Organizing Workers

So why is thugarchist making funny videos of throwhen - I mean, what are they disgareeing about on here?

If you don't mind me asking

Oh.

chuck thinks his union is revolutionary I think unions are flawed institutions that are still crucial.

Chuck thinks he's normal I think he's sub-normal.

So do you hate people that think unions are just bad.

Also, I was led to believe that most people on this site would disagree with you. Why aren't they?

Tbh, I sat in my first meeting the other day, and it was "full" of unionists - not what I was expecting at all.

Well seeing as no-one seems to want to disagree - I may as well try and discuss unions with the two/three etc of you.

As reassuring as it is to see people use unions - they obviously aren't crucial to implementing socialism. Why would they be?

The atgument that certain organizational structures need to be in place, is a poor one. As the same could be said of certain political structures. This is a reducto ab adsurdium (sp?). Whats more you aren't counting on any old organizational structure - rather you rely on one that is NOT anarchist.

Isn't what you are selling preciself bad 2nd international theory?

Thanks

At the time - no-one in particular.

So your acceptance of unions is a blanket green light to every organizational structure there is?

No - that can't be right. So what do you mean

You cannot tie union staff pay with the average pay of the members that are represented nor can you tie their raises to whatever the members receive.

If I am a union member in a low wage industry and my union needs to hire 2 staff lawyers can i really expect those lawyers to make the average wage of those in my industry? What lawyer worth their talent would work for that low of a wage?

What about in shops where the average wage of the workers is extremely high. For example, my union represents workers at the luxury retailer Saks 5th Avenue. Should union representatives that just happen to work for Saks make 6 figure salaries simply because thats what the workers make?

Union salaries need to be competitive with the wages for the types of positions the union seeks to hire for. My degree is in economics and I work as a researcher/industry analyst for the union I was a member of for 10 years. I would not do this job if they decided I should make the wage of a forklift operator (my previous occupation).

should we just accept the way capitalism does things? do we accept the capitalist division of labor and wage differentials? is that consistent with unionism being a social justice movement? and if union jobs pay more than what workers make in the industries where that union exists, isn't that an invitation to the union being a field day for careerists and opportunists?

t.

mathias: "It is a fantasy to think that somehow, a group of invididuals can live "outside" the capitalist system. It doesn't matter what I think or how I feel or what my politics are. If I need a lawyer I am going to have to pay the going rate for lawyers. I can hold up a sign against capitalism but that is not going to force a lawyer to work for me for less than their going rate."

Only a certain fraction of the population are able to make it rhru college, and an even smaller chunk thru law school, and pass the bar. People who had done this, and also have demonstrated legal competence and skill and experience, can command a high rate of pay. It has nothing to do with what they "deserve" but only to do with their market power in the present class system. Yes, we have to pay what it takes to get the legal defense capacity we need.

But this argument only covers people who have a special scarce skill like this. It doesn't provide a justification for high salaries for union officers. That's the fallacy in your argument.

Moreover, the movement's aim should be to democratize skils and knowledge, to develop skills at organizing, public speaking, researching employers, negotiating among as many rank and file workers as possible.

It's true that historically the paid bureaucracy of the labor movement came into being because certain activists used their relative monopolization of things they'd learned as union activists and negotiators and representatives to entrench their position and make the members dependent on them. This is what led to the classic AFL fiefdom style of union. And it does explain the high salaries. But our aim should be to destroy that pattern. And that is why i always emphasize the importance of skill development and information sharing among the ranks. The fiefdom is not an inevitable form of unionism.

t.

Edmonton, who are you addressing your question to? I've never been a staff organizer. The workplace organizing i've done has always been as a rank and filer.

t.

Not anyone, even if trained, has the capability of being a good union officer. What happens most of the time is that within large organizations, like a union, the best and the brightest are able to maneuver into these top positions. Those who have the skill to do this typically are people who could have done even greater things in the private sector.

Let's take Andy Stern of SEIU for example. This is not your average person, you cannot be taught charisma, you cannot be taught determination, fortitude and a vision. I don't agree with alot of things Andy Stern does or says but there is no question in my mind that he is a great labor leader and worth every cent of his salary.

The job of union officers is very complex, in addition to the professional aspects of the job it involves a number of intangibles (some mentioned above) that cannot be readily acquired by just anybody, this is why the pay of union officers is typically higher than all other staffers.

In fact, the pay of union officers is very similar to how leadership compensation is done for leaders in most organizations (from CEOs to non-profits)

My mainstream union (CUPW) doesn't use staffer organisers we use postal workers off the shop floor on work release.