On Mar 12, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Jerry Monaco wrote:
> 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.
Beyond the particulars of this dispute, SEIU embodies Andy Stern's vision, in Adolph Reed's phrase, of the labor movement as a big human resource department. Stern supports mainstream Dem-style health care schemes (which include ArnieCare in California), and he's said we don't need any Canadian imports, because we're Americans. Stern led the split from the AFL-CIO to create Change to Win, which got started with a lot of organizational ambitions (and no political agenda) and has done approximately nothing. The CNA supports single-payer health care, and got the AFL-CIO to endorse single-payer as a condition of joining (not that that necessarily means much beyond the symbolic). CNA supports the Labor Party; Andy Stern buddies up with Lee Scott and writes big checks to Dems, and gets nothing in return. Quite a few articles have been posted to this list about SEIU's sweetheart deals with employers - with complaints coming from actual members and local leaders, and not just Labor Notes types - and the purges of locals that object to Stern's corporate scheming. On politics, there's little question which union has the more radical agenda.
Doug