Haywood’s Opening Comments at Founding IWW Convention

William “Big Bill” Haywood was the chair of the founding convention of the Industrial Workers of the World, which took place in Chicago on June 27-July 8, 1905. Here is the beginning of his opening remarks, still powerful today (despite the use of male gendered pronouns):

In calling this convention to order I do so with a sense of the responsibility that rests upon me and rests upon every delegate that is here assembled. This is the Continental Congress of the working class. We are here to confederate the workers of this country into a working class movement that shall have for its purpose the emancipation of the working class from the slave bondage of capitalism. There is no organization, or there seems to be no labor organization, that has for its purpose the same object as that for which you are called together today. The aims and objects of this organization should be to put the working class in possession of the economic power, the means of life, in control of the machinery of production and distribution, without regard to capitalist masters. The American Federation of Labor, which presumes to be the labor movement of this country, is not a working-class movement. It does not represent the working class. There are organizations that are affiliated, but loosely affiliated with the A.F. of L., which in their constitution and by-laws prohibit the initiation of or conferring the obligation on a colored man; that prohibit the conferring of the obligation on foreigners. What we want to establish at this time is a labor organization that will open wide its doors to every man that earns his livelihood either by his brain or his muscle….There is no man who has an ounce of honesty in his make-up but recognizes the fact that there is a continuous struggle between the two classes, and this organization will be formed, based and founded on the class struggle, having in view no compromise and no surrender, and but one object and one purpose and that is to bring the workers of this country into the possession of the full value of the product of their toil.

Imagine 100,000 Organizers and 1,000,000 Organizing Discussions

Instead:

The AFL-CIO plans to send 100,000 volunteers to knock on one million doors for Hillary Clinton in key battleground states, the federation announced Tuesday. […] The AFL-CIO will also continue to contact voters through phone banks and direct mail.

What’s Wrong with the Modern Mainstream Labor Movement in One Tweet

Pick a class, assholes. Also, stop worrying about politicians and start organizing workers.

When Trump says he's 4 working ppl, he must forget his time destroying Atlantic City’s small businesses#StopTrump @ https://t.co/N7rv9TI8p5 pic.twitter.com/wrDOPUcdKu

— Working America (@WorkingAmerica) October 6, 2016

Closed Shop vs. Union Shop

Many people in the labor movement and adjacent to it throw around terms like closed shop, union shop, open shop, union security clause, etc., without always using these terms correctly. There are subtle differences, and a passage from The Industrial Workers of the World: Its First 100 Years provides an example of getting closed shop and union shop wrong:

In November 1940 an 11-day strike at American Stove ended with the trading of a demand for a closed shop for the settlement of an accumulation of grievances. This was what the bargaining committee wanted, for they saw that a closed shop (unless accompanied by hiring through the union) ends up in the company personnel office eventually selecting the membership for the union.

A closed shop is not one where all employees have to become union members after being hired. That is a union shop. A closed shop is one where the employer can only hire employees through the union.

Closed shops have been illegal in the United States since 1947.

Though the above passage is technically wrong on definitions (at least in today’s usage), its implication about the difference between closed shops and union shops is significant: a great shift in the balance of power between unions and employers.

Right to work goes a step further and outlaws union shops.

The Problem with (Non-Anarchist) Socialists

https://twitter.com/sunraysunray/status/764199758143557632

I’m sorry, but what’s the implication here? That capitalism is good, because people are forced to work because of the threat of starvation? Or that government is good, because people are forced to work against their will by threat of violence?

Tell me please, Bhaskar. Why don’t you trust the working class?

Protesting Trump

The Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra posted a “Fuck Trump Reportback” about protesting Trump in Richmond, VA. I see how this is useful for organizing experience and getting people involved, but I don’t necessarily understand the point or see the strategy of these protests. Trump’s talking. So what? The protests just bring more attention to it and I don’t understand the immediate goal. Get into a fight? Prevent the event? To what end? He’s going to be the Republican nominee, let the asshole talk and his asshole supporters listen to him. We’re not going to prevent politicians from being elected, so why focus on the one we dislike more? If this is not going to be repeated ad nauseam going forward, fine. But it seems like that might be the case.

Let’s not let the presidential election eat up all activity.

Class Does Not Depend Upon Your Education Level

The Economic Policy Institute, a progressive economic policy think tank, released a new report today titled “People of color will be a majority of the American working class in 2032.” It’s too bad their definition of working class is complete horseshit: “working people without a college degree.” If you have to modify “working people” with something further, you should realize you’ve gone astray.

Professor Louie can explain more:

Union Presidents Shouldn’t Make More Than Their Members

I can’t decide if the Stern Burger with Fries blog is an anti-union front or legitimate rank-and-file criticism, though I lean towards the latter. In either case, it seems to be run by a (former?) member who holds a personal grudge and is willing to stretch the truth to make a valid point. For instance, this post wrongly calls reserves “profits” and says SEIU-UHW practices “for-profit unionism” and has a higher profit margin “than Fortune 500 companies like Coca-Cola,” but at the same time it deserves credit for calling out the union’s over-paid officials. (It’s hard to call them “labor leaders” when it seems most of the elected positions at SEIU are filled by former staffers, like its president Mary Kay Henry who started off as a researcher for the union in 1980.) Also, it is interesting to hear that the constitution of the National Union of Healthcare Workers (which split from SEIU) apparently “blocks the union’s president and staff from earning more than the union’s members.” This is something that every union should do.

Technology, Electoral Politics, and the Rank and File

This article by Kati Sipp at New Labor Forum argues that organized labor, to its great detriment, has been “a late adopter” of things like social media, clever subject lines, database management, and “digital organizing” in general – “if they have adopted them at all.” Sure, unions could probably be better at these types of things, but it seems to me that that the author places way too much hope in the power of technology. In many ways, this article is very much like a report by the Century Foundation that acted like “a virtual labor organizing platform” was basically the best thing since sliced bread. Waging Nonviolence had the appropriate response: “It’s not as if, however, more workers aren’t unionized because they simply don’t have the right apps.”

Sipp notes that she “spent a good chunk of my work life straddling the intersection of the labor movement and the electoral world” and this is definitely reflected in her opinions. She basically wants unions to be run like political campaigns, even though she acknowledges that the two exist in different environments and have different needs. Nonetheless, she thinks unions are behind the times because if she wants to “use my member data for routine political organizing,” it’s “clunky” to go from a regular old database to something like VAN, where it would be easy to find each member’s legislative district. I find great irony in this. If you’re concerned about how to best organize workers, maybe that’s what you should be spending your time doing? Organizing is not rocket science, but a lot of effort does have to go into it. Technology can help, but that’s all it can do. Despite what Sipp thinks, finding workers is really not that hard and putting a list of workers together is actually a good exercise for organizing committees. On the other hand, if you’re sending out your staff and members to knock on doors for politicians during election season or doing turnout for their events or putting on a show just for them – you’re not doing the work of organized labor, you’re just shilling for a political party. Any time that unions spend on promoting or lobbying politicians is time that isn’t being spent to organize workers, and an organized workforce – not a mildly friendly politician – is where unions’ strength lies.

There’s one other thing about this article I’d be remiss not to mention: no one should be advocating for less rank-and-file control of unions. According to Sipp, “In addition to seniority, some unions are devoted to hiring from within their own rank and file—a noble practice, when it comes to ensuring that business agents and organizers are deeply in touch with the concerns of the members—but a potentially limiting one, where expertise in use of technology is required. It should not surprise us that a person who has spent her life learning to be the best kindergarten teacher possible, for example, is not also an expert in programming SQL databases.” This is the lamest excuse for taking even further control out of the hands of workers I think I have ever seen.

Steve Greenhouse Asks the Wrong Question

His article on unions and their get-out-the-vote power is decent, though the question shouldn’t be “Can labor still turn out the vote?”, it should be, “Should labor still turn out the vote?” And the answer should be a resounding NO. Unions need to stop wasting their resources on politicians and instead organize workers. Otherwise, their long decline will continue.