Perhaps true. And I should let Michael Pollack should speak for himself about what HE experienced [you out there? your started this mess :-) ]. But in this case, I have good and specific reason to understand that it went something like this:
This UFCW local in NYC (like many, many others) is an "old style" union, in an "old line" industry (it is also at the poorer end. It is not like, say, the public employees unions or unions that had a past of political activism like UNITE, UAW, etc). [UFCW nationally is an amalgamated union with a few locals in the country that are in entirely different and in industries like insurance or health care, but that is a different matter.] I am not speaking of corruption or conscious venality (AFAIK), just the tired, fossilized status of a local in decline and 'trying to hold on' and with leadership that reflects these historical conditions.
What Michael saw was very old style. It was rank and file, in a line, handing out leaflets -- but in a style that was more like a picket line (their organizational experience) and discouraging interaction (out of fear? concern for disruption?). There were no activists, not even a union pro who has experience in "outreach" (this local has never been involved in that and hasn't tried it in their years of struggle with this company). The leaflet was short, crude in style, and didn't provide the kind of history and justification that a middle class clientele "expects". In addition, most of the people on the line (all non-white) seemed insecure about their status, and got awkward and even tense if you approached to talk. There was no visible organizer; certainly no one who wanted to talk. Besides, on a busy Manhattan sidewalk one does not stop to talk. [The competitor's coupon is a sidetrack; D'Agastino's hands that coupon out every week on the sidewalk, but suspicions naturally fill an informational vacuum.]
People on this list may come into contact with a very different type of union organization (or may themselves be such an organizer/activist) -- but we are an extreme exception. I think the point of the story, and Michael P's reaction (or the reactions Yoshie posted), is that the majority of working people are stuck in a union (or, more likely these days, non-union) situation where they will NEVER see such an activist. And most middle class passerby's are not reached, even if they would otherwise be sympathetic.
Of course none of us wants to support this type of union leadership and union structure - this is part of what MUST be changed. But the overarching question for people on this list is how do we reach those workers? How do we make sure that they and the Michael P.'s connect? Does anyone on this list doubt that unless we do make that connection present political trends will continue - and maybe get seriously worse? Not just for those worker but ultimately at the expense of virtually every political cause raised on this list. It seems to me that this small incident illuminates the central political challenge of our time.
[A digression on digressions: I don't mean to be negative, but I don't understand what is it that gets us to digress into arguments (and nasty ones!) over situations that we all agree are "exceptions", at most. Also people on this list are savvy, surely they saw that one anecdote cited (which led to the wild discussion) might even be the only example of its kind in the country - a legal and practical implausibility. We need to keep our eyes on the ball! It was inauguration day.]
Paul