> Why not bureaucratic inertia and comfortable fatness? Organizing is
> expensive and troublesome. For a lot of labor leaders, why not just
> collect a six-figure salary and hope the dues keep coming in until
> it's time to retire?
=============================
This is a common stereotype attached to all bureaucracies, and while you'll
find goof offs and fat cats at all levels in government, corporate, union
and other heirarchies, the reality is that most workers and managers want to
perform well and be perceived as performing well because their tenure,
rewards, status, and self-esteem depend on it. If anything, there's probably
a stronger attachment in union bureaucracies to the wider interests of the
organization - seen as part of a "movement" - than you'll find in the public
service or the private sector.
The left much too sharply differentiates today's conservative labour leaders from their rank-and-file, seeing the latter as somehow incipiently insurgent and the former as lazy and corrupt in much the manner suggested by Doug.
In fact, many if not most labour leaders come up through the ranks with often well deserved reputations as militants bent on reform. They turn cautious in office not because of the extraordinary character defects typically attributed to them by the left but primarily because their perception of the relationship of forces between the union and the employer(s) is altered for the worse. They're simultaneously awed by the power which employers - backed by the state - can bring to bear and, especially for those labour leaders who come out of larger and more militant locals, weighed down by the frequently lower level of union conciousness and willingness to act of the members in the smaller ones. In these circumstances, it becomes easy for many a disappointed reformer to accomodate to the status quo. Social democratic politicians who form governments in periods when the larger part of their base is too fearful of translating disgruntlement into action are subject to the same pressures.
In other words, the leadership more reflects rather than bears responsibility for the conservatism of the base, although it quickly comes to reinforce it. If it were otherwise, it could not long retain office. There are left trade unionists and dissident factions in every union who are trying to "mobilize the base" to change the leadership, and if they were more in tune with the mood of the majority, antidemocratic manuvering and thuggery by a conservative leadership would not be sufficient to block them. The general failure of left trade unionists to turn back concession contracts is another marker.
The conservatism of the leadership is more evident is membership education and bargaining, less so in organizing. I was an SEIU organizer in a Toronto local in the mid-70's whose conservative president spent more time currying favour on the phone and on the golf course with hospital, nursing home, and cleaning company executives than meeting and educating the members. But he was always interested in new certifications and the ongoing activity of the organizers, whose work he supported and monitored more closely than the other departments or the local's participation on affiliated labour bodies.
Organizing is only "expensive and troublesome" when it doesn't yield results and more dues money is going out than coming in. Even left trade unionists have to take this into account. As for right-wing labour leaders, few if any are too lazy or too stupid to take advantage of opportunities to add members and dues revenue and to thereby contribute to their own aggrandizement, influence, and re-electability when such opportunities present themselves.