[lbo-talk] A dimes bit of difference and then some...

[Nathan Newman]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chuck0" <chuck at mutualaid.org>
-Right to organize? The Democrats take organized labor for granted
-like they take people of color for granted.  I don't recall any
-national TV addresses by Bill Clinton where he advocated the right
-to organize. Organized labor made very few advances  during the 8
-years where a so-called "pro-labor" president was in power.

Chuck, how about Clinton's support for Project Labor Agreements versus
Bush's banning them for federally-funded construction projects?

How about Clinton's ergonomics standards, which Bush and the GOP Congress
eliminated?

How about the prohibition of permanent striker replacements, which Clinton
and almost all the Democrats supported, but was filibustered by GOP
Senators?

How about Clinton's appointment of pro-labor officials to the NLRB, such as
chairman William Gould and its counsel, Fred Feinstein?  (which led to
recognition of the right of grad unions to organize, which the Bush NLRB
has just reversed).

Or Clinton's ban on the federal governmnet using union-busting contractors,
rules Reagan-appointed judges struck down?

It's hard to think of an issue where the parties differ more than on the
right of unions to organize.

Kerry has essentially endorsed the whole AFL-CIO labor law agenda.  Why
doesn't that count as reason for any labor person to support him?

Nathan Newman