One could get into the details of strategy & tactics for NY labor in re: Ghouliani. In my experience labor officials are pretty smart about this stuff; when they forego militant action, there is often -- not always -- a good reason. Some are not well motivated, but that's another story.
The most important thing, I would say, is *why* union leaderships are not more aggressive when there are opportunities to be. Is it them, or is it the members? And why do members elect leaders who are dishonest or incompetent? Is our problem that the working class is not up to its responsibilities? I don't think that's the right way to look at it.
In some cases I would imagine it is worthwhile to criticize individual union officials for timidity or faulty analysis of their own opportunities. And of course dishonesty or corruption are always fair game. But the more basic problem is how to enlighten members to be better members and produce better leaders, if that is possible for people like us. If it is, we should get on with it; if it isn't, we should find something useful to do.
mbs
LeoCasey at aol.com wrote:
>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. . . .
DH: 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. . . .