The-Ave.US

Sudhir’s view jibes with everything I’ve read: SCOTUS mavens think Scalia’s death will create a hung Court in Friedrichs, which will, in turn, leave in place the 9th Circuit’s union-friendly decision.

Further, the issue in Friedrichs is agency fees for _non_ political activity (e.g., bargaining for better pay), not — as Steve seems to think —  union spending on political candidates or causes.

Regarding the other part of Steve’s post: how much say the rank-and-file has over an international’s stance on various issues (including business- versus social movement unionism, and, if the latter, which social movements to support) will differ from one union to the next.  Such say-so is known in labor circles as “internal union democracy.”  Its degree depends on the international’s charter, among other things, and I don’t know how democratic or undemocratic SEIU’s is.  That is certainly something that potential SEIU members would be interested in learning.

In the UAW, the BDS issue is actually sparking a conflict over internal democracy.  As I understand things: The UC graduate students’ local (Local 2865) resolved to call on the international to divest from companies profiting from the Occupation.  Obviously this would have been a nonbinding resolution.  Some dissident 2865 members appealed to the International’s executive board, which acknowledged that the resolution had been passed democratically, and with a high turnout, but nonetheless decided to nullify it.  Local 2865 then called for expressions of solidarity, which is where the UW local chimed in.

So, the parties disagree over the local’s autonomy to speak on this matter.  This kind of dispute is hardly unique to unions.  It can be found in many bodies that claim to be representative in some manner.

Roberta