"Taking Care of Business" is a scathing attack on the shortsighted, bureaucratic, business union approach of the leadership of the AFL and AFL-CIO over the last one hundred years. None of the presidents of these labor federations from Gompers through Meany and Kirkland escape the author's thoroughgoing criticism.

Of course, those leaders can only reflect the nature of the overall trade union movement. Trade unions in the US have historically been both exclusionary and, since WWII, controlling in their relationship to the working class. Most trade unions, until only very recently, have focused on protecting the relatively privileged position of white, skilled craftsmen within the economy while either outright excluding or only rhetorically supporting the largest portion of the working class due to differences in race, ethnicity, gender, or skill level. The rise of industrial unions in the WWII era, despite being a small step in the direction of inclusion, ushered in a labor relations regime where labor unions' role became one of enforcing constraining collective bargaining agreements as much as the representation of workers.

By the early 1950s union officials, as typified by Meany and Kirkland, came to see themselves as the counterpart to business leaders in a labor-management accord. They adopted the same lifestyles and moved in the same social circles. Labor officials, in their newfound role, had no problem with making the world safe for business interests. So-called radical unions and unionists with their demands for worker activism at the point of production were purged from the AFL and unions. The AFL and AFL-CIO under the regimes of Meany and Kirkland collaborated with the US intelligence community through a series of front committees and councils to defeat popular movements in favor of pro-US, right-wing thugs in foreign lands, especially Latin America. Even though the PATCO fiasco of 1981 clearly showed the shredding of the post-WWII domestic social compact, the focus of the AFL-CIO remained on expending tremendous amounts of federation resources on dubious foreign operations.

Clearly, Meany and Kirkland did little to advance the interests of US workers, but the author does not really address the weakly federated structure of organized labor in the US. Given the independence of the AFL's constituent unions and the history of organized labor through WWII, were Meany and Kirkland types not almost predictable? Perhaps they do deserve the author's scorn as symbols of the ineffectualness of organized labor, but the problems run much deeper.

The author more than hints that the Gompers-Meany-Kirkland threesome squashed the desires of the US working class to establish some sort of workers democratic regime - his admiration for the syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) being a tip-off. But that view may be mostly wishful. He cites the Knights of Labor as indicative of working class interest in social unionism, but it is clear that only a small portion of the membership of that organization supported the KOL position of transforming the US into a cooperative society. In fact the KOL impaled itself on traditional, yet failed, strike actions. The author does not attempt to quantify, or place in a broader perspective, the impact of the 1890-1920 movements of populism, the IWW, and socialism on the wider society. Though Gompers, a socialist in his early working days, was clearly unsympathetic towards these movements, the attribution that he was a major factor in their demise seems very questionable. His power to influence events pales in comparison to power of various organs of the state, especially the judiciary, and corporations to adversely affect the working class.

Though the author continually raises the issue of worker democracy as a rebuke to the policies of labor leadership, there is scant reflection on what worker democracy may entail. It would have been unthinkable that the author's much admired IWW would have tolerated third-party bureaucratic organizations like unions negotiating contracts for workers. The IWW wanted direct worker control at the point of production for all workers. But then the practical questions of social and economic coordination arise quickly with such radical decentralization. Nonetheless, the author does not attempt to resolve in any practical way the conflict between actual democracy and the current form of organized labor in the US. Nor is there any real assessment of the desire of the American working class to participate in some form of IWW-like democracy.

The author does not limit himself to the personalities that have led the AFL-CIO. He is determined to identify countless former communists and socialists of labor organizations who renounced their radical pasts and joined neo-conservative political bodies or collaborated with the intelligence community. The fact that the author is a socialist undoubtedly is germane to his mission of identifying those who have abandoned the cause.

A book that is so intent on skewering personalities usually suffers as a result and this one is no exception. The author hints at but does not pursue some worthy topics. What is worker democracy? Are trade unions compatible with such democracy? Aren't centralization and bureaucracy necessary in any complex society? Now those are topics worthy for a book on the labor movement and the working class.

A scathing analysis of the flaws of Meany and Kirkland as leaders of the AFL-CIO. Well-written, well-informed, and passionate. Must reading for union activists and scholars, especially those who are sympathetic to Kirkland or Sweeney. But for rather different views, see Mort, Not Your Father's Labor Movement, and, especially, Taylor Dark, The Unions and the Democrats.

A pugnacious, elegant and devastating critique of the Cold war liberal, business unionists who have corrupted American trade unionism and delivered the wimpy, pathetic federation we have now.