dont forget the works councils in france and italy as well.
The reason why i said shop stewards is that they too are not recallable and elected positions but numerous anarchists in this country are shop stewards, including some who are on libcom.
So when you say that "if you do X you are not anarchist", the same should apply to these comrades.
oh and also, i agree that works councils are bad, that is given and agreed (i believe) even among the people who participate in them. The quote above gives the wrong impression that i dont have any problems with them (i read your post too quickly and misunderstood your sentence).
oh and also, i agree that works councils are bad, that is given ...(i read your post too quickly and misunderstood your sentence).
Ok cool.
The reason why i said shop stewards is that they too are not recallable and elected positions but numerous anarchists in this country are shop stewards, including some who are on libcom.
Yeah but shop stewards aren't legally designated to negotiate on behalf of the workers.
So when you say that "if you do X you are not anarchist", the same should apply to these comrades.
I never said that. I thought that I reckoned there were more committed libcoms in the CNT than CGT, since if there were more than a few thousand in the CGT I think that participation in the councils would've been blocked.
JDMF wrote:
So when you say that "if you do X you are not anarchist", the same should apply to these comrades.I never said that. I thought that I reckoned there were more committed libcoms in the CNT than CGT, since if there were more than a few thousand in the CGT I think that participation in the councils would've been blocked.
thats the implication. You imply that you cant be an anarchist and agree in participation of works councils, some of the anarchists might have voted for participation to the councils, for instance this guy interviewed on this article is an anarchist AFAIK:
http://libcom.org/library/cgt-union-interview-cnt-split-freedom
Some people do say you cant be an anarchist if you are a shop steward for the same problem reasons (no recalling method, electioneering etc), this is why i coupled these two criticisms together.
They also match in the way that shop steward anarchists would be critical of shop steward system (at least i hope they are!), much like those A-S unions who participate in works councils remain critical of them.
So i think your conclusion is based on a wrong assumption.
shop stewards aren't legally designated to negotiate on behalf of the workers.
Depends on the union, in my experience. In CPSA (now part of PCS), all negotiation was carried out by the union rep closest to the problem. So if an issue affected one office, it was down to the elected office rep to negotiate with local office management. Branches corresponded to the civil service district structure, by and large, so any district-wide issues were dealt with by the branch secretary, who was a lay official, elected annually by the membership. This was even the case with regional issues -- CPSA was probably fairly unusual in that even the regional secretary & "section" (i.e. government department)national secretary were lay officials, directly elected by the membership.
Didn't stop them being representatives rather than delegates, like.
As far as I know, this structure has been carried over into the PCS, although I stand to be corrected by someone with more recent experience of that particular union.
thats the implication. You imply that you cant be an anarchist and agree in participation of works councils
That's not what I meant to imply. It would mean they wouldn't be a decent anarchist. But loads of anarchists are stupid and have shit politics. I'm not one of those people who say "people who do x can't be anarchists". If they don't want a state then they're anarchists, doesn't mean they're politically useful or progressive in any way though (cf hakim bey-ites, nat lib cheerleaders, anti-civ types...)
the button wrote:
Didn't stop them being representatives rather than delegates, like.Presumably then seeing as this would place them above the workers you would think anarchists shouldn't take these positions then?
I tend not to make this kind of thing into a matter of principle. Perhaps you're confusing me with you. 
Of course a delegate structure is better than a representative structure. But these lay representatives weren't "above the workers" (whatever that means) in the same way as (for instance) a union fulltimer. And I'd certainly far rather have my terms & conditions negotiated on by a lay official who I can get rid of, than by a fulltimer.
When faced with a less-than-perfect structure, I'd rather be inside it agitating & organising to change it or to get rid of it altogether. Even though that does deny me the too-cool-for-school frisson of being "outside & against." 
So back in the day, if it had been solely down to your casting vote, would you have participated in the works councils in the first place?
It wouldn't have needed my casting vote, since in the event of a tie a motion is automatically defeated since it's the chair's duty to vote for the status quo. I.e. no participation.
To give a slightly less *cough* Jesuitical answer, no I wouldn't. Not least because of the councils' links with the dictatorship, and their role as one aspect of the regime's continued attempts to co-opt the working class movement. With the collusion of the CP, I might add.
To give a slightly less *cough* Jesuitical answer, no I wouldn't. Not least because of the councils' links with the dictatorship, and their role as one aspect of the regime's continued attempts to co-opt the working class movement. With the collusion of the CP, I might add.
What about Italy/France, without the dictatorship link?
the button wrote:
To give a slightly less *cough* Jesuitical answer, no I wouldn't. Not least because of the councils' links with the dictatorship, and their role as one aspect of the regime's continued attempts to co-opt the working class movement. With the collusion of the CP, I might add.What about Italy/France, without the dictatorship link?
If the only problem is that the council delegates are not recallable (according to the constitution of the councils), my understanding is that there is nothing to stop the unions who send members to the councils from making their own delegates recallable according to their own constitutions. Which is what the USI are doing in Italy (as far as I understand it, which -- frankly -- isn't that far). Whether recall-ability is sufficient to turn a representative into a delegate is another matter entirely....
I don't really buy the "participation in the councils is an accommodation to capital" argument. You might as well say that unions shouldn't have anything to do with putting in wage claims, as that only consolidates the wage system. Which, of course, it does. But that doesn't mean "don't put in pay claims."
More troubling is the tendency for participation in the councils to become a substitute for organising in the workplace -- but that's not only a problem with the councils, it's a problem with contemporary trade unionism. If I had a pound for every time I've heard a union official say, "I'll raise it at the next meeting with management," I'd have two quid less than I've actually got.
The question that split the CNT in 1984 wasn't so much about whether participations in the work councils were good or bad, but whether the CNT should ban all its members from participating, or leave the decision up to each local union.
While I agree with the criticisms of the work councils, I think the split in the CNT that this led to has been a much bigger problem for the anarcho-syndicalist movement in Spain. By the time of the 84 congress, the earlier reformist split from CNT was not very significant. The hardline approach to the work council issue has in my opinion only led to a marginalisation of the CNT and a strengthening of the reformist tendencies in the a-s movement.
I'd echo Felix Frost here. One of the disaffiliated Catalan CNT told me that they thought it should be left up to individual unions. And he was a veteran of the resistance whose commitment and politics i had no reason to doubt.
At the CNT Congress in 1991, all the unions who had recently been in struggles (Madrid transport and Puerto Real among them IIRC) called for the policy to be overturned so that it was the choice of local unions. The Congress rejected this.
The effect of it is to make the CNT marginal to the workplace and empower the more reformist elements within the CGT.
On the number of committed libertarian communists etc in the CGT, I'd not like to hazard a guess at it, but it shouldn't be underestimated. By and large the CGT have a much wider coverage and there are major cities and provinces where joining them would be the only option for someon who wanted to join a union that was acceptable. The CGT also contains loads of people from the resistance era, who were on the right side against the "official" CNT in the post war era.
I think the rejection of the councils is the right tactic, but a lot of the time, particularly in Italy and France, it is used as a political dressing for a whole host of issues as the protagonists know how to get the CNT-E on their side. However, in all these countries there are a host of left or base unions, so it's not as if there isn't someone somewhere trying different tactics. None, however, have achieved major success, so I think that the IWA sections' policies in France and Italy do tend to be borne out.
regards,
Martin
My understanding is that the French CNT-Vignoles boycotts the works council elections and all the elections except the ones for shop stewards. Or at least they did when they split.
In my opinion, the "Solidaridad Obrera" union who split from the CGT in like 1991 because they felt CGT were becoming too focused on the elections, seem to have the right idea: locals are empowered to participate, but delegates must sign their resignations before they begin service. Too bad this group is very small (ca. 500 members).
Which is what the USI are doing in Italy (as far as I understand it, which -- frankly -- isn't that far). Whether recall-ability is sufficient to turn a representative into a delegate is another matter entirely....
The USI workers agree the syndical line before the delegate attends the meeting, and then all decisions are ratified at a mass meeting in the workplace, so as far as im concerned that is more than sufficient to be acceptable tactic of anarcho syndicalist unions. And even when they disagree with the decisions of the meeting the USI workers can take action outside of what was agreed.
I am an anarchist, a member of solfed and a TGWU shop steward. I was elected in a shop meeting of workers at my work and I can be immediately recalled by those same shop meetings. Shop meetings of workers are called before every quarterly negotiation meeting with managment and those meetings decide our mandate at negotiations.
I fail to see the contradiction at all betwen being an anarchist and being a shop steward.
the main problem is that I can theoretically be recalled as shop steward by the offical TGWU bureaucrats over and above the wishes of the workers in a shop meeting. but thats another matter entirely
brno
Hi brno, the discussion about the pros and cons of being a shop steward was here:
http://libcom.org/node/7983
When the Federacion Estatal de Estibadores Portuarios, the longshore union, was formed in the late '70s, anarcho-syndicalists had the dominant influence and persuaded their fellow workers to convert the strike assemblies into local unions in the ports. FEEP became merely a federation of these local assemblies. They participate in the elections to the comites de empresa (works councils). But they require a letter of resignation in advance. They also require the elected delegates to give back part of their pay to the union to help finance national conferences. I'm not sure about FEEP's current practices, but it elects 80% of the delegates to the longshore industry comites de empresa. in the '80s the FEEP's position was that the delegates on the works council had to do what the assemblies say.
It seems that the CNT unions that began particpating in these elections in the '80s, such as the CNT sections at the Barcelona Metro and at SEAT, also had an assemblyist position at the time. Their stance was that on the works council they wouldn't make decisions for the workers but call for an assembly to make the decision. Those unions went with CGT. They seem to take a similar position now. In the 2003 contract struggle on the bus system in Barcelona, the CGT union collected signatures on a petition from 1200 workers (out of 2500) to hold a mass assembly for ratification of the contract. But the Workers Commission held some small meeting of only 60 people late one evening and because that meeting ratified the contract, the Workers Commissions got the majority on the works council to approve it. At least, this is what CGT Transport Union says on their website (tho I might have misunderstood...my understanding of Catalan isn't that great).
I think the works councils are not legally required to hold ratification assemblies to approve contracts, tho I'm not sure about this.
t.
Schoolteachers and teachers in training have occupied the electoral institute's state offices in Chilpancingo, Guerrero and are threatening to destroy the ballots of today's statewide municipal elections.
An essay written during the middle of the Grunwicks strike in Willesden, north-west London. A predominatly east African Asian female workforce went on strike against poor conditions and for union recognition.
First issue of an irregular workers' bulletin put together by users of the website, libcom.org. This issue focuses on the 2008 pay dispute over sub-inflation pay offers.
As many people will know the spanish anarcho-syndicalist unions CNT and CGT split largely over the latters' participation in works council elections.
Works councils were set up during the dictatorship, and involve the election on non-recallable union delegates who are to negotiate on behalf of the workers.
I thought that the main argument amongst anarchists was not whether participation in these councils was bad (since it obviously is), but was whether the CGT was still authentically anarcho-syndicalist or not.
But apparently not:
So I'm starting the thread. As for "if you are a shop steward you can't be an anarchist as well", I never said anything like that.
Thoughts? Anyone got any good links with info about the works councils?