Doug:
> This is really getting annoying. Organized labor in the US is
> deeply deeply fucked, and on the verge of disappearing as a
> meaningful thing in a matter of years. This has already had,
> and will continue to have, terrible effects on the living
> standards of American workers and the kind of politics that
> prevail in this country. It's a matter of great urgency to
> figure out why this is and what can be done. It does no one -
> except maybe a bunch of overpaid union officers - any good to
> pretend it's not a serious crisis. (Remember George Meany
> saying in the late 1970s that he just didn't care about
> declining union density and the lack of organizing?)
> Characterizing analysis and critique in this defensive,
> pejorative way really does the bosses' work.
On the second thought, why is the disappearance of the US unions a bad thing? Acoording to Fitch, their main acomplishments are labor rackets and funneling money to the DNC - none of which would be considered a good thing on this list. Fitch furthermore argues that their problem is structural faults rather than "operator errors" - and that is why all hitherto reform attempts have for the most part failed. So basically the track record does not permit to be too optimistic - reforms are likely to produce business as usuall because of the structural faults.
So the question is whether it is really worth to reform unions whose reformability to date is less than impressive (to say the least), or cut the losses, let the thing finally die in the next few years, and concentrate on alternative strategies that promise a wider impact on the working class, like universal health care, living wage laws, labor law enforcement, etc.?
It is not that I am advocating pulling the plug on the unions, but I would at least like to know why this would be a bad idea, and continuing resuscitation of the unions is our only hope?
Wojtek