On 2012-01-04, at 2:04 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Jan 4, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Marv Gandall wrote:
>
>> There's more than a little hubris in thinking those of us who are outside these organizations and have little understanding of their operating environment can cure what ails them.
>
> Sometimes people have a major investment in the status quo. Imagine, say, being a union bureaucrat who suddenly has to go back to work on the line. Or runs the risk of not getting invited to the White House any more. It's not just a matter of knowledge.
True. People do have an investment in the status quo, and cautious union bureaucrats are little different in this respect from bureaucrats elsewhere or from anyone who values their job. All but a very few are inclined to be risk-averse for fear of losing their status and authority. That's why union bureaucrats typically look for safe compromises rather than risk unpredictable strikes which could cost them re-election, why they crave photo ops at the White House which enhances their standing with the public and their members, and why they have one eye cocked on management jobs or government appointments when they leave or are pushed from office. In the final analysis, they reflect the consciousness of their members and the wider culture, including its most backward features: cynicism, opportunism, deference to authority, fear and loathing of racial and other minorities, etc. Many, in fact, were militants who rose from the ranks promising to reform the bureaucracy and strengthen the union, and some still genuinely believe they are working towards that goal, albeit with a "more realistic understanding" of the constraints.
I don't think you can separate what they "know" from their self-interest. When they "know" the union has sufficient bargaining power to win a strike and improve the conditions of their members and their own tenure and authority with it, they aren't reluctant to call one. Why would they be? When they "know" an organizing drive will bring into the fold more members and dues, and the perks which go with it, why would they hesitate? If Woj's scheme to invest in union-run enterprises was a safe bet to enrich the union rather than threaten its solvency, bringing the members' wrath down on themselves, they would do so. Their self-interest, like all politicians and managers, is bound up with the fate of the organization, and they tend towards conservatism for this reason. Ernest Mandel made this point in the Marxist Theory of Bureaucracy which is probably online. This tendency is of course most pronounced in periods like the present when the trade unions are weak.