View Single Post
11-15-2012, 06:15 PM
Registered User
SJeasy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
Fehr's job is to communicate to his membership clearly enough that they will understand. Cosby's not alone in that, when pressed for details of what they're fighting for, he gets it wrong.

In normal structures, such as, say, representative democracy, the masses choose people from their ranks to act as go betweens and understand these issues better to act as a 'check' against the executive (in this case Fehr). The PA has traditionally done this.


Fehr doesn't work within that structure. He selects 5 or 6 guys, who may or may not be among this group in week one, then selects 5 or 6 other guys who may or may not be among this group the next week. Systemically, this structure is designed so nobody will have a clear picture of what's going on. Fehr's model is the same as Eagleson's and nothing like Goodenow's (and let's not forget, Goodenow is the only Executive director to ever do thing one in this union's interest apart from, perhaps, Kelly in his capacity as a prosecutor).

Interest or not, there can be nobody with whom "to investigate information that is told them." There's nobody to ask except the guy who has failed at informing them.

Who are they going to ask, the brother of the guy who's got them believing they're fighting for things that aren't at issue, like rollbacks and long entry level deals?
IMO, the structure is a minor issue. You prompt me for a philosophical rant where I will try to be brief. The core issues are motivation to learn and skepticism about that which is conveyed. Our society promotes a trust in "expertise". Ostensibly that expertise is conferred on those who appear further along the lines of the search for truth. The problem is that we find out years later that those experts have wandered off the path. If anything, the correction involves motivating others to travel the path with a critical (skeptical) eye to where the expert is and to areas in which he may have lost his way.

I don't think structure truly addresses the issue, because you are further putting reliance on secondary expertise of those within the structure. IMO, the better way is have more involvement promoting ALL others to check the path to truth.

My take about the current situation is that there is an extreme lack of motivation to follow the path. And, I don't know a good way of encouraging better motivation.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote