I cited Reds and Rackets as a methodologically rigorous history that sought to explain the role of corruption in unions in an institutional manner. Fitch didn't have to be as rigorous in order to tell a broader history, but while I'm still working my way through the book, what strikes me throughout is how little he does to convince me that the story he is telling at any time is representative of the larger phenomena he claims that anecdote is standing in for.
-- Nathan Newman
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Hirsch
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Solidarity for Sale: UNITE'S Garment Gulag
Nathan et al:
Whatever the weaknesses of Bob's book, they are not the one's you describe. Have you actually read it? Has anybody beside Yoshi (and me) read it? He claims to be writing an institutional history, one that does what neither lefties such as Boyer and Morais and Art Preis nor the cultural historians including David Montgomery do. He argues that the structure of clientalism (or fiefdoms) dooms our unions. Argue with that, but at least get his argument right. Can we have a moratorium on Fitch baiting until everyone has actually read the book? You wouldn't opine on a movie you hadn't seen. Go the extra yard and read this one.
Mike H
On 3/10/06, Nathan Newman <nathanne at nathannewman.org> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com >
Nathan Newman wrote:
>What's shocking is that Fitch
>is writing a story that plays into every mainstream stereotype of unions
>and
>he actually wants to pose as some brave iconoclast in the labor writing
>field. Hell, he's not even an iconoclast in the Spring 2006 labor writing
>field, since Linda Chavez has a new book out:
-Elementary point, Nathan: Fitch is a socialist and a friend of the
-working class; Chavez is a right-wing publicist for capital. And so
-fucking what if he write things that right-wingers can use? He's not
-making this stuff up.
I pointed to a bunch of other pieces about corruption from other sources as
well, although Chavez would claim to be a friend of the working class as
well, just with a different ideology. But my point was that what he's
saying is hardly iconoclastic, even among many leftwing folks. Last
semester, I taught multiple sessions with my classes talking about union
corruption with pieces from Tom Geoghegan and Nelson Lichtenstein, but
somehow they are both able to talk about such issues without this monolithic
brush you get from reading Fitch.
Maybe my reaction to Fitch is precisely because so little of what he writes
is news to me, yet it seems so grossly out of context to everything else I
know about labor history and present labor politics. Any set of "facts" can
be "true", yet so fatally incomplete as to convey to the reader a completely
false narrative.
There are little examples where he takes complicated stories and simplifies
them, such as the upheaval in the Los Angeles Justice for Janitors local
back in 1995. Fitch on pg. 305 simply says that a multi-racial alliance won
a large majority on the board, yet fails to mention they deliberately chose
not to run for the actual power position of head of the local, because they
didn't have the political strength to win. So you ended up with a political
stalemate between the elected executive head of the local and the board.
And the grassroots unionists who won decided to try to illegally fire
existing staff, in violation of the internal union contract -- SEIU staff
unionized a number of years ago -- which added to the internal meltdown.
The Los Angeles local at the time was a mixed local of janitors and health
care workers and SEIU nationally was trying to consolidate janitors locals
together, so the whole internal meltdown was used as justification for
separating out the janitors from the health care workers, with the janitors
becoming part of a statewide janitors local and the health care workers
eventually becoming part of a statewide health care workers local.
Yes, the "facts" in Fitch's paragraph on p. 305 are all true, but by
skipping over all the other facts in the paragraph above, Fitch conveys a
basically false narrative because the real story is far more complicated.
Nathan Newman
___________________________________
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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060310/5a851134/attachment.htm>