Re: HNN review of Fitch
Mark Rickling wrote:
On 3/23/06, Doug Henwood dhenwood@panix.com wrote:
[too bad we don’t have John Lacny around to fulminate about this rather positive review]
[ . . . ]
By design Fitch did not write a “balanced” labor history, but in concentrating on pervasive corruption, “labor’s forgotten past,” he uses a single factor in the sorry state of today’s unionism to explain what has happened. In two paragraphs he dismisses globalization and other “universal trends,” casually alleging the relative weakness of American unions while stressing their corruption. As observers have long noticed, America is exceptional in several ways, not only in the structure and corruptness of its unions.
I read this paragraph as stating Fitch’s singular focus on corruption is rather myopic. A criticism I believe others have made on this list.
Yes, but everyone else writes about globalization, labor law, immigration, and a culture of individualism. Almost no one on the left ever says a word about corruption. So I see Fitch engaging in a little affirmative action.
He does write about the fragmented structure of U.S. unions, too. So it’s not just a one-note samba.
Doug