Communicate or Die

A few weeks back we encouraged labor bloggers to take part in the "Take Back Labor Day" action - which involved agreeing to post blog entries on September 1st about what Labor Day really means. Funny thing, though, to participate would have meant working on Labor Day - which this blogger couldn't quite get himself to do.

To ensure a vibrant web presence and to make your site more visible to younger viewers, it's important to establish outposts on the major social networking sites.

The 900-pound gorillas of the social networking market are currently Facebook and MySpace. Each have their strengths and weaknesses, but each provide your organization with a free page and the ability to pipe in feeds from your existing website every time you post something new.
 

Finally, Communicate or Die is getting some love! First thing you'll notice is the new look. We hope you like it. We still need to smooth over some obvious flaws and there are a lot of improvements coming. But in the tradition of free/open source software development, we thought we'd let our users play with this "beta" version and tell us what needs fixing.

Of course, technology and a flashier design can only get you so far, you need real live flesh and blood to breath life into an online community. So, I decided to hire Jason Pramas to actively reach out to individuals and organizations and encourage their participation in the CoD community. Jason not only has a long history of labor activism, he thinks deeply about the web and all of its implications. I bumped into Jason last month when he gave a presentation about his exciting Open Media Boston project, which aims to help promote quality community and labor journalism. The CoD community is very fortunate to have such an eminently qualified person working to help it grow and thrive again.

We'll set up a feedback form shortly. In the meantime, any and all comments about the site are appreciated below.

We're excited to get folks posting here again; so we thought it would be good form to give everyone an idea of some of the tech we think is worth talking about on Communicate or Die.

In a nutshell, we're looking for posts about Web 2.0 - its promise and pitfalls - in relation to the labor movement.

Yesterday I attended a webinar run by AFL-CIO Online Mobilization Manager Chris Kenngot on the national fed's new LaborWeb content management system - now running in open beta and available for all interested AFL union leadership to try for free.

Greetings, Communicate or Die viewers.

Just a quick note to introduce myself ... and let you all know that your favorite online community dedicated to the notion that the labor movement can (and must) effectively make use of all available internet technology is back.

I stumbled across Communicate or Die, though it's possible that my preoccupation with reaching my members -- and by that I really mean reaching and moving them -- might have led me here.

Lack of member participation, lack of member interest, lack of member understanding about their own union as well as the Labor Movement in general, are serious frustrations for me. We have a monthly newsletter, a website, and monthly meetings, and still have difficulty moving members to act in their own interests.

Despite our tools and efforts, we still miss the mark more often than not. People are busy with second jobs, raising children, school, and whatnot, and they can't be bothered with a single additional drain on their time or attention.

Given all that we know about the unequal American economy, the Wal-Mart wage structure, outsourcing, and a tax structure that favors the wealthy, it's kind of remarkable to me that many union members are so passive. Working people should be outraged at the wholesale theft that has been going on for a generation.

Over the last few weeks I have fielded a few calls, emails and blog comments from union workers that seem to sound a little defeated.

Tonight I posted a piece to Union Review called What's the use? with the hope I could outline some of what the chorus is all singing about and provide some ideas. If anything, perhaps it will get people to talk a little.

I came over to Communicate or Die to share a little about this because I know many of you are deeply entrenched with technology that assists unions. I also know some of you are organizers and have a great deal more union-business experience than me and some of the readers/chorus singing their frustrations. I thought to reach out with some very broad questions:

Why is there such a huge gap in communications between the unions and their members ... and what can be done about that?

What is being done about educating union members of their rights? As we campaign endlessly to organize the nonunion worker, what is being done to strengthen the membership we have?

What do we tell an online community of concerned active workers so they stay encouraged in these times of doubt?

If anyone has any thoughts, please let me know ... I have a few people asking :)

All the best to you all,
-Richard

Reposted from the AFL-CIO blogs, thought to share.

When President Bush vetoed legislation setting timetables for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq yesterday, he also vetoed the first increase in the minimum wage in a decade.

That means Republicans for 112 days have held hostage a minimum wage increase. While minimum wage workers have not had a pay raise since 1997, Congress gave itself nine pay hikes, totally more than $36,000.

Here's how it got to this point:

The U.S. House passed a bill Jan. 10 that would have boosted the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25, without another round of tax breaks for business. Senate Republicans filibustered the House bill for a week in January, using Senate rules to force minimum wage backers to win 60 votes instead of a simple 51 majority and then killing the House bill on Jan. 24. By killing the House bill, Senate Republicans forced Senate Democrats to add $8.3 billion in business tax breaks. They then refused to allow the combined minimum wage and tax package to move to a conference with the House until the House produced its own package of tax cuts for business. Members of the House and Senate announced April 20 that they had reached agreement on $4.8 billion in tax relief for small businesses that will be paired with a minimum wage increase. They then added the minimum wage increase to the supplemental spending bill (H.R. 1591) conference report, which both houses passed and Bush vetoed yesterday.

Supporters of the minimum wage increase are disappointed, but undaunted. They vow to continue to send the package of tax breaks and a minimum wage increase back to the president until it is signed.

By Peter A. Cockshaw

3/12/2007

The declining state of union construction is a critical issue that must be forcefully addressed. The sobering reality is that this sector is either treading water or close to drowning in many areas of the country.

One of many ominous signs is unions' failure to win back market share even during economically robust periods. Unsettling also is organized construction's desperate struggle to avoid losing current jobs, including traditionally "reliable" public work. This is an alarming assessment to make about an industry that offers project owners such vital strengths as a highly trained, highly skilled and productive work force.

The prime reason for construction unions' failing fortunes is the competitive bind signatories face when competing against increasingly stiff open-shop competition. The question, then, is what specific measures do labor and management need most to get back in the competitive ball game?

There are several issues that top the "wish list" of contractors in all organized sectors. A key one is worker portability. In these times when many contractors have to travel to find work, it becomes even more critical to have the ability to take some valued people with them.

"Contractors spend a lot of time and money training their workers and our bidding price is based on past productivity, which is a function of our craftspeople," says one employer. "When union locals prevent an employer from taking a few key people with [it] to man a job, this often kills the deal."

Another competitive disadvantage is the inability of signatories to use coordinated or composite work forces, especially on smaller projects. Most union employers can do a task in the same manhours as their open shop competitors, but they have a harder time keeping workers performing productive work for a full shift due to jurisdictional issues. It is clear that if union signatories could employ coordinated or composite work forces to eliminate such wasted time, they would become more cost-effective.

No Fluff

For that matter, any contract condition that hinders an employer's ability to compete deserves to be slashed. That includes productivity-inhibiting jobs or positions. In today's fierce competitive environment, contractors must not be forced to put extra people on a job because an agreement mandates them. If a person is not needed to perform a function, an employer cannot afford to add him to its bid price. And every time contractors are forced to absorb unnecessary manpower costs, nonunion employers gain the upper hand.

Ask construction users to name the main obstacles union contractors face in getting their work and most will cite "costs" as the prime factor. Others add "attitude" and "performance" to the list. One user sums up the opinions of many when he states:

"We're not going to give contractors work based on the union philosophy or how skillfully they run their training programs. All our company cares about is fair cost and quality performance—period. Anything less in this cold, cruel economic world is not acceptable. Moreover, unless union craftsmen show up on time, look presentable, have the right attitude and truly put in eight hours work for eight hours pay, we'll settle for nonunion people with lesser skills."

The vast majority of industry insiders I talk to offer similar views, including a growing number of union leaders who now are actively urging their locals to make positive changes. One is Ed Hill, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

"All we have to do is listen to what too many customers or potential customers say about us," Hill says. "They stress that poor attitude by many craftsmen is a root cause of our union's problems. It is the contractor who risks his business and his livelihood on the work we do. He needs us. We need him. And it is that combined productivity that determines a project's financial success. That's why the sooner our members realize that we're all in this together, the better off we will be."

It is crystal clear that cost-effective contract changes and changes in worker attitudes represent a winning strategy—a strategy that is desperately needed for the union sector to regain market share and ensure a promising future. But that strategy must be adopted today. "Tomorrow" will be way too late.
_________________________________________________________________________

Peter A. Cockshaw is a veteran labor analyst living in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at 610-436-7553

UMass GEO UAW fights for a fair contract
GEO Contract Rally videos

Graduate student employees rally for a fair contract at UMass Amherst. February 8, 2007