I have learned from your potted history of Vegas unionism, and in reflection it makes perfect sense. The mob and the outfit guys would not of course be opposed to unionism. First of all they were mainly from working class backgrounds themselves, second they were comfortable with dealing with unions after corrupting so many of them over the years, and thirdly, from their POV unions offer a perfect opportunity to rob the workers without too much threat of force -- the workers voluntarily pay their dues into the hood-run/controlled/influenced unions, providing a fund to be robbed in peace and quiet. And conrtrol of the unions left the hoods with the ability to extort the bosses by threatening (and then calling off) labor trouble, while selling out the workers though giving them something. Maybe the outfit guys who ran Vegas were relatively benign, though it is hard to think of applying that word to, say, Tony Spilotro. But what about the mob guys who ran Jackie Presser and Frankie Fitzsimmons? I really don't think taht hoodlum influence in the unions counts as "honest/clean graft."
--- Nathan Newman <nathanne at nathannewman.org> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
>
> John Lacny wrote:
>
> >Doug Henwood to Nathan Newman:
> >> 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?
> >
> >Doug, would you please just stop this bullshit? You
> know damn well that
> >that's not what Nathan is saying.
>
> Which Doug thought was equivalent to this statement
>
> At 3:38 PM -0500 2/1/06, Nathan Newman wrote:
> >Workers all spoke fondly of the mob owners in
> >comparison to the new corporate owners.
> >
> >Enter the 1989 negotiations (where I came in as a
> young organizer)-- that
> >was the do-or-die fight where outside organizers
> were brought in and the
> >new
> >organizing model developed to deal with the union.
> This was the rebirth
> >of
> >the union but not it's first time getting a
> foothold. In fact, it was just
> >restoring the strength it once had back in the
> olden days.
>
> Doug does seem oddly horrified that workers might
> see organized crime as a
> more employer than the corporate junk bond pirates
> like Michael Milliken who
> owned Vegas in the 1980s.
>
> One thing I left out of the story is that in the
> late 70s, one mob faction
> had likely murdered the head of the Vegas local --
> his body was found out in
> the desert -- and took over the union, pilfering the
> pension fund and
> leaving it bankrupt after the 1980 negotiations.
> So I'd never say mob
> involvement hasn't often screwed union workers.
>
> But there is a big difference between the kind of
> personal enrichment and
> side deals that a Jimmy Hoffa engaged in -- which
> often went hand-in-hand
> with strategies to enhance union strength, as in the
> support for
> unionization in Las Vegas -- versus the kind of mob
> involvement where all
> mob gains come at the expense of workers interests.
>
> There's an old distinction between "honest graft"
> versus "dishonest graft",
> the former where those who get benefits for others
> skim a share for
> themselves versus the dishonest version of selling
> out those who you are
> supposed to represent. Sometimes the two can and
> did blur, but you can't
> really have an honest analysis of union history if
> you don't recognize that
> workers were often quite tolerant of a bit of
> "honest graft" by their
> leaders where they feared government repression as
> the alternative.
>
> -- Nathan Newman
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com