From fgardner@aflcio.org Wed Apr 1 15:29:33 1998 Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 17:12:00 -0500 From: Florence Gardner Sender: Florence Gardner To: 104525.2156@compuserve.com, 73642.1340@compuserve.com, rescampaign@igc.apc.org (ACORN - Research), allphds@haas.berkeley.edu, anthrograd@uclink2.berkeley.edu, bostertag@aol.com, cafe@igc.org, chieforg@igc.org, croessler@igc.apc.org (Christina Roessler), dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu (david croteau), dfeeney@igc.org, dfeld@seanet.com, dszanton@socrates.berkeley.edu, eschoenberger@juno.com, ethnicstudiesgrads@uclink2.berkeley.edu, geoggrads@socrates.berkeley.edu, grads@econ.berkeley.edu, hshaiken@socrates.berkeley.edu, jmcalevey@igc.apc.org (Jane McAlevey), jeisen@cais.com, jfreeman@uclink.berkeley.edu (Jim Freeman), jpmgeog@socrates.berkeley.edu, jpramas@neaction.org, jrogers@ssc.wisc.edu, jrosenblum@igc.apc.org, kmcafee@uclink.berkeley.edu (Kathy McAfee), spalding@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Kirsten Snow Spalding), kjstults@aol.com, labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu, planning-announce@uclink4.berkeley.edu, Subject: JOB OPPORTUNITIES! PLEASE PASS THE WORD... STRATEGIC RESEARCH POSITIONS for Union Organizing Campaigns 4/1/98 Ambitious and exciting union organizing campaigns are seeking strategic researchers in such cities as Los Angeles, Milwaukee, San Antonio, Seattle, New Orleans, Washington DC, and Stamford CT. Labor, environmental, and community activists/researchers looking for a career change, investigative reporters with an interest in labor, graduates of business or MBA programs with labor sensibilities, progressive academics, recent college graduates interested in a career in organized labor, lawyers with a public interest background, and other progressive activists are all encouraged to apply. QUALIFICATIONS Work experience with labor unions, public interest organizations, or community-based groups. Educational background in economics, law, business, labor studies, urban planning and geography, public administration, environmental and community health studies, history, or journalism. Experience with quantitative and qualitative research, including financial analysis, industry research, corporate research, and/or issue research; ability to plan, research, write and edit quality research projects. Experience and desire to thrive in challenging campaign atmosphere; ability to work on numerous assignments at once and to successfully meet tight deadlines. Excellent computer and analytical skills, including facility with database design and management and on-line databases. Strong commitment to the labor movement and desire fight for social justice. To apply send resume and writing sample to: AFL-CIO Department of Corporate Affairs OI-SR-WD Search Committee 815 16th Street, NW, Suite 405 Washington, D.C. 20006. Or email same to: corpaff@aflcio.org (attached files should be in Word Perfect for the PC or in ascii) No phone calls please. Women and people of color are strongly encouraged to apply. From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Apr 1 21:18:47 1998 Wed, 1 Apr 1998 19:20:30 -0800 (PST) Wed, 1 Apr 1998 19:14:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 19:14:01 -0800 (PST) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Cornell Professor Under Corporate Attack; SW Labor Studies Conference April 1, 1998 Cornell Professor Fights a Slander Suit By STEVEN GREENHOUSE An an unusual case pitting a claim of defamation against defense of academic freedom, a labor relations professor at Cornell University is being sued for slander by the nation's largest nursing home company. The company, Beverly Enterprises Inc., which operates more than 700 nursing homes, said the professor, Kate Bronfenbrenner, defamed it last year when she declared at a town meeting in Pittsburgh that Beverly was "one of the nation's most notorious labor-law violators." Citing her research on anti-union tactics, Dr. Bronfenbrenner told the 300 people at the meeting that the company systematically dismissed pro-union workers and engaged in other unfair practices to beat back organized labor. In February, nine months after the meeting, Beverly sued in a federal court in Pittsburgh, calling the remarks false and defamatory. Dr. Bronfenbrenner said she was shocked not just by the suit and its demand for at least $225,000 in damages but also by Beverly's demand, in the pretrial discovery process, that she turn over details of research she had conducted over a more than a decade. "I'm very frightened and outraged by this, because it represents a real attack on scholars like myself from taking part in public debates," said Dr. Bronfenbrenner, a 43-year-old untenured professor who teaches courses on union organizing. More than 500 professors from around the country have rallied to her side, contending that the suit is an assault on academic freedom and free speech. In an e-mail petition addressed to the company, the professors described the suit as "an insult to academic inquiry" and said it was "intended to send a warning to Dr. Bronfenbrenner and to other academics not to engage in honest inquiry into topics a powerful corporation finds unpleasant." Dr. Bronfenbrenner is being defended in court by Cornell.Nelson E. Roth, one of the university's lawyers, called the suit "a cowardly effort on Beverly's part to direct attention away from its own conduct." The company, based in Fort Smith, Ark., said it is merely trying to set the record straight after a decade of criticism and pressure from the Service Employees International Union, which is seeking to represent workers at dozens of nursing homes. Beverly officials said they long ignored the criticisms but finally decided to try to stop what they regard as repeated smears. "There has been a constant and widespread repetition of negative and even false things," said Donald L. Dotson, Beverly's senior vice president for labor and employment. "We do ignore a large number of these things. But it reached a point a year ago when it just got out of hand." The company also sued a Service Employees leader who had spoken at the meeting in Pittsburgh, but on March 5 a federal judge dismissed that suit, saying the meeting, sponsored by several members of Congress, should be considered a legislative proceeding and therefore protected from such a suit. If so, Dr. Bronfenbrenner's defenders said, the suit against her should be dismissed as well. Beverly, meanwhile, has said it would appeal the other suit's dismissal. Company officials said that in her remarks at the meeting, Dr. Bonfenbrenner was acting not as an objective researcher reporting results of her studies but instead as a pro-union propagandist bending the truth to help the union's efforts to organize workers at nursing homes in Pennsylvania. Dr. Bronfenbrenner said that her research supports her remarks against the company, although she did not deny support for union causes. In her research, she has interviewed organizers and rank-and-file workers to learn what anti-union tactics companies use and, in turn, which union tactics work best. Within the labor movement, she is respected for the research, which has found, for example, that in 50 percent of organizing drives, companies threaten to close a plant if workers there vote for a union. Roth, Dr. Bronfenbrenner's lawyer, said he fears that the company's demand for details on her research will occupy her for months and force her to disclose the names of organizers and workers she has interviewed confidentially. "Why should anyone talk to a respected scholar, and how could this type of research be done, if they know an employer can simply start a defamation lawsuit and have all those notes of their conversations turned over?" Roth said. Among the 300 people at the Pittsburgh meeting were Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and five members of the House. Lawmakers said that the session was organized to examine Beverly's labor-law violations and gather information for a bill that would bar companies that break labor law from obtaining federal contracts. Beverly officials characterized the meeting as an opportunity to bash the company and bolster the union's organizing drive. Among the professor's defamatory remarks, Beverly officials said, was her statement that the company had repeatedly refused to bargain with the union at a number of nursing homes. In fact, Dotson said,Beverly has negotiated contracts at dozens of homes. Further, he said, of 60 recent organizing drives at Beverly nursing homes, the Service Employees declined to file unfair-labor-practice charges in 44. Dotson, who was head of the National Labor Relations Board in the Reagan administration, said there was "irrefutable evidence" that Dr. Bronfenbrenner's remarks "were based on many gross errors concerning Beverly, which should not have been the case if rigorous research really had been conducted." Dr. Bronfenbrenner declined to offer a point-by-point defense of her comments at the meeting. But Service Employees officials pointed to numerous government findings that Beverly has engaged in unfair labor practices at dozens of nursing homes. In 1995, for example, the General Accounting Office, the auditing and investigative arm of Congress, identified Beverly as one of 15 companies guilty of "more serious" labor-law violations. And in November, an administrative law judge, describing "wide-ranging and persistent misconduct," said Beverly had violated the law by failing to reinstate hundreds of strikers at 20 nursing homes. The judge wrote of"coercive tactics such as blatant surveillance of union activities, threats of retaliations, suspensions and discharges of union supporters." Dotson acknowledged that Beverly often violated labor law in the 1980's, but said it had cleaned up its record in recent years. Of the lawsuit against Dr. Bronfenbrenner, he said: "It's not our desire to destroy anyone or harm anyone. If we could arrive at some accommodation to set this situation right and to set the record straight, that's all we're looking for. We just want the truth." Julius Getman, a University of Texas law professor who was a sponsor of the petition supporting Dr. Bronfenbrenner, said Beverly had other motives: "It's part of an effort by management that 'got the unions on the run, and let's use the law as a weapon against them.' " Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company ======================================= Subject: Southwest Labor History Ass'n Conference Organizing: Past, Present, & Future 24th Annual Southwest Labor History Association Conference April 24-26, 1998 St. Edward's University Sponsored by: Texas, AFL-CIO; School of Behavioral & Social Sciences, St. Edward's University Preliminary Program Schedule FRIDAY AFTERNOON, APRIL 24TH, 1998 3:30-5:15 Session 1:A Migratory Labor in Film "Border Heat and White-Line Fever: Images of Migratory Labor in Film," Tom Zaniello, Northern Kentucky Univ. Session 1:B Telling Labor's Story Roundtable Discussion on Labor Narratives Discussants include Jack Getman and William Forbath, both from School of Law, Univ. of Texas, Austin Session 1:C Community Organizing & the Environment "Gender Identity in Working-Class Women's Organizing around Toxic Waste," Ann Herda-Rapp, Univ. of Illinois "GASPing for Air: Labor, Community, and Environment in Pittsburgh," Rob Gordon, Wayne State Univ. 5:30-6:30 Reception 6:30-7:30 Plenary Session I "Community Organizing in the 1990s," speaker to be announced SATURDAY MORNING, APRIL 25TH, 1998 9:00-10:15 Plenary Session II "Looking Backward: Imagining the Future of Labor in the Past," Elizabeth Faue, Wayne State Univ. 10:30-12:15 Session 2:A Rhetoric and Revolution in France and Germany "Print Workers and Revolutionary Rhetoric in Leipzig and Berlin, 1848-49," Richard Skinner, St. Edward's Univ. "A Union of Women: The Union des femmes and the Paris Commune of 1871," Carolyn J. Eichner, Univ. of South Florida "Constructing a French Identity: The Champagne Workers and the Revolution of 1911" Kolleen Guy, Univ. of Texas, San Antonio Session 2:B Globalization and Labor in the Americas "Chilean Workers and the Neo-Liberal Model," Jonathan C. Brown, Univ. of Texas, Austin "Mexican Workers and the Neo-Liberal Model," Marco Augusto Gomez Solorzano, Universidad Autonoma Mexicana - Xochimilco Session 2:C Rhetoric and Practice of Cold War Era Labor Organizers and Bureaucrats "Red Americanism Struggling to Control the Narrative: Conflict, Disjuncture and Patriotism in the Oral Life Story and Trial Documents of a Minnesota Communist," Mark Soderstrom, Univ. of Minneapolis "The Lives of Sidney Lens: American Radicals and the American Worker from the Depression to Vietnam," Jeff Coker, Ohio Univ. "George Meany, The Cold War and Union Organizing, 1945-1980," Anders G. Lewis, Univ. of Florida 12:30-1:30 Catered Lunch SATURDAY AFTERNOON, APRIL 25TH, 1998 1:45-3:15 Session 3:A Arbitration, Negotiation, and Fair Employment Practices "Perspectives on Arbitration and Mediation," Marsha Kelliher, St. Edward's Univ. Roundtable discussion, Gretchen Paulig & I.B. Helburn Session 3:B Organizing Miners: Region, Race, and Ethnicity "Making Sense of the Molly Maguires," Kevin Kenny, Univ. of Texas, Austin "Italians in the Arizona Mining Industry, 1890s-1920s," Phylis Cancilla Martinelli, St. Mary's College Session 3:C Public Sector Organizing in Texas "University Organizing from Within: University Staff Association, Univ. of Texas, Austin," Peg Kramer, President University Staff Association. 3:30-5:15 Session 4:A Race and Region: Segregation in the Workplace "Workers, Organized Labor, and the Ku Klux Klan in Buffalo, New York during the 1920s," Shawn Lay, Coker College "No Gold Watch for Jim Crow's Retirement: The Abolition of Segregated Unionism at Houston's Hughes Tool Company," Michael Botson, Houston Community College, Northwest Campus Session 4:B Organizing Labor and the Law: Unions and State Policy "Organized Labor and the State in Worcester, Massachusetts 1935-1955, " Bruce Cohen, Worcester State College "The threat of termination: Employment insecurity, cotton textile workers and changes in the at-will rule," Bart Dredge, Austin College SUNDAY MORNING, APRIL 26TH, 1998 9:00-10:30 Session 5:A Representations of Labor and the Working Class: Ethnicity, Race, & Gender "Re-Interpreting Urban Violence: George Lippard's Construction of the Kensington Riots of 1844," Paul Erickson, Univ. of Texas, Austin "'He Got Her in a "Friendly Way"': The Representation of African America and Mexican Women in Austin, 1890-1914," Lilia Raquel Rosas, Univ. of Texas, Austin Session 5:B Regional Differences in the CIO "The CIO Unions in Texas," George N. Green, Univ. of Texas, Arlington "Mixed Melody: The Packinghouse Workers and Ernesto Galarza in 1950s California Farm Labor, 1954-1960," Don Watson, ILWU, retired Session 5:C Current Issues in the Workplace "Talk and Action at Boeing: Lessons for Scholarship and Organizing," Dana L. Cloud, Univ. of Texas, Austin "Class Issues in Workplace Violence--Three Case Studies" Dianne R. Layden, University of Redlands SUNDAY MORNING APRIL 26TH, 1998 10:45-12:15 Session 6:A Labor in the South: Strategies and Problems in Organizing "The Knights of Labor and the Congressional Investigation of the 1886 Southwest Strike," Theresa Ann Case, Univ. of Texas, Austin "Sentimentalism not Socialism: The A.F. of L. andthe Southern Child Labor Problem," Shelley Sallee, Univ. of Texas, Austin Session 6:B Workers Voices and Values "Voces de la Frontera\Voice of the Voiceless," Christine Neuman- Ortiz Session 6:C Organizing Women Workers in Texas "Women in Garment, Textile, and Food Procession : Unionization Efforts, 1930-1960," Glenn Scott, Austin Federation of Teachers Conference Registration and Information Address conference registration/inquiries to: Kathleen Brown, SWLSA Conf. Coordinator, St. Edward's University, 3001 South Congress, Austin, TX, 78704 (512) 416-5876; FAX (512) 448-8492 kathyb@admin.stedwards.edu Southwest Labor Studies Association: SWLSA is one of the oldest labor education organizations in the United States and represents a unique association of labor activists, labor scholars,artists, and students. The new challenges of the global economy require new organizing strategies based on analysis of the internationalization of capital, economic disparities, trade and immigration issues, and technological developments. The 24th conference explores organizational strategies and worker experiences of the past and present in an attempt to forge links among those interested in creating a more equitable society. For membership information please contact the SWLSA, c/o Southern California Library for Social Studies and Research, 6120 South Vermont Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90044, (206) 759-6063. Thank you, Kathy Brown St. Edward's University kathyb@admin.stedwards.edu From aikya@ix.netcom.com Thu Apr 2 20:25:58 1998 by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma002844; Thu Apr 2 21:25:32 1998 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'Labor Research and Action Project'" , "'Michael Eisenscher'" Subject: Women in Employment/Labor Law Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 19:17:57 -0800 I am seeking women in employment or labor law to interview for Women and Money. Please send me names and contact information plus why you think this particular woman would make a good interview subject. (Hint: maybe she worked on some important issue or represented someone in an important case). Thanks for your help. Aikya Param, Publisher, Women and Money Economic Justice and Empowerment Report Send name and snail mail address for sample copy. http://www2.netcom.com/~aikya/womenandmoney.html From cxhaha@mail.wm.edu Fri Apr 3 07:34:37 1998 Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 09:28:25 -0500 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Cindy Hahamovitch Subject: Re: Women in Employment/Labor Law In-Reply-To: <01BD5E6C.DE4848C0@ala-ca14-17.ix.netcom.com> My colleague, Susan S. Grover, at the Marshall-Wythe School of Law (William & Mary), specializes in women and employment law. Her email address is ssgrov@facstaff.wm.edu Best, Cindy Hahamovitch Assistant Professor of History The College of William & Mary From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Fri Apr 3 07:59:32 1998 Fri, 3 Apr 1998 06:58:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 06:58:30 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Homemakers/Housekeepers-What is their Fair Market Value? (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 06:43:30 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley To: Workfare-Discuss@icomm.ca Subject: Homemakers/Housekeepers-What is their Fair Market Value? See . This site was prepared by departments of both B.C. provincial and federal governments. It provides general information on jobs and trends. I just did a search under 'homemaker' and I found the folowing listed as a (government) recognized vocation: NOC6471 Visiting Homemakers, Housekeepers and Related Occupations. Now is there any difference in the value of the work done in a home if it is a visiting or non-visiting Homemaker or Housekeeper we are talking about? Of course not. So my suggestion is that before people like Premier Harris of Ontario go riding off with their Workfare programs they conduct a full appraisal of the WORK ALREADY BEING DONE by people on welfare of which Homemaking/Housemaking is only one designation. You know I'll bet the total value of work done in this category alone exceeds the money paid out to ALL welfare recipients. So add this to the pack of lies levied against the poor in Canada-the lie that they have to be forced into Workfare programs because they aren't working now. The lie that they are being given enough funds to provide for amenities of life as required by law (Section 215 Criminal Code of Canada/ Article25 International Declaration of Human Rights). FWP. From aikya@ix.netcom.com Fri Apr 3 11:23:37 1998 by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma021266; Fri Apr 3 12:18:22 1998 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'anzalone/starbird'" , "'Alex Chis & Claudette Begin'" , "'Merle A Ways'" , "'Dave Bacon'" , "'Elinor Levine'" , "'Hilary Callahan'" To: "'Labor Research and Action Project'" , "'Margaret L Wilkinson'" , "'Michael Eisenscher'" , "'Judy Shattuck'" , "'united@cougar.com'" , "'Barri Boone'" To: "'womenandmoney@cougar.com'" Subject: FW: Labor Action: Press conference and leafleting in Charlotte, NC Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 09:35:52 -0800 The March Women and Money carried a story about the EEOC finding that Bell South has discriminated against women and older workers. As some of you know, an EEOC finding of sex and age discrimination is very unusual. The union would like people to let Bell South know that folks we don't approve of discrimination due to gender and age. For those who do not live in Charlotte, NC and cannot participate in the demonstration, you can send letters of support expressing your disapproval of gender and age discrimination by Bell South to: Sandy Weaver, CWA Local 3603, 5108 Monroe Road, Charlotte, NC 28205. Aikya Param, Publisher, Women and Money Economic Justice and Empowerment Report ---------- Sent: Friday, April 03, 1998 7:28 AM To: Denisons@worldnet.att.net; finnie@salisbury.net; united@cougar.com; ncosh@igc.apc.org; Dr_Brown@BellSouth.net; melmail@hr.house.gov; SandraW129@aol.com; DONKOPP@aol.com; grassman@niehs.nih.gov; epgm@ols.net; jojak@earthlink.com; jluckett@BellSouth.net; eplin002@MC.DUKE.EDU; kingarthur@coastalnet.com; tbennett@sph.unc.edu; afrazier@HASimons.com Subject: Labor Action: Press conference and leafleting in Charlotte, NC Please help us turn up the heat on BellSouth! Support your union brothers and sisters! In 1995 and 1996, many employees of BellSouth (mainly women and many over the age of 40) were passed over for promotion to Electronic Technician for which they had qualified in favor of brand new folks who were hired in as temporaries and then made permanent. Of the temporaries converted to permanent status only 3 are women and only 5 were age 40 or older. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled on September 4, 1997 that not only did BellSouth discriminate against the employees, but that they knew they were discriminating. The EEOC has called on BellSouth to sit down with them and the employees (represented by the Communication Workers of America (CWA) Locals 3603 and 3605). To date, seven months after the ruling, BellSouth has not agreed to sit down and negotiate a settlement to this complaint. What: Press conference and leaflet When: 11:30 AM Monday, April 6th Where: Bell South Plaza 300 S. Brevard St. Downtown Charlotte ****Wear a button or t-shirt from your union or organization. For more information: Charlotte Central Labor Council at 334-1605 or Sandy Weaver from CWA 3603 at 568-8670. After the downtown action, we ask as many folks who can to join us at Bell South Mobility on Tyvola Road where we will leaflet unorganized workers - calling on them to join the union to protect their jobs! ************************************************************ EEOC Finds Against Bell South: Age and Gender Discrimination *************************************************************************** The Communications Workers of America (CWA), Local 3603 in Charlotte, NC and Local 3605 in Gastonia, NC, representing more than 2,000 telephone employees, have successfully brought a class action charge against BellSouth Telecommunications, filed in April of 1995 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for discrimination based on age and gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. CWA challenged BellSouth's promotion of temporary employees into permanent positions, thus ignoring in-house test-qualified employees. Buddy Stancil, president of CWA Local 3603, spoke of the hardship the class members had to endure by saying, "Through years of downsizing, these folks stayed in the fight and as a union, CWA stands with them." According to the EEOC, "At the time these positions (85 Electronic Technician jobs) were filled, there were a significant number of female employees . . .(and) a significant number of employees age 40 and over who qualified for and applied for Electronic Technician positions . . . (BellSouth) instead hired 85 temporary employees whom it converted to full time Electronic Technicians . . . Only 3 of the 85 . . . were women . . . and only 5 . . .were age 40 and over. These hiring practices had a disparate impact on female employees and on employees age 40 and over . . . (Bell South)'s actions in converting the temporary employees to permanent status also constitutes intentional discrimination against incumbent female employees and incumbent employees age 40 and over." "I'm elated that the EEOC has found in our favor," says Daryl Hutchins, president of CWA Local 3605 in Gastonia, NC. "These employees work hard training and testing for promotions, only to be betrayed by the very company that requested the training process." The Communications Workers of America (on behalf of the class members) and the EEOC have begun the conciliation process with BellSouth to remedy the disparate treatment and assure compliance with the promotion and transfer process to guarantee equal opportunity for all employees. Both locals are being represented in this matter by the firm, Sharpe and Fosbinder, PA. For more information, please contact any of the following: Sharpe and Fosbinder, PA 704/334-4745 Buddy Stancil, CWA Local 3603 704/568-3603 Daryl Hutchins, CWA Local 3605 704/867-5076 -Sandy Weaver CWA Local 3603, 5108 Monroe Rd., Charlotte, NC 28205 From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Tue Apr 7 21:14:21 1998 Tue, 7 Apr 1998 19:31:31 -0700 (PDT) Tue, 7 Apr 1998 19:24:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 19:24:14 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Settlement: $500 to Every Kid Born between 1985 and 1997 [Apologies for duplicates as a consequence of cross-posting. Pass this on to friends.] From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: Re: Settlement: $500 to Every Kid Born between 1985 and 1997 In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19980407192607.433fc404@pop.igc.org> THIS IS AN INTERNET HOAX. I have investigated this and a simple internet search using key words gerber and lawsuit finds a variety of news stories refuting this claim. Don't waste the postage or get your hopes up for nothing. Dave djkeenan@ucdavis.edu On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Michael Eisenscher wrote: > [Apologies for duplicates as a consequence of cross-posting. Pass this on > to friends.] > > From: "Ms. Aikya Param" > Subject: Money for US Children Born '85-'97 > Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 10:52:30 -0700 > > Please forward to anyone who has children or grandchildren > born between 1985 and 1997. Qikya > > $500.00 U.S. SAVINGS BONDS FOR EVERY CHILD BORN BETWEEN 1985-1997. > > In a lawsuit settled this fall, Gerber Food Corporation has been ordered to > give every child born between 1985-1997(under the age of 12) a $500 US > Savings Bond for falsely advertising "All Natural" baby food products which > were found to contain preservatives. > > Reuters News Service reported that Gerber Baby Food must provide the savings > bonds, but is not required to advertise the settlement or attempt to contact > product users. Bonds may be obtained by sending a copy of the child's birth > certificate and social security card to: > > GERBER FOOD > SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION, INFANT LITIGATION > PO BOX 1602 > MINNEAPOLIS, MN 53480 > > > All the Very Best, > > Caspar Davis > Victoria, B.C., Canada > > > > Only when the last tree has died > And the last river been poisoned > And the last fish been caught > Will we realize that we cannot eat money. > > - The Cree > > > Aikya Param, Publisher, Women and Money > Economic Justice and Empowerment Report > From lecarr@earthlink.net Wed Apr 8 01:00:56 1998 Subject: Re: Settlement: $500 to Every Kid Born between 1985 and 1997 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 98 03:02:36 -0400 From: lecarr To: On 4/7/98 11:31 PM djkeenan@ucdavis.edu wrote: >THIS IS AN INTERNET HOAX. It is worse than a hoax. Anyone who makes a child's social security number and birth certificate info available has provided the opportunity for fraudulent issue of a duplicate social security card and misuse of the child's social security record. If you submitted these items, even if they were returned to you, check with SSA to see if a duplicate card was issued for your child, so they can try to track down the fraudulent card holder. Avoid hassles later. LC --------------------------------- Technological Consulting Services Low Cost, High Tech Solutions tcs@technologist.com *Hardware, software consulting *Troubleshooting *Windows, Mac, UNIX tutoring *Graphic design *Web page design *Customized applications From rjohns@bayflash.stpt.usf.edu Wed Apr 8 07:15:51 1998 Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 09:16:11 -0400 From: Rebecca Johns To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Info request Good day, everyone. Does anyone know where Tom Juravich is these days? I would like to get a copy of the soundtrack he composed and produced for the UMWA. Thanks for your help. Also, I am interested in learning more about labor struggles in Florida, where I have lived for a little over a year.....am finally moving toward doing local work. Any info y'all have would be appreciated. Thanks again. Rebecca Johns USF 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 813-553-1556 rjohns@bayflash.stpt.usf.edu From aikya@ix.netcom.com Wed Apr 8 10:05:01 1998 by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma012576; Wed Apr 8 11:04:20 1998 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: RE: Info request Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 08:45:52 -0700 Here is a recent CLR post. It includes reference to that problem in Florida and some actions to support to stop the practice. We ran it with a partner article by staff in the Jan/Feb '98 issue of Women and Money. ***************************************************************** Child Labor in Oregon and Florida Agribusiness You haven't read many stories about the Department of Labor cracking down on child labor in U.S. agribusiness. That might not surprise you. What is surprising - at a first glance - is that you also won't hear farm worker organizations complaining about the problem. Recent interviews with representatives of two of those organizations helped to explain the silence. Erik Nicholson is an organizer with Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United (Spanish acronym: PCUN) in Oregon. He said that, with the low wages they receive from the growers, farm workers can't afford to pay day care for their children. So that's first reason that you can see children in a drive-by of many Oregon fields during harvest time. Also - again because of the low wages - families need the extra income generated by their children in the fields. "Testimonies from the Fields," a just-published booklet from PCUN, contains the following passage written by a participant in a 1997 accompaniment program: The first field we visited could have been mistaken for a day care center. There were many small children in the field with their parents. Some were sitting in the dirt, just being near their families. Some were picking strawberries just like their parents and older siblings. We saw a baby stroller which was advanced a few feet occasionally to keep up with the progress of the picking. The families were together, but there wasn't much joy. At 12 cents a pound for the strawberries, minus room and board costs, this day care center was a part of survival. Nicholson of PCUN added that there has been no systematic attempt to collect data on the number of children working illegally in Oregon's fields. Without a raise in pay sufficient for child labor to be unnecessary, Oregon farm workers are not eager for any studies on child labor to be done. In Immokalee, in south Florida, Greg Asbed of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers gave another perspective on the subject. Child labor is not a large problem in Florida agribusiness. Here, too, the reason is lack of money. The mostly immigrant workforce is about 80 percent made up of young men who have to leave their families behind in Mexico and Guatemala for months at a time. They don't make enough to raise their families in Florida and instead come up alone, hoping to save enough from their meager wages to help their families scrape by. Those who do come with their families can't afford day care and rely on the labor of every available child to make enough money for the family to survive. Asbed and Nicholson both noted that the Florida growers have piously used the issue of child labor and other human rights violations in Mexico as a pretext for trying to prevent the importation of Mexican tomatoes - when the same violations are found in their own fields! In both states, issues are similar: substandard pay, refusal to negotiate, intimidation and violence against farm workers and organizers. According to Asbed, in 1977 the Florida growers paid 45-60 cents a bucket. Twenty years later, they are paying even less: 35-40 cents a bucket and as low as 25 cents per bucket. In Oregon, pay is frequently in violation of state minimum wage laws. The Oregon farm workers have organized a nationwide boycott of FLAV-R-PAC, the growers' brand of frozen and canned produce, and a boycott of Gardenburger, which uses the growers' distribution system. In Florida, 6 men began a hunger strike on December 20, to put moral pressure on the growers to negotiate. ACTION REQUESTS * Boycott FLAV-R-PAC frozen and canned fruits and vegetables and Gardenburger. Get your grocery, co-op, local restaurant and school food service to stop selling and serving these products. Contact PCUN to receive their organizing materials and to let them know about your efforts and successes. * Demand that the Florida tomato growers negotiate with the farm workers. Send a letter to the Pacific Land Company, fax: (941) 657-4462. Also, ask Florida Governor Lawton Chiles to intervene and help get the growers to the bargaining table, fax: (850) 487-0801. NOTE: Campaign for Labor Rights has an ongoing commitment to support the Oregon farm worker struggles. We are posting this one-time-only action request on behalf of the Immokalee farm workers. Resources and contact information The Oregon farm worker union (PCUN) has these resources: * Action packet on the FLAV-R-PAC/Gardenburger boycott. * A newly published 32-page booklet, "Testimonies from the Fields: Clergy, community activists, students and members of labor unions report on the Oregon farmworkers' struggle for justice." * "Aumento Ya! A Raise Now!" a 50-minute video in English (some Spanish with subtitles) depicts PCUN's successful 1995 campaign to raise strawberry workers' wages in Oregon. * Web site: www.pcun.org Contact PCUN at (503) 982-0243, . Contact the Coalition of Immokalee Workers at (941) 657-8311. -This report came via e-mail from the Campaign for Labor Rights. To receive their email labor alerts, send a message to . Phone: (541) 344-5410 Web site: http://www.compugraph.com/clr Membership/newsletter. Send $35.00 to Campaign for Labor Rights, 1247 "E" Street SE, Washington, DC 20003. Sample newsletter available on request. ***************************************************************** Aikya Param, Publisher, Women and Money Economic Justice and Empowerment Report ---------- Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 6:16 AM To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: Info request Good day, everyone. Does anyone know where Tom Juravich is these days? I would like to get a copy of the soundtrack he composed and produced for the UMWA. Thanks for your help. Also, I am interested in learning more about labor struggles in Florida, where I have lived for a little over a year.....am finally moving toward doing local work. Any info y'all have would be appreciated. Thanks again. Rebecca Johns USF 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 813-553-1556 rjohns@bayflash.stpt.usf.edu From aikya@ix.netcom.com Wed Apr 8 10:05:54 1998 by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma005511; Wed Apr 8 11:04:49 1998 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'Labor Research and Action Project'" , "'united@cougar.com'" , "'womenandmoney@cougar.com'" Subject: Jobs, Envronment, Community Conference-OR Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 08:55:03 -0700 >The environmental movement has become stymied by the "jobs vs. >environment" conundrum. Corporations have been able to derail >environmental progress by claiming that a clean environment is >incompatible with good jobs. > >By cutting real wages for two decades, by aggressively working to >bust unions, by eliminating full-time jobs and, in their place, >giving us part-time temporary jobs without medical or retirement >benefits, corporations have created great insecurity among middle >class people. > >Corporations have then used this insecurity as a lever to roll >back environmental standards and regulations, and to deflect new >environmental initiatives. > >Too often these days the environmental community finds itself on >the sidelines because it has little or no knowledge of economic >development, job creation, and control of capital. The >corporations have taken hold of environmental policy because they >have everyone convinced that environmental quality is primarily >an ECONOMIC issue and environmentalists don't (in general) know >much about the economy. > >I've said it before in Rachel's: the environmental community MUST >become savvy about economic development. We need to take back >control of our LOCAL and REGIONAL economies so that we can regain >control of environmental policies. > >Now there is a new organization that is prepared to help the >environmental community understand and tackle these economic >issues: Sustainable America. > >Sustainable America (SA) is holding its second annual "general >assembly" in Portland Oregon May 28-31. I urge you to attend. >This is a practical, hand-on meeting that will benefit everyone >who attends. Plus it's a lot of fun. > >Who should come to this general assembly? > >** Toxics, environmental justice, and forest activists. You can >win at the local level. Stop fighting the same old battles and >start using new economic development strategies to avoid old >problems. > >** Members of community organizations and advocacy groups, >service-providers, political and activists. If you are interested >in equity and democratic decision-making in your community, you >will LOVE Sustainable America. > >** Native American activists -- Explore ways in which human and >economic rights can be addressed by sustainable economic >development strategies. Justice and equity are essential parts of >sustainable economic development. > >** Union leaders. You play an essential role in the fight for >secure jobs at living wages. Come to the SA general assembly and >find new allies who share your concern for economic rights -- the >internationally recognized right of all people to have jobs that >can support families. We can advance this agenda through >sustainable economic development -- jobs that don't wreck the >environment, jobs rooted in communities -- a new model of >economic development to retain and create jobs in your region. > >** Faith-based groups -- you have an important role in local >economic development and in broad movement-building activities. >Come to the SA general assembly, engage in a dialog and build >partnerships with diverse constituencies about our shared values >and work. > >** Community development corporations -- you can build upon your >housing development efforts by advancing broader-scale >sustainable development strategies. > >** Planners, municipal staff, and elected officials -- you will >gain practical information about sustainable economic development >strategies. > >** Youths and youth groups -- your viewpoints are urgently needed >as we embark on this decades-long effort to take back America >from those who have destroyed equality of opportunity and, for >many people, hope itself. > >** Popular educators, researchers, scientists, economists, >technical assistance providers, and policy analysts -- Good ideas >plus concrete actions produce real change. Your ideas are >welcome. > > >The SA general assembly is a mix of workshops, plenary sessions >devoted to a single topic, and schmoozing salons where >participants can get to know each other. Gaining knowledge, >building partnerships, and developing strategies are what it's >about. > >Again, I urge you to come to Portland at the end of May for this >second annual general assembly. You won't regret it. > >For further information, telephone Kim Chaloner at the >Sustainable America office in New York: (212) 239-4221. Or send >E-mail to sustamer@sanetwork.org. > > *************************************** Forwarded by Aikya Param, Publisher, Women and Money Economic Justice and Empowerment Report From joe-berry@uiowa.edu Wed Apr 8 10:30:06 1998 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 11:30:02 -0500 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Joe Berry Subject: Re: Women in Employment/Labor Law Suggest Clara Oleson, a labor educator at Univ. of Iowa and a non-practicing (now) attorney. She has had some big cases in women's employment (like the famous breastfeeding firefighter in the later 70's, early 80's and lots of tenure cases) She now teaches a lot of labor law and is also an activist and pres of her union, AFT local 716. She also has done a lot of corporate research. Clara-oleson@uiowa.edu and same address and phone as me below. Joe Berry At 07:17 PM 4/2/98 -0800, you wrote: >I am seeking women in employment or labor law >to interview for Women and Money. Please send me >names and contact information plus why you think >this particular woman would make a good interview subject. >(Hint: maybe she worked on some important issue or represented >someone in an important case). > >Thanks for your help. > >Aikya Param, Publisher, Women and Money >Economic Justice and Empowerment Report >Send name and snail mail address for sample copy. >http://www2.netcom.com/~aikya/womenandmoney.html > > > Joe Berry, Program Coordinator e-mail: joe-berry@uiowa.edu Labor Center, University of Iowa phone: 319-335-4144 100 Oakdale Campus, Rm. M210-OH fax: 319-335-4077 Iowa City, Iowa 52242-5000 From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Apr 8 12:04:47 1998 Wed, 8 Apr 1998 09:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Wed, 8 Apr 1998 08:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 08:59:14 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Welfare "reform" and the death of liberalism The Strange Death of Liberal America by Kathe Pollit I woke up this morning to the voice of Linda Chavez-Thompson -- first and only female, first and only minority executive vice president of the supposedly revitalized, supposedly reprogressified A.F.L.-C.I.O. -- telling National Public Radio how thrilled she was with the Democratic Party platform. That's the one that claims as a party triumph the Republican-authored welfare bill that will push countless children into poverty, deprive legal immigrants of a wide array of benefits and force millions of poor mothers into minimum- or even subminimum-wage jobs that do not, so far as we know, exist. "I love this platform!" announced Dennis Archer, Mayor of Detroit, where 67 percent of children are on public assistance. Did I mention that the platform this year omits the usual lip service to the ongoing urban crisis? The passage of the welfare reform bill signifies more than the end of welfare as we know it; it signifies the end of a certain kind of liberalism too. Plenty of solid liberal Democrats voted for the act in the Senate: Russell Feingold, Bob Graham and Barbara Mikulski, who wasn't even up for re-election. The House vote included yeas from Nita Lowey, who is co-chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues; Elizabeth Furse; Jane Harmon; and Lynn Rivers. I'm ashamed to say I actually contributed to the campaigns of some of these people, through EMILY's List and other supposedly feminist PACs. Maybe you did too. "Sometimes you're in a position in which you have to make a decision," Representative Lowey told me. "The system is so broken." Is it? Lowey asserted that 25 percent of those on welfare are third-generation recipients, a figure she revised later in our talk as 25 percent on welfare for ten years or more -- "that's two generations." Maybe she was thinking of horses on welfare? (Actually, only about 6 percent of recipients have been on welfare continuously for that long, and only 9 percent grew up in households that frequently received welfare.) It was unnerving but strangely enlightening to hear the head of the Congressional women's caucus defending her vote with numbers plucked out of the air and Orwellian tributes to "the dignity of work," while simultaneously professing herself "concerned" about the actual content of the bill -- the free hand given to states with atrocious records, the cutoffs of legal immigrants, food stamp limits, etc. When the Democrats retake Congress we'll be monitoring those things, she assured me. So now we're supposed to vote for the Democrats so they can undo their own votes! Talk about triangulation. Well, why single out Nita Lowey? Elizabeth Furse's press aide wanted me to believe that Furse voted for the bill in order to protect Oregon's "wonderful" programs. (Hello? There are forty-nine other states out here? Full of women you asked for campaign contributions?) The picture from the world of Beltway advocacy is not much brighter. Marian Wright Edelman threw away the last, best chance to organize popular resistance to punitive welfare reform and convened a giant Stand for Children that attracted 200,000 people to...stand for children. A.F.S.C.M.E. finally decided to use its phone banks to organize callers to urge a White House veto -- on the very day Clinton announced he would sign the bill. NOW (which, to its credit, is refusing to endorse or support legislators who voted for the bill) is mounting a daily vigil at the White House with a coalition of progressive groups. Patricia Ireland and other NOW staffers are on a hunger strike. All this is good, but why so little? Why so late? This bill has been moving toward passage for months, and welfare reform has been a major political issue for four years. It's because these liberal groups are caught up in mainstream electoral politics, which in practice means clinging to Clinton and the Democratic Party, waiting and hoping and beseeching, working on the inside, faxing and phoning and producing yet another study or poll. Meanwhile they preach the gospel of the lesser of two evils, that ever-downward spiral that has brought us to this pass and that will doubtless end with liberals in hell organizing votes for Satan because Beelzebub would be even worse -- think of the Supreme Court! They really didn't think he'd sign it, one welfare expert told me when I asked why protests were so lackluster as the bill moved toward passage. That was a miscalculation that goes way beyond the President's character -- it applies to a whole mode of political action. Liberalism is the idea that the good people close to power can solve the problems of those beneath them in the social order. Its tools are studies and sermons and campaign contributions and press conferences. The trouble is, the political forces they call on are not interested anymore -- and this is true not just in the United States. In country after country, social benefits are being slashed and the working class's standard of living lowered, and the major parties, including the ones that call themselves Labor or Socialist or Democratic, accept this process as a given. Of course, there will always be a few noble oddballs like Paul Wellstone, the only Democratic senator up for re-election who voted against the welfare bill. But the general direction of government in the age of globalized corporate power is clear. Advocacy politics can't turn this around, because advocacy is based on speaking for people rather than those people acting on their own behalf. Enormous demonstrations around the country, with strikes by S.E.I.U. and A.F.S.C.M.E., sit-downs in welfare offices and 100,000 homeless people camping out on the capital Mall might have affected the debate. Marian Wright Edelman issuing a press release no longer can. Indeed, the media didn't even pick up the most recent one, eloquent as it was. The Women's Committee of 100 is suggesting that people return fundraising letters from party organizations, PACs and anti-welfare politicians with a note saying that you're now sending your disposable dollars to social welfare organizations. Why not take it a step further and fund direct action? The National Union of the Homeless (246 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106) has great politics and no money. The Democratic Party cannot make the same claim. Copyright (c) 1996, The Nation Company, L.P. All rights reserved. Electronic redistribution for nonprofit purposes is permitted, provided this notice is attached in its entirety. Unauthorized, for-profit redistribution is prohibited. For further information regarding reprinting and syndication, please call The Nation at (212) 242-8400, ext. 226 or send e-mail to Max Block. From aanz@sirius.com Wed Apr 8 13:58:37 1998 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 13:02:26 -0700 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: aanz@sirius.com (anzalone/starbird) Subject: Re: April 18th S.F. For those of you attending the > >Political Sociology Panel, Pacific Sociological Association Annual Meeting, >San Francisco, CA. April 16-19, 1998. There will a demonstration on April 18th, that Saturday at 2 pm in Union Square (Post and Stockton). While the Presidents of several nations meet in Chile to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement, we can all get a bit of fresh air at a picket line against NIKE and Disney (who are still laying off Haitian workers for their termitity in organizing into a union) and then on to a local event; the Marriott Hotel, where the local Hotel Workers union will thrill us with the style of picketing San Francisco style. It will do us all a world of good, after our little conference to kick sum coporate butt. For more info you can call Ed Rosario @ (415) 681-5868 YIS, Ellen Starbird, Laney College From rtnewvision@sprynet.com Wed Apr 8 14:47:19 1998 Reply-To: From: "Ray Tillman" To: Subject: $500.OO Settlement Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 13:51:07 -0700 This was brought to my attention on the Gerber Settlement Misinformation About Baby Food Settlement Involving Gerber Products Company Completely Inaccurate      Fremont, Michigan -- Gerber Products Company is not involved in any settlement involving reimbursements to consumers. Rumors that have been circulating for several months involving Gerber and an alleged settlement are completely false.      A settlement was announced in 1996 involving infant formula and pricing issues, but Gerber was not connected with the litigation. The deadline for filing claims under the infant formula settlement expired 1/31/97. It appears that the Gerber name has mistakenly been connected to the Minneapolis P.O. box used to process claims for the infant formula settlement. Gerber was advised by Minneapolis postal authorities that the P.O. box has been closed. It is our belief that the origin of this misinformation is the settlement announced in 1996 involving infant formula.      It is unfortunate that consumers are being misled by this misinformation. Consumers are cautioned not to send birth records or other information in connection with this rumor. From czarlab@erols.com Wed Apr 8 18:50:58 1998 From: "ed czarnecki" To: Subject: Re: Info request Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 20:39:49 -0400 charset="iso-8859-1" Tom Juravich is the Director of the Univ of Mass-Amherst Labor Relation Center His e-mail address is juravich@lrrc.umass.edu Ed Czarnecki Retired Asst Educ Dir AFL-CIO From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sat Apr 11 02:35:10 1998 Sat, 11 Apr 1998 01:21:41 -0700 (PDT) Sat, 11 Apr 1998 01:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 01:15:16 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: New from Princeton University Press For Members of Princeton University Press's E-mail List for Sociology and Demography Economics Political Science, Law, Military and International Relations We are pleased to send you the following information about this newly published book: Between Class and Market Postwar Unionization in the Capitalist Democracies Bruce Western In the United States, less than one worker in five is currently in a labor union, while in Sweden, virtually the entire workforce is unionized. Despite compelling evidence for their positive effects, even the strongest European unions are now in retreat as some policymakers herald the U.S. model of market deregulation. These differences in union power significantly affect workers' living standards and the fortunes of national economies. What explains the enormous variation in unionization and why has the last decade been so hostile to organized labor? Bruce Western tackles these questions in an analysis of labor union organization in eighteen capitalist democracies from 1950 to 1990. Combining insights from sociology and economics in a novel way, Western views unions as the joint product of market forces and political and economic institutions. The author argues that three institutional conditions are essential for union growth: strong working-class political parties, centralized collective bargaining, and union-run unemployment insurance. These conditions shaped the impact of market currents and explain variations across industries, across countries, and over time for the four decades since 1950. Between Class and Market traces the story of the postwar labor movements supported by a blend of historical investigation and sophisticated statistical analysis in an innovative framework for comparative research. Western tightly integrates institutional explanation and comparative method in a way that balances comparative generality with the unique historical experiences of specific cases. Bruce Western is Assistant Professor of Sociology and a faculty associate of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University. 224 pages 14 line illus. 35 tables 6 x 9 0-691-01617-8 Cloth $45.00 US and L32.50 UK and Europe If you wish to place an order, we encourage you to do so through your local bookseller. If that is not possible, you can order through our Web site-- http://pup.princeton.edu/order_info Thank you for participating in our e-mail list. You can look forward to receiving more announcements of this kind as new books are released in the subject areas you have selected. You may un-subscribe from this list at any time by sending a message to Leslie@pupress.princeton.edu. We're very interested in your comments and suggestions on this new service. Feel free to e-mail us at Leslie@pupress.princeton.edu. From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Sat Apr 11 13:35:07 1998 Sat, 11 Apr 1998 12:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 12:34:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Innovative Programs and the Future of the State. (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 12:30:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley To: Workfare-Discuss@icomm.ca mcdona@parl.gc.ca Subject: Innovative Programs and the Future of the State. I'd like to make a substantive addition to Jane's posting in the context of the Pamela Wallin Live TV show last night on "Innovative Programs". I thought it odd that neither she nor her guest, Mr. Broadbent, former leader of the allegedly labour/socialist ND Party mentioned Mondragon in Spain or the large, >50% worker-owned companies in the US. Mondragon can be linked from my web site http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex. It has 30,000 worker-owners and its assets include a university so it must have broad social class appeal. Here is the problem I would present to Dean Shapiro and his faculty at my alma mater SFU, where I got my business training: Can you describe for us a worker-owned conglomerate which would start with minerals/mineral concentrates and livestock/seeds and turn them into all of the amenities of the modern life style? (Goods and services). That starting inventory is very, very inexpensive. So how many worker-owners would you need? What would their skills be? Project that over the next 50 years with expected improvements in computers and robots. How many workers will your conglomerate need in 50 years? I mention 50 years because the 1% pa pop. increase in Can/US is expected to continue for 50 years. That's 3 million/year x 50 = 150,000,000 additional people. I think it would be a good idea to relocate a few million to new worker-owned industrial cities. But that takes organizing which means labor and/or government. The bus/economics problem outlined above could be solved by SFU but they would expect a grant to do so. For a start just ask them if it is solvable. They will say it is. FWP. http://www.vcn.bc.ca/fc On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Franklin Wayne Poley wrote: > You've made some very good points, Jane. I think we should expand the > scope of Workfare-Discuss to include "Fair Work" for everyone-of all classes. > I don't know who coined that slogan "Fair Work not Workfare" but I'd like > to shake their hand! > FWP. > > On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Jane Scharf wrote: > > > In Ontario the government is in the process of eliminating all > > economic rights. The right to assistance based on need, the right > > to long term assistance for single parents and disabled, the right > > to vocational rehabilitation for the disabled. The new policies > > will allow individuals to be deny welare for reasons other > > than lack of need and, they will allow > > forced slave labour in the form of workfare. > > > > Although the powers to be have been able to gain a fair about of > > public support to attack the poor like this I do not think the > > agenda has anything to do with punishing the poor. This poor bashing > > is just a manipulative tool to down turn > > wages, benefits and woking conditions generally speaking. Most people do > > not realize > > that adequate social services and protection from workfare help > > promote better wages, benefits and working conditions. > > > > And the lower the welfare rate the lower management can force > > wages. > > > > This is the only reason these new welfare policies are being so rigerously > > enforced in the countrie. ie to increase profits by decreasing > > wages, benefits and working conditions. > > > > By and large those on welfare are not employable and policies > > forcing them to work are going to do nothing to employ this > > segment of our population. The politicans know this. And > > they also know that they are going to have to deal with > > greater homlessness, loss of children to CAS, mental illness > > and crime as a result of these policies which are going to cost > > a lot more than the current welfare system costs to maintain. > > Yet this agenda persists as cost cutting one. No friend the purpose of > > these draconian policies are not to puinsh the poor they are to > > eliminate the middle class. Funny thing about this the more the > > middle class are hit with the results of cut backs in other areas > > and tax increases the more they support the welfare changes that > > will finish the middle class off. > > > > Although it is a problem that the poor do not have the warewithall > > the organize very exstensively it is even a bigger problem that the middle > > who do have the means don't understand that they should be organizing. > > > > I would like to see a joining of forces ie the poor and middle class come > > together > > to defeat this neo conservative international agenda to destroy the pooor > > and reduce > > the middle to lower class. > > > > Nothing short of this will have sufficient impact in my humble estimation. > > > > > > > > ******************* http://www.vcn.bc.ca/fc *********************** > > ******************* http://www.vcn.bc.ca/fc *********************** From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Wed Apr 15 09:07:17 1998 Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:06:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Direct Action to Destroy Workfare. (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:02:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley To: viggo.andersen@post3.tele.dk Subject: Direct Action to Destroy Workfare. On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 viggo.andersen@post3.tele.dk wrote: > At 00:20 15-04-98 -0400, John Hollingsworth wrote: > > >I would suggest a militant, direct action kind of strike -- and get the > > You're my kind of guy, obviously. :) > > >local labour councils and unions on side to truly galvanize it. In fact, > >get the social service workers on the front lines (who are still union) to > >take positive strike action by releasing cheques etc. > > That will get them fired, no doubt, but it's still a good point > to get them to side with recipients or else confront them > in public about their responsibility. After all, it is more than > "just another job" when you've got the power to potentially > destroy the existence of other people, and I hardly think > that's what social workers learned about as their future > duties during their education! It's hardly why many of them > sought out that kind of education in the first place, either, > but nevertheless, here in Denmark social workers and their > organizations have been totally silent publicly, except for > complaining on their own behalf. I actually wrote to the > Danish social worker union in 1991 to inquire their > position on the treatment of recipients resulting from > workfare and never received a reply! Obviously loyalty > towards the municipal employers means more to them > than betraying the ideals of their own profession. "Be sure your're right and then go ahead" said President Kennedy. If the labor movement/trade unions of New York or Ontario were to take this on, resolved to destroy Workfare as it is now constituted, could they make a strong case to the public that they are right? Let's consider what it amounts to and I am focused on New York City where Workfare is fully developed not Ontario where it is coming in. The Workfarer is told to do whatever tasks are assigned to him so that there is little or no choice in work and he is told to do so at a fraction of minimum wage which does not allow for a decent standard of living. He has no labor rights on Workfare, eg no right to strike or form a union. If he refuses to comply with the job he is forced into he will have the barest necessities of life discontinued so it means a death sentence unless private charities step in. In essence this is a form of slavery or impressed labor which gets down to "Do as we say or you will have the barest necessities of life discontinued". Where does that moral obligation to destroy the Workfare System stand in law? Well, countries like Canada and US are signatories to the International Bill of Human Rights. Article 23 of the section titled "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" is 100% clear. Article 23:1 says "Everyone has...the right to FREE CHOICE OF EMPLOYMENT....". Article 23:2 says "Everyone...has the right to EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK....". Then 23:3 says that those who work have "...THE RIGHT TO JUST AND FAVOURABLE REMUNERATION...." and this is clealy defined as "...ENSURING FOR HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY AN EXISTENCE WORTHY OF HUMAN DIGNITY....". Article 23:4 says "...EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM AND TO JOIN TRADE UNIONS....". Article 25 elaborates on what an adequate standard of living means. In the Section titled "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" we are told (Article 8-3-a) that "NO ONE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PERFORM FORCED OR COMPULSORY LABOUR....". The introduction to this booklet which comes from the Canadian Government explains that this is a "plain language" document designed so that it is understood by all and "...procedures are established allowing individuals as well as States to present complaints of rights violations". It is said to "...have legal as well as moral force". However we are told that the Human Rights Committee will "consider communications from private individuals claiming to be the victims of violation by a State" ONLY IF ALL DOMESTIC REMEDIES ARE EXHAUSTED. So that would be the first step if Labor takes this on in New York. Once domestic remedies are exhausted it should be winnable at the UN Centre for Human Rights (Palais des Nations, 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland). They may even have established already that domestic remedies are exhausted. A FORCED FAST as we discussed yesterday on Workfare-Discuss could be quite dramatic in getting media attention. It is also a serious threat to health so there would have to be attending physicians. I have read that Bobby Sands died in prison as a result of just 40 days of fasting. It would have to be made clear to media that the forced fast is not a hunger strike. Hunger strikes are voluntary. This forced fast would IMPOSED BY THE STATE as a clear expression of its immoral and illegal activities. Perhaps the forced fast could be timed with the hearing before the UN Human Rights Committee. It would also help if labor has a positive alternative, i.e. a "Fair Work" policy proposal to substitute for the illegal and immoral Workfare System which is being destroyed. FWP. From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Fri Apr 17 12:44:50 1998 Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:40:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:40:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Thoughts on Workfare in Ontario. (fwd) To: WORKFARE-DISCUSS@icomm.ca ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:03:23 -0800 From: Credo To: Citizens@smtp.interlog.com Subject: Model Democracy: Right Wing metastasizing At 12:16 PM 4/15/98 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote: >You know when I read an article like this in which a Minister states, "Not >everyone is cut out to be a doctor," Ecker said adding it's "elitist to >think one job is better than another." >> By JAMES WALLACE -- Queen's Park Bureau >> The province may make welfare clients take "practice jobs" in >> bars, hotels and other private-sector businesses. >> Social Services Minister Janet Ecker is in Wisconsin today to >> study the workfare program pioneered in America's dairyland. This particular outrage may qualify to take the cake for excesses of pathologiucal double think on the part of the right wing bastards in power. We look on in horror as the ministers mouth their preposterous assertions and tell their patent lies, seeing as you do the total dissonance between the fictions they tell themselves and the reality which is before our eyes. How can we go on like this, trying to argue with them, put out brush fires, even try to quell conflagrations, scurry all over the map trying to conform to their latest edicts when we know perfectly well that they are insane? These infant dictators are playing games on a crazy game board they have concocted, on which they can move counters around, a school here, a hospital there, punish the poor, reward the rich etc. They take these games to be reality, a hallmark of severe pathological thinking. THe counters are to them all of reality and the people, the citizens do not exist. It has been known since the time of Procrustes that planning is not done by cutting off peoples legs to fit a bed but the other way around. Meanwhile, they are having the time of their lives, like pigs in shit, as our very lives slide down into chaos. They really have to be gotten out of there. rc From aikya@ix.netcom.com Fri Apr 17 16:40:01 1998 by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma019434; Fri Apr 17 17:39:26 1998 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'Labor Research and Action Project'" , "'united@cougar.com'" Subject: FW: Web Page Message Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 14:41:28 -0700 Would anyone like to help this young person with her scholarship essay regarding women and labor unions? Please reply direct to highly_explosive@hotmail.com She's definitely right about material being scarce. Aikya Param, Publisher, Women and Money Economic Justice and Empowerment Report ---------- Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 11:00 AM To: aikya@ix.netcom.com Subject: Web Page Message from: highly_explosive@hotmail.com message: Please help! I'm writing an essay for a scholarship on women's role in labor unions or the history of woman and labor unions. Can you offer any advice on where I might find pertinent information. I've already searched several library systems, but the information available is either very limited or nonexistent. Thank you. From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sat Apr 18 00:50:00 1998 Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:30:05 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: russia article and sidebar (Part 2 of 2) For the first time, instead of deepening the divisions between Russian unions, the AFL-CIO is helping overcome them. The March strike was greeted with solidarity statements by both John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, and Bill Jordan, head of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. "The reality is that the world has changed," says Barbara Shailor, director of the AFL-CIO' Department of International Affairs. "The cold war has ended, and we're faced now with aggressive neoliberal politics and globalization. We're making alliances with confederations trying to deal effectively with these problems for their own workers. It's absolutely essential that we work with all organizations that are addressing these basic issues. We're working with everybody." This wasn't always the case. In fact, from the beginning of the cold war, the AFL-CIO pursued a policy of total hostility toward Soviet trade unions, accusing them of being dominated by the Communist Party. The Department of International Affairs fought the influence of radical, socialist and communist unions around the globe, activities funded at first through the U.S. government intelligence budget, and later by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The State Department and the DIA cooperated to prevent visits by trade unionists from the Soviet Union or other socialist countries. AFL-CIO Presidents George Meany and Lane Kirkland attacked U.S. union leaders, like Machinists President William Winpisinger, who favored friendly relations. In 1989, however, Kirkland saw in the coal miners' strikes the seeds of a movement he believed might play the same political role in the Soviet Union that Solidarnosc did in Poland. He immediately funneled money and resources to the fledgling independent union. Coal strike leaders were invited to the U.S., and given financial support. In April, 1992 the Free Trade Union Institute established an office in Moscow, and organized the Russian American Foundation for Trade Union Research and Education. RAFTURE sought to encourage the formation of a new labor center to replace the FNPR, and trained organizers for raids. It was a creature of U.S. foreign policy, guiding resources to those unions which supported Yeltsin and economic reforms. FTUI paid the salaries of administrative staff in certain independent unions, and started a newspaper, Delo, with $250,000 from the National Endowment for Democracy. Delo campaigned for Yeltsin and for business/labor/government partnership, urging workers not to demonstrate against non-payment of wages. FTUI funded a database of union activists and "different anti-democratic union groups," paid for television programs and a labor education program, and set up a public relations operation and an advisory council of trade union leaders. While the AFL-CIO has yet to set up its first radio station in the U.S., it had $660,000 to run four of them in Russia in 1994. Individual U.S. unions also ran U.S. government-funded programs. The American Federation of Teachers received grants to design "democratic curricula," washing Marxism from the hair of Russian schoolchildren. The AFT also blocked the FNPR-affiliated teachers union from joining Education International, the worldwide educators' federation. Today, most FTUI programs no longer exist. Ironically, Senator Jesse Helms slashed the foreign aid budget funding Kirkland's intelligence-related activity. But it was the election of John Sweeney as AFL-CIO president in 1995 which brought significant changes in the direction of the federation's international activity. Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka describes the new program as "international involvement focused towards building solidarity abroad, helping workers achieve their goals here at home." Irene Stevenson took charge of the FTUI office in Moscow, and today maintains a much more impartial attitude between rival Russian unions than her predecessors. The office provides assistance to an international campaign against non-payment, which includes the FNPR and the independent unions. At the end of November, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (set up in the 1950s to fight Communists in world labor) and the International Labor Organization sponsored a Moscow conference on non-payment, bringing all the Russian unions together. Stevenson focuses on legal actions. "The problem," she says, "is not the law as such. It is the lack of penalties for those who ignore it. An entire host of American firms ... disregard both laws on wage payments and dismissals. Unfortunately, most of them win the gamble." In January, however, the legal road was further blocked when the Russian Constitutional Court overturned the law giving workers first claim on a company's assets, treating wages as a human right. The court upheld the government's position that paying taxes comes first. As a result, actions like those of unions in Samara, which had collected nearly $20 million in unpaid wages through 2000 civil suits, will no longer be possible. "I personally would term the 'new' policy an attempt to give the FNPR the benefit of the doubt," Stevenson says. The FNPR is no longer excluded from FTUI's education and training programs. And this fall in Pittsburgh, Shmakov and FNPR International Department head Evgeni Sidorov, along with independent union leader Alexander Sergeyev, were the first guests ever from the Russian labor movement at an AFL-CIO convention. In 1994, the World Bank promised a $500 million dollar loan to Russia to finance the privatization and restructuring of the coal industry. Yeltsin is rumored to have used these loan funds to finance massive spending on his 1996 reelection. "He spent 30-40 trillion rubles, an enormous expense which helped escalate the non-payment of wages crisis just after the election," Timofeyev says. As part of the World Bank package, FTUI sparked the creation of Partners In Economic Reform (PIER). This program brought together the U.S. coal industry, the United Mine Workers of America, the U.S. government Mine Safety Administration, the Russian coal ministry, and the independent Russian miners' union. Kirkland and then-UMWA President Rich Trumka sat on its board, along with retired Peabody Coal President Robert Quenon. PIER's major purpose, funded by USAID, was to organize an infrastructure to soften the blows of the massive unemployment expected in the closure of half Russia's coal pits. While PIER became dormant in the wake of foreign aid cuts, mine restructuring will still take place, costing the jobs of hundreds of thousands of miners, a bitter payment for their past loyalty to Yeltsin. PIER is not just an abandoned project, however. It is typical of the selective vision which deals only with the effects of reform, while in effect supporting the reforms themselves. Linda Cook, of Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies, states that "the United States has a strong interest in supporting Russian unions because they can contribute not only to democratic stabilization but also to the success of economic reform," in a revealing report entitled "Labor and Liberalization" written for the Twentieth Century Fund. "Building more effective bargaining institutions for the labor force...may make the distress caused by those reforms more palatable." For Russian miners, however, the reforms themselves are the problem, and even more, their purpose - reestablishing a capitalism barbaric in its treatment of workers, beholden to foreign loans and investment. It's not just a Russian problem. The project of dismantling socialism has an enormous impact on workers in every part of the globe. "Just as the Holy Alliance in Europe after the Napoleonic Wars tried to root out the results of the French Revolution," cautions Russian socialist Boris Kagarlitsky, "so today the International Monetary Fund, Maastricht Europe and the American 'new world order' represent the reactionary answer of the old elites to the downfall of the revolutionary experiment." No one - not the AFL-CIO, the independents nor the FNPR - wants to ask the obvious question: are Russian workers better or worse off now than they were ten years ago? U.S. and Russian unions, although coming from opposite ideological traditions, find themselves in quite a similar political predicament. How can a union support the policies which produce payment in bed sheets, and then protest the bed sheets themselves? Only by refusing to connect present conditions with their origin. The AFL-CIO's approach to this problem speaks clearly about the limitations of its vision for a radically different society, whether in Russia or here at home. "If economic restructuring brings an increase in living standards to the majority of citizens, and if markets are mechanisms which distribute wealth, then we support them," Shailor says. "But economic restructuring should not take place on the backs of workers, and clearly in many cases it does." The AFL-CIO will no longer deny aid to unions which don't want to pay the price of reform, regardless of their history or politics, a vast improvement over previous policy. "We will stand with any union," Shailor says, "which opposes [restructuring], and we're giving solidarity and support where there is resistance." But AFL-CIO international activity is still funded by USAID and the NED, although at less than the $40 million/year of the early 1990s. The non-payment situation is growing extreme enough that future U.S. policy may even favor softening the reforms' impact, so long as the goal remains unchanged. To the extent that Russian unions accept that goal, and limit their fight to the impact, USAID support for current AFL-CIO activity in Russia may not be in immediate danger. Support would surely be withdrawn, however, if the AFL-CIO continued a policy of solidarity with a Russian labor movement pushed in a more radical direction by economic crisis and rising militancy at the bottom. Russian unions advocating even traditionally nationalist policies of import substitution and limits on foreign investment would undoubtedly be viewed as enemies. If U.S. aid policy and that of the AFL-CIO become contradictory, "then we'll figure out a way to do the work, with our without government funding," Shailor promises. A day of decision is approaching, not only for unions in Russia, but for the AFL-CIO in relation to U.S. foreign policy. Speaking last February at the Davos forum of international bankers in Switzerland, Sweeney warned that "the neoliberal version of the American model now held out for export offers no answer to the fundamental economic challenges of our day." Yet this is exactly the economic model the U.S. has exported to Russia, and not just there. Already unionists like ICEM's Vic Thorpe are calling for a more fundamental reassessment. "We need urgently to revisit the ideas behind the Bretton Woods institutions and seriously to question whether they are still appropriate," he told the November conference on non-payment. "Their policies have destroyed attempts to base growth on more secure and socially-just systems of import substitution and self-sustaining development in favor of dependence on multinational banks and corporations and a limited social elite. It is time to acknowledge that the institutions have not worked ... that they were a bad idea, founded on an inappropriate model of growth." These are important voices, pointing out that the road of independence from U.S. foreign policy, both corporate and government, has its necessary and logical conclusion in opposition to free market reforms and the uninhibited growth of capitalism. But even they leaves a deeper question unasked. If Russian workers decide to look for an alternative, or for that matter, if workers in any other country do so, what can they hope for today from the AFL-CIO's new commitment to international solidarity? - 30 - sidebar - BATTLING THE TIDE OF PRIVATIZATION By David Bacon MOSCOW (2/16/98) -- The beneficiaries of the new order aren't just Russian nouveau-capitalists. In 1995, Proctor and Gamble discovered a way to use non-payment to buy one of Russia's largest chemical companies for pennies - NBKh - the old Soviet Union's leading manufacturer of detergents and cleansers. The enterprise employed thousands of people in a big complex in Tula. In the early 1990s the company installed the most modern Japanese production equipment. That made it a target of the government's program to privatize industry. Privatization is the central element of the economic reforms intended to dismantle socialism. The sale of state enterprises, required by the International Monetary Fund as a condition for vast loans from the World Bank and the U.S. Agency for International Development, has been the source of widespread accusations of government corruption. The NBKh sale, according to an investigative report in the Moscow News, was pushed by Anatoly Chubais, formerly key advisor to Russian President Boris Yeltsin. In November, public outcry forced Yeltsin to remove Chubais as finance minister. Chubais got caught engineering the sale of another state company to a billionaire Russian banker, in return for $90,000 disguised as a fee for writing a "history" of privatization. Lauren Filipp, Proctor and Gamble general manager in Russia, belonged to the government's council for promoting investment. Other U.S. advisors helped to draft Russia's privatization laws. Shortly before Proctor and Gamble made its bid to buy NBKh, the factory started to hold back its workers' wages. Working without paychecks, NBKh workers logically wondered if their company was on the rocks. When the privatization program distributed ownership shares to the employees, they were only too happy to sell them to Proctor and Gamble for 40,000-150,000 rubles apiece (at that time, $1 was worth 5400 rubles). The U.S. company was able to pick up the entire enterprise for $14.6 million, just after new construction alone had cost the Russian government $142 million. Then the corporation announced it was eliminating the jobs of 700 employees and closing major production units. It began cutting production of chemicals used by other cleanser manufacturers, leading to suspended production there also. Meanwhile, imports of Proctor and Gamble detergents like Tide and Ariel rose. The corporation is now reportedly maneuvering to purchase Termos Public Joint Stock Company, Russia's second-largest cleanser producer. The most vocal critic of Proctor and Gamble has been the union for NBKh workers, and its chairman Alexander Alexeyev. "If we unite and act as a single force," he told the Moscow News' Lyudmila Butuzova, "we'll be able to assert our rights and interests." Alexeyev attacked Proctor and Gamble for the shady maneuvering involved in NBKh's privatization and the non-payment of wages. His union is fighting the downsizing. The privatization of NBKh exposes more than just the corruption of the sale of state enterprises. Privatization is being paid for by workers, who lose jobs, wages and benefits to pay the cost of increased profits. Those profits, furthermore, are taken out of the country, while imports flood in. The market produces not more competition, but larger monopolies, and Russia loses control over its own economy. But privatization is producing one positive change. The union at NBKh, formerly wedded to management like most other traditional unions, has become its fiercest independent critic. Privatization, non-payment of wages and economic reforms are cutting the umbilical cord between Russian enterprise manangers and the bulk of the country's unions. - 30 - --------------------------------------------------------------- david bacon - labornet email david bacon internet: dbacon@igc.apc.org 1631 channing way phone: 510.549.0291 berkeley, ca 94703 --------------------------------------------------------------- From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sat Apr 18 00:58:37 1998 Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:35:17 -0700 (PDT) Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:29:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:29:35 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: russia article and sidebar (Part 1 of 2) WHERE WORKERS HAVE TO FIGHT FOR A PAYCHECK U.S. and Russian Unions Move Beyond the Cold War By David Bacon MOSCOW (4/16/98) -- Today 20 million Russian workers, one out of every four, don't get a check on payday. Their wages aren't just late by a day or two. People often go months without getting paid. Giant industrial enterprises make partial payment in car parts, soap or even sex aids. Workers do informal jobs, depend on other family members, and grow vegetables in tiny plots where, ironically, they used to take summer vacations outside the cities. The wage debt, estimated at $10 billion, is growing by 5% every month. Timor Timofeyev, director of Moscow's Institute for Comparative Research into Industrial Relations (ISITO) calls it a sign of "barbaric capitalism." For Vic Thorpe, general secretary of the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions non-payment is a "basic violation of a central principle of civilized relations in the production process ... a clear and logical result of pursuing policies advanced by the evangelists of liberalization and the free market." The ICEM has been world labor's leading voice raising support for Russian workers. Non-payment is testing the ability of unions to transform themselves to fight the worst aspects of the country's economic freefall. The crisis is putting international labor solidarity to the test as well, measuring the distance traveled by the AFL-CIO in particular, away from its old cold-war hostility towards Russia's labor movement. Few workers in the U.S. or Canada would understand why Russian workers continue showing up for work with no paycheck in sight for months on end. The brutal truth is that there's nowhere else to go. There are no alternatives. In Moscow's huge Moskvitch auto plant, where a decade ago 25,000 workers cranked out 200,000 cars a year, a few hundred autoworkers assembled only 2000 in 1997. They got paid in parts, which they then sold at cut rates to a cooperative operating inside the factory. At the Progress aircraft plant in Arsenyev, work stopped completely last November. The factory makes the Ka-50 Black Shark battlefield helicopter for export, and the C-Mosquito ship borne missile system. Its last payday was over a year ago. The workers, some of Russia's most skilled and productive, got a bread ration twice a week instead. They suspect the last manager improperly appropriated 2 billion rubles ($400,0000). In Ivanovo, once the bustling heart of the textile industry and a city that produced some of Russia's first industrial workers and earliest revolutionary fighters, the mills are mostly silent, the people hungry. When they work at all, they're paid in bed sheets. One Russian worker out of every eight last year was paid in kind, and 40% of those recently surveyed by the ISITO said they hadn't received their salaries for the last month. Coal miners have been owed over 160 billion rubles ($27.5 million) in wages since August. Aircraft workers haven't been paid for nineteen months. Confounding liberal reformers who predicted that market forces would unleash consumer demand and greater productivity, industrial production has dropped much further than in the U.S.'s Great Depression. Last year Russia's coal mines produced only 244 million tons, a little over half that produced in the final years of the Soviet Union. The government collects taxes relentlessly, depriving enterprises of capital to function or pay salaries. It doesn't pay its own employees. When it stiffs its suppliers for purchases ranging from coal to airplanes, they stop paying wages. Meanwhile, revenue is siphoned off in massive corrupt privatization schemes, and the new owners of privatized enterprises then refuse to pay workers too. (see sidebar) Russian unions find non-payment extremely difficult to resolve because the problem is so extensive and so integrally a part of the new economic order. But some of labor's difficulties are also internal - unions today are in transition themselves. Under the old Soviet system, Russian trade unions encompassed 95% of the workforce, but functioned in a way that left them totally unprepared for present circumstances. While Lenin envisioned them early on as transmission belts carrying revolutionary ideas to workers, in practice unions played almost no ideological role at all. They functioned instead as distributors of part of the social wage. Soviet industrial enterprises ran schools, maintained hospitals and child care centers, erected apartment houses, and even administered vacation resorts hundreds of miles away from the plants themselves. A factory was, in effect, the nucleus of an entire town or city. Soviet trade unions administered this extensive network of social benefits. They were very close to enterprise managers, only rarely acknowledging contradictions between them and workers. David Mandel, in his "Rabotyagi" interviews documenting the experience of rank-and-file Soviet workers, describes the unions as "completely subordinated to the political and economic administrative apparatus." When perestroika made the creation of independent organizations possible, coal miners were the first workers to form them in the heat of spontaneous, quick-spreading strikes. Their anger was fueled by the abysmal conditions of miners in isolated coal towns, and their independent union, Russia's first, quickly became political. It saw the destruction of the old state apparatus, particularly the power of the Communist Party, as its main objective. Miners' strikes became shock waves helping to topple Gorbachev, bringing Boris Yeltsin to power, and ending the Soviet Union. The leaders of the independent miners' union believed that privatization, breaking the mines loose from government control, would make miners rich from the sale of Russian coal on the free, and especially foreign, market. They became stalwart supporters of the first economic reforms, backing even the most hard-line advocates of economic "shock therapy" in successive Yeltsin governments. Other workers saw the miners' union as a model, especially in industries where they believed reforms might give them access to foreign exchange, including airlines, longshore and transport. In 1991 the old Soviet trade union federation was dissolved, and a new one created by its affiliated unions, the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR). It called itself independent to underline its autonomy from the Communist Party, which Yeltsin temporarily outlawed later that year. The FNPR was the only mass national organization, apart from the military, to survive the transition from socialism. On the whole, it survived intact, inheriting the property and membership of the old Soviet unions, as well as their close relationship with worksite managers. By the early 1990s, Russia had produced two labor movements, one allied with managers against the government, the other seeing managers as the enemy, defending the government and its reforms. The independent unions eventually accounted for about 2,350,000 workers. The FNPR has about 45 million members, organized in 43 industrial federations and 380,000 locals. In the FNPR's first major battle against the reforms, over 2.5 million medical workers shut down Russia's healthcare industry for three weeks in 1992. Workers had grown desperate when the government appropriated only 40% of the money required to finance the system. Doctors and nurses told of operating on patients with razorblades, without anesthetic, because cuts in state subsidies had stopped production of medical supplies. The strike, led by the 4.5-million-member Russian Union of Medical Workers, sought to "ensure that health care protection of the population would have a budget that would rise with the cost of living," according to its president, Mikhail Kuzmenko. Both administrators and workers, belonging to the same union, took part. The strike ended with a quick cash fix and more government promises of money to pay wages and maintain the system, a solution which has since become the hallmark of government efforts to end many similar strikes. Yeltsin sought to coopt rising labor discontent by creating a Tripartite Commission for the Regulation of Social and Labor Relations, giving the FNPR 9 of its 14 labor seats. In the meantime, Victor Utkin and Alexander Sergeyev, leaders of the independent coal miners union, became members of Yeltsin's council of advisors. The FNPR advocated public policies to slow the progress of economic shock therapy and soften its impact, including continuing subsidies to maintain production at state enterprises, and allowing workers to become majority shareholders in privatized businesses. It tried to force the government to index income with rising inflation, especially the minimum wage and pensions. But the federation didn't attempt to bring workers into the streets to stop the process altogether. Perhaps it feared that workers would not respond to its call. But it also feared the consequences of all-out opposition. In 1993, the FNPR took the side of Russian parliamentary deputies in their confrontation with Yeltsin, who ended the crisis by shelling the parliament building with tanks. He later punished the federation with presidential decrees eliminating dues checkoff, and transferring control of social benefit funds to the state. But five years of economic reforms have failed to increase either production or standards of living. Instead, social benefits like childcare or subsidized rent have disappeared, while unemployment is a growing spectre. Consumer goods and healthcare are available, but only for those who can afford them, while millions of workers don't even get paychecks. Independent unions, as a result, have a harder time defending the reforms which create these problems. The FNPR, on the other hand, also has to have an answer for workers whose bosses won't pay them beyond simply condemning government policies. Both large-scale economic forces and pressure from impatient workers below are pushing the two union groupings towards each other. "The deep crisis in Russia is causing a crisis in our labor movement," Timofeyev says, "in its identity, its strategy and its international relationships. We're coming close to a time for new leadership on both sides." The tempo of protest is rising. In the first six months of 1997, according to the State Statistics Committee, strikes involved 3% of the entire Russian workhorse, five times the participation in 1996. In the month of July alone, workers at the Zvezda Submarine Yard in Nakhodka on the Pacific went on strike over 8 months of wage arrears. Nuclear power workers in Smolensk marched 350 kilometers to Moscow, on their time off from work, to protest four months of unpaid wages. Eight coworkers organized a hunger strike in the power station's recreation hall. When the schoolyear opened in September, over 1100 schools were on strike. Air traffic controllers shut fifty airports the same month, winning their unpaid wages in just hours, while defeating demands for vacation cuts at the same time. More nuclear workers, forbidden by law from striking, organized demonstrations while thousands of defense employees picketed government offices. Yeltsin owes defense enterprises $3.2 billion, of which $1 billion constitutes unpaid wages. This fall, miners in the country's westernmost Maritime region, around Vladivostok, stopped all coal deliveries to the area's power stations. The miners' action touched off strikes in the stations themselves, and power to the whole province shut down. Again the federal government came up with cash to partially pay wage debts going back months. But then in January, 1500 coal miners blocked the Trans-Siberian Railway in Partizansk, waving red flags and banners. Another 1000 workers from the Zvezda and Progress factories blocked it in Vladivostok. At the end of the month, miners at the Kuznetstkaya mine in the Siberian region of Kemerovo took over their mine, and for four days held its hated director, Alexander Ternovykh, captive. In 1991, the productive mine was the first privatized in Russia, sold to an Austrian company, Prosystem Gmbh. But output plunged, paychecks stopped, and finally three workers were blown up last year after Ternovykh sent them into a tunnel filled with methane. A court ruled the privatization illegal, and local authorities, including Kemerovo's new Communist governor Aman Tuleyev, moved to have it renationalized. Vladimir Chubai, head of the FNPR in the far east, declared that "we should change the criminal code to punish bosses who don't pay their workers." FNPR secretary Andrei Isayev announced this winter that the federation will go beyond directing its fire at the government to hold enterprise management responsible for non-payment as well. Isayev is a rising figure in the FNPR, more militant and less interested in alliances with political parties than its other leaders. Protests have grown in strength because they've begun to overcome some of the crippling divisions between the FNPR and independent unions. When miners shut down production last year in the main coal centers of Kuzbass and Vorkuta, both the old and new unions cooperated. In March, the FNPR and almost all the independents mounted a countrywide day of protest over non-payment, involving 27 million workers in 16,000 enterprises. According to Timofeyev, "relations between the independent unions and the FNPR are much closer every day." From rkmoore@iol.ie Mon Apr 20 14:51:16 1998 Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:50:52 +0100 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: FW: Web Page Message Women were extremely important in the labor movement. Not only in terms of the burden they carried in holding the family together during labor strikes involving their husbands, which should not be discounted, but also in terms of their own independent contributions, as workers in female-employment industries, toward the progress of the movement. I suggest you contact the ILGWU (International Ladies Garment Workers Union), who I'm sure can provide you with both printed information and film material. In addition, I suggest you investigate the music literature of the labor movement, which include songs both by and about women, in the various roles they played. One should be able to easily locate such well known titles as "Union Maid" and "Rosie the Riveter" and those will surely be found in collections/ anthologies which also include others relevant to your quest. Yours, Richard K. Moore Chief CADRE http://cyberjournal.org ~-==============================-~ 4/17/98, Ms. Aikya Param wrote: >Would anyone like to help this young person >with her scholarship essay regarding women and >labor unions? Please reply direct to >highly_explosive@hotmail.com > >She's definitely right about material being scarce. > >Aikya Param, Publisher, Women and Money >Economic Justice and Empowerment Report ---------- Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 11:00 AM To: aikya@ix.netcom.com Subject: Web Page Message from: highly_explosive@hotmail.com message: Please help! I'm writing an essay for a scholarship on women's role in labor unions or the history of woman and labor unions. Can you offer any advice on where I might find pertinent information. I've already searched several library systems, but the information available is either very limited or nonexistent. Thank you. From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Mon Apr 20 21:17:29 1998 Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:58:59 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Microsoft and Higher Education (fwd) > Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 07:38:13 -0700 > From: "Michael Pidwirny, OUC" > To: "Computer-mediated Communications (B.C.) Users Group" > > Subject: Microsoft and Higher Education > > The Chronicle of Higher Education (http://chronicle.com/) has an extensive > series of articles on Microsoft's growing role in higher education at > Colleges and Universities. See URL: > > http://chronicle.com/data/articles.dir/art-44.dir/issue-33.dir/33a00101.htm > > > One of the articles specifically examines the question "is Microsoft > positioning itself to compete with Colleges and Universities?" See URL: > > http://chronicle.com/data/articles.dir/art-44.dir/issue-33.dir/33a03301.htm From rjohns@bayflash.stpt.usf.edu Tue Apr 21 07:06:48 1998 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:06:57 -0400 From: Rebecca Johns To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: FW: Web Page Message Just to avoid confusion, the ILGWU no longer exists, having merged with ACTWU to form UNITE, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees. Their headquarters is in New York City, try 212-265-7000. Rebecca -- "If you act like there is no possibility for change, you guarantee that there will be no change." -Noam Chomsky "Trend is not destiny." -Lewis Mumford Rebecca A. Johns Assistant Professor Dept. of Geography University of South Florida 140 Seventh Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 813-553-1556 From stewrob@hotmail.com Sat Apr 25 22:53:30 1998 X-Originating-IP: [170.140.37.212] From: "Stewart Roberts" To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Can I wear a button? Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 00:53:25 EDT Sunday, April 26, 1998 Dear Brothers and Sisters:- Maybe you could help me with a problem. We are locally in the middle of a problem with what we call the "Kroger Non-food" contract. Years ago--in the seventies--Kroger had a brand of drug stores, called SuperX. These were under contract with the Retail Clerks. Well, these did not pay as well as the grocery contract in the grocery stores, and when the drug stores were brought into the grocery stores, the separate contract remained. In 1979 the Retail Clerks and the Amalgamated Meatcutters merged to form the UFCW. Now, the union bargaining position is to equalize the wages and benefits with the meat and the grocery contracts, but of course management resists. Several days of negotiating sessions were set for the end of March and the beginning of April. Management walked out in the middle of these sessions, though, before economics (Actually I think the hang-up was legal benefits). The contract expired on April 4th, and now the Drug/General Merchandise department clerks are working without a contract. The union then got them to agree to meet on this coming Monday and Tuesday, April 27th and 28th. On Friday I brought peel-off decals into the store. "Equal Pay for Drug/GM" was the message. People put them on. The store manager told people to take them off. They did. I kept mine on. I said I didn't believe them, and I wanted to hear it from the store manager myself. I got called up into the office to meet with the manager in the presence of another member of manage- ment, another deli clerk, and the assistant steward. I was instructed to remove my button, which I did. I then got a lecture which said in effect that I could wear "Kroger-issued" decals and buttons, but nothing else, that the issue of equal pay--which the manager claimed he supported--was one for the union hall, not for the public. I asked for these, and was told, fine, you'll get them. The meeting adjourned. I then was given two decals and a metal button. One of the two decals was an ad for the Kroger magazine, "Goodness." The other was for season tickets, available in the store for purchase, for Six-Flags-Over-Georgia. The metal button announced the Kroger Promise: "Try it [the Kroger brand], Like it, Or Get the national brand free!" I looked like a walking ad. I left for my department, thinking that I had just been a victim of a pretty clear Section 7 - Section 8 NLRB violation. Am I right? In solidarity, Stewart Roberts UFCW Local 1996 P.S. I work in retail grocery, and Georgia is in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From cxhaha@mail.wm.edu Tue Apr 28 20:07:38 1998 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 22:11:19 -0400 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Cindy Hahamovitch Subject: Re: Can I wear a button? In-Reply-To: <19980426045325.20417.qmail@hotmail.com> Stewart, Did you ever get a reply to your button question? It's my understanding that you are fully within your rights to wear the button or sticker. In solidarity, Cindy Hahamovitch Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies The College of William & Mary P.O. Box 8795 Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795 From aanz@sirius.com Tue Apr 28 21:47:04 1998 Tue, 28 Apr 1998 20:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 20:51:22 -0700 To: "Stewart Roberts" , Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: aanz@sirius.com (anzalone/starbird) Subject: Re: Can I wear a button? NLRA Section 8 says your employer can't attempt to interfer, intimidate etc., and clearly the two on one interview/scolding for the button is such an attempt (clear to me anyway, your local NLRB guy or gal, understaffed and overworked, may not get quite so worked up about it.) The past practice (wearing apparel/buttons at work) rights depend upon what was in your last (expired) contract. First Amendment rights do not normally extend to the work place, unless you and your union had negotiated that previously. But, organizationally you may want to regroup the folks who were intimidated into peeling off the stickers. Check out how far you can push this, (how much spine your coworkers can muster) and either a petition where everybody signs saying they are pissed off at the boss for bullying you in the office and them on the shop floor, or if you can get them all to agree to leave on the stickers a sticker that is neon green but blank (which will mean nothing to your customers, but will piss off management, viz a vi the workers doing something collective) in support of a fair and swift contract. Letting such slights go unpunished is not a good idea if you can avoid it. Wishing you all support in the world, Ellen Starbird >Sunday, April 26, 1998 > >Dear Brothers and Sisters:- > >Maybe you could help me with a problem. > >We are locally in the middle of a problem with >what we call the "Kroger Non-food" contract. >Years ago--in the seventies--Kroger had a brand >of drug stores, called SuperX. These were under >contract with the Retail Clerks. Well, these did >not pay as well as the grocery contract in the >grocery stores, and when the drug stores were >brought into the grocery stores, the separate >contract remained. In 1979 the Retail Clerks >and the Amalgamated Meatcutters merged to form >the UFCW. > >Now, the union bargaining position is to equalize >the wages and benefits with the meat and the >grocery contracts, but of course management >resists. > >Several days of negotiating sessions were set >for the end of March and the beginning of April. > >Management walked out in the middle of these >sessions, though, before economics (Actually I >think the hang-up was legal benefits). The contract >expired on April 4th, and now the Drug/General >Merchandise department clerks are working without >a contract. > >The union then got them to agree to meet on >this coming Monday and Tuesday, April 27th and >28th. > >On Friday I brought peel-off decals into the >store. "Equal Pay for Drug/GM" was the message. >People put them on. > >The store manager told people to take them off. > >They did. > >I kept mine on. I said I didn't believe them, and >I wanted to hear it from the store manager myself. > >I got called up into the office to meet with the >manager in the presence of another member of manage- >ment, another deli clerk, and the assistant steward. > >I was instructed to remove my button, which I did. >I then got a lecture which said in effect that I >could wear "Kroger-issued" decals and buttons, but >nothing else, that the issue of equal pay--which the >manager claimed he supported--was one for the union >hall, not for the public. > >I asked for these, and was told, fine, you'll get >them. The meeting adjourned. > >I then was given two decals and a metal button. >One of the two decals was an ad for the Kroger magazine, >"Goodness." The other was for season tickets, available >in the store for purchase, for Six-Flags-Over-Georgia. >The metal button announced the Kroger Promise: "Try it >[the Kroger brand], Like it, Or Get the national brand >free!" I looked like a walking ad. > >I left for my department, thinking that I had just been a victim of a >pretty clear Section 7 - Section 8 NLRB violation. Am I right? > >In solidarity, > >Stewart Roberts >UFCW Local 1996 > >P.S. I work in retail grocery, and Georgia is in the Eleventh > Circuit Court of Appeals. > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From FAC3512@uoft01.utoledo.edu Wed Apr 29 09:34:15 1998 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:30:04 +0000 (UTC) From: Marietta Morrissey Subject: Query To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu I am studying migrant farm labor in the Midwest. I am currently looking at how state and federal agencies provide assistance to farm workers (from food stamp s to child care) and in the process enable farmers to recruit labor. Does anyone have any pertinent information or references? Please reply privately. Thanks very much. MARIETTA MORRISSEY FAC3512@UOFT01.UTOLEDO.EDU From sunshine@comp.uark.edu Wed Apr 29 09:41:22 1998 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:41:07 -0500 (CDT) From: "Dionne S. Ward" Reply-To: "Dionne S. Ward" To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Houston contacts Does anyone know any organizers or activists in Houston or McAllen, TX who have been involved in organizing immigrant workers? I am continuing my MA research on the potential for unionizing among Latino poultry workers. Any contacts would be greatly appreciated! Please email me directly at sunshine@comp.uark.edu or call me at 501-587-8277. Thanks! D. Sunshine Ward From cxhaha@MAIL.WM.EDU Wed Apr 29 10:16:09 1998 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 12:18:38 -0400 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Cindy Hahamovitch Subject: Re: Can I wear a button? In-Reply-To: See, you express an ignorant opinion on a listserv, and someone who actually knows something will respond. What a strategy! Thanks to Ellen Starbird for her informative post. Cindy Hahamovitch Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies The College of William & Mary P.O. Box 8795 Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795 From ejd@cwsl.edu Wed Apr 29 10:54:29 1998 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:54:23 -0700 () From: "Ellen Dannin " To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: Re: Can I wear a button? In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980429121838.009c1a60@mail.wm.edu> X-X-Sender: ejd@cwsl.edu As some of the earlier posts on this list suggest there are several ways to tackle this issue; however, it's important to keep clear on what the NLRB does versus what collective bargaining does. The NLRB, first: Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB in 1945 held that wearing union insignia is a right protected by section 7. There is a rebuttable presumption that employees have a right to wear union insignia. The only way an employer can rebut that statutory right is by showing some sort of very special circumstances. The fact that the employer requires or allows other buttons to be worn undercuts its claim that there are special circumstances (such as physical safety) so that buttons can be prohibited. The recent (December 1997) by the Sixth Circuit in Meijer v. NLRB lays out a lot of these rights. So the fundamental way to enforce this right is to file a charge with the NLRB. You cannot get the NLRB to have chats with an employer and get them to see the error of their ways. If you want any response you must file a charge. Collective bargaining can be a way to enforce this fundamental statutory right or, in some circumstances, to waive it. If a right to wear union insignia is in the collective bargaining agreement, then a grievance could also be filed. Obviously, in an organizing situation this would not be available. Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-525-1449 Fax: 619-696-9999 From fgardner@aflcio.org Wed Apr 29 13:28:28 1998 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:27:00 -0500 From: Florence Gardner Sender: Florence Gardner To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Houston contacts ======== Original Message ======== Does anyone know any organizers or activists in Houston or McAllen, TX who have been involved in organizing immigrant workers? I am continuing my MA research on the potential for unionizing among Latino poultry workers. Any contacts would be greatly appreciated! Please email me directly at sunshine@comp.uark.edu or call me at 501-587-8277. Thanks! D. Sunshine Ward ======== Fwd by: Florence Gard ======== I don't have any immediate contacts, but may be able to get you some. Can you tell me more about your work re: Latino poultry workers? Are you a professor there? Grad student?