Iww

  1. chimx
    chimx - 8th May 2008, 07:42
    I had a great conversation with Janus (a wobblie) on MSN the other day about the IWW, and since this forum was originally meant to be geared towards wobblies, I thought I would bring it up here.

    What significant gains has the IWW made for you in your area? While I have read limited articles on LabourStart about limited demands being won by some IWW buisnesses, is the IWW the most viable option for people interested in union organizing? Specifically, how would you compare this direction with the Trotskyist position on union entryism?

    While I 100% support everything IWW activists are working for, it strikes me as more effective to exploit the infrastructure of the currently existing "liberal" unions. Is the reason many of you choose the IWW route because you find AFL-CIO or CtW unions a lost cause?
  2. Martin Blank - 8th May 2008, 08:40
    It's a good set of questions.

    Where I am, the Wobs are mainly dual-carders (members of other unions as well as the IWW), who joined because of past strike activity and support for general class-struggle unionism. We have a few members here who are trained organizers (I'm one of them), but we're mainly assisting with other organizing work going on outside of the area covered by the GMB (e.g., assisting the Starbucks organizing in western Michigan, helping the Borders Books workers in Ann Arbor, etc.). In this sense, we've had some measure of success.

    In a lot of ways, the IWW is probably the most viable option for some sections of the working class. A lot of AFL-CIO/CtW unions won't touch the workers that the IWW organizes. For them, the IWW is the only option available. Also, for workers in shops where there are company unions or really reactionary unions, the IWW can provide a wonderful counterbalance and alternative organizing center, since the AFL-CIO/CtW unions don't want to get into "turf wars" with other "unions".

    I would say that comparing the IWW method of organizing with that of the Trotskyist view toward entrism in the AFL-CIO/CtW is comparing apples and oranges. I spent a good part of my political life advocating entrism and the factional warfare that goes along with it ... until I realized that these fights were dead-ends. There's no value to waging a battle within the union bureaucracy against the union bureaucracy; it's a losing proposition, no matter how you cut it: either a) you never make headway, exhaust your resources and allies, and discredit yourself; or b) you make headway, make deals with sections of and/or get co-opted into the bureaucracy, and discredit yourself. One way or the other, it's a dirty game and no one can emerge from it without problems.

    The IWW method centers on shopfloor organizing that can be done under conditions where another union or no union exists. In my view, the IWW offers the means of building class-struggle unionism from the floor up through workplace committees and a relatively consolidated core of co-workers who will stand with you, without having to engage in meaningless factional warfare. Any factional warfare that would happen would be meaningful -- i.e., relevant to your co-workers and their ability to exercise some control over production.

    The last question, about whether or not the AFL-CIO/CtW unions are a "lost cause" depends on the union, to be honest. Some of them, like the UAW, are lost causes at this point. Others are not. Where the union in place is a lost cause, the IWW can provide an alternative for organizing a union that is effective and worthwhile. Where the union in place is not a lost cause, the IWW can offer the ability to organize in a way where it can push the union officials to do what the workers want it to do, while at the same time offering workers an alternative union to build and develop.
  3. chimx
    chimx - 8th May 2008, 08:50
    either a) you never make headway, exhaust your resources and allies, and discredit yourself; or b) you make headway, make deals with sections of and/or get co-opted into the bureaucracy, and discredit yourself.
    I've heard this argument before and it has always struck me as a somewhat cynical position (though perhaps you have better reasons to be jaded than I do). Certainly there have to be ways of not being taken in by the bureaucracy, especially when one remains aware of its existence.

    As far as the IWW, it seems to be making headway in the service sector. I suppose I was looking at it more in terms of how effective an option it is for organizing factories or construction trades.

    It's also interesting that you mentioned that most IWWers you know hold two cards, as Janus mentioned also that he likes the IWW particularly as a networking tool for union activists.
  4. Martin Blank - 8th May 2008, 09:30
    I've heard this argument before and it has always struck me as a somewhat cynical position (though perhaps you have better reasons to be jaded than I do). Certainly there have to be ways of not being taken in by the bureaucracy, especially when one remains aware of its existence.
    I understand what you're saying here. My first reaction is to say that such activity makes one rather cynical. Let me temper my last set of comments by qualifying them. I should say that, in the absence of any broader rise in the class struggle, these are the likely outcomes.

    That said, there is more freedom if you restrict your work inside the unions to the local level. It is more possible to enact reforms on the local and bargaining unit levels, and that can offer opportunities to build a firewall against the regional and "International" bureaucracies.

    At the same time, as we've seen with recent struggles (e.g., the Cleveland Five), that often leads to the activities of the local coming under greater scrutiny and the likelihood of higher levels of the bureaucracy interfering in the business of the union ... up to and including isolating the local and denying it resources if it was to go on strike or wage a fight for better conditions, or putting the local into receivership and replacing its leadership, or dissolving/amalgamating the local.

    As far as the IWW, it seems to be making headway in the service sector. I suppose I was looking at it more in terms of how effective an option it is for organizing factories or construction trades.
    I actually think the IWW could be better suited for factory/industrial organizing than it is for service organizing. However, in order for it to be like that, it would have to break out of the "small shop" mentality that it has right now. It's begun to do that in some areas, but it varies from location to location.

    It's also interesting that you mentioned that most IWWers you know hold two cards, as Janus mentioned also that he likes the IWW particularly as a networking tool for union activists.
    Yeah. In some ways, the IWW has become what the "official Communists" in the 1920s wanted the TUEL to be: a focal point for class-struggle unionists, both in the main unions and organized as independent unions. In that sense, I think that the IWW's continued existence, its growth and development are invaluable to the working class.
  5. hekmatista
    hekmatista - 11th May 2008, 23:02
    Part of the beauty of the IWW is that it constitutes a sort of "least-common-denominator" for those who genuinely believe in class struggle as opposed to class collaboration for labor. AFL-CIO unions, where they exist (what is it now, less than 15% of USA workforce unionized?) can be used as a "shield" behind which to organize the class-conscious into IWW oriented struggle caucuses. I do not mean contesting leadership of the "official" union; fuck them, organize behind their backs or under their noses. Where people are still unorganized, IWW can be built directly as THE union of the workers affected. In either case, the objective is not to be the "bargaining agent" of the affected workers, but the form of organization for struggle. Incidently, the shield function of recognized collective bargaining unions is a real consideration for real workers, especially since rights of association in the workplace are not otherwise protected in USA law or custom. (Which is why I just quit Left-communists).
  6. YSR
    YSR - 18th May 2008, 00:08
    A lot of AFL-CIO/CtW unions won't touch the workers that the IWW organizes.
    Definitely. For instance, in my branch, we're organizing workers in the service sector and unorganized student workers. We also have really active dual-card workers in several shops.

    I think that dual-carders are really great as a concept and I agree with CL that they differ from "entryist" tactics. I think that there is no one way to build class consciousness in the working class. If that comes through organizing the unorganized or the "unorganizable" (undocumented workers, unofficial work, casualized labor) then that's great. If it comes through agitation by workers in an already organized shop, that's great. If it comes through consciousness-building off the clock (activist work, community organizing) that's great too.

    What's so powerful about the IWW, I think, is that while remaining conscious that we are an industrial union aimed at building worker's power on the job, our backgrounds are so different that we accept a variety of tactics and strategies by our fellow workers.

    However, in order for it to be like that, it would have to break out of the "small shop" mentality that it has right now. It's begun to do that in some areas, but it varies from location to location.
    Absolutely. One of the difficult things about that, I think, is that we're busting our asses so hard just to establish small bulwarks of single shops that focusing on industry-wide organizing sometimes seems impossible.

    I think though, that by thinking industrially we actually strengthen our own shop campaigns. We're so used to being small and insignificant that thinking about testing our boundaries and pushing them feels scary. But if we want to grow, we need to connect shop-floor organizing with industry-wide campaigns.
  7. Comrade Rage
    Comrade Rage - 20th May 2008, 00:41
    Is the reason many of you choose the IWW route because you find AFL-CIO or CtW unions a lost cause?
    Part of the reason. 90% of why I joined up is just because I genuinely like the IWW organization, my fellow workers, and I think it's model (industrial unionism) is more suited to our changing world and economy.

    I wouldn't say that I joined up as a reaction to AFL-CIO corruption.
  8. chimx
    chimx - 20th May 2008, 00:57
    I think that dual-carders are really great as a concept and I agree with CL that they differ from "entryist" tactics. I think that there is no one way to build class consciousness in the working class. If that comes through organizing the unorganized or the "unorganizable" (undocumented workers, unofficial work, casualized labor) then that's great. If it comes through agitation by workers in an already organized shop, that's great. If it comes through consciousness-building off the clock (activist work, community organizing) that's great too.
    That's a good point. One should always be open minded and go with what works. My problem is that I simply haven't had any experience or talked with anybody that really thinks the IWW route does work and I think if I approached other workers they sure as hell wouldn't want to pay more dues than they already do if they aren't going to be making any headway.
  9. YSR
    YSR - 20th May 2008, 18:07
    Dues are the least important thing, in my mind. Once workers take action collectively as a real union (in the older sense of the word) then whether or not they're formally with the IWW is irrelevant. Our dual-carders have noticed though, that once workers who are already organized with business unions do direct action on the shop floor, they become way more likely to pay dues to the IWW.

    The current union strategy (for unorganized workers, true, but I think it's applicable) that's taught by the Organizing Department as AEIOU: Agitate, Educate, Innoculate, Organize, Union. Union, in the modern, formal sense, is always the last step. Collective action comes first.
  10. Joe Hill's Ghost
    Joe Hill's Ghost - 6th June 2008, 21:17
    The problem with the AFL-CIO is that they're horridly pro-partnership. In organized shops the IWW can serve as a pole to build rank and file resistance through dual card networks. Some of the best organizing going on right is in that vein.

    As for straight up organizing, I think we need to break out of the small/hot shop mentality that a lot of branches fall into. Small shops have to offer us an avenue to spread across a local industry. Otherwise its a waste of time.
  11. Sosa
    Sosa - 22nd October 2010, 05:52
    Just joined the IWW and my workplace is in the process of going public with a demand letter...so far half the employess have joined the IWW