Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
A Night to Remember on The SF Hotel Picket Line
On Sunday night a flying squad of activists visited several picket lines of the striking SF hotel workers. They created a little havoc with the hotels and helped raise the spirits of the strikers.
A Night to Remember on the SF Hotel Picket Lines
(A personal account)
It started off as some 20 people – mainly youth – sitting around at the corner of Union Square in San Francisco, talking, gossiping, and making up picket signs in support of the striking hotel workers in this city. This was the “flying picket” that a few people had organized. Among other things, there was a discussion with the hotel worker who was present and helping to lead the event. He was defending the conservative, timid approach of the Local 2 leadership. But in general, everybody was in a good mood and looking forward to visiting the various hotel picket lines.
Then we crossed the street to join the pickets at the first hotel. We were met by the picket captain. Had he been a cop reading us our rights he could not have been more of a downer. He explained that they were trying to win the sympathy of the guests and so they did not want any trouble, no loud noise, no picketing in front of the hotel doorway, no this, no that. (NOTE: After the first few days of the strike, the union leadership agreed to give up noisemakers. Then to give up all but one bullhorn. At the same time, they put tape down on the sidewalks, marking a box which the pickets were supposed to stay. These were marked so that pickets would not cross in front of driveways or the hotel entrance. Instead, they picket brick walls.)
The hotel worker with us got mad and said in that case he was going home, so we hurriedly agreed to just leave that hotel and go on to the next one. This was the same brother who had been defending the leadership’s approach just a few minutes earlier. Evidently when confronted with the reality and also with an alternative a different side came out. We marched around the corner, passing the side entrance to this same hotel, where the pickets – liberated from their leader – enthusiastically welcomed us as we chanted and raised a ruckus.
Then we went on to the next hotel. The strikers there heard us coming from a block away, as we chanted at the top of our lungs “Local Two, we’re with you!” They visibly perked up as we arrived. We gradually filtered out beyond the leadership-approved boundaries, picketing in front of all the doors, shouting at the scabs and guests and creating havoc. All the strikers there were very happy to see us come and for our noise and energy.
At one point I got to talking to a scab. This guy, who happened to be black, told me that he could sympathize with us, but that he had no choice. He was flown in to SF from Pittsburgh. He hasn’t worked yet this year, has no health care and his daughter needs dental care. “This is my one chance,” he said. I compared it to being broke and seeing my neighbor has left their door open and $100 on the table. “That would be my big opportunity too,” I said. “I know, but I got to do this,” he said.
Interspersed in our conversation, he was going to open the door for the guests of the hotel. Before I left, I told him, “you see those rich bastards that you’re opening the door for?” I said. “Well, if they tried to turn the clock back to the ‘30s and take away your right to vote and go back to lynching in the South, those bastards wouldn’t care in the least. In fact, they’d be in favor of it if it meant a few more dollars in their pockets.”
“Yeah, I know,” he said.
I told him that the only force that would be able to stand up to that was the unions. He didn’t disagree, but this was just words, just ideas in the abstract. After all, what have the unions done to fight for the unemployed in recent years?
Then on to the next hotel, marching down the street chanting and turning heads. Mixed up in our crowd was a couple who were guests at the hotel we’d just been picketing. I got to talking to the protester next to me about all those “rich bastards” staying at the hotel, how they’re the scum of the earth, and things like that. I felt that I could see this couple’s backs stiffen. I know it didn’t stop them from staying there, but at least it made them uncomfortable. Maybe next time they’ll be a little less willing to cross a picket line.
At another hotel I got to talking with a young guy who was standing security for the hotel. I started asking him about his future – something that he really couldn’t answer.
These conversations were in the context of a huge racket – chanting “Local 2, we’re with you,” and “What do we want? Contract!” Some of us changed this last to “What do we want? Health care!” We also got a chant going “San Francisco’s a union town! Shut it down! Shut it down!” All the while marching round, getting in the way of the guests entering and leaving, in general making ourselves a nuisance.
Then we went on to another hotel – the fourth one. By this time it was pretty much of a routine. We’d march up to the picket line chanting at the top of our lungs and the pickets at the hotel would hear us coming from a block away and brighten up. Then, when we got there, we’d join the picket and start picketing outside of the box the leadership has put the pickets in. We’d get in front of the entrance and try to make life miserable for the scabs and the hotel guests.
At this hotel, though, the picket captain told us we couldn’t picket outside of the box – in front of the hotel entrance in other words. We got into an argument/discussion with her. “The whole purpose of a strike is to shut down the company. How can we do that if we’re picketing here only?” “Well,” she replied, “this is what my supervisor told me to do, these are my orders.”
“You mean the union officials?” we asked. When this was confirmed, we told her, “they aren’t your supervisors. You’re THEIR supervisors; you’re THEIR boss. You don’t work for them; they work for you. You pay their wages.”
She had to agree, but still stuck to her guns. We talked back and forth for awhile and then dropped the matter. It seemed she’d won, but some of us started to picket outside of the box after awhile. Then more did, and then more. Pretty soon we were all in front of the hotel entrance, harassing the guests and the scabs. A solid line of security formed in front of us. They were almost blocking people from entering themselves. We kept up the noise, all the while also arguing with and haranguing the security guys. “When your kids ask you, ‘Daddy, how come I can’t find a decent job? Daddy, how come you can’t afford to take me to the doctor?’ You’re going to have to tell them, ‘because the bosses took all that away 15 years ago.’ And when your kids ask you what you did about it, you’re going to have to tell them, ‘well, I helped them do it.’ You are destroying your own kids’ future.”
These guys tried to keep a poker face, but you could see that it was getting to one or two of them.
The picket captain was grinning at everything we were doing, and shortly before leaving I went up and told her, “I see you smiling at what we’re doing; I can tell you like it.” She started laughing. Then I told her, “you know what that means. It means that you know we’re right.” She just laughed some more; she knew I was telling her the truth. When we left, she along with the rest of the pickets warmly thanked us.
One important thing that came from the night’s event was what the pickets saw. They saw that nobody got arrested for picketing outside the box. In fact, the cops ignored us totally. They saw that the sky didn’t fall. I think it was obvious to all of them how much more effective it was.
As someone who has been active in the labor movement for over three decades, sometimes it gets frustrating to see how far we’ve declined and how little struggle there is inside the unions to change things. One thing that tonight’s events showed me was how important the role of the youth is. It was clear that this was what boosted all the pickets. If we project this onto a wider scale, I think it’s fair to say that the young activists have a fundamental role to play in helping to spark off a rebellion within the ranks. Not that we all don’t have to listen to and learn from each other, but the role of these “outsiders” is really crucial.
It is so obvious how the timid, conservative policies of the union leadership are demoralizing the strikers. And the more they five in to the demands of the cops (eg. no more bull horns), the more the cops demand of them. Another thing that came clear was how the self imposed limitations on program – what they are demanding – is weakening the unions. If the unions were fighting for a 30 hour work week with no loss in pay, they’d be able to win over a big chunk of the unemployed. Likewise if they were fighting for free health care for all and a $15 per hour minimum wage. But now, they’re so busy being reasonable.
Also, within the left and among many activists, this union (UNITE/HERE) has a reputation for being different, more radical. This is because the leadership of this union will align itself with various left causes, community groups, etc. In the main, this is due to the fact that its membership has a large non-white and immigrant sector. In other words, they are not that tied in with conservatism. But this strike is showing that under this cloak of left radicalism there is really no difference of any meaning between the UNITE/HERE leadership and that of other unions. It is the same timid tactics. The same limited program that makes the union incapable of appealing to wider layers of workers with any success. The same dependence on the good graces of the Democrats and the employers even.
As I say, a rebellion throughout the ranks of organized labor is a vital necessity. The younger radicals in the anti-war movement can play a vital role in helping this come about.
John Reimann
Expelled member, Carpenters Local 713
(A personal account)
It started off as some 20 people – mainly youth – sitting around at the corner of Union Square in San Francisco, talking, gossiping, and making up picket signs in support of the striking hotel workers in this city. This was the “flying picket” that a few people had organized. Among other things, there was a discussion with the hotel worker who was present and helping to lead the event. He was defending the conservative, timid approach of the Local 2 leadership. But in general, everybody was in a good mood and looking forward to visiting the various hotel picket lines.
Then we crossed the street to join the pickets at the first hotel. We were met by the picket captain. Had he been a cop reading us our rights he could not have been more of a downer. He explained that they were trying to win the sympathy of the guests and so they did not want any trouble, no loud noise, no picketing in front of the hotel doorway, no this, no that. (NOTE: After the first few days of the strike, the union leadership agreed to give up noisemakers. Then to give up all but one bullhorn. At the same time, they put tape down on the sidewalks, marking a box which the pickets were supposed to stay. These were marked so that pickets would not cross in front of driveways or the hotel entrance. Instead, they picket brick walls.)
The hotel worker with us got mad and said in that case he was going home, so we hurriedly agreed to just leave that hotel and go on to the next one. This was the same brother who had been defending the leadership’s approach just a few minutes earlier. Evidently when confronted with the reality and also with an alternative a different side came out. We marched around the corner, passing the side entrance to this same hotel, where the pickets – liberated from their leader – enthusiastically welcomed us as we chanted and raised a ruckus.
Then we went on to the next hotel. The strikers there heard us coming from a block away, as we chanted at the top of our lungs “Local Two, we’re with you!” They visibly perked up as we arrived. We gradually filtered out beyond the leadership-approved boundaries, picketing in front of all the doors, shouting at the scabs and guests and creating havoc. All the strikers there were very happy to see us come and for our noise and energy.
At one point I got to talking to a scab. This guy, who happened to be black, told me that he could sympathize with us, but that he had no choice. He was flown in to SF from Pittsburgh. He hasn’t worked yet this year, has no health care and his daughter needs dental care. “This is my one chance,” he said. I compared it to being broke and seeing my neighbor has left their door open and $100 on the table. “That would be my big opportunity too,” I said. “I know, but I got to do this,” he said.
Interspersed in our conversation, he was going to open the door for the guests of the hotel. Before I left, I told him, “you see those rich bastards that you’re opening the door for?” I said. “Well, if they tried to turn the clock back to the ‘30s and take away your right to vote and go back to lynching in the South, those bastards wouldn’t care in the least. In fact, they’d be in favor of it if it meant a few more dollars in their pockets.”
“Yeah, I know,” he said.
I told him that the only force that would be able to stand up to that was the unions. He didn’t disagree, but this was just words, just ideas in the abstract. After all, what have the unions done to fight for the unemployed in recent years?
Then on to the next hotel, marching down the street chanting and turning heads. Mixed up in our crowd was a couple who were guests at the hotel we’d just been picketing. I got to talking to the protester next to me about all those “rich bastards” staying at the hotel, how they’re the scum of the earth, and things like that. I felt that I could see this couple’s backs stiffen. I know it didn’t stop them from staying there, but at least it made them uncomfortable. Maybe next time they’ll be a little less willing to cross a picket line.
At another hotel I got to talking with a young guy who was standing security for the hotel. I started asking him about his future – something that he really couldn’t answer.
These conversations were in the context of a huge racket – chanting “Local 2, we’re with you,” and “What do we want? Contract!” Some of us changed this last to “What do we want? Health care!” We also got a chant going “San Francisco’s a union town! Shut it down! Shut it down!” All the while marching round, getting in the way of the guests entering and leaving, in general making ourselves a nuisance.
Then we went on to another hotel – the fourth one. By this time it was pretty much of a routine. We’d march up to the picket line chanting at the top of our lungs and the pickets at the hotel would hear us coming from a block away and brighten up. Then, when we got there, we’d join the picket and start picketing outside of the box the leadership has put the pickets in. We’d get in front of the entrance and try to make life miserable for the scabs and the hotel guests.
At this hotel, though, the picket captain told us we couldn’t picket outside of the box – in front of the hotel entrance in other words. We got into an argument/discussion with her. “The whole purpose of a strike is to shut down the company. How can we do that if we’re picketing here only?” “Well,” she replied, “this is what my supervisor told me to do, these are my orders.”
“You mean the union officials?” we asked. When this was confirmed, we told her, “they aren’t your supervisors. You’re THEIR supervisors; you’re THEIR boss. You don’t work for them; they work for you. You pay their wages.”
She had to agree, but still stuck to her guns. We talked back and forth for awhile and then dropped the matter. It seemed she’d won, but some of us started to picket outside of the box after awhile. Then more did, and then more. Pretty soon we were all in front of the hotel entrance, harassing the guests and the scabs. A solid line of security formed in front of us. They were almost blocking people from entering themselves. We kept up the noise, all the while also arguing with and haranguing the security guys. “When your kids ask you, ‘Daddy, how come I can’t find a decent job? Daddy, how come you can’t afford to take me to the doctor?’ You’re going to have to tell them, ‘because the bosses took all that away 15 years ago.’ And when your kids ask you what you did about it, you’re going to have to tell them, ‘well, I helped them do it.’ You are destroying your own kids’ future.”
These guys tried to keep a poker face, but you could see that it was getting to one or two of them.
The picket captain was grinning at everything we were doing, and shortly before leaving I went up and told her, “I see you smiling at what we’re doing; I can tell you like it.” She started laughing. Then I told her, “you know what that means. It means that you know we’re right.” She just laughed some more; she knew I was telling her the truth. When we left, she along with the rest of the pickets warmly thanked us.
One important thing that came from the night’s event was what the pickets saw. They saw that nobody got arrested for picketing outside the box. In fact, the cops ignored us totally. They saw that the sky didn’t fall. I think it was obvious to all of them how much more effective it was.
As someone who has been active in the labor movement for over three decades, sometimes it gets frustrating to see how far we’ve declined and how little struggle there is inside the unions to change things. One thing that tonight’s events showed me was how important the role of the youth is. It was clear that this was what boosted all the pickets. If we project this onto a wider scale, I think it’s fair to say that the young activists have a fundamental role to play in helping to spark off a rebellion within the ranks. Not that we all don’t have to listen to and learn from each other, but the role of these “outsiders” is really crucial.
It is so obvious how the timid, conservative policies of the union leadership are demoralizing the strikers. And the more they five in to the demands of the cops (eg. no more bull horns), the more the cops demand of them. Another thing that came clear was how the self imposed limitations on program – what they are demanding – is weakening the unions. If the unions were fighting for a 30 hour work week with no loss in pay, they’d be able to win over a big chunk of the unemployed. Likewise if they were fighting for free health care for all and a $15 per hour minimum wage. But now, they’re so busy being reasonable.
Also, within the left and among many activists, this union (UNITE/HERE) has a reputation for being different, more radical. This is because the leadership of this union will align itself with various left causes, community groups, etc. In the main, this is due to the fact that its membership has a large non-white and immigrant sector. In other words, they are not that tied in with conservatism. But this strike is showing that under this cloak of left radicalism there is really no difference of any meaning between the UNITE/HERE leadership and that of other unions. It is the same timid tactics. The same limited program that makes the union incapable of appealing to wider layers of workers with any success. The same dependence on the good graces of the Democrats and the employers even.
As I say, a rebellion throughout the ranks of organized labor is a vital necessity. The younger radicals in the anti-war movement can play a vital role in helping this come about.
John Reimann
Expelled member, Carpenters Local 713
For more information:
http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Most of the younger radicals in the anti-war movement can't stand you and your Labor's Mutant Vanguard cause you and your so called "affinity group" act as if you were Trotsky's gift to the working class. In your minds you are always right and whenever someone wants to do something contrary to what you want than they are sell outs to the bureacracy. Then again if that group does something that you can agree with than you start to take credit for it.
lost in the crowd? Probably not. I guess it's easier to snipe from one's armchair in the--heated--comfort of home.
"Anonymous's" attacks remind me of the ones I used to hear from the right wing union bureaucrats. They are just abstractions, nothing concrete. What, in particular, do I or the group I'm in do that "Anonymous" disagrees with?
As far as "taking credit" - I put the note that this was a personal account exactly because I didn't want it to seem like this was written officially by those who organized it. One thing I will accept criticism for: I should have given a hearty "thank you" to those who did the organizing. Their efforts certainly boosted my spirits.
But if "Anonymous" would be more concrete, maybe a useful debate would occur. To me, the absract personalized attacks go along well with a writer who is afraid to use his or her name, though.
As far as "taking credit" - I put the note that this was a personal account exactly because I didn't want it to seem like this was written officially by those who organized it. One thing I will accept criticism for: I should have given a hearty "thank you" to those who did the organizing. Their efforts certainly boosted my spirits.
But if "Anonymous" would be more concrete, maybe a useful debate would occur. To me, the absract personalized attacks go along well with a writer who is afraid to use his or her name, though.
For more information:
http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com
The event that was organized by various folks from what I understand was very good, and as John says, uplifting. As far as this anoymous character goes, he used to call himself Joe Hill.
I have already asked him to raise political issues but to no avail. I don't think he has the integrity or courage to come out in to the open now. I stopped commenting as, for all I know, I'm trying to discuss with a cop or my boss. Why waste your time on someone who hides their identity like the Klansman.
I have already asked him to raise political issues but to no avail. I don't think he has the integrity or courage to come out in to the open now. I stopped commenting as, for all I know, I'm trying to discuss with a cop or my boss. Why waste your time on someone who hides their identity like the Klansman.
For more information:
http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.org
First off - I do give credit to Natasha, Gifford, and many others for putting the energy into organizing the flying pickets over the last couple of Sundays in solidarity with the hotel workers. I have a whole lot of love for these folks and am still learning from them all the time.
Second - Yes, Gifford I sat at home unfortunately because various other folks that I was trying to get to go to the picket with me would not come on Sunday for one reason or another, and I have been battling with depression largely because of the things that y'all were fighting by being out there and doing what you did on Sunday night.
Third - Jon, Richard, and LMV: It doesn't matter what my name is, and according to your previous posts you already know who I am anyway, or at least have a good idea. Regardless, be rest assured that I am not a cop or your boss, and I don't want to be either of those. I am also not a right wing union bureacrat or a union bureacrat at all.
We can talk more later...
Solidarity Forever - anonymous
Second - Yes, Gifford I sat at home unfortunately because various other folks that I was trying to get to go to the picket with me would not come on Sunday for one reason or another, and I have been battling with depression largely because of the things that y'all were fighting by being out there and doing what you did on Sunday night.
Third - Jon, Richard, and LMV: It doesn't matter what my name is, and according to your previous posts you already know who I am anyway, or at least have a good idea. Regardless, be rest assured that I am not a cop or your boss, and I don't want to be either of those. I am also not a right wing union bureacrat or a union bureacrat at all.
We can talk more later...
Solidarity Forever - anonymous
This was actually a really good article... What I thought was a good critique of LMV has turned into a personal dispute that makes you look like an ass.. bad form, anonymous....
Sorry I couldnt be there... Sundays are bad for me... When's the next flying picket planned? I think it's getting critical that these folks need support. The've been locked out / on strike for quite a while now.
-anonymous autonomist
Sorry I couldnt be there... Sundays are bad for me... When's the next flying picket planned? I think it's getting critical that these folks need support. The've been locked out / on strike for quite a while now.
-anonymous autonomist
I cannot say that there are not occasions when we should hide our identity. Perhaps both the anonymous writers of these posts are in the sights of the agents of the bourgeois for their influence and the revolutionary role they play among workers and youth. Perhaps they are feared of losing their jobs. I have not yet heard a justification for their failure to identify with their idfeas though.
Over the years I put out many different fliers or statements in the workplace. Some were attacks on the boss, some were criticism's of the direction the leadership were taking the Union. But I always signed them. I recognize that in some workplaces, one wouldn't be able to do that.
But, to be respected among my peers, mitigating circumstances aside, it is important to identify yourself. It was clear in my experience that working people had a right to challenge me on whatever public statament I was making, to agree, disagree or simply identify the source. This is important as i was a steward on the job and active in the Union. I was also known as a socialist and it would not have given my co-workers much confidence in the author were I afraid to publicly associate with what I write. How could I offer any alternative when I was afraid to identify with it? It was also a form of protection as open support of my views were the best protection from the bosses' retaliation.
Most of all, workers don't take these sort of anonymous statements seriously and don't respect the source.
So unless there are compelling reasons to not identify with your public comments, I strongly urge those of you that aren't using anonymity to hide from what is really a personalized attack rather than serious criticism or debate, to consider your approach.
Over the years I put out many different fliers or statements in the workplace. Some were attacks on the boss, some were criticism's of the direction the leadership were taking the Union. But I always signed them. I recognize that in some workplaces, one wouldn't be able to do that.
But, to be respected among my peers, mitigating circumstances aside, it is important to identify yourself. It was clear in my experience that working people had a right to challenge me on whatever public statament I was making, to agree, disagree or simply identify the source. This is important as i was a steward on the job and active in the Union. I was also known as a socialist and it would not have given my co-workers much confidence in the author were I afraid to publicly associate with what I write. How could I offer any alternative when I was afraid to identify with it? It was also a form of protection as open support of my views were the best protection from the bosses' retaliation.
Most of all, workers don't take these sort of anonymous statements seriously and don't respect the source.
So unless there are compelling reasons to not identify with your public comments, I strongly urge those of you that aren't using anonymity to hide from what is really a personalized attack rather than serious criticism or debate, to consider your approach.
For more information:
http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.org
I think the real issue is not whether "anonymous" is a union bureaucrat or a boss, whether I am an a___hole, or whether Labor's Militant Voice is a sectarian opportunist group. The issue is what is going on out in the real world.
I think that one place that I, personally, along with several of mycomrades have run afoul of many of the anti-war activists has been on the issue of how we see and relate to the union leaders. This is especially so for the "progressive" union leaders, such as those that run Local 2. It is understandable that some have illusions in them. After all, many of these officials come from the left background, support the anti-war movement, etc.
But I must say that it goes beyond mere illusions. It seems to me that for some it's more like a cultural affinity. Because some of these officials have a tattoo or a pierced nose, therefore they must be okay. And for others I know that it's the issue of ambition - hoping one day to get a job with this union hierarchy, or having personal ties with those that do.
But the fact is that what is coming down in this hotel strike shows that there is not a dime's worth of difference between this sector of the hierarchy and the less "hip" ones - such as those who run my union. (Yes, it's still my union, despite the fact that they expelled me from it for fighting for the members.) In the end, if a union leadership can't or won't launch a real and successful fight against the boss over wages and working conditions, then everything else doesn't matter. And this is clearly the case with the Local 2 leadership. Their method of running this strike is a textbook case of everything that is wrong in the labor movement.
No matter what a horrible person I might be in the eyes of some - I might be the devil incarnate - but this doesn't change that fact.
I think that one place that I, personally, along with several of mycomrades have run afoul of many of the anti-war activists has been on the issue of how we see and relate to the union leaders. This is especially so for the "progressive" union leaders, such as those that run Local 2. It is understandable that some have illusions in them. After all, many of these officials come from the left background, support the anti-war movement, etc.
But I must say that it goes beyond mere illusions. It seems to me that for some it's more like a cultural affinity. Because some of these officials have a tattoo or a pierced nose, therefore they must be okay. And for others I know that it's the issue of ambition - hoping one day to get a job with this union hierarchy, or having personal ties with those that do.
But the fact is that what is coming down in this hotel strike shows that there is not a dime's worth of difference between this sector of the hierarchy and the less "hip" ones - such as those who run my union. (Yes, it's still my union, despite the fact that they expelled me from it for fighting for the members.) In the end, if a union leadership can't or won't launch a real and successful fight against the boss over wages and working conditions, then everything else doesn't matter. And this is clearly the case with the Local 2 leadership. Their method of running this strike is a textbook case of everything that is wrong in the labor movement.
No matter what a horrible person I might be in the eyes of some - I might be the devil incarnate - but this doesn't change that fact.
For more information:
http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com
David Bacon, who has an article in the Chronice today, is a perfect example of what John is refering to. Bacon was an delegate to the Alameda Central Labor Council when I was. He represented the Molders Union through his friendship with Ignacio De La Fuente no doubt. Mind you, as with most of these delegates, no dues paying member of the Molders Union would know he represented them there and they certainly never elected him
The reason for this is he didn't represent them. He was a darling of the liberals and took all the right positions on South Africa, gay rights, racism etc. But never once in the time I was there, did he disagree with the Union bureacracy of which he was a part, never once did he opposes their failed policies and refusal to mobilize the members of the local labor movement to fight back.
In other words, he never opposed the Union officals refusal to fight for wages and conditions on the job. He provided a left cover for them and they provided a credential for him as I'm sure he was never a molder.
He wrote an article after the grocery strike that basically said that strikes can't win and completely ignored the role of the UFCW and AFL-CIO leadership. Natrually, we all support immigrants rights and oppose discrimination but for people like Bacon this is another left cover. In today's article there is no mention of the disastrous way the hotel strike is being run by these "progressive" leaders. So they shouldn't be discriminated against but it's Ok to starve them to death and terrorise them on picket lines and it's OK for the heads of the potentially powerful local labor movement to go along with it.
The reason for this is he didn't represent them. He was a darling of the liberals and took all the right positions on South Africa, gay rights, racism etc. But never once in the time I was there, did he disagree with the Union bureacracy of which he was a part, never once did he opposes their failed policies and refusal to mobilize the members of the local labor movement to fight back.
In other words, he never opposed the Union officals refusal to fight for wages and conditions on the job. He provided a left cover for them and they provided a credential for him as I'm sure he was never a molder.
He wrote an article after the grocery strike that basically said that strikes can't win and completely ignored the role of the UFCW and AFL-CIO leadership. Natrually, we all support immigrants rights and oppose discrimination but for people like Bacon this is another left cover. In today's article there is no mention of the disastrous way the hotel strike is being run by these "progressive" leaders. So they shouldn't be discriminated against but it's Ok to starve them to death and terrorise them on picket lines and it's OK for the heads of the potentially powerful local labor movement to go along with it.
For more information:
http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.org
"But I must say that it goes beyond mere illusions. It seems to me that for some it's more like a cultural affinity. Because some of these officials have a tattoo or a pierced nose, therefore they must be okay. And for others I know that it's the issue of ambition - hoping one day to get a job with this union hierarchy, or having personal ties with those that do."
I think you simplify things way too much here john. It isnt because someone looks hip that we're out on the pucket lines. In fact, I think it's funny you mention it, because I havent seen very many hipsters out there. What exactly are you talking about here? Could it be that we are out there to support fellow workers? Simple as that? Or do you think it's just fun and games and a fashion statement?
To Richard: I dont want repect from you. I feel as though the people who matter, respect me alot. Tell me why I have to identify myself to you, again. Does it really matter?
Oh shit I'm late getting back to WORK. Maybe, more of the folks talking shit on this thread should actually get a job and be rank and file once more.
anonymous autonomist.
I think you simplify things way too much here john. It isnt because someone looks hip that we're out on the pucket lines. In fact, I think it's funny you mention it, because I havent seen very many hipsters out there. What exactly are you talking about here? Could it be that we are out there to support fellow workers? Simple as that? Or do you think it's just fun and games and a fashion statement?
To Richard: I dont want repect from you. I feel as though the people who matter, respect me alot. Tell me why I have to identify myself to you, again. Does it really matter?
Oh shit I'm late getting back to WORK. Maybe, more of the folks talking shit on this thread should actually get a job and be rank and file once more.
anonymous autonomist.
Anonymous Autonomous quotes me out of context and does not accurately reflect what I was saying. It was clear from what I wrote that I was referring to support for the union hierarchy. It had nothing whatsoever to do with being out on the picket lines. I think it's important when we disagree with each other to be sure that we accurately represent what the other is saying.
Incidentally, it would be interesting for the two "Anonymous" posters to explain why they do not want to reveal who they are.
Incidentally, it would be interesting for the two "Anonymous" posters to explain why they do not want to reveal who they are.
For more information:
http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com
Here's something you folks can put all that energy that you use talking shit on unions and each other for a more positive effect. Why not try helping to organize the unorganized?
Heres a start:
http://www.starbucksunion.org/
http://www.bordersunion.org/
http://www.wholeworkersunite.org/
http://youngworkersunited.org/article.php?list=type&type=12
There's plenty more... Let me know if you need a list.
-anonymous autonomist.
Heres a start:
http://www.starbucksunion.org/
http://www.bordersunion.org/
http://www.wholeworkersunite.org/
http://youngworkersunited.org/article.php?list=type&type=12
There's plenty more... Let me know if you need a list.
-anonymous autonomist.
" Incidentally, it would be interesting for the two "Anonymous" posters to explain why they do not want to reveal who they are."
Because you're making such a big deal out of it. It makes me laugh hearing you folks make such a big deal about it and not deal with the issues that have been presented. (ie. debate)
-anonymous autonomist.
Because you're making such a big deal out of it. It makes me laugh hearing you folks make such a big deal about it and not deal with the issues that have been presented. (ie. debate)
-anonymous autonomist.
You are still avoiding the question. It is a big deal to most working people anonymous #2. It's not a matter of whether I respect you or not, although it is hard to give you any credibility when you are afraid to identify yourself, afraid to connect yourself as a living person with your views, it's your method and how the working class sees you.
Why are you and anonymous # 2 so afraid of identifying with your views? Give us a reason.
Why are you and anonymous # 2 so afraid of identifying with your views? Give us a reason.
For more information:
http://laborsmilitantvoice.com
It's still seems amazing that somehow you, as a retired worker, try to act like you can speak for most working people. I am not asking for your respect or any credibility from you either, and I am fine with connecting myself as a living person. I just don't need to identify myself to you or your crew, and besides I thought that you already knew who I am. You did after all throw out plenty of different adjectives of your own to describe me.
For previous debate see
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1699077.php
Maybe y'all should try answering Anonymous #2's question or challenge as far as organizing goes cause all these words ain't going to do much if there isn't any action.
For previous debate see
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1699077.php
Maybe y'all should try answering Anonymous #2's question or challenge as far as organizing goes cause all these words ain't going to do much if there isn't any action.
There's a long and honarable tradition of combative workers using pseudonyms, for example, to avoid harassment by employers, cops, goons, and violence-prone scumbags and psychos of various political stripes. In saying this I'm not saying that John Reimann and Richard Mellor fit into any of these categories, in spite of what most charitably be called the massive deficiencies of their perspectives.
This might come as news to John Reimann and Richard Mellor, but, your hero Lenin? PSSSSST! That wasn't actually his real name. Same with the butcher of Kronstadt, founder of Stalinism's loyal opposition, the guy with the mountainnering axe sticking out of the top of his head.
Hey autonomist, drop me a line if you like, I'd like to hear more of your perspectives:
angryworkers [at] yahoo.com
This might come as news to John Reimann and Richard Mellor, but, your hero Lenin? PSSSSST! That wasn't actually his real name. Same with the butcher of Kronstadt, founder of Stalinism's loyal opposition, the guy with the mountainnering axe sticking out of the top of his head.
Hey autonomist, drop me a line if you like, I'd like to hear more of your perspectives:
angryworkers [at] yahoo.com
Why is it that many Anarchists glorify Troskys death by Stalinists even though one never hears such talk from actual Stalinists? It almost comes across as an enemy or my enemy is my friend type of endorsement of Stalin's worst methods. Have you ever heard Maoists talk about how great it was that Trotsky was killed in Mexico by one of Stalin's thugs?
i think it's a fig leaf over anarchist cults of leadership er i mean celebrity...
If people were really interested in advancing a workers struggle, they wouldn't be interested in the infintile, petty attacks. How can people take themselves serious when they attack others on an abstract historical/ideological basis. That would be like attacking Malcom X for his characterization of Ancient Egypt or Menelik the 2nd in Ethopia. Capitalist have used redbaiting for the history of American radicalism and have only recently stopped. Do other non-marxist leftist want to continue running with this torch?
This part of the exchange began with pseudonym-baiting on the part of some people who take their politics from some famous users of pseudonyms.
To Stalinists, and to their camp followers, the Trots, it's always "red-baiting" to describe their politics as they really are.
Just so we understand each other, I don't consider Stalinists and Trots to be reds, anyway. To me, they are a part of the left-wing of capital's political apparatus. There's nothing antagonistic to wage labor and other capitalist social relations in the politics of Trotskyists and Stalinists.
For a more detailed examination of this last point, see the doc titled, "A Contribution to the Politics of the Future" on the Love and Treason web page, at the Mid-Atlantic Anarchist Infoshop.
http://www.infoshop.org
To Stalinists, and to their camp followers, the Trots, it's always "red-baiting" to describe their politics as they really are.
Just so we understand each other, I don't consider Stalinists and Trots to be reds, anyway. To me, they are a part of the left-wing of capital's political apparatus. There's nothing antagonistic to wage labor and other capitalist social relations in the politics of Trotskyists and Stalinists.
For a more detailed examination of this last point, see the doc titled, "A Contribution to the Politics of the Future" on the Love and Treason web page, at the Mid-Atlantic Anarchist Infoshop.
http://www.infoshop.org
If Stalinists executed Trotsky, how do you figure they are in the same camp? Are all your enemies lumped into the same category, even if they themselves are adversarial? How convenient!
It would be like saying that you and the Anarchists advocate voting for Kerry, so you are in the same camp as the Democratic Party.
It would be like saying that you and the Anarchists advocate voting for Kerry, so you are in the same camp as the Democratic Party.
Anarchists that advocate voting for Kerry might as well be in the Democratic Party.
And by the way I don't think that Keating actually calls himself an anarchist, so you can stop your anarchist baiting.
And by the way I don't think that Keating actually calls himself an anarchist, so you can stop your anarchist baiting.
with your petty axes to grind could give them the respect to stick to the topic. If you don't respect the workers, why should they respect you?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$30.00 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