>My god-- of course someone like Fitch can fill a book with corruption
>stories. He can also do the same and far more with stories of government
>corruption. And more books on corporate corruption when they control large
>sums of money. So what? Money means there will be corruption, but the
>question is whether unions have any more than parallel institutions. I've
>never seen any compelling evidence that they do.
>
>In fact, despite all the scandals of the go-go stock market in the 1990s,
>when the dust settled, almost no union pension funds had any serious
>problems. The Ullico "scandal" was the biggest one they came up with, but
>the money involved was pretty damn small and was pocket change compared to
>serious government and corporate scandals.
>
>You can make union corruption sound bad by long lists of stories but add up
>the dollars and unions look clean and honest compared to comparable
>corporate and government officials.
This is exactly the kind of defensiveness and apologetics at the root of the problem. American unions have a long relationship with organized crime - which, as Fitch points out, isn't something you can say about Italy, home of the Mafia. They have massive problems with nepotism and padded payrolls too. The "the other guys are worse!" defense doesn't hold water because the state has long been capital's toy, and business is all about making money - but unions are supposed to be about improving the material and social circumstances of the working class. And it's not like Ken Lay will run Enron from prison, as often happens with unions.
Garment union officials take payoffs to overlook sweatshop wages. Happens right here in New York City. Is that ok because the employers are worse?
Read the book and tell me what he's gotten wrong. Until then, you really are in no position to comment on it.
Doug