-But the argument that he is making -can clearly be fleshed out of his narrative and it holds even if we -dismissed most of his corruption stories. What he writes about the -structure of US unionism - its fragmentation and localism is not only -difficult to deny, but it is also true of many other US instituions. It is -not the mob problem or corrupt union leadership problem, but the American -problem. -So what is wrong with this argument?
But if that's his argument, lots of people agree minus the sensationalism and corruption focus.
Stephen Lerner wrote a long piece talking about this problem a number of years ago: http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2002/12/e.html
"The fact is that the decline of many AFL-CIO affiliates is so deep and severe that they do not have the resources or strength to challenge powerful employers on a large scale...The response to our present decline has seen unions sliding into General Worker Unionism and its weaker cousin Corner Store Unionism, which has profound implications for unions' ability to organize, win for workers and play a real role in reshaping and transforming society...
While some unions morph into general worker unions at a national level, many of their locals and some smaller international unions are turning into small business unions/corner store unions. Their primary reason to exist is to keep on existing and to provide employment for officers and staff. It doesn't matter what kind of workers they represent or their ability to improve standards for these workers. Success is measured by gaining enough members to stay even or at least slow the rate of decline."
Not that Fitch agrees with all parts of Lerner's strategy (obviously) but subtract the corruption angle and Fitch is even less iconoclastic -- although might have written a shorter, more interesting contribution to the actually existing internal debate within the union movement.
Nathan Newman