quote:

---

"Organizing the unorganized" is such an outdated concept. Burns, if you have so much trouble trying to wrap your brain around the concept of "mobilizing members", then you ought not to comment on it. It means infusing passion into the labour movement, and making union members stronger, smarter, and faster on the shop floor in regards to their rights as union members, and as labour activists. Can you fathom that? How about this: a mobilized membership strikes fear into the hearts of company negotiation committees, right up to the top brass. Believe me, I have seen first hand how much strength there is in mobilization of the membership. When a membership votes 98% in favour of a strike action should a deal not be made, the company takes definate note, and changes their tactics accordingly. When every shop-steward working under a Westfair banner in Winnipeg convenes and starts denouncing the union negotiating committee for not going on strike, everyone takes notice. When a union negotiating committee drags David Jeffs and Robert Ziegler out of bed to negotiate with eachother, strikes are averted and contracts are hammered out. It is mobilization such as this which yields strong, non-concessionary contracts, not an increase in the organizing budget.

"Organizing the unorganized" ? Your solution for the plight of the "organized" is to create more "organized"? That will only increase their plight manifold. It reminds me of Andy Stern's solution for the plight of big unions: make even bigger unions. What quackery! Quantity does not equate into quality, though the temptation to see bigger as being better is there: I see you have fallen under it's charm. Against "organizing the unorganized", I counter with mobilizing the unmobilized. Better, stronger union members, ie "mobilized" union members, is precisely what the labour movement needs: an impassioned group of workers, who will fight for their rights and the rights of their working stiff brethren, rather then running around trying to convince everyone working under the sun to unionize. Simply "organizing the unorganized" will not cut it anymore: it did not cut it thirty years ago when the labour movement began to decline, and it will not cut it now. My solution: mobilize the organized, and unorganized alike. Worker mobilization transcends union boundaries: one can be non-union and be mobilized at the same time, while one cannotbe at the same time non-union and organized; thus mobilization soundly defeats organization. Even moreso, organization can be a form of mobilization, in that it represents a coming together of shared values amongst common people; a sound recipe for empowerment. However, mobilization is not a form of organization: it supercedes it in breadth and depth, and can affect any person willing to lend an ear or commit and action. It is the concept of mobility that I am trying to emphasize here: it increases movement of the individual, while organization merely sets the individual up in a line. It is the freedom that mobilization affords the mobilized that makes it stronger then organization can ever be.

Union workers and non-union workers should be building bridges towards one another, and working together. Union elitism is defunct and unhealthy. Union members can no longer afford to believe that they are worth more then non-union workers. It is precisely that kind of egoism which turns off the "unorganized" from unions. Even the term "unorganized" is offensive to non-union workers. It implies that they are incompetant, and lacking in direction. Besides that, one cannot go on "organizing the unorganized" forever: it is not an ultimately feasible strategy. It is like waging a perpetual war with no end in sight (think 1984.) There will always be unorganized workers in the economy, but that is not necessarily true of organized workers. But, there can be mobilized workers ad infinitum, because mobilization is not restricted by organization. Strikes and rallies may not result in more organizing, but as I have made clear, organizing is not the say all tell all factor in a union: mobilization is.

Nobody wants a strike: that is self-evident. But you have to remember, Burns, that the strike is the only playable chip that the union has in negotiations; without it, the union is really quite lacking. Thus it is important to maintain a mobilized membership, should negotiations go sour. The fact that most people you have worked with do not want to strike is a moot point. I do not want to strike, but I will if I have to. That is my mentality.

Your lack of knowledge of alternatives to the current "pork chopper" model is merely a sign of a poor imagination. One can do many things, for instance: rather then get rid of all full-time staff, one could merely cut back on the current amount of staff via attrition, so that as old full-timers go, they are not replaced. It will increase the workload for the other reps, thus making them more accountable, and will expose them to more technical vocations as full-time business agents, thus increasing their adaptivity. Full-time agents with an over-all understanding of labour practice are more valuable then specialists who are limited to one field of labour practice, such as organizing or negotiating.

Again, I must repeat: organizing is not the only way! There are other methods of improving the labour movement besides attracting new members. Why would workers want to join a union anyways when it seems so desperate to attract new blood? That right there is a turn-off, like a used-car salesman who has not made a sale for a month, and needs to close a deal in order to keep his/her job. Would you want to buy a car off of a pleading salesman? Ofcourse not. Appealing to the sympathy of others in order to attain a goal is a sign of weakness. Unions cannot go about on hand and knee looking for new members; it is demeaning. Unions should be strong enough to stand on their own, without perpetually attracting new members. This is the type of inborn strength that mobilization can bring to a worker. Simply signing up new members is not enough.

---

I'm not sure what the solution is. Back in the late seventies and early eighties everybody in the country--unionized or not--knew that people like Bob White, Jean-Claude Parrott, Grace Hartman and Dennis McDermott were important labour leaders with significant influence socially, politically and economically. Now it seems that Buzz Hargrove is the only labour leader capable of getting his picture in the newspaper with any regularity. How many Canadians have actually heard the name Ken Georgetti and have even the vaguest idea who he is?

I'm not really sure what I'm getting at here. I think it may simply be that labour issues are not really a part of the public discourse in this country any longer and that that needs to change. Perhaps the labour movement should start operating on the assumption that all publicity is good publicity....

On that note here is an excerpt from Nancy Riche's remarks to the TUC in the UK:

"We tend to think, somehow or other, though, that the fight for union rights is not a basic fundamental human right, that somehow what we do in organising is subversive, that it is illegal. I know in Canada that you go around in the dark of night and you meet with people at home to sign them up with the union. Take it out of the dark. It is a basic fundamental human right to form and join a trade union, and we have to say it and say it out loud. The next time you are going off to dinner to your inlaws and your partner says, "For God's sake, don't get in a fight with Dad tonight over the bloody union", I say, "Get in the fight with Dad." We have to keep reminding ourselves that we are not an illegal activity. We are not a clandestine clique. We have a human right to be here."

[ 26 June 2005: Message edited by: Phil ]

About the comment by Nancy Riche: the reason Canadian unions organize in the dark is so that the non-union worker is not targetted by the company. We go to their homes in private so as to protect their jobs. People are at risk if they openly espouse unions in the workplace, because there are always company rats willing to tell the managers and such who is for the union. It is a matter of survival that we have to organize in the dark. How I wish it were not so, but it is a reality we have to live with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scribe:
Phil: I believe you are right that it is a problem that there is a lack of publicity on the labour movement, and that there is a lack of charismatic personalities involved in the labour movement. What is needed are leaders that will motivate the workforce to a point where solidarity is reached. Solidarity between workers is essential for a healthy labour movement.

About the comment by Nancy Riche: the reason Canadian unions organize in the dark is so that the non-union worker is not targetted by the company. We go to their homes in private so as to protect their jobs. People are at risk if they openly espouse unions in the workplace, because there are always company rats willing to tell the managers and such who is for the union. It is a matter of survival that we have to organize in the dark. How I wish it were not so, but it is a reality we have to live with.

However, I am not saying that it is important for people to be vocal in their support of unions. I would love it if non-union workers went to work to encourage others to join unions, but it a great risk. They have to be prepared for alienation and discrimination against them from management and management-shills. There just is not enough support for an individual to openly espouse unions, not with the current right-wing conservative environment in Canadian workplaces at present.

---

I agree 100% that we need some charisma and I would also add courage to court controversy as absolutely necessary on the part of our leaders.

On the other point I wasn't clear, sorry.

I recognize the issues around organizing in the current political climate; I was using Riche's remark to highlight the fact that we don't talk about unions and the labour movement at all anymore--even at the dinner table with our families.

I can remember my father complaining all the time about the "bloody unions" when I was growing up including during the bitter miners' strikes when I was a child in the U.K. Now he never talks about the unions unless I bring up stuff that's going on in my life that's union-related.

The climate of fear that right-wing forces cultivate has always existed in the workplace as you know. What I find so discouraging is that it has been converted to collective apathy both in the "public square" and at the family dinner table so that these issues are not even considered worth discussing.

There was a moment of hope with the fight between the Libs and the hospital workers in BC when it looked like some intense mobilization was happening but that fizzled as quickly as it flared up. I'm also encouraged by the response of the Stelco workers to management's ridiculous strategies these past months. On both of those issues, however, I cannot remember reading one comment in the MSM from CLC officials. Perhaps they weren't asked or perhaps I just missed it...

The Carol Wall candidacy and the internal AFL-CIO squabble are symptoms of the issues you raised in your original post in this thread. They are encouraging only because they reflect a degree of dissatisfaction regarding the direction of the North American labour movement and because they actually got press coverage...

And consider this: The AFL-CIO offers a link on its website to the Change to Win coalition. As far as I can tell, a reference Carol Wall is nowhere to be found on the CLC's site...

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Why should "mobilizing members" and "organizing the unorganized" be seen as exclusive of each other? We all are workers who want something better out of our jobs. Some of us (the members) may have collective agreements which define the terms and conditions under which we work. Others may not have collective agreements right now, but want one. And they need to be mobilized, maybe even more than current union members do, if they are ever going to get one. So aren't we fighting for basically the same thing?

---

Agree, 100%. But we don't seem to be able to do either very well right now.

Is it your perception that we are at a turning point in the labour movement or about to pitch ourselves off a cliff?

I can get to be one-noter on some of this stuff but the labour movement has to start representing part-time and contract workers better and it has to implement a broad and solid no concessions policy.

Employers' campaigns to convert full-time union jobs to part-time and contract positions has been horribly successful. Contracting out continues unchecked in the public sector. Pension plans appear to be the next target in every workplace.

[ 26 June 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

For example, according to the latest statistics, the "union wage premium" for full-time workers in the US is at a record high of 30.4% in 2005. How come this sort of incentive isn't translating into massive sign-ups by nonunion workers?

[ 29 June 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]