Posting Guidelines: the good, the bad, and the ugly

I'm disappointed in your comment.

It is possible to minimize disruption while maintaining a productive discussion:

Someone posts on graduate student organizing in a forum on trucking, you tell them they're off topic. Someone calls someone else a m*f*er, you tell them they're using language that is unacceptable. (Though, in many unions, swearing is common and not considered out of bounds.) Someone posts fifty items in one day, you tell them they're clogging the site. Someone posts another person's social security number...Etc. (Look at Teamster.net for abundant examples.) All of this can be handled by common sense and simple guidelines. But you know that.

It is entirely different to say that discussion of "union politics" is off limits when talking about "issues facing all Teamster members." Or to claim that in order to build solidarity, educate members (!) and work to solve common problems members have to refrain from criticizing their officials or questioning their policies -- not to mention proposing something like a change in policy or leadership.

What kind of unionism is that?

Union politics can get ugly, you say. True enough, but in the Teamsters it is pretty ironic to give intemperate, axe-grinding comments on a website as an example of ugly. Read the reports of the Teamster Internal Review Board or those of the Election Monitor in the last IBT election for more relevant examples of ugly politics. In fact, in the Teamsters and many other unions the "ugly politics" and "axe-grinding" of rank-and-file members has been the key to fighting mob control, corruption, and autocracy.

Why not just call this what it is? The guidelines suggest that Teamsters officials don't want members to be able to comment freely on the site because the site mission is PR and they want to control the message. Comments that help them do that are welcome, comments that don't are not.

(One addition: I neglected to mention in my blog entry that the author of the submission guidelines is Teamsters Communication Director (I think that's the title) Dan Rutherford.)

It amusing how you removed my post for raising similar concerns on the TeamsterPower guidelines as those expressed by Matt Noyes.The difference is that I asked how you and Richard Negri who so vocally promote yourselves as friends of the rank and file would become involved in a site that censors its membership. You answer was to censor my post and remove it.

As far as not being an Official teamster site I find that amusing as well. Built by Prometheus and a Teamster employee who's job it is to build Teamster blogs. Paid for with Teamster Funds. Content and Guidelines decided by Teamster Officials.Access to membership lists and dues records to determine if a member is in good standing. Hmm. I would have to say it IS indeed an Official teamster site and the guidelines are an attempt at censorship.

Mr Rutherford wonders why do we care as non teamsters. We care because actions taken by the Electricians International and Operating Engineers International to silence and persecute their rank and file members for speaking out is an affront to all rank and file Union members and we have a duty to fight and expose it. The Teamster Power sites joins those that wish to silence their members free speech voices. Your censor of me for asking the questions that are similar to those of Mr Noyes are a reflection of your commitment to the rank and file worker. Mr Negri labeled me as absurd and an a....... as well as posting a rather delusional rant defaming my character for sharing similar opinions as Mr Noyes.

We share different opinions on what is the most important part of Organized labor Mr Dondley. I worship no Union Organizations just because they have Union in their title. You on the other hand appear to believe they should all be accommodated, given advantages and given anonymity because of the title regardless of how bad they rape the rank and file worker. The ONLY SINGLE IMPORTANT factor in organized labor is the working men and women of Labor. The Hoffas, McCarrons and Sterns are secondary to the cause that is organized labor.They are there to serve the rank and file but have seemed to have lost sight of that duty. Union and non Union alike must be challenged and exposed if their actions are a detriment to the rank and file. If you use Union funds to build a blog or web site than all members must be allowed to speak at will within the guidelines of civility which as Mr Noyes has stated can be easily controlled. If the teamsters want to know why Mr Hoffa is paid $335,000 per year than Mr Hoffa should answer. If the teamsters want to know why the Teamsters International spent $43,000 for a convention at Ballys Paris in Vegas than the International should answer. Most importantly is the right of the teamster member to be able to ask these questions on any teamster venue paid for with Teamster funds.

It is always the same with those that want the cloak of secrecy to hide their actions. We hear the same speech about causing division and giving ammunition to the non Union elements.Mr Rutherford tries to portray those fighting for a Democratic Union free from corruption as "losers want to continue fighting a losing battle" How many times have we heard this story. McCarrons Term is "Deranged Loner" Sorry but its not working anymore. The voices are growing louder. Would it not be a better policy to listen to those voices and engage them on site rather than have them go off site forced to build what you portray as anti Union sites(disagreeing with anything you say). Who is actually giving the non Union sector a sense of division
The SEIUvoice.org site should be a wake up call.

I am curious how you would know that if Teamsters would not be allowed to post criticism on TeamsterPower.

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your comment.

You raise an interesting problem.

It's my understanding that under federal law, if a union were to use its resources to campaign for a particular candidate, slate, or caucus, that would be illegal.

Nothing, however, stops the union from making its publications available to all members -- on an equal basis, subject to reasonable rules. That's why it is not a violation for the IBT magazine to use union funds to publish campaign materials from candidates or hold forums or debates.

Nor is a union prohibited from allowing members to speak their minds in union publications, in letters to the editor, comments on an official website, etc., including comments that criticize or praise officers and/or policies. (When it is election time, as you note, the union may adopt rules that ensure strictly equal access for candidates, as the Teamster Election Monitor did in 2006. http://www.ibtvote.org/2006/rules/Final_2006_Rules.pdf)

Moderating comments is fine. Whether it helps or hinders an online discussion depends on the moderating and the content, doesn't it? Some prefer an unmoderated discussion, others don't. That's a judgment call. The people you spoke with asked you to moderate. As you said, if people don't like the results they will go elsewhere.

Encouraging good netiquette is also fine. If you want people to stop whining, tell them not to whine. If you don't want swearing, say no swearing. If you want people to stay on topic, tell people to stay on topic.

So why ban union politics? If you don't equate it with venom, bile, rage, perfidy, etc., then why ban it? Is it because you think differences of opinion are divisive and lend comfort to the enemy?