By way of example, you might cite the Republican Party. A major element of the party's success has come because they've been asked to do something--whether it's raising money for the President or putting initiatives on ballots, or writing the local paper. They all have the sense of being on a team and pulling in the same direction.

I agree with you, and yet I don't. One of the basic points of a workplace union is collective bargaining; the right to collective bargaining is simple, basic, and clear. Lots of people would rather bargain collectively, for wages, for healthcare, for pensions, etc., and understand the basic value to that collectivity. When it comes down to it, most people (I think) want collective bargaining to be the right of employees.
Once you get beyond the workplace, it's easy to get that simple, basic, clear right mixed up with a lot of other things. As you know, one of the basic anti-organization tactics of employers is to tell employees that the union will be run by outsiders, higher-ups who have their own interests. In fact, they often tell employees that they will be forced to strike by those outsiders. By implication, that their right of collective bargaining will not be enhanced, but be muddied by the union. This is preposterous, of course, but effective.
And, I'll admit, it hasn't always been preposterous. There have been times in labor history when a hierarchical union has played its own power games rather than helped its members. Big Business simply exaggerates how often that happens, pretending it is the norm, rather than the aberration.
Organizing a progressive movement is necessary. Organizing it under the umbrella of labor may be necessary, simply because labor has the structure to do it. But it may well be bad for labor to hold its umbrella over that movement. Given the choice, I'd rather it be done elsewhere.

Of course, I'm not given the choice, so there it is. I'm hoping I'm wrong, and I'm hoping you are right, and I'm hoping that the SEIU won't be my generation's Wobblies.

                           ,
-Vardibidian.

Isn't that Industrial Workers of the World? I mean, if they're of the World, they're International already, no?

Oops- Thanks!

Vardibian,

Very well put. I'd also add that most successful mass social movements since WWII have grown like vines on the structure of another institution -- a church, a university, a workplace. I've done both non-profit and union organizing, and there's no question that coworkers feel much more "naturally" part of a collective than a bunch of people who just all happen to give to a particular organization.

I think that one direction for Labor is to break the bonds imposed by the NLRA, especially regarding who counts as an "employee." The institutional labor movement has allowed "union" to apply only to officially-certified, legal collective bargaining agents. This limits labor's reach. Why shouldn't the AFL-CIO organize an Union of Independent American Farmers, a Federation of Self-Employed Workers, an Unemployed Workers Union? With a few exceptions (like the United Farm Workers), Labor allows itself to be defined by the law, rather than defining itself.

Or that the IWW isn't still doing.

America's unions are doing a fine job of putting themselves into extinction.
Check out the beauty the teamster just pulled. Striking for 15 women in Phila. and in the process costing 2,000 union jobs....

Impressive, I really want to pay for that kind of protection???????? Where do I sign up!!!!!