One for Skraeling
Mar 3 2007 12:18
Read your article on Unite in the AusROC paper comrade. Got a question - if it's still small and there are only two bureaucrats who fail to maintain control over their members and organisers what's to stop the organisers quietly ousting them?
Mar 3 2007 18:39
#2
Mar 4 2007 12:55
#3
Very interesting article. I have some questions, in addition to Dundee's.
The law on strikes in NZ - did all the 'lightning' strikes have a proper ballot procedure, or were they essentially illegal? And is it always illegal to strike during contracts, or is it just that contracts standardly have a 'no-strike' clause in, violation of which is illegal?
So UNITE now has numbers counted in their thousands - the article says the membership 'quickly grew from 200 to at least 5000'. So the dues base can't be that high. How many paid staff does the union have, and what do they do?
How many volunteer organisers were involved (roughly), and were they mostly doing it full time, or in addition to part time/full time work? How were they recruited?
Where did the money to set the thing up in the first place, and the first two hundred members come from?
Given the virtually standing start which UNITE appears to have had, is there any reason why the IWW couldn't have done the same thing? Would wobbly political stances/language have been a barrier in communicating with workers, or in securing funding/commitment from such a wide support base (anarchists, leninists, social democrats, non aligned)?
Mar 4 2007 14:09
#4
Quote:
Given the virtually standing start which UNITE appears to have had, is there any reason why the IWW couldn't have done the same thing? Would wobbly political stances/language have been a barrier in communicating with workers, or in securing funding/commitment from such a wide support base (anarchists, leninists, social democrats, non aligned)?
Clydeside IWW GMB is growing exponentially, as is Leicester GMB. We have two job branches at academic institutions, both of which are growing exponentially, and I'm very hopeful that overall union membership can grow to about 500 - 1000 in the UK before the year is out. We're certainly on course for 100 in Clydeside GMB.
In 2003 in New York there were no union shops. There are now a number of coffee shops and they now have a presence in warehouses.
I can't see any particular barrier to the IWW not having 5000 members in two years in the UK. Do the business, organise like fuck. maintain a strategy, use force multipliers, and oust the anarcho-historical-club shite and it will happen naturally.
Mar 4 2007 14:26
#5
OK... but aren't I right in thinking that the IWW hasn't organised any job shops among what you'd think of as unorganised/hard to organise groups of workers? When you say you've got job shops at academic institutions - are we mainly talking a membership of lecturers, grad students doing a bit of teaching, catering staff...? I mean, you're largely in public institutions, which are obviously much easier to organise than private companies, and which're generally highly organised by UNISON etc. already. What's interesting to me about the formation of UNITE is that they tackled the workplaces where the other unions wouldn't or couldn't go, and not only grew membership, but won high profile industrial battles, social movement unionism style. If the IWW was showing the potential to grow in hotels, that'd be different.
Dundee_United wrote:
maintain a strategy, use force multipliers
What's your strategy? What force multipliers?
EDIT: so I'm not having a go, just to clarify, I'm trying to be clear about what the differences are, why UNITE worked... if there are no significant differences, that would be particularly interesting. The thing that makes me most wary is the political baggage... I care alot about whether the union is radically democratic, organises, and encourages member involvement and militancy, within a credible industrial strategy. I don't care alot about whether a union identifies as revolutionary. And I think that would get in the way for alot of people. Is there any truth in that?
Mar 4 2007 15:55
#6
Quote:
What's your strategy?
Build profile and consistency in various industries. Currently a lot of our membership is in education - hence the focus on this. However locally we're trying to recruit through targetting coffee shops for regular workplace bulletins. We're starting to do the same at Glasgow University campus, of course there we're heavily involved in a big struggle anyway. We are trying to sign up the left to build an activist base, and getting them to sign up their mates etc. (yesterday I signed up two people coz they're 'non-political' mates with an anarcho I'd signed up that day; incidentally one of them works in a hotel). When we have more people we will have more organisational capacity to launch drives in various workplaces. I don't think it will be long before we have a coffeeshop or restaurant come to us as a result of our regular targetted bulletins. Workers in these industries will call us before they call anyone else when they need support then we can target that particular workplace with everything we've got. We'll win a few victories and then others will see the benefits of enlisting. We also plan to develop a network of radical/militant trade unionists in the way that the SSP have been doing. We plan a conference in May aimed towards this. Dependent on the success of that network we can either recruit radical unionists or contribute towards a rank and file movement within the unions which is being organised with/by the wobblies. That I'd say is our short-term strategy - very much about building profile and consistency and developing a workplace base as a springboard to building up some actual workplace power, but that's for the medium term and the foundations are only just being laid. It's vital for the success of the union to make sure to make sure we are organising like crazy and that this is the only purpose of the union. That hasn't been true until relatively recently and there is much to be done.
Take a look at www.iwwscotland.wordpress.org for recent bulletins etc. Leicester has been up to this sort of thing as well, and I understand London is in the process of launching an organising drive similarly.
Quote:
What force multipliers?
The entire left and the international union. Unison couldn't / wouldn't call on the support of the Anarchist Federation, the Scottish Socialist Youth, the SWP, angry trade unionists and left labourites and international support if one of their workers got the sack - they'd file a claim for wrongful dismissal at best and we'd never hear about it. They certainly wouldn't target the company in the way that SAC recently did with Manpower, or Unite have done with restaurant chains. What the Americans euphemistically seem to call "support from the community" - going team handed with a bunch of leftists to kick up shit. Doing that means that our numbers/capacity is much greater than the actual number of dues payers, plus it means we can sign up the left (more dues payers, more connections, more profile, more consistency, leadership of ideas for workers control etc.).
Quote:
If the IWW was showing the potential to grow in hotels, that'd be different.
Man you've got hotels on the brain! We'll get there, as I said we just signed up a hotel worker in Clydeside yesterday. We need to build from where we are at tho. We're more interested in restaurants at the moment, coz that's one of our main organising drives internationally, hence our bulletins and things there.
Incidentally on the subject of force multipliers and support from the community we will be launching another phone lobby of Glasgow University, after the success of last week's but this time with more numbers. Activities on campus at Glasgow University have been increasing. It's time to really build some heat.
Mar 4 2007 15:58
#7
There's a discussion on the SSY Forums about this as well:-
http://www.ssy.org.uk/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=53&topic=4886.0
Mar 4 2007 16:15
#8
Good article Skraeling. A few questions from me too, in regards to the wildcats how exactly did the union bureacrats reign them in, also the contracts that were imposed on the workers how were the negotiators chosen, was it just the staffers doing the negotiating as well? Unite (NZ), the more I read about it, sounds surprisingly like the Canadian posties as far as fights within it and general political trends, though the bureacracy can't impose a contract on us we have to vote.
I'd also like to echo posi's questions about striking during a contract, and proper balloting, lightening strikes are illegal in Canada and in Alberta can net you a 10,000$ just for participating, and a union is automatically decertified as a bargaining agent if the company can prove we aren't interested in signing a contract with a no-strike clause tied to a grievance procecdure. Also the IWW dropped the 'no contracts' thing as a blanket principle in the 40's otherwise they probably would have been wiped out, though even when we do sign contracts we are obviously pretty skeptical of their benefits.
Mar 4 2007 16:15
#9
oops. double post.
Mar 4 2007 17:56
#10
I think those are generally pretty fair answers to my questions to Dundee. It does seem true that if you're going to build a union sustained by volunteer organisers, it makes sense to build your volunteer base first. Are you running organising training for 'em? What about the question about the explicit political orientation of the IWW being a barrier for some people?
Two random points. I think that 'support from the community' in the US, at the best of times, does mean something more extensive than a mob of local leftists. As a leftist, and occasional participant in local (labour solidarity orientated) mobs, I think they're fine, but we can and should do better.
It is true that I have hotels on the brain - though probably going for restaurants first is a fair call, because apart from anything else the smaller number of staff may make them easier to organise, and good practice. You know what I think about the vulnerability of Edinburgh hotels during the Festival - an idea I got from someone in the SSP.
Mar 5 2007 10:48
#11
Quote:
It does seem true that if you're going to build a union sustained by volunteer organisers, it makes sense to build your volunteer base first. Are you running organising training for 'em?
yes, it's in the pipeline at the moment. hopefully things will be moving in the next few months (fingers crossed!)
Mar 5 2007 23:17
#12
On a related note, the SupersizeMyPay.com website is down, taken over by a cyber-squatter. I guess Matt (arsehole Unite head) has finally decided to end the campaign after its relaunch proved so ineffective.
Mar 5 2007 23:31
#13
So did the whole union just fold up and leave the stage like that? This is really weird....
Mar 6 2007 00:55
#14
The Union is still going - they've just moved into new (extremely flash) headquarters on the main street in Auckland's CBD. Their website is http://unite.org.nz/ (although that hasn't been updated yet in 2007...)
Just the SupersizeMyPay.com campaign website that has gone.
Mar 6 2007 11:06
#15
So why if there are so many decent people here have they not just got shot of what is just a few bureacrats???? Is there not a decent anarchist political organisation to get on with this task?
Mar 6 2007 11:12
#16
Quote:
Two random points. I think that 'support from the community' in the US, at the best of times, does mean something more extensive than a mob of local leftists. As a leftist, and occasional participant in local (labour solidarity orientated) mobs, I think they're fine, but we can and should do better.
Yes. That's why I think a trades council or, if things go brilliantly, an industrial district council strategy is quite important, for a cross over with community struggle organisations.
Quote:
What about the question about the explicit political orientation of the IWW being a barrier for some people?
Any more of a barrier than Unison giving money to the labour party? If it's spun the right way our union's viewpoints are a competitive advantage:-
"Yeah so basically we think workers should have democracy in the workplace... We want to see workers get some control over their workplaces coz they know how to run them best... Etc."
Moreover if we're good the people will join, irrespective of our political views. If we're shit then no matter how great our political views are we're shit and nobody will join us.
Quote:
Are you running organising training for 'em?
Yes.
Mar 8 2007 16:07
#17
Not read that article yet, but on Unite/SuperSize one of the main organisers it seems, Simon, posted a bunch of stuff here about his experiences, very interesting stuff. Said a bunch of things critical about Unite but then asked they be removed from the forums. still said some interesting stuff on other threads which is still here:
http://libcom.org/user/simono/track
Dundee_United wrote:
Clydeside IWW GMB is growing exponentially, as is Leicester GMB. We have two job branches at academic institutions, both of which are growing exponentially, and I'm very hopeful that overall union membership can grow to about 500 - 1000 in the UK before the year is out. We're certainly on course for 100 in Clydeside GMB.In 2003 in New York there were no union shops. There are now a number of coffee shops and they now have a presence in warehouses.
I can't see any particular barrier to the IWW not having 5000 members in two years in the UK. Do the business, organise like fuck. maintain a strategy, use force multipliers, and oust the anarcho-historical-club shite and it will happen naturally.
I dunno dundee, it's good you're enthuastic but you do tend to maybe veer a bit too much towards the unrealistic. I mean look at that other thread where people are saying the entire global membership of the IWW is under 1,000, and down on the previous year. I'm not trying to slag you off, just a bit of a reality check.
edit - had a read, good stuff skrae, I hope you don't mind i put it in our library? I'm going to link to it to our related news articles as well.
Mar 8 2007 17:47
#18
Quote:
you do tend to maybe veer a bit too much towards the unrealistic.[...]the entire global membership of the IWW is under 1,000,
Well it is 200 in the UK and expanding very rapidly. Clydeside branch currently has about 35 (seven more joined in the past two weeks), and a job branch. We have a number of lively campaigns underway, and yes, I am moderately optimistic. But frankly having a 1000 members in the UK and 100 in Clydeside branch, if you're serious about being a mass organisation, is fucking small fry. We ought to be a lot more ambitious than that, and I make no apologies for that. We are on target and aiming at rapid growth.
Mar 8 2007 18:21
#19
Dundee_United wrote:
Quote:
you do tend to maybe veer a bit too much towards the unrealistic.[...]the entire global membership of the IWW is under 1,000,Well it is 200 in the UK and expanding very rapidly. Clydeside branch currently has about 35 (seven more joined in the past two weeks), and a job branch. We have a number of lively campaigns underway, and yes, I am moderately optimistic. But frankly having a 1000 members in the UK and 100 in Clydeside branch, if you're serious about being a mass organisation, is fucking small fry. We ought to be a lot more ambitious than that, and I make no apologies for that. We are on target and aiming at rapid growth.
yeah, youse might have all the SSP in the IWW in no time.
Mar 8 2007 18:23
#20
Speaking of which anyone who wants to help the job branch out should contact Glasgow University today and tomorrow and keep 'em busy with complaints.
They never get the name right but...
http://www.bigissuescotland.com/latest_news/2007_03/campus_calls_up_a_storm/
Quote:
Campus calls up a storm
by Kirsty Taylor
Campaigners are gearing up their protest over Glasgow University's withdrawal from Crichton Campus by bombarding the institution's communications systems with complaints.Save Crichton Campus campaign and the International Workers of the World Union (IWW) are calling for the second phone lobby of the Glasgow campus in two weeks. They claim the university had to devise a telephone protocol and lay on extra staff to deal with calls, emails and faxes last week. They are asking people to call again on Thursday and Friday against the pullout.
"We think the university is accelerating its pullout because of the protests, so we are piling more pressure on Sir Muir Russell," said IWW organiser for central Scotland Nick James. "The university lost 10% of its staff last year and is revising working conditions for janitors, but the principle took a pay rise."
The university court ruled against accepting new students to Crichton on February 14 but protest and talks in parliament are gaining pace. The rural campus has 250 students and 40 staff from Glasgow University who claim it is costing over £800,000 a year.
Student and staff campaigners are resorting to "creative protest" according to Crichton student Joe Smedley.
"We were protesting at the Crichton campus but felt we weren't being noticed, so people interrupted video conferences linked with Glasgow university to let students up there know what is going on," the tourism and heritage student said.
Glasgow's exit poses a blow to the local economy with acclaimed humanities courses lost in the move.
"Everybody in the area is concerned about it," said Dumfries MSP Elaine Murray. "Crichton campus gives people who maybe cannot leave Dumfries a chance to study. There has been problems with attracting qualified people to the area, with this campus people have been able to gain skills themselves."
Deputy First Minister Nicol Stephen last week pledged to encourage talks between Glasgow University and the Scottish Funding Council, who the institution blame for not granting enough money to the site. The University and College Union called for Jack McConnell to intervene and have not ruled out strike action.
See also: http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/featuresopinon/display.var.1206503.0.0.php
Mar 8 2007 22:13
#21
John. wrote:
Not read that article yet, but on Unite/SuperSize one of the main organisers it seems, Simon, posted a bunch of stuff here about his experiences, very interesting stuff. Said a bunch of things critical about Unite but then asked they be removed from the forums. still said some interesting stuff on other threads which is still here:
http://libcom.org/user/simono/track
Yeah Simon had quite a bit to do with especially the supersize campain, from what I heard it was his brainchild. He did a lot of the media work and was also behing the tech/web side of things. I heard he got reined in by some of the higher ups then marginalised from the campain - it seemed to collapse soon aferwards.
It is hard being in christchurch and getting any real feel for unite as it's pretty much stage managed out of auckland and was neither very big here is there much in the way of communication between auckland and christchurch activists.
I'm not sure wether anyone's posted these links before by anarcha-fairy was a member of unite and has been openly critical of some of it's practices
http://anarchafairy.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/unite-and-its-class-collaboration/
http://anarchafairy.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/unite-update/
Anyway Skrealing doesn't have net access where he is living, but I'll tell him about this discussion so he can respond
Mar 8 2007 22:38
#22
OK, but the question still remains, at such an early stage why can't youi oust these parasites?
Mar 8 2007 22:41
#23
Dundee_United wrote:
OK, but the question still remains, at such an early stage why can't youi oust these parasites?
oh sweet lord on high the bare faced irony of it all!
Mar 8 2007 22:55
#24
Cut it out Revol and say what you mean, this is the organise forums. I didn't mean that in a confrontational way, I'm just hearing that there are basically only two bureaucrats in this union and I don't understand what is stopping the organisers and a few of the members clubbing together and telling them to get to fuck (via whatever means necessary). It's just like it's not like the T&G, and only has 5000 members, which is a lot better than starting from scratch but at that level is very difficult to thoroughly Stalinise.
Mar 8 2007 23:10
#25
Dundee_United wrote:
OK, but the question still remains, at such an early stage why can't youi oust these parasites?
Possibly (and someone looking from the outside) because in the early days there was a kind of heady optimisim about UNITE since the employment reforms of the late '80s early '90s there has been very little in the way of union militancy let alone syndicalist activity, here come unite saying the right things and sweeping up a lot of the new (and not so new) activists with their mix of popular culture and a smattering of syndicalist speak. While this was happening people seemed to be unwilling to critique UNITE's structures and those that were weren't getting involved (you just have to look at their charter to realise they are not that disimilar to any other union).
I get the feeling by the time people started realising something was up it was too late or too far away from the power base in Auckland. Another thing to realise is most of the people who have been marginalised have been anarchists, their supporters and syndicalists. most of the people who are defending it seem to be from the workers party (trots) they seem to believe they are still going to get something out of it by staying in there.
It's a real pity UNITE could have been a lot more that what it is - which in my opinion is a plank for Matt McCarten and a recruting tool for the likes of the ironically named workers party
Mar 9 2007 09:51
#26
Quote:
International Workers of the World Union (IWW)
haha, why do people always seem to get that wrong?? 
Mar 11 2007 07:31
#27
yuda wrote:
Dundee_United wrote:
OK, but the question still remains, at such an early stage why can't youi oust these parasites?Possibly (and someone looking from the outside) because in the early days there was a kind of heady optimisim about UNITE since the employment reforms of the late '80s early '90s there has been very little in the way of union militancy let alone syndicalist activity, here come unite saying the right things and sweeping up a lot of the new (and not so new) activists with their mix of popular culture and a smattering of syndicalist speak. While this was happening people seemed to be unwilling to critique UNITE's structures and those that were weren't getting involved (you just have to look at their charter to realise they are not that disimilar to any other union).
Sorry for not replying to this earlier, as Yuda said i don't have net access.
Like Yuda, i'm looking in on Unite from the outside, Unite never happened in Dunedin, like it had only one member as far as i was aware in the whole town. So i don't know why the Unite bureaucrats were not really challenged. I think Yuda is right, people (activists) were naively swooped along in a sort of uncritical almost gleeful hysteria that Unite was this magnificient union taking on the big bad fast food giants, and it was only when they got spat out, fired, and treated like shit by McCarten and co. that they seemed to start to question the bureaucrats hold on Unite and unions in general.
Another reason why the bureaucrats could not be really challenged in Unite is that the union's constitution is really vague and does not really allow for all that much democracy or autonomy for locals. As i recall, Unite's consitution all revolves around being run by a general executive, and as Unite was created from the top-down by a bunch of careerist bureaucrats who had plenty of experience in other unions and political parties, they all sit on the general executive, and they all knoiw each other pretty well and are very knowledgeable on how to manipulate things and run the show. So its not just McCarten, its half a dozen or so bureaucrats and their supporters acting in unison (well it seems to me that way from the outside, i might be totally off the mark here).
In any union, if you want to overthrow the leadership, you need a split in the leadership, and i don't think there is a split in Unite's leadership, the unite general exec. seem pretty united.
Mar 11 2007 07:56
#28
posi wrote:
The law on strikes in NZ - did all the 'lightning' strikes have a proper ballot procedure, or were they essentially illegal? And is it always illegal to strike during contracts, or is it just that contracts standardly have a 'no-strike' clause in, violation of which is illegal?
i cant really answer your questions too well, as i wasn't involved in Unite or supersizemypay campaign. so i'm gonna be a bit vague at times. In NZ it is illegal (by govt. law) to strike during contracts yes. Unions get fined massive amounts and workers can be legally fired for going on wildcats. I am not sure if they lightning strikes had proper ballot procedure. I think they had strike committees of union members in a partcular fast food joint. The strike committees voted for the strikes as far as i know. Cos supersizemypay occurred in an industry where workers did not have a contract (and thus were not bound by a contract), and were in negotiations for a contract, they could legally strike. but i think even then you have to give many days notice (cant remember how many days, might be 30 or something, its been a while since i was in a union). So it seems to me lightning strikes were prob illegal then, but i'm not sure.
Quote:
So UNITE now has numbers counted in their thousands - the article says the membership 'quickly grew from 200 to at least 5000'. So the dues base can't be that high. How many paid staff does the union have, and what do they do?
not sure. their dues are relatively low, but they have some money though and recently did a deal with an educational institution to get more. The union has some paid staff, i think about a dozen or more, but not sure. I'm not sure what exactly they do. I think give advice, help with legal matters, organise workplaces, do admin, etc etc like all union staff.
Quote:
How many volunteer organisers were involved (roughly), and were they mostly doing it full time, or in addition to part time/full time work? How were they recruited?
i dunno. i think there were lots, mainly from the anti-capitalist scene.
Quote:
Where did the money to set the thing up in the first place, and the first two hundred members come from?
It doesnt cost much to set up a state recognised union in NZ. I think you just have to register as an incorporated society -- it costs less than $100 NZ (about 30 pounds) to set one up from memory. So money was not an issue. They originally concentrated on organising beneficiaries. they had strong support from full time community advocates for beneficiaries. their 200 members would have been mostly beneficiaries.
Quote:
Given the virtually standing start which UNITE appears to have had, is there any reason why the IWW couldn't have done the same thing? Would wobbly political stances/language have been a barrier in communicating with workers, or in securing funding/commitment from such a wide support base (anarchists, leninists, social democrats, non aligned)?
I don't think the IWW would have had as broad appeal as Unite in NZ. There was an IWW branch in Dunedin a while back and one of them said dockers/wharfies who they supported were put off by Wobbly propaganda which the workers couldn't relate to. Unite is much milder than the IWW. If the IWW did try to do something like Unite in NZ, i suspect it would be perceived by the rest of the left as an exclusively anarchist/syndicalist thing, and thus margnialised, with trots and maoists and soc democrats and greens reluctant to get involved in it, if not actively attempting to subvert it perhaps.
Mar 11 2007 08:08
#29
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
Good article Skraeling. A few questions from me too, in regards to the wildcats how exactly did the union bureacrats reign them in, also the contracts that were imposed on the workers how were the negotiators chosen, was it just the staffers doing the negotiating as well?
I'm not sure how they reigned in the wildcats. I'd like to find out actually. I think the wildcats were very short strikes so it was hard for them to reign in. But once the campaign started getting out of their control, they did negotiate no-strike periods with fast food management, which was promptly broken by a wildcat by fast food call centre workers. I guess the main method they used to stop wildcats was to head to the negotiation table and negotiate the struggle away. I think that only the Unite boss did the negotiations. Maybe he got help from a few Unite staffers as well, i dunno (i'm very hazy on this and dont really know). I know that the chief negotiator was the boss of Unite. I don't think they would allow workers to the negotiation table. Once the contract was signed and imposed on workers, most workers and organisers just seemed to accept it, like "we could have got more, but we were so much worse off without it, so we better put up with it " type thinking seemed to happen.
Quote:
Also the IWW dropped the 'no contracts' thing as a blanket principle in the 40's otherwise they probably would have been wiped out, though even when we do sign contracts we are obviously pretty skeptical of their benefits.
whoops, did not know that. obviously my knowledge of the IWW is historical then...
Mar 11 2007 08:15
#30
John. wrote:
edit - had a read, good stuff skrae, I hope you don't mind i put it in our library? I'm going to link to it to our related news articles as well.
Yep that's fine John, thanks, i'm wriitng a bigger and better and less syndicalist oriented version now for a different zine. you say in the intro "In New Zealand, hundreds of fast food workers waged an innovative campaign called Super-Size My Pay during 2005-06. This is one worker's overview and analysis of the campaign." that's a bit ambigious, could be interpreted that i was a fast food worker or a worker/organiser for unite and thus was involved in the campaign. In reality, I have never been a fast food worker nor involved in Unite, nor the supersizemypay campaign as well.
ummm... any chance you could post up this article?