On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Jeff Walker wrote:
> As always, there is another side to the story.
> The SEIU Canadian locals have been involved in a restructuring plan with
> Andy Stern and the Int'l's E-Board.
> As to participating in democratic elections, yes, the worker's did decide.
> But the key point is the role of the leadership in the process. Things
> being what they are, most people will vote the way their leaders say they
> should vote. Basically, the view at SEIU is that the leadership acted for
> their own personal gain (they all got jobs w/the CAW).
Union democracy issues are always complicated and anti-raiding provisions exist for some good reasons between unions. But on principle, why shouldn't locals be able to vote to secede and seek better representation with a different international? There might be good reason to prevent internationals giving incentives for such defections - such as jobs for local leaders as you mention - but assuming the union movement could police corrupt aspects of such transfers of allegiance, it does seem some more freedom to choose affiliation would increase democracy, since it would be the ultimate protest against lack of democracy.
Out in California, the clerical locals of the Univ of California had been part of AFSCME for years but felt excluded from any real power or democratic voice and eventually seceded into an independent union called CUE - largely because the AFL-CIO rules prohibited them from switching affiliations to another international.
Should secession from an international have to mean secession from the AFL-CIO itself?
-- Nathan Newamn