unions, 'trots', etc

There's a differance in having a dual cardist strategy and "working through", shouldn't it be more a matter of "working out", as in that the trade union form must be broken with.

This question has come up several times before, and those relatively new to Libcom may find it useful to go over some of the previous threads from Summer 2006. I found these two:

Should communists be union reps?
http://libcom.org/node/7983

As Alf said back then,

Unions and Communists
http://libcom.org/forums/thought/unions-and-communists

This thread had a very good presentation and the discussion was at a high level. Definately worth returning to at some point. Why not here?

B.

I tried to suggest that the theories advanced during the debate on that thread should have some sort of practical, concrete application. Instead, I was told, we were having a theoretical discussion on roughly the level of geological time. I'd be all about a practical discussion concerning how we relate to unions, and that being informed by historical understandings. On the other hand, none of this viciously circular period business, please... n.b. this paragraph is an emotional emission, not an argument.

You are probably right.

The spunk one had all three.

I think that this position of 'shop steward' in your union is very different from how the Brits understand it. Maybe your equivalent to their shop steward would be something like Branch Secretary.

Devrim

What exactly do you mean by working through unions, Knightrose?

I worked for four, and a half years in what was at the time probably the most militant sector in the UK (London Post Office). I think in these places the contradictions between the workers, and the unions are stressed much more clearly. I remember the next office to ours going on strike against the union, and my office threatening to walk out if the head of the UCW LDC came to our office to 'sort out' our problems.

As Alf wrote:

I resigned from my post on the branch committee as it seemed inconsistent with what I was arguing for at mass meetings.

Devrim

The essence of the trade unions for communists is exactly the same whether they involve teachers or shipyard workers: they are structures maintained by the ruling class whose task is to impose a degree of control and division over the working class.
I can't, for some reason, get onto the "News" forum, where a good discussion was developing on the role of the unions at British Airways. What's happening, with its blatent "divisons" and obvious "sell-outs" here is another clear example, another clear lesson of how the trade unions are a weapon against the working class, day in, day out, year in, year out. Another example on top of thousands and thousands of examples in which the working class, workers, have been screwed by the unions decade upon decade.
I was a shop steward for the best part of a decade and a convenor of stewards for 5 years. We organised all aspects of production, maintenance and distribution within our industry. We were militant, strike and demonstration prone and the union bosses loved the credibility we gave. But, in the final analysis, we always had to work within the union structure. It became clear to me that (just how we had started off years earlier)only effective struggle could be continued outside and against the unions.
This doesn't mean advocating "struggle outside and against the unions" in itself, in abstract. Workers fighting for an issue, wages, conditions, jobs, etc., will increase their chances, and certainly the longer term class perspective, with the greatest show of force possible. Fighting within the union structure (and you most certainly do this as a shop steward in any industry), even and especially with nods, winks and nudges from the union hierarchy, and the fight is hampered from the start. Within the union structures workers are fighting with both hands tied behind their backs.
For the job I have now, I had to join a union and, when it was safe to do so, I came out of it. For the same reason as Devrim above: one cannot talk to your comrades about effective workers' struggles, while one knowingly remains within the framework of a structure that is dedicated to controlling, dividing and isolating them.
The trade unions are among, and probably are, the most important and effective structures of the state apparatus for the division and control of the working class. Any communist perspective is in complete contradiction to support for the trade unions from the bottom to the top.

yeah a few people have reported problems. we're not sure what's wrong at the moment, we're not moving against the left-communists just yet

There was also the case of the shop steward in the Post Office wildcat strike in Exeter in Sept '06 who had to come out against the strike:
http://libcom.org/forums/current-affairs/exeter-wildcat-postal-strike

To quote Alf again (page 2),

B.

I agree with the general tenor of the 'outside and against ' arguments on this and the previous thread and in particular to the views on the Union shop stewards, but like knightrose, I still do not see that this must lead tactically to withdrawal from union membership in every case, as the opportunity to argue at Union meetings and to try and move actions which may sometimes start out within a Union framework, outside that framework, can be valuable.

posi: "I tried to suggest that the theories advanced during the debate on that thread should have some sort of practical, concrete application. Instead, I was told, we were having a theoretical discussion on roughly the level of geological time."

*smilie*