-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.
"American unions" have a long relationship with organized crime? Collectively? Teachers unions? Nurses unions? The UAW?
Ridiculous. Some unions have corruption and mafia problems but even the most intense rightwing investigations have found only a small minority of unions with such problems and outside the Teamsters at their most degenerate, even those unions usually had those problems only on the fringes.
-They have massive problems with nepotism and padded payrolls too.
Some do-- while most operate pretty damn lean with lots of outside hiring that gets condemned as not "hiring from within" enough by some rank-and-file union advocates.
-The "the other guys are worse!" defense doesn't hold water because the state has long been capital's toy
Which was my original point about the distrust of many strong populists against government run health care. If government is worse than unions in the corruption department, then it is quite rational to prefer union-run health plans over more corrupt government-run plans. Relative degrees of corruption are quite relevant criteria for evaluating where to entrust control.
You can beat your chest that we should demand 100% purity and financial chastity by every union, but in the real world people make choices about lesser evils every day, whether you like it or not.
-Garment union officials take payoffs to overlook sweatshop wages. -Happens right here in New York City. Is that ok because the employers -are worse?
Frankly, New York City is a special case-- it's unions have had a higher degree of corruption than most of the rest of the country. Your views on both electoral politics and unions are pretty skewed from taking atypical New York City conditions as representative of the rest of the country.
Nathan Newman