Relationship of ROC's to the GEB
May 30 2007 10:11
Hi.
Apologies in advance for all the acronyms. I'm assuming everyone on this forum knows them all? But I also acknowledge that its realy disempowering for a new member to be presented with all this jargon that everyone else ses to understand. http://www.iww.org/culture/official/dictionary is an excellent starting point to look up any you don't understand.
I'd like to start a discussion about the internal democracy of our OBU.
Within BIROC I think we have a good structure in the ideal. I have concerns that it doesn't function as it should, but I am happy with it in theory, and think its just a culture shift required so that we start taking the actual process seriously. Specifically that we need to actually circulate agenda/proposals/points for discussion 6 weeks in advance of birocs/nat conf so that branches can properly dscuss and mandate their delegates on issues.
But I'm confused/concerned regarding the Exec Board. It seems to be representative rather than delegate based, heavily USA centric, and have quite a lot of power.
Anyone want to correct me or explain things?
Cheers.
May 31 2007 01:42
#2
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
I'm not entirely sure the GEB really does have a lot of power. Is there an instance you can bring up in particular? It is a representative not delegate based system, true, but it also does have some fairly specific uses which keep it in line (granting branch charters, keeping in touch with all the branches, and holding committees formed at General Assembly accountable for example). All of these things are pretty important. It's not like they can write policy without referendum, and they have to answer for pretty much everything they do at GA. Also constitutionally the branches have a lot of autonomy, and annual elections make it pretty tough for someone to get drunk with power.
In theory I think you're right, the GEB shouldn't have much power. It is supposed to be a purely executive body, meaning it is only supposed to carry out rules and mandates specifically given by the membership. In practice though, it seems that recently the GEB has been assuming new authority. At least once, this was based on the argument that the constitution didn't specifically bar the GEB from acting, which I think is a pretty frightening precedent. We don't specifically ban the GEB from doing almost anything. I think this is an area where the union could use some serious structural reform.
May 31 2007 07:49
#3
Ginger, the GEB does all its busines by email (because it's required to vote in writing). You can sign up for the email list of the GEB on the iww.org website and participate in discussion and debate over motions there. The GEB also has a manual of policies and procedures which govern it, separate from the constitution. The GST could send you a copy, or I'm sure the GEB member from the UK could make you a copy of his copy.
Jun 1 2007 01:36
#4
The GEB probably should exercise its authority more often. We are not a decentralized union. The GEB does end-up having to interpret the rules and regulations of the union, though it is subject to reprimand and reversal by the General Assembly and the membership by referendum. Now, the GA needs to be revised, but that's another question...
There is no judicial body, so to say that the GEB can only "execute" but not interpret the laws is hooey.
Part of the problem though, is that the GEB ends-up taking on more than it was designed to because of the current lack of Industrial Unions, which would have a lot of power (and rightfully so).
P.S. skip: what scary new authority did the dark forces of the GEB take-on? Requiring branches to report? Requiring that members be informed of referenda in a timely fashion per the Constitution? They haven't even yet required that branches go through them before they start-up "national" or "international" campaigns (run from one branch or region where there is no union-wide accountability) Do tell...
Jun 1 2007 17:34
#5
I have no issues with any of the stuff you listed, pghwob. Though I will note that I haven't gotten any ballot yet for the upcoming referendum. I'm in NYC, but I'm not involved with the Starbucks Union, so I can't speak to the issue of approval for international campaigns, though we'd probably agree that in an ideal world that's the job of an IU.
I was more referring to situations such as the one that arose around the Philadelphia charges committee recently. I'm not getting into the details in a public forum, but I think that was an incident where the GEB clearly overstepped the bounds of it's defined powers. When that fact was brought up, one member of the GEB actually said something to the effect of, "well, the consitution doesn't say we CAN'T do it, so we can". That's a frightening precedent. That's just an example of the sort of tendency I'm talking about.
Jun 1 2007 23:10
#6
Well, without going into too many details, if there was to be a claim about overstepping authority that would be the most pertinent situation. But I do believe the motion in question has not yet been applied retroactively, and moreover, it did not attempt to assert authority over a branches right to make a decision for itself; rather, it deals with what branches may impose on individual members and the rest of the union. It attempts to strike a balance between the needs for reform, existing labor law, and branch autonomy. It was not an easy decision for most Board members, nor was it intended to be any kind of permanent fix.
Jun 4 2007 00:06
#7
This is partly in response to the thread about the MSPs dispute, people from outside the US feeling frustrated with IWW members in the US. It'd be good to see if we could put together some material to work on that - presentations on the history of the current IWW other places, copies of bylaws, copies of (or subscriptions?) IWW publications from outside the US.
Skip, I think you and I are on the same page about the situation you're referring to/trying not to refer to. I don't think it's a tendency, though, and I think it'd be hard for this particular decision to have effects on anything else. I'd be happy to talk about this via PM (or email if you send me your email address).
Well until about a couple of years ago the membership was extremely USA centric, there's been some growth in Canada, and a lot of growth in the BIROC and Europe. Also there are two non American members on the GEB currently, one from Edmonton and one from London England. If one considers that about a third of the union's members are non american two out of seven members isn't that far off proportional. It's also important to keep in mind only two people from outside the USA ran and two people got in. I wouldn't say in that regard we are that hard done by.
I'm not entirely sure the GEB really does have a lot of power. Is there an instance you can bring up in particular? It is a representative not delegate based system, true, but it also does have some fairly specific uses which keep it in line (granting branch charters, keeping in touch with all the branches, and holding committees formed at General Assembly accountable for example). All of these things are pretty important. It's not like they can write policy without referendum, and they have to answer for pretty much everything they do at GA. Also constitutionally the branches have a lot of autonomy, and annual elections make it pretty tough for someone to get drunk with power.
Not that I haven't had my share of problems with GEB, and they have ruled against things that I fel pretty strongly about (Edmonton Ballots last year for instance) but someone needed to make a decision on that stuff. It's more important that someone made the decision than someone made a decision I liked and that is what the GEB did.