I have little problem with the SEIU organizing unorganized workers, I have problems with the SEIU wasting time trying to get Nader knocked off the ballot in Oregon. As of today, what have they gained from that? They've alienated me and others and their wishy-washy DLC multi-millionaire candidate lost anyway.
> On the whole question of the supposed lack of "democracy" within large
> locals ...I have seen little but sophistry and red herrings from the "critics."...
> Now, it's true that a lot of power is effectively centralized in the hands of the
> full-time local officers ... is there anyone who seriously thinks that a single hospital or
> nursing home could hire everyone it needs to run an effective union these days
> ...being thoroughly outclassed by management every few years at the bargaining table.
> I'll point out that if 1199 New York were not as large as
> it is -- and if the members were split up into "locals" at each facility --
> then they would not be able to have the Cuba program that they have.
> if staff hiring were up to each individual facility, there would be no money
> to hire people to organize
> Not to mention the fact that a union as a whole, in order to have bargaining
> power in an industry, OUGHT to have the right to prevent certain facilities
> from settling with employers without consulting with everyone else,
This is a corollary to Doug asking in a previous post why people act like small companies are better than big companies. If power is centralized in the hands of full-time officers, if locals don't want to organize, if the workers don't have the power to decide whether to settle, but some bureaucrat does, then you might as well have a huge local.
I don't think size is an issue. You might as well just have "one big union" worldwide like the IWW's idea. The real question is do the locals have autonomy, or will they be put into receivership like UFCW's P-9 when they ask for higher wages. And how much autonomy do workers in a local have? I am against right-to-work laws, since I think it's none of the government's business, but I don't see why shops should be closed shops. Workers shouldn't have to be forced to join a union, they should want to join a union.
But anyhow, in terms of a solution to this, if that's what is asked, I think one solution is rank-and-file militancy like the IWW or the California troqueros. As far as the established unions, I don't have any suggestions for the leadership, the solution I see is rank-and-file militancy from the workers demanding what they want from the leadership. Which would be whatever they want. But I assume would mean things like direct elections on contracts and officers. Which you probably tend to agree with but I think locals need some autonomy as well, as well as members need autonomy within locals.
There are principles that seem obvious to me in organizing a new union. No automatic deduction of dues from the paycheck, members should have to write a check every month. There would be no full-time officers, and the elected would have short terms and be instantly recallable.