Mark Breslin - The Management SOB

"But it is suffering from lack of humility and accountability. From lack of effective strategy and management. From lack of a vision of what it might become; rather than what it was and will never be again."

You are not the first person to notice that :-) Re organizing not going anywhere, we have ample experience. Our international has 3 creedos that I think pretty much guarantee failure: "we set percaps and you have to pay them", "member to member organizing", "the higher levels of the union hierarchy tell the lowly locals what to do and how to do it" (You just pay dues and go to rallies, we 6-figure salary experts do all the thinking).

If you're trying to organize from a minority (non-represented) position these are deadly. Just the financial problem is a killer. You are trying to convince people who don't pay dues now that they should pay dues because ...? (You don't have a contract what are you offering?) Our local ended up with no money left over to send people to anything nor to do our own organizing, nor engage in further legal battles with the employer. The employer has unlimited legal resources so their strategy is to never decide anything on principle. They side with management 100% regardless of any law and take all disputes to the final stage. Then if it gets to a federal court and they think they will lose, they finally offer a non-disclosure settlement at the last minute. The effect is that it costs the unions a ton of money, they can't recoup the costs from the member or former member involved, and worst of all, they get no good press for having done this!

People don't want to pay for another entity that is like the real all powerful management who sees them as completely expendable and replaceable. People who are doing super well with the employer and see themselves on the rise in that hierarchy don't go near unions, of course. It is the people who feel they are getting shafted that are willing to join. But the union has to be different and better than the employer! If it isn't, they quit. A particular problem here is women and minorities. They tend to distrust the traditional alpha white male that would be in charge of a union. If the union slaps down any "pushy" women and minorities, that turns off those groups regardless of how much charisma an alpha white male has. The employer is loaded up with bs-ing charisma types too, who somehow always manage to leave women and minorities out of the loop (unless perhaps they are super-suckups). Who's going to pay extra for more of the same, especially when they are at the bottom of the pay scale?

But it's the member to member organizing that is the most deadly. This is management's dream policy :-) You are organizing where there is no contract, and like almost every state, most employees are at will and can be terminated at any time. So you make it a policy that all organizing must be done by the very few people who pay dues in the minority local. Extremely highly paid staffers who do NOT work for that employer and are safe from retaliation will tell the members how to do organizing but they won't do organizing because it "has to be done by members". Most people are not willing to stick their necks out like that and for good reason. That's why they still work there. Our international put out the policy that organizing must be done by members in *their* buildings, that someone
would have to go and reserve a room for an organizing meeting (yes right get on the radar of some high level administrative staff), and had to put up posters in that building listing the member's name that they were sponsoring the meeting!. That is a rule that had to have been made by the opposition! It's insane. Some areas in the workplace are so conservative that the membership doesn't want anything to tip off management that they belong to the union, not even payroll deduction, nor any publications from the union arriving in the mail. I don't care what "research" "proved" that organizing has to be done by publicly identified members. The concept is flawed. (What that probably really proved was that organizations that tolerated member to member organizing without terminal retaliation were less anti-union to begin with and that's why the organizing was successful.)

So if you're talking about bringing in outside people to organize,
I think you're definitely on the right track! Go for it.

It is simply not possible for at will employees to organize their own workplace. And if a subset of employees are not at-will (which is the case with our employer), those employees already have the security cake and don't care to subsidize the less advantaged in getting job security, unfortunately.

I will try to make it to the September 26 Toledo Ohio gig.

Contractors Construction Council- AGC
Advanced Marketing & Business Development / Survival of the Fittest

LaborUnionOrganizing.info wiki

I see you are getting more mileage out of the tough-guy/tough-love shtick. Fabulous!

Noticed that this is the third time I have seen a you quoted/writing
a reference to PANTIES.
Is this a Freudian slip or are you just trying to talk as you think construction workers talk?

Also, wanted to let you know that the focus is on the unions and the union representatives who employ you -not you. Thinking otherwise is a result of your own hubris. Sorry.

You might be surprised to know that I support your goals and most of your assertions. Forgive me for not trusting my union representatives who do not give the membership a voice in the strategic planning. Long story.

P.S. ; You are welcome for the free advertising.

Consultants Training
My union (IBEW) been training their organizers for years, both through in-house seminars conducted by national level representatives, and through consultants. Oh yeah, I have heard the phrase 'organize or die' (so obvious it is trite).

There has been years of focus on and effort paid to partnering with employers and creating programs to entice non-union employers.
And through it all I have observed that members of my union were willing to discuss and even accept compromises where necessary to butress market share.

Problem is; most local leaders were/are unwilling to spend the political capital to push for 'uncomfortable change'.

Does that make the union a dinosaur? Yes and no.

The failure of local leadership (and thus members too) does not in itself indicate that the union organization must throw away ALL the "old ways". I suggest that the quest for market share requires better application of some fundamental principles long held, as well as the thoughtful application of new programs.

My union (IBEW) is progressive. They are toying with worker classifications (levels of skill & pay), job classifying (levels of pay per type of work), and health-care initiatives. I support the premise of all these efforts. There are many more unmentioned initiatives that are being pursued for the sake of market share. Again, these are usually based on a premise that is defensible.

HERE IS THE PROBLEM ILLUSTRATED BY THIS THREAD.
Top down organizing is needed
BUT THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.

My union's national office often acts as if it is not accountable to the membership. (OMOV)
Many in my union believe the national office is capable of turning cooperation with employers into capitulation to employers.
That is both unnecessary and unethical.

Given that..

WOULD YOU NOT BE CURIOUS to hear your leadership is attending seminars conducted by a man (Breslin) who tells them they are a "dinosaur" and unions need to "to take your medicine; the wage, fringe or work rule concessions" ?

WOULD YOU NOT BE CONCERNED if your leadership spouts high ideals at the union's national convention then jets off to be trained by a man who has "no time to debate the moral merits or deficiencies" of his view?

So what is this guy?

Another guru of organization and professionalism?
Fine - God Bless, Happy Trails.

A master of the sales pitch? That's helpful.

Another self-appointed expert in employer-union partnering?
Probably. Dime a dozen. Big topic in our national office for last few years. Can be done right.

A negotiator for employers who sees the business advantages my union has and considers the old ideals of the union to be irrelevant restrictions?

God help us! Every union employer sees the business potential of the union and claims no particular agenda to harm the union worker. DOES THAT MEAN THEY CAN BE TRUSTED TO REPRESENT YOUR INTERESTS OR DEFEND UNION IDEALS. Of course not. Such a man offers viewpoints that can be insightful as well as corrosive to a union.
(Are we a union or a business?)

"Growth is the be-all, and end-all."
Grow is necessary but guess what? It is the employee's union.

The employees should be trusted to be party to the kind of strategic planning of which Breslin speaks. Most would cooperate and sacrifice. Point is: it's thier choice.
(And I don't believe the choice is between union death or a company union. Frankly, a company union is the more difficult problem.)

Whatever Breslin is, one thing is clear:
Given true union democracy, Breslin's rhetoric would signify ....nothing.