Day 1 - Rival Amendments and Call Centers

my understanding is the writer spent some decent amount of time checking out a simulated member resource center/call center and discussing the concept of it with folks at the convention, but i don't see a very interesting report here.

frankly he gets some of the facts wrong:
- currently in some locals many members DO have to leave a message for staff reps when there is a discipline. the idea of a member resource center is a place where she WILL get a live person on the phone because the B.A. wont be on vacation or something, there will always be someone answering calls in a variety of languages.
- the concept isn't a bunch of pre-prompted responses like you'd get at verizon. the idea is to have staff who are trained to handle technical representational issues and answer common member questions. lets face it, there are some people who are stronger at internal organizing and mobilizing members and others who are stronger at dealing with grievances and technical issues. they should focus where their strengths are and get further training in those areas instead of being a jack of all trades, master of none.
- some of these member resource centers are currently focused on homecare workers who DON'T have a traditional workplace. the concept of a strong steward structure on the shop floor doesn't apply in the same way it would in a hospital or industrial setting. also, when workers speak several languages (the member resource centers in oregon and illinois deal with english, polish, serbo-croatian, vietnamese, mandarian, etc.) it's useful to have someone who can speak to them quickly.
- my understanding is member resource centers (check the resolutions language) will not be mandatory, but will be "encouraged" and "supported." some locals just wont be interested; fair enough. many have passed at this point, even before the convention, but many more are very interested and will want to set one up or join an existing MRC.

as for the previous comments in this blog, i tend to agree that the member resource center is a tool (used first by unions like the organizing model-oriented "miscellaneous" service workers in australia) that can be used like any tool, for good or bad.

locals that do have a strong shop floor steward structure (or delegate structure as we said in 1199) will use member resource centers to help those stewards with digital records on grievance and settlement histories that will be search-able and online. locals that have a service culture will indeed probably use it to service members only, which is a shame. some will do a bit of both, and use the center to answer common questions but "farm out" organizing issues back to stewards and internal organizers/staff.

the idea should be about as controversial as cell phones. i suppose in theory, cell phones can take away from face to face time with members -- but there is no reason it has to -- plus we have to deal with the reality of changing technology in the world. there seems to be some luddite thinking out there on this issue.

in many locals there have been many meaningful and difficult discussions between rank and file workers, local e-board members, and staff about how locals should use member resource centers, or if they should adopt them at all.

but i doubt i'll find that coverage in labor notes, a formerly solid news source that's writing seems to be lacking depth in some of the "emerging" trends in unions globally. the misunderstanding on how you represent homecare workers or build a union in that setting, is an example.

going more broadly, now that i read the entire coverage so far from this site on the convention, there are fair criticisms and debates to be had about many SEIU locals and its international union leadership -- like in any union -- but frankly labornotes seems to get the "scoop" less and less and want to launch a crusade in issues that are multifaceted.

labor notes is an important check against those of us in our unions who support the direction of our leadership. but sometimes you'd have more credibility with some deeper reporting, interviews, and separating analysis from editorials from articles from blogs instead of throwing it altogether in a crusade of words that includes little information about some of the emerging trends in the labor movement (be it from australia, europe, or in seiu.) i do applaud some of the coverage i've seen about workers in Venezuela, for instance though. it hasn't been enough for me to want to subscribe again though.

final thought on that, but i didn't see much coverage about the agreements and push for global neutrality/organizing rights going on in the international solidarity parts of the convention. this was very exciting to me, and maybe more relevant than many of the (important) debates between UHW and the SEIU IEB. we heard about campaigns that effect workers in thailand, the UK, the netherlands, and beyond, but the only "international" coverage labor notes gave so far was to the puerto rican teachers situation, because it was more negative. tell both sides of the story! be a fair watch dog for the working class!

i work for seiu, and while i agree with many of your critiques, the coverage of the call center is misleading. as it is implemented at local 1 in chicago, and is planned in california, it is to answer basic questions, determine if there is a possible grievance etc. the point is to take some of the workload off the field rep and give them more time for actual organizing. there will still be field reps out doing steward development, issue organizing, and there will still be a field rep for handling grievances, disciplines etc, and both of these local positions will still work with stewards. the call center people will even have the contact info of stewards, and what level of training they have, and will refer some cases directly to those stewards. the devil is in the details, but all in all the call centers have been effective at some locals for freeing up some time for field reps and stewards to do more proactive big picture work.