PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: All-out assault on UAW
- To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: All-out assault on UAW
- From: Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 10:14:58 -0700
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=KHnOIdT2SW4gGsGuxnaIJRvHPEJl1YKYhoveQF+gk8OIGL8RZYJedvrbM7vtaJky0mt/51MQBeJOwDXvXbFipeKJ7rnYJ444kH6j03MZRaukvqPE3clBVk6ViBZ75RNK0xwmvB3vgLkUFhxT7qRlie+SFyl9HO1+jNY8JM6cInQ=
> Waistline writes
>
> And the UAW is going to be very alone in its efforts
> to protect the livelihood of its members. It is not
> like the UAW has a history of compassion towards the
> unorganized and poorer workers. Being a union means
> protecting the economic interest of your members at
> the exclusion of those who are not members or why
> join?
On 4/1/06, ken hanly wrote:
> But isnt this the result of the predominance of
> Gomperism in US unions which sees the union's role as
> narrowly based upon economic self interest of its
> members!
the UAW used to be one of the more social democratic of unions.
--
Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence
of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]