Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
UPS's "Final Offer" Vs What We Won By Striking In 1997 Memory Lane
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PiedmontSteward" data-source="post: 1105878" data-attributes="member: 42270"><p><em>"For union members who want higher wages, less work, and better conditions, the historical evidence suggests that a strategy of perpetual opposition to the union leadership, regardless of its background or intentions, might be more effective than attempting to become the union leadership. According to this analysis, union democracy is best viewed as an instrument of leverage with which to force the bureaucracy to perform, not as a means to install a new bureaucracy."</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>"The most effective internal dissident group in the history of the American labor movement no longer needs to concern itself with disciplining the membership or defending corrupt officers. Now [TDU] can devote itself to its most valuable and no doubt most popular function: making the Teamster leadership deliver the goods."</em> - Russell, Thaddeus. "'Restore Teamster Power': Militancy, Democracy, and the IBT," <em>New Labor Forum</em> No. 4 (Spring - Summer 1999), pp. 110-23</p><p></p><p>Carey had an immense amount of pressure on him to strike in 1997 - still, the '97 strike was a watershed moment in the US labor movement. TDU has done and continues to do some good things, even if I completely disagree with their tactics or the people they have run for office. There is no white-or-black answer here. </p><p></p><p>If you want the full article I quoted, inbox me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PiedmontSteward, post: 1105878, member: 42270"] [I]"For union members who want higher wages, less work, and better conditions, the historical evidence suggests that a strategy of perpetual opposition to the union leadership, regardless of its background or intentions, might be more effective than attempting to become the union leadership. According to this analysis, union democracy is best viewed as an instrument of leverage with which to force the bureaucracy to perform, not as a means to install a new bureaucracy." "The most effective internal dissident group in the history of the American labor movement no longer needs to concern itself with disciplining the membership or defending corrupt officers. Now [TDU] can devote itself to its most valuable and no doubt most popular function: making the Teamster leadership deliver the goods."[/I] - Russell, Thaddeus. "'Restore Teamster Power': Militancy, Democracy, and the IBT," [I]New Labor Forum[/I] No. 4 (Spring - Summer 1999), pp. 110-23 Carey had an immense amount of pressure on him to strike in 1997 - still, the '97 strike was a watershed moment in the US labor movement. TDU has done and continues to do some good things, even if I completely disagree with their tactics or the people they have run for office. There is no white-or-black answer here. If you want the full article I quoted, inbox me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
UPS's "Final Offer" Vs What We Won By Striking In 1997 Memory Lane
Top