From sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu Fri Jan 3 13:41:50 1997 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:41:06 -0600 (CST) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu (Kim Scipes) Subject: The Second Wave of General Strike >Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 03:02:40 +0900 >From: KCTU-International >Organization: KCTU >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu >CC: em@HUMnet.UCLA.EDU, mlawrence@vicnet.net.au >Subject: The Second Wave of General Strike > > KOREAN CONFEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS > > Struggle for Labour Law Reforms > Campaign News XX > January 3, 1997 > > > > General Strike > The Successful First Wave > Embarking on the Second Wave > > > >The Continuing Tide of General Strike > >On January 3, 1997, the general strike that was sparked off by the >bulldozing of an anti-worker, anti-union labour law and anti-democratic >National Security Planning Agency Act by the ruling party in a secret >meeting of National Assembly, entered into the second wave. > > The Historic General Strike Surges into the New Year > >In accordance with the three phase plan for the second wave of general >strike in the New Year laid out by KCTU president Kwon Young-kil on >December 30, 1996, unionists returning from the New Year's Day Holiday >early resumed the strike on January 3, 1997. However, most of the unions >at large companies, such as, the major car makers and shipyards whose >holiday lasts till January 5, will resume the strike on January 6, 1997. The >general strike will expand to cover all sectors and industries on January 7, >as unions in most of the public utilities, such as, the television and radio >networks and hospitals, are set to join the second wave of the general strike. > >On January 3, 1997, some 46 unions, including the Kia Motors Unions, >Daewoo Motors Union, Ssangyong Motors, Asia Motors affiliated to the >Korean Federation Automobile Workers Unions, and the Hyundai Heavy >Industry Union, Hanjin Heavy Industry, and Daewoo Shipbuilding Union of >the Korean Federation of Metalworkers Unions, and the Kumho Tyre of the >Korean Council of Chemical Workers Unions, totalling 96,158 workers took >part in the first phase escalation of the second wave of general strike. > >The resurgence of the general strike put an end to much of the >"concern" or "doubt" about the possibility of picking up the momentum of >the general strike that had to be temporarily suspended due to the New >Year's Day holiday. > >The keen "interest" in the "success" of the January 3rd strike was >revealed in the mean attempt by the Ministry of Labour to distort and reduce >the size of workers and union participation in the strike. The Ministry of >Labour released regular press reports on January 3, radically downsizing the >strength of the strike. The Ministry of Labour reported that only 31 unions >and 22 thousand workers took part in the first phase escalation of the >second wave general strike. For example, the Ministry of Labour report >claimed that only 1,500 members of the Daewoo Motors Union took part in >the strike. However, the KCTU found that this figure was only those who >took part in the public rally and campaign the union conducted after having >completed a union strike meeting at the factory. In fact, some 3,500 >workers attended the strike meeting; and among them, apart from those >who returned home or stayed on the factory picket line, 1,500 members >went out into the downtown areas to conduct street campaigns. >Furthermore, more than 80% of the members who were scheduled to work >on the night shift had already made resolution to boycott the work. > > The Sharpening of the Goal of the General Strike > >The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions had to modify its tack for the >aims of the general strike. This was brought about by the sudden decision of >the Korean government on December 31, 1996, to formally promulgate the >amended labour law (to come into effect from March 1, 1997). The >government action can only be regarded as a calculated step to quell the >'hopes' for a presidential veto of the amended labour law. > >As a result, the leadership of the KCTU, redefined the goal of the >general strike. In daily press conferences since the New Year's Day, the >KCTU leadership made clear that the goal of the general strike was to bring >about a nullification of the new labour law and the declaration of the >government to begin a new round of (genuine) democratic discussions >involving all the political parties, government, employers, and the unions for >the enactment of a new labour law. > >President Kwon Young-kil declared that the KCTU will extend the >massive militant action into the presidential election to bring about the >downfall of Kim Young Sam government if the government fails to accept >the KCTU demands for a genuine re-amendment of the labour laws. > >The "unexpected" or "unwanted" work out of nearly 100,000 workers on >January 3 has laid the foundation for the second phase escalation on >Monday January 6. The resumption of strike by the major manufacturing >sector unions and the fresh participation of hundreds of white collar unions >on January 6 will set the stage for a concerted effort of the KCTU to bring >about the nullification of the new labour law and beginning of the work for a >democratic enactment of a new labour law in compliance with international >labour standards. > > The Popular Support for the Historic General Strike > >The KCTU-led general strike, the first since September general strike in >1946 under the Japanese colonial rule, sent seismic wave across the society. >The fact that the government, despite repeated pronouncement of the intent >to deal severely with the leaders of the strike, has so far "failed" to arrest >any of the KCTU leaders is an indication of the widespread popular support >for the general strike. Even the mass media, which tend to jump to knee- >jerk reaction at any sign of industrial action, remained neutral, giving >generally objective portrayal of the nation-wide general strike. > >The broad based public support was clearly borne out by a public survey >published in the Hankyereh, a major national daily, on December 31, 1996. >A public opinion survey conducted by a gallop agency at the request of the >major opposition political party, the National Congress for New Politics, >found that 54.5% of the people surveyed supported the general strike calling >for the nullification of the anti-democratic, anti-worker, and anti-union >labour >law bulldozed through the parliament. > > KCTU Pays Special Attention to Public Needs > >At the news conference held to make public the plan for the New Year's >wave of general strike, president Kwon also announced that he has >requested the subway and hospital workers to suspend their strike. The >decision to send the public service workers back to work, reflecting the >elastic strategy of general strike, was aimed at reducing the public >disruption >during the holiday period. As a result of the decision, unionists at the >Seoul >Subway and Pusan Subway returned to work immediately on December 30. >The hospital workers returned to work from the morning of December 31. > > >The Surge of the First Wave General Strike > >The general strike calling for the nullification of the 'new labour laws' >commandeered by the ruling party was launched by the president Kwon >Young-kil's declaration immediately after the news of the extraordinary >passage of the labour law amendment bill. > > The First Day > >The first wave of general strike was kicked off by the Kia Motors Union, >located in Sohwa-li, about one hour's distance from downtown Seoul. >17,000 members of the union began to assemble at the company ground as >they reported to work. By 10 o'clock, the union held a mass meeting, led >by the union president Lee Jae Seung, and began to converge on the >Myongdong Cathedral in Seoul where the KCTU's leadership had set up the >general strike headquarters. > >At 10:30, unions at Hyosung Heavy Industry, Daeheung Machinery, >Tong-il Heavy Industry, Korea Fukoku affiliated to the Korean Federation of >Metalworkers Industry were out on strike. Member unions of the Korean >Hospital Workers Unions and the Korean Federation of Professional and >Technicians Unions completed union meetings to decide on strike. And the >union at the Donsuh Food * the major coffee maker * led the Korean >Council of Chemical Workers Unions into the general strike. The >Federation of Hyundai Group Trade Unions completed the meeting to >prepare for the strike set to begin on 1 p.m. > >By 1 p.m., member unions of the Federation of Hyundai Group Trade >Unions, the Korean Federation of Metalworkers Unions, the Federation of >Automobile Workers Unions, completed the strike commencement rally at >their own company grounds and began to converge at the various regional >centres. Hyundai Motors, Hyundai Heavy Industry, Daewoo Heavy >Industry, and other major manufacturing sector unions joined the strike. >Some 4,000 workers had already converged on the Myongdong Catheral >when the first public rally of the general strike got underway around 12 noon. > >At the end of the day, the KCTU office in Samsun-dong Seoul was busy >responding to the requests from journalists for the tally of striking unions >and workers. The 10 p.m. tally confirmed the massive wave of the general >strike that shocked not only the government and the mass media, but also >the KCTU office staff. When the final tally for the first of the general >strike >was completed, a total of 95 unions with a total participation of 146,233 >workers were out on the strike. > >Furthermore, some 63 unions held meetings on December 26 deciding >to join the general strike on the second day, December 27. A further 17 >unions decided to join the strike wave by the third day. > >On the first two days of the general strike, 80 out of the 110 member >unions of the Korean Federation of Metalworkers Unions, totaling 71,831 >workers, launched themselves into the general strike. 21 out of 34 member >unions of the Korean Federation of Automobile Workers Unions, totaling >52,200 workers, also joined the strike march. 15 out of 94 member unions >of the Korean Federation of Professional and Technicians Unions also >joined the strike on the first two days. The Hyundai Group Trade Union >Federation, which includes the Korea's largest car maker and world's >largest shipyard, carried its weight in the general strike by bringing out a >total of 79,901 workers from 13 out 20 member unions. Seoul Subway >Workers Union, with a membership of 9,399 workers also decided to join the >general strike on December 28. > >The striking workers spilled out onto streets and converged in the >various regional centres. In Inchon some 3,000 workers gathered at the >Dong-Inchon Railway Station plaza; further 3,000 gathered at the Suwon >Railway Station plaza while another 3,000 gathered at the Kwangju Railway >Station plaza. The largest regional gatherings outside Seoul were in Ulsan >and Masan-Changwon region where some 20,000 and 10,000 workers took >part respectively. > > The Second Day > >The expansion of the general strike on the second day was led by >hospital workers. 14 unions, including those at the Seoul University >General Medical Centre, Ewha Women's University General Medical Centre, >Inchon Red Cross General Medical Centre, totalling 14,000, joined the strike. >The Korean Federation of Hospital Workers Unions decided to maintain the >operations at the essential sections of the hospitals by staffing the >emergency centres, intensive care units, operation threatres, and new born >centres to minimise the effect of the strike for the in-patients and >urgent out- >patients. > >Inspired by the recent strike of the French truck drivers, members of the >12 unions affiliated to the Korean Federation of Truck Drivers Unions, held a >truck-parade along the main expressway. Some 200 trucks were involved >in the demonstration. The low-speed driving by the truck drivers >succeeded in slowing down the expressway. > >On December 27, the Daewoo Motors joined the ranks of the striking >workers, bringing the last of the 6 major Korean car makers into the historic >general strike. With the additional surge, the tally of striking unions and >unionists as the second day of the strike came to close increased to 163 >unions and 206,220 workers. > >Even further expansion of the general strike was foreshadowed on > >December 27, as the unions in the four major television and ration networks >resolved to join the strike march. Pusan Subway Workers Union also >decided to join the strike. > >The strike action was complemented by mass public rallies held across >the nation. 35,000 striking workers gathered at the Yoido Plaza in Seoul. >All together a total of more than 120,000 workers attended the public >demonstrations held in 15 major cities. > > The Third Day > >The third day of the general strike, December 28, was led by the walk >out of the Seoul Subway workers. As of 4 o'clock in the morning, nearly >8,000 members of the Seoul Subway Workers Union joined the general >strike. The subway workers converged on the Myongdong Cathedral where >the KCTU leadership was encamped. > >The subway corporation responded by sending in non-union members From sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu Fri Jan 3 13:41:57 1997 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:41:38 -0600 (CST) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu (Kim Scipes) Subject: The Second Wave of General Strike >Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 03:02:40 +0900 >From: KCTU-International >Organization: KCTU >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu >CC: em@HUMnet.UCLA.EDU, mlawrence@vicnet.net.au >Subject: The Second Wave of General Strike > >and retired or unqualified employees as 'replacement labour' to continue >the subway operations. In some cases, the former drivers who were now >deployed in signal units, some maintenance workers who had little >knowledge of driving were sent in to replace the striking workers. > >Despite fear hyped up by media, the public remain generally supportive >of the strike (indicating the general anger against the government). The >public, however, were exposed to unnecessary danger by the management >as inexperienced or unqualified drivers caused repeated small and large >mistakes. In one case, a faulty manipulation of brake system by an >unqualified driver left passengers trapped for one and half hours >underground. > >Workers at Kumho Tyre and three more hospitals joined the ranks of the >general strike, bringing the tally of participating unions and workers to 177 >and 221,720, respectively. > >In the Saturday afternoon the striking workers were joined by ordinary >citizens and members of various social organisations in the various regional >public rallies. The third day was marked by another colourful demonstration. >Some 2,000 cars carrying over 8,000 workers from 11 regions took to the >expressway and kept a turtle pace on their way to Seoul. The vehicles >were decorated with small placards, large stickers, and flags as they >maintained the demonstration convey. The third day of the strike was >marked by first incidence of 'violence'. > >As some 20,000 workers and citizens began to march following a mass >meeting in downtown Seoul, riot police fired barrage of tear gas into the >peaceful marchers. The rallyists were scattered by the stunning effect of >the police action. However, the incident of violence instigated by police >fizzled out as marchers calmed regrouped in smaller numbers and >continued on with their march. > >The incident reflected the determination of the KCTU leadership to >uphold the principle of peaceful action against any kind of police >provocation. Some local and foreign media jumped on the scene as a >replay of some past scenes of violence * perhaps the recent student >demonstration for reunification. However, the attempt to portray * or >provoke -- the general strike as a rampant deluge of violence failed >miserably as ranks of workers and supporting citizens kept peace. > > The Fourth Day > >The main addition to the general strike on Sunday, December 29, the >fourth day of the general strike was the Pusan Subway Workers Union. >The Pusan subway workers left their positions at 4 in the morning, bringing * >together with 2 other unions which joined the strike this day * the total to >180 unions and 223,831 unionists out on the general strike. > >Sunday saw the continuation of open mass meetings of workers and >citizens in continuation of the popular activities conducted by striking >unions >from the first day. Some 25,000 workers and citizens took part in a mass >rally in Yoido Plaza before the National Assembly building. At the end of >the public meeting, people marched to encircle the ruling party's office >building. > >The historic general strike provided a unique opportunity to the new >generation who has found in the computer communication a new arena and >vehicle of protest action. The various forums set up in the cyberspace >were dominated by expression of criticism of the government and support >for the general strike. A number of groups quickly organised a public >awareness drive and a petition campaign in support of the general strike, >and a "black ribbon" campaign to mourn the death of democracy in the >computer communication network. Since the beginning of the general >strike on December 26, more than 6,000 messages supporting the strike >were registered in three discussion forums. > > The Fifth Day > >The fifth day, December 30, marked a turning point for the general strike. >At 11 o'clock in the morning, the KCTU president Kwon Young-kil >announced the plan for the second wave of general strike. > >President Kwon, coming from an overnight meeting of the entire KCTU >leadership, called for a temporary suspension of the general strike for the >New Year's Day holiday period. Furthermore, he called for an immediate >return to work for the subway workers. The plan also allowed the hospital >workers to return to their service by the morning of December 31. > >The return to work decision stemmed from the consideration for public >safety and emergency needs over the holiday period. The incident that >kept hundreds of subway passengers trapped underground for one and half >hour required the trade union movement to employ a flexible strategy in >involving the public utilities unions in the general strike. > >The announcement of the plan for a temporary suspension and second >wave general strike provoked the media speculation about the momentum >of the KCTU's general strike. President Kwon, however, made explicit that >the temporary suspension did not signify an end to the general strike. This >was borne out by the fact that the participating unions, by the end of the >day, >increased to 190. As a result of the new entrants, the number of workers >participating in the general strike remained at 213,027 despite the return to >work by two large subway workers unions. > >The fifth day of general strike reached new heights as more than >100,000 workers in some 20 major cities across the country took part in >mass rallies. Workers in many of the cities held street marches and protest >rallies in front of the regional offices of the ruling New Korea Party. > >The fifth day also saw the indications of the types of "reprisals" against >the striking unionists. Police issued subpoena to the leaders of 7 unions in >Inchon region claiming that there was no permission for assembly and >demonstration for the December 26th public rally in Inchon region. The >management the Hyundai Heavy Industry filed legal suit against 12 union >leaders of the Hyundai Heavy Industry Union for interference with business. >This will form a general trend as the general strike goes on. While some >KCTU leaders may be arrested and imprisoned for leading "illegal strike", >other will be charged with civil legal suit which opens the way for police >intervention, and some others will be taken in for "illegal" assembly and >demonstration. > >The plan for three phase escalation of the second wave general strike >began to materialise laying all the fears to rest on January 3, 1997, as >nearly 100,000 workers resumed their battle positions in what is expected to >be an intensified round of confrontation between the unionists and the >recalcitrant and conniving government. > > The Sixth Day, Adieu 1996 > >The theme for the sixth day of the general strike was "farewell to 1996". >Unionists gathered in different major cities to hold new year's day eve >celebration. In Seoul unionists and citizens joined together in an evening >of cultural event at the Myongdong Cathedral. The celebration, prepared >by various cultural movement groups, reached its highlight when three >thousand of people waved candle light as one in tune with songs expressing >the spirit of workers' struggle. > >After the celebration, the unionists and citizens marched out of >Myongdong area towards the Boshin-gak, the bell that sounds the beginning >of a new year. As they tried march police fired barrage of tear gas to >prevent their participation in the Boshin-gak ceremony which is traditionally >attended by thousands of people and broadcast live on television. Despite >the police blockade, the unionists and citizens various detour to reach the >Boshin-gak area in small groups of threes and fours. They were able to >regroup and furl open large number of placards calling for the >nullification of >the anti-democratic and anti-worker labour law. > > The Seventh Day, the New Year's Day > >The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, leading the historic general >strike, celebrated the new year's day by holding traditional new year's day >festivals in the major cities. Unionists and citizens took part in various >traditional games and cultural activities. One unique and non-tradition >game in which unionists threw themselves with all their zeal and enthusiasm >was dart. The dart board was covered with a caricature of typical capitalist, >politician, and the president. Unionists also enjoyed themselves by taking >part in various "star search contests". > > The Eighth Day > >The KCTU leadership, led by president Kwon Young-kil, held a news >conference on January 2, 1997, the eighth day of the general strike to clarify >the plan of action and the demand and goal of the general strike. The >news conference, in one aspect, was prompted by the sudden promulgation, >on December 31, 1996, of the amended labour law. > >President Kwon reiterated the KCTU demand for the nullification of the >labour law and a new round of democratic discussions, involving all political >parties, government, employers, and trade unions. He called for the >resignation of the entire cabinet led by Prime Minister Lee Soo-sung and the >Chairman of the ruling New Korea Party, Mr Lee Hong-koo. He outlined >the plan for the second wave of general strike to start from January 3 if the >government fails to respond to the KCTU demands. A plan for series of >protest visits to the local branch offices of the ruling party, a nation-wide >petition campaign denouncing the ruling New Korea Party and for >enactment of a new genuine labour law was revealed at the news >conference. > >President Kwon warned that a failure for the government to initiate a >new round of public and official discussions for new genuine labour law will >lead to a concerted trade union political campaign against the ruling party in >the upcoming presidential election late this year. > > >The International Uproar and Solidarity > >The workers participating in various union meetings and regional rallies >in the general strike were given added strength by the news of solidarity >actions and messages undertaken and conveyed by various international >trade union organisations. The extraordinary international apprehension at >the bulldozing of the bills in pre-dawn secret meeting of the National >Assembly by the ruling party in the absence of the opposition members as >indicated by series of protest letters and the news coverage by the >international media, such as, the front page article in the Washington Post >and the week-long coverage of the historic general strike by the New York >Times was, to some degree, was responsible for the "absence" of >immediate crackdown on the general strike by the government. > >The announcements at the public rallies of letters of solidarity from >ICFTU-APRO, JTUC-Rengo, IMF East Asia Office, IMF-JC were received >with great applause. The protest statements from the ICFTU, the president >John Sweeney of AFL-CIO, the protest letter of president Dieter Schulte of >the DGB of Germany to the Korean government gave the striking workers a >new sense of strength. > >The solidarity messages were especially valuable as Korean unionists >were keenly aware that most of the trade union centres overseas were out >on Christmas-New Year holidays. > >The announcement of the ICFTU's filing of a complaint against the >Korean government's 'new' labour law to the ILO and the decision by the >TUAC to request the early meeting of the monitoring body of the OECD >gave the striking workers a new sense of legitimacy for their struggle, and >added an international dimension to their struggle. > >The timely meeting of the OECD monitoring body on the labour law >reform in Korea and the planned visit to Korea by an international >delegation of observers organised by the International Confederation of >Trade Unions and the Trade Union Advisory Committee are expected to be >vital as the general strike extends into its second and third week. The >significance of international solidarity will increase as the likelihood of >"crackdown" and "reprisal" against the massive "illegal strike" looms closer >in the second and third week of the general strike. > >Korean unionists have come to learn, from the various protest letters >and solidarity messages, that they are not alone in their struggle. This >gave an international dimension to their struggle. This was highlighted by >new knowledge that similar kind of battles are being fought out in various >parts of the world -- even in those countries which were once believed to >have achieved all there was to achieve for workers' rights and welfare * in >countries like Australia, Germany, France, and United States. This has >given them, in rather ironic way, a sense of being pioneers in this world-wide >struggle, giving them a greater determination. > From clawson@sadri.umass.edu Fri Jan 3 21:14:59 1997 03 Jan 1997 23:14:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 23:14:52 -0500 (EST) From: Dan Clawson Subject: faculty jobs, labor studies To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Labor Studies jobs at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst Notice posted by Dan Clawson (clawson@sadri.umass.edu) The Labor Relations and Research Center at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst has two faculty positions to fill. As the ad (text below) indicates, the UMass Labor Center is one of the few that is unequivocally pro-union. At the moment the Labor Center has only two faculty lines (filled by Tom Juravich and Patricia Greenfield). The Labor Center has a residential program offering a two year interdisciplinary masters degree, typically followed by employment in a union, government agency, or non-profit. In cooperation with the George Meany Center, the UMass Labor Center now also offers a masters degree for union staff from around the country, who spend concentrated periods in Amherst while continuing to hold their regular jobs. Given that this will be a major expansion in the Labor Center faculty, the listing does not call for a particular specialty, nor does it specify a particular academic discipline, and the Center is potentially interested in people who could contribute in many different ways. Because authorization to fill these positions came very recently, the search process is somewhat compressed. I (=Dan Clawson) am one of the members of the search committee, and will be glad to try to answer questions or provide background information for people who might be interested in applying. I can be reached at my personal office (413-545-5974), Contemporary Sociology office (413-545- 4064), home (413-586-6235), by fax (413-545-1994), or by email (clawson@sadri.umass.edu). Alternatively, people may directly call Tom Juravich, the new head of the Labor Center (number in the ad below). Needless to say, and in keeping with the goals of the labor movement itself, applications by women and people of color are very much encouraged. The official job listing, as it appears in the A.S.A. Employment Bulletin and other places, follows: University of Massachusetts-Amherst. The Labor Relations and Research Center is seeking applications for a tenure-track faculty position available Fall 1997. Appointment is likely to be at the Assistant Professor level, or higher if funding permits. The search is subject to the availability of funds. Established in 1964, the Labor Relations and Research Center's mission is teaching, research, and service in support of the labor movement and working people. The Center offers a residential, interdisciplinary MS in Labor Studies primarily focused on preparing students for employment in the labor movement. Faculty are responsible for teaching in the residential graduate program with a periodic under- graduate course. They are expected to conduct scholarly and applied research and to advise and supervise graduate students. As a multi- disciplinary program, applicants from a diverse range of teaching and research specialties will be considered. Broad-based training and experience are preferable to narrow specialization, both substantively and methodologically. Experience in or with the labor movement is desirable. PhD or other terminal degree is required. Salary will be commensurate with qualifications and experience. Women and people of color are encouraged to apply. Interested applicants should send a cover letter, curriculum vitae, and the names of three references to Tom Juravich, Chair, Search Committee, Labor Relations and Research Center, University of Massachusetts, 125 Draper Hall (Box 32020), Amherst, MA 01003; 413-545- 5986. Applications are due February 14, 1997, but the position will remain open until filled. Dan Clawson -- Dan Clawson work = 413-545-5974 home 413-586-6235 Contemp. Sociology = 413-545-4064 fax 413-545-1994 email = clawson@sadri.umass.edu consoc@sadri.umass.edu From sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu Mon Jan 6 10:09:22 1997 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 11:07:25 -0600 (CST) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu (Kim Scipes) Subject: Call for Solidarity Action for Korean Workers General Strike >Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 00:08:36 +0900 >From: KCTU-International >Organization: KCTU >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: info@kimsoft.com >CC: labor-list@labor.org.au, dpalmer@netcomuk.co.uk, chrisbailey@gn.apc.org, > learn@phil.gn.apc.org, cshan@law.harvard.edu, mlawrence@vicnet.net.au, > marty@lclark.edu, awl@gn.apc.org, Maxine@ReddFish.Co.NZ, > Mickey Spiegel at Human Rights Watch , > owengran@netcomuk.co.uk, kcc@igc.org, jgreaney@ozemail.com.au, > psi@geo2.poptel.org.uk, ricrest@adcn.on.ca, > rlambert@kroner.ecel.uwa.edu.au, syndikalisten@sac.se, > inisoc@luznet.es, belanger@cupe.ca, hilaryd@labornet.org, > 100317.1547@CompuServe.COM, tuac@oecd.org, em@HUMnet.UCLA.EDU, > "van Ommen, Dutch Amnesty International" <101565.2120@CompuServe.COM>, > wftu@login.cz, sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu, pspd@soback.kornet.nm.kr, > krc@comuni.com.au, rvdb@nedernet.nl, ats@etext.info, amrc@HK.Super.NET, > ASI_IN1@HRW.ORG, cmcvey@amnesty.org, Compte.TUAC@oecd.org, > cosatu@polity.org.za, bangumzi@cosatu.org.za, > "DAGA, HONG KONG" , MD1504@mclink.it, > 113392@student.fbk.eur.nl, educint@infoboard.be, > ejbaker@fas.harvard.edu, fauzi@idn.toolnet.org, fauzi-a@indo.net.id, > aprofiet@singnet.com.sg, hqinfo@fiet.org, jayfree@chollian.dacom.co.kr, > iz@fnv.nl, harrieli@dds.nl, columbandc@igc.org, > feskor@chollian.dacom.co.kr >Subject: Call for Solidarity Action for Korean Workers General Strike > > KOREAN CONFEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS > > >Mr Bill Jordan Mr John Evans >General Secretary General Secretary >International Confederation Trade Union Advisory Committee >of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) to OECD (TUAC-OECD) > > >Dear Brothers, > >Warmest greetings to melt all the snow and cold of this extraordinary winter. > >I would like to express our sincerest appreciation for the solidarity your >organisation has extended so far in support of our effort to bring about a >genuine >reform of the labour in compliance with the ILO international labour standards. > >The general strike of Korean workers, led by the KCTU and FKTU, in defense >of the trade union and labour rights and the welfare of workers, now already >in its twelfth day since December 26, has already succeeded great deal as >indicated by the failure of the government to react immediately with a harsh >crackdown. > >I write at a time when the government has began to take steps to come down >on the striking workers and unions with harsh crackdown and arrest. >This is clearly seen in the summons issued by the public prosecutors to some >40 union leaders including 8 KCTU officers. > >If there ever were an opportunity for international solidarity to have a real >impact and influence on a situation, I believe, this is the most >appropriate time. > >We would like to request ICFTU and TUAC to organise a special joint mission - > involving the key representatives of the two international bodies, ITSs, >and key ICFTU-affiliated national centres -- to come to Korea to investigate >the new anti-worker, anti-union labour law in solidarity with Korean workers. >Such a mission will have a very important effect of delaying the "eventual" >government crackdown and arrest of large number of union leaders that is >already in motion. > >We would also like to request ICFTU to call on all its affiliates to issue >protest >letters to the Korean government to be hand delivered directly by the >representatives to the Korean embassies and/or hold public rallies/pickets >(of whatever size) outside the Korea diplomatic missions. We believe the >impact >of such a solidarity action can be maximised if it is held on the same >day. So >we suggest that this may be done on January 10, 1997, as much as possible. >This will magnify the international outcry against the undemocratic action of >the Korean government which is already well reflected in the international >media coverage, adding greater pressure on the Korean government. > >The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions will, we assure you, will maintain >our struggle until the government makes an official commitment to reopen the >parliamentary discussions involving the trade union representatives for >a re-amendment of the labour law. This is the minimum demand we have >set forward against the new labour law which was passed in an undemocratic >manner and which contains various pernicious clauses that are aimed to set >back >the clock on both the working conditions and trade union rights. > >We do not hesitate to acknowledge that the length and intensity of our >struggle >would not have been possible with the strength of international solidarity and >vigilance, not only during the period of current strike, but through out >the course >of drawn out debate for the entire year of 1996. > >The resilience by Korean workers and the international trade union >movement till >the last moment will, we believe, bring about unimagined results that will >usher >in an entirely new setting for trade union activities in Korea. > >We much appreciation, we look forward to you affirmative response. > >In solidarity, > > > >(signed) >Kwon Young-kil >President >Korean Confederation of Trade Unions > > > > > > > >(I take liberty in serving carbon copies of this letter to the following >brothers and sisters.) > >c. c.: Presidents, General Secretaries, and International Directors/Secretaries > >DGB, FNV, CGT-FO, CFDT, TUC, LO-Sweden, TCO-Sweden , LO-Norway, >LO-Denmark, CISL, CGIL, JTUC-Rengo, ACTU, AFL-CIO, NZTUC, CUT-Brazil, CLC; >IMF, IUF, FIET, ITF, PSI, EI, IFBWW, ICEM. From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Jan 6 11:08:57 1997 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:53:24 -0800 (PST) To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Ebonics Explained Sender: meisenscher@igc.org >Return-Path: abudak@alumni.ysu.edu >Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 00:32:20 -0500 >From: Tony Budak >Subject: Oakland school board >To: Tony Budak > > ######################################################################### > COMMUNITY/LABOR Filter and Mail brings YOU this message. For information > about COMM/LABOR, send email to, Tony Budak with > COMM/LABOR REQUEST INFO, in Subject Header, nothing in Message Body. > Send replies to the original author, listed below in the, From: Field. > You may forward this message, please do not use the "redirect" command. > This copyrighted material may be copied for personal use only. If quoted, > correct attribution must be made to the author. Before publishing in > printed form, or redistributing for profit obtain permission from author. > ######################################################################### > > > ><---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> >Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:14:40 -0800 (PST) >From: Phil Agre >To: rre@weber.ucsd.edu >Subject: Oakland school board >Reply-To: rre-maintainers@weber.ucsd.edu > >[I have enclosed the original "Ebonics" resolution, about which so much >foolishness has been circulated. Geoff Nunberg had a good piece about >it on NPR the other day, and newspaper reporters and op-ed pages have >finally located some informed academics who will deign to speak to the >public about the issues. Geoff quoted several newspaper headlines that >(in my interpretation) seem to have been written in a carefully ambiguous >way to make it sound like the Oakland schools were going to conduct >classes in AAVE (African American Vernacular English, the most common >name for the dialect) without actually saying so directly. In fact they >are using an already widespread program which consists of teaching the >teachers about the linguistic properties of the dialect, and then instead >of "fixing" the students' AAVE grammar, they simply ask the children to >translate what they've said into standard English. This is complete and >utter common sense, backed by both linguistics and plain decency. This >is not to say that the Oakland school board is entirely innocent. They >should all be sent back to Public Relations 101 (which, it so happens, >I am about to start teaching on Monday evening), where they will all >recite "I will not use technical terms from historical linguistics, such >as "genetic", in public discourse so long as that discourse is dominated >by panics about the supposed evils of political correctness" fifty times. >For those who asked: yes, AAVE is a structurally distinct dialect of >English, perfectly rule-governed and not just a matter of slang or bad >grammar; yes, this is a well-established linguistic fact, not a matter >for polls or a self-indulgent figment of black nationalist ideology >-- the only disagreement comes from those who only identify language >varieties as distinct dialects if they are mutually incomprehensible; >no, AAVE is not profoundly different in structure from standard English; >no, it is not certain that AAVE was significantly influenced by African >languages -- the languages in question (from the Niger-Congo family) >are considerably different from English (an Indo-European language), and >even though some Western hemisphere languages (such as Jamaican patois) >really are heavily influenced by African linguistic structures, opinions >differ widely on the origins of AAVE's distinctive verb forms, which some >connect to West African Pidgin and others assert are much more recent; >no, AAVE has absolutely no relationship to Swahili, which is East African; >yes, "genetic" really is a technical term from historical linguistics >that describes processes having nothing to do with biological inheritance; >and no, there is no real truth of the matter about whether AAVE is a >distinct language, since dialects are grouped into languages primarily >on political grounds. For further reading see the work of Lisa Delpit, >William Labov, Roger Shuy, William Stewart, and Robert Ferris Thompson, >among many others. Now that we've all read ten articles about "rumors >on the Internet", can we please have an article this time about rumors >being spread by the press while the truth circulates on the Internet? >My problem here, by the way, is not with "the media", at least in the >sense popularized so incessantly by people who selectively criticize >stories that push in directions they don't like and then conclude that >the media as a whole push in such directions. When analyzing the media >it's important to keep track of the distinction, as George Will put it, >between having power and having consequences. The reporters I've worked >with have overwhelmingly been serious, thoughtful people laboring under >a lot of constraints, some explicit and others implicit, about what they >can write about and how. Some reporters have told me that they would >love to write more thoughtful stories about the Internet -- if only they >could find more thoughtful experts who are willing to talk about it in >terms that mass-audience newspaper and magazine readers can understand!] > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). >Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. >You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use >the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions >for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > >Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 23:24:19 -0800 >From: OREGON ASSEMBLY FOR BLACK AFFAIRS >Subject: Full Text of Oakland School Board Resolution and Policy Statement > Adopted 12-18-96 > >This is the complete text of the Ebonics resolution, and accompanying >police statement, adopted unanimously by the Oakland School Board on >December 18, 1996. >------------------------------------------------------ > >RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION ADOPTING THE REPORT AND >RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN TASK FORCE; A POLICY STATEMENT AND >DIRECTING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS TO DEVISE A PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE >ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND APPLICATION SKILLS OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN >STUDENTS. > >No. $597-0063 > Whereas, numerous validated scholarly studies demonstrate that >African American students as part of their culture and history as African >people possess and utilize a language described in various scholarly >approaches as ``Ebonics'' (literally Black sounds) or Pan African >Communication Behaviors or African Language Systems; and > > Whereas, these studies have also demonstrated that African >Language Systems are genetically-based and not a dialect of English; and > > > Whereas, these studies demonstrate that such West and Niger-Congo >African languages have been officially recognized and addressed in the >mainstream public educational community as worth of study, understanding >or application of its principles, laws and structures for the benefit of >African American students both in terms of positive appreciation of the >language and these students' acquisition and mastery of English language >skills; and > > Whereas, such recognition by scholars has given rise over the past >15 years to legislation passed by the State of California recognizing the >unique language stature of descendants of slaves, with such legislation >being prejudicially and unconstitutionally vetoed repeatedly by various >California state governors; and > > Whereas, judicial cases in states other than California have >recognized the unique language stature of African American pupils, and >such recognition by courts has resulted in court-mandated educational >programs which have substantially benefitted African American children in >the interest of vindicating their equal protection of the law rights under >the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution; and > > Whereas, the Federal Bilingual Education Act (20 USC 1402 et seq.) >mandates that local educational agencies ``build their capacities to >establish, implement and sustain programs of instruction for children and >youth of limited English proficiency,'' and > > Whereas, the interests of the Oakland Unified School District in >providing equal opportunities for all of its students dictate limited >English proficient educational programs recognizing the English language >acquisition and improvement skills of African American students are as >fundamental as is application of bilingual education principles for others >whose primary languages are other than English; and > > Whereas, the standardized tests and grade scores of African >American students in reading and language art skills measuring their >application of English skills are substantially below state and national >norms and that such deficiencies will be remedied by application of a >program featuring African Language Systems principles in instructing >African American children both in their primary language and in English, >and > > Whereas, standardized tests and grade scores will be remedied by >application of a program with teachers and aides who are certified in the >methodology of featuring African Language Systems principles in >instructing African American children both in their primary language and >in English. The certified teachers of these students will be provided >incentives including, but not limited to salary differentials, > > Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Education >officially recognizes the existence and the cultural and historic bases of >West and Niger-Congo African Language Systems, and each language as the >predominantly primary language of African American students; and > > Be it further resolved that the Board of Education hereby adopts >the report recommendations and attached Policy Statement of the District's >African American Task Force on language stature of African American >speech; and > > Be it further resolved that the Superintendent in conjunction with her >staff shall immediately devise and implement the best possible academic >program for imparting instruction to African American students in their >primary language for the combined purposes of maintaining the legitimacy >and richness of such language whether it is known as ``Ebonics,'' >``African Language Systems,'' ``Pan African Communication Behaviors'' or >other description, and to facilitate their acquisition and mastery of >English language skills; and > > Be it further resolved that the Board of Education hereby commits >to earmark District general and special funding as is reasonably necessary >and appropriate to enable the Superintendent and her staff to accomplish >the foregoing; and > > Be it further resolved that the Superintendent and her staff shall >utilize the input of the entire Oakland educational community as well as >state and federal scholarly and educational input in devising such a >program; and > > Be it further resolved, that periodic reports on the progress of >the creation and implementation of such an educational program shall be >made to Board of Education at least once per month commencing at the Board >meeting of December 18, 1996. > > >POLICY STATEMENT > There is persuasive empirical evidence that, predicated on >analysis of the phonology, morphology and syntax that currently exists as >systematic, rule governed and predictable patterns exist in the grammar of >African-American speech. The validated and persuasive linguistic evidence >is that African-Americans (1) have retained a West and Niger-Congo African >linguistic structure in the substratum of their speech and (2) by this >criteria are not native speakers of black dialect or any other dialect of >English. > > Moreover, there is persuasive empirical evidence that, owing to >their history as United States slave descendants of West and Niger-Congo >African origin, to the extent that African-Americans have been born into, >reared in, and continue to live in linguistic environments that are >different from the Euro-American English speaking population, >African-American people and their children, are from home environments in >which a language other than English language is dominant within the >meaning of "environment where a Language other than English is dominant" >as defined in Public Law 1-13-382 (20 U.S.C. 7402, et seq.). > > The policy of the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) is that >all pupils are equal and are to be treated equally. Hence, all pupils who >have difficulty speaking, reading, writing or understanding the English >language and whose difficulties may deny to them the opportunity to learn >successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is English or >to participate fully in classrooms where the language of instruction is >English or to participate fully in our society are to be treated equally >regardless of their race or national origin. > > As in the case of Asian-American, Latino-American, Native American >and all other pupils in this District who come from backgrounds or >environments where a language other than English is dominant, >African-American pupils shall not, because of their race, be subtly >dehumanized, stigmatized, discriminated against or denied. >Asian-American, Latino-American, Native American and all other language >different children are provided general funds for bilingual education, >English as Second Language (ESL) and State and Federal (Title VIII) >Bilingual education programs to address their limited and non-English >proficient (LEP/NEP) needs. African-American pupils are equally entitled >to be tested and, where appropriate, shall be provided general funds and >State and Federal (Title VIII) bilingual education and ESL programs to >specifically address their LEP/NEP needs. > > All classroom teachers and aids who are bilingual in Nigritian >Ebonics (African-American Language) and English shall be given the same >salary differentials and merit increases that are provided to teachers of >the non-African American LEP pupils in the OUSD. > > With a view toward assuring that parent of African-American pupils >are given the knowledge base necessary to make informed choices, it shall >be the policy of the Oakland Unified School District that all parents of >LEP (Limited English Proficient) pupils are to be provided the opportunity >to partake of any and all language and culture specific teacher education >and training classes designed to address their child's LEP needs. > > On all home language surveys given to parents of pupils requesting >home language identification or designations, a description of the >District's programmatic consequences of their choices will be contained. > > Nothing in this Policy shall preclude or prevent African-American >parents who view their child's limited English proficiency as being >non-standard English, as opposed to being West and Niger-Congo African >Language based, from exercising their right to choose and to have their >child's speech disorders and English Language deficits addressed by >special education and/or other District programs. > > ><---- End Forwarded Message ----> From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Jan 6 14:25:14 1997 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 12:53:38 -0800 (PST) To: labr.party@conf.igc.org, united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, H-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu, irra@relay.doit.wisc.edu, OIFAC@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: AFL-CIO & the Fate of Social Security Sender: meisenscher@igc.org After seeing comments by a top official of the AFL-CIO on the privatization of Social Security, I wrote the following commentary. I apologize for its length; I hope you will agree that this deserves more than a casual treatment. My objective is to encourage discussion and to stimulate action. (Feel free to repost or reproduce this. Better yet, write your own commentary.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AFL-CIO and the FATE of SOCIAL SECURITY Commentary by Michael Eisenscher Did you see it? It was a slow news day, just before a major holiday -- a good time to release politically sensitive or potentially embarassing news. Buried in the innards of the December 30 national edition of the New York Times (p. A-9), was a report by Leslie Wayne entitled "Interest Groups Prepare for Huge Fight on Social Security." (As far as I can determine, this article did not get posted to the Times Web site.) It paints a troubling picture of the prospects for defending the Social Security system against the greedy ambitions of Wall Street bankers, insurance executives, and securities firms. Labor movement activists and worker advocates ought to be alarmed and energized to respond. The report begins by proclaiming there is a "broad consensus that the Social Security system needs reform..." and marks the center of the debate not just over whether Social Security should be privatized (the article all but assumes it) but over the the DEGREE and MANNER of privatization. (Chalk another one up for Adam Smith.) The Cato Institute, a libertarian "think tank" in Washington, has a $2 million war chest provided by business donors to fund a three year campaign to dismantle the present Social Security system. They hope to panic people with much talk about a looming "crisis" in the Social Security trust fund, while pushing their "free market" solutions. Apparently they calculate that the new Congress and Clinton can be relied upon to deliver the goods if enough noise can be made, disinformation generated, and popular confusion created. (Recall the fate of single payer healthcare.) Cato advocates that all the Social Security funds be made available for each individual worker to invest in the stock and bond market as she or he determines. According to the Times report, this would provide $400 billion annually (the value of annual SSA payroll taxes) -- $2 trillion if the whole fund is invested -- for market speculation. Is there a "crisis"? Not hardly. The Social Security trust fund currently runs a surplus of over $60 billion per year. Based on current projections there are sufficient reserves in the trust fund to cover all retirees until 2029. In 2012, as the baby boomers begin to retire, benefit payouts will start to exceed taxes collected. This means that the Social Security Administration will have to draw on interest earned on the fund to cover benefits. In 2019 benefit payments will exceed taxes collected and the fund will have to start drawing down its reserves. Not before 2029 would the trust fund be depleted, at which point FICA taxes collected would only cover about 77% of benefits due. Dean Baker, an economist and policy analyst at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), cautions that inaccurate assumptions about demographic changes, productivity, inflation, and wages can produce an unrealistic and overly pessimistic projections about the viability of the trust fund. SSI fund trustees report that the gap over the next 70-plus years amounts to 2.2% of the taxable U.S. payroll. Linda Stern, commenting in Modern Maturity, observes that covering that shortfall entirely today would mean raising the present FICA employee/employer tax from 12.4% to 14.6%, or reducing benefits by 15%. But we don't have to cover it all immediately, and there are many other ways to generate revenues to assure the adequacy of funds in the next century. Even by the most pessimistic scenarios, a FICA tax increase on employees and employers of just 0.05% each per year between 2010 and 2046 (total of 3.6 percentage points) would be sufficient to maintain current benefits into the foreseeable future. The growth rate of the U.S. economy over the past twenty years averaged 2.8% per year; it is conservatively projected to be 1.8% over the next twenty years and then drop to 1.4% or less. A slightly more optimistic projection would require an even smaller FICA tax adjustment. (For more details, see Note at conclusion of this article which identifies the sources from which much of the data that appears in this commentary was obtained.) An Advisory Council on Social Security was named by Clinton in 1994, composed of thirteen members: three from labor; three corporate members; Robert Ball, a former commissioner of Social Security; Sylvester Schieber, from Watson Wyatt Worldwide, a benefits consulting firm; Fidel Vargas, described as a California policy analyst, appointed purportedly to represent "Generation-Xers;" and Chairman Edward Gramlich, professor of economics at the University of Michigan. Ball, Gramlich, and Schieber each have proposed their own set of reforms, which have become the focus of the Council's deliberations. Ball proposes Social Security be gradually privatized (up to 40%) and that management of those investments be by government appointed trustees or fund managers. Under his plan, investments would be in passively managed index funds (mutual funds that track the stock market). Gramlich proposes that 1.6% of each worker's taxable income be set aside as an additional tax payment (over and above the current employee contribution) into a mandatory government-supervised retirement plan, similar to a 401(k) savings plan. Workers would be offered choices as to how their accounts were invested. Upon retirement, benefits would be paid out in an annuity. Shieber goes the furthest. He proposes to split Social Security into a two-tiered plan. The first tier would offer a basic monthly benefit of up to $410 (in today's dollars). The second tier would set aside 5% of each worker's payroll tax contribution to invest tax-free for retirement. Each worker would manage her/his own investments. All three proposals include some number of these additional changes: increased payroll taxes, taxing benefits that exceed contributions, shifting the Medicare portion of the tax on Social Security benefits into the trust fund, increasing the computation period from 35 to 38 work years, bringing in presently uncovered state and local public employees, cutting future benefits by changing the percentage of income on which benefits are calculated, raising the normal retirement age to 69 and pegging it to life expectancy tables, and cutting spousal benefits from 50% to 33%. Many if not most of these changes work to the detriment of most workers. The prospect of gaining access to the trust funds has Wall St. practically delirious. The mutual fund industry and such venerable brokerage houses as Merrill Lynch have teamed up with the National Association of Manufacturers and other corporate interests to steam-roll the privatization initiative, with differences between them only over the details of privatization. On one point they seem to concur -- they want to keep the Federal Government from having any influence over how SS funds are invested. At present, the funds are invested exclusively in interest-bearing Government securities (usually held to maturity), backed by the "full faith and credit" of the Federal Government. With such powerful capitalist forces eager to take a whack at the program that has represented a sacred covenant between government and the American people for six decades one would expect that the AFL-CIO would be manning the ramparts and mobilizing its troops for a determined defense of the what has been the last relatively unscathed remnant of the New Deal system. Well, not quite! While it opposes conversion of the Social Security trust fund into a forced savings plan in what amounts to individual retirement or 401(k) accounts managed by each worker, the AFL-CIO declared its readiness to accept investment of up to 40% of the trust fund in publicly traded stocks and bonds (the Ball plan). This from no less prominent a voice than Gerald Shea, principal lieutenant to John Sweeney, director of the Governmental Affairs Department of the AFL-CIO, and one of the three labor members of the Advisory Council. Shea promises a major labor campaign to prevent full privatization, but he concedes a large chunk of the political argument in advance by describing the battle as between "those who see that Government has a role in Social Security and those who believe it should have none." This neatly side-steps the fact that the Government for six decades has had THE role, not just a role, and the Federation seems prepared to give that ground without even a token struggle. The Cato gang argues that they don't want government determining where SS funds ought to be invested because it would give the Government influence over the decisions and practices of private corporations. It is conceivable that Government could end up owning as much as 10% of the shares of major corporations, making the public the largest single stockholder and enabling Government to potentially exercise significant influence over corporate policies. Shea points out that this could have a potentially "good effect on how corporate America operates." One argument for allowing investment of some portion of the trust fund in the market is that Government could then exert significant influence on how corporations do business, requiring them to be more socially responsible. This, of course, drives the Cato clique and their corporate cronies right up a wall. But Shea abandons the advantages of constructive Government influence by accepting the proposition that Government should have only a passive investment role. Assuming for sake of argument that the Federal Government could (through public pressure campaigns) be induced to exercise its investment clout to oppose the rapacious practices of corporations in matters such as capital flight, disinvestment, export of capital and jobs, technological change, environmental and occupational health practices, sustainable development, and other corporate decisions, that opportunity is foreclosed if the Government only invests in passive stock-index funds, regardless of how many shares the Government holds. So, that argument in favor of Government directed partial privatization goes right out the window. Much like ESOPs in which employees are pressed to make concessions in return for stock but are barred from exercising stockholder rights to influence their employer's policies, the Government would become a passive (second class) investor -- providing the money but gaining none of the influence other major shareholders exert. The Social Security trust fund would become Wall Street's piggy bank, no strings attached. There would be no restriction on how corporations use these funds. Absent such accountability controls on how Government funds are invested, newly available investment capital could easily be used to finance the next wave of overseas investment, mergers, buyouts, and acquisitions, leading to closures, further downsizing, job-displacing and deskilling automation, and other job-killing and environment-destroying practices (as well as providing additional resources in capital's battle against unions). That would amount to a "free ride" for capital. Unrestricted by any requirements for socially responsible investing (however one understands that), workers could find their Social Security taxes being invested against their own interests. At present the SSI system has an administrative cost that is just 0.7% of benefits paid out. EPI notes, by contrast, the operating costs of the life insurance industry exceed 40%. The operating cost of Chile's privatized retirement system (held up as an example by the free marketeers) runs close to 15%. Aside from added risk, investment of even 40% of the trust fund in stocks and bonds would subject the fund to a much larger administrative cost, while rewarding Wall St. traders with a bonanza of fees and commissions. Little wonder the investment firms are so eager to push these reforms. Some argue that, over the long haul, the stock market consistently outperforms Treasury bonds, and that it makes no sense for the Social Security trust fund to forego the opportunities for a greater potential return that could be secured through investment in the market. For those who buy this "over the long run" argument about higher market returns, imagine yourself in the 1920s during a boom market that seemed to go endlessly up and ask yourself. What good was the "long run" to those who retired in the 1930s? Are you ready to accept the odds that the market will perform in the next 75 years as well as it has in the last 75? Now consider whether you are prepared to bet your Social Security benefits that the present market will continue to climb right through the 2020s? Remember what happened to those folks who put their funds into stock of firms like Eastern Airlines? A lot of small investors lost everything while the largest and wealthiest investors got out relatively unscathed (some even made money). Remember -- over the long run we are all dead (but the inheritances of the wealthy seem to live forever). Are you willing to gamble that investment managers can consistently avoid the losers and pick the winners? Do you think most individual workers could do that? According to EPI's analysis, given that future growth is unlikely to replicate higher past growth, the only way for the stock market to maintain its past record of about 7% inflation-adjusted return on investment is if the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of stocks soars to unprecedented levels. (The P/E is the ratio of the price of a stock to the amount of corporate earnings per share, a common measure of stock values.) They note, "If the growth projections used for Social Security are accurate, then to generate 7% returns the P/E ratio in the stock market will have to rise to over 60 to 1 by 2030. It will have to rise to 460 to 1 by the end of the planning period in 2070. By comparison, the P/E ratio now stands at 22 to 1, a record high." But even if that were achieveable, do you trust your retirement security to the buyout bandits, merger maniacs, derivative speculators, down-sizers, deindustrializers, and take-back artists who have brought workers and the labor movement to their present sorry state? Would you be content to learn that your own Social Security funds were invested in the corporation that just closed your workplace and laid you off in the name of efficiency, profitability, and global competitiveness after using newly available SSI fund investments to build a new plant in Chile or Malaysia,? No thanks! Still not convinced? By most accounts we are at or near the top of the market, a time when share prices are artificially inflated by speculation. Privatizing Social Security now means buying into the market at its highest prices on the assumption it will continue to rise. A wise investor buys cheap and sells dear, but the privatizers would turn that advice inside out, allowing Wall St. to reap a sweet reward at the expense of working people. The volatility of the market is one indicator that it may not take much to burst the speculative bubble. Dumping billions of dollars into the market has yet another effect. Removing 40% of the SSI trust fund from the federal debt market (Government securities) would have the same effect as if the trust fund dumped Treasury bonds. Their prices would be depressed, pushing interest rates up. Treasury bonds are widely held, especially by banks and other lending institutions as part of their required reserves. The result would be to depress the value of those reserves, reducing their ability to make loans, pushing interest rates up as borrowers bid for increasingly scares loanable funds. As interest rates climb the cost of servicing the Federal debt will also rise. Municipalities needing to raise capital for local improvements or infrastructure development (roads, schools, sports stadiums, water treatment plants) would be forced to pay higher interest rates and accept lower prices for their tax-exempt municipal bonds. Where do you suppose funds will be obtained to meet the higher cost of debt service? Rest assured it won't come out of the pockets of the rich. The prospects for a tax increase are slim, particularly any increase aimed at the wealthy. On whose backs will the budget-balancing bozos in Congress balance the budget? Additional domestic spending programs will be put on the block in the name of fiscal and budgetary responsibility. Was there a quid pro quo obtained by the AFL-CIO in return for its support of the 40% privatization option? During Clinton's first term the Federation banked on the Dunlop Commission for major worker-friendly reforms of the laws governing the right to organize, bargain, and strike. What it got was a tepid report that waltzed around the central issue -- the enduring animosity of employers to worker self-organization in autonomous democratic unions. It recommended bandaids where surgery was needed and offered in the bargain proposals to dramatically weaken one of the few remaining protections of the original Wagner Act, the Section 8(a)(2) ban on company-dominated labor organizations (in the name of flexibility, efficiency, and productivity, naturally). This povided aid and encouragement to a mounting employer offensive to repeal 8(a)(2) that surfaced in the form of the TEAM Act, saved from enactment only by Clinton's veto. No one seriously believes there is any hope a deal can be cut for meaningful labor law reform from this Congress (whether to protect strikers or help workers organize). Any confidence that a deal to privatize Social Security in return for a pledge of future action to meaningfully strengthen union and worker rights is a form of serious delusion. Furthermore, in a deal gone sour, who would trust lame-duck Clinton (a president who never met a corporate donor he did not like) to veto Wall St.'s privatization scheme? If all the potential pitfalls outlined above could be somehow dealt with, and if Government were allowed to exercise its influence over investments to induce more responsible worker/environment-friendly corporate practices, and if the labor movement and its allies were able to force Government to actually exert that influence in their behalf, an argument might be made that partial privatization is not inherently a bad thing and is a reasonable way to solve the 21st Century funding problem. Well, that's a lot of "ifs." We should be mindful that prior to NAFTA's passage its proponents made comparable claims for all the positive consequences that would flow from enactment of the treaty. Labor did not buy the argument then, why should it be so quick to buy into all these assumptions about Social Security now? When I first learned about collective bargaining I was introduced to a fundamental principle -- never bargain with yourself. If you enter negotiations on the basis of what you think you will get, you bargain on the basis of what you think the other side will accept. You inevitably get even less. The only rational bargaining position is to start on the basis of what workers need and stick to that resolutely in order to get the other side to make offers designed to entice you into an agreement . If what you need cannot be compromised, you have to be prepared to go to the mat, draw blood, and raise the price of battle so that the other side retreats. It seems to me that the Federation has conceded even before the first bell has sounded. It has nowhere to go but backwards from its present position. Local unions, labor councils, state federations, workers' rights advocates, the Labor Party, seniors organizations, and anyone else concerned with the fate of Social Security should express their opposition to the Federation's readiness to accept privatization as a solution to Social Security's expected shortfall (which is not projected to occur before 2019). We should demand that the AFL-CIO defend the Social Security system against the bandits on Wall St. rather than accepting the inevitability of privatization. Unlike the Federation, the American Association of Retired Persons, with millions of members and a formidable lobbying operation, has taken a position squarely in defense of the Social Security System. AARP argues that there is no present crisis and that any deficiencies in funding in the next century can be addressed without converting the trust fund into individual investment accounts or having the Government invest speculatively in the stock market. (AARP's position is explained in the January-February issue of Modern Maturity, the organization's magazine.) If, as is argued, the trust fund needs fixing, the fix should be consistent with its essential mission -- to provide a safe and secure retirement income and safety net for the nation's workers and their families. The AFL-CIO ought to be arguing that any new money needed ought to come from capital, not through speculation at the expense of workers' security. I make no pretense at expertise in Social Security, but one does not have to be an economist to come up with ideas for beefing up the fund that don't put workers' benefits at risk. For example, at present FICA taxes apply only to the first $65,400 of income on which the employee and employer each pay 6.2%. Why not tax all income? High income wage earners could be allowed to invest that portion of their FICA taxes contributed on incomes above $100,000 in stocks and bonds as they see fit. If they want to gamble and lose, the trust fund is not put at risk. Only their own accounts would be affected, and even then only that portion accrued from taxes on high earnings. Additional revenue could also be derived if other forms of income received by the wealthy, like dividends and interest, were subject to an additional tax to support the SSI trust fund. The point is that the AFL-CIO should be putting together its own program of reforms, a worker/senior-friendly set of alternative proposals. It could join with AARP in appointing their own "blue ribbon" committee, inviting friendly academics and other specialists to help labor design a truly progressive set of reforms that become the centerpiece of a massive national campaign. Working with groups that share labor's concerns, a powerful voice could be created that Congress and the President would have a hard time ignoring. There should be little doubt that an effective campaign could be mounted, particularly if the organized labor really mobilizes its members rather than relying on traditional lobbying methods. Clinton himself saw the potency of the issue and was able to win substantial popular support distinguishing himself from the Republicans during his reelection campaign after he spoke out clearly in defense of Social Security and Medicare. By offering effective leadership, the labor movement could rally the American people to its position, provided that position is not so compromised that workers see it as just another variant of the "free market" privatization scheme. If organized labor acts more like a popular social movement and less like an inside-the-beltway special interest it can beat the right on this issue -- and establish itself in the minds of organized and unorganized workers alike as a partisan advocate for their interests. Not only will it win this battle, but it will cause unorganized workers to look upon unions in a more favorable light, which can only be a good thing for labor's efforts to rebuild its membership, political influence, and bargaining clout. There are many deficiencies in the present Social Security system. The prospect of reform ought to be seen as an opportunity for organized labor to build alliances with seniors, the disabled, widows, the poor, and other affected constituencies to develop a reform plan based on what working and poor people need, not what capital prefers or is willing to concede. Organized labor played a critical role in the struggle to establish the Social Security system. It must now play a leading role in the struggle to defend and improve it, not to turn it into yet another source of capital for speculation and profiteering. It surely will not be able to stem the rightward drift in American political life by trying to make the political intiatives of the right more palatable. It's time for labor to stop bargaining with itself. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Eisenscher is a consultant to unions and community organizations, a 25 year veteran union organizer, and a doctoral candidate in public policy at the University of Massachusetts-Boston. [I acknowledge and express my appreciation for the comments, criticisms and suggestions of friends and colleagues who read earlier drafts of this commentary. For the final product, however, I remain fully responsible.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE ON SOURCES: For an understandable and even-handed explanation of the pros and cons of the alternative plans considered by the Advisory Council on Social Security, see the article "Save Social Security?" by Linda Stern in the January-February issue of Modern Maturity published by AARP. Another good source is "The Assumptions Are Too Pessimistic" by Dean Baker in the November-December issue of Challenge. Mark Weisbrot, Research Director of the Preamble Center for Public Policy, has prepared an analysis entitled "Unequal Sacrifice: The Impact of Changes Proposed by the Advisory Council on Social Security." Call 202-265-3263 for information on ordering it. The Economic Policy Institute issues many useful reports and studies. They have a Web site at http://www.epn.org/epi/ on which many are posted, including EPI Issue Brief #112, "Privatizing Social Security - The Wall Street Fix" by Dean Baker (http://www.epn.org/epi/epib112.html). This site is linked to the Economic Policy Network, which connects to a large number of progressive policy organization sites. EPN is at http://www.epn.org. ************************************************** Michael Eisenscher Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program University of Massachusetts-Boston 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610-3131 ------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org ************************************************* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Let me give you a word on the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. --Frederick Douglass ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Mon Jan 6 18:23:43 1997 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 17:21:42 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: CONST: Additional List Managers. (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 17:06:28 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley To: CONSTITUTION@websightz.com Subject: CONST: Additional List Managers. To the Nine Current List Managers: Before putting our new list out to the general public I think we should beat the bushes and try to find a few more list co-managers. Several labour leaders or activists would help to round out the management group. Anybody else out there? If so just post your interests to the above list address. I am sure this list will be very popular and it will come up with a real "we the people" document pretty fast to replace the current projective ink blots in Canada and the U.S. FWP. -=- Posted through the Constitution Mailing List (http://www.websightz.com/constitution) To Post a message, mail it to: constitution@websightz.com For Help file send a blank email to: constitution-request@websightz.com For mailing lists and web site design send requests to: webmadam@websightz.com From Furuhashi.1@osu.edu Mon Jan 6 18:49:18 1997 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 20:47:26 -0500 To: mlg-ics@andrew.cmu.edu, can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu, h-labor@h-net.msu.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, iww@igc.apc.org From: Furuhashi.1@osu.edu (Yoshie Furuhashi) Subject: What You Can Do To Help Korean Workers Dear subscribers to the labor-related lists: The following message gives you the fax number, e-mail address, etc. of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions. (You can send a message of solidarity to them and donate money to the strikers' fund.) Also, it tells you where to fax your letter of protest. Thank you for your attention. yoshie furuhashi (Furuhashi.1@osu.edu) >From: "Jagdish Parikh" >Subject: Appeal Solidarity Action for Korean Workers > >------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- >Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 16:34:12 +0800 (HKT) >From: AMRC > > >KCTU: The escalating Second Stage of the General Strike declared on >6 January at 8:00 am On 6 January, 1996, the President of the >Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), Kwon Young-gil called on >the metal workers' unions, auto workers' unions, construction >workers' unions, the Hyundai Federation of Trade Unions, professional >workers' unions and white collar workers' unions to take part in the >general strike - a total of 160 affiliated unions with 200,000 >members of KCTU. Today workers who are going on strike demanded the >repeal of the anti- worker labour laws, National Security Planning >Agency Act, an apology from the President, Kim Young-sam, and the >resignations of the cabinet of Prime Minister Lee Soo-sung and New >Korea Party Chairman Lee Hong -koo. > >Tomorrow the general strike will be extended to all the industral >and public sectors as major broadcasting trade unions (KBS, MBC, >EBS, CBS), hospital unions, and white collar workers' unions which >have are total of 2,300,000 members in 210 affiliated unions of >KCTU. > > However, it is expected that the Korean government will reject the >workers' demands and suppress the movement. For example, 50 union >leaders face arrest and 20 leaders of the Korean Confederation of >Trade Unions (KCTU) received summons' today. Yesterday prosecutors >warned that they could arrest about 50 top trade union leaders >including the president of KCTU. In spite of this warning, workers >will not give up their demands and the general strike will continue. > > The president of KCTU, Kwon Young-gil said that, "Our protest >strikes will continue until President Kim Young-sam accepts our >demands and he should apologize to 12 million workers. Unless the >unilaterally railroadthe general strike will enter into the third >stage of the General Strike soon." > >* How can we support the genuine workers' strike in achieving victory ? > >Protest to the Korean government: > >1) KCTU hopes that workers or any supporters overseas organise >protest rallies in front of Korean embassies in their countries. > > >2) Send protest letters to the Kim Young-sam government. Fax no: >822- 855-1913 > >Encourage workers in their struggle to act bravely and fight for >their lives! > > >* Most of the workers involved in the general strike action gave up >their year-end annual bonus and salary for the cause of workers' >rights. It is a very difficult time for them and their families. We >appeal to all concerned groups and supporters to make donations to >the strikers of KCTU so that they may continue the strike. Every >little bit will help! > >Please send donations to the strikers to: >To: Kim In Soog (KCTU). >Korean (Foreign) Exchange Bank >account number : 141-05-1003-7 > >If you send a donation to KCTU, please inform Yoon Young-mo at the >International Department of KCTU by fax or e-mail. Fax number : >001-822-765-2011 E-mail : kctuint@chollian.dacom.co.kr > > > > > > --- from list marxism-general@lists.village.virginia.edu --- From Furuhashi.1@osu.edu Tue Jan 7 12:55:03 1997 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:02:32 -0500 To: marxism-international@jefferson.village.virginia.edu, marxism-general@jefferson.village.virginia.edu, iww@igc.apc.org, mlg-ics@andrew.cmu.edu, can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu, h-labor@h-net.msu.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, clr@igc.apc.org, walk@igc.apc.org, dsa@dsausa.org, littler.5@osu.edu, englltg@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu, lvpsf@labornet.org, abudak@alumni.ysu.edu, kilty.1@osu.edu From: Furuhashi.1@osu.edu (Yoshie Furuhashi) Subject: From KCTU-Intl: Korean General Strike - Onto the 14the Day >Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 03:09:10 +0900 >From: KCTU-International >Subject: Korean General Strike - Onto the 14the Day > KOREAN CONFEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS > > Struggle for Labour Law Reforms > Campaign News XXI > January 7, 1997 > > > > General Strike > The Final Count Down Has Begun > > > > The Tentacles of Repression Just Around Corner > >On January 6, 1997, two well-built policemen budged into the >KCTU office. The purpose of the unwelcomed visit was to serve >summons to the 8 top leaders of the Korean Confederation of Trade >Unions. The next day, this time four thick shouldered policemen >tried to push through the door to the KCTU office. This was the >second serving of the summons. By 10 p.m. January 7, 1997, all >together 217 unionists were summoned for questioning by the public >prosecutors. And the 8 p.m. television news indicated that the public >prosecutors were going to apply for warrant of arrests for these >people tomorrow. > >And some sympathetic reporters kindly passed on information that >public prosecutors are preparing to raid the KCTU office during the >night of January 7, or on January 8 for "search and confiscation". >This piece of intelligence made the KCTU activists busy. Important >documents and computers were taken out to safe house for future use. >The reason that computers were taken away is not because there are >any confidential or incriminating information stored in them. It >reflects the police custom of seizing the whole computers as evidence >when all that is required is few floppy discs to copy the contents of the >hard drive. > >The Scenarios for Crackdown > >It has been expected that the weekend would the critical moment >for the current wave of general strike led by the Korean Confederation >of Trade Unions. This is because it is more difficult to bring workers >out on to streets for demonstrations and protest rallies on weekends. >Most strikes in Korea are sit-down strikes where workers, instead of >staying at home away from work, report to work and begin the day >with union meetings, rallies, and various other strike programmes, >including mass street rallies. Weekend, therefore, can spell a lull in >the mass action, creating an opening for police intervention. > >The leaders of KCTU are camping out * despite the extraordinary >cold weather * in improvised tents in the compound of the >Myongdong Cathedral. It would be difficult for the police to raid the >cathedral compound without the church authorisation. Therefore, the >leaders may be safe for a considerable time. > >However, police may enter the factory compounds with ease while >workers are out for the weekend. When workers return to work on >Monday, they may find the factory ground under police control. This >can generate two kind of reaction. One is a subdued atmosphere. >Another is angry, volatile outburst. Whatever the reaction it will bring >an end to the well disciplined and peaceful rallies orchestrated by >over 200,000 workers weaving through all the streets of the major >cities throughout the country everyday. > >The KCTU leaders may continue to hold out in the sanctuary of >the catholic church for few days and either go into hiding or soon end >up in prison. The KCTU may be without stable leadership for a >considerable time. Then the KCTU may become easy prey to the >pernicious labour law that aims to weaken the trade union movement >and worsen the working condition of majority of the working people. >It is, then, simple to see who will benefit the most from the weakening >of the trade union movement or the possible irrecoverable damage >suffered by the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions. > >The Crisis and Opportunity: >the resilience of the KCTU general strike > >This, of course, is the worst case scenario. The KCTU >leadership, forged by more than ten year of struggle to build an >independent representative trade union movement, will undertake all >possible effort to maintain the restraint and peaceful nature of the >current wave of general strike to induce the government to make a >sincere commitment to reopen the whole process for the genuine >reform of the labour law. > >The upcoming weekend looms as the most critical moment of the >current general strike. If the ranks of the general strike is maintained >without serious damage, then the KCTU unionist can look forward to >the resumption of some protest action from the brothers and sisters of >the Federation of Korean Trade Unions. The KCTU leadership will, >therefore, prepare the most effective strategy for the rest of the week >to maintain the momentum of the general strike into next week. One >important source of strength for the KCTU in the current situation is >international solidarity. The combined force of creative resilience of >the KCTU and effective international solidarity will make difficult for >the government to target the KCTU. > > The Twelfth and Thirteen Days of > General Strike > >January 6, 1997 heralded the full return to the height reached >before the temporary suspension at the year-end. The major unions >at the large conglomerate companies, such as, the Hyundai Motors >resumed their strike positions they had left for the New Year's Day >holidays. This day also saw the participation for the first time by many >white collar unions of insurance, stock, and securities companies. > >All together 150 unions and 190,893 workers took part in the >second phase of the second wave of the general strike. Many of the >striking workers took part in various public rallies held in 19 major >urban centres throughout the country. > >In Seoul, some 20,000 workers converged at Jongmyo park in >downtown for a vibrant protest rally. The workers were soon joined >by many ordinary citizens, non-union workers, and students as they >marched about 4 kilometres towards the Myongdong Cathedral where >the strike headquarters is set up. The rallyists filled the shopping >mall nearby the cathedral, singing protest songs, workers songs, and >democracy songs. > >In Cheju-do Island, the southern most island of Korea, farthest >from Seoul, 19 unions affiliated to KCTU held public awareness >raising campaigns, collected signatures for petition calling for the >nullification of the anti-worker labour law and the anti-democratic >National Security Planing Agency Act. > >The continuing strike campaign began to stimulate other social >organisations. A major citizens movement organisation issued a >special statement calling for an immediate re-amendment of the >labour law and the National Security Planing Agency Act. The >organisatiion also launched a nation-wide petition campaign for this >purpose. The National Council of Churches in Korea called a >meeting of 52 regional human rights committees to set up a pan- >christian taskforce for the re-amendment of the labour laws. A >national body catholic priests decided to hoist special placards in the >church compounds, make the compound available as sanctuary to >striking workers, and to hold special mass in support of the striking >workers. Buddhist monks organisation formed an emergency >taskforce, while the Association of Lawyers for Democratic Society >made an official application for access to all the relevant records of >the extraordinary session of the National Assembly that saw the >commando style passage of the problematic bills. University >Professors Association for Democracy began a petition campaign to >collect 2,000 signatures among the university professors calling for >the nullification of the errant laws. Similar efforts are being >undertaken by medical practitioners and cultural artists. > >On January 7, 1997, the KCTU-led general strike branched out >into a new dimension. The day's strike action began by the walkout, >at 5 a.m. of the unionists at the four major television and radio >networks. The unionists at the two major broadcasting network, the >Korean Broadcasting System and the Munhwa Broadcasting >Corporation had immediate effect. The morning news programmes >came on air with replacement presenters who had no little difficulty in >keeping up the programme. While the pre-recorded programmes >were not greatly affected, the live programmes, especially, the news >programmes suffered the most with the work out of the journalists and >technicians. The familiar faces who brightened the television >screens were out in the streets or park mingling with technicians and >uniformed workers from factories and white collar workers from the >stock exchange singing songs together. > >The broadcasters were joined by hospital workers who resumed >their strike following a brief return to work over the holidays. The >unions at the 24 major hospitals in Korea, including the most famous >Seoul National University General Medical Centre, The striking >unions, as in their first spell at strike last year, made special >arrangements to staff the intensive care units, the emergency unit, >and emergency (non-pre-arranged) surgery, to minimize the >inconvenience and crisis in medical delivery. The care the unions >had taken in preparation of the strike had wiped clean the concern >and anxiety about the possible chaos that may be caused by a strike >at a hospital. In a sense, the current general strike had succeeded in >lifting the taboo attached to a hospital strike, breaking the grounds for >a co-existence of industrial action and patient care. > >Some 15,000 striking workers in Seoul gathered at the downtown >Jongmyo Park for a public meeting. They did not stay long for the >rally as they dispersed themselves in groups of tens and twenties to >some 100 local centres in Seoul for public awareness raising >campaign. The KCTU Newspaper Department printed one million >copies of a special strike edition for general public reading. The >striking workers took bundles of the newspaper and other leaflets and >petition papers to shopping centres, department stores, subway and >railway stations, to meet with the general public. Similar campaigns >were repeated in some 20 regional centres, from the southernmost >Cheju-do Island to the northernmost cities in Kangwon-do province >backgrounded by snow-capped mountains. > >The Plans for the Days to Come > >On January 8, striking unionist will hold a special day with >ordinary people. The unionists at automobile service companies will >set up 27 car check-up points throughout the country for free service. >The members of the KCTU Chullabuk-do Province Council will go to >various rural villages hit by the recent heavy snowfall to assist in the >recovery work. And other unionists, mainly in the especial industrial >estates, zones, and complexes, will conduct a clean-up campaign in >the nearby environmentally distressed areas. > >The white collar unionists of the Korean Federation of Clerical >Workers Unions, the Korean Federation of Professional and >Technicians Unions, the Korean Construction Company Workers >Unions, the Union of the Employees of the National Federation of >Medical Insurance Cooperatives, the Korean Federation of Press >Unions, the Korean Federation of University Employees Unions, the >Korean Federation of Hospital Workers Unions, and the Korean >Teachers and Educational Workers Union will hold a special "white >collar workers" assembly in downtown Seoul. This marks the full >entry of the white collar workers into the current wave of general >strike. This will, it is believed, set the stage for a reenactment of the >Great June Democratic Struggle in 1987 which catapulted into a >massive democratic uprising led by the "neck-tie corps" of the white >collar workers. > >January 9, Thursday, is designated as a day of protest against the >ruling New Korea Party led by the President Kim Young Sam. The >striking unions will hold protest rallies in front of the NKP branch >offices throughout the country. January 10, Friday, is set as a day of >protest against the "thief" government which commandeered the >stealthy passage of the two repressive legislation. Striking unions >will bring their cars into the heart of the city to undertake a massive >"car demonstration". On Saturday, the KCTU members will join with >other citizens and social movement organisation for a nation-wide >coordinated public rally to call for the nullification of the anti-worker >labour law and the anti-democratic National Security Planing Agency >Act. > >The KCTU leadership is currently working on the plan of action for >Sunday, which will mark the turning point for the general strike. A >successful 'stroll' through Sunday will lead the general strike into its >third week which will bring the general strike in sight of success. The >most important question for third week will centre around the decision >of the FKTU which has delayed its decision for resumption of its >protest action to January 13, 1997 having left the strike trail for a little >more than a week. Regardless of FKTU's decision, the Korean >Confederation of Trade Unions will be able, if it can course the >general strike into its third week, to force the government to come to >discussion table for the reopening of the process for re-amendment of >the errant labour law. > > Appeal for International Solidarity > >The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions has called for >international solidarity as it prepares for the critical weekend. The >KCTU's general strike provides the international trade union >community to undertake effective international solidarity which can >make real contribution to the defense of workers rights and welfare. > >The following is an appeal for international solidarity issued by >President Kwon Young-kil of the Korean Confederation of Trade >Unions. (Another version of this letter was sent to the presidents, >general secretaries, and international directors of the International >Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the Trade Union Advisory >Committee to Organisation for Economic Cooperation and >Development, various ITSs, and major national trade union centres.) > > >Dear Brothers and Sisters, > >Warmest greetings to melt all the snow and cold of this >extraordinary winter. > >I would like to express our sincerest appreciation for the >international solidarity which was instrumental in putting the >Korean labour law reform in compliance with the ILO >standards on the agenda of the international trade union >movement. > >The general strike of Korean workers, led by the KCTU and >FKTU, in defense of the trade union and labour rights and the >welfare of workers, now in its thirteenth day since December >26 last year, has already succeeded as indicated by the failure >of the government to react immediately with a harsh >crackdown. > >I write at a time when the government has began to take >steps to swoop down on the striking workers and unions with >harsh crackdown and arrest. This is clearly indicated by the >summons for questioning and the public prosecutors' >announcement of the plan to apply for warrant of arrest for >some 200 union leaders including myself and 7 other KCTU >elected officers. > >If there ever were an opportunity for international >solidarity to have a real impact and influence on a situation, I >believe, this is the moment. > >We would like to request international trade union >movement to organise a special mission to come to Korea to >investigate to the new anti-worker, anti-union labour law. >Such a mission will have a very important effect of delaying the >government crackdown and arrest of large number of union >leaders that is already in motion. > >We would also like to request all trade unions and human >rights, and democratic organisations to issue protest letters >addressed to President Kim Young Sam to be hand delivered >directly to the Korean embassies. This can combine with >public rallies/pickets outside the Korea diplomatic missions. > >We believe the impact of such a solidarity action can be >maximised if it is held on the same day. So we suggest that >this may be done on January 10, 1997, as much as possible. >This will magnify the international attention on the >undemocratic action of the Korean government which is >already well reflected in the international media coverage. > >The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions will, we assure >you, will maintain our struggle until the government makes an >official commitment to reopen the parliamentary discussions >involving the trade union representatives for a re-amendment >of the labour law. This will pave the way for a peaceful >settlement of the general strike and an end to the pernicious >labour law which aimed to set back the clock on both the >working conditions and trade union rights. > >We do not hesitate to acknowledge that the length and >intensity of our struggle would not have been possible without >the strength of international solidarity and vigilance, not only >during the period of current strike, but through out the course >of drawn out debate for the entire year of 1996. > >The resilience by Korean workers and the international >trade union movement till the last moment will, we believe, >bring about unimagined results that will usher in an entirely >new setting for trade union activities in Korea. > >With a renewed appreciation of the power of international >solidarity, > > >Kwon Young-kil >President >Korean Confederation of Trade Unions > >Attachment converted: SONY:law_21a.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (00000027) From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Tue Jan 7 14:14:55 1997 id MAA01512; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 12:45:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 12:45:52 -0800 (PST) To: united@cougar.com, H-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Tabasco refuse collectors may die Sender: meisenscher@igc.org URGENT ATTENTION IS REQUESTED. REPOST AND/OR DISTRIBUTE. > >From: Alastair Wilson <100723.2363@CompuServe.COM> > >Tabasco refuse collectors on hunger strike may die >Urgent solidarity needed > >Jorge Luis Alamilla Magan~a and Venancio Jimenez Martinez, the two Tabasco >refuse collectors have now (January 7th,1997) been on hunger strike in front of >the National Human Rights Commission for 84 days. Five other workers have been >on hunger strike for 44 days and one of them, Agustin Vicente Sanchez has >decided to stop taking any liquids as well. "If what they want is someone to die >before they give in to our demands, I voluntarily offer my life for the sake of >all my comrades and their families". > >Their health is very bad. They can barely speak or open their eyes. They have >lost notion of time and suffer cramps in different parts of their bodies. >Accoridng to one of the doctors they have reached a point were damage to their >health could be irreversible. They could suffer permanent brain damage. > >The workers have recieved solidarity from many different social, political, >trade union and human rights organisations. The PRD (main opposition party) NEC >decided to fully support the workers' cause and their two main leaders, Manuel >Lopez Obrador and Cuauhtemoc Cardenas visit the strikers everyday. The PRD has >demanded the president's direct intervention in the conflict to no reply from >Ernesto Zedillo yet. > >The demands of the workers are: reinstatement of all 336 refuse collectors >sacked in Villahermosa (Tabasco), payement of the wages for the days of work >lost, withdrawal of the 46 arrest warrants against them. > >They have been offered 190 jobs on casual basis and redundancy payements for >another 110 workers but they have refused this "offer" and made clear that they >want their jobs back. > >Urgent solidarity action is needed. >Please circulate this appeal as widely as possible > >Send faxes of protest demanding immediate solutions to: > >Secretaria de Gobernacion >Licenciado Esteban Moctezuma Barragan >Fax: 525 521 27 63 > >Letters of solidarity can be sent to: > >Broad Front of Democratic Struggle >Calle Insurgentes n. 203 >Fracc. Insurgentes >Ciudad Industrial Villahermosa >TABASCO, Mexico. > >or emailed through: > >National Trade Union Commission, >Party of the Democratic Revolution >a la atencion de los trabajadores de la limpia de Tabasco >joseluisr@laneta.apc.org > >Background information about the conflict: >http://www.gn.apc.org/labournet/tabasco.html > > From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Jan 8 22:04:20 1997 id UAA06441; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 20:51:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 20:51:47 -0800 (PST) To: labr.party@conf.igc.org, united@cougar.com, irra@relay.doit.wisc.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, H-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Response to my 1/6 post on Social Security Sender: meisenscher@igc.org Dear lists members: Earlier this week I posted a commentary on the AFL-CIO stand on Social Security reform. I have appreciated the many thoughtful responses. This has been a learning curve for me and I acknowledged that up front. Max Sawicky at EPI kindly offered an extended series of comments and agreed that I may share them with those lists that received the original article. I did not agree with all of his criticisms and we have exchanged a number of spirited rejoinders. Here is the original response which has served as the basis for a very interesting exchange. (I'll spare you our back and forth exchanges, but reserve the right to hop back in later.) I hope it encourages others who know something about the issues to share their insights. There is a very large space for differences on this subject (technical, political, and ideological), from which we all might learn a thing or two. If you are bored by it all, now is the time to hit the delete key. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> AFL-CIO and the FATE of SOCIAL SECURITY >> Commentary by Michael Eisenscher . . . >> and securities firms. Labor movement activists and worker advocates ought >> to be alarmed and energized to respond. Right. >> The report begins by proclaiming there is a "broad consensus that the Social >> Security system needs reform..." and marks the center of the debate not just >> over whether Social Security should be privatized (the article all but >> assumes it) but over the the DEGREE and MANNER of privatization. . . . This is only true under a very broad concept of privatization, as I will elaborate on below. A big problem with your whole essay is that it downplays the major differences between different types of privatization. The Cato campaign is an important topic. No argument there. >> Is there a "crisis"? Not hardly. . . . Also right. >> start to exceed taxes collected. This means that the Social Security >> Administration will have to draw on interest earned on the fund to cover >> benefits. In 2019 benefit payments will exceed taxes collected and the fund But to "draw on interest," not to mention principal, in the fund after the cash surplus dwindles to zero means the Feds have to borrow more money from the public, raise taxes, or cut spending. >> Ball proposes Social Security be gradually privatized (up to 40%) and that >> management of those investments be by government appointed trustees or fund >> managers. Under his plan, investments would be in passively managed index >> funds (mutual funds that track the stock market). Careful with terminology here. "Privatized" in the sense of Ball merely means the Trust Fund trades its assets of government bonds to stock and corporate bonds. In other words, the government would assume ownership of a significant chunk of the nation's heretofore private capital stock. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, the Feds make money on the deal because they are trading lower-return assets for higher ones. That money alleviates the need to find funds elsewhere to make up the shortfall between payroll taxes and benefit payments once the cash surplus disappears. This is very different from workers having individual funds where each worker would choose their asset holdings and thus be exposed to the danger of bad investment choices which wreck his/her retirement income. >> All three proposals include some number of these additional changes: >> increased payroll taxes, taxing benefits that exceed contributions, shifting > There would be tax changes that treat OASI benefits more like other tax-deferred savings (e.g., IRA's, Keough plans). This is not objectionable and is different from what you say, which as far as I know is not proposed by anyone. >> the Medicare portion of the tax on Social Security benefits into the trust >> fund, increasing the computation period from 35 to 38 work years, bringing >> in presently uncovered state and local public employees, cutting future >> benefits by changing the percentage of income on which benefits are >> calculated, raising the normal retirement age to 69 and pegging it to life >> expectancy tables, and cutting spousal benefits from 50% to 33%. Many if >> not most of these changes work to the detriment of most workers. Any way you fix the shortfall gores somebody's ox. That's inevitable in a social insurance framework where benefits are financed by contributions. >> and other corporate interests to steam-roll the privatization initiative, >> with differences between them only over the details of privatization. On As a short, funny-looking Texan has said, "The devil is in the details." >> one point they seem to concur -- they want to keep the Federal Government >> from having any influence over how SS funds are invested. At present, the As a political strategy for the left, I would say this is an excellent position. If government ownership of stocks is a good thing, and I think it is, the last thing you want to flog is potential interference of government in the operations of the companies entailed. That would kill the process better than anything. After the new fund is established is the time to start talking about how public control would be best utilized. >> privatization, but he concedes a large chunk of the political argument in >> advance by describing the battle as between "those who see that Government The progressive or labor arguments have yet to be fully framed. To me, the key issue for workers is why OASDI is a better deal than anything they could buy with their own money -- why social insurance, a uniquely government product, is something they can't do without. >> over the decisions and practices of private corporations. It is conceivable >> that Government could end up owning as much as 10% of the shares of major >> corporations, making the public the largest single stockholder and enabling >> Government to potentially exercise significant influence over corporate >> policies. Shea points out that this could have a potentially "good effect >> on how corporate America operates." One argument for allowing investment of >> some portion of the trust fund in the market is that Government could then >> exert significant influence on how corporations do business, requiring them >> to be more socially responsible. This, of course, drives the Cato clique >> and their corporate cronies right up a wall. But Shea abandons the >> advantages of constructive Government influence by accepting the proposition >> that Government should have only a passive investment role. As I noted above, I think foregoing discussion of socially- enlightened shareholding is the best political strategy at this time. >> shareholders exert. The Social Security trust fund would become Wall >> Street's piggy bank, no strings attached. There would be no restriction on >> how corporations use these funds. The fund would be controlled by public managers or contractors subject to very close scrutiny by public officials. Increased trading caused the establishment of the fund would be income to Wall Street, but to me this is not a big issue. >> Absent such accountability controls on how Government funds are invested, >> newly available investment capital could easily be used to finance the next >> wave of overseas investment, mergers, buyouts, and acquisitions, leading to >> closures, further downsizing, job-displacing and deskilling automation, and >> other job-killing and environment-destroying practices (as well as providing >> additional resources in capital's battle against unions). That would amount As government buys private assets, the public takes hold of more government bonds. There is no difference in the amount of money going to corporations, nor any effect on factors disciplining the ways corporations use the proceeds of their stock sales. The only possible change is a positive one, if government began to use its leverage to press for improvements in business practices of one sort or another. >> At present the SSI system has an administrative cost that is just 0.7% of >> benefits paid out. EPI notes, by contrast, the operating costs of the life >> insurance industry exceed 40%. The operating cost of Chile's privatized This is for the individual accounts system, not the Ball model. >> . . . >> perform in the next 75 years as well as it has in the last 75? Now consider >> whether you are prepared to bet your Social Security benefits that the >> present market will continue to climb right through the 2020s? Remember Proper fund management would hedge against such risk. It would not, for instance, put everything into stocks. There's no reason to think management of the fund would not be effective in this sense. >> Dumping billions of dollars into the market has yet another effect. >> Removing 40% of the SSI trust fund from the federal debt market (Government >> securities) would have the same effect as if the trust fund dumped Treasury >> bonds. Their prices would be depressed, pushing interest rates up. The OASDI trust fund (SSI is different) is not in the debt market now. Its bonds are non-marketable. To do the Ball plan, the Treasury would have to burn the existing "bonds" (actually just bookkeeping entries, not pieces of paper) and print new, transferable ones. It would then have to sell them to the public. In other words, it would just be borrowing money to buy stocks and bonds. As I indicated in a prior post, if such borrowing is allowed to fall into the general budget and rules regarding deficits, there would be hell to pay. But it is more likely that this transaction would be segregated from the rest of the budget. >> Treasury bonds are widely held, especially by banks and other lending >> institutions as part of their required reserves. The result would be to >> depress the value of those reserves, reducing their ability to make loans, Not if the sell-off was done gradually. >> pushing interest rates up as borrowers bid for increasingly scares loanable >> funds. As interest rates climb the cost of servicing the Federal debt will >> also rise. Municipalities needing to raise capital for local improvements >> or infrastructure development (roads, schools, sports stadiums, water >> treatment plants) would be forced to pay higher interest rates and accept >> lower prices for their tax-exempt municipal bonds. Where do you suppose The argument you use, incidentally, is the same as the argument for the balanced budget: that government borrowing pushes up interest rates. It ain't so! >> . . . >> or help workers organize). Any confidence that a deal to privatize >Social >> Security in return for a pledge of future action to meaningfully strengthen >> union and worker rights is a form of serious delusion. Furthermore, in a >> deal gone sour, who would trust lame-duck Clinton (a president who never met >> a corporate donor he did not like) to veto Wall St.'s privatization scheme? I don't think anybody thinks the Administration is capable of making a deal that benefits labor or following through if it did. >> When I first learned about collective bargaining I was introduced to a >> fundamental principle -- never bargain with yourself. If you enter >> negotiations on the basis of what you think you will get, you bargain on the >> basis of what you think the other side will accept. You inevitably get even >> less. The only rational bargaining position is to start on the basis of what >> workers need and stick to that resolutely in order to get the other side to >> make offers designed to entice you into an agreement . If what you need One could also argue that if the AFL-CIO started where you suggest it would be read out of the debate immediately. As things stand, they are perceived as reflecting a substantial body of opinion. At the same time, I don't think their position gives away much. >> If, as is argued, the trust fund needs fixing, the fix should be consistent >> with its essential mission -- to provide a safe and secure retirement income >> and safety net for the nation's workers and their families. The AFL-CIO >> ought to be arguing that any new money needed ought to come from capital, >> not through speculation at the expense of workers' security. This is a tax-and-transfer view of the program, as opposed to a social insurance, mutual aid view. I prefer the latter. >> workers' benefits at risk. For example, at present FICA taxes apply only to >> the first $65,400 of income on which the employee and employer each pay >> 6.2%. Why not tax all income? High income wage earners could be allowed to The worry is that the insurance character of the program is compromised, putting it in worse political danger than presently. >> invest that portion of their FICA taxes contributed on incomes above >> $100,000 in stocks and bonds as they see fit. If they want to gamble and They can do that now with the payroll taxes they don't pay. There aren't many of these folks compared to those between the cap and the $100,000. >> The point is that the AFL-CIO should be putting together its own program of >> reforms, a worker/senior-friendly set of alternative proposals. It could >> join with AARP in appointing their own "blue ribbon" committee, inviting >> friendly academics and other specialists to help labor design a truly >> progressive set of reforms that become the centerpiece of a massive national >> campaign. Working with groups that share labor's concerns, a powerful voice People (Roger Hickey and Bob Borosage) are working on this very idea. Those are my comments. Feel free to repost them if you like, Regards, Max =================================================== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute maxsaw@cpcug.org 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute. =================================================== ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ************************************************** Michael Eisenscher Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program University of Massachusetts-Boston 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610-3131 ------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org ************************************************* TIME FOR A NEW TAG: I kind of like this so I am borrowing it for a while. [Thanks to Len Wilson for asking the source and David Christian for providing it.] The Wisdom of Mark Twain (a shrewd judge of character before his time): ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "It could be said that there is no distinctly native criminal class except Congress." (From "Following the Equator") "To my mind, Judas Iscariot was nothing but a low, mean, premature congressman." (1873 New York Tribune, Source, "Mark Twain On The Damned Human Race") ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A sentiment appropriate to our times. From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Thu Jan 9 20:01:40 1997 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 18:59:43 -0800 (PST) To: united@cougar.com, labr.party@conf.igc.org, H-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu, labor-rap@csf.Colorado.EDU, irra@relay.doit.wisc.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Korea Alert (fwd) Sender: meisenscher@igc.org I hope that international labor solidarity is an appropriate subject for all of the above-referenced lists, and accordingly I am forwarding an urgent appeal for solidarity on behalf of the embattled Korean labor movement. Thanks in advance for taking the time to act in their defense (and of course in doing so, we act in our own). >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:21:02 +0000 >From: Heather Gonzalez >To: berkshir@shore.net >Subject: Korea Alert > > > Urgent Fax Alert!!! > Help prevent repression against Korean Workers > > Workers in South Korea have been protesting the undemocratic > imposition of new anti-union laws. Sunday, January 12 will be a > national day of action in Korea. Unionists fear that these mass > protests will be met with repression by the police and army, including > the arrest of labor leaders. > > The Korean trade unions are appealing for international messages > of protest to be sent calling on the Korean government to: > > Repeal anti-labor laws > > Keep their hands off Korean labor leaders > > Refrain from violent action against Korean trade unionists and > students. > > Please fax messages to the Korean Consulate on Friday January 10. Fax to: > > Honorable Shinil Park > Consul General > Republic of Korea > 1 Financial Building > Boston, MA 02111 > > Fax # : 617-348-3670 > > Please also send a copy of your fax to Jobs with Justice @ 617-491-1094 > We will keep you informed of ongoing solidarity actions as the > situation develops. > > From chf6@cornell.edu Thu Jan 9 20:24:03 1997 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 22:27:12 -0500 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Carl Feuer Subject: Re: Eisenscher/Sawicky To maintain the integrity of the Social Security system into the 21st century, is there another alternative to 1) using a portion of the social security funds to buy securities (Ball plan, favored by Sawicky)); or 2) moving from a social insurance perspective to a tax-and-transfer perspective (Sawicky characterization of Eisenscher's view)? How about this? Instead of the Ball plan, what if we focused our energies on raising wages as the best solution to the problem? From a policy point of view, this would mean things like raising the minimum wage and strengthening statutory protections for union organizing. My question: If this were to happen, would it indeed provide the resources (through increased FICA contributions, without any increased tax rate) to stabilize the system? If so, it would seem a much more worker-based approach to the dilemma, and more likely, I think, to gain the support of workers and to strengthen the labor movement in the long run. Carl Carl Feuer Health/Safety Trainer Midstate Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO 109 W. State St Ithaca, NY 14850 607/277-5670 (tel) 607/272-4111 (fax) From Furuhashi.1@osu.edu Thu Jan 9 20:49:20 1997 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 22:47:41 -0500 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Furuhashi.1@osu.edu (Yoshie Furuhashi) Subject: Re: Eisenscher/Sawicky/Feuer Carl wrote: >How about this? Instead of the Ball plan, what if we focused our energies >on raising wages as the best solution to the problem? From a policy point >of view, this would mean things like raising the minimum wage and >strengthening statutory protections for union organizing. I agree that raising the minimum wage and strenghening worker rights--especially the right to organize a union--are very important, the latter more so than the former. However, pushing the minimum wage higher would not get workers very far in their struggle to secure comfort for their post-retirement--or post-redundancy?--days, don't you think? Legal protection isn't panacea either. We have to organize ourselves first to show our power, and then legal reforms might follow us later, if employers and politicians want to tame our power. Otherwise, there is no incentive for them to reform the laws in favor of workers. Moreover, from the point of view of women who must interrupt their labor market participation should they want to--or be forced to--take time off to take care of their kids and/or parents and/or in-laws, forcusing on worker rights alone wouldn't provide them with security. yoshie furuhashi (Furuhashi.1@osu.edu) From knowware@mindlink.bc.ca Sat Jan 11 21:52:27 1997 by dewey.mindlink.net with smtp (Exim 1.58 #1) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 20:52:26 -0800 To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: knowware@mindlink.bc.ca (Tom Walker) Subject: The Undertime Tax (1/2) In this first of two messages, I will explain what I mean by the "undertime tax". In the second message, I will explore the effects that removing the undertime tax could have on unemployment in Canada. Everyone's heard of "overtime premiums" -- such as the widespread provisions for time and a half payment for work in excess of eight hours a day or forty hours a week. How many people are aware of the undertime taxes, which are in some cases higher than "time and a half"? Overtime premiums are considered by economists to be a kind of tax, the proceeds of which go to the employer rather than to the government. The rationale for overtime premiums goes as follows: overtime work has external social costs in that it contributes to higher unemployment; and the marginal utility of an extra hour of work (at regular pay) to a full time employee is frequently less than the value of an hour of leisure but workers often have little power to refuse overtime work; therefore an overtime premium works both to discourage socially undesirable overtime and to compensate the employee in the event that overtime is necessary. Using a standard collective agreement from the B.C. forest industry for an example, I calculate the _effective_ overtime rate to be around 16%, not the nominal 50% of employment standards legislation and collective agreements. This is because of the effect of fixed labour costs such as payroll taxes, many fringe benefits and certain kinds of paid time off (i.e., statutory holidays but not annual vacation pay). Using the same contract as a reference point, I calculate _UNDERTIME PREMIUMS_ as ranging from 18% an hour for a one hour reduction in the standard work week, to 21% an hour for a ten hour reduction in the work week. Admittedly, however, this is a bit of a phantom calculation because it spreads the added labour costs of a higher per hour average over a span of "hours not worked". A more concrete calculation would spread the additional cost over hours actually worked, but would be less intuitively comparable with the more familiar overtime premium. To do a calculation that is both concrete and intuitively comparable, I calculate the cost of 480 hours of a 48 hour "overtime week"(10 employees); a 32 hour, 5 day "undertime week"(15 employees); and compare the "overtime week" and the "undertime week" with the standard week (12 employees): Standard week =$17603.34 Overtime week =$18057.69 Undertime week = $18347.18 (the cost for the undertime week would be $18283.23 if we assumed a four-day week) To be mathematically scrupulous in our calculations, we should note that in our example, an eight hour _reduction_ in the work week creates 120 hours of "undertime" (that then have to be made up by the hiring of three new workers) compared with the 80 hours of overtime created by an eight hour increase in the work week. This makes the per hour undertime premium just slightly higher than the per hour overtime premium, or, in the case of a four day week, the undertime and overtime premiums are almost identical. But it should be remembered that the undertime premium applies to 50% more hours. In short, it is cheaper to increase the length of the work week than to decrease it. The above calculation doesn't include the extra hiring and training costs of enlarging a company's work force. It also assumes a constant demand for labour at the varying hourly costs. But here is the important point: the overtime and undertime premiums shown above include only those elements of labour cost that are the direct or indirect result of government tax policy or employment standards regulation. The undertime premium does not express any feature of labour market supply or demand -- it is entirely a creature of public policy. Despite any claims to the contrary that Finance Minister Paul Martin may make ("Neither the Bank of Canada nor the government has 'chosen' to keep the unemployment rate at a high level."), official government policy in Canada is to maintain high rates of unemployment by restricting the shortening of work time. I have written the prototype for a computer program that clearly and vividly shows the effects of the undertime premium and I am in the process of revising it so that it will be flexible enough to do the calculations for any given combination of payroll taxes, fringe benefits and work schedules. Expressions of interest are welcome. In my next message, I will discuss estimates of the job creation potential of voluntarily reducing work time. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art knowware@mindlink.bc.ca | does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm From knowware@mindlink.bc.ca Sat Jan 11 21:52:45 1997 by dewey.mindlink.net with smtp (Exim 1.58 #1) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 20:52:45 -0800 To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: knowware@mindlink.bc.ca (Tom Walker) Subject: The Undertime Tax (2/2) In my previous message I explained what I mean by the "undertime tax". In this second message, I will explore the effects that removing the undertime tax could have on unemployment in Canada. In an article titled "Working Less and Enjoying it More" (Family Security in Insecure Times, Canadian Council on Social Development, 1996), Frank Reid discusses the job creation potential of voluntary work time reductions. His estimates are based on a survey of employee attitudes toward work reductions conducted by Statistics Canada in 1985. How closely those 12 year old attitudes reflect current realities is a moot point, since what Reid is highlighting is a possible direction, not a precise calculation. Leaping past all the calculations and qualifications, Reid suggests that voluntary work time reduction alone could reduce unemployment in Canada by 3-4%. This figure refers to voluntary reductions of REGULAR work times. A further reduction in unemployment could be accomplished by reducing the amount of regularly scheduled overtime, that is by reducing overtime that is not a response to production disequilibria or to emergencies. The Advisory Group on Working Time and the Distribution of Work estimated in 1994 that if one-half of the _paid_ overtime were converted to new jobs, it could mean an additional 80,000 full time jobs, (or a reduction in unemployment of about half a percent). Adding the two figures gives an estimate of a three and a half to four and a half percent reduction in unemployment. The estimate of three and a half to four and a half percent included quite a few conservative adjustments and it doesn't include any estimate of multipliers based on the increased employment. Some might argue that multipliers would be inappropriate because we are talking about the redistribution of existing work rather than new economic activity. Let's not quibble about the fine points -- using only the base estimates, we're looking at potential full-time job creation of 560,000 to 720,000 people in Canada. Finance Minister Paul Martin boasts about an employment increase of 671,000 jobs (not all of which are full time) since the end of 1993. Being an Aristotlean, I am well aware of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. I won't claim that removing the undertime tax (and in the process restoring the effectiveness of overtime premiums) is sufficient to realize the full potential of the 560,000 to 720,000 estimated full-time jobs that could be converted from overtime and voluntary work time reductions. But it IS a necessary condition. Those 560,000 to 720,000 jobs are dead in the water as long as the government insists on nurturing the long hours bias of public policy. It would seem that the government would need a very compelling reason to turn away from the job creation potential outlined above. On the contrary, correspondence I have from senior government officials suggests an eagerness to clutch at pretext, no matter how feeble, to avoid considering the above analysis. As an example, I have correspondence from an assistant deputy minister making the outrageous statement that the structure of employment insurance contributions could not act as an incentive to employers to use overtime "until late in the year, after the employee had exceeded the $39,000 annual maximum insurable earnings". As the instructor of an introductory course in project management, I have news for the assistant deputy minister: business people are routinely advised to ANTICIPATE costs and plan for ways to avoid them. In the case where a permanent, full-time employee earns over $18.75 an hour, ANY additional earnings will raise the employee's total annual income above the $39,000 ceiling and thus can be viewed either as being exempt from employment insurance contributions or as advancing the date after which subsequent income will be exempt. From the employer's perspective, the only difference would be uncertainty about unexpected terminations (quits, deathes, layoffs). But since the employer is concerned a calculation of the total payroll -- not each individual employee -- even such uncertainties can be accounted for with relative ease. To review my argument: There is a substantial public policy bias against reducing work time and that bias can be shown by the calculation of the undertime tax, which is often larger than its opposite, the overtime premium. Removal of the policy bias against reducing work time _could_ result in the creation of an estimated 560,000 to 720,000 full-time jobs. But at any rate, failure to remove the policy bias ensures that those jobs won't be created. Government officials seem willing to clutch the feeblest pretext to avoid even considering the job creation potential of a serious policy to enable the voluntary reduction of work time (or, the job killing record of current policy). Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art knowware@mindlink.bc.ca | does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sun Jan 12 22:07:25 1997 id VAA09350; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:02:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:02:00 -0800 (PST) To: can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, irra@relay.doit.wisc.edu, H-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Labor and Intellectuals Sender: meisenscher@igc.org This appeared on one of the lists to which I subscribe. It is an article from from Union Democracy Review. (no date given) [Original sent by Association for Union Democracy.] Enjoy! ------------------------------------------------------------ THAT LABOR INTELLECTUAL ALLIANCE It was in November, 1995, that 41 eminent authors, scholars, and educators published an open letter calling for rebuilding the labor-intellectual alliance Although the media ignored their declaration, it called forth an impressive display of public interest. A year later, on October 3 and 4, 1996, an overflow crowd of a thousand or more, at a labor teach-in at Columbia University, became a temporary labor-intellectual alliance in miniature. It took a day and a half to complete the agenda of 16 workshops and three plenary sessions and discuss what was on the minds of some 80 scheduled speakers. From the union labor side: staff attorneys, organizers, top leaders, research directors, labor economists. From the intellectuals: writers, historians, critics, academics. Lots of students attended, but few rank and file union activists, thereby revealing that news of upcoming great labor events has yet to percolate down to workers. So far, not much has changed in the labor movement. There has been some reorganization at the top. There was a major concentration on political action, not unusual in a presidential election year. Mostly, there is promise, and that promise alone has sufficed to create hope and enthusiasm in dreary times. Albert Kazin explains in two words why he signed along with his colleagues: "Newt Gingrich" The signatories of the intellectuals' declaration, eager for the appearance of some social force that can resist the Republican counterrevolution and the relentless drift to the right, accept with anticipation words and promises as a down payment on performance. Still, there is something blowing in the wind. When so diverse a gathering begins to express concern with labor affairs, it signifies that Sweeney's AFL-CIO victory has already scored a first success in refurbishing the reputation of unionism. "Rebuilding the labor-intellectual alliance" should be read as a code phrase for restoring the credit of the labor movement as a force for social justice in America. The "alliance" has been a long time in coming. Back in April 1961, Harry Van Arsdale, then president of the NYC AFL-CIO, lecturing at Columbia University on "Labor and the Intelligentsia" called for a restoration of the "labor-liberal-intellectual alliance" which, he said, had been disrupted since the end of World War II. "I think the time has come," he added, "to see if the breach between us can be repaired." He was quite wrong, the time did not come until three decades later. Now, with Sweeney at the AFL-CIO helm, the breach may be closing. That breach between labor and intellectuals, noted so long ago by Van Arsdale, has long been a familiar theme in writings on labor. Back in 1960, Union Democracy in Action, precursor of our Union Democracy Review was launched with the distribution of "Intellectuals and the Lonely Union Reformer", an essay which suggested that, despite their disenchantment with official labor, liberal intellectuals might come to the aid of rank and file union reformers who sought to democratize their unions. But not all intellectuals were disenchanted. Once the labor movement became firmly established, it required the services of a whole cadre of intellectuals, perhaps several thousand by now, who joined the staff as writers, researchers, educators, editors, economists, and special project directors. For his book, "Intellectuals in Labor Unions", completed in 1954 Harold Wilensky consulted 191 top experts on the national staff of 28 large unions. Union officials needed staff intellectuals but were often allergic to their expressions of independence. In crude fashion, those misgivings were bluntly expressed in 1949 by David McDonald, then Steelworkers secretary treasurer, who told Otis Brubaker, the union's research director, "I never could quite trust anybody I couldn't buy." Later, the Steelworkers bought subscriptions for its staff to John Herling's Labor Letter, an unreservedly pro-labor periodical then widely circulated in official union circles. Herling was a syndicated columnist and author of The Right to Challenge, a book on I.W. Abel's rise to power as Steelworkers president, an account greeted with praise by the union. But when Herling wrote sympathetically about a Steelworkers insurgent, the union canceled all subscriptions. In his book, Wilensky found, "The most general of the self-characterizations of the union experts - one often echoed among labor's outside friends - is summed up in the phrase 'window dressing.'" While one family of intellectuals served labor as part of its institutionalized staff, a quite different stratum turned the labor movement into a subject for respectful scholarship. They were well connected in the academy, producing a multitude of works generally favorable to unions. Many were interesting contributions to aspects of labor history. Some remained predictable apologists for the established officialdom, that is, they invariably uncovered exonerating explanations for flaws discovered by critics. This tendency could be called the Harvard school from the university press which produced shelves of books on industrial relations all reasonably sympathetic to labor unionism or benignly tolerant. At least two unions, the Steelworkers and the National Maritime Union, were so pleased by Harvard versions of their industries that they printed special low cost editions for selected free distribution to members. The most eminent representative of the Harvard school was John Dunlop, Professor of Law, who introduced a special series on labor-management relations. He reported that he had originated "a new type of support for research and scholarship and such pioneering is both to be admired and appreciated." The novelty consisted in soliciting big money from unions toward compiling their own histories. At one conference in 1966 he noted that "My view would be to give up some of the exaggerated views of union democracy expressed in the Landrum-Griffin statute." He said that international union officers should be explicitly authorized to sign contracts without membership ratification. Later, he was appointed Secretary of Labor by President Ford. The labor movement has had experts enough to perform its own daily professional chores and scholars enough to record its official history with sympathy. And yet, despite this plethora of cooperative intellectuals, that coveted alliance somehow disintegrated. What, then, has been missing? The labor movement seeks what it cannot buy or subsidize. The alliance it needs is one that can bolster labor's moral status in society. Last year's declaration by those 41 writers calling for a new labor-intellectual alliance helps turn the tide of opinion because it comes from a new breed of intellectual, in part a new generation. Characterize each individual as you may, liberal? radical? civil libertarian? social democratic?, none are domesticated spokesmen for any establishment. They are independent minded, not beholden to any officialdom. It is precisely this independence which makes them invaluable allies of the labor movement and makes their support a major factor in enhancing its public esteem. They are trusted as disinterested advocates because they have never been knee jerk apologists. They best can serve the labor movement because they remain independent of its power structure. The bond that cements a labor-intellectual alliance is the common defense of democracy and social justice. Without a strong social force to transform ideals into reality, intellectuals remain isolated in the ivory tower of imagination. Labor is one such force. Without disinterested validation of its claims as a popular movement for social justice, the labor movement is open to charges as a "special interest" group. Intellectuals can provide that validation. What clouds this alliance is a paradox: The labor movement is democratic for the outside but bureaucratic on the inside. On most of the political and social issues that arise on the outside, in national life, it throws its weight on the side of democracy and social justice. But on the inside, in its own internal life, the labor movement tolerates that part of its officialdom which is autocratic, contemptuous of its membership, tolerant of ordinary corruption and even racketeering. In whole sections of the labor movement, an officialdom rests on an internal political machine which solidifies its internal power by intimidation, favoritism and discrimination in job referrals, and manipulation of trial procedures to silence critics. To strengthen, even to preserve, unions as a force for decency and democracy, it has sometimes been necessary for reformers and democrats in the labor movement to mount resistance against this kind of officialdom. Major reform movements in the Miners union and the Teamsters union succeeded in winning widespread attention. Not so well known, however, were the grassroots movements for reform seeded throughout the labor movement. Intellectuals who proclaim their solidarity with the labor movement need not drift into mere apologetics. Support to labor does not necessarily mean endorsement only of what emanates from its leadership. Unions will inspire enthusiastic public support when they battle for justice and democracy, when they defend workers against corporate greed; but union officials are not exempt from public criticism when they undercut the democratic rights of their own members. True solidarity with labor entails solidarity with those who fight within the labor movement for fair elections, fair hiring halls, for union democracy, against corruption, even when it is directed against the establishment. Can intellectuals remain ardently prounion and still remain critically independent of its power structure? And can our AFL-CIO officialdom pursue amicable collaboration in an "alliance" with those they cannot buy? The answer to these questions will determine the success of that alliance. There is nothing significantly new in the principles and policies advanced by Sweeney that would distinguish them from the essential goals and program promulgated in the founding documents and resolutions of the AFL-CIO since the merger of 1955. However, he and his colleagues promise, at last, to put resources into the program and actually carry out, and militantly, those fine declarations. And there is nothing especially new even in that promise. An AFL-CIO think-tank, chaired by former Secretary Treasurer Tom Donahue and endorsed unanimously by all the other top leaders including Sweeney, had been doing that for years. But there is something important that is new: This time, and for the first time, the promise was backed up by a remarkable open palace revolution which changed the top AFL-CIO leadership. It is that rebellion, above all its success, which lends credibility to this latest promise for change. Intellectuals, in advance of others, presumably have the capacity of extrapolating from a few significant facts big events of the future just as a paleontologist might speculate from a few bones on the origins of mankind. If the meager shards of promise cast up by the Sweeney rebellion are enough to arouse the enthusiasm of critical intellectuals, we can begin to understand how powerful an impact a genuinely refurbished decent and democratic labor movement can have on the nation. Association for Union Democracy 500 State Street Brooklyn, NY 11217 (718) 855-6650 fax: 855-6799 email: aud@igc.apc.org web page: http://www.igc.apc.org/laborlink/aud.html From petrasem@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu Mon Jan 13 17:35:03 1997 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 07:35:34 +0100 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: petrasem@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu (Elizabeth Petras) Subject: Paper Hector, I need have your address to send my paper. Eliz. Petras From wlbeal@ksu.edu Tue Jan 14 08:00:48 1997 From: "Wes Beal" To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:59:08 -0600 Subject: (Fwd) M-I: Oregon dockers I haven't seen much info on this strike here, so I thought I'd pass this along. -wes ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: wdrb@siva.bris.ac.uk Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:05:53 GMT To: MARXISM-INTERNATIONAL@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Subject: M-I: Oregon dockers Reply-to: marxism-international@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU January 10, 1997 To: Mr. Brian McWilliams President International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union 1188 Franklin Street San Francisco, California 94109 Brother McWilliams: By decision of the Local #8 Executive Board on January 8, 1997, it was unanimously affirmed that Local #8 would support the sacked Liverpool Dock Workers request for a January 20th International Day of Solidarity in its completeness. Additionally, our Executive Board confirmed a policy of support for all dock workers in their struggles against port privatization and casualization, particularly for Japanese dock workers who face the current deregulation announced by the Transport Ministry of Japan, and Korean unions faced with a law adopted to facilitate laying off workers and replacing striking workers. We urge the International to support the Statement of Policy drafted by the International Executive Board on September 12 and 13, 1996, in full support of the sacked Liverpool Dock Workers and other dock workers whose jobs are jeopardized by incessant attacks from global shipping companies and extreme governmental anti-labor legislation. Now, more so than ever before, we should pledge, "An Injury To One Is An Injury To All". Fraternally, International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 8 Mark S. Dreith President ------------------------------- January 10, 1997 To: Bobby Morton, Shop Steward, Liverpool Dock Workers Kim Joon Sang, President, Korean Federation of Port and Transport Workers Union Akinobu Itoh, Assistant General Secretary, All Japan Dockworkers Union Brothers: By this letter, you are informed that I.L.W.U. Longshoremen and Marine Clerks in the Oregon Area Ports of Portland, Oregon; Longview, Washington; Vancouver, Washington; Coos Bay, Oregon; Astoria, Oregon; and Newport, Oregon are aware of the global onslaught being levied against dock workers around the world. In an effort to educate our memberships and the public, it is our intention to hold Stop Work Meetings on January 20, 1997, to coincide with independent activities by dockers in other countries. In Solidarity, Leal A. Sundet Oregon Area Secretary International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union PLEASE COPY ABOVE MESSAGES TO ALL RELEVANT LISTS AND INDIDUALS --- from list marxism-international@lists.village.virginia.edu --- Wes Beal 1027 Houston Manhattan, Ks. 66502 (913)539-0487 wlbeal@ksu.edu From Furuhashi.1@osu.edu Tue Jan 14 11:56:05 1997 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:57:55 -0500 To: can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu, mlg-ics@andrew.cmu.edu, h-labor@h-net.msu.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, iww-news@igc.apc.org, clr@igc.apc.org, psn@csf.colorado.edu From: Furuhashi.1@osu.edu (Yoshie Furuhashi) Subject: M-I: Workplace support for Liverpool >Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:28:49 +0000 (GMT) >From: wdrb@siva.bris.ac.uk >Subject: M-I: Workplace support for Liverpool >PLEASE COPY THIS TO RELEVANT LIST AND >INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS > >Potential industrial action on Merseyside and the North West to >complement the growing international boycott of Mersey Docks and >Harbour Company was discussed by a meeting of around 60 shop >stewards from 16 companies held on 11 January. > >Delegates included contingents from Fords, Vauxhalls, Road Transport >drivers, AC Delco, Post Office, Local Authority, and Further >Education. > >Since the first few weeks of the Liverpool Lockout, dockers have >made various impassioned appeals for local industrial action. But >except for tugboatmen who have repeatedly delayed ships, the >response has been limited to a partial strike on May 1, mainly by >UNISON local government staff, and isolated action by AEU members in >an engineering factory. The dockers acknowledge the pervasive >climate of economic fear which has inhibited action in Britain. > >Judging by Saturday's meeting, however, the local mood is now moving >in favour of isolating Mersey Docks, whether by shifting contracts >to other ports, refusing to handle individual cargo, or withholding >services, as well as supporting the mass picket on 20th January. > >Workplace collections picked up when the recent Ken Loach >documentary "The Flickering Flame" was screened on BBC2 just before >Christmas. The closing sequence, where a retired docker decries the >stream of trade unionists driving through the picket lines as if >their own jobs were secure, had clearly hit home. > >The dockers' international coordinator Terry Teague outlined the >worldwide surge now expected in the week of 20 Jan and pointed out >that much of the cargo being boycotted abroad, such as motor vehicle >components and feedstuffs, actually originates in the North West. > >As well as an extended discussion of practical options for all >industries, TGWU stewards were particularly keen to examine the >handling of the dispute by their own union. They heard an >unvarnished account of recent machinations as the leadership >threatened to impose a postal ballot on the current offer despite >its overwhelming rejection by sacked dockers, but then drew back. >TGWU stewards commented on the extraordinary and divisive prospect >of their Executive forcing an official ballot in an unofficial >dispute, and were urged to put their views in writing to the union's >General Secretary, Bill Morris. >While Morris apparently "doesn't understand how damaging the >economic fabric of Mersey Docks and Harbour Company will help >resolve the dockers' problem", other TGWU members do. Dock stewards >are to meet the General Secretary on 15 Jan and will inform the >wider movement at the national Dockers Support Groups meeting next >Saturday. > >The stewards' meeting also heard of an impending dispute involving >drivers set to lose their jobs as VW-Audi switches its car delivery >contract to the one such firm crossing the picket line in Liverpool. > >Finally, the meeting voted unanimously to "confirm their >determination to impose a physical boycott upon any raw materials or >products shipped through the Port of Liverpool to their workplaces, >and on services supplied to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. > >"Such actions will be co-ordinated and last until the dockers are >reinstated. >"Union representatives present call upon the community of Merseyside >to maintain their opposition to casual labour, privatisation and >de-regulation in favour of a dignified life in industry. > >"As such we remain opposed to all laws that oppress ordinary people >and destroy their basic human rights." > > > --- from list marxism-international@lists.village.virginia.edu --- From knowware@mindlink.bc.ca Fri Jan 17 08:05:16 1997 by dewey.mindlink.net with smtp (Exim 1.58 #1) Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 07:05:12 -0800 To: futurework@csf.colorado.edu, canfutures@chatsubo.com, LABOR-L@YORKU.CA, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, pen-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu From: knowware@mindlink.bc.ca (Tom Walker) Subject: Multiple "Choice" Quiz 1. Jack works 40 hours a week at a union job, where he earns a wage of $25 an hour and receives a package of fringe benefits (including paid time off) worth a total of $12 an hour. If Jack works two hour a week overtime, at time and a half, what is the approximate *ratio* of his net (after tax) pay and benefits per hour of overtime to his regular hourly net pay and benefits? a.) $37.50 b.) 150% c.) 75% d.) 100% Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art knowware@mindlink.bc.ca | does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Fri Jan 17 14:56:36 1997 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:40:37 -0800 (PST) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, Labor Research and Action Project From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Re: Multiple "Choice" Quiz Sender: meisenscher@igc.org what is the approximate *ratio* of his net (after tax) pay >and benefits per hour of overtime to his regular hourly net pay and benefits? > >a.) $37.50 >b.) 150% >c.) 75% >d.) 100% > Ratio of OT with benefits/ST with benefits = 133% Ratio of ST with benefits/OT with benefits = 75% From Furuhashi.1@osu.edu Sat Jan 18 13:52:01 1997 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 15:49:24 -0500 To: marxism-international@jefferson.village.virginia.edu, can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Furuhashi.1@osu.edu (Yoshie Furuhashi) Subject: Bishops support Wheeling-Pitt pickets(fwd) >Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:45:31 -0800 >From: Nathan Newman >Subject: Bishops support Wheeling-Pitt pickets(fwd) >Sender: LABNEWS - News and Organizing about the Labor Movement > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:50:01 -0600 (CST) >From: "Dwight R. Welch" >To: religious left >Subject: Bishops support Wheeling-Pitt pickets(fwd) > > >By Denise Winebrenner > >PITTSBURGH - Below zero temperatures and a stiff wind were >not enough to prevent members of the steelworkers union from >setting up a mass picket line at the gates of the Wheeling- >Pittsburgh (W-P) coke plant in Follansbee, West Virginia on >Jan. 11. > >The demonstration of solidarity with the members of >Steelworkers Union Local 1190 came in response to the >discharge of three strikers and rumors that the company >planned to smash union picket lines and bring 300 scabs into >the plant. By nightfall a spokesperson for the local said >more than 600 union members were at the Follansbee facility. >He said they would be staying all night to protect their >jobs and thwart any strikebreaking attempt by the company. > >Reinforcements came from several locals in the Steubenville, >Ohio area. When Local 1223, which represents workers at the >W-P facility in Yorkville, Ohio sent out the word, scores of >union members pulled on long johns, loaded their trucks with >wood and went down to the gates and fire barrels. > >"We are holding a mass picket in solidarity with >Follansbee," USWA local 1223 President Chip Antonacci told >reporters. > >"We are not taking any chances," added Local 1190 President >Larry Mallas. "We plan to keep up our solidarity lines all >week, 24 hours a day." > >The mass response to W-P's union busting provocations with >mass picketing and a solidarity rally of more than 5,000 in >Steubenville on Dec. 23 forced W-P to agree to meet with >federal mediators and union representatives on Jan. 14. > >WP's decision to talk was also influenced by growing public >support for the union, including from Catholic bishops, >Bernard W. Schmitt and Gilbert Sheldon. Commending the >bishops for their concern, USWA chief negotiator, Jim Bowen >pointed out that the union has wanted to sit down and >negotiate since the strike began. "The problem," said Bowen, >"is that Wheeling-Pitt doesn't want to negotiate. On the >central issue of pensions, the company has said - and keeps >saying - that it will negotiate only on its terms. That's >not negotiating." > >On Oct. 1 last year 4,500 members of eight local unions in >Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania struck W-P when the >company refused to restore the pensions, wages and other >concessions surrendered in the 1980s under the gun of >Bankruptcy Court Judge Warren Bentz. Now the company has >over $400 million in cash, is expanding and forced the >strike to keep their vaults full. > >Veteran Ohio Valley activist Gene Kuhn told the World that >corporate cruelty is becoming a way of life. "First, W-P cut >off the widows' benefits just before the holidays," she >said. "Then the governors of all three states denied >unemployment compensation. It isn't human. It is brutal to >put workers out in sub-zero weather." > >In 1985, the Steelworkers union set a precedent when union >efforts convinced Ohio's then-governor, Richard Celeste, to >grant unemployment compensation to steelworkers on strike >against W-P. > >Pennsylvania and West Virginia followed the Ohio lead. Now, >with Republican governors in all three states, unemployment >compensation was denied and steelworker families have no >income. > >Kuhn, a coal miner's widow living on fixed income, and her >family have sent financial contributions to the USWA. Others >can follow suit by sending contributions and support can be >sent to: USWA-WP Local Unions Assistance Fund: 777 Dearborn >Park Lane, Suite J; Columbus, Ohio 43085-5716. >##30## > From shostaka@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu Sat Jan 18 14:24:28 1997 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:52:51 -0500 To: LABOR-RAP@csf.colorado.edu From: shostaka@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu (Art Shostak) Subject: Worth sharing Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 22:15:19 -0600 Reply-to: publabor@relay.doit.wisc.edu From: Subject: Labor Intellectual Alliance The following piece by Herman Benson appears in the January issue of Union Democracy Review published by the Association for Union Democracy. THAT LABOR INTELLECTUAL ALLIANCE It was in November, 1995, that 41 eminent authors, scholars, and educators published an open letter calling for rebuilding the labor-intellectual alliance Although the media ignored their declaration, it called forth an impressive display of public interest. A year later, on October 3 and 4, 1996, an overflow crowd of a thousand or more, at a labor teach-in at Columbia University, became a temporary labor-intellectual alliance in miniature. It took a day and a half to complete the agenda of 16 workshops and three plenary sessions and discuss what was on the minds of some 80 scheduled speakers. From the union labor side: staff attorneys, organizers, top leaders, research directors, labor economists. From the intellectuals: writers, historians, critics, academics. Lots of students attended, but few rank and file union activists, thereby revealing that news of upcoming great labor events has yet to percolate down to workers. So far, not much has changed in the labor movement. There has been some reorganization at the top. There was a major concentration on political action, not unusual in a presidential election year. Mostly, there is promise, and that promise alone has sufficed to create hope and enthusiasm in dreary times. Albert Kazin explains in two words why he signed along with his colleagues: "Newt Gingrich" The signatories of the intellectuals' declaration, eager for the appearance of some social force that can resist the Republican counterrevolution and the relentless drift to the right, accept with anticipation words and promises as a down payment on performance. Still, there is something blowing in the wind. When so diverse a gathering begins to express concern with labor affairs, it signifies that Sweeney's AFL-CIO victory has already scored a first success in refurbishing the reputation of unionism. "Rebuilding the labor-intellectual alliance" should be read as a code phrase for restoring the credit of the labor movement as a force for social justice in America. The "alliance" has been a long time in coming. Back in April 1961, Harry Van Arsdale, then president of the NYC AFL-CIO, lecturing at Columbia University on "Labor and the Intelligentsia" called for a restoration of the "labor-liberal-intellectual alliance" which, he said, had been disrupted since the end of World War II. "I think the time has come," he added, "to see if the breach between us can be repaired." He was quite wrong, the time did not come until three decades later. Now, with Sweeney at the AFL-CIO helm, the breach may be closing. That breach between labor and intellectuals, noted so long ago by Van Arsdale, has long been a familiar theme in writings on labor. Back in 1960, Union Democracy in Action, precursor of our Union Democracy Review was launched with the distribution of "Intellectuals and the Lonely Union Reformer", an essay which suggested that, despite their disenchantment with official labor, liberal intellectuals might come to the aid of rank and file union reformers who sought to democratize their unions. But not all intellectuals were disenchanted. Once the labor movement became firmly established, it required the services of a whole cadre of intellectuals, perhaps several thousand by now, who joined the staff as writers, researchers, educators, editors, economists, and special project directors. For his book, "Intellectuals in Labor Unions", completed in 1954 Harold Wilensky consulted 191 top experts on the national staff of 28 large unions. Union officials needed staff intellectuals but were often allergic to their expressions of independence. In crude fashion, those misgivings were bluntly expressed in 1949 by David McDonald, then Steelworkers secretary treasurer, who told Otis Brubaker, the union's research director, "I never could quite trust anybody I couldn't buy." Later, the Steelworkers bought subscriptions for its staff to John Herling's Labor Letter, an unreservedly pro-labor periodical then widely circulated in official union circles. Herling was a syndicated columnist and author of The Right to Challenge, a book on I.W. Abel's rise to power as Steelworkers president, an account greeted with praise by the union. But when Herling wrote sympathetically about a Steelworkers insurgent, the union canceled all subscriptions. In his book, Wilensky found, "The most general of the self-characterizations of the union experts - one often echoed among labor's outside friends - is summed up in the phrase 'window dre! ssing.'" While one family of intellectuals served labor as part of its institutionalized staff, a quite different stratum turned the labor movement into a subject for respectful scholarship. They were well connected in the academy, producing a multitude of works generally favorable to unions. Many were interesting contributions to aspects of labor history. Some remained predictable apologists for the established officialdom, that is, they invariably uncovered exonerating explanations for flaws discovered by critics. This tendency could be called the Harvard school from the university press which produced shelves of books on industrial relations all reasonably sympathetic to labor unionism or benignly tolerant. At least two unions, the Steelworkers and the National Maritime Union, were so pleased by Harvard versions of their industries that they printed special low cost editions for selected free distribution to members. The most eminent representative of the Harvard school was John Dunlop, Professor of Law, who introduced a special series on labor-management relations. He reported that he had originated "a new type of support for research and scholarship and such pioneering is both to be admired and appreciated." The novelty consisted in soliciting big money from unions toward compiling their own histories. At one conference in 1966 he noted that "My view would be to give up some of the exaggerated views of union democracy expressed in the Landrum-Griffin statute." He said that international union officers should be explicitly authorized to sign contracts without membership ratification. Later, he was appointed Secretary of Labor by President Ford. The labor movement has had experts enough to perform its own daily professional chores and scholars enough to record its official history with sympathy. And yet, despite this plethora of cooperative intellectuals, that coveted alliance somehow disintegrated. What, then, has been missing? The labor movement seeks what it cannot buy or subsidize. The alliance it needs is one that can bolster labor's moral status in society. Last year's declaration by those 41 writers calling for a new labor-intellectual alliance helps turn the tide of opinion because it comes from a new breed of intellectual, in part a new generation. Characterize each individual as you may, liberal? radical? civil libertarian? social democratic?, none are domesticated spokesmen for any establishment. They are independent minded, not beholden to any officialdom. It is precisely this independence which makes them invaluable allies of the labor movement and makes their support a major factor in enhancing its public esteem. They are trusted as disinterested advocates because they have never been knee jerk apologists. They best can serve the labor movement because they remain independent of its power structure. The bond that cements a labor-intellectual alliance is the common defense of democracy and social justice. Without a strong social force to transform ideals into reality, intellectuals remain isolated in the ivory tower of imagination. Labor is one such force. Without disinterested validation of its claims as a popular movement for social justice, the labor movement is open to charges as a "special interest" group. Intellectuals can provide that validation. What clouds this alliance is a paradox: The labor movement is democratic for the outside but bureaucratic on the inside. On most of the political and social issues that arise on the outside, in national life, it throws its weight on the side of democracy and social justice. But on the inside, in its own internal life, the labor movement tolerates that part of its officialdom which is autocratic, contemptuous of its membership, tolerant of ordinary corruption and even racketeering. In whole sections of the labor movement, an officialdom rests on an internal political machine which solidifies its internal power by intimidation, favoritism and discrimination in job referrals, and manipulation of trial procedures to silence critics. To strengthen, even to preserve, unions as a force for decency and democracy, it has sometimes been necessary for reformers and democrats in the labor movement to mount resistance against this kind of officialdom. Major reform movements in the Mine! rs union and the Teamsters union succeeded in winning widespread attention. Not so well known, however, were the grassroots movements for reform seeded throughout the labor movement. Intellectuals who proclaim their solidarity with the labor movement need not drift into mere apologetics. Support to labor does not necessarily mean endorsement only of what emanates from its leadership. Unions will inspire enthusiastic public support when they battle for justice and democracy, when they defend workers against corporate greed; but union officials are not exempt from public criticism when they undercut the democratic rights of their own members. True solidarity with labor entails solidarity with those who fight within the labor movement for fair elections, fair hiring halls, for union democracy, against corruption, even when it is directed against the establishment. Can intellectuals remain ardently prounion and still remain critically independent of its power structure? And can our AFL-CIO officialdom pursue amicable collaboration in an "alliance" with those they cannot buy? The answer to these questions will determine the success of that alliance. There is nothing significantly new in the principles and policies advanced by Sweeney that would distinguish them from the essential goals and program promulgated in the founding documents and resolutions of the AFL-CIO since the merger of 1955. However, he and his colleagues promise, at last, to put resources into the program and actually carry out, and militantly, those fine declarations. And there is nothing especially new even in that promise. An AFL-CIO think-tank, chaired by former Secretary Treasurer Tom Donahue and endorsed unanimously by all the other top leaders including Sweeney, had been doing that for years. But there is something important that is new: This time, and for the first time, the promise was backed up by a remarkable open palace revolution which changed the top AFL-CIO leadership. It is that rebellion, above all its success, which lends credibility to this latest promise for change. Intellectuals, in advance of others, presumably have the capacity of extrapolating from a few significant facts big events of the future just as a paleontologist might speculate from a few bones on the origins of mankind. If the meager shards of promise cast up by the Sweeney rebellion are enough to arouse the enthusiasm of critical intellectuals, we can begin to understand how powerful an impact a genuinely refurbished decent and democratic labor movement can have on the nation. Association for Union Democracy 500 State Street Brooklyn, NY 11217 (718) 855-6650 fax: 855-6799 email: aud@igc.apc.org web page: http://www.igc.apc.org/laborlink/aud.html Arthur B. Shostak, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, Department of Psych/Soc/Anthro, Drexel University, Phila., PA, 19104; 215-895-2466; fax 610-668-2727. email: SHOSTAKAt@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu http://duvm.ocs.drexel.edu/~shostak/ "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking [and feeling] we were at when we created them." Albert Einstein. From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sat Jan 18 17:38:15 1997 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:28:44 -0800 (PST) To: united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Human rights violations in Peru Sender: meisenscher@igc.org >Return-Path: >Date: 18 Jan 1997 12:45:35 >Reply-To: Conference "labr.party" >From: pop@mailhost.pi.net >Subject: Human rights violations in Peru >To: Recipients of conference >X-Gateway: conf2mail@igc.apc.org >Lines: 58 > >From: Poder Obrero Peru > > >The list of human rights violations in Peru is a long one. >Here are just a few examples: > > In the maximum security prison inside the Callao navy base, >cells are 8 meters underground. The prisoners there are detained >in cells with no natural light. > > All prisoners are held in total isolation for their first >year, thereafter they are allowed only 30 minutes in the yard >each day. Only immediate family members may visit them. Prisoners >are not allowed books, newspapers, or radios. > > Women prisoners are guarded by men. > > Some maximum security prisons, like the one in Yanamayo, are >built in regions whose climates are so harsh that prisoners >suffer serious health problems as a result. > > Guards are allowed to mete out punishments as they see fit. > > In extremely short trials, defendants are often sentenced >by the military to life in prison. The judges are masked and >thereby remain anonymous to the defendants. > >Since 1990, the construction of high security prisons has increased >dramatically in Peru. Most of these are designed to confine >prisoners in isolation conditions. The experiences of Germany >in this field have led to several visits by high-ranking Peruvian >officials to consult with their German counterparts on this issue. > >Isolation detention is part of the "psycho-social campaign" >designed to break the prisoners and force them to abandon their >struggle. The maximum security prisons, which President Fujimori >once described as "prison tombs", are, in short: "The place >where they will rot and only come out when they are dead." > >The anti-terror laws now in force in Peru were enacted in May >1992. This state of emergency allows for the mass arrest of >opposition activists. Mechanisms of protection, codified in >international accords against torture and inhumane mistreatment, >have been eroded by these laws. All prisoners are tortured and >mistreated, and they are subjected to unfair trials. Since 1983, >thousands of people have "disappeared" due to state-sponsored >murders or torture. Almost none of these acts of state-sponsored >human rights violations have ever been investigated. > >On the contrary: On June 16, 1995, President Fujimori issued >a general amnesty which quashed all investigations or indictments >of human rights violations which occurred after May 1980. The >few persons who had been convicted of such crimes before this >amnesty had their sentences annulled, and if any happened to >be in prison, they were released. This get-out-of-jail-free policy, >therefore, freed all state murderers and torturers. This criminalization >of the victims is also in line with Fujimori's economic policies, >which have been enacted on the backs of Peru's poorest classes." > > ************************************************** Michael Eisenscher Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program University of Massachusetts-Boston 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610-3131 ------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org ************************************************* "We are not merely an economy, but also a culture." "It has never been economics alone that defines America. If we choose, as a culture, to push back against the economic forces that would otherwise divide us, it is within our power to do so." -- Robert Reich -- Resignation address From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sun Jan 19 12:03:48 1997 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 10:52:01 -0800 (PST) To: united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: TAKING THE RISK OUT OF DEMOCRACY Sender: meisenscher@igc.org I'm not sure who get this, but felt it was worth sharing. If this duplicates a previously received post, I apologize. Hit the trash button now. Otherwise, enjoy. > """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" > A COMMUNITY LABOR NEWS (filter & mail) BULLETIN > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > "Freedom is always and exclusively > freedom for the one who thinks differently" > --Rosa Luxemburg > """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" > >posted with permission from: > ./\. _ >_|\| |/|_ Dale Wharton M O N T R E A L >\ / 1@dale.cam.org Te souviens-tu? > >______< > / > TAKING THE RISK OUT OF DEMOCRACY: > propaganda in the US and Australia > >by Alex Carey, c1921-88. Edited by Andrew Lohrey, foreword by Noam >Chomsky. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 1995. 214 pp, >notes, bibliography (237 authors), index, glossary. ISBN 0 86840 358 X > --reviewed 1997 01 13 by Dale Wharton, Montreal <51@dale.cam.org> > > >CENTURY XX saw democracy develop two ways in the USA. (1) By 1920 >voters doubled in number to about 30% of the population, owing largely >to woman suffrage. (2) Organized labor grew rapidly during the >muckraker era 1902-18. Business circles took these as signs of danger. >Might this mass of voters demand a regime to referee prices, profits, >salaries--the economy? Would unions give force to employees' requests? >Corporate response: programs to guide opinion among working people and >the public--to steep the nation in business theory and market dogma. > >Alex Carey taught psychology and industrial relations at UNSW. In 11 >essays he looks at string-pulling across the Propaganda Century. He >traces a theme that links the common good to private-sector interests >--that is, to the wealth of the few. The book has three parts: Closing >the American Mind, Exporting Free-enterprise Persuasion, Propaganda in >the Social Sciences. Editor Lohrey, who sat 13 years in the state >legislature of Tasmania, now does language research in Sydney. > >Carey argues that US society leans toward a binary view of the world. >Its symbols tend to be Good or Evil, Sacred or Satanic. Blends of the >two require study. Action-loving Americans prefer to do first and >ponder later, if at all. (Thought may hinder deeds.) Their native >pragmatism tests a belief by its result. One needs no prior grounds, >no moral code, to justify the test. In the US critical thought sleeps. > >These biases expose a society to subtle controls, says the author. >Though safe from the naked power of a slave driver, we must still >serve interests other than our own. How does this come about in the >USA? "By associating welfare [and public health care and other goods] >with Socialism/Communism and ... [equating] the Free Enterprise >System with Loyalty, Patriotism, Freedom, the American Dream, [and] >the American Way of Life, propagandists [work] Satanic and Sacred >symbols" (p 16). They play on powerful emotions and may even summon >"threats to national security." Domestic propaganda keeps nationalist >feeling both intense (easy to excite) and shallow. Carey rejects these >tricks as undemocratic. He sees the "free-enterprise system" itself as >a sham--a device to protect the riches of elites. Without their >propaganda machine it would collapse. > >William James and John Dewey both urged pragmatism. (Truth is what >works.) "James held that `an idea is true so long as to believe it is >profitable to our lives' .... " Dewey agreed. "Beliefs are good if >believing them has beneficial consequences. `Facts' do not exist for >Dewey ... in the sense that `facts' are stubborn and cannot be >manipulated" (p 77). Such easy virtue suits business fine. May it not >be kindly to delude? useful to beguile? profitable to mislead? > >Users of propaganda--publicity, advertising, public relations--pretend >it is mere persuasion, the method of democracy. By 1940 protests at >its harm fade as engineering of attitudes proceeds. Ad agencies >reshape the concept of truth. Images replace ideals in public regard. >America lives an illusion. As Miss Liberty's words comfort the world's >needy, US forces lay waste poor peasant societies of Vietnam, >Cambodia, Laos. President Nixon, exposed in his crimes, goes on to >corrupt his office further by trading it for a lawless pardon. > >"Modern wars require the support of everyone, and so wartime >propaganda idealizes the humane, egalitarian, democratic character of >the home society in a way that no elite or business interest has any >intention of allowing ..." (p 137). With peace, people who sacrificed >for principles expect reform. What they get is drama in three acts. >(1) Outside menace focuses popular consciousness. (2) Conservatives >spot danger inside social and political order, arising from liberal >reforms and ill will toward corporations. (3) Threats 1 and 2 merge to >rally defeat of reforms--and party, persons, and policies behind them. >As in 1919-21 and 1946-50, so in 1976-80: business resumes its throne. > >Adam idled happily in the Garden of Eden. His part was "to dress it >and to keep it"--Gen 2: 15. That was before the Fall. To punish him, >God condemned Adam to work: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat >bread"--Gen 3: 19. Came the Industrial Revolution and this idea of >labor as penalty had to change. By 1800 toil emerged as what makes us >human. To escape the pit we must cast off sloth and devote body and >mind to work. "The puritan preachers of the Protestant ethic are the >spiritual ancestors of today's industrial psychologists" (p 153). > >>From research of the 1950s on how to change beliefs in small groups to >the human resources school today, an old-world odor taints "classic" >studies of people at work. All play down the effects of material >reward on productivity, all imply low output is neurotic behavior. > >Folk who instinctively sense brainwashing usually look the wrong way >for who does it. Carey blames George Orwell. In his novel 1984 Orwell >foresaw a tyranny of the Left that would erase civil liberty. But most >of the peril this century comes from the Respectable Right. Corporate >mass media now impose thought control over much of the globe. Behold >their ideal: propaganda-managed democracy. > >Corporadoes shoot for yet more license to swindle us. Their daily >barrage aims to deliver them from taxes, regulation, limits, inquiry. >Some yearn to be free to fix prices (ADM), free to cut corners (Valu- >Jet), free to corner markets (Morgan Stanley), free to wrong Blacks >(Texaco), free to break strikes (Caterpillar), free to back genocide >(Chase Manhattan), free to clearcut forests (MacMillan Bloedel), free >to addict youth (Brown & Williamson), free to fire people wholesale >(AT&T), free to poison air and water (Exxon, Union Carbide, General >Motors, Freeport-McMoRan, Dupont, Alcoa, Procter & Gamble, ...), ....# > ># Bibliographic database fields (input to addbib program): >%A Alex Carey, c1921-88 >%C Sydney NSW >%D 1995 >%E Andrew Lohrey, editor >%G ISBN 086840 358 X >%I University of New South Wales Press >%K Advertising Council (US 1942) \ > advocacy advertising \ > American Chamber of Commerce in Australia (AmCham) \ > American Economic Foundation (AEF 1939) \ > American Economic Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI 1970) \ > American Federation of Labor (AFL 1895) \ > Americanization movement (1912) \ > Business Roundtable (US 1972) \ > Centre for Independent Studies (CIS, Australia 1976) \ > Centre for Policy Studies (Monash University) \ > Chamber of Commerce of the United States (1912) \ > Committee for Economic Development in Australia (CEDA 1982) \ > Committee on Public Information (CPI--Creel Committee, US 1917) \ > Enterprise Australia (EA 1976) \ > Fourth of July campaign (Americanization Day 1915-16) \ > Great Steel Strike (US 1919) \ > Hawthorne studies (US 1927-35) \ > Heritage Foundation (US 1973) \ > industrial relations \ > Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, US 1905) \ > Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA, Britain 1955) \ > Institute of Public Affairs (IPA, Australia 1943) \ > labor movement \ > La Follette Committee (US Senate 1936) \ > McCarthyism (US 1919-21, 1950-54) \ > Mohawk Valley Formula (US 1936) \ > National Americanization Committee (NAC, 1915) \ > National Association of Manufacturers (NAM, US 1895) \ > New England Industrial Committee (1910) \ > North American Civic League for Immigrants (NACLI 1907) \ > North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA 1993) \ > Psychological Corporation (TPC, US 1921) \ > symbolism \ > Taft-Hartley Act (US 1947) \ > textile strike (US 1912) \ > trade-unions \ > union busting \ > Wagner Act (US 1935) >%O paperback, 22 cm. Text: Garamond 3 11.5/12.5. Available in \ > Singapore, Malaysia, & Brunei through Publishers Marketing \ > Services, Singapore 1232 >%P xvii, 214 pages >%T Taking the risk out of democracy : propaganda in the US and \ > Australia > ######################################################################### > COMMUNITY/LABOR Filter and Mail brings YOU this message. For information > about COMM/LABOR, send email to, Tony Budak with > COMM/LABOR REQUEST INFO, in Subject Header, nothing in Message Body. > Send replies to the original author, listed below in the, From: Field. > You may forward this message, please do not use the "redirect" command. > This copyrighted material may be copied for personal use only. If quoted, > correct attribution must be made to the author. Before publishing in > printed form, or redistributing for profit obtain permission from author. > ######################################################################### > > > ************************************************** Michael Eisenscher Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program University of Massachusetts-Boston 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610-3131 ------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org ************************************************* "We are not merely an economy, but also a culture." "It has never been economics alone that defines America. If we choose, as a culture, to push back against the economic forces that would otherwise divide us, it is within our power to do so." -- Robert Reich -- Resignation address From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sun Jan 19 14:20:50 1997 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 13:06:46 -0800 (PST) To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Appeal - Three peasants killed by the police in Chiapas Sender: meisenscher@igc.org > >Mexico DF, January 8, 1997 >Three peasants killed by the police in Chiapas >Appeal to all progressive forces by Chiapas maize producers > >A deep economic crisis is affecting Mexican workers in the cities and the >countryside. This is specially true since the December 1994 economic collapse, 5 >times worse than the one in 1982 and the deepest in the country since 1932, >which meant losses worth USD70 billion and the so-called "tequila effect" in the >rest of Latin American countries. The purchasing power today is only a third of >what it was 20 years ago. 158,000 children die every year of hunger and curable >diseases, and the percentage of undernourished children equals that of >sub-Saharan countries with a GDP only a tenth of Mexico's. > >But the main aim of this appeal is not to make an in depth analysis of the >Mexican situation but to publicise the struggle of poor peasants and >agricultural workers in the maize production in Chiapas. > >Maize has been traditionally a fundamental component of Latin-American diet. It >is the basis for the domestic economy of 50% of poor peasants and agricultural >workers in Mexico. What they produce they eat themselves during the year, and >any surplus they have they sell it. Due to poverty and technological >backwardness, most peasants in Chiapas still use the same agricultural >techniques they have been using for thousands of years, with the better off of >them using a couple of bullocks. As a result every hectare of land only produces >2.5 tones. > >Before the present production cycle, because of the lack of maize and bad >weather conditions, the government announced that there was going to be shortage >of maize and that the guaranteed price for it would be between USD250 and USD312 >per tone. This created false expectations amongst peasants in Chiapas who then >proceeded to cultivate maize in every single plot of land. But at the same time, >the Mexican government is buying US maize for industrial and animal consumption >at a much more lower price, between USD62 and USD100 per tone, without any >tariff barriers, and they use it for human consumption, thus provoking a fall in >prices of Mexican maize. The current price of first quality maize, for human >consumption is USD155 per tone. As a result of all these policies, the price of >production is higher than the guaranteed government price. If this situation is >maintained in 1997, 5 hectares will be left uncultivated and 1.5 million poor >peasants and agricultural workers would be left without work. Millions of >Mexicans in the countryside would be dying of hunger because it is not >worthwhile to cultivate the land while at the same time we would be eating maize >for animal consumption from the US. At the same time big multinationals, like >Maseca or Nestle, will be buying maize from Chiapas at a very low price. > >In the first half of 1996 the prices of agricultural products rose by 23% while >prices in general rose by 40%. Electricity rose by 200% and there was also a big >increase in the prices of fertilisers. The 1995 economic collapse meant an >accumulation of unpaid (and non-payable) private loans worth as much as the >whole budget for agriculture in 1996. This problem of unpaid debts affects >mainly poor peasants. All these factors put an enormous strain on peasants, >especially in Chiapas. > >In November 1996 a group of peasants in Venustiano Carranza, Chiapas, organised >a road blockade demanding better prices for maize. The police intervened killing >three maize producers. As a reaction to the killing of these three comrades >there were road blockades all over Chiapas for 14 days. The state governor was >in a difficult political situation (as he was only provisional governor and >wanted to became a permanent one) and therefore in November 1996 he signed an >agreement with the peasants promising them an increase in the price of maize to >USD312 and a program of temporary jobs for peasants. This was supposed to be put >in practice 5 days after the agreement but to these date (January 8) it has not >become reality. > >As the state government did not apply the agreement the maize producers >organised again roadblocks on January 6 in 10 different towns in Chiapas, >declaring that they will continue with their civil disobedience actions "even if >they kill 15 or 20,000 peasants, because we prefer to die fighting rather than >die of starvation". > >Up to now repression and lack of information have important weapons used by >Julio Cesar Luis Ferrero, governor of Chiapas. 331 comrades had been arrested >and more than 200 "disappeared", apart from the 3 killings on November last. But >after today's demonstration of more than 40,000 people in Tuxla Gutierrez, >Chiapas, all those arrested were released and all those "disappeared" reappeared >alive, although the peasants were brutally removed from the roads leaving >hundreds of injured peasants. > >The government has made some concessions, but we do not trust its word any >longer. We are ready to set up roadblocks again and take even more serious >actions if needed. If we want to avoid any more deaths we rely mainly on >international solidarity. We would like to circulate this appeal and to send >faxes demanding the implementation of the agreements and an end to repression >to: > >Julio Cesar Ruiz Ferro >Gobernador de Chiapas >+ 52 961 20917 >+ 52 961 25618 > >Yours in solidarity, >for the Chiapas maize producers: > >Nabor Estrada, Chiapas Maize producers Council >Federico Valdez, president, Association of Debtors to Credit Institutions, >Tapachula, Chiapas > >Jonathan Lopez, National Trade Union Committee of the PRD > >Letters of solidarity to: >joseluisr@laneta.apc.org >faxes to: + 52 965 21540 > > ************************************************** Michael Eisenscher Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program University of Massachusetts-Boston 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610-3131 ------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org ************************************************* "We are not merely an economy, but also a culture." "It has never been economics alone that defines America. If we choose, as a culture, to push back against the economic forces that would otherwise divide us, it is within our power to do so." -- Robert Reich -- Resignation address From sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu Sun Jan 19 15:13:42 1997 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 16:14:49 -0600 (CST) To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu (Kim Scipes) Subject: Labor-intellectuals/foreign operations Folks-- I want to thank both Michael Eisenscher and Art Shostak for posting on Labor Rap the recent article by Herman Benson on "That Labor Intellectual Alliance." It raises a number of important issues, and needs to be taken quite seriously. I particularly liked the point that "The labor movement is democratic for the outside but bureaucratic on the inside." As a long-time activist (and now PhD student) with past membership in the Graphic Communications International Union (AFL-CIO), American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and National Education Association, plus having worked with a number of unions in the SF Bay Area while volunteering for 6 1/2 years with the Plant Closures Project in Oakland, CA (1983-89), this point resonates with me. But there was an issue totally ignored by Benson that I do not think we can ignore--and that is the AFL-CIO's foreign operations. I do not think it is acceptable for the AFL-CIO to claim to be progressive in the US, while acting reactionary in the "third world." And I think progressive intellectuals must directly confront this issue--I think re would be remiss, to say the least, and particularly regarding third world workers and efforts to build international labor solidarity, to sweep this issue under the rug. What is the AFL-CIO doing in the third world? Right now, quite frankly, I do not know. I hope Sweeney and his administration have made a TOTAL REPUDIATION of the policies and operations that were the hallmark of Lane Kirkland's administrations (and George Meany's--as well as Samuel Gompers' in the AFL). I have been challenging the AFL-CIO's foreign operations for a number of years, particularly while a shop floor worker and printer in the Graphic Communications International Union. I have also long believed that building international labor solidarity is an incredibly important task in the larger struggle for social change: I was the North American representative of the British-based journal INTERNATIONAL LABOUR REPORTS for over five years. What I have found over the years is that, to the best of my knowledge, with very few and basically insignificant exceptions, the AFL-CIO has ALWAYS acted as a reactionary force in the third world. This is not a new policy--it extends back to 1919, when the AFL under Gompers set of the Pan American Federation of Labor as a means to control progressive/radical labor movements throughout the entire hemisphere. The AFL helped overthrow the democratically elected Arbenz regime in Guatemala in 1954, and though its AIFLD (American Institute for Free Labor Development), the AFL-CIO helped overthrough democratically elected regimes in Brazil in 1964 and that of Allende in Chile in 1973. This stuff has been strongly documented. Beth Sims, in her excellent 1992 book, WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNDERMINED: AMERICAN LABOR'S ROLE IN US FOREIGN POLICY (Boston: South End), also claims involvement in destabilization efforts in the Dominican Republic and Guyana (p. 56). Of course, the AFL-CIO was operating in El Salvador and Nicaragua, and many other countries, and there's no indication that their efforts differed in any significant aspects from the one's we know about: in every case, the AFL-CIO worked to undermine, attack and/or destroy any union/labor movement that was struggling for systemic social change. We also know that the AFL-CIO worked AGAINST the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) for many years. COSATU has been a key played in the liberation struggle in South Africa, and is widely seen as perhaps the key force in enabling the anti-apartheid movement inside the country to survive the state of emergency of the late 1980s. The AFL-CIO supported the development of UWUSA (United Workers Union of South Africa) which was created by Gatsha Buthelezi in 1986 to oppose COSATU. And, in fact, the AFL-CIO later gave Buthelezi the "George Meany Human Rights Award" (sic). This support also has extended specifically to Brazil (to counter the CUT, Central Unico do Trabalhadores), to South Korea (supporting the government supported Federation of Korean Trade Unions against the Korean Trade Union Congress, which has now changed its name to Korean Confederation of Trade Unions and is leading the ongoing strikes in Korea right now), and to the Philippines (where it has supported the Marcos Dictatorship-initiated Trade Union Congress of the Philippines against the KMU, Kilusang Mayo Uno). I also have heard rumors that they have been supporting the government-sponsored trade unions in Indonesia against the insurgent unions, but I lack details. But I have EXTENSIVE details on the AFL-CIO's operations in the Philippines, through its Asian-American Free Labor Institute (AAFLI): this has been documented in my 1996 book, KMU: BUILDING GENUINE TRADE UNIONISM IN THE PHILIPPINES, 1980-1994, which was published in Quezon City (Philippines) by New Day Publishers but is being distributed in the US by Sulu Arts and Books in San Francisco. Some highlights: between 1983-1988, the AFL-CIO, through AAFLI, gave more money to the Marcos-initiated Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) than it gave to any other trade union in the world: over $5.7 million! (And if you think $5.7 million is a lot in the US, believe me it goes one hell of a lot farther in the Philippines....) The major affiliate of the TUCP is called ALU, Associated Labor Unions. ALU is run by a man named Democrito Mendoza, who has also been the president of the TUCP since 1978. I have extensive eye-witness reports detailing ALU's affiliation with death squads in a struggle to remove a KMU-affiliated local union from Atlas Mines, the largest copper mines in Asia between 1987-90. A considerable number of the KMU unon's leaders, members and, in some cases, even relatives, were wounded and/or killed during this struggle by the death squads. (The good news is that, in a contest with 12 other unions--including ALU--over who would represent the Atlas workers, and in the face of violence by the death squads and the Philippine constabulary, management and local government opposition, the KMU union won by 68%!) And in 1991, when the US was trying to get the Philippine government to extend the lease on the US military bases (from which every US invasion of Asia was launched since 1898), Philippine Senator and the Secretary General of the TUCP, Ernesto Herrera, accepted a $3.7 million bribe from AAFLI to vote for retention of the bases--which, when confronted, Herrera admitted! I could go on. The point is that the AFL-CIO operations in the third world have been overwhelmingly reactionary. There has also been documentation of outright collaboration with the CIA; there has also been documentation (starting in 1919) of getting massive financial support from the US Government to carry out its foreign operations. Accordingly, as perhaps many of you know, there have been a number of claims that the AFL-CIO was carrying out the operations of the CIA, US Government, and/or the State Department. Haven't we all heard of the AFL-CIA? Obviously, this needs to be further researched, but based on my research, I reject this claim: I believe the AFL-CIO (like the AFL before) has its own imperialist foreign policy, and thus has been operating in furtherance of this policy on its own behalf, even when collaborating with the CIA and/or getting funding from the US Government. In any case, the AFL-CIO has been carrying out an extensive policy of what Hobart Spaulding and other have called "Labor Imperialism." So, what do we, as progressive intellectuals/activists do in this situation? Obviously, we support progressive, democratic struggles by rank and file activists, members and progressive staffers. But regarding the AFL-CIO itself? I think we should push John Sweeney, et. al., to reveal the details of the AFL-CIO's foreign operations historically and currently; to repudiate any policy and operations that are based on any type of labor imperialism; to refuse any funding from the US Government for foreign policy and/or operations; to disband the American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD), Asian-American Free Labor Institute (AFFLI) and African-American Labor Center (AALC) and immediately order any AFL-CIO staff person to refuse any connection with the CIA and/or related organizations and operations; to cease and desist any foreign operations until they have provided a written description of all foreign operations, with funding by source for each, for every member of every AFL-CIO affiliated federation, union and labor council and related organizations, and until they have won endorsement for proposed foreign operations by at least a 60% vote in an open convention after full and complete presentations and discussions on the issue by everyone who wants to talk. In my opinion, based on past practice, the AFL-CIO's foreign policy and operations are guilty until proven innocent. I would urge the AFL-CIO to release documentation and discuss these and other related points to prove its challengers on this issue wrong. I hope things have radically changed since Sweeney took office, but I must say I'm skeptical--again, I hope he will prove me wrong. I think we intellectuals/activists should be trying to find ways to support the progressive struggles of working people in North America. But, I also believe that we cannot do this to the detriment of working people around the world. Someone--I can't remember whether it was Karl Marx or Frederick Douglass--once said something like "Labor in white skin cannot be free, while labor in black skin is enslaved." The truth of this statement remains today, and it specifically remains on a global level. I apologize for such a lengthy message--I hope the information made it worth while. I would love to further discuss/debate these issues with all concerned. I can provide some bibliography, but Sims' 1992 book is the most complete description overall that I know of--although, like I say, I have a different analysis than she as to WHY all of this has taken place. I also seek detailed information on current AFL-CIO foreign operations anywhere in the world. In solidarity--Kim Kim Scipes Department of Sociology (M/C 312) University of Illinois at Chicago 1007 W. Harrison Street Chicago, IL 60607 E-mail: sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu From global@uk.pi.net Sun Jan 19 17:55:41 1997 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 97 23:19:52 From: PO Subject: CHRISTMAS MASSACRE IN BOLIVIA To: marxism-general@jefferson.village.virginia.edu, marxism-international@jefferson.village.virginia.edu CHRISTMAS MASSACRE IN BOLIVIA Summary of a report from Poder Obrero Bolivia. On 19 and 20 December the Bolivian government made the "Christmas Massacre". Around 100 people were wounded and nine were killed in Amayapampa, Capasirca, Pucro, Uncía, Siglo XX and Llallagua, all located in Province Bustillos (north of Potosi) . This was the response of president Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada to the struggle of the workers and peasants that live around the mines of gold of Amayapampa and Capasirca which are now under the property of the Canadian company Da Capo Resources Ltd. The miners demanded no sacks and a living minimum wage. The peasants demanded that this company should pay taxes and not destroy the ecology. In that confrontations the workers and peasants were able to disarm policemen and soldiers and to defend themselves. On 19 December several workers and peasants died and also the Colonel Eddy Rivas, chief of the Special Security Group. On the 20, when the army repressed Llallagua, the capital city of the province, many workers and students were injured or killed but also the army have more than 30 casualties. The massacre was led by Franklin Anaya, minister of government, and Willy Arriaza, chief of the National Police. It happened in the same province which three decades ago suffered the "San Juan massacre" when the military dictatorship killed miners in strike. Bustillos is a mining province which was the centre of the most important miners union (like Siglo XX and Catavi) between 1940 and 1990. The peasants of that province, the population of Llalagua and the students of the Siglo XX university actively supported the miners. The union bureaucracy and the government made a deal in which the miners and the population had to return the arms to the army and the Canadian company should pay some taxes to the development of the area. Now the workers could suffer the consequences of a selective repressive vengeance. On 9 January around 5,000 co-operative miners decided to occupy the mine Pailaviri in the famous Potosi’s Rich Mountain. After more than one week of confrontations the miners obtained a victory. The government decided to give to them properties from the former state mining company (COMIBOL) like t he canteen, the device, etc. The COB will held a national aggregate this Thursday 24 in which it will be discuss the organisation of a campaign of street demonstrations. Every year February is a significant month because the government and the COB (Bolivian Trade Union Congress) usually discuss the national wage’s increase. S ince 1994 every year around March the COB declared an indefinite general strike. The government is making a propaganda war against the left whit the aim of preparing a serious repression. We are working in Bolivia for a national claim which have to fight for a minimum living wage and the nationalisation of all the privatise companies and mines. The workers and peasants need to develop rank and file committees and self-defence organisations. We are for a general strike organise by a national strike committee composed by delegates elected and recallable by rank and file assemblies. From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sun Jan 19 18:51:00 1997 id RAA01030; Sun, 19 Jan 1997 17:16:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 17:16:56 -0800 (PST) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, Labor Research and Action Project From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Re: Labor-intellectuals/foreign operations Sender: meisenscher@igc.org At 04:14 PM 1/19/97 -0600, Kim Scipes wrote: SNIP > But regarding the AFL-CIO itself? I think we should push John >Sweeney, et. al., to reveal the details of the AFL-CIO's foreign operations >historically and currently; to repudiate any policy and operations that are >based on any type of labor imperialism; to refuse any funding from the US >Government for foreign policy and/or operations; to disband the American >Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD), Asian-American Free Labor >Institute (AFFLI) and African-American Labor Center (AALC) and immediately >order any AFL-CIO staff person to refuse any connection with the CIA and/or >related organizations and operations; to cease and desist any foreign >operations until they have provided a written description of all foreign >operations, with funding by source for each, for every member of every >AFL-CIO affiliated federation, union and labor council and related >organizations, and until they have won endorsement for proposed foreign >operations by at least a 60% vote in an open convention after full and >complete presentations and discussions on the issue by everyone who wants >to talk. > Thank you Kim for this detailed and eloquent appeal. I think the above paragraph gets to the heart of the challenge before us. >From what I know, John Sweeney has appointed Barbara Shailor (who comes out of the staff of the IAM) to head up the international program at the Federation. She has reorganized the department, and I am led to believe that the various regional apparati in Latin America, Africa, Asian have been dissolved into a single central program under her direction. The stated objective of this department is to work with unions across the globe without precondition on matters of mutual concern and solidarity with one another's struggles. What this will mean in practice is as yet unclear. A hopeful sign is that the Federation for the first time is working with the FAT, Mexico's independent labor federation, something the Kirkland/Donahue administration would never do. However substantial the changes have been, however, until the Federation conducts a thorough, open investigation of its historic role and practices, accounts for them to the affiliates, and acknowledges publicly its anti-democratic role as a servant to U.S. imperialism, this matter will not and can not be put to rest. This inquiry ought to include receiving testimony, documentation, and information from workers and unions around the world who have fallen victim to the Federation's international machinations. The relationship to and role of the U.S. government and its intelligence and espionage services should be fully exposed. Furthermore, in light of its history, the international operations of the Federation ought to be subject to open scrutiny, monitored by a separate committee, audited regularly, and reported fully to the biennial convention. Why should workers around the world trust in the new leadership of the AFL-CIO, however laudable their intentions, if they fail to make a full and open accounting? We owe them and ourselves both an accounting and in their case, humble apologies. We might learn something from the So. Africans, Chileans, and others who have implemented such disclosure for crimes committed by autocratic, racist, neocolonial regimes as the first step toward national healing and national unity. Failure to have this discussion openly within the ranks of labor, including at the General Executive Council of the Federation, implies or at least leaves the clear impression that the changes which have occurred may only be superficial and that the poisonous influence of the past remains in the body of U.S. organized labor. Michael Eisenscher E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610 (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins) Ref: "The Lincoln Encyclopedia", Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY) From kettler@bard.edu Mon Jan 20 07:26:51 1997 X-Ident: IDENT protocol sender: kettler@localhost Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:22:41 -0500 (EST) From: David Kettler To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: Re: Labor-intellectuals/foreign operations In-Reply-To: Kim Scipes' scathing review of the US labor's "foreign policy" correctly raises many hard questions. One question, however, is neglected, and should be added to the research list. How do we distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate political conflict with Communists in trade union movements, given that we do not think that workers' solidarity required social democrats and other laborists always to surrender to organizations that regularly denounced them as class traitors and social fascists? I mean this as a serious question, not as a snide insinuation or as a blanket justification of US labor's cold war record. Given the record of the WFTU during Stalin's years, for example, was it [ever] OK to support anti-communist oppositions in labor movements? And if so, how? That applies to poor countries too, although the isues are often even more difficult there, as witness the COSATU case. Neither scholarly nor political questions are usefully posed in the language of criminal prosecutions: guilt or innocence. David Kettler Bard College e-mail: kettler@bard.edu From goodwork@igc.org Mon Jan 20 09:26:34 1997 by igc2.igc.apc.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:19:47 -0800 (PST) From: Goodwork To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Labor-intellectuals/foreign operations One additional impact I don't recall seeing mentioned in this discussion of labor organizations and exploitative & imperial policies is that the labor organizations were supporting policies which established &/or maintained repressive sites to which U.S. (and other) capital could fly to reap superprofits made possible in part by the repression of labor organization! And this isn't a story just from the past, it's still happening today, of course to the loss of jobs in the U.S. and, in a karmic boomerang which we can't be happy to see, to the loss of the U.S. labor organizations themselves. Joe Maizlish Los Angeles From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Jan 20 10:08:01 1997 id IAA01944 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:55:51 -0800 (PST) id IAA02698; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:54:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:54:41 -0800 (PST) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, Labor Research and Action Project From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Re: Labor-intellectuals/foreign operations Sender: meisenscher@igc.org At 09:22 AM 1/20/97 -0500, David Kettler wrote: >Kim Scipes' scathing review of the US labor's "foreign policy" correctly >raises many hard questions. One question, however, is neglected, and >should be added to the research list. How do we distinguish between >legitimate and illegitimate political conflict with Communists in trade >union movements, given that we do not think that workers' solidarity >required social democrats and other laborists always to surrender to >organizations that regularly denounced them as class traitors and social >fascists? I am not sure how one answers this question retrospectively, but the question itself misses a critical issue: the AFL-CIO, and each of the federations prior to affiliation, lent themselves to the U.S. intelligence services to engage in direct external intervention in the internal affairs of foreign labor movements. This involved helping to manufacture opposition labor organizations, which they then annointed as the only "legitimate" labor movement; funneling funds coverty the prop up miniscule opponents of the dominant labor organization; bribing foreign government officials to induce them to act favorable toward the annointed and unfavorably against the opposed labor organizations; and other similar unsavory conduct (like turning their heads - or worse - when their allies sanctioned or participated in death squads). These acts go well beyond any debate over what is legitimate or illegitimate solidarity with opponents of communist-led or influenced labor movements. ************************************************** Michael Eisenscher Workers Education Local 189, CWA Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program University of Massachusetts-Boston 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610-3131 ------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org ************************************************* "We are not merely an economy, but also a culture." "It has never been economics alone that defines America. If we choose, as a culture, to push back against the economic forces that would otherwise divide us, it is within our power to do so." -- Robert Reich -- Resignation address From sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu Mon Jan 20 11:51:16 1997 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 12:52:36 -0600 (CST) To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu (Kim Scipes) On January 20th, David Kettler wrote the following in light of my condemnation of AFL-CIO foreign operations: Kim Scipes' scathing review of the US labor's "foreign policy" correctly raises many hard questions. One question, however, is neglected, and should be added to the research list. How do we distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate political conflict with Communists in trade union movements, given that we do not think that workers' solidarity required social democrats and other laborists always to surrender to organizations that regularly denounced them as class traitors and social fascists? I mean this as a serious question, not as a snide insinuation or as a blanket justification of US labor's cold war record. Given the record of the WFTU during Stalin's years, for example, was it [ever] OK to support anti-communist oppositions in labor movements? And if so, how? That applies to poor countries too, although the isues are often even more difficult there, as witness the COSATU case. __________ Like Michael Eisenscher replied, this is a considerably different issue than I was raising in my initial message, and I don't think it should be allowed to distract from the point I was making: the AFL-CIO has been actively collaborating with dictators, military officers, etc (including the CIA, etc), to destroy or immobilize struggles by workers around the world who are seeking qualitative change in the social orders in which they live, and in which they are exploited and oppressed. And like Joe Maizlish pointed out, these policies are coming back to hurt US workers because they allow multinational corporations to "runaway" with their jobs to these countries where labor has been repressed, and again, with the help of the AFL-CIO. I think I made the point clearly in my initial message: at a time when there are increasing efforts for labor and progressive intellectuals to join together, I think it is important that any collaboration (in the good sense) be on a PRINCIPLED basis, and this means--in my opinion--that intellectuals need to put forth clearly and consistently demands FOR international labor solidarity and AGAINST labor imperialism (and all other types/forms, etc., of imperialism.) I suggested in my initial message at least some of the issues I think we should be pushing. I don't think workers in other countries, and especially in the third world, should be sacrificed for any unprincipled alliances. Kim Scipes From kettler@bard.edu Mon Jan 20 12:32:02 1997 X-Ident: IDENT protocol sender: kettler@localhost Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:27:51 -0500 (EST) From: David Kettler To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: Re: Labor-intellectuals/foreign operations In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970120085421.466f78a6@pop.igc.org> On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Michael Eisenscher wrote: > [Kettler asks] > >How do we distinguish between > >legitimate and illegitimate political conflict with Communists in trade > >union movements, given that we do not think that workers' solidarity > >required social democrats and other laborists always to surrender to > >organizations that regularly denounced them as class traitors and social > >fascists? > > I am not sure how one answers this question retrospectively, but the > question itself misses a critical issue: the AFL-CIO, and each of the > federations prior to affiliation, lent themselves to the U.S. intelligence > services to engage in direct external intervention in the internal affairs > of foreign labor movements. Eisenschner's sentence introduces a paragraph listing many alleged AFL-CIO misdeeds, up to and including support of death squads, which does make it sound as if he knows perfectly well how to answer my question "retrospectively." One answer fits all. Non-communist and anti-communist labor movements, it seems, were (always?) (nothing but?) a product of US intelligence services. Well, what about Solidarnocs, for example? Was there CIA investment? Quite possibly. Was there money from AFL-CIO? Sure. What shall we think, on balance? I think this is worth some careful examination. Korea? Yes, I am interested but not surprised to learn that the AFL-CIO has favored the officially tolerated union federation. But now that Federation has come out for the strike, and reps of the AFL-CIO-backed international OECD labor grouping show up in solidarity. Life is complicated. Labor movements--left right and center--have learned to play with the cards they are dealt, and they never get the trumps. David Kettler From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Jan 20 23:25:24 1997 id WAA01977 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 22:18:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 22:15:01 -0800 (PST) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, Labor Research and Action Project From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Re: Labor-intellectuals/foreign operations Sender: meisenscher@igc.org At 02:27 PM 1/20/97 -0500, David Kettler wrote: >Eisenschner's sentence introduces a paragraph listing many alleged AFL-CIO >misdeeds, up to and including support of death squads, which does make it >sound as if he knows perfectly well how to answer my question >"retrospectively." One answer fits all. Non-communist and anti-communist >labor movements, it seems, were (always?) (nothing but?) a product of US >intelligence services. I know answers to some questions, but not yours. I have opinions but not an answer to the question you posed. My point is that your question evades the challenge Brother Scipes posed. By redefining the question you neatly evade the issue of the complicity of the U.S. labor movement's leadership in crimes against people of the third world. The interventions of which I spoke included in part the role played by the AFL and CIO in the immediate postwar period (WWII) in their intervention in the Italian and French labor movements (to name two) covertly as well as overtly to prevent the left (yes, which included communists, but not exclusively them) from assuming the leading role in their respective labor movements. That would have assuredly happened since they enjoyed overwhelming popular support as a consequence of their wartime role in the partisan underground against the Nazis and Mussolini. There are other well documented cases of U.S. labor's role in Africa and Latin America in subverting the indigenous unions, creating their own phoney unions, pouring millions of dollars in to corrupt leaders, etc. >Well, what about Solidarnocs, for example? Was there CIA investment? >Quite possibly. Was there money from AFL-CIO? Sure. What shall we >think, on balance? I think this is worth some careful examination. > If you care to address these issues, then maybe we can have a discussion of Poland in the 1980s next. >Korea? Yes, I am interested but not surprised to learn that the AFL-CIO >has favored the officially tolerated union federation. But now that >Federation has come out for the strike, and reps of the AFL-CIO-backed >international OECD labor grouping show up in solidarity. Life is >complicated. Kim's point, as I understood it, and certainly mine, is that if we expect to rebuild this labor movement and establish solidaristic and mutually respectful relations with workers' movements in other countries, we can't just skip past the history on the excuse that it's a new day and we should all look forward and not back. That day will come when we have made an accounting for the past and accepted responsibility for what was done in our name to peoples around the world. Recall: Those who do not learn from history..... Life is indeed complicated. Simple-minded assurances or assumptions that everything is now correct in the AFL-CIO HQ does nothing to address the complications of life. It only seeks to bury them in a kind of political denial that is opportunistic and self-serving. As a labor movement, it is time we grew up. "Intellectuals" foremost have a responsibility to offer more than sacharin coated puffery as a substitute for serious analysis. > >Labor movements--left right and center--have learned to play with the >cards they are dealt, and they never get the trumps. > As Benson observed, too many "intellectuals" made their accommodations with the McCarthyite hysteria and trade union opportunists and corrupt elements as a price for becoming the acceptiable 'house' academics of Meany's labor movement. Kirkland dutifully carried that tradition forward. Donahue did nothing to disturb the arrangements. Virtually all the folks who occupy the building today were part of the GEC that either participated actively or sat by silently as these things happened. Let us learn some things from the Germans, So. Africans, Chileans, Argentinians, etc. Let us not pretend the past was a bad dream, or worse, rationalize it as the best that could be done in the moment or it was no worse than what the other side was doing..... This is not about mia culpa; it is about be both responsible to our own movement and those of others, and learning something from the experience so that we are not so easily misled in the future. In solidarity, Michael Eisenscher Workers Education Local 189, CWA E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610 (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins) Ref: "The Lincoln Encyclopedia", Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY) From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Tue Jan 21 13:09:13 1997 id LAA02529; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:06:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 10:57:57 -0800 (PST) To: united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, OIFAC@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Re: Tabasco sweepers attacked by police Sender: meisenscher@igc.org >Return-Path: <100723.2363@CompuServe.COM> >Date: 21 Jan 97 13:15:47 EST >From: Alastair Wilson <100723.2363@compuserve.com> >To: Michael Eisenscher >Subject: Re: Tabasco sweepers attacked by police > >On Sunday, January 19, at 3.15 am 300 police brutally removed the Tabasco hunger >strikers from outside the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), Mexico city, >and took three of them to the Xoco hospital. Venancio Jimenez Martinez and Jorge >Luis Magan~a Alamilla, on hunger strike for 97 days and Agustin Vicente Sanchez, >on hunger strike for 57 days, were taken against their will to a hospital were >they have not been allowed to receive any visits from their friends and >families. > >In the middle of the confusion another 4 hunger strikers effectively escaped >from the police. At 4.55 am the police went back to the camp the Tabasco refuse >collectors had organised outside the CNDH to demand minimum working rights. The >police destroyed the tents, benches, chairs, blankets and other things in the >camp. Only the presence of PRD MP Adriana Luna and the vociferous protest of >more than 200 people stopped them after a while. > >Candelario Mendez Diaz, a 22 year old refuse collector, tried to prevent the >police intervention and was forcibly put into a police van where he was beaten >up several times. At the same time he was threatened and abused by the police >who were shouting "we are going to kill you for not letting us do our job". Then >he was thrown out to the street where a plain clothes agent was shouting: "Run >over him with the car! Run over him with the car! He has got to pay for it!". > >He was able to escape and jumped into an ambulance which had been used by the >workers during the hunger strike. The ambulance driver tried to take him to a >hospital as he was severely wounded, but they were blocked by a police car and >only succeeded to go back to the camp. Latter on the other workers managed to >take him to a private hospital where he is recovering from severe wounds in >face, abdomen and legs. One of his ears was nearly pulled out by the police. > >This 22 year old worker lost his home in Tabasco more than a year ago during a >hurricane and since then has been living with fellow workers in the different >camps they have organised in Mexico city, with his wife Alejandra and his two >year old son Alexander. He said that as soon as he was all right he would go >back with his comrades to continue the fight. > >This brutal police intervention has caused an uproar in Mexico amongst trade >union, human rights and left wing organisations. Emilio Krieger, president of >the National Association of Democratic Lawyers, said that the action was both >illegal and unconstitutional. "The government is afraid of losing control over >the people" he declared to La Jornada. > >PRD leader Cuauhtemoc Cardenas denounced Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo as >responsible for the police intervention and denounced that the hunger strikers >are "in effect kidnapped" as they are not allowed visits. > >In the meantime, president Zedillo declared that the intervention had been "for >humanitarian reasons". The spokesperson of the Tabasco federal government said >that "now that the psychological pressure is over" an agreement could be reached >more easily. But the most astonishing statement was made by the National Human >Rights Commission spokesperson who said that she was in agreement with the >action "but not with the form used". > >Tabasco refuse collectors leader, Aquiles Magan~a, and PRD senator, Felix >Salgado, announced that 50 more workers were going to restart the hunger strike >as the authorities were not prepared to talk to the workers. > >The Tabasco refuse collectors have been on struggle for more than two years >demanding minimum rights at work. One of the facts which triggered the conflict >was the intention of Tabasco's mayor to use them to clean his own house. > >Please circulate this appeal as widely as possible. >Send letters of protest to: > >Lic. Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon >Presidente de la Republica >Fax + 52 5 515 1794 > >Letters of solidarity can be sent to: > >Broad Front of Democratic Struggle >Calle Insurgentes n. 203 >Fracc. Insurgentes >Ciudad Industrial Villahermosa >TABASCO, Mexico. > >or emailed through: > >Commission Nacional Sindical, >Partido de la Revolucion Democratica >a la atencion de los trabajadores de la limpia de Tabasco >joseluisr@laneta.apc.org > >Background information about the conflict: >http://www.gn.apc.org/labournet/tabasco.html and >http://www.gn.apc.org/labournet/hunger.html > > ************************************************** Michael Eisenscher Workers Education Local 189, CWA Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program University of Massachusetts-Boston 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610-3131 ------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org ************************************************* "We are not merely an economy, but also a culture." "It has never been economics alone that defines America. If we choose, as a culture, to push back against the economic forces that would otherwise divide us, it is within our power to do so." -- Robert Reich -- Resignation address From clawson@sadri.umass.edu Tue Jan 21 14:46:58 1997 21 Jan 1997 16:45:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 16:45:50 -0500 (EST) From: Dan Clawson Subject: AFL-CIO foreign operations In-reply-to: To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Others know far more than I about past AFL-CIO activities, but a brief note on the current situation. The new AFL-CIO international affairs director, Barbara Shaler, is a long-time critic of past AFL-CIO activities. She openly and publicly refers to the past as AFL-CIA and intends to make a dramatic change. -- Dan Clawson work = 413-545-5974 home 413-586-6235 Contemp. Sociology = 413-545-4064 fax 413-545-1994 email = clawson@sadri.umass.edu consoc@sadri.umass.edu From Furuhashi.1@osu.edu Tue Jan 21 19:42:38 1997 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 21:42:18 -0500 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Furuhashi.1@osu.edu (Yoshie Furuhashi) Subject: Re: AFL-CIO foreign operations Dan Clawson wrote: >Others know far more than I about past AFL-CIO activities, but a brief >note on the current situation. The new AFL-CIO international affairs >director, Barbara Shaler, is a long-time critic of past AFL-CIO >activities. She openly and publicly refers to the past as AFL-CIA and >intends to make a dramatic change. I wish she could do what she is reported by Dan to have promised. But is such a clean-up possible, especially considering the top AFL-CIO officials' inability or unwillingness to break from the Democratic Party, that is, the party of the cold war liberals? yoshie furuhashi (furuhashi.1@osu.edu) From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Tue Jan 21 22:25:14 1997 id VAA08780; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 21:20:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 21:20:54 -0800 (PST) To: can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, united@cougar.com, H-UCLEA@n-net.msu.edu, OIFAC@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Save Overtime Pay After 8 Hrs. Work Sender: meisenscher@igc.org BAY AREA RESIDENTS, TAKE NOTE; CALIFORNIANS BE FOREWARNED. OVERTIME PREMIA AFTER 8 HOURS WORKED PER DAY IS AT RISK. >Save Daily >Overtime Pay > >Rally > >Friday, Jan. 24, 1997 > >10 A.M. > >101 Grove St. (Corner of Polk St.) >San Francisco > >Gov. Wilson has ordered the Industrial Welfare Commission to eliminate >daily overtime regulations for millions of California workers. On >January 24, the IWC is scheduled to take another major step toward >wiping out daily overtime pay, and allow bosses to impose 12 hour >workdays --or longer-- without premium pay. This would result in a >transfer of billions of dollars in overtime pay from workers to >corporations. > >Ending Daily overtime would mean: > Longer hours at lower pay > More job stress > Higher workplace injury rates > More children at risk without parental > supervision > > >Tell the IWC and the governor that workers won't stand still while they >destroy our working conditions and damage our families. > >California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO >FOR more information, call (415) 986-3585 > > ************************************************** Michael Eisenscher Workers Education Local 189, CWA Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program University of Massachusetts-Boston 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610-3131 ------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org ************************************************* "We are not merely an economy, but also a culture." "It has never been economics alone that defines America. If we choose, as a culture, to push back against the economic forces that would otherwise divide us, it is within our power to do so." -- Robert Reich -- Resignation address From knowware@mindlink.bc.ca Wed Jan 22 07:43:02 1997 by dewey.mindlink.net with smtp (Exim 1.58 #1) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 06:43:03 -0800 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: knowware@mindlink.bc.ca (Tom Walker) Subject: Re: Save Overtime Pay After 8 Hrs. Work Here's a better idea: ABOLISH OVERTIME and REDUCE THE WORKWEEK! Two reasons: 1. "...the labour expended during the so-called normal day is paid below its value, so that the overtime is simply a capitalist trick in order to extort more surplus-labor, which it would still be, even if the labour-power expended during the normal working day were properly paid." K. Marx 2. Although nominally overtime is paid at a premium, that premium applies only to the variable portion of the total wage package, not to fringe benefits and statutory holidays. The net benefit to the worker of an hour of overtime at "time and a half", after taxes, is often less than the worker's regular hourly take-home pay and benefits. >BAY AREA RESIDENTS, TAKE NOTE; CALIFORNIANS BE FOREWARNED. >OVERTIME PREMIA AFTER 8 HOURS WORKED PER DAY IS AT RISK. > > >>Save Daily >>Overtime Pay >> >>Rally >> >>Friday, Jan. 24, 1997 >> >>10 A.M. >> >>101 Grove St. (Corner of Polk St.) >>San Francisco >> >>Gov. Wilson has ordered the Industrial Welfare Commission to eliminate >>daily overtime regulations for millions of California workers. On >>January 24, the IWC is scheduled to take another major step toward >>wiping out daily overtime pay, and allow bosses to impose 12 hour >>workdays --or longer-- without premium pay. This would result in a >>transfer of billions of dollars in overtime pay from workers to >>corporations. >> >>Ending Daily overtime would mean: >> Longer hours at lower pay >> More job stress >> Higher workplace injury rates >> More children at risk without parental >> supervision >> >> >>Tell the IWC and the governor that workers won't stand still while they >>destroy our working conditions and damage our families. >> >>California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO >>FOR more information, call (415) 986-3585 >> >> >************************************************** >Michael Eisenscher >Workers Education Local 189, CWA >Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program >University of Massachusetts-Boston > >391 Adams Street >Oakland, CA 94610-3131 >------------------------------------------------------------- >Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) >E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org >************************************************* > "We are not merely an economy, but also a culture." > "It has never been economics alone that defines America. If we > choose, as a culture, to push back against the economic forces > that would otherwise divide us, it is within our power to do so." > -- Robert Reich -- > Resignation address > > > > > > Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art knowware@mindlink.bc.ca | does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm From dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu Wed Jan 22 10:22:48 1997 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:20:40 -0500 To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu (david croteau) Subject: labor/academic article FYI: Another interesting piece on the potential of a labor/academic alliance has appeared. This one is by Michael Tomasky and is titled "Waltzing with Sweeney: Is the Academic Left Ready to Join the AFL-CIO" It appears in the most recent issue of the magazine, Linguafranca. The piece reviews changes since the Sweeney election, the declining working condition of academics, and the hurdles to a labor/academic alliance. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Croteau Sociology/ Virginia Commonwealth University E-mail: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Jan 22 10:31:56 1997 id JAA09089; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:01:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:01:20 -0800 (PST) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, Labor Research and Action Project From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Re: Save Overtime Pay After 8 Hrs. Work Sender: meisenscher@igc.org At 06:43 AM 1/22/97 -0800, Tom Walker wrote: >Here's a better idea: ABOLISH OVERTIME and REDUCE THE WORKWEEK! > >Two reasons: > >1. "...the labour expended during the so-called normal day is paid below its >value, so that the overtime is simply a capitalist trick in order to extort >more surplus-labor, which it would still be, even if the labour-power >expended during the normal working day were properly paid." K. Marx > >2. Although nominally overtime is paid at a premium, that premium applies >only to the variable portion of the total wage package, not to fringe >benefits and statutory holidays. The net benefit to the worker of an hour of >overtime at "time and a half", after taxes, is often less than the worker's >regular hourly take-home pay and benefits. Nice argument, but the issue here is that the limited protection of the law is about to be axed and the choice is not a better reform. This is just the latest in the employers' grab for more profits at workers' expense. Either we fight to defend the concept of overtime after 8 or we lose it and face straight time pay without any hours limit. ************************************************** Michael Eisenscher Workers Education Local 189, CWA Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program University of Massachusetts-Boston 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610-3131 ------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org ************************************************* "We are not merely an economy, but also a culture." "It has never been economics alone that defines America. If we choose, as a culture, to push back against the economic forces that would otherwise divide us, it is within our power to do so." -- Robert Reich -- Resignation address From Jose_Itzigsohn@brown.edu Wed Jan 22 12:17:10 1997 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:17:05 -0500 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Jose Itzigsohn Subject: Re: Ebonics Explained Fayneese, here is the message I got on ebonics. Maybe it can be useful to you. Jose At 09:53 AM 1/6/97 -0800, you wrote: >>Return-Path: abudak@alumni.ysu.edu >>Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 00:32:20 -0500 >>From: Tony Budak >>Subject: Oakland school board >>To: Tony Budak >> >> ######################################################################### >> COMMUNITY/LABOR Filter and Mail brings YOU this message. For information >> about COMM/LABOR, send email to, Tony Budak with >> COMM/LABOR REQUEST INFO, in Subject Header, nothing in Message Body. >> Send replies to the original author, listed below in the, From: Field. >> You may forward this message, please do not use the "redirect" command. >> This copyrighted material may be copied for personal use only. If quoted, >> correct attribution must be made to the author. Before publishing in >> printed form, or redistributing for profit obtain permission from author. >> ######################################################################### >> >> >> >><---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> >>Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:14:40 -0800 (PST) >>From: Phil Agre >>To: rre@weber.ucsd.edu >>Subject: Oakland school board >>Reply-To: rre-maintainers@weber.ucsd.edu >> >>[I have enclosed the original "Ebonics" resolution, about which so much >>foolishness has been circulated. Geoff Nunberg had a good piece about >>it on NPR the other day, and newspaper reporters and op-ed pages have >>finally located some informed academics who will deign to speak to the >>public about the issues. Geoff quoted several newspaper headlines that >>(in my interpretation) seem to have been written in a carefully ambiguous >>way to make it sound like the Oakland schools were going to conduct >>classes in AAVE (African American Vernacular English, the most common >>name for the dialect) without actually saying so directly. In fact they >>are using an already widespread program which consists of teaching the >>teachers about the linguistic properties of the dialect, and then instead >>of "fixing" the students' AAVE grammar, they simply ask the children to >>translate what they've said into standard English. This is complete and >>utter common sense, backed by both linguistics and plain decency. This >>is not to say that the Oakland school board is entirely innocent. They >>should all be sent back to Public Relations 101 (which, it so happens, >>I am about to start teaching on Monday evening), where they will all >>recite "I will not use technical terms from historical linguistics, such >>as "genetic", in public discourse so long as that discourse is dominated >>by panics about the supposed evils of political correctness" fifty times. >>For those who asked: yes, AAVE is a structurally distinct dialect of >>English, perfectly rule-governed and not just a matter of slang or bad >>grammar; yes, this is a well-established linguistic fact, not a matter >>for polls or a self-indulgent figment of black nationalist ideology >>-- the only disagreement comes from those who only identify language >>varieties as distinct dialects if they are mutually incomprehensible; >>no, AAVE is not profoundly different in structure from standard English; >>no, it is not certain that AAVE was significantly influenced by African >>languages -- the languages in question (from the Niger-Congo family) >>are considerably different from English (an Indo-European language), and >>even though some Western hemisphere languages (such as Jamaican patois) >>really are heavily influenced by African linguistic structures, opinions >>differ widely on the origins of AAVE's distinctive verb forms, which some >>connect to West African Pidgin and others assert are much more recent; >>no, AAVE has absolutely no relationship to Swahili, which is East African; >>yes, "genetic" really is a technical term from historical linguistics >>that describes processes having nothing to do with biological inheritance; >>and no, there is no real truth of the matter about whether AAVE is a >>distinct language, since dialects are grouped into languages primarily >>on political grounds. For further reading see the work of Lisa Delpit, >>William Labov, Roger Shuy, William Stewart, and Robert Ferris Thompson, >>among many others. Now that we've all read ten articles about "rumors >>on the Internet", can we please have an article this time about rumors >>being spread by the press while the truth circulates on the Internet? >>My problem here, by the way, is not with "the media", at least in the >>sense popularized so incessantly by people who selectively criticize >>stories that push in directions they don't like and then conclude that >>the media as a whole push in such directions. When analyzing the media >>it's important to keep track of the distinction, as George Will put it, >>between having power and having consequences. The reporters I've worked >>with have overwhelmingly been serious, thoughtful people laboring under >>a lot of constraints, some explicit and others implicit, about what they >>can write about and how. Some reporters have told me that they would >>love to write more thoughtful stories about the Internet -- if only they >>could find more thoughtful experts who are willing to talk about it in >>terms that mass-audience newspaper and magazine readers can understand!] >> >>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >>This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). >>Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. >>You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use >>the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions >>for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu >>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> >>Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 23:24:19 -0800 >>From: OREGON ASSEMBLY FOR BLACK AFFAIRS >>Subject: Full Text of Oakland School Board Resolution and Policy Statement >> Adopted 12-18-96 >> >>This is the complete text of the Ebonics resolution, and accompanying >>police statement, adopted unanimously by the Oakland School Board on >>December 18, 1996. >>------------------------------------------------------ >> >>RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION ADOPTING THE REPORT AND >>RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN TASK FORCE; A POLICY STATEMENT AND >>DIRECTING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS TO DEVISE A PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE >>ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND APPLICATION SKILLS OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN >>STUDENTS. >> >>No. $597-0063 >> Whereas, numerous validated scholarly studies demonstrate that >>African American students as part of their culture and history as African >>people possess and utilize a language described in various scholarly >>approaches as ``Ebonics'' (literally Black sounds) or Pan African >>Communication Behaviors or African Language Systems; and >> >> Whereas, these studies have also demonstrated that African >>Language Systems are genetically-based and not a dialect of English; and >> >> >> Whereas, these studies demonstrate that such West and Niger-Congo >>African languages have been officially recognized and addressed in the >>mainstream public educational community as worth of study, understanding >>or application of its principles, laws and structures for the benefit of >>African American students both in terms of positive appreciation of the >>language and these students' acquisition and mastery of English language >>skills; and >> >> Whereas, such recognition by scholars has given rise over the past >>15 years to legislation passed by the State of California recognizing the >>unique language stature of descendants of slaves, with such legislation >>being prejudicially and unconstitutionally vetoed repeatedly by various >>California state governors; and >> >> Whereas, judicial cases in states other than California have >>recognized the unique language stature of African American pupils, and >>such recognition by courts has resulted in court-mandated educational >>programs which have substantially benefitted African American children in >>the interest of vindicating their equal protection of the law rights under >>the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution; and >> >> Whereas, the Federal Bilingual Education Act (20 USC 1402 et seq.) >>mandates that local educational agencies ``build their capacities to >>establish, implement and sustain programs of instruction for children and >>youth of limited English proficiency,'' and >> >> Whereas, the interests of the Oakland Unified School District in >>providing equal opportunities for all of its students dictate limited >>English proficient educational programs recognizing the English language >>acquisition and improvement skills of African American students are as >>fundamental as is application of bilingual education principles for others >>whose primary languages are other than English; and >> >> Whereas, the standardized tests and grade scores of African >>American students in reading and language art skills measuring their >>application of English skills are substantially below state and national >>norms and that such deficiencies will be remedied by application of a >>program featuring African Language Systems principles in instructing >>African American children both in their primary language and in English, >>and >> >> Whereas, standardized tests and grade scores will be remedied by >>application of a program with teachers and aides who are certified in the >>methodology of featuring African Language Systems principles in >>instructing African American children both in their primary language and >>in English. The certified teachers of these students will be provided >>incentives including, but not limited to salary differentials, >> >> Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Education >>officially recognizes the existence and the cultural and historic bases of >>West and Niger-Congo African Language Systems, and each language as the >>predominantly primary language of African American students; and >> >> Be it further resolved that the Board of Education hereby adopts >>the report recommendations and attached Policy Statement of the District's >>African American Task Force on language stature of African American >>speech; and >> >> Be it further resolved that the Superintendent in conjunction with her >>staff shall immediately devise and implement the best possible academic >>program for imparting instruction to African American students in their >>primary language for the combined purposes of maintaining the legitimacy >>and richness of such language whether it is known as ``Ebonics,'' >>``African Language Systems,'' ``Pan African Communication Behaviors'' or >>other description, and to facilitate their acquisition and mastery of >>English language skills; and >> >> Be it further resolved that the Board of Education hereby commits >>to earmark District general and special funding as is reasonably necessary >>and appropriate to enable the Superintendent and her staff to accomplish >>the foregoing; and >> >> Be it further resolved that the Superintendent and her staff shall >>utilize the input of the entire Oakland educational community as well as >>state and federal scholarly and educational input in devising such a >>program; and >> >> Be it further resolved, that periodic reports on the progress of >>the creation and implementation of such an educational program shall be >>made to Board of Education at least once per month commencing at the Board >>meeting of December 18, 1996. >> >> >>POLICY STATEMENT >> There is persuasive empirical evidence that, predicated on >>analysis of the phonology, morphology and syntax that currently exists as >>systematic, rule governed and predictable patterns exist in the grammar of >>African-American speech. The validated and persuasive linguistic evidence >>is that African-Americans (1) have retained a West and Niger-Congo African >>linguistic structure in the substratum of their speech and (2) by this >>criteria are not native speakers of black dialect or any other dialect of >>English. >> >> Moreover, there is persuasive empirical evidence that, owing to >>their history as United States slave descendants of West and Niger-Congo >>African origin, to the extent that African-Americans have been born into, >>reared in, and continue to live in linguistic environments that are >>different from the Euro-American English speaking population, >>African-American people and their children, are from home environments in >>which a language other than English language is dominant within the >>meaning of "environment where a Language other than English is dominant" >>as defined in Public Law 1-13-382 (20 U.S.C. 7402, et seq.). >> >> The policy of the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) is that >>all pupils are equal and are to be treated equally. Hence, all pupils who >>have difficulty speaking, reading, writing or understanding the English >>language and whose difficulties may deny to them the opportunity to learn >>successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is English or >>to participate fully in classrooms where the language of instruction is >>English or to participate fully in our society are to be treated equally >>regardless of their race or national origin. >> >> As in the case of Asian-American, Latino-American, Native American >>and all other pupils in this District who come from backgrounds or >>environments where a language other than English is dominant, >>African-American pupils shall not, because of their race, be subtly >>dehumanized, stigmatized, discriminated against or denied. >>Asian-American, Latino-American, Native American and all other language >>different children are provided general funds for bilingual education, >>English as Second Language (ESL) and State and Federal (Title VIII) >>Bilingual education programs to address their limited and non-English >>proficient (LEP/NEP) needs. African-American pupils are equally entitled >>to be tested and, where appropriate, shall be provided general funds and >>State and Federal (Title VIII) bilingual education and ESL programs to >>specifically address their LEP/NEP needs. >> >> All classroom teachers and aids who are bilingual in Nigritian >>Ebonics (African-American Language) and English shall be given the same >>salary differentials and merit increases that are provided to teachers of >>the non-African American LEP pupils in the OUSD. >> >> With a view toward assuring that parent of African-American pupils >>are given the knowledge base necessary to make informed choices, it shall >>be the policy of the Oakland Unified School District that all parents of >>LEP (Limited English Proficient) pupils are to be provided the opportunity >>to partake of any and all language and culture specific teacher education >>and training classes designed to address their child's LEP needs. >> >> On all home language surveys given to parents of pupils requesting >>home language identification or designations, a description of the >>District's programmatic consequences of their choices will be contained. >> >> Nothing in this Policy shall preclude or prevent African-American >>parents who view their child's limited English proficiency as being >>non-standard English, as opposed to being West and Niger-Congo African >>Language based, from exercising their right to choose and to have their >>child's speech disorders and English Language deficits addressed by >>special education and/or other District programs. >> >> >><---- End Forwarded Message ----> > > > From global@uk.pi.net Wed Jan 22 13:21:09 1997 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 97 19:51:02 From: PO Subject: Human rights violations in Peru To: can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, isl@aksess.no, marxchat@stud.unit.no, owner-fi-press-l@sonne.comlink.apc.org The list of human rights violations in Peru is a long one. Here are just a few examples: In the maximum security prison inside the Callao navy base, cells are 8 meters underground. The prisoners there are detained in cells with no natural light. All prisoners are held in total isolation for their first year, thereafter they are allowed only 30 minutes in the yard each day. Only immediate family members may visit them. Prisoners are not allowed books, newspapers, or radios. Women prisoners are guarded by men. Some maximum security prisons, like the one in Yanamayo, are built in regions whose climates are so harsh that prisoners suffer serious health problems as a result. Guards are allowed to mete out punishments as they see fit. In extremely short trials, defendants are often sentenced by the military to life in prison. The judges are masked and thereby remain anonymous to the defendants. Since 1990, the construction of high security prisons has increased dramatically in Peru. Most of these are designed to confine prisoners in isolation conditions. The experiences of Germany in this field have led to several visits by high-ranking Peruvian officials to consult with their German counterparts on this issue. Isolation detention is part of the "psycho-social campaign" designed to break the prisoners and force them to abandon their struggle. The maximum security prisons, which President Fujimori once described as "prison tombs", are, in short: "The place where they will rot and only come out when they are dead." The anti-terror laws now in force in Peru were enacted in May 1992. This state of emergency allows for the mass arrest of opposition activists. Mechanisms of protection, codified in international accords against torture and inhumane mistreatment, have been eroded by these laws. All prisoners are tortured and mistreated, and they are subjected to unfair trials. Since 1983, thousands of people have "disappeared" due to state-sponsored murders or torture. Almost none of these acts of state-sponsored human rights violations have ever been investigated. On the contrary: On June 16, 1995, President Fujimori issued a general amnesty which quashed all investigations or indictments of human rights violations which occurred after May 1980. The few persons who had been convicted of such crimes before this amnesty had their sentences annulled, and if any happened to be in prison, they were released. This get-out-of-jail-free policy, therefore, freed all state murderers and torturers. This criminalization of the victims is also in line with Fujimori's economic policies, which have been enacted on the backs of Peru's poorest classes." From knowware@mindlink.bc.ca Wed Jan 22 14:35:40 1997 by dewey.mindlink.net with smtp (Exim 1.58 #1) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:58:23 -0800 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: knowware@mindlink.bc.ca (Tom Walker) Subject: Re: Save Overtime Pay After 8 Hrs. Work Michael Eisenscher wrote, >Nice argument, but the issue here is that the limited protection of the law >is about to be axed and the choice is not a better reform. This is just the >latest in the employers' grab for more profits at workers' expense. Either >we fight to defend the concept of overtime after 8 or we lose it and face >straight time pay without any hours limit. I must respectfully disagree. The issue is whether to struggle on a terrain that is inherently tilted in favour of the employers or to look at the fundamentals and develop tactics and strategies that can win. I was speaking yesterday to the research director of the one of the largest industry employers' groups in this province and he was chortling about the workers' hunger for overtime pay. "They don't care if they're undercutting their regularly hourly rate," he told me, "all that matters to them is the size of their paycheque." And a fatter paycheque is held out in front of the workers like a carrot on the end of a stick, the faster they run on the overtime treadmill, the more elusive is the prize. So the workers' end up competing with themselves. Alternatively undercutting their "regular" rate with cut-rate overtime and then taking wage roll backs so that they can "compete" with the overtime rate. It would be bad business for a merchant to open two stores side by side, each promising to beat the lowest price of the other. It is bad business and bad politics for workers to do the same and then defend it in the name of upholding the "limited protection of the law." What about a law that _guaranteed_ the right of a thief to enter your home and take what he could carry, provided that he/she did not steal more than a certain prescribed maximum percentage of your possessions? Would that be "protection" or "protection racket"? Remember, "the conditions of existence of the bourgeoisie compel it to calculate." Doesn't it make sense for the workers to calculate *in their own interest*? It is only possible to call overtime pay "protection" if you haven't done the arithmetic. If you do the arithmetic, you will see that overtime pay is a SWINDLE, pure and simple. I'm sure California's Governor Wilson has no emancipatory intent in seeking to abolish overtime regulations. But how do you know it isn't a diversion? Get the workers all fired up to defend "their overtime" and then make a "concession" and let them keep it -- ha, ha ha. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art knowware@mindlink.bc.ca | does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Jan 22 23:32:46 1997 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:29:52 -0800 (PST) To: united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Kaiser nurses contract (fwd) Sender: meisenscher@igc.org >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 11:27:58 -0800 (PST) >From: Tom Condit >To: newman@garnet.berkeley.edu >Subject: Kaiser nurses contract > >******** > >RN Contract Expires at Northern California Kaiser > >The Kaiser-Permanente contract with Registered Nurses represented >by the California Nurses Association expires on January 30, 1997. > >Management has demanded givebacks: > >* a 15% pay cut for nearly half of its RNs >* second-tier pay status for nurses in Sacramento, Santa Rosa, >and many clinics >* elimination of long-term employment rights for Kaiser's most >experienced nurses >* deep cuts in health benefits, including co-payments of up to >$1300/year >* new limits on time off >* an end to overtime for Nurse Practitioners > >Management has reject RN proposals to protect patient safety. > >Despite net earnings the past four years of nearly $3 billion, >Kaiser has commenced a series of service reductions. These >include: > >* tighter restrictions on patient admissions, lengths of stays, >and referrals to specialists >* closures or planned closures of parts of hospitals or entire >facilities >* cutbacks in preventive care, including frequency of PAP smears, >mammograms, and prostate cancer screenings >* reductions in professional staffing and replacement of RNs or >other licensed employees with less qualified staff >* new limits on home health visits > >As Kaiser reduced services, eliminated 14% of its RN staff and >planned the closure of facilities, Kaiser membership increased >110,000 in 1996, it spent $130 million on advertising and >consultants in 1995, and gave its CEO, David Lawrence, a 12% pay >hike to over $1 million annually. > >Call Kaiser Customer Service, 1-800-464-4000 or 1-800-906-5676. >Tell them to stop cutting services and give RNs a fair contract. > >Call the California Nurses Association at 415-437-3321 to help us >protect patient care at Kaiser or to get copies of the Kaiser >member petition in support of the nurses. > >Schedule any routine appointments now. There may not be a nurse >to take care of you at Kaiser after January 30. > > ************************************************** Michael Eisenscher Workers Education Local 189, CWA Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program University of Massachusetts-Boston 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610-3131 ------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org ************************************************* "We are not merely an economy, but also a culture." "It has never been economics alone that defines America. If we choose, as a culture, to push back against the economic forces that would otherwise divide us, it is within our power to do so." -- Robert Reich -- Resignation address From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Jan 22 23:41:02 1997 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:30:09 -0800 (PST) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, Labor Research and Action Project From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Re: Save Overtime Pay After 8 Hrs. Work Sender: meisenscher@igc.org At 12:58 PM 1/22/97 -0800, Tom Walker wrote: SNIP >I must respectfully disagree. The issue is whether to struggle on a terrain >that is inherently tilted in favour of the employers or to look at the >fundamentals and develop tactics and strategies that can win. I was speaking >yesterday to the research director of the one of the largest industry >employers' groups in this province and he was chortling about the workers' >hunger for overtime pay. "They don't care if they're undercutting their >regularly hourly rate," he told me, "all that matters to them is the size of >their paycheque." And a fatter paycheque is held out in front of the workers >like a carrot on the end of a stick, the faster they run on the overtime >treadmill, the more elusive is the prize. > >So the workers' end up competing with themselves. Alternatively undercutting >their "regular" rate with cut-rate overtime and then taking wage roll backs >so that they can "compete" with the overtime rate. It would be bad business >for a merchant to open two stores side by side, each promising to beat the >lowest price of the other. > >It is bad business and bad politics for workers to do the same and then >defend it in the name of upholding the "limited protection of the law." What >about a law that _guaranteed_ the right of a thief to enter your home and >take what he could carry, provided that he/she did not steal more than a >certain prescribed maximum percentage of your possessions? Would that be >"protection" or "protection racket"? > Even assuming your math makes sense, are you suggesting that the labor movement welcome the end to overtime premium pay after 8 hours because it doesn't fully compensate workers for the value of the extra time they spend after 8 hours? The issue at the IWC is not what are the alternatives? It is whether CA. should dispense with this protection. Following the logic of your position, if I understand it correctly, workers ought to also therefore be willing to give up 10 minute guaranteed (by law) rest breaks evey 4 hours of work because they really are entitled to 20 or 30. Or maybe give up company healthcare because they have to pay part of the premiums and copayments and really deserve fully paid single payer healthcare. Or give up Social Security because workers have to pay into it along with employers and don't get enough in benefits out of it to support them with dignity in their old age and capital should pay the whole thing anyway. I suppose if you believe that when workers are driven to penury by the system they will wake up and rise up to change it, then this all makes sense. But I don't happen to embrace the 'worse the better' view of class struggle. >Remember, "the conditions of existence of the bourgeoisie compel it to >calculate." Doesn't it make sense for the workers to calculate *in their own >interest*? It is only possible to call overtime pay "protection" if you >haven't done the arithmetic. If you do the arithmetic, you will see that >overtime pay is a SWINDLE, pure and simple. > I'll be interested to hear a report of what you are doing along the lines you reccommend in Canada and if you are right and successful, I will happily admit the error of my thinking and climb on your bandwagon to revolution. >I'm sure California's Governor Wilson has no emancipatory intent in seeking >to abolish overtime regulations. But how do you know it isn't a diversion? >Get the workers all fired up to defend "their overtime" and then make a >"concession" and let them keep it -- ha, ha ha. You've been reading too much Machiavelli or too many Alfred E. Newman comics. Wilson is a loyal and devoted servant of the capitalists and is more interested in real assaults on workers and the poor than on game-playing antics for his own amusement. Michael Eisenscher Workers Education Local 189, CWA E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610 (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins) Ref: "The Lincoln Encyclopedia", Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY) From wkramer@ucla.edu Thu Jan 23 00:42:17 1997 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 23:32:13 -0800 To: wkramer@ucla.edu From: William Kramer Subject: UCLA Labor Teach-In February 20-21 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE UCLA LABOR TEACH - IN, FEBRUARY 20-21, 1997 For more information, contact Kent Wong at 310-794-0385 or kentwong@ucla.edu "Fighting for Social Justice--A Teach-In with the New Labor Movement" is the theme of a two-day conference on February 20 - 21, 1997 at UCLA. This Teach-In will be the first major West Coast gathering that will bring together labor, university and community leaders to address the changing role of the new labor movement, and the challenge of building a movement for social justice. Featured speakers include John Sweeney, Richard Trumka, Linda Chavez-Thompson, Dolores Huerta, Karen Nussbaum, Maria Elena Durazo, Harold Meyerson, Harley Shaiken, and Mike Davis. The election of new leadership within the AFL-CIO in October 1995 has brought fundamental change to the American labor movement. The AFL-CIO has pledged significant resources to organizing, political action, and economic justice, with special emphasis on the new work force, especially women, minority, and immigrant workers. In breaking with a tradition spanning over a generation, the leadership of the AFL-CIO will be convening their first Executive Council gathering in Los Angeles from February 17-20. The Teach-In, which will be held immediately following the Executive Council, will be the first public address from the AFL-CIO leadership on their plans for the coming year. The UCLA Teach-In will emphasize new organizing initiatives, and focus on key campaigns in California. These campaigns include strawberry workers, manufacturing workers in the Alameda Corridor, the New Otani Hotel Boycott, the "Living Wage" initiative in the City of Los Angeles, "Justice for Janitors," and garment industry sweatshops. Dozens of labor, university, civil rights, and community organizations have endorsed the Teach-In. The Teach-In will begin with an opening session on Thursday night, February 20 from 7:00 - 10:00 p.m., and will continue with a series of panels and workshops on Friday, February 21 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. All activities will be held at the UCLA campus. For more information, please contact the UCLA Labor Center at 310-794-0385. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX William Kramer UCLA LAMAP Coordinator 1001 Gayley--2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 310-794-0698 310-794-8017 fax wkramer@ucla.edu XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Thu Jan 23 10:20:27 1997 id JAA04280; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 09:13:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 09:02:37 -0800 (PST) To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, H-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu, can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: *I* AM BIG LABOR Sender: meisenscher@igc.org >Return-Path: >Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 01:09:57 -0700 (MST) >From: Len Wilson >X-Sender: lbw@cougar >To: united@cougar.com >Subject: *I* AM BIG LABOR >Sender: owner-united@cougar.com >Reply-To: UNITED > > > _I_ AM BIG LABOR > > Why is "BIG LABOR" used as an insult? Why is this term used to spread > poisonous distortions about groups of ordinary folks who've merely > organized for their common welfare? > > Most of the time in this country it's good to be big. Organized Labor > should be BIG as well as powerful. Labor should also be PROUD. > > BIG LABOR is not just union presidents. It's everyone who belongs > to a union or who would like to. It's broom pushers, wrench turners, > school teachers, nurses, computer operators, airline pilots and many > others. WE ARE ALL A PART OF BIG LABOR! > > A group of us, union members, scholars, and other friends of labor, > have launched a national campaign to inform our detractors of how BIG > and PROUD we really are. We're going to send them a message that will > induce nightmares, AND, at the same time, raise money to help the > Detroit Newspaper Strikers. > > We're selling 2-1/4 inch buttons that say "_I_ Am Big Labor". They > are being made by union printers. All proceeds over cost will go to > support the Detroit Newspaper Strike. > > This project is not organized by any union, labor federation or > political party. It is purely a grassroots effort. JOIN THE FIGHT! > > ORDERING INFO: > > You may use cash, check or money order. Please make checks out to > "The NATCA Voice". > > Send the orders to: > > Bryan Thompson > c/o The NATCA Voice > 112 Juliann Drive., #5 > Wood Dale, IL 60191 > > 630-860-7423 for any questions > > Buttons are $1.00 each. > > Also include postage of: > $1.00 for 1-8 buttons ordered > $2.00 for 9-16 buttons ordered > $3.00 for over 16 buttons ordered > >THE BUTTON COMMITTEE: >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Len Wilson, Denver CO >IAMAW DL 141, LL 1886 >Shop Steward >Ph: (303)288-9368 (hm) >lbw@cougar.com > >Joe Berry >University of Iowa Labor Center >Iowa City, Iowa 52242-5000 >319-335-4144 >Fax: 319-335-4077 >E-mail: joe-berry@uiowa.edu > >George L. Searfoss >Coordinator, Labor In The Schools Program >Indiana University South Bend >gsearfoss@vines.iusb.edu > >Dennis and Kim Orosz >CWA Local 4900 >dorosz@cl-sys.com >http://www.cl-sys.com/dorosz > >Don Whipkey >USWA Local 1157 >stlwkr@en.com > >Nancy S. Volmer >UC Chapter 925/SEIU >University of Cincinnati >Cincinnati, Ohio >volmerns@sprynet.com > >Bryan Thompson >National Air Traffic Controllers Association >MEBA/AFL-CIO >Editor - The NATCA Voice > >Michael Eisenscher >Workers Education Local 189 (CWA) >meisenscher@igc.apc.org > >Aikya Param >Publisher, Women and Money Newsletter >aikya@ix.netcom.com > >Bob Kastigar >IBEW Local 1220, Chicago >Executive Board Member >R-Kastigar@neiu.edu > >Guy Podzorski >28045 Deiesing >Madison Hgts., MI 48071 >detmius@pipeline.com > >Jim Werner >Secretary-Treasurer >United Transportation Union >Local 18 >JIMW93045@aol.com > >Bill Gorrell >LIUNA Local 703 >co-host, Eastern Illinois Labor Journal, >member, Board of Directors, WEFT-FM >bgorrell@net66.com > >--- > > ************************************************** Michael Eisenscher Workers Education Local 189, CWA Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program University of Massachusetts-Boston 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610-3131 ------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org ************************************************* "We are not merely an economy, but also a culture." "It has never been economics alone that defines America. If we choose, as a culture, to push back against the economic forces that would otherwise divide us, it is within our power to do so." -- Robert Reich -- Resignation address From gheliker@cyberport.net Sat Jan 25 23:23:29 1997 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 23:23:38 -0700 From: George Heliker To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Response to my 1/6 post on Social Security References: <2.2.16.19970108203958.6fe738bc@pop.igc.org> ------------40D0786842F67 This (Michael Eisenscher and Max Sawicky's coliquy on Social Security "reform") was a very interesting and informative discussion, to me at least. Suggest anyone interested in the subject (who isn't?) look up an article on the Wall Street Journal OpEd page of August 30, 1996 by Robert Eisner (Prof. Emeritus, Economics, Northwestern University and former President of the American Economic Association). Title of article: "What Social Security Crisis?" George Heliker, Ph.D. Prof. of Economics, Emeritus University of Montana -- °MFN ------------40D0786842F67
This (Michael Eisenscher and Max Sawicky's coliquy on Social Security "reform")  was a very interesting and informative discussion, to me at least.  Suggest anyone interested in the subject (who isn't?) look up an article on the Wall Street Journal OpEd page of August 30, 1996 by Robert Eisner (Prof. Emeritus, Economics, Northwestern University and former President of the American Economic Association).  Title of article:  "What Social Security Crisis?" 
 
 George Heliker, Ph.D.  Prof. of Economics, Emeritus  University of Montana
-- 
°MFN
 
------------40D0786842F67-- From aaron@burn.ucsd.edu Sun Jan 26 20:03:11 1997 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 19:04:09 -0800 To: , Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: aaron@burn.ucsd.edu (Aaron) Subject: AMNESTY USA - HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE! The relation between U.S. labor and the Zionist state is not much different from that of Amnesty International with that same state, as described below. Dominant sectors of U.S. labor have always been apologists for Israel. (The same applies to some extent to most social democratic parties and unions throughout the imperialist countries.) While, unlike AI-USA, the unions don't depend heavily on rich Zionists for funding, their alliances with those same Zionists in the Democratic Party in the U.S. and, for example, with the late Robert Maxwell in the British Labor Party, help insure that their solidarity will be with the Israeli oppressors rather than with Palestinian workers. -- Aaron * * * * * * * Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 11:49:25 -0800 From: MID-EAST REALITIES Subject: AMNESTY USA - Neither Truthful Nor Courageous - MID-EAST REALITIES M I D - E A S T R E A L I T I E S AMNESTY USA - NEITHER TRUTHFUL NOR COURAGEOUS ------------------------------------------------------- For additional information: http://MiddleEast.Org ------------------------------------------------------- To receive MER Weekly send a message to LISTSERVER@MIDDLEEAST.ORG with only words SUBSCRIBE MER-L in subject & message areas. ------------------------------------------------------- AMNESTY USA - Neither Truthful Nor Courageous NINE MONTHS AGO AN UNPRECEDENTED MASSACRE OF CIVILIANS UNDER U.N. PROTECTION TOOK PLACE IN SOUTHERN LEBANON. AMNESTY USA WANTS EVERYONE TO FORGET! Amnesty International, and its affiliate in the United States -- Amnesty USA -- do much useful work. Even so, it is important to understand the "realities" that confine and conflict the organization in regard to matters relating to Israel. Until the Intifada, Amnesty had said and done practically nothing regarding the plight of Palestinians. An entire generation of Palestinians had grown up under Israeli occupation and numerous specific instances of gross torture, massacres, and horrendous abuse had been documented by other organizations and the media for a very long time. But Amnesty had refrained from getting involved and refused to bring to the world's attention the terrible suffering being inflicted on the Palestinians. With the Intifada Amnesty began to speak up once and awhile. It wasn't any longer all that difficult to do so with so many extensive TV and media reports highlighting Israeli brutality towards the Palestinians as well as a constant supply of specific incidents of torture that could be traced back to the highest levels of Israeli political and military society. Indeed, it was Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin himself, then serving the Likud Government headed by Yitzhak Shamir, who publicly told his troops to "break their bones"; and CBS cameras actually caught the Army doing just that to defenseless Palestinians already in custody. Then last year, after the terrible and unprecedented massacre at the Qana U.N. base in southern Lebanon -- the subject of headlines throughout the world -- Amnesty International decided to investigate and issue a report. The report condemned the Israelis for this massacre and concurred with U.N. findings that it had been done on purpose, not accidentally, with the Israelis then attempting a massive cover-up (as they had done so often in the past). However, confined by those who serve on its Board and its sources of funding, Amnesty USA downplayed the report right from the start. No press conference was held -- even though this was the most major action Amnesty International had ever taken in regard to anything in the Middle East - nor was there even a mailing to the press. Amnesty USA people instinctively knew that their jobs were on the line and they should not take any signficant steps about Qana even though their International organization had acted in this unprecedented manner. More recently Amnesty USA has truly shown its real colors when it comes to matters relating to Israel. The organization sent out a fund- raising appeal a few weeks ago, complete with detailed brochure showing month by month the major activities of Amnesty around the world during 1996. "ONLY THE TRUTH CAN HEAL THE PAST" the brochure concluded followed by the Amnesty International USA logo. But amazingly, not one word in the fund-raising appeal, or even in the brochure, about Qana. ----------------------- MORE ON AMNESTY USA "They are pretty hopeless..." Law Professor Francis Boyle writes in response to the recent MER LIE of the Week about AMNESTY USA: "What you are saying about Amnesty International USA is true. I served on their Board for four years. I had to threaten a lawsuit and be prepared to file it in New York to get on there. They depend quite heavily on pro-Israel sources to fund them. They refused to do anything about Palestinians until I got on the Board, then fought me all the way. They are pretty hopeless... Best regards and keep up the good work." Prof. Francis A. Boyle - 1/13/97 AMONG THE PROBLEMS, MARTY ROSENBLUTH Among the many reasons for Amnesty USA's hypocritical coverups of systematic Israeli torture of Palestinians is the "volunteer coordinator" for Israel, Marty Rosenbluth. The problem isn't that Rosenbluth isn't committed (which many who know him insist he is). Rather the problem is that Rosenbluth is ineffectual and naive. No doubt it is precisely this reason why those who control Amnesty in the USA are pleased to have Rosenbluth in a key role they don't want someone more capable and more sophisticated to fill. Contacted about these matters Rosenbluth made a variety of poor excuses and urged that these matters critical of Amnesty not be discussed in public but rather that MER should now try to distribute the Qana Report. The Amnesty professional staff on the other hand was much more circumspect and almost appologetic, apparently knowing very well the major problems within Amnesty when it comes to any matters relating to Israel. ------------------------------------------------------------------ MID-EAST REALITIES For latest information go to: http://www.MiddleEast.Org For info about MID-EAST REALITIES TV email to INFOMERTV@MiddleEast.Org ________________________ To receive MER Weekly send a message to LISTSERVER@MIDDLEEAST.ORG with only words SUBSCRIBE MER-L in subject & message areas. * * * * * * * From knowware@mindlink.bc.ca Mon Jan 27 12:27:15 1997 by dewey.mindlink.net with smtp (Exim 1.58 #1) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:26:18 -0800 To: swt-digest@di.com, futurework@csf.colorado.edu, LABOR-L@YORKU.CA, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: knowware@mindlink.bc.ca (Tom Walker) Subject: Time and a half and tooth fairies, too TIME AND A HALF AND TOOTH FAIRIES, TOO Tom Walker The overtime premium ("time and a half") offers a striking example of good intentions gone awry. Few would doubt that the intention of the overtime premium is to discourage longer hours of work, but to do so in a way that gives employers some flexibility to meet emergencies and peak periods of demand. Although some observers question the effectiveness of the premium in curbing overtime, I have yet to find one who would state that the overtime premium actually *encourages the use of overtime* and blocks the way to shorter hours of work. So I'll say it now: THE OVERTIME PREMIUM ENCOURAGES THE USE OF OVERTIME AND BLOCKS THE WAY TO SHORTER HOURS OF WORK. How so? My argument takes its cue from Ronald G. Ehrenberg's 1971 study _Fringe Benefits and Overtime Behavior_. In that study, Ehrenberg showed that high fixed labour costs (such as fringe benefits) offset the overtime premium and lead to more frequent use of overtime. I'd push the argument one step further to say that overtime premiums are probably a major cause of the steep and steady increase in employer paid fringe benefits that occurred in the three decades after World War II. In other words, I'd say the offset was deliberate. It isn't possible to be inside the heads of corporate managers and union negotiators from four or five decades ago, but it is possible to do a few simple calculations and reconstruct the cost options that they might have had before them. A simple story can help to illustrate. Let's now go behind the scenes of an historic collective bargaining session between the United Sisterhood of Tooth Fairies and Allied Workers (USTFAW) and Mammoth Dental Finance Corp. The year is 1947 -- and YOU are there... The demand for tooth fairy service has always been unpredictable. Some nights, it takes a fairy 10 or 12 hours to visit all the children who have lost teeth that day. Traditionally, Mammoth has paid it's fairies by the hour and has provided no benefits or time off with pay -- "an hour's work for an hour's pay" was the founder's slogan. Starting this year, however, Mammoth is feeling the impact of a nine-year old law requiring it to pay its fairies time and a half for work over 8 hours in a day (night) or 40 in a week. The rule has caused Mammoth's accountant, Peter Pencil, some consternation. Not only has it increased the company's average cost per hour actually worked, it has made that cost less predictable. Now, whenever there's a surge in demand, there's also a surge in labour costs. Pencil is not pleased. But Pencil knows his fractions, and he's determined to find a way around the time and a half dilemma. A careful reading of the overtime law gives him an idea. "Let's see, it says here 'the overtime rate shall be equivalent to time and one half the employee's *regular rate of pay*'. Hmmm, doesn't say anything about 'fringe benefits'. That's it! If we pay our fairies two-thirds of their regular wages in wages and one third in 'fringe benefits', then we'll only have to pay them straight time for overtime [two-thirds times one and one half equals one]! But wait a minute -- these fairies aren't going to be too happy about a one third pay cut. We'd better introduce this thing gradually." Armed with Pencil's cost calculations, the company negotiators enter into collective bargaining with USTFAW. The fairies are pulling for a 10% raise -- well within the company's ability to pay. But management throws a curve. "O.K., we'll give you the 10%. But our cost calculations show that we'd be more competitive if we pay half of that as an increase in wages and the other half as a fringe benefit -- say a dental plan. You'll actually get more than you bargained for in value, because the fringe benefit is tax exempt." The union negotiators look at each other in bewilderment. They aren't used to the company giving in on the first round. "How could this be so easy? We'd better do some calculations." They sharpen their pencils and adjourn to a back room. A few minutes later, they return shrugging their shoulders, shaking their heads and extending their hands to company negotiators. A few hours later, the negotiating team presents the tentative deal to the membership for ratification. "The company negotiators were stubborn, but we hung in there and got a 'package' that gives us the full percentage increase we asked for. There's even a few bonuses -- as a group, our new dental plan will cost us less than if we each went out and bought dental insurance on the market. And we won't have to pay taxes on the money the company pays for the dental plan." Being only too aware of the rising cost of dental care, the fairies eagerly approve the new contract. A new era of labour-management relations had dawned. Fast forward to the 1990s... Benefits now account for around 30% of Mammoth's labor costs. The overtime premium has, in effect, been wiped out by the cumulative effect of the fixed-cost benefits. A Mammoth week of 46 hours costs the company about the same per hour worked as a standard 40 hour week. Fairies average three to four hours a week of overtime. Fifty and sixty hour weeks are not unheard of. But tooth fairy demographics have changed, too. More fairies with young children are in the work force. Two-earner fairy households are common. The union is now seeking more family-friendly work time schedules -- both for the sake of its own membership and to help relieve the chronic unemployment that is widespread in Fairyland. Peter Pencil's successor, Samuel P. Spreadsheet has taken the union demands for work sharing and job sharing back to his office for closer examination. "Hmmm," Spreadsheet calculates,"even if workers give up one hour's pay for each hour less they work, the average cost per hour goes up. This is out of the question. We won't be able to compete in today's global markets. Nope. No way. Never." Armed with Spreadsheet's figures, management tosses the work sharing proposals in the waste paper basket. "Look," they tell the union negotiators, "we've got to be working *more* hours in today's competitive climate, not less -- our fixed costs are through the roof. Your members are lucky to have a job with good pay and benefits. Don't bother us with frivolous demands. This worksharing stuff is utopian, pie-in-the-sky, airy-fairy wishful thinking. Get real." The union team can see they're getting nowhere with the work sharing proposal. "Maybe, we could get the government to change the laws," suggests the union's chief economist. "Raise the overtime premium from time and a half to double time. Make the overtime premium payable after 32 hours, instead of 40." Everyone nods -- it's unclear as to whether in agreement or off to sleep. "Yeah, sure," one small, skeptical voice breaks in, "You guys still believe in the 'overtime premium'? I suppose you believe in the tooth fairy, too!" (Copyright 1997. Permission granted to circulate this article intact.) Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art knowware@mindlink.bc.ca | does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm From Eve770@aol.com Mon Jan 27 12:59:52 1997 From: Eve770@aol.com by emout11.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) Mon, 27 Jan 1997 14:59:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 14:59:05 -0500 (EST) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Time and a half and tooth fairies, too but benefits have been going DOWN, not up. From knowware@mindlink.bc.ca Mon Jan 27 13:33:15 1997 by dewey.mindlink.net with smtp (Exim 1.58 #1) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 12:32:57 -0800 To: swt-digest@di.com, futurework@csf.colorado.edu, LABOR-L@YORKU.CA, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: knowware@mindlink.bc.ca (Tom Walker) Subject: A provocative fable? I have just sent out to this list a fable called "Time and a half and tooth fairies, too". In the fable's prologue, I make the perhaps provocative claim: THE OVERTIME PREMIUM ENCOURAGES THE USE OF OVERTIME AND BLOCKS THE WAY TO SHORTER HOURS OF WORK. Of course, I have the charts, tables, equations and sophisticated econometric models to back up my rash claim. But I doubt many people would be interested in such technical gobbledygook. I won't bother writing the stuff up unless I hear from a sufficient number of people who really want to know where all the good times have gone. Please send your requests direct to my email address and not to the list. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art knowware@mindlink.bc.ca | does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm From LeoCasey@aol.com Mon Jan 27 13:35:04 1997 From: LeoCasey@aol.com by emout14.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) Mon, 27 Jan 1997 15:35:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 15:35:00 -0500 (EST) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Time and a half and tooth fairies, too In a message dated 97-01-27 14:54:29 EST, Tom Walker writes: << I'd push the argument one step further to say that overtime premiums are probably a major cause of the steep and steady increase in employer paid fringe benefits that occurred in the three decades after World War II. >> There is an unintentional irony (I leave aside the rather overwrought and deliberate irony which was intended) that this elaborate hypothetical should be done in the name of tooth fairies. Even a cursory glance at actual fringe benefits would show that the overwhelming bulk of such benefits is to be found in the field of health care, and that it is the ever rising cost of health care which has increased the relative weight of fringe benefits in the social wage. The notion that this is a deliberate strategy invoked by overtime (with the implicit laissez-faire lunancy that employers should be able to make workers work as long as they want without paying overtime) doesn't stand up to the most minimal of historical and social investigations. From knowware@mindlink.bc.ca Mon Jan 27 13:45:11 1997 by dewey.mindlink.net with smtp (Exim 1.58 #1) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 12:45:09 -0800 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: knowware@mindlink.bc.ca (Tom Walker) Subject: Re: Time and a half and tooth fairies, too Yes, exactly. Benefits have been going DOWN since -- when? -- the late 1970s when they peaked somewhere near the 30% range? With all the overwork and underemployment today, employers no longer have to rely on the leverage of fringe benefits to control labour costs. Hence fringes have lost their appeal to management and they have finished the job they were -- hypothetically speaking -- "intended" to do: offset the overtime premium to keep hourly costs steady. Eve770@aol.com wrote, >but benefits have been going DOWN, not up. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art knowware@mindlink.bc.ca | does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm From LORD_G@crob.flint.umich.edu Mon Jan 27 13:56:17 1997 From: "George Lord" To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 15:55:31 EST Subject: Re: Time and a half and tooth fairies, too The downward move of benefits is a recent trend. I am afraid the tale has much merit. The New Directions movement in the UAW has been trying to point this out to the UAW membership and to Solidarity house for over a decade. Alas the tale falls on deaf ears. Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 14:59:05 -0500 (EST) Reply-to: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Eve770@aol.com To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: Re: Time and a half and tooth fairies, too but benefits have been going DOWN, not up. George Lord Department of Sociology University of Michigan - Flint e-mail lord_g@flint.crob.umich.edu voice (810) 762-3340 fax (810) 762-3687 From knowware@mindlink.bc.ca Mon Jan 27 14:16:53 1997 by dewey.mindlink.net with smtp (Exim 1.58 #1) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:16:56 -0800 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: knowware@mindlink.bc.ca (Tom Walker) Subject: Re: Time and a half and tooth fairies, too Leo Casey wrote, >... The notion that this is a deliberate strategy invoked by >overtime (with the implicit laissez-faire lunancy that employers should be >able to make workers work as long as they want without paying overtime) >doesn't stand up to the most minimal of historical and social investigations. No, Leo, I'm not implying, as you seem to think, the "laissez-faire lunacy that employers should be able to make workers work as long as they want.."; I'm rejecting the LAZY-faire lunacy that a poorly thought-out, sixty-year old government policy with loopholes an ocean liner could pass through is any protection at all against employers making workers work as long as they want. Read my web pages and you'll see where I stand on the issue of working time. I think it's time workers should stop sucking their time and a half thumbs and say NO! to overtime. And I think its time people who style themselves friends of labour should stop relying on the intuitive appeal of "protective" legislation that has been rendered fundamentally useless and quite possibly downright iatrogenic (since you're so familiar with health care, you should know what that means). As far as standing up to the "most minimal of historical and social investigations" How about starting with a few of these?: Clark, R., Adjusting Hours to Increase Jobs: An Analysis of the Options, Washington, D.C.: National Commission for Manpower Policy, 1977. Golden, L.M. "Unions, Nonwage Labor Costs, and the Character of Labor Market Adjustment, 1929-1987," Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance.Vol. 32, No. 2, Summer 1992, pages 46-70. Gorz, Andre, Critique of Economic Reason, Verso, 1989. Hart, R.A., The Economics of Nonwage Labor Costs. London: Allen and Unwin, 1984. Hunnicutt, B. Work Without End: Abandoning Shorter Hours for the Right to Work_, Temple University Press, 1988. Ehrenberg, R.G., Fringe Benefits and Overtime Behavior: Theoretical and Econometric Analysis. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Company, 1971. Roediger, D. and P. Foner, Our Own Time: A History of American Labor and the Working Day, Greenwood Press, 1989. Shiff, Frank W. "Employment Taxes and Subsidies: Comment" Work Time and Employment: Conference Report, Washington, D.C.: National Commission for Manpower Policy, 1978, pages 311-316. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art knowware@mindlink.bc.ca | does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Jan 27 17:37:57 1997 Mon, 27 Jan 1997 16:35:40 -0800 (PST) Mon, 27 Jan 1997 16:34:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 16:34:40 -0800 (PST) To: H-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu, irra@relay.doit.wisc.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, united@cougar.com From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Job Description Sender: meisenscher@igc.org >Subject: Job Description > > >DIRECTOR >Labor Resource Center >College of Public and Community Service >University of Massachusetts Boston > > >POSITION DESCRIPTION: >The mission of the Labor Resource Center is to help strengthen the labor >movement and to support progressive social change and economic justice for >working people in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Center develops >educational programs, provides training and technical assistance to workers and >their organizations, conducts applied research, initiates and responds to policy >debates, and supports and facilitates collaborative efforts that impact on >social justice for working people. > >The Labor Resource Center is housed within the College of Public and Community >Service at the University of Massachusetts Boston. The Director of the Labor >Resource Center will function as program director for the Center, and will >report to the Dean of the College. The Director will head a team that includes >a Research Coordinator, Academic Coordinator, Extension Coordinator, and >administrative support staff. The Director will represent the Center within the >University and externally, and will oversee the development of partnerships with >other academic units and community-based resources to increase the CenterUs >capacity to fulfill its mission. > >The Director will oversee the development of a 3-year strategic plan for the >Center, and will be responsible for overseeing the development and >implementation of workplans for all three areas of the CenterUs work. The >Director will be expected to develop and participate in collaborative efforts >that support and further the mission of the Center and prepare it for evaluation >by the University. These efforts may include: design and delivery of >instructional activities, research, professional service, and fundraising. > >This will be a non-tenure track faculty appointment for four years, with an >evaluation of the position to be conducted in the fourth year. > >EXAMPLES OF DUTIES: >% Strategic Planning and Evaluation > + Oversee development of 3-year strategic plan ( including budget) > + Develop oversight and record-keeping system to prepare for CenterUs > > evaluation > + Oversee the production and distribution of CenterUs Annual Report >% Supervision and staff coordination > + Work with academic, research, and extension coordinators to develop > workplans consistent with the 3-year strategic plan for the Center > + Provide supervision to the three coordinators in implementation of the >plans > + Conduct regular performance reviews with staff > + Supervise administrative support staff > >% Fundraising > + Develop fundraising goals and strategies to fund 3-year plan > + Oversee annual fundraising and awards dinner > + Research and develop foundation and grant proposals and contract > opportunities > >% Coordination and Collaboration > + Coordinate CenterUs academic, research, and professional service work with > other centers within the College and statewide University system. > + Develop partnerships with academically- and community-based resources > to increase the CenterUs capacity to fulfill its mission and strategic >plan > >% Academic, Research and Professional Service Activities > + Participate in collaborative tasks and projects within the Center, >including: > teaching one course per year; participating in one major research or >professional > service activity. > + Work with Academic Coordinator to develop and implement a recruitment > > plan, and design and delivery of academic program > >% Advisory Board > + Develop Advisory BoardUs capacity and commitment to participate in > > fundraising and other activities related to the CenterUs mission > + Develop Board agendas and facilitate Board meetings > + Train and recruit new Board members, as needed. > >QUALIFICATIONS: >Applicants for the position should possess all or most of the following >qualifications: >%Terminal degree (Ph.D. preferred) in labor studies, social science, public >policy or related fields; >%Demonstrated experience in labor education (union or university-based) and >working with/or for labor unions and worker advocacy groups; >%Demonstrated experience in program administration, strategic planning, and >development and fundraising; >%Demonstrated experience and record of accomplishment in developing and >conducting funded research and education projects in labor related fields. >% Demonstrated commitment to fostering a diverse and supportive working >environment. >%Demonstrated capacity to move ideas from conception to implementation. > > Send inquires and applications to: Labor Studies Program University of Massachusetts-Boston 100 Morrissey Blvd. Dorchester, MA 02125-3393 From Furuhashi.1@osu.edu Mon Jan 27 19:12:53 1997 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:14:19 -0500 To: bfoley@andromeda.rutgers.edu, awald@umich.edu, englltg@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu, cshuman@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu, jgn+@osu.edu, kilty.1@osu.edu, markels.2@osu.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, psn@csf.colorado.edu, mlg-ics@andrew.cmu.edu, can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu, brobbins@interport.net, labor-l@yorku.ca, natlcong@gwuvm.gwu.edu From: Furuhashi.1@osu.edu (Yoshie Furuhashi) Subject: iu conference on humanities (fwd) >Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:29:12 -0500 (EST) >From: will murphy >Subject: iu conference on humanities (fwd) >The deadline for abstracts has been extended to February 15th. Keynote >speaker will be Stanley Aronowitz of CUNY, who has written extensively on >the issue of "work" (_The Jobless Future: Sci-tech and the Dogma of Work_). >Jeffrey Kittay, editor-in-chief of _Lingua Franca_ will also participate, >as will independent scholar Laura Stempel Mumford (_Love and Ideology in >the Afternoon: Soap Opera, Women, and Television Genre_), NAGPS >representative Brodie Dollinger, and Marc Bousquet, president of the MLA >Grad Student Caucus. Please contact Will Murphy at wimurphy@indiana.edu >if you have questions. Thanks >******************************************************************** > MEANS AND ENDS: WORKING IN THE HUMANITIES >******************************************************************** > >Indiana University Conference in the Humanities >April 10-12, 1997 > >If the category "work" presumes a teleology--work is a means to certain >ends--what are those ends, and how are they best served by our work? > >Papers are encouraged to engage debates about the means and ends of >intellectual work by addressing such topics as intellectual pursuit in >light of the "culture wars," professionalization in the humanities in the >corporate university, apprenticeship versus wage labor, the invisible >work of contemplation, the industry of art and literature, social >work(s), and the problem of defining "productivity" in the humanities. > >Proposals for panels and colloquia are welcome. We invite graduates, >undergraduates, faculty and administrators to contribute. Please send two >300-word abstracts (for a 15-minute presentation) by February 1, 1997, to >Means & Ends Conference, c/o Rebecca Gordon, English Department, >Ballantine 408, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405. For more >information please e-mail Rebecca Gordon at regordon@indiana.edu or Will >Murphy at wimurphy@indiana.edu. > From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Jan 27 23:14:47 1997 Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:13:56 -0800 (PST) Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:11:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:11:49 -0800 (PST) To: united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Markets, Privatization, and the Role of Government Sender: meisenscher@igc.org The following commentary relates importantly to the current discussion of privatization and the relevant and appropriate role of government. It is reproduced here by permission of the author, Frank Emspak. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- PRIVATIZATION: SHOULD MARKETS GOVERN? Frank Emspak School for Workers 610 Langdon ST. Madison, WI; 53703 Communications Workers of America Public and Health Care Workers Conference January 24-26, 1997 San Antonio. Texas "Government is inefficient." "Get government off our backs." `Everybody' knows some workers in the public sector do not work. "Freedom." These comments inundate our popular culture. Conservatives have transformed this culture into a political movement. An objective of that movement is to privatize the public sector and eliminate public sector workers- particularly unionized workers. In order to combat privatization we- workers, union members, members of our community need a vision that is more compelling than the opposition. We must challenge and defeat the idea that competition is a good way to measure public services. We need to defeat the notion that markets can govern. We have to affirm that people, not markets, must govern. "Government by the people, for the people and of the people" is democracy. Democracy is our value. I will address three issues; Should Markets Govern? (Values) Can markets govern? (Mechanisms) Cost issues: competition does not pay. SHOULD MARKETS GOVERN? Many people have faith in competition and the market. We are told from birth that the market is the only efficient way to distribute goods, evaluate quality, and price goods. However experience with the unregulated market has caused most people to develop an aversion to corporate monopolies. Their predatory practices lead to a demeaning of values, high prices, low quality, deficient service, and a suppression of innovation. The so called free market, unfettered by regulation leads to monopoly and a reduction of choice. The discussion of markets used to be associated with the private sector such as the selling of goods like cars or the provision of services, like railroads or utilities. Now, so called reformers pose the question of markets and competition in a different way. Conservatives suggest that the government is the monopoly and that it is a reform to have competition for the provision of public services. The competition will result in lower costs and better services. In other words the market will govern. In this system, users of public services are called customers. As we know from our own experience there is a big difference between being a customer and making meaningful decisions about the product that is produced. I prefer to be a citizen, with decision making powers, rather than a customer. What is our value system? First: People should govern. Second: People should govern and we should do it by enhancing our democratic structures, making them more useful, direct, powerful and responsive. Allowing markets to govern destroys the ability of people to govern. Allowing markets to govern subverts our democracy and community. Why is public governance incompatible with letting markets govern? Private sector firms are in existence to make a profit. Markets function to maximize profit. Profit maximization is not necessarily a measure of good government or good service. Other objectives govern the public sector and the provisioning of public services. Other measures of government and service are desirable. The political process sets these objectives and the standards. The political process is a process which by right all of us can join. The private sector decison making process is by law private. Every citizen does not have the right to join and set policy. Money determines citizenship in the private sector. In other words the public process is founded on the idea of citizenship- we are all Americans. Participation through ownership (wealth) is the basis of participation in the private sector decision making. For example: a basic consensus in the society determines the provision of certain public services. It is a bad idea to have impure water, no sewage treatment and thus poor health. When the private sector supplied water it was so bad that epidemics resulted in New York in the 1840ies, and St. Louis after the civil war. The utter failure of the private sector to supply clean water at a profit led cities to develop publicly owned water utilities. Fire protection was (and maybe is) another example. In the past, the ability to pay determined fire protection. About half of NY city burned down in the mid 19th century as different fire companies refused to put out fires at locations that did not subscribe to their service. After the fire it dawned on the city fathers that everybody needed fire protection. Leaders of the community came to accept a new value- public good. People said the public health and safety was more important than private profit. Here is another example: Public libraries. Public libraries- particularly 'free' public libraries are based on the value that it is a good thing for citizens to be able to get information, books, records, culture. This is a value- all people should be able to access knowledge. Political leaders did not generally accept the value of free public access to knowledge until the beginning of the twentieth century. People paid to join libraries. One of the largest libraries in Boston is still a private fee based establishment. Anyone with a couple of hundred dollars can use it. It has nice chairs, a beautiful reading room, lots of books and not too many people. So it is not crowded. The Athenaeum represents the idea that knowledge is a private commodity that only some people can have. Free public libraries make a value statement: public access to knowledge is important- the ability to pay is not. Obviously the private, for profit sector has as its central value `pay or else.' So far, as we can see, from a logical point of view, markets are not a good government idea. They work at cross purposes to government. While markets might be able to set a price, markets cannot set value. Slave markets are the most extreme example of this concept. The market set prices. The market destroyed democratic values, family values, and humanitarian values. So our conclusion is markets should not govern. This is a value statement. People, through the democratic process should govern. If the problem is with democracy, we should strengthen it. (An aside; Bankers and their friends want to `reform' Social Security. The same argument is being made: markets- in this case the Stock Market, provides better value than the `government run' Social Security system. Bear in mind that it was the utter failure of the private sector, the market, to provide for older people and disabled people that caused workers to demand social security. The collapse of the stock and bond market along with real-estate markets resulted in social security.) CAN MARKETS GOVERN? Even if we do not think markets should govern -- can they? Are services better? Can the public officials get the information they need to make good decisions if parts of the system are privatized? Are markets a good way to make decisions? CWA members here in Texas face the threat of privatization. Apparently the legislature wants to privatize 24 or so programs providing social services. If Texas is like other states downsizing fanatics have proposed privatizing information services (MIS), and statistical collection services. Many other states, like Wisconsin try to contract out specific technical jobs, like reading medical slides in the public health area, or parts of the Forestry service. There is a tremendous amount of information embodied in the collective knowledge of people who work in the public sector. As CWA members from Texas point out when citizens can come face to face with them and talk, then the citizens can better understand the rules and regulations and thus get the assistance they need. Most privatization schemes foresee the "savings" by reducing this labor intensive but needed service. Eliminating people undermines service provision thus confirming the view that "government" cannot do the job. "Government" does not seem to work. In many states skilled public sector workers manage the data bases, collect the information, collate and write reports about the economy, public health, the condition of the roads, soil, and crops. State legislatures and the public can and should depend upon these skilled servants for the public, for unbiased and accurate information. The key words here are `public servants'. In a privatization mode, these people are not public servants. They are employees of some other entity and expected to generate a profit. Therefore the information they collect may be presented in ways that are biased, not collected at all because of cost reasons, or if it is collected, may not be available in the public domain. The ability of elected officials and the public to have access to the data necessary to make informed decisions is undermined. Information systems, computer maintenance, the maintenance of the heating and cooling systems is another area that states and entities like to farm out. Electronic Data Services is a stunning example of a so called private, competition mongering up right capitalist firm that has lived at the public's expense since its founding. They are a data processing and manipulation firm. What happens when a firm like EDS, Arthur Anderson consulting or Johnson Controls takes over some important and highly profitable technical service? The intellectual and skills base within the public work force are farmed out and disappears. The technical skills necessary to manage erode. Even if at some future date public policy changes and there is a desire to take back the public functions there would be a tremendous reentry cost. Thus the result of letting markets govern is a deterioration of the concept of government. Letting markets govern the repair and maintenance of software systems gives monopoly control of crucial services to a private corporation. Monopoly control derives from same reason that the public sector cannot re-enter the business: cost. In other words, competition ceases the day the contract is let. Advocates of competition lose the excuse for farming out these important services the day they are farmed out. The market cannot deliver low cost, competition and better services. COSTS Lets take a look at costs. Accountants have not agreed on a costing system that accurately measures public sector costs. Financial managers disagree on the definition of total costs- wages, benefits, equipment, depreciation, insurance, and so called one time startup costs. In addition most citizens want to measure quality. General standards for performance rarely are precise enough to measure the quality of services. For example a standard of performance may require that a user has access to informat ion. But a quality standard might require that "access" be defined as convenient, accessible human contact. Do you speak to a person or a telephone answering system? Are people or the bottom line being served? I have distributed copies of a model costing system that we are suggesting. Financial managers in the state of Wisconsin said they liked the system except for one thing- they did not think one time transition costs were needed. `Why?" We asked. Because it made the private service look more expensive "than it actually was." We asked `Didn't you need to spend the money?' The answer was `Yes but only once.' Costs are important for us to understand. Our challenge is both ideological and practical. We need to defeat the idea that the market should rule. But we must also be attentive to the problem of bloated costs. A thorough review of costs helps us understand where they really are. Costing can provide some ideas as to how the union can react to reengineer the system in the interests of the client's and the members. The union can now take the offensive. The union did that in Mississippi. The union can propose changes that would reduce costs, improve the service and in all probability eliminate costly management positions. In almost all the cases that we have studied and in all the projects in which we have participated, no actual service providers had to be laid off in order to reduce costs. Why is costing important? In most places costs are an issue. For some people costs are THE issue. Thus we need to respond. The Nursing Information Development Group is one example of a response. Nurses, members of Local 1199, United Professionals for Quality Health Care- SEIU and the Nursing Administration at the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, redesigned the information system. The School for Workers trained the participants and facilitated the meetings. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service provided some financial support. A committee of nurses selected by the union undertook to define the system they needed to support their work as nurses. The key objective was to provide enhanced nursing care to the patient at the bedside. Therefore nurses had to be designed into the system, not viewed as some adjunct to the system. Keeping the nurse at a nursing station using an unfriendly computer system was not the best way to deliver care in the opinion of the nurses. Nursing management and the union reached consensus on the designs. They were able to get significant support from the hospital administration. The administration was interested because the nurses design reduced the cost of the software system. Costs for software are in the millions of dollars. Savings generated by fixing the system far outweigh any costs that could be saved by laying off nurses. The NISDG put the skill back in the hands of the nurse and took it way from the software. That is why our software will cost less. The union understood issues of cost and devised an innovative way of addressing the cost issue while at the same time strengthening the hand of the nurses and potentially improving the delivery of care.. Political leadership in Wisconsin also has demonstrated that even if costs are less in the public sector, they will move to privatize anyway. The state made an ideological decision. Nonetheless, we think that we need to win the cost battle as the basis for forming a broader political coalition with others. Without getting into a detailed description, the State of Wisconsin decided to contract out the system that will monitor the new W-2 Welfare system. The Wisconsin Federation of Teachers who represent the affected bargaining unit members have demonstrated that doing the service in house would not only cost less, but allow state employees to grow with the technology and be fully capable of maintaining the system. The state went ahead and awarded the contract anyway. Newspapers covered the controversy especially the WFT's discussions of the cost. Because the WFT showed that the costs to keep the work in the public sector were less than the private contractor many people in the public who had accepted the idea of the more efficient private sector no longer do. When the state moved to privatize the lottery the state encountered significant opposition. At this point, the Governor seems to have dropped the idea. We should remember one thing. There is practically no data whatsoever to support the idea that the private sector is an effective deliverer of public services. Even in cases where it appears that the private sector can deliver services, we find that the service is of limited extent. When we compare costs on an equal basis, particularly when we take into consideration the length of time, quality of service and the population served, the private sector does not deliver services at less expense than the public sector. The government is delivering public services because of the complete inability of the private sector to deliver the service with high quality, over a long term and with a profit. CONCLUSION We need to win two arguments in order to prevail. First we must defeat the ideological issues raised by the privateers. To do this we need to make affirmative defense of democracy, and the ability of people to govern using the democratic process. Second, we need to defeat the costing issue by a serious look at how things are, but an equally aggressive and innovative examination of how things could be. By doing the two, especially in conjunction with the users, we are also strengthening the idea of democratic control of the public sector. ----------------------------------- femspak@igc.apc.org From DON@server.sasw.ncsu.edu Tue Jan 28 15:22:09 1997 From: "Don Tomaskovic-Devey" To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:20:50 EST Subject: SSSP Reply-to: DON@server.sasw.ncsu.edu I am organizing a session on work, organizations and inequality for the SSSP labor section. I still have room for good papers. Anyone interested in Toronto in August? Don Tomaskovic-Devey Sociology North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8107 Donald Tomaskovic-Devey Sociology, North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8107 919-515-9022 (voice) 919-515-2610 (fax) don@server.sasw.ncsu.edu From knowware@mindlink.bc.ca Tue Jan 28 23:34:00 1997 by dewey.mindlink.net with smtp (Exim 1.58 #1) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:34:04 -0800 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: knowware@mindlink.bc.ca (Tom Walker) Subject: Re: SSSP Don Tomaskovic-Devey asked, >I am organizing a session on work, organizations and inequality for >the SSSP labor section. I still have room for good papers. Anyone >interested in Toronto in August? How about April in Paris, instead? Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art knowware@mindlink.bc.ca | does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Tue Jan 28 23:49:09 1997 Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:47:46 -0800 (PST) Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:45:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:45:40 -0800 (PST) To: united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, shniad@sfu.ca, abudak@alumni.ysu.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: NAFTA - Plant Closures Impacts Sender: meisenscher@igc.org Here is the Executive Summary of a study performed by Kate Bronfenbrenner at Cornell University on the imnpact of NAFTA on plant closure threats during organizing campaigns and subsequent closures. (Reported in this week's Business Week) ====================================================================== EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Final Report: The Effects of Plant Closing or Threat of Plant Closing on the Right of Workers to Organize Submitted to the Labor Secretariat of the North American Commission for Labor Cooperation by Kate Bronfenbrenner, Cornell University In July 1994, Sprint shut down their Hispanic marketing division in San Francisco, La Conexion Familiar, just one week before workers there were scheduled to vote in an NLRB election for representation by CWA. While the case slowly made its way through the NLRB process, the Mexican Telephone Workers Union, on behalf of CWA, filed a complaint under the NAFTA labor side agreement, charging that Sprint's actions violated the rights of their employees to organize under U.S. labor law. As an outgrowth of the Sprint case, the tri-national Labor Secretariat of the Commission for Labor Cooperation was directed by the Labor Ministries of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada to conduct a study "on the effects of the sudden closing of the plant on the principle of freedom of association and the right of workers to organize in the three countries." As part of this study, the Labor Secretariat asked Kate Bronfenbrenner, Director of Labor Education Research at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations, to conduct a study of the effects of plant closing or threat of plant closing on the right of workers to organize in the United States. The study was begun May 15, 1996, with the final report submitted to the Secretariat September 30, 1996. The Secretariat then incorporated the findings from the Cornell study into their larger report "Plant Closings and Workers Rights" which also includes research analyzing court and labor relations agency cases relating to plant closings and the threat of plant closings during organizing drives in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. As specified in the agreement that came out of the Ministerial Consultations between the Secretaries of Labor of U.S. and Mexico, the Secretariat's report was submitted to the labor departments of the three countries in early October for their prompt comment and review. Within the 45 days allotted for review, Canada and Mexico approved the report pending a few minor revisions. Based on their recommendations, a revised report was submitted to the three labor departments on December 17, 1996. Now, more than a month after they submitted the revised report, and more than three months after submitting their original report, the Secretariat still awaits a response from the U.S. Labor Department before it can release the report. The Cornell portion of the study involves an in-depth examination of the role played by plant closings and threats of plant closings in private sector union organizing and first contract campaigns over the three year period from January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1995. Through surveys, personal interviews, documentary evidence, and the use of electronic databases, the Cornell researchers were able to collect detailed data on the extent and nature of plant closings and plant closing threats in more than 500 organizing campaigns and 100 first contract campaigns. What the study found is that, although Sprint's behavior at La Conexion Familiar was extreme, it was not an aberration. The majority of private sector employers threaten a full or partial shutdown of their facilities during organizing campaigns, and a significant minority proceed to shut-down the facility after the union wins the election. The findings for the study can be summarized as follows: * Where employers can credibly threaten to shut down and/or move their operations in response to union activity, they do so in large numbers. Overall, over 50 percent of all employers made threats to close all or part of the plant during the organizing drive. The threat rate is significantly higher, 62 percent, in mobile industries such as manufacturing, transportation, and warehouse/distribution, compared to a 36 percent threat rate in relatively immobile industries such as construction, health care, education, retail, and other services. * In the 40 percent of the campaigns where the union won the election, 18 percent of employers threatened to close the plant rather than bargain a first contract with the union, and 12 percent of the employers followed through on threats made during the organizing campaign and actually shutdown all or part of the plant before a first contract was reached. Another 3 percent of employers closed down the plant before a second agreement was reached. This 15 percent shutdown rate within two years of the certification election victory is triple the rate found by researchers who examined post-election plant closing rates in the late 1980s, before NAFTA went into effect. * The study found that not only are threats of plant closing an extremely pervasive part of employer campaigns, they are also very effective. At 33 percent, the election win rate associated with campaigns where the employer made plant closing threats is significantly lower than the 47 percent win rate found in units where no threats occurred. * Threats of plant closing were found to be unrelated to the financial condition of the company, with threats no less likely to occur in companies in a stable financial condition than those on the edge of bankruptcy. Instead threats seemed to be primarily motivated out of anti-union animus by employers. Over 80 percent of the campaigns where threats occurred also involved aggressive legal and illegal employer behavior such as discharges for union activity, electronic surveillance, illegal unilateral changes in wages or benefits, bribes, promises of improvement, and promotion of union activists out of the unit. * Not surprising, given that direct unambiguous threats to close the plant in response to union organizing activity are clearly in violation of the law, most of the employers chose to make their threats indirectly and verbally. Still 19 percent of the election campaigns with threats included specific unambiguous written threats ranging from attaching shipping labels to equipment throughout the plant with a Mexican address, to posting maps of North America with an arrow pointing from the current plant site to Mexico, to a letter directly stating the company will have to shut down if the union wins an election. Another 44 percent involved specific and unambiguous verbal threats such as the employer stating clearly in captive audience meetings that, if the employees voted in favor of union representation the plant might shut down, to supervisors telling individual workers that their involvement in the union campaign might mean a loss of jobs for everyone in the workplace. * In more than 10 percent of the campaigns with threats, the employer directly threatened to move to Mexico if the workers were to organize. In other cases the threat to move to Mexico was less direct, either expressed as "moving South," or that "given NAFTA we may need to reconsider our options." * The study found that the ripple effect from the plants which actually closed went well beyond the units where the closings occurred. Photographs, newspaper clippings, and video news stories of units which had shutdown during or after an organizing drive were one of the most common means by which other employers expressed a plant closing threat during organizing campaigns in their workplaces. * The study concludes that NAFTA has created a climate that has emboldened employers to more aggressively threaten to close, or actually close their plants to avoid unionization. The only way to create the kind of climate envisioned by the original drafters of the NLRA, where workers can organize free from coercion, threats, and intimidation, would be through a significant expansion of both worker and union rights and employer penalties in the organizing process both through substantive reform to U.S. labor laws and by amendments to the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation. ************************************************** Michael Eisenscher Workers Education Local 189, CWA Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program University of Massachusetts-Boston 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610-3131 ------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org ************************************************* "We are not merely an economy, but also a culture." "It has never been economics alone that defines America. If we choose, as a culture, to push back against the economic forces that would otherwise divide us, it is within our power to do so." -- Robert Reich -- Resignation address From kcwalker@syr.edu Wed Jan 29 02:38:29 1997 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 04:40:54 -0500 (EST) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Kelley Walker Subject: Re: SSSP Professor Tomaskovic-Devey: I would be interested in presenting a paper on this topic. My dissertation research is on corporate downsizing and managers response to changes in the workplace. I have already completed a research monograph that was part of a larger team research project, The Educational LIfe of the Community Study funded by the Spencer Foundation. The paper, "Learning the New Rules of Work" won the outstanding graduate student paper award last fall at the New York State Sociological Association Meetings. I'll keep this message short, as my work may not be what you're looking for. If you are interested, however, let me know and I will send you more information. Kelley Walker kcwalker@mailbox.syr.edu Dept of Sociology Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Syracuse University From donjprat@mailbox.syr.edu Wed Jan 29 07:50:57 1997 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:50:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:50:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald J. Pratt" Reply-To: "Donald J. Pratt" To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: Re: NAFTA - Plant Closures Impacts In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970128224454.456f3dc0@pop.igc.org> Organization: Syracuse University This is a very important report -- thank you for posting it. The authors' recommendation to patch up the problem with protective legislation seems like wishful thinking. IMO, The federal government is not committed (fiscally or otherwise) to the ENFORCEMENT of the current set of NLRB rules. Is it too far-fetched to hope that somehow organized labor and citizens groups could coalesce to roll back NAFTA -- either in whole or part? Don Pratt donjprat@syr.edu Department of Sociology Syracuse University Syracuse, NY 13244 From cxhaha@mail.wm.edu Wed Jan 29 08:07:46 1997 From: "Cindy Hahamovitch" To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:57:43 +0000 Subject: Re: SSSP Sounds great, Kelley. Go ahead and send an abstract. If you know others working on similar topics, do encourage them to collaborate with you. That way, you'll know you fit into the conference. If not, I'll do my best to find you a spot. Please send a title, an approx. one-page abstract, a bio, and your phone number and mailing address. Email is fine. Thanks, Cindy Cindy Hahamovitch Assistant Professor of History College of William & Mary Phone: 804-221-3770 Internet: cxhaha@mail.wm.edu From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Jan 29 22:49:04 1997 Wed, 29 Jan 1997 21:47:41 -0800 (PST) Wed, 29 Jan 1997 21:47:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 21:47:03 -0800 (PST) To: united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, H-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: California to privatize welfare? Sender: meisenscher@igc.org >Los Angeles Times Monday, January 27, 1997 > >PRIVATIZATION EMERGES AS NEW WELFARE >OPTION > > By Dave Lesher, Times Staff Writer > >SACRAMENTO--Gov. Pete Wilson, in the fine print of a welfare reform plan >he issued earlier this month, quietly opened the door to a striking new idea of >hiring private corporations to run public assistance programs. > >The proposal has scarcely been noticed in the Capitol, where lawmakers are >still focused on questions such as how much care the state should provide--and >to whom. > >But elsewhere, California is being closely watched by a fledgling industry of >conglomerates, major charities and venture capitalists that are banking on >welfare reform to become a multibillion-dollar enterprise nationwide. > >"We are positioning ourselves to do everything we can in California," said >Robert Stauffer, a vice president in the human services division of Electronic >Data Systems Corp. in Dallas. "We want to be involved." > >The governor's privatization idea stems from his attempt--encouraged by the >counties --to provide local government with substantial discretion over how >they will meet strict schedules for moving hundreds of thousands of welfare >recipients into the work force. > >Wilson would like the state to set the rules--such as standards of care and >caseload reduction goals--then get out of the way and allow counties to design >their programs. > >The governor's plan would allow counties to "enter into performance-based >contracts with nonprofit or for-profit" companies to operate nearly all or parts >of their welfare programs. > >"The governor has said many times that government alone is not the solution," >said Lisa Kalustian, deputy press secretary to the governor. > >The idea is welcomed by county officials. "They should be allowed to contract >out as much as they deem appropriate," said Frank Mecca, lobbyist for the >County Welfare Directors Assn. of California. > >But privatization of any government function has been hotly contested in >Sacramento. And officials expect that welfare will be even more complex since >there are huge consequences for thousands of poor families. For government >officials who are intimidated or confused by welfare reform, the idea might >offer relief. But labor unions, fearing the loss of jobs, are planning to oppose >the idea. And community advocates say they are concerned about the ethics of >injecting profits into the government's traditional role as caretaker of the poor. > >"I still have trouble with the whole concept of making a profit on the backs of >the poor," said Anne Arnesan, director of the Council on Children and Families >in Wisconsin. > >Private contractors already have been used in many California welfare offices >for limited assignments, such as bookkeeping, delinquent child support >collection, computerized record keeping or work training. But the governor's >proposal is potentially far more sweeping. > >Wisconsin is implementing a plan that is similar to Wilson's proposal. There, in >one county, state authorities are studying proposals from companies about how >they would run the welfare program. > >When the contract is awarded, welfare applicants in Milwaukee County will be >screened, trained and placed in jobs by the employees of a private company-- >some of whom may be former welfare recipients themselves. > >Texas is also poised to offer at least a $500-million contract that could transfer >the majority of care for its 690,000 welfare recipients to private control. > >Already, in both states, the opportunities have sparked intense competition >among a range of small to giant corporations--both profit-making and nonprofit >ones. > >In Texas, the major bidders include two consortia. One represents Lockheed >Martin Corp., IBM and the Texas Workforce Commission. Another is >composed of Electronic Data Systems Corp., Unisys Corp. and the state >Department of Human Services. A third major bidder is the giant accounting >firm of Arthur Anderson & Co. > >In Wisconsin, the bidding has attracted major charities, including United Way >and Goodwill Industries. > >Since the contracts being awarded are unprecedented, industry officials said, >the potential for profit is still speculative. Privately, though, officials said most >companies expect a profit of at least 3% to 4% of the contract value. In >Wisconsin, the maximum profit is being written into the contracts. > >The strongest attraction, however, is the potential for billions of dollars in new >business. And the gold rush already has begun. Maximus Corp. in McLean, >Va., has worked exclusively as a private contractor in welfare offices >nationwide for more than 20 years. But in the last year, the company has >doubled in size, going from a $50-million operation in 1995 to $105 million in >1996. It expects to do the same this year. > >Welfare reform "is, as yet, an undetermined revenue pool," said Kevin >Gedding, a Maximus spokesman. "But there are billions of dollars in potential >project work that need to be done in the next four to five years." > >The intensity of the competition is reflected in some of the buyers-market >contract proposals. > >Maximus told officials in Wisconsin that it can run the welfare office at a 10% >to 40% savings and guarantee a significant caseload reduction. It promised to >pay a year of welfare benefits to each extra recipient if it fails to reach the >goal. > >Maximus, like other companies, has also sought openings to government by >hiring some of the top talents in public welfare offices. Just more than a year >ago, it recruited Larry Townsend from Riverside County after he became >something of a celebrity in national welfare reform circles for his work in >creating a widely acclaimed jobs program. > >"This will be one of the greatest challenges ever given to local government," >said Townsend. "We have something really interesting to offer in California." > >Electronic Data Systems also has been working with welfare offices for nearly >35 years, starting when Ross Perot founded the company in 1962 with a >contract to manage the Texas Medicaid program. EDS, no longer headed by >Perot, has held contracts in California for more than 20 years and is now >running the state's Medicaid billing. > >"We are bringing in the best of the public sector and the private sector," >Stauffer said. "We bring ideas from the commercial world as well as things >done well in other countries or other states." > >Despite the opportunities, California officials predict that extensive >privatization will be a difficult sell here. > >For one thing, new legislation is required to clear the way for the extensive >privatization that Wilson's proposal would allow. Similar legislation has >already been rejected by lawmakers for the last two years. > >"In the past, we have had a very cautious eye toward privatization," said Pat >Leary, analyst with the Democrat-controlled Senate Budget Committee. "But >with as many new members as we have, I have no idea how it will do." > >Mecca predicts that there could be a wide range of interest from counties. So >far, he said, the county experience with private contractors in welfare has been >generally favorable. But it has not always proved to be better than government. > >Orange County, for example, has split its territory in half so the government >welfare staff could compete with Maximus to see which operation could move >more people into the work force. Both sides have exceeded their job >placement goals. But in the fiscal year that ended in June, county workers won >the competition. They found jobs for 3,679 welfare recipients compared to >2,473 for Maximus. So far in this fiscal year, officials say, the two groups are >running about even. > >"Part of that is no doubt due to a learning curve as Maximus came up to >speed," said Jerry Dunn, who oversees the county's work placement program. > >Maximus also was hired in Los Angeles County to operate a work training >program. Its contract was dropped in 1993, when the county's interest in >privatization cooled and critics questioned the amount of savings generated. >Maximus left with a letter of commendation from the county welfare office. > >Today, Los Angeles officials are uncertain about their future privatization >plans. > >"In general, the county favors programmatic flexibility," said Phil Ansell, >welfare reform strategist for the county social services department. "The >question of how the county would utilize that flexibility is a downstream >decision." > > ************************************************** Michael Eisenscher Workers Education Local 189, CWA Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program University of Massachusetts-Boston 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610-3131 ------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org ************************************************* "We are not merely an economy, but also a culture." "It has never been economics alone that defines America. If we choose, as a culture, to push back against the economic forces that would otherwise divide us, it is within our power to do so." -- Robert Reich -- Resignation address "[There is a] growing assertion that globalization and technological change make inevitable low wages and inequalities....The counter argument that has not gained much popular support is that inequalities result from human agency; they are not the inevitable consequence of 'progress.'" S.M. Miller and Charles Collins "Growing Economic Fairness" Social Policy, Summer 1996 From rsaute@email.gc.cuny.edu Thu Jan 30 08:33:57 1997 30 Jan 1997 10:33:36 -0400 (EDT) 30 Jan 1997 10:33:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 10:33:34 -0500 (EST) From: ROBERT SAUTE To: pen-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu, psn@csf.colorado.edu, Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu X-attachments: F:\RBS\SOCSCHOL\SAVEDATE.TXT; --=====================_854649201==_ --=====================_854649201==_ **1997 SOCIALIST SCHOLARS CONFERENCE** **RADICAL ALTERNATIVES ON THE EVE OF THE MILLENNIUM** ** MARCH 28 TO 30 ** The 1997 Socialist Scholars Conference will be held the weekend of March 28 to 30, 1997 at Borough of Manhattan Community College, 199 Chambers Street, in downtown Manhattan. The Conference's theme is "Radical Alternatives on the Eve of the Millennium." Each year the Socialist Scholars Conference, the largest gathering of the Left in the United States, attracts between 1500 and 2,000 intellectuals and activists from more than a dozen countries. At one hundred panels, plenaries, and workshops, scholars and militants debate and exchange ideas about struggles around the world and in our communities. Last year's Conference hosted spirited debates on the "end of work" vs. jobs for all; identity politics and the Left's universalism; Cuban economists on market reform; the Million Man March; and the war on drugs. This year panels will discuss changes in the labor movement at the top and bottom; independent politics and NY's race for mayor; struggles for survival and justice in Asia, Africa and Latin America; bringing culture back in; on the eve of the European Union; and dozens of others on race, ecology, gender, class, and building a better world. Already, we have confirmations from Bob Wages, President of the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, Barbara Ehrenreich, Paco Ignacio Taibo II, Frances Fox Piven, Stanley Aronowitz, Alan Sokal, Meera Nanda, Ellen Meiksins Wood, David Abdulah, Leo Panitch, Elaine Bernard, Harry Magdoff, Daniel Singer, Doug Henwood, Mimi Abramowitz, Carlos Vilas, Hector Figueroa, Barbara Epstein, Joel Rogers, Ellen Willis, Istvan Meszaros, Paul Sweezy, Bogdan Denitch, and the list is growing. The majority of panels each year are put together by participants and not the organizers. Here is your chance to combine theory and practice. Write to us for further details. The Socialist Scholars Conference is a great place to renew old acquaintances, meet new comrades, and share ideas. We hope to see you there! DETAILS: When: 6:00 PM Friday March 28 to 6:00 PM Sunday March 30, 1997 Conference material will be available only at the door. Where: Borough of Manhattan Community College, 199 Chambers Street, New York City Cost: Pre-registration (postmarked by March 14, 1997) Regular Income $30 Low Income $20 Undergraduate/HS $8 One Day $15 On-site Registration Regular Income $45 Low Income $30 Undergraduate/HS $8 One Day $20 Checks should be made payable to: Socialist Scholars Conference c/o Sociology, CUNY Graduate Center 33 West 42nd Street New York, NY 10036 For further information write to the above address or call (212) 642-2826, or email us at risserle@email.gc.cuny.edu Look for our soon to be in place web page at: http://www.soc.qc.edu/ssc +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PLEASE REGISTER ME FOR THE 1997 SOCIALIST SCHOLARS CONFERENCE Name:________________________________________________ Address:_____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ City:____________________ State:______ Zip:________ Amount Enclosed:__________ For one day admission, which day? Fri:____ Sat:____ Sun:___ Return registrations to: Socialist Scholars Conference, c/o Sociology/GSUC, 33 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036-8099. Early registrations must be postmarked by March 14, 1997. Registration material to be picked up at the door. --=====================_854649201==_-- From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Thu Jan 30 12:11:48 1997 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 11:11:34 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Re: California to privatize welfare? To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970129214614.0f3f4974@pop.igc.org> I don't see privatization of welfare as necessarily a bad thing dependent on certain "ifs". Among those: If the workfare recipients can form unions; if they can also form their own workfare companies; if there is workfare with choice as in Ontario. Others? FWP. *** To discuss any and all aspects of Canadian and U.S. Constitutions send one word, subscribe, in email body to CONSTITUTION-Request@websightz.com; http://www.websightz.com/constitution; www.websightz.com/ftr_cities *** From donjprat@mailbox.syr.edu Thu Jan 30 14:05:55 1997 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 16:05:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 16:05:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald J. Pratt" Reply-To: "Donald J. Pratt" To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: Re: California to privatize welfare? In-Reply-To: Organization: Syracuse University On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Franklin Wayne Poley wrote: > I don't see privatization of welfare as necessarily a bad thing > dependent on certain "ifs". Among those: If the workfare recipients can > form unions; if they can also form their own workfare companies; if there > is workfare with choice as in Ontario. Others? > FWP. I'm confused as to why you're mixing the issue of privatizing welfare with the rather different issue of workfare. There's no real relation between the two. My greatest fear with regard to privatizing the delivery of welfare services -- especially for profit -- is that the companies operating will have a basic conflict between the profit motive and welfare's main purpose. Won't these companies be more interested in ruthlessly cutting costs, (e.g., by denying their "clients" (!) benefits for which they are eligible, and by giving them short shrift in general) than in making sure that the needy are assisted? Finally, I'm quite sceptical that that there is anything exemplary to be found in the policies of Ontario's Tory government, whether it's workfare, "megacity" (amalgamation of the GTA), or anything else. Don Pratt donjprat@syr.edu Sociology Dept. Syracuse University From carre@radmail.harvard.edu Thu Jan 30 14:22:13 1997 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 16:14:59 -0500 From: Francoise Carre To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: California to privatize welfare? -Reply Reply to Don Pratt's comment that the initial writer is mixing the issue of privatizing welfare with the issue of workfare. There is a possibility that both will indeed go hand in hand. As private vendors, such as temp staffing services, line up to provide job placement services under public contracts, workfare will have given rise to yet another form of private welfare service provision. F. Carre >>> Donald J. Pratt 01/30/97 04:05pm >>> On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Franklin Wayne Poley wrote: > I don't see privatization of welfare as necessarily a bad thing > dependent on certain "ifs". Among those: If the workfare recipients can > form unions; if they can also form their own workfare companies; if there > is workfare with choice as in Ontario. Others? > FWP. I'm confused as to why you're mixing the issue of privatizing welfare with the rather different issue of workfare. There's no real relation between the two. My greatest fear with regard to privatizing the delivery of welfare services -- especially for profit -- is that the companies operating will have a basic conflict between the profit motive and welfare's main purpose. Won't these companies be more interested in ruthlessly cutting costs, (e.g., by denying their "clients" (!) benefits for which they are eligible, and by giving them short shrift in general) than in making sure that the needy are assisted? Finally, I'm quite sceptical that that there is anything exemplary to be found in the policies of Ontario's Tory government, whether it's workfare, "megacity" (amalgamation of the GTA), or anything else. Don Pratt donjprat@syr.edu Sociology Dept. Syracuse University From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Thu Jan 30 18:57:30 1997 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 17:56:35 -0800 (PST) Thu, 30 Jan 1997 17:55:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 17:55:42 -0800 (PST) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, Labor Research and Action Project From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Re: California to privatize welfare? Sender: meisenscher@igc.org At 04:05 PM 1/30/97 -0500, Donald J. Pratt wrote: >On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Franklin Wayne Poley wrote: >My greatest fear with regard to privatizing the delivery of welfare >services -- especially for profit -- is that the companies operating >will have a basic conflict between the profit motive and welfare's >main purpose. Won't these companies be more interested in ruthlessly >cutting costs, (e.g., by denying their "clients" (!) benefits for >which they are eligible, and by giving them short shrift in general) >than in making sure that the needy are assisted? I heartily concur. Privatized welfare means profit-driven companies treating recipients as costs rather than clients. Like every firm operating on the profit-movtive, they will seek to trim costs in order to maximize profit. ************************************************** Michael Eisenscher Workers Education Local 189, CWA Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program University of Massachusetts-Boston 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610-3131 ------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org ************************************************* "We are not merely an economy, but also a culture." "It has never been economics alone that defines America. If we choose, as a culture, to push back against the economic forces that would otherwise divide us, it is within our power to do so." -- Robert Reich -- Resignation address "[There is a] growing assertion that globalization and technological change make inevitable low wages and inequalities....The counter argument that has not gained much popular support is that inequalities result from human agency; they are not the inevitable consequence of 'progress.'" S.M. Miller and Charles Collins "Growing Economic Fairness" Social Policy, Summer 1996 From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Thu Jan 30 20:19:23 1997 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 19:19:06 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Re: California to privatize welfare? To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu In-Reply-To: On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Donald J. Pratt wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Franklin Wayne Poley wrote: > > I don't see privatization of welfare as necessarily a bad thing > > dependent on certain "ifs". Among those: If the workfare recipients can > > form unions; if they can also form their own workfare companies; if there > > is workfare with choice as in Ontario. Others? > > FWP. > > I'm confused as to why you're mixing the issue of privatizing welfare > with the rather different issue of workfare. There's no real relation > between the two. Professor Pratt: I think it is helpful to envisage two broad categories of welfare recipients: those who are employable and those not employable because of physical and/or mental handicaps. When I refer to workfare/learnfare I am talking about the former. I would say the latter are more the concern of the health care system. > My greatest fear with regard to privatizing the delivery of welfare > services -- especially for profit -- is that the companies operating > will have a basic conflict between the profit motive and welfare's > main purpose. Won't these companies be more interested in ruthlessly > cutting costs, (e.g., by denying their "clients" (!) benefits for > which they are eligible, and by giving them short shrift in general) > than in making sure that the needy are assisted? I believe the employable on welfare are as capable of doing profitable work as anyone else. I went to Stats Canada and I drew the vocational skill and education profiles of officially employed and officially unemployed. There was little difference. There is a small preponderance of lower education and skill levels for the unemployed. However, the unemployed in these stats would include welfare and non-welfare, medically handicapped and non-handicapped. If we removed the medical cases I don't think the groups would differ significantly. > Finally, I'm quite sceptical that that there is anything exemplary to > be found in the policies of Ontario's Tory government, whether it's > workfare, "megacity" (amalgamation of the GTA), or anything else. I think the Workfare with Choice program which they have just started on is exemplary. However it needs to go further. Given that workfare welfare recipients are as capable as other workers, why not equal pay? Why not the right to unionize? Are they a threat to those already employed? I don't think so. That was said about immigration. But immigrants match other citizens in income. So was that just racism? And is the fear of workfare welfare recipients now just classism? The problem now is JOB CREATION. What I have proposed to B.C. Benefits (Welfare restructuring here in B.C.) is that we use the Bamberton Model City Project (I.W.A. funded) to embark on a full employment program at the municipal level. This "City Built Anew" could have full employment via Workfare with Choice and an end to absolute poverty as well. All within a pollution-free city with an accountable, competent political system. Please visit web sites below for more details. FWP. *** To discuss any and all aspects of Canadian and U.S. Constitutions send one word, subscribe, in email body to CONSTITUTION-Request@websightz.com; http://www.websightz.com/constitution; www.websightz.com/ftr_cities *** From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Thu Jan 30 22:23:59 1997 Thu, 30 Jan 1997 21:22:18 -0800 (PST) Thu, 30 Jan 1997 21:15:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 21:15:27 -0800 (PST) To: can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, united@cougar.com From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: March 1st Oakland Welfare Rights March dbacon@igc.org, jkurz@igc.org, bluethje@uclink4.berkeley.edu, mikeOTC@aol.com, ifpte21@aol.com, sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu, egt@igc.org, rtenintyibt@igc.org Sender: meisenscher@igc.org >Return-Path: >Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 14:14:58 -0800 (PST) >Reply-To: Conference "labr.party" >From: Institute for Global Communications >Subject: March 1st Oakland Welfare Rights March >To: Recipients of conference >X-Gateway: conf2mail@igc.apc.org >Lines: 90 > >From: Institute for Global Communications >Subject: March 1st Oakland Welfare Rights March > >Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 05:38:44 -0500 >From: force.ten@lol.shareworld.com >To: sfgmb-l@iww.org >Subject: Committee For Bread And Justice > >PLEASE FORWARD! > >An ad-hoc committee of freedom fighters and concerend individuals of >various political tendencies has formed to fight the Welfare cuts here >in the San Francisco Bay Area. I thought some of you, and your >organizations might be intersted. If you're not based in the Bay Area, >perhaps you'd like to organzie something of your own. Please forward >this to others! This committee is open to all interested individuals >and organizations; at the first meeting, 77 people were present. Check >it out. (Contact for more info.) > > >STOP WELFARE CUTS -- GUARANTEE JOBS FOR ALL! > >March for Bread, Work, and Justice - Saturday, March 1, 1997 - 11 AM, >assemble at the Oakland City Center BART Plaza (12th Street Station) at >Broadway and 14th Streets in Oakland; 1 PM, rally at Jack London Square. > >+ Reverse cuts in Food Stamps and SSI -- Stop hunger and malnutrition! >+ Prevent mass unemployment that lowers wages for all. >+ Guarantee work for all at living wages >+ Create jobs which address the unmet needs of our communities >+ End divisive attacks on communities of color >+ Enact progressive taxes on corporations and the wealthy to pay for >jobs and social programs > >Sponsored by the Committee for Bread, Work, and Justice. > >Endorsed by (partial list): Representatives from the following >organizations attended the January 8th founding of the Committee for >Bread, Work, and Justice or have endorsed the effort. Formal >endorsements will be sought from all organizations: > >ACORN, American Friends Service Committee, AFSCME Local 444, AGSE/UAW, >Alameda County Community Food Bank, Alliance for AC Transit, API ForCE, >Asian Law Caucus, ATU Local 192, Bay Area 50 Years is Enough! Campaign, >Berkeley city Peace & Justice Commission, Building Opportunities for >Self Sufficiency (BOSS), Californians for Justice, CAP, Carpenters Local >713, CISPES, Committees of Correspondence, East Bay Food Not Bombs, >EBCAA, Food First - Institute for Food and Development Policy, Freedom >Road Socialist Organization, Local 29 OPEIU, Local 3 OE Public Sector, >Green party, Hotel Employeers and Restaurant Employees (HERE) Local >2850, Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) Bay Area General Membership >Branch, Jobs for All Coalition, Labor Party East Bay Chapter, Laney >Labor Studies Club, Meiklejon Civil Liberties Institute, National >Lawyers guild, National People's Campaign, NCIPA, Northern California >Coalition for Immigrants Rights, Oakland Education Association (OEA), >Oakland Working people's campaign, OPEIU Local 3, Peace and Freedom >Party, Peralta Federation of Teachers, Prescott Healthy Start, >Progressive Alliance Alameda County, RENEW, Senator Barbara Lee's >(D-Oakland) Office, SF and Santa Clara County Councils of Service >Employees International Union (SEIU), SF General Assistance Rights >Union, SF State Global Peace Studies, Solidarity, UAPD Local, Women of >Color Resource Center, and Workers World. > >For more information, call 510-649-8173 or send e-mail to >. [opeiu29/afl-cio] > >Reposted by a Wobbly in Solidarity > >-Solidarity, >FW Steve x344543 > > > Abolish the wage/rent/prison system! [http://www.iww.org/] > Not everyone has access to the internet, but many have access to the > airwaves! > Start your own micropower radio station in your community > Liberate the airwaves! [http://www.freeradio.org] > Save Headwaters Forest > [http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/headwaters-ef/] > > >PS. Quite an impressive list of organizations, eh? A member of ILWU >Local 6 is also interested in adding his organizations name to that >list. BTW, what about the ecologists? We missed the boat! We could >have had a demand as well: End ecological destruction immediately! >It's not too late. Sign on to the campiagn. > > > > > ************************************************** Michael Eisenscher Workers Education Local 189, CWA Doctoral Candidate, Public Policy Program University of Massachusetts-Boston 391 Adams Street Oakland, CA 94610-3131 ------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: (510) 893-8382 (voice/fax) E-Mail: meisenscher@igc.apc.org ************************************************* "We are not merely an economy, but also a culture." "It has never been economics alone that defines America. If we choose, as a culture, to push back against the economic forces that would otherwise divide us, it is within our power to do so." -- Robert Reich -- Resignation address "[There is a] growing assertion that globalization and technological change make inevitable low wages and inequalities....The counter argument that has not gained much popular support is that inequalities result from human agency; they are not the inevitable consequence of 'progress.'" S.M. Miller and Charles Collins "Growing Economic Fairness" Social Policy, Summer 1996 From Furuhashi.1@osu.edu Fri Jan 31 17:52:13 1997 Received: from mail4.uts.ohio-state.edu (mail4.uts.ohio-state.edu [128.146.214.33]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id RAA03691 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:52:10 -0700 (MST) Received: from [128.146.43.29] (ml105mac09.acs.ohio-state.edu [128.146.43.29]) by mail4.uts.ohio-state.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA25330; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:52:06 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: yfuruhas@pop.service.ohio-state.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:51:48 -0500 To: walk@igc.apc.org, daniepay@freenet.columbus.oh.us, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, abudak@alumni.ysu.edu, mheffron@dsausa.org, mfstepp@aol.com, gesopost@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu From: Furuhashi.1@osu.edu (Yoshie Furuhashi) Subject: Guess Jeans Sues Poets >Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 18:02:28 -0500 (EST) >From: paul w rogers >Subject: Guess Jeans Sues Poets >Sender: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy forwarded message ---------- > Guess Jeans Sues Poets > Guess Jeans is suing several LA area writers for libel and slander. >The lawsuit was filed against UNITE (Union of Needle Trades Industrial >and Textile Employees) and Common Threads, a women's group working to >improve working conditions for garment workers. > The suit is a reaction against a poetry reading at the Midnight >Special Bookstore in September. The reading was sponsored by the L.A. >local of the National Writers Union and Common Threads. > At the poetry reading former employees described the working >conditions at Guess, and a speaker discussed the plans of Common Threads' >campaign against unfair working conditions at Guess. Some of the poetry >was about garment workers, although none of it mentioned Guess by name. > The lawsuit is based on the claim that "false and defamatory" >statements were made about Guess during the reading and in publicity for >it. In particular, Guess is objecting to being accused of operating >sweat shops and using home labor. > The defendants have characterized the lawsuit as a S.L.A.P.P. >(strategic lawsuit against public participation), although California has >an anti-S.L.A.P.P. statute. > Recently Guess has announced that it is moving about half of its >manufacturing in Southern California to Mexico. > If you would like to support the garment workers, e-mail UNITE at >unitela@igc.org, or call 213-239-6520. > Spread the word by sponsoring a poetry reading in your area. > Boycott Guess > The above article is a condensed with permisssioin from >NEXT..MAGAZINE, "GUESS LAWSUIT AGAINST POETRY READING PROCEEDS'" by G. >Murray Thomas. > > > >--------- End forwarded message ----------