Obviously the machine heads and MRs fear the network model. They would have no control. That's what the whole Labour Relations system is currently about--CONTROL.
Many unions today are a management and government tool used to control workers. That's why politicians used to court labour leaders. They claimed to control how their members voted. Today, everyone knows that union leaders don't control how their members vote, but they do control their members' money, so they can lavish it on any politician who will do the machine head a favour.
Networks
The network is a "model of organization" (a way of setting up an organization) that differs from the traditional top-down "pyramid" that we're accustomed to. A networked organization has certain benefits, ones that may be of interest to union reformers who are trying to build or rebuild effective member-driven unions. These links offer some information about networks: What they're all about, their benefits and characteristics.
Do you see how a network may be more useful as an organizational model for a union versus the more traditional "top down" model?
Hey! MFD covers off most of the abouts, benefits and characteristics (long word!) of Network definitions. That means it's working! 
But business "philosophers" have been writing about networked organizations for years now. and even the most dedicated management control-freak is willing to pay lip service to the idea of non-hierarchical organizations.
That's true, but the key words are "control freak" and "lip service." If you can't give up control, you can only talk about or fake the process. Those who can keep their hands off or give up control are the ones who will make the network happen.
Unfortunately the power of networking has been demonstrated by Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network. I wish there was a better example, but at the moment I don't know of one (feel free to help if you have a better example).
The media can't understand networks, so they have to present al-Qaeda as a top-down organization run and controlled by a boss (Osama)and a couple of Generals.
Al-Qaeda is not an Afghanistani organization; it is worldwide. It is feared because it is extremely effective, unpredictable and somewhat undetectable. Hell, I'm scared of what it is capable of doing, but amazed at how simply it works.
The reason why I even mention al-Qaeda is because Drive On says (I think) that management hasn't been able to pull off networking in any meaningful way as yet. That's too bad because they might be able to benefit from it. However, just because management can't do it doesn't mean that workers can't do it. You don't have to have an MBA to be part of an effective network.
The world is being redefined and the way we conduct ourselves and communicate is being redefined too.
i think the mistake here is believing that a "network" is fundamentally different than a hierarchy. a hierarchy is a network.
what you need to distinguish is:
hierachical networks; and
obstensibly non-hierarchical networks.
Right on. We're not talking about a "server" and a multitude of "dumb" terminals. We're talking Internet-like networks.
Cool. So we've established that hierarchies are networks, and that there are networks that claim to be non-hierarchical.
I noticed in the links to the "leadership network" Web site that there were descriptions of the avantages of "networks" (non-hierachical networks) over hierarchies (hierarchical networks). What was suspiciously lacking was a description of the advantages of hierarchies over networks! One major advantage comes to mind immediately: permanence.
A concrete example of the permanance of top-down "pyramidical" structures: well, how about the actual Pyramids themselves.
On the other hand the non-hierarchical "network", whose model is the "web", seems rather fragile in comparison, as are real webs (at least for those not caught in them).
So somebody explain to me how you achieve "solidarity" via a cobweb, or, as an alternative, why solidarity is no longer required in a webbed world.
Also, somebody explain why the growth of network technologies doesn't confer equal advantages on hierarchical networks as it does on non-hierarchical networks.
quote:
posted by DriveOn:
I noticed in the links to the "leadership network" Web site that there were descriptions of the avantages of "networks" (non-hierachical networks) over hierarchies (hierarchical networks). What was suspiciously lacking was a description of the advantages of hierarchies over networks! One major advantage comes to mind immediately: permanence.
A concrete example of the permanance of top-down "pyramidical" structures: well, how about the actual Pyramids themselves.
On the other hand the non-hierarchical "network", whose model is the "web", seems rather fragile in comparison, as are real webs (at least for those not caught in them).
So somebody explain to me how you achieve "solidarity" via a cobweb, or, as an alternative, why solidarity is no longer required in a webbed world.
Also, somebody explain why the growth of network technologies doesn't confer equal advantages on hierarchical networks as it does on non-hierarchical networks.
I don't think there is any doubt that net technologies can confer equal advantages on heirarchical and non-heirarchical networks. A network is like any other tool - what it does depends on who's using it, how they're using it, how adept they are at using it.
Non-heirarchical networks, at this point may appear to be more fragile or less permanent but that may simply be because we are only beginning to make use of them or to conceive of them as an alternative to the big old pyramid. I'm not sure that there is anything about the non-heirarchical networks that would make them inherently more fragile. The opposite may be true: the survival of the network doesn't (or doesn't have to) depend on the survival of any on of its constituent parts. If one group or person or whatever, drops out of the network, the network continues on. In a heirarchical model, the loss of a person/group/key part can mean the end of the org or at least the destabilization of the org. This would seem to favour permanence and stability.
Can you achieve solidarity via a non-heirarchical network? I don't think we've been at it long enough yet to be able to answer that. I think the potential is there. The current "top down" heirarchies have failed at it, so I'd say that the non-heirarhical "web" model has as good a chance as any. The potential is in the opportunties it provides information sharing and communication among people at the grass roots level. The ability to communicate widely and publicly among ourselves and many thousands of others like us, may eventually lead to a consensus among working people about "how it should be" which, in turn, may lead to strategy and action aimed at "making it happen".
It's early and it's different but if we don't go there we'll never know.
I'll give you an example of an evolving network that is in line with what I'm talking about: Notice the recent links that have developed between this web site and LabourStart, Retailworker, www.local375.ca? We have started sharing and posting information from each other's web sites. We've started a non-heirarchical network - one that I hope will evolve and grow. It's still in an embryonic state but who knows where it will go. It's a good thing for our respective communities. People become more aware of what's going on, more conscious of the fact that there are many who share their views and experiences. There are more opportunities for interaction - so eventually there will be more interaction. Maybe this is how solidarity can and will ultimately be achieved. It seems to have some of the necessary elements.
Best of all nobody is squabbling about who has the best site, who owns the news, or any of that "I've got the power and you don't" crap. To me that would seem to bode well for the survival of the network as fighting over turf and issues of ownership seem to historically have been big impediments for the mainstream labour movement.
It's also kind of fun being in the non-heirarchical web. Every day is an adventure.
quote:
posted by remote viewer:
the survival of the network doesn't (or doesn't have to) depend on the survival of any on of its constituent parts. If one group or person or whatever, drops out of the network, the network continues on. In a heirarchical model, the loss of a person/group/key part can mean the end of the org or at least the destabilization of the org.
If the survival of its individual members is not key to a horizontal network organization, what value would such a network have for union members?
At least in a vertical network, if you remove one individual element, the whole structure is affected, thus conferring value on the survival of each individual.
The survival of its individual members should be a fundamental reason for the horizontal networked org. What I said was that a decision to opt out or some other event that causes an individual or group of individuals to leave the network, would not disable or destabilize the network or at least not as much as it would a vertical org.
quote:
At least in a vertical network, if you remove one individual element, the whole structure is affected, thus conferring value on the survival of each individual.
In a vertical network, the effect on the structure depends on who the individual is, where they are situated and the degree of power they have. The "value" conferred varies from "a lot" to "none".
quote:
posted by remote viewer:
In a vertical network, the effect on the structure depends on who the individual is, where they are situated and the degree of power they have. The "value" conferred varies from "a lot" to "none".
That's obvious but you still haven't explained how the "expendability for all" in a horizontal network is preferable to the "expendability for some" of a vertical network.
Even Marx acknowledged inequality in organizations: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
Came across this interesting essay that discusses at length and with erudition some of the stuff in this thread:
http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/1510.html
http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/1511.html
http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/current/1514.html