From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Apr 13 2005 - 16:21:52 EDT
At 6:02 AM -0400 4/13/05, Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM wrote: > > (a) a contract that left them with a pay freeze for last >> year and no definite increase for 2005... >> (b) reluctantly voted to approve a pay freeze in the first two years >> of her union's three-year contract >> (c) unionized workers to accept a three-year pay >> freeze, warning that the plant would be closed otherwise. > >> For these contracts to be binding, someone had to have signed them >> freely. But who exactly signed them? > >(a) Signed by representatives of the United Food and Commercial Workers > International Union and ratified by membership vote. >(b) Signed by representatives of Communication Workers of America > Local 3680 and ratified by membership vote. >(c) Signed by representatives of United Steelworkers of America Local > 87 and ratified by membership vote. > So Jerry are you saying that this signing and ratifying was done freely? Who exactly signs and ratifies freely so that the contracts can be binding? I don't think you spoke to the questions that I (or rather Pashukanis and Althusser) was raising. Please keep in mind Andrew Brown's complaint... At 10:04 PM +0100 4/7/05, Andrew Brown wrote about Mr. Solidarity: > This whole notion of my 'dogma', my 'deeming' this that and the >other, seems to me to be a figment of your imagination since I am >offereing arguments, not assertions, and am open to be persuaded I'm >wrong (as are you). You have introduced 'superiority' and >'intelligence' and a host of concepts that I haven't, whilst not yet >disagreeing with the key argument I have in fact made. rb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 17 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT