AFL-CIO revamps web site, improvements largely cosmetic
The AFL-CIO has revamped its web site in time for the upcoming convention. Anyone expecting an embrace of new and interactive web technologies by America's largest federation of unions will be disappointed, however. Amazingly, the site still lacks an RSS feed for news. It also lacks a feature for facilitating any kind of two-way, online dialogue. One interesting change is that President John Sweeney has a column featured on the front page. You might be tempted to call it a blog, however, it lacks any blog features and its tone does not have the breezy, personal feel that characterizes the blog genre of writing.
But the new site definitely has a cleaner, fresher feel to it. The colors are brighter and the graphics are a bit crisper and warmer. However, what I'd say is a design mistake is that the site, particularly the front page, is formatted to fit screens with a resolution of 1024x768 or larger. While newer computer and monitors can meet this requirement, users with older computers, not so old laptops, and small resolution display settings, will have a frustrating experience having to scroll horizontally to see content in the far right column.
Probably the best improvement, at least for policy wonks and activists, is the new "Legislative Alert Center" which shows which issues are up and coming in Congress. (If only they'd turn that into an RSS feed it might see more use.) Other changes of note: The AFL-CIO has added a site guide targeting different kinds of users at the bottom of each page including one for "People of Faith." Presumably, this is to help counteract the deleterious effects of the culture wars on the labor movement. The site also spotlights guest columnists with current offering from writer Studs Terkel and Greg Spotts, the independent filmmaker. I read this as an appeal to progressives in the crowd who don't necessarily belong to a union but whose interests are aligned with labor's cause. The new site has a more consumer-oriented feel with prominent links to union-made merchandise and tools for activists. Finally, they have made it easier to look up the AFL-CIO's position and statistics on a number of issues important to many working Americans on the "Facts and Stats" page, http://www.aflcio.org/issues/factsstats/.
On the whole, the site is an improvement, but far from earth-shattering. Let's hope more changes are in the works.
- Steve Dondley's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 861 reads
No Surprise Here
I have to say that this is hardly surprising in the least. All of the features that Steve mentions that are unused by the AFL-CIO on its central website are tools that enable, nurture, and empower rank & file democracy and dissent. None of these things are acceptable to the AFL-CIO bureaucrats.
The leadership of the AFL-CIO's definition of democracy and my definition of democracy are too different things. The AFL-CIO bureaucracy wants their rank & file members to be actively electing Democratic Party politicians and paying dues into the AFL-CIO machine. The Bureaucrats, many of whom make six-figure salaries want things to stay that way.
Rank & File control of unions, actively fighting back against the employing class in the class war, campaigning for political parties other than the Democrats (or Republicans), and openly taking an anti-capitalist position, all of which are likely to occur is the AFL-CIO were to actually open its website to its members like the IWW has just done or like various Indymedia sites do, are all scenarios that are simply beyond the comprehension of the elite class that rules the AFL-CIO.
It's never going to happen without rank & file revolt.
The chages that the AFL-CIO has made to their site are largely cosmetic, because their grasp of what ails wht working class in America are equally shallow.
Not so sure it's all about silencing dissent
My guess, and this is only a guess, is that the AFL-CIO would like to have dialogue on their site but they are unsure about how to handle kooks, loudmouths, and trolls. In general, I feel the folks at the AFL-CIO would love to have debate and criticism as long as it was constructive. But I think they might be struggling with how to pull that off on the web. The AFL-CIO did recently allow people to post ideas to the site after they were screened. It wasn't quite two-way dialogue but at least it was one and a half. Though it's hard to say whether it was a genuine effort to listen or whether it was done in response to the pressure they felt by Stern & Co.
As you have mentioned before, the IWW site struggles with two-way dialogue, too. You guys have handled it by restricting access to members only. But the AFL-CIO doesn't directly represent members or workers directly so it's a little trickier for them.
But if the National Association of Manufacturers have found a way to run a blog and permit dialogue, I see absolutely no reason why the AFL-CIO can't do the same.
Gimme a break
Come on Steve, lets try and be a little more objective. This quote is far more revealing than maybe you wanted it to be: "My guess, and this is only a guess, is that the AFL-CIO would like to have dialogue on their site but they are unsure about how to handle kooks, loudmouths, and trolls."
When you use the net, open your site to people and ask them to participate, you get a mixed bag of human frailities and opinions. Is that a bad thing? Only if your ultimate end is to CONTROL the discussion IMHO. The reality is, if you truly want people to be involved and engaged, you take the good with the bad.
If you want an example, look at this site. You have had a number of folks sign on. That's good. You also have failed to inspire much in the way of open and honest communication. I know you have to be asking yourself why?
Frankly, i have found that when or if i limited discussions to things i wanted or was comfortable with, it was hard (maybe impossible) to grow the community. If you are the only one stoking the fire, it will quickly go out.
The net is a catch twentywhatever. I can see a good moderator trying to keep the threads on topic, but if you do it at the price of limiting participation, what have you gained? Before you get all blustery about this being a personal attack, don't. Every interactive site has experienced the dilemma of how to deal with "kooks, loudmouths and trolls." Unfortunately, one mans loudmouth just might be another man's MLK.
AND, i have to say, if the AFL-CIO really wanted to put up an interactive site, they could have in the blink of an eye. IT'S all about control...but that's just one loudmouths opinion.
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
How about Studs?
I just checked out the new AFL-CIO digs and was less impressed than I expected to be (considering the politics at stake). I did find myself thinking, though: "Wouldn't a blog by Studs Terkel be a stupendous transcending moment in technology history?"
Not so black and white
There's many problems with just opening the doors and letting people post whatever they want on the AFL-CIO's site. Here's one example: let's say you get a IAM member who doesn't like his International and starts posting every day about how undemocratic his union is and how Buffenbarger needs to be fired. Whether what he says is true or not is immaterial for the sake of discusssion. This is just a hypothetical.
Then along comes Tom Buffenbarger looking through the site. He sees this guy bad mouthing the hell out of IAM. What do you think he's going to do? Do you think he's going to say "Well, that's democracy for you" or do you think he's probably going to get on the horn immediately and tell Sweeney to "take that garbage off your site, now!" And you know it wouldn't just be Buffenbarger hollering at Sweeney, hd'd have half the other International presidents banging on his door, too.
Do you really think it would be politically possible for the AFL-CIO to just throw open the doors and let everyone just go on about why they think this or that union sucks? Let's be realistic, Bill.
If they AFL-CIO allowed two-way dialogue, they would be forced to moderate and screen comments.
As far as this site and it's off-topic policy goes, well, you've always had the ability to discuss and debate the policy. I haven't heard a thing from you though, until now.
Censorship
As a communication "expert," you know one of the worst things you can do is censor people. It stifles discussion and destroys having open and honest dialogue. That's all fine if the goal is control.
As far as the AFL-CIO opening their doors, the one thing we know for sure is: Keeping them closed and a fence around members has netted nothing in the way of growth. God forbid we should take a chance and try and engage people.
While you may not like them, the folks at MFD have done a marvelous job of allowing open posting but with well written guidelines that are enforced. They have good moderators who keep the personal attacks at a minimum and the threads on topic. It's not impossible, but it does work.
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
Keeping people on topic isn't censorship it's "editing"
There's a huge difference, Bill. You should know that.
If someone starts writing about their pet dog Ralph on this site, do you really think others want to hear that? Do you think that has a place on this site? Is it censorship if I delete a post about someone's pet dog? When I pick up Car & Driver magazine, I expect to get information about automobiles, not knitting or any other topic. It's the job of an editor to select material they think their readership is interested in. And it's the job of the moderators (right now, that's me) of this site to keep a web site that has information that readers expect to see. My policy is that people can say whatever they want on this site as long as it is directly related to the topic at hand: the labor movement and its application of Internet technology to communicate its message, mobilize members, and organize workers. Now if I started deleting posts from people that did deal directly with this topic, that would certainly be censorship.
Getting back to the topic on hand, you neatly sidestep how the AFL-CIO could get around the problem I mention above. If you were Sweeney, would you allow criticism of affiliated unions? Honestly, if Sweeney permitted that, do you really think he could survive politically?
Honestly...
Sweeney shouldn't survive politically. His record is abysmal. But that's the biz union model...accountability is non existent. It's why the boys won't use the net: It's way too revealing for them.
There are all kinds of allegations of reform sites posting lies. See, the shits is, the truth is far more damaging than any lies i could make up. Let's look at the ULLICO scandal and how it was brushed aside. Plain and simple, guys making a ton of money were willing to compromise everything we should stand for while lining their own pockets.
There are all kinds of stories like this. While i can dispel the handful of crooks and scoundrels as being in the minority, there are bushelbaskets more who have used the labor movement as their own little fiefdom. It's criminal...or at least it should be.
You can work your butt off trying to build this site, but it will never work if you filter, edit or censor what is said. The minute you do that you will lose all sense of credibility. If you don't have those kinds of tools in place, the powers that be will never participate. There are way too many skeletons in their closets.
These aren't personal attacks BTW, having been doing this for a few years, i have wrestled with all of the above a hundred times. It's just the reality of working in a political and institutionalized setting like organized labor. The one reason we had any success at all was because we simply said screw it and opened it without regard to the politics or whether we were liked or not. Our goal was to appeal to workers, not leaders.
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
My points are still unaddressed
Forget Sweeney. Let's say YOU are the head of the AFL-CIO. Do you think you would actually survive for long if you allowed the general public to post negatively about affiliate unions?
And you fail to acknowledge my point that editing is not censorship. It's as if you didn't even read my post. That makes it tough for us to have real discussion.
Editing can be censorship
In the mid nineties, i became a member of the ILCA. I went to the Meaney Center and took Louise Walsh's class on doing local newspapers. I went to the convention for the ILCA. I had benefit of listening and learning from some very smart folks.
I also had some ideas based on what members had been saying to me for 20 plus years. They wanted honesty, candor and articles that were more than "house organs" (my words not theirs). I was the secretary treasurer, and had just become the editor of the paper; as well as a hundred other things.
I wrote a number of straight forward articles. Powerful pieces that weren't necessarily the spin doctoring members and others were used to reading. My boss at the time got a call from the International. They had read the paper and immediately suggested he "edit" my articles.
Nope, he didn't have the courage to discuss it with me, he simply cut parts of the next paper right before it went to press (was that editing or censorship?). Suffice to say, it didn't sit well with me. In fact, i told him he could do the whole thing himself if he was going to touch my work.
Two years later i ran against him and beat him easily. The members wanted honesty. They wanted leadership that listened and didn't pandor to the boys. They wanted to know what was going on, not being told what the leadership wanted them to hear. We began to make a difference and create a bottom up importance in our structure.
See, your question is stuck in the framework of the tired old system we are all trapped in. You are used to doing business in a way that has to placate the people in power first and the members second. Unfortunately, that system is backwards.
Of course the AFL-CIO has different politics. That said, virtually every interactive website has posting guidelines that posters agree to. Good moderators are able to work with them to insure they are followed. I've seen stern warnings; i've seen posters banned; i've seen posts deleted. Virtually all of them have been a result of outlandish violations of those guidelines. Seems to me an organization of the size of the AFL-CIO has the capacity to find moderators as qualified as those sites where volunteers are doing a damn good job...and not restricting good, open discussion.
Guess we'll just have to disagree. IMHO, the AFL-CIO has no interest in using the net in the ways it could be used...and i do think it is nothing more than control.
BTW, you ignored my point on the boys with their face in the trough and having to face the exposure of their actions. One other thing, i was re-elected several times, inspite of being willing to let people come on line and say whatever they wanted to say, and always telling members to run against me if they wanted.
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
You're not an easy guy to debate
Bill, again, you sidestep my questions by opening up new points and going off topic with stories that aren't really relevant. I'll repeat my questions with the hope you will answer them more directly:
Let's say YOU are the head of the AFL-CIO. Do you think you would actually survive for long as president if you allowed the general public to post negatively about affiliate unions?
And now this question about editing vs. censorship:
If someone starts writing about their pet dog Ralph on this site, do you really think others want to hear that? Do you think that has a place on this site? Is it censorship if I delete a post about someone's pet dog?
in defense of Ralph
On the pet dog question - are blog postings already being manually screened for inclusion in the site RSS feed? If so, maybe there's no need to delete off-topic blog posts?
Reason for deletion
The reason I delete them is not so that they won't clutter up the RSS feed but because I don't want them cluttering up the site. If you came here and found that 50% of the posts were about the AFL-CIO split, you'd be pretty frustrated if you came here to "discuss and developing solutions that allow unions to realize the full potential of Internet technology."
I know from personal experience that I get very frustrated when posters and commenters don't stick to the topic at hand and just wander off on some weird tangent. It really detracts from the quality of the site.
I want this site to attract people who come here for a purpose, not just to socialize and gab about whatever thought happens to be on their mind. There are plenty of other boards out there for that.
By deleting off-topic posts (after 24 hours of warning and allowing for due process), I want to send a message that "Hey, we're here to work and discuss important things here."
CHECK OUT THE SEIU's UNITE TO WIN SITE
Andy Stern set up this site to discuss the need for change within the labor movement and I'm willing to bet at least 75% of the participants post anti Andy Stern comments.
It's discouraging at times to see how many people are in such a negative frame of mind relating to the labor movement. I think it does however provide an accurate picture of the state of affairs within the labor movement, and that is; most union members are completely alienated from organized labor and if we (the labor movement) ever expect to lead the workers of America, we have to first realize our disconnect from the workforce and than develop effective strategies to overcome the current state of affairs.
Let them speak!!!
John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C
++++BOYCOTT GALLO++++
Yes, but Stern's job isn't at risk
That's the difference. Stern answers to no one. He can do anything he wants with his blog. Sweeney answers to 56 other affiliates. Sweeney is in no political position to just let the floodgates open and let people post what they may. He would have to get the clearance of each affiliates first and that's not likely to happen.
Again we disagree
Actually Steve i did answer your question, you just didn't like the answer. Sweeney or anyone else running the AFL-CIO has the ability to run an interactive site with reasonable guidelines and moderators who are capable of dealing with difficult people. It's done all the time on sites where they don't live in fear.
As far as stories that aren't relevent; it is one of the reasons folks dislike "debating" issues with me. I have lived inside the bubble, battled the politics and marched to my own drummer. The stories are applicable and while you can dispel them, they are real life instances of putting up and doing something rather than just blogging about it.
On the other hand, you have ignored any references to the pigs in the trough and the realities of organized labor having to face their own demons. So rather than suggesting i'm ducking you, how about addressing the issues of how you ever convince the boys to step up and become good net citizens. Do you honestly think they would be willing to let workers talk openly about their shortcomings...or is that too much of a risk?
On another note, have you ever refused admission to people trying to register on this site? Would you intentionally screen people who tried to register?
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
Don't really see where you answered it
If I didn't like your answer, wouldn't I have just censored it? :)
So you are saying that a leader of the AFL-CIO could let people post negative comments about AFL-CIO affiliates to the AFL-CIO site without feeling any political repercussions from the AFL-CIO affiliates? Sorry for being so thick-headed. Please exercise some patience with me and answer "yes" or "no" to that one question.
I'll answer your two questions here directly, which were: "... have you ever refused admission to people trying to register on this site? Would you intentionally screen people who tried to register?"
My answers: "no" and "never".
Okay; okay...
I've read through all this point and counter-point, and while not trying to alienate any one of my union brothers, I must say that if Sweeney et al cannot handle the heat of open dialogue on issues that surround AFL-CIO survival, then he has proven himself to be an artifact of an earlier -- and now dead -- time in the labor movement. No hiding behind 58 affiliates' skirts; time to talk turkey...
Having a policy for topic discussion on a site is completely different from begging that copy be supportive of the big guy who gets elected -- after all, being elected may get you called "Mr. President," but it doesn't mean you will ever have full respect. I agree diplomacy has its place too; but Sweeney should not be given any special favors because he's the big guy. If anything, he should expect to take more heat! After all, it-is-his-job-to-LEAD.
I speak from some experience because any organizing meeting I chair usually has many who are intentionally planted in the audience to cajole, heckle, and or disrupt my agenda for that meeting. My job, as a strong chair, is to help all in the room come to consensus about the next steps to be taken. Sometimes that means I listen, sometimes that means I dialogue, and once or twice it might even mean I ask the truly disruptive to leave. Chairing a meeting, a website, or the AFL-CIO is not easy; but the job is a choice to lead; and when leaders shut down communications in a democratic setting, they invite distrust like we see today. In a communications environment now opening wider than ever before, we cannot even think of trimming corners off our own communications standards.
Embracing new thoughts and ideas are what good conciliation and mediation are all about. After all, we have certainly dug under the surface on this one fundamental issue, haven't we? And without your 'active dialogue' I don't think I would have had the inclination to add my own two cents to our visions for tomorrow. Thanks for warming my brain cells up on an important issue.
Yes, but the question is not whether Sweeney can handle it
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Sweeney is all for having open dialogue and welcomes it on the web site. Even if that were true, he can't do it because affiliates would not stand for it.
You make me smile
Loved this one Steve: "Even if that were true, he can't do it because affiliates would not stand for it." Damn straight up...it's a cinch he doesn't want to piss any of them off and have them quit the AFL-CIO.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes; the AFL-CIO could run an interactive site with good moderators, strong guidelines and as Bill pointed out, registration for those posting. And, i would never assume he wants to, not even for the sake of argument.
Kathy's point on leadership should not be lost either. The conventional definition of leadership under the biz union model is: Leadership is the ability to influence the behavior of others. Most of todays union leaders subscribe to it, hence the entire purpose of top down communication is to move people in the direction they want. It's why most labor communicators are expert spin doctors.
On the other side of the equation is when there is an open and free flowing discussion where every poster's comments have equal weight the concept of leadership changes. While i always felt i needed to have all the answers, the reality was the members were the ones who made the final call...and the better i shared ALL of the information, the better choices they made.
You have still ignored the hogs in the trough issue and how that affects their reasonsing for running interactive websites. Or do you not see the gluttony of some of the boys?
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
Re: Hogs in the trough
We've had this conversation before, Bill. I'll say again my concern isn't getting rid of the hogs in the trough. I'm focused on informing and encouraging unions to apply and learn Internet communication technology. My goal is to find the good leaders out there who know how important it is to communicate with their members. They do exist. You should know, you were one of them.
That wasn't the point
I can print volumes on other sites about the hogs, and occassionally do. The point i was making here is the boys won't play in the interactive field for two reasons: Their inability to control the process, and the potential exposure of their shortcomings (hogism).
If you are to have any success in influencing the boys and how they use the net, you have to evenually accept those as the primary reason they won't use it. You've asked me why we were able to overcome those issues and it was simple...we didn't fear talking with people openly and at the level they were comfortable with, and we ran the local squeeky clean with no skeletons to hide.
In your opening week, you talked about the importance of transparency. I agree it is essential, but i think you will find most leaders unwilling to be that "exposed." One of the reasons i harp on doing away with biz unionism is that it will eventually get us past these two sticking points and allow us to build a real movement..one that uses todays modern technologies as it's key communications vehicle.
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
If they aren't transparent they will die off like dinosaurs
The trick is to get them to understand that. Once they do, they will open up. This is their incentive: Communicate or Die.
And again, I'll restate that what you attribute to malice, I attribute to ignorance. And this explains our different approaches to the problem.
Anonymous postings on UniteToWin
I'm surprised the UtW site hasn't been brought up more in this thread. There must be some moderation/filtering going on, as I haven't seen any postings there about refinancing my mortgage or enhancing my maleness.
Most of the postings are anonymous though, which makes the discussions difficult to follow, and the credibility of their authors hard to judge. I think the Drupal setup of requiring registration/screen names is a better one.
I also get the impression that an awful lot of the anonymous posters are staffers for one union or another. With all the millions of workers in this country who are going to be affected by the formation of CtW, it's discouraging that there aren't more rank and filers putting their two cents in.
Of course the whole subject of AFL affiliation is pretty arcane to most union members. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the AFL or CtW set up forums on organizing, politics, life on the job, etc.
Maybe AUD or ILCA would be able to fill the void by hosting such forums?
LACK OF RANK AND FILE PARTICIPATION IS THE PROBLEM
The current debate taking place within the trade union movement is between the activists and leadership. This is not a rank and file debate, which for me; is the essense of the problem within the trade union movement: complete alienation of the workforce, both organized and un-organized, from the trade union movement. It's sad but true.
My hope is that the Change to Win coalition will develop a more dynamic approach to re-connecting with workers in order to inspire their participation and realization that a strong labor movement is in their best interest.
Don't count on AUD or ILCA to ever develop a connection with the workforce, as they are way to institutionally aligned with current regime of the AFL-CIO and they never have had relevance to the workers. Their web sites are nice and their information presented interesting, but to the working class of America, they are non-entities.
John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C
++++BOYCOTT GALLO++++
engaging da ranks
I think there would have been a lot more rank and file participation in the discussion if Stern had floated the idea of a dues increase to pay for additional organizing and/or political action. That would have elicited some responses, I'll bet! And it seems to me that sooner or later organizing the unorganized is going to require the organized to dig a little deeper in their pockets.
Institutional alignment of the ILCA/AUD might be a problem - I don't know much about the internal politics there. But I think you'd need to have such forums hosted by an organization that has the trust of a number of union leaders, so that some internationals (and locals?) would be comfortable linking to it and encouraging members to visit.
Rank and file participation on local union sites
Local unions need to start running web-based forums at the shop-floor level where workers can gossip about managers, talk about how this customer is a jerk, or how stupid management policies are. I don't know one single union doing this, however. Workers don't care about what's going on at the SEIU. They'll never comment there.
I believe Internationals need to start rolling out web site software like Drupal (which is free) to the local union level and start training them on how to use it. If the international won't do it, then locals will have to take the initiative.
Anonymity is the Unite To Win blog's biggest failing
They really blundered when they did that. As you say, you don't know who is saying what.
Did you notice that if you do get an account and log in to the UtW blog that you can rate the comments? This feature is called "comment moderation." The web site http://www.slashdot.org uses this feature to let the community filter out the crap posts and trolls from those that are more insightful. Unfortunately, UtW's comment moderation is not near as powerful as Slashdot's moderation. One interesting aspect of the moderation system is that you can see who voted for which posts.
This site has a comment moderation feature but it is not turned on. I haven't really seen a need for it. As the site gets busier, I will probably turn it on.
Why there is not comment spam
The reason you don't see comment spam (like poker ads, male enhancement drugs, etc.) on the UtW blog is that they are using a little known blog tool. Comment spam targets popular blogging software because it's more cost efficient for them to do that.
AFL-CIO not open to dissent
Steve:
I see that your post and my response has touched off a firestorm of debate, and no doubt it is exacerbated by the impending split within the AFL-CIO.
You say that, "I feel the folks at the AFL-CIO would love to have debate and criticism as long as it was constructive", but my experience tells me otherwise.
The AFL-CIO is utterly beholden to the Democratic Party to the point were it's practically an auxiliary of the Democratic Party, despite the fact that the Democratic Party is the liberal wing of the employing class. Time and time again, big labor in the United States sinks millions of dollars trying to get Democrats elected to office with the promise that Democrats aare the "party of labor". Even when Democrats do get elected, however, they proceed to stab the working class in the back time and time again.
Over the past ten years, whenever rank & file members have tried to dissent from this established policy, whether by pushing for the locals to endorse Green Party candidates, challenge the Democrats to be less blatantly neo-liberal, or build an independent Labor Party, the AFL-CIO bureaucracy has done everything in its power to crush such tendencies.
Likewise, whould affiliated union locals do anything to take an anti-capitalist stance, they are immediately quashed by the bureaucrats who stubbornly cling to the illusion that the working class and the employing class have interests in common and that the employing class isn't engaged in a viscious class war against working people all over the world.
The leadership of the AFL-CIO lives in a bubble. They believe that the New Deal prosperity that they grew up with could somehow be magically restored if they could elect enough liberal Democrats. The problem with that thinking is threefold:
(1) The New Deal was actually an attempt by the ruling class to coopt more radical elements led by anarchists, communists, socialists, and syndicalists in the 1930s whose common aim was to overthrow capitalism altogether.
(2) As throughly discussed in the pages of "Monthly Review" certain historical conditions (such as the post war waves of automobilization, high levels of disposable income (as a result of the high number of workers serving in the war), and post war debt owed to the United States by Europe and Japan) helped establish the economy that made conditions favorable to organized labor, as long as it went with the collaborationist stance.
(3) Capitalists don't willingly share power. It is only surrendered by capitalists if they believe it to be in their best interests to do so, and that never happens without struggle from the working class.
Just last year, some radicals within various AFL-CIO union locals, notably members of ILWU Local #10 in San Francisco tried to organize a "Million Worker March" in October in Washington DC. Because this event specifically DIDN'T call for a "get out the vote" (for the Democratic Party) mobolization, Sweeney ordered that the AFL-CIO ignore it. When that didn't work, Sweeney started publically criticizing it.
Ever since the internet became a public utility, various rank & file dissidents (such as Harry Kelber and "Vinnie Gangbox") have published dissident news highly critical of the strategic blunders made by the unions' leadership. Organizations, such as Labor Notes and Association for Union Democracy publish newspapers detailing much of the corruption within the AFL-CIO. Both publications allow dissent and debate not seen anywhere in the upper echelons of AFL-CIO officialdom. Do you REALLY think that the AFL-CIO bureaucrats would openly allow such dissent? If they DID, the AFL-CIO would not be in the mess it is in now, they would have promoted rank & file democracy within their union structures (which they don't), and they'd be openly anti-capitalist (they aren't).
The IWW doesn't "struggle" with two-way dialogue at all. We know perfectly well that opening our website up to just ANYBODY would certainly attract "kooks, trolls, and loudmouths" who're not in the labor movement (goodness knows they can be found IN the labor movement). It is practical and justifiable to establish certain guidelines and structures to make sure that discussion stays on topic, that internal union business stays internal, that the signal to noise ratio stays high, and that the site serves as a tool for the union movement. It isn't out of line to even establish policies that include sanctions against violation of these guidelines (most obviously the suspension of accounts for specified times periods after due process).
The AFL-CIO goes to the opposite extreme, allowing almost NO participation AT ALL by its members. That is clearly because the AFL-CIO is a BUSINESS UNION, interested in creating a division between the union and its rank & file, and that is the root of the problem. It was true 100 years ago when the IWW established itself to challenge the conservative elitism of the AF of L, and it is just as true 100 years later.
The current split in the AFL-CIO is a symptom of the bureaucracy's rigidity--though the leaders of the split are no less rigid in their stance. The solution to these problems are rank & file democracy, but it's never going to come from the top down. I'm not sure I'd trust it if it did.
You forget that the AFL-CIO has no members
The AFL-CIO does not have one single union worker as a member. It has 56 affiliated unions as members. The AFL-CIO's ability to act or engage in any kind of "risky" behavior that might be controversial or frowned upon by the affiliates is just about zero. The AFL-CIO is in the business of keeping the affiliate unions happy. They are the ones who pay the dues.
Now, you look at the situation and say the AFL-CIO is involved in a conspiracy to separate the unions from the rank-and-file. But I look at this and say the AFL-CIO is just adhering to political reality in which it finds itself. The separation between the AFL-CIO bureaucracy and the rank-and-file you mention is but an unintended consequence of the political structure of the AFL-CIO.
Now this isn't to say I think the AFL-CIO is totally worthless. They do decent work lobbying and getting the voice of workers heard in Washington and do some decent PR and has at least some success mobilizing members (but not even close to what's needed). If the AFL-CIO didn't exist, we'd really be screwed. There would be absolutely no powerful voice that spoke for all working people.
However, I still think the AFL-CIO can be far more effective than it is. But given the political reality of how the AFL-CIO is structured, there are limitations. I think Stern understands this and that's why he was originally looking for an AFL-CIO where the Internationals answer to it (again, given the political reality, won't happen any time soon.) But Stern is going to have to be one hell of a leader to pull that off. He may very well end up doing more harm than good in the process. We'll have to see how it plays out. I don't pretend to have all the answers (or any answer for that matter) to any of this.
Now this is badly off topic. We should be having this debate in the proper place like the UtW site. Too bad the technology behind their forums really stink. (There, now I'm back on topic).
Well Said John.
I couldn't agree more John, but then we've had that discussion before. Until this battle for workers is reduced to issues they care about nothing will change...and what better way then using the net to reach them?
I think Bill's point on the open forum board on Unitetowin demonstrates the differences in Sweeney's vision and Stern's. Let's be fair, the CTW site doesn't have an interactive feature, and that is disappointing. Still, i see Stern willing to let people speak their minds (after reading some of the comments i think i am being overly generous), while the Sweeney bunch is busy telling people what to think.
While it may seem Steve and i are at odds, i applaud him for being willing to engage in the discussion. Disagreeing isn't wrong, shutting people off from it is.
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
Actually, I don't think we're at odds
It's just that I'm more focused on reaching the good leaders and teaching them how to use the Internet and you're more focused on calling attention to the bad leaders. I also tend to give union leaders a lot more credit and benefit of the doubt than you. I don't think these are opposing viewpoints, they are just minor disagreements. I have absolutely no problem with you expressing that point of view, but I would have a problem if that's all you talked about here on "Communicate or Die."
I don't know about you, but I'm here to get some work done. I put up this site so people can come join me and get some work done, too, and talk about constructive ideas for getting Internet technology into the hands of unions who desperately need it. If you don't respect that or the mission of this site, than I don't want to work with you. If you do respect that and agree with the mission of this site, I'd love to work with you.
AFL-CIO serves the leadership, not the rank and file
I may be completely off since I have never actually worked directly with the national AFL-CIO folks, but the Chicago Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO CLC) has a policy that they work with the leadership of the local labor affiliates, not the rank and file. I think that the national AFL-CIO is probably structured in the same way. With that sort of a structure, there is no reason for them to open up their site to blogging or any other sort of open discussion. The AFL-CIO are trying to reach the general public (through the traditional media) on their political issues and work with the leadership of Int'l unions, and thats about it.
This is correct
And I can tell you that leaders in local unions that belong to our labor council are very circumspect about how we communicate with their members. Many would not want us to see their mailing list or want us to reach out to their members directly.