I'm trying to stay 'quiet' on the list --too much distraction from writing (and
it's busy!!). But I just wanted to comment on radman's forwarding of the post by
the guy Nader fired. I had read Doug Henwood's piece about this --I think it
was his-- on his web site, along with one other. It is kind of disturbing, I
admit; and I wish I knew more about the case --has anyone seen more? On the
other hand, I would also say that I gather Nader's point was that what may have
been a small non-profit shouldn't be unionized, and that he expected everyone to
devote themselves --without great concern for material benefit-- to the cause.
I sense he may also have felt too territorial about the Multinational Monitor,
that the firing also involved issues of editorial control. So, it would be nice
to know more.
Still, it's a bit like how liberal feminists might look at Ted Kennedy --which
is more important, his womanizing or his support for women and
feminist-compatible public policy? I think Nader is most crucial in being wedge
in 2000 to open up the system. He is kind of an odd character is some ways, but
that doesn't even enter my equation when I look at the competition. The other
piece is: is there more to this story than we get from the guy who was fired? I
don't know. Does anyone?
Ted Morgan
radman wrote:
> Forwarded message:
>
> Date: Wed Jun 14 11:39:15 2000
> From: TRox51@aol.com
> Subject: Nader is a union buster
>
> I read the reports about the UAW and Teamsters considering a vote for
> Ralph Nader and interviews like Kuttner's and think - I must be living in
> never-never land.
>
> Ralph Nader fired me and two other editors from Multinational Monitor in
> 1984 for trying to organize a union in our shop. You can look it up in the
> Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review and Labor Notes.
>
> I was fired the day after we filed our union recognition papers with the
> NLRB; in the hours that followed, Nader 'transferred' ownership of MM to
> Essential Information run by John Richard (who would become his H.R.
> Haldeman if by some stretch Nader was ever elected prez) and let them do
> the dirty work, which included trying to get the cops to arrest me for
> allegedly 'stealing' my own files. Myself, my two fired colleagues and John
> Cavanagh
> of the Institute for Policy Studies, our closest supporter, were then sued
> by Essential Information for trying to 'destroy their business,' a pure
> harassment tactic designed to make us shut up about what happened.
>
> And now the guy has the balls to say his key campaign theme will be
> reforming US labor laws so its easier for workers to form unions? Simply
> amazing for a man who has used those laws to prevent his own workers from
> organizing - and MM is not the only place he's done it.
>
> To Doug Henwood's credit, he is the only journalist on the left to raise
> this issue; The Nation, Mother Jones and other 'leftie' pubs have refused
> to run a word about Nader's anti-union tactics - not even a letter to the
> editor (I still cherish a note I received from The Nation's Victor Navasky
> after I sent in a letter about my Nader experience - 'Why don't you write
> something about multinationals instead?' the courageous Vic asked me when
> I sought to add some truth to an Alexander Cockburn column in fulsome praise
> of Ralph.).
>
> Anyone wanting further information, feel free to e-mail me.
>
> Tim Shorrock
> trox51@aol.com
>
> To read Doug's Nader report, which includes an account I wrote about the
> MM
> incident:
> http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/Nader.html
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 27 2000 - 23:49:34 CUT