History Belabored
Wisconsin schools will be required to teach the history of organized labor under a bill signed by Gov. Jim Doyle.
The bill Doyle signed Thursday also requires Wisconsin schools to teach the history of collective bargaining.
The proposal has been around for years but never passed. This year it cleared the Democratic controlled Legislature despite opposition from school boards and administrators who said they didn’t want the curriculum micromanaged.
Labor unions supported the bill.
Doyle said in a statement that he was happy to sign the bill so students would understand the importance of the labor movement in creating basic workplace rights.
As a public service to the students of Wisconsin, Intercepts provides a bibliography of labor history unlikely to make the cut in the approved curriculum:
The Enemy Within: The McClellan Committee’s Crusade Against Jimmy Hoffa And Corrupt Labor Unions by Robert F. Kennedy
Shadow of the Racketeer: Scandal in Organized Labor by David Witwer
Mobsters, Unions, and Feds: The Mafia and the American Labor Movement by James Jacobs
Solidarity for Sale: How Corruption Destroyed the Labor Movement and Undermined America’s Promise by Robert Fitch
Which Side Are You On?: Trying to Be for Labor When It’s Flat on Its Back by Thomas Geoghegan
On the Waterfront by Budd Schulberg
Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics by Linda Chavez
Epitaph for American Labor: How Union Leaders Lost Touch With America by Max Green
Perspectives on Union Corruption: Lessons from the Databases by A.J. Thieblot
Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr. “Should Labor Power Be Reduced?” with Victor Riesel, plus the Victor Riesel papers at the Elmer Holmes Bobst Library in New York City
December 14th, 2009 at 15:55
Your credibility is called into question when you list books by Linda Chavez, William Buckly and Victor Reisel. These are folks with a reactionary ax to grind so large it would give Paul Bunyan a hernia.
December 16th, 2009 at 09:18
Nevertheless, it is wise to hear what they have to say. Even a reactionary (whatever end of the spectrum he represents) is right some of the time, if only by accident. Besides, how can one refute arguements one has not bothered to read and understand?