“”The problem with German labour law is the description of a union…The
> FAU is not officially registered as a union ? there are advantages and
> disadvantages to being officially registered, for example if you are a
> union and you go on strike, your members can?t get fired. However, we
> think even if we wanted to, it wouldn?t be possible for FAU to become a
> union, the legal definition is so specific. You have to sign collective
> contracts, which mean you can?t go on strike until the end of the
> contract ? strikes can only be used to negotiate contracts, and it?s
> unlawful to go on strike during contract and the union can be sued.“”

then wobbly from German ROC Lutz-
“Hm,I?m afraid, the FAU comrades don?t really get the point. The description of a
union in Germany is much more complex. There is no standardized official process of
being “registered” as a union (the service workers union, ver.di, for example, is
registered simply as a “registered association” (e.V.), like any carnival of
football club. Recognized as unions are organizations which have proved to be able
to effectively strike and - as a result of this strike-ability - to negociate
contracts. For the core industries there are state-wide or country-wide contracts
for all factories etc. whose owners/managers are members of the employers
association (what the most employers for example in the steel industry, chemical
industry etc. are). So, these industries are more or less closed for samller
unions, regarding strikes for higher wages or bargaining contracts. You simply need
the ability to effectively cease production in a whole state or even in the whole
country, which is impossible for smaller unions who don?t have millions of members
or at least strong support by a significant minority of workers. In most of these
industries, one member-union of the DGB (German Trade Unions Leage) is representing
the workers. In some other sectors (for example the education sector) there are 2
unions of the DGB in rivalty to each other (ver.di and GEW in the education sector).
Of course, the employers association of an industry will avoid to negotiate with
more than one union. In other sectors without countrywide contracts or even without
strong union presence (for example most newer service industries) it?s easier for
small unions to act. The DGB unions have 7,2 Mio. member (and lost about 1,5 Mio
over the last years) the christian unions have around 200.000 members (mostly in
the coal mining industry). There are other yellow unions in some sectors, but only
with a few thousands of members. The FAU estimates it?s own size with about 300
members and the IWW has about 20 members now.

The FAU comrades are right about the dangers of being captured in longterm contracts
without the right to strike (Friedenspflicht) as they are with their criticism of
the limited strike law and the collective bargaining. But the simple fact is, that
they don?t have the choice. I doens?nt matter if they like collective baraining and
public accptance as “real unions”. Not with 300 members Germany-wide. Nor have we.

I think, the only realistic option for small revolutionary unions in Germany is

- to build a small but active and anti-class-collaborationist rank and file union
presence in those sectors without collective contracts(service industries, some
private parts of the health and education sector etc.), try to protect our members
if possible (especially in small shops), where we really could have advantages
compared to the formalized and paralysed business unions through direct action

- and to develop a dual carder strategy in those core industries which are still
dominated by the DGB unions and their contracts. In some factories of the metal
industry there have been wildcat strikes against closures and job cuts, because the
metal workers union (IG Metall) obiously served the bosses interests and sold out
the workers. But I think it is not enough, just to trust on this.

Solidarity,
Lutz”

First is the GMB structure which was implimented to keep the IWW alive. Fair enough for the time. The problems lies in that in encourages non-industrial organizing - eg specific shops only, no strategy, community activist culture in the worst sense. As R’bt Rush said one time, the IWW is a tree with all branches and no trunk.

We need to change that emphasis from local to industrial. While the Portland IWW made some missteps going to IU branches (and again retreating from them) those experiences need to be written up and lessons drawn up to encourage folks to push forward as well as not making the same mistakes.

Second is the IW as a classic labor paper, which the Bekken era IW was a very good example. the IW is well written, addresses the union movement, etc. But this strategy made sense in the 1950s when 30-40% of the working population were union members. It was the most effective strategy we had to influence the class. But today, I think we would be much better off addressing the “masses” with a more agitational paper like we had in the 1910-20s.