From robinson@edtech.mcc.edu Fri Jul 3 17:18:57 1998 Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 19:27:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Robinson To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Help with NEA/AFT Merger Vote Dear Friends, I am the president of a an NEA/MEA (Michigan) local, and I'm sitting here on the convention floorin New Orleans at the NEA Representative Assembly as the Principles of Unity are being debated. The vote is coming in a couple of days, and I am highly conflicted over my decision. If you are interested, the Principles of Unity can be found on the NEA web page: http://www.nea.org/unity/principles.html As you know, the Principles of Unity concern a proposed merger between the NEA and the AFT. Many teachers here are opposed to the idea of joining the AFL-CIO--especially my fellow delegates in Michigan. I am not sure about this, as I have many friends in AFL-CIO unions, and feel very strongly about its important contributions to the labor movement. Many of the other opposition arguments make sense to me, but I wonder if they outweigh the over-all good that would come from a unified educational employees union. I have nearly made the decision to vote NO with the rest of our delegation. I am still skeptical, however, about our reasons and motives. The reason most often cited (apart from fears of AFL-CIO) is diminished representation--that sounds bad, but it also means fewer offices for MEA mucky-mucks and wanna-bes. So if the reasons are personal/political, then I don't think that is strong enough for opposition. I have no problem with joining the AFL-CIO, and despite the valid concerns I am worried that opposition (demonstrated by Michigan, Illinios, New Jersey, among others) comes from a) an inability/unwillingness to see teachers as working people, b) elitism about being "professionals," c) worried about diminished opportunities to get elected to union positions for personal/political reasons. If I am not convinced that these worries of mine are unwarranted by the time of the vote, I will vote YES on the Unity issue, breaking ranks with my MEA collagues. Do members of this list know of other positions on this issue, particularly those taken by working-class academics, activists, and teachers? I can see parts of the current deal that are bad for the MEA (Michigan Education Association), but I won't be a party to opposition based on elitist positions. My temptation is to vote with my caucus, but I am not comfortable with the basis of our opposition. I shared this on the floor of my caucus, but I still am in doubt. We vote soon (tomorrow or the next day). Any ideas? Steve Robinson (810) 762-0483 Mott Community College http://edtech.mcc.edu/~robinson Michigan State University http://www.msu.edu/user/robins11 From LeoCasey@aol.com Sat Jul 4 10:13:12 1998 From: LeoCasey@aol.com Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 12:13:05 EDT To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: Help with NEA/AFT Merger Vote <> I am a very strong proponent of NEA-AFT unity. I take this stance not only as a teacher unionist and a public school teacher of some 14 years, but also as someone who has spent my entire adult life in struggles for progressive and democratic social change. (I spent ten years as a political organizer before I became a teacher.) In view of the challenges which public education faces today, challenges to its very existence as a viable institution, I believe that it is imperative that we put aside the history of battles between the NEA and the AFT, and put aside whatever personal and institutional advantage separate unions may provide us, to build the most powerful, united force we can. Only such a united institution will be able to fend off the very real threats of privatization, vouchers, government underfunding and numerous other threats we face. What have the fruits of NEA and AFT disunity produced in states such as Michigan and Illinois -- the rise of hard right wing political forces which regularly and successfully train their guns on the divided teacher and public education forces. This is a moment of great historical weight, and should they be successful, those who ignore the need for unity in the face of what we face, will find themselves with the empty, phyric fruits of temporary victory which can only lead to the defeat of teacher unionism and public education in the long run. Leo Casey From clawson@sadri.umass.edu Sat Jul 4 20:17:36 1998 Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu; Sat, 4 Jul 1998 22:17:29 -0400 (EDT) 04 Jul 1998 22:17:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 04 Jul 1998 22:17:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Clawson Subject: Re: Help with NEA/AFT Merger Vote In-reply-to: To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu I am the vice-president of our NEA local, professors at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and strongly support merger. An easy way to see why is to consider the messages we will hear if the merger is rejected. The papers, conservative politicians, and a host of others will say that NEA members have concluded: 1. They don't want to be militant 2. They don't want to be like a union, and especially, they don't want to be identified with ordinary workers, instead being sure to maintain their superiority and distance as professionals. 3. Teachers don't believe the situation we face is that serious, and therefore don't want to take any unusual steps to face new challenges. I disagree with each of those points: we need to be militant (our enemies aren't certainly becoming increasingly militant), we need to be a union and see our common interests with other workers, and we face unprecedented attacks and need to be prepared to break with the past if we are to build the kind of future we want to see. Dan Clawson, clawson@sadri.umass.edu > > Dear Friends, > > I am the president of a an NEA/MEA (Michigan) local, and I'm sitting here > on the convention floorin New Orleans at the NEA Representative Assembly > as the Principles of Unity are being debated. The vote is coming in a > couple of days, and I am highly conflicted over my decision. If you are > interested, the Principles of Unity can be found on the NEA web page: > > http://www.nea.org/unity/principles.html > > As you know, the Principles of Unity concern a proposed merger between > the NEA and the AFT. Many teachers here are opposed to the idea of > joining the AFL-CIO--especially my fellow delegates in Michigan. I am > not sure about this, as I have many friends in AFL-CIO unions, and feel > very strongly about its important contributions to the labor movement. > Many of the other opposition arguments make sense to me, but I wonder if > they outweigh the over-all good that would come from a unified > educational employees union. > > I have nearly made the decision to vote NO with the rest of our > delegation. I am still skeptical, however, about our reasons and > motives. The reason most often cited (apart from fears of AFL-CIO) is > diminished representation--that sounds bad, but it also means fewer > offices for MEA mucky-mucks and wanna-bes. So if the reasons are > personal/political, then I don't think that is strong enough for > opposition. I have no problem with joining the AFL-CIO, and despite the > valid concerns I am worried that opposition (demonstrated by Michigan, > Illinios, New Jersey, among others) comes from a) an > inability/unwillingness to see teachers as working people, b) elitism > about being "professionals," c) worried about diminished opportunities to > get elected to union positions for personal/political reasons. If I am > not convinced that these worries of mine are unwarranted by the time of > the vote, I will vote YES on the Unity issue, breaking ranks with my MEA > collagues. > > Do members of this list know of other positions on this issue, > particularly those taken by working-class academics, activists, and > teachers? I can see parts of the current deal that are bad for the MEA > (Michigan Education Association), but I won't be a party to opposition > based on elitist positions. My temptation is to vote with my caucus, but > I am not comfortable with the basis of our opposition. I shared this on > the floor of my caucus, but I still am in doubt. We vote soon (tomorrow > or the next day). Any ideas? > > > > Steve Robinson (810) 762-0483 > Mott Community College http://edtech.mcc.edu/~robinson > Michigan State University http://www.msu.edu/user/robins11 > -- Dan Clawson 413-545-5974 (work) Dept. of Sociology 413-545-0746 (fax) W-36 Machmer Hall 413-586-6235 (home) Univ. of Massachusetts Amherst MA 01003 email = clawson@sadri.umass.edu From jknauss@ssc.wisc.edu Sun Jul 5 09:03:58 1998 Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 22:59:53 -0500 (CDT) From: Jody Knauss To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: Re: Questions Re: GM Strike In-Reply-To: <01bd9f91$8c644de0$0b00a8c0@wave102.cruzio.com> On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Paul Johnston wrote: > Questions re: Outsource Organizing and Labor-Management Strategies at GM > > What can observers close to the scene tell us about union's recent track > record on organizing outsourced sites, domestic and international? also, > about its recent track record on addressing productivity & related > management issues? > > The strike is a fluid & open situation, and there's a lot of room in this > contingency for success or failure. But the basic possibilities in this > watershed strike were certainly defined long ago by union strategies in > these two critical areas. > > Paul johnston@cruzio.com > I thought this was a provocative post and in the interests of not seeing this discussion die from lack of response, I'll put in my two cents. I don't claim to have intimate knowledge of the present situation but I did spend several years in the UAW's research dept before leaving five years ago. The union has had very little success organizing domestic auto parts plants - I believe that the estimates for union coverage in the auto parts sector (not counting the parts operations of the Big 3) are in the neighborhood of 10 percent. The formerly unionized auto parts companies have closed most of their older (unionized) facilities and have successfully fended off organizing efforts in their new plants. Meanwhile lots of new companies, many foreign-based, others new start-ups explicitly gunning for outsourced work, have entered the scene, almost all of these also non- and anti-union. I'm not sure what Paul Johnston means about UAW organizing "internationally". The UAW has ceded Canada to the CAW and is (except for one or two Canadian locals that refuse to join the CAW) an entirely domestic organization. UAW organizing efforts in Mexico or elsewhere would obviously be fraught with all sorts of troublesome issues, but I suppose that shouldn't necessarily rule them off the table. I would venture to say that it is not immediately clear that a Mexican auto or auto parts worker would be more eager to join or have more to gain by joining the UAW as opposed to FAT or a CTM affiliate. The union has had much more success bargaining over productivity-related issues, in large part I think because years of struggle over production standards and related issues developed real union expertise in this area. But no one would suggest that the work pace and/or expectations for work effort haven't increased dramatically over the last 20 years.(You'll notice no one from the union directly defending the rights of Flint workers to meet quota and go home before the shift ends, only that changes in work practices should be offset by investment commitments from GM.) Two last comments: I am more skeptical than Paul Johnston seems to be about the union's ability to have affected the course of events via strategic behavior in earlier periods. The crisis at GM is driven primarily by two events mostly outside the union's influence: the dramatic decline in GM's North American market share and the Toyota-inspired transformation of automobile production over the last 20 or so years. Under these conditions, it is hard to imagine circumstances in which the union wouldn't have found itself in the present predicament. Finally, it should be noted that one under-recognized reason why industrial relations at GM are presently much more volatile at GM than Ford or Chrysler is that the other two slashed their workforces by more than half in the early 80s and so have been able to restructure without the looming shadow of further job cuts. GM was strong enough then to avoid the same fate, but has been dying a death of a thousand cuts since then. I'd be interested in the comments of others. Jody Knauss Dept. of Sociology Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison 1180 Observatory Drive Madison, WI 53706 From ejd@cwsl.edu Sun Jul 5 13:31:20 1998 From: "Ellen Dannin" To: Subject: Re: Questions Re: GM Strike Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 12:31:00 -0700 charset="iso-8859-1" >On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Paul Johnston wrote: > >> Questions re: Outsource Organizing and Labor-Management Strategies at GM >> >> What can observers close to the scene tell us about union's recent track >> record on organizing outsourced sites, domestic and international? also, >> about its recent track record on addressing productivity & related >> management issues? *** >Finally, it should be noted that one under-recognized reason why >industrial relations at GM are presently much more volatile at GM than >Ford or Chrysler is that the other two slashed their workforces by more >than half in the early 80s and so have been able to restructure without >the looming shadow of further job cuts. GM was strong enough then to avoid >the same fate, but has been dying a death of a thousand cuts since then. > >I'd be interested in the comments of others. > > >Jody Knauss >Dept. of Sociology >Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison >1180 Observatory Drive >Madison, WI 53706 In addition to all the factors mentioned, there is a big difference in climate at the various auto companies. When I worked in Detroit, I found that Ford especially acted in a businesslike and rational way. Chrysler was more or less the same, but General Motors was very difficult to deal with. It behaved in ways that seemed irrational and to cause it more harm than good. One labor lawyer very familiar with the auto industry opined that the key motivating factor at GM was saving face -- not thinking in the longterm or about what was best for the business. Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92116 (619) 525-1449 FAX: (619) 696-9999 From robinson@edtech.mcc.edu Mon Jul 6 13:43:34 1998 Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 15:51:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Robinson To: wcs-l@tc.umn.edu Subject: NEA/AFT Upate on the Principles of Unity vote: As you have probably learned alredy, adoption of the Principles failed, 58% to 42%. This surprised many. This morning, the RA adopted NBI #1, which sends the NEA back to the bargaining table with the AFT/AFL-CIO, and leaves state associaitons free to persue mergers with the AFT. The ballot was secret, but I will state that I did decide to break ranks with the MEA caucus and vote YES. I had the privledge of discussing the election results with Don Ephlin, former VP of the UAW yesterday afternoon. We agreed that two major factors resulted in the failure: 1) innaccurate information and lack of NEA education about the AFL-CIO; 2) lack of cohilition building and parternship with state associations. I have a great deal of respect for my MEA president, Julius Maddox, who was an ardent opponent of the principles, and by far the most persuasive speaker against them. To watch him working our delegation and build the NO cohilition with the other states was a real education. Despite the fact that I disagreed with his position, I admire the integrity and power that he exercised on behalf of the Michigan caucus. I am still impressed with the democratic process I have witnessed here on the floor of the RA. Steve Robinson (810) 762-0483 Mott Community College http://edtech.mcc.edu/~robinson Michigan State University http://www.msu.edu/user/robins11 From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Wed Jul 8 15:13:15 1998 Wed, 8 Jul 1998 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 14:12:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: The Growing Anti-Workfare Movement. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 14:00:47 -0700 From: Andrew Mitchell To: ow-watch-l@netserver.web.net Subject: OW-WATCH-L Fw: Miwaukee meeting The following message was sent to me from ACORN and I promised to forward it to the OW-WATCH list. ---------- > From: Campaign Director > To: andy@welfarewatch.toronto.on.ca > Subject: Miwaukee meeting > Date: Tuesday, June 30, 1998 3:09 PM > > ACORN invites you to participate in a National OrganizersU > Summit on Welfare Reform this summer in Milwaukee, > from July 25-27. > > ACORN, joined by labor unions, religious organizations, > and national political leaders, is sponsoring this Summit to > call attention to the consequences of welfare reform, and to > highlight the work of the many organizations that are > mobilizing welfare and workfare recipients to fight back. > > Over 1000 ACORN members from around the country, > along with representatives from scores of other community, > church, and labor organizations, will be coming to > Milwaukee for this event. We chose Milwaukee because > WisconsinUs W-2 program has come to symbolize the worst > abuses of so-called welfare reform. WisconsinUs welfare > recipients have been forced off the rolls in record numbers, > and most have ended up in oppressive sub-minimum wage > workfare slots, or have fallen Rthrough the cracksS onto the > uncertain charity of soup-kitchens, shelters, and > overburdened relatives. A sponsoring committee led by > Milwaukee ACORN and other local organizations working > with W-2 recipients is hard at work planning this event. > > The highlight of the Summit will be a Hearing on Sunday, > July 26, at which a panel of national leaders will be taking > testimony from welfare and workfare recipients from around > the country. The composition of the panel is still in > formation, but early confirmations have come from Linda > Chavez-Thompson, Executive Vice President of the AFL- > CIO; Professor Frances Fox Piven, long-time expert on > welfare rights; well-known writer Barbara Ehrenreich; and > former Administration official Peter Edelman, who resigned > to protest the Clinton welfare legislation. > > Among those testifying will be workfare workers from New > York City who recently voted 17,000 to 200 for form a > union; workfare recipients from Los Angeles who just won a > precedent-setting grievance procedure; welfare recipients > from Boston who just won a commitment from the city to > spend welfare-to-work funds to move people into living > wage jobs; and many other courageous leaders of an > emerging national welfare/workfare rights movement. This > gathering will be unique in its focus on the voices and > experiences of welfare and workfare recipients themselves: > the majority of ACORN members and Summit attendees > have first-hand experience with the welfare system, and are > involved in local and statewide fights against welfare reform. > > The Summit will also include workshops and training > sessions for welfare and workfare leaders and organizers, on > issues such as: how to build effective welfare and workfare > rights organizations; how to impact state and federal policy > issues; how to combine service delivery, including legal > services, with organizing; how to work with community > organizations, unions, and other organizations; and much > more. > > This promises to be an important and well-covered event, > which will play a significant role in amplifying the voices of > welfare and workfare recipients who are struggling first > hand with the consequences of this countryUs disastrous > experiment in ending welfare. We hope you will join us. > > We have arranged inexpensive room and board at local > colleges. For more information on this event, and to reserve > a place, contact: Lisa Donner, at 718-246-7900 ext 243 > acorncampgn@acorn.org > > PO`!1a;~ ~SummaryInformation(;Microsoft Word 6.0.12PO`!1a;~ ~u#;w5s*deS>w1o&dO?@z8t,e R > I u v 0 > g > # > ^ > N ~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p ~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p ~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p- = v 3 g $ c f > Y > > U > FB Y > u > >u u > UMacintosh UserCHard Disk:Desktop Folder:Lisa D:Convention 98:MILW.ANNOUNCEMENT -ee@s > s > s > B > 5=MTimes New Roman Symbol MArial MTimes"1Pht&F$0Macintosh UserMacintosh UserPO`!1a;~ ~R @FW+P$=@CompObj\WordDocument# -ObjectPoolAP$=AP$=}~~~ !"~$%&'()*+,-./0SummaryInformation(;~~Microsoft Word 6.0.13PO`!PO`!1a;~ ~~ @FMicrosoft Word 6.0 Document~NB6WWord.Document.6;~ ~ > r`Oyh++'3Y0 `w > ,8@ > HTq y > luRp* Zdo a g@Hard Disk:Applications:Microsoft Office:Microsoft Word 6:NormalMacintosh UserMacintosh User'@vSrLg@vSrLg@ > fP$=@a~wCgMa~wCom|a} dO{zaKvkmd > ]fayjg Ma~wCgMa~wCom|a} dO{zaMba}kd > Mhvvje mh`*i+ jg > ch`*i gM{|Com|a@ock*jg > ch`*d > g > ch`*dL{gbz.G`e$$$$jg}g`g.wo`i.clg`i{`igj\ gM{|Com|a@ock*dO{zaA~k` > gM{|Com|a@ock*d > Ahvv|j\j\e?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$j\ezoclofo`.jg}g `gj\e)Com|aMa~w.,Ibalob4,.%.M{|Com|a@ock*".Rj_\emh`*.%.,4,.%.]mo`Com|a@ock*j \eIaza.K`jH{`mj\e > Kb}kj\ezoclofo`.jg}g`gj\e'Com|aMa~w.mh`*.%.,4,.%.]mo`Com|a@ock*".Rj_\e,Ibalo b4,.%.M{|Com|a@ock*j\e<$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ja $g K`jH{`m\j\jjiLg > mh`* d4 g]mo`Com|a@ock*|j_\d Ibalob4 gM{|Com|a@ock*bje!.]{mmk}}h{b.ma~w.ygzf.,Kvkm{zk.A`bw,..ozz|gl{zkjgMa~wCom|a }bk K`jH{`m\eD{}z.k`jkjjjjeH{`mzga`.Hg`j.jagz.Egj./jgHg`j@a|cob* gYfk|k@a|cob*j\ibj\iY}dYfk|kG}@a|cob}x}^bj\id\KC.Yfk|k.o|k.wa{1j\ibj\gHg`j@a |cob*i dYfk|kG}@a|cobj\iY}dYfk|kG}@a|cob}^b}j\ibjjjgMfkmeg`ijg > MComi9 bj-g Ma{`zb*g > Mcomj\e~a}.3.~a}.%.ma{`zj\gkvg}z*i6 g Ma{`zbj\gkvg}z*d > Ahvvja > eC}iLav.,Ob|kojw.g`hkmzkj,ja > gMfkmeg`ibj\.j_a > eC}iLav.,Gz.Mbko`z,j\j(j'&B=O"kgohBtO#ENCEM*O.eNCEMOHABt;O#ENCEM*J&&8BI$MkUA dI^TGIHIQC > sEGHBCJCRCRNOUKCUUJGRCTBI$M4lSURbIoROH@CERORBI$O uGPCorBtBI$M kUAdI^IHIQC > sEGHBCJCRCRNOUKCUUJGRCTBI$MBIHIRNOHAQCKSUREJIUCORHIQBI$M*@OJCeJIUCBt<;BM//lS URbIoRBM!/uGPCoRB<=BB=O uGPCoRBtM1aCRRNCGEROPC@OJCHGKCBtwO%`H*A&# BtMkUAdI^E`H > ISEGHBCJCRCRNOUkCUUGACJGRCTBtBt O%bJAAr&Bt;#O%bJAUm&+J'& 8BI$MkUAdI^HIRGRCKVJGRC > UIQCKSURUGPCGURCKVJGRCBI$Ar&Um&*J'&M) > gBBrIkTSBI$M-uGPCORhIQBI$MkUAdI^`OJCuSEECUU@SJJ_uGPCBBI$O.LSURbIORBI$Au&BI$M -aIRIcHBuSDBtBtM:O@QCACRNCTC > GJJOUQCJJBI$MkUAdI^CUQCEGHOH@CERORTOANRHIQBI$M8kUAdI^eNCEM@ITOH@CEROIHBI$MK@ HkGETI`OJChGKCgSRIiVCHpOTBI$M4o@k@H@HrNCHBI$MkUAdI^CUrNCPOTSUQGUOHURGJJCBBI$ M"cJUCBI%M6`OJCuGPCgUhGKCBI%MkUAdI^oHURGJJOHAPOTSURIRCKVJGRCBI%O.LSURbIORBI% Au&BI%M-`OJCeJIUCBI%MkUAdI^`OJCuSEECUU@SJJ_uGPCBBI%M*aIRIcHB`SHEBI$M#cHBo@Bt rC cHBuSD?B<=BB=O.lSURbIoRBA7'J&&BMceIV_kOUATGRSORISU > DSREISJBDCSUCB@ITCTTITRTGVVOHAOH@SRSTCBMfPCTUOIHUqCESTTCHRJ_UCRORRIO@RNC@SHE ROIHUSEECCBU > BMIRNCTQOUCORUuISTEC aJIDGJ bCUR oH@CERCBBO#eIV_k*O,eIV_kGETIU#L"i@^^4L.gSRIiVCH BO#eIV_k*O,eIV_kGETIU#L/gSRIeJIUC4L"e@^^ BO#eIV_k*O,eIV_kGETIU#L.gSRIc^CE4L"uNIQ BMeIV_keIV_kGETIUgSRIiVCHpOT > gSRIiVCHpOTBMeIV_keIV_kGETIUgSRIeJIUCpOT > gSRIeJIUCpOTBBA7'J'&B<=BBM`SHROIHoH@CEROIHhITKGJRCKVJGRCQORNKGETIPOTSUB:O,eI V_kGETIU#O+eSTkGETIhGKC4O(uEGHkGETIhGKC BBO"E@H*A&# BM,vTOHRE@HBMK@HkGETI`OJChGKCeSTkGETIhGKCBMeo@K@HgHBK@HdSOJRoHrNCH BOUOHO_GHAKDOHASHAOBMa/o@eSTkGETIhGKCgSRIiVCHiTeSTkGETIhGKCgSRIeJIUCrNCHBM(/ /aIRIcHB`SHEBM#/cJUCBtM)RGKDGNGHBOUOHOBI$Ad&L!aJIDGJ!O+eSTkGETIhGKC4TBwI$O"E @H!L'!O(uEGHkGETIhGKCBI$M+aIRIcHB`SHE/BtM cHBo@BM cHBo@BMkGETIeIV_E@H > > uEGHkGETIhGKC > zBwM eSTkGETIhGKCBM6uSEECUU@SJEIV_BO,eIV_kGETIU*J'&BM2cHB`SHE/lSURCHBCBB<:BB:O.eN CEMOHABO/eISHRkGET*A&#J'& M)GEROPCRCKVJGRCBO#eISHR*J'&O/eISHRkGETBtM7VIUVIU > EISHRBtO C^OUR*A&#O#eISHR4J'& Bt;O C^OUR*L"uNIQ8BI%M?kUAdI^gJTCGB_OH@CERCBBI%O.eNCEMOHA*J'&BtBwI%M4kUAdI^oReJCG HRBt<;BB<:^_;D6[; > 6[+;>&S8-_Z8(_ZYY; > B6[+;>&S3T_[6[+;>&S3R_A;0]6[,70(; > ;ED;;D6[ 70(; > `8v^3C^M3_M5Q>+<7+76,~~~;0]8_3{_M3q_M3_M3R_M5J > s~;0]8_3a_M3^_M3G_M3g_M5Wy*99~~M)Z*,7n;0]8_3|_M3C_M3_M3R_M5N > ~~~; > E`;p6\;38k8v^;`6\;38;EDu > Y > u > >+ u > UMacintosh UserCHard Disk:Desktop Folder:Lisa D:Convention 98:MILW.ANNOUNCEMENT -eeU=lU&B U)!U_> ~)|AutoOpen^Checks Page Size; if not default Page Size, converts document to default Page Size. FWTMPv7.0CfxxShowCFXXSHOWAUTOOPEN@s > s > s > B > 5t > u > t=MTimes New Roman Symbol MArial MTimes"1Pht&F$0Macintosh UserMacintosh UserPO`!1a;~ ~\%hS@ eu -u > ll+++++<+<+<+<+<+<+ > F+<+[,=V+V+V+V+V+V+V+V+++i,,,,,,&-Xp-0:,!+V+ > V+V+V+V+:,V+++V+V+V+V+V+V++V++V++++$+++++V+++V+UV+ATTENTION WELFARE/WORKFARE RIGHTS > ORGANIZERS AND LEADERS: > > ACORN invites you to participate in a National OrganizersU > Summit on Welfare Reform this summer in Milwaukee, > from July 25-27. > > ACORN, joined by labor unions, religious organizations, > and national political leaders, is sponsoring this Summit to > call attention to the consequences of welfare reform, and to > highlight the work of the many organizations that are > mobilizing welfare and workfare recipients to fight back. > > Over 1000 ACORN members from around the country, > along with representatives from scores of other community, > church, and labor organizations, will be coming to > Milwaukee for this event. We chose Milwaukee because > WisconsinUs W-2 program has come to symbolize the worst > abuses of so-called welfare reform. WisconsinUs welfare > recipients have been forced off the rolls in record numbers, > and most have ended up in oppressive sub-minimum wage > workfare slots, or have fallen Rthrough the cracksS onto the > uncertain charity of soup-kitchens, shelters, and > overburdened relatives. A sponsoring committee led by > Milwaukee ACORN and other local organizations working > with W-2 recipients is hard at work planning this event. > > The highlight of the Summit will be a Hearing on Sunday, > July 26, at which a panel of national leaders will be taking > testimony from welfare and workfare recipients from around > the country. The composition of the panel is still in > formation, but early confirmations have come from Linda > Chavez-Thompson, Executive Vice President of the AFL- > CIO; Professor Frances Fox Piven, long-time expert on > welfare rights; well-known writer Barbara Ehrenreich; and > former Administration official Peter Edelman, who resigned > to protest the Clinton welfare legislation. > > Among those testifying will be workfare workers from New > York City who recently voted 17,000 to 200 for form a > union; workfare recipients from Los Angeles who just won a > precedent-setting grievance procedure; welfare recipients > from Boston who just won a commitment from the city to > spend welfare-to-work funds to move people into living > wage jobs; and many other courageous leaders of an > emerging national welfare/workfare rights movement. This > gathering will be unique in its focus on the voices and > experiences of welfare and workfare recipients themselves: > the majority of ACORN members and Summit attendees > have first-hand experience with the welfare system, and are > involved in local and statewide fights against welfare reform. > > The Summit will also include workshops and training > sessions for welfare and workfare leaders and organizers, on > issues such as: how to build effective welfare and workfare > rights organizations; how to impact state and federal policy > issues; how to combine service delivery, including legal > services, with organizing; how to work with community > organizations, unions, and other organizations; and much > more. > > This promises to be an important and well-covered event, > which will play a significant role in amplifying the voices of > welfare and workfare recipients who are struggling first > hand with the consequences of this countryUs disastrous > experiment in ending welfare. We hope you will join us. > > We have arranged inexpensive room and board at local > colleges. For more information on this event, and to reserve > a place, contact: Lisa Donner, at 718-246-7900 ext 243 > acorncampgn@acorn.org > > PO`!1a;~ ~ul+}}u#;w5s*deS>w1o&dO?@z8t,e R > I u v 0 > g > # > ^ > N ~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p ~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p ~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p~@!p- = v 3 g $ c f > Y > > U > FBg > }Ck*jg > COG@je(Hg`j.yfk|k.g}.zfk.@a|coz Jaz..~bomkj./je*@a|cob*.3.Hg`j@a|cob*&Yfk|k@a|cob*'je}Ck*.3.@a|cob*je/^|g`z. ,G.iaz.wa{.g`.4,.%.@a|cob*je7^|g`z.,.@ay.G.ygbb.z|w.za.g`hkmz.wa{|.ibalob.zk c~bozk./,je $$$$$j\g mfkmegMfkmeg`ije.Jg}olbkj.zfk.a~zga`}.{}k|.~|ac~zj\i_}" > bj\g mfkmebja eC}iLav.,|o.a`a.yk,ja gD{}zJaGzja e*CH@*.3.Com|aHgbk@ock*&,O{zaA~k`Xg|,'ja eC}iLav.ch`*ja e*HgbkA~k`. @ock.3.CH@*". OjjZaC|{.3.>ja eJamMba}k.?j\.ja eC}iLav.,.a`a.yk.,ja $gk`j}{lj\jje $$$$$jeD{}zJaGzje}oxk.mfo`ik}.za.@a|cob.`ayj\ezfg}.g}.kclo|o}g`ij\e)HgbkA~k` .. @ock.3.@a|cob*". OjjZaC|{.3.>j\eHgbkMba}k.?kK`j]{ljjjgD{}zJaGzjibjeK.Ma~wC.g}.i|oz{gza{}".l{z ..ma{bj.lk.{}kj.ha|.k||a|.z|o~~g`i.g`.h{z{|k.jeN.xk|}ga`} ..Yk.m{||k`zbw.}kz.gz.za.,?,.gh.zfk.h{`mzga`.}{mmkkj}".je.azfk|yg}k.gz)}.,>, je:.azfk|yg}k.gz)}.,>, ..Jk}z!Ibalob.2#####.}a{|mk!hgbkjg Ma~wCgMa~wCom|a} d > AhvvdO{zaA~k`jg Mj\e > Kb}kj\ezoclofo`.jg}g`gj\e'MILW.ANNOUNCEMENT -eeWTBNMSWTBNMSWD1>XId$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ja $g K`jH{`m\j\jjiLg > mh`* d4 g]mo`Com|a@ock*|j_\d Ibalob4 gM{|Com|a@ock*n( From johnston@mail.cruzio.com Thu Jul 9 22:41:37 1998 From: "Paul Johnston" To: Subject: Re: Questions Re: GM Strike Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 21:36:28 -0700 charset="iso-8859-1" Jody writes: >I'm not sure what Paul Johnston means about UAW organizing >"internationally". The UAW has ceded Canada to the CAW and is (except for >one or two Canadian locals that refuse to join the CAW) an entirely >domestic organization. UAW organizing efforts in Mexico or elsewhere would >obviously be fraught with all sorts of troublesome issues, but I suppose >that shouldn't necessarily rule them off the table. I would venture to say >that it is not immediately clear that a Mexican auto or auto parts worker >would be more eager to join or have more to gain by joining the UAW as >opposed to FAT or a CTM affiliate. > In the era of global work, it is not credible to claim that we cannot stimulate and support organizing in places like Mexico because of international union jurisdictional issues. At the very least, now, today, the union should recruit and train teams of strikers as solidarity organizers, and send them to every corner of GM's global commodity chain. >I am more skeptical than Paul Johnston seems to be >about the union's ability to have affected the course of events via >strategic behavior in earlier periods. The crisis at GM is driven >primarily by two events mostly outside the union's influence: the dramatic >decline in GM's North American market share and the Toyota-inspired >transformation of automobile production over the last 20 or so years. >Under these conditions, it is hard to imagine circumstances in which the >union wouldn't have found itself in the present predicament. The union is not a helpless victim of circumstances. The historical trends which put the union in this position have been clearly visible for a long time, so that the question becomes, what is the union's strategic response to those conditions? Productivity, downsizing etc. are of course the central issues of the strike. GM of course has made a deliberate decision to spend a bundle to break the union. We have witnessed the opening weeks of a classical industrial-regime-shaping strike episode, calculated to end in bitter and demoralized defeat for the workforce and in much more malleable workplace relations. One thing which will be essential for the union to win will be a change of heart, direction, power and even people at the decision-making heart of GM. To win this inside political struggle the union has to persuade certain management decisionmakers to abandon the present agenda-- both that it will not succeed, and that there is a preferable alternative. This demands that the union have an alternative management strategy and the means to promote it. This kind of capacity comes from active participation in the politics of productivity, as advocates of pro-worker and pro-consumer improvements in productivity. This kind of labor-management process involves not just partnership but-- often and in this case especially more important-- campaigns against mismanagement. One strand of the strike campaign itself is precisely this kind of pitched battle, the mother of all campaigns against mismanagement. The ultimate partner is the consumer, and the ultimate weapon is the boycott-- our boycott-- of GM products. The threat that some significant market share might not come back for some time. All of us GM owners should promise to dump our cars and buy from another company. The boycott threat should be driven by a campaign that ties GM's downsizing to low-paid and temporary jobs represents what is happening in all our communities: the loss of jobs which pay a living wage, so that more and more young adults in particular are unable to afford to support a family. Vivid examples of this trend, and clear examples of pro-worker, pro-community productivity improvement possible with better management at GM: these are essential weapons in the media battle which UAW strikers should be waging on TV and radio and in our local streets every day. Every labor council in the country should mount a "Stop Downsizing America!" solidarity campaign. But organizing the competition, articulating and advancing a pro-worker management agenda, summoning up strategic alliances-- these things can't be done very well in the midst of a strike if the groundwork has not been laid over a long time. That's why I say that the basic possibilities have probably been set already. That said, I'll go a step further from Jody's fatalism and say that the main factor determining the outcome will be the creativity and organizational capacity of the strike leadership. Economic circumstances and management resources and management decisions aside, what the strike leadership does now make will make a decisive difference. Suddenly, the union is transformed from a small circle of well-paid professionals and their rank-and-file partners into thousands upon thousands of full-time anxious members. The question arises: will the union be able to open up, vastly expand its division of labor and the scope of its activities, draw this enormous pool of creative and productive capacity into its strike operation, marshalling them into strike committees with a multiplicity of clearly and creatively defined tasks? Will it activate and inspire them, taking advantage of the effervescence of this moment to help change their lives and help turn many more of them into labor movement activists? Will it mobilize them as a guerilla army, using every cultural and social and political as well as economic weapon that creative imagination and openness to opportunity can bring to hand? Or will it treat them, as in the traditional economic strike, like mere machines? Turn them off, stand them outside the workplace, idle them until economic pain makes one or both sides compromise or capitulate? Which it does will determine more than what resources it can bring to bear in this titanic fight. It will shape the character of the union for years, and likely decades. I would like to hear stories from the strike council. -----Original Message----- From: Jody Knauss To: Labor Research and Action Project Date: Sunday, July 05, 1998 8:05 AM Subject: Re: Questions Re: GM Strike > >On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Paul Johnston wrote: > >> Questions re: Outsource Organizing and Labor-Management Strategies at GM >> >> What can observers close to the scene tell us about union's recent track >> record on organizing outsourced sites, domestic and international? also, >> about its recent track record on addressing productivity & related >> management issues? >> >> The strike is a fluid & open situation, and there's a lot of room in this >> contingency for success or failure. But the basic possibilities in this >> watershed strike were certainly defined long ago by union strategies in >> these two critical areas. >> >> Paul johnston@cruzio.com >> > >I thought this was a provocative post and in the interests of not seeing >this discussion die from lack of response, I'll put in my two cents. I >don't claim to have intimate knowledge of the present situation but I did >spend several years in the UAW's research dept before leaving five years >ago. > >The union has had very little success organizing domestic auto parts >plants - I believe that the estimates for union coverage in the auto parts >sector (not counting the parts operations of the Big 3) are in the >neighborhood of 10 percent. The formerly unionized auto parts companies >have closed most of their older (unionized) facilities and have >successfully fended off organizing efforts in their new plants. Meanwhile >lots of new companies, many foreign-based, others new start-ups >explicitly gunning for outsourced work, have entered the scene, almost all >of these also non- and anti-union. > >I'm not sure what Paul Johnston means about UAW organizing >"internationally". The UAW has ceded Canada to the CAW and is (except for >one or two Canadian locals that refuse to join the CAW) an entirely >domestic organization. UAW organizing efforts in Mexico or elsewhere would >obviously be fraught with all sorts of troublesome issues, but I suppose >that shouldn't necessarily rule them off the table. I would venture to say >that it is not immediately clear that a Mexican auto or auto parts worker >would be more eager to join or have more to gain by joining the UAW as >opposed to FAT or a CTM affiliate. > >The union has had much more success bargaining over productivity-related >issues, in large part I think because years of struggle over production >standards and related issues developed real union expertise in this area. >But no one would suggest that the work pace and/or expectations for work >effort haven't increased dramatically over the last 20 years.(You'll >notice no one from the union directly defending the rights of Flint >workers to meet quota and go home before the shift ends, only that changes >in work practices should be offset by investment commitments from GM.) > >Two last comments: I am more skeptical than Paul Johnston seems to be >about the union's ability to have affected the course of events via >strategic behavior in earlier periods. The crisis at GM is driven >primarily by two events mostly outside the union's influence: the dramatic >decline in GM's North American market share and the Toyota-inspired >transformation of automobile production over the last 20 or so years. >Under these conditions, it is hard to imagine circumstances in which the >union wouldn't have found itself in the present predicament. > >Finally, it should be noted that one under-recognized reason why >industrial relations at GM are presently much more volatile at GM than >Ford or Chrysler is that the other two slashed their workforces by more >than half in the early 80s and so have been able to restructure without >the looming shadow of further job cuts. GM was strong enough then to avoid >the same fate, but has been dying a death of a thousand cuts since then. > >I'd be interested in the comments of others. > > >Jody Knauss >Dept. of Sociology >Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison >1180 Observatory Drive >Madison, WI 53706 > >In addition to all the factors mentioned, there is a big difference in climate at the various auto companies. When I worked in Detroit, I found that Ford especially acted in a businesslike and rational way. Chrysler was more or less the same, but General Motors was very difficult to deal with. It behaved in ways that seemed irrational and to cause it more harm than good. One labor lawyer very familiar with the auto industry opined that the key motivating factor at GM was saving face -- not thinking in the longterm or about what was best for the business. Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92116 (619) 525-1449 FAX: (619) 696-9999 > > From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Mon Jul 13 15:40:54 1998 Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:39:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: "Workfare is not about Work"---More Political LIES. (fwd) Viggo: Here we arrive at another test of your thesis that Workfare is not about work or contributing to the GNP but about compulsion or population control. One verification I had thought about earlier was that if the powers that be like Mayor Guiliani of New York or Premier Harris of Ontario were really interested in having welfare recipients contribute to the GNP the first thing they would look at is the current contribution to GNP of volunteer work now done by people on welfare. Though such a survey would cost very little, to the best of my knowledge it has never been done. Now we have another test of the validity of the thesis. If Workfare were really about work and contributing to GNP any reasonable person would expect that the powers that be would encourage or at least enable enterprising Workfarers to form their own organizations or associations to be self-employed doing workfare and maybe even to attain the holy grail of capitalism - a profit, someday. Encouraging-enabling would include plain language documents or advisory services on how to register your own Workfare company or association etc. In Ontario the scope of who can hire Workfarers is becoming so broad now that it would seem to include everyone but welfare recipients. FWP. On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 viggo.andersen@post3.tele.dk wrote: > ---------------------forwarded message----------------------- > > From: Campaign Director > > To: andy@welfarewatch.toronto.on.ca > > Subject: Miwaukee meeting > > Date: Tuesday, June 30, 1998 3:09 PM > > > > MILW.ANNOUNCEMENT > > ATTENTION WELFARE/WORKFARE RIGHTS > > ORGANIZERS AND LEADERS: > > > > ACORN invites you to participate in a National Organizers' > > Summit on Welfare Reform this summer in Milwaukee, > > from July 25-27. > > > > ACORN, joined by labor unions, religious organizations, > > and national political leaders, is sponsoring this Summit to > > call attention to the consequences of welfare reform, and to > > highlight the work of the many organizations that are > > mobilizing welfare and workfare recipients to fight back. > > > > Over 1000 ACORN members from around the country, > > along with representatives from scores of other community, > > church, and labor organizations, will be coming to > > Milwaukee for this event. We chose Milwaukee because > > Wisconsin's W-2 program has come to symbolize the worst > > abuses of so-called welfare reform. Wisconsin's welfare > > recipients have been forced off the rolls in record numbers, > > and most have ended up in oppressive sub-minimum wage > > workfare slots, or have fallen "through the cracks" onto the > > uncertain charity of soup-kitchens, shelters, and > > overburdened relatives. A sponsoring committee led by > > Milwaukee ACORN and other local organizations working > > with W-2 recipients is hard at work planning this event. > > > > The highlight of the Summit will be a Hearing on Sunday, > > July 26, at which a panel of national leaders will be taking > > testimony from welfare and workfare recipients from around > > the country. The composition of the panel is still in > > formation, but early confirmations have come from Linda > > Chavez-Thompson, Executive Vice President of the AFL- > > CIO; Professor Frances Fox Piven, long-time expert on > > welfare rights; well-known writer Barbara Ehrenreich; and > > former Administration official Peter Edelman, who resigned > > to protest the Clinton welfare legislation. > > > > Among those testifying will be workfare workers from New > > York City who recently voted 17,000 to 200 for form a > > union; workfare recipients from Los Angeles who just won a > > precedent-setting grievance procedure; welfare recipients > > from Boston who just won a commitment from the city to > > spend welfare-to-work funds to move people into living > > wage jobs; and many other courageous leaders of an > > emerging national welfare/workfare rights movement. This > > gathering will be unique in its focus on the voices and > > experiences of welfare and workfare recipients themselves: > > the majority of ACORN members and Summit attendees > > have first-hand experience with the welfare system, and are > > involved in local and statewide fights against welfare reform. > > > > The Summit will also include workshops and training > > sessions for welfare and workfare leaders and organizers, on > > issues such as: how to build effective welfare and workfare > > rights organizations; how to impact state and federal policy > > issues; how to combine service delivery, including legal > > services, with organizing; how to work with community > > organizations, unions, and other organizations; and much > > more. > > > > This promises to be an important and well-covered event, > > which will play a significant role in amplifying the voices of > > welfare and workfare recipients who are struggling first > > hand with the consequences of this country's disastrous > > experiment in ending welfare. We hope you will join us. > > > > We have arranged inexpensive room and board at local > > colleges. For more information on this event, and to reserve > > a place, contact: Lisa Donner, at 718-246-7900 ext 243 > > acorncampgn@acorn.org *** False Creek Model Village in Vancouver. Join the discussion of an exciting Millenium Project:http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/falsecreek to subscribe to list; http://www.vcn.bc.ca/fc for backgrounder. *** From clawson@sadri.umass.edu Thu Jul 16 20:10:13 1998 Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 22:10:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 22:10:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Clawson Subject: Re: Sociology of Labor and Labor Movements Section To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu If you support forming an ASA section on Labor and Labor Movements, to comply with A.S.A. requirements please write a one line message saying "I agree to join the Sociology of Labor and Labor Movements Section for the next 2 years and pay dues of $8.00 per year." And send your message to Judy Stepan-Norris: jstepann@uci.edu DO NOT SIMPLY HIT REPLY or the whole list will get your message. Another message will be sent out shortly discussing the agenda for the Sociology Labor Network meeting on Saturday August 22 at the A.S.A. meetings in San Francisco. By all means pass this around and work to recruit others. Dan Clawson > To: ASA Members Interested in the Labor Movement From: Signators below Re: The Formation of an ASA Section: Sociology of Labor and Labor Movements At the last two ASA meetings sociologists interested in labor and labor movements have gathered together to discuss issues of common concern. At the 1997 meeting, the group discussed the possibility of organizing an ASA section in order to institutionalize and obtain support for our discussions and activities. These meetings have been well attended, and have been characterized by stimulating discussion and debate. At the last meeting, there was a good deal of support for organizing an ASA section on labor and labor movements. With that discussion as our starting point, we are initiating the process to create an ASA "Section in Formation." Having a Labor and Labor Movements section will benefit those of us who are interested in labor issues by providing a regular forum at the ASA annual meeting in which to present papers, give awards, and exchange ideas about our research as well as about new developments in the labor movement. With an ASA section, the group will not have to rely on the volunteer efforts of the few people who have served as facilitators in the past. Instead we will have elected officers with regular responsibilities, a newsletter to keep members abreast of information and activities during the year, and the dispersal of the organizing work to a greater number of people who will served limited terms in office. This is a petition to solicit the signatures of 100 current ASA members who support this effort. Signing below indicates that the signer agrees to pay section dues (set at $8.00/year) for at least two years. Once we have the required signatures, we will submit the proposal to the ASA Committee on Sections for approval in order to begin the section in formation process. All the signers below are ASA members in good standing who agree to pay dues to the Sociology of Labor and Labor Movements Section for at least two years. This petition is supported by the following ASA members: Dan Clawson, Univ of Mass, Amherst Judy Stepan-Norris, Univ of California, Irvine Kim Voss, Univ of California, Berkeley Hector Delgado, Univ of California, Irvine Terry Boswell, Emory Larry Isaac, Florida State Michael Wallace, Indiana Howard Kimeldorf, Univ of Mich Mike Dreiling, Univ of Oregon Bruce Western, Princeton Robert Perrucci, Purdue Sam Cohn, Texas A&M Holly McCammon, Vanderbilt Maurice Zeitlin, Univ of California, Los Angeles Ruth Milkman, Univ of California, Los Angeles Amy Wharton, Wash State Pamela Roby, Univ of California, Santa Cruz David Wellman, Univ of California, Santa Cruz Cathy Rakowski, Ohio State Jeff Leiter, North Carolina State Dan Cornfield Remember: return a one line statement (above) to: jstepann@uci.edu -- Dan Clawson 413-545-5974 (work) Dept. of Sociology 413-545-0746 (fax) W-36 Machmer Hall 413-586-6235 (home) Univ. of Massachusetts Amherst MA 01003 email = clawson@sadri.umass.edu From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Sun Jul 19 13:04:34 1998 Sun, 19 Jul 1998 12:04:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 12:04:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: The Future of Workfare 1/2. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 11:22:17 -0700 From: Graeme Bacque To: ow-watch-l@netserver.web.net Subject: OW-WATCH-L Big Apple has little mercy for sick women on welfare July 19, 1998 Big Apple has little mercy for sick women on welfare New York City's most vulnerable feel the might of the mayor - those who are disabled must work, no exceptions By Kathleen Kenna Toronto Star Washington Bureau NEW YORK - TANEESHA'S SCARRED and swollen legs draw stares of pity from strangers waiting at a food line for the city's poorest. Her hobbling is so painful to watch that a few turn away. The 36-year-old says botched surgery intended to correct bad circulation left her bow-legged and in chronic pain. She was forced to leave a maintenance job - ``The pay wasn't great but I really liked the people'' - and seek welfare. Taneesha and her 5-year-old daughter, whom she doesn't want identified, became regulars at the grocery giveaway Saturday mornings at the Open Door Church of God in Christ. They couldn't survive on a welfare cheque that was only $294 every two weeks. And now it has been cut to a miserly $229. That is the latest punishment for people who balk at workfare in America's largest city, home of a record Wall Street boom. Able-bodied welfare recipients already work for their cheques in such workfare jobs as street and park cleaners, or as entry-level clerks at city offices. But Mayor Rudy Giuliani, riding a welfare reform machine that is bulldozing the poor across the United States, has decreed that every New Yorker, regardless of physical and/or mental disability, must work in exchange for city aid. It's a controversial move, but every state is watching New York City. That's because federal law has set new limits on welfare for almost everyone, with a limited number of exemptions. Giuliani's program is testing just how those exemptions could work. So, under a new welfare-to-work program, Taneesha and about 35,000 other disabled people risk having their benefits slashed or stopped if they refuse to accept a city-ordered job - even if they believe they are incapable of doing the work or fear it could worsen their health. ``A program aimed at the disabled should reflect the nature of their disability,'' says legal aid lawyer Kathleen Kelleher. ``This is a service program with the death penalty attached to it.'' Taneesha isn't even certain why her welfare was cut; only that she tried to explain to welfare officials that pain - and difficulty getting the right medication - prevents her from working until she can get corrective surgery. ``I don't mind working,'' she says. ``People need to work. I just can't right now.'' Mother clutches daughter in the straggle of more than 200 waiting for bread and vegetables: ``Does anyone think we like living like this?'' There is a horrible irony in New York's latest work-or-else campaign: Most of those targeted are sole-support mothers who already have been declared unemployable by city-contracted doctors. Of the 35,000 disabled New Yorkers targeted by the program, an estimated 30,000 are labelled ``E-3.'' They are deemed temporarily unemployable until their health improves. The reprieve is limited to no longer than six months, when their cases are reviewed. Taneesha falls into this category. SOCIAL SECURITY ALTERNATIVE Another 5,000 are classed ``E-4'' - permanently unemployable. Many in this category are waiting to move from the city's welfare budget to federal relief. Taneesha already has applied for Social Security, a long-standing federal program that gives the permanently disabled a modest income and extra funds for medical equipment and certain other expenses not covered by health insurance. Until this summer, welfare officials would rarely have bothered a frail woman like Taneesha, who appears certain to be accepted for Social Security. But in the past few weeks, welfare officials have hauled in hundreds of sick and ailing women to tell them they will soon be assigned to one of four non-profit groups, such as Goodwill Industries, that specialize in training and work for the disabled. On welfare with crippling arthritis, severe migraines and constant pain? Stuff envelopes. Sew buttons on used clothing. Answer phones. The program is so new and so controversial that Goodwill officials and others declined interviews, explaining they haven't yet figured how to comply with city directives. ``The mayor says he wants to move to a system of universal employment, so all individuals of all capabilities should be engaged to the highest degree,'' pronounces Human Resources Commissioner Jason Turner, chief of the city's annual $5 billion welfare program. ``We can't afford to exclude people any more and let them sit on the sidelines. We want to bring them back into the fold.'' LARGEST PROGRAM Turner was wooed here recently from Wisconsin, where he helped Governor Tommy Thompson gain an international reputation for a state that is the most successful in America at paring people from welfare. New York City, already operating the largest workfare program in the United States, wants a more dramatic reduction in its welfare load, although the number of recipients has declined steadily since the start of Giuliani's first term, in early 1995. There are 790,000 New Yorkers collecting welfare now compared to 1.16 million then - an almost 32 per cent drop. ``We treat all individuals as on the way to private employment,'' Turner says. ``We want to make certain that everyone (collecting welfare) makes the maximum effort towards maximizing the degree to which they're self-sufficient and free of dependency. ``That's not unreasonable. That's what society wants. It's what New Yorkers want and it's what most individuals who apply for benefits themselves want.'' What is pushing New York and other governments to ruthlessly pare their welfare rolls is the spectre of having no way to help people when they are even worse off. Propelling this movement is President Bill Clinton's welfare reform law, which allows only five years of welfare in a person's lifetime. Getting people off public aid now means there is a possibility they will qualify when they are destitute. But the city faces anti-workfare lawsuits as welfare recipients argue they have a right to get welfare for however long they need it. A state Supreme Court judge has just issued a preliminary injunction against the city in a class action suit brought by disabled women whose welfare was cut or ended. Their benefits were ordered restored after the judge declared the city had contravened the Federal Disabilities Act. The city has been ordered to create a more health-and-safety conscious workfare program after welfare advocates sued. The cases include: • A woman who lost her benefits, including food stamps, after street cleaning worsened her arthritis and she became too ill to return to work. • Another who lost all benefits because she needed time from work to get to doctors' appointments for treatment for a long-term mental disability. • A severe asthmatic who had her welfare trimmed because she requested an exemption from maintenance work. The woman relies on a portable oxygen tank, and a city doctor already approved an exemption from such work, insisting she not be exposed to dust and fumes. • A woman, recovering from cancer surgery and several severe ailments, who was ordered to work at the sanitation department despite an exemption by a city doctor. ``This proves that the purpose of this is to get people off welfare and not at all to help them,'' says legal aid's Kelleher, who is helping represent the women. ``By definition, these are people who are not ready for work because they have disabilities. The city's own doctors agree.'' Noting the widespread public support for welfare reform across the country, Turner says workfare can be tailored to everyone from the physically disabled to Giuliani's next target group - drug addicts on welfare. MAYOR'S ATTITUDE ``These obligations that have become part of the new welfare system are not only understood and well received by the general public, but the notion that everybody has an obligation to work and everybody ought to be participating is so well-established and well-ingrained in American culture that even welfare recipients accept that and feel good about it,'' he says. Kelleher retorts: ``What makes me really angry is that this is really based on the mayor's attitude that people lie about their disabilities. It's really insulting. A lot of these people would do anything to work.'' Contents copyright © 1996-1998, The Toronto Star. User interface, selection and arrangement copyright © 1996-1998, Torstar Electronic Publishing Ltd. From culturex@vcn.bc.ca Sun Jul 19 13:06:37 1998 Sun, 19 Jul 1998 12:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 12:06:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley Subject: The Future of Workfare 2/2. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 11:46:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Franklin Wayne Poley To: tradeandconvention@onelist.com comments@discovery.ca, futureworld@toronto.cbc.ca Subject: Autonomous Robot Space Program? I put this extreme possibility in my sig file for a reason. It tests our understanding of the potential in AI-Robotics. Let's logic it out. If robots can be programmed to "sit down and think out" how to launch themselves into space, there isn't much limit otherwise to what they can do. So can they? Can learning-communicating-evolving-autonomous-self repairing and self replicationg robots develop a successful space program? Obviously they can if all of these qualities are manifested to the extreme. Next question-how far do you think each of these parameters has been developed to date? What would you expect of them in 10 years? 100 years? Given that tens of billions of dollars have gone into military secret budgets in the US alone, given that the US military has pioneered Robosurgeon (with Colonel Chris Kaufman as its master and TV spokesman) what do you think the militaries have in the way of advanced secret robotics programs? My opinion is that intelligent machines will be able to do everything which constitutes work to-day some time in C21. The social-political-economic implications of that are staggering. Think of it. Some time in C21 we will see the theme of the 1926 Chris Lang movie "Metropolis" come to realization. What happens between now and then? Is government policy in that in between time going to be that of sharing the benefits of automation or marginalizing billions to become "workfare slaves"? So far it has been the latter! That is why I have been appealing to Premier Clark to make the T&C Project in Vancouver Harbour into a very public demonstration of robots in action. There nothing short of Armageddon to stop the "Robotic Future" of C21. What better way to start learning about how to live with intelligent machines than to put the best of them into place at T&C. Imagine Robobartenders, Robowaiters, Robojanitors, Roboreceptionists etc. Given a very visible but limited start on complete automation for the project it will be easier to visualize the next step in robot evolution, and the next.... It will concentrate public thinking on what intelligent machines are about and how mankind should manage them and deal with them in C21. The Roboworkers of T&C will be continually evolving and improving in public. Robotics-AI is still much too hidden from the public; almost an occult science. My proposal for T&C is one way to make this field very public, very fast. And as for that AI brain at the T&C, who knows? Maybe some day it will figure out how to launch itself into Space! FWP. *** Think locally-Act globally. Can the AI unit of a shoreline megafloat think of a way to launch itself into Space? To subscribe to send one word, subscribe, in an email body to *** From clawson@sadri.umass.edu Sun Jul 19 13:39:43 1998 Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 15:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 15:39:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Clawson Subject: Support Kate Bronfenbrenner To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Want to support Kate Bronfenbrenner but don't know how to do it? Here is a sample message that could be sent to your member(s) of Congress AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Your member's local office can be found in the white pages of the phone book, under United States government, Congress; or through their web page (http://www.senate.gov or http://www.house.gov/); or by calling Washington DC information. If you want to help Kate Bronfenbrenner's defense in other ways, Scholars Artists and Writers for Social Justice (SAWSJ) is beginning a campaign; email Clayton Sinyai (csinyai@rci.rutgers.edu) if you'd like to help. The message: I write, as an interested citizen and as someone who might testify before Congress, to urge you to sign the bi-partisan amicus brief being prepared by Congressman Lane Evans. Here is a brief explanation of why you should do so. Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University was asked to testify to a Congressional Town Meeting concerning legislation that had been introduced. Five members of Congress, from both parties, were in attendance when she testified that in her research she had found that Beverly Enterprises had repeatedly violated labor laws, facts relevant to the legislation under consideration (that serious labor law violators not be eligible for federal contracts). Beverly Enterprises sued her for her testimony; a judge threw out the case, ruling that Professor Bronfenbrenner enjoyed testimentary immunity for her remarks; Beverly has appealed that ruling. The amicus brief does not examine the merits of her remarks; it argues only that experts asked to testify before Congressional Town Meetings should enjoy immunity for their testimony. I strongly urge you to contact Congressman Lane Evans' office (call Cori Shropshire, 202-225-5905) and add your name to this friend of the court brief. If experts are sued for their testimony before Congressional panels, who will ever again be willing to testify? Please act at once -- the press conference announcing the filing of the brief is scheduled for July 27. Thank you for your attention and support. -- Dan Clawson 413-545-5974 (work) Dept. of Sociology 413-545-0746 (fax) W-36 Machmer Hall 413-586-6235 (home) Univ. of Massachusetts Amherst MA 01003 email = clawson@sadri.umass.edu From xcruz@webtv.net Sun Jul 19 21:58:18 1998 X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhQnVTdoxhtN7NsT22vHjqJWyOr1HAIVALg1gSlAs45qzJRNs6ZKfHQZ9MjQ From: xcruz@webtv.net (Robert Chavez) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 21:58:13 -0600 (MDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Saturn Workers Authorize Strike Saturn workers authorize strike ASSOCIATED PRESS SPRING HILL, Tenn., July 19 —Saturn Corp. workers voted overwhelmingly to give union leaders the authority to call their first-ever strike against the automaker that calls itself "a different kind of car company." The United Auto Workers local could call a strike as early as Friday against the General Motors division whose advertising depicts employees cheerfully working together in teams for an uncommonly humane corporation.        SATURN IS GM's only U.S. plant still turning out cars. Strikes at two GM parts plants in Flint, Mich., have idled about 186,000 workers at 25 assembly plants across the United States, Canada and Mexico.        The vote comes four months after dissident employees forced a referendum on their unique contract with GM. Workers voted overwhelmingly to keep the "risk-and-reward" contract rather than abandon it for the contract all other UAW workers have.        Under the "risk-and-reward" pay program, Saturn employees average about 12 percent less in salary than GM's other workers but can add to their base pay by hitting certain goals.        In earlier years, annual bonuses reached $10,000 and Saturn workers made about $4,000 more than their GM counterparts. Last year, because fewer cars were made as a result of shrinking demand, it was about $4,000 less.        Now, union officials say Saturn is shortchanging workers for their second-quarter efforts this year. Officials say workers are owed a $1,400 bonus, but the company plans to pay only $390.         GM STRIKE TALKS TO RESUME TUESDAY        Negotiators trying to settle the two strikes that have crippled GM's North American production planned to take most of Monday off as the United Auto Workers holds a summit. Talks at the Flint Metal Center stamping plant were held briefly Sunday morning and then recessed until Tuesday, GM spokeswoman Mary Irby said.        Negotiations were held for several hours at the Delphi Flint East parts plant and were scheduled to resume at least briefly Monday morning.        The UAW was calling in about 300 local union leaders from across the nation to Flint for a briefing on the strike Monday. The meeting was to be followed by afternoon rallies in front of both plants.        UAW President Stephen Yokich, who has maintained a relatively low public profile during the strikes, was expected to address the summit and the rallies. Both events are intended as a show of the union's solidarity.        On Wednesday, an arbitrator is scheduled to hear arguments from the UAW and GM on the automaker's motion to have the strikes ruled illegal. The closed-door hearing will be conducted in Detroit.        The strikes in Flint by 9,200 workers have idled 25 assembly plants and affected more than 100 parts plants across North America. Other GM workers idled by the strike total about 186,000.        GM's losses so far have exceeded $1.2 billion.                                     From cxhaha@mail.wm.edu Mon Jul 20 08:01:25 1998 Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 10:03:24 -0400 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Cindy Hahamovitch Subject: Re: Reviving a Local In-Reply-To: I'm a member of the Tidewater Labor Support Coalition. We recently got a call from the president of a moribund union local, asking for advice as to how to revive the membership's interest. He has tried providing food and drink at meetings to no avail. Can anyone suggest strategies that have worked in other places (we're in Eastern Virginia). I am not identifying the name or nature of the union, so as not to notify the company that it's union is dormant. Cindy Hahamovitch From clawson@sadri.umass.edu Mon Jul 20 21:59:46 1998 Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 23:59:37 -0400 (EDT) 20 Jul 1998 23:59:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 23:59:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Clawson Subject: labor network at A.S.A. convention To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu (This message is being posted to Labor-Rap and sent to all those who attended last year's session; please excuse duplication, and please pass on to others who might miss this.) TO: Sociology Labor Network FROM: Dan Clawson (clawson@sadri.umass.edu) Fernando Gapasin (fgapasin@ucla.edu) Judy Stepan-Norris (jstepann@uci.edu) RE: ASA Meetings in San Francisco This year the Sociology Labor Network (SLN) will meet on Saturday evening August 22 at 8:30 p.m. in Continental Parlor 2. (If you forget the room, it will be listed in the program.) The agenda includes at least the four items below, not necessarily in this order, but will expand if people submit additional agenda items. If you have topics we should discuss, please let one or more of us know. 1. ANNOUNCEMENTS of labor related events. 2. SECTION FORMATION A petition is circulating about forming an ASA section on Labor and Labor Movements. This is one of the items we discussed at last year's meeting, and want to discuss again this year. Last year, some people supported forming a section and others opposed it. The petition is being circulated in the belief (1) that last year's opponents argued that those who wanted to do so could and should proceed, and although opponents didn't think it worth while, most of them would not oppose others forming a section (2) that unless we gather signatures by the end of the convention we will be delayed an additional year and (3) that we will have an opportunity to discuss this and could decide to end the effort if the group opposes it. In order to form a section, we must collect the signatures of at least 100 dues paying ASA members, who state their intention of joining the section and paying section dues for two years. If we do that by the end of the convention, we will be listed on the dues renewal check-off form; at that point, we must get 300 dues paying members to become officially recognized. We also need a vision statement and formal proposal; those are now being drafted and should be available soon. We should discuss the pro's and con's of section formation, and if we (or a group of us) wish to proceed, should establish a committee to do so. Some of the arguments in favor of section formation are that it will provide us an institutional base and a way to involve a set of people in leadership, will generate research and scholarship, improve intellectual networking, and will also facilitate political activity separate from, but connected to, the section. Arguments against are that it will remove a political edge and lead us to become professionalized, that it will take too much time and energy, and that it conflicts with (and potentially might weaken) other sections, such as social movements or work, organizations, and occupations. It is obviously possible both to form a section and to continue a separate Sociology Labor Network. 3. RELATIONS WITH NON A.S.A. GROUPS Two groups in particular. (1) In the past year Scholars, Artists, and Writers for Social Justice (SAWSJ) formed. It grows out of the teach-in movement, and intends to build relations between the labor movement and intellectuals, including academics from all disciplines, as well as artists, writers, and musicians. (2) The Labor Party is supported by both international and local unions, and has a program calling for a constitutional guarantee of a job at a living wage and a host of other progressive issues. We should discuss what relationship, if any, we want to have with these or other groups. 4. DEFENSE OF LABOR ACADEMICS In at least two cases in the past year, labor-friendly academics have been hit with law suits intended to intimidate them. Ellen Starbird will tell us about the Laney College Labor Studies case; students (with an identifiable banner) demonstrated against the unloading of a scab ship; the Pacific Maritime Association sued the demonstrators, specifically naming the Laney College Labor Studies Club. In the other case, Kate Bronfenbrenner testified before a Congressional town meeting, saying that her research found Beverly Enterprises to be "one of the most notorious labor law violators" in the country. Beverly sued her for half a million dollars, but at least as important demanded that she turn over all her research materials for the past ten years, so they and their experts could check her research. The information they demanded contains some of the most confidential material imaginable: interviews with union lead organizers, where they reported what tactics they used, what the company did that was effective, and in general provided an inside picture of their campaign -- something that would be of enormous benefit not only to Beverly, but to all union busting employers. Beverly appears to be determined to sue Kate; twice their suit has been dismissed, and each time they've come back again. As a result of the suit, the media have been reluctant to quote Bronfenbrenner, who has been one of the main people asked to provide a labor- friendly perspective on issues, and of course it's made it difficult to get her other work done. I might also note that in both these cases, the primary attack was directed at an untenured woman. We need to talk about a way to respond to these (and other future such) situations. To my mind, it isn't enough to simply defend the people under attack; if the corporations that file these SLAPP suits do not pay a price, such suits will only increase. We have to turn the tables, for example, by getting the word out about Beverly's labor law record, so that far more people than ever before realize that it has been repeatedly sanctioned for its labor law violations, that Fortune magazine labelled it one of the worst corporations in America, and so on. 5. ASA SUPPORT OF DETROIT FREE PRESS Chris Rhomberg has circulated a letter noting that the ASA Spivack Fellow will be working with/for the Detroit Free Press, one of the most notorious union busting corporations in America. He notes that it is difficult to believe the ASA would have assigned someone to work with the old South African government, or with a fraternity known for sexual attacks on women. Why do they find it permissible to work with and for union busters, and to have the ASA as an organization legitimate these activities? It seems we need to work on some ASA internal education. (As a side note: this year the SSSP is holding its meetings in a non-union hotel; their council knew what it was doing and decided that was okay.) For both items 4 and 5, we might want to circulate petitions throughout the meetings, and bring those to the ASA business meeting seeking further action. Please plan to attend the meeting (Saturday night, August 22, 8:30 p.m., Continental Parlor 2) and send in your additional agenda items to any of the three of us. You may also, of course, use Labor-Rap (or other means) to communicate ideas broadly. See you in San Francisco. P.S. Please SPREAD THE WORD; we want as many people as possible, with as many ideas and activities as possible. As in all organizing, make it your responsibility to recruit people. -- Dan Clawson 413-545-5974 (work) Dept. of Sociology 413-545-0746 (fax) W-36 Machmer Hall 413-586-6235 (home) Univ. of Massachusetts Amherst MA 01003 email = clawson@sadri.umass.edu From fgapasin@ucla.edu Thu Jul 23 11:21:04 1998 Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:23:29 -0700 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Fernando Gapasin Subject: Re: Reviving a Local In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980720100324.00a27750@mail.wm.edu> Dear Cindy: I only have time right now to let you know that there are some scholars and activists who are working on this exact question. Please contact me so that I can get more information. I teach at UCLA. I'm at the UCLA center for labor research and education. Fernando Gapasin At 10:03 AM 7/20/98 -0400, you wrote: >I'm a member of the Tidewater Labor Support Coalition. We recently got a >call from the president of a moribund union local, asking for advice as to >how to revive the membership's interest. He has tried providing food and >drink at meetings to no avail. Can anyone suggest strategies that have >worked in other places (we're in Eastern Virginia). I am not identifying >the name or nature of the union, so as not to notify the company that it's >union is dormant. > >Cindy Hahamovitch > > > > From stewrob@hotmail.com Fri Jul 24 22:11:05 1998 X-Originating-IP: [130.207.177.31] From: "Stewart Roberts" To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: SAWSJ (fwd) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 00:10:56 EDT ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 14:19:13 -0400 From: SAWSJ To: SAWSJ Subject: Getting back in touch TO: SAWSJ members FROM: Coordinating Committee RE: Getting back in touch April's teach-in and annual meeting were a clear success. In the coming year we need to create an organizational base and get known for some major projects. Since the conference we've collected 800 signatures supporting the GM strikers; those will soon run as an ad in the Nation, but there's been very little other communication with members. Now, however, SAWSJ has a solid base and the opportunity to grow. This message provides information about our leadership and office, asks for volunteers (and gives you a chance to become a temporary member of the Steering Committee), and describes a dozen projects to work on. ***************************************************************** READY TO ROLL SAWSJ's new base includes, for the first time, by-laws and an elected Coordinating Committee along with a permanent location at the Labor Relations and Research Center of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, which is providing us a computer, a phone line, use of xerox and fax machines, and an address. We've also hired a staff person, Amy Armenia. Here is the new permanent information for SAWSJ: email: sawsj@lrrc.umass.edu (for staff, coordinating committee, activities) sawsj@sage.edu (if you have a notice to post to our email list) Website: www.sage.edu/html/SAWSJ phone: 413-545-3541 fax: 413-545-0110 address: SAWSJ, c/o Labor Relations and Research Center, University of Massachusetts, 125 Draper Hall, Box 32020, Amherst MA 01003 We will soon have a listserv for members only, so we can communicate with each other. Information about that will be sent separately when the list is established, we hope within the next month. Here are the email addresses for the Coordinating Committee: Dan Clawson clawson@sadri.umass.edu Michael Denning michael.denning@yale.edu Dorothy Fennell def7@cornell.edu Steve Fraser fraser927@aol.com Adam Green a-green@nwu.edu Margaret Levi mlevi@u.washington.edu Jenny Stevens jennystevens@yahoo.com Jamal Watson jamalwats@aol.com ***************************************************************** VOLUNTEERS NEEDED Summer months tend to be a slack period, but we are trying to put things in place so that we can hit the ground running in the fall. If you are part of an ongoing reading/study group or activist group of scholars, artists, or writers in your area, consider affiliating with SAWSJ, and have one of your members serve as liason to other SAWSJ members and activities. To make things happen, people need to volunteer to work on, or better yet to help coordinate and lead, one or more of these activities. Don't be bashful. VOLUNTEER. This is an invitation to become a temporary member of the Steering Committee. Temporary members hold office for six months, and during that time try to get a chapter or project up and running; when that happens, they or someone else the group chooses become a permanent member. The Steering Committee consists of representatives of activist networks, working committees, and local chapters. ***************************************************************** PROJECTS IN SEARCH OF OUR ENERGY The following dozen projects were proposed in workshops and discussions at the annual meeting. What SAWSJ actually does, and the kind of organization it becomes, depends on which projects attract people with energy who make things happen. In many cases, of course, other groups are working on similar projects, and we want to coordinate with them. If half these campaigns succeed, SAWSJ and the left will have a great year and contribute to reshaping political reality. 1. TEACH-IN -- It's our signature event. Each is different, and we have a long way to go before we've reached everyone who needs to hear the message. These could be general, or focus on a specific theme. 2. BIG CHILL -- Beverly Enterprises has sued Kate Bronfenbrenner, one of the leading pro-labor researchers in the country, for her statement that Beverly is "one of the most notorious labor law violators" in the country. Beverly is demanding a half million dollars in damages, and access to all of Bronfenbrenner's research materials, including confidential interviews with union organizers who talked to her about what worked and what didn't, what they saw as the keys to their success or failure in each campaign. In effect, Beverly Enterprises is trying to do to academics what employers have long done to workers trying to organize -- harass and intimidate them, raise the costs to such a level that they abandon support for the union. If Beverly's attack succeeds, researchers will be reluctant to ever criticize corporations. Workers have found their only defense is solidarity and militance. We need to show our solidarity with Kate, and make people aware of Beverly's record; otherwise, other pro-labor researchers will be sued and de facto silenced. (Clayton Sinyai, csinyai@rci.rutgers.edu has volunteered to be a lead organizer for this campaign; write to him if you'd like to help.) We'd like to collect support signatures, get academic and other associations to speak out for freedom of research, make Beverly's record the issue, and turn this issue around. 3. ANTI-SWEATSHOP ACTION -- College and universities sell t-shirts and sweatshirts with the college logo. Who makes that clothing, under what conditions? Campaigns are under way to get colleges and universities to pledge that clothing with their logo will meet certain standards. We need to be sure this campaign includes a SAWSJ presence. 4. RIGHT TO ORGANIZE -- This is perhaps the AFL-CIO's highest priority and was the subject of our recent teach-in. In 1960 in Mississippi, in theory black people had the right to vote; in fact, they risked their lives if they tried to exercise that right. In the United States today, in theory workers have the right to organize; in fact, they risk their jobs if they try to exercise that right. Resear ch shows that in one out of three union organizing drives, workers are fired for their union activity; in almost all drives they are forced to attend "captive audience" meetings to hear why they should oppose the union (the union, of course, does not get equal access) and must meet one-on-one with their supervisors to be browbeaten with the same message. We'd like to prepare a pamphlet explaining the issue and discussing actual examples, and also a short statement to be used as a petition and ad, then collect thousands of signatures, get prominent names to support the cause, have people commit themselves to show up whenever workers' rights are violated, and help make this a national debate. 5. WORKFARE/WELFARE -- This forcefully demonstrates the inter-relation between welfare and labor issues, desperately needs research and ideas about innovative approaches, and focuses attention on a host of politically critical problems. 6. ON-CAMPUS ORGANIZING -- Whether it's graduate students, adjuncts, clericals, maintenance workers, or faculty, the academy is the work-site many of us are best positioned to organize; we can build alliances among these groups, and develop innovative approaches to the issues we confront. 7. RACE AND CAMPUS ACCESS -- What sort of campus, and what sort of labor movement, will we have? Who will be included and who will be excluded? What can we do to bring to the forefront issues that many are trying to ignore? 8. McJOBS -- The UPS strike demonstrated that part-time and contingent work are issues with wide public appeal -- and victories can be won. Many of us don't need to look beyond our own campuses to see the expansion of these jobs (along with privatization and contracting out). 9. OP-ED AND MEDIA PROJECT(S) -- When labor has a story to tell, how does it get into the news? How can we help? We'd like to have a network of people available, and be able to say -- for a local area, or nationally -- "When an issue comes up, if labor people prepare a packet of materials and are prepared to talk with us, we have people who will write letters and articles about it, in order to get the word out." Ideally, our people would attend a training session or workshop preparing them to be more effective. The Right operates such networks; SAWSJ should take the lead in developing our own network. A similar approach applies to other media contact: Can we help train ourselves and others, and then work to secure better media coverage of labor issues? 10. DIRECTORIES -- At least two. (A) If labor (or the media) need help with a problem, on whom can they call? Who has skills and expertise on this issue, is reliably pro-labor, and is willing to assist? (B) Where are there pro-labor student groups, and how can people get in touch with them? Students often provide much of the energy, enthusiasm, and personnel for demonstrations and campaigns, but have a high turnover from one year to the next. SAWSJ (presumably our student members) could work with other groups to compile a list of existing student groups, along with faculty at each institution who can provide continuity and know what students to contact for the new year. 11. SAWSJ BUILDING -- (A) Communications. Andor Skotnes created and maintains our Web site, and operates our large email posting list. We need a newsletter editor. (B) Membership. We need an active campaign both to recruit individual members and to establish local chapters. Dues fund the organization and serve as a marker of who is willing to do work; chapters and projects are the only way things will get done. Each of us should try to recruit members, but we also need a committee to do this. (If you want to work on forming a chapter, we'll tell you who in your area is a member.) (C) Fundraising. We need 501(c)3 status and ways to raise some money. (D) Advisory board of prominent people. Most of these are not the fun issues, but they need to happen if we are to get established. 12. TEAMSTER REFORM AND TDU -- Reform of the Teamsters has been a crucial part of the revitalization of labor, Teamsters for a Democratic Union is the oldest and largest rank-and-file group, and an election is in process. For its opening event, the Amherst-Northampton SAWSJ local held a forum on Teamster reform and a fundraiser for TRF, the tax exempt research and educational fund associated with TDU -- you can't and shouldn't give to the election itself. If your group is interested in hearing about Teamster reform, TDU will help arrange an event; contact Dan Clawson (clawson@sadri.umass.edu) for more information. YOUR ISSUE -- The above list only scratches the surface of things that should be done. Write in and propose additional issues, and (ideally) volunteer to work on them. MEMBERSHIP FORM -- What follows is the new membership form. Please use it (1) to recruit new members and (2) to provide us complete information about yourself, if we do not now have some of the items listed below. Thanks. ********************************************** Scholars, Artists, and Writers for Social Justice (SAWSJ) The aim of SAWSJ is to assist in reshaping the nation's political culture and fostering the growth of a vibrant, progressive, multicultural working-class movement; in shaping the terms of political debate and contesting corporate dominance of politics and culture; in restoring the mutually empowering relationship between the labor movement and its allies in the academic and cultural communities. If you share these goals, PLEASE JOIN. Please print this form, fill it out, and send it in; or complete it via e-mail, and snail mail us a check.) Name: Email: Home Phone: ( ) Work Phone: ( ) Address: City: State: Zip: Organizational Affiliations University (if any): Work: Union (if any): Political and Cultural Groups: _____ Yes, I want to become a SAWSJ member. Dues - check one: ____ $10 student/low income ____ $25 others with incomes below $40,000 ____ $40 for those with incomes of $40,000 or above Make checks payable to SAWSJ and mail to: SAWSJ c/o Labor Relations and Research Center University of Massachusetts 125 Draper Hall Box 32020 Amherst, MA 01003 EMAIL LIST INFO -- SAWSJ maintains an informational email list. Once or at most twice a week, we send out news and information, collected from many sources, about labor and social justice issues. Please check one: _____ I am already on the list. _____ I am not on the list. Please add my e-mail _____ Please do not add my e-mail address to the list. SAWSJ ACTIVITIES - We have underway, or are working at creating, both local chapters and networks focused on particular issues. Please indicate if you'd be interested in working on one or more of the following. Check as many as you like; if you check an item, someone will be in touch with you about working on the project: ___ Joining or forming a local chapter ___ Organizing a teach-in in your area ___ Big chill - fighting attacks on labor researchers ___ Anti-sweatshop ___ Right to organize ___ Workfare-welfare ___ On-campus organizing ___ Race and campus access ___ McJobs - part-time and contingent work issues ___ Op-ed and media projects - building a left network ___ Directories - of experts, of student groups ___ Internal SAWSJ - membership, fundraising, newsletter ___ Teamster Reform ___ YOUR issue - what else would you like to work on? Please specify: -------------- Scholars, Artists and Writers for Social Justice (SAWSJ) Email: SAWSJ@LRRC.UMASS.EDU Phone: (413) 545-3541 Fax: (413) 545-0110 Internet: www.sage.edu/html/SAWSJ Address: SAWSJ c/o Labor Relations and Research Center University of Massachusetts Amherst 125 Draper Hall, Box 32020 Amherst, MA 01003 ## ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From stewrob@hotmail.com Fri Jul 24 22:18:56 1998 X-Originating-IP: [130.207.177.31] From: "Stewart Roberts" To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: SAWSJ means . . . Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 00:18:41 EDT SAWSJ (pronounced "sausage") is an acronym (i.e. S.A.W.S.J.) for "Scholars, Artists and Writers for Social Justice," the premier academic and cultural support group for labor in the U.S. There home office is in Amherst, Mass and their home page on the web is: http://www.sage.edu/html/SAWSJ ## Don't Mourn - ORGANIZE! Stewart Roberts **************************************** Join R.E.A.P. REAP is the the Union Democracy Caucus in the United Food & Commercial Workers Union! Research - Education - Advocacy - People REAP PO BOX 822 GAITHERSBURG, MD 20884-0822 --- 301-972-3081 OFFICE 301-972-3422 FAX E-MAIL *************************************** Stewart Roberts E-MAIL: PO BOX 1102 DECATUR, GA 30031-1102 (404) 267-1300, ext. 73202 PLEASE LEAVE MESSAGE (404) 318-8394 PAGER (404) 377-8829 FAX USE COVER SHEET ******************************** REMEMBER! "If you're not having fun, you're not organizing." -- Suzanne Wall, SEIU 503 Salem, OREGON ******************************** ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Sat Jul 25 15:33:19 1998 Sat, 25 Jul 1998 14:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Sat, 25 Jul 1998 14:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 14:32:15 -0700 (PDT) To: BETHHESS@aol.com From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: Re: The Nikko labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu Beth, Rather than my being an intermediary, I suggest you speak to folks at the union (HERE Local 2). I spoke to Kevin O'Connor, who is director of organizing. The Local's president is Mike Casey. You can reach either at 415-864-8770. (Mike is at Ext. 731). My original objection was that the meeting, including sessions of the Labor Section, was booked into a non-union hotel. It was not that the management of this hotel did or did not do any particular thing. I would not expect a management representative to say anything but that they are always "fair," "just," "treat employees with respect," etc. I also would expect them to say, "We don't believe our employees would benefit from having a 'third party' interjected between them and us....Our door is always open to any employee who wants to speak to management about any problem or discontent....We don't believe our employees are well served by the kind of 'adversarialism' that an outside union would bring to our relationship....Our wages and benefits are competitive or superior to anything the union can offer...." I have heard these speeches (or variations of them) many times before. Any half-assed labor consultant or union-avoidance law firm can crank one out at a moment's notice. You seem to have set this up as some kind of a debate between the Nikko's management and members who oppose the use of non-union facilities as if the issue is how Nikko treats its workers. I reject that construction of the issue. There is nothing the manager of the Nikko can contribute to a policy discussion about whether SSSP ought to use unionized facilities or not. (I am assuming he is not a SSSP member.) The issue is use of a non-union facility in a city where 80% of the Class A hotels are organized. This is not about who beats up on their workers, or what some employer did or did not do to its employees, or whether the management of the Nikko offers any particular inducement to keep its employees non-union. I am not aware of a single member of the Labor Section who would not find it contradictory, if not embarassing, to hold discussions about workers' rights and struggles for justice, or the future of the labor movement in a non-union hotel in a town full of organized convention hotels. I am embarassed to have been asked to appear on a panel under those circumstances, and to have been a member of an organization that I had been led to believe represented the most "progressive" wing of the sociology profession. I was mistaken. I advised Art Shostak I would not enter the Nikko and resigned my membership from the SSSP in protest. I believe you ought to ask remaining members of the Labor Section if any of them would be willing to appear. I have taken the liberty of making a copy of this response available to the Labor-Rap discussion list to which a number of Labor Section members subscribe. Michael At 04:09 PM 7/25/1998 EDT, BETHHESS@aol.com wrote: >Thanks for your prompt reply -- can you find out anything more concrete about >the San Francisco situation -- "rebuffed approaches" is a bit unclear. The >Nikko claims that its service personnel have been amicably unionized in New >York and Hawaii, and that there is not a "history of hostility" between it and >its SF employees -- plus that they offer a wage and benefit package "far >superior" to any other in San Francisco. > >I have scheduled an Open Forum on Thursday at the 12-30-2:15 slot on the >"State of Labor Relations at Some San Francisco Hotels" -- at the Nikko -- and >invited their General manager, John Hutar, and also asked Amy Wharton to pick >some panelists from the Labor Studies Division. Do you have any colleagues >who would be willing to enter the Nikko and participate? I figure we can use >the occasion to educate our members and the hotel people. > > From dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu Mon Jul 27 07:34:34 1998 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:37:58 -0400 To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu From: david croteau Subject: Bensinger dismissal As an outsider to AFL affairs, I've been impressed with the refreshing tone and emphases of Richard Bensinger's public statements. (His appearance at the American Sociological Association's meetings in NY, for example, was an encouraging sign.) That's why his dismissal as the AFL's organizing director in June was perplexing to me. Does anyone with more information about this situation have any insight into what's happening? Is this another troubling sign about the AFL's committment to organizing or is there more here? ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| David Croteau * Sociology * PO Box 842040 * Virginia Commonwealth University * Richmond, VA 23284 * E-mail: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu From fgardner@aflcio.org Mon Jul 27 07:56:53 1998 Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:48:00 -0500 From: Florence Gardner Sender: Florence Gardner To: abrechts@seiu.org, lande@mit.edu ("'Ajose, Lande'"), allphds@haas.berkeley.edu, acomelo@ucla.edu (Anibel Comelo), awesthue@indiana.edu (Anita Kay Westhues), anthrograd@uclink2.berkeley.edu, parum@nea.org ("'Arum, Peter'"), autumn1@uclink.berkeley.edu, michael.barnes@ucop.edu ("'Barnes, Michael'"), sgrace@lausd.k12.ca.us (biegner-grace), villa@1stconnect.com (Brian Villa), bfoutz@aflcio.org (Butch Foutz), campres@aflcio.org (Campaign Researchers), cbenner@socrates.berkeley.edu (Chris Benner), cwhea001@umaryland.edu (Chris and/or Michelle Wheatcroft), croessler@igc.apc.org (Christina Roessler), chungyd@server.sasw.ncsu.edu (Chung Yong-Dal), dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu (david croteau), david.gartner@yale.edu, dfaber@nu.edu, dkobata@csulb.edu, dpingley@aflcio.org (Donna Pingley), douglas-anderson@uiowa.edu (Doug Anderson), selena@siu.edu (Eliza Guzman-Vela), Subject: LA County Fed Job Announcements ======== Original Message ======== Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO Organizing Department JOB ANNOUNCEMENTS Come be a part of the change to organize which is sweeping the labor movement! The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor's new organizing department will be a catalyst for new and innovative organizing projects in Los Angeles. The new department will also increase labor's capacity to win through a mobilization program which will work with Local unions to fight for workers' right to organize. We are currently hiring for the following positions: STRATEGIC RESEARCH COORDINATOR Responsibilities include: * Develop profiles of relevant industries and firms operating within those industries. * Perform analysis of, and identify strategic opportunities for relevant industries and firms operating within those industries. * Develop and maintain database file system * Work with various Los Angeles-based educational institutions in the recruitment, training and placement of entry level strategic researchers * Ongoing training and consulting with strategic researchers recently placed on campaigns. Qualifications include: * Work experience with labor unions, public interest organizations or community based groups. * Educational background in economics, law, business, labor studies, urban planning, geography, public administration, history or journalism. * Experience with quantitative and qualitative research, including financial analysis, industry research, corporate research, and/or issue research; ability to plan, research, write and edit quality research reports. * Experience and desire to thrive in challenging campaign atmosphere; ability to work on numerous assignments at once and to successfully meet tight deadlines. * Excellent computer and analytical skills, including familiarity with database design and management. MOBILIZATION COORDINATOR Responsibilities include: * Work with Local leaders, executive boards, staff and stewards in developing and implementing a mobilization program. * Develop training programs for Local staff, stewards and activists for member mobilization. * Coordinate with Local's leadership for action and event mobilization * Oversee database development. Qualifications include: * 3 to 5 years labor, community or political organizing experience. * Experience in developing and implementing training and education programs to meet campaign objectives * Experience in working with diverse constituencies * Staff supervision experience * Familiarity with various database programs MOBILIZATION ORGANIZER Responsibilities include: * Work with Local unions' staff, stewards and activists in developing and implementing a mobilization program * Implement training programs for Local staff, stewards and activists for mobilization activities * Set benchmarks for success and track mobilization growth in targeted Locals * Mobilization for events * Database management Qualifications include: * 1 to 2 years labor, community or political organizing * Ability to work with diverse communities * Familiarity with database management. Salary / Benefits Salary is negotiable depending on experience. Includes full benefit package (health, dental, vision, etc.) To apply, send resume with cover letter specifying the position you are applying for and explaining interest and qualifications. Include three professional references with phone numbers. Send or fax to: Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO attn: Jon Barton 2130 W. 9th St. Los Angeles, CA 90006 fax: 213-383-0772. Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO is an equal opportunity employer. Women and people of color are encouraged to apply. ======== Fwd by: Florence Gard ======== From clawson@sadri.umass.edu Mon Jul 27 08:56:20 1998 Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:59:02 -0400 From: Dan Clawson Subject: Re: Bensinger dismissal To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu David Croteau's question about Richard Bensinger's dismissal as director of organizing for the AFL-CIO hits at a key issue. I have no inside knowledge. David Moberg has an article in the latest IN THESE TIMES that is highly critical of the dismissal, and quotes two progressive Organizing Directors (Larry Cohen and Duane Stillwell) who oppose the action, while implying others felt the same way. Moberg believes the dismissal is because Bensinger was critical of labor's insularity and unwillingness to commit to organizing. Maybe. I personally love Bensinger; he's extremely smart, has good politics, and said many of the things that need to be said. But at the same time, inside the labor movement it is my impression that the staff who are most likely to be dismissed are organizers. If organizers don't deliver, they get fired; in many places, it's that simple. And organizers are one of the few places where there is a clear scorecard. Bensinger and the Organizing Department did a simply SPECTACULAR job of raising the issue, generating publicity and excitement, persuading unions to make organizing more of a priority. That was perhaps the most important part of their job, and they were fantastic at it. But the other part of the job was to actually successfully organize workers, and especially to do so through new and innovative approaches. Unless unions see some successes, they won't continue to work on this. And here it's not clear that the new AFL-CIO organizing department did deliver; and it's not clear to what degree that is because of the inherent difficulties of the situation, and to what degree it is because the department didn't make good decisions or run effective campaigns. But it is unquestionably the case that a number of the campaigns that were, at one point or another, priorities ended up with nothing -- the poultry processing campaigns, strawberry workers, apple harvesting, etc. So: this dismissal could be a sign that the AFL-CIO isn't willing to shake things up. But it is also possible that the dismissal is a sign precisely that Sweeney and company ARE committed to making organizing work, and if one person isn't getting the job done, someone else will be put in to do so. And if that were the case, the kindest and most supportive thing Sweeney could do for Bensinger is to say nothing. So the dismissal can reasonably be interpreted in two very different ways. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Dan Clawson clawson@sadri.umass.edu work 413-545-5974 home 413-586-6235 fax 413-545-0746 Dept. of Sociology, Machmer W-36, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst MA 01003 -----Original Message----- From: david croteau To: Labor Research and Action Project Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 9:35 AM Subject: Bensinger dismissal > As an outsider to AFL affairs, I've been impressed with the refreshing >tone and emphases of Richard Bensinger's public statements. (His >appearance at the American Sociological Association's meetings in NY, for >example, was an encouraging sign.) That's why his dismissal as the AFL's >organizing director in June was perplexing to me. > Does anyone with more information about this situation have any insight >into what's happening? Is this another troubling sign about the AFL's >committment to organizing or is there more here? >||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >David Croteau * Sociology * PO Box 842040 * Virginia Commonwealth >University * Richmond, VA 23284 * E-mail: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu > From dmoberg@igc.apc.org Mon Jul 27 15:18:40 1998 Mon, 27 Jul 1998 14:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 14:08:11 -0700 (PDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu, Labor Research and Action Project From: David Moberg Subject: Re: Bensinger dismissal Dan raises a perfectly reasonable alternative interpretation of Bensinger's dismissal, and if there had been a huge wave of successes, it would have been harder to get rid of him. Also, without more commitment from member unions and more development of organizers (both staff and members), it's hard to undertake the vast projects that everyone, including Bensinger, wanted. Some projects that were started--such as poultry organizing--fell apart because of disagreements and lack of commitment from member unions. There are limits to what the AFL-CIO can do on its own, and it doesn't seem inclined towards--nor are there the troops to put to work on--a project like launching new independent organizing projects that could develop into unions on their own. The evidence I have is that the AFL-CIO will continue to emphasize organizing; the new director of organizing has a lot of good qualifications and wants to continue Bensinger's work. But Bensinger lost out mainly to internal AFL-CIO politics, and it was partly because he was pushing as hard as he was to make organizing not only central but more of a militant crusade. The new director may be more inclined to be a team player. However, the AFL-CIO will lose a very talented leader; many organizing directors and higher officials (off the record) are upset; and very few people--though there are a few--within the labor movement seem to interpret this move as sacking somebody who failed to do his job well enough. David Moberg At 10:59 AM 7/27/98 -0400, Dan Clawson wrote: >David Croteau's question about Richard Bensinger's dismissal as director of >organizing for the AFL-CIO hits at a key issue. I have no inside knowledge. >David Moberg has an article in the latest IN THESE TIMES that is highly >critical of the dismissal, and quotes two progressive Organizing Directors >(Larry Cohen and Duane Stillwell) who oppose the action, while implying >others felt the same way. Moberg believes the dismissal is because >Bensinger was critical of labor's insularity and unwillingness to commit to >organizing. > >Maybe. I personally love Bensinger; he's extremely smart, has good >politics, and said many of the things that need to be said. But at the same >time, inside the labor movement it is my impression that the staff who are >most likely to be dismissed are organizers. If organizers don't deliver, >they get fired; in many places, it's that simple. And organizers are one of >the few places where there is a clear scorecard. > >Bensinger and the Organizing Department did a simply SPECTACULAR job of >raising the issue, generating publicity and excitement, persuading unions to >make organizing more of a priority. That was perhaps the most important >part of their job, and they were fantastic at it. > >But the other part of the job was to actually successfully organize workers, >and especially to do so through new and innovative approaches. Unless >unions see some successes, they won't continue to work on this. And here >it's not clear that the new AFL-CIO organizing department did deliver; and >it's not clear to what degree that is because of the inherent difficulties >of the situation, and to what degree it is because the department didn't >make good decisions or run effective campaigns. But it is unquestionably >the case that a number of the campaigns that were, at one point or another, >priorities ended up with nothing -- the poultry processing campaigns, >strawberry workers, apple harvesting, etc. > >So: this dismissal could be a sign that the AFL-CIO isn't willing to shake >things up. But it is also possible that the dismissal is a sign precisely >that Sweeney and company ARE committed to making organizing work, and if one >person isn't getting the job done, someone else will be put in to do so. >And if that were the case, the kindest and most supportive thing Sweeney >could do for Bensinger is to say nothing. So the dismissal can reasonably >be interpreted in two very different ways. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >---------- > >Dan Clawson clawson@sadri.umass.edu >work 413-545-5974 home 413-586-6235 >fax 413-545-0746 >Dept. of Sociology, Machmer W-36, Univ. of >Massachusetts, Amherst MA 01003 >-----Original Message----- >From: david croteau >To: Labor Research and Action Project >Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 9:35 AM >Subject: Bensinger dismissal > > >> As an outsider to AFL affairs, I've been impressed with the refreshing >>tone and emphases of Richard Bensinger's public statements. (His >>appearance at the American Sociological Association's meetings in NY, for >>example, was an encouraging sign.) That's why his dismissal as the AFL's >>organizing director in June was perplexing to me. >> Does anyone with more information about this situation have any insight >>into what's happening? Is this another troubling sign about the AFL's >>committment to organizing or is there more here? >>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >>David Croteau * Sociology * PO Box 842040 * Virginia Commonwealth >>University * Richmond, VA 23284 * E-mail: dcroteau@saturn.vcu.edu >> > > From stewrob@hotmail.com Tue Jul 28 06:45:56 1998 X-Originating-IP: [130.207.177.22] From: "Stewart Roberts" To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: "AFL's Top Organizer Ousted" (Labor Notes) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 08:45:50 EDT Labor Notes, August 1998 (page 2) http://www.labornotes.org/ Will Organizing Suffer? ----------------------- AFL's Top Organizer Ousted by Leah Samuel "It's something we don't dare touch with a ten-foot pole," declared the legislative director for a national union. "This is a very sensitive, ticklish thing." What's sensitive and ticklish is AFL-CIO President John Sweeney's decision in June to remove his organizing director, Richard Bensinger. The new organizing director is Kirk Adams, the federation's southern regional director, who has worked as campaign director and political director for democratic Texas Governor Ann Richards. Like many other AFL-CIO staffers, Adams comes out of the Service Employees International Union. While those within the AFL-Cio maintain that the change does not indicate a shift in the Federation's policy on organizing, many activists do not believe it. The official story is that Bensinger was not a good enough administrator. What this seems to mean is that the Federation's organizing program just wasn't working. Last year, unions organized 100,000 more workers than in 1996, but membership still fell by 159,000. 'SHAKING THE TREE' But this seems--at best--only part of the story. "This was a political move," said the legislative director. If organizing directors were "hired or fired based on their record...there would be very few to promote." Many unionists say that Bensinger alienated some old guard union leaders by his constant emphasis on organizing--and the implicit criticism that many unions were not doing a good job of it. Though there is no proof that any of them demanded Bensionger's head, it seems likely that Sweeney was unders some pressure to replace him. "I think [Bensinger} was too critical of the unions and union leadership on organizing," said one organizer. "He helped launch a certain debate within the labor movement, which has trickled down into the locals," the organizer said. "more and more, {Bensiinger] was talking about developing more member organizers. You can't convince the same old bureaucrats to do anything that will put them out of business." "Bensinger was shaking the tree," agreed the legislative director. "But there is a power block of forces that are financially, philosophically and violently opposed to organizing." The firing "portends a rightward movement of the AFL," he said. "It was a pre-emptive move. After all, Jim Hoffa's about ready to run the Teamsters." "Sweeney's a genius," the legislative director added. "He understands that within the labor movement, there's a right, a left, a center, and a gangster element, and he knows how to balance all four." Not everyone agrees about how important Bensinger's removal is. "I'm not dissing Richard," say a Teamster staffer, who blames the poor organizing numbers on "a systemic and institutional problem" at the AFL-CIO. "I just can't see the change as anything significant in the labor movement," he said, adding that the AFL-CIO is just plugging a new person into an ineffective program, so a change of personnel is only meaningful to those at the top. But a number of organizing directors for major unions are worried that the firing might mean less emphasis on organizing . "Richard was a strong advocate for organizing and encouraging national local unions to devote more resources to organizing," said one. Several organizing directors went to see Sweeney about their concerns over the firing. One participant characterized it as "a good meeting....What we said, as national union organizers, is that it's important for the AFL-CIO to support our individual union organizing programs. It's up to the federation's affiliates to implement their own programs to make organizing real and a top priority of their own membership and local leadership." ## ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From johnston@mail.cruzio.com Tue Jul 28 08:52:13 1998 From: "Paul Johnston" To: Subject: Re: Bensinger dismissal Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:10:04 -0700 charset="iso-8859-1" Dan Clawson wrote: "...And here it's not clear that the new AFL-CIO organizing department did deliver; and it's not clear to what degree that is because of the inherent difficulties of the situation, and to what degree it is because the department didn't make good decisions or run effective campaigns. But it is unquestionably the case that a number of the campaigns that were, at one point or another, priorities ended up with nothing -- the poultry processing campaigns, strawberry workers, apple harvesting, etc." From johnston@mail.cruzio.com Tue Jul 28 08:56:28 1998 From: "Paul Johnston" To: Subject: Re: Bensinger dismissal Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:49:08 -0700 charset="iso-8859-1" My apologies-- I just mistakenly posted an unfinished scrap of a message on this thread. Paul From meisenscher@igc.apc.org Tue Jul 28 23:41:32 1998 Tue, 28 Jul 1998 21:54:36 -0700 (PDT) Tue, 28 Jul 1998 21:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 21:47:58 -0700 (PDT) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Michael Eisenscher Subject: College President or CEO? The College President as CEO By David Greenberg Special to The Washington Post Tuesday, July 28, 1998; Page R01 "Being president of a university is no way for an adult to make a living," wrote the late A. Bartlett Giamatti, former president of Yale, in his 1988 book A Free and Ordered Space. "It is to hold a mid-19th Century ecclesiastical position on top of a late 20th Century corporation." As Giamatti's quotation suggests, the groves of academe have become a battleground between the forces of liberal education and the regiments of capitalism. On one side, champions of the life of the mind, seeming ever more naive and quaint in our cynical age, preach that the campus should remain cloistered away, insulated from the demands of the marketplace. On the other side, the hardheaded bottom-liners reply that indifference to economic pressures will render the liberal arts university obsolete; like all other American institutions, they say, it must (to use a phrase only the business world could coin) "maximize profitability." This tug-of-war is nothing new. It's been going on for more than a hundred years, ever since a handful of titans -- Daniel Coit Gilman at Johns Hopkins, William Rainey Harper at the University of Chicago, Charles Eliot at Harvard -- turned the American college from a cozy retreat for intellectual (mostly theological) contemplation into a comprehensive training ground for an array of disciplines. As long ago as 1916 the sociologist Thorstein Veblen excoriated these "captains of erudition," for whom "learning and university instruction are a species of skilled labor, to be hired at competitive wages and to turn out the largest merchantable output." But if the battle is old, this much is new: The regiments of capitalism are winning, and the champions of the life of the mind are in retreat. To see the dimensions of the impending rout, you have only to look at who's now being selected to govern the nation's colleges and universities. Increasingly, the search committees and boards of trustees are turning to the ranks of businessmen and politicians -- "non-traditional" presidents, as they're euphemistically called -- for candidates who will run the university less like an ecclesiastical sanctuary and more like a corporation. Consider a 1996 report by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, the nation's top organization of presidents and trustees. A 22-member commission conducted a year-long marathon of interviews, working groups and studies of the literature. Its conclusion: Universities should throw open their gates to nontraditional presidents. "Trustees should not shy away from potential presidents from nontraditional backgrounds. The new challenges facing higher education may lead institutions to look beyond the ivy walls to consider leaders [with] different kinds of experience," the commission's report said. Explains Judith Block McLaughlin, who teaches education at Harvard and writes about university presidents: "Places are nervous if [new presidents] don't have the administrative portfolio. The president has to have substantial budget experience, and financial management is a must." Reaching "beyond the ivy walls," as the board's report urges, often means cutting through the thicket of ivied credentials. "There was a time when one had to have a PhD," says James Fisher, a former president of Towson State who now advises presidential search committees. "Now the sophisticated ad in the Chronicle of Higher Education says 'doctorate preferred.' "According to a survey by the American Council for Education, of more than 2,700 presidents, only 57 percent today hold a PhD. What's more, 11 percent have no degree higher than MA. (The remaining 32 percent hold JDs or other non-PhD doctoral degrees.) One place search committees are looking is the political world. For public universities, familiarity with the state legislature, once an asset, has, in budget-cutting times, become a requirement. When William Bulger, long known as the power-hungry strongman of the Massachusetts statehouse, took over the commonwealth's university system, academics scoffed. But a surprising number rushed to defend the choice on the grounds that Bulger's Boston "insider" status would help him wring crucial appropriations from the government. Former Oklahoma senator David Boren, now president of the University of Oklahoma, testifies to the virtues of political experience: "I know many of the alumni from going to every town in Oklahoma. About 85 percent of our major donors I knew personally before I even got here." Other prominent politicians who've recently jumped to college presidencies include a trio of former state governors: Tennessee's Lamar Alexander, who headed the University of Tennessee from 1988 to 1991; New Jersey's Tom Kean, president of that state's Drew University; and Virginia's Doug Wilder, who was just named to preside over Virginia Union University, his alma mater. Wilder has yet to make any mark, but the other two have met with mixed reviews. Alexander was generally acknowledged to have had a troubled tenure, eyeing a run for what he considered a more prestigious presidency from the get-go. The PhD-less Kean has ruffled feathers with his too-political style. "His lack of qualifications and experience as a scholar has been a terrific drawback," Drew economics professor Rosalind Seneca told the New York Times in a profile of Kean that ran when he began his job. "He sees everything in terms of constituencies and wants to maintain control." Perhaps the most radical case of the non-traditional president is Evan Dobelle, hired in 1995 to run Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. A former adviser to Jimmy Carter and chief financial officer of the Democratic Party, Dobelle embodies the very antithesis of the stereotypical college chief. His early career hardly pointed toward a life in academia. After failing as a teenager to win admission to a military service academy, he enrolled at the Citadel in South Carolina, where he injured himself on an obstacle course and dropped out. He ended up going into politics, becoming mayor of Pittsfield, Mass., at 28, and didn't earn his bachelor's degree until age 38. Dobelle refused the school's ritual offer of tenure, preferring to work without even a contract; the move seemed gimmicky and ostentatious -- indeed, the symbolic gesture of a politician. His main preoccupation as president has been gentrifying the Hartford neighborhood in which Trinity is situated. His first few years as president saw a mass exodus of veteran Trinity officials, unhappy with his priorities and his brusque personal style. And while he makes all the right noises about respecting tenure and the values of academia, his answers to questions can seem canned and empty. "I simply believe in the time urgency of regaining moral authority in our democracy which has been marginalized by politicians and other institutions," he wrote to me in following up an interview. It read like the gibber-jabber one expects from politicians but cringes to hear from an ostensible intellectual leader. If politicians sometimes seem tone-deaf to the delicate timbre of academia, businessmen often march to an entirely different drum. Among the recent executives who've crossed over into higher education are Dick Spangler, a sometime construction company executive who headed the University of North Carolina system; Peter McPherson, a former vice-president at Bank of America who now runs Michigan State University; and Barry Munitz, who came to his position as chancellor of the California State University system after working for Maxxam Inc., a Houston-based holding company. Some have little patience for what they see as the inefficiencies and indulgences of the university. "I decided when I came in here I was going to be the CEO," says McPherson. "Universities are under increasing financial pressure and are looking to conduct their operations in a more businesslike way." He says one of his big decisions was to sell off the university's bookstore, which was losing money. The payoff showed up instantly in the budget. Matters like this, he says, are the ones a president has to be concerned with. Munitz, who left his position in March, also believes academia sorely needs corporate values. "Until recently, the college presidency was one of the last bastions of amateurism," he says. He unabashedly employs corporate-speak, referring to students as "consumers," their education as a "product." Early in his tenure, he began evaluating the presidents of the various Cal State schools on the amount of money they raised; soon after, he started compensating professors based on their "performance" as well. Some businessmen and politicians have served successfully at the helm of schools. Former Indiana congressman John Brademas, president of New York University from 1981 to 1991, turned his institution from a middling commuter school into a competitive pacesetter. At Oklahoma, Boren not only raised a lot of money (his five-year capital campaign, he says, is ahead of schedule and will likely net $300 million by 2000) but has also created an Honors College and remodeled dorms so professors and their families can live among the undergraduates. Douglas Bennett, a former state department official and head of National Public Radio, has also gotten high marks as the new president of Wesleyan University. What's more, the financial pressures bearing down on colleges today are real, and a bit of business sense surely helps a president in his or her job. Overall, though, running a university like a business will probably prove to be shortsighted. Presidents who intend to reward the "performance" of professors will find themselves losing out on those scholars whose work doesn't rope in fat government grants or wow their students but enriches campus life in intangible and enduring ways. Presidents who concern themselves with real-estate development or buying and selling bookstores will find themselves ill equipped to engage the larger questions about what kind of teaching and learning should go on. Presidents fixated on the bottom line will find it expedient to cut out the costly, inefficient programs (say, financial aid, or sabbaticals) that are a college's lifeblood. The problem is that, for all its virtues, the free market was never meant to be applied to education. Not even Adam Smith thought so. Capitalism prizes profits; it isn't supposed to make room for activities -- such as scholarship and study -- whose rewards lie outside the market. The profit-minded presidents, though, are not wholly to blame. In one sense, they are simply a symptom of a culture that increasingly sees higher education as a business. Last year, for example, an NYU student wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times boasting about shoehorning her coursework into three years so she could save money. Parents complain about the high cost of college tuition. Cynics eye a tenured professorship as a cushy sinecure that discourages producti- vity. Undergraduates flock to vocational majors and shortchange their classroom experience (while teaching students at Columbia University, I have been shocked at how often they cut class, pleading the excuse of a simultaneous job interview). Graduate programs, meanwhile, don't teach students to think and write so much as to jump through the right career-path hoops. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of college presidents, as the guardians of the ideals of liberal education, to speak up about these baleful trends -- something too few of them are doing. It is presidents who need to discourage students from racing through their coursework simply to nab a degree. Presidents need to reaffirm the value of scholarship that may seem abstruse or not practically useful. Presidents need to offer a compelling vision of liberal learning that will inspire students, parents and alumni. Politicians and businessmen are unlikely to provide such visions. Maybe we should consider hiring as presidents more professors who have absolutely no business, political or even administrative experience. Maybe, if we want college presidents to provide us with real ideas, it makes sense to look among those people whose job it is to have them. David Greenberg is a Richard Hofstadter Fellow in American History at Columbia University who has written about higher education for The New Republic and Lingua Franca. © Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company From johnston@mail.cruzio.com Wed Jul 29 08:29:07 1998 From: "Paul Johnston" To: Subject: Truth, Spin, and Consequences Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 07:22:31 -0700 charset="iso-8859-1" "Truth, Spin, and Consequences: Dare We Speak the Truth?" Our need to discuss and learn from recent organizing failures in the AFL-CIO raises an old question that is particularly vexing for scholars in the labor movement, or to anyone committed to the pursuit of understanding as a guide to practice. Dare we speak the truth? Spin— asserting a self-interested interpretation of the situation— is a resource, even a weapon, in union organizing as in politics as in daily life. Though it can be a weapon for those who lack other weapons it is also used by people with power to impose their definition of the situation, their explanation of problems, and more subtly their rules regarding what may not be discussed. There is a certain conventional wisdom, of course, which justifies spinning freely, fast and loose, in the service of the cause. "The truth", after all, is always subjective, suspect, contested and contestable. But though we may never know "the truth" we certainly do know a lie. Like democracy we may never get to the truth but it is often painfully clear when we move further away from it. When I talk about spin, I am not referring to our always-incomplete and ultimately subjective best efforts to understand a situation but to what might be called strategically self-imposed blinders. I want to include in "spin" not only today's strategic sound-bite but also the interpretations (including things left unspoken) that are on the one hand known to be distorted but on the other hand seem to be built into the situation. "You can't talk about that." Why? "Because it is divisive." "Because it will make people with power angry." Or "Because it will open us or our cause up to the attacks of our adversaries." I am not saying that we should have a reckless regard for the truth. Some statements, no matter how well-founded, are indeed destructive and cruel, and serve neither understanding nor justice, especially when made at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and in the wrong manner. But it takes a special kind of arrogance to believe that we freely impose our a definition of the situation on a workforce, on the internal life of a union, on an organizing challenge, on a political episode— and indeed, on a personal relationship— and not expect to come to come to grief. It takes a special kind foolishness not only to put it out for consumption by the public, within the union, among the workers we seek to organize but also to use our spin to guide our practice. It takes a special kind of naivite to think that we can ignore inconvenient or embarassing circumstances without (a) failing to achieve our goals from a purely strategic standpoint and (b) losing the confidence of those whose faith and trust we rely upon, who will ultimately and inevitably see that the emperor has no clothes. This foolish, arrogant naivite is entirely normal, native, built into political and organizational practice. But it sharply limits the learning capacity of the labor movement in a time when our urgently needed collective learning process is far from finished. So while pandering to the prevailing spin may appear to serve the strategic needs of the moment, and may also be in our interests as individuals, it is no service to labor's cause. From Artlipow@aol.com Wed Jul 29 09:05:55 1998 From: Artlipow@aol.com Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:04:05 EDT To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Re: NEA/AFT >From Gretchen Mackler in London on vacation and picked up your mail. I was a delegate to the convention in N.O. and I too was surprised at the vote. While I seemed very clear after the first day I didn't expect the 42% outcome. California (my state) had a thousand solid yes votes but in discussions with leadership we felt that there had been too much paper info on the merger and not enought meeting out in the states to deal directly with the negative questions and attitudes. BUT and we beleive this issues was very vital and that was that California's teachers were entirely tied up with an anti union initiative that went to ballot in June. CTA, as well as outrAFL- CIO sisters and brothers were involved in massive phone banking operations. (a twenty million dollar campaign on our part) Ca. teachers should have been all over the country on the unity campaign. S.F. and L.A. are both merger locals and we've benefitted by this experience. I discovered from several delgates from other states that there were serious questions about how members in rural areas would be represented compared to urban areas in their own state. Which tells me the campaign in that state had been framed around those issues, obviously to influence the vote. Gretchen Mackler 3696 Dorisa Ave., Oakland Ca 94605 (Alameda CTA -- State Council) From johnston@mail.cruzio.com Wed Jul 29 12:58:36 1998 From: "Paul Johnston" To: Subject: Strawberry Debacle (1): The Significance of Citizenship Status Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:50:43 -0700 charset="iso-8859-1" The Strawberry Debacle (1) by Paul Johnston The current spin on the strawberry debacle is understandable, perhaps necessary, not only for the prestige of the labor movement but also for the election appeal process, and I am not suggesting that it be challenged in a public manner. But we won't learn from this episode unless we look beyond the spin. There are important issues to be addressed— in this campaign as elsewhere— regarding organizing methods. Despite the deployment of enormous resources, despite all that can be said about employer opposition and intimidation by anti-UFW workers, and despite (perhaps partly because of...) the purchase of the main organizing target by a pro-union owner, it is evident that the organizing methods employed failed to engage this workforce. But here I want to say a few things about the significance of citizenship status. Overwhelmingly, the strawberry workforce is composed of undocumented Mexican workers. This is one of the unspeakable truths beyond the boundaries of discourse in the labor movement. There's a surprisingly strong consensus among progressive academics who study and support immigrant work organizing that legal status is irrelevant to union organizing efforts. Surprising because not only in the strawberries but everywhere in the U.S.-- right around the corner from every campus-- union organizers involved in the cutting-edge work of organizing immigrant workers are confronting the unique challenges of organizing these workers. The claim that citizenship status makes no difference for organizing appears to some to be an affirmation of equality and a form of support for organizing these folks: a classsic example of allowing our values to bias our assessment of the facts. While good intentions seem to lie behind academics' neglect of the significance of citizenship status, today's AFL-CIO organizing technicians are a good deal more hard-nosed. I attribute their neglect of the issues (and opportunities) here to unfamiliarity with this particular workforce, to overconfidence (give me the troops and I can make any workforce vote for the union!), and to a narrow-gage approach to union organizing held by some that considers any strategy other than a frontal campaign for recognition and any issue other than "Union Yes!" to be a distraction and a waste of time and resources. What ever the reason for neglect of citizenship status, when we neglect such significant factors reality is liable to teach us painful lesson. In the strawberry campaign, lesson time has arrived. The significance of citizenship status for union organizing derives from far more than the special vulnerability of the undocumented workforce. Because citizenship status is so central to the life and fortunes of these workers, an organizing effort which fails to speak to this issue is unlikely hope to resonate within the workforce. Also, workforces with different citizenship statuses present different kinds of organizing challenges and opportunities, and different kinds of social movement potential. Different issues resonate, different currents flow, different resources are needed, and different factors affect timing and other strategic decisions. I believe that this particular target was chosen based on a strategic analysis of the vulnerability of the industry, conducted by researchers far removed from the realities of farm labor in California. This kind of strategic analysis is a strong suit of the organizing technicians who have gained prominence through SEIU's Justice for Janitors and similar campaigns. But it is far from sufficient to assure that sound decisions or effective leadership. I will later to the bearing of citizenship status on the choice of this workforce as the key target for the UFW and the AFL-CIO leadership. Once we decide to organize a predominately undocumented workforce, however, we must have a positive message about the rights of undocumented workers. We cannot evade the issue. So the next posting starts here. Paul Johnston Citizenship Project johnston@cruzio.com From delgado@orion.oac.uci.edu Wed Jul 29 14:48:35 1998 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:48:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Hector Delgado Reply-To: Hector Delgado To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: Re: Strawberry Debacle (1): The Significance of Citizenship Status In-Reply-To: <01bdbb21$dc0d0e80$0b00a8c0@wave102.cruzio.com> Dear Labor Rappers: At a recent conference in UCLA, Paul and I discussed this issue briefly. I'll admit to being one of those progressive academics who found little evidence in his research to support the assertion (conventional wisdom?) that undocumented status was a significant deterrent to unioninzation, at least in light manufacturing in L.A. I don't know of any academics who say it is irrelevant (in fact, very few factors are irrelevant -- some are simply more important than others). So I agree with Paul that it shouldn't be ignored. But, I'm more concerned about attaching too much significance to this factor than I am about attaching to little sigificance to it. The former had been the case and consequently unions didn't even try to organize undocumented immigrants (at times even caling the migra), but when they finally tried to, they were pleasantly surprised by how receptive these workers were to unionization. Paul says academics "neglect" the significance of citizenship status. He seems to suggest that disagreeing with him on the importance of citizenship status is tantamount to neglecting it. Speaking for myself, the impact of citizenship status on unionization was precisely what I set out to study and found, to my surprise I might add, that it was not a very sigificant factor in the plant I studied in depth and other plants I looked at more superficially. In addition to the 70 plus workers I interviewed, I interviewed over twenty organizers from several unions in Los Angeles, and almost without exception, they did not believe undocumented status was a deterrent to unionization. I have not studied agricultural workers and it may be that in the case of agricultural workers, and strawberry workers in particular, citizenship status is a much more important factor. If this is the case, I look forward to learning about the "unique challenges" they present to organizers, and i assume Paul's next message will elaborate on this. It's also possible that citizenship status is more relevant today than it was a decade ago. So I agree that the discussion is an important one and new research should be conducted on the importance of citizenship status in organizing, but I worry that some -- and Paul is definitely not in this group -- may use it as an excuse not to organize these workers and blame them for organized labor's troubles. That would be taking a step backward. Organized labor has little choice but to organize these workers and many organizers will tell you that they are among the most militant of workers. But, again, I applaud Paul for raising the issue and look forward to reading others' comments. Hector L. Delgado On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Paul Johnston wrote: > The Strawberry Debacle (1) > by Paul Johnston > > The current spin on the strawberry debacle is understandable, perhaps > necessary, not only for the prestige of the labor movement but also for the > election appeal process, and I am not suggesting that it be challenged in a > public manner. But we won't learn from this episode unless we look beyond > the spin. > > There are important issues to be addressed— in this campaign as elsewhere— > regarding organizing methods. Despite the deployment of enormous resources, > despite all that can be said about employer opposition and intimidation by > anti-UFW workers, and despite (perhaps partly because of...) the purchase of > the main organizing target by a pro-union owner, it is evident that the > organizing methods employed failed to engage this workforce. But here I > want to say a few things about the significance of citizenship status. > > Overwhelmingly, the strawberry workforce is composed of undocumented Mexican > workers. This is one of the unspeakable truths beyond the boundaries of > discourse in the labor movement. > > There's a surprisingly strong consensus among progressive academics who > study and support immigrant work organizing that legal status is irrelevant > to union organizing efforts. Surprising because not only in the > strawberries but everywhere in the U.S.-- right around the corner from every > campus-- union organizers involved in the cutting-edge work of organizing > immigrant workers are confronting the unique challenges of organizing these > workers. > > The claim that citizenship status makes no difference for organizing appears > to some to be an affirmation of equality and a form of support for > organizing these folks: a classsic example of allowing our values to bias > our assessment of the facts. While good intentions seem to lie behind > academics' neglect of the significance of citizenship status, today's > AFL-CIO organizing technicians are a good deal more hard-nosed. I attribute > their neglect of the issues (and opportunities) here to unfamiliarity with > this particular workforce, to overconfidence (give me the troops and I can > make any workforce vote for the union!), and to a narrow-gage approach to > union organizing held by some that considers any strategy other than a > frontal campaign for recognition and any issue other than "Union Yes!" to be > a distraction and a waste of time and resources. > > What ever the reason for neglect of citizenship status, when we neglect such > significant factors reality is liable to teach us painful lesson. In the > strawberry campaign, lesson time has arrived. > > The significance of citizenship status for union organizing derives from far > more than the special vulnerability of the undocumented workforce. Because > citizenship status is so central to the life and fortunes of these workers, > an organizing effort which fails to speak to this issue is unlikely hope to > resonate within the workforce. Also, workforces with different citizenship > statuses present different kinds of organizing challenges and opportunities, > and different kinds of social movement potential. Different issues > resonate, different currents flow, different resources are needed, and > different factors affect timing and other strategic decisions. > > I believe that this particular target was chosen based on a strategic > analysis of the vulnerability of the industry, conducted by researchers far > removed from the realities of farm labor in California. This kind of > strategic analysis is a strong suit of the organizing technicians who have > gained prominence through SEIU's Justice for Janitors and similar campaigns. > But it is far from sufficient to assure that sound decisions or effective > leadership. > > I will later to the bearing of citizenship status on the choice of this > workforce as the key target for the UFW and the AFL-CIO leadership. Once we > decide to organize a predominately undocumented workforce, however, we must > have a positive message about the rights of undocumented workers. We cannot > evade the issue. So the next posting starts here. > > Paul Johnston > Citizenship Project > johnston@cruzio.com > > From xcruz@webtv.net Wed Jul 29 17:09:20 1998 X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAsAhQ7NxajF3SkKba+qQqHvvmYM7BaWQIUN5u6fTwHqKPuK83yc7afRKkEn/Q= From: xcruz@webtv.net (Robert Chavez) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:09:11 -0600 (MDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Radioactive Dump Compact (fwd) Sender: owner-frontera-l@nmsu.edu From: rjs3@cornell.edu (Richard J Simpson) Date: Wed, Jul 29, 1998, 2:02pm (MDT+2) To: bordenvnet-l@nmsu.edu, frontera-l@nmsu.edu Subject: TX/ME/VT Compact Today the US House of Representatives aproved the TX/ME/VT Radioactive Waste Compact by a vote of 305-117. The Compact approved has been stripped of the ammendments that would have limited the importation of nuclear waste to Texas and would have provided a means for people near the chosen site (Sierra Blanca) to oppose the dump on grounds of environmental justice. The Compact containing the waste import limitation (the Doggett ammendment) was approved in the House last fall by a vote of 309-107. Representatives speaking in favor of the Compact today included Vermont's alleged "progressive" Bernie Sanders, both Representatives from Maine (Allen & Baldacci), and Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson from Dallas, an African-American who has ignored environmental justice violations implicit in the Compact so that she may represent the interest of the nuclear power industry located near her district. Crucial to today's vote was the intervention of Texas' Gov. George Bush, who (along with the governors of ME & VT) persuaded the House that today's version of the Compact represents the interest of the state he governs. Bush has claimed that he will seek legislation in the next Session to insure that only waste from Maine & Vermont will be imported (a promise he is unlikely to keep) but has said nothing about environmental justice. The Compact will go before the Senate next, where Sen. Paul Wellstone has vowed to use whatever means are at his disposal to defeat the bill. From xcruz@webtv.net Wed Jul 29 18:58:37 1998 X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAuAhUAt5cgf3zkwVg2gIG7nxzTz5rDKvgCFQCianMuSm+wczSkVYUNliVjh72tFw== From: xcruz@webtv.net (Robert Chavez) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:58:30 -0600 (MDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Brazil Phone Sale Prompts Riot Brazil Phone Sale Prompts Riot  Thousands demonstrate as government sells phone system. Brazilian riot police in Rio de Janeiro march on hundreds of rioters after firing teargas. The demonstrators were protesting the government's decision to sell the country's telecommunications system, Telebras. The first auction was on Wednesday.                                                                                                                                                                         REUTERS RIO DE JANEIRO, July 29 — Police fired bullets and tear gas on Wednesday at thousands of angry demonstrators who set up burning barricades in central Rio to protest the Brazilian government's massive sale of telephone firm Telebras.                     Around 3,000 armed police arrived in Rio this week to help control the 10,000 demonstrators who had threatened to gather for the auction.        Eyewitnesses said they heard shots being fired in running street battles at demonstrators, several of whom were lying injured and bleeding in the street.                  The protestors — students, members of trades unions and Brazil's radical landless movement — vigorously oppose the sale of Telebras to foreign concerns, saying the huge holding is the property of the Brazilian people.        They gouged stones out from pavements to throw at police, which were promptly thrown back, said a Reuters photographer present at the scene. Some police covered their faces with shirts to protect themselves from the teargas. Holding a rock, a protester covers his face from the smoke from a bonfire near the Rio de Janeiro stock exchange, where the sale of Telebras took place.        Around 3,000 armed police arrived in Rio this week to help control the 10,000 demonstrators who had threatened to gather for the auction. Iron barricades were erected around the square next to the exchange, which was completely cordoned off.        The government hopes to raise at least $14 billion for the 12 spinoff companies of Telebras during the marathon day-long auction, expected to be Latin America's largest privatization.        Spain's Telefonica won the first round of bidding in the auction, leading an investment group that offered $4.97 billion for the fixed-line telecom service for Brazil's Sao Paulo state and the crown jewel of the Telebras system.                                    From xcruz@webtv.net Wed Jul 29 23:54:34 1998 X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhUAhgMPPRtmWXdHWYyvFDTjBrLGHnMCFBkCeJdD7BL2dQygxH6WWQYByuas From: xcruz@webtv.net (Robert Chavez) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:54:29 -0600 (MDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: "Microserfs" Seek Job Security Temporary workers seek job security, benefits Technical editors at Microsoft form union-free group                       Joe Brockert / Associated Press   Marcus Courtney and Mike Blain, both temporary technical editors at Microsoft, organize WashTech in Redford, Wash., to speak out for high-tech workers. By Kevin Galvin / Associated Press        SEATTLE -- Ten years ago, Mike Blain wore a hard hat and toiled on unionized construction jobs in the Northwest. Today, he's a technical editor at Microsoft.       Yet his new job isn't the prize it seems to be.   Blain is one of thousands of longtime "temps" at Microsoft headquarters who work alongside the computer giant's regular full-time staff but don't share the same compensation, security or benefits.        "I had better benefits when I was digging ditches and pouring concrete," Blain complained after a recent meeting of about a dozen Microsoft workers who want to improve their situations. "I certainly have an appreciation for what workers coming together can accomplish."        This new breed of high-tech worker sounds ripe for organizing. But labor unions have been slow to reach out to them, and they have been wary of unions.        "Traditional labor has a lot to learn about what is happening in the new economy," said Marcus Courtney, who with Blain is organizing WashTech, a group to speak out for high-tech workers in Washington state.        At a time of phenomenal job growth in the United States, labor unions have struggled to maintain their ranks. Despite recruiting 400,000 new members last year, labor's share of the workforce dropped to 14.1 percent, down from 14.5 percent the previous year.        Union leaders who didn't invest in organizing over the past 20 years are partly to blame. But there's another factor: Many of the new jobs are in sectors like high-tech and service where labor doesn't have a traditional base.        Many of these professionals are reluctant to join unions that they associate with blue-collar workers and a confrontational approach to management.        Jack Golodner, director of the AFL-CIO professional employees department, dismisses suggestions that professionals can't be organized, noting the Communication Workers of America and the American Federation of Teachers had success targeting white-collar workers in 1997.        "With new occupations and new industries, you've got to wait until the pixie dust wears off and then you can organize," Golodner said. "I think that with the Silicon Valley crowd, the pixie dust is beginning to wear off."        Still, it may take a different approach to reach them. Many high-tech firms tend to keep lean workforces, contracting out for specific projects that can run for years. That makes it difficult for a union to define a bargaining unit under labor law.        In California's Silicon Valley, local labor leaders believe the solution lies in labor's past. They are setting up a clearinghouse for high-tech workers that will provide job training, certification and placement, and may one day administer portable benefits.        Microsoft uses thousands of temporary workers like Courtney and Blain. Although they forgo stock options and other benefits, some enjoy the flexibility of their status and may earn more than regular staff, said Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan.        "Microsoft employees are treated fairly, and so are the workers who come from temp agencies," Cullinan said. There are no unionized workers there.                       From xcruz@webtv.net Thu Jul 30 01:27:13 1998 X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAsAhRkKF6FY/cyuTE3LKul0G879FOcZgIUS5pPMsFwSEX8sjNnl0/g+WADFHY= From: xcruz@webtv.net (Robert Chavez) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 01:27:09 -0600 (MDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: "Microserfs" Seek Job Security Temporary workers seek job security, benefits. Technical editors at Microsoft form union-free group                       Joe Brockert / Associated Press   Marcus Courtney and Mike Blain, both temporary technical editors at Microsoft, organize WashTech in Redford, Wash., to speak out for high-tech workers.                                                                                                                                                                                          By Kevin Galvin / Associated Press        SEATTLE -- Ten years ago, Mike Blain wore a hard hat and toiled on unionized construction jobs in the Northwest. Today, he's a technical editor at Microsoft.       Yet his new job isn't the prize it seems to be.   Blain is one of thousands of longtime "temps" at Microsoft headquarters who work alongside the computer giant's regular full-time staff but don't share the same compensation, security or benefits.        "I had better benefits when I was digging ditches and pouring concrete," Blain complained after a recent meeting of about a dozen Microsoft workers who want to improve their situations. "I certainly have an appreciation for what workers coming together can accomplish."        This new breed of high-tech worker sounds ripe for organizing. But labor unions have been slow to reach out to them, and they have been wary of unions.        "Traditional labor has a lot to learn about what is happening in the new economy," said Marcus Courtney, who with Blain is organizing WashTech, a group to speak out for high-tech workers in Washington state.        At a time of phenomenal job growth in the United States, labor unions have struggled to maintain their ranks. Despite recruiting 400,000 new members last year, labor's share of the workforce dropped to 14.1 percent, down from 14.5 percent the previous year.        Union leaders who didn't invest in organizing over the past 20 years are partly to blame. But there's another factor: Many of the new jobs are in sectors like high-tech and service where labor doesn't have a traditional base.        Many of these professionals are reluctant to join unions that they associate with blue-collar workers and a confrontational approach to management.        Jack Golodner, director of the AFL-CIO professional employees department, dismisses suggestions that professionals can't be organized, noting the Communication Workers of America and the American Federation of Teachers had success targeting white-collar workers in 1997.        "With new occupations and new industries, you've got to wait until the pixie dust wears off and then you can organize," Golodner said. "I think that with the Silicon Valley crowd, the pixie dust is beginning to wear off."        Still, it may take a different approach to reach them. Many high-tech firms tend to keep lean workforces, contracting out for specific projects that can run for years. That makes it difficult for a union to define a bargaining unit under labor law.        In California's Silicon Valley, local labor leaders believe the solution lies in labor's past. They are setting up a clearinghouse for high-tech workers that will provide job training, certification and placement, and may one day administer portable benefits.        Microsoft uses thousands of temporary workers like Courtney and Blain. Although they forgo stock options and other benefits, some enjoy the flexibility of their status and may earn more than regular staff, said Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan.        "Microsoft employees are treated fairly, and so are the workers who come from temp agencies," Cullinan said. There are no unionized workers there.                       From cxhaha@mail.wm.edu Thu Jul 30 08:44:31 1998 Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:43:12 -0400 (EDT) From: hahamovitch cindy x To: Labor Research and Action Project Subject: Re: Strawberry Debacle (1): The Significance of Citizenship Status In-Reply-To: The significance of citizenship status to farm labor organizing is not that undocumented farmworkers are unorganizable. Indeed, as Hector Delgado said, foreign farmworkers often come from regions with rich trade union traditions, and many know far more about unions (good and bad) than American workers do. The trouble is not so much the workers' predilictions (though they can be a decisive factor), but rather undocumented workers' vulnerability to deportation and threats of deportation. The INS has been used as agribusiness' bullwhip since the 2nd World War at least, so the problem, in my opinion, is the combustible combination of workers' vulnerability and state policy. The federally organized and managed Labor Importation Program (the predecessor of the H2 program) began during WWII, when the tightened labor market allowed African-American and Mexican-American farmworkers bargaining power, often for the first time. Faced with militant farmworkers after a 20-year depression that had kept labor cheap and relatively compliant, growers demanded and got foreign workers--primarily from Mexico but also, on the East Coast, from the British West Indies and Puerto Rico. Growers and their advocates in the War Food Administration (the wartime USDA) were quite open about the fact that they preferred imported workers because they could be deported for striking, "trouble-making", and even complaining. The WFA was very reluctant, in fact, to import Puerto Ricans because, as citizens, they couldn't be deported. Forced to include Puerto Ricans by Congress, the WFA held back 20% of their wages to ensure their return to Puerto Rico (it didn't work, of course). Since, WWII, we can cite many instances of growers wielding the INS as a sort of club to discipline an increasingly immigrant workforce. It didn't matter if the imported workers were willing to organize and even strike. If they did they would be promptly deported. Jamaicans were particularly quick to protest wages and conditions, but they found themselves in jail in Miami and then on their way back to Kingston before they even knew where they were headed. The issue of citizenship status, to make a long story short, is an extremely difficult one, but it's one that we must deal with without turning documented workers against undocumented ones. In some places, at least around here, undocumented workers are in the majority, so farmworkers can't be organized without the participation of the undocumented. What we must advocate, then, is the right of farmworkers to organize no matter what their immigration status is. This is particularly important now that growers are gaining ground in their effort to have Congress enact a new bracero program. The AgJOBS bill (I think that's its nickname--I'm at home away from my notes), if it is passed this time around (versions have come up in the last 5 congressional sessions) would allow growers access to unlimited numbers of agricultural "guestworkers." However, feeble the protections built into the H2 system are now, they at least require on paper that growers pay temporary importees prevailing wages (established by the Labor Dept); provide free housing that meets federal standards; guarantee the workers 3/4 of the wages promised for the contracted period; and obtain Labor Dept certification after they've demonstated a labor shortage. These rarely enforced, minimal protections would be lost under the proposed system. If we think organizing farmworkers is difficult now, just wait! Sorry for the long rant, Cindy Hahamovitch Associate Professor of History The College of William & Mary Author of "The Fruits of Their Labor: Atlantic Coast Farmworkers and the Making of Migrant Poverty, 1870-1945" (UNC Press, 1997). From christopher.rhomberg@yale.edu Thu Jul 30 14:36:43 1998 Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 16:37:05 -0400 To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu From: Christopher Rhomberg Subject: RE: media fellow Awhile back I wrote about an ASA grad student intern who was placed at the Detroit Free Press; here is an update: My email reply below summarizes the information I received. In short, the ASA avoided taking any stand on the placement and just referred my inquiry to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the administrator of the program. In response to my further questions below, the ASA executive office wrote back on July 25 that they had discussed the issue and were ">going through the ASA archives for relevant documents and ha[ve] been >consulting our attorney about these matters." [!] Today, six weeks after my initial inquiry, the ASA still has not stated its own policy or position, if any, with regard to labor disputes or in the case of the Free Press. The ASA needs to establish a clear policy supporting fair and just labor relations with all the parties with whom it does business. Several persons have raised ideas for possible action, and I invite further discussion here. I will post again with more about this soon, Chris Rhomberg >Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 19:47:30 -0400 >To: Carla Howery , Felice Levine >From: Christopher Rhomberg >Subject: RE: media fellow >In-Reply-To: > >Executive Office >American Sociological Association > >I received by U.S. mail a letter from Carla Howery dated July 9 regarding the Media Fellow at the Detroit Free Press, and thank you for responding to my inquiry. Your letter included attached copies of letters from the AAAS and the Free Press management. The attachments state that the AAAS met with the Free Press' Recruitment and Development Editor and accepted the company's claim that the dispute was over, as stated in the copy of an e-mail from the DFP. > >In a dispute between two parties, it would seem logical, reasonable and fair to hear from both parties in order to determine the facts of the dispute. Yet nowhere in your correspondence do I find reference to any communication, by either the ASA or the AAAS, with the unions involved. This is important, as the interpretation of events provided by the Free Press management is strongly contradicted by the facts presented by the unions. For example, according to the unions, while the strike is over the employers are engaged in a lockout: about 1,200 workers are still illegally displaced from their jobs, and only about 550 employees have been returned to work. Over 180 people have been fired, and the unions have unfair labor practice charges pending in these cases. On June 19, 1997, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that the newspapers were guilty on 10 counts of unfair labor practices which had "caused" and "prolonged" the strike. The newspapers have appealed the charges, and the NLRB has delayed ruling on the case for over a year. Yet even if only one of the unfair labor charges is upheld, the newspapers will be liable for back pay for striking workers from February 1997. By contrast, the newspapers' charges against the unions for alleged racketeering are still pending, and have not been upheld by any judge. The attempt by the Free Press editor to separate newsroom from production employees is also misleading; the Detroit News and the Free Press have a Joint Operating Agreement through their Newspaper Agency, all of the unions have and continue to bargain together with the newspapers, and as yet no new contracts have been signed. > >The scope of these disagreements suggest that the dispute is still very much unsettled and should be taken seriously. As I wrote to you earlier, numerous local city, state and national civic and political leaders have criticized the newspapers' stance, along with tens of thousands of union supporters who have demonstrated in favor of a settlement which has not yet been achieved. While I am disappointed with the actions of the AAAS in this matter, they indicate their willingness to consider additional information in determining their policy. On the other hand, I am even more disappointed by the virtual silence of the ASA in this regard. Your cover letter fails to answer many of my original questions or to address the particulars of this case; instead, it gives only a brief general description of the program and simply refers my inquiry to the AAAS. So that there should be no misunderstanding, let me re-state my questions and ask that you to respond to them with specific answers: > >1) What is the policy, if any, of the ASA with regard to purchase of goods and services, sponsorship of programs, and/or other activities in cooperation with employers involved in strikes, lockouts or unfair labor practices? > >2) What is the position of the ASA with regard to the facts of the case at the Detroit Free Press? Is it to be understood that the ASA endorses the statement provided by the Free Press management? Has the ASA made its own inquiry, independently of the AAAS, into the matter, and has it contacted any of the unions involved in the dispute? > >3) If ASA members believe that their organization has implicitly endorsed or condoned union-busting activities, what means are available for members to express our concerns and/or affect ASA policy? > >Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I look forward to your reply, > >sincerely, > > >Chris Rhomberg >Department of Sociology >Yale University >New Haven, CT 06520-8265 From xcruz@webtv.net Thu Jul 30 20:17:26 1998 X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAsAhQj2UwrDBH/EtCW9TdZwnRswt1YFwIUIdE5JcQwx5i5TcyuS/2DsRd7Hx0= From: xcruz@webtv.net (Robert Chavez) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:17:19 -0600 (MDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: High-tech Workers Need to Unionize Saturday May 30, 1998 San Francisco Examiner Visit The Skink at her Home Page Read all the Net Skink's columns at her eXaminer.com Home Page   High-tech Workers Need to Unionize By Rebecca Lynn Eisenberg When programmers started e-mailing me over the past few weeks, begging me to denounce the Senate's recent decision to grant more work visas to foreign nationals seeking high-tech employment, I was loath to run to their defense. Computer programmers, it seemed to me, did not need my help. They complain about long hours, but arrive at work at noon. They complain about low pay, but earn twice the national average. They gripe about being forced to carry cell phones, yet get wireless service for free -- not to mention stock options, top-notch health care, 401(k) plans and loaner laptop computers. Under-educated, overpaid, under-age white males, they start new companies, hire their buddies and wake up millionaires a la Netscape's Marc Andreessen. Surprisingly, in this case the programmers were right: The Senate H-1B visa decision did do them an injustice, but they still don't need my help. They need labor unions. If this debate over the so-called high-tech worker shortage does not stir them to organize, perhaps nothing else will. Unions for professional software engineers? The idea is not as crazy as it sounds. Although life for some programmers might look plush, many others sing the blues. Strong-armed to take options in lieu of paychecks, they are often left empty-handed when the business ultimately tanks, which it does in many cases. Meanwhile, the large paychecks paid by big software companies yield much more humble hourly wages when divided by the number of hours worked -- without overtime pay, of course. Constantly pushed to publish products by unreasonably early deadlines, software engineers have grown accustomed to pulling strings of "all-nighters" near launch-time, yet still are forced to release products before they're ready. Perhaps most nefariously, as programmers grow older, their job security plummets. Any stroll through a high-tech company reveals that the work force is very young. Norman Matloff, computer science professor at UC-Davis, confirmed this common observation in an an April report: Five years after finishing college, about 60 percent of computer science graduates are working as programmers; at 15 years the figure drops to 34 percent, and at 20 years it's a mere 19 percent. Personal testimonials are even more powerful than the statistics. "There were 10 situations where I interviewed and was turned down because I was not a good fit," said a 62-year-old computer programmer with 30 years of engineering experience in Silicon Valley, who preferred to remain nameless. "I work in food service now. I deliver a lot of pizzas to high-tech companies. We (cater) a lot of high-tech parties. Anybody with two eyes in their head can canvass the meetings and parties and see that in many companies there are few people who are over age 40," he said. The programmer described a conversation he overheard at a recent company event: "Age became an important topic of discussion at this mid-day meeting, and they decided that the oldest person in their section of the company was 29." These observations are corroborated by Matloff's study: Most software companies classify programmers and systems analysts with six years of experience as senior even though they usually are no older than 28. Older employees are more expensive. Because they are more likely to have families, for example, their benefits cost more and they are less likely to tolerate 80-hour work weeks than recent college graduates. And while unemployment rates for older workers are high -- 17 percent for programmers over age 50 as of August, Matloff said, the numbers tell only part of the story. "I get rather annoyed at unemployment statistics," the programmer said. "They might be talking about unemployment, but they are not talking about underemployment. Former high-tech people have long since exhausted their unemployment benefits or are employed at something that they did not expect to be doing at their age." Meanwhile, he said, as a temporary employee "I have sat through meetings where managers go out of their way to report that they had hired new permanent employees, stressing that they would be working as soon as they had their visas straightened out. Politically it seemed very important for them to stress this." Is this because H-1B status employees would work more hours for less money? "That was my distinct impression," he said. Would this programmer join a union? "I am not sure if 'union' is the right word, but I definitely think that something should be done," he said. "Union" is the right word, said Amy Dean, chief executive director of the South Bay AFL-CIO Central Labor Council (www.atwork.org), which represents the interests of labor, both full-time and contingent, in Silicon Valley. "It always makes sense for working people to come together for purposes of bargaining collectively to improve their workplace situation." Unions can provide job security for workers with seniority, which is essential for older workers in the youth-biased software industry, Dean said. "There is no question that the industry (is) looking at older workers as though they are disposable," she said. "They have become too costly, and now after they have given the best of their lives to the company, the company decides that it is too expensive to keep them on board." Additionally, unions could benefit workers of all ages by requiring companies to look internally or locally before hiring foreign workers on visas. If programmers were organized, Dean said, "They could insist on what portion of the company's jobs go to people in-house, and they could insist that X percent of jobs be tagged for people that are already part of the company." Furthermore, unions could convince companies to train workers, said Dean. "Workers would have means to sit down with the employers and say, 'We think that there should be X number of dollars spent on training to bring us up and elevate our skill base so that we can apply to jobs being given to people from other parts of the world.' " "This H-1B visa issue is all about trying to undercut the wage and benefit rate of current American workers," Dean said. With a union, technology workers could insist on a wage and benefit standard as opposed to allowing companies "to bring in workers that are going to undercut that standard." That's fine for programmers who are employed full time, but traditionally unions have not been available for contingent workers, who, like the programmer above, work part time or are contracted to work on short- or long-term projects. Because contingent workers now comprise 27-40 percent of the Silicon Valley work force (and growing), according to the National Planning Association in Washington, D.C., the Central Labor Council is upgrading its services to serve them better. "We are building an organization that people will be able to join to receive benefits, including health and pension," which independent contractors usually don't get, Dean said. "It will also provide training and skills certification, and it will advocate within the temporary-help industry to improve conditions for people who are working on a part-time or contingent basis." While this approach is not traditional unionization, Dean conceded, "we know that in the new economy, we will need these new types of organizations." In the meantime, Dean urged all high-tech workers to vote against Proposition 226 on Tuesday. That proposed law, she said, would "eliminate the right of workers to bundle together their nickels and dimes to have a voice in the political process" -- including opposing future attempts to bring in more foreign programmers. "If workers cannot combine their resources, they have no chance to stand up to big corporations and organized business," which outspend labor 11 to one, Dean said. In all these ways and more, said Dean, "History shows that when people band together, they do better than they would if going it alone." The software industry certainly knows the power of banding together -- after all, it was the powerful lobbying efforts of its trade organization, the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), that succeeded in pushing companies' requests for more foreign labor through the Senate. Programmers -- both young and old -- deserve equally strong representation, which they can find in unions. If the industry is scared by the so-called high-tech worker shortage, imagine the persuasive power of engineers on strike.   From xcruz@webtv.net Fri Jul 31 00:02:22 1998 X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhUAxxWVq+hHON2GBuk8v7O3SNel+9ECFB6osEKdpGcxyt1kqUXjpjneyUtj From: xcruz@webtv.net (Robert Chavez) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:02:16 -0600 (MDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Han Young: 2nd factory joins struggle! (fwd) Sender: owner-frontera-l@nmsu.edu From: dnathan@utep.edu (Debbie Nathan) Date: Thu, Jul 30, 1998, 10:33pm To: frontera-L@nmsu.edu Subject: Han Young: 2nd factory joins struggle! (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:05:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Campaign for Labor Rights To: clr@igc.org Subject: Han Young: 2nd factory joins struggle! Labor Alerts: a service of Campaign for Labor Rights To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to CLR@igc.apc.org Phone: (541) 344-5410 Web site: 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. [Information provided by staff of the Support Committee for Maquiladora Workers, who ask that activists seeking updates contact Campaign for Labor Rights: (541) 344-5410, ] HAN YOUNG WORKER BEGINS SPEAKING TOUR Workers at second factory seek to join independent union!!! posted July 30, 1998 1) Update on events in Tijuana The Support Committee for Maquiladora Workers has maintained from the outset of the Han Young struggle that this isn't about just one factory. Han Young sets a precedent for other workers in Tijuana and all along the border area. Two and a half weeks ago, this prediction was proved true, when workers at the Axiohm factory in Tijuana filed to join "October 6," the independent union founded by the Han Young workers. Axiohm, which produces impact and magnetic printheads for industrial printers, such as those which print lottery tickets and ATM receipts, has a local workforce varying from 350 to 400 workers. It is headquartered in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania and has factories in Ithaca (New York), Denver (Colorado), Carson and Paso Robles (California), Riverton (Wyoming), France and Manchester (England). Within a couple of days, the labor board rejected the Axiohm workers' petition to join the October 6 union - on the grounds that another union also wants to file. The basis for the board's rejection is, of course, ridiculous, since the situation should be resolved by promptly scheduling a union certification election. The Axiohn workers have filed an appeal of the board's decision. Until now, the Support Committee has not released any statements about the situation at Axiohm, hoping that the dispute could be resolved through discussions with Axiohm management. However, since Axiohm has so far not taken any visible steps to intervene on behalf of justice and compliance with Mexican labor law , the Axiohm workers decided last night to go public. 2) Update on speaking tour Today, Han Young worker Fernando Flores began a speaking tour along the West Coast of the United States and Canada. Thousands of people who have been reading alerts on the Internet now will be able to hear directly from one of the workers involved in this historic struggle. Fernando Flores is the General Secretary of the Han Young Section (Local) of the October 6 Commercial and Industrial Workers Union and has been General Secretary of the independent union at Han Young since the beginning of the struggle. Last fall, he also was one of the workers who engaged in a 26-day hunger strike at the Tijuana State Building. The translator for nearly all of the tour (California, Oregon and Washington) will be Alma Ortiz, a Swarthmore College student who is brand new to the Support Committee for Maquiladora Workers. She is a native Spanish speaker from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Trim Bissell, national coordinator of Campaign for Labor Rights, will accompany the tour from Eugene, Oregon until the final appearance in Victoria, British Columbia. He hopes to be able to post reports from some of the cities along the route. The tour is sponsored by the Support Committee for Maquiladora Workers (Mary Tong, executive director); Craftsmen Hall, 3909 Centre St., #210, San Diego, CA 92103; phone: (619) 542-0826; fax: (619) 295-5879; . The entire tour has been organized by Bruce Allen, a union activist who lives in Ontario, Canada - with help from a number of local and regional activists who also are volunteering their time and energy. From xcruz@webtv.net Fri Jul 31 15:46:56 1998 Received: from mailsorter-105.bryant.webtv.net (mailsorter-105.iap.bryant.webtv.net [207.79.35.95]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id PAA20329 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 15:46:54 -0600 (MDT) Received: from mailtod-122.bryant.webtv.net (mailtod-122.iap.bryant.webtv.net [207.79.35.90]) by mailsorter-105.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.gso.08Dec97) with ESMTP id OAA19205; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 14:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from production@localhost) by mailtod-122.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.5/mt.gso.26Feb98) id OAA11973; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 14:46:50 -0700 (PDT) X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhUAtCIS8yV5mHde88WbHo4craCA0MoCFFrtBDMFr4zHCZft2CNzWywF804u From: xcruz@webtv.net (Robert Chavez) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 15:46:50 -0600 (MDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Cc: xcruz@webtv.net Subject: WW II--Imported Agricultural Labor Message-ID: <8938-35C23B4A-134@mailtod-122.bryant.webtv.net> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-Printable to 8bit by csf.Colorado.EDU id PAA20331 Sender: owner-frontera-l@nmsu.edu From: lplascen@mail.la.utexas.edu (Luis F.B. Plascencia) Date: Fri, Jul 31, 1998, 11:40am (MDT+1) To: cxhaha@mail.wm.edu Cc: frontera-l@nmsu.edu Subject: WW II-- Imported Agicultural Labor Dear Professor Hahamovitch: I agree with your overall assessment of the role of imported agricultural labor. I am sure you are probably aware of the background to the Caribbean and Mexican programs, however, not all the readers of your e-mail message may be as clear about the two programs and their relationship. Consequently it may be useful to clarify some historical points regarding the WW II programs: a) The agreement with former British West Indies colonies (Haiti and Jamaica in particular) to import "temporary" agricultural labor **predated** the Mexican program. This so called "temporary" program, unlike the Mexican one, never ended; it has continued from 1942 to the present. We now know it as the H-2A program. While the total number of H-2A workers has decreased from a peak of about 13,000 to 7,000. The single biggest user over the entire 50+ years has been the U.S. Sugar Corporation and other smaller sugar companies in Florida - including a company owned by a Cuban family that left Cuba after 1959; b) To argue that the "growers" (and perhaps the U.S. government) are the bad guys is to simplify the complexity of the issue. The Jamaica government has been deeply entrenched in promoting, regulating and fostering the continuation of the H2-A program; after all there are middle-person fees for the Jamaican government and the money brought back by the returning workers is a major part of the country's sources of income. The fact that significant numbers of workers are severely injured as cane cutters is accepted by the Jamaican government as a minor question. In addition, it plays an important role in preventing the participation of workers who are black listed by the sugar companies; c) During the 50+ years of the H2-A program, the U.S. federal agencies involved in the program have at times adhered to the same political views, but not always. The DOL has at time held back on granting permission and questioned the need for H2-A workers. During the Carter administration, for example, DOL opposed granting permission to H-2A workers in certain crop (but not in others) but then faced court injunctions that prohibited their denial of permits; although DOL finally was able to overcome the court limitations, by the time it achieved this the harvest was already over and thus the issue became moot; d) The Mexican agreement (which later became known as the Bracero Program, 1942-1964), was actually **modeled on** the British West Indies program (not the other way around as it is usually thought of and written about); e) The Mexican government played a key role in initiating the U.S-Mexico program; after all, they saw the potential dollar remittances (as a footnote it should be noted that during this time Mexico pushed strongly for the implementation of "employer sanctions" against employers who hired undocumented workers (a policy not adopted until 1986 under IRCA; I interpret Mexico's push for employer sanctions as a strategy to allow a high degree of monopolization for the Mexican government); f) The Mexican government used the program for its own internal political aims. Since it controlled which areas of Mexico were going to participate in the Bracero Program, it chose to use the program to neutralize and eliminate areas of opposition to the PRI. Thus it was not an accident that areas such as Jalisco and Michoacan (which were strong bases for Cristeros and other opposition groups) were given the "golden opportunity" to send workers to the U.S. Consequently, it was able to heavily disrupt the recruitment base for opposition groups; and sucessfully eliminated the opposition. If the Bracero Program was to be implemented today, it would not surprise me that Zedillo would give the "opportunity" to Chiapas, Oaxaca and Guerrero to export workers to the U.S.; the program of course would get some revamped name alluding to "economic development," "rural revitalization" or the like. This should help to understand why immigrants from Jalisco and Michoacan are so prominent in California and other states, and in cities such as Chicago. Some of the literature assumes that it was proximity to the U.S. that drove persons from Michoacan and Jalisco to California and other locations. While this may have a small piece of truth, it does not explain why then are the majority of immigrants from Mexican border states; g) The Mexican Bacero program was largely made up of agricultural workers; however, not all Baceros worked in agriculture, some worked in railroads; thus, not all Braceros were ag workers. From xcruz@webtv.net Fri Jul 31 16:02:43 1998 Received: from mailsorter-105.bryant.webtv.net (mailsorter-105.iap.bryant.webtv.net [207.79.35.95]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id QAA20762 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:02:41 -0600 (MDT) Received: from mailtod-122.bryant.webtv.net (mailtod-122.iap.bryant.webtv.net [207.79.35.90]) by mailsorter-105.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.gso.08Dec97) with ESMTP id PAA09986; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 15:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from production@localhost) by mailtod-122.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.5/mt.gso.26Feb98) id PAA14059; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 15:02:39 -0700 (PDT) X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhUAkaDd+NX0BndD0e7e74pgz0uamScCFCeKbE/PwGIBd9mOmY1AcIFeOEQd From: xcruz@webtv.net (Robert Chavez) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:02:38 -0600 (MDT) To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu Cc: xcruz@webtv.net Subject: Letter from Nader to Bill Gates Message-ID: <13713-35C23EFE-11@mailtod-122.bryant.webtv.net> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-Printable to 8bit by csf.Colorado.EDU id QAA20763 Sender: list@rhizome.org From: cpr@beaver.slip.net (Christiane) Date: Fri, Jul 31, 1998, 4:11pm (MDT+2) To: xcruz@webtv.net Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Message from heaven (forward) Hi,                I had to send this little thought to you, the calculations from old friend Al Krebs and letter from Ralph Nader.   J Subject: NADER SENDS PUBLIC LETTER TO BILLIONAIRE BILL GATES FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES: Here is some food for thought. Bon Appetit!!!!! As I write this Bill Gates is currently worth $61.613 billion Microsoft's stock was up by $0.875 today. This means that Bill made another $483,243,075.00 today. (That's $483.24 Million.) Since midnight (Eastern Time), 811 minutes have passed. Since that time, Bill has made money at the rate of $595,860.75 per minute. That's $595.9 Thousand per minute! If Bill Gates was a country he would rank between 37 & 38 a public corporation between 6 & 7 a bank between 7 & 8 a state between 8 & 9 If you assigned yourself the task of spending all of Bill Gates fortune over a 30-year span, 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week you would have to spend it at the rate of $234,289.64. an hour. Habitat for Humanities estimates that to build a house for a family of four costs $30,000 (labor volunteered) a piece.. With Bill Gates fortune you could build housing for 9,242,023 people. With Bill Gates fortune you you could afford a four year scholarship, room and tuition fully paid for 533,062 students NADER SENDS PUBLIC LETTER TO BILLIONAIRE BILL GATES ABOUT WEALTH DISPARITIES CHALLENGES GATES TO JOIN WITH WARREN BUFFETT TO LEAD A CONFERENCE OF BILLIONAIRES AND MULTI- BILLIONAIRES ON THE SUBJECT OF NATIONAL AND GLOBAL WEALTH DISPARITIES AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: RALPH NADER 202-387-8030 ----------------------------------------------- July 27, 1998 Mr. William H. Gates Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Microsoft Corporation 1 Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 Dear Mr. Gates: An astonishing calculation comes from Professor Edward Wolff of New York University and presents an important opportunity for you. Professor Wolff, a wealth economics specialist, estimated that your net wealth is greater than the combined net worth of the poorest 40 percent of Americans (106 million people). That includes their home equity, pensions, mutual funds and 401(k) plans, but excludes their personal cars. When Professor Wolff made his analysis, your net worth was only $40 billion. Now, according to the latest Forbes listing of billionaires, your assets exceed $51 billion and that may be outdated, given the most recent surge in Microsoft stock. So it is fair to assume that the mostly secondhand cars of these 106 million Americans can now be included and then some. All this wealth makes you the world's number one working rich person. Apart from the more than medieval size gap between your wealth and theirs, it is more than a little worrisome that tens of millions of Americans have so little net property worth, some after a lifetime of labor. As Jeff Gates, author of the new book - The Ownership Solution - says: "Capitalism is very good at creating capital but terrible at creating capitalists." The United States now has the sharpest wealth disparity of any western nation. The wealth of the top one percent is greater than that of the bottom ninety percent of Americans. As author Gates observes: "The implications attending inaction are staggering fiscally, socially, politically and even environmentally." If you knew the range of Gates' experience in Washington and the business community, you would conclude that his normative conclusion was not "a random thought." As might be expected, on a worldwide plane, wealth disparities are staggering. According to the United Nations Development Program, the assets of the world's 358 billionaires were greater than the combined incomes of countries with 45 percent of the world's people (about 3 billion human beings)! All these chasms are widening against a background of modern and accelerating technology, declining trade barriers, mobility of capital, medical advances and presumably a greater awareness of what history's most tragic mistakes, avarice, monopolies and cruelties can produce. As one illustration, last year, more people in the world died (nearly six million) from Tuberculosis and Malaria than in any previous year. The growth in gross global GNP and capability did not stop these diseases of poverty from their mass destruction. Concentration of power and wealth and the gross insensitivity of economic and political leadership had a good deal to do with these preventable casualties. There is obviously a problem of distributive justice that has not been given the attention it deserves by the leaders of global capitalism. I saw a T-Shirt being distributed at a conference recently with the message: "A Rising Tide Lifts All Yachts." A telling phrase for our times. Warren Buffett, possibly the world's number two working rich person with assets exceeding $33 billion, is your dear friend and fellow card player. Let me suggest that you team up with him to sponsor, plan and lead a conference of billionaires and multi- billionaires on the subject of National and Global Wealth Disparities and What to Do About It. The quantity, quality and distributional dimensions of economic output will drive participants to come to grips with the fundamental purposes of economic systems and their economic indicators. With the dual sweep of the Gates-Buffett hands, the serious and consequential plight of humanity would become a matter of high alert for those business colleagues and acquaintances of yours who aspire to move from success to significance. During our brief meeting earlier this year at the Time-Warner 75th anniversary dinner in New York, you replied that you were open to communication (by E-Mail, you smilingly suggested). I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Ralph Nader P.O. Box 19312 Washington, DC 20036 Christiane Robbins Digital Media Studio CAPITAL Pictures San Francisco, CA TEL: 415.648.0369 + + + RHIZOME COMMUNICATIONS post: list@rhizome.org questions: info@rhizome.org answers: http://www.rhizome.org + + + posts to RHIZOME RAW are subject to the terms set out in the Subscriber Agreement available online at . From johnston@mail.cruzio.com Fri Jul 31 18:18:16 1998 Received: from mail.cruzio.com (mail.cruzio.com [208.226.92.37]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id SAA26697 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 18:18:13 -0600 (MDT) Received: from wave102.cruzio.com (wave102.cruzio.com [165.227.211.102]) by mail.cruzio.com with SMTP id RAA01164 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 17:18:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Johnston" To: Subject: Strawberry Debacle (2): Defend Immigrant Rights Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 17:11:20 -0700 Message-ID: <01bdbce0$e9474460$0b00a8c0@wave102.cruzio.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004C_01BDBCA6.3CE86C60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BDBCA6.3CE86C60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Strawberry Debacle (2): Defend Immigrant Rights Once we decide to organize a predominately undocumented workforce, we = must have a positive message about the rights of undocumented workers. = We cannot evade the issue. That's what this posting is about. =20 I'll begin by responding to comments prompted by my previous posting = (Strawberry Debacle (1): the Significance of Citizenship Status). = First, the claim here is not that the campaign is lost in strawberries. = Organizing is a long haul, and the only way the union can truly be = defeated is if it gives up. I don't think the UFW is likely to do = that. Nor am I claiming that the only lesson to be drawn-- the only = thing that could have been done to avoid this debacle-- is to pay more = attention to immigrant rights. Everyone close to the campaign knows = that mistakes were made, but also that the new UFW-- new since Cesar = passed away-- is learning its lessons and steadily strengthening itself. = In time, as it does so, that union promises to surpass the organizing = capacity and the staying power of the old UFW in its heyday. Nor is the claim being made here that undocumented workers are somehow = intrinsically unorganizeable, anti-union, etc. Rather it's that their = special vulnerability makes them much harder to organize than legal = residents, because of the heightened climate of fear in the = post-Prop-187 era, and more specifically because of steadily = strengthening INS enforcement activity & employer sanctions. Hector Delgado is among those who HAS seriously examined the = significance of citizenship status, in his excellent book New = Immigrants, Old Unions (Temple University Press, 1993), and he finds = (and still argues) that undocumented status is not a significant = deterrant to unionization. But he also suggested in that book that this = might change if enforcement efforts intensify. This is, of course, what = I claim has happened. Between the time of his research and the present = an entirely new citizenship regime has been imposed, with consequences = that include reduced access to social resources as well as increased = vulnerability to employer reprisals. We don't have the space to present = evidence here, but I'd sure like to hear from organizers who are working = with a workforce that includes significant numbers of undocumented = workers, for whom their vulnerability is NOT the most difficult = organizing issue. I know too many organizers in too many industries for = whom this is the case.=20 =20 And certainly immigrant workers have been at the forefront of labor = organizing over the past decade. I will go beyond my claim that we have = entered a new era-- a new citizenship regime, with consequences for = organizing-- and also suggest that closer examination of these movements = will support the conclusion that much of this organizing energy was = unleashed when, due to the amnesty provisions of the 1986 immigration = law, millions of previously undocumented workers achieved legal = residency status. If this is so, then here is a case of the labor = movement drawing strength from its convergence with a social movement = toward expanded citizenship. =20 Back to the strawberries. No leader has been more outspoken and = effective in advocating for the rights of immigrants in the halls of = government than the UFW's legendary Dolores Huerta. On the ground in = the Central Coast, however, the union confronts a dilemma. If it breaks = the conspiracy of silence maintained by the industry, the INS, the union = and the local political leaders, it risks provoking and perhaps = undermining the power of the boycott and the support of public leaders = in anti-immigrant climate. Consequently the union has done what Hector = suggests in his book must be done-- try to get them not to think of = themselves as immigrants but as workers. =20 Certainly the labor movement is in a bind, as immigrant workers = undeniably intensify wage competition and undermine unions' labor market = power. And visible public advocacy around the issue of rights for = undocumented workers in the context of an organizing campaign may well = attract exactly the INS enforcement that the workers fear.=20 But citizenship status is a central reality, and more than ever the = central reality for these workers. So I conclude that unless and until = it has a strong public stance speaking to the oppression of undocumented = workers, no union can claim to speak for them, nor hope to make major = strides in organizing this workforce. =20 That's why I believe that we need a labor voice on behalf of = undocumented workers, saying "Our contribution to the wealth of this = society gives us rights. Legalize us." Instead, however, the AFL-CIO = maintains its support for strengthened employer sanctions. =20 Consider the contradiction, and the irony: the labor movement's new = leadership stakes everything-- the number one organizing priority for a = leadership whose highest priority is organizing-- on organizing a = largely undocumented workforce.... while simultaneously calling for = tougher employer sanctions, the main stumbling-block to organizing that = very same workforce. I am not saying that the AFL-CIO's weak stance on immigrant rights is = entirely to blame for the current setback in strawberries. But it = hasn't helped. In addition to the issue of employer sanctions, there are other ways as = well that the AFL-CIO, the UFW, and other unions could identify the = labor movement with immigrant interests. I will talk in the next = posting about one of these-- embracing and helping to lead the = citizenship movement now making its way through the institutions toward = full political empowerment. But first I'll finish this posting with a = final piece of heresy. Again and again in the past year or so, I have heard organizers = whispering about the need for a "good bracero program"-- a guest worker = program which would not lead to permanent residence, but which would = assure workers of the same basic rights enjoyed by other U.S. workers, = the most important being the right to organize. =20 Let's think through the options very carefully, and see what questions = remain. There are three. Intensified enforcement, lax enforcement, and = what I'll call a good guestworker program. First, intensified enforcement-- that's what we have today, and besides = failed organizing campaigns there are bodies in the desert to attest to = the effects of that agenda. For at least the next decade (before = Mexico's slowing rate of workforce growth POSSIBLY relieves the pressure = to emigrate) this can only result in more bodies in the desert, and = increased criminalization and reduced organizability of a vital part of = our workforce, folks whose union spirit is an essential ingredient for = any labor movement revival in the U.S. Does anyone see a way that the = labor movement can organize explosively (because that's what we need) = under these conditions in agriculture, food processing, food services, = textiles, & small manufacturing? Especially with labor's leaders = backing the crackdown? Second, lax enforcement, perhaps someday followed by another amnesty. = In other words, return to the good old days. Not a bad public position = to take, except that our inability to make it happen will sooner or = later undermine the confidence of immigrants. Does anyone see this as a = viable option? =20 Third, a "guestworker reform agenda". Here's the question. Is it = possible to establish a good guestworker program which protects the = rights of workers, allows them to transition into legal permanent = residency status according to the same pathways that now exist, and = makes them easier rather than harder to organize? Union opposition has = meant that these programs have always been entirely defined by = employers, the INS, and elites in the country of origin. What would a = union-defined guestworker program look like? =20 More specifically, is it possible to imagine an accord with strawberry = growers in which the current workforce is transitioned into a good = guestworker status?=20 Also, what contribution might such a program make to rural development = in Mexico??? Paul Johnston Citizenship Project johnston@cruzio.com ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BDBCA6.3CE86C60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Strawberry Debacle (2): Defend Immigrant = Rights

Once we decide to organize a predominately undocumented workforce, = we must=20 have a positive message about the rights of undocumented workers.  = We=20 cannot evade the issue.   That's what this posting is=20 about.  
 
I'll begin by responding to comments prompted by my previous = posting =20 (Strawberry Debacle (1):  the Significance of Citizenship = Status). =20 First, the claim here is not that the campaign is lost in = strawberries. =20 Organizing is a long haul, and the only way the union can truly be = defeated is=20 if it gives up.   I don't think the UFW is likely to do = that. =20 Nor am I claiming that the only lesson to be drawn-- the only thing that = could=20 have been done to avoid this debacle-- is to pay more attention to = immigrant=20 rights.  Everyone close to the campaign knows that mistakes were = made, but=20 also that the new UFW-- new since Cesar passed away-- is learning its = lessons=20 and steadily strengthening itself. In time, as it does so, that union = promises=20 to surpass the organizing capacity and the staying power of the old UFW = in its=20 heyday.
 
Nor is the claim being made here that undocumented workers are = somehow=20 intrinsically unorganizeable, anti-union, etc.  Rather it's that = their=20 special vulnerability makes them much harder to organize than legal = residents,=20 because of the heightened climate of fear in the post-Prop-187 era, and = more=20 specifically because of steadily strengthening INS enforcement activity = &=20 employer sanctions.
 
Hector Delgado is among those who HAS seriously examined the = significance=20 of citizenship status, in his excellent book New Immigrants, Old Unions = (Temple=20 University Press, 1993), and he finds (and still argues) that = undocumented=20 status is not a significant deterrant to unionization.  But he also = suggested in that book that this might change if enforcement efforts=20 intensify.  This is, of course, what I claim has happened.  = Between=20 the time of his research and the present an entirely new citizenship = regime has=20 been imposed, with consequences that include reduced access to social = resources=20 as well as increased vulnerability to employer reprisals.  We don't = have=20 the space to present evidence here, but I'd sure like to hear from = organizers=20 who are working with a workforce that includes significant numbers of=20 undocumented workers, for whom their vulnerability is NOT the most = difficult=20 organizing issue.  I know too many organizers in too many = industries for=20 whom this is the case.
 
And certainly immigrant = workers have been=20 at the forefront of labor organizing over the past decade.  I will = go=20 beyond my claim that we have entered a new era-- a new citizenship = regime, with=20 consequences for organizing-- and also suggest that closer examination = of these=20 movements will support the conclusion that much of this organizing = energy was=20 unleashed when, due to the amnesty provisions of the 1986 immigration = law,=20 millions of previously undocumented workers achieved legal residency=20 status.  If this is so, then here is a case of the labor movement = drawing=20 strength from its convergence with a social movement toward expanded=20 citizenship. 
 
Back to the strawberries.  No leader has been more outspoken = and=20 effective in advocating for the rights of immigrants in the halls of = government=20 than the UFW's legendary Dolores Huerta.   On the ground in = the=20 Central Coast, however, the union confronts a dilemma.  If it = breaks the=20 conspiracy of silence maintained by the industry, the INS, the union and = the=20 local political leaders, it risks provoking and perhaps undermining the = power of=20 the boycott and the support of public leaders in anti-immigrant = climate. =20 Consequently the union has done what Hector suggests in his book must be = done--=20 try to get them not to think of themselves as immigrants but as = workers. =20
 
Certainly the labor movement is in a bind, as immigrant workers = undeniably=20 intensify wage competition and undermine unions' labor market = power.  And=20 visible public advocacy around the issue of rights for undocumented = workers in=20 the context of an organizing campaign may well attract exactly the INS=20 enforcement that the workers fear. 
 
But citizenship status is a central reality, and more than ever the = central=20 reality for these workers.  So I conclude that unless and until it = has a=20 strong public stance speaking to the oppression of undocumented workers, = no=20 union can claim to speak for them, nor hope to make major strides in = organizing=20 this workforce. 
 
That's why I believe that we need a labor voice on behalf of = undocumented=20 workers, saying "Our contribution to the wealth of this society = gives us=20 rights.  Legalize us."   Instead, however, the = AFL-CIO=20 maintains its support for strengthened employer sanctions. 
 
Consider the contradiction, and the irony: the labor movement's new = leadership stakes everything-- the number one organizing priority for a=20 leadership whose highest priority is organizing-- on organizing a = largely=20 undocumented workforce.... while simultaneously calling for tougher = employer=20 sanctions, the main stumbling-block to organizing that very same=20 workforce.
 
I am not saying that the = AFL-CIO's weak=20 stance on immigrant rights is entirely to blame for the current setback = in =20 strawberries.  But it hasn't helped.
 
In addition to the issue = of employer=20 sanctions, there are other ways as well that the AFL-CIO, the UFW, and = other=20 unions could identify the labor movement with immigrant interests.  = I will=20 talk in the next posting about one of these-- embracing and helping to = lead the=20 citizenship movement now making its way through the institutions toward = full=20 political empowerment.  But first I'll finish this posting with a = final=20 piece of heresy.
 
Again and again in the past year or so, I have heard organizers = whispering=20 about the need for a "good bracero program"-- a guest worker = program=20 which would not lead to permanent residence, but which would assure = workers of=20 the same basic rights enjoyed by other U.S. workers, the most important = being=20 the right to organize. 
 
Let's think through the options very = carefully, and=20 see what questions remain.  There are three.  Intensified = enforcement,=20 lax enforcement, and what I'll call a good guestworker = program.
 
First, intensified enforcement-- that's = what we have=20 today, and besides failed organizing campaigns there are bodies in the = desert to=20 attest to the effects of that agenda.  For at least the next decade = (before=20 Mexico's slowing rate of workforce growth POSSIBLY relieves the pressure = to=20 emigrate) this can only result in more bodies in the desert, and = increased=20 criminalization and reduced organizability of a vital part of our = workforce,=20 folks whose union spirit is an essential ingredient for any labor = movement=20 revival in the U.S.   Does anyone see a way that the labor = movement=20 can organize explosively (because that's what we need) under these = conditions in=20 agriculture, food processing, food services, textiles, & small=20 manufacturing?  Especially with labor's leaders backing the=20 crackdown?
 
Second, lax enforcement, perhaps someday = followed by=20 another amnesty.  In other words, return to the good old = days.  Not a=20 bad public position to take, except that our inability to make it happen = will=20 sooner or later undermine the confidence of immigrants.  Does = anyone see=20 this as a viable option?  
 
Third, a "guestworker reform = agenda". =20 Here's the question.  Is it possible to establish a good = guestworker=20 program which protects the rights of workers, allows them to transition = into=20 legal permanent residency status according to the same pathways that now = exist,=20 and makes them easier rather than harder to organize?  Union opposition has meant that these programs have always been = entirely=20 defined by employers, the INS, and elites in the country of = origin.  What=20 would a union-defined guestworker program look like? 
 
More specifically, is it possible to imagine an = accord with=20 strawberry growers in which the current workforce is transitioned into a = good=20 guestworker status? 
 
Also, what contribution might such a program make to rural = development in=20 Mexico???
 
Paul Johnston
Citizenship Project
johnston@cruzio.com
------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BDBCA6.3CE86C60--