i'm part of a Unity group in my city that's working on these issues. our model goes like this: rich people (country club women, real estate developers, hedge fund managers) often meet in "business club" settings to network and share influence. they don't get bogged down in what each group believes, and they know that some leaders can get in front of an issue while others can "only" fund it. it's a pragmatic approach to getting things done.
so, what we've done as an Occupy is call meetings with all the local unions, activist groups and community leaders we can and made a simple proposal. We asked "what can we do together?"
What happens next (for example) is Unite HERE says "well, we've got an action coming up on minimum wage." Occupy can provide bodies for this. Then, maybe Occupy is doing a big weekend of events and we need bodies, so we reach out to the network. Maybe we need meeting space and there's a union hall that's available every other sunday. Etc etc.
So here's the real deal...it's a fact that unions and established activist groups cannot participate in certain forms of direct action. But Occupy can and does. So, while the Occupy might be doing loud/obnoxious protesting, the established groups have the benefit of this demographic on their side of the issue with less risk, while being able to negotiate based on the pressure that Occupy provides. Occupy can't negotiate b/c we aren't "inside" enough -- so, we need them too. Since we share issues, this "diversity of tactics" works in the favor of everyone.
This is completely different from "diversity of tactics" within a protest itself -- like what Chris Hedges critiques. no one is advocating violence or destruction -- but we are recognizing differing levels of "volume' lets say.
= new reply since forum marked as read