>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
>
>Justin Schwartz wrote:
>>Doug, please. The old Teamsters were run by the mob. So are the
>>Laborers. Carey's Teamsters were not, except in locals where the old
>>guard was entrenchedl. He _did_ break the law, but it wasn't very
>>awful as these things go--it didn't touch what Milken did, for
>>example, whom you have been defending--and therwe is no doubt that
>>if Carey hadn't won the UPS strike, he would not have been a target.
>
>-I'm relieved that the lawbreaking of a reformist union leader was not
>-as serious as that of a demonized investment banker.
>-Doug
>
>Doug, I sense some sarcasm in your sentence, but the answer is of course
>it's not as serious. Bourgeois capitalism makes it impossible for unions in
>general to succeed by obeying the law, so lawbreaking is not only
>unavoidable by union leaders but is often to be applauded. The only problem
>with such lawbreaking is when it serves self-enrichment rather than the
>empowerment of the union membership and the mass movement.
That's a pretty big difference, isn't it? If U.S. unions would violate laws against secondary boycotts or plant sit-ins that'd be one thing. The kind of stuff Carey & Co. did isn't gangsterism, but it still smells bad.
As you say:
>I've talked over the years to a number of insiders to the reform movement,
>both grassroots leaders and insiders at the marble palace and what was clear
>was that Carey in the end did fear dependance on the rank-and-file movements
>and preferred these freelance consultants and imported staff from places
>like the United Mine Workers.
And the result was disastrous, no? Criminal indictments and the ascenscion of Baby Hoffa.
>I still find the language used by Doug or
>others comparing it to actual mobster unionists or to Milken to be
>disgusting, reactionary rhetoric.
Uh, just a second. I never said Carey was a mobster. He's not of the same breed as Coia and Bevona, but he does reflect some similar structural problems of U.S. unions.
> We are about to see a full-out assault by
>the GOP Presidency on the labor movement and you are sitting there giving
>rhetorical support to that assault.
Oh come now. Does this mean that criticisms of U.S. unions are now forbidden because we're at war?
I'm waiting to see how labor fights this assault. I'm betting it'll be with ads, campaign checks, and lobbyists and not with any kind of popular mobilization. I'd love to be proved wrong.
>Remind me not to share a foxhole with you.
Be sure not to share a foxhole with me.
Doug