At 10:54 AM 3/28/98 -0800, Michael E. wrote:
>My understanding is that the California Federation of Labor had just such an
>initiative in the pipeline, ready to file with adequate signatures. They
>agreed not to do so after the largest employers in the state agreed not to
>put money or support behind 226. Most of the financial backing for 226 is
>coming from outside the state.
>
>If this is indeed the case, one could question the wisdom of their
decision...
>[snip]
>In the final analysis, however, the bosses will always have more resources
>than labor, with or without deals. It is the profound disconnect between
>unions and their members that is the real issue.
Although the wave of propositions like 226 may do some short-term damage,
in the long term I think it'll be one of the better things that happened to
the union movement in recent history. In California, the bigger unions
often spend a fair amount of money on initiative campaigns, but almost all
of the money goes to consultants and media. Virtually none of it is spent
on building up a grassroots machine. If the Right keeps running
initiatives like this, then either unions will get completely stomped
(which I doubt), or they'll have to start putting money into base-building
again. It won't be pretty to watch--as the disaster with the Teamsters,
brought on by using outside consultants, has vividly demonstrated--but it's
hard to see how anything less painful would convince enough union leaders
to get off their asses.
Anders Schneiderman
