From an Apologist for ACORN Management
(March 7, 2001)
It seems that you people are doing very little nationally save proclaiming yourselves as progressives, feeling good (and "hip") about it, and causing trouble with real organizations that are fighting for real change. Yes, having a constitutiency (sic) is inconvenient but it is very important. You should try it some day instead of organizing spoiled brat upper middle class white kids who live off of their parents's (sic) money. If ACORN employees actually wanted to be unionized, let a real union do it.
--Anonymous and Disgusted and decidedly pro-labor ACORN Member (Something we probably never see at one of your ridiculous protests)"
Response #1 From the IWW: (Fellow Worker X352548)
Dear anonymous person, I am one of the ACORN workers who organized with the IWW at Philadelphia ACORN and I want to let you know that those of us who want a union are not as fortunate as the upper- middle class white kids who you refer to. If we were, instead of organizing a Union to get our paychecks on time, we could rely on our parents' money. In Dallas, Philadelphia and Seattle the ACORN workers who are organizing are African American and white, and range in age from middle-aged to young adult. If you tried to talk with us you would know this. It was us, not the IWW who decided to organize a union. We picked the IWW because it is a truly democratic, direct action, working class union without high paid union bureaucrats. If you don't support our right to organize with a union of our choice to fight for safe and just working conditions, then you should not call yourself pro-labor.
Response #2 From the IWW: (Web Admin, x344543)
The post from "-Anonymous and Disgusted and decidedly pro-labor ACORN Member" is pure bullshit. First of all, it was workingclass, mostly people of color ACORN staff who approached the Industrial Workers of the World, not (nonexistent)
"spoiled brat upper middle class white kids who live off of their parents's (sic) money"
as s/he claims. If anything, "spoiled brat upper middle class white kids who live off of their parents' money" perfectly describes a great deal of ACORN's management.
Next, s/he attempts a rhetorical sleight of hand by claiming that the IWW is composed of pretend revolutionaries (i.e. saying that we IWWs)
"proclaim(ing) yourselves as progressives, feeling good (and "hip") about it, and causing trouble with real organizations that are fighting for real change."
In actual fact, it is ACORN that is the organization proclaiming itself as progressive (e.g. saying that is is "pro labor" and "pro minority" while maintaining anti-union attitudes towards its OWN workers, who are mostly people of color), while the IWW is the real organization fighting for real change.
Furthermore, s/he claims to be a "pro-labor" member of ACORN. Nonsense! Most of the labor movement in Seattle, including the conservative AFL-CIO is pro-union and supports the IWW. To this date, not ONE representative from any genuine labor organization has publicly gone on record as supporting ACORN management in this dispute.
Finally, this anonymous commentator entrant is too chicken shit to post a real e-mail address or any contact information, so that real members of ACORN and real ACORN workers can debate her/him. This is a common tactic used by cowards who know that they're wrong, but want to try and convince the unconvinced that they have any support (which they usually don't). If you're such a prominent member of ACORN, why not just openly say who you are and welcome debate from real ACORN workers friend? Could it be that you are afraid of being proven wrong?
Response #3 From the IWW: ("Joe Hill")
Yeah, right, an ACORN member... He's probably just one of the two scabs the manager brought up from Portland. The ACORN members are solidly behind the workers and the only support Doug Bloch has is a couple scabs and ACORN's upper management. What I don't get, though, is why a manager in an organization that stands for pro-union principles, has pro- union members, works with many unions, and receives grants from pro-union organizations would refuse to recognize the simple fact that 100% of the full-time employees have unionized (the one part-timer hasn't joined yet, but also hasn't crossed the picketline). If a manager was neutral on unions, he would have recognized them immediately -- if he was pro-union he would have proudly recognized them and started talking about the first contract that very minute.