[lbo-talk] Where we stand today

Lance Murdoch lancemurdoch at gmail.com
Thu Nov 11 16:13:54 PST 2004


On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:38:45 -0500, Nathan Newman <nathanne at nathannewman.org> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> Obviously, it would be better to have 35% union density again or even more,
> but it is ridiculous to recite the 8% unionization rate and ignoring the
> fact that just the threat of unionization improves workplace practices
> across the economy.

With unionization shrinking every year, this threat is not very threatening. Perhaps if you had lived in the 19th century, you could have worked to improve the condition of slaves, since those radical abolitionists were just too far out. 51% of American voters just said they don't give a shit about minor improvements to their working conditions.

And how did union density go from 35% to 8%? We have the same leaders, the same organizations, even more pathetic than before, who are headed towards irrevelancy as unionization rates shrink to 7% next year. They pathetically made an all out effort to put Kerry in (instead of say, organizing) and they lost. Many of their own members voted against them in the election.

If you look at the AFL-CIO web page biography of Lane Kirkland, it says nothing about him moving up through the ranks since he never did, and his only "success" was in his fight against the Warsaw Pact, where he managed to help destroy their working conditions as well. The AFL-CIO bureaucracy and DLC Democratic Party bureaucracy are worse weasels than the Chamber of Commerce and the Republicans, because they're traitors.

And what would one expect, Samuel Gompers founded the AFL as the sellout organization it is and never said any different. It's done nothing but betray working people throughout its existence, and I certainly will not be rushing to give it blood transfusions so that it can go out and give more money to undermine Hugo Chavez, organize pro-war rallies and the like.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list