Myth #1 - The IWW is a political organization and not a "real" labor union:
This is a claim made by both dogmatic political
sects and a handful of trade unionists and exploited by union
busting employers.
Dogmatic political sects see the IWW as a rival to their own aspirations, because many of them are in the business of trying to "capture" union locals by infiltrating them and take over the leadership of these same unions through elections and constitutional reforms to further their own ends (which is not to suggest that rank & file workers shouldn't try to keep their unions accountable through their internal electoral processes), but the IWW has historically refused to allow vanguardist tactics such as these and has also argued against using the IWW as a vehicle to engage in similar machinations. Given the IWW's history, sectarians believe that capturing the IWW might give them more legitimacy. Furthermore, the IWW would represent democratic competition against a bulwark of trade unions controlled by a dogmatic political sect. Additionally, the IWW rejects the building of "workers parties" as an organizing strategy (but allows individual members to engage in doing so if they so choose), and this runs counter to various dogmatic political party discipline(s).
Some trade unionists also do not believe the IWW is a real labor union, because they either haven't heard of the IWW, or their union histories tell them so. The fact that most American history books completely ignore the vast and colorful history of the IWW, and those that do mention the IWW are generally hopelessly inaccurate certainly contributes to this widely held confusion. Perhaps some trade unionists believe that "real" labor unions are pro-capitalism, and since the IWW calls for the abolition of wage slavery and the overthrow of capitalism, that this makes the IWW "political" and not a union.
The IWW has always been a labor union first and foremost. The primary concern of the IWW is organizing workers industrially, at the point of production, for the purpose of abolition of wage slavery and the tyranny of capitalism. Such things are the purest form of unionism. The employing class uses the myth that the IWW isn't a real union to try and dissuade workers from joining. Sometimes they use this myth in order to convince workers to choose a conservative business union instead of the more radical IWW. The irony is that the employing class would just as soon use another myth to dissuade workers from joining a conservative business union altogether if they could.
Myth #2 - The IWW doesn't negotiate contracts with employers:
This misconception results from the fact that
during the early years of the IWW, union contracts had no legal
force in the United States of America. In fact, union contracts
did not become federally protected agreements until the passing
of the National Labor Relations Act in 1937. Prior to that, many
union contracts were attempts by the employing class to limit
economic direct action and class based solidarity by unions. As
such, the IWW argued against sell out agreements.
According to long time IWW member Fred Thompson:
"Originally the IWW had put no restrictions, except requiring GEB approval, on contracts, and much of the discussion at the founding convention as to what constituted an industry proceeded on the assumption that industry-wide action would depend on the structure of the industrial union making contracts. The tradition of no contracts with specified duration had come from the Western Federation, and persisted until changed in 1938 to permit each Industrial Union to make its own regulations on the matter. Some Industrial Unions have persistently forbidden such agreements. Provisions adopted in 1946 ended the requirement of GEB approval, but stipulated that no agreement should provide for a check-off or obligate members covered by it to do any work that would aid in breaking any union's strike."
That does not mean, however, that the IWW refused to agree to union contracts even then. If the IWW could organize sufficient resistance to capitalist exploitation and convince the employing class to accept conditions favorable to the workers in a given shop or industry, and that agreement resulted in a contract, the IWW would indeed sign it. That has always been the case. In the present day, contracts are much more widely accepted documents, but conditions for the working class are not especially progressive, even with their existence. A contract is only as good and as strong as the union that signs it. If the working class were truly organized enough to abolish wage slavery, it would not want to be held back from doing so by a contract!
At the time of this writing (Early 2004), The IWW has several shops under contract and is in the process of negotiating others.
Myth #3 - The IWW, like all labor unions, is controlled by the Italian-American MAFIA:
First of all, it is a myth that the MAFIA controls all or even most North American labor unions. (It is true that the Teamsters, International Longshore Association (ILA), Hotel, Bar and Restaurant Workers Union (HERE), Seafarers International Union (SIU), and various Building Trades unions have had to deal with MAFIA corruption). Many AFL-CIO rank & filers have fought long and hard to purge any and all forms of corruption (MAFIA and otherwise) from their unions; it's an ongoing struggle.
But the IWW has never been controlled by the MAFIA. In fact, because the IWW is so strongly committed to rank & file democracy, MAFIA control of the IWW would not only be impossible, the MAFIA would not want to attempt it, because the IWW's culture of openness and accountability would probably do them more harm than good if they tried to infiltrate the IWW in the first place!
This is a long held myth, created by the
employing class, because they see any challenge to their
authority as a threat. Similarly, slaveholders saw abolitionists
as violent, because abolitionism threatened their elite
privilege.
The IWW has in fact always rejected the use of violence (including political assassinations, armed insurrection, guerilla warfare, terrorism, the taking of hostages, murder, vigilantism, or any other form of violent coercion) to achieve its goals, because historically such tactics generally do not work and marginalize workers. In fact, it is the employing class that used armed violence during the early 20th century to suppress the nonviolent attempts by the IWW to organize peacefully, whether through lawless vigilante mobs, armed militias, or abuse of the legal process. Similar false accusations of "violence" and use of violence was used against almost every other labor union (including the AFL and CIO) early in their histories. In many impoverished countries, the ruling class uses violence against democratic labor unions even today.
There were a few instances, notably at Everett and Centralia (both in the State of Washington) in the late 1910s, where IWW members returned the gun fire of vigilante mobs and were charged with murder (if they were not lynched on the spot), but in both cases, the IWW justifiably claimed self defense, and after having been subjected to vigilante mobs and lynchings for almost half a decade, how could any sane person blame them?
The employing class continually tries to equate strikes, direct action at the point of production (which is often little more than organized inefficiency by workers), public demonstrations, and well-reasoned intellectual denunciations of capitalism as "violence" because it challenges the rule of capital and the privilege of the property owning class. The capitalists are jealously insecure about their unearned power, and they squeal like greedy pigs at the trough when anyone under their yoke dares speak truth to that power. Naturally the use the charge of "violence", but it is in fact the capitalist class that uses violence. Even when they don't use it overtly, it is easy to see that the exploitation of the working class is, by definition, institutionalized violence.
Bosses will often try and dig up violent incidents in the IWW's past (selectively omitting the fact that 99% of the violence was committed by the employers and what little "violence" the IWW committed was in self defense) to try and convince workers that the IWW is a dangerous and nefarious organization. The IWW submits that the facts say otherwise! The IWW isn't violent; it is in fact an antidote to organized capitalist violence.
Myth #5 - The IWW believes in wanton property destruction:
This myth is a result
of the IWW's historical advocacy of economic direct action,
sometimes called "sabotage". Even the word "sabotage" has
mythological origins. Contrary to widely held opinion--which
sometimes finds its way to big budget Hollywood Films, such as
Star Trek VI, the Undiscovered Country--sabotage did not
originate from workers throwing their wooden sabots (shoes) into
machines to stop them. In fact, the word has a much less romantic
origin. The wooden sabots sometimes worn by the working class in
the early industrial age made their walking inefficient. Early
attempts at organizing did involve property destruction, but
sabotage merely meant "organized inefficiency" similar to the
inefficient walking on wooden sabots.
Early in the IWW's history, the union discussed sabotage freely, and various members of the organization (notably Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and William Trautmann) advocated it and wrote detailed pamphlets on sabotage as a tactic.
- Sabotage - by Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.
Sabotage is a form of organized inefficiency by workers, designed to negatively impact the employer. But the one thing sabotage isn't, is destruction of the machinery of production, or the product itself. The IWW believes that the machinery of production and the product of workers' labor belongs to the workers themselves, and destruction of the same would be like burning one's own house down! Throughout its history, the employing class had tried to paint the IWW as arsonists and nihilists, but the reality is that such attempts are hostile lies spread by the employing class to stir up reactionary hysteria against the union.
The IWW (and all other unions) have historically used organized inefficiency as a form of direct action at the point of production to gain improved working conditions from the employers. The employing class seeks to give the working class as little as they can get away with. When workers withdraw their efficiency, there is little the employing class can do about it, so they spread lies about "sabotage" and spread lies about workers "destroying property".
Employers still do this even now (they make similar claims about mainstream business unions). Many workers are turned off by the notion of property destruction (it's especially true in America where "private property" is worshipped with religious fervor). Workers should not worry, because the IWW does not advocate property destruction (we just don't worship "private property" like a religious icon!)
The IWW believes that the working class should own and operate the means of production, and we cannot do that if we destroy it!
