SEIU is strong in member numbers but doesn't have leverage with key production-centered industries. I don't see how such a move can do anything but weaken labor's hand. If one can imagine such a thing, post-November 2.
Internal politics aside, I'm bothered that labor seems to be just accepting the you're-just-losers consensus instead of pushing the possibility that the election was illegitimate. (And I can't imagine any labor program that wasn't to some degree contingent on the results of 11/2). I doubt that the thousands of union members who busted their butt for Kerry can be that sanguine--leaving the disturbing possibility that they're willing to go through enfeebling internal battles without ever taking on that Wizard-of-Oz operation that controls the Dems.
---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "John Lacny" <jlacny at earthlink.net> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:00:50 -0500
>Er, at least, you'd get that impression from reading Steven Greenhouse:
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/national/10labor.html?ex=1257829200&en=68051124572dc9f8&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
>
>There's also a website set up by SEIU:
>
>http://www.unitetowin.org/
>
>I won't give my own thoughts on this, save to note that the timing was
>decided before the election, and would have happened regardless of who won.
>So if the media starts saying that this is all "fallout" from the defeat,
>know that that's not true. This has been in the cards for quite some time.
>
....
________________________________________________________________