Nathan Newman wrote:
>As a former organizer in Las Vegas and someone who's read a bunch of
>histories of the city and the unions, you just need to read the history
>better.
-So you're saying the mob did the unions a favor? Would you advocate -future joint ventures between organized crime and organized labor, or -was this just a one-off thing?
A favor? No. Did they cut a deal in exchange for the Teamster money? Yes. In exchange for financing from the Teamsters, they didn't oppose unionization.
"The mob" despite media images of a unifed force is a whole range of rough illegal groups who, when unions faced off against police and army forces, have been called in by workers to help even the odds a bit. My personal preference might be for Gandhian resistance by union forces having their heads bashed in by the police, but some workers aren't saints and have looked for help from not always savory forces.
Speaking of Chicago, one of my favorite labor books I've read in recent years is the RACKETEER'S PROGRESS by David Cohen about Chicago unions in the first decade of the 20th century. It's all about how state repression bred an anti-government self-regulation model of unionism among the unions in the city-- and part of that was a defiance of police authority and the hiring of thugs and occasionally criminal elements to enforce union standards. And it details how liberal progressives used anti-corruption rhetoric to undermine union standards in favor of corporate power.
I'm always amazed that folks who talk about "class war" treat the reality as a tea party where they are shocked, shocked that real conflict might mean people ally with unsavory people out of strategic necessity. When the state is out to destroy you, unions have turned to alternative sources of power and violence, and that has at times meant criminal groups.
Do I think it's the most wonderful aspect of union history? No. But I don't think it's the main strain of that history and those who obsessively dwell on it when it isn't connected to a specific union reform effort are objectively reinforcing rightwing rhetoric. To repeat, as I do, I've written for LABORNOTES and support specific union democracy movements, but I oppose generalized condemnations of unions with blanket libel. Unions are a diverse set of institutions, even with the same union international, so saying "unions are corrupt" et al is inherently a lie and a distortion.
Nathan Newman