From shostaka@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Sat Jan 3 10:40:15 1998 Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 10:40:11 -0700 (MST) To: LABOR-RAP@csf.colorado.edu From: Art Shostak Subject: Resource Brothers and Sisters: Here is a resource of possible interest - Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 15:19:35 -0800 (PST) To: futurework@csf.Colorado.EDU From: mckeever Subject: New Country Analyses Sender: owner-futurework@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca Apologies for cross-posting; please repost to any list. MIEPA is pleased to announce that five new country analyses have been added to the seven previously available. The five new countries analyzed are: Brazil, Germany, Pakistan, Thailand and Venezuela. In addition, the analysis of China has been re-written. These papers are written by native students of these countries studying in California. They are available for your reading at the web address below. The other six countries also available at the site are: Japan, Korea, Russia, Taiwan, Turkey and Vietnam. see: http://www.mkeever.com (There is no 'c' in mkeever) The paper on Thailand was written during the recent crisis and provides some of the crisis atmosphere; the Korea piece was written well before the crisis, but provides evidence of the coming problems. The study of Germany provides an interesting contrast of a relatively well managed economy. Students compared their home countries' economic policies with a list of 33 policies created by MIEPA as a measure of sound policy. These policies are also available at the site. Your comments and suggestions are welcome. Students and others who wish to write a study of their home economy for publication here are invited to contact MIEPA directly. Mike P. McKeever Founder: The McKEEVER INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC POLICY ANALYSIS (MIEPA) 1511 Woolsey Street, Berkeley, CA 94703 USA Telephone 510-486-0275 email: mckeever@ccnet.com URL: http://www.mkeever.com/ (Note: there is no 'c' in mkeever. This is a free site) Arthur B. Shostak, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, Department of Psych/Soc/Anthro; Director, Center for Employment Futures, Drexel University, Phila., PA, 19104; 215-895-2466; fax 610-668-2727. email: SHOSTAKA@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu http://httpsrv.ocs.drexel.edu/faculty/shostaka/ "This time, like all times, is a very good one if we but know what to do with it." Ralph Waldo Emerson From shostaka@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Mon Jan 5 10:23:29 1998 Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 10:23:07 -0700 (MST) To: LABOR-RAP@csf.colorado.edu From: Art Shostak Subject: Speaking Opportunity Brothers and Sisters: Would anyone be interested in participating as a panelist on Friday, August 21, at 2pm, in San Fran, for the Society for the Study of Social problems Annual Meeting? I have been asked to put together a Thematic Session on Organized labor and the Conference Theme: "Committing Social Change: Breaking and Entering the Establishment." No special preparation is expected, and no paper is required: Just useful, provacative, and fresh ideas. Or can you recommend some other GOOD labor speakers in the Bay area, and provide me with their e-mail addresses or phone numbers? Many thanks, Fraternally, Art Shostak Arthur B. Shostak, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, Department of Psych/Soc/Anthro; Director, Center for Employment Futures, Drexel University, Phila., PA, 19104; 215-895-2466; fax 610-668-2727. email: SHOSTAKA@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu http://httpsrv.ocs.drexel.edu/faculty/shostaka/ "This time, like all times, is a very good one if we but know what to do with it." Ralph Waldo Emerson From bbyrd@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU Mon Jan 5 16:37:21 1998 Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 15:40:12 -0800 From: bbyrd@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (Barbara Byrd) Subject: Re: Speaking Opportunity To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Hey, Art -- I gave you the wrong number for Donna Levitt. It should be 415/468-8610. Sorry about that! Barbara From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Jan 7 00:18:41 1998 Tue, 6 Jan 1998 23:17:13 -0800 (PST) Tue, 6 Jan 1998 23:11:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 23:11:13 -0800 (PST) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: CA-CSU Privatization Plan Protested; CFA Chapter Chair Letter to Editor Sender: meisenscher@igc.org /* Written 2:47 PM Dec 12, 1997 by labornews in igc:labr.newsline */ /* ---------- "CA-CSU Privatization Plan Protested" ---------- */ > Thursday, December 11, 1997 San Francisco Chronicle > CSU-Corporate Plan Protested > S.F. State students rally against proposed partnership > > Pamela Burdman, Chronicle Staff Writer > > SAN FRANCISCO > About 100 San Francisco State University students > rallied yesterday to urge the Cal State system to > put the brakes on its planned partnership with > four high-tech corporations to wire the campuses > for high-speed telecommunications. > > About 70 of the students marched to a nearby > auditorium, where faculty members were busy > criticizing the plan -- a sign of increasing > hostility toward the 10-year corporate partnership > plan that California State University brass are > proposing. > > CSU officials are hoping to sign a deal with > Microsoft Corp., GTE Corp., Fujitsu and Hughes > Space and Communications by the end of January. > But critics say the 22-campus system is moving too > quickly, especially because key details about the > unprecedented venture have yet to be released. > > ``This is the first time this has happened,'' said > Brian Eby, a history major and organizer of > yesterday's protest. ``If this succeeds, it will > make it that much easier for (similar) deals to go > through at other universities.'' > > The envisioned partnership is being called CETI -- > California Educational Technology Initiative -- > but student protesters have dubbed it ``Corporate > Educational Takeover Initiative.'' > > Some 500 Humboldt State students also rallied > against the proposal on Monday. And faculty > senates at San Jose State and at least four other > campuses have passed resolutions urging CSU > officials in Long Beach to take their time. > > The state Legislature has refused money for the > technology upgrade. Administrators, who have been > seeking input for several years and thought they > had found a clever way out of their funding > dilemma, said they are surprised by the outcry. > > Students and faculty, however, say they have been > surveyed about their technology needs but until > recently had not heard about the business plan. > > The documents that have been released remain > vague. They say CSU will form a limited-liability > company with the four corporations and that the > new company will sell technology to CSU and the > general public. > > But it is not clear how the company will be > controlled, what products will be sold at what > prices, and what, if anything, students and > faculty will have to pay. > > ``Everything seems to be double-speak,'' said > Margo Kasdan, a cinema professor who heads S.F. > State's faculty union. ``It's right out of `1984.' > '' > > Accounting professor Bob Daniels also questioned > the premise of the initiative: ``I hate CETI,'' he > said. ``It's an abuse of the partnership idea . . > . that somebody sets up a partnership to sell > something back to yourself.'' > > But some students and faculty say they feel > comfortable with the proposal. > > Blane Uthman, a student leader at Cal-State > Hayward, said a weekend session in Long Beach with > representatives of the corporations convinced him > that the initiative is the cheapest way to wire > the campuses without getting more money from the > state or raising fees. > > ``It's not a question of pro-business or not pro- > business,'' he said. ``It's a question of being > pro-student. I'm afraid some of my fellow students > are not looking at the big picture, about what it > means to future students.'' =============================================== /* Written 2:41 PM Dec 27, 1997 by labornews in igc:labr.privatiza */ /* ---------- "Corporatization Threatens Pub Educa" ---------- */ > Monday, Dec. 22, 1997 San Francisco Examiner LETTERS TO THE EDITOR > CSU's high-tech link > > Frances Hong's article on the California State > University corporate initiative - the California > Educational Technology Initiative - covered the > issue well ( "S.F. State students, professors shun > high-tech partnership," Dec. 11). She quotes me on > my concern about the privatization of public > higher education. > > My concern goes beyond questions of intellectual > property rights. This suggested private-public > partnership is a corporation designed to buy > products to sell back to itself. > > This corporatization transforms the 23 campuses of > the CSU into an exclusive market for GTE, Fujitsu, > Microsoft and Hughes Global. > > Corporations and education have different, if not > opposite, goals and methodologies. The > corporations' methods are focused toward making > profits. Education, especially higher education, > takes as its goal understanding and intellectual > illumination, and its methodology is necessarily > open inquiry. > > The students immediately understood the > difference. Of course they and the faculty oppose > the destruction of CSU, and so should California > taxpayers. They should insist on a serious inquiry > at a Jan. 6 congressional hearing on the program. > Margo Kasdan Professor of cinema studies > President, SFSU Chapter California Faculty > Association San Francisco From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Wed Jan 7 08:29:10 1998 Wed, 7 Jan 1998 07:26:35 -0800 (PST) Wed, 7 Jan 1998 07:26:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 07:26:28 -0800 (PST) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: BusinessWeek: The New University (fwd) Sender: meisenscher@igc.org Here's the BusinessWeek take on modern college education. It's an interesting perspective. Bill >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 09:59:02 -0600 (CST) >From: "Harry M. Cleaver" >Reply-To: pfg-ut@mail.la.utexas.edu >To: Progressive Faculty Group >Subject: BusinessWeek: The New University (fwd) > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 21:51:48 -0600 (CST) >From: Dennis Grammenos >Reply-To: pen-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu >To: pen-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu >Subject: BusinessWeek: The New University > > >BusinessWeek > >22 December 1997 > >----------------------------------- > http://www.businessweek.com/1997/51/b3558139.htm > >----------------------------------- > > > THE NEW UNIVERSITY > > A tough market is reshaping colleges > > > > On an autumn afternoon on the manicured grounds of the > red-brick University of Florida at Gainesville, students > stroll under palms and moss-draped oaks. It's a classic > collegiate tableau--and completely at odds with the radical > vision of the man who presides over the campus from a modest > second-story office. It's not that John V. Lombardi wants to > destroy what he sees. Quite simply, he has to. > > As president of the huge state institution, Lombardi contends > with a legislature that won't let him raise tuition but has > cut university appropriations by 15% since 1991. In response, > ''we have taken the great leap forward and said: 'Let's > pretend we're a corporation,''' Lombardi says. Defying > traditional academic notions, departments now vie openly for > resources. English professors must demonstrate, in essence, > that Chaucer pays the bills using funds as effectively as > engineering or business classes. Departments that meet > quality and productivity criteria win shares of $2 million in > discretionary funding. > > This isn't a universally popular strategy. Some professors > and administrators fear the effects of the new strictures on > academic quality. Many hope it is just a president's passing > fancy. ''Things like this come and go all the time,'' says > John Kraft, dean of the University of Florida's College of > Business Administration. Lombardi understands the dissension > and skepticism. At institutions like his, he says, ''everyone > assumes that we'll just keep churning the paper, and it will > be business as usual.'' > > It isn't--at Florida or at other colleges and universities > across the nation. Behind ivied walls and on leafy > quadrangles, administrators and professors acknowledge this > new reality. Higher education is changing profoundly, > retreating from the ideals of liberal arts and the > leading-edge research it always has cherished. Instead, it is > behaving more like the $250 billion business it has become. > > DISCIPLINE. Universities are rethinking the big lecture > halls, faculty tenure, discrete academic departments, and > other features that have defined traditional institutions for > a century. They are designing curriculums more relevant to > employers, communities, and students. Schools are pursuing > fiscal discipline, forcing accountability on organizations > that for decades have expanded as they pleased. And they're > wiring the ivory towers, creating with technology more > efficient mediums of instruction. > > Why this transformation, in a system still regarded as > unmatched in the world? After all, 62% of Americans today > attend college just after high school, testament to the > American ideal of a highly educated populace. U.S. > universities, moreover, still produce research that extends > the bounds of knowledge and feeds innovation in industry. > > Over the past two decades, though, higher education has > failed spectacularly to live within its means. From 1980 to > 1994, the most recent year for which Education Dept. data are > available, instructional costs per full-time student at > private universities increased 48% in real terms; public > universities upped research expenses by 35%. In the same > time, though, states reduced real, per-student funding to > public universities by 22%. In the private sector, students > from well-heeled families who could pay full tuition > increasingly fled to smaller colleges, taking revenue with > them. > > That has produced an explosion in charges as institutions > have sought to close the funding gap. Average annual tuition, > room, and board at state universities, after inflation, has > jumped 33% since 1976, to $6,349, according to the Education > Dept.; at Ivy League and other elite schools, the going rate > is $32,000. Schools themselves have eaten some of that > increase in the form of ''discounting,'' or student aid, > making up in part for a decline in federal grants. But > students and their families have borne the brunt: Since 1975, > college costs have soared to 20.5% of median household > income, up from 14%. ''We are pricing ourselves out of > Americans' ability to pay,'' says Thomas H. Kean, Drew > University president and a former New Jersey governor. > > The RAND Corp.'s Council for Aid to Education estimates that > mounting college costs, combined with declining real > wages--especially among poor families--and growing > immigration rates, will create a large class for whom college > is utterly out of reach. Given current spending trends and > continued pressure on government aid, predicts the council, > colleges and universities will see ''a catastrophic shortfall > in funding''--a $38 billion gap in 2015 in what they require > to meet expected student demand. To pay the bills, schools > will have to raise tuition or reduce aid--and either action > will shut people out. > > Increasingly, then, institutions find themselves grappling > with a basic tension between quality and access. As resources > grow scarcer, how do they sustain high-level teaching and > research at an affordable price? The dilemma cuts to the > heart of today's knowledge economy, where more than > two-thirds of new jobs require some higher education. > Continued productivity gains and economic growth depend on > keeping such institutions both accessible and pertinent. ''If > we're not matching up [students] and educational > opportunities well, we're going to lose some productive > capacity,'' says Michael S. McPherson, president of > Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn. > > The innovation on university campuses today attempts to > address such concerns. Yet it also is accelerating the > evolution of American higher education into what some experts > say is a two-tiered entity: one system of exceptionally high > quality for those with the means to pay and a second for > those without. > > Robert Zemsky and Susan Shaman of the University of > Pennsylvania's Institute for Research on Higher Education > found in a study of 1,200 institutions that colleges are > sorting themselves into identifiable market segments. > ''Name-brand'' schools provide small classes and well-paid > faculty at high prices. A second, more market-savvy group > offers convenience and user-friendliness--often catering to > students who want quick, cheap degrees to advance their > careers. But these schools spend much less on teaching and > facilities. > > Colleges that flourish, argue Zemsky and Shaman, among > others, will be those that identify a viable segment of the > school population and equip themselves to serve it > effectively. This is a provocative concept, given that, for > decades, big public universities and small private colleges > alike have prospered through breadth, following the models > put forth by Harvard University, the University of > California, and other top schools. Now, ''institutions that > don't do well are those that don't develop a real signature > in the market,'' Zemsky says. > > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, which attracts top > technical students across the U.S., fits the brand-name > category. Like many smaller private schools, however, it must > lure enough wealthy students who, by paying the full $27,000 > tab, will subsidize poorer classmates. ''We concluded we were > never going to compete on price, so we had to produce an > experience of demonstrably higher quality,'' says Jack M. > Wilson, dean of the faculty. > > CONVENIENCE. Its first-year ''studio course,'' rooted in > curricular and physical redesign, was meant to set RPI apart > in the marketplace. In new multi-use rooms, built for > $100,000 to $150,000 apiece, students face one way to hear a > professor's short lecture, swivel around to work on lab > equipment or personal-computer programs set up to complement > the lesson, then turn again to work in small groups. > > In an introductory class in circuits, Professor William C. > Jennings begins with a short discourse on amplification. Then > he turns his 30 students loose to wire and test the equipment > behind them, roaming the room to give guidance as needed. > Before last year, he lectured for an hour and a half, and > students went elsewhere to experiment under a grad student. > Students like the merger of two settings. ''You don't really > know what's going on until you do it yourself,'' says Melissa > Postolowski. > > RPI can't say yet if students in studios actually learn more; > physics students in the new classes tested no higher than > those in conventional lectures. But the consolidated design > calls for fewer faculty, freeing professors to create new > courses and contribute to revenue-generating projects that, > with administrative cuts, have helped reduce the school's $25 > million backlog of long-term maintenance and investments by > more than half. More important, the changes have created a > buzz, and campus visits by prospective applicants are up 49%. > > Portland State University, alternatively, has positioned > itself in the convenience sector by meeting head-on the new > demographics of higher education. Traditionally the neglected > stepsister of much larger and better-financed state > universities, it saw state assistance slip to 49% of its > total budget, from 65% in 1991. At the same time, attrition > grew among its diverse collection of older, lower-income > students, many of whom come ill-prepared academically. > > Cuts of support staff and middle management saved $3.5 > million a year. But PSU also sought to create academic > coherence for students who most often had picked courses > because they happened to meet at the right time. The answer > was University Studies, a program developed with advice from > local businesses that hinges on group work and technology. At > its heart is Freshman Inquiry, a selection of > interdisciplinary, yearlong courses that meet five days a > week. Einstein's Universe, for instance, is taught by > professors of physics, dance, and history. Students, required > to work in groups, discover the theory of relativity but also > read and write about the philosophical, historical, and > artistic context of Europe in the 1930s. Graduate-student or > upper-class mentors help to ''model'' freshmen who have never > confronted serious homework or class participation. > > For some, the curriculum was a shock. ''I expected to be > going to lectures and writing 10-page papers,'' says David > Hall, a senior majoring in business and information systems. > Faculty, too, had to change stripes, having to confront many > students who had never read an entire book. ''The attitude > used to be that students either could cut it or couldn't,'' > says Susan Hopp, director of student development. More than > 80% of students who enrolled last spring in Freshman Inquiry > returned for classes this fall--a record. > > RPI and Portland State, both of which are among six schools > recognized by the Pew Charitable Trust for innovative > restructuring, are years ahead of most institutions. Many of > their peers, by contrast, are just starting to come to terms > with the monumental change they will need to survive and > compete. In the public sector, especially, that confrontation > is proving traumatic. > > Florida's Lombardi, for one, still is smoothing out his > plan's kinks. The university's ''bank,'' whose funding model > discourages large classes, initially penalized the college of > business for TV teaching, even though TV students test as > well as those in conventional classes. English professors > worry that creative writing and other courses requiring very > small classes will cost their department funding under a > system that strictly measures faculty-student productivity. > > RESENTMENT LINGERS. For now, Florida's faculty is giving > Lombardi the benefit of the doubt. In other states, > resistance has been fiercer. Faculty at the University of > Maine forced Chancellor J. Michael Orenduff to resign in 1995 > after he proposed a distinct, accredited institution for > satellite-TV learning. Resentment lingers at the University > of Illinois four years after reform that, using 25 > productivity and performance measures, seeks to rationalize > programs and reallocate the savings. Loyola University of > Chicago President John J. Piderit sparked an outcry from > professors recently by referring to students as > ''customers.'' > > Such protest isn't baseless. Professors and administrators > alike are justly concerned about financially motivated > strategies that risk eroding quality or reducing education to > a pro forma exercise in professional credentialing. Often, > though, the angst appears to be a function more of > uncertainty with the dramatically shifting terrain. > Academics, typically trained at traditional research > universities, aren't prepared, for example, to teach in > interdisciplinary courses that cross old department lines. > > Either way, they have little choice but to learn to deal with > change, because new competition--unencumbered by tenure, > departmental politics, or legislative oversight--is coming > fast. The number of corporate ''universities,'' formed by > business to offer in-house job-related training, has jumped > from 1,000 to 1,400 in five years. Former junk-bond king > Michael R. Milken, along with Oracle Corp. CEO Lawrence J. > Ellison, has invested $500 million in Knowledge Universe, a > for-profit company aiming to capture a $10 billion slice of > the education market, from toys to advanced degrees. Its > joint venture with Tele-Communications Inc. could provide the > backbone for cable-TV distribution of university classes. > > Cable entrepreneur Glenn R. Jones has created College > Connection, offering students Internet access to inexpensive > degree programs from 13 institutions including his own, > entirely electronic International University. College > Connection, with 7,000 students, is growing at 30% a year, > says Jones, whose Knowledge TV offers college courses to > viewers around the world. This, he says, is a > ''cyber-university.'' ''Your classroom can be your house, > your trailer--anywhere you have a computer.'' > > Indeed, much of the convenience segment has been spurred by > technology. Using the Net or interactive TV, schools can > reach vast numbers of students in many locations at once, > with little or no investment in new bricks and mortar. All > told, 1.3 million Americans are engaged in some sort of > electronic higher education, says researcher InterEd Inc. > > Does it work? While educators agree that such technology > delivers courses to students who otherwise would go without, > they worry that electronic coursework is often rudimentary, > with little attempt to account for quality or effectiveness > and scant opportunities for intimate contact with a > professor. > > CHEAP TICKET. Yet many students are prepared to sacrifice > such experiences in return for a few quick rungs up the > career ladder. The University of Phoenix understands this, > perhaps better than any school. Its mother campus--basically, > two modest office buildings--sits off a traffic circle > opposite Phoenix Airport. There are no dormitories, no > library stacks, no cafeteria, no labs, no gym. And no kids. > The hundreds of students who stream into dozens of spartan > meeting rooms each weekday evening for four-hour classes > range in age from 23 to 60. > > With 58 campuses in 12 states, Phoenix' enrollment, now > 42,000, is growing 20% a year--even though it accepts only > adults who work full-time and offers classes only at night or > online. Students meet twice a week for six weeks per course > and get credit for ''life experience'' toward bachelor's and > master's degrees, mostly in business and information > technology. Teaching faculty, entirely part-time and > tenureless, come from industry and teach from a standardized > script. Annual tuition averages $6,500. > > It may be, as critics call it, McEducation. But students love > it. ''This way, I finish in the same time as I would if I'd > quit my job,'' says Demario Walton, 24, a Motorola Inc. > employee pursuing his MBA. Investors love it, too. Shares of > Apollo Group Inc., the university's corporate parent, trade > at 23 times their value in 1994. ''We will be the first > national university,'' says founder John G. Sperling, a > raucous 76-year-old former Merchant Marine and union > organizer (with a Cambridge University doctorate) whose stake > in Apollo is worth $484 million. ''We intend to operate in > every major metropolitan area of the U.S.'' > > Phoenix thrives so conspicuously because it acknowledges a > profoundly changed higher-education market. It and the other > new venues stand to win a big share of the surge in college > enrollment expected over the next decade as Echo Boomers > emerge from high school and as more adults seek continuing > education. Many of these students, unable to afford the cost > of a full-time program, will start college older, seeking > part-time classes that fit into job schedules. > > Colleges and universities must confront this new > competition--and the changing demographics, economics, and > technology behind it. And they must adapt rapidly. The great > risk is that, having opened its doors to most comers, the > huge, centuries-old system will shut people out--sending > students instead to nimbler rivals. Milken, Jones, and > Sperling will be happy to accommodate. > > By Keith H. Hammonds in Troy, N.Y., and Susan Jackson in > Portland, Ore., with Gail DeGeorge in Gainesville, Fla., > Kathleen Morris in Phoenix, and bureau reports > > ------------------------------- > > Copyright 1997, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved. From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Thu Jan 8 22:47:18 1998 Thu, 8 Jan 1998 21:46:28 -0800 (PST) Thu, 8 Jan 1998 21:41:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 21:41:09 -0800 (PST) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Corporate Takeover of CA University Tech delayed/Jan 6th hearings Sender: meisenscher@igc.org The Micro$oft Monitor $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Published by NetAction Issue No. 21 January 8,1998 Repost where appropriate. Copyright and subscription info at end of message. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Questions Delay Corporate Takeover of Cal State University Technology NetAction Project Director Nathan Newman was one of several witnesses who testified before the California Legislature on January 6, 1998, regarding plans for a corporate takeover of California State University's technology systems by Microsoft, GTE, Fujitsu and Hughes. The hearings were called after NetAction, along with student and faculty activists, criticized the California Education Technology Initiative (CETI), a plan for private management of technology at the 23-campus California State University system through a for-profit corporation. NetAction and other critics of the plan pointed out the dangers of handing Microsoft and its corporate allies a monopoly over technology in the schools that are training the high-tech workforce of the future. The hearing was sponsored jointly by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, the Assembly Budget Committee on Education, and the Senate Budget Committee on Education. Legislators opened the hearing with a long list of questions about the CETI deal, including what the ultimate cost will be to taxpayers, and what effect a ten-year technology contract with Microsoft and GTE will have on innovation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the legislators reiterated their concerns about CETI and announced plans for more hearings to continue the investigation into whether CETI threatens the public interest. Under pressure, the California State University administration announced that it would delay signing a contract with the CETI corporate partners until at least March, 1998. This represents a real victory for activists, since the CSU administration's goal had been to sign the contract in December, 1997. After students, faculty and staff representatives were asked to speak about the CETI initiative, NetAction's Nathan Newman testified about the public interest implications of granting this technology monopoly. What follows is the written draft of Newman's testimony. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Comments to the California Legislature By Nathan Newman, NetAction Project Director January 6, 1998 Hello, my name is Nathan Newman and I am speaking here as Program Director for NetAction, a public interest advocacy group committed to democratic use of technology and open computing standards. We strongly oppose the CETI proposal and hope the state legislature will block its implementation. While our organization has strong concerns about the technological and anti-trust implications of the CETI consortium, I would like to start my presentation with our worries about its financial implications, since the supposed "savings" of this plan are the main reason given for its adoption. CETI is being sold as a "free lunch" where the California State University will get upwards of $300 million in technology upgrades with, according to the CSU administration, no cost or loss of control by students, staff or faculty. Now, any time one hears about a free lunch, you should generally suspect that you are being taken for a ride. But you don't have to have a suspicious mind in the case of CETI; the CETI partners themselves have made clear that they expect to make not only a healthy profit but to gain strategic advantages for each of their corporations. Up front, the consortium expects to be making a profit within four years. This is on top of the profits each individual company will get from being the nearly exclusive technology supplier to both the consortium and to students, faculty and staff. For a modest up front investment in technology, most of whose ownership will be retained by the consortia in any case, the CETI partners are being given a monopoly worth billions of dollars. Worse, these profits will be paid for by limiting the technological choices of students and faculty. In section 9.5.2 of their August proposal, the CETI partners made it clear that their cost savings are based on promoting a narrow set of technologies supplied by GTE, Microsoft, Hughes and Fujitsu. In their words, "Support for non-mainstream products which are anticipated to be low in volume will not allow the cost savings forecasted for the mainstream products like the standard PC." Other cost savings and, coincidentally more profits for the partners, will come from giving tech support only for chosen software technology such as Microsoft Windows and Microsoft's Office applications, which the partners note will lead to "minimizing the training required to bring everyone to a minimum proficiency level." An explicit provision of the CETI proposal is that "the CSU system will work with CETI to allow for the use of incentives to faculty and staff in the development of revenue generating projects." What this means is that the CSU system will allow the consortia partners to create economic and technical biases in favor of technology that generates revenue for the consortia - violating what should be academic support for neutral and open computing standards. This will chill technology innovation in favor of the lowest common technology denominator. The proposal is also a danger to equal access to technology among students. The CETI proposal gives these corporations control of technology decisions about marketing a range of services to students, such as technical support and off-campus Internet access, that had previously been considered part of tuition at the University. We can expect economic stratification between haves and have-nots within the University as some students can afford these "enhanced" services and others are left out. The CETI proposal is a thinly disguised tuition increase for students whose "self funding" will be largely based on shifting costs onto students through a menu of fee-based services. Unbelievably, in a world of fast-moving technology, the California State University system is giving a ten-year contract to one set of vendors. This just highlights the problem with privatizing control of the CSU's technology system to a for-profit entity. While there are no doubt economies and cost savings to be made through the concentrated purchasing power of the CSU campuses, it is nearly insanity to commit to one set of vendors over such a long period of time given the rapid technological change we have seen. A much better approach would be competitive bidding every few years among a range of contractors, many of whom don't even exist today but will deliver the best products tommorrow - a possibility foreclosed by the ten-year monopoly of the CETI deal. So why is the CSU administration agreeing to such a bad deal for California taxpayers and students? Well, in their public announcements, a number of administrators have blamed you - the state legislature. And I have to agree with them. By refusing to provide them with the funds to make the necessary initial investments, the state legislature has left the CSU administration to scramble for a few hundred million dollars in short-term technology funds in exchange for granting a long-term high-cost monopoly. GTE, Microsoft et al are just taking advantage of this budgetary straightjacket imposed on the CSUs by the state legislature, a straightjacket that will no doubt cost taxpayers and students hundreds of millions, probably billions of dollars over the long-term. It is short-sighted economically and a tragic loss technologically. It is this technological loss and its public policy implications beyond the campus community that I will address now. NetAction has long promoted a vision of open computing standards, and the CETI proposal is one the gravest threats to such open standards in many years. California State University campuses are some of the premiere training centers for the high-tech workforce of the future and this proposal promises to turn them into the private training program for Microsoft. The CSU administration and the CETI partners claim that students and faculty will be free to use other technologies but they also state that tech support will not be provided within the CETI funding framework. More importantly, by controlling the key central servers that regulate information flows on campus, students and faculty will be all but forced to adopt Microsoft products in order to use campus resources. To give just a simple example of how this will work - and how Microsoft has functioned with other corporate partners - the on-line Web-based help systems for students detailed in the CETI proposal will no doubt be designed to work best or possibly only with Internet Explorer web browsers. Financial aid software provided by CETI will no doubt be optimized for Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and other software will all reinforce one set of proprietary software to the profit of Microsoft and the CETI partners. Many analysts have noted the "network effects" of the new information technology where control of one aspect of computing standards allows companies to control a range of other technological choices connected to those initial standards. And with the largest university system in the world adopting Microsoft-only standards, that will in turn give great incentive for other users in California and around the country to adopt similar standards, thereby reinforcing Microsoft's expanding monopoly position. In a time when Microsoft is being investigated by both the federal government and the state of California for anti-trust violations, it is unbelievable that the CSU administration is even conceiving of handing it such a strategic prize. This proposal for Microsoft and its allies to administer technology implementation at the CSU system, including developing classroom curriculum and training programs for students and staff, comes in the context of the ongoing privatization of technical education in the country. Already, Microsoft-approved curriculum taught by Microsoft-approved instructors and audited by the Microsoft Corporation is taught at over 300 college campuses across the country, including over 30 campuses in California. These Microsoft "Authorized Academic Training Program" participants are pulled into the Microsoft orbit through offers of free software and training for technical programs left underfunded by state governments and therefore vulnerable to Microsoft's corporate bribery. Looked at comprehensively, Microsoft is using its involvement in technical education and infrastructure to further reinforce its control of computing. It is an unfortunate fact that our country's whole system of technical education is being distorted as it becomes one more tool for Microsoft's monopolistic goals. I would also note that GTE's involvement is equally problematic. In a time when the state government is supposed to be promoting a level playing field for competition in telecommunications, the CETI proposal will essentially subsidize GTE's creation of a high-speed backbone for phone and Internet access around the state. This is not then just a profitable one-time profit gain for the companies involved but a great strategic advantage against competitors. Those are not my words but the words of the CETI proposal. In section 7.3 of the August proposal, the CETI partners admit that their interest in the project is as follows: "As individual companies each of the partners also has significant opportunities to gain advantage in its respective markets." And it notes specifically, "GTE has an opportunity to capture a larger segment of the California local and long distance telephone business." To approve this proposal without thorough review by the California Public Utilities Commission for its competitive implications would be irresponsible on the part of the state government. Overall, NetAction recommends the following as principles for any public-private agreement around technology at the California State University system: 1. There should be no corporate management of educational institutions by companies with a direct financial interest in the products purchased by the campuses or students. 2. Any outside management support should be committed to training students in a diversity of technologies and be committed to supporting open computer standards across the board. 3. Any proposal must include an explicit commitment to full and equal access to technology on campus regardless of economic ability to pay. 4. Educational curriculum should be designed by educators dedicated to the long-term interests of their students, not corporations looking to lock in "customers" to proprietary software. 5. No proposal should be approved without a thorough analysis of its possible impact on technology standards and monopolies outside the university. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ About The Micro$oft Monitor The Micro$oft Monitor is a free electronic newsletter, published as part of the Consumer Choice Campaign . NetAction is a national, non-profit organization dedicated to educating the public, policy makers, and the media about technology-based social and political issues, and to teaching activists how to use the Internet for organizing, outreach, and advocacy. To subscribe to The Micro$oft Monitor, write to: . The body of the message should state: . To unsubscribe at any time, send a message to: . The body of the message should state: NetAction is seeking sponsors to provide financial support for the continued publication of the Micro$oft Monitor. Sponsors will be acknowledged in the newsletter and on NetAction's Web site. NetAction is supported by individual contributions, membership dues and grants. For more information about contributing to NetAction, or sponsoring the Micro$oft Monitor, contact Audrie Krause by phone: (415) 775-8674, by E-mail: , visit the NetAction Web site at: , or write to: NetAction * 601 Van Ness Ave.,No. 631 * San Francisco, CA 94102 To learn more about how activists can use the Internet for grassroots organizing, outreach, and advocacy, subscribe to NetAction Notes, a free electronic newsletter published twice a month. To subscribe to NetAction Notes, send a message to: The body of the message should state: . To unsubscribe at any time, send a message to: . The body of the message should state: . $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Copyright 1998 by NetAction/The Tides Center. All rights reserved. Material may be reposted or reproduced for non-commercial use provided NetAction is cited as the source. NetAction is a project of The Tides Center, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. From Glafer@aol.com Thu Jan 8 23:47:46 1998 From: Glafer Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 01:47:30 EST To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: union research job in Oregon The Oregon Education Association -- state branch of the NEA, representing 97% of Oregon school teachers -- is looking to hire a Research Director. This is an opportunity for someone to get in on the ground floor and help develop an effective research capacity for a union that has not really had one to date. The union has not had a research director to date, so this person would be helping to create the job as they go, working together with the state director. The union's research needs are primarily to support negotiations with local boards of education; there are approximately 90 contracts which come up for renewal each year, and while not all of these require research support, many do.  The research director will work closely with the OEA state director, and with the union's 30-person field staff.  Beyond supporting contract bargaining, there will also be some work developing legislative initiatives and supporting lobbying efforst in the Oregon legislature.  For this reason, and to work with the organizers, this job requires excellent communication schools. The salary for this job is $54,000-$86,000, depending on experience.  The job is based in Portland and includes use of a car as well as generous benefits.  If anyone is interested in this possibility, please feel free to contact this address, or to give me a call at 541-346-2786. Thanks, Gordon Lafer Labor Education and Research Center University of Oregon From zabin@ucla.edu Mon Jan 12 00:03:14 1998 Sun, 11 Jan 1998 23:01:54 -0800 (PST) Sun, 11 Jan 1998 22:55:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 22:55:54 -0800 (PST) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Carol Zabin (by way of Michael Eisenscher ) Subject: Job Announcement: LA Research Director Sender: meisenscher@igc.org JOB ANNOUNCEMENT Research Director UCLA-TIDC Subsidy Accountability Project Project Description The Subsidy Accountability Project is a research and organizing project that aims to increase accountability in the awarding of subsidies to private business for economic development. The project is funded by the Ford and Rosenberg Foundation for two years through August of 1999. Part of a national movement for corporate accountability, the project involves a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of local public expenditures for job creation in the Los Angeles region. The intent of the research is to increase public understanding of government subsidies to businesses and propose ways to make this spending more beneficial to workers and poor communities in Los Angeles. This is a joint project of the Tourism Industry Development Council (TIDC) and the UCLA Center for Labor Research and Education. TIDC is a labor and community supported non-profit organization that spearheaded the campaign for a Living Wage Ordinance in Los Angeles, which was approved by the LA City Council in 1997. TIDC is dedicated to promoting policies and organizing campaigns that improve working conditions and wages for low-wage workers in the LA region. The UCLA Labor Center carries out research and training for labor unions and supports a vital, progressive trade union movement in the Los Angeles region. Job Description The Research Director will supervise and develop the methodology for an evaluation of the impact of business subsidies in the Los Angeles region. The research team will include a dedicated TIDC staff researcher and a team of UCLA graduate students. The Research Director must be available to work 20 hours a week through August 1999. Research tasks include: Documenting current business incentives in the City of Los Angeles and select neighboring cities. Developing a local economic development budget that makes the information transparent Developing a database documenting business incentives currently used by firms in Los Angeles, with firm level data, that would be accessible to the public. Analyzing the impact of business incentives on jobs, wages and inequality in Los Angeles. Reviewing previous subsidy accountability measures. Timeline The Research Director must be available to work on the project from February 1998 through August 1999. A Preliminary Report on the major findings will be completed in the Fall of 1998 and serve as the basis of a public education campaign in 1998-1999. A Final Product must be completed by August 1999. Qualifications This position calls for the ability to design and carry out a substantial research project and direct graduate students and other research assistants. Graduate study in Economics or quantitative Sociology is highly desirable; an ability to read the academic literature in Urban Economics and carry out simple quantitative modeling is necessary. Grant-writing skills highly desirable. An ability to communicate economic ideas to a broad audience is critical for this position. Knowledge of Los Angeles area city governments is a plus. In addition, the candidate must be able and willing to work closely with community activists and trade unionists. The candidate must orient the research so that it is useful to a political organizing campaign promoting subsidy accountability. Compensation Annual salary of $22,000 to $28,000 for a half time position, depending on experience. Full medical and dental benefits. Contact: Jessica Goodheart, project coordinator Subsidy Accountability Project Tourism Industry Development Council 614 South Spring Street, Suite 1016 Los Angeles, CA 90014 (213) 486-5129, ph (213) 486-9886, fx jessica836@aol.com From sscipe1@icarus.cc.uic.edu Mon Jan 12 22:22:31 1998 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 23:21:04 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Kim Scipes Subject: Re: Speaking Opportunity Art-- My apologies for not answering sooner--went to Europe for the holidays and have been trying to work my way out of the piles of stuff awaiting me upon my return. Don't know if you've found anyone for this. In case you haven't, I certainly would be interested in participating. However, someone that I STRONGLY encourage you to invite Michael Eisenscher to speak. He's a long-time (25+ years) as a labor organizer, mainly UE, but has also worked with SEIU and CWA. He's now doing a PhD in (I believe) Public Policy with Barry Bluestone at UMASS Boston, specifically focusing on labor. However, Michael is physically living in the Bay Area now and I'm sure would be available. I find him one of the most interesting people working and writing on the labor movement today. His e-mail address is and feel free to use my name. Anyway, best wishes for the new year. Let me know what's happening when you get a chance. With best wishes--Kim >Brothers and Sisters: Would anyone be interested in participating as a >panelist on Friday, August 21, at 2pm, in San Fran, for the Society for the >Study of Social problems Annual Meeting? > >I have been asked to put together a Thematic Session on Organized labor and >the Conference Theme: "Committing Social Change: Breaking and Entering the >Establishment." No special preparation is expected, and no paper is >required: Just useful, provacative, and fresh ideas. > >Or can you recommend some other GOOD labor speakers in the Bay area, and >provide me with their e-mail addresses or phone numbers? > >Many thanks, >Fraternally, >Art Shostak > >Arthur B. Shostak, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, Department of >Psych/Soc/Anthro; >Director, Center for Employment Futures, Drexel University, Phila., PA, 19104; >215-895-2466; fax 610-668-2727. email: SHOSTAKA@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu > >http://httpsrv.ocs.drexel.edu/faculty/shostaka/ >"This time, like all times, is a very good one >if we but know what to do with it." Ralph Waldo Emerson From aikya@ix.netcom.com Wed Jan 14 10:01:59 1998 by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma013677; Wed Jan 14 11:01:33 1998 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'Labor Research and Action Project'" , "'Michael Eisenscher'" , "'UNITED@COUGAR.COM'" Subject: FW: Uh-Oh Tuesday Leads Again Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:14:28 -0800 Here's something interesting re: Worker's Compensation. Kate is an RN who has had enough (!) of the machinations that go on around worker injuries. Please support her if you can and forward this to others who might. Aikya ---------- Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 1998 12:56 PM To: Women and Money Subject: Re: Uh-Oh Tuesday Leads Again Hi Everyone, I have stated a NEW Organization call "The MedCheck Project". We are injured workers uniting for fair unbiased medical evaluations, immediate medical treatment, pain control, and preservation of our patient rights. Our goal is to have a Regional State Coordinator in every state. We need voluneteers for this project. You can get a pre-view of our site at The site is still under construction, so a few links do not work. Positions that need to be filled are the Regional State Coordinators and Board Members at . Injured Workers, Medical Professionals, Attorneys, anyone who is wanting to improve the Workers Compensation System are welcome to join us. The general public and employers need a lot of teaching on human rights! If the employer would be pro-active in helping the injured worker get treatment, they would save millions of dollars. Please pass this on. Thank you! Kate Purcell,RN > LEADS ON-LINE TUESDAYS A M E R I C A ' S M E D C H E C K O R G A N I Z A T I O N Help Support "The MedCheck Project" Injured Workers Uniting For Fair Unbiased Medical Evaluations, Prompt Medical Treatmemt, Pain Control & Preservation of Patient Rights Kate Purcell, RN Office:405-691-5466 fax:405-691-8389 9208 S. Villa Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73159-6745 ICQ 6117794 From xcruz@webtv.net Mon Jan 19 12:43:47 1998 From: xcruz@webtv.net (# #) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:43:29 -0700 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Fwd: Gender bias on Mexican border --WebTV-Mail-1436875020-1374 --WebTV-Mail-1436875020-1374 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:50:59 -0700 Reply-To: irc_jorge@zianet.com Sender: owner-FRONTERA-L@cornell.edu From: George Kourous To: FRONTERA-L@cornell.edu Subject: Gender bias on Mexican border >Labor Alerts: a service of Campaign for Labor Rights >To receive our email labor alerts, send a message to CLR@igc.apc.org >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. > >U.S. Labor Department Review Finds Sex Bias at Border Plants in Mexico > >[Information provided by Human Rights Watch (202) 371-6599; the >International Labor Rights Fund (202) 347-4100; and the Asociacion Nacional >de Abogados Democraticos at 011-52-5-588-0849] > >The United States Labor Department this week completed a six month >review of charges of pregnancy-based sex discrimination in the export- >processing (maquiladora) factories along Mexico's border with the >United States. The report was released by the National Administrative >Office (NAO), which is the organism set up in each signatory country >by the labor rights side agreement of the North American Free Trade >Agreement (NAFTA) to review complaints about labor violations. In the >report the NAO confirmed that thousands of border assembly plants >administer medical tests to weed out pregnant applicants and harass >pregnant workers to coerce them to resign. Many plants also dismiss >pregnant workers to avoid paying maternity benefits, according to the >NAO report. > >Human rights groups from the U.S. and Mexico have urged officials of >the Clinton Administration to commit themselves to seeking an end >to the widespread sex discrimination. The Department of Labor >had examined the subject based on a complaint that Human Rights Watch, >the International Labor Rights Fund and the Asociacion Nacional de >Abogados Democraticos had filed under the NAFTA labor side agreement. > >The organizations noted that the Labor Department clearly said that >employers in Mexico's maquildaora sector systematically oblige women >to undergo pregnancy screening as a condition for employment and that >the Mexican government is aware of this practice. In addition, the >groups see as positive the fact that the Labor Department found >mistreatment after workers have been hired as well as firing of >prognant workers to constitute sex discrimination, in violation of >Mexico's labor law. However, the groups were dismayed that the Labor >Department stopped short of condemning mandatory pregnancy screening >during the hiring process and recommending clear action to end it. > >"We are extremely disappointed that the Mexican government remains >unwilling to remedy sex discrimination in the hiring process, on the >spurious ground that it is not technically illegal under Mexican labor >law. However, we welcome the long overdue recognition that >maquiladora operators discriminate against women and that the Mexican >government is aware of this problem," commented LaShawn R. Jefferson, >women's rights researcher for Human Rights Watch. Jefferson added, >"We urge the U.S. Secretary of Labor to call on U.S. corporations >operating in Mexico to cease these discriminatory practices, and we >urge the Mexican government to reach an interpretation of the law that >is consistent with its international obligations to remedy sex >discrimination." > >The complaint, filed on May 6, 1997, and based on a 1996 report by >Human Rights Watch, alleged that Mexico is in violation of the NAFTA >labor rights side agreement because, by failing to stop mandatory >employment-related pregnancy testing in the maquiladoras, it fails to >enforce its anti-discrinination labor law. The petitioners also >alleged that Mexico denies victims of pregnancy testing access to >impartial tribunals in which the sex discrimination can be resolved. >This case was the first ever to come before the U.S. NAO in which sex >discrimination was alleged and access to appropriate labor tribunals >was questioned. In response to the complaint, Mexcio argued that pre- >employment pregnancy screening does not violate Mexican law and that >labor tribunals are barred from hearing complaints by people who are >not employed, including women who are seeking jobs but who have not >been hired. > >The U.S. Labor Department report, which was issued on January 12, >found that Mexico's Constitution and Federal Labor Code prohibit >discrimination based on gender, and called for "ministerial >consultations," a process through which U.S. Labor Secretary Alexis M. >Herman will engage Mexico's Minister of Labor and Social Welfare, >Javier Bonilla in discussions to clarify the law and practices in >Mexico on pre-employment pregnancy screening and post-hire >discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. > >According to the organizations that filed the complaint, the Labor >Department report failed to take positions on the essential question >of whether pre-employment pregnancy screening violated Mexico's >Federal Labor Code's prohibitions against sex discrimination. >Similarly, they said the report did not address the Mexican >government's assertion that job seekers should have no access to labor >tribunals. > >The consultation process has yet to be designed. The petitioners in >the case urged that the ministerial consultation process be swift and >transparent, and that the U.S. use the consultations to reach concrete >results in the form of decisive action by the Mexican government to >end pregnancy-based sex discrimination both in the hiring process and >on-the-job. Jefferson urged, "The U.S. position going into these >consultations should be unambiguous: pregnancy exams as a condition >for employment are a form of illegal sex discrimination, whenever they >occur. Every minute wasted discussing the possible legality of a >patently illegal practice is a minute lost for women in Mexico facing >sex discrimination." Mexican law mandates relatively generous >pregnancy benefits (typical of those in Latin America and more >generous than those in the U.S.) which companies try to avoid by not >hiring pregnant women and by harrassing those who become pregnant so >that they will resign from their jobs before they are eligible for the >benefits. > >Under NAFTA's labor rights side agreement, the signatories voluntarily >agree to have their own labor rights practices reviewed by the other >NAFTA parties. To this end, the labor rights side agreement required >each NAFTA signatory to create a National Administrative Office to >analyze allegations of labor rights violations in the other parties' >countries and to work with those countries to resolve problems >identified. Should the consultation process not yield positive >results, the U.S. may call for the convening of a meeting of experts. > >ACTION NEEDED: > >Write Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman. Ask her not to delay the >ministerial consultation process. Insist that the U.S. make the >consultations transparent (open) and broad. She should use the >consultations to reach concrete results in the form of decisive action >by the Mexican government to end discrimination both on the job and in >hiring. > >Ms. Alexis M. Herman >Secretary of Labor >Department of Labor >200 Constitution Ave. NW >Washington, DC 20210 > > ___________________________ Editor, BorderLines http://www.zianet.com/irc1/bordline/ irc_jorge@zianet.com tel. (505) 388-0208 fax (505) 388-0619 Interhemispheric Resource Center PO Box 2178 Silver City, NM 88062 --WebTV-Mail-1436875020-1374-- From aikya@ix.netcom.com Tue Jan 20 11:54:55 1998 by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id rma008662; Tue Jan 20 12:53:26 1998 From: "Ms. Aikya Param" To: "'Labor Research and Action Project'" Subject: Read/Written Any Bood Books Lately? Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 10:42:40 -0800 There is now a Bookstore at the Women and Money website. I would like to feature books about labor issues, labor leaders (especially women), women's participation in important labor struggles, or just plain darn good books about labor issues. Please hold forth about the best book you've read lately, or have written lately. I will list it along with some of your enthusiastic words in a new featured book list. If Spree doesn't carry the book, I will nag them to get with the program. Thanks. Aikya Param, Publisher, Women and Money Economic Justice and Empowerment Monthly Report http://www2.netcom.com/~aikya/womenandmoney.html A Spree Independent Partner (Say aikya sent you) Surf on over to our website Spree Bookstore to see our featured books and accessories. From aanz@sirius.com Tue Jan 20 18:45:39 1998 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:49:05 -0800 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: aanz@sirius.com (anzalone/starbird) Subject: Re: Read/Written Any Bood Books Lately? Aikya, Can you get your hands on a copy of "Lucy Parsons, American Revolutionary" by Carolyn Ashbaugh I hear it is the only work about the woman who gave the U.S. the eight hour day, and I would love to get my grubby little paws on a copy of it. Ellen Starbird >There is now a Bookstore at the Women and >Money website. I would like to feature books >about labor issues, labor leaders (especially >women), women's participation in important >labor struggles, or just plain darn good books >about labor issues. > >Please hold forth about the best book you've >read lately, or have written lately. I will list >it along with some of your enthusiastic words >in a new featured book list. If Spree doesn't >carry the book, I will nag them to get with the >program. > >Thanks. > >Aikya Param, Publisher, Women and Money >Economic Justice and Empowerment Monthly Report >http://www2.netcom.com/~aikya/womenandmoney.html >A Spree Independent Partner (Say aikya sent you) >Surf on over to our website Spree Bookstore to see >our featured books and accessories. From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Wed Jan 21 09:52:58 1998 by vcn.bc.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA08231; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 08:51:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 08:51:38 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Re: Gray Zone of Poverty (fwd) Isn't it amazing that one of the first orders of business of this professedly socialist/marxist/laborite N.D.P. Government in British Columbia was to slash the meagre welfare benefits already at half of the poverty level, by $50/month. FWP. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:47:11 PST From: Ray Subject: Re: Gray Zone of Poverty Hello Folks, JD has referred to US welfare experience as partial support for his comme= nts on Canadian welare problems. I wish to offer some facts about US welfare conditions taken from that = independent magazine _Mother Jones_: 67% of welfare recipients are families with children. 84% of these child= ren live with hardworking, law-abiding single parents. 70% of all welfare= recipients get off welfare by their own efforts within 24 months. The = total 1994 bill for social welfare programs (including aid for dependent = children [AFDC], food stamps, housing assistance, and child nutrition) = was US $37 billion. Then there is corporate welfare. US federal government aid to corporati= ons, in the same year, amounted to US $167 Billion - nearly five times = the amount that trickled down to the poor and disadvantaged. What is the Canadian corporate welfare program in relation to the welfare= provided the poor? Sincerely, Ray (rlanier@acceleration.net) P.O. Box 698, Micanopy, FL USA 32667 ---------- > > I know I'm gonna set off a shitstorm here but... > > > Michael M. said... > > It seems to me that people who take the position Colby expre= sses > towards poverty and welfare must have a fundamentally different = world > view than I do. > > > I say... > > Michael, you have to live behind your own eyes. For a moment tho= ugh, > let's do a little "what if" and see it a couple of ways. > > The police at 51 Division down in Regent Park (Toronto's notor= ious > welfare development) would probably trot out the fairly recent = murder > of two crack addicted prostitutes as one example of a prevai= ling > mindset in an institutionalized welfare community. Apparently = it was > common knowledge that these two young entrepreneurs had ripped = off a > drug dealer and that he had vowed to hunt them down and mete= out > punishment. The two ran around all day trying to avoid him= and > looking for someone (not the cops, mind you) to help them. Anyway= , he > chases them around and kills them in a stairwell and despite all= the > many people's foreknowledge of the event and the screams and= the > gunshots, no one will talk to the cops. If you're a cop tryin= g to > take a murderer off the street maybe you throw up your hands and = say, > "Hey, these scummers deserve each other." > > If you're a tenant, maybe you hunker down behind your locked door= and > say, "Nobody cares about me, so why should I care about them." > > If you're a longtime or second or third generation welfare recip= ient > with no desire to do anything else, you just head off to collect= the > next cheque... I mean what else is there? > > God (or Allah or whoever) only knows what a recent immigrant= who > doesn't understand the culture or the language thinks... > > Are there decent people living in these circumstances despite = their > best efforts to be somewhere else? Of course. Are there = also > predators and slackers only interested in beating the system. = Same > answer. The sixty-four thousand dollar question is, do you wan= t to > quantify the former vs. the latter and do something about it..= .. or > just continue to pay out the bucks? > > One point I'm trying to make here is that ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUEN= CES. > It's generally acknowledged that there's a problem with welfare = fraud. > Unless you're saying that people deserve something for absolu= tely > nothing, welfare recipients should have to submit to a valida= tion > procedure. If that means I.D. cards, too bad. You have to = get a > license to drive a car, you have to register your pistols and you = have > to provide all sorts of confidential information to get a credit = card. > This ain?t "money for nuthin? and your chicks for free." = (Or it > shouldn?t be.) Otherwise let's just drop cash out of our shiny= new > helicopters over the tenements, or not buy helicopters or anyt= hing > else so we can continue to support anyone who doesn?t have or = want a > job. I know this opens up all sorts of civil liberties issues,= but > hey, we're paying crippling taxes, shutting down hospitals, there= are > less cops per capita than five years ago... we're in crisis = here. > Anybody seen the videos of the devastation in some of the = urban > settings in the States... that could easily happen here if we = don't > stop the cycle. > > Michael also said... > > However, it doesn't seem to me for an instant that I am where = I am, > rather than on welfare, because of some virtue or personal wor= th I > possess and which poor people lack. > > > And I say... > > Sorry Michael, gotta step in here. Did anybody say poor people = were > inherently bad? I think it is indisputable that anyone among = us can > be overtaken by unfortunate events. It is equally apparent that = only > your self respect and integrity causes you to act honourably. = The > poor person WITH SUCH VALUES will take the money but continue = to try > to break out... the rest will not. If you're on welfare for = years > without a legitimate reason (and having six kids with multiple fat= hers > ain't good enough) you obviously don't give a shit about anybody= but > yourself. If you're selling five dollar blow jobs for your next= hit > on the crack pipe, you need more than a stipend from the rest of = us... > much more... no amount of cash is gonna solve your problems.= Of > course you can't apply this rigorous standard to the childre= n... > they're the real victims here, but as long as we encourage the = less > honourable among us to breed at will (cheques based on numbe= r of > kids), we'll have trouble. > > Michael further opines... > > It seems overwhelmingly obvious to me that my position in lif= e is > almost entirely a matter of good fortune. > > > I reply... > > Isn't it funny how chance seems to favour the honourable and= the > industrious? C'mon Michael, you weren't born with values..= .. or > programming skills. > > Michael says again... > > I have no confidence that I would be the least bit successful if = I had > been born in a welfare family, with alcoholic, abusive parents. > > > I say again... > > Michael, you're obviously a fairly compassionate empathic person. = You > are correct in saying it would be really difficult to overcome = this > kind of shitty upbringing. Let's take kids out of intoler= able > situations. Maybe society needs to tread a little harder here. > > We had a case in Toronto recently where a crack addicted couple= who > existed solely on welfare ended up murdering their small = baby > (numerous broken bones, starved and finally shaken to death). = They, > not surprisingly, went to prison. What is surprising is that = some > years previously they had shaken their infant son so hard he had = been > permanently brain damaged. So, four kids later, this same drug = addled > pair of unrepentant scum DID IT AGAIN. AND YOU AND I PAID THEM = TO DO > IT. Compassion... empathy? I can still see that little baby's = face. > > In my opinion the solution is not to subsidize people with no inte= rest > in (or ability to) break out of the cycle. We can't fund the spaw= ning > of an ever increasing pool of abusers. The way the system is set= up, > there's no incentive to make anything of yourself and plent= y of > incentive (dollars per child) to have more kids who don't = have a > snowball's hope in hell. > > Something has got to give. Let's get back to the idea of = giving > people a temporary helping hand and not a permanent lifestyle. > > later... jd From xcruz@webtv.net Fri Jan 23 09:47:01 1998 From: xcruz@webtv.net (# #) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 09:46:56 -0700 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Fwd: FINAL CALL FOR APRIL ACTIONS (fwd) --WebTV-Mail-210977318-2012 --WebTV-Mail-210977318-2012 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 09:32:42 -0700 (MST) Reply-To: dnathan@utep.edu Sender: owner-FRONTERA-L@cornell.edu From: Debbie Nathan To: frontera-L@cornell.edu Subject: FINAL CALL FOR APRIL ACTIONS (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:42:15 -0800 (PST) From: Alan Benjamin Subject: FINAL CALL FOR APRIL ACTIONS CALL FOR THE APRIL 15-18, 1998, CONTINENTAL DAYS OF ACTION AGAINST THE EXTENSION OF NAFTA, PRIVATIZATIONS AND THE MAI Dear Brothers and Sisters, On November 14-16, 1997, more than 400 trade union and community delegates from 20 countries gathered in San Francisco at the Western Hemisphere Workers' Conference Against NAFTA and Privatizations. The conference was convened by the San Francisco Labor Council and the California Labor Federation (AFL-CIO), and included a keynote presentation by the Western Hemisphere director of the AFL-CIO's Int ernational Affairs Department. Leaders of major national trade union federations throughout the Americas, representing tens of millions of workers, participated. After a rich informational exchange and a wide-ranging discussion of strategy, the delegates unanimously adopted a Final Conference Declaration in which they pledged to mobilize in common action throughout the Americas around four central demands: No to NAFTA! No to the FTAA! No to the MAI! Stop Privatizations and Deregulation! Conference delegates agreed to organize mass protests in mid-April to coincide with the Summit of the Heads of State of the Americas in Santiago, Chile. The stated purpose of this Summit is to begin the process of extending the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to the rest of the continent, beginning with Chile, through the creation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The Western Hemisphere Conference also voted to constitute a Continuations Committee, which will function out of the San Francisco Labor Council, to help coordinate the April mobilization and to facilitate the exchange of information in the effort to build Global Unionism. At the first meeting of the Continuations Committee, it was reported that the official Summit of the Heads of State will take place in Santiago on April 15-18, 1998. It was also reported that a parallel Summit -- the Summit of the Peoples of the Americas -- will be held in Santiago during the same dates. The parallel conference has been endorsed by, among many others, the AFL-CIO and the Inter-Ame rican Regional Organization of Workers (ORIT). Based on this information, the Continuations Committee hereby issues a call to mobilize in every country of the Americas on April 15-18. We propose the following Action Program: € April 15: "Building Human Bridges Across the Americas" On the same date as the Western Hemisphere heads of State convene their Summit in Santiago, we encourage unionists and activists to organize cross-border, solidarity human chains/bridges that would symbolically unite people from the Arctic Circle to Tierra del Fuego against "free trade" and structural adjustment policies. By working through existing networks and union bodies, activists in countries throughout the Americas can organize people to join hands to form a human chain that will link people across borders. These solidarity chains can be organized at key, visible border crossings, such as those along the Pan-American Highway and other main arteries. The action will have a huge impact if, at minimum, solidari ty chains/bridges are organized at the borders between the United States and Canada and between the United States and Mexico, as well as at the borders with Chile. In many countries, organizing such protests at the borders may not be feasible. There we propose human chains at airports, seaports, and other such arteries, which would also spotlight the massive rejection of the policies being proposed at the Santiago Summit. € April 16-17: "Teach-Ins and Educational Forums Against 'Free Trade' and Privatizations" These two days could be devoted to promoting awareness of the disastrous consequences of NAFTA, Mercosur, and the other "free trade" agreements that have been forced on the peoples of the Americas. Central attention could also be devoted to educational activity on the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), a treaty that has been negotiated in secret by representatives of the 29 wealt hiest countries comprising the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) aimed at deepening the attacks on working people the world over. € April 18: "Mass Demonstrations Against NAFTA, FTAA, MAI, and Privatizations" On Saturday, April 18, the Peoples' Summit will organize a mass demonstration in the streets of Santiago against the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). We encourage all unionists and activists to hold similar mass actions on this same date in major cities throughout the Americas around the four conference demands. This proposed Action Program is a general guideline for action. Conditions for organizing protest actions vary from country to country. Our aim in issuing these proposals is to maximize the impact of our actions and to involve the broadest sectors in support of our demands. We call on all unionists and activists to send us information about the actions planned in their cities and countries. We will compile this information in ongoing bulletins for distribution to all those committed to building the April Continental Days of Action. Wishing you all full success in your efforts, and looking forward to receiving your reports, In Solidarity, Western Hemisphere Conference Continuations Committee ˆ Add me and/or my organization to the list of endorsers of the April Continental Days of Action. [ ] Find enclosed a contribution of $ _____ to help cover the conference back debt and to defray the ongoing expenses of the Continuations Committee. [ ] Add my name and/or that of my organization to the Continuations Committee. NAME UNION/ORG ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP FAX EMAIL Fill out the coupon above and send to: SF LABOR COUNCIL, 1188 FRANKLIN ST. #203, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109. TELS. (415) 440-4809 or 681-5868. FAX: (415) 440-9297. E-MAIL: unite@igc.apc.org $*$*$*$*$ 5 LINES REFORMATTED BY POPPER AT igc.apc.org $*$*$*$*$ --WebTV-Mail-210977318-2012-- From xcruz@webtv.net Fri Jan 23 10:02:09 1998 From: xcruz@webtv.net (# #) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 10:02:02 -0700 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Fwd: Mediacopy article (fwd) --WebTV-Mail-1144432891-2710 --WebTV-Mail-1144432891-2710 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 09:38:12 -0700 (MST) Reply-To: dnathan@utep.edu Sender: owner-FRONTERA-L@cornell.edu From: Debbie Nathan To: dbacon@igc.apc.org Subject: Mediacopy article (fwd) CITY TO UNION-BUSTERS: "WELCOME TO EL PASO!" copyright Debbie Nathan (Texas Observer Jan.30, 1998) "New Business Brings More Local Jobs. El Paso Work Force Ready." These were the cheery headlines that ran in the El Paso Times, as Mediacopy Inc. prepared to move from California to Texas -- and to receive a $19 million break in local property taxes over the next decade. El Paso Mayor Carlos Ramirez and the city's Office of Economic Development touted the move, which was arranged through El Paso's tax abatement program. The deal meant that local taxing entities would relinquish hundreds of thousands of property tax dollars destined for the schools and the county's public hospital; in exchange, Mediacopy would bring in dozens of managerial and technical positions, as well as 173 jobs at $8 an hour for blue-collar workers. What local officials didn't know, though, was that Mediacopy's reputation in California is seriously tainted. Last year, charges flew on the West Coast that the firm was mistreating its workers, encouraging immigration service raids, and even illegally manipulating employees trying to organize a union. More than once, demonstrators took to the streets to protest the company's treatment of its workers. The San Francisco-area press printed numerous stories about the conflict. Several are posted on the Internet -- easily accessible to anyone logging on, including personnel at the El Paso's Office of Economic Development. But no one there did their homework, and earlier this month, Mediacopy sailed through tax abatement hearings at City Hall and County Commissioners Court. Here's what El Pasoans didn't know about Mediacopy. And here are some not-so-cheery things about tax abatement programs in general -- issues being discussed among local city planners, but for long ignored by most media. ** Even if you've never heard of Mediacopy, if you've rent films from Blockbuster Video you've probably used its products. As its name implies, the company is in the business of dubbing movies to tape. It was started (under a different name) by John Roth, an entrepreneur who originally amassed his fortune by running a string of adult-pornography stores in the Bay Area. Roth later left the porno business to start a tape-copying venture, and by 1995 he was grossing $68 million a year, duplicating films for giants like MGM and Blockbuster. Mediacopy is the biggest video-copying company in the United States, and the third largest in the world. To make its tapes, Mediacopy employs about 900 blue-collar workers in two Northern California facilities: one in San Leandro, just across the bay from San Francisco, and the other in nearby Hayward. Most of the workers are in San Leandro, operating assembly lines that dub and package the videos. In Hayward, finished products are prepared for distribution by some 200 employees. Eighty percent are Latinos, most of them immigrants from countries like Nicaragua, El Salvador and Mexico. Labor problems have long plagued Mediacopy. Difficulties first came to light last January. It was then that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) staged a raid on the San Leandro facility -- an event that the San Francisco media called the biggest worksite arrest operation in Northern California history. According to workers present at the raid, it started after management ushered staff to the cafeteria under the pretext of holding a "safety meeting." Dozens of police and INS agents then entered, eventually arresting more than 100 people. Many -- including distraught mothers who were separated from their children -- were deported. Mediacopy says it had no choice: either cooperate with the INS or be fined. But why was the INS there in the first place? According to the San Francisco Chronicle, and to internal company documents, January's raid was not the first visit the company had received from the INS. Claudette Langley, a reporter with the San Leandro Times, has extensively covered Mediacopy. Langley says that by 1997, the company had developed a reputation in the Bay Area for hiring workers without doing any meaningful inspection of their documents. The accumulation of INS investigations and raids infuriated workers, particularly those who were American citizens or legal residents. It appears that there are other grievances. I recently spoke with two middle-aged Mediacopy employees. Both asked that their names not be published: the company's handbook warns workers that they can be disciplined for saying anything negative about the firm, or even for discussing wages. One worker came to Mediacopy desperate for employment after being laid off from another job. Another was compelled to seek work after her husband was disabled by a heart attack. Both report that Mediacopy hired them in 1996 at $5 an hour. It classified them as "temporary workers," even though they typically worked 40 hours a week or more, for many months. "For more than a year," says one of these workers, "I worked five days a week and we also had to work weekends. Sometimes we'd have to come in six or seven days in a row, from 5 a.m. to 3:30 p.m." The worker says that people who didn't want overtime were threatened with discipline or firing. Meanwhile, so-called "temporaries" got no benefits, no sick leave, no vacation, and no health insurance. "I used to ask, 'How long will I be a temp?'" the worker says. "They had no answer." Sixty percent of Mediacopy's labor force were classed as "temporaries" even though they were directly employed by the company. I spoke with Gerald Drozd, Mediacopy's chief financial officer, who was in town earlier this month for tax abatement heaings. Drozd at first claimed that the San Leandro and Hayward workers were classed as temps because their work was "seasonal." But when it was pointed out that employees labored long hours over periods of months and years, he amended his answer: "It's really the workers' choice if they want to come on as temporaries...They don't have to take these jobs." Harsh working conditions, no benefits, low wages and finally the INS raid, pushed the workers toward activism. Within three days after the arrests, an overwhelming majority signed cards saying they wanted a union. Organizers from the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's (ILWU) Local 6 gathered the cards and prepared for a union election scheduled for late March. Then, organizers say, Mediacopy began its campaign to defeat the union. The company hired Strategic Human Relations Services, a firm that specializes in advising companies on how to keep their employees from unionizing. Subsequently, Mediacopy fired over 100 "temporary" employees. They were told to reapply for their jobs by going to a real temporary agency. Soon the same workers were back at Mediacopy. The company justified the firings and rehirings by saying it had to correct its problems with the INS. Union organizer Alfredo Flotte disagrees, and says the reshuffling was intended to eliminate "yes" votes for the ILWU. Indeed, the company claimed that its temporary-agency workers weren't employed by the firm and thus couldn't vote in the election. A judge disagreed and ruled that the temporaries could vote. But Flotte says the company continued to tell workers that temporaries couldn't cast ballots. Such statements were very intimidating to the mostly foreign, non- English-speaking employees, says one of the workers interviewed for this story. Mediacopy spokesman Drozd will not comment on the union's or worker's allegations. While dozens of workers were being fired and rehired, others were promoted to permanent status, complete with health and vacation benefits and raises of as much as $2.50 per hour. Flotte thinks these upgradings were also intended to eradicate "yes" votes. He believes they were illegal under federal National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rules, which forbid companies from bribing or intimidating workers during union election campaigns. The union also says that besides tinkering with "temporary" and permanent status, Mediacopy tried to sway votes by telling workers that if ILWU won the election, there would be strikes, violence, a decline in business, a possible move out of town, and more INS raids. According to the union, this last suggestion frightened many employees. They got even more scared in late February, when the company announced that the INS wanted to review the papers of 140 workers. Half those people promptly disappeared, taking their votes with them. On March 24 last year, the election was held, and the union was defeated in a 197 to 306 vote. Next day workers received an unsigned memo on Mediacopy stationery. Whoever wrote it incorrectly stated that the union had won. The writer invited workers to visit a Mediacopy counselor for advice about "the problems you will face such as: hunger, homelessness, and survival in a cold and brutal world." The reason for impending disaster? Because of the union victory, the memo advised, "the company has embarked on a course of action that will relocate Mediacopy out of Union jurisdiction....[to] our new home in the "right to work" state of Texas." Lawyers for the union immediately filed an NLRB complaint, accusing the company of numerous acts of illegal intimidation. The memo is considered only one such act. The NLRB will hold a hearing in Oakland on February 9 to decide if the company violated labor law, and if the workers were so cowed that fair balloting will never be possible. In that case, the union will win the right to represent Mediacopy workers without an election. Company spokesman Drozd refuses to comment on the NLRB complaint. But he denies that the memo could have been written by the company since "how would we even know anything about Texas back then?" El Paso's economic development office, however, was already working with Mediacopy when the memo was distributed. Clearly, the company knew about Texas "back then." But Texas didn't know about Mediacopy. During the year and a half that Development Department head Roberto Franco and his assistant Brook Ward courted the company, neither researched its background, other than to ask Mediacopy itself for information. The deal that developed amid this lack of vigilance is a sweet one for Mediacopy -- some $200,000 per year in tax breaks for ten years, under an abatement program that has been in place since 1991. The plan gives companies as much as a 50 percent tax break on their machines and inventory, and 50 percent on property improvements, like new buildings. During the past fifteen years, tax abatement programs have become popular in cities nationwide suffering from blighted neighborhoods or -- like El Paso -- steep unemployment. Though many communities welcome the abatements as a way to attract jobs, a growing number of urban planners, educators, and politicians question the wisdom of weakening the property-tax base and denying needed income to schools and public hospitals. Franco is one of the skeptics. Tax abatement programs have been allowed by federal law since the early 1980s, he says. Since then, the schemes have ignited a national bidding war, with companies hopping from one town to another, shopping for abatement bargains and behaving like transnationals that move from one low-wage country to another. In the domestic tax-abatement race, however, schools are often sucked dry of badly needed funds. "If El Paso didn't have such a high, drastic unemployment rate," Franco says, "we wouldn't need this tax abatement business. I'd like to see the federal government completely outlaw it." It might take an act of Congress to outlaw abatements. Last year, a tax-abatement ban was defeated in the Texas Legislature, despite support by Lieutenant Governor Bob Bullock and Waco Senator David Sibley, one of the most respected Republicans in the now Republican-controlled Senate. A bill that would have protected school district monies from abatements was also submitted and defeated. Franco says that nationwide tax abatements leave El Paso no choice but to "offer a little bone" to companies in order to compete. Locally, however, Franco is trying to clamp as tight a muzzle as possible on what he considers a necessarily evil. When he took over the Office of Economic Development in 1991, companies could claim tax abatement without any commitment to provide decent wages or full-time hours. El Paso has long been known as a right-to- work, low-wage area, Franco says. But the Economic Development office is "trying to dispel that mentality." Currently in El Paso, a business seeking abatements must guarantee workers at least 35 hours of work per week and hire directly, without going through temporary agencies. The company must also pay a minimum of $6.26 an hour -- which is better than minimum wage, but still puts a family of four below the federal poverty level. Franco is pushing to raise that amount to $8.25. And he will go before city council by the end of the month to propose that area school district taxes be exempted from abatements. If the ordinance passes, El Paso will finally catch up with a statewide trend -- in 1995, the last year figures were available, only 14 percent of tax abatements agreements made by local governments in Texas included school district participation. Despite Franco's concerns about the pitfalls of tax abatements, he says he's not worried about Mediacopy's checkered reputation. "Our tax abatement policy disallows temporary workers," he notes. "Plus, we get quarterly reports from all companies using tax abatements, indicating whether they are holding to their commitments for number of jobs, wages, and so on." Franco says that if Mediacopy violates its agreements, its abatement will be cancelled after a year. Yet there is only so much that Franco's department can do to regulate the company. Under its tax abatement contract, Mediacopy could bring a few good positions, but later import many more low- paid jobs without benefits, jobs not subject to tax break rules and municipal monitoring. Currently, Mediacopy spokespeople say, they plan only to transfer management and administrative-technical people, as well as the work from the Hayward distribution center. That means that the Hayward plant is closing down. Nevertheless, 700 production jobs are supposed to stay in San Leandro. But workers there are afraid. Given the bitterness of the union campaign, organizers and employees harbor deep suspicions that Mediacopy intends to flee the Bay Area for good. According to ILWU's Flotte, rumors to that effect have been raging for months. Until earlier this month, the company's response was generally to deny they were considering a move to Texas. Economic Development Department analyst Ward does not disallow the possibility that Mediacopy could move everything to El Paso: "They may be planning a move of production, but we're not privy to their plans over the next ten years," he says. Franco says that even if the company were to import low-paid jobs with no fringe benefits, that work would still help impoverished El Pasoans. It seems like in a city accustomed to an unemployment rate that is always higher than 10 percent, and which the federal government says has lost more jobs to NAFTA than any other city, has decided that minimum-wage jobs are better than no jobs at all. Mediacopy spokesman Drozd will neither confirm nor deny that Mediacopy will use temporary workers in El Paso: "We haven't gotten to the point of thinking whether or not to do that," he says. Other company officialshave said they're interested in El Paso because of its proximity to Mexico. That raises the question of whether Mediacopy intends to export its production or packaging jobs. At the company's proposed East El Paso facility, resumes were already being solicited when the news broke earlier this month about the company's labor and immigration problems. Local union leaders were outraged, and County Commissioner Carlos Aguilar III said he would introduce a resolution before the Commissioners Court to repeal Mediacopy's tax abatement. At an eleventh-hour, private powwow with Mediacopy on January 14, however, Aguilar agreed to abandon the repeal, after the company said it would increase fringe benefits for jobs listed on its abatement application. Just what those benefits are, however -- or whether they really exist -- is a mystery. Aguilar's office did not respond when asked for details, and Economic Development office head Franco would not let the Observer examine Mediacopy's paperwork. In response to a Texas Open Records Act request, the city attorney, citing an Attorney General's opinion, said abatement applications are not subject to the open records law. Meanwhile, El Paso Community College, Thomason (El Paso's county hospital), and the Socorro Independent School District have yet to approve tax abatements for Mediacopy. The Mediacopy employees interviewed said they want to pass a message to El Pasoans interested in working for their boss. "Don't trust the company at all," one says. "Be very careful and don't sign anything until you know what's going on," adds another. ########  --WebTV-Mail-1144432891-2710-- From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Sat Jan 24 14:39:03 1998 Sat, 24 Jan 1998 13:36:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 13:36:05 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: A Union City? Why not? What percentage of the annual net increase of Canada-U.S. are going to be unionized? That is enough people for a number of Large Scale Co-Operatives (LSC's) along Mondragon lines. FWP. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 22:39:41 -0200 From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: Alternate Economics for Future Cities. (fwd) Any Future Village/Future City which I would buy into at this time would have to have a well reasoned out alternate economic model.That model would explain in advance how it is going to solve the problems of full employment and productive capacity to meet the community's needs. Economic self-sufficiency is a must. NAFTA/GATT/MAI/APEC etc. are "Big Boy's Clubs". They exist to serve the wishes of the 350-400 billionaire clans on the planet. Do I get upset about this? No. I will never picket these meetings. It is a better use of my time to encourage people to develop alternatives. The billionaires are doing what is natural-protecting their own interests. Dr. MacLeod's model (Large Scale Co-operative like Mondragon) and Jacques Fresco's Resource Based Economics are different but both are steps in the right direction and can be integrated along with other economic models in the final plan for a Future Village/Future City. FWP. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:11:47 -0800 (PST) From: Franklin Wayne Poley To: Greg MacLeod Subject: Re: Alternative Investment Code (=R.B.E.?). Dear Professor MacLeod: Then I would say we are on the same wave length after all. Working out the details of a "Resource Based Economic System" as the Venus Project has proposed would take a large number of worker-hours. Just a guess but let's say the Bus. Admin. Faculty at SFU where I got my formal business training would require all of its staff time for a year. But once that is worked out the whole world will benefit and no-one would ever again have to be held for ransom my the billionaire clans behind NAFTA/GATT/MAI/APEC etc. Sincerely-FWP. PS-If anyone orders your Mondragon book as mentioned in your footer (and I would recommend that they do so) please note that the email is ns, as above, not n.s. On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Greg MacLeod wrote: > -- [ From: Greg MacLeod * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- > > DEar Franklin Wayne Poley, > > This is just a short reply. I prefer that each local economy be completely > self-sufficient. This is a value judgement for me. However, I do not have > empirical evidence that it is possible. > My position then is that each local community should do as much as possible > for itself. Only when it has exhausted its local potential should it go on > to other systems for economic needs. > This is in the sense of the medieval principle of subsidiarity. Start at > the bottom of a system and only move up to next level when necessary. > > happy new year > > greg MacLeod > -------- REPLY, Original message follows -------- > > Date: Monday, 12-Jan-98 02:15 PM > > From: Franklin Wayne Poley \ Internet: (fwpoley@vcn.bc.ca) > To: gmacleod@uccb.ns.ca \ Internet: (gmacleod@uccb.ns.ca) > cc: Richard Douthwaite \ Internet: (rdouth@iol.ie) > cc: cipany@igc.apc.org \ Internet: (cipany@igc.apc.org) > cc: chines@dial.pipex.com.futurework@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca \ Internet: > (chines@dial.pipex.com.futurework) > cc: venus@ct.net \ Internet: (venus@ct.net) > cc: publabor@relay.doit.wisc.edu \ Internet: (publabor@relay.doit.wisc. > edu) > > Subject: Re: Alternative Investment code > > I respectfully disagree with Professor MacLeod. The entire global economy, > irrespective of what X Files says, is a closed economic system. It starts > with a beginning inventory of minerals and mineral concentrates, > coal/oil/gas/wood, livestock and seeds and transforms it step by step into > all of the goods and services which mankind needs. If 6 billion can turn > those resources into all of the amenities of life what about 600 million or > 6 million? With the best use of robots and computers that number becomes > smaller and smaller. So smaller and smaller countries could create > comprehensive, closed economic systems. That is my understanding of what > Jacque Fresco (Venus Project) means by "Resource Based Economics" but I > will cc Jacque and perhaps he can correct me if I am in error. FWP. > > On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Greg MacLeod wrote: > > > -- [ From: Greg MacLeod * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- > > > > Dear Richard Douthwaite, > > > > Your analysis of capital transfer is very good, but the problem is to > > find an alternative. I cant see a closed economic system as surviving. > > I helped organized a community fund in cape BReton, Canada and am > involved > > in Mexico. I think it would be terrific to establish a network of people > who > > want to come up with better workable solutions. > > We would like to build a hotel in Yucatan but owned by mayans. > > How do we finance it. > > One idea.. sell shares in foreign currency , but pay dividends in free > days > > in the hotel?? > > Could we sell shares at $ 5000. each and pay with two > free > > weeks per year .. it would be near the Uxmal pyramid in the Yucatan > > > > it is an idea. I can provide the field site for the test if the group can > > find theinvestors. > > OUr project is on web www.idrc.ca/books/reports/1996/20-01e > > greg MacLeod > > University-College of Cape Breton > > > > > > -------- REPLY, Original message follows -------- > > > > Date: Monday, 12-Jan-98 09:32 AM > > > > From: Richard Douthwaite \ Internet: (rdouth@iol.ie) > > To: cipany@igc.apc.org \ Internet: (cipany@igc.apc.org) > > cc: chines@dial.pipex.com.futurework@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca \ Internet: > > > (chines@dial.pipex.com.futurework@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca) > > cc: futurework-digest@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca \ Internet: > > (futurework-digest@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca) > > cc: FW-L@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca \ Internet: (fw-l@dijkstra.uwaterloo. > ca) > > cc: fw-l-digest@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca \ Internet: > > (fw-l-digest@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca) > > > > Subject: Alternative Investment code > > > > Dear Colin and Ward: > > > > I received the draft of your Alternative Investment Code via the > FutureWork > > list. I am afraid that while what you suggest would be considerably better > > than MAI, it would still be damaging. Net capital flows between countries, > > or even between one part of a country and another, need to be completely > > prohibited if we are ever to construct a sustainable world. This might > sound > > such an extreme position as to be totally off the wall, so let me try to > > explain why I have been forced into it: > > > > It might be thought that allowing outside investors to put funds into > > sustainable projects in unsustainable national economies would allow > those > > economies to reach sustainability faster. Is this the case? The answer in > > all circumstances is no. For example, if the interest on this capital has > to > > be paid in an external currency which has to be earned by selling its > goods > > and services on external markets in competition with output from places > > which subsidise their prices by using unsustainable systems, the need to > > become internationally competitive to earn this external currency will > > undermine the territory's path to sustainability: social and environmental > > standards will be eroded away. > > > > Even if the interest has to be paid in a currency which can only be earned > > trading in sustainably-produced goods, there are two reasons why capital > > transfers between territories, or even parts of the same territory, should > > be discouraged.. One is that capital creates work in the place it is spent > . > > In Ireland after independence, the banking system collected savings from > the > > rural areas and lent them in urban ones, enabling factories, shopping > > parades, cinemas and houses to be built. This work required young men from > > the rural areas who needed housing, shops, pubs and recreational > facilities > > in the towns, especially if they married a girl from the country herself. > > These needs created a further demand for loans and more work for the > > building trade. Meanwhile, back at home, businesses went into decline > > because the young people had left, and it became very difficult to find > new > > projects which would support the rate of interest being asked by the banks > > in view of the declining population. So with fewer opportunities there, > the > > emigration from the countryside went on and whole villages were completely > > abandoned. Capital transfers are therefore destabilising and undesirable > > even within the same territory if more than, say, twenty miles is involved > . > > > > The second reason for rejecting external investment is even more powerful. > > It is that people investing outside the areas in which they live can only > be > > interested in one thing - the rate of return they get on their money. All > > the other income streams their investment starts - payments to workers and > > suppliers, for example - are seen as reducing their profits and every > effort > > is therefore made to minimise them. If someone invests in a project in > their > > own community, however, there are many ways in which they can get a return > > on their money quite apart from the interest they receive. Indeed, these > non > > -interest returns might be so important that those financing the project > > might be prepared to charge no interest at all and even contribute to an > > annual loss in order to be sure it goes ahead. This might be because the > > project will provide employment for themselves or their children. Or > because > > it will increase incomes in the area and help their existing business do > > better. Or because it will cut unemployment, thus reducing family > breakdown > > and crime. > > > > Community investment projects are therefore very different animals from > > those run for the benefit of outside investors. For one thing, they seek > to > > maximise the total incomes the project generates in the community, not > just > > the profit element. So, far from seeing the wage bill as a cost to be > > minimised, they regard it as one of the project's major gains. Attitudes > to > > work are different too. Whereas outside investors seek to de-skill work > > within the factory so that they can hire the cheapest possible labour, a > > community company, particularly a workers' co-op, would want the work to > be > > organised so that those doing it find it interesting and fulfilling. > > > > Outside investors also have very short time-horizons for their projects, > > wanting to earn their capital back in three or four years . After that, if > > necessary, they can close the plant and move on. Communities, on the other > > hand, need long-term incomes for long-term projects like raising children, > > and a community-owned factory would want to produce for a safe, stable > > markets, most probably in its own area, rather than the market with the > > highest immediate rate of return. Similarly, while outside investors > merely > > ensure that a plant's emission levels stay within the law because anything > > better would cost them money, a community company is likely to work to > much > > higher standards to avoid fouling its own nest. > > > > The different effects of external and community investment are therefore > so > > marked that any territory seeking to become sustainable has to try to stop > > capital moving in either direction across its borders. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Richard Douthwaite > > > > > > > > -------- REPLY, End of original message -------- > > > > > > -- > > Greg MacLeod > > University College of Cape Breton > > P.O. Box 5300 > > Sydney, N.S.- B1P 6L2 > > CANADA > > > > FAX 902-567-0153 > > Univ. tel 902-539-5300 > > Res. 902-562-2420 > > > > E-MAIL GMACLEOD@SPARC.UCCB.N.S.CA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ***** Usenet on Future Villages: vcn.false-creek; listserv on Future Cities: > send an email to khadija@wn.apc.org with "subscribe your-email-address" in > the body; URL updates: ***** > > > -------- REPLY, End of original message -------- > > > -- > Greg MacLeod > University College of Cape Breton > P.O. Box 5300 > Sydney, N.S.- B1P 6L2 > CANADA > > FAX 902-567-0153 > Univ. tel 902-539-5300 > Res. 902-562-2420 > > E-MAIL GMACLEOD@SPARC.UCCB.N.S.CA > > > > > > > > ***** Usenet on Future Villages: vcn.false-creek; listserv on Future Cities: send an email to khadija@wn.apc.org with "subscribe your-email-address" in the body; URL updates: ***** From xcruz@webtv.net Wed Jan 28 09:30:10 1998 From: xcruz@webtv.net (Robert Chavez) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:30:04 -0700 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Fwd: Re: [CLR] NICARAGUA: MAQUILA WORKERS STRIKE & GAIN VICTORY (fwd) --WebTV-Mail-892001618-448 --WebTV-Mail-892001618-448 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:25:22 -0500 (EST) From: Miguel Juarez To: bo645@rgfn.epcc.edu, xcruz@webtv.net Subject: Re: [CLR] NICARAGUA: MAQUILA WORKERS STRIKE & GAIN VICTORY (fwd) In-Reply-To: On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Roberto Calderon wrote: > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:39:18 -0800 (PST) > From: Campaign for Labor Rights > To: clr@igc.org > Subject: Nicaraguan workers gain victory! > > Labor Alerts: a service of Campaign for Labor Rights > To receive our email labor alerts, send a message to CLR@igc.apc.org > 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. > > NICARAGUAN MAQUILA WORKERS STRIKE AND GAIN VICTORY > January 27, 1998 > > [Information provided by the Nicaragua Network Education Fund] > > Approximately 1,800 workers at the Chentex Garment factory in the Las > Mercedes Free Trade Zone in Managua, Nicaragua, staged a total work > stoppage for six hours on January 26 protesting the firing of 21 of the 90 > workers who had signed papers in support of a union in the factory. The > papers had been presented to the Ministry of Labor on Friday, January 23. > The firings began the next day. The sit-down strike started in the early > morning of the 26th and lasted through several hours of negotiations until > management committed itself to rehire the workers who had been let go on > Saturday. The workers promised to go back to work immediately and, in the > future, to exhaust all legal avenues before going on strike. > > Both sides agreed that, with regard to the union that has been organized > in the factory by the Federation of Garment, Textile, Leather and Shoe > Workers (CST), it is up to the Office of Union Associations at the Labor > Ministry to decide if the standards set by law are met for its legal > registration. > > Vilma Nunez, president of the Nicaraguan Center for Human Rights (CENIDH), > mediated during the negotiations after first encountering difficulty > gaining entry to the factory. Free Trade Zone administrators told her > that, since a representative of the Labor Ministry was talking with the > workers and management, her presence was not necessary. While the Labor > Ministry representative was not happy with her mediation, factory manager > Lucas Ming Wei accepted CENIDH's role. Nunez accused the Labor Ministry > representative of taking the side of management and arguing over every > detail of the accord during the negotiations. > > [Note: There currently is considerable debate among segments of the > anti-sweatshop movement as to what form - if any - independent monitoring > might best take so as to support the emergence of viable labor unions in > the global south. One form for independent monitoring is that illustrated > by the role of CENIDH and its president, Vilma Nunez, in the Chentex > crisis. On an as-needed basis and at the invitation of the union, CENIDH > interceded to break a deadlock. Then CENIDH withdrew so as not to supplant > the functions best served by the union. CENIDH helped the union to survive > so that the workers could defend their own interests through their own > organization, a free trade union. In the next several issues of our > newsletter, Campaign for Labor Rights will be providing a forum for people > on various sides of the independent monitoring question to state their > views - see top of alert for subscription information. Meanwhile, in > addition to such theoretical discussion, it is useful to examine what does > and does not work in real-life struggles such as the one at Chentex.] > > The Ministry of Labor now has two weeks to rule on the legalization of the > Chentex Garment factory union. This would be the third union with legal > recognition in the Free Trade Zone. The others are at Fortex, a > Taiwanese-owned factory where a collective bargaining agreement is in > force, and Jem III, a U.S.-owned factory. > > At Chentex, workers have protested a change-over to pay stubs which do not > indicate how many pieces have been sewn each week and thus make claims > difficult if salaries are not correct, as well as restrictions on > permission to go to the doctor when sick, and to use the bathrooms and > drink water when necessary. > > Workers expressed concern that the Ministry of Labor had leaked to factory > management the list of workers who had signed a document in support of the > union. "The Labor Ministry betrayed us; it has sold out!" said Gladys > Manzanares Tercero, one of the leaders among the workers who was fired on > Saturday. A Labor Ministry inspector said that the charge would be > investigated. > > International solidarity in the form of faxes went to the Minister of > Labor from the LABOR DEFENSE NETWORK/Latin America Emergency Response > Network and members of the Campaign for Labor Rights. Faxes urged that > the workers who had been fired be reinstated immediately. If you saw the > alert that was posted on January 26 and have not yet sent a fax, you do > not now need to send it. Congratulations to all who sent faxes on the > 26th! > > For more information contact: Nicaragua Network Education Fund (202) > ; National Labor Committee (212) 242-3002, > . > > To find out how to become a subscriber to the LABOR DEFENSE NETWORK (which > will send faxes in your name in response to other such violations of > workers' rights in Mexico and Central America), contact 202-544-9355 or > . > --WebTV-Mail-892001618-448-- From jschaffner@igc.org Wed Jan 28 17:11:45 1998 Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:06:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:06:02 -0800 (PST) To: LABOR-RAP@csf.colorado.edu From: Jay Schaffner (by way of Jay Schaffner ) Subject: AFSCME DC37 Condemns Witch-hunt Against the President For Immediate Release : January 28, 1998 District Council 37 (AFSCME) Passes Resolution in Support of President Clinton DC 37 Delegates Condemn *Witch-hunt* Against the President On Tuesday, January 27, the delegates of District Council 37, the city's largest municipal employees union, passed by unanimous vote a resolution defending President Clinton. The vote took place at DC 37's monthly delegates meeting. The resolution which was introduced by Ray Markey, President of Local 1930 New York Public Library Guild, reads as follows: Whereas DC 37 supported President Bill Clinton in his two successful runs for U.S. President, Whereas AFSCME and the AFL-CIO also supported President Clinton, Whereas the current inquisition being carried out by the special prosecutor on behalf of the far right in this country is a threat not only to President Clinton but also to the entire labor movement, Therefore, be it resolved that the special prosecutor's witch-hunt against the President should be ended and that not one penny more of taxpayers' money be used to carry out this right-wing political attack. ======================================== DC 37, which represents 120,000 public employees in New York City, is affiliated with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. DC 37 endorsed Clinton in his two runs for the presidency and played a key role in Clinton's crucial 1992 primary victory in New York State. ========================================= For more information: Janet Dewart Bell, Pat Passantino or Donna Silberberg DC 37 (212) 815-1535 or Ray Markey, President (212) 815 - 1928 or 815 - 1930 AFSCME Local 1930 125 Barclay Street New York, NY 10007-2179 ============================================== From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Thu Jan 29 09:08:23 1998 Thu, 29 Jan 1998 08:07:35 -0800 (PST) Thu, 29 Jan 1998 07:56:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 07:56:53 -0800 (PST) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Neptune Jade Update and Call for Demonstration Feb. 26. (fwd) [Apologies in advance for duplicates received due to cross-posting.] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:29:38 -0800 From: Albert Lannon Subject: Neptune Jade Update and Call for Demonstration Feb. 26. For those who may not have heard of this outrageous assault on academic freedom, free speech, and student activism, following is a brief account, update, and call for action supported by the Labor-Faculty Network. Over two years ago 500 Liverpool dockers were fired by the privatized Mersey Docks & Harbors Co.for refusing to cross a picketline. Acts of solidarity by dockworkers around the world have kept the case alive, including two shutdowns of the west coast by the ILWU. On September 29, 1997, a Mersey-loaded ship, the Neptune Jade, arrived in Oakland. Dockworkers refused to cross a picketline made up of labor and community activists, and some members of the Laney College Labor Studies Club. Two days later a temporary restraining order was obtained by Pacific Maritime Assn. limited pickets to four in the driveway of Berth 23. Mass picketing continued. After four days the ship sailed to Vancouver with its cargo still aboard where longshore workers refused to unload it. Then it went to Yokohama, where the Mersey-loaded cargo was left aboard. The ship was sold to Taiwan, and rumor has it the new name is "The Flying Dutchman." (Late word is that the Liverpool dockers have decided to call off their picketing, shifting the focus of solidarity actions directly to defense of Oakland demonstrators.) Pacific Maritime Association, as part of a new "get-tough" employer policy towards the ILWU, is suing all concerned, the ILWU, individual pickets, Laney College Labor Studies Club, Labor Party,Peace and Freedom Party (all identified by their banners) and "John Does," meaning any names they can find. Picket Captain Robert Irminger was tried for contempt, violating the TRO; the judge found the violation "de minimis" and the picketing peaceful, and imposed a small fine. Several people who testified for Robert are now being named as defendants. Defendants are supposed to respond to plaintiff's interrogatories and answer questions like Name Everyone You Know Who Attended the Demonstrations, What Political Parties Have You Ever Belonged To?, etc. The Laney College Labor Studies Department Chair was told to produce membership lists of the Labor Studies Club and name names. Lawyers for several defendants filed anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) motions, the first of which will be heard on February 26. Other legal actions seem to be on hold pending action on the anti-SLAPP motions. The Liverpool Dockers' Victory Defense Committee has called for a rally at the office of Pacific Maritime Association preceding the hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion. At Laney College, some 150 letters and e-mails from educators and others throughout the US and around the world have convinced a reluctant administration to provide at least temporary representation for the Labor Studies Dept. chair, but not for the Labor Studies Club. The administration has introduced rules for student organizations prohibited picketing, boycotting or demonstrating, meeting between school sessions, or carrying their banner which reads "Laney College Labor Studies Club." (Curiously, Laney President Earnest Crutchfield says that wearing Laney hats or tee shirts at demonstrations is okay, just not the banner.) The student Inter-Club Council has voted to reject the administrations rules, and to "direct" the administration not to release names of students to the employer attorneys. So far the school is agreeing not to release names, although they've made it clear that they will not stand up to a judge's order if one comes down the road. The Peralta Federation of Teachers is supporting Labor Studies and has directed a resolution to the Board of Trustees. PFT resolutions are also going to the CFT convention and the Labor Council, which has sent its own letter of concern to school officials. So: On February 26, 1998, when the first anti-SLAPP motion is to be heard in Oakland Superior Court, Dept. 81, there will be a lively and legal demonstration at 8 a.m. at the headquarters of the Pacific Maritime Association, 500 - 12th Street, downtown Oakland. From there we will march at 9:30 to the court hearing at 10 a.m. and fill the court room. The hearing is at Superior Court Department 81, in the Post Office building at13th & Jackson. At noon, just a few blocks away, there will be a rally in the commons area in the center of Laney College. Laney is at 10th & Fallon. Please join us in struggling for free speech, free assembly, the right of teachers not to become informers, and the rights of students to take what they learn into the real world. For more information call Ellen Starbird or Albert Lannon, Laney College Labor Studies, 510/464-3210. UNITY !! SOLIDARITY !! STRUGGLE !! From aanz@sirius.com Thu Jan 29 23:09:09 1998 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:12:40 -0800 To: From: aanz@sirius.com (anzalone/starbird) Subject: Re: Laney sunk the Neptune Jade >Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:11:40 -0800 > >Greetings! > >As you may already know, after 28 months without work the Liverpool dock >workers caved this week. > >The lawsuit against Laney college Labor Studies continues in retaliation >for the successful action last year turning away (the Liverpool owners >ship) Neptune Jade at Yusen Terminals. > >The Peralta Fed. of Teachers has asked that the Peralta Community College >Dist. take up the issue of a) requiring the administration to assign legal >council to the students and faculty immediately >b) Cease any effort to restrict the students' rights to free speech. > >Your voice in support of worker/students' right to solidarity would be >greatly appreciated. At a speech to the faculty at the begining of the >semester RE: the Vista deannexation vote (scheduled in June) A.J. >Harrison, the chancellor we have been streaming with e-mail looked square >at me and said the administration plans to tighten the budget belt after >deannexation by "cutting the smaller programs" If you can please join me: > >Tuesday, Feb. 3rd, 6:30 pm - 8 pm > >333 E. 8th Street > >Peralta Dist. Board office. > > >Ellen Starbird >464-3210 > From ebonacic@wizard.ucr.edu Fri Jan 30 07:50:24 1998 by wizard.ucr.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA03972; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 06:48:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 06:48:58 -0800 (PST) From: Edna Bonacich To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Thank you!! (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 09:45:39 -0800 From: Anibel Comelo To: ebonacic@wizard.ucr.edu Subject: Thank you!! Please circulate widely. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L.A. COUNTY FEDERATION OF LABOR JOB ANNOUNCEMENT POSITION: Organizing Director, L.A. County Federation of Labor The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor is committed to building Los Angeles as a "union city," and aggressively shifting union resources into organizing the unorganized. To accomplish this, the L.A. County Federation of Labor is establishing a new organizing department, and will be hiring its very first organizing director. The organizing director will be the second highest ranking position within the County Federation, and will report directly to the Executive Secretary Treasurer. JOB RESPONSIBILITIES: Job responsibilities will include: *To work with affiliates of the L.A. County Federation of Labor to assist them in active organizing campaigns. *To coordinate organizing resources among the affiliates of the L.A. County Federation of Labor. *To work with the organizing committee of the L.A. County Federation of Labor, and to strengthen the coordination, communication, and resource sharing among organizers. *To coordinate the work of other organizing components of the AFL-CIO, including the Organizing Institute, Union Summer, Senior Summer, and the L.A. Organizing County Organizing Committee. *To develop a volunteer member organizing committee of the L.A. County Federation of Labor, which will support organizing campaigns through mobilization, rank and file activism, and house calls. *To work closely with the Executive Secretary Treasurer and staff of the L.A. County Federation of Labor to coordinate and integrate political action and organizing, and to build L.A. as a union city. JOB REQUIREMENTS *At least five years of experience as a union organizer. *Ability to develop and lead major organizing campaigns. *Ability to work with the diverse labor community of Los Angeles. *Energy, creativity, vision, and commitment to help develop a culture of organizing within the Los Angeles labor movement. STARTING DATE: February 1998 (extended) SALARY: Negotiable, depending on experience Please submit resume and cover letter to Diane Bullock, L.A. County Federation of Labor, 2130 W. 9th St., Los Angeles, CA 90006. From aanz@sirius.com Fri Jan 30 16:44:35 1998 Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:44:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:47:52 -0800 To: jhook@igc.apc.org From: aanz@sirius.com (anzalone/starbird) Subject: Feb Third cancelled! Michael Eisenscher , Nathan Newman , Unmaid@aol.com, Labor Video Project , jacob a ely , Labor Research and Action Project , karin hart , Laney Organizing Class , ByTheLaw@aol.com, erick@sirius.com, figgins@dnai.com, GertieRuth@aol.com, Neil Lahaie , oiwest@aol.com, timhayes99@hotmail.com, UnionPipe@aol.com, "what@netcom.com cc": THERE WILL NOT be a PERALTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD meeting on February third. Please don't come to 333 E. 8th St. at 6:30 pm as previously requested to speak out in support of the Laney College Labor Studies students' right to picket on Tuesday. The Board has a training program that has altered their schedule for February. But they are NOT scheduled to meet on the TUESDAY coming up, Feb. 3rd and the Neptune Jade issue will therefore NOT be up for board vote on Tuesday. If you know of anyone who was thinking of coming to our defense on tuesday, please pass this message along, with my profound apologies for any inconvenience. Again, my apologies for the inconvenience. I originally requested your attendance at a Peralta Dist. Board meeting yesterday, asking you to attend a board meeting on February third. That meeting has been cancelled. The February 26th rally will proceed as planned. Yours in Solidarity Ellen Starbird (510) 464-3210 From aaron@burn.ucsd.edu Fri Jan 30 23:32:49 1998 Sat, 31 Jan 1998 01:32:33 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 01:20:30 -0500 To: union-d@wolfnet.com From: Aaron Bronstein Subject: Belgian Security Guards on Strike ! (fwd and response) marxism-news@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU, It's always cause for celebration when hired defenders of capitalist property refuse to do their job. However, >The main demand of the unions in the strike is to improve the security of >the transport of valuables. I don't think those of us on the proletarian side of the class war can support the demand for better protection of capitalist property by the armed thugs of the capitalist state. - Aaron P.S. I don't know anything about the incidents in which security guards were killed or injured. If they didn't resist the robbers -- and I hope the guards are smart enough not to put their lives on the line for their bosses -- then their killings, etc., were totally unjustified. P.P.S. I'm sure that as the class war heats up worldwide, there will be many expropriations by leftist guerrillas. I hope that these unionized security guards will be on our side of the class line (or, at worst, neutral) and not force our comrades to harm them. >Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:17:19 GMT >From: Bob_Ramsay@fiet.org >Subject: Belgian Security Guards on Strike ! > >Subject: National Strike by Security Guards in Belgium > >Dear Colleagues, > >Our affiliates in Belgium have informed us of an ongoing national strike in >the private security sector which around 200,000 workers involves all >transport of valuables and cash who are members of our three affiliates >concerned: La Centrale G?n?rale - FGTB, SETCa-FGTB and CCAS-CSC. On January >27, a ballot of the workers involved resulted in an overwhelming majority >of over 80% to continue the strike. > >Workers employed to transport cash and valuables have in recent years >become the victims of ever more serious and frequent attacks and robberies >while carrying out their normal duties. Their patience finally gave up >following an attack at Woluwe St. Lambert in the Brussels area on December >29, 1997 which resulted in the death of one worker and the serious injury >of his colleague, as well as the robbery of 3.15 million BFr. It later >turned out that the security company involved, Brink's Ziegler, a >subsidiary of the multinational Brinks had not informed the police of this >transport and the security officers involved were not equipped with bullet >proof vests. > >On January 12, 1998, another Brinks security van, travelling on the >motorway between Brussels and Li?ge was attacked and robbed. This time two >security guards were the tragic fatal victims of the attack, and their >colleague was in a state of deep shock when admitted to hospital. > >On January 19, the FIET affiliates prepared a list of demands to the >employers in the security sector and had hoped they would form the basis of >negotiations. Following a impasse in negotiations, the workers at Brinks >Ziegler voted to take strike action and they were unanimously joined by >workers at all other security companies in Belgium (including subsidiaries >of the multinationals Group 4 Securitas and Rentokil Initial). > >The main demand of the unions in the strike is to improve the security of >the transport of valuables. Negotiations between the unions, employers and >government have continued and following a new proposal from the employers >which was presented to the unions yesterday, the workers voted >overwhelmingly to continue their strike. > >The FIET secretariat has sent a message of solidarity to our Belgian >affiliates, offering condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of >these brutal robberies and offering our solidarity in their efforts to >achieve adequate security for guards involved in the transport of >valuables. > >Although we do not expect the companies to attempt to undermine the strike >by using companies or workers from countries neighbouring Belgium, we would >nevertheless request that you ensure solidarity with the Belgian workers >and inform us if any companies attempt to undermine the strike. > >If you would like to send a message of solidarity to the striking workers, >please use the following addresses: > >Dan Plaum, National Secretary - CG-FGTB - fax: + 32 2 514 1691 >Vincent Ancora, National Secretary - CCAS-CSC - fax: + 32 2 500 2899 >Jean-Marie Frissen, National Secretary - SETCa-FGTB - fax: + 32 2 511 0508 > >We will keep you informed of further developments. > >Yours in solidarity >Philip J. Jennings >General Secretary From xcruz@webtv.net Sat Jan 31 15:52:55 1998 Received: from mailsorter-105.bryant.webtv.net (mailsorter-105.iap.bryant.webtv.net [207.79.35.95]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id PAA00887 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 15:52:53 -0700 (MST) Received: from mailtod-121.bryant.webtv.net (mailtod-121.iap.bryant.webtv.net [207.79.35.89]) by mailsorter-105.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.5/ms.gso.08Dec97) with ESMTP id OAA00678; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 14:52:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (from production@localhost) by mailtod-121.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.5/mt.gso.08Dec97) id OAA19785; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 14:52:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199801312252.OAA19785@mailtod-121.bryant.webtv.net> From: xcruz@webtv.net (Robert Chavez) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 15:52:51 -0700 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Cc: xcruz@webtv.net Subject: Fwd: Noncompliance with 187 in some California Clinics Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY=WebTV-Mail-690777445-1384 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) --WebTV-Mail-690777445-1384 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT --WebTV-Mail-690777445-1384 Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 11:55:37 EST From: National Network Message-ID: <3344c886.34d3578b@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk Sender: owner-nnirr-news@igc.org Subject: Noncompliance with 187 in some California Clinics To: nnirr-news@igc.apc.org X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 74 Health Clinics Reject Decision to Deny Prenatal Care to Undocumented Women Appeal is in Place to Delay the Decision SACRAMENTO, Calif., Jan. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- In defiance of Governor Pete Wilson's "green light" from a state appellate court Wednesday to cut off prenatal care benefits to 70,000 undocumented immigrants, the California Primary Care Association (CPCA) is directing its 250 member clinics to continue providing prenatal care to all patients. In other words, CPCA is giving the "green light" to community clinics and health centers to provide care and for all women to continue to seek care regardless of the most recent court decision this week. "The battle for prenatal care is long and confusing; however, our message to our member clinics and their patients is clear and simple: Women should continue to seek prenatal care and CPCA clinics should continue to provide that care," said Carmela Castellano, chief executive officer of CPCA. Representing the health clinics is Public Advocates, Inc. who said this decision is in no way final. "The governor has not acted to implement the regulations, yet if he does, we are prepared to immediately appeal to the California State Supreme Court," said attorney John Affeldt. Castellano noted elimination of prenatal care funding is a public health issue. Terminating funding to prenatal care would be devastating to public health by decreasing access to screening and treatment for communicable disease. "California cannot abandon a whole segment of the population who continues to contribute to the economy. Many of these women belong to the workforce which keeps California going," said Jane Garcia, Executive Director of La Clinica de la Raza, Inc. in Oakland and Chair of the Board of CPCA. CPCA is a statewide association representing approximately 250 nonprofit community clinics, health centers and regional clinic consortia, including urban and rural clinics, migrant health centers and free clinics. These clinics deliver primary and preventive health care services to more than 1.3 million people. More than 95 percent of the federally qualified health centers in California belong to CPCA. Letter to Member Clinics follows. January 28, 1998 To All CPCA Member Clinics: RE: Urgent Legislative Alert Yesterday, the California Court of Appeals issued an immediate stay on the injunction to implement the regulations to eliminate funding for the prenatal care program. The court's order will allow the regulations to be enforced while a decision on the legal merits of the case is pending. The state may act as early as Saturday to implement the regulations. CPCA began immediate talks with legal advocates and legislators about this issue. Attorneys plan to ask the California Supreme Court to enjoin the stay order. Senator Vasconcellos is prepared to take up SB34 on the Senate floor tomorrow. SB34 would reauthorize the state-only prenatal care program for undocumented women. It is important that each of you contact your state Senators immediately to ask them to vote "yes" on SB34. Remind them that: Providing pregnancy-related services to all low-income women, regardless of immigration status, is sound fiscal and public health policy. In the meantime, continue to advise your patients to keep their prenatal care appointments. CPCA will advise you of changes as they develop. Sincerely, Carmela Castellano CPCA Chief Executive Officer SOURCE California Primary Care Association CO: California Primary Care Association ST: California IN: HEA SU: 01/29/98 18:00 EST http://www.prnewswire.com --WebTV-Mail-690777445-1384--