From kcwalker@syr.edu Mon Sep 1 05:47:08 1997 Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 07:45:48 -0400 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Kelley Crouse Subject: Re: No more articles In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970831170754.496f5cb4@pop.igc.org> Labor-Rappers: We generally don't have a great deal of intense debate on this list but I figure what the heck, so here goes: I am really curious as to why we are submitting to these copyright laws. This *is* a list that supports labor issues. And, no doubt there are many subscriber who challenge capitalism and the institutions and practices that support the idea that property is private. As I understand it (and I admit that I could be way off base here), newspapers such as WSJ have copyright agreements that one must sign in order to subscribe to the electronic version of the paper, agreements that explicitly forbid one to forward articles to lists such as this. But this is a departure from accepted practice when it comes to print material; indeed, they cannot forbid such mass distribution of their print articles because of the fair use provision. In other words, the fair use provision would allow someone to xerox 500 articles and distribute them through the mail or at a meeting or place them on an information table in the lobby of a Dr's office. As long as one doesn't profit from these distributions and as long as its for 'educational' purposes, then it's perfectly acceptable to reproduce print articles. So, why aren't we asking why these online newspapers are upping the stakes with regard to resending or forwarding electronic articles. Well, we don't need to ask why; it's easy to figure out why. So my real point is this: why are we allowing them to get away with this is the first place? These copyright restrictions that have been constructed for electronic media are blantantly being used for the purpose of turning the internet/web into a market where information is privately owned and must be paid for. Aren't we, in some sense, supposed to be fighting these sorts of thing? Kelley "If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." --Thomas Pynchon Kelley Greenman Crouse Sociology Department Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Syracuse, NY 13244 From natcav@ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 1 08:19:22 1997 by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id sma017717; Mon Sep 1 09:18:54 1997 Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 09:19:51 -0500 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Bryan Thompson Subject: Re: No more articles Kelly >As I understand it (and I admit that I could be way off base here), >newspapers such as WSJ have copyright agreements that one must sign in >order to subscribe to the electronic version of the paper, agreements that >explicitly forbid one to forward articles to lists such as this. But this >is a departure from accepted practice when it comes to print material; >indeed, they cannot forbid such mass distribution of their print articles >because of the fair use provision. In other words, the fair use provision I agree and on our labor web site have reposted many of these articles. I only post labor articles, for the education of our members and others in labor. Here is the pertinent code for fair use. 17 USCS Sect. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-- 1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2.the nature of the copyrighted work; 3.the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. I think we fall in this, and I am sure we are having no effect on them commerically. What is good for paper is good for the electronic medium as well. I hope to develop a better understanding, as I am sure there are some on here who must have some law background. Bryan Bryan Thompson H: 630-860-7423 Staff@NATCAVoice.org http://www.NATCAVoice.org Editor - The NATCA Voice 800-SKY-TALK ; Pin 114-9137 From aikya@ix.netcom.com Mon Sep 1 10:42:29 1997 by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id sma008679; Mon Sep 1 11:42:17 1997 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'Labor Research and Action Project'" Subject: Part Timers Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 09:36:43 -0700 I'm on a committee regarding temporary part timers' work issues. We are preparing for contract talks. Our union represents clerical workers at a university. I would be interested in any research others have done about this issue especially on university campuses. Also I would be interested in contract language regarding part time employees, negotiated in the last 3-5 years, especially including extending benefits to part timers and limiting the length of time before a temporary worker must become permanent. Aikya Param Publisher Women and Money http://www2.netcom.com/~aikya/womenandmoney.html *************************** "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community." **************************** From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Sep 1 11:36:10 1997 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 10:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Mon, 1 Sep 1997 10:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 10:29:30 -0700 (PDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, Labor Research and Action Project From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Re: No more articles Sender: meisenscher@igc.org Bryan: Thanks for making the Fair Use doctrine available. I should explain that the concern about copyright infringement came not from the list moderator or any subscriber but from the administrator of a university that archives the content of many different lists. I reproduce below my response to his most recent communication. To be fair, he has said that he is not comfortable having to excise my postings from the archive but feels obligated to do so in order to protect the university's interests. He also clarified that he was not suggesting that I should cease posting this material to the lists; only that he would have to delete my postings (via a filter on my name) from the archives the university maintains. I also mistakenly believed he was referring to Labor-Rap when in fact he was referring to Pen-L (although the principle at stake applies to any list). Whatever action he determines to take, it will apply only to archival material maintained by the university, not to the primary postings to the lists themselves. It probably is not a bad idea, however, for me to be more restricted in posting articles to the list so that the list can be devoted more to exchanges of opinion than reproduction of published material. Those who want all the material can request to be placed on my distribution list, as I have suggested. These distributions include a far wider range of materials than I have ever posted to Labor-Rap itself. In solidarity, Michael ****************************************** Dear Don: I believe your apprehension about potential liability on the part of the university is over-extended. Thanks to someone on Labor-Rap who posted it, I am reproducing below the Fair Use Doctrine of the Copyright law. I believe my postings to Pen-L and other lists do not constitute a breach of the law. a) I post purely for educational purposes. b) These posts go only to subscribers to non-profit newsgroups constituted as affinity groups with a common intellectual interest. c) The number of people who receive the posts is probably smaller than the number of students in a large lecture section of a university course. d) Neither I nor anyone else that I am aware of gains financially as a consequence. e) Given the global broadcast reach of media websites, with a potential audience in the tens of millions, the relatively small number of people who receive my posts represents an inconsequential potential impact on the financial interests of the owners of these websites. f) An argument could easily be made that my highly selective and limited postings actually promote the interests of the media owners by enticing recipients to either subscribe or visit their websites in order to obtain access to their complete publication offering. Do what you believe to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the university. But keep in mind that as an non-profit educational institution making available archival material for educational purposes, the university poses no threat to the media owners of these websites. In almost all cases, these websites only retain posted articles for a short period (usually less than two weeks), during which time they commercially exploit their publication (not by selling access but via incidental advertising of their own or other products and services), and after which in many cases the articles are either no longer available, or are archived by the website itself. It would be a real stretch to believe a claim that the university's archives in any way do damage to these media corporations. Finally, before the university would be at risk, I believe, the media owners would have to give them notice to cease and desist after making a claim of potential injury or violation of copyright laws. At that point the university could simply comply with the demand and thereby would be at no further risk. [SNIP] In solidarity, Michael FAIR USE DOCTRINE: 17 USCS Sect. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-- 1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2.the nature of the copyrighted work; 3.the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. *************************************************** At 09:19 AM 9/1/97 -0500, Bryan Thompson wrote: >Kelly > >>As I understand it (and I admit that I could be way off base here), >>newspapers such as WSJ have copyright agreements that one must sign in >>order to subscribe to the electronic version of the paper, agreements that >>explicitly forbid one to forward articles to lists such as this. But this >>is a departure from accepted practice when it comes to print material; >>indeed, they cannot forbid such mass distribution of their print articles >>because of the fair use provision. In other words, the fair use provision > > >I agree and on our labor web site have reposted many of these articles. I >only post labor articles, for the education of our members and others in >labor. > >Here is the pertinent code for fair use. > >17 USCS Sect. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: fair use >Notwithstanding the > provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted >work, including > such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other >means specified > by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news >reporting, teaching > (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or >research, is not an > infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a >work in any > particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall >include-- > > 1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use >is of a > commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; > 2.the nature of the copyrighted work; > 3.the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to >the copyrighted > work as a whole; and > 4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of >the copyrighted > work. > >I think we fall in this, and I am sure we are having no effect on them >commerically. What is good for paper is good for the electronic medium as >well. > >I hope to develop a better understanding, as I am sure there are some on >here who must have some law background. > >Bryan > > >Bryan Thompson H: 630-860-7423 >Staff@NATCAVoice.org http://www.NATCAVoice.org >Editor - The NATCA Voice 800-SKY-TALK ; Pin 114-9137 > > From rross@clarku.edu Mon Sep 1 12:39:12 1997 Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 14:17:16 -0400 From: "Robert J.S. Ross" Subject: laborday op-ed To: Clean Clothes Campaign , Labor Research and Action Project , "Kennedy, Senator Edward" , "Ross, Gabriel" , "Ross, Rachel" , "Irenegreene, Linda" Reply-to: rross@clarku.edu -- _____________________________________________________ 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 _____________________________________________________ From aaron@burn.ucsd.edu Tue Sep 2 02:29:15 1997 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 04:28:48 -0400 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, LABOR-L@YORKU.CA, , marxism-news@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU From: aaron@burn.ucsd.edu (Aaron) Subject: New radical left library in Moscow asks for support THE VICTOR SERGE FOUNDATION, INC 16 rue de la TEINTURERIE 34000 MONTPELLIER, FRANCE TEL/FAX (334) 67 63 14 36 Press Release, August 30, 1997 SMALL MIRACLES OCCASIONALLY OCCUR! "BOOKS FOR STRUGGLE" PROJECT A SUCCESS: VICTOR SERGE PUBLIC LIBRARY OPENS IN MOSCOW, APPEALS FOR CONTINUED SUPPORT. The following report has just been received from Julia and Alexei Gusev* in Russia: "The Victor Serge Public Library in Moscow has been open since the 1st of May 1997. It is the first and only Russian library to take up the task of acquainting the Russian public with scholarly and political literature of a left-wing (anti-capitalist and anti-bureaucratic) orientation." In addition to lending books, the Library is used for discussions. The Library welcomes donations of books and journals as well as financial contributions (see addresses below). "We are working in cooperation with the Self-Government Committee of a public library in a Moscow neighborhood," the Gusev's report. "Books are leant out, there are classes and discussions, most recently on the 1936 Spanish Revolution. The Library Committee appeals to all organizations and individuals that would like to support the spread of left-wing ideas and the development of the workers' movement in Russia to help our work." The opening of the Library culminates a successful international project which began in 1995 with "Books for Struggle," a campaign to "send political dynamite to Russia" by shipping left-wing books and journals donated by U.S. activists and publishers to Moscow. To quote the "Books for Struggle" Appeal: Russian activists and intellectuals have been cut off for seventy-five years from serious information about Western labor struggles and trends in socialist thought. Such knowledge is vital to the new Russian left that is struggling to find its way under the most difficult and confusing conditions. During 1995-96 forty six cartons of donated radical material were collected and stored in the office of "News & Letters," the Marxist-Humanist organization based in Chicago. The Victor Serge Foundation organized the shipment by truck, ship, and rail to Moscow via Hamburg. The Institute of Political and Labor Studies offered them a space -- a near-miracle in high-rent Moscow. Renfrey Clarke, the Moscow-based Australian journalist, organized the actual miracle of getting them through customs. (He eventually succeeded by enlisting the aid of an unemployed actor, who impersonated an irate official.) Another goal of the project was to create a center around the books where members of the fragmented Russian "new left" could come together for discussion and reflection around the donated books, according to Richard Greeman of the Serge Foundation.** The Library was set up "on the initative of representatives of various left-wing currents (from democratic socialists to anarcho-syndicalists), with support from the Victor Serge Foundation," according to the Gusevs. It was named after Victor Serge (1890-1947) the Franco-Russian writer and revolutionary who was active in many countries and whose career spanned Marxism and anarchism. Cartons of books and journals can be mailed directly to the Victor Serge Public Library, Balaklavsky Prospect 4-6-365, 113639 Moscow, Russia. FAX: (095) 292-65-11, Box 8020 "Struggle." Tax-deductable financial contributions should be made out to the Victor Serge Foundation and mailed to 16 rue de la Teinturerie, 34000 Montpellier, France. Contact Person: Richard Greeman # Please copy and pass on! # Please print or excerpt in your publication! # Please post on E-Mail forums and the Web! * Julia Guseva recently translated Victor Serge's Memoires of a Revolutionary and Conquered City into Russian for publication this Fall. Alexei Gusev is active in organizing a conference on Leon Trotsky's legacy (including discussion of Serge) for October 1997. ** The the non-profit Victor Serge Foundation Inc. was established in 1996 when the Yale University Library bought Victor Serge's archives. The proceeds are used to provide modest sums to support translation and publication of Serge's writings as well as small projects like "Books for Struggle." Tax-free contributions are welcome. ---------- mailto:aaron@burn.ucsd.edu http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aaron From aaron@burn.ucsd.edu Tue Sep 2 02:31:50 1997 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 04:32:43 -0400 To: , Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, LABOR-L@YORKU.CA From: aaron@burn.ucsd.edu (Aaron) Subject: KOOP-FM Supports Pacifica Workers and FreePacifica ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 23:38:10 +0000 From: Lyn Gerry Subject: KOOP-FM Takes A Stand In Support of Pacifica Workers From: Bananaboy Subject: KOOP's unofficial press release Please forward this as far and wide as possible. KOOP Radio in Austin, Texas takes a stand in support of workers at Pacifica stations in their struggle for a fair and equitable union contract On August 25th the Board of Trustees of KOOP Radio voted to support the workers at Pacifica's member stations WBAI, KPFK, and KPFA in their fight for a fair and equitable union contract. We believe that our mission as a community radio station committed to serving and supporting those disadvantaged by the power structures in our society, including workers, requires us to speak out against injustice wherever we find it. And in this case, as fellow members of the public broadcasting community, we have a special obligation to do so if we are to remain true to our ideals and credible to those who support us. KOOP Radio is especially concerned with Pacifica's: 1)attempts to remove union protection from unpaid staff at WBAI-FM and KPFA-FM and certain paid staff at all stations. 2) expenditures of the public's money to retain professional union-busting consultants, and attempts to keep knowledge of these expenditures from the public through closed meetings and spin control. 3) disparagement of the contributions and abilities of unpaid workers and community volunteers in radio broadcast operations. 4) enforcement of gag orders designed to keep the public in ignorance. 5) union contract provisions and other personnel policies which threaten workers with termination for revealing internal station matters to the public in any venue. 6) harassment, intimidation and purges of those who are defending the rights of workers within Pacifica to collective bargaining and participation in decision-making or attempting to inform the public of other controversial policies and practices being instituted by the management. The definition of "support" in terms of KOOP's actions mean that KOOP will: 1) continue to support individual programmers who broadcast information on the struggles of the UE, CWA, FreePacifica, and it's paid and unpaid staff in their fight for a fair and equitable union contract. 2) broadcast information on the struggles of the UE, CWA, FreePacifica, and it's paid and unpaid staff in their fight for a fair and equitable union contract 3) and seek advise from the UE, CWA, and FreePacifica in our actions regarding the struggles of these groups in obtaining their goals For more information contact KOOP's Community Board at (512)441-4701 http://www.radio4all.org http://www.radio4all.org/freepacifica ---------- mailto:aaron@burn.ucsd.edu http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aaron From lord_g@crob.flint.umich.edu Tue Sep 2 07:49:47 1997 From: "George Lord" To: Labor Research and Action Project , Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 09:48:37 EST Subject: Re: MI. college faculty canned? In-reply-to: <2.2.16.19970829221207.4f1f4a0a@pop.igc.org> On saturday the Ferris State Faculty recieved letters from the adminsistration threatening to stop all faculty health benefits unless faculty members immediately returned to work. Last night an agreement was reached to return to work today (Tuesday) and continue talks under the supervision of a state arbitrator provided by the Michigan Employees Relations Commission (MERC). Michael Eisencher wrote: Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 22:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Reply-to: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Eisenscher To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: MI. college faculty canned?; UAW tries again in TN. BIG RAPIDS, Mich., Aug. 29 (UPI) -- A public university in Michigan is threatening to replace any of the 450 striking faculty members who fail to report for work by Tuesday. Professors and other teachers walked out earlier this week at Ferris State University. They responded to the latest threat today by suspending all strike activity until next week and offering to negotiate over the Labor Day weekend. The strike crippled the 8,500-student campus on the first week of the fall semester. Some classes were conducted by part-time teachers who crossed picket lines. In a letter to all tenured faculty members, Interim Vice President for Academic Affairs Joseph Chartkoff ordered strikers to report to the human resources office Tuesday and be ready for work by 8 a.m. Wednesday. Chartkoff wrote that faculty members who fail to meet the deadlines ``can be assumed to have resigned from the university.'' He continued ``it is incumbent upon us all to attend to our responsibilities as educators.'' The Ferris Faculty Association voted to strike after rejecting the latest contract offer from the board of trustees. Teachers have been without a contract since July 1994. Key issues in the dispute include wages, contract length, hiring practices, faculty evaluations and retirement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- SMYRNA, Tenn., Aug. 29 (UPI) -- An effort to unionize 5,000 Nissan auto workers in Tennessee appears in jeopardy. A United Auto Workers union petition drive won't be finalized until next week but Nissan Motor Corp. spokesman Bucky Kahl (KAYL) says employees apparently ``prefer to remain union-free.'' The United Auto Workers union has been trying to organize the Japanese company's only U.S. assembly plant for 15 years. Chuck McDonald of the UAW in Tennessee tells UPI, ``I'm not overly optimistic but I'm not going to be a pessimist'' about the drive's outcome. He says ``several hundred petitions,'' each with up to 10 signatures, are ``still out'' even though today is the deadline. McDonald says the union will press forward with a federally supervised election if it wins support from 65 percent of the workers. The latest drive began in July. Earlier this year, about 1,000 Nissan workers held a rally supporting the union and McDonald says there are more than 400 workers who've formed committees in anticipation of the UAW's arrival. But Kahl says the automaker can ``best achieve its goals without third-party intervention.'' -------------------------------------------------------------------- >Don't they always say that? -------------------------------------------------------------------- This is passed on from another network with permission. Cheers, Ken Hanly A colleague passed on to me this tid-bit --- from Disney's contract with SUBSCRIBERS to its for-pay Web site: Disney shall exclusively own all now known or hereafter existing rights to the Information of every kind and nature THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE and shall be entitled to unrestricted use of the Information for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without compensation to the provider of the Information. . . (emphasis added) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Boyd, Dept. of Management and Marketing, College of Commerce, University of Saskatchewan, 25 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Sask., CANADA S7N 5A7 boyd@lighthouse.usask.ca Phone: (306) 966 8436 Fax: (306) 966 8709 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- George Lord Department of Sociology University of Michigan - Flint e-mail lord_g@flint.crob.umich.edu voice (810) 762-3340 fax (810) 762-3687 From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Tue Sep 2 10:07:05 1997 Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:33:08 -0700 (PDT) Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT) To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, h-UCLEA@h-net.msu.edu From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Fw: Looking for info on US legislation Sender: meisenscher@igc.org -----Begin Included Message ----- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 10:34:01 +0200 From: "Johan Petter Andresen" Subject: Looking for info on US legislation To: Dear friends, I am looking for information on the legislative framework for industrial relations in the USA. In Norway the question of "most representative" unions at firm level having sole rights to negotiate collective agreements is arising. I have understood that in the US there are laws restricting whole trades acting together. Can you help me find places with basic information and/or commenting articles? Johan Petter Andresen ---- End Included Message ---- From rross@clarku.edu Tue Sep 2 12:17:27 1997 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 14:16:12 -0400 From: "Robert J.S. Bob Ross" To: Campaign for Labor Rights , Labor List , Linda Irenegreene , Gabriel Ross , Clean Clothes Campaign Subject: labor day/second try This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------077CFF53544174588235DD80 Pardon me if this is a second posting: I got one error message that indicated I had sent a blank page. Rjsr This Labor Day May Begin A New Era for Working People [published in substantially similar form as "The rosy times aid labor's cause" in the Worcester Telegram, 9/1/1997, op-ed page A13] by Robert J.S. Ross * The Teamster's strike against UPS  and its result  may become one of those moments we remember afterwards as representing a corner turned, a new chapter opened. When the strike and then the replacement of the air traffic controllers signaled the Reagan Administration's determined hostility to unions and their members' perspectives in 1981, a long era of union decline and growing income inequality began. So this recent labor action may signal a reversal of the falling fortunes of the labor movement. The engagement between the Teamsters and United Parcel Service took place, however, on ground uniquely favorable to union. UPS has such a large fraction of the market (about 80 percent) that it has considerable price making ability. The Teamsters' members are over half of all the employees of the firm, and unlike manufacturing firms, UPS could not threaten to make their product elsewhere. Further, as in many industrial situations, pressure both community based and official to settle quickly tended to favor the union. Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman may have been fair in her mediation, but by keeping the pressure on the parties to settle she indirectly helped the union. Indicative of the newly positive atmosphere for labor, the Teamster's cause was popular, and Secretary Herman has been lauded in Washington. With only ten percent of the private labor force represented by unions, American labor needed good news and community support desperately. Reform minded AFL-CIO President Sweeney knew this when he pledged financial help to reform minded Teamster President Carey. Both these leaders, and their staffs, paid attention to two aspects of industrial relations neglected in the recent past. They are oriented to grass roots democracy in their own unions and they know they need community support and allies. Rand Wilson, director of communications for the Teamsters, moved from Massachusetts to Washington, D.C. 10 months ago to plan the Teamster's campaign. Wilson carefully but quietly cultivated academic and community opinion in the months leading up to the strike. For example, Teamsters and Wilson mailed out thousands of research pamphlets on the part-time issue as far back as last Fall. This kind of community orientation for labor is especially relevant to the problems faced by today's workers. Increasing part-time work as a fraction of all jobs is only part of the problem. Wages lag behind productivity gains. The gap between the rich and poor is growing wider. The compensation of chief executives is greater in relation to production workers than most in other high income countries  higher than Germany or Japan. The fraction of national income going to the very richest 1% and ten percent of the population is growing. The rich are getting richer; the poor are getting poorer. This growing inequality, and the outbreak of severely substandard employment conditions here int he US, in sweatshops and other forms of abuse, put in question the public rhetoric which honors the work ethic. The way to value hard work is to value the hard worker. What then, is the symbolism of the value of work when a firm pays tens of millions of dollars in pay and bonuses to its chief, as does Disney, yet produces its T-shirts through contractors in Haiti where workers are unable to survive on the three dollars a day they earn? Or when the owners of the immensely profitable Guess Jeans, made wealthy themselves, respond to pressure to clean up the sweatshop practices of their contractors by moving their work to Mexico? Here in the Commonwealth dozens of new apparel shops regularly fail to pay the minimum wage, no less a living wage. State Representative, James J. Marzilli, Jr., D-Arlington, is filing a bill designed by United for A Fair Economy and Tax Equity Alliance of Massachusetts to remind us that our own tax code endorses behavior which creates excessive inequality and dishonors the work of the people at the bottom. This is the total deductibility of executive compensation as a legitimate business expense. Marzilli and the sponsors have introduced the bill in the Legislature, in parallel with a national proposal, to limit the amount of executive compensation that could be declared a business expense to 25 times the lowest paycheck in a company. It is, to be sure, controversial, but let the controversy remind us, today, of the meaning of the phrase " the dignity of labor." Would stock holders tolerate over 20 million dollars of compensation to a CEO if some fraction of that came out of their dividends rather than Uncle Sam's treasury? While in other countries CEO pay is rarely as high as 30 times the average worker, our larger companies have gone from 44 times to 210 time. Even Rush Limbaugh has said "something ought to be done." How do we feel about subsidizing executive opulence with our Tax dollars while wages lag and part time work increases? Any time unemployment is as low as it is now, around 4% in the Commonwealth, a feeling of well-being suffuses the body politic and consumer confidence soars. Yet it is at just such moments in history that people are confident enough to express their grievances and work to correct what they see as injustice. We should not be surprised then, if a certain amount of labor unrest becomes visible, and political activists make new demands. Better raucous prosperity than quiet poverty. __________ *Robert Ross is Professor and Chair of Sociology at Clark University where he is writing a book on the sweatshop issue. --------------077CFF53544174588235DD80 begin: vcard fn: Robert Ross n: Ross;Robert email;internet: rross@clarku.edu title: Prof. x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE end: vcard --------------077CFF53544174588235DD80-- From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Tue Sep 2 23:00:40 1997 Tue, 2 Sep 1997 21:59:29 -0700 (PDT) Tue, 2 Sep 1997 21:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 21:53:41 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Sweatshop Curriculum Packet; Article on Nike Sender: meisenscher@igc.org /* Written 9:27 AM Sep 2, 1997 by clr in igc:labr.announcem */ /* ---------- "Sweatshop Curriculum Packet" ---------- */ Labor Alerts/Labor News a service of Campaign for Labor Rights 1247 "E" Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 clr@igc.apc.org (541) 344-5410 http://www.compugraph.com/clr GLOBAL SWEATSHOP CURRICULUM PACKET Written and edited by Campaign for Labor Rights staff, the Global Sweatshop Curriculum Packet has more than 50 pages of useful information for teachers wanting to present this timely and important topic in their classroom: key terms, classroom exercises, background on several high-profile sweatshop and child labor campaigns, Q&A, further resources, profiles of young activists and their work and more -- all presented in classroom language. Separate versions for the U.S. and Canada. There is nothing else like this available. The sweatshop curriculum packet is campaign-oriented. It presents a highly abstract concept -- global economics -- in concrete terms. Throughout the packet, issues are framed with reference to two specific campaigns dealing with child labor (FoulBall and Rugmark) and three specific campaigns dealing with sweatshop practices (Nike, Disney, Guess). The packet discusses sweatshop issues both at home and overseas. The packet is intended for use in classrooms for 4th through 12th grade students. The material is not divided by grade levels. Instead, teachers are invited to select and adapt as appropriate for their students. This resource is by PRE-PAY ONLY: $12.50 (US) to U.S. addresses, $20.00 (Canadian) to Canadian addresses. Send check or money order to Campaign for Labor Rights, 1247 "E" Street SE, Washington, DC 20003. ********************************* Please repost this announcement where teachers are likely to see it. ********************************* CAMPAIGN FOR LABOR RIGHTS newsletter subscriptions: Send $35.00 to 1247 "E" Street SE, Washington, DC 20003. For a sample copy, send your postal address to clr@igc.apc.org. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To receive our email Labor Alerts, send a message to clr@igc.apc.org with "labor alerts -- all campaigns" in the subject line or specify which labor issues interest you: Nike, Disney, Guess, child labor, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador, US farm workers, US poultry processing workers. If you would like to receive information which falls outside those categories (prison labor, workfare, other policy issues, additional briefing material on some campaigns), indicate that you want to be on our Additional Labor Information list AS WELL AS our All Campaigns list. To stop receiving this service, check to see whether you have received our alerts directly from us or as a reposting via some other list. Send an email message to the address listed in the "return path" saying that you want to unsubscribe. --------------------------------------------------------------------- IF YOU EXPERIENCE A BREAK IN OUR LABOR ALERT SERVICE, send us an email verifying that you still want to receive our alerts and indicating which lists (see above) you want to be on. For various technical reasons, many email messages are "bounced back." We drop subscribers whose messages have been returned to us twice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The NEW REPUBLIC Magazine August, 1997 THE YOUNG AND THE FECKLESS Stephen Glass For the past year, the Nike athletic wear company has been the object of intense scrutiny, thanks to reports of widespread labor abuse by its subcontractors in Asia. In Vietnam, 800 laborers walked off the job to protest what they said were poor working conditions; in Indonesia, thousands of workers ransacked their factory this spring, claiming Nike hadn't been paying the $2.50-a-day minimum wage. Tales of exploitation have also sparked demonstrations back home in New York, Los Angeles and Seattle. On February 22, hundreds of activists filled San Francisco's Union Square on the opening day of Niketown, a multi-floor Nike superstore. Outside the entrance, hundreds of protesters chanted, "Just don't do it!" and urged prospective customers to stay away. Two days after the San Francisco incident, Nike CEO Phil Knight announced that his company was taking swift--and, it would turn out, savvy--action to shore up its meticulously maintained but suddenly threatened public image. Nike was commissioning an independent investigation of its Asian operations: it would make all facilities and internal documents available to a team of inspectors, and it would then allow the inspectors to make their findings public. "Nike has always been a business about excellence and achievement," Knight proclaimed. And, to prove it, Nike would hire not just any old corporate hack to lead the investigation into its overseas operations, but a man of famous independence and renowned stature--a man who had first gained recognition as a civil rights hero, who had won wide acclaim as the mayor of Atlanta, who had served his country as ambassador to the United Nations and who had co-chaired the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games. The honorable Andrew Young, Knight said, would get to the bottom of this. But Young was not just another pretty public servant summoned from an idyllic private life to answer duty's call. He was a businessman. And his fledgling business was to stimulate investment in developing countries--a mission statement that, it seems, includes helping companies deal with the p.r. messes that can come with such overseas endeavors. To conduct this business, Young had recently founded a firm in Atlanta called GoodWorks International. With Young at the helm, GoodWorks was perfectly positioned to take advantage of an emerging niche market: recently, Texaco, General Motors and Mitsubishi had all invited well-respected former government officials to serve as independent arbiters of complaints made by employees or consumers. Nike was GoodWorks's first big client, its first chance to send corporate America evidence that GoodWorks did, from the businessman's point of view, good work. And when, four months after Knight's announcement, Young's firm published its seventy-five-page, full-color report on Nike's Asian operations, the client certainly had reason to feel it had gotten its money's worth. There was, Young had concluded, "no evidence or pattern of widespread or systematic abuse or mistreatment of workers" in the twelve operations he examined. To hammer home the point, GoodWorks packed the report with photographs--many taken by Young himself--of smiling workers playing a guitar on their break and relaxing around a television in their dorm. Young had a few criticisms, but his only substantive recommendations were that the shoemaker "consider" independent labor monitoring, that it establish better grievance procedures and that it distribute business cards with the company's "Code of Conduct" translated in the local language, so all foreign workers could read it. Nike wasted no time publicizing word of its vindication. It bought full-page ads in The New York Times and other major newspapers, touting the GoodWorks report. And the good news was hailed in the unpaid media, too. "In several ways," gushed The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Young's hometown paper, "the job is classic Andy Young--a man who ... has spent his life bridging the gaps between rich and poor, black and white, business, government and the international community." But if the Nike report was "classic Andy Young," it was also a classic sham, marred not just by shoddy methodology but by frequent misrepresentations. The report lists consultants who were never consulted and includes photos of union representatives who, it turns out, were not union officials. Young deliberately avoided the most obvious and controversial question--whether Nike paid its employees fair wages--and, when gathering testimony, he relied almost exclusively on translators employed by the Nike factories. Phone calls to Young's office were referred to a GoodWorks spokesman, who insists Young did his best; he says that looking at these details misses "the big picture" of the report. Young, he notes, never claimed to be an expert on labor issues. But then Nike didn't need a labor expert. This was a public relations problem, and the world's largest sneaker company did what it does best: it purchased a celebrity endorsement. Andrew Young was happy to oblige. The most obvious and important flaw in the GoodWorks report comes at the end, where there is a list of thirty-four "Non-Governmental Organizations With Whom GoodWorks Met or Spoke." This is the section that gives the publication intellectual credibility: it suggests that Young consulted with some of the leading minds in the field, who could have provided him with the context and guidance to judge whether Nike's operation was abusing workers. But, in a number of cases, Young did not consult with these experts at all. Anita Chan, a researcher who has studied China extensively at the National University of Australia in Canberra, appears on the list. Chan, interviewed by tnr, says she was never contacted by Andrew Young or anybody at GoodWorks. Logan Ide, a GoodWorks spokesman, explains that Chan was included accidentally because her name was on an internal office memo of people they should call. "It was just a simple mistake," Ide says, adding that GoodWorks has formally apologized to Chan and that she has accepted the apology. But that, too, is wrong, according to Chan. "I have never heard from them," she said. "No, they have never called me." Maniza Naqvi, a child labor expert at the World Bank, did not even know that she was listed in the appendix until she was called by tnr. "My only connection to Nike is that I wear their shoes for running," she says. "I had nothing to do with this study. I wish I wasn't in there." Naqvi recalls but one communication with GoodWorks: she called on March 3 to ask if GoodWorks would send her the report when it was finished. The call lasted less than a minute. Other experts cited say they, too, had only fleeting contact with the firm. Conrad MacKerron, the former director of social research for Progressive Asset Management Inc., says he had "just a courtesy call" with GoodWorks, and that it lasted less than ten minutes. "It seems a bit disingenuous to put me there," he says. Thuyen Nguyen, the founder of Vietnam Labor Watch, who has toured Nike's factories before, says someone from GoodWorks called him once, for a brief conversation, and that he was told that more substantive contact would follow, but no one ever called him again. Medea Benjamin, the director of Global Exchange, a San Francisco-based human rights group, says her lone phone conversation with GoodWorks was over in five minutes. She says she asked for a meeting with Young, but no one called her back. Not that the conversations would have been so productive anyway. In a conversation that lasted less than fifteen minutes, Jeff Ballinger from Press for Change, a Washington-based labor rights group, says he realized that the folks from GoodWorks "had no idea what they were talking about. I mean they didn't know even the basics." Logan Ide, GoodWorks's spokesman, says the organization is sorry that so many people feel the report overstates their contributions. GoodWorks was not, he insists, trying to create a false impression. "It surprises me that people will say that," Ide says. "The heading only says we spoke with them. Sometimes it just may have been very, very briefly." Recently Garry Trudeau's "Doonesbury" comic strip featured a series in which Kim, an Asian American character, visits a relative working in one of Nike's Vietnamese factories. In the series, the Nike translators manage to render the workers' pleas of mistreatment into joyous reports of a labor paradise. Just a case of Trudeau taking artistic license? No, more like art imitating GoodWorks. In their field visits to Nike's factories, where they interviewed Nike workers about work conditions, Young was hampered by the fact that he wasn't fluent in the languages of the workers. No problem: Nike provided translators. And Young chose to use Nike's translators, although he could have easily hired his own. "We regularly provide translation for government officials and the media who visit," Nike's spokesman, Veda Manager, says. "By any standard those were acceptable translators." Any standard? Not quite. In 1980, the International Law Association established the Belgrade Minimal Rules, to set common rules for the inspection of human rights conditions around the world. Rule Number 10, which most human rights groups consider essential, stipulates that analysts should provide all of their own experts. Diane Orentlicher, an international law professor at American University and author of Bearing Witness: The Art and Science of Human Rights Fact-Finding, says that rule certainly applies to translators: "Don't even worry about the Belgrade Rules, doesn't it just violate common sense?" she said. "How can you speak freely when your employer is listening or someone who might talk to the employer is literally in the room?" Even journalists, who for the most part do not follow the same rigorous rules of inquiry as human rights organizations, and who work under much tighter time constraints, usually meet this basic requirement of fact-finding. Except when it is impossible--when, for instance, state or military authorities insist on providing official translators--experienced foreign correspondents hire their own translators, often at significant cost. Ide says Young decided to use Nike translators when he was planning the trip with Nike officials; according to Ide, Young thought it would be the most convenient way. Ide concedes that Young had no way of knowing whether the translations were accurate. "We didn't follow [the Belgrade Rules] since we don't have all the technical expertise," Ide adds. "This was not designed to be a great academic study." Another basic precept in labor and human rights investigations is to spend enough time at the job to really investigate. Young reports that his investigators spent, on average, up to three to four hours in each factory--a fact that prompts derision from veteran inspectors who have worked for manufacturers and unions in the past. Generally, these experts say, inspection teams on a tour will visit each factory at least ten times--for several hours at a shot. Graham Honiker, a consultant for two European apparel manufacturers, said he was "appalled" when he learned that Young spent only four hours in a factory. "You have got to be kidding me," Honiker said. "He might as well have been at Disneyland on a little factory [ride]. You know, where they can all sing, `It's a small world after all.' You know, `It's a world of laughter, a world of tears.'" Some of the very labor rights experts whom GoodWorks listed as consultants say Young was told that he was not spending enough time on the ground to conduct a thorough study. One such consultant says he personally warned GoodWorks about this on five separate occasions. He was ignored, he says: "Young said he didn't really want to do the project anyway and made clear [that his attitude was] let's get in, get out, get the check and be done with the whole thing." (Young has said before that he was wary of taking the Nike contract: "I was reluctant to get involved with Nike in its Asian shoe conflicts because it would inevitably put me back into the `reasonable moderate' role I agonized over throughout my civil rights career," he wrote in a letter to The New York Times.) "Let's not beat around the bush, it takes you two years on the ground in [a foreign country] before you understand what is really going on," says another consultant. "If you are superhuman, and Andrew Young i From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Sep 3 12:44:03 1997 Wed, 3 Sep 1997 11:27:13 -0700 (PDT) Wed, 3 Sep 1997 11:22:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 11:22:07 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Guess: Day of Action Sept. 13 Sender: meisenscher@igc.org /* Written 8:19 AM Sep 3, 1997 by clr in igc:labr.announcem */ /* ---------- "Guess: Day of Action Sept. 13" ---------- */ Labor Alerts/Labor News a service of Campaign for Labor Rights 1247 "E" Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 clr@igc.apc.org (541) 344-5410 http://www.compugraph.com/clr [The following alert was written by Student Stop Sweatshops, a national student organization with members on over 50 college campuses.] ********************************** Boycott GUESS: National Day of Action ********************************** On Saturday, September 13 human rights, community, labor and student activists will join in a national mobilization in support of GUESS workers in Los Angeles, CA. Local activists are urged to organize leafleting at local GUESS or May Department stores selling GUESS products in their communities. GUESS Action Packets are free. For a packet or for the names and addresses of targeted stores near you, contact Student Stop Sweatshops at (202) 785-5690, ext. 231 or campos@pwr.org. (Send your mailing address -- no P.O. Box numbers.) BACKGROUND Since 1992, GUESS has been at the forefront of this country's sweatshop scandal. GUESS contractors have been repeatedly cited by the US Department of Labor (DOL) for federal wage and hour violations, and on July 17, 1997 the California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement conducted a series of raids and uncovered five homes where illegal industrial homework was being done for Guess contractors. Additionally, on January 31, 1997 the DOL removed GUESS indefinitely from its "Trendsetter List" for failing to eradicate sweatshop practices by its contracting shops. Instead of cleaning up its sweatshops, GUESS has retaliated against workers who speak out about sweatshop conditions. By boycotting GUESS we are letting them know that we will not tolerate the exploitation of women immigrant workers in LA. GUESS must take responsability for the conditions under which its clothes are made. In the ongoing debate about how to solve the problem of sweatshops, the question of monitoring has become a key issue for the Apparel Industry Partnership (the White House task force on sweatshop issues), corporate leaders and anti-sweatshop activists. Corporate leaders say, "Trust us. We'll monitor our own factories." What are the facts? GUESS signed an agreement with the Department of Labor in which it made a commitment to monitor its contracting shops to prevent sweatshops abuses. Four years later, the sweatshop practices at GUESS contracting shops continue unabated. We need to send an strong message to the White House Task Force: Company self-monitoring does not work -- GUESS proves it! CAMPAIGN FOR LABOR RIGHTS newsletter subscriptions: Send $35.00 to 1247 "E" Street SE, Washington, DC 20003. For a sample copy, send your postal address to clr@igc.apc.org. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To receive our email Labor Alerts, send a message to clr@igc.apc.org with "labor alerts -- all campaigns" in the subject line or specify which labor issues interest you: Nike, Disney, Guess, child labor, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador, US farm workers, US poultry processing workers. If you would like to receive information which falls outside those categories (prison labor, workfare, other policy issues, additional briefing material on some campaigns), indicate that you want to be on our Additional Labor Information list AS WELL AS our All Campaigns list. To stop receiving this service, check to see whether you have received our alerts directly from us or as a reposting via some other list. Send an email message to the address listed in the "return path" saying that you want to unsubscribe. --------------------------------------------------------------------- IF YOU EXPERIENCE A BREAK IN OUR LABOR ALERT SERVICE, send us an email verifying that you still want to receive our alerts and indicating which lists (see above) you want to be on. For various technical reasons, many email messages are "bounced back." We drop subscribers whose messages have been returned to us twice. From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Sep 3 22:05:16 1997 Wed, 3 Sep 1997 21:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Wed, 3 Sep 1997 20:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 20:57:40 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: new MAI materials Sender: meisenscher@igc.org New stuff available from Preamble on the MAI (Multi-lateral Agreement on Investment) Just call at the number below (or e-mail) to receive a copy by mail: Primary Changes Between the January and May 1997 MAI Draft Texts - available on the web, see www.citizen.org Globalization, the MAI, and the Increasing Economic Marginalization of Women. The MAI and the States: A Preliminary and Non-Exhaustive State-by-State Analysis of the Potential Impact of the MAI on State and Local Law. A pull-out piece for every state that provides example of state specific laws potentially impacted by the MAI. Prepared by Preamble using materials prepared by the Harrison Institute for Public Law. If you just want your own state, call and we'll fax it to you. Name: Antonia Juhasz E-mail: juhasza@rtk.net Preamble Center for Public Policy 1737 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009 (202) 265-3263 fax (202) 265-3647 http://www.rtk.net/preamble From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Thu Sep 4 09:01:48 1997 Thu, 4 Sep 1997 07:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Thu, 4 Sep 1997 07:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 07:48:06 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Year 2000 - Is your computer ready? Are you? Sender: meisenscher@igc.org This is not a labor commentary or analysis, but it does address a problem we all will have to confront. This article is about what happens when the clock in your computer hits midnight, December 31, 1999. Most computers handle dates with two-digits as in 12/31/99. When 2000 rolls around, these machines and software similarly configured will have what the military often refers to as "an event." What will happen? Suffice it to say, for many folks it will be very unpleasant, particularly if their spreadsheets, databases, or other programs and files require an accurate date. Large firms are already panicked about the liabilities they face if their software and mainframes screw up, but not much has been said about us folk with PCs. There are a number of websites devoted to this topic. This article came from a listserve established by one of them. It is based on a conference presentation on the subject. Large institutions, like universities, are probably starting to develop fixes, but I'll bet a lot of unions have not even begun to think about this. There are software patches and hardware corrections that can be made, but as the article notes, no single solution will solve all the problems. So, if you had nothing else to keep you up at night, here is one more thing to contemplate. Ignore this problem at your own peril! Optimists and technogeeks can hit the delete key now. Everyone else might want to give this a read and pass it along. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If You Can Sleep Properly at Night You Don't Understand the Significance of the PC Problem Presenter: Karl Feilder, kwf@gmt-2000.com Company: Greenwich Mean Time Mr. Feilder started by emphasizing that Y2K is not just a mainframe issue. Every single PC must be checked for how it handles Year 2000 issues. You cannot rely upon testing one of a particular type of PC and expect to be able to apply the results to others of the same manufacturer and model. The PC itself can suffer from BIOS problems, RTC/CMOS problems, and Operating System problems. In testing done by Mr. Feilder's firm, 93% of the pre 1997 BIOS' tested failed compliancy testing. For 1997 PCs the failure rate was down to 47%. Mr. Feilder quoted a spokesperson from Goldman Sachs: "it is already clear that the combined expertise of Europe's computing services industries will not be sufficient to address the problem." The best way to deal with a PC with problems is to upgrade the component, if an upgrade is available. There are also software patches available, and some are better than others. One drawback of the software patches is that a year or two down the line someone else may replace or reformat the hard drive on the PC and not realize that it is necessary for the patch to be there for the PC to function properly. An independent organization has reviewed the patches available for PCs and rated and compared them. You can find the results at http://www.solace.co.uk/ Application software poses another set of challenges. A PC and its operating system may be complaint, but if the application software is not compliant then there are still many potential problems. Mr. Feilder's firm tested 4000 current off-the-shelf PC software packages, and two-thirds of them ran in ways that were non-compliant. Spreadsheet, accounting and payroll applications often have problems. There is no strict definition of what it means to be complaint, and you need to be very cautious because different vendors are using the term in different ways. If a vendor says that a package is "Year 2000 Ready," that probably means that it will not operate in a complaint manner if you install it according to instructions, but it can be made complaint by changing the way the software is set up. (An example of this is with some versions of Windows, where the operating system short date is installed as a two digit date, but can be changed to a four digit representation.) If the package is labeled "Year 2000 Safe," that probably means that it will operating compliantly if installed according to instructions, but by changing the settings it is possible for the software to operate in a non-compliant manner. While standard advice is to ensure that all your software is Y2K compliant, Mr. Feilder indicated that a more realistic tactic is to try to understand the compliance problems with your software and data, and assess the risk and impact. Mr. Feilder talked about his experiences and frustration interacting with companies that refuse to acknowledge that their software is non-compliant, even when he sent them data proving otherwise. Mr. Feilder also showed some very interesting demonstrations of the failure of many popular software packages. He showed how dates imported from a previous version of a spreadsheet program could be interpreted different than a date imported from the current version, even though the dates were entered in an identical manner. For example, an early version of the spreadsheet program might interpret a date entered as 4/17/18 as being in the year 1918, but a later version of the same spreadsheet program would interpret that same date as being in 2018. The dates can appear identical but actually be interpreted quite differently internally. A demonstration was also shown of how dates changed century as they were copied between versions of Excel and Quattro Pro. Mr. Feilder (who is from England) also discussed the problems faced in making people aware of the issues involved. He said that in the UK, the general awareness level is much higher. Most people on the street know what the "Millennium Bomb" is, but that is not true in the U.S. In the UK there is a government task force set up to enhance awareness. He wondered why there is not the same level of awareness yet in the U.S. and urged the audience to do what they could to enhance awareness levels. ---------------------------------------------------- This from the latest Harper's Index (Sept.): Ratio of Americans who oppose NAFTA expansion to the number who voted for Clinton -- 3:1 Percentage change since the passage of NAFTA in the average hourly wage of Mexican maquiladora worker -- -30 Percentage change since then in U.S. companies' domestic sales of products assembled in Mexico -- +133 From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Thu Sep 4 09:56:04 1997 Thu, 4 Sep 1997 08:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Thu, 4 Sep 1997 08:42:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 08:42:02 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Directory of Trade Union Websites Sender: meisenscher@igc.org [Cross-posted from H-Labor] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: Eric Lee Global Labour Directory of Directories Launched What better occasion than Labour Day (in the USA and Canada) to launch the Global Labour Directory of Directories -- located at: http://www.solinet.org/LEE/gldod.html This is not another listing of trade union websites but is a directory of such listings. It should serve several purposes: 1. If you're looking for a trade union website, this is the place to begin. Didn't find it at Yahoo? We can show you four directories with a lot more listings -- including one with more than four times as many listings as Yahoo in this field. 2. If you've just launched a labour website -- or if you want to further promote an existing site -- this is the place for you. We've even included an online form to allow you, with a single click, to promote your site to all the top labour directories online. 3. Finally, we think that the question of a comprehensive and authoritative labour directory on the Web has not yet been settled. (Though some people are working very, very hard on this.) So we've included some comments and pointers, as well as critiques of some sites which could be doing better. If you run an online labour directory, or are thinking about starting one, we suggest you read this. I look forward to receiving your comments and suggestions regarding the Global Labour Directory of Directories. Eric Lee ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Labnet List is the discussion list of Labnet, the European network of Labour Historians Labnet is moderated by Labmod@iisg.NL at the International Institute of Social History (Cruquiusweg 31, 1019 AT Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Tel +31.20. 6685866, Fax +31.20.6654181) To subscribe, send a mail containing the message SUBSCRIBE LABNET to Listserv@iisg.NL From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Thu Sep 4 11:54:53 1997 Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:40:55 -0700 (PDT) Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:29:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:29:42 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: WARNING: "FAST TRACK" TO MISERY Sender: meisenscher@igc.org On Novebemr 14-16 there will be a major international conference in San Francisco -- the Western Hemisphere Workers' Conference Against NAFTA and Privatizations. Delegations are expected from labor movements throughout Latin America, Canada, and the U.S.. =20 Congress will very shortly open debate on whether to give President Clinton "fast track" authorization in forthcoming trade negotiations. Under fast track authorization, the President would not be required to submit the individual provisions of new trade agreements to the scrutiny and approval by Congress. The final treaties would be voted up or down. Fast track gave us NAFTA. In the works are similar agreements with Chile, other countries of So. America and Asia. In preparation for the conference, and to draw attention to the dangers of Fast Track authorization, the W. Hemisphere Workers' Conference organizers are sponsoring the following event. =20 Please circulate this information to your union and other concerned organizations and individuals. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||| EMERGENCY ORGANIZING RALLY! JOIN US TO KICK OFF THE BAY AREA MOBILIZATION TO DERAIL THE "FAST TRACK" AND TO BUILD SUPPORT FOR THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE WORKERS' CONFERENCE =80 Become an organizer against "FAST TRACK" legislation, NAFTA expansion, and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI).=20 =80 Find out from Bay Area unionists and anti-NAFTA activists what Clinton= =B9s FAST TRACK power to negotiate trade deals will mean for workers' rights, our health and the environment.=20 =80 Participate in organizing workshops by Congressional District to map out an emergency campaign to get our Congressional representatives to oppose FAST TRACK. =20 =80 Help prepare public hearings with local Congressional representatives on this issue. =20 =80 Help organize Bay Area support for the Western Hemisphere Workers=B9 Conference! =20 Saturday, September 13, 1997 -- 3 p.m. to 6 p.m at International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 6 Hall 255 - 9th St. (between Howard & Folsom) in San Francisco There will be speakers, informational tables and music. For more information, call (415) 681-5868. JOIN US FOR THE Western Hemisphere Workers=B9 Conference=20 Against NAFTA & Privatizations Ramada Inn Civic Center San Francisco, California This historic conference, endorsed by the California Labor Federation (AFL-CIO), the United Farm Workers, the Bay Area Labor Councils, the ILWU, and scores of other union federations, union locals and community and environmental organizations from throughout the Americas, will bring together hundreds of unionists and activists to build a unified hemisphere-wide response to the policies of "free trade," privatization and pillage. =80 Conference plenaries will feature leaders of the U.S. and international trade union movement. There will also be an array of issue-specific and sector and industrial workshops. =80 Fee: $85 =AD includes Friday night banquet dinner, coffee, pastries, conference bulletins, packet. ($65 registration for all sessions except Friday night banquet dinner.)=20 All registrations must be received by October 15 at WHC, c/o San Francisco Labor Council, 1188 Franklin St. #203, San Francisco, CA 94109. For more information, call (415) 681-5868 or 440-4809.=20 =80 Help us promote this conference as widely as possible. Come to our next Conference planning meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 9 (at 7 p.m.) at Global Exchange, 2017 Mission St., 3rd Floor. =20 Be part of history in the making!=20 Sept. 13 Emergency Rally sponsored by Bay Area 50 Years is Enough Campaign, Alliance for Democracy and Organizing Committee for the Western Hemisphere Workers' Conference. The Western Hemisphere Conference web page can be accessed at: http://www.labornet.org/walters/whc ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||= |||| ************************************************ ACTION ALERT!!! Call Your Member of Congress Stop the Fast Track to Economic Disaster In September, legislation will be introduced in Congress to grant President Clinton "Fast Track" negotiating authority. Fast Track restricts the ability of Congress to influence international trade and investment agreements. Under Fast Track, Congress cannot amend the agreements, and the amount of time Congress has to debate them is extremely limited, meaning that most members of Congress never even read these agreements before voting on them! The legislation that will be introduced in September is expected to provide the President with 5-8 years of Fast Track authority. The Fast Track legislation is not expected to require that trade or investment agreements include labor and environmental protections written into them. This means that future agreements could have more useless side agreements as with NAFTA =97 or worse =97 no mention of labor and environment at all! If Fast Track passes, two agreements are expected to come up for consideration within the next year: NAFTA expansion and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). ++++++++++++++ NAFTA Expansion ++++++++++++++ Despite more than three years of NAFTA failures, President Clinton and NAFTA's corporate backers plan to use Fast Track to expand NAFTA to all of Latin America =97 starting with Chile. NAFTA's failures include: ## The loss of an estimated 420,000 jobs and wage stagnation in the United States; ## Increased pollution along the U.S.-Mexico border, assaults by business interests on environmental laws in all three NAFTA countries, and the weakening of U.S. highway safety and food safety= standards; ## In Mexico real wages have dropped 27%, and more than two million workers in the agricultural, small business, and small industrial sectors have become unemployed. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Multilateral Agreement on Investment +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The MAI, also known as the "Corporate Bill of Rights," is being negotiated by the worlds richest countries who plan to strong arm developing countries to accept the MAI terms. Countries that sign the MAI will be required to: $ Open all economic sectors to foreign ownership; $ Treat foreign investors as if they were domestic firms; $ Allow corporations to sue governments directly if they feel any government regulations impede "free trade"; $ Settle disputes through unelected international panels whose decisions would be non-appealable; MAI will hasten the "race to the bottom" in environmental & living standards by prohibiting many protection laws. Spread the Word: We Can Stop Fast Track Big Business is currently running a multi-million dollar campaign to pass Fast Track. Fast Track can be stopped only if members of Congress hear from voters who oppose Fast Track, NAFTA expansion, and MAI. Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Lynn Woolsey, Ellen Tauscher, Anna Eshoo, and Zoe Lofgren are undecided on Fast Track. Call them toll free at 1-888-723-5246 and tell them, "Vote No on Fast Track" (or write to Rep ______, House of Representatives, Washington DC 20515.) "Stop Fast Track, NAFTA, and MAI" postcards are available from Inkworks= Press. Call 510-845-7111 for information. For more information on Fast Track, NAFTA and MAI, call Public Citizen at 202-546-4996 or check the website http://www.rtk.net/preamble=20 From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Thu Sep 4 16:09:46 1997 Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Thu, 4 Sep 1997 14:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 14:59:43 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Samuelson's Hope-through-Fear for Europe Sender: meisenscher@igc.org Dear NEWSWEEK Editors: I am still unable to restrain my disgust with Robert Samuelson's column of August 25th, in which he offers what he terms "hope" for Europe's economy. Samuelson, from his ivory tower, spews a sick and twisted vision of a so-called "virtuous circle" wherein unions are broken and social services destroyed, so that workers become more terrified by the loss of their jobs and safety net ("...anxiety, uncertainty and fear are essential"), so that corporate profits batten on human misery. The resultant stock market boom sustains a "prosperity" featuring lower unemployment of the alchemical sort; i.e., if I used to have a factory job ($17/hr plus full benefits), and now= my spouse and I must work 1=BD jobs each at $6/hr and no benefits, there is a= net creation of two jobs!=20 This is Newspeak which George Orwell would easily recognize: terror=3Dhope, viciousness=3Dvirtue, misery=3Dprosperity, McJobs=3Doccupations. If this is= what the Anglo-Saxons offer Europe and the world, by St. Brigid I'm glad to be a Celt! Michael J. Lowrey 1847 N. 2d Str. Milwaukee, WI 53212-3760 414-227-4860 or 372-9745 member and steward, AFSCME; member, National Writers Union; member, Industrial Workers of the World From phardwic@u.washington.edu Fri Sep 5 15:40:10 1997 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 14:40:07 -0700 (PDT) From: "P. Hardwick" To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: Re: Samuelson's Hope-through-Fear for Europe In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970904145732.42776c04@pop.igc.org> Labor-rappers, ...and wonder continues at the commoners' adoration of Diana, something neither the monarchy, parliament, nor the media can yet or will ever admit they fully comprehend. /ph > I am still unable to restrain my disgust with Robert Samuelson's column of > August 25th, wherein unions are broken and social services > destroyed, so that workers become more terrified by the loss of their jobs > and safety net > This is Newspeak which George Orwell would easily recognize: terror=hope, > viciousness=virtue, misery=prosperity, McJobs=occupations. If this is what > the Anglo-Saxons offer Europe and the world, by St. Brigid I'm glad to be a > Celt! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Paula Yadack Hardwick, Ph.C., M.S.W. phardwic@u.washington.edu Doctoral Student and Adjunct Faculty Home: 206.365.1653 University of Washington School of Social Work Box 354900 Seattle, WA 98105-6299 "As I said, my position is contingency....I refuse to make predictions about the human future....There have been too many sheer accidents which have brought us to this point, too many complexities and turns which could just as easily have gone a different way." -- Stephen J. Gould, on PBS' "A Glorious Accident," August 16, 1997 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Fri Sep 5 19:19:15 1997 Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:18:48 -0700 (PDT) Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:12:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:12:59 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: [PEN-L:12143] Request for help for Zapatistas Sender: meisenscher@igc.org THE ZAPATISTAS NEED YOU. PLEASE HELP THEM IN THEIR STRUGGLE FOR JUSTICE IN MEXICO. A representative group from the Zapatista Army of National Liberation has begun a journey to Mexico City. Leaving from Chiapas, it will arrive on September 12th in Mexico City. The march to Mexico City has two purposes: to pressure the Government to present the accords on indigenous autonomy in Mexico, which have been negotiated with the EZLN, to the Mexican Congress so that they can be enacted into law; and second, to participate in rallies and meetings in Mexico City with indigenous organizations and other groups representing civil society. The cost of transportation and other expenses is the equivalent of $150 US dollars for each of the Zapatista marchers because the mobilization is using 40 buses to transport the committee of 1111 members of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation from San Cristobal de las Casas to Mexico City. In addition, the money is needed to defray the costs of their stay in Mexico City and to pay for the return trip to their communities. At this time, we are reaching out to international civil society in the profound hope that it will extend its solidarity for this effort. Your support is indispensable for the success of this march. If you are or your organization are able to support their trip, please send deposits to the following account: 0091267203 Matiana Medina Mejia Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco, California In addition, please send a note to cpaez@servidor.unam.mx if you make a contribution. Thank you for your solidarity. For the Red Ciudadana de Apoyo a la Causa Zapatista Alfredo Lopez Austin Carlos Salas Luis Villoro From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Fri Sep 5 19:22:42 1997 Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 18:13:53 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Correction-re: FEDEX; Review - "Good Life and Its Discontents" (fwd) Sender: meisenscher@igc.org I previously sent out a comment appended to a story in which I corrected the author regarding applicability of the Railway Labor Act to FEDEX. I feel compelled to share this correction as well. If my shakey recollection serves me, Iain is correct. Perhaps someone else knows more. M.E. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Just a side note on Michael's note: Somebody can correct me if I am wrong but I believe Federal Express secured its Railway Labor Act designation through a rider on a major piece of federal legislation (I think it was the 1996 budget bill). In essence it wasn't just a ruling but some "friends in high places" legislative assistance which ultimately determined that Federal Express employees fall under the jurisdiction of the RLA. In solidarity, Iain Gold ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Howdy! Saw your comment's about a recent article about Robert Samuelson. Thought you might be interested in a review I wrote of a recent book he wrote. By the way, I'm also a member of the NWU, Santa Cruz/Monterey Local 7, I think. -- Charlie Reid cjreid@netcom.com "Salus populi suprema est lex" (Cicero) The welfare of the people is the highest law. --------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- By Charles J. Reid In his book "The Good Life and Its Discontents," Robert Samuelson cites a poll showing that American confidence in the press declined by 55% since 1964. While he provides no clear explanation for why only one in eight Americans today trust the press, read his book and you'll understand why. "The Good Life" is terribly flawed. What makes it worse is that Samuelson is a journalist and a business analyst for Newsweek. One would think he'd have the professionalism to produce more than an intellectually unreliable work of analytical smoke and distorted mirrored selections of historical data. But he didn't. Presumably he let his agenda get the best of him. The first hint at Samuelson's lack of solid analysis is an early footnote, arguing that it is a "misreading of history" to suggest the Cold War had an overwhelming influence on postwar America. Who could deny that the Cold War influenced every significant foreign and domestic policy after 1945 until the dissolution of the Soviet Union? Which cave was the author hiding in? "Big government" (a catch phrase of the day) is his whipping boy. How did it emerge? According to Samuelson, Big Government grew out of the Keynesian New Deal in the 1930s. "The Keynesians played the decisive role in the transformation," he writes, yet, "None of Roosevelt's policies had really worked." For the author, this explains why "today's America is indeed a mess." (Needless to say, his analysis of Keynesianism is far off the mark.) "The Good Life" begins by asking the reader to accept a strawman argument, based on a spurious set of assumptions. "[In] our era--from the end of the Second World War until now--the Age of Entitlement," he writes, "we have transformed the American Dream into the American Fantasy." Of course, it's easy to argue against stupid assumptions you set up yourself! His "American Fantasy" presumes Americans believe business cycles would end; we would solve all social problems; and the choices supplied by postwar prosperity would guarantee happiness. Out of these supposed beliefs emerged impossibly "utopian" expectations and entitlements. According to Samuelson, this explains our national frustration and discontent (hence the title). "Most Americans are prisoners of entitlement and its disappointments," he concludes. So he sets out to explain this theory, looking for the data in a pseudo-scientific effort to prove its validity. On the other hand, Samuelson also writes that more Americans are experiencing "the good life" today than ever before. Increases in productivity, along with new products, as well as higher absolute incomes have caused a higher standard of living. Yet "our societal performance is judged against impossible standards." In short, because of the slowdown in the expansion of entitlements (made possible by postwar prosperity), we have become a nation of whiners. Ironically, Samuelson provides a lot of information to refute his own arguments. Where the data is lacking, an informed reader will intuitively pick up on the inconsistencies in his reasoning. For instance, he cites at least ten recessions since 1945. Every economics student learns about business cycles. It's highly doubtful they would conclude that Americans seriously believe they could and can stop the natural ebb and flow of economic activity (although he does cite President Lyndon Johnson saying, "I do not believe recessions are inevitable."). In fact, just before the 1929 crash, President Herbert Hoover believed "poverty would be banished from the nation." And pre- Keynesian, pre-Depression American economists actually announced they had solved the problem of the business cycle. So we can justifiably conclude the "American Fantasy" started out as a conservative one before the era of "Big Government." Alas! Many Americans are still mesmerized by stupid conservative economic fantasies. "The Good Life and Its Discontents"--the very title is an oxymoron. One could argue the absence of discontent is the only defining attribute of the good life Samuelson describes as "utopian." Yet the author includes data disproving his point. The income gap between the rich and poor is getting larger every day. Growth in productivity has declined since 1970. Although real incomes doubled between 1950 and 1970, in the next 20 years, they grew by only roughly 15 percent. And while the tax burden has increased for most Americans, Samuelson never tells us that taxes for corporations have declined by over 60% since 1960. Deterioration of the good life might well be a just cause for discontent. Linguistically, Samuelson also falls short. He has trouble defining 'entitlement.' On the one hand, entitlement refers to government benefits promised to people, if they meet certain legal standards. On the other hand, he says the word has acquired a broader meaning: "a firm popular expectation that some specific or general outcome will occur." "Entitlement denies choices, ignores limits, and muddles accountability," he concludes. Of course, semantically, Samuelson only succeeds in obfuscating the sense of the word. We can just as easily conclude that entitlement makes choices possible, expands limits, and enhances accountability. What matters are the context, the program, and the outcome. Samuelson's book is well documented. Yet there are flaws in the empirical argument, because some of the data Samuelson refers to is suspect. In a paragraph on the homeless, he suggests, "Even the poor generally live better than they once did." Noting the "deinstitutionalization" of mental patients that put people on the street, he suggests, "It is arguable whether they are better or worse off today." It seems he would argue that being homeless and on the street might be better than being housed in an underfunded institution. I admit he might have an agrument here. But how many homeless are we talking about? He settles on one conservative 1994 estimate that "the number of homeless probably increased from about 100,000 to 300,000 or 400,000" in the 1980s. A 1994 HUD study estimated that between four and nine million people were homeless at one time or another in the late 1980's. One 1989 study suggested that between 500,000 and 600,000 were homeless during one point in time in 1988. In short, when it suits his argument, Samuelson selects the data to fit his theory with little critical analysis. Samuelson denies political bias. "The ideas I am describing here don't belong exclusively to the liberal or conservative camp," he writes. But the bottom line is that "The Good Life and Its Discontents" is an apology for the self-proclaimed Republican Revolution. Samuelson defends supply-side economics; he accepts six percent unemployment as full employment and calls for a balanced budget; he disparages affirmative action; suggests ending federal funding for the arts, public broadcasting, and federal job training. He also wants Social Security and Medicare cut and, of course, calls for "individual responsibility," the clarion call of the Contract With America. The ultimate contradiction occurs in his penultimate chapter. Parroting Newt Gingrich, he writes, "What comes after entitlement is, or ought to be, responsibility. It ought to be the animating ideal of public conduct and private behavior." Replacing entitlement with "individual responsibility" certainly seems to be a policy objective of conservative Republicans today. But Samuelson never defines responsibility. Instead he concludes "Responsibility is a worthy ideal, but it is not a panacea." Why? Because "some people can't or won't be more responsible; some economic, social, or personal conditions defeat the greatest individual exertions." This is one of the assumptions of post-Keynesian liberalism: systems are more powerful than individuals in a mass market economy. So, Mr. Samuelson, what should we do to improve our society? Judging from the contents of his book, you would think Mr. Samuelson wants us all to suck up to the Republican Congress, on the assumption they'll win in 1996. Any way you look at it--logically, linguistically, empirically, or politically--there is very little saving intellectual value in this book. After all the initial hype, this pseudo-analytical tome will probably end up gathering dust on a library shelf, far away from the Social Science section. -30- From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sat Sep 6 12:13:09 1997 Sat, 6 Sep 1997 11:11:35 -0700 (PDT) Sat, 6 Sep 1997 11:06:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 11:06:07 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Opposition to a Proposed Contract--A Notification Sender: meisenscher@igc.org For Information of Labor Party people, particularly in unionized academic institutions: There is a very hot proposed contract coming down from the leadership of the United University Professions, representing faculty and professional staff of State University of New York employees. The proposed contract was agreed to with the State of New York, under Governor George Pataki, pending the ratification vote now in process. In the judgment of dissenters (I am one), tenure as it has been understood is being undermined and very substantially. The Web site http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka has relevant material and you are invited to check it out. I thought sufficiently important to notify you. Below is one dialogue on one UUP SUNY campus list. Paul Zarembka Grievance Officer for Academics UUP SUNY at Buffalo _____________ On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Joel Rose, Software Development Manager wrote: > ... One of the selling points > of the proposed contract has been that it does not target academics. For > the first time, as far as I am aware, UUP has signed on to a contract > which creates second-class status for a segment of its members. Not only > that, but rather than bemoaning the fact that the state wanted to treat > academics and professionals differently, the UUP leadership has hastened > to reassure academics that they're not targeted. Yes, absolutely correct: the language is that any professional even those with permanent appointment could be contracted out and redeployed with 2-3 years advance notice. It is as simple as that, so "permanent appointment" loses its meaning for professionals. On the other hand, for academics, those with permanent appointment (tenure) can be redeployed with "title" and pay protected, but not the location nor the nature of that titled work (I as a UB Professor of economics could be offered a Professorship at the Brooklyn Health Sciences Center doing work as an administrator--or else have my employment disappears altogether if I refuse or wait beyond TEN days after receipt of the offer). What offsets this drastic change in our conditions of work? a few pieces of silver. > Adding insult to injury, UUP uses the dues money paid by all of us, > including professionals, to deliver its pro-ratification propaganda, while > denying to opponents of ratification any access to the state-wide > communications media. Even such a simple request as a link from their > web-site to ours has been denied. As unacceptable as the proposed > contract is, the lack of fundamental democratic procedures in the > ratification process is the real outrage. Absolutely correct also. Henry Steck reminded some of us after the meeting last night that no one had brought up the issues of the effects of this contract on part-timers. In his opinion, there is some marginal improvement there. I believe this should be on the record as part-timers are a major component of SUNY, of course. What Henry may miss is that part-timers are also subject to the effects of contracting out. Ruth Meyerowitz at a Buffalo Chapter Board meeting said that this contract should have a label "Warning: this contract may be dangerous to your employment". She could not be more correct. Paul Zarembka ************************************************************************* Paul Zarembka, supporting CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON PROPOSED UUP CONTRACT at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka and using OS/2 Warp. ************************************************************************* From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sat Sep 6 12:18:39 1997 Sat, 6 Sep 1997 11:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Sat, 6 Sep 1997 11:07:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 11:07:24 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Current Issue of The Nation Sender: meisenscher@igc.org I don't have a scanner and I could not find this issue on the Web, but I suggest you might have interest in the current issue of the Nation (September 8/15). It includes the lead-off article in a series on organizing by JoAnn Wypijewski, "A Stirring in the Land," as well as an editorial on the UPS strike and post-strike commentary by Alexander Cockburn. If anyone can scan these and post them, I'd appreciate receiving a copy. In solidarity, Michael From aaron@burn.ucsd.edu Sun Sep 7 01:36:44 1997 Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 03:35:29 -0400 To: debate@sunsite.wits.ac.za, From: aaron@burn.ucsd.edu (Aaron) Subject: Re: jobs jobs jobs marxism-news@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU, Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Comrades, The following is from a message that I have received via several lists. It is an excellent example of how the ruling bourgeois ideology penetrates our language and thought if we let our critical faculties relax for a moment, which we all do at one time or another. >Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 23:50:29 -0500 >Sender: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy >From: Kim Scipes >Subject: Re: jobs jobs jobs > ... > As far as percentage of jobs in US, construction provided 5% of all >jobs (excluding mining) from 1960 to 1990, and dropped to 4% between >1990-93; manufacturing which provided 31% of all jobs in 1960, was down to >16% in 1993; and TCPU which provided 7% of total jobs in 1960 and 1965, >dropped to 6% from 1970-1980, and has provided 5% since 1985 to 1993. The working class can never liberate itself if it thinks of a job as something that is 'provided'. Thinking in those terms encourages dependence on the capitalist or other such 'provider', and also encourages workers to think of jobs as a valuable resource to fight other groups of workers for. A job is, in fact, the social form through which the worker provides labor to an employer. - Struggling to keep the critical axe sharp, - For communism, - Aaron ---------- mailto:aaron@burn.ucsd.edu http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aaron From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sun Sep 7 22:18:00 1997 Sun, 7 Sep 1997 21:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Sun, 7 Sep 1997 21:11:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 21:11:09 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Voces de La Frontera Sender: meisenscher@igc.org FYI: >And speaking of worthwhile labor publications, a friend just gave me a copy >of the first issue of "Voces de La Frontera", a bilingual tabloid >addressing maquiladoras. >The address is >p.o. box 341095 Austin, Tx. 78734-0195 >The subs are twenty bucks a year, which is a bit steep, but it's free for >Mexican residents. > Solidarity > David Christian > L#834, IATSE > Atlanta IWW > From lord_g@crob.flint.umich.edu Mon Sep 8 07:46:35 1997 From: "George Lord" To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:45:50 EST Subject: Strikre vote UAW Local 651 at the Delphi complex (formerly AC Rochester and Delco Electronics), a subsidiary of GM, in Flint, Michigan, will hold a strike vote this Friday (Sept 12). When I moved to Flint ten years ago this plant employed 13,000 hourly workers, it now employees 6,000 and is scheduled to be closed. I will be happy to provide updates to those interested. George Lord Department of Sociology University of Michigan - Flint e-mail lord_g@flint.crob.umich.edu voice (810) 762-3340 fax (810) 762-3687 From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Sep 8 08:40:49 1997 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 07:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Mon, 8 Sep 1997 07:35:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 07:35:11 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: General strike against VAT called in Nepal Sender: meisenscher@igc.org Forwarded from United@cougar.com: Here's a switch. A general strike called by the bosses. Next time you hear some rightwinger saying VAT is a good alternative to income tax, you might point this out to them. Solidarity, David KATHMANDU, Sept 7 (AFP) - Nepal's Chamber of Commerce (NCC) Sunday called for a day-long general strike on Monday to protest against the government's planned implementation of value-added tax (VAT). Nepalese businessmen and industrialists said it would add to burdens on an economically fragile country where half the population is illiterate. They said the VAT, to be implemented on November, would hamper growth instead of improving the economy as the government planned. "Until our businessmen and our products can compete with Indian and other country products, we should not implement the VAT," said businessman Ram Prasad Shrestha. "To press the government to fulfil our demands of scrapping the planned implementation of VAT system in Nepal, we have decided to go ahead with our plans of general strike in Kathmandu tomorrow," an NCC official said. The NCC has appealed to all business institutions, factories, shops, educational institutions to close down on Monday and back opposition to the tax. From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Sep 8 12:43:07 1997 Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:38:24 -0700 (PDT) Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:30:59 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Info: Caterpillar clothing/toys? Sender: meisenscher@igc.org /* Written 7:33 AM Sep 8, 1997 by clr in igc:labr.announcem */ /* ---------- "Info: Caterpillar clothing/toys?" ---------- */ Labor Alerts/Labor News a service of Campaign for Labor Rights 1247 "E" Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 clr@igc.apc.org (541) 344-5410 http://www.compugraph.com/clr UAW WANTS INFO ON CATERPILLAR PRODUCTS know anything about Caterpillar spin-off products (clothing, toys)? [This alert was written by the United Auto Workers, who asked us to post it for them.] The United Auto Workers have been involved in a labor dispute with Caterpillar, the company who manufactures heavy earth moving equip- ment, for well over eight years. Approximately 14,000 UAW/Caterpillar workers have been without a collective bargaining agreement since 1991. Caterpillar has been ruled against by the National Labor Relations Board on 400 separate issues. Not only does Caterpillar make heavy machinery, they also manufacture clothing, toys, and other paraphernalia. We are attempting to discover where these items have been manufactured (particularly because we know some come from overseas) and in what type of condi- tions they have been produced. Any insight into these matters would help the labor cause enormously. Please send information to bkanter@fenton.com CAMPAIGN FOR LABOR RIGHTS newsletter subscriptions: Send $35.00 to 1247 "E" Street SE, Washington, DC 20003. For a sample copy, send your postal address to clr@igc.apc.org. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To receive our email Labor Alerts, send a message to clr@igc.apc.org with "labor alerts -- all campaigns" in the subject line or specify which labor issues interest you: Nike, Disney, Guess, child labor, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador, US farm workers, US poultry processing workers. If you would like to receive information which falls outside those categories (prison labor, workfare, other policy issues, additional briefing material on some campaigns), indicate that you want to be on our Additional Labor Information list AS WELL AS our All Campaigns list. To stop receiving this service, check to see whether you have received our alerts directly from us or as a reposting via some other list. Send an email message to the address listed in the "return path" saying that you want to unsubscribe. --------------------------------------------------------------------- IF YOU EXPERIENCE A BREAK IN OUR LABOR ALERT SERVICE, send us an email verifying that you still want to receive our alerts and indicating which lists (see above) you want to be on. For various technical reasons, many email messages are "bounced back." We drop subscribers whose messages have been returned to us twice. From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Sep 8 20:17:57 1997 Mon, 8 Sep 1997 19:16:20 -0700 (PDT) Mon, 8 Sep 1997 19:09:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 19:09:43 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: [PEN-L:12192] ALERT: Congress near a vote on Net privacy legislation; call now! (fwd) Sender: meisenscher@igc.org > Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 12:12:45 -0400 > From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" > Subject: ALERT: Congress near a vote on Net privacy legislation; call now! > > ============================================================================== > ___ _ _____ ____ _____ _ > / _ \| | | ____| _ \_ _| | Congress is about to vote on privacy and > | |_| | | | _| | |_) || | | | security on the Net. Call your member of > | _ | |___| |___| _ < | | |_| Congress before September 17, 1997 > |_| |_|_____|_____|_| \_\|_| (_) Posted September 8, 1997 > > Please forward where appropriate until September 17, 1997 > > This alert brought to you by > the Voters Telecommunications Watch, the Center for Democracy & Technology, > and the Electronic Frontier Foundation > _____________________________________________________________________________ > Table of Contents > What's Happening Right Now > What You Can Do To Help Privacy And Security On The Internet > Background On SAFE (HR. 695) > About This Alert > > _____________________________________________________________________________ > WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW > > During the next two weeks two Congressional committees (the House > Intelligence and National Security committees) will vote on the > "Security and Freedom Through Encryption Act" (SAFE, HR 695) -- > important legislation designed to protect privacy and security on the > Internet by encouraging the widespread availability of strong, > easy-to-use encryption technologies. > > Opponents of the bill include the FBI, NSA and members of the Clinton > Administration. They seek to force all Americans to provide guaranteed > law enforcement access to private online communications by imposing > "key recovery" systems inside the U.S., have a great deal of support in > Congress. It is possible that Congress could amend SAFE in a way that > undermines privacy and allows the government broad new surveillance > power. > > This is a critical moment in the fight for privacy and security on the > Internet. > > Your member of Congress needs to know that you care about privacy and > security on the Internet. Please take a moment to read the > instructions below or details on how you can help protect privacy and > security online. A summary of the bill and pointers to additional > information are also included below. > > Five minutes of your time will go a long way. > > ________________________________________________________________________ > WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW > > Please call your Representative. THIS WEEK to express your support for > the SAFE and urge them to oppose any amendments to impose key recovery > or modify the export relief provisions. > > INSTRUCTIONS: > > > IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHO YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS IS.... > > 1. Go to http://www.crypto.com/member/ and enter your zip code to find your > member of Congress and all the information needed for contacting them. > > or > > IF YOU KNOW WHO YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS IS.... > > 1. Pick up the phone and call 202-225-3121, ask for you Representative. > > 2. Ask for the staffer that handles the encryption issue. > > 3. Urge your Rep. to support SAFE (HR695) and to oppose Administration > efforts to modify the bill. > > Feel free to use your own words but be sure to stress the points below: > > - Encryption is critical National Security by protecting sensitive data and > critical points on the National Information Infrastructure like the Air > Traffic Control System and the power grid from attacks. > > - SAFE will encourage the widespread availability of strong, easy to use > encryption. > > - SAFE will help foil hackers, terrorists, and foreign spies from obtaining > unauthorized access to personal, business, and government communications > and data. > > - Key escrow or key recovery systems will hurt national security by > creating new points of vulnerability and new targets for hackers and > terrorists to seek to exploit, and will not work to prevent crime. > > - Key recovery comes at a grave cost to privacy and security. Why would > a criminal use an encryption product that they know the US government > holds the keys to? > > 4. IMPORTANT! -- PLEASE LET US KNOW HOW IT WENT! > > Visit our feedback page at: > > http://www.crypto.com/member/ > or > Crypto.Com feedback > > ...and let us know how it went! > > 5. Please forward this alert to your friends and colleagues > who live in your congressional district. > > 6. Finally, relax! You have done more to help fight for privacy and > security on the Internet in 5 minutes than most people do in a year! > We appreciate your support! > > ________________________________________________________________________ > BACKGROUND ON SAFE (HR 695) > > The Security And Freedom Through Encryption Act (SAFE) seeks to protect > privacy and promote electronic commerce by liberalizing the export of > privacy-enhancing encryption technology and prohibiting the government from > obtaining guaranteed law enforcement access to private online > communications. > > Specifically, the bill will: > > * Prohibit the Government from imposing mandatory key-recovery or key- > escrow inside the United States > > * Affirm the right of Americans to use whatever form of encryption they > choose > > * Relax current export controls on encryption technologies which > currently limit the availability of strong encryption domestically and > tie the hands of the US high technology industry > > The full text of SAFE and detailed background information can be found at > http://www.crypto.com/safe_bill/ > > A controversial provision of SAFE, which establishes new criminal penalties > for the use of encryption in the furtherance of a felony, were > substantially modified at the request of civil liberties groups field when > the bill was passed by the House Judiciary Committee in May, ensuring that > the bill will help protect your privacy and encourage the use of encryption. > > The SAFE bill is sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Anna Eshoo > (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Rick White (R-WA) and over 250 other House > members. > > The Clinton Administration is unhappy with the bill, claiming it will > thwart law enforcement and undermine the administration's efforts to impose > a global "key-recovery" infrastructure. In an April 30 letter to the Courts > and Intellectual Property Subcommittee chair Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), the > Department of Justice said: > > "The bill could be read as prohibiting the United States government > from using appropriate incentives to support a key management > infrastructure and KEY RECOVERY." [emphasis added] > > The Administration's "Key Recovery" program creates a back door in > encryption that would allow third parties to eavesdrop on individual's > private conversations without their permission or knowledge. > > Despite its broad based support, the SAFE bill faces a tough road as it makes > its way to the full House, where a vote is possible this fall. Votes are > currently scheduled in the House National Security (9/9) and Intelligence > Committees (9/11). Be sure to visit http://www.crypto.com for the latest > news and information on the issue. > > ______________________________________________________________________________ > ABOUT THIS ALERT > > This message was brought to you by the Center for Democracy and > Technology (http://www.cdt.org), the Voters Telecommunications Watch > (http://www.vtw.org/), and the Electronic Frontier Foundation > (http://www.eff.org) who have issued this alert jointly. > > ______________________________________________________________________________ > end alert 09.08.97 > From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Sep 8 23:46:03 1997 Mon, 8 Sep 1997 22:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Mon, 8 Sep 1997 22:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 22:27:20 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: BART Strike Hits Bay Area; Strikers Rally Support - Strike Could Escalate Sender: meisenscher@igc.org 9/8/97 BART strike takes it toll By Eric Brazil and Larry D. Hatfield OF THE SF EXAMINER STAFF With a state mediator and Mayor Brown attempting to bring a quick end to the BART strike, commuters and traffic were snarling Monday as thousands scrambled to find a new way to work during what some were calling the Bay Area's worst morning traffic jam in history. Traffic accidents -- a six-car mishap westbound on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, a hit-and-run crash midspan on the Bay Bridge, and a two big-rig smash-up in Dublin -- only added to the woes. By the height of the rush hour, Bay Area bridges were all bumper to bumper as motorists tried to end-run the Bay Bridge. Roads feeding into the Bay Bridge were backed up beyond Vallejo and Livermore, nearly 50 miles away from downtown San Francisco. The near-gridlock east of the bridge eased by midmorning, likely a result of many people getting an earlier start than usual or waiting until the crush was over, Caltrans officials said. But traffic remained heavy and slow. Because commuters anticipated problems, the rush hour peaked early, said Caltrans spokesman Colin Jones. Last Tuesday and Wednesday between 5 and 6 a.m., 6,200 cars went through the toll lanes on the Bay Bridge. During the same period Monday morning , there were 8,670. Carpool lanes also were fuller, he said. Between 4 and 5 a.m. on an ordinary day, the bridge usually gets 1,800 to 1,900 toll payers. Monday morning, there were 3,200. Parking lots in downtown San Francisco were full and turning away cars before 7 a.m. In the East Bay and San Francisco, packed-to-the-gills buses passed up regular customers as well as displaced BART riders at overstuffed bus stops. "It's bad, bad, bad," said a California Highway Patrol dispatcher. "And it's going to get worse, worse, worse." Ironically, the strike came at the start of Back to Transit Week in the Bay Area, which was scheduled to include BART's 25th anniversary parties at Justin Herman Plaza in The City Thursday and Jack London Square in Oakland Saturday, as well as ground-breaking ceremonies for the BART station at San Francisco International Airport next Monday. Traffic officials advised motorists to add at least an hour to their projected travel time from the East Bay to San Francisco. "There'll be a ripple pattern, so all major roads will be bad," said the CHP dispatcher. Adding to the traffic mess were sprinkles and light showers which left roads slick throughout the region. Although most commuters were taking it in stride, some weren't. "These people ought to be fired," said Cory Swann, waiting for a ride at the Concord BART station. "They're lucky to have jobs." Kenneth Street, 29, a stockbroker with Dean Witter in San Francisco, stood at the AC Transit bus stop near the Grand Lake Theatre in Oakland, fuming. He had been waiting for a bus since 5:30 a.m., and at 6:45 a.m., a third bus, packed with standing-room-only commuters, rolled by and didn't stop. Stranded "This wasn't planned very well by BART or AC Transit," Street said. "There should've been more buses taken from stops that aren't popular. I'm all for people getting paid -- but not at the expense of others." Another big jam appeared inevitable for the evening rush hour, a more compressed commute period which was expected to be made even worse by the 6 p.m. Monday night Oakland Raiders-Kansas City Chiefs football game at the Oakland Coliseum. A state mediator called the two sides back to the negotiating table at 11 a.m. Monday, less than 24 hours after bargaining broke down Sunday, bringing hope that an agreement could be reached without a protracted strike. Mayor Brown said he would help in mediation "if asked," although nobody was grabbing yet at the offer. In the recent past, he assisted in ending a symphony strike, a garbage strike, and a potential Muni driver sick-out. BART spokesman Mike Healy said transit officials want to take a wait-and-see approach to negotiations before involving Brown, saying, "It's early yet." Still on the table: a management offer described by striking unions as take-it-or-leave-it and a union proposal called budget-busting and fare-increasing by management. The strike started at 12:01 a.m. Sunday at the expiration of a 60-day cooling off period imposed by Gov. Wilson. A Wilson spokesman said Monday morning there wasn't much the governor could do now that the strike has started. "My understanding is he can only call a cooling-off period once," spokesman Ron Low said. "He doesn't have the statutory authority to call another." Bargaining between BART and two striking unions broke off at midday Sunday after management said it wasn't budging from the $28 million pay-and-benefits package it offered Thursday. The strike strands 270,000 riders who use the 93-mile BART system's 56 trains daily, and although other public transit agencies are beefing up their services, they concede that the BART shutdown leaves a hole too big for them to fill. The system was completely shut down, unlike earlier disputes when middle managers were able to keep limited service going. Those people are now in a union. "This is not what we wanted. We did not want a strike," said Bill Lloyd, chief negotiator for Local 790 of Service Employees International Union. "We did not intend to strike. We have not been able to make a fair deal, and we know that the public is being held hostage to this. We were trying to negotiate, (but) BART picked up today and said: Well, take it or leave it." Of the Sunday talks, Healy said: "We made it clear at the outset that (unions) would have to work within the confines of the final offer we put on the table. . . . We said we were open to any creative idea that might get us to agreement within that bottom line. But they keep going outside the line, and we finally packed it in." On strike are 1,600 maintenance, clerical and administrative workers, who are represented by SEIU Local 790; about 800 station agents and train operators with Local 1555 of the Amalgamated Transit Union; and 255 supervisory and middle management workers with Local 3993 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Both sides reject offers Rank and file members of the SEIU and ATU locals on Thursday voted down a $28 million management proposal. It would have raised wages 3 percent per year for three years and compressed the time new workers would have to spend on the job to reach top pay scale. Management spurned the unions' reported counterproposal for annual raises of 4.5, 4.5 and 5 percent, asserting that it would cost nearly twice as much as BART could afford. "If we were to entertain their offer, we'd certainly be looking at a fare increase. Even with our offer on the table, we're faced with looking for financial resources, probably in the third year of the contract," Healy said. Although BART negotiations have historically gone down to the wire and produced some brief strikes, most recently in 1991, the last significant train stoppage -- which lasted three months -- occurred in 1979 when BART management locked out workers. Some observers attribute the fractious and so far unproductive contract negotiations to inexperience on both sides, which has contributed to a highly emotional atmosphere at the bargaining table. Up to three dozen members make up the unions' negotiating team, which is headed by Lloyd of SEIU and Robert Smith of ATU. BART's lead negotiator is labor relations manager Howard Lewis. Strikers not optimistic Out on the picket lines, BART workers were discouraged by the turn of events. "I'm not really optimistic," said Jim Bunker of ATU Local 1555, a train operator instructor and a BART employee for 24 years. Even after Gov. Wilson imposed a 60-day cooling off period on the parties "it took them 50 days to put an offer on the table," he said. "How can you negotiate with people like that?" AFSCME Local 3993 is in a somewhat different position from the other two unions with which it is striking: BART management has made it no formal offer, so none has been presented to the rank and file for a vote. And Local 3993 is not at the bargaining table. Fleet mechanic Ray Quan, Local 790's East Bay vice president, saw a sinister motive for BART management's seeming intransigence on financial issues. "Forty percent of the (campaign) contributions to the directors come from contractors, and it seems they want to squeeze the workers so they can give more money to the contractors," Quan said. Caltrans makes contingency plans Caltrans suspended midday lane closures for maintenance and stopped night maintenance work half an hour early, at 4:30 a.m., to facilitate traffic flow. It also fielded a full complement of Bay Bridge toll takers at 5 a.m. instead of the usual 5:30 a.m., according to spokesman Colin Jones. Even so, traffic backed up at the toll booths as early as 4:30 a.m. Monday. "It's going to be tough. BART's creating a big void, and it's going to be hard to fill that void because we're already maxed out on most freeways and the bridges in the morning," Jones said. The displacement of 270,000 riders poses a problem of far greater magnitude than the September 1996 closing of the Central freeway in The City, Jones said. Although ferries added extra runs, AC Transit, the primary alternative to BART from the East Bay, did not add buses. Lines formed early on trans-Bay bus routes; at empty BART stations, usual riders gathered early in hopes of forming carpools. Some San Francisco companies, such as PG&E, tried to help by diverting some of its downtown workers to facilities in the East Bay; an untold number of people simply stayed home from work. San Francisco Muni instituted a shuttle service using its reserve diesel buses between the Balboa Park BART station and the Embarcadero, stopping at all BART stations along the way, according to spokeswoman Anne Milner. Muni also added buses to its 14X express route that travels on the freeway from Daly City to downtown San Francisco between 6:15 and 9:15 a.m. Malcolm Glover, Lisa Krieger, Robert Salladay and Venise Wagner of The Examiner staff and Examiner correspondent Sandra Ann Harris contributed to this report. -------------------------------------------------------------- Unions Rally at BART HQ - Area Leaders Suggest Strike Could Escalate: Eyewitness Report Two-Tier Must Go - Discount Wages Won't Buy 1st Class Work! I attended the rally today in Oakland at the BART HQ. Several hundred spirited strikers from the three unions (SEIU Local 790, ATU Local 1555, and a middle-management unit picked up by AFSCME Local 3993 a few years ago). There were some folks there from other unions as well, and leaders of the State Federation of Labor and several labor councils. Key issues are the union's demand for 4.5 to 5% per year against management's 3%; and an end to a two-tier pay system instituted last contract as a "temporary" measure in response to a fiscal/budgetary crisis which management now agrees to phase out, but only over a very long period of years (beyond the expiration of the next contract). This would still leave those hired under the two-tier system (I believe about 500 workers of the 2600 on strike) behind other workers at top rate. Equal pay for equal work has become the central rallying cry of this strike. Wage Demands Offset Inflation As for the wage demand, strikers note that under the last contract they got only 2% annually, which put them behind inflation. While management claims that BART employees are among the best paid in the nation, strikers argue that their wage demands would still represent only catchup with what they lost in purchasing power during the last few years and enough to keep their wages even with predicted future inflation. They also point to the Bay Area's high cost of living, one of the highest in the nation (modest [read fixer-upper] two-bedroom tract homes start at $250,000; one-two bedroom apts. from $800/month). Even at $40,900 for train operators and $48,000 for mechanics (at top rate), their incomes would not provide a lavish lifestyle. And they note that BART management has granted raises to themselves that were 2-3 times what the union members got. As Ray Quan, a BART chapter leader of SEIU and local V.P., said, "No BART worker is getting rich on a BART paycheck. We all earn and deserve what we make!" Solidarity at Stake For the middle manager members of AFSCME, the issue is the right to honor picketlines of other workers. BART executives have insisted that managers who refuse to cross picketliness could be subject to discipline or discharge. Art Pulaski, newly elected Secretary-Treasurer of the State Federation of Labor, announced that all the Bay Area labor council leaders (there are nine councils in the greater Bay Area, plus building trades councils) would be meeting on Wednesday to plan for coordinated Baywide actions designed to turn up the heat on the BART executives and Board of Directors. Owen Marron, head of the Alameda County (Oakland/Berkeley) Labor Council, told the cheering crowd that if the BART Board of Directors did not agree to intervene to negotiate a reasonable settlement, steps would be taken to see to their removal in the next election. BART management has refused to bring Mike Healey, the system's top executive, to the table to personally negotiate a resolution to the strike. Representatives of many area unions came to express support, including Teamsters Local 70, which represents the UPS drivers. One speaker (I can't recall who just now) pointedly rejected a feeler from BART management intended to get the unions to send a few officials to a private "side-bar" meeting to cut a deal. He made it clear, to a wildly enthusiastic response from the crowd, that the only negotiations that would occur would be between the management and the entire official negotiating committee -- no backroom deals! Among those who addressed the rally were union leaders from Lagos, Nigeria (university educator's union), the Philippines (hotel workers union), and Zimbabwe (I did not catch which union) who were in the area on an international study tour. During mass picketing in front of the headquarters prior to the rally, the leader of the ATU Local took the bullhorn in the middle of a circle of pickets and began cheerleading the chant, "We Want Willie," referring to Willie Brown, the Mayor of SF. He was followed by Josie Mooney, designated to become Executive Secretary of the 25,000 member SEIU Local, who raised her cell phone and announced that Brown was on the line and encouraged the pickets to shout louder so he would hear them. This carefully orchestrated tactic may reflect the generally friendly relationship between these union officials and the mayor (SEIU Local 790 represents a large proportion of SF public employees), or may have been calculated to push Brown to play a more aggressive role in bringing BART management back to the table. Willie Brown, the corporate lawyer, former speaker of the State Assembly, and arguably the best dressed and most flamboyant mayor in the U.S., is considered by most on the left to be a shill for downtown developers and corporate interests, but also an extremely clever, calculating, and capable politician, who is legendary for his backroom deals and political vengence against those who cross him. Whatever the motivation, it is clear that there are lots of political relationships riding on the conduct and outcome of this strike, and more at stake than a BART contract for union officials and local politicians as well as for the striking workers and riding public. While a transit strike can play havoc with traffic in any metropolitan area, a casual glance at a map of the Bay Area will reveal the potential impact of putting 270,000 additional commuters on the roads and other public transit systems here. SF is surrounded on three sides by the waters of the Pacific Ocean and SF Bay, across which there are two bridges, one from Marin County to the north and the other from Oakland and the East Bay. Traffic from the south pours into SF on one of two freeways which run up the peninsula and merge in the city. SF is a city of choke-points. Repair work still continues on damage to the highways and infrastructure resulting from the 1989 quake. In an act of solidarity, it was announced at the rally that the drivers of both the SF Muni (bus and trolley) system and AC Transit (buses serving the East Bay) would refuse overtime and extra runs on the grounds that this would be tantamount to handling struck goods or doing struck work. If the labor councils orchestrate a successful sickout or other job action by transit drivers on systems that serve or feed into SF, what was described today as "near-gridlock" would become virtual paralysis. This would give public employees in SF, who are represented by the same SEIU local that represents the BART workers, good reason to report in that they are unable to get to work. City government would come to a standstill. Teamster locals which represent sanitation and other truck drivers that serve the city could also conceivably join a coordinated job action. Well...you get the picture. The question is whether Bay Area labor leaders are really prepared to follow through on their rhetoic. There are still plenty of folks around here who have memories of the 1934 general strike; another generation that followed received vivid descriptions from their parents. For all its problems, Bay Area labor has a rich tradition of solidarity. It was, you may recall, the ILWU dockworkers who refused to load and unload ships bound to or from South Africa, sparking a nationwide boycott the contributed materially to the downfall of the Apartheid regime. Those same longshore workers will join a global protest against the firing of the Liverpool dockers by shutting down all ports on the West Coast for a day starting tonight. In solidarity, Michael From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Tue Sep 9 00:07:41 1997 Mon, 8 Sep 1997 23:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Mon, 8 Sep 1997 23:01:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 23:01:34 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: FAST TRACK ALERT; Heads Up: Son of NAFTA Sender: meisenscher@igc.org THE PRESIDENT WILL INTRODUCE FAST TRACK THIS WEEK! he wants the Congress to give him authority to negotiate trade pacts (starting with NAFTA expansion and eventually the MAI) in a way that excludes congressional participation in the process (limited debate, no amendments, up-or-down vote). Call Your Representative or his/her "Trade Staffer" ASAP. CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD******1-888-723-5246 Declare Your Opposition to NAFTA Expansion and "Fast Track" Here's three talking points: 1) NAFTA has created new problems. Our food supply is less safe. Due to the increase in border traffic in meat and produce, more food with dangerous pesticide residues or bacteria is getting to our kitchens. Less than 1 percent of the imports of fruit and vegetables coming from Mexico is inspected at the border. The diminished inspection rates along our border has resulted in an unprecedented flow of illegal drugs. Along our southern border, the drugs and uninspected foods are coming across in over-large, often unsafe trucks, which have increased access to U.S. highways under NAFTA. 2) None of the promises of NAFTA's supporters have been fulfilled. Instead of creating jobs, as the pro-"free trade" corporate lobbyists predicted, NAFTA is responsible for the loss of nearly half-a-million U.S. jobs. Instead of cleaning up the environment along the U.S.-Mexico border, water and air pollution have increased. A massive increase of industries has pushed the border ecology to the breaking point. 3) "Fast track" authority for the President is unnecessary and outdated. The Administration regularly brags that they have completed over 200 trade agreements -- but never mentions that only two (NAFTA and GATT) -- needed "fast track." It made more sense when Nixon created it to deal with the Japanese on bilateral, sector-intensive (e.g., autos, steel) issues. But today, so many issues -- labor rights, environmental protection, food safety -- are tied up in these multilateral deals, Congress should take a more meaningful, balanced role in the formulation of our trade policy. The delegation of congressional authority to regulate foreign commerce, and craft and ratify treaties, is illogical in the global economy. Under "fast track," Congress abdicates to the President its power to thoroughly review or fix bad trade deals. *******Instead of EXPANDING NAFTA we should be FIXING IT!******* At Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, we know that when you're headed in the wrong direction, a fast-track is the last thing you need. That number again: 1-888-723-5246 It is urgent that you call your congress member this week. Keep calling until s/he or the Trade L.A. (legislative aide) writes down your name and address in the district and allows you to make all three of the important foregoing points. AND you must get others to do this too. Please distribute widely. ************************************************************************** /s/ Mike Dolan, Field Director, Global Trade Watch, Public Citizen Join the Global Trade Watch list server. We will keep you up to date on trade policy and politics. To subscribe, send this message: "SUBSCRIBE TW-LIST" [followed by your name, your organizational affiliation and the state in which you live] to LISTPROC@ESSENTIAL.ORG Then check out our web-site ---> www.citizen.org/pctrade ------------------------------------------------------------------------- FAST TRAK UPDATE FROM LABR.PARTY NEWSGROUP I'm glad to see interest in this topic. A quick summary of what I know about what's happening: Clinton introduces "fast-track" legislation on Sept 10, along with a dog-and-pony show. This legislation gives the White House authority to negotiate new trade agreements similar to NAFTA but not part of NAFTA per se, and ram them through Congress with little or no opportunity for legislators or the public to digest and react to the contents. As things stand, a large majority of Democrats in Congress (2/3rds or so) will oppose this legislation, including Reps Gephardt and Bonior in the House. It can only pass with Republican support. The price for this support, which Clinton will gladly pay, is the exclusion of any possibility of labor and/or environmental standards in the trade agreements. The AFL-CIO is engineering various events but little or nothing in the way of demonstrations. An exception is a rally in front of the White House Wednesday led by the Teamsters and including George Becker and Ralph Nader (10 a.m. to 11 a.m.). This is the only demo scheduled at the moment. There is a teach-in on Capitol Hill Thursday (1 pm to 3pm) with Members of Congress and labor leaders will speak. UNITE is planning some kind of outdoor 'Peoples' Hearing' Thursday at the Capitol. The AFL will be running advertisements around the country, targeted at specific Members of Congress. In sum, there is a fair amount going on, though obviously much more could be done. One substantive matter: the Administration will claim the legislation allows for labor and environmental stipulations in trade deals. In fact, the language in the bill in this vein is phony. It is denounced as such by most environmental groups and all labor unions. Moreover, polling shows that "fast track" is opposed by a strong majority of citizens. Another dodge by the Clinto-crats is the promise that human/labor rights will be pursued "later" by some other mysterious means on a separate track. You could call this the fast track versus the slow boat. Besides the phony language in the bill, the White House will be trying to buy off marginal votes in congress by promising unrelated favors, or by promising special deals as part of trade deals (e.g., you vote for this and we'll stop Chilean grapes from coming in). The Black Caucus is pretty much against the bill, but the Hispanic caucus is more ambivalent. Much more detailed information can be found on web pages of trade unions, the AFL-CIO, and the Nader groups (particularly Public Citizen). Fun fact: VP Al 'Buddha can you spare a dime' Gore could barely deliver his speech to the AFL-CIO's working women conference over heckling he received over fast track. This is all going to be decided in a month or two. The longer it lingers the less chance the legislation has of passing. Any response has to happen quickly if it is to affect Congress; otherwise it falls into the category of education for the long run. As others have pointed out, this is an important matter and one where the national machinery of the Democratic Party (basically the White House) is out of step with the citizenry and most Democratic elected officials. Good reason why we need a LP, but also (warning: political ax-grinding ahead) a reason to forego attacks on Dems in general in principle and focus where the fault lies most heavily: the White House, the GOP, and a relative handful of corporatist Dems. I'd be happy to field any questions on this that I can, though I'm not a trade expert. Cheers, MBS =================================================== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute maxsaw@cpcug.org 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. =================================================== From aanz@sirius.com Tue Sep 9 09:00:37 1997 Tue, 9 Sep 1997 07:54:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 07:57:20 -0700 To: GertieRuth@aol.com From: aanz@sirius.com (anzalone/starbird) Subject: UNITEing campus activists belanger@WEB.NET, Chia.Hamilton@ncal.kaiperm.org, clr@igc.apc.org, Dan Clawson , Lyn_Duff@sfbayguardian.com (Lyn Duff), Neil Lahaie , force.ten@lol.shareworld.com, unitela@igc.apc.org, (Max Blanchet)Tiben1940@aol.com, Neil Lahaie , Liam Flynn x343301 , avlannon@sfsu.edu, bcoch@sfsu.edu, can-labor@pencil.math.missouri.edu, CANET@pencil.math.missouri.edu, erica@labornet.org, kurzweil@email.sjsu.edu, karin hart , labornotes@igc.org, mbennett@floyd.santarosa.edu (Martin Bennett), Edna Bonacich , rarmbrus@wizard.ucr.edu, dreiling@darkwing.uoregon.edu, delgado@uci.edu, dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu, fgapasin@ucla.edu, sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu, wharton@mail.wsu.edu (Amy Wharton), royster@sadri.umass.edu, San FRancisco Bay Area alert The Laney College Labor Studies club will be participating in the Back to School Boycott (Guess) campaign of UNITE, the garment worker's union. UNITE is currently in an active organizing campaign with Guess jeans in Los Angeles. For those in the bay area S.F. UNITE will be targeting a mall on Sept. 13th, National Day of Action for the Back to School Boycott of Guess (jeans?). This is a Saturday action, and the S.F. coordinator is Agustin Ramirez, who can be reached by phone at (415) 543-9990 for more information. Activists interested in participating should contact Mr. Ramirez and let him know you can show up at the UNITE office at 660 Howard St, at 10 am on Saturday, Sept. 13th. Those stranded in Oakland/East Bay by recalcitrant BART management can contact me for rides. ******************************************************************** October 4th Day of Conscience: If Disney has pulled out of Haiti by 10/4/97 to open new sweatshops in Haiti the four pm site for activity on October fourth will be the Disney store at the corner of union square in San Francisco. (Stockton and Powell). If the BART is running union take the Powell street station exit and walk uphill. September 8, 1997: Last week to send letters to Disney in the hopes of averting a shut down of their operation in Haiti in retaliation for union and human rights activity: Mike Eisner, CEO Walt Disney Co. 500 Buena Vista St. Burbank, CA 91521 Dear Mr. Eisner, Don't cut and run from Haiti to avoid human rights scrutiny by moving your sweatshop to Asia. That strategy failed you when you ditched the Rapid City, Iowa workers in 1995 to subcontract in Haiti, and that strategy is not any better today. The Haitian workers have a right to organize for a living wage, which Disney can easily afford. Do the right thing, stay put and negotiate. Sincerely, From Glafer@aol.com Wed Sep 10 00:43:36 1997 From: Glafer@aol.com by emout14.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) Wed, 10 Sep 1997 02:43:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 02:43:31 -0400 (EDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Future Distributions Off-List Mike - I'd like to keep receiving whatever you post, off-list. Thanks - Gordon Lafer, Labor Education and Research Ctr, U of Oregon; and senior researcher, Building Trades Organizing Project (Las Vegas) glafer@aol.com From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Sep 10 10:22:01 1997 Wed, 10 Sep 1997 09:14:43 -0700 (PDT) Wed, 10 Sep 1997 09:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 09:06:22 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: SOLIDARITY REQUEST: MEXICO; Perspective: NAFTA Impact Sender: meisenscher@igc.org The attached request is from Robin Alexander, Director of International Affairs for the UE. Robin has been working tirelessly to establish ties between Mexican workers, American workers and Canadian workers for several years. Her union, the UE, believes that part of the solution to the problems facing the working people of these three countries is mutual support in times of crisis as well as sharing information. To give you an idea of the scope of their activities: to sustain these activities, the UE, along with the Teamsters, the Frente Autentico de Trabajo (an "unofficial" Mexican union) and others have established a workers training center in Cd. Juarez, Mexico. They have established a good working relationship with the Frente Autentico de Trabajo in many areas of common concern. On March 1, 1997, the UE, Teamsters, UPIU, Frente Autentico de Trabajo, Canadian Steelworkers, UNITE! and others met in Chicago to establish the Echlin Workers Conference. Echlin is a multinational corporation with plants in Canada, Mexico and the USA. It is about 17% unionized. In Chicago, workers from all three countries came together to examine their employer from a multi-national perspective, which is exactly how he sees himself. Out of this conference came a plan of action, which will unite these workers and strengthen their organizations. This appeal for fax action, on behalf of the workers of a plant in Mexico, is concrete proof that a multi-national approach to our employers is feasible and desirable. So, Brothers and Sisters, get off your laurels, please, and make a move to support these Mexican workers. They are in the front lines of struggle against a multi-national employer we are trying to confront in three countries. You and I face many obstacles as we try to organize workers in the USA, and re-organize those already represented in the workplace. None of us can imagine the obstacles faced by our Brothers and Sisters in Mexico as they confront a greedy employer, a "house" union like the CTM and the truncheons and bayonets of soldiers. Please, send a fax. Support the process. If the Echlin experiment works, it can be expanded. Who knows, we might even take on Mr. Welch and GE in all three countries. His counter part at Echlin may not be as notorious, but he too needs to learn some manners. Thanks for your patience. asta la victoria, George Searfoss - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Original Message - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: robin alexander Date: Tuesday, September 9, 1997 at 4:53:45 am EST Attached: Headers.822 To: Emergency FAX contacts From: Robin Alexander Re: FAXES needed ASAP Date: September 9, 1997 URGENT, URGENT, URGENT ACTION ALERT!!!!!! The metal workers union affiliated with the FAT (STIMAHCS) has petitioned for representation of workers at an autoparts plant in Mexico City. The company name is ITAPSA, an affiliate of the transnational Echlin. Although the union has complied with all legal requirements, they have faced innumerable legal problems raised by the company and CTM and the discharge of more than 50 workers. Nevertheless, they finally qwon the right to an election which is scheduled for this morning. They now face the critical situation described below. Please send faxes immediately to 011-525-588-32-35! You will need to say "tono de fax" when someone answers. A copy of the letter we just sent is attached. For more information call Robin Alexander at 412-471-8919 or Mary McGinn at 714-836-4101. September 9, 1997 Alfredo Farid, President Junta Federal de Conciliacion y Arbitraje VIA FAX: 011-525-588-32-35 Dear President Farid: I am writing to you on behalf of the 35,000 members of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) to urge you to immediately take all possible action to protect the rights of the workers at ITAPSA who are challenging a CTM local in an election scheduled for 11:00 this morning. We have been informed that two bus loads of armed thugs are inside the plant and have been threatening workers. Indeed, third shift workers who normally leave the plant at 6:00 a.m. have not been permitted to leave this morning. We vigorously protest this outrageous flaunting of workers rights and ask you to intervene immediately and ensure police protection to prevent bloodshed and to permit workers to exercize their rights. Sincerely, Robert L. Clark General Secretary Treasurer Robin Alexander UE Director of International Labor Affairs One Gateway Center, Suite 1400 420 Fort Duquesne Blvd. PGH., PA. 15222-1416 412-471-8919 412-471-8999 FAX HTTP://www.igc.apc.org/unitedelect/ (See alert section every two weeks for labor and related news from Mexico ================================= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- >From PEN-L: The Progressive Response is a publication of Foreign Policy In Focus, a joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies. Erik Leaver Interhemispheric Resouce Center THE PROGRESSIVE RESPONSE Vol. 1, No. 4 Tom Barry, editor ***Issues of Debate: Assessing the Impact of NAFTA*** Trade Balance Tactics Opponents of NAFTA, on both the left and the right, cite the current U.S. trade deficit with Mexico as a sign that NAFTA has negatively impacted the United States. It is certainly true that the U.S. now imports more goods from Mexico than it exports to Mexico. In 1996 the United States suffered a $16.2 billion trade deficit with Mexico, whereas in 1993 it experienced a $1.7 billion surplus. Although those concerned about unemployment, poverty, and low wage levels in the United States should examine the state of U.S. trade in their attempt to find the causes of economic instability and job losses at home, they should not adopt the dogma that a trade deficit with Mexico means more unemployment in the United States. When considering the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico, it should be recognized that, while Mexico in 1995 and 1996 did export more to the United States than it imported from this country, overall trade with Mexico has expanded substantially since 1993. Despite the economic crisis in Mexico, U.S. exports to Mexico have expanded by more than a third during the first three years of NAFTA. It is not that the United States is exporting less to Mexico than it did before, only that U.S. imports from Mexico have increased faster than U.S. exports to Mexico. It would be wrong to attribute the present status of U.S.-Mexico trade balance primarily to NAFTA for the following reasons: * Overall U.S.-Mexico trade was on the increase even before NAFTA. * In the 1982-1991 period the U.S. experienced a persistent trade deficit with Mexico. * U.S. export growth to Mexico is largely related to the state of the Mexican economy. * The 1994 economic crisis in Mexico--in which consumption dropped 15%--helps explain why U.S. exports to Mexico did not rise as rapidly as previously projected. * The steady GDP increase in the U.S. has created increased demand for goods and supplies, boosting the level of Mexican exports to the United States. Given that the balance of trade between Mexico and the U.S. is closely to the state of the economy in each country, it is likely that the current trade status will change. Consequently, arguments in favor or against NAFTA based primarily on the size of the deficit or surplus are unlikely to stand the test of time. Indeed, as the Mexican economy slowly recuperates, its trade surplus is falling dramatically. The latest figures from Mexico show that its total imports have increased by 27 percent while exports have also increased although more slowly--but still at a healthy rate of 15 percent. Those NAFTA opponents in the United States who point to the 1995-96 trade deficit with Mexico may be left on shaky ground in a year or two as that deficit turns into a surplus. Similarly, more caution is needed in basing one's opposition to NAFTA on reported or calculated job losses. For starters, it should be recognized that the United States has experienced both relatively low unemployment and economic growth since the NAFTA took effect. Opposing NAFTA on the basis of the state of traditional economic indicators--GDP growth, unemployment, trade balance, etc.--is a difficult argument to make, especially at this time of comparatively good economic health in the United States. There are two approaches to the job loss discussion that should be regarded with caution. The first is the facile adoption of a Commerce Department's multiplier that holds that $1 billion in increased exports creates 20,000 new U.S. jobs. By applying this multiplier to the trade deficit (which implies that all Mexican imports take U.S. jobs and that this deficit is due to NAFTA), the Economic Policy Institute concluded that the increase in the U.S. trade deficit since 1993 has cost the United States 251,000 jobs. As noted previously, this approach fails to recognize that, while the United States may be experiencing a deficit with Mexico, its exports continue to increase. Weintraub calls all the manipulations using export/job multipliers "primitive arithmetic," pointing out that 1) merchandise trade is only one part of the balance of payments and does not include the export of U.S. services, 2) imports do not automatically translate into job losses, 3) decreased Mexican exports would decrease Mexico's ability to purchase U.S. products, thereby adversely affecting U.S. jobs, 4) as a global trader, the U.S. should expect deficits with some countries and surpluses with others, and 5) a substantial part of North American trade is not in final products but in components of final products. It is true that during the NAFTA debate the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico was cited as a sign that the United States was creating jobs in the U.S. economy at the expense of Mexico, using the export/jobs multiplier as the proof. This was faulty argumentation as many NAFTA opponents rightly observed at the time. However, now that the trade balance has temporarily shifted, NAFTA opponents have opportunistically latched on to the multiplier argument as evidence that NAFTA is hurting the United States. This is specious argumentation and should be rejected. The ostensibly more persuasive argument that NAFTA is costing the United States jobs is based on figures from the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, under which 128, 253 U.S. workers have received assistance because they have lost their jobs either because of production relocation or imports from Mexico. Public Citizen and the AFL-CIO argue that this figure is just the tip of the iceberg, since the criteria for TAA are too strict. It is certainly true that many workers have been affected adversely by production shifts and changing trading patterns between Mexico and the United States. This was true before NAFTA and continues to be true, and it is also true that globalization of production results in a downward pressure on wage scales. But this does not necessarily mean that the United States has suffered a net job loss because of NAFTA. Clearly, U.S. jobs are also being created as a result of more integrated North American economic relations, although there is no parallel way to measure jobs created. Put another way, the TAA figure clearly shows that some U.S. workers have lost jobs as a result of North American trade and investment patterns, but it's not valid to use this figure to justify statements that NAFTA has resulted in a net job loss for the U.S. work force when other U.S. workers have gained jobs because of those same changing patterns. It may certainly be true that the United States has experienced a net job loss because of U.S.-Mexico trade and investment patterns, but opponents should acknowledge that jobs are also being created. Other points that Weintraub makes to support his contention that NAFTA has been good for both Mexico and the United States include: * Increases and decreases in trade cannot be attributed solely to NAFTA, considering that even before NAFTA the trade preferences granted by the two countries were not significantly different. * Increased Mexican exports to the U.S have helped that country to pay off debts to the United States. * Without NAFTA, Mexico would have likely raised its import tariffs in an effort to stem the 1994 balance-of-payments crisis, which would have lowered U.S. exports and slowed the growth in overall trade. * It is true that increased maquiladora production in Mexico has resulted in localized hardships for U.S. workers who have lost their jobs, but it should be remembered that 50 percent of the value of maquiladora production comes from U.S.-supplied inputs and that if the opportunity to establish production-sharing facilities (maquilas) in Mexico did not exist many companies would likely shift all their production facilities overseas. In any fight against free-trade globalization, it will also be necessary to respond to Weintraub's assessment of NAFTA as being good for the consumer. He concludes his progress report with this observation: "One should not lose sight of an elementary point that is often forgotten. An import duty is a tax on the consumer. If one believes in lower taxes, NAFTA moves modestly in this direction. If one believes in the importance of a competitive market, NAFTA encourages this. If one believes in consumer sovereignty, NAFTA stimulates this." There is a dangerous tendency among progressives in the United States to side with U.S. producers rather than U.S. consumers and to assume an ultranationalist posture. Unless one supports total national self-reliance, there are self-evident benefits of trade (both intranational and international). Too often progressives have lent support to industries, particularly agroindustries like those that produce sugar, tomatoes, and avocados, in the name of fair trade and U.S. workers. Such industries operate behind costly protectionist tariffs and quotas, denying U.S. consumers lower prices and foreign economies a source of foreign exchange. Progressives should be cautious about protecting noncompetitive industries, especially when restricting imports shifts the burden to consumers. A Progressive Agenda In making the case against the corporate agenda of free trade, progressives need to steer clear of the mercantilist perspective that Weintraub outlines and adopt a more internationalist approach. This does not mean that U.S. workers and consumers should accept a downward harmonization of wages and standards, but it does mean that any campaign for upward harmonization must accept that U.S. businesses, workers, and consumers--are not the primary victims of the current trends in economic globalization. Because of its position in the global economy and its associated political influence in international affairs, the United States more often benefits than loses in the new configuration of economic relations. This is not to say that there are not many negative consequences of NAFTA and other free trade accords but only to acknowledge the privileged position of the United States when compared, for example, with a country like Mexico. If the corporate agenda of economic globalization, which NAFTA is certainly a part of, is to be successfully opposed, it will require enlightened cooperation across borders. Ultranationalist positions that demand that the U.S. government protect all sectors of the economy against foreign competition undermine such alliances. This has become particularly clear in the NAFTA evaluations that focus on documenting the "giant sucking sound" while failing to look at the entire picture of U.S.-Mexico relations. We must think globally. During the first three years of NAFTA, the United States has enjoyed comparatively good economic health. Arguments that NAFTA is hurting the United States at a time when Mexico has endured one of the most severe economic crises in its entire history will not have much resonance in Mexico and are not a good basis for establishing cross-border citizen alliance. NAFTA opponents in the United States must take care not to paint the United States as the main victim of regional economic integration. It is simply not true. Pointing to the U.S. trade deficits with Mexico and Canada and imputing job losses to these deficits portrays a false picture of the winners and losers of free trade. The facts of the economic relations of the United States with Mexico must be kept clearly in mind when considering the impact of NAFTA: * Mexico's merchandise exports to the U.S. constitute about 25% of its GDP, whereas U.S. merchandise exports to Mexico are less than 1% of the U.S. GDP. * Mexico's GDP is less than 5% of the U.S. GDP. In Mexico, as in the United States, any evaluation of NAFTA should extend beyond standard economic indicators to an examination of the economic models on which the regional free trade accord is premised. In Mexico, the country's leaders have dropped all pretense of directing economic development and have instead hitched Mexico's economic welfare to the vagaries of the global marketplace and in particular to U.S. capital and trade. In the United States, the country's economic welfare is also increasingly a function of the U.S. place in the global economy, and U.S. political leaders wrongly assume that aiding the overseas expansion of corporate America is the most effective way to improve the welfare of the entire nation. The ideological commitment to the benefits of the open regional marketplace is much the same for the two nations. But as the world's economic powerhouse, the United States stands in a much better position than Mexico to shape this economic integration to the benefit of its leading economic actors, namely the transnational corporations that control most regional trade. It is true that certain sectors of U.S. business have been affected adversely and certain workers have seen their jobs transferred to Mexico. But this does not mean that NAFTA has had an overall negative impact on trade, investment, consumer prices, and job creation. Expanding NAFTA and giving President Clinton fast-track authority for additional free trade agreements should be opposed but without resorting to mercantilist measurements of success or failure. More than a trade treaty, NAFTA is, as Weintraub observes, a "framework of economic relations" between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. As such, it is a model for other frameworks of regional and international economic relations. NAFTA should be opposed by policymakers and citizens because it is a framework for economic globalization that privileges the interests of large corporations and does not adequately consider the impact of these economic relations on the environment and labor. It and similar free trade accords should be opposed because they accelerate the forces of corporate-driven globalization, thus making it ever more difficult for countries (both those of the North and the South) to establish the basic ground rules for sustainable development in this new era of globalization. Before moving forward with further liberalization of trade and investment, U.S. policymakers and citizens should make certain that they--and not the transnational corporations--are the ones who formulate the framework of economic development. The imperatives of profit-taking and market expansion need to be conditioned by policies and regulations that ensure the common good. Otherwise, these agreements will facilitate the downward harmonization of labor, environmental, and consumer standards. The framework of economic relations that prioritizes the common good should not and cannot be one that is anti-market or anti-business. But it must be constructed to ensure environmentally sustainable and equitable development. Specifically, this means: * Creation of a context for economic relations that includes a safety net for those who are marginalized by the international market, including assistance and retraining for those who lose their jobs because of relocation. * Integration of labor and environmental standards into the heart of trade agreements. * Generation of funds through taxes on cross-border commercial and financial transactions that can serve to provide adjustment assistance to communities adversely affected by alterations in production and trading patterns. * Recognition that trade agreements should not necessarily be completely reciprocal, meaning that they recognize that less developed nations will likely need longer tariff phase-out periods and more regulations regarding foreign investment and capital flows. * Enforcement of guarantees that relocating companies adequately compensate host communities for services, training, financing, and facilities they have provided and that such companies supply fair notice and severance benefits to workers. * Strong support and advocacy for international standards and treaties on human rights, labor rights, and natural resources that will serve as a counterweight to corporate pressures for downward harmonization. Weintraub is right that many of the arguments used as rallying calls against regional economic integration are rubbish and narrowly nationalistic. But he is wrong in his belief that NAFTA-style globalization is, despite local hardships, good for the overall global economy and society. Sources for More Information: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Email: (202) 775-9199 Website: http://www.csis.org Sidney Weintraub NAFTA at Three: A Progress Report Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1997 Economic Policy Institute Email: economic@cais.com Website: http://epinet.org See: (Trade Deficit, Job Losses Soar since NAFTA) epinet.org/tf970219.html Global Trade Watch Public Citizen Email: mdolan@citizen.org Website: http://www.citizen.org/pctrade ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To subscribe to the Progressive Response, send an email to: newusfp-manager@zianet.com with the words "join newusfp" in the body of the message. Alternatively, if you do not wish to receive The Progressive Response, please send an email message to irc1@zianet.com with the words "leave newusfp" in the body of the message. Visit the Foreign Policy In Focus website, http://www.zianet.com/infocus, for a complete listing of "In Focus" briefs and text versions of the briefs. To order policy briefs, our book "Global Focus: A New Foreign Policy Agenda 1997-98", or for more information contact the Interhemispheric Resource Center or the Institute for Policy Studies. IRC (Orders/Information) Voice: (505) 842-8288 Fax: (505) 246-1601 Email: resourcectr@igc.apc.org Contact: Erik Leaver IPS (Information) Voice: (202) 234-9382 Fax: (202) 387-7915 Email: ipsps@igc.apc.org Contact: Martha Honey From dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu Thu Sep 11 10:56:34 1997 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:53:32 -0400 To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu (david croteau) Subject: List change & anniversary HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, TWO CHANGES, AND SOME REFLECTIONS 1. HAPPY ANNIVERSARY Next week marks the first anniversary of Labor-Rap. FYI, the size of the list has stabilized at about 210-225 subscribers. About 90 percent of our subscribers are from the US. The remaining subscribers are mostly from Canada and the UK, with a few folks from other places. I hope the list has been of benefit to you. (Don Roper, Communications for a Sustainable Future, and ColoradoU deserve credit for housing the list and managing the technical end of things. They are the invisible entities that make this list possible.) By the way, don't forget to let others know of our existence. 2. TWO CHANGES First, by popular request, beginning in October I'll be passing along a "monthly reminder" about common commands used with Labor-Rap, including how to receive your messages in digest form, how to unsubscribe, etc. Second, beginning immediately there will be a change in the list management software. This is an attempt to diversify participation and encourage more people to submit information and ideas to the list. This is an unmoderated list--anything sent by a subscriber ends up on the list. Beginning now, though, no single subscriber will be able to post more than 10 of the last 50 messages (20%). That's still a considerable amount which will allow for plenty of "back and forth" discussions that might require a single subscriber to respond several times. However, it will prevent the list from being dominated by just a few voices. Before I get jumped on for being "Big Brother," censoring subscribers, etc, let me explain some of the rationale here. There has been some off-list grumbling in recent weeks that the volume of material being re-posted to Labor-Rap has gotten unwieldy and that too many posts are coming from the same source. In fact, recently a full 60% of all Labor-Rap posts have been originating with one subscriber. Though these messages have usually been interesting re-postings of material from other sources, this is probably not a healthy trend. (Indeed, for the first time, we've seen a slight dip in subscribers recently. A couple of them contacted me directly to tell me that the volume of material being posted was overwhelming.) This type of limit will encourage people to be more selective in choosing what they post and hopefully we will end up with broader participation. SOME REFLECTIONS The spirit of Labor-Rap has always been to promote discussion as well as information sharing. In our first year, it seems to me we've done a pretty good job at sharing information. However, there hasn't been as much in the way of discussion and debate. That's a little surprising to me, given all that is happening with labor these days. (Any ideas on why that might be so?) In the coming weeks there will be some "think-pieces" being posted by folks who volunteered at the ASA meeting in Toronto. These pieces will be addressing, among other things: teaching about labor, doing research with/for the labor movement, campus-based labor activities, and influencing media and culture. I hope these pieces spark some discussion and debate that proves to be useful. Thanks for your cooperation and consideration in the past year. I look forward to an interesting second year for Labor-Rap! ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Croteau Sociology/ Virginia Commonwealth University E-mail: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu From carre@radmail.harvard.edu Thu Sep 11 12:10:21 1997 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:58:59 -0400 From: Francoise Carre To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: AFL CIO Working WOmen COnference Last weekend, the AFL-CIO Women's department headed by Karen Nussbaum held a National WOrking Women Conference. The conference drew a surprising response, overflow registrations, and high participation. About 1,700 persons attended, a multi ethnic crowd of all ages, occupations, and unions. Plenary speakers were introduced by individual workers involved in a particular organizing drives. Speakers included among others Linda Chavez-THompson, Trumka, the Head of the Canadian Labor Council, Barbara Milkuski, Eleonore Holmes Norton, Julianne Malveaux, Al Gore, Karen Nussbaum, and others. Some people were recognized who work in labor and community organizing (Southerners for Economic Justice, Guess Campaign, J for Janitors in DC, and others.) The audience cheered, clapped, and whistled through hours of presentation. The BBC did a segment on it. Apparently CNN covered one plenary. Virtually nothing else was reported. I recommend you speak to someone who attended lest this unusual event pass unnoticed. FC From shostaka@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu Thu Sep 11 14:27:41 1997 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:27:37 -0600 (MDT) To: LABOR-RAP@csf.colorado.edu From: Art Shostak Subject: BART Strike Brothers and Sisters: The BART strike has dropped out of the East Coast papers - Can you fill me in? Why was the 60-day cooling off imposed? Why did it not result in a pre-strike settlement? Did it achieve anything? How does it resemble the Taft=Gartley cooling off? Is it a California law that was used or a municipal law? Is the strike still on? Fraternally, Art P.S. A national magazine has called me for this info, and I said I would ask all of you - the papers here are blank, alas. Sorry to bother you. 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 aanz@sirius.com Fri Sep 12 16:43:54 1997 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:46:18 -0700 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: aanz@sirius.com (anzalone/starbird) Subject: Re: BART Strike >Brothers and Sisters: The BART strike has dropped out of the East Coast >papers - Can you fill me in? Why was the 60-day cooling off imposed? Pete Wilson Why did it not result in a pre-strike settlement? Management refused to budge from their take it or leave it position vizavi their last best and final offer during the sixties days of the cooling off period. In fact managment virtually stopped attending negotiations during the cooling off period, and has spent their time telling the press how well paid BART workers are compared to the train operators and maintanence folks in Atlanta Georgia. (According to BART sources BART employees are the highest paid in the country, excluding New York City). The BART general manager before the last one was offered as an incentive a $500,000. downpayment on a house to lure him to California where the cost of living is so high, in addition to his pay, perks and benes. I have not seen any press coverage that discloses that use of resources. Did it achieve anything? The cooling off period? Nothing discernable; basically management had declared a last best and final offer befoer the cooling off period and refused to negotiate during the cooling off period. >How does it resemble the Taft=Gartley cooling off? Looks just like it from the outside, sixty days of forced work before you can go out again. Is it a California law >that was used or a municipal law? (I think it was the rail way act but I >can find out for sure for you) Is the strike still on? Yes, but a week into it managment has budged (one year closer to parity) from their two tier system. Newly hired Workers can now expect to get paid as equals in 4 instead of 5 years; if the members were willing to take bart's most current lb&fo. They are not willing. Neither are they being replaced. Management continues to be paid by Cal Trans for services that are not being provided, plus they "save on the expense" of electricity costs for not running the trains. Our state yahoo, Quentin Kopp has proposed legislation to require BART workers to forgo their right to strike. Not a bother. SEIU 790 has a press flak, Tim Reagan whom you can contact at their offices in San Francisco. He should be able to give you the union's official position. ellen starbird Fraternally, Art > >P.S. A national magazine has called me for this info, and I said I would >ask all of you - the papers here are blank, alas. Sorry to bother you. > >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 aanz@sirius.com Fri Sep 12 19:31:48 1997 Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:31:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:34:07 -0700 To: SHOSTAKA@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu, Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: aanz@sirius.com (anzalone/starbird) Subject: Re: BART Strike AFSCME settled last night for the managers, but remain out on strike in solidarity. Last contract the 790 Union official (representing the biggest bargaining unit) in a memorandum of understanding argreed to a "one time only" two tier (lower wages for new hires) system that was supposed to end in the third year (at these, the next negotiations). BART now refuses to reconsider/remove that second tier (new hires are paid lower rate at 10. vs 15. said SEIU rep. Bill Loyd in tv interview). Instead BART is now requesting that the wages be unilaterally determined in the fourth year following the next contract (by management). The uninon hotline update number is: 510 465-0122 ext. 63 Last night's latest opinoin polls (Channel 2) showed that 40% of the stranded riders blame "both" sides, and twice as many of the others (26%) blame the union for their inconvenience as blame BART management. Subsequent picket line rumors today are that BART's offer this morning is 1 million less than the previous. Ellen Starbird >Brothers and Sisters: The BART strike has dropped out of the East Coast >papers - Can you fill me in? Why was the 60-day cooling off imposed? Q. from Art: Why did (cooling off period) not result in a pre-strike settlement? A: From Ellen: Management refused to meet until the week before the end of the cooling off period, at which point they reiterated their pre-cooling off proposal verbatum introducing it as their "Best, Last and Final Offer". Did it achieve anything? >How does it resemble the Taft=Gartley cooling off? Is it a California law >that was used or a municipal law? Is the strike still on? Fraternally, Art > >P.S. A national magazine has called me for this info, and I said I would >ask all of you - the papers here are blank, alas. Sorry to bother you. > >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 aanz@sirius.com Fri Sep 12 20:07:09 1997 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:09:36 -0700 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: aanz@sirius.com (anzalone/starbird) Subject: Re: BART Strike >Brothers and Sisters: The BART strike has dropped out of the East Coast >papers - Can you fill me in? Why was the 60-day cooling off imposed? Pete Wilson Why did it not result in a pre-strike settlement? Management refused to budge from their take it or leave it position vizavi their last best and final offer during the sixties days of the cooling off period. In fact managment virtually stopped attending negotiations during the cooling off period, and has spent their time telling the press how well paid BART workers are compared to the train operators and maintanence folks in Atlanta Georgia. (According to BART sources BART employees are the highest paid in the country, excluding New York City). The BART general manager before the last one was offered as an incentive a $500,000. downpayment on a house to lure him to California where the cost of living is so high, in addition to his pay, perks and benes. I have not seen any press coverage that discloses that use of resources. Did it achieve anything? The cooling off period? Nothing discernable; basically management had declared a last best and final offer befoer the cooling off period and refused to negotiate during the cooling off period. >How does it resemble the Taft=Gartley cooling off? Looks just like it from the outside, sixty days of forced work before you can go out again. Is it a California law >that was used or a municipal law? (I think it was the rail way act but I >can find out for sure for you) Is the strike still on? Yes, but a week into it managment has budged (one year closer to parity) from their two tier system. Newly hired Workers can now expect to get paid as equals in 4 instead of 5 years; if the members were willing to take bart's most current lb&fo. They are not willing. Neither are they being replaced. Management continues to be paid by Cal Trans for services that are not being provided, plus they "save on the expense" of electricity costs for not running the trains. Our state yahoo, Quentin Kopp has proposed legislation to require BART workers to forgo their right to strike. Not a bother. SEIU 790 has a press flak, Tim Reagan whom you can contact at their offices in San Francisco. He should be able to give you the union's official position. ellen starbird Fraternally, Art > >P.S. A national magazine has called me for this info, and I said I would >ask all of you - the papers here are blank, alas. Sorry to bother you. > >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>Brothers and Sisters: The BART strike has >dropped out of the East Coast >papers - Can you fill me in? Why was the 60-day cooling off imposed? Why >did it not result in a pre-strike settlement? Did it achieve anything? >How does it resemble the Taft=Gartley cooling off? Is it a California law >that was used or a municipal law? Is the strike still on? Fraternally, Art > >P.S. A national magazine has called me for this info, and I said I would >ask all of you - the papers here are blank, alas. Sorry to bother you. > >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 aanz@sirius.com Fri Sep 12 22:46:11 1997 Fri, 12 Sep 1997 21:46:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 21:48:32 -0700 To: letters@examiner.com From: aanz@sirius.com (anzalone/starbird) Subject: BART STRIKE Channel two reports that more stranded commuters blame "both sides" (40%), than hold BART management alone responsible for the last week of snarled traffic. Maybe so. Me, I expect BART workers to get me to work on time, and I expect them to want to provide for their families more than they want to do that. Hey, maybe I'm not as sentimental as I should be, and I lack the chromozone required to romaticize trains as more than a hard job you have to get up really early for. But I ride the BART to work every morning and I'm as rude, surly and indifferent to BART workers as the next guy when they were doing the fine job we all now miss so sorely. But all I read in the press is the 40 to 48 grand the highest paid worker makes at BART, like that was big money to buy a house and raise a family in the Bay Area. Get real. 40 grand is fine for the train to run occasionally on time and without killing me. For a week all I've seen in the press is the 40 grand that (some) BART workers get. Big deal. How come the press hasn't asked how much management (you know the people at least half responsible for the sluggish negotiations) makes? I say the press should cover the pay scale on both sides of this question; while the BART workers ran the trains (with a wage freeze) for three years with narry a fatality BART managers were getting, on top of extravagent pay and pension and better than the workers get medical and benefit packages; $500,000.00 "bonus perks" to make downpayments on homes since the poor things had to live in the bay area where it is sooo expensive to live. You know a worker can walk a picket line a mighty long time on a resentment like that. Let's face it the BART staff responsible for managing BART is not performing up to par. I don't know of a management anywhere that should congratulate itself for closing to the public. Now I know we are in an era where we don't expect much from overpaid executives, even those on the public dole, but haven't these managers also gone a little overboard here? All I know is that the union gave sixty (count 'em sixty) days, two months, to BART management during the cooling off period for the BART managment to work out the particulars on the contract; which basically boil down I believe to a request to end the concessions BART employees gave up during the last negotiations. (The famous two tier system where new hires are paid less that gave us two weeks without UPS deliveries.) Did BART managment use that sixty days constructively? Not exactly; they refused to meet with the union in negotiations until the week prior to the deadline, and then when they did meet they refused to move in negotiations. Only when BART had been closed for three days did they offer to bring wages up for the workers on the second tier one year quicker. An offer they could have made that offer day 1 of the cooling off period instead of day 3 of a crippling strike. But unlike the union members BART mananagement doesn't need to provide a service to pick up a paycheck, thank you very much. Since Cal Trans gives BART management our tax money whether they have good management or no service...hey! Probably the only people who can wait this thing out until Concord freezes over is...BART mananagers! As for Quinten Kopp, instead of posturing for legislation destined to be overturned as unconstitutional (chattles slaves for BART, yeah! give people with no rights and less pay expensive equiptment to run, great idea Quin!) What he should be proposing is turning the heat up where it will do the public some good. How about no BART train no Cal Trans money? There's some legislation we could rally behind. Ellen Starbird Oakland, CA From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Sat Sep 13 18:10:21 1997 Sat, 13 Sep 1997 17:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 17:07:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: An End to Unemployment and Absolute Poverty. (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 01:42:32 -0200 From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: An End to Unemployment and Absolute Poverty. (fwd) Dear Future Cities List: I am not saying this model can be easily transferred to other countries. However I would say that after we prove that it works here in British Columbia we can reasonably try to transfer it to other countries (like Canada) and to places which have very different customs, laws etc. What do you think? FWP. To: Dennis Streifel Minister of Human Resources Parliament, Victoria (via E. Young, Administrative Assistant). Dear Mr. Streifel: According to a street poster which I just read, put up by the "Vancouver Labour Market Research Group" (VLMRG) your government is spending > $100,000,000/year on training employable unemployed in an unsuccessful exercise of "musical chairs". That is an apt description as long as the unemployment rate remains at the same high level that it has for years (around the double digit mark). So the fundamental problem is JOB CREATION, not pre-employment training for jobs which don't exist. I am on the roster of "B.C. Benefits Service Providers" and as a Service Provider let me offer to serve as intermediary in brokering a contract between the VLMRG and The Venus Project in Florida. (As long as both sides remain willing of course). Since this project also requires an environmental consultant, J. Woods, Environmental Consultant from Nebraska will be written into the contract to fill that role. The VLMRG people will be fully employed by a WORKER-OWNED, ROBOTIZED-COMPUTERIZED INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX which will first be located at the False Creek Development in Vancouver. Please refer to The Futurist Magazine of May-June, 1994 (pp. 29-34) for the Venus Project Model of "resource-based economics" which is 100% sound and which takes us into the realm of "full cost accounting". It is a full cost accounting economic model and that is explicitly a criterion of the False Creek Sustainable Village now being planned by the City of Vancouver for ~ 5,000 people. Also refer to "The Next Revolution in Computers" by John Diebold (pp. 34-60). John Diebold is author of "Automation: The Advent of the Automatic Factory". This worker-owned automatic factory at False Creek Village will be a model for a geographically NON CONTIGUOUS Future City of 20 or more Future Villages which will "decant" from False Creek over the next 25 years. The resource-based economics will PUT AN END TO ABSOLUTE POVERTY AND UNEMPLOYMENT. All citizens will share the work required to CONTROL and do repairs and maintenance on the automatic factory complex so there will be no unemployment. If the work week is very short then self-directed work (some would call it "self actualization") will take up the remaining time. Since the Future City factory complex will make all the amenities for a quality life style for the workers there will be no absolute poverty. Would you be willing to allocate the portion of that >$100,000,000 which would otherwise go to the VLMRG to train them in pre-employment programs for jobs which don't exist, to this contracting process and to the subsequent pre-employment training which will be required to teach people how to operate and maintain an automatic factory? Would you please cc your reply to VLMRG at 14 East 7 th. Ave., Vancouver, V5T 1M2? I will take this letter and distribute it at their public meeting (La Quena Restaurant) on Monday, Sept. 15, 7:30 P.M. The "public meeting" process extends to cyberspace as my sig file below indicates. Yours Sincerely-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: ***** From aaron@burn.ucsd.edu Sun Sep 14 02:55:27 1997 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 04:54:24 -0400 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, LABOR-L@YORKU.CA, marxism-news@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU From: aaron@burn.ucsd.edu (Aaron) Subject: Urgent appeal from England re press freedom Date: Wed, 10 Sep 97 10:06:16 CDT From: dbriars@world.std.com Subject: UK's GANDALF TRIAL & FREEDOM OF THE PRESS Date: Sept 10, 1997 From: Corporate Watch , Reclaim the Streets, Squall, The McLibel Support Campaign On the weekend of September 5th - 7th over seventy representatives of various radical publications met in Oxford for the first "Alternative Media Gathering." One of the issues discussed was the current "Gandalf Five" Trial going on in Portsmouth, involving editors from Green Anarchist (GA) and the Animal Liberation Front Support Group newsletter (ALF). "Gandalf" comes from GAandALF We are going to publish the following statement on Wednesday 17th September. We are looking for as many publications, organisations and individuals as possible to sign the statement. There are three categories of signing: (1) Publications/organisations present at the gathering; (2) Individuals from the gathering signing in a personal capacity; (3) journals, organisations and individuals who weren't at the gathering, but who are in support of the statement. We need your responses as soon as possible - preferably by Friday 12th, at the latest by midday on Tuesday 16th September. If signing in a personal capacity, please provide either your profession or the name of the organisation with which you're most involved: Please respond, copy and distribute by all means possible - including abroad. Tell us who you've told. Send responses to: Corporate Watch phone - 01865 791 391 e-mail - mail@corporatewatch.i-way.co.uk post - Box E, 111 Magdalen Road, Oxford OX4 1RQ (please try to use phone number or e-mail). This initiative is separate to the "Gandalf Six Defendants' Campaign" (who can be contacted: "Gandalf Defendants' Campaign", PO Box 66, Stevenage, SG1 2TR ). --------------------------------------------------------------------- Statement of Solidarity with the defendants in the "Gandalf" Trial. We the undersigned are writing to express our solidarity with the five editors currently on trial in Portsmouth, England, on charges of "conspiracy to incite persons unknown to commit criminal damage". We condemn this charge as a violation of journalistic freedom. Without a fearless and free press there can be no informed discussion and participation in public life. On January 16th 1996 six people - four editors of Green Anarchist (GA) magazine, Animal Liberation Front (ALF) Support Group newsletter and the ALF press officer - were arrested and charged, on the basis of news and comment they had included in their respective publications and press releases. The charges carry a maximum prison sentence of ten years. The trial began at Portsmouth Crown Court on August 26th against five of the six. "Public Interest Immunity" Certificates have been used to suppress evidence of secret service actions in the gathering of evidence. Many publications include coverage of direct action. This case opens the way for similar attacks on any publication deemed to be in favour of such action. If the reporting of direct action can constitute incitement this has very worrying implications for freedom of speech. Green Anarchist can be seen as an easy target, due to its outspoken and radical content. The police have been the prime movers behind this case - "Operation Washington", as the lead-up was known, involved 55 police raids and, at its height, employed sixty officers. It is vital that the press - alternative, independent, radical, liberal and establishment - unite to defend the basic freedoms under attack in this case: freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It is not for the police to determine the limits of our discussions. We call on all concerned to vigorously defend freedom of the press. We call on editors and journalists to fairly report the case and issues, and we call on the Crown Prosecution and Judge to drop the case. It is not the reporting of direct action which incites further direct action; environmental degradation, animal abuse, economic injustice, attacks on freedom, weapons exports, nuclear weapons, lack of democratic process - these, among many others, are the inciting factors. Catch-all incitement and conspiracy charges threaten not only radical publications, but anyone making statements which could be interpreted as inflamatory. Any debate by any columnist potentially falls into this category: The attack on Green Anarchist and the Animal Liberation Front Support Group Newsletter is an attack on freedom and an attack on us all. ------- Corporate Watch , Reclaim the Streets, Squall, The McLibel Support Campaign ------- (Add your name or organisation and send to or the phone or mail address above.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. McLibel Support Campaign Email dbriars@world.std.com PO Box 62 Phone/Fax 802-586-9628 Craftsbury VT 05826-0062 http://www.mcspotlight.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe to the "mclibel" electronic mailing list, send email To: majordomo@world.std.com Subject: Message: subscribe mclibel To unsubscribe, change the message to: "unsubscribe mclibel" ---------- mailto:aaron@burn.ucsd.edu http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aaron From jstein@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us Sun Sep 14 09:50:10 1997 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 09:09:57 -0800 To: From: jstein@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us (Julia Stein) Subject: Re:LABOR BOOKFAIR >The L.A.Local National Writers Union/U.A.W. Bookfair will take place on >September14th, Sunday, 1-5 pm, at the Workmen's Circle, 1525 So. Robertson >Blvd., Los Angeles, 310-552-2007. Admission is $3 for members of the L.A. >Local/National >Writers Union and the Workmen's Circle and for students with >ID; $5 for the>general public. >The Workmen's Circle is on Robertson Blvd. which is an exit from the Santa >Monica (10) Freeway in West Los Angeles. Go 20 blocks north of the freeway >on Robertson. > >There will be readings by the authors, books for sale, and meet the >authors! There will be books on health, mystery stories, mainstream novels, >children's books, young adult books, poetry, biography, books on celebrity >and Star Trek, books on the American Left, feminism, Mexican-American >memoir, travel, child/family issues, the African-American private eye, the >women detective, books on guns and violence, immigration, and race. > > >,Readers for the bookfair. > Natalie Bates (novels), Susan Casey (young adult non-fiction), Vic Cox >(non-fiction), Eric Gordon (biography), Mary Helen Ponce (memoir and >fiction), Gary Phillips (mystery novels), Susan Perry (child/family >non-fiction); Rosalind Roland (mystery stories), John Shannon (mystery >novels), Sondra Farrell (non-fiction), Russ Rhymer (non-fiction), Nicole >Dillinger (travel), Susan Faludi (non-ficiton), Ted Pedersen (children's), >Virginia Soffa (non-ficiton), Skip Press (non-fiction, Serita Stevens >(non-ficiton and genre fiction); Russ Rymer (non-fiction); Carol Schwalberg >(fiction); Michael Novick (non-fiction); and Julia Stein (poetry). > > >Bios: >Natalie Bates' first novel, Friend of the Family, was published by >Athenaeum; she also has written plays and has tuaght a writing workshop for >eight years. > >Susan Casey's first book "Women Invent: Two Centuries of Discoveries that >Have Shaped Our World" (Chicago Review Press) is for a young audience and >will hit the book shelves in October. Casey has worked as a journalist and >published over 400 articles. > >Vic Cox has published "Guns, Violence and Teens" (Enslow, 1997) and "The >Challenge of Immigration (Enslow, 1995). He has also published two coffee >table books: "Ocean Life" (Bantam/Doubleday) and "Whales & dolphins" >(Crown). > >Nicole Dillinger is a Los Angeles writer and actress who has >appeared in several independent films. Her poetry has been published in the >Southern California Anthology, Poets Feet, and Annabasis, among others.. >Her essay is in the travel anthology, "Tanzania on Tuesday" (New Rivers >Press). > >Susan Faludi is the author of "Backlash: The Undelcared War Against >American Women" (1991) which won the National American Bookcircle's award >for non-fiction. She is former staff writer for the "Wall Street Journal" >and won a Pulitizer Prize in 1991 for her story on levereged buy-outs for >the "Wall Street Journal." She has written for Esquire, Ms., Mother Jones, >the Nation, the New Yorker etc. > >Sondra Farrell havs written several hundred arrticles for the LA Times and many >major magazines, has been a Tv producer for the show "Real People," >"America's Funniest People," and created the series "The Hunt for Amazing >Treasures" which is now on the Learning Channel as an ongoing series. Her >books is "One Minute SuperStars" (General Publishing Group). > >Eric A. Gordon is the author of "Mark the Music: The Life and Work of Mark >Blitzstein" (St. Martin's Press) and co-writer with Earl Robinson of the >forthcoming "Ballad of an American" (Scarecrow). He serves as Director of the >Workmen's >Circle/Arbeter Ring, Southern California District. > >Susan K. Perry Ph.D. is a human development specialist and author of "Playing >Smart" (Free Spirit) and "Fun Time, Family Time" (Avon); she is >contributing editor to "Child" magazine, "Valley" magazine and "LA Parent." > >Ted Pedersen has written "Internet for Kids," 2nd edition (Prister & >Sloan), and "Space Camp," No. 10 in the STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE BOOK >SERIES. He writes animated cartoons on TV and children's books. He has written >Ninja >Turtles and "X Man" on TV as well as, most recently, a new TV show >appearing this fall, "Mummies." > >Gary Phillips has published two mystery novels featuring an >African-American private eye with Berkeley Prime Crime: "Violent Spring" >and "Perdition USA." > >Mary Helen Ponce has published the acclaimed memoir "Hoyt Street" about >growing up Mexican-American in Pacoima, the novel "The Wedding," and a >collection of short stories "Taking Control." > >Skip Press in the past six years has published 22 books, half of them for >young adults. His latest publication is "The Writer's Guide to Hollywood, >Producers, Directors and Agents" (Prima, 1997. He has written "Awesome >Alamanac: Calfornia" (B and B Publishing) and "How to Write What You Want >and Sell What You Write" (Career Press). > >Rosalind Roland has written fiction and non-fiction. She has published in >the "LA Weekly,", "Westword," and her 1st mystery story is in the Sisters >of Crime anthology "Murder by 13" (Crown Valley Press). > >John Shannon has published five novles, including "Taking of the Waters," a >three-generation family saga of the American Left, and "The Concrete >River," the first in a series of mystery novels feturing Jakc Liffey, a >laid-off aerospace worker. > >Virginia Soffa's "The Journey Beyond Breast Cancer: From the Personal to >the Political" takes a critical look at breast cancer treatments and >outlines a strategy to help women make informed choics about preventing and >treating this disease. > >Julia Stein has pubished two books of poetry, "Under the Ladder to Heaven," and >"Desert Soldiers." She is a novelist, literary critic, journalists and >activist. >Recently, she battled a libel/slander lawsuit by Guess Inc. against a >literary reading she organized. > >Serita Stevens has written over 26 books ranging from non-fiction to >mystery to historical romance to young adult as well as nursing >professional articles. Her latest published book is "The Nurses" (NAL), a >medical soap opera, under the pseudonym Tyler Cortland. Her most well-known >nonfiction books is "Deadly Doses," a writer's guide to poisens. > >Carol Schwalberg has published dozens articles in major magazines, three >non-ficiton books, and short fiction in this country and abroad including >the anthology "If I had My Life to Live Over I would Pick More Daisies" >(Paper Mache Press) which has sold over a half a million copies. > >Russ Rymer's "Genie: A Scientific Tragedy" was first published in two >parts in the New Yorker magazine & then by Harper Collins. He is finishing >a book called "American Beach" on race relations for Harper Collins. Michael Novick's "White Lies White Power" has been favorable reviewed by the Nation, the Progressive, Workbook, and has been featured on CSPSAN. He is editor of "Turning the Tide: Journal of Anti-racist Activism, Research & Education." > >Julia Stein >jstein@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us Julia Stein jstein@laedu.lalc.k12.ca.us From aikya@ix.netcom.com Sun Sep 14 11:01:50 1997 by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma003916; Sun Sep 14 12:01:16 1997 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'Labor Research and Action Project'" Subject: Natasha? Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 09:55:50 -0700 Is anybody else getting messages from a supposed Natasha whose e-mail address is antispam@Y2KLinks.com? She is asking to be removed from the list but it is not clear which list, never mind whether the message is valid, given the address. Aikya Param Publisher Women and Money http://www2.netcom.com/~aikya/womenandmoney.html *************************** 20 pages of trustworthy news about what impacts your financial well-being, where to find out more, and what to do to win wanted change. ***************************** Send your snail mail address for a sample copy! Thanks for your interest! ******************************* "Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community." **************************** From clawson@sadri.umass.edu Sun Sep 14 19:48:32 1997 Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:48:26 -0400 (EDT) 14 Sep 1997 21:48:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:48:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Clawson Subject: Re: List change To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu I'm delighted by the new rules for Labor-Rap. It's been wonderful to be on the list, and the various news items posted are often useful and informative, but the volume of mail has been a problem, so I've considered getting off the list. This will let everyone participate actively, but will help move us toward being more of a discussion list. The rule change inspired me to (belatedly) put together the report I promised on ASA convention activities and next steps. I'll post that shortly. -- 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 clawson@sadri.umass.edu Sun Sep 14 19:55:48 1997 Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:55:41 -0400 (EDT) 14 Sep 1997 21:55:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:55:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Clawson Subject: ASA convention report To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu To: Sociology Labor Network From: Dan Clawson, as minute taker from ASA Toronto convention Re: convention meeting and future plans The Sociology Labor Network, sociologists committed to working with the labor movement, met at the American Sociological Association Annual Meetings in Toronto on Sunday August 10, 1997. This report covers at least some of the key points discussed and actions to be undertaken. I, Dan Clawson, am posting it; many others have contributed, but I'm sure some things here are wrong and in others the emphasis is misplaced. Apologies for places where I've not properly incorporated comments; when people gave specific wording, it's here; when I received stimulating comments, I may not have been able to include their spirit. Since the intent is to initiate a discussion, the easy solution is: post your thoughts and responses. The meeting was co-chaired by Judy Stepan-Norris, Kim Voss, Hector Delgado, and Dan Clawson, and was attended by about 60 people, most of whom stayed through the full the two hours. After a round of introductions, David Croteau passed out information about Labor-Rap, the discussion list formed after last year's meeting, and the best way for all of us to keep in touch with each other. For information about Labor-Rap, please contact David (dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu). Dan Clawson then presented an update both on our activities at last year's convention, and on efforts to create a national organization of Scholars, Artists, and Writers for Social Justice. Last year's convention included a reception hosted by the AFL-CIO and addressed by Richard Bensinger, national head of the Organizing Department, as well as by Frances Fox Piven and several Union Summer participants. Perhaps 200 sociologists attended at least part of that reception, and as many as 100 sociologists had individual meetings with members of the Organizing Institute staff. Coming out of the Columbia teach-in held in the fall of 1996, labor teach-ins were held at numerous other locations around the country. Currently efforts are under way to create a national organization linking academics with the labor movement. The AFL-CIO has strongly endorsed these efforts, with John Sweeney, Linda Chavez Thompson and others attending the founding (small group) meeting. Sweeney said that labor has a lot to do on many fronts, but one of the most important tasks is to change the culture, to alter the terms of political debate. He urged academics and intellectuals to speak up for labor, to respond to business and right-wing attacks, and to draw attention to our issues. This should happen in every sort of public forum, from classrooms to the national media. A change in the political climate will require the efforts of both labor and intellectuals. That initial meeting was in Washington at the end of May; the group is only now beginning to clarify its goals and will soon be ready to launch a major membership drive. At the Toronto meeting of the Sociology Labor Network, debate and commentary was lively, wide-ranging, and stimulating, but not easy to capture. It would be difficult or impossible to cover all the observations and suggestions that were made, but some sense of the range can be gathered from the action groups that were formed. Each group is to communicate (presumably primarily by email) and to prepare an initial report by a target date of November 1. Activities will then continue during the year, and the members of the task force will develop an agenda for a meeting at next year's convention. ANYONE READING THIS MESSAGE IS ENCOURAGED TO JOIN IN THE ACTIVITIES; listed below are the coordinators for each area. By all means send reports on activities, information, offers to help, or suggestions, to any of the people listed below. AT-LARGE: Dan Clawson (clawson@sadri.umass.edu) General thoughts or suggestions not clearly fitting in any of the other categories. CAMPUS LABOR ACTION COALITIONS (CLACs): Rob Penney (penney@umich.edu) Ellen Starbird (aanz@sirius.com) Ralph Armbruster (rarmbrus@wizard.ucr.edu) Reports on experiences on your campus, or suggestions about creating action groups on campus or in the community. The Organizing Institute had hoped to create SLACs, or Student Labor Action Committees, with leadership based primarily on the graduates of Union Summer. In some places this has been effective; in many places the groups have not taken off. The Campus Labor Action Coalitions envisioned here are broader, intended to include faculty, workers (especially unionized or unionizing workers) on campus (including graduate student workers), and links to other community organizations. Building these groups will be a vital part of forging a new relationship with the labor movement. RESEARCH WITH UNIONS: Mike Dreiling (dreiling@darkwing.uoregon.edu) Hector Delgado (delgado@uci.edu) Many of us have done, or would like to do, research on issues of interest and importance to unions, but we often don't know how to let unions know about our research, or how to connect with unions that would like our help. We need to make concrete connections, and to think about ways to facilitate future contacts. Often what unions want (immediate highly specific practical research on a specific company or situation) is different from what academics want (long-range, slow paced, very general research with difficult to specify implications and no fixed completion date), and yet if we could find ways to bridge these different orientations and expectations, we have a lot to contribute to each other. PROBLEMS WITH UNIONS: Fernando Gapasin (fgapasin@ucla.edu) Kim Scipes (sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu) We want to work with and support the labor movement, but we also want to maintain our independence and our critical edge. One of the ways we can contribute to the labor movement is to engage in lively debates and be prepared to criticize practices or directions that concern us (for example on issues of race, gender, international politics). At the same time we want to be self-reflective about academic practices and taken-for-granted assumptions, and consider how to stimulate a useful dialogue. CULTURE AND MEDIA WORK: David Croteau (dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu) Edna Bonacich (ebonacic@wizard.ucr.edu) One of the kinds of activities we can facilitate is helping to link the labor movement with artists, musicians, poets, and writers. These activities were common in the 1930s, and can help build a new political movement today. Also, we have the capacity to help influence public debate about labor issues in the mass media through the use of op-ed pieces and by developing contacts with journalists. We want to influence the public discourse about unions and to challenge the hegemony of pro- business discourse in the media and elsewhere. FORMING A SECTION: Dee Royster (royster@sadri.umass.edu) Judy Stepan-Norris (jstepann@uci.edu) Mike Webber (webberm@usfca.edu) Rick Fantasia (rfantasi@smith.smith.edu) The meeting debated whether or not to form a section, with arguments both for (it will facilitate future contact, events, activities, and provide for more continuity) and against (it's a hassle, will lead us to become professionalized and de-politicized). This group will explore the options and, if feasible, begin the process; if they find support we can form a section, if not, we will know that before next year's convention. YOUR ADDITIONS WELCOME: These are the groups we formed on August 10, but these are not the only valuable activities. If you have ideas about other actions that should be taken, don't wait for someone else to do it, take the lead yourself. Recruit others to work with you, and report to the group on what you are doing. -- 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 jeff@server.sasw.ncsu.edu Mon Sep 15 07:12:08 1997 From: "Jeff Leiter" To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 09:10:34 EST Subject: request for literature help Along with labor activists, state officials, and other university people, I am involved in two action research projects on Latinos in Low Wage Jobs in North Carolina, where the Latino population is increasing very rapidly. One project will investigate whether Latinos are replacing other workers who have found better jobs or are displacing these other workers. The second project concerns what appears to be a disproportion of Latinos among those injured and killed on the job. I would appreciate suggestions from list members on the most important sociological and historical literature that bears on these projects. With regard to the replacement/displacement project, I would be especially interested in literature that points to the contextual factors that shape the process: under what circumstances is replacement or displacement of one ethnic group by another more likely. Also, literature on the consequences for cooperation or conflict in the community and within working class organizations would be very useful. With regard to the injury/fatality project, the literature we need most is any investigation of injury or fatality rates for new ethnic groups in an area's labor market. Also, literature that explores the reasons for any higher rates would be very useful. These reasons may focus either on the risks of the jobs these new workers get or on the characteristics of the new workers, for example their powerlessness in the face of supervisory demands, their language problems in getting trained, or their inexperience. It would probably be best to direct any suggestions to me directly, rather than to the list as a whole, although I will be glad to pull the suggestions together and feed them back to the list. Please use jeff@server.sasw.ncsu.edu for your suggestions. Thanks very much. Jeff Leiter Department of Sociology and Anthropology North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8107 phone: 919-515-9009 fax: 919-515-2610 internet: jeff@server.sasw.ncsu.edu homepage: http://sasw.chass.ncsu.edu/~jeff/leiter.htm From dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu Mon Sep 15 11:21:00 1997 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 13:17:56 -0400 To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu (david croteau) Subject: Re: BART STRIKE From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Re: BART STRIKE Sender: meisenscher@igc.org At 09:48 PM 9/12/97 -0700, anzalone/starbird wrote: [SNIP] >I say the press should cover the pay scale on both sides of this question; >while the BART workers ran the trains (with a wage freeze) for three years >with narry a fatality BART managers were getting, on top of extravagent pay >and pension and better than the workers get medical and benefit packages; >$500,000.00 "bonus perks" to make downpayments on homes since the poor >things had to live in the bay area where it is sooo expensive to live. Regarding the media and management's assertions about how well off the BART employees are -- BART management has very effectively painted the unions as irresponsible, greedy, and contemptuous of the public. The media, already primed by its anti-labor bias, has been stumbling over itself to trumpet this line and orchestrate a popular outcry. My understanding is that under the last contract, in addition to the two-tier agreement, workers got only 2% per year. Their 4.5 - 5.0% wage demand for each of the next three years is designed to make up what they lost under the last contract and keep them even with the projected future rate of inflation. Thus, their demands don't represent a real increase in their standard of living. They are hold-even proposals. By comparison with the wages earned by many workers in the Bay Area, BART workers' wages look pretty attractive. By comparison with the incomes of a large number of BART train riders, their incomes are not all that special. (I have not seen an economic analysis of BART ridership incomes, but my guess is that a large proportion earn in excess of what most workers in SF earn.) In comparison with what it takes to have a "middle-class" standard of living, they are behind the amount required given SF's high cost of living (especially housing). Reality is, however, that those who earn $7-$12 per hour look at $20 per hour jobs with envy and can easily be whipped up to resent the notion that someone making that much should want more when they can't hope to do as well. Those who earn $70,000 and up too frequently look upon BART worker with contempt, believing themselves to be far superior in intelligence and ability and train operators, mechanics, and clerks far beneath. BUT -- in all the discussion about their supposedly high salaries, not only don't management salaries get discussed but no one bothers to ask the scolding editors of our prinicipal media how much THEY earn and how much THEIR incomes increased in the last few years. My guess is that BART workers fall substantially behind in wages compared to their media critics. One of the rank and file union leaders (and newly elected officer of the local) observed that 40% of all contributions to the political campaigns of the BART Board of Directions came from contractors. BART directors have reciprocated by allocating a huge chunk of the system's budget to expansion and new construction. Yet no one in the media has bothered to look at the relationship between political investors and how system funds (that's OUR money folks) are directed back to their bank accounts. This points to a weakness on the part of the unions. They failed to analyze the BART system from the perspective of what is in the best interests of its riders and the communities -- to position themselves as champions of the riding public. One report indicated that each rider who boards a train at an outlying suburban station is subsidized to the tune of $40 per ride. Is it in the best interests of the riding public to spend billions of dollars to extend BART even further out to less densely populated areas or to spend those sums on upgrading service in more densely populated communities? The reality is that BART expansion is part and parcel of a development strategy. Wherever BART goes, developers stand to reap huge rewards as their properties appreciate with the shifting flow of out-migration and suburbanization. The unions, by failing to develop their own analysis and alliances with rider and consumer groups forfeited an opportunity to shift the terms of the debate and to establish the unions as reliable advocates for the interests of the riding public, not just for their own members. Had they done so, they might have found people more willing to stand up and defend the right of their members to receive decent wage increases. They could have exposed how funds were misutilized and how monies already in the system could be used to pay the increases with no rate hikes. They could have argued for alternative sources of funding that required the biggest beneficiaries of BART, the downtown SF developers and mega-corporations, to pay subsidies for the services BART renders. But that would require the unions to be ready to do battle not just with BART directors, but with the political power structure that is bought and paid for by those same downtown interests. Unfortunately, too often unions come to rely on their relationships with political leaders as the best means for securing their members' needs. This dependency turns to crisis when other political investors with deeper pockets or more powerful interests can out-maneuver labor in the "smoke-filled" back halls of city hall or the statehouse. Under such circumstances, what may appear on the surface as influence and leverage too easily becomes a house built on sand. In solidarity, Michael ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Croteau Sociology/ Virginia Commonwealth University E-mail: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu From shostaka@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu Tue Sep 16 07:36:37 1997 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 07:36:35 -0600 (MDT) To: LABOR-RAP@csf.colorado.edu From: Art Shostak Subject: Request for Leads Brothers and Sisters: I am giving a talk in Vancouver over the October 24 weekend, and would like to interview there any unionists or labor educators with ideas to contribute to my new book, CyberUnion: Tomorrow's Labor Organization. Specifically, I am hoping to collect some Canadian experiences with applications (good or bad) of computers to labor challenges (though imaginative use of VCR film, TV, or even labor radio also qualifies). Can you provide any leads - or, lead to possible sources of leads? Many thanks, Fraternally, Art 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 HTUP@HARVARDA.HARVARD.EDU Tue Sep 16 10:36:37 1997 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 12:35:14 EDT From: Elaine Bernard Subject: Re: Request for Leads To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 16 Sep 1997 07:36:35 -0600 (MDT) from You need to talk with Larry Kuehn of the BC Teachers Federation. Larry and the BCTF have been on computer long before anyone else in NA. Also, see Sid Shniad at the telecommunications workers union. I have email addresses for both and phone numbers if you need them. Elaine From aikya@ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 16 11:45:12 1997 by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma003709; Tue Sep 16 12:44:39 1997 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'Labor Research and Action Project'" , "'united@cougar.com'" Subject: FW: Documentary Maker Seeks Help Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:09:23 -0700 Somehow it seemed that union people ought to be able to help this documentary maker. Sorry about any double postings. Aikya Param Publisher Women and Money http://www2.netcom.com/~aikya/womenandmoney.html ---------- Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 1997 10:01 AM To: MICROENTERPRISE@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: Documentary Maker Seeks Help Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 17:26:54 -0400 (EDT) Reply-to: mikael.wistrom@swipnet.se (Mikael Wistrom) Subject: Welfare Reform mikael.wistrom@swipnet.se (Mikael Wistrom) sent the following: ================ subject = Welfare Reform name = Mikael Wistrom email = mikael.wistrom@swipnet.se descrip1 = I am a swedish documentary filmmaker about to shoot a documentary on the subject of "The working poor" in the US. The principal motive for making this film is the fact that the American Model of cutting wages and allowing extremly bad coniditions for working people is seen as a solution to the situation of high unemployment that has arisen in Europe and also in Sweden that was once considered to be a country of social welfare and security. Anyone who believes that he/she has got something to comment or some contact with concrete and telling life-situations in the US (particularily in eastern USA) is welcome to give opinions and/or advice at my E-mail adress. I will be going to the US on a research-trip from 15th of november. Regards from Mikael Wistrom , Barnangsgatan 60, 116 41 Stockholm, Sweden Phone 46-8-650 82 17 Fax : 46-8-652 97 20 E-mail : mikael.wistrom@swipnet.se ================ From sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu Tue Sep 16 12:22:28 1997 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 13:20:51 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 13:20:51 -0500 (CDT) To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu (Kim Scipes) Subject: Correction to ASA Convention Report Folks-- Dan Clawson recently posted his "ASA Convention Report" before we had submitted our revised statement for the group he listed as "Problems with Unions." We would like to replace his statement with the one following: "CRITICAL GROUP ON TRADE UNIONISM" Fernando Gapasin Kim Scipes While supporting the labor movement and being glad to see the changes implemented by the "New Voices" team, critiques have been made of their top-down implementation and their limited ideological viewpoint. We seek to stimulate a broad range of thinking, researching, writing/speaking that seeks to identify and challenge problem areas, and does this from the perspective of supporting and strengthening the labor movement in this country and around the world." With best wishes to all--Fernando and Kim From K.Eyben@ulst.ac.uk Tue Sep 16 23:30:43 1997 From: K.Eyben@ulst.ac.uk 17 Sep 97 06:33:17 gmt To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 6:35:25 GMT Subject:  X-pmrqc: 1 I would like to unsubscribe myself from this list. From shostaka@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu Wed Sep 17 17:28:19 1997 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:28:17 -0600 (MDT) To: LABOR-RAP@csf.colorado.edu From: Art Shostak Subject: IRRA Follow-Up Brothers and Sisters: Here is the latest from the leader of the Good Fight on the IRRA battlefront: Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:55:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Roy Adams To: Art Shostak Subject: Re: Appreciation Art. We lost by a vote of 378-263. Given the way that the issue was framed by the board in the last newsletter, I am not surprised. We'll soldier on. I have to fly to Wisconsin tomorrow for a reunion of grads of the Industrial Relations Research Institute. After that I plan to work more vigorously on promoting the core labor rights. eBlow is the text of a talk that I gave at a conference in Washington last fall that lays out some of the ideas. I've been mulling over another article laying out the development of core labor rights as human rights. cheers, roy Before I get started I would like to give you a little more biographical information. I'm going to focus today on the United States and U.S. obligations under NAFTA. You might think that it is impertinent of a Canadian to fly in and comment on U.S. policy. But I am not really a foreigner. I was born and raised in Philadelphia and continue to be a dual citizen. I teach not only at McMaster but also at the Meany-Antioch University Degree Program for trade unionists here in Washington and I care a lot about what happens not only in Canada but also in the United States. The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation came about primarily because of the insistence of the United States and the U.S. insisted that a so-called side accord be added to the main agreement primarily because of allegations by American unions that labor standards in Mexico were below par. Because of that background most of the attention of NAALC observers is focused on Mexico. So far today we have heard a lot more about Mexican practice than about practice in the other signatory countries. I plan, however, to focus on the United States. Since the U.S. was the main promoter of the NAALC the naive observer might very well get the impression that U.S. standards with respect to the labor rights affirmed in the agreement are very high. And if the observer were to look no further than U.S. legislation then that assumption would be reinforced. For example, the NAALC commits its member states to promote the Right to Bargain Collectively and the U.S. National Labor Relations Act says that it is the policy of the government to promote the practice and procedure of collective bargaining. The Act forbids employers to discriminate against workers for participation in union activities and it requires employers under specified circumstances to bargain in good faith with trade unions. Although the language of the statute would suggest that the U.S. is in compliance with its NAALC obligations, a look at actual practice tells another story. In direct contrast to their behavior with respect to other basic human rights, such as the right of employees not to be discriminated against for irrelevant reasons, U.S. employers commonly make it publicly known that they would prefer for their employees not to make use of their Right to Bargain Collectively. And active discouragement is not only tolerated in law but also receives approval in convention and in the administration of public policy. Indeed active violation of the law in the form of premeditated commitment of unfair labor practices is very common and that practice has been sanctioned as a result of a very weak policy response by U.S. governments. Even where they do not break the law, U.S. employers regularly hire high priced legal talent with a view towards delaying response by the National Labor Relations Board so that they might put in place plans to thwart organizing drives. If, despite active opposition, the union is able to get certified as the bargaining agent for the relevant employees, U.S. employers regularly engage in what has become known as "surface bargaining" - sitting at the table but making no active effort to reach agreement with the union with a view towards forcing the union to contemplate a strike knowing that the employer has the right to hire permanent strikebreakers. Except for extraordinary situations where the workers have a lot of inherent bargaining power that prospect is pretty intimidating. By their inaction U.S. policy makers have given their approval to these practices which undermine rather than promote the practice of collective bargaining. To anyone who has taken a basic labor law course, these observations are not news. Recently, however, Rich Block, John Beck and Dan Kruger published Labor Law, Industrial Relations and Employee Choice based on evidence collected by the Dunlop Commission on the Future of the American Workplace. After a very careful and objective review of the evidence they came to the conclusion that although the NLRA was "enacted to protect employee choice in representation," in practice it "can be used to actually impair employee choice." Even legal activities by employers "have the effect of infringing on the employee's right to choose." They conclude "ironically" that "a system that was designed to provide a choice of representation to employees seems only to provide employers with a choice--a choice as to the type of employee relations system they will create." Although Block, Beck and Kruger did not consider obligations under the NAALC a careful reading of the book makes it very clear that U.S. policy, instead of promoting the Right to Bargain Collectively, effectively denies it. What might be done then to change that situation? The best way to answer that question, I believe, is for one to envision what the world might look like if the actors in the industrial relations system really did actively respect the Right to Bargain Collectively. If that were the case employees would be able to organize without fear of reprisal but also--and very importantly--without fear of offending the employer. After all, most working people do not want to offend their employers. They want to feel good about their relations with the employer. So, if the employer overtly states that he or she does not want anything to do with any sort of collective representation then most employees are unlikely to raise the boss's ire by invoking their rights. In a world where the Right to Bargain Collectively was actively respected, employers would not express such anti-collective opinions. Does that mean that employers should be forbidden in law to express their felt opinions? I don't think so. I think that they should have the right to express any attitude. But I think that they have a social responsibility to exercise that right in an appropriate manner and I think that the government has a duty forcefully to remind them of their responsibilities. Although it is illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc., it is perfectly legal for them to express the opinion that they prefer not to hire women and people of color. Fifty years ago many employers, in fact, did express such opinions. Today, however, it would be scandalous for an employer publicly to take that position. Not only law but also convention has changed. Today, in part because of the action of governments, discrimination is out and diversity is in. In stark contrast, although the government is committed by statute as well as its NAALC obligations to promote collective bargaining, we have in place a convention that says that it is perfectly okay for employers to express opinions that are entirely contrary to the exercise of that right. In a world where the Right to Bargain Collectively was really respected, government would do more than promote free employee choice. Instead, like the French government of the early 1980s, it would define as problematical the absence of bargaining. The object would be to have every employee exercise the right to bargain. The object would be to bring about a situation in which every employee was represented in the making of decisions critical to his or her welfare. If the Right to Bargain Collectively were really honored, everyone would be covered by a collective agreement. When a large percent of the electorate fails to make use of its right to vote, there is commonly an anguished outcry that democracy is in danger. The same response is appropriate to the observation that some 90% of the American labor force has failed to make use of its Right to Bargain Collectively. A common response that I get to this argument is that the behavior that I advocate is impractical in that it is so at variance with prevailing norms. Is the vision of a world where the Right to Bargain Collectively is really respected an impossible dream? I don't think so. There are many individual employers in the U.S. -- and this is documented in the Block et al. volume -- that do, in fact, behave in a manner consistent with the ideal that I have portrayed. Moreover, I think that you will find that the behavior of employers in the typical country in continental Europe is not that far off from the ideal. European employers rarely make overt attempts to suppress or avoid collectively bargaining. As a result bargaining coverage in European countries varies from about 75-95% of the labor force. If the ideal is attainable, how do we get there? I think that it's critical to realize that the lead player here is the American labor movement. Thus, we have to look at what the labor movement has been doing and make some assessment of its approach. Until recently, when a new administration took office at the AFL-CIO, the major strategy of organized labor had been to attempt to elect friendly representatives in Congress with a view towards revising labor law. Among the specific changes that the labor movement wanted to see were stronger sanctions against lawbreaking employers, quicker processing of certification cases, the use of card checks or quick elections for certification and the use of first contract arbitration to counteract surface bargaining. The problem with that agenda is that all of those practices are in effect in Canada and even though they appear to be much more pro collective bargaining than U.S. practice they have not produced universal bargaining. Instead, bargaining coverage in the Canadian private sector hovers around 20%, down about 15% over the last few decades. In Canada as in the U.S. there is a permissive attitude toward employer opposition to collective bargaining and, coupled with the difficulties of certification under the Wagner-Act model, it is very difficult for employees to exercise their right to bargain. In the most recent federal election in the U.S. organized labor spent freely on favored candidates. Some estimates suggest that labor spent around $30-40 million on the campaign. If labor can raise that kind of money for an election campaign let me suggest another, and perhaps more effective, way that labor might put its resources to use. Although a change in law resulting from the election of labor-friendly representatives would no doubt be of value, the real challenge is to change social norms, to change conventions. We have in place in North America - both in Canada and the United States -- a set of beliefs, ideas and theories, that are entirely inconsistent with the exercise of the fundamental human right to bargain collectively. It is that congeries of thought and behavior that needs to be changed and law may not be the most effective way to do that. With $40 million to spend, I would suggest a public relations campaign that would focus on the promotion of three basic ideas. First, that collective bargaining should not be thought of as a desperate act of last resort against a malevolent employer practicing horrific personnel practices. That has been organized labor's common pitch to the unorganized. And it has resulted in the belief that the only reason to organize is to correct employer abuses. It follows that, if the employer behaves decently, there is no need for collective bargaining. That train of thought is entirely contrary to the notion of a Right to Bargaining Collectively. A key idea behind the existence of that right is that collective bargaining is an essential element of democratic society and like the exercise of the right to vote all citizen employees should be strongly encouraged to exercise their bargaining rights. Second, the idea should be promoted that employers have a public duty voluntarily to recognize and deal with representatives freely chosen by their employees. Employers should be expected to invite their employees to organize with a view towards having their chosen representatives enter into discussions over all issues of mutual concern. When I took over as Director of McMaster's Theme School on International Justice and Human Rights, the first thing that I did was to invite the students to form an association to represent their interests in the operation of the program. Why shouldn't every employer in North America be expected to do the same sort of thing? I realize that employers may have legitimate concerns with the policy and behavior of specific unions and that dealing with irresponsible labor leaders can be a serious problem. But the fundamental process of employee participation in the making of decisions critical to their welfare is sound. It is a basic democratic principle. Moreover, considerable research on the impact of collective bargaining suggests that instead of having a systematic negative effect on enterprise performance it more generally has a positive or at the minimum a neutral effect. Third, the idea should be promoted that, if provided with a totally free choice, sane adults would not refuse the opportunity to participate in the making of decisions critical to their welfare. Prevailing theory has it that there are a lot of people out there who have decided not to participate in collective negotiations. It is commonly accepted that many people don't want to be represented in the making of key employment decisions. To see the flaw in that belief, imagine an employer issuing a public notice that he or she would be pleased to sit down and talk about any issue with representatives freely chosen by the employees and the employees responding: Thank you but we prefer not to be represented in the making of our terms and conditions of employment. We'd prefer you to do it for us. We'd prefer you unilaterally without any input from us to specify our pay, hours and conditions. We have no interest whatsoever in electing representatives with a view towards co-deciding these issues. Although, when framed in this manner, it is beyond belief that any normal person would go against the employer's wishes by refusing to participate through representatives in the development of enterprise employment policies, I've seen that idea accepted by even the most pro-labor advocates. It is as if they were the victims of mass hypnosis. Often, in the U.S., it is proposed that individual bargaining is an alternative to collective bargaining but with respect to a wide range of issues that is simply a technical impossibility. In an organization of any size each individual employee cannot negotiate a separate pension plan, pay system or downsizing policy. Such issues are collective in nature and that is a key reason why the Right to Bargain Collectively has been elevated by the world community to a fundamental and universal human right. Let me summarize my basic argument. First, even though it was the prime promoter of the NAALC, the U.S. is not living up to its basic obligations under the side accord. Instead both law and practice in the U.S. allow employers, rather than employees, to choose whether or not to permit the exercise of the Right to Bargain Collectively. And that is simply wrong. Second, Canadian practice suggests that modest changes in the law are not likely to bring any substantial change in this situation. Instead there is a need for the establishment of new conventions and norms which insist on respect for the right to organize. If you look at any society you will find that behavior is regulated by both law and convention and the two act on each other in complicated ways. Of the two convention commonly has the most powerful effect on behavior. Law may promote and support convention but where law and convention deviate convention generally rules. Can conventions be changed? Are anti-union, anti-collective bargaining attitudes simply part of American character? I don't think so. Employers everywhere prefer to operate without constraint but where law and convention require dealing in good faith with employee representatives employers effectively adjust their behavior to conform with the norm. Consider Germany as an example. German society historically was very hierarchical and very authoritarian. However, about 80 years ago the government began to promote co-determination of employment conditions in part through traditional collective bargaining and in part through statutory works councils. Over time (despite the Nazi hiatus) those efforts successfully changed the propensity of employers to behave in an authoritarian fashion. Today, co-determination is broadly accepted by all of the actors in the IR system including employers. Although the NAFTA side accord has been generally disparaged because it does not included strong sanctions against violators, it commits all three national governments to promote a set of labor principles that include the Right to Bargain Collectively. As a result of these commitments, the NAALC provides a sort of springboard for the launching of the strategy that I have outlined. Malevolent conventions change when those opposed to them point out forcefully, broadly and continuously over a long period deviations of practice from principle. That was, it seems to me, the strategy of Martin Luther King with respect to race relations. He went about saying, "Everybody in this nation says that they believe in X,Y,Z. But here is the practice on the street and it varies dramatically from what you say you believe in." People tend to deny such allegations or escape from them or rationalize them. But if continually forced to confront contradiction people change their behavior. Psychologically, contradiction is very difficult to live with if one is continuously confronted with it. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Roy J. Adams McMaster University tel: 905-525-9140, ext 23965 Hamilton, Canada fax: 905-521-8995 L8S 4M4 email: adamsr@mcmaster.ca web: http://www.business.mcmaster.ca/hrlr/profs/adamsr/index.htm "NO REGULATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION"  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 aaron@burn.ucsd.edu Thu Sep 18 02:48:31 1997 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 04:44:07 -0400 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, LABOR-L@YORKU.CA, marxism-news@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU From: aaron@burn.ucsd.edu (Aaron) Subject: KPFA Workers Sign Divisive Contract, Lay-Off's Follow [Those unfamiliar with the history of Pacifica radio may want to check out . -- Aaron] Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 09:09:50 CDT From: "Lyn Gerry" KPFA Workers Sign Divisive Contract, Lay-Off's Follow by Lyn Gerry ============================================= Samuel Guia, a paid staff member at KPFA-FM, Pacifica's Berkeley station said lay-offs of five paid staff members were announced today. This follows the signing of a contract between management and Communications Workers of America (CWA) last Tuesday by paid staff which excluded the unpaid staff. Unpaid staff had been represented by union contract since 1987. KPFA workers changed their union affiliation to CWA earlier this year. KPFA workers had previously been represented by the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) which still represents workers at WBAI-FM in New York and KPFK-FM in Los Angeles. Samuel had been Chief Steward at KPFA until recently. He resigned when the paid staff voted 16-8 to ratify the contract excluding the unpaid staff, because he couldn't stomach the lack of solidarity. Unpaid staff had been in the process of organizing for CWA representation and are scheduled to meet with CWA representatives on Wednesday. Samuel believes that people of color, particularly Latinos have been targeted for removal. He cited remarks of management's labor lawyer, Larry Drapkin regarding the affirmative action clause of the contract. Samuel was told by one of the contract negotiators that, in a negotiating session, Drapkin asserted that affirmative action language, previously part of the contract, must be removed as it will conflict with the provisions of Proposition 209. Present in the meeting when these remarks were made by Drapkin were Chupoo Alifante, union negotiator; Mark Mericle, union negotiator; Marci Lockwood, outgoing KPFA General Manager; Phil Osegueda, KPFA Assistant Manager, John Dugan, CWA organizer and Larry Drapkin, management's attorney. Samuel believes this is part of a pattern which has included the removal of a significant ratio of Latino-oriented programs at several Pacifica stations, as well as discourtesy toward Latino staff members such as Mario Murillo at WBAI, recipient of the "screw you and the horse you rode up on" memo written about by Alexander Cockburn in The Nation. The first KPFA worker to be laid off was Patricia Medina, the Women's Department Director, a part-time union position. Patricia was told by Lynne Chadwick, acting general manager of KPFA, that all part- time executive producer positions were to be eliminated and their duties taken over by the Program Director, a management position. KPFA is expected to hire a new Program Director soon. Though the identity of the new PD has not been announced, it is believed to be someone from KQED, the San Francisco NPR station. Samuel said management justified the lay-offs due to a budget shortfall caused by "large donor contributions drying up." Samuel believes that revelations in the Bay Area press regarding the conduct of Pacifica management has alienated KPFA's major donors. Prior to the announcement, Samuel said, CWA negotiator Bill Harvey met with Pacifica and CWA lawyers. Samuel believes CWA was aware of management plans to lay-off workers, but said nothing to the members. Although workers have been threatened with retaliation by management for speaking out, Samuel said he can keep silent no longer. He says he speaks, "not as a member of the union. nor as a member of the KPFA staff but as a human being." He described the behavior of KPFA/Pacifica Management as " treacherous," epitomized by the removal of International Workers Day, May 1, as a Pacifica holiday. This day, said Samuel who comes from Peru, is recognized all over the world as one which honors workers. Its loss, he said, illustrates the contempt for workers in the New Pacifica. http://www.radio4all.org http://www.radio4all.org/freepacifica ---------- mailto:aaron@burn.ucsd.edu http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aaron From aaron@burn.ucsd.edu Thu Sep 18 02:49:22 1997 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 04:43:45 -0400 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, LABOR-L@YORKU.CA, fnb-l@tao.ca, marxism-news@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU From: aaron@burn.ucsd.edu (Aaron) Subject: Mother Teresa's Message: "Poverty is a Blessing" ------------------------- Via Workers World News Service Reprinted from the September 25, 1997 issue of Workers World newspaper ------------------------- HER HOLY MESSAGE: POVERTY IS BEAUTIFUL/ BEHIND THE RULING-CLASS RUSH TO MAKE MOTHER TERESA A SAINT By Sara Flounders Princes, presidents, prime ministers, ambassadors, celebrities, special representatives of heads of state and three queens attended the state funeral for Mother Teresa in Calcutta Sept. 13. Six hours of ceremonies included a military escort and prayers from a battery of cardinals, archbishops and top leaders of other religious groups. This funeral was a highly political event that raises many interesting questions. Why did so many of the world's most powerful and privileged people travel so far to pay their respects to a humble nun who cared for destitute and sick people? Why did the wealthiest stratum of society especially love Mother Teresa? Why have the major corporate media spent countless hours urging that the example and the message of Mother Teresa be followed? Why are so many of the illustrious people who are paying homage to Mother Teresa notorious for their utter disregard for the poor of their own countries? Then there's this: The media had predicted a million poor mourners would line the street. Why did less than 5 percent of that number actually turn out? Aren't poor people grateful? Mother Teresa was hardly the first or the only person concerned about the poor. In her lifetime millions of self- sacrificing people have been attacked, jailed, persecuted and even killed for trying to change the conditions of poor people. What is so moving in Mother Teresa's message that she gained world fame? Why was she called a living saint? Why did she receive the Nobel Peace Prize and countless other humanitarian awards? `THE POOR SHOULD ACCEPT POVERTY' The day before the funeral her successor, Sister Nirmala, reaffirmed Mother Teresa's view that "poverty is beautiful." She said Mother Teresa was not interested in what causes poverty or in changing the social environment. "Poverty will always exist," she said. "We want the poor to see poverty in the right way--to accept it and believe that the lord will provide." This is the message that the wealthy of every corner of the globe came to honor. For them, it is truly a holy message. Mother Teresa never spoke of justice. She did not organize poor people to fight for their rights or to demand a better life for themselves or their children. She and the religious order she founded in Calcutta, the Missionaries of Charity, sacrificed themselves caring for destitute, dying people and orphans. But the rich and powerful loved her because she did not demand health care, pensions, a minimum wage, schools, unions or an end to vicious caste discrimination against "untouchables." Pope John Paul II embraced Mother Teresa and the Vatican secretary of state led her funeral mass. However, within the Roman Catholic Church many priests and nuns who are deeply involved in working with the "poorest of the poor" are purged or suppressed. The popular religious movement in Latin America called "liberation theology" organizes for radical political and economic change. Militant priests and nuns support the demands of landless peasants and impoverished urban workers allied with communist-led liberation struggles and armed guerrilla movements. They do not agree with Mother Teresa that "suffering and disease are gifts from God." They see grinding poverty as the result of a corrupt economic system that puts the drive for profit before people's needs. Mother Teresa was an outspoken opponent of liberation theology. She was also a friend and supporter of such dictators as Duvalier in Haiti. She first came to prominence as an opponent of Pope John XXIII and the more liberal ideas of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. She was a strong opponent of abortion, birth control and all forms of family planning. When Ireland was holding a referendum on whether to lift Europe's only constitutional ban on divorce and remarriage, Mother Teresa hurried there. She lectured poor Irish women on the sinfulness of demanding change. RED CALCUTTA Calcutta, the headquarters of the Missionaries of Charity, has a population of 11 million people. It is a city of enormous poverty, chronic unemployment and overcrowding. One-third of the population lives in slums. People lack adequate sanitation, running water or electricity. Two million people are homeless, migrant or "floating." Calcutta was the capital of British colonialism in India. The British East Indies Company established the city 300 years ago as a trading center, seaport, site for cheap textile factories--and the center of the opium trade forced on China. Calcutta was also a center of the explosive movement that ended British colonialism. It has the biggest and most militant working class in India. The city is a major industrial center, with India's largest port. It has a powerful communist movement that has organized general strikes. Demonstrations in Calcutta often mobilize hundreds of thousands of people. Outpourings of over a million are not unusual. Poor and working people turn out in massive numbers where there is the possibility of winning rights, improving their standard of living and forcing concessions from an unjust society. In this highly class-conscious city, the angry poor must have viewed the applause for Mother Teresa's message-- especially coming from the Western media--with deep suspicion. While the rich and powerful move to canonize Mother Teresa as a saint, the "poorest of the poor" are far more likely to look for leadership that seeks to end poverty, not to bless it. - END - (Copyright Workers World Service: Permission to reprint granted if source is cited. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: ww@workers.org. For subscription info send message to: info@workers.org. Web: http://workers.org) ---------- mailto:aaron@burn.ucsd.edu http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aaron From lamp@igc.apc.org Thu Sep 18 06:38:49 1997 Thu, 18 Sep 1997 05:36:13 -0700 (PDT) Thu, 18 Sep 1997 05:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:27:28 -0400 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: lamp@igc.apc.org (Labor Art & Mural Project) Subject: Agitprop News Sender: lamp@igc.org AGITPROP NEWS The Labor Art & Mural Project (LAMP,) maintains an email list for cultural workers, artists and activists. The list also functions on behalf of the Cultural Workers and Artists Caucus (CWAC,) of the Labor Party. AGITPROP NEWS covers a range of activities, but tends to be announcements of political developments, national and international, of concern to artists and other known trouble makers. If you would like to try us out, reply to this message. LaBOR aRT & MuRAL PRoJECT Labor Education Center Rutgers University Ryders Lane & Clifton Avenue New Brunswick, NJ 08903 Phone: 732-220-1472 - Fax: 732-296-1325 Email: lamp@igc.apc.org - Website: http://www.igc.apc.org/laborart Subscribe to AGITPROP NEWS at this address Spanning the Globe to: ORGANIZE - AGITATE - EDUCATE - INSPIRE Mike Alewitz, Artistic Director From lecarr@earthlink.net Thu Sep 18 09:54:16 1997 From: lecarr@earthlink.net for ; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 08:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:58:55 -0500 Reply-To: tcs@technologist.com To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Agitprop News References: Labor Art & Mural Project wrote: > > AGITPROP NEWS > > The Labor Art & Mural Project (LAMP,) maintains an email list for cultural > workers, artists and activists. The list also functions on behalf of the > Cultural Workers and Artists Caucus (CWAC,) of the Labor Party. > > AGITPROP NEWS covers a range of activities, but tends to be announcements > of political developments, national and international, of concern to > artists and other known trouble makers. > > If you would like to try us out, reply to this message. > > LaBOR aRT & MuRAL PRoJECT > Labor Education Center > Rutgers University > Ryders Lane & Clifton Avenue > New Brunswick, NJ 08903 > > Phone: 732-220-1472 - Fax: 732-296-1325 > > Email: lamp@igc.apc.org - Website: http://www.igc.apc.org/laborart > > Subscribe to AGITPROP NEWS at this address > > Spanning the Globe to: ORGANIZE - AGITATE - EDUCATE - INSPIRE > > Mike Alewitz, Artistic Director Please place me on the list: tcs@technologist.com Thank you. L. Carr From dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu Thu Sep 18 10:36:47 1997 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:33:45 -0400 To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu (david croteau) Subject: Cultural/Media Work THE FOLLOWING IS THE FIRST OF A SERIES OF 'THINKPIECES' PRODUCED AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSIONS HELD AT THE ASA MEETINGS IN TORONTO. IT IS AIMED AT ENCOURAGING DISCUSSION AND DEBATE. PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ, REFLECT, AND RESPOND TO THE IDEAS PRESENTED. WE HOPE PEOPLE WILL SHARE THEIR IDEAS AND EXPERIENCES WITH LABOR-RAP SO THAT WE MAY LEARN FROM ONE ANOTHER AND ENCOURAGE EACH OTHER TO GET OUT THERE AND START DOING STUFF! --Edna Bonacich and David Croteau Cultural/Media Work and the Labor Movement Many of us are working to find ways to use our knowledge and academic positions to contribute to a stronger labor movement. One area where we have an opportunity to make a difference is in cultural work. By cultural work we mean trying to enter and influence the public debate about unions so that more people come to understand the importance of a strong labor movement. We want to counter the heavy anti-union propaganda that floods the mainstream media and other types of popular culture. We want to create more of a debate, by challenging taken-for-granted, negative assumptions about unions that many people hold. In other words, we want to help create more of a receptive environment for unions, so that when they engage in campaigns, greater public support is likely to be forthcoming. We, as academics and sociologists, can contribute to "softening the ground" in support of unionism, both in general, and with regard to specific union campaigns. The recent UPS strike illustrated the importance of broad public support in pushing a company to negotiate a favorable contract. In this case, the Teamsters were especially adroit at arousing public sympathy. There are two major ways that we can make a contribution to the public debate. The first is through the use of mass media. The second is by drawing upon the knowledge, skills, talents, and resources of particular communities in creating labor-supportive cultural products. We take each of these up separately because they represent quite distinct types of work. MEDIA Working with mainstream media presents both opportunities and challenges. We all know the limitations associated with mainstream media outlets. However, there are still significant opportunities--especially at the local level--for getting out pro-labor information via mass media to segments of the public that are not reached by progressive alternative media. These opportunities will vary dramatically from city to city, so awareness of your own local and regional media is important. Some of the concrete ways that individuals or small groups can help to get information out include the following: 1. Write op-eds and letters to the editor. Here you get to control the content of the piece. These are more likely to be published when "pegged" to a current news event (organizing drive, current strike, Labor Day, etc) or when framed in response to previous articles or op-eds--especially if those earlier pieces contain factual errors or distortions. 2. Get media coverage for teach-ins and other labor related actions. Don't assume the media won't cover your event, no matter how small. Make the effort to contact local media. If it fails, try again next time. By doing so you're building a track record. Be sure your potential story has a clear theme ("angle"). Visuals are useful in attracting both television and print media. 3. Develop contacts with local journalists. The track record you build through repeated contacts with the media can be especially productive if you identify key--and hopefully sympathetic--journalists to speak with personally. Sending a press release to, say, the "metro" department of a paper is generally less affective than sending one to a particular journalist and following up with a simple phone call: "Did you receive it? Will you be covering it? Do you need any more information?" 4. Serve as "experts" who are available to journalists for comment. By staying in touch with local media you may make it onto a journalist's rolodex as a local authority who can comment--at short notice--on emerging stories. If their initial contact with you is successful, you may well be tapped on a regular basis for comments on labor-related stories. Some schools' public relations department even maintain a list of faculty and their areas of expertise. Make sure they know about your labor interests. 5. Help unions with their media work. Depending on your connections, some union locals or CLC's may welcome some practical help and strategic thinking about their media work. (A great resource on this is Charlotte Ryan's book "Prime-Time Activism: Media Strategies for Grassroots Organizing" published by South End Press.) It never hurts to ask. 6. Work with local alternative media. Here's where you will have more opportunity to control the "frame" of a story and perhaps have easier access. The audience may be more limited, but progressives of all stripes need to hear more about labor-related issues. ORGANIZING AND CULTURE WORK Gaining access to mainstream media is a useful and necessary component of most political work. However, it is NOT an organizing strategy. Getting journalists to cover labor events is usually the result of good organizing, not the other way around. There is, however, cultural work that can be done that IS a type of community organizing. Here the idea is to reach out to particular constituencies that might be sympathetic to labor, and attempt to get them involved in working with the labor movement. Many middle class people feel quite alienated from their jobs, and would treasure the opportunity of putting some of their creativity to work on behalf of social change. The goal would be to mobilize these people and have them engage in projects with pro-union content. Again, these could be general, or linked to a particular campaign. Some of the relevant groups to engage include: --Religious groups --Women, feminists --Artists (including musicians, poets, writers, photographers, actors, movie makers) --Workers in advertising and other media-related fields. --Medical workers, lawyers, and other professionals These people often have tremendous talents that could be harnessed on behalf of an organizing drive or union struggle. They can provide services to workers, as well as contribute their skills and creativity to the movement by producing cultural products in support of labor. One example of such an effort was a group some of us formed in Los Angeles, called Common Threads. This is a women's group that supports the efforts of garment workers to unionize. The initial goal of Common Threads was to develop support for workers' struggles among feminists and mainstream women's organizations. We felt there were good reasons why some feminists would see the importance of such an effort: --The apparel industry in L.A. specializes in women's wear, and "exploits" women as consumers --The majority of garment workers are women, often with children to support. --Women's movement members supported workers in the 1909 garment strike in New York, and played a role in its success. --Some middle class women may want to transcend the class and race divides among women by supporting their sisters in struggle. Common Threads does educational work, developed an artists' collective that created pro-labor posters and decorated some department store windows with the history of garment workers in Los Angeles, held a literary reading in support of the Guess workers, participated in a few social events with garment workers, developed some street theater, adopted a mall for regular picketing in the Guess campaign, and other things. Thus we were doing cultural work by creating cultural events which countered anti-union messages and promoted messages supportive of women and labor. The efforts reached out to cultural workers and others and encouraged them join the struggle. Sociologists could contact academic and other friends to devise local organizing projects in conjunction with a union or a particular campaign. Or they could work more generally with various types of professionals to participate in influencing the cultural milieu in which the labor movement must exist. Doing successful cultural organizing increases the chances of generating media coverage for labor issues. In turn, generating media coverage lets more people know about labor issues and may help build organizations. These are both important, though quite distinct, efforts. [Do you have experiences (successes or failures) with media work in support of labor? Do you have experience working with unions in developing a media strategy? Have you tried organizing cultural workers? It might be quite useful for us to share experiences and learn from each other.] ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Croteau Sociology/ Virginia Commonwealth University E-mail: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu From aikya@ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 18 11:20:30 1997 by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma020436; Thu Sep 18 12:20:11 1997 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: RE: Agitprop News Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:48:17 -0700 Could folks please reply directly to and not to lists. Thanks. Aikya ---------- Sent: Thursday, September 18, 1997 9:59 AM To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: Re: Agitprop News Labor Art & Mural Project wrote: > > AGITPROP NEWS > > The Labor Art & Mural Project (LAMP,) maintains an email list for cultural > workers, artists and activists. The list also functions on behalf of the > Cultural Workers and Artists Caucus (CWAC,) of the Labor Party. > > AGITPROP NEWS covers a range of activities, but tends to be announcements > of political developments, national and international, of concern to > artists and other known trouble makers. > > If you would like to try us out, reply to this message. > > LaBOR aRT & MuRAL PRoJECT > Labor Education Center > Rutgers University > Ryders Lane & Clifton Avenue > New Brunswick, NJ 08903 > > Phone: 732-220-1472 - Fax: 732-296-1325 > > Email: lamp@igc.apc.org - Website: http://www.igc.apc.org/laborart > > Subscribe to AGITPROP NEWS at this address > > Spanning the Globe to: ORGANIZE - AGITATE - EDUCATE - INSPIRE > > Mike Alewitz, Artistic Director Please place me on the list: tcs@technologist.com Thank you. L. Carr From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Thu Sep 18 13:38:00 1997 Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:37:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:37:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Re: The War on Workers. Dear Union List: This is not utopian or pie-in-the-sky. It is within current technologies and budgets. Take it to any bus admin dep't and they will (for a fee) give you a precise answer. In effect it is what Rifkin is saying in "The End of Work". It is what Jacque Fresco is saying with his Venus Project . Just substitute "resource-based economics" for the Venus Project. Each generation of that selected Industrial Complex will surpass the previous. But first the workers MUST BUY THE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. FWP. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:08:09 -0700 From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Re: The War on Workers On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Neil & Rosemary Davis wrote: > From Ontario, a lament about the relentless war on workers - an unfortunate > characteristic of a government whose ideology/theology demands it. Bill 99 > will reduce Workers' Compensation benefits, benefit periods, and the > maladies covered. This will help "the bottom line", but, once again, the > savings are at the expense of working, wage-earning Canadians. In pursuit > of the American model, they neglect the fact that the USA "successes" in > economic growth and employment have resulted in a wage cut to the average > worker of 45 cents an hour. Wall Street thrives while Main Street declines. > Shame! > > Bill 136 will suspend collective agreements for workers in the public > sector as the government continues to downsize democracy as it creates > larger municipalities and school boards. The right to strike, one of the > few weapons left in the workers' arsenal, will be suspended. Collective > agreements will be imposed by a government-appointed arbitration board, > which must consider the employer's "ability to pay" as paramount. The aim, > obviously, is to reduce all wages and benefits to the lowest common > denominator. > > Health and Safety legislation is under review, aiming to reduce provincial > standards and enforcement by transferring responsibility to the "internal > responsibility system" at the workplace level. This is a laudable > objective, if the balance of power between workers and management was real. > But it's not. The government's downsizing mania has weakened severely the > ability of the Ministry of Labour to oversee H & S in the workplace, and my > work with young and new workers indicates that faith in voluntary > compliance is misplaced. > > The ability to organize has been weakened. It's harder now for workers to > unite to balance the power of employers. All of this - and more - follows > the Minister's stated intention to make Ontario "more competitive" - at the > expense of working people. Were she to be honest, she should advocate the > reintroduction of slavery - an economic system that would certainly allow > us to be competitive with third world labour costs. > > Is this an Ontario phenomenon? Not at all. As Canada adopts the corporatist > agenda that transfers power from the democracy of the government to the > oligarchy of the boardroom, workers are under attack everywhere. Look at > the UPS strike; look at the Alberta nurses; look at the political shift in > France. > > Workers are tired of subsidizing corporate profits, and are beginning to > seek their fair share of the nation's prosperity. There will be turmoil. > Given the current mindset of many Canadians, workers will lose again. But > the struggle will continue, and maybe, some day, hard-working, > wage-earning, tax-paying, goods-buying Canadian workers will get the > respect they deserve. > > -Neil D I was at a Labour Welfare Party meeting on Monday night here in Vancouver. What I told the 20 people assembled was that until they, the workers and poor, get control of the "factors of production" the oppression in the social class war will continue. Or to quote Zagladin from Socialism: Theory and Practice (Moscow, 1987) the next phase of the glorious revolution must be "democratization of the production sphere" (those old time Bolsheviks could really turn a phrase). If you go to the library you will find a directory of >50% worker-owned companies in the U.S. Some are very large and there are many so we have precedents. Next issue: what industries should be selected? I think that is a matter for the community of buyers. Let's suppose a Province of Northern Ontario is formed according to the idea of Ben Serre, M.P. who will get a copy of this. I would then recommend that the community study how cheaply they can purchase that beginning inventory of raw materials/starting materials, livestock and seeds, coal/oil/gas, minerals and mineral concentrates. Then study the INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX required to turn it into all of the amenities of the modern lifestyle. So the producers are also the market for what they produce. After that any surplus can be exported (eg to Southern Ontario). I would say that it would be wise to use maximally computerized-robotized industries. What you might well find, having done all that is that 5 million Northern Ontarians could produce all of the amenities for the modern lifestyle for their own community plus a surplus, that they can do so with a budget which is within the means of the poorest Ontarians and that the work week is < 20 hours/week liberating much time for freely chosen pursuits. Any business admin department at a major Canadian U could work out a precise answer. FWP. (Financial Agent, Labour Welfare Party-a registered B.C. Political Party). ***** 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: ***** From dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu Fri Sep 19 08:27:49 1997 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 10:24:41 -0400 To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu (david croteau) Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS (fwd) >From: "David Alexander, H-UCLEA" (by way of Michael Eisenscher ) Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS Sender: meisenscher@igc.org In April 1998 the AFL-CIO and the University College Labor Education Association will jointly sponsor a labor education conference on the topic of ORGANIZING FOR KEEPS: BUILDING A 21ST CENTURY LABOR MOVEMENT. The goal of this conference is to bring together union and university labor educaotrs, researchers, and activists who are committed to revitalizing and strengthening the labor movement through developing rank-and-file leadership for the long haul. From the initial organizing campaigns through the first contract process and beyond, the conference will focus on how the labor movement can best develop and capitalize on the power and solidarity of their members and future members in the workplace, in the community, and in the broader international arena, with particular emphasis on issues relating to women and people of color. This is a call for proposals to present papers at the conference. In particular we are interested in both case studies and quantitative research that use original data to provide fresh insights into factors contributing to union success in developing lasting and effective rank-and-file leadership, presented in a manner accessible to both trade unionists and academics. While the conference coordinators will consider any proposal that is related to union organizing, union building, and rank-and-file leadership development we are especially interested in encouraging research in the area suggested below. *LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT DURING ORGANIZING CAMPAIGNS: There is a critical need for research which assesses leadership development during the organizing process and evaluates which models are most effective for which groups. *INTEGRATING NEW LEADERS IN THE AFTERMATH OF ORGANIZING CAMPAIGNS: There is a great need for more information and analysis on effective union strategies for overcoming the inherent tension between leadership development during organizing campaigns and the barriers to integrating these new leaders (the majority of whom are women and people of color, representing the majority of the newly organizing workforce) into the existing leadership structure. *UNION ORGANIZING MODELS AND STRATEGIES: We strongly encourage research which analyzes the varying effects of different organizing models and strategies and their impact on different sectors of workers and industries. *EFFECTIVE MODELS OF TRUE RANK-AND-FILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT: Research is needed which focuscs on which leadership development models and strategies are most effective in overcoming barriers to bringing up new rank-and-file leaders that are more reflective of the membership base. *BUILDING THE LABOR MOVEMENT THROUGH STRIKES AND CONTRACT CAMPAIGNS: Critical questions remain as to how unions have used successful strikes, lock-outs, and membership- and community-based contract campaign models to be most effective in building and strengthening unions. *CROSS BORDER SOLIDARITY AND UNION BUILDING: The question for researchers is how unions can get beyond the rhetoric to develop programs and strategies which promote and strengthen union building and international union solidarity that is reciprocal and lasting in nature and design. *INTER-ETHNIC AND INTER-GENDER CONTRADICTIONS IN NEW ORGANIZING: It is critically important that the labor movement gain an understanding of factors contributing to tensions created between established members of the union and new and very often different members (often women and people of color) being brought into the union as a result of organizing victories, as well as effective strategies to resolve the tensions in a manner that strengthens the labor movement. *TAKING ON THE TOUGH ISSUES: Despite groing evidence that this country is getting meaner, harder, and more divided, some unions have taken a very aggressive stance in educating and mobilizing their members to challenge and beat back the growing rancor and prejudice in American discourse and government policy. What has been the nature of labor's response and how and why has it been most effective? *ORGANIZING IN THE UNION AND COMMUNITY: Unions and labor councils are building connections with community groups designed to facilitate organizing in their cities and towns. Which of these initiatives have been most successful and what are some of the pitfalls that unions and community groups face in attemping to turn their neighborhoods into union territory? Paper proposals should be approximately 750-1000 words in length. They should be clearly written and relatively jargon free. The posposals should describe the topic, state all working hypotheses, and explain the research methodology. Proposals should also include the author's name, address, phone number, fax number and where possible, E-mail address. All proposals should be sent to: KATE BRONFENBRENNER UCLEA PROFESSIONAL COUNCIL CHAIR 207 ILR EXTENSION BUILDING CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA, N.Y. 14853-3901 FAX # (607) 255-2358 Proposals can also be sent as E-mail attachments to KLB23@cornell.edu. The deadline for receipt of proposals is OCTOBER 15, 1997. Decisions regarding acceptance of papers for the conference will be made jointly by the AFL-CIO Education Department and the UCLEA conference planning committee. Papers should be 20-25 double spaced pages in length, including all citations, tables, and references. The deadling for receiving the working draft is MARCH 1, 1998. Final papers will be due six weeks after the conference. If you have any questions, please call Kate Bronfenbrenner at Cornell (607) 255-7581, or her assistant Katie Briggs (607) 254-4749. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Croteau Sociology/ Virginia Commonwealth University E-mail: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu From aikya@ix.netcom.com Fri Sep 19 09:44:49 1997 by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma003950; Fri Sep 19 10:44:06 1997 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'Labor Research and Action Project'" Subject: RE: Cultural/Media Work Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 08:37:21 -0700 I am the publisher of a small progressive publication, Women and Money" newsletter. It has always had a labor union section and has carried articles by several list members. So far they have included analysis, statement of principles, a marcher's report on the June Detroit March, and a report on an early planning meeting of the budding coalition between academicians and union leaders held several months ago, of which I assume this is part. I'd love to have more. Real life deadlines are mid- month the month before publication. Writer's Guidelines and past articles can be found at . The next several issue themes are as follows: November - Health Care and Health Insurance December - Philanthropy January 1998 - Pay Equity February 1998 - Beauty and the Arts March 1998 - Racism The labor union section doesn't always reflect the issue theme but it can. For example in the August issue on Welfare Reform, the union section had an article on workfare organizing. The Child Care issue this month had an article about community/ labor/management coalitions to provide child care for nonstandard work hours. So the issue themes are put there just in case they inspire something. Someone among you might have informed words from the labor view about the situation in the health-care-for -profit industry. And what about philanthropy? Do people give donations to special union projects? Could somebody do an article about that for December? Of course, the February issue about Beauty and the Arts could feature a status report about how this project is going...and/or something about unions in the fashion and beauty sector. Are there any? Hmmm. Three other article series that need more articles are: * Another Mother Daughter Union member article featuring two or three pairs of mothers and daughters. I had them all answer several questions including: (1) what union(s) did they belong to and in what years, (2) what are or were their titles if any, (3) what did they do when they were part of the union of which they are especially proud, (4)what was the greatest benefit to them and their families to belonging to a union, and the ever-popular (5) anything else? * Another article for the 'Generations of Black Union Members" series. People from both generations have to have either been in a union or had significant life experience trying to get into a union. At least one must have been in a union and at least one must be a woman. * An entry for my current mini-campaign to get readers to "Buy U.S. Made and Buy Union Made" for the holidays. I just included the bios of the writers who were part of the National Writer's Union/UAW book fair in LA. Pick a gift item and go find out about those which are union-made, if possible, or at least U.S. made. Toys or recreational items for people of all ages would be a good possibility. (Any union made skateboards out there? How about roller blades?) That's my article wish list for the group. I hope it is not too big a shock to find there is a publication actually looking for articles about unions. I also carry articles on things like entrepreneurship and microcredit so some readers are not quite pro-union. I try to keep the union pages at least accessible to those readers so I haven't run any articles in which union people argue with other union people about inner politics or technical matters a general reader would not know or possibly care about. The reputation of Women and Money is growing especially in those areas where it has monthly coverage like labor unions and microcredit. Thus you may see more monthly departments opening up. Two likely possibilities are a department about women's self-employment and (Yes, I'm giving in. Everybody expects there to be a department about) personal financial management. I wish I could say that Women and Money is fabulously well-financed but it's struggling through its first year. Next issue will be the ninth. So W&M would be delighted to have more union-friendly subscribers. Also, W&M takes classified advertising. Announcements of academic conferences can have 250 words for $25.00, 500 words for $50.00. If you repeat twice, the third time is free. So there you are folks. I'm in the fun! Aikya Param Publisher Women and Money http://www2.netcom.com/~aikya/womenandmoney.html ******************************* Twenty pages monthly of trustworthy news about what affects your financial security, where to find out more, and how to win wanted alternatives. ****************************** Send your name and snail mail address for a sample copy. Thanks for your interest. ************************************** ---------- From dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu Mon Sep 22 16:28:57 1997 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 18:25:51 -0400 To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu (david croteau) Subject: John Sessions Memorial Award (fwd) >From: andersd@spot.Colorado.EDU (by way of Michael Eisenscher ) >Subject: John Sessions Memorial Award (fwd) >Sender: meisenscher@igc.org > > To all librarians working with the labor community! > ---or with labor collections! > >Nominations are being sought for the JOHN SESSIONS MEMORIAL AWARD. > > This award recognizes a library or library system which has made >significant efforts to work with the labor community and by so doing to >bring recognition to the community through the library of the history and >contribution of the labor movement to the development of this country. >Such efforts may include outreach projects to local labor unions; >establishment of, or significant expansion of, special labor collections; >initiation of programs of special interest to the labor community; or >other library activities that serve the labor community. > > >Nominations are due no later than December 31, 1997. To receive an >application form, send an e-mail to Krismann@spot.Colorado.edu or write >to: > Carol Krismann > 4900 Qualla Drive > Boulder, CO 80303 > >or call me at 303-492-3194. If you would like more information, contact >the above or you could call ALA/RUSA at 1-800-545-2433. > > Thanks you---I hope to hear from you. > > Carol Krismann, Chair > John Sessions Memorial Award Committee > > > ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Croteau Sociology/ Virginia Commonwealth University E-mail: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu From dreiling@darkwing.uoregon.edu Tue Sep 23 18:19:08 1997 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 17:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 17:19:30 -0700 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Michael Dreiling Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS CLASS THEORY AND SOCIAL CHANGE: RETREAT OR RENEWAL? Political Sociology Panel, Pacific Sociological Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. April 16-19, 1998. This panel seeks papers that challenge widely held notions that social class has retracted from the core dynamics of social change in the last 25 years. While an increasingly evident shift in the political dynamics of unions is generating both scholarly and journalistic attention, a shift in the theoretical framework of class formation, struggle, and mobilization has thus far failed to materialize. Theories that depict class in the static terms of social stratification, or cast labor politics in terms of industrial relations, are clearly insufficient, and even misleading approaches for understanding the political behavior and potentials of organized segments of the working class. Class need not be conceptualized as a totalizing structure and identity either; race, gender, nation, and sexuality shape the political and cultural conditions associated with class formation, as do the "anonymous" motors of global economic change. Empirical and theoretical work that makes these and related connections -- between class theory, worker-organization and collective action/social movements -- with the explicit aim of renewing a dynamic theory of class formation, mobilization and/or struggle will be ideal for this panel. Please send proposal or paper by Nov. 1, 1997, to: Michael Dreiling, Asst. Professor Department of Sociology 1291 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1291 541-346-5025 Michael Dreiling Phone: 541-346-5025 Department of Sociology Fax: 541-346-5026 1291 University of Oregon Email: dreiling@darkwing.uoregon.edu Eugene, OR 97403-1291 From sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu Fri Sep 26 00:32:19 1997 Fri, 26 Sep 1997 01:31:17 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 01:31:17 -0500 (CDT) To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu (Kim Scipes) Subject: FWD: CIA commentary I think folks might find this of interest--Kim >Redistributed for noncommercial, educational purposes only. > >>From New York Daily News - OpEd Page - Wednesday, Sept. 24, 1997 >= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >Scandal may be CIA's conduct >By Lars-Erik Nelson > >Washington -- In their obsession with which telephone Vice >President Gore may have used to raise campaign money, Senate >investigators have glided past a far bigger scandal: CIA >interference in U.S. politics. > >The case is put most starkly by Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-NJ): >"What's the CIA doing making an undercover call to the head of the >Democratic National Committee?" > >If Torricelli is right -- and testimony appears to support him -- >the CIA's operations division lobbied to help one of its >intelligence assets, oilman Roger Tamraz, get into the White House >to peddle an oil pipeline scheme. > >In the process of helping Tamraz, an operations officer identified >only as Bob used a cover identity when talking to DNC Chairman Don >Fowler. > >Whoops! That's called covert operations -- and the CIA is not >supposed to run operations on U.S. soil, let alone against a U.S. >political party. > >"Tamraz played the system like an organ," says an intelligence >official. Seeking U.S. support for a planned pipeline out of the >Caspian Sea oil fields, he first used a retired CIA official, Ed >Pechous, to secure an appointment with National Security Council >staffer Sheila Heslin. > >Then, when Heslin had doubts about Tamraz' trustworthiness, >current CIA officials sanitized his shady biography. Then Bob >repeatedly lobbied the NSC on Tamraz' behalf, Heslin testified. > >In addition, Bob called Gore's office to help Tamraz, officials >said. > >The DNC staff had warned Fowler against Tamraz. Then, last Oct. >18, Bob telephoned Fowler about helping to get Tamraz into the >White House. > >Bob -- his full identity is classified -- admitted to Senate >investigators that he may not have told Fowler who he actually >was. > >Funny -- Fowler has been accused of trying to manipulate the CIA >to help Tamraz as a pay-off for Tamraz' $300,000 in Democratic >campaign contributions last year. > >But the CIA went to bat for Tamraz well before he made his first >contribution, and the sequence of calls shows that the CIA >initiated the contact with Fowler, not vice versa. > >"The amazing thing to me is that this Bob of the CIA was nothing >short of an agent for Tamraz and his pipeline scheme," Sen Richard >Durbin (D-Ill.) said in a telephone call yesterday. "Bob was >working overtime to get Tamraz into the White House to change U.S. >policy." > >Why should the CIA help Tamraz? (A) He was a long-time >intelligence asset in the Middle East. (B) Maybe his pipeline >would further U.S. interests in the Caspian region. Or (C) He had >a practice of hiring CIA officers after they retired. If CIA >agents could help him score a $2 billion pipeline project, they >might be feathering their own nests. > >The CIA likes to claim that it works only for the President. But >in this case, Durbin said, "Tamraz had the CIA in his back >pocket." The White House was the target. > >Perhaps most amazing of all, Bob says he had no idea who Fowler >was when he called him. > >Imagine: a CIA operations officer calling the chairman of the >Democratic National Committee to vouch for Tamraz -- without >knowing whom he was talking to. > >Fowler, for his part, was much ridiculed for saying that he had no >recollection of talking to the CIA. Now that claim becomes a >little more understandable. > >This may be a comedy of errors, a sinister plot, mere greed on the >part of government officials looking toward an easy retirement or >more evidence of a CIA that carries out its own policies for its >own purposes. > >In any case, says New Jersey's Torricelli, "This has crossed the >line from campaign finance abuses into an intelligence problem." > >What an irony: The congressional investigation into campaign >finance abuses began with the suspicion that China and other >mysterious foreigners may have tried to buy their way into the >American political system. > >Now we find that the clearest example of someone's buying >political access for cash in an attempt to change U.S. policy -- >Tamraz -- had the active support of the CIA. As Walt Kelly said, >We have met the enemy, and it is us. > From lastl@merkland.rgu.ac.uk Fri Sep 26 03:59:43 1997 Fri, 26 Sep 97 10:50:42 GMT+1 From: "THOMAS LANGE" To: European-sociologist@mailbase.ac.uk, industrial-relations-research@mailbase.ac.uk, econ-soc-devt@mailbase.ac.uk, TASA@cc.newcastle.edu.ac, esa-all@mailbase.ac.uk, social-policy@mailbase.ac.uk, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:50:27 GMT Subject: ILM CONFERENCE 1998: CALL FOR PAPERS "BS-STAFF/BMSWBH"@mailbox.rgu.ac.uk, "BS-STAFF/BMSCMW"@mailbox.rgu.ac.uk, r.levy@rgu.ac.uk ILM CONFERENCE 1998 - SKILLING THE UNSKILLED Achievements and Under-achievements in Education and Training 15-16 June 1998, Aberdeen, Scotland organised by: The Centre for International Labour Market Studies (CILM), The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, United Kingdom Inceasing international competition has put improvements in education and training at the top of many nations' political agenda. Yet a substantial proportion of the working population remains un- or underskilled. During the 1980s and 1990s there has been a sheer explosion of publicly funded training and employment schemes aimed primarily at the hard-to-employ. Active labour market policies - training, re-training and guidance programmes and temporary work creation schemes - have been hailed by some as the ultimate tools to combat mass unemployment. But should we be convinced? The 3rd Annual International Labour Markets Conference will bring together representatives from government departments, business, industry and academia world-wide to discuss the causes and consequences of active labour market intervention. The conference is multi-disciplinary in nature and will cover a range of topics, including: * Publicly Funded Training Schemes * Experiences with Work Creation Measures * Counselling and Guidance * The Relationship between Schooling and Training * The Role of Continuing Education and Life-long Learning * Long-term Unemployment * Unemployment and Minority Groups * Employment and Skills Requirements CALL FOR PAPERS: If you would like to present a paper at the 3rd Annual International Labour Markets Conference please send an abstract (not exceeding 250 words) to: The Centre for International Labour Market Studies (CILM) ILM Conference 1998 The Robert Gordon University 352 King Street Aberdeen AB24 6BN United Kingdom Fax: +44 1224 262929 E-mail: t.lange@rgu.ac.uk ______________________________________________________ Deadline for submission of abstracts: Friday, 20 February 1998 In case of acceptance full papers are required by Friday, 1 May 1998. ______________________________________________________ PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION FORMS ARE AVAILABLE FROM: Ms. Michelle Wishart CILM Marketing Officer The Robert Gordon University 352 King Street Aberdeen AB24 5BN United Kingdom Fax: +44 1224 262929 CONFERENCE FEES: 140.00 Pounds Sterling 125.00 Pounds Sterling (ILM members only; information upon request) 100.00 Pounds Sterling (Research students; proof required) including conference proceedings, lunches, light refreshments and dinner (Monday only) ACCOMMODATION: OPTION A 30.00 Pounds Sterling (Bed and Breakfast) OPTION B 60.00 Pounds Sterling (Economy Class Hotel Accommodation) OPTION C 100.00 Pounds Sterling (4-star Accommodation) All prices are based on per person, per night accommodation, including full Scottish breakfast. At this stage prices are estimates and subject to small changes. Further information are available from: Professor Thomas Lange Director, The Centre for International Labour Market Studies (CILM) The Robert Gordon University 352 King Street Aberdeen AB24 5BN United Kingdom Tel.: +44 1224 262900 / 262905 Fax: +44 1224 262929 E-mail: t.lange@rgu.ac.uk From aaron@burn.ucsd.edu Fri Sep 26 16:47:39 1997 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:38:21 -0400 To: , Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, LABOR-L@YORKU.CA From: aaron@burn.ucsd.edu (Aaron) Subject: 9/28 Oakland, CA Demo for Liverpool Dockers E M E R G E N C Y D E M O N S T R A T I O N In SOLIDARITY with the LIVERPOOL DOCKERS SUNDAY (Sept. 28) 5 PM Maritime and Pier Sts OAKLAND, California (Next to the SEALAND Terminal) Info: (510) 531-4717 or (415) 641-4440/4610 SF Bay Area friends & comrades, The call from Jack Heyman reproduced below is self-explanatory. But those who want to know more about the struggle of the Liverpool dockers (longshoremen, in U.S. parlance) should visit the excellent LobourNet web site: http://www.labournet.org.uk The left side of the home page is full of links to documents from and about the Liverpool struggle. - In solidarity, - Aaron Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:29:56 -0700 From: Jack Heyman Organization: ILWU Local 10 Emergency Demo in Support of Liverpool Dockers Dear Friend: The Liverpool dockers will have been on strike for two years this weekend. We intend to honor their courageous struggle with a mass picket/demo on the Oakland docks this Sunday 5:00 PM at the gate on Maritime and Pier Sts. (next to the Sealand Terminal). Our hope is that this action will bolster them as much as they have inspired us. When on Sept. 9, ports in South Africa were shutdown as part of an international day of action in solidarity with the Liverpool dockers, a dockers' union leader said "the Liverpool dockers supported us during the apartheid era, now they need help and we have the chance to repay them." This is a last minute appeal ..... but it is urgent. Please let us know if we can count on you and your organization. Bring your own signs. May we suggest a couple slogans: "Victory to the Liverpool dockers", "Never Cross A Picket Line", "Don't Handle Scab Cargo" "Fight Global Shippers With International Labor Solidarity". AN INJURY TO ONE IS AN INJURY TO ALL In solidarity, Jack Heyman Victory to the Liverpool Dockers Committee 415-641-4440,4610 or 510-531-4717 9/26/97 ---------- mailto:aaron@burn.ucsd.edu http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aaron From aaron@burn.ucsd.edu Sun Sep 28 02:06:04 1997 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 04:05:20 -0400 To: (Bay Area Recipients) From: aaron@burn.ucsd.edu (Aaron) Subject: Time of Liverpool Solidarity Demo changed to NOON!!! E M E R G E N C Y D E M O N S T R A T I O N In SOLIDARITY with the LIVERPOOL DOCKERS > > > > > NOTE CHANGE IN TIME FROM 5 PM TO NOON! < < < < < SUNDAY (Sept. 28) NOON Maritime and Pier Sts OAKLAND, California (Next to the SEALAND Terminal) Info: (510) 531-4717 or (415) 641-4440/4610 SF Bay Area friends & comrades, Most of you got my original message about this demo. Unfortunately, I didn't download Jack Heyman's latest message (see below) until a few minutes ago. Even if few of you see this in time to get there at noon, at least some of you will be saved the inconvenience of going there at 5 PM and not finding a demonstration. - In solidarity, - Aaron >Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 17:41:08 -0700 >From: Jack Heyman >Organization: ILWU Local 10 >To: aaron@burn.ucsd.edu >Subject: Change in Time of Liverpool Demo !!! >Sender: jhook@igc.org > >CHANGE TIME OF DEMO TO NOON!! > >Emergency Demo in Support of Liverpool Dockers > >Dear Friend: > The Liverpool dockers will have been on strike for two years this >weekend. We intend to honor their courageous struggle with a mass >picket/demo on the Oakland docks this Sunday 12:00 Noon at the gate on >Maritime and Pier Sts. (next to the Sealand Terminal). > Our hope is that this action will bolster them as much as they have >inspired us. When on Sept. 9, ports in South Africa were shutdown as >part of an international day of action in solidarity with the Liverpool >dockers, a dockers’ union leader said “the Liverpool dockers supported >us during the apartheid era, now they need help and we have the chance >to repay them.” This is a last minute appeal ..... but it is urgent. >Please let us know if we can count on you and your organization. > Bring your own signs. May we suggest a couple slogans: “Victory to the >Liverpool dockers”, “Never Cross A Picket Line”, “Don’t Handle Scab >Cargo” >“Fight Global Shippers With International Labor Solidarity”. > > AN INJURY TO ONE IS AN INJURY TO ALL > >In solidarity, >Jack Heyman >Victory to the Liverpool Dockers Committee >415-641-4440,4610 or 510-531-4717 >9/26/97 > ---------- mailto:aaron@burn.ucsd.edu http://burn.ucsd.edu/~aaron From Herejobs@aol.com Mon Sep 29 11:34:35 1997 From: Herejobs@aol.com by emout03.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:34:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:34:30 -0400 (EDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Hotel Workers Internships I am writing on behalf of H.E.R.E. locals on the East and West Coast who are urgently seeking interns. Please post this notice to lists you believe would be helpful and announce in classes where there will be interest ! INTERNS WANTED: EARN COURSE CREDIT FIGHTING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND WORKERS RIGHTS Internships now available with the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union in the following locations: SAN FRANCISCO, OAKLAND, MONTEREY, AND LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA NEW HAVEN,HARTFORD, STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT AND PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND. No Experience necessary: we are looking for creative individuals with a committment to social and economic justice. WHAT INTERNS WILL LEARN: interns will gain skills in organizing, community outreach and campaign development by : 1. working with organizers in the field 2. learning investigative research techniques 3. activating community support and boycott organizing WHAT INTERNS WILL EARN: You can earn course credit, gain valuable skills, and the undying gratitude of the cooks, dishwashers, housekeepers, and other workers who make up the HERE membership ! Some locals can provide transportation stipends. Each of these HERE locals have a full time Community Organizer on Staff who will train and develop interns on campaigns to support the hotel workers organizing at the : New Otani--Marriott--Lafayette Park--Monterey Plaza and many more hotels. Research and building community alliances are key in winning these struggles -- come join us ! TO FIND OUT MORE CONTACT: West Coast: Pat Lamborn (510)893-3181 Ext. 128 email: Herejobs@aol.com East Coast: Ellen Thomson (860)653-9354 email: ethere@aol.com