raghu wrote: >>> - Unions as they currently exist (corrupt, undemocratic >>> special-interest lobbyists for the labor aristocracy, and enablers for >>> the financiers)
me: >> Let's be specific rather than broadcasting empty generalities. Some >> unions are corrupt (e.g. the Laborers International), while others are >> undemocratic (e.g., the SEIU) without being corrupt in the usual >> meaning of that word, i.e., taking bribes and the like. Some are >> neither (like the UE, I understand). [...] raghu: > I don't feel the need to qualify every sentence with the disclaimer > that of course, there are always exceptions. No generalization applies > equally to every instance. Life is complicated and so forth. That is > implied in any conversation between intelligent adults. These days, with labor under attack in a big way, it's good to be clear about what's wrong with the organized segments and what's right with them. That makes it easier to be clear about what needs to be done (or at least supported) and to undermine the use of phrases such as "anti-labor leftist." -- Jim Devine / If you're going to support the lesser of two evils, you should at least know the nature of that evil. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
