With the sluggish economy, a number of unemployed craftsmen are apparently hanging out in parking lots and hoping to get some jobs that might traditionally go to undocumented immigrants.
The Las Vegas Sun reports that the spectacle of Anglos seeking work in Home Depot parking lots could be a growing trend:
In the latest sign of the Las Vegas Valley’s economic free fall, U.S. citizens are starting to show up in the early mornings outside home improvement stores and plant nurseries across the Las Vegas Valley, jostling with [undocumented] immigrants for a shot at a few hours of work.
…
Pablo Alvarado, executive director of the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said he has been seeing the same thing elsewhere. “It’s happening, though still not in massive numbers,” Alvarado said. In the past six months or so, he has heard of “americanos” on the street corners and parking lots of Silver Spring, Md., Long Island, N.Y., and Southern California locations.
“It’s just beginning,” he said. “But I think it’s only going to increase.”
Whether an individual is undocumented, this isn’t exactly the best news for prospective job seekers and those who are just entering the labor market.
In These Times has launched a new worker's rights blog, "Working In These Times". I highly recommend it. There aren't nearly enough media outlets that cover these issues.
As anticipated, Richard Trumka’s slate, the sole contenders, were elected yesterday at the AFL-CIO’s August convention. Not too much new here. Trumka, and Arlene Holt-Baker (who spoke at CP’s July conference) have both been high up in the labor federation for a long time. But then there is 39 year old Liz Shuler, elected to Trumka’s old Secretary-Treasurer post, the second highest position in the AFL-CIO. Shuler is “the youngest person ever to become an officer of the AFL-CIO”, according to the federation’s blog and she seems to recognize that the labor movement desperately needs to initiate young workers into the fold. Read More »
For anyone curious about President Obama's address to the AFL-CIO yesterday in Pittsburg, here it is in full from 2 Political Junkies. I’m not going to directly link to it, as there are four segments and our video posting abilities are…imperfect. Link to text is here.
The speech itself is pretty stirring stuff, as I tweeted yesterday: “This is the guy I voted for”. It is reminiscent of Obama’s finer moments on the campaign trail, and opening with a cute pick me up: “You know, the White House is pretty nice, but there's nothing like being back in the House of Labor.” (Although he kind of spoils the moment by following it up with a nod to Arlen Specter.)
Obama included a lot of health care talk, naturally, a reaffirmation of his support for the Employee Free Choice Act, and a necessarily brief list of his labor victories (Ledbetter Act, rescinding Bush’s anti-worker executive policies). He tied the success of organized labor to the success of the middle class, and thus to the success of the U.S. as a whole and at the end he delves into the proud history of organized labor in Pennsylvania
There isn’t anything new or particularly revelatory here. But having spoken to a couple of my friends in organized labor, they seem pretty rejuvenated by the speech. These are people who have been flagging throughout the summer, getting more and more depressed by the imbecilic, yet effective, attacks on health care, the EFCA quagmire, and the general standoff that is the U.S. Senate. The fact that Obama was able to overcome their post-August cynicism shows that the president hasn’t completely alienated his left-wing supporters, contrary to recent sensational news coverage. Check out the labor blog Talking Union for more.
Tomorrow, John Sweeney, head of the AFL-CIO and its most progressive president, well, ever, will step down after 14 years of service. Taking his place will be his long-time second-in-command, Richard Trumka, formerly of the United Mine Workers, a rough-and-tumble labor leader who has promoted a more “aggressive” labor movement.
Trumka gained a lot of attention last year with a fiery election-year speech denouncing racism among union members. Usually, the labor world is pretty airtight. Something HUGE can happen in there and people on the outside won’t hear a thing. This time, 550,000 people watched the speech on YouTube, and even Andrew Sullivan, who doesn’t seem to realize unions exist, gave it a link.
Trumka’s pre-Obama history is less well-known and just as interesting. Thomas Geoghegan, author of a brilliant labor memoir, knew Trumka as a player in a reform movement, Miners for Union Democracy, that swept out the United Mine Workers corrupt (and murderous) old guard. He shared a secretary with the young Trumka, and Geoghegan envied his officemate’s easy manner with the rank and file members:
“He was no different than me, really, but he was the son of a miner and he had been in the mines. Rich Trumka was just as much a Washingtonian as I was, but he was a miner. The miners could pour out their hearts to him and call him ‘buddy,’ and he could call them ‘buddy’ back.
And I couldn’t, and that’s what annoyed the hell out of me. [O]ne night, Rich and another miner taught me how to chew tobacco. They leaned their chairs against the wall, and they chewed and spit in long arcing freethrows into [a wastebasket] across the room.
I had to get up, walk across, lean over the basket, and drool.”
But Geoghegan’s blissful days of drooling tobacco juice were numbered. No one remembers this now, but as the rank-and-file miners got a taste of democracy in the mid-70s, they decided they weren’t going to take anymore crap—from anyone. They stood up to their old union bosses, then their employers, and then, when the courts got involved, they struck against them, too. “For two years in the middle of the 1970s almost all the coal miners in America were engaged in a strike against the U.S. government,” which resulted in an injunction a day and millions of dollars of fines. As Geoghgan remembers in his memoir, the young turks, including Trumka and himself, who’d taken over the D.C. HQ of the UMW, couldn’t control the rank-and-file and they were turned out in disgrace.
“Rich Trumka told me he was going back into the mines. I didn’t know what to say to Rich. He was young enough to go into the mines, I suppose, but my God…I knew he had vague political ambitions, which seemed quite stranger and farfetched to me…”
Not too farfetched as it turned out. Five years later the young turks were back, with Trumka at their head.
“Trumka became president in 1981. And today the UMW is probably the stablest, most adult, most democratic union in all of labor,” Geoghegan reflected. 14 years later, Trumka was elected Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO on Sweeney’s reformist ticket that replaced the Cold War-era old guard with a new progressive leadership. Tomorrow, he’ll be president of the largest labor federation in the country. I can’t think of a better guy for it.
Now if you want to discuss how much he’ll actually be able to get done, that’s a different story. The institutional and historical restraints binding him are tough. The AFL-CIO doesn’t actually command much power over its members and organizing new members is excruciatingly difficult. Neither of these encumbrances can be blamed on Trumka (although their effects will be anyway), but as we saw under Sweeney they can hobble even the best of intentions.
Some in the UM administration have downplayed the role of SESJ and student activism in their decision:
Yet, UM Vice President Jim Foleyon Tuesday said the university didn't sever the contract with Russell because of the students' protest. The university has been looking into worker-rights violations by Russell for several years, far before the students got involved, he said.
The university came to its conclusion after discussing findings with the Workers Rights Consortium and the Fair Labor Association.
UM joined the WRC because of a SESJ campaign, and even the official UM press release announcing the decision mentioned SESJ.
Either way, SESJ is applauding the university’s decision, and will continue to work with the administration, students, and others to stop sweatshops.
The SESJ have received a Campus Progress Action Grant for several years for their anti-sweatshop activities, and were recipients of the 2008 Campus Progress “Action Campaign of the Year” award. Action grants range from $200-$1,000, and are awarded to students working on hard-hitting, progressive issue campaigns. The image in this update was taken at a 06-07 SESJ rally.
UPDATE: The Montana Kamin (the University of Montana - Missoula's student newspaper) ran an editorial on the SESJ victory today (3/5/09), and they also pointed out that this decision was directly linked to student activism:
With all respect due to Foley, who’s a smart guy, B.S. meters should be shooting through the roof on this one. [...] While it’s certainly plausible that Foley would have decided to sever ties with Russell if it had never appeared in the newspapers or been the focus of rallies, it’s far more likely that the issue would have died. So SESJ, your greatest achievement here was raising public awareness on a matter that may have otherwise gone unnoticed.
The Students for Economic and Social Justice at the University of Montana (UM) made the news again for their campaign to convince the UM administration to cancel their contract with Russell Athletic.
The company, which makes university logo clothing for UM and other colleges, has been under fire from the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC), student groups, and universities for its decision to close its Jerzees de Honduras factory. There is substantial evidence that the factory was closed because of “anti-union animus.” Jerzees de Honduras and a “sister facility” have also been the focus of recent union-busting action by Russell. Both factories are now closed, and represented Russell’s only unionized factories in a country not known for its union-friendly atmosphere.
The Students for Economic and Social Justice are encouraging students to sign a petition to the UM administration, and attempting to schedule meetings with key school officials. They also held a rally/press conference on Febuary 20th, and have hung large banners in “the quad” to raise awareness. You can join the campaign against Russell’s union-busting spree by taking action online or bringing the campaign to your campus.
The Students for Economic and Social Justice have received a Campus Progress Action Grant for several years for their anti-sweatshop activities, and were recipients of the 2008 Campus Progress “Action Campaign of the Year” award. Action grants range from $200-$1,000, and are awarded to students working on hard-hitting, progressive issue campaigns.
After nearly 20 minutes of rallying, SESJ members marched into Main Hall to deliver a petition of 360 signatures to Dennison. SESJ members gathered student signatures this week on the Oval to urge UM Administration to break its contract with Russell. [...] Dennison came out of his office and took the petition when Ella Torti, a regional organizer for United Students Against Sweatshops and a junior in human biology and International Developmental Studies, handed it to him. [...] Torti said SESJ was protesting because UM hasn’t acted. Administration has delayed meetings with the group too, Torti said. Thursday’s protest was a direct result of Foley [a UM official] canceling their meeting that was scheduled for that day, she said. “We are asking for immediate action,” Torti said.
Other schools are quickly joining the effort - twomore universities announced that they are dropping their contracts with the troubled company on Friday.
Kay considers sexism in "trade professions" and after pointing out that jobs like hair dressing aren't counted as such precisely because women do them, suggests that
What would help is first what these truck mechanics Harding points to are already doing, mentoring young women in non-traditional fields. Secondly, unions that represent those industries need to not only be free of sexism themselves, but aggressively pursue lawsuits that would discourage sexual harassment. This is happening with some larger trade unions already, but it's not as wide as it should be.
I think this really sells short the potential for trade unions to take on discrimination. Any kind of organization with the resources can file a lawsuit - or individuals or groups can do it with no organization at all. In some cases, like the Dukes suit against Wal-Mart (largest class action suit ever in this country), that can contribute greatly to leveraging pressure on a company. But workers with a union can change the behavior of their employer in a slew of other ways. That includes negotiating with them. Union workers can and do win binding contracts obligating companies to take on unequal opportunity by creating training programs, by collaborating with community leaders and/ or non-profits, by submitting to oversight by workers, clergy, politicians, or whoever else to judge progress, to change work rules or job descriptions that create needless barriers for people who could otherwise do the job - and in any number of other ways. And these workers can enforce these commitments, as well as the company's legal obligation not to discriminate, through collective action and through a grievance process that moves faster, cheaper, and more accessibly than a lawsuit. The limits are defined by power on the shop floor and nationally or internationally in the industry. As Thomas Geoghegan wrote last year in his book See You in Court,
a big change has been the way we have moved from contract to tort. For most working Americans, the kind of people I represent, this accounts for the biggest change in the way the law now impacts their lives. In the 1950s and 1960s, up to 35 percent of workers, especially men, were covered by collective bargaining agreements...In the last thirty years, there has been a loss of contract rights - to a job, a pension, or even health care - unlike that in any other developed country. It is really a new legal regime that many Americans experience as infuriating, without being able to express that fury in an appropriate way.
Now the missed opportunities within substantial chunks of the labor movement to link arms as part of movements for sexual and racial inequality in the twentieth century is not unrelated to the steep decline in union power and union membership. But those workers Kay is talking about, who have unions, have an arsenal at their disposal to attack discrimination in the workplace - not only through contract language of course, but also through the kinds of action, client pressure, media strategies, and such that play part in winning recognition and winning contracts - without depending on the prospects of a lawsuit.
This Whopper™ of a victory must be even tastier (sorry - couldn’t resist) as it comes after the discovery that Burger King hired a company to spy on the Student/Farmworker Alliance.
Yes, I signed it, and not just because I want The Office to air new episodes as soon as possible.
Actually, rights of content producers with regard to new media are uncharted - and I think horribly mistreated by entertainment companies as a result. And, as the writers have complained, there are some compensation problems.
Labor is labor. Pay the people for the work they've done.
Many progressives were shocked by the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co to interpret workplace discrimination laws so narrowly as to throw out all cases that aren't brought within 180 days of a discriminatory pay decision. This is obviously unfair because one often does not realize for some time that their raise was inadequate. Rep. George Miller (D- CA) and 31 cosponsors have introduced legislation to reverse this unjust decision. Under the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, workers could instead bring suit within 180 days of receiving any paycheck affected by the discriminatory decision.
That might sound reasonable to you but apparently it's an outrage to the White House, which announced today a statement of administration policy strongly opposing the bill. Surely they must have some serious grounds for wanting to prevent potential victims of discrimination from having their day in court right? Wrong. They just hide behind the canard that the bill's "vastly expanded statute of limitations would exacerbate the existing heavy burden on the courts by encouraging the filing of stale claims." That's a pretty weak excuse. Am I crazy to suggest could we call the rightwing's bluff by introducing a bill to simply create more courts and hire more judges since that would presumably solve this problem they hide behind?
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision on pay discrimination is disastrous. Employees must file complaints within 180 days of a salary being set, which is simply outside the bounds of common sense. We all know how much secrecy surrounds pay, even in otherwise congenial workplaces. But the Court has decreed that even when there is a pattern of lower raises for women or minority groups that develops over months or years, an individual employee has no legal recourse after 180 days.
The plaintiff in the suit, Lilly Ledbetter , worked for a Goodyear tire plant in Alabama, where she was the only woman out of 17 managers at her level. Although Ledbetter's starting salary was equal to that of her male colleagues, she was given smaller raises and eventually made less than even the lowest-paid man at her level, who started after her.In a characteristically withering dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg invited Congress to overturn the ruling. According to Congressional Quarterly, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and George Miller immediately signified their intent to do so.
Today is May 1st, recognized in all but a handful of countries in the world as “International Workers’ Day.” The U.S. is one of those handful, that does not commemorate the struggles of working people on the first of this month. But in fact, May Day originated in the U.S in the late 19th century.
The demand for safe conditions at work places, the right of workers to organize, and above all an eight-hour work day was at the forefront of the burgeoning workers’ rights movement of the 1800s. In Chicago, the movement culminated with a rally at Haymarket Square that ended violently, with a bomb thrown into the crowd and police opening fire on the marchers. Subsequently, a group of eight anarchist men were scapegoated for the bombing. All were convicted, some of them even hanged, and 3 eventually pardoned.
The (organized) labor movement in the U.S. has a history of classism, racism and gender discrimination. Strides made in the 20th century often came with a price—most notably, in the exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers from the union-affirming Wagner Act of 1935. Agricultural and domestic workers also happened to be overwhelmingly either people of color, women, or immigrants. This continues today, as our most vulnerable workers, especially undocumented migrants, are still not protected from exploitation.
Let today’s May Day be about confronting what has and continues to divide workers, and affirming the right to dignity and economic security that all people deserve.
Home ownership creates wealth, and long-term renting is akin to flushing money down the toilet. Right? Well, think again. A study by The New York Times's David Leonhardt finds that the benefits of renting aren't exclusive to the sub-prime exurban buyers who can't afford their mortgages. In every major metropolitan area, including New York and D.C., home prices would have to make an unlikely rise of between 4 and 5 percent annually for a buyer to break even after five years, which is the average length of time recent homeowners have stayed put. Over the same five-year period, renters were projected to spend far less on overall housing costs.
There are other economic benefits to renting. Research shows that across the United States and Europe, regions with high homeownership rates also have higher unemployment. It makes perfect sense when you think about it: Tying yourself down to a home means you're less likely to accept a new job in another city. You're also more likely to take on a stress-producing, sleep-depriving, carbon-emitting commute, all because you're tethered to the house that seemed like such a great idea. As Leonhardt writes, "Clearly, there are benefits to owning a house beyond the financial, like the comfort of knowing you can stay as long as you want or can fix the roof without permission. But real estate has been sold as more than a good way to spend money. It has been sold as a can't-miss investment." And that's just not the case.
You cheered with them when they took on Taco Bell and Yum Brands. Now, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers has done it again! For the past 2 years, the CIW has run a campaign to expose the dismal conditions and treatment farmworkers who supply McDonald's receive. Today, McD's and suppliers have agreed to the following as a result of the campaign:
A penny more per pound to workers harvesting tomatoes for McDonald's;
A stronger code of conduct based on the principle of worker participation;
And a collaborative effort to develop a third party mechanism for monitoring conditions in the fields and investigating workers' complaints of abuse.
Yay CIW! And we can't forget the important role students played in supporting the campaign, through the spearheading organization Student/Farmworker Alliance, that works in solidarity with the CIW.
The Truth Tour is still on though! This weekend, organizers, students, workers, and even some celebs will gather in Chicago to demand the dignity and just treatment of farmworkers.
Right now, University of Michigan students are staging a sit-in to end the use of sweatshop labor for university licensed apparel. The students are demanding that the administration accept a Designated Suppliers Program and Code of Conduct for its licensees, that will actually reward factories for adopting fair and humane labor standards for its workers—thus reversing the “race to the bottom” trend, into a “race to the top.” The best part of this plan, developed largely by United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS), is that the Workers’ Rights Consortium, in cooperation with the local union or union-like entity, monitors and evaluates their places of employment for compliance with the Code of Conduct. Workers can request that the factory be taken off the list of Code-compliant factories if violations occur.
Call, e-mail or fax the University of Michigan president, Mary Sue Coleman, now! Tell her that you support the students sitting in and want the University of Michigan to be an example to other schools committed to the dignity of workers everywhere. College apparel is a multi-billion dollar industry, and this plan has the potential to make real change.
Senators Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer and representatives Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler will reintroduce the Equal Rights Amendment in Congress today, and will announce hearings on women’s equality in the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Conservative online media is already up in arms, lamenting the funding the ERA would likely provide, for the first time, to poor women on Medicaid who need to access abortion. Yes, the ERA would help progressives fight for women’s bodily rights. But it is also a crucial legal protection -- one first introduced in Congress in 1923 -- necessary to end workplace discrimination against women, fight wage inequality, and stop obviously sexist corporate practices, such as insurance companies covering the cost of Viagra, but not birth control pills. I remember Maloney speaking at a young women’s leadership event last summer and lamenting the Democratic Party’s move away from strong support for the ERA. Hopefully these new hearings, held under a Congress with its first female speaker, will be a step toward reversing that trend. The amendment simply reads:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
It’s time to put the Phyllis Schlafly era behind us. What’s so offensive in 2007 about equal rights for women?
In Pascagoula, Mississippi, Signal International hired hundreds of guest laborers in India, promising them greencards and permanent residency, along with well-paying jobs. Many of the workers spent their life savings or even sold their houses to pay the fee for H2-B visas, but upon arriving here, were only given the temporary visas, paid half of what they were promised, and found their living conditions squalid.
About a week ago, company representatives and armed security guards raided the workers’ camp, took 6 workers, and locked them in a room, saying they would be deported to India. One of the workers, Sabu Lal, even slit his wrists hoping that his self-mutilation would keep him from deportation. He was recently interviewed on Democracy Now:
“How I can go back to India? There is nothing. My family is waiting for me to fulfill their wishes by earning something from America. They are dreaming to come to America. These guys cheated me. From India, for ’til I come here, they cheated me, and family is cheated…They are treating us like slaves. And whenever we making some comments, they are saying that ‘Just shut your mouth.’”
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Posts
!
