wait a minute. i think some of the issues are thornier here than maggie's post would perhaps suggest. certainly progressives have a right and a duty to demand that progressive organizations not engage in what we would consider to be unfair labor practices in keeping labor unions out, regardless of whether such practices are illegal. this would (imho) include limitations on free speech such as described in the post re aiusa (recalling that at this point we have no way of judging the accuaracy of the allegations re aiusa). similar allegations were made against greenpeace (in seattle i think) by the iww a few years back. the claim was that gp locked out workers who tried to unionize. the issue of pay is trickier. certainly for non-political positions, secretarial, custodial, etc. progressive organizations should try to pay "living wages". (Presumably, if there is no "market failure", they will have to pay at least market wages. ;) ) But for political positions it is not necessarily reasonable to expect higher than market wages. First, all progressive organizations are stretched financially; the more progressive, the more stretched. Second, there may not be enough political positions for everyone who wants one -- there is also a responsibility to spread the resources around. Finally, there is a fairness issue. If an organizer is expected to attend a weekly meeting of the group s/he works for, that may appear to be unpaid labor, but the members of the group who attend are not getting paid either. in a socialist society our work of governing will be valued as work. but we are not at socialism yet. Still, of course, the compensation and the expectations should not be unreasonable. canvass operations are particularly suspect. i heard that acorn recently got some bad pr when a newspaper pointed out that people working on its living wage campaign were not being paid the wage they were demanding that the government pay. whoops. moreover, the market is likely to value the skills and qualifications of organizers more highly than other skills. this is not necessarily appropriate for a progressive organization. (should the organizer make more than the secretary? that's how the market would value it.) so i think these issues are tricky and have to be considered carefully in each specific case. (i've lived both sides of this issue, by the way -- been an employee of various progressive organizations and as a board member of such organizations set the compensation of others.) certainly the more resources we can make available to progressive organizations the more these dilemmas will be ameliorated. but for the forseeable future there will be a greater need for organizing than we can pay high wages for. Certainly one should oppose abuses. But I think it is a terrible mistake ever to treat progressive organizations as indistinguishable from the enemy. all too often this leads to cynicism amidst loud denunciations of hypocrisy and eventually to the proverbial "circular firing squad". rn > Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 10:12:50 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: AI unionbuster? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Friends who work for progressive organizations tell me that the fastest way > to turn a progressive place conservative is to mention unionizing the > workers. Currently I have about a half dozen friends who work/worked for > either lefty type organizations or unions and every last one of them has a > story about their 'progressive' or 'lefty' workplace turning reactionary on > them in response to either collective bargaining demands or complaints about > work conditions. > > For instance, one friend of mine who currently works for a small union who's > claim to fame is socialist leadership is grieving her socialist immediate > boss for discrimination based on gender. Other friends tell me that > progressive places demand a tremendous amount of 'free' time on top of wages > which tend to be very low. In a capitalist organization, this would be > exploitation to increase surplus value. > > I think I'll stick with the up front capitalists, makes it easier to yell and > scream. > > maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ------------------------------ > > End of PEN-L Digest 1480 > ************************ > ___________________________________ Robert Naiman 1821 W. Cullerton Chicago Il 60608-2716 (h) 312-421-1776 Urban Planning and Policy (M/C 348) 1007 W. Harrison Room 1180 Chicago, Il 60607-7137 (o) 312-996-2126 (voice mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://icarus.uic.edu/~rnaima1/
