N. A. Anarcho-syndicalists
Feb 25 2007 04:57
I am curious how north american anarcho-syndicalists think this would apply to our conditions. I recognize and understand the euopean context (Spain-France-Italy-Sweden). But I am curious as to how analogous, if at all, this would be for the US and Canada. To a large extent, this is the crux of the divisions within the international anarcho-syndicalist movement.
Please, no flaming or name calling. This is a serious question and I'd like to see a serious discussion.
Section D of the IWA GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE I.W.A. ( IV. ) reads, in part, that
"Revolutionary Unionism rejects the class collaboration that is characterized by the participation in committees organized under state corporate schemes (for example, in union elections for enterprise committees) and by the acceptance of subsidies, paid union professionals and other practices that can spoil the anarchosyndicalism." http://www.iwa-ait.org/statutes.html
Feb 25 2007 09:32
#2
got to have fexibility.
Feb 25 2007 11:41
#3
syndicalist wrote:
Section D of the IWA GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE I.W.A. ( IV. ) reads, in part, that"Revolutionary Unionism rejects the class collaboration that is characterized by the participation in committees organized under state corporate schemes (for example, in union elections for enterprise committees) and by the acceptance of subsidies, paid union professionals and other practices that can spoil the anarchosyndicalism." http://www.iwa-ait.org/statutes.html
Just a question for clarification - I don't want to divert this thread onto european problems. Is this section of the IWA goals and objectives something that was added following the disputes in Spain and France etc. or did it already exist in some form?
Feb 25 2007 14:22
#4
JH wrote:" Is this section of the IWA goals and objectives something that was added following the disputes in Spain and France etc. or did it already exist in some form?"
The principles were changed at some point over the past decade.
I'm sorry I can't recall which exact Congress it was.
When the (LWG,SA) WSA joined the IWA (and a majority of the Section's) the "Principles, Goals & Statutes of the
International Workers Association" were different. This document can be found at:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/anarchy/rebelworker/spunk041.html
Discussion of making modifications to the Aims go back to the 1980s and 1990s to incorporate gender, sexual orientation and ecological issues. I don't remember there being any WSA discussion on the changes you asked about. So, in my mind, the changes are relatively new.
Feb 25 2007 14:54
#5
Thanks for the information. I'll let you get back to talking about North America.
Feb 25 2007 15:27
#6
I think that paragraph was added at the 1996 congress, that is the one that excluded CNT-Vignolles and USI-Roma. At the same time the statutes were also changed so there can only be one section per country. So it was clearly directed against the "reformist" splits from the IWA in Europe.
I think the hardliners in the IWA would argue it applies to NLRB elections in the US also, and will use this as a criticism of the IWW.
Feb 25 2007 18:44
#7
Felix: "I think the hardliners in the IWA would argue it applies to NLRB elections in the US also, and will use this as a criticism of the IWW."
These folks can assert whatever they like but the fact is that:
1. NLRB elections, or use of NLBR, does NOT presuppose "participation in state corporate schemes". If a union in the USA wins an NLRB election, the union itself negotiates directly with the employer. There is no government intermediary entity like the Spanish comite de empresa.
2. Use of the NLRB for union elections or defense of worker rights does NOT involve any subsidies to unions by the government.
3. Use of NLRB for elections or whatever does NOT presuppose use of any "paid union professionals." A union that is entirely a rank-and-file controlled union could file for an NLRB election or file unfair labor practice charges.
Now, the fact is, many unions in the USA, including quite mainstream ones, tend nowadays to boycott the NLRB whenever possible because the NLBR has been stacked by the Republicans with all sorts of pro-employer representatives, and the NLBR is notoriously slow in responding to union requests for elections or complaints of illegal firings for union activity. Penalties to employers for breaking the labor laws are notoriously minor...employers see it as just a cost of doing business and are quite willing to thumb their noses at the law.
On the other hand, it is equally true that there are fewer union strikes for recognition since the 1970s -- the main legal method for union recognition other than NLRB elections -- because the companies in the USA have been taking a very hostile, intransigent line against the unions and hire all sorts of anti-union cosultants to help them break unions, and this has made union recognition strikes more difficult.
t.
Feb 26 2007 04:33
#8
The overwhelming trend in the IWW, these days, is to eschew the NLRB as a strategy, but not necessarily as a tactic. As one fellow worker said to me, when labor law can be used as a shield we use it, but it can't be used as a sword so we don't try.
For example as Gato mentioned, the fines are incredibly small for illegal employer action. However, they prefer passive workers who do not file complaints at all - going through the courts costs them money on a lawyer, and negative rulings could cost them some very small amount of money, as well as ruin their reputation and strengthen the unions. However the overwhelming trend is to completely ignore the NLRB, unless we are already engaging in some direct action which it could add to (for example: if workers workers were pulling a slow-go to announce the union and the boss received a call from the local labor board informing him that complaints have been filed on all of his illegal actions for the past six months).
Other than that, the only other time when most wobs would advocate using the NLRB is from a position of weakness - i.e. an organizer gets fired before they've had a chance to start organizing with fellow workers; if no direct action on the job is possible to reinstate them, a complaint might be filed to get back wages/the job (hopefully combined with aggressive picketing by the local branch).
Mar 2 2007 21:28
#9
2 points:
1. Gato is right about the NLRB not falling under those exclusions. I'd say though that unions that rely too heavily on things like arbitration, ulps, and nlrb elections probably would be, but the context in the US is way different so it would be a case-by-case basis. Part of this I imagine is that for us concerted activity with or without a union, with or without a contract is legal. This is not true in Canada, many industries in Germany, etc.
2. I agree with these points personally for the US, and think they express well an anarchist perspective (communist and syndicalist). That being said I actually don't totally understand the whole encorporation scheme thing.
Mar 2 2007 22:33
#10
practices that can spoil the anarchosyndicalism.
The IWA makes me love the IWW.
Mar 5 2007 19:28
#11
I knew it was possible.
For those outside the U.S., the main body government body is the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This body covers union elections, unfair labor practices and other such things in the private sector (except certain transport sectors). Use of the NLRB (from an anarcho-syndicalist perspective) would be considered a form of indirect action. Somethimes use of the NLRB is used in conjunction with direct action campaigns and/or organizational struggles. Unfair dismissals and other such things are often times brought before the NLRB.
Unlike in many European countries:
1. Use of the NLRB does not imply state funding.
2. Use of the NLRB does not impose any structure on a union. A directly democratic union can win an NLRB election.
3. Use of the NLRB does not create unrecallable positions. A union all of whose positions are subject to recall could
use the NLRB.
I'm simply putting this out as context for US situation. I'm not arguing in favor of the NLRB.I support direct action by workers as much as possible. I recognize that even the Spanish CNT uses the labor courts, at times, to defend its members (Mercadonna is the latest).