Fwd: Re: unions --for or agai...

[Godenas@xxxxxxx]

---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj:    Re: unions --for or against c...
Date:    96-01-17 10:34:29 EST
From:    Godenas

To:      mlockett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(marklockett)

But the point of this whole thread is that the unions most emphatically DO
NOT represent even their own rank and file, much less the interests of the
working class as a whole.  Further, I take issue with your contention that
unions "were designed to DEFEND the interests of their members."  Since at
least the mid-fifties, following their reorganization by capital (acting in
criminal concert through intelligence-financed "labor fronts" and with
elements of urban-based organized crime), unions have been the main avenue
for ensuring labor peace.  If there was any "design" at all, it had less to
do with member's interests than with the advancement of what was then
(benignly) called "the corporate agenda."  This worked reasonably well for a
small segment of the organized labor force (e.g. construction) as long as the
interests of capital and the labor leadership was more or less coextensive.
   That the labor leadership in this country continues to identify with the
cause of big capital, long after they have been sacked from their positions
as junior shareholders, is, I believe, some indication of just how pervasive
this type of corruption is.
                                     Louis Godena


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------