Re: [OPE-L] Falling Fortunes of the Wage Earner

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