Portrait of the current situation.

From the post-war to the 70s, significant workers' struggles have helped advance the recognition and establishment of unions, through these legal gains, were able to win important victories for the working class as a whole, and not only to syndiqué.e.s.

These recognition and oversight mechanisms have contributed to the integration of unions into the broader political system, making them both dependent (what would happen to unions without the state guaranteed Rand formula?) and vulnerable (being registered, recognized and having representatives, any "rebel" union can face fierce reprisals).

In the era of neoliberalism, there is no longer an "easy" concession. We no longer imagine winning conditions, we hope to “lose less quickly” or, for the most optimistic, have a salary indexed to inflation. Take back a larger portion of what is stolen from us every minute? Don't think about it anymore.

At the slightest sign of agitation, it starts raining lawsuits or other legal attacks. Now, the syndicate, set in its convention, his accreditation, its institutionalization, growls, but don't move, or so little. No matter how much we wait 4 years, our strike becomes illegal : with a snap of a finger, a "special" law (as much as the specials 1 for 3$ 2 for 6$ you IGA) jumpscares, already ready, from the bottom of a drawer. We can respect the rules, they change according to the adversary, it feels like playing ball with a kid from 6 years who invent the rules as they go.

How not to lose in advance? How to renew union practice?

If we want to avoid everyone "going back" to the next threat of special law, if we want to succeed in circumventing the injunctions which prevent us from going on strike as it should be and if we want to hope to have reparation for an injustice without having to pass 6 years in court, we will have to strike in parallel.

Our current premises can serve as good shields against the employers' offensive and take the blows but cannot effectively counterattack. We cannot simply try to “reform” our unions, or to elect a new, more combative executive, the problem is structural and deep. We have to "go out" and organize ourselves formally, beyond social media groups, between basic workers, in para-legal union bodies : structures, minimum contributions, democracy and accountability but no accreditation or legal existence. This is what we are already doing here, at SITT-IWW Montreal. We call these already unionized people who join us Dual-carders.

By organizing by industry, outside of our traditional "official" unions, it is possible for us to go and fight where certain people can no longer or not and to form combative unions where it seemed impossible. We can help irregular and irregular workers respond to dirty exploitation situations and help isolated workers claim stolen wages.

See you so soon, we can do a lot without the usual barriers. We put it into practice at the MAPEI factory where outside workers erected a picket line while local union members were under injunction, at Canada Post with visits to employees during shifts that destabilized the process and motivated workers, with "claim your pay" when employees from other workplaces claim unpaid wages from employees , and many other times. This is what we call solidarity unionism.

However, if we want to hope to succeed in massively defying a special law we will have to be organized in much larger numbers than we currently are. You might as well start right away and take the initiative to organize caucuses in our businesses and workplaces or organize with those already struggling to lend a hand.

Remember that you are fighting more than your own fight. You are fighting for the entire working class and you must stand together -William Dudley “Big Bill” Haywood, to the striking mill workers in Lawrence, Massachusetts, 1912

X-374163