then, i got this letter from a guy with whom i'd once worked on a labor education program here in town. he was rattling on about the stupid idiotts that are these protesters but if he wasn't fucked to see that they gone and done something, so now he was going to have to go along and tag onto what was going on so he could maybe reach people to join his ("our") cause.
i'm sure there are plenty of serious people out there and, believe me, i have nothing against unions in principle,
but it was that recent experience that made me sick.... if good things come of it, great, but after reading the facebook comments and the email from a local labor guy, i don't have high hopes.
> Carrol wrote:
>
> I'm not easily sickened, but I think I can explain shag's point.Your
>> examples are o.k., but it's a matter of the old saw, a swallow does
>> not
>> a summer make.
>>
>> Earlier this year Illinois adopted a piece of legislation that made
>> strikes by Chicago teachers in effect illegal. It had been pushed
>> hard
>> by the big honcho at State Farm, who even held special meetings of
>> employees to push it. The legislature passed it unanimously -- and
>> both
>> the big state unions ALSO SUPPORTED IT. Why? They wanted to save
>> their
>> "place at the table." The unions, like the DP, tend to go along.
>> There
>> are e eptions of whole locals; there are also many union members
>> who
>> don't go along. But on the whole unions have been radical herre and
>> in
>> Europe, only when they are fighting or recognition, with both state
>> and
>> company opposing. No absolute "law" here, but there's a rough
>> tendency.
>>
>> In fact there is no absolute law, no really dependable 'universal'
>> principle in regard to ANY ASPECT of social or revolutionary
>> movements.
>> That's why they can't be theorized in advance, and why "disciplined
>> parties ALWAYS turn either sectarian or opportunist.
>>
>> Carrol
>>
>
> What you say is interesting and makes sense to me. But I don't see
> what it
> has to do with Shag being sickened by unions joining in on
> #OccupyWallStreet. Maybe I'm missing something. (I also don't know
> what you
> mean by "Your examples are o.k."--I didn't really give any examples.)
>
> To me, it seems pretty clear that lots of union folks would add
> legitimacy
> and numbers to #OWS. It would also be an instance of unions being more
> militant, vs. pinning their hopes on the Democratic party, focusing on
> wages
> and benefits, etc.
>
> But since Shag grouped them in with MoveOn, I'm guessing that the
> concern is
> that just as MoveOn folks joining in is likely to make the movement
> less
> radical, union members, who are admittedly often not so radical, would
> also
> drag down the "movement" (so even if the numbers are greater, the aims
> are
> less radical, or less coherent).
>
> But if it's going to turn into a real movement (vs. people looking for
> one),
> don't unions *have* to join in? Or to put it another way: if we don't
> want
> union folks to join in, whom *do* we want to join in?
>
>
>> On 10/3/2011 1:48 PM, Chris Sturr wrote:
>> > Shag, you said:
>> >
>> > Meanwhile, I think Carrol is right to say that it's a lot of
>> people
>> >> looking for a movement. it sickens me to watch the vultures move
>> in -
>> >> the unions, moveon, etc.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I get it about MoveOn, but why does it sicken you to see unions
>> move in?
>> > I'm disappointed that I won't be able to be down there on the 6th,
>> or
>> > whenever it is that the transit workers and other unions are going
>> to
>> march.
>> > And we had really great chats with union folks there yesterday.
>> >
>>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)