>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
>
>Nathan Newman wrote:
>>Well, a new corporate outfit has launched an anti-union site called
>>unionfacts.org -- and quotes by Robert Fitch are featured
>>prominently on the front page. Go Fitch.
>
>-Yes, duty commands us not to talk about the history of organized
>-labor in the US over the last century. Some bad people might use the
>-truth to bad ends, so best to ignore it and keep cheerleading!
>-The collusion between the Hawaii Public Workers Union leaders and the
>-corporate thief Peter Wong is exactly the sort of thing Fitch writes
>-about. You've got a pot of union benefit money, a corrupt manager,
>-and "consulting" fees to union leaders and their relatives. Funny you
>-should see only the corporate crime and not the union participation.
>
>Of course there is corruption out there but most unions don't have these
>problems. Why harp on the handful that do?
Handful? Laborers, Carpenters, Teamsters, the old SEIU, DC37 in New York - it's a long list that goes back a century.
>Even the example you give is more complicated.
Actually you gave the example, to make the point that the case was being mischaracterized as union corruption when it was corporate. In fact, it was a joint venture in corruption, a fine example of labor-management cooperation in stealing workers' assets. It took less than five minutes of Googling to find this out.
>The issue is not cheerleading but making criticisms of unions with some sort
>of strategy. Does Fitch's book actually help clean out corruption or just
>give conservatives more rhetorical ammunition to attack honest unions?
I don't buy the argument that you have to have a "solution" to make a critique worthwhile; you've got to start by acknowledging, and then understanding, a problem before you can take it on. But you're barely at the acknowledgement phase.
But a lot of the US working class thinks of unions as corrupt, which is a serious hindrance to organizing. According to Gallup, the just 16% of the US public rates "labor union leaders" as honest and ethical - below bankers (41%), journalists (28%), real estate agents (20%), lawyers (18%), and tied with business excutives, stockbrokers, and senators. That's dismal. And it's got enough basis in reality that it's not just right-wing propaganda driving it.
>I'm a big fan of Teamsters for a Democratic Union because they attacked
>corruption with a very specific organizing plan, so that it was reformers
>not the rightwing that gained from their work. If there strategy had been
>poor, the result of the challenges to the Teamsters would have just been a
>GOP trusteeship of the Teamsters International and, no doubt, a liquidation
>of most of the union.
Fitch has a whole chapter on TDU. He knows the story well - and he & Ken Paff go back about 40 years, to Berkeley in the mid-1960s. It might be a good idea for you to read the book before criticizing it.
>And it still comes down that I'm unimpressed with the numbers on union
>corruption. Unions control hundreds of billions of dollars directly and
>negotiate for trillions in dollars in benefits-- and all the union
>corruption folks come up with are pretty penny-ante frauds that would
>disappear into Ken Lay's sofa cushions.
Unions are supposed to be about solidarity and triumph over petty self-interest. Business is not about that - it's about making money. So this argument really doesn't cut it.
Any serious pro-labor person should want to understand why unions are so weak in the US, and why we don't have a minimal welfare state. The fragmented structure, political conservatism, and deep corruption of organized labor over the course of more than a century are important reasons for that dire situation. It helps no one to deny it.
And isn't it a disgrace that one of our most prominent labor leaders, Samuel Gompers, campaigned against national health insurance? Wouldn't it help to understand today's politics to recognize that disgrace?
Doug