Tonite i attended our monthly Labor Speaker's Club. The evenings discussion centered on the American Postal Workers Unions (APWU) efforts to break their mold of public sector representation. For the past two years, they have been trying to organize private sector haulers. It is the right kind of thinking, though there has been a fair number of critics who are trying to stop it.
After hearing reports from the organizers, we opened the meeting up to floor discussion. Lots of good comments and analogy. I made a statement as to the importance of bringing workers back into the process, and changing leaders who weren't willing to change. An African American postal worker chimed in "that's not enough." He made a very convincing argument that just changing leaders wasn't good enough. His contention was, the rapid advances in our economy and the changing nature of work, forced us to become more aggressive than just being reactionary. He suggested workers and their unions had to inject themselves into the factors that would determine where we would be. I think in essence, he was saying if there is to be a new world order, we better propel ourselves right into the middle of helping shape those outcomes or we would be left behind. It made perfect sense, it's just so far from where we are today, it's frightening.
In Aurthur Shostiks book Cyberunion, he claims we need to look into the future. Using 5 year increments, we can begin to make long range plans to insure workers aren't forgotten. The only thing i see wrong with his assesment is the burning question: how do you go from a structure where you are barely a reactionary to where you are a vissionary and dictating expectations. And tougher yet, are we capable of rallying enough workers to insure that we have a say in tomorrows economy?
Inject more into a corrupt, Power Source unfriendly structure. Good idea! 
Here's Lic's question from another thread
quote:
Is it possible to change the conditions of the working class by placing laws within the existing structure which are beneficial to the power source? Can we help the power source by utilizing the existing apparatus and its democratic mechanisms, or do we need to first rebuild the apparatus and the democratic mechanisms into a structure which is truly democratic and free?
quote:
I made a statement as to the importance of bringing workers back into the process, and changing leaders who weren't willing to change. An African American postal worker chimed in "that's not enough." He made a very convincing argument that just changing leaders wasn't good enough. His contention was, the rapid advances in our economy and the changing nature of work, forced us to become more aggressive than just being reactionary. He suggested workers and their unions had to inject themselves into the factors that would determine where we would be. I think in essence, he was saying if there is to be a new world order, we better propel ourselves right into the middle of helping shape those outcomes or we would be left behind. It made perfect sense, it's just so far from where we are today, it's frightening.
I think the worker who said this has hit the nail right on the head. You can't expect to accomplish much by looking for incremental change within the existing book of rules (my response to lic's question - which I meant to get back to in the other thread but didn't quite get to).
The existing book of rules (the laws, the political structure, the conventional expectations about relationships between workers-unions-political parties-government) does not operate in a way that favours workers. It exists to keep them down or, in the very least, to keep them dependent on others for what little they have.
Change that favours workers will not happen "by the book" because it isn't allowed by the book. The reliance by unions on both sides of the border on political parties to further their agenda and the failure of this strategy is strong evidence of what playing by the book will get us.
Thinking in terms of multi-year plans is not necessarily a good approach either. It presupposes that others will make the plan and determine what will happen and how it will happen. While it's good to realize that change occurs over a period of time, thinking in terms of things happening along preset time lines, tends to get us focused on the plan rather than the outcomes that we want. This can be a problem because you can get so wedded to the plan that you miss opportunities to get to where you want to go that come along unexpectedly - because they're not in the plan.
My own sense is that change that is favourable to workers will happen if/when workers become involved. To involve them, we must give them the tools and let them chart the course. The tools are the knowledge, the skills, the equipment and so on that will help them decide where they want to go. The role of their unions and other supporters (like us) will be to help them get there.
An example of giving workers the knowledge is making available the wide range of information about unions, employers and the workplace that we make available on this site. It might also be publicizing and encouraging acceptance of electonic voting that we've been discussing in another thread. It might be coming up with ways of making wireless technology more availiable to a greater number of workers (to enable direct communication among workers). There are all kinds of possibilities.
Bottom line though, is that workers will not become involved as long as the nature of their involvement will be once again to sit and watch from the sidelines as others determine what's best for them.
quote:
The existing book of rules (the laws, the political structure, the conventional expectations about relationships between workers-unions-political parties-government) does not operate in a way that favours workers. It exists to keep them down or, in the very least, to keep them dependent on others for what little they have.
Change that favours workers will not happen "by the book" because it isn't allowed by the book. The reliance by unions on both sides of the border on political parties to further their agenda and the failure of this strategy is strong evidence of what playing by the book will get us.
It's the *by the book* stuff that keeps history repeating itself. "round 'n 'round. Only this time the revolt will not mirror anything in history. The internet has changed that part of the book forever.
Workers are fed up with the greed and even more fed up with the corruption. Workers want what's theirs and they'll be armed with the info and tools. This time history will lose it's control.
quote:
It's the *by the book* stuff that keeps history repeating itself. "round 'n 'round. Only this time the revolt will not mirror anything in history. The internet has changed that part of the book forever.
Workers are fed up with the greed and even more fed up with the corruption. Workers want what's theirs and they'll be armed with the info and tools. This time history will lose it's control.
Loooooooooooong way to go, before that happens. Even when it comes, there's a piece of it steeped in history you can't escape, there still will be leaders. All you can hope for is that they will come to grips with the greater good theory.
I thought RV was getting it. We (workers), can't afford to sit meekly on the sideline hoping we get a fair share. The power of the workers has to be understood by them before it will be recognized by the power brokers. That is where i agree with you siggy, the internet can be the tool that helps pull it all together. Ultimately, its going to take either leaders making it happen or workers stepping up and becoming the leaders. The liklihood is, it will be a mix of both.
quote:
Loooooooooooong way to go, before that happens. Even when it comes, there's a piece of it steeped in history you can't escape, there still will be leaders. All you can hope for is that they will come to grips with the greater good theory.
Why do you see it as so far away? When the majority of workers are beneath the poverty line. Don't you think when they've got nothing left to lose then they've got nothing to lose. If we're not there, then we are very close.
Desperation and oppression has driven change throughout history, it will do it again. The internet, the very vehicle the corporate pigs thought would seperate and isolate workers will defeat them.
I was talking to a friend today, and he said something that made my skin crawl: and then i realized, in a strange way, he wasn't all that far wrong. He said:"in some ways, slaves were better off than the working poor are today." I cringed and he went on to explain, at least slaves had a master who tried to care for them. The working poor, often are faced with no ability to get by. Rent can consume 65% of their check. No health care, little chance to escape the myriad of poor paying jobs. The problem with the net being the sole motivator is the answer i was given by a retail worker, " i can't afford a computer or the internet on my salary." It's always a matter of priorities.
quote:
The problem with the net being the sole motivator is the answer i was given by a retail worker, " i can't afford a computer or the internet on my salary." It's always a matter of priorities.
I don't see the internet as the motivator but more a facilitator. Everyone knows someone with a 'puter. I would compare it to the town hall, with the advantage of smaller groupings exchanging the same info at xxxx the speed and without the din. Gotta' be more effective. 
the internet, today, isn't a tool - it's a window. gonna shut someday soon. when shutting it ain't enough, bars'll be added. when the bars aren't enough, the blinds'll be drawn.
if you like fresh air, i suggest you climb through. now.
quote:
it's a window. gonna shut someday soon
Closing this window is going to 'cause them pause, shutting out our sunshine will also shut out their sunshine. They've kinda painted themselves into the perverbial corner. Buggars outsmarted themselves. 
All change that has come to mankind since the dawn of time...has come because "unreasonable" people made things happen and took a chance when nobody else would try.
We all know todays labour leaders can't hold the fort forever. The current system is rotten to the core and won't last. The questions nobody can really answer is when will it fall? how? and will the end result be possitive or negative with respect to the impact on working people?
While nobody can predict the future, what we can do as "leaders" is anticipate logical paths and concequence's and plan for possable contingencies. And I think the key to success lies within the power source.
Over the past couple of years I've been doing far less talking and far more observing in my workplace trying to get as clear an understanding of working people as I can. What I've noticed is a "me first" attitude that's the norm rather than the exception. At times I honestly believe retail workers would be willing to eat their own younge to get a little further ahead in the company and I find it appauling. If we're going to resurrect the union movement and improve the lives of all working people we first have to heal the root of the problem and focus far less on just treating the symtoms.
This means spending a great deal of time and resources "educating" working people, providing them with skills and empowering them to get involved with thier union.
[it's really late and I keep nodding off...I apologize but I'll have to try and finish this later]
quote:
What I've noticed is a "me first" attitude that's the norm rather than the exception. At times I honestly believe retail workers would be willing to eat their own younge to get a little further ahead.
Being a student of the game Scott, i couldn't agree with you more. That's why i'm a little surprised when you all get excited that union leaders are nothing more than an extension of the norm.They are just like many of the masses, "I'm gonna get mine." Hell when the article on wages came out in the St Paul paper, i had guys ask me if i was a socialist. The boundries for greed is not limited to a select few.
Here's the thing i can't understand. Most of the greedy driving the bus are baby boomers, like me. They were products of the 50s and 60s. Here's where the breakdown is. We were the free love, flowers in your hair, anti-war, anti-establishment crowd. It would stand to reason we would be a more liberal, genteel society. How the hell did those hippies end up, becoming living replicas of the pacman game; gobbling up everything in their way.
I've watched the Morris Massey tapes on why we are the way we are when (or whatever it's called) and his contention is: the boomers are a by-product of their first ten years on earth. It works if you take this easy to follow concept. Television exploded in the 50s. Kids were planted in front of it as electronic babysitters. In the space of an hour, people were born, raised and died. It was all bing, bang, boom. We learned early on to want it all, and to get it quickly. Our parents waited till they could afford a house, we had to have it right now. The other thing he said about boomers is, they tended not to be joiners. I suppose that was a product of the anti movement.
Ultimately, the question is "how do you change it?"
Massey said only a significant emotional event would do it. I was thinking about that the other day. Was 9/11 a SEE. Maybe, though i'm not of the mind it pushes anyone to unions, given their current state.
It seems we have ventured into the decay of morality within society as one of the underlying problems why we have arrived at the place we now are. Some say if you destroy a societies' values, you can manipulate the people and if the foundation of a societies' values are destroyed, a vacuum exists and people can be manipulated according to the ideology and power ambitions of ruling elites.
Joseph Schumpeter, argued in 1942 that the very success of capitalism tends to subvert the society that makes it possible.
"Capitalism creates a critical frame of mind," he wrote, "which, after having destroyed the moral authority of so many other institutions, in the end turns against its own." He went on to say "Capitalism and the wealth it generates inevitably stimulates appetite, self-indulgence and an impatience with restraint. The outcome, sooner or later, is social degeneration.
The great social upheavel of the 60's was definately a big boom between civil rights, vietnam war, free love, etc., etc. Why this era brought about more emphasis on indivdualism and self worth rather than the communal train of thought which was the norm of the time, like you say BP, is hard to understand.
Which is it, the decay of morality, capitalism, or the baby-boomer scenario which has brought us to this point? Or is it a combination of all of the above?
Like Scott says in the following quote:
quote:
If we're going to resurrect the union movement and improve the lives of all working people we first have to heal the root of the problem and focus far less on just treating the symtoms.
The root of the problem is what has to be ascertained and will it be a slow deliberate change or will it take a significant social event which will promote a more immediate change?
quote:
If we're going to resurrect the union movement and improve the lives of all working people we first have to heal the root of the problem and focus far less on just treating the symtoms
What about heal the people and resurrect humanity. Actually it would have to be erect humanity. Humanity has never been top priority in the pure sense. Some movements have given humanity top billing, but only as a sales pitch.
Just surfed in from the West Coast. Your sites way too cool for our warm temps. When i was reading this thread, i couldn't help but think about an article i had just read in a union newspaper. The local is north of ours, but represents safeway employees like we are. I won't type the whole article, you can find it on their website. The end of it gives you and idea of why it fits here.
Revelations of Corporate Crime Show Need for Moral Behavior. By Jack Loveall.
Who's Winning, Who's Losing
The American people continue to suffer. Even now that Enron is bankrupt, the former executives are living like kings while those who worked hard daily to keep the company alive are reduced to living on unemployment and food stamps.
I am not suggesting that all large corporations and organizations participate in unlawful behavior. It's the crooked few that have tainted the system.
It is a shame that corporate greed and deception have become so commonplace that most Americans didn't pay attention unless it impacted them directly. The truth is that hard work is still the backbone of this country. Corporations like Enron, WorldCom, Qwest, Tyco, and Adelphia are crumbling because of corporate crime. This is the time for the people of this country to demand government action to punish criminal behavior by managers.
Americans have always admired truth and honesty. Perhaps more important than tougher laws is the need for a return to basic values of honesty, integrity, and moral behavior. We must teach our children that corporate crime-actually that all crime-is unacceptable.
Great article right?????????????? Here is the kicker;
Off of the LM2 for 2000, big Jack's salary rolls in at a mere$382,850.00 and total compensation at only, $426,093.00. Cool huh. Guess you have to know it to write about it.
Gotta go Dudes, surfs up . Solidly speaking. 
Looks like surfer dude has found some more *stick people* Or is that *stick it to 'em*?
reapinc.org has the gruesome details. 
quote:
union leaders are nothing more than an extension of the norm.
and there is the root.... The true enemy of all working people isn't corruption, it's self importance of which corruption is an inevitable side effect. we all should ask ourselves "am I a trade unionist? or an individualist?" believe it or not folks you can't be both.
If we are to save the union movement we first have to address the root of our problem, self importance. As individuals we achieve little, but as a group there is nothing we can't do. There have been examples of this. In trail B.C. the employees at Safeway punched out of work in support of a worker who had been unjustly terminated. Company executives flew in from California to meet with shop steward Maurice Gilbert [local 1518 union reps couldn't make it in time] to try and get people back to work. The employee was reinstated and everything got back to normal, but only because the employees of that store put sacrafice ahead of self importance. They all could have lost their jobs but they choose to lay it on the line for their fallen brother. That's unionism.
All too often people concern themselves with what the other guy is getting and when management approaches them for incomplete work the first thing they do is point the finger someplace else. I was fired from IGA for insubordination because I refused to reveal the name of a person who gave me an IGA golf shirt to wear. Management assumed the instant they threatened my job I'd cave and scurry for dry ground like a rat in a sinking ship. They were mistaken.
Todays union leaders were yesterdays workers [in most cases anyway] and it's little wonder we see a "me first" attitude within their ranks. Their actions are a mirror image of workers attitudes. Negotiations go bad and they point the finger at politicians, the economy, the members etc. They ensure they get their raises and maintian their standard of living by increasing the number of union members even if it means undermining the entire industry as a whole [see 777 agreement] and the list goes on and on.
"Rome wasn't built in a day" but we can change things and resurrect the union movement from the asses of business unionism and it starts within ourselves. It's not just a matter of educating but more over the act of "modeling" for our fellow workers. Ethics, like corruption is infectious and it starts with ourselves. Are you willing to put yourself at risk to help a co-worker? In sports there is a saying "you can win as a team, or loose as individuals" as workers we each face the same choice every day. What choice will you make tomorrow?
Knute Rockne couldn't have said it better coach!
A family that plays together gets caught eventually.
Which came first the chicken or the shit?
Jack L. Loveall
President, UFCW 588 Northern California
Senior International Vice President
Jacques Loveall
Executive Vice President, UFCW 588
Image for corporate unionists seems to be everything. The words are pretty and so are the pictures. Doesn't Jack look like a $250,000 per year lawyer?
In contrast, here's one of my favorite UFCW presidents. He says what he means and means what he says.
(it's pretty easy to see what side of the fence Bill is on 
)
I've checked the Local 987 site and can't find any Junior Pearsons. I can find some pretty genuine faces though.
I just don't trust the guys with ties worth more than a junior clerk makes in a week. I don't trust guys in pretty suits spouting labor faker rhetoric.
Check out this labor faker.
Even after the guy was convicted, former International President Bill Wynn said he was a swell guy, and International President Doug Dority, said he was one of the finest guys he knows.
When you look at what the elite value in a person, it surprises me is that Bill P. managed to get his foot in the door. I suspect that Bill was hired because the elite saw a corruptable quality about him. They were eithter extremely wrong in their initial assessment or something changed Bill along the way.
I've said that, generally, it's more the system than the person that nurtures corruption. However, I still can't figure out how Bill survived the system.
quote:
Here's the thing i can't understand. Most of the greedy driving the bus are baby boomers, like me. They were products of the 50s and 60s. Here's where the breakdown is. We were the free love, flowers in your hair, anti-war, anti-establishment crowd. It would stand to reason we would be a more liberal, genteel society. How the hell did those hippies end up, becoming living replicas of the pacman game; gobbling up everything in their way.
Greed is cross-generational. It has nothing to do with class/age stereotypes (e.g. hippy).
Wasn't the "hippy" invented by the writers of "Laugh-In"?
quote:
The great social upheavel of the 60's was definately a big boom between civil rights, vietnam war, free love, etc., etc. Why this era brought about more emphasis on indivdualism and self worth rather than the communal train of thought which was the norm of the time, like you say BP, is hard to understand.
Jesus! Correlation is not causation. FUCK!
What's hard to understand about that?
To get back on track, I totally agree that we must change more than the leaders. I think that in this age, five-years plans are too long. However, that isn't to say that union leaders shouldn't have long-term plans. A three-year vision with one-year tactical plans might be more effective. It's sort of like drawing a picture of what your "house" will look like in three years and having three sets of blueprints, one for each year, that give direction for each years project.
We do this sort of stuff all the time in our personal lives. We figure out how much money we will need to retire and we set out a savings plan to achive it. However, when we run unions, we look at strategic plans and tactical plans as "business" activities that will corrupt our thinking.
Changing leaders won't do any good unless competent leaders are ready to take over. And that's the big conundrum. Most leaders grow to love the power, wealth and prestige of being a union boss. They aren't about to set up any system that would prep anyone for the job they call their own.
Unions demand training for their members, so that they can fill skilled positions in the workplace. They demand senority systems to prevent nepotism and favouritism.
What many unions need is a huge dose of the medicne they prescribe for companies that employ their members. They need leadership training open to members on a seniority basis. They need to offer paid positions to trained members on a seniority basis. They need a system whereby family members don't report to family members.
In short they need to adopt a system of knowledge, skills, ability and seniority when selecting emloyees and future leaders. They need to provide ample opportunity for members to attain the knowledge, skills and ability to run for office or apply for union staff positions.
Personally, I'd like to see Presidents with limited terms of office. That way there would be no dynasty building.
quote:
Jesus! Correlation is not causation. FUCK!
What's hard to understand about that?
Take a pill buddy!
How you mined correlation == causation out of an honest question is completely beyond me.
quote:
Correlation is not causation.
This depends on whether one follows the theories of David Hume!
There are various kinds and various measures of statistical correlation, but all of them indicate that two or more quantities are related in some way and to some degree, not necessarily that one causes the other. Often the changes in the two correlated quantities are both the result of a third factor. It's this third factor that was in question, not the fact whether correlation is or isn't causation. The decay of morality, ethics, self importance, capitalism, lack of humanity,television, and now greed have all been mentioned above as the third factor which helps bring about the loss of power by the source! Not to say this is easy to understand of course! 
quote:
Wasn't the "hippy" invented by the writers of "Laugh-In"?
No but they did capitalize off the movement!
Hippie: A person who opposes and rejects many of the conventional standards and customs of society, especially one who advocates extreme liberalism in sociopolitical attitudes and lifestyles. The origin of the word dates back to the early 50's from the word "hip" whose meaning is "Keenly aware of or knowledgeable about the latest trends or developments."
Hippies started the ecology movement. They combated racism. They liberated sexual stereotypes, encouraged change, individual pride, and self-confidence. They questioned robot materialism and in four years they managed to stop the Vietnam War.
Guess You Had To Be There!
quote:
As individuals we achieve little, but as a group there is nothing we can't do.
I believe it was Franklin who said "We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
quote:
Ethics, like corruption is infectious and it starts with ourselves.
It always seems harder to infect people with ethics than it does corruption. As long as self importance is at the top of the list, this will remain so. You are so right, the change starts with ourselves.
quote:
They need to provide ample opportunity for members to attain the knowledge, skills and ability to run for office or apply for union staff positions.
This is key! Our local spends a great deal of money on the training of the members when it comes to their knowledge of their trade. Numerous paid instructors and proctors are employed by the union on a temporary basis but there is zip being spent on the education of the members when it comes to official positions. The structure as it now exists doesn't offer any opportunities for a member who sees a need for change. The officialdom regulates, to a great extent, who will be allowed in! They want to make sure the noobie fits within their definition and within their boundaries of what the norms of an official should be. If a noobie does get elected, the incumbents begin their training using their protocols and philosophies.
Y'know what interests me is that the great UFCW call of the week is, "Change or Get Out of The Way!"
Change what?
The best the present crop seem prepared to change is to spend money on increasing revenue. No where does anyone say "Change Your Power Structure."
The last 20 years have been spent on consolidating power in the hands of UFCW presidents. Where real power used to be shared between Secretary Treasurer and President, most local unions have changed their by-laws to make all positions subservient to the president. They allow a person to seek election and once elected, the person can step down and a crony is placed in the position. They call it an election, but we all know that's crap.
When Doug Dority says, "Change or get out of the way," he should be specific about what change is needed, what is expected, and what will happen if they don't change or get out of the way.
It's obvious that some dudes think that sponsoring a race car for over $300 thousand is change.
quote:
To get back on track, I totally agree that we must change more than the leaders. I think that in this age, five-years plans are too long. However, that isn't to say that union leaders shouldn't have long-term plans. A three-year vision with one-year tactical plans might be more effective. It's sort of like drawing a picture of what your "house" will look like in three years and having three sets of blueprints, one for each year, that give direction for each years project.
Here's where this gets fun W. Any long term planning (goals) has to be done in concert with trying to understand where everything else will be in a given period of time. That of and to itself should the source of a great emotional upset to union leadership. There's not a ufcw president out there that shouldn't be terrified over what is in front of them. Here's some key factor's in that statement:
* Walmart is currently opening a super center every other day. The pace i'm told will become a store every day in the coming year.
*Sam's Clubs are growing in popularity, because of pricing and the downturn in the economy.
*The neighborhood market concept is still brand new, but could conceivably sweep through cities in the blink of an eye.
* Union employers all over the country are feeling the non-union preassure, and are telling workers and their unions to go piss up a rope. In many cases, you've got the long service members who don' want the fight, and the junior ones who don't know why they would be fighting. Then there's the leadership, they have to look at the budget and decide what they can afford both long term and short.
* As we have seen in previous posts, the ufcw has some fairly high costs in running the organization.There is virtually no way to change or stop that, so in a few short years (say five), the ufcw could be totally upside down in it almost every line item budget entry. In reality, it may take a little longer, but it is inevitable. Unless we stop the current trends, the thing implodes.
What becomes so terrifying to me is, we have leadership who refuse to accept that. In fact, they keep taking bigger increases, only insuring the ultimate demise happen that much sooner. They may get theirs, but at what cost?
The whole point of setting goals is to change that course. I applaud the international for hiring a hundred new organizers. The problem is, it isn't a plan, it's what we've always done. If that was the solution, unions would have been gaining members the past couple of years.
IMHO,the only way the existing labor movement
has any chance at all, is to look with-in itself, identify its faults, self police to correct them, and then give it back to the membership. Honest debate over what we need to do to survive has to be encouraged, not stifled. Leaders/reformers have to be brought into the fold, even it means they may kick our ass in the next election. Union representatives have to become less important to the workers. The workers themselves have to be taught to be the solution. By doing that, we get two unintended consequences. Reps can be used for organizing, and it gets awfully hard to justify those big salaries when the workers realise they are the power source. There's more, but we'll save that for another post.
So true Bill. Unions are going to have to tighten up internally. Anyone or anything that stands in the way of the members attaining control has to be taken out. Contracts that stop the slidding elephant have to negotiated. Yes, union employers face stiff competition from non union competitors but these employers remain non union because unions contracts have become so pitiful and internal corruption reported so often.
You said it earlier, you can't run a campaign based on what the other party does wrong but rather on what you do right. So to with organizing non unionized workers. The UFCW once again waisted it's money hiring that many organizers because what prevents workers from joining the UFCW isn't a lack of access but rather the UFCW's pitful track record and reputation as being corrupt and self serving. If this isn't addressed nothing will change.
One more thing on the devistating impact of corruption in the union movement...when I was fired from OFG both the employer and the UFCW surely rejoiced. But if what concerns both the UFCW and OFG are non union employers moving into their market strongholds than all their caniving really succeeded in was cutting their own throats.
Sure, I can't run for office in the UFCW, but I am up for a management position in one of OFG's most feared non union competitors. I have a great deal of knowledge and experience to bring to this employer and I know the lower mainland market. Every time we open a new store we deminish OFG and Safeway sales which mean less employer revenue and less union revenue as well. Furthermore, so long as we remain non union we have the upper hand in marketplace competition and can you think of a better weapon against a UFCW organizing drive than myself?
"Oh what tangled webs we weave..." reform was/is the UFCW's only salvation. Change, or be swept into oblivion.
quote:
IMHO,the only way the existing labor movement has any chance at all, is to look with-in itself, identify its faults, self police to correct them, and then give it back to the membership.
Let's say the unions do some self-policing in order to identify the problem areas which need correcting and they give it back to the membership. Who will they give it to? The number of members willing to take responsibility for operating their unions is pretty low right now. Members education has to go hand in hand with the official's education. Seems like it will have to be a simultaneous undertaking which will have to be a slow transistion between the transfer of powers. The debates you talk about between the leaders, reformers, members, needs to happen now! Open debate between all concerned is such a necessity and something which is as rare as a snowball in hell!
quote:
Yes, union employers face stiff competition from non union competitors but these employers remain non union because unions contracts have become so pitiful and internal corruption reported so often.
I can only speak of the contracts negotiated down here in my little world. The company I am presently employed with happens to be the only union contractor within a 250 mile radius. There are at least 10 non-union contractors to every union contractor. This means the non-union sector influences every contract we negotiate. This is the reason our contracts have become so weak down here. Every contract we negotiate is hard fought! If it weren't for the health and retirement benefits, I don't think we would continue to appeal to the non-union workers. Now the corruption I can't argue. This is definately a problem but there are so many eyes watching and posting info concerning wrong doings, I believe officials are being forced to dot all their I's and cross all their T's.
Jim Smith's take on unions is long, but accurate. Read The Corporatization of Unions.
Here's some of what Jim thinks:
quote:
THE FUTURE OF UNIONS
At this writing, there is no end in sight for the decline of corporate-model unions. Economic and technological trends antithetical to this union model continue to accelerate. Unions are becoming more and more insignificant in the media and in society as a whole. Yet they are desperately needed.
A real revolution in the structure and outlook of the AFL-CIO must take place, or it will surely arise independently of it. The nature of this revolution will likely be different than any of us can imagine. However, it may well include some common elements, including:
· A collegial model where decisions are made at the lowest effective level, that is, at the department, plant, office level where the problem originates and where the real power of the union - collective action - can be most impressive.
· An outreach to people in struggle outside the union to form broad alliances to fight common enemies. This would involve new ways of thinking about problems. For instance, it would be easier for building trades workers to oppose unneeded corporate projects that are harmful to the environment if there is a broad alliance fighting for and winning new affordable housing construction.
· A leveling of salaries and differential prestige within unions. If individuals are attracted to working for unions because of the salary, then labor is on the wrong track. Working for a union must be seen as a cause and an honor for which individuals are not penalized financially (compared with continuing to work on the job). Ultimately, there is no good reason, except for seniority, why John Sweeney should make more money than a competent union office worker. That is, if both are doing it for the "cause."
· A reduction in the size and complexity of labor union employment as the movement elevates elected job stewards to the top position in the "hierarchy."
· A through-going democratic process from top to bottom, including direct election of all officials. This should be combined with strict term-limits to avoid continuation of an entrenched leadership.
· A quota-based affirmative action program that will make union leaders look like the membership.
· Move the union out of the office buildings and into the streets with store-front service centers.
· An inverted pyramid where "higher" levels of the union are tools of local unions to accomplish goals they can't do alone, such as, industry-wide bargaining. Trusteeships, which are often used for political purposes rather than to root out corruption, must become a thing of the past.
Changing leaders will never work when the International or national offices have full control over who gets the next presidents position.
It's really hard to unseat the incumbent. When the International trustees a local and then allows the trustee to run as president, it's just not fair.
The International's "pick" has the money and the communications machinery to win an election.
If the International is going to trustee locals, the trustee should be there as an interim adminsitrator only. When the trusteeship ends, the trustee must facilitate a fair election, help with the transition and step down.
Pearson needs to Shave
BP has gone a week without shaving and has rings around his eyes. I always thought that I had the starving artist look or the Che G. look, but Wild Bill is starting to frighten me. If I can capture his look on digital, I will put it up on the site.
St. Paul Trotsky
Well that's not the leadership change we were shooting for but ...
quote:
If I can capture his look on digital, I will put it up on the site.
If you can get this for us, we'd be much obliged. Ain't had much activity in the making fun of a leader department lately and do need a new dart board. 
I have an idea....but before I go through with it I wanted some feedback from everyone else. Every person that gets involved with politics at any level has some idea they think will benefit everyone and leave their stamp on the org/country/union etc. I'm certainly no different.
Reading the MFD story thing again tonight reminded me of mine and I was wondering...how can I re-introduce this idea? [not on the web since my original web site] and more importantly how can we all discuss it and hopefully improve it? do I just type out some huge thing in the forum? do I break it up? do I segment each idea with a thread of discussion for them? do I piss off? I don't know but of everything I've ever done or said it's this one idea that means the most to me [and no remote...I didn't know others had talked about it before, I thought it was my idea] nevertheless...Steve Guliano, Fisher [don't like the guys politics but I respect his ability], Bill, St. Paul, Johnny, Au, Siggy,Slek, Richard, Weiser, HJF, Laura, Remo and all the Loman and Maple Grove boys...I mean what a list not to mention all the people I've forgotten plus the "others" who never post.
Surely our collective heads would be able to come up with something that could not only be implimented but more importantly actually achieve what I hoped it would. So how do I get this started?
quote:
Surely our collective heads would be able to come up with something that could not only be implimented but more importantly actually achieve what I hoped it would. So how do I get this started
Well Scott, it's always easier if we have a clue, what are you talking about and how can we help?
Jim Smith's Idea is a good start:
Realize
Decorporatize
Glocalize
Scott,
What you're describing sounds like more than just a forum post. Start with a blank page on your computer and start writing. Keep going until you've got your idea(s) down. Send you document in. It might make a good series or feature article, I would think. Getting the idea(s) down is the important thing. How to present them is something that can be worked out later.
I think this is good advice for anyone who has some thoughts on what can be done to revitalize unions and the labour movement in general.
© 2024 Members for Democracy