I am curious to hear what people think about this questions:

quote:

---

Can labour education transform the mainstream labour movement from a bureaucratic, top-down patriarchal movement to a grassroots, worker-centred movement that pushes for radical social change and union renewal?

---

The registration deadline has passed but maybe you can get some information about/from the upcoming Labour Education conference in Ottawa, from November 30 to December 3, sponsored by the CLC.

CLC National Labour Education Conference

quote:

---

Originally posted by tash:

Can labour education transform the mainstream labour movement from a bureaucratic, top-down patriarchal movement to a grassroots, worker-centred movement that pushes for radical social change and union renewal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tash:
Hi Unionist, would you care to elaborate on your response? I'm curious....

---

To the extent that the union movement needs renewal and workers need to fight for radical social change, "labour education" cannot be instrumental in "transforming" the situation. You don't become radicalized by sitting in a classroom - besides the issue of who is going to do the teaching. "Labour education" delivered to workers who are not already engaged in transforming the situation may just help a few of them fit neatly into a pre-existing bureaucracy.

If you want to know how one gets a real hands-on education in the realities of the labour world I might be able to assist you. Unfortunately I am not impressed by what passes for formal labour education in this province (e.g. http://www.capcollege.bc.ca/ce/north-shore/labour-studies/courses.html) and I think the prospects for any meaningful change are remote.

[ 20 November 2006: Message edited by: gbuddy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuddy:
You may get a better sense of unionist's perspective by reviewing his enthusiastic and articulate contributions to the recent thread "Re: They Learned It In School", found in the Rabble Reactions section.

---

quote:

---

Can labour education transform the mainstream labour movement from a bureaucratic, top-down patriarchal movement to a grassroots, worker-centred movement that pushes for radical social change and union renewal?

---

tash:

Yes. A Troublemaker's Website

[ 20 November 2006: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

quote:

---

Can labour education transform the mainstream labour movement from a bureaucratic, top-down patriarchal movement to a grassroots, worker-centred movement that pushes for radical social change and union renewal?

---

This is a good question. On a broad scale I would say yes. However, before we go much further on this, I think it’s important, both in fairness to the labour movement and the huge gains it has made for humanity over the decades and even centuries and in keeping with ethical research, not to make such sweeping and dismissive generalizations or condemnations of what is arguably the largest and most diverse social/economic movement in the world.

This is not to say that the bureaucratic top-down and even corporatist mindset don’t influence many labour unions. They certainly do—some more than others.

But that’s true of every democratic cooperative and community association (with most being in many ways more influenced by these than many labour unions). Why? Because these are sadly integral features of the corporate capitalist economics and values that dominate our economy and largely our society (and therefore influence other organizations and sub economies, including those that aren’t corporatist or capitalist).

In terms of patriarchal, that needs some clarification. If you mean it in how many feminists apply that term, as in exclusive to men, then it should be pointed out that labour organizations, including in Canada, arguably have more participation by women, as both activists and elected officials, than just about any other organization.

Again, that’s not to say there’s anything close to approximate parity or that there’s no need to improve things in this regard (ethnic diversity among elected reps is another area that needs work). But it’s clear when it comes to inclusiveness, it’s usually the labour movement that moves on this first and the most.

As for “worker-centered,” I assume you are referring to a more activist oriented “direct action” approach that encourages rank and file members to become more active and take more initiative in union affairs, than the much more stratified “leave-it-up-to-the-pros” attitude that reflects the general apathy and sense of dis-empowerment out there.

Labour education can certainly help develop these practices, depending on the nature of the education. Much of the current labour studies programs in the colleges are good in that they offer practical skills for shop stewards and people who get elected to negotiating or safety committees, union executives, etc. (teaching things like grievance-handling and mediation, confronting the boss, chairing meetings, basic labour law and history, etc.).

But they don’t get much beyond these things, as useful as they are, in terms of getting more people involved and advancing the historic political and economic goals of the labour movement. More of these types of courses can certainly developed, and labour education and history, since it is in fact the history of the vast majority of people, should certainly be taught in grade school.

However, Unionist, while being his usual totally dismissive and defeatist self, does make a good point in that it’s not good enough to simply take an academic classroom approach to this. Rather, it needs to be complimented by practical real-life experiences and learning within unions directly.

In my union, the CEP, we voted to start an activist mentorship program, which many locals have adopted with reportedly some real success at getting more people involved. And several locals are now moving to actually train more members and pay them wage compensation for time off work for union activities (like organizing or member assistance), rather than simply hiring more full-time professional staff.

I also think that labour studies and history should be included as a key feature in business programs, and these themselves should be taught from a working-class public interest perspective, teaching people how capitalist economics work, the nature and politics of corporate institutions and how these affect people and their environment, as well as the practical democratic socialist alternatives out there.

A couple sites of interest:

UE - The USA's Independent, Rank-and-File Union

Cyber-unionism

quote:

---

What makes Harry Kelber still tick, at 92, and a lot more than tick: to go on the offensive in newsletters and speeches against the absence of democracy in the upper ranks of the labor movement (AFL-CIO or Change to Win) and to proselytize for the need for global solidarity, innovative tactics, and, in general, a reawakening? It can't be a desire for the cushy retirement and rounds of golf confidently anticipated by the Meany- and Kirkland-era labor chiefs, that's for sure. We need to look back into another era, and Kelber's many young decades, now so long past, lend us the opportunity to do so for a character still very much on the scene now.

---

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Here's another thought. If you look at the current labour sponsored education, i.e. the curriculum, and at the actual audience, what distinguishes either one from the situation thirty years ago.

Probably nothing. But times have changed radically. People inside unions don't connect with those unions for the same reasons the general population does not connect. They perceive that the message, if they even hear one, is all PR and no substance. We buy toothpaste not because of the advertising, which has no impact on us, but because the product has a practical purpose in our lives. The labour movement needs to figure out what real benefit it can offer to people. PR doesn't cut it. The results speak for themselves.

The kind of initiative that would work is for the labour movement to forget the idealogical rhetoric and offer people real assistance in establishing and maintaining stable livelihoods. Currently its still about jobs and jobs are no longer stable. The labour movement cannot turn the clock back and change that reality.

When I turned to my union seeking the assistance it purported to offer, replies to my letters always started "Dear Brother ..." and ended "In Solidarity". When the union decided that I was no longer worthy of its attention I received a letter that told me so by opening "Dear Mr. ..." and closing "Sincerely ... ".

I was terminated by my employer for enforcing my right to have my overtime, vacation time paid, harrasment free and safe work environment. My company fabricated my lay off and MOT knew it was against the clause in the company's manual to terminate a worker on sick leave but MOT committed fraudelant and failed to enforce the law. MOT ordered to fire manager who harrased other co-worker at the same time but the fact was withheld from me.

I exposed incompetent Employment Standard officers who bluntly stated that reinstatment is not a option under Employment Standards and ruled that vacation time did not add up during the sick leave contrary to Supreme Court's decision.