On May 30, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Jim Straub wrote:
> I would be curious what someone
> like Doug thinks of the article, and if it makes you question how
> informed or not you really were on the issue when you were calling
> seiu a company union and expressing such faith that the CNA's actions
> were justified
Jim, I'll concede that Esther's piece is more balanced than anything I've said, but it's a lot harder on SEIU than anything you've ever conceded either. The stuff on the California single payer and staffing bill fights is very damaging to SEIU, as is the Roselli-UHW stuff. The description of Rivera as part of an impressive "braintrust" set me back a bit; Rivera is very clever, but he fits right in with the growth at any cost model. And as I recall you and other pro-SEIU listmembers rejected criticisms of the employer agreements; they come off rather badly in the article. She also reports that more than half of SEIU's growth comes from deals with politicians; as I recall, SEIU apologists squealed at Bob Fitch's characterization of these as payback for campaign contributions, but it's looking more and more like Fitch had a point. So I'll concede that I was unfair on Ohio (though I'm still mystified about how all this effort evaporated in three days of CNA mischief), if you concede the points I've just listed.
Doug