Comments on: “Extra-Union” and “Dual Union” http://sojournertruth.blogsome.com/2006/04/25/extra-union-and-dual-union/ by Michael Staudenmaier Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:22:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Nate http://sojournertruth.blogsome.com/2006/04/25/extra-union-and-dual-union/#comment-21 Tue, 09 May 2006 13:49:00 +0100 http://sojournertruth.blogsome.com/2006/04/25/extra-union-and-dual-union/#comment-21 hi Mike, I'm back from my out of town jaunt now. Re: union/Union (that's actual Pete Jovanovic's distinction via Harald Beyer-Andersen [RIP], I can't take credit) and communism/Communism, I can see why people wouldn't follow my usage of the term. That's fine. It's just the vocabulary I use and use with some comrades I try to act and think with. Other folks are not required to use that same vocabulary, I think that's a pretty important general point that a lot of lefty folk aren't veyr good at, including myself in practice. Of course, when folk don't use the same vocabulary as me or have terms that are misleading homophones (like communism as dictatorship) then it requires some patient work to figure out how to talk with each other. take care, Nate hi Mike,
I’m back from my out of town jaunt now. Re: union/Union (that’s actual Pete Jovanovic’s distinction via Harald Beyer-Andersen [RIP], I can’t take credit) and communism/Communism, I can see why people wouldn’t follow my usage of the term. That’s fine. It’s just the vocabulary I use and use with some comrades I try to act and think with. Other folks are not required to use that same vocabulary, I think that’s a pretty important general point that a lot of lefty folk aren’t veyr good at, including myself in practice. Of course, when folk don’t use the same vocabulary as me or have terms that are misleading homophones (like communism as dictatorship) then it requires some patient work to figure out how to talk with each other.
take care,
Nate

]]> by: Mike http://sojournertruth.blogsome.com/2006/04/25/extra-union-and-dual-union/#comment-19 Mon, 01 May 2006 22:03:35 +0100 http://sojournertruth.blogsome.com/2006/04/25/extra-union-and-dual-union/#comment-19 Nate: Thanks for your thoughts. I tend to take a more narrow view of what a union is, simply because that’s what most people tend to think of, but I certainly like the distinction you raise between union and Union (as in communist and Communist). Doubt that it will catch on, but still useful for thinking about things. As for my friend, the last time I checked he was a NEFAC supporter, but he also has been somewhat critical (as I am) of the warm embrace of organizer politics within the Federation. At the same time, I am reminded of some comments buried somewhere or other in this <a href="http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1982">post on Anarkismo</a> by Mitch from the WSA, who noted that back in the 70’s organizers were excluded from most labor-focused anarchist efforts, but that times have changed and that our politics need to reflect these changes, including a willingness to work with organizers even when we reject a business union model. Jason (one of several): I agree with the way you lay out the issues, and I suspect my friend would also agree. It is worth pointing out that STO avoided any involvement with the skilled construction trades. Also, the situation in steel and other heavy industry sectors was significantly different in the late sixties and early seventies than is the case today: that is, while blacks and latinos were last hired and first fired, and while they received the worst jobs when they were hired, it was nonetheless not that difficult to get hired, as the successful entry of STO and other left groups into the steel mills (or the history of the LRBW in auto) indicates. Once inside, STO members routinely prioritized work on challenging the very discriminatory practices that punished working class people of color. None of this is intended to challenge your position; just some additional clarification. Nate: Thanks for your thoughts. I tend to take a more narrow view of what a union is, simply because that’s what most people tend to think of, but I certainly like the distinction you raise between union and Union (as in communist and Communist). Doubt that it will catch on, but still useful for thinking about things. As for my friend, the last time I checked he was a NEFAC supporter, but he also has been somewhat critical (as I am) of the warm embrace of organizer politics within the Federation. At the same time, I am reminded of some comments buried somewhere or other in this post on Anarkismo by Mitch from the WSA, who noted that back in the 70’s organizers were excluded from most labor-focused anarchist efforts, but that times have changed and that our politics need to reflect these changes, including a willingness to work with organizers even when we reject a business union model.

Jason (one of several): I agree with the way you lay out the issues, and I suspect my friend would also agree. It is worth pointing out that STO avoided any involvement with the skilled construction trades. Also, the situation in steel and other heavy industry sectors was significantly different in the late sixties and early seventies than is the case today: that is, while blacks and latinos were last hired and first fired, and while they received the worst jobs when they were hired, it was nonetheless not that difficult to get hired, as the successful entry of STO and other left groups into the steel mills (or the history of the LRBW in auto) indicates. Once inside, STO members routinely prioritized work on challenging the very discriminatory practices that punished working class people of color. None of this is intended to challenge your position; just some additional clarification.

]]> by: jason http://sojournertruth.blogsome.com/2006/04/25/extra-union-and-dual-union/#comment-17 Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:47:23 +0100 http://sojournertruth.blogsome.com/2006/04/25/extra-union-and-dual-union/#comment-17 Hey Mike, Admittedly I have not taken a look at the blog for a bit, but I am procrastinating. Blog = more fun than studying linear algebra. Anyway… I think it is a mistake to position all workplace organizing as union organizing. This misses the point that different unions play many different roles in our society. Business unionism, at its best, tries to build a list of common issues for a diverse set of workers to organize on. If successful business unions will harness the unspoken potential of those workers against the boss into mild reforms: a dollar here, a prescription filled there. Many unions are really nothing more than protective associations that cooperate with the bosses to protect their work from the rest of the working class. Skilled trade and factory unions have had a long-standing policy that if you work on the line, turn the wrench, etc. your son and their son will too. Obviously this has racist implications, if your grandfather was barred from AFL-CIO unions, you are less likely to have that good paying job. It wasn’t until some internal struggles and the federal civil rights act that these policies started to fall apart. Still if you look up in the sky at new construction in Detroit, a city that is 80% Black, you are lucky to see a Black face. Or who do you think are getting the axe in all of the Ford , GM cutbacks. Affirmative action policies do not override seniority rules, so young Black workers will get the cut before the old white ones. The unions are not calling for equal working class sacrifice, they are protecting their oldest members. Additionally, even if you are in a sector that isn’t getting slashed at the moment it is more than likely that the older members have cut a deal in the past that allows them to enjoy a quality of life that the younger workers will never know. This goes from the tiered system and outsourcing in the big three to UPS full-timers in the 80s. UPS full-timers cut a deal that keeps part-timers (who may actually work 40+ hours) at low wages and next to no benefits. Because they were willing to sign a deal that pimped out the people that do the hardest work (and most likely to have high turnover if wages are low) they got to keep their pension and benies. There is no way to wrap up these union actions as being healthy for the entire working class, unless there is some working class trickle down theory that we are buying now. So what do you call organizing workers who are struggling against not what we want unions to be, but what they really are. To call it “union” organizing doesn’t fit. That isn’t academic, it is accepting the reality on the ground. jason ps say "hi" to the fam. Hey Mike,
Admittedly I have not taken a look at the blog for a bit, but I am procrastinating. Blog = more fun than studying linear algebra. Anyway…

I think it is a mistake to position all workplace organizing as union organizing. This misses the point that different unions play many different roles in our society.

Business unionism, at its best, tries to build a list of common issues for a diverse set of workers to organize on. If successful business unions will harness the unspoken potential of those workers against the boss into mild reforms: a dollar here, a prescription filled there.

Many unions are really nothing more than protective associations that cooperate with the bosses to protect their work from the rest of the working class. Skilled trade and factory unions have had a long-standing policy that if you work on the line, turn the wrench, etc. your son and their son will too. Obviously this has racist implications, if your grandfather was barred from AFL-CIO unions, you are less likely to have that good paying job. It wasn’t until some internal struggles and the federal civil rights act that these policies started to fall apart. Still if you look up in the sky at new construction in Detroit, a city that is 80% Black, you are lucky to see a Black face. Or who do you think are getting the axe in all of the Ford , GM cutbacks. Affirmative action policies do not override seniority rules, so young Black workers will get the cut before the old white ones. The unions are not calling for equal working class sacrifice, they are protecting their oldest members.

Additionally, even if you are in a sector that isn’t getting slashed at the moment it is more than likely that the older members have cut a deal in the past that allows them to enjoy a quality of life that the younger workers will never know. This goes from the tiered system and outsourcing in the big three to UPS full-timers in the 80s. UPS full-timers cut a deal that keeps part-timers (who may actually work 40+ hours) at low wages and next to no benefits. Because they were willing to sign a deal that pimped out the people that do the hardest work (and most likely to have high turnover if wages are low) they got to keep their pension and benies.

There is no way to wrap up these union actions as being healthy for the entire working class, unless there is some working class trickle down theory that we are buying now.

So what do you call organizing workers who are struggling against not what we want unions to be, but what they really are. To call it “union” organizing doesn’t fit. That isn’t academic, it is accepting the reality on the ground.

jason
ps say “hi” to the fam.

]]> by: Nate http://sojournertruth.blogsome.com/2006/04/25/extra-union-and-dual-union/#comment-18 Wed, 26 Apr 2006 04:56:15 +0100 http://sojournertruth.blogsome.com/2006/04/25/extra-union-and-dual-union/#comment-18 hi Mike, Great stuff here. It's the workplace papers stuff, stuff on organizing at the point of production, that I know of IWW folk reading and talking about from the STO. My own thoughts on the term union are here, if you're interested, though overly fixated on academic books http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2005/10/05/is-a-union Summing up: a union is a group of people coming together to have more control over their workplace. In that respect, unions (or the Union - a la the diff b/w communism and Communism, or democratic and Democratic) only get power from a union. Stan Weir talks about this in terms of informal work groups, which is more precise. Who does your friend work for, and is he by any chance a NEFACker? I've gotten more ultraleft about this stuff myself, the business unions and all that, but I still have a lot of respect for the work that organizers do (the problem is that the official leadership of unions don't make themselves unnecessary) and think it's not to be dismissed. I do think it's not something to take as programmatic, though (as in, "let's all become professional organizers"). take care, Nate hi Mike,

Great stuff here. It’s the workplace papers stuff, stuff on organizing at the point of production, that I know of IWW folk reading and talking about from the STO. My own thoughts on the term union are here, if you’re interested, though overly fixated on academic books http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2005/10/05/is-a-union

Summing up: a union is a group of people coming together to have more control over their workplace. In that respect, unions (or the Union - a la the diff b/w communism and Communism, or democratic and Democratic) only get power from a union. Stan Weir talks about this in terms of informal work groups, which is more precise.

Who does your friend work for, and is he by any chance a NEFACker? I’ve gotten more ultraleft about this stuff myself, the business unions and all that, but I still have a lot of respect for the work that organizers do (the problem is that the official leadership of unions don’t make themselves unnecessary) and think it’s not to be dismissed. I do think it’s not something to take as programmatic, though (as in, “let’s all become professional organizers”).

take care,
Nate

]]>