Referendum 2008
Oct 21 2007 15:27
Someone had to start the discussion, might as well be me... Anyway, I just wanted to get folks' thought on the biennial GA. I assume it would be a measure to reduce costs for the union, but it seems to me that we are in a period of growth and continuance of the yearly GA would be beneficial. Any thoughts?
P.S. I really do hope the GA ends up in London next year, you got my vote.
Oct 21 2007 16:48
#2
The thought is that on the off years there would be union-wide gatherings on organizing - similar to the Austin summit - not trainings per se, but conferences. Incidentally, the Organizing Department is mandated to coordinate these events anyhow.
I am skeptical that the measure is going to save the union any money, however. But actually discussing our organizing on a union-wide level would be a lot more useful than the way GA occurs these days.
Oct 21 2007 17:26
#3
Ed wrote:
ncwob wrote:
P.S. I really do hope the GA ends up in London next year, you got my vote.And why would that be ncwob? ;)
Alright a bit of self-interest. But in all honesty, I thought it would be good to have it over on your continent, it would give a whole other group of Wobs the opportunity to attend and demonstrate that, in fact, we are in international union.
Long as I'm making suggestions, what does everyone think chances are we could Chomsky to give a bit of an address to the next GA? I bet you it's doable, he is supposedly on of us.
Oct 21 2007 19:02
#4
chomsky is actually a bit of a waster. he signed up ages ago and he said in a ASR issue that he cant be bothered to keep paying dues to an organization because he is too lazy or something....at least he is honest. I forget which ASR it is but we have it in my branches office.
Oct 21 2007 19:16
#5
That is fucking brutal, what a disappointment. Still, would you oppose him speaking? I mean, he is sympathetic to the cause.
Oct 21 2007 19:19
#6
His politics are with the union but he is just an armchair revolutionary....but the armchair revolutionaries do have their role. I think it would be great to have him there.
Oct 21 2007 19:35
#7
NC, do you think we need to have a GA every year, or do you think we should have a union-wide gathering every year? Like Kizzle said, the Organizing Department is required to hold a union-wide organizing thing every two years. If the referendum passes, we'd have a rotation of GA and organizing meeting/conference. I support this, because I think having GA once a year taxes members in terms of time and money. Every two years means people could go to a wobbly gathering that's run different, has different aims, etc every other year.
The Organizing Department's also supposed to help set up regional organizing meetings every other year (like Midwest Wobfest, and I think there was one of these gahterings in New York not too long ago). Ideally, we'd have organizing meeting one year union wide, then GA and regional organizing meetings the next year.
Oct 21 2007 21:34
#8
Re Chomsky : I heard he re-upped fairly recently. But as I am sure he would admit, given his academic activity and publishing, he is somewhat removed from the working experience of most of our members.
Oct 22 2007 08:15
#9
i'm down with biannual delegate conferences and union-wide organisnig conferences the other years. my only concern is how delegation takes place. i presume the delegates would be from chartered bodies of the union (GMBs, IUBs, IDCs), but that would exclude active members in non-chartered groups (job shops, local groups ithout charter, etc.). i'm wondering how that democratic gap could be filled...
ps. London '08. hell yeah. we have full BIROC support so the organisation of it would be more than just London GMB (which aint the biggest or best organised branch in the UK by a long shot).
Oct 22 2007 14:52
#10
Nate wrote:
NC, do you think we need to have a GA every year, or do you think we should have a union-wide gathering every year? Like Kizzle said, the Organizing Department is required to hold a union-wide organizing thing every two years. If the referendum passes, we'd have a rotation of GA and organizing meeting/conference. I support this, because I think having GA once a year taxes members in terms of time and money. Every two years means people could go to a wobbly gathering that's run different, has different aims, etc every other year.The Organizing Department's also supposed to help set up regional organizing meetings every other year (like Midwest Wobfest, and I think there was one of these gahterings in New York not too long ago). Ideally, we'd have organizing meeting one year union wide, then GA and regional organizing meetings the next year.
well, you've got me convinced, although I do share ftony's concerns. And if i'm correct, wasn't that brought up in response to the proposal in the month's GEB, that many of the procedural aspects of biennial GA are not covered?
Oct 23 2007 05:50
#11
Yes, the fellow worker who objected in the GOB made precisely that objection. I think he's overstating the case.
The important thing to remember is that there will be a GA next year no matter what. So if the referendum item passes we have until next GA to come up with language to handle stuff in the off-year, then that language will be discussed at the next GA, and we'll vote on it etc. I'm sure there will be some hitches in the transition to GA every two years instead of every year. Some of those hitches may well suck quite a bit. None of them will be the end of the world, we'll sort it all out, and stuff will go on. There's not going be some union destroying disaster if we don't have GA in 2009 or if there's some unforeseen difficulty in switching to two year instead of one year cycles.
I think a lot of why this feels intimidating is that so many of us haven't really been in the union very long, and many of us are kind of young. I've been in for just over three years. That's really not very much time if you think about it, but in wobbly time that's a really long time. Same with the idea of two year cycles - for a lot of us if we think in terms of how long we've been members, two years between General Assemblies sounds like ages, but if we think in terms of the over all life of the union (or in terms of making a lifetime commitment to the union) two years really isn't that long.
Oct 23 2007 07:09
#12
Most syndicalist organizations have week-long congresses every four years or so anyways.
Oct 24 2007 01:28
#13
RE: Chomsky.
I was part of the organizing committee of i99 many a year ago. We asked Chomsky to come to the conference and give an address. He declined and spent a, small, donation instead. My guess is that unless the event is either:
a) in Boston or
b) has a large audience
he is going to decline the invitation.
I am totally in favor of GA every two years. I am toying with the idea of encouraging people to vote for a GA in London because I think it would provoke a crisis in the union as to the purpose of GA, the international character of the union and how we nominate our officers. I believe that all of these would be a good thing.
Oct 24 2007 03:23
#14
Seconded.
Oct 24 2007 03:35
#15
Yeah I say London too.
Oct 24 2007 03:44
#16
London did have a better statement, though the expense to the union of the GST and probably the Chair of the GEB having to travel there might be somewhat steep.
Oct 24 2007 08:00
#17
yes, expense is a problem, but there are ways i reckon. biroc would probably contribute a decent chunk for starters. if you shop around and book early enough you can get a return ticket for about 300 quid, sometimes less.
Oct 24 2007 12:06
#18
And then there's the food in London. (from what I recall being there briefly about 15 years ago)
Oct 24 2007 12:21
#19
bah, food in london is great!
for our more traditionalist US delegates, we may be able to culturally accomodate y'all by supersizing it, or just dribbling a load of sugary syrup on top... 
Oct 24 2007 12:25
#20
It would just be one occasion on which I would suggest we were all safer going vegan.
Oct 24 2007 13:13
#21
talk about pots, kettles and racism - when i first arrived in the states i spent most of my first few days on the shitter cos your food was so barmy!
Oct 24 2007 18:24
#22
ftony wrote:
for our more traditionalist US delegates, we may be able to culturally accomodate y'all by supersizing it, or just dribbling a load of sugary syrup on top...
will you have baseball, too?
Oct 24 2007 18:38
#23
ftony wrote:
yes, expense is a problem, but there are ways i reckon. biroc would probably contribute a decent chunk for starters. if you shop around and book early enough you can get a return ticket for about 300 quid, sometimes less.
300 quid is alot of bucks.
Oct 24 2007 18:38
#24
ftony wrote:
talk about pots, kettles and racism - when i first arrived in the states i spent most of my first few days on the shitter cos your food was so barmy!
what did you eat?
Oct 25 2007 00:17
#25
I'm still trying to figure out what barmy means...
When I was in London, I got served some luke-warm half-breaded piece of meat on a plate, and it seemed like it was tinged green. Someone must have found it in the subway. Even the foreign food stank, like the Lebanese pizza place to which I went.
Oct 25 2007 00:24
#26
I dunno last year I pretty much lived on beer and curry and got along just fine. The meat there is honestly the worst meat I've ever seen anywhere. If I was a limy I'd be a vegetarian too.
Oct 25 2007 01:07
#27
The workers want meat.
Oct 25 2007 01:21
#28
pghwob wrote:
The workers want meat.
Then GA should be in Texas.
OH MY GOD AM I KIDDING.
Oct 25 2007 01:36
#29
Yeah, that's a worse idea than London 
Oct 25 2007 01:38
#30
I'm a vegetarian so I can't speak to the meat thing, but I actually like English food quite a bit. Veggie full english breakfast is fanfuckingtastic, as is the abundance of pasties. And chips with mushy peas. And how easy it is to get curry.
And why would that be ncwob?