And, yes, you're right: I've been a local president, a local VP, and a state affiliate officer two different times, but I do "not know the distinction between the AFL-CIO and its affiliate unions." Golly, gee, how stupid I am.
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of John Lacny Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 3:15 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Where we stand today
Lance, you're making me impatient again.
> Fine SEIU 1199 in Wisconsin and SEIU 1199
> in New York have seperate leadership. They
> are still local 1199. What does the 1199 stand
> for if it is not the local number?
You're hung up on the name. The fact that each of these locals is called "1199" is a vestige of the fact that they were once part of another national union called 1199. This national union no longer exists -- so Local 1199 Northwest, for example, is a local of SEIU just like Local 250 or Local 1 or Local 503. My attempt to correct you on this is NOT a minor point, because the facts completely contradict your earlier "point," which was the uninformed, ignorant -- though also vague and pointless -- claim that "Local 1199" is swallowing everything up.
> How could local (singular) 1199 be separate
> locals (plural) otherwise? If a local can
> also be a locals, as you state, how am I
> incorrect?
I hope I have made my point above. 1199 is NOT one local. There are several 1199s. There's not some one leadership that oversees all of the 1199s. See what I mean? Please understand that if you continue to stubbornly insist on points of your argument that are based on fallacies and misconceptions, I am going to assume that you're dense.
Elsewhere on this thread, I appreciate Nathan Newman's coming to my defense. If I have been harsh with people like Lance Murdoch and Michael Dawson, it is only because when there are gaps in their knowledge, they insist on making things up to fill in those gaps and to reinforce their own ideological preconceptions. Michael, for example, clearly does not know the distinction between the AFL-CIO and its affiliate unions, but has no problem pontificating at length in an attempt to prove that he is THE supreme critic of the AFL-CIO's ineffectiveness. If I respond with verbal derision to crap like that, I suppose that someone who's just casually reading the thread might assume that we're equally at fault, but I don't think we are. I was tempted to make just the Fox News comparison that Nathan did, but I thought that might be going over the line in nastiness. ;)
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk