Chuck:
Not that I'm doing with the CCU anymore but I'm curious, what would you differently? I am honestly curious about your strategy ideas.
Also, in my line of work and when I do organizing people push me all the time. Sometimes they're civil about and sometime they're not. I tend to listen more to the folks who are civil.
Chuck:Not that I'm doing with the CCU anymore but I'm curious, what would you differently? I am honestly curious about your strategy ideas.
Also, in my line of work and when I do organizing people push me all the time. Sometimes they're civil about and sometime they're not. I tend to listen more to the folks who are civil.
I'd concentrate all my efforts on one shop. One of the two biggest. I'd push the best leaders to either get jobs there or to commit 3 evenings a week to organizing. I'd drop any plans for organizing bike messengers and put all my efforts into slowing building an underground secret network amongst drivers.
the only committement from the network would be continuing to meet with the union, staying secret and gathering information.
network would be build through visiting drivers at home, and having committed messengers from other shops plus the organizer (paid or unpaid) doing the visits.
goal would be a recognition fight a year from now.
not demanding recognition or a large contract, but rather a system whereby recognition happens.
set the precident with the largest company or second if it makes more sense.
before attempting at the little ones, and don't focus on your strength (bikers) focus entirely on your weakness (driviers).
Focusing on your area of weakness is obvious if you
think about it, but in practice a lot of people don't think about this. I could have used this advice when I was trying to organize the weekly newspaper in the early '80s. The area of strength was the production staff, but I wasn't able to develop anything among the ad sales staff despite some friendly relations with a couple of African-American ad sales staff.
Developing a network secretly is especially important in the private sector, I think, because of the tendency nowadays for companies to watch for signs of unionism like hawks and come down like a ton of bricks. You need to have some strength to weather the storm.
t.
One more comment: I can see the point to meeting with people individually at home, because it provides a non-stressful, friendly environment to converse. But I think it needs to be balanced with meetings with the other supporters. That's because this helps to develop confidence to be with the others, and, just as importantly, meetings are needed to began a practice of collective decision-making, which is also part of building a sense of collective power, and is necessary if you want to build an organization the members control.
t.
Thanks for the advice Chuck and Tom, contrary to my being prick this sort of contrary stuff is very much welcome.
One more comment: I can see the point to meeting with people individually at home, because it provides a non-stressful, friendly environment to converse. But I think it needs to be balanced with meetings with the other supporters. That's because this helps to develop confidence to be with the others, and, just as importantly, meetings are needed to began a practice of collective decision-making, which is also part of building a sense of collective power, and is necessary if you want to build an organization the members control.t.
in long term secret campaigns, one tactic that has been used is the one on one meeting and relationship with the organizer. Only after a deep level of trust (this took almost two years in one campaign) did we even begin to bring workers together in groups of two.
so the only union face they would see for only periods is the organizer, and they were NEVER allowed to know who else was involved.
they would be kicked out of the network if they:
1. publiclly supported the union.
2. attempted to find out who else was involved
3. did stupid things like speaking up and supporting other unions.
4. were found to be lying to the organizer
5. there were signs that they supported the boss
6. did not complete their undercover assignments
7. failed to meet at least bi-weekly on a one on one way with the organizer
8. took part in outside groups that would draw attention to them; like Peace and Justice groups in the commuinity, etc.
I think this is the highest level of dedication and committement to the union and the working class movement. to be able to carry out a program like this.
One more comment: I can see the point to meeting with people individually at home, because it provides a non-stressful, friendly environment to converse. But I think it needs to be balanced with meetings with the other supporters. That's because this helps to develop confidence to be with the others, and, just as importantly, meetings are needed to began a practice of collective decision-making, which is also part of building a sense of collective power, and is necessary if you want to build an organization the members control.t.
Chuck hit on some of the reasons for having one-on-ones at home. It's not in public is a major reason. Trust and level of commitment is another. But I think the major reason it is good to meet with people individually is so that they don't pick-up others insecurities, and also you can push people to a better level of education about their situation and how to deal with it than you would if you were mainly meeting in groups. You can't address people's concerns adequately in group meetings.
RPhotos from the Brooklyn march and rally.
http://antiauthoritarian.net/NLN/photo-gallery/2007_mlk_day/
The anarchists and SDSers were rocking flag bats. Gotta love it!
Chuck:
Thanks for the very useful advice. If I was still in Chicago and still involved in the campaign I might very well suggest it. I'll certainly think about next I'm heavily involved in organizing (instead of encouraging people from the sidelines which is what I tend to do these days).
syndicalistcat wrote:
One more comment: I can see the point to meeting with people individually at home, because it provides a non-stressful, friendly environment to converse. But I think it needs to be balanced with meetings with the other supporters. That's because this helps to develop confidence to be with the others, and, just as importantly, meetings are needed to began a practice of collective decision-making, which is also part of building a sense of collective power, and is necessary if you want to build an organization the members control.t.
in long term secret campaigns, one tactic that has been used is the one on one meeting and relationship with the organizer. Only after a deep level of trust (this took almost two years in one campaign) did we even begin to bring workers together in groups of two.
so the only union face they would see for only periods is the organizer, and they were NEVER allowed to know who else was involved.
they would be kicked out of the network if they:
1. publiclly supported the union.
2. attempted to find out who else was involved
3. did stupid things like speaking up and supporting other unions.
4. were found to be lying to the organizer
5. there were signs that they supported the boss
6. did not complete their undercover assignments
7. failed to meet at least bi-weekly on a one on one way with the organizer
8. took part in outside groups that would draw attention to them; like Peace and Justice groups in the commuinity, etc.I think this is the highest level of dedication and committement to the union and the working class movement. to be able to carry out a program like this.
This sounds very top-down and hierarchical to me.
throwhen wrote:
syndicalistcat wrote:
One more comment: I can see the point to meeting with people individually at home, because it provides a non-stressful, friendly environment to converse. But I think it needs to be balanced with meetings with the other supporters. That's because this helps to develop confidence to be with the others, and, just as importantly, meetings are needed to began a practice of collective decision-making, which is also part of building a sense of collective power, and is necessary if you want to build an organization the members control.t.
in long term secret campaigns, one tactic that has been used is the one on one meeting and relationship with the organizer. Only after a deep level of trust (this took almost two years in one campaign) did we even begin to bring workers together in groups of two.
so the only union face they would see for only periods is the organizer, and they were NEVER allowed to know who else was involved.
they would be kicked out of the network if they:
1. publiclly supported the union.
2. attempted to find out who else was involved
3. did stupid things like speaking up and supporting other unions.
4. were found to be lying to the organizer
5. there were signs that they supported the boss
6. did not complete their undercover assignments
7. failed to meet at least bi-weekly on a one on one way with the organizer
8. took part in outside groups that would draw attention to them; like Peace and Justice groups in the commuinity, etc.I think this is the highest level of dedication and committement to the union and the working class movement. to be able to carry out a program like this.
This sounds very top-down and hierarchical to me.
so?
ftony wrote:
not as such, but from an outside point of view (since i'm not involved in this little conversation) you were unnecesarily aggressive, forcing others to become more defensive. it's a vicious circle.oh that is fucking retarded.
wobs attack other unions strategies and their reasons for such strategies all the time. when someone does the same to their campaign they can't take it and get all pissy.
yet another reason while wobbly organizers can't be taken seriously. they can't be challanged or pushed.
hence they can't organize workers.
Thats strange...I must have been hollucinating all those times I was at rallies, meetings, pickets, marches, leafleting etc for all of the workers my branch has organized...strange.
thugarchist wrote:
throwhen wrote:
syndicalistcat wrote:
One more comment: I can see the point to meeting with people individually at home, because it provides a non-stressful, friendly environment to converse. But I think it needs to be balanced with meetings with the other supporters. That's because this helps to develop confidence to be with the others, and, just as importantly, meetings are needed to began a practice of collective decision-making, which is also part of building a sense of collective power, and is necessary if you want to build an organization the members control.t.
in long term secret campaigns, one tactic that has been used is the one on one meeting and relationship with the organizer. Only after a deep level of trust (this took almost two years in one campaign) did we even begin to bring workers together in groups of two.
so the only union face they would see for only periods is the organizer, and they were NEVER allowed to know who else was involved.
they would be kicked out of the network if they:
1. publiclly supported the union.
2. attempted to find out who else was involved
3. did stupid things like speaking up and supporting other unions.
4. were found to be lying to the organizer
5. there were signs that they supported the boss
6. did not complete their undercover assignments
7. failed to meet at least bi-weekly on a one on one way with the organizer
8. took part in outside groups that would draw attention to them; like Peace and Justice groups in the commuinity, etc.I think this is the highest level of dedication and committement to the union and the working class movement. to be able to carry out a program like this.
This sounds very top-down and hierarchical to me.
so?
Wouldn't it be better if the workers made their own plan?
throwhen wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
throwhen wrote:
syndicalistcat wrote:
One more comment: I can see the point to meeting with people individually at home, because it provides a non-stressful, friendly environment to converse. But I think it needs to be balanced with meetings with the other supporters. That's because this helps to develop confidence to be with the others, and, just as importantly, meetings are needed to began a practice of collective decision-making, which is also part of building a sense of collective power, and is necessary if you want to build an organization the members control.t.
in long term secret campaigns, one tactic that has been used is the one on one meeting and relationship with the organizer. Only after a deep level of trust (this took almost two years in one campaign) did we even begin to bring workers together in groups of two.
so the only union face they would see for only periods is the organizer, and they were NEVER allowed to know who else was involved.
they would be kicked out of the network if they:
1. publiclly supported the union.
2. attempted to find out who else was involved
3. did stupid things like speaking up and supporting other unions.
4. were found to be lying to the organizer
5. there were signs that they supported the boss
6. did not complete their undercover assignments
7. failed to meet at least bi-weekly on a one on one way with the organizer
8. took part in outside groups that would draw attention to them; like Peace and Justice groups in the commuinity, etc.I think this is the highest level of dedication and committement to the union and the working class movement. to be able to carry out a program like this.
This sounds very top-down and hierarchical to me.
so?
Wouldn't it be better if the workers made their own plan?
maybe. i'm guessing the average dishwasher at a casino does not have the experience to plan a campaign against a multibillion dollar industry that is exempt from all laws though.
thugarchist wrote:
throwhen wrote:
thugarchist wrote:
throwhen wrote:
syndicalistcat wrote:
One more comment: I can see the point to meeting with people individually at home, because it provides a non-stressful, friendly environment to converse. But I think it needs to be balanced with meetings with the other supporters. That's because this helps to develop confidence to be with the others, and, just as importantly, meetings are needed to began a practice of collective decision-making, which is also part of building a sense of collective power, and is necessary if you want to build an organization the members control.t.
in long term secret campaigns, one tactic that has been used is the one on one meeting and relationship with the organizer. Only after a deep level of trust (this took almost two years in one campaign) did we even begin to bring workers together in groups of two.
so the only union face they would see for only periods is the organizer, and they were NEVER allowed to know who else was involved.
they would be kicked out of the network if they:
1. publiclly supported the union.
2. attempted to find out who else was involved
3. did stupid things like speaking up and supporting other unions.
4. were found to be lying to the organizer
5. there were signs that they supported the boss
6. did not complete their undercover assignments
7. failed to meet at least bi-weekly on a one on one way with the organizer
8. took part in outside groups that would draw attention to them; like Peace and Justice groups in the commuinity, etc.I think this is the highest level of dedication and committement to the union and the working class movement. to be able to carry out a program like this.
This sounds very top-down and hierarchical to me.
so?
Wouldn't it be better if the workers made their own plan?
maybe. i'm guessing the average dishwasher at a casino does not have the experience to plan a campaign against a multibillion dollar industry that is exempt from all laws though.
Maybe in your fascist business union.
syndicalistcat wrote:
One more comment: I can see the point to meeting with people individually at home, because it provides a non-stressful, friendly environment to converse. But I think it needs to be balanced with meetings with the other supporters. That's because this helps to develop confidence to be with the others, and, just as importantly, meetings are needed to began a practice of collective decision-making, which is also part of building a sense of collective power, and is necessary if you want to build an organization the members control.t.
in long term secret campaigns, one tactic that has been used is the one on one meeting and relationship with the organizer. Only after a deep level of trust (this took almost two years in one campaign) did we even begin to bring workers together in groups of two.
so the only union face they would see for only periods is the organizer, and they were NEVER allowed to know who else was involved.
they would be kicked out of the network if they:
1. publiclly supported the union.
2. attempted to find out who else was involved
3. did stupid things like speaking up and supporting other unions.
4. were found to be lying to the organizer
5. there were signs that they supported the boss
6. did not complete their undercover assignments
7. failed to meet at least bi-weekly on a one on one way with the organizer
8. took part in outside groups that would draw attention to them; like Peace and Justice groups in the commuinity, etc.I think this is the highest level of dedication and committement to the union and the working class movement. to be able to carry out a program like this.
Lol What a load of liberal gobshite, this basically amounts to us sitting there twiddling our thumbs waiting for a professional 'organiser' liek yourself to come and save us lowly workers. Oh and i particularly love the bit about making sure we don't get involved in any other political campaigning so we might come into contact with ideas critical of the union bureaucracy that pays your wages, ideas like say you know socialism or something. God you remind me of the labour party swine i had to listen to when i went to trades council meetings, laughable though these redundant old fuckers largely were, they were also really annoying.
throwhen wrote:
syndicalistcat wrote:
One more comment: I can see the point to meeting with people individually at home, because it provides a non-stressful, friendly environment to converse. But I think it needs to be balanced with meetings with the other supporters. That's because this helps to develop confidence to be with the others, and, just as importantly, meetings are needed to began a practice of collective decision-making, which is also part of building a sense of collective power, and is necessary if you want to build an organization the members control.t.
in long term secret campaigns, one tactic that has been used is the one on one meeting and relationship with the organizer. Only after a deep level of trust (this took almost two years in one campaign) did we even begin to bring workers together in groups of two.
so the only union face they would see for only periods is the organizer, and they were NEVER allowed to know who else was involved.
they would be kicked out of the network if they:
1. publiclly supported the union.
2. attempted to find out who else was involved
3. did stupid things like speaking up and supporting other unions.
4. were found to be lying to the organizer
5. there were signs that they supported the boss
6. did not complete their undercover assignments
7. failed to meet at least bi-weekly on a one on one way with the organizer
8. took part in outside groups that would draw attention to them; like Peace and Justice groups in the commuinity, etc.I think this is the highest level of dedication and committement to the union and the working class movement. to be able to carry out a program like this.
Lol What a load of liberal gobshite, this basically amounts to us sitting there twiddling our thumbs waiting for a professional 'organiser' liek yourself to come and save us lowly workers. Oh and i particularly love the bit about making sure we don't get involved in any other political campaigning so we might come into contact with ideas critical of the union bureaucracy that pays your wages, ideas like say you know socialism or something. God you remind me of the labour party swine i had to listen to when i went to trades council meetings, laughable though these redundant old fuckers largely were, they were also really annoying.
no one said anything about coming into contact with ideas. Our actual members were highly involved against the war, for immigrant rights and gay rights issues.
However, during an organizing campaign when the boss could fire anyone at anytime, why risk it. If the boss is looking for possible agitators and organizers they would look at folks involved with the left first. I had to convince a cocktail server to quit being a green party activists and quit talking about the anti-globalization protest that she had been to.
it saved her job and the campaign this level of secrecy.
Lol What a load of liberal gobshite, this basically amounts to us sitting there twiddling our thumbs waiting for a professional 'organiser' liek yourself to come and save us lowly workers. Oh and i particularly love the bit about making sure we don't get involved in any other political campaigning so we might come into contact with ideas critical of the union bureaucracy that pays your wages, ideas like say you know socialism or something. God you remind me of the labour party swine i had to listen to when i went to trades council meetings, laughable though these redundant old fuckers largely were, they were also really annoying.
see...now why have actual discussion on this list about tactics that HAVE actually worked when you can just insult each other.
Heaven forbid anyone actually think that workers want to WIN and not get fired.
Fucking english dumbasses think they understand how the fuck to organize in america.
Fucking english dumbasses think they understand how the fuck to organize in america.
I'v heard this said by workers about union officials too.
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Lol What a load of liberal gobshite, this basically amounts to us sitting there twiddling our thumbs waiting for a professional 'organiser' liek yourself to come and save us lowly workers. Oh and i particularly love the bit about making sure we don't get involved in any other political campaigning so we might come into contact with ideas critical of the union bureaucracy that pays your wages, ideas like say you know socialism or something. God you remind me of the labour party swine i had to listen to when i went to trades council meetings, laughable though these redundant old fuckers largely were, they were also really annoying.see...now why have actual discussion on this list about tactics that HAVE actually worked when you can just insult each other.
Heaven forbid anyone actually think that workers want to WIN and not get fired.
Fucking english dumbasses think they understand how the fuck to organize in america.
Given that effectively you've already said that while i'm in a union i'd risk being chucked out for taking part in say an anti-deportation campaign, or a campaign against a tax or rent increase etc in my local area, all your union will actually achieve is keeping the troublemakers nice and quiet for two years. It prevents us co-ordinating across industries or even within the industry since we only have contact with the 'organiser' and therefore is fundamentally against everything and anything i'd be interested in. How do you expect to build a democratically accountable class based movement with this sort of attitude i don't know. Seriously now, scurry off back to your bureaucratic hole and find some pictures of 'amazing workers' to wank off to.
Even if my sole ideal in life was to get a union in my workplace, and some 50p an hour raise or something on my current stunning wage of £7 an hour, i'd still think twice before signing up to your fucking dire idea of doing absolutely nothing for years, while 'dedicating' myself to staying in the same job for said years, then just going on strike for months or years (which is supposedly 'amazing' apparently, whereas i'd call it 'really fucking shit' funnily enough), all the while being under the thumb of a handful of egotistical union officials. Thankfully, i have somewhat more pleasant dreams than the social democratic landfill you appear to inhabit.
throwhen wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Lol What a load of liberal gobshite, this basically amounts to us sitting there twiddling our thumbs waiting for a professional 'organiser' liek yourself to come and save us lowly workers. Oh and i particularly love the bit about making sure we don't get involved in any other political campaigning so we might come into contact with ideas critical of the union bureaucracy that pays your wages, ideas like say you know socialism or something. God you remind me of the labour party swine i had to listen to when i went to trades council meetings, laughable though these redundant old fuckers largely were, they were also really annoying.see...now why have actual discussion on this list about tactics that HAVE actually worked when you can just insult each other.
Heaven forbid anyone actually think that workers want to WIN and not get fired.
Fucking english dumbasses think they understand how the fuck to organize in america.
Given that effectively you've already said that while i'm in a union i'd risk being chucked out for taking part in say an anti-deportation campaign, or a campaign against a tax or rent increase etc in my local area, all your union will actually achieve is keeping the troublemakers nice and quiet for two years. It prevents us co-ordinating across industries or even within the industry since we only have contact with the 'organiser' and therefore is fundamentally against everything and anything i'd be interested in. How do you expect to build a democratically accountable class based movement with this sort of attitude i don't know. Seriously now, scurry off back to your bureaucratic hole and find some pictures of 'amazing workers' to wank off to.
Even if my sole ideal in life was to get a union in my workplace, and some 50p an hour raise or something on my current stunning wage of £7 an hour, i'd still think twice before signing up to your fucking dire idea of doing absolutely nothing for years, while 'dedicating' myself to staying in the same job for said years, then just going on strike for months or years (which is supposedly 'amazing' apparently, whereas i'd call it 'really fucking shit' funnily enough), all the while being under the thumb of a handful of egotistical union officials. Thankfully, i have somewhat more pleasant dreams than the social democratic landfill you appear to inhabit.
no one said you would get kicked out if you were a member of the union. I was specifically refering to workers in non-union organizing drives.
seriously, do folks in england have no concept of non-union organizing campaigns. how do you all think these campaigns work?
how do you all think these campaigns work?
You keep the workers ignorant of the tactics and each other and you get to reproduce your monopoly of control?
Ye dodgy arsehole. Gordon Bennett!
are you crazy duke? seriously what the fuck is wrong with you.
do folks in england have no concept of non-union organizing campaigns. how do you all think these campaigns work?
A couple of years ago, I was involved in an organising drive at my (non-union) workplace, that ended in a ballot result with 91% in favour of union recognition.
All done without "professional organisers."
What's your point, caller?
throwhen wrote:
do folks in england have no concept of non-union organizing campaigns. how do you all think these campaigns work?A couple of years ago, I was involved in an organising drive at my (non-union) workplace, that ended in a ballot result with 91% in favour of union recognition.
All done without "professional organisers."
What's your point, caller?
did i say...that you can't organize without professional organizers?
but just a question? what kind of shop were you in, how big was it, and what did the boss do to fight you?
It's a national charity, with (at the time) about 500 full-time workers -- the recognition deal was for the whole organisation, although I was only involved in London.
At the time, the boss was pushing the "you don't need a union" line, and promoting a "staff association"-type model. They also attempted to set a hurdle for union recognition higher than the legal requirement in the UK -- as it happened this backfired spectacularly, with the 91% in favour. On a more clandenstine note, they were also getting hold of e-mail correspondence between pro-union workers.
It's a national charity, with (at the time) about 500 full-time workers -- the recognition deal was for the whole organisation, although I was only involved in London.At the time, the boss was pushing the "you don't need a union" line, and promoting a "staff association"-type model. They also attempted to set a hurdle for union recognition higher than the legal requirement in the UK -- as it happened this backfired spectacularly, with the 91% in favour. On a more clandenstine note, they were also getting hold of e-mail correspondence between pro-union workers.
I applaud you for organizing a union which is tough in the best of circumstances. However, your campaign sounds like a far cry from an international conglomerate willing to spend 40 grand a day for a year to bust a union drive and employ the nastiest tactics there are. It requires more effort and resources the bigger the unit, the harder the boss fight, the worse the class conciousness. This is the world.
Now I'll go back to insulting Chuck using beitish slang and pretending my teeth are all fucked up.
Cheerio!
are you crazy duke? seriously what the fuck is wrong with you.
Listen up ye piece of shite! Yer entire fascist organization has nobody with a set of goolies. Total bollocks.
the button wrote:
It's a national charity, with (at the time) about 500 full-time workers -- the recognition deal was for the whole organisation, although I was only involved in London.At the time, the boss was pushing the "you don't need a union" line, and promoting a "staff association"-type model. They also attempted to set a hurdle for union recognition higher than the legal requirement in the UK -- as it happened this backfired spectacularly, with the 91% in favour. On a more clandenstine note, they were also getting hold of e-mail correspondence between pro-union workers.
I applaud you for organizing a union which is tough in the best of circumstances. However, your campaign sounds like a far cry from an international conglomerate willing to spend 40 grand a day for a year to bust a union drive and employ the nastiest tactics there are. It requires more effort and resources the bigger the unit, the harder the boss fight, the worse the class conciousness. This is the world.
Now I'll go back to insulting Chuck using beitish slang and pretending my teeth are all fucked up.
Cheerio!
Aqua Caliente tribe spent over 3 million dollars fighting the union just in the press. They hired consultants who's full time job it was to bust the union. They interviewed tons of workers. They ran newspaper adds against the union. They ran television ads against the union.
They fired workers. Another casino actually beat up workers. One tribe made workers roleplay how they would kick the union out of their house.
They put out leaflets telling the employees it's "legal to shot union organizers if they come on your property".
And so on....
That is why we told workers to be secret.
In less than two weeks time hundreds of neo-Nazis and racists will descend on the coastal town of Dover calling for Britain to “close the border”. It is vital that anti-fascists and anti-racists...
A short history of the riots against new education laws that turned into a mass collective rejection of apartheid South Africa by thousands of working class black youths.
Class conflicts and colonial expansion in the context of the Little Ice Age lead to the emergence of capitalist agriculture and the transformation of social relations on a world scale.
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
no i was actually talking about individuals having a conversation over the internet, what isaid had nothing to do with people's affiliations, nor the subejct of the debate. i was merely talking about the dynamics of internet forums. now who's getting their heckles up for no reason?
apparently so