[lbo-talk] NYT on SEIU-CNA fight

[Jerry Monaco]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> [The quote from the exec kinda seals it for me: "They were doing
>  exactly the kind of things we were trying to avoid. They poisoned the
>  well to the degree that we didn't have the conditions that we tried
>  to establish for a pressure-free environment." Ah yes, unions are
>  supposed to provide a "pressure-free environment."]
>
>  New York Times - March 12, 2008
>  <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/us/12union.html>
>
>

I know nothing about the SEIU CNA fight.  But the way it is portrayed
in this article it is a  usual fight over jurisdiction between unions.
Radicals usually don't take sides on such disputes unless supporting
one of the unions will possibly lead to some kind of radical break..
Those opposed to the SEIU do not offer any evidence that the CNA is a
"more" worthy union or a union that radicals should support.  Those
who support the SEIU make such arguments and they seem to be mostly
bogus.  But at least they argue for the SEIU on more than just
jurisdictional basis.

Let us say that everything in the NYT article is true.  Let us say
that the NYT is not engaging in its usual extremely anti-union
reporting.  Then what I get from this article is that two unions are
going head to head and the unorganized are in between.

It is really simplistic to take a New York Times article at face
value.  Why should anyone take the anti-union New York Times without
deeper analysis and contrast?

Jerry