As to the way direct voting might work, God knows there are ridiculous constraints imposed on unions. But why permit unfair laws to make the case for non-democracy? Two wrongs don't make a right.
Opposition within the AFL-CIO is now entirely ruled out by the convention-election system. If you can't seat more than half the delegates, you have no chance to win, let alone be heard.
And the present arrangement has also presided over just what the bosses want -- a slow-burning decline of labor.
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Newman Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 8:49 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] SEIU gets ready to bolt AFL-CIO
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu> -Where are the direct rank-and-file elections of state and national officers -here? Would this plan abolish the existing convention-election travesty?
I'm somewhat in favor of direct elections of union officers, but I'm not sure that is necessarily improves democracy. A direct vote for the union leadership often gives the incumbents more power, since they dominate communication within the overall union, and it's often hard for fractured oppositions to unite. Over the years many progressives preferred the tiered system of electing local leaders who in turn elected leaders at a regional level who in turn elected the national leadership.
One interesting legal reality is that the more power is centralized along the lines advocated by the Unite to Win/NUP/SEIU folks, the more direct elections will be required. The Carpenters centralized power into their regional councils and because of the Landrum-Griffin law, they were forced to hold direct elections for regional union leaders.
The result of local mergers and this legal reality means that in practice, both SEIU and the Carpenters, as two examples, increasingly have only two tiers for leadership. Directly elected leaders of giant locals, in SEIU ranging from 50,000 to 200,000 members each, where those local, directly elected leaders control who runs the national union. Maybe direct elections would improve democracy somewhat, but many people already complain that direct elections in these large locals make it hard for opposition leaders to get elected.
But if you like direct elections, you must love the giant locals at SEIU and the Carpenters, right Michael?
Nathan Newman
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of John Lacny Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 7:01 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: [lbo-talk] SEIU gets ready to bolt AFL-CIO
Er, at least, you'd get that impression from reading Steven Greenhouse:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/national/10labor.html?ex=1257829200&en=680 51124572dc9f8&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
There's also a website set up by SEIU:
I won't give my own thoughts on this, save to note that the timing was decided before the election, and would have happened regardless of who won. So if the media starts saying that this is all "fallout" from the defeat, know that that's not true. This has been in the cards for quite some time.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk