^^ Huge edit. 
The Social Psychology of Modern Slavery
Read this article, "The Social Psychology of Modern Slavery" (long). Kind of shines a whole new light on the practice of importing workers, does it not?
Nobody?
What?
Are you all slaveowners or something?
Guilty conscience? 
It's a long article, I agree, but read it anyways. 
quote:
Studying bondage can be socially and politically controversial. Researchers in the field face numerous ethical dilemmas, and clarity and objectivity are all the more difficult to achieve when individuals and governments seek to conceal what they are doing. If there is good news, it is the growing recognition of the problem.
This is a terrible tragedy to the human spirit! There are so many countries involved and each of these countries have their own social variables which have to be dealt with. This is going to be a long, hard battle! Global awareness of the problem is the best ally of reform. The internet will probably be the best tool to spread word of the atrocities. Poverty proves again to be a good catalyst for slavery!
quote:
When it comes to slavery, mental bonds are at least as strong as physical force
This will be the toughest fight concerning this type of slavery. It has been embedded in these countries for so long and has become acceptable. Even if you can free the body, the mind is much harder to set free. Ideally, if you could free the mind, the body should follow, eh?
quote:
All this points to the need for a highly developed system of rehabilitation for freed slaves and slaveholders alike. Physical freedom is not enough. When slaves were emancipated in the U.S. in 1865, the government enacted no such rehabilitation. General William Tecumseh Sherman's promise to give each former slave "forty acres and a mule" never materialized. The result was four million people dumped into a shattered economy without resources and with few legal protections. It can be argued that America is still suffering from this liberation without rehabilitation.
Forget the forty acres and the mule! The Southerners will settle for fair wages! As far as I'm concerned, slavery wasn't abolished; it was just organized into a legalized, profitable business by large northern industrialized corporations. Oops! A little of the Rebel coming out; must watch that! 
quote:
slavery wasn't abolished; it was just organized into a legalized, profitable business by large northern industrialized corporations.
Rebel?
That's the truth!
Absolute dependance on a poverty level paycheque breeds the same type of "mental bonds" that manifest in "modern slavery" as described in the article.
However, as you stated, try and tell that to somebody who's victimized by it. 
You read the article and it shocks you; the "modern slavery" phenomenon doesn't get much air time in North America. Yet it isn't a stretch of the imagination to see how those conditions and circumstances apply to modern North American culture.
A couple of simple analogies and you have the framework of a, to use an unequivocally American invention, "Mega-Modern Slavery".
Or better yet, a Mega-Modern-Slavery-Mart.
MMS-Mart. (where's Duff? "shop smart..." )
quote:
The expensive slave of the past was a protected investment; today's slave is a cheap and disposable input to low-level production. The slaveholder has little incentive to provide health care or to take care of slaves who are past their prime.
A little word swappage?
quote:
The expensive retail-worker of the past was a protected investment; today's retail-worker is a cheap and disposable input to low-level production. The employer has little incentive to provide health care or to take care of retail-workers who are past their prime.
Am I stretchin' it?
quote:
To accept their role and the pimp's, they must try to diminish their view of themselves as victims who have been wronged. They must begin to see their enslavement from the point of view of the slaveholder.
As evidence of the modern western equivalent to the first half of the quote above, I offer you Slaveway.
The next quote, and how it applies, is self explanatory:
quote:
Almost all the slaveholders I have met and interviewed in Pakistan, India, Brazil and Mauritania were family men who thought of themselves simply as businessmen. Pillars of the local community, they were well rewarded financially, well integrated socially, and well connected legally and politically.
Am I stretching it yet?
Now, in Real Life™ - western culture, we have employers importing low wage workers, and unions, the "voices of working america", looking to profit from it.
quote:
AFL-CIO reverses stances
But organizers of Monday's protest said there may be strength in numbers, especially if those numbers get involved with organized labor.
The INS said six million people live in the United States illegally and 275,000 more arrive every year.
Those big numbers have won the attention of labor unions, leading the AFL-CIO to reverse its long-held position against illegal immigrant labor and to seek to unionize those workers.
"We, in fact, as a labor movement in this country, help all workers regardless of their status," said Denis Hughes of the AFL-CIO of New York.
It doesn't matter if the workers are entering illegally, or being imported legally by employers, the result is still the same: companies, and their bedfellows the unions, profit. While the workers, both resident and immigrant, get molested by the two parties supposed to be looking out for them.
Rather maddening.
In the past slavery was concentrated: limited to a location - the plantation - there was an outside to escape to - the North - a promise of freedom.
Now slavery is distributed - networked - you're still a work-drudge with your beeper, cellphone or laptop, even when you're on vacation in Cancun. Or maybe you don't own any of those things, you just work in a nation-wide convenience store that offers "limitless" re-location oportunities. Or you're still a peon even though you've left Mexico for Canada.
Where next?
Even the language of business is loaded with terminology that defines relations at the workplace in terms of owner-and-property. This, I think is a progression from the old master-and-servant concept. I think this progression (or maybe regression) has occurred because in the master/servant relationship - as exploitive as it was - the master still had some nominal duty to care for the servant. In the world of cut-throat capitalism concern of any kind for anything other than profit is unproductive. Better to conceptualize workers as property. When they no longer serve your purpose, you can just get rid of them.
How many of you quietly cringe when you hear the term "human resources"?
Or how about "human capital"? I love that one. The first time I heard it, I immediately thought of the slave trade.
Next time you're having a discussion with someone from the human resources department of your company, ask them why they use this kind of terminology - and tell us the answer.
We are human beings not stuff-you-use or stuff-you-sell.
quote:
Now, in Real Life™ - western culture, we have employers importing low wage workers, and unions, the "voices of working america", looking to profit from it. AFL-CIO reverses stances
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But organizers of Monday's protest said there may be strength in numbers, especially if those numbers get involved with organized labor.
The INS said six million people live in the United States illegally and 275,000 more arrive every year.
Those big numbers have won the attention of labor unions, leading the AFL-CIO to reverse its long-held position against illegal immigrant labor and to seek to unionize those workers.
"We, in fact, as a labor movement in this country, help all workers regardless of their status," said Denis Hughes of the AFL-CIO of New York.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter if the workers are entering illegally, or being imported legally by employers, the result is still the same: companies, and their bedfellows the unions, profit. While the workers, both resident and immigrant, get molested by the two parties supposed to be looking out for them.
I couldn't let this one go unanswered given the three and a half hour meeting i had last nite with the Latino workers from dakota premium foods. It's been two years sinse the election win and if i don't have hundreds of hours personally logged into this fight, i'd be startled. Most of them came when the rest of my staff was home with their families (my apologies to my staff who have been there with me). In addition we've never taken a dime from the workers for the legal costs we've incurred. that's come from members dues, and no-one understands that better than i do, especially when i'm trying to balance budgets.It's just when i sit in these meetings and listen to what they do to immigrant workers, i get crazed. There is a human resource person there that is evil. I'll spare you the details, but in 25 years of doing this, i've never seen anyone worse.
All that aside, the point of this post is simply this:The AFL-CIO up to two years ago had an entirely different position relative to immigrant/undocumented workers. The fact is, they came to this country and now Canada in the same waves. They saw opportunity, and it really didn't matter whether the labor movement supported them or not. Even worse, that opportunity was riddled with lots of evil employers who were going to abuse, steal and cheat them evey chance they got. Buying jobs, selling fake documents, sexual favors, denying workers comp, no unemployment benefits when termed, renting them apts had outrageous prices; the list is endless.
We may never get a dime in dues from dakota, and if we do, it'll be 25 years before we pay back the cost of organizing them. This has never been about the money. No worker should be treated like that. Green card or not, i can't and won't stop untill the mistreatment ends. It's what unions are supposed to be about.
Gotta respectfully disagree with you on this one slek. If we don't stop them from coming in, then we damn better well organize them, or they will affect what and how workers are paid.
quote:
abuse, steal and cheat them evey chance they got. Buying jobs, selling fake documents, sexual favors, denying workers comp, no unemployment benefits when termed,
Bah! Portions of that statement could easily be applied to unions as well.
quote:
If we don't stop them from coming in, then we damn better well organize them, or they will affect what and how workers are paid.
How exactly are they going to affect what and how workers are paid?
It's not like they can lower minimum wage.
Even if you could organize these workers, do you seriously think that big-labour has the resources to represent them properly?
I seriously doubt it. Unions can't/won't represent the members they already have - this is fact. There will just be another 6 million workers with fugly agreements and even fuglier representation.
But hey! 6 million is a lot of *dues units*! /sarcasm
1) How is weakening an already crippled labour movement going to help any workers?
2) What is the AFL-CIO doing to insure that these workers, when organized, have the proper access to necessary union resources?
3) Where are all the newly needed union reps' going to come from?
4) How are these new reps' being trained?
5) Why should existing members front the money to increase the competition for their already low-paying jobs?
6) Who's really going to benefit?
quote:
Bah! Portions of that statement could easily be applied to unions as well.
No comparison slek. The stuff i was dealing with is right out of Sinclair's The Jungle.
quote:
How exactly are they going to affect what and how workers are paid?
It's not like they can lower minimum wage.
The more workers who are willing to work at minimum wage, will ultimately keep the cost of labor down for all workers. Way too many stories about undocumented immigrant workers who have come to this country, only to be cheated out of even the minimum wage. When that happens, who do you call?
quote:
Even if you could organize these workers, do you seriously think that big-labour has the resources to represent them properly?
We're trying our damndest, i'll let you know in the next month.
quote:
seriously doubt it. Unions can't/won't represent the members they already have - this is fact. There will just be another 6 million workers with fugly agreements and even fuglier representation.
Interesting your point of view. There are any number of poles where workers expressed satisfaction with their union and non-union workers stated they would rather work in a union job.
quote:
1) How is weakening an already crippled labour movement going to help any workers?
The theory is pretty simple, the more organized workers, the greater ability to negotiate stronger agreements. Actually, its more than theory. When the labor movement was at 35%, all workers benefitted.
quote:
2) What is the AFL-CIO doing to insure that these workers, when organized, have the proper access to necessary union resources
There has been a substantial push to hire minority union representatives. Several unions have done just that. Additionally, there ara a number of web sites that have multiple language documents for downloading. We're not where we want to be yet, but we are infinately closer than we were three years ago.
quote:
Where are all the newly needed union reps' going to come from?
That has been a challenge for everyone, but there are a number of organizations that train activists and will ultimately be an invaluable resource. That is one of the reasons we have helped fund some of there programs with nominal contributions of time and money.
quote:
4) How are these new reps' being trained?
In many cases, they are young people right out of the universities. They may be a little green coming in the door, but the show up with a ton of energy and enthusism. Rafael on staff at 789 gradutated from the u of m one day and was on staff the next. His work experiences ranged from working in the fields to being a chef while working his way through school. Sinse coming on staff, we have asked him to go to several training sessions. Never a hesitation.
quote:
) Why should existing members front the money to increase the competition for their already low-paying jobs
You make an assumption based on your own bias. Actually, even with the loss of union membership, union workers almost almost always are better off than non-union workers. Don't take my word for it, the BLS has reams of data supporting those facts. If union workers understand the long term return of organizing, then it is an easy decision for them to make. Some of us still subscribe to the tenent; An Injury To One Is An Injury To All.
quote:
Who's really going to benefit?
This is a no brainer for me,the workers. If you think the hundreds of hours i've put in were for anyone other than them, you still don't understand what i do for a living. My pay is the same whether i leave at 5:00 pm or at 8:30 pm. No comp time, no overtime, just the simple belief that i/we can make a difference in the life of a worker who is getting screwed.
quote:
The more workers who are willing to work at minimum wage, will ultimately keep the cost of labor down for all workers.
Right. So how are unions going to miraculously increase the value of resident labour, which is already scraping the bottom of the barrel, while organizing immigrant labour?
The AFL-CIO doesn't have the resources to kill these two birds with one stone. By focusing on organizing immigrant workers, unions are further neglecting the needs, and wasting the resources, of existing memberships.
quote:
There are any number of poles where workers expressed satisfaction with their union and non-union workers stated they would rather work in a union job.
The declining numbers of unionized workers suggest otherwise.
Unions' inability to organize workers who "would rather work in a union job" suggest otherwise.
quote:
The theory is pretty simple, the more organized workers, the greater ability to negotiate stronger agreements.
If the UFCW, for example, can't mobilize 1.4 million members to make gains, how can you expect them to mobilize twice, or even three times, that?
quote:
There has been a substantial push to hire minority union representatives. Several unions have done just that. Additionally, there ara a number of web sites that have multiple language documents for downloading.
So, in other words, the AFL-CIO isn't doing anything to prepare for the influx and susequent organization of immigrant labour.
Go figure.
Minority reps' and a couple websites do not a united labour front make.
quote:
In many cases, they are young people right out of the universities.
Bingo!
Thank you for documenting a root problem in organized labour today.
The practice of recruiting priveledged kids with little to no real world union experience is partially responsible for the sad shape of the labour movement today.
Why are reps' not brought up from the shop floor anymore?
What kind of qualifications does a union look for when hiring university graduates?
quote:
Actually, even with the loss of union membership, union workers almost almost always are better off than non-union workers.
No. You can't make that claim anymore. I can use my own experience, both within and without a union, to dispute it.
Unless, of course, being subject to concessions, crooked pension investments, unnacountable leadership, cooked books, lawsuits, sweetheart deals, etc. etc. constitutes me being "better off". /sarcasm
Even if you could still make that claim, once again, the inability of unions to organize new workers suggests otherwise.
If being union equalled being better off, more people would be union.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who's really going to benefit?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a no brainer for me,the workers.
Where are all those new dues revenues going to end up?
What percentage of current dues dollars end up being filtered back through to the membership, or membership advancement programs, today?
Is this percentage larger or smaller than the percentage that ends up in the back pockets of the administration?
I suspect smaller - and I see the gap between the two figures widening as big-labour lobbies for more free money.
quote:
The theory is pretty simple, the more organized workers, the greater ability to negotiate stronger agreements. Actually, its more than theory. When the labor movement was at 35%, all workers benefitted
Couldn't stay out of this one either.
The ofg/loman dispute here in B.C. is an example where the theory wasn't implemented. There was an opportunity to use the might of thousands way back when these guys got their pink slips.
It didn't happen BP. Outside of MN., it never happens!
Instead the machine announced the end of the warehouse workers' road before they got there, and muttered some weak solidarity rhetoric. Having organized thousands didn't do diddley for anyone. Then there's the Westfair workers across the prairies and the Safeway workers, The machine had the organized hammer but didn't swing it.
I haven't seen your efforts matched anywhere. 789 is the anomaly, unless you can list other local, international or national with the St.Paul dedication and honesty.
I am still not convinced what you are doing is the right thing for the long term. I'm not saying you should stop or that it ain't working, I'm just saying I'm not convinced it's the best for the long term.
For example how sure are you that you can leave enough spitfire behind to keep the termites from infesting your well built local and for how long? It's going to be a pretty big house by the time you leave, some pretty good eats for termites.
While you and your amazing team are working your butts off to make humongous gains it looks from here, like the troughers are sucking it dry from every other direction. IMHO 
quote:
The declining numbers of unionized workers suggest otherwise.
Unions' inability to organize workers who "would rather work in a union job" suggest otherwise.
Might have something to do with labor laws that are an abomination. 10,000 workers are fired every year for trying to join a union. Others stall and have attorneys sit on you till they wear you down.
quote:
If the UFCW, for example, can't mobilize 1.4 million members to make gains, how can you expect them to mobilize twice, or even three times, that?
This issue goes way beyond the ufcw. It's about increasing union density to twice the number it is today.
quote:
So, in other words, the AFL-CIO isn't doing anything to prepare for the influx and susequent organization of immigrant labour.
Funny my quote says just the opposite. There has been a number of minority reps. hired all across the country.Any local that has an ounce of brains has added bi-lingual staff.
quote:
Thank you for documenting a root problem in organized labour today.
The practice of recruiting priveledged kids with little to no real world union experience is partially responsible for the sad shape of the labour movement today.
Cardinal sin slek. Rafael is hardly some priveledged kid with no real world experience. He worked in the fields in california and worked his way thru college as a chef in a union restaurant. No silver platter thing here. In fact, most of the minorities being hired aren't bluebloods, they usually come from working class families. that's a different program you are referring to.
quote:
Why are reps' not brought up from the shop floor anymore
Check the bio's on the staff page at ufcw789.org and you will find all the reps but Rafael came from within. There have been posts in the past where the lament was that reps weren't better educated. Three of the staff have gotten degrees as adult learners. Wrong argument with this local.
quote:
What kind of qualifications does a union look for when hiring university graduates?
In Rafael's case, one that spoke spanish and knew something about the labor movement. It was a plus, in that he was an activist as a student and had connections with several liberal groups.
quote:
No. You can't make that claim anymore. I can use my own experience, both within and without a union, to dispute it
Yes i can make that claim. I'm not using my experience singularly or yours in that same limited capacity. The bureau of labor statistics has volumes of factual data broken out by industry and by union or non. In recent years, those numbers have closed a bit, but the differences are still substantial.
quote:
Even if you could still make that claim, once again, the inability of unions to organize new workers suggests otherwise.
If being union equalled being better off, more people would be union
See above. There is no right to organize in the US.
quote:
Where are all those new dues revenues going to end up?
What percentage of current dues dollars end up being filtered back through to the membership, or membership advancement programs, today?
Is this percentage larger or smaller than the percentage that ends up in the back pockets of the administration
Actually that is one of the reasons i spend as much time here as i do, to try and change that problem.
Siggy; Thanks for the acknowledgement. The thing i get most concerned about is the fact that i'm not leaving money for the future. We literally are spending every available dollar to try and move the mountain. I tend to be a contrarian, if they go left, i go right. IMHO, the worst thing you can do right now is roll up the sidewalks and play rope a dope.
quote:
Thanks for the acknowledgement. The thing i get most concerned about is the fact that i'm not leaving money for the future. We literally are spending every available dollar to try and move the mountain. I tend to be a contrarian, if they go left, i go right. IMHO, the worst thing you can do right now is roll up the sidewalks and play rope a dope.
The bigger picture BP, the bigger picture, outside of 789.
Is organizing really for the benefit of the worker? From the abundance of machine corruption to pension scams, to the lack of access to meaningful labour education to the downright lockdown of information and communication, it looks more like machines are tussling for a share in the bounty, aided, obscured and almost guaranteed by some pretty vacant legislation which no machine seems eager enough to take issue with. [/breath]
quote:
By focusing on organizing immigrant workers, unions are further neglecting the needs, and wasting the resources, of existing memberships.
In my opinion, it's not just the local's administration who should be focusing on organizing these workers. The members should be just as concerned about the welfare of these human beings and focus their efforts on organizing also.
quote:
I am still not convinced what you are doing is the right thing for the long term. I'm not saying you should stop or that it ain't working, I'm just saying I'm not convinced it's the best for the long term.
BP states what he is concerned about is the fact that he's not leaving money for the future. This does sound like a gamble, but is helping the welfare of fellow human beings worth the gamble? As BP mentioned above, "An Injury To One Is An Injury To All". IMHO, if union officers and members believed in, and lived by this statement, we wouldn't have near the problems with labor unions which we now have.
quote:
Might have something to do with labor laws that are an abomination. 10,000 workers are fired every year for trying to join a union. Others stall and have attorneys sit on you till they wear you down.
Oh sure, it might. Although it's altogether more logical to assume that it's because unions are in such a sorry state right now.
Do you go out of your way to join organizations with terrible reputations?
I didn't think so.
quote:
There has been a number of minority reps. hired all across the country.Any local that has an ounce of brains has added bi-lingual staff.
Whoopty-doo! Bi-lingualism does not equal effective representation.
quote:
Rafael is hardly some priveledged kid with no real world experience. He worked in the fields in california and worked his way thru college as a chef in a union restaurant. No silver platter thing here. In fact, most of the minorities being hired aren't bluebloods, they usually come from working class families. that's a different program you are referring to.
aside - You really need to stop centering your arguments about what goes on in your local. We're not discussing your local, we're discussing the labour movement in general. However, what you say can and will be used against you. /aside
How do you explain this then? Why isn't the UFCW pulling members out of stores for the "Union Summer" program?
And university education, while not neccessarily "silver-spoon", is definitely a priveledge.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of qualifications does a union look for when hiring university graduates?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Rafael's case, one that spoke spanish and knew something about the labor movement.
Ok, so why doesn't the UFCW put all those training and education funds into teaching a secondary language?
Makes sense no?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. You can't make that claim anymore. I can use my own experience, both within and without a union, to dispute it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes i can make that claim. I'm not using my experience singularly or yours in that same limited capacity. The bureau of labor statistics has volumes of factual data broken out by industry and by union or non. In recent years, those numbers have closed a bit, but the differences are still substantial.
Ok, then.
Whats the difference between union and non-union retail workers? (don't quote stats from your local) Or would this be the example that isn't "almost always better off"?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where are all those new dues revenues going to end up?
What percentage of current dues dollars end up being filtered back through to the membership, or membership advancement programs, today?
Is this percentage larger or smaller than the percentage that ends up in the back pockets of the administration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually that is one of the reasons i spend as much time here as i do, to try and change that problem.
Any particular reason you didn't attempt answer the questions?
Don't make me throw a rolleyes in here.
licatsplit:
quote:
In my opinion, it's not just the local's administration who should be focusing on organizing these workers. The members should be just as concerned about the welfare of these human beings and focus their efforts on organizing also.
No. The members should be concerned with their own welfare first. Once that situation is stable, which it's not, and pursuant to my argument is going to get worse when unions put too much focus on immigrant workers, then they can concern themselves with others.
You don't go to war without an army.
quote:
No. The members should be concerned with their own welfare first. Once that situation is stable, which it's not, and pursuant to my argument is going to get worse when unions put too much focus on immigrant workers, then they can concern themselves with others.
I agree to disagree on this. IMHO, it was this self-centered train of thought which brought unions to the point they are at present. Individualism, and focusing on ones own welfare, can be detrimental to solidarity. " An Injury To One Is An Injury To All" We have plenty of union officials who are concerned with their own welfare and it sure isn't helping the members who depend on them for leadership and guidance. We have to be concerned with all workers, not just immigrant workers, but all workers. Otherwise, don't we become exactly what we are fighting against?
quote:
You don't go to war without an army.
Exactly! You have to enlist your soldiers, either through volunteerism or through organizing efforts.
quote:
I agree to disagree on this. IMHO, it was this self-centered train of thought which brought unions to the point they are at present. Individualism, and focusing on ones own welfare, can be detrimental to solidarity.
I wasn't really speaking of individuals but of an individual movement. Sorry. I should have been clearer.
Labour is already in a struggle, a struggle to retain what little clout and influence it has left and it's doing so with *already* severely limited resources.
To spread those resources out, even thinner, to undertake a task as tremendous as organizing the millions of undocumented workers and triumph, will cost existing members, already getting screwed, dearly.
There are two battles here. Labour doesn't have the support from the home-front necessary to win either one.
quote:
Exactly! You have to enlist your soldiers, either through volunteerism or through organizing efforts.
Right. But why should we concern ourselves with buying a boat-load of "weapons" if we have no soldiers to carry them?
EDIT: Oh! And I should add that this entire post was from the point of view that unions are *actually* doing this for the right reasons.
quote:
Labour is already in a struggle, a struggle to retain what little clout and influence it has left and it's doing so with *already* severely limited resources.
I agree the union's resources are stretched already. This is why I think the members should be more involved with educating and organizing the masses. MFD is actually doing it's part in this concept. By willingly dicussing these issues in an open forum, the people who are involved do a great service to all workers. Why not carry it a little farther and search out workers who need some type of organizing to help them combat against the injustices? I would like to see a discussion on basic steps to organizing. What is the most effective approach? What material should be discussed as well as which laws. Through the help of everyone here at MFD, could we design a working blueprint which anyone could follow to aid them in an organizing campaign?
quote:
Right. But why should we concern ourselves with buying a boat-load of "weapons" if we have no soldiers to carry them?
The cart before the horse scenario huh? Open source hopefully will be a great asset in helping solidify workers voices. We've seen numerous unions born anew. With a little help from other concerned workers and some type of blueprint which lays out procedures in easy to follow steps, couldn't members help these workers help themselves?
quote:
Oh! And I should add that this entire post was from the point of view that unions are *actually* doing this for the right reasons.
Point well taken! I suppose I drifted off topic a little by leaving mainstream union organizing and focusing more on a grassroots type of organizing. Do you think a union's money would be better spent by educating the membership on how to conduct a successful organizing campaign?
quote:
Do you think a union's money would be better spent by educating the membership on how to conduct a successful organizing campaign?
Yes!
IMO, that's the only way. Anything less will fail.
quote:
Why not carry it a little farther and search out workers who need some type of organizing to help them combat against the injustices?
Nah, speaking for myself, if we did that, I'd feel like one of those ambulance chasing lawyers.
That's not my scene.
Why are we arguing organizing? I thought we all agreed organizing, education and information is key. (what siggy did miss? 
)
What's up in the air is how to eliminate mainstream without wiping workers off the map. Yes? No?
quote:
Any particular reason you didn't attempt answer the questions?
I thought i did. For your sake, i'll try again, using an analogy. Might as well crap on this thread a little more.
Let's say we own the Feel Good Butt Wipe toilet paper company. The business began in 1952 and people would kill to get their hands (and butts) on our paper. Within a year, we had 35% of America wiping their rear ends with Feel Good. Awesome. We built a product based on quality: good four ply, the kind your hands don't muush through.
Our popularity and sales stayed strong in the 60s and most of the 70s. In the early 80s, the RR (get it?) Premium Ass Wipe corp. was rolled out. They immediately handed us our ass. Our sales dropped to less than 25% of marketshare. Their product was inferior, an easy to wipe thru two ply. Their marketing, packaging and promotion were all far superior. We refused to change, we knew people would always prefer quality.
By the 90s our m.share was less than 20%. Our older clients were dieing off and the younger ones wouldn't give us a look. Their jingle "wipe away your problems with our rugged individual sheets" was captivating to the first time buyers. It didn't matter they were spending twice as much because thay had to use twice as much, it was cool to use Ass Wipe. We responded to the challenge by raising wages for the entire corporate office, we knew that would get us turned around. It did. All around the country, regional sales offices did the same. The logic was simple, if they are getting theirs, i'm getting mine. "What me worry?' became our slogan.
By the new millenium, sales hovered around 15%. Stockholders became angry, return on investments were in the toilet. A few disadents showed up to complain, but were quickly dismissed as nothing more than pains in the ass. The CEO proudly stated the company was built on quality and all would be okay. He ordered 1000 new sales people to the streets to re-energize our marketshare. Sadly, he never quite grasp, while our product was superior, everything else we were doing sucked.
Here's the only way to save this venerable old company, the one built on quality. It has to look within itself. It has to analize every dime it spends and reallocate resources where the customer feels its for them. It has to rebuild itself so it not only has quality, but it's what people want. The best way to achieve that is to ask them what they want and what they expect. It means becoming more marketable outside their same old customers (can you read immigrants and retail workers?). More of the same only better, will only insure failure. If it means they have to turn the company on it's ear and make tough decisions, then so be it. They need to admit they've done a shitty job, and there may need to be some personal sacrifice. Most important is we need understand, if we don't change, the Feel Good Butt Wipe company will be gone.
Clear Enough?
(p.s. good job on the thread crapping.)
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any particular reason you didn't attempt answer the questions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought i did.
No, not really.
I was seeking numbers, even estimates - I don't know anyone here who is better equipped to offer them than you.
Allow me to re-state the questions:
What percentage of current dues dollars end up being filtered back through to the membership, or membership advancement programs, today?
Is this percentage larger or smaller than the percentage that ends up in the back pockets of the administration?
Fight the fluff Bill! Fight the fluff!
I believe the thread originated by Slek was meant to show the atrocities of slavery and show an analogy between modern slavery and the north american corporate culture. Government and the globalization of the free market are also contributing factors in the slavery issue.
Free Markets, Slavery, and Bush
Cries of slavery aren't heard by Bush and government allies. Apparently oil money has a deafening affect on politician's and the oil industry's ears; but I repeat myself.......(sorry Mr. Twain!)
Bastards. 