Why a Union Should Not be Run as a Corporation

I should start this with saying this isn't really about capitalism, not explicitly. Yet, it is about how how the principals of capitalism, as seen within a corporation, seem to have wormed their way into the labor movement. I hate to be dramatic, but this feels like the worst kind of corruption. It needs to be identified and called out wherever we find it. It needs to stop.

Maybe I'm an idealist, a silly, naive thing that truly believed in the principals of the labor movement. I came to this table with certain expectations from my knowledge of labor history. Not all of those expectations have been disappointed, but some of them have and that disappointment has a very specific cause. Namely, the evolution of the labor union into a corporation, something that can be seen as inevitable but which should be fought against wherever it is found. Nothing, in my opinion, hurt the labor movement in the US more than this remodeling of what a labor union is. One reason for this is the Service Model unions worked under for so long.

I haven't been exactly shy about my dislike of the Service model of union organizing, likely I have mentioned it in just about every other post I've ever made. When ranting against the practice (I know a rant when I see one, even if its mine) I have often compared the Service model to how a corporation is run. With a very hierarchical, almost autocratic, form of leadership with decisions being imposed from the top down. As any of us who work in larger, even middling sized, organizations know how effective having the people most disconnected from our day to day experiences really isn't.

So that's one way that modeling ourselves after corporations isn't good for the labor movement.

Here's another.

Corporations are entities that exist, most often, for profit and personal gain. When I say personal gain I mean two different things. First, a corporation is driven by what is best for the continued existence of the corporation. Second, they are further driven by what those who run the organization determine to be best for them. There was a time when those who led and ran the union were also, had to be, members of that same union. It probably remains that way in other labor organizations, I have no idea if it was ever that way in nursing organizations. There are complications with employing members that seem obvious, but the heart of a union should always be what is best for the members. If a union is run like a corporation, that's not always going to be the case.

When members needs are not met, their rights not adequately safeguarded, their faith and engagement fade. Anyone will think more than twice about paying for something you see very little actual value in. Or, if still choosing to remain a member, few would choose to give more than the barest minimum of their time and effort when they do not see the same efforts being extended towards them.

To me it seems obvious that what is good for the members is good for the union. If a labor organization should ever be concerned about engagement, or growth, the answer is to look at how well you are serving your members. Generally speaking, in those situations, the answer is probably not well.

This is the main reason I think labor organizations stumbled when they began to model themselves after corporations. When you start to think of the union as something separate from its members you begin to seek out goals that no longer met their specific needs. You start to think of what the members can do for the organization, what the organization can do to further its own goals. Then both the organization and its members suffer.

As I see it, this tendency to model ourselves after those we are so often at odds with is what started the downward trend of unions in the US. The gutting of labor laws certainly helped, but this was the true death knell.

Unions exist for a purpose that is wholly separate, if not completely opposed, to the purpose of a corporation. It is well past time that they returned to that purpose and allowed it, and the members, to guide their actions.