LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for PORTSIDELABOR Archives


PORTSIDELABOR Archives

PORTSIDELABOR Archives


PORTSIDELABOR@LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PORTSIDELABOR Home

PORTSIDELABOR Home

PORTSIDELABOR  June 2011, Week 1

PORTSIDELABOR June 2011, Week 1

Subject:

Academics and Internal Union Battles

From:

Portside Labor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Fri, 3 Jun 2011 20:35:28 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (533 lines)

It's an Academic Question: Why Progressive Intellectuals
Should Not Stay Out of Internal Union Battles

By Dan Clawson

http://newlaborforum.cuny.edu/

New labor Forum


As an academic beginning to engage with the labor
movement, if there was one point on which everyone was
clear, it was this: you absolutely, positively cannot
get involved in the internal politics of the labor
movement.

I disagree.  If we are to study and work with labor at
all, we almost inevitably are involved in its internal
politics.  Even if it were possible to avoid doing so, I
don't think it would be desirable.

Reasons to Stay Out of Unions' Internal Politics Before
presenting my position, let's consider some of the
(quite sensible) arguments against intellectuals getting
anywhere near the internal politics of unions--reasons
that are usually taken as obvious:

1. We all have experience with the academic who has not
himself (or, more rarely, herself) done any actual
organizing, but who does not hesitate to tell everyone
else, most especially people in labor, all the things
they've done wrong.

2. For those in labor education programs, or those being
paid to do research for unions, staying out of internal
union politics is a simple matter of survival. To take
sides is to lose access to, and funding from, the side
you are opposing.

3. There's the issue of knowledge: do we know enough to
be involved?  For disputes within labor, there may well
be good people and good arguments on both sides; not
being in the thick of things, we may have a hard time
judging what is really happening, how the workers feel,
and the unstated consequences of particular positions.
With the best of intentions, even if we think we are
fully informed, we can operate in ignorance and make
serious mistakes.  In such a situation, it is better to
stay out of the conflict.

4. There is a good chance that we will be manipulated
for factional purposes--union leaders schooled in
rough-and-tumble politics will take advantage of naive
academics who don't understand what they are getting
into.

5. Battles within labor will become the focus of outside
attention, and our involvement increases that
likelihood.  A thousand good things that labor does will
be ignored, and all the focus will be on the one problem
we address.

Responses to These Objections 1. I totally agree that
academia is filled with people who feel free to give
(self-satisfied) advice from afar.  This isn't about
academics and internal union politics--it's about people
and behavior that is pretty insufferable at any time.

2. One of the most important reasons that people stay
out of internal labor battles is that a non-trivial
proportion of labor-engaged academics are working in
labor education programs or receive funding from unions
for research projects.  For those people, taking a
stance on internal union politics runs a very real risk
of being cut off from some of their constituencies or
risking a multi-year research project.  That's a risk
that someone like me--who's not based in a labor center,
who (at worst) would have to switch to a new research
topic--doesn't run.

The risk to labor-funded faculty is real and should be
considered in any decision to get involved; but, in many
ways, it is a bad faith argument.  In just about every
organizing campaign, leaders of the campaign are
subjected to serious psychological pressures, risk their
relationships with co-workers, and run the non-trivial
risk of being fired or discriminated against at work. We
constantly ask workers to run those risks.  If workers
don't take risks, there is no labor movement. How could
a labor-oriented intellectual, in good conscience,
operate on the basis of: "it's important that workers
take risks, but I'm not willing to do so"? If you are
encouraging others to do that which you are unwilling to
do, you should get out of labor education, since your
own example undercuts your message.  At an absolute
minimum, labor centers should be sponsoring debates on
these disputes; many are unwilling to do even that.

3. I think the same basic point applies to a lack of
knowledge:  if the issue is important, we should learn
about it.  We never have "all" the facts, but we still
need to engage with ongoing struggles. Not knowing
enough may be an opening position, but only on the basis
of: "I need to learn about this, and soon, so I will
know enough to take action."  Our ignorance is not a
long-term reason to stay uninvolved; it's a demand that
we learn.

4. It is absolutely true that we may be manipulated by
internal factions; I myself have been burned by this. We
should be hyper-aware of this reality.  Many internal
union disputes are primarily factional struggles about
which group will hold office; those we want to avoid.
But other internal union struggles raise important
issues about values that matter to us; they bring to the
fore precisely the reasons we care about labor and want
to engage with it.  If we avoid those issues we are
shirking our responsibility and are, in fact, weakening
the labor movement.  In the real world, important
principles and personal advancement are often mixed, so
we need to make decisions about the relative importance
of the two, and about our ability to intervene in ways
that will advance our principles rather than advance
someone's basically apolitical quest to hold office. But
this problem is inherent in most real world politics; to
avoid all such situations is to withdraw from struggle.

5. Yes, anything that makes labor look bad is going to
get disproportionate media and public attention; and,
yes, things that we say may be quoted (fairly or out of
context) as part of the attacks on labor.  We should be
very careful about what we say and write, and always
bear this in mind.  But if we believe that some key
union, or leader, is beginning to travel down a road
that will seriously damage labor, and we say nothing, is
that helping to build the labor movement?  We should
remember as well that even if we say nothing critical,
that will not prevent union leaders from savaging each
other, as the SEIU's recent disputes make clear.

The Case for Engaging in Internal Union Politics The
most important reason to engage with internal union
politics is that doing so is inevitable if we are to be
union-involved.  In effect, the "stay out of union
internal politics" adage means "always support the group
in power, never support the opposition."  If there is
any level of internal opposition, and the group in power
asks us to write a report, do research needed for a
contract campaign, help educate workers, sign a
statement of support, or write an article about a recent
union success, by doing so we are (probably) taking
sides.  If we do these things for those in power but not
for the opposition, or for some unions but not for
others, we are definitely taking sides.

Not only that--anytime we write to make a case for or
against a policy that is disputed within labor, we are
involved in the internal politics of the labor movement.
If you are convinced that the national labor movement
needs to support immigrant rights, or abjure
protectionism, or stop demonizing China, or that
construction unions need to practice aggressive
affirmative action strategies, and you write a
hard-hitting argument to that effect, there will be
people in the labor movement who think you shouldn't be
interfering in their union's internal politics.  If we
can't write about key policies, we lose much of our
ability to help labor, but anything we write is an
intervention in the internal politics of labor.

This Issue in Practice: Recent Conflicts Most recently,
these issues have forcefully arisen around disputes
between the SEIU's national leadership and other union
leaders.  I was significantly involved in the dispute
between the national SEIU and its large California
health care workers local (UHW). (The most complete
coverage of these disputes can be found in chapter 8 of
Steve Early's The Civil Wars in U.S. Labor.)

When the leadership of the 150,000-member UHW local
broke with the national SEIU leadership, many of us felt
that it was highly likely that the SEIU's national
leadership would trustee UHW, removing its elected
officers, seizing its assets, and taking control of its
operations. Bill Fletcher, Jr., one of the most
perceptive analysts of labor, said that the SEIU
trusteeing UHW would be like the United States invading
Iraq--easy to do, profoundly damaging to both sides, and
creating a quagmire that would cause pain for years.  To
help prevent that from happening, I (among others)
organized a letter, signed by one hundred labor-engaged
intellectuals, urging President Andy Stern not to
trustee UHW.

I've always thought that the letter was in the best
interests of both the national SEIU and UHW, but it led
to the sorts of problems that are pointed to by those
who argue that academics should stay out of internal
conflicts in labor. With any letter put together in a
hurry--something like two weeks from start to
dispatch--confusion reigns and disparate understandings
flourish, especially since the signatures were sought by
multiple people using individualized e-mails.  People
understood their signatures in differing ways.  I
intended this to be an open, within-the-house-of-labor
letter.  When I sent the letter to Andy Stern, the
initial SEIU reaction was friendly; when the letter was
sent to the UALE e-mail list of some five hundred
academics no one objected.  But when UHW leaders,
without our advance knowledge or agreement, ran a
half-page ad in the New York Times, all hell broke
loose.

Many of those who signed the letter probably did so
largely out of ignorance, thinking: "if [person x], whom
I know and respect, asked me to sign the letter, it must
be a good thing to do."The SEIU's initially friendly
reception turned sharply negative when the ad appeared
in the Times, and most of the signators received calls
from someone they knew in the SEIU asking them why they
signed, and/or asking them to withdraw their signatures,
and/or indicating that there would be consequences. Many
of the people who had signed (quite reasonably) felt
burned, and let me (and others) know about it.  I myself
would have happily signed even had I known the letter
would be reprinted by UHW, but I would have fully
informed those from whom I was attempting to collect
signatures, and I'm sure many people would have chosen
not to sign.

General Principles Saying that sometimes academics
should be involved in internal labor politics certainly
does not mean that we should do so lightly or routinely.
The more unusual our interventions are, the more likely
they are to be taken seriously. The more those who take
a stand have worked with labor and can point to work
that has helped labor, the more attention labor leaders
will pay.  We should not act unless we inform ourselves
about the issues.  We should be aware that our actions
may have consequences. Perhaps most important, for this
or for any other organizing action, we should think
carefully about the reasons for our actions and their
likely consequences.  Will our involvement in union
internal politics actually promote the values and
positions we believe in?

One of the lessons of the SEIU disputes is that although
academics are often convinced that we don't matter in
"the real world," union leaders feel otherwise.  They
are very concerned about what labor-friendly academics
think and do.  Labor leaders are willing to invest
significant time and energy into a battle for our hearts
and minds.  If a sizeable number of us take a stand,
labor listens, and that is perhaps the strongest reason
why, when we think key values and issues are at stake,
we should be involved in internal union politics.

*Thanks for comments and reactions from Steve Early, Tom
Juravich, Stephanie Luce, Ruth Milkman, Eve Weinbaum,
and Ferd Wulkan.  Several of these people strongly
disagreed with one or another part of my argument, and
definitely aren't responsible for what's written here.

As an academic beginning to engage with the labor
movement, if there was one point on which everyone was
clear, it was this: you absolutely, positively cannot
get involved in the internal politics of the labor
movement.

I disagree.  If we are to study and work with labor at
all, we almost inevitably are involved in its internal
politics.  Even if it were possible to avoid doing so, I
don't think it would be desirable.

Reasons to Stay Out of Unions' Internal Politics Before
presenting my position, let's consider some of the
(quite sensible) arguments against intellectuals getting
anywhere near the internal politics of unions--reasons
that are usually taken as obvious:

1. We all have experience with the academic who has not
himself (or, more rarely, herself) done any actual
organizing, but who does not hesitate to tell everyone
else, most especially people in labor, all the things
they've done wrong.

2. For those in labor education programs, or those being
paid to do research for unions, staying out of internal
union politics is a simple matter of survival. To take
sides is to lose access to, and funding from, the side
you are opposing.

3. There's the issue of knowledge: do we know enough to
be involved?  For disputes within labor, there may well
be good people and good arguments on both sides; not
being in the thick of things, we may have a hard time
judging what is really happening, how the workers feel,
and the unstated consequences of particular positions.
With the best of intentions, even if we think we are
fully informed, we can operate in ignorance and make
serious mistakes.  In such a situation, it is better to
stay out of the conflict.

4. There is a good chance that we will be manipulated
for factional purposes--union leaders schooled in
rough-and-tumble politics will take advantage of naive
academics who don't understand what they are getting
into.

5. Battles within labor will become the focus of outside
attention, and our involvement increases that
likelihood.  A thousand good things that labor does will
be ignored, and all the focus will be on the one problem
we address. Responses to These Objections 1. I totally
agree that academia is filled with people who feel free
to give (self-satisfied) advice from afar.  This isn't
about academics and internal union politics--it's about
people and behavior that is pretty insufferable at any
time.

2. One of the most important reasons that people stay
out of internal labor battles is that a non-trivial
proportion of labor-engaged academics are working in
labor education programs or receive funding from unions
for research projects.  For those people, taking a
stance on internal union politics runs a very real risk
of being cut off from some of their constituencies or
risking a multi-year research project.  That's a risk
that someone like me--who's not based in a labor center,
who (at worst) would have to switch to a new research
topic--doesn't run.

The risk to labor-funded faculty is real and should be
considered in any decision to get involved; but, in many
ways, it is a bad faith argument.  In just about every
organizing campaign, leaders of the campaign are
subjected to serious psychological pressures, risk their
relationships with co-workers, and run the non-trivial
risk of being fired or discriminated against at work. We
constantly ask workers to run those risks.  If workers
don't take risks, there is no labor movement. How could
a labor-oriented intellectual, in good conscience,
operate on the basis of: "it's important that workers
take risks, but I'm not willing to do so"? If you are
encouraging others to do that which you are unwilling to
do, you should get out of labor education, since your
own example undercuts your message.  At an absolute
minimum, labor centers should be sponsoring debates on
these disputes; many are unwilling to do even that.

3. I think the same basic point applies to a lack of
knowledge:  if the issue is important, we should learn
about it.  We never have "all" the facts, but we still
need to engage with ongoing struggles. Not knowing
enough may be an opening position, but only on the basis
of: "I need to learn about this, and soon, so I will
know enough to take action."  Our ignorance is not a
long-term reason to stay uninvolved; it's a demand that
we learn.

4. It is absolutely true that we may be manipulated by
internal factions; I myself have been burned by this. We
should be hyper-aware of this reality.  Many internal
union disputes are primarily factional struggles about
which group will hold office; those we want to avoid.
But other internal union struggles raise important
issues about values that matter to us; they bring to the
fore precisely the reasons we care about labor and want
to engage with it.  If we avoid those issues we are
shirking our responsibility and are, in fact, weakening
the labor movement.  In the real world, important
principles and personal advancement are often mixed, so
we need to make decisions about the relative importance
of the two, and about our ability to intervene in ways
that will advance our principles rather than advance
someone's basically apolitical quest to hold office. But
this problem is inherent in most real world politics; to
avoid all such situations is to withdraw from struggle.

5. Yes, anything that makes labor look bad is going to
get disproportionate media and public attention; and,
yes, things that we say may be quoted (fairly or out of
context) as part of the attacks on labor.  We should be
very careful about what we say and write, and always
bear this in mind.  But if we believe that some key
union, or leader, is beginning to travel down a road
that will seriously damage labor, and we say nothing, is
that helping to build the labor movement?  We should
remember as well that even if we say nothing critical,
that will not prevent union leaders from savaging each
other, as the SEIU's recent disputes make clear.

The Case for Engaging in Internal Union Politics The
most important reason to engage with internal union
politics is that doing so is inevitable if we are to be
union-involved.  In effect, the "stay out of union
internal politics" adage means "always support the group
in power, never support the opposition."  If there is
any level of internal opposition, and the group in power
asks us to write a report, do research needed for a
contract campaign, help educate workers, sign a
statement of support, or write an article about a recent
union success, by doing so we are (probably) taking
sides.  If we do these things for those in power but not
for the opposition, or for some unions but not for
others, we are definitely taking sides.

Not only that--anytime we write to make a case for or
against a policy that is disputed within labor, we are
involved in the internal politics of the labor movement.
If you are convinced that the national labor movement
needs to support immigrant rights, or abjure
protectionism, or stop demonizing China, or that
construction unions need to practice aggressive
affirmative action strategies, and you write a
hard-hitting argument to that effect, there will be
people in the labor movement who think you shouldn't be
interfering in their union's internal politics.  If we
can't write about key policies, we lose much of our
ability to help labor, but anything we write is an
intervention in the internal politics of labor.

This Issue in Practice: Recent Conflicts Most recently,
these issues have forcefully arisen around disputes
between the SEIU's national leadership and other union
leaders.  I was significantly involved in the dispute
between the national SEIU and its large California
health care workers local (UHW). (The most complete
coverage of these disputes can be found in chapter 8 of
Steve Early's The Civil Wars in U.S. Labor.)

When the leadership of the 150,000-member UHW local
broke with the national SEIU leadership, many of us felt
that it was highly likely that the SEIU's national
leadership would trustee UHW, removing its elected
officers, seizing its assets, and taking control of its
operations. Bill Fletcher, Jr., one of the most
perceptive analysts of labor, said that the SEIU
trusteeing UHW would be like the United States invading
Iraq--easy to do, profoundly damaging to both sides, and
creating a quagmire that would cause pain for years.  To
help prevent that from happening, I (among others)
organized a letter, signed by one hundred labor-engaged
intellectuals, urging President Andy Stern not to
trustee UHW.

I've always thought that the letter was in the best
interests of both the national SEIU and UHW, but it led
to the sorts of problems that are pointed to by those
who argue that academics should stay out of internal
conflicts in labor. With any letter put together in a
hurry--something like two weeks from start to
dispatch--confusion reigns and disparate understandings
flourish, especially since the signatures were sought by
multiple people using individualized e-mails.  People
understood their signatures in differing ways.  I
intended this to be an open, within-the-house-of-labor
letter.  When I sent the letter to Andy Stern, the
initial SEIU reaction was friendly; when the letter was
sent to the UALE e-mail list of some five hundred
academics no one objected.  But when UHW leaders,
without our advance knowledge or agreement, ran a
half-page ad in the New York Times, all hell broke
loose.

Many of those who signed the letter probably did so
largely out of ignorance, thinking: "if [person x], whom
I know and respect, asked me to sign the letter, it must
be a good thing to do."The SEIU's initially friendly
reception turned sharply negative when the ad appeared
in the Times, and most of the signators received calls
from someone they knew in the SEIU asking them why they
signed, and/or asking them to withdraw their signatures,
and/or indicating that there would be consequences. 
Many of the people who had signed (quite reasonably)
felt burned, and let me (and others) know about it.  I
myself would have happily signed even had I known the
letter would be reprinted by UHW, but I would have fully
informed those from whom I was attempting to collect
signatures, and I'm sure many people would have chosen
not to sign.

General Principles Saying that sometimes academics
should be involved in internal labor politics certainly
does not mean that we should do so lightly or routinely.
The more unusual our interventions are, the more likely
they are to be taken seriously. The more those who take
a stand have worked with labor and can point to work
that has helped labor, the more attention labor leaders
will pay.  We should not act unless we inform ourselves
about the issues.  We should be aware that our actions
may have consequences. Perhaps most important, for this
or for any other organizing action, we should think
carefully about the reasons for our actions and their
likely consequences.  Will our involvement in union
internal politics actually promote the values and
positions we believe in?

One of the lessons of the SEIU disputes is that although
academics are often convinced that we don't matter in
"the real world," union leaders feel otherwise.  They
are very concerned about what labor-friendly academics
think and do.  Labor leaders are willing to invest
significant time and energy into a battle for our hearts
and minds.  If a sizeable number of us take a stand,
labor listens, and that is perhaps the strongest reason
why, when we think key values and issues are at stake,
we should be involved in internal union politics.

*Thanks for comments and reactions from Steve Early, Tom
Juravich, Stephanie Luce, Ruth Milkman, Eve Weinbaum,
and Ferd Wulkan.  Several of these people strongly
disagreed with one or another part of my argument, and
definitely aren't responsible for what's written here.

____________________________________________

PortsideLabor aims to provide material of interest to
people on the left that will help them to interpret the
world and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

PS Labor Archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019, Week 3
September 2019, Week 2
September 2019, Week 1
August 2019, Week 5
August 2019, Week 4
August 2019, Week 3
August 2019, Week 2
August 2019, Week 1
July 2019, Week 5
July 2019, Week 4
July 2019, Week 3
July 2019, Week 2
July 2019, Week 1
June 2019, Week 5
June 2019, Week 4
June 2019, Week 3
June 2019, Week 2
June 2019, Week 1
May 2019, Week 5
May 2019, Week 4
May 2019, Week 3
May 2019, Week 2
May 2019, Week 1
April 2019, Week 5
April 2019, Week 4
April 2019, Week 3
April 2019, Week 2
April 2019, Week 1
March 2019, Week 5
March 2019, Week 4
March 2019, Week 3
March 2019, Week 2
March 2019, Week 1
February 2019, Week 4
February 2019, Week 3
February 2019, Week 2
February 2019, Week 1
January 2019, Week 5
January 2019, Week 4
January 2019, Week 3
January 2019, Week 2
January 2019, Week 1
December 2018, Week 5
December 2018, Week 4
December 2018, Week 3
December 2018, Week 2
December 2018, Week 1
November 2018, Week 5
November 2018, Week 4
November 2018, Week 3
November 2018, Week 2
November 2018, Week 1
October 2018, Week 5
October 2018, Week 4
October 2018, Week 3
October 2018, Week 2
October 2018, Week 1
September 2018, Week 5
September 2018, Week 4
September 2018, Week 3
September 2018, Week 2
September 2018, Week 1
August 2018, Week 5
August 2018, Week 4
August 2018, Week 3
August 2018, Week 2
August 2018, Week 1
July 2018, Week 5
July 2018, Week 4
July 2018, Week 3
July 2018, Week 2
July 2018, Week 1
June 2018, Week 5
June 2018, Week 4
June 2018, Week 3
June 2018, Week 2
June 2018, Week 1
May 2018, Week 5
May 2018, Week 4
May 2018, Week 3
May 2018, Week 2
May 2018, Week 1
April 2018, Week 5
April 2018, Week 4
April 2018, Week 3
April 2018, Week 2
April 2018, Week 1
March 2018, Week 5
March 2018, Week 4
March 2018, Week 3
March 2018, Week 2
March 2018, Week 1
February 2018, Week 4
February 2018, Week 3
February 2018, Week 2
February 2018, Week 1
January 2018, Week 5
January 2018, Week 4
January 2018, Week 3
January 2018, Week 2
January 2018, Week 1
December 2017, Week 5
December 2017, Week 4
December 2017, Week 3
December 2017, Week 2
December 2017, Week 1
November 2017, Week 5
November 2017, Week 4
November 2017, Week 3
November 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 1
October 2017, Week 5
October 2017, Week 4
October 2017, Week 3
October 2017, Week 2
October 2017, Week 1
September 2017, Week 5
September 2017, Week 4
September 2017, Week 3
September 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 1
August 2017, Week 5
August 2017, Week 4
August 2017, Week 3
August 2017, Week 2
August 2017, Week 1
July 2017, Week 5
July 2017, Week 4
July 2017, Week 3
July 2017, Week 2
July 2017, Week 1
June 2017, Week 5
June 2017, Week 4
June 2017, Week 3
June 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 1
May 2017, Week 5
May 2017, Week 4
May 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 2
May 2017, Week 1
April 2017, Week 5
April 2017, Week 4
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 4
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 5
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 3
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 3
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 5
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 5
October 2016, Week 4
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 2
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 5
September 2016, Week 4
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 4
August 2016, Week 3
August 2016, Week 2
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 4
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 5
November 2015, Week 4
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
October 2015, Week 1
September 2015, Week 5
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 3
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 5
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 1
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 4
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 5
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 1
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
September 2014, Week 1
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 5
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 3
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 5
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 5
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 5
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 5
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 5
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 5
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 5
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 5
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager