Classifying Labor Union Communication on the Internet

Steve Dondley's picture

I'm going to put on a theoretical, academic hat for a moment and take a stab at creating a general classification system for communication on the Internet. (Real academics please chime in.) Yeah, not the most exciting blog material, I know. But categorizing things is useful for helping us think clearly and logically about the world.

Two ideas about communication that go back to the time of Aristotle are that of ethos (speaker) and pathos (audience), which I will base my Internet communication classification system on. My larger point for doing all this is to argue that in order to have a truly effective Internet strategy, labor unions at the local, state, and national levels should have a separate plan for participating in each of these categories of communication:

Leadership to Public
A good example of this kind of site is the AFL-CIO site. The audience is everybody from members, to non-members, to influence peddlers.

Leadership to Membership
Most, but not all, such sites would manifest themselves as password protected dicussion forums or password protected web pages. It would include general announcements and news on a local union's site. This category would also include communication through e-mail, etc.

Leaderhip to Leadership
Again, these are often restricted, private access channels meant for limited distribution. But this category could also include materials publicly available generally of interest primarily to labor leaders.

Leadership to Non-Members
The first case that jumps to my mind is the YouAreWorthMore.org site. The idea here is to educate rank and file non-union workers who may or may not be sympathetic to labor unions.

Member to Member
This is an interesting area made possible almost entirely by the Internet. A good example is UFCW.net. Although such sites are not password protected, the subject material is restricted in such a way that it appeals only to members of a union or group of unions. This would also include web sites set up to promote a rank-and-file candidate for election.

Non-member to non-member
In the past, I've written about truckers who have set up web sites to facilitate communication between themselves about their work industry. Like member to member, the Interent has made this kind of communication much more practical.

Member to non-member
This happens in a very limited way, unfortunately. It's unfortunate because I think it could coceivably be a very powerful way of reaching out to non-members. How it might occur is that leadership would help facilitate such conversations in discussion forums within a web site geared toward non-members. Leadership would likely have to play an active role in getting members to participate.

Now these are very broad categories. Some sites don't fit neatly into one or the other. For example, the old "Unite To Win" blog appealed mostly to leadership but rank-and-file members and the general public participated as well.

MarkDilley's picture

Membership to leadership

Seems to me there are severl of these types of sites.

Steve Dondley's picture

Examples?

I'd like to see what you mean.

MarkDilley's picture

two off the top

http://www.p4du.org/

http://www.tdu.org/

granted these may also fall into the member to member category as well.

Matt Noyes's picture

the problem with password protection

is that it blocks one of the most useful features of the new technology which is that communication spills over the old channels. It is great that anyone can listen to podcasts about the CSUEU executive board meetings, or read the discussion on Uncharted.ca, or even the flames and trash talk on Teamster.net.

Why? Because it creates a new kind of labor discussion and contributes to a new type of culture, one where the movement is open and "knows no boundaries" of union jurisdiction, membership status, officer position, etc.

Password protection is fine of course for discussions of bargaining tactics where secrecy from management is a key, or for discussions where people who know each other want to speak freely, "among friends." But, I think that we need to work against the old idea that discussion of union issues should be "members only," or, worse, "officers only." It is better to bend the stick in the direction of open communication and cross-pollination.

Steve Dondley's picture

"No boundaries" communication isn't always productive or wise

A post to the Teamster.net site you mentioned points out one of the may problems of "no boundaries," anonymous communication.

One of the key reasons for requiring username and passwords is to authenticate identity so they aren't hiding behind a pseudonym or anonymity. This helps deter those who are there to just grandstand, troll, and jerk other's people's chains for hahas.

And one key reason for restricting access is to hide discussions from prying eyes. Do you really think it's a good idea to let management have complete access to the thoughts and writings of members in a shop? Even with password protected sites, I think member-to-member communication should be very tightly monitored. It wouldn't be too tough for management to get access to one member's username and password and see everything the union is saying.

MarkDilley's picture

Maybe not

And I have seen much "Boundries" communication that isn't always productive or wise too.

My views on online identity run something like this. Use your real name for credibility. Anonymity is useful for communication for people who don't won't to use their real names. Pseudonyms are just not useful in online communication. Wiki allows you to edit away noise, move heated conversations and lower intensity in exchanges.

I just assume that anything that is online is going to be available to the boss. There are conversations that should not be online.

Matt Noyes's picture

leadership

I think it's better to use the term "officers" than leaders. It's more exact, and it recognizes the fact that leadership can come from the ranks as well as the elected officers.

It may also be helpful to disaggregrate the "leadership": there is a big difference between International Union officers, Council Business Managers, Local officers, and elected shopfloor reps (stewards or delegates). It varies by union, but they differ in power, in control of resources, and in accountability to the membership.

There is also the question of leadership by staff, increasingly important in the consolidated mega locals of unions like SEIU.

Pearson's picture

Right on Matt.

I couldn't agree more Matt. The internet has created a whole new paradigm of leadership. Workers have appeared from nowhere and begun spouting, touting and forcing an agenda that is bottom up, not top down. Only the fools who think they are beyond or above their members ignore them...and God knows, there are still plenty of them in positions of power.

One of the best things that could happen would be a massive movement of on line learning geared for members/workers. I saw long distance learning software that was spectacular, and would have killed (that's a figure of speech) to have been able to incorporate it into our Youareworthmore site before i retired. It was being marketed by a former union organizer (his name escapes me) and was fairly inexpensive.

One of our goals at local 789 was worker/member empowerment. This was a tool that allowed for totally interactive internet education and could be replayed 24/7. That meant access could be at a workers leisure and in the comfort of their home. It also removed, as you indicated, the stigma of someones title or position of power.

"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."

Wayne Langley's picture

Great Discussion

There needs to me more debate over who we call a "leader" so that we're clear (are they officers or leaders point) and we don't confuse managerial roles with other types of leadership.

One of the ideas that I'm struggling with (there are many) is whether leadership has be de-coupled from permanence because of technology. In the Dean campagin individuals popped up, organized and people, and then simply went away to work on their own agendas after the campaign was over. The are still out there as "leaders" but sort of "leaders-in-waiting" looking for opportunities that offer them a space to fill.

If this was an actual trend rather than a passing fad it would have implications for how we identify and support stewards. In our local we have a terrible time keeping any one steward interested in the job for long periods of time but there is always someone interested in taking the lead on particular issues.