>I'm not using the term in that sense. I mean "Big Labor" in the sense that
>it's disconnected from the "little people," i.e. the grass roots.
Don't know if Josh Mason is listening, but we had a version of this discussion before you signed on, I think. You could argue - as Josh, Bob Fitch, or I would - that in some ways the U.S. labor movement is too decentralized, fragmented like the rest of our political system. The AFL-CIO has little power on its own; it's really a creature of its constituent unions, many of which are highly decentralized, with powerful locals calling lots of the shots. (Not that they're very democratic, of course. But it's not a question of size or scope, it's a question of accountability.) People talk about Sweeney increasing the organizing budget, for example, but he can't do much in that regard - it's up to the individual unions. People who work in different departments at the AFL-CIO barely talk to each other either.
Doug