I know i've plugged this book before, but it does answer some of these problems by breaking down statistically how they can change. Paul Clark's book, Building More Effective Unions is a nugget rich in data regarding how we got here and what we need to do to get out.
The value of any analysis or criticism is eventually embedded in ones ability to arrive at solutions. Let me be more graphic, pissing and moaning does nothing, taking action is the only effective weapon of change.
BTW, it is a pathetic story of compromise, or better yet, capitulation.
Apathetic Members or Crapathetic Leaders?
Are Union Members Apathetic?
...Or Are Union Leaders Crapathetic?
Proponents of mainstream unionism seem increasingly inclined to suggest that union members have themselves to thank for the sad state of affairs in which they find themselves. Their standard of living continues to plummet as employers slash and burn and de-structure. Nobody's suggesting that that's the workers' fault but as their unions begin to come under scrutiny - from members and the public alike - for bargaining concessions with profitable employers who hardly need a break, talk of "apathetic" members is beginning to permeate the air.
"Don't blame us man", devoted mainstreamers say. "It's the members who agreed to those concessions. It's the members who voted for concessions. They're only getting what they wanted". The fact that it's the leaders who negotiated those concessions and, in many cases, encouraged the members to vote "yes" under conditions that would make it very tempting for the members to do so, isn't mentioned. The leaders' efforts, in fact, are hailed as heroic - great feats of bargaining for which the members should express their gratitude at the ballot box.
Low voter turnout at ratification votes is often advanced as an indicator that the vast majority of members are happy with the fruits of their leaders' efforts at the bargaining table or, alternatively, that the vast majority of members just really don't give a shit about their union, don't care enough to get involved and so deserve what they get. Is there merit to this or is it just more mainstream union purple haze (illusion)? The rest.
Another collaborative effort by AU & RV
posted by Bill Pearson
quote:
I know i've plugged this book before, but it does answer some of these problems by breaking down statistically how they can change. Paul Clark's book, Building More Effective Unions is a nugget rich in data regarding how we got here and what we need to do to get out.
The value of any analysis or criticism is eventually embedded in ones ability to arrive at solutions.
Bill Pearson:
What did Paul Clark write about making local unions more effective?
Before I spend money on yet another book which will probably collect dust I need more information.
Check this link,,I cant wait to buy the book.......
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/books/DeclineFallAmEmp.html
this one too---- http://www.theflashgames.com/homer_simpson_soundboard-swf.html
Love the sound board.
Here's the details on the book from Amazon CUPE_R.
It is technical to a fault, but it has precise suggestions to rebuild the movement.
Ok, hypothetically let's go with *apathetic membership* for arguments' sake.
Now let's make a list of machineheads and biz unions which have done absolutely nothing to address it, even tho *apathy* is widely understood, documented 'til hell wouldn't have it, and a main topic in every labour throne speech to be the leading cause of the labour movements' decline.
Either way you look at it, if the problem is member apathy, the "good guys" have not thrown one of our precious dues dollars towards addressing it and if it isn't member apathy they've thrown thousands at it trying to prove it is.
I agree, there is only one way out of this mess and that is for workers to take an active part in the future. To expect it to happen anytime soon, after being beaten to a pulp and while workers are struggling to keep alive under the concession gun is not realistic.
It was a long painful road to get where we are and now we have to find the way back, ourselves and we now know we have two enemies, the employer and biz unionism.
Come on quit beating workers up, we can barely stand after the assault, let alone run, we don't need any more blame laid on us, help us to our feet eh!
Thanks for coming thru with some resources Bill, I'll buy the book and see if we can use it so our members will tune in, turn on and act up.
quote:
However, union members - and working people all over the map - need to take responsibility for their own destiny. Only then will there be any true and empowering rebellion that serves workers' interests. Union members have tuned out the self-serving political rhetoric of their status quo oriented dues-collecting unions.
It's not only within their union affairs that they have given their powers away, but within the governmental, political realm as well. I know we outnumber the neocons, how do they rule over us so thoroughly?
Our interests have been diverted into crappy cultural icons or co-opted by a government media complex that reinforces ignorance. Add the piles of money that the companies can feed to both parties and you can see the mess that we have wrought. Ignorance seems to be a virtue in this country.
Hope springs eternal. In the lower 48 more and more people are rejecting both parties and registering as decline to state or third party.
As far as 'the good guys' spending money on increasing membership interest we have poured resources into efforts with little success. Maybe our strategies are poor and our outreach not well thought out. I would be interested in ideas in how to energize the membership. Even with all that is going on with the contract battles looming across the country, we get nothing, no interest.
One idea is to have food at every meeting. The thought is that food builds community. Community is necessary to build relationships that can effectively be built upon. One major roadblock is the extremely negative connotations about unions within the membership.
'What has the union done for me' is the attitude of all while they make $20.00 an hour hard cash with a defined pension plan, 100% medical and a host of benefits far out of reach of their peers in the industry. How do we change it to, 'how do I give these great benefits to other workers' instead of the me, me, me, I, I, I, brigade we now have.
quote:
One idea is to have food at every meeting. The thought is that food builds community.
Just don't have hotdogs, you'll end up with more of the same trouble as we're in now.
Who you be talking to unionnow, are you baiting traps or trying to help members get involved?
quote:
One major roadblock is the extremely negative connotations about unions within the membership.
It's negative because at this point *union* is negative, you reap what you sow. Those corrupt greedy buggers left a plague(acy) in their wake.
To admonish members because they are taking too long to get un_gun shy isn't helping. It's like yelling fire after the house burn'd down and blaming the firefighters for not getting there in time.
Hell you've not only got the past couple decades to de-skunk, you guys have to explain away the ufcw debacle in SoCal and make it look pretty... there best be steak and lobster UN!
"They" are responsible but so are we, the membership. In order to get the labour movement kick started it takes radicalism as history has shown.
Thinking outside the box, there can be no rules or playing fair.
What interests young people. They have the energy and are fearless.
A rap concert sponsired by the UFCW or the CAW.
donations to greenpeace might be apt, but get the young people to lead us and their ideas.
A presence on the University campus, not with the idea of bringing them "in" but allowing them to take control.
A UFCW office in a low income neighborhood where people could get their needs at a cut rate price, running foodbanks, that is where the rebirth will come from. From there you build resistance and civil disobedience and our goals will be achieved,
It cannot happen from where we are, it will be something new.
I have a question do not all effective movements have both radicals and moderates?
If you look at the civil rights work done in the U.S. you needed respectable members who can go before the nation and plea for equality and these were eventually accepted. If all people saw were angry militant black people you would have probably seen an almost out and out race war.
The same with the labour movemnt there needs to be activism but there also has to be a realization with out the corporations there would be no jobs and no jobs no labour movemnt.
Apathy is merely an excuse the officialdom uses to take the focus off themselves, IMHO. From what I have seen and heard, there are so many working people who currently view union dues more as just another tax which eats deeper into their already declining spending power. A tax which offers them very little benefit. Organized labor is in dire need of a new identity! New perspectives and ideas, which at first glance may seem "out there", might just work if they are given a fair trial!
What if instead of negotiating for better wages, and other workplace issues, workers began confronting businesses with a desire for more accountability in the upper sanctums of management? Why shouldn't the workers whose livelihoods depend so much on the corporate structure of a business, (their policies, attitudes, investments, etc.), take a more active interest in the decision making which is taking place in the boardrooms and stockholder meetings? Why don't the workers buy an interest in available stocks and place their voice and vote into the mix? Would this be more biz unionism practiced from a different perspective or would this more resemble a collective working towards accountability? An old addage comes to mind; "Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer!"
I remember when the fight began within the U.A. against the corruption and undemocratic practices, there were many of us who came to the realization, the only way to win the fight within the organization was to "become the organization". But the structures of our unions are so embedded with protocol, locked doors, closed mindedness, and they are so steeped with biz philosophy, that it's practically an impossibility for concerned members to change it from the inside. The officialdom is an infertile embryo which has surrounded itself with a buffering zone of drones to deflect any attacks from concerned members. As it exists today, and as I continue to witness their atrocities, I can't help but think there will be no rebirth from this existing structure and it's demise is imminent.
However, I really worry about the losses the working people will have to endure because of this and I wish there were a way to transition from the old into the new which would limit the harm to the people. I'm referring more to expected retirement and health benefits as well as wages and workplace issues. But if biz unionism continues in the direction it is going, it seems inevitable that the harm will still befall the workers. So we may as well get on with laying the foundation of the "new" worker's collective! We continue to build toolkits; our communities continue to grow and interact; all we need is a concerted effort it seems. The "Hub"?
quote:
The officialdom is an infertile embryo which has surrounded itself with a buffering zone of drones to deflect any attacks from concerned members. As it exists today, and as I continue to witness their atrocities, I can't help but think there will be no rebirth from this existing structure and it's demise is imminent.
That's a dynamite analogy L. I think we need to start talking about it (the current state of unionism) in these terms rather than continuing to characterize it as something that can be fixed or can be changed if only the members try hard enough or believe strongly enough or attend enough meetings. The big biz unions are beyond repair. It really doesn't matter how many meetings a UFCW member (for example) attends. There is no democratic process at those meetings through which members could effect the kinds of changes that are needed to democratize their union. And the legal battles that they'd have to fight in order to achieve a basic level of democratic governance within their union are way beyond their ability to finance. (And that's just in the US. In Canada, even legal battles would be futile as there is nothing in Canadian statutes that requires unions to be democratic anyway.)
I think an important first step is to send a message out to the community that different forms of unionism are possible, that different kinds of workplace relationships are possible, that corporations don't have some inalienable right to do whatever the hell they want and get away with it, that many different strategies and tactics can be employed to leverage workers' power (some traditional, some quite radical).
I have often thought back to the idea of the "hub". It's interesting how we always seem to come back to it in our discussions about the future. A hub for the promotion of empowering ideas, liberating discussion, the promotion of alternative concepts in workplace representation, workplace relationships (no, the employer-employee/master-servant model is not the only one that is possible), as well as alternative economic models could, I think, generate a lot of interest. As might the dissemination of information about the present LR system and how to protect yourself from it, even undermine it, disable it and replace it (assuming that it needs some sort of replacement). This would seem to me a worthwhile endeavour. In the least it might get people interested.
So is timing everything in life or what? Rather than praddle on to ourselves about the evils of biz unionism, lets actually start the education process in a bigger way. Read this and tell me what you think and how you want to proceed.
Siggy and i are talking, and it is true sync that Lic raises the question on the hub. Gotta start drawing it all together...even if it's just one person at a time.
quote:
Read this and tell me what you think and how you want to proceed.
Nice BP! I've saved your four part series in Word and have begun distributing it around! I thought you wouldn't mind!
An interesting read when you have the time: The Difference Between Mass and Class
Great find Lic. Great idea to clean up one's own back yard before trying to clean up others. The nerds have landed, notice there is no link and no author and how important is that in the final analysis?
quote:
Siggy and i are talking,
and it's almost my turn two.
This is hilarious and an amazing testament to the power of the net.
I was (am) going to post BP's article and it's only been hours since he begg'd to be on MFD front page 
but before I got to it, it's already around the world and being distributed.
Hilarious because for the first time the medium cannot catch up to the news!
Can I ask did anyone expect unions to turn out any differently then they did given the mentality that prevails alot of the time from the rank and file?
During the hay day of the eighties all everything was about was getting as much money and benefits as possible and there was plenty of it so that was one of the unions main jobs, and they were very successful.Then people wanted job security, unions had kept indivuals from being fired for unjust reasons, but this was not enough for some, they wanted to be able to make mistakes like come to work intoxicated or stoned, to be able to steal and vandalize at the workplace and never be fired and unions were successful in doing this.
When layoffs came it was those lowest in senority that were let go and unions did mind these kind of arrangements because there were enough dues paying members to let a few go, so the majority were kept happy
So all the unions were kept happy collecting their high wages and keping their jobs so the union leaders were free to do what they wanted as long as the masses were happy.No one stopped to question unions about expenditures then, or how people got the jobs they did as long as they were happy.
Then the nineties came and with it the recession people lost jobs unions lost dues and in order for unions to keep members and keep employers happy two tier wage contracts became huge and why should union leaders not think this was okay up til now senior members were okay with layoffs why not lower wages for new employees.It keeps senior members happy and brings in union dues at the same time.
See union leaders are like politicians you just have to keep the majority of the people happy not all the people happy, they actually take their lead from the membership if the members as a whole decide something is unfair then they as a whole can apply pressure to get the changes they want to a point. On issues such as wages companies dictate how much money they are willing to spend but then we as indivual consumers can also dictate how much money a comapny recieves from us in revenue, it is all one giant circle that is why indivual responsibility plays a major part of everything, you do not like the way let's say for instance loblaws treats you then shop some where else if enough people were to this and it were to co incide with pressure from unions to change then companies would listen.
Me and my generation inherieted this mess that greed left us and it is only through unity we will fix it.
I love the angry nerds! That's a real intruiging blueprint (I prefer that to "manifesto" - we might as well start experimenting with language).
This caught my attention particularly:
quote:
Self-activity is the reconstruction of the consciousness (wholeness) of one's individual life activity. The collective is what makes the reconstruction possible because it defines individuality not as a private experience but as a social relation. What is important to see is that work is the creating of conscious activity within the structure of the collective.
I have often thought that the corporate conception of human beings imposes on us a one dimensionality: We are labourers and consumers and beyond that, there is nothing else to us - nothing that matters. This message - according to the corporate mythology this programmed into us in pretty much our every waking moment. It is a message that is reinforced by the biz unions. Do your job, don't ask questions, keep your head down, management has the right to manage, the company doesn't pay you to think, work hard and you'll get ahead, arbeit macht frei...and so on.
This is why those of us who care to think about things that go beyond how we can make more dollars and how to spend them are so frequently the subject of derision by the corporate masters and their union appendages.
In another forum thread, our guest from Local 1000a articulates the biz unionist-corporatist conception of working people when he says:
quote:
What happens if during this discussion many persons state they are happy with whatever aslong as they get to collect a paycheck that enables them to feed clothe and shelter themselves and their famalies will that be okay?
This conception of humans who work for a living is lock-step with one that was articulated by his local president several years ago when he said (words to the effect that): The UFCW doesn't believe that the members really want to get involved in activism or politics. They're not into complicated things like that. Mostly they just want to get a pay cheque and earn as much money as they can so that they can have a lot of stuff. The "so that they can have a lot of stuff" is a direct quote.
If you notice, statements made by various biz union cheerleaders in our forum echo this conception of the working person as not-too-intelligent-working-stiff who just wants to get a pay cheque and buy a lot of stuff.
That's a conception of working people that I believe is rife throughout the mainstream labour movement and it's one that needs to be exploded. I doubt that many people perceive themselves this way. There is a whole dimension of our humanity that is ignored by this conception. At best, that dimension (the part of us that thinks, has ideas, searches out and does things that give our lives meaning, does things for the betterment of the collective rather than soley for oneself) is something that [imay[/i] be explored in the few hours (maybe minutes) that are left in the day after work, shopping, TV, entertainment and other distractions are attended to. Obviously, this does not provide anyone with sufficent time to be human or to find meaning in life.
I sometimes wonder to what extent the stress, dissatisfaction, interpersonal conflict, domestic violence, substance abuse, mental illness and like problems that plague our community are attributable at least in part to this truncation of our humanity. I do not think that anyone can expect to do the things that promote our evolution as human beings in a few minutes in between work and shopping. Nor can we expect that we will find the meaning in our lives by limiting our interaction with others to the small circles of "others" in our immediate vicinity at work or in our nuclear families.
As things stand right now, our employers (and their union tools) play an inordinately large role in shaping our identities. We are labelled "working stiff" - blue collar, white collar, rank and filer, supervisor, bargaining unit employee, management, public sector, private sector, skilled, unskilled, part time, full time, high paid, low income, casual....and on it goes.
Where we fall into this taxonomy of working stiffs, determines how we should spend our time and who we should fraternize with. Most of us do as expected.
We need to become aware of how this labelling and sorting is affecting our thinking. Our work cannot continue to define who we are, how we see ourselves, what we think and how we spend our time. Our conception of ourselves must change - from a bunch of dummies who just want to have a bunch of stuff to whatever it is that we really are. Our conception of "work" must change to something that complements that.
We should talk to people about this. I think it may provide a foundation for our evolution. Maybe we should start calling ourselves something other than "worker" or "labour". It seems to me that this might be one of the barriers to that evolution. If a person does not particularly feel empowered by his or her "work", does not like what they do for a living, or feels dehumanized by it, are we not reinforcing the less-than-human identity by calling them that?
Some further thoughts for you all.
Hey, Fed Up, the UFCW didn't lose dues. It has such an unfair dues structure that it actually made money. When you agree to turn one full-time job into three part-time jobs the dues almost tripple.
An Alberta judge, ruling on a human-rights case, made note of that fact when he slammed the UFCW for screwing disabled members.
BTW, the recession had little if any impact on the retail grocery industry. The UFCW's partners have been making money hand over fist for decades. Meanwhile, we have seen the UFCW agree to two-tier contracts and we've seen start rates drop by up to $4 an hour in the past 20 years.
Twenty years ago, a clerk in BC would start at $12 an hour and would progress to close to $18 in 12 months. Today, a clerk starts at around $8 and it will take him or her about eight to 10 years to hit top rate of just over $21 an hour. Rest assured, few will last long enough to reach top.
Meanwhile, the UFCW's dues keep going up and up.
That wouldn't happen in most unions because they peg their dues at a percentage of an employees gross. For exampel some unions charge two hours pay per month. If that union is having trouble operating, it has a lot of incentive to get those hourly rates up. Higher rates mean more dues.
The UFCW actually can make more by agreeing to split full-time jobs. Likewise, they couldn't give a crap how much anyone makes an hour because the dues aren't tagged to your hourly rate.
Oh and as for your comment:
quote:
Me and my generation inherieted this mess that greed left us and it is only through unity we will fix it.
You will never fix anything in the UFCW because the fat pricks running the show have crafted by-laws and a Constitution that prevent any semblance of democracy within the stinking UFCW.
The fat-assed presidents hold all power, and the International has a constitution that keeps them insulated from members who might try to exercise democracy.
Well I can see with all your name calling you are very objrctive and very aware of the coming changes.
$21 an hour for a clerk, a manager in a non union retail store would love to see that kind of money. I made min wage 2 years in retail like most people who work in retail.
You guys (all the Fed Ups) know full well. The $21 per hours isn't real. The $8 per hour is real. The top rates are for show.
It's pretty obvious that the UFCW machine heads have drilled it in to your heads that top rates aren't good for the employer.
BTW, the retail rates were based on the top rates for distribution in BC. Now they are down to minimum wage with lots of part timers working in the warehouse.
There used to be a reasonable argument for some part-timers in retail. That being that customer ebs and flows dictated the need to staff up for the few hours per day when customer visits increased.
There is no such argument for distribution except to keep the bargaining unit weak. A weak bargaining unit works well for the employers and it works well for the UFCW.
Top rates are for show that is funny there are a few that post here who recieving top rate. Part time is a fact of life out here A&P have the caw and they have the same thing in fact if you read one post and average it out 75% of the weekend staff in one dist. centre is part time.
And as far as waiting for top rate can someone please tell me the cost and time it takes to get the necassary skills for these jobs
teacher
lawyer
doctor
mechanic
plumber
dentist
plumber
HAVE A NICE DAY 
What makes a machine head worth $145 thousand a year, if a clerk isn't worth $40 thousand? BTW, teachers make a hell of a lot more than a grocery clerk.
Come on answer the question, how long and how much for those professions
RV ,does contributer sound better than employee?
bb - yes, contributor is a much better descriptor of working people. We contribute to so many things - and our contributions are necessary to so many things! Great idea. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Maybe in our posts we should try using the word "contributor" where we would normally use the word "worker" (or maybe "workplace contributor"?), union-represented contributor instead of union member, or any other alternative descriptors that we'd like to try out - to see how they feel. I'm going to try it.
On a different front: weiser, I thought that in a lot of UFCW joints there were a handful of these big buck jobs but these were usually held by machine heads-in-training? You know, guys who are on the fast track to the union office. Would that be right?
quote:
Who you be talking to unionnow, are you baiting traps or trying to help members get involved?
Not sure what you mean by "baiting traps", just trying them to help out with some projects with what was going on down in Southern California as a way to show support and solidarity.
Steak and Lobster is in order, unfortunately, that is reserved for the UFCW leadership!
quote:
there were many of us who came to the realization, the only way to win the fight within the organization was to "become the organization". But the structures of our unions are so embedded with protocol, locked doors, closed mindedness, and they are so steeped with biz philosophy, that it's practically an impossibility for concerned members to change it from the inside.
A nice touch and very true on our part but we have learned to treat the UFCW as irrelevant. Don't ask them for help, don't depend on them for anything. Just send them their per capita every month and act like they don't exist.
Our demise is inevitable under the current model, no doubt.
quote:
You will never fix anything in the UFCW because the fat pricks running the show have crafted by-laws and a Constitution that prevent any semblance of democracy within the stinking UFCW.
The fat-assed presidents hold all power, and the International has a constitution that keeps them insulated from members who might try to exercise democracy.
True, but a TDU like orgainization can be built within the UFCW if for nothing else just to shake their tree on the way down. I might take a class on grant writing and try to come up with some money. Been thinking about it for a while.
The TDU made some pretty good gains against an organization that was run by a killing machine far more powerful than the UFCW could ever hope to be.
quote:
posted by Fed Up:
And as far as waiting for top rate can someone please tell me the cost and time it takes to get the necassary skills for these jobs
lawyer
plumber
plumber
HAVE A NICE DAY
A lawyer, 25 years ago - last year of university
$10,000. That does not include any accomodation, food, etc. Education - 12 years + 7 university + 1 of articling. Continues, the government changes rules and regulations, updating is necessary.
The plumber, from my knowledge - not that I am a resident expert - by no means ~ seems to me the education is continual.
I noticed you posted 'plumber' twice. I trust you understand the plumber can receive 'double bubble'.
The lawyer receives no overtime, no double bubble. However, if you ever have the need for the expertise of a lawyer, be prepared...they will take any stash of double bubble that the plumber, the letter carrier, or the warehouse person, etc., has.
You too - have a very nice day,
Hope the sun comes your way.
posted by weiser
quote:
Hey, Fed Up, the UFCW didn't lose dues. It has such an unfair dues structure that it actually made money. When you agree to turn one full-time job into three part-time jobs the dues almost tripple.
That wouldn't happen in most unions because they peg their dues at a percentage of an employees gross. For exampel some unions charge two hours pay per month. If that union is having trouble operating, it has a lot of incentive to get those hourly rates up. Higher rates mean more dues.
The UFCW actually can make more by agreeing to split full-time jobs.
weiser:
Couldn't the CAW do the same thing?
Wouldn't a CAW member who works 10 hours a week, dues be a much greater % of their gross pay than a CAW member who works 40 hours a week?
CAW Constitution
Article 17
Initiation Fees and Dues
Section 2 (b)
Members who work 40 hours or more a month
2 hours and 20 minutes straight time.
The answer is yes to an extent.
If a work month is about 160 hours, and if the CAW allowed a full-time job to be split in four, the CAW would get four times the dues compared to one full time person doing the job. Thats a rip off.
The big difference between the UFCW and the CAW would be the fact that all CAW members pay the same percentage. In the UFCW with fixed dollar amounts, the lower-paid can wind up paying a much higher percentage than the higher paid.
For example, $40 per month UFCW dues for someone who makes $20 per hour is two hours pay. The $40 for a UFCW member who makes $8 an hour is five hours pay.
Many unions charge a straight percentage of earnings with a minimum. A union with dues of 1.5% would charge a full-time member who makes $20 per hour about $52 per month. A full-time member making $8 would pay dues of $20.80 per month.
Is it about dues dollars? Of course it is - this theme is consistent throughout the new era (the last 15 years) of unionism. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
"Voluntary Recognition" is just another way for union leaders to by-pass the membership and democratic process in their drive to maximize incoming revenue.
Take the Overwaitea Food Group's Loman warehouse battle in British Columbia in 2002 & 2003. Those workers encountered more obstacles from UFCW 1518's Brooke Sundin and Ivan Limpright than from the employer. When the retail deal was done the reason seemed clear - voluntary rec for 1518 at any new or revamped stores.
Out here in BC many UFCW members call Brooke and Ivan "salesmen". They have sold just about everything there is to sell except their own cushy jobs. What will they have to sell now that there is very little left? How far will it all sink?
What a great strategy - give the workers every reason to pay no attention to unionism and then call them apathetic.
Are Union members apathetic?
First time posting, but regularly enjoy the site.
I'm not very proficient computer wise as well. So I apologize for not being able to do lots computer wise.
I believe apathy is a huge issue at all levels when it comes to organizations be it service clubs, community and minor sports leagues or other types of organizations including unions.
Apathy can and often is a major factor at all levels of unions from my experience. However, I believe many people in leadership roles use it wrongly as an excuse, rather than as something to build around to attempt to encourage involvement. It can be really easy to do little and blame apathy to cover for your own inaction as an elected official of any union or local.
I think Unions need to try to ensure they're increasing the convenience of where union meetings are held for members to attend.
If a local or other named group of members meets once a year with a standard agenda and reports on the last year's meetings minutes, members shouldn't be blamed for apathy. They rightfully deserve better meetings.
I think unions need to try to have common meetings where possible, worksite meetings; and I believe food (although often used as a bribe) can get people out to meetings, as opposed to no food.
I also believe that elected leaders should meet with members whenever possible and concentrate on issues that will help directly oppose apathy, if union leaders aren't meeting with members, leaders should expect only increased apathy.
I believe it's important leaders post meetings and travels on their Union's website and report them to Convention and to members through their websites, its crucial elected officials spend more time meeting with their members and those who effect these members' jobs and communities than simply meeting with other people who share their views.
Unions need to increase concentration on helping members get involved in the union. With an aging unionized workforce and too often a lack of new members actively taking part. It's a formula for a bleak future if Unions don't act on the need to change and not just speak about it again and again and again. Apathy will grow and it will be the fault of leaders who have not worked to change the status quo to encourage involvement.
The great problem with this of course is simple, human nature doesn't easily accept change if they're elected from a political structure that promoted 'the present'.
I think things like the internet and e-mail newsletters promote huge opportunities for involvement. However, noting is more effective than people meeting together on important issues such as bargaining.
Again, thanks to everyone who maintains this site.
I think I recognize some of the 'attack MFD' posters from similar e-mails I've received in my job here.
Quote by DanMac - AUPE:
quote:
Apathy can and often is a major factor at all levels of unions from my experience. However, I believe many people in leadership roles use it wrongly as an excuse, rather than as something to build around to attempt to encourage involvement. It can be really easy to do little and blame apathy to cover for your own inaction as an elected official of any union or local.
I agree. I also believe some union leaders want their members to be apathetic - that way they can rule the roost with little opposition. Democracy has little meaning to many people in leadership roles.
I belong the the IWA, Local 1-85 in Port Alberni, on Vancouver Island. In our local, if someone dares to question and/or oppose the leadership's ways they may receive a response something like this: "Do you want a fuckin' fight, I love a fuckin' fight..."
After hearing a response like this, one or two times, you stop participating. Unfortunately, that is exactly what our leadership wants - that way they can maintain control.
Hi Dan, welcome a_board 
quote:
I'm not very proficient computer wise as well. So I apologize for not being able to do lots computer wise.
If you need help just ask, MFD has a sleK.
UFCW 1518 local's meetings resemble the "once a year with a standard agenda and reports on the last year's meetings minutes,".
It can be argued that the GMM meeting places are central to large numbers of members (and it often is) but without using an abacus, I can safely say that it does not accommodate many members.
One GMM a yr, held where "the majority of the majority" would still have to travel one hr there and one hour back to attend a 2 hour meeting, taken up by standard agendas and winded 'splains really doesn't meet any solidarity logic, IMO.
quote:
Apathy will grow and it will be the fault of leaders who have not worked to change the status quo to encourage involvement.
In B.C retail alone we are swamped by two tier agreements, what that means is, new hires have full knowledge of the concessions and they've ended up on the bottom of the heap.
They really don't want to be union, they've been given no reason to want to and every reason not to want to.
At this point I doubt a formal admission of fault framed in gold nor local leader resignations by the truckload would alter the overwhelming 'apathy" on the members' end.
I have to disagree Siggy, never under estimate the human spirit.
A savy union Leader can/should create an issue and rally the troops.
Give them/us something to fight for and things can change.
quote:
I have to disagree Siggy, never under estimate the human spirit.
A savy union Leader can/should create an issue and rally the troops.
Give them/us something to fight for and things can change
Oh I wasn't saying it c/wouldn't happen, it already is, but it isn't going to be some miracle from the existing biz u models, it will be because workers are seeking and creating alternatives.
Welcome Dan! I hung around for a long time myself before I actually began posting. And there is no need to apologize for lack of computer skills. My fingers and hands are much more accustomed to wrenches than they are this keyboard! That's not what this is all about anyhow! It's the willingness to take that first step and begin communication that's so important.
There is power in sharing thoughts and ideas within a community. The diversity everyone brings to the forums is invaluable and I never realized there were so many people more intelligent than myself! I keep hoping that if I hang around, some of it will rub off on me! You know what they say, "A day you learn something is a day you haven't wasted!"
Our local's once a year meetings are severely inadequate and in no way promote activism. Our monthly newsletters are approximately six weeks behind, and except for looking through the pictures to see if you recognize someone, it's otherwise useless IMHO. Something as simple as an on-line chatroom, discussion board, or list-server would be an asset to any local but I've been preaching and waiting for almost five years now and have yet to see it happen.
Our president and BM did sign up at our bulletin board and our prez did post a couple of times, but the heat was too intense and he decided he didn't have to take that kind of abuse from such a small percentage of the membership!
Again, welcome and thanks for taking that initial step!
quote:
If you need help just ask, MFD has a sleK.
Hey DanMac have you figured out what a slek is? 
You all make very good points...sooooo how can the structure or the current political union scene be changed? How do you change the leadership?
quote:
Hey DanMac have you figured out what a slek is?
o.0
quote:
Hey DanMac have you figured out what a slek is?
It's the Sanctioned Legitimate Edition of Kelsey!
quote:
If you need help just ask, MFD has a slek.
quote:
It's the Sanctioned Legitimate Edition of Kelsey!
Hey Dannymac!!!! come back and play.