>Yikes! Again no big argument, Doug. At least not with your basic
>conclusion. But I would observe that if you want to affect change within
>the labor movement (UAW included) rather than just talk about it, using the
>language you use here is counter-productive. Even honest militant trade
>unionists, who are aghast at what the top leaders are doing, will often
>recoil defensively when you draw into question everything they do rather
>than distinguish analytically the inadequacy of guiding principles, basic
>assumptions, strategic direction, and policies of the top leadership from
>the average UAW dues-payer. Broadsides that fail to make those distinctions
>are likely to produce a "circle the wagons" attitude among some folks with
>whom a different approach could be used to initiate some dialog or at least
>thoughtful consideration. I'd add that trade unionists, like partisans of
>any other movement, are not keen on sideline critics hurling rocks. After
>all, it's not like we in the LEFT have done such a sterling job of getting
>our shit together. And one can take on the leadership of various left
>groups and their policies in ways that don't get interpreted as a broadside
>attack on every member of the organization.
I'm really curious about what one should & shouldn't say. I said:
>Of course you can't offer promised land solutions to workers in the midst
>of a struggle today. But the UAW is showing just how hard it is to fight a
>practical bread & butter struggle today if you've got no vision of the
>future. I hate to sound like a Spart, but unions are doomed unless they
>practice a class-struggle unionism, which is the exact opposite of the
>UAW's jointness (i.e., class-collaborationist) strategy. Does the UAW
>leadership really believe that auto executives view them as partners? Or
>are they just using that as a public excuse while they hide out and cash
>their fat paychecks?
Ok, I probably wouldn't go to a union group and use the phrases "class struggle unionism" and "class collaborationism." But I'd talk about the concepts, wouldn't you? I'd want to talk about the fat paychecks and the lack of democracy too. Union leaders are paranoid about the members, which is understandable, since it's nicer to take $200 lunches at Bouley (as one "progressive" union local president in NYC used to do) than it is to go back to working in a cubicle or on the line. I would also talk about a vision of the future, about the sustainability of the car, about labor's strategy against capital, and maybe even the nature of work. Really, Michael, what else is there to say?
Union news from NYC: about half the locals in DC 37, which represents 100,000 municipal workers, are under grand jury investigation. The president of one seems to have written himself checks approaching $40,000,000. Meanwhile, DC 37 boss, Stanley Hill - who has befriended Giuliani and rolled over on workfare - has reportedly increased security at union HQ.
Doug