- McJobs and Workers -

Why unionise...

Posted by: Red Deathy ( Socialist party of Great Britain, UK ) on October 19, 1998 at 12:01:59:

In Reply to: Dissecting the IWW posted by Julie-The Gruntled Generation on October 14, 1998 at 19:22:15:

I have a friend, she worked in an Old People's home. They had a wash room, with leaking machines, she slipped, broke her leg. they wouldn't call her an ambulance, (ambulances and old folks homes and a profitable collision) so she had to pay for a taxi. She could get sick pay, so she had to work the next day. When she decided to sue over the managements blatant culpability over her broken leg, they sacked her. Because she was sacked she couldn't claim welfare, because she hadn't paid enough stamp she couldn't claim disability allowance. Her employers have repeatedly refused to give her relevent documentation so she could get benefits, because it would also enable her to get legal aid to sue the fuckers? See the need for a Union in this case?

: Dissecting The Message of the IWW

I'm not a member of the IWW but I agree with much of what it says, and a few comrades are members of the IWW...

: >>The working class and the employing class have nothing in common<<

Perhaps better put by our declaration of principles...
1.That society as at present constituted is based upon the ownership of the means of living (i.e., land, factories,
railways, etc.) by the capitalist or master class, and the consequent enslavement of the working class, by
whose labour alone wealth is produced.
2.That in society, therefore, there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle between
those who possess but do not produce and those who produce but do not possess.

: I have to eat and pay bills just like my employees do. I need to have money for the basics in life.
Yes, thats correct, but their ay of paying bills is by effectively stealing wealth from you, that you have created, they live off your labour...its worth noting that about 90% of Americans are working class by our definition, although the IWW being a union not a political party needs a different definition for membership purposes 9e.g. one of my branch comrades is an employer in his own small firm, we'd take him, the IWW wouldn't...)

: >>There can be no
: peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the
: few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life<<

: I have yet to meet a rich fast food manager or district supervisor for that matter. Their car might be a bit nicer than mine or my employees but they sure aren't rolling in the dough.

Thats because they are working class like yourself. Its just they are paid to enusre that you work hard to make more money for their employer. they are needed to surpervise and organise...note the few bit again, 10% of the population has something like 80% of the wealth...
: >>Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize
: as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live
: in harmony with the Earth.<<

: Sounds real earthy but then their would be no reason for anyone to try to move up in life or better themselves or even have an opportunity to gain more in life because they are held down by a system that says they have to be like everyone else and cannot achieve more than others.

Socialism is not about being like everyone else- why not struggle to try and become a good musician, a good painter, a fine car mechanic? Why not try and earn folks admiration, rather than try and get more material things. And of course, if the difference you are looking for lies in material things you could end up like those travelling sales reps, who dream of having a slightly different company car, so they can get on up on the other reps...

: >>These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an
: organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all
: industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department
: thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.<<

: Oh great so if your pisssed off about your job I should lose everything Ive worked for eventhough I haven't been wronged by my employer.

As Qx says a strike against one is a strike against all, you have a common cuase with your fwellow employees...

Unions aren't needed for work stopage. If one doesn't like their job or the way they are treated then they can stop working and go find a new job.

Not easy in times of high unemployement, o if you basically like your job but just don't like specific practises, or liek your firneds, or have bills to pay, its not that easy to change jobs, especially for older folk...

: >>It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism<<

: Says who??

Charlie Marx for one...
Or as we say...
4.That as in the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to achieve its freedom, the
emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race or

No one asked me if I wanted to do away with Capitalism. I infact like a
Well, that what we're here for, to ask you...

system that will reward me for hard work.

Ah, but at the moment people are being sacked left riht and centre for working too hard, thats what capitalism is all about, a cisis occur when we produce 'too much' wealth. Working hard is bad for your job...

I know that if I do my job well then I will make more money and move up to a higher postion.

Mwahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahaha! If you do your job well your employer makes more money, he may eventually reward you by moving you up to a place where he can exploit you with less effort, you never earn the full value of your work...

: Ok now Im inviting constructive debate on what Ive wrote. Any flaming or idiocity will not be responded to.

We need unions.

As a little anecdote I recently read that during the passing of the Great Reform Bill (1836) Durham miners were found to be in favour of universal suffrage, that is they thought it meant universal suffering.

Not relevent, but it amused me...


Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup