Union Boycotts and the Law (RE: Social Protectionism

Rakesh Bhandari bhandari at phoenix.Princeton.EDU
Thu Mar 16 15:07:04 PST 2000

> Labor unions have held far larger rallies than Seattle demanding labor law
> reform,

Nathan, do note that you have failed to give a single example of disruptive protest on the scale of Seattle for the reform of domestic labor law that has been called for by the new Sweeney leadership for which you have been apologizing.

As for the three time failure of domestic labor law reform, do you think Gore will ever threaten a filibuster on something very dear to the Republicans (say welfare cuts or capital gain tax exemptions or some such feed the rich thing) in order to get them to relent on US labor law reform?

Do you think Gore will do anything really mean and nasty to make the Republicans suffer for not disciplining their Senate members who filibuster labor law reform (assuming that the ever more reactionary democrats ever reintroduce such reform)?

On the prior go on this question, I was with Seth on this one: half hearted support by the Democrats for labor law reform allows them to consolidate a labor constituency without aggravating potential business supporters who seem to grow ever enamored of the Democrats. At any rate, Sweeney is quite the fool for throwing support behind federal debt killer Gore. More wasted money and effort that could be spent elsewhere.

> supporters. What the law clearly bars is strikes that target employers
> other than one's direct employer and most physical picketing outside the
> offices of employers other than one's direct employer (although handbilling
> is generally allowed.)

Well, it seems the law needs to be changed if the boycotts you mention are to have real teeth.

Yours, Rakesh

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list