I am reading both Rob Fitch's book "Soidarity for Sale" and the new collection by Brenner et. al. "Rebel Rank and File." As disgusting as the video above is, some of the claims sit pretty closely to what Fitch claims about the major unions--e.g. that they are really just dues collecting fiefdoms that don't do much to advance the actual interests of workers. But as corrupt as these organizations are, they still seem somewhat effective at the grassroots level - when members challenge both the labor leaders and the corporations, this solidarity is in some part inspired by the institutional container of the union. In other words, even if the leadership isn't on board, having that legal/institutional collectivity helps spark the idea of workplace democracy AND solidarity in ways that simply working together doesn't seem to.
I don't know much about the grocery unions that the video mentions, but how would it answer the claims made in the video? I'm certainly not on Target's side here, but it seems like they have much of the argument won right off the bat, at least in terms of the common claims about the "flexible economy" and meritocratic advancement instead of seniority on the one hand, and the efficacy of the modern union.
The only point that I felt confident debating in the first few minutes was the idea that, because labor rights are enshrined in law, we don't need anyone advocating for new ones or making sure those on the books are enforced. This might be compelling at first glance, but it is clear that, law or no, companies will try to get you to do stuff that is against your rights if it is good for their management or bottom line. There is obviously a need for someone to make sure these laws are being enforced--and to advocate new ones for the admittedly changing environment. I don't know how much of this unions are doing (or how naive it is of me to use "unions" as a catchall) but these are things they still could/should be doing.
So, rhetorically, how do you counter this? It seems the only way to play it is to say that unions may have some problems, and there may be much more they can do, and do differently, but the only union you can reform is one that exists and of which you are a member.
Thoughts?
s