Introducing labor leaders to geek culture
I spent spent a few hours over the weekend trying to trackdown blogs from labor leaders (see Labor leader blog hunt) using Google and other Internet seach tools. I found just one. That's pretty pathetic and it reflects just how badly unions are underutilizing the Internet, the most powerful communication tool in history.
Some would say this is good evidence of how top-down, business unionism has undermined the democratic underpinnings of unions. There is some truth to that, no doubt. But I don't think it explains everything. After all, there are a lot of union leaders who believe in open and democratic unions. So why don't they have something as basic (basic, at least, to many of us) as a blog? As I wrote in Idle Pens are Not Mightier Than Swords, I attribute much of our sorry state of affairs to gross ignorance of the Internet.
To fight that ignorance, I'd like Communicate or Die to be a melting pot of geek and union culture, where those of us who are steeped in technology can educate leaders about proven solutions that will strengthen their unions. There's a staggering choice of technologies and strategies and your average union leader isn't going to be able to pick out the good ones from the bad. I'd like Communicate or Die to become a great resource for leaders, a place where they can learn, debate, and discuss how to effectively use the Internet.
But this community belongs to the members who join it. Please tell us what you think and any other ideas for what you think Communicate or Die should strive to become.
Here's a Shocker
Okay, i would agree, most leaders aren't geeky or savy when it comes to using the net, but there is more to it than that...MUCH MORE. Hell, i can't even type and i have written volumes on line. So, what is it that keeps biz union types from using the net to express themselves, grow the organization and build an online community of non-union workers?
Simple...first and foremost it's CONTROL...or more importantly, the lack thereof. In 1994 i went to a UFCW educational program in Las Vegas (stop laughing, some of us were there to learn). I had been visiting every union website available and found one in Vancouver BC that had an interactive site. Interestingly enough, UFCW 1518 was the local and they were co-presenters in the program on using the net.
Much to my dismay, the first words out of their mouths were, "whatever you do, do not make it interactive (they had just taken their's off line)." I was terribly disappointed. Virtually every other union website was little more than house organs and promotional venues for the elected officers. They resembled the "communication" of their local union newspapers; short on substance and long on spin-doctoring.
Suffice to say, i came away with an empty feeling regarding using the net in that manner. Ultimately we did build a site and while it was not interactive, we used it in ways most locals were scared to death of. By the end of 1995 we had a site up and running and while it wasn't interactive, it was a medium we used unlike most other unions. We developed a huge membership following by simply using the net to track ongoing contract talks. Employers hated iit, members loved it.
The second reason most labor leaders aren't "into" the net is their failure to be creative in either writing or exposing themselves in a critical and open manner. Most of the internationals and many of the bigger locals have ghost writers doing the copy for officers. To me, it's a sad state of affairs when a particular elected official (especially one making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year) can neither speak or write without a script, teleprompter or having someone craft his or her words and thoughts.
Let's face it, using the net correctly means making a commitment of time and energy and then having the creative ability to use your own words to respond to both the good and the bad stuff that surfaces. They'll tell you they are far too busy. IMHO they are afraid of the lack of control and the downside is too big for them to have to try and overcome. Too bad, because the net has the potential to rebuild organized labor, so much so it could become a movement again.
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
That can't be true for all leaders
There must be leaders who are interested in rebuilding a grassroots labor movement. Can the labor unions really be completely devoid of all reform-minded leadership? I highly doubt it. And if they're saying they don't have the time, it's because they don't truly understand how vital a tool the Internet is. Saying they don't have time is the equivalent of saying "I don't have time to communicate my ideas to my members or understand their needs and concerns."
It's also true that some leaders can't write their way out of a paper bag and surely that's an obstacle to their getting a blog. But again, this isn't true for all leaders. There are plenty of highly literate, intelligent leaders.
My goal is to find the capable leaders who want to grow the labor movement and who are willing to learn how the Internet can help them achieve their goal. Believing that there aren't leaders like this to work with is not an option. Because if that were true, there'd be no reason to even try.
Can't be True?
Why not? These guys haven't been sleeping under a rock, hell, most of them stay in the finest hotels with some of the best high speed connects available. Shostak's CyberUnion http://www.erudit.org/revue/ri/2001/v56/n4/000114ar.html came out in 1999. Interactive websites have been available since the mid 90's. The recent popularity of blog's may be "new," but many of us in the reform movement have been playing around with a variety of open source products for years.
Here is the point you didn't respond to Steve and it is the primary objection for developing interactive communication. CONTROL. The biz union model is about dictating what is said or is not said. There are several court cases in the US and Canada where internationals have tried to shut down sites because of what is being said on them.
The internet isn't a union hall where the leadership can turn off the mic. It isn't a local's newspaper where the articles printed are only those in favor of the current crop of leaders. This is a wide open forum where ideas are discussed, where workers can share opinions and they can get the truth. It scares the devil out of those who have the power, and are determined to keep it.
Some of us see it as far more. I've seen educational software that could be used to reach thousands of workers. I've seen sites with no budgets reach huge on-line participation. The sad fact is, as long as the biz union model is the dominant structure driving organized labor, you will not see much in the way of openess or creativity. If they can't control it, they just won't play.
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
So all union leaders are self-serving power mongers?
That's not a realistic assessment. There are some 25,000 unions out there in the United States, surely there are individuals out there whose main objective is to rebuild the power of workers. Looking at my own labor community in Western Massachusetts, I know many people like this. I also know from talking to them that they are absolutely clueless about the Internet.
So Why Are They Clueless?
I'm miffed. The labor movement has been in a downhill slide for thirty plus years. The reason i got involved with technology was because i saw how bad things were and looked for alternatives. Labor Education Services at the University of Minnesota has been pushing union leaders to change and grow since the mid 80's. There's been hundreds of articles in my 26 years inside the movement that have prompted leaders to change or die.
I'm no smarter than the next guy, no big brain, no genius...but i have seen the failures and knew we couldn't stay the course, cling to the status quo. If you think it isn't about control, then why is it so many others haven't taken the plunge?
This discussion gives all new meaning to the book Internet For Dummies.
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
Not enough Pearson's
We need more people like you advocating and clamoring for change. That's the only way it can happen. It's a very noisy world and important messages get lost in the din. My hope is that this site will help raise the volume a little higher.
There's a whole boatload of folks...
who would disagree with that statement Steve. I hear i'm about as welcome as a hair in a biscuit at the UFCW International. One of the tenets of organized labor is to not rock the boat and speak out about our sins. I guess by keeping quiet, they aren't quite as devastating. What foolishness.
Just for the record, it is my understanding the original proposal by Rogers and Freeman on Open Source Unionism wasn't just to appear as a magazine article. It was compiled for the AFL-CIO and was part of the stratagizing to rebuild organized labor.
Point being, when we talk about whether the boys just somehow missed the idea of using the internet, it wasn't because they were clueless or slept through the past 10 years. It was a conscious decision to not get involved in interactive two way dialogue where there was no controls or filters.
We had an exceptional web designer who developed our Youareworthmore site, BordersUnion site, Targetunion site and others. He started a website called Retailworker (where i met him online) and it was awesome. Some 4000 registered users and more traffic than he could handle. On numerous occasions i spoke with the UFCW International about trying to duplicate this effort...it was like talking to an old computer monitor not connected to a tower and expecting it to work.
There was ZERO interest. None, nada, zip, nothing. The funny thing was, some of the boys were registered on line and read it (like they do today), but no one wanted the headaches or the challenges that came with it.
As you keep searching for interactive sites run by unions, i think you will see what i am saying. There are hundreds of worker/reformer sites. Unfortunately mainstream is whithout a padddle when it comes to using the net to rebuild, revitalize or connect to the community of workers who rely on it for information that hasn't been sent through the spin-doctor cycle.
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
Interesting stuff
I'm familiar with those sites and often wondered why the UFCW Internatinal never seized upon them. I'm going away now for the next couple of days but I'll have some thoughts when I get back. Later.
The change is inevitable
Ever read a book called the "Naked Corporation"? If not, I highly recommend it. I'm in the middle of it now. If you see business unionism as the root of the problem, then the age of transparency will help bring about change. Anyway, I won't get into it here. I'm going to post a review of the book when I'm done with it.
As far as you being persona non grata at UFCW, your Internet post at http://groceryworkers.org/discussion is probably just one reason. :) Your post also ties in closely with the ideas set forth in the "Naked Corporation."
What makes a union leader?
In my internal organizing experience, it is to help union members understand that the power in a union comes from its members. Union officials are not the only union leaders out there. That is where I come from when I am challenging the idea of searching out "union leaders" to convince that social software would be a good idea for a communication model for their website. While I was on staff at GEO we set up our our site during the contract campaign to diseminate information and have a forum for quesitons. It worked well. After the contract campaign, we just set up the main union website to be a weblog (http://umgeo.org) and in 2005 the new leadership didn't use the weblog as that tool. I am tired and rambling, see you soon. ;-)
Not either or
We can argue day in and day out about where power eminates and which is more important, leaders or members? But that's a false dichotomy. The answer is that both good leadership and an informed and active membership make for strong unions or any organization for that matter.
The fact remains that some people wield more power than others. They have the power to influence and move resources within their institutions to create a lot of change very quickly. If you can influence them, you can bring about change more quickly.
This is obviously not to say individual members are not important or they are not influential. However, these stakeholders simply do not have as much authority to drive an organization and the decisions they make have far less effect. They can put pressure on leaders to change, but they cannot bring about the change themselves directly (except by winning an election). That's representative democracy.
Also, any good representative democracy needs transparency. When a leader maintains a blog, he/she is helping to create that transparency. That can only be a good thing.
Honesty?
As you pointed out in the piece i did there was "stuff" that was objectionable to the international. The question ultimately is, do we tell members/workers the truth or do we spin doctor our way through life pretending this "stuff" isn't happening? The internet has changed the equation by taking the control from those who have it all...is that good or bad in your eyes?
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
You must have transparency or you lose trust
So my answer to your question is pretty obvious.
However, I think your talk of "taking" control is rather incendiary and somewhat counter-productive. It puts leaders, even those who intend to create change, in a defensive position. Kind of like what happened to you with ufcw.net when you were attacked quite vigorously by them.
I'm not saying don't point out the problems or abuses you have witnessed in the labor movement. But be careful not to make that your only message. Like any institution run by humans, there's aspects to the labor movement we might not be proud of. However, there's a lot of good things and good people in the movement and to whitewash the whole institution as one vast bastion of corruption does a disservice to workers and our mission.
I prefer to take a more pragmatic appraoch. My goal is to encourage current and upcoming leaders to change and incorpoate the Internet into their communication strategies. If they do not, the labor movement will be destroyed. That may sound like hyperbole but I believe the Internet is that big and that important. That's why I called the site "Communicate or Die."
Is Transparency and Honesty the Same Thing?
Interesting you raised the issue of my initial foray with the folks from mfd. It is the classic example of the differences of biz unionists and what i did as a union leader. I saw the net as an open venue for change; and while the initial exchange got a little heated, it was still give and take. Even with those disagreements, i have over a thousand posts on that site. It is that kind of open dialogue that helps shape ones views.
You have noted my style is more confrontational, and suggested it should be a bit more pragmatic. I tried that route. For the 26 years i was on the inside, it did nothing but get worse. The boys just glossed over my laments and ignored any suggestions we should change.
I have become far more caustic in retirement, but it is shallow to suggest my comments are only about the negative aspects of the trade labor movement. I have written volumes and while they have highlighted labor's failures, they almost always conclude with my views for rebuilding our movement.
Here's one example of a lengthy piece posted on a site i have no connection with: http://www.p4du.org/LABOR%20ISSUES/Articles/2004_03_06_
BillPearson_TheFutureOrganizedLabor.htm and here is another: http://www.669roaddogs.org/files/yawm.htm
Both are strongly opinionated pieces. They are also about transparency, hope and ideas that we can work our way out of the mess we are in; each has focused on the internet as being one of the primary tools for rebuilding a strong vibrant movement.
Finally, you would be hard pressed to see me attacking specific leaders. There are a handful of the bigger pigs who i have posted stories of their hoggish behavior, but the facts have almost always been nothing more than the transparency you support. My theory was, if you were afraid of having members read about it...you shouldn't have been doing it.
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
Take a look down the left-hand side column
I linked to your "Future of Organized Labor" piece last night. How do you think I know what I know? See how how transparent the Internet makes things? :)
We're basically on the same page. You were ahead of your time and had to do a lot of headbanging. But now the winds of change are upon us, the Internet is more pervasive and the technologies built upon it are becoming more mature. Hang in there, bud. Keep doing what you are doing. Just try to believe that directing your anger and frustrations into positive pursuits will get more and better results. You've been around longer than me so I don't need to remind that it's far easier to tear things down than build them up.
The Future
I didn't see the link, since you posted it, i'll assume you read it. If so, was the article "too critical?" It's obviously a loaded question, because the other thing i learned is, most members know very little about their union or how it is run. Is it better they know the truth?
The net has given them access to information never before available. Is it better they remain dumb and in the dark, or should the transparency be just that? Should the sins of our fathers be exposed? Talked about?
While some think i resent the leadership, most of the folks i knew in the business were good people. Sadly, the vast majority are caught in the biz union mode and can't escape it. It's why you won't find blogs or interactive two-way communication on the net; at least by most locals, internationals or central bodies.
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
Battles can be fought on more than one front
I'm not going to pontificate about whether or not what you write is acceptable to me. But please tell me where you are going with all this. Maybe you are looking for some clarification on my position about business unionsism? Maybe you wish to propose that this site become a platform for "exposing the sins of our fathers?"
If so, there are plenty of other sites out there for doing that. The mission of this site is to "build a network of labor and technology professionals to discuss and develop solutions that allow unions to realize the full potential of Internet technology." It's not about developing strategies for bringing down business unionsism.
My belief is that the Internet will drastically change the face of the labor movement. If unions do not embrace the technology and use it to engage their members, they will continue to decline. Therefore, it is my intention to encourage those who will listen to move in that direction. This is the approach I have chosen to take. I offer unions a carrot.
If you want to wield the stick, go for it. All I ask is that when you come here, you respect what this community is about and act more like a carrot than a stick.
Here's the bad news.
You don't have to help bring down biz unionism, they've been doing it themselves for the last thirty years without any help from you, me or the internet. The net just has accelerated the matter.
I asked about your position on the article only because you posted it and at the same time suggested i've been too critical in what i've been saying. Is it fish, or is it fowl?
How much is too critical? How transparent is transparent? The vast majority of the things i have written have been about a rebirth for organized labor, and it was always predicated on workers being at the root of the recovery. By your own acknowledgement they have a far better grasp of using the net as a resource for empowerment.
There is/was a simple formula for effective writing or speaking...know your audience; i'm trying to do just that. My goal is always to speak to/with the audience; to engage them at a level they are comfortable with. The name on the website is Communicate or Die...a fairly dramatic emphasis suggesting things are that serious.
I get invited to participate on a number of sites. When you asked me to come, i assumed you had read a fair amount of the things i had posted. As you suggested, a Google search gives you a quick study in who and what i am. I have no preconceived notions about what i would accomplish here other than i can add my experiences regarding the internet, running a 7,500 member local and being trapped in an outdated and collapsing model of unionism.
The question i always pose is; if you are going to try and rebuild it (and in your case using the net)...what is it you are trying to rebuild it to?
"It is often easier to fight for one's principle's than to live up to them."
Please reread my last comments for answers
As far as your first questions, you've already asked them and I've given you my answers in the last couple of responses.
The answer to your other question, as to what I'm trying to build the movement to: I want a labor movement where workers know the score and are actively engaged and fighting to even it.
Yes, I'm more interested in the stuff you did with the Internet
You wrote: "i can add my experiences regarding the internet". Yes, I'd like to hear much more about the sites you helped launch and what worked and what didn't work. But if you'd rather talk about how the business union model is hopelessly broken, there's many other places on the Internet for that. I, for one, am not interested in having that conversation. I'm neither qualified or prepared for such a debate. The name of this site is not "Business Unions Must Die." :)