Want to see a hint of what internal union democracy could look like, if union officials embraced the internet and used it promote internal discussion and debate? Check out www.SEIUVoice.org and its coverage of the SEIU International Convention in San Juan, Puerto Rico. (See too the SEIU International's convention site -- the old seiufactchecker.org address now resolves to it -- www.seiu2008.org )

Trade unionists from around the globe will be descending on Union Island today to celebrate the May Day. If you want to attend, don't bother leaving your house, the gathering is coming to you via Second Life, software that lets you navigate a three dimensional, virtual world using a digital representation of yourself. Read on to learn more.

Twitter is yet another free Internet service that could open up new possibilities for union communication. Read on for more.

California's hospital executives have a lot to chortle over these days. First, the United Healthcare Workers West launched a site to take on the SEIU with their site, SEIU Voice, and now we have the SEIU going after the California Nurses Association.

My point in the last post was that what is internal and what is external has changed: so-called internal union affairs are now largely external and forums and media outside the union are increasingly part of the union's internal culture and politics.

I think Steve's question is worth a separate discussion:

How does a union organization grapple with the legitimate need to "stay on message" with the need to allow members to have their voice heard in a public venue? It seems
unions, being more "of the people" than say private corporations, have a unique expectation placed upon them to discuss and debate disagreements in public.

What I advise unions to do is the following:

1) Screen comments. As much as I love free-for-all, spirited debate, there are times for having it and times for not having it. A public union website is not the forum for that. Do it behind closed doors.

2) Allow criticism. Members need to be heard. And a good leader will should listen to all criticisms. And the union needs to show that it is genuine about listening to its members.

3) Require all criticisms be done respectfully. No name calling, nothing that even hints at an insult. People must be extremely polite.

4) Require criticisms be accompanied by an alternative suggestion.

5) Criticisms should only be about the stance leaders take on issues, not the leaders themselves. If the leader is an alcoholic megalomaniac, take that up in the union meeting, not in public.

To me, we have to take a step back to get this discussion in the right framework. I think the underlying problem is that some of the foundations of unionism have shifted. Meaning, the old concept of that which is "internal" to the unions and that which is "external" has changed, particularly in relation to communications and politics.