Save the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant
Sisters and Brothers;
Unless we act together the Ford Plant will close soon and two thousand jobs will go down the drain and into the river with it.
It will take the initiative of community activists and rank and file activists from your plant working together to save the Ford Plant and two-thousand jobs. It will require activity on a variety of levels from a variety of partners working in coalition.
I would encourage you to ask the UAW leadership of your local (UAW Local 879) to push the MN DFL to reconsider the legislation Democratic Senator Metzen dropped the ball on after Representative Tom Rukavina successfully pushed it through his Committee in the House. It is important that this Plant and Dam remain intact as one unit.
As you know, the great “free market forces” of capitalism have not been able to keep this perfectly good plant in operation.
This leaves us but one option; the option of Public Ownership. Public Ownership has been used all over the world to save many plants and even entire industries. The New Flyer Bus Plant in Winnipeg, Manitoba is one such example.
To be quite frank, our primary concern has to be with saving these two-thousand jobs. The jobs of those presently employed and for generations to come.
No one is considering the tremendous struggle and sacrifice of Ford workers and your union in securing a good place to work as part of the investment. No one is talking about the huge investment taxpayers have made in this Plant and Hydro Dam… not to mention training employees. No one mentions that workers create all wealth and as such are entitled to participate as equals in the decision-making process. The Ford Motor Company never sat down and talked about the future of this plant with workers or tax-payers.
I ask you to take these resolutions to your party precinct caucus meetings in February. Ford workers are scattered all over, even in Wisconsin… we need to reach out for support in order to save this plant. Just clip one of these resolutions to the resolution form.
Resolution #1 (Short Version) 0n the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant/Hydro Dam and 2,000 Union Jobs
Whereas Ford Motor Company has stated its intent to close the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant, sell the hydro dam to a foreign corporation, and displace two-thousand workers in the near future without consultation from the workers, the community, or local and state governments;
Whereas this plant, its operations, and the hydro dam have received continued support from every level of government including tax-payer funding, tax-breaks and tax abatements under promises to maintain manufacturing operations and with assurances workers would have job security in St. Paul, Minnesota;
Therefore be it resolved public ownership should be used to save this plant, hydro dam, and two-thousand jobs.
Resolution #2 (Full version) 0n the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant/Hydro Dam and 2,000 Union Jobs
Whereas Ford Motor Company has stated its intent to close the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant, sell the hydro dam to a foreign corporation, and displace two-thousand workers in the near future without consultation with the workers, the community, or local and state governments;
Whereas this plant, its operations, and the hydro dam have received continued support from every level of government including tax-payer funding, tax-breaks and tax abatements under promises to maintain manufacturing operations and with assurances workers would have job security in St. Paul, Minnesota;
Whereas this Plant forms an important an integral component of Minnesota’s industrial base;
Whereas the closing of this Plant will cause very significant economic harm to the local community and the state including placing a strain on already overburdened social services which have already been drastically cut back;
Whereas all conciliatory efforts, as demanded, in favor of the management of Ford Motor Company have been granted by all levels of government under the promise Ford would maintain operations in St. Paul;
Whereas a similar threatened plant closing of the New Flyer Plant in Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada during the 1970’sresulted in all levels of government intervening on behalf of the members of the United Automobile Workers union resulting in the public takeover of the operation with continuing successful operation at present;
Whereas “the free market” has not resulted in a solution to save the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant, the hydro dam which powers the plant along with two-thousand union jobs; (over please)
Be it resolved that the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party instruct its State Legislative Caucus to bring forward the previous resolution in the form of legislation supported by the United Auto Workers Union and its members of Local 789 to save the plant and dam intact until a solution is found to continue operations and production;
Be it further resolved that the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party instructs all of its federal, state, and local Twin Cities elected officials to convene a special conference to explore public ownership as the remedy to saving the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant, the hydro dam, and two thousand union jobs;
Be it further resolved that the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party support public ownership and democratic control of the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant with production taking place in the best interests of the workers and the people of the State of Minnesota;
Be it further resolved that public ownership is the only viable means of saving the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant as all other means have been tried and exhausted;
Be it further resolved that funding is not an issue since any country which can squander billions of dollars on the occupation of Iraq can find the resources for saving this Plant, dam, and jobs;
Be it further resolved that the very significant burden of health care costs for employees be resolved through the State of Minnesota enacting legislation implementing single-payer, universal health care.
Alan L. Maki
Member, Minnesota DFL State Central Committee
and
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council
If you have friends working in casinos please have them get in touch with me.
Twenty-thousand Minnesotans go to work in smoke-filled casinos at poverty wages without any rights under tribal, state or federal labor laws.
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell phone: 651-587-5541
E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net
Check out my blog; it’s where rank and file activists go for information:
Thoughts From Podunk:
http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/
Suggestions for how to use these resolutions:
• Take it to your precinct caucus meeting
• Get your union or community organization to support this resolution
• Write a letter to your state legislators supporting this resolution
• Copy and distribute this resolution widely
• Use this resolution as a petition, ask your friends to sign it
• Write a letter to the editor
• Blog this issue
• Post the resolution on web sites
• Discuss this resolution on Internet “list serves”
**************
This leaflet made as a contribution in kind by the:
Iron Range Rank and File Labor Network… concerned and involved members of USW Locals 1938, 2705, 6860, 2660
All labor and materials for this leaflet have been contributed in solidarity with workers of the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant… On the Iron Range we understand the future of our jobs hinge on the future of your jobs. We would like to take this opportunity to thank Alan Maki for taking up this struggle in his capacity as a member of the MN DFL State Central Committee. Without these kinds of community grassroots and rank and file outreach efforts we are all doomed as recent contract “negotiations” in our industries have demonstrated.
Please consider making a contribution to help us put this issue on the front burner where it belongs.
Out of sight… is out of mind.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
Call to Action for Decent Work, Decent Life
Call to Action for Decent Work, Decent Life
Initiated by the: International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
This text is also available in other languages:
Despite the world economic boom, most of the world’s population are not seeing their lives improve as a result.
As well as significant open unemployment, many are underemployed, or not paid for work performed. Half of the world’s workforce earns less than 2 $ a day. 12.3 million women and men work in slavery. 200 million children under the age of 15 work instead of going to school. 2.2 million people die due to work-related accidents and diseases every year. People in developed and developing countries work more for less money, and more and more people – overwhelmingly women - are forced to make their living in the so-called informal economy, without social protection or rights and in precarious jobs. Meanwhile, companies are using the threat of outsourcing to drive down wages and hard fought for rights such as the right to collective bargaining and to strike. Trade unionists that fight these trends are dismissed, threatened, jailed and even killed.
Only an international system based on solidarity and respect for people’s rights, as enshrined in United Nations and International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions, can put a stop to these trends. We call on our governments to sign these conventions, to implement them urgently and to put decent work at the heart of their policy-making.
In July 2006, governments at the UN Economic and Social Council adopted a Ministerial Declaration whose first article states: “We are convinced of the urgent need to create an environment at the national and international levels that is conducive to the attainment of full and productive employment and decent work for all as a foundation for sustainable development.” Their call must be matched by ratification and implementation of the ILO's standards, at the same time as international agencies use the UN’s new Toolkit for Mainstreaming Employment and Decent Work as a first step towards fostering greater policy coherence and convergence for implementing the promise of Decent Work for All.
The time to start implementing these promises is now.
We believe that decent work is central to eradicating poverty, improving the lives of women and men and enabling people to live in peace and dignity. We hence call on decision-makers urgently to:
Decent work: Reaffirm the contribution stable and quality jobs make to a healthy economy and just and equal communities by implementing inclusive strategies for full and productive employment, including for those currently working in the so-called informal economy who need rights and justice to defend their interests. All people have the right to work, to good working conditions and to sufficient income for their basic economic, social and family needs, a right that should be enforced by providing adequate living wages.
Rights: Workers’ rights to form and join trade unions and bargain collectively with their employer are fundamental to realising decent work, and all international organisations, governments and businesses must live up to their responsibilities to respect workers’ human rights.
Social protection: Strengthen and broaden social protection coverage by ensuring access to social security, pensions, unemployment benefits, maternity protection and quality health care to all. These benefits should be available to everyone, including workers in the so-called informal economy.
Trade: Change unfair trade rules and ensure that trade agreements are used as an instrument for decent work, sustainable development and empowerment of the world’s workers, women, the unemployed and the poor. Binding mechanisms for the promotion and enforcement of decent work, including core labour standards, must be included in trade agreements. Governments must stop making trade deals which hurt the poor, create unemployment and lead to exploitation. The demands of workers’ organisations and the rest of civil society must be listened to.
Debt: Ensure that the priorities of the international financial institutions incorporate social and environmental concerns. Particularly, loan and debt conditions which force countries to deregulate labour markets, reduce public spending and privatise public services at the cost of access and quality must be stopped. All projects funded by these institutions must adhere to core labour standards in their implementation.
Aid: Ensure that governments keep their commitment to increase the level of official development aid of rich countries to at least 0.7% of GDP. Adequate financing for development is imperative if the UN’s Millennium Development Goals are to be reached.
Migration: Ensure that migrant workers are not exploited and enjoy the same rights as other workers by ratifying the relevant ILO Conventions and the 1990 UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families.
Sign this call to action by filling the form below!
To sign this on-line petition go to:
http://www.decentwork.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=29
Gerado Castillo Me interesa recibir peridicament este tipo de informacion y si fuera posible materiales referidos a la Empresas Multinacinales.
Yann GELISTER
Jens Rydder
Isabelle Hoferlin
Louis Garcia III You can attack it with malice,ignorance can deride it,but in the end it\'s still there. The truth. Winston Churchill
Mamadou Diallo
Lise Paulsen Galal
JAMES HOWARD
Anneke van Luijken most urgent to act on this
Marcio Kameoka
Conny Reuter more than a campaign: a concept for a large social movement
Peteris Krigers
Ludmila Jevsejenkova
Lorena Rojas Avalos \"unirnos para transformar\", esa es la clave si queremos lograr un trabajo y una vida digna para todas las personas sin ningún tipo de distinción.
Esther Niubó
Maria Badia
Yolanda Torres
Alejandro Cercas
Stephen Hughes MEP
Michael Contes
Laurence Corréard
Anna Wolanska Decent work and decent life is not a privilage. This is our fundamental right.
Livija Marcinkevica
Linda Romele
Ariadna Abeltina
Christopher F. Vota Everyone should maintain a standard of living that includes health of body and mind. No way should anyone anywhere be denied medical care for lack of funds. All people everywhere have the right to work under the best conditions possible for good wages and benefits. Even by doing this, the rich will always get richer, but not nearly at the expense of the rest of us, who slowly sink into serfdom!
Javier Jesús Fernánd
My V. Nguyen Decent work for a decent life is the root of democracy!
David Bayle
Elena Tabanelli
Daniel Terra Jorge
Rosemary Whitmore
Bruce Wheeler
Volker Blaschke
Nele Hess Demokratie und Partizipation durch GUTE ARBEIT!
Shaun O\'Connell The world will never find peace until the 7 promises are implemented ASAP.
Hilda Sanchez I sign this call to action
DOSSOU SIMEON TOUNDE Tout en étant d\'accord avec le contenu, je pense qu\'il faut appeler aussi les gouvernements de nos pays (de l\'Afrique)à une meilleure gouvernance et une meilleure gestion des avoirs publics et de l\'aide au développement
Silva Descent work for young people!
Elisa Caracciolo
Claire Moon
Kristian Weise
Velibor
teresa alfani
CAYETANO GUERRERO FE NO PUEDO ESTAR MÁS DE ACUERDO
Donald Spatz
Wirth, Kurt
Unna Kuessner
Kevin J. O\'Rourke
Marijana Bordage
MP Clark
David Yao
Peter L. Gale
Ramon Certeza United we stand, divided we fall!
Bradley A Harris
Richard Creswell Workers of the world unite!
Albert M. Jenkins
Carole O\'Connell
Nanette Folsom Respect Human Beings!!!!
Eileen Boris
Joy Krom
Dusty Washburn
Dusty Washburn
Wolfgang Stier
Catherine Pottinger Urgently needed.
Büsing, Harald
wallace need fair labor practice.
william t glover jr. we need fair labor practices not exploting workers that the only way will ever make a dent in poverty
Richard J. Bargans It is imperative that these goals be immediately implimented and achieved!
Donna Stein
Edward Sussex Great initiative. Also support decent wages and a basic income guarantee for everyone, starting with family allowances for the poor.
Lynn Cardiff
Rick
Janet Roe-Darden
Russ Scheidler
Thomas Fahey
Alexandre Seron
Ralf Pomplitz Zukunft braucht Gerechtigkeit!
Remi Bazillier Decent Work for all!
neil alldred We are very keen to ensure all our own campaigning work is supportive of the Decent Work, Decent Life campaign
Doris Schröder ES ist wichtig, dass menschenwürdige Arbeit für alle Menschen überall geschaffen wird. Sonst erleben wir das, was wir gerade erleben: Der ewige Kreisel nach unten, der überall die Lebensstandards für die arbeitende Bevölkerung nach unten schraubt.
Regina Stolte
Dr. Juergen Eckl Decent work, Trabajo digno, menschenwürdige Arbeit für Alle ist eine Strategie mit vier gleichwertigen Säulen: Respektierung der Kernarabeitsnormen, gute Beschäftigung für alle, Ausbau der Sozialen Sicherheit, mitbestimmender Sozialer Dialog!
Andrea Maksimovic
arun daur Decent Work means respect for workers right to organise and right of union to negotiate - without these two linked rights it is not possible to promote Decent Work in its true sense.
David Seligson
andres penuela
Mathias Maucher
Yan Giroud
Philippe Gousenbourg Decent Work for young people!
Réal Gagnon
tunde animasaun decent work is central to poverty elimination and the guaranteeing of a humane life for all
Concha de Sena Decent work for all!!!
Camelia Constantin
Florentina Constanti Action, not charity!Thsi is what we need.
Michot
Barbara Caracciolo This is great and hope that million of people will sign the Call!
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 31 October 2007 )
Initiated by the: International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
This text is also available in other languages:
Despite the world economic boom, most of the world’s population are not seeing their lives improve as a result.
As well as significant open unemployment, many are underemployed, or not paid for work performed. Half of the world’s workforce earns less than 2 $ a day. 12.3 million women and men work in slavery. 200 million children under the age of 15 work instead of going to school. 2.2 million people die due to work-related accidents and diseases every year. People in developed and developing countries work more for less money, and more and more people – overwhelmingly women - are forced to make their living in the so-called informal economy, without social protection or rights and in precarious jobs. Meanwhile, companies are using the threat of outsourcing to drive down wages and hard fought for rights such as the right to collective bargaining and to strike. Trade unionists that fight these trends are dismissed, threatened, jailed and even killed.
Only an international system based on solidarity and respect for people’s rights, as enshrined in United Nations and International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions, can put a stop to these trends. We call on our governments to sign these conventions, to implement them urgently and to put decent work at the heart of their policy-making.
In July 2006, governments at the UN Economic and Social Council adopted a Ministerial Declaration whose first article states: “We are convinced of the urgent need to create an environment at the national and international levels that is conducive to the attainment of full and productive employment and decent work for all as a foundation for sustainable development.” Their call must be matched by ratification and implementation of the ILO's standards, at the same time as international agencies use the UN’s new Toolkit for Mainstreaming Employment and Decent Work as a first step towards fostering greater policy coherence and convergence for implementing the promise of Decent Work for All.
The time to start implementing these promises is now.
We believe that decent work is central to eradicating poverty, improving the lives of women and men and enabling people to live in peace and dignity. We hence call on decision-makers urgently to:
Decent work: Reaffirm the contribution stable and quality jobs make to a healthy economy and just and equal communities by implementing inclusive strategies for full and productive employment, including for those currently working in the so-called informal economy who need rights and justice to defend their interests. All people have the right to work, to good working conditions and to sufficient income for their basic economic, social and family needs, a right that should be enforced by providing adequate living wages.
Rights: Workers’ rights to form and join trade unions and bargain collectively with their employer are fundamental to realising decent work, and all international organisations, governments and businesses must live up to their responsibilities to respect workers’ human rights.
Social protection: Strengthen and broaden social protection coverage by ensuring access to social security, pensions, unemployment benefits, maternity protection and quality health care to all. These benefits should be available to everyone, including workers in the so-called informal economy.
Trade: Change unfair trade rules and ensure that trade agreements are used as an instrument for decent work, sustainable development and empowerment of the world’s workers, women, the unemployed and the poor. Binding mechanisms for the promotion and enforcement of decent work, including core labour standards, must be included in trade agreements. Governments must stop making trade deals which hurt the poor, create unemployment and lead to exploitation. The demands of workers’ organisations and the rest of civil society must be listened to.
Debt: Ensure that the priorities of the international financial institutions incorporate social and environmental concerns. Particularly, loan and debt conditions which force countries to deregulate labour markets, reduce public spending and privatise public services at the cost of access and quality must be stopped. All projects funded by these institutions must adhere to core labour standards in their implementation.
Aid: Ensure that governments keep their commitment to increase the level of official development aid of rich countries to at least 0.7% of GDP. Adequate financing for development is imperative if the UN’s Millennium Development Goals are to be reached.
Migration: Ensure that migrant workers are not exploited and enjoy the same rights as other workers by ratifying the relevant ILO Conventions and the 1990 UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families.
Sign this call to action by filling the form below!
To sign this on-line petition go to:
http://www.decentwork.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=29
Alan L. Maki As the Director of Organizing for the Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council representing casino workers employed in the more than 400 Indian owned and mobster managed casinos employed in smoke-filled casinos at poverty wages without any rights under State or Federal Labor laws we would like to see full implementation of the \"Call for Action for Decent Work, Decent Life\" with a method of forced compliance in all Nations.
Gerado Castillo Me interesa recibir peridicament este tipo de informacion y si fuera posible materiales referidos a la Empresas Multinacinales.
Yann GELISTER
Jens Rydder
Isabelle Hoferlin
Louis Garcia III You can attack it with malice,ignorance can deride it,but in the end it\'s still there. The truth. Winston Churchill
Mamadou Diallo
Lise Paulsen Galal
JAMES HOWARD
Anneke van Luijken most urgent to act on this
Marcio Kameoka
Conny Reuter more than a campaign: a concept for a large social movement
Peteris Krigers
Ludmila Jevsejenkova
Lorena Rojas Avalos \"unirnos para transformar\", esa es la clave si queremos lograr un trabajo y una vida digna para todas las personas sin ningún tipo de distinción.
Esther Niubó
Maria Badia
Yolanda Torres
Alejandro Cercas
Stephen Hughes MEP
Michael Contes
Laurence Corréard
Anna Wolanska Decent work and decent life is not a privilage. This is our fundamental right.
Livija Marcinkevica
Linda Romele
Ariadna Abeltina
Christopher F. Vota Everyone should maintain a standard of living that includes health of body and mind. No way should anyone anywhere be denied medical care for lack of funds. All people everywhere have the right to work under the best conditions possible for good wages and benefits. Even by doing this, the rich will always get richer, but not nearly at the expense of the rest of us, who slowly sink into serfdom!
Javier Jesús Fernánd
My V. Nguyen Decent work for a decent life is the root of democracy!
David Bayle
Elena Tabanelli
Daniel Terra Jorge
Rosemary Whitmore
Bruce Wheeler
Volker Blaschke
Nele Hess Demokratie und Partizipation durch GUTE ARBEIT!
Shaun O\'Connell The world will never find peace until the 7 promises are implemented ASAP.
Hilda Sanchez I sign this call to action
DOSSOU SIMEON TOUNDE Tout en étant d\'accord avec le contenu, je pense qu\'il faut appeler aussi les gouvernements de nos pays (de l\'Afrique)à une meilleure gouvernance et une meilleure gestion des avoirs publics et de l\'aide au développement
Silva Descent work for young people!
Elisa Caracciolo
Claire Moon
Kristian Weise
Velibor
teresa alfani
CAYETANO GUERRERO FE NO PUEDO ESTAR MÁS DE ACUERDO
Donald Spatz
Wirth, Kurt
Unna Kuessner
Kevin J. O\'Rourke
Marijana Bordage
MP Clark
David Yao
Peter L. Gale
Ramon Certeza United we stand, divided we fall!
Bradley A Harris
Richard Creswell Workers of the world unite!
Albert M. Jenkins
Carole O\'Connell
Nanette Folsom Respect Human Beings!!!!
Eileen Boris
Joy Krom
Dusty Washburn
Dusty Washburn
Wolfgang Stier
Catherine Pottinger Urgently needed.
Büsing, Harald
wallace need fair labor practice.
william t glover jr. we need fair labor practices not exploting workers that the only way will ever make a dent in poverty
Richard J. Bargans It is imperative that these goals be immediately implimented and achieved!
Donna Stein
Edward Sussex Great initiative. Also support decent wages and a basic income guarantee for everyone, starting with family allowances for the poor.
Lynn Cardiff
Rick
Janet Roe-Darden
Russ Scheidler
Thomas Fahey
Alexandre Seron
Ralf Pomplitz Zukunft braucht Gerechtigkeit!
Remi Bazillier Decent Work for all!
neil alldred We are very keen to ensure all our own campaigning work is supportive of the Decent Work, Decent Life campaign
Doris Schröder ES ist wichtig, dass menschenwürdige Arbeit für alle Menschen überall geschaffen wird. Sonst erleben wir das, was wir gerade erleben: Der ewige Kreisel nach unten, der überall die Lebensstandards für die arbeitende Bevölkerung nach unten schraubt.
Regina Stolte
Dr. Juergen Eckl Decent work, Trabajo digno, menschenwürdige Arbeit für Alle ist eine Strategie mit vier gleichwertigen Säulen: Respektierung der Kernarabeitsnormen, gute Beschäftigung für alle, Ausbau der Sozialen Sicherheit, mitbestimmender Sozialer Dialog!
Andrea Maksimovic
arun daur Decent Work means respect for workers right to organise and right of union to negotiate - without these two linked rights it is not possible to promote Decent Work in its true sense.
David Seligson
andres penuela
Mathias Maucher
Yan Giroud
Philippe Gousenbourg Decent Work for young people!
Réal Gagnon
tunde animasaun decent work is central to poverty elimination and the guaranteeing of a humane life for all
Concha de Sena Decent work for all!!!
Camelia Constantin
Florentina Constanti Action, not charity!Thsi is what we need.
Michot
Barbara Caracciolo This is great and hope that million of people will sign the Call!
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 31 October 2007 )
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Has the Change Led to Wins? AFL-CIO and Change to Win
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3379/has_the_change_led_to_wins/
"Working together" (AFL-CIO & Change to Win) on the local level in politics might have created some victories for individual Democratic Candidates; however, even if the U.S. House and Senate was filled completely with such worthless candidates working people wouldn't win anything.
Here in Minnesota, a State Senate Legislative Committee, comprised by a majority of Democrats, all elected with the full support of both the AFL-CIO and Change to Win couldn't even muster enough votes to get a piece of legislation out of committee that would have helped save the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant along with two-thousand jobs.
The Republicans took one of the Democrats out for drinks and never stayed for the vote they were so confident these Democrats would do their dirty work for them.
On the Iron Range a new cancer cluster has been detected among iron ore miners in the taconite industry. What did the Democrats, all endorsed, supported, and financed by the AFL-CIO and Change to Win propose? Single-payer, universal health care which was endorsed by 72% of the delegates to the last state convention of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer Labor Party? No; these Democrats called for another "study"... just what working people and their families need when they are facing foreclosures on their homes to pay for mounting medical bills.
Over two-million American workers are employed in some 400 smoke-filled casinos strung out across the United States... all receiving poverty wages without any rights under state or federal labor laws; subjected to the most Draconian working conditions at the hands of mobsters who "manage" these so-called "Indian owned" casinos under special "Compacts." Not one of these Democrats elected by the AFL-CIO or Change to Win has uttered a peep of protest.
In fact, Michigan's labor endorsed, labor supported, and labor financed Governor, Jennifer Granholm, recently negotiated another one of these despicable "Compacts" with the Gun Lake Band outside of Grand Rapids, Michigan which will employ another 1,800 workers in another smoke-filled casino at poverty wages and without any rights under state or federal labor laws. And, the Michigan Legislature, fully endorsed by the AFL-CIO and Change to Win is considering approving this "Compact." Worse yet, the Michigan AFL-CIO and Change to Win have remained silent... so, their candidates take their lead.
These so-called labor "leaders" who can't develop winning struggles at the negotiating table can't develop winning strategies at the polls... at least not to the benefit of working people.
The war in Iraq is a related matter... organized labor could take the lead from some of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union locals and shut this country right down until the war is brought to an end... but, here again, who has voted to continue funding this dirty war for oil and regional domination in Iraq? You got it... labor endorsed candidates which both the AFL-CIO and Change to Win worked together on to put in office. And labor backed Hillary Clinton has given Bush the go ahead to start another war with Iran.
What we need is a labor movement which understands "class."
Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council
"Working together" (AFL-CIO & Change to Win) on the local level in politics might have created some victories for individual Democratic Candidates; however, even if the U.S. House and Senate was filled completely with such worthless candidates working people wouldn't win anything.
Here in Minnesota, a State Senate Legislative Committee, comprised by a majority of Democrats, all elected with the full support of both the AFL-CIO and Change to Win couldn't even muster enough votes to get a piece of legislation out of committee that would have helped save the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant along with two-thousand jobs.
The Republicans took one of the Democrats out for drinks and never stayed for the vote they were so confident these Democrats would do their dirty work for them.
On the Iron Range a new cancer cluster has been detected among iron ore miners in the taconite industry. What did the Democrats, all endorsed, supported, and financed by the AFL-CIO and Change to Win propose? Single-payer, universal health care which was endorsed by 72% of the delegates to the last state convention of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer Labor Party? No; these Democrats called for another "study"... just what working people and their families need when they are facing foreclosures on their homes to pay for mounting medical bills.
Over two-million American workers are employed in some 400 smoke-filled casinos strung out across the United States... all receiving poverty wages without any rights under state or federal labor laws; subjected to the most Draconian working conditions at the hands of mobsters who "manage" these so-called "Indian owned" casinos under special "Compacts." Not one of these Democrats elected by the AFL-CIO or Change to Win has uttered a peep of protest.
In fact, Michigan's labor endorsed, labor supported, and labor financed Governor, Jennifer Granholm, recently negotiated another one of these despicable "Compacts" with the Gun Lake Band outside of Grand Rapids, Michigan which will employ another 1,800 workers in another smoke-filled casino at poverty wages and without any rights under state or federal labor laws. And, the Michigan Legislature, fully endorsed by the AFL-CIO and Change to Win is considering approving this "Compact." Worse yet, the Michigan AFL-CIO and Change to Win have remained silent... so, their candidates take their lead.
These so-called labor "leaders" who can't develop winning struggles at the negotiating table can't develop winning strategies at the polls... at least not to the benefit of working people.
The war in Iraq is a related matter... organized labor could take the lead from some of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union locals and shut this country right down until the war is brought to an end... but, here again, who has voted to continue funding this dirty war for oil and regional domination in Iraq? You got it... labor endorsed candidates which both the AFL-CIO and Change to Win worked together on to put in office. And labor backed Hillary Clinton has given Bush the go ahead to start another war with Iran.
What we need is a labor movement which understands "class."
Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Controversy swirls around SEIU... class struggle... a rank and file workers' viewpoint
The Service Employees International Union, SEIU, is both one of the largest and most controversial US trade unions. Its growing numbers go counter to the wider trend of declining membership and concentration of union members while its leadership, spearheaded by Pres. Andy Stern, carries out what they call a ‘win-win’ strategy relying on cooperation with corporate management.
This spring, opposition within the SEIU forced the national leadership to abandon one such agreement with the northern California nursing home operators on May 31st. This article seeks to examine that agreement and the push against it. Hopefully, there are useful lessons for us who face the ‘bottom line’ pressure of Corporate America on our jobs and in our lives outside work. Currently, working people in the US are moving down the slippery slope: for example, most US workers have less income now than 5 years ago, fewer have health care, pensions, etc. The goal here is to examine this internal SEIU conflict with an eye towards squeezing out some useful lessons - both in the fight for day-to-day improvements and longer-term for those who believe in the possibility of replacing the current capitalist system.
Ending the agreement, while good, doesn’t point any way forward either for the overworked nursing home workers, the retired workers living there with too little help, or those of us who face corporate ‘bottom line’ pressures. For those of us living under similar union collaboration, there re useful lessons:
For one, this SEIU internal fight illustrates how different interests of different sections of the union hierarchy drove this fight even while both sides share a common practice of collaboration. It shows how the SEIU’s so-called ‘win-win’ strategy hurt both the workers there and the wider, working class public who lives in these nursing homes. The conditions show the common needs of the nursing home workers and the patients; this is the ground for workers to plant class solidarity, not in books alone. It also illuminates the need for workers to have organizations not dependent on the feuding factions of the unions’ management structures; we need organizations founded on our common interests as part of the working class, worldwide, faced with today’s cutthroat global capitalism. To stand up to management, it’s inadequate and a dead end to simply back the ‘lesser of 2 evils’. To create our own networks and organizations and learn more on how to fight, we need a careful examination of such struggles.
The initial Union-corporate agreement lasted 4-1/2 years of its 7-year package before the national SEIU leadership was forced to end it as of May 31, 2007. The initial agreement was a tradeoff: the union agreed not to publicize or oppose any unhealthy or harmful practices, such as short staffing, to state regulators or the media, except those already mandated by law. The SEIU in CA even opposed legislation that would have forced healthcare owners to improve patient care and safety. To start the ball rolling, the union led the successful fight for higher state payments to the operators.
In exchange for all this and more, the owners/operators agreed to allow employees to join the union without opposition. These new union members, some 3,000+, were then covered by ‘template agreements’, put into the master agreement and not negotiated by the workers themselves or their chosen representatives. These template agreements gave up the right to strike as well as the right to campaign against mistreatment of the workers and the patients.
According to an internal analysis done after 4 years under this ‘win-win’ agreement by the regional SEIU branch, United Healthcare Workers – West (UHW), these deals “allowed for very little power on the shop floor with no right to strike and no clear path towards full collective bargaining rights.” (This quote and much of the information regarding the partnership and the reform effort come from “Internal Pressure Ends ‘Sweetheart’ Contract Early” by Mark Brenner-http://labornotes.org/node/989)
This agreement with the northern CA nursing home owners was also important since it also served as a template for the wider international union strategy espoused by the SEIU’s Stern but also by most national US unions- partnership with the employers. This trend is to ‘grow the union’ by such agreements while creating huge, so-called locals as big as 100,000 members. Internally, the SEIU is moving towards the corporate mirror image, internally as well in its main relationship with corporate management.
The SEIU may be the most ‘advanced’ example, but it is not alone in its practice of selling out the workers’ need for actual power in exchange for ‘peaceful relations’ with management. In fact, this has been the dominant, if contested, practice in US unions at least since the victory of the Cold War anti- communism of the late 1940s. That victory was sealed at the 1949 CIO convention when those who believed in working class unity against the demands and priorities of capitalism (sometimes referred to as class-struggle unionism) were excluded from union positions and whole unions from the CIO itself. It was consummated when the CIO rejoined the AFL back in ’55. Today, Andy Stern is the most outspoken union leader espousing this ‘win-win’ collaboration (combined with judicious pressure). Thus, this agreement, its effects, and its demise have relevance greater than its impact upon those workers directly.
The UHW elected leadership and their staff members began a campaign to change or scrap the operating agreement several months before the national leadership gave in and dropped it. The UHW leaders made a study of the agreement, mentioned earlier, and sent out a letter to all members which said, in part, “ Some in the national SEIU are negotiating an agreement with nursing home employers-in California and nationally- and have repeatedly excluded UHW nursing home members and elected representatives from the process.”
Of course, the newly organized members had always been excluded, from the first day of the agreement. They had lived under this preset agreement from day one, so, what was new? Why did the local leadership only organize opposition after over 4 years? After all, this deal had excluded the workers themselves from negotiating their ‘template’ agreements which gave up the right to strike and the right to campaign for their own and patients’ safety. Why did this fight start then? “Why Now?” is always a timely question.
One reason appears to have been the growing exclusion of UHW leaders from negotiating the follow-up agreements. This is part of the SEIU’s super-centralization whereby most ‘local’ unions are organized in ‘efficient’ organizations of up to 200.000, often encompassing entire states or even geographical regions. As with all big organizations, this super-centralization minimizes the ability of local work groups to impact their own ‘local’ union. As with organizing against national and international employers, this shows the necessity of workers putting forth the time and effort to create wider networks and organizations.
Beyond being pushed aside in negotiations, the UHW leaders had more at stake than is visible. In fact, there is a looming reorganization fight within SEIU over who will control new, huge, healthcare ‘locals’ on the West coast andelsewhere. For them, showing their muscle by energizing the membership was merely a tactic to strengthen their hand in these fights. Still, to do that, they had to begin informing and mobilizing members, with stewards circulating petitions which 20,000 signed within a few weeks. The workers’ quick response shows the widespread dissatisfaction which the ‘win-win’ collaboration has generated. Thus, they demonstrated the potential for a real fight, one which this and similar leaderships will not make and which they actually and actively oppose.
Instead of developing the natural affinity and common interests over working and health conditions, SEIU’s agreement – written and implemented by the entire SEIU leadership here- actually pit the healthcare workers and the union against the patients and their families. It forbids any public campaign for better worker-patient ratios, for example. This illustrates perfectly the contrast between class collaboration and class- struggle unionism. This development also shows how the different and competing interests within the union structures can and did lead to greater worker involvement. Breaking the agreement also shows the workers there and elsewhere the potential of organized campaigns forcing needed changes within the union.
Once the UHW leaders did initiate open and internal struggle against the agreements and the negotiations that froze them out, over 20,000 UHW members signed the petition within a few weeks. This response shows some potential for a real fight. As a shop steward Brenner talked with put it, “We’ve signed up over half the members where I work. What really got people upset was this idea that guys in suits, sitting in Washington, D, C,, will bargain our contracts. These are people who have never worked in a hospital and who don’t know anything about our jobs. Then, to top it off, we won’t even have a right to vote on the contract they negotiate.”
The UHW workers outside the healthcare agreements opposed the SEIU’s extending that template contract onto them. They showed no trust in the national leadership to ‘look out for them’. Quite the contrary. These developments testify to the lie that workers are passive and trust their leadership. It shows the potential for a powerful working class fight, but only if an alternative develops to challenge the strategy of ‘win-win’ collaboration with class solidarity unionism.
In other words, when the SEIU leadership froze out the local leaders from negotiations and threatened to set up competing huge superlocals outside their control, those leaders took the initiative to fight, for their own reasons. When it was ‘just’ the workers who were frozen out, these same UHW leaders did nothing. The local leaders had their own reasons for fighting; that fight then illuminated the level of discontent of most members. It opened the door to workers’ organizing and talking amongst themselves over what this would mean. It created an opening which will need to go beyond this limited resistance if they’re to realize the potential for expanding their own networks not dependent upon the initiatives of the local leaders.
I don’t write this to denigrate those UHW leaders. Far from it: in fact, they undertook a fight, which could have put them out of a job. The SEIU, like most national unions, including my own, AFSCME, has constitutional, vague provisions allowing the national leaders to place local unions under trusteeship, wherein the national leaders take over the local and appoint officers who make decisions for the local. The fact that the UHW-W leaders started this internal fight shows how threatened they (and others in such positions) must have felt by this totally centralized, corporatized setup pushed by Stern and his allies.
You might recall the original “Justice for Janitors” campaign in Los Angeles back in the early ‘90s. There was even a movie based upon it. The national SEIU paid local activists to organize mostly Central American and Mexican immigrant communities for militant confrontations and mass marches in solidarity with the union organizing drive for downtown janitors. After the workers and SEIU forced the corporate employers to sign a decent contract, the militant activists formed a slate and won local union election. To show that they didn’t mean to threaten the union establishment, this solidarity slate chose not to run a candidate for president. The SEIU leadership responded quickly; they took over that local, dissolved it into a statewide SEIU ‘local’ and bought off one or two of the original local leaders. Who were the chief SEIU officers at he time? John Sweeney, current AFL-CIO president, was then the SEIU president while Andy Stern was his loyal VP. It took courage and shrewd judgement for those UHW leaders to make this fight; make no mistake. But it’s also important not to lionize them and their initiative.
In fact, like most unions committed to such ‘junior partnerships’, the UHW-W has consistently promoted corporate interests over workers’ for many years. A recent article by Charles Andrews, “Who’s Right about Kaiser—Michael Moore or SEIU?” gives us several examples and insights based on their, SEIU’s, junior partnership with Kaiser Permanente. (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/andrews050907.html)
While Moore’s recent movie SiCKO refers to Kaiser as an example of profiteering health exploiters. It ran tape where Nixon approves the Kaiser practice of using healthcare premiums as their money, essentially for profits and not to provide healthcare. In fact, Kaiser was the poster child for the HMO Act of 1973. As Andrews puts it, “ Erlichman assured Nixon that the incentives at Kaiser run toward less medical are. The less care provided to members paying a flat premium, the more money Kaiser makes.”
A document supplied by Kaiser, responding to SiCKO, was a Feb. 6, 1971 letter from chairman Edgar Kaiser to Erlichman in which “ Mr. Kaiser explained that Kaiser physicians, organized as the Permanente Group, receive both a salary and a share in any surplus left over from the contractual payments by the Kaiser Heath Plan to the Permanente Group.” According to Andrews, “The incentive is to minimize the number of physicians in ratio to Kaiser members.” In other words, these doctors got a piece of the pie in exchange for short-changing patients, for increasing the ration of patients to doctors.
That’s not all. According to Andrews’ report, UHW-W actively helped Kaiser Permanente train and “… award bonuses to call-center clerks who spent the least amount of time on the phone with each patient and limited the number of doctors’ appointments.” ( Los Angeles Times, May 17, 2002) As Andrews puts it, “UHW-W officials served as straw bosses, working with Kaiser bosses urging clerks to get with the program.” This gives workers a small payoff for helping management screw over and exploit everyone else. This is poison to the solidarity of workers with those we impact or serve. It pits some against all. That’s what this ‘win-win’ junior partnership means, in daily life.
How did the UHW-W leaders respond to Moore’s charges and Kaiser’s defense? Andrews puts it this way: “UHW-W attacked Michael Moore for ‘smearing the reputation of one of our nation’s most progressive, reform-minded, pro-worker health-care organizations: American’s premier not-for-profit, pre-paid, integrated health-care delivery system, Kaiser Permanente.’ ”
Is this just a war of words or part of a war against the working class, playing divide and rule with payoffs for those who collaborate and hard time for those who don’t?
From what I can see, they only stepped up after the national leadership was freezing them out and marking them as expendable. The UHW-W leadership’s letter and petition was coupled with an intense internal SEIU fight. It apparently caused the end of the northern CA agreement within days of the petition. That internal union fight is not over, altho this particular battle is. One thing is clear: contradictions exist between the national leadership and local leaders. The strategy to centralize everything has and will create more such. So far, this internal fight appears to be between two wings that essentially agree on the overall jr. partnership relationship with capitalist management and priorities.
Brenner illustrates this with the case of Jerome Brown, former president of SEIU’s massive 1199 New England health care regional union. According to Brenner, Brown exemplifies a dissenting voice within the national SEIU, one who recognizes that “only after a period of open conflict can ‘strong unions and engaged members enter into mature, cooperative relationships’ with their employers.” In other words, Brown is all for these ‘cooperative relationships’, but only after establishing and then taming an ‘engaged’ membership. Same goals, different tactics. Still, here’s yet another example of contradictions within the same structures, more conflicts that can and do open more doors to similar developments. You can see the contradictions when Brown wrote, in a review of Andy Stern’s latest book, “A Country That Works” (which I plan to review here soon),
“We have to ask ourselves if these methods (referring to practices like the northern CA nursing home agreement) can produce a real, democratic workers’ organization or if it is more likely that they will produce a ‘membership’ that sees itself, correctly, as a third party in a relationship with union brokers and employers—the very antithesis of true rank-and-file unionism.” We might also ask, “how does pursing ‘mature’ collaboration of once-militant unions help workers? Should we take a close look at how this has played out in the airlines, in steel, or in auto where pay, conditions, pensions and healthcare are all being sacrificed on the same alter?
Still, that process of inner-union conflicts opens the door to a deeper development- one where the active workers can break free to pursue their own interests as workers, unlimited by what’s acceptable to various layers of union officials who are ‘on board’ for the collaboration strategy embodied by Andy Stern and the current SEIU national leadership.
For the recently- activated northern CA healthcare workers in UHW, this means more a chance to develop local and regional networks and groups to discuss and possibly fight for their own working conditions. This then means they can take up the direct and public fight for better healthcare conditions for the patients and through them with the wider working class. This would no longer depend upon the local leaders, altho it doesn’t have to be against them where they’re willing to support and help lead such a fight. The parallel with education and other public sector workers seems clear: we are the largest unionized sector of the workforce. Our working conditions are usually other people’s care or ‘service’. For teachers, our working conditions are students’ learning conditions.
And that can encourage those who are also discontented with their/our own union leaders, most of whom practice the same ‘win-win’ partnership as the SEIU, even if not always taken to Stern’s extreme. Clearly, the growing pressures of corporate capitalism are tilling and preparing the ground for resistance. The question then is, “What kind of resistance?” We can sit back and feel good about this victory in CA, or we can take heart and use it to build on, towards a working class movement that organizes around our common good and living links, rejecting the ‘win-win’ collaboration strategy which is really a ‘lose-lose’ for us. In my experience, those who reject capitalist priorities and work for a different society have special contributions to make.
To fight effectively, the internal opponents, like in UHW-W, must sometimes mobilize and try to steer the workers affected. This opens the door to workers to fight for things like good staffing, providing quality healthcare, defending pensions, et.al. To fight within such a context, it is necessary to reject the ideas that guide collaboration and have ideas and goals- like providing quality health care for all by building worker-patient or teacher-student-family unity. Ideas and strategy/tactics, which make sense and can inspire others to stand up and face attacks. Since most unions oppose this outlook, in daily life, we must develop organizations working towards working class solidarity, of one-for-all-and-all-for-one, and against this dog-eat-dog, illustrated by even the ‘reform’ leaders of UHW-W in this case.
The deepest expression of and the goal of creating solidarity requires overturning the capitalist system and creating a socialism that Marx saw as inherent in our struggle with the domination of capital. He saw and worked for a world free of class or other forms of oppression. For those of us who’re either convinced of Marx’s analysis or just engaging his ideas, this successful fight inside the SEIU points towards the living class struggle as the organic, natural grounds for developing class awareness, independent organization, and greater understanding of how the system works and how we can all ‘work it’ for our common good and future.
Earl Silbar is a lifelong socialist activist who has been a Teamster, a member of Laborer’s International, the IBEW, part of an in-plant IAM organizing committee, and a founding member, activist and citywide elected officer, delegate to state and national AFSCME conventions, Local 3506 delegate to the Chicago Fed. of Labor, and as chief steward of AFSCME 3506. He recently retired after teaching GED for 27 years in Chicago’s City Colleges. Red1pearl@aol.com
This spring, opposition within the SEIU forced the national leadership to abandon one such agreement with the northern California nursing home operators on May 31st. This article seeks to examine that agreement and the push against it. Hopefully, there are useful lessons for us who face the ‘bottom line’ pressure of Corporate America on our jobs and in our lives outside work. Currently, working people in the US are moving down the slippery slope: for example, most US workers have less income now than 5 years ago, fewer have health care, pensions, etc. The goal here is to examine this internal SEIU conflict with an eye towards squeezing out some useful lessons - both in the fight for day-to-day improvements and longer-term for those who believe in the possibility of replacing the current capitalist system.
Ending the agreement, while good, doesn’t point any way forward either for the overworked nursing home workers, the retired workers living there with too little help, or those of us who face corporate ‘bottom line’ pressures. For those of us living under similar union collaboration, there re useful lessons:
For one, this SEIU internal fight illustrates how different interests of different sections of the union hierarchy drove this fight even while both sides share a common practice of collaboration. It shows how the SEIU’s so-called ‘win-win’ strategy hurt both the workers there and the wider, working class public who lives in these nursing homes. The conditions show the common needs of the nursing home workers and the patients; this is the ground for workers to plant class solidarity, not in books alone. It also illuminates the need for workers to have organizations not dependent on the feuding factions of the unions’ management structures; we need organizations founded on our common interests as part of the working class, worldwide, faced with today’s cutthroat global capitalism. To stand up to management, it’s inadequate and a dead end to simply back the ‘lesser of 2 evils’. To create our own networks and organizations and learn more on how to fight, we need a careful examination of such struggles.
The initial Union-corporate agreement lasted 4-1/2 years of its 7-year package before the national SEIU leadership was forced to end it as of May 31, 2007. The initial agreement was a tradeoff: the union agreed not to publicize or oppose any unhealthy or harmful practices, such as short staffing, to state regulators or the media, except those already mandated by law. The SEIU in CA even opposed legislation that would have forced healthcare owners to improve patient care and safety. To start the ball rolling, the union led the successful fight for higher state payments to the operators.
In exchange for all this and more, the owners/operators agreed to allow employees to join the union without opposition. These new union members, some 3,000+, were then covered by ‘template agreements’, put into the master agreement and not negotiated by the workers themselves or their chosen representatives. These template agreements gave up the right to strike as well as the right to campaign against mistreatment of the workers and the patients.
According to an internal analysis done after 4 years under this ‘win-win’ agreement by the regional SEIU branch, United Healthcare Workers – West (UHW), these deals “allowed for very little power on the shop floor with no right to strike and no clear path towards full collective bargaining rights.” (This quote and much of the information regarding the partnership and the reform effort come from “Internal Pressure Ends ‘Sweetheart’ Contract Early” by Mark Brenner-http://labornotes.org/node/989)
This agreement with the northern CA nursing home owners was also important since it also served as a template for the wider international union strategy espoused by the SEIU’s Stern but also by most national US unions- partnership with the employers. This trend is to ‘grow the union’ by such agreements while creating huge, so-called locals as big as 100,000 members. Internally, the SEIU is moving towards the corporate mirror image, internally as well in its main relationship with corporate management.
The SEIU may be the most ‘advanced’ example, but it is not alone in its practice of selling out the workers’ need for actual power in exchange for ‘peaceful relations’ with management. In fact, this has been the dominant, if contested, practice in US unions at least since the victory of the Cold War anti- communism of the late 1940s. That victory was sealed at the 1949 CIO convention when those who believed in working class unity against the demands and priorities of capitalism (sometimes referred to as class-struggle unionism) were excluded from union positions and whole unions from the CIO itself. It was consummated when the CIO rejoined the AFL back in ’55. Today, Andy Stern is the most outspoken union leader espousing this ‘win-win’ collaboration (combined with judicious pressure). Thus, this agreement, its effects, and its demise have relevance greater than its impact upon those workers directly.
The UHW elected leadership and their staff members began a campaign to change or scrap the operating agreement several months before the national leadership gave in and dropped it. The UHW leaders made a study of the agreement, mentioned earlier, and sent out a letter to all members which said, in part, “ Some in the national SEIU are negotiating an agreement with nursing home employers-in California and nationally- and have repeatedly excluded UHW nursing home members and elected representatives from the process.”
Of course, the newly organized members had always been excluded, from the first day of the agreement. They had lived under this preset agreement from day one, so, what was new? Why did the local leadership only organize opposition after over 4 years? After all, this deal had excluded the workers themselves from negotiating their ‘template’ agreements which gave up the right to strike and the right to campaign for their own and patients’ safety. Why did this fight start then? “Why Now?” is always a timely question.
One reason appears to have been the growing exclusion of UHW leaders from negotiating the follow-up agreements. This is part of the SEIU’s super-centralization whereby most ‘local’ unions are organized in ‘efficient’ organizations of up to 200.000, often encompassing entire states or even geographical regions. As with all big organizations, this super-centralization minimizes the ability of local work groups to impact their own ‘local’ union. As with organizing against national and international employers, this shows the necessity of workers putting forth the time and effort to create wider networks and organizations.
Beyond being pushed aside in negotiations, the UHW leaders had more at stake than is visible. In fact, there is a looming reorganization fight within SEIU over who will control new, huge, healthcare ‘locals’ on the West coast andelsewhere. For them, showing their muscle by energizing the membership was merely a tactic to strengthen their hand in these fights. Still, to do that, they had to begin informing and mobilizing members, with stewards circulating petitions which 20,000 signed within a few weeks. The workers’ quick response shows the widespread dissatisfaction which the ‘win-win’ collaboration has generated. Thus, they demonstrated the potential for a real fight, one which this and similar leaderships will not make and which they actually and actively oppose.
Instead of developing the natural affinity and common interests over working and health conditions, SEIU’s agreement – written and implemented by the entire SEIU leadership here- actually pit the healthcare workers and the union against the patients and their families. It forbids any public campaign for better worker-patient ratios, for example. This illustrates perfectly the contrast between class collaboration and class- struggle unionism. This development also shows how the different and competing interests within the union structures can and did lead to greater worker involvement. Breaking the agreement also shows the workers there and elsewhere the potential of organized campaigns forcing needed changes within the union.
Once the UHW leaders did initiate open and internal struggle against the agreements and the negotiations that froze them out, over 20,000 UHW members signed the petition within a few weeks. This response shows some potential for a real fight. As a shop steward Brenner talked with put it, “We’ve signed up over half the members where I work. What really got people upset was this idea that guys in suits, sitting in Washington, D, C,, will bargain our contracts. These are people who have never worked in a hospital and who don’t know anything about our jobs. Then, to top it off, we won’t even have a right to vote on the contract they negotiate.”
The UHW workers outside the healthcare agreements opposed the SEIU’s extending that template contract onto them. They showed no trust in the national leadership to ‘look out for them’. Quite the contrary. These developments testify to the lie that workers are passive and trust their leadership. It shows the potential for a powerful working class fight, but only if an alternative develops to challenge the strategy of ‘win-win’ collaboration with class solidarity unionism.
In other words, when the SEIU leadership froze out the local leaders from negotiations and threatened to set up competing huge superlocals outside their control, those leaders took the initiative to fight, for their own reasons. When it was ‘just’ the workers who were frozen out, these same UHW leaders did nothing. The local leaders had their own reasons for fighting; that fight then illuminated the level of discontent of most members. It opened the door to workers’ organizing and talking amongst themselves over what this would mean. It created an opening which will need to go beyond this limited resistance if they’re to realize the potential for expanding their own networks not dependent upon the initiatives of the local leaders.
I don’t write this to denigrate those UHW leaders. Far from it: in fact, they undertook a fight, which could have put them out of a job. The SEIU, like most national unions, including my own, AFSCME, has constitutional, vague provisions allowing the national leaders to place local unions under trusteeship, wherein the national leaders take over the local and appoint officers who make decisions for the local. The fact that the UHW-W leaders started this internal fight shows how threatened they (and others in such positions) must have felt by this totally centralized, corporatized setup pushed by Stern and his allies.
You might recall the original “Justice for Janitors” campaign in Los Angeles back in the early ‘90s. There was even a movie based upon it. The national SEIU paid local activists to organize mostly Central American and Mexican immigrant communities for militant confrontations and mass marches in solidarity with the union organizing drive for downtown janitors. After the workers and SEIU forced the corporate employers to sign a decent contract, the militant activists formed a slate and won local union election. To show that they didn’t mean to threaten the union establishment, this solidarity slate chose not to run a candidate for president. The SEIU leadership responded quickly; they took over that local, dissolved it into a statewide SEIU ‘local’ and bought off one or two of the original local leaders. Who were the chief SEIU officers at he time? John Sweeney, current AFL-CIO president, was then the SEIU president while Andy Stern was his loyal VP. It took courage and shrewd judgement for those UHW leaders to make this fight; make no mistake. But it’s also important not to lionize them and their initiative.
In fact, like most unions committed to such ‘junior partnerships’, the UHW-W has consistently promoted corporate interests over workers’ for many years. A recent article by Charles Andrews, “Who’s Right about Kaiser—Michael Moore or SEIU?” gives us several examples and insights based on their, SEIU’s, junior partnership with Kaiser Permanente. (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/andrews050907.html)
While Moore’s recent movie SiCKO refers to Kaiser as an example of profiteering health exploiters. It ran tape where Nixon approves the Kaiser practice of using healthcare premiums as their money, essentially for profits and not to provide healthcare. In fact, Kaiser was the poster child for the HMO Act of 1973. As Andrews puts it, “ Erlichman assured Nixon that the incentives at Kaiser run toward less medical are. The less care provided to members paying a flat premium, the more money Kaiser makes.”
A document supplied by Kaiser, responding to SiCKO, was a Feb. 6, 1971 letter from chairman Edgar Kaiser to Erlichman in which “ Mr. Kaiser explained that Kaiser physicians, organized as the Permanente Group, receive both a salary and a share in any surplus left over from the contractual payments by the Kaiser Heath Plan to the Permanente Group.” According to Andrews, “The incentive is to minimize the number of physicians in ratio to Kaiser members.” In other words, these doctors got a piece of the pie in exchange for short-changing patients, for increasing the ration of patients to doctors.
That’s not all. According to Andrews’ report, UHW-W actively helped Kaiser Permanente train and “… award bonuses to call-center clerks who spent the least amount of time on the phone with each patient and limited the number of doctors’ appointments.” ( Los Angeles Times, May 17, 2002) As Andrews puts it, “UHW-W officials served as straw bosses, working with Kaiser bosses urging clerks to get with the program.” This gives workers a small payoff for helping management screw over and exploit everyone else. This is poison to the solidarity of workers with those we impact or serve. It pits some against all. That’s what this ‘win-win’ junior partnership means, in daily life.
How did the UHW-W leaders respond to Moore’s charges and Kaiser’s defense? Andrews puts it this way: “UHW-W attacked Michael Moore for ‘smearing the reputation of one of our nation’s most progressive, reform-minded, pro-worker health-care organizations: American’s premier not-for-profit, pre-paid, integrated health-care delivery system, Kaiser Permanente.’ ”
Is this just a war of words or part of a war against the working class, playing divide and rule with payoffs for those who collaborate and hard time for those who don’t?
From what I can see, they only stepped up after the national leadership was freezing them out and marking them as expendable. The UHW-W leadership’s letter and petition was coupled with an intense internal SEIU fight. It apparently caused the end of the northern CA agreement within days of the petition. That internal union fight is not over, altho this particular battle is. One thing is clear: contradictions exist between the national leadership and local leaders. The strategy to centralize everything has and will create more such. So far, this internal fight appears to be between two wings that essentially agree on the overall jr. partnership relationship with capitalist management and priorities.
Brenner illustrates this with the case of Jerome Brown, former president of SEIU’s massive 1199 New England health care regional union. According to Brenner, Brown exemplifies a dissenting voice within the national SEIU, one who recognizes that “only after a period of open conflict can ‘strong unions and engaged members enter into mature, cooperative relationships’ with their employers.” In other words, Brown is all for these ‘cooperative relationships’, but only after establishing and then taming an ‘engaged’ membership. Same goals, different tactics. Still, here’s yet another example of contradictions within the same structures, more conflicts that can and do open more doors to similar developments. You can see the contradictions when Brown wrote, in a review of Andy Stern’s latest book, “A Country That Works” (which I plan to review here soon),
“We have to ask ourselves if these methods (referring to practices like the northern CA nursing home agreement) can produce a real, democratic workers’ organization or if it is more likely that they will produce a ‘membership’ that sees itself, correctly, as a third party in a relationship with union brokers and employers—the very antithesis of true rank-and-file unionism.” We might also ask, “how does pursing ‘mature’ collaboration of once-militant unions help workers? Should we take a close look at how this has played out in the airlines, in steel, or in auto where pay, conditions, pensions and healthcare are all being sacrificed on the same alter?
Still, that process of inner-union conflicts opens the door to a deeper development- one where the active workers can break free to pursue their own interests as workers, unlimited by what’s acceptable to various layers of union officials who are ‘on board’ for the collaboration strategy embodied by Andy Stern and the current SEIU national leadership.
For the recently- activated northern CA healthcare workers in UHW, this means more a chance to develop local and regional networks and groups to discuss and possibly fight for their own working conditions. This then means they can take up the direct and public fight for better healthcare conditions for the patients and through them with the wider working class. This would no longer depend upon the local leaders, altho it doesn’t have to be against them where they’re willing to support and help lead such a fight. The parallel with education and other public sector workers seems clear: we are the largest unionized sector of the workforce. Our working conditions are usually other people’s care or ‘service’. For teachers, our working conditions are students’ learning conditions.
And that can encourage those who are also discontented with their/our own union leaders, most of whom practice the same ‘win-win’ partnership as the SEIU, even if not always taken to Stern’s extreme. Clearly, the growing pressures of corporate capitalism are tilling and preparing the ground for resistance. The question then is, “What kind of resistance?” We can sit back and feel good about this victory in CA, or we can take heart and use it to build on, towards a working class movement that organizes around our common good and living links, rejecting the ‘win-win’ collaboration strategy which is really a ‘lose-lose’ for us. In my experience, those who reject capitalist priorities and work for a different society have special contributions to make.
To fight effectively, the internal opponents, like in UHW-W, must sometimes mobilize and try to steer the workers affected. This opens the door to workers to fight for things like good staffing, providing quality healthcare, defending pensions, et.al. To fight within such a context, it is necessary to reject the ideas that guide collaboration and have ideas and goals- like providing quality health care for all by building worker-patient or teacher-student-family unity. Ideas and strategy/tactics, which make sense and can inspire others to stand up and face attacks. Since most unions oppose this outlook, in daily life, we must develop organizations working towards working class solidarity, of one-for-all-and-all-for-one, and against this dog-eat-dog, illustrated by even the ‘reform’ leaders of UHW-W in this case.
The deepest expression of and the goal of creating solidarity requires overturning the capitalist system and creating a socialism that Marx saw as inherent in our struggle with the domination of capital. He saw and worked for a world free of class or other forms of oppression. For those of us who’re either convinced of Marx’s analysis or just engaging his ideas, this successful fight inside the SEIU points towards the living class struggle as the organic, natural grounds for developing class awareness, independent organization, and greater understanding of how the system works and how we can all ‘work it’ for our common good and future.
Earl Silbar is a lifelong socialist activist who has been a Teamster, a member of Laborer’s International, the IBEW, part of an in-plant IAM organizing committee, and a founding member, activist and citywide elected officer, delegate to state and national AFSCME conventions, Local 3506 delegate to the Chicago Fed. of Labor, and as chief steward of AFSCME 3506. He recently retired after teaching GED for 27 years in Chicago’s City Colleges. Red1pearl@aol.com
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Allegan News refuses to publish Letter to the Editor... so much for "Freedom of the Press"
The Allegan County News, which like all newspapers in the area has repeatedly refused to publish one single word concerning the health, rights, and welfare of casino workers.
The assistant Editor, Mr. Lewis, told me that my original Letter to the Editor was too long.
I asked him what the requirements of his newspaper are since many of the letters supporting this casino have been in excess of 1,500 words.
I edited the letter down to his requirement. He told me the letter would be published. I gave him full and complete authorization to further edit this Letter to the Editor in any way he saw fit.
My Letter to the Editor of the Allegan News was a direct response to the lies published in this so-called "newspaper" whose Editor, Mr. Brown, has never seen fit to so much as ask one single question concerning labor issues and this "Compact" Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm negotiated with the Gun Lake Band.
In fact, the Allegan News has been assured by the Gun Lake Band that it will receive thousands of dollars in advertising every week from this casino venture.
The news media, like Michigan politicians--- Democratic and Republican--- have become mere pimps and prostitutes in the stable of the Fertitta Family whose Station Casinos will manage this new casino and reap hundreds of millions of dollars a year in profits.
The Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council will distribute this Letter to the Editor to residents within a forty mile radius of the casino site in order to inform people of the facts.
This Letter to the Editor will carry the headline: The Allegan News refused to publish this Letter to the Editor.
[Please note: I would encourage anyone considering working in this casino to contact me about our union organizing campaign now underway... we can not wait until the casino is up and running.]
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Maki [mailto:amaki000@centurytel.net]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 2:46 PM
To: rmlewis@allegannews.com
Subject: Re: edited letter on casino workers and Gun Lake Compact; please confirm you received this e-mail
August 6, 2007
Letter to the Editor, Allegan News; Submitted for publication
[Note: Per our telephone conversation. This letter has been edited as requested; as the writer I extend to the Editor the right to edit in any manner as deemed appropriate for publication.](actual letter, approximately 600 words excluding this introduction and contact info)
There are those who want to continue forward with this Gun Lake Casino Compact completely oblivious to the truth; and, the injustices it will spawn:
* There will be no $40,000.00 a year jobs for casino workers;
* Casino workers will work in smoke-filled casinos without any rights under state, federal, or tribal labor laws. Would any member of the Southwest Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council work under these circumstances? Definitely not; in addition to established labor laws they have a union contract. Workers in this Gun Lake Casino will be employed under terms called “at will hiring, at will firing” with no recourse what-so-ever against unjust terminations. No construction worker would pick up a shovel under such terms of employment.
* Casino workers will have no voice at work;
* Without rights in the workplace, casino workers have no rights in the communities where they live--- say something your employer doesn’t like (for instance: the minimum wage should be increased to a level
commensurate with the calculations of the United States Department of Labor for what is a real living income) at a legislative hearing and you are out the door;
* Young women casino workers are in the majority among casino workers; these women of child-bearing age suffer the worst health related problems of second-hand smoke; a problem casino managements have refused to address [For those concerned about fetuses second-hand smoke is a great peril];
* Heart, lung, and cancer related health problems associated with second-hand smoke afflict casino workers more than workers in any other industry according to leading experts with the Heart and Lung Foundation and American Cancer Society;
* Workers will be fired for attempting to organize a union in order to protect their rights through the collective bargaining process;
* The Fertitta Family operates a string of non-union casinos under the name “Station Casinos” which will manage the Gun Lake Casino.
So far, not one single Michigan Legislator or media outlet has challenged the proponents of this Gun Lake Casino “Compact” to come forward with documentation supporting the outlandish claim that these jobs will be paying $40,000.00 a year.
The only thing they would have to request is a listing of each job and what the specific job will pay on an hourly basis; and, what that job will be projected to pay for the year.
Since the Gun Lake Band, the Kalamazoo Chamber of Commerce, and the Southwest Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council have all stated that jobs and wages are a primary reason for considering this casino venture, they should be willing to provide the hard empirical data supporting this claim of $40,000.00 a year jobs for casino workers together with articulating the conditions of the working environment; they have not.
The dirty and under-handed manner in which this “Compact” has been brought forward without answering these very basic queries and requests for empirical data calls into question the very basic premise and underpinnings of our democracy as questions are prevented from being asked, discussion is stifled and limited at both the grassroots level and the Legislative level to only those who support this “Compact;” all making a complete mockery of democracy.
“Tribal Sovereignty” is no excuse for systematically continuing to deny casino workers their very basic and fundamental human rights.
This Gun Lake Compact should be rejected as written and Governor Granholm should be told to renegotiate this Compact taking into consideration the rights of casino workers to work in a healthy, smoke-free work environment with the exact same rights construction and all other workers in the State of Michigan enjoy under state and federal labor laws.
Thank you for allowing me to clarify what is at issue;
Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
218-386-2432
cell: 651-587-5541
Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell phone: 651-587-5541
E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net
Check out my blog:
Thoughts From Podunk
http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/
The assistant Editor, Mr. Lewis, told me that my original Letter to the Editor was too long.
I asked him what the requirements of his newspaper are since many of the letters supporting this casino have been in excess of 1,500 words.
I edited the letter down to his requirement. He told me the letter would be published. I gave him full and complete authorization to further edit this Letter to the Editor in any way he saw fit.
My Letter to the Editor of the Allegan News was a direct response to the lies published in this so-called "newspaper" whose Editor, Mr. Brown, has never seen fit to so much as ask one single question concerning labor issues and this "Compact" Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm negotiated with the Gun Lake Band.
In fact, the Allegan News has been assured by the Gun Lake Band that it will receive thousands of dollars in advertising every week from this casino venture.
The news media, like Michigan politicians--- Democratic and Republican--- have become mere pimps and prostitutes in the stable of the Fertitta Family whose Station Casinos will manage this new casino and reap hundreds of millions of dollars a year in profits.
The Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council will distribute this Letter to the Editor to residents within a forty mile radius of the casino site in order to inform people of the facts.
This Letter to the Editor will carry the headline: The Allegan News refused to publish this Letter to the Editor.
[Please note: I would encourage anyone considering working in this casino to contact me about our union organizing campaign now underway... we can not wait until the casino is up and running.]
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Maki [mailto:amaki000@centurytel.net]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 2:46 PM
To: rmlewis@allegannews.com
Subject: Re: edited letter on casino workers and Gun Lake Compact; please confirm you received this e-mail
August 6, 2007
Letter to the Editor, Allegan News; Submitted for publication
[Note: Per our telephone conversation. This letter has been edited as requested; as the writer I extend to the Editor the right to edit in any manner as deemed appropriate for publication.](actual letter, approximately 600 words excluding this introduction and contact info)
There are those who want to continue forward with this Gun Lake Casino Compact completely oblivious to the truth; and, the injustices it will spawn:
* There will be no $40,000.00 a year jobs for casino workers;
* Casino workers will work in smoke-filled casinos without any rights under state, federal, or tribal labor laws. Would any member of the Southwest Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council work under these circumstances? Definitely not; in addition to established labor laws they have a union contract. Workers in this Gun Lake Casino will be employed under terms called “at will hiring, at will firing” with no recourse what-so-ever against unjust terminations. No construction worker would pick up a shovel under such terms of employment.
* Casino workers will have no voice at work;
* Without rights in the workplace, casino workers have no rights in the communities where they live--- say something your employer doesn’t like (for instance: the minimum wage should be increased to a level
commensurate with the calculations of the United States Department of Labor for what is a real living income) at a legislative hearing and you are out the door;
* Young women casino workers are in the majority among casino workers; these women of child-bearing age suffer the worst health related problems of second-hand smoke; a problem casino managements have refused to address [For those concerned about fetuses second-hand smoke is a great peril];
* Heart, lung, and cancer related health problems associated with second-hand smoke afflict casino workers more than workers in any other industry according to leading experts with the Heart and Lung Foundation and American Cancer Society;
* Workers will be fired for attempting to organize a union in order to protect their rights through the collective bargaining process;
* The Fertitta Family operates a string of non-union casinos under the name “Station Casinos” which will manage the Gun Lake Casino.
So far, not one single Michigan Legislator or media outlet has challenged the proponents of this Gun Lake Casino “Compact” to come forward with documentation supporting the outlandish claim that these jobs will be paying $40,000.00 a year.
The only thing they would have to request is a listing of each job and what the specific job will pay on an hourly basis; and, what that job will be projected to pay for the year.
Since the Gun Lake Band, the Kalamazoo Chamber of Commerce, and the Southwest Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council have all stated that jobs and wages are a primary reason for considering this casino venture, they should be willing to provide the hard empirical data supporting this claim of $40,000.00 a year jobs for casino workers together with articulating the conditions of the working environment; they have not.
The dirty and under-handed manner in which this “Compact” has been brought forward without answering these very basic queries and requests for empirical data calls into question the very basic premise and underpinnings of our democracy as questions are prevented from being asked, discussion is stifled and limited at both the grassroots level and the Legislative level to only those who support this “Compact;” all making a complete mockery of democracy.
“Tribal Sovereignty” is no excuse for systematically continuing to deny casino workers their very basic and fundamental human rights.
This Gun Lake Compact should be rejected as written and Governor Granholm should be told to renegotiate this Compact taking into consideration the rights of casino workers to work in a healthy, smoke-free work environment with the exact same rights construction and all other workers in the State of Michigan enjoy under state and federal labor laws.
Thank you for allowing me to clarify what is at issue;
Alan L. Maki
Director of Organizing,
Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
218-386-2432
cell: 651-587-5541
Alan L. Maki
58891 County Road 13
Warroad, Minnesota 56763
Phone: 218-386-2432
Cell phone: 651-587-5541
E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net
Check out my blog:
Thoughts From Podunk
http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
