IWW membership

oooh....

Thanks for your interest Ernest. Self-employed are def eligible. As to yourself, I'm not really sure... Eligibility has been a hot-potato going back to the union's earliest days--I'm thinking of early debates on organizing farmers in conjuction with or in opposition to the seasonal workers they hire. I'm assuming you're in the UK, is there a local branch functioning near you that you know of? Perhaps you could go to one of their meeting and they could address this issue? Alternatively, if you PM me, I can put you in contact with some of British Isles IWW folks or I can even ask some of the more experienced members in the states for an opinion. Just let me know...

Also, can I ask you where your interest stems from? Are you currently in a union? Did you find out about us through the Save Our Blood Service campaign?

FYI - I know here in the states Bush passed a law pretty early in his presidency removing collective bargaining rights from folks just like yourself, based on essentially the same logic: nurses qualify as "management." Traditionally, then, the US labor movement has viewed all levels of nurses as workers, I don't know about the IWW tho. Tbh, I don't think we've ever had a strong presence in the medical industry so we've never had to grapple with the issue.

oh, and to clarify on the self-employed question:

Anyone else think the use of the work "when" ("to those who must withdraw when they become employers") is weird in this sentence? It seem "if" would be more appropriate.

Fellow workers

Thankyou for your time.

In my situation, and indeed that of thousands of health care workers, specifically qualified nurses, it would on the surface appear that we are excluded from IWW membership. We train, doing between 3 and 5 years, (Training criteria re length of course has changed over the years) and become basic grade "staff nurses". After a probationary period determined by the employing authority, you are then required to 'manage' a a shift as "the nurse in charge". Experiance, length of service (seniority) and generally speaking, in-house courses which you are required to go on for "professional development" move you along the managerial scale. Eventually you become, without really trying too hard, a Charge Nurse/Ward Manager, with a vastly increased salary, and given that nurses pay is pretty average, who refuses. Different employing authorities have a different job description/responsibility criteria, but generally speaking, the system has engineered workers the dubious honour of hiring and potentially firing. As a Charge Nurse, still basically a hands on practitioner, and not really classed as part of the Management structure of the employing authority, you take part in recruiting new staff. You have the power to say yeah or nay to a prospective new nurse in your clinical area. Through regular supervision and appraisal meetings you technically have the power to "fire" if a worker is not meeting the criteria deemed necessary for the said job. Likewise if a worker commits what is termed "gross professional misconduct" - such as putting patients, or indeed anyone elses ,lives at risk - turning up for work drunk or under the influence of drugs, physically or sexually assaulting someone etc. The nurse in charge is required to suspernd the worker from duty. There is also a whole range of other disciplinary procedures the nurse may be required to implement - such as poor time keeping, and believe it or not "insubordination" - ie "failure to carry out an instruction reasonably given". When in charge of a ward you not only manage junior qualified nursing staff, but also unqualifed Health Care Assistants/Auxilliary Nurses and Ancilliary staff such as cleaners. Incidentally, any worker can take out a grievance procedure against you as a 'manager'. Also you are held responsible and liable when the shit hits the fan if a patient commits sucide or dies in mysterious circumstances on "your" shift. (A number of years ago I had to give evidence at a Coroners Court following a sucide in my care).

It's all a load of bollocks really. But life becomes very difficult when you are a socialist who believes in workers' organisation, whether it be in the remit of either trade or industrial unionism - or indeed independent class struggle, outside of the remit of both the former. Naturally the TU Movement takes you on board - but anything more radical is a whole different ball game. It's hard and a continuous dilema.

Thankyou again

Yours fraternally

Ernest

That is the key issue, it puts serious strain on an organisation if you have a built in conflict of interest.

I'm inclined to think that you would be eligble for membership though, have you talked to a local branch. The criteria I usually use is 'sole power to hire and fire'. Which in retail chains can be pretty low. We actually had one member take out a withdrawal card for a year because he took a buck an hour raise to manage a chocolate shop (where we have other members).

I agree with booey - work with your co-workers even if the rules are suggesting otherwise.

I'm a delegate in the South-East Queensland (Australia) mob. Based on his description, I'd grant Ernest membership.

In his case he has say in who works with him and in disciplining workers who fail in their jobs. I don't really have a problem with that. He doesn't set wages, write or issue contracts, set terms and conditions, etc and can't dismiss a co-worker without them exhibiting gross misconduct (which, especially in his profession, sounds sensible to me) - and I'm guessing probably can't do the dismissing outright anyway.

I would encourage him (you ) to involve his workmates in his decisions to encourage some workplace solidarity and to resolve disputes with 'subordinates' as equals and with team input, rather than 'disciplining'. This undermines the chain of command used to separate the workers into micro-classes and builds solidarity on the shop floor.

That's my practical thinking on the subject, anyway.

This sounds identical to many lectures i've heard on 'team-building', and post-fordism...

tree of judas you might be missing some US context. a strategy for capital has been to try and turn everyone into management in order to evade the law, build false consciousness, and generally fuck with things. For instance every starbucks worker is a partner not a worker. In healthcare there is an event to make it so that every nurse is considered a manager, and therefore excluded from any legal bargaining rights (the same with union construction workers). More often than not i run into people who do the same exact job as their coworkers, but they say set the schedule or something, so they are classified as management. that's why it's not just off the cuff who is and isn't management.

Never mind, rant withdrawn, I missed a post in the middle of the thread, there. It still has nothing to do with how nice this individual is, as some people here have suggested, but if it's just management's way of obfuscating class relations, and the hiring and firing power is so watered down and theoretical, I suppose it's a lot less clear cut.

I don't know. I know our store managers don't really have hire/fire capabilities, but I still wouldn't want them in a union with me, because as much as they may resent higher echelons in the corporate hierarchy, and may sometimes take our side against them, at the end of the day they do get paid to manage us, and they do that in a way that upper management approves of or they get laid off themselves.

I think the best way to handle the OP's specific situation is to go behind his back and question the junior nurses about the power relations there before deciding whether or not he's management.

Just looking at the job description isn't enough - hell, any junior programmer in Israel gets hired through a personal contract saying that he's in some kind of "trust" position requiring him to put in hours above and beyond a "regular" worker, basically meaning he can't charge the company extra for overtime. So, what, he can't join a union now because he's in the same rubric contract-wise as managers?

EE - any luck finding a local branch?

This is a very interesting thread indeed. I too am a qualified nurse (and former Charge Nurse) and faced the same dilemas. I tried to be all understanding and caring and sharing and solidarity- with- the -workers- kind- of- thing, doesnt really work, at the end of the day you are still fulfilling a managerial role. Like all good workers (thank goodness) give 'em an inch etc. Trying to be all libertarian and socialistic my fellow workers saw me as a soft touch and just took the piss really (quite funny on reflection). I think the moral to the tale is you cant wear two hats - the revolutionary one and the managerial one. I got over this by reverting to basic grade at the cost of losing around £5000 a year - feel better for it though! My current union is Unison the public service union which was formed out of a handful of smaller unions a number of years ago - i was a member of COHSE - their answer, or part of an answer, was to form two branchs within a workplace - an Officers Branch and a General Membership Branch. So if a worker had a grievance against his/her line manager both would be represented by the same union but with reps from the two branches. Crazy. Re IWW membership: out of curiousity I contacted IWW UK sometime ago with almost the same query as Ernest. My query was acknowledged but they never responded to my question, despite a prompt????? [Actually Ernest I think I know you - do you live in Manchester?]

our secretary, who gets the general enquiries like this, has had no internet access at home for months, which means he's doign email stuff in internet cafes and at work. plus the website has been going through a re-vamp. so there's a fair chance that your email asking for a more meaningful reply got lost somewhere.

not an excuse, mind, just a possible explanation.

Not to mention forced medication and restraint in mental health care.

That wasn't really my point.

When I've been into casualty for stitches or whatever, the power relationship was quite different to the ones I observed when working in psychiatric hospitals for nearly two years (variously as an admin temp and support worker).

A nurse in a casualty unit might have to call the police or find a social worker if someone's a major risk to other people in the unit or themselves as part of their job (similarly as retail workers might be involved in apprehending shop lifters). For that matter they might have to restrain someone and/or sedate them temporarily if they're unable to exercise self control and are risking their own health.

However there's a difference here between that, and daily detention and forced medication.

I worked in a medium secure forensic unit for a few months, where about half the patients were also on criminal sections. The role of the nurses in that unit was fairly indistinguishable from prison wardens, in fact that probably had a lot more power than screws (because they and the psychiatrist had the power to extend stay indefinitely).

Their role was pretty much entirely disciplinary and managerial, with unqualified support workers involved in most of the care (and not allowed to administer medication which meant better rapport with the patients). The inter-relationships between the nurses, the support workers and the patients were very distinct and fairly unpleasant:

The psychiatrist was bullying and underminding staff members (even fairly senior staff like the social worker) and the senior nurses were fiddling the schedules to get triple time shifts at high grades and forcing all the bad shifts on the support workers. That's ancillary to mental health but I think it's relevant to this discussion in general.

Criticisms aside, that's a pretty impressive reference.