On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:56:48 -0400
Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> forwarded
>So how, under present circumstances, can unions then increase
>membership? Richard Freeman and Nation contributing editor Joel Rogers
>argue in the June 24, 2002 issue of the The Nation for a change in
>labor's basic definition of membership making it open to workers without
>union majorities at their workplace, and organized along occupational or
>regional lines.
>http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020624&c=1&s=rogers
-I'll let someone more qualified than I comment on the substance; It seem -a good idea to me. But one thing I hate is the name. The "Open Source" -movement and trade unionism do not seem analogous.
I agree that the name is blantant trendiness, but the idea of flexibility and a more voluntary form of affiliation has some analogy to open source standards.
On the other hand, the idea, as Freeman and Rogers admit, is very old. British unions are generally non-majoritarian, with multiple unions often competing in the same workplace. Bu the key idea is signing up members where there is no majority at all but fighting for workers rights over time from a minority position to build up credibility. This is how unions organized for most of the early 1930s before the "Big Bang" of 1936-38 in the idustrial sectors.
-- Nathan Newman