Previous Article: Locomotive Engineers: suspect referendum blocked by federal court
Next Article: The vindication of Ron Carey
AUDHome-->
Union Democracy Review--> Articles
Keep AUD on the job: SUBSCRIBE to Union Democracy
Review! Call 718-564-1114 .
From the October/November issue of UDR
Are
all insurgents good? Incumbents all bad?
By Herman Benson
A union staff member writes to AUD:
"I gladly renew my subscription to UDR. You folks do good work and are a valuable source of information for trade unionists. If I have any criticism, it’s that you always seem to position yourselves behind any insurgent group of caucus, or whoever is challenging incumbents. My experience has been that challengers are often less concerned with democratic unionism than the incumbents! Not all incumbents are bad! Not all challengers are good!"
By itself, his question shows how complicated it can get. He is "challenging" what he says is a UDR position. And so we have a good challenger posing a good question for what I hope are good "incumbents." It is a good question because other readers have been bothered by the same misgiving.
Of course his point about incumbents and insurgents is correct. Moreover, it would be depressing if all incumbents were bad. If unionists insisted upon electing only bad leaders, we could never have much of a labor movement; no one except those looking to make a buck would bother with it; and, it would surely fall apart completely.
I believe that most union officers want to do what’s right for their unions and many are not only sincere but are experienced and able. But that’s not all. Generally speaking, they not only want to take care of the union, they want to take care of themselves. In fact, the two objectives can become so inseparably intertwined in their minds that they become convinced that they can take care of the union best only if they take care of themselves. And so, one of the main principles of union leadership becomes: stay in power. And that’s what creates the problem of democracy in unions.
AUD does not propose to support insurgents against leaders or to support leaders against insurgents. We are not for or against insurgents or incumbents; we remain independent of both. We are for democracy. We maintain that differences over policy and contests for office and disputes over union affairs be resolved not by fraud or repression or intimidation but by the normal processes of democracy. All unionists, incumbents, insurgents, and rank and filers should have roughly the same democratic rights in their unions as they have in the country.
Why then do many people suspect that we invariably support insurgents against incumbents? Or as one friend put it, "You have never found an insurgent you don’t like." Not true, but it is easy to understand the basis for such a misimpression.
AUD is ready to defend the rights of any unionists left, right, or center, regardless of how high or low their post in the union hierarchy and regardless of their views on social or political issues. But the practical reality is that those who hold power---that is, the incumbents---are almost always the only ones who have the ability to suppress the rights of critics or to steal elections. And so, naturally, when the issue of the defense of union democracy is at stake, AUD will be found defending the rights of insurgents against incumbents, not because they are insurgents but because their rights are infringed. Bring us a case where incumbents need help in defending their democratic rights against insurgents, and AUD would be ready to defend those incumbents against those insurgents. It would be a rare and odd case, but conceivable.
Admittedly, however, things are not that simple. UDR readers know that we report frequently on insurgent movements and on internal conflicts among incumbents themselves where union democracy is not at stake and where the disputes are based on political differences or even where the contests are a simple, even crude, battle for personal power. We highlight these events not because they raise issues of the defense of union democracy but because they illustrate the existence and utilization of union democracy. Just one example: Reporting on the victory of insurgents in Transport Local 100 in New York, UDR wrote, "Events in Local 100 present not so much a story of the battle for union democracy as an example of the exercise of union democracy, the use of their rights by members to transform their union." In its experience for more than 30 years and in discussions with others, AUD came to understand that to promote the principles and practices of internal union democracy, we had to demonstrate not only that it is right, not only that it is desirable, but that it is a practical possibility.
To define AUD briefly, especially for reporters who insist on shorthand, we say that AUD is a kind of civil liberties organization which focuses on the rights of members inside their unions. Yet, our role in the labor movement differs from, say, the role of the American Civil Liberties Union in the nation. The ACLU does not have to justify democracy, it doesn’t have to prove that there is democratic life in America, it doesn’t have to convince people that it is right and possible to utilize democracy. It has to protect it. AUD, on the other hand, has to do more.
"Democrat runs for mayor against a Republican!" That’s news? But when we report that an insurgent ran strongly for president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers it shows that democracy is alive in that big construction union; and it encourages others to speak out, to exercise their rights. No one has to consult the ACLU to learn that they can run for public office and that they have campaign rights. But many unions have zealously sealed off the news that members have those same rights in their unions. AUD tries to fill that gap.
By publicizing the exercise of union democracy, by demonstrating that it is possible in unions, by showing that members can make a difference, AUD encourages members to participate in their unions and strengthens democratic life in the labor movement. It’s not that we love insurgents but that we respect union democracy; and we are gratified when unionists use it, even insurgents.
Previous Article: Locomotive Engineers: suspect referendum blocked by federal court
Next Article: The vindication of Ron Carey
AUDHome; Legal Rights; Education; Union Democracy Review; Books; AUDLinks
Page designed by Matt Noyes, National
Writers Union/UAW, and Rachel Szekely
The Association for Union Democracy. www.uniondemocracy.org
104 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn,
New York, 11225; USA; 718-564-1114; info@uniondemocracy.org
This work is licensed
under a Creative
Commons License.
Use
the following credit line on the materials you use:
"From the
website of the Association for Union Democracy. www.uniondemocracy.org. Email:
info@uniondemocracy.org. 104 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11225; USA;
718-564-1114"
Please notify us at websteward@uniondemocracy.org when you use material from the site.
Send comments or suggestions on the website to websteward@uniondemocracy.org.