My Problem With The "Towards A Union Of Organizers" leaflet

120 posts / 0 new
Last post
syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Jun 20 2012 18:33

RedH, prolly a question which might've not been asked earlier, but I didn't.

Asked in a most repcectfully and comradely manner:
What's your vision of this? How does that play out in practice?

Quote:
RedH:

A simple alternative is to put one's organization forward as a group of similar workers who can support each other together and develop strategy together (and the article does mention a "workplace buddy" but this is still in the "organizer" framework).

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Jun 21 2012 20:47

OK,

Let me back-up and say that I intended to comment on the leaflet itself rather than other things. I have no knowledge of what actual Organizer Trainings involve and so I couldn't offer any criticism of those (Hieronymous, who I respect considerably, and others certainly make them sound like fine things). If I let enthusiasm about critiquing the language of the leaflet spill over into criticizing "OT", apologies.

Further, I wouldn't dismiss the usefulness of learning skills. At the same time, it seems to me that any "organizing" process of modern labor is pretty much in its infancy and so a group today would do best to say it has some useful skills rather than the useful skills.

So let me just suggest that a term like "skill-share" might be a bit better than "training". Maybe it's just me that has some revulsion to words that sound too similar to corporate speak but what I imagine is that the most rebellious workers also have some resistance to being "trained".

John E Jacobsen wrote:
Also, I don't think anyone giving these trainings is stupid enough to believe there is only one possible list of skills that we know or could anticipate, or worse, that they and they alone possess it. Sorry you got that from the "tone" of the piece, I'm confident it wasn't meant to be communicated at all.

Sure, I suppose I'd suggest some note to this effect to be in the leaflet itself.

Towards A Union Of Organizers wrote:
You’re a retail worker in a relatively small shop that is mostly composed of a group of conservative Christian workers, mostly white, male and anti-union. They have strong ties to management and many of them are actually related to the manager. There is a significantly smaller group made up of low-income black workers, some white male nerds, a queer worker and two bad-ass women workers: one white, one Latina. These workers all suffer harassment, and are at least curious if not open to the ideas of working class solidarity and struggle you’ve discussed with them. If you’re not organizing you can’t effectively respond to this harassment, or might do so in a way that makes things worse. Moreover, intentionally building and struggling with coworkers opens the possibility of transforming the culture of harassment at work.

The leaflet uses the terms "social mapping" earlier so I suppose you've a given detail of "organizing". But the paragraph doesn't say how the organizing could work. If you wanted to get people to believe that they could benefit from this OT, you could describe in detail some plausible scenario for winning by using some skills that OT intends to teach.

Especially "If you’re not organizing you can’t effectively respond to this harassment..." seems a bit absolutist. "If you've learned these skills, you may be able to respond more effectively" might an alternative wording.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Jun 21 2012 22:41
RedHughs wrote:
So let me just suggest that a term like "skill-share" might be a bit better than "training".

skill-share sounds fucking wank! if i heard that word i'd expect yet another poorly thought through educational attempt by one bloke with a squat and an internet connection.

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Jun 22 2012 01:31
Harrison wrote:
RedHughs wrote:
So let me just suggest that a term like "skill-share" might be a bit better than "training".

skill-share sounds fucking wank! if i heard that word i'd expect yet another poorly thought through educational attempt by one bloke with a squat and an internet connection.

Yeah whatever,

The point is you folks should use some word or combination of words that implies "we share skills with you" rather than "we inject our ideas into you".

Hieronymous's picture
Hieronymous
Offline
Joined: 27-07-07
Jun 22 2012 02:50

I agree with Red and Oliver about the theoretical and practical deadend of Alinskyism, which seems to be a cancer on social movements today. And I should know: I got radicalized in the mid-1980s in a statewide (in California) Alinskyite canvassing organization that was one of several front groups to an inner core, called "Access to Justice Foundation," that had roots in a long reformist lineage. That pedigree had more recent influences from college campus-based Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), but went back further to leaders who had worked with Cesar Chavez in the UFW, as well as with his mentor Fred Ross in the Community Services Organization before that, and many of the founders of the group I was in had also been in SDS, one person had even taken part in drafting the Port Huron Statement. So it had long roots in the reformist American Left.

The main activities for the promotion of the organizations campaigns were:

1.) canvassing

2.) public speaking

3.) pandering to the bourgeois media

4.) elections

Canvassing developed contacts, who were entered into a database and used for direct mail and phonebank-based fundraising. I ended up working for the latter part the of enterprise when they bought an early just-past-the-prototype-stage robo-dialing computer system for a workplace with an unbearable pace set by a computer. In a strange coincidence with the Mechanization & Modernization Agreement (1960) on the waterfront, we were represented by the International Longshore & Warehouse Union.

Saul Alinsky gained his reputation during the Great Depression, organizing with the CIO. The latter was created by reformists and conservatives (John L. Lewis, Adolph Germer, Sidney Hillman, pro-FDR Communists, et al.) to take away the strike weapon, channel class antagonisms into mediation by the state, and put an end to the class war tactics, based on self-activity of the class, in addition to suppressing working class culture best demonstrated in the U.S. by the "Chicago Idea," which was a continuum that ran though the Haymarket Martyrs to the I.W.W. At worst, CIO leaders from the Communist Party steered the activity of unions to support the foreign policy needs of the Soviet Union.

I've talked to countless other comrades who got radicalized, like I did, in rejecting the tame pro-capitalist reformism of these groups. We ALL agree: Alinskyite groups control members like a cult, constantly creating in-group activities to insulate cadre from outside influences -- like thinking for themselves. They're dialectical bookends with Leninist groups, which use many of the same techniques, but who practice revolutionary reformism rather than gradualist reformism. Alinskyites tend to believe in the promise of the American system, demanding that it live up to its contentless promises of bullshit like "justice,""equality," "direct democracy" and "jobs-for-all." And like Leninism and activistism, it has a religious dogma where missionaries -- or messiahs -- bring consciousness to the non-converted from the outside.

That all said, I did learn many lifelong skills that have come in handy for radical agitation. Things like emphasis (pre-call center work I did) on face-to-face organizing, interpersonal communication skills (including non-threatening body language, etc) and public speaking. For the latter we even had a "speakers bureau" where we practiced speaking and critiqued each other. I really learned a great deal. But we also did trainings, where I felt like a seal in the circus. This crap was lifted straight from B.F. Skinner's work on behaviorism. It made me feel like if I pleased my trainer, they would throw me a fish as a reward. This reached its worst with role plays, where in contrived situations we learned how to tell the trainer what they wanted to hear and really didn't improve our skills.

And having done lots of wage labor as a teacher, I know the utility of role plays. Yet I still rarely do them because they seem too artificial, at least for my teaching style. Other forms of communication and conversation can build the same skills. This would be my main criticism of the IWW's Organizer Training: too much of the role play scenarios seemed pro forma and weren't put in context of the kind of work people were actually doing. But like I said, the greatest strength was simply getting a large group in a room comparing notes about work conditions. This is extremely useful for any kind of class-based activity. The Organizer Training I went to was like a support group for people suffering the same affliction, like a "grief group" for those losing loved ones, because we found out our work situations were equally fucked. I discovered more workers, like myself, were misclassified as "independent contractors" so the boss can avoid paying into Social Security, unemployment and everything else that accrues and that I might need to draw on some day. With no employer pay-in, should I lose one of these jobs, there's no unemployment insurance to collect with this scam. From my experience, it means that whatever my rate of pay is, I have to subtract 20% from my wage because I'll have to pay income and other taxes out-of-pocket. It's a racket that's becoming more and more common. It was extremely useful for those of us at the training to hear that others suffer this rip-off too. And it was a way to start strategizing ways to fight back.

I'll finish by saying that we're at the bottom of the trough in regards to class struggle. I feel incredibly fortunate that comrades I'm close to had strike experience that informed my practice when I was part of a strike. I also have been blessed in knowing old timers who had vast class war experience going back to heady days of the 1930s. But without the wisdom of others to draw on, we have to start from where we're at. Which can be at a pretty low level. That's why Joe Burn's book Reviving the Strike was the most important book I read last year. That, along with Staughton Lynd's Labor Law for the Rank-and-Filer are indispensable for anyone fighting their boss. In addition I'd advise anyone to learn about working class history, as well as to inform themselves about changes to capitalist production -- especially its tendency towards precarious work stretched across the globe -- and the massive changes in working class composition with the advent of neoliberalism.

doam
Offline
Joined: 3-05-12
Jun 22 2012 02:54

I am always intrigued to see the down and up votes. I do not understand exactly what they mean. Is it a popularity thing or a way of saying something like "I didn't want to see that" or "I disagree strongly but can't explain why"?

It was just funny to see Red write

Quote:
The point is you folks should use some word or combination of words that implies "we share skills with you" rather than "we inject our ideas into you".

and then see that it get anonymously voted down twice. Do these anonymous voters want the language to be "we inject our ideas into you" or is it just a form of public shaming?

[Let my own down votes begin!]

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Jun 22 2012 03:30

voting is for agree / disagree.

for me one of the main strategies of syndicalism is to inject certain methods of action (ie. methods that run counter to bureaucratic unionism) into the class. so i guess i'm in disagreement with Red there.

By the way, i read the 'Towards a Union of Organisers' text as promoting not the development of internal cadres functioning inside the IWW, but instead aiming to promote the development of the organising skills of as many IWW members as possible and aim to reduce the distinction within IWW shops of 'organiser' and the 'organised' - ie. wanting everyone to move toward becoming an organiser (and therefore better facilitate the democratic processes inside the union), hence the point of accessible training programs.

In my opinion, thats a pretty worthy strategy for the syndicalist tradition, and for this reason i think the criticisms of 'training' being somehow an authoritarian practice are well-meaning but misdirected.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Jun 22 2012 03:37
Harrison wrote:
By the way, i read the 'Towards a Union of Organisers' text as promoting not the development of internal cadres functioning inside the IWW, but instead aiming to promote the development of the organising skills of as many IWW members as possible and aim to reduce the distinction within IWW shops of 'organiser' and the 'organised' - ie. wanting everyone to move toward becoming an organiser (and therefore better facilitate the democratic processes inside the union), hence the point of accessible training programs.

Yeah pretty much. As I understand it, the piece was sort of thought of within the context of someone (not the writer) who is in the IWW and works in the public sector. During the state shutdown in MN last year, this person had no way to contact their coworkers because he hadn't done even any pleminary organizing, and it hurt, because there was a large vacuum that their union were only filling with incredibly tame rallies.

As far as the objections on language...I can see that, but I personally don't really care about things like that very much. If it uses Alinsky-type language, oh well. What it does is much different. But 'skill-share'? eek black bloc

Hieronymous's picture
Hieronymous
Offline
Joined: 27-07-07
Jun 22 2012 03:58

[deleted]

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Jun 22 2012 04:16
Juan Conatz wrote:
As far as the objections on language...I can see that, but I personally don't really care about things like that very much. If it uses Alinsky-type language, oh well. What it does is much different.

Uh, is not communication one of the main things that these trainings aim to teach? If you are telling someone you're going to teach them about how to communicate, shouldn't you be demonstrating that by choosing your language well?

I assume communication would mean communicating with the right people in the right way. Some people might like "super organizer" language that sounds kind of bureaucratic and triumphalist but these might not be the people we'd want to reach.

Sure maybe, the word "skill-share" is lame. But I'm from California and I'm not the one selling my communications ability.

doam
Offline
Joined: 3-05-12
Jun 22 2012 04:23
Harrison wrote:
voting is for agree / disagree.

I cannot believe that this is true. If that were the case why do people up/down vote questions? Further, I don't think anyone really believes that they believe the language should be "we inject our ideas in you".

It may seem off topic but the fact that most activity on this thread has been anonymous voting (238 votes versus 39 comments at the time I am writing) it seems important to figure out what they are for.

Also, the discussion through out the thread emphasizes speaking:

Hieronymous wrote:
I have attended an IWW Organizers Training. It was mostly excellent, not for the content, which was well-intended and had many very good organizing ideas (and some that need improvement), but for the mere fact that several dozen militant -- or wannbe militant -- workers sat down in the same room and shared experiences.
Harrison wrote:
although this isn't public speaking: when i had a dispute with my landlord, i found i was ace at being firm and demanding in emails, but kind of crumbled in face-to-face or phone calls. the more practice the better.
Hieronymous wrote:
That all said, I did learn many lifelong skills that have come in handy for radical agitation. Things like emphasis (pre-call center work I did) on face-to-face organizing, interpersonal communication skills (including non-threatening body language, etc) and public speaking. For the latter we even had a "speakers bureau" where we practiced speaking and critiqued each other. I really learned a great deal.

Basically I'm saying that up and down votes are more passive-aggressive and disingenuous and anti-human than any question lettersjournal, or anyone, asks and that for a thread where participants emphasize the importance of communication and trainings it seems rather silly.

Hieronymous's picture
Hieronymous
Offline
Joined: 27-07-07
Jun 22 2012 04:45
doam wrote:
Basically I'm saying that up and down votes are more passive-aggressive and disingenuous and anti-human than any question lettersjournal, or anyone, asks and that for a thread where participants emphasize the importance of communication and trainings it seems rather silly.

In a previous post, Doam wrote:

doam wrote:
I am always intrigued to see the down and up votes. I do not understand exactly what they mean. Is it a popularity thing or a way of saying something like "I didn't want to see that" or "I disagree strongly but can't explain why"?

[Let my own down votes begin!]

Play the ball, not the scoreboard. Don't be a hypocrite and ask for "down" votes, then when you get them complain that it's not fair. Who's the fucking nihilist here?

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Jun 22 2012 05:09
RedHughs wrote:
Uh, is not communication one of the main things that these trainings aim to teach? If you are telling someone you're going to teach them about how to communicate, shouldn't you be demonstrating that by choosing your language well?

I assume communication would mean communicating with the right people in the right way. Some people might like "super organizer" language that sounds kind of bureaucratic and triumphalist but these might not be the people we'd want to reach.

Sure maybe, the word "skill-share" is lame. But I'm from California and I'm not the one selling my communications ability.

I understand your critique, I just don't agree. Your objections seem more based on left cynicism or that some of the language used has also been used by organizations whose politics/methods we disagree with that see Alinksy as an influence/inspiration. Fair enough (this is what you are indicating. I haven't read Alinsky or been involved in those groups so I don't know).

The stuff around anticapitalism, direct action, etc is probably a bigger hang-up for people than anything. I think your objections are probably more going to come from people already on the far left, which shouldn't neccesarily be considered into the equation when the IWW does what it does or come from folks that are deeply cynical, in which if language is someone's biggest hangup, then they're not really interested in workplace organizing in the first place.

Guess I'm not really understanding your critique. Is it by using this language that you are personally suspicious of that it will implicitly promote something different? Just seems like nitpicking, with all due respect, comrade.

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Jun 22 2012 09:27

If you want to discuss voting up and down do it on another thread. Next comment I'm just going to delete.

doam
Offline
Joined: 3-05-12
Jun 22 2012 11:34
Fall Back wrote:
If you want to discuss voting up and down do it on another thread. Next comment I'm just going to delete.

Agreed, it should be in another thread.
I was just particularly struck by it in this one because of the contrast between what the commenters were saying and the underlying current of involvement, but it is suitable for another place.

A contribution more pertinent to the discussion:

I, along with Juan Conatz, am confused by your concerns Red Hughs. In the opening post you wrote

Red Hughs wrote:
I have a problem with the kind of bureaucratic tone but especially with the idea there is something like magical "organizing skills" that will get everything moving.

and then more recently

Red Hughs wrote:
At the same time, it seems to me that any "organizing" process of modern labor is pretty much in its infancy and so a group today would do best to say it has some useful skills rather than the useful skills.
....
Maybe it's just me that has some revulsion to words that sound too similar to corporate speak but what I imagine is that the most rebellious workers also have some resistance to being "trained".

The second part seems to be what other's have focused on the most but I am not clear what the first one means exactly. How would a group 'do best' to say it has some instead of all? Is the best about numbers joining or attending a particular thing or about what is most honest?

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jun 22 2012 15:07

Hieronymous wrote: “the greatest strength was simply getting a large group in a room comparing notes about work conditions. This is extremely useful for any kind of class-based activity”

This seems to be the crux of the matter and I have no doubt that many comrades who have been to these sessions have drawn a lot of confidence from this strength, which they are then able to take back to their workplaces. So what is the actual source of Red’s feeling of unease, which is one I share, despite the positive aspects of the sessions?

For those raised in the tradition of left communism, so to speak, the ‘training’ idea and the ‘organiser’ idea both seem connected to the notion of ‘organising the class’, a notion which both social democracy and anarcho-syndicalism shared to some extent. The first saw the active agent as the mass party, the second as the ‘revolutionary union’. But both began from the notion of building a mass organisation as the pre-existing vehicle for the mass struggle – a notion that I would argue was transcended by the experience of the mass strike and the formation of the workers’ councils, which gave concrete shape and meaning to the concept of the ‘self-organisation’ of the class

I have no doubt that many of the actual workplace practices of comrades who call themselves anarcho-syndicalists, and perhaps the most important ones, don’t have this substitutionist dimension, and are clearly aimed at advancing the self-organisation of the class. Nevertheless I think there will still be some basic contradictions as long as those comrades have the idea of building a union of some kind. And certainly those who start from an explicitly anti-union perspective will be uneasy about the way this contradiction can express itself in practice.

This is partly connected to the relationship between the ‘trainers’ and the actual trade unions. On the one hand, the work they are doing with the formation of workers’ committees in the workplace looks very positive and from what I can see these committees are independent of the official unions. But at the same time this independence is weakened when the comrades of Solfed or the IWW take on shop steward roles and actively recruit people to the trade union. It can thus appear that a key part of the organiser training involves learning how to ‘use’ the union machinery for the workers’ benefit. Correct me if I’m wrong.

To get back to the quote at the beginning. The vital thing we can all agree on is the necessity to bring people together, both in the workplace and across workplaces, to share experiences of struggle and discuss how to take it forward. It seems that the workplace committees are open formations, not tied to particular political or syndicalist groups. Would it not therefore be a step forward if the task of “getting a large group in a room comparing notes about work conditions” was organised by the coming together of different workers’ committees themselves, and not by this or that political/syndicalist organisation, even if the latter would certainly be present inside them?

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Jun 22 2012 15:46

In reply to RedHughs:

I think its just that since organiser training programs are relatively new, some comrades are a bit suspicious of them. The European syndicalist unions don't have them - most (actual functioning) IWA unions rely on an informal mentoring system, while (i think) "Red and Black Coordination" unions rely on traditional rep training structures borrowed from the mainstream unions. (at least thats what L&S wanted within the UK IWW)

i wouldn't call the language 'super-bureaucratic', i'd say its attempting to present the efforts of the union professionally in a way that can impress people outside the obsessive libertarian milieu, which i think it can.

i know people who pay for trainings if they are trying to get into certain jobs, and i'm pretty sure the content of those isn't entirely gospel - the point is the content has been developed from experience by people who are heavily involved in the activity in question, far more so that the people receiving the training, so therefore its allowed to be confident in its content.

the acid test is: would i feel comfortable inviting a non-political workmate or friend to a sleek professionally presented and well thought out training program that rivals the presentation of a capitalist firm or business union? yeah absolutely.

would i really see the point in inviting the same person to a 'suggestions for organising' washout that wasn't confident enough in its own content to throw all its weight behind attempting to persuade the attendee to adopt its methods? fuck no!

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Jun 22 2012 15:53
Alf wrote:
To get back to the quote at the beginning. The vital thing we can all agree on is the necessity to bring people together, both in the workplace and across workplaces, to share experiences of struggle and discuss how to take it forward. It seems that the workplace committees are open formations, not tied to particular political or syndicalist groups. Would it not therefore be a step forward if the task of “getting a large group in a room comparing notes about work conditions” was organised by the coming together of different workers’ committees themselves, and not by this or that political/syndicalist organisation, even if the latter would certainly be present inside them?

I think that was a really interesting post Alf, but could i persuade you to start a new thread for it? I'd like to talk about it more, its just i think the discussion would be a bit chaotic on this thread.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jun 22 2012 17:05

Harrison: which bits do you think fit better in a different thread: just the part you quote, or the whole of it? I can see a separate thread for the question of workplace committees, but even then, I tried to raise the issue in the context of the training sessions. Can you explain a bit more?

NUO
Offline
Joined: 22-06-12
Jun 22 2012 19:57

Hello everybody-
I'm a staff organizer with a skilled trades local in NYC and also part of the National Union of Organizers. I saw the thread heading "towards a union of organizers" and got all excited and signed up for this group. I only now realize it is about making every member an organizer, but the discussion is helpful since that's what I'm trying to do in my job as an organizer for a staunchly service model local.

I've had contact with the Wobblies before, as well as lots of other Labor organizations and I still think the mainstream labor movement would be more effective if it embraced the IWW organizing model. Also, I had been banging my head against the wall and spinning my wheels as a well intentioned but relatively unskilled shop steward with the IAM before I got some grass roots workplace organizing training somewhere else shortly before I left that job. I can only imagine what we might accomplished had I and/or some fellow shop members been given some basic skills training and I would say overall I found the pamphlet discussed here helpful. I plan on checking that site regularly in the future.

Meanwhile, if anyone wants to find out more about NUO or might have some helpful info, drop a line to nuousa@hotmail.com. We started as a Union of project organizers working for an entity called Prewitt Organizing Fund (more recently operating as TruCorps). All our original members were fired for union activity as are all newer staff that are determined to be associated with NUO. Our employer does a lot of work for SEIU and was recently involved with the AFGE/TSA campaign.

I think I've said enough for 1 post, but I just wanted to throw out 1 more thought. If you are a staff organizer for another union reading this, what do you think of IWW being the union of any and all people employed as full time organizers?

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Jun 22 2012 22:42

"National Union of Organizers" is a union of staff union reps?

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Jun 22 2012 23:51

Regarding NUO's post above.

Keep in mind that many paid union organizers are employees of unions but not represented by any unions and often suffer fates similar other low-wage, precarious workers - lack of benefits and firings for political or union activity.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Jun 23 2012 01:45

Alf, i've started writing a response to the bits i wanted to reply (the bits about workplace committees interlinking)

I have to leave my computer now, but i will post the reply up as a different thread when i've written it

hpwombat
Offline
Joined: 13-11-06
Jun 23 2012 01:45

I'm interested in workplace committees that aren't aiming for intermediate goals, but rather for raising the potential of subversion and how that can be presented in an appealing way. Currently most workplace organizing is done in a manner that suggests raising wages or benefits in the workplace, rather than in more forceful goals. What could organizing the class look like in this context or are intermediate goals necessary to establish this?

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Jun 23 2012 01:50

i split the thread:
http://libcom.org/forums/theory/workplace-committees-how-they-interlink-23062012

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Jun 23 2012 01:50

You mean can we start committees for FULL COMMUNISM right now without doing any groundwork? wink

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Jun 23 2012 02:58
Juan Conatz wrote:
You mean can we start committees for FULL COMMUNISM right now without doing any groundwork? ;)

No just wait until 2068 and in the mean time write pithy books in intellectual french!

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Jun 23 2012 04:29
ALF wrote:
To get back to the quote at the beginning. The vital thing we can all agree on is the necessity to bring people together, both in the workplace and across workplaces, to share experiences of struggle and discuss how to take it forward. It seems that the workplace committees are open formations, not tied to particular political or syndicalist groups. Would it not therefore be a step forward if the task of “getting a large group in a room comparing notes about work conditions” was organised by the coming together of different workers’ committees themselves, and not by this or that political/syndicalist organisation, even if the latter would certainly be present inside them?
Harrison wrote:
the acid test is: would i feel comfortable inviting a non-political workmate or friend to a sleek professionally presented and well thought out training program that rivals the presentation of a capitalist firm or business union? yeah absolutely.

would i really see the point in inviting the same person to a 'suggestions for organising' washout that wasn't confident enough in its own content to throw all its weight behind attempting to persuade the attendee to adopt its methods? fuck no!

I've highlighted some text to illustrate the difference in approaches. Clearly I'm more sympathetic to ALF's approach.

And Harrison, do you ever feel a little embarrassed making sneering, snide comments? If your approach is the kind of thing you believe people should be trained in, it seems rather counter-productive.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Jun 23 2012 19:15
RedHughs wrote:
And Harrison, do you ever feel a little embarrassed making sneering, snide comments?

Sorry didn't realise i'd offended? I only sneer at minor things, i think i've dealt with peoples actual arguments in a comradely way

Shorty's picture
Shorty
Offline
Joined: 13-06-05
Jun 24 2012 17:37
Harrison wrote:
In reply to RedHughs:

I think its just that since organiser training programs are relatively new, some comrades are a bit suspicious of them. The European syndicalist unions don't have them - most (actual functioning) IWA unions rely on an informal mentoring system, while (i think) "Red and Black Coordination" unions rely on traditional rep training structures borrowed from the mainstream unions. (at least thats what L&S wanted within the UK IWW)

Hmmm, this is interesting, I wonder if it's coming from (amongst others) SAC. I'll have to ask some friends but I didn't think it was of a rep training structure as opposed to organiser training from the way they briefly described it.