idea of a gradual build up of "class consciousness" that comes about via participation in organizations which will lead to revolution?

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Unions themselves were illegal when they were originally formed.

...I don't know if you assume everyone is an idiot or just me, but it's still quite annoying. I'm well aware of the history of the labor movement in the United States.

[syndicat]

i already said quite a bit about how, in my view, class consciousness develops. you can go back and take a look at that.

the basic question is one of how class formation happens. how does the working class develop from a class in itself, objectively dominated and exploited, into a class for itself, a class that has the consciousness, skills, organizational strength and so on to challenge the capitalists for control of the society, in order words, the capacity to liberate itself?

certainly the working class does not suddenly wake up with revolutionary consciousness one sunny day. also, not everyone reaches radical conclusions all at once. the process of change in the class depends upon collective struggle, and this presupposes collective forms of organization so that workers have a way to control the struggle together, and make people in their movement accountable to them in these struggles. collective counter-power as it develops contributes to learning and a greater sense of potential power to change things, and thus contributes to the development of class consciousness.

people who develop radical ideas and become committed to a fundamental change are also part of this process, and can contribute to it.

in the USA a factor that has historically impeded the development of class consciousness is racism, as it leads people to have a narrower conception of who they might be in solidarity with, and thus impedes collective struggle. there are a variety of things related to how class consciousness develops.

eventually there does need to coalesce a grassroots labor movement that aims at a transformation towards a self-managed socialism. the working class needs to have mass organizations it controls in order to have a means to carry out the change in society under its own control. but i have no prediction as to exactly how or when that is going to come about. i don't think we are in a position to be able to predict that.

[devoration1]

certainly the working class does not suddenly wake up with revolutionary consciousness one sunny day.

This is an oft repeated 'either-or' statement about a non-linear view of class consciousness. The actual alternative theory of class consciousness going back to Marx, Engels and dozens of Marxist theoreticians since views class consciousness as a fluid, non-linear phenomenon. It ebbs and flows along with the class struggle on an international level. For example: we are currently seeing an upsurge in class struggle over the last few years of the past decade- as opposed to the overall falling level of international working class struggle since the upsurge of the 1968-1970's. In the buildup to the great revolutionary wave that lasted from 1905-1927 (with the peak at 1917-1923; red october to the march action) was a relative growth in working class combativity, recognition of itself as a class, growth in revolutionary organizations and ideas, and open class struggle. This wave happened despite 20 years of the greatest growth and accumulation of wealth and growing standard of living just prior to it- so it was not directly a result of international economic conditions, or as a reaction to the war (in some cases workers revolted and became militant and politicized as a result of the war, many others were war-weary, tired, wanted to go home and live in peace and did not revolt and become politicized and militant). Similarly, once the revolutionary wave receded and the counter-revolution prevailed everywhere there had been a revolutionary movement, class consciousness dropped significantly, even though the period of the 1930's - 1960's had the highest union density and membership and membership of Left groups in the industrialized countries. The history of working class experience and theory is complicated and rich and very diverse.

It's a very difficult and detailed topic; Die Neue Zeite earlier called it 'councilist' not to believe in a linear view of class consciousness, the gradualist view of revolution (i.e. 'building the new society in the shell of the old', organizing and recruiting workers into left or revolutionary organizations or unions, trying to 'hold on' to the gains made in struggle permanently through contracts, etc). Councilism (opposing the formation of a class party, opposing any permanent organization of the working class including revolutionary organizations, unions, etc, opting for a completely 'spontanaeist' view of revolution, etc) certainly is one alternative view- but hardly the best example (not by a long shot).

The JJWU is like any other campaign of workers with a labor unionist, radical, leftist, whatever, group involved. The workers have my support in spite of the involvement of this group. I support them because they are workers in active, militant struggle across geographical boundaries against a capitalist enterprise for minimum dignity and concessions to raise their standard of living not only for themselves but future workers within the same company. However non-unionized workers, without any leftist 'help', are capable of organizing themselves and acting in ways that surprise those who believe such a group or union is a necessary step in promoting class consciousness, in moving towards revolution.


in the USA a factor that has historically impeded the development of class consciousness is racism, as it leads people to have a narrower conception of who they might be in solidarity with, and thus impedes collective struggle. there are a variety of things related to how class consciousness develops.


Reactionary ideas and contradiction are inherent to any exploited class. Nationalism, racism, etc are unfortunate side effects of ruling class ideology (as the dominant ideology of all society). However, workers who hold reactionary, conservative, outright vulgur ideas from racism, sexism, nationalism, etc can still act militantly, in solidarity with their fellow workers, and in a revolutionary manner because of their place in relation to production.Martin Glaberman, the American working class, self-educated theorist promoted by the IWW, wrote a lot about this topic; such as the pamphlet 'Shopfloor Struggles of American Workers' where he contrasts the steel, construction, manufacturing "hard hat" white workers in urban areas who beat up hippies and anti-war demonstrators (many of whom were Marxist-Leninists, New Leftists, etc) and voted for Nixon- but who also, through their militant on the job action (striking especially) caused tens of millions of dollars of damage to the American war effort in Vietnam, doing far more to harm the American imperialist war effort than ten million demo's and marches, despite their reactionary ideologies and actions, because of the contradictions inherent in an exploited class, and their revolutionary potential at the point of production- not because they did or did not "believe" in that revolutionary potential, or did or didn't support the Vietnam War, because reactionary ideologies do not change or remove that revolutionary potential.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is an oft repeated 'either-or' statement about a non-linear view of class consciousness. The actual alternative theory of class consciousness going back to Marx, Engels and dozens of Marxist theoreticians since views class consciousness as a fluid, non-linear phenomenon. It ebbs and flows along with the class struggle on an international level. For example: we are currently seeing an upsurge in class struggle over the last few years of the past decade

Class struggle, or mere labour struggles?


It's a very difficult and detailed topic; Die Neue Zeit earlier called it 'councilist' not to believe in a linear view of class consciousness

I didn't say my view of class consciousness is linear. Despite my emphasis on class consciousness being political but your emphasis being labour-basis, the whole point of political program and permanent party organization goes against linear views (i.e., at this stage we don't need a party and the opposite of this view is "voluntarism," at this other stage we do, etc.).


Councilism (opposing the formation of a class party, opposing any permanent organization of the working class including revolutionary organizations, unions, etc, opting for a completely 'spontanaeist' view of revolution, etc) certainly is one alternative view- but hardly the best example (not by a long shot).

At least we can agree here.

[RED DAVE]

Class struggle, or mere labour struggles?I love that "mere." We should have more "mere" labor struggles in this world!

By the way, while a class struggle is not necessarily a labor struggle (in the narrow sense of organized labor), a labor struggle is, of necessity, a class struggle.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Nope. Every class struggle is a political struggle. Most labour struggles per se are not political and can never be political, so how much more can they be class struggles?

[syndicat]

However non-unionized workers, without any leftist 'help', are capable of organizing themselves and acting in ways that surprise those who believe such a group or union is a necessary step in promoting class consciousness, in moving towards revolution.



it would be interesting to see you provide empirical evidence to support this.

informal networks do sometimes engage in workplace actions. i've taken part in such actions myself including a rule disobedience and a one-day sit down strike. but these were isolated actions of small groups. and that's an inherent problem of spontaneous, informally organized activities like this. in the rule disobedience i referred to above, we were all simply fired.

collective organization is necessary for workers to gain a sense of their power, and this is quite important to the development of class consciousness.

[Palingenisis]

I love that "mere." We should have more "mere" labor struggles in this world!

By the way, while a class struggle is not necessarily a labor struggle (in the narrow sense of organized labor), a labor struggle is, of necessity, a class struggle.



Yes mere....To understand the blind alley of economism just look at the winter of discontent in England. The fetishizing of particularly first world economic struggles is a pointless excercise because outside of May 1968 they rarely lead to posing the question of power (and lets face May 1968 was a failure).

[syndicat]

Yes mere....To understand the blind alley of economism just look at the winter of discontent in England. The fetishizing of particularly first world economic struggles is a pointless excercise because outside of May 1968 they rarely lead to posing the question of power (and lets face May 1968 was a failure).

well, now that the ultraleft loonies have spoken, here you have the voice of leninist elitism. actually in my observation many "economic" struggles are also an act of defiance and about defense of dignity, and they're also to varying degees about power.

[Die Neue Zeit]

They're about the first two, but not the third. The entire spectrum from pseudo-Anarchist variants of Marxism to political Anarchism puts too much emphasis on point-of-production relations and related struggles, and that's why all tendencies in that spectrum are ultra-left.

As for your opposition to "hierarchy":


The problem with the Penny article is that what she suggests isn't really that 'new'. Its essentially just a rehash of the alter/anti-globalisation movement ie. emphasis on technology, ultra-decentralisation, confinement to street politics, emphasis on activists as opposed to a wider class... This isn't just confined to her writings, the 'Network X' initiative is something similar, but it fails to see the problems that was inherent in the original alter-globalisation stuff. The radical decentralisation/anti-hierarchy actually led to a mass replication of existing hierarchies as social movements in the Global South and even those from the 'South of the North' were sidelines and controlled by, on the whole, white leftist activists. What remains of the World Social Forum is the most obvious example of this.

Comrade Palingenisis posted from the perspective of the Kautsky Revival Bandwagon, not the typical "crisis of leadership" and so-called "vanguardism" of rejecting mass party-movement organization, institutionalization, and bureaucracy (plus revolutionary careerism).

[Paulappaul]

it would be interesting to see you provide empirical evidence to support this.

How would workers' ever have organized in the first place?

The Shoras in Iran had significantly Socialist character in a time when Iran had basically no Socialist labor movement. Unions, Revolutionary Parties, etc. arose to help the workers in the struggles they created themselves.


The fetishizing of particularly first world economic struggles is a pointless excercise because outside of May 1968 they rarely lead to posing the question of power (and lets face May 1968 was a failure).

The Workers' Councils towards the end of Allende administration actually took power in cities. Shoras in Iran took considerable control of communities and created supermarkets, health agencies and other services. If anything I find May 68 to be the lessor of spontaneous power grabbers. What made May 68 significant was the sheer amount and speed of the development of Wildcats Strikes and the sort of counter culture it carried with it.


The entire spectrum from pseudo-Anarchist variants of Marxism to political Anarchism puts too much emphasis on point-of-production relations and related struggles, and that's why all tendencies in that spectrum are ultra-left.

Really? I don't think so. In fact I defiantly see Anarchism as the total opposite of point of production struggles.

As for these "Pseudo - Anarchist" variants of Marxism (which I suppose you mean Councilism and Autonomous Marxism) I don't see them as putting alot of emphasis on the workplace struggles. Autonomous Marxists in particular see a significant role for a proper revolutionary group outside of production, for which they share with JFT style Humanist Marxists. Councilism sees a definite role to in a political organization in a struggle and in elements outside the workplace.

If much stress is laid on the workplace its because these tendencies of Marxism arose out of the betrayal of Communist and Socialist parties which went away from the workers in fetishizing themselves and in maintaining the external form of an organisation.

[syndicat]

the workplace is critical because this is where the capital/labor relation is implemented and people can't kid themselves about where things stand. this is why this is central to class struggle (which also does occur outside the workpalce) and this is why this is a point of overlap between liberatarian socialisma and marxism.

[Paulappaul]

I think Otto Ruhle in his" From the Bourgeois to the Proletarian Revolution" (1924) lays it out good,


Only in the factory is the worker of today a real proletarian, and as such a revolutionary within the meaning of the proletarian-socialist revolution. Outside the factory he is a petty-bourgeois, involved in a petty-bourgeois milieu and middle-class habits of life, dominated by petty-bourgeois ideology. He has grown up in bourgeois families, been educated in a bourgeois school, nourished on the bourgeois spirit. Marriage is a bourgeois penal institution. Dwelling in rented barracks is a bourgeois arrangement. The private household of every family with its own kitchen leads to a completely egotistic economic mode. There the husband looks after his wife, the wife looks after her children; everyone thinks only about his interests. Even the child in bourgeois schools is directed to knowledge influenced by the bourgeoisie, which is tailored in accordance with bourgeois tendencies. Everything is dealt with from the standpoint of the bourgeois-ideological interpretation of history. Then in apprenticeship, in business, in the workshop: again in bourgeois surroundings. What someone reads, what he has picked up in the theatre, in the cinema and so on - everywhere, in the street, in the guest-house, bourgeois existence comes to meet him. And all that gives rise to a bourgeois way of thinking and feeling. Many become, as soon as they have taken off their working clothes, bourgeois too in their behaviour. They treat wives and children as they are treated by their bosses, demand subjection, service, authority. When the proletariat is liberated from the bourgeoisie, women and children will still have to be liberated from the men. This has nothing to do with evil intent, but emerges from our bourgeois attitude, through the environment, through the bourgeois atmosphere. Whenever the worker is seen outside the factory, he is a petty bourgeois. In clothing, habits, life-style he apes the bourgeois and is happy when he can not be distinguished from the bourgeoisie. If we group the worker according to living areas and streets, with the party and trade union membership, then we only find him as a petty bourgeois. At best we get him along to distribute a leaflet, to a peaceful demonstration, hardly anything more. He prefers to avoid fighting or retreats quickly. "The leaders ought to fight," he says in his cowardice, "that's what they're paid for."


In the factory the worker is another person. There he confronts the capitalist face to face, feels the fist on his neck, is irritated, embittered, hostile. If a conflict breaks out here, he cannot shirk so easily. He is under the control of others, subject to the general influence, is carried away with the rest and holds his own. Revolutionary disposition and revolutionary determination coincide here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I gotta disagree with Ruhle.


Really? I don't think so. In fact I defiantly see Anarchism as the total opposite of point of production struggles.

Bakunin is more known for his bombs shit, but he is much lesser known for starting the whole grow-political-struggles-out-of-economic-ones stuff. Siblings are grow-federal-struggles-out-of-NIMBY-struggles and grow-political-struggles-out-of-single-issues.


As for these "Pseudo - Anarchist" variants of Marxism (which I suppose you mean Councilism and Autonomous Marxism) I don't see them as putting alot of emphasis on the workplace struggles. Autonomous Marxists in particular see a significant role for a proper revolutionary group outside of production, for which they share with JFT style Humanist Marxists. Councilism sees a definite role to in a political organization in a struggle and in elements outside the workplace.

But such "revolutionary" group needs to be pure and needs to minimize disagreement. This repeats the negative lesson of the SDKPiL.

[Paulappaul]

Bakunin is more known for his bombs shit, but he is much lesser known for starting the whole grow-political-struggles-out-of-economic-ones stuff. Siblings are grow-federal-struggles-out-of-NIMBY-struggles and grow-political-struggles-out-of-single-issues.

Yeah I should have said the Anarchist tendency apart from the Anarchist - Syndicalist tendency, which I would consider Bakunin a part of in large part of today.

Anarchists like the Platformists, Individualists, Insurrectionists are less based on economic and political revolution, but more on Social Insurrection.


But such "revolutionary" group needs to be pure and needs to minimize disagreement. This repeats the negative lesson of the SDKPiL.

I can't imagine much Socialists that would disagree with, especially those of the German-Dutch Tendency.

[syndicat]

Bakunin is more known for his bombs shit,

you are full of shit. can you give any evidence to support this?

you are a fucking bureaucratic social dem. your totalally alienated, abstracted from mass struggle view is as much a form of apologia for the bureaucratic class as leninism.

[Paulappaul]

^^^ I gotta disagree with Ruhle.

Why? As long as we live in this society unknowing of the prospects of our society and the series of worldwide exploitation, we in live in conformity to Bourgeois Standards and Bourgeois society. After all, who owns the media and the state? The Bourgeois.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah I should have said the Anarchist tendency apart from the Anarchist - Syndicalist tendency, which I would consider Bakunin a part of in large part of today.

Anarchists like the Platformists, Individualists, Insurrectionists are less based on economic and political revolution, but more on Social Insurrection.

Bakunin has his feet in both camps, Insurrectionist (of which I consider Platformism to be part) and Syndicalist.


I can't imagine much Socialists that would disagree with, especially those of the German-Dutch Tendency.

The German tendency tends to be lumped with the Dutch tendency, but the former is a mixed bag. Spontaneism is mixed with the AAUD. Councilism is mixed with not wanting to split until expelled by some center (the case of the KAPD comrades in their experience with the ultra-left KPD hypocrites). At least I can decide decisively in the negative with respect to the Dutch tendency.


you are full of shit. can you give any evidence to support this?

Debating the Marxist Programme (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3198186938207436161#) by Mike Macnair (video)


your totalally alienated, abstracted from mass struggle view is as much a form of apologia for the bureaucratic class as leninism

I am "alienated" and "abstracted" only from *mere* *labour* struggles.

[devoration1]

it would be interesting to see you provide empirical evidence to support this.

Much of the Russian Revolution of 1905 and both of 1917 as well as the examples given by paulappaul. The worker's councils were not invented by any left political movement or theoreticians, they were created in the midst of struggle by workers in open class struggle posing that all important 'question of power' to the Marxist-Leninists. I believe working class revolutionaries have a very important role to play in the class struggle and the international communist revolution- but I do not see it as their place to 'organize' the working class; revolutionaries are a minority of the most 'advanced' elements of their class and will always be as such, even in times of insurrectionary class struggle 'posing the question of power'. Kronstadt and Kiel are good examples as well of workers reorganizing themselves along military lines for self defense and offensive struggles- as well as the worker's militias and Red Guards of large factories/workplaces; all spontaneous self-organization in the heat of struggle, not from a Central Committee memo.

"wanting" to live in active class struggle on your part does not mean such assertions of mine are false. Because you have not lived through a non-left, non top-down self-organization of workers in struggle means that it does not exist? The forms of struggle and self-organization are the work of the working masses themselves- revolutionaries have also found the ideal forms of organization for themselves as members of the working class (not seperate from it) in the form of the international class party; the regroupment of the minority of revolutionaries of all nations. The factory committee movements, soviets/workers councils, general assemblies as decision making bodies in workplaces in struggle, etc were forms of organization discovered by the working masses in the course of open class struggle. Not living in a period of such high class consciousness and open class struggle does not mean that these forms of organization or courses of events do not exist or will not exist again. There have been many examples of new forms of struggle taken on to combat immediate problems and pose future questions. The tent city occupation in the recent TEKEL strikes is an example, as is the recent re-discovery of the 'struggle committee' (the various 'solidarity networks' that are popping up all over the world, starting in the US)- the latter being an example of how revolutionaries can participate in the class struggle as active members, but not as organizers, leaders, seperate from their own class. (and by 'organize, lead, seperate from' I mean the organizations involved, particularly the Seattle IWW with SeaSol, did not decide ahead of time to build this organizational form, did not dictate its course of action, did not pick its leaders, etc). This gets back to the original topic- I think the IWW as an organization and ideology is dead. I think present day wobblies, like the wobblies of old, have a lot to offer the working class particularly in the US- but not because they are 'the IWW'; just as the main animators of many of the American soviets of 1919 (Tacoma, Butte, Toledo, NYC, etc) as well as the first two communist parties (CLP and CPA) were current or former Wobblies, but not acting as wobblies particularly, but rather as communist revolutionaries (especially in the early days, the IWW was in many ways the 'American Bolsheviki', the American representative of the Third International, on the ground).

[Paulappaul]

Bakunin has his feet in both camps, Insurrectionist (of which I consider Platformism to be part) and Syndicalist.

Indeed.


Spontaneism is mixed with the AAUD.

So? It wasn't a strict believer in Revolutionary Spontaneity nor Democratic Centralism. It was fit right in the middle of two and in many ways transcended this dichotomy. It stressed spontaneity in that Workers' should learn to be revolutionary and self-leading on their own and with it developing their own consciousness.


Councilism is mixed with not wanting to split until expelled by some center (the case of the KAPD comrades in their experience with the ultra-left KPD hypocrites).

For the very reason they wanted to remain united and hoped that they could surpass terms like "Ultra Leftism" and "Left Communism".

[Die Neue Zeit]

Germany would have been better off with a purged USPD and perhaps even a voluntary KAPD splinter with its AAUD, but no, the initial ultra-left formation of the KPD just had to screw things up.

[syndicat]

"wanting" to live in active class struggle on your part does not mean such assertions of mine are false. Because you have not lived through a non-left, non top-down self-organization of workers in struggle means that it does not exist?

i don't know what you mean by "non-left". it apparently has some special, arcane meaning for you.

i did participate in, and helped to organize, a union which at its height had about 350 members, carried out a successful one-week strike, had no paid officers or staff, had department assemblies and shop stewards, and was run by a shop stewards' council (the president and secretary-treasurer were elected union wide but were members of this shop stewards council).

but this was only possible in that time and place (early '70s) because of significant radicalization among younger people. some of the activists who initiated it were Marxists, some were libertarian socialists. at the time of the strike the president was a libertarian socialist.


I think present day wobblies, like the wobblies of old, have a lot to offer the working class particularly in the US- but not because they are 'the IWW'; just as the main animators of many of the American soviets of 1919 (Tacoma, Butte, Toledo, NYC, etc) as well as the first two communist parties (CLP and CPA) were current or former Wobblies, but not acting as wobblies particularly, but rather as communist revolutionaries (especially in the early days, the IWW was in many ways the 'American Bolsheviki', the American representative of the Third International, on the ground).

a perfect example of your bizarre use of "non-left". and this is supposed to indicate a support for the CLP and CPA? how is that non-left? and if the IWW were "American representatives of the Third International", why was the CP's attempt to gain the upper hand in the IWW defeated in 1924? Why did the IWW refuse to affiliate to the Red Labor Union International? and the point you are trying to make is as clear as mud. in its use of manipulation to try to gain control of the IWW, those "communist revolutionaries" showed themselves to be partisans of partyist method. an example was the case of the Maritime Transport Workers Industrial Union. it's local 8 in Philadelphia was the largest local in the union, based on a multi-racial alliance of white and black longshoremen. but because the leading black rank and filers were aligned with the left of the Socialist Party, and were not supporters of the Communist Party, the Communists in control of the national committee of the union in New York expelled that local union on trumped up grounds. so some of your "communist revolutionaries" showed themselves to be schemers and manipulators.

[RedTrackWorker]

an example was the case of the Maritime Transport Workers Industrial Union. it's local 8 in Philadelphia was the largest local in the union, based on a multi-racial alliance of white and black longshoremen. but because the leading black rank and filers were aligned with the left of the Socialist Party, and were not supporters of the Communist Party, the Communists in control of the national committee of the union in New York expelled that local union on trumped up grounds. so some of your "communist revolutionaries" showed themselves to be schemers and manipulators.

This is the first time I've heard of this controversy, so while I would've joined and supported the CP in 1920 when this happened, they did make some rather bad mistakes. This could be one, but it doesn't seem as simple as you put forward.
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=488&issue=120 reviews the issue. The issue claimed by the Exec Board was loading munitions for the fight against Soviet Russia (see Cannon, http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1921/philiiww.htm). One pro-IWW author claims this was just an invention. The ISJ article points out: "Once they were expelled Local 8 finally voted to black the ship and was eventually readmitted in October 1920." So if they were re-admitted after taking that action, how is it just manipulation? Like I said, I don't know the details, so maybe there were other manueverings behind both the expulsions and re-admission. It was later expelled again for refusing to remove its initiation fee.
Anyway, further suggested reading to explain your viewpoint would help.

[devoration1]

how is that non-left?

I don't see every single group that calls itself revolutionary, worker, labor, etc as equal; such a view is extremely lazy and misleading in my opinion. The idea that there is 'The Left' of which we are all a part of and all active within trying to do the same thing in different ways is widespread, and utter crap. I think there are specific ideas and actions that place groups and tendencies outside of the working-class; whether or not they originally were revolutionary or militant and dare I say 'progressive' at one point in time- unionism and the Comintern are good examples. Unions used to be fighting organizations of the working class, as were the CP's, but the former was turned into a part of the state apparatus over time and the latter degenerated very quickly due to the receding of the revolutionary movement. This is why you conflate the early groups of American communism with the actions of the post-'Bolshevization' CPUSA. You don't see a difference between the two- they are both communists, must be the same thing (therefore people like John Reed get put in the same category as Earl Browder and WZ Foster- they're all marxist communists, so whats the difference right?).


but this was only possible in that time and place (early '70s) because of significant radicalization among younger people. some of the activists who initiated it were Marxists, some were libertarian socialists. at the time of the strike the president was a libertarian socialist.

Or it could be that there was a greater momentum in the global class struggle after the massive resurgence of general, mass wildcat strikes after May '68, the 'Hot Autumn', etc into the 1970's; and not as a result of 'radical young people' leading the way.

[syndicat]

i think you're very confused. you don't get to run your own language. "Left" has a certain meaning, a reference. surely people who are anti-capitalist, socialists in some form, are "left" as this word is used in English. in your world view apparently a group of workers are no longer "really" workers if they belong to some left group you don't agree with.


Or it could be that there was a greater momentum in the global class struggle after the massive resurgence of general, mass wildcat strikes after May '68, the 'Hot Autumn', etc into the 1970's; and not as a result of 'radical young people' leading the way.

i was there. you weren't. of course those were some of the important events that shaped consciousness in that period. but equally important for young Americans in that period were the movement against the Vietnam war and the black freedom struggle.

[devoration1]

in your world view apparently a group of workers are no longer "really" workers if they belong to some left group you don't agree with

It's hardly a new or unique use of language; and the groups and their ideology, not their individual members, have crossed the class barrier.

The designation 'Left of capital, right of capital' to describe the orbit of organizations that reinforce the capitalist mode of production and its state and political appratus is used by some of those 'Libertarian Socialists/Marxists' you bring up every so often. For example: The Democratic Party is part of the left of capital; the workers who vote for the Democratic Party, donate to Democratic candidates, etc are not. Same goes for the Socialist Workers Party, CPUSA, etc.


i was there.

Can I use that argument when I get to be your age and someone younger than me references the studnt revolts, mass and general strikes, etc going on right now around the world?

[Zanthorus]

well, now that the ultraleft loonies have spoken, here you have the voice of leninist elitism. actually in my observation many "economic" struggles are also an act of defiance and about defense of dignity, and they're also to varying degees about power.

The funny thing is that if we replaced the words 'Leninism' and 'Leninist' in most of syndicat's posts with 'Stalinism' and 'Stalinist' anyone who didn't know would probably be incapable of distuinguishing his politics from Trotskyism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

a perfect example of your bizarre use of "non-left". and this is supposed to indicate a support for the CLP and CPA? how is that non-left? and if the IWW were "American representatives of the Third International", why was the CP's attempt to gain the upper hand in the IWW defeated in 1924? Why did the IWW refuse to affiliate to the Red Labor Union International? and the point you are trying to make is as clear as mud. in its use of manipulation to try to gain control of the IWW, those "communist revolutionaries" showed themselves to be partisans of partyist method. an example was the case of the Maritime Transport Workers Industrial Union.

Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes;

That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end – the abolition of classes [...]

Enough said.

Well, not really. Your objection to their actions is partially justified, in that the actions were in fact carried out by pseudo-partyists who didn't aim for their own organizations to be real parties / real movements.

The IWW's knee-jerk reaction was just dead wrong. It completely dumped politics, unlike today's All-Workers Militant Front and its international parent World Federation of Trade Unions.


Much of the Russian Revolution of 1905 and both of 1917 as well as the examples given by paulappaul. The worker's councils were not invented by any left political movement or theoreticians, they were created in the midst of struggle by workers in open class struggle posing that all important 'question of power' to the Marxist-Leninists. I believe working class revolutionaries have a very important role to play in the class struggle and the international communist revolution- but I do not see it as their place to 'organize' the working class

I believe I wrote on this board something along the lines that the whole RSDLP wasn't really supportive of the 1905 soviets. These soviets were justifiable in the absence of a party-movement, which the RSDLP merely strived to be.

If this *stunt* had occurred in Germany during the early 1900s, a more vociferous SPD opposition would have been justified.

[syndicat]

Can I use that argument when I get to be your age and someone younger than me references the studnt revolts, mass and general strikes, etc going on right now around the world?

my comments were about a very concrete organizing experience in building a grassroots union. and then you mouth off about some vague global generalities that supposedly "explain" the radicalism of many people involved in that union in that era.

and, no, the ultra left concept of "the left of capital" is not a concept indigenous to the libertarian socialists I am familiar with. it's the kind of language used by people like the ICC. it's a narrow jargon.

[syndicat]

The funny thing is that if we replaced the words 'Leninism' and 'Leninist' in most of syndicat's posts with 'Stalinism' and 'Stalinist' anyone who didn't know would probably be incapable of distuinguishing his politics from Trotskyism.

fuck you. this is the only appropriate response given that your statement is obviously false. you lack actual arugments, so you come up with mudslinging.

[x371322]

I used to like this thread. I enjoyed getting occasional updates and talks about the good work being done by the Jimmy Johns workers. Now it's turned into a sectarian shit throwing contest. Why hasn't a mod/admin split this thread already? That should have happened a long, long time ago. Possibly even send the shit trowing part to the trashcan where it belongs.

You'd think of all the things to argue about on RevLeft, we could at least all agree that genuine workers doing good things and fighting the good fight, in the real world, need to be supported... but I guess not?

:cursing:

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Ever since Nothing Human Is Alien's bitter (and absolutely unnecessary) post, the floodgates came crashing.

The funny thing is that if we replaced the words 'Leninism' and 'Leninist' in most of syndicat's posts with 'Stalinism' and 'Stalinist' anyone who didn't know would probably be incapable of distuinguishing his politics from Trotskyism.
Okay... Your point? Oh wait, are you trying to reveal the great Anarcho-Trot conspiracy?!?! CHARLES NOOOOOOOOOO

[devoration1]

You'd think of all the things to argue about on RevLeft, we could at least all agree that genuine workers doing good things and fighting the good fight, in the real world, need to be supported... but I guess not?

Everyone is agreement on that. The disagreement is over whether you can

1) Support those workers without supporting unionism (and thus the IWW and their JJWU as organizational models in the short term or as revolutionary vehicles)

and

2) Criticize the tactics and ideology employed by emotionally invested people

It's like an overbearing father who won't let go of the bike when you start to get the hang of it. "LOOK! They're doing it!". Then the father punches you in the face and calls you a child molester for suggesting he let go of the bike and let his kid ride on their own.

NHII posts were helpful and not unnecessary, as someone who has a lengthy experience with the group involved and their activities in recent history.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ever since Nothing Human Is Alien's bitter (and absolutely unnecessary) post, the floodgates came crashing.

Okay... Your point? Oh wait, are you trying to reveal the great Anarcho-Trot conspiracy?!?! CHARLES NOOOOOOOOOO

Something common between Trotskyism, most left communism, and modern anarcho-syndicalism is the idea of growing political struggles out of much lesser struggles: economic struggles, NIMBY antics, etc. They also overestimate the long-term organizational potential of councils.


NHII posts were helpful and not unnecessary, as someone who has a lengthy experience with the group involved and their activities in recent history.

Given his inclination towards deferring political organization to what he considers to be revolutionary periods, he should have merely articulated his personal experience. His "the accumulation model (recruit people to an organization or union until 50%+1 of the working class holds a membership card, at which point revolution will occur) should be abandoned" statement was a pot shot at both anarcho-syndicalism and all shades of partyism.

[x371322]

It's like an overbearing father who won't let go of the bike when you start to get the hang of it. "LOOK! They're doing it!". Then the father punches you in the face and calls you a child molester for suggesting he let go of the bike and let his kid ride on their own.

Um, okay?

:confused:

[syndicat]

I used to like this thread. I enjoyed getting occasional updates and talks about the good work being done by the Jimmy Johns workers. Now it's turned into a sectarian shit throwing contest. Why hasn't a mod/admin split this thread already? That should have happened a long, long time ago. Possibly even send the shit trowing part to the trashcan where it belongs.


yeah, well, you'll notice various people have derailed the thread to grind their particular...mainly untraleft....axes. i've seen this happen to other message boards, like libcom, where I won't post anymore for this reason. closer moderation is needed to avoid this sort of thing.

[Paulappaul]

yeah, well, you'll notice various people have derailed the thread to grind their particular...mainly untraleft....axes. i've seen this happen to other message boards, like libcom, where I won't post anymore for this reason. closer moderation is needed to avoid this sort of thing. Really? Serious? For realz?

While we're on the topic, how you shut up you hippie Vegan loving Anarchist. Go jump in your bus and drive down to your Commune.

If only I could call the police down here to shut your radical ass up so I can civil discussion about how great Republicans are.

[Black Sheep]

THeir website is great!
I Fing love the sabot cat employees

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes;

That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end – the abolition of classes..."

Enough said.

... years later:

"A whole generation lies between then and now. At that time Germany was a country of handicraft and of domestic industry based on hand labor; now it is a big industrial country still undergoing continual industrial transformation. At that time one had to seek out one by one the workers who had an understanding of their position as workers and of their historico-economic antagonism to capital, because this antagonism itself was only just beginning to develop. Today the entire German proletariat has to be placed under exceptional laws, merely in order to slow down a little the process of its development to full consciousness of its position as an oppressed class. At that time the few persons whose minds had penetrated to the realization of the historical role of the proletariat had to forgather in secret, to assemble clandestinely in small communities of 3 to 20 persons. Today the German proletariat no longer needs any official organization, either public or secret. The simple self-evident interconnection of like-minded class comrades suffices, without any rules, boards, resolutions or other tangible forms, to shake the whole German Empire to its foundations. Bismarck is the arbiter of Europe beyond the frontiers of Germany, but within them there grows daily more threatening the athletic figure of the German proletariat that Marx foresaw already in 1844, the giant for whom the cramped imperial edifice designed to fit the philistine is even now becoming inadequate and whose mighty stature and broad shoulder are growing until the moment comes when by merely rising from his seat he will shatter the whole structure of the imperial constitution into fragments. And still more. The international movement of the European and American proletariat has become so much strengthened that not merely its first narrow form — the secret League — but even its second, infinitely wider form — the open International Working Men’s Association — has become a fetter for it, and that the simple feeling of solidarity based on the understanding of the identity of class position suffices to create and to hold together one and the same great party of the proletariat among the workers of all countries and tongues. The doctrine which the League represented from 1847 to 1852, and which at that time could be treated by the wise philistines with a shrug of the shoulders as the hallucinations of utter madcaps, as the secret doctrine of a few scattered sectarians, has now innumerable adherents in all civilized countries of the world, among those condemned to the Siberian mines as much as among the gold diggers of California; and the founder of this doctrine, the most hated, most slandered man of his time, Karl Marx, was, when he died, the ever-sought-for and ever-willing counsellor of the proletariat of both the old and the new world." - Engels

Also relevant here:

"But it is just now that it is doubly necessary to have a few people there from our side with a firm seat in their saddles where theory and long-proved tactics are concerned, and who can also write and speak English; for, from good historical reasons, the Americans are worlds behind in all theoretical things, and while they did not bring over any medieval institutions from Europe they did bring over masses of medieval traditions, religion, English common (feudal) law, superstition, spiritualism, in short every kind of imbecility which was not directly harmful to business and which is now very serviceable for making the masses stupid. And if there are people at hand there whose minds are theoretically clear, who can tell them the consequences of their own mistakes beforehand and make it clear to them that every movement which does not keep the destruction of the wage system in view the whole time as its final aim is bound to go astray and fail--then many a piece of nonsense may be avoided and the process considerably shortened." - Engels

[Leo]

hey Leo, I just wanted to point out an irony here. Syndicat says basically "Your criticisms are just typical ultraleftism." You say "your response is just typical trotskyism." Cake, Leo, have it or eat it, not both.

No, the real irony was that someone claiming to be an anarchist going on and throwing the same political which is very commonly used by the Trotskyists in similar cases in every post. It has been pointed out by other users, and the person in question responded saying:


fuck you. this is the only appropriate response given that your statement is obviously false. you lack actual arugments, so you come up with mudslinging.

His flaming does not change the validity of the argument made however. It simply violates the board rules.

Of course, just as when the Trotsykists (as well as the Stalinists in some cases) scream about "ultra-leftism" when they can't give actual responses to the valid arguments and criticism made against them by the left communists or the revolutionary anarchists it doesn't really work; neither does it when so-called "anarchists", "libertarian socialists" and so on do it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Today the German proletariat no longer needs any official organization, either public or secret.

I doubt this was written after 1890.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It was written in 1885.

"Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes;" comes from the September, 1871 Resolution of the London Conference on Working Class Political Action

[Die Neue Zeit]

The important point is that Engels didn't badmouth the SPD by saying that "the German proletariat no longer needs any official organization, either public or secret," thereby making his critique of the Erfurt Program superfluous. Ditto with the original Socialist International when it was formed. His views swung around right back to partyism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think the main points are that (1) Marx and Engels often referred to "party" as a general term for the working class taking independent action against capitalism, and; (2) the working class doesn't need an official permanent organization to overthrow capitalism.

[Sosa]

Minneapolis Jimmy John's workers might still become the first officially recognized fast-food union (http://www.citypages.com/2010-09-29/news/Jimmy-Johns-about-to-become-first-fast-food-union/) in the country.

http://blogs.citypages.com/food/2011/01/jimmy_johns_wor_1.php

[Tomhet]

Hails to the IWW!!
A true working class organization... Also one hour shift? that really sucks by, I've never had to do that personally.. 4 hours can be frustrating enough at times..

[crashcourse]

Why hasn't a mod/admin split this thread already? That should have happened a long, long time ago.

^^This.

Could the thread be split into one about specifics of the campaign and then the later big-picture theoretical stuff? (including some of my own responses?)

Also: Devoration, you're like what, 22?

[RED DAVE]

for immediate release
jimmy john's workers union- industrial workers of the world

contacts:
Micah buckley-farlee, 612-845-9290
erik forman, 612-598-6205

in big union victory, jimmy john's union election nullified due to employer labor rights violations

sandwich workers begin new push for “10 point program” to reform fast food industry

minneapolis– the national labor relations board approved a settlementtoday nullifying the results of the historic october 22 union electionat jimmy john's, putting victory back on the table for the nation's first-ever union in franchised fast food. The settlement validates workers' claims that franchise owners mike and rob mulligan were able to squeak out an 87-85 victory in the election only by resorting to unlawful tactics including threatening a wage freeze, intentionally fabricating rumors that the union engaged in sabotage, retaliating
against union supporters, and numerous other labor rights violations.

With the tainted election results nullified, the union is asking the franchise owners to negotiate over its "10 point program for justice at jimmy john's," a comprehensive package of reforms that will bring respect, dignity, and democracy to the fast food workplace.

“there can now be no doubt that our rights were severely violated, but we're willing to put the past behind us. We are calling on mike and rob mulligan to make a fresh start and work with us, rather than against us, to improve the lives of jimmy john's workers and their families by negotiating over our 10 point program for modest but urgently needed changes,” said micah buckley-farlee, a delivery driver at jimmy john's and active member of the union campaign.

Based around benefits that workers in many other industries take for granted, the program is the response of jimmy john's workers to their most pressing problems on the job. Core demands include sick days, improved job security, guaranteed work hours, a reasonable pay increase and regular raises, improved harassment policies, other basic job benefits, and the establishment of a system of shop committees giving workers a democratic voice within the company.

If franchise owners mike and rob mulligan refuse to cooperate, the union has indicated a willingness to return to the trenches and continue the fight for union recognition, this time on terms that are much more favorable to the union due to the settlement agreement.

Under the nlrb settlement, jimmy john's must cease engaging in a wide range of unlawful anti-union activities, post notices informing employees of the company's new commitment to obeying the law, and host a series of mandatory employee meetings in which a representative of the nlrb will read the notices in the presence of the company owner.

In 60 days, the union will also be eligible to file for a fresh election at any point in the next 18 months, with an abbreviated “campaigning period” of 30 days, 12 days shorter than what is customary for nlrb elections.

Union member ayo collins said, "mike and rob mulligan can either continue their losing battle against their employees, or they can work with us and distinguish themselves as leaders in bringing much-needed change to the nation's fast food industry. For our part, we're hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. We are more confident than ever that in the end, we will win, setting an example for 3.5 million fast food workers to follow."

the jimmy johns workers union, open to employees at the companynationwide, is affiliated with the industrial workers of the world labor union. Gaining prominence in recent years for organizing starbucks workers, the iww is a global union founded over a century ago for all working people.


jimmyjohnsworkers.org:d

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

In an effort to silence employees who have blown the whistle on serious food safety hazards at Jimmy John's, the company fired six workers yesterday for putting up posters (see attached) demanding the right to call in sick and paid sick days in order toavoid exposing customers to infection. Under current policy, Jimmy John's workers are disciplined for calling in sick if they cannot find a replacement, forcing many workers to make sandwiches while ill.

"It just isn't safe -- customers are getting their sandwiches made by people with the flu, and they have no idea," said Micah Buckley-Farlee, one of the fired workers, "and now we're getting fired for blowing the whistle on this disgusting practice. Rather than safeguard public health and do the right thing for their employees and their customers, Jimmy John's owners Mike and Rob Mulligan are trying to silence us. These illegal and offensive firings will not stand."

In addition to the threat of discipline for calling in sick, many workers are unable to afford to take a day off if they are ill because wages at the sandwich chain hover around the federal minimum of $7.25 and the company offers no benefits. The result of these pressures is that sandwich-makers often have to work while sick, creating an enormous public health risk. The issue of working while sick in restaurants has assumed increased concern from the public in recent years. A recent study performed by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy shows a marked increase in workers unable to take sick leave noting that of the 793 employees surveyed 72% said they worked while they had severe flu symptoms.

The risky anti-union firings at Jimmy John's could easily backfire on the company. Firing workers in retaliation for organizing activity is expressly forbidden by the National Labor Relations Act. The IWW Jimmy John's Workers Union will file charges with the National Labor Relations Board today seeking reinstatement of all fired workers. The workers are hopeful that the NLRB will consider an injunction toreinstate the fired workers while litigation progresses. Regardless ofthe outcome of legal action, the union workers have announced that direct actions against the franchise, such as picketing, will continue to escalate until they have won the demand for paid sick days and all illegally fired workers are reinstated.“

All we want is for the owner Rob Mulligan to do the right thing,” says Alyssa Rodewald, a Jimmy John's worker who was fired for calling in sick last week. “Spend your money giving us paid sick days and protecting customers, not spending legal fees in a hopeless attempt to justify your immoral actions”.

The Jimmy Johns Workers Union, open to employees at the company nationwide, is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World labor union. Gaining prominence in recent years for organizing Starbucks workers, the IWW is a global union founded over a century ago for all working people.##jimmyjohnsworkers.orghttp://mail.aol.com/33456-111/aol-6/en-us/mail/DisplayMessage.aspx?ws_popup=true

RED DAVE

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Transcript of texting between IWW Starbucks Workers Union organizer Liberte Locke and the cowardly man in charge, Rob Mulligan, of the Minneapolis Jimmy John's fast food restaurants.

(His phone number is 612-817-9016 if you want to shoot him a text, or call him, or leave a voicemail. His phone was jammed for a while.)

Started around 11:40a, EST, calling from New York City. This is after two long voicemails. The following was all sent in individual texts....any brackets are there to explain what is being discussed. And, yes, these are SIM card saved. This is written as it was sent, including run on sentences, text slang, and my angry typing and missing the occasional l letter.
Wobbly: "Avoid an expensive trial, reinstate all the fired IWWs. Huge mistake, big shot."

Rob Mulligan: " Avoid making yourself look bad and support loyal workers who don't disparage their employer and lie to the public."

Wobbly:"An Injury to One is and Injury to All... The IWW Starbucks Workers Union fully supports the union sandwich makers! We seen a trial end in victory, what makes you think that you're more legally prepared to fight this then Starbucks was, hahaha."

Robby: "Where do you have a contract- oh, yeah nowhere!"

Wobbly:"You all wanted to sell spoiled meat, your management style is hazardous to the public. Your employees are loyal - to the union. You don't deserve loyality. Did you always dream of being a union buster or was that after your other plans fell through. It's not lucative [lucrative]. Also, we don't need a contract to win a trial. :)"

Robby:"Unfortunately defamation isn't protected activity. Gfy [Go Fuck Yourself].

Wobbly:" Warning the public of a possible heathcode violation is the ethically correct thing to do, sorry I can't say the same for the cowardly decision of firing minimum wage workers just because they were honest with the publuc [public] - oh, and union members."

Wobbly, again:"Why'd you make people work sick? That is not a protected activity for a manager ... in fact the CDC would not appreciate it, or OSHA."

Wobbly, still yapping:"I'm sure the sandwiches are delicious, when made with union-labor and no risk of getting the flu from it."

Robby, finally:"Well, we don't, you're being lied to just like everyone else they are telling that we make people work sick. We don't. Why would we do something like that?"

Robby, again:"Give it up,"

Wobbly:"Yes you do. You are lying to me now. Threatening people's job when they say they are too sick to work is forcing them to go in sick. No okau [Not Okay], bud"

Wobbly:"Oh, and as to why you would do that is simple, caring more about making money than people's health and well-being. That really seems to be where you went wrong with this business venture. Give them sick pay, it'll show the customers that you do want healthy employees preparing food - don't give it [to] them and it only brings the truth to light."

Wobbly, who hasn't shut up yet:"And, ps, the IWW doesn't give up. Myself included. We only get stronger."

Wobbly, still:"Oh, you must be busy fielding all the other calls. Have a great day! Looking forward to more chat time."

Wobbly, one last consideration:"Also, don't you find it unfair that you are left to take [the] brunt of customer complaints regarding this while Mike simply disonnected his phone? Sounds like you have loyality issues with your business partner."

----- no more responses, I'll update if I get anymore.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

One of the fired six workers (all IWW's, obviously) was Eric Foreman, one of the lead organizers in the IWW (he worked at and organized for the Starbucks Workers Union a few years back, I believe). Just throwing that out there, because he was one who made the J.J. struggle public and was able to rally a lot of support. Seems like the flames of discontent are being fanned once again since these firings!

[PhoenixAsh]

If only I could call the police down here to shut your radical ass up so I can civil discussion about how great Republicans are.


wait...what?

I don't understand if joke or not.

[RedTrackWorker]

One of the fired six workers (all IWW's, obviously) was Eric Foreman, one of the lead organizers in the IWW (he worked at and organized for the Starbucks Workers Union a few years back, I believe). Just throwing that out there, because he was one who made the J.J. struggle public and was able to rally a lot of support. Seems like the flames of discontent are being fanned once again since these firings!

I met and had lunch with Eric at the Labor Notes conference in April (randomly but fortunately). He impressed me as a dedicated activist and thoughtful revolutionary. Solidarity to him and the other workers.

[Paulappaul]

wait...what?

I don't understand if joke or not.

Syndicat was being a dick, so I was just responding.

[x359594]

...Can I use that argument [I was there] when I get to be your age and someone younger than me references the studnt revolts, mass and general strikes, etc going on right now around the world?

Only if you were a participant.

[syndicat]

redtrackworker:
The issue claimed by the Exec Board was loading munitions for the fight against Soviet Russia (see Cannon, http://www.marxists.org/archive/cann...1/philiiww.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1921/philiiww.htm)). One pro-IWW author claims this was just an invention. The ISJ article points out: "Once they were expelled Local 8 finally voted to black the ship and was eventually readmitted in October 1920." So if they were re-admitted after taking that action, how is it just manipulation? Like I said, I don't know the details, so maybe there were other manueverings behind both the expulsions and re-admission. It was later expelled again for refusing to remove its initiation fee.


so, it's not CP manipulation to expel a local union, not because of violation of the IWW constitution, but because it supposedly didn't pursue a policy promoted by the CP? if the IWW itself required boycotting that ship, that might be a legitimate reason, and IF the longshoremen in fact did load the ship (I've heard that this was not the case...).

the book on the history of local 8, however, claims that the CP-controlled national committee in New York City were more concerned with the fact that the CP wasn't dominant in local 8, and since local 8 was a majority of the membership of MTWIU, it sort of got in the way of the CP gaining control of the MTWIU.

[RedTrackWorker]

redtrackworker:

so, it's not CP manipulation to expel a local union, not because of violation of the IWW constitution, but because it supposedly didn't pursue a policy promoted by the CP? if the IWW itself required boycotting that ship, that might be a legitimate reason, and IF the longshoremen in fact did load the ship (I've heard that this was not the case...).

the book on the history of local 8, however, claims that the CP-controlled national committee in New York City were more concerned with the fact that the CP wasn't dominant in local 8, and since local 8 was a majority of the membership of MTWIU, it sort of got in the way of the CP gaining control of the MTWIU.

You're talking about Peter Cole's book right? Or is it another book?
An essay by him on the issue is online at http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/lh/article/viewFile/5512/4707. I wish I had the time and energy to do a separate thread on this, because I think it'd be a good way to get out some of the differences between the WSA (or at least syndicat) and the LRP, but I would note Cole's account of a CP conspiracy is on his own admission, speculative. Given the weight of the evidence and that it seems interpreters are looking at 1920 based on the CP's later behavior were it did worse, I would say it seems highly unlikely to me that Cole's CP conspiracy take is right.
On that topic, I'd like to ask syndicat: are there any other claimed instances from the 1919-22 of the CP making up stories or whatever to destroy or take over workers' organizations?

[syndicat]

On that topic, I'd like to ask syndicat: are there any other claimed instances from the 1919-22 of the CP making up stories or whatever to destroy or take over workers' organizations?

I've not studied the American CP's behavior in that era in any detail. You do know, of course, that the CP tried to "capture" the IWW for the Comintern? I think this is an example of a sectarian practice. It was highly disruptive to the IWW, which was already under assault by the states and the feds, and hundreds of key activists were still in prison. This came about because of Comintern view that the unions should be transmission belts of the party. They simply refused to agree to union autonomy.

The new CPs in other countries also tried to capture the other syndicalist unions for the Comintern as well. This split the revolutionary syndicalist union in the Netherlands. The CGT in France was split three ways.

[YSR]

Hey ya'll,

Please stay updated on our struggle at Jimmy John's and do what you can to help:
http://www.facebook.com/jimmyjohnsunion

6 of my friends were fired this week for organizing and another worker was fired last week for calling in sick. We need solidarity to win this! If we do, this is a big step for the rest of the fast food industry and people are watching!

[syndicat]

Minneapolis St Paul Business Journal:


Workers who tried to organize a union at a metro-area Jimmy John's franchise have filed unfair labor practice charges against the company.
The complaint filed with the National Labor Relations Board (http://www.twincities.com/business/ci_17703885) says the workers were fired for engaging in protected labor actions, such as putting up posters suggesting sandwiches at the restaurants might be made by sick workers (because, the poster noted, they don't get sick days). Owner Mike Mulligan called the posters "defamatory".
The workers had tried to organize a union last fall, but lost a close vote. Afterward, the NLRB said there was sufficient evidence of unfair labor practices leading up to a vote to file a complaint. The board brokered a deal (http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/morning_roundup/2011/01/union-will-get-2nd-chance-at-jimmy.html) to hold a new v ote, which hasn't occurred yet.

[RED DAVE]

email today:


Jimmy John's workers get written up if they take the day off when they
are sick if we can't find a replacement. Also, we make so little money
that we can't afford to take a day off. We need paid sick days.

Join us on the picket line tomorrow from 11-1 to 'quarantine' Jimmy
John's to tell franchise owners Mike and Rob Mulligan that you want us
to have paid sick days so that your sandwich is made by a healthy
worker!

Sick of Working Sick Picket
11-1pm Thursday March 31
Riverside Jimmy John's
2037 Riverside Avenue, Minneapolis

Bring thermometers, stethoscopes, lab coats, etc. We will provide
surgical masks.

We are having a press conference to release data on how often Jimmy
John's workers are compelled to work sick--over 5 times a year--joined
by our allies from the MN Nurses Association and SEIU Healthcare MN.

Please come if you are able.


******Other Things You Can Do To Help******

Have a car and willing to participate in an action next week? Get in
touch with David at [email protected]/651-315-4222.

Sign the supporter petition
http://www.jimmyjohnsworkers.org/content/supporter-petition

Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/tciwwact Or text from your
phone “Follow TCIWWACT” to 40404 and reply to the text message.

Donate to the Jimmy John's Worker Union online at jimmyjohnsworkers.org/donate

Come to the IWW Jimmy Johns Workers Union Solidarity Committee: 7pm
Thursday, March 30th, at 3019 Minnehaha Ave S, Minneapolis or email:
[email protected]

See our YouTube Video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFBZ18Va3WU

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jimmyjohnsunion
Please “Like” us on facebook and make the attached poster your facebook picture.

Our Website: http://www.jimmyjohnsworkers.org/

Poster Link:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=208479472496421&notif_t=event_wall#!/photo.php?fbid=10150120793383500&set=o.208479472496421&theater (http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=208479472496421&notif_t=event_wall#%21/photo.php?fbid=10150120793383500&set=o.208479472496421&theater)

Thanks!

Jimmy John's Workers UnionRED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

email yesterday


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Jimmy John's Workers Union- Industrial Workers of the World
Contacts: Max Specktor, 612-250-7309, Erik Forman 612-598-6205

June 3, 2011

Government Reports Reveal Jimmy John's Lied about Pattern of
Food-borne Illness Outbreaks Due to Sick Workers

Company Credibility Erodes as NLRB Investigation over Firing of Six
Whistleblowers Continues

attached: Minnesota Department of Health Reports

MINNEAPOLIS- Two months after Jimmy John's fired six workers for
blowing the whistle on a company practice of forcing sandwich-makers
to work while sick, the IWW Jimmy John's Workers Union has released
Minnesota Department of Health documents today revealing eight
outbreaks of foodborne illness at franchises across the Twin Cities
area in the past five years, seven of which were due to employees
working while sick at the chain. The release of the documents
seriously erodes the credibility of Minneapolis franchise owner Mike
Mulligan who had previously claimed to reporters and employees that,
"the company has made more than 6 million sandwiches during its nearly
10 years in business—and no one’s ever gotten sick from eating one."
Two of the outbreaks, both caused by sick employees, were at the
Mulligans' stores.

"This is smoking gun evidence not only of the seriousness of the
public health risk caused by workers being forced to work while sick
at Jimmy John's, it also proves that Jimmy John's franchise owner Mike
Mulligan willfully lied to the media, the public, and his employees
about his food safety track record. We will continue our fight for
paid sick days for restaurant workers until Jimmy John's changes their
policy to protect workers and the public," said Max Specktor, one of
the fired whistleblowers.

Although franchise owner Mike Mulligan has also publicly denied
disciplining workers for calling in sick, the company's own written
policy mandates one to two disciplinary 'points' for workers who call
in without finding a replacement, even if they have a doctor's note.
Workers are fired after accumulating six points. In addition to the
threat of discipline for calling in sick, workers are often unable to
afford to take a day off if they fall ill because wages at the
sandwich chain hover around the federal minimum of $7.25 and the
company offers no benefits.

According to results of a survey of 40 sandwich workers conducted by
the IWW Jimmy John's Workers Union, the threat of discipline and
poverty wages result in an average of at least two workers working
while sick at Jimmy John's in Minneapolis every single day. The union
plans to release a report highlighting these findings next week.

In an effort to silence employees who blew the whistle on serious food
safety hazards at Jimmy John's, the company fired six workers in March
for putting up posters demanding the right to call in sick and paid
sick days in order to avoid exposing customers to infection.

The fired workers filed a charge with the National Labor Relations
Board in April seeking reinstatement to their positions. Although
ample case law precedent protects workers' right to inform the public
of a labor dispute or unsafe working conditions, the fired Jimmy
John's workers' charge has been sent to the NLRB's Division of Advice
in Washington, DC for additional investigation due to recent
government procedural changes. Union members hope for a legal decision
in the coming weeks.

"These Department of Health reports definitively show what we already
knew- we were fired for telling the truth about food safety hazards at
Jimmy John's. We hope that the NLRB will expedite our case because
there is no time to lose in bringing healthy working conditions to the
fast food industry," said Erik Forman, one of the fired workers.

The Jimmy Johns Workers Union, open to employees at the company
nationwide, is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World
labor union. Gaining prominence in recent years for organizing
Starbucks workers, the IWW is a global union founded over a century
ago for all working people.

##

jimmyjohnsworkers.orgRED DAVE