A union activist's call for change

It actually makes strong sense, logically speaking. Without predatory capitalism, what would justify the existence of the AFL-CIO? Nothing. Capitalism is the bread and butter of such union leadership.

I had previously read about leadership of some unions secretly making deals with large corporations' executives behind the backs of union workers, but was not previously thinking of this in terms of the fact that these union leaders heavily depend on predatory capitalism and that this will of course lead these union leaders to work for predatory capitalists and hypocritically act vis-a-vis unionized workers. The hypocrisy was understood, but that they'd really work [for] predatory capitalists just hadn't come to mind.

They pretend to truly work for unionized labor and do obtain some gains for these workers, but all while needing to also keep predatory capitalism going. Otherwise, these union leaders would be out of work and their high incomes very quickly. They could of course look for or start real jobs, honestly, but honesty is evidently not something they care about.

The book was a real eye opener for me, as one outside the U.S. labor movement, but committed to social and economic justice. When I first started to read the book I sent out an email promoting it and mentioned that it brought into question the relevance of the U.S. labor movement. A union organizer on my list responded, “Gee, thanks Nick! I guess I’ll just go home and quit my irrelevant attempt at organizing and representing workers! Btw, irrelevant to whom or what?”

I issued an apology because I am sure that most within the U.S. labor movement have the best of intentions and the highest of ideals and that the relevance of their union membership is of paramount importance to them and their families and I certainly meant no disrespect to them. I have no axe to grind with rank and file workers, inside or outside of organized labor. On the other hand, leadership that subverts internal democracy and upholds U.S. Empire is irrelevant to those it leads within Labor. Those outside Labor who have no one representing them in the workplace may actually depend more on organized labor for support than labor’s rank and file membership.

With union membership of private workers now only 7percent, it becomes clear, to me at least, that leadership’s embrace of U.S. Empire, “business unionism” and disregard for internal democracy within labor has created a cancer, that if neglected will result in the complete irrelevance of the U.S. labor movement and the accelerated demise of what little is left of U.S. democracy. There are activists like Kim Scipes within U.S. Labor and they need the support of the rank and file to make Labor more democratic and less imperial. With endless wars raging overseas and the lives of the U.S. working class in tatters, the American people need U.S. labor to assume its rightful position leading the fight for social and economic justice for all.

I agree with all of those three paragraphs and hope that people like the union organizer who wrote to Nick Egnatz will quickly come to realize that he's not saying that everyone involved with unionization is guilty of wrongfulness.

It's a very good article that should be widely read.