/labor/ - Labor

Gunna try and post weekly updates on my own unionizing efforts, feel free to critique or whatever. This post will mostly be background info.
I work in forestry for a munincipality that is slowly shedding its staff to hire contractors, which feels typical for most indistries these days. My contract is seasonal, although i was told it would be year-round, and im trying to stoke some anger over that. Frusteratingly, a decent chunk of the people i work with are quite well off (parents just bought one of them a house for example), and are too afraid of rocking the boat to ever fight for a better world. Furthermore, the person i work with the most is somewhat of a kiss-ass, so i fear bringing up unionizing with him, but i have made some progress talking to him recently (i hope).
Ive brought up unions to one co-worker already, but she didnt want anything to do with it (she is a cop-apologist, it was a mistake to talk to her). My next target is in a different department, so its going to be hard to find a chance to talk to him alone, but we had some productive talks last year. he might be the only person who knows me for a comrade, plus he fucking hates management which is great. Im also trying to be more blatantly socialist this year, which is something that was reccommended to me.
Wish me luck!

Relevant practice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb_zeMxjSnc&list=PLXUFLW8t2snstWxtBLph20zwbgNaHLS0l

Relevant theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=est9aqdlKlg&list=PLXUFLW8t2sntSYjP-T7C789LMBk5R5w2d

>>288
gl Anon! :D
And even fortnightly or monthly.

>>289
preddy gud :D

How can i unionize my workplace when a ton of them are foreigners on visas?

its a white collar workplace (IT).

>>293
>How can i unionize my workplace when a ton of them are foreigners on visas?
You can't. That's what makes foreigners on visas so attractive to employers, very very low unionisation rate. Turns out that immigrants living on countries full of racist fucks will choose to keep their head down, to avoid being on the receiving end of gardener violence.

>>288
Aye!

Here's some quick pamphlets on identifying wreckers and wrecker behavior (some are less intended for labor organizing but the principles can be applied).

>>301
Nice, and the CIA had one too I think (basically teaching civillians people how to be wreckers). Can't find it though…

>>294
Yes, you can. But not if you accept bourgeois legalism as the framework for organizing a union. I don't know where the comrade asking is from, but I'm from the US so I'll give you an example of how to do this.

First, do not bet on the NLRB helping you at all. It is designed to tie up union struggle in red tape. Avoid it unless you're forced into a position where its use is unavoidable, and even then, don't trust it.

Second, organize workers regardless of their immigration status. The foreign workers are being screwed big time. Are their visas tied to employment? Then they're indentured servants, and are no doubt being paid far less than citizen workers. By fighting together with citizen workers, they can force their wages up to the same level if there's a really hard fight.

The argument for why citizen workers should support immigrants is straight forward: it's not some hippie, liberal shit about how nice it is and blah blah blah. It's that the boss is paying them less which means it doesn't have to pay native workers shit, either. Having them being paid less means making it harder for the citizen workers to fight and get what they need, too. Eliminating major differentials would benefit both.

This won't be easy, because the employer is backed up by the state, and white collar workers have very little social power. Are there other workers in your building or at your company with real power? Reach out to them, organize together. For example, if you work in an office, you probably have a building engineer and janitors. Are they union? Organize alongside them if not, or fight to get into their union. They can make hell for the boss by fucking with building operations and get your demands- especially if it means they get something out of it. Organizing more workers would improve their position for bargaining and winning higher wages is obviously good too.

The bottom line is that to fight and really win the kind of strategy for organizing that the union leaders use (looking to the government and the bosses' political parties, trying to protect the company bottom line) won't cut it. You have to trust only your fellow workers- not the government, not the boss, etc, and be prepared for a fight to the end.

Good stuff to read:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1944/ht03.htm
Teamster Rebellion series by Farrell Dobbs

>>288
Week 2 update
Havent been able to do too much this week, but i made a bit of progress. The main guy i work with (henceforth referred to as Bootlicker Bill) was suprisingly receptive to socialist theory, especially because Ive been trying to subtly push him towards distrust of managers. It helps that there have been a lot of higher-ups getting canned or resigning due to poor management. Still, the guy has made it pretty clear that he isnt ready to organise along prole lines. Next week, my goals are again to contact people outside my team that im fairly certain are willing to organize, and perhaps start a list of organizing comitee candidates.
One concern ive been given (from the cop apologist, henceforth Pigfucker Paula) is that im making a power play by trying to organize, as i would be the most knowledgeable when it comes to organizing. It's a damn insulting projection, but its useful to know what individualists think of me. Im not sure how to assuage these fears, or if i should bother.
>>292
Ok i might post a little less frequently, if i have no updates. But weekly posts keep me focused on the goal and accountable for ideological drifting.
>>289
Useful resources! I listened to the theory playlist up to the end of the Eugene Debs videos and i found them very inspiring! Ill start with the practice videos next week.

>>322
>power play
This is extremely retarded. Being a union rep is so much fucking work and I wish I wasn't forced into it due to no one else caring. It can be fun at times (especially since I have the backing of an actually strong union, Fellesforbundet) but I miss being able to cruise by with no effort.

You are not a real prole if you are a child mining cobalt in fancy cobalt mines. Real proles mine poop in the poop mines.

>>328
X_X Was supposed to go in >>>/leftypol/2197617

>>293
>its a white collar workplace (IT).
LOL good luck

>>327
Just how much work goes into being a union representative? I've thought about forming a union where I work for some time now.

>>447
Where do you work? I'm part of a national union so I have a lot of support, but there's still quite a bit of work. I assume there's a lot more if you start your own local union without a national org. I also have quite cooperative management, it would be way harder if they opposed unionization.

I started recently so of my time has been learning the relevant laws and regulations, once that's settled in it'll mostly be supporting my coworkers with whatever they need and regular meetings with management. Thanks to strong collective agreements I get paid for any union work I do, I don't have to do it for free.

If you happen to live in Norway I can write in more detail how the system works, I'm phoneposting now so I don't want to effortpost too much.

Being a union rep is work but it's very rewarding when you get a win. I see it as a responsibility, it's very important work and our society would be far worse if no one would do it.

>>322
Thanks for update

>>447
Depends, on average not as much as an organiser, but kiss being able to cruise at work goodbye.

>>448
I'm American. I'd say as far as unions go I have 4 options:
>CWA (affiliated with AFL-CIO)
>UE
>IWW
>Forming my own
I'm not entirely sure which path I would take at the moment. It's an IT job in a call center and the area's fairly conservative unfortunately.
>>450
>Depends, on average not as much as an organiser, but kiss being able to cruise at work goodbye.
Damn, that's one of the reasons I've kept this job. Hell, that's probably only why I can stand it. I perform very well though so maybe things wouldn't get too bad.
The thing is, I'm working full-time while I take classes online. I don't know how much time I'd actually be able to commit to this. I'm already struggling to manage what I have on my plate already.

>>455
> I'm already struggling to manage what I have on my plate already.
That's your answer then.
But…
That doesn't mean you have to do nothing… Read up on some basic organising methods and just start talking to colleagues. At least you can begin mapping your workplace and the power stuctures in it.

>>508
Thanks, I'll try to do some more research when I have the time.

>>521
> I'll try to do some more research when I have the time.
gl anon!

All this talk about unionization in a capitalist liberally conservative society is a joke.
Leftists showing that despite their content towards Christianity and other religions, they behave obnoxiously just like them.

They think they're entitled to "spread their word" into areas that aren't compatible with their beliefs

>>560
> areas that aren't compatible with their beliefs
lol yeah dude the working class isn't compatible with class struggle real 5head take

Does anyone know about organizing in the IT world? Changing the employer here is very frequent

>>561
Then why is leftism seen as a stain despite rightism?

>>566
>Does anyone know about organizing in the IT world?
It's brootally hard because a large number are labor aristocracy.
They've been deified for decades (STEMchads), paid lots of money, glamorised, and for a long time could get any job they wanted.
Only now that they're being proletarianized are some gaining sympathies.
That being said…
There are some who would be 1000% about unionizing and communism (FLOSSers) even if they'd getting fat stacks.
Employers may be different, but if there's an industrial based ICT union that'd be the one.
Although you'd have to look up state laws.

>>617
> Although you'd have to look up state laws.
Wrong continent. although in all honesty the sectors has a high american influence; I was looking more for suggestions outside of the legal field since the laws are different here

>>560
Socialists take the working class as it is, just because there are backwards elements amongst workers doesn't mean that their MATERIAL interests can't be appealed to.

>>633
Then tell your fellow image board patrons to stop generalizing zoomers as reactionary or cursing them as useless.
Stop telling cishet males to fuck off and die
Stop telling skeptics that they're dummies who need "political experts" to guide them into accepting socialism.

>>634
>Then tell your fellow image board patrons to stop generalizing zoomers as reactionary or cursing them as useless.
>Stop telling cishet males to fuck off and die
Schizo imageboard users don't represent the program
>Stop telling skeptics that they're dummies who need "political experts" to guide them into accepting socialism.
They're aren't dummies but they are misguided. Skepticism of the world as it is doesn't produce clarity, it produces paralysis. When carried out to its conclusion it collapses into mysticism. Scientific socialism isn’t a belief system, it’s a method rooted in dialectics: a reflection of the world in motion, rich with contradiction and continuous development.

>>635
>Schizo imageboard users don't represent the program

Anons always say this yet I see the same sentiments again and again even unprompted. And they're called out on it they get upset.

>They're aren't dummies but they are misguided. Skepticism of the world as it is doesn't produce clarity, it produces paralysis. When carried out to its conclusion it collapses into mysticism. Scientific socialism isn’t a belief system, it’s a method rooted in dialectics: a reflection of the world in motion, rich with contradiction and continuous development.

This is could be applied to rationalize believing in God as a personal mandate. It can also be used to rationalize capitalism and classical liberalism.

>>636
>This is could be applied to rationalize believing in God as a personal mandate.
How? There is a world independent of human thought. That world is composed of material reality, which exists whether or not individuals believe in it. "God," on the other hand, would only exist in that person’s mind. This framework can't be used to rationalize God as a personal mandate because God is an abstraction that doesn’t directly engage with the material world or its contradictions. Dialectical materialism, by its nature, begins with material reality, not abstract concepts. Religion may emerge from material contradictions—like alienation and oppression—but it doesn’t produce the kind of tangible, historical change that dialectical materialism analyzes.Similarly, neither God, liberalism, nor capitalism can be rationalized through dialectics as eternal truths. Liberalism and capitalism emerged from specific material conditions, and while they have shaped historical development, they are not immutable. Dialectical materialism offers a method for understanding the material world and the historical process, not a belief in unchanging abstract principles.

>>638
There is still much about physics we don't know about
We only just began discovery of the subatomic realm. And political/economic systems aren't even agreed upon by their mere definition.

>>639
It’s true that there’s still much we don’t know about the subatomic world. But that uncertainty doesn’t disprove dialectical materialism. The real question isn’t whether science uncovers new phenomena—it’s whether those discoveries materially affect human productive activity and social relations.Take Carbon-14: its radioactive decay had no bearing on human life for most of history. It only became socially relevant once humans discovered it and integrated it into scientific labor—radiocarbon dating. It crossed from the natural domain into the social.Subatomic and quantum physics may eventually follow suit—quantum computing, for example, could restructure parts of our economy. But until such breakthroughs shape production, they remain at a level of existence detached from daily life. Dialectical materialism deals with the mutual development of humans and nature, mediated through labor—not abstract metaphysics.The claim that political and economic systems aren’t “agreed upon by definition” misses the point. Social systems aren’t sustained by philosophical consensus; they persist because humans build, participate in, and transform them through material activity. Whether or not we define them the same way, they exist—and we live in their consequences.

>>632
>I was looking more for suggestions outside of the legal field since the laws are different here
Ah, then just use IWW material to start with. It's easy, free, accessible, and plain language.