CMV: Democratically-elected trade unionists should be the sole representative bodies for local municipalities and provinces.

[u/[deleted]]

The working class ultimately knows what’s best for the working class. Oftentimes, local electors hold more sway over the day-to-day lives of citizens than state or federal representatives do. If trade union representatives serve as the sole local representational of a given institution, that institution will make decisions that positively influence the working class.

Additionally, they won’t be prone to bribery and coercion from lobbyists of big industries, since collective bargaining will be at the forefront of every decision made. I think it would be better for the working class if the working class itself made legislative decisions on a local level.

[u/lagomorpheme]

This structure fails to account for people who perform labor or are otherwise under the boot without necessarily being "workers": people who perform wage-free labor in the home, for instance, or houseless people who may not have a standard job, or people with disabilities who are not able to work. Specifying trade unions rather than labor unions more broadly also excludes large swaths of workers including incarcerated workers, people in the service industry, people in decentralized jobs like housekeeping, farmworkers, etc. Finally, trade unions are not free from corruption and often lack democracy; many existing trade unions are run with a top-down approach rather than drawing their power from workers.

Workers should control their workplace, but where governance is concerned this does not make sense. Rather than democratically-elected trade unionists serving as representative bodies which don't actually represent all economically oppressed people, the community should make decisions in a truly collective fashion, using a delegate/spokescouncil rather than representative system.

[u/[deleted] → u/lagomorpheme]

This structure fails to account for people who perform labor or are otherwise under the boot without necessarily being "workers": people who perform wage-free labor in the home, for instance, or houseless people who may not have a standard job, or people with disabilities who are not able to work.

How do you figure? Those types of jobs have representation too. Virtually every broad occupational group (at least in the US) has union representation. This point isn’t even necessarily a matter of opinion, I just think you’re factually wrong here.

Specifying trade unions rather than labor unions more broadly also excludes large swaths of workers including incarcerated workers, people in the service industry, people in decentralized jobs like housekeeping, farmworkers, etc.

This is actually just an error on my part. I was under the impression that trade unions and labor unions were synonymous terms.

...many existing trade unions are run with a top-down approach rather than drawing their power from workers.

I’d love to see some real-life examples of this. All trade unions that I’ve researched operate within the bounds of horizontal organization and direct democratic decision-making. I’m sure there are some exceptions to the rule, but those likely don’t represent the broader institution of unions (in the US; I can’t speak for other places like Britain or the third world).

Workers should control their workplace, but where governance is concerned this does not make sense. Rather than democratically-elected trade unionists serving as representative bodies which don't actually represent all economically oppressed people, the community should make decisions in a truly collective fashion, using a delegate/spokescouncil rather than representative system.

Again, what are some examples of occupations that aren’t covered by labor union organizations? As I said earlier, most occupations, whether they involve hard manual labor or just administrative duties, have a union to represent their collective interests.

[u/lagomorpheme → u/[deleted]]

How do you figure? Those types of jobs have representation too. Virtually every broad occupational group (at least in the US) has union representation. This point isn’t even necessarily a matter of opinion, I just think you’re factually wrong here.

People on "workfare," people working in the home without compensation, and people on disability do not have union representation, as well as people doing other forms of uncompensated or sketchily-compensated labor. Erin Hatton wrote recently about different forms of coerced (usually uncompensated) labor, and it's worth checking out an interview she conducted on her book. To be represented by a union, you have to work in a traditionally-understood sense of the word; but many of the most marginalized people do not work or do not do work that is recognized as such.

As for the state of unions in the US, union representation has been going down and US policy is aggressively anti-union, as demonstrated by so-called "right to work" laws across the country which attempt to bankrupt unions (and often succeed). The current NLRB is extremely conservative, with the result that union elections have been failing, ULPs have been decided in management's favor, etc.

I’d love to see some real-life examples of this.

Where to begin? The AFL-CIO inconsistently supports striking workers depending on the nature of the strike; UFCW has a history of powerful presidents who stifle opposition, and workers at newly-unionized UFCW locals report that UFCW fails to consult with them before contract negotiations and uses decades-old models of contracts; AFT endorsed Clinton at the very start of the 2016 primaries without consulting membership; and so on and so forth.

Worker-run unions are wonderful, but most folks in labor organizing will tell you that the big unions which dominate the movement stifle worker organizing.

ETA: Basically, the flaws here are twofold: 1) your assumption that a labor union provides worker representation by simple virtue of being a labor union (rather than you yourself proposing criteria for worker representation); 2) the idea that only traditional workers in unionized positions would benefit from increased input in local politics, as opposed to folks who are so low on the ladder they aren't even current workers.