Ellen Dannin wrote:

> Actually, I think the opposite is the case.  The organization needs to
> admit it IS an employer vis a vis these employees and to decide that it
> wants to be a progressive model of an employer.  Instead, what I have
> observed happens most often is that the organization decides that since
> it is doing "god's work" it is justified in whatever means it chooses to
> reach this end.  Most often it can succeed, because there are lots of
> committed folks who are sympathetic with those ends and unwiling to see
> that they are being exploited by these good people.

I agree with you, Ellen. The management of progressive organizations and
trade unions all too frequently believe that "the end justifies the means"
re employees. A couple of cases in point:

(1) On more that one occasion the members of OPEIU, Local 494, who
represent the clerical staff at the UAW's Solidarity House in Detroit
went on strike. Members of both the staff and professional departments
(who, btw, are also organized in their own union) not only crossed the
picket lines to get to work, but *bragged* about it afterwards. I heard
some of these International representatives do the bragging.

(2) At a "Labor College", there were *mass* firings in 1985-86 of faculty
(and later, support staff) by a "progressive" Dean (who was sympathetic to
the CPUSA). Most of the faculty fired were members of the Black and Latino
Caucus. Basically ... to make a *long* story short ... most of these
faculty were fired by this tyrannical dean (and his management cohorts)
for being "troublemakers", i.e. complaining about working conditions and
discrimination. Afterwards, *of course*, these faculty were labeled as
"disgruntled former employees."

In general, I find this whole phenomena to be fascinating from a
sociological perspective. The evidence seems to suggest that management is
management is management regardless of their alleged progressive or
radical perspectives. If anything, they can be *worse* since they use
their understanding of class struggle *against* workers.

Jerry


Reply via email to