Customer Reviews

Solidarity for Sale: How Corruption Destroyed the Labor Movement and Undermined America's Promise

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Perhaps the most well-researched work on labor in recent years, SOLIDARITY FOR SALE provides compelling detail and analysis that will help us understand the basis for much of organized labor's spiralling decline. Hopefully, this book will help provide a foundation for reforming the labor movement. One may draw many conclusions from this book, but we cannot deny that Fitch has paid careful attention to facts, conducted excellent archival research and interviews with key leaders. Fitch lays bare the evidence that a highly-bureaucratic and insular union structure is damaging prospects for increasing the power of the working class in the US. Though this examination of labor leadership is disturbing to many of us, it is a necessary step to recognize and understand, so that remedial action may be taken by working people. While government and corporate opposition is crucial in understanding the decline of the labor movement, workers retain strong support for inclusive, radical, and democratic unions. Despite this support for unions from working people, many of those in leadership positions have betrayed members and non-members, intensifying the obvious institutional problems organized labor now faces.

SOLIDARITY FOR SALE should be amunition for workers and, if accepted and heeded by those that lead unions, will surely benefit the labor movement. SOLIDARITY FOR SALE represents solid investigative reporting that we should all read as part of the effort to reform labor law, restructure unions, and mobilize workers striving to improve their collective conditions. Fitch writes from the perspective of workers--compassionately seeking a solution that will lead to more accountable and strong labor unions. Do not be fooled by those that disparage this book as anti-union. Written by a man that has devoted his life to organizing workers and a labor activist, Fitch calls for a return of greater membership control and participation. In a neoliberal, corporate-dominated economy, labor must get strong. SOLIDARITY FOR SALE is not so much an attack on unions as a clarion call for cleaning them up. Ultimately, a representative union movement is the worst nightmare for the upper-class and employers that seek to keep labor at bay through consorting with some of the most corrupt and unscrupulous leaders in unions. If taken seriously, this book will be indispensable for the unorganized and weak working class inside and outside of unions. SOLIDARITY FOR SALE is a must read for all those interested in advancing working-class power.

This book, Solidarity For Sale, is right on.

Mr. Fitch has provided us with a great body of work, research and insights into the history and troubles of the labor movement. He has helped define and clarify some of the questions that have bothered me for years.

From my personal experience as a reformer in a mob dominated union and as a member of the Laborers Union of North America (LIUNA) for over 30 years, the truths of this book rings forth on every page.

Mr. Fitch has stepped forward with a passion and courage of thought to speak of the "Mokita" that we all know about but do not speak of. The corruption of the AFL-CIO and how it came to be.

This is a book that should be read by every thinking member of organized labor, reformers and those who would like to join us.

It deserves its place of prominence on the number 1 site for laborers. I endorse this book and I would like to thank Robert Fitch for spending the precious hours of his life writing it.

Chris White
Laborers.org

Though Fitch does not offer any solutions, his expose is well chronicled. The documentation and stories are entertaining as well as informative, and his analysis does not omit the real flaw of unions then and now: the failure to be incorruptible. It doesn't matter if the corruptions is based on financial gain or status gain. Who are the people in the upper ranks of the unions? Aren't they usually the darlings of the administration? I belonged to my professional union for a few years late in my career. Observing corruption and favoritism in the very beginning of my employment, I did not join. Then, years leter I joined, only to leave again in total disgust. The union did absolutely nothing for the workers. Whatever conflicts arose between workers and employer, it seemed that the union always bowed down to the employer. And did they help establish better working conditions? Better pay? Better benefits? I have serious doubts, since change and improvement had already been planned as not to lose workers to other industries.

The book can make you think, and it could potentially serve as a tool to get more workers OUT of unions.

This is a book that the rank and file should read. The only book of its kind. I can't compete with the intellectuals trashing the book. I do know this book made me stop and think. In regards to the areas I have knowledge of Mr. Fitch is accurate. I have had the pleasure of hearing Robert Fitch speak on a number of occasions. Anyone that can take on a multibillion dollar organization with unlimited access to politicans and public relation dollars gets 5 stars from me.

Bob Fitch's recent book, Solidarity for Sale, is a must read for anyone seriously interested in understanding the U.S. labor movement. Most of the focus of the book is on various forms of union corruption, a subject that is rarely discussed within the labor movement itself.

Although most trade union leaders are aware of corruption in their own and other unions, they are almost never willing to do anything to do anything about it, even if they are themselves honest. Bob Fitch provides a useful explanation as to why this is the case. Given that many of the same leaders will fight for the rights of working people at home and abroad, it is troubling that so many look the other way when their own institutions are the subject.

Fitch discusses some of the more extreme examples of corruption. Most union activists could add their own stories to his list. However, few would be willing to tell the stories publicly, because to do so would subject them to attack. In 1983 or 1984, for example, the Empire State College Labor Studies program was an organizer, along with some other labor studies programs of a conference on the labor movement. One panel at that conference touched on the subject of union corruption. That session was very lively with numerous participants telling about their own experiences with corrupt union leaders. As a result of that panel, several unions threatened to pull their students out of Empire State. To keep the students, Empire State fired those panelists who were adjunct faculty members instead.

While union corruption in its various forms as described by Fitch is the not the entire reason for why American unions are in such a weak state today, it is a factor that cannot be ignored, and yet, as Fitch points out, it is routinely ignored, even by left wing reformers. The literature of the labor movement is full of heroic stories about organizers and strikers. Once in a while, there is a book that touches on the battles of ordinary workers against corrupt union leaders. But, Fitch's book is the first analysis of union corruption from a broader perspective than a localized fight.

Fitch tells many interesting stories about how individual unions got to be so corrupt, stories that most union members will not have heard, even about their own unions. Union members from SEIU, the Teamsters, AFSCME and others should be interested in reading about their own organizations and what has been done to them.

Although Fitch tells the stories well from a journalistic standpoint, the point really isn't about the overt and subtle corruption that pervades much of the labor movement. His tale of Andy Stern and SEIU, for example, is not about what most would consider traditional forms of corruption. Stern is a labor reformer in some respects. However, as Fitch points out, his reforms have not improved the lives of his members although he has practically doubled the size of his union.

In the end, Fitch is opening up a larger debate about whether it's possible to resurrect a labor movement that serves the needs of working Americans. Here, Fitch has barely scratched the surface. And, some of his ideas are better than others--for example, the re-establishment of workers' temples and work councils is something that with today's computer technology is a natural. Rank and file activists from many different unions and the non-union workforce, should be in regular contact with each other for the purpose of building a truly popular labor movement.

Whether all of his ideas are valid isn't the point however. By addressing some of the sacred cows such as exclusive representation and mandatory membership, Fitch forces everyone who wants to make an honest appraisal about the labor movement to put everything on the table.

I am only 20 pages into this book and I am already disappointed. First let me state that I am a bald-headed Irish American unionist from the NYC area. The reason I state this now will become apparent shortly.

It may seem petty but if an author cannot get something as simple as the name of a city correct then how can we trust other facts? In the first chapter when discussing the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) he describes a local as being located in Little River NJ when in fact the name of the town is Little Falls, NJ.

He also goes on to confuse two large UFCW union locals in NJ (1262 and 464a) which results in factual and historical inaccuracies. For example he states John Niccolai became president of 464a in 2002 after the former president was jailed on corruption charges. John Niccolai has been president of 464a for years, the former president of local 1262 was the one convicted and he was defeated in an election by the current president Harvey Whille.

I was looking forward to a serious study of union corruption and its effects. To be sure, Mr Fitch hasn't peppered many rabid anti-union comments in the pages but his factual inaccuracies seem too sloppy to take the rest of the book seriously.

Oh and possibly the worst line of any book I've read in quite some time:

"Initially Donahue had been Sweeney's choice for president. Both were bald-headed Irish Americans from the Bronx. In fact, three of the last four AFL-CIO presidents have been bald-headed Irish Americans from the Bronx" (p11 hardcover edition)

Based upon the title of the book and Fitch's opening chapter, one expects a coherent attempt to show that corruption is endemic to the entire labor movement and has resulted in its destruction. Instead, this book reads like a collection of short articles about some of the worst abuses in labor, without developing a coherent theory until the final chapter, which is short and without factual support.
Fitch begins his work by tracing corrupt practices in the beginning of the 20th century, particularly in New York and Chicago. He then provides a number of anecdotes about how the mob or corrupt leadership has controlled or destroyed various locals in the Teamsters, UNITE-HERE (garment workers), LIUNA (laborers) and AFSCME-in New York City. However, Fitch's sensational examples fail to tie in to anything close to a theory. Moreover, Fitch doesn't balance his work by demonstrating what is working or showing how his argument stands against his grudging admission that the overwhelming majority of International Unions and Locals are free from corruption (he admits as much when he discusses the Teamsters). Moreover, Fitch offers nothing new with respect to solutions, except that his suggestion that the closed shop should be abolished and all members should pay dues voluntarily, in the matter of the French system-collection of stamps. He fails to explain why this form of volunteerism hasn't taken hold among members in open shop states who are happy to receive the benefits of collective bargaining without paying for them. Ultimately, while Fitch's sensational stories are easy to read and it is easy for those with no union experience to extrapolate these experiences to an entire movement, the end result is misleading, shrill and anti-union.

New York City-based labor reporter Robert Fitch`s new book, ``Solidarity For Sale, how corruption destroyed the labor movement and undermined America`s progress`` is a great expose of American union corruption. Unfortunately, Fitch`s ideas for curing the cancer of labor racketeering leave a lot to be desired.

Fitch, a longtime investigative reporter, does a truly awesome job of exposing the high crimes and petty misdemeanors of America`s union bosses, past and present.

His dogged research ferreted out all the ugly details - from the 1935 Service Employees International Union convention attended by ``Pretty Boy`` Floyd, ``Machine Gun`` Kelly and Al Capone underboss Frank Nitti to AFSCME District Council 37`s use of union funds to pay for hot sheets motels and prostitutes for lonely union bosses.

Beyond exposing graft, Fitch also lays bare the patronage politics at the base of most of America`s union movement. And, he presents the true face of ``union reformers`` like SEIU President Andy Stern, former Teamsters head Ron Carey and the Teamsters for a Democratic Union caucus.

In particular, ``Solidarity For Sale`` exposes the true agenda of ``progressive`` unions like UNITE HERE and the SEIU - corporate ``unions`` administered General Motors-style by American Management Association-trained executives who never pushed a broom or mopped a floor.

In other words, Bob Fitch exposes the problem, in gut-churning detail... that alone makes this book a must-read.

The problem is, Fitch doesn't really offer viable solutions to those problems. This is not due to any ill-will on Fitch`s part (he is a truly honorable, sincere and principled man, who sacrificed a potentially lucrative career as a union official to expose union corruption in the media). Instead, the problem is basically ideological - Fitch`s politics appear to be a cross between 18th century Jeffersonian democracy and 21th century anti authoritarian anarchism - and his political solutions to the problems of American unions reflect the limitations imposed by those ideologies.

The book`s main weaknesses come from this political perspective. One glaring limitation is the almost complete absence of any discussion of White supremacism and sexism in the unions.

Fitch does talk, at length, about the Teamsters Union`s incitement of a race riot in 1905 Chicago during the Montgomery Ward strike, that led to the death of 21 Black people. However, the more subtle day-to-day racism goes largely undiscussed by this work

This is odd, considering that many US labor organizations openly practiced Jim Crow segregation well into the 1960`s

Fitch laments about the political backwardsness of American unions as compared to their European counterparts - but leaves out the most logical explination... how do you fight for equality while simultaneously practicing White supremacism??

Discussion of union sexism is similarly neglected - even in Fitch`s very comprehensive and well researched section on the garment industry unions.

This is NOT to say that Bob Fitch is in any way racist or sexist, just that those issues do not really fit that well into his political agenda.

Fitch speaks, at length, of Thomas Jefferson`s dream of an America of independent small business owners, living a life autonomous from the state - but leaves out the real world Thomas Jefferson, a slave owning pedophile who lived in a Virginia populated by slaves and indentured servants. Jefferson`s ``yeoman farmer democracy`` never existed in the real world - not in his day, or ours - basically, he believed in democracy for White male businessmen only, and Fitch ignores that fact.

Fitch speaks nostalgically of the socialism of Gene Debs and Jack London, while not mentioning the reality of the Gene Debs who led segregated Whites only railroad workers unions and the Jack London who wrote openly anti-Black newspaper articles. The so called ``socialism`` of Debs and London was for White men only - and Fitch ignores that fact as well.

The true flaw of ``Solidarity For Sale`` is a lack of a sense of history. Fitch compares local unions to medieval fiefdoms and their leaders to Egyptian Pharoahs and Somali warlords - rather than presenting those organizations and union bosses for what they really are - the product of contemporary capitalist production.

In all capitalist countries, there is a class struggle. This grows out of the natural conflict between workers and bosses that emerges every day, due to the fact that the goods and services produced by workers are expropriated by business owners, and the workers are paid less than the value of what they produced. This process is called ``exploitation of labor`` and it is the reality of how capitalism works - every worker is exploited, from the sweatshop laborer who gets $ 1/hr to the airline pilot who makes $ 100,000 a year.

Trade unions grow naturally out of that struggle between workers and bosses. However, the function of unions is to MEDIATE that class conflict, by making slight improvements in the conditions of workers.

Basically, what unions do is to try and reform the capitalist system, rather than attempting to overthrow it and replace it with rule by the working class.

This tends to lead to unions being dominated by the most priviliged workers, the section of the class who have the strongest ties to the bosses and are most loyal to the system.

This also leads to unions subordinating themselves to the bosses who`s workers they represent, and also leads to them compromising the needs of the majority of the workers for the bosses and the priviliged workers.

That general pattern applies to every capitalist country in the world.

In America, there is the added wrinkle of this country`s long racist history, which infected the American labor movement from day one. The most priviliged workers, who ran the unions, tended to be White, as were their bosses, so they were united in their White supremacism.

Also, in many major American cities, small businessmen used the services of gangsters to limit competition and divide up the market among themselves. Since the unions, and the priviliged workers who led them, had strong ties to those bosses, it was inevatible that they would develop ties to those very same gangsters.

Unfortunately, this analysis is absent in Fitch`s work.

Fitch also looks to the government for the salvation of the American worker. He seems to view the government as some kind of neutral entity that exists above classes and is some kind of neutral agent.

In reality, the Federal, State and local governments all serve the interests of the dominant business interests - they always have, and, as long as we live in a capitalist society, they always will.

Fitch advocates a ``historic compromise`` between workers and bosses - where the businesspeople would recognize some kind of ``workers councils`` and in return, the present unions would give up dues checkoff and maintenance of membership.

Under this consumer choice system, workers would be able what union to pay dues to, or to not pay dues at all - much the way that people can choose what phone company or cell phone provider to use, or how Medicaid recipients in New York get to choose what HMO their coverage will be provided through.

Fitch also envisions municipal hiring halls for casual labor industries like construction, which would be run with civil service-style rules.

Incidentally, Fitch`s ahistoricism weakens his analysis here too.

You'd never know it from ``Solidarity For Sale, which presents the construction industry as if it was still overwhelmingly union as it was a generation ago, but corrupt union hiring halls are irrelevant for the nation`s 6.7 million non union construction workers. Some of them have steady jobs with non union contractors - most of them rely on employment agencies like Labor Ready or sidewalk shapeups in Home Depot parking lots and on suburban streetcorners.

Even for the barely half a million construction workers remaining in the unions, the best jobs never get anywhere near the union out of work lists - those jobs are reserved for ``company men``, steady employees of contractors, who`s only contact with the union is when they pay their dues by mail 4 times a year.

That was always true of union hiring systems, a fact that Fitch ignores in his discussion of the construction unions, since it would weaken his arguments on the origin of despotism within unions.

Fitch claims that unions became dictatorships when unions gained a monopoly over employment, and workers had to curry favor with union bosses to get jobs. The problem with that argument is that, with few exceptions, construction unions NEVER had that monopoly over employment - the best jobs were always under the exclusive control of the contractors - the union hiring halls only got the scraps.

In today's deunionized construction industry, that reality is even more dramatic.

Beyond the limitations of Fitch`s proposals for the construction industry, his general labor reform ideas have a really serious problem.

Fitch envisions the government stepping in and making these changes, but he doesn`t explain how or why the capitalists would let their government agree to ANY of these reforms...

Fitch envisions an America reinvented like Sweden or France. But, he ignores the fact that the capitalists of Europe made their concessions to the working class basically at the point of a gun.

During the glory years of European reformism, there was World War I, the Russian revolution (and attempted revolutions in Germany and Hungary) and World War II.

For a good chunk of the 20th century, the rulers of Europe were confronted by armed angry workers, most of whom were socialists or communists who envisioned a working class ruled society. The social concessions they made were attempts to save capitalism from revolutionary overthrow - a few social programs here and union rights there were a
small price to pay to preserve the private exploitation of labor.

American bosses never had to deal with any of that...and therefore they never had to make the kind of concessions the European businesspeople did.

For this country, WW I and WW II were times of profit, prosperity and high wages, rather than the death, rape and starvation the Europeans had to deal with. It was easy for the bosses here to buy off the upper layer of the working class, rather than make concessions to all the workers - especially since American workers were divided by race, and most White workers would casually betray the struggles of their Black and Latino counterparts.

Fast forward to today, and we see another reality.

The bosses of Europe are trying to take back all the concessions they gave in the 20th century. They no longer have to worry about revolution - and, like American bosses, they now have a White workforce that is heavily infected with racism, and willing to turn on their Black and Muslim brothers and sisters in a heartbeat.

The workers of Europe are fighting a rearguard struggle to preserve those social gains, but, in the absence of a real threat of revolution and with the rise of European racism, the bosses of Europe will, more likely than not, eventually succeed in ``Americanizing`` their labor relations system.

In a world like that, does Bob Fitch`s reform program, however well-intentioned, have a snowball`s chance in hell???

There is hope, though.

The class struggle will continue, no matter how many times it is betrayed by the unions (that's just how capitalism works). Eventually, workers will set up a new type of workers organization, dedicated to overthrowing capitalism, rather than reforming it.

That's not going to happen tomorrow, or next Tuesday, but, this writer hopes, it will happen someday. It's just a question of workers learning from the mistakes of our predecessors, and building a movement dedicated to overthrowing this system for the benefit of the majority of workers, instead of just trying to make it more bearable for a narrow priviliged few

Meanwhile, it is very useful to expose the crimes and betrayals of worker organizations that try to reform capitalist exploitation. ``Solidarity For Sale``, whatever it`s political weaknesses, does succeed in doing that, and I would urge folks to buy this book.

We believe that this gripping book will intrigue anyone who is interested in American politics, the labor movement, or social and economic reform. Robert Fitch catalogs trade unions' alleged crimes of corruption, while showing how their organizational structure makes corruption all but inevitable. If you think the U.S. labor movement had only noble origins, it is instructive to reflect on the thugs Fitch says loom so large in its early history. And, if you believe that union corruption belongs to the past, it is salutary to discover how profound and pervasive it is in today's unions, at least, according to this reporter. Fitch strongly explains why he feels union corruption is not just a labor issue, but is a disease that harms society-at-large in many ways, amply explored herein.

Having worked as a business journalist but dipped my toe into labor history, I find Fitch's book to be thoroughly comprehensive but never dull! From its socialist beginnings to its past and present corrupted state, Fitch clearly demonstrates how the nature of labor representation has been supplanted by an insatiable greed on the part of labor bosses and their backers (the mob and others). Colorful anecdotes are amusing but distressing. Unfortunately, the intensity with which these unions have been permeated does not bode well for any democratic realignment. Yet, Fitch does pause at the end after breathlessly recounting years of history in under 300 pages to provide some simple guiding points to improve union representation, showing yet another side of his compassion for oppressed union/nonunion workers.

I understand that there has been great opposition to this book because of the swashbuckling nature of his criticisms. Unfortunately, it appears there is much to be critical and angry about organized labor in the U.S.. I have no way of knowing if Fitch's takes on each movement is completely accurate. However, the substance of the stories must be there considering the immense bibliography and footnotes which buttress his contentions. In many ways, his anecdotes reinforce the common wisdom but you wish they were somehow secret and not publicly known. The infighting among labor advocates for the complete accuracy of this book should be disproved.

In some ways, the sad history of labor unions appears parallel to corporations and some other institutions that were meant to democratic in nature. As Fitch points out, despite all our strides to be the "home of the free...", we need to look to Europe and other countries for guidance in this area.