The audio should be posted in it's entirety.
Since when should workers be ashamed of expressing anguish at being robbed of their livelihood?
The public should definitely be made aware when companies choose to destroy the community by disposing of dedicated workers and replacing them with poverty jobs. The audio painted a vivid picture of what bad business and biz-unions do to workers and their families. IMHO
The GMM Audio Stream: To post or not to post? Poll & Debate
MFD recently posted an audio stream of a UFCW Local 1518 general membership meeting. The audio stream was a full and uncut recording of the meeting. Most members we've heard from thought the posting was a good idea but some felt uncomfortable with it. We removed the link to the audio in response to their concerns, however, since then we've had some requests to repost the link. One member has suggested that we have a referendum on the issue. Sounds like a plan!
So here we go. We invite you to debate and vote on the possible reposting of the GMM audio. There are 3 choices in the poll. Should we:
1. Repost the audio stream in its entirety?
2. Repost the audio stream but edit out members' names where these are audible?
3. Leave it alone. Do not repost.
Our reasons for posting the audio in the first place can be found here. Some initial reaction to the posting can be found at this thread.
Tell us what you think.
I voted for number 1.
#2 will be a lot of work and #3 shouldn't even be an option IMO.
Can non UFCW vote? Should non UFCW vote?
Sure. Why not. I'm not ufcw.
One member has
suggested that we have a referendum on the issue. Sounds like a plan!
Wow I am blown away. The ufcw would have waffled told us it was too expensive, too much trouble, and to leave it alone we know better for you. And here there is a sense of democracy about the issue. Isnt it great when the MEMBERS can decide whats best for them?
quote:
posted by T S:
One member has
suggested that we have a referendum on the issue. Sounds like a plan!
Wow I am blown away. The ufcw would have waffled told us it was too expensive, too much trouble, and to leave it alone we know better for you. And here there is a sense of democracy about the issue. Isnt it great when the MEMBERS can decide whats best for them?
Isn't modern technology wonderful? Not only can workers' opinions be polled quickly, easily and inexpensively - and - now you know that this is the case. There's no reason why Local 1518 couldn't set up a bulletin board like this one. The polling feature comes as part of the package, I believe. You could debate, discuss and vote on countless issues - all 26,500 of you!
On the subject of "to post or not to post", I must admit that I really struggled with #1 (post the entire audio) and #2 (post with names deleted). I completely believe that there is a lot to gain from sharing the workers' comments with the broader community. I found them quite moving and compelling and I'm sure that many other people would also.
I agree with siggy, that the world needs to understand the real impact of these "business decisions". I believe that we are far more likely to change people's thinking about corporate greed through the kinds of moving statements we heard on the audio than we are through the standard rhetoric.
I struggled with the "names" issue though. I understand that the workers didn't know they were being recorded and that at least one had difficulty with his statement(s) being broadcast publicly. This presented a dilemma: Should the audio be pulled because of the wishes of some of the workers? What about the other workers who think it should be reposted? How can we resolve this? An additional dilemma was: Should the workers have been advised in advance of the recording? Some would say "yes, it would only have been fair". But then, would they have spoken so candidly and effectively about what was on their minds? Probably not. Another thorny problem to resolve.
I tried to resolve this ethical dilemma by using a form of moral reasoning called "utilitarianism". Essentially this means considering each course of action and balancing the good vs. the harm that is likely to come from it (and going with the one that is likely to cause the greatest good and least harm). More about utilitarianism . I thought I'd mention it as it is a way of trying to wrestle with thorny moral dilemmas.
Doing the utiliarian thing, my conclusion was that #1 was morally defensible because of its potential to raise awareness about the impact of corporate greed (something the workers are trying to do anyway) and that it would also put pressure on their union to beef up its support of their campaign (something that they are also trying to do). There was little likelihood that any harm would come to any of the workers from the posting of the audio. There might be some discomfort but, compared to the good that could come from it, the balance (in my mind anyway) tipped in favour of posting.
I should have stopped thinking at this point as I had reasoned my way through to #1 pretty cleanly but then another consideration occurred to me: Would posting the audio in its entirety, turn some of the workers off the Internet (which could be such a useful tool for them) at a time when some are still not that familiar with it? This opened up a whole other ethical can of worms that I didn't have the energy to explore. In the end, my head hurt and I opted to go with for #2.
Anyway, the reason that I'm blabbering on about this is that it struck me as a good example of the kind of debating we sometimes need to do with ourselves about ethical issues and of an approach we can use when resolving ethical dilemmas (there are others too). Next time you're presenting something controversial to your supervisor or your union rep, why not tell them you'd like them to use the utilitarian method of reasoning to arrive at their decision (it'll throw them for a loop since very few will know what that means).
I'd be interested in hearing more from those who have voted so far about how you arrived at your decisions. For some of you it seemed like a pretty straightforward decision, which is fine by the way (I bet your heads don't hurt).
quote:
For some of you it seemed like a pretty straightforward decision
It was that straight forward for me. As long as the audio messed with even one power source there was no question it could be removed until a discussion took place. There was no need to upset even one apple cart. The audio wasn't there before and then it was. There was no urgency, no life or death to have or not to have it. It's value is forever in the e-ternal journal to be drawn on whenever. 
*bump*
Rock the Vote! 
Why don't we give it until midnight tonight and then - majority rules.
Here's something interesting for those concerned about privacy issues connected with the posting of the audio stream. UFCW International has posted a Wal-Mart video: Go to this link and click on the pic titled "Wal-Mart's War on Workers" http://www.ufcw.org/home/index.cfm
I'm assuming the machineheads won't raise any privacy issues connected with our audio stream after this.
As as side question: What do you think of the title, Walmart's War on Workers"? Is it appropriate or is the UFC-Dubya trying piggy-back on G Dubya Bush's warmongering?
After reading Mike H.'s post in this thread, I change my vote to #1. Post the whole thing uncut.
I guess if one has the foolishness/courage to be the only vote in a group, i ought have the capacity to defend it. I voted for three, even after reading the thread remote viewer posted. I find the idea of taping conversations that only a handful have knowledge of, to be a bit offensive. This isn't about Ivan, or myself as an elected official. This is about workers who went to the meeting and spoke out without knowledge. Not having heard the tape, but having read the arguments, i think it is huge disservice to anyone who was there speaking, was taped, and didn't want to be the nights audio enjoyment.
I know we can have the greater good debate, but i just wonder what happens if the next time there is a heated issue. Will workers choose not to say anything, or are we giving those that know about the recording, the opportunity to say the right things. It is a dangerous precedent to have people picking their words, or worse yet, not saying them. Seems to fly in the face of the free speech, we all seem so concerned about. If you wanna tape it, pull the damn recorder out and let everyone know.
Bill, your arguments are rock solid for anyone dealing with an ethical up-front union local. You're absolutely right when any union meeting is run by union officers who hold the best interest of the Power Source first and foremost in their hearts. Your thoughts are righteous when speaking of an open, honest, communicative and accessible union leadership.
I won't say anymore.
There clearly are some ethical issues here. They translate into the real concerns that Bill has made above. Will it restrict members willingness to speak up on any issue? Conversely, will it encourage members to be on the record, to give some additional thought to the wording of their questions? Will it restrict the answers that members get from their representatives? Should our union officials be concerned that they will be held accountable for their words? One might suggest "only if they have an agenda other than honest reply." Remember that some of our most important institutions have meetings recorded for good reason.Will it provide information to those we would prefer not to have it? All good questions and I am thankful that there is a place where we can come together to discuss the issue.
I am in agreement with Bill that there is something a bit offensive about recording and then making public, a meeting that was in most peoples minds private. In this regard it may not matter that there were few objections at work and much positive comment as seen here. Ethically, a line has been crossed and I see little room for debate on that.
However, I still feel something is missing from Bill's assessment and that is the context in which the recording took place. It cannot be forgotten that the meeting was largely characterized by the anger and frustration that the members felt towards a union that has not only created this labour dispute but has seemingly abandoned its members when they needed the union the most.After paying into the union for over 20 plus years these members listen to a union official speak about a $600,000 conference and are then told, essentially, that all costs will have to come out of their pockets and they will have to seek repayment as authorized by that official. Monies owed were still outstanding to members after a full month. Money is required for any successful campaign and the lack of it has characterized this dispute. Worse than that, many members believe that the union has sought to block their attempts once they proved "too effective." This locals officials have only been moved by being thoroughly embarrassed into doing the right thing.
In this context was it wrong to publically display and effectively communicate the anger and frustration? There appears to be some question as to the truthfulness of when a cheque was written to a member and the audio makes that clear. Is that a bad thing? Should the official not be made accountable? Will the audio help raise accountability of these union officials? Who gets to decide these questions?
I do not claim to know the answers to these questions but I believe the context in which the audio was recorded and posted explains the reason for such little objection.
I feel that the recording should somehow be made available to the 26,000 Local #1518 members who did not attend the meeting.
Beyond that I am torn, due to the recording being made without the knowledge of all the participants.
Last *bump*.
We currently have a draw.
C'mon people, vote!
If it remains a draw tomorrow evening, the tie breaking decision will belong to me. 
quote:
posted by siggy:
The audio should be posted in it's entirety.
Since when should workers be ashamed of expressing anguish at being robbed of their livelihood?
The public should definitely be made aware when companies choose to destroy the community by disposing of dedicated workers and replacing them with poverty jobs. The audio painted a vivid picture of what bad business and biz-unions do to workers and their families. IMHO
It ain't a draw. Two thirds want it reposted. The only question is whether to omit names. Omit names and I'm sure that 2/3 will still be happy.
Recording for recording's sake isn't necessarily cool, but in this case, I don't have a problem. It's a story that needs to be told.
quote:
It ain't a draw. Two thirds want it reposted. The only question is whether to omit names. Omit names and I'm sure that 2/3 will still be happy.
Good point.
I'll repost it tomorrow evening.