Home > LRR > Vol. 1 > No. 6 (1985)
Article Title
Abstract
[Excerpt] Dan Swinney's response to my article is flawed in three respects. First, Dan doesn't adequately address the theoretical arguments and empirical data I presented to support my position. Second, he misrepresents my views at several points in his article. Third, his notion of worker ownership as a tactic begs the question of what sort of strategy or general direction the labor movement needs.
Recommended Citation
Slott, Mike
(1985)
"Debate: Reply to Swinney,"
Labor Research Review:
Vol. 1:
No.
6, Article 1.
Available at:
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/lrr/vol1/iss6/1
COinS