- McJobs and Workers -

Dry flat, and away from sources of heat !

Posted by: Trolley Dolly ( Northern Ireland ) on August 07, 1998 at 10:41:26:

In Reply to: Spin Cycle in Reverse? posted by Quincunx on August 06, 1998 at 10:48:39:

: Qx: It really depends on the organization and it's structure. For instance, we're involved in organizing drives in very hostile regions (mainly the USA) which require planning for dangerous situations. We're watched by many a labor relations management firm (i.e.; unionbusters) plus other unions (piecards) and so we have to be careful about endangering the livelihoods of workers who might just happen to chat with us.

What kind of dangerous situations ? And why are other unions wary of you ? Do they feel threatened because the IWW is a subversive organisation ? I get the impression that many ordinary unions (in the UK) actually have quite a cosy relationship with the companies they are involved in. Unions here don't seem to have many teeth. (That's just the impression I get) I'll give you guys credit - you seem to be a lot more go-get than others. (There you are - it wasn't too hard to say !)
But I still think there is a fundamental difference in mindset between you and the workers.

: We're a rank-and-file organization with no bureaucracy so whatever money would be spent on union drives and information propagation (hence the word propaganda) is open knowledge and easily accessible to all Wobblies. So to spend as much as McD's on advertising would be an interesting hypothetically speaking but the focus would be far different than that of McD's or even a Communist grouping (both of which are elitist heirarchies). So no, we wouldn't do the same things, simply due to the goals of the IWW.

I know that ! If some mystery benefactor dumped millions into the IWW bank account (presuming they have one) it would help them to be more effective wouldn't it ? Yes or No ? I mean, the USA might be different, but in the UK, internet access is still quite limited to those who can afford a PC, i.e. the moderately comfortably off. PC's, internet access and the phone bill don't come cheap. So trying to reach the low paid, most disadvantaged through this medium is missing the boat a bit. Come on, if you had access to McD's advertising budget, your publicity and adverts would be everywhere ! There be one on every corner, so to speak....

: Qx: I guess I'll have to take your word for it. After all, this is the Internet.

Thank f**k for that ! But you don't have to be so grudging with it !

: Qx: I actually do more of it and since you addressed the IWW you should expect more than just a response from me.

And what a civil response this one has been! Now you are convinced I am not the enemy, I am no longer being roasted on a daily basis ! Although your titles still contain a few cryptic digs...

: TD: And our points of view are hardly likely to drown out everyone else - there's only a few of us who dare speak out !

: Qx: Who are those of you? Do you identify yourself as a pro-capitalists or merely pro-McD's? By the way, this "daring to speak out" phrase indicates that perhaps you feel you are in a totalitarian society of some sort or another. Well, chilll out. You're actually just typing and if you feel censored there happens to be software glitches from time to time. I estimate that about 40% of my postings here have never materialized.

As much as 40% ? I thought you'd be the dahling of the McSpotlighters ! You must have said some pretty evil stuff ! And I'm not pro, or anti anything in particular. It varies.
What I meant is that your previous verbose style was very intimidating, and I'm sure that there are many people a bit too scared to take you on ! Now you have put away the thesaurus and are no longer trying to stun me with your intellect, I feel I can discuss things in a civil way, just like we are doing now. The way you got on before used to really wind me up ! I think the word is pompous.

: Qx: Sure . Go ahead and fire a salvo.

It was more an attempt at proving that I am genuine, not a company hackette with a hidden agenda ! It certainly wasn't an attempt to salvage my reputation, or ease my conscience !

: Qx: Hey! Be careful about the booze will ya? Many an accident has happened at the deep fat friers.

I don't have a deep fat fryer in my house ! Why would I want to eat fried food after looking at it all day ?

: Qx: Uh.....okay then...this is a collective entity we're dealing with.

You still don't seem convinced !

: Qx: I really can't see any of the major factions in that there neck of the woods being out to get you but then again, I'm not a local yokel of Ulster.

I don't give a shit about being identified by the paramilitaries ! It's being recognised by McPeople that will be my downfall. McD's is gossip city, you can't keep anything a secret - it's so incestuous !!

: Qx: It's understandable. You seem to be somewhat critical of McD'sso anonymity could be very preferential. After all, I do it myself so who am I to tell someone else to quit using a nom-de-guerre? Trolley Dolly is easily identifiable so why not use it?

OK TD it stays. (And less of the DT's, eh ?)

: Qx: Please tell us about the differences. Joey Stalin and Bengt have talked about some things along those lines but it would be helpful to throw some light on the subject.

There is no "company culture" (other McD people will understand this)
There is no hierarchy above you. You work for an individual businessperson. This situation is a benefit because it's easier to negotiate and share ideas.
The franchisees spend a lot of time bitching about the company, and they don't seem to trust them. How's that for starters ?

: Qx: Ok. You're probably right about this being more than time. Education can go a long ways too. Not the education of mass corporate media but from other sources as well. Type out consumerism on any search engine and I'm sure you'll find quite a few sources to draw from.

I'm in shock. Someone get me a stiff drink. Qx said I was probably right !!! Did it hurt to write that Qx ?

This is the first exchange with you I've enjoyed. Can we now drop the attempts at one-overism, and have a debate ?

Till the next time,


Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup