>So is he also going to toss the Building Trades as not "really workers"
>because they are on government Davis-Bacon government funded work?
>
>Or is it only "womens work" taking care of the disabled and elderly that's
>not really labor.
>
>This is one of the most sexist pieces of crap I've ever seen. Pisses me off
>to no end that as labor is struggling mightly to get child care, home health
>care, domestic work and other female-dominate professions recognized as real
>labor, this kind of piece comes out.
>
>It's quite reasonable to point out the dependence of some sectors of the
>labor movement on government money, but framing it in terms of home health
>care workers not being "really workers" is just the worse piece of crap I've
>seen in a long time.
>
>As for SEIU not delivering for janitors, pointing to wages in Los Angeles
>before the union completely collapsed in the 80s as the benchmark is
>ridiculous. Why not point to what's happened to wages since Justice for
>Janitors was launched in the late 80s, since when wages have climbed
>significantly. In New Jersey, wages for 10,000 recently unionized janitors
>jumped from just over minimum wage to around $10 per hour just in the last
>year.
>
>As for 32BJ, read the contract at
>http://www.seiu32bj.org/cd/pdf/2003_RAB_Apt_Bldg_Agree_English.pdf and tell
>me they would have these conditions without a strong union.
>
>SEIU is not perfect but this kind of hit piece is just disgusting.
The tone of this reminds me of your old caricature of criticism as "bashing." Why is this "disgusting" and "a hit piece"? Just because you don't agree with it?
Relatives who are also caregivers aren't a lot like regular workers, and "organizing" them is not much like organizing most of the labor force. That's not an unfair point, nor is it sexist. It's outside the discipline of profit maximization.
Fitch can be provocative, yeah, but his provocations are almost always worth thinking about. SEIU is not the succees story its boosters say it is. Is it inexcusably cruel to say that?
Doug