[lbo-talk] Obama: let my Teamsters go!

[wrobert at uci.edu]

It was clearly an attempt to neutralize modes of labor militancy, but at
the same time, it was translated into real gains for the movement.  The
real problem is that the majority of the union movement officialdom
refuses to let go of the 'labor peace' contract that capital has long
abandoned.  (Coincidentally, I'm not saying that there is an answer ready
made to answer to the question, What is to be done, but the movement's
officialdom has tended to say 'more of the same')
       One question, I had gotten the impression that the Teamsters reform
movement had gotten quite a boost from the federal intervention
into the union and ironically had contributed to it being one of
the most democratic unions until Hoffa jr leadership.  To what
extent is that true, or is it completely spurious?
        One last note, I think the difference between the father and the
son is that the father was able to negotiate good contracts
whatever his numerous faults (probably due to the tactics learned
from the trots), this cannot be said about the son...

                      robert wood

> I agree; even though the labor movement embraced the state long ago
> Teamster-style trusteeships are not a necessary concomitant of that
> embrace. But there are those in academia and elsewhere who argue that
> this was a bad move and labor's current predicament can be traced, at
> least in part, to that embrace. I don't agree, but there is something
> to the argument that the legalistic process of collective bargaining
> tends to make workers spectators in their own drama, as one historian
> puts it.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>