http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2001/2001-November/023938.html
Lance Murdoch wrote:
>Looking over the archives for this list,
Not very carefully, apparently.
> I became disappointed when I saw the lack of interest in following
>up of discussions that contained words like "labor" or "union" in
>the subject. I decided to start getting more historic, shifting
>back before 9/11/01 as that might give me a more accurate vantage,
>since almost every mailing list, forum and so forth is abuzz with
>9/11 and it's aftermath. That's when my disappointment turned to
>disgust.
Sorry to hear that. Have you tried an anti-emetic?
>The only labor/union threads that seem to get picked up on here are
>ones bashing labor and unions, including Mr. Henwood's complaining
>about that the AFL-CIO wasn't embracing the spotted owl.
That's creative. A search of the archives fails to turn up that post - could you provide it?
>This seems like the living embodiment of the limousine liberalism
>that is bashed nightly on Fox News. The enlightened liberal
>intelligensia on college campuses, in New York and San Francisco
>become upset when their proletarian marionettes don't obey their
>commands. How come mine workers in Mississippi aren't out on the
>street, hoisting up the rainbow flags and marching down the street
>hand-in-hand with homosexuals during Gay Rights parades?
Why are you going out of your way to be offensive? Try again after you've taken the anti-emetic.
>It's self-apparent that popular support is the bedrock of strength
>for the labor movement, for gay rights, and for any progressive
>movement. In case you haven't noticed, the percentage of Americans
>in labor unions has been declining since the 1950's,
Really? You have some numbers on that? This is news to me.
> and if you take public sector unions out of the picture, decline
>has been even more rapid. The Gallup poll question "Do you think
>homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not
>be legal?" - has been answered "should not" by 39% in 1982, 57% in
>1988, and 42% in 2001.
You forgot to mention that 54% said they should be legal.
> I'm sure those percentages are much higher in mine worker areas,
>and probably among the mine workers themselves. A union is a
>democratic organization, and it's primary duty is to support it's
>memberships financial interests, not to throw support to the New
>Republic issue du jour.
This is interesting - the New Republic is limousine liberal? I had no idea.
> Embracing too many, too socially progressive causes just alienates
>the socially conservative working class from unions.
So whatever the working class thinks is right? There are, of course, no gay workers.
>LBO-talk is billed as a list where labor and unions among other
>things is discussed. All I've seen is a lot of bashing of labor
>unions by people in shock that they aren't reflexively supporting
>your liberal social agendas.
'Fess up - you're a bigot, and you're using this reading of working class attitudes as your cover - right?
>If you don't care about the hourly salary the brown-skinned Mexican
>who bags your groceries is making, why should he care about your gay
>rights issues? And why should he listen to you when you go in and
>pontificate to him aboutthe UFCW (or UMW, or whoever) not
>reflexively backing some politican pushing gay rights or some other
>socially progressive legislation?
Right. No one here give a damn about Mexican grocery workers - we're really into pansexual orgies!
Doug -- Michael Pugliese