Wired: Using the internet exclusively for building and sustaining a union
Two good artices in Wired about taking the Internet a step further than just a publishing tool. First, Union Dives Into the Internet Age, talks about how there is organizing online, for a union without contracts, with dues. Some things here that have been/are being discussed here.
The second Tech Workers of the World, Unite for our sisters and brothers that do this work for a living.
»
- MarkDilley's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 2081 reads
depressing
To see the tools used in the spirit of unionism as labor-agent (post your resume, how to talk to the manager), and to help "flex" workers, instead of as an organizing tool to build collective power.
Anyone seen cases of the latter?
I second this opinion
I read this same article recently and remembered thinking, "I visited the class struggle and all I got was this lousy T-shirt!" Where is the anger, the passion, the sense of solidarity gonna come from? Looking for the social app where the technology and the organizing combine is like adding 2 and 2 and getting 5.
I keep saying it's like the hunt for bigfoot. I know he's out there, people tell me they've seen him, but I haven't got a picture yet. I have this feeling that it's right in front of me but I can't see it because I'm expecting to see something else.
Open Source Unionism, or How the Internet Changed Unions
Mark,
Great article on a situation relating to what Freeman and Rogers referred to as "Open Source Unionism", that is an association composed of members who participate in a more or less "virtual union", using internet technologies to develop contacts, resources, and information sharing in a safe environment, while at the same time taking the initiative to become a part of the trade union movement. This is a good thing!!!
This form of union organizing seems to be taking hold, especially in right to work states. I'm really curious as to whether or not these associations will translate into greater participation in the electoral process in these states; I sure hope so! For me this new variation on traditional organizing has tremendous potential, and so far in the only significant outcome that the internet has played in labor organizing.
John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C
Open Source Unionism a misnomer?
There are many uses of "open source," but most include something like this: "source code is published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute the source code without paying royalties or fees. Open source code evolves through community cooperation..."
What would it mean for a union to be "open source"? What is a union's source code? Who is a union's "public"?
For starters, it would include documents: the union constitution and bylaws, the contract and side agreements, grievances and settlements, bargaining sessions, meeting minutes, etc.
But a union's source code must also include procedural information and techniques (not just Robert's Rules, but organizing tactics, knowledge of legal rights and the reality of their implementation).
A union's "source code" might also include its officers and staff, and consultants they use, and, more broadly, its connections and ties to communities, politics and organizations.
In an Open Source union, members would be able to find the code, use it, modify it, create new code, and apply it. Members would not just know what is happening in negotiations, they would get full text of proposed contracts before voting, with enough time to study and debate them, members would all know how to run for office and could campaign with equal access to other members...etc. But, in many unions today it is a struggle just to get a copy of the contract.
An open source union would be one where the most common obstacles to union democracy have been removed. (See Danger of democracy on the Internet? Kill it! for examples from the status quo -- http://www.uniondemocracy.org/UDR/116-Danger%20of%20democracy%20on%20the... . Or any of Wayne Langley's pieces on this site.)
What would it mean for this code to evolve through community cooperation? An open source union would be one where member participation is encouraged and workers' capacity for participation and control is cultivated.
Compare this simple idea of open source to the article about a union "diving into the internet age." What is "open source" about this dues-collecting gambit? It looks like a high tech version of the "associate member" gimic the ILGWU and other unions tried decades ago. It's not even free (one of the basic elements of "open source"). It's just downgraded participation. I'm guessing here, but I figure the members of the Internetvakbond are not electing the officers, setting the budget, etc.
The best (positive) example of a union using the internet to reach out to non-union workers that I know of, is the Retail Worker efforts by Bill Pearson, Kevin LaPalme and others. But then it seems they tackled many of the obstacles mentioned above. Maybe Bill can fill us in more.
How many workers has source code organized?
If you don't like the definition of "Open Source Unionism", take that up with Freeman and Rogers, the most contemporary proponents of the concept. I see it as a successful method of opening up the trade union movement to workers who would otherwise not have access to organized labor: remember; the workers take the initiative to sign up and log on. My understanding of CoD is to discuss internet technology and organized labor, not some esoteric references to technological gobaldigook in order to elaborate on unsubstantial claims, which is what you are doing. Seems to me that the tactic of Open Source Unionism, up to this point, is the only method within which the internet has played a vital role in organizing workers into the labor movement who would otherwise have no options.
John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C
There is Always Confustion when this Topic comes up
I think Matt is closer to the actual definition and truth of "Open-Source" organization then Freeman and Rogers. The political philosophy (as opposed to the public contract) is all about access to information through decentalized structures and individual control. The technology makes this possible but seizing the opportunities means embracing the values and that is one tough choice.
There is nothing particularly wrong with the Freeman and Rogers analysis except they nest it within the current organizational status quo where it will fail. At the recent Harvard conference several prominent labor web folks lamented that web and internet technology failed to meet their expectations and I thought, well, of course it didn't.
Matt's ideas may be new but it is just plain wrong to say they are unsubstantiated. Labor is rarely an early adopter of anything. Today, with some exceptions, labor is tradition bound, reactive and conservative. Why would you think that a structure like this would recognize innovation even if it hits them in the face? There are whole internationals who still insist that the solution to our sad membership decline is tinkering with our message. Give me a break!
There are many, many, instances of open-source type organizations or campaigns that are far more radical and democratic than anything labor has managed to cobble together. If you do not believe it's either possible or desirable to achieve real dialogue (as opposed to messaging) widening the circle of strategic decision makers (as opposed to a small circle of leaders) and transparency (as opposed to back-door negotiations) or that these values produce increased membership participation, smarter strategies, organizational resilience and flexibility, then that is the real problem not lack of examples.
I've often said embracing an open-source, peer-to-peer democratic or internet populist model is not a value judgement. It is not a question of whether this is "better" since the model has problems all its' own and no observer says otherwise. It is simply a realization that virtual social networking is the way society is heading. The train has already left the station and unless Labor wants to be left standing on the platform we need to get our ass in gear.
Semantics
Roger's and Freeman's article on Open Source did and still is causing confusion...as witnessed above. The fact is, as i understand it, the origins of open source was simply the sharing of software and people willing to give/help each other without looking for something in return; the greater good if you will.
When we created Youareworthmore, like Kevin's Retailworker, we weren't looking for anything in return. It was a sharing of principles, ideas and ideals. While i still scratch my head at times over what R and F were saying in Open Source Unionism, i see it as an effort to break from the traditional biz union model and try and create something better.
The net allows us freedom; no bricks, mortar and bureaucratic structure to fight through to build a better movement. It is one of the exact reasons the boys running the show want no part of it. Collecting dues, controlling the process and owning the power is far removed from any concept of open source would or should work. Think of it this way; does microsoft embrace open source, or does it blanch at the idea of giving it away?
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
Again, source code doesn't organize workers!
Bill,
How are you and hope all is well. I'm including a link to the article published by Nation magazine by Freeman and Rogers on, "Open Source Unionism", hope this clarifies the concept for those who obviously have no clue what it is about:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020624/rogers
The term, "open source", is an idea associated with free and public software applications. The concept, "Open Source Unionism", althouth it shares two words, is a completely different concept. It is an idea related to trade union organizing. It is a proposal describing a new and dynamic form of union organizing that incorporates the technologies that the internet provides; I think this web site is more or less dedicated to the trade union movement and it's interaction with digital technologies, as such; we should be embracing this concept.
Your site, "Youareworthmore", was a pioneering experiment into the capacity of the internet to provide open, transparent, and democratic access to your local. What Freeman and Rogers are saying is that in a similar manner, the trade union movement can be made available to people who want to belong to organized labor but due to specific circumstances: closed shop, right to work states, previously unsuccessful organizing campaigns, etc, they have no legitimate options for membership in the trade union movement; as the trade union movement in its current structure limits its resources to those workers whose contracts it negotiates. This is a revolutionary concept relating to providing unorganized workers access to information and interaction with like minded people.
There is no better example of the dynamic interaction between organized labor and internet technologies than the concept of "Open Source Unionism". Judging from the resistance the idea has from those on this site where we are committed to developing the idea of labor/tech interaction, you can't help but understand the resistance the concept has within the biz union model that trade unionists like you and I are trying to change.
John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C
Thanks John
Thanks for the nice comments about YAWM John. Actually i don't think Matt and others disagree, i think most people struggle to get their arms around how it will work. No one has broken through the barriers of online unionism. It is a tool that is yet defined or refined.
When Rogers and Freemans article came out, the traditional leaders shot it down out of hand. They were laughed at and scoffed at as being dreamers. The funny thing was, they were on the right track. The structure as we know it today cannot survive. Their suggestions to evolve to a higher level of reach and a different equation than exists was too far ahead of the curve...especially for people who refused to give up control.
Art Shostaks book CyberUnion, Freeman and Roger's Open Source Unionism and the reformer/independent sites i was posting on were all instramental in shaping our work on Youareworthmore. While some will point to its inability to save us; i would argue it was an exceptional experiment in what we should be evolving to.
The challenge on this site is embedded in techies who would love to become far more aggressive and leaders who refuse to give them the tools and the resources they need. In Matt's case i think you guys just missed the mark in what you were saying to each other. He is a fan of the net, and knows there is potential there. Like many, he is skeptical how much an how to make it work.
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
Opening up the "Closed Source"
Bill's right. John and I did talk past each other. I was glad to reread the Freeman & Rogers piece. Experimentation with alternative forms of worker organization -- non-majority unions, community-based workers centers, worker groups that deal with particular issues like health and safety -- is indispensable. Obviously, the internet provides not just tools but a new space that is conducive in many ways to non-traditional organizing (and can also facilitate traditional organizing).
I wanted to raise two issues:
First, if we take the common definitions of "Open Source" (the term Freeman and Rogers borrowed), and consider what they might mean when applied not to source code but to union structures and practices, we see a striking contrast -- most unions today are the epitome of "closed source."
In many unions, union officers routinely deny members access to the union constitution, to the contract and related side agreements, to minutes of union meetings/eboard meetings, to information about their own grievances, to information about the bargaining process or even to the contents of a contract on which they are to vote (if they vote on contracts at all). Getting a controversial point on a meeting agenda, let alone running for union office, particularly in the new mega locals and districts, is often a Herculean task. Union officers all too often file charges or even lawsuits against members who challenge them.
When it comes to new organizing, unions are typically (but not always) more open to worker participation, hence there is an opening for alternative tactics in the context of new organizing. But, once the organizing campaign is done... (A great little study of this, looking at UFCW and ACTWU (now UNITE) is Worker Participation after Successful Union Organizing by Linda Markowitz.)
The other point is that the underlying strategy is important when considering alternative forms of worker organizing -- in some cases, the new tools may result in greater participation, capacity, and power in the hands of the workers themselves, in other cases they may just create a larger pool of dues-paying clients whose sole role is to receive the scaled down "services" the alternative organization provides. I don't think that blog-friendly Andy Stern and blog-friendly Bill Pearson are on the same page.
So, I wasn't trying to claim that Freeman and Rogers are misusing "Open Source Unionism," just trying to use the much broader and democratic definition to raise some issues.
Different?
Come on Matt, you think Andy and i have a different view? Too funny. I wish i had a dollar for every time i tried to get a response from him on his blog Change To Win (was that it? Goodness, how quickly we forget). The best thing about poking these guys with the biz union sharp stick is, they just pretend you don't exist.
I was hoping JF would respond, having read any number of his posts over the net, i know you guys would see eye to eye. What is strange to me is the lack of discussion on this site. There have been several good topics with doors and windows open for folks to walk or crawl through, yet everything just dies on the vine.
We have an awesome discussion going on at Uncharted over the future for Labor Notes and AUD regarding the use of the net. I do find it intriguing the more mainstream a site is, the less controversy, the less the discourse. Any thoughts as to why?
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
Blog On!!!
Andy Stern’s original blog site was, “Unite to Win”, and seemed to explode with an array of perspectives and propositions about labor’s debilitated condition and the need to change the status quo in favor of a new and improved form of organization. The site blossomed during the split within the AFL-CIO and many felt that the break-away groups would/could develop into a more democratic and grass roots based labor organization. I guess the jury is still out on that one, but it ain’t lookin’ good.
We can’t deny the increased use of labor blog sites for dialog among like minded people and the development of various perspectives relating to the future of the trade union movement. And on this site in particular, there is an overwhelming feeling that the developing digital technologies are going to play a vital role in the evolution/revolution within organized labor. I sure hope it does because we all know that unless something drastic happens real soon, it’s all over.
So for me, if I see a suggestion that there is a new example of where the internet and/or digital technology has played a role in labor organizing, I’m on it, like white on rice. I mean I want to see it and it needs to be clear and concise. And now I’m talking about, “organizing”, that is; bringing unorganized workers into the labor movement. There is no doubt about the fact that dig tech has a role in servicing existing union members. It’s faster, cheaper, and fairly reliable. But I’m not talking about servicing members. So, where is it that the new technologies play a role in bringing non-union workers into the labor movement? The only examples that I know of right now are the various forms of “Open Source Unionism”, which are developing as new forms of workers’ associations. I would only hope that the interested people who do have well developed technical skills could expand the role of dig tech to a greater function in the development of the concept of “Open Source Unionism”.
John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C
trouble visualizing open source unions
Yeah I like the idea of open source unionism but it's hard to visualize it considering my experiences in traditional unions thus far. People don't even understand minority unions (not exclusive representation), no collective bargaining contract. The classic union gig is limited group of employees of one single employer that does organizing and HOPEFULLY wins an exclusive representation election and has collective bargaining and eventually ends up with everyone paying dues. The union is governed by officers with an executive commitee and hold conventions.
So how is this done if you're having one local spread over the entire US one wonders? I know someone is going to say electronic conferencing and electronic voting. If there were (literally) an open source electronic voting system that there was any reason to believe in it would be a great benefit.
As the laws stand now I don't think one could achieve collective bargaining across multiple employers, can one? Since many people equate unionism with collective bargaining that's an issue.
If all one wants the union to do is lobby then there is some stiff competition in a lot of quarters from associations. Where I work we are plagued by competition for dues and membership from multiple associations and since they don't do advocacy for individuals, they are much more in favor with the employer than the unions. Associations will fight tenaciously against a real organizing campaign as they see that as a threat to themselves, eg if a local got exclusive representation an association or other governance structure might become obsolete.
I think tho that personal advocacy is very important and valuable. Which is not something I've heard of unions like Washtech doing but I think they could do it if they had enough members. There are so many employers who get carried away if they can get an employee alone in a room. It is so much better if the employee can get a union member to accompany them in disciplinary situations and/or even assist in legal cases. This is something I think an open source union could do precisely because it covered multiple employers. If one
could bring in an advocate/steward from a different employer to help
a discipline scenario I think it would be much much safer than expecting stewards in the same workplace to stick their necks out. Our employer has been targetting stewards in the locals that do have collective bargaining. Similarly if it were possible to do organizing somewhere else than where one works and is a sitting duck for retaliation, that would be fabulous!
Actually Social Justice Organ
My understanding of Minority Unionism, and I could be wrong, is that it's more of a political formation rather than a traditional union that performs collective bargaining by law.
You could do collective bargaining I suppose (even under contract law) if you had enough political clout. This is what unions did before they were legal. Minority Unionism is just another way to get organized and take collective action.
For example, my union doesn't "strike" in the traditional sense, by blocking access to a worksite. Although the members stop work we try and build a community consensus that isolates the boss, turns their name into mud, raises the profile and visability of the workers, etc. If and when it works it can be a powerful force but we still collective bargain.
New communication networks can, of course, help all this. Particularly if you're talking about coordinating actions widely, around the country or around the world. We still haven't seen the full potential for real strategic coordination yet but I suspect we will.
Minority Unionism
Wayne,
The idea of “minority unions”, which is a completely different concept than “Open Source Unionism” is the form of organizing that organized labor relied upon early in the development of the trade union movement. It simply refers to a minority of the employees within a shop who want to be represented by a union, and who in fact have the right under the National Labor Relations Act, to such representation in spite of the fact that they are only a minority. These members were entitled to all the protections guaranteed under the NLRA. The strategy was to gain a foothold within a shop using the minority status and than to expand into a majority union.
If you are really interested in this idea, and it is a great concept that has relevance today, if only the biz unionists would get serious about organizing, you should read, "The Blue Eagle At Work: Reclaiming Democratic Rights In The American Workplace", written by, Charles Morris. He suggests that even though this technique is no longer used, it still could/should be incorporated into organizing strategies, with an especially viable application in retail: hey Wal-Mart. In addition to describing the concept of, “minority unions”, Morris also describes in detail the development and evolution of the National Labor Relations Act. So any labor history buff would find this an interesting book to read.
John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C
minority unions
I don't see that minority unions are a different concept from open source unions. It sounds to me like the Open Source proposal is for
traditional unions to allow minority unions to affiliate and to support their organizing.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020624/rogers
I am in a minority union currently. However, it is particularly disadvantaged legally and we don't have the right to strike and we don't have the legal right to vote in collective bargaining. It's prohibited in the state statutes due to historical "evil" :-)
The good news is we *are* affiliated with two international unions and are members of a central labor council. The paper makes it sound like this might not be possible but it was.
In my experience, the big problem with a minority union is maintaining membership. People don't like paying dues if they don't have to. (We have people come to us with a dispute with management who want the local to represent them, and they get this, refuse to join because they don't want to pay dues. Unbelievable.) If your local is affiliated with an international, the percaps per member may be very significant and you can end up spending all your dues money on percaps to affiliates, in which case you don't have the money to do anything local-specific. A particular problem is the exact details about part time or low wage cases vs the dues structure. With our international we end up losing money on part time and low wage cases due to their fixed percap structure. Further you may not have the money to send people to big city union conferences and thus feel out of the loop with union influence. This is always going to be a problem for our local in the "middle of nowhere" as far as possible from either coast.
Most unions tend to focus on the area around Washington DC so that creates a travel cost issue for the entire rest of the country :-)
And what if you don't manage to organize to exclusive representation in some time frame? Eventually the international will give up and doesn't want to support your organizing any more. This happened to us. It's understandable. But you can end up wondering why are you sending so much money in percaps to some international and then not "getting anything back" so to speak. It can be difficult to sell lobbying in Washington to the membership who want to see something tangible closer to home. When the local originally decided to affiliate with the international, the local split into 2 minority unions because the affiliation was a disputed decision. The problem was more than anything, simply about paying percaps to the international. Which is why I have and continue to say, dues really really matter. Don't think they don't.
But I think that unions need to consider accepting this stituation of minority unions that will possibly never achieve majority status that
will need to continually do organizing to maintain membership. Obviously right now it is very unlikely for locals to win an exclusive representation election and that reality must be faced. In the case that people can be "free riders", it's a challenge to keep things
going. This is one reason that Canada is much more unionized than
the US according to the book: "The Paradox of American Unionism: Why Americans Like Unions More Than Canadians Do, but Join Much Less".
According to the book, Canada's legal climate results in more shops where everyone has to pay dues and be a member of the union versus a lot more "right to work" scenarios in the US. Or as the book terms
it, the US allows a lot of "free riders" to benefit from unions' activities without paying dues.
Link shortener
Thanks for the Reference
I'll check out the book, but if you could expand on "getting a foothold" I would be honestly interested in an historical example of minority unionism that grew.
Minority Unionism seems to resemble the old "cadre" model of organizing where you get a small group of believers and wait around playing cards until the time is right i.e. when the majority is willing to act and are looking around for an appropriate structure.
Then you put yourself at the head of the parade and off you go.
It's not a bad idea unless the boss snuffs you while you're weak and before that time ever arrives. Kinda a preemptive strike. In this regard, HC is right. The NLRA is hardly a security blanket and established unions are pretty pragmatic about who they support. Which would leave you in the same space as many other small, underfunded, righteous, groups that go to the Internet an appeal for support. I'm trying to understand the "hook" that would make this model appealing to workers.
What did they mean?
Frankly, i think you all are taking Rogers and Freeman too literally. When i first read the article, it struck me more they were saying we can't keep doing business as usual. The cost, heartache and results of NLRB elections with only majority won battles as being our hope was to insure we continue to die.
The position they are in fairly well prevents them from saying the current system and the people running it sucks. They can't just rip business unionism and get buy-in. Instead they wrote an article talking about open source as an alternative way of thinking about the abyss labor is trapped in...and that to escape we better start becoming more creative.
I can't imagine anyone saw their proposal as THE solution. It was just something different. The one thing we know for sure is more of the same will only insure we continue to die. Ultimately, even the apologists for the biz union model have to acknowledge the damn structure isn't working.
Of late, it doesn't matter if we are talking politics, negotiations or organzing...this failed structure of top down leadership is going nowhere. Rogers and Freeman were trying to tell us to get off our asses and try something different; that's all this article was saying.
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
Bill I Think You Are Right
It's funny, but I always felt that Rogers and Freeman were warning the Grand Pubas of labor that unless they started to engage with workers and commit time and energy to organizing that a new form, "Open Source Unionism", would take over and reduced and eventually eliminate the need for labor as we knew/know it. Remember, they wrote their piece in The Nation in 2002. Before the split and while Sweeney and Stern were pals.
John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C
I can and will provide examples,
The United Steelworkers and the United Auto Workers negotiated most of their original contracts as minority union contracts in the early 1930's. Both of these unions eventually gained majority and exclusive status within these companies. However, they didn't do this by sitting around playing card until the time was right. They accomplished this by engaging in serious and well thought out organizing campaigns. No different than the style of organizing today, although; today the methodology is far more sophisticated (see anything written by Kate Bronfenbrenner) and well organized than in the 1930's.
The "hook" as you describe it is simple and no different that the qualities that attract workers to majority unions, which is; a negotiated contract, the legally protected right to grievance procedures, and the sense that you belong to an organization that you can help to develop and grow.
Do you really that there was/is any model of labor organizing where a small group of believers wait around playing cards until the time is right. Maybe you are a bit jaded from your extensive and successful experience as a labor organizer, but I have been involved in organizing workers into the trade union movement and nobody sits around frolicking until the time is right. Whether you know it or not, organizing is a serious and difficult project that dedicated people do in order to achieve a better standard of life for workers. And workers put their jobs, and at times, their lives on the line in order to engage in this process and deserve better than your shallow and condescending descriptions.
John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C
Hey, let's keep the debate clean here
No need to describe his points as "shallow and condescending". I can't speak for Wayne. But I interpreted his remarks simply as a way to question the effectiveness of the strategy. I highly doubt it was a reflection on anyone's work or dedication to the empowerment of working people.
Wayne Speaks
I know that this may shock some readers but I've been called worse things than shallow. More than once people have actually come after me which is the great thing about this forum - lack of physical promimity.
I apologize if sometimes my writing style seems a bit cavalier (and verbose) but this is how I write and talk (really). It's not everyone's cup of tea. So, I won't bore people with what I have or haven't done around organizing in the last 30 years since this isn't a job interview.
My purpose, here at Communicate or Die and everywhere else, now and forever more - amen, is about designing successful organizing strategies. I am obsessed by the need to win and labor is not winning. I think we are not winning because we are in a conceptual box and act as if nothing has changed since the 1930's. I certainly don't have all the answers and would be more than happy to follow someone who seems to, but - no luck yet.
The tragedy is that hard working, well-meaning and dedicated people in the labor movement keep marching off the cliff. We need innovation and more grassroots participation and we get - bureaucracy. We need leadership based on sacrifice and we get - enormous egos and cults of personality. We need independent thinkers and we get - locked-down traditionalists and authority freaks. This is not one bit good (speaking as an authority freak in detox).
I will note that I have learned and changed my opinion based on comments I've received here at Communicate or Die. I think it was John that raised the issue of technological complexity in respone to one of my prior posts and I realized that I had not devoted enough time to this subject as I have the issue of hierarchical control.
So, blog on! Time to go to work (sigh).
minority union
Our local has been a minority union since 1930. These things can be long-lived if not fast moving :-) If one is tempted to wonder if the power people in a union are goofing off, it pays to look at the financial and other aspects. What do they have to gain? Our local pays nothing to people for holding office, people use their own vacation time to attend union functions during work time, and the local is chintzy about reimbursing for expenses. There are locals that do pay officers and give out a *lot* of perks. I'm just saying if anyone harbors a concern that union people are just in it for the perks, take a close look. See for yourself.
It is true that if you are dealing with an international, that there can be people who want to rise up through that system to hopefully attain a very high-paying staff or officer position. There are very few people who can benefit from having something about a union on their resume :-) But if you have some union careerists, and our local actually does have some, that is a complex issue. On the one hand it's hard to get anyone to run for union office because they don't want to be a target of anti-union hostility. On the other hand, people who want to be upwardly mobile in the union can be self-centered kissups falling over themselves to do what the union bigshots want. The super-suckers are very careful to appear at the right functions with the right people, and avoid time-wasting rallies and meetings that are not populated by or encouraged by the power people. They always put out the official line and never deviate. (The official line likely may be that the problems are the membership. They aren't doing/paying enough.) The upwardly mobile don't have to appear at rank and file meetings because they have the private ear of the real movers and shakers. Their lack of interest in the rank and file is destructive to the local, turning off activists who want to reform the workplace -- not land a 6-figure salary in Washington. Consider these factors in trying to evaluate if you're dealing with an upwardly mobile opportunist or a genuine activist.
It is also true that there can be a problem that people can attain power in a union based on their standing in some other system, rather than a history of work in the local or their position on issues in the workplace. That can be a real turnoff to people who did not have that advantage. (This was what got me out of office in my local, I was expendable based on the other officer's wishes to cater to someone who appeared on the scene with a lot of influence in the community and in the workplace.) I think some of this cut throat pragmatic political stuff comes from legacy union bad habits. It doesn't make a lot of sense to do some of these things when the membership is voluntary; the shaftees can just get mad and not only quit working for the union but quit paying dues or even become verbal anti-unionists and that matters when it's not a fair-share scenario and it poisons the atmosphere for other organizing campaigns.
Last but not least there are the womanizers. Yes there are still union leaders who go to conventions to find new "friends", and they sweet- talk members into joining or doing things for the local. Between the reality of some promiscuous people behaving like this, and the fear that onlookers think that is going on when it may not be, it's a tough road for women in the traditionally male-dominated union culture.
For that reason I think it may be high time to create women-only locals.
This is a very overlooked issue, the disappointed unionists who are possibly as irked or more irked with the union than they are with the workplace. It is pointed out in the book:
http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=4120
that people like unions more the less unions are present. Thus people in the US really like the idea of unions right now since the probability they are actually in one and getting pissed off with it is pretty low :-)
Whereas according to the book, in Canada there's a lot more people in unions and they are a lot more annoyed with unions. Based on my experience, I think there's merit to this theory. I think we need to get the message out there that people do not join unions in order to be in a personality cult that worships some charismatic leader who hangs around in office for decades wallowing in absolute power. The union is not the president, it is the rank and file. I think the key is to promote reformed unionism. We are sick and tired of news stories of embezzled funds. That nonsense has to stop. The culture that allows that kind of thing to happen has not changed. I know this because I questioned an expenditure in my own local and got shot down by everyone that I shouldn't "intefere" with the treasurer. The local didn't have enough money to be worth embezzling anyway but it's the principle here. How can there still be people in office in unions that don't know there is a problem with finances in unions? The international has had huge problems with national bad press for embezzlements. Yet lots of people have not gotten the word on this. Clearly there needs to be a training program for unionists and one of the obligatory chapters has got to be "Union Finances"! We need to get the message out to union members that they can and should question local finances, and all finances above that level. When some union somewhere hits the newspapers with a fraud situation, it severely hurts all union efforts everywhere. People want union democracy and they want honest and open operations. They don't want a union that is the model of their workplace, typically a shrine to favoritism and hierarchy. Unions have to be better than the workplace, not modeled after Corporations.
Actually I still believe in unions and I don't think they get anything like the credit they deserve, even now at this low point, for what they do that is positive for society. Part of that is also getting the word out what unions are doing. Unions often are prohibited from bragging about what they have done for individuals due to the fear of retaliation, and due to gag orders in legal settlements. So often I see our local unions do something really great to help an individual but out of fear of increased reprisals from management against those people, they don't publicize anything about it. So no one knows that the unions are really helping people unfairly targetted by management.
Secondly our employer has virtually unlimited legal resources and will let any and all disputes go to court. There is no way that any union can raise the kind of money to pursue every lawsuit that should be pursued. Then if the employer ends up settling, they always settle with the provision no one can discuss it. The individual may get some money out of it; the union doesn't despite spending a bundle. But the problem is despite the union spending a huge amount on legal costs, it typically gets NO good press for so doing because of the settlement terms. Over time the locals simply run out of money to spend on legal cases. Many worthy cases get turned down just because of the cost. The employer just chalks these occasional lawsuit settlements as a cost of doing business. It doesn't bother them in the slightest. I don't know what the solution to this is but it's really a severe problem.