“Why the Internet Matters to Organized Labor,” the White Paper and the Ghost of Future Past - Part I.

In this space I’ve written a lot about organization and how the internal values and culture of Labor conflict with modern computer technologies. If you believe, as I do, that our structures need to change, the very next question is how, and that is a very difficult question to answer.

Are there transitional models that can lead to more effective organizations? Do institutions have life spans that lead to collapse and require that they be rebuilt from the ground up? Do organizations just fade away, like all those fraternal associations that once dotted the American landscape? It is true that there are many powerful forces swirling around labor that we can’t control but reading history can help expose the self-inflicted wounds. Like Marley’s ghost rattling the chains forged in life, we are being warned about our sins.

For those union stalwarts who haven’t yet given up hope, and who still believe in the transformational power of struggle, I think it’s useful to think about some organizational “rules of engagement.” We need to concoct a recipe for pouring fresh new organizational wine into our old institutional bottles.

In early 90’s a group calling itself the Ad Hoc Committee on Labor and the Web collaborated on a white paper called “Why the Internet Matters to Organized Labor.” The working group was drawn from webmasters at seven International unions and the AFL. Their aim was simple – convince the leadership that new computer technologies would be important to Union organizing efforts. One of the signers of white paper said:

“We were essentially a mutual support group made up of the first webmasters working for major unions. We were brainstorming about all the exciting things we could do with this new tool and didn't want to be isolated within our own unions as people who just seemed to be promoting our own jobs. We wanted a vision that we could sell our unions, and that was bigger than our individual jobs.”

I had the opportunity to read the paper many years ago and it came up as a topic at the Harvard conference on Labor and the Internet. It is striking how many of the ideas are not only relevant today but positively oracle-like (I don’t mean the database either). This speaks to the skills and intelligence of the authors as well as the design logic inherent in technological momentum. It shows that you can make reasonably accurate predictions for the technosocial future even if you don’t get the timeline just right.

The working group correctly described several key features of the new technology. They described how the Internet would allow direct, unfiltered access to our target audience that could bypass the spin produced by the major media outlets. They described how the Internet would be a growth technology, which would change both rapidly and continually. How the Internet afforded end-users the ability to access information 24/7. How this new medium produced organizational value, both internally and externally for Unions, through member interactivity and rapid response time to unfolding events. The working group even saw how virtual games could be used as teaching tools and how important it was for Labor to enter the political fray over a free and open Internet.

What result came out of this effort? Not much. The release of the paper was preempted by the launch of the AFL’s new website which incorporated many of the suggestions of the working group. So instead of sending the white paper to the AFL leadership, people took it back to their home locals for distribution and discussion where it received varying levels of acceptance. A prominent labor technologist and teacher observed:

“I think of it as a matter of mood - They never met again after issuing the Paper: Why? Not because the AFL-CIO launched its website, as that was independent of what they were about - They wanted to light a fire under over 60 chiefs, but ... were .., I suspect, politely or otherwise advised that their role was NOT to advise, unless and until ASKED to do so ... a matter of mood, rather than heavy-handed repression.”

The lesson I draw from this experience is how difficult it is to effect change from the inside. There is little support from the labor hierarchy for innovation of any kind that doesn’t originate from the top. Unfortunately for us, “controlled” creativity is far too slow to be a realistic strategy in the face of rapid technosocial change.

Even though most Internationals eventually adopted many of the white paper suggestions regarding web sites they did so without any acknowledgement that a) the working group was dead-on, so nothing was learned about internal innovation, b) the adoption was too late to capture any significant technological opportunity and, c) with fear and dread of the democratic and interactive possibilities of the Internet.

I think organizations that are mired in traditional thinking require a push/pull strategy for change. Push from the inside and pull from the outside. I will be writing a follow-up Blog on how authors from the design community talk about innovation and how they deal with the cultural resistance that new inventions inevitability face. I think this discussion is pertinent to Labor’s situation because it offers fresh insights into the technosocial relationship that fundamentally affects our use of digital tools.