Many thanks to Portside for publishing the excellent report, ‘Discord at SEIU 888’, by Bruce Boccardy. We are witnessing developments and events in Organized Labor that are of historic proportion and import, with many very obvious implications for the future success of the progressive Left in general, and Portside is to be commended for its ongoing coverage of this important story. Mr. Boccardy’s article represents a voice of dissent that is too seldom heard. There are many people who do not think that either side in Labor’s so-called ‘Great Debate’ are dealing realistically, or even so much as talking about, the REAL issues that are crucial to the future of Organized Labor.

SEIU, and its leader, Andrew Stern, have positioned themselves as the champions of Labor ‘reform’. They have postured themselves as the ‘dissidents’ within Organized Labor. Yet here, in Mr. Boccardy’s article, we can see that within SEIU itself, all is definitely not well. Mr. Boccardy is presenting a powerful voice of dissent from within an organization that represents itself as the champion of dissent from the staus quo within Labor. Yet many believe that voices like Boccardy’s are being suppressed by SEIU through the anti-democratic tactics he describes.

As a very brief background, (for those who have not followed this story), Stern has organized a reform coalition within Organized Labor of five large unions, representing about 40% of the total of organized workers in the US. This coalition, which now calls itself ‘Change to Win’, (Stern has previously used the names ‘New Strength Unity’, ‘New Unity Partnership’, and ‘Unite to Win’), is challenging the leadership of the AFL-CIO, Organized Labor’s only central organizing (governing) body. At this point it seems nearly certain that SEIU, and probably three of the other Change to Win unions, are going to pull out of the AFL-CIO, probably after the upcoming AFL-CIO convention in July, and form their own rival centralized organizing association, in order to pursue their ideas for reform. This would be a momentous and historic development within Labor. Or so many people think.

It is becoming increasingly obvious to many that the anti-democratic organizational model being presented by this SEIU-led band of ‘reformers’ is deeply flawed, as Mr. Boccardy’s report illustrates distressingly well. The Teamsters, one of the Change to Win Five, are possibly the most notoriously anti-democratic and corrupt union in the entire history of Organized Labor. It should be no surprise that more and more ‘dissidents’, like Boccardy, are arising from within the ranks of the self-posturing ‘dissident’ unions.

Whether we realize it or not, (and most on the Left seem averse to even thinking about it, let alone discussing it), the Left in general is being greatly hampered by our failure to respect and use democracy in our own organizational structure. The Left, to the extent that it is organized at all, is organized on a ‘business model’ structure that is very similar in many ways to the structure of Organized Labor. Every important organization on the Left, like every union, is organized on a ‘chain of command’ management model, (as are all businesses), and each competes with every other organization for publicity, influence, and, (of course), money and power. In this ‘business model’ of organization, democracy simply has no place. Autonomous ‘activism businesses’ are legally chartered as corporations, and it is simply not in their interest to share power through a democratic process, which would require giving up a portion of their own autonomy, influence, etc.

It should be painfully obvious that if the many competing ‘activism businesses’, like MoveOn, Campaign for America’s Future, United for Peace and Justice, Progressive Democrats of America, Not In Our Name, AFSC, etc, etc, (we could name dozens, or hundreds, or even many thousands, depending on the size of the ‘businesses’ we might want to consider), could find the means to unite their efforts, the ‘whole’ would be exponentially (by a very large factor) more powerful than the ‘sum of its parts’. But this cannot (or at least has not) happened because it is simply not in the most direct self-interest of the individuals who are the owners and managers of these ‘activism businesses’, these ‘activism entrepreneurs’, to prioritize working together toward a common goal ahead of their own desire for position, influence, etc. Any attempts to share power through democracy, if they are engaged in at all, are subverted by the many and various manipulations to which democracy is always (and ever will be) prone. Mr. Boccardy’s article does an excellent job of relating several of these manipulative techniques that de facto ‘business managers’ use to corrupt democracy within nominally democratic organizations.

Andrew Stern’s tag-line is ‘unite to win’, and he is to be highly commended for that. Strength in unity is an organizational tenet whose verity should be obvious to all. The fatal flaw in Stern’s vision is that he does not seem to realize that democracy is the key to successful unification. He wants Labor to unite under an anti-democratic administration of very highly paid business executives like himself (his personal compensation is nearly a quarter of a million dollars per year, and he is far from being the highest paid union executive). He and his powerful union executive consorts are not amenable to risking their positions of influence, power, and wealth through a genuinely democratic process.

While many of Stern’s ideas are very sound, and have deservedly riveted the attention of many interested observers, he apparently does not understand that the problems in Labor run far deeper than its macro- organizational structure. Labor’s problems are rooted in the disaffection and alienation of ‘rank and file’ workers from (what they perceive as) ‘union fat cats’. Workers can plainly see that these ‘fat cats’ hold their own self-interests above the most important and vital interests of the workers who pay their increasingly opulent salaries. The catch phrase commonly being used among those who believe that direct empowerment of

workers through genuine uncorrupted democracy is the key to a revitalized Labor Movement is that this so-called ‘Great Debate’ in Organized Labor amounts to nothing more than ‘re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic’. Neither side in this ‘great debate’ is addressing the basic problem of worker alienation from the perception of corrupt and anti-democratic union fat cats. It is the corruption of union democracy, and the entrenchment of rich union executives and the patronage networks they rule over, that is causing the dissaffection and general alienation of workers that is destroying the once proud and powerful Labor Movement.

If we look at the progressive Left in general, we can see, distressingly, that many actually argue AGAINST unity, (incredible perhaps, but all too true). Arguments are (incredibly) presented that purport that fragmented localized autonomy is an organizational model that is superior to the model of a powerful United Movement. ‘All politics is local’ is a mantra frequently heard. This argument handily supports the status quo of a fragmented, (and therefore impotent), Left made up from thousands of disconnected, under-funded, and essentially powerless groups. Instead of joining powerful united organizations, and thereby making those organizations even more powerful, people on the Left constantly form new organizations. (Anyone with $15 per month to host a web page is now an ‘organization’).

One can see how the fear of the historical corruption of democracy that commonly takes place in large and/or established organizations, (like unions), has led to a general distrust of democracy itself on the Left. Rather than working to develop (or re-develop as it were) a better concept of democracy in our own hearts, minds, and organizations, so that an empowering unity can be achieved through the power sharing that democracy provides, (and democracy is the ONLY system that provides the means for sharing power), we seem to have instead abandoned democracy, and the energizing organizational power it offers us, in favor of the fragmented, (and essentially powerless), autonomy of disconnected groups that characterizes the Left today.

One of our greatest faults on the Left is our failure to strive to become self-aware. No subject of discussion could be of greater benefit to us than a discussion of our own faults and failures, which would lead us to a discussion of new and effective directions, tactics, and strategies. But we seldom take up such introspective considerations.

We seem to remain so completely focused on discussing foreign policy, the Bush administration, and the other issues of concern to all of us as progressives, that we are not inclined to think, in a self aware manner, about the nature of what we are doing, and what we maybe ought to be doing differently, that could deliver us the ability to actually AFFECT foreign policy, politics, etc.

You would think that given the extent of our marginalized impotence, we would be eager to find new ideas, or to create new ideas through a process of collective deliberation. But sadly, we are not (at least not yet). We are seemingly too busy talking constantly about ‘the issues’ to notice that we do not even have a place at the table of power where ‘the issues’ are discussed and decided.

If people would make the effort to understand what is happening in the Labor Movement, a much more complex situation than much of the current coverage and topical literature lets on, it might go a long ways to helping us better understand what is happening on the progressive Left in general. The same factors that have brought the once powerful Labor Movement so low have delivered the Left into our current circumstance of marginalized political impotence.

Thanks again to Bruce Boccardy for this article, and to Portside for publishing it.

---