B. writes:
> It's "authoritarian" to use mechanisms of
accountability when a member breaks a group's bylaws? You're kidding me.
It was never stated that Chuck0 broke any by-laws. It was only after I posted that the information was posted that the by-laws of the specific union Chuck0 belongs to forbids its members from crossing the picket line of another union.
> Throwing around that word -- "authoritiarian"
-- as a baseless smear term for this, the way
the right throws around "commie," is getting
old.
When a group imposes its will on a member and forbids that member to act in accordance with her conscience, that is authoritarian/absolutist.
> Chuck0 knew what the IWW's bylaws were
when he joined. Why join the org. if you don't
want to follow them?
When a person joins a group she might not believe in every single by-law of the group. Some people are forced to join a union by their job. If some by-laws are racist or heterosexist, should one one go along with them out of solidarity?
> I can't believe you're equating Chuck0's refusal to
respect picket lines with the purging of gays. Weird.
What is weird is your inability to comprehend the similarities. In both cases a group -- the Communist Party/a union -- demands absolute fealty to what the groupthinks is proper behavior. In each case a personal choice -- to cross a picket line or to be queer -- is made by the group for all members instead of allowing individuals to decide on a case-by-case basis what is the moral thing to do. The demand that all members accept the groupthink as moral imperative is authoritarian.
John T writes:
> I am of the opinion that you could go to them and
tell them I am crossing your picket line as a form of
protest against your ban on same sex couples.
But for some members of the list, it seems that solidarity is a one-way street. B. responds to my post, but omits any mention of the heterosexist actions of the electricians' union in Massachusetts. John doesn't even bother to respond at all while answering other members' posts. The contempt they show for queers and their issues is telling.
> In general when you see a picket you can safely
take the side of labor.
That is true, but should not be axiomatic.
> Isn't this what a discussion list is for, fleshing out
these types of issues rather than repeating dogmatic
answers and chastising those who stray?
The absolutist mindset is hard to turn off, whether you are a rightwing Christian or a unionista. Being absolutist also allows you to continue practicing heterosexism, which you justify by saying that to disagree with the union makes you a scab. Now that is weird.
John L writes:
> In this context, also, one part of the industry standard
is that every worker in the industry in that particular
market be a member of the union. This demand is
NON-NEGOTIABLE, and a union is within its rights to use
whatever means at its disposal to enforce this.
So a queer electrician should be forced to join a union that is heterosexist and does not look out for her interests? In fact has intentionally arranged itself so as to hurt her?
> If you want to call yourself part of the left (as opposed
to a liberal), you are duty-bound to extend solidarity to the
workers.
Brian's Collorary: if you want to call yourself part of the left, you support equality for queers and the right to sexual self-determination. You also oppose all those people and organizations who do not support queers and/or actively work against them.
> This whole discussion is so frustrating because a generation
ago -- or in any civilized country even now -- it would be
unthinkable for people on the left to have any other position.
Groupthink as a mark of civilization. Now that's a new one.
> Even if you think a strike or job action is going to fail, you are
duty bound to support it once workers are committed to a course
of action, and to do your best to minimize the chances that the
bosses will win.
So if workers commit to a course of action that causes harm (discriminating against queers), you are duty bound to assist in this hate actions?
> I suppose that makes me an authoritarian, but ah well.
Ah, the truth emerges. So refreshing. But beware, B. will accuse you of smearing yourself.
Kelley writes:
> It would be very dispiriting to see yet another person
cross the line without knowing why.
It is also dispiriting to sees unions not being in favor of marriage equality for queers. But at least in this case I do know why they hate.
If you unions want solidarity they had better be prepared to give it as well.
> Crossing the line, for anything other than a health emergency,
just seems needlessly confrontational.
Confrontation is often the only path open to queers, even among so-called leftist allies.
> OTOH, having been employed by these family operations for many
years, I have to say that, in my experience, these are the most
exploitative places around if you're not a family-member who stands
to inherit the business.
Kelley is right. The job Terrance left last month was in a family-run importing business. It was horrid.
> As for the cases of a labor call to solidarity premised on racism,
hetero/sexism, xenophobia, etc. Well, those are hardly calls for
labor solidarity and I really _can't_ imagine anything like that
happening today.
What about the union in Massachusetts that changed its by-laws to hurt queers? What about other unions that do not support marriage eqaulity for queers? Aren't they calling for solidarity while engaging in discrimination?
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister