>Nathan Newman wrote:
>"While getting along is one good value, I would note that the most
>extensive union organizing in American history came when the AFL and CIO
were
>seeking to cut each others throats organizationally, fighting for position,
>and being driven to new organizing to attract new people to achieve
>dominance over their rival."
-Actually, the most successful union organizing in American history came -when the state temporarily took control of the national economy in WWII -and more or less required firms with government contracts (all the ones -that mattered) to allow unions to organize. But the romantic myth of -the glorious battles of the thirties works so much better than the dull -realities of the benefits of state corporatism in the forties.
If you believe that the corporate state would have made that concession without the organizing proceeding it, I think you are misreading history. Unions got a little bit from WWI but hardly the level from WWII, that required the threat of massive disruption of the war machine to make "labor peace" a core part of war planning.
>And since over 90% of the private-sector working class is no longer
>represented by unions, should we "unite" with the vast majority of them
>in a union-free environment?
Absolutely-- that's call new union organizing and a range of community-based workplace organizing where unionization will be hard to reach for a number of years. But over 50% of workers want a union so uniting with that desire is absolutely a left goal.
-- Nathan Newman