Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Activism Industry

By Dana R. Fisher, The American Prospect. Posted September 19, 2006.


Progressive groups are outsourcing their grassroots canvassing to national organizations. What happens when paid employees replace committed activists?
41797story
41797_story

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Dana R. Fisher

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This article is reprinted from the American Prospect.

You've seen them before. The crunchy-looking college-aged twentysomethings who knock at your door on summer evenings or stand on street corners across the country. Dressed in the T-shirts of progressive organizations like Save the Children or the Sierra Club, clipboards in hand they step into your path, smile, and make eye contact: "Hey there, how's it going? Do you have a minute?"

This type of grassroots outreach was born on May 27, 1971 when Marc Anderson, a former encyclopedia salesman, decided to combine his door-to-door sales knowledge with the political experience he gained volunteering for a local candidate's campaign. Harvard law student and self-described "Nader's Raider" David Zwick became intrigued by Anderson's efforts while he was trying to fund his newly formed group Clean Water Action. Learning the technique from Anderson, Zwick used issue-based canvassing to develop and sustain his work, which is now supported by 700,000 citizen members around the country. Zwick notes that all of the issue-based groups that have canvassed in the past 30-plus years can be traced back to Anderson's work, either via his direct management or through people he trained spinning off to run canvasses for other groups: "Virtually all... today are either imitators or direct descendants."

During the 1990s, as the funding for progressive causes waned, many national progressive groups were forced to tighten their belts and close their local field offices. Like corporations that hire workers in India to run their call centers, the canvassing, phone banking, and direct mail outreach that sustains the fundraising and membership base of progressive organizations and campaigns in America were outsourced to national groups that emerged to fill the gap on the left. As word spread of this efficient and cost-effective way to develop and maintain a grassroots base, national groups that had never worked at the grassroots level also decided to outsource. Today, progressive groups have only to sign up with an intermediary organization and trained canvassers will go door-to-door or work the sidewalk traffic on their behalf, dressed in the group's T-shirt and armed with pitches that work.

The system is indeed more efficient. Unfortunately, this type of outsourced politics increases the distance between members and the progressive national groups that claim to represent them - and has proven no match for the kind of political institutions on the right that are locally rooted and turn citizens into engaged activists.

One of the largest of the progressive grassroots clearinghouses is the Fund for Public Interest Research*, which currently runs campaigns from numerous progressive groups simultaneously. In summer 2003, for example, the Fund ran campaigns for more than fifteen organizations around the United States, including the Sierra Club, the Human Rights Campaign, Save the Children, and Greenpeace. Their model of grassroots politics is very successful at recruiting members and raising funds. Sally Green Heaven, the deputy field director of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), reported that their membership has grown from 200,000 to 600,000 members since the group started outsourcing to the Fund in the late 1990s. According to John Passacantando, the executive director of Greenpeace USA: "[The Fund] helped us build our new financial base...It gave us a new base and it paid approximately 25 percent of our yearly income from monthly electronic donations, which is huge."

Canvassers at the Fund are expected to bounce from one campaign to another. In the words of HRC president Joe Solmonese, "The person who is out standing on the street corner trying to sign you up to join HRC... they honestly, like the next day, might be doing the same thing for [a different organization]." As a result of their short shelf lives and having to juggle multiple campaigns, most canvassers do not become particularly committed to the cause. (Turnover is notoriously high.)


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: activism, grassroots

Dana R. Fisher is assistant professor of sociology at Columbia University, and author of Activism, Inc.: How the Outsourcing of Grassroots Campaigns Is Strangling Progressive Politics in America.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
pitfalls
Posted by: rsaxto on Sep 19, 2006 1:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Outsourcing for non-profits has even more pitfalls than outsourcing for corporations. Keep eyes on the long term for the short term quickly collapses while the long term is more reliable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Strangling?
Posted by: Urstrly on Sep 19, 2006 4:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since I live near an urban university, I see these canvassers all the time, but they're not the only progressives out there. In the same neighborhood, MoveOn attracts hundreds to anti-war vigils. The local Democratic Club does its work, which is sometimes progressive. I tell the DNC kids I'm already giving online, but most of the other organizations seem redundant. If I'm giving to Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, I'm not interested in some lesser known environmental group. Same for the children's charities. Oddly, it was through a paid canvasser that I signed on to Greenpeace. My considerable experience with unpaid volunteers says they're better at political persuasion than at fundraising. I say let a thousand flowers bloom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does the left have to copy the right like this ?!?!?
Posted by: SDres11 on Sep 19, 2006 5:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can remember when after Kerry criticized Bush on outsourcing in 2004 that the Bush gang shot back and exposed Kerry on outsourcing calls to Canada. As far as I can see, like George Lakoff pointed out in his book "Don't Think of an Elephant!", the right is PRIVATIZING the left and it has succeeded. If the progressives would stop focusing on social issues like gays and abortion, and stop writing us red-staters off especially on important issues, they wouldn't be stuck in the MINORITY column already ! No wonder Tom Daschle couldn't retain his seat back in 2004 !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You must be new here? Posted by: ABetterFuture
high turnover, low wages, long hours
Posted by: julamo on Sep 19, 2006 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a result of their short shelf lives and having to juggle multiple campaigns, most canvassers do not become particularly committed to the cause. (Turnover is notoriously high.)

I worked for the state PIRG in Oregon one summer during college when I was young and naive, and I can say that another reason turnover is especially high is because they pay you like crap and the work sucks. Many of my coworkers were struggling to make ends meet, and having a job where people slam doors in your face all day and chase you down the street while they yell that you are evil (this happened to me) isn't always fun. A coworker of mine had to quit because he was severely bitten by a dog. I guess that's what you get for going into people's homes though.

You would also end up working 10-12 hour days a lot of times, and then they would expect you to come in on the weekends and volunteer for free. Even for someone as young and energetic as I was, it was incredibly exhausting, and it would be very difficult to support yourself on their low wages, even for the most committed individual. I'm not saying it's always like this, but this was just my experience canvassing for OSPIRG. To their credit though, I did learn a lot about myself, and it was certainly rewarding at times. I wouldn't do it again though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They're all scams
Posted by: sausage on Sep 19, 2006 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article should serve as evidence that deep down all poltical activist groups, conservative or progressive, are really money-making scams, confidence games. Think about it, not one of these organizations really ever wants the "issue" for which they agitate for or against to be solved to the complete satisfaction of everyone.

Ask yourself, do organizations like National Right to Life ever really want Roe v. Wade to be overturned, or National Abortions Rights League a true political solution to the nation's abortion laws that benefit, as near as humanly possible, all sides? No. That would that would turn off the money spigot. Funds would instantly dry up. The same goes for the gun lobbies, what a bottomless money well!

The only way out of this morass, and I think Lincolnfan will agree with me, is to take big money out of politics all together. Public financing of all elections at all levels of government goes a long way in solving the decline into prostitution that is the American political process.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FakeLeft "activism industry" == Identity Politics propaganda paid for by corps and plutocrats
Posted by: rebel_pig on Sep 19, 2006 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is in indeed an activism industry for the FakeLeft , and organizations like Alternet, MotherJones, SPLC, etc etc etc. The $$$ comes from nonprofit organizations like the Ford Foundation, etc. The plutocrats bootstrapped these large nonprofits and then they carried on using donations from the upper class, yuppies, etc.

Large corporations are major donors to the fakeLeft.

Their goal is to further the goals of their donors and benefactors, who are of the upper class and corporations/investors.

The goal was to divert American leftism away from economic populism (progressive taxation, lower 3rd world immigration, unionism, universal healthcare, more vacation time, etc) and towards Identity Politics (race and gender oriented politics, feminism, religion oriented politics, gay rights, environmentalism, vegetarianism, pro-immigration politics, ethnic oriented politics, etc).

Identity politics takes the focus off of the class war, and shifts the bad-guy focus from the rich and towards the blue-collar white male and other white males. The white male, not the plutocrat, is now the bad guy.

This started after WW2, with the CIA and FBI. Richard Bissell, CIA and Ford Foundation honcho, said the goal was not to debate leftists on their ideas, but to divert their energies to other, less harmful areas.

For more info read Joan Roelofs' book THE MASK OF PLURALISM (or read online reviews of it).

Behold the American FakeLeft. It is the core of the activism industry.

Once the upper class had established what was a MODEL activist, then up and coming leftist activists would ape and copy and imitate them. Alternet et al. simply ape their predecessors in FakeLeftism.

And you will ape them.

This is how the animal learns and how the top of the social hierarchy perpetuate their power and status.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Calling out Rebel_Pig Posted by: AdamG
» Bull Hell!!! Posted by: psychochurch
real grassroots
Posted by: Janet4784 on Sep 19, 2006 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is still some old-fashioned politicking going on. I'm volunteering for a progressive CA state assembly candidate, Rob Haswell, and he's got volunteers going door-to-door talking to their neighbors. He's going door-to-door himself, talking to voters about keeping our rural lifestyle, representing real working people, etc. No paid canvassers or PR, just the real deal. Our network will be ready for the next campaign too. How can anyone be inspired by candidates without this grassroots honesty?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's not Over-simplify this Trend
Posted by: LeoBixby on Sep 19, 2006 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speaking as a longtime canvasser, activist, unpaid intern, et al, who is now working for a major consulting firm that helps run campaigns for almost every conceivable grassroots effort, I must say that that it is important not to simply blow off the trend of "outsourcing" progressive campaigns. It's not as though this happend out of mere greed. I am a firm believer in the idea that it happened out of necessity. That is, in the United States of 1971, a canvasser could indeed manage to survive on the pittance he or she brought in from such meaningful work. However, in the year 2006, it is virtually unimaginable to survive on what usually ends up being about $4 or $5 per hour. With the exception of a few very large national groups, most canvassers are wage slaves. Under today's circumstances, that means you are out on your ass, and there are only so many parent-supported students available for the summer.

I have personally run canvass operations, both fundraising and otherwise. The overshadowed benefit of outsourcing is that issue campaigns - clearly the winners in terms of actually spawning real change - are much more possible. Just a summer ago I was running a campaign in which we basically had to fire three or four canvassers a week, becacuse they weren't "making quota". That stinks to high hell! Today, I am a consultant at a firm in which we run canvasses that are paid for out front, so we can train our people to go out and really spread the message, instead of being so damn worried if they can squeeze five bucks from someone who - if they actually give you money - will most likely NEVER volunteer in the future.

Furthermore, we must not forget that just because there are giant progressive campaign houses now (not such a bad problem), traditional on-the-groud vigilent progressivism is not going away. If it goes away, it is because our media and our educational system is not reminding us what we have to do as citizens.

Lastly, we must not forget about the magical power groups like NET, MoveOn, the PIRGs, HRC, etc have to bring other groups around the nation, and the world, together in massive coalitions that can work to make real change in a given arena. Smaller is not necessarilly better. It's all about how the two approaches work together, and I think they are.

When I was banging on doors for GCI, raising money, as a field organizer, I was not presented with one opportunity to meet with local or national legislators, nor was I able to spend ANY time organizing events to bring the issue more closely into the public eye. Instead, I was focusing nearly 100% of my time on making sure my canvassers were bringing the money. Working on behalf of one of these big nasty national groups now, I have met with legislators dozens of times; led press conferences; written major editorials, and on and on.

We work on behalf of non-profit organizations to make them more efficient by spreading the message with less money, and STILL paying canvassers the same or more than they would make on campaigns with much less of an effect. How can that be wrong?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Year Is It? What Time Is It?
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 19, 2006 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Newspeak from the TV, radio & ragazines.
Bought and paid for pundits from think tanks interviewed as experts on talk shows.
Fake organization websites from corporate lobby groups & trade associations.
Hired gun 'local' activists.

Just as you cannot save a village by destroying it, you cannot defeat your enemy by becoming as fake and contrived as your enemy.

DEMOCRACY ALWAYS COMES FROM THE PEOPLE UP- NOT FROM HQ DOWN.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's a sucky, dangerous job.
Posted by: mmeetoilenoir on Sep 19, 2006 1:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, I said dangerous. :(

I worked for Sierra Club for a summer. We ended up driving all over who knows where NJ (yeah, and thanks for covering gas, asshats). They tried to short you on pay by shifting around the names on your list, and they will give the richer areas to thier fave canvassers- not because they make more, but because they're dating them or something.

They also wanted people to canvass singlehandedly, which is really dangerous, especially for the women. Me and my friend refused to be alone, which made the managers cranky. We finally left when it became abundantly clear that we were laboring for empty promises and even emptier wallets.

I love that these organizations exist, but it's kind of, well, not cool that they're exploiting thier labor and not paying a living wage. Not even close.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tip of the iceberg
Posted by: billb on Sep 19, 2006 1:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The progressive movement treats its working people WORSE than its conservative counterparts; it is LESS grassroots than its conservative counterpart. What is being described in this thread is only the tip of the iceberg. The movement is being run by young, pseudo- bourgeois wannabees, and is quickly running off any actual working class people who may wish to participate.

I tell solicitors at my door that I will help and I will participate but I will not contribute money. They invariably do not know how to help me participate, and regard the visit as fruitless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another One with Experience
Posted by: Comrade Who? on Sep 19, 2006 1:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posting as another Fund for Public Interest Research alumn...

The reason why commitment to issues is low is not because the canvassers simply move from issue to issue and are there to get paid. Professional canvassing is an extremely difficult job. The people that I worked with were more dedicated to social justice than any other people I have met.

It's because of the difficult nature of the job that the workers in this industry may seem uninformed or uncommitted. The first phase of working for the Fund is totally focused on building interpersonal skills. New canvassers are sent out with experts and the focus is on building confidence - very few of them know much about the issues. After the first day the canvassers are expected to memorize not just conversational techniques but a lot of background on the issues and criticisms of our strance. The result of training people this way is that many people don't know what they're talking about when they first join an office - this does can not last however, as I will explain later. Another reason for the misperception that Fund employees are uncommitted is due to how easy it is to get fired. The Fund is totally focused on outcomes. They are focused on outcomes to such a degree that Fund policy states if you have been working for a year with the Fund as one of the most productive canvassers in the country, you can get fired within three days for not meeting daily fundraising goals. Have a bad week, something in your personal life make you depressed? Well it better not effect your canvassing for three consecutive days. There is very little job security and very little pay. The trade off is that the people who end up staying are extremely committed and extremely dedicated (you have to be to work at a job with no security where most people you will encounter will find you annoying while recieving little financial compensation).

The reason these groups are so effective is because they are inherently designed to seperate those who are dedicated and efficient from those who are not. In my office I believe only one out of twenty applicants lasted more than three days as a canvasser. Because of this there is a disproporationate number of people today who have worked - briefly - for the Fund and have negative memories of it. Most of the people who give money are people who are knowledgeable about the issue - in many cases themselves directly effected. Canvassers are taught how to identify those who are "with us." You have to be know what you're talking about to get these people to give money - that's all there is to it. I have spent a lot of time in groups outside of PIRG - community-based groups with wider appeal and a focus on awareness and community rather than fundraising and I have yet to find people as dedicated and knowledgeable as my comrades at the fund.

For reasons I have just explained I don't agree that the Fund or groups like it foster a community of activists who are uncommitted and uninformed. The criticisms of the Fund that this article should have made are that it alienates many people who are willing to work for progressive causes but who cannot meet the extremely high productivity standards of the Fund. And that overall the organization is vastly more dedicated to efficiency than to the well being of its employees.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another sad example Posted by: AdamG
Alleged "Progressive" Political Fundraiser Groups Don't Pay Living Wage
Posted by: colleenwhalen on Sep 19, 2006 4:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason why the turnover is so alarmingly high with professional political fundraising organizations is because they notoriously pay less than minimum wage, zero benefit package. It is highly exploitive work and a dead-end job. Most of the time, canvassers are paid straight commission. You can work for hours and earn nothing. Sounds a lot like Wal-Mart to me. Actually, you can earn MORE at Wal-Mart, than being employed as a professional left wing canvasser! Professional canvassers don't have health insurance, disability, workmen's compensation - no benefits whatsoever. Wal-Mart is horrendous - but it's the gravy train compared to working for a left wing alleged "progressive" organization.

The bottom line is this - this article doesn't "get it" - that unpaid, enthusiastic volunteers will always work for free and that they will never be erased by badly paid, exploited paid canvassers.

The majority of paid canvassers are working poor who temporarily take this as a crappy survival job just until they can quit and find something better. This is literally sweatshop work and explains the high turnover.

Canvassing for a political campaign is scut-work, not appreciated, badly paid, dangerous if you get sent to a bad neighborhood, and probably the LEAST money you will ever earn - less than minimum wage, because it is straight commission.

I spent 10 years in Washington, D.C. on Capitol Hill in the mid-1980's to 1990's working for left wing, environmental organizations doing administrative, white collar work. Some of the WORST working conditions I ever experienced was employment with what passes for the alleged progressive movement in America. I had corporate jobs that treated me better than the lefites! In fact, the WORST experience I ever had being relentlessly sexually harrassed at work was with a national environmental organization that promoted sustainable agriculture and permaculture.

There is an inordinate amount of fingerpointing and assignment blame from the left against Bush and his henchmen, but there is far too much hypocrisy among the left wing. Want to be badly paid, lousy benefits, no benefits and be exploited? Go to work for a left wing organization!

P.S. I'm not "sour grapes" - I grew up in the 1960's and am a devoted peace-nik, progressive - just announcing the Emperor Has No Clothes. There is too much hypocrisy in the left wing organizations that exploit the hell out of their canvassers! Giving canvassers a bigger commission would significantly lower turnover and burn-out - but the left wing groups are too chintzy and tight fisted to pay a living wage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Very Good Point
Posted by: LeoBixby on Sep 19, 2006 6:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I completely agree that canvassers, particularly fundraising canvassers are grossly underpaid, and because of the lack of expectation that they will stick, they don't.

But, it must be stressed that issue canvassing is a different world from fundraising canvassing. You have a much higher chance to get someone to volunteer to help the organization if they canvasser can focus on the issue, not the little bit of money they might get at the door. I would venture to say that paying money at the door is essentially - for most folks - a simple way of buying your way out of involvement with the movement.

Paid fundraising canvassers are a waste of time. Paid issue canvassers, on the other hand, if trained well and fired up properly, have all the potential in the world to build participation like crazy.

Perhaps we progressives have to realize that the world has changed, especially with the advent of the Internet, the increase in the car society phenomenon, the death of public transportation everywhere but East Coast, and the hell that is modern mainstream news. Perhaps we need to change the debate to how can we get these well-funded, large organizations to more directly motivate the public.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the distance between the paid groups and the grassroots that is the problem
Posted by: eridani on Sep 19, 2006 8:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
--NOT the money. I'm one of the well-paid professional/managerial types, and I can easily afford to give my time for free to work on progressive causes. I know very well that the young black man I saw working for Denny Falk ad my local Safeway (who is no longer a cop due to shooting people like this kid in the back) does not have that luxury. (Denny Falk led the initiative signature gathering campaign to repeal the WA state estate tax.)

That has to change. The Dems used to materially support lower income people who proved to be good at basic organizing. Why aren't we doing that any more? Why aren't progressive issue organizations doing it? It's about time that we started dealing with our class issues here.

There is no reason whatsoever why generous pay can't be combined with high performance standards in the case of committed but poor organizers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So-called 'progressive' groups have been getting away with this for a long time
Posted by: Bobsays on Sep 20, 2006 12:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is the silent and overlooked development that has accelerated over the past ten years: NGOs and activist organisations morphing into big corporations. They have become slick money makers, and all shill for big government and for corporations.

They have become disconnected from the 'people', and are mostly staffed by career types who often have been recruited from the Fortune 500s.

Apart from international development (the biggest business on the planet), the 'third sector' of NGOs and activists is the second biggest. It is HUGE. It is about time these people are held to the same scrutiny standards that governments are. We need to know the names of their executives, how they spend the money, what impact this money has on communities and recipients, how much is stolen, what priviliges do they get (frequent trips to international conferences for a little recreational sex, taxi rides, etc.).

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If Dickons was alive today, he would recognise these middle class do-gooders for what they are: finger wagging meddlers who are more interested in their own priviliges than eliminating the dependency and need that is their bread and butter. Even more grotesque these days is the cult of celebrity they wallow in. Not satisfied with the frequent trips to conferences, they now have added trips overseas with Angelina Jolie in tow. I, personally, long ago saw that these people were not the prefered alternatie to well-funded and transparent government services that they pass themselves off as.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My apologies Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
Who Exactly are you Talking About?
Posted by: LeoBixby on Sep 20, 2006 12:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I work for a very large non-profit advocacy organization that has a solid budget, allowing me to earn a salery that I can live on, but I cannot imagine that crap you are speaking of. Nobody I know or have ever met in this business, other than our right wing counterparts, has ever come accross as gluttonous. Most of us a massively grateful for the relative security we have been given and work our asses off 50-70 hours per week to prove it. For me, that includes all of my bosses.

I think you are a sad, bitchy relic of the past that needs to take his/her head out of the sand and realize that our problems in this country have to be attacked at the 'grass-tops' as well as the roots.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When Labor outsources
Posted by: stealthisbook on Sep 21, 2006 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
organizations like the ironically named Grassroots Campaigns Inc and the Fund for Public Interest have been known in the past to engage in union busting activity, feeling that the needs of "the cause" and the "movement" are more important than individual worker's rights. Employees are expected to commit free time, work unheard of hours, overlook poor treatment by superiors and put up with poor working conditions simply to advance this overarching agenda. Unfortunately, as top-down bureaucracies the word comes from on high about what we're believing wholeheartedly in this week and what the best possible way for us to achieve this path to paradise is. Of course the AFL-CIO and SEIU among others work in coalition with GCI and The Fund all the time, no questions asked

Oddly, no matter the campaign-- working for a candidate? for the DNC? pushing on a ballot measure? want to get support for clean air or civil rights? the MOST important thing (often the exclusive thing) is always to "sign people on as members" Yeah, that means that we need money and the reason why that's important is because we need to continue our great work.
What does that money pay for? what great work is this? Paying more people to go out and recruit more "members" so we can pay for more people to go out and recruit members. The vast majority of organizational energy is focused on expanding the organization-- even for groups with members in the millions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

further thoughts
Posted by: stealthisbook on Sep 21, 2006 6:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real anger making part now that I think about it-- these are obviously well funded organizations, but because of this almost obsessive need to constantly expand nobody on even the highest levels are paid well. It takes nearly ten years to reach something approaching a middle-class sort of lifestyle under these circumstances, and that's sticking with one organization or one family of organizations throughout. The well-being of their employees is sacrificed for the expansion of the organization, and for the furthering of "the cause" which is loosely defined as expanding the organization or the movement rather than winning real qualitative victories for progressive change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]