It’s a bold attempt to take out the labor aristocratic leadership. If it fails they could always simply create a new union. They’ve identified the biggest problem with American unions right now, that being opportunistic labor aristocratic leadership. A problem new unions of Amazon and Starbucks workers need to avoid as well lest they become the next failed union.
Most unions do not have a labor aristocracy.
They do in the US. If we did not unions wouldn’t need reform, labor rights would not be a joke nor would wages. Hell we wouldn’t even be a neoliberal country because neoliberalism requires the cheapening of materials, lowering of wages, removal of regulations, etc…All things competent labor unions would prevent from occurring because it interferes with their interests. We had a battle between the 2 in the 70s and we lost. Our labor union leaders were assassinated, often by pette bourgeois right forces like the mob working with the FBI in the case of Jimmy Hoffa for example. Their failures were caused by their straying from left principles which was caused by a duality of the newly social democratic economy, and their natural straying along the lines of the weak left of the US at the time (see McCarthyism).
Those who hung on after Reagan’s shattering of the TSA and the removal of social democracy into a much more rigged economy were only hardened into their aristocratic positions.
I somewhat disagree.
The lower-level labor unions and the less prominent ones are not labor aristocratic in leadership.
In recent years, since 1990s, the leaderships have moved to the left.
“The lower-level labor unions and the less prominent ones are not labor aristocratic in leadership.”
I can agree they aren’t labor aristocratic. They are also not very radical tho, lest they would be larger than they are or at the least more persecuted.
Persecution does not equate to whether they are radical or not.
It is an indicator as to whether they are seen as hostile to the current regime or not
That’s not necessarily an indicator.