It doesn't matter what I think or you think in this case, but what Fitch thinks, and he's proclaimed no "law" that says unions by definition care only about dues. His book is controversial enough, and will be misrepresented enough--see" L'il Kim" Philips Fein's tone deaf review in the Nation--without his friends reducing what I believe is a pretty powerful first take into a series of Mao-like postulates.
Mike Hirsch
> Michael Hirsch wrote:
>
> >One last point. Doug was being ironic in citing a Fitch "law." It
> >was a trope. Don't take it at face value.
>
> It's a polemical reduction, of course, but it's pretty broadly
> applicable, don't you think? Which is pretty good for a theory. Fitch
> told me years ago that a UAW organizer explained their failure to
> organize the auto parts industry by saying that the wages weren't
> high enough to fund a healthy dues flow. That stupidity has come
> around to bite the union in the ass. As will this, no doubt.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- ________________________________________ `And these words shall then become Like oppression's thundered doom Ringing through each heart and brain, Heard again -- again -- again-- `Rise like Lions after slumber In unvanquishable number-- Shake your chains to earth like dew Which in sleep had fallen on you-- Ye are many -- they are few.' --------Shelley, "The Mask of Anarchy: Written on the Occasion of the Massacre at Manchester" [1819] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060304/9110322f/attachment.htm>