Demographics and the SF workplace organiser training program

Problem with this thread is that I guess only the ones who have seen the training can comment on it. But I suppose that it would have to have practical limitations then, as well as cultural ones. Mind you, I think training for potential situations in your workplace could be very helpful, but just am strongly convinced it needs to be tailored a bit more to be efffective. Have seen one guy, an activist from a mainstream union, present some parts of their training in another country and it was a little painful at times. Like anything, it was interesting enough to know what they do, but it was so specific for the type of workers they were dealing with and for the US that it seemed like another world to people.

That's not to say the training you are talking about is like that and I wouldn't comment on it not having seen it, but have seen things which don't translate from one situation to the next.

But to their credit, the local IWW branch were some of the most consistent supporters of the strike once it began. Once I post up my account of the strike, you'll also see the heroic actions of an IWW spy who wreaked utter chaos from the inside by taking a job as a pseudo-scab.

---

A large part of the content of the OT101 is actually lifted out of SEIU's trainings and condensed. The challenge with these kinds of programs is how do you get as many basic skills into two days as possible. I think Heironymous underestimates how hard it is to get politicised folks to be good listeners and if that is all one got out of the training I would have to say that is probably a large enough of a step forward for me.

This isn't to say there isn't room for a lot more trainings, a lot more development and that we aren't now seeing a need to move beyond the 101 program. A few folks are working on a overhaul of the 102, and there is a training for trainers happening in April for the 102.

Still though I think the numbers speak for themselves, without giving exact numbers the IWW has about 50 branches and we have substantially more campaigns happening than that number. Before the OT program we had a half dozen. Also contractual organising is a major minority position in the union now, whereas it was the dominant position ten years ago as well politically the organisation has matured a lot.

I think Chilli makes an important point about the idea that convincing arguments building class power, I think this is where a lot of people come from. What the OT program does is it builds confidence, this makes people more bold and willing to demand more control over their work. I actually think the polemic style of conveying ideas through debate, while it still has an important role, actually undermines this kind of development. It's funny that as anarchists we want everyone to think freely but then we abuse each other for disagreeing with each other and deviating from our positions on web boards. Emphasising skills and method is still political if it is taught right but it also allows people to take projects on with more confidence.

The anti training attitude seems to me to be one of the biggest problems amongst anarchists and syndicalists. Its this feeling that as 'revolutionaries' we ought to be a bit more rough and ready, and therefore reject systematic approaches. To be honest, to me it seems like often it is little more than a disguised manifestation of basic anarchist anti 'intellectualism', that refuses to recognise the value of developing formal ways to share practical strategic knowledge with relation to organising, in favour of something more romantic like 'just going and organising'. All i can say is that if our stated goal is to organise union sections, but people don't know how to socially approach organising work, then that is a real problem.

Considering that most IWA sections for decades have remained propaganda groups with little-to-no progress toward becoming unions, i think it is vital that we look into more systematic approaches if we want to refound the IWA as the colossal force it represented in the early 20th century.

I am not aware of akai's assertion that an activist from a mainstream union was telling the IWA how to do things. I know that a really non-sectarian comrade from the IWW US spent their last summer sharing the IWW US training with IWA sections that were curious, and that this sharing had no strings attached. The IWA comrades who attended these that i have spoken to found it a fresh experience and i know this had led to a resurgent desire amongst many to execute real organising work with the aim of developing union sections for the IWA groups.

As a side note, the SolFed training continously states throughout it that it is not a comprehensive guide, it is an introduction to basic practical advice and one particular approach that came out of a specific series of organising attempts. It is a complete misassumption to say that all trainings are automatically totally prescriptive. Obviously no training can ever be! Social activity is always going to be far more subjective than, say, learning maths. Mostly i find often the objections about the content i have come across have come from people who are either upset as to the particular origin of the knowledge (without recognising that this knowledge can still be useful!), or keep their objections vague and unspecified in a way that is difficult to engage with.

The training is also predominantly NOT referring to the law, organisations or structures, it is referring to organising as social activity, and understanding that this social activity is best approached with strategy if it is to be successful. It contains nothing about 'branch management' (as the mainstream unions do) nor does it promote apolitical politics, although it suggests common sense advice such as leaving the discussion of politics to when people are already in struggle, rather than talking about politics before struggle.

The point in the current trainings is mostly that they are a way to stop young / new, but committed, syndicalists from repeating the practical organising mistakes of previous generations, by patiently explaining the results of some of the most basic trial and error that those experienced in the workplace will dismiss as 'obvious', when it is not always obvious, and also to instil a much needed sense of confidence, not arrogance. it also does not claim to turn those who attend into activist supermen.

There are maybe ways in which the trainings IWW US training needs to be adapted, when passed to anarcho-syndicalist groups. But this is why we need to argue for the need for systematic approaches, and persuade IWA comrades to engage with 'training' as a valuable tool, in order that any criticisms of training programs are channelled toward the development of training programs rather than shutting them down.

I know this is slightly off topic. The US IWW and solfed OT training courses were largely lifted from trade unions that developed them for their shop stewards and organisers that frequently engage in representation and negotiation with management as a matter of necessity (I know this because Ive spent many years as a TUC rep and taken many of their organiser courses so the US IWW OT course was nothing new to me). Could a solfed member please explain how these training programmes fit in with soldfeds strategic pricipal of avoiding representation and negotiation, when they were designed for workplace reps who frequently engage in representation and negoitiation?

The question was asked in good faith chilli and was in no way meant to be a "deliberately malcious question or observation ". In fact it was largely based on the previous last three posts. It was no attack on an organisation. I was simply seeking clarfication after having read solfeds recent book, fighting for ourselves.

The IWW's training borrows from trainings used in other unions around the US. Those unions pretty much exclusively engage in representation etc, and they largely provide training to staff. But you're implying that there's a political problem with the content of the training because the training is similar to other unions' training and to staff training. That's like saying "libcom is run by people who use computers and the internet really well, but the internet is a product of the defense industry" or something. The heart of the training is on how to have particular kinds of conversations and to run a few basic workplace actions. (And if anyone hasn't been to the training, the exercises aren't presented, at least not in my experience, as like "if you do XYZ stuff then the following results will automatically follow" it's more like "often this works pretty well, and it's stuff we get better at with practice, so let's practice now." Kind of like practicing scales on a musical instrument.) If you think those conversations and those actions are in some important way going to pull workers in struggle in a bad political direction (toward representation etc) then I'd like to hear an actual argument for it. Personally, I think the fact that the unions typically teach those skills to staff and officers is more about those organizations trying to control access to important skills than it is a matter of those skills being poisoned by the training.

About strikes, I think strikes are over-rated among a lot of lefties and are sometimes a really bad idea. And often workers are, rightly, nervous about striking. So if some people at an IWW training were downplaying strikes, that sounds like a good idea to me. At my work management's tried to provoke strikes repeatedly and did so successfully at one point. Four union locals struck for 2 1/2 weeks, with really good participation. Management was hurt less financially than the workers were. They tried to save face and claim a victory etc but the gains in the contract were really minimal and nowhere near what people lost in wages (about 5% of a year's pay). That's not to say "never strike" but to say that we shouldn't overestimate the efficacy of strikes and should have other tactics to use as well as part of building to effective and winnable strikes.

And now several quibble with Chili!

Does this mean anything other than "the IWW likes people to join the IWW as part of organizing by IWW members"? If so, then what does this mean? If not, then I'd like to hear what your objection is to this. I'm under the impression that SF is pursuing an alternative approach, de-emphasizing formal membership. In practice IWW campaigns don't succeed enough (in my opinion) at recruiting members, so in practice IWW organizing often also de-emphasize formal membership, but I see that as a failing. I have a hunch that eventually SF will run into limits if it does de-emphasize membership, limits that will create tension over the political-economic bit with SF's theory (of trying to be both political and be a fighting organization) and it will have to work hard to avoid not recruiting mostly people who already agree with the group's politics.

I could be misinformed about what SF does, or I could be right about that but wrong in my predictions. For what it's worth, if I'm right on both counts, I don't have a principled political objection to this approach, it's just one I think isn't as conducive to building the kind of organization I want to see, compared to the approach we're using in the IWW. I'm belaboring this point because I want to underline that I see this as a comradely difference of opinion and not matter of political principle. I can't tell if you mean your point the same way when you say this bit about "the IWW wants to be the vehicle of struggle." I can't tell in part because this is in the context of a discussion involving stuff about representation etc, stuff that SF criticizes politically (ie, has a principled political objection to) so it's easy to sound like this isn't just "I prefer an alternative strategy but we're all comrades" but rather "we are to the left of you because of this difference between our groups." Would you clarify please?

More minor quibbles - I've not been to an IWW training in a while and I don't get much sleep these days but I don't remember the IWW training saying anything about age (under 35 and whatnot). I've not seen the SF training but I don't think "a central tenant of the SF training is self-organisation and how to organise without representation" is any different from the training the IWW does in the US. Finally, on a more theoretical note, I doubt that SF manage to actually organize absolutely without representation, I think it's likely more a matter of trying to keep representation to minimum. (Workers who deliver a demand letter are engaged in representation, for instance. SolFed also played/plays an important role in the workfare fights. I remember some funny and commendably self-mockery like "SolFed: Standing Outside Shops For Full Communism." That too strikes me as an example of SolFed participating in representing workers - that's not a criticism of the practice, by the way.)

To quote Edmonton Wobbly in post #10: "a large part of the content of the OT101 is actually lifted out of SEIU's trainings and condensed". Over the years some comrades from the North American IWW have decribed the process in which the training courses were assembled, so I could very well be wrong (please point me to, if you can, material which details the process?). I wont go into the boring ritual arguments solfed and I used to have a few years ago....I think we've all moved on. I'm very much in the "spontaneity" corner, which solfed's anarcho-syndicalism clearly isnt, so lets not waste our time arguing the differences between us by what we mean by "political-economic".

my mis-spent youth...

sure dude. no rush.

and in case my tone was off at all anywhere, that was stress talking. (I been working too much, sleeping too little, and prepping for the impending birth of the next kid.)

SF's aim is to encourage self-organisation. We want people to join us, but only if they agree with us. We would see a continuum with people participating in actions, sympathising, and joining, but the organising and actions are not necessarily under the banner of SF, depending on what the workers involved want.

Again, we would be looking at what any group of workers was aiming to do. They would likely be doing it under their own banner, not necessarily ours.Demand letters and the like that we have done have been what the workers involved wanted. While it may be "representation", it's not what we mean by representation, more like delegation. The people doing the letter are delegated to do so by those in struggle. Often of course in practice it is one or two workers involved in a struggle and others do things like this as part of support and solidarity.

Hope this helps.

Since this thread is already off-topic and going into some personal chatting, I will pick on one point which was important for me.

Harrison wrote: Considering that most IWA sections for decades have remained propaganda groups with little-to-no progress toward becoming unions, i think it is vital that we look into more systematic approaches if we want to refound the IWA as the colossal force it represented in the early 20th century. ... this is why we need to argue for the need for systematic approaches, and persuade IWA comrades to engage with 'training' as a valuable tool,

Can you tell me then why your section has not delegated anybody to the group established to do this?

There is no need to argue for anything in the IWA, but to implement existing decisions! I mean, thinking something is vital is one thing, but that counts for shit unless you are ready do to something about it. Won't go into the plans on line, but the first step is for people to get their asses off the internet and start working. Keep in mind we have been waiting quite a while and personally I am pissed off about the inaction.

I will come here and remind you publically every once in a while.

Second comment is the language, the word "refound" is really misleading.

Third, I think that it is bananas to talk about being a "colossal force". It is not those times. I'd be happy if a few more sections showed steady movement in the area of syndical activity. A few have been doing that.

Lastly, I do not really agree with the first statement. About half of the sections are progressing well and a few are functioning unions. Of the others, only 3 have existed more than 2 decades. (Only 7 of the IWA sections have existed for more than 20 years.) So it is not really true if this is about 3 unions - unless you want to include SolFed - then it would be about 4. But actually I think it is making progress, slowly but surely. So, you know, you can reflect about it.

I don't argue though with the idea of the criticism, meaning I think we need to be doing more ASAP.

My section has only been around 3 years. I am not satisfied with its development in this sense, although we do not so badly once we are in action and have won some things. But I do not think training is the only thing that is vital. Perception of what the organization is and what members ;activities should be, what their responsibilities are and they main goals of the organization is very important. Basically, if people have got your organization confused with being a historical society, or an anti-capitalist radical club, or a discussion club for anarchists, you have got a problem from the beginning. That's my reflection on it. That people support some ideas, but don't have many ideas about putting it into life. It is also undoubtedly an issue of opportunities, local circumstances and traditions. In some circumstances, a lot more needs to be done to get going.

Enough about that. If you have concrete proposals, get them to the IWA via SF. I'd like to see more systematic work instead of people writing suggestions about what should be done here, where maybe 5 comrades will see it, if you are lucky. Just an accident that I was reading here today.

Um, the first point is a poor excuse, really.

Second is that things like this should be on the IWA-wide scale, not individual deals (most usually made with individuals) and, well it is a fucking mess if on the international scale one thing is developed, some group does not participate and just do their own thing.

We of course can repeat our invitation made 2 years ago and invite you anytime over here - we'd be glad to see this training, as would comrades in the region

One correction: SF was not given funds to organize an IWA training. Because SF never proposed to make an IWA training. SF proposed to invite a couple of people from the IWA to share their experiences with SF and this was supported, after some clarifications. (We wrote to clarify this before the international meeting where it was discussed.)

I would have preferred personally if SF thought about an IWA training, but it hasn't. So, no, I don't think you can talk about some big influence on that issue. Especially as the ones that are mostly involved with practical training all have their own developed programs. The question is about doing things in a more coordinated way on an international level. Some steps are being taken after a proposal was passed, but it was not proposed by SF and SF is not participating.
So, I don't agree with your assessment of not being absent if you are indeed absent from the only international project approved by the IWA.

Anyway, I repeat the above that if you truly think it is important, you get down to work and no lame excuses. Please discuss about getting involved.

Thanks Martinh, I appreciate that. I don't see how this is particularly different from what happens in a lot of IWW organizing, Chili, when you have a chance.
Gotta run, family thing.

Being over 35.....

It's called trial by fire

[That said, I'm not opposed to any sort of info./skill sharing...which, I guess folks call training).

Never trust anyone under 35... hehe

But seriously... there will be a couple of cross-section training sessions in the IWA in March and April. I don't know if the comrade doing the first takes age factors into account (I will ask him) or how many participants and who but in the second one, an under-35 crowd is expected, so I suppose it would make sense to address the issue. Groups attending actually have good age diversity but it looks like only the young ones will travel. I get why that is, but it might be worth doing a questionnaire that asks people who their co-workers are - also in terms of age, to get a sense of in what conditions people are working in.

To get back to the demographic issue...