Oldweirdharold said:
Gentlemen,
 Looking back on U.S. history and all the labor struggles for which thousands died or were maimed I find it sad that we have learned nothing.. We continue to fight each other in a state of chaos and disorganization, meanwhile we grow ever weaker.. For those unfamiliar with labor history no matter who you are or what you believe you must educate yourself to know where we came from and perhaps steer a course which is benificial to us all... Or greatest enemy now is apathy as evidenced by people not attending meetings or willing to fight or even speak up when asked... For years I've noticed all manner of magazines or subscriber material with address labels obliterated while at AA... Does this mean workers are scared of each other or they do not trust one another??? This is another sign of weakness but the most telling is big tough men that hide behind keyboards writing tough words then signing off with a meaningless childlike cartoon name... I say to you don't waste your time because if you hide your identity now what would happen if you were called upon during hard times... To those few that do not hide, thanks maybe someday I can put a face with that name and we could have a beer....
 Jim Anderson 4D Dayshift
Jim Anderson;
I share your interest in the history of the Labor movement.
However apathy has always been a challenge for the labor movement and any other movement for change. Since apathy has always been there it stands to reason that apathy is not the reason why we are failing. The "lets blame the members" line does nothing towards finding a way to improve our lot. In fact it hurts it. Leadership is crucial. Leaders that can not motivate or inspire always blame everything on apathy. The failure is not in the members, but in the leaders.
Labor movements are supposed to be activist movements. The movements goal is usually loftier than individual gain. The book "Toxic Sludge is Good for You" spells out how companies and organizations mislead and defeat the activists, whether they are for reform from within the labor movement, or saving the spotted owl. In our case it could be said that our own union has taken on the role that is typically filled by the company, instead of Toxic sludge, we get "Concessions are good for you'". They have a simple strategy. They look at the "activists" and try to place everyone in certain defined categories. The radicals, the opportunists, idealists, and realists. According to the book they use a three step strategy;(1) Isolate the radicals, (2) "cultivate" the idealists and "educate" them into becoming realists; then (3) coopt the realists into agreeing with (the International) industry.
I was exposed to this process with our "Union". From the very first "New officer training class" to meetings with Koziatek, Luby, and Hall they were always telling me that "Toxic sludge was good for me". Always trying to change me from being an idealist to what they consider a realist- in other words a sellout. I would say that since I have resisted becoming a sellout, in their chart, I would now be considered a radical. Following the plan, they are trying to isolate me by removing me from office and writing about it in their union paper. For over three months they have had an accountant auditing the books for Local 562 desperately trying to find something.
Idealists built the labor movement. They fought the battle that the realists never would. From what I've seen Sonny Hall does not want idealists. Realists, by the definition of the opponents of activists are sellouts, the only thing worse are opportunists. Those who Sonny has brought up in the organization are, at least from the two from our Local he brought up, opportunists. Both Gless and Deane used Union positions as a means of getting off the clock. Both refused to lead and always had nothing but excuses and both could not be re-elected. The TWU regularly takes officers that could not get re-elected and brings them up in the organization. How can members respect or consider this organization their representative when they do things like that?
Attending union meetings will not change a corrupt structure that is riddled with opportunists. Our movement has been transformed into nothing more than a business.
The attendance at union meetings has been a regular topic on the weakness of the labor movement, but really, if all of a sudden the hall was packed would that really change anything? Attendance at meetings is often interpreted as a showing of support, but unless there is something critical is it really neccessary for everyone to attend meetings? Especially when there is plenty of time on the job to discuss most of what could be discussed at the hall?
People not willing to fight? How would we know? When the Longshoremen went out on strike did the members fail? When the Teamsters struck UPS did the members fail? If you took that entire membership as a whole and compared them to our members would they really stand apart, or look pretty much the same? Our leaders have never asked us to fight, in fact they do the opposite. When speaking rhetorically they say we are powerful because we are in a union, yet when real circumstances and challenges are presented they tell the members that we are powerless to resist. Then they come out with all the excuses why we are weak, always the blame goes on the members. But the fact is that the leaders never made a call to resist that went unanswered. I can remember contracts that were rejected because the International said to reject it it, then they came back with a worse deal and said accept it, and it was. This proves that the members as a whole are willing to be lead, despite poor turnout at membership meetings. So the blame is on the leaders.
I believe that the members are willing to fight, if only someone would have the courage to lead. However our leaders, with their six figure salaries and comfortable circumstances have been pacified, they are doing fine and they are not about to do anything to disturb the status quo. Our local leaders often forget why they were elected and use their position as a stepping stone to the International. They are not going there to change things but rather to get their share of the spoils. Surely you saw Dennis Burchettes transformation?
As far as the address labels being obliterated, it could also mean that the magazine is there for anyone who wants it. Obviously if something has your name written on it the implication is "this is mine, dont take it".
As far as tipping a beer, sure, anytime.
