> Lacny, you are the king of what you do. That much is evident. We have
> consensus on that point.
>
> 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
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
If every rebellion begins with the idea that conquerers on horseback
Are not many-legged gods, that they too drown
If plunged in the river,
Then this is the year.
-Martin Espada