The IWW has a theory about unionization in the US that no one else holds. Like the Army's old slogan "An Army of One" that people made fun of, it's basically "A Union of Two." People getting together in the workplace to do anything are considered to be a union, whether they are a majority and/or have recognition or not.
It's a form of unionization that no one really wants and doesn't accomplish anything except continuous struggle, which is deemed to be good.
Comments
Displaying 0 of 1 comments
Rich Puchalsky ⩜⃝
In response to this postSo eager volunteers from the IWW sometimes succeed in helping a union form, the workers involved generally don't join the IWW, and then the union folds or if it lasts it breaks away.
This really does not matter, functionally, to the IWW. It's full of people who pay dues whether they have a workplace union or not. The IWW gains nothing if a union push succeeds and loses nothing if it fails, because the same money to pay staff is coming in.
There are two main tendencies in response to this that have recurred throughout the organization's history:
1) let's get serious and just become a union
2) let's give up on actual unionization and become a leftist group
Neither one works. I've written about this before: the IWW has only survived because it's a union, and the only reason for it to exist is as a leftist group. A mixed existence is the only existence it can have.
by Rich Puchalsky ⩜⃝ ;
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 0