Some Thoughts on Workplace Groups

Translator's Note

To understand the nuances of this document it helps to know what Netzwerk IT is. Network IT, to use its English name, is a platform for the employed and unemployed. Individuals, groups of employees and campaigns can communicate with each other, organise in the workplace and network with each other.

Network IT has two principles: helping people to help themselves and openness. Helping people to help themselves assumes that people are not stupid.

Workmates know very well what they need. However, they are often isolated and do not believe that they can change things. Openness for us means in particular that we do not exclude anyone. We cannot stop at national borders when companies are globalising themselves. Undercutting each other only results in everyone losing out.

Network IT is not a trade union and does not want to become one. A union is based on representation. One elects representatives who then manage everything for you. The worker then withdraws from the company or political arena and usually becomes passive except in the case of wage negotiations or other particular events. The same is true of the workers' legal representation in Europe, the works council.

Whether it is necessary to also work in the unions or works councils can be decided on an individual basis. The question is always whether such positions help or are detrimental to the basic principles of helping people to help themselves and openness.

In the document below we use the term “workplace groups” for self-organised and autonomous groups of employees.

For more information on Network IT see its English leaflet 'Self-Expression of Interests versus Interest-Representation', http://www.netzwerkit.de/leaflet

Introduction

The rough draft of this paper was written as part of the preparation for the NetzwerkIT Meeting in April 2010. We wanted to discuss "workplace groups". At first we thought that the situation in companies is so different that general statements are hardly possible or at least do not go further than left-wing platitudes. Perhaps we achieved more. Our main hypotheses are:

• We are active at work because we have to work. We do not do so voluntarily.
• We see workplace groups as self-organisation. They are both means and an end.
• Workers are not homogeneous. There are informal structures. Conflicts are everywhere, sometimes they escalate.
• The formation of workplace groups is based on existing informal structures and is stimulated by conflicts in the workplace.
• Workers are not stupid. We do not act and think for them, we are actively involved. They must take their own decisions.
• To survive we have to be flexible and unpredictable.
• Publicity prevents paternalism based on secretiveness and creates pressure.
• Engendering and maintaining solidarity is of the utmost importance.
• Your (corporate and state) borders are not our borders.
• Self-isolation in its various forms is one of the biggest risks.

Why workplace groups?

We must work to earn our living. Our work is determined by others: submission to predefined processes and objectives, being pushed around, pressure to compete and perform, exploitation of our creativity and our dedication, humiliation and insults from management, more or less continuous monitoring and control, forced to do pointless activities and not least the threat of loss of income. Against this we defend ourselves. We can't do it on our own. Therefore we want to organise with our colleagues. Autonomous workplace groups can be helpful in doing this.

We do not want better bosses We want a society in which we can consciously shape our own lives. Self-organisation is the only remedy for old and new command structures. One possible form of self-organisation are workplace groups. Also we are not the ones who know the way. We bring ideas, speak our minds, but those involved must decide themselves.

We are not interested in workplace groups as a "basis" for actual or would-be leaders or as mobilisable masses for trade unions or political parties.

Informal Structures

Corporate structures are not exhausted by those officially documented in organigrams. In everyday life it is usual that networks and informal groups evolve. We use them to support each other– mostly so that we can get our work done. "Unofficial channels" are based on such structures. This is a small example of lived solidarity. However, it has its limits.

What's more there are many differences and conflicts among colleagues. Mostly they can be divided into roughly three groups:

1. The resigned and distanced have internally quit their jobs. In view of the fact that neither the job, the career or the pension is safe, it makes little sense to work very hard. They hide behind processes and know how to keep up appearances. They often appear to be particularly keen. They have learned to be formally unassailable. Sometimes they resort to "active alienation". [1]. Their number increases rapidly when companies are in crisis. Also every reorganisation drives colleagues to internally quit their jobs. Open resistance is rare in this group.
2. Those committed to the job who, despite all odds, still manage to achieve good results. Most career entrants fall into this category. Unpaid overtime is for them a matter of course. They identify with their work and are willing to pay a high price for an ever decreasing fun factor. Work-based conflicts are supported by this group. If they learn that performance does not pay, they change to the group of those who have internally resigned. This can sometimes take time.
3. The would-be career-oriented managers are on the other side. A change to the group of the internally resigned is not seldom. There they form the sub-group of "managers in spirit" who always know what mistakes management are making.

Everyone has their own experiences, dreams and personal goals. Even among colleagues it is not all sweetness and light. Management deliberately encourages competition and individualisation: dismantling of strong teams, constant reorganization, evaluation and ranking, [2] apparent career prospects and rewards for those who toe the line, harassing out of the company of the “poor achievers”, isolation of the disobedient. Conflicts

Overt and covert conflicts with management are common. The amount of work, content and intensity are subject to permanent conflicts. The respective working conditions characterises these conflicts. [3] Non-participants (works councils, trade unions, interventionists) often do not notice them.

Conflicts that go beyond everyday squabbling are the exception. It takes a special occasion, an action that is perceived to be particularly unfair or arbitrary. In the case of latent discontent, a trifle can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Spontaneous anger can lead to conflicts and actions. Small groups can make a big difference. If changes in the whole of society are on the agenda (eg. 1968 ), conflicts can also escalate quickly. The same applies to mass lay-offs or other measures that affect many colleagues simultaneously.

Self-Organisation

Workplace groups often come into being in overarching conflicts (eg the Union of Railway Engine Drivers strike, 2008), a circle of particularly active colleagues remains. Disbanded teams sometimes survive as an independent group. Sometimes a group of like-minded people comes together.

The activities of these groups are very different: Mutual information on developments in the company, uncovering of management lies ("All offshore projects are successful"), exchange of ideas, for example, to simplify work, self-help and assistance in most different forms, starting conflicts, networking across departments, active participation in departmental and works meetings, carrying out actions right up to organising union and autonomous struggles.

What and how is always dependent on the specific situation. It always pays to look at the respective lines of conflict, the balance of power and the position of the colleagues. We address below some aspects that in our opinion should always be taken into account:

Literature

Berni Kelb: “Betriebsfibel” (Workplace Organising), Wagenbach, 1971, also available at http://syndikalismus.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/betriebsfibel.pdf

Thorsten Bewernitz (Hrsg.): „Die neuen Streiks“ (The New Strikes), Unrast, 2008

Peter Grohmann / Horst Sackstetter: “Plakat. 10 Jahre Betriebsarbeit bei Daimler-Benz” (Placard, 10 Years Organising in the Workplace at Daimler-Benz), Rotbuch Verlag, 1979

Monique Piton: „Anders leben. Chronik eines Arbeitskampfes: Lip, Besancon“ (Living Differently, Chronicle of an Industrial Dispute: Lip, Besancon), Suhrkamp, 1976

Kolinko: “Hotlines – Call Center | Untersuchung” (Hotlines – Call Centre, An Investigation), Kommunismus, 2002, available at http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/kolinko/lebuk/d_lebuk.htm

Inken Wanzek: “Der Widerspruch des Gerry Gollmann … und anderer, die den Mut fanden, nicht aufzugeben ...” (The Objection of Gerry Gollmann to his Dismissal … and Others who had the Courage not to give up) Books on Demand, 2009.

Flying Pickets (Hrsg.): “Sechs Monate Streik bei Gate Gourmet” (Six Months Strike at Gate Gourmet), Assoziation A, 2007

Redaktion Druckwächter: “Wir bleiben hier. Dafür kämpfen wir! Akteure berichten über den Arbeitskampf bei AEG/Elektrolux in Nürnberg 2005-07” (We are staying here. That's what we are fighting for! Participants report on the industrial dispute at AEG/Electrolux in Nuremberg), Die Buchmacherei, 2009

Jochen Gerster, Willi Hajek (Hrsg.): „Sechs Tage der Selbstermächtigung. Der Streik bei Opel in Bochum Oktober 2004“ Six Days of Empowerment. The Strike at Opel, Bochum, Die Buchmacherei, 2005

John Holloway: Crack Capitalism, Pluto Press, 2010

Footnotes