What in the hell …

Workers Power

 

Reflections on Organizing, 2007-2009

 

 

Most but not all of this material appeared in the Industrial Worker in a regular column called Workers Power. Workers Power is supposed to offer a space to share organizing stories and thoughts on strategies and tactics for building power on the shop floor. We put these columns together in a pamphlet to encourage discussion. These columns and this pamphlet are intended for members of the IWW, though non-members may find them interesting as well. The columns don’t provide all the answers, but hopefully they are thought provoking and useful. At the very least, we can say that those of us who wrote them learned a lot and got clearer about our ideas by writing them.

            We encourage people to write for the column. Writing is a good way to think. If you would like to submit a piece for this column in the newspaper, please e-mail it to forworkerspower@gmail.com. Submissions should be no more than 800 words. If you have other thoughts about any individual piece or this pamphlet over all, please get in touch as well.

            For more information about the IWW, see the web site iww.org.

 

 

 

May 2007

Wherefore Art Thou Supervisor?

by J. Pierce

 

One Friday afternoon, the bosses called a big meeting in the recycling yard where I work. It was cool because I used it to count 40 workers and 10 boss types. I took the opportunity to see how many names I knew. It gave me a premonition of a large strike meeting--only the bosses wouldn’t be wearing those stupid grins.

 

At this meeting the bosses handed out memos that, among various threats and pomp, told everybody that I was the new supervisor for the warehouse. I laughed out loud when I read it. Meanwhile the whole place was silent as everybody read the Spanish version of the memo. The whole meeting was in Spanish so I barely knew what they were saying. Most of the supervisors (more properly called foremen) stood with their guys in the crowd instead of up by the bosses.

 

The various supervisors in the crowd appeared, to me, to be asking controversial questions. The bosses looked nervous. (I asked my fellow workers later but they said these comments were crap.) I couldn’t understand what they were saying so I took it for what it looked like. It seemed like people were challenging the bosses! So at the end of the meeting, the new head guy asked, “Any last questions.” I shot up my hand. “I have a question!”€ I shouted in English, as all eyes turned to me. “When are the bathrooms gonna be finished?” Pointing to the abandoned-construction-site-looking building behind us. Eyes lit up and everyone started smiling and chattering. Most of my co-workers have heard me complain about the locker room/bathroom situation so they knew what I was up to. One of the supervisors laughed really loud and said “When? When?”€ meaning “Don’t Ask!” The bosses squirmed saying “Um, we’re working on that. They’ll be done soon.”€ Everybody was talking and grinning. In between being called “Jefe,” I got some good pats on the back as we all went to clock out.

 

That weekend I fixed up a plan to give the bosses a letter saying that I was declining the promotion. My roommate translated this letter into Spanish so that I could show it to all my co-workers. I finally gave it to the bosses that Wednesday after telling all my co-workers (that were saluting me and calling me Jefe and Patron) that this whole supervisor nonsense was “Mentira, Huey!”€ I went around showing the letter to my co-workers and they, or I, read the Spanish translation. If the bosses inferred that I had it translated for the benefit of my companeros--Good. So be it. The conversations we had strengthened me because people inevitably ask, “Why don’t you want to be a supervisor?”€ That’s the perfect place to talk about how the bosses are racist and how they want you to work harder and longer for nothing. They want you to take responsibility for their incompetence and the list goes on. All my co-workers understood my reasoning and had the same thoughts themselves. The whole thing turned out to be a very solidifying and educational process.

 

But don't get too excited just yet. It took them two months to do it but they finally canned me. There was plenty of reason for them to want to get rid of me but you can bet that the supervisor stunt was a big factor. Is it all a loss? Not quite: There are lights in the locker room and plumbers in the soon-to-be-bathroom. But beyond that, for two months we were the only department with no one looking over our shoulder. Any new supervisor that comes in will face a situation where the workers know they don't need one.

 

 

 

June 2007

What Kind Of Solidarity Forever?

 

There are two versions of solidarity activity: solidarity unionism and solidarity activism. Solidarity unionism means exercising our power on the job. We organize as much as possible so we don't give our power away to lawyers, outside organizers, union staff, or anyone else. If we have to give away some power--like when we file Unfair Labor Practice charges--it's for tactical reasons only. By getting more and more coworkers to take action based on our collective self-interests as workers we create big changes--changes in our lives on the job and changes in our coworkers by showing them our ideas in practice instead of just telling them. Solidarity unionism makes more power for ourselves, more members of our union, and more members with experience, commitment, and a vision of what the One Big Union is and should be.

 

Solidarity activism means showing up outside of our own jobs to help other people’s struggles to defend existing conditions or defend their attempt to build something. We hand out flyers and picket outside someone else’s workplace or some other place. This kind solidarity has helped the Starbucks organizing continue and grow. There is a long and proud tradition of this kind of solidarity in our class and in our union. If solidarity activism wins better conditions for any worker anywhere then it’s a good thing, morally and as a tactic. But it's not good strategy.

 

Without power on the shopfloor, a union will not be a fighting organization that can win gains, and it’s much harder to maintain union democracy. Workers are more likely to exercise our power for something we run and control than something undemocratic and unaccountable. If power is outside the shopfloor, then the workers in the shop can be replaced. If their organization breaks down, the officials don’t lose anything. This is why many of the business unions love media heavy corporate style campaigns: they put the power in the hands of staff, officers, lawyers, journalists, politicians, and the well-intentioned solidarity activists who mobilize from the outside. While solidarity activism can build the skills and experience of the individuals who take part in it, it doesn’t build power in the activists' workplaces. It also doesn’t build the power of the workers in the shop being supported. If a campaign is won by solidarity activism, that means the power to make change does not rest on the shop floor. Solidarity activism doesn't build shopfloor power because it doesn't exercise shopfloor power.

 

Workers’ power is like a muscle. My muscles have (pretty flabby) limits. By using my muscles within their limits, I get stronger. Solidarity unionism means exercising our power. We figure out what power we have and we increase it by exercising it. We exercise our power to build an organized shop--and eventually an organized industry and an organized working class--which increases the power we have to exercise. The point isn't just to lift this weight (improving the job in the short term, a fair day's wages for a fair day's work), the point is also how the weights get lifted and by who (improving the job by our own action, in a way that builds organization and builds the IWW to abolish the wage system). We need strategy, a plan to keep on lifting until we become able to dump the bosses off our backs.

 

We can only lift so much at a time, though. Every time I move I realize how there's too many boxes for me alone, so I call my friends. That’s solidarity activism. Sometimes it’s tactically necessary. But our strategy should not be based on someone else constantly lifting things for us.

 

Imagine if my friends who helped me move stuck around forever and I never lifted anything ever again. I would get weaker and less healthy from lack of exercise. This is what the NLRB and the business unions do. They say “don’t try to lift that, just watch me.” They don’t encourage us to exercise our own power, so they don’t encourage us to increase our power. Sometimes they actively fight us when we try to exercise our power.

 

There are some fellow workers who prefer to be part of solidarity activism instead of solidarity unionism. That’s their right. But solidarity unionism is the direction this union should continue to move in. Solidarity activism has a place, but a secondary one. In fact, the more we focus on exercising our power in solidarity unionism--getting more members, getting more members organizing in more shops, increasing our ability to organize successfully--the more power we'll have when we need to do solidarity activism for our fellow workers in the union and out.

 

July 2007

Confidence and Solidarity

 

In my last Workers Power submission in June I talked about what I called solidarity unionism and solidarity activism. Solidarity activism is when we show up to demonstrations and picket lines for others, to lend our power to support them in their struggles. That's a good thing, of course. But it doesn't build our power. Solidarity unionism is what builds our power. But it's easy to emphasize solidarity activism over solidarity unionism.

 

One reason it's easy to overemphasize solidarity activism is lack of confidence in our organization. Sometimes we don’t believe that the IWW can be or is a real union or a real step toward forming the cooperative commonwealth. We want to be active, we want the union to matter, so we push for the union to be part of something we think of as real: a real strike, a real rank and file democracy committee or movement, real revolutionaries somewhere else.

 

This motivation is good intentioned, but it’s not good for the union. Lack of confidence gets in the way of the most important work of the union: organizing to make us bigger and more experienced. Lack of confidence is also disrespectful to people who are organizing in shops right now, who know the union is real and are putting a lot on the line to improve their lives as part of the IWW.

 

Being realistic about the fact that we need to get our house in order is good. Our union has difficulties that we need to work through. But we're not going to resolve any of those problems by prioritizing solidarity activism over solidarity unionism. That won’t lead to our house being put in order. It will lead to our house turning into a squat with all kinds of random stuff going on.

 

This feeling of lack of confidence is a real feeling, an emotion. That means we’re not going to get rid of it via ideas. Changing that feeling can be done in part through conversation, just like the emotional experiences we have with people when we agitate them in our organizing. And just like in organizing, these conversations happen in the context of relationships. Any conversations that will be effective in changing our confidence will be conversations that are part of building and maintaining a relationship, rather than just debate with other members on ideas. Organizing definitely involves ideas, but it takes more than that. We also need experiences. To build the union we need experiences of what a union is, of what this union is and can be.

 

The best way to get that experience is for the union to keep organizing and organize more. Unfortunately, lack of confidence makes us less likely to be active in organizing. We need to deal with lack of confidence by inviting and pushing people - others and ourselves - to be more active. More specifically, we need to be more active in things that are likely to give us the experiences we need. People need to be offered concrete actions, like attending a one on one with a more experienced organizer, or a good shop committee meeting. We also need to share our experiences by swapping stories - just like when we agitate - and to discuss experiences with each other to find the elements that will motivate us further.

 

Existing lack of confidence in the union is partially due to people not having had these experiences, and not having heard about experiences they can imagine having. That means that lack of confidence indicates a failure of mentoring in the union. Doing solidarity unionism is hard. One part of it is encouraging more people to get involved, so they get the experience and gain confidence. This is a lot of work, but it's do-able and we have to do it.

 

 

 

 

August 2007

Potentials for Solidarity Unionism

by Todd Hamilton

 

Simply put solidarity unionism is organizing collectively (or as a group of workers) to directly implement our desires whether that’s in the workplace, industry, or economy. It is simple, but the practice has never really been fleshed out systematically either in practice or in theory. We have a body of experiences, thoughts, and discussions and as our practice matures it leads us to look deeper into solidarity unionism. Solidarity unionism leads us to change our understanding of what the “€˜union’ means for us, as well as where we intervene and put our emphasis in struggle.

 

There is no blue print for how to organize in general, but that doesn't mean we can't develop strategic ways of pursuing our goals. Previous authors (Alexis Buss, Staughton Lynd, etc) have focused on how we can organize in the without falling back on some of the familiar features of union organizing as we’ve known it. Some of the things they take on are comprehensive contracts, election based campaigns requiring a majority of workers, and the mediating bureaucracies and institutions (the courts, union bureaucracies, lawyers, politicians and parties) that alienate workers' power. They have argued for organizing even if there is only a minority of workers who are members of the union, organizing whether or not the boss and/or state recognize the union, organizing where workers’ power is the greatest (in the workplace and community), and remaining strategic about how to avoid and selectively utilize (the generally alienating and debilitating environments of) the courts, the state and parties, and hierarchical union bureaucracy that acts for and instead of workers (often against).

 

These are some of the walls we have hit. Contracts have helped kill job actions through forcing workplace gripes into a mediating bureaucracy that is hostile to workers. The hierarchical institutions put struggle into realms where worker power is weakest, and where workers play a secondary role. Beyond the power of the boss, the union bureaucracy has all the power and knowledge creating a hierarchy between the workers and the means of struggle. Elections and membership-based drives have sunk huge amounts of efforts into organizing where there is often little benefit for workers privileges bureaucracies with huge resources, and reproduces hierarchical relationships between workers and the union.

 

Solidarity unionism is about organizing whether we're recognized or not, whether there's a contract or not, and most of all settling direct worker issues by the workers. That doesn’t mean we don’t use things like contracts, lawsuits, arbitration, but they are tactics we use not our strategy. Likewise we understand them and hold them to their strategic value, and don’t mistake them for what they aren’t.

 

Once we begin to think in these terms though, and begin to organize with these issues in mind, we gain a deeper perspective on strategy. For instance it is no longer necessary to fly the union flag as a hallmark in every campaign. It might be more tactical to keep the boss in the dark about union activity at a shop, or in an industry until we have already won enough gains and a wide enough base of support that announcing our presence would be strategic. Thus going another route than majority-based elections allows us to be strategic about when and how we give knowledge about the union's presence in organizing.

 

We can also be strategic about who and when we sign members up. Rather than having the goal of organizing being to just get people to take out cards whether they want to participate or not, membership can be an actions itself and a positive step a worker can take in further the struggle and consciousness building. We can keep dues and membership for workers who want to be a part of the organization, who are ready to join, and who have experienced class struggle and organization together with the union (this of course is a positive feature, rather than a restrictive). This can draw a line in the sand between unions that are paper tigers, and unions (like us) that exist in our actions, education, and struggle.

 

Solidarity Unionism presents its own challenges, and poses new questions to us. The rough model I am working off is one in which experienced workers assist in workplace struggles where demands are won through direct action. Workers are brought into the organization and developed through these struggles and move towards revolutionary understanding and practice. At a certain level of strength and roots through these worker organizers can apply deeper pressure in their industry. That is, we seek to build a foundation to respond and deepen struggle that otherwise might emerge but deflate through familiar mechanisms.

 

 

 

 

September 2007

Recently I received a call from Seth, someone I have been advising on how to organize a union for his workplace. Seth has been diligently slogging away for months, reaching out to his co-workers and organizing them to improve their working conditions. Over the course of the past few months he and his co-workers have had some small victories”€“-they forced management to replace unsafe equipment after someone was injured, to staff shifts appropriately and to give them an unpaid holiday for Christmas. However, when I received a call from Seth he was depressed. His efforts to bring his co-workers together were not going well. The company had brought in a new manager to break the union by bribing the workers. The tactic seemed to be working and previously staunch supporters were telling Seth that they weren’t interested in the union anymore.

 

We spent a few moments talking about Seth’s feeling of hopelessness. I shared with him how hard and depressing I found my own organizing at times. I also told him that in organizing it is always difficult to know what people are thinking or what they will do next. The most important thing, I suggested, was to be persistent. When workers try to form a union employers almost always try to break their spirits. If you don’t let them break your spirit you’ll probably win in the end, I said. And then, I offered him a story from the Taoist tradition to illustrate my point about not knowing what will happen next.

 

I said: “Long ago in China there was a peasant whose horse had run away. His neighbor commiserated with him. He replied “€˜Who can know if it’s good or bad?’ The very next day the horse returned bringing with him a herd of wild horses. The peasant was suddenly very rich. When his neighbor commented on his good fortune he replied “€˜Who can know if it’s good or bad?’ The next day the peasant’s son tried mounting one of the wild horses. He fell off and broke both his legs. Again the neighbor offered the peasant his sympathy and again the peasant replied “€˜Who can know if it’s good or bad?’ The very next day the army came to the village to draft soldiers into service for a far away war. The peasant’s son was exempted from military service because of his injuries. So you see you can’t always know in the midst of things what is helpful and what isn’t.”€

 

Seth told me that he found the story helpful and that it improved his spirits. A few days later he called me to tell me that he’d gotten five of his co-workers to join the union. A few of his co-workers had been talking things over without Seth and realized that all of the bribes--the better shifts and safer working conditions--management was giving them were because of the union, not despite it. He felt that things were going well and thanked me for the story I had shared with him.

 

 

 

 

October 2007

Goals. Then Strategy. Then Tactics. Part I of II

By: J. Pierce

 

First we dream up our goals. Big goals and small Goals. Our “€˜ultimate goals’ are visionary. They are the grand ones written on the wall and they stare at us. They are our inspiration. Our “€˜intermediate goals’, are the stepping stones. These goals create the conditions for the grand ones. They lead us to the right path. Then we have our “€˜immediate goals’--day-to-day demands. These goals are the victories we achieve once a week or once every five years. Winning these demands makes our lives better and demonstrates our power, both to our enemies and to ourselves.

 

Next we draft a strategy. This strategy takes us to our goals. Our strategy is practical but anticipates huge possibilities. Our strategy aims us through the day-to-day goals on our way to the bigger ones. If our strategy builds workers’ power then we are unleashing the possibilities to achieve anything. However, if our strategy is aimed only at the day-to-day goals, without the stepping stones, we’ll never realize our grand vision.

 

Lastly, we select tactics. These tactics fit our strategy like a glove. By taking these actions as a group, we prepare for bigger things. Remember--goals. Then strategy. Then tactics. That’s the dope! Now let’s put them together in a fun example. The big goal is free food for every human being. No one should starve while there is food. No one should pay for a basic human right. We already have the ability to feed the world’s population yet the captains of industry stand in our way. They withhold food from the market in an effort to keep up the price--to keep food “€˜profitable.’ If workers held the whole operation, from the farms to the stores, we could decide how to produce food and distribute it--freely, democratically the world over. We could feed the world for free and shorten the workweek in the process! The intermediate goal is workers’ domination of the agriculture and food stuff Industry. If we run it, start to finish, we can do with it what we please. The immediate goal--what’s necessary to feed ourselves today--might happen to be a pay raise for a specific group of food stuff workers. The immediate goal doesn’t have to be directly connected to the larger goals. Workers need things to survive and thrive and we demand these things on a daily basis. We use the immediate goals to prepare for the bigger goals. How do we do it? Strategy!

 

The strategy is workers’ power. Workers power on every farm, in every processing plant, around every terminal and warehouse, at every grocery store and fruit stand. Workers’ power. We want the fighting spirit on every “€˜shop floor.’ We want that power coordinated across the entire industry worldwide. We want the power to change conditions and dominate an industry so that nothing happens in that industry unless the workers agree to it. To build power locally and industrially, workers will need shopfloor and industrial committees to make collective decisions and coordinate actions.

 

Getting a pay raise for a group of food stuff workers doesn’t mean capturing the industry. That pay raise only advances our movement if food stuff workers won it themselves. If someone else won it for the workers, then their confidence and power has not increased. This workers’ power extends past the organization itself. It outstrips a simple “union”€ and moves into a generalized and internalized culture of resistance where workers realize our power and act using that power constantly. We want agriculture and food stuff workers to be arrogant, ungovernable, and explosive. We want them to feel entitled to run the world. (Someday they’ll have to!)

 

Given that workers’ power is the strategy, we’ll need to develop the skills and experience of individual worker-organizers in the industry. Expanding leadership capabilities to more and more workers increases the power of each sub-body in the industry. Therefore, part of our strategy has to be actively training workers and building an ever-increasing pool of experienced and dedicated organizers. Remember our goal was free food for every human being? Getting to this goal will likely mean having to develop our organizers into conscious revolutionaries. Even more likely is that these worker-organizers will, through strikes and struggles, become more radical than the teachers of revolution. Therefore, that individual development must be part of the strategy. Our strategy calls for building workers into organizer and organizers into revolutionaries. We form shopfloor and industrial committees which help push the struggle forward. Next month we’ll talk about what tactics uppity agriculture and food stuff workers might employ. What do you suppose are the tactics that will multiply our power, deepen our resolve, increase our confidence, expand our consciousness, and set the stage for achieving our dreams?

 

 

 

November 2007

Goals. Then Strategy. Then Tactics. Part II of II

By: Jefferson Pierce

 

Last month we talked about goals, strategy, and tactics. We called forth our visions--our ultimate goals. As an example, we said: “Free food for every human being.”€ Then we came up with intermediate goals: “Workers domination of the agriculture and food stuff industry.”€ But to feed ourselves this week, our immediate goal was a pay raise. Next, we planned out a strategy--both to get us that pay raise and to set us on our way to our dreams. We designed our strategy to unite around immediate necessities and build our strength to achieve the impossible. Our strategy groups workers into shop floor and industrial committees. Workers group together in many ways, however, so we’ll work with what the situation calls for. To implement this strategy, we’re going to select tactics.

 

Tactics are the concrete actions taken to further a strategy. Our tactics must demonstrate our resolve to transform the food stuff industry. The effort to get a group of food stuff workers a pay raise relies on workers’ collective mass action. The shop floor and industrial committees choose tactics that build confidence and successfully demonstrate to food stuff workers their power “€˜at the point of production.’

 

A scenario might play out like this: Workers sign a letter and present it to the boss in a group. Everyone wears a special t-shirt. If the boss refuses, then they all participate in a “€˜cold-shoulder day’ to let the boss know nobody’s happy. Workers leafleting customers, vendors, transportation workers, workers at neighboring businesses, and investors might be necessary. The point is to demonstrate to the boss your unity and resolve. If management remains stubborn, then a “€˜sick out’ or a slow down might be next.

 

The point is to have the workers on the shop floor decide on a tactic and take action together. If our actions rely too heavily on a “€˜third party’--

the media, lawyers, negotiators, or even the so-called “community,”€ we might still achieve the pay raise. But whose skills, confidence, and power are we building and demonstrating? If we’re doing our job right, every small victory we achieve is a boost to workers’ confidence in themselves.

 

When workers are accustomed to demanding concessions through the use of our power at the workplace, we see that we have strength. When workers feel this power, we shift from “€˜bread and butter’ demands to broad political demands that represent our aspirations. If workers in the agriculture and food stuff industry world wide get good at demanding control over their jobs, pretty soon they’ll demand control of food itself.

 

This was just one example. Can you see how it all fits together? This way of looking at the work we do can be applied to almost anything. From

planning a strike to printing branch t-shirts, the “€˜goals, strategy, tactics’ method helps us look more closely at our activity.

 

Ever wanted to do a tactic that conflicts with your--or has no--strategy? Often this is a problem of unstated goals. For instance, you might want to walk out immediately but the “5 Year Plan”€ calls for organizing quietly. In this case, responding to a particular offense, and the temporary freedom that comes from action, might be the real goal and the far-off revenge of industry-wide standards doesn’t seem worth the wait. The unstated goals of many tactics are some form of satisfaction. It is important to recognize this and balance a patient strategy with our irrepressible desires.

 

When we use this method, we call into question certain assumptions about “€˜tactics’ that might seem self-evident. Do we come up with a tactic--

“Let’s put out a press release!”€ “Let’s picket!”€--then dream up our goals from what we think we can win? Or might we plan out a strategy and

selectively choose tactics that will build workers’ power effectively? This method also puts to the test certain so-called “€˜principles’ and makes

them prove their usefulness as “€˜tactics’ rather than sacred truths. “We don’t have paid staff!”€ “We have extremely low dues!”€ “We don’t sign contracts!”€ “We allow anyone to join on the spot!”€ “We don’t affiliate with political groups!”€ “We don’t have mandatory anything!”€... Whether we do these things or not should be because they are effective tactics in a plan to get to our goals, not because we read it in some bible somewhere.

 

First goals--to determine what we really want tomorrow and what we think we can get today. Then strategy--to plan out the campaign to achieve our goals and build the power and confidence of workers. Then tactics--to take concrete steps that demonstrate our resolve and alter the balance of power.

 

 

 

 

December 2007

Informal Workgroups

By M. Jones

 

In every workplace throughout all of history, workers have come together and worked together for their common interests. This takes many forms. Sometimes its at the level of two workers next to each other in cubicles who support each other and make work less miserable by being able to laugh with one another; other times it forms into a group that encompasses enough people that they can informally control the speed of production and the work conditions that surround them; and sometimes it grows into a union a group of workers within a shop, ideally across and industry who can directly exercise power in relation to the boss. In whichever form it takes it is significant. In each form it challenges the isolation that exists in other aspects of our lives as workers. In these relationships we begin to see the possibilities of what it means to take collective action and what it means to control the means of production. We are empowered by these relationships, and where we can build on them we can have success and begin to make changes.

 

These bonds we form with our fellow workers are the basis of our organization, the basis of Industrial Unionism and the basis of a working class movement. Where these bonds originate and where they are most intense is in our workplaces, where they come out of our day-to-day interactions and struggles.

 

The first two forms mentioned are incomplete. Little can be done if our work group remains isolated in a group of two or three; and if we begin to informally control production we still may be isolated within a larger company or industry. These have to be expanded through organization. But look at these small groups as the seeds, and the tiny cells within a larger muscle of organization (a muscle that must be constantly exercised).

 

Through organization these small work groups branch out, around an issue or as part of a campaign. They encompass other workers, get further defined through this organization, and identify workplace or industrial issues to struggle against. Again this often happens informally and we should not overlook it or believe that workers are not capable of acting outside of formal organization. Small informal actions are happening all over the place, and even in this context workers begin to see their power, but in small ways. It has to grow and it has to become formal in order to grow to a position of strength and push forward demands.

 

As the struggle grows it becomes more formal, the definition it gets is one of class. It moves from a group of friends or acquaintances that want to make things better on the job, to a group of workers making a demand on the boss and having an action to follow this demand up. In this action we must come together and confront things directly ourselves. This means not relying on a third party, on the government, a lawyer, or the press to enforce our demands, but doing it ourselves, with other workers inside our workplace and outside of it. This is direct action and is present in informal struggle and in formal struggle.

 

In this struggle we as a group are defined by our relationship to the boss and to production, in a way that is not possible when we act as individuals. This is when we become the working class, a group acting in its own interests.

 

We all identify ourselves as part of this group, the issue we have been organizing around now becomes one of the working class verse the employing class. And though these actions we begin to see what is possible, not just for ourselves and our families but also for our fellow workers, for our organization and for our union. Out of these small seeds, informal work groups, organization, direct action, our class is defined. We cease to be individuals, left to the whims of the bosses and become a force that can push our own issues and agenda.

 

 

 

 

February 2008

Workers Power

by Todd Hamilton

 

Workers have been organizing at a low income reproductive health clinic for the past few months. It all began when the company, which was on solid footing, had gone on a hiring spree and improved a lot of working conditions. The federal government began requiring any recipient of aid (the majority of our patients) to prove citizenship. Undocumented workers don't actually need to strangely, all they need is to indicate that they're permanent residents. The net effect on the industry has been to cut 30% of the funding to all low-income clinics generally. That is the real target of this federal assault, to cut social funding under the guise of racially based nationalist sentiments.

 

Management's response was mass layoffs of departments, internal restructuring, productivity increase measures, and a hiring freeze. The workers responded actively and vocally. At first the resistance was individualized, emails and phone calls to management expressing agitation. As this method was fairly ineffective, workers began using staff meetings and other such channels to confront management in spontaneous groupings around the natural social circles at work. As the heat continued to escalate, management rolled over on a number of demands. The hiring freeze was lifted, yearly raises were returned, and management made an effort to meet with workers to hear concerns and supposedly to incorporate ideas for solving problems. Part of this came from the fact that management is split by their commitment to serving patients as people, but without organization these demands were systematically ignored.

 

The spontaneous groups were easily distracted by small concessions (e.g. changing the color of toilet seats), divided by quibbling, and diffused by management. Management began engaging in a propaganda campaign to try and win the hearts and minds of workers, who are vocally angry and resistant. Many of the senior staff quit, leaving a fresh workforce who are largely ignorant of the context of struggles going on. Amidst this, workers at two clinics organized as a group, and demanded a meeting with the CEO in order to air grievances. These ended up with management dodging demands (when workers, ill-prepared, fragmented during the meetings) and focusing on the easy-to-fix trivial demands.

 

Conditions at clinics vary wildly as well, and despite general anxiety over layoffs and restructuring, not all clinics feel the same level of frustration. At my clinic a similar meeting was friendly with management to the point of offering personal sacrifices (such as paying more for health insurance). This is in part due to turn over (90% of the workers have been at my clinic less than two months), and also due to the beliefs and positions carved out by the one or two senior staff.

 

The most successful was a meeting with a clinic where a small committee had been built with myself and two IWW sympathizers who have been organizing. A one page list of demands was prepared, and the clinic as a whole endorsed it. The organizers in the shop inoculated their coworkers about management's potential responses, and got together to make sure everyone stayed on their collective message. Their crucial demand was more staff at their horribly understaffed clinic. The meeting went well with management taking their demands seriously.

 

After the meeting more staff were hired, and the way staffing is allocated was modified somewhat. The workers feel like they got what they wanted, but the systemic issues remain untouched. They decided that they needed to next time be less conciliatory, and to have a plan to escalate actions if they don't get what they demand.

 

Management's strategy has been to try to listen to worker concerns, without giving a place to actually be able to implement them, and to roll over on the easier demands that improve the business anyway. For example, our use of the internet had been taken away from all staff on a whim citing a few individuals using myspace too much. Widespread protests about needing such basics as maps and bus schedules for patients eventually won back full internet usage rights. Likewise protests over a bizarre rule to do pelvic exams on all women who enter the clinic, quickly overturned the policy.

 

The most hopeful turn of events is the building of a cross-clinic organizing committee, which has workers from four of the five greater metropolitan area clinics. The first meeting was held recently, where it was decided to build an organizing committee, map all the clinics, identify leadership, begin pushing demands across the company, and eventually have an independent workers organization that implement and negotiate our grievances directly. As management has caved on our demands so quickly, and turn-over is so high, we've exhausted much of our agitational issues. For this reason the committee decided to begin building the relationships and solidarity through social activities and education that will provide a foundation for the next grievances that surface. With a committee already in place, and a structure to work with, we can prepare to act collectively and implement our desires.

 

 

 

 

March 2008

Emotional Pressure and Organization Building

 

We want to do two things on the job at the same time: build organization and improve conditions. We could do these separately. For instance, we could build organization with no plan to improve conditions, like setting up a poker night or a knitting circle. Or we could try to improve conditions without building organization, by bribing or kissing up to the supervisor. Neither of those has much to do with being a union. Being a union means union builds organization by improving conditions, or improves conditions by building organization.

 

To build organization and improve conditions we have to take actions on the job. Action is the oxygen of a union. We start off by taking the existing informal organization on the job - the current relationships and communication and level of agitation - and directing this against the boss in the form of an action.

 

In planning an action, pick an issue that people care about. Ask, "who has the power to change this issue?" For instance, the nightshift supervisor in the receiving department at a factory probably can't

control the health insurance plan or introduce a new health plan. But they can control how they enforce policy on bathroom breaks and how respectfully they treat employees.

 

List the issues people want improved and who has control over each issue. List the lowest level boss with decision-making power on each issue. Generally speaking, the lower they are on the food-chain, the less it will take to make them do what you want. This is important early on when you only have a small group. Five people in one department probably won't win much for all 100 people in the plant.

But they could win improvements in that department that can be used to recruit more people in order to take on bigger issues and do more outreach. That's building organization.

 

Early in a campaign it's useful to focus on what could be called emotional actions or emotional pressure. Here's what I mean. Work is a headache for us, and to a lesser degree it's headache for our bosses. Generally it's more of a headache for the boss the lower they are on the food-chain at work. Emotional action is when we offer our boss a choice: make work less of a headache for us or we will make work more of a headache for the boss. This is easier the lower the level of the boss. If the boss is a supervisor we see everyday, then they will care more about our opinions and how we treat them.

 

When we collectively confront the boss about conditions make our lives unpleasant, we give the boss an unpleasant experience. Think of this as sharing the wealth of misery that our jobs give us. By giving the boss a taste of their own medicine, making the boss take a helping of what our jobs force on us, we can start to force the boss to make small improvements on the job. That in turn helps us explain to our coworkers that we can improve our jobs by organizing together, and that if even more people get involved we can win even bigger improvements.

 

 

 

 

April 2008

Workers Power

x356748

 

One day I told a friend of mine about an action the General Membership Branch did where we got someone a few shifts' worth of wages after he got fired quickly from a new job. We called for a picket. It didn't actually happen. The boss caved as soon as the first two guys showed up with a stack of signs. Then another former employee who had left town, and had been trying to wrestle her last two weeks pay from the boss caught word of it. She talked to the boss and said something to the effect of, "Heard there was a picket, shame if there was another one." She had tried for months to get her money, after the picket she got it right away.

 

My buddy said, "Hey I know someone in a similar situation." He passed on our IWW contact details. His friend had worked at a club for a few weeks. She was fired because the boss couldn't afford all of the staff he had. She had already contacted the employer to ask for her back wages. No matter happen, no matter how many phone calls she made, she was stonewalled by her ex-boss.

 

She joined the union and asked for help. Her ex-boss is emotionally manipulative and unstable. She wanted us to go for her initially. I volunteered with another Wobbly to meet with her ex-boss. I was initially reluctant to be a representative because I'd never done it before. But the thing needed doing so I put on a suit. We went to the business. We hung around waiting for the boss to come and open up. He was unwilling to talk to us. The other fellow worker gave the boss his cell phone number. We told him we are going to have a picket but he can phone us if he'd like to reconsider. We left and a little while latter the boss phoned us. He wanted to meet. He said he would call but later with a meeting time. He didn't.

 

We learned from this action not to do everything for the worker. In planning the next steps we made sure she was involved... we aren't a service union after all. We tried to help out with the stuff that she couldn't do. This way we did a better job of helping the worker be the organizer. Still, it's hard to teach what you're just learning. Neither of us who were being representatives have much experience in this stuff.

 

A picket was called for 9:30 p.m. one night. The worker invited a bunch of her friends. I sent out a facebook invite. A bunch of People's Global Action folks were having a meeting around the corner. They came by after that was done. When I got there, there were about 10 folks. I'd say there was a total of maybe 35 people coming and going, with about 20 at any one time. It was a solid picket.

The guy I was working with made up a little leaflet briefly stating that the business doesn't pay it's staff and people shouldn't patronize the club/restaurant. The headline was "FREE DRINKS." The text explained that if workers aren't getting paid the owner shouldn't be charging. Most folks got the joke but one woman apparently went in, ordered a drink and presented the flyer, thinking it was a coupon. She came out angry about that, screaming and swearing. I felt bad that someone had to get upset but outside of that the leaflet worked well. The boss called the cops saying we were starting fights with customers. They left quickly when they saw what was going on.

 

At first the employer wouldn't meet with us to talk unless we told the picket to leave first. We said no. Eventually he came out to talk. In addition to us three who were involved in negotiating, one of the bigger, burlier members of the branch was also present. There was a feeling amongst the wobs that we needed some sort of physically imposing presence "in case of trouble". As he had no experience with the boss he said something that made the guy upset and he left. I personally didn't feel at all like I was going to be physically threatened in this situation and as the picket wore on and we had subsequent conversations with the owner, I became more firm about not needing anyone other than the three of us who were involved around. It was too difficult to deal with strategy-wise, and bringing machismo into things seems like a bad move in general.

 

As time went on and his nightclub stayed empty he began to come out looking increasingly concerned. He wanted to talk again. This time just the three of us went upstairs with him. We were obviously hurting him, as the club was almost empty.

 

We won half the wages owed in cash and a written statement promising to pay the remainder next Saturday. If he didn't pay there would be another picket. We were promised by the head of the District Labour Council that they would support us on this matter (unprecedented in my knowledge). We are using the possibility of an even bigger picket, with media this time, as a guarantee.

 

This may not directly lead to any organized shops, but actions like this are helpful to folks, including ourselves. We gain valuable skills we can use when there are bigger fish to fry. Taking actions like this builds real solidarity. We can point to these actions when someone asks, "What does the IWW do?"

 

 

 

June 2008

3 years of organizing under Right-to-Work

By x359212

 

I live and work in a “right-to-work”€ state in the United States where all workers have the right to quit at anytime, yet they can also be terminated at any time. Where’s the benefit in that type of work environment?

 

For the last three years, that work environment has had a huge influence on my unionizing efforts. At my place of employment I am the only IWW member. At times, it can be very discouraging, but I have learned that persistence is a must if anything is to be accomplished.

 

Successes

 

1. I have been able to get my fellow teachers together at a restaurant or someone’s house a number of times where we have developed and agreed to a list of concerns that have been presented to our boss and her boss.

 

2. We have had three meetings with management with all teachers present.

 

3. We have all resorted to using work-to-rule tactics, i.e., we do only the absolute minimum by following the rules exactly.

 

4. If management tells us to do something more, “speed up”€, we ignore it. We make management get off their asses and come to us with their concerns and then we ignore them again. Management frequently doesn’t ask again because it makes them work harder.

 

5. We keep labor journals and compare notes daily. For example, management will play favorites with employees. They’ll say one thing to one teacher and say something completely different to another teacher. When we compare notes, we find the most advantageous

“saying”€ and then hold them to it. They hate that because not only does it limit their ability to talk to workers, it also limits their ability to pit one worker against another. They lose power and control.

 

Learning from failure

 

Unfortunately, everything hasn’t been bread and roses. Here are some examples of failures.

 

1. I have succeeded in signing one co-worker to our union. She then moved on and discontinued her membership.

 

2. I have been unable to sustain my fellow workers’ interest in being more militant. Once something improves they stop.

 

3. I have not been able to keep coworkers together. They leave as soon as they can for a “better”€ job. Consequently, there is a high turnover rate that hinders worker solidarity and makes it harder to keep the gains we have made together.

 

4. Beware the Canary Letter. Once a year the company has all employees fill out a survey. The teachers made sure they were negative and unsigned. Our boss wanted us to turn them in to her. Instead I mixed them up with non-teaching staff then slid them under the Human Resources door unseen. Within 30 minutes our boss was running around asking all the teachers why everyone was so upset, etc. How did the bosses know? It’s called the canary letter. Each department will have a different survey. It could be a different question, misspelled word, different numbered pages so that the boss can know at least what department it came from, even if it is not signed.

 

5. The most hurtful episode was when we had a labor faker in our midst. He came out all gung ho for everything union. He expressed the same sentiments as everyone else. He had some good ideas.

 

All that changed when we were having a meeting with the two bosses. He acted like Rambo by expressing opinions that were either not agreed upon or were designed to sidetrack our demands and place the meeting into chaos. That was the first inkling that we had a faker.

 

The last episode was when he got in trouble for something that happened in his class. From what we can gather, he unloaded his guts about what the teachers really thought about everything. In consequence, the teaching staff attended two “mandatory meetings”€ where

the management asked everyone “what was really going on?”€ while the labor faker sat there with us.

 

None of us admitted to anything and the faker remains employed. Needless to say but we treat him as someone not worth our trust or loyalty.

 

 

 

 

On Leadership

By Phinneas Gage

 

Miguel was charismatic. Middle aged yet still handsome, a principled family man, an open communist and refugee from Chile. He was part of the left, of the left, of the left, those who desperately argued that the working class had to defend themselves even as Allende their socialist President was dragged away and shot in a basement. As an entire generation was exterminated or disappeared, buried beneath soccer stadiums and dropped into Volcanoes Miguel managed to make it to Canada, like an entire generation of Chileans he vowed not to give up the fight. He was a survivor, a militant and a leader.

 

So a leader is what my union decided to make him. When Miguel was on the floor he held more power than any of the bosses. I remember being a nervous inexperienced shop steward dealing with a possible firing; the stakes were high- the sister in question had gotten into an accident, her third in the last month. Three accidents for drivers in a year is enough to get someone fired, and on top of all this she was still a temp and nowhere near the end of her probation, and as one supervisor recently found out she was pregnant. I asked for Miguel to help me represent the sister as the stakes were just too high for me to responsibly handle on my own.

 

To say we came out on top in that interview would be an understatement. Miguel simply walked into the room, beaming, and sat down leaning far back in his chair. The two young supervisors were obviously caught off guard, they were visibly nervous. There’s a stereotype of what the labour militant should look like, yelling at the boss, defiant, a person who lives and breathes direct action. No doubt there were times when Miguel was exactly this. However, the quiet power he held was stronger. In this case he merely told the supervisors that if they fired this sister it would be an injustice that cannot be overlooked by the workers. He never once mentioned the union all he said was the workers would not tolerate this injustice.

 

That quiet power, the leadership in that man and his skills as an organizer did not come from him alone. Those supervisors did not fear Miguel, they feared the respect he had from his peers, the bosses feared the workers ability under Miguel’s leadership, to make their lives miserable. Miguel believed in his coworkers and his coworkers believed in him.

 

A union officer does not need to have the backing of the workers on the floor. He - and it's usually he - only needs to have backing of the workers who bother to turn out to vote. A working class leader can only exist with the tacit support of the workers. The problem is the relation that the officer has to the workers they represent and used to work next to. This is why a union officer is not necessarily a working class leader.

When leadership comes from the floor there is very little distance between a working class leader and her supporters. Quiet chiding and maybe a bit of teasing about status going to their head can bring the leader in line if they are acting out of step with the workers. This discipline by the workers on their leadership is part of the normal work environment.

 

When one is a union leader one “visits the workfloor.” You are no longer at home on the job; you are a guest in the workers own space. This creates a distance, a relationship that makes officers likely to view their role as a professional one, as an expert who comes in from the outside. Even the most progressive unions while in one instance saying “you are the union”€ to the membership say in another that we must “service our members”€. These two conceptions of workplace activism are fundamentally at odds with each other. In fact the idea that “€˜the membership is the union’ acts a smokescreen for the union turning itself into a third party above and beyond the workers own self activity on the job. Much like employers try to call workgroups teams or subordinates “€˜partners’ unions mask their bureaucracy by conflating the ability to mobilize and inspire with the position in the union hierarchy.

 

Two years earlier Miguel was president of the local; he served two terms before returning to work in the plant. During a wildcat action in his former workplace Miguel was stuck in a tough position. Stopping the mail often gets people fired, but the workers were incensed. Against his own previous practice (Miguel had already been fired once for leading a job action himself several years earlier) he advised the workers to return to work. He was afraid someone might loose their job as had almost happened to him.

 

No doubt some people keep their militancy up while in office. There are courageous labour leaders and I’ve met my fair share. Miguel definitely was one of them. But again it isn’t enough that a leader is brave and principled. The important question is why was Miguel willing to incite job actions to the point of getting fired when it was his risk to take but advised others not to take the same risk. The reason is his relationship to the struggle, and to the workers he was leading had changed.

 

This relationship is destroyed by institutionally removing the leadership from the workplace and placing them in an office, the pronoun changes from “€˜we’ to “€˜you’. The means of disciplining the leadership then becomes voting them out, in effect saying that when you screw up your punishment is to become just another worker. The focus of activity is no longer at work but rather at the union office. A good militant who would be perfectly willing to stick their own neck out on an action with their co-workers is afraid to have others take that risk. Their instinct is a noble one; they want to protect their people.

 

The desire to not incite others to take big risks, even if one would take those risks themselves is a good quality in a person. The problem is not with the caliber of working class leadership the problem is with the leadership’s relation to the rank and file. The key is to build working class leadership that can stay on the job. This means organizing in a manner that does not rob the rank and file of on the job leadership and organizing without full time paid leaders. True leadership is not an office or a title but the ability to move people. This way when we decide to take risks and take on a fight we do it in full knowledge of what we are getting into without asking others to take risks we ourselves are not taking as well.

 

 

 

 

SOAP for Workers Power - July/Aug '08

By Todd Hamilton

 

Healthcare workers have a way of note-taking called SOAP. SOAP stands for Subjective,

Objective, Assessment, and Plan.

 

In the subjective section, the clinician will write down the general condition of the patient, usually based on what the patient says about their health. All the vitals and observed information are collected in the objective portion of the note. This could be blood pressure, pulse, skin discoloration, whatever. An assessment is a skeleton of the main symptoms and corresponding diagnoses in the order of most to least likely. Based on the evidence and assessments, the provider then gives a plan for correcting the problems.

 

This way of documenting interactions with patients and coming up with a game plan is a useful tool for workplace organizing. It can help us think critically about the conversations we have, the conclusions we draw, and how to move forward out of our one-on-one discussions. As organizers, we are trying to get a handle on the situation in a workplace and what we have to do to build an organization.

 

How do we get from where we are to where we want to be? With this in mind, our subjective assessments are the conversations and things our co-workers say around the shop. Our objective section is the actions that we can see our co-workers taking part in. This allows us to see the difference between what people say and what they do. This isn’t to judge people or harass them about what they do or don’t do, but just to get a sense of what we can rely on, what we need to help along, and what motivates people so that we can effectively build a real democratic group effort to change our workplaces.

 

In the assessment section, we lay out our take on the person, situation or action planned. We come to that conclusion based on the evidence we have (written in the other sections). Our plan gives the next steps to build more workplace power. The idea with all this is that we use objective standards for the conclusions we draw and the plans that we cook up. People naturally rely on their instincts and impressions of others around them, but our instincts tend to be filtered through our personalities and where we are at, which can color our organizing.

 

By separating out observations and activities, like we do in healthcare, we can get a better sense of the situation. They are also accessible to other organizers working on the campaign and can be scrutinized, altered, and revised. This allows others to see how the work is done, hold each other accountable, and have concrete documentation should we need to use it against the boss.

 

 

 

Replace Yourself

by: J. Pierce

 

 

The primary task of an organizer is to build more organizers. We need more and more working class leaders and the way to do this is to constantly replace yourself. Here's a few easy ways to help you build up your successors:

 

Reveal your sources so others can think with you: "I had a long talk with MK recently. He really convinced me that we should reorganize as a shop committee instead of having one or two 'stewards'. He gave me this awesome article on how IWW shop committees used to work." Telling others where you got an idea from demonstrates that you think of them as equals. You also provide an opportunity for them question your sources.

 

Show others how it's done and take them through the process: "Hey Keith, has anyone showed you how to post an article to iww.org? I'm going to post that write-up on the strike right now. Let me show you how to do it. We need another person who can post." Pass on the technical know-how so others can be 'experts' just like you.

 

Encourage people because you believe in them and you know they can do it: "We really need this message to get to the people upfront. Can you have a talk with Shannon? She respects you and you're the best person to talk to her." You run faster for coaches that want to win. We've got to show that what we do matters and that we believe in each other.

 

Ask people to do things that are difficult. Move them to take on responsibilities outside their comfort level: "I'm glad you've been talking things up so much at your shop. You're one of our best guys, Jerm. The next step is for you to start coming to the Industrial Organizing Committee meetings. I know its gonna be tight with your schedule but we're gonna help you fit it in. You have to be there or this thing doesn't move." We need to help others break out and step up. It's a sign of respect to ask people to do difficult things.

 

Train your replacement for an officer position: "Hey, Mei, you got a second? Has anyone talked to you about becoming the chair of the Committee? I'm going to be stepping down at the end of my term and you're everyone's pick for this position. Put some thought into it. Meanwhile I'll start showing you what the job entails." If we train new officers properly and regularly, we can avoid crust and dust in our leadership structures.

 

Encourage other members to read what you've read: "For those that didn't make it to the Summit, Maxine did a killer presentation on the legal barriers to organizing in her industry. It totally reminded me of this thing I read in an old One Big Union Monthly. So I ran off some photo copies of that article for y'all to check out. I think it will help us come up with some good strategies we can try." In making IWW history and principles accessible, you cut down on the knowledge monopoly and pass on valuable lessons and experiences.

 

Introduce people to each other and have them exchange phone numbers: "Tenaya, have you met Steve yet? Steve, this is Tenaya. Yeah, you guys both work in the same industry and would have some awesome stories to tell each other. You two ought to collaborate and submit something for the next newsletter." By introducing and ensuring info exchange, you avoid 'Ol Boys Clubs' and now information doesn't have to go through you.

 

The task that we have as IWWs is to build working class leaders everywhere we go. We are constantly looking for opportunities to teach others what we know so that they could do what we do without us.

 

 

 

September 2008

Forget About Industrial Power

 

The old wobbly song "There Is Power In A Union" goes "There is power there is power in a band of working folks, When they stand hand in hand." This is the basic idea of a union, strength in numbers. We're lacking in the numbers department in the IWW today. So our power is small, at least in one important sense. We need to recognize this if we're going to grow quickly and efficiently, without cutting any corners in terms of member education and development

 

Some people in the IWW think we should organize big companies that dictate conditions for the rest of their industry because they have such a large share of the market. If we make changes at the industry or market leaders then we make change across the whole industry. That's true, and we should organize these companies (we should organize everywhere). But the reality is that our power is small compared to big companies.

 

More than that, our first priority right now should not be to make change for as many workers as possible across an industry. Our first priority right now should be to have members improve their own lives at work and to recruit other organizers out of our co-workers. That will build our pool of committed, capable organizers so that we can eventually have really enormous impacts for our whole class.

 

On the short term we should focus on small companies instead of big ones. We are tiny compared to a multinational company and so is our relative power. But compared to a small "mom-and-pop" grocery store or a locally owned restaurant with 20 employees, or a fast food franchise where the owned has 5 stores and 75 employees, we are huge. We have branches that are bigger than companies of that size. We can run picket lines and other actions against those companies which can really hurt them economically (as opposed to picketing, say, WalMart) because every shop is a huge portion of the company's total income. This will maximize the relative power of our branches and make for more winnable campaigns in a shorter time frame. Those wins will result in more members with greater organizing experience and higher morale. It might also reduce organizer burnout by giving us more victories to restore our spirits in the short term.

 

Of course, gains in smaller companies will be limited by the conditions in the industry which are mostly set by industry leaders. We'll have to explain this to the workers we organize and turn them into organizers dedicated to organizing their whole industry. The small shops will provide us with a larger base and more concrete examples to work from as we turn to organizing larger companies in those industries.

 

October 2008

Industrial Unionism is the IWW Strategy

By Patrick B

 

While I don't think the Industrial Worker is the proper forum for debate over organizing strategy, the readers of the IW should be offered an alternative view to that presented by the September 2008 IW article entitled "Forget Industrial Power," by Fellow Worker Nate H. In the article he argues that the IWW should avoid placing organizing efforts in large companies because of our relative weak position and that organizing large companies is likely to create failure and burnout for our organizers.

 

The main disagreement I have with the argument is that it is a self-fulfilling prophesy. The more we believe we can't do something, the more that becomes a reality. We have refused to take on large targets for over 40 years. As a result we have grown little. It was only when the IWW took on Borders in 1996 and Starbucks in 2004, both large companies, that we saw significant increases in membership and activity.

 

Furthermore, the argument is grounded in circular logic. Acquiring big resources only comes after we take on big targets. It is tantamount to saying "we need resources to organize big targets, but we can't get resources until we organize big targets." We've been saying this for decades. Where has it gotten us?

 

The early IWW was not afraid of any targets. They took on companies and industries thousands of times larger (review the copper mine organizing in Arizona or the Textile companies in New England for example) than their membership and made not only changes for the workers of the industry but also for the labor movement as a whole.

 

The article further contends that we should focus our organizer recruitment at the small workplaces of our current membership. The problem with this argument is that it assumes we would not acquire organizers at large targets, which is, of course, likely. IWW-style

organizing anywhere creates new organizers out of workers. The argument also completely ignores the good possibility that the quality of the organizers recruited from large targets may be better. Because of the larger size, there is a larger pool of talent to draw from. He also believes we should focus on small companies instead of big ones. The grounding for this is that we could potentially build enough power on the backs of small capitalists to eventually fight the large businessmen. While I agree with FW H that we should not solely focus on large companies, I think focusing on small ones is just as problematic, and may even require more time and energy than a large company and may be more prone to failure.

 

Businesses act in predictable ways if the basic economic laws are given consideration. Occasionally these laws are broken, or a business owner will act irrationally, or outside agencies (i.e. Government) will interfere with economic laws, but the vast majority of businesses comply and therefore act predictably to internal and external pressures (labor rebellion, etc.). If we apply the pressure of unionism to small companies than we should be able to predict, given a long enough time frame, the effects on the company, the industry, or the economy as a whole.

 

Instead of providing power for the IWW, organizing small companies is likely to lead to eventual weakening of our union. Smaller companies are required to compete with the big companies, who set industrial standards, to survive. Any hindrance to this is likely to either limit what we can gain from employers or entirely push the small shops out of business. The larger companies will acquire the customer-base left by the exterminated businesses, the Wobblies will be out of work, and capitalism's wheels keep on turning. The amount of real economic pressure we could apply to small businesses is therefore very little.

 

Organizing small companies is a bigger drain on resources. Even the big business unions, with extensive resources, have had trouble organizing the little shops. They are just too hard to organize.

 

However, I will not argue that the best alternative is organizing one large company either. On a long enough timeline, the end result of focusing on one large company will reflect that of the smaller ones (look at the Teamster organizing in the Nineties). Large companies can go out of business like any other and when they do, their competitors in the industry will assume their former market share.

 

What's the alternative? The answer to the problem of limited resources, unemployment prevention, and organizer burnout is to organize industrially. By organizing industrially, we have a large pool of talent to draw from that is often limited in both small and some large companies. We can choose where in the industry to place emphasis to prevent firings and ensure negotiating leverage.

 

Moreover, taking on an entire industry eliminates the ubiquitous problem in small companies of high turnover. Turnover creates extra stress for organizers and affords little negotiating leverage to the workers. When the pros and cons are carefully considered, organizing industrially is actually much more likely to yield success with less effort than organizing small companies or single large companies. While the endeavor may seem intimidating, industrial strategy is easier and more appropriate for our current resources.

 

Often times, there is a tendency to fear big targets because of the size of the employment is intimidating. I used to think this way. But a close friend and fellow worker once told me I was looking at it from a "glass-is-half-empty" point of view. He said, Don't think of all those workers as a barrier, think of it as an opportunity.

 

A workplace or local industry of 1000 workers should not be viewed as "1000 members until success," but rather "this industry offers us potentially 1000 new members." That optimism never left me. I think if it was adopted by more Wobblies, we would grow significantly.

 

 

October 2008

Reply to FW B

 

I thank FW B for taking the time to reply to my column. I disagree with FW B that the Industrial worker is not a proper forum for debate over organizing strategy. That's the biggest disagreement we have, I think.

 

I argued that we should focus on small targets, because we can have more victories at small targets because our branches are bigger relative to small companies. That way we can win things more quickly and make more organizers by having inspiring victories. I think inspiring victories are important for making organizers, and making more organizers is one of the three most important tasks facing the IWW right now. (The other two are retaining organizers and getting better at organizing.)

 

The heart of my column, the bit I feel most strongly about, is this pair of sentences: "Our first priority right now should be to have members improve their own lives at work and to recruit other organizers out of our co-workers. That will build our pool of committed, capable organizers so that we can eventually have really enormous impacts for our whole class." I think FW B and I agree on this.

 

FW B points out that this can also be done by targeting big companies and industry-wide campaigns. He points to the Starbucks campaign as an example. The Starbucks campaign is important and impressive. It's made more organizers for our union and that's awesome. FW B is absolutely right and this is a gap in my column's argument.

 

All of that said, I still think that a new GMB that is looking for a first organizing target is better off trying to organize a smaller shop. The smaller the shop, the less resources management has to dump into union-busting and the more of their business we can shut down with pickets and other actions given our currently small numbers.

 

Let me put it this way. Let's say hypothetically that three new branches form in three different counties in the great state of Minnesota and they host a joint organizer training. One says "we have a member who works at Wal-Mart so we're targeting all the Wal-Marts in our county." The second says "we have a member who works at a local magnet factory with 50 workers so we're targeting that." The third says "we haven't made up our mind yet - we have Walmarts here and we have a magnet factory with 50 workers, and we have one member at each."

 

If someone from the third branch asked my advice, I would urge them to follow the lead of the second branch, not the first. I would wish the first branch nothing but success and they would certainly deserve support. But would I predict that at least in the short term the second branch is more likely to succeed and to have more of the victories necessary for sustaining organizers.

 

Of course, I would be happy to be proven wrong by more victories and organizer recruitment within really big campaigns.

 

 

 

 

November 2008

What Does the IWW Do?

 

People become IWW members in two ways. Some people join because of ideology and people join because of the union's activity. Along the same lines, the IWW does two main things. First, it helps workers solve problems at work by helping them organize. Second, it transforms people. That is, the IWW improves some people's live on the job and radicalizes some people through collective action alongside discussion. In doing so it gives them practical skills and confidence to do things. Another way to put this is as a pair of principles: building industrial power and building organizers.

 

We need room for both of these principles. Our organizing should radicalize workers. And our organizing should make people who think of themselves as radicals more effective in fighting bosses and capitalists.

 

In practice these principles are closely related. For instance the NYC warehouse campaign really got running because of the hard work and dedication of a handful of IWW members. This is basically true across the board for the IWW. The bulk of the work of maintaining and building the union rests on a relatively small percentage of IWW members. In this we're like most unions I think. So, we build industrial power by using our current organizers. These principles work together.

 

While these principles overlap, it can be useful to think about them separately sometimes. This gives us two different ways to evaluate success and set priorities. Let's say in one shop we win an awesome contract for 100 people and develop no members of that shop into class conscious workers and active IWW members and organizers. Let's say in another shop we lose and the campaign dissipates. But five people who were already IWW members become better organizers and five new members join from the shop and become organizers. The first hypothetical is better if our main priority is industrial power. The second is better if our priority is developing organizers.

 

Personally I think if someone only cares about one or the other principle then the IWW may be the wrong group for them, depending on what industry they work in and what role they want to play. If someone wants to organize and all they care about is industrial power, other unions do a lot better at building industrial power most of the time. If someone wants to organize in a way that only focuses on developing class consciousness I think there are groups that do a better job than us. However, the IWW is one of the only groups I know that does both at the same time and is reasonably good at both.

 

While both of these principles are important, my personal view is that right now the priority for the IWW should be to develop organizers. This doesn't mean neglecting industrial power, because we can only meaningfully develop organizers by aiming at industrial power. But the reality is that the IWW relies too much on people who joined with their vision and values already formed and their skills already developed. Plus, turnover in the IWW is far too high. We need to get better at creating organizers, improving organizers over time, and retaining organizers for the long haul. This is a key part of building the One Big Union and ultimately abolishing the wage system.

 

December 2008

Pinchpoint Target

 

Some people think the IWW should pour all of its resources into organizing in an industry which is particularly important to the economy, to maximize our impact on capitalism--I call this the "Pinchpoint Target" idea.

 

Pinchpoint Target is the idea that there's one key sector or a few key sectors of the economy where organized workers could shut down capitalism. This means workers in that sector or sectors have a certain level of objective power, at least potentially. For instance, if every dockworker in the United States went on strike the global economy would stop. Dockworker strikes stop an incredibly valuable amount of machinery and goods. Every minute of the strike costs the bosses of the world a great deal of money. This analysis is correct. It does not mean that the IWW should focus only organizing dockworkers.

 

The problem with Pinchpoint Target is that it takes a correct objective analysis of the economy--some sectors are more important to the global economy than others--and argues that the analysis should dictate organizational strategy. The mistake is that Pinchpoint Target says that we'll organize that key sector or sectors and then be able to end capitalism. That is, the idea is that workers in that sectors or sectors will lead the charge for everyone else.

 

There are at least three problems with this idea. One is that workers in other industries need unions too because their jobs also suck. Some of those workers are currently IWW members and not all of them can change jobs to some key industry. The IWW needs to support and train and develop those members too. To do otherwise would be undemocratic.

 

A second problem is that the current level of training, experience, and dedication in the union is insufficient. The procedures for educating news members and developing a sense of Wobbly culture and community need to be better. I don't mean to put down the hard work of my fellow workers. I simply think that we still have a lot of work to do in this area. If we're talking about key sectors where we want to not only build unions but push forward revolutionary transformation then we will face tremendous repression. We have to be prepared for this repression. That means we have to develop better networks of solidarity and union infrastructure and a stronger Wobbly culture. The union busting we face when we organize image conscious restaurant chains or in the public sector is nowhere near as fierce as in manufacturing. We still have a hard time handling this in our campaigns. If we organize dockworkers or oil refinery workers the union busting we face will be much more intense than anything we have seen before. We need to get better at winning smaller campaigns in less important sectors of the economy before we charge up the mountain.

 

The level of repression which workers in pinchpoint industry face is an argument for not prioritizing those sectors for another reason. If workers in those industries are isolated, they will be more easily defeated. If organization and revolutionary consciousness is spread throughout the working class across different sectors then we will have a better chance at defeating that repression. If it's not, then the struggles in the pinchpoint sector or sectors will be more likely to lose--and the workers in other sectors may be less likely to unite with the workers in the pinchpoint sectors.

 

The experience of class struggle on the job can have a radicalizing effect. I've argued that we should organize in a way that maximizes this effect. This is important to counteract divisions between parts of our class. More important sectors of the economy are more likely to be well paid, and one response to major unrest is to improve conditions. The difference in income between the pinchpoint and nonpinchpoint workers can lead workers in the non-pinchpoint sectors to be less disposed toward solidarity.

 

I want to close by saying that the Pinchpoint Target is motivated by a sense of urgency. The idea is that prioritizing one sector or some key sectors will move the abolition of the wage system along faster. That's a worthwhile goal and that impatience is totally understandable. The world is a bad place in many ways and it needs to change. I'm not convinced that the Pinchpoint Target will help us, but I respect and share the sense of urgency of the fellow workers who hold to this idea.

 

 

Why Direct Action

By Matt Jones

  The goal of the IWW is to create the "future society in the shell of the old." It is important we keep this goal in mind as we go about our organizing. This goal helps define how we organize for the daily struggles and it shapes our perspective on future organizing. As IWW's we accept that this goal means we put certain principles forward in

our organizing. One of these, Direct Action is the basis of this article.

 

  Direct Action is a principled tactic that will help us build revolutionary industrial unions, because it builds revolutionary industrial unionists. Backed by solid organization it can enforce our demands whatever they may be: better wages, more time for ourselves,

subsidized childcare, etc. At the same time it prepares us for larger battles and struggles as it develops us into a collective force. It has the ability to change our conceptions of ourselves and the world around us. Old prejudices, the shit of capitalism, that has kept us

divided as workers can get shed. Ways of feeling, isolated, alone, depressed with the weight on you shoulders fall away. This happens because we are involved in action, doing things in a way that is not passive. We are a force with our own agenda and goals.

 

  As the IWW, we emphasize direct action in our organizing. Simply put, direct action is any tactic that addresses an issue directly, that a group of workers themselves control, and that does not depend on a third party. Direct action does not rely on the state through the

National Labor Relations Board, legislation, politicians, or bureaucrats. Instead it is based on us acting collectively and directly on an issue. Sometimes it is aimed at the boss or bosses. This is the first thing that comes to most of our minds. This is the classic image of the workers marching out of the factory or sitting in. But it is also simpler actions, refusing to participate in employer meetings unless they are on the terms of the workers. This happened with a group of massage therapists out in Portland recently. Or bringing in the proper safety equipment paid for by the group when the bosses refuses to provide it (as happened recently at a Chicago Starbucks). Sometimes it is aimed at other pieces of the capitalist system. In Portland a social service workplace for victims of sexual or domestic violence was in danger of getting its funding cut by the county. The workers organized, and with a large group of supporters showed up at the county commissioners' meetings demanding the budget not be cut. They had their funding restored because of the action they took together. Another example of direct action is a group of women workers that confronted a sexist co-worker (or co-workers). The target can vary but the method stays the same.

   It must be said openly that Direct Action is not about violence or destruction despite what the bosses or the media may say. Anyone who advocates individual violent acts, as "direct action" is sorely misunderstood on it place and purpose and does a disservice to the working class, for whom there is no need for such posturing.

 

   We recognize direct action takes discipline, planning, and follow through. The foundation however is the solidarity that exists among workers in the shop. Here is the basis of the action. We begin at this point and organize the action from there, bringing others in as necessary. Solidarity is how we support each other around an issue, it is a measure of how strongly we as workers feel towards one another and how much we will support each other. Solidarity is developed out of our shared experiences on the job and our common grievances. It is both the foundation of and broadened by Direct Action.

 

  Our organizing around an issue succeeds or fails based on how good of a plan it was and how well it is carried out. To ensure that it is carried out well we assess our situation before hand, keeping in mind our desired outcome and possible responses. As workers we come together and democratically decide what we want and what we are going to do. Outside organizers can help develop a plan and tie it in with larger strategy. But the decision to act and how to act must be carried out by those directly involved. It is important that as many of those impacted are involved in the planning and decision-making. It is in this way we maintain a democratic organization. We also increase our strength as a group by sharing skills, planning together, and testing our abilities. And most importantly we further the solidarity we feel towards each other.

 

   Direct action requires that we overcome the divisions amongst us by deciding on a plan and moving on it.  We stop taking complaints to the boss one at a time, hoping for some sympathy or a fair hearing. Instead we list out the problems, our demands to fix them, and through an action confront the boss directly. This challenges us to do things many of us are not used to, things we are discouraged from doing by capitalism. First we think critically about the situation around us. We have to organize beyond ourselves and bring people in. We strategize as a group to ensure our plan is as fool proof as can be. And lastly up for each other and for ourselves.

 

   It is obvious how this differs from the other days at work. Instead of driving in think how miserable to day will be, hoping things will move by quickly, that the speed of work or your numbers of cases to solve won't be too difficult. That the pay will seem worth

it, there won't be as much inventory to stock. The boss won't come by and demand that we work overtime. Instead we show up focused, with a plan, a sense of community with those around us. We have a say in our lives on the job and we have power. Organizing puts this into play; direct action takes it to the next step.

 

   This tactic can only be effectively accomplished by those directly involved. It is a key to keeping our organization democratic, making sure those most impacted and with the most to gain or lose are the primary actors in an action. They are not necessarily the only ones with a stake in the action, but they are the most effected. Work should be done to make sure anyone potentially impacted is consulted on the action, especially with large actions (except of course the boss). Everyone involved is accountable to each other during and after the action. This means that if the designated Fellow Worker who is to

speak to the boss during the action is unable, someone else steps up, or we have a second speaker appointed. Or if during a slow down action, where we have all decided to work at our own speed the whole day, a fellow worker begins to work faster, we work things out with them. We figure out what is up and work with this person and ensure next time this mistake won't be made. Any mistakes made can be worked out and any problems resolved as a group, sometimes with the aid of external organizers there to walk us through. Here it is clear how this is different than a handful of "organizers" calling the shots.

 

   Direct Action is useful to our organizing because direct action is the only way to continue to build upon our success and to ensure that our gains are not whittled away. Organizing in the IWW is not merely about winning demands. Yes, winning demands, improves our lives as workers on and off the job. We do not lose sight of this, but we

recognize it is not an end in itself. If our only goal were to win demands, we would have no reason to be different than the business unions. If this were our goal it would be fine to hire picketers to stand outside to shop, while the workers toil inside. It would be fine

to use only "public" pressure to force the boss to sign a contract as some business unions do. But this is not what we want. We want workers and ourselves as workers, to be conscious of themselves and to be organized. This means being active, not passive. This means building up our skills and our confidence. Out of this comes our real strength.

This is why we need not be the largest numerically to have the biggest impact. We, as workers, decide how to take care of an issue: not unaccountable leaders disconnected from the situation, not the state through appointed judges, not the union president and her cronies miles away. We are not passive in this. We are making the moves and the decisions.

 

   We aim to build a new society. Building a new society requires us to change as workers. Collective Action challenges the alienation that breaks us apart and makes us feel like isolated individuals. People do not change when they are spectators who watch someone else get things for them, or are given things to keep quiet. We change when we are acting on something, when we are experiencing things ourselves. Through direct action this is possible. Here we are seeing what is possible, what limits exist, how we can be stronger next time. This happens again and again as we build the One Big Union, until our strength can match that of the bosses and larger things are possible.

 

 

What We're Changing

By Matt Jones

 

            In our organizing we are trying to establish power on the job. This power can be seen and felt in different ways depending on the job. But what we want from our organizing is control over our day to day lives on the job, this control will come from the power we can establish through collective action.

 

            The collective actions we take on the job change the conditions on that job; they change how we daily interact with our bosses and with each other. This results in a bettering of conditions. I believe old time Wobblies called this job conditioning. It comes out of workers collectively and directly confronting the boss on an issue, and sticking up for one another. It is done with or without a contract; often the contract is an impediment to actions that can condition the job.

 

            One of my first experiences with this came on my first job out of high school, throwing boxes at UPS. The workers here, although only informally organized exerted strong control over the job, and had no fear in voicing their opinions to the boss. The workers rallied around one or two strong leaders on the job. These leaders were the first workers to extend a hand to me and the other fellow I got hired on with, these were the workers when there was an issue would between two other workers would get it worked out, and these were the workers who were the first (but not the only ones) to bring up an issue to the boss. These confrontations often happened on the post break discussion session, they were often loud and confrontational. In this I saw the first application of our power as workers, and what it meant to be organized. The result was we worked the pace we wanted, worked with who we wanted, and stuck up for on another. Eventually, this experience would culminate in a threatened strike sticking up for a fellow worker who was in danger of being fired.

 

            When I moved on to another job, this one at a truck manufacturing plant, I found a much different situation. Workers did not condition the job in the same way. They did not stick up for each other. Moreover, the leadership that had existed on the job at UPS did not exist here. The leadership that did exist was found in the "team lead" who often was a good leader and a company man. This of course led to workers following this person, falling in line, and not sticking together. In this situation our job conditions were much different. We were more at the mercy of the company. They had us out organized, and because of this we had no control over our daily lives on the job.

 

            On my current job we are early on in a long process of organizing. One of the first tasks has been to get my fellow workers to take action together and to stick up for one another. Most of them are decent folks, willing to help each other out but with no experience of being organized. Most want to confront problems as individuals, thinking they may get a fair hearing from the boss. In small ways though, I can already see some changes, from a willingness to be critical of how things are handled to having each other's backs and helping each other out. These are some of the small changes that can lead to larger ones.

 

            Job conditioning, I have learned is based on the small confrontations that happen everyday. When the boss comes out ready to tell us a decision he or she has made and is not confronted by workers as a group, they set the conditions for that day. If we workers confront them, stick up for one another, and lay out our demands for what we want, we set the conditions for that day. We are making a point with our action. The boss is learning their role. Workers are learning our power.

 

 

Know the Union, Hear the Union, See the Union
By Adam W.

On a 100 degree summer day I was in Stockton, at the Sikh temple meeting room. A middle aged trucker with a long, flowy beard asked me "How do we show the other drivers who weren't at our meeting today what the union is and why they should join?" I struggled to give him a good, clear answer on this one. I improvised an analogy on the spot. I think it paints a picture of our Solidarity Unionism organizing model in practice: "Know the Union, Hear the Union, See the Union." Let me break it down.

First you give the whole saying: "Here's how our organizing works. Some workers will know the union, some will hear the union, but others have to see the union." If you have a marker and paper, draw three circles around each other (like a bulls eye target). In the middle one write "know," the next "hear," and the outer most circle "see."

 

You'll get a raised eye brow or maybe a "huh?" look on the faces of folks, which usually translates to "What the hell is this crazy IWW organizer trying to tell me now?" Don't worry, this is actually good. If you get this reaction it means people will be interested to hear the explanation. Point to everyone in the room.  Tell them that they are the workers who know the union. Point out that they are the workers that have attended meetings, are initiating the organizing and maybe have already taken out a red card. From experience or being fed up, they already know collective action is needed to fight for change on the job and that this is the definition of a union. Usually this group is small, but it's the starting point for every campaign.

The people who know the union talk to other folks. Some of the people they talk to will be quickly convinced. They're the ones who hear the union. Maybe they won't come to the first meeting or they might want to know that it's a legit effort and not the malcontents of the month, but once they are asked they will participate. This is usually the first layer of workplace leaders that are brought into an organizing committee.

 

Most workers are in the third camp, ones who need to see the union. They won't be meaningfully won over to the organizing effort simply by telling them somnething. These folks are skeptical that collective action by workers can win. They're probably scared of losing their jobs or maybe had a bad experience with another union.

Here's how we move the workers who need to see the union in action. The workers who know the union organize and build relationships and leadership among the folks who hear about the union. Together both groups take action to change small issues. This demonstrates in practice what a union is. Other workers see the union in action and start to understand that change is really possible.

For myself this is one of the most useful concepts when beginning to organize. Organizing starts with those who "know" the union, they bring in the folks who "hear" about the union and together they take action to move the workers who need to "see" the union. How this plays out in the long run is that workers move from "seeing" to "knowing" the union through becoming involved in the organizing and action. This
process builds the IWW and builds a conscious and militant working class.

 

 

 

 

Lasting Lessons from the Class Struggle

by Matt Jones and MK

    "To build the new society you need new people and people can be transformed only in activity." - Martin Glaberman, Work and Working Class Consciousness.

    March 20th, 2004.  Over the course of a year a group of UPS loaders had developed a lot of comradery with one another. They had the power, and they openly expressed it by refusing to work at the speed demanded by the bosses. A new worker was brought in and management tried its best to isolate him from the activist group.  When this fellow worker defied management and lined up with the rest of the workers, working at their pace, calling management "blue shirts" and spending his breaks with other militant workers, management brought even more pressure on him, pushing him to change and work faster or he would be fired. His coworkers responded after a break one morning by refusing to go back to work until a certain blue shirt, the one mostly responsible for the pressure brought on the new worker, was taken off of the line. It was a stand-off, and the tension was high, none of them having been involved in anything like this before. They won their demand, the supervisor was taken off the line, and they were threatened with firings if they tried anything like that again. Over the course of the next year they all began to leave the job, moving to other work, other shifts at UPS, or to other departments.

    Roughly a year and a half after the action had taken place, two friends from the UPS job visit for the first time in awhile. Chatting over a beer, one had quit UPS but the other still worked there. He relayed how he would bring the story up whenever he saw their old despised manager, how that blue shirt's face would turn red and he would storm off. Nostalgic for the old crew and their bold action at work, the worker who had since moved on called another former coworker.  He too expressed pride in their defiance of the boss and added that he looked forward to the next time he could stick it to management to show 'em who was really in charge.  Though the gains were long gone, the memory and experience still lingered, with the workers holding onto a desire to take action next time they have the strength.

   

    May 17th, 2006.  Messengers from Arrow Messenger Service in Chicago gather for a special anniversary party at a fellow worker's home.  Exactly one year ago, on a busy Thursday afternoon, they all had turned off their two-way radios messengers use to communicate to their dispatcher.  Having been through three fruitless negotiating sessions with the company, this was their way of showing Arrow that if the bosses wouldn't meet their terms, the company wouldn't run.  After a pitched battle during the ensuing month, the company agreed to the workers' demands.
    As they gather at the anniversary party, make little drunken speeches and reminisce over last years drawn-out struggle, only three or four of them – out of twenty – still work at the company.  Several were fired during the campaign, others quit in frustration, and others just decided to move on.  There is virtually no organization left at the company and no existing struggle against the boss to speak of.  In another year the union will be completely gone from Arrow and what will become of the gains made in Winter 2005 is anyone's guess.

    But one thing is clear, no one there would have changed a thing.  For some it was the greatest experience at work they had ever been a part of.  There is consensus that the whole thing was nothing less than life-changing.  Crappy work is no longer something that must only be endured.  It can be collectively resisted.

    

    At first glance one can look at these shopfloor skirmishes and see defeat.  Gains were eroded, and no lasting organization was ever built.  But through struggle we produce more than better or worse working conditions, resolved or unresolved grievances, and union or no union.  We produce new kinds of people.  A major part of our organizing has to be a change in consciousness.  This is why our tactics are so important.  This type of change in outlook isn't facilitated as clearly through an NLRB election campaign. Direct action, where workers themselves are making the change, gives the feeling of power to us workers. Most members of our class have not felt this power, but once it has been summoned up it is much harder to push down.

    When we workers act as a group we are making a statement to each fellow worker involved. This statement is clear, I am willing to stand here with your if you are here to stand with me. We may win this fight, or we may lose, but that statement always stays with us. It resonates with us as we go through our lives.  When we organize and when we take action that effectively challenges our boss, we have the power to demand the changes we want to see. This is the key to understanding why these types of actions change our lives. In the UPS story, workers stood up, put themselves on the line for another worker. In the Arrow story, workers took action to strengthen their position and to make a clear point: we are united and without US you do not have a company. When we put ourselves on the line for one another, no one forgets what is possible afterward.
    The concept of producing organizers at one company who scatter out to others companies has become a maxim for some IWW organizers in industry-wide efforts, and the concept is a good one, but there's something more to it.  Not everyone is going to become an organizer but everyone is going to have do assess the fight they've just been through and draw conclusions for their own lives.  When the dust settles from our action, as it inevitably does, we are left to consider what happened. We have seen the power we have as workers, a power unknown before.  It may not occur to us immediately, but with any major change in our lives, there is a resonance - a white noise that does not go away. It could be a month later and we could be at the same job, or a year later and we could be two jobs down the road, but we will remember.  And when we have the chance, we line up with, or maybe even lead, an effort to organize and take a stand against the boss. This time we do it with less hesitation than before, maybe with more foresight and with more vigor, because now we know exactly what it means.

    The bottom line is this: our organizing needs to have as its byproduct a new increase in workers' willingness to resist - an increase in our propensity to act on our urges to resist the bosses - even if the resistance is individual.  This is the revolutionary outcome. This will lay the groundwork for future organizing, in this industry or others.  To "organize the worker not the job" as we say in this union, is to gradually create new kinds of people, people who are most likely to never again roll over and take the shit the boss throws at them.

    The Missoula Floods were enormous landscape-changing events during the last ice age, some of which discharged 2.6 billion gallons of water every second, but they were only possible due to sudden small ruptures of the ice dam on the Clark Ford River. Small ruptures led to larger ruptures, they built off each other weakening the dam. In the IWW, our workplace committees, our campaigns, and our fights with the boss have ruptured production, only to have seen companies rebound and get back to business.  But the true ruptures are the changed individuals that come out the other end of these fights.  One day our years of struggles will turn these ruptures into a revolutionary flood that will forever change the landscape of the world's economy.

 

Building a ship
I recently stepped down from a position in the international. In thinking about this, I remembered something I wanted to share.

I feel lucky that I had the privilege to meet Fellow Worker Utah Phillips before he died. FW Phillips sang a song with the refrain, "building a ship, may never sail on it, gonna build it anyway. That's an important idea.

"Building a ship." The IWW is a sort of ecosystem where several elements depend on each other, and move at different paces. One of the main things I do in the IWW now are trainings and administrative work. This is important but it's hard in that the pay offs don't come quickly and often happen elsewhere out of my direct sight/experience. This is different from helping organize a picket or a job action, or moving a co-worker in a one-on-one.
On a personal note, I'm happy to report that my wife is pregnant and that our daughter is due to be born at the end of August. I am very excited to meet my daughter and to raise her. At the same time, I know parenting will involve being stressed, missing sleep, being afraid, and a lot of hard work. Along the same lines, I used to think that revolutionary activity should always be joyful or make us feel good. I no longer feel that way. Obviously this stuff should have enjoyable and/or joyful elements, at least sometimes, but that's a different matter. The work we need to do is often hard and trying and tiring and involves sacrifices. Many things worth doing are hard and are not immediately rewarding. To not do them because they are not immediately rewarding is not justifiable. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing over all, like parenting. It's both rewarding and really hard at the same time.

"May never sail on it." I told FW Phillips that his music and stories were a big part of my introduction to the IWW, and that I had really enjoyed talking with him and hearing his stories. He said thank you. He said something like "I was your age when I met the people who got me into all this, and they were about the age I am now. Someday you'll be my age and will be getting new people into all this." It was (and is) a sobering thing to say, and definitely felt (and feels) like shoes I can't fill. It's also an important reminder to think long term: Utah was I think 73 when I met him. I had just turned 30.

All this ties in to the reasons I decided to step down. In short, I was and am feeling burnt out. On the one hand, I need to make sure I do not burn out entirely, so that I can continue to play a somewhat positive role for the long term. On the other hand, the point in the song is important. This stuff is not about immediate returns - or, at least, not about seeing our really big goals accomplished. I find that a useful reminder. This work matters. We have to keep doing it. For me right now hanging in for the long term means stepping back for the short term, taking on less in order to do better at the things I am doing in the IWW.

"Gonna build it anyway."