Nathan Newman wrote:
>I read the comment differently-- it's not that unions didn't take the
brunt
>in the 70s; it's just that this time around, they don't have any silly
>ideas that they can resist it.
-Yeah, they're open sellouts now. In '75, Gotbaum made a big racket in -public while he was selling the members out in secret. Now they don't -even offer a pretence of resistance.
"Sellouts"- on what evidence? Recklessness without the power to back it up does not serve the members you represent. Public bluster is even worse, so matching rhetoric to reality today sounds like an improvement. I doubt any of the public sector unions will give in without resistance but they also recognize, due to Nader handing the election to Bush, that Democrats will not be able to pass the legislation needed to bail out the city. When the unions worked to elect Gore, they were very much serving their members interests, far more than we knew at the time.
Unfortunately, they lost due to idiot leftists who mistook purity for rational militancy. So Democratic bills for additional billions for New York are being blocked in DC.
So yes, thanks to Nader and his supporters, this recession will be fully felt by the workers and union members of New York City.
-- Nathan Newman