An August 2025 statement from the staff union representing workers at the North American IWW's General Headquarters in Chicago, IL (USA).
Hello Fellow Workers,
This is a message from the General Headquarters Staff Union. We are the workers at GHQ in Chicago, IL. The four of us have worked for the IWW ranging from 2-9 years. In that time, we have worked with and assisted tens of thousands of members, improved the efficiency and professionalism of GHQ and been a key part of the North American Regional Administration (NARA) of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) growing to total membership numbers not seen since the middle of the 20th Century.
We formed a staff union at GHQ in 2017 because we wanted job stability and did not want the General Executive Board (GEB) and General Secretary-Treasurer (GST) to have unilateral and arbitrary power over our wages, benefits and working conditions. Since then, labor relations between the staff union and the dozens of members of the GEB and multiple GSTs have been cordial and collaborative. The few times we've had disputes with previous GEBs or GSTs, we were able to discuss these with them privately and come to a resolution. Sometimes this meant the staff union accepted something we felt was unfair and chose to address it when bargaining our next collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Sometimes the GEB or GST made changes that rectified the situation.
But we have also put up with some things that many IWW members would be willing to engage in job actions over. We have had GEB members semi-publicly call us ‘parasites’ and spread made-up allegations of embezzlement. We have had job tasks taken away from us in what we saw was part of an attempt to block a recall election. We have had a GST inappropriately request that we do work alone with them in a rental property and engage in the consumption of substances while on the clock. We have seen unpaid volunteers and interns be used to carry out some of our job tasks, thus undermining us as a bargaining unit. We have had GEBs that have temporarily refused to bargain with us in good faith. But the staff union has never filed a grievance, never filed an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and never carried out a job action. We have always believed our disputes with our employer were rooted in their inexperience rather than malice and that we could always work things out.
However, the current GST, Alexandra Graff, and the current GEB, which includes Joe Dantona, Laurel Steinetz, Hannah Campbell-Fox, Ryan Kowalchik, Erika Balint and Patrick Guina have decided to take a far more aggressive approach as bosses.
Recently, the GST unveiled a drastic new timekeeping policy. When we asked why she was making this change, she refused to provide any reasoning, the first time any of us remember a GST refusing to explain an order they had given us.
We have been working under an expired CBA since January 2025, the first time this has ever occurred. When a CBA expires, most of the terms of it continue to be in force while bargaining continues. This is called ‘status quo’.
We believed these changes to the timekeeping policy may have violated the ‘status quo’. So, like in the past, we brought this disagreement to the GEB to try and work something out. The professional and pro-union way to approach this would have been for the GEB to deal with us as a bargaining unit and provide a rationale of why they did not think these changes violated ‘status quo’. Then we could have determined whether they were correct or incorrect and gone from there. This is the sensible way to handle things.
But the GEB ignored us. Instead, GST Graff continued to demand we comply with her new policy. Although we tried to insist they deal with us as a union, GST Graff individually pressured and interrogated us, cornering us in the office or calling us on our personal phones while we were off the clock. She even made threats to suspend or fire us.
We stressed that we were not refusing to comply but that we believed the changes were a violation of status quo and made an attempt to work it out with them. But as it became clear the GEB was not interested in responding to us, we complied with the new policy under protest.
A few days later, GST Graff disciplined each of us in the form of a written warning. This is the first time any worker at GHQ has been written up. It also skipped a step in the progressive discipline process outlined in our CBA.
We believed that this discipline was illegal retaliation for concerted activity. However, we did not immediately escalate the situation. In the spirit of a collaborative approach and avoiding things becoming ugly, we sent the GEB and GST a letter, giving them an opportunity to rescind the write-up. They rejected this offer.
The message from the GEB and GST is clear: do what you are told and shut up, even if you think it violates your contract.
So we have been forced to file a ULP with the NLRB.
We are baffled that it has come to this, but we cannot allow our employer to behave this way without defending ourselves. We also believe that this retaliation is part of a pattern of behavior that can only be interpreted as trying to bust the staff union, get some of us to quit or provoke some of us into getting fired. In the last month, the GEB and/or the GST has requested we do a complicated and intrusive ‘time study’ of our job tasks, directed us to create guides of how to do our jobs, restricted our access to the internal forums, revoked access to IWW’s social media and begun to micromanage virtually everything we do, even demanding to pre-approve secondary colors on t-shirt designs and our ‘Away’ email messages before we take time off. As organizers and members of the labor movement for many years, we can recognize when a boss is implementing a strategy to get rid of workers and we believe this is the GST and GEB’s goal.
We are asking IWW members to email or call the GST and GEB and demand they rescind their illegal retaliatory discipline, immediately cease their union-busting behavior and return to a more collaborative relationship with the staff union. Their contact info can be found below.
General Secretary-Treasurer Alexandra Graff
773-270-0284
[email protected]
General Executive Board
Solidarity Forever!
The General Headquarters Staff Union
Comments
The One Big Union wants…
Petition
It just goes to show what…
It just goes to show what formally syndicalist oriented "minority' unionism leads to. Surrounded by the corporate unionism of the AFL-CIO-CIA and drawn into the framework of the contract industrial relations system for a large slice of members and an anti intellectual climate. The above letter shows how the IWW has become drawn into the ways of corporate unionism and the corporate set up to a grotesque extent. Definitely the orientation toward building a revolutionary industrial unionism of its early years is being thrown out the window of the IWW HQ into the dust bin of its romantic past.
Also it highlights the threat of middle class leftist corporate oriented types infiltrating various groups and institutions. In Sydney something like this involving the above elements has occurred together with factors such as the impact of the Stalinist legacy in the leftist milieu, the influence of identity politics and the predominance of the ALP aligned corporate unions we have which contributed to the hijacking of Jura Books by a cult in 2013. See Libcom.org discussion New Org in Sydney, and Ainfos Rebel Worker obituary for Jack Grancharoff via googe search.
The above conflict and degeneration of the IWW in the USA emphasises the need to dissolve it and for "wholesome" elements to reorganise as a "catalytic:" network focusing on one strategic industry to get the strike/direct action wave going to realise the processes which will lead to major syndicalist oriented break aways from the corporate unions and the resurgence of genuine mass syndicalist industrial unionism.
Has there been a resolution…
Has there been a resolution of this situation?
asn wrote: It just goes to…
The IWW has never been a syndicalist-exclusive union nor does it advertise itself as such; there are democratic socialists, anarchists, left-communists and a whole range of other members. This dispute over money and other issues is also nothing compared to the historical conflicts within the IWW, so I'm not quite sure why you're trying to portray this disagreement as historically unique.
Care to elaborate? It seems like you're just equating having positions like a General Executive Board and General Secretary-Treasurer with "middle class leftist corporate oriented types," despite the fact that the IWW has had such positions/structure since its founding. How is this dispute evidence of "middle class leftist corporate oriented types" infiltrating the IWW?
syndicalist wrote: Has there…
No. Quite the opposite.
"Care to elaborate? It seems…
"Care to elaborate? It seems like you're just equating having positions like a General Executive Board and General Secretary-Treasurer with "middle class leftist corporate oriented types," despite the fact that the IWW has had such positions/structure since its founding. How is this dispute evidence of "middle class leftist corporate oriented types" infiltrating the IWW?"
But because it has a formally bureaucratic structure doesn't mean its bureaucratic body in practice - eg the Bolshevik party in 1917 had a formally ultra bureaucratic structure based on democatic centralism but many historians now agree in 1917 due a major influx of worker members and difficulties of communications - it acted vary much in a decentralised way in the lead up to Lenin's coup in Oct. 1917. The NSW BLF had a formal bureaucratic structure but in the late 60's early 70's was very informed by ultra democratic processes and forms of direct action - but did not "advertise" itself as Anarcho-Syndicalist but it is the closest we have come to an a-s union for many decades. Also following the early IWW split leading to the Chicago and Detroit based IWW's - over support of political party activity - the Chicago line was opposed to support for political party activity in contrast to the Detroit aligned with the SLF Daniel De Leon - and the on the job practice of the Chicago line was connected with direct action in its various forms - and also according to the book Red November Black November - anarchists/anarcho-syndicalists played an important role in the IWW's emergence and later expansion - so would lead to a lot of local autonomy and syndicalist content on the ground.
Syndicalist unions are open all workers of different politics - but in the context of direct action and syndicalist education - they can change to conscious syndicalism.
In the case of the infiltration issue I was looking at our experience here in Sydney with Jura Books - a certain individual from a bourgeois background in their youth went through a radical phase -was involved in ASN activity - but got a cushy university related job - absorbed the ways of management and got on the trustees board of the Jura Books Building and engaged in an attack lasting 10 years (as part of a cult takeover) on the ASN which was based there for many years similar to the harassment of workers at the IWW HQ by a member of the GEB and presumably supported by others on it mentioned in the above letter. So I was looking more of a case of "corporate practice hegemony" connected with a middle class social base but greatly worsened by the formal bureaucratic structure. Due to the above factors in the early romantic days of the IWW - the above corporate boss antics in the IWW HQ would be unheard of.
a complicating factor super…
a complicating factor super charging the corporate boss antics of the above member of the Jura Books Building trustees was a hormonal imbalance exploited by the emerging guru of the cult
asn wrote: But because it…
That's what it seemed like you (not me) were saying, but if you're not arguing that an organization having structure makes it bourgeois, then what's your issue with today's IWW? Why do you characterize it as bourgeois or infiltrated by "middle class leftist corporate oriented types"?
Which has nothing to do with the current IWW dispute... Why leap to the defense of one faction in a dispute if you know nothing about it?
Definitely going to make a…
Definitely going to make a note to include "exploiting hormonal imbalances" as part of my argument next time I get into beef with someone.
adri wrote: Why leap to the…
This a dispute between workers and an employer, not a factional dispute.
Juan Conatz: This a dispute…
Yeah, I know. I have read the most recent GOB. The employer in this case is also the IWW itself, a bit different than if it were just any ol' corporation. So it seems worth considering such disagreements thoughtfully instead of just automatically leaping to the defense of the GHQ Staff Union.
Are you actually affiliated…
Are you actually affiliated with the GHQ Staff Union, Juan? In any case, I was just responding to asn and emphasizing the importance of understanding both sides to get a more complete picture of things before making any judgments, especially considering how this is the IWW we're talking about here.
That's what it seemed like…
That's what it seemed like you (not me) were saying, but if you're not arguing that an organization having structure makes it bourgeois, then what's your issue with today's IWW? Why do you characterize it as bourgeois or infiltrated by "middle class leftist corporate oriented types"?
It depends on the circumstances whether you get a very much in practice bureaucratic run/bourgeois thing (just like with the Bolshevik party example I presented) - in the early days of the IWW due to the high level of class struggle, the influence of anarcho-syndicalist militants and groups in the formation/growth of the iww, lack of the predominance of corporate unionism like you have today in the USA, a lot of opposition to fixed term contracts, the split leading to the Detroit IWW etc - it would be in practice on the ground in many cases be close to anarcho-syndicalist/syndicalist style unionism of that era. so you wouldn't in practice have a bourgeois organisation as you characterize it - in this context and associated grass roots organisation culture you wouldn't have the current situation with those on the GEB brazenly resorting to the ways of corporate management. Contributing to this thing would be members on the board like this woman - through their jobs absorbing corporate management ways/culture - possibly going through a radical phase in their youth and taking a rightwing path in later life connected with rising in the corporate ladder. Also many in the IWW today due to the predominance of corporate unionism for many decades, pro corporate brainwashing courtesy of the corporate media, education system etc. may not be too fussed by what's happening with these workers in the IWW HQ. Hopefully not.
Also you are making the…
Also you are making the classic error of looking back in time re the history of the IWW - you see the GEB of today and acting like it does now in a completely different situation particularly in the early days - also the anarchist groups which built the early IWW were not like most of the what you have today in the USA and the Anglo world - dysfunctional and crawling with identity politics/political correctness nut jobs, copying the Trot groups in many ways etc eg the existing Black Rose Fed etc. with a radically different social base.
See Rebel Worker review of book on USA Anarchist movement
asn wrote:/[...]also the…
The IWW wasn't "built by anarchist groups." What are you on about? Haywood, Debs, De Leon, and others weren't anarchists. Haywood was a long-time member of the Socialist Party of America before co-founding the IWW and even joined the Executive Committee in the 1910s. Many other Wobblies were also members of the Socialist Party and/or had diverse views regarding things like political participation, direct action, "boring from within" (e.g. with respect to the AFL), sabotage, and so on. The early IWW (much like now) was never just some "anarcho-syndicalist union," even if the IWW's version of industrial unionism often shared features with European syndicalism.
Your experiences in an entirely separate organization also have nothing to do with the current IWW dispute, so I'm not sure why you're even bringing them up. You also don't seem to know anything about this dispute, so I'm not sure why you're even chiming in.
The anarcho-syndicalist …
The anarcho-syndicalist group "Right to Existence" was very important re western miners organising and organising drives in Eastern USA amongst others and anarcho-syndicalist workers clubs were involved in the formation of the IWW also see the book Red November Black November and references