Michael Yates suggests that I:
>confuse a little the remarkably
>undemocratic local unions so common in this country with
rank-and-file
>movements and to oppose them to a more enlightened central
leadership.
You're right that one shouldn't treat the parameters of American unionism as fixed; undemocratic locals and conservative memberships aren't facts of nature. Still, I think your criticism might apply better to the author of the CounterPunch piece and the many others on the left who think that local inherently means rank-and-file and democratic.
>Of course, Sweeny et. al. are better than a corrupt Teamsters local,
but
>are they better than the folks in Atlanta's Central Labor Council or
the
>brave dissidents in that corrupt Teamsters Local?
I'm not sure the question is "who's better."
>The AFL-CIO might
>consider, if it is really serious about rebuilding the labor
movement,
>condemning local autocracies(and national autocracies as well) and
>encouraging local and national democracy in unions large and small.
Sure, but: (1) how can the AFL-CIO condemn local autocracy when its influence over the locals is practically nil? Some affiliates don't even want the Federation *talking* to their locals, let alone intervening in the way you suggest. And (2) should arbitrary jurisdictional boundaries, redundant layers of officials, an inability to organize strategically on a national level and everything else that gets shoehorned into "unions large and small" really be a matter of indifference to reformers?
Josh