Structure of present day IWW

Sorry to step on your toes, comrade.

Almost all of that is incorrect.

So which tiny part was correct?

Anyway, thanks for the clarification and I would defer to your obviously superior knowledge. I haven't been a member of the IWW since 1977 and the last time I looked at the IWW Constitution I was struck by how little it had changed. Particularly the part about referring to anarchists as 'antipolitical sects'. But I digress.

My central point appears to have been overlooked; proportional representation is premised on the notion that each individual should have one vote. Therefore, if your membership is located mainly in one (or two) countries, then the decision-making power will concentrate in those countries (or locations). This is what the CNT seeks; power proportional to quantity of individual members. The problem for the CNT is the IWA is one section, one vote (regardless of the size).

This does two things; it posits a collective identity (the section) over an individual one (the member), it dissipates and disperses power away from the powerful, where that power is based on quantity of individuals, to the least powerful. Taken together, it acts as a brake on excessive power.

It is much easier to sign up members quickly in order to qualify for more votes than it is to make-up a national section even if it was tiny.

The IWA is a federation, the IWW is not. The IWA method of organisation is far more consistent with the practice of anarcho-syndicalism compared with the IWW (which, to be fair, has never referred itself as anarcho-syndicalist)

The ASF has a membership of seven affiliates each of which get a vote at ASF Congress.

It is centered around the U.S. because of historical reasons but this is changing, as UK membership is almost the same as U.S. There is an ongoing committee to completely change the international structure of the union so it does not revolve around the U.S. so heavily.

The historical reasons are that despite aspiring to be 'of the world', for the best part of its history the IWW membershiphas been overwhelmingly based in the US.

There has been little or no influence on the make up of the constitution and structure of the IWW from members from countries other than the US.

It's good to hear that there are now almost as many members in the UK as there are in the US but I had no idea that the wobs were losing that many members in the US.

Still, the IWW is, by comparison with the IWA, monocultural and lacking in diversity in global terms

The CNT is proposing a more-or-less general membership organisation along similar lines and will presumably eschew anarcho-syndicalism in favour of a vague reference to revolutionary unionism.

In your opinion, Juan, do you think the IWW will get on board?

The U.S. is not really losing members, it has just stayed the same more or less over the past 5 years, although even that is changing, because of the prisoner organizing that is happened. The UK meanwhile, has quadrupled in 5 years.

Yes, I know Juan, I was just being a bit of a smartarse. I'm wary of statements about 'quadrupling' or other quantitative terms. The ASF has more than doubled in the last six months but its still tiny.

I don't think most members of the IWW know anything about the IWA other than the 1930s CNT. Of those that do, its my opinion that we are not very clear at all what is happening with the latest IWA controversy, nor what the CNT is actually proposing.

Maybe I can help; the CNT is proposing to do something for which they have no mandate whatsoever - 're-found' the IWA. The justification for this course of action rests on nothing other than their opinions with regard to the IWA. They'll be relying heavily on their great numberrs and magnificent history to defend the indefensible.

Both the IWW and IWA are overwhelmingly based in the West with virtually no precence in Asia, Africa and only a very limited precence in Latin America.

Absolutely right, Juan. I think we should do something about this start with a critical examination as to why this has been the case for so long.

Juan Conatz

The U.S. is not really losing members, it has just stayed the same more or less over the past 5 years, although even that is changing, because of the prisoner organizing that is happened. The UK meanwhile, has quadrupled in 5 years.

don't mean to derail the thread, which is interesting, however I wanted to ask about this. Is this true? I mean it's great if it is but it seems very surprising. I remember I was briefly a member of the IWW, probably in 2003/4 and we were told that it had 400 members. Although that to me seemed to be an over-estimate. I mean I'm not aware of everything which goes on, but the IWW here doesn't seem to have much of a public profile, no print publication, the website hasn't had anything posted on it in about 8 months, and I thought its main organised shops split off into the IWGB (and then maybe subsequently UVW)?

Membership numbers are always fuzzy. Numbers can rise and fall over time. I never pay much attention to claims other than as an approximation. The figure will always be inflated either slightly or greatly.

Members who have paid their dues but are not greatly involved you could call 'registered members' i.e. the on-paper membership. But how many are active and how do you define active? If a member attends 50% or more of scheduled meetings in a calendar year, you could define them as 'active members'.

The ratio of 'registered members' to 'active members' you could define as the participation rate. If you have at least half of the members attending 50% or more of scheduled meeting in a calendar year, you have a participation rate of 50%

I've noticed that increases in membership do not necessarily have a proportional relationship to the participation rate. Indeed, small units can have higher participation rates than larger units.

Steven.

Juan Conatz

The U.S. is not really losing members, it has just stayed the same more or less over the past 5 years, although even that is changing, because of the prisoner organizing that is happened. The UK meanwhile, has quadrupled in 5 years.

don't mean to derail the thread, which is interesting, however I wanted to ask about this. Is this true?

Fwiw latest IWW returns (2014) say 750 members, 2010 said 342. Obv these are just snapshots of good-standing members on one day of the year and there could be considerable variation.

I feel that the benefits of the automatic dues withdrawal system outweigh the costs. It will contribute to more funds for the union which would allow hist hire staff to help out in organizing drives and maintaining branches etc. The time consuming process of signing up, mailing, and collecting dues now is prohibitive. In the founding period of the IWW, or the decade preceding, Debs complained that the old Trade Unions were obsessed with restrictive and silly 'rights of passage' and other ceremonial features. These he associated with their outdated and thoroughly restrictive character. I feel our current dues setup is similar. It's at best a quirky novelty, but most of the time, just a hassle. I want to start a branch so I can do union work, not so I can trade Pokemon cards.

Though, we'd have to reckon with an administrative apparatus which is meant to channel all activity of the union through one single paid staffer (and some hired office staff, I think? Part-timers?) Call me crazy, but I suspect the "bureaucratic domination ratio" (if it were so simple a function) would still be higher than 1:2000.

:D

Surely it's better to have 24 dues-paying members of which only 8 are active than to have 8 dues-paying members who are all active.

I also want to add that paying dues is a way for people who are time strapped to contribute. It's interesting because a lot of people refer to dues checkoff as 'bureaucracy' when in reality it eliminates bureaucratic roles. In the hands of an established bureaucratic leadership, it helps them maintain their position, but in general it is not a road to serfdom. If anything, having a paper and pencil cash delegate system is a stifling bureaucracy.

Not accusing anyone here of that position, just saying it's one I've encountered.

jef costello

Surely it's better to have 24 dues-paying members of which only 8 are active than to have 8 dues-paying members who are all active.

At any particular moment obviously yes - but not in the longer term if you want to be a revolutionary union.
If a union becomes dependent on the subs income from passive members, its trajectory is to accumulate an ever larger paper membership, who will want various union representation services to be provided to them in return.

In fact, it becomes a massive problem when proportional voting system is in place. Maybe not for any type of your next-door trade union, but for anarchosyndicalist/revolutionary syndicalist type of project for sure.

Yeah I think it's more a question of whether paper memberships create a consitutency for would-be representatives to emerge.* You can have mandated delegates, but if someone gets a broad mandate to 'do stuff on our behalf we can't be bothered' then you potentially get a layer of activists with disproportionate influence (who may in turn start proposing they get remunerated for their efforts, and present this as reasonable to those whose mandate they're fulfilling...).

That's by no means inevitable, but it's a possibility. 'Paper members' covers a lot though - people who are active in their workplaces but don't make branch meetings, people who just want a conventional service union relationship, people who are on a bit of a break for whatever reason but want to support, people who have long gone but forgot to cancel their direct debit, or in cases of outright fraud, fictional members. I guess it's mostly the 'people wanting a service relationship' (or fake members) that could most likely lead to an emerging layer of representatives as proto-bureaucrats.

At the extremes you could turn a blind eye to this altogether, or boot people who miss two consecutive meetings. Neither seems sensible, but I'm sure there's multiple intermediate positions that could make sense in different contexts.

* Edit: I don't think this necessarily happens by malign intent fwiw. Just look at the caseload of your average shop steward - or perhaps especially that of a diligent left-wing shop steward - to see how well-intentioned activity on members behalves can translate into a fuckload of unpaid work (and potentially desire for remuneration). That doesn't mean you don't have people helping each other out, but professionalisation isn't a 'fix' available to radical orgs imho.

Juan Conatz

Paper membership or not, delegates should still be assigned membership contacts and be responsible for engaging with them, whatever form of payment an organization utilizes. I do think any union worth its salt (ha) is going to have a large layer of paper members. Unions are not cadre groups.

I get what your saying, but this is really only true when you have functioning unions
And even then, there can still be elements (large or small) of "book members".

I agree with Juan, that unions fundamentally aren't cadre groups.

You can have mandated delegates, but if someone gets a broad mandate to 'do stuff on our behalf we can't be bothered' then you potentially get a layer of activists with disproportionate influence

This is exactly the case with the I.W.W. and diy unionism in general *as it currently is*. Those who work for a living don't have the time to do the work. Instead of "paying bureaucrats" to manage the union, they just *reject unionism fully*. Thus, the IWW and others are completely dominated by activist elements, 99% unpaid. The reality is that control of unions is a struggle between workers and those in support of them to define and pursue policy that increases the education and organization of the class, not simply a function of 'structure'.

I'm not sure I understand the derision for 'service'. Certainly we could provide service (guidance through direct action grievance procedures, education, legal support as a last resort, contract negotiations, logistical and administrative support, media editing/management, newsletter printing, etc.) that does not translate into 'bureaucratic control'. Even these services would require paid staff in a real capacity to implement effectively and consistently. There is often a 'slippery slope' argument made by anti-staffers or anti-bureaucrats, that just doesn't hold up. How exactly does paying union administrators or even organizers, necessarily translate into bureaucratic domination of the organization?

But you touch on another point

it's more a question of whether paper memberships create a constituency for would-be representatives to emerge.

Indeed, a union *ought* to be a mixed constituency of workers of whatever political stripe. The key is that the union takes the first steps toward pointing them down the line of socialism/communism (as these are the logical results for recognizing the class struggle, a premise necessary to accept in order to wage effective struggle). But there is a real fear that the union will be 'watered down'. People don't trust workers to be susceptible to their ideas? Or do they doubt their own ability to agitate and educate? Or do they doubt the intelligence of workers?

Re votes for paper members: are you referring to the IWA? In general I think dues paying members get the vote whatever their level of participation. Of course, sections in an international are a separate matter, but inside the country, the idea that there is some level of effort that has to be achieved to merit a vote seems extremely dysfunctional.

Delegates: Couldn't a membership outreach and intake committee handle the same? This is of course assuming stewards exist (which, practically, they do not in the current IWW) who would be direct, practical points of contact for the union at work.

Pennoid

There is often a 'slippery slope' argument made by anti-staffers or anti-bureaucrats, that just doesn't hold up. How exactly does paying union administrators or even organizers, necessarily translate into bureaucratic domination of the organization?

It's not really a slippery slope argument because it's mechanistic (i.e. it suggests mechanisms by which bureaucracies emerge to explain the the fact this has repeatedly happened even to radical unions). The point is it's not inevitable, but to put countermeasures in place you need to recognise the mechanisms. Radical unions have things like term limits, bars on political party members holding office, limits/bans on waged staff, quoracy rules etc to block that process of forming a layer with separate interests to the rank-and-file. I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all rulebook fix, but I think putting the burden of proof on advocates of e.g. creating a paid position to argue the case on a case-by-case basis is sensible.

Maybe I'm missing it, but what exactly are the mechanisms that certify the rule of a bureaucratic clique? iirc, in spite of the UAW's fairly bureaucratic political sympathies from the first, there was a fierce post war struggle for control of the organization (which failed, don't get me wrong). On the other hand, there are unions which have used paid staff, and signed contracts, which are democratic to the core, with member determined policy (UE), elected working officers (that is shopfloor workers as national officers, like the MESA) from the same period. What determined their courses? Bureaucratic rule does not descend from the *existence of bureaucrats* but from political choices and struggles which lead to their rule, over the membership. So I agree that the tendency toward the development of bureaucracy is inevitable under capitalism. I even agree that banning paid staff eliminates the threat of rule of a bureaucracy over a membership: indeed, it removes the threat of having a membership altogether! In all seriousness, though, while the tendency for bureaucracy to moderate the conflict between workers and bosses is real, I do think 'radicals' throw the baby out with the bathwater by rejecting paid staff. This was not the policy of the MESA, the IWW or the UE each of which were, whatever you think of their *politics* democratic unions. What I think it needs to be clearly separated from, as a first step, is *paid national officers*.

I guess that's partly what I'm doing, trying to make the case:

For example, I think a simple way of beginning to approach the problem is to suggest that any staff employed by the IWW, are indeed employed by the membership, and submitted to the execution of policy determined by that membership. Of course this implies that the IWW develop clearer and more precise policy setting mechanisms and practices. To my knowledge these do not exist, as the current ODB is a passive body, correct? That is, it does not carry out or implement policy set at convention? Perhaps it would be *able* to. That would have a great effect on the union, I think. My understanding is that the standing policy in the IWW is for individual branches to engage in up-start unionism, and network with other branches who by chance happen to be interested in or engaging in the same industry etc.

Certainly, most unions have bureaucratic leadership; small cliques of constantly re-elected leadership, who are handsomely compensated. That is an extreme deviation from the suggestion that we employ secretaries, or web admins, or again, organizers, at a living wage. In fact, this same group of people (low level staff) in failing unions finding themselves increasingly without work. So how, are they acting in their own interests? Perhaps they're not class conscious bureaucrats? (ZING!)

That said, I agree with the need for the countermeasures, I mostly just feel that without some paid staff to provide baseline administration (in a consistent and reliable fashion) and help reaching larger groups of workers, we will remain a sect. So I'm trying to make the case for those staff which secure the foundations upon which workers can engage in union activity effectively and win, consolidate wins, and establish genuine locals or branches.

The other thing to think about is whether it is easier for someone to leave the organization or to stay in it. What is their default option and which one takes effort on their part?

With paper dues the member has to make an effort every month to stay caught up. Even if that just means responding to phone calls from a delegate or scheduling a time to meet. If the member does nothing they stop being a member.

With other systems it could be the opposite, the 'default' is that someone stays a member until they make a choice to tell someone that they are quitting.

Monthly paper dues can make sense in a context of job control (eg the Philly dockworkers who issued a new button with each month's dues so that a work crew could immediately identify someone who hadn't paid up and stop work until that was resolved) but I don't think it makes sense for a disparate group of people who almost never see each other on a daily basis.

How many Gmbs over the years have basically been composed of "book members"?
What are the active numbers in job shops? The point is not to desparage, but to sumy say the whole question if "book members" or "paper members" can have many sides or reasons. I'm not encouraging the practice, just saying I've seen enough of it to know that no one is immune to it. And sometimes, with locals or branches of older or retired members there's a whe other dynamic
I'm old enough to remember joining the IWW in the early 1970s where a majority were book members. Or the many exiled communities of Cntistas who belong out if loyalitu to the cause and ideals, but weren't so active. Anyway, I'm not a big believer in things being black and white

Pennoid

Maybe I'm missing it, but what exactly are the mechanisms that certify the rule of a bureaucratic clique?

Usually some combination of a separation between an activist and rank-and-file layer, creation of waged positions for the former, (usually) gradual shift in locus of decision-making from the rank-and-file to the professionals, at some point setting up a positive feedback effect between increased expenditure and need for increased dues and risk aversion to protect those revenues.1 Typically the first generation are seasoned and respected activists and may or may not 'sell-out', but once incentive structures are in place to make a living off the movement all sorts of careerists will be attracted.

There's various other mechanisms and obviously the specifics vary between organisations. e.g. iirc various delegates in the Italian Hot Autumn were sort of 'stranded' when the assembly movement that mandated them ebbed... some were absorbed into trade union bureaucracies, others became active in base unions, so nothing inevitable here again.

Any moderately sized union is going to have members with a range of activity and participation at any given point, I don't think that automatically creates a bureaucracy or the mechanisms for bureaucratic rule. But the more you create a separate set of interests (e.g. people whose livelihood is a wage from the union), the more likely it is some of them start acting to secure those interests. Like I say there's various rulebook style obstacles you can throw up to that, and arguably as or more important is the culture you develop around holding each other accountable, self-educating to better rotate responsibilities, develop new leaders (in the sense of people willing to take the initiative, or take on responsibilities etc), which might not be written down anywhere, or even possible to codify, but has a big impact on the way an organisation develops.

edit: none of this is a swipe at the wobs btw, I'm basically a paper member of SF atm, everyone's going to go through periods of relative activity and inactivity, and it doesn't make sense to kick people out of a union when e.g. they have a kid or start an evening class and stop coming to meetings. i think these are generic problems faced by radical unionists of all stripes: there's clearly defined models for how to run a bureaucratic, legalistic trade union, but the models of largescale radical unions are of limited relevance today so we have to feel our way to develop appropriate methods.

• 1The case of John Turner quoted here is a good example of that kind of positive feedback.

I don't think bureaucratic degeneration is inevitable in a union. But avoiding it does require some conscious practices & rules & is helped by certain circumstances.

in the 1880s & early 1890s AFL was still pretty grassroots. They didn't do "collective bargaining". the union assemblies decided on what the wage rate & rules should be then the elected delegates led tramping committees around to workplaces & signed people up, called people out on strike, tried to get the employers to accept the union wage rates & rules. Crafts would often engage in sympathy strikes to support each other. But the delegates, who were often socialists or anarchists, often got fired. They were the most committed and knowledgeable so people didn't want to lose them, so they started hiring them. Start of the business agent system. But as time went on this led to a pattern of dependency. BAs could get people jobs, play favorites in terms of who they'd help out, to maintain a circle of cronies to vote to keep them in office.

The switch to "collective bargaining" was another shift that favored power in hands of officials & BAs, who did the negotiations. The thing is, they never did anything to train people in how to do these things....organize, speak publically, negotiate. the dependency relation was to their advantage. With many areas of work being very precarious many of the AFL unions set up hiring halls, which provided yet another avenue for favoritism by officials, who could control access to the jobs.

so you can see why certain kinds of techniques developed for avoiding this route to a labor fiefdom. things like term limits, worker schools or storefront social centers to study social theory, learn public speaking, how to organize, etc. to train militants. also rank and file negotiating committees. elected unpaid shop steward committees.

in early 1900s once worker militancy had developed to point labor struggles & strikes were becoming more common, sophisticated employers favored dealing with "responsible" labor leaders who could promise "labor peace" via no strike contracts, and direct negotiation of contracts not with workers but paid officials.

I think we might disagree in detail Joseph. The emerging bureaucracy did not act in naked self interest. At every turn they presented a host of political justifications, and fought to dominate and garner support for those positions. Of course, those positions are difficult to deal with outside the historical moment. I think a great deal of nuance and accuracy is lost with the whole-cloth rejection of 'bureaucracy' without reference to these political debates which can often mirror our own. It seems like the result of anarchism's debt to classical liberal language amplified by cold war derision for third world Bonapartism, which sees in all things the extension of stifiling bureaucracies crushing the free spirit of the common working person (Cue Rocker and Dwight MacDonald).

But,for all the anarchists turned bureaucrats, there are those salaried socialists and anarchists, etc who remained committed to communist/anarchist politics. I guess, again, I'm trying to emphasize two points

1) paying skilled workers for their work for the union just seems like good sense (but needs to be executed with an eye towards possibilities for corruption, sure)

2) 'bureaucratic creep' is not simply a 'technical' problem, or resultant simply from the *existence of paid staff* but from structural and ultimately political imperatives which elevate the decision making power to those bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats who did want to advance their own interests over the rank and file would have to struggle against them in order to change the organization in order to do so. But I want to emphasize that I'm not advocating we elect national officers and pay them 300k a year in the IWW. I'm just saying we need administrative staff, editing staff, and even organizing staff.

I feel like I'm repeating though so I'll back off now

I'm not really saying ruthless bureaucrats manipulate or struggle against the rank-and-file to gain control. They might, but I don't think that's typical. I'm more concerned with how a union can become bureaucratised as an unintended consequence of other choices, each often reasonable enough taken in isolation.

So something like paying skilled workers. I wouldn't necessarily oppose this (e.g. paying some professionals to redesign a website, or a publication, if those skills weren't available from volunteers, or if the volunteers had to forego paid work to do work for the union). I'd be more skeptical of ongoing salaried work and the union becoming an employer, though I agree that paying someone to do the admin doesn't automatically give them control.

But if the skills you're paying for create a reliance on a layer of specialists, I think that may fall foul of the 'meaningful action for revolutionaries' rule of thumb, and may over time lead to a divergence of interests, etc. Doesn't rule out e.g. a fixed-term stipend for sending some unemployed members to help an organising drive or a big struggle kicking off or whatever though, where that kind of risk is minimal (I think wobs did this with Madison?). Or if part of what you pay for is to train a bunch of replacements, with the work being fixed term, maybe paying for the work could be a way to diffuse those skills throughout the membership, actually reducing reliance on paid experts?

I do think this is worth talking through. I don't think I'm just repeating anarchist (or classical liberal) received wisdom. It's more I think radical unionists have to reckon with the fact that empirically, combative, grassroots, member-controlled unions are pretty rare, and historically many of those which have existed have developed into the kind of corporate collaborationist unions 'behind the backs' of their members so to speak. It may be that anarchists sometimes bend the stick too far the other way, I'm open to that argument. But I do think the burden of proof being with advocates of paid staff is a sensible starting point.

On a slightly different note, when you look at historic, large-scale radical unions (heyday IWW, CNT, FAUD...), they had large fluctuations in membership reflecting struggles/repression/the wider political climate etc. Maybe the consequence of being a genuine component of working class struggle is more dependence on the ebbs and flows of that struggle. (Ofc effective unions, even small ones, don't just react to struggles, but catalyse them, thus contributing to the overall levels struggle, e.g. big examples being the IWW at Lawrence or the CNT's 'revolutionary gymnastics').

Maybe we should accept this dynamic is somewhat inevitable. While still ofc wanting to grow, build capacity, through the upsurges and the downswings, it's never going to be linear, so maybe the union should be set up to ebb and flow a bit too. So volunteers or fixed-term stipends rather than permanent salaried staff, capacity to act as a vehicle for upsurges in militancy (either as inflows of members, or through organising assemblies, etc), without building structures that won't be able to be maintained (or even needed) a few months or years later. Maybe radical unions need to be flexible enough to shift form in different phases of struggle: what it takes to sustain a rolling strike movement may be quite different to what it takes to regroup workers after a series of crushing defeats (or where most of us are now: to support small groups of workers in everyday organising work and localised struggles).

The IWW in it's heyday had every member of the Executive Board on salary, and they hired other organizers for various campaigns. Plus delegates were paid a portion of the dues from each person they signed up, there were paid editors, etc.

The CNT at its height also had multiple paid staff.

IMO one of the crucial things is not whether or not some people are paid - it is how does the union collect finances and who chooses what are done with them?

There is a historical tendency for unions to be made financially autonomous from workers. That is not the only way a bureaucracy develops, but it is a major way that the bureaucracy structurally reinforces itself. This tendency is a result of common action on the part of employers, the state, and the nascent union bureaucrats themselves.

In North America this looks like the combination of the union shop clause (mandatory membership), dues check off, and exclusive representation. Those elements were all already present in the exclusionary methods of the AFL (which craft unions organized to defend themselves against the encroachments of the Knights of Labor) and they were codified with the NLRA in 1935. This means that once a union wins recognition as an exclusive bargaining agent, and signs a contract with closed shop and dues check off clauses, the bureaucracy is guaranteed an income regardless of the will of the workers.

In continental Europe, Spain being a prime example, this looks like subsidies to unions directly from the state and employers. So Staughton Lynd can be happy because the membership is voluntary, but the bureaucracy is still guaranteed that most of its income is independent of the will of the workers.

On the other hand, if you have to convince workers to pay every month, you have to show them that the union is worth it. That makes whatever bureaucracy might exist much more responsive.

How centralised were the resources of the heyday IWW? Like could the Executive Board turn off resources or were branches practically quite autonomous? I guess if you centralise admin but decentralise resources, that helps keep control at branch level.

Joseph Kay

How centralised were the resources of the heyday IWW? Like could the Executive Board turn off resources or were branches practically quite autonomous? I guess if you centralise admin but decentralise resources, that helps keep control at branch level.

It was an ongoing tension. The split in 1924 was led by the "centralists" on the one hand vs the "decentralists" on the other. But the decentralists just wanted very centralized industrial unions, without a strong central body between them.

I don't think there was ever any big emphasis on decentralism to the level of individual branches. If anything, one of the more reactionary (and dominant) trends in American labor has been to constantly promote the autonomy of individual locals, especially with craft unions.

I'm not sure I understand the derision for 'service'. Certainly we could provide service (guidance through direct action grievance procedures, education, legal support as a last resort, contract negotiations, logistical and administrative support, media editing/management, newsletter printing, etc.) that does not translate into 'bureaucratic control'. Even these services would require paid staff in a real capacity to implement effectively and consistently. There is often a 'slippery slope' argument made by anti-staffers or anti-bureaucrats, that just doesn't hold up. How exactly does paying union administrators or even organizers, necessarily translate into bureaucratic domination of the organization?

Just on this - and maybe JK's already said it better - but for me the fundamental problem isn't bureaucrats or rule by bureaucracy, but the role of the union within a struggle. Does the union mediate the struggle? Is "the union" a representative institution or is it made of the workers themselves?

It seems to me that once the union starts having paid organizers and offering "services" (think guaranteed legal assistance or a business agent, not so much training and printing), the role of the union in the workplace and the relationship between the union and the members is fundamentally altered.

There's a larger point that staffers perhaps inevitably develop a different set of interests/priorities than that wider membership, but I still think that's secondary concern to the above points.

As a final idea, I think part of the problem with revolutionary unions (and especially outside of times of heightened class struggle) is that they often strive to have struggles in the name of the union. Personally, I'm happy to see union members being the militants pushing the struggle or the union being seen as those folks who offer practical support when needed, but I sometimes think radical unions fetishize struggles happening under their banner.

The 'low point of struggle' doesn't really explain anything, it just restates that we're failing, but in a way that puts the control out of our hands. I think there is some truth to it, but I definitely think we have room to find improved methods of organizing and fighting back.

I think highlighting both where unions get their funding it's relationship between the members and the bureaucracy is important, as well as the role of that bureaucracy in relation to the employer and the membership. Those are *political* decisions. Decisions to sign long-term contracts with employers that guarantee dues money from boss to union-boss; contracts which bargain away the right to strike, and encode a grievance procedure that forces direct action to fizzle out, etc. Those choices do not derive simply from the existence of paid staff. They represent the decisions to pursue those goals perhaps with the *use* of paid staff, officers and the like, but are political positions, advocated by living people at different points in time in regards to accomplishing specific ends. We can see how and why they failed, if we look closely in detail, why they were advocated and their logic of operation.

I'm not advocating that the IWW adopt the political positions of the AFLCIO today or in the past, regarding how best to wring demands from employers or secure membership in locals. The services I'm arguing for are administration, education, co-ordination, publishing. Things that are auxiliary to and augment efforts of workers to organize.

I agree that we should have term limits on staff, methods of reviewing their performance regarding the membership they're advising etc. But again, the imperative here, is to continue support of the I.W.W.'s general union policy; rejection of no strike clauses, emphasis on DA grievance settlement; with the aid of administrative, technical, and potentially organizing staff (or perhaps "Coordinating" staff). I agree that this will change some of the dynamics in the union, that is the point. I don't see many negatives that outweigh the positives.

The IWW as it is now, is needlessly bureaucratic. Say I'm trying to set up an IWW branch right now. I want to make a paypal subscribe button so that members can easily pay dues. In order to do this, I need to already have the branch chartered and filed with the IRS, because I need the EIN. I'm also required to put an address (we're about 10-15 strong, we don't have an office, so do I put my own?) and finally, paypal deducts a small percent for payments we'd receive. It's kind of a lot of administrative work to ask people to do on their own. It's not undoable, but it is a real barrier to activity, especially between work and school. There's very little reason this couldn't be circumvented by having the IWW generally collect all dues (online and through recurring bank payments) and cut checks to locals for half. Members would have a "Cancellation of Membership" option under their profiles or whatever just like netflix or facebook or some other paid service. This would simultaneously centralize the task and reduce the bureaucracy, so you'd think it'd please marxists and anarchists alike! :P It's doubly irritating, because we have people with limited levels of involvement (paper members) for whom it would be easier to pay by subscription. Of course this would help us also to get the charter app filled out. But, we're hamstrung by the fact that to pay online we have to already have an EIN, which means we have to already be the branch we're trying to be!

Penn, I totally get your frustration, but - and no snark intended - was that a response to my last post? I don't really feel like your addressing how the structure of a union affects the political decisions/compromises it makes.

It was a mixed response to yours and others' posts. That said,

Just on this - and maybe JK's already said it better - but for me the fundamental problem isn't bureaucrats or rule by bureaucracy, but the role of the union within a struggle. Does the union mediate the struggle? Is "the union" a representative institution or is it made of the workers themselves?

It seems to me that once the union starts having paid organizers and offering "services" (think guaranteed legal assistance or a business agent, not so much training and printing), the role of the union in the workplace and the relationship between the union and the members is fundamentally altered.

This is the theoretical line advanced in fighting for ourselves, and it it is an interesting distillation of a/s theory. But I don't think it's ever held up in practice historically. Even the I.W.W. used smaller groups of workers talking and negotiating with bosses, at many points, in order to arbitrate and reach a settlement. Is this not representation? Isn't a delegation to a convention a form of representation?
I'm not advocating that staff get votes at convention. I'm suggesting that they can be those people so skilled to carry out a task on mandate from the membership. I would think that they should (in keeping with *general social conditions*) get remuneration for their work.

What is the relationship between the member and the union right now? If there isn't a local, that relationship *doesn't exist*. You may get a weeks delayed response about an inquiry from GHQ a few times a year. Unless you're in one of the *few* large and active branches (which have mostly plateaued, regarding organizing) then you're pretty much stuck being a paper member.

So yes, I want to change the relationship between the members and the union. I want an administration which is so staffed that inquiries generally get responded to quickly. I want an administration that makes it *easier* for workers to find out more about us than harder. I want an administration that makes it easier for workers to sign up and become members, rather than harder. I want an administration that facilitates local growth, rather than inhibits it by duplicating administrative tasks at the local level, and forcing them to be carried out by volunteers.

But to do this we would have to hire office staff, web admins, secretaries, accountants. That's fine. We *could* promote from within. We *could* hire politically sympathetic people with these skills. We *could* set up training programs that would recruit from our organizing drives. Especially any organizing staff ought ot be very close to the membership if not recruited from them.

I think that the association/representation argument is distinct from this. The members would still be setting policy. They would be the collective bosses of the staff. This is *distinct* from say, advocating that we seek long contracts with closed shops where the boss cuts a check to union, the union *officials* (a separate category from technical and even organizing staff) draw large salaries, and essentially dominate at the international level. Here, the membership takes a very real backseat. They don't negotiate. They don't settle grievances. At every level, there is staff on hand to help. That derives from political imperatives of organization, which *employs* structures, forms of organizing, etc. to carry out it's tasks.

The mechanism people have advanced whereby secretaries and accountants take over the union, has been suggested. It has been argued that these individuals develop interests *distinct* from the membership. No, they have the same interests; more pay. But they are workers *employed* by the membership. In order to assert their interests as against this membership; to bleed the union and suck dues for self gain, they'd have to win a political struggle within the organization. Bureaucratic drift is not an automatic mechanism. So people have presented some safe-guards, and I've pretty much agreed with them.

I agree that the relationships can change. That's the whole point. But I think the bureaucratic drift, frame of argument, over states the structural forces, and understates the role of political positions. I might have to develop this line of reasoning with reference to revisiting the 30's and comparing organizing drives to hep illustrate my point. But for now that's the thrust of my rebuttal.

I'll try to respond properly later, but quickly

Even the I.W.W. used smaller groups of workers talking and negotiating with bosses, at many points, in order to arbitrate and reach a settlement. Is this not representation? Isn't a delegation to a convention a form of representation?

That wouldn't be representation as Fighting would understand it. It's like the difference between a representative - a permanent/semi-permanent position that acts on behalf of the the larger group - and a mandated delegate, who carries the wishes of the larger group forward.

I also feel you about the IWW needed to sort out it's administrative framework, but that's much more about people needing to step up, take some responsibility, and get their shit together than it is about the need for professionals to do that shit for us.

Will try and respond properly later, but on representation, a review of FFO (Nate's iirc) suggested it makes more sense to view it as a spectrum rather than either/or, with strict mandates and instant recall at one end and officials (elected or not) making decisions over workers' heads at the other. So stuff like forming a committee to negotiate or run a strike could fall towards either end depending on a bunch of factors (and/or could start out one end and move towards the other). Maybe that's a helpful modification.

I was just reading a piece by Fred Thompson on this topic from 1938. In this piece he tries to define what "rank and file rule" means. This was during the period when they still had a major mass union in the Metal & Machinery Workers with about 1,000 to 2,000 members. He says there isn't a separation between "officialdom" and "rank and file." He says, okay, there are officers, some are voluntary and some on payroll. At that time term of office varied from 3 months to 1 year. No one remained in office for many years, he points out. Unlike in AFL fiefdoms with their "strong leader" tendency. He says that members were not allowed to serve more than three successive terms in any office.

So we see they had term limits & forced rotation from office. This tends to make the members less dependent on some particular leader & requires also some type of training & sharing of skills (tho Thompson doesn't talk about that) so there is a pool of members available to do the necessary administrative tasks. He says if they did stay for life, as some do in AFL unions, they'd be "sobered" by responsibilities, that is, tend to adopt more of the outlook of the bureaucrat.

I think the thing about how the AFL unions became bureaucratically dominated has a lot to do with developing over time a relationship of dependence on certain individuals who were in office. The BA or officer running the hiring hall could help you get a job, AFL unions by 1900s had staff jobs you could be hired to. They could help you resolve your issues with management. They learned various things from being in a paid position for a long time. They learned how to deal with lawyers, how to understand contracts, tactics for negotiations, how to schmooze with various people in the community who had influence like politicians, how to relate to other union officials, they developed experience at public speaking, at putting out leaflets and newsletters.

A bureaucracy tends to develop when there is this relative monopolization of skills, knowledge & decision-making authority. But just having officers or some paid person doing some job for the union doesn't necessarily create this kind of dependency and concentration of knowledge & decision-making authority.

Moreover, he points out that officers have limited powers. They can't call strikes or end them. He says they have no vote in membership meetings, tho I don't think that is so crucial.

He says that the branches, Industrial Unions and the general organization have separate treasuries which they have control over. So there is some degree of autonomy there.

He says the most important thing is diffusion of responsibility among members. I'm not sure what he means by that. But I think he is referring to the on the job initiative & organizing of members because he says this is how things get done.

I've been meaning to read some thompson, what's the source you're referring to, syndicalistcat?

Also, good point Joseph, but I sort of stand by my contention that there is a baseline administrative makeup which lays the foundation for a genuinely membership run union.

Syndicalistcat: That's interesting. I think that the key is 'officialdom'. I'm not against officials, but I agree they should largely be roles filled by membership where possible and be waged no higher than the highest paid bracket of members.

Chilli, I don't think the main problem is that people won't step up. I wish it was. I hear this a lot and I'm sick of it. The idea that the reason we're failing is because not enough people who work 40+ hours a week are 'donating' their labor to an organization which is *already* yielding near 0 results is pretty delusional. I think I'm most bitter toward this idea because I used to bandy it about so cavalierly and that's my own baggage, but I just can't stand it. There are definitely circumstances outside our control. We can talk about those. But I think there is plenty we can improve on. (I don't mean to sound curt or anything, in a hurry).

Pennoid

I've been meaning to read some thompson, what's the source you're referring to, syndicalistcat?

It's in this issue of the "OBU Monthly"
https://libcom.org/library/one-big-union-monthly-march-1938

Chilli, I don't think the main problem is that people won't step up. I wish it was. I hear this a lot and I'm sick of it. The idea that the reason we're failing is because not enough people who work 40+ hours a week are 'donating' their labor to an organization which is *already* yielding near 0 results is pretty delusional. I think I'm most bitter toward this idea because I used to bandy it about so cavalierly and that's my own baggage, but I just can't stand it. There are definitely circumstances outside our control. We can talk about those. But I think there is plenty we can improve on. (I don't mean to sound curt or anything, in a hurry).

So, I've been in and out of the IWW for over a decade now, in different branches, and involved with various campaigns, including some in my own workplaces. (I've also been in other, usually anarchist, orgs who had the same problems). In every branch there's always at least few good people, but I'd say in the majority of cases people (a) don't arrive to meetings on time and (b) don't follow through on their action points.

I get people are busy, but if we can't sort out the basics, there's no point to even having the debate whether we should hire staffers.

On a related point, I often see a tendency to create a new (usually regional or national) officer to deal with x, y, or z. Often these positions go unfilled or there's no real follow-through or people drop out mid-term. That sort of stuff needs to be resolved and, if it was, there'd be even less argument for full-timers.

Chilli, for me that's the kicker. What's the common denominator? Organizations which remain small and ineffective, and rely on remunerated volunteer labor. Again, I'm not saying we ought to fly off in the other direction and try and bid for a Trumka to lead our union. But I am arguing that there is a baseline administrative framework which *encourages and lays the foundation for* us to build lasting membership in our organization. How long can we keep failing and blame it on the apathy of the general population? Our failures are often complex, and cannot be reduced to "get staff now!" but it is a vital component for us to move forward. The current membership sign-up and management policies are prohibitive, slow, and overly bureaucratic, as lifelong wobbly has layed out on their blog here: https://lifelongwobbly.com/2015/06/03/would-yearly-dues-allow-the-us-iww-to-grow-as-fast-as-the-uk/

Let me ask: You say you've seen plenty of people fail to show up to meetings. Why do you think they didn't show up? Because they weren't interested? Well, why weren't they? Because they're lazy? Because they're busy? Because they don't expect much from the meeting/org? Some of these are simply our fault. Some are outside our control. But if the *rule* in our organization is that "a few good people show up" and the rest stay home, then we really have to rethink our policies, our tactics and strategies. Why aren't we addressing the problems people are facing? Why aren't they willing to help out? Is it because they're tired? The task seems too large? Because we're not legitimate? My own hypothesis (and personal observation) is that most of the time, people are busy. They forget. They need a day off. Why? Because they work and go to school for a living. That's not something we can change right now. It's something we have to organize to change. It's something that requires that we put some real work behind it. It means that we need to eliminate barriers to activity on the one hand, and raise incentives to do action on the other. Having a solid administration will help cut the barriers to entry and interaction, as well as having good education programs and an accessible social/news media platform for members. Winning fights will encourage others to take action and raise our profile. In general, when workers refuse to rebel, I think they're trusting their own conscience, and can we blame them? Instead I think we ought to chart a course which registers those apprehensions seriously and addresses them.

I don't know, man. People make time for things that matter. I mean, people make it to fuckin church! And, organizations far larger than IWW branches (or even the national union) survive without paid labor.

And, to be blunt, where's the evidence paid staff will encourage people to step up? I can only speak from experience in trade unions, but once there's paid staff, the expectations fall on them.

I think the problem in the IWW are much more complex than paid labor or otherwise. For a lot of people, it's a social club and while outside responsibilities shouldn't be discounted,, I think that explains a lot more than lack of paid staff.

Chilli Sauce

I don't know, man. People make time for things that matter. I mean, people make it to fuckin church! And, organizations far larger than IWW branches (or even the national union) survive without paid labor.

And, to be blunt, where's the evidence paid staff will encourage people to step up? I can only speak from experience in trade unions, but once there's paid staff, the expectations fall on them.

I think the problem in the IWW are much more complex than paid labor or otherwise. For a lot of people, it's a social club and while outside responsibilities shouldn't be discounted,, I think that explains a lot more than lack of paid staff.

Churches have paid staff, though.

OliverTwister

Chilli Sauce

I don't know, man. People make time for things that matter. I mean, people make it to fuckin church! And, organizations far larger than IWW branches (or even the national union) survive without paid labor.

And, to be blunt, where's the evidence paid staff will encourage people to step up? I can only speak from experience in trade unions, but once there's paid staff, the expectations fall on them.

I think the problem in the IWW are much more complex than paid labor or otherwise. For a lot of people, it's a social club and while outside responsibilities shouldn't be discounted,, I think that explains a lot more than lack of paid staff.

Churches have paid staff, though.

Fair enough. But I was trying to make two different points there. One, people make time for things that matter to them - like church. And, two, lots of other organizations just as big as the IWW survive without paid labor.

Penn

How long can we keep failing and blame it on the apathy of the general population?

Also, just on this, this is sort of the opposite of what I was saying.

I don't want to discount your intentions here, but I do slightly feel like you're shifting the argument with each post without addressing the issues raised in previous posts.

I think Pennoid's point is that the existence of paid staff does not guarantee bureaucratic rule. I was arguing that you can't have bureaucratic rule without paid staff.

We might be somewhat at cross-purposes, as both can be true (i.e. paid staff are a necessary, but not sufficient condition of bureaucratic rule).

I think Juan's probably right that not a lot more can be established without being specific, and arguing on a case-by-case basis for a particular paid position.

in a general sense, to state a truism, you have bureaucratic rule if the officials & staff tend to monopolize decision-making and control the organization. You have worker or rank and file rule if the workers control the direction of the organization. You can have worker rule or control even if there is a structure for administration and doing tasks & people elected to do those tasks, and even if there are some people hired to do some tasks as staff. A reason this can be sort of vague is because it can depend really on the level of information & skills in doing things shared among the members, so that there isn't a dependency relationship and there are key points of participation in deliberation & making decisions by members.

I think bureaucratic rule and the existence of paid staff are fundamentally distinct. I will concede that paid officialdom significantly increases the possibility of bureaucratic rule. In general I'd like to emphasize that any given role has to be evaluated to some extent. I think we got lost in the weeds a bit because the *general* (maybe I exaggerate it) anti-staff issue glosses over important details, and acts as a convenient shorthand. There are three basic points: Accountability (membership driven), Division of Labor (staff), and correct policy (no magic here).

The association vs. representation thing is too simplistic. There is a very core element to organization, what I'd argue is it's defining feature; division of labor. A lot of people, give a little bit of money, full input, so that *someone else* can handle xyz problems. This may include some forms of 'representation' to 'the public' to bosses, or even to the membership. My argument is that it should *augment* those efforts of members to organize. There is no question that a well staffed administration is the basis of any organization. I feel as well, that organizing staff are also necessary. What has changed, aside from affordability, since the 1940's or 50's to make using organizing staff or administrative task unnecessary?

There isn't much further we can get without specifics. Why not have a research committee identify targets, present plans to the membership, put it to vote and the odb can put some set funds toward national campaign attempts? Surely there's no shortage of these ideas out there. I think the TC put forward a proposal recently or some people from there were thinking about it that had a similar spirit? We need this shift because the ODB is pursuing a policy that is passive now.

And that is the other part of this. Yes, we need accountability, yes we need a technical division of labor (and staff) but all directed at the correct aims, or effective policy. That won't always be clear, and requires membership deliberation etc.

Note: Juan, yes I understand the constitution bans paid staff. Pretty silly. I'm also aware that funding paid staff would require higher levels of membership. That's why I link the proposal to *correct the backwards dues intake policy* and reduce redundant administration costs. That's also why I suggest that the most important staff are those which facilitate organizing. That means the people we pay will be actively getting more members. They will be paying for their own. I've written about this somewhat here: https://communistleaguetampa.org/2015/10/17/the-iww-and-paid-staff/

My bad, rushed it, meant to say permanent organizing staff. Thanks for sharing the language directly. That is a silly policy though.

Expanding trainings? Yes that's not a bad thing. It is a 'quantitative' increase though that cannot address failed policy in other domains. I've heard others say this. Doing *more* ot 101s means we will simply have *more* small groups of workers run into the same problems we have been for the past ten years. My point is that our problem is not simply one of 'try harder' or increase the volume of present activities.

I would like to read more about the use of paid organizing staff in the past decade or 15 years. I know of the CCU and WFM people using them. Did JJWU or SWU rely on them at all? Reading Bossen's history of the CCU as well as the one written by the second organizer worked to convince me of the utility of organizing staff. That and personal experience, and older historical research.

Can people think of staff roles they'd think useful? I think before we introduce new roles, we'd have to revamp admin and Dues intake. That would free up, increase, and stablize funds to maybe pay a web admin/membership manager, once membership and Dues payment are centralized on the site with auto-withdrawal. This will free Delegates to be volunteer salts and other types of organizers instead of stamp-punchers.

Campaigns could continue to petition the ODB for money or a paid organizer who will be drawn from a crew of reserve organizers, similar to trainers for the ot-101 program, perhaps under the oversight of the odb or a sub-committee (or jointly with an elected national organizer). I think this is similar the UE's approach, yeah?

Double post

Very interesting growth dynamics in UK compared with USA.

Steven.

Juan Conatz

The UK meanwhile, has quadrupled in 5 years.

don't mean to derail the thread, which is interesting, however I wanted to ask about this. Is this true? I mean it's great if it is but it seems very surprising. I remember I was briefly a member of the IWW, probably in 2003/4 and we were told that it had 400 members. Although that to me seemed to be an over-estimate. I mean I'm not aware of everything which goes on, but the IWW here doesn't seem to have much of a public profile, no print publication, the website hasn't had anything posted on it in about 8 months, and I thought its main organised shops split off into the IWGB (and then maybe subsequently UVW)?

This is the thing though: The IWW in the UK is hopelessly disorganised, does almost nothing to advertise itself, and uses 5 years to set up a new website, yet it is growing with about 200 members a year. This does make you wonder what could be achieved by a group that actually had it's stuff together...

For what it's worth, the new IWW website is now finally up and running on iww.org.uk. It's still very much a work in progress, and most of the branches hasn't started contributing news and event to it yet, but at least it shows some of what is going on with the union.

The site looks very snazzy, FelixFrost! I wish the SAC IT committee would have cooked something like that rather than paying for having the front-end design upgrade of the old open source site...

To be fair though Felix most of the problems you list would be held by any radical organization in the UK or US. I don't think AF or SolFed or Black Rose have done a significantly better job advertising themselves or having a great web presence.

That said I agree with you, we should always be challenging ourselves to ask what we could accomplish if we held our organizations to higher standards.

ETA: At a glance their website looks top notch for a leftist groups, better than any others I'm aware except perhaps www.cnt.es.