[lbo-talk] HNN review of Fitch

Jim Devine jdevine03 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 23 14:48:57 PST 2006



> As these and other unsavory characters dominated the labor movement,
> Fitch further contends, working conditions remained poor and union
> membership totals low. With labor subverting itself this way, one may
> wonder why management has through the years bothered to oppose
> unionization everywhere, from shops to courts, legislatures, and even
> the streets. Why did business leaders establish the "open shop"
> "American Plan" in the 1920s, and have Congress enact Taft-Hartley in
> 1947 and Landrum-Griffin in 1959?

These laws and initiatives were part of the forces that produced the corruption that plagues organized labor. The unions that survived had to be corrupt, not just to feed the union officials but to keep the employers happy. It's easier to deal with a Jimmy Hoffa.


> The latter measure, passed after an
> investigation of labor racketeering, included a "Bill of Rights" to
> protect union members from their leaders. Without denying the
> prevalence of corruption, which Fitch demonstrates, can anyone in
> good conscience say that the business interests behind Congress
> sought "union democracy" and improved working conditions? Or was it
> merely union-busting that they were after?

The L-G act was not just an anti-corruption effort but an attempt to get more government control over unions, which in the end means more employer control. But it's important to remember that Congress doesn't serve the collective interests of the capitalist class (as moderated a little by opposing forces at some times) as much as the combine individual interests of capitalists. There are a lot of conflicting reasons behinds something like L-G. For example, people like RFK had to prove themselves to be anti-corruption. -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list