Is it really such a reactionary idea that those who show up make the decisions?
Maybe it is. It is important to recognize that "showing up" is a neutral sounding proposition that carries a lot of baggage. Dozens of factors can determine whether one is able to "show up," of course, and it is incumbent upon any organization that claims to represent "the people" to be constantly asking itself what it can do to include more voices, make more people feel welcome. Ask itself if it has become parochial, self-interested.
In the end though, decisions have to be made, votes taken.
So, as you can imagine, I ran into someone who is much, much more concerned with the process, than with results; concerned with the discussion, rather than the answers. I try to remember that this type of discussion is helpful, because it causes much need self-examination, but I also grow frustrated with it in our context, because we are fighting for real things for real people who have real problems that need to be dealt with.
Yes, we want to build a democratic union movement with as wide of a reach as possible. At the same time, I also very much want to raise the annual cap on health insurance so peoples' lives are not ruined when they hit it. I have always believed that the former is a tool for achieving the latter. Obviously, there are some who believe I have backwards priorities. The promises of material rewards are merely the tools we should be using to unite the working class.
What do you all think? Do I have it all backwards? Am I merely a tool of the capitalists unable to look past my pocketbook to see the true nirvana?
Also, for those of you keeping score at home, in the last month I have been called a "push-button unionist" because I don't have to go knocking doors to sign up members, a "welfare unionist" because people join the GTFF because they love the health care plan, someone who harbors "Marxist fantasies" because I used the word strike, and a "business unionist" because I prioritized achieving bargaining results over bargaining discussion.
All of which is to say what we already knew. I suck.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think you go too far toward accepting a dichotomy between pragmatism and democracy. Ultimately, what we're able to achieve is a function of how powerful we are and power is a function of participation.
(There are, of course, undemocratic models of participation. It seems to me, though, that you aren't going to compel grad employees to participate, and that turnover is too frequent for charismatic leadership to count for much. So of the available options, giving folks a chance to have a meaningful voice looks like a pretty good bet)
I am completely in agreement with your point DC.
Discussions of Meta issues are important, and institutions matter, but you aren't involved in a hypothetical union.
If you don't participate at crucial decision points, then you have no valid complaint. I believe the union was democratically run while I served as an officer. That doesn't mean that people didn't complain.
Regarding what type of unionist you are DC, you know that you and I go way back on this point... but I think that you will always be attacked from all sides because you are so damn pragmatic, and rational.
Good luck with the negotiations.
That is why you should support Clinton over Obama.
dave, i know i am getting to this late, but i have been thinking about it for a couple of days. i think EZ is right that one of the hallmarks of your dave-ness is your pragmatism and rationality. these things serve you well in analyzing the arguments that people make about organizing, the GTFF, etc. the problem (well, one of the problems, anyway) comes in when you start taking those arguments personally.
two caveats: (1) i get the sense that often you don't "take things personally," but others MAKE arguments personal by framing them as personal attacks. so i am NOT accusing you of being overly sensitive. (2) this is advice that i have a very hard time taking myself for the same problems, so i know what i am about to say is not as easy as it sounds.
i think you have to learn to ignore/filter out/whatever the (explicit or implicit) arguments about you as a unionist and focus on the real issue, which is The Union. it's not about you or whether you "suck" (which we all know you do not). unless the critique comes from someone who knows you and your work well enough to offer something valid, ignore it. debate the issues; the personal stuff is just a distraction. your record speaks for itself. at the end of the day, what you help the union accomplish is what's important, not what people think about you. filter that shit out. i know all too well that no good comes from obsessing about people's perceptions.
Post a Comment