To have a debate, claims must be made in good faith. I do not think that corporate anti-union propaganda meets that condition, so it does not really matter what they say. Or to use Harry Frankfurter's terms - all they say is bullshit - is a a statement that may be true or false but is made regardless of whether it is true or false as long as it makes a desired impression.
If I were to debate the merits or demerits of trade unions the last thing I would do is to debate it on term set by corporate propaganda. I would set the debate in a framework that asserts the right to assembly as a fundamental civil right and affirm that trade unionism is the exercise of that right and then go on with pointing how different occupational groups form associations to protect their interests - doctors, lawyers, businessmen, manufacturers etc. The main benefit of such associations is that members freely elect people who speak for their economic interests, instead of depending on others to do speak for them. If some corporate hack started questioning it, I would simply ask if his bosses belong to an association representing their interests and why it is ok for the bosses but not for the workers.
Again, the point is to set the right frame for the debate rather than picking up a fight on terms set by the adversary. That is a sure way to lose.
Wojtek
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Sean Andrews <cultstud76 at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/target-forces-employees-to-watch-this-anti-union-propaganda-video/
>
> I am reading both Rob Fitch's book "Soidarity for Sale" and the new
> collection by Brenner et. al. "Rebel Rank and File." As disgusting as
> the video above is, some of the claims sit pretty closely to what
> Fitch claims about the major unions--e.g. that they are really just
> dues collecting fiefdoms that don't do much to advance the actual
> interests of workers. But as corrupt as these organizations are, they
> still seem somewhat effective at the grassroots level - when members
> challenge both the labor leaders and the corporations, this solidarity
> is in some part inspired by the institutional container of the union.
> In other words, even if the leadership isn't on board, having that
> legal/institutional collectivity helps spark the idea of workplace
> democracy AND solidarity in ways that simply working together doesn't
> seem to.
>
> I don't know much about the grocery unions that the video mentions,
> but how would it answer the claims made in the video? I'm certainly
> not on Target's side here, but it seems like they have much of the
> argument won right off the bat, at least in terms of the common claims
> about the "flexible economy" and meritocratic advancement instead of
> seniority on the one hand, and the efficacy of the modern union.
>
> The only point that I felt confident debating in the first few minutes
> was the idea that, because labor rights are enshrined in law, we don't
> need anyone advocating for new ones or making sure those on the books
> are enforced. This might be compelling at first glance, but it is
> clear that, law or no, companies will try to get you to do stuff that
> is against your rights if it is good for their management or bottom
> line. There is obviously a need for someone to make sure these laws
> are being enforced--and to advocate new ones for the admittedly
> changing environment. I don't know how much of this unions are doing
> (or how naive it is of me to use "unions" as a catchall) but these are
> things they still could/should be doing.
>
> So, rhetorically, how do you counter this? It seems the only way to
> play it is to say that unions may have some problems, and there may be
> much more they can do, and do differently, but the only union you can
> reform is one that exists and of which you are a member.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> s
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>