[lbo-talk] SEIU allows employers to exclude workers from unions

[Miles Jackson]

Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Mark Rickling wrote:
>
>> et's go over this calculus again. Given the current state of US labor
>> law, it's incredibly hard to organize unions in America.
>
> Well yeah. But if you organize unions which promise not to say an 
> unkind word about the boss, much less go on strike, and you let the 
> boss specify which shops you can organize (while not telling the 
> students working on your behalf) - exactly what is gained? Doesn't 
> this just underscore the difficulty of organizing unions rather than 
> get around it? A cynic might think that it's all just empire building 
> and dues farming. Or is there some magic point at which density 
> changes everything? How will we know when we get there? Can the secret 
> agreements then be ripped up?
>
> Doug
As far as I can tell, the primary goal of the SEIU is to increase union 
density at pretty much any cost, regardless of the number of concessions 
granted to employers and the number of constraints placed on workers.  
Sure, you can grow a toothless union by granting more power to the 
employers and less to the workers, as in the food service "Big 3" 
agreement--but what's the point?  (For the working class, I mean; I see 
why the employers like it.)

Miles