A union to reframe the conflict

I'm sitting in the dust at the door of the warehouse loading dock in which I work, feet dangling outside, steep sick of my week, watching backyard full of cigarette butts and plastic pieces flying in the wind and that will end up in water, somewhere, to reduce our life expectancy to support a self-destructive system. I took me a while only break this afternoon. To be honest, I did not often takes; I prefer to take an hour rather than half an hour for dinner or go 10 minutes before the end of the story day to arrive early at home, but I'm in there ... tabarnaque, and there I had a little breakdown.

What happened ? What pisses me off ? Hmm ... it would be complicated to simply explain, but if I wanted to try to summarize the, I would say that I can see over the lack of culture of solidarity and democracy of our society is that my job (and almost all other, even those that are unionized by "traditional" unions), it's a pain in the ass constant ! It is an endless series of problems that never manages to settle for the simple reason that we can not think outside the box ! I look forward to the one returned in the head once and for all, everyone together : it absolutely useless to try to improve our working conditions if not take control of the company to complete, and that, almost nobody, even traditional unions, seems to understand !

However, for someone who, like me, constantly working in direct democracy outside his job and who knows how that changes the whole way to settle (or rather avoid) all conflicts that cause hierarchy, it is a simple fact : As long we're going to struggle to increase our power against the boss (or in the form, but let's focus on the boss today) rather than to abolish, we will continually trying to divide us !

What I mean by that ? I give you two reasons why I went outside ventilate, you've probably seen you so your job, and you will understand everything :


The conflict overtime

In my work that works very seasonally, my boss used until recently the operation of the labor code called "the spread of hours" of paying all their employees 40 hours per week, they have worked 15 or 50, in order to, they said, "They ensure a steady income", then, to accumulate their extra time and pay them single hourly rate (rather than rate 1.5) six months or paid vacation. Without wishing to dwell on the details, this maneuver I found unlawful because the company I work for meet any of the criteria necessary to do, meant that, on the 100 at 200 hours of overtime they accumulated individually by six months, we had the equivalent of flying 50 at 100 working hours, either 750 at 2500 $ each !

When I started this fight alone, not having had the time to organize my colleagues because of a time constraint, their lack of awareness of the need to take control of the company is that they have quickly leveled in two positions that clash and there are still : The first, adopted primarily by young people - and strongly influenced by the intervention of Boss while on holiday - is that if we go ahead with the idea of ​​forcing the company to meet labor standards, it will hire additional staff to avoid having to pay us extra time to rate 1.5 and short, we can do more overtime, some need to get to the end. It is better, according to these colleagues-there anyway, work overtime single rate than not do at all (What a wage increase could very well do the job too but ... one thing at a time).

The other position, adopted mainly by fathers better paid and busier than they, is applauding the idea that despite the loss of potential earnings that decreased our hours may incur, we will finally be able to live a little and take care of our families, and that's exactly what everyone is almost needed.

But there, is shit ! Everyone is divided ! And while the two side clash and, if not think outside the context in which "was boss" and where "employees do not control the company from A to Z", absolutely right, I know very well (and I try to make them understand) that if we, the workers, all decisions were taken together, sans boss, we would not even have this debate here insolvent !

Think about it : Already, we would have much more income to the base because we would have no astronomical salaries bosses pay, Moreover, one could also ourselves reach an agreement that ensures that those who want to work more could do so and those who want to work less could do it too. It is even us who would control how many employees we engage or not ! It would fully, control on overtime, and fathers can see their children and spouse-es while young could work like crazy and buy a house, pay for their education or making the rounds of all the festivals in Quebec if it enchants. It sounds like you are not a solution for everyone that ?!?

But no ... as not take power, neither option is currently good for everyone, and during that time, everyone pisses, divides itself, and my boss continue to roll with the chariots 100 000 $ we pay them.

The "Yes-mans» against the "Slackers»

Because there is only one person (myself) in the warehouse of a company in which he could easily have three, the company's warehouse for which I work is continuously the position neck, that is to say one in which he clearly lacks staff, forcing everyone to regularly interrupt his work to come give me a hand even if they themselves are also kept busy. Is repeated every day, nonstop, and for months : you have to hire one more person in the warehouse because I always have to run and cut corners to reach the end of the day and it generates lots of errors and problems that make life miserable for everyone, except my boss, of course.

Here again, only because we are trying to solve the problem other than taking control of the company from A to Z, two opposing views, divide us, and make the unbearable work environment : The first is that, while actively asking our employers to hire an additional person until they find (but they do not because they have a salary of more pay), one must "work as a team and help each other", and so, when a position is overwhelmed, we must not abandon our or our colleague(s) only(s) and leave our work at the end of the day without giving him a hand. Let's, it's a great mentality, solidarity ! But as part of a job in a workplace where there is no 100 % power, it is rather a mentality yes-man or larbin. This is nothing more than to kiss his slavery to want to be exploited more for the same salary in exchange for "pride in being hard-working guy", and it is a hosts of shit mentality in that context !

In the reverse, the second (very individualistic, many corporatist unions adopt, and that costs a fortune grievances) is that we should not play the game bosses by helping each other or by working harder if the problem is, originally, that lack of staff, because no matter how much work we will do, we will earn the same salary, and short, the more we will work, the more you will actually use, So we stick to our job and it ends there. I would call this mentality then that of slacker. But the problem with it, This is what must be realistic and realize that, as it is still capitalism that I know, the job must be done a day or another if we want the company continues to roll and generate income, and that if we simply make the minimum all the time, all the money, beautiful condition, holiday weeks, etc, we could go looking through our unionism, where he lost the !

Put another way, while being slackers, we diminish our hourly output, so, even if we fight fiercely for our excellent wages by unions, we will need to work more hours to get to finally consecrate our camp with us at the end of the day, or more years before they can finally take our retraire, and more, allowed our single-es overworked colleagues while you listen to YouTube videos rather than going to help or go home, because we want to do our 40h, but by doing as little as possible.

It, when it is YOU poor overloaded moron for six months, I can tell ... it makes you want to freak as I am trying to do then dret ! Short, in a hierarchical framework, this shit is as much a mindset as that of yes-mans, at the end.

So if we look at it from afar, without considering the option to take full control of the company and dismiss boss, we realize that on the one hand, work hard is not good, and secondly, do not work hard either, this is not good, and short, no matter what we do, c'est-à-dire qu'on soit of a extreme to the other, or even in the center, was ALWAYS a mentality of shit. This is ridiculous eh ?

Well that's why he must stop fooling around and divide between yes-mans and the slackers, and only take total control of the site to appropriate 100% revenues (or rather 100% the power to appropriate the). It should blow up in our faces it seems : The day the money that wins or loses our workplace will be ours, nobody will be exploited, but especially, nobody will have the incentives to do as little as possible and will put his colleagues in trouble by doing. And if you look even further, the day when all the whole economy will be finally controlled by workers, and collectivized, we will not even have to give trouble to compete and to self-operate to prevent competitors make us close.



As my two examples show, how we see the problems at work (and society, as well), it is often in "framing" things within a necessarily hierarchical world, and it limits our ability to see the problem itself well ... it is often PRECISELY hierarchy. It is important to take it back there! You really think that a horizontal dynamic, direct democracy, would be, and what would change in our close relations, our block, our neighborhood, our workplace, our region, and the relationship between all the different parts of the world, if not, we always turn around in circles, repeating endlessly the same mistakes and trying the same loop "solutions".

We need to get into the habit, the reflex, think about it every day, in every conflict, in each issue that involves somewhere people experiencing hierarchy, and I swear that we will soon collectively understand this analogy a bit simplistic here, I use all the time, but that sums up the stuff anyway, which is that "while the reformists are wondering whether to use a large low-flow pipe or a small broadband pipe to fill the pool leaking, the anticapitalist, we, proposed to plug the leak !»

it plugs, this leak out !




*The absence of constant feminine endings is not an error or failure; rather it reflects the sad reality that there is no woman in my workplace now, and it is not a coincidence, but it will be the subject of another text.


Photo credit: led-lighting-product
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.