>When I read the type of criticisms Doug made of the approach of NYC unions to
>Guiliani, I am troubled not only by the failure to distinguish among the
>various unions, but also by the view that nothing less than a union charge of
>the light brigade is a defensible way of dealing with a Guiliani.
The overwhelming majority of NYC unions - or unions representing the overwhelming majority of unionized workers - were either supportive, complicit, or silent. While I appreciate the finer grain of detail, that fact still stands.
I don't know what you mean by a "charge of the light brigade." What I'd like to see is some sign of the unions representing the general interest of the working class. Why no common cause between teachers and parents to defend the schools? Between municipal workers and citizens to defend the quality of public services? Between hospital workers and patients (actual and potential)? Transit workers and riders? One reason union-bashers can get away with painting unions as self-interest groups is that there's enough truth to the charge to make it stick. Mark Maier said in City Unions that when NYC was first recognizing its municipal unions in the early 60s, it made the renunciation of alliances between workers and municipal service users a condition of recognition. That was 40 years ago.
Doug