Why Can't Local Union Offices Communicate With Their Membership

As I talk to local union presidents from around the country, one thing is becoming very clear to me. They do not have an effective way to communicate with their membership. Part of the problem, in fact a major part of the problem is that locals do not have the resources or money to invest into a communication system for their membership. Locals are dependent upon membership dues to survive, and unless their membership is over 1,000 members, they just don't have the money to have a communications department. Communications becomes a volunteer job. The website become an after-thought.

As I look at the International and National Union websites it is clear to me even they have a hard time keeping up with all the information. The Districts offices usually are a second line of communications, but now that bargaining is over what are they going to say to the membership. So why is it fair for the national offices to think that the locals can do a better do job of communicating to their membership with no communications department?

Locals are told that they should have a website, get on board with the new social scene of Twitter and Facebook. I laugh when I hear these National offices tell locals how easy it is to have a website and how the new social networking avenue is going to help.

If anybody could do websites then why do less then 50% of the local unions in all of the unions in this country not have a website? Because they don't have the time, expertise, or money to invest in a website. Do I think they need a website sure I do, to a point. But I also think they need to look at the whole communications area and see what is most effective for them and how they can save money.

In my future post I will address the other areas that I think local can benefit from by using other technology to help communicate with their membership.