Michael Crosby is a typical power-hungry, elitist, undemocratic, inexperienced, know-it-all union bureaucrat. Workers would certainly have a better opportunity of successful on-the-job organizing by following a recipe from Nigella Lawson than Crosby's version of trade union organization.
The whole fundamental outlook of trade unionism is to build a better long-lasting democratic organization so working people can live better and more meaningful and gentler lives.... and one day be freed from the shackles of capitalism. It is not the role of unions to recruit hundreds of unelected clones (so called organizers) to deliver up to workers union contracts that on the face of it deliver little more except more money into the coffers of massive unaccountable union bureaucracies.
How dare Crosby criticise the "loudmouth" shop steward/union delegate? Being the epitome of that type of delegate/shop steward, I know what gets results in the rough and tumble of union negotiations, particularly in the blue collar world of unionism. It is not done by spending your time pleasing the boss by acting like a well mannered chimpanzee.
The type of unions Crosby thinks are illuminating are not examples of unionism at its best. Unions have to commit themselves to developing a fighting outlook, not an outlook of class peace and co-operation. The Crosby model is one of a controlled workforce, and is not one that any democratically minded union man or woman should have a bar of.
There are better models about, and we should try to develop them and let Crosby start explaining how less democracy and accountability can be a good thing for working people.