Taking Back Our Unions & Engaging the Future
This past week has seen considerable discussion on our web site that goes right to the very heart of what we're about: how to help workers take back their unions and engage the future. A lot of questions have been asked and a wide range of views were expressed by our contributors:
- What is the extent of change that will be necessary to evolve really effective unions?
- Can this be accomplished within our existing unions or will new organizations need to be formed?
- Is the existence of highly democratic locals like UFCW Local 789 provide hope for those attempting to democratize large bureaucratic unions like the UFCW?
- Should reformers be looking to organizations like the IWW outside of the labour's mainstream for representation?
- Do "top down" models of organization the best option for reformers or does the "networked" union offer a better alternative?
- What should we reformers be communicating about with workers?
- Is all the talk about corruption overly negative? Are we discouraging workers from reforming unions or worse yet, discouraging them from joining unions?
In terms of the how to part of taking back our unions and engaging the future, we do not advocate any particular course of action. Union members themselves will be the ones to decide what is best for them and how best to achieve it. What is important to us is that they have as much information about what's going on and what options they have so that they can make informed choices. Likewise, it is also important that they have a venue for discussion where they decide how they want it to be and how best to get there. So how do we do that?
One forum contributor had this suggestion:
In my opinion you ought to consider three joint objectives:
- Expose the corruption and hypocrisy where it currently exists.
- Show them there's a better way. Propose some genuine, creative alternatives and means by which members can fight for change.
- Arm potentially sympathetic delegates with the info and tools they need to go inside and ask the tough questions of their leadership.
Sounds like a plan.
- Exposing the corruption and hypocrisy:
Exposure of corruption and hypocrisy on the part of unions and their officials has been a feature of much of the material on this site and that will undoubtedly continue as long as the information comes pouring in. So far there does not seem to be an end in sight. While it's true that we may risk alienating some in the mainstream movement where this subject is "not fit for polite company", avoiding the subject simply perpetuates the conditions under which corruption will continue to thrive. The prospect of exposure can go a long way towards discouraging corruption. Knowing what's really going on empowers workers. If they know what's happening they can object, they can demand changes and hold their officials accountable. Most importantly they can decide for themselves what is and is not acceptable behavior on the part of their officials and leaders.The facts are the facts and workers need to know them. So bring out your dirt - we'll continue to give it a public airing.
Having said that however, it's important that digging up dirt not be the only activity on this site. Heaping doses of disturbing news will not inspire anyone. As our contributor points out, we need to show that there is a better way.
- Propose some genuine and creative alternatives and means by which members can fight for change:
Our community is growing. Collectively we bring a lot to the table in terms of our knowledge of ways and means through which change can be effected. We need to share the wealth. We do not need to agree on which alternative or course of action is best. What is most important is that we talk about what the options are, what they involve and what results they may generate. Some examples from this week's discussions:- Are unions in need of reform or re-invention?
Should we use dialogue and constitutional and legal processes or is direct action a more effective option? The answers may vary depending on the workers, their unions and the nature of the change that they're trying to bring about. Do you bring the leaders to the table or turn the table over on them? Workers should know what each path involves and of the results that it may get them. Whether you are a reformer or revolutionary, tell us what you would do and how you would do it.It has been suggested that reformers make themselves heard at the upcoming CLC and UFCW Canadian Council Conventions, both taking place in June in Vancouver. Some contributors have been discussing a leafleting campaign. Others are talking about the possibility of a "virtual convention" where we simply invite union leaders to join us on the site to debate the issues and talk about democracy here in our venue (since they don't seem interested in discussing it in theirs). Suggestions for a leaflet? Suggested invitees for a virtual convention? Go here.
- Who should we be talking to?
Are we wasting our time and energy by appealing to the leaders of the mainstream? Should we be reaching out directly to workers themselves? Which group is more likely to be receptive to talk about union democracy? Which is more likely to have the power to make change happen? - Should the Internet be the primary medium for effecting change?
What are its advantages and limitations? Can it ever really replace the advantages of person-to-person contact? Can the two be used together, as components of a broad strategy to reach out to workers? How can the two be used in ways that complement each other? We need to talk more about this as both offer advantages that may work well in tandem. - What's the best structure?
The "top down" pyramid is the model of organization with which we are most familiar - it's the one employed by most businesses, institutions and unions. It's the one with the leader at the top and followers the rest of the way down. Is it the most appropriate model for activist organizations however? We've begun to discuss the "networked" organization and some of the advantages it may offer to unions and to groups of workers attempting to reform their unions. Do any of you have experience with networked organizations? What are the pros and cons? Should we be experimenting with networks to get a better idea of the advantages they may offer?
- Are unions in need of reform or re-invention?
- Arm potentially sympathetic delegates with the info and tools they need to go inside and ask the tough questions of their leadership.
What kind of information and tools do workers need? There is a lot to know and a lot that we can provide on this site, however, what would be most beneficial and how could we present it so that it is meaningful without being overwhelming?
Earlier this week, some of our forum contributors started posting links to union constitutions that are available on the Internet. There was considerable interest in compiling more of these as a resource for members. Know of a union constitution on the web? Post it!
We also had some discussion about labour relations concepts like innocent absenteeism. The workplace operates around a web of rules that affects workers in very significant ways yet many workers know very little about these and so are subject to manipulation by managers and union representatives alike. What else would workers benefit from knowing about? How should it be presented? What training or educational initiatives could be develop that might help empower workers?
Engaging the community & engaging the future
It is important that the broader community hear first hand from the community of workers about how it is and how it should be. We need to encourage workers to share their insights, views and experiences.
It's very important as we move forward with our important work that we draw workers into the discussion. Ultimately they will be the ones who will decide how it's going to be and they are the ones with the power to make it happen. In the weeks ahead, let's put this item high on our screen.