Starting a Revolutionary Union?

[The Man]

Like the Industrial Workers of the World?

[Soseloshvili]

It's not really that hard. If you're talking about organizing your workplace that it.

Get together a core group of people you trust, and have a meeting. These people will be your workplace organizing committee.

With these people, spread pamphlets and such about unionizing (while the bosses aren't looking, of course) and after a while start bringing in union cards (essentially, cards which list their full name, position, address, and any relevent info).

Once you have a majority of people signing, file a claims with the Labour Relations Board (the name of this and it's laws varies between country / subnational entity however in Ontario it is called this).

Depending on where you live, you will either instantly become a union or will have to then have a vote on whether to unionize or not.

If you're talking about actually forming ... a whole new federation of unionized workplaces (I don't know what else to call it) then you'd have to start at that level - organize that one workplace completely on your own, get a head office, set up all the necessary services... and just make a go of it.

[Soseloshvili]

And, my friend, I would like to alert you that such an organization already exists - Industrial Workers of the World.

I suggest you look them up. While not exactly Anarchist, they are very much so revolutionary.

Where do you work? I can put you in touch with my comrades in IWW.

[Soseloshvili]

cheers man, but im not talking bout my particular workplace but a large union, can a union cross borders?

Yes. My union, UFCW, is in both the USA and Canada.

[Soseloshvili]

I am working part time, just few hours a day, for the council.

All i can get, fucking hate it.

The Council? Could you please elaborate?

Now - I think you need a bit of an education on how unions work too.

First of, the mainstream unions (at least in the USA and Canada) are fairly radical. As a member of UFCW (my country's largest private sector union) I can tell you that we're pretty anti-Capitalist, at least for a mass organization. In Europe and elsewhere, unions have largely lost their radicalism, however.

Now. If you really do believe in radical unions, IWW is the way to go. They're a leftover from the days of the "One Big Union" movement of the early 20th century. They are very small compared to the mainstream unions - however, they are very radical.

I myself am not a IWW member, though they do allow members of other unions to become members. If I had to place a name on their specific ideology, it would be Syndicalism. Though that's probably not quite right.

Anyways. "Starting" your own union isn't easy - hell, it's probably next to impossible without a HELL of a lot of dedication and support. Unionizing your workplace with a progressive union however, is doable.

I would say, just from experience, that the most radical mainstream unions are (this is Canadian, btw):



Unite Here! (they do hotel workers and such
United Steelworkers (interesting note, their Canadian division was founded by the Communist Party)
CUPE (Public sector union)

[The Man]

I didn't start this thread. Please trash it.

[Q]

I didn't start this thread.
Duly noted.


Please trash it.

I don't think that's the best course of action, the question of organising is a valid one and Soseloshvili made some good posts about it. If stressed, a merger with another topic would be preferable.

[Soseloshvili]

Just so everyone reading this knows... a user by the name of No Pasaran (who seems to have been deleted) posted a question asking how he could form a new union (not just unionize his workplace, form a new union) that was fully revolutionary.

The convo went from there.

[Manic Impressive]

ok so i'm going to attempt to hijack this thread as I've been thinking something kind of similar.

A few months ago I was at an activist meeting the floor was open for people to say their bit about how to progress the student movement. A woman working at a job centre stood up and gave a rousing speech about how we need to get the unemployed motivated and able to join in protests and become more militant. She got a huge round of applause but I was left feeling a little perplexed. I wanted to stand up and ask her how she proposed we do this seeing as the unemployed have no institution to turn to for help, organization and guidance unfortunately I was a little overawed by the grand surroundings and the intelligentsia surrounding me, it was the first time I had been inside a university :p. What she had said stuck with me and I kept thinking about it on the train home, what we need is a union for unemployed workers.

Being an unemployed worker myself my days are spent looking for work, surfing the internet, reading and playing computer games. Anyone who has been long term unemployed will know that it can lead to depression partly due to feeling unproductive and useless. It can also leave you feeling alienated and isolated from society.

A socialist union for the unemployed could educate, organize, provide comfortable conditions for socializing and help finding work. All of which would provide members with confidence and support during difficult periods. It would also provide direct education to the working class about socialism but also including classes on feminism and racist discrimination.

Funding would be a big problem as you couldn't expect members to pay their dues out of their dole money. I would propose that large unions contribute and the rest of the funding to be made through charitable donations.

That's all I've got at the moment but it is very late at night :D let me know what you think

[Manic Impressive]

INB4 someone tells me it's already been tried :lol:

[Soseloshvili]

A few months ago I was at an activist meeting the floor was open for people to say their bit about how to progress the student movement. A woman working at a job centre stood up and gave a rousing speech about how we need to get the unemployed motivated and able to join in protests and become more militant. She got a huge round of applause but I was left feeling a little perplexed. I wanted to stand up and ask her how she proposed we do this seeing as the unemployed have no institution to turn to for help, organization and guidance unfortunately I was a little overawed by the grand surroundings and the intelligentsia surrounding me, it was the first time I had been inside a university :p. What she had said stuck with me and I kept thinking about it on the train home, what we need is a union for unemployed workers.

Being an unemployed worker myself my days are spent looking for work, surfing the internet, reading and playing computer games. Anyone who has been long term unemployed will know that it can lead to depression partly due to feeling unproductive and useless. It can also leave you feeling alienated and isolated from society.

A socialist union for the unemployed could educate, organize, provide comfortable conditions for socializing and help finding work. All of which would provide members with confidence and support during difficult periods. It would also provide direct education to the working class about socialism but also including classes on feminism and racist discrimination.

Funding would be a big problem as you couldn't expect members to pay their dues out of their dole money. I would propose that large unions contribute and the rest of the funding to be made through charitable donations.

That's all I've got at the moment but it is very late at night :D let me know what you think

Well, I hate to tell you but it has been tried :p

In Canada, at least.

In the 1930s-1940s the Communist Party of Canada ran its own trade union, the Worker's Unity League. In response to the massive unemployment of the 1930s, the WUL represented not only employed but also unemployed workers.

It was radical Socialist, and made a huge splash in the labour movement at the time, I think it topped off at 40,000 members. It was responsible for the on-to-ottawa trek - a convoy of workers at "relief camps" (places where they sent people in the West Coast who didn't have a job) which rode the rails to Ottawa to address the government's failed attempt to provide for workers.

The thing is the WUL never really "failed". Mainly, after the USSR promoted its "common front" policy of cooperating with other groups against Fascism, the WUL was dismantled and divided between the various mainstream unions.

Today, no such organization really exists. However, it is actually a good idea. Not necessarily a union of the unemployed, but a union that includes the unemployed is something that would be useful.

Even IWW doesn't do that, now that I think of it.

This would be a good endeavour for IWW, I don't see why it hasn't been done (besides the obvious question of funding, a union for the unemployed would cost quite a bit).

[nuisance]

ok so i'm going to attempt to hijack this thread as I've been thinking something kind of similar.

A few months ago I was at an activist meeting the floor was open for people to say their bit about how to progress the student movement. A woman working at a job centre stood up and gave a rousing speech about how we need to get the unemployed motivated and able to join in protests and become more militant. She got a huge round of applause but I was left feeling a little perplexed. I wanted to stand up and ask her how she proposed we do this seeing as the unemployed have no institution to turn to for help, organization and guidance unfortunately I was a little overawed by the grand surroundings and the intelligentsia surrounding me, it was the first time I had been inside a university :p. What she had said stuck with me and I kept thinking about it on the train home, what we need is a union for unemployed workers.

Being an unemployed worker myself my days are spent looking for work, surfing the internet, reading and playing computer games. Anyone who has been long term unemployed will know that it can lead to depression partly due to feeling unproductive and useless. It can also leave you feeling alienated and isolated from society.

A socialist union for the unemployed could educate, organize, provide comfortable conditions for socializing and help finding work. All of which would provide members with confidence and support during difficult periods. It would also provide direct education to the working class about socialism but also including classes on feminism and racist discrimination.

Funding would be a big problem as you couldn't expect members to pay their dues out of their dole money. I would propose that large unions contribute and the rest of the funding to be made through charitable donations.

That's all I've got at the moment but it is very late at night :D let me know what you think
There's an Unemployed Workers Union in the UK. google it.

[Manic Impressive]

well at least it wasn't a shit idea :D and thanks Edelweiss Pirate I'm going to get in contact with them.

[wunderbar]

Even IWW doesn't do that, now that I think of it.


IWW lets the unemployed join, but I don't know if they've bothered organizing the unemployed, it's certainly something that should be tried. I know there is (or was, I'm not sure) an IWW panhandler's union in Ottawa.

[Soseloshvili]

IWW lets the unemployed join, but I don't know if they've bothered organizing the unemployed, it's certainly something that should be tried. I know there is (or was, I'm not sure) an IWW panhandler's union in Ottawa.

Really? I don't exactly follow IWW to carefully, so I'm not sure. Thanks for the info.

Also, I believe I mentioned that IWW will let anyone join, it's just that I didn't know they had an actual union organized for the unemployed.

[Q]

Also, I believe I mentioned that IWW will let anyone join
I believe the IWW statutes mention no one can join "who can hire or fire workers", even if they themselves are really just workers in a position of a low rank manager.

[Soseloshvili]

I believe the IWW statutes mention no one can join "who can hire or fire workers", even if they themselves are really just workers in a position of a low rank manager.

As someone who has unionized their workplace, this is a rule in all unions. It is not specific to IWW. Of course, anyone who has the power to reprimand the workers cannot be a part of an organization that represents the workers.

That would be like a teacher leading a students union.

So, it need not be mentioned (unless there are people who honestly didn't know that, being in such a position).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Try joining the revived WIIU.

[Soseloshvili]

Try joining the revived WIIU.

Why? They're just a smaller version of the IWW.

Actually, could you explain specifically the difference between the two, besides their differences 100 years ago?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The WIIU is explicitly political, even if it doesn't endorse any party.

[Paulappaul]

I read an interesting story about some Militant Trotskyists who infiltrated a Union planning to go on strike. They set up Marxist reading circles and implemented their programme on the Unions demands. One thing in particular which relates to this "Organizing the Unemployed" question is that they contributed one point to the demands of the union which requested that the unemployed in the city be hired on top of the wage increases to the workers already their. They organized the local unemployed and with the workers in the factory, they went on strike. Long story short, they won and the cities' unemployed was hired and the wage increases granted. In seems to me, that the job of local militants for the broadening class struggle on the principle of solidarity, would be do actions such as these militants i.e. organize the workers and the unemployed on the shop floor.

As for setting up a Revolutionary Union, I would first start by setting up reading group in your workplace. Or watch have a movie night in which you present some radical film. Get the workplace thinking about things. A revolutionary union can't be successful unless it has strong ties with other industries and with the community. It's a big task and requires alot of work, particularly if you hope to lead the group.

[x359594]

...I mentioned that IWW will let anyone join, it's just that I didn't know they had an actual union organized for the unemployed.

Throughout its history the IWW has organized the unemployed, and more recently its organized poets and sex workers.

[Paulappaul]

The IWW can say it organizes the unemployed all it wants, but frankly I don't see a campaign. Especially in an environment where the number of unemployed are only growing, the IWW preoccupies itself with Jimmy John's workers and General Strikes. This is a big problem with Unions and the IWW in particular, it's lost all its class analysis and is completely stuck in the past.

[StalinFanboy]

The Council? Could you please elaborate?

Now - I think you need a bit of an education on how unions work too.

First of, the mainstream unions (at least in the USA and Canada) are fairly radical. As a member of UFCW (my country's largest private sector union) I can tell you that we're pretty anti-Capitalist, at least for a mass organization. In Europe and elsewhere, unions have largely lost their radicalism, however.

Now. If you really do believe in radical unions, IWW is the way to go. They're a leftover from the days of the "One Big Union" movement of the early 20th century. They are very small compared to the mainstream unions - however, they are very radical.

I myself am not a IWW member, though they do allow members of other unions to become members. If I had to place a name on their specific ideology, it would be Syndicalism. Though that's probably not quite right.

Anyways. "Starting" your own union isn't easy - hell, it's probably next to impossible without a HELL of a lot of dedication and support. Unionizing your workplace with a progressive union however, is doable.

I would say, just from experience, that the most radical mainstream unions are (this is Canadian, btw):



Unite Here! (they do hotel workers and such
United Steelworkers (interesting note, their Canadian division was founded by the Communist Party)
CUPE (Public sector union)


I think you need a little union education. UFCW is one of the worst, most reactionary unions around. There is more than one case of them hiring "workers" to picket outside places like Wal-Mart that don't allow unions. Only, these hired protesters aren't unionized, nor do they have any benefits. I know for sure of at least one incident where some of these hired protesters got heat stroke because they weren't allowed to rest.

Maybe the UFCW is anti-capitalist in some of it's language, but it is hardly anything close to radical in any real sense of the word.

[x359594]

...the IWW...lost all its class analysis and is completely stuck in the past.

On the key question, "how to make the Revolution," all that the many varieties of mainstream Marxism have left us is an encyclopedia of ignorance. The orthodox, bureaucratic, pragmatic, utilitarian, and boring forms of social radicalism--with their closed systems, finished programs, party lines, and lifeless publications--really belong to capitalism, and simply cannot articulate the emancipatory desires and aspirations of the contemporary working class.

In other words, the prosaic and humorless left, old and not-so-old, has been left behind by the dialectic of the historical process, and the revolutionary imagination has rightly risen to the fore. The Wobblies, meanwhile, far from being a relic of a dead past have turned out to be representatives of the future.

Does anyone really believe that we can find effective solutions to the pressing problems of our time--not only the persistent and agonizing problem of wage slavery but also the problems of "whiteness," misogyny, homophobia, homelessness, and ecocide--with anything less than the freest and most revolutionary imagination and creativity?

Returning to the original question that prompted this thread, to build a new union requires a knowledge of labor law for starters. In the US, organizing is governed by a set of laws the most important of which are the National Labor Relations Act, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, Equal Pay Act, and Fair Labor Standards Act. But for getting the word out Section 7 of the NLRA which guarantees the right to free speech about organizing is critical.

For an accessible overview of US labor law I recommend Labor Law for the Rank & File by Staughton Lynd and Daniel Gross. Solidarity Unionism: Rebuilding The Labor Movement From Below by Staughton Lynd is also very useful.

[syndicat]

to organize the unemployed means to create an organization of the unemployed. the IWW hasn't done this, AFAIK. on the other hand, the machinists union (IAM) has done so.



The WIIU is explicitly political, even if it doesn't endorse any party.


by "political" you mean WIIU is an appendage of a left sect whereas the IWW is not.

[Paulappaul]

by "political" you mean WIIU is an appendage of a left sect whereas the IWW is not.

What appendage is it of? It doesn't affiliate with formally with either Deleon or the SLP. Being that both are pretty much dead.


On the key question, "how to make the Revolution," all that the many varieties of mainstream Marxism have left us is an encyclopedia of ignorance

When did this come to be about Marxist Orthodoxy? I never mentioned anything about Marxism in my last post. Here's my point and it's simple, you seemed to have jumped right over it and created something about Marxism, the IWW has completely lost its class analysis, the status of the working class today and how it has changed and what revolutionary organizations need to do to meet this change. The great break with the IWW and its activists was in the Seattle Solidarity Network. They recognized that the old tactics of the IWW, still stuck way in the past, was not adequate for times today.

[Soseloshvili]

Interesting. Had I known of WIIU when we were trying to unionize my work, I might have gone with them.

Still - UFCW has a lot of resources, professional organizers, etc. Not to mention all the benefits.

Do you have any idea whether they actually have any workplaces unionized with them?

(edit) woahh, didn't notice all these replies.

[Soseloshvili]

I think you need a little union education. UFCW is one of the worst, most reactionary unions around. There is more than one case of them hiring "workers" to picket outside places like Wal-Mart that don't allow unions. Only, these hired protesters aren't unionized, nor do they have any benefits. I know for sure of at least one incident where some of these hired protesters got heat stroke because they weren't allowed to rest.

Maybe the UFCW is anti-capitalist in some of it's language, but it is hardly anything close to radical in any real sense of the word.

No, I think you need to realize that you're talking to someone who is actively political within UFCW. I can tell you as a fact that you are wrong.

They are very much so political, and radical. At least, that is my experience in Canada - I cannot speak for UFCW in the USA, in my experience unions are more radical in Canada than in the USA (such as USW, here, USW is probably the most radical union, to give you an idea they actually occupied the province's legislature a few weeks back. Whereas in the United States it is not at all, to the extent of my knowledge)

In Toronto, my local (1000A) was one of the major sponsors of the rally that drew 10,000 people against Rob Ford a few days ago. We have also been consistently supportive of the land rights struggle at the Six Nations Reserve near Caledonia.

Also, they do excellent work in defending migrant workers that come to Canada, and in related efforts do a lot of great work defending immigrants.

They are also involved in anti-racism, anti-homophobia and anti-sexism campaigns. They are a progressive union.

Now, this talk of hiring people to picket Walmart? Show me one occurrence of this in Canada - like I said, I cannot speak for our American brothers as they are an entirely different org.

[StalinFanboy]

No, I think you need to realize that you're talking to someone who is actively political within UFCW. I can tell you as a fact that you are wrong.

They are very much so political, and radical. At least, that is my experience in Canada - I cannot speak for UFCW in the USA, in my experience unions are more radical in Canada than in the USA (such as USW, here, USW is probably the most radical union, to give you an idea they actually occupied the province's legislature a few weeks back. Whereas in the United States it is not at all, to the extent of my knowledge)

In Toronto, my local (1000A) was one of the major sponsors of the rally that drew 10,000 people against Rob Ford a few days ago. We have also been consistently supportive of the land rights struggle at the Six Nations Reserve near Caledonia.

Also, they do excellent work in defending migrant workers that come to Canada, and in related efforts do a lot of great work defending immigrants.

They are also involved in anti-racism, anti-homophobia and anti-sexism campaigns. They are a progressive union.

Now, this talk of hiring people to picket Walmart? Show me one occurrence of this in Canada - like I said, I cannot speak for our American brothers as they are an entirely different org.

Ah must have missed where you specified in Canada. I only know the UFCW in the US, where it is an incredibly reactionary union.

[Soseloshvili]

Ah must have missed where you specified in Canada. I only know the UFCW in the US, where it is an incredibly reactionary union.

Yes, unfortunately in my experience American unions are sadly very reactionary.

Though most Canadian unions are American, we have our own "district" and are basically independent from their American counterparts.

UFCW is a good example of this.

These unions, however, are very radical for the most part. I love UFCW - our organizer, Kevin, always brings me anti-war and anti-racism buttons when he comes down for coffee. It's great.

The only "fully Canadian" unions are the public sector unions, like the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) or the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE).

Ironically, they often turn out to be the most reactionary - I know that OPSEU (Ontario Public Service Employees Union) is very reactionary from experience.

[Die Neue Zeit]

to organize the unemployed means to create an organization of the unemployed. the IWW hasn't done this, AFAIK. on the other hand, the machinists union (IAM) has done so.

by "political" you mean WIIU is an appendage of a left sect whereas the IWW is not.

Not necessarily. The IWW hasn't bothered to create a political party of its own, whose membership is limited only to IWW members. :glare:

Kudos to Paulappaul for mentioning the Seattle Solidarity Network, but it needs to have an IWW-members-only policy.

[Paulappaul]

Kudos to Paulappaul for mentioning the Seattle Solidarity Network, but it needs to have an IWW-members-only policy.

In no way is SeaSol political. If anything it is more anti - idelogical, anti - political then the IWW. SeaSol is good because it recognizes that the working class has changed and that traditional organization is inadequate. It's part way there, no doubt it needs to be Political.

But the WIIU suffers because while it acknowledges that there must be a struggle on the economic field by a Union, and a political struggle by a party, it doesn't have the latter in its ranks. It refuses formal affiliation with the SLP and reverts back to the Classical Marxist notion that the union and the struggle itself gives forth for the true party of labor for which to fight on that political field. And of course for the same reason that the IWW suffers, because its unionism is completely inadequate for the composition and character of the workforce today.

[Die Neue Zeit]

OK, so try the World Federation of Trade Unions. ;)

[Thirsty Crow]

And of course for the same reason that the IWW suffers, because its unionism is completely inadequate for the composition and character of the workforce today.
Can you explain, preferrably in detail (if possible), how exactly is IWW's unionism completely inadequate given the composition and character of the working class today?

[x359594]

Free Rider's Card

I am opposed to all unions. Therefore, I am opposed to all benefits that unions have won through the years: paid vacations, holidays, sick leave, wage increases, pension and insurance plans, safety laws, workman's compensation laws, Social Security, time and a half for hours in excess of eight in one day or 40 in any week, unemployment benefits and job security.

I refuse to accept any benefits that will be won by union negotiators with this union shop, and I hereby authorize and direct the company to withhold the amount of the union-won benefits from my paycheck each week and to donate it to charity.

________________________________
Signature Date

[Joe Payne]

members of the Seattle IWW were the people who created SeaSol, and I know that members of SeaSol are still in the IWW. Many Solidarity networks springing up over north America have been initiated by IWW branches, so I think you're a bit mistaken that the IWW isn't analysing the class composition currently. Many members of the IWW are in fact unemployed, and the organizing it is doing focuses on the majority sector of the current workforce: precarious job, such as service, fast food, etc. So in fact it seems the IWW, despite its size, is probably more on the up and up on where the class is at than most other unions and many political groups.

[Paulappaul]

members of the Seattle IWW were the people who created SeaSol, and I know that members of SeaSol are still in the IWW.

I believe I mentioned this.


Many Solidarity networks springing up over north America have been initiated by IWW branches, so I think you're a bit mistaken that the IWW isn't analysing the class composition currently.

I started a solidarity group out of the ISO. The fact that the the Solidarity Group split off from the IWW because it wasn't fit to fit the needs of community says something about what I am talking about.


Can you explain, preferrably in detail (if possible), how exactly is IWW's unionism completely inadequate given the composition and character of the working class today?

Mainly that the IWW arose in those conditions wherein, the large part of the working class was employed in manufacturing and heavy industry. As this type of production declined in America so did every union. The rise of the service sector and the casualized workforce has paralleled with increasing irrelevancy of Unions in America. On top of this, as I mentioned earlier, the unemployed and underemployed aren't being organized despite their huge significance in society. This faction of the working class is only taken on larger and larger proportions.

[Paulappaul]

OK, so try the World Federation of Trade Unions. ;)

Is it affiliated with any political party?

[x359594]

A necessarily crucial part of any effective movement to beat the supra-national corporations must be the international labor union. The ultimate source of all corporate profits (from which they derive all their power) is the workplace--and every workplace has workers whose interests necessarily conflict with those of corporate profits. Workplace safety, the right to organize, better pay and conditions--all of these things can only be effectively fought for from inside the workplace. And that is the role of the labor union.

The American labor movement threw its lot in with an alliance with the corporations, to defend corporate profits through protectionism and hostile opposition to "foreigners". The result has been utter disaster. A union is powerless and useless when half the workers in the company are not in the union simply because they are located outside the country.

It is easy to see the root of the American labor movement's mistake. The AFL-CIO is still wedded to its patriotic flag-waving for "American workers" at the expense of all the rest of the workers in the world, and has ignored a basic truth about the wage-based market economy -- the owners are in business to make money for themselves, not for their workers. The boss will always go where it's cheapest. If workers in the United States are paid X for a job, and workers in Indonesia or China are paid one-tenth X, then the boss will move his factory there every time. Any wage gains we're able to make within the US will disappear promptly, because the corporations simply move those jobs to low-wage havens like China or Mexico. If we want to keep our jobs here, therefore, we are reduced to two choices -- either we raise their wages to match ours, or we lower our wages to match theirs.

The American unions tried a third way -- they wanted to use protectionist measures to both keep our wages high and keep foreign wages low. It was an abject (and predictable) failure. The American labor movement forgot completely what the word solidarity means. Or at least what the word whipsawing means.

There is only one way to prevent whipsawing, and that is to organize the workers everywhere. The entire idea of a nation-based labor movement is now outmoded, ineffective and obsolete. In a corporate world, we must instead become company-based rather than geographically-based. In a world made up of multi-national companies who owe loyalty to no government and have no nation, there simply is no such thing anymore as an "American worker" or a "Chinese worker" or a "Somali worker". There are only "Ford workers" or "Honda workers" or "British Petroleum workers" -- and they all do the same work for the same employer and have the same interests, whether their factory happens to be located in Tennessee, Tibet or Timbuktu. And if a Ford worker in Detroit gets X dollars an hour to do a job, then a Ford worker in China or Thailand had better be getting the same X dollars an hour for doing the same job -- because if she's not, then guess where the factory will be going?

It's an elementary lesson that the American unions ignored. Instead of organizing all Ford or US Steel workers across the world to face their common employer together, the unions have ignored foreign employees completely or even treated them as enemies; instead of raising the foreign wages to match ours, the AFL-CIO preferred to work with its corporate "partners" to pass protectionist laws to keep them away. So the American labor movement bears a large part of the blame for its current situation. By fighting for "American workers" and allowing workers in other countries to be reduced to virtual slavery, the AFL-CIO guaranteed that every boss in the US would move his factories overseas to the cheap labor.

What the labor movement must do instead is to follow the companies wherever they go, to any country, and organize all the workers there. One company, one union, one contract, one wage scale--- no matter where you are. That cannot happen until American workers give up their attachment to outdated nationalism. The only way the corporate bosses can be beaten is if all their workers stick together, organize together, and fight together, no matter what country they happen to be located in. That is what solidarity means. It used to be that "workers of the world, unite!" was just an idealistic political slogan. Today, it is our only survival strategy.

Instead of Ford workers in Detroit and Ford workers in Shanghai being in different unions (or in no union at all), we need all of them in the same union, under the same contract. In every area--consumer rights, workplace safety, product standards, minimum wages, fair labor laws -- we must fight to implement global laws and regulations which apply everywhere, rather than the current patchwork of laws and regulations which only apply in this nation or that. Just as the corporations are seeking a uniform set of global rules, so too must we.

We must re-fight all of the old fights--for labor rights, for democracy, for consumer and environmental protections--but we must fight them at the international level this time, rather than at the mere national level. In this corning fight, the international labor unions will play the critical role. Corporate profits come from the workplace -- and the workplace is also where the corporation is the most vulnerable and where we have the most potential power. The company-wide international strike -- the ability of a relatively small group of well-organized people to shut down the entire corporate behemoth, globally and simultaneously--is the only weapon we have that can effectively cut off the flow of money, bring the corporation to its knees, and keep it there until we get what we want. That is a decisive power, and no other group of people in the world has it.

Will any of this be easy to accomplish? No. It will be the biggest fight in all of human history -- much larger than the American civil rights movement or the British labor movement or even the Third World anti-colonial movement. The corporations and the privileged nations (including the US) will fight against us every step of the way. But it must be done. The only alternative is to simply allow the global corporate elite to continue to run roughshod over the rest of us.

[Paulappaul]

That's alot of rhetoric, most of which sounds more like liberal dogma then Syndicalist. I am surprised to see you are a part of the IWW. The idea of fighting "the old fights" to describe the workers' movement in the 20s and 30s pushing thru the New Deal, corporate restrictions, etc. is often used by the Democratic left, not the Revolutionary Socialist Left which recognizes that the only protection the workers will get, the only freedom and democracy they will get is when the Class system is put to an end.


Workplace safety, the right to organize, better pay and conditions--all of these things can only be effectively fought for from inside the workplace. And that is the role of the labor union.

Problem is and once again this goes back to class analysis, most workers aren't in positions where they keep the same job for a couple of years or even a year. Organizing Workers into a Union, only to have half the union leave by the end the year isn't efficient. You make progress only to get seriously backtracked later. Furthermore, this isn't the job of just the union. National Wildcat strikes have ensued for Postal Workers which won conditions. It wasn't the work the Union which signed the no strike pledge during the 1940s which sabotaged and striked in the Detroit Factories.

As to the rest of your post, of course internationalism is important. That with much your post, is simply preaching to the choir. Problems with Unions in America is that, conditions have changed and for the service sector economies and for the larger post capitalist society, the role of unions is minimal.

[x359594]

That's alot of rhetoric, most of which sounds more like liberal dogma then Syndicalist. I am surprised to see you are a part of the IWW. The idea of fighting "the old fights" to describe the workers' movement in the 20s and 30s pushing thru the New Deal, corporate restrictions, etc. is often used by the Democratic left, not the Revolutionary Socialist Left which recognizes that the only protection the workers will get, the only freedom and democracy they will get is when the Class system is put to an end...

You misunderstand me, perhaps willfully. As for rhetoric, soap boxing is an old Wobblie past time.

And as far as I'm concerned, the class system will end when the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production and abolish the wage system

As for re-fighting the old fights, we have to do it at the international level. I speak from personal experience. I've been organizing for 35 years in 5 cities and two countries, and I know it's a game of snakes and ladders. Personally I'm in for the long haul.

Now, maybe you'd care to share your union and organizing experiences that led to your current anti-union position; what happened, how did your union fail you?

[Paulappaul]

I speak from personal experience. I've been organizing for 35 years in 5 cities and two countries, and I know it's a game of snakes and ladders.

Would you like a medal?


Now, maybe you'd care to share your union and organizing experiences that led to your current anti-union position; what happened, how did your union fail you?

My father is an independent contractor, technically he can "hire and fire" therefor he can join no Union. He's not a scab. He's the most passionate Anarchist out there.

My brother was homeless and while he was, he could join no Union.

I am from the Service Sector, I can expect to have my job for only for a few months at best. Workplace organizing is impossible in such conditions.


As for re-fighting the old fights, we have to do it at the international level.

Why must we fight these old fights all over again? Why must we continue fighting for simple workplace reforms? For higher wages so we by more shit? I'm not interested in this being the focus of struggle. I think what the IWW is doing in Jimmy John's Union is a good first step, towards ditching the reformist workplace model and confiscating means of the production as you say.

I am not wholly anti union. I am critical of how it reproduces the division of labor into crafts. I am critical of the bureaucracy which reproduces capitalist political formations. I am critical of its narrow method of organizing, its lack of class analysis and frankly, lack of solidarity between trades. The fact that so many organizations have to form outside of unions, rather then inside, to solve their problems says something to be how outdated the model is.

This is not to say I am anti - union. From a revolutionary perspective you need to fight capitalism on its two terrains, the economic and political. This is what Deleon warned the IWW in its foundation. Socialists, both Anarchists and Marxists have been critical of the IWW's anti - political stance.

An intresting model for a Union I think was the General Workers' Union in Germany and Holland. It was modeled after the IWW actually, but with a few modifcations. Namely that it hoped to unite in its ranks, proletarians, students and the unemployed as well as the organs of the Communist Workers' Party of Germany and Holland (i.e. uniting the Intelligentsia) into one big union/party organization. The Union papers were the party papers and vis versa. There were clubs, particularly a famous one around Art and how Capitalism has destroyed it. Its program was founded on the principle of Workers' Councils as developing out of its ranks. It had its own military units which would seize with workers factories and form Workshop Committees that would form Workers' Councils.

[Soseloshvili]

Would you like a medal?

I'd give him one, it is pretty impressive.


My father is an independent contractor, technically he can "hire and fire" therefor he can join no Union. He's not a scab. He's the most passionate Anarchist out there.

My brother was homeless and while he was, he could join no Union.

Don't think your family was asked about, mainly you.


I am from the Service Sector, I can expect to have my job for only for a few months at best. Workplace organizing is impossible in such conditions.

I work in the service sector, namely, in the food service sector. Though I only expect to have my job for a year or two, I was still able to successfully organize a union after having been there for 3 months.

There's no excuse as to why you "can't" organize a union.

Essentially, you're being cynical - criticizing unions without ever having partook in one.


Why must we fight these old fights all over again? Why must we continue fighting for simple workplace reforms? For higher wages so we by more shit? I'm not interested in this being the focus of struggle. I think what the IWW is doing in Jimmy John's Union is a good first step, towards ditching the reformist workplace model and confiscating means of the production as you say.

Since when are unions only fighting for reforms? True, many unions have become reformist. This does not mean all, by far. I would never go so far to say that IWW has lost its revolutionary mentality.


I am not wholly anti union. I am critical of how it reproduces the division of labor into crafts. I am critical of the bureaucracy which reproduces capitalist political formations. I am critical of its narrow method of organizing, its lack of class analysis and frankly, lack of solidarity between trades. The fact that so many organizations have to form outside of unions, rather then inside, to solve their problems says something to be how outdated the model is.

These critiques are mainly unfounded. Labour isn't divided into crafts - mainly, there are just separate unions for separate crafts so that the services can be specialized. This is why there are locals - even IWW has its IUs for this purpose.

Unions are united by larger organizations, here, the Ontario Federation of Labour. I've never known unions not to cooperate, even ones that technically should be "competing" for members like ATU and CUPE.

Unions aren't narrow - they actually take on many different struggles, in many different ways. We act as nothing more than the representative of the working class, and attempt to voice ourselves through grassroots, political, and job action.

There is a lot of solidarity between trades. I've been to Steelworker's, Public Sector's and Teacher's demos and I'm with UFCW! Unions use the class analysis quite frequently - I've never known unions to do anything more than try to fight for the working class, I follow the trade union movement closely and there's never been any talk of defending the middle class here.


This is not to say I am anti - union. From a revolutionary perspective you need to fight capitalism on its two terrains, the economic and political. This is what Deleon warned the IWW in its foundation. Socialists, both Anarchists and Marxists have been critical of the IWW's anti - political stance.

Yes, that is a problem. However, vice a versa many other unions invest too much hope in the political process by pinning their hopes to the mainstream parties, such as the NDP in my country which is largely regarded as the "union party".


An intresting model for a Union I think was the General Workers' Union in Germany and Holland. It was modeled after the IWW actually, but with a few modifcations. Namely that it hoped to unite in its ranks, proletarians, students and the unemployed as well as the organs of the Communist Workers' Party of Germany and Holland (i.e. uniting the Intelligentsia) into one big union/party organization. The Union papers were the party papers and vis versa. There were clubs, particularly a famous one around Art and how Capitalism has destroyed it. Its program was founded on the principle of Workers' Councils as developing out of its ranks. It had its own military units which would seize with workers factories and form Workshop Committees that would form Workers' Councils.

This has been done in Canada as well under the Worker's Unity League, as I mentioned earlier. In fact, it's virtually the exact same as what you've described.

[x359594]

Would you like a medal?

If it came from you fellow worker I'd accept it with gratitude. But my point is, I've learned something from face to face organizing over the years, and my views about unions, bosses, revolution and how to make a better world are informed by that experience.


My father is an independent contractor, technically he can "hire and fire" therefor he can join no Union...My brother was homeless and while he was, he could join no Union...I am from the Service Sector, I can expect to have my job for only for a few months at best. Workplace organizing is impossible in such conditions.

Organize the independent contractors, organize the homeless and organize the the service sector workers. Without your work they can't run the company, service sector or not.


Why must we fight these old fights all over again? Why must we continue fighting for simple workplace reforms? For higher wages so we by more shit?

Because we're back to where we started in most parts of the world, in the US too. These days I work with the Korean Immigrant Workers Association. These fellow workers work in in garment sweatshops, restaurants, and many other jobs where they're overworked and underpaid, face safety issues, sexual harassment, and avoidable job-related illnesses. For them, the struggle is for a living wage so that they can pay the rent and feed their families, also guaranteed work hours, appropriate staffing (one worker is often forced to do the work of two or three), respect (especially for women workers), and an ergonomically sound environment.

And I'm only talking about one sector of the US labor force. Imagine the desperation of our Chinese fellow workers who assemble iPads in the notorious Foxconn factory in Shenzhen who've protested by committing suicide. They work without minimum wages, workplace safety, regular hours, all victories won by western workers that are gradually being rolled back here in the US.

[QUOTE]...I am critical of how it [unions] reproduces the division of labor into crafts. I am critical of the bureaucracy which reproduces capitalist political formations. I am critical of its narrow method of organizing, its lack of class analysis and frankly, lack of solidarity between trades. The fact that so many organizations have to form outside of unions, rather then inside, to solve their problems says something to be how outdated the model is.[QUOTE/]

I'm a dual card holder so I know what you're talking about from personal experience. Your description fits business unions to a "T." That's why I lined up with the IWW many years ago. The IWW practices solidarity unionism, and here's a recent example. The Starbucks Workers Union has a "Justice from Bean to Cup" initiative that seeks to link the SWU to the farmers that grow the coffee that baristas sell. Last year a delegation of SWU members went to Ethiopia to make connections with coffee farmers who grow the beans for Starbucks.

[QUOTE]From a revolutionary perspective you need to fight capitalism on its two terrains, the economic and political. This is what Deleon warned the IWW in its foundation. Socialists, both Anarchists and Marxists have been critical of the IWW's anti - political stance.[QUOTE/]

The IWW's anti-political stance is misunderstood. By anti-political, we mean no union funds are used to elect politicians to office. Individual Wobs in the past and at present have joined political parties; I know fellow workers today who belong to the SPUSA, the PSL, Revolutionary Autonomous Communities, the Black Riders Liberation Party (a sort of anarchist Black Panther Party for Self Defense based here in Los Angeles.)

Finally, fellow worker, I want to apologize for any uncalled for sarcasm that mars my responses to your posts; it doesn't facilitate communication and you don't deserve it. I owe you at least that as a fellow worker.

[Paulappaul]

To Soselo


Don't think your family was asked about, mainly you.Actually he asked about what experiences in my life led me to an Anti - Union position. So fuck you.


I work in the service sector, namely, in the food service sector. Though I only expect to have my job for a year or two, I was still able to successfully organize a union after having been there for 3 months.

There's no excuse as to why you "can't" organize a union.

Essentially, you're being cynical - criticizing unions without ever having partook in one.Uhh.. nice assumption? I have been a Union, and still am a due paying member of the IWW. The Food Sector is much easier to organize around, mainly because production is connected and communication must happen. In the Food Industry, you can cut your hand very easily. Fuck I have seen people been stabbed in the eye. This kind of condition almost necessitates workplace organization. As for workplaces where the workers are extremely fragmented, where people are never in touch, Union organizing is hard. Fuck it is hard enough has the Jimmy Johns Union proved to organize even in workplaces where you are constantly fucking with Knifes. How do you expect to organize in say retail, office work, coffee shops, etc. So again, fuck you.


Unions are united by larger organizations, here, the Ontario Federation of Labour. I've never known unions not to cooperate, even ones that technically should be "competing" for members like ATU and CUPE.This is America, not Ontario. The condition here is much much much different. In my Local, we are just starting to see the First Cross Trades Solidarity Committee, of which is trying to be purged by the leadership.


Labour isn't divided into crafts - mainly, there are just separate unions for separate crafts so that the services can be specialized. This is why there are locals - even IWW has its IUs for this purpose.It's that type of Specialization which is Characteristic of the Division of Labor. Our Unions are extremly exclusive, they deal with their own affairs and fuck the rest. Even the IWW won't come out to other pickets. This why there are Solidarity Groups.


Unions aren't narrow - they actually take on many different struggles, in many different ways. We act as nothing more than the representative of the working class, and attempt to voice ourselves through grassroots, political, and job action.They are Narrow because once again, the struggle is extremely workplace oriented, not student or unemployed and barely the service sector. The IWW isn't political.


I follow the trade union movement closely and there's never been any talk of defending the middle class here.That's not true in America. Here we wank off to the picture of the white middle class family.


Yes, that is a problem. However, vice a versa many other unions invest too much hope in the political process by pinning their hopes to the mainstream parties, such as the NDP in my country which is largely regarded as the "union party".Hey no argument from me man, we had a labor rally the other day and the Fire Fighters Union got up and gave a speech about how the power is in the Ballot Box, not in the Union.



To the Old Wobbly:


Because we're back to where we started in most parts of the world, in the US too. These days I work with the Korean Immigrant Workers Association. These fellow workers work in in garment sweatshops, restaurants, and many other jobs where they're overworked and underpaid, face safety issues, sexual harassment, and avoidable job-related illnesses. For them, the struggle is for a living wage so that they can pay the rent and feed their families, also guaranteed work hours, appropriate staffing (one worker is often forced to do the work of two or three), respect (especially for women workers), and an ergonomically sound environment.

And I'm only talking about one sector of the US labor force. Imagine the desperation of our Chinese fellow workers who assemble iPads in the notorious Foxconn factory in Shenzhen who've protested by committing suicide. They work without minimum wages, workplace safety, regular hours, all victories won by western workers that are gradually being rolled back here in the US.This is all well and true, I good perspective on the South Korean Struggle is Loren Goldner's "The Situation of Left Communism today".. Look up Loren Goldner on Google and it should bring you to his webpage where you can read it.

Regardless, I am not going to lie to these people that when you get higher wages and better working conditions things are going to be all great. No, you have to overthrough Capitalism.


That's why I lined up with the IWW many years ago. The IWW practices solidarity unionism, and here's a recent example. The Starbucks Workers Union has a "Justice from Bean to Cup" initiative that seeks to link the SWU to the farmers that grow the coffee that baristas sell. Last year a delegation of SWU members went to Ethiopia to make connections with coffee farmers who grow the beans for Starbucks.Yes, I am glad you know what I mean, unlike Soseloshvili (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=29504). I do respect the IWW's solidarity unionism. It's a big step forward I've seen by the IWW in recent years in particular. I am happy to hear that story about the SWU. I am critical of the division still between the IWW's Rank and File and the Rank and File of other unions. The IWW stays in its own affairs and rarely shows up to help with other unions in their disputes.


The IWW's anti-political stance is misunderstood. By anti-political, we mean no union funds are used to elect politicians to office. Individual Wobs in the past and at present have joined political parties; I know fellow workers today who belong to the SPUSA, the PSL, Revolutionary Autonomous Communities, the Black Riders Liberation Party (a sort of anarchist Black Panther Party for Self Defense based here in Los Angeles.)This is good to hear, my local and Wobbs I have met are usually very critical of their members being in Parties or Socialist groups. I still think it is important for the IWW to be connected with some type of Political movement as to not get stuck in workplace struggles.


Finally, fellow worker, I want to apologize for any uncalled for sarcasm that mars my responses to your posts; it doesn't facilitate communication and you don't deserve it. I owe you at least that as a fellow worker. This is something I like about Wobbs, fuck that comrade shit we call you Fellow Worker!