Right quick as it's me B-day and going to eat w/ me kids, partner, cousin.
baboon ---On the issue of the struggle of Unilever's workers to defend their pension conditions: three unions involved - all seemingly in a dance to undermine the workers' strength, dividing the workers into three opposing facets. What do you say if you're a steward of one of these unions, what do you say to your fellow workers, what would your position be? I'd like to hear more responses because this is an eminently practical question (and it also applies if you were a union or non-union individual in this workplace).
Well, I'm not working for Unilever and don't know the on-the-ground situ. So my comment will be broad and general and really quick today.
There's the assumption that "the steward" would not have principles and would not be engaged in a fight to a) organize cross union cooperation and b) accept what is being bargained for.
baboon ---Syndicalist has a go but I have to disagree with his view, as far as I understand it, that union bureaucrats want parrots for stewards. It's one of the strengths of the union apparatus for the bourgeoisie that it's so malleable and elastic.....I always found that the hierarchy - that I believe is generally aware of its role as a shop floor policeman - would favour militant, argumentative individuals coming in as stewards because this gives the whole structure its continuing credibility and such individuals could be groomed for higher things or remain constraiined in the rules and legality of the apparatus or act as examples for union recruitment and credibility but on a short leash.
I actually agree and disagree here. But I think B's point about some unions wanting to have miliatnst on short leashes is true and fair enough. And I would say that some unions engage in a sort of controlled rank-and-filism and controlled militrancy. I fnd this mainly with those unions which consider themselves part of the Left.
Where I would disagree is with those unions which make no bones about being straight out conservatve and hierarchical. Most stewards are hand picked and are parrots.
As I've said before, I am not opposed to there being times when getting elected to office
is bad. It's bad when you have no autonomy. I dunno, I'd rather quit a steward position, after doing my best to wage the good fight, then allow some company suck-ass to help run the stacked deck. No guarantees with anything, and this is true with the steward position as well.
Gots to shove off.
Fast edit: If I may, anyone who's been on the workfloor prolly has many stories about the good steward who knew how to "wink and nod" with members and play dumb with the boss.
Outtahere......



Can comment on articles and discussions
So, I should say that I'm not a steward. That's partly because I don't want to be in a legal and policy position to ever be obligated to tell anyone to come in during a strike. However, I am in a workplace with multiple unions. When we have strikes, the first thing I do is begin talking to non-union workers and workers in other unions about not crossing picket lines. I always to try to propose collective ways not to come into work (all coming to the picket line together, for example, and calling in one after another). And, I've had success. And have taken shit from my union and management for it.
That said, I've recruited workers to join a striking union on the grounds that they want to strike but want legal cover. This isn't ideal, but if someone is joining a union so they feel they can strike, I'd rather have that situation than them coming into work.
On a related note, I was speaking to the PGCE student teachers at my school about not coming in on the last strike and was having success. Until, of course, the NUT sent them all letters telling them to come in