An account by S.W. (Sam Dolgoff) of the 1938 IWW Convention in which he expresses support for the potential decision of the IWW to allow collective bargaining agreements and regret for the decision to not affiliate with the International Workingmens Association. Dolgoff was a longtime IWW member who also participated in a number of anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist groups and publications. Originally appeared in Vanguard (November 1938).
The 23rd General Convention of the Industrial Workers of the World took place on Sept. 12-17th. Space does not permit a lengthy discussion or report of the proceedings, which were marked by serious discussions on vital problems. The principal business of the convention revolved around the question of adjusting the policies of the organization to the changed conditions in the American Labor Movement in an effort to secure the gains which the organization had made during the past year in the field of metal and machinery, maritime and W.P.A.
Several resolutions call attention to the fact that while the I.W.W. has been successful in winning strikes, the organization has made no provisions for sustaining the union between strikes. The Lawrence and Mesaba Range strikes were won, but the gains were lost because the constitution of the I.W.W. did not permit time agreements. In the Colorado Coal Strike of 1927-8, which ended in victory for the I.W.W., the United Mind Workers of America reaped the fruits of this victory by meeting the demands of the membership for a time agreement. The refusal to sign time agreements has left the members at the mercy of the conservative and corrupt labor fakers.
The experience of the Cleveland Metal and Machinery Workers Industrial Union No. 440, further illustrates the necessity for a change in this policy. After organizing many shops in the face of the ruthless competition of the C.I.O. and A.F. of L., and establishing a permanent functioning organization, the very existence of the I.W.W. as a factor in the Labor Movement of the Middle West was threatened. The C.I.O. and A.F. of L offered time agreements. The members of the newly organized shops demanded time agreements and threatened to leave the I.W.W. if it persisted in refusing to sign them. Both the C.I.O. and the A.F. of L. are organizing the mass production industries. The field is no longer open. The I.W.W. must now struggle against the formidable competition offered by these organizations. In this struggle the I.W.W. mist meet the enemy on its own ground. If it is to become a factor in the labor movement it must, among other changes, accept the time agreement with the provision that such agreement will not in any way commit the organization to go on working while other shops in the same industry are on strike, or to handle “hot” strike goods. The above represents the gist of the discussions on this subject.
Most objections to the time agreements appear to have their root in the fear that the organization will become opportunistic; that it is a form of class-collaboration. Recent history does not bear out this contention. In the maritime industry, for example, the agreements signed between the shipowners and the maritime unions of the Pacific coast which ended the victorious epic-making general strikes of 1936-37, specifically prohibit and render impossible scabbing of one union against another. They commit the employers to recognize and abide by the demands which the union wrung from them by militant strike action. The militancy of the unions has in no way been impaired by the agreement. On the contrary, the unions have repeatedly shown that they can enforce the agreements by using their economic power. The agreement of the American Stove Company, an I.W.W. shop, contains provisions which adequately provide for the protection of the workers insofar as scabbing, and solidarity strikes are concerned.
The convention decided to hold a referendum on this question. We hope that the membership will see the need for this change, which will put the I.W.W. on the map in the vital mass-production field.
We are sorry to note that once again the I.W.W. has turned down affiliation with the I.W.M.A. This is most deplorable in view of the fact that the I.W.M.A. is the only international organization with ideas similar to those of the I.W.W. The affiliation to a body which counts the revolutionary C.N.T. among its members would increase and strengthen the bonds of solidarity and help immeasurably in the fight against fascism and build that great international unity of industrial unions which along can regenerate society.
The adverse decision is in some measure due to the fact that many libertarians have for years failed to give that cooperation and solidarity which the I.W.W. had a right to expect. They have failed to make any serious attempt to inform the membership about the history, principles and objectives of the Anarcho-Syndicalist movement. It is not yet too late to correct this mistake.
We take this opportunity to extend to the I.W.W. our revolutionary greetings and earnest wishes for success in organizing the workers of American in revolutionary industrial unions for the struggle against capitalism – S.W.
Transcribed by Juan Conatz
Comments
I thought this was…
I thought this was interesting for a few reasons:
1) CBAs did not have the same context in 1938 as they did in the 1950s or 1980s, much less now. No-strike clauses, management rights and grievance procedures either weren't yet almost absolutely a standard feature or they looked different. Unlike subsequent debates about contracts in the IWW, the debates of the 1930s and 1940s don't really mention these explicitly as far as I can tell. In addition to that, IWW shops without CBAs were being raided by the CIO at this time.
2) Something I've known for a while and even been taught by the IWW, but worth a reminder every once in a while, but you cannot predict what a person's stance on a specific thing is based on their political self-identification. I would have just assumed that Dolgoff and the Vanguard anarcho-syndicalists, representing perhaps a more left-wing pole within the IWW, would have been against CBAs. But views on CBAs then weren't really solidified, and the internal critiques of them in the IWW, mostly from more libertarian minded Western Wobblies, weren't very sophisticated IMO, nor did the people critiquing them really have a thought out alternative. Also, with IU 440 in Cleveland area being the bulk of the membership and organizing at the time, and the ones asking for CBAs to be allowed, the organization was under immense pressure to accede to this or risk being little more than a tiny political organization/cultural association.
3) The IWW's difficulty in pursuing formal international relationships during this time is interesting as well. It goes back and forth with deciding to associate with the IWA. Among the most comically bombastic against affiliation with the IWA was Fred Thompson whose GOB entries on this subject are kind of humorous to read.