>I always find these discussions kind of bizarre-- unions not only directly
>have $5-6 billion annually in income, but they indirectly control or
>influence trillions of dollars in private and public pension fund monies.
Except that the law severely limits what they can do with that cash - and sometimes leads unions to make alliances with shareholder rights types whose interests are fundamentally anti-working class.
>We can all debate how the unions can more effectively use those resources,
>but even talking about ignoring such a level of social resources verges on
>the unreal.
Finally something we agree on! There just cannot be a revival of "progressive" politics in the US without some renaissance for organized labor. I don't really know what form this could or should take, but it has to take some form, or American politics will just get suckier.
Doug