> Perhaps, his sucking up to the market-schmarket crowd
> is nauseating. But
> that does not mean that all his arguments are rubbish.
As Samuel Johnson said, what was good was not original, and what was original was not good. Or something like that.
>
> 1. The movement toward small firms (often welcome by
> liberals and populists
> who are hostile toward big corporations) creates
> unhospitable environment
> for union organizing.
right
> 2. Low wage workers cannot generate sufficient
> resources for financing
> union 'realpolitik' campaigns. That in, turn, may
> push unions toward
> making spectacles instead of real changes.
maybe, tho I'm not persuaded this is mostly a matter of money. Unionziation of low-wage workers has succeeded in the past.
> 3. Unionization will cause job flight from urban centers (union
> strongholds) to the hinterlands that are hostile to unions.
yup
> These are valid arguments that must be addressed. I
> think we are shooting ourselves in the foot by shunning them as
a mere right wing rant. A better approach is to develop a
strategy that effectively counteracts the political-economic
forces working against trade
> unionism. Specifically, how to make unions a vital force in
the small-firm environment; how to generate sufficient resources
without overburdenining low-wage workers with dues; and how to
couter-act moving jobs to impoversished union-hostile
environment.
>
> Any suggestions?
If I knew the answers to this, I'd be celebrated in song and story. Even Louis would look up to me.
mbs