> Some on the list seem to believe that careful, long-term campaigns to build
> inside union membership and maximum member democracy and empowerment are
> a waste of time and that employer/union deals of one kind or another
> give better results.
Michael, are you looking to start your own union of straw man constructors?
I have seen no one write anything approximating the first half of this sentence.
As for "employer/union deals," do you mean contracts? Those are pretty essential.
> A reading of the many works by Kate Bronfenbrenner and by her and Tom
> Juravich would appear to dispute this, with decent statistical evidence.
Yes, Kate and Rob Hickey's Blueprint for Change is, without a doubt, one of the most useful texts for organizers in any field. I have somewhat less experience with Juravich's work. But when have any of them argued against engaging with employers? Wasn't that, like, the whole point of Ravenswood?
(Doug, I apologize for reverting to labor studies geekdom.)
> Also, without a labor (left) ideology, hammered home as much as possible at all possible times,
> I am skeptical that density will be increased much or that if it is, it will mean much for
> a labor movement rebirth.
How's hammering that ideology home to the proles working out for you? Seriously, are they buying what you're selling?