>So one union member among thousands should be able to "block" a
>strike?
Well that depends. If the person is blocking for purely philosophical reasons, rather than for practical reasons, no. But then there are other principles that should be in place besides consensus, such as the decision makers being those affected by the decision. What I'm trying to get at is, the entire membership of the union ought not have a vote of a proposed strike by a section of the membership.
If a particular workplace is deciding on industrial action, then it is incumbent on them to deal with the concerns of all the workers there. This is helpful to maintaining solidarity.
A General Strike OTOH is by its nature a political decision. I allow that consensus isn't ideal for political decision making. Possible solutions include a different process, or keeping the consensus process thus making such politically motivated strikes very hard to do.
>Or alternatively, if unions are a group with "irreconcilable
>conflicts of interest" this becomes an extremely broad exception.
Ah well, that brings up another set of organisational principles. The basic structure of the union needs to ensure that there are no irreconcilable conflicts of interest, before it is practical to use a decision making system which is predicated on that. If the union allows members of the employing class to become members, for example, then you must expect problems.
Of course that presumes the union is founded on sound class conscious principles, which would be highly unusual. ;-) But the desire to skip such hard work can't be accepted as an argument against consensus.
If your union is based on poor foundations then I wouldn't advise you to try to use consensus. But then, I wouldn't advise you to bother being a member either.
>Again my argument is that consensus or non-consensus is something to
>decide on a case by case basis. There is no simple principle that
>determines when to use it. I'm accepting Graeber's definition of
>consensus as the right of one member to block.
Yes, the important point is that simply voting against a resolution is not necessarily a "block", or "veto" vote. So if you were the only one among thousands who had voted against a resolution, you would probably need to have a long hard think before deciding to veto the decision.
> I will note that groups
>that try to reach consensus, but have a fallback practice of
>reverting to a majority or super-majority vote can be successful
>where true consensus won't be.
That's probably a better idea for political groups. That is to say its a reasonable way to arrive at decisions that aren't of direct economic impact on members of the group. Like a resolution that merely expresses an opinion. Everyone has their own opinion and the result doesn't really matter too much anyway.
> Though again this is a case by case
>decision, not a general principle or default. Also as to your
>comment below, I've spent time in activist groups, and I will tell you
>that the ability to "block" is more an instrument of faction and
>intrigue than something that prevents it.
Well that's probably because they are trying to use consensus in an inappropriate setting, such as for making purely political decisions. Or they are neglecting the other necessary components.
Its all very well to rave on about the anthropological precedents for consensus, but it is crucial to keep in mind the context in which consensus is used by traditional societies.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas