Our story
The Origins of the Fund and the Need for a Union
The Fund for the Public Interest has come a long way from its humble beginnings and
understanding that journey is a good way to understand why it is that unionization has occurred
and what the path forward from here looks like.
Before there was the Fund, there was the PIRG, and the PIRG began as student activists,
volunteering their free time to organize on college campuses. It would be the campaign for the
bottle bill in Massachusetts that would be the first major transformation of the PIRG's structure:
what began as a door to door communication and education project expanded to include
fundraising towards that same goal. What had begun with little or no relationship to the financial
world evolved into the Fund when it became clear that those people who were in support of the
cause would often be willing to support that cause financially.
What had been purely volunteer activism was then necessarily transformed as the management
and utilization of funds became a part of the project. While it is important to remember that
the Fund began with volunteers, once money was involved, canvassing became a job. At first
though, that job was able to be structured in such a way that it allowed a kind of volunteer spirit,
in that anyone who was motivated by the issues was welcome to help out. The catch being that if
you could not perform well enough to cover your expenses, you could not expect to be paid. In
its original formulation, only those canvassers who were able to cover their costs would be paid
hourly for their work, those who failed to meet standards would only be paid according to the
money that they collected.
As an evolution out of a purely volunteer organization, it made sense to structure things this
way: the open invitation to aid the cause, and the carrot at the end of the stick of possible pay
for what was thought of as volunteer activism seemed to be more than enough, and it guaranteed
that a pool of canvassers would be easy to procure, so long as school was in session anyhow. So
long as you were willing to try, the Fund was more than happy to give you a chance. Given the
elaborate safety net of campus life, the model performed well enough for some time.
However, it would be this early model that would become the subject of a class action lawsuit
that the Fund was destined to lose. In being required to pay at least minimum wage for every
hour worked. By the time this upgrade to the system happened, the Fund had already lived
through two separate unionization attempts in LA, the second of which itself resulted in the suit.
So the Fund was forced to recognize that, despite its deeply held belief that pay was a bonus that
one got for performing well, in so far as the Fund is hiring people to work, it must treat them as
employees, not volunteers. This meant, as a consequence, the implementation of a much stricter
quota system, because those who cannot meet standards will still be paid, the Fund cannot afford
to keep people who cannot meet standards on staff. It is no longer enough to be ideologically
motivated and willing to dedicate one's time and effort, it is now necessary to actually produce
results in order to be a part of the team.
In a somewhat parallel manner, the Fund was also forced, early on, to realize that phone work is
different from canvassing: when it began, the TOP was modeled on the canvas, one daily quota
that had to be met to be considered successful, and bonuses above would serve as rewards for
performing well. The Fund itself realized quickly that phones are different from the street or door
canvassing and moved to the list based quota system that we still use today. What is worth noting
about this is that at first, as always, the Fund assumed that its one model would apply here just
as well as anywhere else, and it was only after it became apparent that the model was broken that
any move to consider reality beyond the model was taken.
And so we find ourselves today again confronting the gap between the Fund's model and the
reality in which it exists. The Fund continues to think of itself as a campus based volunteer
activist organization that just happens to be good enough at what it does to pay its volunteers as
a bonus for the good work that they do, and it finds itself in the unhappy position that constraints
have been put upon it that necessitate a strict system of standards that weed out those who are
not capable of paying their own way through their work. But the reality has shifted: the Fund is
no longer a campus based canvass, and it cannot therefore rely on a steady stream of students
who already find themselves well protected by the safety net of campus life. Whether it likes it
or not, the Fund now employs people who must live and work in the city, many of whom have
only the Fund to rely on as a source of income, health insurance and stability. While the Fund
can discourage people from relying entirely on an activist job as their only source of income by
avoiding full time employment, the current economic reality dictates that, for many, a single part
time job is the only employment possible.
The Fund must, at this stage, re-evaluate its image of itself. It has grown beyond its volunteer
roots, and it now employs (and not just organizes) people from every strata of life; old and
young, married and single, students and professionals, those with children and those with health
issues, debts and other responsibilities. Those who become a part of the Fund are no longer
children supported by their parents and a vast institutional home any longer. And so an upgrade
to the model must again be made.
The current model, functional as it might be, is based upon faulty premises, and those false ideas
about what the Fund is and how it operates create severe tension between those who work for
the Fund and its own operations. These tensions have reared their head before, and unless the
model is shifted to reflect reality, they will inevitably rear their head again. The Fund is resistant
to change of course, in large part because those who do succeed and make their way into the
upper echelons of the organization are those who accept the central tenant of the Fund's idiom:
trust the model. Those who dedicate themselves to the long hours and hard work at little pay that
come along with moving from the periphery towards the center of the Fund are those who have
accepted the idea that they are volunteers who get pay as a secondary feature of a career that is
first and foremost pure volunteer activism. Each and every one of them deserves respect and
admiration for their dedication to the cause. But those of us who canvass for the Fund week after
week, month after month, also deserve respect for our dedication to the cause; none of us will
grow rich doing this work, a basic living wage and job security is a small thing to ask in return
for the outreach we provide for the member groups.
While change is scary, upgrading the model should, in the long run, prove beneficial to the
Fund. Labor disputes tarnish the Fund's reputation, and by proxy damage the reputation of
those groups that the Fund works for. A healthy relationship with its employees, which requires
first and foremost recognition of the reality of those employees' life situation, will strengthen
the relationship between the Fund and those who work for its cause. Ideologically motivated
volunteers who are prepared to fully dedicate themselves to the cause will continue to arrive, and
fewer of them will be driven away by the distorted version of reality that currently haunts the
Fund's self-perception.
Given its roots, and the journey that the Fund has travelled to reach the present, it is not
surprising that the current disjoint between fantasy and reality exists. It is time now, with the
alarm bell of unionization ringing, to wake up from the dream and face the facts of the matter. It
can only make the Fund stronger, and we must be strong to win campaigns. If this was the first
time for this, one might be tempted to suspect that it was only a fluke, but the Fund has heard this
alarm ring more than once, but so far it has only been able to hit the snooze button and return to
sleep. Let us hope that now is the moment of true awakening.
Details and Lessons from our Effort
In the spring of 2011 Wael Elasady began by talking to only a select group of core staff he knew
would be sympathetic to the effort. Shortly after connections were made with Joe Crane at the
CWA local 7901. In the period of spreading the word cautiously in order to acquire a majority;
word managed to get back to management and within a few weeks Wael was fired for missing a
make-up shift scheduled a month in advance. The Directors cited an "attendance problem" in his
record. This would be the same strategy used to dismiss Kris Humbird shortly after the vote for
Union.
After our public declaration to form a union, a concerted campaign was run by the Fund to
discourage a "yes" vote. There were one on one meetings with directors encouraging us to "vote
our consciences", but clearly worded to sway us towards voting no. A speech was made by our
director on the floor in which our sentiments for our work, the cause, and the good of the groups
we call for were played upon. The message being a vote for union will destroy everything we
work for each day. Private meetings (all strongly skirting legality) at pizza night and beyond had
management arguing against the union, promising advancement within the organization to
individuals, and threatening the utter demise of the TOP if a union was voted in. A few very
veteran callers even received calls from long distant co-workers and friends working elsewhere
in the Fund out of the blue. The thrust of these calls was "if you know what’s good for you won't
vote 'yes' ". In labor circles it's called a Boss Campaign. At times they spread outright lies and
misinformation to dissuade votes, they claimed it would make the employee/ employer
relationship adversarial and forbid check-ins and open conversation (none of which have come
to pass), they claimed the CWA would openly oppose issues we fight for everyday, they claimed
the union dues would be exorbitant and that none of us could afford them (1.3% of your pay and
can only be raised by a national vote of members, namely you and I). Just remember, this is
exactly what Target and Wal-Mart do to keep their workforces divided.
Shortly after we voted to form the union we were given REN lists saturated with numbers of
members who had moved out of state. The entire office was struggling to maintain quota which
led to our first floor action. Each time one of us got an "out of state" number we called it out just
loud enough to make it heard, but not enough to disturb calls around us. It became apparent after
only a few minutes that the problem was worse than we believed. It was like a chorus of "out of
state" "out of state" "out of country". They rolled us off the lists, chastised us for being
unprofessional, and then within two days the lists were mostly purged of the delinquent numbers.
Lesson to be learned: floor actions work if the floor stands united and as much as they might like
to they cannot discipline you for engaging in a concerted activity.
A hiring freeze was put in place after the declaration to vote on the union, yet since the vote
there has been a non-stop hiring effort. Whether this is a deliberate effort to drown out the union
or a direct result of slowly rising standards that new callers simply can’t maintain is uncertain,
what is clear is that standards have risen. If you've read the policy manual, you know how bad it
is and you want the protections of a union. We have lost a few veteran callers to these higher
standards, but most have held fast. Cortina Robinson, one of the members of the negotiating
committee who was the top caller in the nation for two years in a row and has been with the
Fund for 9 years has been on ultimatum four times since the vote. In response to the excessive
number of callers on ultimatum we began bringing a large stuffed alligator onto the floor.
The "Ultimatum Alligator" is a way to express solidarity with those under threat of firing and
silently, respectfully protest the predatory nature of the ultimatum. This is a positive floor action
that brings people together, builds solidarity, and respectfully expresses our displeasure to the
directors about a broken policy. We go out of our way to frame our concerted activities and floor
actions along these lines: respect, solidarity, and a clear message. More aggressively we have run
mic checks just following the morning briefings and in November were pushed to stage an
informational picket with local press involvement. These were successful in spreading the word
to the community in general and let the Fund know we meant business, but we consider these
sort of aggressive, confrontational measures only after exhausting other means and never
proceed without a vote of the whole TOP union.
We have received support from the community in our struggle as well as from national
movements as a whole. US Action, a non-profit that works with the Fund, has expressed support
and spoken to the very upper levels of the Fund on our behalf. Likewise, the labor community
both in the northwest and nationally has rallied behind us, recognizing that a progressive
movement like the one we work for simply cannot sustain if it is at odds with labor rights. The
AFL/CIO of Oregon (a group that OSPIRG relies on to support its efforts in the legislature) has
met with Dave Rosenfeld to ensure that our union effort stands unimpeded by at least one of the
Fund’s member groups. In short, we are strong on the calling floor when we stand united and
that strength extends far past our small walls reaching across the nation.
The message is simple:
•
An extension of the ultimatum (because proven callers shouldn't be two weeks from
losing their jobs, it isn't good for us or the Fund)
An end to drastic pay reductions based on one poor set of returns
Affordable health insurance in a reasonable time frame
A means by which callers can contest unfair treatments or dismissals
•
•
•
Two words sum up our entire fight - JOB SECURITY.
The Fund for the Public Interest has come a long way from its humble beginnings and
understanding that journey is a good way to understand why it is that unionization has occurred
and what the path forward from here looks like.
Before there was the Fund, there was the PIRG, and the PIRG began as student activists,
volunteering their free time to organize on college campuses. It would be the campaign for the
bottle bill in Massachusetts that would be the first major transformation of the PIRG's structure:
what began as a door to door communication and education project expanded to include
fundraising towards that same goal. What had begun with little or no relationship to the financial
world evolved into the Fund when it became clear that those people who were in support of the
cause would often be willing to support that cause financially.
What had been purely volunteer activism was then necessarily transformed as the management
and utilization of funds became a part of the project. While it is important to remember that
the Fund began with volunteers, once money was involved, canvassing became a job. At first
though, that job was able to be structured in such a way that it allowed a kind of volunteer spirit,
in that anyone who was motivated by the issues was welcome to help out. The catch being that if
you could not perform well enough to cover your expenses, you could not expect to be paid. In
its original formulation, only those canvassers who were able to cover their costs would be paid
hourly for their work, those who failed to meet standards would only be paid according to the
money that they collected.
As an evolution out of a purely volunteer organization, it made sense to structure things this
way: the open invitation to aid the cause, and the carrot at the end of the stick of possible pay
for what was thought of as volunteer activism seemed to be more than enough, and it guaranteed
that a pool of canvassers would be easy to procure, so long as school was in session anyhow. So
long as you were willing to try, the Fund was more than happy to give you a chance. Given the
elaborate safety net of campus life, the model performed well enough for some time.
However, it would be this early model that would become the subject of a class action lawsuit
that the Fund was destined to lose. In being required to pay at least minimum wage for every
hour worked. By the time this upgrade to the system happened, the Fund had already lived
through two separate unionization attempts in LA, the second of which itself resulted in the suit.
So the Fund was forced to recognize that, despite its deeply held belief that pay was a bonus that
one got for performing well, in so far as the Fund is hiring people to work, it must treat them as
employees, not volunteers. This meant, as a consequence, the implementation of a much stricter
quota system, because those who cannot meet standards will still be paid, the Fund cannot afford
to keep people who cannot meet standards on staff. It is no longer enough to be ideologically
motivated and willing to dedicate one's time and effort, it is now necessary to actually produce
results in order to be a part of the team.
In a somewhat parallel manner, the Fund was also forced, early on, to realize that phone work is
different from canvassing: when it began, the TOP was modeled on the canvas, one daily quota
that had to be met to be considered successful, and bonuses above would serve as rewards for
performing well. The Fund itself realized quickly that phones are different from the street or door
canvassing and moved to the list based quota system that we still use today. What is worth noting
about this is that at first, as always, the Fund assumed that its one model would apply here just
as well as anywhere else, and it was only after it became apparent that the model was broken that
any move to consider reality beyond the model was taken.
And so we find ourselves today again confronting the gap between the Fund's model and the
reality in which it exists. The Fund continues to think of itself as a campus based volunteer
activist organization that just happens to be good enough at what it does to pay its volunteers as
a bonus for the good work that they do, and it finds itself in the unhappy position that constraints
have been put upon it that necessitate a strict system of standards that weed out those who are
not capable of paying their own way through their work. But the reality has shifted: the Fund is
no longer a campus based canvass, and it cannot therefore rely on a steady stream of students
who already find themselves well protected by the safety net of campus life. Whether it likes it
or not, the Fund now employs people who must live and work in the city, many of whom have
only the Fund to rely on as a source of income, health insurance and stability. While the Fund
can discourage people from relying entirely on an activist job as their only source of income by
avoiding full time employment, the current economic reality dictates that, for many, a single part
time job is the only employment possible.
The Fund must, at this stage, re-evaluate its image of itself. It has grown beyond its volunteer
roots, and it now employs (and not just organizes) people from every strata of life; old and
young, married and single, students and professionals, those with children and those with health
issues, debts and other responsibilities. Those who become a part of the Fund are no longer
children supported by their parents and a vast institutional home any longer. And so an upgrade
to the model must again be made.
The current model, functional as it might be, is based upon faulty premises, and those false ideas
about what the Fund is and how it operates create severe tension between those who work for
the Fund and its own operations. These tensions have reared their head before, and unless the
model is shifted to reflect reality, they will inevitably rear their head again. The Fund is resistant
to change of course, in large part because those who do succeed and make their way into the
upper echelons of the organization are those who accept the central tenant of the Fund's idiom:
trust the model. Those who dedicate themselves to the long hours and hard work at little pay that
come along with moving from the periphery towards the center of the Fund are those who have
accepted the idea that they are volunteers who get pay as a secondary feature of a career that is
first and foremost pure volunteer activism. Each and every one of them deserves respect and
admiration for their dedication to the cause. But those of us who canvass for the Fund week after
week, month after month, also deserve respect for our dedication to the cause; none of us will
grow rich doing this work, a basic living wage and job security is a small thing to ask in return
for the outreach we provide for the member groups.
While change is scary, upgrading the model should, in the long run, prove beneficial to the
Fund. Labor disputes tarnish the Fund's reputation, and by proxy damage the reputation of
those groups that the Fund works for. A healthy relationship with its employees, which requires
first and foremost recognition of the reality of those employees' life situation, will strengthen
the relationship between the Fund and those who work for its cause. Ideologically motivated
volunteers who are prepared to fully dedicate themselves to the cause will continue to arrive, and
fewer of them will be driven away by the distorted version of reality that currently haunts the
Fund's self-perception.
Given its roots, and the journey that the Fund has travelled to reach the present, it is not
surprising that the current disjoint between fantasy and reality exists. It is time now, with the
alarm bell of unionization ringing, to wake up from the dream and face the facts of the matter. It
can only make the Fund stronger, and we must be strong to win campaigns. If this was the first
time for this, one might be tempted to suspect that it was only a fluke, but the Fund has heard this
alarm ring more than once, but so far it has only been able to hit the snooze button and return to
sleep. Let us hope that now is the moment of true awakening.
Details and Lessons from our Effort
In the spring of 2011 Wael Elasady began by talking to only a select group of core staff he knew
would be sympathetic to the effort. Shortly after connections were made with Joe Crane at the
CWA local 7901. In the period of spreading the word cautiously in order to acquire a majority;
word managed to get back to management and within a few weeks Wael was fired for missing a
make-up shift scheduled a month in advance. The Directors cited an "attendance problem" in his
record. This would be the same strategy used to dismiss Kris Humbird shortly after the vote for
Union.
After our public declaration to form a union, a concerted campaign was run by the Fund to
discourage a "yes" vote. There were one on one meetings with directors encouraging us to "vote
our consciences", but clearly worded to sway us towards voting no. A speech was made by our
director on the floor in which our sentiments for our work, the cause, and the good of the groups
we call for were played upon. The message being a vote for union will destroy everything we
work for each day. Private meetings (all strongly skirting legality) at pizza night and beyond had
management arguing against the union, promising advancement within the organization to
individuals, and threatening the utter demise of the TOP if a union was voted in. A few very
veteran callers even received calls from long distant co-workers and friends working elsewhere
in the Fund out of the blue. The thrust of these calls was "if you know what’s good for you won't
vote 'yes' ". In labor circles it's called a Boss Campaign. At times they spread outright lies and
misinformation to dissuade votes, they claimed it would make the employee/ employer
relationship adversarial and forbid check-ins and open conversation (none of which have come
to pass), they claimed the CWA would openly oppose issues we fight for everyday, they claimed
the union dues would be exorbitant and that none of us could afford them (1.3% of your pay and
can only be raised by a national vote of members, namely you and I). Just remember, this is
exactly what Target and Wal-Mart do to keep their workforces divided.
Shortly after we voted to form the union we were given REN lists saturated with numbers of
members who had moved out of state. The entire office was struggling to maintain quota which
led to our first floor action. Each time one of us got an "out of state" number we called it out just
loud enough to make it heard, but not enough to disturb calls around us. It became apparent after
only a few minutes that the problem was worse than we believed. It was like a chorus of "out of
state" "out of state" "out of country". They rolled us off the lists, chastised us for being
unprofessional, and then within two days the lists were mostly purged of the delinquent numbers.
Lesson to be learned: floor actions work if the floor stands united and as much as they might like
to they cannot discipline you for engaging in a concerted activity.
A hiring freeze was put in place after the declaration to vote on the union, yet since the vote
there has been a non-stop hiring effort. Whether this is a deliberate effort to drown out the union
or a direct result of slowly rising standards that new callers simply can’t maintain is uncertain,
what is clear is that standards have risen. If you've read the policy manual, you know how bad it
is and you want the protections of a union. We have lost a few veteran callers to these higher
standards, but most have held fast. Cortina Robinson, one of the members of the negotiating
committee who was the top caller in the nation for two years in a row and has been with the
Fund for 9 years has been on ultimatum four times since the vote. In response to the excessive
number of callers on ultimatum we began bringing a large stuffed alligator onto the floor.
The "Ultimatum Alligator" is a way to express solidarity with those under threat of firing and
silently, respectfully protest the predatory nature of the ultimatum. This is a positive floor action
that brings people together, builds solidarity, and respectfully expresses our displeasure to the
directors about a broken policy. We go out of our way to frame our concerted activities and floor
actions along these lines: respect, solidarity, and a clear message. More aggressively we have run
mic checks just following the morning briefings and in November were pushed to stage an
informational picket with local press involvement. These were successful in spreading the word
to the community in general and let the Fund know we meant business, but we consider these
sort of aggressive, confrontational measures only after exhausting other means and never
proceed without a vote of the whole TOP union.
We have received support from the community in our struggle as well as from national
movements as a whole. US Action, a non-profit that works with the Fund, has expressed support
and spoken to the very upper levels of the Fund on our behalf. Likewise, the labor community
both in the northwest and nationally has rallied behind us, recognizing that a progressive
movement like the one we work for simply cannot sustain if it is at odds with labor rights. The
AFL/CIO of Oregon (a group that OSPIRG relies on to support its efforts in the legislature) has
met with Dave Rosenfeld to ensure that our union effort stands unimpeded by at least one of the
Fund’s member groups. In short, we are strong on the calling floor when we stand united and
that strength extends far past our small walls reaching across the nation.
The message is simple:
•
An extension of the ultimatum (because proven callers shouldn't be two weeks from
losing their jobs, it isn't good for us or the Fund)
An end to drastic pay reductions based on one poor set of returns
Affordable health insurance in a reasonable time frame
A means by which callers can contest unfair treatments or dismissals
•
•
•
Two words sum up our entire fight - JOB SECURITY.