From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Jun 2 10:10:10 1997 Mon, 2 Jun 1997 08:58:23 -0700 (PDT) Mon, 2 Jun 1997 08:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 08:57:46 -0700 (PDT) To: united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: SEIU Reverses Justice for Janitors Strategy Sender: meisenscher@igc.org The following article is noteworthy. What are the implications for JfJ in other cities? Does this decision suggest changes in other SEIU strategies? ================================================ Washington Post, May 16, 1997, Page G1 Janitors' Union Ends Strikes, Picketing New SEIU President Emphasizes Cooperation by Frank Swoboda and Maryann Haggerty The new president of the Service Employees International Union as declared an end to strikes and demonstrations in the union's militant, 10-year Justice for Janitors organizing campaign in the District, and called for cooperation rather than confrontation. In a letter to the Washington real estate community, SEIU President Andrew L. Stern said the militancy of the janitor's campaign has "produced a degree of polarization that serves none of our interests." In his letter, Stern said the union would immediately cease strikes, picketing and demonstrations in the city and that the union would work with the real estate industry in an effort to reform the city's tax assessment process. The Justice for Janitors campaign is best known for blocking bridges into Washington during rush hour to dramatize the union's organizing efforts. In one of the biggest disruptions two years ago, morning rush-hour traffic entering the District on the 14th Street bridge was brought to a halt by union members with signs and bullhorns. The union also has staged noisy sidewalk demonstrations outside nonunion office buildings and has sent demonstrators to disrupt government and corporate meetings. The SEIU represents about 1,700 Janitors who clean nearly half of the commercial office buildings in the District. Nationwide, the union has organized nearly 35,000 Janitors using the in-your-face organizing tactics that had become the hallmark of the District campaign. Some of the SEIU's most persistent -- and personal -- actions in recent years have been aimed at CarrAmerica Realty Corp, the District's largest private landlord. The union campaign has attempted to demonize Chairman Oliver T. Carr, in casting him as a heartless villain. A Carr spokeswoman said yesterday: "We're pleased that the SEIU has chosen a constructive manner in which to communicate with us and the rest of the real estate community. Their decision to focus their efforts directly with the contractors is clearly a more appropriate approach then targeting third parties as has been done in the past." Stern, in his letter, which the union sent out last week, acknowledged it would take time to heal the wounds of the past 10 years in the city's business community. "Ten years of angry disputes will not be forgotten overnight," he wrote. Stern said in the letter he decided to call the truce after meeting with a number of real estate executives the past few months. Stern said he concluded that neither side would go away and that for the District to prosper both sides must work together. Bill Ragan, national director of the SEIU's Justice for Janitors campaign, said the union has not set a timetable for its new effort. "There's no deadliine here. Our cease fire removes an obstacle, " he said. "We want to show there is an option to blocking bridges." The shift in tactics has potential implications for labor relations beyond the Washington area. Stern, 45, was elected SEIU president last year with a reputation as a leader of the new breed of militant union leaders moving into top union positions around the country. He succeeded John F. Sweeney, who was elected president of the AFL-CIO. As a top aide to Sweeney, Stern was the architect of some of the union's most militant organizing tactics nationwide, including bridge-blocking demonstrations. In a telephone interview yesterday, Stern said he decided to call the cease fire because "it's just hard to talk when everyone's shooting. Obviously, we're nervous," adding he hoped the action would demonstrate that the SEIU was a multidimensional organization. Ragan said the union has had "a series of good meetings at pretty high levels" with owners of commercial buildings in the District. "We just feel we've got a dialogue going." A key to future cooperation between the two sides may be the shift in the union's position on the property tax assessment in the District. After years of legal battles, the SEIU last year succeeded in placing an initiative on the D.C. ballot to change the appeals process. In November, votors overwhelmingly approved the measure, called Initiative 51. Among the changes the law makes is to allow third parties -- such as unions -- to appeal assessments considered too low. Previously, only building owners could appeal assessments and only when they thought their tax bill was too high. Landlords, working through a coalition of major business groups, have attempted to get the Financial Control Board to overturn the law, arguing it would raise their costs and wreak havoc by making confidential financial information available to competitors. The control board would not veto the initiative, but asked that the measure be softened through regulations that bar nuisance appeals. Stern said yesterday that the union was willing to work with the landlords to ease the effects of the tax initiative. "Our goal is to have homeowners and business owners pay fairly," he said. "You don't need to have access to confidential proprietary information or third-party intervention to do that." From Urthman@aol.com Mon Jun 2 12:50:07 1997 From: Urthman@aol.com by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) Mon, 2 Jun 1997 14:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 14:50:01 -0400 (EDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Union Cities Cindy Hahamovitch recently asked for information about the AFL-CIO's Union Cities idea. Here is an AFL-CIO summary of the program, which is being coordinated at the national level by AFL-CIO Field Mobilization (202-637-5280). Note that it is easy to enroll in the Union Cities initiative -- a CLC just needs to pass a resolution. The hard part will be developing a strategic action plan to accomplish one or more of the eight steps, and then implementing that plan. Few CLC's have the experience, activists, and resources necessary to devote full attention to all eight steps at the same time. However, if CLC's select a specific goal or goals that is attainable, and if they then focus their energy on that goal(s), this program will result in real changes at the local level. Ed Ramthun AFSCME Indianapolis, IN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------- Union Cities -- Strong Communities The AFL-CIO Union Cities initiative unites international unions, state federations, central labor councils and local unions in a common effort to educate and motivate union members, defend the right of workers to join unions, organize thousands of new members and create a powerful new political voice that speaks for working families from county courthouses to the White House. When CLC's and the local unions in their jurisdiction join the "Union Cities" initiative, they make a joint commitment to take eight steps to help rebuild the labor movement from the bottom up, and help improve the lives of working families. 1. Promote organizing as the labor movement's top goal and get half the local unions in the jurisdiction to sign up for the AFL-CIO "Changing to Organize, Organizing to Change" initiative, which shifts resources into organizing. 2. Mobilize against anti-union employers by recruiting and activating at least 1% of union members in the area for "Street Heat," the AFL-CIO's new solidarity and rapid response team. 3. Organize grassroots lobbying/political action committees to work on local, state national issues, build community alliances and support political candidates who champion working families, and then hold those candidates accountable once they are elected. 4. Organize community allies in support of economic development strategies that create jobs and growth, while establishing worker and family-friendly community standards for local industries and public investment. 5. Sponsor the new AFL-CIO Economics Education program for at least a majority of local unions in the geographic area so union members can understand why workers and their families are suffering, who did it to them, and what can be done about it. 6. Persuade city and town councils and county governmental bodies to pass resolutions supporting the right of workers to organize and insist that political candidates do likewise as a condition of endorsement. 7. Work to make sure that all official central labor council bodies -- executive board, committees, officers, delegate bodies -- are as diverse as the membership represented by affiliated local unions. 8. Encourage all unions to increase their membership so that a three percent growth rate becomes a reality in the CLC jurisdiction by the year 2000. At the end of each calendar year, CLC's enrolled in the initiative will be evaluated by a special committee, and communities achieving "Union City" status will be widely publicized and given extra consideration in the allocation of AFL-CIO resources. ### From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Mon Jun 2 13:22:18 1997 by vcn.bc.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA06828; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 12:22:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 12:22:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Re: Union Cities To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu In-Reply-To: <970602144935_253491206@emout13.mail.aol.com> On Mon, 2 Jun 1997 Urthman@aol.com wrote: > Cindy Hahamovitch recently asked for information about the AFL-CIO's Union > Cities idea. Here is an AFL-CIO summary of the program, which is being > coordinated at the national level by AFL-CIO Field Mobilization > (202-637-5280). Note that it is easy to enroll in the Union Cities > initiative -- a CLC just needs to pass a resolution. The hard part will be > developing a strategic action plan to accomplish one or more of the eight > steps, and then implementing that plan. Few CLC's have the experience, > activists, and resources necessary to devote full attention to all eight > steps at the same time. However, if CLC's select a specific goal or goals > that is attainable, and if they then focus their energy on that goal(s), this > program will result in real changes at the local level. > > Ed Ramthun > AFSCME > Indianapolis, IN > > > Union Cities -- Strong Communities > > The AFL-CIO Union Cities initiative unites international unions, state > federations, central labor councils and local unions in a common effort to > educate and motivate union members, defend the right of workers to join > unions, organize thousands of new members and create a powerful new political > voice that speaks for working families from county courthouses to the White > House. > clipped. Just thought I'd remind all on the list that Bamberton, a city-built-anew for British Columbia, is all-union funded to date. The development company, Greystone Properties, Ltd. is in the telephone book. It is owned by 29 labour pension funds. It is an excellent opportunity to show what labour philosophy and the labour movement can do to create a better civilization. At present, plans are before the environmental assessment people. If Bamberton is built for 100,000 people it will have its own MP, two Provincial Legislators and Mayor with Council. FWP. From robinson@edtech.mcc.edu Mon Jun 2 14:47:04 1997 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 16:53:14 -0400 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: robinson@edtech.mcc.edu (Steve Robinson) Subject: Silly question... This may seem like an odd forum for this question, but I wanted to put it to a large number of folks with a variety of union experiences and backgrounds. I'm a new delegate to my local, and nobody seems to know the answer to this one. So here goes: (1) What are the accepted ways to determine how much money to keep in a union local's strike fund? (2) Are their federal or state rules regulating how much money a local can save in its account? Over the past few years, our local has decreased dues to purposely cut back our fund. I was, and still am, puzzled by this practice. I'd like to know how other locals determine how much money they will save, and what regulations or limitations exist in regard to that savings. ====================================================================== = Steve Robinson (810) 762-0483 = = Mott Community College http://edtech.mcc.edu/~robinson = = Michigan State University http://pilot.msu.edu/user/robins11 = ====================================================================== From clawson@sadri.umass.edu Mon Jun 2 16:01:47 1997 labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:52:18 -0400 (EDT) 02 Jun 1997 17:52:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 17:52:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Clawson Subject: labor-scholar alliance To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu To: all interested From: Dan Clawson Re: follow up to Columbia and other labor teach-ins Coming out of the series of labor teach-ins, beginning with one at Columbia last fall, an effort is being made to create a group to continue, expand, and deepen relations between intellectuals and the labor movement. In order to do so, the group at the center of the teach-in movement (specifically Steve Fraser, Nelson Lichtenstein, Josh Freeman, and Ellen Schrecker) invited a selected list of people to attend a May 30 meeting in Washington D.C. Labor participants included John Sweeney, Linda Chavez- Thompson, Bob Welsh (Sweeney's top assistant), and a number of other high ranking officials. For sociologists who will be attending the ASA meetings in Toronto, I would propose that interested people get together on Sunday August 10 at 8:30 p.m. to discuss this and other labor issues; space has been reserved by the A.S.A. This is my own totally unofficial report on the meeting and the likely course of future events. I want to emphasize that I have absolutely no authority to speak for anyone but myself and this is in no sense an official statement; if others have alternative reports, I encourage those to be circulated as well. I am sure that I will emphasize some things and omit others, and ask anyone who reads this to keep that in mind, but I figured some information was better than none. As far as I'm concerned, you should feel free to share this with anyone interested. PARTICIPANTS The letter specifically said the meeting was open only to those invited. On the one hand I found that troubling; on the other hand, I recognize the need to begin with a viable working group. It would certainly be my position that at least from here on, every effort should be made to open things up and to welcome all who are interested in being involved, and I believe that will be (is?) the case. (Given the limits of a one-day meeting with lots to accomplish, a number of points remain at least somewhat ambiguous.) The mailing identified the group as "Scholars, Artists, and Writers for Social Justice." In practice, the great bulk of the (approximately 60) participants were academics, with a substantial presence from the top levels of the AFL-CIO headquarters, few other labor people, a sprinkling of writers, and probably only a couple of artists. I remain somewhat puzzled at the schizoid reaction to academia -- that's the primary identity for most of the people there, but there was much more discussion of the need to recruit artists, musicians, and other cultural workers. The following people attended the meeting (I believe); others may have been there but I didn't note their presence: Mike Alewitz, Stanley Aronowitz, Ernie Benjamin, Marty Bennett, Jennifer Berkshire, Elaine Bernard, Frank Bonilla, Kate Bronfenbrenner, Paul Buhle, Anibel Cenelo, Linda Chavez-Thompson, Dan Clawson, Jonathan Cutler, John D'Emilio, Michael Denning, Alec Dubro, Steve Fraser, Josh Freeman, Betty Friedan, Gary Gerstle, Todd Gitlin, Jacqueline Hall, Allen Hunter, Tom Juravich, Harvey Kaye, Michael Kazin, Wells Keddie, Robert Korstad, Peter Kwong, Margaret Levi, Nelson Lichtenstein, Harold Meyerson, Paul Milkman, David Montgomery, Priscilla Murolo, Bruce Nelson, Robert Pleasure, Kevin Pranis, Sumner Rosen, David Rouse, Thad Russell, Rod Ryon, Max Sawicky, Ellen Schrecker, Andor Skotnes, Don Stillman, John Sweeney, Joe Uehlein, Jerry Watts, Robert Welsh, Ellen Willis. (I was trying to check off people I saw, but obviously may have missed people or made errors, and of course many of those who were invited did not attend.) GENERAL DISCUSSION I can't hope to summarize all of the (somewhat diffuse) discussion. An initial presentation was made by Steve Fraser to set a framework for our discussion: the corporate order (including government) has trampled on the rights of working people; a revival of the union movement is vital for the rebirth of democracy; a struggle for economic democracy must be linked to a struggle of social justice concerning race, gender, and other areas; our world, that of the cultural community, is also subject to corporate tyranny, with the same logic governing us as other workers; we want to help create a counter culture of solidarity and economic justice; to do so we must work in collaboration with, but independent of, the AFL- CIO. John Sweeney followed and stressed the attempt to create a new labor movement. Specifically because of the successes of the labor movement, he noted, labor was now subject to new assaults. He urged us to enter the public debate to help shape the framing and discussion of key issues, especially but not exclusively those related to labor; hoped we would participate personally in the efforts to recruit new members and organizers; asked us to address the issue of how working families would be able to afford to send their children to college; and welcomed our help in keeping the labor movement on the right road. I was particularly impressed with what he had to say on this last point: Sweeney emphasized that the labor movement must constantly examine and correct its imperfections, that the movement is not a fragile entity that should be protected by shielding it from debate, that the only way to strengthen it is to welcome vigorous debate, that he expected we would disagree with and criticize the labor movement on a number of issues, and he welcomed that. Those presentations were followed by an hour and a half of vigorous but diffuse discussion. After lunch the discussion continued, with additional presentations by Bob Welsh (on current priorities for the labor movement) and Joe Uehlein (on the role of cultural work in building a movement). We then attempted to agree on next steps (presented below). Late in the afternoon Linda Chavez-Thompson spoke, focusing primarily on her own history as a dissident and urging us to be prepared to be a pain in the ass, if need be, in order to communicate our political message(s) to labor leaders. The area where I think we did NOT reach any clear agreement was on statements of our purpose or future themes. Most of that discussion was fairly vague, but enough was said to make it clear people have different views and it won't be easy to formulate a statement specific enough to generate interest but careful enough that it does not create political controversy. FUTURE ACTIVITIES I believe there was substantial agreement on points 1, 2, and 3. 1. LABOR INVOLVEMENT -- Everything we do should be done with labor involvement; we should not be subordinate to, or controlled by labor, but neither should we feel that we set the framework and agenda and only then ask labor to participate on terms set by us. "Labor" means more than the AFL-CIO and its top leadership: it should include union locals, Central Labor Councils, a variety of other groups that are part of the broader labor movement (insurgent caucuses, Jobs With Justice, COSH organizations, Labor Notes, CLUW, Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, Labor Party, etc.), and also community groups and unorganized workers. 2. FALL LAUNCH -- Our next round of activities should be launched with a bang sometime this fall, perhaps the first week in November. This probably means a limited number (three? four?) of high profile public events (teach-ins, conferences, cultural performances), followed immediately thereafter by a large number of lower profile local events of a similar character. We definitely should run advertisements featuring a founding statement with large numbers of signatures. Our activities might also include launching (or participating in) a major campaign, for example for economic security. Any such campaign, however, should not be tied too closely to any specific union activity. Thus we might connect to a Teamsters UPS campaign focused on part-time work, but we would do so as part of a broader emphasis on part-time work in general, perhaps combined with other related issues (benefits and the social wage, shorter hours for all). 3. Other activities that should be investigated and pushed forward include: A. SPEAKERS BUREAU -- Compile a list of scholars, labor activists, cultural workers, and others who are prepared to speak, charging only expenses and a minimal speaking fee, IF the talk is to advance labor, community, and social justice struggles. Prepare this in an attractive well formulated booklet, setting out the speaker's areas of expertise, examples of specific talks the person could deliver, and giving some sense of what ideas, events, or problems might be addressed in such a talk. Include appropriate contact information, or -- better yet -- create a central scheduling office that will know about the person's schedule (including other groups that might share travel expenses), be able to suggest alternative speakers on the same topic, etc. B. SKILLS BANK -- Compile a list of the skills we are willing and able to put at the disposal of labor and community groups (other than our speaking, covered above). Skills might include survey research, economic analysis, international connections or knowledge (including simply language abilities, but better yet international labor contacts), similar information on contacts with other groups (both political and professional), knowledge of particular industries or processes, media training, video making, organizational experience, or the ability to conduct trainings and workshops (on sexual harassment, public speaking, etc.). A simple list would be of some use, but based on my experience with the Sociology Labor Network, the list will be enormously more helpful if some group or individual brokers and manages it, fielding requests from unions (and other groups), discussing with them a variety of possible people and determining what skills are most needed, and then sounding out some of the people on our skills list. C. MEDIA RELATIONS -- This involves two related but in some sense very different problems. One focus of discussion was on the training that we ourselves need, but this training, if available, would probably also appeal to labor staff and activists. This might include training in how to write an op-ed piece, ways to build strong relations with local media, the kinds of material that make a good journalistic story, and possibly video training (what you look like on television, how the material will be edited so that what runs won't be [all of] what you said, etc.). For example, if we had a training on how to write an op-ed piece, this might be an available workshop at our large public event. Participants would be sent general information, and would then be required to identify 2-3 possible op-ed pieces they might write and prepare a letter to be sent to op-ed editors. (Prior submission of such material would be required in order to be admitted to the workshop.) At the workshop the group as a whole, under the direction of an expert, would go over people's submissions and discuss their strengths and weaknesses. The other side of this is an attempt to change how journalists cover the issues. One part of this is that we should be able to identify experts able to provide information or commentary on specific issues for journalists. If we became more ambitious, we might also invite labor journalists to attend a background session, sponsored by us (NOT the AFL- CIO) on the scholarly research behind some labor concern, the ways in which specific labor initiatives do (or do not) get at the issues, etc. D. LABOR CONNECTIONS -- Matt Witt of the Teamsters pointed out that unions often know well in advance at least some of the issues and events that will be coming. We need a group to coordinate with the AFL-CIO, affiliated unions, and other relevant bodies, to compile a short and lively newsletter reporting about up-coming labor actions, with enough advance notice that groups would have time to connect to plan actions well in advance. These reports should provide needed background such as the racial-gender composition of the workforce, the location of major centers of employment, what issues are most pressing and how they connect to larger issues, who should be called to establish a link. E. A group should begin exploring the possibility of creating a think tank, and securing funding for it. ************************************************************************* THEMES AND ISSUES The following are some scattered additional observations on the discussion. A. We need to work on broadening our base and including new members. Above all that means diversity -- more people of color, more women, more young people, more "non-official" labor people. (There was agreement on this.) If we are serious about artists and other cultural workers, it also means a major effort to recruit them. (Not clear whether there was agreement here.) B. We should focus on universities, both because they are important employers and embody many of the issues that are central to labor everywhere (part-timers, privatization and contracting out, time crunch, gender and race issues), and because of their special character. The latter includes both John Sweeney's challenge to us -- how will working families be able to send their children to college -- and our ability (responsibility) to use our classrooms to initiate discussions of key issues. We should connect to campus publications (student newspapers, alumni magazines) and media coverage. C. Anything we do should be fun, generate excitement, provide memorable stories. If everything is academic and dreary it doesn't represent the kind of movement or society we wish to create. In particular, we can't organize events that appeal only to middle aged academic leftists; what will engage students? workers? D. There was considerable discussion, but no agreement that I could discern, on the need for a theme. Themes proposed included: -- labor is back -- the fight for the rights of working people -- the time crunch, shorter hours, part-timers -- putting families first -- economic security (the social wage, mergers, living wage) -- fight corporate greed; solidarity as an alternate vision -- how the new labor movement is different from the old -- economic democracy -- race and gender issues -- 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 meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Jun 2 16:11:31 1997 Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:37:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:37:24 -0700 (PDT) To: h-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, OIFAC@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Weingarten Petition Sender: meisenscher@igc.org To: Industrial Relations Specialists and Labor Lawyers From: Charles J. Morris, Joseph R. Grodin, Clyde W. Summers, and Ellen J. Dannin Re: Petition for the NLRB to Engage in Rulemaking to Establish Weingarten Rights in Nonunion Workplaces On November 25, 1996, we petitioned the National Labor Relations Board to schedule rulemaking to establish Weingarten rights in nonunion workplaces. Such a right was recognized by the NLRB until its 1985 decision in Sears, Roebuck & Company, 274 NLRB 230 (1985). The Sears decision limited Weingarten rights to the union setting. It is our position as it was the Supreme Court's decision in Weingarten that it is section 7 that supports those rights and that therefore Weingarten rights apply in both the union and nonunion context. The full text of the petition and brief is available in the Daily Labor Reporter for December 17, 1996. The Board has historically been reluctant to use rulemaking procedures. We urge our colleagues in the labor community to join us in petitioning the Board to begin the process to engage in rulemaking on this issue. The Board can interpret the NLRA either through rulemaking or the adjudication of complaints. At this time, a rulemaking procedure is the only plausible way for the Board to reconsider this issue. In order to effect a change in Board law through adjudication, many complaints must be issued and then go through hearing, decision and appeal. This is a process that takes years. Regional Directors are bound to follow the Sears decision and are therefore now constrained in being able to issue complaints that would place this issue before the Board. Rulemaking has other advantages in this instance, because the Board can solicit input from the entire labor relations community as opposed to making case-by-case decisions. The Board can also spell out precisely how the rule would apply, something it cannot do in a single case. Our proposed regulation is attached to the end of this memorandum. If you would like to join our petition, please fill out and return the form below: To: The Members of the National Labor Relations Board Re: Petition for the NLRB to Engage in Rulemaking to Establish Weingarten Rights in Nonunion Workplaces I support the Petition for the NLRB to Engage in Rulemaking to Establish Weingarten Rights in Nonunion Workplaces. I urge the NLRB to proceed immediately to publish a notice that it will engage in Rulemaking on this issue. Name: Title: Address: Please return this memorandum to: Ellen Dannin, Associate Professor of Law, California Western School of Law, 225 Cedar Street, San Diego, CA 92101 ejd@cwsl.edu PROPOSED RULE It is proposed to amend 29 CFR part 103, Administrative Practice and Procedure, Labor Management Relations, by adding the following provisions: Sec. 103.___ (a) This rule applies to all employers and employees over whom the Board asserts jurisdiction. The rule defines certain employee conduct as protected by section 7, specifically certain conduct covered by that provision's guarantee of the right of employees to engage in concerted activity for the purpose of "mutual aid or protection." It also defines corresponding employer conduct required by Section 8(a)(1), inasmuch as the latter provision makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7." (b) Whenever an employee who is not represented by a labor organization pursuant to Section 9(a) or 8(f) receives notice from his or her employer of an investigatory interview or hearing which that employee reasonably believes may lead to discipline, such noticed employee shall have the following rights, and the employer shall be required to respond in accordance with the following obligations: (1) The noticed employee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to request that another employee of his or her own choosing be present and/or assist at the interview or hearing. (2) Upon receiving such a request, if the employer intends to proceed with the interview or hearing it shall provide the noticed employee with a reasonable opportunity to seek another employee who will consent to appear and/or assist at the interview or hearing. This obligation, however, shall apply only if and when the noticed employee has requested the presence and/or assistance of another employee. (3) If the noticed employee obtains the consent of another employee to provide assistance and/or presence at the interview or hearing, the employer shall not conduct such interview or hearing unless that other employee is present and has been given the opportunity to assist the noticed employee. (4) If the noticed employee is unable to obtain the consent of any other employee to accompany and/or assist at the interview or hearing, the employer shall be free to proceed with the interview or hearing with the noticed employee, notwithstanding that the noticed employee will not be accompanied by another employee of his or her choice. (5) If the employer denies the noticed employee's request for the presence and/or assistance of another employee, the noticed employee shall not be required to attend the interview or hearing. (6) The noticed employee shall have the right to waive the presence and/or assistance of another employee and attend the interview or hearing alone, provided such waiver has been freely exercised and not induced by coercion or promise of benefit, and provided further that the employer is in compliance with the notice-posting requirements of paragraph (10) of this Section. If the noticed employee exercises this right to waive, the employer may proceed with the interview or hearing without another employee being present. (7) If the noticed employee has not waived his or her rights in accordance with the preceding paragraph and the employer denies the request for the presence and/or assistance of another employee, the employer shall be free to carry on its investigation concerning the noticed employee, but without requiring the presence of the noticed employee at an interview or hearing. Under these circumstances, however, the noticed employee will now have the choice of either voluntarily participating in such an interview or hearing, unaccompanied by another employee, or not participating. (8) The exercise of rights under this rule shall not interfere with legitimate non-conflicting employer prerogatives. Thus, ii. An employer has no obligation to justify its refusal to grant a noticed employee's request for the presence and/or assistance of another employee, ii. When a noticed employee is granted leave to seek out another employee to accompany and/or assist at the interview or hearing, the process of seeking and obtaining the consent of this other employee may be scheduled at a time and in a manner that does not unduly interfere with the employer's business; however, because of the importance of the protected statutory rights involved in this process, the employer shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate the process. (9) An employer shall not discipline, discriminate against, or cause any adverse effect to any employee on account of the exercise or non-exercise of rights under this rule; nor shall an employer coerce or promise any benefit to any employee to induce that employee to waive any right under this rule. These protections shall apply to all employees, including but not limited to the noticed employee and any other employee who may be approached to be present and/or provide assistance at an interview or hearing. (10) The Board will distribute and provide copies of this rule to employers, and employers shall keep it posted in a place or places where it may be easily seen and read by all employees. (c) A violation of this rule by an employer shall be deemed an interference with, restraint, or coercion of employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 and is therefore an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(a)(1). From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Jun 2 21:27:36 1997 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:27:04 -0700 (PDT) Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:25:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 20:25:39 -0700 (PDT) To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Budget Shenanigans Sender: meisenscher@igc.org Copyright 1997 by Robert Kuttner. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BUDGET SHENANIGANS By Robert Kuttner The great bipartisan budget deal of 1997 is turning out to be a hollow public relations coup for Clinton, a strategic romp for the Republicans, and a rout for Democrats. The initial agreement, announced with great fanfare May 2, provided only a bare framework for budget-balance by 2002. But as the details emerge, the mischief becomes apparent. Supposedly, each party gave something and got something. Clinton defended Medicare and Medicaid, and got some money for college aid, children's tax credits, children's health, as well as a restoration of some aid for legal immigrants. The Republicans got, among many other things, Clinton's support for much of the GOP's tax cutting program. And both parties got to claim credit for reaching, at last, the grail of budget balance. In the May 2 deal, the net cost of the tax cuts was announced as $85 billion over five years--a relatively modest $17 billion a year. Most commentators approvingly took the bait and congratulated the deal-makers for restraining their impulse to sacrifice budget-balance to tax giveaways. But now it turns out that the tax-cutting has been massively "back-loaded" with profound changes in the tax code, whose full budget impact occurs only after 2002. This is dishonest budget policy, and bad tax policy. And it threatens to widen the split between the President and his own party. Worse, it busts the budget mainly to give tax breaks to the rich. The tax provisions of the budget deal do include a general tax credit for children (previously embraced by both parties) and a tuition tax credit (a Clinton proposal opposed by leading educators as an inefficient way to subsidize higher education), and the three key Republican tax-policy objectives--expanded tax breaks for capital gains, IRAs, and inheritances. The two provisions that benefit the middle class--tuition tax credits and the child tax-break, are not indexed for inflation. The Republican provisions are permanent changes in the tax system, that will have ever deeper impact on the deficit over time. In negotiating final details with the White House this week, Republicans refused to budge on their goals of cutting capital gains rates by nearly 50 percent, indexing capital gains for inflation, and steeply cutting taxes on inheritances. According to calculations by Citizens for Tax Justice, over 98 percent of the capital gains relief will go to the richest five percent of Americans; likewise 99 percent of the inheritance tax relief. Even the expanded IRA "middle-class" tax breaks will go almost entirely to the top 20 percent. The details of these cuts are being slyly crafted to stay within the $85 billion target over the first five years. But their impact on the deficit doubles in the second five years, and grows by hundreds of billions more in the third five years. Consequently, the deficit starts climbing again after 2002, acting as a permanent hammer on what's left of social outlay. Clinton, of course, will be long gone. Consider the politics of all this. The White House, to reach the entirely arbitrary goal of budget-balance in one arbitrary year, 2002, has set in motion a repeat of the 1981 supply-side debacle: Democrats go along with Republican tax cuts; this increases deficits, which puts pressure on Congress for more spending cuts. The popular programs that voters associate with Democrats gradually wither away--along with voter enthusiasm for Democrats. And deficit-reduction, rather than the well-being of ordinary people, becomes the central goal of national politics. It's not surprising that the Republicans would repeat this highly effective gambit. What's peculiar is that Democrats are playing along. Of course, not all Democrats support the deal, which was negotiated between the White House and key Republicans. Congressional Democrats will introduce their own substitute tax package, targeting relief to the middle class and the poor. That will usefully demonstrate a key difference between the two parties. But that distinction will be largely blurred because Clinton is, at least nominally, also a Democrat. And since Republicans control Congress, the Democratic substitute will lose. Then it will be up to Clinton to decide whether to veto the budget deal. But it was Clinton who brokered the outlines of this deal, with the Republicans, over the objection of key Democrats. In the end-game, Clinton will likely mutter a few objections and proclaim the budget deal a great bipartisan achievement, as he did with welfare reform--hanging his party out to dry once again. There is a pattern here. Republicans should think twice about harassing this President over Whitewater. They can hardly do better. -0- Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 1997 by Robert Kuttner. Readers may redistribute this article to other individuals for noncommercial use, provided that the text and this notice remain intact. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author. If you have any questions about permissions, please contact The Electronic Policy Network, P.O. Box 383080, Cambridge, MA 02238, query@epn.org, or by phone at (617) 547- 2950. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From global@uk.pi.net Tue Jun 3 05:33:58 1997 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 97 12:10:20 From: PO Subject: Unite left against the election of banzer as the new Bolivian President! To: left-unity@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU, marxism-international@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU STOP EX-DICTATOR BANZER FROM BECOMING NEW BOLIVIAN PRESIDENT=20 Hugo Banzer, the worst dictator that Bolivia had in at least the last half = century, won the first round of the elections (1 June). He is now trying to= be elected by the parliament as the new president. All unions, left organi= sations, anti-fascist committees and activist should try to stop him. The international left is showing many sympathies with the outcome of the F= rench elections. However, in the same day but in other extreme of the world= , the far right won the elections. We could stop Banzer. We call the intern= ational left to organise protests against Banzer and that the unions should= adopt resolutions and send letters in support of the Bolivian workers agai= nst the election of the former dictator.=20 Banzer was the General who made a coup d=92etat in August 1971 with the ai= m to smash the Popular Assembly and the Bolivian Trade Union Congress (COB)= .. Until 1978 he established a dictatorship of terror against the unions and= the left. Many left-winger were killed, tortured or had to survive in conc= entration camps. His putsch was an antecedent of another reactionary coups = which would happen later in Uruguay, Chile and Argentina. His nomination wo= uld re-enforce the authoritarian Fujimori who, in the last weeks, massacred= the anti-imperialist fighters in the Japanese ambassador house in Lima and= made a sort of new "coup" when he removed the majority of the Constitution= al Tribunal which was preventing him for going to a third re-election. =20 Since 1984 every March and April the COB and the teachers organised general= strikes and radical mass demonstrations with street confrontations. Since = 1985, when the MNR (Revolutionary Nationalist Movement) assisted by Banzer = implemented the neo-liberal model, the working class and the poor suffered = the worst attack ever. Most of the mines were closed or privatised. Most of= the big state companies were de-nationalised. Workers lost job security. T= he level of unemployment and misery became very high. Trying to achieve the= se IMF measures the post-1985 neo-liberal regimes declared four stage of si= ege and persecuted the unions.=20 Since April Bolivia was shaken by daily demonstrations, teachers strikes an= d a hunger strike of the COB leaders. Banzer is promising that he will rest= ore order. On the same day of the elections, Vilma Plata and other leaders = of the Teachers Union in La Paz were arrested and the candidate of the left= -wing party Eje was beaten by official forces. The leaders of the Guerrilla= Army Tupac Katari (EGTK) had to be released in the following days after 5 = years in jail. However, Banzer could increase the number of Bolivian politi= cal prisoners and continue with the persecution of Peruvian political refug= ees.=20 Bolivia had nearly 8 million people and 3,2 had the obligation of going to = vote. However, Banzer is wining with only around half a million votes. He o= nly obtained 22.3% of the valid votes and, if we count the blank and spoil = votes (which is a classical way of showing protest and non-conformity in th= is country), it would mean that he only obtained only around one fifth of t= he votes. The electors which didn=92t vote for any candidate are more than = the people that voted for Banzer. In 1978 Banzer, threatened by strikes, decided to re-establish "democracy" = after 14 years of military juntas. Since then Bolivia had seven general ele= ctions (1978, 79, 80, 85, 89, 93 and 97). The 1993 general election was the= first one in which the candidate which obtained the first majority was dir= ectly elected as president. In the previous elections, because no candidate= obtained 51% of the votes, the president was designated by the parliament = or by military coups. In the last six elections Banzer is the only candidat= e which participated in all of them. However, only in 1985 he obtained the = first majority with only 27%. Nevertheless, the MNR obtained a majority in = the parliament and was able to mobilise most of the parties to prevent him = to become the new president.=20 The percentage of votes which Banzer obtained in 1997 is less than in the p= revious elections of 1985 and 1989. It is the lowest percentage which is ob= tained by any winner of a Bolivian presidential election ever.=20 In fact, Bolivia had a very paradox electoral result. The five top candidat= es had similar votes. Banzer=92s Accion Democratica Nacional (22.3%) was ve= ry closed follow by the MNR (17.7%), the MIR (16.7%), the UCS (15.9%) and C= ondepa (15.8%). These five parties are pro-imperialist and capitalist parti= es which are supporting the neo-liberal model. During the campaign all of t= hem made between each other a "dirty war" in which everybody was showing ho= w the other party was running candidates linked with the narcotic-traffic = and corruption. Must of these is truth. However, the workers movement and = the left didn=92t bring a valid alternative.=20 Bolivia have the worst aspect of the presidential and the parliamentary sys= tem. The president have full powers and is not accountable to the parliamen= t. He could be elected without the support of half, one third or even one q= uarter of the population. The parliament is not based in proportional repre= sentation.=20 The two chambers have to select the new president if non of the parties obt= ained 51% of the votes. However, the ADN had nearly 1/3 of it, and it is n= early impossible that the other two biggest parties (the MNR and the MIR) c= ould have a mutual agreement. In 1989 the AND voted for Jaime Paz Zamora (M= IR=92s leader) as the new president, despite that his party only had the th= ird place in the elections. This time the MIR is also in the third place bu= t the USA don=92t want to give a visa to Paz Zamora due to his proved links= with the narcotic-Mafiosi. The MIR=92s number two is in jail because of hi= s deals with the coca-businessmen. The MNR, the MIR, CONDEPA and UCS declar= ed that they don=92t have any veto against Banzer and that they could enter= in negotiations with him. Even Lechin, who was the "revolutionary" leader = of the Miner union and the COB for more than four decades, declared that he= could support Banzer.=20 Only mass demonstrations in the streets could prevent Banzer from taking po= wer. Nobel price Esquivel and the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo travelled from A= rgentina to campaign against Banzer. In Bolivia the left and the unions nee= d to organise a massive demonstration against the election of Banzer. In the last elections the left and the workers and peasant movement made th= e terrible mistake of not standing a united anti-capitalist candidate. From= the eight candidates which stood three were from the left. The Eje obtaine= d 0.6%, Vanguardia Socialista obtained 1.4% and the Izquierda Unida obtaine= d 3.7%. In some constituencies there were independent candidates of the wor= kers and peasant movement. Felipe Quispe, commandant "Mallku" of the EGTK, = stood in the 18 district in La Paz department despite being in prison. The = best result of the left was amongst the coca-producer peasants in Cochabamb= a. In that region the candidates were elected in rank and file assemblies a= nd were organised in a Sovereign Assembly of Peoples. Veliz, the first peas= ant presidential candidate, obtained 16% in Cochabamba and the first place = in his constituency. A very interesting phenomenon is the fact that Remdedios Loza, the first wo= men candidate which dress as a native "chola", obtained 37.5% in the bigges= t and most important department (La Paz). She presented herself as the cand= idate of the poor against neo-liberalism. However, her party (CONDEPA) is a= bourgeois party around a TV company.=20 The opposition against the MNR counter-reforms was not capitalised by the l= eft. It stood divided and around programmes which only tried to reform the= system (but not to abolish it) and using nationalist and Indian populist = language. We were in favour of a rank and file congress of the unions, the= COB, the peasant unions and the poor boroughs juntas to elect a candidate = and to adopt a programme for the cancellation of the foreign debt, the re-n= ationalisation without compensation of all privatised companies, the re-dis= tribution of land for the poor, the free production of coca leaves, the exp= ulsion of US military, for workers control over the companies and the econ= omy and for a workers and peasant government. =20 Now, the left and the unions are in the obligation of preventing Banzer of = taking office. They should have the initiative. The workers=92 movement all= over the world have to trust in their own forces and mass actions. We shou= ld not support any bourgeois candidate against Banzer in the parliament. On= ly the masses in the streets could stop Banzer. =20 Poder Obrero Liaison Committee of Militants for a Revolutionary Communist Intertaional From Glafer@aol.com Tue Jun 3 08:44:49 1997 From: Glafer@aol.com by emout06.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) Tue, 3 Jun 1997 10:44:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 10:44:47 -0400 (EDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: labor-scholar alliance It's great to see this stuff going forward. I think it's very important to include, in whatever working group drives this thing, people from both the faculty union and grad student union movement. Not just on principle, but because these are in fact the organizations which can move beyond and informal network of personal relationships and have a systematic way of being in touch with thousands of intellectuals, of doing some kind of coordinated program for campus education, and for building a broad network of progressive academics. Apart from this, of course, these are some of the most important organizations for engaging labor issues on campus, which seems like it must be one of the primary focuses of intellectuals' work. I'm sure many other people know good people in academic unions, and I don't know who if anyone is handling this kind of thing, but among people I think it would make sense to include are Steve Sluchansky, organizing director for the AAUP collective bargaining wing, and Tamara Joseph, who is the most experienced organizer in the network of grad student unions affiliated with the AFT. If anyone reading this is putting together a fall meeting and wants contact numbers for these people, let me know. Gordon Lafer Federation of University Employees at Yale From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Tue Jun 3 13:59:42 1997 Tue, 3 Jun 1997 12:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 12:58:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Re: Blair Challenges 'Workless Class' To: publabor@relay.doit.wisc.edu union-d@wolfnet.com In-Reply-To: On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, David Richardson wrote: (re British Workfare under a "Labour" Government) > Under the program, some 250,000 unemployed people between the ages of 18 > and 25 would be given the chance to work for a charitable organization; for > an environmental task force set up by the government; or at a job in the > private sector, for which their employer would receive a $95-a-week > government subsidy. Those without job skills would be given vocational > training. Fine and dandy, as long as there is a CHOICE with the "Workfare". Call it "Workfare with Choice". Otherwise it is just slavery. FWP. DISCUSSION GROUPS: Send one word, subscribe, in an email body to Ftr_Cities-request@websightz.com and/or CONSTITUTION-request@websightz.com. ******************************************************************************** From gheliker@cyberport.net Tue Jun 3 23:38:13 1997 Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 23:37:35 -0600 From: George Heliker Reply-To: gheliker@cyberport.net To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Weingarten Petition References: <2.2.16.19970602133445.4d8f08ac@pop.igc.org> Michael Eisenscher wrote: > > To: Industrial Relations Specialists and Labor Lawyers > > From: Charles J. Morris, Joseph R. Grodin, Clyde W. Summers, and > Ellen J. Dannin > > Re: Petition for the NLRB to Engage in Rulemaking to Establish > Weingarten Rights in Nonunion Workplaces > > On November 25, 1996, we petitioned the National Labor Relations > Board to schedule rulemaking to establish Weingarten rights in > nonunion workplaces. Such a right was recognized by the NLRB > until its 1985 decision in Sears, Roebuck & Company, 274 NLRB 230 > (1985). The Sears decision limited Weingarten rights to the union > setting. It is our position as it was the Supreme Court's > decision in Weingarten that it is section 7 that supports > those rights and that therefore Weingarten rights apply in both > the union and nonunion context. The full text of the petition and > brief is available in the Daily Labor > Reporter for December 17, 1996. > > The Board has historically been reluctant to use rulemaking > procedures. We urge our colleagues in the labor community to join > us in petitioning the Board to begin the process to engage in > rulemaking on this issue. > > The Board can interpret the NLRA either through rulemaking or the > adjudication of complaints. At this time, a rulemaking procedure > is the only plausible way for the Board to > reconsider this issue. In order to effect a change in Board law > through adjudication, many complaints must be issued and then go > through hearing, decision and appeal. This is a process that > takes years. Regional Directors are bound to follow the Sears > decision and are therefore now constrained in being able to issue > complaints that would place this issue before the Board. > > Rulemaking has other advantages in this instance, because the > Board can solicit input from the entire labor relations community > as opposed to making case-by-case decisions. The Board can also > spell out precisely how the rule would apply, something it cannot > do in a single case. Our proposed regulation is attached to the > end of this memorandum. > > If you would like to join our petition, please fill out and > return the form below: > > To: The Members of the National Labor Relations Board > > Re: Petition for the NLRB to Engage in Rulemaking to Establish > Weingarten Rights in Nonunion Workplaces > > I support the Petition for the NLRB to Engage in Rulemaking to > Establish Weingarten Rights in Nonunion Workplaces. I urge the > NLRB to proceed immediately to publish a notice that it will > engage in Rulemaking on this issue. > > Name: George B. Heliker, Ph.D. > Title: Professor of Economics (Emeritus), University of Montana > Address: 2230 Baypoint Road Polson, Montana 59860 > > Please return this memorandum to: Ellen Dannin, Associate > Professor of Law, California Western School of Law, 225 Cedar > Street, San Diego, CA 92101 > ejd@cwsl.edu > PROPOSED RULE > > It is proposed to amend 29 CFR part 103, Administrative Practice > and Procedure, Labor Management Relations, by adding the > following provisions: > > Sec. 103.___ > > (a) This rule applies to all employers and employees over whom > the Board asserts jurisdiction. The rule defines certain > employee conduct as protected by section 7, specifically certain > conduct covered by that provision's guarantee of the right of > employees to engage in concerted activity for the purpose of > "mutual aid or protection." It also defines corresponding > employer conduct required by Section 8(a)(1), inasmuch as the > latter provision makes it an unfair labor practice for an > employer "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the > exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7." > > (b) Whenever an employee who is not represented by a labor > organization pursuant to Section 9(a) or 8(f) receives notice > from his or her employer of an investigatory interview or hearing > which that employee reasonably believes may lead to discipline, > such noticed employee shall have the following rights, and the > employer shall be required to respond in accordance with the > following obligations: > > (1) The noticed employee shall have the right, but not the > obligation, to request that another employee of his or her own > choosing be present and/or assist at the interview or hearing. > > (2) Upon receiving such a request, if the employer intends to > proceed with the interview or hearing it shall provide the > noticed employee with a reasonable opportunity to seek another > employee who will consent to appear and/or assist at the > interview or hearing. This obligation, however, shall apply only > if and when the noticed employee has requested the presence > and/or assistance of another employee. > > (3) If the noticed employee obtains the consent of another > employee to provide assistance and/or presence at the interview > or hearing, the employer shall not conduct such interview or > hearing unless that other employee is present and has been given > the opportunity to assist the noticed employee. > > (4) If the noticed employee is unable to obtain the consent of > any other employee to accompany and/or assist at the interview or > hearing, the employer shall be free to proceed with the interview > or hearing with the noticed employee, notwithstanding that the > noticed employee will not be accompanied by another employee of > his or her choice. > > (5) If the employer denies the noticed employee's request for the > presence and/or assistance of another employee, the noticed > employee shall not be required to attend the interview or > hearing. > > (6) The noticed employee shall have the right to waive the > presence and/or assistance of another employee and attend the > interview or hearing alone, provided such waiver has been freely > exercised and not induced by coercion or promise of benefit, and > provided further that the employer is in compliance with the > notice-posting requirements of paragraph (10) of this Section. > If the noticed employee exercises this right to waive, the > employer may proceed with the interview or hearing without > another employee being present. > > (7) If the noticed employee has not waived his or her rights in > accordance with the preceding paragraph and the employer denies > the request for the presence and/or assistance of another > employee, the employer shall be free to carry on its > investigation concerning the noticed employee, but without > requiring the presence of the noticed employee at an interview or > hearing. Under these circumstances, however, the noticed > employee will now have the choice of either voluntarily > participating in such an interview or hearing, unaccompanied by > another employee, or not participating. > > (8) The exercise of rights under this rule shall not interfere > with legitimate non-conflicting employer prerogatives. Thus, > > ii. An employer has no obligation to justify its refusal to > grant a noticed employee's request for the presence and/or > assistance of another employee, > > ii. When a noticed employee is granted leave to seek out another > employee to accompany and/or assist at the interview or hearing, > the process of seeking and obtaining the consent of this other > employee may be scheduled at a time and in a manner that does not > unduly interfere with the employer's business; however, because > of the importance of the protected statutory rights involved in > this process, the employer shall make reasonable efforts to > accommodate the process. > > (9) An employer shall not discipline, discriminate against, or > cause any adverse effect to any employee on account of the > exercise or non-exercise of rights under this rule; nor shall an > employer coerce or promise any benefit to any employee to induce > that employee to waive any right under this rule. These > protections shall apply to all employees, including but not > limited to the noticed employee and any other employee who may be > approached to be present and/or provide assistance at an > interview or hearing. > > (10) The Board will distribute and provide copies of this rule to > employers, and employers shall keep it posted in a place or > places where it may be easily seen and read by all employees. > > (c) A violation of this rule by an employer shall be deemed an > interference with, restraint, or coercion of employees in the > exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 and is therefore > an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(a)(1). From aanz@sirius.com Tue Jun 3 23:41:23 1997 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 22:41:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 22:40:12 -0700 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: aanz@sirius.com (anzalone/starbird) Subject: Re: Silly question... >This may seem like an odd forum for this question, but I wanted to put it to >a large number of folks with a variety of union experiences and backgrounds. >I'm a new delegate to my local, and nobody seems to know the answer to this >one. So here goes: > >(1) What are the accepted ways to determine how much money to keep in a >union local's strike fund? Were it me, I'd be looking at the pragmatic (sorry to be so obvious). I'd be wondering how long I could financially sustain my membership in the event of a strike on my strike fund. That's what it's for. If you aren't expecting any negotiations and you're lousey with dough, I'd look into organizing as a way to eat up my cash reserve (and organizing new members, that'll do that for you very well). (2) Are their federal or state rules regulating >how much money a local can save in its account? Not that I'm aware of. Landrum-Griffen Act governs labor co-mingling of funds etc. (you can't use your strike fund for example, to bankroll a pro labor candidate's election campaign.) But as far as I know you can sit on a huge nest egg if you want to, or if you think that the money scares off the bosses anti union sentiments during negotiations...For a more official opinion I would recommend you check with the Labor Dept. (they enforce Landrum Act). You could also call the NLRB, ask for the officer of the day (lawyer) and quiz them. Your tax dollars have already paid the guy/gal who answers the phone, so it's nothing extra from you coffers to double check and clear any doubts from you mind. The NLRB stands for National Labor Relations Board, your local phone book should have it under federal government, ditto the Labor Dept. > >Over the past few years, our local has decreased dues to purposely cut back >our fund. I was, and still am, puzzled by this practice. I'd like to know >how other locals determine how much money they will save, and what >regulations or limitations exist in regard to that savings. > You don't mention what union/industry you're in. Best of luck to you, ellen starbird > > ====================================================================== > = Steve Robinson (810) 762-0483 = > = Mott Community College http://edtech.mcc.edu/~robinson = > = Michigan State University http://pilot.msu.edu/user/robins11 = > ====================================================================== > > > > > From aanz@sirius.com Wed Jun 4 00:11:00 1997 Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:08:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:07:48 -0700 To: sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu From: aanz@sirius.com (anzalone/starbird) Subject: Re: FWD: CIA-cocaine story (1/2) >I've seen that the San Jose Mercury editors, (without lawsuit pending, >apparently a rare occurance in professional journalism) have apologized >for the story (which they broke first last year). ellen Folks--Another report courtesy of my vet's network that needs to be widely >shared. Kim >>Relayed in two parts. >> >>Redistributed for noncommercial, educational purposes only. >> >>Part 1 of 2. >>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >>Date: Thu, 22 May 97 11:19:31 CDT >>From: Lisa Pease >>Subject: CIA, Contras & Cocaine: Big Media Rejoices >> >>Published here with permission. >> >>The Consortium >>Vol. 2, No. 13 (Issue 39) >>June 2, 1997 >> >>CIA, Contras & Cocaine: Big Media Rejoices >>By Robert Parry >> >>On Nov. 27, 1991, a Washington Post editorial began: "What is one to >>make of the riveting assertion, made by a convicted Colombian drug >>kingpin at Manuel Noriega's Florida drug trial, that the Medellin >>cartel gave $10 million to the Nicaraguan contras? Carlos Lehder is >>a key prosecution witness; the U.S. government cannot lightly assail >>his credibility." Lehder's testimony also did not stand alone. It >>matched testimony from other cartel-connected figures, including >>money launderer Ramon Milian Rodriguez, that the cartel had >>funnelled millions of dollars to the CIA-backed contra rebels in the >>1980s. The cartel apparently was trying to ingratiate itself to >>President Reagan who had hailed the contras as "freedom fighters" >>and the "moral equals of our Founding Fathers." >> >>The alleged cartel pay-offs, in turn, were part of a larger body of >>evidence that the contras and their supporters had protected drug >>flights, employed known drug traffickers for supply operations and >>smuggled cocaine directly into the United States to raise money. In >>Iran-contra testimony, U.S. officials had acknowledged that the >>contras were implicated in this drug trafficking, as were many who >>worked with them: the Cuban-Americans, the Panamanian Defense Forces >>and the Honduran military. >> >>By mid-1984, Oliver North's courier Robert Owen warned North at the >>National Security Council that the "Cubans [working with the contras >>are] involved in drugs." Another North aide, Col. Robert Earl, >>acknowledged to Iran-contra investigators that the CIA was worried >>because around the pro-contra Cuban-Americans, "there was a lot of >>corruption and greed and drugs and it was a real mess." >> >>CIA Central American task force chief Alan Fiers testified that >>"with respect to [Costa Rican-based drug trafficking by] the >>Resistance [the administration's name for the contras], it is not a >>couple of people. It is a lot of people." >> >>In Honduras, the situation was no better. One pro-contra general, >>Jose Bueso-Rosa, had even planned to finance the assassination of >>the country's civilian president with a cocaine shipment. After >>Bueso-Rosa was caught, North intervened to gain the general more >>lenient treatment because of his past help for the contras -- and >>out of fear Bueso-Rosa might divulge some secrets. [For more details >>on the contra-drug evidence, see the "Drug, Law Enforcement and >>Foreign Policy" report by the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee >>on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, Dec. 1988, or >>Cocaine Politics by Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall.] >> >>Testimony and documents -- disclosed during the Iran-contra scandal >>-- also made clear that senior Reagan administration officials >>sought to avoid embarrassing public disclosures that could undercut >>the contra cause. Indeed, one of the administration's greatest >>public-relations victories in the 1980s might have been steering the >>big media away from the contra-drug story. >> >>So that November 1991 editorial in the Washington Post was an >>unusual acknowledgement of the problem. The editorial even went on >>to quote favorably from Sen. John Kerry's drug investigation which >>concluded, in 1989, that: >> >>"Individuals who provided support for the contras were involved in >>drug trafficking, the supply network of the contras was used by drug >>trafficking organizations, and elements of the contras themselves >>knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug >>traffickers. In each case, one or another agency of the U.S. >>government had information regarding the involvement either while it >>was occurring, or immediately thereafter." >> >>The Post editorial then offered a gentle criticism of the >>performance of the mainstream media, presumably including the Post. >>"The Kerry hearings didn't get the attention they deserved at the >>time," the editorial acknowledged. "The Noriega trial brings this >>sordid aspect of the Nicaraguan engagement to fresh public >>attention." >> >>No Hand-wringing >> >>But the Post and the rest of the mainstream press went no further. >>There were no critical internal reviews of why the big newspapers >>had pooh-poohed one of the biggest stories of the decade. There was >>no hand-wringing about how the media had failed to protect the >>public from government-connected cocaine smugglers. There was no >>renewed investigation of the evidence which might have implicated >>figures at the highest levels of Washington power, including >>possibly close aides to the sitting president, George Bush. >> >>Still, that failure of the big newspapers, briefly recognized by the >>Post a half decade ago, is relevant again today as some of those >>same papers revel in a self-criticism published by the San Jose >>Mercury News for its 1996 series linking contra cocaine trafficking >>to the origins of the nation's crack epidemic. Mercury News >>executive editor Jerry Ceppos admitted that the series "fell short >>of my standards" in the reporting and editing of a complex story >>that contained many "gray areas." >> >>Among the weaknesses of the series, Ceppos said were instances where >>the paper included "only one interpretation of complicated, >>sometimes conflicting pieces of evidence," such as assertions by >>Nicaraguan drug dealer Oscar Danilo Blandon about when he stopped >>sharing profits with the contras and the total amount of his >>assistance. "We made our best estimate of how much money was >>involved, but we failed to label it as an estimate, and instead it >>appeared as fact," Ceppos said. >> >>In essentially distancing himself from investigative reporter Gary >>Webb, Ceppos stated that the series "strongly implied CIA knowledge" >>that a contra-connected cocaine ring was instrumental in launching >>the "crack" epidemic in Los Angeles in the early 1980s. "I feel that >>we did not have proof that top CIA officials knew of the >>relationship," Ceppos said. (There is no doubt, however, that senior >>CIA officials knew of the broader contra-drug problem. As early as >>1985, a CIA National Intelligence Estimate cited a contra faction in >>Costa Rica using cocaine profits to buy a helicopter. [AP, Dec. 20, >>1985]) >> >>While noting these shortcomings in Webb's stories, Ceppos still >>maintained that "our series solidly documented disturbing >>information: A drug ring associated with the contras sold large >>quantities of cocaine in inner-city Los Angeles in the 1980s at the >>time of the crack explosion there. Some of the drug profits from >>those sales went to the contras." [Mercury News, May 11, 1997] >> >>Mocking Webb >> >>Though nuanced, Ceppos's correction created an opening for the >>Washington Post and New York Times to resume a decade-long assault >>on the contra-drug story, the 1991 Post editorial notwithstanding. >>Both papers splashed stories about Ceppos's column on page one, >>highly unusual treatment for a media self-criticism. [WP, NYT, May >>13, 1997] The Post story was written by media critic Howard Kurtz, >>who had used his column last fall to ridicule Gary Webb. At one >>point in mocking Webb, Kurtz chortled: "Oliver Stone, check your >>voice mail." [WP, Oct. 28, 1996] Switching into his objective >>reporter hat for the front-page news story, Kurtz continued piling >>on. Kurtz quoted Rem Reider, editor of the conservative-leaning >>American Journalism Review, who called Ceppos's column a >>"significant, major correction" and referred to the original >>series as "another dark day for journalism." >> >>The Post and Times -- and the Los Angeles Times -- all hailed Ceppos >>for so publicly undercutting his reporter. "I give him high marks >>for openness and candor, which is something newspapers don't have a >>very good record of doing," Los Angeles Times bureau chief Doyle >>McManus said in Washington. "We tend to bury our corrections in >>small type on page 2." [WP, May 13, 1997] >> >>In an editorial entitled "The Mercury News Comes Clean," the New >>York Times said Ceppos's "candor and self-criticism set a high >>standard for cases in which journalists make egregious errors. ... >>Mr. Ceppos suggested that editors got too close to the story while >>it was being written and lost the ability to detect flaws that might >>have been obvious had they maintained a more skeptical distance." >>[NYT, May 14, 1997] >> >>In truth, however, these major newspapers have taken almost no steps >>themselves to ameliorate their decade-long underplaying of the >>contra-cocaine story, nor to correct outright inaccuracies in their >>frequent debunkings of other people's work. >> >>Though that 1991 Post editorial found fault with the media's >>inattention to "this sordid aspect" of the contra operation, the >>newspaper never explained why its reporter, Michael Isikoff, wrote >>a 700-word kiss-off of Kerry's contra-drug report when it was issued >>in 1989. The story, buried on page A20, presented little of the >>evidence that Kerry had marshalled, focusing instead of alleged >>weak-nesses in the investigation. [WP, April 14, 1989] >> >>But the Post was not alone in mishandling the contra cocaine story. >>On Feb. 24, 1987, the New York Times published a story by Keith >>Schneider, quoting "law enforcement officials" as stating that the >>contra-drug allegations "have come from a small group of convicted >>drug traffickers in South Florida who never mentioned contras or the >>White House until the Iran-contra affair broke in November" 1986. >> >>The Times article failed to note that the contra-drug allegations >>were first disclosed in an Associated Press dispatch (that I >>co-wrote with Brian Barger) on Dec. 20, 1985, nearly a year before >>the Iran-contra story broke. By April 1986, federal investigators in >>Miami were examining allegations of contra gun-running and >>drug-trafficking, as were Kerry's investigators. The Times even ran >>a pick-up of an AP story about that investigation on April 11, 1986. >> >>================ >>End Part 1 of 2. >> From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Jun 4 09:25:38 1997 Wed, 4 Jun 1997 08:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Wed, 4 Jun 1997 08:22:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 08:22:46 -0700 (PDT) To: united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, shniad@sfu.ca, jrfine@mit.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Indonesia Manpower Bill: more repression Sender: meisenscher@igc.org Labor Alerts/Labor News a service of Campaign for Labor Rights Call for International Solidarity: Oppose the Manpower Bill in Indonesia! [This is a slightly shortened version of an alert posted by the Asia Monitor Resource Center, based in Hong Kong. See contact information at end of alert. Advocates of globalization say that free trade inevitably leads to political freedom. The recent sham elections in Indonesia (last year, the government forcibly restructured the leadership of the main opposition political party) and the proposed Manpower Bill described below would seem to dispute that theory. The Manpower Bill gives further insight into repression in Indonesia, which remains Nike's most important producer of shoes.] On June 16, 1997, the Indonesian Government will introduce the Manpower Bill to parliament and force its passage into law, thereby consolidating its repression of the labour movement. This proposed 'Law on Manpower' will give the Government extensive control over every aspect of industrial relations, with unlimited power to intervene in labour disputes, and direct control over trade unions in the workplace. The new law will severely restrict workers' organizing activities and reduce their collective bargaining power. The Manpower Bill embodies all of the anti-worker legislation which prompted mass protests and strikes recently in South Korea and Australia. As members of the APEC free trade regime, the Governments of these countries have imposed a neoliberal agenda which combines free trade and freedom for international capital with strong state intervention to repress workers' movements and systematically destroy workers' collective rights. While labour standards in industrialized and newly industrializing countries are being driven down by global competition to attract transnational capital, countries such as Indonesia are driving standards even lower by institutionalizing its repressive labour practices in a new law which supposedly clarifies workers' "rights". The proposed law only clarifies workers' rights to the extent that it's clear they don't have any. If the Manpower Bill is passed by parliament it will impose severe restrictions on the right to organize and freedom of association, the right to bargain collectively and the right to strike. Without these fundamental rights the provisions in the Bill concerning wages and working hours cannot be monitored or enforced. The extent of this attack on workers' fundamental rights is demonstrated in the following aspects of the Manpower Bill: (1) Restrictions on freedom of association and reinforcement of the system requiring unions to be registered with and approved by the Government (Article 34). This reinforces the Decree of the Minister of Manpower (No.PER01/MEN/1994) on the establishment of trade unions in workplaces, whereby all trade unions must register with the Ministry of Manpower and provide a list of names of trade union committee members. The Decree bans union pluralism in the workplace and states that trade unions must seek affiliation to the Government-controlled All Indonesia Workers' Union (SPSI). (2) Severe restrictions on the right to strike, with unlimited power of Government intervention to end disputes. These restrictions include the requirement that workers seek permission from the Government at least 72 hours before strike action, and that the names of strike leaders must be submitted to the Government (Article 85). (3) Article 83 bans sympathy strikes and strikes which are not directly related to the company concerned. (4) Article 84 further undermines workers' right to strike by stating that: "Workers shall have no rights to wages during a strike." (5) Strike action is restricted to the company grounds and any strike action taken outside is illegal. This effectively prevents workers from participating in protest marches or public demonstrations. At the same time, Article 88 allows employers to expel workers from the company grounds: "All employers have the right to start a lockout." (6) Collective bargaining rights are not guaranteed. (7) Collective agreements only need to contain references to the "rights and obligations" of employers and workers, and company rules and regulations. Agreements do not need to contain specific provisions on wages, working hours, or working conditions. Also, employers can replace collective agreements with "company regulations" when a union "no longer exists" in the workplace. (8) Collective agreements must be negotiated "without any pressure", which means workers cannot petition the management or threaten industrial action to enforce their demands. (9) There is inadequate protection against unfair dismissal. In addition, Article 78 fails to guarantee the right to compensation for dismissed workers by stating that dismissed workers should receive severance pay or service money or compensation, when in fact workers should be entitled to all of these. (10) There is inadequate protection of the rights of women workers, child and youth labour, Indonesian workers for overseas employment, and foreigners. This problem also applies to the provisions on health and safety. (11) Many of these "rights" open to arbitrary decisions by Ministry of Manpower officials. (12) Several articles in Bill contain the qualification that regardless of the "rights" granted to workers, the Government has (and also the employer in fact, because the workers' problem is lack of bargaining power) the unlimited (and unchecked) power to interpret and determine the application of these provisions, example for Overtime (Article 96) and Rest Times (Article 97) Consolidating State Repression Throughout the Manpower Bill there are references to "Pancasila Industrial Relations", which subordinates all labour issues to the decisions of the Government over national interests, unity and order. Article 24 of the Manpower Bill reinforces authoritarian control over workers and trade unions by asserting that all activities must conform to "Pancasila Industrial Relations" which is "designed to promote harmonious, integrated and compatible industrial relations" whereby "all workers shall promote a sense of belonging to and awareness of maintaining and preserving the business." This aspect of the Manpower Bill will give the Government power to enforce an existing Decree issued by the Minister of Manpower in 1994 which states that: "The trade union at the enterprise level is characterized by the principles of Pancasila" and its role is "to ensure continued existence of the enterprise" and "increase the productivity of workers". The Manpower Bill further diminishes workers' rights by expressly defining workers as a national resource and as goods to be used for national development, where "manpower development aims to regulate, supervise and control the activities pertaining to manpower." Whereas an employer is defined in the Manpower Bill as "a person", a worker is defined only as "manpower". Finally, the Manpower Bill excludes workers' organizations, trade unions and other labour organizations not registered with and approved by the Ministry of Manpower from providing support to workers in strikes, labour disputes or collective bargaining negotiations. This will leave workers relatively powerless in the face of government officials and pro-government union officials whose interests are aligned with foreign and domestic capital. Taking Action In response to the threat this Bill poses to workers' fundamental rights and to the labour movement, a coalition of Indonesian NGOs and genuine workers' organizations launched a campaign in March of this year to express their opposition to the Bill. Their public criticism of the Bill and demands for significant revisions to include fundamental workers' rights has gained widespread support among workers and local communities. In the lead-up to the June parliamentary hearing of the Manpower Bill, close to a million workers will petition the Government and the House of Representatives to significantly revise the bill before it becomes law. As part of this campaign, workers' organizations and labour NGOs in Indonesia are calling for international support. The first step in the international campaign to stop the Manpower Bill will involve collecting the names of trade unions, labour support groups, human rights organizations, NGOs, and other concerned organizations to petition the Indonesian Government and the House of Representatives. A statement signed by organizations from around the world will be submitted to the Indonesian parliament along with the petition by Indonesian workers and workers' organizations. This petition will not only exert international pressure on the Indonesian Government, but will also raise international awareness of the threat posed by the Manpower Bill. Through this action we intend to demonstrate our solidarity for the Indonesian workers' struggle. To join this solidarity action please send the name of your organization and comments to APEC Labour Rights Monitor (ALARM) by email: alarm@hk.super.net or fax Asia Monitor Resource Centre (AMRC) in Hong Kong: (852) 2385 5319 To receive the Campaign for Labor Rights newsletter, send $35.00 to 1247 "E" Street SE, Washington, DC 20003. To receive a sample copy, send your postal address to clr@igc.apc.org or 541-344-5410. We rely on subscriptions to help us provide our many services. Please join! Also check out our web site at http://www.compugraph.com/clr To receive Labor Alerts directly by email, send a message to clr@igc.apc.org with "labor alerts -- all campaigns" in the subject line or specify which campaigns interest you.. If you already are receiving our labor alerts and would like to discontinue them, send an email to clr@igc.apc.org with "cancel labor alerts" in the subject line. From sdubb@weber.ucsd.edu Wed Jun 4 09:46:42 1997 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 08:46:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Steven Dubb To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Tijuana strike/letters of support needed To all, I volunteer with a maquiladora worker support group (the Support Committee for Maquiladora Workers). This Monday, 125 workers at the Han Young maquiladora (a Hyundai supplier), walked off the job seeking an independent union. In Tijuana, maquiladora "unions" are almost all controlled by the CROM; these are known as "ghost unions" (sindicatos fantasmas) because the sole function these unions perform is to keep out independent unions; generally, workers do not even find out they are "unionized," until they file papers for an independent union. This action is very exciting. Yesterday, after 2 days off the job, the workers agreed to go back to work after the employer agreed to purchase long-needed safety equipment within 10 days, take no measures against the workers who participated in the strike, and *remain neutral* with respect to the workers' demand for an independent union. However, it is very possible that the employer could renege on these concessions. Letters of support are urgently needed to maintain pressure on the Baja California government and on Hyundai so that the workers' right to form their own union is respected. Steve ================================================================ Support Committee for Maquiladora Workers Craftsmen Hall, 3909 Centre Street, Ste. 210 San Diego, CA 92102 phone (619) 542-0826; fax (619) 295-5879 June 2, 1997 Emergency Alert Maquiladora Workers Demand Union Recognition! Faxed Letters Urgently Needed Workers at the Han Young de Mexico maquiladora which produces chassis and platforms for tractor trailer trucks for Hyundai Precision America refused to enter the plant in Tijuana for work today to demonstrate their unified demand for union recognition. While the company's failure to pay utilidades, the 2% profit-sharing bonus as required under Mexican labor law, was the immediate impetus for the work stoppage, the workers' overriding concern is health and safety problems in the plant. Workers are often not provided with appropriate facial shields, gloves, coveralls or safety shoes. Some workers are losing their vision and many experience a burning sensation in their eyes due to constant exposure to lead fumes. Workers exhibit burns on their hands, chest, arms and clothing. While the workers assemble and weld at least 26 chassis daily that sell for $1800 each, they make between 280 and 360 pesos ($33-$46) weekly. Workers complain this is not enough to cover basic necessities. Han Young employes 125 workers. Current production involve a large contact Hyundai has to produce trucks for the U.S. Marines. The Han Young maquiladora, like most maquiladoras in Tijuana, pays a government connected "union" known as the Confederacion Regional de Obreros Mexicanos (CROM). Workers do not participate in any meetings of the "union" and have never seen a copy of its contract with the company. It is a standard practice by the maquiladora industry to pay for "protection contracts" against independent organizing by the workers. It is clear that international pressure can play a key role in the Mexican government's determination to recognize the workers' right to organize a union of their own and in the company's decision to bargain with the union. The Support Committee urges you to send letters immediately to the Mexican Labor Board with copies to the Governor of Baja California and Hyundai and Han Young expressing your solidarity with the striking workers. DEMAND RECOGNITION OF MAQUILADORA WORKERS' RIGHT TO ORGANIZE THEIR OWN UNION! PLEASE FAX LETTERS (see sample) ASAP to: Antonio Ortiz, Presidente Junta de Conciliacion y Arbitraje 011-52-66-86-33-00 If the above number does not answer, call 011-52-66-86-32-14 and say that you want to send a fax. Please fax copies of your letter to: Governor Teran Teran 011-52-65-58-11-78 Ted Chung, President, Hyundai Presicion America (619) 293-7264 Won Young Kang, Gerente General, Han Young de Mexico 011-52-66-80-44-81 Support Committee for Maquiladora Workers (619) 295-5879 ================================================== SAMPLE LETTER Sr. Antonio Ortiz, Presidente Conciliacion y Arbitracion By fax: (66) 86-33-00 Senor Ortiz: I am writing to express my support for the Han Young maquiladora workers' demand for union recognition. The Han Young maquiladora workers suffer numerous health and safety problems due to the company's continual failure to provide adequate safety gear. Such injuries include burns, and, due to constant lead exposure, failing vision. After years of unfulfilled promises of safety shoes and other protective devices, and the company's failure to pay utilidades in compliance with Mexican labor law, the workers felt they had no choice but to withhold their labor. Most Han Young workers are petitioning for their own union because they feel the CROM has not assisted them in any way, nor has it represented their interests. The workers have never had union meetings and have yet to see their employer's contract with the CROM. In the interests of these workers' right to organize and choose their own union representatives, we urge you to expedite registration of the Han Young workers' union and facilitate the positive resolution of this dispute. Sincerely yours, .... From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Jun 4 20:11:22 1997 Wed, 4 Jun 1997 19:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Wed, 4 Jun 1997 19:09:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 19:09:31 -0700 (PDT) To: united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: LP Banners, T-Shirts for June 21 Sender: meisenscher@igc.org Dear Labor Party Supporters: The Detroit Metro Chapter is working to raise $1000 to cover the costs of special banners, t-shirts and flyers for the June 21 demonstration. We ask unions, chapters, and individuals for the Labor Party to send contributions to help us cover the costs and orders for t-shirts ($10/shirt; XL, XXL, XXXL) to Labor Party, c/o Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, 26555 Evergreen Road, Suite 200, Southfield, MI 48076, by Friday, June 13. For more information: Phone: 810-948-1010 X288. Email: fvitale@igc.apc.org. We thank you in advance for your solidarity! Fred Vitale, Secretary From HOLLIS@UCIS.VILL.EDU Thu Jun 5 19:03:30 1997 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 21:02 EST From: HOLLIS@UCIS.VILL.EDU To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: RE: Silly question... Hi--I am replying for my husband who is a business agent for PA State Social Services Unions. He says there are no standards and no laws. Some people put in as much as 5 percent of gross revenue each year and soem people rely on their international to provide them with strike fund money. These days it makes more sense to use the money to organize than it does to put money away for a strike that may never happen. You can never have enough money to pay people full salary anyway during a strike. Whether you pay $50 a week or $150 a week in strike benefits is almost immaterial because it won't pay the rent in any case. Good luck, Karyn Hollis Villanova From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Thu Jun 5 21:22:26 1997 Thu, 5 Jun 1997 20:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Thu, 5 Jun 1997 20:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 20:20:12 -0700 (PDT) To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, h-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu, OIFAC@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU, can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: [PEN-L:10506] What Is a B.A. Worth? Sender: meisenscher@igc.org June 3, 1997 By THOMAS GEOGHEGAN CHICAGO -- It may be a good year in the job market for new college graduates, but in the 1990's a surprising number of them have found that a B.A. is not all that it's cracked up to be. Median income for a college graduate, of course, is still much higher than median income for a high school graduate. But the median income of recent college graduates fell in the first half of the 1990's, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington research group. Through most of this decade, the percentage of college graduates in "non-college jobs" has been remarkably high. At least one in five employed B.A.'s was in a non-college job, according to a 1994 survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the latest such study available. Supply and demand apply even to college graduates. Yet many New Democrats, including President Clinton, seem to tout college as the answer to our scandalous income inequality. This is at least part of the reason for President Clinton's proposed $1,500 tax credit -- he wants to make the first two years of college "universal." The President has also proposed a $5,000 tax deduction for college education or job training. Is this the Big Idea of Neo-Liberalism: Draft all of us into college? Of course, college tuition is absurdly high. There should be more opportunity and more college aid for the less well off. But we won't slow our rising inequality just by jamming more and more kids into college. First, a college degree is no guarantee of anything. The median annual income of Americans in the work force with no more than a B.A. degree barely nicked $34,000 last year. And the thing about median income is that a whole lot of college graduates make less. Besides, if America doubles or triples the supply of B.A.'s, this might lower the median income. Second, if kids go to college because high school jobs are so terrible, they may end up with these jobs anyway. If one in five employed B.A.'s is already in a non-college job, just what would happen if there's a doubling of the percentage of college graduates now in the work force, a figure that now stands at about 20 percent? What does the Bureau of Labor Statistics define as a college job? Manager of a Blockbuster video store? Yes. Assistant manager of Blockbuster? Maybe. Legal secretary? Can be. Police officer? Perhaps. Claims adjuster? Maybe. In many such occupations, a "college job" is just one where the boss prefers to hire someone with a college degree, and someone with a B.A. in fact takes the job. Willy Loman's job would today be called a college job. In the 1990's it comes with the territory. Then there are the real non-college jobs. There are B.A.'s selling ties at big downtown department stores. Now some college graduates do this voluntarily. But many have no choice. A study financed by the MacArthur Foundation found that 9.2 percent of the working poor in Chicago have B.A.'s. True enough, holding a non-college job is a temporary condition for some. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the percentage of B.A.'s in non-college jobs is high in all age groups. It's true that B.A.'s may have a shot at some of the best non-college jobs. But is that slight advantage worth the high cost of tuition (even with the Clinton tax credit)? In the end, "universal college" could end up as a kind of surcharge for the same "Dilbert"-type or sub-"Dilbert" jobs that workers would have gotten anyway. S houldn't the United States be making non-college jobs more attractive, by making non-college work better paid -- through union power and collective bargaining? We forget that in the 1970's, before union busting, the income of high school graduates generally rose as fast as the pay of those with college degrees. Indeed, when college graduates went to work in the 1970's, college income began to wobble. Why? Plain supply and demand. Richard Freeman, a noted labor economist at Harvard, even wrote a book in 1976 called "The Overeducated American." True, once unions collapsed in the 1980's, the income of college graduates rose much faster than high school graduates'. But that was far from true in other countries. In Germany and the Netherlands, for example, the gap between college graduates' income and the pay of high school graduates actually decreased over the same period. And in many developed countries, like Japan and France, there was little or no increase in the gap. It's true that if I were advising an 18-year-old, I would say go to college. But "universal college" is no universal panacea. What makes sense for one 18-year-old will not necessarily raise the income of the whole country. The fallacy here is pointed out by Douglas Huff in his classic, "How to Lie With Statistics," a book some college freshman have to read. One of Mr. Huff's favorite examples is the relation between college education and income: Does college really raise income, he asks, or is it just a way we "sort out" who gets the jobs that would be there by and large anyway? Oh, but it's different now, some people say, because of: The global economy. The more B.A.'s, the more foreign capital comes here. But if that's true, why hasn't foreign capital dried up the glut by now? Of course we need some B.A.'s in a global economy. But are Germany and Japan building auto plants here because of the college graduates in South Carolina? No, they want a location in the United States because we're a big market. (It's our own fault that we let foreign companies play one state off another with low wages and tax breaks. A national policy of collective bargaining would help prevent this.) Technology. It's hard to believe that there has been a true "technology revolution" that requires all of us to go to college. If so, what was it? More computers? Kids in grade school can now surf the Internet. Indeed, it's odd to talk about a "revolution" that supposedly occurred in the 1980's when American productivity growth was so insipid then. Yes, the rise in college tuition is a scandal and a barrier to many young people who really want to pursue Homer and calculus and not MTV. But college will never be a macroeconomic fix for the stagnation of Middle America, which still has not seen a raise. The best way to open "college to all" is to start raising the wages of working people who never went to college. In the 1950's and 1960's, working-class kids were able to attend college in part because their parents made union wages, and could pay for their tuition. It was good enough for our Golden Age. Why isn't it good enough now? Thomas Geoghegan, a labor lawyer, is the author of "Which Side Are You On?" Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Thu Jun 5 21:46:44 1997 Thu, 5 Jun 1997 20:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Thu, 5 Jun 1997 20:45:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 20:45:24 -0700 (PDT) To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, h-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu, OIFAC@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU, can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: [PEN-L:10582] Fw: Bad writing competition (fwd) Sender: meisenscher@igc.org I thought you all would get a kick outta this one ********** Gina Neff ginasue@panix.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- --Bad Writing Contest Winners-- >> > >> > We are pleased to announce winners of the third Bad Writing >> > Contest, sponsored by the scholarly journal Philosophy and Literature >> > and its internet discussion group, PHIL-LIT. >> > >> > The Bad Writing Contest attempts to locate the ugliest, most >> > stylistically awful passage found in a scholarly book or article >> > published in the last few years. Ordinary journalism, fiction, etc. are >> > not eligible, nor are parodies: entries must be non-ironic, from actual >> > serious academic journals or books. In a field where unintended >> > self-parody is so widespread, deliberate send-ups are hardly >> > necessary. >> > >> > This year's winning passages include prose published by established, >> > successful scholars, experts who have doubtless labored for years to >> > write like this. Obscurity, after all, can be a notable achievement. The >> > fame and influence of writers such as Hegel, Heidegger, or Derrida >> > rests in part on their mysterious impenetrability. On the other hand, >> > as a cynic once remarked, John Stuart Mill never attained Hegel's >> > prestige because people found out what he meant. This is a mistake >> > the authors of our our prize-winning passages seem determined to >> > avoid. >> > >> > * The first prize goes to a sentence by the distinguished scholar >> > Fredric Jameson, a man who on the evidence of his many admired >> > books finds it difficult to write intelligibly and impossible to write >> > well. Whether this is because of the deep complexity of Professor >> > Jameson's ideas or their patent absurdity is something readers must >> > decide for themselves. Here, spotted for us by Dave Roden of Central >> > Queensland University in Australia, is the very first sentence of >> > Professor Jameson's book, Signatures of the Visible (Routledge, 1990, >> > p.. 1): >> > >> > "The visual is _essentially_ pornographic, which is to say that it has >> > its end in rapt, mindless fascination; thinking about its attributes >> > becomes an adjunct to that, if it is unwilling to betray its object; while >> > the most austere films necessarily draw their energy from the attempt >> > to repress their own excess (rather than from the more thankless >> > effort to discipline the viewer)." >> > >> > The appreciative Mr. Roden says it is "good of Jameson to let readers >> > know so soon what they're up against." We cannot see what the >> > second "that" in the sentence refers to. And imagine if that uncertain >> > "it" were willing to betray its object? The reader may be baffled, but >> > then any author who thinks visual experience is essentially >> > pornographic suffers confusions no lessons in English composition >> > are going to fix. >> > >> > * If reading Fredric Jameson is like swimming through cold porridge, >> > there are writers who strive for incoherence of a more bombastic >> > kind. Here is our next winner, which was found for us by Professor >> > Cynthia Freeland of the University of Houston. The writer is >> > Professor Rob Wilson: >> > >> > "If such a sublime cyborg would insinuate the future as post-Fordist >> > subject, his palpably masochistic locations as ecstatic agent of the >> > sublime superstate need to be decoded as the >> > 'now-all-but-unreadable DNA' of a fast deindustrializing Detroit, >> > just as his Robocop-like strategy of carceral negotiation and street >> > control remains the tirelessly American one of inflicting regeneration >> > through violence upon the racially heteroglossic wilds and others of >> > the inner city." >> > >> > This colorful gem appears in a collection called The Administration of >> > Aesthetics: Censorship, Political Criticism, and the Public Sphere, >> > edited by Richard Burt "for the Social Text Collective" (University of >> > Minnesota Press, 1994). Social Text is the cultural studies journal >> > made famous by publishing physicist Alan Sokal's jargon-ridden >> > parody of postmodernist writing. If this essay is Social Text's idea of >> > scholarship, little wonder it fell for Sokal's hoax. (And precisely what >> > are "racially heteroglossic wilds and others"?) Dr. Wilson is an >> > English professor, of course. >> > >> > * That incomprehensibility need not be long-winded is proven by our >> > third-place winner, sent in by Richard Collier, who teaches at Mt. >> > Royal College in Canada. It's a sentence from Making Monstrous: >> > Frankenstein, Criticism, Theory, by Fred Botting (Manchester >> > University Press, 1991): >> > >> > "The lure of imaginary totality is momentarily frozen before the >> > dialectic of desire hastens on within symbolic chains." >> > >> > * Still, prolixity is often a feature of bad writing, as demonstrated by >> > our next winner, a passage submitted by Mindy Michels, a graduate >> > anthropology student at the American University in Washington, >> > D.C. It's written by Stephen Tyler, and appears in Writing Culture, >> > edited (it says) by James Clifford and George E. Marcus (University >> > of California Press, 1986). Of what he calls "post-modern >> > ethnography," Professor Tyler says: >> > >> > "It thus relativizes discourse not just to form--that familiar >> > perversion of the modernist; nor to authorial intention--that conceit >> > of the romantics; nor to a foundational world beyond discourse--that >> > desperate grasping for a separate reality of the mystic and scientist >> > alike; nor even to history and ideology--those refuges of the >> > hermeneuticist; nor even less to language--that hypostasized >> > abstraction of the linguist; nor, ultimately, even to discourse--that >> > Nietzschean playground of world-lost signifiers of the structuralist >> > and grammatologist, but to all or none of these, for it is anarchic, >> > though not for the sake of anarchy but because it refuses to become a >> > fetishized object among objects--to be dismantled, compared, >> > classified, and neutered in that parody of scientific scrutiny known as >> > criticism." >> > >> > * A bemused Dr. Tim van Gelder of the University of Melbourne sent >> > us the following sentence: >> > >> > "Since thought is seen to be 'rhizomatic' rather than 'arboreal,' the >> > movement of differentiation and becoming is already imbued with its >> > own positive trajectory." >> > >> > It's from The Continental Philosophy Reader, edited by Richard >> > Kearney and Mara Rainwater (Routledge, 1996), part of an editors' >> > introduction intended to help students understand a chapter. Dr. van >> > Gelder says, "No undergraduate student I've given this introduction >> > to has been able to make the slightest sense of it. Neither has any >> > faculty member." >> > >> > * An assistant professor of English at a U.S. university (she prefers to >> > remain anonymous) entered this choice morsel from The Cultures of >> > United States Imperialism, by Donald Pease (Duke University Press, >> > 1993): >> > >> > "When interpreted from within the ideal space of the myth-symbol >> > school, Americanist masterworks legitimized hegemonic >> > understanding of American history expressively totalized in the >> > metanarrative that had been reconstructed out of (or more accurately >> > read into) these masterworks." >> > >> > While the entrant says she enjoys the Bad Writing Contest, she's >> > fearful her career prospects would suffer were she to be identified as >> > hostile to the turn by English departments toward movies and soap >> > operas. We quite understand: these days the worst writers in >> > universities are English professors who ignore "the canon" in order >> > to apply tepid, vaguely Marxist gobbledygook to popular culture. >> > Young academics who'd like a career had best go along. >> > >> > * But it's not just the English department where jargon and >> > incoherence are increasingly the fashion. Susan Katz Karp, a >> > graduate student at Queens College in New York City, found this >> > splendid nugget showing that forward-thinking art historians are doing >> > their desperate best to import postmodern style into their discipline. >> > It's from an article by Professor Anna C. Chave, writing in Art >> > Bulletin (December 1994): >> > >> > "To this end, I must underline the phallicism endemic to the dialectics >> > of penetration routinely deployed in descriptions of pictorial space >> > and the operations of spectatorship." >> > >> > The next round of the Bad Writing Contest, results to be announced in >> > 1998, is now open with a deadline of December 31, 1997. There is an >> > endless ocean of pretentious, turgid academic prose being added to >> > daily, and we'll continue to celebrate it. >> > ********************************** >> > Dr. Denis Dutton >> > Senior Lecturer in the Philosophy of Art >> > Editor, Philosophy and Literature >> > University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand >> > Phones: 64-3-366-7001, ext. 8154 >> > d.dutton@fina.canterbury.ac.nz >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Fri Jun 6 10:32:54 1997 Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:21:43 -0700 (PDT) Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:21:18 -0700 (PDT) To: united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Nazi Usenet Group Sender: meisenscher@igc.org >>Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 13:24:15 -0400 >>>>>From: Al Stauffer >>>>>Reply-To: York University Faculty Association List >>>>>Subject: Nazi Usenet Group >>>>> >>>>> ... A few Neo-Nazi groups are trying to create (again) a usenet group >>>>> where they want to keep in contact with each other regarding their >>>>> activities. I believe it is not necessary to dwell further on these >>>>> activities. >>>>> >>>>> The group is rec.music.white-power. >>>>> >>>>> To create such a group, they have to win a referendum that is >>>>> always organised when a new usenet group is created. All persons >>>>> with an email address, and only those, can vote in this referendum. >>>>> >>>>> It is IMPORTANT to vote only once, otherwise the vote is cancelled. >>>>> >>>>> To prevent the creation of this group, you have to: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Send this message to people you know >>>>> >>>>> 2. Send an email to the following address: >>>>> >>>>> music-vote@sub-rosa.com >>>>> >>>>> with as contents (not 'subject') ONLY the following line: >>>>> >>>>> I vote NO on rec.music.white-power >>>>> >>>>> Since the vote is automatic, it is important to send the exact line >>>>> as it is given above, without adding anything, not even a name. >>>>> And please send it only once or it becomes invalid ! Also, please >>>>> >>>>> FORWARD THIS LETTER TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW WITH AN E-MAIL ADDRESS >>>>> >>>>> to prevent the founders from creating this group. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your collaboration. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Stew Gottlieb >>>>shmuel@amanda.dorsai.org >>>> >>>>--------- End forwarded message ---------- >> > > > From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Fri Jun 6 11:05:45 1997 Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:21:57 -0700 (PDT) Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:21:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:21:43 -0700 (PDT) To: united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, h-uclea@h-net.msu.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: AFSCME-OSH: Enzi "Safety and Health Advancement Act" (S.765) Fact Sheet Sender: meisenscher@igc.org ><---- Begin Included Message ----> >Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 10:46:12 -0400 >From: Jordan Barab >Subject: AFSCME-OSH: Enzi "Safety and Health Advancement Act" (S.765) Fact >Sheet >To: afscme-osh@igc.org > >========================================================== >AFSCME HEALTH AND SAFETY LISTSERVE >========================================================== >They*re Back!!! > >Up to now, Congress has thankfully had its attention on other matters: the >budget, campaign finance reform, etc. But now they*re finding themselves with >time to resume their attacks on working people. These attacks take a number >of forms and further alerts will follow. > >Attached here is an AFL-CIO/AFSCME summary of the latest Republican OSHA >Deform effort, *The Safety and Health Advancement Act* (S765), introduced by >Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi. Enzi is a member of the Senate Labor Committee and >was asked by the leadership to write a bill. While he began by consulting all >parties, with the announced intention of making this a moderate, compromise >*modernization* of OSHA, business interests eventually predominated to make >this just another in a growing line of attacks on our health and safety >conditions. > >Hearings on the Enzi bill will likely be held in June or early July by the >Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety. CONTACT YOUR SENATOR IMMEDIATELY >AND ENCOURAGE THEM NOT TO COSPONSOR OR SUPPORT S.765 > >Members of the Subcommittee: > >Republicans: Frist (TN) , Jeffords (VT), Coats (IN), DeWine (OH), Enzi (WY), >Collins (ME) >Democrats: Kennedy (MA), Harkin (IA), Mikulski (MD), Bingaman (NM), Reed (RI) > > >AFSCME/AFL-CIO FACTSHEET > > The Enzi "Safety and Health Advancement Act" (S.765) >___________________________________________________ > >Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) has introduced "The Safety and Health >Advancement Act" (S.765). Many of the provisions in the bill are similar to >OSHA reform efforts in the previous Congress. For instance, S.765 shifts the >OSHA law's focus from strong enforcement to voluntary compliance. The bill >would cause significant delays in OSHA's ability to set standards for emerging >hazards. It also would weaken workers' and unions' rights under the OSHA law. > >Each year, more than 55,000 American workers die, and seven million are >injured, because of job hazards. If enacted, S.765 would further weaken the >OSHA law and the toll of death and injury will increase. > >What's wrong with S.765? > >SECRET SAFETY AUDITS ALLOW EMPLOYERS TO ESCAPE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS > >The bill would exempt employers from "any civil penalty" for two years if an >employer has received a "declaration of compliance" from a qualified >individual. Anyone meeting a set of qualifications can issue these >"declarations of compliance," including corporate safety-and-health staff or >consultants hired directly by the company. Moreover, other provisions of >S.765 make the audits conducted by these certifiers a secret; OSHA cannot >review them during an inspection, and the bill contains no provision that >would let workers or unions see these audits. Employers receiving a >declaration are exempt from penalties for all violations, even those issued >for willful or repeat transgressions. > > ALLOWS UNPRECEDENTED FINES FOR WORKERS > >The bill would allow OSHA to issue fines of up to $500 to individual >employees. The OSHA law clearly establishes a safe-and-healthy workplace as >the employer's responsibility. Individual workers rarely have control over >workplace factors, and employers should guarantee safe workplaces by the >implementation of sound systems and procedures. Employers already have the >ability and authority to discipline workers who fail to follow safety rules >and should do so. Fining workers for factors that are beyond their control is >simply unjust and would also discourage employees from filing OSHA complaints >if they could be fined by an inspector. > >Moreover, the bill is unbalanced. According to the OSHA Act, only corporate >entities, not individual employers or supervisors can be fined, yet under this >bill, individual workers could be punished for safety violations. > >UNDERMINES WORKERS' RIGHTS > >The bill exempts employee participation programs that deal with safety and >health from Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act. This >provision, similar to one in the anti-union "TEAM Act," would allow companies >to establish employer-dominated safety-and-health committees and other >employee participation schemes. Ironically, earlier bill drafts would have >required half of the committee members to be employees selected by the >employees themselves, but the business community pressured Enzi to delete that >provision. > >The bill permits employers to test workers for drugs and/or alcohol. The >requirements of S.765 would preempt all state and local drug-and-alcohol >testing requirements, even if they give workers additional protections. Also, >the bill permits OSHA to conduct drug and/or alcohol testing during >investigations of fatalities or serious injuries. > >IMPORTANT STANDARDS AND SAFEGUARDS WOULD BE DELAYED > >The bill would establish a cumbersome process of review for every OSHA >standard. All final rules developed by OSHA, regardless of their size or >impact on the economy, would have to be reviewed by the National Academy of >Sciences before being issued. OSHA's rules are already discussed in lengthy >public hearings, reviewed by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the >Small Business Administration and can now be reviewed by Congress. (This is in >addition to lengthy reviews before rules are even officially proposed.) This >requirement would add at least two to three years to the promulgation of OSHA >rules. OSHA's standard-setting process is already a long drawn-out affair, >with many standards taking more than ten years to promulgate. No other >federal agency rules would face such review. > >SHIFTS RESOURCES AWAY FROM ENFORCEMENT > >The bill would reduce OSHA's already inadequate enforcement resources in many >ways: OSHA must expend 15% of its budgeted resources on education, >consultation and outreach no matter the demands for enforcement, standard >setting and other agency priorities; OSHA must establish a pilot program and >respond to all small business requests for consultation assistance within four >weeks, again no matter the demands on enforcement in those pilot states; and >OSHA must establish standards and guidelines for conducting independent safety >audits and continually review the qualifications to certify individuals who >will conduct these reviews. > >NO PROVISIONS TO STRENGTHEN JOB SAFETY LAWS > >The bill has no provisions to address major voids in the OSHA law. Other >recent job safety legislation has included proposals to strengthen worker >anti-discrimination protections, expand coverage to state- and >federal-government employees, rapidly address new workplace hazards and >strengthen worker rights. > >WHAT YOU CAN DO > >We can stop the Enzi Safety and Health Advancement Act, but only by letting >our friends, neighbors and co-workers know how important it is to maintain a >strong job safety law. Distribute copies of this Fact Sheet. Talk to >reporters too and encourage them to write about how this bill would affect >workers. Call your Senators and tell them to vote against S.765. > >And most important, make sure that all of your co-workers never forget that >their health and safety protections are not a God-given right -- they are the >result of labor struggle and Congressional legislation. And unless we keep >fighting, they can be taken away. > >For more information contact: The AFSCME Research Department (202-429-1240) or >AFL-CIO Department of Occupational Safety and Health (202-637-5366) > > > ><---- End Included Message ----> > > > U.S. address academic year 1996/97 Dr. Boy Luethje UC Berkeley Institute for the Study of Social Change 2420 Bowditch St Berkeley, Ca. 94720 Tel. 510/642-0813 510/477-0131 (home) Fax 510/642-8674 From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Fri Jun 6 20:20:57 1997 Fri, 6 Jun 1997 19:20:34 -0700 (PDT) Fri, 6 Jun 1997 19:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 19:19:42 -0700 (PDT) To: UNITED , UNITED , united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Re: Nazi Usenet Group Sender: meisenscher@igc.org Allen: Apparently you are more up on the ins and outs of the networld than I. I took the message at face value. I do believe in freedom of speech, but not unfettered freedom. I know this leaves me open to the "slippery slope" argument, but I have no problems when the opportunity presents itself in choking off the right of fascists and racists to promote their venom. In those cases the rights of the victims of this poison override their right to dispense it. This view does not conform with the ACLU notion of liberty, but I consider myself class-partisan and not a bourgeois liberal. I am not one who believes that we have to wait for nazis to physically assault someone, or burn a bookstore, or breakup a rally before we act to restrain them. I know this debate has appeared on these lists before, and I suspect this response will trigger a new round. We won't resolve it here, but perhaps the discussion will be helpful if for no other reason than it alerts "progressives" not to take the extreme right for granted or to consider them just a small band of kooks. I have to many life experiences that tell me differently. In solidarity, Michael At 01:57 PM 6/6/97 -0700, Allen wrote: >Dear Michael: > >The usenet vote is a fraud and the openness of the internet is manipulated >by UUnet's David Laurence. > >Votes about newsgroups read by millions are frequently less than 500 total. >The previous vote on this issue, a record vote in the history of usenet, was >less than 2000 total. > >Basically usenet voting is a matter of which group shouts the loudest and >can and has be used to shout down progressive initiatives as well as keep >the Nazi's off usenet. > >Do you believe in freedom of speech? Does it include people you disagree with? > >I won't vote for the nazis but I'm damned if I'm going to respond by banning >them. > >Germany's current problem with covert nazi/skinhead activities is clearly in >part brought on by the absolute ban on them in Germany; much like the >problems caused by Prohibition were much worse than the drinking itself was >before Prohibition and in the case of the US the problems have lingered for >60 years after the repeal of Prohibition. > >In addition to this is that Germany is using the nazi "threat" to close down >internet free speech and forcing Compuserve to dumb down all over the world >to meet the German standards of what is "acceptable." > >The the polite authoritarian model of Singapore is being spread when we use >"official" methods to prevent others's free speech rights. > >You can only know your enemy when you can see and hear them. > >Allen > > > > > > >At 09:21 AM 6/6/1997 -0700, Michael Eisenscher wrote: >> >>>>Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 13:24:15 -0400 >>>>>>>From: Al Stauffer >>>>>>>Reply-To: York University Faculty Association List >>>>>>>Subject: Nazi Usenet Group >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... A few Neo-Nazi groups are trying to create (again) a usenet group >>>>>>> where they want to keep in contact with each other regarding their >>>>>>> activities. I believe it is not necessary to dwell further on these >>>>>>> activities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The group is rec.music.white-power. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To create such a group, they have to win a referendum that is >>>>>>> always organised when a new usenet group is created. All persons >>>>>>> with an email address, and only those, can vote in this referendum. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is IMPORTANT to vote only once, otherwise the vote is cancelled. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To prevent the creation of this group, you have to: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Send this message to people you know >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Send an email to the following address: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> music-vote@sub-rosa.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> with as contents (not 'subject') ONLY the following line: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I vote NO on rec.music.white-power >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since the vote is automatic, it is important to send the exact line >>>>>>> as it is given above, without adding anything, not even a name. >>>>>>> And please send it only once or it becomes invalid ! Also, please >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FORWARD THIS LETTER TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW WITH AN E-MAIL ADDRESS >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to prevent the founders from creating this group. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for your collaboration. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>Stew Gottlieb >>>>>>shmuel@amanda.dorsai.org >>>>>> >>>>>>--------- End forwarded message ---------- >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sat Jun 7 10:06:52 1997 Sat, 7 Jun 1997 09:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Sat, 7 Jun 1997 09:03:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 09:03:31 -0700 (PDT) To: pen-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, h-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu, united@cougar.com, OIFAC@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU, can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Labour Channel Launched on PointCast Network Sender: meisenscher@igc.org >From: "Seth Wigderson, H-Labor" >Subject: Labour Channel Launched on PointCast Network > >Dear friends, > >I apologize for this form letter, but I wanted to inform quite a few of you >about an exciting new project I've launched -- the Labour Channel on >PointCast Network. > >Those of you who are Internet-fluent will understand the significance >immediately: this is the first time the labour movement has used the new >"push" technology to distribute its information. > >For details about the Labour Channel, what it is, what content it will >broadcast, how it works, how to subscribe (it's free of course) -- point >your browswers to: > >http://www.solinet.org/LEE/labour_jump.html > >I'm particulary interested in your own thoughts on how to broadcast >additional labour information through this channel. I think that some >publications like SoliNotes are good candidates for inclusion. Let me know >what you think. > >Please include links in your own web pages to the URL above so that your >own readers can download the software and subscribe to the channel. > >Please pass this information on to the appropriate mailing lists. Thanks >very much. > >Eric Lee > > From aikya@ix.netcom.com Sun Jun 8 10:17:30 1997 by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA06124 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 11:17:23 -0500 (CDT) id sma006115; Sun Jun 8 11:17:03 1997 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'Labor Research and Action Project'" Subject: RE: [PEN-L:10506] What Is a B.A. Worth? Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 09:00:13 -0700 There are a lot of interesting issues raised here. It does seem odd to have a lawyer writing an essay which is almost anti-education. Very shortly many people, quite a few of whom are women either with children, immigrants, or aged, will no longer receive financial help from the federal government. Nobody exactly knows what is going to happen to these people. Some organiza- tions have ardently been trying to convince us that they will suffer greatly. In doing research for an article on retirement income equity, I came upon a Canadian research report. It spent considerable time examining the issue of work interruptions for women and what kind of connection there was between fertility and women's continuing to work a wage job with no interruptions. Their findings are quite similar to observations in the U.S. in recent decades. Women stop work for childbirth. No surprise there. Once a woman stops working, she is likely to stay at home with her child. (Once upon a time, that was considered virtuous behavior. Now no one but the rich can afford to do it without consequence to the individual woman in her later years and to society which needs her contributions to the government retirement fund..social security or whatever it's called in Canada...to pay current beneficiaries and the baby boomers reach retirement age.) If the woman has a child before she starts working, she may never work under the system just ending. Several reasons are given for this. One is that the woman may not have completed sufficient education to qualify for a job that pays enough for her to support her family. The birth of additional children and the responsibilities of child care are another (Where are the folks yelling loudly for quality child care?) The third reason is that, since she is not part of the work world, she has no access to information about further education or job training (such as it is) which could change her earning ability. Some people, even our sincere liberal friends, believe that fertility is the Problem (Blame the women!). So for them, some more interesting details. >From those statistics, with which one can lie, we see that the more education a woman in the U.S. has the smaller will be her family size. Regarding the group of women mentioned above who had their first child before they finished high school or worked their first job, this could be immediately understandable. What if continuing education were promoted as something which would benefit the woman and her future children by making her more likely to earn higher wages, more able to be a better parent, etc., etc. Such programs do exist, including those working with teen mothers to encourage them to finish high school. Day care is provided for these young women. One thing which has been observed as a result of these programs is that young students of color have been testing much higher in basic skills in the primary grades recently. A suggested reason for this jump in performance is the programs encouraging mothers to finish high school, providing day care and parenting training. I digress Looking at international aid, microcredit programs which provide small loans to poor women so they can start or expand their own small businesses, have been in operation for 20 years. Childbirth seriously interrupts the work of an entrepreneur as it does a wage worker. International microcredit practitioners have observed that the more education women in very poor countries have, the smaller will be their family size. Overseas in countries like Uganda and India, we're aiming for 6 years of education, not high school, not college. Smaller family size comes along with greater earning ability for the woman in these countries. I always have supported any program which would encourage more education just the way I encourage fire safety and earthquake preparedness here in California. After looking into some of the above issues, I now know about some important reasons to back that up. The 1998 issue themes for Women and Money are posted on the website now for the curious. Aikya Param Publisher Women and Money http://www2.netcom.com/~aikya/womenandmoney.html From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sun Jun 8 23:07:32 1997 Sun, 8 Jun 1997 22:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Sun, 8 Jun 1997 22:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 22:06:45 -0700 (PDT) To: pen-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, united@cougar.com From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: APEC Toronto Sender: meisenscher@igc.org APEC Environment Ministers meet in Toronto, Canada June 9-11, 1997 Here is the only report published in the local press. The article does not mention the meeting that starts tomorrow! June 8, 1997 The Toronto Star By David Crane Environment needs spot on Asia-Pacific agenda THIS is Canada's year of Asia-Pacific, the year when Canada chairs the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation Forum. It will culminate in November, with Prime Minister Jean Chr=E9tien hosting a Vancouver summit of leaders from 17 other nations from both sides of the Pacific Ocean. There, Chr=E9tien will huddle with leaders from such big nations as the United States, Japan and China; middle-size countries such as South Korea, Australia, Malaysia, Mexico and the Philippines; and city-states such as Singapore and Hong Kong, as well as aspiring giant Indonesia and small but very rich Brunei. The purpose of APEC is to build a closer community in the Asia-Pacific region, a vast region that accounts for about 40 per cent of the world's population, more than 55 per cent of world economic output, more than 40 per cent of exports and imports in the world economy - and more than 50 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. It does this through many different committees that promote freer trade and investment, facilitate trade through better customs clearance and uniform documentation, co-operate on small and medium-size business development, pursue environmental issues, work on co-operation in education and training, and develop initiatives on infrastructure and telecommunications. Last month, trade ministers from the APEC countries met in Montreal. This month, environmental ministers will meet in Toronto and, later this year, a small and medium-size business conference will be held in Ottawa. Other APEC ministerial meetings are being held across Canada in preparation for the November summit. To a large extent, though, APEC has become a trade negotiating forum. Last year's APEC summit, held in the Philippines, was dominated by U.S. President Bill Clinton's arm-twisting efforts to negotiate free trade in information technologies. At this year's summit, Clinton will be pushing hard for a free trade agreement on financial services. While the United States tends to dominate the APEC meetings, this doesn't mean the host country is powerless to influence the agenda. This year, officials say Canada hopes that the leaders will be able to agree on one or two sectors for free trade, such as environmental technologies and services and processed foods. APEC does have a broader agenda in trade - in fact, in Indonesia in 1994, it set the goal of APEC free trade and open investment in APEC's developed countries by 2010 and by 2020 for developing countries, though many observers are skeptical this will happen. APEC started off as a meeting place for trade and economic ministers, but since 1993, it has held an annual leaders' summit with 18 members. Two more countries, Vietnam and Peru, are slated to join this year. But APEC has a major problem in building public support for its activities in many of the member countries. One reason is its preoccupation with pushing globalization issues, such as free trade and open investment. It also appears to consult only with representatives of the business world on a regular basis. Officials say Canada hopes to see more emphasis at this year's summit on sustainable development and on technical and economic co-operation. But a key challenge is to expand APEC to provide a standing for labor and environmental groups similar to the privileged position business currently enjoys. For APEC to succeed, it will also need to expand its summit meetings to deal more aggressively with key issues such as the environment, sustainable development and the future of cities. This year, for example, the Vancouver summit precedes the critical U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change summit to be held in Kyoto, Japan. That meeting is supposed to produce an agreement on reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to protect the world from climate warming. Since APEC members already account for more than half of global greenhouse gas emissions, and will account for a bigger share in the future, why doesn't Canada push for a statement of commitment on global warming at the November summit? If APEC can emphasize the global trade agenda, it can surely do the same for the environment. Contents copyright =A9 1996, 1997, The Toronto Star .................................................... Bob Olsen Toronto bobolsen@arcos.org ]:-) From cxhaha@mail.wm.edu Mon Jun 9 07:22:43 1997 From: "Cindy Hahamovitch" To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 09:25:14 +0000 Subject: Re: Union Cities Thanks for the information on Union Cities. Cindy Hahamovitch Assistant Professor of History College of William & Mary Phone: 757-221-3770 Internet: cxhaha@mail.wm.edu From cxhaha@mail.wm.edu Mon Jun 9 07:27:58 1997 From: "Cindy Hahamovitch" To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 09:30:17 +0000 Subject: Re: labor-scholar alliance Thanks to Dave Clawson for the interesting report on the May meeting about forging a new alliance between labor and academia. He mentioned the plan to launch a new slate of teach-ins on the labor movement in the fall. We're planning one here at William & Mary in conjuntion with the Southern Labor Studies Conference that we'll be hosting from September 25-28. The conference is titled "Organizing the Unorganized: Past and Present, Locally and Globally." It will involve academics of all stripes who will be discussing labor around the world as well as labor activists, middle and high school teachers, grad students and many others. We're planning a teach-in on Friday, Sept. 26. If you can help or would just like more information about the conference, you can contact me by email or by phone at (757) 221-3770. Cindy Hahamovitch Assistant Professor of History College of William & Mary Phone: 757-221-3770 Internet: cxhaha@mail.wm.edu From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Jun 9 22:13:47 1997 Mon, 9 Jun 1997 19:50:58 -0700 (PDT) Mon, 9 Jun 1997 19:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 19:39:58 -0700 (PDT) To: can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Nike protests at UCI Sender: meisenscher@igc.org Labor Alerts/Labor News a service of Campaign for Labor Rights Inspiring news from Orange County, California [the follow information was provided by Alain Dang at the University of California -- Irvine.] Update: After meeting with our Athletic Department Director, Dan Guererro, the UCI Womens Basketball team is not signing with Nike again this year, switching to Converse. He will be seeking alternatives when the other teams' sponsorship contracts come up for renewal in the coming years. We may be taking our skit on the road to a few schools in the Santa Ana area in the fall. UCLA, UC San Diego, and UC Davis are all either kicking off or organizing their NIKE campaigns as well. It's expected the University of California Student Association (UCSA) and the United States Student Association (USSA) will join UC Irvine in this campaign. thanks to all who supported uci's nike awareness day! it was a big success. over 500 flyers were distributed, 300 buttons were given out and over 200 letters to nike ceo phil knight have been collected so far. the skit provided the conservative campus powerful images of workers facing an endless workday, dramatizations of documented cases of physical abuse, and the inner thoughts of one worker, trying to make sense of her life among the chaos and oppression she faces. we got a lot of positive feedback from the uci community, and even helped at least 5 people with their research papers. if uci didn't know what was going on in nike-producing factories in southeast asia, they do now. i want to especially thank the members of the Vietnamese American Coalition for their hard work and total commitment to this project. the fire is spreading over nike and phil knight is feeling the heat. let's keep the pressure on! exhausted, but optimistic, alain To receive the Campaign for Labor Rights newsletter, send $35.00 to 1247 "E" Street SE, Washington, DC 20003. To receive a sample copy, send your postal address to clr@igc.apc.org or 541-344-5410. We rely on subscriptions to help us provide our many services. Please join! Also check out our web site at http://www.compugraph.com/clr To receive Labor Alerts directly by email, send a message to clr@igc.apc.org with "labor alerts -- all campaigns" in the subject line or specify which campaigns interest you.. If you already are receiving our labor alerts and would like to discontinue them, send an email to clr@igc.apc.org with "cancel labor alerts" in the subject line. Please consider making a donation to Campaign for Labor Rights. From jholling@ccs.carleton.ca Tue Jun 10 00:10:42 1997 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 02:10:33 -0400 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, Labor Research and Action Project From: John Hollingsworth Subject: Re: Silly question... At 04:53 PM 02/06/97 -0400, Steve Robinson wrote: >This may seem like an odd forum for this question, but I wanted to put it to >a large number of folks with a variety of union experiences and backgrounds. >I'm a new delegate to my local, and nobody seems to know the answer to this >one. So here goes: > >(1) What are the accepted ways to determine how much money to keep in a >union local's strike fund? (2) Are their federal or state rules regulating >how much money a local can save in its account? > >Over the past few years, our local has decreased dues to purposely cut back >our fund. I was, and still am, puzzled by this practice. I'd like to know >how other locals determine how much money they will save, and what >regulations or limitations exist in regard to that savings. It doesn't seem like good practice to me. Unions need a strong strike fund to take with them to the bargaining table. Unless they spiked high because of preparation for a strike (catch-up) that didn't happen, this smacks of a lackadaisical business unionism. In any event, they're resources that can be put to good use in organizing workers or in saving for a rainy day. It's kind of analogous to cutting taxes to end "big government"--you know, spending on essential social services like beds in hospitals... John Hollingsworth Vice-President (External), CUPE 2323 ________________________________________________________________ John Hollingsworth (613) 234-1237 Ottawa, CANADA 1-333 James St. K1R 5M8 Institute of Political Economy Carleton University ________________________________________________________________ From jipsonaj@muohio.edu Tue Jun 10 12:43:16 1997 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:48:01 -0500 To: psn@csf.colorado.edu, ahs-talk@ncsu.edu, H-PCAACA@MSU.EDU, LABOR-L@YORKU.CA, LABOR-RAP@csf.colorado.edu, NCSABB@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU, WFLINT@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu, martindd@casmail.muohio.edu From: Art Jipson Subject: CFP: AHS panel on Union Reform
Please distribute to interested folks! Call for PresentersTimes Panel on Union Reform and its Consequences, Limitations, and PossibilitiesTimes atTimes the Annual Meeting of the Times Association of Humanist SociologyTimes November 6-9, 1997Times The University ClubTimes Pittsburgh, PATimes
Times The theme for the conference is 'Organize the Unorganized,' so the meeting is a welcome opportunity to gather with other labor and social movement scholars and activists. If you would like to participate in a panel on union reform, please contact the session organizer by June 25. Times Send inquiries about the session to:Times Art Jipson, Session OrganizerTimes Department of Sociology, Gerontology, and AnthropologyTimes Upham HallTimes Miami UniversityTimes Oxford, OH 45056Times (o) 513-529-2637Times (f) 513-529-8525Times jipsonaj@muohio.eduTimes Send questions about the association or meeting to:Times Frank Lindenfeld, Program Chair 1997Times Department of Sociology and Social WelfareTimes Bloomsburg University, 400 East 2nd StreetTimes Bloomsburg, PA 17815Times (o) 717-389-4221Times (f) 717-389-2019Times Art Jipson Department of Sociology, Gerontology, and Anthropology Upham Hall Miami University Oxford, Ohio 45056 513-529-2637 (o) 513-529-2628 (d) 513-529-8525 (f) jipsonaj@muohio.edu Me: http://miavx1.muohio.edu/~ajjipson NCSA: http://miavx1.muohio.edu/~ajjipson/NCSA.htmlx Connells: http://miavx1.muohio.edu/~ajjipson/connells.htmlx "Didn't I say sorry, Didn't I say dear, Didn't I consider, Didn't I stand clear..." - M. Connell From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Jun 11 09:28:13 1997 Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:02:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:02:34 -0700 (PDT) To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, united@cougar.com, can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Nike Boycotts Sender: meisenscher@igc.org This was passed along privately, but it deserves wider attention. Michael >From: "James Gregory" >Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 19:30:49 PDT > >SPIKE LEE & NIKE=85 > >On WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, -- 1pm, Spike Lee (movie director, Nike ad.=20 >Director) will be launching his new book (Best Seat in the House: A=20 >Basketball Memoir) at BORDERS Bookstore, World Trade Center (New York). > >In the past Spike Lee has directed/stared in movies addressing the=20 >plight of African American communities and in doing so exposing=20 >injustice and institutionalized oppression (exemplified in such movies=20 >as Do the Right Thing, and Malcolm X). > >It is hypocrisy at its worst for Lee to work for, endorse and now to=20 >write about a company which is responsible for some of the most=20 >systematically oppressive human rights abuses of our times. Nike=20 >exploits labor en masse in third world countries. (see below for more=20 >details) > >Workers work long hours, for little pay, under terrible conditions while=20 >Nike skims the cream. To rub salt into the wounds of these oppressed=20 >workers, Western celebrities are paid a fortune to do glamorous ads and=20 >other promotions for Nike.=20 > >On the cover of Lee=92s book, a pair of Nikes is the first thing that hits= =20 >you. (Wearing them =96 sitting directly behind them is a smug looking=20 >Lee). =20 > >Flicking through, there are 18 references to Nike =96 most of them very=20 >favorable (Many in defense of Nike). =20 > >There is also (at least) one reference to Philip Knight (Nike=92s CEO) in= =20 >which Lee writes (about one of many accusations leveled against Nike);=20 >"=85We=92ve become friends over the years =96 he=92s a nice guy if a= strange=20 >guy, revels in being an outcast, a rebel, the underdog =96 expressed=20 >genuine concern." (!??!) > >I PROPOSE THAT ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1PM, A TWO-FOLD PROTEST BE=20 >ORGANIZED AT BORDERS BOOK STORE, WORLD TRADE CENTER, NEW YORK. =20 > >* THE FIRST STAGE SHALL INVOLVE ABOUT HALF THE PROTESTERS LINING UP=20 >(SUPPOSEDLY TO GET BOOKS SIGNED) AND ASKING PRICKLY QUESTIONS OF LEE=20 >(PREFERABLY LOUDLY SO AS TO EMBARRESS HIM, AND EXPOSE HIS (AND NIKE=92S)=20 >HYPOCRISY). PARTICIPANTS (I SUSPECT) SHOULD BE AT BORDERS BY AT LEAST=20 >12:30, TO BE ASSURED A PLACE IN THE QUEUE. > >** THE SECOND STAGE SHOULD BE COMPRISED OF A GOOD OLD FASHIONED=20 >PROTEST/LEAFLET DROP AT BORDERS ENTRANCES. > >QUESTIONS (ACCUSATIONS) FOR SPIKE, AND LEAFLET MATERIAL COULD BE=20 >ARRANGED FROM THE MATERIAL BELOW. > >******TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!!!****** >IF EVERYONE WHO RECEIVES THIS MESSAGE COULD PASS IT ON TO AT LEAST TWO=20 >OTHER PEOPLE, WE MIGHT HAVE A DECENT PROTEST ON OUR HANDS!! > > >THANKS, > >JAMES GREGORY > > > >Here are some really good anti-Nike links, followed by some information=20 >concerning Nike=92s exploitative ways (just in case you don=92t know). I= =20 >purloined the info from other people=92s/organizations=92 web pages;=20 >apologies if I=92m infringing copyright, but it=92s for a good cause=85=20 > >http://www.globalexchange.org/watch/campaigns/nikecampaign.html=20 > >http://www.saigon.com/~nike/nike.html=20 > >http://www.xs4all.nl/~ccc/nike.htm > > > >You have to meet the quota before you can go home.=20 >She hit all 15 team leaders in turn from the first one to the fifteenth.=20 >The physical pain didn't last long, but the pain I feel in my heart=20 >will never disappear. =20 > >The above statements were made by Thuy and Lap to CBS News. Both of=20 >these Vietnamese women are workers at the NIKE plant near Saigon, Viet=20 >Nam. Despite its progressive image in the United States, Nike is a very=20 >different company in Vietnam and in other Asian manufacturing=20 >operations. Reports of physical abuse, sexual abuse, low wages and a=20 >debilitating quota systems are confirmed by CBS News as well other NGOs,=20 >yet Nike has not remedied or even acknowledged these problems.=20 > > In response to these reports, an alliance of ordinary people have=20 >joined together in a boycott of Nike products worldwide until corrective=20 >actions are taken to improve these abhorrent working conditions, which=20 >have proven to be insulting to human dignity and neglectful of human=20 >conscience.=20 > > > The Nike story in Viet Nam: CBS News 48 Hours reports the following: > > 1.Nike workers in Viet Nam earned an average of 20 cents per hour 2.15=20 >women workers were hit on the head by their supervisor 3.45 women were=20 >made to kneel on the ground for 25 minutes with their hands in the air =20 >4.and a Korean supervisor fled the country after accusations that he=20 >sexually molested female workers.=20 > > When CBS News approach Nike's representative at Nike Vietnam's=20 >headquarters, the man simply covered the camera with his palm and said=20 >'I have things to do'.=20 > > In America, Nike's response has not been much better. In front of=20 >several hundred shareholders, after announcing record earnings and a=20 >stock split, Nike's president and CEO, Phil Knight minimized the=20 >problems in Vietnam as simply an incident in which a single worker was=20 >hit on the arm by a Korean supervisor. Roberta Baskin of CBS News said,=20 >"It turns out Nike has a great deal to learn about what goes on inside=20 >these factories."=20 > > >IT'S A FUNNY OLD GAME > >A typical pair of sports shoes sells for 50 in Britain. The 40 or so=20 >factory workers in the Philippines who made that shoe will share just=20 >over 1 of that price between them.=20 > >Nike boss Phil Knight's 1994 salary was 929,113. On current wages, a=20 >young woman in China churning out his shoes would have to work nine=20 >hours a day, six days a week for 15 centuries to match that.=20 > >Estimated wages in footwear factories in selected countries, 1994=20 >Country Basic hourly wage UK 5.00 Thailand 0.46 Philippines 0.37 China=20 >0.23=20 > > Nike also states that `the labor component of an Indonesian footwear=20 >product is typically 11 per cent'. Christian Aid has found 12 per cent=20 >to be an average figure for the FOB price of a sports shoe across the=20 >region. Following Nike's argument, if a pair of sports shoes is sold for=20 >50 in the UK, one could calculate that the production-line labour cost=20 >involved would be around 1.50.=20 > >This is more generous than the averages which Christian Aid's in-factory=20 >research produced: 46 pence per pair in China, 1.08 per pair in the=20 >Philippines and 1.19 per pair in Thailand. This would give an average=20 >labour content for all shoes across the three countries of 90 pence.=20 >=20 >Common problems are: >Forced overtime=20 >As in Thailand, workers cannot refuse to do overtime, especially when=20 >the factories are rushing orders. Workers in one factory (Olongapo) were=20 >working from 7am to 8pm to meet orders.=20 >Forced leave=20 >Equally, if there is little work, workers cannot refuse forced leave=20 >without pay.=20 >Casualisation=20 > > It is estimated that almost 50 per cent of the workers in the Bataan=20 >factories are `casuals'. They only have three or six-month contracts=20 >after which they are laid off. This `perpetual casualisation' means that=20 >employers avoid paying benefits.=20 > > Ronet Santos of the Philippines Resource Centre feels: `Companies like=20 >Reebok and Puma, with their slick adverts and celebrity endorsements,=20 >are running away with all the prizes. It's time they did something for=20 >the women in their shoe factories who are still on the starting blocks=20 >in terms of pay and conditions.'=20 > > >Boycott NIKE - Just DO It! > >At the same time that the shoe giant is posting record profits, Nike=20 >management have been scrambling to repair damage to their company's=20 >image because of an international campaign drawing attention to labor=20 >rights abuses in Nike production facilities. Campaign for Labor Rights=20 >is a member of the Working Group on Nike, an alliance of U.S. and=20 >Canadian organizations which have come together to win justice for Nike=20 >production workers. In this alliance, we work especially closely with=20 >Press for Change and Justice Do It Nike. Organizations in other=20 >countries around the world also have Nike campaigns. In September,=20 >representatives of 57 organizations from around the world met in Germany=20 >to discuss codes of conduct, the role and responsibilities of=20 >transnational corporations and strategies and campaigns to protect=20 >workers' rights worldwide; a prime topic of discussion was campaigns in=20 >support of workers in the sports shoe industry. In June, the National=20 >Organization of Women (NOW) passed a resolution condemning the global=20 >sweatshop; Nike was the only company mentioned by name.=20 > > Nike CEO Phil Knight put in an appearance at the White House rose=20 >garden for a photo opportunity with Kathie Lee Gifford and President=20 >Clinton. Nike will be part of a business coalition to develop standards=20 >for a "no sweat" clothing label, certifying that garments bearing the=20 >label were made under fair and legal labor conditions. Doubts about the=20 >effectiveness of the proposed label increased when Clinton and Labor=20 >Secretary Reich included Nike, a company which refuses to clean up its=20 >own act, on a commission to draw up standards for the industry.=20 > > As another part of its PR blitz, Nike hurriedly joined Business for=20 >Social Responsibility, after spurning the group's offers of membership=20 >for two years. As far as we have been able to determine [BSR apparently=20 >does not make this information public], there are no requirements for=20 >admission to BSR. The BS in BSR could be read more ways than one.=20 > > Nike also announced that they were having discussions with the Robert=20 >F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights. An inquiry to that group=20 >revealed that when Nike tried to cozy up to them, the RFK people told=20 >Nike that they need to talk with the Working Group on Nike because the=20 >members of WGON are credible human rights organizations.=20 > > Meanwhile, Nike continues to refuse dialogue with its critics. CLR and=20 >the other member organizations of the Working Group intend to convince=20 >Nike that it has a problem which cannot be solved by its PR department.=20 >This month, leafleting actions and demonstrations took place at Nike=20 >outlets in cities in the U.S., Canada and parts of Europe. Most were on=20 >Sept. 14, two days before the Nike annual stockholders meeting voted=20 >down a shareholder resolution that the company should permit truly=20 >independent monitoring of its factories.=20 > > Also in September, a delegation to Indonesia met with nongovernmental=20 >activists as well as government officials (and a Nike spokesperson who=20 >talked at the group for 40 minutes and showed no interest in real=20 >dialogue). Delegates included representatives from the Working Group,=20 >the AFL-CIO and other concerned organizations. They learned firsthand=20 >from workers about pay and conditions in Nike shoe factories and they=20 >deepened their understanding of the context of repression faced by union=20 >activists. Nike and other transnationals seek out low-wage countries and=20 >highly repressive governments. The two go hand-in- hand because=20 >repression prevents Nike's workers from organizing for better wages and=20 >conditions. Although Nike has not openly supported Indonesia's bloody=20 >occupation of East Timor, Nike investment helps to prop up the=20 >Indonesian dictatorship and Nike contractors call in the military to=20 >intimidate and detain labor organizers.=20 > > The delegation was sponsored by Global Exchange, which also, in July,=20 >brought Cicih Sukaesih on a speaking tour of five U.S. cities. Cicih was=20 >fired four years ago from a Nike shoe factory in Indonesia and has since=20 >been blacklisted. Her case was upheld by every Indonesian court which=20 >has reviewed it -- remarkable in a country as repressive as hers -- and=20 >is now before the Indonesian Supreme Court. Nike has never urged its=20 >contractors to reinstate Cicih nor the more than 60 other workers=20 >documented as having been fired illegally for their union activities in=20 >the shoe factories.=20 > > Cicih's appearances were widely covered in the media and brought a=20 >human face to the Nike campaign. The rally for Cicih at Chicago's Nike=20 >Town featured a strong contingent of Union Summer activists who roared=20 >out chants they had prepared. During her Chicago visit, someone showed=20 >Cicih a Nike poster: "Go ahead," the poster proclaimed, "demand a raise.=20 >You have everything to gain and nothing to lose." She assumed that the=20 >poster had been printed by someone in support of Nike workers. Amazed=20 >when the truth was explained to her, she said, "They would NEVER say=20 >that on their ads in Indonesia. There, they just put the name, Nike, and=20 >the picture of the sports star. There is no text in the Indonesian ads.=20 >When we worked in the factory, we thought `Just do it!' meant: `Work=20 >harder and don't question authority.'"=20 > > In Portland, Oregon in one of the most moving moments of her tour,=20 >Cicih slipped into the Nike Town store as demonstrators were gathering=20 >in front. Upon emerging, she related the emotions she had felt in the=20 >store's shoe department: "My first thought, as I held those shoes in my=20 >hands, was pride at how well-made they were and that I had a part in=20 >making such fine shoes. And then I put them on my feet. They felt so=20 >good! Four years I worked in the factory, and until now I never had a=20 >pair of Nikes on my feet. We could not even think of buying them at the=20 >wages we received. And then I was very sad when I thought of the=20 >conditions under which they are made. And angry." To purchase a pair of=20 >the shoes she makes, A Nike worker would have to devote every penny from=20 >two to three months of her paychecks.=20 > >A woman worker was locked inside a dog cage with a large dog and placed=20 >on public display in the factory compound.=20 > > The worst factories in south China do not even allow workers to leave=20 >the factory compound after work. In extreme cases the isolation and=20 >iron discipline are prison-like. The official press has reported cases=20 >of unpaid workers enslaved in heavily guarded compounds who have staged=20 >escapes.=20 > > More than 60 years ago the United States banned child labor,=20 >sweatshops, long workdays and workweeks. But now we are subsidizing,=20 >encouraging and failing to criticize the enslavement of young people in=20 >the Third World. The so-called Third Wave, boosted by President Clinton=20 >and House Speaker Newt Gingrich in the form of GATT and the World Trade=20 >Organization prohibits member nations like the United States from=20 >discriminating against the importation of goods made by children. > > I spoke with a worker who had lost some of her fingers, had them=20 >crushed in a machine at a Nike factory. The compensation that worker=20 >received -- total for the loss of her fingers -- was $25. Because of =20 >her injury, she no longer is employable. > > "A group of Indonesian nongovernmental organizations with a solid=20 >record in workplace monitoring has submitted a proposal to monitor=20 >conditions in Nike's factories. Nike refused. They have too much to=20 >hide.=20 > >Nike is riding high these days. They are making record profits. They=20 >can't make shoes fast enough to fill their orders. [That, by the way,=20 >translates into forced overtime for its production workers.] But Nike=20 >has a problem. People are starting to find out the truth behind the ad=20 >images. An international campaign is getting out the word about Nike's=20 >labor practices. Nike management is nervous.=20 > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------- >Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >--------------------------------------------------------- > > From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Jun 11 11:20:58 1997 Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:19:46 -0700 (PDT) Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:47:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:47:47 -0700 (PDT) To: pen-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, h-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu, united@cougar.com, OIFAC@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU, can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Slave labor case last for Labor Defense Network Sender: meisenscher@igc.org Posted with permission of the author; however, publication rights are reserved. Contact David Bacon for permission to republish. =============================================== DOMESTIC WORKER AWARDED $47,000 FOR UNPAID LABOR By David Bacon LOS ANGELES (6/5/97) - Lost in last week's media attention, which greeted an unprecedented $47,000 backpay judgement for a victim of Los Angeles domestic slavery, was a darker and more bitter reality: the case of Yuni Mulyono will be the last brought to court in defense of the rights of low-wage immigrant workers by the Labor Defense Network, once a division of LA's Legal Aid Society. The Network, which handled Mulyono's case, fell victim last fall to Federal budget cuts for legal aid to the poor. For years, LA's low wage workers found their way to the Network office in a nondescript building on Crenshaw Avenue. Bitter stories poured across the desk of attorney Michelle Yu of unpaid labor, work without overtime pay, wages below the minimum, and of the wholesale denial of conditions most people take for granted. Not only did Federal cuts close the Network office; what little government funding is left for legal aid programs now contains another killer provision. It prohibits aid to undocumented workers. Yu estimates that the undocumented made up a large percentage of her cases. "That's who low-wage workers in Los Angeles are," she says. "And that's especially those who wind up being cheated, and even held to work against their will." With funding cut, restrictions on the legal status of clients, and the doors of the Network closed, it's much less likely that workers like Mulyono will find legal advocates to fight their cases. "We'll have a law," Yu says, "but no one will be there to fight the cases needed to enforce it." Mulyono was the last of Yu's clients, recruited in Indonesia five years ago, by a family which brought her to Los Angeles to work in their home. "I began working when I got up in the morning," Mulyono remembers, "and I worked until it was time to go to bed at night. In the morning, I prepared the family's breakfast and lunch, and cleaned the kitchen and living room. I mopped and swept. "I had to wake up their daughter, get her dressed and ready for school, and feed her. She's now seven, so she was two and a half when I started. Then, after they left the house, I had to clean the back yard. They had me feed and clean up after their two dogs. Every day I did laundry and washed the bathroom. I fixed the dinner and served it to them, and washed the dishes. Sometimes the wife would ask me to give her a massage in the evening, and I would do that too." For this non-stop labor, Mulyono was paid $100 a month, and that only after she complained. Her situation of underground semislavery was made possibile by its invisibility to the outside world, a problem shared with of thousands of other low-wage workers in Los Angeles. Low-wage immigrant workers are the invisible workforce. Their work is done below the radar screen - necessary jobs that make the world function, but which are hardly noticed. Domestic workers are the most invisible of all. For almost three years, Mulyono , a slender woman seeming younger than her twenty-seven years, lived in this hidden economy. She was finally helped out of its modern bondage by another immigrant, Marco Rodriguez, a stocky Salvadoran from halfway around the world. [Her personal account of her courageous escape from bondage was published last fall by the LA Weekly and Pacific News Service, and is available on request.] Mulyono was awarded $47,000 in back pay last week by Superior Court Judge Jack W. Morgan. According to Cristina Riegos of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles (CHIRLA), it was the largest such award ever granted in southern California. As the Network's swansong, it was quite a case, not only because of the size of the award, but because of the hard and complex legal fight needed to win it. While Mulyono testified in court that she was paid $100 a month for her labor, the family which employed her denied ever paying her at all. Lina Nilam and her husband Reginald Hall called her a guest in their home. Mulyono is an ethnic Javan. Nilam, while also from Indonesia, is from a wealthy, ethnically Chinese family. Mulyono had previously worked for Nilam's relatives in Jakarta before she was recruited to work in Los Angeles. Expert testimony at the trial described the extremely hierarchical nature of domestic service in Indonesia. It would be extremely unlikely, witnesses testified, for a wealthy Chinese-Indonesian family to bring a Javan-Indonesian woman, whom they would normally view as poorer and lower-caste, to the U.S. as a guest. Mulyono's memories of her years in the Nilam's were so traumatic that she could testify in detail about times she tried to convince them to treat her as an equal, and pay her fairly. Trial observers, on the other hand, described the family's testimony as rehearsed. In the end, Judge Morgan rejected the assertion that Mulyono was an extended houseguest, and calculated her back wages at the $4.25 legal minimum for 2 years, 9 months, at 65 hours a week (including overtime). That produced the award of $47,000. Yu and Mulyono both believe that while dramatic, her situation is very common. That belief drew Mulyono to become active in the Domestic Workers Association, a CHIRLA project which seeks to organize and inform domestic workers of their labor rights. The Day Laborers Association, another CHIRLA project centered on low wage immigrants, also supported her case. "The judge listened to both sides here, and obviously believed Mulyono over her employers," CHIRLA's Riegos says. "We hope this will encourage other domestic workers in the same situation. It clearly warns employers that this abuse cannot go on." - 30 - --------------------------------------------------------------- david bacon - labornet email david bacon internet: dbacon@igc.apc.org 1631 channing way phone: 510.549.0291 berkeley, ca 94703 --------------------------------------------------------------- From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Jun 11 19:58:47 1997 Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:44:42 -0700 (PDT) Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:16:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:16:03 -0700 (PDT) To: pen-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, h-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu, united@cougar.com, OIFAC@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU, can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: New book release Sender: meisenscher@igc.org This came from the Campaign for Responsible Technology (CRT) with a request that it be circulated and reposted. ====================================================== Dear CRT Friend: We are very excited about our latest project, the release of our new book, SACRED WATERS:--LIFE BLOOD OF MOTHER EARTH-Four Case Studies of High-Tech Water Exploitation and Corporate Welfare in the Southwest. This report is a product of the Electronics Industry Good Neighbor Campaign (EIGNC), a collaborative effort of two networks the Campaign for Responsible Technology (CRT) and the Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice (SNEEJ). It is the culmination of many years of hard work, not just by CRT and SVTC, but also SNEEJ and three other environmental justice organizations (SouthWest Organizing Project, Albuquerque, NM; People Organized in Defense of Earth and Her Resources, Austin, TX; and Tonatierra Community Development Institute, Phoenix, AZ) in the Southwest that are working in communities impacted by rapid high-tech development. SACRED WATERS not only chronicles the history of high-tech development in Silicon Valley, it provides information on the extent of groundwater contamination in Santa Clara County. Each community--Silicon Valley, CA, Phoenix AZ, Albuquerque, NM, and Austin, TX--has a separate story to tell, but the common threat that binds us is the electronic industry's major impact on the quality and quantity of one of our most precious resources--water. The book was researched and written by people in each of the four communities who are on the front-lines facing high-tech development. Besides providing extensive documentation and well-researched data, the book also takes the responsibility of making recommendations for communities, industry and public officials to follow in an effort to promote sustainable high-tech development into the 21st Century. Attached you will find a copy of the Executive Summary which is also available at our website at www.svtc.org/svtc/execsum.htm. If you would like to purchase a copy of the book please send $10.00 plus $2.25 for postage and handling ($3.00 if you want it send priority mail), to SVTC at 760 N. First Street, San Jose, CA 95112. If you want to put it on your charge card, send us your card number, type (Visa/MasterCard), expiration date and your name as it appears on the card. Fax this information to us at 408-287-6771, since I don't believe the IGC server is secure. Please feel free to call me at 408-287-6707 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ted Smith Executive Director _______________________________________________________________________ Sacred Waters: High-Tech Water Exploitation and Corporate Welfare in the Southwest Executive Summary Introduction While the benefits of the computer to the day-to-day operations of industry and the general public are undeniable, so are the costs, as this comprehensive study of the computer industry in America's Southwest makes clear. This report is meant to sound the alarm for communities courting the computer industry as the key to economic security - and as a call to action for communities that have already succumbed to the siren song of high-paying jobs and minimal environmental impact' of this fast growing industrial sector. The report focuses specifically on the impacts of high tech electronics manufacturing on the water resources and infrastructure of four key high tech communities - Albuquerque, New Mexico; Austin, Texas; Phoenix, Arizona; and Santa Clara County, California. The study documents massive water pollution and water resource depletion by a who's who of high-tech giants, including Intel, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Fairchild Semiconductor, Advanced Micro Devices, Raytheon, Teledyne, TRW, National Semiconductor, Motorola, and others. It also documents and challenges the billions of dollars of 'corporate welfare' subsidies given away to some of the wealthiest corporations in the world. The Cost: Toxic Flight Contrary to industry public relations, manufacturing of computers and their components is anything but a 'clean industry.' The original Silicon Valley in Santa Clara County, California has experienced a series of environmental tragedies associated with the computer industry. Today, Santa Clara County has more Superfund sites than any other county in the US (29), 80% of which were caused by the high tech electronics industry. As of 1996, 20 of the 29 Superfund sites in Santa Clara County were directly caused by the processes of producing silicon wafers and other high tech electronics components. Another five Superfund sites were caused by related industries (equipment manufacturers, chemical suppliers and waste disposal). Over the past 20 years, as California strengthened environmental and labor regulations to clean up the industry's mess, corporations have sought out other southwestern sites as new technology growth centers. This 'toxic flight' now puts Austin, Albuquerque and Phoenix in the environmental cross-hairs of this highly polluting industry. The process of computer manufacturing requires huge quantities of water, and produces a steady stream of toxic waste. An inventory list of chemicals used and discarded for any given company often shows dozens of pages of highly toxic chemicals that have been shown to damage the central nervous system, reproductive system and cardiovascular system of humans, as well as cause cancer. Many of the new manufacturing sites are now located in poorer communities of color, where people have little or no power to withstand the clout of multinational computer giants. The Cost: Disappearing Water The high tech electronics industry, as it currently functions, has proven itself to be a highly unsustainable industry, especially in the desert environment of the Southwest. Besides the massive amounts of chemicals used, the process of chip manufacturing requires massive amounts of water -- millions of gallons per day in the newest chip plants! On average, the production of each six-inch silicon wafer uses the following resources: * 2,275 gallons of deionized water * 3,200 cubic feet of bulk gases * 22 cubic feet of hazardous gases * 20 pounds of chemicals * 285 kilowatt hours of electrical power. In addition, vast amounts of groundwater reserves are contaminated in the chip-making process. In Arizona, for example, about 25-30% of the groundwater beneath and around Phoenix has been contaminated resulting in 15 mile long toxic plume - 70% of this by the high tech electronics industry. The explosion of high tech development in the Southwest means that the region's already sparse water supplies must meet the needs of one the world's fastest-growing - and thirstiest - industries. The Cost: Corporate Welfare To lure high tech companies to their jurisdictions, officials in Austin, Phoenix, Albuquerque and Santa Clara County have provided an array of incentives to corporations, including property tax relief, infrastructure improvements, off site sewer and water systems, and direct water subsidies. These subsidies have been extracted from the communities as local politicians scrambled to respond to industry's whipsawing tactics and have occurred during an unprecedented growth spurt - semiconductor industry estimates project that over 100 new chip plants will be built over the next few years, each costing between $1 and $3 billion. In many jurisdictions, individual residents now pay higher rates than corporate users, providing an enormous indirect subsidy to high tech companies. In addition, the costs of cleaning up contaminated sites and water supplies often fall on local and state governments costs again borne by average citizens and which make corporate claims of overall economic benefits to the region questionable. Many of the costs of high tech development are consistently passed on to the communities, workers and environment, and increasingly to communities-of-color. This kind of high tech corporate welfare has become a sophisticated chess game played increasingly by large high tech companies to reduce their costs of production and gain an advantage over competitors. More often than not, the jurisdiction that lured them is the loser. This report describes the high-tech Pandora's Box being opened in communities across the arid West. These industries are extremely resource hungry and create toxic by-products which will become the burden of communities long after the silicon boom ends. But with commitment and conscience, the computer industry can become a responsible member of the community: first, by adopting a policy of "sustainable development;" and secondly, by taking responsibility for previously externalized costs, be it for the real cost of water resources, or of environmental pollution. The report concludes with a call to action for the industry, regulatory agencies and communities to meet this formidable challenge to endangered western water supplies. A Collaborative Report From the Grassroots To study and challenge the impacts of high tech development and to attain sustainable development and responsible manufacturing, two networks, the Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, and the Campaign for Responsible Technology have come together in a collaborative effort to strengthen the work of four local organizations-the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition in California, People Organized in Defense of the Earth and Her Resources in Texas, the Southwest Organizing Project in New Mexico, and Tonatierra in Arizona- in developing common strategies to affect high tech industrial development. Discussions between CRT and SNEEJ in the early 1990's led to the creation of the Electronics Industry Good Neighbor Campaign. The EIGNC is a community-based, multi-racial collaborative effort to address environmental and occupational health and safety protection, labor rights, and economic development concerns facing electronics workers and their communities. Lessons from California and Arizona Silicon Valley (San Jose, California) Any questions about the true costs of high tech manufacturing can be answered with an in-depth look at the experience of the original Silicon Valley since the first technology boom of the 1960s. Many of the corporations seeking their place in the Southwest sun have fled Silicon Valley, leaving behind a shameful legacy of pollution, waste, and exploitation. Massive contamination of soil and water supplies led to stricter environmental and labor regulations - and to the 'toxic flight' of high tech companies to areas more willing to overlook the dark side of the computer chip revolution. Among the companies that EPA has listed as Superfund clean-up sites in Silicon Valley are Intel, Advanced Micro Devices, Fairchild Semiconductor, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, National Semiconductor, Raytheon, and Siemens to name a few. Many of these same companies have moved production, or are looking to expand, to the other 'silicon sites' of the Southwest. Those jurisdictions would do themselves and their citizens a huge favor by consulting the information contained in this report. In the City of Santa Clara, for example, the high tech electronics industry alone used almost 24% of the City's water in 1994/1995. Of the top waste water discharging companies in Santa Clara County in 1994, 65% were electronics companies. Today, Santa Clara County has more Superfund sites any other county in the United States (29) - 80% of which were caused by the high tech electronics industry. Silicon Desert (Phoenix, Arizona) The Silicon Desert was developed long before the costs associated with the high tech industry were well understood by the general public. And in this way, many of the patterns evident in Santa Clara County have also been revealed in the desert around Phoenix. Every major urban area in Arizona, as well as the entire agribusiness industry, depends on groundwater for at least half of their supply of water. Based on available supplies and projected growth, the demand for water will exceed supply as early as 2010 at current growth rates. Yet the city of Phoenix persists in luring the water-intensive high tech industry to its environs, without any increase in water supply on the horizon. In September of 1995, for example, Sumitomo Sitix, a huge Japanese wafer manufacturer, chose north Phoenix for a $400 million plant. They were lured to Phoenix by a promised property tax cut of 80%, duty free import/export privileges, $7 million in immediate infrastructure improvements, $5.5 million for off site sewer and water systems, and $1.5 million for street improvements. This same Sumitomo plan is projected to use 2.4 million gallons of water per day - or 750,000,000 gallons per year. Sumitomo will also be discharging contaminated water to the public treatment plant, requiring additional investments by the city of Phoenix. Today, a fifteen mile plume of contamination floats in the groundwater underneath Phoenix, Arizona. Contamination has reduced the overall availability of groundwater by about 25% in and around the Phoenix area. Today, there are seven Superfund sites in the Phoenix area - three caused by high tech manufacturing. These high tech Superfund sites have contributed to well over 60% of the total contaminated groundwater area in the Phoenix area. The cost of cleaning the aquifer beneath Phoenix has been estimated as high as $800,000,000 -and clean up efforts have been glacially slow as the companies responsible for the pollution have resorted to legal maneuvers to resist paring cleanup and health costs. Public officials estimate that another 20% of the city's water supply will be lost to contamination over the next fifty years. A hazardous waste facility on the Gila River Indian Reservation containing toxic residues from the manufacture of computer products also poses serious concerns about groundwater contamination, soil and air pollution, as well as long term health effects. The New Silicon Rush: Texas and New Mexico The third and fourth sections of the report describe areas that have seen the most industry activity over the last five years, with the most generous government subsidies, water and tax deals. Now that the costs of computer manufacturing are more out in the open, the dirtiest and hungriest (for access to resources) sectors of the industry - semiconductor and circuit board manufacturing and assembly - are locating with increasing frequency in communities-of-color and low-income communities, where costs can continue to be minimized. Silicon Hills (Austin, Texas) There are currently 17 major high tech electronics companies in the Austin area, including IBM, Samsung, Texas Instruments, Applied Materials, Motorola, Sematech, Apple, Advanced Micro Devices, and 3M. Most of these companies have only started operating in Austin over the last 15 years, after the extensive contamination was discovered in Santa Clara County, California and Phoenix, Arizona. The consumption of water by the high tech industry has tripled in just 3 years, supported by an industrial water rate that is less than two-thirds what residents pay for water. These firms have also been enticed by generous tax breaks - most recently $125 million to Samsung. As high tech companies continue to relocate to Austin, the consumption of water by high tech electronics firms will continue to increase. According to an Austin American Statesman article, "Austin could exhaust its current water allocation by 2030." The cost of water scarcity will subsequently be transferred, as is currently occurring, to residential users, impacting most significantly the low-income populations around Austin (the majority of whom are people-of-color) who can least afford it. According to EPA's Toxic Release Inventory from 1985, Austin's high tech industry legally emitted over 730,000 pounds of toxics into the environment - about a ton of toxics per day. Most of this impacted poorer communities of color. Also, the four major wastewater facilities for the City of Austin are located in communities of predominantly lower-income people-of-color. More and more, we have seen that the many costs associated with high tech development in Austin are borne by low-income, people-of-color, whether it is in the form of additional wastewater treatment plants, higher water prices, or access only to the lowest paying, most dangerous jobs in the computer industry. Silicon Mesa (Albuquerque, New Mexico) New Mexico is the third most arid state in the nation. Yet the high tech electronics companies are being welcomed by local politicians, agencies, and residents for the short-term gains they create: jobs, higher wages for a few, and a perception of an increasing sophistication of their cities. Eighty seven percent of the water used by the top industrial users in the Albuquerque area is by the five high tech companies: Intel, Philips, Sumitomo, Motorola, and Honeywell. And the demand for water by high tech industries continues to grow, fueled by generous subsidies from government officials. The average residential user in Rio Rancho (a suburb of Albuquerque) pays $1.75 per 1000 gallons of water. Intel pays, on the average, 41 cents per every 1000 gallons it uses - four times less than residential users. Not surprisingly, Intel is using enormous amounts of New Mexico's scant water supply. Today, Intel is using between 4 to 4.5 million gallons per day (1.6 billion gallons per year), and is expected to increase this amount to 5.5 to 6 million galls per day (or 2.1 billion gallons per year).This will be equal to about 6% of all the water used in the city of Albuquerque. This increased drawdown of Albuquerque's water from the Rio Grande and its underground storage areas threatens the traditional irrigation system in northern New Mexico called acequias. The acequias have sustained subsistence farming for indigenous peoples, Mexicans and Chicanos, for more than 400 years. In Albuquerque, corporate welfare has grown increasingly complex and difficult to track (one obvious example was the $250 million tax incentive and $8 billion Industrial Revenue Bond awarded to Intel).What is not so difficult to see are the long-term impacts of the high tech electronics industry on the water resources and infrastructure of Albuquerque. This includes the threatened destruction of ancient cultural practices and value systems;water pricing mechanisms and policies which penalize residents in order to reward high tech companies; the depletion of Albuquerque's life-blood aquifer, and extensive contamination of precious water resources. A Call to Action The alarming facts regarding water usage and toxic contamination of a computer industry rapidly expanding throughout the Southwest has led to the creation of the Electronics Industry Good Neighbor Campaign. The time has come to demand candor and honesty from these highly profitable industries that have never been "clean." Communities of color especially, who have taken the brunt of the toxic waste and resource mining of the computer industry, must be heard. The people currently being threatened by water shortages and environmental toxics constitute more than a public relations problem. They are the future of the Southwest. A sustainable electronics industry must benefit communities as well as corporations for the long-term. Creating a new way of doing business will require the commitments of industry, government and community working together. The report concludes by outlining a far-reaching vision of what needs to be done: Corporate Responsibility * Adopt closed-loop industrial re-use of treated waste water. * Develop toxics-use reduction plan to phase out of the use of toxic chemicals. * Zero discharge of treated waste water into aquifers. * Reduce water use by increased investment into water-saving technologies. Regulatory Responsibility * Initiate closer monitoring and inspection of high tech facilities * Provide access to company records on chemical discharges, permitting language, chemical inventories, actual chemical usage, and any other information the surrounding community could use in the protection of its health. * Penalties for contaminating our environment must be SIGNIFICANT enough that the polluting companies find it in their best interest to innovate environmentally friendly products. * A system must be developed to protect the workers, the most "at-risk" population to high tech chemicals, from chemical exposure. Community Responsibility * Recycle and Reuse computer products. Upgrade, but don't discard. Buy environmentally safe products where practicable. * Develop a full cost pricing system to reflect the true costs of business and its impact on the host community. * Public subsidies of companies must be accompanied by a strict set of conditions such as chemical use reduction, local employment of all diversities of people, long-term investments in the community, and a commitment to stay. Commitment to Environmental Justice * Maximum participation by ALL interested residents in any community decision. * Environmental and environmental justice guidelines must be adhered to by the companies to ensure that: 1) low-income workers of color are not exposed to toxic chemicals; 2) contaminants are not shipped for disposal toward the path of least resistance (to low-income, communities- and countries-of-color); 3) facilities moving into low-income, communities of color are not subject to less stringent environmental regulations than those in affluent or white communities. Leslie Byster Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition 760 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95112 408-287-6707-phone 408-287-6771-fax svtc@igc.apc.org >NOW AVAILABLE AT OUR WEBSITE -- New information on the >grassroots politics of regulatory reinvention. Includes >a new chart comparing Project XL other models of community participation. Also information on the the impacts of high-tech industry. > > http://www.svtc.org/svtc/ > > From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Jun 11 23:50:24 1997 Wed, 11 Jun 1997 22:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Wed, 11 Jun 1997 22:21:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 22:21:33 -0700 (PDT) To: pen-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, h-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu, united@cougar.com, OIFAC@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU, can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: book release price error Sender: meisenscher@igc.org Dear friends, I realized I made a mistake in the book price for Sacred Waters. the price is $10.00 for SVTC members, and $25.00 for non-members. Please add the cost for postage in the US which is $2.25, or $3.00 if you want it sent out priority mail. Sorry for any confusion. Cheers, Leslie Byster Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition 760 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95112 408-287-6707-phone 408-287-6771-fax svtc@igc.apc.org >NOW AVAILABLE AT OUR WEBSITE -- New information on the >grassroots politics of regulatory reinvention. Includes >a new chart comparing Project XL other models of community participation. Also information on the the impacts of high-tech industry. > > http://www.svtc.org/svtc/ > > From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Thu Jun 12 10:45:05 1997 Thu, 12 Jun 1997 09:25:04 -0700 (PDT) Thu, 12 Jun 1997 08:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 08:58:49 -0700 (PDT) To: pen-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, h-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu, united@cougar.com, OIFAC@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU, can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: dsanet: "Albert Shanker: No Flowers" by Paul Buhle Sender: meisenscher@igc.org >From: SocRev@aol.com (by way of "James H. Williams" ) >Subject: dsanet: "Albert Shanker: No Flowers" by Paul Buhle >Cc: 75264.153@compuserve.com > >[from New Politics, vol. 6, no. 3 (new series), whole no. 23, Summer 1997] > >Paul Buhle's latest book, a collection of his labor history essays, From the >Knights of Labor to the New World Order, was recently published by Garland. > > > >OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON BELTWAY AND WEST OF THE HUDSON, one image of the late >American Federation of Teachers (AFT) president Albert Shanker is most likely >to remain in memory: Shanker, on the 1995 convention dais, fairly choking >with rage and frustration, handing over leadership of the AFL-CIO to the >reform forces in the person of John Sweeney. The Kirkland clique of >autocratic functionaries, heretofore failures at almost everything except >retaining power, was in disarray. Their credibility had been undermined and >with it, the presumed legacy of Albert Shanker as a historic labor figure as >well. > >The story of Albert Shanker and the teachers union goes back to Depression >days and further, to the movements of high school instructors in the 1910s >golden days of Debsian Socialism. In Chicago and New York among other cities, >teachers led by the left sought desperately to establish their >professionalism, while seeking just as urgently (albeit with more >ambivalence) to ally themselves with the labor movement. > >The AFT's true if unacknowledged precursor is the Teachers Union (TU), >originally an AFL body led by Communist regulars, Lovestoneites, Trotskyists, >Socialists and other leftwingers in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago >and elsewhere, encompassing college instructors and public school teachers. >During the dynamic later 1930s, the TU influence was disproportionately New >Yorkish, as well as Jewish, and especially strong among the terribly >exploited substitute teachers. With the union split on a handful of issues >(including philosopher John Dewey's bold defense of Leon Trotsky against >Stalin's charges), the socialist/anti-Communist faction first seceded to form >the Teachers Guild, and then successfully arranged the expulsion of the TU >from the AFL in 1941. The Guild, subsequently reorganized as the AFT, had all >the respectability that the isolated TU lacked, and might have had the field >to itself when the latter gave up the ghost in 1964 but for the competitor >National Educational Association's own quasi-unionist professionalism and the >bad blood left behind by decades of fierce red-baiting. > >The TU, for all its weaknesses (most of all, a weakness toward things >Russian), had often exemplified the democratic impulses of the teachers. >Anyone who enters a classroom today to teach American history or government >should gaze back with wonderment at the early struggles for antiracist >curricula highlighting rather than demeaning abolitionist John Brown or race >leader W.E.B. DuBois, for the determined inclusion of minority populations in >a broadened social history at a time when civics was equated (as those of us >remember so well from public schools of the 1950s) with a recitation of the >presidents.1 > >The AFT, meanwhile taking over TU members as much as possible and conditioned >by a certain social democratic bearing, sought to maneuver teacher unionism >around the challenge of the civil rights movement. Just as the AFL-CIO >perennially urged Congressional action while ignoring the blatant racism in >its own ranks, so the AFT filed friend-of-the-court briefs for school >desegregation and simultaneously resisted organized efforts to administer >integration of the student body and teacher staffs. This calculated >ambivalence would characterize the AFT's main unit, the United Federation of >Teachers, more than anything else during the racial storm ahead.2 > >The complexities of teacher union history during the 1960s-90s cannot be >explored at any length here. The role of lobbying state legislatures for >permission to organize and for larger benefits on the one hand, and the >relationship of teachers with their students (and the communities from which >they come) on the other, is far too localized for easy generalization in any >case. On occasion (as in a 1996 Oakland teachers strike) the community was >mobilized to good effect; too often, AFT (also NEA) leaders invited the >portrayal of their organizations' members as agents of "special interests" >through closed-door deals with local or state elected officials and business >elites. Rather than generalizing the issues of public resources, they >narrowed the terms of negotiation to their own welfare, effectively cutting >themselves off from potential allies and making fiscal counterattacks >inevitable. > >More than a single union or profession, in fact an entire historical view of >American labor, is at stake on this point. A recent "revisionist" labor >history (looking a great deal like the "old" pre-1960 labor histories endowed >by union leaders to celebrate their accomplishments) suggests the AFT/UFT's >lobbying model as the logical successor to historic mass mobilization and >final outcome to the CIO experience. According to this reading, the >Taft-Hartley Act, the expulsion of Communists and the suppression of internal >dissent at large was a necessary and logical price to free union leaders' >hands and to pay in kind for the assistance of the state in sustaining white >collar unionism.3 The state and the business community rewarded order, as >they punished the movements from below characterized as disorder. > >This might, indeed, properly be described as the Shanker Narrative. But along >with recklessly mangling labor history, it mistakes the wheeling-dealing of >leaders for the sacrifices of union activists who urgently wanted to be good >teachers and good citizens, in the inner cities quite as much as the suburbs. >Like the parson's wife and the town atheist, the teacher was the small-town >radical of many generations, the first socialist voice heard by many a >youngster growing up outside a leftwing family (in my own case, the first >black voice I'd ever heard on the subject of American history: the very >inspiration to become a historian). Children of blue collar unionists or of >those crushed during the Depression years lived their jobs without any of the >homage toward hawkish weapons-industry politicians that Shanker so admired or >the meanness toward disadvantaged students that his leadership more and more >came to epitomize. Despite all the heartbreak of sharpened class divisions, >drugs and gangs, "White Flight" from public schools and drastically >diminished resources, many thousands of them still do. > >ALL THIS PLAYED VERY STRANGELY IN THE LATER 1960S, as the War on Poverty was >being junked for the Vietnam War and a generation of African American (along >with white working class) male youth was sent half-way across the world to >kill and be killed. As AFT/UFT dissident Steve Zeluck keenly observed, the >very victories of the UFT and then the AFT for union recognition through the >60s, placed the two bodies in the paradoxical position of having won a >crucial base in the cities just as the cities themselves drastically changed. >Only 10 or 15 years earlier, teachers had been more leftwing, and blacks less >numerous, sustaining many tender pedagogical (as well as parent-teacher) >relationships and the hope of political coalition to come. As union >bargaining power became real, a new and hostile relation set in; the consumer >society offered new temptations and the black community simultaneously began >to make long-postponed demands for recognition and influence. This baneful >shift mirrored, and for a time dramatized, the collapse of American >liberalism. > >The social-democratic background of the UFT (giving it the appearance of the >left within the AFT) was one unique factor. Jewish garment union leaders who >left the old Socialist Labor Party and Daniel DeLeon back in the 1890s or >early years of the new century, spoke warmly about socialist ideals and >meanwhile savagely attacked the Industrial Workers of the World for >threatening their power base. They remained in office long enough to >repudiate Communist rank-and-file insurgency movements of the 1920s as >"gilgul DeLeonism," creatures of disruption, and to meet the deformations of >Stalinism with bureaucratic deformations of their own. Always, throughout >this history, there has been an enemy on the left to excoriate, just as >despised and much closer to attack than the exploitation and inherent >unfairness of capitalism. Indeed, when the very category of "exploitation" >disappeared as unearned wealth (it sometimes reappeared as "excessively" low >wages), the problems of capitalism were attributed more and more exclusively >to the wildly varied "enemies of democracy." > >The lineal successors to David Dubinsky squeezed the New Left and Black Power >into a pre-fit mold, adding far-off Palestinians for good measure. All of >these were enemies, just as all serious criticisms made of UFT and AFT >leadership were treated as "blood libels" outside the bounds of proper >discussion.4 Thus dissenters like high school teacher and dissident Steve >Zeluck were not only to be denied the normal means of communicating >democratic opposition, but cursed in official resolutions as "antiunion." The >Communist Party bureaucrats had never done any better for themselves, which >is to say, any worse for movements that they claimed to represent and so >often badly misled. > >Historian Jerald Podair has brilliantly captured the ambience of the social >democratic milieu under pressure. UFTers of the middle 1960s determinedly >insisted, for instance, upon a racially inclusive curriculum, but with >entirely predictable contours. The union's Committee on African-American >History seemed to bury the old mint julep version of slavery and >reconstruction. But it just as effectively buried Malcolm X (indeed, Shanker >seized and destroyed thousands of copies of a curriculum guide which credited >Malcolm's historical contribution) and any approach which placed the black >experience outside the melting pot that usefully melts all the unfortunate >group traits of worthy aspirants in the process of a cheerful upward >mobility.5 > >For this worldview, closely reflecting the pseudo-sociology of Daniel Patrick >Moynihan, a "culture of poverty" rooted in a matriarchal black community >rather than the repressive social conditions of the rural south or the >increasingly jobless north was the real hindrance to African American >advance. Such cultural determinists prided themselves upon banishing genetic >theories of inferiority, but by assuming that youth could be remolded without >broad changes in the property relations of society, they substituted a >subtextually race-linked hypothesis just as virulent for the new era. Rising >neoconservative operatives, like Shanker ally (and Reagan Administration >official) Diane Ravitch, naturally used the cry of "competence" as a >meritocratic club over the heads of victims in the failing systems, as if all >school systems or individuals had access to the same resources or as if the >ability of a talented and fortunate tenth of a talented tenth demonstrated >the hopelessness of the 99 percent. > >Ironically, the most articulately ferocious opponents of the UFT, the black >middle class, shared this ideology to a very large extent, although with a >difference. It wanted and demanded an affirmative action adjustment of >available resources, exactly what the ideologues of meritocracy could never >grant. > >BLACK/JEWISH TENSIONS MEANWHILE FLARED, and not only in New York or among >teachers, students and parents, but in the general population. Ranging from >the emerging Jewish institutional support for the Vietnam war (which, it >should be noted, ordinary Jews overwhelmingly opposed), subsidies to >suburbanization alongside the abandonment of the inner cities, and the >all-too-familiar black street rage at the Jewish teachers, lawyers, >landlords, employers and caseworkers (many of whom warmly assisted African >Americans, while others coldly cheated or demeaned them), the temperature >rose.6 Power-seeking nationalists, most if not all of them thoroughly >regressive, seized the moment on both sides -- notwithstanding the media spin >that portrayed one side of the polemic as civilized discourse and the other >as barbaric noise. > >Albert Shanker's chief historic role was to pour gasoline on the spreading >fire.7 Another, very different kind of leader might have taken early pride in >the levels of teacher unionization achieved, and spent the next era striving >to cool tempers. It would have been an honorable if not morally unmarred >history, and a very unlikely one in this case. Shanker had a personal stake >in the spotlight, according to friend and foe, amounting to megalomania. Like >the calculating Vietnam hawk-propagandist-priest John O'Connor who raised >himself through connections within the post-Vatican II's New Right Church >leadership into Cardinal status, Shanker was not just fighting for his >political life. In his mind's eye, he saw his name carved upon the historical >record. > >Joining the inner circle of George Meany's AFL-CIO cronies who regarded >Martin Luther King, Jr., as an ingrate for pressing too hard on integration >and for coming out against the Vietnam war, and shunning even the cautious >reformer Walter Reuther for the hawk faction gathering politically around >Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Shanker made himself a national labor figure. > >A major element in his emerging labor statesmanship was his handling of race >issues in the approved AFL-CIO fashion. As Maurice Berube explained so >clearly in these pages, in the Ocean Hill-Brownsville crisis Shanker was >encouraged b a group of self-proclaimed "democratic socialists" including, >among others, Michael Harrington, Tom Kahn and Bayard Rustin, with Max >Shachtman in the background as the powerful grey eminence. They considered >parents' "interference" to be intolerable for teacher-unionists, but they had >a purpose far beyond the districts of Greater New York. By 1968, they >envisioned themselves the heirs to the Meany labor empire. To demonstrate >their capacity to deliver the labor support and labor votes for a greater >coalition, however, they had to keep order -- at any cost.8 > >Even then the disaster might have been avoided through careful negotiation. >But Shanker called "his" teachers out on strike. Yesterday's socialists who >have become today's Manhattan Institute operators correctly describe that >moment as a turning point in New York City's history. But they are most >unwilling to see the complicity of their mentor/allies in the bitter, >destructive outcome. > >And so Shankerism, hammered out against a background of both middle class >yearnings and ghetto rage, became the oddest possible American-style parody >of "democratic socialism." The debates raged from New Politics and Dissent to >the New York Times, with curious undertones which formal politics alone >cannot fully encompass. > >NEW LIGHT CAST UPON SHANKER'S INTERNATIONAL INVOLVEMENTS greatly aids our >understanding of his milieu. Eric Chester's important recent volume, Covert >Network: Progressives, the International Rescue Committee and the CIA, offers >a well-researched perspective on one of the most interesting Cold War (and >post-Cold War) operations linked on one side to favorite causes of prominent >liberals and on the other to assorted intelligence agency projects. Founded >to assist refugees of the Second World War, the International Rescue >Committee (IRC) became a central mechanism -- through its spin-off American >Friends of Vietnam (AFVN) -- for selling the impending Vietnam War to the >U.S. public and especially to liberals like Shanker during the later 1950s >and early 1960s. The young Daniel Patrick Moynihan, working as its public >relations officer, had described the IRC as the "ideal instrument of >Psychological Warfare." The "psy-war" actually conducted by IRC leader Joseph >Buttinger and evidently assisted by the CIA, even fooled aging Norman Thomas >into making flattering public statements about the viciously repressive Diem >regime under more pressure from its own beleaguered citizens than from the >feared North Vietnamese. > >By the time the bombs began to fall in huge numbers on Vietnamese civilians, >Buttinger and a few cohorts had resigned from the IRC, but the devilish work >of the propagandists had been done. The American public, its politicians and >its journalists, had been prepared for the outright lies about the Gulf of >Tonkin. The key converts to "counter-insurgency," for their own reasons, >stayed converted. Like George Meany, Albert Shanker believed, evidently to >his last breath, that the U.S. should never have left Vietnam. Like the Civil >War for the American South, it remained the great Lost Cause and the source >for binding emotional ties between the cerebral neoconservatives and the >AFL-CIO Executive. > >The IRC was subsequently involved directly or indirectly in a sheaf of other >operations, some of them genuinely humanitarian (always with the intention of >also advancing U.S. interests). But perhaps the most characteristic for the >years of Shanker's IRC involvement was its Central America teams. As during >the U.S. saturation bombing in Southeast Asia, the IRC followed U.S.-trained >and funded military forces decimating large districts of El Salvador, driving >peasants out of their homes and into makeshift camps. There, amidst the >misery American foreign policy had created, the IRC offered enough logistical >support to make a favorable (i.e., pro-American) impression on the survivors. >Those who had not already died or were not scheduled to be dragged away for >torture and "disappearance," could rejoice in the charitable side of >counter-insurgency.9 > >The IR was headed for 40 years, it might be remembered, by one of Albert >Shanker's greatest admirers, Leo Cherne. An all-out supporter of the Vietnam >War, Cherne most bitterly opposed George McGovern's peacenik campaign of >1972, serving as vice-chair of Democrats for Nixon. Like Albert Shanker and >the AFL-CIO leadership, the IRC under Cherne found in the Reagan >Administration nearly all one could hope for in foreign policy, including the >best of companions. Future spymaster William Casey, the president of IRC in >1970-71, who played a major role in the organization's Asian affairs, >predictably joined Reagan as campaign director in 1980. Casey fathered the >Iran-Contra operators' deceptions of Congress (as well as violations of the >U.S. Constitution), and apparently carried the secrets of U.S. dealings in >assorted war crimes with him to the grave. Until his death Bayard Rustin >remained a vice president of IRC, and Albert Shanker remained on its board, >both of them in lockstep with the Contra wars and "low intensity" (but >extremely high civilian casualty) episodes in Southern Africa and elsewhere. >If this story begins to grow as familiar as a spy novel, that is because it >should be.10 > >THIS INTERNATIONAL WEST-OVER-EAST, NORTH-OVER-SOUTH DETERMINATION had its >clear domestic counterparts. "Nothing could damp[en] Shanker's commitment to >civil rights," exclaimed an unintentionally comic eulogist in the Jewish >Forward.11 Shanker's commitment could be measured, in later years, in his >virulent opposition to "world history" efforts which he described as "a >travesty" for failing to accord a central heroic place to the West at large >and America in particular. Diane Ravitch, Reagan's Secretary of Education and >touted educational ideologue, naturally saluted Shanker's "intellectual >courage" in standing up against multi-culturalism. > >This ideological cul-de-sac was not a tragedy like a civil war or military >invasion, with thousands dead or maimed. But it was a tragedy of striking >proportions nevertheless, with long-range consequences. The liberal >"socialists" or "social democrats" with large influence in some of the major >unions could not imagine (or had ceased to imagine) the poor as a force >acting on its own; for them the desperately impoverished, at home and abroad, >seemed more and more a sort of sidebar/examplar lumpen proletariat of human >devastation. Behind this thesis was a large historical-philosophical >assumption which Albert Shanker's paid newspaper columns often reflected. >History had been moving gradually toward human freedom, thanks in very large >part to industrial capitalism. African Americans and indeed the bulk of the >world population (i.e., non-whites) had been left behind, most unfortunately. >Now, however, "development" was going to bring the best of them up to the >level of the West -- if only they learned the skills of self-discipline and >patience. > >Did Western history have its bad moments? Yes -- and this was passed over as >quickly as possible -- slavery was a blight, the dispossession and >large-scale extermination of native peoples, really unfortunate. But even >while enslaving, expropriating and exterminating, the West had raised the >ideal of freedom and abundance. That should be convincing enough proof for >anyone. Whoever disagreed, as Shanker argued in his last published column, >was an enemy of democracy -- and a friend of multiculturalism.12 > >Perhaps most remarkable in this subtle and not-so-subtle alchemy was the way >in which oldtime socialist ideals had been turned into something nearly >approaching their opposite. On the occasion of Shanker's death, a resolution >for the Workmen's Circle (an organization still usefully active in many >cities, with a real commitment to the socialistic tradition of secular >Yiddishkayt) closed, "Our continuing commitment to equality of opportunity >for all people was shared by Al Shanker. He and we recognized that any effort >to equalize results was doomed to fail" (my emphasis, PB).13 Equalize >results? This phraseology would have been baffling to Eugene Debs, to whom >personal upward mobility was never the goal of socialists and he permanence >of capitalism never the solution. The very point of socialism was, naturally, >real equal opportunity for humankind to live and work together in cooperative >spirit, peace and prosperity -- through the expropriation of the >bloody-handed expropriators. "To make it within our society," as Shanker >often described the primary purpose of education, served better as the slogan >of Norman Podhoretz's lifetime self-devotion; but then, the unembarrassed >careerists of Podhoretz's circle had never been so far from Albert Shanker >after all.14 > >Somehow, all the hopes raised for social progress during the 1960s have been >poisoned, the promised accomplishments of a Great Society lost within >decaying inner city neighborhoods and sprawling suburbs, the arrogance of the >new rich matched with the deepening despair of the growing poor. Viewed from >the more distant hopes of the 1940s, urban working class America had gone >pretty much to hell. With well-paying industrial jobs gone and services >crumbling, drugs (whether or not actually supplied by CIA's noted "assets" in >assorted parts of the world: profit requires no conspiracy) found a natural >home in the merchandizing of misery. Somehow, even the traces of the older, >moderate socialism whose hopes had continued to play a symptomatic role in >Jewish life had meanwhile vanished into a morally tainted meritocracy. No one >person is nearly large enough to blame for this social tragedy, but Albert >Shanker occupies a considerable role, as symbol and substance, within it. > > > >NOTES > > > > > > >1.For background history, see Marjorie Murphy, Blackboard Unions: The AFT and >the NEA, 1900-1980 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1900); and Celia L. >Zitron, The New York City Teachers Union, 1916-1964: A Story of Educational >and Social Commitment (New York: Humanities, 1968). The stories of left-led >teachers' unions outside New York from the 1910s onward have yet to be told >fully, but would surely be revealing. > >2.Various essays in New Politics' "old series" constitute the very best guide >to the internal politics of the UFT/AFT, with so many rich details and so >much insight that to attempt to summarize would do damage to the originals. >See, for instance, Steve Zeluck, "The UFT Strike: A Blow Against Teacher >Unionism," NP #25 (Winter 1968); Maurice Berube, " 'Democratic Socialists' >and the Schools," #31 (Summer 1969); Lois Weiner, "Cracks in Shanker's >Empire," #44 (Fall 1976), and an exchange between Albert Shanker and Herbert >Hill, "Black Protest, Union Democracy and the UFT," #32 (Fall 1970). > >3.Melvyn Dubofsky, The State and Labor in Modern America (Chapel Hill: >University of North Carolina Press, 1994). > >4.See "Herbert Hill Replies," NP #32 (Fall 1970), 33-35, for documentation of >this bit of skullduggery. > >5.Jerald Podair, " 'White' Values,'Black' Values: The Ocean Hill-Brownsville >Controversy and New York City Culture, 1967-1975," Radical History Review, >#59 (Spring 1994), 36-59, remains, in many ways, the most sensitive and >up-to-date account of the subject. > >6.See several essays in Jack Saltzman and Cornel West, eds., Struggles in the >Promised Land: Toward a History of Black-Jewish Relations in the United >States (New York: Oxford, 1997), especially Earl Lewis, "The Need to >Remember: Three Phases in Black and Jewish Educational Relations," 231-56; >and Paul Buhle and Robin D.G. Kelley, "Allies of a Different Sort: Jews and >Blacks in the American Left," 197-230. > >7.Close watchers of the controversy about the blatantly anti-Semitic leaflet >reprinted and widely distributed by Shanker's machine during the turbulent >Ocean Hill-Brownsville events will want to consult Earl Lewis's conclusion >that the leaflet identified a non-existent group, that no one has ever >claimed credit for it and consider seriously his suggestion that, in this era >of many thousands of disguised police agents engaged in provocative actions, >it may well have been a COINTELPRO project. Recent revelations about the >Anti-Defamation League's secret activities to discover and make available >damaging data on Martin Luther King for J. Edgar Hoover's purposes, point to >some of the still murkier, intelligence-related sides of contemporary >controversy. It would be shocking but not surprising to learn that Shanker's >office concocted the "perfect" anti-Semitic document to crystalize support >for the UFT leadership. See Lewis, "The Need to Remember," pp. 254-55, n.51 >(op. cit.); and Robert I. Friedman, "The Enemy from Within: How the >Anti-Defamation League Turned the Notion of Human Rights on its Head," >Village Voice, May 11, 1993. > >8.Berube, "'Democratic Socialists' and the Schools," New Politics, (Summer >1969), p. 60. Berube argues interestingly that Shanker, the hard-nosed >business unionist, was drawn into the race narrative by liberal-socialist >intellectuals and in doing so had "come home" to the labor establishment >which relished its intellectual apologists. > >9.Erich Thomas Chester, Covert Network: Progressives, the International >Rescue Committee, and the CIA (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 1995). Chester notes that >under Reagan, the National Endowment for Democracy took up some of the tasks >earlier conducted by CIA and IRC operations. Supporters of the IRC will >eagerly claim, as did Shanker in his lifetime, that liberal anti-Communists >had played a vital role in supporting Polish Solidarity; many members of >Solidarity would note that the real purpose of such support was to undermine >the movement for workers' control no less than to undermine the Communist >government, and that IRC leaders proudly claimed to have "brought together" >Solidarity leaders with American investors -- along with their Polish >counterparts, the new elite class to rule ordinary Polish workers. > >10.Understandably, Cherne is one of those most fervently devoted to Shanker's >memory, along with Diane Ravitch and the disgraced Elliot Abrams. Jonathan >Mahler, "How Albert Shanker Set the Agenda for a Generation," an excellent if >ironic title, indeed, Jewish Forward, February 28, 1997. Sadly, Irving Howe, >too, remained on the IRC board, but that at least he opposed both the Central >American adventure and the warm sponsorship of major Angolan war criminal >Jonas Savimbi by Freedom House and AFL-CIO operatives around Jay Lovestone's >equally oily protege, Irving Brown. > >11.Jonathan Mahler, "How Albert Shanker Set the Agenda for a Generation." >12."Albert Shanker's Last Stand," Jewish Forward, February 28, 1997, taken >from a 1996 address in Prague. Thankfully, the decades of paid advertisements >whose cost to AFT members could easily have saved a large redwood grove from >destruction seem to have ceased at last. Shanker's potential successors have >not rushed to mimic him. Indeed, Edward McElroy, Jr., a decent and honest >unionist and AFT Washington underling with a genuine pro-peace background, >was said to have a shot at the presidency. The mendacious Sandra Feldman, >however, gained the office in May. > >13."Where We Stand," Jewish Forward, February 28, 1997. > >14.Quote in Podair, "`White' Values," p. 49. Emphasis in Shanker's original. > > > > From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Fri Jun 13 14:20:50 1997 Fri, 13 Jun 1997 13:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Fri, 13 Jun 1997 12:53:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 12:53:11 -0700 (PDT) To: pen-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, h-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: 331 European economists against EMU (fwd) Sender: meisenscher@igc.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 20:18:18 +0200 From: iire To: SLDRTY-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: 331 European economists against EMU > Open letter from European economists to the heads of government >> of the 15 member states of the European Union >> >> published 12th June 1997 in several European papers >> >>On 16 and 17 June you will be in Amsterdam in order to discuss European >>integration. You will consult with one another about the progress made >>towards the Economic and Monetary Union. Many questions are still >>unanswered. Will the EMU begin as planned at the end of this century? Which >>countries will take part in the euro from the beginning? Will all the >>Maastricht Treaty criteria be met? These are important questions, but they >>do not address Europe's essential problems. >> >>You know that Europe is contending at the moment with high unemployment, >>poverty, social marginalisation and ecological deterioration. The current >>design of Europe's economy does not provide adequate prospects of reining >>in these problems. The member states' national policies are clearly >>insufficient. The key question is whether the current plans for further >>European integration, and in particular for the EMU, will bring us closer >>to solutions. >> >>Your economic advisers have told you that the EMU, as laid out in the >>Maastricht Treaty (December 1991) and further regulated in the Dublin >>Stability Pact (December 1996), will bring Europe more jobs and prosperity. >>We, economists in the EU's member states, are afraid that the opposite is >>true. This project for economic and monetary integration not only falls >>short from a social, ecological, and democratic perspective, but also from >>an economic one. >> >>This is a missed opportunity. A single European currency could be very >>advantageous and help to find the way to full-employment with good quality >>jobs and social security. This and other relevant objectives could be >>reached through a common budgetary and fiscal policy favouring sustainable >>economic growth, and through the convergence towards high labour standards >>on wages, working time and work conditions. But this EMU is not a starting >>point for a modern European welfare state; instead it institutionalises the >>dismantling of the public sector in the member states and reduces the >>maneuvering room for active social and fiscal policy. The following six >>points lay out briefly the basis for our concern. >> >>SIX CRITICAL POINTS >>1. According to the Maastricht Treaty, the member states must fulfill >>five convergence criteria in order to take part in the euro. Along with >>requirements in the areas of long-term interest rates, inflation and >>national debt, another norm is that a state's budget deficit may not be >>higher than 3 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Almost none of >>the member states now meets this requirement. Without regard to economic >>conditions, they have been put under great pressure to pass the EMU test: >>many among you have experience by now with the draconian austerity >>programmes that must be put in place in order to do so. >> What is remarkable is that this norm, which is doing so much social >>harm, has absolutely no economic basis. Not only economists like us see >>this. One of your hosts in Amsterdam, Dutch Minister of Finance Zalm, said >>in March 1992, when he was still director of the Dutch Central Planning >>Bureau (CPB): "The norms for government finances in the EMU treaty have no >>solid economic foundation." >> The reasoning behind these convergence criteria is drawn from >>monetarist doctrines that are not accepted by the majority of economists. >>According to these doctrines, reduction of budget deficits leads to lower >>inflation, and lower inflation automatically leads to more growth and >>employment. Recent economic research by renowned economists such as >>Akerlof, Dickens and Perry (1996), Barro (1995), Bruno (1995), Sarel (1996) >>and Stanners (1995) shows that this assertion cannot be verified >>empirically. >> >>2. Even if you manage through enormous exertions to bring your budget >>deficits under 3 percent in 1998, you will still not have qualified for the >>euro. As long as your national debt is above 60 percent of GNP and is not >>falling as quickly as is required, you will have to implement still more >>austerity programmes. This will certainly be the case if economic growth >>continues to be slow, which is not inconceivable given the ongoing spiral >>of austerity. >> The pressure on your budgets will remain high for still another >>reason as well: the Stability Pact that you adopted in Dublin forces >>participating EMU countries to reduce their budget deficits still further >>in the direction of balanced budgets. >> In short, in the years to come all member states will >>simultaneously have to adjust their national budgets further. Current and >>future recessions will be exacerbated as a result. >> >>3. You may have acted in Dublin under the assumption that the >>Stability Pact would leave you some room in which to carry out >>countercyclical policies. But it will be many years before you have created >>the necessary budgetary maneuvering room: first your budget deficit must be >>brought far under 3 percent. Exceeding this 3 percent limit during economic >>recessions is virtually impossible: the room left by the Stability Pact for >>temporary exemptions is in fact extremely narrow. >> >>4. Although this is often denied, the previously mentioned budgetary >>adjustments will take place chiefly through harsh austerity programmes. >>Since 'Maastricht' and 'Dublin' included no restrictions on competitive >>fiscal policy, tax rates and revenues will be pushed downwards. This >>virtually rules out the possibility of member states' reducing their >>deficits through additional tax revenues. >> Our fear is that policy competition will increase considerably in >>other areas as well. The fiscal battles among member states are becoming >>steadily fiercer, and the consequences are already visible in the form of >>increasingly great income inequality, forced privatisations and social >>deprivation. We also foresee in the coming years growing competition in the >>area of ecologicaly harmful infrastructural projects (for example, hundreds >>of millions of euro's will be spent to build new or expand existing >>airports). So policy competition in many different areas will undermine >>national revenues and force reorganisation of national expenditures. >> >>5. The policy to be expected from the European Central Bank (ECB) will >>worsen the deflationary pressure that results from this merry-go-round of >>austerity. The ECB is in fact obliged to aim at price stability, and will >>work one-sidedly to watch over the hard euro. The well-known North American >>economist Krugman has already expressed fears about the negative effects >>that this will have on employment. >> As the 'only' significant European body making socio-economic >>policy, the ECB will encounter scarcely any meaningful opposition; the >>'Stability Council' seems destined above all for a symbolic role. >>Parliaments and governments will soon lack any possibility of acting to >>correct ECB policies if the bank takes extreme measures to ward off >>inflation, because the ECB will act with complete autonomy. As George Soros >>recently remarked, the economy is too important to leave in the hands of >>central bankers! >> >>6. In sum, the countries that are about to join in a common currency >>are giving up important instruments of macro-economic policy. Inside the >>Union, this is of course true of exchange rate adjustments, which will of >>course become impossible once the euro is in place. And because interest >>rates will soon be roughly the same everywhere, the mobility of labour >>across European frontiers is (still) slight, and financial transfers have >>not been provided for, the countries in the EMU will soon have only one >>instrument left at their disposal in order to cushion economic shocks: >>government expenditures. But as we have just seen, even that instrument has >>been taken out of governments' hands by the Stability Pact. This means that >>labour will be handed the bill for economic recessions, in the form of >>rising unemployment, falling wages, and still greater flexibilisation. >> >>CONCLUSION >>This EMU is, in short, not a good model for extensive European economic >>integration. You may have been operating under the assumption that >>economists are in agreement about this EMU, and that all the adjustments >>might be very distressing from a social and political point of view but are >>nonetheless truly necessary from an economic point of view. This is not the >>case. There is no solid, scientific foundation for the EMU, and many of us >>have drawn attention to this fact in the past in professional journals and >>elsewhere. >> >>We therefore call on you to reconsider this EMU project. Not that we ask >>you to put an end to European co-operation; on the contrary. A common >>currency and monetary policy could offer considerable advantages. But this >>EMU is governed by timeless criteria and dogmas. Wise economic policy must >>not be replaced by rigid rules, but must be determined essentially by >>circumstances. This is also a question of democracy: the framework of the >>EMU is wrongly discharging you and your colleagues from your precious >>democratic duty to take responsibility for your political choices. Under >>the current conditions, this EMU offers no perspective whatsoever of an >>adequate response to environmental problems, of improvement in the lot of >>Europe's 20 million unemployed and 50 million poor or for the defense and >>extension of the welfare state. >> >>As critics of the EMU, we are reproached with putting European co-operation >>in danger; we are told that we would do better to keep quiet. We are firmly >>convinced, however, that the greatest danger for Europe lies in fact in the >>design of this EMU, which has already led millions of Europeans to identify >>Europe and the euro with austerity policies and social suffering. It is >>high time that politicians realise: the peoples of Europe have the right to >>an economy that serves the interests of human beings. >> > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>The general line of this open letter (which has been coordinated by >>the Dutch economists Geert Reuten, Kees Vendrik and Robert Went) is >>supported by the following 331 economists in the EU. >> >>Austria (25) >>Dr. Wilfried Altzinger (Vienna), Dr. Rainer Bartel (Linz), Dr. >>Christian Bellak (Vienna), Dr. Peter Bosner (Vienna), Mag. Alois >>Guger (Vienna), Dr. Michael Kosz (Vienna), Ing. Mag. Klaus Kubeczko >>(Vienna), Prof. Kazimierz Laski (Vienna), Mag. Markus Marterbauer >>(Vienna), Dr. Gerhard Palme (Vienna), Dr. Reinhard Pirker (Vienna), >>Prof. dr. Kunibert Raffer (Vienna), Dr. Martin Riese (Linz), Dr. >>Peter Rosner (Vienna), Prof. Kurt Rothschild (Vienna), Dr. Stephan >>Schulmeister (Vienna), Mag. Sigrid Stagl (Vienna), Mag. Alfred >>Stiglbauer (Linz), Mag. Engelbert Stockhammer (Vienna), Mag. Waltraut >>Urban (Vienna), Dr. Wolfgang Weigel (Vienna), Mag. Doris >>Weichselbaumer (Linz), Prof. Erwin Weissel (Vienna), Mag. Gerhard >>Wohlfahrt (Graz), Dr. Martin Zagler (Vienna) >> >>Belgium (8) >>Prof. N. Bardos-Feltoronyi (Louvain-la-neuve), Dr. Philippe Defeyt >>(Namur), Prof. Paul Lowenthal (Louvain-la-neuve), Mr. Gabriel Maissin >>(Bruxelles), Prof. Dani le Meulders (Bruxelles), Prof. Jacques Nagels >>(Bruxelles), Prof. Ricardo Petrella (Louvain-la-neuve), Prof. PhD. >>Philippe DeVille (Louvain-la-neuve) >> >>Denmark (15) >>Prof. dr. Hans Aage (Roskilde), Prof. Helge Brink (Aalborg), Ass. >>prof. Charlotte Bruun (Aalborg), Nis Graulund Hansen (Copenhagen), >>Ass. prof. Carsten Heyn-Johnsen (Aalborg), S ren Harck (Aarhus), >>Prof. Thorlund Jepsen (Aarhus), Prof. Jesper Jespersen, PhD >>(Roskilde), Prof. Katarina Juselius (Copenhagen), Prof. S ren >>Kjeldsen-Kragh (Copenhagen), Cand. prof. Kai Lemberg (Roskilde), >>Michael Rosholm, PhD (Aarhus), Peter Skott, PhD (Aarhus), Jacob >>Torfing, PhD (Roskilde), Ass. prof. Stefano Zambelli (Aalborg) >> >>Finland (4) >>Jan Otto Andersson (Turku/Abo), Dr. Heikki Patomdki (Helsinki), Pekka >>Sauramo, PhD. (Helsinki), Hilkka Pietil, M.Sc. (Helsinki) >> >>France (29) >>Laure Bazzoli (Lyon), FranTauois Bel, charg. de recherche (Grenoble), >>Prof. Hugues Bertrand (Paris), Dr. Alain CaillTheta (Rouen), Vincent >>Chapelon, MA (Ecully), Dr. Gerard Cornilleau (Paris), Dr. Christophe >>Demazire (Lille), Dr. Thomas Coutrot (Paris), Prof. Jean Gadrey >>(Lille), Prof. Joseph Halevi (Grenoble), Dr. Liem Hoang Ngoc (Paris), >>Dr. Michel Husson (Paris), Dr. Pierre-AndrTheta Imbert (Paris), Prof. >>Henri Jacot (Lyon), Guy Joignaux, directeur de recherches (Lille), >>Prof. Serge Latouche (Paris), Dr. Florence Lefresne (Paris), >>Dominique Levy, directeur de recherches (Paris), Prof. dr. Alain >>Parguez (Besancon), Jacques Perrin, directeur de recherches (Lyon), >>Dr. Christoph Ramaux (Paris), Dr. Pascal Petit (Paris), Dr. Nathalie >>Rodet (Lyon), Dr. Catherine Samary (Paris), Dr. Henri Sterdyniak >>(Paris), Dr. Bruno ThThetaret (Paris), Marc Troisvallets, MC (Le Havre), >>Prof. dr. Bernard Vallageas (Paris), Prof. dr. Jean FranTauois Vidal >>(Paris) >> >>Germany (15) >>Prof. Elmar Altvater (Berlin), Dorothee Bohle, PhD. (Berlin), Dr. >>Hermann B/mer (Dortmund), Michael Brun, PhD. (Berlin), Prof. Karl >>Heinz Domdey (Berlin), Hartmunt Elsenhans (Leipzig), Dr. Barbara H/ll >>(Leipzig), Prof. J^nrg Huffschmid (Bremen), Prof. dr. Christa Luft >>(Bonn), Prof. dr. Wilhelm Nilling (Hamburg), Dieter Plehwe (Berlin), >>Prof. dr. Hedwig Rudolph (Berlin), Klaus-Peter Weiner (Hannover), Dr. >>Winfried Wolf (Bonn), Dr. Frieder-Otto Wolf (Berlin) >> >>Greece (39) >>Prof. Dr. George Chatzikonstantinou, (Thrace), Prof. Dr. Michail >>Chatziprokopiou (Thessaloniki), Prof. Dr. Vassilis Droucopoulos >>(Athens), Prof. Dr. Dimitris Giannias (Rethymno), Elias Ioakimoglou >>(Athens), Prof. Dr. Thanasis Kalafatis (Piraeus), Prof. Dr. Stella >>Karagianni (Thessaloniki.), Prof. Dr. Ilias Karantonis >>(Thessaloniki), Prof. Dr. Vasilis Kardasis (Rethymno), Prof. Dr. Luca >>Katseli (Athens), Prof. Dr. Lina Kosteletou (Athens), Prof. Dr. >>Theodore Lianos (Athens), Prof. Dr. George Liodakis (Khania), Dr. >>Theodore Margiolis (Athens), Prof. Dr. Leonidas Maroudas (Chios), >>Prof. Dr. Stavros Mavroudeas (Thessaloniki), Prof. Dr. John Milios >>(Athens), Prof. Dr. Dimitris Milonakis (Rethymno), Prof. Dr. Themis >>Minoglou (Athens), Prof. Dr. Antonis Moisides (Athens), Prof. Stavros >>Mavroudeas, Phd (Thessaloniki), Prof. Dr. Theophanis Pakos (A cdp ignored 7457 excess bytes From SFB95002@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU Fri Jun 13 15:10:40 1997 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 97 17:10:08 EDT From: sandra bender fromson Subject: Re: labor-scholar alliance To: sandy bender fromson please send me additional information on your September teach-in. Thanks From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sun Jun 15 12:11:57 1997 Sun, 15 Jun 1997 11:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:58:47 -0700 (PDT) To: pen-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: State of China's Working Class Sender: meisenscher@igc.org World News Review 15-6-97a ************************************************ China: Inequality greater than is the West, 210,000 Labour disputes reported unrest rising Beijing Dangdai Sichao in Chinese, 20 Apr 97 No 2, pp 15-23 ************************************************** ....Then, what are the reasons that make more and more workers disbelieve scientific Communism, choose the ideal on personal life and even believe in religion? (Note: According to a nationwide survey of workers, 8-9 percent of the workers were religious among the total number of workers surveyed. However, 20 percent of the workers in Shanghai and 26.5 percent of the workers surveyed are religious.) I believe that this situation can be attributed to two major factors--the international factor and the domestic factor. Of the two, the domestic factor is the main one. It is specifically manifested as follows: First, the weakening socialist awareness with Marxism as the guidance has caused confusion and misled the public opinion to a certain extent during a certain period. It prevents China's theoreticians from studying and correctly explaining the several deep-rooted problems in the course of developing socialist modernization, and hinders enterprises in following the correct path in reform. It not only abets corruption and degeneration, but also deeply affects people in choosing their values. Since the introduction of the reform and opening-up policy, two of our principal party leaders had, on separate occasions, committed mistakes on the issue of opposing bourgeois liberalization. Deng Lijun's songs became a fad of the time, and the book Abandoned Capital blatantly sought publicity. The "China Human Rights Group" and the "Thawing Society" appeared in the late 1970s, and the Beijing disturbance broke out in late spring and early summer in 1989. Public funds were used in feasting and other kinds of entertainment, and some people even used public funds to visit prostitutes and engage in gambling. Persons such as Wang Baosen overtly babbled about ideals and faith, while covertly leading a fast life. All these indicate the need to strengthen ideological education among ourselves. Second, A considerable number of state-owned and collective enterprises are not doing well. Some of them suffer losses, while others are forced to suspend or curtail production. Some workers do not get paid on time or simply receive no pay. As a result, some workers' families live in dire poverty. Their situation shows a striking contrast to the sudden wealth attained by some dubious characters and the wanton extravagance of some "influential officials" and "upstarts." Workers' weak economic status affects their political and cultural status, and makes them feel passive in their mind. The number of workers laid off by enterprises continues to increase, and the rate of urban unemployment is on the rise. This not only pushes the workers' families in deep water, but also undermines social stability. In accordance with the statistics compiled by the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, the number of workers who were laid off or asked to accept reduced wages or retirement reached 6,924,110, almost 7 million. In accordance with the statistics compiled by the Ministry of Labor, among the 108 million workers in the country, there are approximately 30 million redundant workers in state-owned enterprises throughout China (of whom about 15 million lie idle and another 15 million are covertly idle) accounting for 25-30 percent of the total number of workers. The urban unemployment rate was 2.3 percent in 1992, 2.5 percent in 1993, and 2.8 percent in 1994, and it was estimated to be 3 percent in 1995 with a continuous upward trend. This rate is estimated to reach 4.8 percent by the year 2000. Some people believe that if the 20 million covert idle workers and the 6 million on-the-job unemployed workers in enterprises forced to completely or partially suspend production are included, China's urban unemployment rate will be 10 percent, not 2.8 percent. In accordance with statistics compiled by the Shanghai Federation of Trade Unions, there were 84,500 laid- off workers waiting for jobs in Shanghai in 1992. The number of unemployed in 1993 was 68,900 more than that in 1992, and that in 1994 was 44,700 more than that in 1993. The number of laid-off workers reached 250,000 in 1995. On the one hand, some of the laid-off workers feel antagonistic to the society and the reform program because they have lost their jobs and income. At times, they even feel hopeless in life. On the other hand, they decline to accept job offers in four areas. They refuse to accept job offers that pay poorly, call for heavy work, demand strict discipline, or are far away from home. According to an estimate made by a leading comrade of the No. 1 Light Industrial Corporation in Beijing, at least 70 percent of the 7,000 laid-off workers are covertly working while receiving partial wages and enjoying some fringe benefits from the enterprises as laid- off workers. The reform and opening-up program has helped raise a large number of workers' living standards in varying degrees. However, most of the workers do not regard themselves as the largest beneficiaries of the reform program. During the surveys conducted in March and June 1996, workers believed that proprietors of the nonpublic economic sector and people who hold power in their hands were the beneficiaries of the reform program. In terms of ranking, private proprietors ranked first, managers and administrators form the next group followed by government cadres, technicians, and peasants. Production workers were at the bottom of the list. Furthermore, most of the workers believe that the gap between the rich and the poor in the society is widening. On the issue of the narrowing gap between the rich and the poor in the society, 18.41 percent of the workers in the March 1996 survey said "yes among a few people" while 66.7 percent of them said "no." The result of a research project sponsored by China People's University proved this kind of trend. By using the "Gini Coefficient" to judge the disparities between the rural and urban incomes in China, this coefficient was 0.445 in 1994. It showed that income differentials were excessively large. The Gini coefficient in China has already exceeded that in Western developed countries. According to an analysis conducted by the State Statistics Bureau, China's urban families in 1995 could be divided into the following five categories: 1. Poor families with an average annual income under 5,000 yuan, making up 3.8 percent of the total number of families, 1 percent less over 1994. 2. Families having adequate food and clothing with an average annual income between 5,000 and 10,000 yuan, making up 36.1 percent of the total number of families. 3. Families leading a relatively comfortable life with an average annual income between 10,000 and 30,000 yuan, making up 50.1 percent of the total number of families. 4. Well-to-do families with an average annual income between 30,000 and 100,000 yuan, making up 8 percent of the total number of families. There are approximately 6.8 million families of this category in China's urban areas. 5. Wealthy families with an average annual income of over 100,000 yuan, making up 1 percent of the total number of families. There are approximately 850,000 families of this category in China's urban areas. In 20 percent of the urban families, the income differentials between families of the highest incomes and those of the lowest incomes grew from 1.8 times in 1978 to 3 times in 1994. From the perspective of the entire society, the difference between the rich and the poor is as high as 13 times, if we compare the 20 percent of the urban families with higher incomes with 20 percent of the rural families with lower incomes. Right now, another trend which merits our attention is the fact that there are more labor disputes since 1992. Some of them are complicated and volatile. According to data provided by the Ministry of Labor, the number of labor disputes of all types that arose in 1993 was 54 percent more than that in 1992. Labor disputes that flared up in 1995 grew 73 percent over 1994. The number of such disputes exceeded 210,000 in 1995. Labor disputes will continue to increase in 1996. ********************************************* From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sun Jun 15 12:44:40 1997 Sun, 15 Jun 1997 11:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT) To: pen-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, h-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Genl. Sec'ty. of ILO on Globalization/Deregulation Sender: meisenscher@igc.org World News Review 15-6-97b ************************************************************** [SNIP] **************************************************************** COSATU- labour market Deregulation and flexibility Speech to ILO Address by Mbhazima Shilowa, COSATU General Secretary at an ILO plenary session in Geneva 12 June 1997 Chairperson, allow me to congratulate you on your election as chair as well as salute the Director General who have put together a report which takes account of the debate about the challenges faced by the ILO together with specific measures likely to guarantee that standard setting action of the ILO becomes more relevant in the ensuing period. At the Social Summit held in Copenhagen, Heads of Governments agreed to promote core conventions of the ILO. They went on to list those as the ones pertaining to freedom of association, collective bargaining, the prohibition of forced and child labour, equality of treatment and non discrimination and minimum age of employment. The challenge facing the ILO is how best to take this forward. It is with this in mind that we welcome the report of the Director General. In particular we welcome the fact that he calls on those who are the main proponents of globalisation to state their equal commitment to the respect for worker rights. This will enhance a positive perception of globalisation among workers. Failure to do so reinforces a perception that globalisation equals denial of worker rights. The call for political will by governments on not only ratification, but to pass legislation suited to their domestic conditions within the frame work of the convention is important. Otherwise ratification will simply be done as a way of gaining acceptance by the ILO without any meaningful gains by workers. I listened very carefully, to the speech by Mister Wolfensohn, of the World Bank. I am one of those who are very sceptical of the destructive role played by the IMF and the World bank, particularly in Africa. I however concur with what he said on the fact that for sound economic policies to succeed, we need to pay attention to social policies, respect for individual rights and social justice. What appears to him to be statistics on inequalities in wealth and incomes are a daily occurrence to most workers from developing countries. I hope that governments and employers have taken note of his views and will incorporate them in their inputs and proposals. I know that he may have said them today because of the composition of the audience. We should however as workers hold him to his words. While it may be true that he does not force countries to adopt his proposals, what he does advice them is that if they want to prosper, they have no alternative but to accept his advice. His advice to all countries appears to be the same regardless of levels of economic development and social conditions. It is a case of the same prescription for every patient regardless of the nature of illness. When his policies fail, he would still proclaim success. It is a case of : "The operation was successful unfortunately the patient is dead". Those who are opposed to social justice, have called for the rejection of the report because it will reinforce rigidities. I fail to see how a call for targeted standard setting, greater recourse to recommendations and an overall evaluation mechanism can reinforce rigidities. The same countries that oppose the DG's report are the same ones who in Singapore were saying that the ILO is the mechanism to deal with issues of core standards. Yet they would want to remove any teeth it may have. It is time for us to question their precise motive. They seem more willing to satisfy the demands of unelected institutions without any due regard to the electorate. This we reject. I am aware of the fact that some do not even hold elections. The past two years have seen a new tactic by employers who either threaten to walk out, or simply refuse to participate. This we condemn, particularly by employers who in their own countries have repeatedly called for dialogue as the only way to resolve differences. I am sure that our Minister of Labour will outline steps that South Africa is taking on the same issues raised by the DG. I want to place it on record that while there exist differences in approach on certain issues, there is also overwhelming support by the Labour movement for the overall strategic approach being pursued by the government on labour issues whose aim is to foster social justice, economic development and job creation. We even have an agreement on how to approach the vexing question of social dimension to trade. In conclusion let me state the following: The battle cry of those who want to demonise the trade union movement as a destructive economic force, and remove any role for the state in enacting legislation which protects workers, particularly the vulnerable and the unorganised is: "we need greater labour market flexibility". This coded attempt to turn the clock back, and remove basic rights and protection of workers (in the name of `flexibility') will precisely lead to the exploitation of workers, no respect for worker rights including ILO conventions as well as entrench the notion that global competitiveness can only be achieved through the use of child labour and suppression of worker rights. This type of "flexibility" (licence to exploit), will lead, not to dynamism, innovation, and the unleashing of the productive potential, but to stagnation, and destruction of human and natural resources. The concept of flexibility / rigidity needs to be closely scrutinised to ensure that it is not achieving the opposite of what is intended. Employers tend to confuse government intervention and regulation with rigidities, and deregulation with flexibility. For South African workers, the reality is that, effective targeted intervention is needed to overcome many of the inherited rigidities which retard the economic development, and introduce dynamism where there is now stagnation. Failure to do this will lead to an economy being trapped within the same structural constraints. Whatever its good intentions may have been, labour market flexibility has become discredited among workers. We see it as a euphemism for very little or no regulations at all, make it easy for employers to hire and fire, pay whatever level of wages, make no investment in people, deny workers a say in decision making and have no protection for workers. I therefore call on governments and employers to accept the basic thrust of the DG's report. Where they have genuine reservations this can be accommodated. We have to rise to the challenge of the 21st century by combining economic development with stakeholder rights. From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sun Jun 15 12:47:55 1997 Sun, 15 Jun 1997 11:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:58:39 -0700 (PDT) To: h-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, OIFAC@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU, can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: !*FALSE AND DANGEROUS REPORT OF DEATH WARRANT SIGNED FOR MUMIA Sender: meisenscher@igc.org I recently forwarded a message regarding the announcement that a death warrant had been signed for Mumia. As the message below reports, this posting was apparently a hoax (or ala Cointelpro, might have been planted by agent provocatuers). I took the message I received at face value and in good faith. I regret having been drawn unwittingly into perpetuating this misinformation. Michael >FORWARDED MESSAGE >===================== > >>Return-Path: >>From: Mumia@aol.com >>Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 21:48:36 -0400 (EDT) >>Subject: FALSE AND DANGEROUS REPORT OF DEATH WARRANT SIGNED FOR MUMIA >> >>ALERT ALERT ALERT >> >>The following e-mail has been circulating. THIS IS A FALSE RUMOR AND WE DO >>NOT KNOW WHO STARTED IT. BUT IT IS VERY DANGEROUS TO MUMIA! No warrant has >>been signed. Whoever is starting this rumor is not helping Mumia's case and >>needs to stop. If you get any of this message please repond and tell the >>sender that this is a FALSE AND DANGEROUS RUMOR. >> >>> From: Anna Weekes Subject: Stop press! Stop press! Mumia >>Abu Jamal sentenced to die in 2 >>months time! Stop press! Stop press! >>> Date: Saturday, June 14, 1997 01:22 >>> >>> Mumia Abu-Jamal's death warrant has been signed! He is sentenced to die >>at >>> 10pm on the 17th of August 1997. Mumia, who has been on Death Row for 15 >>> years, had his execution stayed two years ago. Now Pennsylvania Governor, >>> Tom Ridge, has said that he will die on the same day as his executionwould >>> have taken place two years ago. >>> >>> Please comrades, let's get a campaign going quickly on this one! Let'sstop >>> the fascist American government from murdering this writer and freedom >>> fighter! >>> >>> P.S. I realise that many of you will know this already. If anyone outthere >>> has an e-mail address where we can lodge our protests once more, please >>> send it to me! Thanks! >>> >>> >> >>Dave Bedggood >> >> >> --- from list marxism-general@lists.village.virginia.edu --- >> >> >> >> > > > From peterd@spiritone.com Sun Jun 15 13:52:21 1997 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 12:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 12:52:16 -0700 (PDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: peter donohue Subject: Re: State of China's Working Class ALBANIA'S THE STATE OF CHINA'S WORKING CLASS. UMMM, MAYBE CUBA? At 10:58 AM 6/15/97 -0700, you wrote: >World News Review 15-6-97a >************************************************ >China: Inequality greater than is the West, >210,000 Labour disputes reported unrest rising > >Beijing Dangdai Sichao in Chinese, 20 Apr 97 No >2, pp 15-23 >************************************************** >is available on request, it contains the results >of surveys carried out amongst hundreds of thousands >of Workers in State Owned Industries across China. >e-mail us for the full version heiko@easynet.co.uk> > >...Then, what are the reasons that make more and more >workers disbelieve scientific Communism, choose the ideal on >personal life and even believe in religion? (Note: According >to a nationwide survey of workers, 8-9 percent of the >workers were religious among the total number of workers >surveyed. However, 20 percent of the workers in Shanghai and >26.5 percent of the workers surveyed are religious.) I >believe that this situation can be attributed to two major >factors--the international factor and the domestic factor. >Of the two, the domestic factor is the main one. It is >specifically manifested as follows: >First, the weakening socialist awareness with Marxism >as the guidance has caused confusion and misled the public >opinion to a certain extent during a certain period. It >prevents China's theoreticians from studying and correctly >explaining the several deep-rooted problems in the course of >developing socialist modernization, and hinders enterprises >in following the correct path in reform. It not only abets >corruption and degeneration, but also deeply affects people >in choosing their values. Since the introduction of the >reform and opening-up policy, two of our principal party >leaders had, on separate occasions, committed mistakes on >the issue of opposing bourgeois liberalization. Deng Lijun's >songs became a fad of the time, and the book Abandoned >Capital blatantly sought publicity. The "China Human Rights >Group" and the "Thawing Society" appeared in the late 1970s, >and the Beijing disturbance broke out in late spring and >early summer in 1989. Public funds were used in feasting and >other kinds of entertainment, and some people even used >public funds to visit prostitutes and engage in gambling. >Persons such as Wang Baosen overtly babbled about ideals and >faith, while covertly leading a fast life. All these >indicate the need to strengthen ideological education among >ourselves. >Second, A considerable number of state-owned and >collective enterprises are not doing well. Some of them >suffer losses, while others are forced to suspend or curtail >production. Some workers do not get paid on time or simply >receive no pay. As a result, some workers' families live in >dire poverty. Their situation shows a striking contrast to >the sudden wealth attained by some dubious characters and >the wanton extravagance of some "influential officials" and >"upstarts." Workers' weak economic status affects their >political and cultural status, and makes them feel passive >in their mind. >The number of workers laid off by enterprises continues >to increase, and the rate of urban unemployment is on the >rise. This not only pushes the workers' families in deep >water, but also undermines social stability. In accordance >with the statistics compiled by the All-China Federation of >Trade Unions, the number of workers who were laid off or >asked to accept reduced wages or retirement reached >6,924,110, almost 7 million. In accordance with the >statistics compiled by the Ministry of Labor, among the 108 >million workers in the country, there are approximately 30 >million redundant workers in state-owned enterprises >throughout China (of whom about 15 million lie idle and >another 15 million are covertly idle) accounting for 25-30 >percent of the total number of workers. The urban >unemployment rate was 2.3 percent in 1992, 2.5 percent in >1993, and 2.8 percent in 1994, and it was estimated to be 3 >percent in 1995 with a continuous upward trend. This rate is >estimated to reach 4.8 percent by the year 2000. Some people >believe that if the 20 million covert idle workers and the 6 >million on-the-job unemployed workers in enterprises forced >to completely or partially suspend production are included, >China's urban unemployment rate will be 10 percent, not 2.8 >percent. In accordance with statistics compiled by the >Shanghai Federation of Trade Unions, there were 84,500 laid- >off workers waiting for jobs in Shanghai in 1992. The number >of unemployed in 1993 was 68,900 more than that in 1992, and >that in 1994 was 44,700 more than that in 1993. The number >of laid-off workers reached 250,000 in 1995. On the one >hand, some of the laid-off workers feel antagonistic to the >society and the reform program because they have lost their >jobs and income. At times, they even feel hopeless in life. >On the other hand, they decline to accept job offers in four >areas. They refuse to accept job offers that pay poorly, >call for heavy work, demand strict discipline, or are far >away from home. According to an estimate made by a leading >comrade of the No. 1 Light Industrial Corporation in >Beijing, at least 70 percent of the 7,000 laid-off workers >are covertly working while receiving partial wages and >enjoying some fringe benefits from the enterprises as laid- >off workers. >The reform and opening-up program has helped raise a >large number of workers' living standards in varying >degrees. However, most of the workers do not regard >themselves as the largest beneficiaries of the reform >program. During the surveys conducted in March and June >1996, workers believed that proprietors of the nonpublic >economic sector and people who hold power in their hands >were the beneficiaries of the reform program. In terms of >ranking, private proprietors ranked first, managers and >administrators form the next group followed by government >cadres, technicians, and peasants. Production workers were >at the bottom of the list. Furthermore, most of the workers >believe that the gap between the rich and the poor in the >society is widening. On the issue of the narrowing gap >between the rich and the poor in the society, 18.41 percent >of the workers in the March 1996 survey said "yes among a >few people" while 66.7 percent of them said "no." The result >of a research project sponsored by China People's University >proved this kind of trend. By using the "Gini Coefficient" >to judge the disparities between the rural and urban incomes >in China, this coefficient was 0.445 in 1994. It showed that >income differentials were excessively large. The Gini >coefficient in China has already exceeded that in Western >developed countries. >According to an analysis conducted by the State >Statistics Bureau, China's urban families in 1995 could be >divided into the following five categories: >1. Poor families with an average annual income under >5,000 yuan, making up 3.8 percent of the total number of >families, 1 percent less over 1994. >2. Families having adequate food and clothing with an >average annual income between 5,000 and 10,000 yuan, making >up 36.1 percent of the total number of families. >3. Families leading a relatively comfortable life with >an average annual income between 10,000 and 30,000 yuan, >making up 50.1 percent of the total number of families. >4. Well-to-do families with an average annual income >between 30,000 and 100,000 yuan, making up 8 percent of the >total number of families. There are approximately 6.8 >million families of this category in China's urban areas. >5. Wealthy families with an average annual income of >over 100,000 yuan, making up 1 percent of the total number >of families. There are approximately 850,000 families of >this category in China's urban areas. >In 20 percent of the urban families, the income >differentials between families of the highest incomes and >those of the lowest incomes grew from 1.8 times in 1978 to 3 >times in 1994. From the perspective of the entire society, >the difference between the rich and the poor is as high as >13 times, if we compare the 20 percent of the urban families >with higher incomes with 20 percent of the rural families >with lower incomes. >Right now, another trend which merits our attention is >the fact that there are more labor disputes since 1992. Some >of them are complicated and volatile. According to data >provided by the Ministry of Labor, the number of labor >disputes of all types that arose in 1993 was 54 percent more >than that in 1992. Labor disputes that flared up in 1995 >grew 73 percent over 1994. The number of such disputes >exceeded 210,000 in 1995. Labor disputes will continue to >increase in 1996. > >********************************************* > > > > > > > > From global@uk.pi.net Mon Jun 16 04:57:23 1997 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 97 09:37:35 From: lcmrci Subject: What next? 4 To: marxism-general@jefferson.village.virginia.edu, marxism-news@jefferson.village.virginia.edu, 101531.101@compuserve.com What Next? What Next? is a discussion journal aimed at those who are interested in actively responding to the bankruptcy of the world capitalist system by fighting to re-establish revolutionary Marxism, as Lenin and Trotsky did for their time. The collapse of the r=E9gimes in the Soviet bloc signals a new historical period which demands Marxist analysis as a guide to action through open discussion uninhibited by sectarianism and phrasemongering. The aim of the journal is to provide a forum for such discussion. In order to create the conditions for this, our editorial policy is broad. Comments and contributions will be welcomed. Contents 1997 Number 4 Ireland and the Crisis of the British State David Coen Page 3 Socialists and the Scottish Question Gordon Morgan Page 11 The Spanish Communist Party and the United Left John Sullivan Page 17 Why Marxists should have defended Bosnia (And why they shouldn't) Nick Davies Page 21 Revolutionary Regroupment =20 Gerry Downing Page 24 Hegemony Revisited =20 Mab Seymour Page 31 Is the Time Ripe for the Slogan: =91The United States of Europe'? (A Discussion Article) Introduction by Jack Bernard =20 Leon Trotsky Page 34 Reviews Page 39 Letters Page 43 Subscribe to What Next? To enable us to ensure that this heavily-subsidised discussion journal can continue to contribute to Marxist debate, please take out a subscription. Issues are scheduled to be published quarterly. Send =A310 for six issues to the above address. To order back issues, send =A32 per issue. Copy deadline for next issue: 15 July 1997 Send copy to: What Next? 92 Castlehaven Road London NW1 8PL From cxhaha@mail.wm.edu Mon Jun 16 13:01:47 1997 From: "Cindy Hahamovitch" To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 14:54:31 +0000 Subject: Re: labor-scholar alliance I can't yet, Sandra. It's rather unformed at the moment. The rest of the conference is scheduled, though. You can view the program at http://morton.wm.edu/history/slsc Cindy Cindy Hahamovitch Assistant Professor of History College of William & Mary Phone: 757-221-3770 Internet: cxhaha@mail.wm.edu From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Jun 16 22:56:50 1997 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:55:48 -0700 (PDT) for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:55:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:55:00 -0700 (PDT) To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Important Globalization View from PEN-L Sender: meisenscher@igc.org The following is a recently written article by David Yaffe. Globalisation 2 =============== The politics and economics of globalisation =========================================== Globalisation is an ideological term. It encompasses the frenetic international expansion of capital - an expansion which has had devastating consequences for the majority of humanity. The debate around it, however, has tended to obscure rather than clarify our understanding of the forces at work. In his second article on this subject David Yaffe looks at the politics and economics of globalisation.[1] Among those whose primary concern is for a more competitive and efficiently functioning national capitalist economy, there are diametrically opposite positions concerning the reality of globalisation. The neo-liberal right strongly approves of globalisation and the limited effectiveness of national government intervention. 'A more globalised economy is in many ways a more efficient one' forcing governments to be more careful in handling their economies (The Economist 23 December 1995 - 5 January 1996). The removal of market constraints - free trade and deregulated labour and capital markets - is seen as the only way to increased growth, balanced trade and lower unemployment. At the other pole, with the old social democratic Keynesian strategy no longer viable, former social democrats, concerned to retain some progressive role for a reforming capitalist government, have argued that much talk about globalisation is exaggerated. The notion that there is 'one global, borderless, stateless market' is a myth. 'This global economy needs superintending and policing. Governments can and should co-ordinate their policies to manage it' (Will Hutton The Guardian 17 June 1995). This polarisation is mirrored on the socialist left. On the one side, we are told that there has been an epochal shift in capitalism in which new technology has substantially (irreversibly?) increased the power of capital over labour, fragmenting and even destroying working class organisations, and creating global market forces beyond national government control. Not to recognise these developments 'freezes us in modes and forms of struggle which are effete and ineffectual'(A Sivanandan). On the other side, globalisation is seen as 'an ideological mystification' which 'serves as an excuse for the most complete defeatism and for the abandonment of any kind of anti-capitalist project.' And that, while not denying the impact of new technologies and the destructive effects of deregulation, mass unemployment and growing poverty, we need to look elsewhere for an explanation of the long-term structural crisis of capitalism than in simplistic formulas about 'globalisation'(Ellen Meiksins Wood).[2] Globalisation and national governments ====================================== The policies of national governments in capitalist countries are mainly determined by two important dynamics: the first is the state of the national process of capital accumulation and its relative international strength; the second is the balance of class forces both nationally and internationally. It is of little surprise that the concept of 'globalisation' is being discussed; (1) during a period of stagnating national capital accumulation as excess capital is aggressively exported or deployed speculatively on the stock markets of the world to stave off a profits collapse and (2) following a dramatic shift in the balance of class forces nationally and internationally in favour of capital after the successful counterattack against labour in the 1980s, an attack which highlighted the weakness of working class and socialist forces world-wide. Tony Blair, the new British Labour Prime Minister, was simply giving expression to these realities when he told a conference of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation in 1995: 'What is called globalisation is changing the nature of the nation state as power becomes more diffuse and borders more porous. Technological change is reducing the power and capacity of government to control its domestic economy free from external influence' (Financial Times 20 March 1996). In effect he is reassuring the dominant sections of British capital with a very strong international presence, that, with domestic capital accumulation stagnating, he will not stand in the way of British capital even if this is at the expense of millions of people in Britain confronting drastic cuts in state welfare and growing impoverishment. On no other basis, given the balance of class forces, could he lead a capitalist government in present day Britain. The neo-liberal Financial Times journalist Martin Wolf reaches similar conclusions about the limited role of national governments in a global economy but plays down the impact of 'globalisation': 'When people write off the end of national economic sovereignty, it is an historically brief era that they lament. It ended not so much under the assault of an external force, the global market, but of an internal one, perceived failure. Governments were bad at much of what they were doing...Globalisation reinforced the limits already imposed by domestic constraints' (Financial Times 18 September 1995). Wolf's attack on the economic role of government again gives ideological expression to the changed needs of capital in today's circumstances. His explanation differs from Blair - they speak to a different constituency - but inevitably they reach the same class standpoint. The 'historically brief era' of state intervention in the capitalist economy after 1945 was the product of unique historical circumstances. First, inter-imperialist rivalry between the major capitalist powers since the beginning of the century had ended, temporarily, with the dominance of US imperialism over the capitalist world economy. This allowed the US economy, facing limited competition, to develop at the expense of other national capitals. Through Marshall Aid and export of capital, the US laid the basis for increasing control of world markets for US capital and a faster rate of capital accumulation at high rates of profit. Britain, with its access to the markets and resources of the British Empire and with little competition from its European rivals, followed in its wake. Second, a change in the balance of class forces in favour of the working class had occurred internationally after the devastation of depression, fascism and two world wars, a change reinforced by the standing of the Soviet Union and the spread of socialist revolutions and independence movements after the war. The restoration of capital accumulation after the war was achieved, therefore, at a political cost to capital. The balance of class forces necessitated this. But it was a cost that, initially in the victorious nations and, later, in the rebuilt European economies, capital could afford. State intervention in the capitalist economy, state welfare and military spending, in these unique circumstances, underpinned the most rapid accumulation of capital ever. But the fundamental contradictions within the capital accumulation process remained. When the rate of profit began to fall and inter-imperialist rivalries re-emerged at beginning of the 1970s, capital accumulation began to stagnate in most capitalist countries. The rising consumption institutionalised in state welfare became a barrier to the further accumulation of capital as high inflation accompanied stagnation in the major capitalist nations. State spending and state welfare had to be cut back. In Britain the first steps were taken by a Labour government a few years before Thatcher came into power. Capital went on the offensive and succeeded in changing the balance of class forces nationally and internationally but the problems within the capital accumulation process remained. State intervention was neither responsible for the post war boom nor the cause of the later stagnation. It was the particular circumstances of the capital accumulation process nationally and internationally which underlay both. Keynesianism and neo-liberalism are no more than ideological reflections of the changing requirements of capital in the two periods. The growing stagnation in the capital accumulation process and the re-emergence of inter-imperialist rivalries were the result of an overaccumulation of capital - insufficient surplus value to secure both the normal profitable expansion of productive capital and to finance the growing state sector together with a rapidly expanding unproductive private sector. The huge increase in the export of capital, the growing monopolisation of capital through mergers, acquisitions and privatisations, the unprecedented autonomy of the financial system from real production alongside the cuts in state welfare, downsizing and outsourcing, mass unemployment and rapidly growing inequality, in short, globalisation, was capital's response. Globalisation, therefore only reinforces the limits imposed by domestic constraints on national government intervention because both result from a stagnating capital accumulation. This is the context in which we can examine the differing class positions on globalisation. Globalisation and class interest ================================ Martin Wolf quite brazenly represents the dominant ruling class interests. As a spokesperson for large capital, he is an unashamed apologist for neo-liberalism. In a recent glowing tribute to globalisation, dismissing all evidence to the contrary, he maintains it has been a force for prosperity in much of the world. 'Globalisation is the great economic event of our era. It defines what governments can - and should do...Technology makes globalisation feasible. Liberalisation is responsible for it happening.' He celebrates its success. From 1970 to 1997 the number of countries removing exchange controls on goods and services increased from 35 to 137. A year ago, more constrained, in an article 'The global economy myth' (Financial Times 13 February 1996),[3] he argued that much of the talk about globalisation was exaggerated and governments on their own or together could do a great deal. Today he has no such reservations. In his latest article 'Global opportunities' he tells us that governments have learned the lessons of experience and have chosen or been forced to open their economies. Running with the tide, he now argues that, on balance, globalisation has gone further than ever before (Financial Times 6 May 1997). New Labour stands for the same ruling class interests. In the run up to the General Election Blair was forever stressing how Labour would accommodate multinational business. Immediately after the election he appointed Sir David Simon, chairman of British Petroleum, as a Minister of Trade and European Competitiveness. BP is accused of collaborating with military death squads in Columbia. Simon will be made a life peer. Almost the first act of the new government was to hand over control of interest rate policy to that bastion of neo-liberalism, the Bank of England. Nevertheless Blair cannot, as Wolf is able to do, conflate the 'can' and 'should' of government policy in relation to a global economy. For Blair is reliant to some degree on the middle class constituency which elected him to power. He will have to reassure the middle classes, as real economic developments threaten their security, that he will do what he can within the constraints imposed by the global economy ('external influence'). He is acceptable to the ruling class because, unlike the discredited and divided Tories, Labour is in a better position, as economic conditions deteriorate, to prevent an alliance against capitalism developing between the poor working class and sections of the middle classes threatened with proletarianisation. Hutton, generally regarded as ideologue for the New Labour Party, deals with the question of globalisation from a different class standpoint. He articulates the fear of the middle classes at what might occur if the New Right (neo-liberal) agenda succeeds. 'If there are no real economic and political choices...the way is open for the return of totalitarian parties of the right and left.' He fears the consequences of social breakdown. Hence his concern to play down the impact of globalisation, arguing that governments can co-ordinate their policies to manage it, to prevent the extreme consequences of an unrestrained market and to create a less degenerate capitalism. The relative prosperity in Britain during the post-war boom gave rise to new privileged sections of the working class - a new middle class. This layer of predominantly educated, salaried, white collar workers grew with the expansion of the state and services sector and, in the more recent period, with the information technology revolution. Sustaining its privileges is the key to social stability in all the major capitalist nations and playing to its prejudices is the necessary condition for political parties to be elected to power. As long as there were sufficient profits from production at home and trade and investment abroad, both to give an adequate return to capital, and to finance state welfare and the growing unproductive private sector, then the social democratic consensus of the post war years could be maintained. It was possible to guarantee the relatively privileged conditions of higher paid workers and the middle classes while sustaining adequate living standards for the mass of the working class. In the new conditions of capital stagnation and growing inter-imperialist rivalries in the middle of the 1970s, this consensus began to break down. The 1974-79 Labour government set monetary targets and cut state spending. The low-paid state sector workers fought back and the 'winter of discontent', 1978/9, drove the higher paid skilled workers and the middle classes into the arms of the Tory Party. Thatcher embraced this new constituency and, as Hutton says, 'the liberal professions, affluent council house tenants, homeowners, all benefited from her tax cuts, credit boom and privatisation programme.' The price was growing inequality as state welfare was cut and millions of working class people were driven into poverty to pay for Thatcher's programme. The privileges of the middle classes could only be preserved at the expense of ever increasing numbers of impoverished working class people. In spite of the revenues from North Sea Oil, productive investment stagnated in Britain, and record amounts of capital were invested abroad. Britain was rapidly becoming a rentier state. With the failure of Thatcher's economic policies at the end of the 1980s and with poverty and inequality rapidly accelerating, inroads began to be made into the standard of living of sections of the middle classes. It is the potentially explosive consequences of this development that drives Hutton. He offers his alternative to 'globalisation', to an unrestrained and deregulated capitalism. First, he says, we must alter the way the British financial system works - essentially from seeking high, liquid, short-term gains, irrespective of location, to giving a long-term commitment to regenerating the productive base of the British economy - a process which, he says, requires a political revolution to take power away from the entrenched 'conservative hegemony'. Britain has to be transformed into a high investment, high growth economy. Second, a coalition supporting social welfare has to be rebuilt. For this to happen the middle classes must opt in, rather than opt out into the privatised provision of the neo-liberal agenda. The middle classes, he argues, can be given 'a vested interest in the entire system' by 'incorporating inequality into the public domain'. A core system for the mass of the working class with the middle classes able to buy in the extra quality services they require - in short 'nationalising inequality' within the state system. However, if the degeneration of capitalism into a parasitic and rentier form is now a necessary trend emerging in all the mature capitalist nations, Hutton's response to globalisation - what I have called the political economy of the new middle class - is both idealist and reactionary.[4] We can now understand the significance of Sivanandan's standpoint. Living in a country where knowledge, culture and politics are dominated by the concerns and prejudices of middle class people; in which the poor and oppressed working class are outside the political process and ignored by the official labour movement; and where social relations seem frozen, repetitive and unchanging, it could appear that an epochal shift has occurred in capitalism and that the socialist project, at least as it is traditionally understood, has to be buried. We note Sivanandan's warning not to underestimate the dangers posed by the so-called 'culture of postmodernism', in a society where '"knowledge workers" who run the Information Society, who are in the engine room of power, have become collaborators in power'. But we respond as materialists. History has not ended. And globalisation, if it is anything, is a sign of the crisis of capitalism, of increasing instability, of rapidly changing circumstances in a world of obscene and growing inequality. Social relations are not fixed. The conditions which spawned a new middle class and turned it into a bedrock of social stability in the imperialist nations after the war have ended. Today it is those privileged conditions which are being threatened. Hutton, at least, recognises this - hence his terrible fear of a return to the extremes of class conflict that dominated the 1930s. Sivanandan is far too preoccupied with the ideological posturing of a small elite of academics and opinion formers caught up with globalisation and beneficiaries of it. Ellen Meiksins Wood develops a number of crucial points in her reply to Sivanandan. Firstly, more giant corporations with a global reach, and more international organisations serving the interests of capital, in no way imply a unified international capitalist class. The 'global' market ensures the 'internationalisation of competition' - a contradictory process. On the one hand it does mean new forms of capitalist integration and co-operation across national boundaries but on the other hand, it also means active competition between national and regional capitalists. 'So the 'global' economy if anything may mean less and not more capitalist unity.' The overall consequence of 'globalisation' far from integrating capital is at least as likely to produce disintegration. Secondly, the proposition that there is an inverse relation between the internationalisation of the economy and the power of the state fails to acknowledge that 'globalisation' presupposes the state. 'The nation-state is the main conduit through which national (or indeed multinational) capital is inserted into the global market.' Transnational capital may be more effective than the old-style military imperialism in penetrating every corner of the world but it accomplishes this, in the main, through the medium of local capital and local states. It may well, ultimately, rely on the military power of the last remaining 'super-power' to sustain the sovereignty of the market. Further, it depends on such local political jurisdictions to maintain the conditions of economic stability and labour discipline which are the conditions for profitable investment. And finally, new kinds of inter-imperialist rivalry will emerge in which the nation state is still the principal agent. >From this she advances her most important political point: the nation state is still the terrain of (class) struggle. 'If the state is the channel through which capital moves in the "globalised" economy, then it is equally the means by which an anti-capitalist force could sever capital's lifeline.' These arguments go a great deal of the way to undermining Sivanandan's position. But there is something lacking. It is perhaps best highlighted in the undue weight Wood gives to the ideological impact of the concept of globalisation as it is commonly understood. 'It is the heaviest albatross around the neck of the left today'. 'In the current conception of globalisation, left joins right in accepting that "There Is No Alternative" - not just to capitalism, but...to a more or less (the right goes for more, the left somewhat less) ruthlessly "flexible" capitalism.' She continues, if their conception of globalisation were an accurate reflection of what was happening in the world today her ideological objections wouldn't count for much and we would have to accept that the socialist project is dead. This is all very true but something more is surely needed. Ideas only become a material force when taken up by the masses. The ideological struggle is of political importance when it falls on fertile ground. In periods when the poor and impoverished working class are outside the political process, the politics of the left, in the main, reflect their class position in capitalist society - as part of the privileged working class or educated white collar and professional workers who form the backbone of the new middle class. The recomposition of the working class as a fighting force against capitalism has to be the product of developments within capitalism itself, it will not be the result of ideological combat alone. This process is already taking place as capitalist governments deregulate labour, attack state welfare, undermine the democratic right to protest and workers' rights to organise, attempt to divide the working class through racism and sexism, and destroy the environment. The ideological struggle has to be combined with the political organisation and defence of those sections of the working class under attack and fighting back. We need to show how developments within capitalism are making this possible. That is why a great deal more is required from the analysis of the latest stage of capitalism to finally lay to rest the ghost of globalisation. The reality of globalisation ============================ It is important not to underestimate the significance of globalisation. It might well be an 'ideological mystification' in the hands of a Martin Wolf or some intellectuals and academics on the political left, but its impact on the economic and political lives of the vast majority of humanity is of great political consequence. To say, as I have argued in my earlier article on globalisation, that 'far from it being new it is a return to those unstable features of capitalism which characterised imperialism before the First World War' is not to dismiss its importance but, on the contrary, to highlight it. It is beginning to create the very conditions which produced those dramatic shocks to the international capitalist economy and which led to the revolutionary developments in the first decades of the twentieth century. So what then are the crucial components of globalisation which suggest these developments. Multinational companies (MNCs)are the principle vehicle of imperialism's drive to redivide the world according to economic power. In 1995 Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) outflows increased by a massive 38 per cent to $317bn, with a record $100bn going to Third World countries. That investment is concentrated in three competing power blocs, the 'Triad' of the European Union, Japan and the United States and their regional cluster of countries. 76 per cent of the investment in Third World countries (1993-5) went to only 10 countries. Five imperialist countries, United States, UK, Germany, Japan and France were responsible for almost two-thirds of the total outflows in 1995. The United States ($96bn), UK ($38bn) and Germany ($35bn) all exported record amounts.[5] Most MNCs are nationally based, controlled by national shareholders, and trade and invest multinationally with a large majority of sales and assets in their home country. A recent study showed 70 - 75 per cent value added by multinational companies was produced in the home country. They are highly concentrated. Only 100 MNCs, 0.3 per cent of the total, all from imperialist countries, own one-third ($1.4 trillion) of the total FDI investment stock. The process of concentration continues internationally through mergers and acquisitions. Cross border mergers and acquisitions doubled between 1988 and 1995 to $225bn. Globalisation is devastating the lives of millions of people. Even the World Bank admits that in the case of the ex-Soviet bloc 'transition has relegated an entire generation to economic idleness.' Output in Russia fell by 40 per cent between 1990 -1995 and between 16 and 30 per cent in the other countries. Growth has been falling over the last 15 years in about 100 countries, with almost a third of the world's people, dramatically reducing the incomes of 1.6bn people. The declines are unprecedented, exceeding in duration and sometimes in depth the Great Depression of the 1930s. One billion people, 30 per cent of the world's workforce, are either jobless or unemployed. Even in the imperialist countries 100m people live below the poverty line, 30m are unemployed and more than 5m are homeless.[6] The world is becoming more unstable. $1,230bn a day flows through the foreign exchange markets. Third World Debt, at a record $1,940bn, continues to increase despite massive debt repayment. A formidable $55 trillion is gambled on the world's derivatives market. All the major banks are large players. Barclays, for example, has liabilities of 922bn pounds, more than 80 times its capital base. A crash in the stockmarket will leave them facing huge losses. Growth in world trade halved last year because of a sharp deterioration in the performance of the so-called Asian 'tigers'. The conflict in Zaire has started a new scramble for Africa as inter-imperialist rivalry intensifies. Finally, inequality between rich and poor countries and between rich and poor in all countries has reached unprecedented levels and is still growing. These are not the conditions of an unchanging world. They are one's where the socialist message can once again take root. Throughout the world, from workers in Korea to guerrillas in Mexico, from public sector workers in France to landless peasants in Brazil, people are fighting for change. In Britain new alliances are being built with environmental campaigners taking to the streets to defend dockers in Liverpool. Globalisation is a long-term structural crisis of capitalism. It is laying the ground for turning what Ellen Meiksins Wood calls 'various fragments of opposition' to capitalism into conscious class struggle. References ========== 1 See 'Globalisation: a redivision of the world by imperialism' in Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! 131 June/July 1996. 2 These positions appear in 'Capitalism, globalisation, and epochal shifts: an exchange' in Monthly Review Vol 48 No 9 pp19-32. That diametrically opposed positions on the significance of globalisation are held by writers throughout the political spectrum from 'right' to 'left' only adds to the confusion. 3 This was a favourable review of a book by Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson Globalisation in Question Polity Press 1996. Material from this book is used in my earlier article on globalisation. They hold a similar position to that of Hutton above, arguing that 'nation states, and forms of international regulation created and sustained by nation states, still have a fundamental role in providing governance of the economy (p185).' 4 Quotes from Hutton are from his book The State We're In Jonathan Cape 1995. For my review of this book see 'The political economy of the new middle class' in Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! 124 April/May 1995. 5 See World Investment Report (WIR) UN 1996 for information. Other figures are taken from my earlier article or earlier WIR reports. 6 Figures from The World Development Report OUP 1996 and The Human Development Report OUP 1996. From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Jun 16 22:57:31 1997 Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:55:15 -0700 (PDT) To: united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, h-uclea@h-net.msu.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: [PEN-L:10872] Sprint Sender: meisenscher@igc.org The Nation June 12-18, 1997 Hotline to the White House=20 Sprint, blatantly anti-union, has drawn N.L.R.B. censure but Bill Clinton's= =20 praise.=20 By Bill Mesler=20 It was the most exciting day of Eliza Lopez's life. This past February at= the=20 ritzy Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles, the 29-year-old single mother from=20 Guadalajara met with Vice President Al Gore to talk about the shutdown of=20 San Francisco-based La Conexion Familiar. Three years ago, that Hispanic- oriented marketing subsidiary of Sprint was abruptly closed, leaving its 235= =20 workers jobless just days before they were to vote on joining a union -- an= =20 election the union was expected to win easily. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. has called= the=20 case the most glaring violation of workers' right to unionize in decades.= Gore=20 was using the Biltmore Hotel meeting to cultivate his new post-NAFTA, "labor= =20 friendly" image well before the race for the Democratic presidential=20 nomination in 2000 heats up.=20 Lopez told Gore about harsh working conditions at La Conexion Familiar=20 ("The Family Connection"), where access to drinking water and toilets was=20 strictly limited. She told him about commissions promised but never paid.= And=20 she told him how the loss of her job left her trapped in a violent= relationship=20 because she didn't have the resources to care for her two children on her= own.=20 "He seemed very moved," said Lopez. "He said he was going to talk to Bill=20 Clinton and figure out how the government can force employers to respect=20 employees' legal rights. He also said he was going to try to not let any=20 government employee use Sprint."=20 Gore wasn't the first Administration official to show concern over the La=20 Conexion case. Almost immediately after the 1994 firings, Labor Secretary=20 Robert Reich said he would try to revoke Sprint's contract to handle the= Labor=20 Department's long-distance telephone service (the company is under contract= to=20 carry 40 percent of the federal government's long-distance calls). But three= =20 years after the La Conexion workers were fired, and months after an order by= =20 the National Labor Relations Board to rehire the employees and pay them back= =20 wages, they still haven't seen a dime from Sprint, said to have the "worst labor=20 record of any telecommunications company in the world" by a spokesperson=20 for the 4.6-million-member Postal, Telegraph and Telephone International=20 union. And despite the Administration's promises to labor to take on Sprint,= it=20 has yet to lift a finger against the company. Sprint was even singled out= for=20 praise by President Clinton. In his 1997 State of the Union Message, Clinton= =20 called Sprint a company that is leading the way to "create jobs so that= people=20 can move from welfare to work."=20 A closer look at Sprint's relationship with the Democrats shows that at the= =20 least, Clinton's kid-gloves treatment looks like a political trade-off:= Kansas- based Sprint (led by its conservative Republican chairman, Bill Esrey) gave= =20 Clinton a surprise endorsement in the presidential campaign, and people=20 associated with Sprint gave more than $25,000 to the Clinton campaign; the= =20 President then gave the telecommunications giant an endorsement on national= =20 television better than any commercial. There may be even more to the=20 relationship between the White House and Sprint, involving one well-known=20 Democrat on the Sprint payroll. No, not Murphy Brown -- Webster Hubbell.=20 It's still unclear why the company agreed to pay the former Associate= Attorney=20 General and Clinton chum from Arkansas $90,000 in November 1994, just a=20 month before Hubbell pleaded guilty to felony tax evasion and mail fraud.= But=20 it did. Congressional investigators, and special prosecutor Kenneth Starr,= are=20 now trying to determine if any of the payments were hush money to keep=20 Hubbell from cooperating with the Whitewater investigation.=20 Sprint supported the Clinton campaign and made payments to Hubbell. In its= =20 other dealings with the government, it has received preferential treatment= from=20 the Labor Department; won surprising approval of a controversial merger with= =20 German and French companies in 1994; and gained a substantial rewrite -- and= =20 delay -- of a NAFTA report on the impact of plant shutdowns that was=20 commissioned because of La Conexion (the report was finally released this=20 month). Sprint could even win approval of a newly proposed alliance with=20 Tel=E9fonos de M=E9xico (better known as TelMex), Mexico's= telecommunications=20 company, which is owned by notorious financier Carlos Slim, believed to have= =20 amassed the largest fortune in Mexico through his political ties.=20 Like many of the Democrats' financial-scandal woes, the Sprint relationship= =20 bears the imprimatur of the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. In January=20 1991 Brown, then chairman of the Democratic National Committee,=20 announced a new working arrangement between the party and Sprint. "The=20 Democratic Party has entered into an agreement with Sprint that provides for= =20 payment of a commission by Sprint to the Party for introducing Sprint long- distance service to Democrats," wrote Brown in a letter sent out with Sprint= =20 marketing pamphlets to party activists. "When you sign up for the Democratic= =20 program, Sprint will pay to the Party five percent of the charges on every= long- distance call you make." The agreement was killed after it met fierce=20 opposition from the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Communications Workers of=20 America (C.W.A.), which was then in the midst of a drive to unionize= Sprint's=20 U.S. workers.=20 But Sprint's relationship with the Democrats didn't end there. In 1994 the= =20 company began negotiating with Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom to=20 form a $4.2 billion alliance under the name Global One. The deal first had= to=20 win approval by the Federal Communications Commission and the Clinton=20 Justice Department. It was vehemently opposed by AT&T and other=20 international competitors, which claimed Sprint would have an unfair=20 advantage in the closed long-distance markets of Germany and France.=20 Enter Webster Hubbell. According to a letter sent by a Sprint attorney to= the=20 House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the company hired=20 Hubbell to provide legal advice on the proposed Global One alliance.=20 "We were not approached by anybody from the Administration or friends of=20 Webster Hubbell," Sprint spokesman Bill White told The Nation. After first= =20 claiming Hubbell was hired because "he opened an office right across the=20 street from our office," White said the company "had heard from people that= =20 [Hubbell] was a very bright lawyer and had a good reputation at the=20 Department of Justice." Other connections between the company and=20 Democratic politicos include Sprint lobbyist James Lewin, a former chief=20 investigator for the House Judiciary Committee who served as a deputy leader= =20 of the Clinton transition team in 1992.=20 It is still unclear what, if any, work Hubbell did for Sprint. Nobody involved in=20 the Global One proceedings can recall his name ever being mentioned. Sprint= =20 spokesman White would say only that Hubbell worked "as a lawyer and not a=20 lobbyist," and did not contact any of his old friends at Justice. The alliance was=20 eventually approved by the Justice Department in July 1995 and by the= Federal=20 Communications Commission that December. (While it was retaining Hubbell,=20 Sprint also retained Latham and Watkins, the former law firm of outgoing=20 F.C.C. chairman Reed Hundt.)=20 In the meantime, Sprint had become embroiled in controversy over the fate of= =20 the 235 workers at La Conexion laid off without warning just before the vote= =20 to join the C.W.A. The shutdown wasn't surprising considering the company's= =20 fierce opposition to unions; two plants that had been targeted by the union= for=20 organizing drives had been shut down by Sprint over the previous two years,= =20 and the company still distributes a "Union-free Management Guide." Of the=20 "myriad of challenges" Sprint faces in the nineties, reads the Dickensian=20 instruction manual, paramount "is the threat of union intervention in our=20 business."=20 Sprint claimed the shutdown was for financial considerations and had nothing= =20 to do with union activity. But a Sprint newsletter published just weeks= before=20 the La Conexion shutdown boasted that the subsidiary had "grown at an=20 astounding rate in the last three years." The C.W.A. contends that the=20 shutdown sent a message to the company's other workers nationwide that they= =20 could lose their jobs if they try to unionize (about 20,000 would be= eligible).=20 During the course of the proceedings on the unfair labor practices complaint= =20 filed with the National Labor Relations Board, a Sprint attorney was forced= to=20 admit that a company officer committed perjury by drawing up a fake letter= =20 that purported to prove the company had planned to close La Conexion long=20 before any union activity took place.=20 While the N.L.R.B. case went forward, Labor Secretary Reich reportedly=20 promised "to do something public" to put pressure on Sprint to resolve the= =20 situation -- a tactic the Labor Department has increasingly turned to in lieu of=20 any other effective enforcement mechanisms. Though Reich said he would tear= =20 up long-distance phone cards Sprint provides the department as part of its= =20 government contract, a ranking source at the department who asked not to be= =20 identified said no action was ever taken despite widespread support for it in the=20 department. "Many of us were certainly pissed off that nothing was done,"= said=20 the source.=20 It was last December when the N.L.R.B. ruled that Sprint must rehire the=20 workers and pay them three years' back wages ($12 million by union=20 estimates). Sprint has so far managed to bog down the ruling in a lengthy=20 appeals process that may eventually go to the Supreme Court. The C.W.A.=20 again turned to the Administration to apply some kind of pressure.=20 But the N.L.R.B. decision came several months after Sprint had begun shoring= =20 up the President in the midst of his re-election campaign. On October 7,=20 Clinton attended a campaign rally in Stamford, Connecticut, where he= received=20 the endorsement of 2,500 mostly Republican C.E.O.s. Leading the pack was=20 registered Republican and champion of conservative causes Bill Esrey,=20 chairman of the board of Sprint, the largest employer in Bob Dole's home=20 state. There is, Esrey told reporters, a "growing realization in corporate= =20 America that Democrat Bill Clinton has been good for American business."=20 The mood was captured best by Wired columnist John Heilemann, who=20 described dazed White House spokesman Mike McCurry wandering around=20 muttering: "Big, big, big -- this is really big -- I mean big, like, bigger than=20 anything since the Fraternal Order of Police endorsement -- big." Three= months=20 later, Clinton, far from criticizing Sprint's labor record, was lauding the= =20 company in his State of the Union Message. Sprint spokesman White denied=20 any quid pro quo between the company and the Administration, saying Esrey's= =20 decision was a "personal" and "very difficult" one.=20 At the same time, the Labor Department, according to sources inside it, was= =20 quietly working to soften the impact of its report on unfair labor practices= in=20 the United States, which was drawn up after a complaint against Sprint filed= by=20 a Mexican union under NAFTA's labor side agreement -- the first and so far= the=20 only complaint filed in Mexico under the guidelines.=20 In the complaint, lodged after the La Conexion shutdown, Mexico's Union of= =20 Telephone Workers accused Sprint of implementing a "vicious anti-union=20 policy." In February 1996 labor ministers from the United States, Canada and= =20 Mexico met to review the case. They commissioned a report on the effect of= =20 plant closings on workers' rights to organize. The final report (which had= been=20 due last fall) was so soft on Sprint that one C.W.A. official said, "It looked like=20 it had been written by Bill Esrey."=20 Both the Labor Department and the NAFTA officials who drew up the report=20 officially denied the charge. But sources in both offices admitted off the record=20 that the department forced those who worked on the document to rewrite the= =20 sections that were most critical of U.S. labor practices. "The report was=20 delayed and changed because it would have made Gore [a supporter of=20 NAFTA] look bad to labor," said a source close to the report who asked not= to=20 be identified. Kate Bronfenbrenner, Cornell's director of labor education=20 research and one of the authors, agreed, but added that there was also=20 "pressure from the business community that does not want the government to= =20 put out a report showing they are wantonly breaking the law. NAFTA has=20 created a climate that has emboldened employers who want to violate labor=20 rights. Sprint's La Conexion case is the most obvious example."=20 Score another victory for Sprint and big business and Al Gore. Score another= =20 loss for workers like Eliza Lopez. "How could Sprint be telling people to= get=20 off of welfare?" Lopez said when asked about Clinton's praise for the firm.= =20 "They tried to send us on to welfare. Bill Clinton and all those high people= =20 should try working like we did for $7 an hour -- and [management] telling= you=20 not to go to the bathroom, saying they are going to count that as 'low=20 production.'"=20 "I came from Mexico thinking America is a country of justice," said Lopez.= =20 "But I find it is the same as it is in Mexico. People with money get away= with=20 anything."=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D Bill Mesler is a reporter working with the Investigative Fund of The Nation= =20 Institute. From peterd@spiritone.com Mon Jun 16 23:13:47 1997 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 22:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 22:13:44 -0700 (PDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: peter donohue Subject: Re: [PEN-L:10872] Sprint T FERGUSON POINTED OUT THAT TELECOMMUNICATIONS WAS CLINTON'S BIGGEST 1996 INDUSTRY IN MO-JO 12/96. From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Tue Jun 17 14:04:48 1997 Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:35:49 -0700 (PDT) Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:34:09 -0700 (PDT) To: united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: [PEN-L:10885] Pending crash? Privatization anyone? Sender: meisenscher@igc.org The Baltimore Sun June 17, 1997 Market on verge of collapse, analyst says When the stock market crashes, it'll be like an earthquake leveling a city. That's what Thomas H. Eichler says. And he feels the rumbling. Eichler, who is the president and chief investment officer of Eichler Magnin Inc., a Los Angeles-based investment management firm, says that within the next 12 months the stock market will plunge by 50 percent. "Within the next year we expect one of the major financial crashes of this century. We feel there will be an economic depression. We don't think people will have a chance to get out," he said. Eichler is a member of a small group of experts that is bearish on the stock market. Those who have made negative predictions over the past three years have been baffled and embarrassed time and time again because stocks keep driving higher. The Dow Jones industrial average -- a closely watched barometer made up of 30 large companies -- has more than doubled in the past 2 1/2 years, closing Friday at 7,782.04, up from 3,838.48 on Jan. 3, 1995. But the 35-year-old Eichler believes that the stock market has peaked and that it is on the verge of a crash that mirrors 1929. Here's why: Eichler argues that there are gaping imbalances in the U.S. financial system. While corporations are making big profits, incomes of consumers have stagnated, the savings rate has slipped, debt levels have risen, and taxes as a percentage of income are at their highest levels this century, he said. "That type of mix is very worrisome," he said. With debt levels rising and incomes barely growing, consumer spending is bound to slow, he said. That will filter through to companies that produce goods and services. Less money to spend means that fewer people will buy lawn mowers or take the family out to eat. He argues that investors are paying unrealistic amounts for stock, more than twice their normal value. "If you went to normal valuations, we are talking about 3,300 to 3,500 on the Dow," Eichler said. "Investors are not prepared for this type of decline. People are really in a vulnerable position. This financial speculation has almost been like a steroid. Be assured, it is nothing more than just a steroid." Some key market indicators buttress his views. Stocks in the S&P 500 are selling at about 22 times average earnings, the highest price-to-earnings ratio since World War II except for 1987. The market was hit with a 35 percent correction that year. Stocks are selling at more than four times their book value. At the market's August 1987 peak, before the crash, they were selling at just over two times their book value. The dividend yield, which goes down when the price of stocks goes up, stands at a record low of 1.73 percent. In August 1987, it was 2.54 percent. Another reason the market will fall, Eichler says, is that investors will pump more money into foreign stocks as economies around the world recover at the expense of U.S. companies. "It seems to me absurd that somebody wouldn't accept my scenario," Eichler said. "It is backed by 100 years of history and reasonable economic analysis." Richard Cripps, chief market strategist of Legg Mason Wood Walker Inc., agrees that stocks are over-valued, but he doesn't see a 1929-type crash. "Making that type of analysis is 100 percent looking in a rear-view mirror," he said. "History adds a lot of perspective, but we have a dynamic environment right now." Eichler is a student of history, and much of it has come from his father and two grandfathers who ran their own brokerage firms. His grandfather Henry believed that people helped companies raise capital by buying their stock. They were rewarded through appreciation and dividends. "They were very traditional and very conservative," he said. Eichler manages the company with the same philosophy. The firm oversees $30 million for wealthy clients. Thirty-eight percent of the assets are in cash; 24 percent are in stocks, which include closed-end bond funds and utilities; and the rest is salted away in gold, bonds and other fixed-income instruments. Eichler Magnin returned 8.5 percent last year, far off the pace of the S&P 500's 20 percent return. "We have clearly been wrong based on what people out there expect," he said. "The easier way out is to do what everybody else is doing. We want to preserve assets." But Eichler doesn't think he's wrong about the crash he feels rumbling. "It's almost like an earthquake coming from Los Angeles," he said. "It's scary." From Urthman@aol.com Wed Jun 18 14:19:41 1997 From: Urthman@aol.com by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id QAA01919 for Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:19:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:19:38 -0400 (EDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: labor-scholar alliance - teach-ins in Indiana? If anyone is planning a teach-in at an Indiana college or university - or is interested in discussing possible teach-ins in Indiana - please contact me. Ed Ramthun AFSCME Area Office Indianapolis, IN 317-624-6604 or urthman@aol.com From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Jun 18 20:40:46 1997 Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:39:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:39:43 -0700 (PDT) To: Labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, united@cougar.com From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: [PEN-L:10907] This is the '90s Sender: meisenscher@igc.org June 18, 1997 Economic Analysis: Those Were the Golden Days; This Is the '90s By LOUIS UCHITELLE With the war barely over, Life magazine laid out, in a 1946 photo essay, a "roseate and wondrous" American dream. A single-story stone-and-clapboard home appeared in the centerfold photo. And spread over the front lawn were the gadgets of the envisioned prosperity: a convertible, a three-burner electric stove, a small television screen embedded in a bulky wooden cabinet, a children's slide, flimsy aluminum lawn chairs, a plastic garden hose, a gasoline lawn mower. In hindsight, Life's vision was surprisingly modest. The next quarter- century turned out to be a golden age, and as living standards rose, the furnishings of Life's American dream became commonplace, even in the homes of many working poor. Then came 1973, one of the great turning points of the post-World War II era. It was the year in which the dollar came off the gold standard; the oil embargo struck; worldwide grain shortages developed. The widespread rise in prosperity came to a halt. Inflation, stagnant wages, shrinking unions, growing income inequality, spreading poverty and outdated factories all left scars. An economy that had been so plentiful for so many for so long suddenly followed a different path, leaving big portions of the population behind. Now the United States appears to be at another turning point. Some of the hallmarks of the 1946-73 era are reappearing. Perhaps 1997 will turn out to be as much a landmark in American economic history as 1973. But the new age, if it materializes, is not likely to re-create the postwar sense of bounty. Instead, people are carrying into the future the residue of the stagnant years, and their compromised expectations. Rather than counting on rising prosperity, Americans are betting that by working ever harder, they may manage to cling to leadership in the world economy. "We are not in any sense back," said Robert Solow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a Nobel laureate in economics. "There may be some economic measures that are equal to or even better than the pre-1973 years. But not the level of well-being." Three statistics from the old days have reappeared: a low inflation rate, an unemployment rate of less than 5 percent and a return of corporate profits, as a share of the overall economy, close to the hefty levels of the 1960s. Not since the pre-1973 era have such hallmarks of a vibrant economy coexisted so persistently. Naturally enough, these parallels with the golden era are generating considerable optimism. At McKinsey & Co., the consulting firm, William Lewis, director of its Global Institute, declares that America's competitive laissez-faire economy should be the model for all nations. Wired, the monthly bible of the digerati, proclaims that the global economy, led by the United States, is entering a "long boom," driven by powerful new technologies and the spread of capitalism to nearly every region of the world. And Fortune magazine, in a long article this month, states flatly of America: "These are the good old days." But for most Americans, it is not like the good old days. Holding onto a job now takes precedence over upward mobility, or getting decent annual raises. Just prolonging an expansion has become more important than generating the robust economic growth that made the pre-1973 period golden. Corporate success in global competition has become an overriding goal, even at the price of greater wage inequality or leaving some groups behind. Longer hours on the job have displaced the pre-1973 goal of more leisure time to use the lawn furniture in Life's "family utopia." And job insecurity -- "cowed labor," in the phrasing of the economist Paul Samuelson -- has become an accepted means of prolonging the economic cycle, mainly by suppressing wage increases and inflation. "Before 1973," said Richard Curtin, director of the University of Michigan's consumer confidence surveys, "there was this deep belief in personal financial progress. In that sense, it is very different today. We don't expect a recession. But we no longer have much faith that our incomes will rise." While many Americans have clearly acquired more possessions, prosperity itself has a different meaning. The pre-1973 economy often expanded in a given quarter at a 9 percent annual rate, or more. Since 1973, that has never happened. But when growth reached 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 1996 and a rare 5.6 percent in this year's first quarter, it was hailed with glee. "What people once called inadequate growth they are more likely to judge quite positively today," Curtin said. Looking back, 1973 has taken on the watershed status in American economic history of years like 1870, which ushered in the Gilded Age, and 1929, the start of the Depression. In 1973, the year the last American ground troops left Vietnam, the post- World War II generation was suddenly confronted with events that brought home just how much the global economy could alter their lives. Weak world grain harvests and the oil embargo introduced shortages, which fed inflation. So did President Richard Nixon's decision to take the dollar off the gold standard, allowing the currency to fall quickly in value. That made American food products more affordable abroad and they were snapped up, particularly by the Soviet Union, in a frenzy of deals that sent domestic prices soaring. The oil and food price shocks diluted the effectiveness of the wage and price controls imposed by the Nixon Administration in 1970 to counter the costs of the war. By 1973, inflation had become the No. 1 economic issue; the inflation rate doubled that year. And partly as a result, the nation's policy makers, along with many economists, did an about-face in their view of the economy's productive capacity. The national output, once viewed as boundless, now seemed quite constrained. Until 1973, the big economic issue had been how to generate enough demand to keep the economy growing strongly. The standard measures included tax cuts, public works projects, jobs programs, a higher minimum wage. Supply was taken for granted. The prevailing view was that companies could always jack up production without much strain. "We overestimated how much capacity could grow," said Herbert Stein, who was Nixon's chief economic adviser in 1973. That complacency changed by 1973. Economists and policy makers came to attribute the supply shortages, and the rapid price increases, to limited capacity. Supply could not rise to match demand after all, the new view declared, because the nation lacked the necessary productive capacity. And soon attention focused on data that increasingly suggested built-in ceilings on the output of goods and services. "When belief shifted, reality did, too," said David Collander, an economic historian at Middlebury College. Capacity is three things. It is enough workers to make or provide all that Americans seek to buy. It is enough factories, offices, warehouses and stores, and enough machinery, computers and other equipment to produce all the goods and services that Americans want. Finally, there is productivity, or the amount that workers, using the buildings and equipment, can produce in a given time period. If productivity does not grow fast enough, supply cannot either. Demand can outstrip supply. From 1946 to 1973, productivity rose, on average, nearly 3 percent a year. But after 1973, the annual advances averaged only 1 percent, well below the long-term trend of more than 2 percent a year in the century after the Civil War. So, starting in 1973, the nation's policy makers increasingly dealt with the perceived ceiling on supply by restricting demand. The restraint came from the Federal Reserve, whose principal tool for regulating the economy was interest rates. If unemployment got too low, that meant not enough labor capacity, and the Fed, rather than risk wage pressures and shortages, raised interest rates to discourage spending and reduce demand. By the end of the 1970s, with inflation and unemployment rising in tandem, the Fed chose to fight inflation with higher rates, paying much less attention to unemployment. In this atmosphere, labor's bargaining power came unglued. Corporate profits weakened along with demand. The nation's capital stock per worker -- the machinery and equipment available for each worker to get the job done -- has grown more slowly in each decade since 1973, despite huge investments in computers. And, starting in 1973, the United States entered what is arguably its longest period of slow economic growth since the Civil War. The official statistics say that economic growth is still modest. But the simultaneous arrival of low inflation, low unemployment and strong profits has some economists -- and many corporate executives -- convinced that the official statistics must be wrong. Solve the mismeasurement, they say, and the nation's economic growth rate in recent years, supported by rising productivity, will come out looking a lot more like the pre-1973 years. "We are not putting enough resources into getting the right data," said Lawrence Klein of the University of Pennsylvania, a Nobel laureate in economics. The new view is this: After much painful revamping and downsizing, American companies have regained their old efficiency, particularly in manufacturing. New technology and computers have played a big role in all this. So has deregulation, giving the companies flexibility to respond quickly to changing circumstances. But there is a different, less sanguine, way to explain the reappearance of the symptoms of the 1960s. Productivity has not risen, according to this view. The new technologies, flashy as they are, do not begin to raise output and income as did those of the past -- the railroad, the electric motor, the assembly line, the telephone, the gasoline engine, the jet airliner. "There are hints every so often," Solow of MIT said, "that the productivity pace may be picking up, but they are mere hints." Instead, the new capacity is coming largely from overseas in the form of new factories and skilled, low-wage foreign labor that is quickly at the service of American consumers in an increasingly energetic global economy. "If a Chinese manufacturer makes something that Wal-Mart then decides it wants," Lewis of McKinsey & Co. said, "it buys in China and distributes massively in the United States." The second source of more capacity is the American worker himself. In the 1950s and 1960s, most families relied on one earner. Rising productivity pushed up incomes, making that possible. Today two or more people work in most households, and some studies say the typical American is working a greater number of hours, as well. "People say to themselves, 'There is a possibility a year or two down the line I'll be without a job, but now the economy is booming, and if the boss offers more hours I'll take them,"' said Barry Bluestone, a University of Massachusetts economist and the co-author of one such study. "They have to, to keep up consumption." Of such trends are turning points made -- not back to the pre-1973 era or some other prosperous period, but to harder days of uncertainty. "It is impossible for anyone to say we have not entered into a new period," said Jeffrey Garten, dean of the Yale School of Management, "but too soon to say that we have." Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company From aanz@sirius.com Thu Jun 19 19:42:46 1997 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:42:07 -0700 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: aanz@sirius.com (anzalone/starbird) Subject: Re: [PEN-L:10907] This is the '90s > digerati? ellen June 18, 1997 > > Economic Analysis: Those Were the Golden Days; This Is the '90s > > By LOUIS UCHITELLE > >With the war barely over, Life magazine laid out, in a 1946 photo essay, a >"roseate and wondrous" American dream. A single-story stone-and-clapboard >home appeared in the centerfold photo. And spread over the front lawn were >the gadgets of the envisioned prosperity: a convertible, a three-burner >electric stove, a small television screen embedded in a bulky wooden >cabinet, a children's slide, flimsy aluminum lawn chairs, a plastic garden >hose, a gasoline lawn mower. > > In hindsight, Life's vision was surprisingly modest. The next quarter- >century turned out to be a golden age, and as living standards rose, the >furnishings of Life's American dream became commonplace, even in the homes >of many working poor. > > Then came 1973, one of the great turning points of the post-World War II >era. It was the year in which the dollar came off the gold standard; the >oil embargo struck; worldwide grain shortages developed. The widespread >rise in prosperity came to a halt. > > Inflation, stagnant wages, shrinking unions, growing income inequality, >spreading poverty and outdated factories all left scars. An economy that >had been so plentiful for so many for so long suddenly followed a different >path, leaving big portions of the population behind. > > Now the United States appears to be at another turning point. Some of the >hallmarks of the 1946-73 era are reappearing. Perhaps 1997 will turn out to >be as much a landmark in American economic history as 1973. But the new >age, if it materializes, is not likely to re-create the postwar sense of >bounty. > > Instead, people are carrying into the future the residue of the stagnant >years, and their compromised expectations. Rather than counting on rising >prosperity, Americans are betting that by working ever harder, they may >manage to cling to leadership in the world economy. > > "We are not in any sense back," said Robert Solow of the Massachusetts >Institute of Technology, a Nobel laureate in economics. "There may be some >economic measures that are equal to or even better than the pre-1973 years. >But not the level of well-being." > > Three statistics from the old days have reappeared: a low inflation rate, >an unemployment rate of less than 5 percent and a return of corporate >profits, as a share of the overall economy, close to the hefty levels of >the 1960s. Not since the pre-1973 era have such hallmarks of a vibrant >economy coexisted so persistently. > > Naturally enough, these parallels with the golden era are generating >considerable optimism. At McKinsey & Co., the consulting firm, William >Lewis, director of its Global Institute, declares that America's >competitive laissez-faire economy should be the model for all nations. > > Wired, the monthly bible of the digerati, proclaims that the global >economy, led by the United States, is entering a "long boom," driven by >powerful new technologies and the spread of capitalism to nearly every >region of the world. And Fortune magazine, in a long article this month, >states flatly of America: "These are the good old days." > > But for most Americans, it is not like the good old days. Holding onto a >job now takes precedence over upward mobility, or getting decent annual >raises. Just prolonging an expansion has become more important than >generating the robust economic growth that made the pre-1973 period golden. >Corporate success in global competition has become an overriding goal, even >at the price of greater wage inequality or leaving some groups behind. > > Longer hours on the job have displaced the pre-1973 goal of more leisure >time to use the lawn furniture in Life's "family utopia." And job >insecurity -- "cowed labor," in the phrasing of the economist Paul >Samuelson -- has become an accepted means of prolonging the economic cycle, >mainly by suppressing wage increases and inflation. > > "Before 1973," said Richard Curtin, director of the University of >Michigan's consumer confidence surveys, "there was this deep belief in >personal financial progress. In that sense, it is very different today. We >don't expect a recession. But we no longer have much faith that our incomes >will rise." > > While many Americans have clearly acquired more possessions, prosperity >itself has a different meaning. The pre-1973 economy often expanded in a >given quarter at a 9 percent annual rate, or more. Since 1973, that has >never happened. But when growth reached 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter >of 1996 and a rare 5.6 percent in this year's first quarter, it was hailed >with glee. "What people once called inadequate growth they are more likely >to judge quite positively today," Curtin said. > > Looking back, 1973 has taken on the watershed status in American economic >history of years like 1870, which ushered in the Gilded Age, and 1929, the >start of the Depression. > > In 1973, the year the last American ground troops left Vietnam, the post- >World War II generation was suddenly confronted with events that brought >home just how much the global economy could alter their lives. Weak world >grain harvests and the oil embargo introduced shortages, which fed >inflation. So did President Richard Nixon's decision to take the dollar off >the gold standard, allowing the currency to fall quickly in value. That >made American food products more affordable abroad and they were snapped >up, particularly by the Soviet Union, in a frenzy of deals that sent >domestic prices soaring. > > The oil and food price shocks diluted the effectiveness of the wage and >price controls imposed by the Nixon Administration in 1970 to counter the >costs of the war. By 1973, inflation had become the No. 1 economic issue; >the inflation rate doubled that year. And partly as a result, the nation's >policy makers, along with many economists, did an about-face in their view >of the economy's productive capacity. The national output, once viewed as >boundless, now seemed quite constrained. > > Until 1973, the big economic issue had been how to generate enough demand >to keep the economy growing strongly. The standard measures included tax >cuts, public works projects, jobs programs, a higher minimum wage. Supply >was taken for granted. The prevailing view was that companies could always >jack up production without much strain. "We overestimated how much capacity >could grow," said Herbert Stein, who was Nixon's chief economic adviser in >1973. > > That complacency changed by 1973. Economists and policy makers came to >attribute the supply shortages, and the rapid price increases, to limited >capacity. Supply could not rise to match demand after all, the new view >declared, because the nation lacked the necessary productive capacity. And >soon attention focused on data that increasingly suggested built-in >ceilings on the output of goods and services. "When belief shifted, reality >did, too," said David Collander, an economic historian at Middlebury College. > > Capacity is three things. It is enough workers to make or provide all that >Americans seek to buy. It is enough factories, offices, warehouses and >stores, and enough machinery, computers and other equipment to produce all >the goods and services that Americans want. Finally, there is productivity, >or the amount that workers, using the buildings and equipment, can produce >in a given time period. If productivity does not grow fast enough, supply >cannot either. Demand can outstrip supply. > > From 1946 to 1973, productivity rose, on average, nearly 3 percent a year. >But after 1973, the annual advances averaged only 1 percent, well below the >long-term trend of more than 2 percent a year in the century after the >Civil War. > > So, starting in 1973, the nation's policy makers increasingly dealt with >the perceived ceiling on supply by restricting demand. The restraint came >from the Federal Reserve, whose principal tool for regulating the economy >was interest rates. If unemployment got too low, that meant not enough >labor capacity, and the Fed, rather than risk wage pressures and shortages, >raised interest rates to discourage spending and reduce demand. > > By the end of the 1970s, with inflation and unemployment rising in tandem, >the Fed chose to fight inflation with higher rates, paying much less >attention to unemployment. > > In this atmosphere, labor's bargaining power came unglued. Corporate >profits weakened along with demand. The nation's capital stock per worker >-- the machinery and equipment available for each worker to get the job >done -- has grown more slowly in each decade since 1973, despite huge >investments in computers. And, starting in 1973, the United States entered >what is arguably its longest period of slow economic growth since the Civil >War. > > The official statistics say that economic growth is still modest. But the >simultaneous arrival of low inflation, low unemployment and strong profits >has some economists -- and many corporate executives -- convinced that the >official statistics must be wrong. Solve the mismeasurement, they say, and >the nation's economic growth rate in recent years, supported by rising >productivity, will come out looking a lot more like the pre-1973 years. > > "We are not putting enough resources into getting the right data," said >Lawrence Klein of the University of Pennsylvania, a Nobel laureate in >economics. > > The new view is this: After much painful revamping and downsizing, >American companies have regained their old efficiency, particularly in >manufacturing. New technology and computers have played a big role in all >this. So has deregulation, giving the companies flexibility to respond >quickly to changing circumstances. > > But there is a different, less sanguine, way to explain the reappearance >of the symptoms of the 1960s. Productivity has not risen, according to this >view. The new technologies, flashy as they are, do not begin to raise >output and income as did those of the past -- the railroad, the electric >motor, the assembly line, the telephone, the gasoline engine, the jet >airliner. > > "There are hints every so often," Solow of MIT said, "that the >productivity pace may be picking up, but they are mere hints." > > Instead, the new capacity is coming largely from overseas in the form of >new factories and skilled, low-wage foreign labor that is quickly at the >service of American consumers in an increasingly energetic global economy. > > "If a Chinese manufacturer makes something that Wal-Mart then decides it >wants," Lewis of McKinsey & Co. said, "it buys in China and distributes >massively in the United States." > > The second source of more capacity is the American worker himself. In the >1950s and 1960s, most families relied on one earner. Rising productivity >pushed up incomes, making that possible. Today two or more people work in >most households, and some studies say the typical American is working a >greater number of hours, as well. > > "People say to themselves, 'There is a possibility a year or two down the >line I'll be without a job, but now the economy is booming, and if the boss >offers more hours I'll take them,"' said Barry Bluestone, a University of >Massachusetts economist and the co-author of one such study. "They have to, >to keep up consumption." > > Of such trends are turning points made -- not back to the pre-1973 era or >some other prosperous period, but to harder days of uncertainty. "It is >impossible for anyone to say we have not entered into a new period," said >Jeffrey Garten, dean of the Yale School of Management, "but too soon to say >that we have." > > Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company From 029FRB@cosmos.wits.ac.za Sat Jun 21 11:15:35 1997 Sat, 21 Jun 1997 19:13:00 +0200 (GMT) 21 Jun 97 19:24:10 GMT +2:00 From: "FRANCO BARCHIESI" <029FRB@cosmos.wits.ac.za> To: aut-op-sy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 19:23:16 GMT + 2:00 Subject: "DEBATE" ISSUE #3: OUT SOON!!! sitas@MTB.und.ac.za, ashwind@pixie.udw.ac.za, bjr@ilink.nis.za, 103dar@muse.arts.wits.ac.za, 041fana@cosmos.wits.ac.za, GEORGE@niep.org.za, hbohmke@pixie.udw.ac.za, 029pars@cosmos.wits.ac.za, jros@star.argus.co.za, 029walt@cosmos.wits.ac.za, "Mphafudi, NL, Mr" <013MPL@cosmos.wits.ac.za>, "M. Ginsburg" <029GIN@cosmos.wits.ac.za>, 155mel@mentor.edcm.wits.ac.za, kwezidri@wn.apc.org, 105noor@muse.arts.wits.ac.za, PATRICK@niep.org.za, rehad@icon.co.za, roseline@naledi.wn.apc.org, 029sam@cosmos.wits.ac.za, 029psoul@muse.arts.wits.ac.za, 129prish@cosmos.wits.ac.za, rob@naledi.wn.apc.org, oxcape@wn.apc.org, beijing@wn.apc.org, khanya@wn.apc.org, vdm@wn.apc.org, 064nape@cosmos.wits.ac.za, 029wyk@muse.arts.wits.ac.za, hbohmke@pixie.udw.ac.za, PATRICK@niep.org.za, rehad@icon.co.za, piff@aol.com, Fed-up with neoliberalism? GEAR is putting your life in the low gear? Co-determination doesn't excite you? Then why don't you try *** D E B A T E *** Voices from the South African Left ? ISSUE 3 now in preparation COMING SOON with: Special Focus: INTELLECTUALS IN RETREAT Heinrich BOHMKE and Ashwin DESAI - "The Death of the Intellectual, The Birth of a Salesman: The South African Intellectuals in the Democratic Transition" Oupa LEHULERE on challenging GEAR Edgar PIETERSE on culturing development discourse Meshack KHOSA on the situation of the Pan-African intellectual PLUS: Focus on the Land: Fana SIHLONGONYANE on the crisis of the agrarian reform and Andile MNGXITAMA on the question of the chieftaincy; Patrick BOND on the tragedy of neoliberal housing policy; Noor NIEFTAGODIEN on cuts in tertiary education budget; Franco BARCHIESI reports on "Debating the South African State" - a "Debate" Workshop with Jeremy CRONIN, Claire CERUTI and Noor NIEFTAGODIEN; LAST BUT NOT LEAST: FOR HUMANITY AND AGAINST NEOLIBERALISM - "Debate"'s participation to the Second Intercontinental Encounter for Humanity and against Neoliberalism (Madrid, Spain 26 July - 2 August 1997); ACTION ALERT: Repression against comrades at the University of Durban- Westville; WORLD FORUM FOR ALTERNATIVES - An Introduction; BOOK REVIEW: Giovanni Arrighi's "The Long Twentieth Century", by Stephen GREENBERG. ### "DEBATE" supports the COMSA and SRC members criminalised at the University of Durban-Westville - DROP ALL CHARGES, REOPEN THE CAMPUS, NOW!!! ### To subscribe to "DEBATE" (one year, three issues, airmail included): South Africa Overseas Workers and R50.00 N/A Full-Time Students R40.00 Salaried Individuals R75.00 $30/GBP20 Institutions R120.00 $60/GBP40 Cheques payable to "Debate-Voices from the South African Left" should be sent to: "DEBATE", PO Box 483, Wits 2050, SOUTH AFRICA. Free issues to political prisoners on request. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Franco Barchiesi Sociology of Work Unit Dept of Sociology University of the Witwatersrand Private Bag 3 PO Wits 2050 Johannesburg South Africa Tel. (++27 11) 716.3290 Fax (++27 11) 716.3781 E-Mail 029frb@cosmos.wits.ac.za http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/aut_html http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~mshalev/direct.htm Home: 98 6th Avenue Melville 2092 Johannesburg South Africa Tel. (++27 11) 482.5011 From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Tue Jun 24 21:46:33 1997 Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:46:19 -0700 (PDT) Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:44:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:44:42 -0700 (PDT) To: pen-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, h-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu, united@cougar.com, OIFAC@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Globalization (1 of 3 fine thoughtful articles) Sender: meisenscher@igc.org Thanks to Sid Shniad in Canada for sharing these: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/dossiers/ft/dbcass2.html IS GLOBALISATION INEVITABLE AND DESIRABLE? To save society BERNARD CASSEN Le Monde diplomatique Free markets (laissez-faire) and free trade (laissez-passer): these are the two age-old articles of faith of the doctrine of ultraliberalism. And, as inevitably happens with articles of faith, they take precedence, whatever the circumstances, over other considerations or values at issue. The Financial Times, which is a firm believer, frequently provides examples of this. For instance, the columns of the Financial Times describe as a dilemma of great significance the risks of a trade war between the European Union and the United States - this on account of the appallingly insanitary conditions in which poultry is slaughtered in the US and then exported to Europe. The dilemma is how to reconcile genuine public interest with free trade. Free trade - at best a means - is the only stable point of reference and is not open to discussion. It is for the public interest - an end - to adjust to free trade and, moreover, to prove that it is indeed a genuine public interest. And so the means becomes the end. Reversing the order of precedence in this way does not bother the ideologists of free trade one jot. It is they who hold pride of place in the media, the universities, the major international economic and financial organisations. More particularly, since the conclusion of the GATT Uruguay Round in 1993 we have experienced truly global brainwashing designed to give credence to the notion that deregulation of trade and total market freedom are bound to produce a general rise in standards of living and societies that are fairer for all. These are allegedly the miraculous results of globalisation. The facts tell a very different story. To begin with, instead of reducing inequalities, globalisation of trade exacerbates them and does so both between and within nations. In the so-called rich countries and above all the champions of free trade - the United States and the United Kingdom - no-one disputes the ever- widening income and poverty gap. Even the OECD puts on a show of concern from time to time. The fact is that this gap is no longer a matter of real concern for leaders, some of whom actually argue that inequalities are an essential factor for growth. This polarisation is also typical of relations between countries themselves. As was clearly shown in a recent report by the United Nations Development Programme, the poorest countries are getting poorer, both in relative and absolute terms. There is, in effect, no correlation between need and investment. In Africa, where infrastructure of all kinds is cruelly lacking, direct investment fell by 27% between 1994-95 and accounts for just $2.1 billion, that is 3% of total world investment. It is no use counting on the international financial markets to fund new schools or dispensaries... In deference to the structural adjustment policies of the World Bank and the IMF, which require countries to open up to the world market, public spending is slashed and consequently, and more particularly, the number of teachers is cut dramatically, and so we are back to square one. All the statistics show that, since the early 1990s, the percentage of poor people has increased in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa. Who is going to sing the praises of globalisation to them? We are told that wages and employment can only benefit from generalised liberalisation. That is not the experience of American workers, among others. Those who failed to leave their secondary education with a diploma have seen their average hourly pay fall by a third in 20 years: from $11.85 to $8.64 between 1973-93. Sociologists have had to invent a new category for them: the working poor, workers who get poorer as they work and whose numbers have been substantially swollen in the UK with the help of Mrs Margaret Thatcher and Mr John Major. In France we have five million unemployed, and in Germany, where industrialists have decided that their compatriots have become too expensive for them, the situation is scarcely any better. The ultraliberals counter these situations with other ones - always the same: the tigers of eastern Asia with growth rates sometimes in two figures. But they completely fail to grasp that these examples dramatically undermine their theories. Neither South Korea nor Taiwan - still less China - founded their industrial and commercial power on the precepts of Adam Smith or David Ricardo. Massive US government aid - in the interests of the cold war - in the case of South Korea and Taiwan; absolute protectionism to preserve their developing industries; managed trade (the Chinese make no secret of this); and, generally speaking, an economically omnipresent state. These are the real ingredients of the much-vaunted and very real export-driven growth of these countries. We also need to mention the political and social repression, from which Taiwan alone is now free in the region. The fact is that a totalitarian regime which bans free trade unions (China, South Korea, Singapore and Indonesia etc.) can achieve "miracles" and create a climate propitious to business. It is nonetheless astounding that liberals should assess fundamental freedoms in terms of profits and losses in this way and, more serious from their point of view, that they should close their eyes to the distortion of competition brought about by the daily intervention of police states that are often corrupt into the bargain. Indeed, they never stopped praising the Chilean miracle in the days of General Augusto Pinochet. Instead of getting up in arms about the introduction of social clauses into international trade, the liberals should welcome it, in the interests of fair competition and transparency of price formation mechanisms. It seems perfectly natural that the ticket allowing goods or services access to an export market should take into account compliance with a minimum of the standards of the International Labour Organisation (trade union freedom, ban on forced labour and the exploitation of children etc.) that apply in the country concerned. These social clauses are designed to improve the situation of workers in the newly industrialised countries. Failure to comply with them has an adverse effect on workers in the developed countries, and is not directed against the South. Far from it, in the South, the clauses are being called for by the NGOs and trade unions, and it is abundantly clear that they possess a quite different legitimacy to protect their own people than do the spokesmen for the multinationals. What applies to the social sphere also applies to the environment. It is actually not possible to green up total free trade: it inevitably encourages the delocation of centres of production to those sites where environmental standards impose the least constraints and where, generally speaking, the least fuss is made about workers' rights. We cannot accept, as so many comparative advantages, the destruction of the natural environment, pollution of the air, water and the land. Instead of being externalised, that is to say borne by the global community in its entirety, the environmental cost must be fully internalised within prices. If not, then it must be incorporated into the ticket giving access to those markets in which the relevant standards are in force. Plainly, if we have the intellectual honesty to reject liberalism on the variable geometry model, that ignores all factors other than the right of global companies to be predatory, then the principles underlying the liberal theory provide excellent arguments for social and environmental clauses. In the final analysis, it is democracy itself which is the prime victim of free trade and globalisation. The way in which they operate actually widens the physical gap separating the centres of decision-taking and those affected by those same decisions: between producers and consumers of goods and services and of fantasy. Alienation in the extreme. Taking responsibility and being obliged to be accountable are the touchstones of democracy. On the assumption that it is their intention to work for the good of all their fellow citizens, what happens when elected representatives and governments are less and less in control of the real decision-makers, who have no direct link with their territory, that is to say the financial markets and the vast conglomerates? There is no need to seek further the main factor in the disintegration of societies. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly inappropriate to describe them as societies, since they are being subjected to the kind of treatment that is antithetical to the very notion of the common good. Mrs Margaret Thatcher was fond of saying that she only knew individuals and had not the slightest idea of what a society was. It is high time to act to stop that cry from the heart becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. And if we are to do to that, we need to have a radical rethink of the principles and practices of globalisation now under way. ========================================== From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Tue Jun 24 22:18:37 1997 Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:46:21 -0700 (PDT) Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:44:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:44:47 -0700 (PDT) To: pen-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, h-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu, united@cougar.com, OIFAC@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Globalization (2 & 3 of 3 fine thoughtful articles) Sender: meisenscher@igc.org Thanks to Sid Shniad in Canada for sharing these: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/dossiers/ft/dbserge.html IS GLOBALISATION INEVITABLE AND DESIRABLE? When Market Journalism Invades the World SERGE HALIMI Le Monde diplomatique What should we - journalists, intellectuals - do in a world where 358 billionaires have more assets than the combined incomes of nearly half of the planet's population? What should we do when Mozambique, where 25% of children die before the age of five from infectious diseases, spends twice as much paying off its debt as it does on health and education? What should we do in a world where, according to the UNDP administrator, if present trends continue, economic disparities between industrial and developing nations will move from inequitable to inhuman? What should we do when, within democratic countries themselves, money dominates the political system until it becomes the system, those who write the checks write the laws and ask the questions, and increasingly citizens seem to be replaced with investors? But can we still, as journalists and intellectuals, denounce this situation and suggest remedies when so many of these billionaires - the Bill Gates, Rupert Murdochs, Jean-Luc Lagarderes, Ted Turners, Conrad Blacks of the world - own the papers in which we write, the radios on which we speak, the television networks in which we appear? When so much of the news and culture that is fed into developing nations comes from industrial countries and so little of the news the industrial countries ever hear about seeps in from developing nations? When those who write the checks and write the laws and ask the questions and invest and divest and downsize, are also our employers, our providers of advertising revenue, our trend-setters, our decision-makers our news- makers? In other words, can we even think of doing what we must in this global world, doing what we should, as journalists and as intellectuals, comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, being a counter- power, a voice for the voiceless, when so many of us are as much a part of the ruling class as the business elite itself? When so many of us echo the speeches of the powerful and blame the attitudes of the poor? Unfortunately, if the questions are necessary, the answers are obvious. Most of us cannot, most of us will not do what they must. And this too is the result of the type of globalisation we have let happen. Although I do not believe this globalisation to be inevitable, the media are trying to make it seem inevitable and to pretend it to be desirable. And no one - least of all us journalists and intellectuals - should deny the power of the ideas which we disseminate and back to the drumbeat of around-the- clock propaganda in a sleepless and borderless world. Two and a half years ago, at Le Monde diplomatique, we called this propaganda pensee unique. The expression caught on so fast that, within a month, candidate Jacques Chirac used it to re-ignite his sputtering presidential campaign. And three months later, he had become president of France. Needless to say, the sense of the expression has lost a lot with its new popularity... So what is pensee unique, or more precisely what was it before its meaning became so blurred? And why should we oppose it? It is the ideological translation of the interests of global capital, of the priorities of financial markets and of those who invest in them. It is the dissemination through leading newspapers of the policies advocated by the international economic institutions which use and abuse the credit, data and expertise they are entrusted with: such institutions as the World Bank, the IMF, the OECD, the World Trade Organization. Easy to spot in most countries, and in constant expansion because of globalisation, this new orthodoxy results in submitting democratically- elected governments to the one and only policy claimed to be sustainable, that which has the consent of the rich. Speaking of this, and trying to sound rational and Anglo-Saxon, a French essayist, Alain Minc explained: The totalitarianism of financial markets does not please me. I find it alienating. But I know it is there. And I want everyone in the elite to know it too. I am like a peasant who does not appreciate hail and yet he knows he will have to live with it. What I mean is simple: I don't know whether the markets think right. But I know one cannot think against the markets. If you do not respect a certain number of canons, as rigorous as those of the Church, the 100,000 illiterates who make the markets will blow the whole economy away. Experts have to be the propagandists of that reality. When he said experts, he also implied journalists of course. And, in this respect, he is served well enough. But should one accept this nice vignette of pensee unique, this suave legitimation of a new dictatorship, that of financial markets, politics will amount - and it largely does - to little more than a pseudo-debate between parties of government shouting out the minuscule differences that separate them and silencing the significant convergences that unite them. Electoral disaffection will be, is already, the result of this non- debate. In the United States, where foreign companies heavily invested in the White House coffees funding the President's reelection - thereby blurring even further the line between national politics and global commerce - only 48,8% of the eligible voters went to the polls last November, the lowest number since 1924. This indifference almost amounted to a quiet expression of civil disobedience. But I would like to take another example, this one from Greece, and see how the mainstream press, in this instance The Washington Post, reacted to it by drilling into our brains the major postulates of what we, at Le Monde diplomatique, also like to call market journalism. Last December, as Greek peasants were barring the roads in protest of austerity measures threatening their survival, one of them complained: The only right we have is the right to vote and it leads us nowhere. An election had been held, leading to the victory of a pro-business socialist party. And when it happened, The Washington Post had concluded: This was the first truly modern election in the history of the birthplace of democracy ... The two parties essentially agree on most of the major issues. Can we, as journalists, as intellectuals, accept the idea that a modern democracy is one in which the major parties agree on most issues? And if we do, as is too often the case, how dare we bemoan the rise of so- called extremism and populism when it is but the mere consequence of the legitimate anger that comes from a truncated political debate in a socially polarised society? We all make fun of the tendency, especially in America, to be politically correct. But don't we fall in the trap of being economically correct - cheerleaders for the stock market, asleep at the switch when Robert Maxwell was robbing his companies, or maybe just too busy then writing fawning profiles of Carlos Salinas's economic miracle...? In three years, the new millenium, a bridge to the 21st century: the definition of modernity and of its opposite is, I believe, one of the most telling instances of the weight of this pensee unique. When one listens to the mass media, modernity is almost invariably equated with free trade, strong currencies, deregulation, privatisations, communication (of those who have the means to communicate with each other in the virtual communities they create), Europe (insofar as it is that of free trade, strong currencies, privatizations, and communication). Outdated notions, on the other hand, are almost invariably associated with the welfare state, government in general (unless it shrivels into a lean and mean law-and-order machine), unions (which are said to defend special interests, unlike those of, say, big business), the nation- state (guilty of fostering nationalism), the people (always likely to be entranced by populism). Then let me say this: their modernity is archaic. It is as old as the steam machine. And their outdated notions have never been more necessary. Too often, we journalists pretend the opposite. So, yes indeed we must oppose globalisation and its logical consequences. And, most of all, we must fight the belief that it is inevitable. In this respect, Le Monde diplomatique and the Financial Times cannot but be allies. Because, what, at Le Monde diplomatique, could we add to the excellent analysis of Martin Wolf in an article he wrote two years ago. The article was entitled: The Global Economy Myth. and it said: Global economic integration is far from irresistible. Governments have chosen to lower trade barriers and eliminate foreign exchange controls. They could, if they wished, halt both processes. They must. Let us help them. But, clearly, this is not the sense of the comments we have just heard. Because, what strikes me in the discourse of the apostles of the market and of globalisation is its extremism, its oblivion of the notion of healthy doubt. It's the analogy one easily can draw with the cant of communists thirty or forty years ago. According to you, markets have to be a great model for human kind, and so does globalisation. And when these don't quite work out, we hear: Give us more time, Let's go one more step, Change is always painful, What we've seen wasn't quite pure enough, If only the people were better, more pliable, things would have worked beautifully. Social inequalities? Let's deny their existence or claim they exist because ... we don't have enough markets. Not enough school or hospital vouchers. Not enough enterprise zones. Not enough tax breaks. Not enough pension funds. Not enough competition within the civil service. Like with Stalinism before, every stumble in the march toward a pure, radiant, bountiful market society is explained by the timidity of the march, not by its direction. And, like with Stalinism before, the critics of your model have to be irrational, in need of a reeducation program or of a mental treatment? Well, it might be - just might be - that the market is a model that doesn't work well for most people; that markets can be a great wealth-creating machine, but not so great when it comes to building a human, just, and decent society for most of us. And what will it take us to learn that? How many people living in poverty? How many people sealed out of what Mr Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, called the irrational exhuberance of the market? How many people sealed out of the gated communities of the rich? How many people behind bars? How many riots? And which proportion of us convinced that democracy is not for them? If the fall of communism and of its related certainties about the nature of mankind have taught us anything, it should not be the need for another totalitarianism, for another tyranny - that of financial markets. But the value of doubt and the need for dissidents. Let us all relearn the value of doubt. ============================================ http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/dossiers/ft/dbpet.html IS GLOBALISATION INEVITABLE AND DESIRABLE? The great war machine Riccardo Petrella Le Monde diplomatique To be opposed to the kind of aggressive globalisation typical of a market economy that is capitalist, liberalised, deregulated, privatised, highly technocratic and competitive does not imply opposition to other forms of government and globalisation that rely on cooperation - quite the re- verse. This, after all, is a need perceived by hundreds of thousands of organisations that are trying to set in place, in every corner of the globe, new principles and new, cooperative forms of world government. These are organisations active in all areas with an impact on the security of mankind. In the military field they oppose the proliferation of nuclear weapons and promote general disarmament; in the environmental field they encourage sustainable development in line with the recommenda- tions of the 1992 Rio Conference; and, in relation to security of food supply, they are seeking to bring to an end the scandal of the 800 mil- lion people suffering from malnutrition. Those organisations are also strongly represented in the dialogue between different cultures and civi- lisations and in the development of scientific and technological research geared towards human and social needs etc. The most serious obstacle in their path is globalisation in its current form, based on the primacy of the interests of private enterprise and its freedom of action that is sub- ject to no boundaries, and the sovereignty of an - allegedly - self- regulating market. Instead of distributing the planet's material and non-material resources - never mind its human resources - in the best possible way, globalisation is a source of wide-spread dysfunctionalism and brazen waste. Catering for the needs of society is not, admittedly, one of its objectives. And that is why claims as to the effectiveness of globalisation made in some quarters are quite simply absurd. After the dollar ceased to be gold-convertible at a fixed rate - a decision taken by US President Richard Nixon in 1971 - and capital movements became generally liberalised (in the United States in 1974 and through- out the European Community as of 1990) the world has been in a state of total monetary instability. We have seen the development of a finan- cial economy that is purely speculative and increasingly dissociated from - when it is not completely at odds with - the real economy and a genuine industrial culture. In some areas, the aim of short term profit- ability triggers crises of overproduction (in the car industry, the elec- tronics industry, the information technology industry and the steel indus- try); in others it is the cause of shortages (in housing, education and food supply) and in many other sectors it leads to falls in productivity (basic cereals and data processing systems etc). Globalisation steers economies towards production structures geared to the ephemeral and the evanescent (because the lifespan of products and services is generally and extensively reduced) and to the precarious (temporary work, flexible working and the imposition of part-time working). Instead of constantly enhancing the available resources it ren- ders them obsolete, useless and unable to be recycled as rapidly as pos- sible). All this is to the detriment of work with a human face and social interaction. On the pretext of exploiting the right resources, from the right place, for the right product, on the right market and at the right time, for the right consumer, globalisation of production structures allows the big networks of multinationals to exploit small and medium-sized enterprises inten- sively and at the lowest possible cost, at a world level. Marginalised into the role of increasingly vulnerable subcontractors, these SMEs are con- sidered to be nothing more than profit centres at the service of the big corporations. The situation is worse still for those SMEs which are themselves subcontracting from larger subcontractors. Insecurity and a sense of exploitation is no longer the prerogative of workers, peasants and the self-employed - small businesses are now genuinely prey to the same uncertainties. Re-engineering, flexible production, externalisation, downsizing: all these new management techniques are contributing to the development of the great global machine of the capitalist free market, whose sole ob- jective is to extract the maximum profit at the lowest cost from the world's resources. Resources, individuals, groups within society, towns, regions, indeed whole countries are abandoned or excluded: they have not been judged profitable enough by - or for - the global machine. Hence the frenzy of competition they engage in order to be competitive, that is to say simply in order to survive. Are we then going to allow this great war machine to be the sole arbiter of the economic, technological, political and social history of the 21st century? * Professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, President of the Reader's Association, Le Monde diplomatique From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Jun 30 18:46:11 1997 Received: from igcb.igc.org (igcb.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.46]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id SAA23750 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 18:46:09 -0600 (MDT) Received: from igc3.igc.apc.org (igc3.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.33]) by igcb.igc.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA19377; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 17:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ppp4-46.igc.org (meisenscher@ppp4-46.igc.org [198.94.4.46]) by igc3.igc.apc.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA06273; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 17:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 17:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970630174634.0e471a24@pop.igc.org> X-Sender: meisenscher@pop.igc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: united@cougar.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Under Assault at Phelps-Dodge Again! Sender: meisenscher@igc.org For those familiar with the 1983 strike against Phelps-Dodge, this report will bring up chilling memories. For those who are not, read "Copper Crucible" by Jonathan D. Rosenblum for an engaging, if painful, account written in a very accessible non-academic fashion. In solidarity, Michael ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Workers at Phelps Dodge's Chino Mines Now One Year Without Labor Agreement; USWA Intent on Goal of Fair Contract for Copper Workers BAYARD, N.M., June 27 /PRNewswire/ -- June 30 marks the one year anniversary that more than 500 copper workers at Phelps Dodge Corp.'s (NYSE: PD) Chino Mines have been forced to work without a new labor agreement. The United Steelworkers of America (USWA), which represents most Chino employees, vows to expand its fight for a fair contract. Union workers said they are building a broad-based campaign to expose Phelps Dodge's efforts to thwart unionism among workers in New Mexico and elsewhere. The USWA is developing its campaign plans at Phelps Dodge with new assistance from the national AFL-CIO, community groups and hispanic organizations that have recently volunteered to help the copper miners win a new labor agreement. So far, the Steelworkers say Phelps Dodge has not budged from its demands for concessions, which include a long-term wage freeze for union workers at Chino, cuts in retiree health care benefits and the right to contract out union jobs. Robert Guadiana, the USWA's chief negotiator at Phelps Dodge, said the union has filed numerous unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Steelworkers have also filed charges with the NLRB over Phelps Dodge's firing and suspending workers who participated in a labor demonstration at a banquet held to fete local mine managers. "Phelps Dodge is trying to force workers and the whole mining community to accept a much lower standard of living," said Don Manning, president of USWA Local 890 at Chino. "Faced with this insulting contract offer by Phelps Dodge, the Chino copper workers will fight on our feet rather than beg on our knees." Manning said P-D's demand to strip health care benefits for retirees is particularly unconscionable, considering that over half of the Chino workers retire with work-related health conditions. Copper mining and smelting frequently involve extensive exposure to lead, arsenic, silica and other hazardous minerals and chemicals. He said the Chino miners will seek additional support from the AFL-CIO, whose national officers have helped organize two large demonstrations this spring at Phelps Dodge's headquarters in Phoenix. More demonstrations are being planned for the Southwest, as well as other regions of the country. Two community-based organizations, the Jobs with Justice Campaign and Mexican Education Council for Hispanic Advancement, have also made the campaign for labor peace at Phelps Dodge's Chino Mines a top priority. "Phelps Dodge's treatment of its workers and their communities is a growing concern to people in the mining region," said Manny Armenta, a copper miner and staff representative for the USWA. "Phelps Dodge's management and stockholders will be held accountable for their denial of workers' rights at the Chino Mines." Armenta said Phelps Dodge is once again setting the stage for labor conflict, calling out the Phoenix riot squad last month for a peaceful demonstration by copper workers and supporters. He said the copper company is also preparing to do battle with its workers at Chino, enlisting an army of 200 security guards, installing housing on the mine site for guards and replacement workers, utilizing helicopter and electronic surveillance against employees, and erecting barriers at all overviews of its Chino Mines. Armenta also said, "Phelps Dodge's attempt to break the workers' union at the Chino mines is consistent with its past actions, but it is not consistent with the actions of a company in a free and democratic society." SOURCE United Steelworkers of America