A lot of people do retrospectives this time of the year, taking a look back at the high and low points of 2009. Here at LaborLeft do it the hard way. As is our tradition, here is our retrospective on the local labor movement for NEXT year.
And, you gotta admit, 2010 was a hell of a year!
No doubt, the most significant happening was the founding of the Madison Organizing Committee in January. The MOC was singularly responsible for the new unions at the Marriott, Crowne Plaza, Cintas and Hy-Vee and the half dozen or so organizing drives currently underway around town.
It was a good idea to establish the MOC as an ad hoc committee, independent from the Fed and existing internationals. Once we were out from under all the bureaucracy, jurisdictions, legal, financial and political constraints and dues requirements, we just went out and organized.
The setback at Woodman’s turned into a plus. When word got out that Phil and his “employee owners” had successfully busted the union, the customers who had been shopping there just because it was a union shop went elsewhere. The “For Sale—Will Build to Suit” sign in the empty parking lot at Woodman’s East sent a message to the managers at Hy-Vee: This is what happens when you mess with the union. A first contract was remarkably easy.
The transformation of the Union Labor News into an organizing tool obviously helped a lot. I think we distributed over 10,000 copies of the debut bilingual issue at the May Day rally. We saw a lot of people reading (in Spanish) the lead story about labor’s fight for principled immigration reform.
And, although it may have seemed a bit patronizing, we did enjoy the salsa band at Labor Day.
The shift in how we did politics might have the most significant lasting impact, however. The decision to launch independent campaigns around progressive issues really mixed things up. We hit the streets with an army of union members and, in short order, got the signatures necessary to get referenda on the statewide ballot that would require specific progressive tax reforms and paid sick leave.
We have to admit that it was fun watching the politicians scramble. Their first response was to stonewall and just ignore our issues. But that turned out to be difficult, since taxing wealth and requiring paid sick leave were about all voters wanted to talk about. Then they developed a two-line position, strongly for and against the propositions, depending on who they were talking to. Voters (and even some of the media) were smart enough to figure that one out.
In the end, the ballot initiatives forced the politicians to take a side: Will you stand with the working class or the employing class? By early fall it was clear that organized labor would be supporting a lot fewer candidates come November. The political action money we would have poured down the “lesser evil” rat hole was spent in last minute campaign to push the ballot initiatives well over the top.
So, that’s where we are, at the end of 2010. In good position to make 2011 one a hell of a year!
Some folks tell me they're still having trouble leaving a comment. Here's how you do it:
1) Click on "Comments" at the bottom of the message.
2) Type your comment in the box.
3) Then hit "Anonymous" button. Don't ask why. It just works better that way. If you want to include your name, type it in the comment box.
4) Finally, hit the "Publish your Comment" button.
Got something to say? Sure you do.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Alien Labor News
I was on my way to visit some friends in a nearby parallel universe the other day and dropped in to Copp’s to pick up some taco chips. Copp’s is unionized over there, but that’s a story for another time.
As I walked in the door, there, between the Isthmus and Simpson Street News, was a bin loaded with the latest copy of the Union Labor News. Curious, I went down to the Labor Temple Bar (which is smokeless, btw, and has a fair assortments of micro brews on tap) to see what gives.
The story I got is that, over there, the Union Labor News had fallen on hard times awhile back. Oh, it was well written and nicely laid out, and it even ran stuff by a local left-wing blogger from time to time, so there were no grounds to criticize. But costs were up and subscription revenues were way down.
One barfly speculated that the ULN had exercised a little too much independence in recent years and had pissed off some Democratic Party stalwarts, who saw to it that their locals cancelled their subs. But I wasn’t around long enough to check out that story.
Whatever the cause of the financial crisis, the cure was to convert the ULN form a subscription-based newspaper to a free monthly. This actually wasn’t a very radical idea. A number of mass circulation daily newspapers around the county, including the Boston Globe and The Capital Times, had switched to a free, mass distribution format.
The ULN had an advantage. As a union paper, it was able to garner grants from a couple of huge rich internationals. And, with a new free circulation of over 100,000 a month, ad revenues were up. Union members volunteered to do the distribution to their local supermarkets, libraries, government buildings and at public events where working people gathered. There was even talk of going weekly.
And, as part of the switch, ULN changed its approach. In its previous incarnation, it was primarily a union newspaper, speaking to unionized workers. The new idea was that it would become a voice for the working class and an organizing tool. Each issue had a general working class interest article on Page 1, above the fold. Inside it still covered the local labor movement. And, each issue included a pitch on how people could start organizing a union where they worked—in English, Spanish and a Rigel-5 dialect.
Folks down at the Labor Temple Bar credited the change with a modest upsurge in union organizing in the area.
Well, the dilithium crystals were getting low so I had to make it for home. But, while there are always risks to employing ideas that worked in a parallel universe, it does kinda make you think.
Ok, a lot of people read this thing. I know because you're coming up to me all the time to tell me what you think about the latest posting. But not many of you are leaving a comment. I know you folks and you aren't short of opinions. And, it isn't hard to do.
1) Click on "Comments" at the bottom of the message.
2) Type your comment in the box.
3) Then hit "Anonymous" button. Don't ask why. It just works better that way. If you want to include your name, type it in the comment box.
4) Finally, hit the "Publish your Comment" button.
Got something to say? Sure you do.
As I walked in the door, there, between the Isthmus and Simpson Street News, was a bin loaded with the latest copy of the Union Labor News. Curious, I went down to the Labor Temple Bar (which is smokeless, btw, and has a fair assortments of micro brews on tap) to see what gives.
The story I got is that, over there, the Union Labor News had fallen on hard times awhile back. Oh, it was well written and nicely laid out, and it even ran stuff by a local left-wing blogger from time to time, so there were no grounds to criticize. But costs were up and subscription revenues were way down.
One barfly speculated that the ULN had exercised a little too much independence in recent years and had pissed off some Democratic Party stalwarts, who saw to it that their locals cancelled their subs. But I wasn’t around long enough to check out that story.
Whatever the cause of the financial crisis, the cure was to convert the ULN form a subscription-based newspaper to a free monthly. This actually wasn’t a very radical idea. A number of mass circulation daily newspapers around the county, including the Boston Globe and The Capital Times, had switched to a free, mass distribution format.
The ULN had an advantage. As a union paper, it was able to garner grants from a couple of huge rich internationals. And, with a new free circulation of over 100,000 a month, ad revenues were up. Union members volunteered to do the distribution to their local supermarkets, libraries, government buildings and at public events where working people gathered. There was even talk of going weekly.
And, as part of the switch, ULN changed its approach. In its previous incarnation, it was primarily a union newspaper, speaking to unionized workers. The new idea was that it would become a voice for the working class and an organizing tool. Each issue had a general working class interest article on Page 1, above the fold. Inside it still covered the local labor movement. And, each issue included a pitch on how people could start organizing a union where they worked—in English, Spanish and a Rigel-5 dialect.
Folks down at the Labor Temple Bar credited the change with a modest upsurge in union organizing in the area.
Well, the dilithium crystals were getting low so I had to make it for home. But, while there are always risks to employing ideas that worked in a parallel universe, it does kinda make you think.
Ok, a lot of people read this thing. I know because you're coming up to me all the time to tell me what you think about the latest posting. But not many of you are leaving a comment. I know you folks and you aren't short of opinions. And, it isn't hard to do.
1) Click on "Comments" at the bottom of the message.
2) Type your comment in the box.
3) Then hit "Anonymous" button. Don't ask why. It just works better that way. If you want to include your name, type it in the comment box.
4) Finally, hit the "Publish your Comment" button.
Got something to say? Sure you do.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Clarence's Joke
Here’s a joke that Clarence Kailin told at a potluck a few years ago. A re-telling seems appropriate. It’s about the day Karl Marx died.
Old Karl arrived up in Heaven, at the Pearly Gates. St. Peter recognized him right away, but decided to have a little fun anyway.
“Name?” said St. Peter.
“Karl Marx. That’s Marx with an ‘x’ and Karl with a ‘k.”
With great flourish, St. Peter opened the Golden Book to the M’s and started down the list. After a moment he frowned over his glasses. “I’m sorry, Mr. Marx. We obviously have nothing for you here.”
With that, Karl picked up his shabby little suitcase, turned and headed down the Golden Stair.
A week passed. St. Peter is on the phone, calling down to Hell. “Lucifer. Pete here. Hey, we didn’t get a shipment from you guys this week. What’s going on? You’re usually very prompt.”
“It’s that Karl Marx guy you sent us,” says the Devil. “No sooner did he arrived, than he started organizing unions. Right now the Sulfur Workers are threatening a general strike unless they get air conditioning. I tell ya, Pete. There might not be anymore shipments from down here unless we get rid of this guy.”
“Ok, ok,” says St. Peter with a sigh. “Send him back.”
Next morning, there’s old Karl, again standing before the Pearly Gates. This time no questions asked. The gates swing open and he floats inside.
A week passes. This time it’s the Devil making a call up to Heaven. “Lucifer, here. Say, did our last shipment arrive?”
“Yes,” says the voice on the Heaven end of the line. “Quite all right.”
“Well,” says the Devil. “We haven’t been paid yet. You guys are always so prompt.”
“Yes,” says the voice on the Heaven end of the line. “There have been a few changes up here. First, we’ve reorganized. We’re now a workers’ collective.”
“And, we voted to cancel the foreign debt. So, you won’t be getting paid for that last shipment.”
“What?” says the Devil.
“Oh, and by the way, we’ve expropriated your train. And your crew’s defected.”
“That’s ridiculous!” says the Devil. “Let me talk to St. Peter.”
“I’m sorry, but Citizen Peter no longer works in this capacity.”
“That’s outrageous!” says the Devil. “I demand to talk to God!”
After a short pause on the Heaven end of the phone the voice says, “…Who?”
We may have disagreements about things like souls and spirits and what happens when you die. But, we can agree on one thing. Wherever Clarence is tonight, you can be sure he’s organizing.
Old Karl arrived up in Heaven, at the Pearly Gates. St. Peter recognized him right away, but decided to have a little fun anyway.
“Name?” said St. Peter.
“Karl Marx. That’s Marx with an ‘x’ and Karl with a ‘k.”
With great flourish, St. Peter opened the Golden Book to the M’s and started down the list. After a moment he frowned over his glasses. “I’m sorry, Mr. Marx. We obviously have nothing for you here.”
With that, Karl picked up his shabby little suitcase, turned and headed down the Golden Stair.
A week passed. St. Peter is on the phone, calling down to Hell. “Lucifer. Pete here. Hey, we didn’t get a shipment from you guys this week. What’s going on? You’re usually very prompt.”
“It’s that Karl Marx guy you sent us,” says the Devil. “No sooner did he arrived, than he started organizing unions. Right now the Sulfur Workers are threatening a general strike unless they get air conditioning. I tell ya, Pete. There might not be anymore shipments from down here unless we get rid of this guy.”
“Ok, ok,” says St. Peter with a sigh. “Send him back.”
Next morning, there’s old Karl, again standing before the Pearly Gates. This time no questions asked. The gates swing open and he floats inside.
A week passes. This time it’s the Devil making a call up to Heaven. “Lucifer, here. Say, did our last shipment arrive?”
“Yes,” says the voice on the Heaven end of the line. “Quite all right.”
“Well,” says the Devil. “We haven’t been paid yet. You guys are always so prompt.”
“Yes,” says the voice on the Heaven end of the line. “There have been a few changes up here. First, we’ve reorganized. We’re now a workers’ collective.”
“And, we voted to cancel the foreign debt. So, you won’t be getting paid for that last shipment.”
“What?” says the Devil.
“Oh, and by the way, we’ve expropriated your train. And your crew’s defected.”
“That’s ridiculous!” says the Devil. “Let me talk to St. Peter.”
“I’m sorry, but Citizen Peter no longer works in this capacity.”
“That’s outrageous!” says the Devil. “I demand to talk to God!”
After a short pause on the Heaven end of the phone the voice says, “…Who?”
We may have disagreements about things like souls and spirits and what happens when you die. But, we can agree on one thing. Wherever Clarence is tonight, you can be sure he’s organizing.
Monday, September 14, 2009
UW Unions Sully Themselves
The American Federation of Teachers and AFSCME Council 24 have been doing their best to sully the good name of unions on the UW-Madison campus.
First a little background. There are about 4,000 UW-Madison employees who currently are categorized as “Academic Staff.” AFT has a union, Local 223 (a.k.a. UFAS), dedicated to organizing that group. They’ve been at it since 1930, without much luck. Their running excuse has been that, since Academic Staff jobs weren’t covered by state employment law, the UW would have no legal obligation to negotiate a contract with them. So, why would people join a union that didn’t have “bargaining rights”?
All that changed this past spring when the Legislature passed a budget that included extending bargaining rights to Academic Staff. AFT members were instructed to celebrate and to contact Governor Doyle to urge him to sign the bill, even though that same budget slashed agencies, froze wages for state employees and gave those who live off of wealth a pass. But, at least Academic Staff could vote in a union with bargaining rights. Finally, Local 223 could organize.
Not so fast. Enter AFT and AFSCME.
As it turns out, a lot of those Academic Staff jobs properly should have been classified under one of the bargaining units that have long been covered by state labor law. If you’re programming a payroll system, it shouldn’t make a difference if you’re doing it for DOA or a campus. Thus a lot of the UW –Madison Academic Staff jobs should have been part of the Fiscal and Staff Services unit (AFT Local 4848’s jurisdiction) or the Administrative Support Unit (AFSCME Local 2412’s bailiwick). A few more might belong to AFSCME’s Technical Unit and some to AFT’s Science Professionals.
But, the university just chose to call these workers “Academic Staff” for all those years rather than unionized classified state employees because…well, because they could get away with it.
Now, there’s a mechanism for fixing the problem when state employees are incorrectly put into the wrong bargaining unit. A union can file for a “unit clarification” with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. If the WERC agrees that the jobs should be moved into a different bargaining unit, it’s done.
AFT and Council 24 leadership have known about this—that a lot of Academic Staff jobs were in the union’s jurisdiction and they could get them in the union through the unit clarification process—for years. It was back in 1992, for example, that Marty Beil went to the WERC to rip off a hundred Financial Specialists from AFT 4848’s jurisdiction. So, nobody can claim naiveté here. But none of the unions did anything about raiding the Academic Staff group…until now.
Right after the Legislature passed the law extending bargaining rights to Academic Staff, the powers-that-be in AFT and AFSCME Council 24 decided to try to rip off a big chunk of the Academic Staff jobs and get them moved into their locals through the unit clarification process. “Why?” you might ask. “Why, at all?!” And, especially, “Why NOW?!!” Just at the moment when the Academic Staff unit got bargaining rights on its own?
Well, it makes no sense from a union organizing perspective. But it all makes perfect sense within a Business Union Model. Since the various AFT and AFSCME locals involved have either “maintenance of membership” or “fair share” agreements in place, most of these newly-drafted Academic Staffers would end up automatically paying dues to the union. And, within the Business Union Model, being “organized” is literally defined as “paying dues.”
And, of course, when you go the unit clarification route, there’s no need for a messy union certification election and a campaign to convince people they should want to be in a union. Just send in the lawyers and get ‘er done.
That all still begs the question: “Why now?” Obviously, AFT and AFSCME could have run their unit clarifications years ago. Are we to believe that they suddenly and at the same time realized that thousands of Academic Staff jobs should be in their jurisdiction and decided to take action? After 80 years? And just at the very moment that Local 223 got the legal right to bargain?
The cynic might think that these unions decided to make their move now because they were worried that Local 223 might actually use their new legal status to organize Academic Staff into a new union. Maybe they thought it was “now or never.” Maybe it’s a little like the predatory instinct to pounce on fleeing prey.
Pretty much anyone who knows anything about organizing unions could have anticipated that the unit clarification maneuver would not sit well with a lot of the potential draftees. As predicted (by us, anyway), there has been a more or less organized rebellion among UW-Madison Academic Staff.
Some Academic Staff employees, including some long-time union activists and members of Local 223, just want a chance to organize their co-workers and hold an election. They want a union, but they want a union that’s democratic and demonstratively supported by its members. And, for various reasons, they don’t relish the prospects of being absorbed into existing locals.
Unfortunately, the union bureaucracies’ ham handedness has given fuel to the truly anti-union elements on campus.
All of which is too bad. Certainly Academic Staff employees would be better off with a union. Even the somewhat anemic AFT and AFSCME locals where they might end up have better wages and benefits than non-union state employees. And, certainly, any union will have better job security than non-reps.
But, just imagine what a new union of Academic Staff employees, with a smart and aggressive leadership and the support of the members, could accomplish.
Got a comment? Sure you do! Just click on "comments" below and share your thoughts with others in the Madison-area labor movement.
First a little background. There are about 4,000 UW-Madison employees who currently are categorized as “Academic Staff.” AFT has a union, Local 223 (a.k.a. UFAS), dedicated to organizing that group. They’ve been at it since 1930, without much luck. Their running excuse has been that, since Academic Staff jobs weren’t covered by state employment law, the UW would have no legal obligation to negotiate a contract with them. So, why would people join a union that didn’t have “bargaining rights”?
All that changed this past spring when the Legislature passed a budget that included extending bargaining rights to Academic Staff. AFT members were instructed to celebrate and to contact Governor Doyle to urge him to sign the bill, even though that same budget slashed agencies, froze wages for state employees and gave those who live off of wealth a pass. But, at least Academic Staff could vote in a union with bargaining rights. Finally, Local 223 could organize.
Not so fast. Enter AFT and AFSCME.
As it turns out, a lot of those Academic Staff jobs properly should have been classified under one of the bargaining units that have long been covered by state labor law. If you’re programming a payroll system, it shouldn’t make a difference if you’re doing it for DOA or a campus. Thus a lot of the UW –Madison Academic Staff jobs should have been part of the Fiscal and Staff Services unit (AFT Local 4848’s jurisdiction) or the Administrative Support Unit (AFSCME Local 2412’s bailiwick). A few more might belong to AFSCME’s Technical Unit and some to AFT’s Science Professionals.
But, the university just chose to call these workers “Academic Staff” for all those years rather than unionized classified state employees because…well, because they could get away with it.
Now, there’s a mechanism for fixing the problem when state employees are incorrectly put into the wrong bargaining unit. A union can file for a “unit clarification” with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. If the WERC agrees that the jobs should be moved into a different bargaining unit, it’s done.
AFT and Council 24 leadership have known about this—that a lot of Academic Staff jobs were in the union’s jurisdiction and they could get them in the union through the unit clarification process—for years. It was back in 1992, for example, that Marty Beil went to the WERC to rip off a hundred Financial Specialists from AFT 4848’s jurisdiction. So, nobody can claim naiveté here. But none of the unions did anything about raiding the Academic Staff group…until now.
Right after the Legislature passed the law extending bargaining rights to Academic Staff, the powers-that-be in AFT and AFSCME Council 24 decided to try to rip off a big chunk of the Academic Staff jobs and get them moved into their locals through the unit clarification process. “Why?” you might ask. “Why, at all?!” And, especially, “Why NOW?!!” Just at the moment when the Academic Staff unit got bargaining rights on its own?
Well, it makes no sense from a union organizing perspective. But it all makes perfect sense within a Business Union Model. Since the various AFT and AFSCME locals involved have either “maintenance of membership” or “fair share” agreements in place, most of these newly-drafted Academic Staffers would end up automatically paying dues to the union. And, within the Business Union Model, being “organized” is literally defined as “paying dues.”
And, of course, when you go the unit clarification route, there’s no need for a messy union certification election and a campaign to convince people they should want to be in a union. Just send in the lawyers and get ‘er done.
That all still begs the question: “Why now?” Obviously, AFT and AFSCME could have run their unit clarifications years ago. Are we to believe that they suddenly and at the same time realized that thousands of Academic Staff jobs should be in their jurisdiction and decided to take action? After 80 years? And just at the very moment that Local 223 got the legal right to bargain?
The cynic might think that these unions decided to make their move now because they were worried that Local 223 might actually use their new legal status to organize Academic Staff into a new union. Maybe they thought it was “now or never.” Maybe it’s a little like the predatory instinct to pounce on fleeing prey.
Pretty much anyone who knows anything about organizing unions could have anticipated that the unit clarification maneuver would not sit well with a lot of the potential draftees. As predicted (by us, anyway), there has been a more or less organized rebellion among UW-Madison Academic Staff.
Some Academic Staff employees, including some long-time union activists and members of Local 223, just want a chance to organize their co-workers and hold an election. They want a union, but they want a union that’s democratic and demonstratively supported by its members. And, for various reasons, they don’t relish the prospects of being absorbed into existing locals.
Unfortunately, the union bureaucracies’ ham handedness has given fuel to the truly anti-union elements on campus.
All of which is too bad. Certainly Academic Staff employees would be better off with a union. Even the somewhat anemic AFT and AFSCME locals where they might end up have better wages and benefits than non-union state employees. And, certainly, any union will have better job security than non-reps.
But, just imagine what a new union of Academic Staff employees, with a smart and aggressive leadership and the support of the members, could accomplish.
Got a comment? Sure you do! Just click on "comments" below and share your thoughts with others in the Madison-area labor movement.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
State Employees for Doyle
In recent weeks, leaders of several state employee unions have made a substantial financial commitment to re-elect Jim Doyle. This is ironic (but not coincidental) in light of Doyle’s demand that their members take a substantial pay cut over the next two years.
Here’s how it will work. In May Doyle announced that all state employees would have to agree to take 8 un-paid furlough days a year, for the next two years, which comes down to a 3 % pay cut. His line was that the furloughs will contribute $224 million toward resolving the state’s $6.5 billion deficit. If the unions didn’t agree, there would be consequences.
State employees immediately spotted this as bullshit. First, over half of state employees and over 70 % of University employees are paid from federal funds or grants, or through their own work in revenue-generating programs. Cutting the hours of these people won’t save the state a dime. In fact, the result will be a modest decrease in state tax revenues as these folks earn less.
For other state employees--those working in prisons, the DD Centers, mental health and medical facilities and the like--furloughs will actually increase labor costs. These institutions have legally-mandated minimum staffing levels and staffing has been bare bones for years. Even before furloughs, when someone called in sick another employee was required to pull a double shift—at time and a half pay! The net effect of furloughs for these workers is that they’ll be putting in roughly the same number of hours in a year, but an additional 8 days of that will be at time and a half.
Obviously, this occurred to Doyle and his people too. But his was a political, not a budgetary, calculation. Other Governors were furloughing state employees so he, by god, was going to do it too. It may not make economic sense, but beating up on state employees always plays well up in the Fox Valley.
Now, one might think that the unions would get together and make a stink. If nothing else, they could launch a campaign to expose Doyle’s furlough fraud. Tell the voting taxpayers across the state that they are being manipulated by a cynical politician.
But Doyle’s press release wasn’t even cold when the leaders of the two major state employee union federations started selling the plan to members. Furloughs were necessary, they said, in light of the unprecedented state deficit. And about all the unions could do is insure they were administered as fairly and painlessly as possible.
One of our more paranoid members suggested that the rapidity and uniformity of union leaders’ response to Doyle’s announcement suggested that they had advanced notice and may even have coordinated what they were going to say. Such are the workings of the fevered mind.).
Maybe a union campaign to expose the fraud wouldn’t have stopped the furloughs. But it would have made Doyle pay a political price. And, if nothing else, it would have made him and those who follow think twice before using unionized state employees like a piñata.
Outsiders may have trouble understanding why the union tops took a dive for Doyle on this one. But if you’ve been around awhile you understand that the first task of most union leaders is to elect Democrats. Doyle was our guy in the last election and, pretty much regardless of what he does, will be in the next. So it wouldn’t do to rile up a bunch of state employees and the voting public over something like a little political fraud. Better to help him stick it to the membership. It’s just a matter of priorities.
And for those unionized state employees who will be taking the 3% hit (and it won’t be everybody), you may take comfort in the fact that you are making a material contribution to Doyle’s political career.
Here’s how it will work. In May Doyle announced that all state employees would have to agree to take 8 un-paid furlough days a year, for the next two years, which comes down to a 3 % pay cut. His line was that the furloughs will contribute $224 million toward resolving the state’s $6.5 billion deficit. If the unions didn’t agree, there would be consequences.
State employees immediately spotted this as bullshit. First, over half of state employees and over 70 % of University employees are paid from federal funds or grants, or through their own work in revenue-generating programs. Cutting the hours of these people won’t save the state a dime. In fact, the result will be a modest decrease in state tax revenues as these folks earn less.
For other state employees--those working in prisons, the DD Centers, mental health and medical facilities and the like--furloughs will actually increase labor costs. These institutions have legally-mandated minimum staffing levels and staffing has been bare bones for years. Even before furloughs, when someone called in sick another employee was required to pull a double shift—at time and a half pay! The net effect of furloughs for these workers is that they’ll be putting in roughly the same number of hours in a year, but an additional 8 days of that will be at time and a half.
Obviously, this occurred to Doyle and his people too. But his was a political, not a budgetary, calculation. Other Governors were furloughing state employees so he, by god, was going to do it too. It may not make economic sense, but beating up on state employees always plays well up in the Fox Valley.
Now, one might think that the unions would get together and make a stink. If nothing else, they could launch a campaign to expose Doyle’s furlough fraud. Tell the voting taxpayers across the state that they are being manipulated by a cynical politician.
But Doyle’s press release wasn’t even cold when the leaders of the two major state employee union federations started selling the plan to members. Furloughs were necessary, they said, in light of the unprecedented state deficit. And about all the unions could do is insure they were administered as fairly and painlessly as possible.
One of our more paranoid members suggested that the rapidity and uniformity of union leaders’ response to Doyle’s announcement suggested that they had advanced notice and may even have coordinated what they were going to say. Such are the workings of the fevered mind.).
Maybe a union campaign to expose the fraud wouldn’t have stopped the furloughs. But it would have made Doyle pay a political price. And, if nothing else, it would have made him and those who follow think twice before using unionized state employees like a piñata.
Outsiders may have trouble understanding why the union tops took a dive for Doyle on this one. But if you’ve been around awhile you understand that the first task of most union leaders is to elect Democrats. Doyle was our guy in the last election and, pretty much regardless of what he does, will be in the next. So it wouldn’t do to rile up a bunch of state employees and the voting public over something like a little political fraud. Better to help him stick it to the membership. It’s just a matter of priorities.
And for those unionized state employees who will be taking the 3% hit (and it won’t be everybody), you may take comfort in the fact that you are making a material contribution to Doyle’s political career.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Organize for May Day
It’s time to organize for May Day. Time to get your organization to endorse the demands and the events and to get the word out to your members.
This year there’ll be a picnic in Brittingham Park, followed by a march to the Capitol and the City-County Building.
The event is being organized as a “united front,” by an ad hoc May Day Committee, which came up with the demands and the agenda.
The principle is that everyone is invited (challenged?) to endorse the list of demands. Any organization that endorses gets their name on the organizing materials and they get a speaker at the event. And, of course, endorsers are free to raise additional demands, in their own name.
The May Day demands address many of the cutting edge issues facing the US working class today. They are:
-- Passage of the Employee Free Choice Act
-- Universal health care now
-- Mandatory paid sick leave
-- A living wage
-- Halt foreclosures and evictions
-- Increased funding for Section 8 housing
-- Free university tuition for low-income students
-- No increase in bus fares
-- A living wage for W-2 workers
-- Real funding for public schools
-- Immigrant access to identification and drivers licenses
-- Amnesty for immigrant workers
-- Stop sheriff notification to ICE
-- No firings for Social Security no match letters
The schedule is, Friday, May 1,
10:30 a.m. Gathering at Brittingham Park
12:45 p.m. Depart Park to the Capitol
1:15 p.m. Capitol event, to state and federal demands
1:45 p.m. Depart Capitol to City-County Building
1:50 p.m. City-County event, to address city and county demands
In recent years, Madison’s May Day was organized largely by activists in the immigrant workers movement. The largely white, native-born union members around here largely ignored it. That’s gotta change if we’re going to build a real labor movement in this town.
So, take the list of demands to your next meeting. Move for an endorsement. Ask for a show of hands and take names if you have to. If it helps, you might let people know that, so far, it’s been endorsed by a number of Madison-area unions, including AFSCME Local 171 and the South Central Federation of Labor.
If you’re union or other organization votes not to endorse, endorse as an individual. Or, better yet, put together a caucus or slate in your union and endorse in that name.
Then, get to work to bring people to the picnic and march on May 1. We’ve had enough of “paper endorsements,” where a handful of people in a room vote for something and then make sure that rank and file members never find out about it. We need to turn May Day into something real: a class consciousness-raising event and a leadership-building opportunity. Get the word out to the rank and file members of your organization and get as many of them as you can to May Day.
For more information, contact the Madison May Day Committee at maydayinmadison.org
This year there’ll be a picnic in Brittingham Park, followed by a march to the Capitol and the City-County Building.
The event is being organized as a “united front,” by an ad hoc May Day Committee, which came up with the demands and the agenda.
The principle is that everyone is invited (challenged?) to endorse the list of demands. Any organization that endorses gets their name on the organizing materials and they get a speaker at the event. And, of course, endorsers are free to raise additional demands, in their own name.
The May Day demands address many of the cutting edge issues facing the US working class today. They are:
-- Passage of the Employee Free Choice Act
-- Universal health care now
-- Mandatory paid sick leave
-- A living wage
-- Halt foreclosures and evictions
-- Increased funding for Section 8 housing
-- Free university tuition for low-income students
-- No increase in bus fares
-- A living wage for W-2 workers
-- Real funding for public schools
-- Immigrant access to identification and drivers licenses
-- Amnesty for immigrant workers
-- Stop sheriff notification to ICE
-- No firings for Social Security no match letters
The schedule is, Friday, May 1,
10:30 a.m. Gathering at Brittingham Park
12:45 p.m. Depart Park to the Capitol
1:15 p.m. Capitol event, to state and federal demands
1:45 p.m. Depart Capitol to City-County Building
1:50 p.m. City-County event, to address city and county demands
In recent years, Madison’s May Day was organized largely by activists in the immigrant workers movement. The largely white, native-born union members around here largely ignored it. That’s gotta change if we’re going to build a real labor movement in this town.
So, take the list of demands to your next meeting. Move for an endorsement. Ask for a show of hands and take names if you have to. If it helps, you might let people know that, so far, it’s been endorsed by a number of Madison-area unions, including AFSCME Local 171 and the South Central Federation of Labor.
If you’re union or other organization votes not to endorse, endorse as an individual. Or, better yet, put together a caucus or slate in your union and endorse in that name.
Then, get to work to bring people to the picnic and march on May 1. We’ve had enough of “paper endorsements,” where a handful of people in a room vote for something and then make sure that rank and file members never find out about it. We need to turn May Day into something real: a class consciousness-raising event and a leadership-building opportunity. Get the word out to the rank and file members of your organization and get as many of them as you can to May Day.
For more information, contact the Madison May Day Committee at maydayinmadison.org
Monday, February 23, 2009
A question for Bill Fletcher
Most of the people on this list will try to get down to the Labor Temple to hear Bill Fletcher’s talk at 7 p.m., Wednesday, February 25. I’ll have one question for Brother Fletcher: So, who’s going to do it?
If you’ve been following Fletcher’s work over the years, you know he has a vision of a revitalized labor movement based on militant organizing around broad social justice issues. That this new labor movement must be inclusive, based on a critique of capitalism and be able to engage in class struggle to achieve its goals. His latest book, Solidarity Divided, lays it out again. In addition, the book gives us an insider’s look at some of the palace intrigues that led to the unprincipled split in the AFL-CIO in 2005. It’s worth a read.
But, suppose we agree with Fletcher’s idea of what is to be done. Again, who the hell’s going to do it?
Here we might need to get into a serious discussion of labor history. There’s a strong current in the field that says it all happens more or less spontaneously. That workers reach the end of their collective rope and something just snaps. A few spontaneous uprisings spark more spontaneous uprisings and, before you know it, we have a full-fledged labor movement. Unions organize and flourish and the standard of living of the working class rises, at least for a time. Alternatively, we have the Democrats (Roosevelt/Obama) passing a law that allows unions to organize and it takes off from there.
These views simply aren’t true. They’re based either on bad history or, sad to say, an intentional revision of what really happens.
The last great uprising of labor in the 1930s through the ‘40s was anything but a spontaneous event. The left parties of the day had suffered vicious state repression, beginning under that great democrat Woodrow Wilson. But, with the collapse of world capitalism in 1929, they started to recruit and grow. Moreover, with Stalin’s discovery of a new “Third Period,” the Communist Parties around the world embarked on a strategy of going heavily into the unions and engaging in militant class struggle. The emerging Trotskyist movement and other left parties did the same, with their smaller forces.
Three city-wide general strikes in 1934, in San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Toledo, are credited with setting off the organizing wave that became the CIO. While thousands of workers participate, those strikes were anything but spontaneous and legal. They were organized and directed by members and supporters of the Communist Party, Communist League (the Trots) and the American Workers Party, respectively. The militant mass movement that followed was also heavily influenced, if not directed, by members of those organizations. Flint didn’t just happen.
The left parties of the time were able to recruit some of the best and brightest of the generation by offering a vision of a classless society, where all would live in peace, prosperity and freedom from oppression. They organized the working class, not as an end in itself, but as a means to overthrow predatory capitalism. The parties not only gave people inspiration, but they provided training and coordination. Thousands of people subordinated their lives to the Party and threw themselves into organizing the working class, for the “final conflict” that would usher in the next epic of human development.
These parties provided their members, and through them the broader working class, with a winning organizing strategy because the understood capitalism. They understood that organizing unions required not only an economic struggle against the employer but a political struggle against their laws, their political parties and the capitalist state apparatus. Because they were Marxists, they understood the need to organize against court injunctions, the cops and National Guard troops. Only because the understood the relationship of class forces were they able to organize sit-down strikes and militant mass picket lines, to challenge not only capitalist property rights but the authority of the capitalist state as well.
Incompetent or dishonest tellings of our history omit the central role of left-wing parties in organizing the unions. You can see the difficulty that bourgeois historians and pro-capitalist labor leaders would find themselves in if they had to acknowledge the truth. If you want to see what really happened, you need to go to the Marxists themselves. For a raw but honest account, I recommend Art Preis, Labor’s Giant Step, if you can find a copy.
Fletcher acknowledges the need for a left “organizational coherence,” and gives a tip-o-the-hat to the left parties of the past. But, that begs the question: Who’s going to do it this time around?
Today the left is a ghost of its former self. And, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, many former socialists have given up the vision of a future classless society. Of the 200 or so labor activists on this list, probably less than a dozen are actual members of any left party (Progressive Dane doesn’t count) and probably only a couple of dozen even identify themselves as socialists or Marxists. We have no local “organizational coherence.” And, this is the best and brightest we have to offer.
Thus my question to Brother Fletcher. If we agree on the broad outlines of what we need to do to build a new labor movement in this country—an inclusive movement for social justice, based on a critique of capitalism and able to engage in class struggle—just who do we think is going to do it?
Or, hey. Maybe we should be asking ourselves that question.
If you’ve been following Fletcher’s work over the years, you know he has a vision of a revitalized labor movement based on militant organizing around broad social justice issues. That this new labor movement must be inclusive, based on a critique of capitalism and be able to engage in class struggle to achieve its goals. His latest book, Solidarity Divided, lays it out again. In addition, the book gives us an insider’s look at some of the palace intrigues that led to the unprincipled split in the AFL-CIO in 2005. It’s worth a read.
But, suppose we agree with Fletcher’s idea of what is to be done. Again, who the hell’s going to do it?
Here we might need to get into a serious discussion of labor history. There’s a strong current in the field that says it all happens more or less spontaneously. That workers reach the end of their collective rope and something just snaps. A few spontaneous uprisings spark more spontaneous uprisings and, before you know it, we have a full-fledged labor movement. Unions organize and flourish and the standard of living of the working class rises, at least for a time. Alternatively, we have the Democrats (Roosevelt/Obama) passing a law that allows unions to organize and it takes off from there.
These views simply aren’t true. They’re based either on bad history or, sad to say, an intentional revision of what really happens.
The last great uprising of labor in the 1930s through the ‘40s was anything but a spontaneous event. The left parties of the day had suffered vicious state repression, beginning under that great democrat Woodrow Wilson. But, with the collapse of world capitalism in 1929, they started to recruit and grow. Moreover, with Stalin’s discovery of a new “Third Period,” the Communist Parties around the world embarked on a strategy of going heavily into the unions and engaging in militant class struggle. The emerging Trotskyist movement and other left parties did the same, with their smaller forces.
Three city-wide general strikes in 1934, in San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Toledo, are credited with setting off the organizing wave that became the CIO. While thousands of workers participate, those strikes were anything but spontaneous and legal. They were organized and directed by members and supporters of the Communist Party, Communist League (the Trots) and the American Workers Party, respectively. The militant mass movement that followed was also heavily influenced, if not directed, by members of those organizations. Flint didn’t just happen.
The left parties of the time were able to recruit some of the best and brightest of the generation by offering a vision of a classless society, where all would live in peace, prosperity and freedom from oppression. They organized the working class, not as an end in itself, but as a means to overthrow predatory capitalism. The parties not only gave people inspiration, but they provided training and coordination. Thousands of people subordinated their lives to the Party and threw themselves into organizing the working class, for the “final conflict” that would usher in the next epic of human development.
These parties provided their members, and through them the broader working class, with a winning organizing strategy because the understood capitalism. They understood that organizing unions required not only an economic struggle against the employer but a political struggle against their laws, their political parties and the capitalist state apparatus. Because they were Marxists, they understood the need to organize against court injunctions, the cops and National Guard troops. Only because the understood the relationship of class forces were they able to organize sit-down strikes and militant mass picket lines, to challenge not only capitalist property rights but the authority of the capitalist state as well.
Incompetent or dishonest tellings of our history omit the central role of left-wing parties in organizing the unions. You can see the difficulty that bourgeois historians and pro-capitalist labor leaders would find themselves in if they had to acknowledge the truth. If you want to see what really happened, you need to go to the Marxists themselves. For a raw but honest account, I recommend Art Preis, Labor’s Giant Step, if you can find a copy.
Fletcher acknowledges the need for a left “organizational coherence,” and gives a tip-o-the-hat to the left parties of the past. But, that begs the question: Who’s going to do it this time around?
Today the left is a ghost of its former self. And, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, many former socialists have given up the vision of a future classless society. Of the 200 or so labor activists on this list, probably less than a dozen are actual members of any left party (Progressive Dane doesn’t count) and probably only a couple of dozen even identify themselves as socialists or Marxists. We have no local “organizational coherence.” And, this is the best and brightest we have to offer.
Thus my question to Brother Fletcher. If we agree on the broad outlines of what we need to do to build a new labor movement in this country—an inclusive movement for social justice, based on a critique of capitalism and able to engage in class struggle—just who do we think is going to do it?
Or, hey. Maybe we should be asking ourselves that question.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Madison Labor 2009
2009 was a busy year
Well, the elections were finally over. Lingering in the back of our collective mind was the question: Was it worth it?
Maybe it was a fit of post-election depression. But, at the January 2009 meeting of the South Central Federation of Labor, delegates voted to establish an Organizing Committee. A month later that committee came back with the outline of a plan.
It was hard to decide where to start. After all, we have over 200 large, non-union employers in the Madison area alone. The OC decided to begin with downtown hotels.
Part of the plan was to “salt” two big hotels with union organizers. We recruited through affiliated locals, the Immigrants Workers Union, the Student Labor Action Coalition and the Workers Rights Center. By early March, we had over 20 volunteers. The Fed held a Saturday training session and the “salts” began applying for jobs at the targeted hotels.
This operation didn’t require a big budget—certainly nowhere near as much as the unions spent in the just-competed election cycle—but there were expenses. As part of the deal with the “salts,” we agreed to supplement their crappy wages and cover them with health insurance.
It turned out that getting money wasn’t a problem. A lot of large unions had significant organizing budgets and union officials were under a lot of pressure to spend the money in some defensible way. They jumped at the opportunity to simply write a check to help out a real organizing drive.
The plan was for the “salts” to lay low for two months, taking names and learning the lay of the land. In May 2009 they made their move. Madison labor and community groups held a Coming Out Party with massive rallies in front of the two hotels just off the Square. The news reported the crowd at 5,000, but we thought there were a lot more.
The internal organizing committees at the two targeted hotels quickly grew and workers at a couple of other area hotels came around and asked how they could set up organizing drives of their own.
From the start, the Fed Organizing Committee decided we were not going through an NLRB election. That, we knew, was the death trap that ended so many organizing drives over the years. Instead, we were going initially for a “non-majority union,” where members voluntarily pay dues and engage in concerted activities.
The lack of a mandatory dues deduction mechanism, and the relatively low dues level, ensured that the big internationals stayed out of the away. Without international staff, professional organizers and lawyers running the show, workers came forward to run their own union and democracy (and militancy) flourished.
The Fed’s Organizing Committee also decided on a model of “social justice unionism,” whereby the union movement would take up the larger cause of the working class. In July 2009 we launched a grassroots campaign for single payer health care. A month later, a petition for a statewide living wage law. We also took up the cause of immigrant rights and demanded that the Dane County Sherriff stop victimizing undocumented workers. Given the makeup of the workforce of the “hospitality industry” in town, the campaign for social justice stoked the energy of the organizing campaign and broadened its appeal.
Oh, we did hear rumors that officials from one international came to Madison and “had a talk with” local AFL-CIO leaders. Seems the Fed’s Organizing Committee was impinging on their jurisdiction. But, those same rumors held that the international reps were asked, if downtown hotels are your jurisdiction, why the hell haven’t you done any organizing in them?
The workers at the hotels came up with the idea to threaten their employers’ lucrative Homecoming weekend trade if they didn’t agree to recognition and a contract. In August, just about the time football revelers would be making their reservations, the labor movement (and, it was a true movement by this point) staged a series of disruptive pickets at the two hotels. The message to fans being: if you plan to get a good night’s sleep, you’d better book somewhere else.
City, county and state cops were called in to keep order, but they only added to the disorder. With a few thousand picketers in the streets, there was no real violence and no serious arrests. The hotels were simply shut down. And, the pictures of “mobs and tear gas down in Madison” were beamed across the state and around the country. We couldn’t have bought better publicity.
Both hotels were owned by big chains so they brought in high-power lawyers and executives to deal with their “union problem” in Madison. On September 8, 2009, management at one of the hotels blinked and they signed what we called “a model contract.” This allowed us to turn all of our attention to the other hotel. A week later they signed the same agreement.
Well, that was 2009. A busy year. But, it seems, there’s no time to rest. Because, as a result of these two successful drives, organizing committees have sprung up around the city, in other hotels, high tech industries, insurance companies and laundries. Fortunately, there was also a spike in the level of activism and energy among working people and new leaders are coming forward every day. So, it looks like 2010 will be even busier.
Well, the elections were finally over. Lingering in the back of our collective mind was the question: Was it worth it?
Maybe it was a fit of post-election depression. But, at the January 2009 meeting of the South Central Federation of Labor, delegates voted to establish an Organizing Committee. A month later that committee came back with the outline of a plan.
It was hard to decide where to start. After all, we have over 200 large, non-union employers in the Madison area alone. The OC decided to begin with downtown hotels.
Part of the plan was to “salt” two big hotels with union organizers. We recruited through affiliated locals, the Immigrants Workers Union, the Student Labor Action Coalition and the Workers Rights Center. By early March, we had over 20 volunteers. The Fed held a Saturday training session and the “salts” began applying for jobs at the targeted hotels.
This operation didn’t require a big budget—certainly nowhere near as much as the unions spent in the just-competed election cycle—but there were expenses. As part of the deal with the “salts,” we agreed to supplement their crappy wages and cover them with health insurance.
It turned out that getting money wasn’t a problem. A lot of large unions had significant organizing budgets and union officials were under a lot of pressure to spend the money in some defensible way. They jumped at the opportunity to simply write a check to help out a real organizing drive.
The plan was for the “salts” to lay low for two months, taking names and learning the lay of the land. In May 2009 they made their move. Madison labor and community groups held a Coming Out Party with massive rallies in front of the two hotels just off the Square. The news reported the crowd at 5,000, but we thought there were a lot more.
The internal organizing committees at the two targeted hotels quickly grew and workers at a couple of other area hotels came around and asked how they could set up organizing drives of their own.
From the start, the Fed Organizing Committee decided we were not going through an NLRB election. That, we knew, was the death trap that ended so many organizing drives over the years. Instead, we were going initially for a “non-majority union,” where members voluntarily pay dues and engage in concerted activities.
The lack of a mandatory dues deduction mechanism, and the relatively low dues level, ensured that the big internationals stayed out of the away. Without international staff, professional organizers and lawyers running the show, workers came forward to run their own union and democracy (and militancy) flourished.
The Fed’s Organizing Committee also decided on a model of “social justice unionism,” whereby the union movement would take up the larger cause of the working class. In July 2009 we launched a grassroots campaign for single payer health care. A month later, a petition for a statewide living wage law. We also took up the cause of immigrant rights and demanded that the Dane County Sherriff stop victimizing undocumented workers. Given the makeup of the workforce of the “hospitality industry” in town, the campaign for social justice stoked the energy of the organizing campaign and broadened its appeal.
Oh, we did hear rumors that officials from one international came to Madison and “had a talk with” local AFL-CIO leaders. Seems the Fed’s Organizing Committee was impinging on their jurisdiction. But, those same rumors held that the international reps were asked, if downtown hotels are your jurisdiction, why the hell haven’t you done any organizing in them?
The workers at the hotels came up with the idea to threaten their employers’ lucrative Homecoming weekend trade if they didn’t agree to recognition and a contract. In August, just about the time football revelers would be making their reservations, the labor movement (and, it was a true movement by this point) staged a series of disruptive pickets at the two hotels. The message to fans being: if you plan to get a good night’s sleep, you’d better book somewhere else.
City, county and state cops were called in to keep order, but they only added to the disorder. With a few thousand picketers in the streets, there was no real violence and no serious arrests. The hotels were simply shut down. And, the pictures of “mobs and tear gas down in Madison” were beamed across the state and around the country. We couldn’t have bought better publicity.
Both hotels were owned by big chains so they brought in high-power lawyers and executives to deal with their “union problem” in Madison. On September 8, 2009, management at one of the hotels blinked and they signed what we called “a model contract.” This allowed us to turn all of our attention to the other hotel. A week later they signed the same agreement.
Well, that was 2009. A busy year. But, it seems, there’s no time to rest. Because, as a result of these two successful drives, organizing committees have sprung up around the city, in other hotels, high tech industries, insurance companies and laundries. Fortunately, there was also a spike in the level of activism and energy among working people and new leaders are coming forward every day. So, it looks like 2010 will be even busier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)