Police and power
29/Jan/2007 21:23
I didn’t know
what to expect when I saw that the Director of
the Combined Law Enforcement Agencies of
Texas (CLEAT) was scheduled to speak
to the class. CLEAT is a powerful Texan police
organization. As it turned out, the presentation
by Ron DeLord was one the most progressive and
militant yet. DeLord is a self-proclaimed
socialist and follower of the late
Saul Alinsky, the famed American
grass-roots community activist who believed the
only way to make change is to organize and
mobilize.
First, some
background on police unions: Police officers are one
of the most highly unionized groups in the United
States, although 80 to 85 per cent of police unions
are outside of the AFL-CIO, and few refer to
themselves as unions, preferring to be called
associations or lodges. As a group, the police have
high strategic leverage and they understand power. As
DeLord told the class, quoting Saul Alinksky, “Change
comes from power, and power comes from organization.”
DeLord believes that it is more important for union leaders to understand organizational theory than it is the mechanics of bargaining. “Building a powerful union,” he says, “is more than a table game every few years.” He suggests there are four pillars of a powerful union:
(1) Organizational power: “The sole purpose of the union is the accumulation and use of power to achieve the goals of the union.”
(2) Political action: “It’s the only power game in town.”
(3) Media: “Use it or it will use you.”
(4) Confrontation: “Use it as a tool to maintain respect.”
On the subject of union leaders, DeLord says they fail for three reasons: they fail to understand that power comes before professionalism; they fail to understand how to move the union toward achieving the power needed to accomplish their goals; they are distracted from achieving power by failing to avoid individual interests and misdirection.
DeLord urged us to think creatively about how to accumulate and use power to achieve the goals of the union. He believes the key to success is figuring out what buttons to push—and it’s not necessarily the strike button. Often, for police unions, it’s hot button advertising that works best. For example, a police union ad campaign for higher wages in Baton Rouge included billboards with the following message: “Welcome to Baton Rouge: Protected by some of the lowest paid police officers in the country. Mayor Simpson: Pay Your Police.”
This was one of several really good examples of using paid advertising to exert pressure and increase the police union’s strategic leverage. (Click on the audio file at the end of this posting.) What was less clear was how this advertising helped increase the union’s organizational capacity. If this program has taught us one thing it’s that to make gains, unions have to be concerned about both leverage and capacity. But perhaps police unions don’t have to be as concerned with organizational capacity as those of us who aren’t regarded as quite such a powerful force.
One student asked DeLord, “Aren’t you ever afraid of over-playing your hand? Some of those ads you’ve shown us are really out there.” DeLord replied that you have to be “in their faces” even if that means falling on your own face occasionally. Sometimes you have to fight even if you end up losing because you end up stronger for the next battle. “A lot of people say that PATCO* overplayed its hand,” he continued. “…But the main problem with PATCO was that the rest of the labour movement stood by and watched it happen.” If there had been a general strike in solidarity the outcome would have been very different, DeLord said.
I recall this was a view shared by many in Canada at the time. It was
good to be reminded of this interpretation of history.
Sample Police Ad.r
___________
*see previous blog entry for more information on PATCO
DeLord believes that it is more important for union leaders to understand organizational theory than it is the mechanics of bargaining. “Building a powerful union,” he says, “is more than a table game every few years.” He suggests there are four pillars of a powerful union:
(1) Organizational power: “The sole purpose of the union is the accumulation and use of power to achieve the goals of the union.”
(2) Political action: “It’s the only power game in town.”
(3) Media: “Use it or it will use you.”
(4) Confrontation: “Use it as a tool to maintain respect.”
On the subject of union leaders, DeLord says they fail for three reasons: they fail to understand that power comes before professionalism; they fail to understand how to move the union toward achieving the power needed to accomplish their goals; they are distracted from achieving power by failing to avoid individual interests and misdirection.
DeLord urged us to think creatively about how to accumulate and use power to achieve the goals of the union. He believes the key to success is figuring out what buttons to push—and it’s not necessarily the strike button. Often, for police unions, it’s hot button advertising that works best. For example, a police union ad campaign for higher wages in Baton Rouge included billboards with the following message: “Welcome to Baton Rouge: Protected by some of the lowest paid police officers in the country. Mayor Simpson: Pay Your Police.”
This was one of several really good examples of using paid advertising to exert pressure and increase the police union’s strategic leverage. (Click on the audio file at the end of this posting.) What was less clear was how this advertising helped increase the union’s organizational capacity. If this program has taught us one thing it’s that to make gains, unions have to be concerned about both leverage and capacity. But perhaps police unions don’t have to be as concerned with organizational capacity as those of us who aren’t regarded as quite such a powerful force.
One student asked DeLord, “Aren’t you ever afraid of over-playing your hand? Some of those ads you’ve shown us are really out there.” DeLord replied that you have to be “in their faces” even if that means falling on your own face occasionally. Sometimes you have to fight even if you end up losing because you end up stronger for the next battle. “A lot of people say that PATCO* overplayed its hand,” he continued. “…But the main problem with PATCO was that the rest of the labour movement stood by and watched it happen.” If there had been a general strike in solidarity the outcome would have been very different, DeLord said.
I recall this was a view shared by many in Canada at the time. It was
good to be reminded of this interpretation of history.
Sample Police Ad.r
___________
*see previous blog entry for more information on PATCO
|