Posted by dereklane
on October 31, 2009, 8:44 pm, in reply to "The IWW union accepts those who are in work and those without"
"pitting worker and non-worker against one another to the ultimate advantage of capitalism, is itself at the back of much of the low wage hardship and unemployment misery out there."
Thanks Fiona, I agree. That's at the heart of my orginal disagreement. I don't think we should focus on the weakest, even if they are doing something which hampers union efforts.
cheers,
Derek
--Previous Message--
: The Industrial Workers of the World,
: "Wobblies" accepts workers, as
: long as they are not in 'hire and fire'
: management positions and those who are
: unemployed and retired. They organise in
: non-union workplaces too. They have in the
: recent past assisted Starbucks workers set
: up their own barista union for example.
: Information on the British section here:
:
: iww.org.uk
:
: Their views on strikebreaking are
: condemnatory, however anyone who is
: desperate enough to accept a scabbing offer
: because of unemployment and consequent
: hardship, would be considered
: sympathetically I think. Not their actions
: but because of the fact that the way the
: world is run, pitting worker and non-worker
: against one another to the ultimate
: advantage of capitalism, is itself at the
: back of much of the low wage hardship and
: unemployment misery out there. Ultimately
: the idea is to do away altogether with wage
: slavery and to promote self-management
: rather than smoothing relations between
: bosses and workers, which is the way of
: reformist unions, includng the CWU.
:
: Fiona
:
:
: There is power in the union!
: Fiona
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: I think I said earlier, I'm not in any
: unions.
: Neither, in case you're wondering, am I an
: employer.
:
: So, no, I've not been to a union meeting
: lately. Are you telling me they *are* doing
: stuff to improve the lot of the unemployed,
: and make sure they're comfortable enough not
: to take work when it conflicts with union
: interests? If so, that's interesting. I
: would like to hear more, if you're able to
: offer it.
:
: You say:'Is that any wonder?'
:
: Well, no it doesn't surprise me, if that's
: what you mean. When terminology such as scab
: (and other derogatory terms designed to be
: spat)exist and are encouraged, the threat of
: violence is never all that far off. Despite
: Stevo's assertions that all that stuff was
: left back in the eighties, you can tell just
: by imploring people to spare a thought of
: compassion for the circumstances behind the
: strike-breaker's decision to work, that this
: attitude is not all that far in the past.
: I'd argue that its unlikely to be in the
: past at all, at least in sentiment.
:
: That is scary stuff. It makes me wonder how,
: on the one hand, we can be here concerned
: for the well being of people oppressed by
: our governments, and concerned about people
: suffering (and you know, all that buddhist
: compassion stuff) and on the other hand, act
: very aggressive to people who don't exercise
: solidarity with unions, but, are
: nevertheless still oppressed.
:
: It seems a fairly narrow set of protocols
: for compassion, really.
:
: 'If you don't annoy me, or disagree with me,
: or get in my way, I'll care about your
: well-being'.
:
: No doubt, this is *exactly* how our elite
: think. It doesn't make for happy thoughts
: about the state of the left, when you
: consider how similiar, with little pushes,
: both sides appear to be.
:
: cheers,
:
: Derek
:
:
:
Responses: