NYC Labor and Guiliani

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>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.
>
>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

Unions can become much better at coalition-building in ways that Doug 
suggests, but I think that unions are, by nature, unable to represent 
the general interest of the working class.

Yoshie