Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Let's Fight to Win Against the War on Workers and the Poor
By abandoning their members and working class communities to the ravages of global capitalism as they are doing in San Francisco and here in Oakland, Union leaders leave a vacuum that begs to be filled.
Let's Fight to Win Against the War on Workers and the Poor
No more token picket lines or candle light vigils: working people have the power to stop the bosses business as usual agenda.
Facing a $37.5 million budget deficit, Oakland CA, a major shipping hub and one of the busiest ports in the U.S., is unloading this crisis on to the backs of city employees, working class communities and the poor,
Unions will be voting next week on whether to accept a 3 percent pay cut in order to "ease the pain", according to reports in the local papers. Workers cringe when we hear terms like "ease the pain" and "let's be realistic". In actuality, pain is increased as we are forced to adopt the employers' realism; their program for deficit reduction. Their gain and workers' pain. We most commonly hear this advice not from the employers directly but from their allies within organized labor, the various staffers, business agents and leaders at the higher levels of the movement.
The city of Oakland crisis is no exception. Ignacio De La Fuente and Jane Brunner, who negotiated the deal according to the San Francisco Chronicle, both have their roots in organized labor. De La Fuente was Molders a Union Business Agent and recently resigned member of the Alameda Central Labor Council Executive Board and Brunner was formerly an IBEW Business Agent and labor council delegate.
Part of the economic terrorism directed at city workers is a proposed plan to install global tracking devices on their trucks (a device that this writer has on his work vehicle). This way "we'll know where they are", says De La Fuente, the architect behind the plan. But the former Molders Union BA wants to go even further and take before and after pictures of their work: "..the cameras will show us what they are doing" says De La Fuente, "....in times like these we have to be more aggressive, we can't just keep adding more bodies. We have to maximize what we have and make sure everyone is doing their job."
This aggressive, frontal attack on workers will do wonders for De La Fuente's political career and Jane Brunner is not far behind. "The unions really have come up to the table. They say they want to save services and jobs.", says Brunner. She's talking of the Union officials of course who meekly take the employers offer of job cuts or wage cuts back to their members for ratification. Faced with no alternative most workers take the latter.
Larry Hendel, who represents members of SEIU 790 has supported De La Fuente for years. When this writer was an active delegate of the Alameda Central Labor Council, I was the only delegate to oppose De La Fuente's endorsement for City Council during his first campaign. At that time this was sacrilege as he was the darling of the liberals in the council including Hendel.
The present situation where labor officials or former labor officials in city government are leading the attacks on workers is the logical outcome of the labor movement and officials like Larry Hendel supporting Democrats in the political arena and the Team Concept on the job. Despite betrayal after betrayal and a continuos decline in workers' living standards and community services, the heads of organized labor make no attempt to asses their policies but continue down the same disastrous road. It is no wonder union members hate their leaders.
In response to the tracking and filming of workers on the job, Hendel replies that "people are really ticked about this" Perhaps if the union members had tracking devices on Larry' Hendel's car and could watch what he does all day he might get ticked enough to actually fight the employers and reassess his historical support of people like De La Fuente and his friends in the Democratic Party.
Not wanting to offend the employers and Mr. De La Fuente who he has had a cozy relationship with for years, Brother Hendel re-assures the employers that, "we're willing to talk about anything". Well, why is that brother Hendel? Why are we willing to talk about anything? The employers are not willing to talk about anything. The interest on debt is not on the table. The millions that flow in to the pockets of the investors, developers and speculators that feed at the public trough is not on the table. The employers are not going to put these issues on the table and Hendel assures them that the he won't either. When he says he is willing to talk about anything he means he is willing to talk about anything the employers want to raise that will shift the burden of the crisis from them to working people and the poor.
For officials like Hendel, there is nothing more disconcerting than the idea that workers and the community should be organized in to a general offensive against the employers. Hendel is not alone in this. The entire leadership of the AFL-CIO accepts the employers' view of the world. They see no alternative to the market so what is the point of opposing market forces. The fact that most labor officials spend more time with people like De La Fuente and other politicians other than their members, or that they receive obscene salaries as their members' wages are cut is really a secondary issue. It is a symptom rather than a cause of the problem.
Faced with a united opposition of the employers and the union leadership, many workers feel there is simply nothing that can be done. The obstacle appears too great. It is one thing to fight the employers but breaking the strangle hold that the union officials have on the apparatus is a formidable task. When we are faced with concessionary contracts and want to fight back it can be pretty demoralizing to read reports in local papers of Union leaders handing over our hard won gains to help employers' out. A co-worker of mine who read the reports in the San Francisco Chronicle and the meek responses from Union leaders (normally they avoid public comment on these issues at all if they can) sighed and said, "you know our bosses are reading this stuff, it must really give them confidence". This was relevant to this brother as our contract is up and our employer is forcing a concessionary contract on us.
This same mood exists among the working class in general. With the labor leaders refusing to mobilize the tremendous potential power of labor and linking this with youth and the communities in a generalized offensive against the employers and the savage effects of global capitalism, people feel there is nothing that can be done. Great opportunities like the ILWU contract talks of last year and other major union struggles remain isolated and ineffective in the main, accomplishing at best, a slower retreat or damage control as the labor leaders refer to it.
Some of us who work and/or live in the City of Oakland are considering getting together to discuss the elections next year and what alternatives might be available to workers and the poor of Oakland. While we recognize that nothing is won by simply electing people to, office, we do recognize that a person in office that is elected as a candidate that openly opposes the two big business parties and that openly opposes the big landlords, speculators and investors that control our lives, would be in a unique position to help mobilize and organize a movement of workers and the communities that could bring the power of people on to the streets and stop the system from functioning as business as usual.
A movement like this can link with surrounding communities, the nation and even abroad.
Opposition to global capitalism and the effects it has on working people's lives from Oakland to Nairobi must be a given if any such movement is to be effective and avoid the disastrous path that union representatives or former union representatives like Hendel, De La Fuente or Brunner have taken the labor movement up to now.
If you are interested in meeting with us to discuss some of the issues raised here , contact Labor's Militant Voice at: aactivist [at] igc.org or call us at: 510-595-4676
Richard Mellor
No more token picket lines or candle light vigils: working people have the power to stop the bosses business as usual agenda.
Facing a $37.5 million budget deficit, Oakland CA, a major shipping hub and one of the busiest ports in the U.S., is unloading this crisis on to the backs of city employees, working class communities and the poor,
Unions will be voting next week on whether to accept a 3 percent pay cut in order to "ease the pain", according to reports in the local papers. Workers cringe when we hear terms like "ease the pain" and "let's be realistic". In actuality, pain is increased as we are forced to adopt the employers' realism; their program for deficit reduction. Their gain and workers' pain. We most commonly hear this advice not from the employers directly but from their allies within organized labor, the various staffers, business agents and leaders at the higher levels of the movement.
The city of Oakland crisis is no exception. Ignacio De La Fuente and Jane Brunner, who negotiated the deal according to the San Francisco Chronicle, both have their roots in organized labor. De La Fuente was Molders a Union Business Agent and recently resigned member of the Alameda Central Labor Council Executive Board and Brunner was formerly an IBEW Business Agent and labor council delegate.
Part of the economic terrorism directed at city workers is a proposed plan to install global tracking devices on their trucks (a device that this writer has on his work vehicle). This way "we'll know where they are", says De La Fuente, the architect behind the plan. But the former Molders Union BA wants to go even further and take before and after pictures of their work: "..the cameras will show us what they are doing" says De La Fuente, "....in times like these we have to be more aggressive, we can't just keep adding more bodies. We have to maximize what we have and make sure everyone is doing their job."
This aggressive, frontal attack on workers will do wonders for De La Fuente's political career and Jane Brunner is not far behind. "The unions really have come up to the table. They say they want to save services and jobs.", says Brunner. She's talking of the Union officials of course who meekly take the employers offer of job cuts or wage cuts back to their members for ratification. Faced with no alternative most workers take the latter.
Larry Hendel, who represents members of SEIU 790 has supported De La Fuente for years. When this writer was an active delegate of the Alameda Central Labor Council, I was the only delegate to oppose De La Fuente's endorsement for City Council during his first campaign. At that time this was sacrilege as he was the darling of the liberals in the council including Hendel.
The present situation where labor officials or former labor officials in city government are leading the attacks on workers is the logical outcome of the labor movement and officials like Larry Hendel supporting Democrats in the political arena and the Team Concept on the job. Despite betrayal after betrayal and a continuos decline in workers' living standards and community services, the heads of organized labor make no attempt to asses their policies but continue down the same disastrous road. It is no wonder union members hate their leaders.
In response to the tracking and filming of workers on the job, Hendel replies that "people are really ticked about this" Perhaps if the union members had tracking devices on Larry' Hendel's car and could watch what he does all day he might get ticked enough to actually fight the employers and reassess his historical support of people like De La Fuente and his friends in the Democratic Party.
Not wanting to offend the employers and Mr. De La Fuente who he has had a cozy relationship with for years, Brother Hendel re-assures the employers that, "we're willing to talk about anything". Well, why is that brother Hendel? Why are we willing to talk about anything? The employers are not willing to talk about anything. The interest on debt is not on the table. The millions that flow in to the pockets of the investors, developers and speculators that feed at the public trough is not on the table. The employers are not going to put these issues on the table and Hendel assures them that the he won't either. When he says he is willing to talk about anything he means he is willing to talk about anything the employers want to raise that will shift the burden of the crisis from them to working people and the poor.
For officials like Hendel, there is nothing more disconcerting than the idea that workers and the community should be organized in to a general offensive against the employers. Hendel is not alone in this. The entire leadership of the AFL-CIO accepts the employers' view of the world. They see no alternative to the market so what is the point of opposing market forces. The fact that most labor officials spend more time with people like De La Fuente and other politicians other than their members, or that they receive obscene salaries as their members' wages are cut is really a secondary issue. It is a symptom rather than a cause of the problem.
Faced with a united opposition of the employers and the union leadership, many workers feel there is simply nothing that can be done. The obstacle appears too great. It is one thing to fight the employers but breaking the strangle hold that the union officials have on the apparatus is a formidable task. When we are faced with concessionary contracts and want to fight back it can be pretty demoralizing to read reports in local papers of Union leaders handing over our hard won gains to help employers' out. A co-worker of mine who read the reports in the San Francisco Chronicle and the meek responses from Union leaders (normally they avoid public comment on these issues at all if they can) sighed and said, "you know our bosses are reading this stuff, it must really give them confidence". This was relevant to this brother as our contract is up and our employer is forcing a concessionary contract on us.
This same mood exists among the working class in general. With the labor leaders refusing to mobilize the tremendous potential power of labor and linking this with youth and the communities in a generalized offensive against the employers and the savage effects of global capitalism, people feel there is nothing that can be done. Great opportunities like the ILWU contract talks of last year and other major union struggles remain isolated and ineffective in the main, accomplishing at best, a slower retreat or damage control as the labor leaders refer to it.
Some of us who work and/or live in the City of Oakland are considering getting together to discuss the elections next year and what alternatives might be available to workers and the poor of Oakland. While we recognize that nothing is won by simply electing people to, office, we do recognize that a person in office that is elected as a candidate that openly opposes the two big business parties and that openly opposes the big landlords, speculators and investors that control our lives, would be in a unique position to help mobilize and organize a movement of workers and the communities that could bring the power of people on to the streets and stop the system from functioning as business as usual.
A movement like this can link with surrounding communities, the nation and even abroad.
Opposition to global capitalism and the effects it has on working people's lives from Oakland to Nairobi must be a given if any such movement is to be effective and avoid the disastrous path that union representatives or former union representatives like Hendel, De La Fuente or Brunner have taken the labor movement up to now.
If you are interested in meeting with us to discuss some of the issues raised here , contact Labor's Militant Voice at: aactivist [at] igc.org or call us at: 510-595-4676
Richard Mellor
For more information:
http://http//:www.laborsmilitantvoice.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
thanks for speaking out.
career labor bosses. corrupt liberal politicians. authoritarian business managers and owners. they all suck the labor and life out of us and destory the environment.
it is indeed time to organize and organize right. the business unions are, well, businesses. the political and legal system is stacked against workers. our ourwokplaces are used for human exploitation and consuming resources, not providing human needs.
what is to be done with this sorry mess? organize on the job where you are robbed. join the iww today and start organizing where you work, the place where we have real power when we are organized into a fighting union.
it is indeed time to organize and organize right. the business unions are, well, businesses. the political and legal system is stacked against workers. our ourwokplaces are used for human exploitation and consuming resources, not providing human needs.
what is to be done with this sorry mess? organize on the job where you are robbed. join the iww today and start organizing where you work, the place where we have real power when we are organized into a fighting union.
For more information:
http://www.iww.org
I'm down for the IWW and all but most working folks do not buy into your vision of the "good life." We want a better life for ourselves and families not a social revolution brought on by a grand general strike. In short, most workers are reformist, not revolutionary. How can the IWW deal with this reality? If the mainstream unions are, in your words, reformist and most workers are reformist how can you ever hope to be a viable organization let alone an actual union? From my experience of the IWW I think you really do not want to be a union but a political organization.
I agree with "worker's" comments about the IWW, but I don't think that's really the issue in most workers' minds. If a worker is looking for a way to organize and fight back against their boss, I'm not sure how much he or she would really care about the general social program of the IWW. I think that what would first come to their mind is whether the IWW, as it stands today, is really in a position to be a real force.
More important, to me, is this: My experience with today's IWW is that their real, concrete approach to union organizing is not really any different from that of the AFL-CIO - the use of the NLRB, card checks, etc.
Also, I know that many IWW'ers are members of establishment unions. My question to them is what they do to fight to transform their own unions? I raise this because I have not seen them really openly oppose the establishment AFL-CIO union leadership in several cases.
Finally, I hope that those who are posting to this message will consider doing more than just posting here. We need to organize to oppose the cuts, both within the unions and in the communities. If we do it in any serious way, this means openly opposing the established union leadership.
More important, to me, is this: My experience with today's IWW is that their real, concrete approach to union organizing is not really any different from that of the AFL-CIO - the use of the NLRB, card checks, etc.
Also, I know that many IWW'ers are members of establishment unions. My question to them is what they do to fight to transform their own unions? I raise this because I have not seen them really openly oppose the establishment AFL-CIO union leadership in several cases.
Finally, I hope that those who are posting to this message will consider doing more than just posting here. We need to organize to oppose the cuts, both within the unions and in the communities. If we do it in any serious way, this means openly opposing the established union leadership.
I think that Oakland worker raises some very important points. When workers move in to struggle we tend to move to reform. In other words, people who have never involved themselves in political life, when they get active, first move to refom society, not change it.
This takes an organizational expression, a Labort Party, a Social Democratic party, or on a more local level, it might be to fight for the right to skateboard.
How revolutionaries function in this scenerio is crucial and, to be honest, most groups fail dismally in this regard. I know for myself that I came to the conclusion that society had to be transformed not because I read a book or listened to this or that revolutionary, but becasue in the struggle for reforms I learned that society had to be changed. I learned that reforms of a significant nature, were not possible under capitalism.
I think that the IWW is confused on the isues that Oakland worker raises. But as John Reimann says. What are we to do about this? I think that we can change things to some extent and also help those workers that Oakland worker talks about draw the conclusions that we have to change the society we live in rather than reform it.
Is Oakland worker willing to participate in this?
This takes an organizational expression, a Labort Party, a Social Democratic party, or on a more local level, it might be to fight for the right to skateboard.
How revolutionaries function in this scenerio is crucial and, to be honest, most groups fail dismally in this regard. I know for myself that I came to the conclusion that society had to be transformed not because I read a book or listened to this or that revolutionary, but becasue in the struggle for reforms I learned that society had to be changed. I learned that reforms of a significant nature, were not possible under capitalism.
I think that the IWW is confused on the isues that Oakland worker raises. But as John Reimann says. What are we to do about this? I think that we can change things to some extent and also help those workers that Oakland worker talks about draw the conclusions that we have to change the society we live in rather than reform it.
Is Oakland worker willing to participate in this?
For more information:
http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com
First of all, I would like to thank both of you for your comments. They were polite and thought-provoking. I wish that more of this would go on here...
John wrote:
"More important, to me, is this: My experience with today's IWW is that their real, concrete approach to union organizing is not really any different from that of the AFL-CIO - the use of the NLRB, card checks, etc."
IMHO, what is important to workers is not your organizing strategy but what concrete gains can you show them i.e. benefits like healthcare. I know the subject of healthcare has come up in the past at Wobbly meetings but the purists in the IWW dismiss this as "reformist." I would say that this revolutionary position distances the IWW from the workers it wants to organize. Phrased as a question, why would anyone join when they don't get any benefits for paying dues?
"Also, I know that many IWW'ers are members of establishment unions. My question to them is what they do to fight to transform their own unions? I raise this because I have not seen them really openly oppose the establishment AFL-CIO union leadership in several cases."
How would a Wobbly transform their union? Would they call for more rank-and-file control? How would they facilitate this? Would they run for union office?I know this is a big Wobbly no-no...
"Finally, I hope that those who are posting to this message will consider doing more than just posting here. We need to organize to oppose the cuts, both within the unions and in the communities. If we do it in any serious way, this means openly opposing the established union leadership."
I agree, we need to stop the cuts. But I would rather direct my energies at the capitalist class and those calling for the cuts as opposed to the union leadership.
John wrote:
"More important, to me, is this: My experience with today's IWW is that their real, concrete approach to union organizing is not really any different from that of the AFL-CIO - the use of the NLRB, card checks, etc."
IMHO, what is important to workers is not your organizing strategy but what concrete gains can you show them i.e. benefits like healthcare. I know the subject of healthcare has come up in the past at Wobbly meetings but the purists in the IWW dismiss this as "reformist." I would say that this revolutionary position distances the IWW from the workers it wants to organize. Phrased as a question, why would anyone join when they don't get any benefits for paying dues?
"Also, I know that many IWW'ers are members of establishment unions. My question to them is what they do to fight to transform their own unions? I raise this because I have not seen them really openly oppose the establishment AFL-CIO union leadership in several cases."
How would a Wobbly transform their union? Would they call for more rank-and-file control? How would they facilitate this? Would they run for union office?I know this is a big Wobbly no-no...
"Finally, I hope that those who are posting to this message will consider doing more than just posting here. We need to organize to oppose the cuts, both within the unions and in the communities. If we do it in any serious way, this means openly opposing the established union leadership."
I agree, we need to stop the cuts. But I would rather direct my energies at the capitalist class and those calling for the cuts as opposed to the union leadership.
I meant to respond to Richard's comments in my last reply but was at work.
Richard wrote:
"While we recognize that nothing is won by simply electing people to, office, we do recognize that a person in office that is elected as a candidate that openly opposes the two big business parties and that openly opposes the big landlords, speculators and investors that control our lives, would be in a unique position to help mobilize and organize a movement of workers and the communities that could bring the power of people on to the streets and stop the system from functioning as business as usual. "
I do not seeing many people in Oakland voting for a third party. In the main, the people who actually vote, vote Democrat. There a few counter-culture types who go for the Greens or Peace and Freedom but the vast majority of working people in Oakland (esp. people of color) who vote do not vote for third parties. I imagine this is because they do not see them as a realistic alternative.
In this situation, advocates of third parties need to do the nitty-gritty work of organizing as opposed to running candidates. I mean, what is the point of running a candidate who you not only know is going to lose but who you know has no popular support?
"I think that the IWW is confused on the isues that Oakland worker raises."
To be fair, my critique is not restricted to the IWW. I think that most working folks do not buy into the vision of the "good life" promoted by http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com either. Why? I think most working folks disagree with a fundamental tenet of leftist revolutionaries "that reforms of a significant nature, [a]re not possible under capitalism." The experience of working people belies this assertion. While we have not seen a grand social revolution ushering in an age of proletarian brotherhood workers (organized and non-organized) have clearly made significant gains since the advent of industrialization. One of the most obvious examples of this is the numbers of workers in the advanced capitalist nations who enjoyed much better standards of living than their grandfathers.
I know you do not buy into the "American Dream" but most workers do. As Grasmsci noted, hegemony, or consenual domination was necessary to prevent a crisis of authority. I think Gramsci would advocate a counter-hegemonic project that impowers workers and makes them aware of their historical agency. This is necessary _before_ you start running candidates for office.
Richard wrote:
"While we recognize that nothing is won by simply electing people to, office, we do recognize that a person in office that is elected as a candidate that openly opposes the two big business parties and that openly opposes the big landlords, speculators and investors that control our lives, would be in a unique position to help mobilize and organize a movement of workers and the communities that could bring the power of people on to the streets and stop the system from functioning as business as usual. "
I do not seeing many people in Oakland voting for a third party. In the main, the people who actually vote, vote Democrat. There a few counter-culture types who go for the Greens or Peace and Freedom but the vast majority of working people in Oakland (esp. people of color) who vote do not vote for third parties. I imagine this is because they do not see them as a realistic alternative.
In this situation, advocates of third parties need to do the nitty-gritty work of organizing as opposed to running candidates. I mean, what is the point of running a candidate who you not only know is going to lose but who you know has no popular support?
"I think that the IWW is confused on the isues that Oakland worker raises."
To be fair, my critique is not restricted to the IWW. I think that most working folks do not buy into the vision of the "good life" promoted by http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com either. Why? I think most working folks disagree with a fundamental tenet of leftist revolutionaries "that reforms of a significant nature, [a]re not possible under capitalism." The experience of working people belies this assertion. While we have not seen a grand social revolution ushering in an age of proletarian brotherhood workers (organized and non-organized) have clearly made significant gains since the advent of industrialization. One of the most obvious examples of this is the numbers of workers in the advanced capitalist nations who enjoyed much better standards of living than their grandfathers.
I know you do not buy into the "American Dream" but most workers do. As Grasmsci noted, hegemony, or consenual domination was necessary to prevent a crisis of authority. I think Gramsci would advocate a counter-hegemonic project that impowers workers and makes them aware of their historical agency. This is necessary _before_ you start running candidates for office.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network