I read the interplay between comrades Pollock and Mann’s letters on the Amazon Christmas strike with interest and disappointment. That disappointment is, however, unsurprising. From experience, I have found that labor organizers proclaim loudly and often that they support “principled criticism of business unionism and bad strategy.” Just not for their campaigns, for this action, or in the pages and sites they read. They hold the principle of criticism in abstract but not in practice. That makes for convenient posturing, but this slippery habit prevents the labor movement from learning from our mistakes. What would happen if we assume there is something to learn from this exchange?
In the light of good faith: Mann’s letter is clearly an account from a supporter of the labor movement who despite her best efforts could not find concrete solidarity actions during the strike. How could that be? The Labor Notes article Pollock cites: “The holiday strike was perfectly timed for peak season at Amazon—but unfortunately also for when reporters go on vacation and newsrooms are on low staffing for the holidays.” If he had bothered to read the articles he hurled to hide his insecurities, comrade Pollock might notice that this sentence explains Mann’s point: the holiday timing of this strike contributed to poor media coverage and made it difficult to communicate solidarity logistics to labor supporters in exactly the way Pollock denies.
In fact, the dates of the articles Pollock cites confirm this fact. If we look at the news corpus Pollock cites, the majority of the articles were published a few days before Mann’s letter. Mann was writing about her contemporaneous experience of attempting to learn about the strike, not reading about it a month after the fact. Pollock claims that the labor movement needs to Google better before writing to Cosmonaut. If that were true, his news credentialing should have comprised many articles published shortly during or immediately after Christmas. Even the longest piece of reporting he provides, from In These Times, is ambiguous at best about the strike’s material effect and provides no description of material gains achieved or upcoming actions for solidarity with the Teamsters. The sleight of hand in those citations is disingenuous.
Instead, Pollock’s letter suggests more a desire to scold and distract than to ensure only the most sterling criticism dares to scuff the pride of labor. (Worse, Pollock’s sources and letter actually confirm that this strike was never about getting to the table; this was Mann’s expressed concern.) Relying on unfounded accusations of incompetence and union-busting is his way to duck a benign, inquiring criticism.
But, comrades, is that necessary? Is it good?
–Rosa Riposto
