Nathan Newman wrote:
>The alternative view is that the union corruption issue has been
>historically blown out of proportion to serve the ideological needs of the
>rightwing (and occasionally leftwing) critics of the union movement.
-So that means you'll have a detailed critique of Fitch's book -sometime? Or do you just know it's crap without even reading it?
Oh, I'll read it-- ordered a copy already but I have actual reading about how to help working families on my shelf up next.
So we'll see when I get time to read folks who don't think home health care is "real work" and thinks handing talking points to the rightwing is the best use of activist time.
Don't act like I don't know most of this history, Doug-- my first job was in Las Vegas in a union that still had some mob problems-- and I got in trouble for asking too many questions about the corruption issue as a young activist. I've never said that corruption doesn't exist, especially in a couple of core urban cities like NYC, but in the history of the labor movement, every evidence I've seen shows it's been overblown by the rightwing opposition.
Nathan Newman