Joseph Catron writes:
> In the last 12 years, SEIU has organized over a million new
> workers and more than doubled its membership. Do you honestly believe
> "nothing anyone might have done" would have produced at least some
> growth for other unions? And if so, for the love of God, why? What
> makes SEIU that special, aside from its organizing model that
> apparently (get this!) works?
============================================
Not to take anything away from the SEIU's organizing efforts, but it's
situated in some of the sectors which have undergone the greatest growth in
the past decades: hospitals, nursing homes, janitorial and security
services, etc. where the demand for lower-skilled labour has been high and
pay and conditions have been low.
If the SEIU leaders had responsibility for the once powerful unions in auto, steel, and other industrial sectors more vulnerable to outsourcing, tech change, and foreign competition, I expect their accomplishments would be much less impressive, their "organizing model" notwithstanding.
Like any organization, unions "invest" in organizing if there is a reasonable expectation of a return. I find it difficult to accept that the reason union leaders in less favourable environments commit less resources than does the SEIU is because they are somehow less imaginative or determined than Stern and his lieutenants. The material interests of all union bureaucracies are directly tied to the size and strength of their organizations, so there is no incentive to keep them smaller than they might otherwise be.