SF Meeting:Battle For Union Democracy&Corporate Take-over of SEIU87

This is why, even though I'll act in solidarity with any labor union, I think it'd be much better for workers to seek out a radical, grassroots union such as the Wobblies.

http://www.iww.org/

The IWW is too small to make a difference and lacks the resources to organize (any significant amount of)workers. The IWW is the union some anarchists put forward as the direction the class struggle should take. While the IWW has a great history and good principles; ultimately its politics seem stuck in the earlier part of the 20th century. Mainstream unions is where radicals should bore into and build a radical/progressive grassroots movement there and connect it to the international anti-globalization movement. When workers act in terms of union drives, strikes, pickets, boycotts, defense campaigns (like the Charleston 5) is the activities we should be supporting.

T. Kepp wrote:

"The IWW is too small to make a difference and lacks the resources to organize (any significant amount of) workers."

That is a matter of opinion. I happen to be an IWW member and have been for 7 years. I have also been a member of four AFL-CIO movies. I can tell you with assurance that the IWW, small though it may be, gives you far more bang for your buck than any AFL-CIO union.

Sure, the AFL-CIO probably spends $1000 US for ever $1 US spent by the IWW on organizing. HOWEVER, for every $1 US spent by the AFL-CIO on organizing, they spend at least as much, if not ten times as much lobbying the government or electing Democrats.

This not only takes money away from organizing, it actively UNDERMINES working people, because the Democrats actively undermine unions and have done so since the FDR administration.

"The IWW is the union some anarchists put forward as the direction the class struggle should take."

Why not?

" While the IWW has a great history and good principles; ultimately its politics seem stuck in the earlier part of the 20th century."

Explain how this is so.

"Mainstream unions is where radicals should bore into and build a radical/progressive grassroots movement there and connect it to the international anti-globalization movement."

While I would not want to discourage anarchists from doing this (many IWW members are also members of AFL-CIO unions), by itself , boring from within is not a viable strategy (It can be part of a greater, overall strategy). An IWW member named William Z Foster advocated essentially the same strategy as T Kepp is suggesting here in the 1920s. It failed miserably. Foster went on to become a Stalinist and later an apologist for conservative business unionism. There is a lot of similarities between what T Kepp (and Foster) are suggesting and traditional Stalinist vanguardism.

"When workers act in terms of union drives, strikes, pickets, boycotts, defense campaigns (like the Charleston 5) is the activities we should be supporting."

I agree, but that doesn't preclude an anarchist (or any individual for that matter) from joining the IWW, joining an AFL-CIO union, or both, and is not really relevant to boring from within.

By the way, it should be noted that the IWW is NOT an anarchist organization. It welcomes all workers regardless of whether they're socialist, anarchist, communist, or even liberal democrat (as long as they're anti-capitalist).

A lot of anarchists join the IWW expecting it to be an anarchist organization (due unfortunately to some revisionist history by anarchists who don't check their facts very carefully) when it isn't. When they discver this they get upset and claim that somehow the IWW has been hijacked or that it is stuck in the past.

Historically, the IWW had both socialists and anarchists who worked quite well together. That is still true.

I meant to say AFl-CIO "unions" (not "movies"--I don't know how I made that mistake; sorry!)

August 21, 2002

Dear SF Indymedia:

I was searching the web, and noticed an article on your site about a forum that took place on February 9, 2002, in regards to the SEIU International's takeover of the SF Janitors SEIU Local 87 earlier this year. In reading the announcement, one would think that Local 87 was a very democratic union in which it's officers and business agents provided outstanding representation to its members.
I was a member of Local
87 from 1980 until 1999. The local's management worked in
tandem with the building maintenance contractors. However, it was my
experience that the local's leadership did not represent the members. Here
is my account.

In November 1997, the office building that I was working in became vacant.
It was a Blue Shield building where I enjoyed an excellent work
enviornment. After the building was vacated, the contractor (I was
employed by) cut my hours from full-time to 27 hours and then to 12(one of
the buildings that the contractor sent me to afterwards had gone non-union).
This particular contractor had just taken over my building(the Blue Shield
building that became vacant) one year prior. Under the union contract, that
contractor took over my seniority of which I had 18 years. It was a small
contractor and supposedly the contractor didn't have another building to
place me in. I was forced to go back to the hiring hall and get dispatches
to buildings that the prior contractor (whom I was employed by), cleaned.
I lost ALL of my seniority. My pay went down from $13.75 per hour to
something like $9.69 per hour. On several occasions, I made requests to the
local to properly represent me, by arranging with the contractor to place
me into a permanent position and restore my seniority and pay. I was
repeatedly rebuffed in my attempts. During this time, I heard of many
instances from reliable sources that there were new janitors obtaining jobs
in buildings without ever having to follow the union's rules, by going to
the hiring hall to obtain a dispatch. On one occasion, while working in a
building where I had to obtain a dispatch, I found out that a 16-year-old
fellow was working there without a dispatch. It was for one night. He
happened to be the son of another janitor, whom the contractor allowed to
come in and work. This was just one of many cases, where the Local 87
officials simply turned their heads. There was also a situation where a
contractor, fired a foreman for sexual harassment. The local arranged for
him to be hired on as a foreman for another contractor with full seniority.
I heard that he even received $1.00 per hour more with the new contractor.
There were many cases where janitors faced disciplinary action, including
loss of income, for not being able to handle the heavy workloads. They did
not receive proper representation from the local. In fact, one business
agent actually told members that the problem was their fault. During this
period, several Local 87 members of various ethnicities concurred with me
about the wrongdoing on the part of the local's leadership. Many office
buildings were going non-union. While a good part of that was because of
greed on the part of building owners, part of that was because of the
mismanagement of the local.

Early in 2002 the international of the SEIU, took over the local and merged
it with Local 1877, a janitors local that covers much of California. For a
long time, there were calls from members for the international to step in.
I also wrote a letter to the international about my situation, but
assistance was not forthcoming. It is better late than never that the
takeover occurred. I believe that the only reason that it did was because
of so many office buildings going non-union. Although it doesn't matter
personally to me anymore, it is my hope that there will be a major
improvement. As a rule, I don't believe in locals covering such a large
area, but there was no other alternative at the time. With a large majority of local 87 members not being American citizens, and many of them not English
speaking, this perpetuated a situation that the old leadership was able to
take advantage of. The structure made it very difficult for members, who
believed in a properly functioning union, to attempt to improve things. In
stating this, I don't want to be misunderstood as being anti-immigrant. In
order for the labor movement to have more clout, it must do much more to
encourage its members to learn English, to become American citizens,
register to vote, and turn out to the polls on Election Day. Labor must also end its allegience to the Democratic Party.

Walter Ballin