By Isaac Soto
To enhance members' confidence and contract enforcement, it's crucial to simplify the contract's language and ensure consistent interpretations.
Fostering unity in contract interpretation will present a united front to management, strengthening the union's position in negotiating better contracts.
Establishing regular, centralized forums for contract interpretation will bolster unity, boost confidence, and demonstrate collective strength to employers.
Overcoming attendance challenges for these workshops involves committing to regular scheduling, proactive promotion, and leveraging technology for inclusive remote participation.
Author’s note: Before diving into Part Two of this series, I want to address feedback I received from Local 99 staff on Part One. Namely, the observation that members are apprehensive about sharing grievance issues with coworkers, which I interpreted as implying that strengthening the enforcement role of stewards and, even further, the prospect of stewards handling their own grievances is too significant a roadblock for implementation. In fact, these are features that are standard to many unions. Indeed, last year, while in attendance as a guest at the Teamsters for a Democratic Union convention (where I heard their winning coalition partner Sean O’Brien speak), many Teamsters from all across the country struggled to comprehend the fact that stewards in my union Local were not taught or allowed to file their own grievances.
Considering the current framework many stewards operate on in most of our union shops, the objection holds water. However, by and large, the opposite is true in my store and with my work style. My coworkers feel comfortable sharing their grievance issues with me. The crucial difference is that I take the initiative to ask how things are going before a problem arises. Alongside introducing myself, I let them know that their problems, whether covered by the contract or not, are my problems. I will work with them to do all we can to get it fixed or addressed. Many of my coworkers will attest to this, further evidenced by the number of newer workers approaching me because of my reputation as trustworthy and eager to help.
Disparate and Disunified
The sentiment that language in the contract can be challenging to understand is widely felt and well-noted. I know this because of my day-to-day observations on the shop floor, but this is also evidenced by an annotated version of our contract, with simplified language and additional context, making the content of the provisions more explicit. Indeed, there have been instances where even business agents did not have clear answers; several times, I've asked three different business agents the same question and got three different (sometimes conflicting) answers.
The harmful effects of these collective phenomena are threefold. On the one hand, (1) competing views and interpretations of contract provisions confuse and weaken the resolve and confidence of members to enforce the contract. I can personally attest to this, as there have been moments where I've attempted to stand firm on a given contract interpretation in disputes with management, only to be effectively countered and my creditably diminished. With such discouragement of the will to enforce, enforcement suffers. (2) Such conditions tend to feed ignorance of the contract, helping to perpetuate false and misleading narratives about the efficacy of both the contract and the union. Notwithstanding bad faith and reactionary anti-union attitudes, this lack of enforcement is partly the cause of the perception that 'the union doesn't do anything.' To paint all who hold this view as a homogenous block of union haters is incorrect; one must realize that when the primary mechanism by which the union can and does get the goods is unutilized, these conclusions are inevitable - however misconceived.
(3) The final, and perhaps most consequential, outcome of the lack of unity of interpretation of our various contracts is the picture it paints for management and their corporate overseers; that image is one of the general disunity of Local 99. This last aspect boils down to a single question: if the various firms whose workers Local 99 represents know that said workers either won't or can't enforce their existing contracts, why should they believe they're in any position to fight for better ones?
A regular, central forum, headed by the foremost authorities on all Local 99 CBAs, can consolidate and unify contract interpretation among activists, stewards, and business agents alike. Such consolidation strengthens unity, increases confidence, combats false and confused narratives, and projects strength to the employers from whom we rightfully seek to regain a dignified standard of living.
Addressing Concerns
After the December 12th membership meeting adjourned, I spoke with several attendees, staff and not. At the beginning of this article, I mentioned that there was support for holding regular contract enforcement workshops. That support, however, was not unqualified. Several attendees made reasonable points about the difficulties such an undertaking would face, which I want to address. I'll start here with the issue of attendance.
Not only is our membership dispersed across a large geographical area, but it is also numerous. Those concerned with attendance spoke in the context of past events, specifically, low turnout to zone and membership meetings. In the case of zone meetings, I want to quickly address the problem of paying to reserve rooms for sessions only to have a minimal turnout. If our goal in these contract workshops is a central forum, it would be wise for us to utilize our union hall, relieving us of unnecessary spending.
Furthermore, I'll reiterate that there has only been one zone meeting in my two and a half years as a steward. Beyond that fact, there was short notice before the meeting, making it difficult for workers who might've been interested in attending to find accommodations in time - such as a babysitter, transportation, etc. That being said, even if there'd been a massive turnout, to say that the primary purpose of the zone meeting I attended was to give a thorough overview of our contracts would be a mischaracterization. In actuality, most of the meeting consisted of several updates, tips on recruitment, and a moment for whatever questions we could think of on the spot.
As far as membership meetings are concerned, one must consider several factors. Firstly, they occur infrequently, which tends to disincentivize attendance; for example, If I have an issue now, and the next opportunity to engage with fellow members, staff, and officers is three months from now, there is a strong likelihood that the issue will either have subsided, or that apathy in those affected will have set in - which itself has broader negative implications for the health of the union.
Likewise, we need to expand on our approach to promoting the meetings. Typically, no text, email, or phone call occurs urging attendance or explaining why one should bother attending in the first place. The only place our union brings the meeting dates and times to members' attention is the union bulletin board, which seldom changes and has room to be made more engaging. Although the main point of this article is not to argue for more proactive membership meeting promotion, a topic worth considering separately, it does beg the question: why would members attend membership meetings?
Indeed, the content of the meetings is often limited to the reading of minutes, finances, and other new business within the local; this is to say, routine. Yes, these meetings provide a chance for some chit-chat before and after, but that is typically not enough to motivate the average union member - even many a union activist - to go through the trouble of finding accommodations that they might drive anywhere from 5 to 20 to 60 minutes from home to hear what is essentially a formal business report. All of this is not to denigrate the meetings, the local, or its practices, only to make a case as to why low turnout has been an issue in the past to argue for remedies that would lead to a different outcome in the case of prospective contract workshops.
What, then, can be done to ensure attendance? First, we must understand that the desired results will likely come only some at a time. In this way, it's helpful to think about this undertaking as an investment bearing a future return. As such, the first measure we must take is to hold the meetings regularly, more frequently than membership meetings (bimonthly seems appropriate and reasonable), and with loyalty to the planned schedule. As opposed to the zone meetings, having dates set far in advance will allow time for both the union and activists to get the word out and for those interested in attending to find accommodations. However, it's important to note that we must couple such regularity with rigorous promotion. Relevant staff, officers, and activists/stewards seeking to execute the workshops actively should plan them as a collaborative effort.
Since transportation is an obstacle for members, the union should work with stewards and activists to facilitate a systematized carpool. As the network of engaged and newly activated attendees expands, our logistical capacity also expands. However, some members live too far for attendance to be feasible, even when given advance notice. To provide for their inclusion in the initiative, Zoom and similar programs are practicable measures, as evidenced by the several occasions where our principal officer chaired membership meetings remotely via such programs. We can and must use all tools at our disposal.
In the final installment of this three-part series, we will consider the need for practical, intentional steps in forging a sense of working-class community.