Why do we lose with the unions?

this has nothing to do with whether they're part of the state or not, since as i'm sure you agree newly founded independent unions would suffer the same fate if they played the same role.

I don't see the logic here. If newly formed independent unions are rapidly pushed towards 'working actively against the workers', then they are also rapidly pushed towards functioning as state organs, whether or not they are 'legally' part of the state. The example of Solidarnosc in Poland, which actually ended up running the government, is only a spectacular expression of this.

Baboon, you write that

I think it might help to lay out when and where workers lose with unions, that's one of the disconnects I have in this thread. I tried to raise earlier that "why do we lose" is a question that depends in part on who "we" are and what "losing" means. Ed said (if I remember right) that he meant that unions are ineffective forms for improving the terms and conditions of the sale of labor power. I'm not convinced this is true over all, but I am willing to have my mind changed. (It's also worth pointing out that like everyone who shares the basic outlook of libcom I'm not primarily interested in improving the terms of the sale of labor power, we want to end the commodification of labor power.) Let's say that this is true, though.

If it is true then I think it's true in the way that Marx analyses in volume 1 of Capital are true -- Marx talks about tendencies, what capitalist enterprises will do over all most of the time. That there are on some occasions capitalists who keep on unproductive employees temporarily, who fail to reinvest surplus value in order to expand accumulation, and so on, are not actually objections to Marx's analysis, because Marx's analysis is about social averages. Averages are true for large quantities of examples. It is true that on average women get paid less than men and it is also true that some individual women get paid more than many individual men -- saying "I know this one woman who gets paid a lot..." is not an objection to "on average, women get paid less." Likewise, "in some cases workers have temporarily improved conditions via unions" is not an objection to "over all, we lose with the unions."

All of that said, I may be misreading this thread but I take some people here to be saying "no one ever loses with the unions." That's false. There was just a victory here in Minnesota by 12,000 striking nurses. It's a mixed victory, the union rolled over on patient ratios, but it's not just a failure. Likewise for the Republic Windows and Doors occupation, which was orchestrated by the union officers and staff.

It seems to me that the "we lose with the unions" position has got be able to account for those instances when workers *do* win with the unions, some of the time. And, any explanation about why workers lose with the unions has to able to fit with those wins by some workers some of the time.

I can't speak to the UK but it seems to me that in the US there were unions who were capitalist rackets for a very long time and workers were able to still win through them before, so I don't think "the unions are integrated into capitalism so therefore they have lost the power to be a vehicle for workers to struggle profitably" is convincing.

I don't know enough about the Minnesota nurses' strike, but I don't think you can properly call the Republic Windows and Doors occupation a victory. Most of those people are still unemployed and all they 'won' was what the employer was obliged to give them anyway--they still lost in perhaps the most meaningful way: they lost their jobs (most of them are still unemployed too, according to the author of Revolt on Goose Island, but a few have been promised jobs by some charitable member of the 'green' petit-bourgeoisie).

I think this is part of the mystification of unionism though--the union is often able to get the bosses to agree to something less savage than what they initially publicly hoped for, usually this is also something worse than what workers were living with before. Yet this is presented as the 'victory' that the union has 'won' for the workers--in some ways its like how the CIO fought tooth and nail for recognition in the sit-down strikes but the workers won almost nothing else (other than a no-strike agreement)--the original questions of the struggle got channeled into something that the union could 'win' that wouldn't bother the bosses and would get the workers back on the clock (see J. Brecher's Strike for examples, interviews, etc.).

I think you see things like this all the time. For example in the TEKEL strike you had the big 'victory' when the courts declared the government's decision to move application dates for the new contracts up illegal--the new contract was still looming, yet the 'victory' over something that wasn't even a part of the original fight allowed the union to send everybody home with the original demands unresolved. Perhaps workers at the Republic factory only ever wanted to fight for severance/vacation/sick pay and the thought never entered their heads that they could/should try to fight to avoid unemployment as well, but it seems to me that forcing the bosses to pay what the workers were already technically owed was what the union saw that it could make the fight 'about' and then was able to 'win.'

There is such a thing as a mixed victory but the question remains--after having lost all the pay from being out on strike, were we able to prevent the erosion of our living standards (in terms of real purchasing power taking inflation into account) and working conditions? There is a big difference between such a success in struggle and what the unions very frequently call 'victory'

-soyons tout

I totally agree. I think winning and losing could be defined better here, like I tried to say. I think Republic Windows in particular is a good one to talk about - the workers won their legal right to severance in the case of a plant closure, which is one of the saddest 'wins' I can think of. In that case, though, it's kind of a weird anomaly because the tactic was quite militant. My point in all this though is that the way this thread reads at least on a cursory read it's like unions provide nothing at all in any way to workers, ever. That seems to me false. Also, I think there are at least two different views in this thread about the unions. Some folk seem to be saying "we lose with the unions" with the implication that we can win, like in the short term, by non- or extra-union forms. Maybe I'm over-interpreting, though. Others, like EdmontonWobbly, said that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of winning going on anywhere at all, that this isn't just a matter of the union form but also of where the balance of class forces is at this point, something like that anyway.

I think the emphasis on the Republic fight is because of the rediscovery and application of a very militant tactic that hadn't been used in decades in the US (since the 1970's in the steel mills in Ohio, and before that not since the auto industry strikes in the depression era). Even if the Republic workers had been denied severence, I bet Labor Notes and the Progressive Democrats of America etc would call it a victory just for the fact that they used the sit-in + factory occupation tactics.

My impression of the left communist philosophy concerning unionism is that in the present (low level of class struggle and class consciousness) workers should ideally use workplace assemblies and elected worker committee's to struggle for economic demands and concerns (health care, wages, safety, etc)- temporary organic organizations that can be formed and dissolved as needed, rather than a permanent institutional organization that is by nature integrated into the state apparatus (via NLRB, Democratic Party, DOL, etc in the United States for example) with permanent officers and officials. These organic organizations already exist in just about every workplace- certain workers are naturally 'leaders', other workers come to them for complaints or advice or help. During meal breaks or 15 minute smoke breaks etc workers congregate and talk about problems that are going on. Its just an extension of this.

Is that an accurate assessment, or am I totally missing the point on unions and worker struggles in low levels of struggle via left communism?

Couple things to say here:

1) They have. IWW Local 8 in Philadelphia had a de facto closed shop. It wasn't written into the contract (there was no contract), but they enforced it on the shop floor by refusing to work unless everyone was paid up on their dues. Since it was the local that issued union cards, it was de facto union control of hiring.

2) Three problems with this however:

a) Should revolutionaries be participating in the organization of labor? I mean I realize the rationale for closed shops, but it does involve unions co-ordinating capital and this could compromise their revolutionary potential.

b) Part of the reason the IWW organized the way it did (back in the heyday) was a reaction against "the control of the supply of labor" tactic the AFL used (i.e. the closed shop) Basically, the craft unions tried to limit how many workers were entitled to work in a particular trade and since the union controlled entry, they could push up the price of labour for their very narrow membership. The IWW came along and said, 'No, we need to build up class power on the whole as opposed to relying on techniques that are really only practical in the skilled trades and, furthermore, build division in the workplace and in the class as a whole.'

c) Closed shops--especially successful ones--would encourage non-revolutionaries to join a syndicalist/revolutionary organization in order to get a good job. This isn't bad--as a revolutionary I do want to raise the living standards of the class--but I also only want workers to join revolutionary organizations if they agree with the revolutionary goals. In other words, I want a revolutionary organization that is internally democratic, but still fully capable of organizing with non-revolutionary workers in the workplace (perhaps even call them pre-revolutionary workers). Hence, the workplace committee model that the SolFed organizer training promotes.

First on union subsidies from the state: Alf mentions the secret funding elements from the French state to its unions and given the underhand nature of this one could expect this to be far more widespread. No such problem for the pragmatic British where (nearly) all is out in the open. Ten minutes on the internet showed the relations between the TUC and DFID (UK department for international development – actually a weapon of British imperialism, but we won’t go into that here), where, from 2003, the unions have been receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds a year with a £2.4 million payment to the TUC and affiliated unions for 2009-10. There’s the Union Modernisation Fund, there’s the government-funded Union Learning Fund that goes to the unions (which the present coalition has said it’s keen on maintaining), the Collective Conditional Fees arrangements (relating to legal claims) and there’s subsidies that go indirectly to individual unions through various government initiatives that are the obvious quid pro quo for union’s taking donations to the British political system straight out of workers wages. Workers can vote against this latter deduction but when they are bothered to do so the union tends to ignore them.

On a broader and historical scale we can see how the victorious Allies set up trade unions from scratch in Both Germany and Japan after WWII, which obviously required state funding. We also saw, in the appearance of the Solidarnosc trade union in Poland 1980, the support of the British and American states including surreptitious funding (see on this Wapedia. Wiki: Operation Gladio – I heartedly recommend this hit as an indication of what the state is capable of in a far greater framework).

Examples are called for above so here’s another one from the UK on the role of unions in the vital airport industry. Again, there are divisions here between different unions, “agreements”, rule books and so on, but it’s the role of the major union here, Unite, that gives the example. “Unite”, like union “Solidarity” and union “Victory” is a good expression of Orwellian Doublespeak. During the last five years, Unite has played an incredible role in facilitating and directly implementing the bosses’ attacks on the workers in Britain’s main airports. Unite has presided over five years of cutting wages, setting up divisions and systems of different payments, within the same workers, working side by side, doing the same job. It, with further union divisions, has divided up struggles of different workers in the same airports by the use of “negotiations” and ballots. It has divided its members, workers doing the same jobs in different airports, through the use of local “negotiations” and “agreements”. Over five years it has taken part in the disciplining of militant workers with 13 sacked with its complicity over the last few months (The Guardian, yesterday). It has dragged out “negotiations” and sabotaged votes for action through the use of union lawyers. Union lawyers – I’ve shit ‘em. Even in this profession they’re a breed apart. Paid expensively out of workers’ wages they, in my long experience, are part of the management and, as the Beresford scandal recently showed, make millions on the backs of sick and dying workers (this is not to deny the concern, help and support of local stewards)
At the same time as this anti-working class activity carried out by Unite, they have been taking part in meetings at the highest level of the state, campaigning for the re-election of the Labour Party and, even now, involving themselves in the bourgeois faction fighting over the Labour Party leadership.

I think I agree with NCwob on closed shops. These were strong in Britain in the 1960s and were mostly controlled by the Stalinists who ruled them with some force. The closed shop was no union card, no job and no job, no union card. The only way in was who you knew; relative etc. They were, as with Stalinism, racist and exerted a strong control over the workforce which well suited management who generally left them to get on with things. I was in a closed shop print union in the 60s and the unions run it so tightly that it was nearly impossible to get the sack – one guy, pissed as a parrot, totalled a five-ton truck and the surrounding area and got a verbal warning. Nearly impossible, though I managed it. But that’s another story.

(Pirivate Message to Steven: with reference to your suggestion above to write something up on the water workers' strike and following some earlier requests to expand on details of various strikes I've been involved in, my proposal, celebrating my 50 years of work, is to write up a potted history of such including these elements. My previous experience of putting something into the Library was not pleasant and I want to check out if this is OK. What do you think? End of Private Message).

There were two kinds of closed shops, post and pre-entry. An example of pre-entry would be the print as you say, but in jobs like the post office there was a post entry closed shop, i.e. you got the job and then joined. I am just about old enough to remember working in one. It was used against the work force, the classic example in the GPO being Grunwick.

Devrim

NC Wob:

The main point is what is the role of revolutionaries and militant workers. From what I gather left communists and certain strands of anarchism are in agreement that revolutionaries and militants should regroup and organize themselves on an international level, publish press in as many countries and languages as possible, develop theoretical issues, promote discussion between revolutionaries from different tendencies and backgrounds, engage and intervene in workers struggles positively where possible, etc.

There's a 7 page thread from a few years ago on Libcom about the IWW, titled something like 'The IWW- a good idea? practical?' which goes into what is the place of revolutionaries according to the IWW, a point that I don't think was properly explained. To quote some of the more poignant points:

An IWW member made the following comment which seems to answer the above questions:

http://libcom.org/forums/thought/iww-good-idea-practical-12032006?page=5

Which brings us full circle to what exactly it is that a revolutionary union is, what it wants, what it does, and who is in it and who can or can't be in it.

One caveat: Union Shops are different from Closed Shops. In the US, Closed Shops became illegal after Taft-Hartley, and Union Shops became restricted. However, in most states in the US, Union Shops are still legal. What I mean is today, why aren't syndicalists of all varieties not pushing for Union Shops, where job control would be much greater (which is something historically that the IWW has done- trying to get the greatest amount of control taken over by the workers in a job site for themselves, in an extreme form manifested in the 'Wobbly Shop' model).

There are aspects of the closed shop that still exist that could be considered beneficial for all workers, such as the pre-entry apprenticeship and training/certification programs offered through unions which, once you enroll or complete training/certification, you are then offered a job with one of the companies that the union has organized or exerts control over (such as the IBEW and their linemen apprecticeship program, UMWA and the New Miner registration card and training program, etc). In these cases proper and inexpensive training and safety standards are offered by the union, followed by a gaurenteed job placement into a new career.

But again, this all depends on what an organization, be it a yellow or red union or anarcho-syndicalist or revolutionary syndicalist union, sees as its place or goals. It seems that there are multiple contradictory positions that co-exist within the IWW, historically and at present (those who think only revolutionaries who believe in the Constitution and OBU philosophy should be members, those that believe all workers regardless of their political philosophy, including whether they believe in revolutionary syndicalism, should be able to join, that the union should or should not negotiate collective bargaining contracts, etc).

I mean, Dev, I think you're right and that those conflicting tendencies haven't been worked out. However, for what it's worth, a lot of the Wob organizers who, for example, who have turned away from contract have done so through experience with contracts. I hope these sorts of trends continue and I think this is likely because those same anti-contractualist organizers are the ones leading actual organizing in the union.

From the N. American Wobs who I'm close to, the organizing they propose seems very much in line with the committee model the SolFed is proposing we move ahead with--i.e. members organize shop committees in their workplace of all interested workers to undertake 'direct action grievances' and facilitate unmediated, unrepresentative struggle (with SolFed providing guidance and training to make this happen). I do think Wobs tend to promote membership a bit more than SolFed would, but I imagine that varies from campaign to campaign and organizer to organizer.

SolFed's strategy, for what its worth, would like to see us get members, no doubt, but we only want workers who agree with our revolutionary aims to join. And, obviously, we believe it's struggle itself that politicizes/radicalizes workers and allows us, as radicals, to discuss things such as capitalism and class struggle.

My experience with the group has been similar, it's just that over time I start to learn about these different conceptions that co-exist together, where you have people promoting one vision of organizing or action that is in direct contradiction to another, all claiming the mantle of the organization and parts of its history where it supported what they support- it creates a bizarre patchwork organization that exists in many different countries. Specifically when you see other political or economic organizations becoming entryists (L&S, SPUSA, etc).

This is also how I believe left communists promote struggle in the workplace, especially in the present with the relatively low level of class struggle internationally (I'd like to hear from Devrim, Alf or Sheldon etc on this).

That includes what the role of revolutionaries is- to organize themselves into an organization that is made up only of revolutionaries who understand and agree with the platform of the organization and engage in or intervene in worker struggles as well as the above mentioned activities (training militants, theoretical discussion, comradely debate with other organizations, writing and publishing press in different countries & languages, etc)- not as the self-appointed 'leadership' of the workers, but as a pole of reference, a guide post to promote positive advances for the class (from minor single-issue workplace disputes to the organization of workers in periods of intense class struggle).

This seems like a common point of agreement for libertarian communists, left communists, syndicalists, etc. to an extent. But then we get into the baggage of language, what we mean by union, revolution, what a revolutionary is, how we should intervene in worker struggles, etc.

SPUSA, yeah?

I can only speak from personal experience, but I haven't seen many left communists actually undertake--as individuals or organizationally--struggle in the workplace. I'd be glad to be proven wrong, but it seems there's often a lot of theory and even more criticism, but very little actual organizing. The IWW--for all their faults, and, god knows, they're there--they are getting out and organizing and seem to be learning and developing a more coherent strategy from there.

Perhaps this is semantic, but "intervene"? I don't really see that as the role of revolutionaries. Rather we facilitate struggle where we can and support workers in struggle where we're not directly involved. Sure, we argue for a communist line, but intervene does seem to suggest a vanguardist element.

You're right, but I think we resolve this by getting out there and actually organizing and demonstrating what we mean by these terms as opposed to debating over terms ad nauseum.

Aren't the R.U.G. wing of SPUSA heavily involved with the IWW in the Pacific Northwest?

Left communists have a long history of participating in worker's struggles directly, particularly in Europe. Going back to 1947 members of the GCF participated in the strike committee at Renault, members of what would become the French section of the ICC participated in the struggles of May 1968, most recently they were involved in the anti-CPE movement, helping militant workers at the large TEKEL strike/tent city in Turkey develop a coherent platform and maintain a nation-wide organization, etc. I'm sure Alf could go in-depth on this, these are just the more prominent examples off the top of my head.

I use it as just another word for 'participate actively'. From little things like publishing and distributing a strike bulletin containing news and information of relevance, participating in a general assembly (as was done in 2007 with the railworkers), attending a public meeting called by another organization to discuss a particular topic (unemployment, class consciousness, whats good and bad about unions, etc) and so on.

Here's a brief description of what the ICC calls 'interventions' in their press (this one relates to the 2007 railworkers general assemblies):

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/310/rail-interventions

I disagree. If you read the internal bulletins, internet chatter and public press, depending on the particular people involved and the location, it's like the IWW takes the toolbox of all the different strategies and potential goals for an organization of workers or revolutionaries, shakes it up, and dumps it out. In one city you've got the GMB signing no-strike pledges, in another city you've got cooperation and active participation with a political party, in another city you've got a straight trade union organizing drive in a particular industry, etc Everyone is sort of left to their own devices to do what they think is best, based on their interpretation of what the IWW is or is not- such as something as simple as contracts, some people want them and sign no-strike pledges to get them, some refuse to ever sign one and only work as a nonmajority union, etc.

I think the strategy of learn as you go without any theoretical discussion beforehand results in a lot of needless expenditure of time, patience and resources. Plus old mistakes then get repeated because no one took the time to research and discuss past events and wrong turns. Plus the kitchen sink/big tent approach leaves the definition of terms according to the group more ambiguous than before, if members cannot agree on who is eligible to join, what their role is as a group, what is and is not acceptable tactics, etc.

Very possible, but I have no idea. For what it's worth I know that in Seattle, Wobs are very much involved in SeaSol and that's anarchist dominated and initiated.

I don't doubt that, but I wasn't alive in 1947 or 1968 and in my personal experience it's been all theory and criticism. This doesn't mean left commies can't organize struggle and I hope they do. I also hope SolFed (or the IWW) will stand beside them when this happens.

Alright, fair enough. But like I said my experience with left commies has been class struggle forums, which I don't really consider participating actively in struggle. I do think there's a danger in left communists fetisizing mass assemblies, but that's really a whole 'nother conversation....

I don't think that's an unfair criticism, but I think that happens in any organization. Besides, as I wrote earlier...

Re: The last bit about the IWW.

Once again, fair enough. I'm not sure where Wobs are engaging in "cooperation and active participation with a political party" and I do think the no-strike clauses have been adequately addressed. Furthermore, no active organizer in the union would agree they should be in any IWW contract*. Now whether getting involved in representative, mediative struggle will lead to this happening again, that's another question altogether...

The other thing--and maybe Dev you'd disagree with me--but in the US the IWW is really the only game in town. And I do think there (we're, really) moving out of being a historical society and even the organizing that has occurred is already orienting itself toward a model that will very much fit in left-communist/anarcho-syndicalist idea of unmediated, unrepresentative struggle.

There's a reason my practical activity in the UK is done through SolFed and even segments of the American sections still believe in an apolitical representative syndicalism, but I don't think that reflects the outlook and organizing style of the N. American section's most active organizers.

*I'll note, once again, the most prominent organizers have turned against contracts altogether.

Devoration --

About union shop, in my view a requirement to join the union to work there encourages bad dynamics. Keeping unions voluntary associations tied to a vision of fighting management is better in my view.

About the IWW as "bizarre patchwork" I think for a lot of us the idea is that we support people in struggle even if we disagree. I don't mean this as a prolier-than-thou kind of thing, I mean that we know other IWW members and care about them and yeah some of them have ideas I don't like but when they're fighting their bosse even in ways I think are dumb or worse, I still feel compelled to offer some kind of support. And plus there are better and worse times to criticize. Over all, in the 6 or so years I've been a member, stuff has improved immensely. Considered as a dynamic thing, as a changing pool of people who are on a trajectory, the IWW gets better and better. Major problems remain and for every advance there's a backward step because ever advance brings new problems and often people respond to problems by retrogression or by some other relatively rightwing response to that problem. But again over the tendency is good and in my view some the very things that make the IWW more of a "patchwork" than I would like help contribute to the positive developments. There's also a practical problem of what would we do other than tolerate those differences?

For example, some of the people who are more pro- recognition and contracts are people who have failed at noncontractual/nonrecognition organizing and lack experience of recognition and contracts (about 90% of the US working class lacks such experience, unionization's at about 10% here on average and is even lower if we consider only the private sector and if we consider workers under 40 or 30, which is by far who is in the IWW). We can allow them the room to experiment in response to their new interest in contract and recognition, we can try to change their minds in better and worse ways (to my mind "better ways" require the freedom to try out their bad ideas, worse ways restrict their options and berate them), or we can kick people out. I don't see any other options. Also, people often cross-participate: people work on a contractual campaign in their own work and volunteer time on a noncontractual campaign elsewhere. It's all very messy.

Some of our most anti- contract and anti- recognition people came up out of attempts to win recognition that failed, and the staunchest anti-recognition/anti-contract people came up out of attempts that succeeded and thus quickly revealed the limits of that approach, that the IWW can't avoid those dynamics simply because we're revolutionaries. So I think allowing the 'patchwork' is ultimately productive. Of course I wish everyone came around to correct (ie, my) views and that the improvement dynamics were more linear (no retrogression ever) and were faster. But they're not. If people don't have the patience for this (and it IS very frustrating) then I'm glad you're not in the IWW, you'd just be annoyed and would probably only worsen things -- generally getting annoyed and lecturing at people only makes the people lectured behave even worse. (I say this having done it more than once.) So some of this is a matter of picking our battles, and also recognizing that sometimes we can win a battle against contracts etc but do so in ways that position us worse in the war against contracts: if we're dicks we can shut down any given conversation were involved in, which can help prevent bad moves. But if we're dicks after a while we start to be shut out of conversations and then we have no influence at all.

I don't know what R.U.G. means but I know a lot of wobblies in the Pac NW and I don't think there's any active SPUSA presence that matters. I know a few wobblies who are in the SPUSA, I don't see it having any influence. If anything, the IWW improves those people and they take better skills back to the SPUSA. This is generally true of people from political groups who join the IWW in my not so humble opinion - their political groups benefit as much as or more than the IWW benefits.

Finally, about the issue of "how is the IWW going to stay revolutionary while remaining open to many people...?" thing, I think that's an important one to talk about and deserves its own thread. I don't have much more time but for now two things. One, this came up at the last of a discussion about platformism a while back --
http://libcom.org/forums/organise/whats-your-quarrel-neo-platformism-06042010?page=4

I feel a bit funny referencing my own comment but I think my long comment in the middle of that page is worth engaging with on this question. In that comment I make the point that SolFed advocates mass meetings of workers, assemblies and so on and that it seems to me that these are subject to the same problem: a mass meeting of workers is not revolutionary unless those workers are.

Two, there's a common hypothetical situation like "You claim to want to be revolutionary and you claim to want to allow any workers to join, but you can only do both of those things if the workers are all revolutionary! what will you do if many non-revolutionary workers flock to the IWW seeking to join up?!" My response to that is to question the question. Folk need to get a whole lot more detailed in that hypothetical. Under what conditions would a great many non-revolutionary workers flock to the IWW? And what is the process that people undergo as they join, and what is the process that people begin after joining? From what all of us have experienced, almost no one comes to us. We work like crazy to get people to join. No one flocks to us, or to any union these days for that matter as far as I know. Then once we join we work on developing and educating members in a variety of ways. (As does SolFed, with their SelfEd program and so on, which I think is quite impressive.) The only situation where I can imagine loads of workers rushing toward us is if they were radicalized. Now that radicalization might not last, it probably wouldn't. And if so, then they'll quit the IWW most likely (this happens on an individual basis a lot, we lose way too many people), though we try to keep people and at the same time try to keep them radical or further radicalize them. (This is part of why I'm not for union shop, union shop would keep those people in but do so in a way that made the IWW worse I think.) Some of our efforts to keep people involves various education efforts, a lot of it involves deliberate relationship building, and some of it involves fighting with bosses, which often radicalizes people though again it's not linear -- advance, retrogress, advance, retrogress, etc. I would imagine the same thing is basically what happens with mass meetings too - loads of workers will come to mass meeting, and the mass meeting will be important when either the workers are lit up about something and/or the mass meeting will influence the workers in a positive way. At least that's what's happened in the few times I've been part of mass meeting kind of things at work.

I appreciate the posts on this point so far- after reading the last 2 responses one point sticks in my mind:

It tries to be everything needed by the working class all at once. An educational body, a propoganda group, a publisher and distributor of press, a union, a collective bargainer, a revolutionary vehicle, etc.

In this sense it's similar to the old Knights of Labor, which began as an association of militant minded workers all over the US, and began to take on union responsibilities and form locals containing both unions and militant at-large members.

Nate's point on the union shop is interesting. I agree that in the broader sense for the class, a union shop is not a tool for increasing solidarity, and will alienate workers from one another and cause divisions. But this gets at the heart of what a union is- is it a group for protecting the workers it represents or who are its members? Traditionally this is the role that unions play- fighting for the rights and benefits of its members against the boss and anyone who seeks to limit or take away those rights and benefits. For the IWW, which seeks to represent all workers, a union shop or closed shop environment would put it in a tough spot by seeking to represent or protect one group of workers more than others. But if the IWW is a union, isn't that its responsibility?

It seems like where the IWW is at its best and most effective is when it stops trying to take on traditional union functions, and acts instead as an international organization of militant and/or revolutionary workers interested only in furthering the struggles of workers anywhere and everywhere up to and including the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement with socialism. In the Thompson book '100 Years of the IWW', he laments the introduction of the General Membership Branch system of organization, saying that it was fought hard by many members who wanted the IWW to simply be a union, nothing else, but that because of its small size was necessary. Since that time, the GMB has become the vehicle for its renewal, a spike in membership and activity outside of union functions.

I definitely think it's a good form of organization for the present- a way for militant workers (not necessarily revolutionaries) to group themselves by region or city to stay updated on struggles going on around the world, and be able to stay involved in support campaigns and educational initiatives to help out those in struggle. Especially since this is outside of the 'official labor movement' made up of social-democratic/Democratic Party hacks and traditional unions who run everything.

In this sense the patchwork idea is great- the working class isn't and shouldn't be a homogeous mass that blindly follows self-appointed leaders. On the other hand, the patchwork manner that the organizations leadership and institutions operate in leads to a great diffusion in the resources and abilities of the members. The annual congresses were originally times when the organization aired its grievances and recognized internal problems and came up with solutions to implement. Now it seems like those congresses take on the tone of parliamentary debates (for example the motions on whether to censure J.Bekken, the drama regarding the Lit.Dept. etc). The direction of the organization is left out, leading to a flurry of activisty campaigns that succeed or fail, followed by more activisty campaigns.

An historical problem with the group is that even the successes are temporary. During the height of wobbly activity and influence, they'd win strikes and form unions for tens of thousands of workers, which would fall apart within a year or 2, if groups of local wobblies were established they too would go with the wind shortly after being created. I don't think it's going to ever be in a position to organize unions for tens or hundreds of thousands of workers again. But that doesn't mean it can't or won't have a positive role to play in workers struggles- in practice I think the IWW's biggest achievements weren't in organizing unions, but in spreading revolutionary ideas and education, participating in the most intense and important workers struggles (from pitched battles to strikes etc) and acting as a reference point or stop-along-the-way for millions of workers who would go on to perform important functions from founding political parties/groups, publishing revolutionary books and press, organizing direct action, etc.

The confusion about what it is and what it does/where its going seems to keep the group to maintaining a relatively small membership (even though thousands and thousands of workers will join and leave within a short time) and only acting as a reference point in the revolutionary milieu.

There's a lot in that post Dev, but briefly I just want to pick up on this one point:

Conference is supposed to be for making policy. In terms of the 'direction of the organization', that's what the organizing summits should be concerned with. I think they've done this, but that their role should be expanded (and, to be honest, the scope of the delegate conferences limited).

I've said it before, but the really worthwhile stuff coming out of the IWW right now often originates and is co-ordinated through the Organizing Department. I know folks not in the union don't know this and this is probably because all the dirty laundry of the organization is aired through the GEB or at conference.

I just happened to stumble onto the old 'No strike clauses and the IWW' thread, which includes a lot of the same stuff in this thread- so I apologize if anyones tired of rehashing some of this stuff.

Where does the Organizing Department report what they're doing? The IW or GOB or somewhere else? I've still got copies of both publications from the year I was a member- I'd like to go over them again if thats where the information is to get a better idea of how they operate.

Apologies for not having read the whole thread. I wanted to throw it out there than any answer to the OP question is incomplete unless it also answers these questions:

- why do we sometimes win with the unions?

- why (in many countries, including ours at the moment) is it even rarer that we win outside the unions?

- what is "the union"? Is it just the HQ staff? HQ staff plus shop stewards? Is it the relationships the stewards have with the workforce as well? Or perhaps that plus some of the norms, subjective identifications, relationships etc. holding between members (and perhaps between members and non-members) as well?

- why is it that industrial action, whether official or otherwise, is far more common in unionised contexts? If the causality runs only from informal solidarity and confidence to union strength (and not the other way round), and if solidarity and confidence is not in some sense embodied in the union, how and why is it that smashing unions demonstrably leads, in many cases, to reduced strength and confidence amongst workers?

- Is winning the only issue? "I don't think that you can 'pick the battles we can win'. You have to be involved in what is happening regardless of it s chances of victory." - Devrim, on another thread. (Obviously there is no one answer about what sort of involvement in "the union" is necessary to be involved in the struggle - this is going to vary from one occasion to another.)

- if it is true that "because Trade Unions are made up of the mass of workers (with bourgeois consciousness) and exist all the time . . . the said Unions inevitably fail to challenge capitalism . . . " (Subversion) (which I more or less agree with) then isn't it true that a significant part of the problem is the conciousness of the workers themselves? OK. But then Subversion's conclusion is: "the workers must create new structures, controlled from the bottom up, to run every struggle that occurs, outside and against the Unions, if the struggle is to go forward." OK - but how is creating new structures going to deal with the problem of conciousness, which Subversion themselves identify? Obvious there *could* be a process in which both would occur, but it isn't necessarily the case, is it? (Because even in struggle there's no *guarantee* that the level of conciousness would be sufficient to produce the more radical tactics necessary - c.f. how such a large proportion of postal workers around the country last year both voted for the deal, and expressed satisfaction with it at various stages, Tower Hamlets College workers overwhelmingly voted for their deal, and most were still fairly happy some time afterward that they'd won a victory.) There would only be a need, and the possibility, for a new structure, were the inadequacy of the union recognised by workers, and this itself would correspond to a more militant tactical orientation and greater solidarity amongst workers? OK, again. But then that just takes us back to the need to analyse the internal weaknesses of the struggle, the workers' "conciousness" (or politics, or confidence, or call it what you like). So what I ask then is... is the ultra-left (non pejorative sense) tendency to frame the problems of industrial struggle in terms of the problems of the union form (particularly, as if it were something wholly external to workers) problematic because it tends to blame things on an external bogeyman, rather than focussing on these internal weaknesses? Obviously sometimes it is true that sometimes there is "a ‘rank and file’ straining at the leash, only held back by a cunning and devious trade union bureaucratised leadership" - in which cases the bogeyman characterisation becomes apt, e.g. at Visteon - but as Subversion said, in general, this is a "myth".

Sorry for the brain splurge. Been thinking about this.

I think that the unions in the US and the IWW and Solfed are important but there's a certain distancing from the point of this thread in some posts.

One of the misunderstandings of the ICC's position on the unions (I'm not in the ICC, so they can defend themselves) is that they present an idea of a militant, revolutionary workforce being held back by the actions of the trade unions. Sometimes this is also seen as some sort of conspiracy where whoever plots out the schema to hold the workers back . As I say, I don't agree with this view and see union "victories" as workers' defeats and union "solidarity" as workers' divisions. I don't think that anyone at all supportive of the working class would not see today that the gap between the violence of the attacks on the workers and the working class response to it is, if anything, getting wider. I think that there are reasons for that in that the workers are fearful (almost terrified in some cases) of losing their jobs and of the future generally and can't see any way to struggle effectively and collectively. While there's nothing guaranteed about the class struggle, I believe it is only a matter of time before the working class as a whole expresses itself. In the meantime, the role of the unions, even in the hesitants steps that the workers have taken, is to reinforce division, isolation and facilitate and implement the attacks of capital.

I take Devrim's point above about pre and post-entry closed shop unions in Britain. Even though both were outlawed, the latter continued to exist informally in many major industries. And a decade or so ago, the boss of Danone food industries was calling for all his workers to be unionised in several different countries.

In an internal publication called The Organizer's Notebook (as I should know considering I edit it ) So yeah, it's not public, sorry about that Dev.

If it's just a matter of how we operate, this is the "What is the OD" section that was published in issue 1 of the Notebook:

On second thoughts, re-reading the latter discussion above, I think that there are many positive elements to it entirely in line with the thread. If we lose with the unions, then how do we win? And what do we mean by winning? Holding back the attacks with a show of force would be a good start and this question - what's the best circumstances for this - also has implications for what revolutionary elements have to say to their class. The working class, in the main, is disorientated and confused at the moment but there is an anti-union sentiment just under the surface and the crisis is about to get profoundly worse testing the unions ability to keep control of the working class.

Something I just want to throw out there is from an old thread ('IWW Meltdown'), specifically a quote made by Devrim that I think deserves another look:

In the US, I think the ideology of industrial unionism as an alternative to trade or craft unionism is definitely a settled issue.

Example:

United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE)

-United Auto Workers (UAW)

-International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters/IBT)

Point being that in the US, just about every union will represent almost anyone. Whether these unions started out as craft, trade or industrial unions from the 19th century to the 20th, or traditionally only represented one industry or worked in only one region of the country, today the lines seperating jurisdiction are just about gone. Certain holdovers from an older era are still apparent in the labor movement in the US, but by and large if you contact a union, and have a shop ready to sign up, they will represent/organize you and let you join.

It sounds like this trend isn't limited to the US. Doesn't this change things?

(double post)

Devoration, I agree with you and Devrim that "industrial unionism is a red herring" but you're starting to sound like you're just looking for things about the IWW to disagree with, I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

As for the IWW trying to be everything, I don't think we try to be everything. That's part of why I for one also belong to a political organization as well, because I think the IWW is not suited for everything but only for some things. The issue not that the IWW tries to be everything, it's that different IWW members have different views of what the IWW ought to do, and these differences co-exist, sometimes in tension with each other.

As for what a union is, I dunno, i don't find that a compelling way to approach this. I prefer to talk activities over states of affairs, doing over being.

I agree with you about acting "as an international organization of militant and/or revolutionary workers interested only in furthering the struggles of workers anywhere and everywhere up to and including the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement with socialism". I for one see waging fights over immediate concerns as a part of that process, because it's part of how we make more workers into militants and more militants into revolutionaries.

I don't know when you were last at an IWW convention or better yet one of the regional organizing summits and international organizing summits. I think things are moving along really well, and I'm not sure if your information is accurate for the IWW today. Also, if you were a member for only a year, you don't say when or where; I doubt you were able to get much of a synoptic perspective. Most organizations as lived realities are more complex than any local section or the existence of the organization on paper. Anyway as i said stuff's not perfect but as I said it's improved and the trend looks to be continued improvement, with of course steps back after steps forward, as I said. On the rest, your sort of repeating points you made before and I'm starting to do the same so I'm not going to leave off.

Baboon, you say "the role of the unions, even in the hesitants steps that the workers have taken, is to reinforce division, isolation and facilitate and implement the attacks of capital." In that case, if an organization that calls itself a union stops doing those things then it ceases to be a union as you define it. The big question is whether or not those organizations actually play this function, and when and how. As I tried to say before, I'm open to saying that this is true as a general tendency analogous to the law of value in v1 of Capital. I'm unconvinced that this is true for every instance (just as Marx is clear that the law of value is about averages and not specific instances). This to my mind means that along with the question that started this thread -- "why do we lose with the unions" which really is "why do we lose with the unions over all, as a general rule" -- should also include "when and how do we lose with the unions, in particular instances", which is to say, it should also seek to establish (rather than assert) THAT we lose with the unions.

I don't mean to be nit-picky, but after starting discussion on the topic I went back and read over many pages of old debates concerning the IWW which got me more interested in certain subjects (like when you read a debate and think an important point wasn't answered by the participants at the time, or a topic wasn't drawn out entirely).

There are aspects of the group that I think are really positive, which is why I devote as much time reading about and debating it as I do- I'm of the opinion that the IWW is one of the organizations that, because it upholds the most important working class principles (internationalism, anti-militarism instead of pacifism, anti-business unionism, anti-electoralism, etc) does belong on the side of the working class, even though they have significant organizational and programmatic issues. I think any organization that has consistently upheld these policies is worth defending (which in my view involves trying to move it in a different direction from the outside via comradely polemic and debate). Theres a history within the IWW of a trend towards communism/communist activity, specifically embodied most in the period of 1917-1920 (I wrote about it in the American Workers Councils thread here and further developed it on revleft)- its this activity and way of thinking that I'd like to further explore- it proved that the group is capable of acting, not as a union but as a revolutionary organization, during open and active class struggle, in a manner completely alien to the orthodox industrial union philosophy and closer to that of the early RCP(B).

That's true- though it's hard to draw the line with an organization that has direct democracy enshrined in every level of its functioning, like knowing where individual opinion stops and organization policy starts since that line is so thin.

As do I- which is why I think the discussions on terms is important.

It's sort of like this- can the CNT-E and Marine Engineers Beneficial Association be the same thing? (if anyone has links to English language texts on the CNT-E and its program/activity, it'd be greatly appreciated).

We can leave it there for now- some of these issues could be better discussed in their own thread or a thread on the IWW.

Just a quick point regarding the "industrial unionism" of the business unions. That's not industrial unionism as envisioned by the IWW or even the early CIO in which all workers in one industry belong to one union and all those individual unions are then federated into a larger organization.

The UAW (or the GMB here in the UK) are general unions. This is a point I brought up in the "meltdown" thread and Devrim never addressed. I think it's just as much a red herring to claim that the "industrial unionism" of the mainstreams unions somehow undermines the industrial strategy of the IWW (not that the IWW's industrial--historically or contemporarily--is without its flaws).

Would you say a majority of the union members interests are founded in socialist principles? We don't "have the unions" until we "have" the workers. I'm reconsidering the notion that fighting for gains within capitalism is a good thing. Too many of us are getting Stockholm syndrome.

What is a "Union"?

The first Unions came about as collections of workers organized for self defense. The first Unions were very narrow and defined their role as just defending the occupation or trade that they had organized. After awhile some of them realized that this was self-defeating and so created more broadly defined unions.

Like most living organisms (and I would define a Union as a collective of living organisms) Unions either "grow up" or "rot." In the United States, largely due to the "threat of communism" and the fear of many many workers willing to put their bodies on the line the ruling class gave significant concessions to labor unions in an attempt to buy off the leaders and nuetralize the workers radicalism. I know far less about European Unions in the 1930s but I am certain that it was similar - if not more intense there. What happens when the workers "get what they want" or at least "get what they think is enough" especially when it is also encapsulated first by a World War and then by a hysterical red scare? They go home and leave the Union to be run by those they have "elected" without supervision or much attention. The people running the unions, if they weren't carreerists before, become used to running the show without supervision and come to see the unions as their "property" and the workers become alienated from the union and come to see it as an insurance company. You go to the union when you have a grievance or when you get disciplined but otherwise pay it no mind.

That is what unions are.

Some Unions were not even created by the workers themselves but are biproducts of workers elsewhere or were concessions by the ruling class to bureaucrats to tamp down the class struggle. My union, for example, Local 1000 of SEIU, was a piece of a company union created as a way of keeping real unions out of state employment. It was called the "California State Employees Association" and included Supervisors and Managers - and was even run by Supervisors and managers for all of its early years. It later broke off the rank-and-file into a seperate "division" and this division then affiliated with SEIU - all this was done behind closed doors by union bureaucrats in collusion with state politicians. The workers were not involved in the slightest. I do not know how frequently this is but it is "one way" you get "unions."

We have to organize the workers to "take over" the Unions rather than try to "organize" the union bureaucrats to take "progressive" positions on current issues or "fight the right way" which is the how most leftists in the U.S. proceed. This can get "messy" as the workers are what they are and it is only thru the struggle that they will become more aware and class conscious.

The workers are not "ready made" and class conscious by themselves. It is not "the vanguard" that brings class consciousness "from the outside" but it only comes thru the class struggle itself and is not inborn in workers who are bamboozled by the their "education" and the television set.