Where I say "we" I am making an assertion about classical IWW positions, where I say "I", I'm saying I think this is my opinion. . I do my best to keep those separate , though of course like everyone, I fail at this a lot. .

*What is our relationship to the decertification or désafiliation? It seems that People Work College 2012 several people brought the idea that we should put our focus on the decertification business unions to replace by a new accreditation, that of the IWW-SITT. I'm not sure whether it is a strategy that has been used, if anyone has heard of such an experience I would be curious to learn more.

I can only speak from our experience in Edmonton where we were a few approché.es opportunity by Workers, eager and willing to decertify their union. Generally, we have always recommended. The problem is that the ISTC-IWW does not occupy the same space as other union, therefore it is illogical to substitute one for the other. Beside, usually, when workers or workers seeking to withdraw the accreditation of their union in their workplace, and it is because they are not satisfait.es the services they and they receive it. With a skeletal budget, minimum contributions and aucun.es employé.es, we will not do much better in terms of services. This is not what we do.

In the local of the Union of Workers and Workers Post (sttp) where I am, the average grievance, after clearing all stages will cost beyond 10 000$. This is several hundred dollars just for the early stages. With our voluntary contributions and low-cost, finance such level bureaucracy through fund raising, is not an option either.

* What is the role of the Left caucus? Throughout the conversation Work College People, the general feeling was that the left caucus are inevitable and may even be helpful. Or, the fact is that tou.tes the pre Fellow workerssent.es impliqué.es were in places that, more or less, used the left caucus. The first in an emerging solidarity networks among OPSEU (Public Service Union Employé.es of Ontario) and others in an Alliance of Local Public Service of Canada (AFPC), which serves some out of headquarters formilitant.es.

I agree that the left caucus are inevitable and I participated personally in one of them in CUPW, but I never do not report my activities SITT-IWW, nor the IWW SITT-one seems to be concerned. All that is politically significant in this world does not need to be under the banner of the IWW-SITT. I am also interested in reforming the trade unions and a good representation of members than anyone else. Or, it is not a revolutionary commitment and to be frank, I do not think it has anything to do with the IWW-SITT.

Regarding the sanctuaries of militants and mainly militant.es union, simply note that the militant.es do not always make the best recruitment pools to find good Wobblies. Many of them have careerist ambitions even within their union and if this is not a problem either, it will not advance the SITT-IWW either. Of Workers angry and respected by their peers are far more important, and if by chance, they are also militant.es, it's better this way, but it is not the most important.

*What about elections? Here again, the shared feeling was that at times it could be useful.

To begin, it must be remembered that in the regulations of the ISTC-IWW much is mentioned about the position of Officer or an Officer to another union, It's not about saying you can not be, but we place rather severe limitations on the subject. Of course, it is always possible to bring the appeal regulations to evade restrictions, but it is important to understand why we have these rules in the first place. This is because our understanding of revolutionary syndicalism is not limited to being a "very progressive union". Just as we recommend the establishment of the organizing committees on the floor and exceeding the delegate system; a revolutionary position exceeding the électoralisme and avoiding contractualism, our structure and function is embodied in a commitment to a different kind of policy. In the IWW-SITT, unions are not politically neutral organizations, on the contrary, their structures and commitments reflect the political perspectives of their architects.

All this was more clear at a time when the labor movement was marked by more ideological diversity, but since the 60 there is a hegemony of social democracy and that is what the standard structure reflects. Grab these structures without calling the serious question can only lead to an appointment, a receivership or both.

 

*Still on the issue of being un.e union délégué.e, the question came on the floor : If no one else is present, Is it not desirable that one of our activists to make the, at least, the job done? Do this does not in addition to having a legitimate reason to talk about work with colleagues without this having weird?

I'm not against people who decide to become steward, but these people should be keeping the eyes wide open. What the job involves? If the priority is to build a committee that handles requests from the floor and helps people develop a strategy to collectively pressure on the boss, I'm all for it. If the job is simply to do what any other delegate will do, it is not either an error, but it should be clear to those concerned that they and they do so for personal reasons and not as a member of the IWW-SITT. That said, note that the ISTC-IWW has no clear position on the subject.

 

*How the dual membership works in a multi-union environment? How can we actually bring the Union for All and for All to help the organization in the days days?

We have some experience on the subject in Edmonton and the most important is to start communicating with people working together. Not only between unions, but between syndiqué.es workers and workers and non-workers syndiqué.es. The benefits that direct action on the official channels is that attacking a unified management structure, it is possible to put more pressure. Prioritize applications that affect everyone (as issues relating to human rights, to parking spaces, health and safety) allows an expansion of the fields of action, while contractual disputes types are obviously narrower and less useful. Joint meetings (in our case meetings during coffee breaks) bring together everyone on the floor.

 

*If Wobblies can do things like take control of the union newsletter or bulletin, get hold of contact lists, etc. How should we, and we must, put its possibilities to use?

Of course you should. You should do everything like in the Training Organization 101 (FO101 or OT101 English), to-one meetings, identify leaders and cheerleaders, get them to do actions in the workplace, then include them in your committee. The newsletters and newsletters can be a good way to share the gains that have been won on the floor.

 

*How can we avoid being co-opt the union? That is, to see the legalistic incumbent union claim that the victories of the committee are hers?

Most important is that workers themselves and themselves appropriated victory, no more the case the incumbent union IWW-SITT. If the role of ISTC-IWW was decisive, then it must be stressed that the organization has, but we can not just take all the credit. for example, we have already set up an education program, promotes tactics March on the Boss and work on an independent blog. But he is not here to be that so typical left which again and again repeating the same slogans proclaiming himself an enlightened vanguard, but earlier use by the methods of workers who make common sense.

 

*What kind of backlash can we expect when the double membership will be discovered by the highest levels of the hierarchy? What type of inoculation is required before the country becomes public? More stories and anecdotes may be useful here ...

CUPW we just set the record straight. We had no interest in becoming the bargaining unit certified for post offices and we consider ourselves as loyal members of CUPW . Yet we insisted that no worker, and no worker has to ask permission to carry out actions on the floor, and the officers and Officers were asked their members and not the other. That being said, I think there are too many differences from one union to another to be able to give some kind of prescription boilerplate more accurate than to be clear about the fact that what we mean by union is very different from that the PSAC, for example, means union.

 

*What is it that he differs AEIOU in the context of an already unionized environment?

It does not differ.

 

*What is the ultimate goal of the organization in double membership? In FO101 several sections begin by asking participants , "Why do we do this? », as in "Why are we shaken? », "Why do we ask our colleagues to join the union? », "Why follow up on tasks? », etc. I wonder if, perhaps, keep this format might be a good way to introduce this module. and, as in the FO101, this could include a series of responses. Yet I feel a little silly saying this, but after sitting down to think about, I could not articulate a clear answer to "why" we do this.

I think the ultimate goal of the organization in double membership is the same as in FO101, build a functional organization committee can mobilize workers on the floor to make direct action to assert their own interests.

I will try and work with Rhiannon to answer any practical questions regarding the workshop, I think many of them are valid, and the lack of precision or clarity of our answers will matter not a problem with your questions, but soon the level of thinking we are made. However, one of the points which I can already answer about this module is that it is deliberately a supplement to FO101 because we believe that this training covers the basic work organization. To which I would add that in my opinion, not only, organizational work by double membership is not so different from the organizational work in non-unionized environment, particularly with the necessary skills to relate, but the bulk of the material is actually oriented towards an understanding of what the IWW-SITT. That being said, I also think that we need to work the issue in more detail, since the phenomenon of business unions bearing the red flag is increasingly common.

 

Written by Nick Walter, Edmonton IWW, the 17 October 2014
Translated by the SLI Communication Committee of Montreal, the 16 mars 2017