In todays day and age with most members working two jobs the wife working and taking care of the kids spare time is hard to come by. If just making a meeting is going to change things then why not do a podcast or have the meeting on a video conference. Members can e-mail in questions or suggestions to be answered at the meeting. There would be more participation from the members if the meeting were made more accessible. Why not video the meetine and put it on utube. I dont need to rub elbows with the members I see on a daily basis but if there is info that needs to get to the membership then maybe its time to deliver it using a different medium other than the monthly union hall. Enough of the excuses lets take a proactive approach to changing the archaic way of doing things. Just a thought...
You may also want to go back and read post 114
The lack of participation or turnout is because that union hall is a reminder of how the ATD is not elected but appointed. How every contract has been concessionary in nature for the members but not the unelected of the ATD who make double if not triple what its members make. Once that has changed maybe they would fight a little harder and there would be more participation. We are powerless to change from within if we can not elect leaders to guide us or share in the sacrafices they have signed off on. Lead by example would be a step in the right direction. It seems the lifestyle of the ATD is OK for them but not for its members.
The question of Leadership failing or membership failing is not one that can be 100% this way or that but the overwhelming responsibility for the success of the group lies with the leadership. Leaders need to find the key to motivate, inspire and lead, not an easy task, but that more than any other cause is what makes the difference between a success or failure.
After being told for decades that every loss is the fault of the members its hard for some to see the truth for what it is. Many Union leaders cling to old ineffective methods and expect to get swept along by the members instead of leading them, they expect to ride the wave instead of lead the charge. They judge participation by whether or not the workers are willing to make meaningless sacrifices, such as attending meetings for the sake of attending meetings, then use their reluctance to do so as an excuse to sit back, collect their six figure salaries and see everything from the employers perspective instead of the members. They peddle poor concessionary deals then turn around and say "well you voted for it". "Lets go walk around in circles then come in and work all the overtime, that'll show em how strong we are". The workers are faced with such hypocritical message sending or going to their second jobs so they can keep a roof over their heads. When they choose the later they are accused of failing their union. The same people who bring back and endorse the concessions are the same people who blame the members for accepting them and not participating enough. Then they wonder why they've lost the following of the members and the members are not willing to make sacrifices for meaningless acts that some interpret as a show of strength.
We have very few people attend meetings, and it doesnt bother me. Why? Because there are other methods of getting the message out. The internet gives us the power to cheaply distribute information instantly and broadly, we see its power in the Middle East, we saw it with the election of Obama. I feel that, although we certainly have a lot of room for improvement and it will take a while before we reach an adequate density of militantcy, our members are better informed than they've ever been. As far as our members supporting us 94% of the members in our Local voted against the American Airlines TA despite the fact that the last thing that every single member saw before they voted was an insert that was basically a vote "yes" message. Apparently 6% of our members didnt get or agree with the message we put out, and I can live with that.
For those who think that somehow todays Union "members" are inferior consider this which has been attributed to Socrates;
"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have
no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all
restraint. They talk as if they alone knew everything and what passes
for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for girls, they are
forward, immodest and unwomanly in speech, behaviour and dress."
And this from Plato
:"What is happening to our young
people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They
ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions.
Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"
Think about this for a moment, what is more likely, that the huge masses of members are different and inferior or the small number of leaders are? One of the dysfunctions I feel that the undemocratic systems that most unions employ to elect leaders is that "leaders" who assume power often surround themselves with followers, not people who could possibly become a threat to their leadership position. So as long as leaders can pretty much hand pick their successors, which is pretty much how most unions end up, there will be a steady decline in leadership ability. They in effect really become administrators. In the TWU they are fond of taking "leaders" that the members reject through the electoral process on the Local level and promoting them within the ranks of the International, if that isnt a direct smack in the face to the membership I dont know what is. Themembersip removes these people , then the International saves them from returning to work under the agreement they endorsed and doubles their income plus other perks and place them in positions above the people that the members choose. The strict no-raid policies that unions have only helps foster this degredation. Union members are for the most part given the choice of poor union leadership or no union at all. More and more workers are settling for the "no union" option and the "administators" that run unions just cant grasp the reason why.
Ramp dude cites
"When people just think of themselves (without considering the common good of others) one can only expect the outcome. "
Well what type of example are our leaders setting when they tell their members to accept concessions while they continue to get raises and lose nothing? Doesnt that make them more like management than like us? Arent they saying the same thing through their actions if not their rhetoric? "Concessions are for you but not me".