# Split within the IWW?



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

http://iww.org.uk/node/771

It has become clear from statements put out by Alberto Durango and Chris Ford that they intend to create a break away organisation from the IWW. This is not only in breach of our constitutional rules and principle, not least the core Industrial Unionist principle of the One Big Union, but places the workers who leave in a very vulnerable position as they will no longer be afforded the protection which members of the IWW benefit from.






The IWW has committed much time and effort in supporting the cleaners in their struggles, with Fellow Workers from all branches becoming actively involved. The union as a whole has invested a great deal to ensure the success of their campaigns. In light of this unconstitutional break away and formal complaints of alleged irregular, undemocratic and unconstitutional running of the IWW London Regional Committee and IWW Cleaners' Branch lodged against Chris Ford and Alberto Durango, The Britain and Ireland Regional Administration of the IWW feels that there is no alternative but to suspend Chris Ford and Alberto Durango from their positions within the Union with immediate effect pending further investigation.

The decision about how we as a union approach this however, must be taken by the union as a whole. With this in mind, we will release a further statement announcing the decisions taken at the BIRA Annual Conference to be held (24/25th of august), hosted by Sheffield General Members Branch.

IWW Britain and Ireland Regional Administration
17.08.2012


----------



## the button (Aug 17, 2012)

Aye. Ford & Durango took the opportunity of the victory at John Lewis to annouce the launch of the "Industrial Workers of Great Britain."


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 17, 2012)

Why are these two people doing this?


----------



## JHE (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> ...unconstitutional break away... irregular, undemocratic and unconstitutional running of the IWW London Regional Committee and IWW Cleaners' Branch...


 
Was their grasp of the rules a bit wobbly?


----------



## Random (Aug 17, 2012)

Bloody hell





the button said:


> Aye. Ford & Durango took the opportunity of the victory at John Lewis to annouce the launch of the "Industrial Workers of Great Britain."


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 17, 2012)

One! One Big Union!

Two! Two Slighter Smaller Unions!


----------



## the button (Aug 17, 2012)

Random said:


> Bloody hell


Apologies for long c & p, but here's the announcement from Wednesday:



> CLEANERS SUCCESS AT JOHN LEWIS HERALDS
> 
> A REBIRTH OF INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM
> The dispute of cleaners at the John Lewis Partnership’s flagship at Oxford Street store has ended with significant success for the workers who took strike action in July.
> ...


----------



## treelover (Aug 17, 2012)

couldn't make it up, very sad...


----------



## BigTom (Aug 17, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Why are these two people doing this?


 
I don't know them, nor do I get involved with national IWW stuff, but my impression of it is that there were some people who didn't like IWW becoming a certified union (which happened before I joined), and I'd guess that this comes from that.
I don't understand it though, SolFed still exists in the space IWW used to be in as well, and anyone who didn't like the structural change enough to split could/should have left to SolFed imo.
I also doubt that we would have seen the victories the cleaner's branch have achieved without being certified and thus able to legally strike & become recognised in a workplace, these were the first IWW strikes for some silly amount of time, and I doubt that's unconnected to being able to access legal protection for workers who are not politically committed to an anarcho-syndicalist vision of radical, militant worker organisation.

When I saw them talking about IWGB in the release and not IWW I was wondering what was going on, and I guess this is it. Very sad and I hope that it doesn't take away from any organising momentum amongst cleaners in and outside of london, but I can't see how that can be avoided, though in all honesty I have no idea how important Chris & Alberto are now (though Alberto was very important in getting the cleaner's branch going afaik).


----------



## Libertad (Aug 17, 2012)

Why would they do this?
What is the point? Totally contrary to the core values of the IWW, empire building anyone?

Edit, just read your post Tom.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 17, 2012)

Fuck certification


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I also doubt that we would have seen the victories the cleaner's branch have achieved without being certified and thus able to legally strike & become recognised in a workplace, these were the first IWW strikes for some silly amount of time, and I doubt that's unconnected to being able to access legal protection for workers who are not politically committed to an anarcho-syndicalist vision of radical, militant worker organisation.


 
No the reason they haven't struck previously has been lack of density any where



> When I saw them talking about IWGB in the release and not IWW I was wondering what was going on, and I guess this is it. Very sad and I hope that it doesn't take away from any organising momentum amongst cleaners in and outside of london, but I can't see how that can be avoided, though in all honesty I have no idea how important Chris & Alberto are now (though Alberto was very important in getting the cleaner's branch going afaik).


 
Chris Ford is ex-AWL, and Alberto Durango is a stalinist/Chavista who was the secretary of the Unite cleaners branch iirc that split after Unite made them too many promises they couldn't keep.

Solfed is a political organisation which demands a level of political unity these two would not be able to sign up to.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 17, 2012)

Yeah, I don't know but that's my slightly informed speculation anyway. There are definitely people who are unhappy with the centralisation that has had to happen as a result of certification, and that the IWW is moving away from a purist anarcho-syndicalist position, and aren't happy about it.
But I don't know them personally, they could both be egoists out empire building for all I know.

edit: written before spanky's post above


----------



## the button (Aug 17, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I don't know them, nor do I get involved with national IWW stuff, but my impression of it is that there were some people who didn't like IWW becoming a certified union (which happened before I joined), and I'd guess that this comes from that.
> I don't understand it though, SolFed still exists in the space IWW used to be in as well, and anyone who didn't like the structural change enough to split could/should have left to SolFed imo.
> I also doubt that we would have seen the victories the cleaner's branch have achieved without being certified and thus able to legally strike & become recognised in a workplace, these were the first IWW strikes for some silly amount of time, and I doubt that's unconnected to being able to access legal protection for workers who are not politically committed to an anarcho-syndicalist vision of radical, militant worker organisation.
> 
> When I saw them talking about IWGB in the release and not IWW I was wondering what was going on, and I guess this is it. Very sad and I hope that it doesn't take away from any organising momentum amongst cleaners in and outside of london, but I can't see how that can be avoided, though in all honesty I have no idea how important Chris & Alberto are now (though Alberto was very important in getting the cleaner's branch going afaik).


 
A lot of the anarchos in the IWW wouldn't join SolFed for a variety of reasons. Just to be clear, this split has been initiated by a faction in the IWW that was pretty hostile to anarchism -- to the extent of attempting to ban red & black flags from demos outside John Lewis.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

I would be amazed if Ford or Durango were opposed to certification.


----------



## Onket (Aug 17, 2012)

This is a shame. I only sent off my membership form the other day.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 17, 2012)

Certification=Sell out, fucking cunts


----------



## the button (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I would be amazed if Ford or Durango were opposed to certification.


Exactly. It's a split led by people who wanted the IWW to be more like a conventional union, not less.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_Great_Britain


----------



## BigTom (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I would be amazed if Ford or Durango were opposed to certification.


 
well given that, I really don't know what's going on here..


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Certification=Sell out, fucking cunts


 
Thanks for your sophisticated and naunced political analysis.


----------



## Random (Aug 17, 2012)

BigTom said:


> well given that, I really don't know what's going on here..


isn't it obvious? They've split from the IWW because it's full of anarchos.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 17, 2012)

My Red Card stays right here, let these fuckers have their moment of self-aggrandisement and good luck to the cleaners but this is not progress.

Spitting blood and feathers here


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

BigTom said:


> well given that, I really don't know what's going on here..


 
Fordy and Durango are both fairly astute organisers and Durango has been professionally trained by Unite in organising, both would like to be kings of their own castle and are far more astute than the IWW majority and felt held back by the IWWs radicalism and lack of ability to organise effectively, whether splitting will help them move towards their goals I doubt.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Thanks for your sophisticated and naunced political analysis.


 
Who are you calling a naunce?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:
			
		

> Chris Ford is ex-AWL, and Alberto Durango is a stalinist/Chavista who was the secretary of the Unite cleaners branch iirc that split after Unite made them too many promises they couldn't keep.
> 
> Solfed is a political organisation which demands a level of political unity these two would not be able to sign up to.


what, solfed are democratic centralists?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> what, solfed are democratic centralists?


 
There are other forms of political unity


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> There are other forms of political unity


Groupthink


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2012)

The splitters will need to get certificated too, now, if they don't want JL to try and renege.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

Libertad said:


> My Red Card stays right here, let these fuckers have their moment of self-aggrandisement and good luck to the cleaners but this is not progress.
> 
> Spitting blood and feathers here


 
Get out of the hen house then.

Who are you spitting them at though?

The IWW pro-cert wing, the pro-cert and lets go less radical wing, or the anti-cert wing? Do you know?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Groupthink


 
I didn't realise you were an anti-organisationalist


----------



## the button (Aug 17, 2012)

BigTom said:


> well given that, I really don't know what's going on here..


The IWW in London has been split (albeit internally) for a while now. The London Regional Committee was Ford, Durango & their pals; the London General Membership Branch was more libertarian in outlook, although by no means exclusively anarchist. A few weeks ago, an email was (deliberately?) leaked, saying that the cleaners branch didn't want anyone with red & black flags turning up in solidarity. Simultaneously, Durango was moaning about not getting support from the General Membership Branch. And also simultaneously, some materials for people wishing to do solidarity actions for the John Lewis cleaners appeared on the website of..... the Alliance for Workers Liberty.

If it wasn't for the cleaners themselves, and the fact that this has happened over their heads, I'd say leave the "leaders" of the IWGB to play with their new toy.


----------



## Random (Aug 17, 2012)

Aren't Ford and Durango cleaners themselves? Otherwise how were they involved with the strike?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

the button said:


> The IWW in London has been split (albeit internally) for a while now. The London Regional Committee was Ford, Durango & their pals; the London General Membership Branch was more libertarian in outlook, although by no means exclusively anarchist. A few weeks ago, an email was (deliberately?) leaked, saying that the cleaners branch didn't want anyone with red & black flags turning up in solidarity. Simultaneously, Durango was moaning about not getting support from the General Membership Branch. And also simultaneously, some materials for people wishing to do solidarity actions for the John Lewis cleaners appeared on the website of..... the Alliance for Workers Liberty.
> 
> If it wasn't for the cleaners themselves, and the fact that this has happened over their heads, I'd say leave the "leaders" of the IWGB to play with their new toy.


 
I imagine the cleaners aren't that bothered and are happy to stick together and with the leaders who helped them achieve their victory...


----------



## Libertad (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Get out of the hen house then.
> 
> Who are you spitting them at though?
> 
> The IWW pro-cert wing, the pro-cert and lets go less radical wing, or the anti-cert wing? Do you know?


 
atm. my comprehension is weak and my articulation even less so but as a red card carrier in good standing of 10 years or so I'm against any form of cooperation with the employing classes. Call me IWW traditionalist.


----------



## the button (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I imagine the cleaners aren't that bothered and are happy to stick together and with the leaders who helped them achieve their victory...


It's worth looking at the Cleaner's Branch Facebook page to see the cleaner's reactions. Obviously, some are in favour or don't care one way or the other. Others are wondering why they weren't consulted. Although you have to be quick if you want to see those ones, as they seem to get deleted quite fast. (One's disappeared while I've been typing this ). There's still this one though: "I am a member of the IWW cleaners branch. I disagree with the decision! ask other members!"


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2012)

the button said:


> It's worth looking at the Cleaner's Branch Facebook page to see the cleaner's reactions. Obviously, some are in favour or don't care one way or the other. Others are wondering why they weren't consulted. Although you have to be quick if you want to see those ones, as they seem to get deleted quite fast. (One's disappeared while I've been typing this ). There's still this one though: "I am a member of the IWW cleaners branch. I disagree with the decision! ask other members!"



Consult their members! In the middle of deciding for them? Whatever next etc Etc etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I didn't realise you were an anti-organisationalist


I'm by no means anti-organisation. However, I find it strange to hear solfed demand a degree of political unity these two couldn't accept. Do you mean, simply, they're neither anarchists and unlikely to become anarchists, or that they're divisive? Organisations can be successful with a range of opinion represented inside, for example class war, afa, the labour and conservative parties.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm by no means anti-organisation. However, I find it strange to hear solfed demand a degree of political unity these two couldn't accept. Do you mesm, simply, they're neither anarchists and unlikely to become anarchists, or that they're divisive? Organisations can be successful with a range of opinion represented inside, for example class war, afa, the labour and conservative parties.


 
Ones a trot and ones a stalinist.

I think CWF in your days would have demanded a higher degree of unity than these two could accept.


----------



## Random (Aug 17, 2012)

the button said:


> "I am a member of the IWW cleaners branch. I disagree with the decision! ask other members!"


 Was there any kind of general vote/meeting to decide this new union? Or has the IWGB leadership just decided that everyone is now a "member" of their new union? Like someone changing a Facebook group's name to Paedophile Appreciation Group, or Turbo island?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Ones a trot and ones a stalinist.
> 
> I think CWF in your days would have demanded a higher degree of unity than these two could accept.


right. So you meant 'anarchists only'. Ta


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> right. So you meant 'anarchists only'. Ta


 
No.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2012)

You meant they were divisive / disruptive?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> You meant they were divisive / disruptive?


 
No. (they might be but that's not the reason)


----------



## Libertad (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Ones a trot and ones a stalinist.
> 
> I think CWF in your days would have demanded a higher degree of unity than these two could accept.


 
Which one's which?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 17, 2012)

_"Never knowingly undersold-out by the boss caste"_


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Which one's which?



Ford's the Trot and Durrango's the Stalinist.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 17, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Which one's which?


My Holmesian deductive skills lead me to believe that the Stalinist is the one he previously described as a Stalinist, whilst the Trot is the other fellow.


----------



## Libertad (Aug 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> Ford's the Trot and Durrango's the Stalinist.


 
Thank you kindly. Their names are now on the list.


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> My Holmesian deductive skills lead me to believe that the Stalinist is the one he previously described as a Stalinist, whilst the Trot is the other fellow.



Hence my being able to answer


----------



## Libertad (Aug 17, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> My Holmesian deductive skills lead me to believe that the Stalinist is the one he previously described as a Stalinist, whilst the Trot is the other fellow.


 
Like I said, I'm not exactly the sharpest bayonet in the cadre atm. Thanks all the same.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 17, 2012)

As long as you've a sawback, you can be as blunt as you like


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2012)

Onset, can you remember where you sent your membership application?


----------



## Libertad (Aug 17, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> As long as you've a sawback, you can be as blunt as you like


 
I've sharpened my entrenching tool if that helps.


----------



## the button (Aug 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> Onset


 
Late Onset or early Onset?


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2012)

the button said:


> Late Onset or early Onset?



 

That's the second time I've been caught out by predictive text today. I'm leaving this one too.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> That's the second time I've been caught out by predictive text today. I'm leaving this one too.


 
http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com/


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2012)

Trouble is, Onset won't realise I've asked him a question on vanity search


----------



## Onket (Aug 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> Trouble is, Onset won't realise I've asked him a question on vanity search


 
You rang?


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2012)

Onket said:


> You rang?





Can you remember where you sent your membership application?


----------



## Onket (Aug 17, 2012)

The answer is- Glasgow.


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2012)

Onket said:


> The answer is- Glasgow.



You won't suddenly find yourself in the new union, then. Presumably.


----------



## Onket (Aug 17, 2012)

Well, I spose we'll have to see......


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

The Glasgow branch is mostly AFed afaik so you're much more likely to be joining the purer but never successfully organised much union as opposed to the politically dodgy but at least has a win and workplace branches union.


----------



## Onket (Aug 17, 2012)

I'm not joining the Glasgow branch, I am in London. The Glasgow address is the address they state on their website for everyone to send new application forms to.


----------



## Random (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The Glasgow branch is mostly AFed afaik so you're much more likely to be joining the purer but never successfully organised much union as opposed to the politically dodgy but at least has a win and workplace branches union.


Why the fuck does it always come down to choices like this?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

Onket said:


> I'm not joining the Glasgow branch, I am in London. The Glasgow address is the address they state on their website for everyone to send new application forms to.


 
I know, the Glasgow branch hosts the membership secretary for the IWW-BIRA faction as opposed to the IWGB faction.


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2012)

Onket said:


> I'm not joining the Glasgow branch, I am in London. The Glasgow address is the address they state on their website for everyone to send new application forms to.



Exactly. Applying to the IWW using the IWW system, so hopefully (if that's what you want) you'll become an IWW member.


----------



## Onket (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I know, the Glasgow branch hosts the membership secretary for the IWW-BIRA faction as opposed to the IWGB faction.


 
It's the only address given, so prospective members hardly have any choice.

What a great start this is turning out to be.


----------



## Onket (Aug 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> Exactly. Applying to the IWW using the IWW system, so hopefully (if that's what you want) you'll become an IWW member.


 
There are no details of any other system.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

Random said:


> Why the fuck does it always come down to choices like this?


http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...hy-is-the-uk-anarcho-left-not-growing.297462/


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2012)

Onket said:


> There are no details of any other system.



I wouldn't really expect there to be.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

Onket said:


> It's the only address given, so prospective members hardly have any choice.
> 
> What a great start this is turning out to be.


 
what in your view are the benefits of joining either "One Big Union"?


----------



## Random (Aug 17, 2012)

If these IWGB founders were not clearly manipulative trot/stalinists I would totally sympathise with their desire to break out of the crusty dusty old anarcho/left ghetto


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2012)

I couldn't give a flying fuck about what the people wanting to take charge want.


----------



## Onket (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> what in your view are the benefits of joining either "One Big Union"?


 
They aren't Unison.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

Random said:


> If these IWGB founders were not clearly manipulative trot/stalinists I would totally sympathise with their desire to break out of the crusty dusty old anarcho/left ghetto


 
Yes if the cleaners branch had collectively made the decision to break for independence I think it would have been the correct one, the crusties and activists would have only held them back.


----------



## Onket (Aug 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> I wouldn't really expect there to be.


 
Yes, having thought about it again, you are right.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

Onket said:


> They aren't Unison.


 
Neither are lots of social clubs and political discussion/argument societies...


----------



## Random (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yes if the cleaners branch had collectively made the decision to break for independence I think it would have been the correct one, the crusties and activists would have only held them back.


As it is the IWGB's new leaders will now spend their energy in a faction fight, propping up their new organisation's legitimacy, etc. Like a Roman prefect taking the legions from Britain for a shot at the purple.


----------



## Onket (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Neither are lots of social clubs and political discussion/argument societies...


 
I'm not joining a social club or discussion group.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

Onket said:


> I'm not joining a social club or discussion group.


 
that's what you think, good luck with it!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 17, 2012)

Random said:


> If these IWGB founders were not clearly manipulative trot/stalinists I would totally sympathise with their desire to break out of the crusty dusty old anarcho/left ghetto


 
I suspect that their politics are being rather "oversimplified" here. Ford, if I remember correctly, is ex-AWL because he left as the bag carrier of a certain D. Broder when the Commune was being set up. So he's probably not a Trotskyist in any sense that other Trotskyists would recognise.

(Is he also the guy who occasionally promotes stuff linked to the Ukrainian multiple-personality fraudsters, or am I getting him confused with someone else?)


----------



## Random (Aug 17, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I suspect that their politics are being rather "oversimplified" here. Ford, if I remember correctly, is ex-AWL because he left as the bag carrier of a certain D. Broder when the Commune was being set up.


What was the Commune? One of those post-left red party things? Or more like a crypto-left Counterfire thing?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I suspect that their politics are being rather "oversimplified" here. Ford, if I remember correctly, is ex-AWL because he left as the bag carrier of a certain D. Broder when the Commune was being set up.


 
My understanding is that he has returned to the AWL I could be wrong there.


----------



## Random (Aug 17, 2012)

Fucking left groups. They're all shit. Apart from the one I'll join in about, give it five years or so.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

Random said:


> What was the Commune? One of those post-left red party things? Or more like a crypto-left Counterfire thing?


 
http://thecommune.co.uk/

About 12 trots/ex-trots and anarchists/activist/non aligned socialists/libertarian socialist types, one or two nice people though quite a few of the memebrs have left after falling out with Broder.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> that's what you think, good luck with it!


 
Well I'd been hopeful that IWW would actually grow towards a proper union, and that the Cleaners branch would be the start of real action and wins for our members in more than just representation. With the public sector unions being so lame, there's the chance for a more militant union, but getting enough members in any government body to force recognition would be difficult. 
Nonetheless I was pleased to hear onket had joined because Unison were shit, and would love to have seen/heard of more of that happening. This split is only going to be bad


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 17, 2012)

Random said:


> What was the Commune? One of those post-left red party things? Or more like a crypto-left Counterfire thing?


 
They are still about. Basically a small bunch of assorted ex-Trotskyists who read some Brinton and are easily impressed along with a few Anarchists disgruntled by their own milieu. Mostly a little discussion circle as far as I can tell from afar.

http://thecommune.co.uk/

(Beaten to it!)


----------



## BigTom (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> that's what you think, good luck with it!


 
and also IWW do represent people, and this week I did my first thing as a rep and kept someone 8 days holiday that HR tried to say he should be using instead of occupational sick pay. That's not a discussion and social club.

 cos I think this post might sound angry if I don't specify that it isn't


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Well I'd been hopeful that IWW would actually grow towards a proper union, and that the Cleaners branch would be the start of real action and wins for our members in more than just representation. With the public sector unions being so lame, there's the chance for a more militant union, but getting enough members in any government body to force recognition would be difficult.
> Nonetheless I was pleased to hear onket had joined because Unison were shit, and would love to have seen/heard of more of that happening. This split is only going to be bad


 
No there's absolutely no chance of building a more militant union at the moment.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

BigTom said:


> and also IWW do represent people, and this week I did my first thing as a rep and kept someone 8 days holiday that HR tried to say he should be using instead of occupational sick pay. That's not a discussion and social club.
> 
> cos I think this post might sound angry if I don't specify that it isn't


 
Brilliant well done.

Maybe something useful will happen in isolated areas and that in itself is worth doing.

However what you describe above (and I'm not detracting from it at all - because it's a really tough thing to achieve) is something tens of thousands of trade unionists in mainstream unions do every day.


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2012)

BigTom said:


> and also IWW do represent people, and this week I did my first thing as a rep and kept someone 8 days holiday that HR tried to say he should be using instead of occupational sick pay. That's not a discussion and social club.
> 
> cos I think this post might sound angry if I don't specify that it isn't



Keep at it! Unions are as good as their members and front line reps.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Brilliant well done.
> 
> Maybe something useful will happen in isolated areas and that in itself is worth doing.
> 
> However what you describe above (and I'm not detracting from it at all - because it's a really tough thing to achieve) is something tens of thousands of trade unionists in mainstream unions do every day.


 
Yep, it's something that makes a union a union, and not just a talking shop.

I live in a state of enforced optimism with politics, if I didn't I'd be agreeing with lletsa everywhere and that is not good for my depression, so although I think you're right about there being no chance of building a more militant union, I've got to live with the hope and anything that I see moving against that isn't a good thing. I see more opportunity of taking IWW and building it into something bigger, than of trying to make unison/unite/etc more militant.


----------



## Onket (Aug 17, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Well I'd been hopeful that IWW would actually grow towards a proper union, and that the Cleaners branch would be the start of real action and wins for our members in more than just representation. With the public sector unions being so lame, there's the chance for a more militant union, but getting enough members in any government body to force recognition would be difficult.
> Nonetheless I was pleased to hear onket had joined because Unison were shit, and would love to have seen/heard of more of that happening. This split is only going to be bad


 
Yep. Exactly.

Someone else here has joined the IWW at the same time as me, and we were going to see if we could recruit a few more and do a bit of workplace organising off the back of the terribly handled Unison pensions situation.

But this isn't a good start.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Yep, it's something that makes a union a union, and not just a talking shop.
> 
> I live in a state of enforced optimism with politics, if I didn't I'd be agreeing with lletsa everywhere and that is not good for my depression, so although I think you're right about there being no chance of building a more militant union, I've got to live with the hope and anything that I see moving against that isn't a good thing. I see more opportunity of taking IWW and building it into something bigger, than of trying to make unison/unite/etc more militant.


 
Seriously good luck with it, I think that dozens of workers across the country probably agree with you.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 17, 2012)

Onket said:


> Yep. Exactly.
> 
> Someone else here has joined the IWW at the same time as me, and we were going to see if we could recruit a few more and do a bit of workplace organising off the back of the terribly handled Unison pensions situation.
> 
> But this isn't a good start.


 
I don't know anything of the London branch - hopefully there is still a good organisation there which will mean you can get the support you want and this won't turn out to be an issue.. but it's not going to help.
I hope you continue anyway, and do organise - if nothing else it might make your local unison/unite/gmb organisers think that they might need to be more militant to keep their members.


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2012)

Onket said:


> Yep. Exactly.
> 
> Someone else here has joined the IWW at the same time as me, and we were going to see if we could recruit a few more and do a bit of workplace organising off the back of the terribly handled Unison pensions situation.
> 
> But this isn't a good start.



Never rely on union bosses 

Nothing  to stop you doing exactly what you were hoping to do, and I bet you'd get plenty of support here from people used to workplace organisation.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Seriously good luck with it, I think that dozens of workers across the country probably agree with you.


 
please, there are at least _scores _of workers across the country that probably agree with me


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

BigTom said:


> please, there are at least _scores _of workers across the country that probably agree with me


----------



## JimW (Aug 17, 2012)

We are legion! Oh, sorry, no, we drink in the Legion.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> Never rely on union bosses


 
Well exactly!

Meet the micro-bureaucrats...


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Well exactly!
> 
> Meet the micro-bureaucrats...


 
A nation of closed shop keepers ...


----------



## Libertad (Aug 17, 2012)

cesare said:


> A nation of closed shop keepers ...


 
Boom!


----------



## cesare (Aug 17, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Boom!


----------



## Libertad (Aug 17, 2012)

(((Sabotcat)))


----------



## krink (Aug 17, 2012)

i was in iww for a few years a while back and got lots of help with problems at work. i ended up dealing with iww because Unison is so full of shit at my workplace (a council). full timers and their wannabes who just like to stay in their cosy little world, unlike the rest of us actual workers. we're just the mugs who pay the subs. we're just a nuisance to them, with our pathetic grievances and petty disciplinaries...don't we know the full-timers have some important meetings to attend? cunts.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

krink said:


> i was in iww for a few years a while back and got lots of help with problems at work. i ended up dealing with iww because Unison is so full of shit at my workplace (a council). full timers and their wannabes who just like to stay in their cosy little world, unlike the rest of us actual workers. we're just the mugs who pay the subs. we're just a nuisance to them, with our pathetic grievances and petty disciplinaries...don't we know the full-timers have some important meetings to attend? cunts.


 
And why aren't you still a member of the IWW?


----------



## krink (Aug 17, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> And why aren't you still a member of the IWW?


 
they killed my gran


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 17, 2012)

OK


----------



## october_lost (Aug 18, 2012)

I think the the button has done a good job filling in the various bits and pieces, but I think a large part of the backstory is the reformist trajectory laid down by L&S while they were at the helm of the IWW and how this has basically allowed groups like the AWL and people like Ford to become associated with the IWW. 

I have a few issues with the IWW, but at least it was genuine to the idea of self-organisation, Ford and co. are parasites whose logical trajectory is to become fully fledged union bureaucrats. It's on that basis that the anti-red and black flag nonsense on the picket line makes sense, because they are doing what all trot and leninists  do and look simply to take over  structures and move them along the well worn path. It would just seem that the IWW was not in a position to repel this, owing to a number of things.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 18, 2012)

It's all Tax's fault?!


----------



## cesare (Aug 18, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> It's all Tax's fault?!


----------



## cesare (Aug 18, 2012)

That was very much my reaction when I heard a bit more, O_L, but the main issue (as far as I see it) is that the members weren't consulted first.

That said, it _might_ work out OK for them in the long run. A virtual fiver says that the new org will be independent for nanoseconds before being swallowed up into the RMT. The cleaners will have a choice between RMT backing or rejoin the IWW (or both, if they dual card) and CF prob gets a FT paid RMT position.

It'll be interesting to see how JL/Compass react


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 18, 2012)

Always had the impression that compared to proper trade unions that the IWW were some sort of Fair Trade version


----------



## HST (Aug 18, 2012)

cesare said:


> That was very much my reaction when I heard a bit more, O_L, but the main issue (as far as I see it) is that the members weren't consulted first.
> 
> That said, it _might_ work out OK for them in the long run. A virtual fiver says that the new org will be independent for nanoseconds before being swallowed up into the RMT. The cleaners will have a choice between RMT backing or rejoin the IWW (or both, if they dual card) and CF prob gets a FT paid RMT position.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how JL/Compass react


OK. Naive questions - dual carding - how does this work?  I'm a PCS member - can I also be a member of the IWW? I see no conflict for me but any idea how the PCS would see it?


----------



## cesare (Aug 18, 2012)

HST said:


> OK. Naive questions - dual carding - how does this work? I'm a PCS member - can I also be a member of the IWW? I see no conflict for me but any idea how the PCS would see it?


 
I don't know how the PCS would view it, but afaik they can't unjustifiably discipline you for joining another union e.g. the IWW (TULCRA s64/65). There's obv 2 lots of membership dues to pay though.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 18, 2012)

cesare said:


> It'll be interesting to see how JL/Compass react


 
Who? What?


----------



## cesare (Aug 18, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Who? What?



John Lewis/Compass. They've agreed to 10% pay increase etc for the cleaners, but they did that on the basis of an agreement with the IWW who are a "proper" trade union in the sense of having basic certification. That agreement had nothing to do with the new organisation (not yet certificated), so there's a chance that JL/Compass will try and wriggle out of it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 18, 2012)

cesare said:


> John Lewis/Compass. They've agreed to 10% pay increase etc for the cleaners, but they did that on the basis of an agreement with the IWW who are a "proper" trade union in the sense of having basic certification. That agreement had nothing to do with the new organisation (not yet certificated), so there's a chance that JL/Compass will try and wriggle out of it.


 
I had a brainstorm thought you were on about the centre-left pressure group


----------



## cesare (Aug 18, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I had a brainstorm thought you were on about the centre-left pressure group



I fell into the acronym trap again


----------



## cesare (Aug 18, 2012)

Another, rather unpleasant, twist to all of this; is that until the new organisation is certificated, the members/cleaners aren't protected from the employers disciplining them for trade union activities. The members/cleaners may not be aware of this.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 18, 2012)

cesare said:


> Another, rather unpleasant, twist to all of this; is that until the new organisation is certificated, the members/cleaners aren't protected from the employers disciplining them for trade union activities. The members/cleaners may not be aware of this.


 
Given that it takes 5k and x amount of time to register with the officer then it would probably be quicker to do a deal to become a branch of another union - GMB have a history of sponsoring branches which call themselves unions... I can't imagine Durango or Unite wanting to work together again, and I'm not convinced the RMT will be interested...


----------



## BigTom (Aug 18, 2012)

I can't imagine John Lewis / Compass not looking at this situation and see if they could take advantage of it to either renege on the deal or sack anyone they see as ringleaders/troublemakers. If the cleaners get screwed then I hope Ford & Durango fuck off and never come back.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 18, 2012)

october_lost said:


> I think the the button has done a good job filling in the various bits and pieces, but I think a large part of the backstory is the reformist trajectory laid down by L&S while they were at the helm of the IWW and how this has basically allowed groups like the AWL and people like Ford to become associated with the IWW.


 
Actually this can be blamed on L&S in that their reforms allowed the union to recruit and organise for the first time in years among a solid working class precarious workforce that wasn't just a bunch of activists who ended up working at some vegan restaurant or art house cinema.


----------



## HST (Aug 18, 2012)

cesare said:


> I don't know how the PCS would view it, but afaik they can't unjustifiably discipline you for joining another union e.g. the IWW (TULCRA s64/65). There's obv 2 lots of membership dues to pay though.


Thanks - had a look at TULCRA s64/65 and seems okay. I'll join (once I find my cheque book) and out of courtesy and because I want to be open about it I'll let my PCS branch know straight away once it's confirmed.


----------



## cesare (Aug 18, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Given that it takes 5k and x amount of time to register with the officer then it would probably be quicker to do a deal to become a branch of another union - GMB have a history of sponsoring branches which call themselves unions... I can't imagine Durango or Unite wanting to work together again, and I'm not convinced the RMT will be interested...



Hmm, well given that the RMT are now supporting the tube cleaners, and other cleaning protests e.g. Cleaners at Thompson Reuters ( http://iww.org.uk/node/678 ) and also JL cleaners (see announcement button c&pd earlier) my money's still on them getting absorbed into the RMT.


----------



## cesare (Aug 18, 2012)

HST said:


> Thanks - had a look at TULCRA s64/65 and seems okay. I'll join (once I find my cheque book) and out of courtesy and because I want to be open about it I'll let my PCS branch know straight away once it's confirmed.



Might be worth sounding out your PCS branch first? I know they shouldn't object but, y'know, they might do so informally. I don't know anything about PCS politics though.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 18, 2012)

You are best off not telling them - there's a good chance the branch won't have a clue what you're on about it will just confuse them


----------



## cesare (Aug 18, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You are best off not telling them - there's a good chance the branch won't have a clue what you're on about it will just confuse them



Yep, honesty and courtesy are great but sometimes there's no need for them to know.


----------



## HST (Aug 18, 2012)

cesare said:


> Yep, honesty and courtesy are great but sometimes there's no need for them to know.


 
Point taken. Thank you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2012)

HST said:


> Thanks - had a look at TULCRA s64/65 and seems okay. I'll join (once I find my cheque book) and out of courtesy and because I want to be open about it I'll let my PCS branch know straight away once it's confirmed.


 
Cheque book, grandad?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Cheque book, grandad?


I imagine you'd have to pay in dubloons and Crimean gold


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2012)

DaveCinzano said:


> I imagine you'd have to pay in dubloons and Crimean gold


 
Dubloons?

Groats, lad. Groats!


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Cheque book, grandad?


Hey don't knock chequebooks, still very useful IMO. For some reason they don't really exist on this side of the world and theirs many a time I wish I'd had one.


----------



## HST (Aug 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Cheque book, grandad?


Given that there are 36 year old grandads around here I'll take that as a compliment - cheeky bugger.


----------



## october_lost (Aug 18, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Actually this can be blamed on L&S in that their reforms allowed the union to recruit and organise for the first time in years among a solid working class precarious workforce that wasn't just a bunch of activists who ended up working at some vegan restaurant or art house cinema.


This is a total false binnary. The passive activistoid/paper member situation is unfortunately still quite prelevant within the IWW, but L&S joined quite specifically because the organisation was making moves. To paint them as anything other than a parasitic wannabe trot group is totally false. Everything that they pushed in the organisation was a detour from what made the IWW a radical organisation and if they had had their way, it would basically just mirror the union movement has is.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 20, 2012)

october_lost said:


> This is a total false binnary. The passive activistoid/paper member situation is unfortunately still quite prelevant within the IWW, but L&S joined quite specifically because the organisation was making moves. To paint them as anything other than a parasitic wannabe trot group is totally false. Everything that they pushed in the organisation was a detour from what made the IWW a radical organisation and if they had had their way, it would basically just mirror the union movement has is.


 
Most L&S members were already members of the IWW well before the formation of L&S so that makes no sense.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 20, 2012)

cesare said:


> I don't know how the PCS would view it, but afaik they can't unjustifiably discipline you for joining another union e.g. the IWW (TULCRA s64/65). There's obv 2 lots of membership dues to pay though.


 
The IWW had a member who regulary stood for the leadership of the CPSA (Kevin Brandstatter I think his name was); not that he was going to get in but the election address sent to all members gave him the platform to talk about industrial unionism. I'm not aware that he got into any trouble over dual membership...but I could be very wrong...it was all a long time ago.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## krink (Aug 20, 2012)

HST said:


> OK. Naive questions - dual carding - how does this work? I'm a PCS member - can I also be a member of the IWW? I see no conflict for me but any idea how the PCS would see it?


 
I just searched the pcs rule book and couldn't find the word 'dual' so i don't think it will be a problem.


----------



## JHE (Aug 20, 2012)

krink said:


> I just searched the pcs rule book and couldn't find the word 'dual' so i don't think it will be a problem.


 
You can be a dual member OK, but duelling's banned, even for the honour of the union.


----------



## krink (Aug 20, 2012)

then it's no union for me!


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Aug 24, 2012)

Along with onket a few other members, stewards and branch officers are thinking of joining in our UNISON branch. I have to say though on first reading I have more sympathy with splitters, at least they have and are doing trade union work. The cleaners campaigns is what made me think about joining. In the past the IWW seemed to have all the hall marks of an anarcho playground (or fair trade trade union as someone put it!).

If there are a few dozen workers around the country thinking the same our branch could end up with an impressive percentage


----------



## october_lost (Aug 24, 2012)

The splitters have come about because of the bureaucratic politics of a handful of individuals and the language barriers of the said group cleaners group. There is no way they are in the know as to what is going on. As much as I am a critic of the IWW, it is not fair to call it an "anarcho playground" - infact its oddly apolitical and it has probably the only capability there is, within the UK, to absorb radical splits from the trade union movement.


----------



## manny-p (Aug 26, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I can't imagine John Lewis / Compass not looking at this situation and see if they could take advantage of it to either renege on the deal or sack anyone they see as ringleaders/troublemakers. If the cleaners get screwed then I hope Ford & Durango fuck off and never come back.


Yep fuck Durango and Ford if that happens. Playing with peoples fucking livelihoods for the sake of their egos. What cunts.


----------



## DAMTP (Aug 26, 2012)

IU 007/700 and IU 000 message of support to all FWs
Three years after our last message () calling for the formation of an industrial union of psychic workers we send psychic solidarity support to the most successful proletarian FWs (in terms of workers struggle and internationalism) of the Cleaners Union and Latin American Workers Union for organising on whatever grounds they see fit as is the aims of the IWW. The BIRA statement (http://iww.org.uk/node/771) against the cleaners workers does not make sense as the IWW does allow workers to dual card also and we do not see the union as a political party to be centrally controlled but rather as a tool of proletarianidation and step towards workers councils - as such the statement stinks of the bullshit bollocks of Bolshevism and Bakuninism
However we must state our own differences with the "Industrial Workers of Great Britain" - the union that the FWs of the IWW Cleaners union are now also using - not least that we do not recognise great Britain as a legitimate entity. The IWGB makes a similar error to the IWW with regards to their indusrtriual union structure as can be seen in their old graphic: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Class_battle_fronts_diagram.jpg Simply reproducing the structures of the ruling class in terms of industrial organisation which is something both the IWW and the IWGB are doing is doomed to failure.
However we do support the use of whatever unionisation necessary in order to escalate the class war in the workers favour. Ourselves since we received very little positive feedback from within the IWW mostly from FWs in Australia also decided to continue organising outside of the IWW and started a separate union called the DAta Miners Travailleurs Psychique (DAMTP)
One reason is that the IWW is dominated by workers in the so-called services industries ie those of capital intensive or non-productive work. A psychic workers union disrupts the coherent logic of services industries and allows a self-critical look for us workers who are non-productive ie that do not constitute the Marxist notion of the proletariat. It is precisely this weakness in Marxist theory that failed to allow new strategies and tactics after The defeat of the proletariat in 1917 and again in 1945
The industrial strictures of IWW should prioritise IUs 300 and 400 as proletarian labour intensive over 100 and 200 as land intensive and 500 and 600 as capital intensive. The fact that the IWW is con concentrated on services is also explained and has led to it being concentrated in the so-called First world or European dominated countries and areas such as USA, Europe and Australia. We have unionized with workers in Pakistan Lithuania and Sudan and attribute our success to a critique of Eurocentrism that the IWW current structure is incapable of addressing.
We have established the psychic worked as IU700 as this is a service union ie that of non-productive work in Marxist terms as well ad a dead workers union as IU 007 and this too is unproductive - however this was an important step in allowing members to join regardless of paying dues, regardless of nationality and location and regardless of whether they were alive or not. FW Joe Hill lead us in this.
We now must move beyond the traditional thought of political economics of labour, land or capital intensive production and we must consider reproductive labour . In order to ensure that labour dominates both land and capital it is essential we begin a reproductive workers union: This we have called the REproductiVe wOrkers and Lovers indUsTrIal uniON (REVOLUTION). The practicalities of this also show how a workers council - based on Mother and Child - relate to the union with other workers.

We must however continue to subordinate capital and land intensive production to that of labour. The current system does the opposite with too much power in the hands of psychic workers. But a new structure which recognises all productive workers with reproductive and non-productive workers, in that order, may overcome also the old problem of peasant vs proletariat. So again we stress that rather than extend the union classification from 000 to 999, we use base 7 : keep 007/700 as the psychic and dead workers and have the reproductive workers as our point of origin - thereby setting the labour of birth as the original labour: IU 000
We're in solidarity with cleaners as reproductive workers therefore taking their lead in the striking also on the psychic grounds to vanish whitewashing, light and stylistics. So we're distancing from bolshevism which got an electric bulb to show workers the mess of their environment and instead of fighting the misery they choose for burgeois whitewashing so empowering edisonian westernization.
Electricians to come next. We’re looking forward for psycho-electric cleaning wahdat! Long live short-circuiting on the surfaces of saponaceous show windows!
FW 366470 IU 000 007/700


----------



## manny-p (Aug 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> Hmm, well given that the RMT are now supporting the tube cleaners, and other cleaning protests e.g. Cleaners at Thompson Reuters ( http://iww.org.uk/node/678 ) and also JL cleaners (see announcement button c&pd earlier) my money's still on them getting absorbed into the RMT.


How can the cleaners in building such as SOAS be absorbed into the Rail, Maritime and Transport union? The RMT is a transport union.


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

manny-p said:


> How can the cleaners in building such as SOAS be absorbed into the Rail, Maritime and Transport union? The RMT is a transport union.



Everyone has the right to join whatever union they want.


----------



## manny-p (Aug 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> Everyone has the right to join whatever union they want.


Not true. Laws/agreements prevent that.


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

manny-p said:


> Not true. Laws/agreements prevent that.




Which ones? I'll go and find you a source for my statement, whilst you go and find me a source for yours.


----------



## october_lost (Aug 26, 2012)

Negotiation agreements have to agreed by management or you have go through steps to get legally recognised.

E2a See http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Tradeunionsintheworkplace/DG_179204


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> Which ones? I'll go and find you a source for my statement, whilst you go and find me a source for yours.



TUlRCA 1992 s174


----------



## DAMTP (Aug 26, 2012)

Eg NUT only takes qualified teachers so assistants cover supervisors and learning support are unison


cesare said:


> Which ones? I'll go and find you a source for my statement, whilst you go and find me a source for yours.


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

DAMTP said:


> Eg NUT only takes qualified teachers so assistants cover supervisors and learning support are unison



The union has the right to turn down members, they won't necessarily do so.


----------



## manny-p (Aug 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> The union has the right to turn down members, they won't necessarily do so.


Your talking shite pal.


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

manny-p said:


> Your talking shite pal.




Prove it.


----------



## manny-p (Aug 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> Prove it.


Other people have. If I am wrong, I apologise. From my own personal experience I know that a teaching assistant can't join the NUT if they are not a qualified teacher-qts.


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

manny-p said:


> Other people have. If I am wrong, I apologise. From my own personal experience I know that a teaching assistant can't join the NUT if they are not a qualified teacher-qts.



I've given you the legislation, and explained that the union/s have the right to exclude but don't necessarily do so particularly if they want to either up their membership numbers, or start to represent a group not previously represented en masse. I really don't see why you have a problem with that, especially as you're not prepared to back up what you're saying.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 26, 2012)

Manny might well be right here.


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Manny might well be right here.




In which case someone will be able to dispute both the legislation and the practices of poaching that arise between unions since the days of the closed shop being outlawed.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 26, 2012)

But NUT are opposed to recruitment of classroom staff without full teaching quals. So what they are legally entitled to do makes no odds here.


----------



## manny-p (Aug 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> In which case someone will be able to dispute both the legislation and the practices of poaching that arise between unions since the days of the closed shop being outlawed.


I don't know fuck all which legisation it falls under but although it would be good if you could join any union you wanted. If I am working in a tesco I can't join the RMT. I would have to join Usdaw.


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

manny-p said:


> I don't know fuck all which legisation it falls under but although it would be good if you could join any union you wanted. If I am working in a tesco I can't join the RMT. I would have to join Usdaw.



No, you wouldn't. You could join the RMT ( if they accepted you). It wouldn't do you much good, because the RMT don't have a recognition agreement with Tesco ( afaik, although maybe they do in distribution ) but that doesn't prevent you joining them anyway.

You could also join Unite which would be a darn sight better than USDAW which are basically a management works committee nowadays, although they were never much good in the past, tbf.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 26, 2012)

Can't even join Gmb if you work for Tesco.  Sweetheart deal with usdaw.  Edit - ok you could join as an individual but to no effect whatever without recognition


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

articul8 said:


> But NUT are opposed to recruitment of classroom staff without full teaching quals. So what they are legally entitled to do makes no odds here.



That's up to the NUT, innit. But they could change their minds at any point, which is the point.


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Can't even join Gmb if you work for Tesco.  Sweetheart deal with usdaw.



Yes, you can.


----------



## manny-p (Aug 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> That's up to the NUT, innit. But they could change their minds at any point, which is the point.


If you are a teaching assistant why would you join the RMT?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> Yes, you can.


As an individual only, not as recognised branch


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

manny-p said:


> If you are a teaching assistant why would you join the RMT?


 
There'd be precious little point, granted. But there'd be a very good reason for cleaners to join the RMT because (a) it's arguably the most effective TU; and (b) no other certified union represents them specifically as a body apart from the IWW and now they've split from that.


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

articul8 said:


> As an individual only, not as recognised branch



If enough individuals join, they could end up with a recognition agreement. You should know all this.


----------



## manny-p (Aug 26, 2012)

cesare said:


> There'd be precious little point, granted. But there'd be a very good reason for cleaners to join the RMT because (a) it's arguably the most effective TU; and (b) no other certified union represents them specifically as a body apart from the IWW and now they've spilt from that.


So cleaners should join an effective TU but not teaching assistants? I agree with you that you should be able to join any union. One reason I agree with the IWW and the one big union is because I agree with that concept, that instead of dividing the workers through individual craft unions who each negotiate.

However all of the trade unions are in cahoots with each other and have split up workers as a type of pie. They all have agreements with each other and are all business's essentially.


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

manny-p said:


> So cleaners should join an effective TU but not teaching assistants? I agree with you that you should be able to join any union. One reason I agree with the IWW and the one big union is because I agree with that concept, that instead of dividing the workers through individual craft unions who each negotiate.
> 
> However all of the trade unions are in cahoots with each other and have split up workers as a type of pie. They all have agreements with each other and are all business's essentially.


 
I didn't say that teaching assistants shouldn't join an effective TU, or at least I didn't mean to - so if I somehow implied that, I apologise. Of course they should join an effective TU.

If teaching assistants aren't currently represented then they should join whichever TU would be most effective for them, and if enough of them join they can force recognition.

I agree with most of the rest of what you said. However, you should bear in mind that I see trade unions as only a *part* of effective workplace organisation. So whilst I'm generally supportive of trade unions, I'm also critical as well.


----------



## barney_pig (Aug 26, 2012)

you cannot join a union non specific to your trade this is why they are called trades unions.
The unions themselves have clear rules about this which are enforced by the requirement of all new potential members have to be accepted by the relevant branch.


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> you cannot join a union non specific to your trade this is why they are called trades unions.
> The unions themselves have clear rules about this which are enforced by the requirement of all new potential members have to be accepted by the relevant branch.



Thatcher anti-union legislation in the 80s actually started the slippery slope of this not always applying anymore. Don't you remember that thread in MATB where jinxy was getting pissed off by Unite muscling in on the tube cleaners? I see that the RMT have got them back but Unite's revenge has been to grab the Boris bikes workers


----------



## cesare (Aug 26, 2012)

Oh, and I've just been informed that anyone that applies to Join Unite has their branch decided at national level so it seems that the branches don't always get the power of veto either.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 27, 2012)

Cesere is correct here - as usual, the rest of you are talking bonkers bruno rubbish.

Any worker can join any union they like irrespective of industry or trade, or recognition agreements.

However - unions can and do refuse to accept them for a variety of reasons.

Also there are agreements policed by the TUC around spheres of influence among TUC affiliated unions so that companies and areas can be carved up between unions or allocated to individual unions - sometimes sections of workers will be "traded between unions" for various reasons.

Furthermore an employer only has to recognise one union per bargaining unit, but can represent more if they wish - in the public sector this gets more complicated with national bargaining being conducted sometimes by many unions with the employer side sometimes with just one or two. This is often illustrated by the different colour books of T&Cs.

The fire service is an interesting microcosm of how this works

Operational staff - firefighters and control room staff are on 'Gray Book' which is negotiated nationally and for which only the FBU has recognition. Back room and facilities and maintenance staff are all on 'Green Book' and are part of national local government T&Cs and recognition exists locally with the individiul fire authority. UNISON is the only union in 99% of brigades, however some brigades do recognise GMB for historical reasons alongside UNISON, and in at least one brigade GMB members are "looked after" by UNISON despite being GMB members in a strange little local agreement between the two unions.

Now within the Firebrigade you also get the Fire Officers Association who don't have recognition and will recruit among Gray and Green book staff and can provide representation at an indidividual level - no one can stop them doing that, but they have no input into negotiations or consultation for either group of staff.

So broadly speaking you can have recognised unions for an entire service or employer, or recognised unions for local bargaining units, you can also have unions which are not recognised but are active within a sector, and unions which are not recognised within a sector.

Again in the public sector in particular (but also private - the maritime industry is fascinating) this is complicated by TUPE where generally workers will carry their union recognition across from their old employer to the new one as long as they remain a discrete group.

ETA: generally a union will turn people down for two reasons. 1 becasue they don't believe they would be able to service that person so for example if a worker in a little corner shop applied to join UNISON they should be sent a letter advising them to join Usdaw, because Unison doesn't have the capacity to provide adequate representation (this won't often happen because if they join online it won't often be picked up. 2. Sphere's of influence - Usdaw wouldn't be happy if UNISON started recruiting shop workers. Having said that Usdaw does compete with Unite, Community, and the GMB in the retail sector especially among distribution workers.

So to sum up Ceseare is correct, despite any examples you can come up with where you think she is wrong.


----------



## cesare (Aug 27, 2012)

Thanks Spanky. I'd contribute examples drawn from my own experience in retail/logistics, manufacturing and maritime but you've already illustrated just how complicated this can all get together with shooting down some myths, and providing explanation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 27, 2012)

cesare said:


> If enough individuals join, they could end up with a recognition agreement. You should know all this.


 
He should, especially now he's working where he is. Kind of worrying that he doesn't.  Then again, given that a union pays his wages, he's not going to trumpet the fact that introducing a new union into an already-unionised workplace is that simple. is he?


----------



## cesare (Aug 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He should, especially now he's working where he is. Kind of worrying that he doesn't.  Then again, given that a union pays his wages, he's not going to trumpet the fact that introducing a new union into an already-unionised workplace is that simple. is he?



I guess so. I suppose that whilst I'm critical of this "change it from the inside out" reasoning, I 'd like to think that his comments stem from ignorance and therefore something that he can change by way of educating himself on the realities of workplace organising rather than researching esoteric dusty tracts. Hopefully ...


----------



## articul8 (Aug 27, 2012)

I've never argued that it was impossible to introduce a new union into an already-unionised workplace. But it's often difficult, and can be counter-productive if unions start getting bogged down in a turf war with each other. I don't think, in general, that there is a syndicalist short-circuit to the hard slog of fighting to democratise existing unions.

What is the point of talking in the abstract about individual freedoms rather than looking at the concrete relations between different unions?


----------



## cesare (Aug 27, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I've never argued that it was impossible to introduce a new union into an already-unionised workplace. But it's often difficult, and can be counter-productive if unions start getting bogged down in a turf war with each other. I don't think, in general, that there is a syndicalist short-circuit to the hard slog of fighting to democratise existing unions.
> 
> What is the point of talking in the abstract about individual freedoms rather than looking at the concrete relations between different unions?



Individual freedom is never abstract, it is utterly real for each and every person. The starting point should be what the people working need in order to minimise the harsh effects of their labour being exploited. It should not be about what the unions need - their needs should reflect that of their members. 

It's all about grass roots. If you can't grasp that you'll never be able to understand why union membership continues to fall, why people become disillusioned with unions and look for other solutions including dealing directly with management where at least they are clear on their own compromises, why support for the behemoth affiliated unions has declined as they have become dragged further right with Labour, and why direct action workplace organising is becoming more and more appealing for people who just don't think it's fair that they're not adequately represented.

Like I said, I generally support trade unions as *part* of workplace organising but I also think that maybe they should take a long hard look at their rule books and reorganise to suit their members.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 27, 2012)

I don't disagree at all about the big unions needing to get their act together - but there is also something very valuable in the old motto "unity is strength".  Forming new unions is no magic wand for anything.


----------



## cesare (Aug 27, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I don't disagree at all about the big unions needing to get their act together - but there is also something very valuable in the old motto "unity is strength".  Forming new unions is no magic wand for anything.



There's more to direct action workplace organising than forming new unions, you know. People can do this without the benefit of unions if they're shown how to do it. And solidarity should be for co workers, not masters (of whatever ilk).

Edit: and when I say "co workers" I mean all sorts of work, whether paid or not. And for the people that  can't work at all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 27, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I don't disagree at all about the big unions needing to get their act together - but there is also something very valuable in the old motto "unity is strength".


 
Unity can and does proceed from individuals finding a consensus through debate - the grassroots directing the union's heirarchy as to what actions it favours - the traditional role of a union, you might say.  What we have all too often, even with the most progressive party and TUC-affiliated TUs, is the heirarchy directing the grassroots as to what to do, how far to go, usually influenced by the fact that operating outside legislative boundaries will make them personally-liable for employer losses, and the union's assets liable to sequestration. Effectively, *that* sort of "unity" means an ever-weakening body of trades unions with an ever-decreasing scope for action.



> Forming new unions is no magic wand for anything.


 
Well, that depends whether this putative "new union" falls in with the "old school" unions, doesn't it?


----------



## articul8 (Aug 27, 2012)

well, there needs to be a political fight against anti-union legislation as well.  The UK is already one of the worst offenders, and it's getting worse...


----------



## cesare (Aug 27, 2012)

articul8 said:


> well, there needs to be a political fight against anti-union legislation as well.  The UK is already one of the worst offenders, and it's getting worse...



The damage is done. It was done a long time ago.


----------



## cesare (Aug 27, 2012)

Damn. I still got drawn into arguing against a pro-Labour argument which ends up looking like anti-trade union, which I'm not


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 27, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unity can and does proceed from individuals finding a consensus through debate - the grassroots directing the union's heirarchy as to what actions it favours - ?


 
Any mass grassroots union that was formed right now would not be any more left or militant than the current bunch - indeed some would be more rightwing - for example the membership of PCS are generally to the right of their leaders...


----------



## cesare (Aug 27, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Any mass grassroots union that was formed right now would not be any more left or militant than the current bunch - indeed some would be more rightwing - for example the membership of PCS are generally to the right of their leaders...



CPSA and NUCPS and FDA. So a weird merging when you think that some of them had sacking rights over others. My experience of civil servants is a bit limited (so I'm not generalising) but even so it was very strange to hear privately educated and "entitled" members disagreeing with a very forward thinking union rep. Very odd indeed.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 27, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Any mass grassroots union that was formed right now would not be any more left or militant than the current bunch - indeed some would be more rightwing - for example the membership of PCS are generally to the right of their leaders...


 
Bit of an oxymoron this.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 27, 2012)

cesare said:


> CPSA and NUCPS and FDA. So a weird merging when you think that some of them had sacking rights over others. My experience of civil servants is a bit limited (so I'm not generalising) but even so it was very strange to hear privately educated and "entitled" members disagreeing with a very forward thinking union rep. Very odd indeed.


 
FDA weren't part of the merger though

I don't find that odd to be fair - the fact a huge % of good union reps are to the left of their members and indeed I would argue the majority of fulltimers are to the left of their members on the whole (which is not to say better than, or respecting of democracy or anything).

People will in my experience often want the most militant person in the workplace to be their rep. The problem then comes because they expect them to be a leader and not to have to do any work themselves.

That's not to criticise those members that do that, it's just the way things are suckers.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 27, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> Bit of an oxymoron this.


 
I know, nevertheless there it is.


----------



## cesare (Aug 27, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> FDA weren't part of the merger though
> 
> I don't find that odd to be fair - the fact a huge % of good union reps are to the left of their members and indeed I would argue the majority of fulltimers are to the left of their members on the whole (which is not to say better than, or respecting of democracy or anything).
> 
> ...



Oops  sorry, I get well confused with all these mergers 

I can see what you mean, but in this instance I felt that the members were dismissive/condescending (although tbf, they were with everyone  not just him ) for no apparent reason. But it was a very limited experience and probably by no means representative of civil servants as a whole.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 27, 2012)

cesare said:


> Oops  sorry, I get well confused with all these mergers
> 
> I can see what you mean, but in this instance I felt that the members were dismissive/condescending (although tbf, they were with everyone not just him ) for no apparent reason. But it was a very limited experience and probably by no means representative of civil servants as a whole.


 
I dunno my missus used to represent social workers having been on a low admin grade and they combined being very demanding with very patronising quite often


----------



## cesare (Aug 27, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I dunno my missus used to represent social workers having been on a low admin grade and they combined being very demanding with very patronising quite often



I can imagine that! Grit teeth and carry on etc.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 27, 2012)

cesare said:


> I can imagine that! Grit teeth and carry on etc.


 
of course.

What this whole debate boils down to is in my view - not about building new mass formations, or staying in current ones, but about building working class self confidence, unity, and ability to self organise.

Sometimes that will need to be built within the mainstream unions, other times it will need to be built in our communities, sometimes a local far left or community group will be the best sphere, sometimes a resident's association, sometimes a completely new tack, other times a more informal method. Sometimes I think it could quite happen in a good Labour party ward branch or through a local Socialist Party branch, or a Solfed led campaign.

However what is key is that it is driven by working class people making demands based on our self identified needs - not what far left union reps, or full timers or activist groups tell people it should be.

We can't just magic up a movement from nowhere - and the biggest mistakes in my view is to either create hollow structures that you hope might one day become mass orgs (IWW) or to spit our dummies out and walk away from where most people currently are (I'm not srguing most people currently are in mainstream unions here by the way).

If you want an audience for your politics you have to find them, they might be in your local pub, your local WI, your workplace your local working men's club, your local church or hanging around outside the youth club...


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 27, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I know, nevertheless there it is.


oxymoron as in "if they formed a mass rank-and-file union that would make them inherently more active and militant than they (or their leaders) are now, regardless of the content of their actual individual politics".


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 27, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> oxymoron as in "if they formed a mass rank-and-file union that would make them inherently more active and militant than they (or their leaders) are now, regardless of the content of their actual individual politics".


 
exactly


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2012)

articul8 said:


> well, there needs to be a political fight against anti-union legislation as well. The UK is already one of the worst offenders, and it's getting worse...


 
That's been needed for 20 years, but guess what?
That's right, neither the Tories or the other two neoliberal parties are interested in repealing or modifyng anti-union legislation, and it's not exactly been on the agenda of many of the "union barons" either. Some of them have been content to just fall in line with whatever is most likely to get them a sinecure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2012)

cesare said:


> Damn. I still got drawn into arguing against a pro-Labour argument which ends up looking like anti-trade union, which I'm not


 
You're *obviously* not "anti-union". It's fairer to say that you oppose the (in)actions of the leaders of some of the TUC's member unions.
So do I.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Any mass grassroots union that was formed right now would not be any more left or militant than the current bunch - indeed some would be more rightwing - for example the membership of PCS are generally to the right of their leaders...


 
They might. Is the fear that they might be so a good reason to continue feeding resources to organisations tied to a busted flush (Labour), and who are mostly restrained by legislation and fear from taking hard action?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 28, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> They might. Is the fear that they might be so a good reason to continue feeding resources to organisations tied to a busted flush (Labour), and who are mostly restrained by legislation and fear from taking hard action?


 
Yes, when there is clearly no desire for radical rank and file militant formations we do the best we can with what we've got.


----------



## gawkrodger (Aug 28, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> - indeed some would be more rightwing - for example the membership of PCS are generally to the right of their leaders...


 
About 18 months ago a PCS rep. grassed me up to my chief exec. for unionising some of our workers


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 28, 2012)

gawkrodger said:


> About 18 months ago a PCS rep. grassed me up to my chief exec. for unionising some of our workers


 
exactly


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 29, 2012)

I see Liberty and sausages have given up as well.


----------



## Cornetto (Sep 29, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I dunno my missus used to represent social workers having been on a low admin grade and they combined being very demanding with very patronising quite often




One of my worst experiences of trade unionism is having a rep who has not done my job, although they were good they lacked insight into the role and experience of the staff. I am not having a go at your partner, I have defended, repped and been a social worker they are a mean, precious bunch. I have also repped different grades and roles and to be honest I did not have a real working knowledge of their work and this made it harder to defend and plan as a unionist. Trade unionism is not an objective sterile advocacy role, the collective is built in sections and that means shared job experience. My best experience has been within UCU we are all teachers/researchers and academics we have a strong voice and the rank n file rep movement is strong the shared working experience and solidarity promoted by this is a central factor.


----------



## cesare (Sep 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I see Liberty and sausages have given up as well.


So about  30* members needing a new home then?


* a rough guess.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 29, 2012)

Bit of an over-guess i think! I'm sure there's some other tiny group they could try and take over anyway. What did they miss last time around?


----------



## cesare (Sep 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Bit of an over-guess i think! I'm sure there's some other tiny group they could try and take over anyway. What did they miss last time around?


Probably   Were they anything to do with Chakrabarti (sp)?


----------



## cesare (Sep 29, 2012)

I wonder if, in their displaced confusion, they head for Solidarity lol.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 29, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> One of my worst experiences of trade unionism is having a rep who has not done my job, although they were good they lacked insight into the role and experience of the staff. I am not having a go at your partner, I have defended, repped and been a social worker they are a mean, precious bunch. I have also repped different grades and roles and to be honest I did not have a real working knowledge of their work and this made it harder to defend and plan as a unionist. Trade unionism is not an objective sterile advocacy role, the collective is built in sections and that means shared job experience. My best experience has been within UCU we are all teachers/researchers and academics we have a strong voice and the rank n file rep movement is strong the shared working experience and solidarity promoted by this is a central factor.


 
I agree the social workers should have elected their own reps this is what was particularly frustrating in this case always demanding but not prepared to put the work in themselves.


----------



## Cornetto (Sep 29, 2012)

I think that most people understand the dull futulity of unionism and do not nessecarily want the extra work burden of it. I have 50 reps accross two sites and only 10 case workers for 800 FTE.


----------



## Cornetto (Sep 29, 2012)

To be fair will any body really notice or care regarding the IWW split?


----------



## cesare (Sep 29, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> To be fair will any body really notice or care regarding the IWW split?


Lots of cleaners care.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 29, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> To be fair will any body really notice or care regarding the IWW split?


 
Yes, not just the cleaners who may now have the gains they won stripped away from them but also anyone who was really liking the moves that were being made not just by IWW but also Unite and RMT to bring cleaners up to getting the London Living Wage. imo it was a really important area of campaigning that was actually achieving victories. I have no idea how much the unions were working with each other or at each others throats but from the outside it's seemed like in the last couple of years there has been a big interest in organising london cleaners and real efforts and victories have been made, with IWW being an important part of that.
The split just fucks that up, or opens it up for Unite/RMT to come in and take over where self-organisation was happening before.
Personally I'd hoped that it would also spread outside of london, or help with other workers confidence for demanding the living wage for themselves. Anything that slows that process down or fucks it up properly is something lots of people should care about.


----------



## Cornetto (Sep 29, 2012)

If they are setting up a cleaning union with the IWGB, then they will have union support or they can go back to a bigger union with a strong section or rank and file experience. It is the ability to organise in any structure not the brand that matters. I was asked to join Bradford IWW, I declined I do not see how it would have contributed to or helped my workplace union activity, my colleagues would have thought it some type of live action role playing society.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 29, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> If they are setting up a cleaning union with the IWGB, then they will have union support or they can go back to a bigger union with a strong section or rank and file experience. It is the ability to organise in any structure not the brand that matters. I was asked to join Bradford IWW, I declined I do not see how it would have contributed to or helped my workplace union activity, my colleagues would have thought it some type of live action role playing society.


 
yeah but IWGB are not certified, nor afaik is it anything more than 2 people, so how much union support there will be is questionable. They won't go back to Unite for personal reasons apparently, RMT have been mentioned in this thread as a possibility.
and imo the brand does matter for organising, because it helps bring new people to you, and helps you if you are going out to organise in workplaces because you can point to what you've done elsewhere, and give people confidence in you/themselves taking action.


----------



## cesare (Sep 29, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> If they are setting up a cleaning union with the IWGB, then they will have union support or they can go back to a bigger union with a strong section or rank and file experience. It is the ability to organise in any structure not the brand that matters. I was asked to join Bradford IWW, I declined I do not see how it would have contributed to or helped my workplace union activity, my colleagues would have thought it some type of live action role playing society.


That's if they still have jobs.


----------



## Libertad (Sep 29, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> I was asked to join Bradford IWW, I declined I do not see how it would have contributed to or helped my workplace union activity, my colleagues would have thought it some type of live action role playing society.


 
Now you'll never know. Cut the cheap jibes n'all.


----------



## cesare (Sep 29, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Now you'll never know. Cut the cheap jibes n'all.


It's not a pretty look when there's some workers in threat of their livelihoods because of this shit, is it.


----------



## cesare (Sep 29, 2012)

I should explain. 
http://www.change.org/petitions/justice-for-the-cleaners-at-societe-generale

If you look at the link, only the IWGB workers have been suspended, probably because the employer has caught wind of the fact that the IWGB isn't certified yet.


----------



## cesare (Sep 29, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> I think that most people understand the dull futulity of unionism and do not nessecarily want the extra work burden of it. I have 50 reps accross two sites and only 10 case workers for 800 FTE.


If it's so dully futile, why are you doing it?


----------



## Cornetto (Sep 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> If it's so dully futile, why are you doing it?


 
I am a dull and futile person.

I still do not see the point of either the IWW or IWGB, i would organise a militant section in a larger 'certified' union with all the supporting resources.


----------



## Cornetto (Sep 29, 2012)

Libertad said:


> Now you'll never know. Cut the cheap jibes n'all.


 
I know the people, and they have no relevance or insight to my work place. Best of luck with the IWW project i can not see it going any where, not a jibe my opinion.


----------



## cesare (Sep 29, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> I am a dull and futile person.
> 
> I still do not see the point of either the IWW or IWGB, i would organise a militant section in a larger 'certified' union with all the supporting resources.


The IWW is certified. Was it too dull and futile to read the thread?


----------



## Cornetto (Sep 29, 2012)

cesare said:


> The IWW is certified. Was it too dull and futile to read the thread?


 
I understand it is certified, it is still in my opinion a live action role playing society. I would always reamin and am a member of large certified union, that has the rsources to deal with employers on an industrial scale. This example of IWW/IWGB highlights in a microcosm the sheer pointlessness of the far left, splitting infighting and on the road to no where.I'm not having a go i am just calling it as i see it. I would not want to go into an employment tribunal with the IWW covering my back. It is shit that low wage cleaners got caught in the middle of the far left infighting.


----------



## Libertad (Sep 29, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> I know the people, and they have no relevance or insight to my work place. Best of luck with the IWW project i can not see it going any where, not a jibe my opinion.


 
We don't need luck or your best wishes. We've been involved in the struggle since 1905 and, at times, our "project" has delivered results against the most brutal attacks.
We're not going "anywhere" but forward.


----------



## Libertad (Sep 29, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> I understand it is certified, it is still in my opinion a live action role playing society. I would always reamin and am a member of large certified union, that has the rsources to deal with employers on an industrial scale. This example of IWW/IWGB highlights in a microcosm the sheer pointlessness of the far left, splitting infighting and on the road to no where.I'm not having a go i am just calling it as i see it. I would not want to go into an employment tribunal with the IWW covering my back. It is shit that low wage cleaners got caught in the middle of the far left infighting.


 
None of the TUC affiliated unions wanted anything to do with the cleaners. The IWW took up their case for representation and won. Sounds as if they were lucky not to have ended up being represented by the likes of you pal.


----------



## cesare (Sep 29, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> I understand it is certified, it is still in my opinion a live action role playing society. I would always reamin and am a member of large certified union, that has the rsources to deal with employers on an industrial scale. This example of IWW/IWGB highlights in a microcosm the sheer pointlessness of the far left, splitting infighting and on the road to no where.I'm not having a go i am just calling it as i see it. I would not want to go into an employment tribunal with the IWW covering my back. It is shit that low wage cleaners got caught in the middle of the far left infighting.


It's CF's personal project, carried out in such a way (i.e. hastily and without the benefit of certification) that the only people that have suffered have been the cleaners. But if you want to position it as in-fighting, go ahead. Why you'd want to do that unless you've got some personal gripe with the IWW though is a bit of a mystery.


----------



## Cornetto (Sep 29, 2012)

no problem at all with the IWW, i dont have a personal gripe.


----------



## Cornetto (Sep 29, 2012)

Libertad said:


> None of the TUC affiliated unions wanted anything to do with the cleaners. The IWW took up their case for representation and won. Sounds as if they were lucky not to have ended up being represented by the likes of you pal.


 
Why would i represent cleaners, i look after my section within education and have done for 3 years, Prior to that i orgnanised as within health and the volunary sector. I have an outstanding record with UCU on case work/disciplinary hearings and have negotiated individual and collective deals for members increasing contractual hours/wages and conditions.I have organised and won local disputes with colleagues in realtion to work patterns/programme revies and supported the delivery of 3 national strike days. I and other comrades spent months and years organising UCU left which has been instrumental in starting the fightback on public sector pensions; we kicked off the first national strike, without a lot of effort at UCU congress several years running pensions dispute would be off the agenda. Good work for the IWW, i believe they should have won and got back into the TUC union movement as long term plan - the IWW for me is a no goer. This is not personal just my opinion. Are you Scottish? Otherwise 'Pal' is a terrible affectation.


----------



## Libertad (Sep 29, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> Good work for the IWW, i believe they should have won and got back into the TUC union movement as long term plan - the IWW for me is a no goer.


 
This is where you fail to understand the IWW's position. The IWW regards the TUC as an obstacle to progress. fyi the IWW has never been TUC affiliated. Why work with the boss' lackeys?


----------



## Cornetto (Sep 29, 2012)

I understand the IWW position;  Politically i agree with eth IWW regarding the TUC and the need for a social revoloution, one big union and a general strike; however most of my colleagues view it at as utter cods wollop and akin to telling them you found god just outside cleckheaton on the 229 Bus. They dont regard work as a place of revoloutionary dissent, they accept the premise of work and the society they live within and they would like better conditions, wages and some equlaity, the TUC offers this. Work manufactures consent for the current system and foces people into a collusion. I hope they succeed and we have one big union and have a general strike, something tells me we it will not happen.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 29, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> Why would i represent cleaners, i look after my section within education and have done for 3 years, Prior to that i orgnanised as within health and the volunary sector. I have an outstanding record with UCU on case work/disciplinary hearings and have negotiated individual and collective deals for members increasing contractual hours/wages and conditions.I have organised and won local disputes with colleagues in realtion to work patterns/programme revies and supported the delivery of 3 national strike days. I and other comrades spent months and years organising UCU left which has been instrumental in starting the fightback on public sector pensions; we kicked off the first national strike, without a lot of effort at UCU congress several years running pensions dispute would be off the agenda. Good work for the IWW, i believe they should have won and got back into the TUC union movement as long term plan - the IWW for me is a no goer. This is not personal just my opinion. Are you Scottish? Otherwise 'Pal' is a terrible affectation.


 
I agree with a lot of what you've said in the past few posts but your in a workplace with a union that is strong and generally good unionisation. Where IWW has a good chance of being effective, and where we agreed to be looking towards at the recent conference was to those areas where there are not strong or deep unions - particularly cleaners and retail sector.
People in London might have a better idea but from here it's seemed like in the last couple of years cleaners have won some real victories, at an economic time when it shouldn't be happening. Unite have been active as well as IWW but I think that IWW starting to arganise amongst cleaners made unite step up so that they didn't lose a section of their workers to a union that was actually doing stuff and organising.
From this thread I now know that Albert Durango (who is one of the two people at IWGB, along with Chris Ford) left Unite because they weren't supporting him to organise amongst cleaners.. so this trail of events makes sense - Albert can't get Unite moving with cleaners, leaves and goes to IWW which was certified a couple of years ago. Starts organising amongst cleaners and getting members. Unite start worrying and start moving at UCL iirc, maybe another London uni, and get LLW for their members there iirc.

Pressure from outside the union appears to have done more good than pressure from inside it. Now RMT are also getting active with their cleaners.

It is entirely possible that I've got this chain of events wrong btw, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I have.

As to retail, USDAW are useless (seven days a week), and Unite aren't much better. Lots of retail is entirely ununionised, zero hours contracts, precarious and part time workers, which TUC unions haven't had much interest in. IWW has a long history of organising precarious workers. This is where I think we can do real good and where I think that pressure form outside the union is more likely to have an effect, particulary with USDAW who seem to have quite a lot of non-strike agreements in exchange for sole recognition with employers.


----------



## Cornetto (Sep 29, 2012)

That was my point the IWW is irrelevant for my context (and a lot of other workers), my other issue is if it successful over time, i don’t see it going beyond moving into the mainstream TUC, as they attract more members through winning improved conditions; the revolutionary discourse will be challenged and people will want 'bread and butter ' issues, this won’t be a sell out more an inevitable consequence of success. I also feel that the IWW is a bit of a activist brand imported from some American history book, Joe Hill, black cats and the wobbly talk handbook have very little resonance beyond a small milieu. However the strategy of organising precarious workers is good, if I was a cleaner, fast food or retail worker i would get involved.


----------



## Cornetto (Sep 29, 2012)

Libertad said:


> We don't need luck or your best wishes. We've been involved in the struggle since 1905 and, at times, our "project" has delivered results against the most brutal attacks.
> We're not going "anywhere" but forward.


 
Since 1905 what pretentious talk, the IWW in Britain is a very recent re start i remember it reforming early 2000, met some lovely people in Bradford who were part of it - they have kicked off again in 2012. IIRC, they, i mean IWW UK had about 200 members, the IWW is an american import and falls into the category of political live action roleplaying, black cats and joe hill. You just sound pompous and totally off the wall.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 29, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> Since 1905 what pretentious talk, the IWW in Britain is a very recent re start i remember it reforming early 2000, met some lovely people in Bradford who were part of it - they have kicked off again in 2012. IIRC, they, i mean IWW UK had about 200 members, the IWW is an american import and falls into the category of political live action roleplaying, black cats and joe hill. You just sound pompous and totally off the wall.


 
I think the phrase you're looking for is cargo cult. Occupy in the UK was very much like this as well, a poor imitation of what was going on elsewhere that took place within a really narrow group of people.


----------



## Libertad (Sep 29, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> Since 1905 what pretentious talk, the IWW in Britain is a very recent re start i remember it reforming early 2000, met some lovely people in Bradford who were part of it - they have kicked off again in 2012. You just sound pompous and totally off the wall.


 
The IWW have been active in Britain since 1908. I have held my red card for 12 years and my membership originally stems from familial ties. My grandfather was a member in Canada and his father before him. You can cut the Ad Hominem slights as well Herbert.


----------



## Cornetto (Sep 29, 2012)

Anarcho-Syndicalism is a dead end. BTW re read your posts you are the one making personal attacks. Ad Hominem you are misreading posts, the internet distorts.


----------



## Libertad (Sep 29, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> Anarcho-Syndicalism is a dead end. BTW re read your posts you are the one making personal attacks. Ad Hominem you are misreading posts, the internet distorts.


----------



## Libertad (Sep 29, 2012)

Herbert, why have you edited posts 235 and 236?


----------



## Cornetto (Sep 29, 2012)

Spelling, syntax or grammar. 

Why do you keep referring to me by  my previous user name?


----------



## cesare (Sep 30, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> Anarcho-Syndicalism is a dead end. BTW re read your posts you are the one making personal attacks. Ad Hominem you are misreading posts, the internet distorts.


The TUC is on its knees. It's the bloated carcass of Thatcher's anti-union measures. It reflects what's happened to the Labour Party.

Trade Unions need radical reform in order to start supporting their members properly, and to start representing the rights of "precarious" workers (good description btw). 

Trade Unionists should be critical and hold their TU bosses to account. Trade unionism shouldn't continue to wither. Change should happen from within, not just from revolutionary unionism pressure outside.

And most importantly, at the end of the day it's not the TUC, TUC affiliated unions, the IWW, the IWGB etc etc etc that matter - it's the workers. Forget that, and you've lost sight of the point. These cleaners are probably going to lose their jobs as a result of this shit.


----------



## Cornetto (Sep 30, 2012)

I don’t disagree with the points made about the TUC; however resurrecting Rudolf Rocker and having the last ghost dance of anarcho-syndicalism complete with historical role-playing kit is the last thing I need. Each sector and union will have to do it bottom up; we are fighting in UCU, winning congresses, arguing and winning with elected full time officials, fighting centralisation that is the cornerstone of the big Labour Party unions. I am not arguing for the TUC/IWW I am pointing out the IWW has no resonance for the vast majority of skilled workers who are not precarious that make up my work place or the organised union movement. I don’t think anarcho-syndicalism is the way forward.


----------



## cesare (Sep 30, 2012)

But the IWW isn't anarcho-syndicalist as such so i'm not sure where you're getting that from. The IWW is the one big union with all the descriptions you mentioned previously but they're not a revolutionary union . Maybe you're getting confused because some anarcho-syndicalists show a bit of solidarity with IWW issues occasionally? Solfed for example might help out but they're not aligned in anyway. Or maybe you're also confusing the IWA with the IWW.

Edit: also perhaps it's sometimes confusing that it's possible to be an anarcho-syndicalist AND a union member so there are IWW members who are also members of, eg Solfed. But then there are (eg) Solfed members in the big trade unions too. Sometimes the trade unions know they are also anarcho-syndicalists, and sometimes they don't


----------



## Cornetto (Sep 30, 2012)

I must have confused the one big union, general strike thing with anarcho syndicalism and that all the anarchits and syndicalists i know are members.


----------



## cesare (Sep 30, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> I must have confused the one big union, general strike thing with anarcho syndicalism and that all the anarchits and syndicalists i know are members.




This is an example of how anarcho-syndicalists work; in the union, outside the union, and in the workplace (a derail from the IWW theme, but still on topic about workers organisation):

http://www.solfed.org.uk/?q=pamphlets/workmates


----------



## Libertad (Sep 30, 2012)

^^^That's a great pamphlet. I love the way it demonstrates that there is power in piss.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 30, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> I must have confused the one big union, general strike thing with anarcho syndicalism and that all the anarchits and syndicalists i know are members.


 
I think if we wanted to be picky about it then IWW is a syndicalist union, but it's explicitly not political so not anarcho-synidcalist. Having said that I'd say that the (probably vast) majority of members would identify as anarchists, so in reality it's not really clear.. but there's certainly no bar to non-anarchists being IWW members which would be a problem for SolFed.


----------



## cesare (Sep 30, 2012)

BigTom said:


> I think if we wanted to be picky about it then IWW is a syndicalist union, but it's explicitly not political so not anarcho-synidcalist. Having said that I'd say that the (probably vast) majority of members would identify as anarchists, so in reality it's not really clear.. but there's certainly no bar to non-anarchists being IWW members which would be a problem for SolFed.


Not necessarily. Solfed are an anarcho-syndicalist organisation not an organisation of anarcho-syndicalists. The best way to illustrate this, is that Solfed have no bar on party political members joining as long as they don't hold office within a party.


----------



## Random (Oct 1, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> we are fighting in UCU, winning congresses, arguing and winning with elected full time officials, fighting centralisation that is the cornerstone of the big Labour Party unions


 What would winning really look like? You think you can significantly alter the character of your union, and your union federation?


----------



## Cornetto (Oct 1, 2012)

Random said:


> What would winning really look like? You think you can significantly alter the character of your union, and your union federation?


 
Getting my pension back to the terms i started on and a decent pay rise that matches the cost of living for a start.


----------



## Random (Oct 1, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> Getting my pension back to the terms i started on and a decent pay rise that matches the cost of living for a start.


Yes, I think the most that mainstream unions can achieve is "going backwards less slowly." Unfortunately there one of the few institutions that can achieve even this little. And getting them to do even this eats up lots of energy. Still, as a philosopher one said, that's the way it is, suckers.

Myself I'd also be very careful not to denigrate the work that the real IWW people do, organising casual workers that few other unions can help. Maybe when you talk of roleplaying youre' thinking of the industrially passive card-carriers within the anarchoid activist milleau, in which we have so many mutual friends and acquaintances?


----------



## Cornetto (Oct 1, 2012)

Random said:


> Yes, I think the most that mainstream unions can achieve is "going backwards less slowly." Unfortunately there one of the few institutions that can achieve even this little. And getting them to do even this eats up lots of energy. Still, as a philosopher one said, that's the way it is, suckers.
> 
> Myself I'd also be very careful not to denigrate the work that the real IWW people do, organising casual workers that few other unions can help. *Maybe when you talk of roleplaying youre' thinking of the industrially passive card-carriers within the anarchoid activist milleau, in which we have so many mutual friends and acquaintances?*


 
Yes, I'm not denigrating hard union work, just pointing out that it is not relevant for my context. You can get mainstream unions to tackle issues rather than defend them, we got the redbrick pre-1992 pension struggle back on over USS at congress last year, after members asked for negotiations without the threat of strike the previous year, they got sweet FA and came round to our way of thinking. In my opinion you start where you are at I'm in UCU therefore i will work locally and nationally to defend key issues and build some form of attack when possible from the bottom up. As the great philosopher says , 'that's the way it is suckers'


----------



## Random (Oct 1, 2012)

Maybe I'm guilty of labour-aristocracy-deviationism, but I feel that no significant attack is going to come from middle class professionals' unions. That's what I'm also involved in, btw.


----------



## Cornetto (Oct 1, 2012)

Do you think precarious workers will be at the forefront of the attack against capital in a union context? I am unsure, I think professional white collar unions will attempt if pushed to maintain conditions and may act as an impetus for un-unionised sectors if they secure some victories however slight. I work in a white collar sector so that is where i will organise from and hope that i with others working together can have an impact, we have made some significant process on national issues and organised the first coordinated national strikes in years (this was successful due to local organisation not because of full timer support); there is more to be done and this is the crux of the problem. You have to organise, do your job, raise your family at the same time fighting with full time officials who dedicate their time to spamming you out, employers whose job it is to screw you. It's an uphill struggle and one that id rather be starting from a professional white collar union than a marginalised position as a precarious worker in a small union like the IWW/IWGB. Not a dig just how see it.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 1, 2012)

I think I agree with Cornetto again here, just because historically "professional" or "middle-class" unions have been amongst the most militant in british history. So there's no reason in theory why they shouldn't be at the forefront of the struggle today. Look at miners or transport workers, they are professions that rely on skilled labour and so unions in that sector have been historically quite strong, whereas precarious workers and unskilled labour aren't structurually in such a strong position to be able to bargain with their employers. You can replace unskilled labour much easier than skilled labour, and keeping a strong organisation together when there's a revolving door kind of workforce is very difficult

There's also something to be said about how when middle class skilled workers suffer a drop in status they often react most aggressively. Then there's the fact those in occupations that are really poorly paid and with bad conditions simply have little alternative but get their head down and try to make it through, which doesn't leave much scope for embracing revolutionary politics.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 1, 2012)

Random said:


> Maybe I'm guilty of labour-aristocracy-deviationism, but I feel that no significant attack is going to come from middle class professionals' unions. That's what I'm also involved in, btw.


Wouldn't surprise me actually. Historically speaking, high levels of conflict tend to follow the sectors of capitalism that are the most important to its current development, ie. it was (broadly) at its sharpest in the auto sector under post-war capitalism, in metalwork/coal around the wars, in textiles C19th etc etc. Education is certainly at the centre of the development of modern capitalism. (Beverley Silver speculates as much in _Forces of Labor_ too)


----------



## Random (Oct 1, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> It's an uphill struggle and one that id rather be starting from a professional white collar union than a marginalised position as a precarious worker in a small union like the IWW/IWGB. Not a dig just how see it.


 We all want to get the most secure, best paid job we can, and professional middle class unions are devoted to keeping us as secure as possible. I think that helps things in general to stay "less bad" but from my experience the professionals have too much to lose to mount any sort of attack. At least in Sweden.

It's all very well quoting examples from the car industry and mining, but there's few parallels with social workers and other university trained professionals style of work. I largely agree with Cornetto that work has a disciplining role, and professional work even more so, since you're using your creative and communicative energy as your work tool. My experience is that you're very absorbed into the job itself as part of your internal life. Maybe more so than someone putting together car parts, or cutting coal.

And speaking historically there are plenty of examples of casual workers/unpaid workers being militant and well-unionised skilled workers being reactionary. I don't think history allows us to make any conclusion about how it will pan out. I'll believe in militancy in the places I see it.


----------



## Random (Oct 1, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> There's also something to be said about how when middle class skilled workers suffer a drop in status they often react most aggressively.


 The professionals will be out there drilling in the fields with pikes on the day they replace us all with AI computers. ON that day we fight back.


----------



## Cornetto (Oct 1, 2012)

I'll probably just go home have my tea and get a job as a waiter when i am replaced by a dazbot.

Edit: i am not advocating the attack is radical just demanding better terms and conditions, i do not see unions as a revolutionary vehicle but more as a platform to get better things for all. Sorry that is not a trendy or right on view.


----------



## Random (Oct 1, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> Sorry that is not a trendy or right on view.


 Stop batting your eyelashes at us with those hackneyed "controversial" stances  that you know full well no one disagrees with or you'll turn into revol68


----------



## Cornetto (Oct 1, 2012)

Not directed at you, but i still think a lot of people believe unions should be the storm troopers of full communism. Less controversial and more accepting of what unions and unionism is and does.

Batting eyelashes


----------



## cesare (Oct 1, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> Not directed at you, but i still think a lot of people believe unions should be the storm troopers of full communism. Less controversial and more accepting of what unions and unionism is and does.
> 
> Batting eyelashes


Or maybe some of us are old enough to remember what unions were like pre-Thatcher, and nothing to do with trendiness at all.


----------



## Cornetto (Oct 1, 2012)

cesare said:


> Or maybe some of us are old enough to remember what unions were like pre-Thatcher, and nothing to do with trendiness at all.


 
Pale, Stale and Male, sums up the males in my family involved in unions during the 1970s


----------



## cesare (Oct 1, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> Pale, Stale and Male, sums up the males in my family involved in unions during the 1970s


Which sectors?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 1, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> Pale, Stale and Male, sums up the males in my family involved in unions during the 1970s


actually, non-whites disproportionately likely to be union members in the '70s... (although disproportionately unlikely to be lay reps, FTOs or leaders)


----------



## Cornetto (Oct 1, 2012)

cesare said:


> Which sectors?


Post Office / Catering /Engineering/Nursing


----------



## cesare (Oct 1, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> Post Office / Catering


Before the days when Catering became a mostly contracted out sector (similar to cleaning and security) and the workers became precarious.Post Office, I suppose (like transport and maritime) they're possibly one of the few remaining that are still quite militant. The Royal Mail forums are always worth having at a look at to gauge the temperature, although a couple of weeks back I was quite shocked because a steward had posted a typical agenda and so much of the time was taken up by what I would have thought should have been management/health and safety tasks such as checking the weight of bags etc. Back to your "pale and male" point the BNP have had an open posting presence and no-one seemed to turn a hair.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Oct 1, 2012)

Part of the problem here is that the reality points to a continued growth of 'precarious' work that is low paid and non-union. Relatively secure, well paid, decent jobs in the private sector (where 90% of workers aren't even in a union) are increasingly exceptions to the rule.

Meanwhile, some of the public sector unions - like UCU - are 'moving left' and attempting to defend terms and conditions that sucessive governments have tried to erode. While there has been some partial sucess there are fundamental issues here too - such as a lack of decent leverage in some areas combined with inexorable decline as these unions also fail to organise the precarious private sector workers increasingly proving public services alongside them.

The IWW/IWGB split is disappointing (if typical of the left) because there seemed to be an emerging attempt to pilot a different approach - based initially on helping workers address their immediate concerns. This might have provoked debate about if there are better ways of supporting low paid workers trying to organise - and which the traditional unions might have been forced to seriously examine and possibly even copy or more likely co-opt. I've asked on other threads for views on the model and possible scalability problems but it is clear that the current model,  public and private as adopted by 'left' and right unions, is no longer fit for purpose and can only lead to terminal decline.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 20, 2012)

cleaners at 4 more London John Lewis Stores have got 9% payrises on the back of saying they would ballot for a strike, this is organised with IWW..

http://iww.org.uk/node/821

I don't know what this means in terms of IWGB etc., but I'm just happy to see that the momentum gained by the victory at Oxford Street hasn't been lost and that more JLP cleaners are organising and winning.. hopefully this will now spread around the UK.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 20, 2012)

I may be wrong but I would assume that this means the vast majority of cleaners re-joined the IWW and gave the other fools the old heave ho.

Good news anyway and fairplay to them - people may not think so but any real victory by workers under the umbrella of the IWW is a fantastic thing in my view.


----------



## Random (Nov 21, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I may be wrong but I would assume that this means the vast majority of cleaners re-joined the IWW and gave the other fools the old heave ho.


 Would very much like to know whether this is the case!


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 21, 2012)

Less re-joined, more didn't leave in the first place


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 21, 2012)

gawkrodger said:


> Less re-joined, more didn't leave in the first place


 
Even better


----------



## connollyist (Nov 22, 2012)

I really like the idea of the IWW having some success and was even briefly a member myself.. some of there ideas aren't too far away from what the IWCA has done as well (as in trying to involve working class people, who would normally be ignored by the left and a bit of community organizing has been attempted). Unite are also trying to aim more in the community organizing direction as well, I've noticed. The IWW have some great principles but could do with a bit more direction and following through on more of there ideas?

As for the split... seems like pointless infighting in an organisation that is supposed to be above boring sectarianism right? I know some of their more experienced have been part of the Shop Stewards network?


----------



## Random (Nov 22, 2012)

connollyist said:


> I really like the idea of the IWW having some success and was even briefly a member myself.. some of there ideas aren't too far away from what the IWCA has done as well (as in trying to involve working class people, who would normally be ignored by the left and a bit of community organizing has been attempted). Unite are also trying to aim more in the community organizing direction as well, I've noticed. The IWW have some great principles but could do with a bit more direction and following through on more of there ideas?


Things like winning pay rises for cleaners is absolutely the right thing for the IWW to do. Hopefully after a few years of winning like this the IWW's organisation will be dominated by a new working-class base.


----------



## connollyist (Nov 23, 2012)

I do like the IWW stance on a fair few things and I support there successes. However I do believe it'll be a good while before the IWW really starts to become effective as a union. It's gonna be a slow, gradual process. However to be fair, from what I have seen of the IWW it does seem that most of those with experience (in some cases, a lifetime of) are bringing what they feel are the positives and the most relevant parts of trade unionism back.. not the bureaucratic, ineffectual, bullshit that other unions still practice.


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 13, 2012)

As this seems to have become 'the IWW thread' I'll just post this here:

I run a screenprinting studio and have recently set up an online gallery to sell benefit art prints to raise money for different causes and organisations.

First run are up for sale on the website (below) - reproduction of Paris 68 posters as a benefit for the IWW (hence the post here!)

www.nosotrosprint.co.uk

@nosotrosprint
facebook.com/nosotrosprint


----------



## cesare (Dec 13, 2012)

gawkrodger said:


> As this seems to have become 'the IWW thread' I'll just post this here:
> 
> I run a screenprinting studio and have recently set up an online gallery to sell benefit art prints to raise money for different causes and organisations.
> 
> ...


How are the prints delivered? Rolled or flat?


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 13, 2012)

rolled in strong postage tubes


----------



## cesare (Dec 13, 2012)

gawkrodger said:


> rolled in strong postage tubes


Great, ta


----------



## love detective (Dec 13, 2012)

They look nice, but a bit pricey!

You going to be doing other (non 68) ones?

Are they meant to be hung on a canvas (not sure what a canvas is to be honest)


----------



## Random (Dec 14, 2012)

love detective said:


> They look nice, but a bit pricey!


 British jobs for British worker


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 14, 2012)

love detective said:


> Are they meant to be hung on a canvas (not sure what a canvas is to be honest)


Canvas is a heavy, woven fabric.  Some people used to have canvas bags for carrying their lunch in.  Old-fashioned tents, of the kind Scouts are portrayed using in films from the 1950s, were made of it.  Artists stretch (the stretch is achieved by a wooden brace known as a spline) it across a wooden frame*  and paint on it.  This stretched-canvas-and-wooden-frame combo is what would be hung, once the artist has painted on it (or smeared it with elephant dung etc). 



*This frame should not be confused with the decorative frame that might be on the finished work, which hides the tacks/staples holding the canvas to its stretcher frame.


----------



## love detective (Dec 14, 2012)

yeah, i knew that


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 14, 2012)

love detective said:


> They look nice, but a bit pricey!
> 
> You going to be doing other (non 68) ones?
> 
> Are they meant to be hung on a canvas (not sure what a canvas is to be honest)


 
RE: Price - this is pretty standard for a hand screenprinted design on this kind of paper etc. Benefit as well so it doesn't go to getting me a beamer! ha

There are indeed many other prints in the pipeline including reproductions of other classical political posters, our own work, collaborations with some pretty big name artists as well as supporting up and coming local artists in the Brum area

Re: howyou hang - you just get 'em framed. Easy peasy


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 14, 2012)

oh, and if any urbanites want to buy anything, pm me first and I'll send you a discount code for free p+p


----------



## love detective (Dec 14, 2012)

so i can't hang them on a canvas then?


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 14, 2012)

love detective said:


> so i can't hang them on a canvas then?


You could drape them over another canvas...


----------



## love detective (Dec 14, 2012)

hold on, _another_ canvas?


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 14, 2012)

if by hanging them on a canvas, you mean stretching them as described above, then no, they'll tear!

If you mean can you attach them to an existing canvas with glue or similar, then sure. It'd be rather unusual, but nowt stopping you


----------



## love detective (Dec 14, 2012)

for £30 i'd expect them to come with their own canvas


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 14, 2012)

but screenprints have nowt to do with a canvas!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 14, 2012)

love detective said:


> for £30 i'd expect them to come with their own canvas


 
nutter


----------



## salaam_max (Jul 31, 2013)

Not been here for a while (gulp)... but thought it would be rude not to post this, seeing as I read all ten pages of you lot having a row debate the other night. Now I know I am asking for trouble and I've already been given a kicking for the (anti)fascist flag thing but here is my take on the Two Small Unions debacle (based on bitter experience): http://maxwatsonunison.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/iwgb-two-small-unions.html


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 14, 2013)

*Aaron John Bastani* ‏@*AaronBastani* 
(1/2) On 70% turnout 97% of IWGB union members voted for strike action on: recognition, protection of Garden Halls workers and #*3cosas* >




*Aaron John Bastani* ‏@*AaronBastani* 
Strike days are Wednesday 27 Nov and Thursday 28 Nov, latter being Foundation Day when Chancellor Princess Anne bestows honorary degrees




*Aaron John Bastani* ‏@*AaronBastani* 
If strike happens with full strike pay, union could mushroom. Hope fuckers who manage University of London can smell whats cooking #*3cosas*




*Aaron John Bastani* ‏@*AaronBastani*  4m
70% turnout, 97% vote to strike for two days. Union of around two hundred who are winning things. There is a reason why they left Unison.

cc aaronjohnpeters / Aaron Peters


----------

