Subs-How much do you pay?
Nov 15 2007 17:42
We were talking to an America comrade the other day, and the discussion turned to subs. He had been quite shocked to discover that people in AKİ (Anarchist Communist Initiative-İstanbul 'Platformists') pay 10%. Our rates are a little lower*, but he still considered them very high. He said that people in NEFAC paid 1 or 2%, and wouldn't dream of paying as much as we did.
So come on, what do you pay?
Devrim
*Our rates have a sliding scale with the unwaged/low waged paying a flat 20 million, an average paid state employee paying 5%, and people paying 10% on anything earned over that.
Devrim
Nov 15 2007 17:51
#2
I'd guess wages after tax.
Nov 15 2007 17:52
#3
We just voted to raise our subs to 2% of after tax income - which is high for a UK anarchist group.
Nov 15 2007 17:54
#4
In South London SF it's a fixed rate: £10 waged, £5 unwaged. Unless that's changed in the last 3 months.
Nov 15 2007 17:59
#5
Alan wrote:
In South London SF it's a fixed rate: £10 waged, £5 unwaged. Unless that's changed in the last 3 months.
Is this per week, or per month?
Devrim
Nov 15 2007 18:02
#6
It's per month - they were discussing raising it when I left about 3 months ago.
Nov 15 2007 18:05
#7
Jack wrote:
It's per month - they were discussing raising it when I left about 3 months ago.
To me that is shockingly low. Our unwaged pay £8.28 a month, which is more than yours. When you consider its relative purchasing power, and the fact that there is no unemployment benefit here, it is much more.
Devrim
Nov 15 2007 18:47
#8
From memory WSM is 3-5% although when there were fewer of us and we were mostly on the dole (welfare) people did put in up to 10%
Common Cause is 1-3%
(both the above adjust depending on the number of people living off the income - it seems obvious that a 20 year old with no dependents can pay a higher percentage than a single parent with 3)
NEFAC is technically 1% + (1% local) but I think the reality is more like a flat 50 / 100 a year flat rate for a lot of members. North American anarchists are pretty weird when it comes to money as they take all sorts of risks of arrest (demonstrating commitment) but find the idea of anything more than token subs very alarming. It's a huge barrier to organization here.
Nov 15 2007 18:49
#9
Yeah I pay 12$/month, I make about $1100 after taxes were talking about levying a local assessment and upping our dues just in Edmonton because expenses seem to be adding up. So that's about 1%. Back in the day the IWW's dues were a lot more in line with the sort of rates Devrim is talking about.
Nov 15 2007 18:53
#10
I've never been in a subs paying organisation. I'm not sure if I'd want to contribute 10% of my income to one though.
Nov 15 2007 18:58
#11
I pay a tenner a month to Organise and same to UCU
Nov 15 2007 19:03
#12
If an organization does not have a sufficent subs system it means one of two things
a) A drastic loss in effectiveness as every political action has to be first run through the 'how do we get money to pay for it filter' which introduces significant delays even when the money is found
or
b) A reality where members with money get to decided what actually can happen by reaching into their pockets (or not)
B) is mostly worse than A) although at least with B some stuff can happen
There is a C but that ends up with people in jail and so is pretty stupid outside of revolutionary times
Nov 15 2007 19:07
#13
JoeBlack2 wrote:
If an organization does not have a sufficent subs system it means one of two things
a) A drastic loss in effectiveness as every political action has to be first run through the 'how do we get money to pay for it filter' which introduces significant delays even when the money is found
or
b) A reality where members with money get to decided what actually can happen by reaching into their pockets (or not)B) is mostly worse than A) although at least with B some stuff can happen
There is a C but that ends up with people in jail and so is pretty stupid outside of revolutionary times
100% agree.
Also means that certain members end up paying a lot more than others.
We did consider a 'progressive' system to our subs, but decided it was impractical for us - for example the guy who (I think) gets paid highest in the group almost certainly has the lowest dispossable income.
Nov 15 2007 19:14
#14
Jack wrote:
We did consider a 'progressive' system to our subs, but decided it was impractical for us - for example the guy who (I think) gets paid highest in the group almost certainly has the lowest dispossable income.
JB2 wrote:
From memory WSM is 3-5% although when there were fewer of us and we were mostly on the dole (welfare) people did put in up to 10%
Common Cause is 1-3%
(both the above adjust depending on the number of people living off the income - it seems obvious that a 20 year old with no dependents can pay a higher percentage than a single parent with 3)
I think that it must be flexible, our progressive system is a guide not an Iron rod.
I think that Joe is right on the need for an organisation to have sufficient money.
I do think that the North Americans, and Brits here seem to be paying very low subs compared to us (and this is not a political tendency thing. AKİ pay more than we do).
Devrim
Nov 15 2007 20:54
#15
Hi Devrim,
Partly it is a cultural thing. The daftness of it is that most British anarcho-syndicalists pay more in union subs than they do to the political organisation they are in. I know of people considering different organisations who will look at the lowest subs, and for a while that was an active element in the IWW's recruitment strategy here. I've met members of Militant who pay £250 per month (admittedly without dependents).
The arguments you, Joe Black etc have made about having money to do things is the best point to make on this. A culture of low subs and things just ticking over is fine if there's not a lot going on, but once something starts you suddenly find you don't have enough money.
That said, I don't think my partner and children would be that keen on me taking money away from them at present, which is what increasing subs would mean. 
Regards,
Martin
Nov 15 2007 21:31
#16
I think we would all like to have a little more money in our pockets, Martin. I know I would.
The American comrade was quite shocked when he asked one of our unwaged members how he managed it, and he said that he just didn't eat lunch for four days a month.
We do make sacrifices for our political activity.
Regards,
Devrim
Nov 15 2007 21:46
#17
When I was a member of NEFAC I tried to get the dues raised to 2% but it got pushed down to 1%. As a supporter I pay 0.5% however I pay 3% dues to my union.
Nov 17 2007 03:03
#18
I pay $18 a month to the IWW on less than $1000.
I think the IWW definitely has a problem with a culture of low dues - one of the problems is that it is a sliding scale of $6-18 (3 for those in dire straits). I've seen people who aren't in dire straits pay 3 before, which I think is a problem (I think $6 is much more reasonable for someone in bad times anyways).
Of course the bay area branch is sitting on (relatively) lots of money because we've had workers under contract for years. Which further complicates the situation.
Nov 17 2007 05:03
#19
To me $3 (I think we are talking per month) is amazingly low. It is 3.56 YTL, which is 0.82 YTL per week. It is less than the cost of a bar of chocolate. I imagine in the US it is even less.
Devrim
Nov 17 2007 05:16
#20
Nah you can get bars of chocolate for as low as like $.65 here.
Nov 17 2007 05:17
#21
Besides which, IWW membership can't be worth that much more than five or six chocolate bars a month.
Nov 17 2007 05:21
#22
MJ wrote:
Besides which, IWW membership can't be worth that much more than five or six chocolate bars a month.
I think a granola bar would be better comparison.
Nov 17 2007 11:35
#23
Devrim wrote:
I think we would all like to have a little more money in our pockets, Martin. I know I would.
The American comrade was quite shocked when he asked one of our unwaged members how he managed it, and he said that he just didn't eat lunch for four days a month.
shit!
jack, when you say "we" do you mean brighton SF?
libcom dues are low, fiver a month, but most of us pay 10. But then we're not exactly a political organisation...
Nov 17 2007 11:40
#24
John. wrote:
Devrim wrote:
I think we would all like to have a little more money in our pockets, Martin. I know I would.
The American comrade was quite shocked when he asked one of our unwaged members how he managed it, and he said that he just didn't eat lunch for four days a month.
shit!
I wouldn't worry about this, John. It is good for his waistline. In fact I think we should increase his subs.
Devrim
Nov 18 2007 12:46
#25
Brighton SF, yea.
Nov 18 2007 12:57
#26
Devrim wrote:
I do think that the North Americans, and Brits here seem to be paying very low subs compared to us (and this is not a political tendency thing. AKİ pay more than we do).
Devrim wrote:
The American comrade was quite shocked when he asked one of our unwaged members how he managed it, and he said that he just didn't eat lunch for four days a month.
We do make sacrifices for our political activity.
I think this is also about political tendencies. American trots probably have much higher dues than the anarchist groups there. If you want to set up tight political organizations made up of self-sacrificing militants, that's one thing, but if your goal is to build mass organizations, it might not be a good idea to have so high dues that your members can't afford to eat lunch.
Syndicalists and the IWW have always made a political point out of having low dues. The idea is both to have a low threshold for workers to join, and also to rely on member's self-activity and militancy, rather than large union treasuries and paid staff, as is the case with the mainstream unions.
Nov 18 2007 13:19
#27
Jack wrote:
[for example the guy who (I think) gets paid highest in the group almost certainly has the lowest dispossable income.
would make sense then to base it on disposable income
IWCA is a fiver a year for the national organisation
Nov 19 2007 00:55
#28
I think urgency, or lack thereof, is a big defining factor in what people are willing to pay.
The struggle dosnt seem to be advancin here, so people are not willing to sacrafice as much.
I know when th struggle was at a high point here, around the summit of the americas in Quebec city (2001) people were sacraficing in alot of ways they wouldnt now.
Kind of on the same level, Im pretty broke right now, nd am havng trouble paying my dues, but I expect a good job next year and will be probaby be paying higher percentage than expected.
If the struggle was at a higher level, I would find the money now, but I ont feel like skipping meals to do the kind of work that is happening here now,
Its sad but true.
In principle I support higher dues, but politically right now it dosen't seem that urgent...
PS NEFAC has higher dues than the last Trot org I was in.
Nov 19 2007 01:03
#29
Devrim's astonishment at the low nature of dues in the U.S. and UK anarchist groups is right on. I think its pathetic.
Nov 19 2007 01:13
#30
thugarchist wrote:
Devrim's astonishment at the low nature of dues in the U.S. and UK anarchist groups is right on. I think its pathetic.
One of the most frustrating things I deal with as a wob is people's resistance to pay dues. They are insanely low! It drives me up a wall. When I was a homeless highschool dropout working under the table for sub-minimum wages I could still afford something as ridiculous as six dollars a month. It desn't even cut into beer money, you losers.
Percentages of what sorry?