owencenli (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} owencenli) wrote,@ 2008-03-09 23:38:00 |
|
thoughts on the 'union organizing project' in fairfield county, CT
"the whole worker movement" by jane mcalevey.
some basics from the article:
the project is a cross-union collaboration with support from the afl-cio targeting a particular area of connecticut. they start with already unionized workers, do focus groups and research to power map the county, figure out that black churches are the best place to build relationships, and have members of different congregations talk to their ministers to build alliances. i don't think this is that different than what lots of groups do, maybe except that they start with focus groups and have union members who are members of the targeted congregation lead the outreach to their minister. this was made possible by a survey, which also demonstrated that housing was the number one concern. again, this tactic (and the findings) are not unique, except that a cross-union group is the one doing it, rather than a community org. researchers were able to figure out some messed up stuff was going to happen to public housing, and the project, along with member-leaders in public housing, started organizing tenants. the whole thing blew up and folks stopped the demolition. the project also did serious engagement in local election battles. the relationships built with ministers and the housing organizing enabled new organizing and contract wins, and also changed the whole political landscape of the county. a lot of this is stuff groups like LAANE and EBASE does, but mcalevey argues that having those types of groups do this work makes it seem like non-workplace issues are "add-on" and not "core," and it also does not change how people (incl. members) view the purpose of the union. i suppose this is true, except it seems to me that the differences between the union organizing project in CT and ebase or laane do not seem overwhelming, i'd be curious as to what differences mcalevey believes are important ones. what if ebase or laane were given a name that had "union" in it and was explicitly union-led? i'd guess that the sharing of member information/lists by all unions involved would be an important difference. the decision to invest heavily in a power structure analysis up front which is widely presented to rank and file leaders (who can shape analysis and solutions) may be a unique, but i think most community groups do some version of this. i'm sure there are more important differences, but i'm curious as to what those are. the article is about 20 pages so i'm sure there are details that make the work substantially different than what's done elsewhere.
overall, i liked the article and thought it was useful to read. i also agree with the general thrust of bringing together workplace and non-workplace issues. i'm not sure how i feel about having a union project take the lead though. the article talks a lot about how difficult it was to convince some unions and organizers to go along with doing housing work or investing in an overall power-mapping process rather than jumping into a contract fight. while unions can and should seriously support work on issues like housing, i don't know if it's ideal for this work to be actually led by the union. won't the project always be more accountable to union members (tenants or not) than non-union tenants?
some of the suggestions in the article are no-brainers i think. concrete things like always providing child care and more theoretical things like throwing unions behind non-workplace issues. members are indeed whole people, it does change negative perceptions of unions and messaging overall, and (not mentioned in the article) staff organizers not drawn from the rank and file are often folks who care about a range of social justice issues already. the way i think about this is more that unions need to be pushed to express more solidarity backed by real support, not just on the issues which mostly obviously impact members (e.g. ICE raids) but based on a broader concern for social justice - and to do so in a way that supports other groups/motions/movements without necessarily leading those efforts. this is why, actually, i think the work that groups like the union organizing project, laane, ebase, etc. do is exciting and interesting - because they bring different sectors together and can create a space for more effective coordinating, stronger connections and deeper solidarity (and to wield this power more effectively in the political game).
"the whole worker movement" by jane mcalevey.
some basics from the article:
the project is a cross-union collaboration with support from the afl-cio targeting a particular area of connecticut. they start with already unionized workers, do focus groups and research to power map the county, figure out that black churches are the best place to build relationships, and have members of different congregations talk to their ministers to build alliances. i don't think this is that different than what lots of groups do, maybe except that they start with focus groups and have union members who are members of the targeted congregation lead the outreach to their minister. this was made possible by a survey, which also demonstrated that housing was the number one concern. again, this tactic (and the findings) are not unique, except that a cross-union group is the one doing it, rather than a community org. researchers were able to figure out some messed up stuff was going to happen to public housing, and the project, along with member-leaders in public housing, started organizing tenants. the whole thing blew up and folks stopped the demolition. the project also did serious engagement in local election battles. the relationships built with ministers and the housing organizing enabled new organizing and contract wins, and also changed the whole political landscape of the county. a lot of this is stuff groups like LAANE and EBASE does, but mcalevey argues that having those types of groups do this work makes it seem like non-workplace issues are "add-on" and not "core," and it also does not change how people (incl. members) view the purpose of the union. i suppose this is true, except it seems to me that the differences between the union organizing project in CT and ebase or laane do not seem overwhelming, i'd be curious as to what differences mcalevey believes are important ones. what if ebase or laane were given a name that had "union" in it and was explicitly union-led? i'd guess that the sharing of member information/lists by all unions involved would be an important difference. the decision to invest heavily in a power structure analysis up front which is widely presented to rank and file leaders (who can shape analysis and solutions) may be a unique, but i think most community groups do some version of this. i'm sure there are more important differences, but i'm curious as to what those are. the article is about 20 pages so i'm sure there are details that make the work substantially different than what's done elsewhere.
overall, i liked the article and thought it was useful to read. i also agree with the general thrust of bringing together workplace and non-workplace issues. i'm not sure how i feel about having a union project take the lead though. the article talks a lot about how difficult it was to convince some unions and organizers to go along with doing housing work or investing in an overall power-mapping process rather than jumping into a contract fight. while unions can and should seriously support work on issues like housing, i don't know if it's ideal for this work to be actually led by the union. won't the project always be more accountable to union members (tenants or not) than non-union tenants?
some of the suggestions in the article are no-brainers i think. concrete things like always providing child care and more theoretical things like throwing unions behind non-workplace issues. members are indeed whole people, it does change negative perceptions of unions and messaging overall, and (not mentioned in the article) staff organizers not drawn from the rank and file are often folks who care about a range of social justice issues already. the way i think about this is more that unions need to be pushed to express more solidarity backed by real support, not just on the issues which mostly obviously impact members (e.g. ICE raids) but based on a broader concern for social justice - and to do so in a way that supports other groups/motions/movements without necessarily leading those efforts. this is why, actually, i think the work that groups like the union organizing project, laane, ebase, etc. do is exciting and interesting - because they bring different sectors together and can create a space for more effective coordinating, stronger connections and deeper solidarity (and to wield this power more effectively in the political game).
