Author Message
jke
Guest





Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm    Post subject: anyone have the list of who's on the board?

Just wonderin'. Some of us out here in TV land are members/activists in organizations that I have a feeling may have a hand in this Green Corps nonsense, and I'd love to do some accountability on it.
monkeywrenchG



Joined: 09 Jul 2004
Posts: 2

Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:02 pm    Post subject:

the layout is like this:

Greencorps was started by the PIRGs as a "school for organizing." The idea is to brainwash who they think should be the freshest young minds in the US into doing their bidding for an illegally low wage. Like every other org. a/o position affiliated with PIRG, anybody leaving for 'greener pastures' is likely blacklisted. The PIRG umbrella is multifaceted (they operate a chartable *and* political umbrella for the consortium of their statewide groups (which, except for 2 or 3, are *not* independent org.s)and also contract out to raise funds and ID members for a lot of other orgs through FFPIR). They all like to invoke the name of Cesar Chavez, which is funny given the racist bent of their recruitment. The whole thing is a bad cult masqerading as a grassroots do-good campaign. I bought into and worked my ass off for it for 3-plus years, so I know what I'm telling you to be true. They make full-time staff sign a shady non-disclosure waiver about what I just told you. They're pretty self-important, but not too pretty.

monkeywrenchg@yahoo.com
Jeffrey Rosas, attorney
Guest





Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 11:10 pm    Post subject: Minimum wage law suit against the fund for public interest

I am an attorney in Eugene, Oregon and have filed a lawsuit against the Fund for Public Interest, Inc. for 1) late payment of final paycheck and 2) failure to pay minimum wage. The Fund has stonewalled me on discovery issues, will not give me any names of their current or past employees, and claims to have repeatedly addressed the issue of minimum wage and never lost, although they have only showed me a single claim, and that was not in court but before a California labor commission. Because of the operation of Oregon's penalty wage law, (up to 30 days at 8 hours per day for violating minimum wage, overtime, or final paycheck laws) it is important that I find another employee of the Fund in Oregon who was not paid their final paycheck on time (business day following date fired, final day if quit with notice, 5 business days or next regular scheduled payday if quit without at least 48 hours notice.)

The structure of the Fund is also an issue. Most people I know who work for them do not even know who their employer is, whether the Fund, a PIRG, or the Center for Public Interest Research. Since most people quit or get fired after a single "unpaid observation day," they never even get a paycheck to know who is paying the wages, or a w-2.

my phone is 541-242-3799; fax 541-242-3836. My e-mail is jaalaw4@qwest.net
page-d
Guest





Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 1:31 am    Post subject: the Fund

I have read a couple posts here about bad experiences with the PIRG outfits here and on indymedia.org. I wanted to share that I had a very positive experience with NYPIRG a few years ago as a canvasser.
I wanted to respond to a few of the criticisms.
1) Canvassers paid on commission - I think the main solution to this is making sure it is absolutely clear to prospective employees what the various possibilities are for their money-making potential -- avg. number of people below/above "quota" each payperiod. I don't see how the group could be expected to survive by paying people per hour if they are not bringing in funds, which is an essential part of the job. The only other solution I can see is much quicker terminations for people who aren't bringing in the funds. In my experience, there were many immature people working at NYPIRG who didn't really do the job asked of them and therefore didn't bring in anything close to what was expected of them.
2) I've really a couple people refer to the atmosphere as "cult-like". My experience was that it was more or less a group of people who grew to be freinds through similar experiences. If there were many people with similar viewpoints, I feel it is because college-age progressive DO tend to have similar opinions about various political issues which tend to diversify as they get older and wiser.
3) Non-profits on shoestring budgets often make mistakes due to lack of training, immaturity etc. I think this is the most likely cause of a lot of the little grievances I have read about - late paycheck, dumb comments etc.
One thing the corporate world IS better at is preventing lawsuits due to personnel problems, because they have the resources to protect themselves.
4) The "OBS" night was presented to me as an extension of the interview process. For the time I was there, everyone went through one of these and everybody seemed to understand its appropriateness.

Anyway, I had a generally very positive experience which has led me to get involved in a deeper way with the progressive movement. The job gave me better people skills, a good education on political and environmental issues. I would reccommend it to any student wanting to do some good as long as they are fully aware of the commission-based structure of the organization.
Guest






Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:22 pm    Post subject: just a note from an FFPIR administrative assistant..

hi, my name is robyn. i am an administrative assistant at the philadelphia office of the Fund for Public Interest Research. we share an office with PennPirg and PennEnvironment. from my personal experience, employees are treated well here. in fact, some of the more experienced callers make more than the administrative staff. the director and assistant director at my office work long hours for crappy pay, but they do so out of their passion for remedying the issues at hand. both have the credentials to step outside of the non-profit realm and work somewhere more lucrative, but it is their choice not to. i work part-time, but the same goes for me. we all recognize the fact that our low wages come with the territory. as cheesy as it sounds, we are passionate about what we do, and that is compensation enough. this is most definitely the case for most, if not all, non-profits.

another thing i don't quite understand is the direct correlation between green corps and the pirgs. as an AA, i help with directing finances for the fund, and we do no fundraising for green corps. i understand that green corps and the pirgs work on similar issues and do keep in contact, but putting up the front that they are the same organization is highly misleading.

basically, i believe there are more logical fish to fry, and that these claims against the organizations are counter-productive in the environmental/public interest field. i think we should lay off the lobbyists and direct our anger towards the companies and politicians who make it necessary for these non-profits to exist in the first place.
mgause



Joined: 09 Feb 2005
Posts: 1
Location: San Francisco, CA

Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:32 am    Post subject: Illegal/Unethical Practices by PIRG

It's great to have this forum going, and I would be more than interested to speak with others who have been screwed by the Fund and other pseudo activist groups. I worked for the Fund (god how stupid is that name anyway?) for over a year in the San Francisco office from 2001-2002, and everything awful written about it I've seen. Paychecks were late, people weren't paid for observation days, and most people were lucky to pull in a few hundred bucks a week for about 60-65 hours of work. You'd come home bone-tired from reciting the same bullshit rap and have to drink yourself silly to forget about grovelling before rich whiteys in the Berkeley Hills all day.

But the worse part about the Fund is how it absolutely turns off 90% of its workers to organizing due to its illegal labor practices, robotic corportatized atmosphere, and money-driven policy. In my year at the Fund, we must have gone through over a hundred staff members, all of whom never wanted to touch organizing again due to the crap they had to endure at the Fund. With the current administration in office, it is depressing that a supposedly good organization to learn organizing is only burning more bridges. And it's not like the Fund is some mom and pop organization. It's a bloated, million dollar enterprise that sucks at the teat of middle of the road lobbying groups like the Sierra Club.

And as far as gaining good people skills from the Fund, if talking up a "member" to a 50 buck check is good people skills, then you can have it. The Fund only teaches you to lie and act like an idiot at the door in front of someone so you can earn a little commission. Sad to say, the only real exciting thing about the Fund is wondering when your reimbursement check will come or if you'll get fired for working 10 hour days instead of 11.

I'd love to speak with people more on this issue. Feel free to contact me at my email--mgause@gmail.com

Peace,
Michael Gause
--rot in hell, pizza wednesdays!!!
medea
Guest





Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:18 am    Post subject: Just got back from a GreenCorps Interview Weekend

This is a really interesting forum--
I just got back from a 2-day interview "weekend" for the GreenCorps program and I have some observations to share.

First- PIRG and GreenCorps are obviously brother and sister organizations and probably conjoined twins. The keynote speaker at this weekend was Wendy Wendlandt- the Political director for the State PIRGs. The greencorps program is structured so that the end of your year is spent as a canvass director for the Fund for Public interest.

Second- There is a right way to organize and a wrong way to organize according to GCorps. During the “campaign strategy session” (a 1 hour exercise to come up with a plan for a quickie 2 week campaign focusing on winning a city council vote) we were skillfully pushed into planning a campaign that was a PIRG classic. I let other people in the group take the lead in planning the campaign but when I realized the organizer who was "leading" the exercise was getting frustrated I started proposing a campaign using the tired ideas that I learned as a PIRG intern. These ideas turned out to be the "right" answer. Example: “we are not going to be able to change all the council members minds- we are here to find the people that already agree with us and make them active supporters”

Third- GreenCorps is for white people. In a room of 40+ people (30some candidates and 10some recruiters and alumni) only 2 were Hispanic. About 5 other people were not white and nobody was African American.

Forth- GreenCorps is for pretty people. This is more subjective than most of my observations- but it was pretty obvious to me that the recruiters favored the JFK junior look. Photogenic. And not one person was obese.

Fifth- GC is not going to pay for your lunch, your dinner, your flight-- your anything. Unlike PIRG and those pizza wed.- if you can't afford to come to GC weekend then you can't come at all.

Sixth- GC does not like the words "radical" or "environmental justice". When I used those words in my timed essay test - the "short answer questionnaire" I was extensively quizzed about what those words meant and about the differences between my "tactics" and my "strategies". They also don’t like critiques of other entrenched organizations- such as NOW. (not trashing—I was offering thoughtful critiques). Their organizers are also very clear that they are “environmentalists” and not “social justice organizers”.

Seventh- GC likes it when you tell them you are willing to be exploited. Coming from a canvass background- I acknowledged in my one-on-one interview that I knew I would be working 60/70 hours a week for almost no pay and I wanted to use GC to get past that point. This was met with approval from my interviewer

Eighth- there was no mention made of the people who didn’t graduate from GC.

Ninth- GC organizes through friendship. The events are scheduled so that you befriend the people you work with. During the interview weekend this took on the form of a constant stream of icebreakers and tired smiles. It is also listed as a selling point for GC- access to the “net work” of alumni.

In conclusion- I feel very strange about this weekend. I’m exhausted after 12 straight hours of forced friendly chat and canned political discussions. I’m also underfed and my feet hurt. I spent hours criticizing myself for the “mistakes” I made this weekend- when in reality- I was just giving my honest responses.
I also wish that I could work with these people without undergoing the “fun” but predatory boot camp experience that the GC year seems to be. Honestly the alums and organizers seemed highly skilled, hardworking, fun, nice, stimulating to talk to and very attractive. I want to work with some of them and date some of them. Pity the organization is so… flawed? Is that the right word? We’ll see if they offer me anything- but I doubt that’ll happen.
vader
Guest





Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:47 am    Post subject: PIRG & "Progressive" movements

Are you f*&#@! kidding me? I have never been so disappointed in my life. Your efforts do not help people and ultimately only help those at the top of the political classes. A Progressive is just a pig with lipstick. It's someone who believes he/she is making "the world a better place" by helping the "movement" move to a Marxist political class system. Look at history and human behavior and tell me that such a "progressive" system helps everyone. It helps the political class and cements the monopoly you rightly hate so much. The monopoly of political thought. For example: A "living wage" is just and morally right. Yet, your "progressive movement" is paying you sub standard wages in the name of struggle. Who benefits? The political class.

At the very least, in a capitalist system you can achieve or chose to stay in whatever class (political, economic, educational) you desire.

What patheic losers.
happycanvasser
Guest





Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 3:42 am    Post subject: lets cry a little

i work for the fund in seattle and am having the best experienvce of my life. lets think about why this job is awesome. 1) if you take the time to be good at it you can make pretty good money. i do work about 60 hours a week (im a feild manager by choice), but one can easily get away with coming to work at 2 and leaving at 10:30 (with a lunch break that about 8 hours a day). the people at my job are amazing. i can wear whatever i want at work, i just have to realize that somet things may offend people at the door and make me lose a contribution. most of the day is completely unsupervised. if i meat a cool person at the door and they want to let me in and offer me wine, ill probably chill with them for a couple hours. i will say that i always feel bad for people when they come in to the job and seem kind of shy. this job requires you to be very outgoing. some people arent cut out for the job and if they arent gonna make enough money than they will lose the fund money. IT IS A NON PROFIT SO THEY CANT AFFORD TO LOSE MONEY.

about the "rap"... well all i can say is that when you are knew thats the only tool you have to talk to people about the issues in a way that is clear and concise. once you've worked their for a while you learn to personalize you "rap" and you learn that the best days canvassing are when you just talk to people about the issues.

im not gonna say that the fund is perfect, cuz its definitly not at all. if you talk to the directors, they will swear by the rap, but thats because new people need to feel confident in it so they can do well enought o keep the job, so they can eventually flourish and be themselves.

for all of those out their who used to canvass, i ask how long you canvassed for and if your just bitter for no0t being good enough at it.
RS
Guest





Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 11:20 pm    Post subject: fair enough

Quote:
n conclusion- I feel very strange about this weekend. I’m exhausted after 12 straight hours of forced friendly chat and canned political discussions. I’m also underfed and my feet hurt. I spent hours criticizing myself for the “mistakes” I made this weekend- when in reality- I was just giving my honest responses.


That's a fair assessment- GC does try to figure out who isn't likely to fit into its political mindset before it hires them. It's good you were honest because you might find youself rebelling against GC's organizing philosophy if you were hired. With that said, GC does hire people who aren't perfect fits for the program, and that makes things interesting. Sometimes it fails miserably, as the articles on this site attest to. Other times it works well.

I don't personally think that GC's narrow mindset is the be-all and end-all of organizing. I think that social and environmental justice can and should be connected and that there are reasons to organize people who aren't middle-class whites. Still, I learned a lot through GC and it made me stronger by challenging my views on these issues. Most of us don't go on to work at GC or the PIRGs, anyway, so you can take your conscience and worldview intact to your next job.
dramaking
Guest





Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:29 am    Post subject: good and bad

I can give you some of the names of the higher-ups in the Fund (and thus the PIRG network as a whole). It's not too hard to find out with nonprofits, especially if you worked for them.
Ed Johnson: national canvass director
Lew Granofsky: regional director
Dave Rogers: regional director
Ben Flamm: regional director
Doug Phelps: His position has morphed over the years, but he's the head of the Fund and of the national association of the PIRGs (last I knew), as well as Grassroots Campaigns, INC and the Green Corps. I imagine his days are busy.

But really, who cares? These names mean nothing.
Incidentally, most of the people who bitch about working for the Fund or any other canvassing organization have the same complaints: not enough money and long hours, sprinkled with one or two war stories. I, too, would *love* to be stinking rich, which probably won't happen. Yet even on canvasser pay I found enough money to support my beer fund... and I have college debts.
formerGCemployee
Guest





Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:12 pm    Post subject:

My experience with Green Corps was exactly what the essays on NonProfitWatch.com said - it was sureal to sign on to a website and read my personal expereinces told by someone else. The push for me to quit (so they didn't actually have to fire me) the conversations, the language, the comments on my family's ecocomic and poilitcal background, the supressing of creativity, individualism, and being a 'quick thinker - fast to the solution' (some of the very qualities they hired me for), etc. The key is not to sit around and talk about this - it is to put an end to it and make sure PIRG, Fund, Green Corps etc do not monopolize youth/college organizing and activism in this country - there is not, NOT, one mold, one way, one path - that is what I was 'taught'/brainwashed into believing during my short time with Green Corps. Anything that can be done must, I am open to suggestions about what I can do beyond forum and write letters.

Thanks for time - and for those of you enjoying your time with GC, Fund, PIRG more power to you - make the difference you can, win your campaigns, but remember who you are working for, where their hands have been, who pays you, and how you were trained. If you can keep a level of individualism and continue to fight for our environment and other causes than you've managed to slip through the tight grip these organizations hold upon their employees/slaves.
notworkingforgc
Guest





Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Just got back from a GreenCorps Interview Weekend

I was also at the interview weekend last march, and those observations were right on. it was a creepy weekend, and by the end, i was disgusted with green corps, and knew that i wouldnt accept the job if it was offered to me. the things that offended me the most (among all the other highly offensive aspects of the weekend) were:

1. the constant repetitions of their message, they were clearly trying to brainwash us with messages that their way was the only way, green corps is the best way to be an environmental organizer, organizing is the only way to make a difference, etc etc. when people disagreed with any of these things, they got pissy, and took furious notes. no joke.

2. there were over 60 of us at the weekend, many people flew in. the last day, they decided to break the news that only 1 or 2 people from the whole group was going to get chosen. unbelievable. 1 out of 60. what a waste of time. it was simply rude not to tell us early.

3. throughout the course of the weekend, they fed us soda, pizza, chips, and other fast food on disposable cups and plates-- in fact, they used styrofoam cups the entire weekend. what kind of environmental group uses styrofoam cups the whole weekend? the thought of organic food, biodegradable or reusable plates, or in other ways reducing our impact for the weekend was not even a consideration for them. and yet, they consider themselves better environmentalists?

there was much more, too, but its been many months now since the weekend.
Fund employee
Guest





Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:37 pm    Post subject: these forums

I think the thing that bothers me most about these forums is the assumption that all of us are idiots or cult fanatics. There are some really talented and engaging people that work for the Fund or the PIRGs for a variety of reasons. We're not stupid. We know we could be making more money working in the private sector, or, for that matter, for another non-profit. But we also know that we'd never be given the same training or level of responsibility. Many of us do really think that lifestyle liberalism is a bullshit way of trying to affect positive social change, and that we should make decisions as communities, not as individuals. There's no looming organization implanting microchips in our brains and forcing us to think this way.

For canvassers that got burned or disaffected with the movement, I'm sorry your staff director did a poor job of explaining things to you and managing you. Almost everyone that works for me knows full well what they're getting into and leaves on a positive note. I don't lie to people when they ask questions.

And for people that didn't get hired for GreenCorps, I'm sorry the food wasn't organic and that you didn't get something out of your weekend. The strength of the PIRG model is that we cast as wide of a net as possible. We'll talk to anyone, literally anyone, about our jobs, even if you don't have a degree or experience, and see if it's a fit for them. Sometimes it's not. That's the breaks.

And I find the idea that we are racist particularly offensive. No one that I know makes a decision about recruiting based on race, ethnicity, or gender. But we don't actively solicit employees on those grounds either.

I've worked for the Fund for close to two years. I have issues with some things sometimes. I bring those issues up and discuss them persistently, both in a group setting and one-on-one. My staff director doesn't lie to me or tell me to shut up. The Fund is just a group of people working together, not some corporate machine.
Krispyness



Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:50 am    Post subject:

From my experience as a former assistant director for the Fund, I saw many people performing well and consistently averaging high. As long as one was able to fundraise at a high level and perform well, then he/she would be allowed to stay on staff. Skill level almost always determines whether an employee remains on staff. This method is similar to any other organization/company no matter where they are on the political spectrum. In order to maintain high standards for a workplace, everyone must meet certain requirements or else the org/company will not run efficiently. That being said, FFPIR does NOT talk about how their method causes the organization to be 90% white (or even more).
As a former assistant director for the Fund, a large part of my responsibilities included managing and supervising staff while at the same time in charge of human resources. Canvassing and fundraising came easy to me, but what made my job difficult was dealing with how WHITE the organization is. NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE, talks about how the nature of the job causes a lack of diversity both in the managerial and employee levels. Nobody asks why it is so hard to retain staff who are people of color. It's not that they are bad canvassers, but instead it is because the Fund sends canvassers out to WHITE suburban America and expects everyone to make at least quota or else they will be fired. Now, we all know what might happen when you send, let's say black men in their 20's, to towns that probably have only a couple of black residents...they do not get a warm reception. Instead, the police might be called to come check on the canvasser to make sure he is legit. I'm not saying that only people of color get the cops called on them, but from my experience, if you were not white, there is a good chance that the police will approach you on any given night, thus freaking the neighborhood out and preventing one from fundraising well. I can't totally blame the organization because FFPIR cannot control racism out in the field, but they could do a MUCH better job dealing with this racial issue rather than just sweeping it under the rug.
Though I was a director of an office and wish I could keep staff for reasons other than fundraising, I did not have final word on whether someone could stay on staff-- that usually came from the top. As a result of needing to fire people who cannot meet quota, the majority of canvassers who do remain on staff seem to be white preppy guys and girls who all get a much better reception in white suburbs and thus can fundraise more $$. I DON'T THINK THIS IS FAIR AT ALL! In addition, FFPIR does not do a good job hiring people of color into full-time positions. There may be the token Black, Latino or Asian person somewhere in the country, but in a so-called progressive organization that staffs over 80 directors, there should be a much higher percentage of people of color.
My time working for the Fund included both positive and negative experiences, but the one that did ultimately drive me away was the lack of discussion on race within the upper management of the Fund and their unwillingness to improve in this arena.
soulturkey
Guest





Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:36 pm    Post subject: FFPIR union-busting

First- yes, race is an issue with this job, and the Fund pretends that it isn't, and as a result their offices are whiter than white. After many years as a canvasser, I know this.
Meanwhile, let me also bring to everyone's attention the fact that the Fund's Los Angeles door and phone offices unionized last year with Teamsters' Local 848. Unless you are a total pirgbot, anyone who has ever worked with the Fund knows that this has been a long time coming. This unionization was the effort of people who had been working there for a long time- in the case of LA's door office, there were seven people on staff who had been there for over six months, including four who had been there for over a year- so I don't want to hear any garbage about how we "just can't hack it." We've been hacking it for long enough to connect the dots, and understand the systematic patterns of employee abuse that FFPIR is essentially founded on. Make no mistake- they are in the business of exploiting idealism. We have done this with the hope of setting a precedent that other offices can hopefully follow.
Following the union votes in both offices, FFPIR directors have terminated pro-union employees, created stricter office policies, created onerous work environments, implemented hiring freezes in both offices, and stalled the contract negotiation process.
Anyone who want to know why we unionized, exactly what has been done to us since unionizing, and how to unionize their own office (FFPIR or otherwise) should visit our website at http://www.ffpir.us or email me directly at soulturkey@hotmail.com
disgusted
Guest





Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:17 am    Post subject: thank you!

Thank you to everyone who posted on both the pros and cons of GreenCorps and PIRG. These posts have helped me make a decision that probably saved me lots of time and energy.
I was emailed at the end of January about applying for a job with GreenCorps. I heard about GC only because I applied for a job last summer with USPIRG in DC and decided not to take it. (I'm not a big talker and raising money is not my idea of a rewarding job. I think it really cinched it when they said we would be fired if we failed to meet quota one week.)
SO GreenCorps emailed me a few weeks ago as an affilate of PIRG and said they "extended the deadline" (aka we don't have enough applicants) for their program so I enthusiastically applied. I was invited to have a phone interview in which I was instructed to call the recruiter. That should have been warning enough.
I called at my appointed time and the recruiter told me he wasn't ready yet, could I wait five minutes and call him back? I was miffed but agreed. The rest of the phone interview went rather smoothly until we came to the topic of the second round weekend. He asked if I would be able to come to DC the next weekend for more interviews(talk about short notice!). I said yes and mentioned I would be staying with a friend and her husband. He said that was great, would she mind housing 2-3 more applicants for the weekend? What audacity! Are these people really this disorganized?
If you're deciding whether GC is for you or not I would recommend this website:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/6830.htm
It contains a breakdown of their finances- which speaks volumes about an organization's priorities. This is NOT a "nonprofit on a shoestring budget". I think it's very telling that their administration costs are lower than their fundraising. They're supposed to be an environmental training program not a canvassing clearinghouse, correct?
geyser
Guest





Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:29 pm    Post subject: Re: these forums

Fund employee wrote:
Many of us do really think that lifestyle liberalism is a bullshit way of trying to affect positive social change, and that we should make decisions as communities, not as individuals.


What about The Green Life, which is another PIRG outfit that raises money to educate the public on green-living? Obviously, there's at least one PIRG outfit that would disagree with you.

The Green Life is nothing but a website. That is the extent of all of their media attention and public outreach. And what a website! It's really well designed and pretty, but as you start clicking away on all the useful tips on "how to live green," you discover that it's nothing more than a box of pamphlets.

It's yet another PIRG product that has found a way of generating buckets of money by simply slapping a green sticker on itself.
former staffer
Guest





Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:53 pm    Post subject: get over yourselves

Here's my problem with everyone complaining about GC or PIRG or the Fund...if you don't like them, then don't work for them. Seriously, it's a little a ridiculous to get so worked up over this when you can just go work for another organization. If every environmental/social justice organization was the same then we would never win, and as it is we rarely win, so I say the more perspectives and tactics the better.

Of course there are problems with these organizations, but there are problems with every organization. I was on staff for two years and while I'm the first one to criticize some of the problems, I'm also the first to understand that without the training and responsibilty given to me at a very young age I would not be where I am today.

So, stop wasting time on this, find a real job and get over it.
Rolling Eyes
Guest





Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:45 pm    Post subject: Re: get over yourselves

former staffer wrote:
Here's my problem with everyone complaining about GC or PIRG or the Fund...if you don't like them, then don't work for them. Seriously, it's a little a ridiculous to get so worked up over this when you can just go work for another organization. If every environmental/social justice organization was the same then we would never win, and as it is we rarely win, so I say the more perspectives and tactics the better.

Of course there are problems with these organizations, but there are problems with every organization. I was on staff for two years and while I'm the first one to criticize some of the problems, I'm also the first to understand that without the training and responsibilty given to me at a very young age I would not be where I am today.

So, stop wasting time on this, find a real job and get over it.


That's not the point. We all want a real job. The point is that the PIRG/Fund is simply duping everyone in their path out of their money. They are disgusting and diabolical, and I am not going too far in saying that. They are simply in the business of making money, and they don't give a shit about the environment (their L.A. office stopped recycling because "nobody does it.")

The PIRG/Fund abuses employees, that is why their L.A. employees seeked unionization.

Interestingly enough, the PIRG/Fund has used every tactic known to man to bust this union, just like a corporation would.

Wendy Wendlandt and Doug Phelps are foul manipulators of civils rights and they are very very rich and they are very very aware of how disgusting they are. For a long time, they probably thrived on their swineful success.

So NO! I will not get over this until those two pigs stop abusing THOUSANDS of people a year for a cause that serves noone anything (they don't even know how to lobby, but that's a whole other story).

Wendy Wendlandt and Gene Karpinski and Doug Phelps must be taught that their fairytale world of heartless manipulation is not viable or sustainable. Eventually, thinking people will take over. And thinking people will decide that their abuse as employers (not to mention their ineffectiveness as lobbyists or their uselessness towards serving the environment) is absolute bullshit.

People who are this full of shit have lost their right to a decent reputation.

Honestly, the fact that they have poured $THOUSANDS$ of non-profit dollars towards union-busting (which includes such admirable tactics like firing otherwise lucrative workers at a moment's notice, hiring expensive legal counsel, and flying managers all over the country for "re-training" sessions) is telling enough.

Send these people to jail.
mr. brihtside
Guest





Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:09 pm    Post subject:

whenever wendy wendlandt is talking, she is lying. you can just tell by the snarl in her upper lip. it's strikingly resemblant to dick cheney's. i do not trust that that condition (the snarly-upper-lip one) is just a result of an ugly or nervous person, it is the sure-fire sign of a liar.

wendy wendlandt lies whenever she opens her mouth, even when she yawns, sneezes, or says "hello."

wendy wendlandt is a liar.

her entire organization is fraudulent, insincere, and solely interested in making money.

meanwhile, the environment is going to hell because people within the PIRG/Fund are not doing their jobs. most of the people within the PIRG/Fund are just idealistic geeks who have no idea how to lobby or make a difference.
Jo March
Guest





Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:11 pm    Post subject: Re: get over yourselves

[quote="former staffer"] "Seriously, it's a little a ridiculous to get so worked up over this when you can just go work for another organization. If every environmental/social justice organization was the same then we would never win, and as it is we rarely win, so I say the more perspectives and tactics the better."


mistreating employees is not a 'tactic' of the environmental movement -- or, rather, it shouldn't be. unionising fund offices and getting this issue talked about is a fight worth waging for all of us who care, considering how enormous the fund is, and the possible damage it could be doing to the progressive movement. the percentage of people they alienate from their own causes is more than significant -- it's overwhelming, alongside the number of satisfied and successful activists who emerge.

i worked for ffpir for a year and a half, canvassed and ran offices in five cities, and had no hard feelings toward the fund during most of that time. my frustration with the group came eventually from seeing how disposable their workforce ultimately was to them. it was only after i quit that i learned of past labour disputes (including the closure of an office in l.a. to avoid having to deal with the inconvenience of their staff unionising). if i'd known about their attitudes earlier, i'd have been out the door earlier.

so it's not about using a variety of tactics, letting sleeping dogs lie, going your own way quietly if you don't like the way something's done. it's about defining what it means to be a proponent of the environmental movement and social justice -- treating workers with equity, practicing things like recycling in offices, and building on a solid foundation -- not one dependent on exploiting its workforce. if we don't get this stuff right from the bottom up, what the hell do we intend to accomplish in the wider scheme of things?