Une organisatrice et un travailleur décrivent une campagne d’action directe ayant récolté de belles victoires pour ensuite s’effondrer faute d’avoir bâtie de solides fondations.
Toute personne ayant déjà suivi la formation d’organisation 101 You ITS-IWW (OT101) sera familière avec la pyramide d’organisation partagée ci-dessous. Si vous ne l’avez jamais vu ou avez besoin de vous faire rafraîchire la mémoire, elle va comme suit: Une pointe étroite «d’actions directes» est posée sur un étage plus large de «démocratie sur le lieu de travail» (for example, des réunions), lui-même posé sur un étage encore plus large de «relations entre collègues» (bâties à travers des discussions en tête à tête) reposant finalement sur une fondation de «connaissances de son milieu de travail» (qui y travaille, comment sont divisés les lieux, etc).
Cette pyramide est parfois opposée à une autre allant «du bas vers le haut» et dans laquelle quelques travailleuses et travailleurs très motivé.es se mettent à faire des actions directes avant (ou à la place) de se bâtir une solide base organisationnelle.
Il y a plusieurs raisons pour lesquelles cette autre pyramide peut être séduisante: L’une d’entre elle est que pour bien des travailleuses et travailleurs qui n’ont pas confiance en leur habileté de persuasion ou en l’habileté de leurs collègues à les aider dans l’organisation de leur lieu de travail, une action directe concrète et victorieuse semble être une bonne preuve à montrer à leurs collègues. que «l’action collective, ça fonctionne !». Une autre est que bâtir un comité bien établi nécessite beaucoup de travail, souvent ennuyeux, alors que le recours rapide à l’action directe est excitant et mène parfois aux gains qui constituaient les raisons de vouloir s’organiser au départ.
En contrepartie, une raison évidente de s’opposer à cette méthode est que l’action directe échouera probablement s’il n’y a pas une organisation derrière pour supporter le petit groupe (what, after all, est la raison pour laquelle il faut s’organiser au départ). Il s’agit d’une très bonne observation. However, il y a un autre problème, bien plus profond encore, qui est que même si la ou les actions fonctionnent, sans le reste de la pyramide, il y a peu à faire pour utiliser cette ou ces actions afin de créer une solidarité ou une organisation durable, et sans elles, tous les gains risque d’être très éphémères. Leur durée dépendra finalement bien plus de la volonté des patrons de les retirer ou non que de la force de l’organisation à les maintenir.
Pour illustrer ce point, j’aimerais partager avec vous un exemple venant d’une campagne d’organisation que j’ai supporté et écrit par l’organisateur lui-même:
J’ai utilisé par inadvertance le modèle de pyramide du bas vers le haut quand j’étais un «bébé organisateur» qui travaillait sur sa première campagne. J’étais relativement nouveau a l’IWW et malgré que j’avais assisté à quelques formations sur la manière d’avoir des conversations d’organisation et lu quelque livres, je n’avais pas encore été en mesure de faire une formation d’organisation 101.
La compagnie pour laquelle je travaillais était une entreprise familiale dans laquelle les différent.es membres de la famille possédaient chacun.e leur département en tant qu’entreprise indépendante malgré qu’ils et elles occupaient le même bâtiment. À la place de voir cette structure comme ce qu’elle était, c’est-à-dire une tentative de séparer les employé.es, j’ai plutôt perçu mon département comme étant la totalité de l’entreprise pour laquelle je travaillais. J’ai donc commencé à avoir des conversations en tête-à-tête avec mes collègues qui me semblaient les plus réceptifs et réceptives à l’idée d’organiser notre milieu. Bien que j’avais une idée globale de la cartographie sociale de mon milieu, je n’avais pas analysé de façon approfondie les relations sociales et d’influence avant de commencer.
J’ai laissé l’aspect saisonnier de l’entreprise, le fait qu’elle ferme chaque hiver, aveugler mon jugement et justifier une approche accélérée pour cette campagne d’organisation. J’ai donc réussi à rassembler trois de mes six collègues pour faire un «march on the boss» relativement à quelques enjeux clés incluant les horaires et les salaires. Je ne savais pas que l’IWW enseignait une marche à suivre spécifique pour cette tactique dans l’OT101, mais nous avons eu de la chance et la riposte de mon patron n’a pas fonctionnées. Nous avions sans le savoir procédé relativement comme la formation le suggère, par exemple en faisant des demandes spécifiques et en donnant une date butoir. However, pendant cemarch on the boss, l’une de mes collègues a soulevé des enjeux que j’ignorais parce que je n’avais pas pris le temps d’adéquatement lui parler. Alas, aucun d’entre eux n’a été résolu.
Nevertheless, quelque jours après notremarch on the boss, nous avons eu gain de cause sur plusieurs demandes importantes: First, tout le monde excepté le contremaître a eu une augmentation de salaire. Secondly, les travailleuses et travailleurs ont eu le contrôle de l’horaire qu’ils et elles on pu faire sans contrainte de la part du propriétaire ni du contremaître, excepté pour son propre horaire. Thirdly, nous nous étions plaint.es que des employé.es étaient coupé.es avant la fin de leur journée et qu’il leur manquait souvent des heures et cette pratique s’est arrêtée. Finally, nous voulions un retour sur le programme de «dollar days» de l’été précédent qui nous avait fait perdre des ventes et nous l’avons obtenu.
Sur le moment, j’étais en extase! J’ai raconté avec fierté nos succès à la réunion suivante du comité d’organisation de ma branche locale, puis les questions se sont mises à débouler : « Quelles questions exactes as-tu posé à tes collègues pendant les rencontres en tête-à-tête? Qu’est ce qu’ils et elles ont dit ?» Comme je n’avais pas pris la peine de prendre des notes détaillées, je n’étais pas en mesure de donner des réponses exactes, donc je n’ai pas pu rapporter beaucoup de ce que j’avais appris au reste du groupe. « Est-ce que pendant lemarch on the bossvous avez fait X, Y et Z, comme on l’a enseigné ?» Je ne savais tout simplement pas que nous avions une marche à suivre optimale pour cette tactique.
Alors que la saison tirait à sa fin, la campagne s’est peu à peu démantelée. J’ai compris que l’un des trois participants avait harcelé sexuellement les autres tout au long de l’été. Que le patron avait installé de nouvelles caméras de sécurité et que cela avait eu un effet dissuasif sur notre campagne. Qu’il a dit à toutes les personnes qui travaillaient sous la table qu’il devrait désormait déclarer leurs salaires. Qu’il avait lui-même rencontré des personnes seules à seules qui se sont ensuite montrées méfiantes envers nous. Il m’a finalement accusé de vouloir créer un syndicat et m’a menacé.
Meanwhile, en réalisant mes erreurs de parcours, j’avais essayé de récolter les contacts des personnes que je connaissais et de faire des tête-à-tête avec les salarié.es des autres départements. Sadly, le chat était sorti du sac et ma collègue membre du comité d’organisation la mieux placée pour aller leur parler (parce qu’elle avait déjà travaillé dans ces départements) était maintenant bien trop intimidée pour tenter sa chance.
J’ai fini par devoir déménager et je me suis pas revenu pour la saison suivante. Une autre personne que j’avais organisée n’a pas pu revenir elle non plus à cause de problèmes de santé. Une autre est revenue et a conservé son augmentation mais n’avait plus envie d’organiser l’entreprise. Je n’avais pas d’autres contacts permettant de garder cette campagne en vie et elle est morte.
Avec du recul, je peux identifier les facteurs clés qui m’ont fait choisir d’aller trop rapidement dans cette campagne.
Leçon apprise: Non à l’aventurisme !
Je voulais accomplir quelque chose avant que la saison se termine parce que je n’étais pas sûr de vouloir revenir l’année suivante. J’ai finalement compris qu’il est mieux d’organiser un emploi dans lequel on compte rester pour quelques années parce qu’on ne sera pas tenté.e de faire les choses trop rapidement. Il faut se souvenir que la raison pour laquelle on s’organise c’est de faire de notre emploi un milieu de travail dans lequel on aura envie de rester et auquel on tiendra et que, même si on ne peut pas y rester, ce n’est pas une bonne raison pour essayer d’aller trop vite. Il est préférable de débuter voir de compléter la cartographie physique et sociale de notre milieu de travail, d’avoir des informations sur le processus d’emploi puis de trouver quelqu’un.e pour nous remplacer et poursuivre là où nous auront quitter, que ce soit une personne à l’interne ou un.e «salt».
J’étais aussi anxieux de prouver ma valeur aux autres membres de la branche et j’ai cru que dévier de la marche à suivre était nécessaire à cause des particularités de mon milieu de travail. In reality, si on veut impressionner des gens dans l’IWW plus largement, bâtir un comité durable et gagnant accomplira beaucoup plus que quoi que ce soit d’autre, but especially, les seules personnes à qui nous devrions vraiment vouloir prouver quelque chose sont nos collègues de travail. L’organisation syndicale est quelque chose de risqué et nos collègues méritent un organisateur ou une organisatrice qui est dévoué.e à s’en tenir aux meilleures pratiques et à utiliser des méthodes qui ont faites leurs preuves à travers le temps. Presque tout le monde croit que son milieu de travail est unique et ils semblent effectivement presque tous avoir des conditions uniques qui justifient de dévier de la marche à suivre, mais à chaque fois que quelqu’un.e le fait, les mêmes problèmes se produisent.
J’avais une vision très aventuriste de l’action syndicale. Je me disais que ce serait super de faire unmarch on the boss, de tous et toutes arrêter de travailler, faire un sit-in ou peu importe quelle autre action, puis d’obtenir des gains et honnêtement, ça l’était ! Mais il faut se souvenir qu’on ne peut s’organiser seul.e. Nous avons le devoir d’intégrer nos collègues et de suivre la stratégie ayant la plus grande probabilité de bâtir un comité durable et capable d’améliorer nos conditions de travail sur le long terme. Participer à des actions directes est l’une des expériences les plus exaltantes au monde, mais ce n’est pas pour cette raison que nous le faisons. Nous le faisons pour créer un contre-pouvoir durable sur le plancher. Se dépêcher à faire des actions directes avant d’avoir créer des fondations solides n’est pas la bonne façon de procéder.
Et si une action directe spontanée allait inévitablement arriver, qu’on y participe ou non ?
Sometimes, et spécialement dans une «hot shop», un groupe de travailleuses et de travailleurs peut décider de confronter leurs superviseur.es ou d’arrêter de travailler, de ralentir le rythme ou de se plaindre des ordres déraisonnables des patrons d’une manière qui affecte l’entreprise. Si on n’a pas encore créé une capacité d’organisation suffisante pour conduire une action directe de façon responsable, on ne l’a probablement pas assez non plus pour en arrêter/réorienter une qui pourrait mal tourner.
Dans une telle situation, notre meilleure option est souvent de se joindre à l’action et d’offrir le meilleur de notre support et de notre leadership pour faire en sorte que l’action soit victorieuse tout en minimisant les risques qu’encourent nos collègues. Ce genre de situations peut s’emballer très rapidement et il est fort probable qu’on aie uniquement le temps de discerner qui est la personne avec le plus d’influence sur le groupe et lui poser quelques questions clés telles que: «Qu’est-ce qu’on devrait demander au patron de faire/changer/arrêter ? Combien de temps on lui donne pour faire ce qu’on lui demande ? Qui d’autre pourrait vouloir se joindre à cette action ? Est-ce qu’on s’adresse au bon ou à la bonne superviseur.e ? Est-ce qu’il ou elle a le pouvoir de faire ce qu’on lui demande ? Qui d’autre devrait faire partie de cette conversation ? Qu’est-ce qu’on fait si l’un, l’une ou la totalité d’entre nous est congédié.e ? Qu’est-ce qu’on fait s’il cible l’un ou l’une d’entre nous comme étant le leader ?
Before taking action, we must identify the obstacles that stand in our way. A computer technician tells us his story.
Ça fait longtemps que j’appuie les syndicats et que je critique le capitalisme et le patronat. Je n’avais toutefois jamais osé agir concrètement, jusqu’à récemment. To do this, j’ai rencontré des organisateurs et des organisatrices du SITT-IWW, j’ai participé à un OT101 et j’ai mis mes nouvelles connaissances en pratique en tentant de faire des actions et d’organiser mon milieu de travail. Ma campagne d’organisation en est encore à ses débuts, mais j’ai récemment participé à ma première action et j’aimerais partager quelques-unes de mes réflexions.
Je travaille dans le domaine de la sécurité informatique pour une grande société de services hypothécaires du Midwest. C’est une entreprise à l’éthique discutable, mais je me dis qu’en contribuant à sécuriser les données qui sont déjà en leur possession, je protège les clients actuels et je n’aide pas l’entreprise à s’en prendre à de nouvelles personnes. Ce n’est pas une rhétorique en béton, mais ça me permet de passer à travers mes journées.
Le manque de flexibilité est l’un des plus gros désagréments de mon travail: nous n’avons pas le droit de travailler de la maison. Au plus fort de la pandémie de COVID-19, nous avons été obligé·e·s de passer au télétravail en raison des restrictions sanitaires, mais dès que celles-ci ont été levées, nous avons dû retourner au bureau. Je suis relativement nouveau dans ce milieu de travail, mais des collègues qui y sont depuis longtemps m’ont dit qu’avant la pandémie, notre employeur autorisait le télétravail à l’occasion. J’ai aussi entendu des cadres supérieurs en parler.
Depuis que nous sommes revenu·e·s au bureau, l’entreprise a mis en place des mesures de plus en plus sévères pour nous obliger à nous présenter sur place. Now, nous avons le choix entre venir au bureau ou prendre une journée de vacances. Sans exception. Peu leur importe que nous soyons inconfortables à l’idée de passer nos journées dans des auditoriums bondés, sans que le port du masque ne soit obligatoire et sans que ne nous puissions garder une distance sécuritaire les un·e·s avec les autres. Without surprise, seul·e·s les gestionnaires et leurs ami·e·s sont exempté·e·s de cette obligation.
Notre employeur a aussi fait parvenir un mémo aux chefs d’équipe pour leur dire de ne pas dévoiler le nombre de cas de COVID-19 chez les employé·e·s. Même si une personne teste positif, elle doit quand même rentrer travailler. Short, l’entreprise est encore moins flexible qu’avant la pandémie et l’interdiction de divulguer le nombre de cas a pour effet de mettre la santé des employé·e·s à risque.
Ce règlement causait déjà de la grogne chez les employé·e·s, mais récemment, c’est une tempête de neige qui est venue mettre notre patience à l’épreuve. D’importantes chutes de neige étaient annoncées durant deux jours: toutes les écoles ont fermé, et les médias suggéraient fortement aux gens de ne pas prendre la route et de rester à la maison si possible. Despite this, notre employeur nous a écrit pour nous rappeler que le télétravail était interdit, et que les personnes qui ne se présenteraient pas au bureau durant la tempête devaient prendre une journée de vacances ou ne pas être payées.
On a même suggéré aux personnes qui craignaient de conduire dans la tempête de dormir dans un hôtel près du bureau! L’entreprise avait négocié un tarif spécial pour l’occasion, mais la chambre coûtait quand même plus cher que ce que la plupart d’entre nous gagnent en une journée. Cette annonce a été publiée sur le portail interne de l’entreprise, dans une section où il est possible de laisser des commentaires. Plusieurs employé·e·s ont critiqué cette initiative perverse, et une personne a écrit que la situation était « dystopique ». Cette dernière a été renvoyée sur-le-champ.
Mes collègues ont été outré·e·s par cette décision. Un employé d’une autre équipe nous a approché·e·s pour nous proposer de tous et toutes prendre congé le lendemain, et ainsi laisser l’entreprise en sous-effectif. Il nous a dit que plusieurs personnes prévoyaient déjà le faire et il nous a encouragé·e·s à les rejoindre. Colin*, un de mes collègues, était vraiment partant et il a incité les cinq autres membres de l’équipe à le suivre.
J’étais très enthousiaste, étant donné que j’avais déjà pensé à réaliser ce genre d’action. J’avais aussi identifié Colin comme l’un des leaders de notre groupe quand j’avais fait ma cartographie sociale. C’est une grande gueule et c’est souvent lui qui lance les conversations. Quand vient le temps de choisir une activité à faire en équipe, ses collègues ont souvent tendance à accepter ce qu’il propose.
Je manquais toutefois d’assurance. Je venais tout juste de commencer à organiser mon milieu de travail et je n’avais pas encore fait de rencontres en tête-à-tête avec Colin et avec mes autres collègues, et encore moins avec les membres des autres équipes du département. Nous avions parlé de nos problèmes en groupe, mais ça s’arrêtait là. Idéalement, il aurait fallu que j’attende avant de faire une action comme celle-là, mais Colin était partant et il a vivement encouragé les autres à embarquer. Les conditions semblaient favorables, l’action elle-même était de petite envergure et plutôt réaliste: elle devait inclure mon équipe de cinq personnes et d’autres employé·e·s dans différentes équipes. J’ai donc dit que j’étais partant aussi, et j’ai créé un groupe sur Signal pour que moi et mes collègues (à l’exception de notre chef d’équipe) puissions communiquer.
Voilà le plan sur lequel nous nous étions entendu·e·s: nous allions écrire individuellement à notre chef·fe d’équipe le matin de la tempête pour lui dire que nous allions travailler de la maison (et s’il ou elle refusait, que nous allions prendre une journée de vacances). Nous allions nous servir du groupe Signal pour partager les messages que nous avions envoyés ainsi que leurs réponses, pour nous aider à garder le moral et pour éviter que l’un·e d’entre nous se sente isolé·e.
Quatre de mes cinq collègues étaient partant·e·s; l’autre a refusé de participer. J’étais enthousiaste à l’idée de cette petite action collective et je me suis mis au lit avec un frisson d’excitation.
Mais le lendemain matin, les choses ont commencé à se gâter.
Colin est le premier à entrer au bureau: il arrive vers 6h30, puis les autres arrivent entre 7h30 et 8h30, et je commence à 9h. En décalant nos horaires de cette façon, nous nous assurons qu’il y a au moins une personne sur place durant une bonne partie de la journée, tout en nous permettant de travailler en équipe pendant quelques heures. En raison de son horaire, Colin allait être le premier à écrire à notre chef d’équipe.
On the other hand, il nous a écrit vers 6h30 pour nous dire que les conditions routières étaient vraiment mauvaises. Une autre collègue, Danielle, lui a demandé s’il était arrivé au bureau et il a répondu que oui. J’ai écrit au groupe pour leur annoncer que je comptais appeler notre chef d’équipe et lui dire que j’allais travailler de la maison (et prendre une journée de vacances s’il refusait). C’est ce que j’ai fait, tout comme un autre collègue (Roger). Danielle n’a pas répondu, mais quand je l’ai contactée en fin d’avant-midi, elle m’a dit qu’elle avait décidé d’aller au bureau étant donné que Colin, la grande gueule de l’équipe, avait flanché. Ma dernière collègue, Jackie, était opposée à l’action dès le début et elle est rentrée au bureau comme prévu.
Je dois admettre que j’ai été un peu déçu de mes collègues: seulement deux d’entre nous ne sont pas rentrés (moi et Roger), tandis que les autres (Colin, Danielle et Jackie) sont allé∙e·s travailler. De ce que j’ai compris, ça s’est passé sensiblement de la même manière dans les autres équipes. Ultimately, nous n’avons pas été puni·e·s pour nos actions, mais notre absence n’a pas vraiment entravé le travail dans notre entreprise et nous n’avons pas réussi à faire de gains concrets.
J’étais surtout frustré par l’attitude de Colin, qui a encouragé l’équipe à faire l’action et qui a capitulé en premier. J’ai décidé de laisser cette irritation se dissiper avant d’aller lui parler et j’ai essayé de me montrer empathique et compréhensif. Je l’ai abordé quelques jours après les événements et je lui ai demandé son point de vue sur l’action: « Hey, Colin, comment tu vas? J’aimerais comprendre ce qui s’est passé de ton côté. J’avais l’impression que tu étais enthousiaste à l’idée de ne pas rentrer au bureau? ».
Colin était clairement mal à l’aise. Je l’ai rassuré en lui disant que je n’étais pas fâché et que je ne lui en voulais pas, mais que je voulais comprendre ce qui s’était passé. Il m’a alors dit que lui et notre chef d’équipe étaient pratiquement voisins, et qu’il avait peur de mal paraître auprès de lui s’il décidait de ne pas rentrer. Je lui ai dit que je comprenais son inquiétude et que nous allions avoir d’autres occasions de faire des actions. J’ai fait un suivi similaire auprès de Danielle et de Roger, et je leur ai dit que d’autres occasions allaient se présenter.
Qu’est-ce que je retiens de tout ça?
First, même si l’action a globalement été un échec (moins de 50% des collègues ont participé et nous n’avons pas atteint nos objectifs), nous avons fait quelques gains sur le plan de la communication: la confiance et l’honnêteté que nous avons les un·e·s envers les autres nous ont aidé·e·s à nous organiser, et le groupe de discussion sur Signal nous a permis de nous coordonner tout en nous aidant à bâtir un sentiment de solidarité hors de notre milieu de travail.
Secondly, cette action m’a donné une bonne leçon sur lesleaders. Colin était effectivement un leader au sein de notre équipe, mais je ne m’attendais absolument pas à ce qu’il s’incline face à notre chef d’équipe, et je n’avais pas fait d’inoculation pour prévenir cela.
Thirdly, je retiens qu’il est essentiel de planifier minutieusement nos actions et de planifier toutes les étapes en ordre chronologique: qui agira en premier? Qui risque de se faire réprimander en premier? Comment faire sentir à nos collègues que nous allons les soutenir s’ils et elles font une action? Est-ce que je peux anticiper les obstacles (p. ex. relations, vulnérabilités) qui pourraient empêcher un·e leader d’agir comme prévu?
Quatrièmement, cette action m’a appris que toutes les actions, aussi mineures soient-elles, doivent être organisées avec soin. L’action en question a eu lieu au tout début de la campagne et même si nous nous entendions sur les problèmes que nous voulions régler, nous n’étions pas assez organisé·e·s pour agir de manière coordonnée. Short, « être en colère » et « être capable de poser des actions concrètes pour améliorer la situation » ne sont pas synonymes; ce n’est pas pour rien que l’agitation est la première étape de l’AEIOU, tandis que la formation d’un syndicat est la dernière.
Cinquièmement, je retiens que nos actions doivent reposer sur une organisation solide et non sur des coups de chance: le déroulement de notre action dépendait des conditions routières, qui sont imprévisibles. Les prévisions météo annonçaient une tempête de neige, mais elle s’est montrée beaucoup moins intense que prévu. Le risque que les employé·e·s se dégonflent et décident d’aller au bureau malgré tout était bien présent, ce qui introduisait une part d’incertitude chez nos collègues.
Finally, je suis content d’avoir participé à cette action. J’aurais évidemment préféré que nous gagnions, mais nous avons beaucoup à apprendre de notre échec et je vais garder ces leçons en tête à l’avenir.
Rasmus Hästbacka and Kristian Falk, of the Swedish trade union SAC (Swedish Workers' Central Organization, or Central Organization of Workers of Sweden), argue for a third way between the “consensual fundamentalism” of Sweden’s dominant union bureaucracy and the “idealization” of rank-and-file strikes: we need to relearn how to put pressure on our workplaces.
What defines a trade union movement?? It is a movement made up of colleagues who stick together and act together. It must be distinguished from the union bureaucracy represented by elected officials and union officials perched far from the base and paid separately from the workers.. In the Swedish labor market, the trade union movement takes the form of small scattered islands in the shadow of the big trade union bureaucracies. These islets include the Syndicalist SAC, the Swedish Longshoremen's Union and some local labor branches within the LO central bureaucracies (Landsorganisationen i Sverige or Swedish National Organization), TCO (Central Organization of Salaried Employees or Confederation of Professional Employees) and SACO (Central Organization of Swedish Academics or Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations).
Revival of the Swedish trade union movement is hampered by “consensual fundamentalism”: senior union officials focus on building consensus (consensus) with employers through collective agreements but for decades, employers are increasingly neglecting the interests of workers in favor of the search for this consensus. The labor market is deteriorating in Sweden, and working conditions begin to resemble those of the beginning of the 20e century: there are dangerous working environments, very low wages and simply criminal employers.
As unionists, we do not reject legally binding collective agreements. In fact, at SAC, we are currently testing a new collective bargaining strategy. But we always emphasize that it is the collective struggle that gives collective agreements their value..
While senior LO officials, of TCO and CESO suffer from consensual fundamentalism, the grassroots opposition often suffers from an obsession with the strike. Within the popular labor movement in Sweden, we often hear a call for big strikes, even a general strike. The use of strikes has grown in response to the questioning of the Swedish employment protection law, the proliferation of low wages and attacks on the right to strike. In 2019, groups attempted to organize a symbolic strike to highlight the climate crisis, but to our knowledge, no workplaces have been closed.
We must recognize that we ourselves, CAS members, sometimes let this obsession with the strike win us over. U.S. too, we tried to rush a few. The strike in defense of the unemployment insurance funds in 2006, which were attacked by the Swedish government, is an example. It ended in a painful defeat.
The frequency of strikes in Sweden has actually been very low since the early 1990s. 1990 and the call to strike tends to be a fantasy. The organizers of these so-called strikes idealize the French strikes, or those of Sweden before the Second World War. But the all-out strike should not be fetishized, and it has no value if it does not lead to results. This vision of the struggle is part of the fallacious myth that the strike is still the employees' best weapon..
An important fact, but little known, is that the unionist SAC has historically been skeptical of strikes. This was expressed from 1910 in the Manifesto to the Workers of Sweden, published by the SAC. Workers' struggles must not be reduced to an "arms crossed" struggle, it says in the Manifesto, and "that time is over, where it was enough to throw the shovel and the plane aside and impose our conditions on the employers.. According to trade unionists, strikes are often costly, long and can easily be ruined by scabs and lock-out. Swedish employers have often responded with lock-out of solidarity in many industries.
The objective of lock-out was not only to win the ongoing struggle. Political scientist Peter A.. Swenson talks about a longer term goal:
The lockouts enabled the ruling class to mold the unions into partners in the regularization of the labor market. The union leadership, which is closely linked to the Social Democratic Party, did not oppose the movement desired by the employers. What stood in their way, it was the lack of control over decentralized militancy in the ranks. Therefore, […] trade unionists sometimes welcomed lockouts or threats of lockouts. The employers' whiplash gave them an ideologically consistent pretext to intervene against disruptive grassroots activism.
During the golden age of strikes, in the years 1920, Swedish trade unionists have become even more skeptical of “all-out” strikes. Unionists have focused the struggle internally on union employment services (employment offices) and on increasing the influence of workers on the way workplaces are run. The internal struggle could take the form, for example, collective slowdowns. Union employment services could also stipulate that employers must follow the order and conditions dictated by unions when hiring workers.. When these services were effective, they allowed workers and the unemployed to pursue common claims against the employer party.
Increase the pressure
In SAC education programs, we have learned to emphasize that the road to successful strikes is usually a long one. Workers can simply start by speaking up, for example by asking to have their say on the schedules. Ensuite, they can have a petition signed to ask that the employer pay for their work uniforms. If the workload is high, the next step may be to ask for more people to be hired. If management is unresponsive, maybe it's time to start refusing overtime.
It takes time to develop the ability to lobby employers. We end up forgetting it by focusing all our attention on implementing epic strikes. Our colleagues must learn to win small battles before seeing if they are ready to take the next step.
We present below a series of means of pressure that contribute to strengthening the ability to strike. These options impose four different types of pressure: morale, psychological, economic and legal.
1) moral pressure
Exercising moral suasion means that workers appeal to the will of bosses to do what is right according to their own moral compass., or the desire to be seen as fair in the eyes of staff. for example, workers can question decisions made at staff meetings, conduct employee surveys and critique management actions in their local union newspaper.
Moral suasion is humiliating for bosses. of course, but it often happens that the bosses do not care about being perceived as unfair and that they and they do not perceive this pressure as a punishment. In such cases, moral suasion will have no effect, but psychological pressure might do the trick.
2) psychological pressure
Psychological pressure is shamelessly putting bosses in hot water. The goal is to disturb them. for example, unionized workers could send warnings to bosses who treated their co-workers badly. According to Swedish labor law, only employers can take disciplinary action, but that does not prevent the union from issuing written warnings to bosses and informing all employees..
Another example is to sow discord between bosses.. Employees can try to ally themselves with bosses who are receptive to worker demands and oppose bad bosses together. Workers can also visit senior managers to persuade them to put pressure on their subordinates.
Another variant of psychological pressure is to distance oneself from management. The bosses are then made to understand that the workers do not want to have anything to do with them until they come up with sensible solutions.. They and they could, for example, boycott the company party, organize Christmas dinners without the bosses or give up a business trip.
3) Economic pressure
Workers can certainly exert economic pressure on their employer by lowering their income or increasing their expenses., but they can also do it by playing the leadership game. How can this be done ?
One method is to scrupulously follow all the rules. This is called a “work to rule”, because it allows workers to remain in their workplace while significantly extending the time required to complete all tasks.
We can also think of “union subcontracting”. This means that pressure is put on an employer through another employer who has some connection with the first one.. for example, if a labor dispute arises in a cleaning company that works with other companies, the management of the cleaning company may be put under pressure by a union notice sent to client companies.
The best-known forms of economic pressure are strikes and blockades. Strikes generally cause a complete stoppage of work, while blockages lead to the interruption of certain parts of the work process. In Swedish labor law, blocking is also called “partial industrial action”.
Blockages come in many forms: refusal to work overtime, refusal to perform certain tasks, refusal to use certain work tools, refusal to participate in business trips, blocking the transfer of the labor force between different workplaces within the same company, refusal to deliver goods to certain companies, blocking the hiring of new and new employees (new employment blocked), etc.
Blocking the hiring of new people is a call for solidarity from job seekers: they are asked not to accept employment in the workplace until the conflict is resolved. Swedish law stipulates that job seekers then have the right to neutrality, which means that the public employment service must not refer jobseekers to this workplace.
Another method, called "good strike" or "good blocking", originated in the customer service industry. It consists of offering consumers a cheaper or better quality service at the expense of the employer.. It can be done, for example, by having employees only perform tasks that directly affect customers and ignore other tasks.
The struggle through the unions affects the means of production. It can be combined with actions on the part of consumers., whether the people who own the means of production call for such actions. Boycotting is a well-known method, but its opposite is less so. Unions can offer certification to employers who meet certain requirements and recommend the public to buy from them: this is what we could call a “union label”.
4) legal pressure
legal pressure, as for her, relevant when employers violate laws and agreements. According to Swedish labor law, legal remedies are mainly exercised by individuals and it is up to the union to initiate a process of collective bargaining under the codetermination law (The Co-determination Act). However, it is better for staff to keep things under control in the workplace and combine legal pressure with other types of pressure.
Reviving the labor movement
A strike is the result of a long process. Over this one, workers may find that other actions work better than striking in their workplace. Ultimately, it's the results that count: the goal is to create a better society and a more ethical professional world.
Within the SAC, union officials have a duty to help locals who decide to strike, even if they are skeptical of the strike. Locals are also well advised to think carefully about the chances of winning a strike before undertaking one.
The organization of work is not always a long calm river, but humor generally strengthens the fighting spirit. In his memoirs, Swedish trade unionist John Andersson tells the story of a wage dispute at the port of Gothenburg in 1912.
In response to longshoremen who had slowed down, foremen had been sent to the holds to compensate for losses. The workers then responded by working even more slowly and singing the Christian hymn. The prince of darkness descends ("the devil descends"). and, when the exhausted foremen started to climb the ladder to get out, the workers sang Your clear sun rises again ("Your glorious sun rises again in the sky").
Rasmus Hästbacka is a lawyer and member of the Umeå local branch of the SAC. Kristian Falk is an economic historian and member of the Enköping-Heby section of the SAC. Another version of this article was posted in Swedish.
Original text by Rasmus Hästbacka and Kristian Falk for Organizing Work Translation: Alex V. et Florence M. for SITT-IWW Montreal.
Marianne Garneau presents the development of the IWW's unique training program and its innovative approach to union organizing.
IWW trade union training is virtually unique. It consists of two intensive two-day workshops. These workshops are open to any member or worker to teach them the skills needed to organize their workplace.: information gathering, the contacts of their colleges, one-on-one encounters, the construction of an organizing committee and the collective treatment of problems. The aim of the first workshop, "Organizational Training 101: Build the committee ”, is to ensure that any participant — with no previous organizing experience — can undertake their own organizing campaign at work and even organize a modest direct action with their colleagues to settle a grievance or obtain a concession. The second workshop, the "Organization Training 102: The Committee in action", presents a systematic approach to dealing with grievances based on action in the workplace, as well as the practical details and strategic issues of maintaining a shop committee.
Its curriculum is not designed for personnel employed by power plants, but good for workers, in order to teach them how to organize their workplace without the intermediary of paid union staff. The ultimate objective of the SITT-IWW approach is to build a structure whose actions are mainly carried out by the workers concerned., through a committee representative of the workplace, where decisions are made horizontally and who is able to organize direct actions on the floor to resolve grievances and secure new gains. This approach is an alternative to the steward system and the standard bargaining process, grievances and arbitration, that takes place away from the work floor and relies on lawyers and other professionals. The position of the IWW is that in addition to the fact that this process is expensive and slow, its purpose is to limit actions in the workplace, especially those that cause disruption to the economy of the business or society . To resume their language: "Work now, file a grievance later. »
It is for all these reasons that the formation of the IWW is exceptionally democratic compared to other trade union formations.. It is also democratic in its structure, since its objective is to train future trainers. Any member can attend the trainings and then apply to take a certification course and become a trainer. The program is overseen by an elected committee of five trainers and is remarkably stable and able to ensure its sustainability., considering that it is entirely run by volunteers and has a limited budget (trainers are reimbursed for the cost of travel and receive a small per diem). Its capacity has been increasing systematically — in number of trainers and in frequency of training given — since its inception, almost ago 20 years, thousands of people have been trained. This accessibility and this horizontality are among the most popular and appreciated aspects of the IWW., as well as the cornerstone of the union's most effective organizing campaigns.
The design of the IWW organization formation is an interesting story, because it follows the establishment of a unique approach to the union in recent decades. For a long time, following the loss of Cleveland heavy machinery premises in the 1950s, the union was struggling with an almost non-existent presence in the workplace and with volunteer activist members (anyone except a boss can take their "red card") that there were only hundreds. Each time the IWW attempted to reinvest itself as a labor organization, its approach was borrowed from that of traditional unions and the results were mostly disappointing. What motivated the training program was another form of "back to business" in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as the IWW began to organize campaigns again. The program was an attempt to provide best practices for standalone campaigns, then marked by cycles of expansion and weakening.
Initially, the IWW again borrowed educational materials and technical knowledge from traditional unions thanks to dual-carding members who worked as organizers or delegates in other unions, and thanks to members who had been trained by other unions, as by the "Organizing Institute" of the AFL-CIO. Through a set of scattered techniques and strategies, supplemented with a political critique of labor law, the union saw the birth of its shop committee system by developing a qualitatively different approach to the organization of workers' power.
The "fight for gains" approach, not for recognition ” situates the IWW on the margins of the trade union world, as it always has been, but this is how he finally found his revolutionary roots by rejecting collective agreements and cooperation with employers. " The IWW does not recognize any rights to bosses ", said Big Bill Haywood to the Commission on Industrial Relations of the US Congress in 1915. "We say that no union has the right to sign an agreement with the bosses...because it is the inherent mission of the working class to overthrow capitalism and take power in its place. Throughout its long period of dormancy — as collective bargaining agreements containing clauses on the right to strike and clauses on employers' rights became normalized — the IWW maintained that the labor law was not a gift to society. working class. However, it was a somewhat abstract position, since the union had no distinct alternative in terms of organization and few active premises.
Although in recent decades, other unions have become more cynical about the National Labor Relations Board and the courts, the IWW remained unique with a workplace bargaining model separate from certification votes, certifications and conventions, nor is it based on funded activism or electoral coalitions, but relies instead on worker power in the workplace.
The following is the story of the IWW's conception of its own organizational formation and general trade union approach as it has evolved over almost five decades.. I begin with organizing manuals distributed to members in the 1970s and conclude with the latest developments of the current program.. This research is based on a review of every training manual the union has published since the 1970s., on archival material such as the newspaper Industrial Worker and the General organization bulletin, as well as a dozen detailed interviews with members, former and current.
Prehistory of today's program: Organization pamphlets and manuals from the 1970s to 1990.
« A Worker’s Guide to Direct Action » (1974)
Prior to the development of in-person training led by the Organizer Training Committee, members had access to several pamphlets and organization manuals, posted by members and available at headquarters or local branches.
One of them was "A Worker's Guide to Direct Action"., a pamphlet of 15 pages that briefly described tactics like slowdowns, work to rule, sit-down strikes, sick leave strikes and whistleblowing. This pamphlet was in fact an abridged reissue d’un pamphlet published by Solidarity in the UK in 1971. The IWW version presented these tactics as an alternative to two things: the "slow and clumsy" grievance procedure, where "a dispute goes through a series of meetings and ends up being decided by an arbitrator, usually a lawyer or a professor" and the "long strikes", which "cost too much and are too exhausting to be used often". Furthermore, the pamphlet notes that “the AFL-CIO-CLC executive…hoards large strike funds. »
The pamphlet has been reprinted and very modestly updated over the years, for example by the Lehigh Valley branch in the 1990s, who rewrote the introduction to describe the historical origins of the labor law framework, which would aim to contain the class war, and to define direct action as "guerrilla". The pamphlet was also republished by the Edmonton branch in the 2000s under the title "How to fire your boss"..
Although the use of actions on the floor is consistent with the historical approach of the IWW, these writings are addressed to individual workers and do not contain advice for the restlessness or development of one's co-workers, nor for the construction of a camp and even less for the resistance to the reprisals which follow the direct action. The pamphlet notes that to use its tactics, you have to have " organization at work ", at least in the sense of a "general agreement that working conditions must change", but the colorful examples quoted out of context are somewhat ambitious, maybe even irresponsible.
Organization manual (1978)
Another series of pamphlets—this time written by members of the IWW—were published in the 1970s.. There is an organization manual and a negotiation manual.. « The problem of growth — how to reach people and organize — dominated the convention [from 1971] », according to the memoirs of Ottilie Markholt, a longtime labor activist from the Pacific Northwest, but at the time a new Wobbly. A femma with the deceptive air of a grandmother who was in fact a hard-line trade unionist », according to a posthumous tribute published in the Industrial Worker thirty years later. According to Markholt, in light of this new priority, « a group of delegates met informally to plan the writing of an organizing manual for the IWW… The convention approved our plan and appointed me coordinator.“The group has”reflected on the problem of member-organizers with an ever-growing circle of correspondents», including Fred Thompson, emblematic figure of the IWW. The group has produced a manual for 23 pages that will be sold by the headquarters.
From a practical point of view, the manual includes the usual good advice of the time in terms of organization: he advises getting a list of workers — though without providing much technical advice — and making house calls. He emphasizes the importance of direct contact, but also discusses having big meetings to tell workers about the union (the use of mass meetings for the development of contacts has been abandoned in the current training program: these meetings are too permeable to leaks and are often limited to what in the industry is called the lowest common denominator). The manual soberly advises to create a committee representative of the entire workplace - therefore "each department and/or shift" and "each ethnic and racial group".… balanced in terms of age and gender according to the proportions of the workplace ”. He insists on the fact that the union "must be a majority movement or it will be nothing" and on the importance of developing "democratic working rules".
The manual replicates traditional trade union approaches, including the campaign to win a certification vote. Most of his advice focuses on the use of alternative means such as picketing or striking to win a certification vote or legal recognition. (today’s trainers would argue that gaining legal recognition through these other means still opens the door to formalized working relationships). The section on union busting focuses on legal certification-blocking tactics used by management. A membership card template is included.
It is fascinating to see this focus on accreditation despite the presence of the following disclaimer:
Contrary to the official myth of liberal unionism, the right to organize and bargain collectively has not been codified… out of love for the working class. Rather, this legislation was passed to contain the growing rebellion of trade unionism… Therefore, although you can meet friendly investigators and attorneys at NLRB regional offices, you are essentially under the control of a hostile judiciary.
In fact, a long section at the beginning of the manual laments the IWW's recent capitulation to the labor relations framework. He maintains that in doing so, the union has lost sight of its fundamental intuition: worker power is based on worker action, not government intervention:
In recent campaigns, we have ignored the fundamental difference between the IWW and all other unions: recognition of the class struggle and the fact that the only way to end it is to abolish the wage system. We presented ourselves as a bargaining union with cheap dues and officers with little or no pay. We attributed the failures of other unions to bureaucratic and/or corrupt officials.
The authors make it clear that other unions are not corrupt because of the moral shortcomings of their officers, but because these unions are prisoners of a government framework that ties the hands of workers :
Conventional unions are based on the premise that labor and capital are partners, with the government as arbiter, in a class collaboration system that will benefit both parties… By recognizing the right of the government to arbitrate the partnership, these unions are giving up their only real source of strength, economic power…
Local officials reflect these contradictions. They can be very honest and sincere people, but they are immobilized by these contradictions. Even if they themselves understand the class struggle and would really like to see their locals negotiate on this basis, they just can't accomplish much against the weight of the rest of the union.
Once again, the authors point out the absurdity of thinking that the IWW can participate in the labor relations system without falling into the same traps as other unions. Their manual emphasizes the fact that participation in this legal framework is tantamount to abandoning the founding idea of the IWW.:
We tried to cut the IWW in half and separate the preamble [who asserts that the working class and the employer class have nothing in common and that the wage system must be abolished – MG] and the union as a vehicle for obtaining immediate demands. In fact, our campaigns now say: "Forget those visionary ideas. We believe it, but we don't expect you, ordinary workers believe it. Just think of us as an outright union for now. “We tried to sell ourselves as a union which is good, young, poor and clean, in opposition to a union which is bad, vieux, rich and corrupt. These campaigns were uniformly doomed.
In other words, worker action directly at the point of production is essential to building working class power and securing its demands, and that is exactly what the NLRB system has worked to make disappear. By adopting this system, the IWW can't do better.
This organization manual confronts us with the contradiction of a lucid analysis that recognizes these constraints, but who resolves to advise IWW members to pursue the same legalistic strategies as other unions. While the IWW had set itself the goal of tearing itself away from historical insignificance and reorganizing workplaces, the union did not yet have a model to achieve this. In this first manual, the strategy did not match the goal — the practice was disconnected from the theory. There was no way to institutionalize the idea of a worker-led or class-based organization. The IWW did not yet have its own organizing program.
Collective Bargaining Handbook (1978)
The organization manual was published at the same time as a 33 collective bargaining pages, also edited by Markholt and presumably also written largely by her.
There is also a reflection on the power of workers in its introduction.. It presents bargaining as fundamentally a struggle for control of the workplace and its conditions.. Despite this, the advice that follows are fairly orthodox and technical documents relating to the definition of the accreditation unit and the three categories of security clauses, working conditions and remuneration. It is recognized that the constitution of the IWW prohibits the deduction at source of dues, because " the increased efficiency does not compensate for the loss of personal contact between the members and the union ".
Generally, the trading manual is somewhat unrealistic, disconnected from what would be necessary to apply his advice: workers power. for example, a note explains that "reducing working hours without reducing wages should be a long-term goal for all trade unionists" and suggests that "to start, you have to try to go to a week of 30 hours with 5 days of 6 hours" — without really developing a strategy that would allow you to develop sufficient bargaining power to make your company an exception in its sector, even in the economy.
Updates to these manuals
These two manuals have been updated over the years, but not really on the successes or failures of the union's campaigns. The trading manual was updated in 1983 by Paul Poulos and Rochelle Semel, two longtime members from upstate New York, who also wanted the IWW to get "serious again" and start organizing workplaces and negotiating contracts. At that time, the union was mostly made up of radical activists — union-oriented anarchists and communists, union officers subscribing to the class struggle, alumni who remembered the golden age of the IWW, stubborn supporters and sympathizers. The total membership of the union was a few hundred, at most.
Poulos and Semel removed Markholt's introduction to the power struggle between workers and management. Other technical sections have been added (for example on probation periods) with templates for the wording of each section of a convention.
However, it is not certain whether the negotiation manual or the organization manual was used. The IWW managed to win a few accreditations and negotiate a few conventions in the 1980s: University Cellar Bookstore, le People’s Wherehouse (a grocery warehouse) and Leopold Bloom's Restaurant in Ann Arbor; Eastown Printing à Grand Rapids ; SANE and Oregon Fair Share in Portland; and recycling plants in the San Francisco area. With the exception of the People's Wherehouse (which lasted ten years) and recycling plants (who still have IWW conventions to this day), most of these campaigns were short-lived, often ending when the business closes. Many other attempts at accreditation, often accompanied by a strike, just failed.
In 1988 a one 1994 or 1996 (records are imprecise), the organization manual is updated, incorporating feedback from across the union. This most recent version has moved away from the model of the organization of a majority to file a request for certification, noting that "much can still be accomplished by a small group on the floor that strives to mobilize colleagues around particular grievances and coordinate direct action campaigns…While the earlier version recognized the various legal tactics available to management to subvert or defeat a union certification vote, updates took a harder line, noting that
even when you "win" thanks to labor laws, you end up losing — endless hours are spent pursuing the case, momentum is lost and power shifts from the workplace to the corporate courts. Although it is useful to know the law in order to make informed decisions on all possible options, the workplace remains your true source of strength.
He acknowledges that the unfair practices complaint process sometimes takes "five or seven years before resulting in a “victoire” complete. At this moment, the union was almost certainly disbanded and most of its activists found other employment. This is most likely a reflection on the IWW experience at Mid-America in Virden, in illinois. In 1977, the IWW recruited six of the seven workers there and called for a certification vote:
the long march through the courts sees union members dwindle in numbers, until there was only one left in June 1978… Two years later, in the fall of 1980, all appeal procedures having been exhausted, Mid-America finally agreed to recognize the union and begin negotiations. At this moment, of course, the union was no longer present in the workplace… The Industrial Organization Committee… [has sent] letters to current Mid-America employees informing them of the campaign and suggesting that the IWW negotiate on their behalf. There was no response and Virden's campaign was consigned to history.
This experience repeated itself in almost exactly the same way decades later, when in 2013, the IWW won an accreditation vote at Mobile Rail Systems in Chicago, only to lose all presence in the workplace (relatively small) during the negotiation of the collective agreement. The union eventually agreed to drop the campaign in 2020.
However, although this version of the organizing manual was more critical of legalism in labor relations, and even if it recognized " the possibility - and even the legality - of fighting for specific grievances, or even to ask for union recognition, without going through the NLRB ", most of his advice was geared towards formal accreditation in anticipation of contract negotiation.
Implementation of the current training program
It should be noted again that these manuals do not appear to have been used much. En1996, the year the organization manual was apparently last updated, there were several high-profile IWW campaigns. However, the members of these campaigns interviewed by the author did not declare having used it, although some have known about it. The Wobblies groped their way through their heady campaigns, guided by the advice of sporadically present members, with mixed success.
Always in 1996, the IWW narrowly lost a legal accreditation vote at Borders Books in Philadelphia. An organizer at the center of the campaign was fired and a high-profile national campaign was launched to protest the dismissal and boycott the channel, with strong participation from more than a dozen branches of the IWW. In stride, a series of new campaigns have emerged – at the MiniMart convenience store in Seattle, at Applebee's in New Orleans, at Wherehouse Entertainment in the San Francisco area, at Snyder's Pretzels in Pennsylvania, at Sin Fronteras Bookstore in Olympia and several Portland businesses.
Alexis Buss, a member from Philadelphia who later became general secretary-treasurer, said: "After Borders, we only got crumbs, and people had no other way to get involved. The nature of a union was always assessed in light of the question: “How many contracts do you have?” »
She was often sent personally to assist in these campaigns. John B, who later served on the Organizers Training Committee, described the situation as:
We had several national campaigns, very public, very visible, which totally imploded… these were essentially situations where workplaces were already under high pressure, then three guys would stand on a table shouting: “workers of the world, unite!” before being fired on the spot. Alexis looked into these campaigns and developed a training day dedicated to best practices in organization.
According to Buss: "We tried to take the time to learn and improve after each failure. » She began to organize one-day workshops for campaigns and branches:
Let's say you have a [censored name] from Applebee's contacting your branch, what are you doing? You don't give them membership cards or pamphlets about how bad their boss is telling them: " Good luck, kid. " So, we really wanted to try to build a workplace committee… We tried to explain the shortcomings of the external organizers who did the organizing work, the dangers of not having a committee, the risks of ignoring social leaders at work…
A little after, a group of four members of the IWW began to seriously collect documents from the traditional unions. It was about Buss, de John Hollingsworth (Steward in Ottawa of OPEIU local 225 at the time and researcher hired by the Canadian Association of University Teachers), de Josh Freeze (member of the Amalgamated Transit Union and later steward of the Association of Flight Attendants) and Chuck Hendricks (of Baltimore and later Connecticut, became a UNITE HERE organizer). Hendricks recalls that the group "began collecting AFL-CIO training materials, of UNITE HERE and other unions to create an organizing manual" and "trainings on the model of a school class".
Hendricks was among a number of Wobblies who attended the AFL-CIO's "Organizing Institute". This three-day workshop allowed to acquire the necessary skills to carry out a " home visit ", especially with the use of role-playing games, after which the successful participants were recruited by the unions. This role-playing class model has become the basic structure of Organization 101 training..
So, the IWW found the original core of its training program in other unions: gather contacts, socially and physically map the workplace, identifier les leaders, have individual conversations with colleagues following the AEIOU scenario (Shake, Educate, Innoculer, Organize and ”Unioniser”). An analysis of the difference between the IWW and other unions has been added. (no paid staff, no political party affiliation, no deduction of contributions), as well as a critique of labor law and a "chronology of an unfair practices complaint" written by Buss, intended to warn participants of the slowness and inefficiency of legal processes.
The first Organization 101 training was held in Portland in August 2002. According to the report of the Organizers' Training Committee at the annual convention:
Forty members came from across the western United States for a weekend of formal talks, presentations and role plays. We covered topics ranging from developing contacts, activists and leaders in workplace mapping; encourage colleges to take on more responsibilities and tasks in negotiations; challenges of high-turnover workplaces to U.S. labor law… Without a doubt, the most frequent comment we received in the ratings was that there should be more roleplaying. The trainers agree and for most future training, their place will be considerably enlarged.
In the years that followed, other members of the IWW often coming from a more traditional unionism have developed other modules: two Minneapolis organizers who both had experience with AFSCME designed a captive audience meeting and "One Big Organizer" exercise in which participants take turns asking questions to a potential union member, to stir it up and educate it. Generally, the evolution of IWW organization training has moved it from a lecture format to a popular education model.
So, from 1996 at 2003 about, the training program has been consolidated, moving from informal workshops run by Buss to a formal program run by the Organizers Training Committee. This committee has written and updated a training manual, coordinated training and accredited new trainers. When the committee structure has actually been put in place, she became a stable resource that no longer depended on Buss' talents, who had since moved on to other projects.
However, since it had borrowed heavily from traditional unions, this organizational training program still bore the hallmarks of traditional approaches in its early days. MK Lees, who would become a trainer and sit on the Training Committee for Organizers, recalls taking his first Organization 101 training in Chicago in 2002, while organizing bike couriers with the Chicago Couriers Union of the IWW. “Training continued to progress towards solidarity unionism… She was very critical of the organization as part of the NLRB, but she always had one foot in both worlds. It provided that it could be used for the organization via the NLRB or not ” — as for bicycle couriers, classified as self-employed and not as employees — "but many examples were drawn from legal accreditation campaigns. » Even if it did not train or encourage participants to apply for accreditation, the narrative of the two-day training culminated with a public outing from the union, as accreditation campaigns do. The workshop also presented the "stages of a campaign" culminating in a "recognition strategy" followed by "negotiation" — the IWW essentially presented a traditional approach that bypassed the NLRB.
In other words, the union was still forging its own approach to organizing.
Field applications and program reviews
From 2003, the organizational training curriculum begins to evolve in light of the experiences of the IWW campaigns.
Even though the Organization 101 training never advised filing an application for certification and instead warned participants against labor law, this lesson came to fruition with the credentialing campaigns in Portland in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In 2003, Portland published a document entitled "Learning from our mistakes", a look back at four different campaigns: a bicycle courier company, two separate grocery stores and a non-profit community organization. The conclusions are unequivocal: " The NLRB has slowed down the organization "; “The NLRB bureaucracy slowed down the process, slowed our momentum and took up a lot of time for several people "; " We did not consider the campaign without NLRB accreditation "; "We failed to recognize that direct unionism worked well without NLRB accreditation"; "The organization has focused on the certification vote rather than worker issues and fighting for concrete gains"; "Things to avoid in the future: have a vote with the NLRB ”; "Using the NLRB ; " Seek official union recognition "; " Aim to obtain an official collective agreement "; " Abandon the democratic construction within the organizing committees to focus on the immediacy of an accreditation vote ". For a campaign where accreditation was won: " The real problems were not addressed during the negotiation "; " The union was more of an idea than a reality ". "Things to do differently next time: more direct action unionism tactics ”. " Experimenting with more minority/direct trade unionism tactics ".
However, le Starbucks Workers Union, launched in New York in 2004, et le Jimmy John’s Workers Union, launched in Minneapolis in 2010, initially sought formal recognition by filing applications for accreditation with the NLRB. The former abandoned this campaign when a judgment declared that the accreditation unit must include all stores in Manhattan. The runner-up narrowly lost a certification vote, and even though that result was later overturned by the NLRB, the union never filed a petition again.
However, as these campaigns progressed from store to store and city to city, they have increased their ability to use direct action tactics at work to achieve gains, including floor mats, tip jars, temperature controls, schedule changes, toilet breaks, increases, paid holidays, the end of employer intimidation and the reversal of certain layoffs.
Since campaigns were more successful with direct action than with legal approaches, the training program has developed further in this direction. Workshops, sometimes given in addition to the training 10, became in August 2010 a full-fledged 102 course: " The committee in action ". Nick Driedger, former member of the Organizers' Training Committee and veteran "dual-carder" of the IWW at Canada Post (see below), notes that the program was created following the concretization of several efforts in organization of the IWW:
The 102 was created after the establishment of a dozen workshop committees in different workplaces. So we started developing a system to collect issues, target the appropriate manager level and bring claims to fruition in a concerted manner (direct action grievance procedure). Emphasis has been placed on creating committees that can last for the long term; some of our committees have existed for about six years.
The training consisted of two parts. The first is tactics March on the boss, where several employees confront a boss about a particular policy or the treatment of employees. First an exercise requiring detailed written answers, this training was transformed into role plays with assignment of roles (lookout, applicant, switch, etc.) and where the trainers took on the managerial role.
Another section of 102 was a section titled " Parts of a Direct Action ", dividing it into ten parts. Among others: " Requirement ", "participants", " witnesses ", " target ", " tactics ", " the results ". This section highlighted the importance of escalating pressure. Furthermore, remarks were made on the difference between "workplace contractualism" and the IWW approach, now called "solidarity unionism". The training discussed referees who make decisions without consequences for their own living conditions, agreements that make most strikes illegal and postpone the treatment of many problems until the next round of negotiations, of these agreements which "make workers lose power during the duration of the contract, usually through clauses prohibiting the right to strike and promoting management rights, and by the recognition of the employers' legitimacy in spirit, in practice and in law ”. The training opposed this model to that of the " workshop committee ". She also discussed onboarding new hires, effectiveness of staking, dealing with retaliation such as dismissals and having good meetings.
As the campaigns multiplied and the training program gained popularity, sections on direct action have been integrated into training 101, which was offered much more frequently than the 102. For its part, the 102 program has become a systematic study of the maintenance of committees and a comprehensive process for handling direct action grievances. The grievance procedure was developed after the success of the "dual carding" campaign at Canada Post in the early 2010s. IWW members within the Canadian Union of Postal Workers created and led a training program titled "Taking Back Control of the Work Floor". Their method was to identify social leaders on the floor and send them through training., using CUPW education infrastructure. Still Driedger:
We have provided these trainings to approximately 160 people and then added them to a text message list…to ensure coordination between shop committees… We have achieved great victories, especially when we forced Canada Post to hire 200 people as management attempted to cut positions through March on the boss style actions involving approximately 2000 workers [and] when we reversed a 30% wage cut for rural letter carriers through a four-day wildcat strike. D’innombrables March on the boss, with blows 8 at 120 workers at a time, have won demands ranging from changes in disciplinary measures to the application of seniority in the selection of delivery routes, through the stoppage of compulsory overtime (which we ended for about 1000 workers for about six years, while it was a widespread practice everywhere in the posts for decades before).
The Course 102 grievance process now included a grievance triage and prioritization activity, as well as an exercise where workers had to be told that their own grievance cannot be dealt with at the moment. The training also addressed issues of democratic accountability related to horizontally worker-led campaigns.
The last revision of the 101 program was spread over the year 2018-2019. It was again the result of new experiences: feedback on the success of the IWW campaign at Ellen's Stardust Diner and the challenges faced by other IWW campaigns.
At Ellen's, the workers went public with their union in August 2016. Management retaliation was felt in the staggering number of 31 unlawful dismissals within the next five months (16 in one day). The union ended up winning the case by reversing the layoffs and winning back wages in a settlement overseen by the NLRB. However, the campaign survived—and the settlement was imposed—thanks to sustained organizing efforts, including the recruitment and training of other workers and the continuation of direct action campaigns in the company, in addition to pickets and pressure campaigns on the issue of reinstatement. Meanwhile, the union has achieved an impressive series of victories, including a new scene, security measures, a breastfeeding room, an increase in staff, substantial repairs, raises for cooks, divers and hosts, and an end to unpaid repeats and tip theft, all without official recognition or negotiation. All of this was made possible by faithfully adhering to existing 101 training guidelines and putting in place a formal structure — union membership and dues payment., elected leadership positions, meetings and motions, a budget. This structure is a counterexample to non-NLRB campaigns which tend to be loosely organized affairs revolving around strong personalities.
In light of this experience, training 101 has been revised to remove the original "campaign timeline" that culminated in the "public release". MK Lees and this author have written two articles in an attempt to summarize the lessons learned from Stardust. The first is called « Do Solidarity Unions Need to “Go Public” ? » (Do the Solidarity Syndicates need to go public?) and underlined that this process was only a vestige of a certification campaign during which the management is officially informed of the union effort and which, from the experience of the IWW, only resulted in retaliation and loss, while the permanent struggles based on grievances did not suffer this kind of decisive backlash.
The other article, « Boom without Bust: Solidarity Unionism for the Long Term » (Explode without bursting: Solidarity Syndicalism in the long term) , was a reflection on how the IWW could maintain its model of non-contractual solidarity unionism in the long term, now that he had a few models to do it. (It must be recognized that the IWW campaigns at Jimmy John's and Starbucks themselves lasted ten years., but they were not very structured and over time, they relied more and more on advertising and the media and less and less on presence on the floor.) The article described the stabilizing organizational characteristics of the Stardust solidarity union. The training program, For its part, refocused on recruiting workers as full members in good standing, and on adopting a systematic approach in general.
The section of the training 101 on employment law, then became an incisive presentation, albeit relatively long political and historical context of the Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley, is now reduced to an inoculation against complaints of unfair labor practices and a general warning against legal procedures. This almost two-hour section has always been very controversial: she was either the most beloved, be the most hated of the participants in their evaluations, but the trainers responsible for reviewing this section realized that its length effectively contradicted its message, to know: set aside labor law and focus on direct action.
Training 101 now ends with a note on "committee sustainability" and "next steps", advising on how workers can "level up" in their campaigns without pulling the trigger on a certification vote or going public to reward their organization, whether envisioned as a triumphant moment or a desperate move to reverse a dip in energy. Rather, we suggest: " to increase the number of members " and "to take care of greater demands ".
The IWW's training program now matches its political rejection of class collaboration and its cynicism about labor rights. However, it was not developed in an ideological or "a priori" way; on the contrary, it gradually condensed about 25 years of experience in real campaigns.
While his original material was borrowed from traditional syndicates, it now stands out in every detail. The AEIOU version of the IWW, for example, is focused on direct action and not on signing a membership card. The program aims to develop broad skills and class consciousness in all workers. The rating scale indicates whether a worker actively contributes to the campaign by participating in one-on-one meetings, direct actions or administrative work, or if his support for the campaign goes beyond words (at the other end of the spectrum: workers passively or actively opposed to the union effort).
This approach also reflects the very structure of the IWW.: very low contribution rates which generally do not allow the financing of paid staff, committees and boards of directors made up of volunteer members, and campaigns in low-wage sectors, with small circles and high turnover, such as retail, fast food, restaurants and call centers, where union members tend to work and where other unions generally do not attempt to certify bargaining units for obvious cost-benefit reasons.
However, not all IWW campaigns subscribe to the approach of solidarity unionism (and this article has only touched on a fraction of the campaigns of the last five decades). There are still certification and convention campaigns within the union, in addition to other organizational models, which is made possible by the fact that the IWW is very decentralized. The 2010s saw a series of accreditation and recognition campaigns — 18 sure 20 have been formally successful — which have resulted in the closure of several of these stores or the disappearance of the union presence in a few years. Le Burgerville Workers Union (BVWU) in Portland, which ran a conventional campaign from the start and is now entering its third year of trading, now asks the rest of the union to allow him to sign a clause prohibiting the right to strike, currently prohibited by the IWW statutes, and has already committed to a grievance arbitration system (where the losing party pays!). This reflects the contradictions, as the first organization manual said, to try to build workers' power within the legal framework of labor relations. In other words, the experiences of the IWW campaigns, even those that do not follow the pattern set in the current organization formation, always reflect the lessons and warnings distilled into its program, if only negatively. But the union as a whole, thanks to its solidarity union model, has passed the stage of a "negotiating union" which is only differentiated by its "cheap dues and the absence of paid leaders". Finally, the union can once again put its revolutionary ideals into practice.
Original text by Marianne Garneau, Chair of the SITT-IWW Department of Education Council and Editor of the Labor Think Tank Organizing Work.
Translation done in January-February 2022 by Felix T. Member of the Montreal local SITT-IWW.
On the other side of the ocean, each
new day of strike up the bar a little higher and is approaching
records set in May 68.
Entering already in its fifth week of activity, the protest movement against the reform of the pension plans currently taking place in France already stands as one of the biggest strikes the country has long been known. The 2 January, railwaymen of the National Society of French railways (SNCF), outperformed strikes 1995 and 2010 and smashed their previous record 28 consecutive days, established 1986.
While nothing suggests a quick exit, many media, such Nouvel Observateur (Note l') and The Independant, announced that the current strike could appear as the third longest in the history of France, just behind the events of May 1968 and the Common Front of 1936. It must be said that the walkout began with great pomp, when the 8 December:
More than a million workers had demonstrated in the streets of more than 300 cities, public transport was stopped in Paris and in many cities many planes remained grounded, more than 70% of teachers were on strike with many schools closed, the staff of public and private hospitals has also been at the heart of the battle. It's the same in private companies, where salairé.es have largely mobilisé.es. (CNT-F)
While some observers have noted some slowing actions that place side by side the employé.es rail and air, Health, education, oil production and some areas of justice, resume negotiations, the 7 January, could very well put oil on the fire.
After blocking the Leo Blanchet plan and deposit the factors Bridge 10 and 12 last December, intersectoral local branch of the IWW-SITT Montreal starts over again by going this time to deposit Marseille in the heart of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
This initiative of the IWW Montreal is part of a broader movement involving all of Canada where recall that since the adoption of a special law, charcutant negotiations and back-to-work letter carrier for Canada Post, shares of blockages and disturbances take place around the country. Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Ottawa, Mississauga, Montréal, Halifax and Sydney are just some of the cities where members of the IWW union or other citizens or groups decided to stand in solidarity with the letter carriers, giving reason to Mike Palecek, National President of the Union of Workers and Workers Post (STTP/CUPW) announcing to the CBC:
« 50 000 syndiqué.es are is forbidden to hold a picket in front of post offices, more 3 millions still have that right. We are not the seul.es willing and ready to defend our right to free collective bargaining! »
Saturday 19 May, more than 150 activists from the Montreal region are gathered es to the Canada-US border to both denounce racist factions are organizing an anti-immigration protest and to challenge the legitimacy of a militarized border, introduced by the colonialists bourgeois states of the so-called "North America". Mainly using the group's organization Solidarity Across Borders, activists boarded buses to downtown Montreal (a time distance from the border), while others have made-es at the project site in car, their own.
The context for irregular crossings
The border between the United States and Canada is an issue of utmost importance for activists in the region. In addition to the deep structural problems affecting the maintenance of borders in the colonialist states, Recent flaws in some state laws motivate more refugee-es to cross the border illegally, on one side or the other. A treaty signed between Canada and the US, called "The Agreement on the Safe Third Country", stipulations qu'un réfugié-and-and in a des deux pays ne peut pas faire une demande d'asile dans l'autre, since each of the two genocidal police bourgeois states consider that both are safe enough to decide the fate of the "poor people" of this world. The exception to this rule is the 'irregular crossing', where an applicant or applicant for asylum in one country or another may go to the other and thus be treated-e if he or she makes this journey through unofficial routes. for example, crossing the border as a refugee-e hoping to apply in Canada or the US, a person will be denied entry to the country if it comes to a customs post, but not if it passes by the many paths, forests and other entry points "unofficial". These laws, as they are, encourage migrants to cross "illegally", this should not be a surprise if several families, migrant-es, refugee-es, Workers across that way.
The reaction of the extreme right
Rather than denouncing the systemic problems at the source of the problem (the bombing and destruction of homes of people living in other countries, and the violent imposition of the capitalist system of exploitation that may well kill here), reactionary factions are trying to crack the company, with the implicit blessing of the elites, to divide and conquer the class of workers. These Canadian factions themselves into paramilitary fascist militias early 20th century (with a modern varnish) almost copied point by point the language and tactics of similar groups of the extreme right, the United States and elsewhere, many of which use a dehumanizing vocabulary to talk about refugee-es, children and families fleeing hostile situations in search of a better life. these splinter groups, especially as "Storm Alliance", "The Pack" and "III% ers", trying to gain legitimacy in civil society by posing as those who demand respect "law and order", among others that may affect the average person. In reality, not only their feeble attempts at civility and legitimacy are based on false premises, but increasingly these groups are filled with a multitude of reactionaries, fascists, neo-Nazis and other assorted members of the extreme right, which are mobilizing a takeover. Other border similar events in 2017 revealed the presence of prominent neo-Nazis and fascists in Montreal these factions, including Shawn Beauvais Macdonald, who was present in Charlottesville for the notorious neo-Nazi demonstration "Unite the Right" (it is not clear if this was the 19 May Lacolle), and was also recently exposed as a member of a neo-Nazi Discord Montreal Forum, under the pseudonym of "friendly fash".
The anti-racist position of the IWW
In solidarity with all the workers and all working, Members of the branches of Montreal and Quebec of the IWW were present Saturday at the border to the against-protest. The migrant and the scourge of the migrant worker is the scourge and the worker. Contrary to reports of false news, people who illegally cross the border not only work hard (it takes courage to cross half the planet with his family), but also their precarious position puts them in an extremely vulnerable position with regard to their jobs. The refugee-es-es are operated by business owners, that can the underpay and overwork as the threat of deportation is often enough to keep total control over them and they. The IWW denounces all forms of wage slavery, particularly with respect to the most vulnerable. The members of the IWW, either individually or by quota, will continue to work in solidarity with groups that are actively involved in the radical transformation of society and the abolition of the capitalist mode of production. Whether on the border issue, counter the anti-immigrant groups, or help workers of all backgrounds to organize their workplace, IWW stands in solidarity with groups and individuals who want to build a better world from the ashes of the old. An attack against a person is an attack against all and all!
Finally, paramilitary neofascist cosplayers were unable to get to their destination originally scheduled, Roxham the way, that connects the US and Canada and is quite popular among those who cross illegally. These activists and present the way Roxham held, in a relatively calm and festive atmosphere. At the official Lacolle by cons, reactionaries could provide a short presence. Despite a strong presence, activists were severely attacked by the state-are the agents of oppression. Highway 15 was seized and blocked by several activists to try to stem the motorcade of racist, or at least to prevent their access to the border as such. Sadly, riot police attacked anti-racist activists, stopping on the way a fellow worker and member of the IWW Montreal. After the activists were removed es Highway, a disturbing scene ensued. The racist convoy received first class treatment by the state with a police escort. Fortunately, comrade temperature brought predict, and almost in the space of an hour, the reactionary left their protest protected by police (also including the presence of Canadian neo-fascist commentator false, « Faith Goldy ») and regained the pathetic dark corners they currently occupy in society.
Motivated by the bourgeois media and literally protected by police, the far right takes advantage of the crisis of advanced capitalism to recruit new members. It is important that as radicals and radical militant activists, that as the working class and as members of the IWW, we mobilize in solidarity with other groups to say: «No Market! The solidarity of the workers broke boundaries and states! " Till next time, the struggle continues!
Saturday May 19th, over 150 activists from the greater Montreal area gathered at the US-Canad border to both denounce racist groups organizing an anti-immigrant demonstration, as well as to call into question the legitimacy of a militarized border enforced by the bourgeois settler colonial states in so called “North America.” Mainly organized by the group “Solidarity Across Borders” (Solidarity Across Borders), activists embarked on busses from the downtown core of Montreal (only about one hour from the border proper) or took personal vehicles themselves to the action.
The context for the irregular border crossings
The border between the United States and Canada has been an especially important issue for activists in the region. On top of the deeper systemic issues with regards to enforcing borders among settler colonial states, more recent loopholes in haphazard state legislation has given incentive to refugees to cross irregularly into either the United States or Canada. An agreement signed between the two nations called the “safe third country agreement” stipulates that a refugee claimant in either country cannot make a claim in the other, as each genocidal bourgeois police state reckons themselves safe enough to help one another gatekeep the world’s “poor and downtrodden.” The exception to this is for “irregular crossings,” whereby a refugee claimant in either country can cross to the other and be processed if they cross through a non-official means. For example, crossing as a refugee hoping to make a claim from the United States to Canada, an individual that enters at an official border crossing will be turned down, but one coming by one of the many roads, forests, and other “unofficial” points of entry will not be de facto denied into the country. The legislation as it is incentivizes people to cross “irregularly” and it should be no surprise that many families, migrants, workers, and refugees cross this way.
The reaction of the far-right
Rather than call out the systemic issues that caused this situation, from the literal bombing of people’s homes overseas, to the violently enforced capitalist system of exploitation that kills here at home, reactionary groups are attempting to create fissures in society, with the implicit consent of the ruling elite, to divide and conquer workers. Groups in Canada that cosplay early 20th-century fascist paramilitary groups (with a veneer of modernity) have nearly copy-pasted the language and tactics used by other far right groups on the American continent and beyond, with many using dehumanizing language to speak of refugees, children, and families escaping dire situations to embetter themselves. These groups, in particular those such as “Storm Alliance,” “The pack,” and the “III%ers,” try to gain legitimacy in civil society by presenting themselves as the groups calling for “law and order,” among other things that may be of concern to the average individual. In reality, not only are their feeble attempts at civility and legitimacy based on false pretences, the groups themselves are fronts for a plethora of far right, reactionary, fascist, and neo-nazis to gather in an attempt to rise to power. Similar border demonstrations in 2017 brought out famous Montreal neo-nazis and fascists on the side of these groups, including Shawn Beauvais Macdonald, an individual who was in Charlottesville for their infamous “Unite the Right” neo-fascist gathering (it was unclear if he was present at Lacolle on the 19th), and who was recently exposed as a member of a Montreal neo-nazi Discord chat as user “friendly fash.”
The IWW anti-racist position
In solidarity with all working people, members of the IWW branches in both Montreal and Quebec City were present at Saturday’s border protest. The plight of the migrant is the plight of the worker. Contrary to fake news reports, people who cross into a state through irregular means are not only some of the hardest workers (it takes guts to travel somewhere half way around the world with your family) but their precarious positions put them in extremely vulnerable labour situations. Migrants are taken advantage of by business owners, who can underpay and overwork them as the threat of deportation is often enough to keep absolute control over them. The IWW denounces all forms of wage slavery, especially in the case of society’s most vulnerable. IWW members, whether as individuals or coming through as a contingent, will continue to work in solidarity with groups that actively participate in the radical transformation of society and the abolishment of the capitalist mode of production. Whether the issue is borders, countering anti immigrant groups, or helping workers of all backgrounds to organize a workplace, the IWW stands in solidarity with groups and individuals that want to build a more equitable society out of the ashes of the old. An injury to one is an injury to all!
By the end of the day, neo-fascist paramilitary cosplayers were unable to go to one of their planned destinations, Roxham Road, a road connecting the US and Canada that is popular with people looking to cross irregularly. Those present at Roxham Road held it and kept a relatively calm and festive mood. Over at the official border crossing of LaColle though, reactionaries were able to maintain a short presence. Despite a large presence, activists were attacked hard by agents of state oppression. Highway 15 was taken and blocked by several protesters in an attempt to get the car convoy of racists to turn back or, at least, not have access to the border proper. Unfortunately, state agents in full riot gear attacked the brave anti-racist activists, arresting a fellow worker and IWW Montreal member in the ensuing clash. After activists were cleared off the highway, a disturbing scene followed. The convoy of racist boneheads were given first class treatment by the state with a police escort. Thankfully, Comrade Weather brought showers, and almost within an hour, reactionary boneheads left their police protected protest (which also included noted neo-fascist Canadian fake news commentator “Faith Goldy”) and went back to the sick sad shadows they currently inhabit in society.
Spurred on by bourgeois media and literally protected by the police, far right groups are taking advantage of the crisis of late stage capitalism to recruit new members. It is important as radicals, and the working class, and IWW members, that we mobilize in solidarity with other groups to say: “No market! Working class solidarity smashes borders and states!” Until next time, the fight continues!
Wednesday February 28th, the Montreal branch of the Industrial Workers of the World (SITT-IWW) started a picket line in front of the distribution centre Heritage Coffee, situated at 5715 chemin Saint-François in Saint-Laurent. This picket line follows the firing of two workers, members of the SITT-IWW, for union organizing. A lot of members called on Monday to communicate to the employer their frustration towards this decision that goes completely against the most fundamental rights of the workers.
Friday February 23rd, around the end of her shift, Tessa Mascia was asked to come in the office of the Chief Operating Officer where she was fired. “The COO handed me a letter and said I was fired. I thought he was joking. He said he was not. He said “it just wasn’t working out,” like he was some teen kid breaking up with a high school hook up.” explains Tessa. The worker was however a good employee. She had one of the highest levels of productivity among her coworkers and was just certified to operate a forklift merely weeks prior. On Monday, February 26th, Kyle Shaw-Müller, another union member, was fired without even receiving a termination letter. He was asked to come into the office of the director after he trying to convince his colleagues to ask the employer to reverse his decision to fire Tessa. “I knew I was putting myself on the line: but to be fired without warning for talking to someone about another firing? Shocking.”
After numerous calls on Monday, a picket and a meeting with negotiators from the Union, the employer is still refusing to cancel his illegal and rash decision. The Industrial Workers of the World will therefore not only call upon the legal means at its disposal, but will also mobilize the strength of its membership (Canadian and International) to change the employer’s mind.
The Industrial Workers of the World has many branches around the world, including one it’s base in Montreal. Its members are working towards the construction of a union modal based on robust working class solidarity, known as Solidarity Unionism. This model is characterized today by a focus on direct action at the workplace, as exemplified in our campaigns at Starbucks Coffee in the United-States or at Frite-Alors! in Quebec. The Union will continue in the creation and deployment of determined flash mobilization networks directly focused at the workplace in solidarity with workers under attack.
Wednesday 28 February, the Montreal section of the Industrial Workers Union and Workers (SITT-IWW) started a picketing the distribution center Café Heritage, located at 5715 chemin Saint-Francois in St. Laurent. This post follows the returns of two workers, membres you SIT-IWW, for union. Several members had already called on Monday to serve the employer their dissatisfaction with this decision which goes completely against the most basic rights of workers'.
Friday 23 February, towards the end of his shift, Tessa Mascia has been convened in the office of Chief Executive Officer or she was fired unceremoniously. "The CEO gave me a letter and said that I was sent. I thought he was joking. He said no. He said it "simply coudn't", as if he were a teenager breaking with a friend from high school. "explains Tessa. The worker was nevertheless a good employee. She had one of the highest productivity among his colleagues and had been certified forklift. It's Monday 26 February Kyle Shaw Müller, another member of the union, was sent home without even seeing deliver a letter. He was called into the principal's office after he tried to convince his colleagues to ask the employer to cancel the dismissal of Tessa. "I knew I was putting myself in danger, but to be dismissed without warning for talking to someone from another returns? Mind-boggling. "
After numerous calls Monday, a picket and a meeting with the negotiators of the Union, the employer still refuses to reverse its decision illegal and thoughtless. The Industrial Union of Workers and Workers therefore called on not only to legal remedies, but the strength of all its membership (Canadian and international) for the employer to listen to reason.
The Industrial Union of Workers and Workers has several branches around the world including one in Montreal. Its members work today to build a union model based on solidarity of the working class. The Solidarity trade union is characterized aujourd & rsquo; hui by the direct struggle in workplaces, for example at Starbucks in the United States or Frite Alors! in Quebec, where working conditions improvements occurred even in the absence of a union certification. The Union is also involved in setting up the flash mob on networks in solidarity workplaces with workers victims of wage theft.