Posted by rflacks on: Fri 8th Jun, 2012

If I have anything to say in the aftermath of Wisconsin it
will not be to simply join the chorus crying defeat and disaster.  Those far away from the actual struggle, like
me, have the luxury of distanced reflection, of course. The results of the
election are surely heartbreaking for thousands, not only because of the
physical and mental investment, but because a victory would have been truly
marvelous, would have been able to be seen as a real turning point for new
possibility.

You've heard all the interpretations based on the huge
amounts spent to save Walker. Surely such torrents of right wing cash are
threatening, but I have to say that I've always found the campaign finance
analysis of power much too simple and not usually the key to understanding how
important elections are decided. Walker’s funding probably helped him in the early
stage of the recall, to overcome negative approval ratings, and therefore
dilute the emotional ground for a recall. Maybe too the advertising onslaught
in the early phase helped instill the idea that ‘recall’ itself was a tool only
to be used in the case of official crime. But that idea may well have been
widely believed all along, and close watchers of the campaign indicate that the
recall campaign was weak in framing messages to the independent voters that would
enable them to see how their interest and lives might be affected by the
outcome.

The Wisconsin movement for workers’ rights is, I believe, an
historic one. The million signatures for recall, and the million plus voters
for recall are quantitative evidence of the fact that Walker’s anti-worker
moves helped mobilize and engage a huge ‘base’ that included many people not
directly hurt by his initiatives. Real solidarity is possible in 21^st
century America, we learn. There are a lot of people hungry to participate in
collective action for justice and democracy. I assume that the movement has now
a great resource in the names and coordinates of thousands of activists and has
created many new lines of communication across the state. In fact, one of the
main gains of a big electoral project—no matter what the results of the vote—is
precisely the identification of a large number of people who share some significant
political perspectives and values. And many of these folk have shown in these months
that they are ready for direct action as well as electoral politics.

Is there a way for this grassroots network to carry on an
effective fight from here on—not only to defend collective bargaining for
public employees, but more importantly for jobs and justice for working people?

The Wisconsin election may not have been the worst for
public workers. Here in California, voters overwhelmingly approved cuts in pension
rights for public workers in San Diego and San Jose. San Jose is historically something
of a labor town, so these votes can’t be attributed to right wing populism. On
the contrary—in San Jose people were voting in the context of closed libraries
and fire stations. They were deciding whether pension entitlements of public
employees were as important as the public services they were losing. After San
Jose, many mayors and o=governors will be more confident about proposing
pension ‘reform’, feeling assured that the popular will is with them.

If we assume that this is a problem for the public employee
unions to solve on their own, we’ll be abdicating our own social responsibility
and political need. The issue at hand goes beyond the matter of pensions—though
that is not a small matter. It’s about the common good. Public worker unions do
need to  come to the community with a
clear expression of their commitment to public service—telling not only how
much many have in fact sacrificed in the way of wages and benefits but making
concrete pledges about their commitment to the people they are paid to serve.
They need to try to shape the emerging debate about their rights and roles so that
the social needs they fulfill are understood and foregrounded. And they have to
engage fully in clear efforts to achieve tax justice as key to alleviating the
fiscal crisis.

I think the future of unionism requires new definitions of
who belongs. Emphasis on contract bargaining as the definition and goal of
union activity can no longer work. Social movement unionism—whose goal is to
speak for the interest of all workers whether or not covered by contracts—is the
only framework that makes sense anymore. We need to see more effective experiments
in creating union structures that anyone can join and have some voice in.
Structures that are not focused on collective bargaining but on social change at
local and regional and state levels.

Maybe a good example right now is the National Nurses Union
(whose roots are in the California Nurses Association). NNU is certainly
organizing for collective bargaining. But simultaneously they are imaginatively
mobilizing for social change—in their case taking the lead on the idea of a “Robin
Hood Tax”. In such efforts they are making use of a good deal of creative
direct action and guerilla theater, and opening their activity to people who
support their goals and not just the health workers they are directly representing.

The idea, first broached by Fernando Gapasin, of creating
citywide labor membership organizations through Central Labor Councils is now
an idea whose time has come. It’s a good way of envisioning how people who want
to participate in struggles for worker justice can be brought directly into an
organizational framework that gives them a say in the labor movement (and pay
some dues!) even if they aren't  in a
unionized workplace. Formats like this seem to me to be a promising way to
broaden the perspective, the language and the reach of the unions. As Fernando
Gapasin puts it in advocating a new institutional structure for the labor
movement:

“Creating community cultures of solidarity is related to the
issue of developing labor movements that embrace the 88% of workers who are not
in unions and create an inclusive labor movement that fights for the interests
of all workers, not just the 12% that are in institutional unions”.

This week’s elections should spur us to think in these
terms.

+++++

Here in Santa Barbara, the primary elections went pretty
well, despite low turnout. All the candidates supported by progressives—for county
board, state legislature and congress—were successful. There will be a tough congressional
race between Lois Capps and her GOP opponent Abel Maldonado because of
redistricting. The Republican PACS see this district as one of the few where
they may be able to capture a democratic seat and so millions will be poured in
here by them. Hopefully the Democrats in this district will now unite to support
Lois and Hannah Beth Jackson in November. 
Two other instructive results: Despite a quarter of a million dollars
spent to try to pass a measure giving public land to a private developer, the
measures was defeated 2 to 1 by environmental groups and neighborhood residents
with few dollars at their disposal. Money doesn't always talk. On the other
hand, two school finance measures, both supported by 65%, failed to pass
because prop 13 requires them to have 2/3 voter support. The capacity of the
right wing minority to veto democratic will is a major barrier to rational
policy now in the USA. The measures in question were opposed by the SB New-Press billionaire owner Wendy McCaw.
I like to say that no one pays attention to her editorials—but in this case 500
people out of 25,000may well have (as Nick
Welch points out in the SB Independent this week)/

 

 

Tags: Wisconsin recall, future of labor unions, Santa Barbara election

Share