Who else does the IWW organise?

why can't you be honest the IWW does not exist in the Uk in any meaningful form, the fact that the only place you've got organised is some trot parliament workers and considering these 'workers' bosses are also in the IWW you can only laugh or you'd cry.

no, it is shit stirring to use one particular detail to paint an entire organisation with a single brush and then use it as ammunition to deliberately cause confrontation.

i thought you conducted yourself rather well in the other threas about the SSP etc, and i respected you for it - your arguments were quite clear and generally well said, even if we do not agree on it all. but you've really let yourself down on this one.

revol i've been honest with you. it has some meaningful form but not in terms of a mass fully-functioning union. the iww has been dead in the UK for decades and you expect it to flourish overnight?

fucking hell. i'm not even going to bother with you two any more.

ftony, there's no need to be so defensive.

But don't you see it as a serious problem that in your flagship branch, two of the bosses are members? I'm not trying to undermine the great solidarity work the UK IWW have done, but frankly, I think it says a lot about how seriously your SSP parliament branch takes the IWW. They seem to have joined the IWW as some kind of historical recreation society and now they're trying to use the union as pawns in some sectarian shit fight with Sheridan.

I doubt you'll find many people on here who are not concerned about the existence of the two MSPs in the parliament branch, and I think you all know that. So with that in mind, it is definitely a shit-stirring thread and you all know it.

The IWW in this country is genuinely trying to get something positive off the ground but yes, we do occasionally make mistakes. But bear in mind, it is not an anarchist organisation, and politically, some things may not be as pure as some might want them to be. That's absolutely no reason for other people on Libcom to behave like a pack of jackals, yet this thread is intended to encourage exactly that kind of response. It's called muckraking.

By the way, there is now a rapidly growing workplace branch at DMU in Leicester.

Which is great, regardless of any criticisms I have of the IWW, having properly organised, democratic means of workplace organisation in a workplace can only be a good thing. I can't speak for revol, devrim or John., but my intention here certainly isn't to stir up confrontation with the IWW. Besides anything else, you all seem to be bigger than me

That said, this isn't an issue of 'political purity', it's a real problem that the IWW is still divided between people who genuinely want to use it as a means of workplace organisation and people who view it as a bit of political kitsch. And it's an even bigger problem that the latter camp appear to have enough of a presence to get their bosses accepted as members.

I suppose it's an unfortunate pitfall of control resting at the branch level rather than having some central committee decide everything. So, if a branch chooses to accept certain people into their ranks, then the decision ultimately rests with them rather than with the centre. In addition, the IWW is not a political organisation but is an attempt to set up workplace organisation controlled from below. It aims to be revolutionary in orientation but admittedly, this doesn't happen every time. Personally, I believe this specific case is something that will be eventually resolved. Madashell, I didn't think for one minute that you were being a political hyena. We all know who is playing that role.

yeah but surely the Parliamentry branch had to apply for membership, no? And surely branches can't go against basic principles and allow bosses in. That would be a fucking farce of an organisation.

p.s. i've just bought myself some slaves off ebay and have set myself up as an IWW branch, so that's the second workplace youse have organised.

Defensive, moi? No, it really is a shit-stirring thread, Devrim's use of language in the opening thread implies nothing other than this. He's an English teacher who knows how the language works, and if he'd wanted a proper discussion, he would have couched things in terms less likely to wind up any resident clockwork shit-stirrers.

Actually, on the subject of MSPs, I didn't know about this until fairly recently either.

I don't care if Devrim is shit stirring or not, someone needs to because there is an awful bad smell coming from the IWW these days.

The parliamentry workers shouldn't have been allowed in since their relationship with their employers is compromised, their party membership overrides their class position. This has proven itself in the fact that they had no problem with their bosses joining the same organisation and furthermore using the IWW's name to take sides on a political schism amongst a bunch of bourgeois politicians.

The IWW might not be a political organisation per se but it does have aims and principles which should be upheld and which are clearly being pissed on from a great height.

Many of us in the States were pretty shocked when we heard about the situation with the Parliamentary branch. I don't think people realized that the politicians were in the union too. There is a process for deciding what to do when an individual, branch or a Regional Organizing Committee does something that violates union principles. I think that the decision of the GEB was that they wanted to wait on going through with initiating said process until after the dispute is settled. However, that doesn't stop another branch from filing charges or launching its own investigation. I'm guessing that most folks in the US and Canada just figure that the Brits know what they're doing...

In the US the IWW has approximately 15 contracts. All are for shops with less than 50 workers, the majority are for shops with less than 25 and the industries vary a fair bit. The greatest concentration are probably in recycling plants, the foodstuffs industry and social service/non-profit. There is, however, one television station in Colorado where the workers are represented by the IWW.

The IWW also has two fairly influential an healthy solidarity unions: the Starbucks Workers Union and the Chicago Couriers Union. Both of these don't contractually represent workers but have a fair amount of power on the shop floor and through public campaigns (in the case of Starbucks). The SWU has won, over the course of two years, about a $2 an hour pay increase for Starbucks workers in NYC and another smaller pay raise nationally. They've also won a variety of safety issues and dignity issues. The CCU has won a substantive pay raise at one company for about 100+ workers and numerous small victories.

There have been a few failed efforts at building regional organizations which I've posted about elsewhere.

Overall, the IWW in the US is small but growing. The biggest difference I see between the union now and when I joined in the late 90s is that we are attracting a higher quality membership who are more dedicated to the union and more likely to come from shop floor organizing.

And, for the record, right now I only work part time as a preacher. My congregation has a staff of 1 (me) and I don't have power to hire and fire shit. If I ever do I'll resign. Likewise, if people can point to a place in the IWW constitution that bars clergy please let me know.

Also, I always thought that the whole point of anarchism was freedom of thought and association. Unitarian Universalist congregations are voluntary associations who elect their ministers and hold general assemblies to make major decisions. Someone can initiate a congregational vote to fire my ass at anytime. Given our democratic tradition and structure it is probably not a coincidence that a full 1/3 of the folks Rocker writes about in "Pioneers of American Freedom. Origin of Liberal and Radical Thought in America" had some sort of connection to Unitarianism...

Shit so "Wobbly Preacher" you're the preacher! I should've guessed I suppose. But yeah if you're not homophobic or sexist or anything then there shouldn't be anything stopping you from being in the IWW. (Something a lot more specific like libcom we'd require a much higher degree of unity and so potential members would have to be atheist mind.)

In the US and Canada the IWW is:

1. A historical reenactment society.
2. A labor solidarity club.
3. A network of workplace miltants who share a common vision.
4. A labor union.

I see no problem with us have all four currents at the same time. I'd estimate that our membership is evenly split between those four tendencies with 4, 2 and 1 being the largest and 3 being the smallest.

Devrim, what makes someone a worker? How is being a preacher different than being a teacher? Aren't both involved in social service? Neither produce anything tangible. I don't own the church and I imagine you don't own the school. On some level both teachers and preachers are "public servants," that is we both work for some sort of collective of entity composed of other people (state and church). I am guessing you have some fairly anti-religious views but I am curious on what basis you can declare me not a worker while claiming that level for yourself.

Also, I joined the IWW as a engineer years before I entered the ministry. I am new to the ministry and may well leave the IWW precisely because of the murky nature of my employment in the next year or so. Haven't decided yet... If I do leave I'd like to join another radical/revolutionary organization of sort and there aren't any in the US I like nearly as much...

amen, so to speak.

The "Unemployed" argument is one that I don't really feel a need to push. It stands well on its own. The IWW has always had unemployed members. We even have a dues category to account for them.

I am actually interested in figuring out the issue at hand, it matters to me. I come to libcom looking for debate and discussion to push me in my thinking and I'd really like Devrim to clarify the differences for me based not on some knee jerk reaction to religion but on my actual situation.

Also, revol68, you clearly know nothing about me nor about my religious association. Plenty of Unitarian Universalists don't believe in God but recognize the need for people to gather in communities for mutual support, exploration of ultimate meaning and to mark the important passages in their lives.

Are you British? British Unitarians are generally Christians. US and Canadian are not.

ultimate meaning = what do you think life is about