From: David Weber 
Subject: [illusions] The Democracy/America Fairytale unwinds
Date: 12 May 2001 20:29:52 -0400
To: Illusions 

--=====================_43417635==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

FALL OF THE HOUSE OF LABOR...PART III "low wage unions"; UNITE, SEIU, UFCW
and the new frontier of union label sweatshops
By Gregory A. Butler, local 608 carpenter
A spectre is haunting the American labor movement; the spectre of "low
wage
unionism".
For the last half-decade, union bosses from AFL-CIO frontman John Sweeney
on
down have been talking about "living wage campaigns", and "low wage
unionism". They've been joined in this chorus by "labor advocacy groups",
like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now [ACORN],
the
Prewett Organizing Fund and a plethora of "anti sweatshop" and "living
wage"
coalitions, dominated by the clergy, upper middle class students from
elite
colleges and the not for profit social services community.
Now, unionizing low wage workers, on the face of it, sounds like a hell of
a
good idea.
TIL YOU LOOK AT THE FINE PRINT.
These folks aren't talking about ORGANIZING LOW WAGE WORKERS AND GETTING
THEM HIGHER WAGES.
They're talking about ORGANIZING LOW WAGE WORKERS, BUT KEEPING THEIR PAY
AT
ABOUT THE SAME LEVEL AS IT IS NOW.
In other words, the workers will still make chump change, but they'll have
to pay union dues for the privilige of being underpaid.
Doesn't sound quite so good now, does it?
The worst form of competition is competition between workers.
And, illegal immigration, workfare, prison labor and substandard wages are
the worst form of inter-worker competition.
To make matters worse, the unions, and other supposed "allies of labor"
are
now joining in with the employers, and are PROMOTING low wages and illegal
immigration.
We can see this most clearly with the "living wage campaigns".
One of these campaigns is quite high profile now, the campaign that just
ended at at Cambridge, Massachussets's world famous Harvard University.
For
the last several weeks, a group of Harvard students, 38 at first, then
dwindling down to 26 at the end, had been staging a building occupation
at
the campus, protesting the university's pratice of paying low wages to
it's
building and food service workers.
This has gotten a lot of media coverage, as well as praise from many labor
activists.
But, there are some troublesome aspects of this "living wage campaign"
that
have not been closely examined.
The first conflict I see is the whole patronizing aspect.
We see affluent, predominantly White upper middle class kids
"advocating",
that is, speaking for, poor, largely Black and Hispanic cafeteria workers
and cleaners.
As if those workers can't speak for themselves, and need "educated" people
to talk for them.
Second, the fact is, these workers are union members, represented by local
26 of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees.
However, the union bosses have taken a backseat to the student activists,
and let the kids lead the show. The members voices have been kept silent,
except for some extremly patronizing "victim interviews" with the press.
Beyond that, let's look at the "living wage" that the Harvard students
were
demanding on behalf of the folks who feed and clean up after them.
$ 10.25 an hour.
Now, where did this figure come from?
According to the website of the student activist coalition , at:
[http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~pslm/livingwage/originalpage/contents.html]
they based the figure on THE CURRENT LOWEST WAGE PAID TO CITY EMPLOYEES BY
THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSSETS. Somehow, because $ 10.25 an hour is
the best that the city employee unions can get out of the City of
Cambridge
for the lowest paid titles, that means that, automatically, $ 10.25 is a
"living wage".
Even though $ 10.25 probably had a lot more to do with City of Cambridge
budget shortfalls than it did with any attempt to tie wages to the cost of
living.
Remember, Cambridge's city officials face a common college town problem,
THE
BIGGEST "BUSINESSES" IN TOWN ARE 501 (c) (3), THAT IS "NOT FOR PROFIT
CORPORATIONS". Harvard University, Radcliffe College and the Massachussets
Institute of Technology DO NOT PAY A DIME IN TAXES, and a huge portion of
the city's landmass is off of the property tax rolls, due to the
properties
being controlled by Harvard, Radcliffe and MIT.
Also, many of the city's most affluent residents, the students, are "non
residents" for tax purposes. Technically, they still "live" with their
parents, and that's where they pay taxes, not in Cambridge.
Thus, the City of Cambridge subsidizes these elite Ivy League colleges [or
"7 sisters" in the case of Radcilffe] by providing city services free of
charge. Cambridge provides police protection, fire and EMS service,
garbage
collection, fixes the potholes and keeps the water flowing, but gets no
tax
revenue in return.
And Cambridge's non university affilliated residents pay the price, in the
form of higher taxes [ever wonder why they call it "TAXachussets"? now you
know].
Cambridge city employees pay the price also, in the form of low salaries.
Thus the $ 10.25 an hour wage.
As it happens, the student coalition is aware of this. You see, according
to
studies cited on the very same student website, it takes $ 17.47 for a
single parent and her child to sustain a minimal lifestyle in Cambridge.
That's right, SEVENTEEN DOLLARS AND FOURTY SEVEN CENTS.
NOT $ 10.25, but $ 17.47.
And, when I say MINIMAL lifestyle, I mean;
no savings,
no health insurance,
no car,
no cable tv or home computer,
no new clothes
or cosmetics
or movie tickets
or hair relaxer
or even diapers and Tampax,
$ 17.47 is just enough for a single mom and one child to EAT AND PAY RENT.
And, we ain't talking about eating filet mignon and living in a doorman
building. Think hamburger helper and HUD housing instead, and you'll get
the
idea of the kind of living standard $ 17.47 can get you in Cambridge.
Cambridge is a very expensive city, $ 1,000 a month rent for dinky one
bedroom apartments expensive. And that's not including utilities. Add
groceries and bus fare to the mix, and you see just how expensive that
town
is.
And, it's a high tax city, especially for Cambridge's permanent working
class residents. [remember, the colleges and the students DON'T PAY TAXES,
so SOMEBODY has to]. For this very reason, many working class people have
had to move out of Cambridge, they can't afford to live their anymore.
And, that $ 17.47 figure is based on the assumption that our hypothetical
single mom WORKS 40 HOURS A WEEK, YEAR ROUND.
Of course, many employees of Harvard, and it's food service and building
service contractors, ONLY WORK PART TIME, AND THEY GET LAID OFF WHEN THE
STUDENTS GO HOME FOR WINTER BREAK, SPRING BREAK AND SUMMER. That's why a
lot
of these brothers and sisters work their fingers to the bone with night
jobs, after they come home from working for Harvard.
But, following the ACORN "winnable demands" theory [that is, never ask for
more than the bosses are willing to concede], all the students asked for
is
a rock bottom wage.
The coalition ignored the fact that $ 10.25 is NOT a living wage in
Cambridge.
The coalition ignored the fact that a REAL living wage for Cambridge would
be, based on their own studies, $ 17.47 an hour for a 40 hour week.
The coalition didn't even demand a 40 hour a week guarantee, and a 52-week
work year, in their demands.
The coalition also ignored the fact that it's a basic principle of
negotiations to ASK FOR MORE THAN YOU WANT. If you ask for what you want,
YOU WILL GET LESS THAN WHAT YOU DEMAND.
Of course, on the real, for these affluent Ivy League kids, it's all about
noblisse oblige [the Feudal age concept that the "nobility" have a duty to
give minimal charity to the serfs and slaves who serve them], after all,
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE ON THOSE WAGES.
It's just a bunch of "uneducated" janitors and cooks, all they deserve is
a
bare subsistance standard of living.
After all, they're "just janitors", they don't dream of sending their kids
to college, or saving up for retirement, do they?
They wouldn't want to have a few bucks extra so they could buy nice
clothes,
or go on a vacation, or anything like that, now would they?
After all, the dreams of the poor aren't as vivid as the dreams of the
rich,
now are they?
Nope, in the minds of the young elitists, all building service and food
service workers deserve is just enough to pay rent and buy groceries. No
savings, no "luxuries" no "extravaganses" no nothing. Just enough to stay
alive, and get up the next day and come back to serve them their lunch,
and
clean up their messes.
The bosses of local 26 , HERE don't care either.
$ 10.25 an hour or $ 1.25 an hour, they still get their dues checkoff.
And union bosses and student activists alike revel in the good press.
Nothing like "charity work", is there?
Incidentally, the end result of this heavily publicized 'sit in' ?
The students "won"...a meeting with Harvard management.
The university promised to set up a 10 person committee to "consider and
make recomendations" about that $ 10.25 an hour "living wage". Of course,
the administration is perfectly free to TOTALLY IGNORE the
recommendations.
Some "victory', huh?
Now, some folks may complain that I'm being a bit harsh on the young men
and
women of Harvard University. "Cut the kids some slack, Greg, it's good
that
they're willing to risk their future to help the labor movement".
But, we have to realize, this isn't about personality, it's about
sociology.
These students, by and large, come from money, [it costs about $ 25k a
year
to go to Harvard, plus housing, books and living expenses, and they don't
give a lot of scholarships]. And, they are studying at the top college in
America, so, upon graduation, they will become the top doctors, lawyers,
politicians, professors and business execs in this country.
In a few years, most of them will be making $ 100,000+ a year. They are
the
next generation of members of the USA's priviliged power elite, the
corporate ruling class. I'm quite sure that they are aware of the social
inequality in this country, and in capitalist societies in general,
because
they are BENEFICIARIES of that social and economic inequality.
However, they are very smart priviliged people [after all, you have to
have
some brainpower, along with a lot of cash, to attend an Ivy League
school]. So, they know that you have to throw the "little people" a few
crumbs, to keep social discontent at bay. But just a few, after all, you
wouldn't want to threaten the bottom line.
Thus, future millionaires campaign for $ 10 bucks an hour wages for
workers.
There have been a number of "living wage" campaigns around the country.
Many
have been led by ACORN, usually in coalition with student activist groups
from elite colleges [like Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Stanford ect], with a
number of Catholic Archdiosceses taking part, as well as other religious
groups.
Most of these campaigns have been focused on getting municipal governments
to have their contractors pay a "living wage". And, usually, in typical
ACORN "winnable demand" style, the "living wage" number has been set at
the
bare substisance level. $ 8 an hour in Milwaukee, $ 7 an hour in
Baltimore,
$ 8.75 in Rockland County, New York, $9 in Nassau County, NY, $ 7.50 an
hour in Jersey City, NJ, $ 7.70 an hour in Boston [incidentally, according
to that study by the Harvard students, the actual "living wage" for Boston
is $ 15.50 an hour!!], ect.
Of course, as I pointed out above, it's EASY to call $ 7 an hour a
"living
wage" if YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIVE ON IT. Many of these coalitions EXPLICITLY
define a "living wage" as "100% of the poverty level". Now, besides the
fact
that the US Bureau of Labor Statistics sets the poverty level so low that
it
amounts to a starvation-level living standard wage, this writer finds it
absolutely nauseating that supposedly "pro labor" groups would set their
wage demands SO DAMNED LOW.
And, as at Harvard, the "advocates" do all the talking, actual workers
themselves are kept way in the background, (after all, they're
"uneducated"
people, "underclass" members, you can't let them speak for themselves, God
forbid!!)
On the real, the workers might point out that a $ 7 an hour living
standard
is hardly a "living wage" in any meaningful sense of the term "living".
And you just can't have that fact pointed out.
The "uneducated" workers might make "unwinnable" demands, like, let's say,
$
20 an hour plus employer paid health insurance, rather than the
"realistic"
demand of $ 7 an hour.
You can't have that either.
The "higest" of these so called "living wage" laws is in Santa Cruz,
California, where it is set at the princely sum of $ 12 bucks an hour.
That's if your boss doesn't provide insurance, otherwise, it's $ 11 bucks.
Here in New York, our "living wage" law is not quite as disgusting, it's
pegged to the prevailing wage for your trade or occupation.
Good for carpenters like me, because our prevailing wage is $ 33.32 an
hour.
Kinda sucks if your a security guard or a receptionist, their prevaling
wage
is in the sub $ 8 an hour range.
Or I should say REALLY sucks, because you really can't have a decent
standard of living in this town if you make less than $ 20 bucks an hour
for
a 40 hour week.
Our living costs are the 2nd highest in the continental US, after San
Francisco. Think $ 2,000 bucks a month for an apartment, and the second
higest electric bills in the state, and you get the idea.
Oh, and did I mention that the city BASICALLY DOESN'T ENFORCE THIS LAW?
And ACORN actually has the nerve to say that these "living wage" laws will
help workers "rise out of poverty".
Rise out of food stamp and state insurance eligbility, perhaps.
Rise out of poverty...
NO F-n way!
Yes, my brothers and sisters, this is John Sweeney's "future" of the labor
movment.
And, let me tell ya something :
I HAVE SEEN THE "FUTURE", AND IT SUCKS.
Let's move on.
This May Day, we had rallies in many American cities, New York,
Minneapolis,
Newark, New Jersey, even Cambridge, Massachussets itself. John Sweeney
himself came to speak at the demonstration Cambridge. Now, this is not a
bad
thing in and of itself.
Except for one thing.
These marches ignored most of the burning issues of the working class
today.
They didn't discuss;
NAFTA or FTAA or cross-border trucking;
police brutality and the mass incarceration of 2 million Americans;
rampant corporate union busting and labor law violations;
the attacks on affirmative action or sexual harassment and "glass ceiling"
discrimination against women;
all these issues, and more, were ignored.
These marches were single issue.
And the issue was THE LEGALIZATION OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, better known as
"amnesty".
Now, this demand may SOUND radical to some.
But, in reality, as "internationalist" as "open borders" may sound to some
uninformed individuals, THIS IS WALL STREET AND CORPORATE AMERICA'S
POSITION
ON THE IMMIGRATION QUESTION.
The corporate rulers of America want as many desperately poor illegal
immigrant workers brought to this country as possible. The capitalists are
happy that 11 million people illegally entered America in the 1990's, and
they'd like to see 20 or 30 million more, at least.
The better to drag down American wages with.
Needless to say, the rallies were predominantly composed of student
activists, with the only working class presence coming from...big
surprise...illegal aliens themselves. I covered the May Day rally in New
York for GANGBOX. In a city of 8 million, with a workforce of 4 million, 2
million of whom are unionized, there were approximately 500 people at this
rally.
About 300 were young Whites, who, judging by dress and demeanor, appeared
to
be students from New York City's elite colleges [NYU, Columbia, Barnard
College, ect]. The rest were Latino and South Asian illegal immigrants.
This reporter was one of only 3 African Americans at the rally. That's
pretty amazing, as there are over 2 million Blacks in NYC, many of whom
are
LEGAL immigrants, and many of whom are union members. There were also very
few LEGAL immigrant or US citizen Latinos, despite the fact that this city
is home to over 2 million Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, and many of them
are
union members. There also appeared to be no working class Whites, despite
the fact that many of NYC's 3.7 million Whites are unionized workers.
Just about the only labor presence was from UNION BOSSES. Specifically, a
well dressed African American gentleman who apparently was some sort of
organizing department supervisor for the Service Employees International
Union, and a number of prosperous-looking White 20 year olds who were
organizers for the SEIU or the Union of Industrial, Needletrades and
Textile
Employees.
In a number of other cities, at least based on the AP wire reports, the
rallies were similar; illegal immigrant workers, and their middle class
White supporters, with no meaningful labor presence, other than union
bosses
and their hirelings.
Basically, the folks who put these rallies on took a universal labor
holiday, International Workers Day, and transfomed it into a special
interest rally.
And the special interest in question was unlimited illegal immigration,
or,
as the leaflets for the New York rally put it "Amnesty for all
undocumented
workers -present and future".
Of course, once you boil that down, they're calling for unlimited cheap
labor for Corporate America, now and forevermore.
Music to Alan Greenspan's ears.
Now, the AFL-CIO wasn't alone in this abomination, oh, no, there's plenty
of
blame to go around.
The far left joined the union bureaucracy in promoting these rallies.
But,
the major players behind the New York rally were the Tepeyac Organization
of
the New York Archdiocese of the Catholic Church, and a number of other
social service providers. And a similar pattern was present in many of the
other May Day rallies across the country.
Once you dredge through all the rhetoric, these "poverty pimps" have a
venal
interest in "amnesty".
These groups have a direct commercial stake in increased illegal
immigration. Remember, they're not for profit CORPORATIONS, and, 501(c)(3)
status or no, they're in BUSINESS, the social services business to be
precise.
Now, illegal immigrants need a lot of services. Since they're status
criminals, they need immigration lawyers. Most of them don't speak
English,
so they need language tutoring. Also, family counciling, medical services
and on and on and on. Not to mention food pantries, cause it's hard to buy
a
balanced diet if you only make $ 4 bucks an hour.
That translates into a lot of bucks for the social services folks.
There's another angle for the Catholic Church : over half of the 11
million
illegal aliens currently in America hail from the United States of Mexico,
and many other illegals come from other heavily Catholic countries like
Poland, Croatia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Cote Ivore ect.
More to the point, most of the illegals come from the backwards rural
areas
of those countries, where the clergy still has a dominant, overwhelming
influence. This is especially true of the illegal aliens from rural
Mexico.
That translates into lots of penitents. And, unlike American Catholics,
who
tend to be more cosmopolitan, and have become acustomed to ignoring the
more
reactionary aspects of Roman Catholic theology, these folks come from
places
where the parish priest is an absolute authority figure, to be obeyed
blindly and without question, just like a boss or a teacher or a doctor or
a
policeman.
In other words, the same docility and servility which American bosses like
so much in illegal aliens is also valued by the clergy.
And the union bosses like blind loyalty also, American workers tend to ask
too many questions, and belive in silly ideas like democracy.
Now, it goes without saying that not ALL illegal immigrants are like that.
Also, as time goes on, many of the illegals will realize that, while $ 150
bucks a week is more than they made back home, it's way less than what
American workers get for the same job. As the illegals learn English, and
get exposed to American society and the standard of living here,
discontent
will rise.
The bosses of the Service Employees International Union found that out the
hard way, with it's "Justice for Janitors" campaign, in the flagship city
for JfJ, Los Angeles.
The SEIU was originally organized as a building service workers union back
in 1921. They were originally known as the Building Service Employees
International Union, the name was changed in 1968. They had, by the
1930's,
organized most of the big city building porters, elevator operators,
handymen, doormen, security guards and office cleaners.
Or, perhaps "organized" is the wrong word.
The SEIU basically coasted on the coattails of the building trades, and
the
two other unions in the building maintenance industry; the International
Union of Operating Engineers, which represented stationary engineers, the
folks who operate and maintain boilers and other building mechanical
systems; and the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, which
represented stationary firemen, the people who shoveled coal into
furnaces,
and oilers, who were the helpers and laborers for the stationary
engineers.
These folks would not work in buildings where the service workers were non
union. So, the property owners had to sign with SEIU.
In any event, the bosses of the SEIU had assumed that building service
would
always be union, because union construction workers, stationary engineers
and stationary firemen would refuse to work in buildings with non union
building service workers.
So, the SEIU launched a huge conglomerate union organizing drive. They
mainly focused on signing up hospital workers and government employees,
but,
the SEIU signed up all sorts of other workers, factory workers in Chicago,
silversmiths, taxi drivers and grave diggers in New York City, and just
about anybody else who had a pulse and a social security number.
The SEIU bosses assumed that the building service industry would always be
union.
They assumed wrong.
In the 1970's, many construction contractors went non union. That industry
went from being 70% union to under 12% in just a few years. And the
underpinnings that had kept the commercial building service industry
unionized collapsed also.
In the few cities where the construction unions are still strong, like New
York, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Boston or Philadelphia, the
building
owners stayed union. Even when real estate companies in those areas got
out
of the building maintenance business, and began to contract that work out
to
building service contractors, the contractors had to sign up with the
unions.
SEIU and IUOE survived in building service in these towns. Not so lucky
was
the IBFO. Nobody heated office buildings with coal anymore, and building
service contractors were reluctant to hire helpers for the stationary
engineers, so the unfortunate stationary firemen and oilers were consinged
to oblivion. The IBFO itself folded in the early 1990's, and it's remnants
were absorbed by the SEIU.
But, outside of those islands, SEIU's days were numbered. In many cities,
real estate management companies used the advent of contract building
maintenance as an excuse to terminate their relationship with all 3
building
maintenance unions, IBFO, IUOE and SEIU.
By the early 1980's, it had become a bloodbath, with the SEIU being driven
out of the building service industry in city after city after city;
Denver,
Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Baltimore,
Detroit,
Atlanta, Dallas/Ft Worth, Wilmington, even the city that was home to the
SEIU's headquarters, Washington DC.
And, worse yet, the union was left totally out of the new suburban office
parks growing up in Long Island, Northern New Jersey, Fairfield County,
CT,
Westchester County, NY, Route 128 in Eastern Massachussets, San Jose,CA,
Orange County, CA, the "Beltway" in Northern Virginia & Central Maryland,
the "Chicagoland" area just outside of Chicago, I-285 in Northern Georgia,
Redmond, WA, ect.
That was the future of corporate headquarters; gleaming hitech fortresses,
gated corporate compounds, surounded by green lawns and armed guards, near
to the mansions of rich executives and far from the teeming working class
neighborhoods of the major cities.
Problem was, the SEIU was not going to be a part of that future.
Also, there was a thunderstorm coming on the labor supply horison.
Traditionally, building service had been a Black man's job. There were
other
ethnic groups in the industry, but, thanks to Jim Crow, many African
Americans, mostly males, were forced into the industry to find employment.
These workers were a relatively stable workforce, thanks to the relatively
high wages that the SEIU got them. The SEIU's building service wages at
that
time tended to be around the same levels as the union that represents
unskilled workers in construction, the Laborers International Union of
North
America, LIUNA.
But, around the time that the building owners were breaking the unions, a
new labor supply emerged. A much cheaper labor supply.
There has long been a small but steady trickle of illegal cross border
immigrants to the USA from the United States of Mexico. This flow was
actually legalized during World War II, under the "Bracero" program, which
was terminated in 1965.
These workers came to America to find seasonal work in agriculture,
railroad
construction and the restaurant trades in the Southwest. They came, worked
during the busy season and went home with a few bucks in their pockets
after
a couple months. And then repeated the cycle next year.
That all changed in 1986.
First of all, on the supply end. A small country called the Republic of El
Salvador was in the midst of a bloody civil war.
In 1980, a section of El Salvador's ruling oligarchy, the "14 families",
were dissatisfied with the elected president of the country, so they
simply
had the Army overthrow the government. This caused that country's main
political party, the Christian Democrats, to split.
One wing allied with the Army, the far right ARENA party, and the private
millitias of the rich plantation owners, the grusomely named
 [ "Death Squads"]
The other wing of the Christian Democrats allied with the Communists and
other far left groups, forming a political coalition called FDR < Frente
Democratico Revolutionario > [ "Democratic Revolutionary Front" ], And,
the
FDR set up an army, the FMLN < Frente Farabundo Marti para Liberation
National > ["Farabundo Marti Front for National Liberation"]
A brutal civil war ensued. The rebels had the early advantage, due to the
fact that they were supported by virtually all of El Salvador's urban
workers, peasant farmworkers and farm laborers, and by a large number of
middle class college students.
But, the US government sent advisors, helicopters, aircraft, and lots and
lots of guns.
And the US Army Special Forces, the "Green Berets", trained 3 El
Salvadoran
Army batallions in the special skills of killing lots and lots of unarmed
civillians very quickly, the best ways of torturing and raping prisoners
and
other techniques that the Department of Defense euphamistically calls
"irregular warfare".
Incidentally the World Court has a different, and somewhat more accurate,
name for those tactics.
They call em "war crimes".
El Salvador's National Guard, National Police and Treasury Police also got
similar training in modern brutality skills.
The tide of war turned, and, by 1986, over 40,000 El Salvadorans were
dead.
Most of them, unarmed farmers killed by the El Salvadoran military.
Over 1 million Salvadorans fled the country.
Most of them ended up here.
At the same time, the neighboring Republic of Guatemala was in year 32 of
a
long and bloody civil war between the oligarchy-controled government and
the
 PGT, Guatemalan Party of Labor, the
country's communist party.
The brutality stepped up in 1984 when the Guatemalan oligarchy had the
Army
take control of the government. The point man for the coup was one General
Efrian Rios Montt.
General Rios Montt decided to launch a bloodbath on the rural villages
where
the communists got most of their support.
There was also a racial agenda at work.
Rios Montt, like many urban Guatemalans, was a Born Again Christian
[Pentacostalist, in his case] and a
< Meztizo>, a Hispanicized Indian. Most of the pro communist rural farmers
were traditional Indians, who were Catholic and spoke Mayan langauges.
The race war began, and about a quarter of a million Indians were
butchered.
Over 2 million fled.
Some went to predominantly Indian areas of bordering Chiapas State,
Mexico.
But, a large number went to urban Mexico.
And many more came to America.
Around this same time, the Mexican government began to dismantle subsidies
for rural corn farmers. Many Mexican farmers lived on ,
collectivly
owned farms set up by the land reform after the Mexican revolution. These
farms had a lock on domestic corn production, as imports were restriced,
and
had price supports from the government.
That ended. Corn prices were decontroled, subsidies ended, and unlimited
imports of American and Canadian corn began. This really hurt, because the
North American corn farmers had mechanized operations, with far less man
hours per bushel than the Mexican farmers.
Thus, many  went under, and many  and  had to
leave the farm to look for work.
Some came to the border towns in Northern Mexico, where many American,
Japanese, South Korean, German, Taiwanese, Hongkongese and Chinese
companies
had set up factories to produce for the American market using cheap
Mexican
labor.
Many more came to America.
Also in 1986, congress passed a law called the Immigration Reform and
Control Act, IRCA. This law allowed illegal immigrants who were here prior
to 1982 to get green cards.
The catch was, you had to prove CONTINUOUS RESIDENCY. If you'd migrated
back
and forth, amnesty was a no go.
Supposedly, this was a one time amnesty, but many immigrants felt that,
eventually, there'd be another amnesty.
All they had to do was come here and stay here, no matter what.
Thus, America was faced with a large permanent illegal immigrant problem.
As
the numbers increased, these workers began to move out of farm and
restaurant work into other industries. Including building service.
The building service contractors were happy to hire illegal immigrants.
They were even happier to ditch the Black men who had so loyally served
them
for so many years. Those workers were accustomed to high wages, employer
paid benefits, a 40 hour workweek and stable employment.
In Los Angeles, in 1982, the hourly wage for building service workers was
$
13 an hour.
By 1986, it was minimum wage, $ 3.35.
The illegals, by contrast, would have to take what they could get. Wages
that African American workers wouldn't even spit on were welcomed by many
illegals, in particular the Mexican farmers, who had made far less back
home. They also were forced to accept part time days, short work weeks,
being on call and lots of other things that had been forbidden in the
unionized days.
The Guatemalans and Salvadorans, who were, generally speaking, a hell of a
lot more politically aware than the other illegal aliens, wern't quite as
thrilled by the "high wages" of $ 3.35 an hour, but they really didn't
have
too many other options, because all that awaited them back home was a
bullet
behind the ear.
And $ 3.35 beats a .223 slug any day of the week.
The racial shift was also accompanied by a gender shift. The building
service contractors decided to hire predominantly women, feeling that
they'd
be more 'docile', and less likely to resist employer abuse.
But, very quickly, the new building service workers found that $ 3.35,
while
perhaps higher than the wages back home, was chump change in Los Angeles.
These workers couldn't afford to buy nourishing food, they lived doubled
up
in small rented houses, had little money for "luxuries", or even to save
for
a rainy day or their kid's education. Many had to sacrifice quality time
with family, and even sleep, to take two and even three jobs, just to pay
the damned rent.
Also, the illegal immigrants couldn't afford to buy cars, so they had to
rely on Los Angeles truly horrible "mass transit" system; the slow,
sporadic, delay-ridden, part-time bus service provided by the LAMTA.
It is said that "nobody walks in LA", and nobody takes the bus either, if
they can afford not to. Only the very young, the very old and the very
broke
ride the busses out there. Only the most miserably paid workers rely on
the
busses.
Commutes that would take a motorist 30 minutes took 2 hours by bus,
robbing
these workers of precious rest and family time.
Around this time, the SEIU's bosses decided to try and re organize the
building service industry.
They launched a campaign called "Justice for Janitors". Now, the business
unionists who run SEIU were NOT going to rely on the millitancy of these
workers, or their ability to paralyze office buildings and make them
uninhabitable by withdrawing their labor, or on solidarity between
building
service workers and unionized construction workers.
Oh, no, that just wouldn't do.
Especially since the union bosses could easily lose control of a campaign
like that.
Instead, they launched a public relations campaign. This campaign was very
UNICEF-like, "pity the poor Latino janitors", very contemptuous of these
workers. The building service workers were not presented as strong,
powerful
workers providing an essential service, who deserved to have American
standard of living wages (wage levels that they had earned just a couple
of
years before). Instead, the workers were presented as pathetic wretches,
who
only asked for a few more crumbs.
Furthermore, actual building service workers were kept as far away from
the
levers of power as possible. Even low ranking organizers and activists
were
recruited from the ranks of students at elite colleges, or directly from
the
Roman Catholic clergy. Most of the student activists were White, and upper
middle class, with as few actual workers, or Latinos of any class,
involved
as was possible.
Needless to say, Blacks were rigidly and almost completely excluded, so
the
union bureaucracy could avoid the whole unplesant question of the wholsale
racial cleansing that had happened to Black building service workers in
Los
Angeles in the early 1980's.
The union hadn't done a damned thing then, and they didn't want to address
it now, either.
In 1994, local 399 of the SEIU returned to the building service industry
in
Los Angeles. They had waged a strike, that featured a lot of heroism by
the
workers. This included being on the reciving end of a police riot in the
Century City complex, and also some ill-advised "hunger strikes" by
members.
Of course, the union bosses, and the $ 50,000 a year organizers, didn't
take
the risks, only the members.
Of course, the union bosses, in true ACORN style, negotiated for
"winnable"
demands.
In other words, only the table scraps that the bosses felt like giving.
The agreement was sewage; it was a 5 year pact, the wages "topped out" at
$
6.90 in year 5, no family medical coverage for the first 4 years, and no 8
hour day or 40 hour week guarantee.
The members reluctantly accepted it, as they had no viable alternative.
However, the SEIU bosses had a problem. The newly organized building
service
workers had been pumped full of "membership involement" propaganda, to get
them to risk beatings and deportations during the strike. Also, they had
been organized into a local which also represented much higher paid
workers
in LA's hospitals.
The 8,500 building service workers were in the same local with 16,000
hospital workers and 4,000 "allied service" workers, mostly arena and
racetrack employees. Most of these workers were American Blacks, Chicanos
or
Whites. And they made a hell of a lot more money than the building service
workers.
A number of the Central American workers, who had learned labor activism
back home in the FDR-FMLN or the PGT, built a coalition among the Mexican,
Guatemalan and Salvadoran workers in the building service division, called
the . They ended up joining forces with a dissident
caucus
among the hospital workers, the Change 95 group.
They formed the Multiracial Alliance, and actually defeated 21 of the 30
candidates on local 399 President Jim Zellers' slate. One problem, in a
naive and fatally misguided attempt at "unity", the Multiracial Alliance
had
not contested the local presidency.
Bad move.
Extremly bad move.
The Multiracial Alliance's activists didn't understand how the game is
played.
Unfortunately for them, Zellers did.
Zellers launched a civil war within the local.
The SEIU president, our old friend John Sweeney, stepped in, and
established
a trusteeship.
And promptly broke up the local.
The troublesome hospital workers were segregated into what remained of
local
399. The allied service workers, and the building service workers, were
annexed by a local based in Northern California's Silicon Valley, San Jose
local 1877.
1877 also annexed building service locals in Oakland and Sacramento,
California, creating a super local with a territory almost 400 miles long
and extending from the Pacific to the Nevada state line.
The only California building service workers who escaped the clutches of
local 1877 were the members of local 87 in San Francisco and local 2028 in
San Diego.
This huge local was put under the dominion of one Mike Garcia.
Garcia, unlike his members, is not an immigrant, he's an American born
Chicano. He also pays himself $ 60,000 dollars a year, about
500%
of what his members make. And that 60k doesn't include Mike's union
supplied
car, or his union paid credit card.
$ 60k Mike is well insulated from his members. Most of them don't have
cars,
or internet access, or even long distance service on their phones, so it
would be extremely difficult for them to build an opposition in such a
territorially vast local.
The local was part of a "nationwide strike" that the SEIU staged in the
spring of 2000. The members of 1877 were led in 4 seperate strikes, in
Sacramento, Oakland, San Jose and Los Angeles, and got shitty contracts in
all 4 cities. In LA, they got the least, a 5 year agreement that "tops
out"
at $ 8.90 an hour in the year 2004.
The members complained bitterly about the agreement, but they didn't have
a
real choice. Plus, in typical American union fashion, they DIDN'T EVEN GET
TO READ IT BEFORE THEY VOTED ON IT.
$60k Mike rammed through a hasty vote in the parking lot of the union's
Los
Angeles offices, just hours after reaching the agreement.
God forbid the members actually have a couple days to THINK ABOUT THE
PROPOSED CONTRACT BEFORE VOTING ON IT.
Incredibly, some hailed this as a great "victory".
Even though LA BUILDING WORKERS ACTUALLY MADE MORE IN 1982, $ 13 an hour,
THAN THEY WILL IN 2004!!!! And that's in NOMINAL DOLLARS, in REAL, or
inflation adjusted, dollars, they make far far far less today than 19
years
ago.
San Francisco, Chicago Loop, New York City and Boston building service
workers preserved their wages, more or less. Although even here in New
York,
home of America's highest paid building service workers, SEIU no longer
has
parity with the laborers. They make $ 25.55, journeylevel building service
workers, only $ 17.
Everywhere else, the building service workers got contracts that were as
close to minimum wage as the SEIU bosses could get away with.
Oh, and one final thing; to date, the SEIU hasn't done a God damned thing
for the African American workers who were driven from the industry in Los
Angeles in the mid 80's. Not employment assistance, not credit for pension
time, not even providing them with lawyers so they can sue for
discrimination.
Of course, building service workers aren't the only people who've been
screwed by the SEIU.
In the 1960's, Harry Van Arsdale, the President of the New York City
Central
Labor Council, and President and Business Manager of local 3 of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, launched an organizing
drive among the people who drive New York City's yellow medallion taxi
cabs.
The drivers were overripe for organization, and, in short order, about
30,000 were signed up, and contracts were negotiated with the garages.
Van Arsdale put them in their own local union, Taxi Drivers and Allied
Workers Union local 3036. Van Arsdale didn't bring them in the IBEW, or
jurisdictionally logical unions such as the Teamsters or the Transport
Workers or the Amalgamated Transit Union.
Instead, local 3036 ended up in the SEIU.
A few years later, the garages were looking for massive concessions. The
drivers were employees, who were paid on commission, the garage gets 40%
of
the metered fares that they collect during a work day, and they get 60%
plus
the tips.
The garages wanted a better deal, called "leasing".
Under "leasing", the driver ceased to be an employee. Instead, the cabbie
was just somebody who rented the car for 12 hours, for a fixed fee [these
days, it's around $ 120 bucks] The driver is also responsible for gassing
the vehicle up, and paying for any repairs if it breaks down during the
shift.
The garages would no longer be responsible for unemployment insurance,
workers comp, social security, witholding taxes, or any other employment
benefit whatsoever. After all, the drivers would cease to be employees,
but
would instead just be some guy who rented a car for 12 hours.
The garages wanted this deal, as did the brokers who sell taxi medallions
[that's a special license, an actual piece of metal that is physically
attached to the hood of the taxi, legally enabling that vehicle to pick up
passengers for hire. There are only about 11,000 medallions, a number
fixed
in 1937. The city allows a legal, unregulated, traffic in medallions, and
they cost about a quarter of a million dollars apiece].
The city government also wanted this deal, as did the bankers, Wall Street
brokers, real estate developers and hotel interests who actually control
the city government.
The drivers did not.
But, the union took the garage's side, the corporate side, instead of the
members side. 3036 totally sold the members out, completely caving in to
the city on the leasing issue.
In the 20 years since, New York City's 30,000 medallion taxi drivers have
seen their wages and living standards collapse.
Local 3036 collapsed as well [no employee status = no Taft Hartley
bargaining status], went from 30,000 members to a few hundred, and what
remained of the local was taken over by a school custodian's local, SEIU
local 74.
You know, sometimes I think that "SEIU" actually stands for "SCREW THE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION".
The SEIU isn't America's only 'low wage union', many other unions can make
that claim.
One is the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, where
the
officer salaries range from $ 75,000 a year to a quarter million, but few
of
the actual members make more than $ 10 bucks an hour.
The UFCW was founded in 1979 by a union merger, the Amalgamated Meat
Cutters
and Butcher Workmen was absorbed by the Retail Clerks International
Association. However, there had been many more mergers before that ;
in 1954, the AMCBW, the old AF of L butcher's union, absorbed the
formerly
Communist led International Fur and Leather Workers Union, and in 1968
they
took over the United Packinghouse Workers of America, the old CIO's
meatpacking plant union.
the RCIA had, in turn, previously absorbed the Insurance Workers
International Union and the Boot and Shoe Workers International Union.
Within a year of the merger, they absorbed yet another union, the
Journeyman
Barbers, Hairdressers and Cosmetologists. In recent years, the
International
Chemical Workers Union and the United Garment Workers of America are among
the mergers & aquisitions of the UFCW.
The UFCW has members in a bewildering variety of industries, but the bulk
are in supermarkets and the meatpacking industry. They've also been among
the folks most royally screwed over by the UFCW. So, that's where our
focus
will lie today.
The UFCW's supermarket worker jurisdiction was originally organized thanks
to the Teamsters. Back in the early 20th century, when there were no
supermarkets, just grocery stores, butcher shops and dry goods stores,
Teamsters got the retail clerks organized by refusing to deliver to non
union stores.
The old RCIA had a very symbiotic relationship with the Teamsters, in some
locales, the Retail Clerks locals were actually headquartered in IBT union
halls and run by Teamster officers. The AMCBW had a similar relationship
to
the Teamsters and their side of the retail industry got organized pretty
much the same way.
For many years, the retail clerks had a pretty good living, and had full
time jobs.
But, in the 1960's, with the advent of the supermarket, the grocery
industry
employers wanted lower wages and weakened working conditions. And the
business unionist RCIA was happy to comply, as long as at least SOME
members
kept good paying full time jobs.
And, thus it was done. The chains and the union set up a deal. The stores
would have low hourly wages to start, but, over the course of a clerk's
career, the wage would go up. This meant that new hires made pathetically
low wages, but high seniority employees made a good wage.
Basically, a situation got set up where the high seniority, and
predominantly male, stock clerks, porters, dairy clerks, frozen food
clerks,
produce clerks and front end managers got relatively high wages, and full
time jobs.
On the other hand, the cashiers got low wages, part time hours and
miserable
working conditions.
Admittedly, if a cashier stuck around long enough, she'd get high wages,
but, due to the low wages and bad conditions, most cashiers quit very
early
in their careers.
When I worked as a supermarket cashier in the late 1980s, as a UFCW local
1500 member at Pathmark Supermarkets in New York City, the average cashier
quit after 6 months.
The reason for the high turnover?
Simple.
By the 1980's, it had become a truly miserable jobs. Cashiers were timed
by
the computerized UPC scanners on the registers, and those who didn't scan
fast enough were punished, and eventually fired. The pay was miserable,
usually close to minimum wage for new hires.
Also, despite (or perhaps BECAUSE) the cashier workforce was predominantly
female, almost no breaks were provided. Although the typical shift was
close
to 7 hours long, cashiers were given exactly one break, for exactly 15
minutes. That break was the only opportunity to eat lunch, and the only
opportunity to use the toilet, during the shift.
On busy days, such as Friday afternoons and Saturdays, NO BREAKS WERE
PROVIDED AT ALL.
At least the male clerks had the remote possibility of becoming a grocery
clerk or a porter, and getting an 8 hour day. Not so the women cashiers,
the
company didn't let women stock shelves and mop floors (I guess full time
jobs were supposed to be for men only).
Needless to say, most cashiers quit in disgust after only a few months.
$ 100 dollar paychecks and occupationally induced bladder infections will
tend to make a person reconsider their choice of employer.
The company didn't care, hell, they wanted it like that.
New hires = lower wages.
Local 1500, UFCW didn't mind either.
New hires = more initation fees.
There were about 300 UFCW local 1500 members at store 645. But only about
40
of them had more than 1 year seniority. And those were the only people
that
the local cared about. For the rest of us, all that the UFCW was concerned
about was that $ 75 buck initiaion fee, and the $ 5 bucks that came out of
our checks every week.
At the store I worked at, a number of clerks quit to take NON UNION retail
jobs, which had HIGHER PAY AND MORE HOURS.
In 1987, Pathmark paid a cashier $ 3.85 an hour after 30 days on the job,
the typical workweek was 6 days, with the average shift 7 hours long
[they'd
throw in a couple of 5 hour days, just so you'd never make 40 hours a
week].
As mentioned above, only one 15 minute lunch/toilet break per shift.
By contrast, at Citibank, a non union bank, tellers got $ 7 an hour to
start, had an 8 hour day and a 40 hour week, got ONE HOUR lunches, plus
the
opportunity to use the bathroom on an as-needed basis during the workday.
It's rather pathetic that NON UNION workers make more money, and have
superior working conditions, than UNIONIZED ones.
The butchers had a similar setup, both while they were still in the AMCBW,
and after the merger into the UFCW. Butchers, who were predominantly male,
got a good hourly rate, and full time hours. The deli clerks and meat
wrappers, who were predomantly female, and the largely male meat
department
porters, got a lower wage, and a lot less hours. Their conditions wern't
as
catatrophically bad as the cashiers, but they were damned close.
The other craft in the supermarket industry, the Teamsters, hasn't been
immune to this free fall either. The average warehouse teamster makes
about
$ 10 an hour these days.
IN 1980, THEY MADE $ 13 AN HOUR.
The warehouse teamsters are also timed by computer, and are subject to
rigid
tons moved per hour production quotas. If they think you're "too slow",
you
get written up, then fired. And the union does nothing about this.
Incidentally, in recent years, the supermarkets have actually had to
reopen
their contracts with the UFCW.
The reason?
THE BOSSES NEEDED TO GIVE THE CASHIERS A RAISE.
Yes, you read correctly.
The UNION didn't ask for the raise.
The BOSSES DID!
Why?
Simple.
The supermarket owners found that it was impossible to keep employees with
such a low pay rate. Now, UFCW wages for part time clerks start in the $7
to
$ 8 an hour range. Thanks to the bosses, not the union.
So, when you hear the UFCW criticizing Wal Mart or K Mart, think twice.
THE AVERAGE WAL MART OR K MART SALES ASSOCIATE GETS A WAGE THAT IS EQUAL
TO,
OR IN SOME CASES HIGHER, THAN THE AVERAGE UFCW SUPERMARKET CASHIER.Wal
Mart
and K Mart also give their employees two seperate 30 minute breaks during
the day, and they allow employees to use the bathroom during working
hours.
Not so the UFCW employers, as we've seen above.
It says volumes that, during the UFCW's recent tragicomic attempt to
organize Wal Mart, they went after the butchers, not the meat wrappers,
sales associates, stock clerks or greeters.
Wal Mart DOES pay below union scale wages for it's butchers.
As for everybody else, they make more money, have better working
conditions,
and even superior benefits, than UFCW members.
The Teamsters have had similar problems with Wal Mart's distribution
centers, and the non unionized warehouse sector in general; non union
warehouse workers make as much, and in some cases more, than teamsters,
and
they aren't as subject to production quotas.
It's a sad commentary on the state of unionism in America today, when you
have the spectacle of non union workers who are better off than their
unionized counterparts.
As bad as the clerks have it, the meatpacking workers actually have it
worse.
At one time, meatpacking had the most horrible working conditions in
America. Somebody even wrote a book about it, Upton Sinclair's "The
Jungle".
Then, unions came in. During World War I, communists and anarchists
brought
AF of L locals into the Chicago Stockyards. The locals were affiliated to
the various AF of L internationals that had jurisdiction over the
meatpacking industry, like the Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen,
coopers [barrelmakers], carpenters, electricians, railway carmen,
teamsters,
laborers, boilermakers, ect, but they bargained jointly with the packers,
through the Stockyards Labor Council. That group was destroyed by race
riots
and government repression in 1919.
Unionism came back to the industry during the 1930's. The CIO set up an
organizing committe, the Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee, who
set
up locals in meatpacking plants in Chicago and across the Midwest and
Great
Plains states. That committee was later chartered as the United
Packinghouse
Workers of America, and by the end of World War II they had organized just
about every major packinghouse plant in America.
The UPWA succeded in raising meatpacking wages to the level of auto,
steel,
electrical, aircraft and building trades workers levels. They brought the
production speed (called "chain speed" in packing, due to the chain that
the
carcases are carried on down the line) down to a reasonable level, got the
employees time to put on protective gear and sharpen knives on company
time,
and generally made the job a high quality place to work.
The meatpacking industry became the kind of job that you'd go out of your
way to make sure that your family members got hired into. It was not
uncommon to see several generations of a family employed in the same
plant.
Of course, the packing companies hated that. So, they set out to break
down
working conditions so as to increase profit.
This process accelerated after the United Packinghouse Workers of America
was absorbed by the retail buthcher's union, the AMCBW, in 1968. And
accelerated further when the butchers union, AMCBW, was absorbed by the
clerks union, RCIA, to form the UFCW in 1979.
At the time, some meatpackers said "UFCW means 'U Fuckin Clerks Won'".
As it turned out, they were right.
During the 1970's and 1980's, the packing companies moved away from the
old
system, where skilled meatpacking workers killed the animals, cut them up
into large sections, and then the large pieces where shipped to wholesale
butchers and supermarkets, where skilled butchers sliced them into cuts
for
the consumer.
Instead, they went with the boxed meat system, wherby a large force of
unskilled processing plant workers on a fast moving chain reduced the
carcass down to customer ready cuts. Each worker performs less operations,
so they don't have to have any skills, you can literally hire people off
the
street with no training. On the retail end, you need a lot less skilled
butchers, just unskilled meat wrappers to take the boxed meat off the
truck
and put the pricetags on it.
Result = much lower labor costs.
This was done openly all during the 1970's and 1980's, but the AMCBW and
later the UFCW, did less than nothing. In fact, the international UFCW
WENT
ALONG WITH THE DEAL.
The UFCW also stood by while the new poultry and fish processing
industries
developed along the same lines that the beef and pork industries were
going
down.
There were some isolated case of resistance, though.
In Mississippi, at the Delta Pride catfish processing plant in the small
Delta town of Indianola, the 2,500 workers there, mostly Black women,
rebelled against the company in 1986. They were paid only $ 5 an hour, had
to arrive at 8AM but didn't get paid until the fish actually arrived at 9
or
9:30 and had to stay til the fish were done and they had their access to
the
ladies room greatly restriced, and were spied on by White male foremen
while
they used the restroom.
They struck that year, and were organized into local 1529 of the UFCW.
That
Memphis-based local had originally been part of the Food, Tobacco and
Agricultural workers union, and had been set up by Black communists in the
1930's. It affiliated with the Packinghouse Workers in the 1950's, and
that's how they ended up in the UFCW. It had remained a very millitant
local, and had played a major role in the Civil Rights Movement during the
1960's.
The strikers fought very millitantly. When company foremen shot at them on
the picketline, they shot back. The company hired scabs. The strikers
would
go to the scabs houses at night, and vandalize their cars. They ended up
with a first contract, and sucessfully struck again in 1989. Despite the
unanimous opposition of local Black politicians from US Representative
Charlie Evers on down, they won.
They got unrestricted ladies room access during working hours, they got
paid
from 8AM on, and the right to refuse OT. But, they never were able to
raise
the pay scale.
Why?
Simple.
Because food processing conglomerate ConAgra owned a UFCW organized
catfish
processing plant just down the road.
And they only paid $ 6 an hour.
Which effectively set the ceiling for food processing workers wages in
that
part of Mississippi.
UFCW members in Minnesota also tried to resist the declining wages in the
industry during the 1980's. At Hormel's flagship plant in Austin,
Minnesota,
members of local P-9 called a strike in the winter of 1986. Their demand
was
the "national floor"wage, $ 10.79 an hour.
In 1985, the UFCW international had set a floor, below which no UFCW
meatpacking local was to settle. But, almost immediately, locals were
settling for whatever they could get, with the full encouragement of the
international. P-9 stood alone in striking over the national floor.
The P-9 members stood strong, and fought back against Hormel, the Mower
county sherrif, the Minnesota State Police and the Minnesota National
Guard.
And they stood strong for nearly 2 years.
'Til the international stabbed them in the back.
P-9 was trusteed, the officers were ousted [they even changed the local's
number: from now on, they were simply "local 9"]. And the UFCW
international imposed Hormel's offer behind the member's backs.
WITHOUT the national floor.
The new wage would be less than $ 10.79.
Incidentally, today, 13 years later, NO PLANT IN THE ENTIRE MEATPACKING
INDUSTRY PAYS MORE THAN TEN DOLLARS AND SEVENTY NINE CENTS AN HOUR.
With the union tamed, the meatpacking companies set about finding a new
workforce.
Thanks to illegal immigration, they found one.
Meat processing companies began the large scale use of illegal immigrant
labor. Some firms have gone so far as to send recruiters to far away
lands,
in search of cheap labor. They go far afield, running radio ads in Oaxaca
and Chiapas States, Mexico and Guatemala; scouring UN Relief and Works
Administration refugee camps in Sudan, Somalia, Kosova & Bosnia; using
social service groups like the International Rescue Committee as
employment
agencies; and even sending foreign born employees back home to round up
more
labor.
The meatpacking companies will spare no expence and will shirk at no
effort
in their drive to recruit more and more cheap labor, and import them to
the
cheap rented houses and squalid trailer parks that have sprung up amid the
small meatpacking towns of the Midwest and Great Plains states.
But, why the worldwide recruiting drive?
Especially considering that, as recently as 20 years ago, MEATPACKING
PLANTS
HAD PEOPLE LINING UP TO WORK FOR THEM. They didn't have to recruit
employees, the workers came to them!
What changed?
Why does the average meatpacking plant have a 300 % annual employee
turnover
rate?
It's very simple.
What was once a well paying, unionized, skilled job where one could get
hired on and expect to work for a lifetime, and retire from, has become a
cheap labor sweatshop. Even the unionized plants are hellholes to work in.
The meatpacking companies need these massive infusions of labor because
they
burn out their labor at an enormous pace. The unskilled workers are
thrust
on the line, with no training, they don't even bother to teach them how to
sharpen the knife. The workers are driven at a fast pace, with minimal
breaks, and the constant repitition of a few wrist motions, 80 or 90 or
more
times a minute.
Dicipline is brutal; even if the abusive supervisors wern't screaming and
yelling [and having interpreters translate the verbal abuse] the machine
pushes you, you're not allowed to leave the chain for bathroom breaks,
and,
if you get injured, THEY DOCK YOU FOR THE TIME YOU SPENT IN THE EMERGENCY
ROOM. And, if you don't report back to work the next day, you're fired,
EVEN
IF YOU HAD A FINGER AMPUTATED.
Needless to say, many workers quit after only a few months of this abuse.
Those who don't quit, get fired for taking time off to recouperate from
injuries.
The technical labor relations term is a "no fault attendance policy".
And, once the bosses have burned out one group of disposible wage slaves,
it's on to the next. An international game of human musical chairs;
Somalis
today, Bosniacs next week, Mexicans the week after that, and so on.
The worn out workers, who's scarred hands, torn tendons and crippled
wrists
are no longer of use, are sent on their way by the packinghouses, to drift
to the nearest major city to find work, or to wander back home. Either
way,
the meatpacking companies don't care, they got their pound of flesh.
Incidentally, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack has actually requested that the US
Congress COMPLETELY EXEMPT IOWA FROM ALL US IMMIGRATION LAWS.
Why?
So the meat packing companies could import even more desperate illegal
immigrants than they do at present, and so the packers could even more
openly disregard labor, immigration, tax and wage and hour laws than they
do
now.
Some Iowans objected.
They were branded "racists" and "xenophobes", to be ignored and villified
in
this new "global economy", anachronisms in this age of "cross-border labor
mobility".
America's meatpacking plants have become a kind of refrigerated hell, a
sort
of latter day industrial Dante's inferno.
What has the UFCW done about this?
NOT A DAMNED THING.
Now, if you think the SEIU and the UFCW were bad, you ain't seen nothing
yet!
We're about to plumb labor's lower depths, the worst of the worst, the
union
that may very well be the worst labor organization in America today.
Of course, I'm talking about the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and
Textile Employees, UNITE.
UNITE was originally founded in 1900. It was called the International
Ladies
Garment Workers Union at that time, and was based in the garment sewing
factories in the Garment District and on the Lower East Side of Manhattan.
The members were mainly young women, mostly Sicillian and Russian Jewish
immigrants.
The officers were German Jewish lawyers, and were all males. Most of them
were members of the Socialist Party, USA, but had decidedly right wing,
pro
employer, views.
The rather grotesquely male chauvinst thinking behind having an all male
leadership was : "women only work for pin money, and they'll leave the
workforce once they're married. So, the union needs male leaders".
There was also a lot of racism, the middle class German Jewish lawyers
looked down on the Russian Jewish and Italian seamstresses, who were
"emotional" and "uneducated".
They needed "responsible" and "educated" leaders.
Sound familliar?
Remember that point; this crassly racist, sexist and elitist viewpoint
from
the leadership runs like a red thread all through the history of the
ILGWU/UNITE. And, the pratice of recruiting the union's leaders from the
ranks of the upper middle class.
The ILGWU bosses were forced to rely on the worker millitancy that they
despised throughout the early years of the union.
But, while millitant strikes built the union, the ILGWU bosses were
pioneers
in class collaberation with the garment manufacturers. They would blaze
the
pro management trail that other union bosses would follow during the rest
of
the 20th century.
After the 1910 strikes, the union bosses were seeking a way to prevent the
women in the garment shops from striking over greivances. These "gripes"
promoted "conflict" with "our good union employers".
So, the ILGWU bosses, and the employers, met with one Belle Moskowitz. Mrs
Moskowitz was the private secretary to Governor Al Smith, and was one of
the
top women in American politics in those days before women could vote.
The union, the employers and Moskowitz set up a committee. This panel
would
review ALL greivances, and no strikes would be permitted before the
committee had reviewed the greivance.
But, the committee was deliberately set up so it would drag out the
process
of greivance adjustment as long as possible. Moskowitz worked in Albany,
and
her visits to New York were infrequent. But, the committee could only meet
when Moskowitz, the ILGWU lawyer and the employer's lawyer were all
present.
So, greivances were delayed.
And, justice delayed is justice denied; in an industry with high labor
turnover, most of the greivances were moot by the time the committee heard
them.
Incidentally, if this setup reminds you of the greivance procedure in your
union, IT SHOULD.
THIS WAS THE FIRST ARBITRATION PANEL IN AMERICAN LABOR HISTORY.
And, like ALL labor arbitration panels, it was intended to PREVENT
GREIVANCES FROM INTERFERING IN PRODUCTION.
Note that I DID NOT say "SOLVE" greivances, but simply keep the workers
working while the greivance is,... well, let's be blunt...IGNORED UNTIL IT
GOES AWAY.
Just like arbitration today.
This was a turning point for American labor.
A TURNING POINT FOR THE WORSE.
The old system, of worker-millitants settling labor-management disputes at
the point of production, and using quickie strikes as a bargaing chip, had
been replaced by the bureaucratic "labor relations" system, where
greivances
were taken out of the hands of workers, so as not to disrupt production.
The members wern't too thrilled by this, so, in the 1920's, the Communist
Party began to have a major influence among New York garment workers. So,
the male lawyers who ran the ILGWU did another first, they were, probably,
the first non building trades union bosses to USE ORGANIZED CRIME TO KEEP
THE MEMBERS IN LINE.
By 1926, Jewish gangsters, and, to a lesser extent, < cosa nostra > began
to
play a major role in ILGWU internal affairs. Communist millitants had been
elected to office in the International Fur and Leather Workers Union, and
they were setting a "bad example" for the ILGWU members, by waging a
millitant strike that year, and by organizing non union employers. ILGWU
members had to be brutalized back into line.
But, the ILGWU bosses also were forced, thanks to communist pressure, to
improve conditions in the shops. This process contuned, even during the
Great Depression, and, by World War II, New York garment workers had the
highest hourly wages of any factory workers in America, and a 35 hour work
week.
But, it was all downhill after WW II. Communist influence waned, and, in
the
absence of organized rank and file resistance, conditions deteriorated.
Piece rate wages came back, garment manufacturers were allowed to use
sewing
contractors, rather than producing the clothes themselves, and labor
conditions in general began to decline.
Also, many shops were leaving New York, at first, they went to
Northeastern
Pennsylvania. Later, they went down south. By the late 1950's, the
carribbean and Hong Kong became major runaway shop destinations.
The ILGWU bosses did nothing to stop these job losses.
Instead, they figured out a RACKET, to prosper from the runaway shops, in
particular, the shops that went to foreign countries.
It was called "liquidated damages", and it's a racket that UNITE's bosses
still engage in to this very day.
The ILGWU [and later on, UNITE] Welfare Fund would sue employers who laid
off union members and moved factories overseas. The employer would settle
most of the time, and agree to pay "liquidated damages", based on benefit
fund contributions that would no longer get paid. The union got the cash,
but wouldn't have to pay any benefits out on it, so the money served as
investment capital.
Basically, it amounted to a "tax" on runaway shops, and did nothing to
stop
the pratice. If anything, it encouraged runaway shops, because now the
union
had a direct financial incentive in the plants moving overseas.
Pay and conditions deteriorated to the point that many Jewish and Italian
workers fled the industry. And their American-born offspring refused to go
into the shops, prefering to seek better paying, less arduous jobs
elswhere.
But, the employers had an ace up their sleeve, imported cheap labor.
The first cheap laborers brought to New York were American citizens. Many
African Americans had been migrating to New York from Virginia, North &
South Carolina and Georgia for decades. This process stepped up after WW
II,
as newly mechanized cotton plantations no longer needed legions of
sharecroppers to work the fields. The Farmers Home Administration also
helped the process along, by driving Black farmers into bankruptcy,
selling
their acreage to more affluent White farmers, and encouraging them to move
away.
Also, at the same time, the US government, and it's colonial regime in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, began driving Puerto Rican small farmers, <
Jibaros >, off the land. Between 1945 and 1960, about half of Puerto
Rico's
population had been, for all intents and purposes, deported to New York
City.
Many of these Black and Puerto Rican workers [including this writer's
mother, who moved from North Carolina to Brooklyn in 1954] ended up in the
garment plants.
But, the African Americans left within a few years. They were English
speaking US citizens, and jobs in financial services and civil service
paid
much better, and had less abusive working conditions. There are a few
Black
men left in the garment trade today, they are mostly to be found as
porters
in the garment district, who push carts and handtrucks from shop to shop.
African American women are almost non existant in the industry today.
The Puerto Rican workers hung around a bit longer, but, by the mid 1960's,
they began to leave the industry in droves. Today, there are very few
Puerto
Ricans in the garment trades, like African Americans, they took advantage
of
citizenship status and the ability to speak English and got the hell out
of
the sweatshops at the first opportunity.
The next victims of the sweatshops were immigrants from the Dominican
Republic, a small, predominantly Black, Spanish speaking country located
on
the same Carribbean island that Haiti is on, and Hong Kong, a British
colony
on the South Chinese coast.
These folks came into the country after 1965. That year, President Johnson
reformed the immigration laws, making it easier for Black, Asian and
Hispanic immigrants to enter the country.
There had long been a small, largely male, Chinese immigrant community in
Lower Manhattan, most of whom hailed from Hong Kong, or Guangzhau [Canton]
Province, China. After the 1965 reforms, they could finally send for their
relatives.
The Dominicans came here after the US Army and US Marine Corps surpressed
the constitutionalist forces in the 1965 civil war. As a condition of the
surrender, the soldiers of the pro constitutionalist wing of the Dominican
Army were given political asylum in the US.
Most of them ended up in New York City's Boro of Manhattan, principally in
the Uptown neighborhoods of Washington Heights & West Harlem. They sent
for
their families, and, within a few years, what had been a largely Jewish
and
Cuban American area became the largest overseas Dominican community in the
world.
A lot of Dominican and Hongkongese workers ended up in the garment
industry.
And, Chinatown actually became a major center of garment manufacturing in
it's own right.
These workers were the mainstay of the garment industry well into the late
1980s.
But, there were problems. Thanks to the almost pathologically pro employer
mentality of the bosses of the ILGWU, piecerates had been allowed to drop
to
sub minimum wage levels. But, the problem was, the Dominicans and
Hongkongese were LEGAL immigrants, and many of them became aware of their
rights in this country.
The Hongkongese workers actually went a step further.
In 1982, a strike broke out in the Chinatown garment factories. It quickly
spread to just about every sewing contractor in Lower Manhattan. The ILGWU
worked with the bosses to surpress the millitancy of these workers, but,
still, these bosses were scared.
The sewing contractors might actually have to PAY PIECERATES THAT WERE AT
UNION SCALE, for God's sake!!!
Also, as the Dominican and Hongkongese workers began to Americanize, many
of
them left the industry. The pay was horrible, the conditions worse, and
many
looked for a way out. And their children were reluctant to get anywhere
near
the garment industry.
Who would replace them?
The answer lay in Puebla State, Mexico, and Fujian Province, China.
As I mentioned above, over the last two decades, the government of the
United States of Mexico, and the bankers who control that government, have
been engaged in dispossesing the , the men and women who lived
on
the collective farms established after the Mexican revolution.
Puebla State is one of many states in Southern Mexico that has been laid
waste to by this process.
The Mexican federal government, and the various state governments in that
country, have an explicit state policy of encouraging unemployed or
underemployed workers, and dispossessed farmers, to illegally immigrate to
the United States.
Puebla state is no exception.
There are many villages in Puebla today where the entire working age adult
population is in the United States. That state as a whole has exported
about
half a million of it's unemployed workers to America.
About 300,000 of these workers ended up in New York City.
At the same time, the formerly socialist government in the People's
Republic
of China was in the process of re-establishing corporate capitalism in
that
country.
Part of that policy meant dismantling the "Iron Rice Bowl" policy set down
after the Chinese Revolution of 1949. Under the Iron Rice Bowl policy,
every
Chinese was supposed to have a guaranteed job for life.
But not anymore.
The Chinese government's policy of re-establishing private capitalism,
officially instituted back in 1976,[it's officially known as the "Four
Modernizations" program. Actual official slogan - "To get rich is
glorious!!"] , has led to upwards of 200 million Chinese losing their
jobs.
Yes, brothers and sisters, you read right.
That's TWO HUNDRED MILLION.
200,000,000 men and women jobless in the PRC today.
So much for "to get rich is glorious!!"
Most unemployed Chinese had to suffer in silence, or try to look for a job
in the new factories that produce for export to America.
Fujian is a coastal province, though, with a long tradition of smuggling
and
piracy.
The Fujianese had another option.
Leaving.
And leave is exactly what many did.
But, it's a long haul from the PRC to the USA.
Most folks travel by land to Myanmar, then across that country, and then
they take a freighter. Some of the ships come to America directly, others
go
to Venezuela, or Mexico, or Panama, get fake travel documents, and then
walk
across the border to America.
And this costs money. The smugglers, known as "snakeheads" charge upwards
of
$ 40,000 dollars a head. That price has earned Fujianese illegal
immigrants
the nickname "fourty thousand dollar men" among other Chinese Americans.
A lot of the Fujianese end up in New York City, upwards of 100,000 of them
are here now.
And, these desperate illegal aliens, from the fishing villages of Fujian
and
the little mountain towns of Puebla, are now the mainstay of the garment
industry workforce here in New York.
These workers are a perfect fit for the sewing contractors. Many are
heavily
in debt to immigrant smugglers when they arive, and must begin payments
right away, or else. Also, generally speaking, they are unfamilliar with
what constitutes a "good wage" in an American context. Due to these two
factors, they can be paid just about anything.
And, as illegal aliens, they're less likely to quit and find a better job.
Unlike legal immigrants, who, as we've seen in the past, have deserted the
sweatshops in droves once they get a foothold in America and learn the
language.
By this time, the ILGWU had changed it's name, to the Union of
Needletrades,
Industrial and Textile Employees, UNITE. They had absorbed what was left
of
the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, the labor organization
that represented workers who make men's suits and work clothes, and
textile
mill employees.
Both organizations had been shrinking for years.
The ILGWU had 388,000 members in 1955, 210,000 members in 1985 and 123,000
at the time of the merger in 1995.
The ACTWU's predecessor unions, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers and the
Textile Workers Union of America, had 210,000 members (ACWA) and 203,000
members (TWUA) in 1955, the merged ACTWU had 228,000 members in 1985, and
129,000 at the time of the 1995 merger.
Combined, UNITE had 252,000 members in '95, but has since shrunk to
205,000,
as of 1999.
Much of ACTWU's shrinkage can be attributed to their failure to organize
Southern mills on a large scale. Once the mills in New Jersey and
Massachussets began to move south and/or overseas, their membership
numbers
imploded as well.
With the ILGWU, much of their membership decline came from runaway shops
also, and, as we've explored above, the ILGWU bosses acted hand in glove
with many of those employers, due to the "liquidated damages" scam.
But, there was also the phenominon of many New York shops that were
nominally union, but paid below minimum wages and shamlessly violated the
union contract at will, deciding to go totally non union. This trend
accelerated with the influx of Fujianese and Mexican illegal immigrants
into
the industry.
The bosses found that they no longer needed the union to keep wages down.
Plus, they didn't want a repeat of the 1982 strike, always a danger if the
shop is even nominally union. Also, ILGWU Business Agents have a
longstanding pattern of extracting bribes from bosses in return for
violating the contract.
No union contract = no more bribes to pay.
Incidentally, the now non union bosses have sort of found a wage floor.
They
compete head to head with delis for labor, and they can't pay lower wages
than the restaurant bosses, or they lose employees. Also, the wages that
rich New Yorkers pay their nannies also acts as a floor, because the
garment
bosses recruit seamstresses from more or less the same labor pool the rich
people hire servants from. Again, if they pay wages too low, they lose
employees.
UNITE itself appears to have written off any possibility of re-organizing
these workers. The union has, instead, gotten itself into the not for
profit
social services business. They have "garment workers justice centers" that
they operate.
The centers provide immigration law advice and other social services to
illegal aliens and their families.They also provide legal advice on job
problems, but the focus isn't on struggling with your co workers to
correct
collective injustices, but lawyers and social workers "advocating" for
INDIVIDUAL WORKERS with the boss, to get that person's problems corrected.
In other words, UNITE has completely made the transition from collective
bargaining to individual begging.
The "justice centers" are racially segregated, of course, one for the
Chinese workers, one for the Mexicans, because you wouldn't want workers
of
different races in the same organization, now would you? That might lead
to
solidarity, and we wouldn't want that.
To the extent that UNITE does ANY organizing, it's outside it's
traditional
jurisdiction. Currently, UNITE's main organizing targets are commerical
laundries, and South Florida nursing homes.
UNITE has also been heavily involved in promoting the "anti sweatshop"
movement among middle class students at elite colleges. They even use the
members dues money to subsidize a group with the grandiose name of the
National Labor Committee, run by a psycologist named Charlie Kernaghen.
Now, considering the fact that there are many sweatshops within walking
distance of UNITE's New York City headquarters, it's puzzling that the NLC
almost completely ignores the sweatshops right under their noses. This may
have something to do with the fact that many major New York clothing
manufacturers are still, nominally, signatories of UNITE contracts, even
though almost all their clothes are actually made by non union sewing
contractors.
Instead, they rail against sweatshops in Myanmar [a country that they
racistly insist on calling by it's British colonial name, "Burma"], China
and Pakistan, among other foreign lands. This dovetails nicely with the US
government's foreign policy towards those countries.
On those rare occasions when NLC attacks an American-based clothing
company,
it's usually one based in Los Angeles or the South. Those firms are
commercial rivals of the New York-based clothing manufacturers, of course.
Even when NLC has campaigned against sweatshops in American sattelites
like
El Salvador, Guatemala or the Dominican Republic, its usually been against
sewing contractors that make clothing for Los Angeles or Southern based
firms.
That's why they single out the Gap, and Nike, and Guess Jeans, and Wal
Mart.
The NLC, despite taking garment worker's union dues money, is very
reluctant
to build a movement among garment workers. That would be politically
dangerous for the bosses of UNITE, they really don't want to stir up the
membership.
Instead, like the "living wage" movement that we discussed at the top of
this article, the anti sweatshop movement's mass base is among middle
class
college kids. The main focus of the campaign has been to get elite
colleges
to buy team uniforms and clothing with the school logo on it from American
companies, rather than those who import their merchandise.
Of course, this is merely a case of substituting items made in foreign
sweatshops with items made in American sweatshops.
But, according to NLC, THERE ARE NO AMERICAN SWEATSHOPS! They actually
make
the almost unbelivable claim on their website : [http://www.nlcnet.org]
that
American garment workers make an average of $ 8.47 an hour.
Now, this suposed $ 8.47 an hour average wage, as low as it is, would be
news to the garment workers toiling away on Canal Street and 8th Avenue in
Manhattan, who make far less. I suspect that many garment workers in
Talladega, AL, or Waycross, GA or Fayetville, AR would also be surprised
by
that wage.
But, this figure is based on a Bureau of Labor Statistics survey.
And, of course, we all know that sewing contractors WOULD NEVER LIE TO THE
GOVERNMENT, now would they?
I'm sure that UNITE's statisticians are fully aware of the REAL average
wage
in the garment industry in America. But, I guess it would be embarrassing
to
post THAT figure on the website.
In any event, we've had a glimpse at what is wrong with the AFL-CIO's low
wage unions. I know this article has been lengthy. It actually could've
been
longer, I didn't even explore some other unions that are as bad or worse
than the SEIU, UFCW and UNITE, labor organizations like the Hotel
Employees
and Restaurant Employees International Union, to cite just one of many
examples.
But, what's the answer?
I belive it is very important to organize workers in the lower paid
sectors
of the American workforce, the workers in ; building service, day care,
the
taxi industry, garment manufacturing, agriculture, supermarkets,
meatpacking, landscaping and many other industries.
But, the AFL-CIO's approach is so wrong it's pratically a crime.
First of all, the workers need to ORGANIZE THEMSELVES, and THEY have to
lead
the battle. These workers don't need any condesending saviors, no matter
how
well meaning, to rule their struggles from a study hall.
Second, there is no substitute for American standard of living wages. To
HELL with "living wages" that are set at the subsistance level, low wage
workers need to get high wages, not chump change "raises" that will merely
push them into a higher tax bracket and make them ineligible for food
stamps
and state insurance.
I belive that the current membership in unions like the SEIU, UFCW and
UNITE
is going to have to sieze power from the current bureaucracies that
control
those unions.
It will be difficult for them to do this. Thanks to the low wage betrayals
of the union bosses, even organizing an opposition will be difficult.
Among
the consequences of low wage unionism are; high employee turnover; workers
having multiple jobs; union members with little or no free time for self
education or activism and workers who lack personal transportation,
internet
access, long distance service, or even home phones.
Also, some unions, in particular UNITE, but to some extent the SEIU as
well,
have gone out of their way to racially segregate the membership. Chinese
workers are isolated from Mexican workers, Mexican workers are segregated
from Chicano workers, and foreign workers in general are segregated from
White American and Black American workers.
This will make fighting these union bosses even harder. But it's
necessary,
no, it's essential, that the forces of "low wage unionism" be driven from
the labor movement.
But, what kind of unions should these workers build?
Well, I have, again and again on GANGBOX, put forth the concept of
revolutionary unionism as the only viable alternative to business unionism
in the building trades. But revolutionary unionism is also a valid model
for
other unions as well.
Basically, the local unions need to be run by elected rank and file
delegates, on paid release time from their jobs, with officers
subordinated
to the council of delegates.
The delegates would; have final say on all financial expenditures of the
local, coordinate collective bargaining with the employers, supervise the
officers, and most importantly, back up the shop stewards in their role of
resolving greivances in the field. All of these officials, delegates and
officers alike, would recieve the same wages the members get.
In other words, if the workers are making $ 12,000 a year, that's what the
officers would get. No bloated salaries, no $ 70,000/yr + a car and a
credit
card in these unions.
All delegates and officers would be elected, and would serve 3 year non re
electable terms. After 3 years, they would have to work for a minimum of 3
years in the field before they would be eligible to run for office again.
Similar delegate-based leadership structures would replace the current
international union and intermediate body [districts and joint boards]
setups.
And, it goes without saying that the century old pratice in UNITE of
having
Business Agents who never worked in the industry would be strictly
prohibited. Instead, nobody would be eligible to run for office unless
they
worked for a minimum of 3 years in the trade.
Bargaining with the employers would be conducted by the delegates, and
would
be in the open. Bargaining sessions would be held in a public place, with
members and the media free to attend, and, where necessary, simultanious
translation provided. Members would recieve a weekly summary of the
bargaining in the mail, those with internet access would recieve a daily
update. Said updates would be translated as necessary.
Once a settlement was reached, a full and complete copy of the agreement
would be mailed to each member, with the text translated into all the
major
languages spoken by the membership. There would be a discussion period of
at
least 10 full business days before the vote, and at least two special
called
meetings of the local would be held during that time so the members could
discuss the agreement. After the discussion period, the members would have
an opportunity to vote on the proposed pact.
The base of this type of union would be the shop stewards. Each work
location would have a chief steward, and one assistant steward for each 25
employees, or one for each supervisor, whichever formula would allow a
greater number of stewards. In locations with more than one shift, there
would also be an assistant chief steward for each shift.
The stewards would be elected to 1 year terms, and would be permitted to
serve a maximum of 3 consecutive terms.They would then have to step down
for
at least a year before being eligible to run again. Stewards would also be
allowed to simultaniously serve as delegates.
The chief steward, assistant cheif stewards and assistant stewards would
form the shop committee.
The stewards main function would involve solving greivances at the
jobsite.
Notice I said "SOLVING greivances".
Not just "reporting" greivances to the BAs, so they can bury it in
arbitration.
Assistant stewards would have the authority to negotiate with first line
supervisors, and, if necessary, shut down production in their area until
the
matter was resolved. The chief steward, and the assistant stewards would
have the authority to negotiate with the senior management people at the
faciltity, and would be authorized to shut down the entire work location
so
as to resolve a greivance.
Within 3 business days, the local union would have to step in, and either
resolve the greivance to the members satisfaction, or declare a sanctioned
strike.
Now, for the last 100 years, and especially the 53 years since the passage
of the Taft Hartley Act, most union officers have functioned under the
premise that their job is to BREAK LOCAL STRIKES.
Instead, revolutionary unionism would operate under the assumption that
the
job of the delegates, officers and BAs who run the local is to ASSIST
LOCAL
STRIKES.
This in and of itself would be a major change in how unions operate.
But, to have this kind of millitancy be a viable strategy, we need to
organize the vast number of unorganized workers in the low wage
industries.
And the NLRB method just isn't going to do it. It's too slow, too
expensive
and too management oriented.
Instead, I would propose the method of recognition strikes. Preferably,
area
wide strikes of all the workers in that industry in a locale, or nation
wide
strikes of all the workers at that particular employer. This is the method
that build the unions up in the first place, back in the late 19th century
and during the 1930's.
The way I see it, that's the only realistic way of organizing the tens of
millions of low wage workers in retail trade, the garment industry,
meatpacking, agriculture, domestic service, landscaping and child care,
among other industries.
We also need to deal with this "living wage" business. The so called
"living
wages" are set at far below a middle income American standard of living.
As
I mentioned above, they are usually based on the Bureau of Labor
Statistics
poverty line, which is set at a starvation standard of living.
Instead of that starvation wage, I'd call for advocating American standard
of living wages instead.
Concretely, that would mean that, an unskilled worker should be able to
support himself/herself and 1 dependant child at a middle income standard
of
living in that metropolitan area. That means a nice, well furnished
apartment with cable TV and internet access, nourishing food, a full
wardrobe of relatively new clothes, personal transportation and a
resonable
allowance for savings.
Basically, I'm talking about roughly $ 25 + an hour in major high cost
cities like New York, and roughly $ 20 + an hour in metropolitan suburbs
and
lower cost major cities. And we're talking about making the bosses
guarantee
an 8 hour day, 40 hour week, and a 50 week work year + two weeks paid
vacation. And, needless to say, full family health insurance, paid for
100%
by the employer.
Now, we may not be able to achieve this on the first go round.
But, we're NEVER going to bring the low wage worker up to that standard if
we keep asking for starvation level "living wages".
Also, some structural changes with the unions are in order.
Generally speaking, the locals need to be reorganized so as to allow
member
control of the union. In the case of factory workers, that means, where
possible, local unions that only represent the workers in one plant. In
the
case of craft locals, that means locals that cover a relatively small
geographic area.
In the SEIU's case, large locals with tens of thousands of members that
often cover whole states have to be reorganized, and broken up into
smaller
locals. For example, local 1877, which represents building service workers
in most of the State of California, I'd suggest breaking up that local,
and
replacing it with several locals, each only covering one county or city,
or
part of a city.
For example, the building service workers in Downtown Los Angeles should
have their own local, with another local for East LA, South Central and
Long
Beach, another local for West LA, ect. Also, the building service workers
in
Oakland would get their own local, another local for Berkley and suburban
Alameda County, and so on, until every county in California had it's own
building service workers locals.
Or, let's take the case of the SEIU's health care jurisdiction, and the
union's largest local, the 250,000 member local 1199 in New York. That
local
covers 3 entire states; New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, and
represents every profession and trade in health care, except for MD's,
dentists and psycologists.
If you really think about it, that doesn't make any sense at all.
Except bureaucratically, of course.
Quarter million member locals that cover hundreds of thousands of square
miles are "efficient", in a sort of Mussolinieque way.
They also tend to have uncontested elections, and there are no pesky
membership meetings to worry about.
That local cries out for a breakup.
In it's place, I would suggest seperate New York City-wide locals for each
profession, that is, an RN's local, a social workers local, a pharmacist's
local, ect. Also there would be seperate locals for each profession in
Westchester, the Hudson Valley, Long Island, the Capital District, Central
New York , Rochester, Buffalo, Western New York, the St Lawerence Valley,
ect, and also seperate locals covering those occupations in the various
counties and cities in Jersey and Connecticut.
The pharmacy clerks also deserve their own locals in each of those areas,
seperate from the pharmacists. The nursing home workers also deserve their
own seperate locals in each of those areas, as do the home attendants, and
the private EMTs and ambulette drivers.
As for the non professional employees in the hospitals, [that is, LPN's,
nurses aide's, ward clerks, dietary workers, houskeeping and security],
the
larger institutions should have their own locals. That is, seperate locals
for Columbia Presbyterian, New York Hospital, Long Island Jewish, SUNY
Downstate, Methodist, Sloan Kettering, ect. The workers in the smaller
hospitals could be in seperate area wide locals, together with employees
at
HMO clinics and private doctor's offices.
A similar pattern of reorganization could, and should, be repeated at the
other huge SEIU locals, like New York building service local 32b-j.
That local would make a hell of a lot more sense with seperate locals for
resedential building service workers in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn,
Queens, Staten Island, Westchester, Long Island, Hudson County, NJ, Essex
County, NJ, Bergen County, NJ, Nortwestern New Jersey and Central New
Jersey
and seperate commercial building service workers locals for Manhattan, the
Bronx and Westchester, Brooklyn and Queens, Long Island and New Jersey.
And,
the window washers should get their own local back, and the allied service
workers at the racetracks and arenas should also have their own local.
These smaller, more geographically compact, more homogenous, locals would
be
more democratic, and the members would be able to get more accountability.
A similar pattern should happen in the UFCW. Factory workers should have
their own one plant locals wherever possible, except for special cases,
like
the furriers, where there are a large number of small shops in close
geographical proximity in Manhattan's Garment District, and workers tend
to
move from company to company.
As for the retail clerks and the butchers, they need to be in
geographically
compact craft locals. For example, this writer's old local, local 1500.
That
local represents about 20,000 cashiers and grocery clerks in New York
City,
Long Island, Westchester and the Lower Hudson Valley.
In it's place, I would propose seperate locals representing retail clerks
in
the Boros of Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and
the
Counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Dutchess and
Orange.
The New York area butcher's local, 174, should be split up along the same
lines, with seperate retail butchers and meat wrappers locals in each of
those boros and counties. Plus, the wholesale butchers at the Hunt's Point
Market, the Brooklyn Terminal Market, the Meat Market District on Little
West 12th Street in the West Village and the 12th Avenue Meat District in
Harlem should each have their own local.
Or, let's look at another UFCW local [that, as luck would have it, I am
also
a former member of] the catch all local 888, that covers miscelanious
factory and retail workers in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and
Eastern
Pennslyvania.
The factories in that local should have their own one plant locals. Like
Hartz-Mountain, the 400 employee cat litter factory in Jersey City, NJ. Or
Bakers Pride Oven Company [my former employer, 1988-90] where 100 workers
make pizza ovens in New Rochelle, NY.
These locals would be small, and probably wouldn't be able to afford full
time officers.
Which is a GOOD thing in my book, nothing makes officers accountable like
them having to work under the contract they negotiate.
The retail clerks in 888 should be reassigned to the clerk's local that
covers the area that they are in.
UNITE should also be reorganized along these lines. The larger factories,
that have a more or less permanent workforce, should each have their own
one
plant local.
Now, there is the matter of the garment districts. There are major cities
that have areas where there are a large number of small sewing or cutting
contractors, in close geographic proximity. These companies basically
"share
a workforce", that is, workers are essentially temporary employees, who
move
from contractor to contractor.
New York City actually has several garment districts. The most famous one
is
the Garment District in Midtown Manhattan, which runs from West 24th
Street
to West 41st Street, from 6th Avenue to 9th Avenue. But there are also
garment districts in Chinatown [that one is actually larger than the
midtown
garment district, in terms of employees], Williamsburg, Brooklyn, and the
district that straddles Bushwick, Brooklyn and Ridgewood, Queens.
There is also the huge garment district in Downtown Los Angeles, which is
the biggest in the country. And there are smaller garment districts in
Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, Miami, San Antonio, El Paso, Chicago and
San Francisco, and up in Canada in Toronto and Vancouver.
Each one of these districts should have an area-wide seamstress/sewing
machine operator local, and seperate craft locals for cutters and porters.
Some of the larger garment districts might have to have more than one
seamstress local, due to the sheer number of members. These locals should
also force the employers to submit to a hiring hall system, so the jobs
are
divided up in a fair way.
Also, clothing store employees, commercial laundry workers and theatrical,
motion picture and trade show seamstresses should have their own
geographically compact craft locals.
The objective in all of these cases is to make locals small and compact
enough so that the membership gets to have the final say in how the local
is
run, and so that the delegates, officers and shop stewards actually have
to
have accountability to the membership they serve.
There is also one final question that we have to address. This is a
question
that we all have to bite the bullet on, low wage unionist or not.
That is, the Big I - Immigration.
The current position of the labor movement is essentially the Wall Street
position, that is; bosses should be allowed to have unrestricted
immigration, so they can import the cheapest labor they can find from the
four corners of the planet.
This position is destructive to the labor movement.
We've seen above how illegal immigration was used to batter down wages in
building service, the meatpacking industry and the garment industry.
So, as responsible labor activists, we have to call for limits.
Now, some may say that the "humanitarian" position to take is to support
the
right of every unemployed an/or underemployed person on the planet to come
to America.
But, that's an extremely shortsighted view. And, if you've ever seen close
up just how these illegal immigrants are forced to live, and the brutal
working conditions they suffer, as I see every day, then, like me, you'd
question how genuinely "humanitarian" that position really is.
Instead, I would propose this :
- full citizen rights for legal immigrants. All persons who have entered
this country legally, and posses either a resident alien work permit
["green
card"] or an H-1B or H-2A visa, and have been in America for more than 60
months, should get full citizenship. They should have the same rights,
priviliges and immunities as native born citizens, and should not be
subject
to denaturalization. All legal immigrants who have resided here for less
than 60 months should have the above mentioned full citizenship bestowed
on
them after the 60th month of residence.
-illegal immigrants. There should be two catagories; There should be a
parole for SOME illegal aliens. Specifically, those who entered this
country
legally through student or tourist visas, and then overstayed, and/or
illegal aliens who, after their illicit arival, have made an effort to
live
here legally, who work on the books and pay taxes, and/or illegal
immigrants
who have children with US Citizens or legal immigrants.
Those persons would have to complete a 120 month parole. If, during that
time, they have not committed any criminal activity [and that includes tax
evasion and working off the books], they should be admitted to the
resident
alien work permit,or "green card", program. After 60 months, they should
be
enrolled as US citizens, with the same rights, priviliges and immunities
as
native born US citizens.
Now, for the balance of the illegal aliens; Those illegal aliens who work
off the books, evade taxes, or live on wages that are far below the
American
standard of living [that is, the $ 20 dollars for 10 hours day laborers
who
live 12 to an apartment], those illegal aliens who engage in criminal
activity, [in particular those who forge documents, and those who engage
in
immigrant smuggling] and illegal immigrants employed off the books and/or
below minimum wage in industries with chronic unemployment, [agriculture,
construction, ect] should be given the opportunity to be voluntarily
repatriated to their country of origin.
Upon repatriation, they should have the opportunity to apply for a visa to
enter this country legally.
Those who choose to not accept voluntary repatriation should be formally
deported. And barred readmission to this country for a period of not less
than 10 years for any reason whatsoever. Individuals who are voluntarily
repatriated, and then attempt to reenter the country illegally, should
also
be subject to deportation, and a 10 year readmittance ban.
Those who attempt to violate the 10 year readmittance ban should be
deported
and barred from readmission for life. Also, any future illegal immigrant
should be subject to deportation, and a lifetime ban on entering the US.
Voluntarily repatriated individuals should also be permitted to recieve
unemployment benefits for 26 weeks, paid at the maximum rate, after they
have arrived in their country of origin. Their employer or employers in
the
US should be billed for the UI payments, and their US employer or
employers
should also pay in full the cost oftheir air fare home, and the cost of
moving their personal effects and furniture home. Deportees would merely
have their air fare covered, and would recive no UI benefits.
-of course, the illegal immigrant worker shouldn't have to take all the
heat. We have to go after the demand side as well. There should be a legal
presumption that anyone who hires illegal aliens knows their true
immigration status. [as opposed to the current rule, which allows all but
the dumbest employers to claim that they somehow don't know that they hire
illegals].
Bosses who hire illegal aliens should be subject to a fine of not less
than
$ 100,000 dollars, per immigrant, per quarter. That is, employing 5
illegal
alien employees for 1 full year = $ 2 million dollar fine , employing 1
illegal alien for 1 day = $ 100,000 fine.
Also, the employer should, as I mentioned above, pay for the full cost of
voluntary repatriation/deportation, and should be further subject to civil
liablity for compensating the Social Security Trust Fund, the Medicare
Trust
Fund, the IRS, and state and city tax authorities for evaded taxes.
And, they should also be criminally liable for tax evasion. Finally, any
employer who hires even 1 illegal immigrant for even 1 day should be
barred
from reciving any federal, state, city or public authority contract for
not
less than 15 years. Agricultural employers who hire illegal immigrants
should be subject to removal from federal price support, subsidy, Public
Law
480 overseas commodity sales and loan guarantee programs, for not less
than
15 years.
-Finally, the H-1B and H-2A indentured worker visa programs should be
abolished. If a boss has a "labor shortage", they should be directed to
PAY
HIGHER WAGES and/or TREAT THEIR EMPLOYEES BETTER. If they allegedly "can't
find skilled labor", they should be directed to SEND AN AMERICAN OR A
LEGAL
IMMIGRANT TO COLLEGE AND/OR TRADE SCHOOL.
A limited number of non resident work visas should be granted to
performing
artists who have exceptional talents. There should be no more than 10,000
of
these visas issued in any one year.
-Beyond illegal immigration, legal immigration should be limited to
500,000
persons per year. If US unemployment increases by 1%, that quota should be
subject to being reduced by 10%.
The labor movement itself has to put the squeeze on these bosses who
exploit
illegal immigrants. Any boss who hires illegal immigrants should be
subject
to picketing and secondary boycotts; that is, no pickups from, and no
deliveries to, their place of business.
Now, some may say that I'm a "racist" or, to use a five dollar word,
"xenophobic", for not welcoming unlimited immigration with open arms. But,
the polling data is clear, a majority of Americans, espeically African
Americans, want immigration reduced.
The data isn't broken down by social class, but, based on GANGBOX reader
feedback on the subject over the last 2 years, I suspect that most of the
folks who are for immigration limits are working class people.
The cold hard fact is, we're not going to be able to raise the wage
standard
for low wage workers unless we get a handle on labor supply. And we can't
do
that without eliminating illegal immigration. A hard fact to face, but,
it's
a reality nonetheless.
This is an even harder fact to face due to the fact that many of the anti
immigration organizations in America are, in fact, run by White
Supremicists. This makes it very difficult for working class activists
like
me who oppose illegal immigration on labor, rather than racial, grounds.
But, this is a reality we must face if we ever want to bring the low wage
workers up to American standard of living wages.
Thats it for now.
Be union, work safe.
============================================================================
PREVIOUSLY:
FALL OF THE HOUSE OF LABOR..PART I : "...we are no longer a member of that
association" ; the disaffiliation of the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters
and Joiners of America from the AFL-CIO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gangbox/message/4738
FALL OF THE HOUSE OF LABOR...PART II : run off the road: the crisis in
America's largest blue collar union, the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gangbox/message/4855
******************************************************************************
NEXT:
FALL OF THE HOUSE OF LABOR...PART IV civil servants and
professionals...labor's last hope....or labor's last gasp?
FALL OF THE HOUSE OF LABOR...PART V, gone down the line : the decline of
the
industrial unions in American heavy industry
FALL OF THE HOUSE OF LABOR...PART VI, strong unions, on a short government
leash: the railroad brotherhoods and the airline unions
FALL OF THE HOUSE OF LABOR..PART VII, the Los Angeles County Federation of
Labor, or, American labor's nightmarish $ 7 an hour "future"


--=====================_43417635==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


FALL OF THE HOUSE OF LABOR...PART III "low wage unions"; UNITE,
SEIU, UFCW 

and the new frontier of union label sweatshops 

By Gregory A. Butler, local 608 carpenter 

A spectre is haunting the American labor movement; the spectre of
"low 

wage 

unionism". 

For the last half-decade, union bosses from AFL-CIO frontman John Sweeney


on 

down have been talking about "living wage campaigns", and
"low wage 

unionism". They've been joined in this chorus by "labor
advocacy groups", 

like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now [ACORN],


the 

Prewett Organizing Fund and a plethora of "anti sweatshop" and
"living 

wage" 

coalitions, dominated by the clergy, upper middle class students from


elite 

colleges and the not for profit social services community. 

Now, unionizing low wage workers, on the face of it, sounds like a hell
of 

a 

good idea. 

TIL YOU LOOK AT THE FINE PRINT. 

These folks aren't talking about ORGANIZING LOW WAGE WORKERS AND GETTING


THEM HIGHER WAGES. 

They're talking about ORGANIZING LOW WAGE WORKERS, BUT KEEPING THEIR PAY


AT 

ABOUT THE SAME LEVEL AS IT IS NOW. 

In other words, the workers will still make chump change, but they'll
have 

to pay union dues for the privilige of being underpaid. 

Doesn't sound quite so good now, does it? 

The worst form of competition is competition between workers. 

And, illegal immigration, workfare, prison labor and substandard wages
are 

the worst form of inter-worker competition. 

To make matters worse, the unions, and other supposed "allies of
labor" 

are 

now joining in with the employers, and are PROMOTING low wages and
illegal 

immigration. 

We can see this most clearly with the "living wage campaigns".


One of these campaigns is quite high profile now, the campaign that just


ended at at Cambridge, Massachussets's world famous Harvard University.


For 

the last several weeks, a group of Harvard students, 38 at first, then


dwindling down to 26 at the end, had been staging a building occupation


at 

the campus, protesting the university's pratice of paying low wages to


it's 

building and food service workers. 

This has gotten a lot of media coverage, as well as praise from many
labor 

activists. 

But, there are some troublesome aspects of this "living wage
campaign" 

that 

have not been closely examined. 

The first conflict I see is the whole patronizing aspect. 

We see affluent, predominantly White upper middle class kids 

"advocating", 

that is, speaking for, poor, largely Black and Hispanic cafeteria workers


and cleaners. 

As if those workers can't speak for themselves, and need
"educated" people 

to talk for them. 

Second, the fact is, these workers are union members, represented by
local 

26 of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees. 

However, the union bosses have taken a backseat to the student activists,


and let the kids lead the show. The members voices have been kept silent,


except for some extremly patronizing "victim interviews" with
the press. 

Beyond that, let's look at the "living wage" that the Harvard
students 

were 

demanding on behalf of the folks who feed and clean up after them. 

$ 10.25 an hour. 

Now, where did this figure come from? 

According to the website of the student activist coalition , at: 

[http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~pslm/livingwage/originalpage/contents.html]


they based the figure on THE CURRENT LOWEST WAGE PAID TO CITY EMPLOYEES
BY 

THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSSETS. Somehow, because $ 10.25 an hour is


the best that the city employee unions can get out of the City of 

Cambridge 

for the lowest paid titles, that means that, automatically, $ 10.25 is a


"living wage". 

Even though $ 10.25 probably had a lot more to do with City of Cambridge


budget shortfalls than it did with any attempt to tie wages to the cost
of 

living. 

Remember, Cambridge's city officials face a common college town problem,


THE 

BIGGEST "BUSINESSES" IN TOWN ARE 501 (c) (3), THAT IS "NOT
FOR PROFIT 

CORPORATIONS". Harvard University, Radcliffe College and the
Massachussets 

Institute of Technology DO NOT PAY A DIME IN TAXES, and a huge portion of


the city's landmass is off of the property tax rolls, due to the 

properties 

being controlled by Harvard, Radcliffe and MIT. 

Also, many of the city's most affluent residents, the students, are
"non 

residents" for tax purposes. Technically, they still
"live" with their 

parents, and that's where they pay taxes, not in Cambridge. 

Thus, the City of Cambridge subsidizes these elite Ivy League colleges
[or 

"7 sisters" in the case of Radcilffe] by providing city
services free of 

charge. Cambridge provides police protection, fire and EMS service, 


garbage 

collection, fixes the potholes and keeps the water flowing, but gets no


tax 

revenue in return. 

And Cambridge's non university affilliated residents pay the price, in
the 

form of higher taxes [ever wonder why they call it
"TAXachussets"? now you 

know]. 

Cambridge city employees pay the price also, in the form of low salaries.


Thus the $ 10.25 an hour wage. 

As it happens, the student coalition is aware of this. You see, according


to 

studies cited on the very same student website, it takes $ 17.47 for a


single parent and her child to sustain a minimal lifestyle in Cambridge.


That's right, SEVENTEEN DOLLARS AND FOURTY SEVEN CENTS. 

NOT $ 10.25, but $ 17.47. 

And, when I say MINIMAL lifestyle, I mean; 

no savings, 

no h