-Well, electing officers from conventions is intolerable on principle, if you -ask me. It isn't secret-ballot, and it isn't one person-one vote. It's -also as corrupt and demobilizing as can be. If you displease the -incumbents, you get uninvited to the next convention, and the whole thing -removes union politics from ordinary members and makes it a leadership -specialty.
This isn't an accurate description of how this works even in some of the worst unions. If you are a local of an international union, your delegates get invited to the convention. All sorts of games have been played to manipulate voting at the conventions at times, but there is also opportunity to engage in real union debate and politics that might be lost in dispersed balloting, especially where incumbents dominate the internal communication system of the union.
-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.
I actually don't have a big problem with a lot of the union democracy provisions of federal law. There are a few nasty aspects-- such as the appointment of high-paid trustees -- but the provisions requiring direct elections for local leaders are good and reasonable. My point is that you have local unions like SEIU 1199 where the leadership of the 200,000 person local is directly elected. And you have international unions of roughly the same size as 1199 with convention systems for electing their leadership. 1199 maybe more democratic in some ways than comparable sized international unions, but non-incumbents are often just as disempowered at 1199 as anywhere else, despite 1199 head Dennis Rivera being subject to direct elections.
Nathan Newman
-----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
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk