[PEN-L:11932] Re: Steve Fraser's e-mail address
Teamsters will have to re-run President and officers elections. Elaine Original message The elections officer for the Teamsters has just brought down her decision --- to "refuse to certify the election" of officers which was held last fall, and she has ordered "a rerun election for all positions except the Central Region Vice Presidents and the President of Teamsters Canada." (The President of Teamsters Canada, Louis LaCroix, was on both the Carey and Hoffa slate, and unopposed, and the Central Region Vice Presidents were on the Hoffa slate). The elections officer, further held that "because there is no evidence that Carey or any member of his slate knew of or participated in the various improper fundraising schemes, disqualification is not warranted." Finally, while she hasn't yet said when this election will be run -- though one case assume this fall -- she has petitioned the courts for tighter rules. "Simultaneous with the issuance of the decision, the Election Officer has made an application to the US District Court for approval of a Proposed Rerun Election Plan. The proposed plan includes supplemental nominations, the prohibition of non-member contributions, a $ 1,000 limite on member contributions and a $ 5,000 limit on candidate contributions, and more frequent and detailed reporting requirements." The reasoning she gives for ordering the new election is that "given the small margins between the winning candidates on the Carey slate and the losing candidates on the Hoffa slate, the Teamsters for a Corruption Free Union funded mailings could have persuaded at least a small percentage of Carey slate supporters to cast their ballots and therefore may have affected the outcome of the International officer election." "In ordering a rerun election, the Election Officer recognizes the hardship on the candidates who just went throught an expensive two-year campaign and the disruption to the institution as many of its leaders become diverted from the central work of the Union. The Election Officer finds, however, that the members cannot have confidence in their union or its leaders if they see their choice of officers has been manipulated by outsiders. They cannot have confidence in the Consent Decree if the Court officers do not take effective action to prevent and remedy such misconduct." So, it looks like its elections time in the Teamsters again. Elaine Bernard Harvard Trade Union Program [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:10944] re: Juneteenth
The issue of prison labor is actually a fairly tricky one. Human rights groups, and others generally do not seek to ban prison labor (as it's often one of the few things that make time in prison livable). But they recognize the problem of "forced prison labor" and it's competition and undermining of "free labor." But once you get into the distinction between "forced" and "voluntary" prison labor, especially here in the US where over 30 states have prison labor laws and where generally "voluntary" prison labor is an important step that prisoners are expected to take if they want parole -- how "voluntary" is it. And as for not competing with "free" labor, that's another tough distinction, once the labor is "contracted out" to employers -- as is the case in about 30 states. Did anyone see a recent article that Arizona is considering building a prison in Mexico and sending its 300 plus Mexican citizen's in the Arizona prison system to serve out their time in the US built, and privately operated prison in Mexico. For the record, I notice that the services clause in NAFTA included explicitly "corrections" as one of the services open to the new tri-national agreement. Massaschusetts already sends prisoners to Texas, so why not Mexico? Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:10477] Re: Funny Business in Moscow
No, inside information on the HIID affair re Russia, though I would point out that Andrei Schleifer at the center of this, is not just a "consultant" but like Jeff Sacks, he is a tenured Harvard Faculty in the Economics Department.
[PEN-L:10450] Re: Preliminary Conference Announcement and Call for
Thanks for the dates, Phil. I'm off to Vancouver on Sunday, for a week -- and will be seeing Sid so I'll see if I can pursuade him to come too. Elaine
[PEN-L:10380] Re: Greenwashing Times: Working Assets update
I few years ago, Harvard gave Ben Cohen, of Ben Jerry's an award -- I forget the name of it -- but its an annual award for "progressive" business leaders (I know, its an oxymoron, but I just work here). Anyway, I went to his talk, and was at the cocktail party/dinner afterwards. So I used the opportunity to ask Ben Cohen, politely I thought, what he would do if his workers decided to organize a union. He literally jumped back from me and said, without hesitation that he would be hurt. I asked him, why he thought that workers exercising their rights had anything to do with him (whether they like Ben or not), and did he really believe that the most ideal form of leadership is benevolent dictatorship (a good boss). Needless to say the Provost rescued our honored guest before I could get my answers. Still, I always find it interesting that all these guys (and gals) in the progressive business community simply can't imagine workers doing things for themselves including representing their interests collectively as anything other than an assault against them. I've even heard the occasional union leader suggest that only workers who suffer a bad boss need to organize -- as opposed to the more obvious conclusion that I would draw that if we are to be a true democracy then workers should not only have the right to participate in decisions that affect them, but have an obligation. That the default position of labor law should not be union free -- but in fact, organized. And that rather than labor law being a series of barriers over which workers have to climb to establish the right to collective bargaining, that labor law should be a series of barriers over which workers must climb (with the state certifying that a majority of workers have freely chosen after a vigorous campaign) to abolish their collective representation, relenquish the right to participate in decisons and opt for individual representation. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:10261] Re: Time Out for Cyber Art
Greg has decided he would like to stay at your place, so I'll email Jill. Elaine
[PEN-L:10163] Re: Is there any silver lining in NAFTA?
The argument that those of us who were opposed to NAFTA (including the side agreements) made was that it was designed have progressive government social action deemed as non-tariff barriers to trade. The labor side agreement in particular is a mess. It essentially has a 5 step process, none of which has any muscle. It was particularly strange for Canadians because unlike in the US and Mexico, most workers in Canada fall under provincial labor codes, not national law and while the US government has used the fact that ILO conventions (if ratified by the US federal government would violate "states rights") as an excuse for not ratifying most conventions, the Canadian federal government did go along with the labor side agreement (and I think a majority of provinces -- or at least enough provinces so as to constitute a majority of the population, have now signed on to the side agreement). It also needs to be remembered that a key difference between the EU and NAFTA, is that throughout the negotiations, all parties in the NAFTA emphasized over and over again, that it just about trade. This was in fact important to both the Canadians and the Mexicans, as they both have had long histories of fearing US encroachment of their rights of sovereignty. In Europe on the other hand, even back to the Treaty of Rome, there was an explicit desire to have a common market and a common community. Fear not, I'm not trying to look wishfully at the EU experience, only note that there were very different understands from the very beginning of these agreements. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:10155] Re: Tavis, you're *still* wrong
Actually, Breweries are a very interesting example of the expansion and contraction and "niche" marketing evolution of an industry. The first breweries were local. Refrigeration and bottling technology made possible regional beers. Breweries were the first businesses to hire full time lobbists (at the time of the US civil war, when beer was taxes a dollar a barrel to help fund the war). The national brands, and the destruction of the regional breweries came in the post WW2 period, with the advantage of national advertising, buying up of regional breweries, cutthroat competition, and technological change -- especially improved can production. Anyway to make a long story short, the micro breweries, boutique breweries (and real ale movement in Britain) appeared in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a response to the consolidation of the industry into a few national brands. In Canada, and Britain the industry evolved quite differently because of internal (national) regulation. In Canada, for example, many of the regional brands survived much longer than in the US because until very recently most provinces required that if brands were to be labelled "domestic" they had to be produced in the province where they were sold. One of the hidden stories of the FTA and NAFTA in Canada, is that there has not been "free trade" among provinces. Sorry to go on about Beer, but I worked briefly with the brewery, winery distillery workers in British Columbia, and spent a lot of time following how regulation molded the development of the industry (and how the industry fully understood this, and spent lots and lots of money on lobbying and safeguarding its interest). Did anyone notice that one of the few exceptions in NAFTA is the special status given to breweries and beer. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:10151] Holy Binary Males
Holy Binary Males, Doug. So, there are only two approaches to network discourse, excessive violence and excessive length (you boastful fellow) or silence. And if the excessive, aggressive types ( of both male and female persuasion) retreat, we'll be left to boring, nurturing network syllabus sharing session. I knew there was a reason I stuck with Pen-L all these years, but I never suspected before that it was the fear of silence and syllabus sharing. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:10144] Re: The EU: against wishful thinking
Right on Maggie, not surprising, you understood completely what I was saying. Maybe it's a "girl thing" -- ok, yes, that is a joke guys. There is in fact, another action which women (and some men too take) which is to have "off line," private discussions. A colleague of mine (yes, I admit to having been in computing science at one point in my life) did her dissertation of computer conferencing networks, and found exactly what you said Maggie, that women's comments were ignored, or only taken up later when some male stated them (without attribution). Anyway, before the lads get all self-conscious (we should be so lucky) I was just trying to comment on my perception about the lack of women's participation on Pen-L (which I believe is a problem, and yes I do recognize that I have a role as do the rest of you in trying to change that). From personal observation and past practice I think it is the style of debate. While I agree with Doug, that there is much worse than Pen-L, I'm not sure that's relevent. Do we really want to get into a pissing match about which conference has the least constructive discourse? So, what can be done? Well, you can't change personalities -- mine included, I cut jokes at funerals. But I guess it is being aware that written comments come across much harder and categoric than most people intend. The problem with computer conferences is that we write as if we are talking, so it tends to be much more spontaneous, and loose, and yet, ultimately its read, so that its taken much more seriously and without the modification of verbal voice clues that hints at humor, irony or sarcasm. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:10116] Re: The EU: against wishful thinking
Whose Politics Gerry? That was sarcasm. Specifically it was a shot at what I view, as a long time pen-ler who tends not to intervene very much (which by the way is true of most of the women on the list -- god bless you Maggie for your stamina) as the style of argument which I have observed on the list. Ok, in future I will remember I am playing with left, sensitive lads, who are stung by mild attempts at humorous rebuke. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:10113] Re: The EU: against wishful thinking
While I essentially agree with Sid on the issue of the EU, that is, we shouldn't look at it from our North American context of trade agreements with no social clause or charter, and therefore assume that the EU is lightyears ahead, rather it still suffers from a major "democracy deficit," the social clauses have no teeth (with the exception of some stuff around OHS) however, I think there are some aspects that are useful to look at -- and this is more about how the labor movement and various other popular movements have decided to try and use some of the forums provided by the social dimension in the EU. There's a very good paper on this by Andy Martin and George Ross. I fear in these discussion on globalization or on the EU, we tend to construct straw arguments and then put them to the torch with much fast heat and little light, and nothing enduring. But hey, that's politics. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:9394] Re: The discussion about social democracy
Well, I'm going to weigh in with my buddy Sid, especially when he quotes Tony Benn. There's a concrete example of what he's talking about here in the US. For years, Lane Kirkland (anyone remember him!) said that labor needed to elect a democratic president with a democratic congress and we would get labor law reform, and the revitalization of labor. So, we did that -- in 1992 and got NAFTA, Welfare elimination, you name it However, when labor mobilized in 1995 (with a Republican Congress) and our barely Democratic congress we finally get an increase in Minimum Wage. It wasn't on Congresses agenda, but "America Needs A Raise" was on labor's agenda, and the mobilization, actions of unions forced it onto Congresses agenda. I';m not arguing (nor do I think Sid is arguing) that we should all turn into anarcho-syndicalists and worry only about direct action and the mobilization in the streets -- but by the same token, we need to combine legislative action with mass action if I could be so blunt. And there is an inevitable tension (which is why you need both a labor party and unions, and why they spend so much time fighting with each other) between those in the legislature and those in the streets. As an old NDP MP use to say, "its not just power that corrupts, it's also the avid anticipation of power which corrupts." The main problem I have with social democratic governments (and I've worked with a few) is that they don't understnad the difference between BEING IN GOVERNMENT and BEING IN POWER. When the people elect you, you may be in Government, but Capital is still in power, and it takes much more than an election to significantly transform power. To do that you need mobilization, action, and lots and lots of confrontation. "Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been borne of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters." West India Emancipation Speech, August 1857 Frederick Douglass We need legislative action, and political action, and we need to construct a mass, democratic membership party -- accountability and democracy are not genetic predispositions, they are tough processes which we need to work on. But we need to ROAR in the streets too! Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:9403] Max and the Social Democrats
Max, I guess some of the difference is over the issue of the degree to which we need brokers who are other than us. To use my favorite sexist analogy "always a bridegroom but never a bride!" That is, both the far left (Leninist) and the center left (social democrats - only in America do we refer to Liberals as left, so I refuse to bow to this custom) seem to think that workers themselves need "others" to lead them. I'm a little old fashion, and disagree with both the Webbs and Lenin who both came to that conclusion. Rather, I think we need our own people, our own organization -- including politically. Clearly, we need to work in coalition with other groups but as a labour movement, why I think the issue of having our own party is important, is because of how it transforms us. It gets us as a movement think about power and governing, not simply lobbying others for hand outs. A major problem in this and every other country is that the S.D. parties, that have much more flexibility (not a pretty term) to abandone their base and acquire a new one -- are rapidly abandoning the unions that have supported them. I don't think that the union leadership (which frankly is the same layer sharing the same ideology as the s.d. leadership of the parties) does not have the same luxury. They and their members are running smack into neo-liberalism at every turn and are forced to fight in a life or death battle. So, while in one period (post-WW2 social contract) the parties might have been more progressive than the unions on all sorts of issues (in advance of the unions for sure on womens rights, social issues, etc) today, it's the reverse and the unions are being forced to defend the gains and are increasingly moving into action and to the left of the parties. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:9118] Re: M-I: Meszaros
Gee Mike, haven't you noticed that among certain personalities the politics is personal! Elaine Bernard (nothing personal, eh Jerry, eh Doug)
[PEN-L:6759] RE: Is labour getting serious?
Actually, its worked out splendid. Even though we were charged with tresspassing -- and spent the morning in court (to be there to plea innocent and to get a date set for the trial -- November 20). However, on last Friday, the employer blinked. He agreed to recognize the union via a card check (the cards were checked and they were recognized on Tuesday). He has reinstated the fired workers with full back pay, he has agreed to pay the workers he forced to work at home compensation for this illegal act, and he is negotiating a collective agreement with UNITE. And of course, he has asked that the charges against us be dropped -- and we are in the process of getting that done. Meanwhile, Greg and I are off to South Africa tomorrow for two weeks. I'll be doing some work with the unions there re labor education, and we'll have a bit of a holiday together. The Richmark Curtain case appears to be over, and hopefully when I return the contract will be settled and the charges will be dropped. This was the first action of our Worker Rights Board. And while I don't expect we will get arrested everytime we weigh into a dispute, it still was a very fast and decisive victory. Elaine
[PEN-L:5889] Re: no such thing...
Doug, I've been the one quoting that -- I've got the exact quote and reference in my office. I'll pass it alone tomorrow. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:4242] Re: Fwd: a s...
Hi Christine: I just got in from Belgrade last night, so I'm not thinking too clearly. Could you send me a brochure about the school, and also email me suggestions about the theme and what you would like me to talk about. Recently I've been talking about the need for government and a public sector -- but let's see how the BC elections go. Elaine
[PEN-L:1982] Re: Something completely different
I can't agree with Bill on the French Strikes, nor about unions. If labor isn't in the forefront of the environmentalist movement or for that matter the anti interventionist movement, it doesn't mean that it is opposed to it. I've seen some of the CGTs statements on this strike and they are not simply over the train workers retirement, though frankly, I think that is worth holding on to. I don't see the rights of one group of workers, yes even white males, as always counterposed to everyone else, including women, and minorities. On the women's issue, even the Australian labor movement is somewhat contradictory. Afterall, Australia has one of the smallest wage gaps between men and women. This strike is not about being pro nuke, anti woman or anti immigrant. I also think that being anti neo-liberal and opposed to cuts in the social safety provisions is useful. And I don't think it's because the rest of us are incapable of criticizing unions. I think it's just we still think unions are vital organizations for working people and when we seem them mobilizing against the New Rights agrenda of privatization, deruglation and free trade we don't think we should be on the sidelines saying we have no interest in the outcome of this struggle, or worst, they are just a labor aristocracy, so to hell with them. I guess we just disagree. Elaine Bernard Harvard Trade Union Program
[PEN-L:1187] Quebec Referendum Results
The results of the Quebec referendum with over 90% voting was 50.6% no and 49.4% yes. Hard to imagine a tighter vote. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:1110] AFL-CIO Convention
Ok, I'm use to the fact that reporters now adays know nothing about organized labor, but today the New York Times hit a new low with it's front page article "Prospective Labor Leaders Set to Turn to Confrontation." Reporter Peter T. Kilborn states "The willingness to take a page from labor's legacy of the 1930's and 1940's, when workplace warriors like Samuel Gompers and Walter Reuther helped lift workers into the middle class, reflects a seething frustration with a Congress that ..." "Workplace warriors like Samuel Gompers..." Gompers died in the 1920's (1926 I seem to recall). And nobody would have ever referred to him as a "workplace warrior." Elaine Bernard Harvard Trade Union Program
[PEN-L:275] Re: advice on article
How about New Politics? I would also like to see a copy of the article. Elaine Bernard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Harvard Trade Union Program 1350 Massachusetts Ave., # 731 Cambridge MA 02138 p.s. Just heard from a friend that J. Gordon Liddy refered to Hilary Clinton as a "rabid Marxist" the other day on his radio show. This could be very damaging --- to Marxism.
[PEN-L:4540] Re: Apologies
Twice, sid, it went out to use twice -- but hey whose counting!
[PEN-L:4515] Re: Card Krueger
Bill, I see you are from NSW -- and in that the North American papers don't view Australia worthy of reporting on -- what happened in the recent NSW state elections? Elaine Bernard Harvard Trade Union Program [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4285] Re: biotechnology
Nick take a look at some of things that Ruth Hubbard has been writing. I think her latest book is called Exploding the Gene Myth. Also, you might check with Paul Farmer and the folks at Partners in Health here in Cambridge. They have a whole series of books coming out on public health and disease from a very left perspective. Paul's book on Haiti and AIDS is great! Finally there's the old classic Rockefeller and Medicine which was written a number of years ago and deals with how the Rockefeller foundation determined (in the 1930s I believe) at the heighth of the breakthroughs of the new physics that the next science revolution could be in biology and through biology you could influence life (human, animal and of course food supply) itself. Now there was a market worth cornering! Elaine Bernard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:3865] Re: New Party piece
I have a piece on the resistable fall of the NDP (not the actual title of the piece) in the latest New Politics. I'll gladly send you a copy via email to anyone too cheap to buy the journal. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:3817] Re: New Party piece
Come'on Doug, play nice. In the same spirit that I took up J. Case, I'm sure you don't mean CP as a term of endearment. Play nice boys! There's some real politics here, so cut out the red baiting bullshit. I think the real CP, Trotskyist, New Left, American Left legacy is ignoring political differences and real discussion and decending everything to the level of name calling. If you don't agree with me, you're a (fill in the gap) and therefore your criticism is unworthy of further concern or debate. On the issue of NYC I tend to think that it is rather unusual. The largest city in the country, with strange, strange, politics. I wish Mike Davis who move there and do for NY what he did for LA in CITY OF QUARTZ. However, that aside, I do think that in building a grassroots, democratic, membership based political party that Madison, Milwaukee, Little Rock, etc will be more typical than NYC. As for the fusion tactic, the difficulty here is keeping as a tactic, and only a tactic, to gain state wide (or city wide or whatever level the group is interested in apply it) ballot status. The barriers that the state has set up in this country to prevent democratic self-organization in elections is worthy of a totalitarian state. It's a real barrier and problem for any third party. My view is there will be opportunists in the New Party, and sectarians, and we'll go too slow sometimes and too quickly other times. But in a grassroots democratic party if we build a culture of real debate, over policy and tactics I believe we will be able to resolve differences -- and in fact, on occasion operate quite differently in different states and communities depending on the strength of the organization and it's level of organization (that is, has it elected people, does it have access to ballot status, has it been able to reform election laws...) Because I believe this discussions are absolutely essential to the growth and development of any third party, I think it's important for leftist, who agree or are critical of specific tactics, actions or policies to aid in creating a political culture where these issues can be debated and discussed on their merits -- not on who is an trot or who is a stalinist. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:3834] Re: Statement by Women Academics on Welfare
As one of the women academic signers of the letter on welfare, I don't think it's purpose was to segregate women (least of all women economists). It was a statement by academic women (better yet, Doug, you might ask the class question of why academic women) who have either studied welfare or are in some related field. When Fran Piven approached me to sign on (yes, Virginia I will sign on to almost anything progressive as far too many people are still living under the fear of McCarthyism and those of us in privileged positions have an obligation to sign as many petitions, letters, protests, etc, as we can possibly hack) any, when Fran approached me and asked me to sign and find some more signatures I figured rather than debate the fine point of why women (why not?) that I would seek out labor educators and academic women who have strong links to the labor movement to try within the narrow confines of why Linda Gordon and Fran were looking for, help to broaden the representation by adding labor names. The big question is where is labor on this. In fact, where is labor on Newt. It seems to me that we should be leading the charge. In contrast to the stunning silence this side of the border, I've been talking with unions in Canada about their fight back preparations, education and campaign around the yet to be released federal budget in February 1995. Of course, maybe brother Case is better informed than I am and knows of the great discussions and education that is taking place inside of the labor movement. My view isn't that US labor is too much of a "talk shop" it's rather that on key issues in society and politics that it is a non-participant. That politics at the level of national issues like welfare reform, or the attack on social programs, aren't countered. Rather we're hung up with the all encompassing issue of potentially amendments to 8 (a) 2 in the Wagner Act. You can appreciate why the 84% of workers who are not organized fail to appreciate the leadership of organized labor at this point in history. Elaine Bernard
[PEN-L:3792] Re: New Party piece
Trotskyists who are more militant than militant! Come ' on J. Case, let's let go of this cold war red baiting. I'm a supporter of the New Party, but I think that Doug has raised a valuable and important criticism worthy of serious discussion. I too don't think much of the fusion tactic and think that it is very risky -- wont advocate it myself. I think the issue iss worth discussing. Bullshit may not be quite the formulation I would use -- but I understand Doug's reservations and share them -- on the tactic of fusion. On the issue of getting off our butts and getting out and forming a third party and dirtying our hands with electoral politics (of a third party variety) I have no reservations. I also think that the New Party, where I've met with folks doing real grassroots organizing and work, is worth support. My concern is to create the concept of an accountable, membership, grassroots party, that is democratically organized, that is linked to organized labor, and that has a progressive even socialist program. Is that the New Party? I don't know, but it looks to be the best show in town and the only ones who are really not just discussing this but getting out and doing it. Elaine Bernard
Re: 13th Annual Canada Conference
George, I might be able to drive up and give the NAFTA talk. Where abouts in New Hampshire are you (ie how many hours out of Boston by car). Elaine Bernard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A long paper coming
Thanks for your paper. If you like, I'll down load it and send a copy with a cover note to Ed Herman and Noam. I'm sure they will also enjoy it. Elaine
Re: free speech
Actually, the first amendment in the workplace is worst than how Jim described it. It's not just a matter that it doesn't apply to private sector workers, (that is employees to not have freedom of speech in the workplace) but it has been extended to corporations (management) in the case of representation elections. When the Wagner Act was adopted in 1935 it invisioned the decision of whether to join a union or not as purely a discussion among employees. But Supreme court decisions have given employers "voice" in representation campaigns, resulting in management holding "captured audience meetings" of employees. Meanwhile, unions have seen their right to access to employees (like even leafleting the parking lot) curtailed by court and NLRB decisions. Once we determine that Corporations are "persons" for the purposes of the bill of rights, then all of a sudden, the bill of rights doesn't look so good. Remember it was designed as a code to protect citizens against what a the time was the largest source of authority in the country -- government. Today, we could argue that while it's still important to limit the absolute power of government -- isn't it about time we considered a citizen's bill of rights to protect people from soveign corporations. A simply labor law reform I would recommend is to say for the purposes of the NLRB, Corporations are not persons. One of the reason that the public sector has significantly higher rates of organization in the US is because these employees are covered by the bill of rights in their workplace. That employers in the public sector have a much harder time illegally resisting unionization -- and finally, as public enterprise -- access and information about employment is much more open to unions than in the private sector (where employers not employees have all the rights). Elaine Bernard
