>On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari
> 1. I think you are missing the challenge here to the fetishization of
> organizing--your fundamentalist commitment as you put it. Lynd for example
> in same issue criticizes Sweeney's organizing commitment as simply
> inclusive business unionism (a repeat of John Lewis' efforts).
You act as if the difference between exclusive business unionism versus inclusive business unionism is a minor thing. I am a social(ist) unionist (and think Sweeney has strong components of moderate social unionism) but even inclusive business unionism that reaches out to the poorest workers is a very good, progressive advance for workers.
Exclusive business unionism means the accomodation of elite workers with management, with their gains easily coming at the expense of unorganized workers. Inclusive unionism means that all workers gain, forcing a transfer of wealth from shareholders to workers. That is a rather radical difference which you seem to dismiss. Given the fact that the whole founding of the CIO was based on this difference (and don't think that John L. Lewis was a radical in any other way), it is incredible that you or Lynd would dismiss the difference.
> 2. You miss Slaughter's criticism that no detailed criticism of team
> concept until 1994, that is long after damage was done. And there is
> extensive work by Slaughter and Parker that is very specific in its
> criticism of the team concept.
They are very specific in the mass production industries, but most of the organizing going on are in the service industries where their specific definitions of team concepts (largely borrowed from Japanese models) are pretty irrelevant.
And if you want me to defend Kirland's era, we are switching the subject. Sweeney was elected in 1995 precisely because of the sins and failures of the Kirland era.
> 3. You miss Rachleff's argument that the old cold warriors have not been
> replaced at least in the context of a very important strike action in
> Mexico. As I have been arguing, there is not much impressive about the new
> internationalism either.
Well, we disagree. The AFL-CIO has setup impressive programs to help support and train rank-and-file stewards and organizing overseas in places like Indonesia that have been praised by many left activists. It has built very good relations with left-leaning unions that it scorned only a few years ago. To give my personal experience. When I was travelling in Turkey, I met a longtime left unionist who had spent three years in jail in the 80s for his leadership in leftwing unions. He noted that a few years ago, the AFL-CIO rep was a known CIA asset, while the new folks were dramatically better and actual unionists they looked forward to working with.
You don't like the global alliance of unionists around the WTO, but the AFL-CIO's improved relations globally are shown by the broad global participation of unions from around the world in the effort.
Don't mix up your own disagreements with their policies with the rather dramatic changes in their relationship with other unionists globally. Picking out one strike (which one was it again?) is pretty anecdotal in the global rearrangement of the AFL-CIO's labor relationships.
> 4. You seem to explain away all concessions (flexibility, unbounded
> overtime and outsourcing) as necessary under the law (which seems to be an
> exaggeration or why are you in law school?) or inevitable given union
> powerlessness. This seems not true;plus again it misses Slaughter's
> criticism that victory is counted by things that can easily be
> measured--union density, how many more cents per hour, number of
> jobs, etc,
> not the stress and fatigue and deskilling of work, etc. that that can make
> victory in terms of measured criteria hollow.
I don't "explain away"; I emphasize there are tradeoffs in the push for new organizing. You can put your resources into corporate fights to win slightly better contracts or you can put those same resources into fighting to organize new workers. You can't do just one or the other, but there are tradeoffs that are a reality given the legal and economic repression unions face.
> 5. Why does tough language against the bosses cancel fawning language? Why
> is there any of the latter?
Because some union leaders are not particularly radical. So any leftist who wants to make broad sweeping statements can always find anecdotal examples. The point is that the union movement is pretty diverse, so almost any statement is "true"-- I can argue that the new unionism is dominated by socialist leftwingers if you want me to cite rhetoric. But that would be anecotal as well, since there are both.
The point is that there were a heck of a lot fewer socialist leftwingers in high positions around the union movement before Sweeney took over.
> 6. At what point does the union say the (always moving) target of union
> density has been met so that more militant actions can be taken,
> instead of
> suppressed? If the target can always be moved, then don't unions devolve
> into internal police forces of labor? What steps are taken to
> guard against this outcome?
Who said anything about suppressing militant actions? The question is one of resources and strategic decisions on how much can be won in a particular fight. The point is that higher union density makes more militant action possible, since there are more workers as a percentage of the industry to apply power.
> Don't know the details of the Ford and Boeing contracts you mention.
Which is a problem, since if you aren't bothering to follow the auto industry and aerospace contracts independently, your only source of analysis are your favored analysts like Slaughter, with little empirical check of your own on their statements. Auto is the core of LaborNotes anti-team analysis, yet the auto industry has used militant actions and threats to win dramatically strong contracts. The series of GM strikes over the last few years were dramatic and powerful and make the monochrome description you have described rather obviously a limited description.
As I've stated, I agree with many criticisms that the LaborNotes folks have had over the years, but when you ignore the positive struggles and organizing campaigns of recent years, it just looks like your analysis is based on anti-Sweeney animus, not on real analysis of the complexity of what is going on in the whole sweep of union struggles across the country.
-- Nathan Newman