,

Covid-19: Community without plexiglass

If you've taken the Montreal metro in recent days, many of you are a proletarian. You are a cook, cashier, attendant. to the interview, manufacturer, packer, clerk, waiter/waitress in a waiter/waitress in a, short, waiter/waitress in a. waiter/waitress in a, or, waiter/waitress in a, waiter/waitress in a, waiter/waitress in a. waiter/waitress in a.

waiter/waitress in a, waiter/waitress in a, waiter/waitress in a, waiter/waitress in a waiter/waitress in a, waiter/waitress in a, waiter/waitress in a, collateral damage from this pandemic which particularly affects people using our services.

collateral damage from this pandemic which particularly affects people using our services. First, collateral damage from this pandemic which particularly affects people using our services. collateral damage from this pandemic which particularly affects people using our services, collateral damage from this pandemic which particularly affects people using our services, collateral damage from this pandemic which particularly affects people using our services. collateral damage from this pandemic which particularly affects people using our services. Homeless people are asked to self-isolate, Homeless people are asked to self-isolate, Homeless people are asked to self-isolate, Homeless people are asked to self-isolate, Homeless people are asked to self-isolate. Homeless people are asked to self-isolate.

Homeless people are asked to self-isolate, workers and community workers, Homeless people are asked to self-isolate (Homeless people are asked to self-isolate) Homeless people are asked to self-isolate. Homeless people are asked to self-isolate. Homeless people are asked to self-isolate cheap labor Homeless people are asked to self-isolate, Homeless people are asked to self-isolate. Homeless people are asked to self-isolate, it is even more obvious.

it is even more obvious, And this, it is even more obvious. it is even more obvious, it is even more obvious, it is even more obvious. it is even more obvious, it is even more obvious, it is even more obvious. it is even more obvious. it is even more obvious, it is even more obvious.

it is even more obvious. it is even more obvious, taking risks to get food on the shelves or to get someone to a safe place to inject. taking risks to get food on the shelves or to get someone to a safe place to inject. taking risks to get food on the shelves or to get someone to a safe place to inject.

taking risks to get food on the shelves or to get someone to a safe place to inject, taking risks to get food on the shelves or to get someone to a safe place to inject, workers and community workers, taking risks to get food on the shelves or to get someone to a safe place to inject.

taking risks to get food on the shelves or to get someone to a safe place to inject, taking risks to get food on the shelves or to get someone to a safe place to inject, taking risks to get food on the shelves or to get someone to a safe place to inject, of course.

Members of the SITT-IWW Community Workers Union.

Photo credit: Cedric Martin

Rent strike

While the rent strike seems a certainty in major North American cities like Toronto, Montréal, usually if left, seems to have trouble adjusting his violins. This is not because it felt less need. On the contrary. This morning the newspaper Le Devoir revealed that half of workers have less than a month of financial cushion and for half of them and they it is only a short week before completely dry. It is in this context that various channels are heard to address the pressing issue of rent from April 1.

The communications team SITT-IWW Montreal offers here speaking to Tim, Chloé and Alex and Sarah. The first is Tim whose thinking was shared on the RentStrike group Strike rent Montreal, with close to 3500 members. A recent survey shared on the group shows that nearly 20% of them and they will strike at all costs and that 55% Additional questions arise, but would love to participate. Following the announcement internally that we were going to publish this article, two members wanted to add their two cents. Chloé, formerly the Committee Bails Hochelaga-Maisoneuve, currently working in the events and in favor of a more combative line and Alex and Sarah are salaried in housing committees and activists for a long time for the right to housing. They share with us how things are done internally for the organizations in their networks..

Reflection on RentStrike / rent strike – Montréal
Tim, active voice in the movement for the rent strike in the US

I see many calls go to the rent strike from people who have never organized movement of tenants who are not involved in local and national efforts to implement such organizations.

On the one hand, it is a form of dangerous amateurism; the followers of spontaneity like to believe that "if we make claims and people's support, everything will fall into place ". It's suicide, and this is the result of a trend too lazy left to set up the necessary organizations to the struggle in periods of surf between moments of crisis.

Here's what makes a fight is victorious : broad support of our communities, trusting relationships existing between strikers, funds to support strike, and strategy. For the time being, None of this is in place in the "rent strike 2020 ».

On another side, the tenants will not pay money qu'illes lack. Most tenants do not pay their proprios next month not because of ideological beliefs but because qu'illes have no cash. In this sense, we are in the presence of a spontaneous movement, created by last need material needs rather than the extreme left of militancy.

The claims of the rent strike also affect a central political issue : why should we give half our income to a class of parasites that offers us nothing in return? The rent is nothing but a form of racketeering : " paid, I sent you the police to get you out of your home with guns and batons ".

The fact that many cities have put in place moratoria on evictions shows that we have a political momentum to force big concessions to the ruling class. A moratorium on rents and organizing tenants against their landlords to fight for an immediate amnesty for rent (or at least a significant reduction rents) are battles that we can win, and activists should not reduce their efforts just when new opportunities are made possible.

So do not pay your rent if you do not have the means! More, and more importantly, get organized! The fact of organizing will be a thousand times more effective politically only if we act individually in isolation, I can guarantee you! Currently, the movement lacks the capacity to implement its rent strike claims. and activists should not reduce their efforts just when new opportunities are made possible : girls there are uses that are in trouble lorsqu'illes. and activists should not reduce their efforts just when new opportunities are made possible, and get involved in your union nearest tenants, as quickly as possible.

To move forward - and that is probably even more important than whether to support or not the strike claims, moratoria, etc. - we need to prepare our movement for when the ruling class and its government will try to get things in order and impose a return to normal.

A rent strike is questionable in the context where the courts are closed and evictions are not implemented. But in all cases, even if the wheel of justice turn slowly it always ends up crashing his target. Without political intervention sustained basis, we will witness a wave of evictions once the immediate danger is gone coronavirus. and activists should not reduce their efforts just when new opportunities are made possible.

The thing, with radical rhetoric, is that it must be accompanied by actions at some point. It's very nice to chat to strike comfort rents his house behind our screens, and activists should not reduce their efforts just when new opportunities are made possible?

Second reflection on rent strike
Chloé, member of the IWW and ISTC-old employee of the Committee Bails Hochelaga-Maisonneuve

Disclaimer ; I worked in a housing committee 2011 at 2014, So I'm not a person "never organized movement of tenants". On the other hand, I must admit I'm a little disillusioned the community movement. And also, I'm not actively involved currently in the rent strike.

I too have seen pass calls to the strike of the rent. I also read some comments from activists who have reservations face this movement. If I am concerned about how it might take shape outside of social networks, I am disappointed in the response of those who are critical of the initiative.

With almost one million person in Canada, I lost my job in the last days due to the pandemic. I wonder how I'll pay my rent in April and May, because we were told that EI checks take minimally 1 months to arrive. In truth, I know I do not pay you. When I saw the strike call, I felt less alone and I have seen that many other people were in the same situation as me. It reminded me of one of the first things I learned when I started to get involved in the movement for housing rights ; have housing problems, it is not my fault, it is a collective issue and policy. I also learned that the answer to these problems should also be collective and political.

It criticized the initiative of the rent strike for not having followed the logic of organization that has a proven ; be following an already established movement, having made a mobilization-e a-e in our communities, a legal defense strategy, etc. But the situation we are experiencing is unprecedented for our "era". We are confined-e-s home, we can not come together, our housing committees are closed, etc. So we have no choice to change our strategies in the immediate. I think we can not just say that, once the crisis behind us, it will restart more firmly. We can build on the momentum.

The housing committees have already taken the first gain in this fight ; suspension hearings and judgments leading to the eviction of tenants. I think it set the table for the future ; a strike which claims as the rent freeze and mortgages. Otherwise what's the result ? Some-e-s talk seek emergency supplements ? This measure often debate in the middle of the right to housing as it does not question the private rental system, the same cause of our housing insecurity.

Short, I do not understand why people are so reluctant to what the word strike is tacked to our inability to pay our rent. I do not see why not pay in silence would be more favorable. I do not see how not to be part of a movement, although not perfectly organized, will help us.

I think that many questions are legitimate ; what will we do when the Housing Authority will be re-opened and thousands of tenants will receive an eviction notice ? How solidarity will be based out of Facebook after stroke ? ... well we do not strike or, we will face these situations ... so both consider now and plan accordingly, ensemble.

Third reflection on the rent strike
Alex, membre du SITT-IWW, and Sarah, sympathetic, work in housing committees and have long campaigned for the right to housing.

We are workers in Housing Committees or involved for several years in groups for the right to housing. Our opinions are our own and do not represent the positions of the organizations we work for, neither of their groupings.

The massive unemployment of a large part of the population brings its share of worries. Gradually, as the stores, convenience stores and other restaurants close, feeling of insecurity increases. Several workers and salarié.e.s workers submitted their application for employment insurance and still await any sign of the Canadian state that their request has been lodged and well fed. Others have applied for financial assistance from the Government of Quebec and are waiting to know whether they will be eligible or not. There are also those who were already on last-resort assistance programs and whose incomes are greatly limited, whose health is at risk or who are not eligible for any program because on social assistance and / or living on the black market.

We wonder how we will survive if we eat the rest of our savings on the 1st of the month. several tenants, in addition to the stress of payment (or not) their rent, live a package of housing problems that accumulate for some time.

Following pressure by FRAPRU and RCLALQ, many gains have been made, but it is still insufficient. Hearings deemed non-essential have been suspended. For the duration of the health crisis, the tenants will not see or expulsé.e.s évincé.e.s their homes. Still, we expect massive crowding out once the health crisis is over, whether for non-payment, frequent delays, or in connection with a lease agreement or terminated following judgment. The Quebec government now recommends not to visit physical housing for the duration of the crisis. The inspecteurs.trices municipal services and extermination services are maintained, but everything is in slow motion, and there is intervention only in urgent cases. It is also asked to provide emergency rent supplements, to facilitate and accelerate access to financial assistance from the various levels of government, and finally that any eviction attributable to the non-payment of April is prohibited.

Meanwhile, more or less organized individuals and autonomous collectives have launched calls for a rent strike. Some facebook pages have been created as well as discussion groups. Several conflicting and sometimes false then circulated : the owners would have a tax holiday and mortgage payment, people who do not pay their rent would not be prosecuted, etc. We will not comment on the falsehoods that circulate, but rather invite you to consult your local housing committee as well as this page : : https://grevedesloyers.info/legal/. If a ban on evictions of tenants who have not paid their rent by April 1 was decreed, nothing indicates that political strikers, those who have written publicly and informed their owner that he or she does not pay, support to tenants unable to pay, would be spared.

Housing committees and our groups are asked to, FRAPRU and RCLALQ, to support these initiatives. National groups currently have no mandate to support a general rent strike. Even between workers, between members of boards of directors (THAT) active national and activist groups with which we have a more frequent connection, we are very far from having a consensus, and this is not yet the case nor within the work teams, nor within local CAs. In the internal discussions we had between workers, many consider that participating in a rent strike involves risks for vulnerable tenant households which are greater than the earnings prospects of a movement does not mobilize critical mass. In short several misgivings expressed.

You should know that the level of local groups, like many other workers, we are either unemployed since Monday, is in the process of transferring our legal information services from our premises to teleworking. Renters Assistance applications are still ongoing, we have our members to reassure and inform of the situation. As any group with a certain structure, our decision making processes sometimes take a while. It operates democratically. It adopts an annual action plans, adopted by our members, which then participate in its realization in work committees or mobilization committees. Our local being closed, we are presently unable to consult, to collectively assess the pros and cons of the proposed actions, and even less to bring our proposals to groupings, something that must also be made in a general assembly. In short, for the time being, housing committees focus on providing legal information and are therefore available to answer legal questions. It will probably not be possible for them to position themselves by the rise or failure of the movement.

The permanence of our groups are currently working on a package of issues, ranging from historical claims (public housing, gel rents, register leases), claims related to the health crisis : Emergency measures for tenants, moratorium on evictions, owner of the right of, and this while the housing committees are closed or under reorganization, and many tenants are turning to consolidation to be informed about their rights. The groups therefore appear to have concrete demands they know to win the short to medium term and whose actions would quickly apply without subject of lengthy and costly disputes a government usually tries to avoid. That does not mean that these groups can not effectively support the strikers' demands, but they make choices based on these capabilities and the state of mobilization, both internally, that in our groups and in civil society.

FRAPRU and RCLALQ accumulate between them over 80 years of advocacy experience, mobilization and representation. The salarié.e.s and militant.e.s within it saw in passing rent strikes, occupations, mobilisations, economic or health crises, disaster. This long experience allows them to have an enlightened perspective on where gains are to be made., where risks are taken, and what it takes to build a strong social movement. Without necessarily agreeing with their present positioning, one must consider their reluctance and their views on the subject.

A general rent strike is an ambitious project that will require a lot of organization. From what I know, This idea came out publicly there is less than two weeks and is currently very marginal. It is true nevertheless that a social crisis is a factor accelerating the development of a social movement. Several means of action and dissemination are available but have not been discussed. Put a white cloth to signify solidarity, write to the owner, Contact our local elected officials, make poster campaigns, discuss with our neighbors, it takes time.

Are we ready to lead a rent strike? Is the goal of holding a rent strike for April 1 realistic? Is the risk taken now worth the effort? It is currently uncertain. It lacks several conditions for different groups and individu.e.s currently at work can develop a strong and combative social movement. By next month, we will have time to think of ways to meet, discuss, develop our claims, our organization and means of action in favor.

In solidarity with you,
Alex (x377511) and Sarah (sympathetic)

Photo credit: https://www.facebook.com/grevedesloyers2020/

How capitalism killed (and still kills) the music ?

It is not uncommon to hear that music was better at one time as it is today. Indeed, when looking at the great landscape of pop music, it is easy to notice a marked decrease in the quality and musical diversity, but its originality (always the same 4 accords, it has even become a running gag) and quality of texts. One might think wrongly that this is another manifestation of this old saw that "everything was better in time", but empirical data validating this claim exist (see this article for more detail).

The "old" industry then we say we come, young people, soaps not make good music. We will answer them as soon as these extremely condescending attacks and empty of substance have absolutely no place and anyone interested a bit in the middle of the underground music also knows. In the facts, originality and talent are always présent.es, but you just have to bother to look elsewhere than in industry and radio. As a professional in the field, I would say that the accuracy of devices today and unattainable quality standards which recorded music habitué.e.s us like auto-tune, realigned the percussion on the metronome, the sampling to give more power to the drummers, the voices doubled to give more texture, ultra-compression, etc., forcing artists to be more likely to live at the time performant.es! for example, know how to play the show in metronome was not a standard 1990. today if. And let me tell you it is a major challenge. The problem is not the level of artists.

So what happens there with music ? And what does it take to save ?

Well… I think an anticapitalist perspective on the situation can illuminate many dark areas that are neglected by the usual critics, but also possibly find possible solutions to the problem. Let me give you my views on the situation!

"There's been money"

In the capitalist system, The force of the war, is money. money, it is first of all the resources that allow us to do what we want (or what needs to be done), but the primary motivation behind the choice of investors. It is also important to distinguish these two things since the first defines why émergent.es artists can no longer make music quality and the second is why pop artists are "arriving" (understatement as this is deliberate) neither. They govern both human behavior, but in a different way because in different contexts, but give substantially the same result.

But back on topic : money no longer goes into the coffers ! Why? Well, several reasons for this : there including the fact that our economic conditions diminish more and more each year since the arrival and rise of neoliberal ideology that has axed the unions and the welfare state. Put another way : In 2019, everyone is poor! There are also stricter laws on drunk driving that reduce the consumption of people in bars and theaters (measure with which I obviously agree, but this effect is still verifiable). There is also the arrival of social media and the internet which we go out less than before. However, The most obvious reason is the good old hacking. This is why the industry hoarse to tell us that is the reason why nothing goes and from a strictly economic point of view, she still partially due. But ultimately, it's kind of bullshit…

I admit it, I must say that I have long had this speech too, but the anticapitalist I became in the last years sees things differently. My position today rather pushes me to ask people to explain WHY (and I wish reasons that go beyond "because capitalism") should pay for art? Tell me why art, as was the food and knowledge, could not and should not be free and available to everyone at any time and without reservation? Tell me, if we accept that patents are an obstacle to progress, imposed to meet the financial interests of his / her owners at the expense of the community, how the copyright principle is different ? Do not you think that artists should have other sources of funding and income than those from the wild capitalism? That the artist un.e value comes down to anything but the money he or she can generate? Tell me what sense finally ends up with the art if the reason behind it is partly or completely Money?

I think it is obvious that there is a huge problem when it comes to bring art in a capitalist logic. Anyone quel.le leftist, amateur.trice artist or art obviously knows the, but unfortunately, industry and private radio will never want to change about it since this would run counter to their financial interests. This is not a neoliberal government as the CAQ or conservative as the CCP understand the importance of pouring public funds into art.

Also, albeit tell the fermé.es minded artists on the sources of funding / alternative income and industry, it now seems clear that stopping to "stream" or hack a large part of the music we listen too much limit the amount of music that we could listen to one dares to bend this retrograde idea. Let's, our appetite / love for music is generally much too big for us to limit ourselves, say… 200$ music CDs or purchased online. We should dare to say loud and clear as amateurs and amateur art it is absurd that economic limitations prevent us to discover and share new talent. We should say loud and clear that art and knowledge should be disseminated without restriction and should not be owned by anyone. We should finally say loud and clear that one person steals hacking and that it is rather celleux who sell us something that should be free flying we. radical position, but assumed.

Industry class The Interest

Good… Anyone who understands the basic concepts of the Left knows she think much in terms of "antagonistic social classes" and "class interests". In French? This simply means that all the money and power of the upper classes (owners, patrons, governments, etc.), this is money and power that the lower social classes (tenants, employé.es, citoyen.nes, etc.) do not have, and vice versa. This makes us ennemi.es naturel.les because if we want something, we must remove them and vice versa. We therefore necessarily be in conflict as long as classes exist.

Why am I talking about this ? I arrive there ! It is that to understand why the quality of the artists as human beings and the content of their text seems to decrease from year to year, one must understand that the texts un.e artist and his political positions are filtered by the "machine" and its interests. As un.e employé.e can not speak out against his boss without being renvoyé.e or not to be engagé.e, artists can not criticize the music industry, sexist practices or other bars where ial occur or radios playing if this may have financial implications for elleux or industry. In the opposite case, they more and they boast that generates revenue (especially alcohol sales), and the more they risk being well accueilli.es. This helps explain why it is so common to hear and see hymns to the consumption of drugs and alcohol, to "large tanks", unnecessary luxury, etc. in pop. It is simply that the bars and sponsors radios, shows, television and tours sell.

The same thing happens at a much smaller scale and in a different way in the underground when artists become showcases for instruments companies, clothing, etc. to achieve self-financing or when they accept or to play with as one salary "visibility" (pity that the same strategy will not work with Toyota when I want to go buy a new Prius). We are then left with a world of music that self-censorship, but also that folds to market requirements in order to survive or to make more money (I also made myself at the time). It is then not surprising that the quality of texts or celebrity as a human being is poor, even fearful, but above all it is very claimant in terms of class struggle.

Short, this is why we find very few actually superstars left, actually informed, really relevant, while leftists are nevertheless on-représenté.es among artists. It is also for this reason that such a small part of the artists receive as large a share of the cake and it will be my next point.

The stars vs. democratization

The industry bombards us with its stars. They are rich and famous and it seems that we should love them for it. But why? Are they really the elite of raw talent ? Are they so interesting? Why do we need to have the stars (mostly so meaningless and more) and especially, what implies the presence of stars for others, "non-stars" ?

Think for a moment the class principle mentioned above : if industry provides (for example) 75 % airtime and media attention to say… 0.1 % artists, what is left for 99,9 % remaining? You understand that the answer is "nothing". Far be it from me whining about my fate artist who has worked for years and that was never paid accordingly, What interests me here is not the fact that the far majority of artists will never connu.es, but the extreme disproportion of attention put on a small number of people and the reasons behind this phenomenon.

First of all, it is necessary to understand how are "created" the stars, because yes, they are created! Good… as in any aspect of capitalism, it takes money to make money, and the world of music is no exception. If you believe the artists who pass on the airwaves, make movie soundtracks and are mis.es forward are because people had originally requested, you are wrong! The truth is that we rather pushes them into the groove until it clings and give them our money. for example, to a title a 'hit', record companies sometimes pay sums up to 1 million US en promotion. Only by putting the amount they manage to exceed the promotion by their competitors and maximize their investment.

Sure, million is a whopping! It ensures that the record companies do not distribute these golden tickets, such as caramels and one click selects artists within the specific framework to maximize sales will sélectionné.es to climb to the top. These are artists who become millionaires our stars who have all the media attention and airtime. And too bad for others!

Let's… it could "maybe" still pass if it were a question of talent and we recognize the meilleur.es among meilleur.es, but we are talking about business, point final ! It is not "what is the best product", but "with which the more money we will do" in question. This is what made us end up with all the candy pop and easy listening since we for many psychological reasons (you can listen to the first video I put link that explains quickly), this is the type of music that generates the most money. That's why the stars exist and how they are created.

Good, now, the flip side? Is that since all the resources are found concentrated in the hands of a few people, others starve. It's just one more version of "how capitalism works" and it keeps quality music from democratizing, to diversify and to be presented to the general public just like any other good or service, no matter what the free market apostles say, who believe exactly the opposite but are completely disconnected from reality.

Now, let's imagine for a moment that things are different, you want? Imagine a world in which there is no capitalism, so no money to make, so no advertising, so not these distortions. Do you think that the most popular artists would be those of today and to a comparable extent? Certainly not ! Art would be very different : First, all artists would be equal and equal and would start from the same point. Ensuite, artists would have the opportunity to create without thinking of selling and their audience could go to see them on stage and consume their music without having to pay and limit themselves to a budget. None of the barriers and distortions that capitalism creates would be present. We would have artists who make music and people who listen to it, and that's all ! Music would finally become what it should have always been : art ! And it would also democratize : everyone could do it and everyone could listen to it, whether performing or recording.

Alas, the industry is preventing that and you have to understand it, it cannot be reformed. The heart of the matter is not that the people at the top are stingy or that the culture around them is bad, it's just that "mechanically", it is caught in the spiral of the capitalist system and that as long as it lasts, it will keep spinning inside of it. Short, it’s a system issue, no culture.

Okay, but while waiting for the revolution, what do we do?

Well, first of all, it is important to understand that many of the actions we can do today would improve things within the system and lead us to revolution at the same time. The revolutionary syndicalist that I am thinks that it is even much more likely that we will succeed in bringing down this rotten system by passing through this avenue than by simply saying "revolution or nothing" since to make things change, first you must have learned to work as if you were no longer in capitalism while you are still inside it. The idea is that if we make the revolution and try to learn to make society work in socialism-libertarian only when it is in progress, we will realize that we should have experimented and run the process well before. The other thing, it is by organizing and fighting that we can show the world that the society we aspire to can exist and that this is how we can prove to people that we are not vulgar "shoveling clouds". But OK, I digress. Let's go back to the original subject :

What can we do today to create a left tangent for music? Well here are some ideas :

  1. Continue to encourage your favorite artists as much as you can, especially the freelancers, because they need it the most. At the same time assume the fact of pirating or listening to illegal streaming of that of others while maintaining that the solution does not go through the consumers., but by the abolition of the system or by subsidies for which you should moreover fight if you wish to be coherent.. Furthermore :
    1. Download the music you plan to listen to regularly. Artists love this and the bandwidth, it is very little ecological.
    2. Streamez sur Bandcamp, Spotify, etc. rather than unofficial artist accounts on YouTube. Not only is this better for artists, but the sound quality is better and audio formats only take less bandwidth than videos.
    3. Buy directly from artists, avoiding intermediaries as much as possible. Purchases made directly at concerts are generally the most profitable for your favorite artists.. If you hesitate between different options, ask the artists you love directly how they prefer to encourage them and you will have the answer.
  2. Artistes, unite! Organize your scene. Create unions that will allow you to demand minimum conditions to perform, but also to take out the racists, sexist and other assholes in your scene. Treat artists who deviate from conventions that you are going to have established like the SCABS that they are. Respect the conditions and conventions of the staff of the performance halls too. Solidarity is for everyone. Do it too, never forgetting that it's not about your fans that you should type, but in the pockets of the state (ask for grants) and private companies that hire you or sign contracts with.
  3. In addition to DIY (do it yourself), try to sign or work as much as possible with cooperative and / or self-managed companies. It’s better for you and it’s better for everyone at the end. Support the expropriation / reappropriation efforts of large companies / organizations by workers. Propagate this culture through your interventions in the media, in your shows, in your words, etc.
  4. If you work in the industry (labels, studios, bars, theaters, radio stations, etc.), organize your workplaces and the industry as a whole to kick the bosses out and take over the businesses and turn them into self-managed cooperatives. When the industry is left, even if we are still in the capitalist system, his values ​​and ethics will change.
  5. If you don't work in the industry yet, but want to start, obviously do it by forming self-managed cooperatives.

Short, work by uniting against your class enemies and, as is often said among IWWs : build the society of tomorrow in the shell of that of today.

If you want to discuss it with me and have an industry organization plan, all contact information is at the bottom of this article. You can also contact your local IWW branch.

Good fight !

Anar Kitty

[email protected]

https://www.facebook.com/anarkittyband

https://anarkitty.bandcamp.com/releases

Financing the baton rather than social

We know it, our social safety net is under attack from all sides. Under pretexts as false as cheaps, the state takes responsibility away to the delight of employers. In health, in social services and education, it's hard. more each year we are asked to do less or as little. We see people that accompanies eating the fly to the economic and social level, if not literally; and lack of resources, it burns and is exhausted. Le burn out musical, this is the reality for the majority of people who work in the community.

On the other hand, we, workers and community workers, have "partners" often imposed not living the violence of capitalism, or even worse that apply directly violence, namely police. Moreover, their number, their equipment and resources continue to grow. This means that the state and its various levels investing heavily in repression, profiling and intimidation rather than inclusion, prevention and various social services (health, education, communal, etc.). It is a political choice.

In street work in the Village and Downtown, we often get to see in action the agents of neighborhood stations 21 and 22. A nice cocktail of intimidation, harassment and profiling against people who are homeless or marginalized. There are agents who give false quadrangles (a prohibition on being a territory) the street people, illegally giving the judge status. There are cops who routinely challenge local young people by their surname by asking them if they are mandated, whether they can stop and remind them who the boss. There are police officers who board the young and old, they confiscate their dope, take them away in the east of the city to better give up without a coat or shoes, away from their usual corner. There are policemen, speaking of red earth floor beaten in northern Émilie-Gamelin park where consumers settle, call this area the "litter".

You'd swear (sic) their role is to feel the "undesirable" that their presence in this very commercial environment is barely tolerated…Many invested money that would be more than welcome in the community sector. Must believe that the priorities of public bodies are not the same as ours.

More, we often end up in dealer with police in consultation bodies which we participate. It is rather ironic that the cops are considered important stakeholders to discuss issues such as fighting poverty and improving the welfare and safety of people living different issues. See them speak on these issues is not only painful but also very frustrating when we know very well that our recommendations, Workers Community, will not really taken into account and that the institution they work for will do exactly the opposite, that is to say, continue to repress and criminalize the poor and marginalized. Even worse, very well that when a Community event will we know, finally heard our demands, we who daily work with the most vulnerable people, they will be there to watch us, or bludgeon us if we have the misfortune to be too disturbing-e-s.

As workers and community workers, we denounce police brutality, the almost total impunity that the police has, but also our various levels of government that will not only punish those gestures but subsidize them with their hundreds of millions each year. C'est pourquoi nous nos invitons classmates and allié-and-s du communautaire in a participer the demonstration against police brutality on Friday 15 mars next. We will be there with our union colors, solidarity!

 

A worker and a worker of the Community Committee SITT-IWW Montreal.

 

Text originally published in the 2019 State newspaper of Police Collective Opposed to Police Brutality.

Photo credit: The activist.

The Origins of Solidarity Unionism: Minority report 5

During the recent training of IWW organizers, we talked about the kind of agreements that union solidarity could do with a boss. After all, we aim to ensure better conditions and to take advantage, which means , Firstly, to negotiate with management and commemorate the agreements we have concluded.

 

The readers of my topics I will regularly criticize contract elements, in my opinion, should be excluded if we want to be a strong movement. Some of these elements are desired by the union bureaucracies rooted, some are desirable for management, and some serve both interests, while abandoning the workers. I speak deductions of union dues, prerogatives of management and no-strike clauses. There are other characteristics of the contracts, such as binding arbitration as the last step of a grievance procedure, deadlines that promote management, the '' zipper clauses '' and so on, I regularly complain.

But what are the types of agreements that we should conclude, so? Generally, I speak of the agreements in terms of using direct action to take power on specific situations and negotiate to commemorate the result. But there are elements in the current contracts that are very useful. What remains to be seen, that is if a more comprehensive agreement that truly protects and extends the rights of working men and women can be negotiated in the current climate.

 

In my opinion, when negotiating, the workers should seek:
1) the end of the employment status "OTC";
2) a grievance procedure;
3) all economic improvements and working conditions they may wish and;
4) past practices clauses.

Most contracts contain a clause of "progressive discipline" or "termination for cause", that effectively terminates the employee status '' OTC ''. I would be interested to hear unionists seasoned-e-s the kind of progressive discipline provisions that have worked well in their experiments. One of them we have negotiated here based on the idea not to make it easy to discipline e-s-employed for simple wrongdoing. Management was obliged for each discipline to write an essay on the good qualities of the disciplined person, specify how to improve performance and meet regularly with the person concerned to discuss progress. Because it's a bit painful to do this, only the most serious offenses are identified, and former insignificant disciplines have simply disappeared.

Grievance procedures are systematic way the problems that arise in a factory are treated. Many clauses limit the definition of a complaint to the matters covered by the contract, thus reducing the ability of working people to file grievances on matters not provided for in the contract. It could be argued that the questions that are not covered by the contract are exempt from limits resolutions prohibited in the contract, then maybe not this is the worst thing that can happen. But having a procedure that management had agreed to follow when a conflict occurs can be very advantageous for workers.

Too often, I saw the wind out of the sails of organizing campaigns with promises of leadership that are never delivered. A clear process demonstrates to everyone when it is being ejected-e-s, and workers may well decide quickly how to raise the bar. I prefer that the last step of the grievance procedure is actually a gray area where nothing is assured. Yes, have steps ahead – meetings to discuss the issue, put in writing, bring a mediator, and everything that makes sense in the structure of your workplace. But to rely on a third party – that did not work under the agreement that it requires you to submit – to take the final decision is not ideal. Past practice clauses actually say: "Unless we reach an agreement, the workplace remains as currently. "What this has the effect of putting the burden of change in the workplace on the employer's shoulders. They must come to the union to talk about the changes and the union may or may not be consistent, or negotiate. When workers decide that a situation must be resolved, the grievance procedure can be used to bring the discussion to the calendar. These clauses have largely disappeared current contracts, but I think it's time for a rebirth.

 

The series of “minority reports” was written and published in 2002 on the website of the IWW, by Alexis FW Buss.

Link to original article: https://www.iww.org/about/solidarityunionism/explained/minority5

The Origins of Solidarity Unionism: Minority report 4

Most union campaigns are organized around the problems experienced in the workplace or in a specific industry. Workers set up committees, a campaign is launched, and the problems experienced in the workplace are explained so as to increase the support given to the union. Generally, this type of organization is obtaining formal recognition by employers in accordance with legal procedures in place, to a collective agreement is negotiated.

 

But what happens when it comes time to negotiate the Convention? It is wrong to believe that labor and management are involved in this process on an equal, and that this process is emerging agreement that benefits everyone. In the context of accredited unionism, unions enter into the negotiation process in a weak position : their legitimacy as a union and the satisfaction of their claims primarily depend on the good faith of the employer class, rather than the implementation of proactive responses.

 

The concept of "labor peace", applied in Canada including the Rand Formula and the adoption of laws for union certification, As was the case of employers that governments and union bureaucracies : employers had enough of fighting unionism and its disruptive methods (occupations, manifestations, strikes, sit-ins, etc.), governments were tired of having to help large companies to Sort this out after every labor dispute, and the trade union bureaucracy was tired of having to "manage" the members who claim to be respected. The system of collective agreements was therefore set up to give the employers a legal responsibility to negotiate the conditions of workers with union, framed by rules and laws that essentially restrict the labor scope to legal and rhetorical joust.

 

Traditionally, it is assumed that as the target company is profitable, unions and the employing class enjoying the renewal of collective agreements or the renegotiation of employment contracts to improve conditions for workers. However, this is not the case : it is very common that companies, unionized or not, close plants, branches or offices, abolish positions, reduce wages and benefits, and generally show no compassion for workers, even when business is good. Furthermore, it is common - and generally expected - that the agreements and contracts contain a series of clauses and managerial prerogatives completely useless and absurd, even harmful, for workers.

 

Since many unions seem to believe that workers should be "e-s-managed" by bosses who do what they want, Most collective agreements and employment contracts traded give the employers a total control over the workplace. Furthermore, by collecting contributions directly on the payroll of their members, accredited unions have an interest in encouraging them not to strike, or lose a portion of their income and having to support the strikers disturbances.

 

When we think about the means available to us to transform the trade union movement, we must take into account these elements, and can not limit ourselves to saying "better organize our workplaces"; As we have not solved the problem obliging unions which do nothing to help their members take control of their environments, we will be stuck-e-s in a loss to negotiating paradigm with an entrepreneurial class that decides the agenda.

 

Comment, so, do we get out of this game which we do not have written rules? We must first and foremost stop making legal recognition and contract negotiation top priorities. Although our unions and solidarity networks must be able to act to resolve issues at the source of most union campaigns (wages, social advantages, working conditions, etc.), it is absolutely necessary to be respected as workers, as well as having control over our workplaces and on how our work connects us to our community and the world. We need to create a context in which they are the bosses and bosses, and not the unions, who want the signing of an agreement; we must create an environment in which it is the employers who fell to his guns to get our collaboration. This is an important part of the potential offered by the solidarity struggle unionism.

 

The objective of this unionism, as promoted by the SITT-IWW, is to organize the workers so that our power can not be ignored by employers and governments, or recovered by facade union. The Solidarity trade union movement is one of the ways to achieve it, since the goal of our struggle is not simply to sign a contract or obtain legal status.

 

In fact, as much as possible, we must avoid giving our collective power to substitute a contract or a legal framework; if the contracts and agreements help us make our bosses and bosses accountable by obliging them to respect their commitments, it is very good. But if negotiation is not a process by which we negotiate what we lose as rights and benefits, and by which we legitimize a total employers' control over us as workers, there is definitely something wrong.

 

Note: This article was translated from English and adapted to the Canada-Quebec reality by x377545. In the original text, the author evoked specifically in the American context the procedure Card check recognition and union election process, supervised by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

 

The series of “minority reports” was written and published in 2002 on the website of the IWW, by Alexis FW Buss.

Link to original article: https://www.iww.org/about/solidarityunionism/explained/minority4

The origins of Solidarity Unionism: Minority report 3

In this section, and other opportunities, I wrote about the major advantage enjoyed by the ISTC-IWW compared to corporatist unions. Particularly with respect to our approach allows any worker or workers to get involved and to find meaning to his involvement with the union, and that a majority of colleagues has demonstrated his desire or not to negotiate with the boss. I named the minority unionism.

There are other benefits to SITT-IWW — we believe in the principle of one vote per member. Any and all responsible and representative and union representative is elected-e and see these posts frequent turnover. Any structural change of the union is subject to a vote, including the amount of contributions and constitutional amendments : democracy. Our members are very motivated es to fight to win better working conditions. The Wobblies are often the first and first to arrive on a picket line and the last and last to leave, even when the action does not affect them directly : militancy. These elements should not make us unique, but it is unfortunately too often the case.

A growing militancy and democracy can only benefit every worker organization, especially corporatist unions and there are people who work very hard for such reforms. These remain good minor reforms to the unions that remain quietly within the Labor Code.

Since I wrote the first edition of this topic, I realized how much the idea of ​​minority unionism disturbs the pattern of major unions, especially when it comes to court. Let's look at a hypothetical example:

Alice, an employee of the loading dock at Best Buy, is told that she has to buy his own safety shoes. It is legal. She does not pay, these shoes are expensive. Let's, for the need of the cause, that most of his colleagues feel the same. The Directive, which was forwarded them to be applied in two weeks.

Alice speaks with an electrician who came to install a new gadget store. He is a member IBEW (The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) and told him, if it were unionized, she would not have this problem since the union would ensure that the company pays for safety equipment.

Alice calls IBEW and says it wants to join the union. It is sheer madness to his interlocutor ears. It would have to follow the apprenticeship program and the waiting list is long. Furthermore, there is not enough work in the area to justify new members. Alice hangs up, baffled by this contact with the craft union.

She speaks with a truck making a delivery. The driver is a Teamster. He also told him to form a union is the right way to resolve their situation. Alice therefore calls the Teamsters and request to join the union. Let's say we have here is a section that is experimenting a bit with the minority unions as they are campaigning in Overnite (transport company) and have had to develop a strategy allowing them to hold a union presence in the workplace (Note that I say this to the discussion purposes — it's not something that really happened). The Teamsters answered him, "Yes, join us."

However, a colleague Alice has a brother who works in the public sector, also on loading docks, and is represented by SEIU (Service Employees International Union). This colleague becomes SEIU member.

the UFCW (United Food & Commercial Workers), representing retail industry workers, Wind of what unfolds and requires the transfer of these two members in name, that the AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor – Congress of Industrial Organizations) grant them. Neither union members do not want to be affiliated UFCW saw their inability to adequately represent workers in supermarkets across the country. Instead, they decide to buy their own safety shoes and give up the idea of ​​a union.

Although the above scenario is fictional, I think it illustrates the problems that would surface area in the event that the corporatist unions adopt a minority unionism strategy or a direct affiliate program. The reason I think the situation would unfold well — maybe not every time, but often enough to make it problematic — is that the corporatist union abandoned the minority unionism 1935 and when they pleaded es for the Wagner Act.

The Wagner Act — well what offer some protection to workers involved in minority unionism campaigns through its clauses protecting the concerted action — was greeted with open arms by the union leaders. Indeed, it guarantees exclusive bargaining rights to unions won powers of representation, while facilitating the management of the clauses related to members, such as collecting contributions. The AFL-CIO has pushed even further with, within its structure, anti-poaching judicial language and having protected the worst affiliates, preventing workers accentuate the democratic aspects activists and union representatives.

In Australia, the government, accredited and bosses have cut workers' industrial landscape jurisdictions countries unions. The unions have exclusive rights trading industry standards such as leave, salaries, the safety standards, hours and working conditions. They have the right to negotiate whatever members density, but the results of these negotiations affect all and all workers and industrial workers, union members or not. When a worker or a worker becomes a member or, it is usually to tackle a problem on their own workplace. A worker can become a union member and used to agitate for its own sake or for the workplace full. Given the history of American unions fighting for legal rights, I can imagine a system based on that of Australia, but without the right to represent an entire industry.

This would be implemented by the AFL-CIO that would cut the jurisdictions and approve that only unions having a presence in some industries may be a member or working there. The majority of this work has already been done, it has only been sidelined with the latest most difficult years. The Australian system was put in place because the working activity was up. Many moved from one union to another, changing organization as it saw them looking for a maximum level of militancy. Rather than encouraging devotion, the choice was made to control the workers by not allowing them membership in specific circumstances.

interesting note : the Australian system is not actually an industrial unionism. for example, there is a union secretaries. The secretaries are an indispensable part of almost any industry, but rather than being members of the union that represents them, and they are represented by an art-craft union. Ironically, although the vast majority of secretaries are women, the union is controlled by anti-feminist men, mainly because of some union members have the right to vote. The union is very little actually to organize the people it represents and even tries to counter any attempt at reform by members. The union can behave that way since it can retain its bargaining despite a very small amount of members, allowing a very small group of individuals unpopular among secretaries to be the sole representatives.

To return to the Alice scenario, that would SITT-IWW in this situation? We occupy ourselves with immediate safety shoes. Alice would initially contacted either with an intersectoral local or regional industrial council, an organization that serves to unify workers regardless of their industry. It would be in contact with other members, would provide training and would find solidarity. She would learn how to organize themselves to achieve gains as well as how to build a trade union presence in the workplace.

The SITT-IWW is open to all workers and all workers and our system of industrial unions is designed to increase our strength report. The only reason would have to wonder what industrial union join is to give us the best possible negotiating power, not to protect territory. The SITT-IWW opposed the Wagner Act when thinkers who created it made him the first draft. This is because we have seen the danger of the fact of relying on laws to organize the working class in our place and we did not want the cumbersome bureaucracy, the short-sighted and methods of separation of the corporatist unions.

Building our movement in this way makes us deeply only. We choose to experiment with new methods of organization, methods that have the potential not only to successfully provide for smaller claims, but also the potential to create a movement that can make a real difference.

 

The series of “minority reports” was written and published in 2002 on the website of the IWW, by Alexis FW Buss.

Link to original article: https://www.iww.org/about/solidarityunionism/explained/minority3

The origins of Solidarity Unionism: minority report 2

At the most recent General Assembly of the IWW, I had the chance to participate in a panel discussion to share ideas on how to rebuild the labor movement. My exchange theme was minority unionism. Here are some excerpts:

 

If the unions must become a movement, we must come out of the current model, based on a recipe increasingly difficult to prepare: a majority of workers vote union, a contract is negotiated. We must return to the kind of unrest that has earned us the eight-hour day and built the unions as a vital force. One way of doing this is what is now called the “minority unionism”. It's a question of constituting organized solidarity networks and significant improvements can win on individual workplaces, in industries and for the benefit of the international working class.

 

The minority unionism occurs on our own terms, irrespective of the legal recognition. It is not a question of simply creating a small clique of professional malcontents. It should rather aspire to grow, but in the short term, He gives an example of possible types of organization when we decide that our unions will exist because we need.

 

Diets working relationship between the United States and Canada are established on the assumption that the majority of workers must have a union, generally approved by the government in a global context, which is relatively rare. Even in North America, the idea that a union needs official recognition or majority status for the right to represent its members is relatively recent, mainly thanks to the choice of the unions to the legal trade of membership guarantees.

 

The labor movement was not built by the majority unionism – it could not exist. A hundred years ago, the unions had no legal status (indeed, courts have often ruled that unions were an illegal conspiracy and constituted a form of extortion) – they were recognized by their gross industrial power.

 

When the IWW fought for the eight-hour day in the wood and wheat fields, they have not decided to prove their majority in boss through elections. Workers have rather held meetings to decide what their claims, elected shop committees to represent claims, and used tactics such as leaving work after a quarter of eight hours to persuade recalcitrant employers to accept their demands. Union recognition in the construction trades was carried out through a combination of strikes, direct action and respect stakes grêve and of each other (and which, often, not enough).

 

The wave of sit-ins that have implemented the IOC in auto and steel, for example, was undertaken by minority unions who were very present in the workplace with agitating history. The union then appealed to the minority presence to take direct action that galvanized the largest workforce in their factories and have inspired the continent workers.

 

Trade unionism was built through direct action and through the organization of work. But in the years 1930, bosses have been increasingly difficult to recruit thugs and friends judges, and to proceed with collective redundancies. Recognizing that there was no way to crush the unions and tired of the continuous conflicts, they proposed an agreement: if the unions agreed to abandon their industrial power and instead worked through appropriate channels – the National Labor Relations Board in the United States, various provincial offices in Canada – the government would act as a referee “impartial” to determine whether the union was or not bona fide workers' representative.

 

Short term, unions could bypass the need to sign the workers one by one, to collect premiums directly. Bosses exchanged suit unionists for the thugs they had previously employed. And after a brief period of membership, trade unions (particularly in the US) began a long spiral. As part of this exclusive negotiation model, unions do not attempt to work on the job as long as they have not obtained legal certification. This legal process provides employers an almost unlimited ability to threaten and intimidate workers and drag out proceedings for years. It is a system designed to interfere with the right of workers to organize – and the IWW emphasized when the national law on labor relations was adopted.

 

However, if the labor law system is designed around this majority-majority unionism, he does not really require. As long as workers act together, they enjoy the same basic legal rights – such as those – whether or not in an officially certified union. Indeed, in some cases, they enjoy more rights, the courts have ruled that most union contracts implicitly refer to the right to strike. It is illegal to fire members of a minority union for trade union activity, to discriminate, to dismiss for strike, to refuse to allow union representatives to attend disciplinary hearings, etc. An organized group of workers have legal rights, but it would be wrong to expect that labor boards more vigorously apply than they do for unions that have been certified. And an organized group of workers, even if it is a small minority, has much more power than the unorganized individual workers.

 

In most of the cases, you have as many legal rights as a majority union as a minority union – with the only exception being certified as the exclusive bargaining agent and sole authority to negotiate a contract. A minority union has the right to file grievances (even though there may be no formal complaints procedure); engage in a concerted activity, make requests to the boss; seek meetings, or even trigger a grêve (even if it's not a good idea if you do not have the support of the majority).

 

If you choose well your problems and use them as an opportunity to talk with colleagues and mobilize, you can fight together for better conditions and build a 'union'. By campaigning on issues that matter to your colleagues, you acquérerez experience in self-organization, you will learn that you can trust, and you establish that the union of workers on the job and they are there for a long time.

 

The labor movement was built when workers groups have banded together and began agitating for their demands: sometimes, they persuaded their colleagues to approach their boss and ask that some problems are corrected. Sometimes, they refused to work under working conditions or unsafe manner, and persuaded their colleagues to do the same. Other times, they acted individually, sometimes they were demonstrations across the city on issues of common interest such as working hours and hazardous work.

 

The crucial point is that they acted. They identified the key elements of their problems; they got together, they agreed to an action plan, then they executed. It is the trade union action. It does not require official recognition, it requires no contract. It requires Workers who join together and act collectively.

 

If the unions must become a movement, we must come out of the current model and return to the type of agitation on the ground that we won the eight-hour day and built the unions as vital force. The minority unionism is to form organized networks of solidarity and significant improvements can win on individual workplaces, in all industries and the benefit of the international working class. This is a process, a process that offers hope to transform our greatest weakness – the fact that our members are scattered in many workplaces largely disorganized – into a force.

 

The series of “minority reports” was written and published in 2002 on the website of the IWW, by Alexis FW Buss.

Link to original article: https://www.iww.org/about/solidarityunionism/explained/minority2

The Origins of Solidarity Unionism: Minority report 1

These last years, I have occasionally contributed to a section named "Wobbling the Works”, which put the & rsquo; focus on & rsquo; impact of laws governing the world of work on & rsquo; union. I will continue to write about it from time to time, but recently my attention was focused on a concept that I designate as "minority unionism", is a way of describing a method of organization that does not wait after the majority of workers d & rsquo; a place of work to earn the legal right to negotiate. This month, I will share some aspects that have sparked my interest and led me in this direction.

 

Recently, j & rsquo; I had to rewrite the constitution SITT-IWW for our comrades Regional Organizing Committees, who were tired es of US spelling mistakes such as "labour and "organising”. Scrutinize the Constitution made me think of the idea of ​​the branches job. A job sector is a group of five or more members of the IWW-SITT in the same workplace and to meet at least once a month. This implies a more or less implied that them discuss their grievances, that & rsquo; he creates them strategies to address and establish a union presence in their work.

 

I am working on a project that was intended to be a video version of the classic pamphlet IWW, “A Worker’s Guide to Direct Action”, but has gained momentum after it began. By making the search for the video, I saw Miriam Ching Yoon Louie talk about his book, Sweatshop Warriors, which provides excellent examples of how the centers of Immigrant Workers es have helped many workers understand their rights and organize themselves around various problems at work and in the community. I also had the chance to interview Barbara Pear, a maid at the University of North Carolina and president of the EU branch number 150, When & rsquo; she visited the maintenance staff at Swarthmore College, leading a campaign for living wages for more than six years. The University union has no legal right to negotiate, but has nevertheless been successful thanks to the & rsquo; use of pressure tactics aimed at bringing administrators at the negotiating table and d & rsquo; secure improvements for workers and the least-paid workers are.

 

I often think of ways that workers, who do not have the legal right to negotiate or who have no collective agreement, can put the & rsquo; before to act as a union, using the law to amplify their work. This came to mind because Staughton Lynd asked me to repeat our pamphlet "Labor Law for the Rank and Filer"At a time when I had become particularly cynical with regard to the use of laws governing work in & rsquo; union. I was returning from a weekend with the family Lynd, the people "Youngstown Workers Solidarity Club"Disruptors and their cohorts, interference, veterans and vétéranes activism and d & rsquo; d & rsquo organizers, organizing student-es, from d & rsquo; across the US.

 

The club was developed as a parallel trade union center that filled a missing when the local plant could not provide adequate support for a strike. Hold me with these people was the antidote to the cynicism that I felt; it's not that I have more confidence in the law, but I now feel able to see the possibilities ... There's a month I saw a documentary, American Standoff, on the shore of the trucking company Overnight, I have criticized in the latest issue. “Standoff"Illustrated many problems that the working class has not adequately confronted. How can we organize ourselves in companies that are so anti-union they are willing to spend millions of dollars just to keep worker-are far from the negotiating table? The campaign Teamsters in Overnight, which is currently in a difficult situation that it is not even certain that it can be taken in hand, is the latest example of a long list of campaigns that left the trade union left scratching their heads wondering how to deal with self-destructive employers and labor laws completely backward. Sure, the answer, it is not to give up. But it s & rsquo; is not to simply d & rsquo; a clique of agitators and d & rsquo; agitating minority on each workplace. It s & rsquo; is to create real solidarity networks that are organized and able to win improvements in individual workplaces, through industries, and for the benefit of the international working class.

 

And, finally and especially, several comrades on the other side of the Atlantic sent me an article on minority unionism that appeared in a recent edition of the magazine The Nation. L’article, written by Richard B. Freeman et Joel Rogers, argues that theAFL-CIO should develop a d & rsquo plan organization that does not depend on recruiting the majority of d & rsquo workers; a workplace. What was amazing to receive multiple copies of this article in my emails was not the astonishment of American trade unionists who sent. The quite upside which we do chaisons is absurd. Few countries practice trade unionism as we do in the US (and Canada) with the union as the sole bargaining agent of a declared majority. I think it would help a lot if a majority of workers with whom I discuss were aware of how things are done elsewhere, and it would also be nice if people d & rsquo; elsewhere could see the consequences of the way we & rsquo; organize.

 

Now, that is the purpose of this section. I want to share these stories and experiences. I want to connect my classmates with resources that others have found useful in their union work. I can not offer a recipe for success. These examples will not always suitable for everyone. But an intelligent reflection on a way forward is not only a possibility, it s & rsquo; is something that is already short. And developing resources to try these ideas, we will give us the confidence to turn comments like "what a great idea!"To" I'll try it!”.

 

The series of “minority reports” was written and published in 2002 on the website of the IWW, by Alexis FW Buss.

Link to original article: https://iww.org/about/solidarityunionism/explained/minority1

The value

This article is not one of our usual items. It is rather a part of a new series of articles from our union of self-employed, which will assess the various challenges faced by these workers whose domain is, by nature, unpredictable. And, a more significant, it will assess what we can do about these issues.

 

Does film criticism still has value? I have seen more rumblings to that effect recently, but as with all things, This will work as well. This is a transitional pass; I barely thirty and film died and was saved a dozen times in my life. Critics are thinkers and thinkers; they and they contextualize the world of art. But I'm not here to discuss the critical role. What I am here to do is break down the work that goes into a fairly standard movie review. Because, naturally, criticism is work.

Little is also taken for granted that the work published online. There has been a steady devaluation of writing in cultural nature of the Internet as a service paid, for over a decade now. The legends of this area can not maintain a contract. Publishers and editors lead a mediocre contest to see how much content they and they can squeeze their team with an almost nonexistent funding. All you see online is written by someone-e and shocking part of these writings was made for peanuts.

So how much is a film critic? Detail all.

Before going further, This is to clarify that 100% an estimation. The rate that I will use are based on strong intuitions and some fifth-grade math. Where I try to come in here is an approximate figure that is larger than, good, zero.

Now, even before you take paper and pencil to write this vicious row or sparkling leaflet, you must watch this damn movie. It is obvious that this is part of the job, and so you should be paid for it-es. Think of it as training; it's part of the job where you learn what you have to do. Without this, you can not do the job. Critics should definitely be paid es for their time and they spend watching the film. Now, I know that critics are often invited es to broadcasts,get links or receive one way or another a film copy. But you do not watch the movie for fun! If we are going to exist in a capitalist system, and if someone will extract the value of our work (in that case, a movie review), fair wages should be expected. The time during which you're stuck es on the film office is part of that value which is extracted because it is an inextricable part of the work you do. No movie, no critical, It's that simple.

"But wait," say definitely someone-e backstage, "Does that mean that a video game critic should be paid for the many hours he or she puts in a game so that they can write about them?? "Absolutely. AT 100%. "More “Breath of the Wild” is a game of 45 hours?!"You want me to play the full game and I write about it? pay!

So, if we assume a rate of 15$ /h (and seriously, why do not I?) and a film lasts two hours, it should 30$ in your pocket from the start. We have not even started to put words together. Once again, using well elementary math, presupposing a ratio 1:1 viewing time – write time, a salary 15$ /h, and a text 700 words, we arrive at a rate of about four cents a word (which is in the lower bracket of the price of honest self-s-worker). So the rate minimum for this text 700 words would 60$. A short capsule 200 word back to 38$. An texts 1000 words would 70$. This rate of four cents a word plus a living wage for the film screening is a absolute floor what is your job.

This is for a single film. These numbers can not be transferred for a full week; those who keep score at home will realize that our way text 700 Words cost four hours of work: two to watch, two for write. There is absolutely no chance that a person look ten movies a week and write about each. This is a sure way to destroy your work-life balance. Furthermore, the highest amount of movie releases in one week is four, with an average closer to three. But assume that the film section of a publication committed one in the new releases, and say there is a big weekend of four films coming up. Take for example 6-8 april 2018. This week saw the exits of :

  • A Quiet Place
  • Blockers
  • The Miracle Season
  • Chappaquiddick

These four films were covered in the New York Times therefore use the figures set out above with the respective length of their journals in Times as a base, decompose these films in terms of labor costs (15$ Time for viewing, four hundred word).

  • A Quiet Place: (651 Words * $ 0.04) + (91’*($15/60’)) = $48.79
  • Blockers: (674 Words * $ 0.04) + (91’*($15/60’)) = $52.46
  • The Miracle Season: (252 Words * $ 0.04) + (99’*($15/60’)) = $34.83
  • Chappaquiddick: (881 Words * $ 0.04) + (101’*$15/60’)) = $60.49

So if a person covers the entire weekend, this amounts to a pay 196,57$. These films are relatively short and one of the five is roughly a capsule; if we keep our example two hours, 700 words, a weekend in four films amount to a pay 232$, which is still not a living wage. But there are precedents in terms of being able to live on a critical new releases salary. Let me take you back to ancient times, pre-recession 2008, and the hourly rate of Mike D'Angelo, currently one of the many many film critics who work on contract. According to this tweet, he was paid 400$ by review when he worked for the Las Vegas Weekly. That's four zero zero. This is a rate that has negotiated the 200$ magazine offered him because, according to him, there was "no need of work". M. D'Angelo, and presumably other critical full time around the same time, earned enough money by writing for a living wage with two or three journals, or about 2100 words, per week, and had enough leverage to negotiate a rate twice that which was offered at the beginning. It's amazing.

More depressing still: take the hourly rate received by D'Angelo 2008 according to its updates (400$ by review, 600-800 words per review) and analyze it. Keep the same hourly rate 15$ for the time spent watching the film and assume an average week end of three film releases, a two-hour film. Six o'clock, 90$. this leaves 310$ for the act of writing, and if an average of criticism is presupposed 700 words, this gives us a rate just words above 44 cents.

All this is another way of saying something you already knew. Capitalism has destroyed the safety net that critics had a decade ago and since hastened to cut more corners. But you should be compensated fairly for your art-work, without exception. By sticking together, fair rates can become a reality rather than a rarity.

Solidarity,

Yancy Richardson

In english