Is the CLC manufacturing consent for undemocratic unionism?
Is the CLC manufacturing consent for undemocratic unionism?
A couple of weeks ago we came upon a new web site sponsored by the Canadian Labour Congress. WorkRights.ca presents itself as an information source for non-union workers about workplace rights and the benefits of union membership. We were somewhat critical of the new site but, upon reflection and because it had an open forum (a step in the right direction we thought, since few mainstream labour sites allow for open discussion) a few of us decided we'd give WorkRights.ca a closer look.
In WorkRights forum we raised some questions about union democracy. We weren't condemning all unions as undemocratic or seeking to present them as such. We all expressed the view that union membership is a good thing for workers. Our point was that workers should be selective in deciding which union they want to join, as some are more democratic, inclusive and tolerant of differing views than others.
It would seem that this would be a highly relevant subject for a web site dedicated to promoting union membership among non-union workers. Some unions are more democratic than others. Workers ought to know this so that they can make informed choices about which union they want to join. It would also seem that an organization like the CLC, which promotes democratic principles, should have no problem with discussion of the issues we were bringing forward on its web site.
Imagine our surprise then, when our posts were deleted and we found the following communication from the site administrator posted in the WorkRights forum:
Dear Forum Participants,
Several postings have been deleted due to content that was outside of the Forum's goal - which is to provide a space for discussion on Canadian worker rights.
I apologize if anyone should take offense at this censorship action and hope that all present and future participants will continue to make use of this site as an information-sharing space.
The WorkRights Forum encourages freedom of speech within the scope of worker rights issues, with emphasis on non-unionized worker rights. We encourage open discussion from both union and non-union workers alike.
Postings will be deleted, with notice, should they include topics outside of worker rights questions and answers. Restrictions include personal attacks, propaganda, personal agendas and rants (airing ‘dirty laundry' as one participant put it). Whether this site's sponsor agrees or disagrees with postings is irrelevant as long as the goal of the Forum is respected. As Site Manager, I will do my best not to limit real discussion. All are welcome and interactivity IS key.
THIS IS THE FORUM POLICY - YOU ARE FREE TO TAKE ANY CONFLICTING OPINIONS ELSEWHERE.
It's hard to imagine how discussion of the rights of workers to choose a union based on relevant criteria, the rights of workers to participate meaningfully in their unions and the rights of workers to exercise fundamental freedoms like the freedom of expression could be off limits in an online forum dedicated to discussion of Canadian workers' rights.
If WorkRights.ca were a private business hawking its wares online, we could understand that it wouldn't want unhappy customers butting in and and spoiling the spin, but that's not what WorkRights.ca or its sponsor the CLC hold themselves out to be. WorkRights.ca wants to inform non-union workers about their rights and tell them why they should join unions. The CLC bills itself as the "national voice of the labour movement", is funded with the dues of millions of workers and professes to speak on their behalf. So what's the problem with a little discussion about union democracy?
Noam Chomsky, a well known American dissident, has written and lectured extensively about thought control as a means of the undermining of democracy by powerful elites in societies where it just isn't practical to boot the masses into submission. A method of thought control employed by elites in democratic societies is what Chomsky calls manufacturing consent. This happens when the media is used by an elite to create the illusion that the elite's ideas, agendas and activities have broad support among the people and are therefore, right, just and desirable.
Manufacturing consent means making it look like most of us agree on something that may be controversial or unpopular in some quarters. The illusion of agreement is achieved by controlling what is reported and discussed in the media so that news and views that do not support the elite's agenda are never presented. Deciding what is and is not newsworthy, or filtering content is one means of achieving this. Setting boundaries for what is fit and not fit for discussion is another. We can see some really great examples of manufacturing consent in the corporate media's reporting on the "war on terrorism" in the US.
The concept works like this: If no dissenting voices are heard, there is no dissent. If no one knows that others disagree with conventional practices or beliefs, then we all agree. If no evidence of wrong-doing is presented, none exists. If events are not reported, they didn't happen. Right?
Chomsky discusses thought control and manufacturing consent mainly in the context of corporate elites and their use of the corporate media for this purpose but the shoe could fit other contexts as well. Within Canadian society, mainstream labour leaders are an elite of sorts. They occupy positions of considerable status in our society. Their organizations have rights over the lives of millions and virtually no accountability in terms of how they exercise these rights. Among mainstream labour leaders there are some very powerful men (mostly) who do not take well to criticism or to suggestions - even in the face of overwhelming evidence - that their orgnizations are not nearly as democratic as they'd like the community of workers to believe.
The suppression of information about undemocratic unionism is helpful to their agenda (staying on top by organizing lots of non-union workers who will cheer for them obediently from the sidelines). With information about un-democracy in their unions leaking out all over, it would seem a pressing matter to paint maintream labour in a favourable light, especially for the 70% of Canadian workers who are not currently union members.
With this in mind, we're like to thrown some questions out for general discussion and debate: Is WorkRights.ca's censorship policy aimed at manufacturing consent about the mainstream labour movement? Specifically, that all CLC-affiliated unions are highly democratic, that their leaders have only the best interests of their members at heart and that their organizations are free of corruption, waste and oppressive practices? What elements of "manufacturing consent" are evident in WorkRights.ca's forum policy?
On a different front, what effect is WorkRights.ca's censorship policy likely to have on the range and depth of discussion that takes place in an online forum and how useful will it be to its intended audience - or should we say, market?
Tell us what you think.
WorkRights.ca and CLC representatives are most welcome to participate in MFD Forum and can say whatever is on their minds without fear of being censored.
quote:
THIS IS THE FORUM POLICY - YOU ARE FREE TO TAKE ANY CONFLICTING OPINIONS ELSEWHERE.
From my experiences in a union, this comment may have been pulled right out of the union play book. "How to deal with union members with a brain."
Tell the members that if their opinions are not conforming to status quo rule their opinions are not appreciated or welcome. If they insist on airing their opinions, tell them to do it elswhere where no one will hear them. Explain to the members that if someone hears them openly speaking their opinion that they will censored. Censored my involve anything from being charged under their union constituion to being sued in court by their own union. This opinion formed from my union experiences.
Nonetheless, even though the administrator claims that the clc only sponsors the website, what ever that means, there seems to be no difference at all in my mind how the clc and some of its unions treat freedom of speech.
If the free dispersal of information is hindered in any means, then censorship has occured.
I must say that I was absolutely floored by this post. What a brilliant example of restricting dialogue to "approved" subject matter and opinions only. I will do my best not to limit real discussion the administrator sanctimoniously proclaims. Well, thanks sister. What exactly is "real discussion"? What is "propaganda"? What are "rants"? What is "dirty laundry?" How do you distinguish between propaganda and opinion? Or between dirty laundry and unpleasant-but-real facts? What is a rant? I would be very interested in hearing the CLC's answers to these questions.
What the CLC's web administrator is doing is labelling unwanted news, ideas and opinions as "bad". They are propaganda, rants and dirty laundry. Wonder example of thought control. If you express an opinion that runs contrary to what is acceptable in the view of the administrator and her CLC sponsor, you are ranting, propagandizing and airing dirty laundry. Gosh, who wants to be accused of stuff like that?! (Think about all the other contexts when this approach has been used. It's quite sickening that the representatives of the Canadian labour movement engage in this crap. Oh well, at least they call themselves a movement. Maybe we have just been using the wrong definition of that term.)
By engaging in these shallow mind control tactics, the site administrator is effectively ruling out discussion on a whole range of issues related to workers' rights - just like that. That's that "filtering" thing.
What I find equally troubling is that she doesn't seem to find this at all problematic. She doesn't make any bones about her intentions. It's as though she's saying, "Now kids, no potty mouth or union democracy talk, OK? Be good now."
An alternative sense that I get from her post is that talk of union democracy falls into the same category as "offensive, vulgar, defamatory and so on". It's just too repulsive to have on her web site. God only knows how many minds might be polluted by such talk.
Her matter-of-factness also belies a sense that this rather extreme censorship (at least she acknowledges that that's what it is) is somehow a normal thing. Nothing to get excited about. I guess that's how it is in the movement. It's normal to suppress views you don't like. It's normal to label dissenters as bad and shut down discussion you don't like. Sounds like a lot of GMM's I've heard about.
I don't think that these friends-of-working-people have a clue about the relationship between censorship and disempowerment - or maybe they do, all too well.
I doubt that their online forum will be very successful. People tend not to warm up to online forums that are very restrictive in terms of what their administrators allow you to talk about. If you look at some of the most successful or at least busiest online discussion boards on the net today, you will not find the kind of tight restrictions that WorkRights is imposing on its visitors. If the issue in the post is even loosely connected to the stated purpose of the site, it's fair game for discussion and is not deleted (unless its vulgar, obscene, blah, blah..)
If you're going to delete posts that don't suit your agenda, you're not creating a welcoming, supportive environment for your guests. They'll go elsewhere. Heavy censorship also creates mistrust. Guests will wonder what you're really up to and what you're doing with their posts.
I predict that WorkRights will quickly go the way of the CLC's last great experiment in controlled dialogue: Have Your Say (sorta).
quote:
I predict that WorkRights will quickly go the way of the CLC's last great experiment in controlled dialogue: Have Your Say (sorta).
Not to worry MFD'ers will keep kicking the bones around, along with all the other skeltons in the labour closet where workers fear to tread.
quote:
YOU ARE FREE TO TAKE ANY CONFLICTING OPINIONS ELSEWHERE.
Me thinks this is labournese for "f**k-off shitdisturbers!" 
Built by techs, administered by morons.®
This CLC credo typifies the belief of the modern business union:
quote:
YOU ARE FREE TO TAKE ANY CONFLICTING OPINIONS ELSEWHERE.
In effect, it's like going to the carnival and having the huckster tell you, "get lost kid, yer ruinin' business."
It's obvious the site is nothing more than a cheap side show aimed at drawing in the uninitiated. It has nothing to do with enlightening union members or bettering their lot. It's designed to increase revenue.
quote:
YOU ARE FREE TO TAKE ANY CONFLICTING OPINIONS ELSEWHERE.
Me thinks this is labournese for "f**k-off shitdisturbers"
And a hearty single digit expressway salute to you too, movementarians!
It's true siggy, we'll be kicking their bones around long after they've become irrelevant - but in a constructive archeological kind of way. "Look Dr. Siggy, I think I've just discovered a petrified movement. Quick, bring the specimen bag."
I think their pissy post is a very strong indicator of why sites like MFD serve a very important purpose and why freedom of expression needs to be protected on the Internet. There needs to be a place for all those conflicting opinions. 
Every discussion board demonstrates some degree of "message control," and not just for vulgarity, etc. I'm not so much offended by the policy, as I am disappointed by the way they've implemented it. I think it shows that the CLC hasn't really thought too hard about what they are trying to do here.
quote:
I doubt that their online forum will be very successful. People tend not to warm up to online forums that are very restrictive in terms of what their administrators allow you to talk about.
This is an astute observation. I might add, though, that their taking the discussion board down for almost three weeks stuck the dagger in and twisted it. What they wound up doing was driving away any new people who might have heard about the site through their media campaign and visited with honest questions about their "work rights."
All that they have left now are us curmudgeons. 
quote:
I think it shows that the CLC hasn't really thought too hard about what they are trying to do here.
by robbie_dee
I hate to disagree with anyone but I believe they are doing exactly what they set out to do, get more money in union dues. For me, the site is a trojan horse built and designed to carry the new money away and nothing more.
The forum although as some contributors have said is a start, was not meant for us reformers for sure. Although the www.workrights.ca web site was greatly advertised with a lot of unions by the clc, the last thing Bro_ken wants is union members who can think for themselves freely spreading information that may affect the final monthly income figures.
If the clc was really interested in showing it cared about the plight of union members all they had to do is have a web forum just like this one. Sure, they will not find as great a teck as slek, but at least they could have tried to put up a respectable forum.
By the way RV, GREAT ARTICLE
Thanks AU. I agree with you as to the likely purpose of the workrights web site. My theory is that it's a prospecting site: A place where they can trawl for new members for their various affiliates. I wonder how they will work that? If I go to their forum and say, "I really want to join a union. Help me find one." What will they do? How do they go about deciding where to refer me? I'd be really interested in knowing if there's some kind of distribution arrangement. You know, if I work in retail, this union gets me. If I work in manufacturing, that union gets me. If I work in an office, I get steered to some office union. Hmmm...
I wonder if the recipients pay a commission or something like that?
If my theory is correct, it would certainly explain why they don't want any "dirty laundry" aired on their site. Hell, the prospects might start getting picky about who they want to join and that would send the whole strategy down the toilet.
I think they should be upfront and tell people the rules or criteria used to slot the newbies into a union.
Does the CLC send the new prospect's name etc. to a number of unions, so they can do a sell job?
Does the CLC select the union that CLC officials think is the most suitable?
Is the CLC trying to do something that individual unions are too inept to pull off?
Hey if they are any more inept than the CLC's attempt, I can understand why this type of project couldn't be left to them.
As usual, increasing revenue is more important than cleaning up the representation of existing members.
Here are a few statements from a legal firm about the web site www.workrights.ca.
quote:
In my opinion, the site is a recruitment tool for unions. The whole point is to get non-union workers to contact a union representative and start organizing their workplaces
quote:
What do salary comparisons have to do with knowing your rights? Nothing!
quote:
I resent so-called 'information' campaigns that are nothing more than propaganda designed to increase union membership. The unsubstantiated claims that union employees are better off will make your employees start asking questions and consider their options
Although I do not agree with the story in its entirety, it does raise some important questions for all of us.
Yes, even though the writer has a warped idea about unionism, his ovservations about what the CLC says and what they are attempting to do are right on the money.
The CLC would have a hard time arguing that they are being up front with their lame marketing attempt.
K'mon Ken, be upfront. If you are marketing, so be it. However, while your "not-sister" is labouring with her HTML and scripting, why not have her produce something that would benefit workers trapped in undemocratic "pretend unions"?
quote:
In my opinion, the site is a recruitment tool for unions. The whole point is to get non-union workers to contact a union representative and start organizing their workplaces.
Duh? 
Though I wonder if the 'noobs visited for long enough to see that it's not being done very well, you know censoring workers.
Hell, I think if I was big business I'd consider kicking in to keep this workright.ca model up.
Last year, sick and tired of the goings on at Local 787, a few of the Local 787 MFDers decided to try contacting the CLC to get some help.
We waited for months and didn't recieve any response so I decided to call. I was given the usual response of this person and that person had been away (when do they find the time to atually work) but my letter would be sent to the Ontario branch for action. Again no resonse. I called again and spoke the head of the Ontario department who listen to my story and she asked why we hadn't contacted them sooner???? With some mounting exitement I waited for an appointment to be set up for a meeting.
Several of us meet one morning with the appointed minion and he listen to our tale. When we had finished, he picked up the copy we had of the CLC Constitution and threw it on the table and told us that that was how much it was worth and it was doubtful that we would get any help. He was right. We never heard another word. Says it all doesn't it?
It all fits really neatly. Thanks for sharing that with us Joe. There you have it: A first hand experience with the great CLC. From the sloppy handling of the member's concerns on the front end right to the arrogant brush off by the bureaucratic minion who was designated to address their issues, the whole thing reeks. "Don't bother us little people, we're the Canadian Labour Congress. We've got conferences to get to and media releases to issue and speeches to make." What a bunch of disrespectful lunks.
I'll bet that if you had called the CLC, Joe, and said you'd like to invest a few mil in a Labour Sponsored Investment Fund, they'd have been all over you like a bunch of ho-ho-ho's.
Check your P/M's Joe Blow.
quote:
I disagree. In my opinion, the site is a recruitment tool for unions. The whole point is to get non-union workers to contact a union representative and start organizing their workplaces.
quote:
For example, good employees know which employees are lazy and incompetent. Being in a union means they accept and believe those bad employees are to be rewarded as much as they are and agree they are no better than anyone with similar classifications.
An unproductive or lazy employee with 20 years of service has simply been employed far too long. Why would a good employee embrace a seniority-based bumping system whereby the bad employee gets to take their job?
The people who want unions the most are the bad employees. They need the job security because they aren't good enough for the employer to want to keep them. They want bumping rights for the same reason. Good employees can be generally confident they will be retained, promoted and rewarded for their efforts.
In my opinion the lawyer is correct, it is a website to attract new members.
Relating to the CLC's censorship, why would they want any potential dues being scared off by dissent or union reform?
However, its seems that the lawyer is creating his own anti-union propaganda. I wonder if his law firm specilizes in keeping union's out of workplaces?
He uses typical stereotypes of its the lazy people who want unions, and you can't get rid of lazy employees.
Reuther
The administrator at workrights.ca has just censored 4 perfectly fine discussion threads. The offending material:
Should Unions Sue their own members:
CLC and Int'l help members:
NO UNION=No RIGHTS:
International unions. How do they work:
Each thread is being systematically deleted and replaced with:
quote:
This forum is an administrated discussion space. It is to be used to discuss employment issues plaguing non-union workers – not to debate political matters or discuss Union politics. Users who wish to engage in such discussion can do so elsewhere. Thank you.
Site Manager
Censorship at it's worst.
Shame on those that try to control workers and the information they need to survive. Shame!!! 
quote:
The administrator at workrights.ca has just censored 4 perfectly fine discussion threads.
What is truly amazing is the four threads which the administrator censored had the most replies and the largest percentage of viewer traffic. Unbelievable! 
So now their purpose is to "discuss employment issues plaguing non-union workers", is it? Doesn't their site state their purpose a bit more broadly than that? I thought it was to discuss issues that are important to non-union workers - which in my view would include knowing the differences between democratic and undemocratic unions. Guess they've had to further narrow the boundaries of what's up for discussion.
I notice my question to the administrator of workrights.ca about manufacturing consent has also been deleted. I have asked her another question.
Since it will likely be deleted as well, I'll post it and her explanation of workrights.ca's forum policy here for our benefit and further discussion:
quote:
Dear Forum Participants,
Several postings have been deleted due to content that was outside of the Forum's goal – which is to provide a space for discussion on Canadian worker rights.
I apologize if anyone should take offense at this censorship action and hope that all present and future participants will continue to make use of this site as an information-sharing space.
The WorkRights Forum encourages freedom of speech within the scope of worker rights issues, with emphasis on non-unionized worker rights. We encourage open discussion from both union and non-union workers alike.
Postings will be deleted, with notice, should they include topics outside of worker rights questions and answers. Restrictions include personal attacks, propaganda, personal agendas and rants (airing ‘dirty laundry' as one participant put it). Whether this site's sponsor agrees or disagrees with postings is irrelevant as long as the goal of the Forum is respected. As Site Manager, I will do my best not to limit real discussion. All are welcome and interactivity IS key.
THIS IS THE FORUM POLICY - YOU ARE FREE TO TAKE ANY CONFLICTING OPINIONS ELSEWHERE.
Thank you and happy holidays.
Site Manager
Message posted by remote viewer on 30 12 2002 at 13:15 Ontario
Restrictions include personal attacks, propaganda, personal agendas and rants (airing "dirty laundry"; as one participant put it).
Please enlighten us as to what you define as personal attacks, propaganda, personal agendas, rants and dirty laundry.
How do you distinguish between these and legitimate debate about issues, opinion, commentary and news of events which - may not be to your liking - are nonetheless real and worthy of discussion in the context of workers' rights.
Please don't ignore me and delete this post as you did my last question about "manufacturing consent."
C'mon people.
The rules are that you must never, ever discuss what it's really like to be in a union. If you aren't willing to portray the vision of a Disneyland of labour, then you won't be welcome at the CLC amusement park. 
It's a sloppy marketing site, and if anyone does by some small miracle drop by, the CLC don't want no one scaring the little fishies away.
Shoo, shoo, go away, you bad, bad trouble makers.
quote:
Since it will likely be deleted as well, I'll post it and her explanation of workrights.ca's forum policy here for our benefit and further discussion:
RV, it looks like your post is already history!
I was just reading posts on the www.workrights.ca site. Ms. Georgetti's advice is pretty simple: Unless you're in a union, there's nothing that can be done without the person getting fired.
Now tell me one working person in Canada who doesn't know that many union workers get more than non union workers--more money, more benefits and more voice. If you really think about it, "workrights" isn't going to organize workers anymore than a single page saying "e-mail Lisa Marie Georgetti for information on how to join a union."
What would Lisa Marie say if a non-union Swiss Chalet server asked about how to do better than minimum wage and no benefits. Would Lisa Marie tell the non-union Swiss Chalet server to call the UFCW because the UFCW represents all unionized Swiss Chalets in Canada? Would Lisa Marie tell the person that by being union he or she could not only make minimum wage, but she or he could get just enough more to pay for union dues?
When someone says something of substance, Ms Georgetti scrubs the post, when a non-union worker complains, Ms. Georgetti says "join a union."
Well, Duh!! The CLC pays someone to say the obvious?
Posted on workright.ca, you'll have to hurry if ya' want to see it though.
quote:
The administration has made it abundantly clear free speech is not welcome here and anyone wishing to engage others in discussions which affect workers all over, union and non I would like to post the addresses of forums where open discussion is welcome and in fact encouraged.
For those who would like their voices heard there are many sites. My personal favourites:
www.teamsters.net
www.ufcw.net
www.youarewothmore.org
www.retailworker.com
It is exactly 19 minutes later and my post has been disposed of so to speak. 
AU yours didn't last but a minute. Soowy.
Yep you were right siGGy, they have deleted your post and the post I added on.
I really am glad that the CLC is showing non union members just how much union members rights are repsected.
Oops now a lot of threads are gone all together.
quote:
The administration has made it abundantly clear free speech is not welcome here and anyone wishing to engage others in discussions which affect workers all over, union and non I would like to post the addresses of forums where open discussion is welcome and in fact encouraged.
For those who would like their voices heard there are many sites. My personal favourites:
www.ufcw.net
I can't believe you had the audacity to post this site on there 
Dissenting opinion has got me banned from here; don't you think it's a wee bit hypocritical to admonish that site for doing the same?
quote:
Dissenting opinion has got me banned from here;
show me.
quote:
posted by siggy:
quote:
Dissenting opinion has got me banned from here;
show me.
http://www.ufcw.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=19;t=000325;p=3
[QUOTE] posted by sleK
I've had enough.
JackRabbit/MrFire: you're outta here. Send me an email when you grow up or get a clue - which ever comes first, though I doubt either will happen.
See ya!
You were banned for misbehaving.
The threads where you were being an ass on and all the stuff you said is still there for the world to decide for themselves.
quote:
posted by siggy:
You were banned for misbehaving.
The threads where you were being an ass on and all the stuff you said is still there for the world to decide for themselves.
I wasn't banned for misbehaving, I was responding in a perfectly legitimate matter, being intelligent in my responses, answering questions asked of me. They weren't the RIGHT answers, however...so off I had to go.
JackRabbit was banned for acting like an idiot. Mr.Fire, who claimed not to be Jackrabbit, had his ban overturned almost immediately.
Sounds fair to me.
quote:
posted by sleK:
JackRabbit was banned for acting like an idiot. Mr.Fire, who claimed not to be Jackrabbit, had his ban overturned almost immediately.
Sounds fair to me.
Only because I had to connect from Japan and explain how I wasn't Jack Rabbit. You had no reason to ban me other than a spurious 'attitude' similiarity. Again, I'm saying posting on one place, angry that you're being censored for your opinion and telling people to come here is laughable, considering past history.
Instead, you're trolling workrights.ca for what reason? Because you don't agree with their politics? I maintain the site is a step in the right direction; an attitude maintained in the original workrights.ca article posted on this site. Now we're against it, why?
quote:
I was responding in a perfectly legitimate matter, being intelligent in my responses,
I repeat, everything you said is still on the site for the world to see.
Unlike the clc sponsored site which claims to be there for workers, no-one deleted you .
I am utterly amazed that my post (see above) was nuked. There was nothing even remotely controversial about it. The administrator said, "no personal agendas, rants, propaganda or dirty laundry".
So I asked for clarification. What constitutes personal agendas, rants, propaganda or dirty laundry.
Perfectly legitimate question from one forum moderator to another. If you say "none of that, well I'd like to know what that is. Why would our workrights.ca friend not be able or willing to respond?
Mr. Fire, now that you are here in our union democracy forum, I'd like to hear your views on democratic unionism. If that's to broad a statement, let me put a question to you:
Mr. Fire, do you think that North American unions, especially large private sector unions like the UFCW, practice democratic governance? Feel free to speak.
An afterthought Mr. Fire: A British Empire loyalist in the 1700's might define the American Declaration of Independence as a "rant". Agree or disagree? Again, feel free to speak.
quote:
posted by siggy:
I repeat, everything you said is still on the site for the world to see.
Unlike the clc sponsored site which claims to be there for workers, no-one deleted you .[/QB]
Ah, ok, so censorship to a point is ok. The value in being able to post to an open forum without fear of being banned for posting a dissenting opinion I think is far greater than that of having an archived opinion available for anyone to see. Discussion breeds evolution...what was done was cowardice. Workrights.ca may well have a point in what they are doing. They are not a forum to discuss union democracy. That is what this site is for...If you can't stay on topic, get out of the conversation.
quote:
Ah, ok, so censorship to a point is ok. The value in being able to post to an open forum without fear of being banned for posting a dissenting opinion
There's a big difference between a dissenting opinion and idiocy. Continue with this idiocy and you'll face a ban again.
quote:
posted by remote viewer:
Mr. Fire, do you think that North American unions, especially large private sector unions like the UFCW, practice democratic governance? Feel free to speak.
I think, like all democracies, people are placated easily by the way things are. We're getting record low-turnouts for elections of all sorts, not just unions. That's a problem of ambivalence in our culture, and isn't singularily a union problem. It's hard to have a democracy when no one cares to vote in the first place; this being the main reason I enjoy coming here so much, occasionally there are people posting with enough passion and intelligence to make a difference. Questioning the motives of another website, however, is not conducive to ANYTHING.
quote:
posted by sleK:
There's a big difference between a dissenting opinion and idiocy. Continue with this idiocy and you'll face a ban again.
I rest my case. What in anything I've posted can be considered 'idiocy'? I'm not being insulting, as you just were. I'm pointing out the inherent hypocrisy, which, by your comments above, just go to prove my point. If we're going to attack a forum for not being open enough, maybe we should make sure the same problems don't exist here, no?
You expressed no opinion sweetie. You were spinning round and round in circles and we were getting tired of you.
What is workrights.ca's topic? Why would discussion of union democracy be prohibited on a site sponsored by the CLC? Come on, tell us.
quote:
Workrights.ca may well have a point in what they are doing.
That's the argument we are making. The site definitely has an agenda.
quote:
They are not a forum to discuss union democracy.
A site sponsored by the clc, for non-union workers does not permit democracy discussions? You'll have to explain that to me because I don't get it.
quote:
That is what this site is for...If you can't stay on topic, get out of the conversation.
No if you can't stay on topic start your own thread. No-one has been banned or deleted for straying off topic. But the posters in the thread might piss on you if ya do. I've been chastised a few times myself.
Staying on topic with an option to start your own thread and being deleted don't sound the same to me.
quote:
Questioning the motives of another website, however, is not conducive to ANYTHING.
I wasn't questioning their motives in my last post that they deleted. I was asking them to define a "personal agenda, rant, propaganda or dirty laundry". Why do you think they nuked that?
Do you think that if I asked a question about the benefits of LSIF's, they would have nuked that too?
Read the other thread. Everything is self evident there, including the subsequent removal of your ban once everything was cleared up.
Attacking us now for admitting our mistake and removing your ban is wholly stupid, hence the term "idiocy".
quote:
posted by remote viewer:
You expressed no opinion sweetie. You were spinning round and round in circles and we were getting tired of you.
I don't know how it's even POSSIBLE for you to say that I wasn't expressing an opinion. First I'm accused of being too rhetorical in my opinion, then I'm accused of not actually posting an opinion. After not having fact or opinion to post, what's left...Apple nipple monkey?
What is workrights.ca's topic? Why would discussion of union democracy be prohibited on a site sponsored by the CLC? Come on, tell us.[/QUOTE]
Workrights.ca's audience is, from what I can tell, a newly-introduced work force. It is a first step into a larger world where union and non-union work advice is readily available all in one place. For someone just out of college, it is a great resource for legal issues relating to work, as well as simple supplement for increasing the awareness of union benefits. Sooner or later, you're all going to get old and retire, a site like this is intended to ensure that the younger generations are prepared for the world that you are leaving them.
quote:
posted by siggy:
That's the argument we are making. The site definitely has an agenda.
Yes, everyone has an agenda. I don't see the problem in that.
quote:
A site sponsored by the clc, for non-union workers does not permit democracy discussions? You'll have to explain that to me because I don't get it.
It is a non-union workers rights informative site. If you are having problems with your current job, they provide advice on how to deal with it...in most cases, the best advice is to join a union where a collective of persons can battle more effectively for more rights. Bringing in the behind-the-scene politics of 'union democracy' as you trumpet it doesn't help these people. What don't you get about that?
quote:
No if you can't stay on topic start your own thread. No-one has been banned or deleted for straying off topic. But the posters in the thread might piss on you if ya do. I've been chastised a few times myself.
The website isn't made for that. If I want to talk about cars, I don't visit a gardening forum.
Hey Mr. Fired, what do you mean by "new audience"? The info on workrights is available on any govt site - what makes you think working women like me can't get it by going to a govt site? Why do we need the clc to tell us about the bullshit rights we have?
While I'm talking to you, are you saying I'm too dumb to talk about union democracy? Why shouldn't I know about union democracy? I'm not in a union right now but I was once and it was a bullshit union that did nothing for me or anyone. I'd like to know if there are better unions out there. So what's workrights.ca's beef with me finding out about that?
You sound like a real macho macho man to me Mr. F.
As a dues paying member, part of my money goes towards the CLC endeavours and I have a right to speak about its actions or lack of action.
On the other hand contributors do not pay for the operation of this website. This is an independent website not sponsored with union money.
There is no doubt that the actions of the site manger of workrights are exactly what this website fights against.
I am adhorred by the CLC's action to promote censorship.
quote:
posted by radical girl:
Hey Mr. Fired, what do you mean by "new audience"? The info on workrights is available on any govt site - what makes you think working women like me can't get it by going to a govt site? Why do we need the clc to tell us about the bullshit rights we have?
Because more often then not, gov't information like this isn't advertised as highly. This is a portal, it is a central repository for information, forums, links and the like. Is the problem now that there information already exists with the government and they're wasting resources duplicating it?
quote:
While I'm talking to you, are you saying I'm too dumb to talk about union democracy? Why shouldn't I know about union democracy? I'm not in a union right now but I was once and it was a bullshit union that did nothing for me or anyone. I'd like to know if there are better unions out there. So what's workrights.ca's beef with me finding out about that?
They don't have a beef, but discussing union democracy isn't in their scope, just like discussing the latest hockey game isn't in the scope of this website. If you want to talk about union democracy, this is a great place to do it...You don't need workrights.ca for that.
quote:
You sound like a real macho macho man to me Mr. F.
Why thank you
quote:
It is a non-union workers rights informative site. If you are having problems with your current job, they provide advice on how to deal with it...in most cases, the best advice is to join a union where a collective of persons can battle more effectively for more rights.
Well there you go! If part of the CLC workrights.ca's site is to promote union membership, then non-union workers in your new and not-so-well-informed (your inference not mine) audience have a right to know that there are many different kinds of unions. Some treat their members better than others. Some are more tolerant of dissenting views and diverse opinions than others. Some use different strategies in bargaining than others. Some have different philosophies than others. I would think that it would be highly relevant and quite important that these non-union workers be aware of all these differences so that they can make informed choices.
Not trying to be cute with you Mr. Fire but would you prefer that they make uninformed choices?
quote:
posted by sleK:
[QB]Read the other thread. Everything is self evident there, including the subsequent removal of your ban once everything was cleared up.
Attacking us now for admitting our mistake and removing your ban is wholly stupid, hence the term "idiocy".
Siggy doubted my banning, and I brought up the proof. I'm not attacking you for it, I'm showing the hypocrisy in rallying against a site for doing the same thing that was done here. It's as simple as that. There's nothing personal here, I'm back posting just as happy as ever.
quote:
I'm showing the hypocrisy in rallying against a site for doing the same thing that was done here.
What hypocrisy?
People get banned here for misbehaving and generally being disruptive.
Posts get deleted, the most active posts BTW, for not fitting in with the supposed "mission" of the CLC site.
I'm surprised that you can't, or refuse to, acknowledge such a simple distinction.
quote:
Well there you go! If part of the CLC workrights.ca's site is to promote union membership, then non-union workers in your new and not-so-well-informed (your inference not mine) audience have a right to know that there are many different kinds of unions.
They do, and there are many resources available for them to find this out. However, the workrights site isn't there to go into in-depth union politics, is it? If they started posting about Bro_Ken or the 'fat prick Sundin', then maybe I'd have to admit that their mandate is indeed similar to this one.
quote:
Some treat their members better than others. Some are more tolerant of dissenting views and diverse opinions than others. Some use different strategies in bargaining than others. Some have different philosophies than others. I would think that it would be highly relevant and quite important that these non-union workers be aware of all these differences so that they can make informed choices.
Yes, all unions are different. The problem is that the majority of what you just listed there is all subjective. It's still propaganda. If I want to know if I should buy a Ford or a Dodge, I don't ask Firestone tire buyers.
quote:
Not trying to be cute with you Mr. Fire but would you prefer that they make uninformed choices?
Don't worry, I'll never consider you cute
I want people to make choices, but I don't want a very vocal minority to influence their decisions in such a manner.
quote:
What hypocrisy?
People get banned here for misbehaving and generally being disruptive.
And I was neither and I got banned. Simple. I presented an unpopular opinion that lumped me in with Jackrabbit, and consequently got kicked out.
quote:
Posts get deleted, the most active posts BTW, for not fitting in with the supposed "mission" of the CLC site.
I'm surprised that you can't, or refuse to, acknowledge such a simple distinction.
Yep, and the analogy of the car posts to the gardening forum still stands.
quote:
An afterthought Mr. Fire: A British Empire loyalist in the 1700's might define the American Declaration of Independence as a "rant". Agree or disagree? Again, feel free to speak.
History is defined by the victor. Had the British won the War of Independance, it would have been classified as the rant of a desperate man.
quote:
I want people to make choices, but I don't want a very vocal minority to influence their decisions in such a manner.
Who are you to decide this for one, and secondly, why should all workers not have all pertinent information available to them so that they can make an educated and informed decision on their own.
quote:
And I was neither and I got banned. Simple. I presented an unpopular opinion that lumped me in with Jackrabbit, and consequently got kicked out.
Must we go over this again?
You acted in a behaviour very much like JR and posted from a similar IP. This was after JR was banned.
And if you haven't noticed, your permissions were re-instated. So, in any case, your entire point is moot.
quote:
posted by about unions:
quote:
I want people to make choices, but I don't want a very vocal minority to influence their decisions in such a manner.
Who are you to decide this for one, and secondly, why should all workers not have all pertinent information available to them so that they can make an educated and informed decision on their own.
1. I'm nobody.
2. Workers should have un-prejudiced access to all information. I would hardly consider this site unprejudiced. Is there any mainstream union actually supported by this site to the extent that every person here would be willing to say "Yes, you should definitely join that union!"?
quote:
Must we go over this again?
You acted in a behaviour very much like JR and posted from a similar IP. This was after JR was banned.
And if you haven't noticed, your permissions were re-instated. So, in any case, your entire point is moot.
Just like you have the ability to post to the workrights.ca forum, as long as you don't bring the politics of 'union democracy' or the lack thereof into it. If you want to post a response helping a newly employed person find a solution to their question about how many hours they get paid minimum for showing up at their job under the law, that would be more than welcome and probably encouraged by the administrators there.
quote:
I want people to make choices, but I don't want a very vocal minority to influence their decisions in such a manner.
Why are you so concerned about a "vocal minority"? What makes you think that proponents of union democracy are a minority? What evidence do you base this on?
quote:
History is defined by the victors.
Do you consider workrights.ca or the CLC to be victors? What have they won? Who have they conquered? If they have defined "personal agenda, rant, propaganda, dirty laundry" why don't they tell us their definition? Or maybe you can speak for them?
quote:
posted by remote viewer:
I want people to make choices, but I don't want a very vocal minority to influence their decisions in such a manner. Why are you so concerned about a "vocal minority"? What makes you think that proponents of union democracy are a minority? What evidence do you base this on?
I would consider the people that post here angrily to be a vocal minority compared to the hundreds of thousands of union members.
quote:
Do you consider workrights.ca or the CLC as a victor? What have they won? If they have defined "personal agenda, rant, propaganda, dirty laundry" why don't they tell us their definition? Or maybe you can speak for them?
I don't speak for anyone but myself. Every single person that posted there from this site knew what they were doing; they knew that they were baiting the administrators into answering questions that didn't pertain to that site. To claim ignorance now is, frankly, sad.
I have a question for Mr. Fire. I am a union member who filed several Health and Safety concerns with the last meeting being on Tuesday, December 17th, 2002. On Friday December 20th, 2002 I was suspended with no specific reason.
Now, what do you think will happen to non union workers who file complaints of any nature that do not have a union? What will happen to these members if you send them to government agencies?
What is workrights trying to do by telling workers to file their complaints? Does anyone think a fired worker will be anymore concerned about joining a union after they are fired.
If a respectable lawyer was giving the advice to the workers at workrights.ca I could respect the advice even if I disagree with the advice. However no one seemed to want to give any accreditation for the advice that was being given out.
In fact the disclaimer lets the site off the hook for any and all advice. Man, if any lawyer I have retained made such a disclaimer before we proceeded, I would be gone for safer ground.
quote:
but I don't want a very vocal minority to influence their decisions in such a manner.
I don't believe I have ever heard a more ignorant statement. Nothing pisses me off more than censorship, piousness runs a close second.
"Their decisions? Influence their decisions"?
Do you understand you are referring to intelligent working people and you are assuming we cannot make intelligent and informed decisions unless we are led in the right direction, in this case, the one set out in the workrights.ca agenda.
That is the very reason this movement is all but dead.
We are not a bunch of noob's. We can think and speak and decipher for ourselves. We do not need pious self serving individuals charting our course. So if you really care, get the hell out of the way and let the workers decide for themselves.
Oh and FYI: MFD has hockey too.
The mainstream media's silence on the demonstrations in Venezuela is deafening.
Talk about a vocal minority.
quote:
Tens of thousands of people took to the streets demanding the resignation of President Hugo Chavez on Sunday, the 28th day of a nationwide strike that has virtually halted oil exports and evaporated domestic gasoline supplies. Chavez refuse to go and insists the government is regaining control of the state oil monopoly, Petroleos de Venezuela, where most managers are on strike. He says he will use the protest to downsize the mammoth corporation and has already replaced many strikers. 'It's a struggle to save the country between us patriots and the traitors,' Chavez said during his weekly television show, held Sunday outside a gasoline distribution centre.
The friggin' country is shut down and, of course, the noisy minority are labelled 'traitors.'
Just ‘cause you don't agree, doesn't make you a traitor, and just because you won't listen doesn't make you right.
Here's a link to a site that tells about a vocal minority of "traitors."
quote:
I would consider the people that post here angrily to be a vocal minority compared to the hundreds of thousands of union members.
Goodness, what are the hundreds of thousands of union members saying? I can't hear them. Oh, that's because they're not permitted to speak in any of the mainstream venues.
The mainstream has precious little support from the hundred's of thousands from everything that I've read and heard. Even the pompous leaders grudgingly acknowledge that.
What makes you think our views are minority views? What research has led you to that conclusion.
workrights.ca
quote:
Welcome siggy
Show Topics All from the Last Week from the Two Weeks from the Last Month from the Last Two Months from the Last Six Months from the Year
Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
There are no messages posted in this forum in the last month
Geez and it just gets worse. Now the whole forum is gone.
If the administration of workers.ca is an example of higher learning out of Canadian Universities, gawd help our future.
quote:
The Workers' Forum is temporarily off line for technical upgrades. Current discussion treads will be preserved.
Please check back soon.
treads?
Is there some irony there?
Hmmmm. Ve moost schtop deese pipples frrrrum postink deese photograppphs off pipples ve arrh most worshippink off.
Ve moost be takink da photograppphs off za Eentreneet until ve be figure oot how to be fixing der vagons.
Baster blaten veesen kopshcmukcen!!!!!
It's called *byeposter* disease.
Puzzlement, anger, shock, dismay - I expressed all of those in a very constructive way but they still nuked my posts!
I have to say that I find that flashing animated forum thingy really annoying. It looks like a gatekeeper of some kind and the little "+" eyes give it a juvenile appearance (like something from a kids' story). Maybe it's the CLC's answer to Barney the purple dinosaur. Hey kids, it's Kenny the animated gatekeeper!
quote:
Kenny is a dinosaur from our imagination
When he's tall he's what we call
A dinosaur sensation
Kenny teaches lots of things
Like how to play pretend
A-B-C's and shut-up-please
And how to be his friend
Kenny comes to preach to us
Whenever we are bleedin'
Kenny can be your friend too
If you just make believe him
