[lbo-talk] Unions: Resuscitate or pull the plug?

Jim Devine jdevine03 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 7 11:11:12 PST 2006


isn't it up to the union members to decide whether or not the "plug" should be "pulled"? if WS wants to pull that plug, he'd have to lead or join a movement to make labor legislation even more anti-labor than it is already.

WS: >>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?<<

JB: >What does 'pulling the plug on unions' even mean? Does this mean unionism? Since 'unions' is not one undifferentiated mass.


>Union dues are one of the few organized pots of money that is not
rich people's money funnelled through corporate and family foundations, corporations, etc. Union pension funds are another source of political power. If you want to instead fight for universal health care, living wage laws or labor law enforcement, how are you going to fund that? Cookie sales? And since our wages will go down upon the demise of our unions, we won't have a lot left over to give you, even if we could be organized to do so (which also takes money.) < -- Jim Devine / Bust Big Brother Bush! "Everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense." -- Gertrude Stein

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list