On Wisconsin
Posted by rflacks on:
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 21st
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)/
10 Comments
Comment by Chuck Flacks on
I find your continued faith a union solution, or central labor council structures both disappointing and troubling. If 88% of American workers are not unionized (Krautheimer says 93%), it would seem to me that calls for greater union-backed mobilization are myopic at best and delusional at worst. It's the cry of the cockeyed optimist: I know there must be a pony in here somewhere. To me the logical focus of organizing, and the idea comes from you, should be young people--remember Youth and Social Change? This strategy may have been the lynchpin in the Obama victory of 2008 and may be his undoing in 2012. We see from the so-called Arab Spring, that youth who recognize that the cards are stacked against them can bring down regimes (at least temporarily.) In the United States we are witnessing the greatest intergenerational income transfer and public sector policy transfer from young to old in history. The statistics on youth unemployment, even among those with some college, are alarming. Most now recog I've that this may be the first generation to be downwardly mobile. The occupy movement was a start, yet, I'm not sure that deep roots in active communities were planted. But, rather than using the outmoded language of 1930s labor organizing, those on the left should be organizing students to protest short-sighted austerity by government, and idiotic and inhumane ranting on the right. Many students are so engaged in combatting on-campus racism and homophobia or protesting Israeli injustices -- yet they ignore the institutional racism of prisons, schools, and public policies that stress "freedom" over the collective mutual interests of us ninety-nine percenters. It's high time the left stops beating dead horses and starts beating the drums of social justice, fairness, equality and the rewards of collective action by youth. They are, quite literally, our future.
Comment by Joe Treasure on
These strike me as entirely compatible strategies: a new kind of labor organizing for a largely non-unionized workforce; and a radical youth movement for students and the young unemployed.
Comment by Brigitte Seligman on
Public workers in San Diego and San Jose approving cuts in pensions maybe indeed some new "right wing populism" to be acknowledged. It may also explain the 38% percent of union households who supported Walker. Who were they? Non-public workers,unemployed, hostile to see tax dollars going to provide generous pensions to "brothers" in the public sector or just plain tired of too many unrealistic demands not met.
Comment by Marc Flacks on
Dick is right that American unions need to look beyond narrow organizing of workers in specific economic sectors, but I would add that they should be looking even more broadly to organizing the Workers, Small Farmers, and Small Business Owners Of The World, and to get them to unite not only in opposition to global corporations, but also in common around distinctly American ideas of individual dignity and free association. I think this is what Dick and Mickey used to call, "Jeffersonian Socialism"? It will need a different name now, but somehow, the overweight American who buys underpriced products at Walmart, needs to be connected--politically, culturally, even spiritually--with the underpaid, underfed, overly controlled Chinese worker who makes those products, so that both of them can improve their lives. Of course, this new global producer consciousness will have to include environmentalism--i.e., a new kind of global consumer consciousness--as well. America's traditions of individual empowerment (labor unions, yes, but also fraternal organizations, small churches, voluntary orgs, etc.) are not outmoded, but should be celebrated as models for folks around the world. I was at a Grange Hall last weekend. How many Americans are aware of the history of the The Grange movement--a fraternal organization that served both as a mutual aid (i.e., communal) society for family farmers as well as political advocacy? Nobody today in rural America could accuse Grange Halls of promoting "European socialism", but I think they represent the Jeffersonian spirit that the left should again be embracing and exporting today. The Grange's motto was/is: "In essentials, unity; In non-essentials, liberty; In all things, charity." There are Grange Halls in nearly every rural community across America, and most can be rented out at a reasonable price. I could imagine growing a new, exportable, Progressive movement in America in such spaces--more than I can imagine such a movement growing in tent camps in urban parks. The left shouldn't deny the notion of "American exceptionalism"--it should embrace it, and claim it as its own, and use it as the basis for a critique of Global Capital (whose motto, if it has one, is pretty much the opposite of The Grange's). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Grange_of_the_Order_of_Patrons_of_Husbandry
Comment by rflacks on
Paulina says: Just wanted to let you know I went to your blog and also read the Gapasin essay on organizing. You know Peter and I are single-payer health care ( improved and expanded Medicare-for-All at the national or state level) advocates. Economists will all tell you that we can save billions of dollars, provide excellent private health care for everyone, increase meaningful jobs, and do this all for less money than now being spent if we create a government monopsony. There would be one complete plan with no co-pays or deductibles for everyone as we do not want any barriers to care. It is also cheaper to not have to add this bureaucracy for collecting extra payments at time of service. All government health care money in the system would continue ( already between 50% and 60%). The rest would be made up with payroll and income taxes instead of premiums that have been costed out to be less for most people (93% of the population) than what businesses and individuals currently purchasing health insurance and using the system would pay. Minnesota, Maryland, and New York all have new studies that verify the savings. Interesting reading if you are interested. But how do we get people to organize and demand what is right and just for all in health care financing and delivery? The issue is complex. The ignorance is great. The intertwined corporate insurance, private for- profit, competitive rather than cooperative health care delivery, and campaign financing of our elected officials are a tough combination to untangle and will take millions of people in a "culture of solidarity" to conquer. Gapasin certainly explains why organizing unions for single-payer health care reform is so difficult. With a national top down strategy communication is lost and organizing can not occur. The only people communicating are the leaders. You can not get a mass movement that way. Also if Union funds are providing health care there is a disincentive to do what is best for the workers but rather to continue what is financially beneficial to the union leaders. Sometimes it is difficult to see the difference between union leaders and corporation leaders. I like Gapasin's essay. Many thanks for keeping social justice issues, dissent, and organizing alive.
Comment by rflacks on
Jim, a veteran labor organizer writes: Membership numbers alone don't describe a union's influence. I would point to France (and who wouldn't like to?) where union membership numbers are pretty much the same as here. Yet, the unions are able to mobilize huge masses of workers to demonstrate and strike on a regular basis. Marty Morand points out that most union countries have legally mandated collective bargaining with a "works council" elected by the workers. If a certain sense, the unions in factories function more as political parties (of a newer type.) I don't normally cite Lenin these days, but he said something like this: a bolshevk should not be like a union official--but a tribune of the people. Given this, we need to transitiion from a union movement to a labor movement (that represents the interest of all workers.)
Comment by rflacks on
A long time and astute local political analyst Lots of attention paid to small turnout but not much about how heavily conservative the universe of voters really was: Statewide Obama was only +4 over Republican presidentials combined, which I expect will look more like +10 in November. In SB County, it was a tie - Obama 49.2% - Reps 49.3% - which means GOP ran +17% over registration, another anomaly due to low interest among independents, I think. Among other things, thinks school folks should have waited on the parcel taxes. :
Comment by rflacks on
A veteran community activist in Berkeley: Thanks for this thoughtful post. I agree with your call for unions that are part of a social movement, and that help to create that movement. It's hard for me to take claims that unions represent "the 99%." If they were fighting for something beyond their own wages and benefits, something that benefited everyone--say, single payer health insurance--those claims would be persuasive. But most of them aren't. With respect to municipal public employee unions, I'm struck by the gaping differences between the compensation enjoyed by uniformed employees--police and firefighters--and managerial staff on the one hand, and other city staff. The salaries and benefits that CA city managers are receiving are outrageous. In Vallejo, the poster child for municipal bankruptcy in the U.S., the new city manager is being paid $270,000 a year (contract signed in January, I believe). I don't know what kind of benefits he's getting. In Berkeley, the council just unanimously approved a $225,000 salary for our new city manager, who, like all other Berkeley employees, contributes nothing to her retirement or health care (59% of salary). This from the same council that in 2010 couldn't find $80,000 to keep the only public pool on Southside (poor part of town) open over the summer; the pool (Willard) was subsequently filled with dirt. The average salary on the Berkeley police force in 2012 is $125,652, plus 66% of that in benefits (plus 7.66% in workers comp). I support collective bargaining. I'm opposed to making people depend on the mercies of the stock market for their retirement (401k). But I'm also opposed to lavish salaries and benefits for public employees.
Comment by Joe Bader on
Thanks for the excellent post Dick. You and I discussed Gapasin's idea years ago and it always made sense to me that non-union workers and citizens should be able to "belong" to organized labor in some way. This is especially true with only 12% of the entire workforce unionized. And frankly I don't see much evidence that those numbers will improve anytime soon. What really disturbs me living in the extremely RED state of Arizona (don't believe pundits who say it is about to turn blue. Those of us who are active in progressive politics here don't see THAT happening anytime soon, no matter what the left wing political science gurus say) is that SO many people simply do NOT participate or show any interest in voting or politics. In this state, and i assume many others, the Democratic Party has no cache whatsoever. About a third of the registered voters here are "independents". If we can't mobilize the youth in large numbers like Chuck Flacks suggests, i can't see how we can win very many, if any, progressive victories. People not only don't want to participate in our increasingly corrupt electoral system, they don't want to become active at ANY level. What do we do about that?
Comment by Cheryl on
The progressive movement needed in this country will be one of students, unions, women, minorities, health care advocates, environmentalists, occupy, left groups (hopefully).... I'm not sure if one group is more important than the other, but I do know that each of us needs to think about the splintering of the movement. Occupy seemed to pull everyone together for a brief time, sigh... I like the idea that unions are expanding their membership as Dick describes. Unions have found the need to go beyond collective bargaining to fighting for social reform. Look to the Labor groups: Labor Against the War and Labor for Single Payer. Leaders in these two groups like the National Nurses United (NNU) have found allies in other groups fighting for similar social reform. Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) works closely with all three groups (shameless plug as I am a PDA chapter chair in Northern Arizona), but we are just one group that works with these labor groups as they have been forming alliances both locally and nationally. And as an example of expanding union membership, many of us in PDA have affiliate membership in the NNU. I was happy to hear that progressives did well in Santa Barbara. Our last local election in Flagstaff gave the right control of the counsel. We will need to regroup and form a bigger coalition of people who want to see a sustainable future for Flagstaff - we have a 60% liberal vote here, but many did not vote. I wish I was not as discouraged as I am.