Industrial Worker (December 2013)

Articles from the December 2013 issue of the Industrial Worker, the newspaper of the revolutionary union, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW).

Submitted by Juan Conatz on March 3, 2014

Valuable lessons learned from 1935 play “Waiting for Lefty”

An article by Brandon Oliver about a 1935 play about workers intending to strike.

Submitted by Juan Conatz on March 3, 2014

I was recently pleasantly surprised to see that the local community college in Minneapolis was putting on Clifford Odets’ 1935 play, “Waiting for Lefty.” It turns out that it was also presented in London this year after a 30-year absence, so perhaps there is something in the play that speaks to the current moment. The Minneapolis production also took the admirable step of arranging contemporary union members or labor activists to speak after each performance. Normally, I don’t think that cultural review is the biggest priority for the Industrial Worker, but seeing the play live did start me thinking about some things that I think are important for our organization.

First, I’ll give a little background on “Waiting for Lefty.” It seems like it was a pretty famous play in its time (supposedly, the first performance sparked a riot in Manhattan), but it seems to have faded from public knowledge. I wouldn’t have known anything about it before the performance, except that FW John O’Reilly recommended I read it last year. Odets sets the play up as a meeting of a taxi drivers’ union in New York City, with only one item on the agenda: a strike. Although I thought some of the characters had the depth of sock puppets, Odets pulled off a stroke of technical-political genius by having the play occur within a union meeting. There is no fourth wall to break as some of the cast members sit within the audience and sing “Solidarity Forever,” shout disagreements with the union boss, or get roughed up by goons.

The plot is pretty simple. The union boss, Harry Fatt, addresses the talk of a strike and tries to reassure everyone that “now that we’ve got our boy in the White House, we can’t go out.” Of course, he would have supported a strike under the previous administration, but since “Roosevelt has our back, it’s our duty to have his.” With his armed goons behind him, he goes on to blast the “reds” in the union, saying that he’s coming for them.

Members start shouting out for Lefty, the head of the strike committee, but he’s not there. The four other members come up to speak one by one, and each of them has a vignette explaining why they are in favor of striking now. Of the four, one is a doctor who was fired for being Jewish and another was a chemist who did not want to make poison gas. Although his attempt to tie in other parts of society might have made political sense in some ways, this effort detracts from the idea that this is a struggle being led by workers. It’s unlikely that half of the taxi drivers were declassed intellectuals, so why write half of their leaders to be? However, Odets did say later that he’d “never been near a strike” and wanted to use the strike story to discuss many of the problems with capitalist society. After the flashbacks, a union member bursts in to announce that Lefty’s been found—behind the dispatcher’s office with a bullet in his head. The strike committee, with the unanimous support of everyone but Fatt, declares that the strike will begin. Odets uses Lefty’s death to argue that we can’t wait for militant and charismatic leaders to come save us; we have to run our struggles ourselves.

The play’s presentation as an actual union meeting proves to be its most interesting quality. As critics at the time pointed out, part of what was so engaging about the play for so many spectators was that it mirrored their experiences so well— coming to the union in search of a way to stand up to the bosses, seeing confrontations between entrenched bureaucrats and militant workers, and ending dynamically in either repression or some kind of victory.

How many union members today would recognize their experiences in this play? From my own experience in a business union, I would guess the percentage is probably close to zero. If anything, people who have never had any experience with unions would probably be more likely to recognize the scenes as similar to what unions look like in movies and on TV. This is an important change to be conscious of, because, although unions look the same externally, they have lost their meaning in the years between 1935 and 2013. At one moment, even the most problematic unions were a battleground between militant workers and “labor fakirs,” as bureaucrats used to be called. In 1935 maybe it was still possible to kick out all the bosses like Fatt, tell the president not to wait up for us, and turn the unions around. However, 70 years of government collaboration and workplace contractualism has made them such dusty upholders of the status quo that it would take a more creative mind than Odets’ to imagine them leading or inspiring a new workers movement. A local officer of the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) spoke after the show and hammered the above point about the play home. While I was impressed that the cast reached out to labor and union activists, it quickly became clear that this one, at least, had more in common with boss Fatt than with Lefty. The resemblance began with the exhortations that our only weapon for stopping the privatization of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) was to “write our congressperson.” Some audience and cast members asked why APWU wasn’t preparing for a strike and the speaker said that “it’s illegal.” The speaker then let slip that the USPS has casual employees and a twotier system, and after another Wobbly (and dual carder) that I was with pushed on it she confirmed that their union contract made these concessions.

I’ve been an IWW for long enough that I thought I was pretty well inoculated against the business unions. However, hearing how anti-combative they are from their own representative is somehow much more powerful than hearing it from another Wobbly.

The business unions aren’t just good unions gone bad; they are literally zombies— shells that appear to still be alive but with all of their internal dynamic and thought process gone, destroyed by repeated doses of the poison known as the National Labor Relations Act. Finally, they have become incapable of acting out of the bounds that their poisoners have set. We can’t “recapture” or replace them (that is, not at administering the contract).

Our task has to be to show a different path, as a permanent fighting workers’ organization. We should also be visibly putting out our revolutionary message at events like this. Don’t get me wrong—between a branch that focuses on workplace organizing and one that focuses on outreach, I’ll take the organizing branch every day. However, as FW MK explains dialectics, there’s “what’s going on,” “what’s really going on,” and “what’s really, really going on,” which brings back the moment of truth from “what’s going on.” We can bring forward a powerful message as long as it’s rooted in experience of work and organizing, rather than pure ideology. We should become more intentional about bringing this message forward because we can’t become the organization we need to be if our only activity is organizing at our individual workplaces. The business unions don’t have any plan or desire to change the status quo, let alone rupture it. If we regain the confidence that our fellow workers had in the 1930s to proclaim publicly and loudly what we’re about and organize aggressively, then we can once again help to initiate a widespread fighting workers’ movement that brings the bosses—whether in the unions, government, or workplaces—to their knees.

Originally appeared in the Industrial Worker (December 2013)


7 years 10 months ago

In reply to by

There was an exchange of letters about this article in a subsequent Industrial Worker. The article as well as the letters can be read here:

Juan Conatz

7 years 10 months ago

In reply to by


There was an exchange of letters about this article in a subsequent Industrial Worker. The article as well as the letters can be read here:

It also can be found on libcom here:


4 years 3 months ago

In reply to by

Lefty, the hero of the play was Sam Orner, a New York taxi-cab driver who, as a teenager in 1913, joined the Young People's Socialist League, the unofficial, leftist youth section of the reformist Socialist Party of America. After travelling all over the United States as an organizer for the Industrial Workers of the World, the “Wobblies”, Orner joined the Socialist Educational Society of New York, largely formed in 1921 by expatriate members of the SPGB, in 1923. The SESNY later became the New York Local of the Workers Socialist Party of the United States.

In the early 1930s, Sam Orner became the organizer for the New York cab drivers. In 1934, they went on strike, and it was this strike and Orner's part in it that formed the subject of Clifford Odets's play. Orner fell foul of the Mafia mobsters who were attempting to get control of the union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. They badly beat him up, and he was hospitalized. But a comrade managed to get him out of the hospital before the mob could kill him. Sam Orner remained an active member of the WSP(US) until his death in 1973.


4 years 3 months ago

In reply to by

Very interesting - thanks for adding that!

The contract as a tactic

An article from the Industrial Worker newspaper advocating formal, written contracts with employers as a goal for IWW campaigns. We do not agree with this article but reproduce for reference.

Submitted by Juan Conatz on December 6, 2013

The legacy of the IWW is one without labor contracts. In the era before there was a legal structure for unions to win legal recognition against the employers’ wishes, unions either made sweetheart deals with the boss or maintained standards through their own organizational strength. The IWW chose to eschew collaboration with the boss and focus on organizing workers. It was a strategy that worked in some cases, allowing us to improve standards in mining and logging towns, but it also cost us in places like Lawrence, Mass., where, despite a large and militant strike, without a contract the work remained one of low wages and sweatshop conditions.

Many people believe that the IWW is ideologically opposed to contracts or does not have any. Actually, today the union has several contracts that cover workers at domestic violence call centers, a recycling plant, the staff at a United Auto Workers local, and retail locations.

I would like to argue that contracts, like other tactics such as strikes, pickets, boycotts, slow-downs, press conferences, teach-ins, etc., can be used as part of long-term campaigns to raise the standards of living for workers, raise the ability of workers to have a say and control in their workplace, and act as a publicity piece to promote the IWW’s brand of direct and democratic unionism. Contracts can be especially useful in high-turnover industries, where they can lock in basic pro-worker conditions regardless of turnover and make it easier for the union to talk to new workers and raise their class consciousness.

Many other unions treat contracts as an end. Their primary goal is to achieve a contract with a company where there was none before. This can lead them to agree to sweetheart deals with the company without engaging workers, or to organize workers with a limited and narrow goal of what they can achieve.

One of the IWW’s goals is worker control of the economy. When we get there, we won’t need business owners with whom to have contracts. However, we don’t have the strength or organizational capacity to completely do away with the capitalist class today. We have to wage battles that grow the working class’ understanding and acceptance of our ability to do more than just be cogs in someone else’s machine.

While other unions see the signing of a contact as something that guarantees labor peace for the employer, we must see the signing of a contract not as an end to struggle, but a beginning. We will still have to struggle to enforce the pro-worker provisions of the contract, we will have to work to undermine any provisions of the contract that give the boss power, and we will have to work to organize workers in the shop covered by the contract to continue to fight for better conditions and more worker control. We will also have to spread propaganda among workers in other shops to encourage them to organize for their own improvements in conditions and achieve worker control.

A contract fight can be a framework for discussing what workers want their jobs and workplace to be, starting with surveying workers and discussing what they do and do not like about their work conditions, and then bringing those demands to bargaining while mobilizing and flexing the workers’ strength until a contract is won. We can repeat the process, continuing to discuss what was achieved and codified in a contract and what needs to still be done.

Workers must own the contract campaign process: they must elect their bargaining representatives, receive and be engaged with negotiation updates, take action to pressure the boss on specific demands, and have the final vote on whether to accept the contract and for how long.

There may be some back and forth. The union can rank its issues for negotiating what is required to even consider the contract and what is completely unacceptable, but the union can also rank some of the less black-and-white issues to know better what can be negotiated and on what they need to stand firm. The union can break its issues into different categories to consider as well: wages, work conditions, training, benefits, grievance procedures, and organizing and mobilizing tactics.

While some have an all-or-nothing mentality, I think that it makes more sense for workers to take what they can get now and use those expanded resources to fight for even more.

A contract will not likely codify our absolute victory over the capitalist class, and at times it could be a distraction, but so can many other tactics when they are elevated to the level of strategy. Striking for the sake of going on strike won’t help us achieve our goals any more than will bargaining for the sake of a contract. The product of contract negotiations will essentially specify the current balance of forces between the boss and the union.

Some may say that by agreeing to a labor contract with an employer the union is collaborating with the boss, conceding defeat in the class struggle, or agreeing to a ceasefire between workers and the boss. I don’t think so, at least not any more so than is going on strike for a specific demand such as a pay raise or to pressure the boss to rehire illegally fired workers. Further, most union contracts have a variety of rules, such as grievance procedures, that boost workers’ ability to challenge the boss’s authority. Enforcement of these provisions is often an important way for unions to engage workers, keep them organizing, and to highlight the ways in which the boss is trying to rob workers of their rights and dignity.

Other opponents of labor contracts argue that a contract limits the union and the specific tactics it is allowed to use. Many unions, for example, agree to no-strike clauses in contracts for the duration of the contract. I don’t think that a contract necessarily has to give up any tactics that the union wants to hold on to. A contract will only limit the union to the extent that we allow it to or allow the boss to limit us. At the end of the day, we don’t have to agree to anything that we don’t want to.

If the employer violates a part of the agreement, we won’t necessarily be expected to not respond in kind. Further, contracts expire. A two- or three-yearlong contract can give us the opportunity to regroup our strength, gather our forces, outline a new battle strategy, organize around it, and prepare for a new contract fight with the intentions of expanding workers’ power. Also, it takes time to organize around issues and convince all the workers at a shop to take a particular action on a particular point. Sometimes it might make sense for the union, understanding that it may not be able to organize workers, to commit to “X,” “Y” or “Z” tactic within a certain period of time, and to agree to give up such a tactic in a contract, until such a time that the union is capable of deploying it.

Workers may not be able to win everything they want with the first contract, but they can use what they do get to provide some sense of stability. In many ways, if workplace conditions are a building, organizing is the scaffolding for that building and a labor contract is the blueprint. Once the building is up, we can always remodel it, and when the time comes, we can tear it down and build a new structure. But when we do, we’ll have had the experience of building before to learn from and go off of.

Originally appeared in the Industrial Worker (December 2013)

Juan Conatz

8 years 8 months ago

In reply to by

I basically completely disagree with this, but think this might be the most coherent justification for this goal I've seen. Pro-contractualism has essentially no radical historical lineage, unlike say, solidarity unionism or direct unionism, both of which are based on experiences (historical and contemporary) and explained that way. Pro-contract people really don't have that because they're a more electectic group of people. They include everyone from Trotskyists, bread and butter unionists, anarchists from political organizations, those from activist backgrounds, etc.

So, I guess some scattered, bullet point style things about this article...

-I don't believe it's true that "there was a legal structure for unions to win legal recognition against the employers’ wishes". If he means during the historical IWW's heyday there weren't a New Deal era nationwide labor laws, that's of course true, but this didn't mean there were legal structures. The IWW website also presents the contract question in these terms, and it isn't an adequte explanation at all. From what little I know, the New Deal era laws were basically institutionalization of various state and local level laws or AFL experimentation, some of which go back to the IWW's historical heyday.

-Saying Lawrence fell apart because there was no contract really flattens out the situation, and in any case, means the Philly docks shouldn't have existed because for a while it was a no contract situation and they maintained for a while.

-This article does what a lot of pro-contract 'pragmatists' do, set up the discussion framework as 'contracts VS all out revolution'. It's pretty obvious that this is a silly dichotomy.

-Also sets up objections to contractualism as ideological, while their perspective is presented as common sense, however, their perspective is ideological as well (if not more so).

-I'm surprised to see the grievence procedure listed as something that's postive. This has been critiqued at least since the 1950s with Glaberman. And pretty much every dual-card Wobbly I know has said how disempowering and often useless this procedure is. It's one of the absolute worst things about contracts, taking issues off the shopfloor and into a legalistic mess with representatives.


8 years 8 months ago

In reply to by

Well, I guess both the article and Juan's notes express two very profound and fundamental perspectives in the IWW. Why do you figure such a wide gap in approach in a revolutionary industrial union?

Juan Conatz

8 years 8 months ago

In reply to by

I actually don't think pro-contractualism is an actual thought-out perspective in the IWW but instead is something that comes up because alternative models are incomplete or haven't 'proven' themselves by the criteria some have. But these differences are also reflected in the European syndicalist unions, as well, as numerous political organizations.


8 years 8 months ago

In reply to by


But these differences are also reflected in the European syndicalist unions, as well, as numerous political organizations.

Absolutely and I am always interested how the clashes of ideas and practices play themselves out, get resolved and so forth. Oft times folks look at the growth in membership numbers as an indicator in the growing acceptance of revolutionary ideas, in the case of syndicalist, industrial unionist, specific anarchist organizations. And this -- acceptance of revolutionary ideas -- is not always the case.

Sometimes certain practices become the norm without being a thought out strategy.

Over the recent couple of decades we have seen the popularity in the Red and Black flag , the IWW red flag and so forth. Yet within the organizations flying those flags, the sort of practice often times varies from what the "ideological" colors the flags fly. And I say this across the board.


8 years 7 months ago

In reply to by

So I'm the author of the piece in question, and I was hoping it would stir up some debate and conversation both in the union and in the broader labor / anti-capitalist movement. I don't want to post so much to 'defend' the piece or to get into any sort of e-fight about it, but I do want to clarify points that may be misunderstood or misinterpreted.

Juan Conatz said, "-Saying Lawrence fell apart because there was no contract really flattens out the situation, and in any case, means the Philly docks shouldn't have existed because for a while it was a no contract situation and they maintained for a while."

I don't think my piece argued that Lawrence fell apart because there was no contract, rather it said that without a contract, unions had to rely on their organizational strength, which in Lawrence was crushed. A contract might have at least let the union keep a toe in the door to continue to organize until they were strong enough again to continue the fight.

"-This article does what a lot of pro-contract 'pragmatists' do, set up the discussion framework as 'contracts VS all out revolution'. It's pretty obvious that this is a silly dichotomy."

I agree it is a silly dichotomy, and I don't think this article does set the framework as 'contracts vs all out revolution' any more than setting any tactic up against 'all out revolution.' I argued that a contract should be viewed as one other tool in the toolbox, to be used at times, to be put aside at others, just like a strike, picket, newspaper, blog, etc. The problem is when we elevate such tactics to be ends in and of themselves, sacrificing our long term organizing goals in order to have a dramatic show-down, or a peaceful resolution.

"-Also sets up objections to contractualism as ideological, while their perspective is presented as common sense, however, their perspective is ideological as well (if not more so)."

Being opposed to some contracts, or to the use of contracts in certain situations, is a perspective that I share. Is it ideological? Sure, everything is ideological. Being opposed to any and all contracts is ideological as well, and it's a view that I think is a knee-jerk 'leftier-than-thou' reaction and I don't think it benefits long-term organizing. Sometimes the best route to take to where we're going is snowed in, and we have to take the route that will get us there.

"-I'm surprised to see the grievence procedure listed as something that's postive. This has been critiqued at least since the 1950s with Glaberman. And pretty much every dual-card Wobbly I know has said how disempowering and often useless this procedure is. It's one of the absolute worst things about contracts, taking issues off the shopfloor and into a legalistic mess with representatives."

Once again, the grievance procedure is a tactic that makes sense at times, and doesn't at others. Just becuase other unions use it to 'quietly resolve' issues with management, doesn't mean that we should. We can publicize grievances, use the legal protection provided by them to fuck with the boss, and encourage union workers to 'take control' of the grievance, so they are the ones telling the boss what they did wrong and how they need to act in the future.

Chilli Sauce

8 years 7 months ago

In reply to by

Once again, the grievance procedure is a tactic that makes sense at times, and doesn't at others.

The thing is though - and this is a response to a thread of thought that seems to run through your most recent post - once your union has signed a contract, you've limited your ability to use certain tactics. You've effectively given the bosses extra leverage that can be used against the workforce when a contract is signed. If you want tactical scope, the worst thing you can do is sign a contract.

A contract might have at least let the union keep a toe in the door to continue to organize until they were strong enough again to continue the fight.

Paths to hell, good intentions and all that. If a union doesn't have the organisational strength to avoid being crushed I really doubt if a contract is somehow going to keep the bosses at bay - especially given the fact that contracts move the class struggle terrain from the shop floor to the legal arena, where the bosses have a stronger hand by default.

And, to be blunt, revolutionary union organising needs to done with the reality in mind that without organisational strength, it's inevitable that the bosses will come after us. If there's a union that management doesn't try to crush when it has the power to do so, that's an indictment of the union and nothing more.


8 years 7 months ago

In reply to by

@Chilli Sauce - "once your union has signed a contract, you've limited your ability to use certain tactics" I don't necessarily agree. Many unions do limit themselves, but ultimately, that's a decision they make regardless of the paper signed.

"If a union doesn't have the organisational strength to avoid being crushed I really doubt if a contract is somehow going to keep the bosses at bay" That's a fair point, organization needs to be the top priority, I am arguing that at times a contract can play a part in organizing, but ultimately, without organization, no tactic - whether it be a contract, a picket, or a strike, will succeed.

Chilli Sauce

8 years 7 months ago

In reply to by


@Chilli Sauce - "once your union has signed a contract, you've limited your ability to use certain tactics" I don't necessarily agree. Many unions do limit themselves, but ultimately, that's a decision they make regardless of the paper signed.

Yeah, but it's a paper signed that locks you into a state-regulated system of labor law designed to, at best, encourage labor peace. By securing a contract, it obligates the union (and it's members) to follow certain laws and makes the contract open to judicial review.

And it's true that the state can do this sort of things to workers outside of a union contract, but by having a contract we hand over that extra lever of control to the bosses.

And, to be honest mate, I don't think you've adequately described how the IWW could limit the damage done by signing a contract - nevermind the fact that a contractual strategy/tactic fundamentally changes the role of the union in the workplace. Likewise, I don't think you've shown how contracts can support organising - other than basically asserting it and using a not very analogous 100-year old example.

Myself, I was involved in writing Direct Unionism and, very importantly, some of the strongest anti-contract voices came from those FWs who'd been involved in NLRB campaigns. If we're going to look at examples, that's a far better place to start.

klas batalo

8 years 7 months ago

In reply to by

I argued that a contract should be viewed as one other tool in the toolbox.

Ya know, this is what they say about participation in electoralism, and the State as well. Party communism and all that. This is always brought out, but in most American contexts in a sorta "OMG diversity of tactics!!! geeze" type of's annoying. Revolutionary unionism stakes out a different course I'm afraid...

anyway best way to actually have diversity of tactics and break contracts is to not sign them in the first place. to go on with my statist analogy, the best way to wither the state is to actively wither it, not build it just in alternate form. your idea seems to be to "wobblify" contracts (by saying we just wont actually service them)...i just don't think that is realistically possible, contracts will transform how we organize our people, just like how participation in the State transforms people...contracts are contractualism.

Juan Conatz

8 years 7 months ago

In reply to by

I wrote a reply to this in this month's Industrial Worker. It's mostly an expanded version of my first comment above.

Juan is correct; Scribbles is on the wrong track.
A contract is not a 'tool' or a 'tactic' of class struggle, it is a codification/ a peace agreement.
In that regard. like Klas mentioned, it is similar to laws. ...
Generally laws are dictated (when not by force) by representation and negotiation (which the IWW is opposed to, or seeks to minimize in stressing collective self-activity), sometimes laws (or contracts) codify a high water mark in struggle however the enforcement of such laws (or contracts) that are of benefit to our class still requires our active organization (see for example: our weak class organization and the erosion of the 'bill of rights'/ habeas corpus/ etc.). IMHO those who prize laws and contracts as an end goal or think of such things as tools or tactics (rather than codifications of defeat/ recuperation of partial victory) generally mean it's will be a useful tool or tactic for whichever individuals will become professional negotiators and representatives rather than activists and organizers.


8 years 6 months ago

In reply to by

I work in a trade union shop. We have a standard contract and things go with the ebb and flow. I agree with Scribs that the contract is a tactic, even if it is a "bad" one.

My shop has seen a lot in the past 10 years, good wage increases followed by slashing of wages and two-tier contracts. Most of the membership is uneducated in general and specifically ignorant about labor unionism, even in the simon simple form. But the workers have good instincts, for example a wildcat began after it was learned there was a backroom deal for one department to stay stagnant when everyone else gave up 10 percent. In their disorganization they gave it up fairly quickly, by the time I got to work at night the action was long gone.

This set off a chain of events where the workers have become more militant in general. The contract process proved bankrupt, and we started settling things on our own. Especially the 2nd tier workers. Marches on the boss are an accepted fact of life now. Most of the time it is to uphold a contractual guarantee, something that otherwise would be ignored without collective action. I participated in the last set of negotiations just to keep the committee democratic, to record the negotiations and to be a thorn in the side of the bosses and union brass. I filed the first grievance in the history of the company recently and even though it caused a shitstorm and my steward was pissed, management capitulated because they knew it represented the popular will.

During this time I have laid low as an organizer in order to not only learn the trade but also build my contacts and leaders for future organizing. The only defense I have without "outing" myself as a wob or radical is the trade union structure. On more than one occasion my job has been saved by the intervention of a steward. Also, by playing the contract game correctly it can be used as an educational tool for the workers. Looking forward to building independent committees that do not follow no strike and other anti-worker clauses, 7 years ago this was impossible because the level of struggle wasn't there.

I see contracts as less than most people make them out to be. I wish they were much shorter and focused on basic terms - wages and hours and benefits mostly. In this form they could be more palatable, instead of being such weighty documents. But no goal is attainable without the use or threat of direct action.I am not holding my breath for this day that the material conditions of workers will improve without direct negotiation with the employers that ends in an agreement.

We work through lunch at our shop, as is industry practice and is stated in the contract. But at another shop (closed now), the workers would shut down a machine if even one person didn't get their lunch. "If you can't get someone to cover for one, we all will eat together". And when the going got tough, they would intermittent strike. Since there was a 7 1/2 hour workday (paid work through lunch), they would shut down with 1/2 an hour left in the shift. This caused at least 1.5 hours downtime per shift since the machine takes a while to get running again, and the lack of communication between shifts makes it even more difficult. These workers knew their contract and the power of direct action. They won every time. The company didn't take anyone to court to uphold the contract since the workers were following it and the union gave its full support to the workers in the shop. The plant was eventually closed but we got some of the workers at our shop now...

In general I am unimpressed with "direct unionism" and most of the IWW posturing against contracts. I want to see some of these ideas come to fruition and carry some water before I take them seriously, but for now it seems like we are making things deliberately difficult for ourselves and new organizing. I wish it was Goldfield all over again and I can post "LAW" with my demands outside of work but this is 2014 and we are operating in a different paradigm.

Perhaps this is semantic, but still... a contract is not a tactic, it is a treaty.
your post goes on to mention many tactics (wildcat, slowdown, mild sabotage, etc.) that you use to enforce an existing treaty (a contract).

Chilli Sauce

8 years 6 months ago

In reply to by

The contract process proved bankrupt, and we started settling things on our own. Especially the 2nd tier workers. Marches on the boss are an accepted fact of life now. Most of the time it is to uphold a contractual guarantee, something that otherwise would be ignored without collective action.

To me, this does not seem like an argument for contracts at all - just the opposite in fact.

In general I am unimpressed with "direct unionism" and most of the IWW posturing against contracts. I want to see some of these ideas come to fruition and carry some water before I take them seriously...

You could say the same thing about IWW contracts, no?


8 years 4 months ago

In reply to by

I am glad this debate is happening. I tend to think both sides make valid points but I tend to side more with the contract as a tactic aspect. The union as a whole is generally weak now and I think maintaining footholds and gaining new ground in new workplaces should come first, with contracts done right, because i think we stagnate without them.

How I got fired and won my job back

An article from an IWW organizer about his organizing that led to his being fired and returned to work.

Submitted by Juan Conatz on March 3, 2014

The Termination

Arriving to work, I entered through the break room as usual. There, awaiting me was my manager who immediately said that we needed to talk. He told me not to put away my bag; I couldn’t get ready for my shift like I usually did. I asked him if this was a disciplinary meeting but he did not respond directly to the question. He just said, “We need to talk. This will just take a minute.” While walking through the production floor I greeted co-workers as I usually do and I followed my manager into his office. Seeing that no one else was in the office, I asked, “Is someone from HR [Human Resources] going to be here?” He barked back at me, “This is coming straight from HR.” I then asked him if I could have a co-worker in the meeting with me. He denied this request, responding, “Hmmm, no.”

Immediately after the door closed, my manager informed me “this” wasn’t working out, perhaps justifying this by stating I was “clearly unhappy” here. He went through a cursory explanation of paperwork and stated that I was terminated. I did not agree with the judgments and told him so; and when instructed to sign a termination form I refused.

I inquired if the termination was a result of my work performance. “No. You’re a great worker, but a bad employee,” he replied. While still in shock at what was happening, I had enough sense to ask some follow-up questions and see what he’d reveal. Foremost, I was curiously struck by that explicit worker/employee distinction he mentioned, and so I asked him about it. He elaborated that while I was a “leader” on the crew, I was nonetheless disrespectful to the owners. For example he cited the frustration I’ve expressed to other co-workers, including him, about how the owners leave their week-old dirty dishes from the office by the sink and neglect to wash them. With that I readily pointed out how he and everyone else complain to me about just that practice as well.

“They’re the owners, and it doesn’t matter,” he replied.

“Can I work my shift or am I fired?” I asked to clarify that firing was, in fact, underway.

I was told no, I could not work my shift. I inquired if the company would approve my unemployment, to which he responded affirmatively.

I’ve had many a nightmare about being fired from this job; and have thought at length about what I would do should that day arrive. Having seen how managers call unsuspecting co-workers to cover shifts for workers walking into termination, and how they wait for their target to arrive through the break room, I recognized what was happening to me. Previously, when my departmental co-workers and I were better-organized, we discussed what we’d do if one of us was fired for a collective action we’d taken.

First, we’d obviously ask for a witness, and wouldn’t sign anything presented to us. Next, the fired worker would do everything they legally could to stay on the premises and speak with as many co-workers as possible about what just happened. If organizers were on shift, they’d act immediately to stop work and call for an on-site meeting with management. Unfortunately, at the time of my firing our campaign was at a lull. We weren’t taking collective actions on the shared and specific issues (staffing levels, holiday bonuses, profit sharing, etc.) usually discussed on the floor. As a result, I was making the rookie organizer mistake of talking shit about working conditions but not taking any collective actions to back things up. Therefore, management was able to spin a narrative of me being detrimental to morale and to justify firing me accordingly.

The timing of my firing was a further disadvantage for us. My fellow organizer was on vacation and another ally worker had just voluntarily left the company a week earlier. This left me with little immediate support in my department, so there was no one to organize a work stoppage in direct response. In hindsight, after receiving the termination notice, I probably should have immediately walked out and gathered my co-workers, so we could read it together, and thereby avoid management’s typical trap of trying to get me to say something I’d regret within the emotionally charged closed-door meeting.

When I did walk out of the office, I immediately sought my departmental co-workers. As I tried to explain what just happened to one I’d worked alongside for three years, the anger, rage and disbelief inhabiting me turned to sadness and confusion. We hugged, made plans to call each other later and I then went on to have the same emotional conversation another dozen or so times with other co-worker friends onsite. During these conversations I could see the shock and fear in their faces. Having worked for the company for five years, all of them knew this wasn’t about work performance; but was another example of the company retaliating against workers who speak up and pushing out those who they didn’t like. But, without a planned response, or an organizer already prepared to lead one, solidarity had to assume the simpler forms of hugs and handshakes. Yet, to make sure that everyone knew why I was fired, I made a copy of my termination form (on the office copier in front of the boss who just fired me) and passed it off to my co-workers (who in turn shared it with the afternoon crew). In hindsight, those individual conversations and the generalized sharing of the termination form proved extremely agitational for my fellow co-workers, and it assisted the campaign which would eventually develop to reclaim my job.

When I left the premises, I immediately called a co-worker and fellow organizer to confide my termination.

“What’s the plan?” he asked.

Still reeling from it, I didn’t know what to say. We made plans to meet for breakfast. In between chain smoking cigarettes and transferring buses on my way to the diner, I called and texted every current and former co-worker I knew and relayed to them what had happened.

When I sign people up to the IWW and am asked why I’m a member, part of my reply is consistent: “I know that if I get fired for organizing, I know that the union will be there to have my back and fight tooth-and-nail for me to get my job back.” Now that day had come, and for the next four months my fellow workers fulfilled that commitment beyond what I could’ve hoped and imagined.

The Committee Responds

During the first three weeks following my termination I distracted myself from the realities of unemployment by assisting the committee’s organizers in their efforts to reestablish my employment. As I said earlier, the campaign was at a lull. Yet, prior to my termination we’d been preparing a timeline to reset the organizing campaign. The night I got fired, the committee met with two other fellow workers and we had a focused conversation about our options for response. We distinguished two immediate options: 1) take this firing on the chin and keep the organizing underground or 2) make our first cross-department and cross-store action that would fight to regain my job. Since I was an outspoken worker on conditions of employment, we were confronted with the question: How could we respond to future issues or firing if we didn’t take action on my egregious firing? With a quiet acknowledgement of the immense work ahead of them, the committee decided action was necessary, even if they couldn’t win my job back. We suspected that the company was clearing house and another outspoken organizer would likely be terminated soon, too. And if that happened our position to respond would be further diminished.

Rather than limiting the demand to my reinstatement, we decided to expand it to include addressing the broader issue of the company’s subjective and usually unjust disciplinary procedures. This strategy proved beneficial. Our demands were constructed into a petition letter, coupled with a personal letter I’d written to my co-workers, addressing the charges used to terminate me. The demand for my reinstatement proved motivational for workers I was acquainted with; yet, the broader demand succeeded in acquiring the support of a vaster range of co-workers— who had presumably witnessed and/or experienced the company’s abusive disciplinary practices in the past.

foodservworkThe committee understood that we needed to move fast on the petition, while the issue was still vivid in co-workers’ minds. The anger, immediate and fiery, that grievances can ignite in a worker just as often dissipate when there’s no timely path forward for action: paralyzed resignation often results. So the committee set a few immediate goals to pursue: first, to coordinate a delegation of four to six workers and compose and have 25 workers sign a petition, ready for delivery within a week. Also, more timely, at our Food & Retail Workers United (FRWU) Industrial Organizing Committee (IOC) meeting the next day, the committee presented its escalation plan to other fellow workers for feedback. We then created a “social map” of our workplace and assigned shop organizers to meet with a few dozen co-workers we assessed as potential supporters of the petition.

As the fired worker, my role within the organizing campaign was threefold: 1) Assist with one-on-ones, 2) act as a general task monkey for the campaign’s needs and 3) prepare my case for the Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), if we decided to file. The first role was the most important: setting up one-on-one meetings and assisting with two-on-one meetings with fellow organizers. My usual role in these conversations was to act as the agitational force while my fellow organizer would conduct the education, inoculation and organization tasks. These conversations were highly emotional as we uncovered other grievances, stories of discipline gone awry and the immense fear co-workers had of losing their jobs. Naturally, workers brought up unionizing frequently. For me personally, the hardest component of the one-on-ones was asking a worker to sign the petition knowing I couldn’t definitely assure them I’d be present if or when they faced retaliation.

As the general task monkey, I spent most of my days at the IWW’s office, addressing peripheral tasks of the petition drive. The paperwork— coordinating translation of documents, making copies and getting them to organizers—was to be expected. I feel my most beneficial role was checking in with organizers multiple times a day about their one-on-ones. In those first two weeks, our committee members were regularly at the office brainstorming escalation strategies, one-on-one conversations, and how to reach out to more workers.

Altogether, 34 workers signed onto the petition demanding a forum on the company’s disciplinary procedure and my reinstatement. A week after I was fired, four organizers interrupted a meeting of our bosses, read aloud the demand letter and gave testimonials. Though noticeably uncomfortable, the employers remained confident in their power.

“We will never rehire Emmett,” an owner defiantly stated.

Mistaking the letter delivery as the culmination of our efforts rather than the first public step in an escalation plan, the bosses would soon be proven wrong as internal and external direct actions created an environment which forced the company to accept the NLRB’s determination and settle in my favor.

How I Got My Job Back

Before I detail my role in preparing for the ULP, let me stress another thing: our committee’s direct action escalation campaign and our ULP strategy were largely informed by the experience of assisting and bearing witness to a fellow worker in our branch who was fired a year earlier from another campaign. In that previous campaign, our fellow worker lost what we believed was a solid ULP charge, so everyone questioned whether my fate would differ. The ULP process is a roll of the dice, the NLRB must let working people win a round every now and again in order to maintain worker confidence in the system.

While the ULP process would take over three months, the unimaginable was seemingly about to happen: I was going back to work. I was surprised to be awarded a back-to-work order and a “merit” ruling, which meant the NLRB believed there was compelling evidence that I was retaliated against. Even more surprising news was that rather than further appealing the NLRB’s judgment the company expressed its interest in a settlement—including agreeing to my reinstatement. Though they first inquired if I’d accept a payout settlement, I had already informed the organizing committee and my NLRB agent that I wouldn’t agree to any settlement that didn’t include me going back to work. While at first my position on returning to work was based on principle and a desire to keep the organizing going, reinstatement became very personal as a way to reciprocate the mutual aid given to me by my co-workers. Just as an injury to one is an injury to all, my victory was a victory for all my co-workers.

So, how was this rather unthinkable outcome made a reality? I attribute it to four factors: 1) internal and external direct actions, 2) a solid ULP strategy, 3) training and an experienced community of organizers, and 4) the company’s own naiveté.

First, while I’ll likely never know exactly why management agreed to reinstate me, instinct tells me that without direct action it would never have happened. One thing I am 100 percent positive of is that, without internal direct action, my reinstatement would never have meant so much to my co-workers. The march on the boss, petition signatures, pins and magnets, plus all the time workers took out of their day to meet, brainstorm and motivate each other to take action: all effectively invested my co-workers in the situation. They became active agents within the process from which management had tried to exclude them. Furthermore, I believe the reason the company buckled to the NLRB had more to do with the visible shop floor actions, support and discussion regarding my case than a sternly-worded letter from the NLRB. With the message that I “won” the ULP floating in the air, if the company had appealed the decision they would have run the risk of polarizing the workplace further away from them and closer towards the organizing committee. This was the move that shop organizers were anticipating and which organizers were readying an escalated response to.

Externally, Wobblies within the FRWU-IOC created a Friends of Emmett Committee, tasked to develop a two-month escalation plan to mobilize customers and the community behind my cause. We knew such support would be vital to our morale as organizers and hopefully serve as a lightning rod for further internal action by workers. For every step of the escalation plan, Wobblies in the organizing committee and the friends committee considered how the actions would polarize the workers on the inside.

Our external strategy was largely informed by participation in solidarity actions for fired Wobblies over the course of the past few years. Some of these actions involved just a Wobbly on the job without a campaign, while others contained an underground organizing committee. Often in these previous efforts, organizers applied an immediate and aggressive public approach to both scenarios: the union or solidarity group would escalate almost instantaneously to pickets, rallies, and media coverage and thereby create a new set of obstacles. Organizers found it difficult to increase the intensity of pressure, maintain the frequency of actions, or win unorganized workers over to the side of the cause. While applying this full-throttle emotional and economic leverage can be effective in circumstances of wage theft and when a single Wobbly on the job is seeking settlement of wrongful termination, the presence of an underground organizing committee requires organizers to consider their level of reach within the workplace.

In assessing our committee’s width and depth within the several worksites, we concluded that our committee was too small to conduct public pickets without encountering the same campaign-stalling results mentioned earlier that previous campaigns experienced. The Friends of Emmett Committee developed a measured escalation plan that sought to escalate slowly and provide the opportunity for the external and internal campaigns to synthesize. Simply, organizers envisioned the Friends of Emmett Committee as a tool not to win my job back but to provide public cover for the organizing within the shop and help initiate action.

The first step in the external escalation plan, which coincidentally occurred the day after the company received the NLRB merit notification, was a customer delegation. A group of customers, organized by Friends of Emmett and which included a Wobbly from the FRWU-IOC, delivered and read to an owner in front of my co-workers (and a few random customers) a demand for my reinstatement. We placed the rest of the escalation plan, which included neighborhood postering, canvassing, hand-billing and second delegation, on hold until we heard back regarding if the company was willing to settle.

The second component I credit for my return to work was the ULP strategy the organizing committee developed with the assistance of fellow workers both locally and from across the country. Rather than rushing to the NLRB, I made the direct action campaign of my co-workers a top priority and brainstormed how/if the ULP process could be used to our advantage. As referred to earlier, this was my final role as the fired organizer. During the weeks prior to filing a complaint, I read through previous NLRB affidavits and consulted numerous fellow workers and allied labor lawyers to make sure my case was solid.

For days I went back and forth on the decision to file as the IWW. While the campaign wasn’t public, my involvement within the union was public outside of work. Ultimately, I decided not to file as the IWW or an independent union. Hunches and assumptions aside, I could not prove management knew anything about me being union. Therefore, if I couldn’t demonstrate it and management wasn’t going to offer it, then the NLRB agent wouldn’t be able to prove it. Bringing in the union at this point would only expose organizers to an anti-union campaign they were not effectively positioned to counter. Besides, most relevant to the ULP was keeping the NLRB agent focused on my best piece of documentation: management’s clear violation of an employee’s Section 7 rights, as observable in my termination form.

My charge accepted, I walked into the meeting with the NLRB agent, my affidavit testimony appropriately outlined with all supporting evidence prepared. With such preparation at hand, I was well positioned to substantiate a narrative beginning with me being labeled the head agitator of a petition delivery, continuing through with documented instances of managerial hostility toward me (hello, work journals!), and concluding with a managerial personnel change intended to isolate and, finally, terminate me. Yes, the temptation to go off-topic into other unverifiables was certainly there, but I stuck to responding only to the accusations found in the termination form.

Timing was again very strategic with the ULP. The day after management held an all-company discussion forum which was demanded by workers and in which the ownership defended my termination and their disciplinary procedure, the company received its first ever letter from the NLRB informing them of the investigation. As my fellow organizer told me later, the department manager looked like he was going to vomit when the owner brought him the news.

Next, significant credit for this victory must go to the IWW’s Organizer Training and the community of Wobbly organizers with whom I’m fortunate to share a General Membership Branch. You know how we talk a lot about documentation and those workplace ournals? Well, those were integral in getting my job back. In those journals and my day planners where I recorded all my one-on-one meetings, some dating back years, I was able to piece together a narrative for both my co-workers and for the NLRB. Furthermore, the numerous organizers I learned from in my years within the IWW gave me the skills to know how to respond, while the Wobbly community present around me assisted in the campaign’s strategy (not to mention countless burritos and timely funding from our Organizer Hardship Fund).

Finally, management arrogantly believed that their power would allow them to quietly terminate me and justify it however they saw fit. In doing so, management did most of the heavy lifting, polarizing my co-workers in support of me and giving enough evidence for the NLRB to side with my charge. Among the long list of judgments written on my termination form included documented instances when I was talking to co-workers about staffing levels, profit sharing and our absent holiday bonus. Certainly, I was not the only one who discussed these matters on the shop floor; the surprise withholding of our holiday bonus that year became a consistent topic of frustration and contempt for co-workers throughout the company.

Furthermore, I had participated in several direct actions in the past. One particularly important action involving our entire department was done just beyond the NLRB timeline for a ULP charge. I learned that one could effectively argue how latter individual actions could be protected under the law if judged to be extensions of a previous collective action.

However, this naiveté and arrogance by management will likely not be repeated so carelessly again. Since my firing, the company hired an experienced HR manager and has held several meetings with lawyers to ensure they’re never caught liable for an unlawful termination or any other charge of violated labor or employment law.

Reclaiming My Job

Returning to work was surreal; I was back from the dead, as some of my fellow workers said. The return could not have been better. Rather than quietly walking back on the job as if nothing had happened, my fellow organizers and I decided that we’d use the moment to claim victory and set the tone with management about what to expect from now on. Three fellow organizers accompanied me as I walked back onto the floor. When I re-entered the break room I was greeted with “I Missed Emmett” magnets that covered the lockers and a few that held up copies of the NLRB notification. When I arrived, one worker was there reading the posting and shaking his head in disbelief. I added to my work cap the pins of support my co-workers were wearing in my absence to show their solidarity. My fellow organizers followed me as I set foot back on the shop floor where high-fives, hugs and handshakes awaited me from all my co-workers.

The greeting which I’ll never forget came from the morning dishwasher, an old-timer in the company and a man 25 years older than me. As co-workers separated by our different native languages and different departments, our interactions at work were often limited to a short exchange when he’d pour his daily coffee. The day I was fired, with tears welling up in my eyes and a shocked but all knowing look in his, we said goodbye and shook hands. The day I returned to work I approached him to shake his hand once again, he hurriedly threw down his mop and gave me a hug. Later, he sought me out to express how happy he was to have me back at work.

We then marched on the boss and an organizer presented a letter demanding that I have a witness in my pre-work meeting with management and HR. The HR manager agreed to our insistence that I be allowed a witness of my choice but stated that one could not be expected at future meetings. I felt so much more confident in this meeting because I had a fellow worker there who had my back and was taking notes the whole time.

Throughout my shift that first day back and for the next few days, co-workers stopped and congratulated me and told me how happy they were to see me back. My response to all of my co-workers was “Thank you for your support. I wouldn’t have my job back without it. Todos juntas!” Even some managers congratulated me on putting up a good fight! Regular customers who knew what happened likewise greeted me with hugs and handshakes. For those customers who didn’t know why I was gone, I laid it out that I was fired illegally and that the company was forced to give me my job back because of the support of my co-workers.

Where Do We Go From Here

Arriving to work these days, I’m constantly reminded of the struggle that took place to win my job back. I can’t miss seeing the “I Missed Emmett” magnets scattered across my co-workers’ lockers in the break room as I lace up my work shoes or sit down for a lunch break. In my locker are my NLRB back-to-work order, a welcome-back card given to me by a co-worker, and a picture drawn by the 5-year-old son of a regular who, accompanied by her two kids, delivered the customer letter to an owner requesting my reinstatement. When I walk back onto the shop floor, I’m greeted by the dozens of faces of co-workers who did so much to ensure that I returned to work. Much has changed since I was fired. To the credit of my co-workers and fellow organizers, the question of “just cause” disciplinary procedure was raised publicly. Additionally, workers are questioning our compensation and discussing the need for voice within our work.

While much has indeed changed, the power structure largely remains the same. Until my co-workers and I have the power to determine OUR conditions of employment, I believe it’s my responsibility to continue the fight. As things are now, the lessons and meaning of our victory to win my job back are largely internalized by the workers. We need to make our working conditions subject to the lessons of our victory and institutionalize the conditions we demand. Since I returned to work four months ago, three of my co-workers have quit and a new crew of workers is being introduced to the workplace without the experience of struggle the rest of us shared. So, we must share our stories, organize more aggressively than we have ever before and be ready to not only respond to management’s endless assaults collectively, but to initiate our own plan to win. Let’s keep fighting; there’s no alternative anymore.

Originally appeared in the Industrial Worker (December 2013)

Chilli Sauce

8 years 5 months ago

In reply to by

Great piece, there's a lot of good stuff in here.

That said, I was slightly disappointing when I found it was an NLRB reinstatement. But I'm certainly not judging the FW for that and I in no way doubt their assertion that shop floor support was integral to making it stick.

Amongst the many good points, there are two that I really think are worth drawing out:

they first inquired if I’d accept a payout settlement, I had already informed the organizing committee and my NLRB agent that I wouldn’t agree to any settlement that didn’t include me going back to work

So the NLRB is obviously stacked against us but, as the author says even when it does throw us a bone, the goal is still to suppress workplace activity. Good on the author for not accepting it. If organising in the US, I think this is the kind of thing worth talking about in any inoculation where someone is in real risk of getting fired.

this naiveté and arrogance by management will likely not be repeated so carelessly again. Since my firing, the company hired an experienced HR manager

So this is another really important point, in any organising situation the inexperience of low-level managers is worth considering. Most of them are not trained in labor law at all and, as organisers, our knowledge of the law is often enough to keep our immediate supervisors on the back foot. This all obviously links in the importance of keeping a workplace journal which is, again, a point really worth repeating.

You’re a great worker, but a bad employee

This is beautiful. It's actually something I quite pride myself on and it's something I've used to sort of spur a bit deeper political discussions with my workmates when I've taken heat for standing up on the job.


8 years 5 months ago

In reply to by

This is great stuff! Particularly the feeling when he returned to work.

This has spurred me on to write up a similar story. Although it was really shit, though we won reinstatement, at the last minute HR pulled some visa issue up which they claimed they previously did know about so it would actually be illegal for the worker to return to work. We did still get a sizeable cash settlement, but I was really hoping for the worker to be reinstated and be in the office with us all as a permanent middle finger directed at management.