On Apr 16, 2008, at 5:00 PM, Mark Rickling wrote:
> The point of the campaign prior to the vote
> was not to build an organization that could withstand the unionbusting
> "vote no" campaign that the CNA ran
I just don't get this at all. As you point out later in your post, a typical unionbusting campaign is run by an employer, aided by consultants, using sophisticated techniques of psychological warfare, backed up with naked economic power. CNA landed in Ohio shortly before an employer-called election and said "vote no." When it suits SEIU, CNA is a pipsqueak of a union and SEIU is a giant. But somehow this little pipsqueak played a role worthy of Wal-Mart and frustrated a plan going back years. It's all very mysterious.
The newspaper article you appended is interesting, but it's pretty typical SEIU tactics to try to find some financial irregularities that can embarrass an employer as a way of blackmailing them into submission. Fine, I have no problem with that - in fact it can be an admirable tactic. But sometimes it seems that that's the main strategy, a shortcut that's a lot easier than building up rank-and- file support. If this Ohio thing shows anything, it's that high- altitude scheming can evaporate in an instant without that rank-and- file support.
Doug