[mikema63]

originally they were a response to businesses partnering with government and they were certainly positive in a few ways, but it seems to me they pretty quickly partnered with government in the same way that big businesses do.

they crowd out competing unions and hurt workers outside of their unions (despite what they protest), and dont seem to be in any reasonable way positive for the purpose of achieving any of the goals that left anarchists advocate or want. they seem to just serve more to give an illusion that they are making you better off while still being part of the problem.

i was just wondering since from what ive read from you guys one of your strategies seems to be to unionize everyone, how are you going to unionize in the way you want? is it a "black market" union or counter union in a similar way that agorists advocate counter economics to avoid the destructive relationship to government?

[Paradigm]

There tends to be a bit of an ambivalent feeling. We recognize the right of workers to organize and seek better wages and working conditions, and if trade unions can do that for them, then that's great. The notion that they hurt other workers also seems ambiguous. Sure, there are scabs and non-union workers who might lose out in individual cases, but you also have to take into account the gains that unions have made for all workers in terms of labor laws, wage increases, and so on. But left-anarchists have also long been suspicious of these unions that buy into the system. Buying into the system leads to concessions like no-strike clauses that are now coming back to bite many of these unions. It also means being integrated into the capitalist system, rather than being in a position to challenge it. As such, there has thus been a long-running tension between radical unions like the I.W.W. and reformist unions like the AFL-CIO.

Since the I.W.W. is the radical union with which I'm most familiar, and the only one I know of in the US, I'll confine my comments to that one in particular. I'm sure many of the things I say about them will apply to other syndicalist unions throughout the world such as the IWA or the CNT-FAI. For one thing, they don't engage in electoral politics, preferring direct action instead. They also believe in organizing industrially rather than by trade. This means that the entire workplace is united under one union rather than having competing unions within the same workplace. So take for example the air traffic controllers who went on strike during the Reagan administration and ended up with their union getting crushed and gutted. If instead the entire airline industry was organized under one big union, they could have won easily as air travel ground to a halt. That's also why solidarity is critically important for radical unions, as expressed in the I.W.W. slogan, "An injury to one is an injury to all."

[mikema63]

your always so prompt. thank you.

i think i will save my arguments about unions hurting unskilled labor.

is the IWW recognized by the government and industry under labor laws or is it an underground union?

[Paradigm]

is the IWW recognized by the government and industry under labor laws or is it an underground union?

I'm not sure what "underground union" would mean, but they certainly aren't organized in the same way other unions are. Any worker can join the IWW, regardless of whether their coworkers are in it. They believe in "organizing the worker" rather than just the workplace. In other words, they train workers to organize their own workplace rather than having to officially petition for the formation of a union.

[mikema63]

underground as in not recognizing government rules and regulations, in the same way that a legal good is on the black market if it doesn't follow government rules.

i would think it is from what you've said.

[Goldberk]

But left-anarchists have also long been suspicious of these unions that buy into the system.

One of the main problems being that unions tend to replicate the existing relations in society, being hierarchal and bureaucratic and to focused on expertise.

For one thing, they don't engage in electoral politics, preferring direct action instead.

Important for garnering anarchist support in my book.

[Daktoria]

The better question is "How do unions view anarchists?"

My experience in talking with union workers is they view anarchists as childish. They have worldly goals, but no idea how to execute them. Unions are also not culturally antagonistic. For example, they don't necessarily (or often) buy into the white male Judeo-Christian privilege deal. They need themes to organize around, so if there's social conflict, it destroys chemistry.

They also don't necessarily despise independent organizations like Rotary International or Knights of Columbus as much as anarchists will. Anarchists view these organizations as behind the scenes manipulators because they tend to be supply side oriented and support freelancing. Unions just view them as another way to make a living because they emphasize professionalism and community spirit.

The one common social rivalry I'm aware of are Chambers of Commerce because they're so high society that even unions feel awkward.

[grassroots1]

i think i will save my arguments about unions hurting unskilled labor.

Tell it to the WFM, which gave birth to the IWW. The unskilled workers' only recourse has historically been unionization. Perhaps it could be argued that some large established unions crowd out other workers nowadays, but in no way does this mean that unions in general are harmful to working people. That is just backwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Federation_of_Miners

[mikema63]

mainly in the laws that get passed by labor unions, such as minimum wage, are argued to hurt unskilled labor.

i had assumed he was aware of such arguments, had read them, and had dismissed them.

really stuff like minimum wage seems to have been argued to death.

[KlassWar]

Mainstream labor unions? Buncha sellouts.

What we need is far-left industry unions, with the goal of unionizing ~80% of the workforce. It shouldn't be just about better wages or shorter hours: We oughtta aim for the whole pie, not for the scraps. Most current unions are beyond repair: The Hard Left needs to start new ones... And keep conservatives, moderates, compromisers and other collaborators out of leadership positions.

That being said, even a bad union is better than no union: We must push for EVERY SINGLE WORKER to be unionized. This is the only way in which Worker Power can be formed.

[mikema63]

^out of curiosity how do you guys plan to get every worker to unionize?

[Someone5]

^out of curiosity how do you guys plan to get every worker to unionize?

If someone had a good answer to that, we wouldn't be living in the sorry state we do right now.

[Paradigm]

I think that's also a reason why syndicalism is not the be-all and end-all of revolution. It will have to be a part of a wide variety of tactics employed.

[Eauz]

Shouldn't anarchists be opposed to unions, unless the individual joins them a their own choice? There are far too many union positions that require people to join them if they are to be hired with the company/government.

[Paradigm]

Shouldn't anarchists be opposed to unions, unless the individual joins them a their own choice? There are far too many union positions that require people to join them if they are to be hired with the company/government.

Anarchists are nothing if not tactical. We recognize that hierarchy will not be dismantled overnight, and look for the low-hanging fruit that can advance the cause. The situation you're describing is basically that of mainstream reformist unions, and as I mentioned, we prefer radical unions like the IWW and IWA. But the real enemy in this case is the wage system, and any gains we can make against it are an improvement.