<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>No-- I understand Fitch's argument; what I'm arguing with is his methodology in proving his case.  Anecdotes which are not demonstrated to be representative of the overall class of unions does not prove much.  Every institution has a bell curve of cases-- you can't make an argument unless you demonstrate that you are not cherry-picking cases from the extreme end of the curve. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-- Nathan Newman</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=mmh655@gmail.com href="mailto:mmh655@gmail.com">Michael Hirsch</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org href="mailto:lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org">lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 10, 2006 4:40 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [lbo-talk] Solidarity for Sale: UNITE'S Garment Gulag</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV>Nathan et al:</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>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. </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>Mike H <BR><BR> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 3/10/06, <B class=gmail_sendername>Nathan Newman</B> <<A href="mailto:nathanne@nathannewman.org">nathanne@nathannewman.org</A>> wrote:</SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">----- Original Message -----<BR>From: "Doug Henwood" <<A href="mailto:dhenwood@panix.com">dhenwood@panix.com </A>><BR><BR><BR>Nathan Newman wrote:<BR>>What's shocking is that Fitch<BR>>is writing a story that plays into every mainstream stereotype of unions<BR>>and<BR>>he actually wants to pose as some brave iconoclast in the labor writing <BR>>field.  Hell, he's not even an iconoclast in the Spring 2006 labor writing<BR>>field, since Linda Chavez  has a new book out:<BR><BR>-Elementary point, Nathan: Fitch is a socialist and a friend of the<BR>-working class; Chavez is a right-wing publicist for capital. And so <BR>-fucking what if he write things that right-wingers can use? He's not<BR>-making this stuff up.<BR><BR>I pointed to a bunch of other pieces about corruption from other sources as<BR>well, although Chavez would claim to be a friend of the working class as <BR>well, just with a different ideology.  But my point was that what he's<BR>saying is hardly iconoclastic, even among many leftwing folks.  Last<BR>semester, I taught multiple sessions with my classes talking about union <BR>corruption with pieces from Tom Geoghegan and Nelson Lichtenstein, but<BR>somehow they are both able to talk about such issues without this monolithic<BR>brush you get from reading Fitch.<BR><BR>Maybe my reaction to Fitch is precisely because so little of what he writes <BR>is news to me, yet it seems so grossly out of context to everything else I<BR>know about labor history and present labor politics.  Any set of "facts" can<BR>be "true", yet so fatally incomplete as to convey to the reader a completely <BR>false narrative.<BR><BR>There are little examples where he takes complicated stories and simplifies<BR>them, such as the upheaval in the Los Angeles Justice for Janitors local<BR>back in 1995.  Fitch on pg. 305 simply says that a multi-racial alliance won <BR>a large majority on the board, yet fails to mention they deliberately chose<BR>not to run for the actual power position of head of the local, because they<BR>didn't have the political strength to win.  So you ended up with a political <BR>stalemate between the elected executive head of the local and the board.<BR>And the grassroots unionists who won decided to try to illegally fire<BR>existing staff, in violation of the internal union contract -- SEIU staff <BR>unionized a number of years ago -- which added to the internal meltdown.<BR>The Los Angeles local at the time was a mixed local of janitors and health<BR>care workers and SEIU nationally was trying to consolidate janitors locals <BR>together, so the whole internal meltdown was used as justification for<BR>separating out the janitors from the health care workers, with the janitors<BR>becoming part of a statewide janitors local and the health care workers <BR>eventually becoming part of a statewide health care workers local.<BR><BR>Yes, the "facts" in Fitch's paragraph on p. 305 are all true, but by<BR>skipping over all the other facts in the paragraph above, Fitch conveys a <BR>basically false narrative because the real story is far more complicated.<BR><BR>Nathan Newman<BR><BR><BR>___________________________________<BR><A href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk </A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR clear=all><BR>-- <BR>________________________________________<BR>`And these words shall then become<BR>Like oppression's thundered doom<BR>Ringing through each heart and brain,<BR>Heard again -- again -- again-- <BR>`Rise like Lions after slumber<BR>In unvanquishable number--<BR>Shake your chains to earth like dew<BR>Which in sleep had fallen on you--<BR>Ye are many -- they are few.'<BR>--------Shelley, "The Mask of Anarchy: <BR>Written on the Occasion of the Massacre at Manchester" [1819]<BR><BR> <P> <HR> <P></P>___________________________________<BR>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>