Looks good, Bill. Transformational leaders are fearless leaders. They are there for the Power Source and the groups they belong to. They are not there strictly for themselves, so they do not fear as much for themselves, their accumulated power and trappings of wealth.
They look at power as something to share with friends and to give away whenever and wherever possible. They teach and share knowledge.
Looks like a worthy read. Thanks for sharing.
LEADERSHIP
Paul Clark's book,Building More Effective Unions, is an exceptional piece of work. For those of us who believe the labor movement can still be salvaged in it's present form, it's a must read. Though i expect some hate to read others writings, i have taken the liberty of three short excerpts on the definitions of labor leaders from chapter 10, Union Leadership.
Over the past year i have asked some of you if you considered yourselves leaders. Some got uncomfortable, some admitted you were assuming a leadership position. Inevitably, leaders will be there in some fashion. Rather than debate the shape of leaders in the future, let me lay out a shortened version of his three styles. Just curious if you can see if one of the choices could work in rebuilding the labor movement.
Laissez-faire leadership:
Laissez-Faire,loosely translated, means hands-off in French.When applied to leadership, it suggests a leader who is passive, delays decisions, gives little or no feedback to subordinates, and makes little effort to help members with their problems; in short, someone who takes a hands-off approach.
Clearly,this is not an effective style of leadership, and, in the context of a democratic organization like a union would probably not remain in office very long. Still, some labor leaders probably do exhibit at least some of the characteristics of a laizzes-faire leader.
Transactional Leadership
A second model, transactional leadership, is a more traditional approach and is readily found in the labor movement. This type of leadership motivates people by using rewards and punishments. A transactional leader identifies the roles organizational members must play for the organization to achieve its objectives. The leader then discerns what the members need from the organization and communicates to them how the organization will fulfill those needs in exchange for the members performing the necessary roles. Alternatively, the leader determines what punishment the members fear and uses the threat of that punishment to get the members to assume the desired roles.
Transformational Leadership.
A third model of leadership that will be examined in some detail is transformational leadership. Transformational leaders focus their efforts on communicating group goals to the organization' members and convincing members to put those goals above their own. In this sense, such a leader causes members to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group. This type of leader works to transform the organizational culture, instilling new values and challenging members to do more than has been asked of them previously.
Clarks's contention is obviously the third style is the one that will bring back the labor movement. He goes on for several pages to describe in detail what a transformational leader would and could do for the labor movement. There is even a short test for leaders and members to take to see what style of leader they are or the members perception of the leaders style is. It's modeled off the Meyer- Briggs testing that many leaders have taken... or should have taken. The entire book is devoted to the theory of using behavioral science as the backdrop to rebuild the labor movement. In essence, he says stuff happens for a reason.
One last point i smiled at, he makes a statement that i used on Youareworthmore, when i wrote the piece for the book we are posting. His book was written first, but i swear i hadn't read his book yet. He says that leaders aren't born to lead with one style, they can be taught leadership styles. He goes on to say that transformational leaders are in essence always training new leaders to come behind them, and that is one of the reasons established transactional leaders were unwilling to move to the transformational model. Of course his contention concludes the labor movemnet is in too much trouble to worry about someones personal agenda, or the preservation of his/her job.
My post has little to do with the book, the book looks great.
Transformational leadership is pretty much covered off in what we say here and on other forums. It's about empowering and sharing ... that's what we said, have been saying, will always say and do.
quote:
gives little or no feedback to subordinates,
I got sidetracked by the word subordinates. If anything should be censored it would be this word. One doesn't even have to hit the dictionary to get the message.
Look at it ... sub_ordinate. Doesn't matter what message follows or what context in which it is used, it has left it's ugly message, done some damage.
To all the authors out there who say they care, let's stop giving lip service to capital(istic) lingo. IMHO.
quote:
Look at it ... sub_ordinate. Doesn't matter what message follows or what context in which it is used, it has left it's ugly message, done some damage.
Good Point! Sub-ordinate definately has a box-like sound to it! I can feel the bottom and the four sides and am waiting for someone to slam the lid down on me! 
quote:
I can feel the bottom and the four sides and am waiting for someone to slam the lid down on me
Hard to read on if the lid is down and it's all dark 'cept for those that are packing the *carton*. 
ed= Does this make MFD a transformational website as opposed to a reformational (is that a word?) site?
Am I a dissident renegade transformer? (I'll ask Brooke to change my union card). 
Siggy Maximus--Transform!
I'm a little confused about something 
..given it's on the topic of leadership perhaps someone can tell my why this forum has an area that reads the following;
quote:
The Admins' Arena
A private forum for core MFD members.
and yet I do not have persmission to enter? nor can I get into Tips, tricks & tools 
you guys trading family BBQ secretes in there or something? everyone knows I hate cooking.
addition; Slek, David wrote several letters to Brooke with regards to the OFG threats of closure on the Island and Safeway 198 and so on, I can't find any of those nor can I find documents pertaining to the election and all the letters to the UFCW, if there isn't enough room on the site perhaps you can e-mail them to me? I'd like to have them.
Unless you're a "trick" or a "tool" why would you want to go there.
No BBQ, just magic, incantations, potions and spells.
quote:
and yet I do not have persmission to enter?
You stepped down, remember?
quote:
Slek, David wrote several letters to Brooke
I'll see what I can dig up.
Now that I've thought about it, I think transforming is a better descriptor of what we're doing - rather than reforming. Transformation, to me, suggests change of a fundamental kind. Reforming sounds like changing the stuff that's in the box. Transforming sounds like getting rid of the box.
When I was organizing a union at my store, a co-worker came up to me and said "You are a natural born leader!" I was a bit taken aback, for not only was she wrong, but she was wrong to such a degree that I began to think about the propensity of people in organizing situations to delude themselves. Needless to say, I soon undertook a campaign to discredit myself, via various words and actions, with the objective of disabusing my co-workers of the notion that I was a leader. And I succeeded very well because I am quite skilled.
Similarly, I noticed an outpouring of gratitude coming from the direction of MFD, shortly after I published the Labornotes article, and fearing another potential leadership situation in the offing, I undertook a campaign to discredit myself, primarly through an irrational thread about sabotage and the IWW in which I rather obnoxiously insulted a number of people. And it worked quite well, too, I thought.
But that is neither here nor there; or it is either here and there. Cogito ergo sum: isn't the goal not to create leaders, but to create situations (to take actions) out of which the illusion of leadership arises? I mean, can you build a leader in a laboratory with the aid of a bunch of textbooks and personality tests? How far removed are "meyers-briggs personality tests" from self-help claptrap or Dianetics? Stuff that tries to categorize and put people in boxes?
I mean, if I wanted to create leaders via book-reading, I'd start 'em off with a biography of Lenin.
As has been noted before, there is an interesting aura in the attachment of some words or phrases. Reformer was hung on activists who got tired of the same old same old. While i can't say it sounded negative to me, i know others who didn't want to have that label hanging on them. I think you are on to something RV. There are lots of us out here who recognise the importance of a transformation in the labor movement. We need to become more aggressive, more membership driven, more focused on education and communication, with a clear vision on what the future holds for workers and how we can positively impact it. We do those things, and the labor movement will make that transformation to its once prominent position of speaking for the majority of workers in North America.
I find it deeply troubling to be attributed significance by a group of strangers in such a cheery fashion.
I close with a plea, paraphrasing Henny Yougman:
"Take my sites, please!"
How about facilitator? Too new-age like.
Enabler is better, but the psychobabble community has parlayed it into a pejorative term.
How ‘bout conductor? There're resistors and conductors. I say you're a conductor, and it's okay to buy the conductor a beer as long as he's not on duty.
To the machine heads: "You must change, it's pointless to resist."
quote:
I mean, if I wanted to create leaders via book-reading, I'd start 'em off with a biography of Lenin.
JD:I think you are on to something, with one small change. We need to find a leader with Lennon"s appeal.
It's funny that you should mention Lennon, BP. Recently, a colleague of mine asked me just what the MFD web site thought it was doing. Not sure just how to answer that question in 20 words or less, the first thing that came to my mind was: You know what people like John Lennon and Jimi Hendrix did to rock music? Well, that's what I think MFD is doing to the whole labour scene. Rock on.
I thought you didn't like hippies, Bill.
The question isn't "do we need leaders"? it's "what kind of leaders do we need", and "where can we find them"?
In '99 our slate had credibility because David Brighton was a credible leader and because I worked my butt off and had enough charisma to get members interested and excited about the possibility of possitive change. We had voter support because people like Kay, Ken, Bob, and Brian had the experience, reputation, ability and connections to convince people we were a group that could step in there and do a good job and because the rest of our slate members worked their tails off getting our message out there.
It's assine to even suggest we don't need leaders. What world do you live in that you think we're ready for a leaderless society? That everyone has not only the ability, but more importantly the desire and discipline to lead? Leadership is about sacrafice and empathy, and quite frankly the overwhelming majority of people I meet every single day are so self absorbed it's pathetic. "what's in it for me"? and "when do I get mine" is about all you ever hear these days. "Minimum effort, maximum. reward" Give them a little power on top of that and look out! [see labour movement/enron/various dictatorships around the world etc]
Attitude is a reflection of leadership and it's been the lack to true leadership that has labour in the mess it's in. Each and every day unions should be building leaders. In fact as far as I'm concerned the biggest thing union leaders should be concerning themselves with is teaching and empowering their eventual replacements. "give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" The "box" or the framework of unions is not to blame for the current state of unions. You might just as well blame the death of that Police officer in Richmond on the car that hit him and not the kid behind the wheel if that's the logic we're going to live by.
The primary failure of modern unionism is the unwillingness of it's current leadership to share the power of the union, because it's in direct conflict with their personal self interest to do so. Leadership is about sacrafice, and what exemplifies that more than teaching people to replace you? By empowering and educating their membership "leaders" are essentually sacraficing their own personal self interests [money, power, influence, affluence] for the greator good of the union.
It takes a hell of lot more integrity and fortitude to live that life than it does to horde all the goodies for yourself and get by doing as little as possible. Your only fooling yourself if you actually believe those types of people grow on trees. People need leadership and direction today more than ever and true leadership doesn't detract from individual empowerment. In fact it has the direct opposite effect because it's the fertile soil from which individual empowerment and responcibility can grow.
quote:
I thought you didn't like hippies, Bill.
Hard to say that JD, i was one. Long hair and beard in the sixties, and i hated authority figures. Guess i'm like the rest of them that sold out and joined the establishment. . As i did this post, i thought " how clever i am." Then it struck me, it's exactly what we need. Someone who doesn't fit into the mold, but makes their own. Creates something that workers can get excited about, and it sure as hell ain't corporate governance. We need to start talking about the things that matter to workers. Fact is, talking about it ain't enough. We need to be shouting it from the mountain tops, we need to be singing it in the streets. There has to be enough noise for workers to believe that it is worth it to fight for a better tomorrow, rather than dreaming of one.
It should come as no surprise the two examples that Paul Clark talked of was JFK and MLK. Let's face it, they aren't born everyday, but God knows they are out there. In fact his point was they can be taught to be one. Guys like JD don't have to fill that role if that's not what or where they want to be, but there is a need for the talent levels each of us brings. This leadership thing isn't singular, but we all respond to certain stimuli. While i'm one of those old hippie retreads, there are a bunch of buttons that can be pushed to rev me up. That kind of leadership is what we need, and where, or how it comes from is a whole lot less important than the fact that it does appear.
Here is what Clark said was critical. The leaders need to be Inspirational. Maybe we should look at guys like Lennon to figure out why people loved, listened and followed him. Cool if the answers lie in something as simple as that.
quote:
"give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"
Exactly!
quote:
The leaders need to be Inspirational. Maybe we should look at guys like Lennon to figure out why people loved, listened and followed him.
I'm still trying to figure out how we went from Lenin to Lennon, but I don't think it's as much inspiration as it is truth and honesty. Of course in these times as well as Lennon's, these two attributes can be inspirational to people who are accustomed to lies and dishonesty!
Scott:
quote:
It's assine to even suggest we don't need leaders.
Hardly!
quote:
What world do you live in that you think we're ready for a leaderless society?
This one, and I don't recall anyone mentioning anything about a leaderless "society". Try leaderless *organizations*.
quote:
That everyone has not only the ability, but more importantly the desire and discipline to lead?
That makes no sense whatsoever in the context of this thread.
The idea is to *share* and *work towards* a common goal. A leader is not neccessary to attain a common goal. Just a number of people pushing in the same direction.
quote:
Leadership is about sacrafice and empathy
No. *Membership* is about sacrifice and empathy.
quote:
The "box" or the framework of unions is not to blame for the current state of unions. You might just as well blame the death of that Police officer in Richmond on the car that hit him and not the kid behind the wheel if that's the logic we're going to live by.
Could the kid have killed the cop without the car? He'd have to be running awfully fast! 
The issue isn't the car or the "box". The issue is the ability of the individual within the car or "box" to handle the responsibilities that the car, or "box", grants s/him.
If the kid was driving a moped (putt putt sputter putt) that officer would still be alive.
quote:
Each and every day unions should be building leaders.
No again. Unions should be building a framework, or "box" if you will, that will support a movement. We don't need individuals to speak for us. We need a soapbox of our own to debate and decide amongst ourselves.
A good union leader should shut the hell up and listen. Then act upon what s/he hears.
Bill:
quote:
Hard to say that JD, i was one. Long hair and beard in the sixties, and i hated authority figures.
Ever smoke pot Bill?
Did you inhale?
sorry... couldn't resist
JD:
quote:
Similarly, I noticed an outpouring of gratitude coming from the direction of MFD, shortly after I published the Labornotes article, and fearing another potential leadership situation in the offing,
Remind me never to say "thanks" again.
"outpouring" my ass!
quote:
In the chat room last night they said they owed me a beer: "there's a keg in your future" someone chimed in.
d00d offers you beer, and you decline?
I think you need to sit down, relax, and watch It's a Wonderful Life. Your perspective is completely skewed!
And now an on-topic post!
This is a loaded thread IMO.
All three choices suck.
quote:
Transformational leaders focus their efforts on communicating group goals to the organization' members and convincing members to put those goals above their own.
What does this^^ remind you of?
It reminds me off the oft-quoted, yet still surprisingly difficult to comprehend, jackass Bernard Christophe:
quote:
Leadership is taking your members where they don't want to go, and ultimately to be proven right
Do you see a difference?
I don't see a difference!
Do you see a difference?
I don't see a difference!
quote:
Ever smoke pot Bill?
Yup
quote:
Did you inhale?
Yup
I guess an example of a leaderless "society" or at least one hell of an event would be the WTO party last year. Lots of people going nuts without a whole lot of leadership; or was it a whole lot of leaders all running wild? I think it was the anarchist thing coming out, and i always struggle with what the outcome is when there aren't clearly defined goals. While the "success" of their efforts was interesting, where is the staying power, and where are they going? I've said it before, leadership by committee is a long slow process. Leadership with a democratic participative engagement (members voting and involved) can have the same net, without the same painfully slow deliberations.
quote:
Transformational leaders focus their efforts on communicating group goals to the organization' members and convincing members to put those goals above their own.
--------------------------------------------------
What does this^^ remind you of?
It reminds me of scotts assertion that too many of us have become centered on what's in it for me. The question is very simple: is the greater good more important than the individual good? Maybe the point is a whole new thread developes, asking that question, with having to give an answer supporting your position. As an old tired hippy, i want to still believe we give a damn about one another. Maybe, i'm the one who is lost and searching for something that doesn't exist.
quote:
Leadership is taking your members where they don't want to go, and ultimately to be proven right
With all due respect to your theory that this is bullshit, let me give you examples of leadership where this is absolutely applicable. In the sixties, union leaders were faced with trying to convince members that negotiating benefits, health insurance and pensions, were better than money. It was a tough sell, and one that cost some leaders their jobs. It was, IMHO. the right thing to do. It was leadership, and in the end, it has proven to be one of the defining differences for union amd non-union workers. I think the fallacy of this statement is that some will see it as implying that as leaders, we are always right and subsequently, members should just follow. That would be foolishness. Questioning and challenging authority is a good thing, but then that's coming fron an old pot smoking, burned out hippie from the 60s.
I heard in an earlier thread someone poking at Myers-briggs and lables etc. Well I'm taking Organizational Behaviour right now and let me tell you I'm seeing what I'm learning right here on this thread. "Echos" who represent the new people entering the workforce seem to think they've got it all figured out. Like the people who came before them didn't also feel the same at 21-22.
Raise of hands....has anyone ever tried to get anything accomplished by committee? it's pure bullshit. I believe in membership direction but only to the point the President makes the final call. What I don't support is the fact members can't hold the President accountable for making that call. What made our group so successful was a vocal committee bring point and counter point to MFD meetings and David making a judicious final decision in the overall interests of the group. Otherwise we'd still be in debate.
Go on talking about leaderless organizations till your blue in the face. You'll still be "talking" 20-30 years from now because nothing will get done. Fact of the matter is their are leaders, and their are followers. Can followers lead?..yes, but they prefer not to. Can leaders follow?...yes, but they also prefer not to. That's life, it hasn't changed since the dawn of time and the internet isn't going to facilitate that change. You can educate people, train then and give them all the tools of enpowerment but in the end if they are not leaders they won't lead. [see post from guy who runs from the lable]
This site attracts leaders. The overwhelming majority of people posting on this site are leaders, right of the center line "Expressionists" and "Drivers" David was a Driver, so was Brian I'm a big time Expressionist and so was Kay and that's what was the driving force behind our group. We had several "aynaliticals" [slek, Donna, Kelvon, Siggy] and even a couple "amiables" [Bob, Reta,Lorraine, Linda] but each of them were very close to the center. You say it's bullshit labling people....I say your a fool not too.
Generations change, situations and obsticals change and even views and beliefs can change, but at their very core people don't. History repeats itself for that very reason. Learn what makes people tick and unlock the door to labour reform. Keep telling them what they should be doing and how they should be feeling [and I'm as guilty of that as anyone after all I am an expressionist/teller] and nothings going to change anytime soon. But hey, what the hell do I know right I'm just a bakers helper.
quote:
Learn what makes people tick and unlock the door to labour reform. Keep telling them what they should be doing and how they should be feeling [and I'm as guilty of that as anyone after all I am an expressionist/teller] and nothings going to change anytime soon.
Very true Scott, leaders encourage others to question, to create, and help them get to where they (the people) want to go.
As far as labels go, I think it's fine to describe certain characteristics or styles that people have. I think the kinds of labels we've discussed in other threads are the kinds that are used to paint people as either good or bad, us or them, that kind of thing.
This really got me thinkikng (from licatsplit):
quote:
I'm still trying to figure out how we went from Lenin to Lennon,
It's a great description of different leadership styles and how different kinds of leaders can emerge in a given situation. What brought Lenin to power in the newly created Soviet Union of the early 20th century and what were his values and leadership style? What forces made John Lennon a leader (and he had an enormous impact on our culture) and what were his values and leadership style?
Lenin was an autocratic leader with strong dogmatic beliefs. Lennon was about as far in the opposite direction as you can get.
How we got from Lenin to Lennon is an interesting question. I think that an important factor is freedom of expression and the extent to which it is practiced, protected and encouraged in a given society. This, along with the extent to which communication can occur among people are strong determinants of the kinds of leaders that will emerge in that society.
This thread is getting awfully analytical and deep. Long as we are going to this end/depth, lets
ask the next obvious question:
Can the same diagnosis/assessment be made for the Marx brothers? You know, Karl and Groucho.
Sorry RV, must of owed ya one 
quote:
Can the same diagnosis/assessment be made for the Marx brothers?
Yes Bill, yes it can. And it's so obvious that I won't even bother going into it.
Actually, if we look indepth at the Marx brothers, we can get a lot of insight into the relationships we find in business unionism.
quote:
Actually, if we look indepth at the Marx brothers, we can get a lot of insight into the relationships we find in business unionism
Too funny , RV. That's what i get for messing with someone smarter than me. Just be careful, we union prezzes don't give up that easy. I haven't even brought up all the other brothers. How do you factor in Harpo, and Zeppo and Gecho?
Be it Karl or be it Groucho, with Marx you bet your life
quote:
The world wouldn't be
In such a snarl
If Marx had been Groucho
Instead of Karl.
social historian Sir Isaiah Berlin
That's it, I'm outta' here. I left for awhile and while I was gone a whole whack of mainstream cartons got built. You'll all always have a job, building boxes.
Scott we'll label you the leader. And on the days when you feel and act more like a follower you can fake it, tell 'em all the mistakes you made that day were just the way you planned it and it will carry you to the next day when you are a leader again and can do the job you were labeled for. Sweep the unsuccessful days under the mainstream carpet, don't worry about all the people who were leaders that day and could have done the job, fix it later.
Come-on success is a collective effort, that's why we've had so little, too many leaders. No one person can or should be one thing all the time. Leaves a lot of failures or at the very least, some real big mistakes to clean up (witness the labour movement).
Everyone, worth their salt, is an elaborate mix of every label known. The day we recognize that success is a myriad of pass offs in responsibitlity and prepare ourselves that way, is the day it will change. IMHO
quote:
In the sixties, union leaders were faced with trying to convince members that negotiating benefits, health insurance and pensions, were better than money. It was a tough sell, and one that cost some leaders their jobs. It was, IMHO. the right thing to do. It was leadership, and in the end, it has proven to be one of the defining differences for union amd non-union workers.
How does one know that a completely different approach/outcome in the sixties may not have been more defining or beneficial, or even better, how do know the decision leaders took then, was not the beginning of the destuctive path we find ourself on now? You've got nothing to compare it to. It only looks good 'cause it's all we got.
quote:
Come-on success is a collective effort... No one person can or should be one thing all the time. Leaves a lot of failures or at the very least, some real big mistakes to clean up (witness the labour movement). Everyone...is an elaborate mix of every label known.
And in that regard siggy you're right. People are a cocktail of mixed and contradicting characteristics and most of us can and often do wear different hats in different circumstances. It's not an exact science and nobody is ever just "one thing". But on this site we should be focusing on the workplace and the hat's people wear on the job. We have niether the time nor the couch space to disect every member of every union on the whole gamet of their personalities.
We're talking about leadership and an organizations need for leaders. We can all ride the bus but somebody still has to drive. Yes, we can all take turns but still....somebody is driving. My step dad has been President of the Lions Club 5 or 6 times. He's filled several other positions as have his fellow Lions members. Is there a leader? of course, otherwise nothing would ever get done because committee's seldom reach agreement without a facilitator. Is that leader a despotic authoritarian? not a chance.
They elect a member to chair the meetings and give direction to the club for a set period of time. When their time is up someone else fills their place. Everyone has input and everyone is provide with the opportunity to state their case and convince people their direction or idea is best and why. But it's the President that ultimately has to make the final call and set the plans in motion otherwise the debate rages on forever.
Think about the personalities that came together in the MFD. It took different types to people to fill certain rolls and it's because we had that type of mix that we achieved what we did. Despite all odds we beat the incumbants of the second largest UFCW local in Canada spread over the largest geographical area with barely a fraction of the funds. Brian Pinter damn near beat the stuff! It took all four personality quadrants to do it, and it took strong leadership.
If you go to members asking for support and you don't have strong leadership you might just as well stay home. I don't care how badly Sundin or whom ever runs this union people are never going to support a group of people with a platform or message of "we don't believe in leaders"
Lenin was a dogmatist? What's the point of teaching people to lead without teaching them where to lead to?
i'm sorry, but sentimental notions of solidarity aren't enough.
quote:
But on this site we should be focusing on the workplace and the hat's people wear on the job. We have niether the time nor the couch space to disect every member of every union on the whole gamet of their personalities.
The site has nothing but time and space, but there is no need to dissect each member, that's asinine. If we have to use the word leadership then I say it's a natural process. No need to manipulate. Cream rising to the top with each new cup of coffee (you still going to java hut?)
quote:
We're talking about leadership and an organizations need for leaders.
I'm talking about the need to change/redefine/transform/whatever, the school of thought that keeps bringing us back to square one.
quote:
We can all ride the bus but somebody still has to drive.
I'm not driving with you anymore.
quote:
Yes, we can all take turns but still....somebody is driving.
I wouldn't call it taking turns. Each road might require a different skill, for instance you wouldn't be asked to drive the bus when there are other cars on the road, but you could park it in the shopping mall.
quote:
They elect a member to chair the meetings and give direction to the club for a set period of time. When their time is up someone else fills their place. Everyone has input and everyone is provide with the opportunity to state their case and convince people their direction or idea is best and why. But it's the President that ultimately has to make the final call and set the plans in motion otherwise the debate rages on forever.
I have been in countless situations where a concensus has been reached. Remove the competition factor and it looks a lot different. If everyone is equally important, has opportunity/something to contribute (and they do), the competition falls away .
quote:
Think about the personalities that came together in the MFD. It took different types to people to fill certain rolls and it's because we had that type of mix that we achieved what we did. Despite all odds we beat the incumbants of the second largest UFCW local in Canada spread over the largest geographical area with barely a fraction of the funds. Brian Pinter damn near beat the stuff! It took all four personality quadrants to do it, and it took strong leadership.
Well Scott I believe we did do all those things but I can't help but notice ... here we are something went terribly wrong or right?. Could it be the effort was hinged on a methodology doomed to fail. We offered up another leader.
quote:
If you go to members asking for support and you don't have strong leadership you might just as well stay home.
or if you run against a ufcw incumbent using your dues money.
quote:
I don't care how badly Sundin or whom ever runs this union people are never going to support a group of people with a platform or message of "we don't believe in leaders
Well I think that's a lot extreme and not at all what I said. I hold fast when I say; how do you know 'til you try? If you want the change then you must change the want.
And for BP ... How do you know that the methods and decisions made in the sixties were the right ones? How do you know, that if another avenue had been taken in the sixties, that things wouldn't/couldn't have turned out even better?
quote:
I think that an important factor is freedom of expression and the extent to which it is practiced, protected and encouraged in a given society. This, along with the extent to which communication can occur among people are strong determinants of the kinds of leaders that will emerge in that society.
RV, given that freedom of expression has exploded with the use of the internet, and this freedom is for the moment practiced, protected, and encouraged within society; what leadership qualities do you think will flourish in this enviroment? IMHO, leaders must be selfless, and place the goals desired by the people who vote them into their position, above any and all personal goals. A leader is a tool the voters use to achieve these desired goals and the leader must be willing to listen to, as well as help educate, their brothers and sisters. The thought of one individual knowing what is best for the majority is unsettling to me unless they have listened to the people who have placed them into their position. Leaders can no longer be arrogant or overbearing when it comes to the masses who have chosen them to lead. Bottom line, a leader IMHO, is a person who labors or exerts himself for the benefit of the people who have placed their trust in them. In this context, we should all be leaders within the labor movement. Do you think placing leadership responsibilities on all the people within the movement promotes communication and in turn bolsters solidarity?
As Siggy said above, " If everyone is equally important, has opportunity/something to contribute (and they do), the competition falls away."
BP:
quote:
The question is very simple: is the greater good more important than the individual good?
What's your definition of "greater good".
IMO the "greater good" is ensuring the prosperity of individuals... collectively.
I don't understand how you, or anyone for that matter, can separate a greater good from an individual good. They're one and the same AFAIC.
quote:
With all due respect to your theory that this is bullshit, let me give you examples of leadership where this is absolutely applicable. In the sixties,...
As siGGy touched upon, how do we know that your examples didn't act as precursor to the terrible state of unionism today?
Scott:
quote:
"Echos" who represent the new people entering the workforce seem to think they've got it all figured out. Like the people who came before them didn't also feel the same at 21-22.
If you're referring to me, address the points I made instead of making broad (and in this case incorrect) generalizations.
If you're not referring to my post, I apologize.
quote:
Raise of hands....has anyone ever tried to get anything accomplished by committee?
Who mentioned commitee?
Wasn't me!
Why must it go from one extreme to the other? It appears to me that you're stuck in a box too!
quote:
Go on talking about leaderless organizations till your blue in the face. You'll still be "talking" 20-30 years from now because nothing will get done.
pfft
MfD is, if I may say so myself, a fine example of a leaderless organization.
After your stepping down and Daves' abrupt departure, we blossomed! Our membership has quadrupled. The sites' traffic has increased by absurd amounts. We've produced a ton more content. And all without a leader; just a couple of people, and a bunch of contributors, with a similar vision and the will to make the time to see that vision through to some sort of fruition.
If anything, leadership within MfD stifled creativity and innovation. You know the expression - too many chiefs and not enough indians.
quote:
We're talking about leadership and an organizations need for leaders. We can all ride the bus but somebody still has to drive.
Who makes the bus?
Who washes the bus?
Who paid for the bus?
Who keeps the bus in running order?
Who puts gas in the tank?
Who's name is on the registration?
Who plans the buses route?
You go right ahead and pin all that responsibility on a single driver and we'll see how long that bus stays on the street.
quote:
Who makes the bus?
Who washes the bus?
Who paid for the bus?
Who keeps the bus in running order?
Who puts gas in the tank?
Who's name is on the registration?
Who plans the buses route?
quote:
RV, given that freedom of expression has exploded with the use of the internet, and this freedom is for the moment practiced, protected, and encouraged within society; what leadership qualities do you think will flourish in this enviroment?
What you said!
quote:
IMHO, leaders must be selfless, and place the goals desired by the people who vote them into their position, above any and all personal goals. A leader is a tool the voters use to achieve these desired goals and the leader must be willing to listen to, as well as help educate, their brothers and sisters. The thought of one individual knowing what is best for the majority is unsettling to me unless they have listened to the people who have placed them into their position. Leaders can no longer be arrogant or overbearing when it comes to the masses who have chosen them to lead. Bottom line, a leader IMHO, is a person who labors or exerts himself for the benefit of the people who have placed their trust in them. In this context, we should all be leaders within the labor movement.
I couldn't say it any better. These are exactly the qualities that are needed in the people who will take on leadership roles in the community of workers. We will decide where we want to go and those who step into leadership roles (and there can be many both formal and informal) will help us to get there.
The only thing I would add is that leaders should also inspire and encourage creativity and inquisitiveness on the part of their colleagues (and that's what they'll be: colleaugues, fellow members, partners, allies - anything but "followers"). They will encourage people to question conventional wisdom and push out the boundaries of what is known or accepted.
The reason we have so much trouble getting our heads around these new notions of leadership, is that this is all so foreign to us. We've had centuries - millenia actually - of conditioning against this notion. The conditioning tells us that we are too stupid to decide what's best for ourselves and too selfish to work collaboratively towards our goals. We need strong leaders who will take us to some goal that has been decided as "best for us" by others. This is the purpose of dogma - to provide a place where we can led by some guy who thinks he'll be proven right when he gets us there.
The notion of the leaderless organization is scary because we've been told that we're not up for making it happen.
slek is right, MFD is a great example - although on a small scale - of a leaderless organization. Look what's happened on this web site over the course of a year. It's quite incredible and it's evolving all the time. And nobody is in charge!
quote:
Do you think placing leadership responsibilities on all the people within the movement promotes communication and in turn bolsters solidarity?
Absolutely. And don't anyone tell me that they don't want the responsibility or can' handle it.
for the non-believers; If you can't get the head aroung leaderless, how about leaderful.
quote:
And for BP ... How do you know that the methods and decisions made in the sixties were the right ones? How do you know, that if another avenue had been taken in the sixties, that things wouldn't/couldn't have turned out even better?
I think i'm going to find the Marx brothers, they may be able to add something to this discussion that i'm missing. In that this is the third time i've been asked this question, spose i should answer it. Course it's a little like asking if Bin Laden hadn't been born, would the world trade center and Sept. 11 happened. In fact, i think i use this technique in debates all the time. Very effective, but also pretty much meaningless. In the end it is speculation or conjecture and neither are worth a rats ass in the grand scheme of things. Life always comes down to what is, but i'll come back to that later.
The statement refered to above was that the benefit packages (defined as health insurance and pensions) were a good thing for union workers. Both became prominent in the sixties, though several have roots into the 50's. In the US, they were legitamized under Taft Hartley in 1948. Prior to that employers had plans or unions had plans, but none were jointly trusted. Many lament Taft Hartley, but there were some aspects that were good, and many that were very bad. It was for all practical purposes the birth of the biz union model. Anyone interested in understanding how we got here should read Kim Moody's book An Injury To One.
I bring it up, because i think it's at that juncture in history where the labor movement should have made its stand. The decisions that were made after that have been in response to what we had to work with. The concept of going to the bargaining table and negotiating trusted plans had been established, and not to do so was asking for problems. Now lets be honest, having members in good health and welfare funds and pension plans was more than just so workers were taken care of. It bound members to the union. Many of you see that as a bad thing, i don't. In places where we didn't have the foresight or ability to get collectively bargained benefits (our nursing homes), members are getting killed by insurance costs. Mind you, members in the facilities were always more interested in the money on their checks, and rightly so.In the late 60's and early 70's the long term care industry was prodiminently females who were second wage earners. Their main reason for working was to supplement the husbands check. Benefits were not the focus.While there has been some shift in the past 30 years, money is still the central issue. I would tell you i would kill (figure of speech, i already have enough people who think i have) to go back and have some minimal retirement and health benefits through a jointly trusted fund in place.
But enough of a history lesson, lets move to present day. The easiest way to refute what if claims is to do side-by-side comparisons. Let's use one i'm familar with, retail workers. All of this is varifiable on the BLS pages, so i'm not going to try. Unionized workers in retail do considerably better than non-union in both wages and even more so in benefits. There are billions of dollars paid out from jointly trusted ERISA health and welfare plans in the US alone. Non union workers in retail would be far better off if they had similar plans in place. Hell, at walmart, their insurance plan for new hires has a $35,000. major med cap. You can blow through that in less than 24 hours. Do you think thats what the workers wanted? Oh, that's right, in non-union stores they have no say. Well, that's not true, they can quit and go to the next shitty retail job. In our small local, retirees are supplementing their social security to the tune of over two million dollars a year. In the next 5 years that number will double and over 10, double again. Go do a survey and find out what kind of pension benefits exist in non-union retail stores. They don't. A handful have some 401k options and you'll find a small number who have bought stocks, usually managers. Sinse the advent of ERISA, the laws in the US has mandated defined benefit plans to do things in far more worker friendly ways. I'm embarassed to admit it took legal actions to be responsive, but the net was these pension funds write checks to retirees that are the difference in having a little dignity after a lifetime of work.Someone feel free to explain how it is better than that.
Here is where we may agree. Once we got these funds built, we looked at them as something to protect by keeping them as tightly bundled as we could. What i mean by that is, we weren't willing to use them as a tool to organize. They became self sustaining entities that were there for only the membership., and only the right membership. It was like a private club, only those that were IN, got in. It is an interesting argument, because in the US, we have a fiduciary obligation to manage the funds in the best interest of the participant. The net of exclusionism is that when you do that, it is inevitable that you will die. Grow or die is a fact of life, and for some strange reason the labor movement has thought it didn't apply to them untill just recently.
This post has gone on too long already, so i'll have to come back to sleks point and the overall argument about leadership. I will leave you with this tickler; For those who think posting stuff on a website is comparable to the decisions made while running a union, excuse me, there are some great drugs out there, some even legal.
quote:
After your stepping down and Daves' abrupt departure, we blossomed! Our membership has quadrupled. The sites' traffic has increased by absurd amounts. We've produced a ton more content. And all without a leader; just a couple of people, and a bunch of contributors, with a similar vision and the will to make the time to see that vision through to some sort of fruition.
Slek this post puts me in a very tough spot. Trying to balance the point of my post with the pride/feelings of you and the many others who make this site tick. I'm not trying to step on peoples toes here I'm trying to caution and the fact I'm not doing a good job of it is a testiment to why I havn't been more sucessful in life and why I'm still going to school to better myself. But here goes.
This site most certainly has flourished. It's exceeded anything ever projected or hoped for. It's unquestionably the best of it's kind and that's something we all can feel proud of. However...what's the purpose of the MFD? what does it hope to achieve and are those the same as in the beginning?
David and I refered to the "4 pillars" of the MFD whenever we talked about where we were going and how we would get there.
Pillar # 1: David and I
Pillar # 2: The MFD principles
Pillar # 3: This web site
Pillar # 4: HJF/Weiser/Remote/legal rep. etc
Pay no attention to the order it does not bare on importance. It took all four to provide the foundation of success for what we were trying to accomplish, and to this day it still does. Yes! this web site is the best of it's kind and of the four it's proved to be the strongest pillar. But by no means is it going to change the UFCW or any other labour union all by itself.
Sure people are emboldened on the internet...now go out there and stand face to face with people. Not so easy is it? convince them your a better alternative, stand your ground when they go on the attack and still manage not to offend them any further. Unions were built on people, that's not going to change. The internet is a tool, you can use it to inform, educate, empower and even organize but it will never win an election by itself nor will it sway voter opinion all by itself. And lets face it guys, unless your sitting in Bill P's position you can't change a damn thing.
You have to find credible replacements for pillar #1 and a multitude of replacements for pillar #2. You are going to have to have the support of Kay Audette, Scott Mcpherson, Bob Adams and Ken Jack and Brian Pinter because it's our connections with the "leaders" of all the stores that will bring the vote out. I for one am not supporting just anyone. That's my name and my reputation supporting the person and I won't waist it just because I hate Brooke Sundin. I don't have to convince you any more than that I can just wait for the results of the next election. I know this local [or what's left of it] and these people, particularly the Safeway staff, are not going to vote out Sundin without a replacement they believe in.
That means a "leader" In Brainstorming for idea's no organization needs a leader. We can all be leaders because we're all creative in our own way, we all have experiences, values and beliefs that need to be heard. We are all capable of modeling behaviour and leading by example and we can all help educate the masses. But in reforming, reviltalizing, or creating a new union altogether a credible leader is vital to your success. Somebody is going to have to step up.
MFD may be a leaderless organization that has experienced great growth, but then again, what exactly has it accomplished? Besides being sort of a self-help group for dissident unionists - twelve steps to union democracy?
quote:
David and I refered to the "4 pillars" of the MFD whenever we talked about where we were going and how we would get there.
Pillar # 1: David and I
Pillar # 2: The MFD principles
Pillar # 3: This web site
Pillar # 4: HJF/Weiser/Remote/legal rep. etc
Must have missed the 4 pillars meeting. Another reason leaderless is good.
Sorry Scott, I'll have to call you on that one, there is no way in hell you could have discussed P#3 This web site with David or anyone, as it did not exist then. I do remember a site with leaders who directed it's content and the forum, and then I remember a group disbanding, washing their hands, giving up, not wanting anything to do with this web site. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this web site blossomed after it became leaderless.
quote:
In Brainstorming for idea's no organization needs a leader. We can all be leaders because we're all creative in our own way, we all have experiences, values and beliefs that need to be heard. We are all capable of modeling behaviour and leading by example and we can all help educate the masses
I don't believe this web site should have "a leader" it's proven be be more effective without one. In addition I think it's always good to have an independant media to question everything and everyone. However, any group of workers that think they can embarass their leaders into becoming something they are not are only kidding themselves. The UFCW would like nothing more than to see this site go off the air, but baring that they'd love to see UFCW activists restrict their activity to the net.
How many times did you hear David say "we've got to get out in the stores"? That's where the real power for change lies and there and only there will you facilitate lasting change. Either a group of credible people step up, or sit back and continue educating people as to how local 1518 and others are selling out their membership. Because without electoral power via candidates that's precisely what your going to be doing.
Personally I think the UFCW is a waste of time. People would be much better getting a new union off the ground and this web site could help in that regard. But that's not my call. I've already lost my job[s] and moved on. I've got nothing more to gain or loose...you do. So in that regard I've said my last piece on this subject. Either you find replacements for those other two pillars or you'll never have a solid enough foundation to build this new and wonderful labour movement everyone here hopes to one day see.
quote:
MFD may be a leaderless organization that has experienced great growth, but then again, what exactly has it accomplished? Besides being sort of a self-help group for dissident unionists - twelve steps to union democracy?
Great insight JD and one i can get my arms around very nicely, thank you very much. Started to go there up above, but needed a break from all this one fingered typing stuff.
It's always bad manners to piss in someone's living room, but this thread puts us in that position. So be it, it is the price of debate. God knows, you all have dumped a couple of piles right smack dab in the middle of a number of union leaders plates. I have to agree with much of Scott's posts above. You can talk about leaderless organizations all you want, they won't ever get off the ground. And if for some reason they do, they'll never stay in the air. Least wise, not in todays culture.
One only has to look at the discussion about collective good vs individual good. I thought sleks analasys was interesting, but didn't work for me;
quote:
IMO the "greater good" is ensuring the prosperity of individuals... collectively.
I don't understand how you, or anyone for that matter, can separate a greater good from an individual good. They're one and the same AFAIC.
Lets look at that concept. In an altrustic sense, it should work that way. Does it? How many times have we watched members insist/insure they got their's, and left others without. Is the greater good advanced when everyone does well or when you do well individually? Does the fact that you individually get yours, somehow advance the greater good of the group? The questions all run in circles after awhile, and make no sense. Eventually you have to look at outcomes to see what is really going on. In a pure collective, everyone is equal. When is the last time that worked? In a capitalist society, who wins and who loses? Both are extremes and the answer in my mind, lies somewhere in the middle. The ability to advance our society is enhanced when we work through a collective process. Stripping workers of incentives though can ultimately hurt the greater good. I think the best stucture is where workers advance based on ability and skill, and the pay is commensurate with the work. The trick is to find the right balance.
Hopefully, unions are able to do that. Unfortunately, i think unions have become a microchosim of our society. I know you love to pick on leaders, so lets start there. It's pretty hard to point fingers at members who don't appear to give a damn about one another, when you have elected officers of unions making enormous salaries and having benefits that members will never get. This crap about how smart or how good we are flies in the face of reality when you measuere our successes over the last 30 years. A good dose of honesty would begin to be the best thing that could happen to the labor movement. With all due consideration to JD's suggestion, the first step in recovery is to admit what we are.
Here is where Scott and i disagree, but only a little. Unions will always have leaders. The names are immaterial. Someone always steps up and fills the void. I've had any number of members ask what is going to happen to the union when i leave. I hate the question, because it means i failed. I've never been the union, no-one person/leader is. When we let workers believe or even think that, we set ourselves up to fail. Educating them to what and who we are is essential if we are ever going to succeed. Workers need to understand all power comes from them. When they understand that, they won't be intimidated by anyone in positions of authority.
I absolutely believe the head stuff (Meyer Briggs. personality profile in the box labeling) works. The question is, works for what. To control, yes, if thats what you want. The thread began with an assessment of leadership styles. The point was, that different styles of leadership are willing to take different levels of risk. The first did nothing, the second rewarded those who were loyal, the third, empowered and inspired others to step up. They were willing to give that power to those who were interested in it. Most people don't want to be that responsible, but the ones that do, need to brought along. That way when a leader leaves, no-one is asking, what happens to us now?
MFD has been a lot of things, just ask some of the mainstream leadership. It's never going to replace unions, it is making us look at them wholly different. IMHO, that is the first step to recovery.
quote:
Unions will always have leaders.
Well I guess then that changes the direction of the *leaderless* discussion. Some believe we need leaders other believe we don't and if we've concluded unions will always have leaders.
The next logical question would be Do we need unions?
quote:
MFD may be a leaderless organization that has experienced great growth, but then again, what exactly has it accomplished? Besides being sort of a self-help group for dissident unionists - twelve steps to union democracy?
The MFD isn't here to or designed to accomplish anything at the workplace level. Things have been accomplished at the workplace level by the Power Source. Accomplishments aren't neccessarily won battles. They can be experience for the next battle, which may be won, or where more experience will be gained for the winning battle.
At a higher level, MFD has accomplished providing a place for discussion and a place to gain knowledge or evidence that what one suspects isn't merely fantasy.
I like the 12-step analogy. Yes, MFD has accomplished a self-help group that lifts people's spirits up after they have been trampled by their employers and their unions. The MFD has accomplished the setting up of a place where people from all over the world can talk about something that is near and dear to them.
The question about what the MFD has accomplished cannot be properly answered for some time yet. If you plant a seed, cover it over with moist soil, and the next morning say, "fine return for all that digging and planting." I say the results will take some time to show themselves, and like a fine tubor, the best part of what is accomplished may be out of site, well below ground level.
There are many activities being carried out by many people who do not attribute their activities to the MFD, but rest assured, they are driven by what they see and hear on this site.
I say the MFD is a vitamin-enriched watering hole. You never know what the Power Source and the friends of the Power Source do after drinking from this well.
To the guys at the Loman warehouse, MFD was much more than a self help group although Im sure that role was also played. In the end the UFCW Lords of Layback were forced into doing things they never would have if not for the facts that escaped containment via this site. At the very least they knew that the truth was available for anyone sufficiently interested, that what they did and what they were up against would not stay hidden.
The issues of leadership are thorny. At this point in time it is easy to paint them all with the same brush. I sympathize with what few good leaders there may be who butt heads with this mentality where it is not desrved. Part of the job and they know it.
Is the UFCW beyond hope? Would anyone want to inherit this mess? Would it be better to start a new union/movement/organization? What would it look like and what form would leadership take? How to avoid the pitfalls that have beset thousands of years of human history.
Now we have open and free communication of a sort. Will this make a difference? I don't know.
I have been on the planet for awhile now and have learned one thing for sure: most of the answers come from the trying.
I don't think a new union or movement can come out of MFD. The views of the participants are too disparate. There's no unified platform that would be a basis for action:
1. You have the founders of this web site who are resolutely anti-authoritarian, basically anarchists who believe that power comes from the ground up and workers will self-organize without the aid of a core group who share an ideology - they simply need unfettered access to information.
2. You have reformers who want to address a crisis of leadership (and let's face it - the leadership crisis isn't limited to unions, but extends to all areas of life - schools, politics, police, cultural values) and re-legitimate the authority of the, um, authorities via the use of the internet to create an essentially sentimental populist movement that emphasizes soldarity and leadership reform, but is quite empty of any other guiding principles (e.g., a materialist analysis that would form the foundation of a radicalizing worker education), and sits mired in the muddy shoals of pop psychology.
3. You have a group who wants to start new unions, but can't do it because they are hindered by the alliance with the first two groups.
And those are the reasons, really, why I think the IWW, for instance, has got it right, where MFD fails.
Sorry JD but it did make me laugh.
To Bill's credit, I'd have to say it's never a bad idea to investigate and teach principles of leadership. But it's a mistake to think that the *cause* of the leadership crisis is "bad leaders". Rather the bad leaders rose out of certain far broader material changes in the world.
What I mean is, teaching union reformers how to lead is like teaching Bedouins how to swim: the problem isn't that they don't know how, it's that there ain't no ocean!
quote:
posted by siggy:
That's good because I wasn't trying to make you cry.
quote:
And those are the reasons, really, why I think the IWW, for instance, has got it right, where MFD fails.
I don't think one can compare the MFD with the IWW. The IWW is a union--a union with some pretty solid ideals. The MFD isn't a union and has never purported to be one. Could someone who visits here call themselves a MFD, and run a union? Sure they could. Could an MFDer start a leaderless union or a become the leader of a union? Sure they could.
The MFD is the well. Come, drink tarry awhile.
As for reforming, transforming etc. Bob Fitch once wrote:
quote:
'To talk about reforming the rotten, graft-infested unions which are dominated absolutely by the labor boss is as vain and wasteful of time as to spray a cesspool with attar of roses,' Eugene Debs said in 1905. The problems are pretty much the same now as they were then, when Debs helped found the IWW as an alternative to the AFL: the Federation is still made up of a lot of fragmented, patronage-driven political machines, over-staffed and overpaid, tied to Democratic Party machines locally and the Democrats nationally.
I don't see the MFD as being in competition with the IWW or any other union. However, I would suggest that the IWW has been so slagged, so maligned that it will never be able to flourish using its current name. People can't get past its name to chow down on the IWW philosophy. Then again, how do you gain credibility without being able to show people the IWW history and legacy?
MFD is ideas, information and knowledge for the taking. Hey, maybe that's what a leaderless labour central is all about.
quote:
However, I would suggest that the IWW has been so slagged, so maligned that it will never be able to flourish using its current name. People can't get past its name to chow down on the IWW philosophy. Then again, how do you gain credibility without being able to show people the IWW history and legacy?
In a world where Richard Nixon made three comebacks, anything is possible.
Here's an interesting point of view:
quote:
Wolfie has long studied human nature, and has learned through repeated historical findings that it goes against human nature to function properly in a true democracy. This is because in a true democracy, all people have equal weight in making decisions, and because humans can never reach 100% concensus, there would only be argument and chaos in such a system. Basically, it wouldnt work, and there would be no means of police, as there would be no way for 100% of the people to agree on laws, as this would entail that even people who were criminally minded would be able to stop the process dead in its tracks. This intails a state of total anarchy.
The US government uses a compromise to this problem, by having group elect from within themselves (Word in Democratic and Republican parties) that rally for democratic votes from the populace for various political offices. These political officials are hence elevated above the masses as their representative in the government process. This very act creates a separation between the populace and the state, so what wolfie said is true. Its the way our world works. True democracy, like true communism is not possible, because it violates basic human behaviorisms. Humans need leaders. Leaders rule followers. Its the way of the world, and thinking that you can change that overnight is foolishness. As long as there are humans, there will always be social classes.
You can find the thread by clicking here.
Scott:
quote:
Pillar # 1: David and I
Pillar # 2: The MFD principles
Pillar # 3: This web site
Pillar # 4: HJF/Weiser/Remote/legal rep. etc
Umm... pillar #1 collapsed (too much aggregate in the concrete). Pillar #2 was, apparently, a few re-bars short of a column.
Pillars #3 and #4, buttressed by the involvement of multiple new parties, grew strong enough to hold up the entire fort.
quote:
But by no means is it going to change the UFCW or any other labour union all by itself.
I think you're wrong. I also think that your criteria for measuring change is a little silly. It seems that you place value only on massive and/or largely noticable change.
IMO, incremental change has been forced upon the UFCW by means of the information we publish and the way we publish and provide it.
Look at how the 1518 site has evolved since we came online. Look at Bill's current YAWM site. Look at the UFCW's efforts to shut us down. To suggest that we have had zero influence upon the methods of information distribution within the UFCW is foolish.
No one expects change to happen overnight. It's a long slow process and any pressure that we exert upon the UFCW is a factor in that incremental change.
quote:
Either you find replacements for those other two pillars or you'll never have a solid enough foundation to build this new and wonderful labour movement everyone here hopes to one day see.
Jeezus man! You just don't get it do you?
One group does not a movement make! We're just playing our role, the one we do best, within a fresh, and larger, movement.
Bill:
quote:
You can talk about leaderless organizations all you want, they won't ever get off the ground. And if for some reason they do, they'll never stay in the air.
We're here, we're doing our part.
Bill, you've been predicting our demise since you arrived here. I think it's kind of funny that you need money and marketing to get your site off the ground and yet, even with money and marketing, the participation on your site pales in comparison to ours.
Maybe you should run another radio campaign Mr. Leader.
quote:
Does the fact that you individually get yours, somehow advance the greater good of the group?
You're mish-mashing the definitions.
Q: What is a group?
A: A collection of individuals.
If everyone does well, that means each and every individual does well.
Why is that so difficult for you to wrap your head around?
JD:
quote:
I don't think a new union or movement can come out of MFD. The views of the participants are too disparate. There's no unified platform that would be a basis for action:
Ohhhhh! So, in your opinion, "towing the party line" is a necessity to any movement.
Christ you people are sooooo old school!
You cats go ahead and share a brain.
We'll continue to use ours collectively.
quote:
In a world where Richard Nixon made three comebacks, anything is possible.
True, and funny, but it's even more amusing to see how you apply that line of thought so selectively.
Now you guys have done it, you've awoken slek.
quote:
Christ you people are sooooo old school!
Where I'm coming from that's a compliment!
quote:
I say the MFD is a vitamin-enriched watering hole. You never know what the Power Source and the friends of the Power Source do after drinking from this well.
Weiser, that was soooo well said
quote:
There's no unified platform that would be a basis for action:
I'm sorry, I know it was a bit manipulative on my part but that's kinda what I was hoping somebody would eventually point out. Geezz it took long enough. Where is the MFD Platform we worked so hard on???? it used to be a big part of this web site and now it's gone. I was very proud of that and wanted to build on it in the coming months when I finished my accounting class.
Go back and read the MFD story...I'm not satisfied sitting around listening to people complain. I'm a doer not a talker. For months now this web site has focused on talking and not doing. Remote has dropped several hints and so has weiser that people need to get going on building a movement that goes beyond this site. But to what?
What type of union do you want? I've always felt the MFD platform was a great starting point. A compass when we started to loose direction. But it's not enough. Go back to the MFD story and read the part about why I wasn't excited about supporting the existing candidates. You'll see nothings changed for me. You can't keep talking about what the other guy is doing wrong! what are you going to do that's right? and why?
I guess I could've just come right out with this at the start but I wanted to see if I could spark enough juices in people to stir the pot in that direction. It's a lot more fun this way [for me that is] I think I've accomplished my goal thus far. There has been some terrific dialogue on this thread and I hope we can continue to build on it. I've lost interest in telling people how bad the UFCW and how messed up the labour movement is. It's boring. 
I want to build something to be proud of. Something my children can be proud of. I can't accomplish that dwelling on what other people do wrong all the time. What can "we" do right? how can we make the labour movement better? details? steps? process? strategy? etc etc etc.
Do you think we can all start talking about those types of things more often. I find that gets my juices pumping a hell of a lot more than complaining about Brooke Sundin.
quote:
Bill, you've been predicting our demise since you arrived here. I think it's kind of funny that you need money and marketing to get your site off the ground and yet, even with money and marketing, the participation on your site pales in comparison to ours
Find the quote where i predicted your demise, i'd like to read it. I did say you should evolve to something more than attacks on leaders; my compliments to those who listened. Frankly, if i thought you were going to be gone, i wouldn't have wasted my time here.
Our site has been up sinse July and the dollar cost is minimal. The time commitment has been what has been substantial, but it's mostly mine and JD's so i guess its inconsequential. BTW, how many organizing drives have come out of this site? Oh, that's right, that's not why you're here.
quote:
Maybe you should run another radio campaign Mr. Leader
I do love the give and take. To this day, people have never understood what that radio campaign was about. Let me think, local 789 cost approximately $200,000.00: employer cost to settle contract approximately $13,000,000.00 over three years. Do me a favor and go check settlements around the country sinse 9/11. on top of all that, tons of press, and lots of exposure to retail workers.
You actually said something i agree with slek . Too many people judge success in windows of really short time periods. Often changes happen over long periods of time, and they happen from very subtle preassures that are seldom recognized at the exact moment they happen. IMHO, i think mfd is making a difference, especially sinse the level of discussion and education has moved to a more intelligent plain.
quote:
I guess I could've just come right out with this at the start but I wanted to see if I could spark enough juices in people to stir the pot in that direction. It's a lot more fun this way [for me that is] I think I've accomplished my goal thus far.
Back pedaling a platform? Horsepucky Scott.
I like to spark conversation too.
quote:
Find the quote where i predicted your demise, i'd like to read it.
Mmmm... seach feature.
quote:
Unfortunately you were destined to the same fate that REAP suffered. Make some noise and fade into obscurity.
quote:
Our site has been up sinse July and the dollar cost is minimal.
Minimal?
You told us you had $50,000 approved for the project. That's more than your members take home in a year!
quote:
BTW, how many organizing drives have come out of this site? Oh, that's right, that's not why you're here.
We're here to question your motives and practices. If anything, we're here to keep people from becoming dues units. That much should be obvious.
Also, you can rest assured that the effects of your current organizing campaigns will be measured and analyzed to ascertain the actual impact and value to the workers you've organized.
quote:
Too many people judge success in windows of really short time periods. Often changes happen over long periods of time, and they happen from very subtle preassures that are seldom recognized at the exact moment they happen.
100% agreed.
quote:
I want to build something to be proud of. Something my children can be proud of. I can't accomplish that dwelling on what other people do wrong all the time. What can "we" do right? how can we make the labour movement better? details? steps? process? strategy? etc etc etc.
by Scott
During driving around town doing errands, your words resonated in my mind. Perhaps there needs to be a mix of all.
Before I found this web site, I knew something was wrong and had many suspecions, but had no substantiating evidence to back up my opinions.
By being here I found that other had similar experiences and worse, but all validated my viewpoints.
To me that was step one, the validation process where we share and accept our union experiences. A process I feel is need before we can move on.
Step two for me was learning another point of view of how unions work. I did not accept such opinions right away, I spent time thinking the whole process through. Had I not concurred, I would not be here.
I may be ready to move on to step three-the creation, but for many simple fold like me I feel that all the steps are necessary growth.
quote:
Back pedaling a platform? Horsepucky Scott.
I've spent the past 2 years reflecting on who I am and taking course's to try and better myself. My biggest achilles' heel has always been my emotions. Try as I may I can't get passed an emotional first reaction to things. Sadly, I see that post and can't help but feel my integrity has just been attacked. That's just not a pot you want to be stirring Sharyn.
I've got nothing to gain logging on this site everyday and given I'm an employee of a staunch non union employer it's actually a risk for me. Yet I log on because I care about what we started, and I'd like to think I didn't throw away my job[s] for nothing. That this effort is going to actually accomplish something more tangible than a web site.
I deal in results, right or wrong, good or bad that's how I've always messured success and I've always managed to get them. When I first took this fight on I'd never failed at anything in my life. I overcame more in my life than most of you could ever imagine. That election is my only failure [or was it?]and perhaps that has as much to do with why I can't let it go as anything. But lets be very clear about something [I hate like hell saying this because I look like a pompous ass but I'm going to anyway]
If it were not for my personal sacrafice, tenacity, ingenuity and courage to try what everyone said couldn't be done, none of you would even be here today. You'd all still be "talking" at work about how shitty your jobs are and how lousy the union rep is and what, if anything, you could do about it. Sure, there were other slates, and other elections, but nothing on this scale. Everyone knew we needed a change but I was only one with enough guts to step up and get the ball rolling. None of you had the jam to hit the beach first and make this happen. I did, and I alone payed the price for it.
So I don't think it's to much to ask for some respect from those who've followed along the trail I blaized... do you?
Scott, that has to be the most intellectually dishonest post I have ever read in this forum.
quote:
I know it was a bit manipulative on my part but that's kinda what I was hoping somebody would eventually point out.
That was the biggest load of bullshit! siGGy called you on it and now your getting your "integrity" attacked?
Give me a fucking break!
No one denies giving credit where credit is due, and yes, you had a part to play in the creation of all this. But you really need to check your ego at the door and cut out the *appeal to pity* bullshit 'cuz you really do look, sound, and read, like a pompous ass.
respect -2
quote:
Unfortunately you were destined to the same fate that REAP suffered. Make some noise and fade into obscurity
I've used the search feature and i can't find the damn quote. I remember saying it, but seems to me the texture of what i was saying was wholly different than what you have printed. Care to post the rest of the statement? I think i've suggested that technique as the fine art of picking flyshit.
quote:
You told us you had $50,000 approved for the project. That's more than your members take home in a year!
I did tell you that. So far we have spent $10.000.00, which includes a $5,000. donation to LES at the U of M for the "partnership." Always careful with the members money. Careful, i have some members who do considerably better than that.
quote:
I remember saying it, but seems to me the texture of what i was saying was wholly different than what you have printed.
Naturally.
From here: web page
quote:
Sorry Slek, you give yourself too much credit. From the day I came here, you 've disliked my presence. I've come to accept that. You usually just sit in the background and add your shots. I've chalked it up to trying to stimulate the "debate". I do find it curious that you critisize what I do for a living, and you act like running a web site with a handful of followers is the labor movements salvation. It's not, it's a tool to do some neat things. Unfortunately you were destined to the same fate that REAP suffered. Make some noise and fade into obscurity. I hoped we could move this to a higher level. But lets face it, its your site and its your rules. When the cheap shots come, I can ignore them or shoot back. I choose not to do that. If you think ripping people and insulting people is debate, then we have a different perspective on what legitimate discussion is.
quote:
I think i've suggested that technique as the fine art of picking flyshit.
The method seems to come in handy when responding to your fallacious comments.
Flyshit? Accountability? You decide.
quote:
Unfortunately you were destined to the same fate that REAP suffered. Make some noise and fade into obscurity. I hoped we could move this to a higher level. But lets face it, its your site and its your rules. When the cheap shots come, I can ignore them or shoot back. I choose not to do that. If you think ripping people and insulting people is debate, then we have a different perspective on what legitimate discussion is.
Thanks for finding it. I knew there was more, but i was a bit caustic. Having said that, please note the suggestion to move this to a higher level. Without sounding smug, i think this site is evolving to exactly that. I had no interest coming to it and trading barbs and insults. I love the discussion, debate and being challenged. It makes all of us stronger. All i can say is, good thing you changed or i' d be gone , and who knows where you'd be.
Some very interesting reading I might say! I haven't been a member of MFD that long and I was hesitant about posting anything out of respect for the people who are responsible for the creation of such a site as this. The "Water Hole" concept is right on target as far as I'm concerned. To me MFD is a supportive think tank of sorts which is supported by many intelligent individuals who share their knowledge and experience for all to utilize as they see fit. The pillars as far as I'm concerned are the 291 members who have taken the time to become actively involved with the future of the many, many, oppressed people who daily are subjected to injustice. No doubt there are many leaders who post here at MFD. Some may be born leaders, others possibly are taught to be leaders, some are not leaders who think they are, and others are leaders who don't think they are. By participating in this forum, you are all leaders. Many times before I have thanked the contributors here at MFD for their support and honesty and I meant every word. Not being in retail, at times I feel out of place and hesitant about posting in certain threads and at times being a member of a trade union seems to place me out of the loop. I realize MFD grew out of the retail workers need to transform their existing conditions but I am thankful you opened the door for all. There are so many injustices within labor and business and we need sites like MFD. No doubt in my mind the site will change as time goes on. It must follow where the members lead. If there are leaders who want to build a labor movement,whether it be a reform structure or a brand new structure, I say get on with it and start building your pillars. I'm sure MFD will support your efforts. But just don't go muddying up my "Water Hole" with the dirt slinging tactics! It's much easier to destroy a structure from within than it is from the outside.
"What a Pity"
What a pity to feel the desire
and never see it manifested.
What a pity to see potential
and never see it utilized.
What a pity to hear the voices
and never hear the harmony.
What a pity to see the masses
always going their separate way.
What a pity to cry injustice
just to see your hopes fade away.
What a pity to know your rights
and see them given away.
What a pity to know the truth
and know it means little today.
What a pity I feel the need
to write such driveling.
What a pity or did I mention
the need for Solidarity?
With all due respect Scott:
quote:
That's just not a pot you want to be stirring Sharyn.
quote:
I guess I could've just come right out with this at the start but I wanted to see if I could spark enough juices in people to stir the pot in that direction. It's a lot more fun this way [for me that is] I think I've accomplished my goal thus far.
The discussion was sparked by BP and fueled by many.
quote:
Having said that, please note the suggestion to move this to a higher level. Without sounding smug, i think this site is evolving to exactly that.
I think what's interesting is, though evolution is inevitable, that this site sparked discussion and drew people from all walks right from the onset, and kept 'em coming back for more.
Well now that's a discussion! Where else on the www do you find a debate like this?! To me, that's what MFD is all about and the primary purpose it serves. It provides a venue where people can debate broad issues that are important to the community of workers. Nothing could be more fundamental than getting our heads around issues like leadership or the purpose(s) served by communications media - including ours.
The intensity of the debate surprises us because we are not used to participating in this kind of discourse. We are accustomed to watching others engage in it and participating only as a cheering section. But discussion about these kinds of issues should be intense. The intensity shows that people are thinking, talking and being engaged.
To address the question: "What has MFD accomplished?" I would respond: Its accomplishments are here on this web site and out in the broader community of workers. The dozens of articles written by working people, the thousands of posted messages, the debates that have unfolded over countless issues (all of them important issues). That's just what we can see. Then there is what we can't see - the thousands of visitors and what they take from the site and what they do with that. Some are just passing through but I don't think it's a stretch to assume that some get something from having been here and that they do something with that. Whatever they do - whether it's just to start thinking about things they've never thought about before or actually doing something in their workplace or their union that empowers themselves and others - my view is that each time somebody does something as a result of coming to this site, the site has accomplished something.
We can't measure the success of a web site like MFD using in-the-box measures. That's the old Fordist (in the box) way. We can't live that way here, not if we are saying the box stinks and is holding us back. As long as MFD continues to disseminate knowledge and provide a venue for interaction, it is accomplishing its main objective.
To me, MFD is media (Media For Democracy?) for working people. It's new and interactive media. I don't know of anything else quite like it out there today. Its accomplishments are not evident to us at this point because they can't be measured throught conventional measures but they are real enough to anyone who has thought about and/or done something that they would not otherwise have done after visiting this site. Over the long run, those accomplishments will become more evident, even by conventional standards.
quote:
Now, if there was a self-help book of anti-leadership tips available, I might take a look at it. And if it's not available, I might write it. If anyone knows of the existence of such a book, please clue me in, because if it does exist, I don't want to reinvent the wheel, so to speak.
Having spent the past several months trying to un-leader myself, to my chagrin I have become entangled in a resurgent Borders union drive, and also an exploding RetailWorker.com.
I couldn't resist this. See John Doe, you are a leader. Like it or not, when you developed those two web sites, you did a leader-thing. That's the surprising thing about this new leadership. Sneaks up on you. No going back.
There's a big difference between being "THE" leader and "A" leader. A group can be made up entirely of leaders. It just depends of the time of day and the job that needs doin' to figure out who's leadin' at any given time. Sometimes there're a bunch of people leadin at the same time in the same direction, sometimes there's just one and sometimes there's a bit-o-anarchy, during which everybody's leadin' him or herself for the common good.
quote:
I couldn't resist this. See John Doe, you are a leader. Like it or not, when you developed those two web sites, you did a leader-thing. That's the surprising thing about this new leadership. Sneaks up on you. No going back.
Sorry, remote, but I've already started work on my new book, "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People". I'll be trying out its precepts right here!
quote:
posted by John Doe:
Sorry, remote, but I've already started work on my new book, "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People". I'll be trying out its precepts right here!quote:
I couldn't resist this. See John Doe, you are a leader. Like it or not, when you developed those two web sites, you did a leader-thing. That's the surprising thing about this new leadership. Sneaks up on you. No going back.
Sorry, about a dozen machine heads from some of the largest Biz Unions in North America beat you to it. They have "How to Buy Friends and Alienate People" down to a fine art. I know it ain't exactly the same, but it is similar if you don't have the money to buy your friends.