While most entry-level organizer positions pay substantially less (but still a nice income by the standards of what most union members earn), the positions of which I am speaking are not so uncommon among those who hold the title "organizer" but are in fact merely political appointees of an incumbent administration who use those "organizers" for lots of things that have little to do with organizing the unorganized. The actual number of folks who are in fact organizers (more than merely holding the title) are a small proportion of the full time staff of most unions. During the salad days of the fifties and sixties, some unions for all practical purposes disbanded their national organizing depts.
On the other hand, it has also become common for unions that do hire organizers to do so on a contingent basis. They hire "project organizers" who do not share the same status, benefits, and salaries as other permanent/regular union staff. When a campaign is finished so too are they unless the union has some other use for them. That's because such unions have staff-driven rather than member-driven approaches to organizing.
> Comment. I'm going to assume that you think research is more
>important than media buys, but in my own experience, the opposite has
>been true.
Actually I don't think either is among the most important ingredients of a sound organizing strategy, but if I had a limited number of dollars, I'd spend it on research before I spent it on media. Media campaigns may be useful in some instances, but what they generally reflect is the quest for an alternative to building real solid worker organization within the workplaces being organized. It is akin to the way political candidates run (hype and hope) and makes unions subject to the strategems of media consultants (most of whom haven't the foggiest idea of what a unions is) who package the union like selling soap. That only reinforces the notion argued by the boss that the union is an unwanted "third party" that has to con workers into voting for it with slick promises.
> If the media message were well-executed, and that's a big if, then
>it could be a necessary part of a genuine movement. In this 33-month
>organizing campaign I've been involved in, I wish I had a nickel for
>everytime I had to explain to a coworker what a union does. Just this
>week I had an espresso bar employee ask me what I planned to do once I
>moved to Texas. I told him I would look for something political or
>labor-related. He asked: "You're going to labor in the hot Texas sun?"
If you think you can explain what a union is in a 30-second spot ad, then I question your concept of unionism. The object of an organizing campaign should not to find out if a majority of workers support the idea of a union. It should be to build an organization among them that can demonstrate (whether via a vote or other means) that the union is a living entity within the workplace. Then you won't have to sell workers on the idea of a union because they will be involved in the act of creating the union.
> The commercials I'd film if I had the job would be labor-friendly
>celebrities like Cal Ripken or Tom Hanks explaining what unions do with
>more examples from teachers, government employees, grocery store
>workers, etc.-- the idea being to counter the stereotype that unions are
>just for coal mines and assembly lines.
I'm not against "feel good" ads. But honestly, do you think that the millions spent on "Union Yes" ads and "Look for the Union Lable" ads led to the organization of more workers than if that money had been invested in on-the-ground organizers, subsidies to locals to bring rank and filers off the job to help organize, etc.? I'd say that the ILGWU did not organize a single garment factory or save a single American job with those ads (even though I too liked the spiffy jingle and enjoyed seeing the interracial union chorus). The ads did make union members feel good, and may have even impressed a few gullible small employers who shivered every time they aired. But honestly, do you thing that GM and GE were concerned even a little bit or that non-union workers who saw the ads jumped to their phones to call the nearest union?
> What the labor movement needs is class consciousness. In this day
>and age, TV ads are one of many places to get our message out.
You are conflating consciousness with advertising. Tobacco ads do not raise consciousness of the value of tobacco. Soap ads do not raise consciousness of the need for soap. Advertising is smoke and mirrors and is a poor substitute for building organizations that conduct struggles, which is what raises real consciousness. Packaging unions for advertising only reinforces the notion that unions are "service" organizations that do things for workers who pay them a fee.
>Research, I'm not so enthralled with. This isn't brain surgery. It
>doesn't take a lot of know-how to stand up for yourself in the
>workplace. It takes the will to do so and a belief that you have the
>right to do so AND th belief that something good will come out of doing
>so.
I wish I had all the money unions have squandered on "hot shops" that close down or run out because no one bothered to check out the company and determine how viable it was before investing lots of dues dollars in campaigns there. I do believe in the concept of "know thy enemy." But more importantly, if unions are to really organize strategically (on a sectoral, occupational, or geographic basis), they need to know what they are deal with. That does not always mean investing lots of bucks in Ph.D. studies. It may mean training staff to know what to look for, enabling them in turn to train workers to do their own information gathering, and providing organizers with basic information about companies they may be seeking to organize. In this case ignorance is not bliss.
> Where is labor? It's finding itself. It's waiting for directions
>from its members and the unorganized.
> James in Philly
I agree that it's been lost. But it won't find itself in a 30-second spot ad. It won't get directions by another opinion poll of members. Unions without power are empty shells. Power does not come in clever ads (or from the barrel of a gun), but rather from solidarity between workers who see themselves bound by common interests and a common fate.
In solidarity, Michael
>Received: from mailsorter-102.bryant.webtv.net
(mailsorter-102.iap.bryant.webtv.net
> [207.79.35.92]) by postoffice-121.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.5/po.gso.24Feb98)
> with ESMTP id AAA20228; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 00:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: from dont.panix.com (dont.panix.com [166.84.0.211]) by
> mailsorter-102.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.5/ms.graham.14Aug97) with
> ESMTP id AAA14293; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 00:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: (from majordom at localhost) by dont.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixLC1.4)
> id DAA23789 for lbo-talk-outgoing; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 03:34:26 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from igcb.igc.org (igcb.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.46]) by
> dont.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixLC1.4) with ESMTP id DAA23785; Sat,
> 22 Aug 1998 03:34:23 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from igce.igc.org (igce.igc.org [192.82.108.49]) by igcb.igc.org
(8.8.8/8.8.8)
> with ESMTP id AAA27177; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 00:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: from mycomputer (PPPa6-OaklandB2-3R358.saturn.bbn.com
> [207.83.196.113]) by igce.igc.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id
> AAA04576; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 00:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
>Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 00:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-Id: <2.2.16.19980822003520.1257d73c at pop.igc.org>
>X-Sender: meisenscher at pop.igc.org
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com, LBO-talk at lists.panix.com
>From: Michael Eisenscher <meisenscher at igc.apc.org>
>Subject: Re: USWA's $40m
>Sender: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>
>At 09:42 PM 8/21/1998 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
>>$40 million ain't peanuts, is it? From the Trade Union Advisor, published
>>by the Labor Research Association:
>>
>>Union Trends
>>Steelworkers
>>adopt $40 million
>>organizing program.
>>
>
>Depends on how they spend it. Will it go to pay lost time for rank and
>filers to be brought off the job to organize, or to fund $75,000/year
>staffers who are given a title "organizer"? Will it go for strategic
>research or for media buys? Will it be spent on a strategically planned
>campaign to organize the non-union minimills or to chase after any hot shop
>that crosses someone's path?
>
>(Add your own questions.)
>
>Michael E.
>
>