> (Sweeney's vote [against a single-payer health care
> proposal within the AFL-CIO executive council in the
> early 1990s, I presume], Fitch argues, was because the
> SEIU has so many workers in private-sector
> health care.)
I wasn't around the movement back then, but I do know that the left-leaning health care locals such as 250 and the 1199s (many of which had newly joined SEIU) were the most militant within SEIU in pushing for a stronger position in favor of national health insurance; they did a march across the Golden Gate bridge at the SEIU convention in 1992 featuring Jesse Jackson and others, and their position was a minority one within SEIU. So in other words, saying that Sweeney's position had to do with SEIU's health care worker membership doesn't make a lot of sense; it would dignify this line of thought too much to call it "vulgar Marxism." (Although maybe Fitch could demonstrate that health care workers aren't "really" workers after all?)
Call that "fulminating" if you want, but personally, I kind of like the idea of argument and analysis grounded in . . . well, you know, fact. From what I've read of Fitch, that doesn't seem to be his position.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories