Change does happen. There are unions, the Montogmery Bus boycott did take place, apartheid in South Africa ended, women got the right to vote...the list goes on. Seeds must be planted, ideas discussed, organizations created. Things take time but they have to start somewhere. Enormous preperation preceeded the Montgomery bus boycott. Some early efforts to get it going didn't work. But then, but then, the time was right. Much of what is happening now in the US, especially, is the "counter-revolution" to past gains, but still, "the arc of history bends toward justice."

Posted at September 13, 2006 6:06 AM in response to How Some Good Can Still Come Of It

Exactly right.

Beyond that however, perhaps I am mistaken, but I suspect Mary from RI is up to something else here. Her post is only superficially, very superfically, related either to my post or to any comment to it. My guess is that by virtue of its length alone, Mary's goal is to kill this thread.

I suppose I could have included in my post an even longer list than hers of those killed by Alpha 66, Brothers to the Rescue and the other US supported terrorists who target. kill and injure Cuban and other civilians. I could do so now. (To be honest I'm not aware of a comparable list anywhere that I could cut and paste as Mary did.) But doing so would not add any value to the conversation and her list doesn't either. I think she should remove it.

One more time: the US government has very dirty hands when it comes to condeming those who support terrorist groups based in Lebanon or any place else as long as it is supporting terrorist groups based in Florida. The media is ignores this. So does Mary from R.I.

Just to be clear about the "symmetry." As Tom in this comment and Larry Johnson in the adjacent thread point out, Israel engages in reactive and proactive actions that go well beyond tit-for-tat against those who kill its civilians--or for that matter its soldiers. Back to my original question, would Cuba not be justified in doing the same? For the record, and to state the obvious, they have not done so.

Posted at July 26, 2006 7:26 AM in response to Is it OK for Cuba to Bomb Targets in Miami? Or Washington? Or both?

In response to my July 5 post on the growth of corporate power Gettysburg said:

On July 6, 2006 - 4:02am Gettysburg said:
I think Corporatism is merely another challenge for Democracy; not unlike Communism used to be. A policy of a weakened Federal government, including measures of de-regulation, has allowed companies to more or less 'do their own thing.' Our country is fine.

Is there more than one Gettysburg?

Posted at July 19, 2006 6:51 AM in response to Here We Go Again

Amen.

Posted at June 10, 2006 4:18 AM in response to A response to Peter Beinart

For higher wage union workers at least,  (high wage non-union workers too),  opposition to trying to reduce hours is intense.  Contracts that mandated reduced work-time would not get ratified.  The growth in that opposition parallels the growth in personal debt.  At any wage level,  acquiring stuff leads to debt.  Debt leads to overtime addiction. 

 I do think that debt reduction issues and work time reduction issues have potential and are important.  They impact life-style/quality of life aspirations as well reducing unemployment,  freedom from bondage and other more “traditional” factors. It's a good example of a question that wasn't discussed in the pre-split so-called debate,  but still should be. 

 By the way,  it's begining to look like we may soon miss that shallow excercise,   compared to the post-split "debate" that seems to be emrging now. 

Posted at August 2, 2005 3:42 PM in response to Open Thread

Nathan--I don't know whether they were covered before or not.  You may well be right that they did not,  therefore, "lose" workers comp. If so,  I stand corrected on that point. 

Posted at August 2, 2005 1:43 PM in response to "Womens work" not "really" work

Ben--

Sorry this took so long—I’ve been dealing with non-blog-world issues today.  The following is verbatim from the preamble to theSEIU Local 880  contract signed in November of 2003 that covers home health care workers in Illinois: 

“Personal Assistants are not State employees for purposes of eligibility to receive statutorily mandated benefits including but not limited to,  workers’ compensation,  retirement and health insurance.” 

 While he language is slightly different,  SEIU lawyers have drafted virtually identical enabling legislation for any agreement that will be negotiated covering home child care workers as well. 

 I think I have already spoken to the issue of what I think are complex trade-offs involved here.  You are,  of course,  entitled to have already concluded they were worth it. 

Posted at August 1, 2005 9:02 PM in response to "Womens work" not "really" work

Nathan--You and I completely agree that home providers of child care and health care are workers just as much as auto workers.  (I seem to recall that a poster here on this very blog suggested that as a member of the National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981) I’m not a real worker either and thus couldn’t possibly understand anything about the labor movement.  Oh,  well.) 

I still think there is something “off” in your tone regarding Fitch’s suggestion that there might be something different about that kind of work,  but what the heck,  it’s your opinion. 

On another matter,  you say:  “Of course there are political deals done for public money around home health care workers, just as there are worse deals cut around those who organized defense contractors, and other publicly-funded unionized sectors.”

I don’t understand this paragraph.  Here’s what I’m saying.  SEIU cuts deals with governors to get recognition for its right to represent home health care workers and home child care workers.  Those deals came as a result of their political skill and muscle—the very thing they say the AFL-CIO should not pursue.  Fitch seems to think there is some hypocrisy there.  So do I.

What were the terms that they got?  In Illinois,  they agreed,  among other things,  that although these workers are now considered “state employees,” they will not be eligible for the health care or pension system and that they will give up the right to access the workers compensation system,  a right they previously enjoyed.  These were a priori conditions.  The workers themselves probably don’t know what they are and certainly never got to vote on them.  To me those are pretty big concessions.  Justifiable?  As I’ve said elsewhere,  reasonable people could agree or disagree. 

Finally,  thanks to Aenglish for his contribution to the conversation.  Value added information for sure. 

Posted at July 31, 2005 9:06 AM in response to "Womens work" not "really" work

This cannot go unanswered. 

 OK,  so NN nails Fitch on the sexism point.  Fair enough.  But to call the whole piece “garbage”?  The merits of NN’s critique notwithstanding,  that language flirts with a tone that’s pretty much blissfully absent from this board.  The inflammation of emotions caused by the AFL-CIO/CtW split is potentially destructive.  It’s one of the things people are justifiably worried about. 

 As to the merits,  until yesterday,  I never heard of Robert Fitch.  I’d like to meet him.  I think he makes some good points.  First,  let’s talk about home health care and home child care.  These are businesses and,  sometimes government services,  that have been in great flux as a result of privatization,  budget cuts,  deinstitutionalization,  so-called welfare reform and other factors.  AFSCME, SEIU and others have been involved in organizing these workers for some time in the public and private sectors. 

 Fitch is exactly right that many of a new breed of providers of these services have but one or two “clients.”  Frequently the clients are relatives of one kind or another.  The revenue flows to the providers through complex streams involving states and counties.  To its credit,  SEIU acted to create an organizational home for 74,000 of these workers in Los Angles County.  Are these "new economy workers"?—ok,  NN let’s stipulate to that.  But again Fitch is right—the organizing-is-good,   politics-is-bad SEIU owes this success in California and more recently in Illinois far more to old-fashioned political leverage than it does to anything resembling the “retail” organizing of workers.  (Currently,  SEIU is attempting to raid a comparable group of homecare workers organized by AFSCME in Riverside County,  CA. That’s not “retail” organizing either.)

 Further, as I have written elsewhere,  the deals SIEU has made with politicians to win the right to represent these workers should see the light of  day.  People can judge for themselves whether the trade offs make sense.  Nothing comes easy these days and politics is the art of the possible,  so only time will tell.  But for sure SEIU is very selective about what is says about these deals and how they came to be.  Maybe NN doesn’t know himself.  Fitch apparently does. 

In the interests of fairness or something,  I have a quibble with Fitch too. He concludes his piece in Slate as follows: 

 “Stern's departure from the AFL-CIO probably mortally wounded it. But it was dying, with or without SEIU. In essence, the American labor movement has now split into two failing models. Old-line, high-wage unions don't have room to grow, while Stern's new low-skill service unions have plenty of room to grow but little power to help their members.”

For the most part,  I agree that we do have two dueling old-school models.  They are not as separated by differing strategies,  priorities or analysis as the rhetoric suggests.  

Now here's the quibble.  The "high-wage unions do have more room to grow that is generally understood.  (Ability to grow is a different issue.) 

There is a dirty little secret about organizing in the manufacturing sector.  Many manufacturing jobs are almost entirely  off-shore now,  textiles being a dramatic example.  But the true truth is more complex.  There are just as many automotive manufacturing jobs today as they were 20 or 30 years ago.  Maybe even a few more.  By way of illustration,  in auto assembly,  for every UAW GM plant that has closed,  a non-union Honda or Nissan or BMW or Hyundai or Toyota plant has opened in the United States.  The comparable picture in parts is even more dramatic.  The UAW’s decline in auto is 100 percent a failure to organize—not a net loss of auto jobs.  To the UAW’s credit,  they are doing something about this now,  especially in the parts sector. 

 And don’t get me wrong,   the threat to move to Mexico or China is a powerful union-busting scare tactic..  Capital is mobile and workers know that—but overcoming that fear is a different issue than what’s possible  based on the raw numbers.  Again,  there are at least as many potential UAW auto sector members today as there ever were. 

 This illustrates a larger problem.  In other manufacturing sectors too,  job losses are not necessarily as dramatic as unions have portrayed them.  It’s maybe tough to face,  but the slightly too convenient mantra of “our problems are all the fault of bad trade policy”  has itself contributed both to putting too many eggs into the public policy reform basket and to too few into organizing. 

Posted at July 30, 2005 11:29 AM in response to "Womens work" not "really" work

I think your assumptions are correct and that you are asking good questions.  But I also think that on both sides of the current divide,  theories and practices about trade have made their own contribution to labor’s decline.  How?  Obligatory “we’re not against trade” disclaimers notwithstanding,  labor’s opposition to any new trade law (I’m not saying there have been proposed trade laws worth supporting,  but that’s a different issue) gets conflated with opposition to globalization which gets conflated with opposition to change of just about any kind.  Hence the “dinosaur, stop the world we want to get off”  reputation of unions is enhanced.  The murder of Vincent Chin in Detroit and the sledge hammering of Toyotas in various Labor Day parades of the 1980’s didn’t help either. 

 The problem is further reinforced by the failure to devote more resources to building global unions and global solidarity.  Some of that is carry over from the AFL’s long association with the efforts to defeat “communist” unions.  Ironically from that and from campaigns to support the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, trade union struggles in South Korea and other efforts,  some US unions were already global.  Structures,  relationships and networks were in place.  But they sure didn’t translate into a more effective response to the growing power of multi-national employers.  (The UAW’s long fight with Caterpillar is a complex but revealing case in point.) 

 The “old” European unions ain’t perfect either,  but the contrast is quite sharp with their approach to the integration of,  say, Portugal,  into the European economic union or East German workers into the German economy after the fall of the Berlin wall.  In the U.S.,  parochialism mostly triumphed. 

 As with so many things,  it remains to be seen whether the AFL-CIO/CtW split now contributes to a bigger,  better and broader world view or toward a still narrower one. 

At first glance anyway,  Andy Stern at least has the better “global” language and is devoting SEIU resources to building some industry based,  common interest global alliances.  But then the Steelworkers are doing some good international work too. 

 And last but not least,  thank God for Charlie Kerneghan. 

 On a sort of related matter,  today's NYT editorial defending the Cafta 15 was interesting for many reasons.  Here's the last paragraph: 

“Finally, Cafta will benefit the most underrepresented constituency in America: consumers, particularly the lower-income consumers who find that a 50-cent difference in the price of a T-shirt actually means something.”     

So, is the Wal Mart PR department writing the NYT editorials these days?  Isn't that their line--the products of cheap labor are good for consumers.  Well,  of course they are,  if you are trying to live on Wal Mart style wages,  every 50 cents does matter.  Yikes. 

Posted at July 29, 2005 3:38 PM in response to Trade and the Split