Leave a twig for the birds to perch on... don't let the capitalists do your thinking for you... if you are in the neighborhood, stop on in; the coffee is always hot and the cookie jar is full... looking forward to the day when the real decisions in America are made by working class families gathered around the kitchen table... new postings daily...Yours in the struggle...Alan L. Maki
The status quo is not working for working people. Unions need to
seriously overhaul the way they operate if they are to remain relevant.
One key example that reveals the directionlessness and impotence of
contemporary unions is the perennial convention charade where the
organized labour movement convenes with the professed aims of advancing
the interests of workers and improving society as a whole. If only this
were the case.
With few exceptions, a recurring drama plays out at conventions on
the backs of working people, “full of sound and fury; signifying
nothing” (to quote Macbeth.) Here are some of those recurring acts that paralyze a movement.
Every convention begins with some kind of rhetoric about “democracy”
and the importance of the labour movement coming together to debate and
participate with a view to social progress. Seriously, who are we
kidding with this pretend democracy? Labour conventions are typically
contrived. Everyone knows the fix is in – but no one wants to say it out
loud. In some cases the problem goes as far as paid staffers attempting
to influence the proceedings in the backrooms or even acting as
delegates, when for all intents and purposes they are actually
representing their employers, the top elected officers.
Limited debate
During these precarious times, one would think this coming together
every three years would lead to deep and fiery discussions on where our
labour movement is headed and what it will take to develop an effective
resistance. Just the opposite is true. For example, during the 2011
Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) convention,
debate was limited to approximately nine hours for an entire week. This
script ensures that workers, representing their unions as delegates,
will have precious little time to debate the issues. Further, the show
is always conducted by those orchestrating the front stage at the
expense of the delegates who become mere spectators of the labour scene.
Speaking out in the context of a union convention feels much like
speaking out of turn in church. You know how far you can go and where to
stop. Some topics, like any critical reflection on the relationship to
the New Democratic Party (NDP), capitalism, class, strategy, and especially direct action, are mostly off limits and treated as unmentionable.
Time is typically stuffed with uninspiring speakers – very few could
be described as especially challenging or insightful. Given that some
unions hold seminars for the purpose of educating members, this is
highly disappointing. Another problem is that some speakers from the
floor have more rights than others, which is reflected in the amount of
time allocated to delegates to speak.
The CLC achieved a new low at the last convention when space was taken up by CBC
personalities Ian Hanomansing and Wendy Mesley. Hanomansing, serving as
a moderator, voiced his disapproval with the claim that a corporate
bias exists in mainstream reporting. The problem, according to
Hanomansing, is that the left fails at both making their stories sexy
enough and packaging their message as well as the right, thus confirming
that journalism in today’s mainstream media is more of a public
relations exercise than about finding and reporting the news. I guess
Hanomansing means that journalists shouldn’t be doing the work of
putting stories together and that in essence everyone is on the same
playing field with equal resources to have our stories told. Migrant
farm workers, for example, then must be assumed to be in the same
position to tell their story as Jason Kenney, the Minister of
Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. To further demonstrate
the disingenuous nature of union convention debates, questions for
panellists had to be submitted in writing, thus ensuring no challenging
or embarrassing moments for invited guests. A debate that is scripted is
in fact not a debate at all.
Rhetoric no substitute for action
Labour conventions are long on rhetoric but short on substance. The
process is predictable and repetitious. Speaking to the converted, the
right is assailed and the NDP lionized.
Meanwhile, labour leaders – except during the occasional election – prop
each other up, slap one another on the back and avoid discussing the
systemic problems plaguing workers or naming the elephants in the room
all the while preferring instead to heap on personal accolades.
Personality politics, not discussions of political systems, fill the
space and agendas. So-and-so is a “great guy,” a fighter for their
members, a hero in the fight against Prime Minister Harper, or whichever
non-NDP leader is in office. Delegates cheer.
Little happens. But in those moments, under the lights in the house of
labour, we sure do feel good about ourselves. There is a fetish about
leadership and playing follow-the-leader, but nothing comparably
passionate about the significance of struggle and the necessity of
resistance. It’s easier for the union aristocracy that way. No one need
feel uncomfortable.
I wonder if anyone was listening when the Manitoba Federation of Labour (MFL)
convention guest speaker, Canadian Union of Postal Workers President
Denis Lemelin, broke the mould somewhat by calling on labour to develop
our own “social project”? Lemelin explains that sectoral divisions and
defensiveness can be replaced by a basis of unity with a clear long-term
strategic plan to gain public support and fight for all of society.
Silencing dissidents
It is noteworthy to see who gets in and who doesn’t at labour conventions. At the Montreal 2005 CLC
Convention anti-poverty activists from the Belleville Tenant Action
Group, fundraising in the main lobby of the convention center, were
threatened with expulsion until delegates passing by came to their
defence using a little direct action of their own.
While labour conventions are a place to pick up information, finding
a table of radical or challenging literature may be difficult. There is
limited space, and the organizers have final say over who is invited
and who isn’t. A number of spaces were taken up by insurance companies
at the recent MFL convention held in June 2012. Regrettably, challenging or critical materials were in much shorter supply.
Backroom mechanisms, never out in the open, are used to keep
resolutions that may not be palatable to the leaders from ever making it
to the floor. It matters not where the resolution came from (a local
union, workers from the shop floor). If it seems “controversial” or
doesn’t fit the pre-structured schemes of leadership it may magically
disappear in spite of “process.” A case in point is the recent MFL resolution on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) directed at Israeli Apartheid. While the resolutions committee recommended concurrence unanimously, behind the scenes the MFL
executive asked the committee to reconsider its decision. Concurrence
was pulled under the guise that the resolution did not reflect CLC
policy. This raises the question of who gets to decide policy for
organized workers in Manitoba. It does not appear to be a bottom-up
process, but instead, a top-down corporate model. After some wrangling,
face-saving, and negotiation, the resolution received again the desired
concurrence only to have the motion tabled on the floor after a number
of delegates spoke in its favour. To add further insult, activists were
prevented from distributing information on BDS and the situation of Palestinians to delegates, even though that literature was produced in a unionized print shop.
Manitoba requires 65 per cent sign-up to certify a union. Two bold
activists held a silent protest during Premier Greg Selinger’s speech to
convention delegates by holding up signs pointing out that a government
majority can be achieved with much less than 50 per cent of the votes
but for workers in Manitoba, the bar is set at 65 per cent, the highest
in the country. They were told to sit down. Silence and politeness
remain the order of the day, thus making any criticism of the NDP off limits. The Manitoba NDP
have been in power for 13 years and did not deliver on anti-scab
legislation (now called “replacement workers” by organized labour, an
example of neoliberal Newspeak that incorporates the language of the
right). While perhaps an NDP government is not
quite as hostile as a Tory one, can a “lesser of the evils” really be
considered enough of a victory? Neither the NDP
nor organized labour challenge the neoliberal capitalist system; in
fact, neither can even bring themselves to utter the words to address
its very existence.
Toothless resolutions
Resolutions have become a kind of shopping list without any pith or
substance. Mostly toothless, they allow us to feel good about ourselves,
as if we crossed another one off the list of things that need doing
without the slightest mention of how we are going to do them. At the MFL
convention 172 non-administrative resolutions were submitted. Of these
the resolved action called on lobbying the provincial government 110
times. Sometimes the resolution stated the MFL
will “continue to lobby” on an issue indicating that this is not the
first time the issue was raised. The word “urge” is used 12 times,
“encourage” five times, and “call on” three times. Stronger words like
“demand” and “insist” were used four and two times respectively. This
begs the question, what do we mean by lobby, urge, and encourage
exactly? Does it mean beg, plead, take a minister to dinner, or mobilize
a movement that can ensure the stated goals are met? Why do union
conventions spend so much time, effort, and expense to make empty pleas
and to obediently prop up governments and their agendas that clearly
work against workers’ interests?
When potentially popular and effective resolutions appear, they are
frequently watered down inside policy papers to give the appearance of
democratic process while keeping the lid on things.
Waste of scarce resources
Conventions are financially costly. For a CLC
convention, delegates fly in from across the country and typically book
one delegate per costly hotel room and receive generous per diems for
meals. Imagine what kind of organizing and support for real struggle and
change there could be were we a little more frugal, creative, and
long-sighted. Meanwhile, labour organizers in the Global South often
seem to be able to consistently do more with less, while producing far
more effective results.
According to David Camfield, associate professor in labour studies at the University of Manitoba and author of Canadian Labour in Crisis,
“it’s worth noting that in many cases the people who attend as
delegates aren’t the best activists, the ones who are troublemakers on
the job, supporters of community struggles, and critics of complacency
in the unions. Such activists often aren’t delegates, either because
they don’t get elected or – in unions where delegates are selected, not
elected – because officials deny them delegate credentials. Some people
on the left think conventions are the most important moments in the life
of a union. I disagree, for two reasons. First, conventions often don’t
have that much impact on what happens in the union. For example, if a
resolution gets passed that the top brass don’t like, they can often
find a way to ensure it never gets acted on. Second, unions matter most
when ‘union’ means workers taking action together in the workplace or on
the streets.”
What now?
What is the purpose of a labour convention? I would argue that it is
to challenge the growing capitalist disaster with a strong and vibrant
force of organized workers, both unionized and non-unionized, including
the unemployed and underemployed.
Labour centrals and organizations need to stop spending significant
amounts of members’ dues money to stage events that maintain the status
quo and privilege a few at the expense of the many. The International
Trade Union Confederation, CLC and provincial
federations of labour have proven themselves to be lacking vision, which
robs workers while reproducing a labour aristocracy void of ideas for
these times. It is time for critical questions and tough
self-reflection.
What is unclear is how trade unions intend to challenge the
austerity agenda. Merely coping, hanging on, and focusing a great deal
of energy on electoral politics at the expense of other forms of
struggle will not be enough to overcome the challenges that lay before
us. Given the state of the current economic arrangements, it’s probably
safe to say that it won’t serve future generations well either.
What is to be learned from our history? Labour movements and the
victories gained from them were not built by “urging” and “lobbying.”
They were created by the collective dignity and expression of human
beings who took risks and action against capital. What can be learned
and applied from autonomous, anti-capitalist, anti-colonial, migrant,
Indigenous, student, and social movements that might shift this theatre
of empty rhetoric and surrender to create a coordinated body of workers
prepared to take the offensive, not just in the present, but for future
generations?
The questions to be asked are not about Harper and the corporations. The questions to be asked are of us.
Dave Bleakney is a member of the
Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the national union representative
for education (Anglophone). On matters of anti-capitalism, the dude
abides.
The question now is where to go from here. All workers and most
people are now expendable waste in the global corporate market. We feel
demoralized and defensive and are picked off one by one. We face
"austerity" as the banks earn record profits. We compete to death while
trillions are shored up in offshore bank accounts. Some of that loot was
robbed from us after the 2008 failure of the banking system for which
our children and their children and likely their children will be paying
for their lifetimes as the planet screams for relief. Is it fair that
someone that hasn't been born yet should be paying banks money after
they have already robbed and pillaged billions in profit? Apparently,
yes. There does not appear to be much understanding of system failure by
most workers and their leaders.
We keep puttering on, looking for someone to blame, a name we can
hang our hat on while systems of destruction rise around us. We use the
bosses' courts in vain attempts to settle scores with an occasional
victory. We keep running on someone else's treadmill while they control
the wheel. This system cares not about our bodies, our histories, our
cultures or our dignity. At one time, it was Indigenous peoples in this
position. Now it is all of us, everything, every country, every town,
every workplace, every street, and every body. The Indigenous
territories continue to be colonized. And we of the settler class have
self-colonized ourselves along the way and behave by cue in this absurd
trap. Even with resistance rising all around us, we go shopping and hope
for the best, like compliant little victims programmed by the system as
Rome burns, or more aptly, as the Earth screams.
Unions are woefully self-immobilized; seemingly unable or unwilling
to explore the processes to shift the terrain or acknowledge that one
might exist. That is left to the youth, the defenders of the land, the
frontline and marginalized peoples who are the most penalized fallout of
capitalism and a colonial mess that remains unresolved. We play by the
rules; the same rules made to penalize resistance and silence opposition
to corporatism (some would say it has the hallmarks of soft fascism).
We play the game on their field in an unsustainable order based on greed
and destruction and then predictably complain about it.
Are you as tired of being a victim as I am? We blame corporations for
what they were designed to do, blaming politicians for what they can't,
or won't, do, and living in the shadows of denial or fear or both. We
tolerate a system controlled by others that is based on an alleged
"lesser of evils," where no matter who is elected they will be hamstrung
by a global corporate initiative of investors and bankers that can
bring a country to its knees. It is the system which promotes a corrupt
nature of relations that robs workers, punishes the poor and destroys
the land. It is a place of record profits and jobless recoveries. The
"economy" as they call it, is spoken of with reverence and scared
fervour as if we exist and are designed only for it.
But like Patti Smith sang, "people have the power," more power than
they know, "the power to dream, to rule, to wrestle the earth from
fools." We have the strength in numbers that can occupy and blockade and
the power to withdraw our labour and bring the production of goods and
services to a halt. We have the power to write the script any time of
our choosing. How many of us are afraid of that power in the hour it is
needed most? Many working-class people participate in this surrender
whether they know it or not. They would rather talk about Christmas
turkey or the latest abuse by their bosses rather than joining or
creating spaces of resistance while staid, ineffective institutions rule
us. A lack of creative power, and spaces to find it, is a course
designed by the enemy that we travel day after day. It continues to rob
us, with our compliance, silence and ineffectiveness.
If you think there is something more, something greater and something
better, then we need to find a way out. This system is broken. Let's
get over it and plan for real. What is the old adage: don't get mad, get
even. Better yet, make our opponents irrelevant; perhaps not an easy
task, but certainly a noble and desired one. Never has this been so
vital to so many people. We face more than getting even: it is the
survival of our species and all living things with a little human
dignity in the here and now.
So what to do? I certainly can't claim to have the answer, and I
would be suspicious of anyone who claims they have them all. We are made
of many answers, many voices and all we lack is the space to find and
articulate them in a world that has been designed for us; a kind of
corporate matrix that leaves us feeling powerless, helpless or just
plain angry with nowhere to go.
If you step outside for a moment, leave the box, as Idle No More has
done, and just for an instant consider all things possible and that
maybe our biggest enemy has not been those that rob us and fill their
pockets, but rather ourselves. It is our compliance, our blind faith,
our system of acceptance, as if chained to an illusion that we can
really change things with a ballot while the strings are pulled
inevitably by invisible puppeteers. This farce which is now global no
longer has meaning or vision. We are atomized, broken up into
disconnected parts, right down to the neighbourhood and even family
level. We have been taught suspicion and that we live in "democracies"
and have special "Canadian values" in a land based on theft of
Indigenous territories and a culture of war. We see invisible enemies
everywhere. Up is down and down is up. So we look for refuge in a pile
of distractions and circuses. Time is almost up. And so we avoid. We are
the sheep, making it possible for the ruse to continue.
So what processes will we unleash? Will we remain a bunch of hopeless
victims satisfied with an absence of ideas about resistance? Will our
spaces be denied by well-meaning "leaders" hamstrung by processes from
another era that don't work? Or shall we mould ourselves into something
else, something fit for the times, something that leaves a legacy to be
enjoyed by those who follow us to build on; organized collectives of
workers that seize opportunity and turn disadvantage into advantage to
join with defenders of these lands and waters around us? Will we become a
movement defined by us and not our opponents? Will we become real
allies and join the resistance rising up all around us? Will we nurture a
wiry resistance that is always moving, strategizing and inviting
processes that are participatory and feed on the collective power we
carry together?
Our governments (and unions) are "pretend" or "part-time"
democracies. The backrooms, the hidden and the unseen, fear, and a lack
of ideas dot the terrain. Thus defeatism and social management of
struggle have become our practice, part of our nature. We have a poor
understanding of participatory democracy because we have not been given a
chance, nor do we claim it. It is too easy to blame "mis-leaders" or
general incompetence on others. That is unfair, though in some cases
quite true. We have allowed ourselves to be locked into processes with
little wiggle room. That means changing the terrain, and creating new
rules. We have the right to dream and create. Let us never forget that.
That project deepens now which leaves us with choices.
I don't need to list all the things that strangle our hope. We live
them everyday. And making more lists of our misery and what the
corporatocracy is doing to us is no longer on. Righteous victims don't
change anything. But new structures and spaces of possibility can lend
themselves to something vital. This is not a game. We can no longer
tippy-toe with a paralyzing fear that creates no victories and waits for
others to find them for us and merely complain and blame when they
don't.
Workers, and the increased destruction of rights, are not inevitable.
It is only inevitable if we allow ourselves to be "managed" under rules
and practices designed to rob and destroy us that we reproduce. So
instead of playing on their field, chasing paper thrown at us by
employers, filing grievances that go nowhere, and tying up unions in
bureaucratic processes, why not unleash another kind of unionism. One
grounded in the power of our work and dignity and in harmony with the
thousands of years of Indigenous wisdom placed on these lands that was
never extinguished, even in the darkest of times.
We don't lack resistance; we lack places to nurture it. Active
unionism would require that every worker contribute time and effort to
developing spaces and processes for resistance and acknowledge these
destructive systems of control rather than "manage" what we all agree is
a woeful decline in union power. A real struggle involves the personal,
the emotional, the direct contact, not hollow proclamations posted on
bulletin boards in the hopeless drudgery of workplaces. What we lack are
the assemblies and places to tap into our unity and power.
As the resistance rises around us, let us not be cautious and afraid
anymore. The politics of blame are over. None of us are alone. People do
have the power; they just struggle to realize it. Consider it an
invitation.
Dave Bleakney is the national union representative for education for the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and has written
and published in numerous publications on resistance, neoliberal
globalization and adult education pedagogy.
The "Idle No More" movement is picking up support.
We should all learn the simple fact that politicians don't care about phone calls, letters or petitions UNLESS they are part of movement building initiatives.
This is a letter I sent to the Frances Perkins Center in response to a newsletter I received from them:
Season's Greetings;
A couple points about the current Frances Perkins Center newsletter.
I have never been to the Center; but hope to visit it soon.
You state the Center is on the "shores" of the river; I am wondering if "shores" is the correct term because usually people refer to the "shores" of rivers as "banks." A minor point.
However, a more important point is this: You keep failing to mention the tremendous people's movement that Perkins and FDR were "partnered" with in pushing through Social Security. In fact, Perkins was FDR's liaison of sorts to these powerful movements more properly called "The People's Front;" without all three, I doubt we would have Social Security today.
You also state:
"We are one of over three hundred organizations participating in the national Strengthen Social Security coalition; we have sponsored a number of educational forums, published a collection of essays on the history, financing and challenges of administering Social Security; and we continue to advocate for measures that will ensure that the “promise to all generations” made by Frances Perkins and Franklin D. Roosevelt will be kept."
This coalition really concerns me because it seems like many of your "coalition partners" have already stated their intent is to back whatever President Barack Obama does with the intent to protect Obama's political butt rather than defend Social Security from Obama's and the Democrat's initiated attacks on it.
As part of your "educational forums" on Social Security I hope you are pointing out that most Democrats in Congress and the existing labor federation, the AFL, did not support, but opposed Social Security.
I, and am sure many others, would be very disappointed with the Frances Perkins Center should you go along with ANY cuts at all to Social Security or its associated programs--- in fact, I think Frances Perkins would be insisting Social Security should be strengthened and expanded--- both its benefits and programs.
The only real way to put Social Security on a firm financial basis is:
1. Prevent the government from delving into the Social Security Trust Fund diverting these revenues to the general fund which is mostly used for militarism and wars, which Frances Perkins abhorred; and,
2. A full-employment economy where everyone pays in and everyone gets something out.
Full-employment could be created if the National Public Health Care System Frances Perkins advocated for were brought into existence--- this would create some 12 to fifteen million new jobs.
Frances Perkins was also a tremendous and untiring advocate for children. If we created a National Public Child Care System for working class families we would be creating some three to five million new jobs.
In addition; if we brought back the WPA and CCC, more of Frances Perkins' favorite public works projects, another 6 million or so jobs would be created.
All of this could be paid for through the kind of sensible budgets Frances Perkins advocated; budgets which would entail drastic cuts for militarism and wars resulting in a huge "peace dividend" to fund these human needs programs putting people to work solving some of our most complex social problems.
If a "peace dividend" wouldn't be plenty to pay for such a human needs centered budget then we simply would have to tax the rich, tax corporate profits and place a tax on all Wall Street transactions.
It is my hope you will share these thoughts with your coalition partners who should be gearing up for a powerful "people's front/people's lobby" if we are going to save Social Security and secure real living income benefits for Social Security recipients.
The age for receiving Social Security benefits should be reduced to age 55 and not increased.
The national Strengthen Social Security coalition [ http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/ ] the Center is a member of should be much more than a public relations gimmick; either bring the grassroots of America out in force in a massive mobilization to protect, defend and expand Social Security or state up front this is not the coalitions intent so others will know this has to be done.
I would note that in the past, many of the participants in this coalition [ http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/about/coalition ] have done little more than hold a few press conferences voicing concerns then doing nothing which would include Richard Trumka and the AFL-CIO which is on your coalition's Steering Committee.
A powerful movement won Social Security. That movement has friends of Social Security in the White House and Frances Perkins. Today, Social Security has no friend in the White House, no friends in the Obama Administration and very few real friends in Congress. In addition, And Social Security lacks the kind of grassroots people's movement required to defend it like the powerful movement that won Social Security even though it is quite obvious the movement to defend Social Security will have to be even more powerful because the Wall Street crowd which opposed Social Security in the beginning is even stronger today.
I would point out that Richard Trumka and the AFL-CIO has already sent out signals he is willing to accept cuts to Social Security even though he goes through his usual moans, groans and vulgarities lamenting concessions.
I would further point out that this coalition has no authorization from Social Security recipients or the American people to accept any kind of cuts to Social Security.
A list of members of this coalition is not enough; the members of these organizations have to be brought into the battle and struggle to defend Social Security.
Appreciative of the work the Frances Perkins Center does,
Alan L. Maki Director of Organizing, Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council
The
article suggests the Lesser Evil, just re-elected with massive union
support, may follow Bush’s 2002 example and invoke Taft-Hartley (T-H) to
force the ILWU to keep working grain ships. T-H was the savage post war
(1947) counter-attack on labor’s New Deal gains. Vetoed by Truman as a
“slave-labor bill,” 20 Dems joined Senate Repubs to override his veto.
Two
of three fully-crewed non-union tugboats wait on the Willamette River
in Portland to dock ships in case of a lockout of longshoremen at
Northwest grain terminals. Strikebreakers dispatched by J.R. Gettier
& Associates are also standing by on high alert.
Scores
of out-of-state strikebreakers wait on high alert in Northwest hotel
rooms, ready to replace longshoremen in case of a lockout at grain
terminals. Three
fully crewed, non-union tugboats protected by armed guards stand by,
prepared to keep grain ships docking. In a provocative move, a
California company has moored the tugs on the Willamette River near
longshore Local 8's Northwest Portland union hall.
Quietly,
owners of Portland, Vancouver and Puget Sound terminals have spent
months preparing for a battle royal on the waterfront, lining up troops
and assets like chess pieces. The agribusiness giants have laid legal
groundwork for a lockout, which could occur anytime after a Monday noon
deadline.
If
Columbia Grain Inc., United Grain Corp. and Louis Dreyfus Commodities
lock out dockworkers, Portland will become the new front line in a war
between unions and a shadowy industry of strikebreaking companies that
send tough guys across picket lines.
Confrontations can last months and turn violent.
But
with billions of dollars of grain exports at stake, President Barack
Obama could intervene, as President George W. Bush did in 2002, when he
invoked the Taft-Hartley law to send West Coast longshoremen back to
work.
One
thing that probably won't happen, according to a national expert on
lockouts and strikes, is permanent replacement of dockworkers, given
labor laws and the tightknit, tenacious nature of the San
Francisco-based International Longshore and Warehouse Union.
"The
companies would be subject to picketing constantly, and these folks
would never go away," said Michael LeRoy, a University of Illinois labor
law professor. Longshore workers, he said, "can be aggressive about
asserting their rights."
Longshoremen
displayed that resolve last year when some were arrested for trying to
block a train from entering a grain terminal in Longview, Wash. They
showed it last summer, slowing Port of Portland operations in pursuit of
jobs, and again in Portland and Los Angeles by making employers provide
job security for guards and clerks.
Before
dawn Friday, longshoremen began pulling up in large pickups at
Portland's Local 8, and at other union halls in Vancouver, Seattle and
Tacoma, to vote on the companies' "last, best and final" contract offer.
The
companies want concessions similar to those the union made at a
competing Longview grain terminal, saving the elevator millions of
dollars in labor costs. But a "no" vote is all but certain, given the
union bargaining team's unanimous thumbs-down recommendation.
"The
vote is in the hands of nearly 3,000 men and women who have made these
elevators successful by working in conditions that are not only
strenuous, but also hazardous," Jennifer Sargent, a longshore union
spokeswoman, said in a news release. "These members are exercising their
democratic union right to decide whether the industry's proposal is
positive or negative for their families, as well as for Northwest jobs
and communities." If
a lockout ensues, picketers will face a familiar adversary: J.R.
Gettier & Associates, a Delaware company that serves employers.
Gettier is one of several strikebreaking companies nationwide.
The
strike companies deploy hardened workers derided by union members as
scabs, mercenaries and worse. Strikebreakers often leave home abruptly
without knowing their destinations until a boss hands them plane
tickets.
Once
there, they hang out in hotel rooms until a work stoppage begins.
They're bundled into vans and driven past protesters furious at
outsiders for undercutting their cause.
Union members try to videotape strikebreakers and post images online. Strikebreakers do the same to union members.
Encounters
can be dangerous. Ten years ago at 39, Canadian tool-and-die-maker Don
Milner joined a picket line to support fellow union members striking at a
Navistar truck plant in Windsor, Ontario.
A
van driver working for a strikebreaking company ran over Milner and
other protesters. The vehicle split his pelvis bone, broke an arm,
shattered his bladder and kidneys and damaged his lungs.
Milner
spent almost two months in a coma. He has spent almost two of the past
10 years in the hospital. But he disproved doctors who told him he'd
never walk again.
"I
just think scab workers are not seeing the whole picture," said Milner,
who forgave the driver and declined to prosecute. "If they work for a
plant for less money, they're taking all that away from a town."
Managers
at Gettier and competitors Strom Engineering and Special Response Corp.
declined to comment. Company web sites say they conduct pre-strike
property surveys, develop strategies, post guards, replace workers and
videotape picketers.
A
strikebreaker who has crossed more than 20 picket lines said he's
become accustomed to running the gauntlet, which initially spooked him.
He spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution and because
strike companies prohibit interviews.
The
strikebreaker said he gains satisfaction from learning to operate
equipment and beating union production rates. He knows union members
hate him. But he believes he actually helps them by keeping employers
operating until they reach agreement.
That
sort of logic disgusts Brenda Wiest, contact campaign coordinator for
Teamsters Local 117 in Tukwila, Wash. She's helping strikers nearby at
United Natural Foods Inc., a Rhode Island-based food distributor that
has hired replacement workers.
"They
come out here and try to intimidate and threaten workers who are
standing up for their rights," Wiest said. "They film you constantly.
They're the lowest form of humanity." Strike
companies, let alone tugboat operators such as California's Greger
Pacific Marine Inc., charge employers handsomely. The mere presence of
replacement workers waiting in hotels boosts employers' leverage.
Not
all staffing companies will do that sort of work. In Portland, Maine,
temp firm Rock Coast Personnel declined last month when Twinkies maker
Hostess Brands called for replacement workers. "We didn't want to be a
part of busting good well-paying jobs for hardworking Mainers," said
Bill DiGiulio, vice president of operations.
In
Portland, Oregon, the Pacific Northwest Grain Handlers Association has
given longshore leaders until noon Christmas Eve to say whether or not
the union will accept the contract offer. The employers -- minus one,
Temco, a Cargill venture that defected without explanation -- won't say
what they'll do if the union turns it down.
The
terminal owners have taken pains to prove talks reached an impasse,
which would allow them invite back locked-out workers only on the final
offer's employer-friendly terms. The Union could strike, and may well do
so in the event of a lockout, saying the talks hadn't reached impasse
and accusing the employers of unfair labor practices.
As
the lockout looms, a separate union that represents longshore workers
along the East and Gulf coasts is threatening its first Maine-to-Texas
dock strike since 1977. The International Longshoremen's Association
strike expected Dec. 30 would affect container cargo, as opposed to
grain and automobiles.
Both
there and in the Northwest, Obama could issue a back-to-work order
under the Taft-Hartley act. The act empowers the president to seek a
court injunction that imposes an 80-day cooling-off period while federal
mediators seek a settlement.
Mark Charles stood near the reflecting pool in Washington, DC on Wednesday morning and led a reading of a 2010 US Congressional letter of apology to Native Americans.
Charles, a Christian Reformed Church member, consultant and promoter of Native American rights, organized the reading and has been traveling across the US in the last several months raising awareness of the event.
After holding a moment of silence to commemorate last week’s tragedy at the elementary school in Connecticut, Charles spoke to the 55 or so people, many CRC members, who were there.
He started by sharing his feelings and sketching the background of why they were there.
“I felt grieved and hurt,” he said in live streaming over his wirelesshogan website and on his UTube channel.
As he spoke, the dome of the capitol was in the distance behind him.
“There are people who need to know that their country was trying to apologize to them.”
Many of the CRC members, including Calvin College students, traveled to Washington in a chartered bus. Also in attendance were several Native Americans and others.
Artwork created for the event by two Native American artists was on display as well. Native American flute music and singing also took place.
Everyone gathered for the reading to highlight the fact that the apology to Native Americans, signed into law three years ago on Wednesday, was buried on page 45 of the 2010 Defence Appropriations Act.
“Because our leaders were not going to read this apology, we came up with a plan to be here today to read it,” said Charles.
Called The Native American Apology Resolution, the act was sponsored and put forward by former Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., “to acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States.”
The resolution officially apologizes “on behalf of the people of the United States to all Native Peoples for the many instances of violence, maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native Peoples by citizens of the United States.
A majority of the 350 million citizens of the United States do not know they have been apologized for. And most of the five million Indigenous Peoples of this land do not know they have been apologized to, says Charles.
Charles also says that the apology isn’t really an appropriate apology to the Native peoples.
“The wording of this apology and the way it was buried in an unrelated document were not appropriate or respectful ways to speak to the indigenous hosts of this land.”
Additionally, he says, it is important to communicate the contents of the letter to “Native American elders, many of whom personally endured the horrors of boarding schools, relocation, and disenfranchisement.”
Some of the non-native people at the gathering read parts of the bill and the apology. Two others read the apology in Ojibuway and the Navajo languages.
In some ways, burying the apology in the defence bill only highlights how Native Americans have been forgotten and marginalized over the years.
But Charles said after the reading that he is not really holding the event in protest or in anger.
Rather, he says, he hopes the reading will launch a new conversation between US government officials, including President Obama, and Native American people.
“I am asking for a new conversation about reconciliation in our country,” he said.
Judging by the conversations and discussions
taking place about this tragedy of all these little kids being killed
what I am going to write probably won't find too many people agreeing
with me but I'm going to say what I have to say anyways.
Start taking the guns away from the police and the military and the biggest part of violence relating to guns is solved.
I notice no one is talking about banning the manufacturing of assault rifles and handguns; how come?
The fact of the matter is if someone goes berserk and wants to kill a
bunch of little kids they can use a baseball bat or a knife.
It's possible this guy just "cracked" but more likely he wasn't getting
the help he needed even though quite a few people knew he needed help
but no one cared enough to get help to him.
I work with a lot
of women in the casino industry who are really violently abused by
management people who try to use their positions of authority to "get
what they want" any way they want and I am surprised none of these women
end up dead.
Almost every single day some woman will tell me
about a problem of violence with a spouse or boyfriend and more often
than not the children are getting the crap beat out of them, too.
It is just about impossible to get any government agency to intervene
from the position of helping short of having the guy arrested.
In my opinion, politicians have sucked us into focusing on this or that
really horrible act of violence as a way to evade discussing the real
causes of violence and, more importantly, escape having to fund the kind
of programs that really help people in a way that prevents the violence
against people in the first place.
Of course we have a system that is devoid of morality which treats human suffering as "collateral damage."
If we were to ban the sale of hand-guns and assault rifles while
continuing to allow their manufacture the only thing you do is the same
as what has happened with drugs: you force up the price of obtaining
these guns and the criminals are going to profit selling them as the
manufacturers profit the most.
In my opinion, what this
terrible and tragic killing really shows that we need in this country is
a National Public Health Care System with neighborhood and community
health care centers spread out across this country instead of military
bases dotting the globe; health care centers providing free health care
that would include mental health care in addition to general health
care--- publicly financed, publicly administered and publicly delivered.
The left shouldn't be sucked in by making this strictly a "ban hand-guns and assault rifle" debate.
People in this country are indoctrinated with a culture of violence
from the very beginning of life and then we think when something
terrible and tragic like this happens there is some kind of quick CHEAP
fix to the problem.
In one way or another, capitalism is an extremely violent system.
Anyone want to join me in calling for a ban on manufacturing assault
rifles and hand guns? Ya; see how fast these politicians run away from
talking about protecting kids when they have to concern themselves with
protecting corporate profits; corporate profits which go to pay
lobbyists who make huge campaign contributions.
I find it
interesting our great free media hasn't talked much about what company
manufactured the guns and how much that company contributed to the
campaigns of which politicians.
Please do not reply to the listserv. To correspond with the author, writeimmanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu. To correspond with us about your email address on the listserv, writedunlop@binghamton.edu. Thank you.
Commentary No. 343, Dec. 15, 2012
"Austerity - At Whose Cost?"
Everywhere, austerity is the demand of the day. To be sure, there are seeming exceptionsfor the momentin a few countries - China, Brazil, the Gulf states, and possibly a few others. But these are exceptions to a demand that pervades the world-system today. In part, this demand is absolutely phony. In part, it reflects a real economic problem. What are the issues?
On the one hand, the incredible wastefulness of a capitalist system has indeed led to a situation in which the world-system is threatened by its real inability to continue to consume globally at the level at which the world has been doing it, especially since the absolute level of consumption is constantly increasing. We are indeed exhausting basic elements for human survival, given the consumerism that has been the basis of our productive and speculative activities.
On the other hand, we know that global consumption has been highly unequal, both among countries and within countries. Furthermore, the gap between the current beneficiaries and the current losers has been persistently growing. These divergences constitute the fundamental polarization of our world-system, not only economically, but politically and culturally.
This is no longer much of a secret to the world's populations. Climate change and its consequences, food and water shortages and their consequences are visible to more and more people, many of whom are beginning to call for a shift in civilizational values - away from consumerism.
The political consequences are indeed quite worrisome to some of the biggest capitalist producers, who are realizing that they no longer have a tenable political position, and therefore they face the inevitable shutdown of their ability to command resources and wealth. The current demand for austerity is a sort of last-ditch effort to hold back the tide of the structural crisis of the world-system.
The austerity that is being practiced is an austerity imposed on the economically weaker parts of the world populations. Governments are seeking to save themselves from the prospect of bankruptcies and to shield mega-corporations (especially but not only mega-banks) from paying the price (lost revenue) of their egregious follies and self-inflicted wounds. The way they are trying to do this is essentially by cutting back (if not eliminating altogether) the safety nets that were historically erected to save individuals from the consequences of unemployment, serious illness, housing foreclosures, and all the other concrete problems that people and their families regularly face.
Those who seek short-term advantage continue to play the stock market in constant and fast trading. But this is a game that is dependent in the middle run upon the ability to find purchasers for the products on sale. And effective demand is steadily disappearing, both precisely because of these cutbacks in safety nets and because of the massive fear that there are still more cutbacks coming.
The proponents of austerity have been regularly assuring us that we are turning the corner or will soon do so, and that a revived general prosperity will return. However, we have not in fact been turning this mythical corner, and the promises of revival are becoming ever more modest and projected to take ever longer.
There are also those who think that a social-democratic solution is available. Instead of austerity, we should augment government spending and tax the wealthier segments of the population. Even if this were politically realizable, would it do the trick? The proponents of austerity have one plausible argument. There aren't enough world resources to sustain the level of consumption everyone wants as more and more individuals demand politically to be among the higher consumers.
This is where the exceptions to which I referred come in. They are at the moment expanding the numbers of high consumers, not merely shifting the geographic location of high consumers. The countries that have been “exceptions” are thereby increasing the economic dilemmas, not resolving them. There are only two ways out of the real dilemma involved in this structural crisis. One is to establish a non-capitalist authoritarian world-system which will use force and deception rather than the "market" to permit and augment the inegalitarian world distribution of basic consumption. The other is to change our civilizational values.
In order to realize a relatively democratic and relatively egalitarian historical system in which to live, we do not need "growth" but what is being called in Latin Americabuen vivir. What this means is engaging in continued rational discussion about how the whole world can allocate the world's resources such that we all not only have what we really need to survive but also preserve the possibility for future generations to do the same.
For some parts of the world's populations, it means their children will "consume" less; for others, they will "consume" more. But in such a system, we can all have the "safety net" of a life guaranteed by the social solidarity that such a system makes possible.
The next twenty to forty years will see an enormous political battle, not about the survival of capitalism (which has exhausted its possibilities as a system) but about what kind of system we shall collectively "choose" to replace it - an authoritarian model that imposes continued (and expanded) polarization or one that is relatively democratic and relatively egalitarian.
by Immanuel Wallerstein
-- Becky Dunlop Secretary, Fernand Braudel Center Binghamton University PO Box 6000 Binghamton NY 13902 http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/
Under the guise of "liberalism" and "progressivism" we are being fed massive doses of ideological poison.
All the more reason for working people to read and study Marxism
themselves instead of allowing those like Paul Krugman to "explain" to
us what Marx had to say.
This crowd of over-paid "thinkers" includes: Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker and George Lakoff.
Their "
meeting
of the minds" seems to take place under the auspices of The Century
Foundation which very few people are familiar with but which has a
primary role in smashing movements before they get off the ground to
where these grassroots movements have real influence and power.
The great "philanthropists" who profit so richly from their Wall Street
investments then spread their money through foundations in a way
intended to control their working class victims from whose labor they
derive their wealth certainly can't have a working class so
ideologically armed with Marxist ideas which will ultimately lead to
challenging Wall Street 1% for political and economic power.
A few of the movements these foundation-funded outfits have crippled with their ideological poison include:
* The single-payer universal health care movement. * Occupy Wall Street. * The working class struggle in Wisconsin (Michigan is next on their hit list). * The civil rights movement. * The peace movement. * The environmental movement.
And last, but not least,
* The labor movement.
Of course their ideological poison being forced-fed to us in large
doses under the guise of "liberalism" and "progressivism" has clobbered
and pummeled any attempt to get an anti-imperialist movement off the
ground here in the United States--- just look at the demise of the
United States Peace Council.
And to even contemplate creating a
socialist movement with the strength to replace this rotten capitalist
system is deserving of a good strong dose of ideological poison as
effective as the clunk on the head from a policeman's billy-club.
Oh, wait; I forgot one of the movements they really abhor--- starting a
political party that would enable the working class to free itself from
Wall Street's two-party trap which would challenge Wall Street for
political and economic power--- an anti-monopoly concept brought forward
by Marxists.
These over-paid ideological shysters hired by
Wall Street to confuse us can wax poetic--- for a big price of course---
about all of societies' injustices... so long as they are, also,
simultaneously, a movement wrecking crew.
This isn't to say we
shouldn't read and disseminate the things written by Democratic Party
hacks like Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker and
George Lakoff whose writings usually come wrapped in very powerful
kernels and grains of truth; but, we shouldn't be afraid to look more
critically at the ideas they bring forward because along with very
powerful kernels and grains of truth they more often than not peddle
lies and myths intended to disorient and confuse in a way that prevents
effective movement organizing.
George Lakoff's most recent
book, "The Little Blue Book; the essential guide to thinking and talking
Democratic" is a perfect example of the poison being disseminated under
the guise of "liberalism" and "progressivism" while fostering a
sinister, lying attack on socialism and Marxism.
Anyone who
doesn't believe me need only read pages 120 and 121 in Lakoff's most
recent book. Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz and Dean Baker
are following George Lakoff's attacks on socialism and Marxism
religiously.
A vessel takes on wheat at Columbia Grain Inc.'s North Portland terminal on the Columbia River, where Coast Guard officials have established one of the zones they recommend for protestors in boats.
TheU.S. Coast Guardhas established asafety buffer zonearound grain ships calling on Portland and Vancouver as a potential lockout of longshore workers looms.
Owners of Northwest grain terminals, which could impose the lockout at any time, have brought in three towboats with non-union crews on standby, a law enforcement official disclosed Friday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of a gag order issued by federal mediators who supervised last-ditch contract talks that ended Wednesday between the owners and the longshore union.
Coast Guard officials have also recommended "on-water picket areas" to local leaders of theInternational Longshore and Warehouse Union, in case of protests on the Columbia and Willamette rivers. The steps by the Coast Guard and the employers reenforce signs that a lockout or strike is imminent at six of the Northwest terminals that handle a quarter of U.S. grain exports. Mediators say only that the union and the employers are considering options after the talks that continued after Sept. 30, when a longshore labor contract expired.
Coast Guard Capt. Bruce Jones, commanding officer for Oregon and southern Washington, issued safety rules posted Friday in preparation for publication in the Federal Register.
"There is the potential for injury and damage to both protestors and shipping due to the labor dispute," Jones wrote. "The Coast Guard believes that a safety zone is needed ... to ensure that protestors and other river users are not injured by deep-draft vessels ...."
The temporary zone, already in effect, bars people and boats from an area 500 yards ahead of grain vessels and 200 yards beside and behind the big ships. Jones has also recommended safe but prominent areas for any protestors in boats nearColumbia Grain Inc.andTemcoterminals in Portland andUnited Grain Corp.'s elevator in Vancouver.
The companies have towboats standing by to replace local boats that maneuver vessels to and from terminal docks, according to the law enforcement official. Towboats that usually handle the work, and that haul grain barges, are operated by members of unions that plan to honor any longshore picket lines.
Towboats that stood by in Longview, Wash., earlier this year, at a terminal where labor protests turned violent, came from as far as the Gulf Coast, via the Panama Canal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who are the grain bosses (3 of 4 foreign owned)
Columbia Grain Inc.
Based in Portland,Columbia Grain is owned by Marubeni Corp., one of Japan's trading powerhouses.
Columbia, founded in 1978, operates a grain elevator at the Port of Portland's Marine Terminal 5, a sprawling industrial complex on North Lombard Street. On April 10, firefighters doused a blaze inone of the elevator's 125-foot silos.
Columbia supplies the terminal from a network of elevators and rail hubs across Washington, Montana and North Dakota. The company sends grain, pulses and oilseeds to Asia, East Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Latin America.
Louis Dreyfus Commodities
LD Commodities Inc. isa Netherlands-based arm of Louis Dreyfus Group, a French global conglomerate.
LD owns a Portland grain terminal on the Willamette River's east bank, north of the Steel Bridge. Some civic leaders have long lamented the structure for blocking Rose Quarter development.
LD, which employs more than 35,000 in 55 countries, also owns a Seattle terminal covered by the bargaining agreement.
Temco
Temco is a 50-50joint venture between Cargill, an agricultural and industrial giant, and CHS Inc., a grains, food and energy company merged from numerous farmer-owned cooperatives.
The venture operates two terminals included in the current talks: the Cargill Irving Elevator, on the east bank of the Willamette River north of the Broadway Bridge, and a Tacoma facility. It also owns a terminal in Kalama, Wash., not covered by the bargaining agreement.
United Grain Corp.
United Grain is part ofMitsui & Co. Inc., another giant Japanese trading company.
The company bills its terminal in Vancouver as the largest elevator on the West Coast. Built in 1935, the terminal was expanded this year to hold as much as 202,000 tons of corn and soybeans in silos up to 20 stories high.
The $72 million expansion enables United Grain to export as much as 5 million tons a year from the Port of Vancouver. A recent deepening of the Columbia River shipping channel allows bigger ships to call on the port, transporting grains consumed by Asia's expanding middle class.
Cargill, founded in 1865, employs 142,000 in 66 countries.
