The essay by Peter Fay on Bob Fitch seems to miss the forest for the trees. There are factual errors, such as stating that Fitch doesn't know craft from industrial unions. Bob never said that industrial unions are in charge of employer hiring. Nor does he say that a new labor movement will arise spontaneously. However, even if we suppose that Bob sometimes overstated his position, the thrust of his argument is correct. The US labor movement has historically been shot through will all sorts of corruption. Some of this involved gangster control. Some involved theft of monies. Some nepotism. And so forth. But beyond these, there is the corruption of patronage, the corruption of denying rank and file voting for convention delegates, the corruption of routine class collaboration (see the essays on mrzineabout the UAW by Greg Shotwell), the corruption of grotesquely high salaries for officers, the corruption of red baiting, the corruption of undemocratic collective bargaining, the list goes on and on. There are not many unions that have not been party to at least three or four of these. Try to name ten. And did the rest of labor support with real power the UE's struggle in Chicago? Will it really push the struggle started in Wisconsin forward with what power it still does command?
I know hundreds of good local officers, staffpersons, rank and file members, even national leaders. Their existence does nothing to overturn Bob Fitch's analysis.
One last point. If anti union forces cite Bob's work, does that make it wrong? I have been cited by similar groups for criticizing Cesar Chavez (whose by the way is now a racket). And the final remark of Peter Fay citing Herman Benson of the Association for Union Democracy is I think a real slander against Bob Fitch. I know Herman too, and I know he agrees with Bob's arguments.
michael yates