From shostaka@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Thu Oct 2 06:56:00 1997 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:57:12 -0400 (EDT) for ; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:54:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:54:38 -0400 (EDT) To: LABOR-RAP@csf.colorado.edu From: Art Shostak Subject: Research of relevance Brothers and Sisters: Here is a piece of cyberspace research of relevance to our effort to clarify positions within the Labor Movement: You may want to participate, and profit from the results - Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 21:49:45 -0700 To: futurework@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca From: knowware@istar.ca (Tom Walker) Subject: The 54 statements Sender: owner-futurework@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca Here are the 54 statements, randomly numbered. The last statement is numbered 56 but that's because two statements that were originally numbered (24&27) have been deleted. Please send your reply directly to me at knowware@istar.ca and NOT to the futurework list. INSTRUCTIONS for sorting the statements are appended at the bottom of this message. 1 In the interest of the greatest progress in raising the standard of living of all, economic forces must be the guideposts for decisions about working time. 2 When people are free to decide their own level of need and their own level of effort, they tend to spontaneously limit their needs in order to be able to limit their efforts. 3 Despite whatever good intentions are presumed, when government shifts the focus away from creating wealth and toward creating jobs, it inevitably engenders a lower aggregate standard of living. 4 Greater inequality produced by unemployment is the regrettable but necessary price to pay for controlling inflation and improving economic efficiency in the long run. 5 If the work one does is esteemed enough by others to provide one with self-esteem, there will be a demand for it and no need to provide it as of right. 6 There are few economic problems that cause as much suffering as unemployment. 7 Working long hours is a protective shell. It allows people to hide from the responsibility of taking charge of their own lives. 8 Most union members would share their work week hours if it would generate employment for their family members, friends and community. 9 The 30-hour workweek will come as soon as the productivity of the average worker reaches the point that they want to take that much more of their time in leisure rather than work. 10 Voluntary and market-based job-sharing is already quite common; one sign of this is the growing number of people who choose to work part time. 11 If the government would pick up some portion of a company's payroll taxes in exchange for hiring more people, the net gain would trickle back in the form of lower unemployment costs and higher total tax revenues. 12 The popularity of arguments in favor of reducing work hours on health or family grounds may reflect an unwillingness to acknowledge the economic cost to the worker of hours reduction. 13 The monetarization of work and needs draws attention away from the crucial question: how much is enough? 14 Although voluntary reductions in work time may be worthwhile, it would be economically unsound to impose change through legislation or collective bargaining. 15 The strength of our economy depends in a large measure on our ability to overcome the economic illiteracy that fosters something-for-nothing schemes. Proponents of work sharing simply don't understand how the economy works. 16 A 32 hour workweek would create a million new jobs in Canada and increase productivity by five percent. 17 Canada is becoming a polarized society. The gap between good jobs and bad jobs is now accepted as a fact of life by corporate and political leaders. 18 People who have prospered owe something back to the community that has enabled them to prosper. 19 Work sharing is ineffective as a job creation measure due to its adverse effects on labour costs. 20 Increasing the overtime wage to twice the straight-time hourly wage would induce firms to cut back on overtime hours and instead hire more workers to take up the slack. 21 There is always a danger that additional free time will be wasted through idle amusements that have no lasting benefit, even recreational, for the participants. 22 Today's corporate culture says if you don't join the rest of the 'team' that stays late or takes the laptop home, you just don't fit in and you might as well get out. 23 Management must be free to plan for the efficient operation of their particular business. 25 Our current economic system prevents people from choosing to limit their work hours so as to prevent them choosing to limit their desire to consume. 26 The best strategy for fighting unemployment is to create a confident business climate and eliminate the obstacles to private investment. 28 Co-operation between workers and management cannot survive unless management effectively guarantees job security. 29 Organized labour tries to claim the lion's share of rises in productivity even though such changes are typically the result of capital investments in new technology. 30 Most employed workers are unwilling to cut hours and monthly earnings to provide jobs for others. 31 There are good reasons to expect an increase in employee effort if work time is reduced. 32 One impact of the shorter standard work week would be increased moonlighting. When you have an extremely short work week, people seek extra jobs, both because they need the extra money and because they have unexpended energy to do the extra work. 33 Work sharing rests on the belief that the economy can generate only a fixed amount of work. History provides little support for this gloomy view, which economists have labeled the lump-of-labour fallacy. 34 Employers are the main beneficiaries of extended work hours. Employers avoid the cost of benefits and enjoy reduced pressure for increases as workers put in more time to compensate for low wages. 35 Early specialization not only deprives students of the general knowledge and skills needed to adapt to a changing labour market; it also fails to provide the basis for democratic participation. 36 Politicians who blame 'corporate greed' for what is happening to the take-home pay of workers are diverting attention from the real problem: an overly intrusive and expensive federal government. 37 Highly skilled people and managers are required to put in more time on the job because of the increasingly complex and critical nature of the work they do. 38 Even if workers could always set their own work times, the state should still intervene because many workers prefer to work longer than is best for society. 39 Proposals to redistribute work time are met with a resistance that tangles cultural and economic factors with corporate short-sightedness. 40 Unless offset by rising productivity, shorter working hours will mean lower incomes, reduced consumption and, as a result, slower economic growth. 41 In the absence of unions, the employer has greater say over hours than over wages, since wages can be individually negotiated, but a standard hours schedule is offered to the employee on a take it or leave it basis. 42 People attach to economic growth an emotional, quasi-religious value that is out of proportion to any reason or purpose. 43 People who keep their jobs don't work eight-hour days, but 10, 12 or even 14-hour days. And people who lose their jobs scrabble together two, three, even four jobs in order barely to hold on by their finger tips. 44 Management is so preoccupied with its efforts to establish control over the workers that it loses sight of the presumed purpose of the organization. 45 Once the work week has been reduced sufficiently to minimize fatigue, no further improvements in productivity will be forthcoming from further reductions in work time. 46 Even if the entire workforce could be retrained for highly skilled, high-tech jobs there will never be enough positions to absorb the millions let go as a result of automation. 47 A work sharing scheme that requires skilled workers to work less could actually reduce the demand for the less skilled workers who make up the bulk of the unemployed. 48 Government reports on unemployment conceal a bleaker reality in which many job seekers have become discouraged or take part-time work. 49 Job creation does cost money, but it doesn't necessarily cost more than what we spend coping with joblessness. Government job-creation might be self-financing, at least in part. 50 Some involuntary unemployment is necessary to prevent workers from shirking on the job. 51 The glorification of hard work and the claim that working and living can be one and the same thing is a view that can only be held by a privileged elite that monopolizes the best-paid, most highly skilled and most stable jobs. 52 If an attempt were made to change hours by law to a level well below that sought by both employers and employees, one would see a sharp increase in incentives for employers to violate the law. 53 Consumer society promotes the hedonistic values of comfort, instant pleasure and minimal effort, while at the same time requiring semi-skilled workers to behave according to the opposite principles in their work. 54 Proponents of work sharing wrongly assume that hours of work and number of people employed can be substituted for each other at will. 55 Shortening of hours of work necessitates the use of less qualified workers, thereby lowering the average productivity of all workers. 56 There is a job available for everyone who really wants to work. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SORTING The procedure is to sort the above statements into 11 piles ranging from most disagree (-5) to most agree (+5). Don't be too concerned about the numerical values. They're strictly ordinal and don't really mean there has to be a full 'unit' of difference between a "+4 agree" and a "+5 agree". The final ranking and number of statements for each rank will be the following: |-5 | -4 | -3 | -2 | -1 | 0 | +1 | +2 | +3 | +4 | +5 | |(4)| (4)| (5)| (5)| (6)|(6)|(6) | (5)| (5)| (4)| (4)| People may complete the sort using either the do-it-yourself method or the step-by-step guided method. THE DO-IT-YOURSELF METHOD The sorting process is easier if you take it in small steps: first read through the 54 statements, then divide them in three groups of ROUGHLY equal size: "agree", "disagree" and "neutral" (or undecided). Next from the, say, 16 to 20 statements in the agree group select the FOUR that you agree with most strongly. Assign these four statements the rank of +5. Then go to the disagree group and select the four statements that you disagree with most strongly. Assign these the rank of -5. Alternate back and forth between the two piles until you've assigned a rank to all the "agree" and "disagree" statements, then finish by assigning the remaining "neutral" statements to the middle ranks, -1, 0 and +1. You may want to print out the statements to make them easier to scan through and sort. THE STEP-BY-STEP GUIDED METHOD I would be happy to guide anyone through the sorting process step by step. 1. Reply to my message containing the 54 statements. Make sure that the reply message's To: line is addressed directly to me knowware@istar.ca 2. Mark 16-20 statements with which you most agree by placing a Y in front of the statement and mark 16-20 statements with which you most disagree by placing a N in front of the statement. 3. Send me the marked-up list. I'll send you back a message with instructions for the next step. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ knoW Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA knowware@istar.ca (604) 688-8296 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: HTTP://WWW.VCN.BC.CA/TIMEWORK/ Arthur B. Shostak, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, Department of Psych/Soc/Anthro, Drexel University, Phila., PA, 19104; 215-895-2466; fax 610-668-2727. email: SHOSTAKA@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu http://httpsrv.ocs.drexel.edu/faculty/shostaka/ "This time, like all times, is a very good one if we but know what to do with it." Ralph Waldo Emerson From ejd@cwsl.edu Thu Oct 2 09:59:03 1997 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:58:45 -0900 (PDT) From: "Ellen Dannin " To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: irra meeting proposals (fwd) Dear Rappers: I chair the IRRA labor and employment law section this year. I floated a call for panel proposal that would be directed towards labor issues with a focus on law with Worklaw, a closed list for labor law professors. It would be good to have some interdisciplinarity, while still keeping a legal focus. Here is a response I received. Is anyone on this list interested in participating in such a panel on these topics or any other I might float back to Worklaw? Panel proposals must be in within about a month. ellen Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-525-1449 Fax: 619-696-9999 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I but would like to suggest two topics. The first would be the state of union organizing after the change in AFL-CIO leadership and the UPS strike. Recent data indicate that since Pres. Sweeney's election, the decline in AFL-CIO membership has slowed to 1% over the past two years. With the commitment of $20 million in organizing funds, it is possible we will witness a reversal of the prior decline. We could discuss why union survival is significant and what legal changes might be appropriate to encourage unionization and prevent employer tactics that unfarily intimidate employees. The second topic would concern worker participation programs. We could discuss the current status of the TEAM act, which will probably still be stuck in Congress and the possibility of mandatory participation programs that would provide unrepresented employees with real input. Please let me know if you would like to explore either of these topics further. --------end of forwarded message-------- From aikya@ix.netcom.com Sun Oct 5 13:56:14 1997 by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma021091; Sun Oct 5 14:55:56 1997 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'Labor Research and Action Project'" , "'united@cougar.com'" Subject: Labor Reporters Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 12:51:18 -0700 I'm working on a media list for my union, Coalition of University Employees, set to represent clericals at the University of California. We expect to have an important news release in November following the systemwide election Can you folks recommend labor friendly reporters from your areas? They could be at newspapers, radio stations, tv (cable or otherwise)? Name, organization, and fax number would be great but name and organization would be a help. Our news is likely to be most interesting to folks in university towns so chime right in with contacts in such areas. Thanks for your help and apologies for double postings. Yes, my clerical job at the university is the more predictable source of income, but I continue to work on that. Aikya Param Publisher Women and Money http://www2.netcom.com/~aikya/womenandmoney.html *************************** Twenty pages of economic justice and empowerment every month! ***************************** Send your snail mail address for a sample copy! Thanks for your interest! ******************************* In Mahabharatha, Raja Rantideva declares: " kaamaye du:khataptaanaam.h praaNinaamarthinaashanam.h " ______________________________________________________________________ * My desire [ as the highest Dharma ] is to wipe out the tears from the eyes of living beings in distress. ************************* ************************* ************************* "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. *************************************** From Urthman@aol.com Sun Oct 5 18:46:29 1997 From: Urthman@aol.com by emout35.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) Sun, 5 Oct 1997 20:45:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 20:45:50 -0400 (EDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Labor Reporters Sister Aikya Param neglected to mention that the organization for which she seeks media contacts (Coalition of University Employees a/k/a CUE) is attempting to decertify AFSCME as the collective bargaining representative for University of California clerical workers. If you choose to help her and her organization at this point, you will be working against an established union. Ed Ramthun Indianapolis, Indiana (I happen to be a member of, and work for, AFSCME, but this is just my personal comment.) From aikya@ix.netcom.com Mon Oct 6 10:26:43 1997 by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma016672; Mon Oct 6 11:24:54 1997 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: Labor Research and Action Project "'Elinor Levine'" Subject: RE: Labor Reporters Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:20:51 -0700 And brother Ed neglected to mention that the established union has, alas, not been serving its members very well. The State of California legislature declared the University of California an open shop, thus ending all the interesting ways in which employers help unions to sign up members. Perhaps it was the tremendous financial drain of constantly organizing, perhaps it was the financial drain of having to represent nonmembers but the union in place has become less and less active. It's membership has dwindled. On my campus the last figures I heard were 300 members out of thousands of clericals. A key part of the problem apparently is that purse string power remains in Washington. Very little dues money remains at the local level. How to spend 90% of it remains in DC, very far away from the members and the challenges they may face. This was a new kind of lesson in union democracy for me. I learned that it doesn't matter if union meetings are democratically run if the money decisions are controlled by a small group thousands of miles away. Prior to coming to work at the university, I had several friends who were members of the union in place, AFSCME. They were stewards I had met at various union trainings I attended. I have always held that union in highest regard, mainly because of the quality of those stewards. In fact, at a former job we had considered affiliating with AFSCME thanks to my respect for these stewards and my sense that it must be a good union to have people of such quality involved in it. I resisted getting involved in certification effort at first and questioned what was going on. I went to a number of meetings and heard what the organizers of the new union had to say. Then I had some problems at work. Coworkers had problems and the union in place was just not there for us. I've been a steward. I know that there are grumpy members who will throw the union out because it is yet another authority that can't make their broken lives work happily. I've spent countless hours convincing people to hang together whether through words or celebration or whatever. Maybe the main chill here is that this could happen where you work. This could happen to your union and then there goes the whole, already weakened, structure. I think that if a union is doing its job at least most of the time, the whiners will never win out. If your union or any union is not doing its job, do we make unions stronger by ignoring the situation? Do we bolster union strength pretending the emperor has clothes? Of course, people can either help with my request or not. It is, after all, a free country. Aikya ---------- Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 1:46 PM To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: Re: Labor Reporters Sister Aikya Param neglected to mention that the organization for which she seeks media contacts (Coalition of University Employees a/k/a CUE) is attempting to decertify AFSCME as the collective bargaining representative for University of California clerical workers. If you choose to help her and her organization at this point, you will be working against an established union. Ed Ramthun Indianapolis, Indiana (I happen to be a member of, and work for, AFSCME, but this is just my personal comment.) From dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu Mon Oct 6 11:08:44 1997 Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:05:32 -0400 To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu (david croteau) Subject: re: media work [forwarded from Peter Zschiesche] thanks to Ellen Dannin here in San Diego I received and read your piece on Cultural/Media Work". Here is a brief comment based on my experience working within a local Labor Council and within my Union for many years...re the section on "MEDIA" 1. op-eds are great and are a good use of academic writing skills and access to data to back up one's point of view. also "profs" have that pseudo-objective advantage with many that will give their ideas more credibility. 2. media coverage is an organizing task and the comments in item #3 and #4 are key to getting good coverage. 5. The best way to "help unions with their media work" is to make the contacts through your own faculty Union (what do you mean you don't have one?!). that way it is Union to Union and builds good ties based on mutual assistance. If you are unorganized that is a task in itself. the "Common Threads" info was great and I am passing the piece on to our local AFL-CIO rep in charge of organizing in our area. She did a lot with the Strawberry Workers campaign and will enjoy this new example. END. pz ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Croteau Sociology/ Virginia Commonwealth University E-mail: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu From aaron@burn.ucsd.edu Sat Oct 11 01:27:28 1997 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 03:22:35 -0400 To: marxism-news@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU, Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, LABOR-L@YORKU.CA From: aaron@burn.ucsd.edu (Aaron) Subject: Was UPS strike a victory for workers? Comrades, et al., I have reproduced here the last of three items from a mailing by Michael Eisenscher. It is likely that even many readers who received said mailing might not have noticed this (IMNSHO rather important) item. If the information presented below is accurate, the outcome of the UPS strike was a sellout masked as a victory. It was a sellout because provisions harmful to the class were sneaked in without the workers being made fully aware of them. Would they have supported the contract if they had known what was in it, or would thay have wanted to fight on until real victory was achieved? We'll never know. What we do know is that Ron Carey, the darling of the reformist left, isn't qualitatively different from the rest of the pro-capitalist labor bureaucracy. BTW, I don't consider Carey's fund-raising games -- other than using union money for an intra-union fight -- to be a signifigant factor in judging him. - In solidarity - Aaron Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:52:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: US Labr On The Offensive; Tough Time for Labor; IWW on UPS Strike [first two items deleted] From: Jon Bekken Newsgroups: labr.teamster Subject: Was UPS settlement a win? Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 06:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Was UPS strike a victory for labor? The following article appears in the October issue of the Industrial Worker, monthly newspaper of the Industrial Workers of the World: While most reports claim that the Teamsters won a sweeping victory in their 15-day strike against United Parcel Service, on closer examination the proposed settlement looks to be more of a draw. The Teamsters clearly won on pensions, defeating UPS' efforts to pull out of the union's multi-employer pension plans and forcing UPS to increase its pension payments. Although the union stressed part-time jobs in its public relations campaign, the pension plans may well have been at the heart of the dispute. Many Teamster plans might have collapsed without the UPS payments, given the dramatic decline in union trucking (and hence truckers paying in) over the past two decades. And a substantial number of UPS part-timers (though a distinct minority) took those jobs in order to maintain their pension rights after being laid-off from other Teamster jobs. However, most UPS workers are not covered under the pension plan, because of extremely high turn-over among the part-timers who make up nearly two-thirds of UPS workers. The other significant gain under the proposed 5-year contract -- which Teamsters are voting on as we go to press -- is a provision requiring UPS to promptly correct short paychecks. Many workers say UPS routinely shorts their pay by under-reporting their hours. But on the question of part-time jobs, the proposed contract appears to be at best a draw. While the actual contract language is not available at press time, it appears that UPS agreed to promote at least 10,000 part-timers into full-time jobs as they open, and to create another 10,000 new full-time positions through expansion and consolidation of existing part-time jobs. The first will cost UPS nothing, as these jobs will open through normal attrition. The 10,000 new jobs are also largely meaningless. UPS added 8,000 full-time jobs (and 38,000 part-time ones) during the four years of the last contract, so the company has merely agreed to continue adding the same number of jobs each year for the next five years. Even this promise may be illusory. A contract summary distributed by UPS stresses that "Increase in full-time jobs is subject to continued volume growth." (No such escape clause is mentioned in the Teamsters' summary.) While a handful of part-time workers will have the opportunity to bid into full-time jobs, the proposed contract does nothing about UPS' practice of defining "part-time" not by the number of hours worked, but rather by what it is willing to pay. Thousands of UPS "part-timers" put in 30, 40, 50 or even 60 hours a week, but are paid at the bargain-basement part-timer rate the Teamsters negotiated back in 1982 -- and which hasn't increased since. The proposed contract does include a 50" an hour increase in starting pay for part-timers, and a 40 percent pay hike for current part-timers who stay on the job for the full five years of the contract. However, part-timer turn-over is so high that few workers will actually see much of this increase. Full-time workers will see pay hikes about equal to the current inflation rate. While the contract does restrict subcontracting outside of peak seasons, the Teamsters agreed to greater labor "flexibility." The new full-timers would handle more packages and be shifted to ancillary work if supervisors think they are not busy enough. The company also determines where to create the new full-time jobs, forcing workers to compete against each other to see who can work fastest and be the most docile. Many of the workers who will be upgraded to full-timers are known as "air drivers." They work nights loading packages that arrive by air and must be delivered to customers before noon. Often these part-timers, after sorting and loading for several hours, jump into a truck to make the deliveries, adding several hours to their shifts. Under the new contract, their salaries as newly minted full-timers would rise to $17.50 an hour over five years, from as little as $11 an hour today. That is still well below the $20 an hour and up earned by UPS' traditional delivery drivers, who handle parcels that go entirely by truck. The proposed contract would allow "air drivers" to handle ground packages as well. While the wage gap between full-timers and the relatively small number of part-timers with several years on the job would narrow substantially under the contract -- in part by cutting full-time wages -- UPS will have a strong incentive to increase its already high turn-over rates, since part-timers will start at $8.50 (about a third of the rate paid to experienced full-timers) for the life of the contract. The settlement evidently contains no protections against reprisals, as scores of Teamsters learned when they returned to their jobs to find they had been fired or disciplined for union activity. The Teamsters are grieving these case-by-case. Nor does the proposed contract speak to health and safety issues -- other than preserving the current limit of 150 pounds on packages, and workers' right to request assistance for packages of more than 70 pounds -- despite UPS' appalling injury rate. Last year UPS workers suffered 33.8 injuries for every 100 workers -- an injury rate two and a half times the national transportation average. With managers constantly pressing part-time loaders to work faster, injuries are inevitable. When these part-time workers get injured, they are simply tossed aside and new, cheaper workers hired in their stead. We hope to publish a more detailed analysis of the contract in our next issue. Can Carey Survive? Meanwhile, IBT President Ron Carey has been forced into a second election after Hoffa forces documented that at least $221,000 was taken from the Teamsters treasury through illegal kickback schemes and funnelled into Carey's re-election campaign. (Why Carey, who owns $2 million in UPS stock, could not simply finance his re-election himself is unclear.) As we go to press, federal officials are considering a request to bar Carey from seeking re-election based on the massive violations. The Carey camp has also asked that opponent Jimmy Hoffa Jr. be barred from the race. If the election does go forward, Carey seems likely to run on the strength of his "victory" over UPS. The Hoffa camp claims the reballoting has been rigged in advance, with no contested regional races in their Midwestern stronghold (where the Hoffa slate won the initial election, and would remain in place). Some consultants involved in the kickback scheme are reportedly bargaining with prosecutors and may turn informer, implicating top Carey aides -- and possibly Carey himself. Carey's reputation as a reformer has already been badly tarnished by the scandal, and it may yet cost him his office. -- Subscriptions to the Industrial Worker are $15 a year, from IWW, 103 West Michigan Avenue, Ypsilanti MI 48197. ---------- mailto:aaron@burn.ucsd.edu http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aaron From LeoCasey@aol.com Sat Oct 11 10:25:27 1997 From: LeoCasey@aol.com by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:25:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:25:23 -0400 (EDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Was UPS strike a victory for workers? << If the information presented below is accurate, the outcome of the UPS strike was a sellout masked as a victory. It was a sellout because provisions harmful to the class were sneaked in without the workers being made fully aware of them. Would they have supported the contract if they had known what was in it, or would thay have wanted to fight on until real victory was achieved? We'll never know. What we do know is that Ron Carey, the darling of the reformist left, isn't qualitatively different from the rest of the pro-capitalist labor bureaucracy.>> Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory once again. Probably the only thing the "revolutionary" left knows how to do. Leo Casey From peterd@spiritone.com Sat Oct 11 14:45:51 1997 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:45:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 13:45:47 -0700 (PDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: peterd@spiritone.com (Peter Donohue) Subject: Re: Was UPS strike a victory for workers? Well, that's taking him to task, Leo! Details, details... ><< If the information presented below is accurate, the outcome of the UPS > strike was a sellout masked as a victory. It was a sellout because > provisions harmful to the class were sneaked in without the workers being > made fully aware of them. Would they have supported the contract if they > had known what was in it, or would thay have wanted to fight on until real > victory was achieved? We'll never know. What we do know is that Ron Carey, > the darling of the reformist left, isn't qualitatively different from the > rest of the pro-capitalist labor bureaucracy.>> > >Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory once again. Probably the only thing >the "revolutionary" left knows how to do. > >Leo Casey > > From clawson@sadri.umass.edu Sun Oct 12 21:24:02 1997 Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 23:23:56 -0400 (EDT) 12 Oct 1997 23:23:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 23:23:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Clawson Subject: Re: Was UPS strike a victory for workers? To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu I'm curious: are these messages intended as humor, or are there people who believe that in the class struggle, unless workers win a total victory (and what would that be? revolution and the immediate creation of communism?) the settlement is necessarily a defeat, a sell-out, proof that ideological purity was not maintained? Marx never held such views, nor did Lenin, nor ... Anyone who sees the UPS strike and settlement as something other than a victory for workers and unions is either (a) in possession of information not yet revealed (b) an ideologue with little practical experience (c) or needs to make a case not yet made. The labor movement needed a major victory (not a battle to ideologically pure defeat), and we got one. We needed to raise an important issue and have major public support, and that happened. Pensions were preserved, not an easy issue to explain. Public consciousness was raised over an issue where well paid workers fought for the rights of part-timers. A precedent was established, bargaining not just for wages but over the character of employment practices. It's not the millenium, but it's a lot. Try to figure out how to build on that, how to take the struggle to the next step. Being self-critical of the limitations of the victory can be part of that, but needs to be within a framework that recognizes what was won. -- 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 shostaka@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Tue Oct 14 05:29:57 1997 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 05:29:54 -0600 (MDT) To: LABOR-RAP@csf.colorado.edu From: Art Shostak Subject: Philadelphia Area Teach-In. Brothers and Sisters: This coming Saturday, October 18th, the faculty of several area colleges will help conduct the Phildelphia area's first-ever Labor Teach-In. PLEASE call it to the attention of any you know in the area - and urge them to join us. Major national and local union intellectuals will join with 400 or so college students at the Philadelphia Community College (17th and Spring Garden) from 9:30 am to 3pm. Panels and workshops will emphasize audience participation. A freat time will be had by all! While we at most schools have few, if any courses that cover the situation of the largest democratic and authentic labor movement in the world, many students of ours have a healthy curiosity that might help get satisfied by their attendance at the free Teach-In. Please call it to their attention, and if they have any questions I would be glad to try and answer them via e-mail or at 215-895-2466. It goes without saying that your attendance and participation would be very welcomed. Sincerely, Art Shostak, Professor of Industrial Sociology Arthur B. Shostak, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, Department of Psych/Soc/Anthro, Drexel University, Phila., PA, 19104; 215-895-2466; fax 610-668-2727. email: SHOSTAKA@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu http://httpsrv.ocs.drexel.edu/faculty/shostaka/ "This time, like all times, is a very good one if we but know what to do with it." Ralph Waldo Emerson Arthur B. Shostak, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, Department of Psych/Soc/Anthro, Drexel University, Phila., PA, 19104; 215-895-2466; fax 610-668-2727. email: SHOSTAKA@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu http://httpsrv.ocs.drexel.edu/faculty/shostaka/ "This time, like all times, is a very good one if we but know what to do with it." Ralph Waldo Emerson From aikya@ix.netcom.com Tue Oct 14 10:07:03 1997 by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma011447; Tue Oct 14 11:06:29 1997 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'Labor Research and Action Project'" Subject: TOYS: U.S. Made or Union Made Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:40:44 -0700 Calling all toy sellers, parents, grandparents, aunties, teachers, etc. I searching for toys or children's books made in the U.S. or written by or made by unionized workers in the U.S. or overseas. If you sell such products or know who does, let me know what they are and how purchasers can buy them. If you have bought such products recently, let me know what they are and where you bought them, especially if it was via the internet or by mail order. Women and Money is trying to encourage people to buy U.S. made or union made products as gifts this season. In November I thought I'd concentrate on toys and children's books. Thank you for your help. Pardon any double postings. Aikya Param Publisher Women and Money http://www2.netcom.com/~aikya/womenandmoney.html *************************** Economic justice and Empowerment Every Month! ***************************** Send your snail mail address for a sample copy! Thanks for your interest! ******************************* In Mahabharatha, Raja Rantideva declares: " kaamaye du:khataptaanaam.h praaNinaamarthinaashanam.h " ______________________________________________________________________ * My desire [ as the highest Dharma ] is to wipe out the tears from the eyes of living beings in distress. ************************* ************************* ************************* "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. *************************************** From aikya@ix.netcom.com Tue Oct 14 10:20:56 1997 by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma009198; Tue Oct 14 11:06:52 1997 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'Labor Research and Action Project'" Subject: November/December Conferences Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:45:43 -0700 Does anybody have details about labor related conferences to be held in November or December of this year? Aikya Param Publisher Women and Money http://www2.netcom.com/~aikya/womenandmoney.html *************************** Economic justice and Empowerment Every Month! ***************************** Send your snail mail address for a sample copy! Thanks for your interest! ******************************* In Mahabharatha, Raja Rantideva declares: " kaamaye du:khataptaanaam.h praaNinaamarthinaashanam.h " ______________________________________________________________________ * My desire [ as the highest Dharma ] is to wipe out the tears from the eyes of living beings in distress. ************************* ************************* ************************* "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. *************************************** From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Oct 15 19:50:40 1997 Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:43:53 -0700 (PDT) Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:37:33 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Western Hemisphere Conference Against NAFT & Privatizations Sender: meisenscher@igc.org PLEASE SHARE WITH OTHERS, REPOST, REDISTRIBUTE. (Apologies for Multiple Messages) REMINDER: THIS CONFERENCE HAS LIMITED CAPACITY. Those who want to attend should send in their registration forms and fees ASAP, and if hotel rooms are needed, make reservations. WESTERN HEMISPHERE WORKERS' CONFERENCE AGAINST NAFTA & PRIVATIZATION BUILDING GLOBAL UNIONISM AND INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY November 14-16 in San Francisco Ramda Inn, Downtown San Franicsco (Civic Center BART Stop) $103 per night single; $103 double; $118 triple; $133 quad. Delegations expected from Mexico, Boliva, Dominican Republic, Brazil, Peru, Uruguay, Argentina, Ecuador, Haiti, Guadeloupe, Dominica, Guyana, Chile, El Salvador, in addition to from throughout U.S. and Canada (partial list-others may be added) Delegations will include leaders of major union federations, unions, human rights & social justice, and other peoples' organizations. Registration Fee: $85 ($105 Canadian) or $65 for all sessions except Friday night banquet. (some partial scholarships available based on need) Make checks payable to: Western Hemisphere Conference Send to WHC c/o SF Labor Council 1188 Franklin St., #203, SF, CA 94109 (Registration fee does not include lodging but does include banquet dinner.) All principle sessions will be simultaneously interpreted into four languages (English, Spanish, French/Creole, Portuguese). For information, and registration forms & hotel reservations, call: Ed Rosario, Conference Coordinator (415) 681-5868 or (415) 440-4809. Fax: (415) 440-9297. Childcare available by advance arrangement. VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED and can receive reduced registration fee for work performed. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Conference Schedule: (subject to revision) Friday, November 14 2-5 Registration 4-6 Reception Cash Bar 6 Banquet 7-9 Progam: Toward Global Unionism 9-? Social Events/Receptions/Delegation Gatherings Saturday, November 15 8-9 Registration continues 8:30 Plenary I: Testimony from each region of the impact of NAFTA, privatizations, globalization, and the neo-liberal agenda Noon Lunch Break 2-4 Issues Workshop Panels (1-6) 4-6 Issues Workshop Panels (7-12) 6:15 Dinner Break 8:30-10 Sector/Industry Workshops 10-? Social Time Sunday, November 16 9-1 Plenary II: Workshop Reports, Conference Declaration, Closing Remarks +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Endorsers include: (partial list) Bay Area Labor Councils, CA Federation of Labor, ILWU, UFW, UE, FLOC, APALA, LCLAA, Public Citizen, 50 Years is Enough, Support Cmte. for Maquiladora Workers, Global Exchange, International Forum on Globalization, War Zone Educational Found., Peace & Freedom Party, and many other labor & community & solidarity organizations from around the U.S., Canada, and Latin America. From Herejobs@aol.com Thu Oct 16 17:33:57 1997 From: Herejobs@aol.com by emout37.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:33:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:33:48 -0400 (EDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Organizer Openings: on the move @Yale Please post and forward to friends and colleagues who will be interested ! >ORGANIZER POSITIONS AVAILABLE with HERE HOTEL EMPLOYEES AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES UNION in SOUTHERN CONNECTICUT, NEW YORK and WASHINGTON, DC. > >Significant organizing opportunities exist currently in southern Connecticut >among progressive HERE locals working together. Full-time, permanent >positons available with: > -Local 34, the Clerical and Technical Union at Yale > -GESO, Graduate Students and Employees Organization at Yale > -Local 217, Hotel and Restaurant Emplooyees and Bartenders Union in CT/RI > >Work involves internal and external organizing including leadership >development and representaion skills. External organizing targets include >one of New Haven's largest employers; a citywide, multi-employer, nonNLRB >campaign, and the Yale graduate teaching assistants. The Local 217 position >requires bilingual skills in either Spanish or Haitian Creole. > >Full-time, permanent positions also available in progressive locals in New >York City and Washington, DC for organizers bilingual Spanish/English. SALARY:Depends on Experience, includes excellent benefits package > To Apply: Send cover letter and resume to: no e-mailed resumes please!) >Ellen Thomson, Est Coast H.E.R.E. Recruiter >PO Box 322 >Granby, CT 06035 >or fax to 860-2516049 c/o Local 217 >email: EThere@aol.com > > From aikya@ix.netcom.com Fri Oct 17 09:44:48 1997 by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma009006; Fri Oct 17 10:43:07 1997 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'Alice Clark'" , "'Field of Dreams'" , "'Labor Research and Action Project'" Subject: A Spammer Goofs, to Our Advantage Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:17:47 -0700 I received a spam message this morning which did not suppress its address list. Said address list was more than 300 k. Nearly choked my e-mail. You should know that it stated that its robot had spidered library and information request e-mail addresses of numerous universities, many resume and career search e-mail addresses, and postmasters and the like at mcinet, compuserve, prodigy, slipmet, sprycom. Yahoo, etc. I intent to let any resources where I think my address information resides of the situation and let them know I don't like it. If anyone is interested in receiving this huge list and doing the same, I will happily send it to you. Don't know about you, but the spam is time consuming and annoying to me. I hope nobody buys things due to spam they receive. Hopefully, if these folks don't make money, they'll give it up. Aikya Param Publisher Women and Money http://www2.netcom.com/~aikya/womenandmoney.html *************************** Economic justice and Empowerment Every Month! ***************************** Send your snail mail address for a sample copy! Thanks for your interest! *************************************************************************** In Mahabharatha, Raja Rantideva declares: "na tvahaM kaamaye raajyaM na svargaM naapunarchavam.h| kaamaye duHkhataptaanaaM praaNinaamarthinaashanam.h ||" _______________________________________________________ * My desire [ as the highest Dharma ] is to wipe out the tears from the eyes of living beings in distress. ******************************************************************************* In Valmiki's RaamaayaNa, in the BaalakaaNDa the City State of Ayodhya, Lord Rama's kingdom, is described as very prosperous: naalpasaMnichayaH kashchidaasiit.h tasmin.h purottame | kuTumbii yo hyasiddhaartho.agavaashvadhanadhaanyavaan.h || 7 || ## In that Ayodhyaa, which is best among cities, there was neither someone who has a small collection (of valuable things) nor some house-holder who hasn't attained wealth, nor some one who doesn't possess cows, horses, other wealth, and food-grains ## ************************* From aaron@burn.ucsd.edu Mon Oct 20 02:01:38 1997 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 00:55:24 -0700 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: aaron@burn.ucsd.edu (Aaron) Subject: Re: TOYS: U.S. Made or Union Made marxism-news@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU, newman@socrates.berkeley.edu, meisenscher@igc.apc.org, AaronRojo@aol.com >Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:40:44 -0700 >From: "Ms. Aikya Param" >To: Labor Research and Action Project >Subject: TOYS: U.S. Made or Union Made > > >Women and Money is trying to encourage people to buy U.S. >made or union made products as gifts this season. In November >I thought I'd concentrate on toys and children's books. > > >Aikya Param >Publisher >Women and Money >http://www2.netcom.com/~aikya/womenandmoney.html >*************************** >Economic justice and Empowerment Every Month! >***************************** Why in the world should labor activists and supporters favor the purchase of U.S.-made toys (or any products) over others? There are a number of obvious reasons why we shouldn't. 1) The U.S. has a lower rate of unionization than many other countries. It isn't very likely that a toy you buy that's 'Made in U.S.A.' is made by union labor. 2) If one believes in boycotting a country's commerce because of the country's oppressive regime, as some activists do in the case of Burma or Nigeria, for example, then the U.S. is the #1 country to boycott. It's capitalist class is directly or indirectly responsible for a large share of the misery in the world today -- a far, far larger share than the governments of Burma and Nigeria could ever take credit for. If you must buy something from capitalists, then by all means try to buy from unionized capitalist businesses. But don't make even the slightest concession to the chauvinism of your own imperialist country. - For internationalism, - Aaron >Send your snail mail address for a sample copy! Thanks >for your interest! >******************************* >In Mahabharatha, Raja Rantideva declares: >" kaamaye du:khataptaanaam.h praaNinaamarthinaashanam.h " >______________________________________________________________________ >* My desire [ as the highest Dharma ] is to wipe out the tears from the >eyes of living beings in distress. >************************* >... ---------- mailto:aaron@burn.ucsd.edu http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aaron From rross@clarku.edu Mon Oct 20 10:24:57 1997 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:11:51 -0400 From: "Robert J.S. Ross" Subject: NY Times survey To: Labor Research and Action Project Reply-to: rross@clarku.edu Friends, On Friday last the New York Times carried a good story about a survey of aparrel firms in NY and minimum wage etc violations. For my work on sweatshops I collect such things electronically when possible --this time I was travelling. I have the hard copy. Should anyone out there have downloaded the article I will appreciate receiving a cyber copy. Best regards, Bob Ross -- _____________________________________________________ Robert J.S. Ross Phone: 508 793 7243 Professor and Chair of Sociology Fax: 508 793 8816 Clark University 950 Main St. Worcester, Massachusetts 01610 USA http://www.clarku.edu/~rross/ _____________________________________________________ From jstein@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us Mon Oct 20 22:28:35 1997 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:49:52 -0800 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: jstein@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us (Julia Stein) Subject: Re: TOYS: U.S. Made or Union Made > >Why in the world should labor activists and supporters favor the purchase >of U.S.-made toys (or any products) over others? There are a number of >obvious reasons why we shouldn't. > >1) The U.S. has a lower rate of unionization than many other countries. It >isn't very likely that a toy you buy that's 'Made in U.S.A.' is made by >union labor. > >2) If one believes in boycotting a country's commerce because of the >country's oppressive regime, as some activists do in the case of Burma or >Nigeria, for example, then the U.S. is the #1 country to boycott. It's >capitalist class is directly or indirectly responsible for a large share of >the misery in the world today -- a far, far larger share than the >governments of Burma and Nigeria could ever take credit for. > >If you must buy something from capitalists, then by all means try to buy >from unionized capitalist businesses. But don't make even the slightest >concession to the chauvinism of your own imperialist country. > > - For internationalism, > - Aaron > Param said that she is encouraging consumers to buy U.S. made and union made products. In the October issue of her magazine she had a section on books written by members of the L.A. local/National Writers Union and encouraged her readers to buy these books. The writers in my union local appreciate her actions. We're facing conglomerates who have bought the publishing compaies who don't promote author's books, so what Param is doing is like an oasis in the desert. Also, her actions have helped publicize the bad conditions in the publishing industry. Regarding Aaron's points: 1. The U.S. had a lower unionization than some countries but has a highter rate than others. So what. First, Param and others are urging people to buy union-made goods. Second, toys made in certain countries like China have been found to be made by sweated labor in extremely dangerous conditions to the workers. These campaigns aim at educating consumers as to the conditions of how these toys are made As a result of these educational campaigns recently, products made by child labor was banned. Good. 2. Param never mentioned boycotting any countries, so Aaron's second point is irrelvant. Furthurmore, the Reagan/Bush regimes in the United States had a policy called Carribean Basin Intiative that enocourages factories to close down their manufacturing in this country and move to Central America and the Carribean. NAFTA and GATT encourage plants to move overseas. These policies have been disasterous for American working people. If we want to rebuild this country, we need to have decent paying manufacturing jobs here again. We need to be paying people enough so that they can buy the products they make. The buy American campaign is a step in this direction. It's not chauvinism to want to rebuild devasted communities here in this country. If the left like Aaron can't have the decency to promote policies to help their fellow Americans, they should be ignored. And Aaron will effectively marginalize the left in the country. I don't think we should make the slightest concession to disasterous left-wing policies which ignore the suffering of millions of people on this continent. Julia Julia Stein jstein@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us From aaron@burn.ucsd.edu Mon Oct 20 23:49:45 1997 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:41:33 -0700 To: debate@sunsite.wits.ac.za From: aaron@burn.ucsd.edu (Aaron) Subject: UNIONS TARGET NIGERIAN OIL (fwd) marxism-news@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU, , seac+announce@earthsystems.org Comrades, et al., As an introduction to the message that I'm forwarding (see below), I'll quote the first paragraphs from a message I posted on the subject a few months ago. >Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:35:58 -0400 >To: debate@sunsite.wits.ac.za >From: aaron@burn.ucsd.edu (Aaron) >Subject: RE: Update on Nigeria > >Comrades, > We should not be calling on the Commonwealth of British Imperialism, or >any imperialist government or international organization, to discipline the >government of a neo-colonial state. This just helps prettify and strengthen >imperialism, which is the main enemy. > In the case of Nigeria, we should be working to encourage workers' >actions, such as maritime workers' boycotts of Nigerian oil and other >exports, to back up working-class demands on the Nigerian rulers. Such >demands include release of leftist and Ogoni political prisoners. But the >working class should not waste its strength on trying to force a transition >to'democracy', i.e. to the form of bourgeois rule presently favored by >Anglo-American imperialism. Of course, if there were a mass strike or >popular uprising in Nigeria against the government, working-class forces >around the world should take all possible actions in solidarity, even if >the consciousness of the masses in Nigeria didn't go beyond demanding >bourgeois democracy. My enthusiasm for the IECM call for direct workers' action against Nigerian oil is dampened -- but only a bit -- by their appeal to the 'Commonwealth' to take action against Nigeria. - Revolutionary solidarity, - Aaron P.S. I will shortly be putting my previous posts on this subject (including my arguments for targeting Shell executives) on my web site at . ---------- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:40:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Weissman ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 06:08:55 +0100 GMT From: ICEM@GEO2.poptel.org.uk To: ICEM-PUB@GEO2.poptel.org.uk, ICEM-MB-AFF@GEO2.poptel.org.uk, ICEM-FAX-AFF@GEO2.poptel.org.uk, ICEM-ITS@GEO2.poptel.org.uk, LABOUR@GEO2.poptel.org.uk Subject: UNIONS TARGET NIGERIAN OIL ICEM UPDATE No. 61/1997 20 October 1997 The following is from the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM): "FREE THE DETAINEES": UNION ACTION AGAINST NIGERIAN OIL EXPORTS A campaign of targeted action against Nigerian oil exports was launched this morning by the 20-million-strong International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM). The action is aimed at securing the release of Milton Dabibi, General Secretary of the ICEM-affiliated Nigerian oil and gas workers' union PENGASSAN, and Frank Kokori, General Secretary of the ICEM-affiliated Nigerian oil and gas workers' union NUPENG. Both are being detained without charge or trial by the Nigerian military regime. Dabibi and Kokori are in poor health, and are being denied the medical attention that they need. They are also being denied access to lawyers and to their trade unions. Visits by their families are severely restricted. Frank Kokori has been in detention since 1994, and Milton Dabibi since January 1996. Their trade unions have been subjected to government intervention ever since the Nigerian oil workers' strike of 1994. Both men are recognised by Amnesty International as prisoners of conscience. Directly and through various intermediaries, the ICEM has repeatedly called upon the Nigerian authorities to release the two oil workers' leaders, but has received no response. There were some grounds for hope that Dabibi, Kokori and a number of other detainees would be amnestied at the beginning of this month. However, in a major speech on 1 October to mark the anniversary of Nigeria's independence, head of state Gen. Sani Abacha made no mention of any such amnesty. The ICEM has therefore now served notice that it will take action - without further warning - against the delivery of selected Nigerian oil exports worldwide. This notice will remain in force until Milton Dabibi and Frank Kokori are released. "KEEP NIGERIA'S MEMBERSHIP SUSPENDED," UNIONS TELL COMMONWEALTH The ICEM and the Commonwealth Trade Union Council (CTUC) have called upon the Commonwealth to maintain its current suspension of Nigeria's membership unless the two union leaders are released and full trade union rights and democracy restored. Action on Nigeria is high on the agenda of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM 97 - Edinburgh, Scotland, 24-27 October). The ICEM, the CTUC and the Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) will be holding a demonstration at the CHOGM venue on Saturday 25 October. Note: Photos of Milton Dabibi and Frank Kokori are available on request. ________________ Individual ICEM UPDATE items can be supplied in other languages on request. Our print magazines ICEM INFO and ICEM GLOBAL are available in Arabic, English, French, German, Russian, Scandinavian and Spanish. Visit us on the Web at http://www.icem.org/ ICEM avenue Emile de Beco 109, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium. tel.+32.2.6262020 fax +32.2.6484316 Internet: icem@geo2.poptel.org.uk Editor: Ian Graham, Information Officer Publisher: Vic Thorpe, General Secretary. ---------- ---------- mailto:aaron@burn.ucsd.edu http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aaron From rjohns@bayflash.stpt.usf.edu Tue Oct 21 07:37:03 1997 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:19:42 -0400 From: Rebecca Johns To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: TOYS: U.S. Made or Union Made References: <199710210422.VAA02779@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us> Julia Stein wrote: > > > > >Why in the world should labor activists and supporters favor the purchase > >of U.S.-made toys (or any products) over others? There are a number of > >obvious reasons why we shouldn't. > > > >1) The U.S. has a lower rate of unionization than many other countries. It > >isn't very likely that a toy you buy that's 'Made in U.S.A.' is made by > >union labor. > > > >2) If one believes in boycotting a country's commerce because of the > >country's oppressive regime, as some activists do in the case of Burma or > >Nigeria, for example, then the U.S. is the #1 country to boycott. It's > >capitalist class is directly or indirectly responsible for a large share of > >the misery in the world today -- a far, far larger share than the > >governments of Burma and Nigeria could ever take credit for. > > > >If you must buy something from capitalists, then by all means try to buy > >from unionized capitalist businesses. But don't make even the slightest > >concession to the chauvinism of your own imperialist country. > > > > - For internationalism, > > - Aaron > > > > Param said that she is encouraging consumers to buy U.S. made and union > made products. In the October issue of her magazine she had a section on > books written by members of the L.A. local/National Writers Union and > encouraged her readers to buy these books. The writers in my union local > appreciate her actions. We're facing conglomerates who have bought the > publishing compaies who don't promote author's books, so what Param is > doing is like an oasis in the desert. Also, her actions have helped > publicize the bad conditions in the publishing industry. > > Regarding Aaron's points: > 1. The U.S. had a lower unionization than some countries but has a highter > rate than others. So what. First, Param and others are urging people to buy > union-made goods. Second, toys made in certain countries like China have > been found to be made by sweated labor in extremely dangerous conditions to > the workers. These campaigns aim at educating consumers as to the > conditions of how these toys are made As a result of these educational > campaigns recently, products made by child labor was banned. Good. > > 2. Param never mentioned boycotting any countries, so Aaron's second point > is irrelvant. > > Furthurmore, the Reagan/Bush regimes in the United States had a policy > called Carribean Basin Intiative that enocourages factories to close down > their manufacturing in this country and move to Central America and the > Carribean. NAFTA and GATT encourage plants to move overseas. These policies > have been disasterous for American working people. If we want to rebuild > this country, we need to have decent paying manufacturing jobs here again. > We need to be paying people enough so that they can buy the products they > make. The buy American campaign is a step in this direction. It's not > chauvinism to want to rebuild devasted communities here in this country. > > If the left like Aaron can't have the decency to promote policies to help > their fellow Americans, they should be ignored. And Aaron will effectively > marginalize the left in the country. I don't think we should make the > slightest concession to disasterous left-wing policies which ignore the > suffering of millions of people on this continent. > > Julia > > Julia Stein > jstein@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us Hello all. Julia's view overlooks the complexity of global integration and the political power of the U.S. to manipulate trade relations and other global relations in its favor. The days when (some) American workers could enjoy the comfort of union jobs and decent living standards -- while the rest of the workers of the world lived in abject poverty -- are gone forever, and why we would WANT to return to them is beyond me. I guess some people still feel it is okay to enjoy their own prosperity at the expense of others. I personally find that view repugnant. American workers enjoyed their brief period of high living standards (post WWII, before the Fall of the 70s) because of the hegemonic, imperialist position of the U.S. and U.S. capital in the world. Others suffered, and continue to suffer greatly because of that. If we want to move forward, we need to understand our history. The "social accord" existed when it did because it worked for capital. When the econonmy changed and U.S. capital needed the room to cut costs, they destroyed the accord. The conditions that made that accord possible are not coming back. Time to think of a new strategy. If we wish to repair the damage of deindustrialization to communities in the U.S., we need to do so in light of the integration of the economy, and our own dependence on the cheap labor (cheap consumer goods) and natural resources of other places. Furthermore, to think that we are going back to a nostalgic world of "good manufacturing" jobs is absurd. The global economy has shifted in fundamental ways. Certainly NAFTA and CBI were disastrous for workers in the U.S., and they have not necessarily been beneficial for workers in the Caribbean and in Mexico, but that is precisely because they are designed by the government for the interests of capital. During the anti-NAFTA campaign, ACTWU and other unions had a very interesting and comprehensive alternative development plan for the Americas, designed by workers for workers, and truly international. This is what is needed, not some chauvinistic misplaced patriotism that demands we focus solely on "American" workers. Capital is not concerned with national allegiance. To suggest that we join hands with capital to try to rebuild this country clearly indicates a lack of understanding of the forces at work in the economy. The only way to protect workers in this world is to work to protect workers everywhere, not just within some increasingly irrelevant national boundaries. The Stop Sweatshops campaign is a good example of what can be done with a truly international concern for workers. It's interesting that Julie thinks positions like Aaron's will be ignored. If that's true, then we're doomed, and so are the workers Julie is concerned about. Good luck saving "American" workers in a global economy, Julie. "If you act like there is no possibility for change, you guarantee that there will be no change." ~Noam Chomsky Rebecca A. Johns Assistant Professor Department of Geography University of South Florida 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 813-553-1556 813-553-1526 fax rjohns@bayflash.stpt.usf.edu From aikya@ix.netcom.com Tue Oct 21 09:26:01 1997 by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma020076; Tue Oct 21 10:25:40 1997 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'Labor Research and Action Project'" Subject: RE: TOYS: U.S. Made or Union Made Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:16:38 -0700 Well this certainly is an interesting discussion. If anyone is interested, in the campaign to get people to buy gifts that are union made or U.S. made, if the union is in Guatemala or Benin, that's okay with me. And if the U.S. made product is made by some small business person who sells at an openair market, that's okay with me too. I agree that the issues are not easy. Most Americans with enough income to buy gifts, don't think much farther than the K-Mart or Toys 'R' Us flyers they get in the Sunday paper, or what they can quickly pick up in a quick drive to the megamall. Shall media people wait until the best, most pure solution comes along or should we stimulate awareness and discussion? Women and Money newsletter regularly supports Campaign for Labor Rights campaigns and urges members to get involved in their efforts. Clearly there are many kinds of things concerned people can do to advance the cause of human rights and workers rights. None of them are perfect. I guess I agree with whoever it was who said they'd rather have the question than "the answer." With the question in one's heart, many ways to advance human betterment can be found. Aikya Param Publisher Women and Money ---------- Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 6:20 AM To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: Re: TOYS: U.S. Made or Union Made Julia Stein wrote: > > > > >Why in the world should labor activists and supporters favor the purchase > >of U.S.-made toys (or any products) over others? There are a number of > >obvious reasons why we shouldn't. > > > >1) The U.S. has a lower rate of unionization than many other countries. It > >isn't very likely that a toy you buy that's 'Made in U.S.A.' is made by > >union labor. > > > >2) If one believes in boycotting a country's commerce because of the > >country's oppressive regime, as some activists do in the case of Burma or > >Nigeria, for example, then the U.S. is the #1 country to boycott. It's > >capitalist class is directly or indirectly responsible for a large share of > >the misery in the world today -- a far, far larger share than the > >governments of Burma and Nigeria could ever take credit for. > > > >If you must buy something from capitalists, then by all means try to buy > >from unionized capitalist businesses. But don't make even the slightest > >concession to the chauvinism of your own imperialist country. > > > > - For internationalism, > > - Aaron > > > > Param said that she is encouraging consumers to buy U.S. made and union > made products. In the October issue of her magazine she had a section on > books written by members of the L.A. local/National Writers Union and > encouraged her readers to buy these books. The writers in my union local > appreciate her actions. We're facing conglomerates who have bought the > publishing compaies who don't promote author's books, so what Param is > doing is like an oasis in the desert. Also, her actions have helped > publicize the bad conditions in the publishing industry. > > Regarding Aaron's points: > 1. The U.S. had a lower unionization than some countries but has a highter > rate than others. So what. First, Param and others are urging people to buy > union-made goods. Second, toys made in certain countries like China have > been found to be made by sweated labor in extremely dangerous conditions to > the workers. These campaigns aim at educating consumers as to the > conditions of how these toys are made As a result of these educational > campaigns recently, products made by child labor was banned. Good. > > 2. Param never mentioned boycotting any countries, so Aaron's second point > is irrelvant. > > Furthurmore, the Reagan/Bush regimes in the United States had a policy > called Carribean Basin Intiative that enocourages factories to close down > their manufacturing in this country and move to Central America and the > Carribean. NAFTA and GATT encourage plants to move overseas. These policies > have been disasterous for American working people. If we want to rebuild > this country, we need to have decent paying manufacturing jobs here again. > We need to be paying people enough so that they can buy the products they > make. The buy American campaign is a step in this direction. It's not > chauvinism to want to rebuild devasted communities here in this country. > > If the left like Aaron can't have the decency to promote policies to help > their fellow Americans, they should be ignored. And Aaron will effectively > marginalize the left in the country. I don't think we should make the > slightest concession to disasterous left-wing policies which ignore the > suffering of millions of people on this continent. > > Julia > > Julia Stein > jstein@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us Hello all. Julia's view overlooks the complexity of global integration and the political power of the U.S. to manipulate trade relations and other global relations in its favor. The days when (some) American workers could enjoy the comfort of union jobs and decent living standards -- while the rest of the workers of the world lived in abject poverty -- are gone forever, and why we would WANT to return to them is beyond me. I guess some people still feel it is okay to enjoy their own prosperity at the expense of others. I personally find that view repugnant. American workers enjoyed their brief period of high living standards (post WWII, before the Fall of the 70s) because of the hegemonic, imperialist position of the U.S. and U.S. capital in the world. Others suffered, and continue to suffer greatly because of that. If we want to move forward, we need to understand our history. The "social accord" existed when it did because it worked for capital. When the econonmy changed and U.S. capital needed the room to cut costs, they destroyed the accord. The conditions that made that accord possible are not coming back. Time to think of a new strategy. If we wish to repair the damage of deindustrialization to communities in the U.S., we need to do so in light of the integration of the economy, and our own dependence on the cheap labor (cheap consumer goods) and natural resources of other places. Furthermore, to think that we are going back to a nostalgic world of "good manufacturing" jobs is absurd. The global economy has shifted in fundamental ways. Certainly NAFTA and CBI were disastrous for workers in the U.S., and they have not necessarily been beneficial for workers in the Caribbean and in Mexico, but that is precisely because they are designed by the government for the interests of capital. During the anti-NAFTA campaign, ACTWU and other unions had a very interesting and comprehensive alternative development plan for the Americas, designed by workers for workers, and truly international. This is what is needed, not some chauvinistic misplaced patriotism that demands we focus solely on "American" workers. Capital is not concerned with national allegiance. To suggest that we join hands with capital to try to rebuild this country clearly indicates a lack of understanding of the forces at work in the economy. The only way to protect workers in this world is to work to protect workers everywhere, not just within some increasingly irrelevant national boundaries. The Stop Sweatshops campaign is a good example of what can be done with a truly international concern for workers. It's interesting that Julie thinks positions like Aaron's will be ignored. If that's true, then we're doomed, and so are the workers Julie is concerned about. Good luck saving "American" workers in a global economy, Julie. "If you act like there is no possibility for change, you guarantee that there will be no change." ~Noam Chomsky Rebecca A. Johns Assistant Professor Department of Geography University of South Florida 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 813-553-1556 813-553-1526 fax rjohns@bayflash.stpt.usf.edu From pkraft@binghamton.edu Tue Oct 21 10:10:46 1997 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:14:38 -0400 From: Phil Kraft To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Conference: Work, Difference and Social Change This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------162A20FACB42B06F68109788 **** Apologies for Cross Postings! **** Conference May 8-10, 1998 Work, Difference and Social Change: New Perspectives on Work and Workers Two Decades after Braverman's_Labor and Monopoly Capital_ State University of New York at Binghamton Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 USA **** Apologies for Cross Postings! **** Conference May 8-10, 1998 Work, Difference and Social Change: New Perspectives on Work and Workers Two Decades after Braverman's_Labor and Monopoly Capital_ SUNY-Binghamton Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 USA All, The final Conference Announcement and Call for Papers will go out the end of this month. If you'd like a paper announcement, let me know and I'll add your name to our mailing list. In the meantime, you can visit our web page, which has a printable registration form: http://sociology.adm.binghamton.edu/work The page is regularly updated. It will list the final program schedule and paper titles by late March. There have been a few changes since the preliminary announcement: - We have extended our deadline for paper submissions until January. We are doing this to accommodate requests we've had from authors outside the US. - Also in response to several requests, we have decided to accept submissions in French, Spanish and German. Accepted papers will be printed in the Proceedings with an extended English abstract. The conference presentation must still be in English. - We are happy to announce a special panel by the editors of Monthly Review -- Harry Magdoff, Paul Sweezy and Ellen Meiksins Wood. MR Press will announce the 25th Anniversary Edition of _Labor and Monopoly Capital_ at the Conference. - There will exhibits and editorial representative from labor-friendly presses. - Continental Airlines, which provided service to Newark, will no longer serve the Binghamton airport after December. The other New York airports and major US cities are served by US Airways (formerly USAir), Northwestern, and United. We expect another airline to begin service to Newark before the conference. The Syracuse, New York, airport is about an hour further away and is served by a larger number of carriers. It's an easy drive, and week-end car rentals are cheap, especially for several persons traveling together. - And we have a new conference phone -- (607) 777-6844 -- complete with annoying voicemail message in case no one is around to answer it. Our email address remains work@binghamton.edu. Send faxes to (607) 777-4197, attention Conference Committee. We have been pleased by the early response to our first announcement -- more than pleased. Although the deadline is still three months away, we have already received a remarkable number of papers . The early submissions are very good and range broadly: the creation of class consciousness among 19th century US industrialists; gendered divisions of labor; work time; commodified images of work; case studies of "participation" schemes; and more. On the basis of the papers already in hand, Braverman +20 will be more international, more activist and more wide-ranging than the first one. And this time we will have a band. Please contact me if you have any questions or suggestions. For the conference committee, Phil Kraft --------------162A20FACB42B06F68109788 begin: vcard fn: Philip Kraft n: Kraft;Philip org: Department of Sociology adr: SUNY-Binghamton;;;Binghamton;NY;13902-6000; email;internet: pkraft@binghamton.edu tel;work: +1-(607)-777-2585 tel;fax: +1-(607)-777-4197 tel;home: +1-(607)-770-9370 x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: TRUE end: vcard --------------162A20FACB42B06F68109788-- From aikya@ix.netcom.com Tue Oct 21 11:04:31 1997 by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma023768; Tue Oct 21 12:04:04 1997 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'Labor Research and Action Project'" Subject: Clerical Worker Moms? Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:59:32 -0700 Please spread the word to anyone you know who might qualify. ************************************************************************* Want to be in a study about clericals and child care? You may win $50! Research Project Seeks Mothers Employed in Clerical Positions You can make a vital contribution to a study of child care and feelings about being a working mother. The study takes about an hour, is anonymous, and involves answering written questions. Participants can enter a lottery in which four people will win $50 each, and can receive a summary of the results. To participate, employed for at least 15 hours a week in a primarily clerical job, and have at least one child who stays in some kind of child care while you work and who is not yet in first grade. This study is a doctoral dissertation by Bronwen DiAntonio, M.A., at the California School of Professional Psychology in Alameda, CA. For more information or to participate in the study, please call toll-free (888) 268-7706 or e-mail to diantonio@compuserve.com and leave your name and address. *************************************************** Aikya Param Publisher Women and Money *************************** Economic Justice and Empowerment Every Month! ***************************** Send your snail mail address for a sample copy! Thanks for your interest! ****************************** Past articles at: http://www2.netcom.com/~aikya/womenandmoney.html ***************************************************************** From dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu Wed Oct 22 10:54:11 1997 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 12:50:53 -0400 To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu (david croteau) Subject: NIKE stuff A colleague of mine who subscribes to a sociology of sport listserv forwarded the material below to me. Apparently a Nike rep queried the listserv group about whether any subscribers had expertise in the area of barriers to women's sports participation in China. This sparked an intense debate about the role of Nike. This is a good example of how material like op-eds can help set the terms of debate. How might academics respond to such pieces? What "frame" could be used to re-examine the claims made here? etc. Food for thought. >>Actually, Nike pays among the highest wages among the sneaker companies, >>about twice the average minimum wage in Malaysia and Indonesia for >>example. Say what you want about them, but put it in context. The issue >>of foreign "sweatshops" is to some extent a bogus one. Below I'm posting >>an article that I wrote that appeared originally in the Chicago Tribune >>on the issue. It is far more complicated than just demanding paying >>workers "decent" pay. Relative to other work, most Nike workers make >>extremely decent pay. If they raised wages too far above local norms, >>the factories would go out of business and ALL of those jobs would be >>lost. The key is keeping the public pressure on companies like NIKE >>without throwing the baby out with the bathwater (as some in the >>American labor movement would love to happen). >> >>Jon Entine >> >>******* >> >>Date: Thursday, June 20, 1996 >>By Jon Entine and Martha Nichols. >>Jon Entine is an Atlanta-based journalist who specializes in >>business ethics. Martha Nichols is a former associate editor of >>Harvard Business Review and is an editor of the Women's Review of >>Books based at Wellesley College. >>Section: COMMENTARY >>Copyright Chicago Tribune >> >>BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON MEANINGLESS `GOOD INTENTIONS' >> >> Surprise: retailers buy their goods at the lowest possible price. >>Most have learned that consumers won't pay the extra dollars to >>cover the cost of higher wages. This unstartling revelation, as >>startling as it may have been to the bubbly Kathie Lee Gifford, has >>provoked a tsunami of corporate ethics declarations in recent >>months. But the most highly-touted solution offered in the wake of >>the Wal-Mart sweatshop scandalette--corporate codes of conduct on >>sourcing--can do far more harm than good. As well-meaning as these >>codes and mission statements purport to be, promises that >>companies don't or cannot hope to implement diverts attention from >>the need for structural changes in the relationship between >>consuming nations and raw material suppliers. The real benefits of >>many well-publicized codes has gone to the companies who were >>embarrassed into drafting them, not the people they were designed >>to help. >> Take Starbucks, the boutique Seattle-based coffee retailer, as an >>example. To earn enough to afford a pound of Starbucks' coffee, a >>Guatemalan worker would have to pick 500 pounds of beans, about >>five days of work. As you choke on your scone, this story has a twist: >>in a glittering ceremony in New York recently, Starbucks was >>awarded the International Human Rights Award by the Council on >>Economic Priorities, a consumer organization, at its annual >>"Corporate Conscience" awards ceremony. >> So how does a company under attack for exploiting cheap, foreign >>labor by activist labor, environmental and church groups become the >>belle of the ball? The answer provides insights into the fashionable >>ethics-in-business movement in which "good intentions" has become >>the new standard of corporate ethics. Today, everyone from Monsanto >>to Ben & Jerry's brags about environmental commitment. Investors >>pour billions into "socially responsible" mutual funds and cause- >>related marketing has become a Madison Avenue hot button. But as >>Gertrude Stein might say, is there a there there? >> While some of yesterday's most vilified firms have quietly moved >>to the forefront of corporate responsibility with aggressive >>affirmative-action hiring and day-care benefits , some highly- >>praised "New Age" firms which sell commodity products at premium >>prices have been found lacking in critical areas of accountability and >>honesty of marketing. >> But let's return to Starbucks for a moment. During 1994, it >>suffered embarrassing grassroots protests because it sourced beans >>from export houses that paid Guatemalan workers below a living >>daily wage, about $2.50 a day. Starbucks is no worse than the >>average wholesaler, but it has a better-than-average reputation as a >>new breed, values-driven corporation. So when protesters leafleted >>Starbucks stores, and targeted its annual meeting, a peace plan was >>offered. Last year, Starbucks became the first company in the >>agricultural commodities sector to announce a "framework" for a >>code of conduct. Sensitive to the controversy, Starbucks has >>contributed to CARE, which sends emergency relief packages to >>troubled countries, for four years donating $275,000 of its $42 >>million profit in 1995. >> There are more than 30,000 farms in Guatemala, one of 20 coffee- >>supplying countries. Starbucks was targeted not because it could >>change the labor status quo--it is a bit player in the coffee >>business--but because of its high public profile. The increasingly >>visible protests left Starbucks with little choice but to pass its >>code, and it cost the company little. We were "prodded" into it, notes >>David Olsen, Starbucks' senior vice president, diplomatically. >> But according to Alice Tepper Marlin, CEP's executive director, the >>mission statement alone was enough to earn Starbucks its honor. >>How has Starbucks enforced its code? "We've done nothing yet," >>acknowledges Olsen. "It's a slow, incremental process." Very >>incremental. Starbucks' promised review of plantation conditions is >>being carried out by the Guatemalan coffee growers association, the >>very organization accused of perpetuating the low wages. First >>condemned for labor practices it could not hope to change, Starbucks >>is now praised for actions it has not yet taken. >> What can Starbucks accomplish with its code, putting aside its >>obvious goal of quieting protests? "Codes are a start," says Eric >>Hahn of the US/Guatemala Labor Education Project. "But only if it's >>part of a bigger strategy of industry monitoring, which is one of the >>few tools available in an international, deregulated economy. >>Otherwise it's just a balm to consumers." This is not to suggest that >>codes are entirely meaningless. But as Gifford has learned, promises >>focus attention, but solutions rest with accountability. Considering >>the labyrinthine politics in impoverished coffee countries, >>Starbucks has no practical ability to oversee conditions, and it says >>it cannot risk punishing violators. >> Celebrating "good intentions" in the absence of accountability goes >>to the heart of the corporate ethics conundrum. Yet CEP and other >>organizations in the corporate black hat/white hat business >>invariably iconize coffee, clothes, shampoo and sneaker retailers >>armed with impressive mission statements. One need only read the >>inspiring codes of conduct of fallen angels such as The Body Shop, >>Ben & Jerry's, Sumitomo Corp. and Dow Corning to realize that "good >>intentions" do not always extend to customers, employees or trading >>partners. "Researchers have found no correlation between company >>ethics codes and ethical practices," says Kirk Hanson, a Stanford >>professor and expert in corporate responsibility. >> The Gap, Levi Strauss, Nike, K-Mart and J.C. Penney, which all have >>admirable ethics codes, have sourced from foreign sweatshops. Or >>consider Reebok, which gives out an annual Human Rights Award but >>sprints from one low-wage country to the next, paying its >>Indonesian workers 23 cents an hour. We don't "impose U.S. culture >>on other countries," says CEO Paul Fireman, "sort of a `when in Rome, >>do as the Romans' philosophy." Of the high-profile retailers, Levi >>Strauss has distinguished itself for at least devoting considerable >>resources to identifying which shops supply its suppliers, and >>bringing direct pressure to establish minimum wage standards and >>working conditions. >> >> But most Baby Boom businesses seem to want it both ways: praise >>and profits for promoting human rights and excuses for not being in >>a position to practice it. But why should we expect Reebok and the >>like to act any different than their politically correct Baby Boom >>customers who have long since traded in VW Beetles for BMWs and >>Broncos; for many, eating Rainforest Crunch ice cream made from >>natural, not-tested-on-animals ingredients is an ethical stand. Most >>disturbing, noble posturing obscures meaningful progress in >>corporate responsibility. Despite regular appearances on >>"dishonorable" lists, controversial multinationals such as General >>Motors, Dupont or Gillette offer fair wages and benefits, actively >>engage their community responsibilities and sell quality, reasonably >>priced products and services. >> When asked why Starbucks was honored, CEP's Marlin says "we >>want to reward positive role models." Dare one suggest that CEP >>should have waited until Starbucks "framework for a code of >>conduct" was more than symbolic? That "progressive" organizations >>believe they promote corporate ethics doesn't obviate their >>responsibility for muddying complex problems--and profiting >>handsomely from the debate. Awarding "A's" for visionary rhetoric, >>as well-meaning as it might purport to be, shifts focus away from >>corporate behavior to the never-never-land of good intentions. It's a >>dangerous trend. In our image-dominated society, maybe perceptions >>are enough. >>PHOTO: Illustration by Robert Neubecker. >> >> ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Croteau Sociology/ Virginia Commonwealth University E-mail: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu From rjohns@bayflash.stpt.usf.edu Wed Oct 22 11:37:48 1997 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 13:20:29 -0400 From: Rebecca Johns To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: NIKE stuff david croteau wrote: > > A colleague of mine who subscribes to a sociology of sport listserv > forwarded the material below to me. Apparently a Nike rep queried the > listserv group about whether any subscribers had expertise in the area of > barriers to women's sports participation in China. This sparked an intense > debate about the role of Nike. > This is a good example of how material like op-eds can help set the > terms of debate. How might academics respond to such pieces? What "frame" > could be used to re-examine the claims made here? etc. Food for thought. > > >>Actually, Nike pays among the highest wages among the sneaker companies, > >>about twice the average minimum wage in Malaysia and Indonesia for > >>example. Say what you want about them, but put it in context. The issue > >>of foreign "sweatshops" is to some extent a bogus one. Below I'm posting > >>an article that I wrote that appeared originally in the Chicago Tribune > >>on the issue. It is far more complicated than just demanding paying > >>workers "decent" pay. Relative to other work, most Nike workers make > >>extremely decent pay. If they raised wages too far above local norms, > >>the factories would go out of business and ALL of those jobs would be > >>lost. The key is keeping the public pressure on companies like NIKE > >>without throwing the baby out with the bathwater (as some in the > >>American labor movement would love to happen). > >> > >>Jon Entine > >> > >>******* > >> > >>Date: Thursday, June 20, 1996 > >>By Jon Entine and Martha Nichols. > >>Jon Entine is an Atlanta-based journalist who specializes in > >>business ethics. Martha Nichols is a former associate editor of > >>Harvard Business Review and is an editor of the Women's Review of > >>Books based at Wellesley College. > >>Section: COMMENTARY > >>Copyright Chicago Tribune > >> > >>BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON MEANINGLESS `GOOD INTENTIONS' > >> > >> Surprise: retailers buy their goods at the lowest possible price. > >>Most have learned that consumers won't pay the extra dollars to > >>cover the cost of higher wages. This unstartling revelation, as > >>startling as it may have been to the bubbly Kathie Lee Gifford, has > >>provoked a tsunami of corporate ethics declarations in recent > >>months. But the most highly-touted solution offered in the wake of > >>the Wal-Mart sweatshop scandalette--corporate codes of conduct on > >>sourcing--can do far more harm than good. As well-meaning as these > >>codes and mission statements purport to be, promises that > >>companies don't or cannot hope to implement diverts attention from > >>the need for structural changes in the relationship between > >>consuming nations and raw material suppliers. The real benefits of > >>many well-publicized codes has gone to the companies who were > >>embarrassed into drafting them, not the people they were designed > >>to help. > >> Take Starbucks, the boutique Seattle-based coffee retailer, as an > >>example. To earn enough to afford a pound of Starbucks' coffee, a > >>Guatemalan worker would have to pick 500 pounds of beans, about > >>five days of work. As you choke on your scone, this story has a twist: > >>in a glittering ceremony in New York recently, Starbucks was > >>awarded the International Human Rights Award by the Council on > >>Economic Priorities, a consumer organization, at its annual > >>"Corporate Conscience" awards ceremony. > >> So how does a company under attack for exploiting cheap, foreign > >>labor by activist labor, environmental and church groups become the > >>belle of the ball? The answer provides insights into the fashionable > >>ethics-in-business movement in which "good intentions" has become > >>the new standard of corporate ethics. Today, everyone from Monsanto > >>to Ben & Jerry's brags about environmental commitment. Investors > >>pour billions into "socially responsible" mutual funds and cause- > >>related marketing has become a Madison Avenue hot button. But as > >>Gertrude Stein might say, is there a there there? > >> While some of yesterday's most vilified firms have quietly moved > >>to the forefront of corporate responsibility with aggressive > >>affirmative-action hiring and day-care benefits , some highly- > >>praised "New Age" firms which sell commodity products at premium > >>prices have been found lacking in critical areas of accountability and > >>honesty of marketing. > >> But let's return to Starbucks for a moment. During 1994, it > >>suffered embarrassing grassroots protests because it sourced beans > >>from export houses that paid Guatemalan workers below a living > >>daily wage, about $2.50 a day. Starbucks is no worse than the > >>average wholesaler, but it has a better-than-average reputation as a > >>new breed, values-driven corporation. So when protesters leafleted > >>Starbucks stores, and targeted its annual meeting, a peace plan was > >>offered. Last year, Starbucks became the first company in the > >>agricultural commodities sector to announce a "framework" for a > >>code of conduct. Sensitive to the controversy, Starbucks has > >>contributed to CARE, which sends emergency relief packages to > >>troubled countries, for four years donating $275,000 of its $42 > >>million profit in 1995. > >> There are more than 30,000 farms in Guatemala, one of 20 coffee- > >>supplying countries. Starbucks was targeted not because it could > >>change the labor status quo--it is a bit player in the coffee > >>business--but because of its high public profile. The increasingly > >>visible protests left Starbucks with little choice but to pass its > >>code, and it cost the company little. We were "prodded" into it, notes > >>David Olsen, Starbucks' senior vice president, diplomatically. > >> But according to Alice Tepper Marlin, CEP's executive director, the > >>mission statement alone was enough to earn Starbucks its honor. > >>How has Starbucks enforced its code? "We've done nothing yet," > >>acknowledges Olsen. "It's a slow, incremental process." Very > >>incremental. Starbucks' promised review of plantation conditions is > >>being carried out by the Guatemalan coffee growers association, the > >>very organization accused of perpetuating the low wages. First > >>condemned for labor practices it could not hope to change, Starbucks > >>is now praised for actions it has not yet taken. > >> What can Starbucks accomplish with its code, putting aside its > >>obvious goal of quieting protests? "Codes are a start," says Eric > >>Hahn of the US/Guatemala Labor Education Project. "But only if it's > >>part of a bigger strategy of industry monitoring, which is one of the > >>few tools available in an international, deregulated economy. > >>Otherwise it's just a balm to consumers." This is not to suggest that > >>codes are entirely meaningless. But as Gifford has learned, promises > >>focus attention, but solutions rest with accountability. Considering > >>the labyrinthine politics in impoverished coffee countries, > >>Starbucks has no practical ability to oversee conditions, and it says > >>it cannot risk punishing violators. > >> Celebrating "good intentions" in the absence of accountability goes > >>to the heart of the corporate ethics conundrum. Yet CEP and other > >>organizations in the corporate black hat/white hat business > >>invariably iconize coffee, clothes, shampoo and sneaker retailers > >>armed with impressive mission statements. One need only read the > >>inspiring codes of conduct of fallen angels such as The Body Shop, > >>Ben & Jerry's, Sumitomo Corp. and Dow Corning to realize that "good > >>intentions" do not always extend to customers, employees or trading > >>partners. "Researchers have found no correlation between company > >>ethics codes and ethical practices," says Kirk Hanson, a Stanford > >>professor and expert in corporate responsibility. > >> The Gap, Levi Strauss, Nike, K-Mart and J.C. Penney, which all have > >>admirable ethics codes, have sourced from foreign sweatshops. Or > >>consider Reebok, which gives out an annual Human Rights Award but > >>sprints from one low-wage country to the next, paying its > >>Indonesian workers 23 cents an hour. We don't "impose U.S. culture > >>on other countries," says CEO Paul Fireman, "sort of a `when in Rome, > >>do as the Romans' philosophy." Of the high-profile retailers, Levi > >>Strauss has distinguished itself for at least devoting considerable > >>resources to identifying which shops supply its suppliers, and > >>bringing direct pressure to establish minimum wage standards and > >>working conditions. > >> > >> But most Baby Boom businesses seem to want it both ways: praise > >>and profits for promoting human rights and excuses for not being in > >>a position to practice it. But why should we expect Reebok and the > >>like to act any different than their politically correct Baby Boom > >>customers who have long since traded in VW Beetles for BMWs and > >>Broncos; for many, eating Rainforest Crunch ice cream made from > >>natural, not-tested-on-animals ingredients is an ethical stand. Most > >>disturbing, noble posturing obscures meaningful progress in > >>corporate responsibility. Despite regular appearances on > >>"dishonorable" lists, controversial multinationals such as General > >>Motors, Dupont or Gillette offer fair wages and benefits, actively > >>engage their community responsibilities and sell quality, reasonably > >>priced products and services. > >> When asked why Starbucks was honored, CEP's Marlin says "we > >>want to reward positive role models." Dare one suggest that CEP > >>should have waited until Starbucks "framework for a code of > >>conduct" was more than symbolic? That "progressive" organizations > >>believe they promote corporate ethics doesn't obviate their > >>responsibility for muddying complex problems--and profiting > >>handsomely from the debate. Awarding "A's" for visionary rhetoric, > >>as well-meaning as it might purport to be, shifts focus away from > >>corporate behavior to the never-never-land of good intentions. It's a > >>dangerous trend. In our image-dominated society, maybe perceptions > >>are enough. > >>PHOTO: Illustration by Robert Neubecker. > >> > >> > ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > David Croteau > Sociology/ Virginia Commonwealth University > E-mail: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu This is a very interesting post, and raises good questions about the corporate campaign model designed to get companies to sign codes of conduct. A couple of responses come to mind: we cannot let MNCs off the hook for paying "better" wages than their domestic counterparts - the question has always been, do they pay "living wages" - that is, enough to bring the worker - and presumably her dependents - out of poverty and into a life of decency? How we set that standard is of course the subject of much debate, but cannot be avoided. Decent living standards for all should be our goal, no? "Do as the Romans do" is just a cop-out; there are universal human rights, and we ought to be able to figure out what they are and enforce them. Certainly living above the poverty level in a world of such wealth should be one. Secondly, why are corporate managers and executives' salaries never questioned when the possibility of "going out of business because of rising wages" is raised? Companies that are going to go out of business if workers make enough to live decently should examine the salaries of their CEOs, etc.....and may well find plenty of room for cutting! Of course, in our political culture of "profit is king", these questions are taboo. Thirdly, the issue of corporate accountability is complex, it seems to me, and I agree with the authors of the op ed piece that it is certainly not sufficient to solve the problem of poor working conditions around the globe. Trade relations between North and South, corporate influence over national environmental and labor regulations, the hegemony of the U.S. in the global political-economy, all set the stage for these abuses. Truly the corporate campaign model cannot change these structural barriers to a more just economy....but it seems to me that we should not underestimate the power of consumers to effect change. A mobilized community of consumers can make heavy demands on producers, demands for both ecologically and socially sound policies....if those consumers are actually willing to withdraw their purchasing power and "do without" until products they can truly support are available. In this sense, the Stop Sweatshops campaign is trying something new, shifting the focus from organizing at the site of production to organizing at the site of consumption.....contact Dr. Leyla Vural of UNITE Local 155 in New York for more info on this. Solidarity, Rebecca Johns -- "If you act like there is no possibility for change, you guarantee that there will be no change." ~Noam Chomsky Rebecca A. Johns Assistant Professor Department of Geography University of South Florida 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 813-553-1556 813-553-1526 fax rjohns@bayflash.stpt.usf.edu From clawson@sadri.umass.edu Wed Oct 22 22:31:39 1997 Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:31:31 -0400 (EDT) 23 Oct 1997 00:31:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:31:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Clawson Subject: Re: NIKE stuff To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Nike and all corporate campaigns of course raise complicated issues, and of course no one symbolic campaign can be enough. But the issues raised can be framed in either of two ways: 1. The campaigns don't do much, so there is no point pursuing them, it's all hopeless, just quit. OR 2. The campaigns must be part of a larger struggle and strategy, the parts of the campaign that receive the most visible media publicity are only part of what we need to do, and here are the other needed actions. The article David posted is very interesting and has good info. It doesn't fall clearly into either end of the spectrum above, but I would see it as closer to #1 (forget it, this doesn't work) than to #2. Certainly it doesn't give us any concrete steps, connections to make, information about who is running the campaigns and what the larger strategy is. I realize, of course, that it ran in the Chicago Tribune, and that it would never have been published if it had laid out a strategy for more effectively holding major corporations to account. My own -- very inchoate and fumbling -- sense is that this sort of corporate campaign has the POTENTIAL to be part of a new, different, effective, and militant labor movement. The labor movement is not a natural entity, inscribed in stone and unchanging over time. Each new wave of labor uprising has brought a new form of union, one which built on existing forms but marked a dramatic shift. The simplest (and most historically significant) example is the rise of the CIO from within the AFL, and associated with that the creation of an entirely new legal-institutional structure. At this time, most of the old institutional structure has been completely subverted and taken over by pro-capitalist changes, both through legislation and court rulings (and corporate actions). Most of the labor movement is thinking in terms of re-establishing the world of 1935, when the odds are high that the next wave of labor resurgence, if there is one, will take an entirely new form. One of our tasks as pro-labor intellectuals is to think about what that form might be, to see the new world aborning within the shell of the old. One element of that new world is likely to be a LABOR movement that is more than a UNION movement, that involves linkages between community and interest group struggles and unions. Many acts that are illegal if done by unions are legal if done by other groups, since in this society workers and unions have fewer rights than citizens and other organizations. That's not rhetoric, but legal fact. If strawberry workers want to get union strawberries into Bread and Circus grocery stores, let's say, the UFW cannot legally picket Bread and Circus and ask customers not to shop there. However, the Sociology Labor Network could do so. (I am not advocating this as an immediate tactic.) The restrictions on secondary boycotts apply to unions -- not to academic support groups, churches, etc. We need to think creatively about ways to take anti- sweatshop campaigns into new avenues, to push the envelope and develop new forms of struggle. I take it for granted, by the way, that any attempt to develop new forms of struggle will involve more failures than successes, but as Eve Weinbaum argued at the ASA meetings, these failures are often the necessary steps in developing methods that will work; even failures can contribute to ultimate success. -- 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 Thu Oct 23 10:59:04 1997 Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:54:48 -0700 (PDT) Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:46:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:46:30 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: The Attack on Public Education, PART I of 2 Sender: meisenscher@igc.org From: Labor Video Project Subject: Privatizaton,Corp & Public Education SCHOOL REFORM AND THE ATTACK ON PUBLIC EDUCATION by David G. Stratman KEYNOTE ADDRESS MASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS SUMMER INSTITUTE, 1997 ....I have two propositions I would like to put to you. The first is that the official education reform movement in Massachusetts and the nation is part of a decades-long corporate and vernment attack on public education and on our children. Its goal is: --not to increase educational attainment but to reduce it; --not to raise the hopes and expectations of our young people but to narrow them, stifle them, and crush them; --not to improve public education but to destroy it. My second proposition is that the education reform movement is part of a wider corporate and government plan to undermine democracy and strengthen corporate domination of our society. What evidence do I have for these assertions? Let's look first at the long-standing campaign to persuade the American people that public education has failed. This has been a disinformation campaign based on fraudulent claims, distortions, and outright lies. Since the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983, there have been numerous reports issued, each declaring U.S. public education a disaster, and each proposing "solutions" to our problems. The sponsors of the many reports are a little like the con-man in "The Music Man," who declares, "We've got trouble, right here in River City..." and the chorus repeats, "trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble..." He just happens to be selling the solution to all their troubles. How do you sell radical changes that would have been completely unacceptable to the public a decade or two ago? You tell people over and over that their institutions have failed, and that only the solutions you are peddling offer any way out of their "troubles." In the past couple of years, several excellent books have been published showing in detail that these claims are false. My purpose in this talk is not to cover the ground that these authors have already explored, but to answer the critical question: Why are the public schools under attack? But let's look just briefly at a couple of the key pieces of disinformation to which the American public has been subjected. The supposed dramatic decline of Scholastic Aptitude Test scores was a fraud. These scores did decline somewhat over the period 1963 to 1977. But the SAT is a voluntary test. It is not representative of anything, and it is useless as a measure of student performance or of the quality of the schools. The scores began to fall modestly when the range of young people going into college dramatically expanded in the mid-sixties. Did this mean that there was a lowering of student achievement during this period? Absolutely not. The Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test, or PSAT, is a representative exam, given each year to sample student populations across the country. During the period in question, PSAT scores held absolutely steady. Even more notable is the fact that scores on the College Board Achievement Tests--which test students not on some vaguely-defined "aptitude," but on what they know of specific subjects--did not fall but rose slightly but consistently over the same period in which for the first time in the history of the United States or any other country, the sons and daughters of black and white working families were entering college in massive numbers. Berliner and Biddle comment in their book, The Manufactured Crisis, "the real evidence indicates that the myth of achievement decline is not only false it is a hysterical fraud." How different would have been the public's understanding of what was happening in the schools if the media and the politicians had told the truth! How different if they had announced that, during the period of the greatest turmoil in American society since the Civil War, in which a higher proportion of young people were graduating high school and going on to college than ever before, at a rate unparalleled in any other country in the orld, representative tests showed that overall aptitude and achievement were holding steady or increasing? How different would have been the history of these last decades for educators and parents and students and for public education? What about the claim that U.S. business has lost its competitive edge because of the alleged failure of public education? Anyone who has been watching the triumphal progress of American corporations in the world market in the last two decades or has watched the unprecedented returns on the stock market knows that these claims are preposterous. But let me cite a few specific facts here: U.S. workers are the most productive in the world. Workers in Japan and Germany are only 80% as productive; in France, 76% as productive; in the United Kingdom, 61% as productive. America leads the world in the percentage of its college graduates who obtain degrees in science or engineering, and this percentage has been steadily rising since 1971. Far from having a shortage of trained personnel, there is now in fact a glut of scientists and engineers in the U.S. The Boston Globe reported on 3/17/97 that , "At a time when overall unemployment has fallen to around 5%, high-level scientists have been experiencing double-digit unemployment." The government estimates that America will have a surplus of over 1 million scientists and engineers by 2010, even if the present rate of production does not increase. So what's going on here? What explains the aggressive effort by corporate and government leaders to discredit public education? To understand this, I believe we have to look beyond education to developments in the economy and the wider society. In the past decades, millions of jobs have been shipped overseas. Millions more have been lost to "restructuring" and "downsizing." This trend is not likely to abate. The U. S. is presently enjoying its lowest official unemployment rate in decades 4.9%, or about 6.2 million unemployed at the peak of a long period of sustained growth. But even this large figure is deceptive, because it does not include the millions of people who have been reduced to temporary or part-time work, without benefits, without job security, and without hope of advancement. The number of "contingent" workers in 1993 was over 34 million. The future for employment is even more grim. Computerization will eliminate millions of jobs and deskill millions more. This is, after all, the attraction of automation for corporations: it downgrades the skills required of most jobs, and thereby makes employees cheaper and more easily expendable. I was talking recently with a chemist who works at a major hospital in Boston. She expressed dissatisfaction with her job. She said that, when she began the job ten years ago, she actually did chemistry. Now, she says, her job has been reduced to tending a machine which performs chemical analyses. A friend of mine wrote a book on the effect of computerization on work. She interviewed a Vice-President of Chase Manhattan Bank who was a Loan Officer at the bank. He sat there smartly in his three-piece suit and complained that "He doesn't really feel like a loan officer or a vice-president." Why? Because, after he gets the information from the person requesting a loan, he punches it into a computer--which then tells him if he can make the loan or not. The transformation of work through computers has really just begun. In his book, The End of Work, Jeremy Rifkin estimates that "In the United States alone, in the years ahead more than 90 million jobs in a labor force of 124 million are potentially vulnerable to replacement by machines." (p. 5) As Rifkin puts it, "Life as we know it is being altered in fundamental ways." Now, what does all this have to do with education? There were two little incidents which happened to me in 1976-77, when I was an Education Policy Fellow working in the U.S. Office of Education in Washington, D.C., which gave me a clue as to how to understand the attack on education. The first was a conversation with a man who was at the time a very highly-placed federal official in education. He put to a few of us this question. He said, "In the coming decade of high unemployment" referring here to the 1980s "in the coming decade of high unemployment, which is better from a policy angle to have? Is it better to have people with a lot of education and more personal flexibility, but with high expectations? Or is it better to have people with less education and less personal flexibility, and with lower expectations?" The answer was that it was better to have people with less education and lower expectations. The reasoning was very simple. If people's expectations are very high when the social reality of the jobs available is low, then there can be a great deal of anger and political turmoil. Better to lower their education and lower their expectations. A second clue involved a man whom many of you may know. Ron Gister, who was Executive Director of the Connecticut School Boards Association at the time, began a speech in 1977 with this simple question. He said, "Ask yourself, What would happen if the public schools really succeeded?" What if our high schools and universities were graduating millions of young people, all of whom had done well? In an economy with over 6 million unemployed by official count, in which millions more are underemployed or working part-time or in temporary jobs, in which many millions of jobs are being deskilled by computerization and many millions eliminated, and in which wages have fallen to 1958 levels, where would these successful graduates go? What would they do? If they had all graduated with As and Bs, they would have high expectations expectations for satisfying jobs which would use their talents. Expectations for further education. Expectations about their right to participate in society and to have a real voice in its direction. I think you can see that, for the people at the very top of this society, who have been instrumental in shipping jobs overseas and restructuring the workforce and downsizing the corporations and shifting the tax burden from the rich onto middle-class and working Americans the class of people, in short, who have been planning and reaping the benefits of the restructuring of American society for this class of people at the top, for the schools to succeed would be very dangerous indeed. How much better that the schools not succeed, so that, when young people end up with a boring or low-paying or insecure job or no job at all, they say, "I have only myself to blame." How much better that they blame themselves instead of the system. The reason that public education is under attack is this: our young people have more talent and intelligence and ability than the corporate system can ever use, and higher dreams and aspirations than it can ever fulfill. To force young people to accept less fulfilling lives in a more unequal, less democratic society, the expectations and self-confidence of millions of them must be crushed. Their expectations must be downsized and their sense of themselves restructured to fit into the new corporate order, in which a relative few reap the rewards of corporate success defined in terms of huge salaries and incredible stock options and the many lead diminished lives of poverty and insecurity. If my analysis is correct, it means that you public educators, every person in this room, and all the staff and colleagues you have irked with these many years you are under attack not because you have failed which is what the media and the politicians like to tell you. You are under attack because you have succeeded in raising expectations which the corporate system cannot fulfill. They are also attacking education for a second reason: blaming public education is a way of blaming ordinary people for the increasing inequality in society. It is a way of blaming ordinary people for the terrible things that are happening to them. The corporate leaders and their politician friends are saying that, if our society is becoming more unequal, if millions don't have adequate work or housing or health care, if we are imprisoning more of our population than any other country on earth, it is not because of our brutal and exploitative economic system and our atomized society and our disenfranchised population. No, they say, it is not our leaders or our system who are at fault. The fault lies with the people themselves, who could not make the grade, could not meet the standards. According to the corporate elite, the American people have been weighed in the balance, and they have been found wanting. Where does the education reform movement fit in this picture? My first experience with education reform came in September 1977, when I became Washington Director of the National PTA. It so happened that I began my job on the same day that Senators Daniel Moynihan and Robert Packwood and 51 co-sponsors filed the Tuition Tax Credit Act of 1977. The Tuition Tax Credit Act proposed giving the parents of children attending private schools a tax credit of up to $500 to cover tuition costs. The sponsors cited the SAT report as proof that the public schools were failing and that private schools needed support. Like many others in the public school community, I saw tuition tax credits as a real threat. I met with representatives of the NEA, the AFT, AASA, and others, and we formed the National Coalition for Public Education to oppose tuition tax credits. Over the next several months we organized a coalition comprising over 80 organizations with some 70 million members. The Tuition Tax Credit bill was a serious threat to public education. The entire federal budget for public elementary and secondary education at the time was about $13 billion. The Packwood-Moynihan bill would have taken about $6 billion from the public treasury. At the time, nearly 90% of our young people attended public schools. The Tuition Tax Credit Act proposed to give an amount equal to nearly half of all the federal monies spent on the 90% of children in public school to the parents of the 10% of children attending private school. Aside from its budgetary impact, the bill would have meant a reversal of the federal role in education. The historic role of the federal government in education has been to equalize educational opportunity. Tuition tax credits, since they are a credit against income and go chiefly to upper-income parents, would disequalize educational opportunity. Federal funding of private education would have established and given official sanction to a two-class system of education, separate and unequal. The Tuition Tax Credit Act had enormous media and political support. It passed the House in May, 1978. We were able to stop it in the Senate only in August, 1978 with tremendous effort , and then by only one vote. Like the Tuition Tax Credit Act that started it all, the official education reforms such as school vouchers, charter schools, school choice, school-based management, raising "standards," the increased use of standardized testing, the focus on "School to Work," and other reforms, are calculated to make education more sharply stratified, more intensely competitive, and more unequal, and to lower the educational attainment of the great majority of young people. They are calculated also to fragment communities and undermine the web of social relationships which sustains society, and so to weaken people's political power in every area of life. Just look at what has been proposed as "education reform." PRIVATIZATION AND FRAGMENTATION: Public schools have historically been at the center of neighborhhood and community life in the United States. In addition, the schools have been a public good which relies on the whole community for support and in which the whole community participates. School vouchers, tuition tax credits, charter schools, and school choice attack community connections among people. They attack the idea of a public good and replace it with the competition of isolated individuals competing to achieve their own private interests. In this way, privatizing education or establishing separate charter schools will dramatically undermine the power of ordinary people to affect the direction of society. Voucher and choice plans also legitimize greater inequality in America's schools, as students with better connections or more self-confidence choose better schools. Who can argue with tracking students into good schools or poor schools when the students themselves have apparently chosen their fate freely? School-based management is part of this trend. Though school-based management is usually touted as a way of "empowering" parents and teachers at the local level and of cutting back on the costs of central administration, its real purpose--aside from undermining the power of organized teachers--is to fragment school districts and communities, and further to disempower them. School-based management makes every school an island. It encourages people to think only about their own school and their own place within it. From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Thu Oct 23 10:59:18 1997 Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:45:52 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: The Attack On Public Education - PART 2 of 2 Sender: meisenscher@igc.org Path: news.igc.apc.org!cdp!not-for-mail From: lvpsf@labornet.org Newsgroups: labr.teacher Subject: Privatization, Corporations & The Attack On Public Education Date: 14 Oct 1997 00:09:12 RAISING STANDARDS: There is a world of difference between raising our "expectations"for students and raising "standards." Raising our expectations means raising our belief in students' ability to succeed and insuring that all the resources are there to see that they do. Raising standards means erecting new hoops for them to jump through. For years Massachusetts has ranked just after Mississippi as the state with the greatest inequality among its school districts. Vast inequalities still remain among Massachusetts schools. Sharply raising standards while not equalizing resources at a common high level, and using "high stakes" tests as the engine of reform, is setting many thousands of children and many school districts up for failure. Establishing a statewide core curriculum and curriculum frameworks can be very useful steps toward educational quality and equity. My limited conversations with teachers who have seen these frameworks in various disciplines, however, lead me to think that they are being established at unrealistic levels that will assure massive student failure. INCREASING STANDARDIZED TESTING: The massive increase in standardized testing is exactly the wrong thing to do in our schools. At the very time when educators are calling for more "critical thinking" and "higher-order thinking skills," teaching is increasingly being driven by standardized, norm-referenced, multiple-choice tests. The effect will be to narrow the curriculum and push teachers into teaching techniques geared toward memorization and rote learning. With more focus on norm-referenced testing, the content of education disappears, to become simply the "rank" of the individual student. The effect is to attack the relationships among students and force them into greater competition with one another. Education is more than ever reduced to a game of winners and losers. LOWERING THE SCHOOL LEAVING AGE: Another thrust of such plans has been to encourage young people to leave school at an earlier age. In 1985 I was employed by the Minnesota Education Association to help design a strategy to defeat the reform plan proposed by the Minnesota Business Partnership. The Minnesota Business Partnership Plan was probably the most sophisticated education reform plan proposed in any state at the time. It proposed, among other things, moving from a K-12 to a K-10 system, and giving a "Certificate of Completion" to all students who successfully completed the tenth grade. Only a select group of students projected to be about 20% would then be invited back to complete grades 11 and 12. The clear effect would have been that a great many students would end their education at age 16. What was the sense of this proposal? The Business Partnership claimed that the plan was designed to allow students greater "personal flexibility" and "choice." In fact it had a quite different purpose. Minnesota at the time had the highest school retention rate in the country: fully 91% of Minnesota's young people were graduating from high school, and a high proportion of these were proceeding on to college. By encouraging tens of thousands of young people to leave school at age 16, the Business Partnership comprising some of the largest Minnesota corporations, like 3M, ConAgra, and Honeywell would have created huge new pools of cheap labor in Minnesota, to work in stock yards and assembly plants and flip hamburgers. The Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993 does not have exactly the same proposal, but the Massachusetts law moves in a similar direction. In 1998 Massachusetts will require that all students pass a "high stakes" test in the tenth grade to be eligible to graduate. At the same time, the schools will begin offering students a "certificate of competence" upon successful completion of the tenth grade curriculum. What will be the effect of the "high stakes" test, especially if dramatic steps are not taken to insure that the educational programs offered young people in many poorer or urban districts are dramatically improved? I suspect that many thousands of young people who would otherwise be graduating with a high school diploma will leave school instead with a "certificate of competence" after the tenth grade. (Only 48% of Chicago's young people recently passed the new "high-stakes" test required for graduation.) I suggest to you that the effect of the high stakes 10th grade test will be to lower the school retention rate, and that it has the same purpose as the proposed Minnesota reform: to enlarge the pool of cheap labor, and to make it seem as if it is our young people and not our economic system that is failing. You may be aware that in 1995 for the first time in our history the gap between black and white high school completion rates was closed: 87% of black and of white young people between the ages of 25 and 29 have completed high school. Also, in the years from 1978 to 1993, the average SAT scores of black students rose 55 points. Are we now prepared to abandon these young people and undo this great progress? FOCUSING ON "SCHOOL TO WORK: Beginning with A Nation At Risk, nearly all of the education reform plans have been couched in terms of one great national purpose: business competition. According to these plans, the great goal and measure of national and educational progress is how effectively U.S. corporations compete with Japanese and German corporations in the international marketplace. I think that most educators most people, in fact are downright uncomfortable with the idea that the fulfillment of our human potential is best measured by the Gross National Product or the progress of Microsoft or General Motors stock on the Big Board. In the 1950s, Charles Wilson, the former president of General Motors whom Eisenhower had appointed Secretary of Defense, declared, "What's good for General Motors is good for the country." In the 1960s, however, millions of ordinary people became engaged in the civil rights and the anti-war movements and the rank-and-file labor movement. People began increasingly to question the role that the corporations play in American society and began to question the Gross National Product as the real goal and measure of democracy. Now come the corporate education reformers to tell us that the goal of human development is the success of Big Business! The education reform movement is attempting to reassert the moral authority of business as the guiding light of human society and corporate profit as the measure of human achievement. On a more concrete level, the "School to Work" program aims to shape every child to meet the needs of the corporations. What kind of terrible power are we giving these corporations, what gods have they become, if now we should sacrifice our children to them? Let me hasten to point out that there is much that is being done in the name of reform that is good, and I am sure that each of you has programs in his own district which you could point to as education reform in the best sense. Education reform has two faces. The goals of the official "reformers" are destructive. Public education in the U. S., however, is a huge enterprise, involving millions of students and teachers and administrators. There is no way that this huge undertaking can be changed without the active involvement of tens of thousands of educators and others. These people people like you and me and your teaching staff and other educators do not share the goals of the corporations. Far from it: we genuinely want children and schools to succeed. So the effect of the massive involvement of educators at the grassroots has been, to one extent or another, to push reform in a more positive direction. In fact, I believe that the appointment of John Silber as Chairman of the Board of Education was precisely to put a stop to popular involvement in education reform. Silber's role is to put the genii of democratic education reform back in the bottle, so that the goals of the corporate reformers can be achieved. It is important to see that the attack on public education does not stem from a "right-wing fringe," as some writers have charged, but from the most powerful corporate and government interests in American society. Business groups at the national level and in most states have led the call for vouchers and charter schools and new standards. President Clinton himself has made Charter Schools the focus of his efforts in K-12 education, and has made tuition tax credits the focus of new aid for higher education. The assault on public education is part of a wider strategy to strengthen corporate domination of American society. In the 'sixties and early seventies, at the time education was being greatly expanded, we experienced a "revolution of rising expectations," as people's ideas of what their lives should be like greatly expanded. These rising expectations threatened the freedom of elites in the U.S. and around to the world to control their societies. Beginning around 1972, both capitalist and communist elites undertook a counteroffensive, to lower expectations and to tighten their control. This counteroffensive took many different forms, all designed to undermine the economic and psychological security of ordinary people. For example, the export of jobs and restructuring of corporations which have left many millions of Americans unemployed or underemployed did not happen by chance. They are government policies. Corporations were given tax incentives to move their operations overseas. The huge debts incurred in corporate buyouts were made tax deductible. The safety net of social programs instituted during the New Deal and Great Society was dismantled. The gutting of these social programs was not a matter of fiscal necessity, as we were told, but of social control. David Stockman, while Budget Director for President Reagan, boasted that the Administration, by slashing taxes on corporations and the rich while vastly increasing military expenditures, had created a "strategic deficit" precisely in order to dismantle social programs. Why? Because programs such as food stamps and Aid to Families with Dependent Children and unemployment insurance make people less vulnerable to the power of the corporations. A succession of presidents, Republican and Democrat, has continued to cut the social safety net, to make people more frightened and controllable. The current supposed "crisis" in Social Security is a case in point. There is nothing wrong with the Social Security system that a few adjustments such as removing the upper limit on salaries that are taxed could not fix. Yet the government and corporations have mounted a scare campaign similar to the attack on public education to suggest that the Social Security system is near collapse and cannot survive without radical "reform," such as privatization. The goal is to make people feel insecure and vulnerable. WHAT CHANGES ARE NEEDED IN PUBLIC EDUCATION? We know that public education has important problems. We do not claim that the schools are not in need of change. The problem, however, is that the changes being proposed move in the wrong direction. They exacerbate the worst thing about the public schools: their tendency to reinforce the inequality of American society. At the heart of the public education system, there is a conflict over what goals it should pursue. On one side stand educators and parents and students, who wish to see students educated to the fullest of their ability. On the other side stand the corporate and government elite, the masters of great wealth and power. Their goal is not that students be educated to their fullest potential, but that students be sorted out and persuaded to accept their lot in life, whether it be the executive suite or the unemployment line, as fitting and just. The goal of this powerful elite for the public schools is that inequality in society be legitimized and their hold on power reinforced. This conflict is never acknowledged openly, and yet it finds its way into every debate over school funding and educational policy and practice, and every debate over education reform. A key question for us is, "What are we educating our students for?" The choices, I think, come down to two. We can prepare students for unrewarding jobs in an increasingly unequal society, or we can prepare our young people to understand their world and to change it. The first is education to meet the needs of the corporate economy. The second is education for democracy. The goal of the schools must be education for democracy. With this goal we would substitute high expectations for low, cooperation and equality for competition and hierarchy, and real commitment to our children for cynical manipulation. With the goal of education for democracy I believe we could build a reform movement that would truly answer the needs of our children and truly fulfill the goals that led us to become educators. There is no time for me here to outline a program of positive education reforms, although I have listed ten possible principles of reform on a separate sheet. Let me say in general, however, that the process of formulating positive reforms should begin with a far-reaching dialogue at the local and state levels, involving administrators, teachers, parents, and students, about the goals of education. This dialogue should examine present educational policy and practice to find what things contribute to self-confidence and growth and healthy connections among young people, and strengthen the relationships of schools to communities, and what things attack this self-confidence and growth and undermine these relationships. A similar dialogue should be organized in every community and at every school. It might include public hearings, at which parents and teachers and others are encouraged to state their views on appropriate goals for education, and to identify those things in their local school which support or retard these goals. Superintendents would have to be both leaders and careful listeners at such hearings. What conclusions can we draw from the analysis I have proposed to you? I suggest several: One is that you as educators are under attack not because you have failed, but because you have succeeded. A second is that you did not make a mistake, five or ten or twenty-five years ago, when you became an educator. The work you have been doing for all these years has made a tremendous contribution to our society, and you should be proud of it. A third is that your job now is more important than ever, because you have a mission. Your mission is to play a leading role in defending the institution of public education, defending it and saving what is best in it, and honestly and forthrightly leading change for the better. Your role is to help lead the fight for education for democracy. The theme of your Summer Institute is "Building Stable Institutions in an Unstable World." The key to building stability in our public schools is threefold: understanding why they are under attack, understanding what is of value in them, and forging a direction for change. What can we do, as superintendents and educators? I am sure we all will have our own ideas about this, but let me throw out a few suggestions: 1. M.A.S.S. should prepare superintendents to play a leading role in reversing the attack on public education, by establishing a standing committee responsible for planning a long-term, serious campaign; preparing a range of literature and other materials for use at the local level; and holding training and strategy sessions. The literature should explain the attack on public education: why it is happening, the role that the official education reforms play in this attack, and call for positive reforms. M.A.S.S. should organize discussions, perhaps using the Superintendents' Roundtables or some other vehicle, for superintendents to compare their own experiences dealing with these issues. 2. The most important thing to do is to reach out to the community with information explaining the attack on public education. We should remember that the community begins with us--that is, with all the many people involved in public education: teachers, administrators, parents and students. If we can educate and mobilize this great community force, we can achieve a great deal. 3. We should, through dialogue with other educators and with parents and students, develop positive education reforms consistent with achieving education for democracy. 4. We should create local and statewide coalitions to expose the attack on public education and to change the direction of reform toward education for democracy. We should use Massachusetts as the base for a national movement for education for democracy. We are called to a great purpose. We are called to build a movement capable of defending our institutions from corporate attack and capable too of transforming them, to lead them in a more democratic direction. We must build a movement to take back America from the corporate powers and the masters of great wealth, to place our country truly in the hands of the people. We will not be alone in this battle. The great majority of people in our schools and in our communities share the same fundamental beliefs about what our schools should be like and what our society should be like. We can build upon shared values of commitment to each other and to future generations, and shared belief in democracy. For most of the twentieth century, the people of the world have been trapped between capitalism and communism. Neither of these systems is democratic. Neither has held much promise for most people. Now communism has collapsed. I believe our task as we approach the end of the twentieth century is to create human society anew on a truly democratic basis, in which human beings are not reshaped and restructured to fit the needs of the economy, but rather social and economic structures are reshaped to allow the fulfillment of our full potential as human beings. Thank you. David Stratman 5 Burr Street Boston, MA 02130 (617)524-4073 e-mail: Newdem@aol.com From aikya@ix.netcom.com Sat Oct 25 14:29:58 1997 by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma018538; Sat Oct 25 15:11:40 1997 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'BizWomen'" , "'Field of Dreams'" , "'Labor Research and Action Project'" , "'Clifford L. Staples'" , "'united@cougar.com'" "'Clifford L. Staples'" Subject: Apology and $13,333.33 for Your Enslavemen Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:31:53 -0700 Anybody else singularly underwhelmed by this news of Thursday, Oct. 23/ "Julie Su, an attorney with the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, who represented the (El Monte and some other sweatshop) workers, said four companies had agreed to pay $2 million to the 80 Thais and 70 Latinos and that a fifth company had also agreed to pay an undisclosed sum. The $2-million payment, to settle a federal lawsuit brought by the workers, was agreed by B.U.M. International, L.F. Sportswear, Mervyn's and Montgomery Ward. Hub Distributors/Miller's Outpost agreed to pay an undisclosed sum, Su said. She said the settlement was approved by U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins. Representatives of the companies were not immediately available for comment but Su said as part of the agreement, the companies denied any knowledge of the workers' pay or conditions and also denied knowledge of, or contact with, the sweatshops or their owners. Seven people, all Thai nationals and mostly family members, who owned the sweatshops, are currently serving prison terms of 3 to 7 years after pleading guilty last year to federal charges of conspiracy, indentured servitude and harboring illegal aliens." I mean I'm glad those people got SOMETHING in cash, so to speak but it's not exactly a breathtakingly large amount when you divide it by 150. Is my math wrong or doesn't that come to around $13,333 each. And that's only if the attorney worked pro bono. Here is the U.S today, do they tax such a settlement or does it come under the same rules as a gift? If it's taxed, then what's left? Enough for a home down- payment? For a moderate priced car? For a year in college--maybe? If they must pay the lawyer and pay taxes, there's nothing left. And then the wonderful folks who nearly enslaved them get 3-7 years for conspiracy, indentured servitude and harboring illegal aliens. Wonder how much of that they will actually serve? Wonder who much money they made by imprisoning those people and making them work like slaves? It might be worth it to bring back slavery if it only involves a moderate fine and a little jail time. After all, not everybody would get caught anyway. But then again, there are how many million descendants of African slaves in this country who haven't even got this much satisfaction. Aikya Param, Publisher Women and Money, Economic Justice and Empowerment Every Month! P.O. Box 4193, Berkeley, CA 94704-0193; aikya@ix.netcom.com ************************************************************************ ********* Send your snail mail address for a sample copy! Thanks for your interest! ************************************************************************ ********* Past articles at: http://www2.netcom.com/~aikya/womenandmoney.html ***************************************************************** From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sun Oct 26 17:28:58 1997 Sun, 26 Oct 1997 16:23:32 -0800 (PST) Sun, 26 Oct 1997 16:17:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 16:17:09 -0800 (PST) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Scholars Artists & Writers for Social Justice; "Fear & Favor" Sender: meisenscher@igc.org [Distributed by request of SAWSJ. Please Circulate to Colleagues, Coworkers, Comrades & Friends. Apologies for multiple copies due to cross-posting.] Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:22:51 -0400 (EDT) From: kristin lawler Subject: WELCOME TO SAWSJ! [Except from Nation Ad] We take this moment of revitalized labor struggle to announce the formation of a new independent, national organization: "Scholars, Artists, and Writers for Social Justice." In the academy and in publishing, in the arts, sciences, and entertainment, we also experience the growth of low-wage, part-time employment which erodes our craft and creativity. We call upon our colleagues and friends to declare their solidarity with the organizing drives of the new labor movement. The time is ripe to restore the mutually empowering relationship that once gave hope and dynamism to the labor movement and its allies in the academic and cultural communities. We envision a movement that can reshape the nation's political culture by combating inequality and powerlessness, and by fostering the growth of a vibrant, militant, multicultural working-class movement. In an era when elite opinion makes a fetish of the free market, unions -- with a commitment to solidarity, equality, and collective struggle -- remain fundamental institutions of a democratic society. Our confidence in launching SAWSJ comes from the success of the "labor teach-in" movement, inaugurated last fall when more than 2,000 people affirmed a new alliance of labor and academe at Columbia University. In more than a score of other teach-ins from coast to coast, students, teachers, writers, artists, and unionists met, talked, learned, and argued in an atmosphere of hope and solidarity. SAWSJ hopes to fulfill the promise of those teach-ins. -------------------------------------------------- Dear Supporter: Thank you so much for your interest in Scholars, Artists, and Writers for Social Justice. The enthusiastic support that you and hundreds of other academics, writers, and concerned citizens have offered us over the past few weeks confirms us in our belief that the time is ripe for reestablishing a connection between the labor movement and the cultural and intellectual community that will provide us all with a strong and much-needed voice for democracy and social justice. Although we are a brand-new organization, we are already active. Our 83-person Steering Committee has already met several times and has adopted a provisional organization structure. Besides the more than twenty successful labor teach-ins of the past year, SAWSJ will be involved with teach-ins at New York University, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Brown University, University of Texas-Austin, University of Pennsylvania, University of Texas-El Paso, SUNY-Albany, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, and several other places. We will be publishing a newsletter and are planning to mount a major public event on the theme of "Labor and Democracy in the 21st Century" in conjunction with our founding convention in the spring of 1998. But for SAWSJ to make a real difference, it must become an active presence in cities and on campuses throughout the nation. It must, in short, organize local chapters. Since local priorities vary, there can be no set national agenda for these chapters. Some may want to mount teach-ins or other public programs, while others will want to support local organizing drives on or off the campus. Any group of interested individuals can put together such a chapter. The response to our earlier teach-ins and the Nation ad makes it clear that there are already many clusters of people who can form local chapters. If you would like to help organize a SAWSJ chapter in your area, we can put you in touch with other interested people. All you have to do is fill out the following form, hit "reply," and someone will contact you. Also, we encourage you to pass this letter on to others. At the end of the form is an excerpt from the Nation ad for people who may not be familiar with the organization. Thanks again. In Solidarity, Kristin Lawler for SAWSJ encl. SCHOLARS, ARTISTS, AND WRITERS FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 2565 Broadway, #176 New York, NY 10025 Please fill out this form and hit "reply." Thanks again! Name: Institutional Affiliation: Mail Address: Phone: Fax: Email: SAWSJ will be establishing a listserve to facilitate communication with our members. If you prefer to be contacted via regular mail, please indicate that with your mail address. *I would like to help form a SAWSJ chapter____ Recommended dues: *Student/Low Income: $10 *Below $40,000: $25 *Above $40,000: $40 *Additional Contribution____ Please make your check payable to SAWSJ and send it to the above address. You can also help us by keeping this letter alive-- pass it on! =============================================== URGE YOUR LOCAL PBS STATION TO AIR "FEAR AND FAVOR" On November 9th the NETA satellite system will be transmitting "Fear and Favor in the Newsroom." This means that virtually all PBS affiliates will have the opportunity to record and broadcast it if they choose. FAIR is urging media critics and activists everywhere to contact the program directors at their local PBS stations and urge them to air this revealing documentary. (Please see complete satellite information at bottom.) "Fear and Favor in the Newsroom" is an incisive critique of media self-censorship, based on testimonials from mainstream journalists who have witnessed it first-hand. The film offers just the sort of solid documentation needed by media critics and activists working to raise awareness of the dangers of corporate control and censorship. PLEASE JOIN US in urging your local public television station to air this documentary now. While you're on the phone with your local PBS program director, you can tell them that the NETA Satellite will be transmitting "Fear and Favor" at 7pm, on Sunday, November 9th. For further information contact the film-makers, Beth Sanders and Randy Baker, by phone (206) 325-3744; or e-mail them at baker-sanders@juno.com FAIR Activist Coordinator: Mikal Muharrar, (212) 633-6700, ext. 302; e-mail mmuharrar@fair.org From Urthman@aol.com Sun Oct 26 18:20:11 1997 From: Urthman@aol.com by mrin46.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) Sun, 26 Oct 1997 20:20:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 20:20:07 -0500 (EST) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: JwJ National Day of Action for Workfare/Welfare Justice, December 10, 1997 Jobs with Justice has called a National Day of Action for Workfare/Welfare Justice for December 10, 1997. A number of organizations have endorsed this National Day of Action. The themes for the Day of Action will be: * Jobs -- The real issue is the creation of full-time jobs paying a liveable wage. * Workers' Rights -- Displacing workers from their jobs and creating exploitative workfare jobs without any "employee" rights or protections is not reform. * Justice -- We cannot stand by while poor people are vilified, children go hungry and greedy corporations divert scarce public dollars into private profits. Tactics and targets will vary from state to state -- actions will be locally determined. Individuals have begun planning for the Day of Action in at least 25 states and 31 cities. To find out whether anything is already being planned in your area, or to get suggestions for possible actions you can plan, contact Jobs with Justice at (202)434-1106 or Fax (202) 434-1482 Ed Ramthun AFSCME Indianapolis, Indiana From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Mon Oct 27 16:13:31 1997 Mon, 27 Oct 1997 15:09:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 15:09:31 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: The Slow Boat to China, or 'How to Shanghai the US Economy'. (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:00:38 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley To: Future.Cities@wn.apc.org Subject: The Slow Boat to China, or 'How to Shanghai the US Economy'. With an approximate 50% turnout at the polls, the 35,000 person strong FORCED LABOR (aka 'Workfare') force of New York City has voted almost unanimously to unionize. The New York City Administration is trying to prevent unionizing by saying that workfare is not 'regular work' but only a temporary step toward regular and proper work. May I therefore suggest the following as a way of moving the SLAVES of New York City into regular and proper employment? First there must be no shortage of New York financiers who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Have them calculate the p.v. of workfare benefits. Then have the workfare slaves cash out for a discounted p.v. which will give the taxpayers a break. With the pooled funds these 35,000 people will buy Floating Shoreline Cities (see http://users.uniserve.com/~cultures) complete with computerized-robotized industrial complexes...the best America can offer. Maybe they will then set sail for Shanghai. With President Zemin at the helm? FWP. PS-Slavery can be defined by the following "If you don't do as we say, we may/will kill you or allow you to die (eg of starvation)". That is New York Workfare to-day. cc South China Morning Post; Labour Lists. From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Tue Oct 28 13:36:17 1997 Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:32:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:32:10 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: About Horses and Carts (fwd) Good point don't you think? If unemployment is necessary for the national economy to flourish, why not give medals of honour to the unemployed? FWP. ***** Usenet on Future Villages: vcn.false-creek; listserv on Future Cities: send email to khadija@wn.apc.org with "subscribe your-email-address" in the body; URL updates: ***** ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 28 Oct 1997 06:54:18 PDT From:Cdd-l@alternatives.com To: culturex@vcn.bc.ca Subject: About Horses and Carts ================[ Distributed Message ]================ ListServer: cdd-l (Canadians for Direct Democracy) Type: Not Moderated Distributed on: 28-OCT-97, 06:54:18 Original Written by: IN:acarrel@awinc.com. ======================================================= My reason for feeling uncomfortable with a "Qualified Democracy", e.g. DD or any other form (Volks Demokratie?) is that it may steer us towards remedies for symptoms. If we were to consider "Democracy" as an objective worthy of society's pursuit, in the same way one might consider "Justice" or "Liberty", knowing that we are not likely to see its pure form attained in our lifetime, it may nonetheless lead us on the struggle toward it. One of the problems with our times is that we have embarked on a pursuit of "Rights" which is a totally different path than "Democracy". Rights are self-centered, they are individual, and they absolve us of responsibility for society as a whole, inculding - ironically - ourselves. The traffic signs along the road to democracy remind us of "Virtues" and "Ethics", qualities that aim to restrain our less than lofty personal qualities for the benefit of society as a whole, us included. The traffic signs on the "Economy" road are "Efficiency" and "Productivity". If we concentrate on democratic fixes, more referenda, more votes, more consultation, while sticking to a "Rights" based methodology as we dance around the Golden Calf of the economy, we will keep defending the right of 15 year olds to prostitute themselves, we will continue to defend the rights of the poor to be homeless, the rights of corporations to borrow money to buy other corporations and the rights of people to reduce the return of their labour in order to keep a job. I am not talking about turning folks into Francis of Assisi clones, but I am asking whether the time may not have arrived to begin questioning our preoccupation with the "Economy", treating it as a virtual religion. For example, if 8% unemployment is necessary to keep inflation under control, should not the unemployed be considered national heroes? Are the unemployed not the front-line soldiers that maintain the value of our currency and preserve the equilibrium in our trade with other nations? If the unemployed are de facto performing a national service, should we not build monuments in their honour? Should we not provide them with free university education, life-time pensions? Should we hold annual parades to acknowledge their service to the nation? We consider the unemployed to be a drag on society, we want them to get off their ass and look after themselves, but when they do - when too many of them do - we place a few land mines in the economic battlefields to slow them down. Maybe the economy should be a servant of society, a means to an end, not the end in itself. Maybe the end could be "Democracy", and being on the front cover of magazines should not be a reward for being the leading man in a block-buster movie, but a reward for leading by example in the application of ethics and virtues in the way Andre Comte-Sponville describes them in his "Small Treaties of Great Virtues". Democracy & Economy - maybe it is all about horses and carts and which ought to go first. Forgive my ramblings, it is early in the morning and I have not yet had time to settle down to my daily grind. Andre Andre Carrel Phone 250-362-7396 FAX 250-362-5451 e-mail: acarrel@awinc.com From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Tue Oct 28 14:58:26 1997 Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:53:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:53:20 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Canadian/Christian Culture Continued. (fwd) To: mayorowen@city.vancouver.bc.ca, VanC , clrchiavario@city.vancouver.bc.ca, clrclarke@city.vancouver.bc.ca, clrdslee@city.vancouver.bc.ca, clrdtlee@city.vancouver.bc.ca, clrherbert@city.vancouver.bc.ca, clrkennedy@city.vancouver.bc.ca, clrprice@city.vancouver.bc.ca, clrpuil@city.vancouver.bc.ca, clrsullivan@city.vancouver.bc.ca publabor@relay.doit.wisc.edu, labor-l@yorku.ca, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, united@cougar.com, union-d@wolfnet.com, dave_rudberg@city.vancouver.bc.ca, mark_holland@city.vancouver.bc.ca, john_madden@city.vancouver.bc.ca, ian_smith@city.vancouver.bc.ca Dear Mayor Owen and Council: I will fax the complete letter from Mayor Prue to you later. The treatment of the poor in this city and this country is a disgrace. The outline which I will present to you orally on Thursday will be 20 K. added to my web sites.There is NOTHING NEW in this. It is mostly common sense and the ideas have been circulating on listserv's like those below for a long time. Sincerely-FWP. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:01:46 -0800 From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Canadian/Christian Culture Continued. Good point don't you think? If unemployment is considered to be necessary for a healthy national economy, then why not give the unemployed medals as national heros? As Vancouver's ELP (End Legislated Poverty Org'n.) puts it, poverty is man-made or legislated if you prefer. With the False Creek Project we can end unemployment and therefore absolute poverty. But as we attempt to do so, will all the powers of church and state descend on us to stop us? I'll know better after Thursday when I give a 5 minute speech to Mayor Owen and Council. In 1995 I saw Mayors Prue, Nunziata and others from Ontario on TV so I wrote for more detail. Mayor Prue replied on December 28/95: "I participated in the Walk a Week in my Shoes program which was sponsored by the Daily Bread Food Bank. In the program the participants were asked to limit their meals to the amount of monies left after fixed expenses were deducted. These expenses included rent,heat,hydro,telephone etc. In my case there was $17.15. For this modest amount I was able to eat 14 'meals' which included 3 breakfasts, 4 lunches, and 7 dinners. During the course of the week I lost 4 pounds. Physiologica; symptoms of humger, loss of concentration and irritability were apparent. More importantly I was isolated from social functions since there was no money for 'frills'." So Canadian Culture has instituted a system of malnourishment if not malnutrition. Is that any way to treat national heros? How about the way the churches treat our Heroes of the Economy in V6A, correctly called "The Poorest Ghetto in Canada" by Vancouver Magazine? From Salvation Army to Roman Cathlolics they line the poor up in front of their places of "charity" for "free" meals. All it costs is one's dignity and self-worth. In the good ol' days they just put poor people in pillories with a sign "pauper" hung around their necks. Is this more "charitable" than feeding the pigeons in the park? No. The pigeons are not denigrated as the "christians" denigate the poor in V6A. My observations on "Canadian and Christian Culture" will continue. FWP. ***** Usenet on Future Villages: vcn.false-creek; listserv on Future Cities: send an email to khadija@wn.apc.org with "subscribe your-email-address" in the body; URL updates: ***** ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:13:05 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley To: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: About Horses and Carts (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 28 Oct 1997 06:54:18 PDT From:Cdd-l@alternatives.com To: culturex@vcn.bc.ca Subject: About Horses and Carts ================[ Distributed Message ]================ ListServer: cdd-l (Canadians for Direct Democracy) Type: Not Moderated Distributed on: 28-OCT-97, 06:54:18 Original Written by: IN:acarrel@awinc.com. ======================================================= My reason for feeling uncomfortable with a "Qualified Democracy", e.g. DD or any other form (Volks Demokratie?) is that it may steer us towards remedies for symptoms. If we were to consider "Democracy" as an objective worthy of society's pursuit, in the same way one might consider "Justice" or "Liberty", knowing that we are not likely to see its pure form attained in our lifetime, it may nonetheless lead us on the struggle toward it. One of the problems with our times is that we have embarked on a pursuit of "Rights" which is a totally different path than "Democracy". Rights are self-centered, they are individual, and they absolve us of responsibility for society as a whole, inculding - ironically - ourselves. The traffic signs along the road to democracy remind us of "Virtues" and "Ethics", qualities that aim to restrain our less than lofty personal qualities for the benefit of society as a whole, us included. The traffic signs on the "Economy" road are "Efficiency" and "Productivity". If we concentrate on democratic fixes, more referenda, more votes, more consultation, while sticking to a "Rights" based methodology as we dance around the Golden Calf of the economy, we will keep defending the right of 15 year olds to prostitute themselves, we will continue to defend the rights of the poor to be homeless, the rights of corporations to borrow money to buy other corporations and the rights of people to reduce the return of their labour in order to keep a job. I am not talking about turning folks into Francis of Assisi clones, but I am asking whether the time may not have arrived to begin questioning our preoccupation with the "Economy", treating it as a virtual religion. For example, if 8% unemployment is necessary to keep inflation under control, should not the unemployed be considered national heroes? Are the unemployed not the front-line soldiers that maintain the value of our currency and preserve the equilibrium in our trade with other nations? If the unemployed are de facto performing a national service, should we not build monuments in their honour? Should we not provide them with free university education, life-time pensions? Should we hold annual parades to acknowledge their service to the nation? We consider the unemployed to be a drag on society, we want them to get off their ass and look after themselves, but when they do - when too many of them do - we place a few land mines in the economic battlefields to slow them down. Maybe the economy should be a servant of society, a means to an end, not the end in itself. Maybe the end could be "Democracy", and being on the front cover of magazines should not be a reward for being the leading man in a block-buster movie, but a reward for leading by example in the application of ethics and virtues in the way Andre Comte-Sponville describes them in his "Small Treaties of Great Virtues". Democracy & Economy - maybe it is all about horses and carts and which ought to go first. Forgive my ramblings, it is early in the morning and I have not yet had time to settle down to my daily grind. Andre Andre Carrel Phone 250-362-7396 FAX 250-362-5451 e-mail: acarrel@awinc.com From vtait@library.berkeley.edu Tue Oct 28 20:52:41 1997 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 19:55:40 -0800 (PST) From: Vanessa Tait To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: RE: TOYS: U.S. Made or Union Made Folks interested in this issue might like to know that historian Dana Frank (in the American Studies department at UC Santa Cruz) is writing a book about the class and race politics of Buy American campaigns. It's due out from Beacon Press sometime late next year. Vanessa Tait UCSC, sociology On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Ms. Aikya Param wrote: > Well this certainly is an interesting discussion. If anyone is > interested, in the campaign to get people to buy gifts that are > union made or U.S. made, if the union is in Guatemala or > Benin, that's okay with me. And if the U.S. made product is > made by some small business person who sells at an openair > market, that's okay with me too. > > I agree that the issues are not easy. Most Americans with enough > income to buy gifts, don't think much farther than the K-Mart > or Toys 'R' Us flyers they get in the Sunday paper, or what they > can quickly pick up in a quick drive to the megamall. Shall media > people wait until the best, most pure solution comes along or > should we stimulate awareness and discussion? > > Women and Money newsletter regularly supports Campaign for > Labor Rights campaigns and urges members to get involved > in their efforts. > > Clearly there are many kinds of things concerned people can > do to advance the cause of human rights and workers rights. > None of them are perfect. I guess I agree with whoever it was > who said they'd rather have the question than "the answer." > With the question in one's heart, many ways to advance human > betterment can be found. > > Aikya Param > Publisher > Women and Money > > ---------- > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 6:20 AM > To: Labor Research and Action Project > Subject: Re: TOYS: U.S. Made or Union Made > > Julia Stein wrote: > > > > > > > >Why in the world should labor activists and supporters favor the purchase > > >of U.S.-made toys (or any products) over others? There are a number of > > >obvious reasons why we shouldn't. > > > > > >1) The U.S. has a lower rate of unionization than many other countries. It > > >isn't very likely that a toy you buy that's 'Made in U.S.A.' is made by > > >union labor. > > > > > >2) If one believes in boycotting a country's commerce because of the > > >country's oppressive regime, as some activists do in the case of Burma or > > >Nigeria, for example, then the U.S. is the #1 country to boycott. It's > > >capitalist class is directly or indirectly responsible for a large share of > > >the misery in the world today -- a far, far larger share than the > > >governments of Burma and Nigeria could ever take credit for. > > > > > >If you must buy something from capitalists, then by all means try to buy > > >from unionized capitalist businesses. But don't make even the slightest > > >concession to the chauvinism of your own imperialist country. > > > > > > - For internationalism, > > > - Aaron > > > > > > > Param said that she is encouraging consumers to buy U.S. made and union > > made products. In the October issue of her magazine she had a section on > > books written by members of the L.A. local/National Writers Union and > > encouraged her readers to buy these books. The writers in my union local > > appreciate her actions. We're facing conglomerates who have bought the > > publishing compaies who don't promote author's books, so what Param is > > doing is like an oasis in the desert. Also, her actions have helped > > publicize the bad conditions in the publishing industry. > > > > Regarding Aaron's points: > > 1. The U.S. had a lower unionization than some countries but has a highter > > rate than others. So what. First, Param and others are urging people to buy > > union-made goods. Second, toys made in certain countries like China have > > been found to be made by sweated labor in extremely dangerous conditions to > > the workers. These campaigns aim at educating consumers as to the > > conditions of how these toys are made As a result of these educational > > campaigns recently, products made by child labor was banned. Good. > > > > 2. Param never mentioned boycotting any countries, so Aaron's second point > > is irrelvant. > > > > Furthurmore, the Reagan/Bush regimes in the United States had a policy > > called Carribean Basin Intiative that enocourages factories to close down > > their manufacturing in this country and move to Central America and the > > Carribean. NAFTA and GATT encourage plants to move overseas. These policies > > have been disasterous for American working people. If we want to rebuild > > this country, we need to have decent paying manufacturing jobs here again. > > We need to be paying people enough so that they can buy the products they > > make. The buy American campaign is a step in this direction. It's not > > chauvinism to want to rebuild devasted communities here in this country. > > > > If the left like Aaron can't have the decency to promote policies to help > > their fellow Americans, they should be ignored. And Aaron will effectively > > marginalize the left in the country. I don't think we should make the > > slightest concession to disasterous left-wing policies which ignore the > > suffering of millions of people on this continent. > > > > Julia > > > > Julia Stein > > jstein@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us > > > > Hello all. > Julia's view overlooks the complexity of global integration and the > political power of the U.S. to manipulate trade relations and other > global relations in its favor. The days when (some) American workers > could enjoy the comfort of union jobs and decent living standards -- > while the rest of the workers of the world lived in abject poverty -- > are gone forever, and why we would WANT to return to them is beyond me. > I guess some people still feel it is okay to enjoy their own prosperity > at the expense of others. I personally find that view repugnant. > American workers enjoyed their brief period of high living standards > (post WWII, before the Fall of the 70s) because of the hegemonic, > imperialist position of the U.S. and U.S. capital in the world. Others > suffered, and continue to suffer greatly because of that. If we want to > move forward, we need to understand our history. The "social accord" > existed when it did because it worked for capital. When the econonmy > changed and U.S. capital needed the room to cut costs, they destroyed > the accord. The conditions that made that accord possible are not coming > back. Time to think of a new strategy. > If we wish to repair the damage of deindustrialization to communities in > the U.S., we need to do so in light of the integration of the economy, > and our own dependence on the cheap labor (cheap consumer goods) and > natural resources of other places. Furthermore, to think that we are > going back to a nostalgic world of "good manufacturing" jobs is absurd. > The global economy has shifted in fundamental ways. > Certainly NAFTA and CBI were disastrous for workers in the U.S., and > they have not necessarily been beneficial for workers in the Caribbean > and in Mexico, but that is precisely because they are designed by the > government for the interests of capital. During the anti-NAFTA campaign, > ACTWU and other unions had a very interesting and comprehensive > alternative development plan for the Americas, designed by workers for > workers, and truly international. This is what is needed, not some > chauvinistic misplaced patriotism that demands we focus solely on > "American" workers. Capital is not concerned with national allegiance. > To suggest that we join hands with capital to try to rebuild this > country clearly indicates a lack of understanding of the forces at work > in the economy. The only way to protect workers in this world is to work > to protect workers everywhere, not just within some increasingly > irrelevant national boundaries. The Stop Sweatshops campaign is a good > example of what can be done with a truly international concern for > workers. > It's interesting that Julie thinks positions like Aaron's will be > ignored. If that's true, then we're doomed, and so are the workers Julie > is concerned about. Good luck saving "American" workers in a global > economy, Julie. > > > > > "If you act like there is no possibility for change, > you guarantee that there will be no change." > ~Noam Chomsky > > Rebecca A. Johns > Assistant Professor > Department of Geography > University of South Florida > 140 Seventh Avenue South > St. Petersburg, FL 33701 > 813-553-1556 > 813-553-1526 fax > rjohns@bayflash.stpt.usf.edu > > > From jstein@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us Wed Oct 29 09:20:15 1997 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:41:55 -0800 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: jstein@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us (Julia Stein) Subject: RE: TOYS: U.S. Made or Union Made >Folks interested in this issue might like to know that historian Dana >Frank (in the American Studies department at UC Santa Cruz) is writing a >book about the class and race politics of Buy American campaigns. It's due >out from Beacon Press sometime late next year. > Vanessa Tait > UCSC, sociology Regarding the history of "buy American campaigns" Jonathan Swift said in talking about the poverty of Ireland in that there were ways to ending this poverty: "taxing our absentees at five shilings a pound; of using neither clothes nor household furniture except what is of our own growth and manufacture; of curing the expensiveness of pride, vanity, idlelness, and gaming in our women; of introducing a vein of parsimony, prudent and temperance; of learning to love our country, in the want of which we differ even from Laplanders and the inhabitants of Tupinamba; of quitting our animosities and factions, nor acting any longer like the Jews murdering one another at the vey moment their city was taken; of being a little cautious not to sell our country and conscience for nothing; of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy toward their tenants ...." Sincerely, Julia Julia Stein jstein@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Oct 29 09:22:47 1997 Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:19:42 -0800 (PST) Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:13:34 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:13:34 -0800 (PST) To: Labor Research and Action Project From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: About Horses and Carts (fwd) Sender: meisenscher@igc.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 28 Oct 1997 06:54:18 PDT From:Cdd-l@alternatives.com To: culturex@vcn.bc.ca Subject: About Horses and Carts ================[ Distributed Message ]================ ListServer: cdd-l (Canadians for Direct Democracy) Type: Not Moderated Distributed on: 28-OCT-97, 06:54:18 Original Written by: IN:acarrel@awinc.com. ======================================================= My reason for feeling uncomfortable with a "Qualified Democracy", e.g. DD or any other form (Volks Demokratie?) is that it may steer us towards remedies for symptoms. If we were to consider "Democracy" as an objective worthy of society's pursuit, in the same way one might consider "Justice" or "Liberty", knowing that we are not likely to see its pure form attained in our lifetime, it may nonetheless lead us on the struggle toward it. One of the problems with our times is that we have embarked on a pursuit of "Rights" which is a totally different path than "Democracy". Rights are self-centered, they are individual, and they absolve us of responsibility for society as a whole, inculding - ironically - ourselves. The traffic signs along the road to democracy remind us of "Virtues" and "Ethics", qualities that aim to restrain our less than lofty personal qualities for the benefit of society as a whole, us included. The traffic signs on the "Economy" road are "Efficiency" and "Productivity". If we concentrate on democratic fixes, more referenda, more votes, more consultation, while sticking to a "Rights" based methodology as we dance around the Golden Calf of the economy, we will keep defending the right of 15 year olds to prostitute themselves, we will continue to defend the rights of the poor to be homeless, the rights of corporations to borrow money to buy other corporations and the rights of people to reduce the return of their labour in order to keep a job. I am not talking about turning folks into Francis of Assisi clones, but I am asking whether the time may not have arrived to begin questioning our preoccupation with the "Economy", treating it as a virtual religion. For example, if 8% unemployment is necessary to keep inflation under control, should not the unemployed be considered national heroes? Are the unemployed not the front-line soldiers that maintain the value of our currency and preserve the equilibrium in our trade with other nations? If the unemployed are de facto performing a national service, should we not build monuments in their honour? Should we not provide them with free university education, life-time pensions? Should we hold annual parades to acknowledge their service to the nation? We consider the unemployed to be a drag on society, we want them to get off their ass and look after themselves, but when they do - when too many of them do - we place a few land mines in the economic battlefields to slow them down. Maybe the economy should be a servant of society, a means to an end, not the end in itself. Maybe the end could be "Democracy", and being on the front cover of magazines should not be a reward for being the leading man in a block-buster movie, but a reward for leading by example in the application of ethics and virtues in the way Andre Comte-Sponville describes them in his "Small Treaties of Great Virtues". Democracy & Economy - maybe it is all about horses and carts and which ought to go first. Forgive my ramblings, it is early in the morning and I have not yet had time to settle down to my daily grind. Andre Andre Carrel Phone 250-362-7396 FAX 250-362-5451 e-mail: acarrel@awinc.com From shostaka@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Fri Oct 31 06:25:41 1997 Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 06:25:38 -0700 (MST) To: LABOR-RAP@csf.colorado.edu From: Art Shostak Subject: IT Feedback Request >From: Jon Geenen >Reply-To: jtg@serv1.vbe.com >Organization: UPIU > >Sisters and Brothers. > > I am working on an independent study project under the guidance of >Professor Art Shostak that explores union uses of info technology (IT). Thus >far, I have interviewed many individuals from my own union (UPIU) and, as >expected, have found that most of us have yet to realize the potential that IT >offers to labor. I have also posted a message to Solenet's listserve, and >while >the response was more encouraging, it was not great. > > I am appealing to you to provide me with stories of your >successes, experiments, etc. with IT. Any and all insights will be >appreciated. >It would be helpful to know how your union is using IT to organize, >strengthen the relationship with rank and file, research and education, etc. >More importanly, how do you think your union should be using IT to build >strength and democracy. > >Jon Geenen >United Paperworkers Int'l Union >jtg@vbe.com >920/766-9237 Arthur B. Shostak, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, Department of Psych/Soc/Anthro, Drexel University, Phila., PA, 19104; 215-895-2466; fax 610-668-2727. email: SHOSTAKA@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu http://httpsrv.ocs.drexel.edu/faculty/shostaka/ "This time, like all times, is a very good one if we but know what to do with it." Ralph Waldo Emerson From rjohns@bayflash.stpt.usf.edu Fri Oct 31 08:32:04 1997 Received: from bayflash.stpt.usf.edu (bayflash.stpt.usf.edu [131.247.140.1]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id IAA04143 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:32:01 -0700 (MST) Received: from johnson.stpt.usf.edu ([131.247.140.218]) by bayflash.stpt.usf.edu (8.8.3/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA14405 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:29:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3459F8D8.4C74@bayflash.stpt.usf.edu> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:27:20 -0500 From: Rebecca Johns X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: TOYS: U.S. Made or Union Made References: <199710291613.IAA19757@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julia Stein wrote: > > >Folks interested in this issue might like to know that historian Dana > >Frank (in the American Studies department at UC Santa Cruz) is writing a > >book about the class and race politics of Buy American campaigns. It's due > >out from Beacon Press sometime late next year. > > Vanessa Tait > > UCSC, sociology > > Regarding the history of "buy American campaigns" > > Jonathan Swift said in talking about the poverty of Ireland in that there > were ways to ending this poverty: > > "taxing our absentees at five shilings a pound; of using neither clothes > nor household furniture except what is of our own growth and manufacture; > of curing the expensiveness of pride, vanity, idlelness, and gaming in our > women; of introducing a vein of parsimony, prudent and temperance; of > learning to love our country, in the want of which we differ even from > Laplanders and the inhabitants of Tupinamba; of quitting our animosities > and factions, nor acting any longer like the Jews murdering one another at > the vey moment their city was taken; of being a little cautious not to sell > our country and conscience for nothing; of teaching landlords to have at > least one degree of mercy toward their tenants ...." > > Sincerely, > Julia > > Julia Stein > jstein@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us Dear Julie et al, A Chairde (friends), I am not sure what message you intended by posting this quote. Nationalism takes different forms in different situations. Irish nationalism serves as a positive force in attempting to empower an impoverished, colonized and partitioned nation, and in attempts to reunite that nation today. The same force of nationalism in the U.S. is a horse of a different color, since the U.S. is an imperialist power in the world, a colony no longer, and thus the force of nationalism here invariably causes harm to innocent people abroad. Nationalism must be understood within the context of uneven social, economic and political relations at the global scale, no? You cannot hold up the postive effects of nationalism in one case and assume they apply to all cases. But perhaps that was not your intention in posting this quote.... Rebecca Johns -- "If you act like there is no possibility for change, you guarantee that there will be no change." ~Noam Chomsky Rebecca A. Johns Assistant Professor Department of Geography University of South Florida 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 813-553-1556 813-553-1526 fax rjohns@bayflash.stpt.usf.edu From aaron@burn.ucsd.edu Fri Oct 31 22:15:45 1997 Received: from uclink4.berkeley.edu (uclink4.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.155.12]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id WAA07298 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 22:15:43 -0700 (MST) Received: from [152.171.69.97] (171-69-97.ipt.aol.com [152.171.69.97]) by uclink4.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA17696; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 21:15:31 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 00:16:20 -0500 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: aaron@burn.ucsd.edu (Aaron) Subject: RE: TOYS: U.S. Made or Union Made Cc: jstein@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us, aaron@burn.ucsd.edu I see no need -- in this context -- to evaluate the merits of Jonathan Swift's suggestions for dealing with the oppression of Ireland. (These are presumably meant seriously, unlike his 'Modest Proposal' and similar writings.) What is important is that he was writing about an oppressed, colonized nation, Ireland, and not about the greatest oppressor nation that has ever existed, the United States of America! The inability to distinguish between oppressed and oppressor nations is as much of a defect as the inability to distinguish between capitalist and worker. While the latter defect is widespread among the petty bourgeoisie of oppressed nations and nationalities, the former defect is common among workers of oppressor nations, and especially among those leftists who are based -- or seek to be based -- on or in that semi-privileged caste. Incidentally, the U.S.A. is not so much a nation as a multi-national state dominated by the Euro-American nation. The oppressed nationalities within the U.S. are in an intermediate position in the world order between the Euro-Americans and the peoples around the world that they themselves come from. 'Buy American' (i.e., 'Buy AmeriKKKan') campaigns either implicitly attack them or try to strengthen their identification with the oppressor nation against the most oppressed of the world. - For international solidarity against imperialism/capitalism, - Aaron >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:41:55 -0800 >From: jstein@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us (Julia Stein) > > >Regarding the history of "buy American campaigns" > >Jonathan Swift said in talking about the poverty of Ireland in that there >were ways to ending this poverty: > >"taxing our absentees at five shilings a pound; of using neither clothes >nor household furniture except what is of our own growth and manufacture; >of curing the expensiveness of pride, vanity, idlelness, and gaming in our >women; of introducing a vein of parsimony, prudent and temperance; of >learning to love our country, in the want of which we differ even from >Laplanders and the inhabitants of Tupinamba; of quitting our animosities >and factions, nor acting any longer like the Jews murdering one another at >the vey moment their city was taken; of being a little cautious not to sell >our country and conscience for nothing; of teaching landlords to have at >least one degree of mercy toward their tenants ...." > >Sincerely, >Julia