Weekly Review: How to stop MFD in its tracks!
A special issue just for biz-unionists & machine heads
The machine heads are mightily pissed with us. We know this by the proliferation of PR guys and spin doctors visiting our site these days. (Peek-a-boo, we see you!) The fact that the machine heads are pissed doesn't bother us - at least they're paying attention to this site and that is a good thing - but it pains us to know that even more members' money is being squandered developing communications strategies to neutralize the MFD message.
Well, listen up biz unionists, union partners and garden variety machine heads: This week's review is especially for you and you don't want to miss it because we're going to tell you how you can shut us down. Yes, you heard right: you can shut down MFD forever and we're going to tell you how. So save your members tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars. First thing tomorrow morning, you call all your PR-icks and tell them to forget about it. We are going to give you our absolutely free and straight from the heart advice on how you can connect with your members, reach out to the unorganized and make us MFD bastards completely irrelevant. One word of warning though, it's not going to be painless.
Let's get started »»
quote:
One last thing: Start paying more attention to who is responsible for Internet communications in your organization. Maybe it's time you stopped giving your web developer jobs to union honcho's kids and friends of friends. It's one of the most important jobs in your organization; maybe you should staff it accordingly. Here at MFD we don't worship anybody but we do have a particular fondness for web master sleK because he's so talented and because without him, there wouldn't be much of a party.
Does sleK even draw a salary for all his hours of hard work put into this site? I can't imagine its anything like what the UFCW's paying Bill "as consultants go, I ain't that expensive" Reno.
[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: curious ]
quote:
Does sleK even draw a salary for all his hours of hard work put into this site?
I reward myself with a bottle of Arizona Green Tea (Mmmmmm) everyday!
My my, and we thought we were alone out there. Well, when you're told over and over again that you are a rebel, that you are out to destroy the union that you are a litany of foul mouthed names that are screamed (literally)at you over and over again, there are times when you sit back and wonder if they are right. Maybe I should be blindly accepting what the union doles out to me and maybe I am selfish because I have insisted on benefits that I paid a premium for. Maybe the union officials deserve that big wage gross car allowance, fat pension and God knows what else. A good union member is one who meekly repeats to himself "I will not complain, I will not complain I......I must think of the good of the union, the good of the union..."
Has anyone here checked out the UA Local 787 website? We have spinning symbols and James Bond music BUT no INFORMATION and yes it as well is done by some friend of the BM
Maybe I should clarify INFORMATION
RECENT news of what is REALLY happening at the union offices.
Business Union sites are more propaganda sites than information sites.
quote:
in·for·ma·tion: (1) the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence;
(2) knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction.
pro·pa·gan·da: (1) ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause.
I think we can agree this site is far superior to most, if not all mainstream labour websites. I think it's probably also the case that it's being maintained on a fraction of the budget that many unions are putting into their web presence.
If you don't mind me asking, I was wondering how much it does cost to keep the MFD up and running on the web? I don't mean just monetary expenses, although I am sure there are plenty, such as hosting, bandwidth, and licensing the UBB software from infopop. I'm also wondering what kind of hours get put into this site each week for writing content, coding, forum moderating and general maintenance and upkeep.
I do know one mainstream labour-funded site that follows the MFD model. Has anyone checked out www.rabble.ca? I think it's quite good - its got tons of content and, of particular note, a discussion board. Rabble also has an annual budget of about $350,000, a figure that has evoked at least some controversy. Of course, rabble spends a lot more than the MFD ever could on both marketing and on wages for their writers and technical staff.
Regardless of our opinion about rabble.ca, I think it is a good question to debate how much an organization really should pay for its web presence, and what we think are some of the best ways to make the most of what funding one does have available. So, any thoughts?
[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: globalize_this ]
While I can't speak to MFD's operating costs, I'm assuming that they are nowhere in the $350,000 range. That seems an awful lot of money to me. I know from friends who operate web sites for their small businesses and community service agencies, that you can put up a half-decent site up for a lot less. Most of the people I know do it on a very limited budget.
Rabble seems to pay a lot monthly for writing and for costs associated with reprinting copyrighted material. I guess that's understandable but I'm not sure how necessary it is. I guess it depends on where you're hoping to take your web site.
What I really like about MFD is that it's not overly reliant on material that's already been published. It seeks out contributions from workers and people who can speak first-hand about the experience of being a worker or a member of a biz-union or of trying to reform their union. I'm hoping to see more straight-from-the-heart stories by workers on this site in the months ahead.
As far as pay for articles and contributions goes, my own view is that when you're writing for a cause you really believe in, it's not about the money. For myself, I'll admit that I've contributed a thing or two to this site over the past few months but I've never asked or expected to be compensated. I have a job that pays my bills - this I do for the sheer enjoyment.
As far as what organizations with a social activist orientation should be laying out for their web presence: It's hard to say. My view is that they should be resourceful and look to stretch their funding. My sense is that activists on the web should be looking to solicit more voluntary contributions from an ever-expanding pool of contributors. We need more than just professional writers on the web. The more people we are able to involve in dialogue, the more people we have sharing their views, ideas and experiences, the more quickly we will evolve a different kind of society. Just some thoughts.
[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: remote viewer ]
quote:
Originally posted by :
My my, and we thought we were alone out there. Well, when you're told over and over again that you are a rebel, that you are out to destroy the union that you are a litany of foul mouthed names that are screamed (literally)at you over and over again, there are times when you sit back and wonder if they are right. Maybe I should be blindly accepting what the union doles out to me and maybe I am selfish because I have insisted on benefits that I paid a premium for. Maybe the union officials deserve that big wage gross car allowance, fat pension and God knows what else. A good union member is one who meekly repeats to himself "I will not complain, I will not complain I......I must think of the good of the union, the good of the union..."
This is what I especially like about this web site Joe. I found my way here a little over a year ago and I thought I was alone out there too. Honestly, I spent a lot of time thinking I must be right outta my mind thinking all kinds of unholy thoughts about unions and management and the Labour Relations Board and everything that we are supposed to think is good and just and holy.
I think there are thousands of us out there. Places like this give us a chance to meet up and talk about what's on our minds and - most importantly - how things should be.
I think there are also thousands, maybe millions, of workers out there who would jump at the chance to get involved in unions that are really for workers. Maybe we can help re-form some or form some.
$350,000?!?!?!
With that kind of budget I could run a any number of sites, publish a free magazine, pay the writers, and still have some left over to challenge some of the more corrupt union practices in court and fly all you folks in to watch the circus with us.
Damn! That's a lot of money!
Hosting and bandwidth runs us about $500 per year and this figure is likely to increase as we grow and more people start to visit regularly.
The UBB license was around $300 US for the first year and $99 US for each additional year.
I spend anywhere from 20-60 hrs per week working on the site - depending on what needs to be done. It took me about 4 months to build this version of the site - if I were a contractor I would have charged about $10,000 to build a site this size and an additional $2,000 to $3,000 per month to maintain and update it.
I think the going rate is between $75 - $100 US per actual page + programming and graphics etc. etc.. The entire site is made up of over 2500 different files (and growing) so the costs would get pretty high pretty quick. Still nowhere near $350,000 though.
I couldn't even begin to put a dollar value on all the research and writing.
quote:
I think it is a good question to debate how much an organization really should pay for its web presence
One employees salary plus a fat pipe to the backbone on a dedicated server at a reliable host.
Maybe $60,000 per year. This is assuming all contributors and content providers are already on the payroll.
quote:
what we think are some of the best ways to make the most of what funding one does have available.
Open Source Software.
There are probably 4 free solutions for every paid solution available.
Everything on this site, except for the forum and the images, is produced using free software. All of the scripts used to administer this site are customized versions of free scripts.
That's the beauty of OSS, you can customize it to fit your particular needs and they're available everywhere. Support is usually free as well.
[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: slek ]
Well there you have it. It is possible to have a good web presence for under $350,000 (I'm assuming that's an annual budget as well). I guess that's part of the problem: once you have a financial backer who has committed a significant amount of funding to you, you'll find ways to spend it. Some of those are essentials (like the stuff MFD pays for) and some may be non-essential. It's with the non-essentials that activist organizations really need to consider: Do we need it? (i.e., do we need an office?) Is there a low-cost or no-cost alternative? (The open source software slek speaks about is a good example). Are there new or innovative approaches to getting our message out that don't involve the traditional cash-for-services-rendered relationship (i.e., Why not invite voluntary/free contributions from aspiring writers or people with something to say? Why not ask the more successful professional writers if they'll waive their fees for articles that you want to publish?) This is a big challenge for alternative media but alternative means not like the mainstream - not just in terms of content, but how we get the content.
My sense is that the funding organizations would be better off to follow what is called in the business world "zero-based" budgeting - meaning you look at each expenditure and justify its need. There should also be some cost-benefit analysis conducted regularly of what is being spent on activities like advertising, marketing and even fund-raising and what that expenditure is generating in terms of a return. If the cost exceeds the benefit, it's usually time to go back to the drawing board.
I must say that rabble.ca has a nice site with a lot of good content. I have only two criticisms and these are more based on my own personal preferences as far as alternative media go:
1. They should more actively solicit contributions from non-professionals. They have an impressive line-up of columnists and contributors but the downside of that is, that they look more like a mainstream media site than an alternative site. Most non-professionals will assume that their contributions won't "measure up" and so won't bother sending them in.
2. This is really just my fixation on disempowering language but..."rabble" is what they (the established order) call us and they don't mean it in a nice sense either. Why do we use their labels? "News for the rest of us" - again, implies that there are the very important people and the rest of us, and guess where we fit in the equation? I know they don't mean it this way, but I wonder if they're not just reinforcing the subliminal messages we get every day about where we fit in (at the bottom of the pile).
Anyway, enough out of me for now.
I agree up to a point with what you've said, remote. $350,000 per year is a heck of a lot of money to spend on a website. But clearly rabble is getting money not just from the unions, but also from a lot of individual donors, so they must clearly see this as a wise and worthwhile venture.
I also think it is pretty important for rabble to pay their contributors when they can, because let's face it, writing is a profession too. And its a particularly hard profession to suceed in if you write with a leftist slant. Excepting a few ocassional "token" voices like Naomi Klein, the mainstream media generally doesn't want to give a platform to progressives, because their writing directly contradicts the capitalist class-interest of the media owners.
Still, the main reason why I brought up rabble is as a counterpoint to many union sites referenced in the weekly review, all of which pretty much sucked. Rabble seems more a project of the academic left rather than the labour elites, but still, labour has been a strong supporter and I think they deserve some credit for it.
But another reason why I brought up rabble, a reason which I think slek's comments support, is that I definitely do not think rabble's business model is a good one for unions to follow with their own sites. A rabble-type site is way too expensive for a union to do on its own, and its slick, professionalist style is not only unneccessary, but also runs against what I think a union's site should be all about.
Rabble includes some membership participation, but I think a good union site should be driven by it, kind of like how this MFD site is based around its discussion board. It is a good idea to have one skilled staffer maintaining the site, along with perhaps a couple of part-time volunteer moderators. The content, however, should be coming from the members and stewards, and reflect what the Power Source is experiencing on the shop floor.
[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: globalize_this ]
Straight from the minutes of the UA Convention in Miami
Madaloni
"I guess the advancement of new technology creates a new era for all of us. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad. I think the use of a public web is bad for organized labor, I really do.
I think it should be censored in some way shape or form"
And this from a man who peppers the UA Journals with "we must keep the flag flying high to protect our democratic right' speeches.
quote:
Originally posted by :
Straight from the minutes of the UA Convention in Miami
Madaloni
"I guess the advancement of new technology creates a new era for all of us. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad. I think the use of a public web is bad for organized labor, I really do.
I think it should be censored in some way shape or form"
And this from a man who peppers the UA Journals with "we must keep the flag flying high to protect our democratic right' speeches.
That's a classic quote Joe. Thanks for sharing that one with us. It tells us that the biz-union guy's version of "democracy" is a lot different from real democracy. Their version is one where they rule and we sit back and re-elect them every few years.
It's not surprising that Madaloni would fear the internet. Guys who want to hold onto power don't like anything that encourages the free sharing of information. Being able to suppress and control information is what gives them their power. Most great revolutions have been brought about, in one way or another, by the spread of information. Even the fall of the Soviet Union is attibutable, in part, to that.
Madaloni has cause to be concerned. When the people start getting wise - it's over. It may take some time but, it's over. Censoring the net in some shape of form? Good luck Madaloni - what have they been pouring into your cocktail?
quote:
"...I think the use of a public web is bad for organized labor, I really do.
I think it should be censored in some way shape or form"
[Bugs Bunny]What a maroon![/Bugs Bunny]
dOOd really has no clue. No clue at all!
What a great discussion. There is so much I want to comment on.
quote:
Well, when you're told over and over again that you are a rebel, that you are out to destroy the union that you are a litany of foul mouthed names that are screamed (literally)at you over and over again, there are times when you sit back and wonder if they are right.
In an earlier post I mentioned the toughest battle for reformers is the one within. Self doubt is always there because we've been programed [brainwashed] to look at ourselves only in the negative.
I remember the very first day I began my campaign to run against the establishment. I had business cards made up on my computer (about 50) I'd writen my platform on the net http//ipmcorp.com/Scott.htm but nobody knew at that point I intended to run. I crashed a round table meeting uninvited and I remember the inner turmoil I felt at first. I listened to Brooke Sundin and at one point seriously considered not running. "what am I doing" I kept saying to myself. "I'm a nobody", "what do I know, I must be crazy". I was about to leave the meeting when something happened in the hallway after the show that changed my opinion of unions and the UFCW forever.
I have no proof so I'll save the commentary. Lets just say it was well planned and obvious they'd done it before. I knew at that point I was doing the right thing. I knew I was looking in the eyes of weak, self serving, opportunistic con artists who didn't have the members interests at heart, they only had their own. Nothing anybody could ever say would ever change my mind about the UFCW and the people who work for them. [really... spare me the 'there is good people out there' crap. There isn't]
I knew I could do a better job making honest mistakes than they would ever do for working people and I also knew I could learn, and learn fast. That's true of any working person out there who really wants to make this world a better place. And that brings me to the other thing I wanted to say....
For me, what makes the MFD the #1 labour related web site in the world today isn't the flash. It's that the people who contribute to it do so because they truely want to improve the lives of working people. Most sites try and sell you the sizzle but here, we sell you the steak. That's important to me.
Every article I ever had a hand in writing I did so with the sole purpose of making the world a better place. I spent hrs and hrs on the platform because one day I hope a union will adopt it and follow it. That's my payoff, that's the ultimate reward for me. If we have to pay people to write then really, what's their true motivation?
Being a union person isn't about being in a club, or signing a card and paying dues. It isn't limited to the workplace. It's a thought pattern that's makes you different from others. It's about helping others simply for the sake of helping, not for monetary rewards.
quote:
I shall pass through this world but once. Any good that I can do or any kindness that I can show any human being, let me do it now and not defer it...for I shall not pass this way again.
For any web site professing to be about the betterment of society, that should be reward enough. Slek has pointed out some neccessary costs and I think people should kick in a couple of bucks now and then to cover them. Other than that I never want to read on this site an article we had to pay for.
You know my Dad thinks I'm a dreamer, that I'm not living in the real world. "Stop trying to save the world son, it doesn't want to be saved. Just save yourself". I guess what he doesn't get is that by coming here and contributing what little I can, that's exactly what I'm doing. I can only hope more people feel the same.
quote:
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that
you do it." --Mahatma Gandhi
Scott you said it well! I have returned a few times to read it again. 
More ideas for building internet-friendly unions
from www.labourstart.org:
quote:
About three years ago, at a conference in New York City, I heard the labour educator and futurist Art Shostak attempt to convey the excitement of the new information technologies to a skeptical audience of trade unionists. He went on at some length about "wearable computers" -- but to be honest, I think the audience wasn't convinced.
Art had been at this for some time. Back in 1997, in an article entitled "On the Revitalization of the U.S. Labor Movement" he talked about "advances in inexpensive devices to access the Internet without a PC . . . promise to soon vastly expand the reach of the Net (to say nothing of speculation that a voice-activated/voice-responsive Palmtop, or very small computer worn on the wrist, may be commonplace by 2005AD)".
We're not yet at the Internet accessible wrist watch stage, but on the whole, Art proved to be right.
There are far more users of mobile phones today than Internet users, and in the year 2000, over 400 million mobile phones were sold around the world. According to one survey, by 2003, 82% of Europeans will have mobile phones. Most of those phones are able to access the Internet.
In other words, for hundreds of millions of people, their only access to the Internet in the near future is going to be through small mobile devices -- and not desktop or laptop PCs.
Of course the technology now being used to display web pages on mobile phones is not at all user-friendly. Jakob Nielsen, the guru of website useability, was already bashing the Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) back in October 1999. He wrote:
"[WAP] will lead to impoverished user interfaces for two reasons:
* a tiny screen cannot show any context, nor can it show menus or visualizations of alternatives
* telephone push-buttons are poor controls for advanced functionality - as evidence just consider how few of the features on your cell phone you use."
Nevertheless even Nielsen admitted that "mobile access to the Internet will be its third killer app (after email and Web browsing)".
A day doesn't go by without some announcement of a new product to make mobile access to the Internet cheaper or faster.
The newest devices offer full color, relatively high speed access to normal web pages (not just WAP pages) -- most notably the Pogo device now being marketed in Britain.
Yesterday, Research in Motion, makers of the popular wireless Blackberry device (which doubles as a personal digital assistant, or PDA), announced plans to release a voice enabled version. Not in 2005, as Art Shostak predicted 5 years ago, but today.
All of these developments require a response by trade unionists, especially those of us concerned with communications.
Many of us have only recently completed the task of getting our unions to use email, or develop a website. Some of us have only recently gone online ourselves. What -- another revolution?
I think that Jakob Nielsen is essentially right. High-speed, always-on, truly mobile access to the Internet with a decent sized screen and proper navigation tools is the next killer application. It will revolutionize the way we work -- and will vastly expand the number of people accessing the net.
A very good first use of the new technology would be to get breaking labour news stories -- and particularly urgent action appeals -- out to people even when they are away from their desktops, or don't even have desktops.
While WAP has been criticized for being a poor subsitute for real mobile access to the web, the use of short text messaging, known as SMS, has exploded in recent years.
I think that we in the labour movement will have to use both these emerging technologies (WAP and SMS) as well as whatever will work on the Palm i705, the Blackberry, the Handspring Treo, and the Pogo -- whatever it takes.
LabourStart is very pleased to announce this week the launch of our first two mobile applications.
If you have a WAP enabled mobile phone, you will find top global labour news headlines (updated every 15 minutes) on our mobile page, which is located here:
You can add this to your list of favorites on your phone.
If you live in the UK, you can get occasional text alerts to your mobile phone by signing up for our service. Details can be found here:
This is just the beginning.
If you are interested in having a WAP page in your language, or for labour news from a particular country, let me know and I'll set it up.
If your mobile phone provider offers an email-to-SMS gateway that works (meaning that we can send you an email message which you'll receive on your phone, as a text message), let us know and we'll set that up.
All these services are provided to the labour movement world-wide free of charge. However, your mobile phone provider might charge you to receive text messages -- find out before you sign up for anything.
I'm very interested to know your thoughts and particularly to know if your union has begun to explore mobile Internet access.
For those of you who want to know more about some of the things I've mentioned, I've added some links below my signature.
Have a great weekend. And -- make sure you take your mobile phone with you!
Eric
Some of the sites mentioned in the article above:
Voice-activated Blackberry: http://www.pdabuzz.com/#newsitem1012412439,3440 ,
Pogo mobile device: http://www.pogo-tech.com/
Jakob Nielsen on WAP: http://www/useit.com/alertbox/991031.html
Statistics on mobile phone and WAP use: http://www.rcb.dk/uk/staff/chm/wap.htm
Art Shostak on revitalizing unions (and wristwatch computers): http://www.futureshaping.com/shostak/pages/essayRevitalization.html
**** Feel free to pass this message on to friends or to union mailing lists. ***
[ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: globalize_this ]
Excellent, excellent, excellent piece of information, globalize_this.
That stuff confirms what we've been saying that technology and the Internet will drive the power back to the Power Source.
It is as revolutionary as putting the Bible in print. It took the power from the church and gave it to the people--then came reformation.
The machine heads fear the Internet because it will drain their power and personal wealth gained from the sweat of the Power Source.
Governments will fear this technology because the opposition will be the People rather than a political party. The NDP will die and Biz unions will die because they will no longer be needed.
However, unions and governments will try to restrict access to the technology. We've already read what the UA's Madaloni (or whatever his name is) has had to say about censoring the Internet.
Again, excellent stuff, GT.
[ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: weiser ]
I think Madaloni's comments are an indicator of how much the machine heads fear open communication. They're also indicative of how out of touch the machine heads are with what's happening around them and how little they understand about the technology itself.
It's heartening to see discussion from within the community of workers about using technology to further our goals. I really believe that wireless communication will eventually make the biz unions and the tired, creaky old labour relations system that supports them, obsolete. It offers workers, for the first time in history, an opportunity to make our own future.
The membership of Local 787 has just been advised by a mailed version of it's newsletter "Icebreaker" that the Business Organizer, aka Maxdoogan and a variety of alias has just been promoted by the Business Manager to the position of Assistant Business Manager. My God men, the three union officials spend their mornings chatting and drinking coffee, why would the BM need any help to do that?
What does this all mean? The BM doesn't do anything unless he has a motive. Who will be Organizer? Will the members now be paying for 4 union officials? What perplexing questions.
I'm afraid that I for one cannot possibly look back on the comments that were made by Maxy back in November and even remotely see that this man has, shall we say, "what it takes" to be a Business Manager and that is the rumour going around, that this man will be our next "I'm where the buck stops" Business Manager.
Please help me out here, I was of the opinion that hard work and some level of education were the assets needed to get ahead.
Guess I was wrong, how very naive and provincial of me.
When the going gets tough, the biz-unionists promote each other. It's a way to make them look more powerful and to try to demoralize us. But we're onto them.
Update:
There was a membership meeting tonight. Things were mighty interesting.
Seems the BM has decided to retire next June. Also seems that the Business Agent has decided to retire at the end of this term (Dec /03)
The idea is, that according to the Local By- laws,(never voted on by the membership) the BM can appoint one of the union officials to the position.
As there is only Maxdoogan left, he will be appointed, that is why he has been given the assisstant to the BM position.
The BM started his yelling and screaming act(to the point were he actually looses his voice) and told everyone what a sorry day it would be if the membership didn't acclaim Maxy to the position of BM when the next elections roll around.
Now let's ask ourselves why the BM is so scared that there might be a whole new rack of union officials!
Maybe having Maxy in place is the only way that he can keep a lid on what's been going on for the last 20 years (cannot believe we have put with this for that long)
And why is the BM retiring?
Couldn't be that he has been told to retire because he isn't doing a good enough job of controlling the membership could it?????????
Maybe, just maybe, this web-site has hit home and the BM knows he can't control what is being said out there anymore, especially since the Local 787 site is know up and running. (a few improvements coming guys, we felt we had to jazz up the title a bit, it needed a little PUNCH)
quote:
Originally posted by :
The BM started his yelling and screaming act(to the point were he actually looses his voice) and told everyone what a sorry day it would be if the membership didn't acclaim Maxy to the position of BM when the next elections roll around.
It's just mind boggling that these guys behave this way. It's good for the world to hear about it though. A lot of people just won't believe that this is the kind of crap union members put up with otherwise. How many people were at the meeting? Has attendance improved over the last little while? I agree, the BM wants Maxy in there to be the rag-in-the-drain. Time to get ready for that election, I'd say.
Very few members attend the meetings. Just enough for a quorum, sometimes not even that and the members get a curt, "not enough of you so you may as well leave."
A lot of members are very interested now that there is some fur a flyin' but they just don't want to come to a meeting. If they do condescend to come, when they leave they are shaking their heads.
Here's a great example of why they feel there is no point in coming.
A few years ago, the pension statements came out with some curious comments on them, mainly, "not yet elegible" Many members were really confused as they knew that they were vested. When asked what that particular terminology ment, the BM hedged around with double talk until he was forced to admit that the plan had lost money and they didn't want the members to get upset with the plan.
On inspection, it was found that except for the members contributions, the plan had not made a penny nor had it lost a penny. "How could that possibly be', asked another member, "if I had had my money in my Credit Union I would have made xx per-cent"
"Sit down and shut up, you're a liar" screamed the BM, "you're trying to ruin the pension plan"
The member meekly sat down. Most of the guys just don't stand up to this verbal abuse, especially when they are told that they are out to wreck things for everybody.
Yes, plans for the election are underway. Members will be able to read for themselves what is going on via our web-site and they won't have to suffer the verbal abuse.
