>On 3/23/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>> [too bad we don't have John Lacny around to fulminate about this
>> rather positive review]
>
>[ . . . ]
>
>> By design Fitch did not write a "balanced" labor history, but in
>> concentrating on pervasive corruption, "labor's forgotten past," he
>> uses a single factor in the sorry state of today's unionism to
>> explain what has happened. In two paragraphs he dismisses
>> globalization and other "universal trends," casually alleging the
>> relative weakness of American unions while stressing their
>> corruption. As observers have long noticed, America is exceptional in
>> several ways, not only in the structure and corruptness of its unions.
>
>I read this paragraph as stating Fitch's singular focus on corruption
>is rather myopic. A criticism I believe others have made on this list.
Yes, but everyone else writes about globalization, labor law, immigration, and a culture of individualism. Almost no one on the left ever says a word about corruption. So I see Fitch engaging in a little affirmative action.
He does write about the fragmented structure of U.S. unions, too. So it's not just a one-note samba.
Doug