It is fairly common these days to hear folks say they want to shift their unions from a "servicing" to an "organizing" model. They describe this shift as moving more of the responsibility for grievance handling and problem solving from staff and officers to stewards. This supposedly frees up staff for more organizing. So, whereas staff and officers had filled some combination of the functions of lawyer, social worker, insurance agent, advocate, and gladiator, they now want the stewards to serve those roles. The fundamental relationship between the members and the union does not change; only the burden of responsibility shifts. Stewards become junior business agents. Members continue to be consumers of unions services, but they are expected now to look to someone else for those services. If this is an organizing model, the labor movement has a bleak future. (Consider that this also suggests that organizing the unorganized remains the responsibility and primary concern of the union functionaries, not the rank and file.) I have given up using the term because it has become so widely abused. The challenge to the labor movement is not to increase incrementally the pool of union activists or to turn stewards into business agents so that business agents can recruit more dues units. The challenge is to transform power relations within labor unions so that those organizations can become more effective instruments for transforming power relations between union members and employers, and between working people and the capitalist system. When responsibility is passed from business agents, who are paid functionaries of the union, to stewards, who for the most part are unpaid workers who still have to perform their jobs, what happens is that the stewards start to act and think like paid functionaries, but lacking the salaries and relative freedom, they also become resentful and begin to demand that they too be compensated for their extra effort. Or, they burn out. They become overwhelmed by new responsibilities and the expectations of members as consumers thrust upon them. They are expected to continue the tradition of handling grievances through a formal and largely legalistic grievance process, to continue to trouble-shoot problems, resolve misunderstandings, cut red tape on benefits...to povide good service to members who have become accustomed to and expect that from THE UNION (something referred to as other than themselves). A transformational or empowerment model of unionism has to break with this service concept of unionism. Stewards must perfect their skills as organizers, educators, and facilitators of actions conceived and executed by groups of workers around their common concerns. This is no less demanding, but is far more rewarding for all involved. It makes possible the practice of real democracy (as contrasted with formal democracy). In solidarity, Michael E. At 11:35 PM 11/16/98 -0800, you wrote: >On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Michael Eisenscher wrote: > >> Democracy is not a spectator sport; it requires active participation. Active >> participation by members is best assured where there is an organizational >> “engine” created by rank and file caucuses or other formations in which the >> Left participates and plays a leading role. This becomes the most conscious >> expression of rank & file activism (but by no means the only one, nor always >> necessarily the most important at any given juncture). > >But it sure ain't easy to do this. The GTFF here at the University of >Oregon has been trying to push local empowerment of our stewards, for >example, and shifting responsibility away from officers/staff and towards >rank and file. It's tough, though, because the division of labor means >that most folks work themselves to the bone just teaching their classes; >few have time for permanent activism. > >Our response, and this isn't something which can be generalized for every >workforce, has been to try to turn our workforce diversity into our >greatest strength, by networking with the University/Eugene/undergrad >activists, and encouraging our members to sign on to specific, small-scale >things they can jump aboard on (like childcare activism or whatever). The >small-scale actions lead to bigger commitments later on, etc. > >Alas, I've got papers to grade, so I gotta sign off, but more on this >tomorrow. > >-- Dennis
