> Things are more complicated than that, and I'm still not
> convinced from all of the discussion around Solidarity for
> Sale that Fitch addresses the more complex historical and
> structural factors which gave rise to the US labour movement.
> I don't think he contends, for example, that American unions
> uniformly established the same kind of institutions and
> relationships with the employers and mobsters and other
> outside interests, but does he explain why some did and some
> didn't? He seems to attribute the faiure of the US labour
> movement to fulfill its early promise to the corruption of
> its leaders, but is the record of the US labour movement
> qualitatively different from those in Europe and elsewhere in
> terms of promoting reform and raising living standards? I
> think NN and others began to touch on these issues.
On the pain of oversimplification, Fitch's argument can be interpreted as follows - the US unions suck because of their fragmented and compartmentalized nature, which fails to take universal interests of the working class, but instead it focuses on defending the interests of its clients.
If I were to extend this argument, this is the exact same reason why many other US institutions suck, such as piecemeal health care, piecemeal local governance competing against each other for business, piecemeal education system, or piecemeal transportation system. In fact this not really a "union problem" as some may to interpret Fitch, but the much larger problem of the US polity which the unions, just like many other institutions did not manage to transcend.
However, those institutions that did manage to transcend the problem of localism and compartmentalization - large corporations and federal government - do extremely well and call the shots in this country. It has always been the case that well-organized few could almost always impose their will on the disorganized many.
Therefore, Fitch's lesson for the US unions is "transcend your compartmentalization: reorganize following the business model (which SEIU Andy Stern is already doing), become more inclusive of all working people, give them a genuine voice, and above all represent universal interest of the working class instead of particularistic interests of the clients.
I understand that this may be a very difficult pill to swallow for many US-sers who have localism in their blood - but I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion that this is what it takes to turn around the pathetic state of organized labor and progressive politics in general in this country.
Wojtek