-It'd take more sophisticated econometrics than I can do, but you're -forgetting that the Reagan years were also a time of massive -manufacturing job losses, unlike the Clinton years, and manufacturing -was disproportionately unionized.
I'm not forgetting it- in fact I mentioned it in my posts. Which just goes to show why qualitative discussions are needed, rather than throwing out quantitative numbers for periods that are not necessarily comparative.
>Your use of absolute numbers rather than density reminds me of those
>Republican budgeteers who try to prove that budget cuts aren't really
>cuts at all because the nominal dollar amount of spending was up. I
>guess nominal union counts are important if you're a union president
>wanting to maximize the dues flow, but if you're interested in
>working class power, than the density numbers are more important.
Low blow- I never said union density was unimportant. I was emphasizing that you were ignoring the realities of organizing and missed the difference between a legal environment assisting decertification and management-led union-busting strikes versus a period where the legal environment is less hostile and thus fewer members are lost, even though it is still had trouble doing positive organizing.
Comparing GOP budget leaders who can themselves decide what level of spending to allocate to union leaders struggling to increase union density in a hostile corporate environment where one out of ten members in a union drive gets fired is cute, but offensive to those who struggle so hard to organize. You can throw out your statistics and the insults to the integrity of union leaders, but the reality between an absolute loss of 1.3 million members versus current members holding on in the face of the corporate assault is very real.
-- Nathan Newman
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20010808/c8e0c9a9/attachment.htm>