Branch autonomy (split from IWW and referendums)

7 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
#1
Top
Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 23 2008 17:10
Branch autonomy (split from IWW and referendums)
Saii wrote:
fnbrill wrote:
Yes, i remember that around the Seattle WTO protests the Victoria, BC and Olypia, WA IWWs were working with the Direct Action Network (DAN) and the Seattle Branch was overtly against the DAN. Who's on first?

Branch autonomy can do that at its worst - though if the right safeguards and discussion mechanisms are in place it shouldn't. It can also allow branches the freedom to ignore retarded/outdated/irrelevant dictats from revolutionary 'leaders' hundreds of miles away. Swings and roundabouts.

To ignore

Quote:
retarded/outdated/irrelevant dictats from revolutionary 'leaders' hundreds of miles away

doesn't require 'autonomy' of individual branches. It just means that branches wouldn't be subject to the top-down decisions of a remote, centralised and unaccountable decision making body (like a central committee).

Signing no strike clauses and the Scottish Parliament 'dispute' aren't necessary evils in order to avoid democratic centralism, they're the inverse, the tail wagging the dog; local branches imposed decisions which have quite far reaching ramifications on the rest of the organisation without any consultation (or even informing the rest of the organisation, as was quite clear from the reaction from IWW members on here). It's equivalent to saying do whatever the hell you like and the rest of the organisation has no input whatsoever. It's the same kind of 'non-hierarchical'-ness that has all decisions in direct action groups made by self-selecting cliques without any kind of formal process.

While the affects of this appear to be a bit more severe in the IWW, presumably due to massive variations on politics between members and branches, I also think it's something which hamstrings other groups as well - more around inactivity and lack of co-ordination than people doing stupid stuff out on a limb, but still an issue.

#2
Top
nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jun 23 2008 18:03

I've seen 'branch autonomy' used to excuse some dodgy goings on in another organisation before, and the crap stuff from some IWW branches is...er...crap but is it really 'the tail wagging the dog'? Are all IWW branches now committed to signing no strike clauses and accepting their bosses as members?

#3
Top
Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 23 2008 21:39
Quote:
Are all IWW branches now committed to signing no strike clauses and accepting their bosses as members?

The IWW as a whole signs contracts and admits members, unless branches have completely autonomous membership and legal status too, which they don't. I wouldn't say 'committed' as such.

#4
Top
OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Jun 23 2008 23:30

It's also seen as a sort of precedent that gives fuel to opportunism - "if putting a no-strike clause in this contract is a problem, than how come Branch X did it and it stuck?"

#5
Top
pghwob
Offline
Joined: 9-12-06
Jun 24 2008 10:22

Well, I think the contracts issue was clarified somewhat recently.

#6
Top
Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jun 24 2008 11:51
Quote:
doesn't require 'autonomy' of individual branches

I should probably exaplin I'm not talking about total autonomy, I'm talking about them having a degree of autonomy which allows them to do so, certainly initially - but this is not something which is impossible to overturn or stop from happening in the future.

If enough branches have a real problem with something, the mechanisms are there to censure or even expel people which are continually undermining the spirit of the union. Going back to the constitution:

Quote:
The General Assembly of the IWW is the legislative body of the union and has the power to expel any member for violation of the IWW constitution, by-laws, or principles. The Assembly's enactments are of legal force, provided they are approved by general referendum.

This adds to the ability to call:

Quote:
A referendum on any organization question, including constitutional amendments, (which) may be initiated by the General Executive Board, by the General Assembly, or by a petition of 5% of members not in bad standing.

The problem then isn't so much that the IWW is structurally unable to cope with silly branch activity, more that it is not organised to do so. Not being a long-term member, I can't say for sure why this is, but to take a guess, it's possible that quick growth and an immature communications setup could be at least in part to blame.

#7
Top
Tyee-tin-tin
Offline
Joined: 29-01-08
Jun 30 2008 23:53

fnbrill wrote:

Yes, i remember that around the Seattle WTO protests the Victoria, BC and Olypia, WA IWWs were working with the Direct Action Network (DAN) and the Seattle Branch was overtly against the DAN. Who's on first?

There's a #20 can o worms. DAN burned so much turf and made such a mess, and 3/4th of the IWW fell for all of it. Seems as though Portland was caught up in some of that too; what was that hippie's name?.