The United States: Forming Unions as opposed to joining unions.

[Hiero]

Why do north Americans on this website talk about forming unions rather that joining unions? Is there a choice to create individual unions for each work place rather than joining state or national unions? I can't see the sense of forming a union for one workplace when you can join an existing union who would have their own industiral laywers, organising and resources.

[The Douche]

Why do north Americans on this website talk about forming unions rather that joining unions? Is there a choice to create individual unions for each work place rather than joining state or national unions? I can't see the sense of forming a union for one workplace when you can join an existing union who would have their own industiral laywers, organising and resources.

What you're seeing is mostly a semantic difference I think. Its also probably a consequence of many posters on here not being familiar with unions, here in the states.

Usually if somebody talks about forming a union they mean "joining" a union. They probably prefer the term "forming" instead of "joining", because its still you people in the workplace that have to do all the work of organizing the union, even when you are affiliating to one of the big union organizations.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

CMoney enunciated a correct response in regards to the use of language. I should also cite a lot of Unions in the States aren't 'revolutionary'; the Union Bosses share the same interests as the employers. Some instances include one Union would strike, then another Union would send their members to take place of those striking laborers. Solidarity between different capitalist unions isn't existent. I have acquantences who are members of typical unions, and other unions normally try to screw them over.

That is my guess in regards why leftist won't join typical unions and will join 'revolutionary' unions that suit the needs of the workers'.

[x359594]

...I can't see the sense of forming a union for one workplace when you can join an existing union who would have their own industiral laywers, organising and resources.

As other posters have noted, the difference is one of semantics, but a further meaning is forming a new branch in an unorganized shop or a new sub-union for a specialized kind of labor.

[Koba Junior]

Unions, at least in the United States, have degenerated to the point of being almost obsolete in the realm of winning concessions for the working class.

[jookyle]

There's really two reasons. One of the has already been touched on.

1.The current unions have very little power as it is

and

2.They exist as subservient to the bourgeois as a tool to pacify workers instead of organizing them.

When people talk about forming new unions, they mean to form union away from groups like the AFL-CIO which only exist because they agreed to throw away socialist mentality and work with the state back when Harding was union busting in the 30's. We need unions that are revolutionary minded and that are in solidarity with the party.. Not unions that are hardly even reformist, let alone revolutionary, and unions that work with the bourgeoise to point of subversion.

[Hiero]

CMoney enunciated a correct response in regards to the use of language. I should also cite a lot of Unions in the States aren't 'revolutionary'; the Union Bosses share the same interests as the employers. Some instances include one Union would strike, then another Union would send their members to take place of those striking laborers. Solidarity between different capitalist unions isn't existent. I have acquantences who are members of typical unions, and other unions normally try to screw them over.

That is my guess in regards why leftist won't join typical unions and will join 'revolutionary' unions that suit the needs of the workers'.

How effective is it joining a 'revolutionary' union? Can any of these unions like the IWW provide the neccessary services that are often demanded by workers?

Most workers join unions for personal gain, they want a union that can secure gains and protect employment. I am not talking from a revolutionary perspective, but a practical point of view. Here in Australia when I have union organised the may focus has been about increasing bargaining power, the amount of effort that that takes up leaves little room to talk about revolution. It is nice to have a revolutionary goals, but there are still basic neccesities that has to be covered first.

[Die Neue Zeit]

How effective is it joining a 'revolutionary' union? Can any of these unions like the IWW provide the neccessary services that are often demanded by workers?

Most workers join unions for personal gain, they want a union that can secure gains and protect employment. I am not talking from a revolutionary perspective, but a practical point of view. Here in Australia when I have union organised the may focus has been about increasing bargaining power, the amount of effort that that takes up leaves little room to talk about revolution. It is nice to have a revolutionary goals, but there are still basic neccesities that has to be covered first.

In many if not most cases, joining or forming a "revolutionary" union isn't effective because its planned activities don't venture into politics much. The IWW hardly organizes anything political.

[jookyle]

In many if not most cases, joining or forming a "revolutionary" union isn't effective because its planned activities don't venture into politics much. The IWW hardly organizes anything political.

This is one of the reasons some people would argue the need of a vanguard party. So that the revolutionary unions are involved directly with worker organization while the party works politically. A two pronged attack, if you will. This would of course, mean the party and unions were in complete solidarity with one another.

[blake 3:17]

How effective is it joining a 'revolutionary' union? Can any of these unions like the IWW provide the neccessary services that are often demanded by workers?

Mostly not. I suppose I've become something of an advocate of dual unionism -- engage with the legal formal institutional one, and be active in a radical one. Often these have taken the form of reform/left caucuses trying to change the union from within, but sometimes you're better off on the outside.

[Hiero]

This is one of the reasons some people would argue the need of a vanguard party. So that the revolutionary unions are involved directly with worker organization while the party works politically. A two pronged attack, if you will. This would of course, mean the party and unions were in complete solidarity with one another.

It has always been the policy of most Communist Parties and Trotskyist parties for their members to seek union leadership, to effect some political change within the union.


Mostly not. I suppose I've become something of an advocate of dual unionism -- engage with the legal formal institutional one, and be active in a radical one. Often these have taken the form of reform/left caucuses trying to change the union from within, but sometimes you're better off on the outside.

I think that is a practical approach. There probably are some right-wing unions that are good at their job, if you were working that industry for your own protection it would be wise to join that union. Rarely on this website do people speak of unions from their practical worth, usually only in terms of their 'revolutionary' potential. Which may be complete irrelevant in places like the US and Canada but maybe more relevant in places like Nepal, India, Pakistan, France who have long coherent militant histories

Also while you can not change the overall union from the outside, if you get a good reputation locally and became a paid organiser, there is nothing stopping you from branching out as a paid official to other local organisers and political groups. It is hard when unions are affliated to 'social democratic' parties, as the right factions usually predominate and the left factions is not what we consider left and small in size and influence anyway.

[Fawkes]

Mostly not. I suppose I've become something of an advocate of dual unionism -- engage with the legal formal institutional one, and be active in a radical one. Often these have taken the form of reform/left caucuses trying to change the union from within, but sometimes you're better off on the outside.

I think it really depends on the industry you work in. If you're a healthcare worker in New York, it makes sense to do the dual unionism approach. There's already a very prominent union established in that industry (1199SEIU) which, for all its failings, still is beneficial to workers. However, if you're someone like me who works in foodservice (or someone working in retail), the IWW makes the most sense. Because of the structuring of my workplace, we can't afford to wait around for three months until an election is held. There are things that need to be changed in my workplace and they need to be changed fast. We know how to change them, why should we wait 90 days so that maybe some union representative would try to negotiate a contract with the owners?

The IWW provides something very important to workers: solidarity. It's affiliated with a large number of various worker and community groups (Brandworkers being the first that comes to mind) which gives members access to a network of support, something crucial to success. It also continues to live up to its history as one of the most creative organizations in terms of utilizing new strategies and techniques to fight capitalists. Also, maybe my view is skewed because I'm in New York, but the IWW has been experiencing a major upsurge in the last few years. The last three campaigns in NYC we've been a part of have all been victories.

I don't wanna come across as soapboxing for the Wobblies as some vanguard or the ultimate revolutionary group, ultimately my loyalty is to the working-class, whether they carry Teamster or AFL cards or no cards at all.

[Grenzer]

This is one of the reasons some people would argue the need of a vanguard party. So that the revolutionary unions are involved directly with worker organization while the party works politically. A two pronged attack, if you will. This would of course, mean the party and unions were in complete solidarity with one another.

It's worth mentioning that many of the founders and early members of the IWW planned that it would be run that way, there just wasn't The party at the time. Then anarcho-syndicalists captured it a few years later and just kind of fucked it up, but yeah, it was originally intended that the IWW would work in conjunction with a revolutionary party. Even Lenin was thinking about inviting the IWW into the US section of the Comintern, but then he found out that they were apolitical and canned that idea.

The IWW militants are inspiring, heroic and all that; but the IWW's apoliticism is what caused it to waste away into little more than a glorified historical society.

[Fawkes]

It's worth mentioning that many of the founders and early members of the IWW planned that it would be run that way, there just wasn't The party at the time.

"A few" is far more accurate than "many".


Then anarcho-syndicalists captured it a few years later and just kind of fucked it up
No, anarcho-syndicalists didn't "capture" it. Wobblies simply resisted the attempts of an arrogant rich man to utilize their strength to advance his own dead end party. (I'm referring to De Leon)


it was originally intended that the IWW would work in conjunction with a revolutionary party.
That's flat out not true. This is a section from the 1905 preamble to the IWW Constitution:

"Between these two classes a struggle must go on until all the toilers come together on the political, as well as on the industrial field, and take and hold that which they produce by their labor through an economic organization of the working class without affiliation with any political party."

Seriously, open a fuckin book every once in a while before you say something stupid


Even Lenin was thinking about inviting the IWW into the US section of the Comintern, but then he found out that they were apolitical and canned that idea.
Of course Lenin canned the idea when he realized the IWW was actually run by its members, not some vanguard of "professional revolutionaries".


The IWW militants are inspiring, heroic and all that; but the IWW's apoliticism is what caused it to waste away into little more than a glorified historical society.
If apoliticism caused them to "waste away", what caused the SLP-affiliated Workers' International Industrial Union to disband in 1925 after not conducting a single strike in its entire existence and, at its peak, only boasting 2500 members?

I'm currently in a fight to organize my workplace as part of the IWW, I can see how I'm doing nothing more than dwelling on the past in a glorified historical society.... Oh, and tell that to the workers at Tom Cat, Flaum, Jimmy John's, Starbucks, etc.

[x359594]

...Even Lenin was thinking about inviting the IWW into the US section of the Comintern, but then he found out that they were apolitical and canned that idea...

The IWW was invited to join the Profintern, the Red International of Labor Unions, not the Comintern but Zinoviev, President of the Central Executive Committee, wrote an open letter to the IWW in January 1920 asking for it to support the Comintern. This letter was certainly sent with Lenin's knowledge and approval.

[danyboy27]

Well, here in Quebec Big Unions have sold out to the bourgeois long time ago by siding with the social democrats and repressing their most radical members.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The IWW was invited to join the Profintern, the Red International of Labor Unions, not the Comintern but Zinoviev, President of the Central Executive Committee, wrote an open letter to the IWW in January 1920 asking for it to support the Comintern. This letter was certainly sent with Lenin's knowledge and approval.

That's interesting to note. I guess today's equivalent would be like the apolitical IWW changing its ways to join the more political and much larger World Federation of Trade Unions.

[Grenzer]

The IWW was invited to join the Profintern, the Red International of Labor Unions, not the Comintern but Zinoviev, President of the Central Executive Committee, wrote an open letter to the IWW in January 1920 asking for it to support the Comintern. This letter was certainly sent with Lenin's knowledge and approval.


Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification. My sources were wrong it seems. Still, it is interesting to note.