Split within the IWW?
- Thread starter Spanky Longhorn
- Start date
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
The TUC is on its knees. It's the bloated carcass of Thatcher's anti-union measures. It reflects what's happened to the Labour Party.
Trade Unions need radical reform in order to start supporting their members properly, and to start representing the rights of "precarious" workers (good description btw).
Trade Unionists should be critical and hold their TU bosses to account. Trade unionism shouldn't continue to wither. Change should happen from within, not just from revolutionary unionism pressure outside.
And most importantly, at the end of the day it's not the TUC, TUC affiliated unions, the IWW, the IWGB etc etc etc that matter - it's the workers. Forget that, and you've lost sight of the point. These cleaners are probably going to lose their jobs as a result of this shit.
Cornetto
yesh
I don’t disagree with the points made about the TUC; however resurrecting Rudolf Rocker and having the last ghost dance of anarcho-syndicalism complete with historical role-playing kit is the last thing I need. Each sector and union will have to do it bottom up; we are fighting in UCU, winning congresses, arguing and winning with elected full time officials, fighting centralisation that is the cornerstone of the big Labour Party unions. I am not arguing for the TUC/IWW I am pointing out the IWW has no resonance for the vast majority of skilled workers who are not precarious that make up my work place or the organised union movement. I don’t think anarcho-syndicalism is the way forward.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
But the IWW isn't anarcho-syndicalist as such so i'm not sure where you're getting that from. The IWW is the one big union with all the descriptions you mentioned previously but they're not a revolutionary union . Maybe you're getting confused because some anarcho-syndicalists show a bit of solidarity with IWW issues occasionally? Solfed for example might help out but they're not aligned in anyway. Or maybe you're also confusing the IWA with the IWW.
Edit: also perhaps it's sometimes confusing that it's possible to be an anarcho-syndicalist AND a union member so there are IWW members who are also members of, eg Solfed. But then there are (eg) Solfed members in the big trade unions too. Sometimes the trade unions know they are also anarcho-syndicalists, and sometimes they don't
Edit: also perhaps it's sometimes confusing that it's possible to be an anarcho-syndicalist AND a union member so there are IWW members who are also members of, eg Solfed. But then there are (eg) Solfed members in the big trade unions too. Sometimes the trade unions know they are also anarcho-syndicalists, and sometimes they don't
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
I must have confused the one big union, general strike thing with anarcho syndicalism and that all the anarchits and syndicalists i know are members.
This is an example of how anarcho-syndicalists work; in the union, outside the union, and in the workplace (a derail from the IWW theme, but still on topic about workers organisation):
http://www.solfed.org.uk/?q=pamphlets/workmates
BigTom
Well-Known Member
I must have confused the one big union, general strike thing with anarcho syndicalism and that all the anarchits and syndicalists i know are members.
I think if we wanted to be picky about it then IWW is a syndicalist union, but it's explicitly not political so not anarcho-synidcalist. Having said that I'd say that the (probably vast) majority of members would identify as anarchists, so in reality it's not really clear.. but there's certainly no bar to non-anarchists being IWW members which would be a problem for SolFed.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Not necessarily. Solfed are an anarcho-syndicalist organisation not an organisation of anarcho-syndicalists. The best way to illustrate this, is that Solfed have no bar on party political members joining as long as they don't hold office within a party.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
What would winning really look like? You think you can significantly alter the character of your union, and your union federation?
Cornetto
yesh
Getting my pension back to the terms i started on and a decent pay rise that matches the cost of living for a start.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Yes, I think the most that mainstream unions can achieve is "going backwards less slowly." Unfortunately there one of the few institutions that can achieve even this little. And getting them to do even this eats up lots of energy. Still, as a philosopher one said, that's the way it is, suckers.
Myself I'd also be very careful not to denigrate the work that the real IWW people do, organising casual workers that few other unions can help. Maybe when you talk of roleplaying youre' thinking of the industrially passive card-carriers within the anarchoid activist milleau, in which we have so many mutual friends and acquaintances?
Cornetto
yesh
Yes, I'm not denigrating hard union work, just pointing out that it is not relevant for my context. You can get mainstream unions to tackle issues rather than defend them, we got the redbrick pre-1992 pension struggle back on over USS at congress last year, after members asked for negotiations without the threat of strike the previous year, they got sweet FA and came round to our way of thinking. In my opinion you start where you are at I'm in UCU therefore i will work locally and nationally to defend key issues and build some form of attack when possible from the bottom up. As the great philosopher says , 'that's the way it is suckers'
Cornetto
yesh
Do you think precarious workers will be at the forefront of the attack against capital in a union context? I am unsure, I think professional white collar unions will attempt if pushed to maintain conditions and may act as an impetus for un-unionised sectors if they secure some victories however slight. I work in a white collar sector so that is where i will organise from and hope that i with others working together can have an impact, we have made some significant process on national issues and organised the first coordinated national strikes in years (this was successful due to local organisation not because of full timer support); there is more to be done and this is the crux of the problem. You have to organise, do your job, raise your family at the same time fighting with full time officials who dedicate their time to spamming you out, employers whose job it is to screw you. It's an uphill struggle and one that id rather be starting from a professional white collar union than a marginalised position as a precarious worker in a small union like the IWW/IWGB. Not a dig just how see it.
I think I agree with Cornetto again here, just because historically "professional" or "middle-class" unions have been amongst the most militant in british history. So there's no reason in theory why they shouldn't be at the forefront of the struggle today. Look at miners or transport workers, they are professions that rely on skilled labour and so unions in that sector have been historically quite strong, whereas precarious workers and unskilled labour aren't structurually in such a strong position to be able to bargain with their employers. You can replace unskilled labour much easier than skilled labour, and keeping a strong organisation together when there's a revolving door kind of workforce is very difficult
There's also something to be said about how when middle class skilled workers suffer a drop in status they often react most aggressively. Then there's the fact those in occupations that are really poorly paid and with bad conditions simply have little alternative but get their head down and try to make it through, which doesn't leave much scope for embracing revolutionary politics.
There's also something to be said about how when middle class skilled workers suffer a drop in status they often react most aggressively. Then there's the fact those in occupations that are really poorly paid and with bad conditions simply have little alternative but get their head down and try to make it through, which doesn't leave much scope for embracing revolutionary politics.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
Wouldn't surprise me actually. Historically speaking, high levels of conflict tend to follow the sectors of capitalism that are the most important to its current development, ie. it was (broadly) at its sharpest in the auto sector under post-war capitalism, in metalwork/coal around the wars, in textiles C19th etc etc. Education is certainly at the centre of the development of modern capitalism. (Beverley Silver speculates as much in Forces of Labor too)
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
We all want to get the most secure, best paid job we can, and professional middle class unions are devoted to keeping us as secure as possible. I think that helps things in general to stay "less bad" but from my experience the professionals have too much to lose to mount any sort of attack. At least in Sweden.
It's all very well quoting examples from the car industry and mining, but there's few parallels with social workers and other university trained professionals style of work. I largely agree with Cornetto that work has a disciplining role, and professional work even more so, since you're using your creative and communicative energy as your work tool. My experience is that you're very absorbed into the job itself as part of your internal life. Maybe more so than someone putting together car parts, or cutting coal.
And speaking historically there are plenty of examples of casual workers/unpaid workers being militant and well-unionised skilled workers being reactionary. I don't think history allows us to make any conclusion about how it will pan out. I'll believe in militancy in the places I see it.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
The professionals will be out there drilling in the fields with pikes on the day they replace us all with AI computers. ON that day we fight back.
Cornetto
yesh
I'll probably just go home have my tea and get a job as a waiter when i am replaced by a dazbot.
Edit: i am not advocating the attack is radical just demanding better terms and conditions, i do not see unions as a revolutionary vehicle but more as a platform to get better things for all. Sorry that is not a trendy or right on view.
Edit: i am not advocating the attack is radical just demanding better terms and conditions, i do not see unions as a revolutionary vehicle but more as a platform to get better things for all. Sorry that is not a trendy or right on view.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Stop batting your eyelashes at us with those hackneyed "controversial" stances that you know full well no one disagrees with or you'll turn into revol68
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Or maybe some of us are old enough to remember what unions were like pre-Thatcher, and nothing to do with trendiness at all.Not directed at you, but i still think a lot of people believe unions should be the storm troopers of full communism. Less controversial and more accepting of what unions and unionism is and does.
Batting eyelashes
Cornetto
yesh
Pale, Stale and Male, sums up the males in my family involved in unions during the 1970s
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Which sectors?
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
actually, non-whites disproportionately likely to be union members in the '70s... (although disproportionately unlikely to be lay reps, FTOs or leaders)
Cornetto
yesh
Post Office / Catering /Engineering/Nursing
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Before the days when Catering became a mostly contracted out sector (similar to cleaning and security) and the workers became precarious.Post Office, I suppose (like transport and maritime) they're possibly one of the few remaining that are still quite militant. The Royal Mail forums are always worth having at a look at to gauge the temperature, although a couple of weeks back I was quite shocked because a steward had posted a typical agenda and so much of the time was taken up by what I would have thought should have been management/health and safety tasks such as checking the weight of bags etc. Back to your "pale and male" point the BNP have had an open posting presence and no-one seemed to turn a hair.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Part of the problem here is that the reality points to a continued growth of 'precarious' work that is low paid and non-union. Relatively secure, well paid, decent jobs in the private sector (where 90% of workers aren't even in a union) are increasingly exceptions to the rule.
Meanwhile, some of the public sector unions - like UCU - are 'moving left' and attempting to defend terms and conditions that sucessive governments have tried to erode. While there has been some partial sucess there are fundamental issues here too - such as a lack of decent leverage in some areas combined with inexorable decline as these unions also fail to organise the precarious private sector workers increasingly proving public services alongside them.
The IWW/IWGB split is disappointing (if typical of the left) because there seemed to be an emerging attempt to pilot a different approach - based initially on helping workers address their immediate concerns. This might have provoked debate about if there are better ways of supporting low paid workers trying to organise - and which the traditional unions might have been forced to seriously examine and possibly even copy or more likely co-opt. I've asked on other threads for views on the model and possible scalability problems but it is clear that the current model, public and private as adopted by 'left' and right unions, is no longer fit for purpose and can only lead to terminal decline.
Meanwhile, some of the public sector unions - like UCU - are 'moving left' and attempting to defend terms and conditions that sucessive governments have tried to erode. While there has been some partial sucess there are fundamental issues here too - such as a lack of decent leverage in some areas combined with inexorable decline as these unions also fail to organise the precarious private sector workers increasingly proving public services alongside them.
The IWW/IWGB split is disappointing (if typical of the left) because there seemed to be an emerging attempt to pilot a different approach - based initially on helping workers address their immediate concerns. This might have provoked debate about if there are better ways of supporting low paid workers trying to organise - and which the traditional unions might have been forced to seriously examine and possibly even copy or more likely co-opt. I've asked on other threads for views on the model and possible scalability problems but it is clear that the current model, public and private as adopted by 'left' and right unions, is no longer fit for purpose and can only lead to terminal decline.
Similar threads
