Big Mick's organizing drive results

Subject: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 99 - 09:27 PM

Because so many have expressed interest, I am going to put the results of the organizing drive here. No need for response folks, it is just FYI. The unit was a retail food/mercantile store in Kalamazoo, MI. The unit size was 121. The company put on a push but we outworked 'em and the final tally was 51 for the union and 36 against with 9 challenged ballots. If opened they would have changed the final tally to 53 - 43. The union wins either way.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Susan A-R
Date: 26 Mar 99 - 09:36 PM

Glad to hear it Mick. It's getting harder and harder for folks to have a voice in the workplace, and unions have a LOT of value these days. Contrary to popular "wisdom" the usefulness of unions ain't past. Glad that you are working on this stuff.

Susan

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: bseed(charleskratz)
Date: 26 Mar 99 - 09:57 PM

Amen, and let's get that Labor party going. To hell with the Demicans and the Republicrats. --seed

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Mar 99 - 11:43 PM

Dearest Mick,

That's very good news! I was just telling me da what you were doing and he was bemoaning the fact that, in his 'umble opinion, most babyboomers do not realize it was unions which brought about the safety, pay scale, etc. most of them enjoy today.

He lives in Utah and also reminded me to refer people to the Ballad of Joe Hill, who, as da says, was basically murdered by the state of Utah for his actions for worker's rights in the copper mines.

Wyoming has a horrible, recent record of worker's rights. Workmen's Comp has become a joke; wages are minimal; children leave after high school or college to work in other states. I have a friend who has a four yr. degree with a two year degree on top of that, who works as a paralegal and makes about 17,000 per yr., because they have no organised body to fight for better pay and bennies! and, she is a single mom! There are also many migrant workers who come from Mexico and quite a few from Oz to work on the ranches and resorts who are treated horribly.

Good on you, Man!

katlaughing

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: McMusic
Date: 27 Mar 99 - 02:37 AM

Here's a pat on the back to you, Big Mick! Ya make me proud! God bless you!

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: O'Hanrahan
Date: 27 Mar 99 - 10:28 AM

Way to go Mick!

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Alan of Australia
Date: 27 Mar 99 - 10:32 AM

Great stuff Mick.

Had our state election in New South Wales today (well yesterday seeing it's after midnight). It looks like Labor held on.

I know that's strange spelling for an Aussie party but that's the way it is.

Cheers,
Alan

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: AllisonA(Animaterra)
Date: 27 Mar 99 - 11:50 AM

Yay, Mick!

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From:
Date: 27 Mar 99 - 12:04 PM

Dear Mick,

You have both my congratulations and my respect...but you knew that. Over the years, I've read and listened to assorted opinions on what makes winners and what drives people on. No one ever mentions what evidence proves is the most powerful force (outside of fear). I've come to believe that "passion" drives us to our greatest pinnacles. More than desire or goal setting, passion is that burning sensation deep in the gut that makes us willing to do all and risk all for whatever the "prize" may be.

Ah, but you knew that too.

catspaw P.S. I think Shula is too much for any ONE to handle so I'm thinking she needs to be made a Queen so that we can all serve in specific ways...but all jokes aside, wasn't her post on the Best Folksinger thread tremendous?

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Bill
Date: 07 Apr 99 - 06:44 PM

I suppose, for those who have not much ambition or life choices, a union can be useful. They can negotiate with the company for them and specify what they earn in pay and benefits, when they work, when they get vacation, when they go on break, when they can go to the bathroom, which jobs they may ascend to, etc. The union can offer these people some degree of security in return for their money and loyalty. The union becomes another layer of authority over the worker. The union that ostensibly protects the worker also gains control over the worker. If this is all a worker aspires to in his time on this earth, then more power to them. For those who have some ambition, the union becomes an obstacle. Anyone who truly desires to be their own person and control their own destiny will ensure they are valuable enough, by education, skill, and hard work to achieve this freedom. Companies need and value educated, skilled, and hard-working people, in spite of the union propaganda, because companies want to make money. On th3e other hand, companies actually use unions to hold down pay and benefits of unskilled workers. I know there are a lot of people who come from a long line of "union men", live in union towns, and live in closed shop areas. It is a way of life. I truly feel sorry for these people because they don't know anything else. Now this is not a flame of any union people. If you are happy with your union-managed life, that's fine. I'm just giving you all a different perspective, which is obviously at odds with Big Mick's and others who tout the union.

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Apr 99 - 07:01 PM

I shudder to think of where my sisters would be without their teacher's union. They all have ambitions and options, although when they got their degrees, girls were told they could only be teachers, nurses or be a college dropout and "sling hash" the rest of their lives. They are "educated, skilled and hardworking" and, union though they are, they have a great deal of freedom and have never felt an air of oppressiveness such as you describe.

Also, the other teachers who are not members of the union benefit to the fullest, as they receive every benefit that the union members receive.

Actually, I would have to say I think your statement is from a particularly male perspective (NOI). Without unions, women and children could still be slaving away in sweatshops, similiar to what we know are still being operated in third world countries. Without unions, workers with no contracts have no hope of regular compensation, job security, etc.

Lest you think I am too biased, plese keep in mind, my husband and I have never worked in a union "shop", because they weren't available. We have chosen to be pretty eccentric in our way of life and pursuit of employment and I can truthfully say there were times when I wish we had had a union available to us. Companies do NOT care if you are able, skilled, etc., as you noted. They will use you up and find another to replace you. Even if they do value you, they will still exploit you if it menas an increase to the bottom line.

And, I really see nothing wrong with wanting a little security in life. I have lived with insecurity a'plenty and am pleased with the adventures that has brought about, but that doesn't mean I wish it had not been a little more secure.

Please know I do not mean this offensively or personally. I am sure you knew you would stir strong emotions with your posting and I do respect your right to feel that way.

katlaughing

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: AlistairUK
Date: 08 Apr 99 - 09:13 AM

I have been on the recieving end of union duplicity not once but twice. This explains my rancour at them. I admire people like Mick whose campaining has obviously benefitted the people that he represents, my hat off to you. But I must agree with Bill about how unions, in general, turn out. I have never been an advocate of the closed shop, as it always turns into mafia that ends up repressing the rights of the individual worker for the benefit of the organisers. The problem with the monolithic unions that exist today is that the reps and officers get paid. They are not representing the rights of individuals within an organisation, but doing a salaried job, it sort of puts a different perspective on why they do what they do. I have known many union officers that receive a quite healthy salary and perks that the people that they represent will never see. I believe that workers associations and cooperatives are far better than unions (though they are in fact what unions used to be) and that one supports the other, not f*** one another over as unions are wont to do.

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Bert
Date: 08 Apr 99 - 10:06 AM

If it wasn't for the unions the working conditions of EVERYONE would be the same as those in the days of The Tolpuddle Martyrs.

Even those of us who are in non union workplaces benefit from the wages and conditions fought for by the unions.

True Story....

I was working in a non union drawing office in England. Pay was lower than average because the office was in a remote village.
My friend and I plotted that we would both ask for a raise on the same day. Now the company knew that John and I were both "a bit bolshie" and were so scared that we would start a union that they called a meeting of the whole staff and gave EVERYONE a good raise.

Bert.

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: AlistairUK
Date: 08 Apr 99 - 10:31 AM

This is all true bert, but what unions were and what theyhave since become are two different beasts. I think that in Britain, the late sixties and the early seventies epitomised what unions had become, the worst of what they are came out to the chagrin of the true reformers, often hobbling new social initiatives and turning the public against them, enabling right wing anti-unionists to say "see, see...they are out to destroy the country"when in fact all they were trying to do was line their own pockets ( they being the agitators). Of course this isn't restricted to unions, a lot of these "lefty'councillors were also out to do the same thinks, anybody in the UK Remember the Liverpool debacle some years ago (magnificently depicted in Alan Bleasedales GBH). I just live by the very cynical rule "Beware of reformers with straight teeth and new suits".

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Bert
Date: 08 Apr 99 - 10:56 AM

I don't recall any of our Boilermaker leaders having "lined pockets".

The Late Ted Hill when president of the Boilermaker's Society was voted a raise by the national committee. He turned it down remarking that he refused to be earning more than "his memebers"

I do recall, though, a lot of misrepresentation by the press which put unions in a bad light. And yes there are abuses, every time there are positions of power which can be abused. Which is why there are always more abuses by employers - there are more positions of power.

Bert.

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: AlistairUK
Date: 08 Apr 99 - 11:01 AM

Bert: The late great Ted Hill was an exception and I remember his refusal, I was for many years a member of the Boilermakers ( I worked for the sewer division on my local council, so I don't now where the boilermakers came into it but we weren't accepted by the TGWU) and yes there are always abuses of power, this I realise.

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Bert
Date: 08 Apr 99 - 01:21 PM

Alistair, Are you following me or something??? First you lived near Dunstable. Now you were a boilermaker!!! (which accounts for your love of swearing)

It's a small bloody world ain't it!

I remember one time when "Our Ted" came down and spoke at our annual Dinner and Dance at "The Rayleigh Weir" in Essex. All us apprentices were falling over ourselves trying to shake hands with him and buy him a drink. I don't know how the poor guy was able to walk out of the place.

Bert.

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: AlistairUK
Date: 08 Apr 99 - 01:26 PM

Bert: I wasn't actually a boilermaker. The union that represented us as sewer workers was the boilermakers union.

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Bert
Date: 08 Apr 99 - 01:31 PM

Same difference!

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: northfolk/al cholger
Date: 08 Apr 99 - 03:14 PM

Brother Mick, Congratulations, albeit no surprise... You have the mind of a Union Man, and the Job of a Union Man, but what won your election is that you have the Heart and Soul of the Union Movement, That'll win, more than any promise you could ever make... As for those who have expressed their animosity, most of what you get, if not all, came to keep you up to or just slightly ahead of the union contract...so when you are patting yourself on the shoulder for your perseverence and rugged individualism...remember, somebody you don't even respect fought for it, for you.

B'seed...I was an Advocate, from day one, before there was a Labor Party...best damn thing that has happened to politics, US style. Thanks for the cue...

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: AlistairUK
Date: 08 Apr 99 - 03:36 PM

See this is the problem. I was inspired by the likes of Joe Hill and the people of the british union movements. I've always felt that in some cases, union power (which was basically hamstrung in the 80's by Adolf Thatcher) is one of the greatest things in the world. I perfectly realise that it was the reformers from the grassroots of unionism that got me all my rights when I lived in the UK. I regard Mick as a stout fellow and a throwback to what the union is all about. The trouble is that these types are getting rarer and rarer within the unions. I have never, I repeat never would belittle those involved in union organisation at grassroots level, just that those that drive the wagon tend not to hear what the engine is saying.

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Bill
Date: 08 Apr 99 - 03:36 PM

katlaughing, I take your comments in the spirit they were given. Unions served a purpose once upon a time, to help draw attention to atrocious working conditions and exploitation of people with little or no means to escape their circumstances. However, those days are long gone. People are mobile enough and educated enough to escape bad working conditions if they choose. How could a company stay in business if they simply abuse employees and exploit them? There is too much competetion in the world for that kind of business any more. Like I said, companies value good, hard working employees and will go to great lengths to keep them. Besides, most people don't think there is anything wrong with pulling up stakes and going to another company that offers better pay or benefits. They don't think they are exploiting the company that may have trained them and given them experience. And rightfully so. The converse must also be true though- a company must be able to shed unproductive or troublesome employees and replace with better ones. Unions, for the most part, are nowadays simply anachronisms. They have also become an organ of politics, funneling money and manpower to political issues of the union's choice- but not necessarily the worker's choice. As far as being a male/female issue, I don't think so. Not for me at least.

Regards

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Bert
Date: 08 Apr 99 - 04:30 PM

....companies value good, hard working employees and will go to great lengths to keep them....
You MUST be joking!
Having gone through a downsizing a few years ago I noticed WITHOUT FAIL that the best workers were 'sized and the idiot ass crawlers are still there. And the company is STILL surprised that it is going further down the tubes.

The rules today are not "hard work" and "loyalty" they are "be a brown nose" and "don't rock the boat".

We will be back to sweatshops the day after the unions die.

How many people are there today who are working below minimim wage. Several on our block, hundreds, if not thousands, in Colorado Springs where the competition is for the jobs.

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Apr 99 - 05:12 PM

Hey, Bert, didn't know you were in the "Springs" my oldest aunt and her daughter both live there.

Bill, thank you for your reply, but I still disagree with you. There is NOT enough competition in a lot of places I know of, in the West at least, to keep employers in line, valuing good workers etc., as you say.

And, many people, esp., those who are trying to raise children with any sense of stability and community, do NOT want to just pick up stakes and relocate, besides which that doesn't always look very good on a resume and it costs a lot of money.

I also happen to think it is part of the problem with our society. Too many people don't have any sense of "roots" or neighbourhood; there is no "extended family" available to them, blood-related or not, when they need the kind of give and take of comfort etc. that we used to have. I am NOT saying the "old days" were better, just that I think we'd be a lot better off if we pulled together more, as in a tribe or, hell, even in a group of cows. I remember being fascinated when I was a little girl and dad explained how one cow will "babysit" all of the calves and that the mommas took turns doing this. How many mothers nowadays have the luxury, time, or patience and trust to do this? How many families live so far apart there is no way they can help each other in a crisis except with long-distance communication.

I have no answers to this. I know none of my kids or I like the same kind of places to live in, but I also know they'd have an easier time of it and so would I if we were within close driving distance of one another.

Here I go ramblin' on, again, like a crazy wild rose, thorns and all!

katlaughing

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: AlistairUK
Date: 08 Apr 99 - 06:37 PM

Ditto bert. I have been through several downsizing operations, and got the shitty end of the stick every time because I refuse to kiss arse, I tried it once and it stuck in my craw, never again. try doing your job quietly and to the best of your ability and it gets you nowhere, fast. That said I have worked for some very good employers, but the best employer I have ever worked for is ME, I can exploit someone for all they are worth and not feel guilty about it. *GRIN*

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Pete M
Date: 08 Apr 99 - 08:18 PM

Bill, to borrow Alistair's immortal phrase "Gobshite!". I have worked in the computer industry for years now, I suppose you could describe me as highly eductated, highly skilled, and working at jobs where there is a national shortage of my skills. In that time I've been through three "corporate re-organisations". There was no relationship between those sacked and their ability, skill or dedication. As Bert says if you haven't got a brown nose you're out.

Corporations don't want highly skilled expensive stroppy (ie people who think for themselves) staff, they want low paid servile yes (wo)men.

More strength to your arm Mick.

Pete M

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: northfolk/al cholger
Date: 08 Apr 99 - 09:46 PM

A word of advice on the history and condition of the union movement in the US...the turmoil of the sixties and seventies bred a solid core of people many working in the labor movement and currently reaching an age where they have generated experience and credibility...we are not content to allow the porkchoppers and hacks to live at the trough...we are in the face of recalcitrant employers, and in the face of those in our unions that aren't driven by the ideal that we are, above all else, a movement for social justice...as they say, a new day is dawning...our willingness and success at organizing is the most important manifestation of that!

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Bert
Date: 09 Apr 99 - 09:19 AM

Kat, I'm not in the Springs now, I am living in Phoenixville, PA. However my wife IS THERE looking after her Mom who is sick. Trouble is, since she's been there, it's made her homesick for the mountains. So we are going to try to move back to the mountains sometime in the next 2 to 5 years.

I know what you mean about the extended family thing, we have been trying to build a community down our street. It's a fairly slow process but we do have a few neighbors now who feel free enough to pop in at any time. Of course Theresa's cooking helps a lot.

Bert.

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Apr 99 - 12:38 PM

I have purposefully stayed back and read the posts to this until you all had your say. Now I will respond.

I will begin with general comments and then address specifics. One problem that I have always had is with people who attack institutions with no plan of their own. It is easy to point out what is wrong with Unions, when you don't have to come up with a viable alternative. Even though I am filled with revulsion at the opinions of Bill, at least he had some reasoning behind it. Clearly there are problems with Labor in todays world. Like other organizations, we are struggling with what our mission is as we approach the year 2000. That is the same struggle we had as we approached the years 1950, 51,68, 72, and so on. And that is, "What is our role at this place in history?". I have heard the claptrap about how we were relevant once, and needed but now we kill initiative every place I have organized. It is spread by those whose interest is in not providing health insurance, regularly scheduled pay increases, decent scheduling language, pensions and so on. And people who talk the nonsense about keeping bad employees are the same ones who don't believe in radical concepts like just cause for discipline, and progressive discipline. A Union contract does not take away managements ability to discipline. It just says that they must follow the rules. I will give you an example. I handled a grievance for a young man that got dischargrd for excessive absenteeism. Unions don't set these policies but we reserve the right to contest them if we feel they are excessive. The had set their policy and we had not challenged it. It was fair. It called for a written warning, a write up, a write up with one day off, then three days off, then discharge. It indicated that if a person went 90 days without a repeat, he/she would regress one step in the process. So I go to the grievance meeting and the Steward meets me before hand. She tells me that the company has the kid dead to rights. At the meeting the Manager verbally tells me that the person in question has been tardy at least 30 times over the past year and absent 15 days in the same time and 6 of these in the last 3 months. I ask to see the documentation and he shows me his notebook and the writeup that he did when he terminated the kid. I made him put the kid back to work, and pay him for the 3 weeks he had been off. Why? Because he had not followed the fucking policy that they had written. No writeups, no discussion with the young man about improving his work habits, nothing. And I got blamed for keeping a bad employee. The steward was even mad until I pointed out that the system had to be preserved. If I had let them get this knucklehead without following the system thayt they wrote, what was to stop them from getting someone else. I had a discussion with the young man and and predicted that he would not be there long, because they would document the next time. And within 3 months, he was gone. Because I made them follow the policy. BTW, he tried to grieve again and we discontinued because they followed the rules this time.

The horsepucky about killing personal initiative always cracks me up. That is usually spread by people who are pissed off that they can't come into a company and bypass people who are older than them, and usually don't want to kiss ass. Contracts usually don't stop folks from having initiative, it just doesn't let them exercise it unfairly. Just because you are young and aggressive doesn't mean that someone who is older, and usually not quite as physically attractive, should be put aside because you are in a hurry. If you want to operate without a contract to hold you back, become a member of management. The contracts only cover hours of work, compensation and conditions of work. The rest is up to you. And how many times have I seen Union Stewards promoted to management. Plenty, because they company recognizes that they are driven people who play by the rules.

There is a pertinent analogy with the Civil Rights movement. There are no signs in the US anymore that say "Whites only". No more "Back of the bus, Nigger", they are all gone. Racism got smart. It dresses in a suit and talks about the vanishing rights of the "White Race" whatever the fuck that is. It has become insidious, and hides itself well. It loves it when folks say that "Racism is gone, we don't need affirmative action. Everyone can make it if they try." Then people won't look at life in the ghettos and in rural poor areas. They won't see kids whose hope has vanished and they shoot each other with 9mm's over fucking tennis shoes. They will wash off as an aberration when some racist bastards drag a man to death behind a pickup truck. Oh, they will kill the perps eventually as if to say that "there, we fixed that". Then they will continue to ignore the conditions that spawned these sick bastards, and it will go on. But we will cover it up with words like "anyone can get ahead if they want to, we don't need laws like this anymore". What has this got to do with unions? It is the same story, just a different cause. We will continue to say they things that Bill says, and Big Capital will continue to sit in the boardrooms and chuckle. After all, the sweatshops are gone...........except in places like India, Pakistan, you know, those countries where they aren't white..........What? You mean they are popping up in this country again?....Yeah, but they are just Mexicans?...........Well guess what, when you ignore the least among us, and you let them erode the laws that Brothers and Sisters fought and sometimes died for, it is not long before it is you that is suffering. I am reminded of an organizing drive I was on about 10 years ago. I was in the apartment of a lovely young woman of about 30 years. She had three kids, the oldest 11 yrs old and the youngest 5. She was white, pretty and could have been the daughter of any middle class family you could imagine. But she had bags under her eyes. And she was a single mother. She wanted to sign the authorization card for me, but she wanted to do it too quickly. That is always troublesome to me as I want them to question why they should. I want the discussion of the issues. Why? Because it is a difficult process on the employess to organize and I want to make sure that they understand the issues, pro and con. It strenthens their resolve for the long haul ahead. I remember asking her if she had questions about anything, how about dues? She looked up at me with those tired eyes and said, "Mr. Lane you are a nice man, and I appreciate what you are trying to do. Do you see this child? (She put her arm around the 11 year old boy) He is only 11, but everyday after school he has to come home from school, and unlock the apartment, get his brother and sister from the neighbors and babysit until I get home from work at night. I have to work three jobs to keep things going because his Father pays no child support, and I don't have health insurance on any of them. If you can just get me health insurance for my kids so at least they don't have to go to school sick, you can have all the money I make on one of my jobs for dues." That young woman, with that statement, renewed my committment to labor and what we are about.

You see, Bill, it is not about the cute little cliche's, and the fucking intellectualizing concepts. It is not even about what YOU didn't get, or the promotion you couldn't get. It is about the erosion from the bottom that will eventually get to you too, believe it or not. We must have someone who speaks for workers. We have seen what happens when we don't. And as the conditions erode, you could see it too, if you would look. Woody's songs are relevant today to a whole group of people who are experiencing what he wrote about 50 - 60 years ago. And Big Capital loves that they have convinced people to think as you do. Is that to say that there are not problems in the Labor Movement. Absolutely Not. I see them all the time. But I learned as a warrior, that from the outside one can only attack and destroy. Change from the outside only starts after you have destroyed the defenses. From the inside one can modify, upgrade and strengthen defenses. That is why I choose to fight to change my Labor Movement from the inside. Slowly and deliberately, myself and others within struggle to make it relevant for the young ones of today. It requires that we listen and make the leadership listen. It isn't about us or those that went before. We honor those only if we continue to make the movement relevant for the future. By buying into the idea that its time has come and gone, we destroy all that they sacrificed to create. And we doom my little Ciara, and all the other wee ones to a bleak future. Over my dead body.

Mick

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Shula
Date: 11 Apr 99 - 12:41 AM

Dear Mick,

Your passion does you credit. One need only compare the prospects of the children of union workers with those of the sons and daughters of workers with no union-won decent wages and protections, to know which is the side of the angels. There's the *true* leveling of the playing field for you!

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt."

Revolutionary War Slogan, 1776
John P. Curran

Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité!

Shula

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Banjer
Date: 11 Apr 99 - 02:39 AM

Wow...! Wonderful speech, Mick...Lots of food for thought there....

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Apr 99 - 02:55 AM

Well, after Shula, I really shouldn't post, but I'm such a wordy suhbitch that I gotta' say------------

BRAVO===BRAVO====AUTHOR====BRAVO====GIVE 'EM HELL====BRAVO

I figured you were waiting and I was anxious to read your post. I've said to you before that you do good work and passion is the driving force of greatness...I reiterate that again....but like I said before, you already knew that, don't need me telling you.

What I like so much in your argument is the often misunderstood concept that you must defend ALL (including the terminal idiots) to protect ALL (including the loyal and hardworking geniuses). That concept is the very essence of the constitution and the bulwark of the small freedoms we can steal back for ourselves. It is the baseline for every "revolutionary" movement in this country, including civil rights, and it does set us apart as long as people of great strenghth are willing to "stand and deliver."

That argument is also the same one rightly used by another group near and dear to me (drop down Mick and avoid the flak...I'll take this one), the ACLU. I know it is distasteful to extend "rights" to the bigoted and rascist among us, but what they are denied is denied to all. Many of those who are the proponents, as well as opponents, of being politically correct are lacking in the true concept of "LIBERTY." A smoker doesn't have a leg to stand on, but it is frightening to think what we can "outlaw" next. Along with others, I also believe the 14th amendment grants a liberty interest to children, children who are human beings and not property or chattel....but that's another soapbox, and this one is for Mick.

Mick, you have, for whatever it's worth, my admiration, my respect, and my friendship.

catspaw

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Pete M
Date: 11 Apr 99 - 11:31 PM

I have been think a lot about this subject over the weekend, and perhaps whilst my knee jerk reply to Bill's posts was sincere, it was perhaps not all the response which they deserved. I would say initially however that I think that passion, to use Catspaw's epithet is indeed what this is largely about, not dry logical arguments, but a burning desire to help others. Mick has in the interim addressed the issues concerning the continuing need for unionisation with far more skill than I could, so I will limit myself to taking forward the idea of "ambition".

Bill equates a union with a means of control and states that "..for those who have not much ambition or life choices, a union can be useful." and "For those who have some ambition, the union becomes an obstacle."

I have to say that I agree with him. I have gone over in my mind the circumstances and people involved in the wide variety of organisations I have worked for and with over the last thirty odd years, compared notes with colleagues, and read reports of others interested in this field. The one thread which seems to link those who were promoted and those who survived redundancy is that they were ambitious for themselves.

In other words any organisation which seeks to ensure that everyone is treated fairly will be contrary to the aspirations of the "ambitious". Now please don't read more into this than I have said, I am not suggesting that if you are personally ambitious you are no good at your job, but it has long been accepted in management science that people are promoted to their level of incompetence, and if we are discussing a competitive situation for promotion, or a job, then to achieve the best result for the staff and for the company as a whole, the best person should get the job, not the one best at self aggrandisement, and except in a few very large organisations like the UK Civil service, the only counterbalance to the ability of the ambitious to promote themselves over others is the Union.

Bill, you also suggest that "…companies value good, hard working employees and will go to great lengths to keep them…". This is also true in many cases, but working as a consultant I am able to view organisations and their staff with some impartially, and am often honoured with confidences which people would not dare to make directly. Again there is one thread, common now, which has in my observation increased directly with the increase in the "free market" model of staff relations which you espouse; and that is an increasing differential between the perceived worth of a manager by their staff and by other management. Quite simply, the only people who want to work for a manager well thought of by their managers are the personally ambitious who hope to catch a ride on their coat tails. Those managers who are respected by their staff and produce good results for all the stake holders of the organisation may not be dumped, but they do not prosper. The same is true at the shop floor level.

I must finally point out that the idea that a company could not "…stay in business if they simply abuse employees and exploit them." Is all too easily refuted by the simple expedient of looking at companies like Nike.

As I have said before I do not believe that union members or organisers are saints, nor do I expect them to be, but I am certain that without them the world would be a far worse place for us all. So Bill. Please consider widening the scope of your ambition to include the desire to improve the lot of those who can't find a job, and those who lack the ability and yes, the power, to get even a part of what is their fair share of the profit made by the organisations for whom they work.

Pete M

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: AlistairUK
Date: 12 Apr 99 - 06:43 AM

Ok, I spoke to Mick on Saturday and then I read his posting. I am humbled with admiration at what Mick and his organisation has done. I always find that I am having to defend myself when I turn around and say that I don't actually support unionisation or the closed shop. I suppose that I should have learned to keep my trap shut by now. Anyway, I feel that IN GENERAL unions have lost the meaning behind them in the way that they were created. This is down to a mixture of what the organisers, reps, stewards what have you tell members and what members want to believe or are willing to believ. Unions were also created to represent the MEMBERS of a union, doing what the MEMBERS agreed. The brothers and sisters that make up a labour organisation are that organisation. But what has become increasingly common is that the members do what the representative suggests, and sometimes that is not what is good for the members.

Case in point: Back in 1984 at the height of the Thatcher regime, the Whitbread brewery in my town shut down...why...because it was notorious for being strike hit. I knew people who worked there and they went on strike for anything, just to get a few days off or over some piddling argument ( I'm talking about the reps here by they way). Anyway in the summer of 84 things started to go wrong. Thatcher was changing the laws and the Unions were getting behind on what was happening. The brewery went on strike and the company turned round and said You have one month to get back in production or we close the plant down and shift it all to Basildon..or some other godless place. Of course the union reps laughed...Shut down a brewery...never...s'like sayin'they'll stamp out prostitution. But they did. and several thousand people found themselves out on the streets and on the social. I know for a fact that many of the members wanted to accept the deal that the brewery was offering. I know for a fact that the union reps also got a fat payoff, the members felt that they shouldn't go against their unions advice. A lot of people never worked again after that.

This is not an isolated case. I'm sure that anyone from the UK has got a similar story from that era. Yes, protect the people that need it. Yes there should be solidarity, yes there should be representation. But at what price? How powerful can a union be. I think that things are changing in the UK I think that the workers that are needing to be represented are finally getting the idea that THEY and not the reps are the union. I hope so, I wouldn't want to see the misery that happened after the Whitbread thing happen again.

Subject: RE: Big Mick's organizing drive results
From: Willie-O
Date: 12 Apr 99 - 09:25 PM

Good on ya Mick. Nothing really to add, all the points have been covered by someone.

The Other Bill