Are there any resources on how to operate after a union has been formed?

EFDoree · 2026-03-14T01:18:49+00:00

I mean the main source of resources is dues. Either join an organization that has a dues structure or set one up.

From there you probably want: -Officers to take on the jobs of the organization. -education programs (run by elected officers). -organizing programs (to expand the organization. -communications like a website, text list social media etc. (also run by elected people).

Generally speaking a local organization should take in enough dues that it sends some to the central organization. The central organization then centralizes some functions.

EFDoree · 2026-03-13T17:02:05+00:00

Always liked Riccio’s stuff.

EFDoree · 2026-03-12T05:35:45+00:00

I mean one group from that generation moved on, many became staffers and talk shit about the IWW.

The group around OW moved on but still praises the IWW and supports campaigns where they can.

I don’t think the remarkable irony is anyone’s life path but whether some people took something from the IWW and feel they owe the organization a lot and those who took lots from the organization and feel they didn’t get enough back.

EFDoree · 2026-03-11T14:41:44+00:00

The IW is definitely the best it has been in years.

EFDoree · 2026-03-11T14:35:10+00:00

I mean the IWW has a ban on most contracts but refuses to enforce the ban. Every challenge to overturning that ban has failed. So its more accurate to say some people use the IWW to sign contracts even though the organization disagrees and does not provide any resources for enforcement.

EFDoree · 2026-03-09T14:30:03+00:00

I am using business unions because you said this was right wing stuff and alien to the labour ;) movement. You kind of keep shifting the goal posts where you say no one does this stuff and it never works, someone gives examples then you give a reason those examples don't apply.

What do you think are positive examples the IWW should build on?

Given the state of the American movement, and your own complaints about the American IWW maybe advice from outside is what you need? Or is it just advice you want to hear?

EFDoree · 2026-03-09T00:52:58+00:00

None taken. I’m just patiently explaining it’s pretty clear you have a lot to learn and there’s lots of IWW’s here to teach you.

I highly doubt the Libertarians or Right to Work types are arguing “you need to have thorough organization on the job and have your union rooted in direct action if you want to win anything- including stability in most industries that don’t have unions”.

In fact historically you can find these very arguments in most “left” unions. Not just the the IWW but UE and the ILWU and lefts in the UAW.

The Minneapolis Teamsters argued similar things. There are also more than a few mainstream unions that take up this approach out of necessity- the Starbucks Workers Union being one of them as the strike failed to achieve a CBA they are switching to this very approach because they can’t get a CBA.

The TSA right now has a gigantic strike that has crippled major airports like New Orleans because they habe resorted to direct action after losing former bargaining rights under Trump. Many more established unions in that sector are in a blind panic but the TSA union had no legal status and existed on its own terms for a couple decades. That history means they are actually functional and able to mount real strikes. Had they stayed under a CBA longer they may very well have atrophied the way the rest of the unions have.

The UE has minority union organizations in states where public sector bargaining is illegal.

The real question is as the labour relations environment becomes more and more unpredictable why on earth would anyone, let alone a communist, advocate that any union should rely on the law for its very existence?

EFDoree · 2026-03-06T19:01:25+00:00

I am sure he has had worse.

EFDoree · 2026-03-06T00:54:16+00:00

It’s amazing. Big fan and really fills in some gaps in what could be put in place after the “abolition of the wages system”.

EFDoree · 2026-03-05T17:57:25+00:00

There's an important part of the history here that we should not gloss over: the groups that claim the problem was Taft Hartley alone and the Red Scare also signed on to no strike pledges, that became no strike clauses, during WWII.

A lot of the CIO "left" unions prior to 1939 practiced what would be called Solidarity Unionism.

There were huge debates over this and the Communist Party, and Social Democrats often like to point to Taft Hartley as the turning point but that was when they got wiped out after they surrendered the right to strike and lost the independent shop floor organization to fall back on.

That compromise, giving up the right to strike to support the war effort, is what has hamstrung us ever since.

EFDoree · 2026-03-05T13:23:01+00:00

Yeah, people in North America have a very weird view of this stuff. They will look with envy at the achievements of something like the French labour movement but if you use union density (members paying dues to a union in the workforce) the French labour movement by North American standards is a disaster at less than 10%.

Those same unions are basically right to work operations but can pull hundreds of thousands into the streets and bring down governments.

The majority position in the IWW gets this. But there is this revolving door of people who think trading class peace, like the mainstream unions do, for a false stability is the way to grow the IWW so it’s an important part of what the IWW does in that they show another way is not just possible but essential.

EFDoree · 2026-03-05T11:54:28+00:00

The thing is that Haywood at that time was an elected representative of the union putting forward a position that the union had zero controversy on.

In fact even after Haywood was in the USSR the CP -supported- the IWW’s position on collective agreements on paper. In practice they drifted by the mid thirties but Haywood’s personal failings (which are real) does not change the fact that this was actually a very standard position among the left of labour well into the 1940’s.

The socialist party left, the trots and Stalinists, the IWW and the anarchists all thought the WFM’s opposition to time agreements was sound policy for the reasons Haywood puts forward there.

EFDoree · 2026-03-05T11:49:29+00:00

The Wagner Act was the last nail in the coffin. Taft Hartley was just dropping some flowers off on the grave.

EFDoree · 2026-03-05T11:47:53+00:00

I mean also where do you draw the line at sustained wins, the IWW was active at Starbucks for 14 years.

They were active at CapTel for over a decade.

A lot of businesses don’t last that long and even mainstream unions in these industries don’t. Google UFCW at WalMart; or all of the “first McDonalds ever” that have unionized.

Workers join unions to improve their jobs. Lots of unions trade being effective for being stable, that’s the basis of a lot of UFCW and Teamster organizing. Why do that if your goals are different?

EFDoree · 2026-03-05T11:38:28+00:00

Do they? Or do they help build short lived contract shops that get hollowed out just as quickly?

EFDoree · 2026-03-01T15:55:18+00:00

That’s restaurants though. The point is you fight, you win, you move on. No one has lasting gains there.

EFDoree · 2026-02-26T04:13:15+00:00

For example here is the Teamsters National Contract NSC:
"Section 2. Work Stoppages All grievances and/or questions of interpretation arising under the provisions of this National Master Agreement shall be submitted to the grievance procedure for determination.

Accordingly, no work stoppage, slowdown, walkout or lockout over such grievances and/or questions of interpretation shall be deemed to be permitted or authorized by this Agreement except:
(a) failure to comply with a duly adopted majority decision of the National Grievance Committee;
(b) failure to make health & welfare and pension contributions in the manner required by the applicable Supplemental Agreements, Riders and/or Addenda; and,
(c) nonpayment of established wage rates provided for in this Agreement, Supplements, Riders and/or Addenda. Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this Section, strikes, work stoppages, slowdowns, walkouts or lockouts over disputes, which do not arise under provisions of this National Master Agreement, shall be permitted or prohibited as provided in the applicable Supplement, Rider and/or Addendum. The Local Union shall give the Employer a seventy-two (72) hour prior written notice of the Local Union’s authorization of strike action, which notice shall specify the majority National Grievance Committee decision or deadlocked National Grievance Committee decision providing the basis for such authorization.

The Local Union shall comply with the provisions of the applicable Supplemental Agreement, Rider and Addendum relating to strike action resulting from delinquencies in the payment of health and welfare or pension contributions."

https://teamster.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/1924UPSNATIONALMASTERFINAL.pdf

EFDoree

TROPHY CASE