A wider scope of vision would help here. Union busting is stopping ANY attempt at forming a union. Stopping a particular union drive in order to buy time to craft a better union in the near future is not at all in the same league and has nothing of the same rational behind it. Labeling CNA's action unionbusting is inaccurate and you know it but for partisan reasons you chose not to accept it.
>
>> Unionbusting is a tactic by management (or those on managements payroll)
>> to avoid a union from being formed.
>>
>
> Until the CNA ran one in Ohio, I thought this was the definition too!
>
See above.
>
>> CNA's goal is not to prevent any union from being formed, only to
>> prevent a specific union deal that they feel was bad for workers and to
>> possibly offer one they feel was better for workers.
>>
>
> You're wrong here. The CNA believes it has exclusive jurisdiction to
> organize RNs nationally. It believes all other unions are bad for RNs
> outside of the CNA itself. It clearly believes no union is preferable
> to SEIU. It's shocked its putative allies who organize RNs in the
> AFL-CIO (think the UAN, etc.) by claiming that its affiliation with
> the Fed means it has exclusive jurisdiction to organize RNs
> nationally. It shows you what state the latter unions are in that they
> can't even muster the will to file Article 20 charges against the CNA
> for dropping union membership authorization cards on their members.
>
> CNA has offered and is offering nothing to Ohio hospital workers. If
> it were, it would be deploying its organizers in Ohio to help CHP
> workers win a union. It's not. It's goal in Ohio was to stop SEIU from
> organizing, not to organize CHP workers itself (in the foreseeable
> future).
>
>
>> If you wish to call it raiding you would be on firmer footing but even
>> that is a questionable use of that term since the nurses in question did
>> not yet have a union contract.
>>
>
> Raiding is stealing another union's members. We need to come up with a
> new term for jumping in at the last second to organize workers in
> another union's organizing campaign. We, however, have a word for what
> CNA did in Ohio: unionbusting.
>
I freely admitted raiding is not a perfect term for CNA's activities but
neither is unionbusting. An admission you seem to wish to avoid coming
to terms with.
Again, it is not unionbusting. Pick another term to describe it if you
like but don't twist the existing loaded term unionbusting to suit your
purpose.
>
>> If CNA feel they can offer a better deal to workers than SEIU should
>> they just sit on their hands and say "Oh well, an injury to one isn't
>> necessarily an injury to all?" and simply ignore what they feel is a
>> bad union contract to other nurses?
>>
>
> CNA is offering nothing to CHP workers. See above.
>
>
>> After all the nurses in question
>> were not really involved in crafting the SEIU deal were they?
>>
>
> The deal was to make the boss back off in a union election. CHP RNs
> were intimately involved in the Corporate Social Responsibility
> Campaign to make this happen, and there were just as involved in
> crafting the organizing agreement as Tenet CNA RNs were in crafting
> the "backroom deal" between Tenet and CNA.
>
So my point stands. Just because CNA once made a crappy backroom deal is not an excuse for SEIU to do the same. That is why contrary to what you write below my analogy is not a poor one. Unless you blindly believe CNA wishes to stop the SEIU while never coming forth with an alternate plan. That is rather paranoid thinking in my opinion.
>
>> Whether
>> the CNA has engaged in similar deals in the past is irrelevant to the
>> nurses involved in this particular conflict so bringing this fact up is
>> a red herring. As an analogy if I slapped my wife once does that mean I
>> can never call the police if I see my neighbor slapping his wife simply
>> because I was guilty of the same offense once? This is the logic you
>> seem fixated on and the answer is of course no.
>>
>
> Your analogy is poor. Here's a better one: Rose Ann Demoro sees Andy
> Stern and Trevor Fetter (Tenet CEO) shake hands in 2003. She
> desperately wants to shake Trevor's hand too. To make this happen, she
> screams at the top of her lungs "wifebeater! wifebeater! wifebeater!"
> and threatens to file a lawsuit (files a lawsuit?) to get shaking
> hands classified as a particularly egregious form of wifebeating. To
> preserve comity, Andy and Trevor agree to allow Rose Ann to shake
> Trevor's hand too. Wanting nothing more to get in on the handshaking
> action, Rose Ann of course does not pass this opportunity up on
> "principle" and eagerly pumps the Tenet CEO's hand up and down in a
> rapid motion. Fast forward to 2008. Rose Ann again sees SEIU shaking
> hands with another hospital system, and screams at the top of her
> lungs, "wifebeater! wifebeater! wifebeater!" It's clear to me the
> earlier episode has a direct bearing on the truth claims of the CNA in
> the latter episode of screaming "wifebeater!"
>
> You don't think it's telling that those not in the know had a hard
> time believing the CNA would ever sign an organizing agreement with
> the boss in the first place? I do.
>
You only think it's telling when it fits your preconceived notion. When the converse is true it feel it is irrelevant.
>
>> To label an attempt to shout down speakers and crash a Labor Notes
>> conference for whatever reason a peaceful protest is total bullshit and
>> quite laughable. It is, as Max wrote, hooliganism.
>> An injury to one and all that, remember?
>>
>
> You've no doubt read Dan Clawson's account at DailyKos? Reasonable
> people can disagree from time to time, right?
When I disagree with other union members I don't try to crash their meeting and shout them down. I am not interested in making unionizing attempts look bad in public eyes. Apparently SEIU has no problem doing this in this example.
John Thornton