Last weekend’s Indymedia conference was held in the new Unite offices, on the top floor of the Queen St. ASB Building. The view from the top is quite impressive: you can see all the worker minions — potential Unte members — going about their daily business far down on the street below. There are plans to hang huge red flags from the flag poles at the top of the building, and to brand the top of the building with the Unite logo, though I was told the $100,000 required to do this the whole way round was too much even for Unite, and for the mentime the branding would only face Queen St.
While at the conference I was pulled aside by two organisers to have “a talk” about my comments about the Unite and Wananga deal which, as far as I was concerned, merely amounted to a restating of our positions. One tried to explain to me the “tension” between the effectiveness of the union and democracy… I didn’t even try to explain the difference between union democracy and self-management.
While they acknowledged that what I wrote was correct (and tried to get my sources too), they made it clear that it had been particularly damaging. It turns out that my comments somehow managed to come within reach of the Te Wananga Crown observer who promptly cancelled a number of Unite classes mainly in Palmerston North and Wellington. No doubt this is only a temporary respite, but in any case it does absolutely nothing to actually resolve the real issues of democracy within Unite or transparency, among many others (such as Matt McCarten’s empire building).
After our “talk”, the two organisers then offered me a job as an organiser for a week, which I politely refused. Can you say co-option?
24 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 7, 2007 at 3:44 pm
yuda
I was recently talking to an ex unite organiser who was told that their job no longer existed and that their role was now one of a recruiter for whananga.
Not supprisingly they are now no longer working for either unite or whananga. I agree with you that unite seems to be more about empire building (I think it a bit broader then McCarten) than an express desire to organise a union for those people which the traditional unions fail to or have no desire to help.
Like any good capitalist McCarten has seen a gap in the market and has siezed it for himself.
February 8, 2007 at 11:20 am
pete
lol yuda. ‘Whananga’ means revolution! The tertiary institution unite is recruiting for is Te Wananga o Aotearoa. That ‘h’ makes all the difference.
February 8, 2007 at 1:26 pm
yuda
lol funny…
….role was now one of a recruiter for whananga.
if only eh?
Ahh that’s what happens when you rely on google as a spell check
February 8, 2007 at 5:32 pm
anon
good one torrance. you managed to get some educational classes cancelled. not everyone has the opportunity to do post grad at university like you. great contribution to the revolutionary struggle.
February 8, 2007 at 6:13 pm
JP
No Unite organiser has left since Unite started working with The Wa. Factually incorrect.
Interesting that you quote-mark the phrase ‘a talk’. We talked!
You did not reaffirm your position, you made apologies and concessions and snivelled somehitng about how you didn’t mean to accuse us of class collaboration, you only meant Mike and Matt, then said that the lack of democracy was Unite’s failure to notify *you* of what was happening. We replied along the lines that ‘yes, there is an uneven development between AK and Wellington Christchurch, and that it needed to be worked on. We have started working on it.’ As we explained to you later on that evening, having people form other centeres in Auckland to orgainse for a couple of weeks can assist that process, and we invited you to do it.
We have no desire to co-opt you, and it’s strange that you think along those lines.
I did not takl about a ‘tension between union effectiveness and union democracy’. One of the talking points in your indy thread was lack of stirke activity. In relation to a specific campaign, i told you that we wanted more workers control *and* strike activity. I pointed out that if we were to go and impose a stirke now, that this would undermine workers control becasue the delegate structures are not yet strong enough, thus leaving us in the leadership position. If we go for worker’s contorl at this very moment then a stirke isn’t going to happen. So there is a tension there. I then pointed out that, obviously, workers control and stirkes do not exclude eachother, that we want to do things a little differently and bide the time, agitate, and allow the members to have full control over stirke activity. We see this is making an in-road against some of the problems of demcracy that have been present in the past.
Your response was, ‘Yeah well I’d never want to undermine democracy’. But apparently now you reneg on that in favour of self-management.
Don’t identify the company we were talking about. You already helped the bosses enough! Always hurt the ones you love.
February 8, 2007 at 7:18 pm
anarchafairy
Hi Jared,
We’ve talked about most of this in person so I won’t bother repeating anything… we both know we disagree with each other on a number of levels: you have strong Maoist tendencies and I’m an anarchist!
Two things though:
Yes, at least one organiser has indeed left since the Wananga deal, though not as a result of it, AFAIK.
Secondly, with regards to the accusation of class collaboration, if you were listening, I actually said it was difficult for members of the same class to engage in class collaboration (as this is traditionally an interclass compromise) and that, considering Matt’s position (as part of a kind of leftist managerial class), it is better described as class collusion against workers.
February 8, 2007 at 11:35 pm
JP
Not really sure how much this has to do with me having strong Maoist tendencies etc, the other comrade in our conversation, ‘a talk’ (I believe we said ‘Let’s have a chat about this’, so why not drop your victim theme), has no Maoist tendencies. But anyway, I reject the method, your method, that prevents debate between people of different anti-capitalist tendencies, unless that was just some throwaway comment.
1) I suggest that you could post me the name of the organiser in a private email, just so you can back your claim. (jared@unite.org.nz).
2) Your indy thread branded Unite as a class collaborationist union. When did you take that back? In the original post in this thread you said that our talk amounted to a mere restatement of positions but now you say that it didn’t.
Also, you should apologise for the misinformation – contained in your original post here – that I talked of a tension between union effectiveness and democracy. It’s a very dirty way to play. I was talking several layers past this kind of nonsense and on the opposite side from what you’re implying.
I also think you should apologise, or acknowledge that you’re wrong, for saying that we sought to co-opt you. Nothing could be further from the truth. We suggested you work with us, just to see if anything might come from it, and then you try and score points off that, being to radical to be co-opted, eventhough there was no intention to co-opt you. Our suggestions were genuine, i.e. that you could be involved in delegate’s training day, an event that enables mass contact with masses of oppressed workers.
It’s not like we offered you a bag of cash or any other perks to shut you up. We asked you if you want to volunteer. This last little tantrum, amongst other things, shows how self-indulgent you are.
February 9, 2007 at 9:27 am
anarchafairy
1) I suggest that you could post me the name of the organiser in a private email, just so you can back your claim. (jared@unite.org.nz).
No thanks.
2) Your indy thread branded Unite as a class collaborationist union. When did you take that back? In the original post in this thread you said that our talk amounted to a mere restatement of positions but now you say that it didn’t.
Only the title mentioned anything to do with class collaboration, and changing that to class collusion is not much better. Anyway, I think you’re missing the point: the entire contents of the post still stands, and as I said, I believe the deal is in the interests of both the leadership of Unite and the Wananga and NOT in the interests of the workers. Surely, rather than word play, this should be of most concern to you?
Also, you should apologise for the misinformation – contained in your original post here – that I talked of a tension between union effectiveness and democracy.
This is what you actually said. And you’ve said it again in this very blog entry: “so there is a tension there [between workers' militancy and democracy]“.
What I find worrying in your restatement of that position are comments like “I pointed out that if we were to go and impose a stirke now…”. Do you not think it’s rather fucked up that you even have the power, full stop, to impose (and to stop – as happened during Supersizemypay.com with the call centre) strikes? And don’t you think it is bizarre that you are trying to cultivate union democracy from above?
I also think you should apologise, or acknowledge that you’re wrong, for saying that we sought to co-opt you.
OK, sure, you say you weren’t so I guess you weren’t. In any case, actually working for Unite probably would have shut me up, as that’s how these sorts of things tend to play out. Moreover, I fail to see how you expected me to sign people up to the Wananga when that is something I am so clearly opposed to?
February 9, 2007 at 10:04 am
me of course
go anarchafairy! you are saying what so many of us are thinking.
February 10, 2007 at 11:49 am
JP
T:
This is what you actually said. And you’ve said it again in this very blog entry: “so there is a tension there [between workers’ militancy and democracy]”.
JP:
No, what we are saying, with reference to a particular cmapaign, is that we want to advance democracy by coupling workers democracy/ workers control with stirke activity, and you might know this has been a problme in the past. At no time have I said that there is a tension between union effectiveness and union democracy. Yet you make up stuff in this absolutley false quotation “so there is a tension there [between workers’ militancy and democracy]”. Let me spell it out again, within a particualr campaign, if we, the organisers, lead a strike, then that would put certain breaks on democracy. If it was up to the workers at the moment to carry out a strike, it wouldn’t come off. So we are building for the situation in which there will be a coupling of rank and file control and strike activity. That’s what we want to help bring about, not what we oppose, as you claim here.
T:
“What I find worrying in your restatement of that position are comments like “I pointed out that if we were to go and impose a stirke now…”. Do you not think it’s rather fucked up that you even have the power, full stop, to impose (and to stop – as happened during Supersizemypay.com with the call centre) strikes?”
JP:
We have done very well with this campaign so far, taking people from being hostile or alienated from the ideas of unionism, collective action, etc, and creating militant cells within stores, and a small army within particular store. Clearly, what we are trying to do is facilitate rank-and-file control.
I mean no disrespect to any of the comrades who fought through the superzizemypay campaign, but one problem in the fast-food sector is that we don’t have advanced cells/delegate structures etc in any of the stores, despite the massive struggle that was supersize. So obviously we have to think around this. With the particualr firm that I’ve been talking about in this post, we feel that the activation of more workers control during the strike period will lead to having fast-food workplaces in which we can have semi-autonomous cells and delegate structures in stores, handling the issues, doing the servicing, etc, i.e. a fully functional operational union site, with elements of workers control. (Don’t write another absurd post attempting to blast me for saying ‘elements of workers control’, becasue as I’m sure you know, workers control is not possiible within capitalism).
T:
“And don’t you think it is bizarre that you are trying to cultivate union democracy from above?”
JP:
No, I don’t find it bizarre that we are trying to cultivate union democracy. I don’t know whether you could say that we are cultivating it ‘from above’, more through discussions with the members. I’m not sure how we are ‘above’ the workers. I’d say that we’re down with these workers, if you get my meaning.
It was in a rushed post that I wrote ‘imposed’, what i meant was top-down leadership over strikes. If you were arguing along the lines of this debate properly, you would have had the grace to let that go. But you are very good at the cheap shots.
February 10, 2007 at 12:18 pm
JP
JP:
From your posts, I think we can establish that either A) despite doing Soc. hons. in yr spare time, you are a very stark thinker, or B) you’re trying to defame us.
T:
OK, sure, you say you weren’t so I guess you weren’t. In any case, actually working for Unite probably would have shut me up, as that’s how these sorts of things tend to play out. Moreover, I fail to see how you expected me to sign people up to the Wananga when that is something I am so clearly opposed to?
JP:
We didn’t say that you’d be expected to enrol people who haven’t had access to tertiary education into courses. This again shows how stark you are. We werre trying to have an open discussion about you doing some work with us, and in partucalr we said you could be invovled in building for delegates traingin day.
Lastly, in response to your question “And don’t you think it is bizarre that you are trying to cultivate union democracy from above?” I would point out, in addiction to my last post, that we actually discuss this with these members concerned, that to advance the fast-food campaing, we need to have them in control. We openly say discuss this. We aren’t conspiratorially moving the pieces to make democracy. I think it’s perhaps outside of your scope to understand this becasue, like you, the members are our victims, they just don’t know it.
February 10, 2007 at 12:20 pm
JP
Last post, last paragraph should read ‘addition’, not ‘addiction;.
February 10, 2007 at 12:46 pm
JP
T:
“Only the title mentioned anything to do with class collaboration, and changing that to class collusion is not much better.”
J:
I think you should work on your titles. For example, this thread is named ‘Unite update’, and the post is by no means an update on Unite, how about, ‘My totured thoughts about Unite’.
February 10, 2007 at 2:30 pm
yuda
jp it really pisses me off when union types state that workers are too stupid to organise themselves
February 10, 2007 at 2:49 pm
JP
T:
‘Anyway, I think you’re missing the point: the entire contents of the post still stands, and as I said, I believe the deal is in the interests of both the leadership of Unite and the Wananga and NOT in the interests of the workers. Surely, rather than word play, this should be of most concern to you?’
J:
No, it’s not a concern to me because I don’t accept the premise that this benifits only the Unite leadership and the Wananga. Clearly this alliance benifits the members and their families. If you can’t see that, then that’s your problem in your parrallel universe. In the previous thread (on Indy) you pointed out that the courses are free anyway. That’s true, but Unite is creating the access to the working poor who, for whatever reason, most probabaly historical accident, have not found access to these particualr courses desptie being seen as the target group for the courses. It also means that their classes can take place in a working class atmosphere, which greatly contributes to confidence etc.
From an organising point of view there are two things that are quite important here. Firstly, and most importantly, I think Unite is making some international breakthroughs as to how to retain the membership of a highly mobile workforce which floats through the labour market by proving real benifits outsided of the workplace. And these are benefits that bind people together, and empower people in the long term. During our first enrolment period we sat down with workers who did not know how to drive a mouse. That’s all changing for them. This is directly confronting the structural barriers to unions presented by the segmented labour markets and workplaces of neo-liberalism. Secondly, the provision of the courses has provided a way for us to have hundreds of members coming into our offices every week. I’d be greatful if you could point out any other union which has its members pouring into its premises each week. Thirdly, becasue of the massive variation of social groups within the industries over which we have coverage, we come across quite conservative elements from time to time. On a store that I vist regulraly I have seen an employee go from being hostile to the union, to joining a course but not the union, and then moving to join the union, and then to casting a strike vote. This may not sound perfect to you, but it is a good trajectory for someone who statred out very conservative.
The offices are quite flash but guess what? We need computer suites to run computer courses, and I don’t see why memebrs and their families shouldn’t get the best possible facilities. We are talking about working class people, not wealthy people with a cool image to keep.
February 10, 2007 at 3:45 pm
JP
‘jp it really pisses me off when union types state that workers are too stupid to organise themselves’
it really pisses me off when people talk shit and create straw men all over the place, you simplistic fuk
February 10, 2007 at 3:47 pm
JP
Yuda, I’m orgainsing workers into delegates training day at this very moment – jeez i must doubt them and hate them
February 10, 2007 at 6:09 pm
JP
’state that workers are too stupid to organise themselves’
you give me the creeps yoda
February 11, 2007 at 12:30 pm
yuda
Thanks jp, I’m glad I give you the creeps. you assertation thet: ” If it was up to the workers at the moment to carry out a strike, it wouldn’t come off” sounds very much to me like the workers can’t be trusted to organise themselves. So why is this? And isn’t turning workers into delegates whilst in theory sounds like a good idea but still in practice is still putting the power of the union in the hands of the few.
I see you a adept at the strawman too jp, I never said you hate workers in fact you absolutly rely on them to give you your power.
And lay off the personal attacks, they’re neither big, clever or funny.
February 12, 2007 at 5:38 pm
JP
“Thanks jp, I’m glad I give you the creeps. you assertation thet: ” If it was up to the workers at the moment to carry out a strike, it wouldn’t come off” sounds very much to me like the workers can’t be trusted to organise themselves. So why is this? And isn’t turning workers into delegates whilst in theory sounds like a good idea but still in practice is still putting the power of the union in the hands of the few.”
No, not can’t be trusted. Not at all. Within a particualr campaign at a previously un-unionised site, the workers are not yet prepared to take stirke action on theri own accord. Sorry does not fit with your dogmas. It is a persoanl attack on me to imply that as a ‘union type’ I think workers are dumb, so you can get the fuc out of my face on that one.
February 12, 2007 at 10:04 pm
militantstudent
“I believe the deal is in the interests of both the leadership of Unite and the Wananga and NOT in the interests of the workers”
Sorry anarchafairy, but you really should get out of your parralel universe if you believe the above statement. How is learning computer skills, te reo maori, adult learning skills or esol not in these workers interests? You should meet some of the workers doing these courses. im one worker who is doing a course and its in my interests as far as i can see. It would be more correct to say that “the deal is in the interests of both the leadership of Unite and the Wananga AND in the interests of the workers”
February 12, 2007 at 10:25 pm
anarchafairy
You’re also one of the organisers getting (potentially) $50 per person you recruit to both the Wananga and Unite, Omar. I guess you have to justify it to yourself then, huh?
You could make all manner of arguments about the validity of the “education” being taught. Some of it may be worthwhile, the business courses are certainly not. You could also talk about how the line advocated by McCarten – that workers need to be more educated to be worthy of better pay – is thoroughly productivist, individualist and belies the fact that better pay will only come for most through struggle against the bosses.
But we needn’t even argue these. The Unite-Wananga pact was motivated by the gain to both organisations, not the workers. If workers desired it, they could join the Wananga freely. If Unite actually cared about education they could have been distributing Wananga information long before any financial arrangement was sorted out. If Unite were transparent they (you!!) would be telling workers of the financial returns they bring Unite (and the Wananga) when you sign them up.
Be careful not to become an apologist for the union bureaucracy, or to confuse their interests with the workers they manage.
February 20, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Sam Buchanan
“Some of it may be worthwhile, the business courses are certainly not”
Why not? Do you think people (a) shouldn’t have jobs that require these skills or (b) shouldn’t have jobs or (c) should have neither jobs nor these skills?
February 20, 2007 at 11:14 pm
yuda
Actually one of the katipo collective is doing a small business course at Wananga. Apparently they are finding that quite useful