Pairs well with the expose on GLAAD's spending from yesterday.
My favorite chapter from my second book is all about the role of nonprofits in left organizing and how they distort everything. I would say that the core points are
1) It's the nature of human institutions, even those staffed by good people, to inevitably become more invested in perpetuating themselves than in whatever cause they're devoted to
2) Fundraising becomes an endless self-perpetuating timesuck that turns these organizations into black tie dinner factories
You need to raise money, so you hire people to raise money, and now you've taken on those salaries so you need to raise more money, and you need somebody to manage the salary-money-raising enterprise, so you hire some managers....
The former director of the Wikimedia foundation wrote this once
" Every nonprofit has two main jobs: you need to do your core work, and you need to make the money to pay for it. . . . Nonprofits also prioritize revenue. But for most it doesn’t actually serve as much of an indicator of overall effectiveness. . . . That means that most, or often all, the actual experiences a donor has with a nonprofit are related to fundraising, which means that over time many nonprofits have learned that the donating process needs—in and of itself—to provide a satisfying experience for the donor. All sorts of energy is therefore dedicated towards making it exactly that: donors get glossy newsletters of thanks, there are gala dinners, they are elaborately consulted on a variety of issues, and so forth."
I thought about the GLAAD story, too, as I read this - along with thinking about a number of non-profits that spend a lot of money on overhead and senior administrators. That Wikimedia passage is spot on.
As a long time global union sraffer I fully agree that helping fund union organizing to help workers build power is a key element. I applaud the UE and DSA for launching EWOC, but its scale is way too small. With the IUF I oversaw a global union organizing project within the food and beverage industry that received modest funding controlled by German and Dutch union federations but ultimately sourced from taxpayers in those countries. We were able to hire four energetic organizers at minimal salaries to help unions on various continents to organize and represent workers within global corporations in those industries. The results were quite positive in building global union density within Nestle and Coca Cola, enabling our combined union networks to exert considerable leverage on those global corporations. The IUF could not have funded that campaign from affiliated union membership alone.
Money is an issue and progressive foundations can be a solution. Political will and strategies to win industrially matter too. Building an outside organization without access to a union’s leverage politically or legislatively is not the ideal solution. But doing what we are doing now is far more problematic. Let’s fund union organizing both internally through redistribution of existing union resources, and through outside funders if we want to survive as a workers organization.
Yes-- unions themselves are always going to be the biggest organizers of new union members. But equally obvious is that the current structure is not working, as 6% private sector union density proves. Apart from reforming labor laws, which may or may not ever happen, organizing is a resource question. Foundation money and government money are both largely untapped sources for new organizing specifically, even though some of those dollars do flow into other labor priorities.
There is a growing network of progressive foundations, mostly west coast based and in many cases spend-down foundations (therefore not invested in self perpetuation) that are specifically focused on movement building. I think that because they have been targeting some of the most marginalized (formerly incarcerated, undocumented) they have overlooked the role the unions could play in unifying and elevating the voices of exactly these folks and more. The right organizer in front of the right rich person (maybe Regan Pritzker) could unlock a lot of money.
Right. There is a pool of money that I think would be disposed to back this stuff, I just truly believe union organizing per se has not been forcefully put on their radar.
100%. It’s not the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, but it’s the Solidaire - Resource Generation - Kataly/Libra Foundation types. Also some of the more progressive faith-based orgs, especially select Roman Catholic women religious (Sisters of St Francis of Philly, Adrian Dominicans, the Mercies) who I know have funded the coalition of Immokalee Workers and are very aggressive in trying to call bad corporate actors to account. If no one from labor is actively meeting with ICCR that should change.
This is so true. As a fledgling union, we are lucky to have found two larger unions to help us, but we want to be able to do this ourselves! Without dues paying members, it's very difficult - which makes this very much a chicken-and-egg problem. We need more members, paying dues, so that we can hire organizers and contract negotiators and people to maintain those contracts. But we can't get there with zero resources.
The biggest problem with union organizing at the ground level is: the bosses see us coming.
They know the implications, and can show extreme solidarity while devoting the maximum resources to delay, distract and defeat us. If they have time.
Us having to work through the permission structures and leaky politics of our present-day unions gives the bosses time; bc the leadership of today's unions are more invested in their own control of change than change itself (not unlike a certain blue party). And they just can't keep their mouths shut, either.
If we on the left want to see change happen, we have to bypass these structures that we seem to have to "work through", at great expense of years and enormous gulfs of energy; whose effect only seems to be to"contain" us and slow us down to the pained crawl we're at now.
Our enemies have way too much time to build trenches, while we have to beg our "friends" to get on board with us, while they weigh us against their own perceived motives and interests. We need a vehicle to contend vs. our enemies directly, and make our "friends" either get on board with us (but not in front), or be left behind. *Then* if we choose and they agree, we can add to their organized ranks, while maintaining our own integrity and agency as a left.
The power of present-day unions and political parties, as of now, is not our power.
Until we have ours, we will be stuck struggling for crumbs of theirs.
I think you're right about all the points on labor. I'm a little more pessimistic on the foundation side. Having written a lot of grants, there are still a lot of foundations/officers who won't even provide funds that go to the labor cost of a nonprofit, or that limit "overhead" as part of their spending. Not to mention that many foundations receive funding from large corporations/people who got rich from large corporations whose interests are fundamentally at odds with what you're proposing.
My other unfortunate realization about foundations is that the people who work in them often mean well, but are in a little bubble of rich people. If someone well-positioned within their bubble convinces them of the value of a proposal and they decide to champion it, they can make things happen very quickly. However, my impression is the biggest challenge is getting into that bubble and having those deep relationships that allow for constructive criticism to break through.
That being said, could large labor unions pool resources to start a foundation explicitly focused on things like this? And or not through a foundation, but some other type of organization. Or what about something like the DSA? That seems in line with their goals.
Labor unions already fund union organizing. The point here is to explain why the huge pools of supposedly progressive money that are not funding union organizing should do so.
I'm not anti-union, and I was a member of two when I worked factories 40 years ago. I think that unions have served Americans very well--especially in the last century and in transitional periods. But isn't the union model by and large a relic of the past? Does membership and union activity really foster the well-being and personal growth of any human being?
Me and my sister are the native born children of our immigrant parents. About five years after our parents arrived in California, and before I was born, my dad got a union job in the aerospace industry in Southern California. He was still trying to master English at the time. Without a high school diploma he got training and an introduction to American middle-class life: house, station wagon, camper, vacations at national and state parks. Sports and Catholic school for my sister, travel soccer team for me. The whole nine yards. He became a shop-floor leader, and a founding board member of a credit union. I remember hearing or reading as a child that American Express cards were hard to get at the time. Then one day I saw he had one. A blue-collar guy. The security of the union job made it possible for him to get and keep a very high credit score.
Does union membership foster well-being and personal growth?
I wouldn't move over every dollar of progressive money into this but your point is right for sure. Others have noted excessive salaries and spending in some nonprofits. Still others have noted the ludicrous desire to fund more studies - not just around labor but around everything. So I'd: 1) Move a lot of money to what you suggest; 2) Reform how foundations think about funding other causes.
Pairs well with the expose on GLAAD's spending from yesterday.
My favorite chapter from my second book is all about the role of nonprofits in left organizing and how they distort everything. I would say that the core points are
1) It's the nature of human institutions, even those staffed by good people, to inevitably become more invested in perpetuating themselves than in whatever cause they're devoted to
2) Fundraising becomes an endless self-perpetuating timesuck that turns these organizations into black tie dinner factories
You need to raise money, so you hire people to raise money, and now you've taken on those salaries so you need to raise more money, and you need somebody to manage the salary-money-raising enterprise, so you hire some managers....
The former director of the Wikimedia foundation wrote this once
" Every nonprofit has two main jobs: you need to do your core work, and you need to make the money to pay for it. . . . Nonprofits also prioritize revenue. But for most it doesn’t actually serve as much of an indicator of overall effectiveness. . . . That means that most, or often all, the actual experiences a donor has with a nonprofit are related to fundraising, which means that over time many nonprofits have learned that the donating process needs—in and of itself—to provide a satisfying experience for the donor. All sorts of energy is therefore dedicated towards making it exactly that: donors get glossy newsletters of thanks, there are gala dinners, they are elaborately consulted on a variety of issues, and so forth."
Yes-- something to be said for the Mackenzie Scott model of just hiding out and giving out money to existing orgs with no warning.
Every now and then I picture a conversation with someone in 30 years:
"What strategies were really effective for seizing wealth from capitalists in the early 2020's?"
"Divorcing them. Also unions, I guess."
I thought about the GLAAD story, too, as I read this - along with thinking about a number of non-profits that spend a lot of money on overhead and senior administrators. That Wikimedia passage is spot on.
As a long time global union sraffer I fully agree that helping fund union organizing to help workers build power is a key element. I applaud the UE and DSA for launching EWOC, but its scale is way too small. With the IUF I oversaw a global union organizing project within the food and beverage industry that received modest funding controlled by German and Dutch union federations but ultimately sourced from taxpayers in those countries. We were able to hire four energetic organizers at minimal salaries to help unions on various continents to organize and represent workers within global corporations in those industries. The results were quite positive in building global union density within Nestle and Coca Cola, enabling our combined union networks to exert considerable leverage on those global corporations. The IUF could not have funded that campaign from affiliated union membership alone.
Money is an issue and progressive foundations can be a solution. Political will and strategies to win industrially matter too. Building an outside organization without access to a union’s leverage politically or legislatively is not the ideal solution. But doing what we are doing now is far more problematic. Let’s fund union organizing both internally through redistribution of existing union resources, and through outside funders if we want to survive as a workers organization.
Yes-- unions themselves are always going to be the biggest organizers of new union members. But equally obvious is that the current structure is not working, as 6% private sector union density proves. Apart from reforming labor laws, which may or may not ever happen, organizing is a resource question. Foundation money and government money are both largely untapped sources for new organizing specifically, even though some of those dollars do flow into other labor priorities.
There is a growing network of progressive foundations, mostly west coast based and in many cases spend-down foundations (therefore not invested in self perpetuation) that are specifically focused on movement building. I think that because they have been targeting some of the most marginalized (formerly incarcerated, undocumented) they have overlooked the role the unions could play in unifying and elevating the voices of exactly these folks and more. The right organizer in front of the right rich person (maybe Regan Pritzker) could unlock a lot of money.
Right. There is a pool of money that I think would be disposed to back this stuff, I just truly believe union organizing per se has not been forcefully put on their radar.
100%. It’s not the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, but it’s the Solidaire - Resource Generation - Kataly/Libra Foundation types. Also some of the more progressive faith-based orgs, especially select Roman Catholic women religious (Sisters of St Francis of Philly, Adrian Dominicans, the Mercies) who I know have funded the coalition of Immokalee Workers and are very aggressive in trying to call bad corporate actors to account. If no one from labor is actively meeting with ICCR that should change.
This is so true. As a fledgling union, we are lucky to have found two larger unions to help us, but we want to be able to do this ourselves! Without dues paying members, it's very difficult - which makes this very much a chicken-and-egg problem. We need more members, paying dues, so that we can hire organizers and contract negotiators and people to maintain those contracts. But we can't get there with zero resources.
The biggest problem with union organizing at the ground level is: the bosses see us coming.
They know the implications, and can show extreme solidarity while devoting the maximum resources to delay, distract and defeat us. If they have time.
Us having to work through the permission structures and leaky politics of our present-day unions gives the bosses time; bc the leadership of today's unions are more invested in their own control of change than change itself (not unlike a certain blue party). And they just can't keep their mouths shut, either.
If we on the left want to see change happen, we have to bypass these structures that we seem to have to "work through", at great expense of years and enormous gulfs of energy; whose effect only seems to be to"contain" us and slow us down to the pained crawl we're at now.
Our enemies have way too much time to build trenches, while we have to beg our "friends" to get on board with us, while they weigh us against their own perceived motives and interests. We need a vehicle to contend vs. our enemies directly, and make our "friends" either get on board with us (but not in front), or be left behind. *Then* if we choose and they agree, we can add to their organized ranks, while maintaining our own integrity and agency as a left.
The power of present-day unions and political parties, as of now, is not our power.
Until we have ours, we will be stuck struggling for crumbs of theirs.
'Obama declared economic inequality “the defining challenge of our time,”'
. . . And then stopped there.
I think you're right about all the points on labor. I'm a little more pessimistic on the foundation side. Having written a lot of grants, there are still a lot of foundations/officers who won't even provide funds that go to the labor cost of a nonprofit, or that limit "overhead" as part of their spending. Not to mention that many foundations receive funding from large corporations/people who got rich from large corporations whose interests are fundamentally at odds with what you're proposing.
My other unfortunate realization about foundations is that the people who work in them often mean well, but are in a little bubble of rich people. If someone well-positioned within their bubble convinces them of the value of a proposal and they decide to champion it, they can make things happen very quickly. However, my impression is the biggest challenge is getting into that bubble and having those deep relationships that allow for constructive criticism to break through.
That being said, could large labor unions pool resources to start a foundation explicitly focused on things like this? And or not through a foundation, but some other type of organization. Or what about something like the DSA? That seems in line with their goals.
Labor unions already fund union organizing. The point here is to explain why the huge pools of supposedly progressive money that are not funding union organizing should do so.
I share your pessimism. The Ford Foundation specifically helped fund causes that undermine teachers' unions, for example.
I'm not anti-union, and I was a member of two when I worked factories 40 years ago. I think that unions have served Americans very well--especially in the last century and in transitional periods. But isn't the union model by and large a relic of the past? Does membership and union activity really foster the well-being and personal growth of any human being?
John please check out this book: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/hamilton-nolan/the-hammer/9780306830921/
Fair enough. I will.
John,
Me and my sister are the native born children of our immigrant parents. About five years after our parents arrived in California, and before I was born, my dad got a union job in the aerospace industry in Southern California. He was still trying to master English at the time. Without a high school diploma he got training and an introduction to American middle-class life: house, station wagon, camper, vacations at national and state parks. Sports and Catholic school for my sister, travel soccer team for me. The whole nine yards. He became a shop-floor leader, and a founding board member of a credit union. I remember hearing or reading as a child that American Express cards were hard to get at the time. Then one day I saw he had one. A blue-collar guy. The security of the union job made it possible for him to get and keep a very high credit score.
Does union membership foster well-being and personal growth?
You’re god damned right it does.
I wouldn't move over every dollar of progressive money into this but your point is right for sure. Others have noted excessive salaries and spending in some nonprofits. Still others have noted the ludicrous desire to fund more studies - not just around labor but around everything. So I'd: 1) Move a lot of money to what you suggest; 2) Reform how foundations think about funding other causes.
Whom do you suggest ? Is there some organization already that would be a start?
EWOC is very good but really doing this at scale will require a new standalone org I think.