7435 Michigan Ave., Detroit, Michigan 48210 www.labornotes.org #306 September 2004

How We Train Our Future Leaders

by Marsha Niemeijer

Local 1422 of the International Longshoremen's Association is experimenting with a "junior executive board" to train future leaders. "Everyone is concerned about the future of the union," says President Ken Riley, "because we know that the current leadership are all in the same age group, 40-50 years old."

Local 1422 represents 800 dock workers in the port of Charleston, South Carolina.

DEVELOPING LEADERS
Members voted for their first junior executive board in February 2004. The five members of the junior board were elected in the same way as the regular ten-member board. Although they do not vote at board meetings, Riley believes that their attendance will help them develop the skills to one day run the local themselves. Their duties are to take notes, observe, and make suggestions.

Junior members are expected to attend all union events or union/community support events. "They should be among the first ones to volunteer and rally the troops," says Riley. "There should be junior executive members on any bus going somewhere for the local."

The junior members also elect a delegate to meetings that the local participates in such as the Dock Marine Council or the Longshore Workers Coalition (a reform group in the international union) and are expected to give reports.

While the junior executive board is still in an experimental stage, Riley expects that the local will want to add it to the local bylaws permanently. "This is crucial," he says. "Running a union hiring hall in the second largest port on the East Coast is complicated. We need our members to be trained to perform for the union just as they are trained to perform for the employer."

ORGANIZING A DEBATE
When the 2003 regular local elections were at hand, rank-and-filers in Local 1422 initiated a petition calling for a debate.

"The petition was overwhelmingly supported," says Riley. "Not one of the 27 or so candidates could ignore it, for fear of losing credibility.

"It was a huge debate. We asked two members to moderate. Each candidate was asked to give a two-minute opening talk, and then we opened it up to questions from the floor. About 300 members attended, and they asked question after question from the microphone. The debate started at 7pm and at 10:30pm, we finally cut it off! We ran out of time for closing statements from the candidates.

"The debate was a really good weeding out process. A lot of candidates were running for office on popularity or on their family's name. They had no idea of their job function and they didn't have a good grasp of the industry. When they got tough questions, they couldn't answer in an articulate way. They were exposed.

"The other benefit is that the members were put in a position to think about leadership-what does it take to be a good leader for your union-in a more serious way. As a result, the vote for our elected officers was much more of a quality vote.

"I also think that it is yet another way to increase participation in the union. I saw people at the microphones that I hadn't seen anywhere else. When members have an opportunity to voice their opinion, it means that their opinion matters. An election campaign then becomes more than just casting a vote. Some people told me they felt that the debate allowed them to help shape other members' opinions about the leadership. The debate continued for days after that evening.

"A lot of the issues that were brought up had to do with the contract. Other questions focused on the way the union should be run. Our membership is now realizing that we all have to be actively engaged in making sure we grow new leaders, because if we don't, everything we've invested in becoming a militant local will come crashing right down."

In this case, the debate worked in favor of the incumbents. But rank-and-file members running against an entrenched old guard might also want to organize to pass a motion at a union meeting to have a candidates debate.