On Feb 23, 2009, at 3:37 PM, James Straub wrote:
> But if your argument to the public for why you need the boss to sign
> an organizing rights agreement is that without one, the boss can
> print any old lies--- for instance, he can print out a bunch of
> factually incorrect claims by Doug on lbo that SEIU was attempting
> to become a company union in Ohio at the CHP hospital chain-- then
> the public is likely to think that the new rules should go both ways.
Factually incorrect claims by me? I've been posting a lot of stuff from reporters and participants. Maybe the facts are contested, but you make it sound like I'm spreading known lies. That's annoying and insulting. But since you seem to know more than anyone else, who am I to dissent?
Yeah it's tragic that the labor movement is in such a fatal internal pissing match. But, given the recent UHW stuff, it looks like the facts are breaking more in my direction than yours. I see a union so fixated on seducing the powerful, centralizing control, and growing for the sake of growth that it has shed any political strategy worth talking about. The whole experiment with CtW has turned out to be a big flop. You say Andy's bad and Anna's worse. Well, they're trying to remake the entire union - which, like any organization, is not without its internal contradictions, for sure - in their own image. Great.
I don't get this organizing rights agreement business. Why would a boss sign such a thing if it didn't guarantee the edentulation of the union?
Doug