The official union website in the rank-and-file web, part one
|
I think Steve's question is worth a separate discussion:
How does a union organization grapple with the legitimate need to "stay on message" with the need to allow members to have their voice heard in a public venue? It seems
unions, being more "of the people" than say private corporations, have a unique expectation placed upon them to discuss and debate disagreements in public.
What I advise unions to do is the following:
1) Screen comments. As much as I love free-for-all, spirited debate, there are times for having it and times for not having it. A public union website is not the forum for that. Do it behind closed doors.
2) Allow criticism. Members need to be heard. And a good leader will should listen to all criticisms. And the union needs to show that it is genuine about listening to its members.
3) Require all criticisms be done respectfully. No name calling, nothing that even hints at an insult. People must be extremely polite.
4) Require criticisms be accompanied by an alternative suggestion.
5) Criticisms should only be about the stance leaders take on issues, not the leaders themselves. If the leader is an alcoholic megalomaniac, take that up in the union meeting, not in public.
To me, we have to take a step back to get this discussion in the right framework. I think the underlying problem is that some of the foundations of unionism have shifted. Meaning, the old concept of that which is "internal" to the unions and that which is "external" has changed, particularly in relation to communications and politics.
A union meeting was internal. A union executive board meeting was internal. A rally was external. A strike was external. Contract negotiations were often a mix of internal and external. Union newspapers too were often both, aimed at members, but often also written/edited with an eye to the public -- putting the "best face" on the union. Still, all in all, it was easier to draw a line between "internal union affairs" and the outside world.
Thanks to the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, and the efforts of generations of union reformers, the right of union members to speak publically about "internal" union affairs has been established.
Of course, autocracy, like hope, springs eternal: union officers sometimes try to suppress such speech -- as in the IUOE and IBEW cases I have reported on. But such efforts are unlikely to succeed, though they put a burden on the members.
For the rank-and-file, union debate and discussion crosses the old internal and external divide (with a few exceptions, e.g., strike strategy). In the old days, when we had to print leaflets and hand them out, this internal/external rank-and-file union space was limited in scope.
With the internet, the world has turned. Now, the rank-and-file space, at least online, rivals the official union space. I see this growing, especially as workers employ the newest media and internet tools.
The rank-and-file space is also shifting the boundary between talk and action, with new forms of online action and enhanced ability to organize and coordinate action that takes place offline.
The rank-and-file space is home to an explosion of union culture and new forms, especially of cross-workplace and cross-union discussion. (E.g., UBC member Richard Dorrough's interest in TeamsterPower.)
In addition, there is an increasing inter-penetration of rank-and-file media and other independent media. The Democracy Now video of Rosselli and Regan is one example that shows how "external" media is increasingly becoming part of the "internal" life of unions.
The rank-and-file space is full of experimentation and variety. Some sites moderate content, some are mostly informational, some are unmoderated. On balance, the rank-and-file labor internet is unmoderated, free and very active. There is a lot of great work being done by the builders of the rank-and-file net. In all of this, the rank-and-file internet has been in synch with the larger democratic participatory trends in the internet. (Of course there are counter trends, but that's another story.)
The point is that the rank-and-file have largely built and defined the labor internet that the official websites are now part of. This is certainly true when it comes to the question of free speech. It is not the same world that prevailed pre-internet. The old tools of power and control that union leaders enjoyed, though still potent, have lost some of their impact.
So what is the position of official sites in the labor internet? What roles can they play? How do they handle the "internal/external" divide? Is there some ideal division of labor between official and unofficial sites? I'll come back to that in a future post.
- Matt Noyes's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 910 reads
No question the Internet will change the face of labor
New media will change the labor movement and all of society, for that matter, just like the book changed the face of Western civilization (read Marshall McLuhan's Gutenberg Galaxy).
I have no idea what's going to shake out of all of it. It's interesting to watch it unfold. I think it's fairly clear that power will become less centralized (as long as the Internet and its underlying technology stays relatively unfettered). The big question is: will the Internet going to make the labor movement stronger or more ineffectual? I don't have the answer to that, either. All I know is that unions need a clearly defined strategy for how to best make use of the Internet or else they will surely sink.
Unfortunately, this discussion almost always devolves into an argument that pits Rank and File workers against the leaders of "Big Labor." But it's a false dichotomy.
First, we need to recognize the good side of centralized power. If the force behind the power is good, and there are checks on that power, that's a good thing. Because when you have power, you can get a lot done. There are some tradeoffs to such a structure: bureaucracy, lack of direct membership involvement, and yes, power can be abused (union leaders are human, of course). However, if you expect to have influence beyond the shop floor level, I don't see how you can avoid building such an organization.
Second, we also need to recognize that the labor movement is only as strong as the participation of the rank-and-file members. Only they can bring the energy and man-power needed to build a vibrant labor movement. But there are limits to what an unorganized, unguided mass of people can do. At some point, they need to pool and centralize their power and resources to get real work done. That's what the "organized" in organized labor is all about.
I see the Internet as a great opportunity for the labor movement to help bridge this false divide that seems to plague us. There is a great opportunity here to connect leaders with rank and file members. The bridge is going to be built from both sides. It will come from rank and filers who agitate and force insulated union leaders to change and it will come from labor leaders who grasp the Internet and all of its implications and provide the resources to build the communication infrastructure needed to organize and carry the movement forward.
Internal debates and private discussions are necessary evils
As natural as the conflict between capital and labor, there seems to be a conflict between the need for democracy and the need for secrecy.
For example, there can be a lot of Machiavellian scheming that goes on behind closed doors that cannot be debated in public. Leaders are entrusted to think up and execute these ideas. How should the leader respond in public when his motives behind his/her decisions are questioned publicly? If the leader is forced to debate his plans before the body, he'd be weakening the union's position.
And all unions also have a basic need to get their message out. Call it "propaganda" or "PR", the fact is that workers need to be educating themselves and getting their message heard and understood by as many people as possible. To do that, the message needs to be simple, direct, and undiluted. That goal isn't necessarily best achieved with a public discussion site that allows free debate about the issues. And not everyone will want to participate in a debate, anyway. Union leaders are entrusted by the larger body to make decision as allowed by the bylaws and the constitution. Not everything should be up for debate. That's terribly inefficient.
So, how do you balance the outcry for more rank and file participation with the need for efficiency and secrecy that unions have used to their advantage in the past? Well, there are no surefire answers at this point. All that's known is that unions will need to adapt to fit the new communication landscape. What has worked in the past may not work in the future. They need to experiment and find out what the strengths and weaknesses of the Internet are. Only by doing so, and making lots of mistakes along the way, will they arrive at the best solution.
About open comment-criticism and secrecy
" Not everything should be up for debate. That's terribly inefficient.
So, how do you balance the outcry for more rank and file participation with the need for efficiency and secrecy that unions have used to their advantage in the past?"
+++
From my view- you may be overlooking the classical prime reason for secrecy - which has nothing - repeat nothing to do with members needs - but everything to do with maintaining the existing power structure and control of the union.
In reality- there is VERY little that should be with-held from the membership. A close reading of LMRDA
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/olms/lmrda-act.htm
and DOL reasoning will reveal that the ONLY thing that should be restricted are staff and office personal issues - and protection of ' salts"
With the internet- it is now quite easy to publish meeting minutes, voting, and organizational issues and allow only members to view if needed- or prevent from copying, etc
But despite all efforts to open the 'books' - the sad fact is that union finances are routinely made awkward to find- and insistence on union public documents can result in a major duck and cover response if not outright hostility.
For example - try and get the pension plan legal documents from the union or the company- try and get the IRS 990 forms- try and get the data you need - the union DOL number to access the now online LM-2 forms - although with a little effort, you can get it yourself. try to get YOUR union to post the links to such information- and to publish the annual audit on line via pdf files.
The "advantage" of secrecy really only goes to to the leaders- to protect their fifedom.
Most seem to forget that 'democracy' is HARD work- and simply cannot be left to a few leaders-
keep in mind that union governing documents - constitution - bylaws are a CONTRACT between the union and its members,- but enforceable only by federal or state courts.
Ever try to get a honest- non-conflicted opinion from a qualifed lawyer as to how well YOUR union governing documents met the letter and spirit of LMRDA?
When was the last time YOUR union published the " bill of rights' for union members as REQUIRED by federal law ?
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/olms/lmrda-act.htm
TITLE I -- BILL OF RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Bill of Rights
(29 U.S.C. 411)
SEC. 101. (a)(1) EQUAL RIGHTS.-- Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization's constitution and bylaws.
(2) FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY.-- goes on and ends with
Information as to Act
(29 U.S.C. 415)
SEC. 105. Every labor organization shall inform its members concerning the provisions of this Act.
Democracy, like power, takes some organizing
I missed this comment, but I think it's right. I would just add that when people say democracy is inefficient -- picturing one endless union meeting after another -- that should serve as a call to build practices and structures that are participatory, democratic and efficient.
I once worked with members of an RWDSU local whose bylaws defined a great democratic structure -- workplace committees, stewards council, all reps elected by the members they represent, recall, etc. The union had drifted into a more standard top down practice, but it wasn't because democracy is inefficient, it's because democracy needs to be actively organized, like unions. In that case, they had a good template but because they had stopped using it, it became just paper.