Opinion
" Chicago's Big Box Living Wage Vote"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (July 26, 2006)
Today in Chicago the big showdown between Wal-Mart and their allies, and community and labor advocates will play itself out as the Chicago City Council votes on a proposed ordinance that will lift the wages of workers in large retail businesses in the city. The vote is important not just for workers in Chicago but has real and potentially huge implications for communities across the county. We could see a landmark policy decision today that expands the scope of living wage laws beyond city employees and contractors and transforms it into one that can be used to create standards in industries, like retail, that continue to drag down the economic reality of working people.
The vote is also important because the battle over the public's opinion has laid out, pretty plainly, the contrasting arguments that have shaped the debate around Wal-Mart and its new urban agenda. For Wal-Mart and their allies the arguments have essentially been:
1. We/You need jobs 2. We/You need places to shop in our community that are affordable 3. If you make us pay living wages we'll pack up our smiley face and cheap underwear and go someplace else 4. We can't afford to pay more
The first two arguments are serious and can't be taken lightly. With the release last year of the Community Service Society's report on the disconnect between Black males and the workforce in NYC and more recent reports that place a national perspective on this grim reality, we need real initiatives to address the fundamental problems underlying this issue. I'm pretty sure that Wal-Mart, by itself, is not one of those solutions. However, simply dismissing the crisis level economic chaos in the African American community is offensive and smacks of the elitism we often find in progressive circles. But accepting the trick bag of false choices that leaves us with affordable goods and services and a continuing cycle of poverty because of low-wage jobs is equally offensive. In the aftermath of the 1992 uprising in Los Angeles there was a loud cry for jobs and services in South LA. The response from the development world was, "take what you can get 'cause no one wants to come here". When confronted with a large and well resourced corporate entity called Rebuild LA, South LA residents decided not to just accept whatever was on the table but instead to create a set of "development standards" that they forced RLA to adopt as the framework for any development deals. Since then, community developers who were part of the process have been successful at brining in businesses, including the big boxes clamoring for inner city dollars, all while holding true to the community-developed standards. Negotiating from a position of desperation will never get us what we need.
The last two arguments are not serious and can be taken lightly. The market dictates that Wal-Mart and others open up this new front. There's no other place for them to go. Inner city markets like chicago's represent disproportionate consumer purchasing power. It's a cash cow, if Wal-Mart doesn't make the money someone else will and they know this. And the nonsense about going broke is insulting. Wal-Mart pays the $9.50 required by Santa Fe, New Mexico's living wage ordinance and they are not going broke or closing shop. In fact they are opening a new super center.
So I agree with my friend and colleague Mark Winston Griffith when he says that "progressives must go there". The "there" in this case is to the land of real solutions for the problems that plague inner city neighborhoods. For the left to continue being nothing more than the loyal opposition is tired. Expanding living wage is a real and proactive policy solution. Chicago should embrace it, NYC should embrace it, Philly should embrace it, LA should embrace it, and on and on 'til the break of a new dawn...
"Charter School Blues"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (July 5, 2006)
For the past several months I've been hip deep in a parental "right of passage" that I never realized was so complicated or draining until it began. "The kindergarten" question has consumed my every non-working moment since the beginning of the year when I, like countless other parents, began the seasonal ritual of finding a new school for our 4 and 5 year olds.
Many parents add to this already stressful time by inserting private school options into an already complicated excel spreadsheet. For the most part, my excel matrix only included public schools. But having to research, visit, and apply multiple variables of "pro" and "con" to every school was enough to send me to bed at night in a cold sweat. And then another parent attempted to add another layer of complexity to my search by suggesting that I add charter schools to my list. She was considering one for her son and thought it might be a good placement for my child as well.
Because I had already (mostly) settled on a school I didn't give the charter option much thought beyond "what's the difference" and "what is the possible advantage". And then last week I came across a story that would have made the decision for me if my mind had not already been (mostly) made up.
It is the story of Williamsburg Charter High School in Brooklyn and a hapless teacher who dared to suggest that the school have a consistent salary scale and even perhaps, sshhhh, a union. For her concern for the working conditions of her fellow teachers (not so much herself, she was making about what unionized teachers make) Nichole Byrne Lau and two of her equally concerned colleagues were summarily dismissed by the founder and CEO of the school.
Their crimes? Nichole printed out and distributed the salary schedule for NYC public school teachers to her colleagues, another teacher asked why the employer 401k contribution was not showing up in reports, and yet another teacher asked if a salary schedule existed and how it had been set. Their questions were met, not a with a comradely meeting to resolve issues, but with a memo from the founder and CEO that essentially said, "this is my school and if you got a problem with it, come see me". Teachers did not need to make the decision to "come see him" because he began calling staff in for individual meetings. The outcome of those meetings for some teachers was a cool firing, and surely for others, it was a lecture on the consequences of trying to organize. Standard employer intimidation tactics.
This story would be bad enough if Nichole had not received outstanding evaluations, and high praise from her bosses and students. The CEO even stated that her work performance was not the reason for her firing, leaving no doubt that the reason was for daring to ask for "better" for her colleagues. But it turned outrageous and nasty in the post-firing panic by the CEO who attempted to slander her in the press by saying that Nichole hated children and was a racist. This, after her students organized a petition drive to have her reinstated.
So, what does this say to me as a parent? While I'm sure that there must be good charter schools out there the overall conditions can't bode well for a stable and consistent learning environment for children. Charter schools operate within an industry where standards for teacher compensation have been set by employers and unions, thus creating a "high road" approach for working conditions in this sector. When charter schools opt out of this approach they become no different than low road employers in any other industry.
The mission statement for Williamsburg Charter High School says that "Fairness, justice, respect and compassion..." are what the school is about. Asking teachers to impart these noble values to our children while they are denied them by the school administration, smacks of deep hypocrisy. Saying one thing while doing the opposite is not the lesson I want my children learn.
"Unionizing Wal-Mart China"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (June 21, 2006)
In 2004 Wal-Mart China announced that if its associates wanted to form a union, Wal-Mart would support their efforts. Well, maybe it wasn't quite so encouraging. It was more like, "we won't stop you but you can only affiliate with the All-China Federation of Trade Unions".
Wal-Mart agreeing to unions seemed an odd step. An indeed some in the media were skeptical. Harold Meyerson penned a piece titled 'Wal-Mart loves Unions (in China)' that looked critically at the All-China Federation of Trade Unions and questioned WMs willingness to align with an authoritarian regime and their related trade union association. Meyerson had a great line about WM values, "The noblest of the Bush administration's goals, surely, is that of spreading democracy ... When America's largest employer feels more affinity for the political legacy of Mao Zedong than for that of Franklin D. Roosevelt, it's time to start democratizing our own back yard". There are, apparently, some transparency issues between the ACFTU and the Chinese government.
Obviously, many questioned the ACFTU's style of trade unionism, where little to no time is actually spent trying to increase wages or improve working conditions. But with that said, many foreign companies have agreed to abide by Chinese law that makes the formation of a union mandatory if workers ask for one. It seems to make sense, saying yes to the union is a mostly painless process and saves a company from numerous headaches down the line. All markers seemed to indicate that Wal-Mart would make the concession and nothing would be done to actually improve the lives of workers within WM China. Sure you can unionize, whatever.
Fast forward two years and What?! No WM stores in China have a union? Shock of all shocks. Even with a sweatheart deal with the nations only labor federation Wal-Mart cannot bring itself to allow talk of union membership in any store, in any country on this planet. Their initial response? Well, of course, no workers asked for one. A position that they later backed away from because, of course, workers have asked.
Now the ACFTU is pissed. And while they may not do collective bargaining, they got it in for Wal-Mart. But of course, most labor federations across the globe have it in for WM, including our own two. The difference is the ACFTU's relationship to it's government and the government of China's "acknowledgement" that low wages and poor working conditions are resulting in social unrest. And increased social unrest presents a roadblock to China's phenomenal economic expansion.
Wal-Mart vs. China. With the NBA championship decided and the US about to get tossed from the World Cup by Ghana tomorrow, this has got to be the hottest ticket going. Even better than the hometown version: Wal-Mart vs. the Bronx.
"Striking in Silence"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (June 14, 2006)
April 3, 2006 marks an important day in the lives of some sanitation workers. Not because it was the day before the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. in Memphis while he was there supporting striking trash collectors. But because it marked the day that more than 100 sanitation workers represented by the Teamsters went out on strike here in New York City. And for the last 10 weeks, with barely a whisper of media attention, they have continued to maintain their picket lines and their commitment to fighting for themselves and their colleagues on the issues of pension, heath care, and overtime pay.
In sharp contrast to the media circus that surrounds the transit strike, the members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, local 813 have largely been striking in silence. They haul trash for 10,000 commercial vendors in the city including Yankee and Shea stadiums. The issues in the strike are all too familiar to us now. The workers are fighting for the benefits and wages that helped make their jobs worth doing given the hazardous conditions that they work in every day.
Their fight is against a company called Waste Management Incorporated. Waste Management enjoys about $350 million in contracts from NYC. They earned over $1 billion (that's "B") in profits in 2005 on the backs of their workers. And because they refused and wouldn't come to a negotiated settlement with the workers, they imposed a contract on the sanitation workers at the end of last year. And, of course, the workers went out on strike, their last recourse in trying to negotiate with a hostile employer.
A hostile employer who must also address a sticky little environmental justice problem. WMI has a bad habit (more than any other large trash haulers) of siting their waste transfer stations in largely Black and Latino communities. Not a new phenomenon but coupled with the fact that most of the workers represented by local 813 who are getting their take-home-pay and benefits slashed, are also Black or Latino and come from those very communities, you can begin to see the huge insult and burden being placed on communities of color.
This strike has gone on for close to three months. These workers would like to get back to work. But rightfully, they are willing to suffer on the picket lines, even if it's in silence, to maintain a decent standard of living for themselves and their families.
"Sweatshops will end poverty as we know it"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (June 7, 2006)
"Africa desperately needs Western help in the form of schools, clinics and sweatshops". And so begins the dumbest opinion piece ever written. In his op-ed published yesterday, NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof puts forward his version of the "any job" approach to ending poverty in Africa.
To begin with, it is offensive (not to mention stupid) to suggest that the staggering poverty that we stand witness to in Africa can be solved simply with the proliferation of sweatshops. The issues are large and complicated and are deeply rooted in a history of exploitation and non-investment from the West. From gross post-colonial under-development to modern day structural readjustment programs that reduce African nations (and other developing countries) to being forced participants in promoting the economic priorities of the West over their own domestic priorities.
"Well-meaning American university students regularly campaign against sweatshops. But instead, anyone who cares about fighting poverty should campaign in favor of sweatshops, demanding that companies set up factories in Africa". Huh? Let me make sure that I understood that. If we want to end poverty we should support economic strategies, like the proliferation of sweatshops, that will insure its entrenchment. Yeah, that sounds like a plan.
Are we really blaming Sweatshop Watch and United Students Against Sweatshops for poverty in Africa? They raised the profile around issue of exploitation and exposed the corporate behavior of US companies, like Nike, outside of our boarders. We should be thanking them for putting a spotlight on working conditions, child labor, and yes, the obscene difference between what it costs to produce a sweatshirt and what it is sold for on college campuses.
Ironically, the piece actually makes the case that it is the lack of infrastructure in poor countries that make it difficult for stable industries to take root, not 20 year old college students from Oregon. So back to that old lack of investment and misplaced priorities thing again and we can through in corrupt governments supported by the US for good measure.
In a similar piece, Paul Krugman lectures his critics by asserting that "... as long as you have no realistic alternative to industrialization based on low wages, to oppose it means that you are willing to deny desperately poor people the best chance they have of progress...". Yes of course, because demanding decent wages would be out of the question. And debt relief, so that poor countries can focus their resources on domestic priorities well, now that's just crazy talk.
The whole argument in both of these pieces is disgustingly reminiscent of arguments to maintain slavery in the US. "Without slavery, what will they do? How will they eat? Where will they live? We're actually doing them a favor". Exploitation is better than nothing.
Now we allegedly care about "security". And we apparently have some understanding that there is a direct relationship between poverty and instability in the world. President Bush is suddenly concerned about "instability in Somalia". Ya think? Sweatshops are defined by their exploitation of men, women, and children. They produce poverty. Exploitation produces resentment, and we know the rest. So why on earth would we be advancing a sweatshop proliferation strategy? There is a high road out of poverty and we should stop pretending that we can't find it.
"Chicago vs. Wal-Mart"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (May 31, 2006)
When Wal-Mart targeted Chicago as one of it's first entry points into urban communities it turned once likely allies into the worst kind of adversaries. There were stories about Ministers who had been part of the anti-Wal-Mart coalition who suddenly flipped and showed up at public hearings to speak in favor of the big box giant, flooring organizers who thought they were there to speak in opposition. Aldermen, whose support organizers thought they could count on, seemed to lose all vision for their districts when the promise of low-paying jobs was dangled in front of them.
But apparently the windy city never says never. They've hinged their hopes on a big-box ordinance that would not only require big-box stores to contribute to the health care costs of their employees (like New York City, Maryland, Suffolk County, and the attempt in NY State) but would require them to pay their workers a living wage. A great addition to the big box tool kit, designed by the Brennan Center for Justice.
The coalition (which has been pushing this ordinance for two years) is now poised to pass the legislation having organized a majority of supporters on the city council. Wal-Mart's defensive strategy is poised to open up the same old rifts between what should be allies. The set-up is clear. African American communities vs. white communities, big labor vs. communities of color, urban centers vs. inner-ring suburbs. I recently had a conversation with a NYC business community insider who characterize Wal-Mart's lobbyist as bumbling and clueless. But the Chicago strategy is a brilliant (although old and tired) display of exploiting existing tensions among those who should be consolidating their forces to demand higher standards (or any standards for that matter) for neglected communities and marginalized workers.
Chicago remains a case study for NYC and there is a lot at stake here for communities and the organizations that are moving an agenda for poor and working people. With growing poverty in NYC communities can not afford the Wal-Mart business model. Undermining wages and driving down standards for workers is not the anti-poverty initiative that NY should be offering to the world.
"For the Good of Everyone... let's prioritize"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (May 24, 2006)
Three articles today have caused me to question what "opportunity", "hope", and "fairness" really mean nowadays. There is no end to the stream of stories about poverty, despair, and the increased burdens being heaped on the shoulders of the working-class in this country. Unfortunately, there's no debate about solutions and the tone of the articles is usually cynical and harsh on the poor.
Today was somewhat of an exception. The first article was on the growing unease of the elite in Mexico. With the presidential elections only weeks away, there is a real potential that Mexico could join other Latin American countries in a wave of leftward motion by electing Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (candidate of the Democratic Revolutionary Party and would-be Robin Hood) as president. Obrador's campaign slogan, "For the Good of Everyone, the Poor First", apparently is more than the rich can stomach. The thought that they may have to pay some taxes (a responsibility they've loop-holed their way out of) in order to meaningfully address staggering poverty throughout the country, is driving the wealthy to threaten to flee the country to places that respect the right of the upper-class to thumb their noses at the poor, like Miami. We've spent the last few months deep in an immigration debate that acknowledges that crippling poverty is what causes people to risk life and limb to cross the border. We decry the two-class system (rich and poor) that exists in Mexico and demand that the Mexican government do more. And yet with more tax breaks for the crazy rich in this country, deeper cuts for social programs that alleviate the impact of increasing poverty for people in this country, and an unchecked market economy that continues to find new lows for the bottom of our wage scale, can we actually say that we are headed in a different direction?
The second article was on the increasing rents and fees being imposed by New York City on public housing residents. Are we comfortable with NYCHA balancing their budget on the backs of NY city's poorest residents? Hard to see how it's fair that those who struggle the most to make ends meet should have to be responsible for bailing out the housing authority. Take from the poor, to give to the state, to be redistributed to the rich. A not so new twist on Robin Hood.
And redistributed how? The last article was on the 421A problem. City Comptroller Bill Thompson is speaking out on an issue already being "spoken on" by the Pratt Center, ACORN , and others. How does a program go from being one designed to increase the number of affordable housing units for working-class families to one that subsidizes the development of luxury housing for the rich?
"For the Good of Everyone, the Poor First" is a statement about priorities. Ours, it would seem, are completely distorted.
"Hevesi Weighs in on Subsidy Reform Debate"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (May 17, 2006)
An audit released yesterday by the office of the state comptroller found that 2/3 of Industrial Development Agencies across the state did not meet job creation goals. While this news is not a shocker (NY Jobs with Justice issued a report last week showing that 63% of IDAs give subsidies to companies that cut jobs once they receive tax breaks) it does add a new dimension to the growing calls for subsidy accountability in the state.
Hevesi's report was accompanied by draft legislation that reinforces the kinds of reform measures being pushed by the NY Initiative for Development Accountability. The Comptroller is calling for:
- Annual "report cards" from each of the State's 115 IDAs in a standard format, with detailed information on job creation, tax breaks to companies and actual Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) made by projects.
- Standardized IDA project applications.
- Objective criteria for review of IDA projects.
- A uniform project agreement that requires projects to provide job data to IDAs or lose benefits.
- Provisions to recapture, or "clawback," benefits if projects do not meet job creation goals or other terms of their agreements with IDAs.
- Increasing financial caps on IDA projects for "civic facilities" such as dormitories for educational facilities, hospitals and senior citizen housing.
While these are critical elements toward insuring that communities get a real return on their investment, the ultimate point of evaluation for working-class communities is what kinds of jobs resulted from the investment. It's simply not enough to say that with an investment of public capital, jobs will be created. For poor and working-class communities the quality of those jobs will mean the difference between being able to afford to live in your community and being gentrified out, and out, and out.
We need clear, consistent measures of accountability but we also need higher standards of expectation for what kinds of jobs businesses produce. Those opposed to quality jobs and better standards have begun to rear their heads in recent days. Some openly suggested that if we are competing with the global south our only chance is to decrease wages. It's shocking that those who set and implement economic policy in this state would openly admit to trying to reduce wage levels here to those of third world counties. Certainly we know that that is the strategy, but I didn't actually think that they talked to the press about it. So it's an open fight now. We want living wages, they want jobs that pay sixty-four cents an hour. What will Bruno and Silver say?
"Giving Away the Farm"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (May 10, 2006)
When public subsidies are used to spur job creation, what's the penalty for cutting jobs once you've received the money?
Generally, the answer is that there is no penalty. Companies can make promises, get tax breaks, and not only not live up to the promises that they've made, but cut badly needed jobs from struggling communities. Today's Metro reports on a study released in Albany yesterday that shows that 63% of Industrial Development Agencies around the state gave money to companies that created no new jobs, and, in fact, contributed to job loss. This is not a new story and yet we continue to uphold policy that in no way leads to greater economic opportunity for the communities that give up their tax revenues.
Current reforms being proposed in the state legislature raise critical questions about expectations and outcomes. They are intended to shine the light on the issue of job quality, not just the numbers. Wal-Mart received $8 million in IDA subsidies in a two year period while the average wage for workers remains less than $14,000 a year. State agencies should not be in the business of subsidizing poverty.
As we move ever closer to the end of the legislative session in Albany and approach the inevitable late session horse trading season, the question looming on the horizon is which reforms will make the cut. The job quality reforms must go hand in hand. Prevailing wage for construction without Living wages for permanent jobs undermines a community's chances for economic viability. And living wages without local hiring provisions undermines the community itself.
Ultimately we must get to the question of should public money be used to subsidize private developments. But until then we must to set conditions and standards for how we expect corporations to behave with our money.
"The Minutemen care - about African Americans?"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (May 3, 2006)
No, seriously. Today, the Minuteman Project will launch a nation-wide caravan to counter the huge and successful marches and demonstrations for immigrant rights that we've witnessed over the last several weeks. Driving across the country, the caravan will attempt to gain support for their anti-immigrant cause by focusing on jobs or, in fact, the jobs lost that they attribute to the presence of undocumented immigrants.
Caught in their cross-hairs of their fear-induced road trip is the African American community. "They are the most harmed by illegal immigration, and it's time that we focused our efforts in our inner cities,". While the Minutemen plan on highlighting the economic plight of African American men, they don't ACTUALLY plan on stopping in any inner'city African American neighborhoods. But the caravan kick-off will have the inevitable Black spokespeople in attendance, Ted Hayes, founder of the Crispus Attucks Brigade, and the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny. "Who?" you say. Exactly.
The numbers of Black men out of the workforce in this country is a national disgrace and when you add the number of unemployed black men to that list it begins to look like a national crisis. And then when you add the number of African American women living below the poverty level, the unfathomable decline of union membership among Blacks, and the number of African American kids who are attending poor schools and not graduating from high school, the problem is almost too staggering to name. But what does all that have to do with undocumented immigrants? Those living in this country without papers do not set economic policy, do not set hiring policy for companies, do not control policy or the flow of resources to public education, do not control workforce development policy or programs, have not systematically eroded our social safety net over the past 30 years, and on, and on. Najee Ali an African American activist in Los Angeles said it best in an LA Times article, "If there was not one undocumented immigrant in this country, blacks would still be unemployed due to factors of discrimination, lack of job training, lack of education and other social factors... It has nothing to do with undocumented immigrants".
But this outrageous attempt to pander to the fears of the African American community, none-the-less, has the real potential to gain traction. So what's the counter? Building alliances with African American organizations that have a presence on the ground. Meaning, an actual base that is regularly in motion. Community leaders and ministers are a first step, not the last. Jesse Jackson, God love 'em, does not sway Black opinion in the way that people would like to believe. There is an economic analysis here that everyday African Americans can relate to when framed properly. And we need to be careful about message and framing. Rinku Sen alludes to this in her last post. Moving messages that include "immigrants do the work that no one else in this country will do" is not well received among Black people (or poor and working-class whites for that matter). Andrew Friedman's now infamous posting has unearthed the degree to which poor and working-class people are willing to attack each other instead of focusing on a common enemy.
There exists, in this moment, the potential to repel groups like the minutemen, to continue the shift in public opinion around this issue, and to set some good policy at the same time. Deepening existing relationships among constituencies, forming new and innovative partnerships, and African American organizations seriously confronting this issue within the rank-and-file will be key.
"Race and the Politics of the Transit Strike"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (April 26, 2006)
I continue to be surprised by the level of distain for Roger Toussaint and TWU local 100 that is expressed in the mainstream media. The coverage of Monday's rally of support and march across the bridge to the Tombs was filled with ridicule, condescending language, and general disrespect. And there appeared to be, just as during the strike, distain for the very notion that the current fight of these workers is tied to the legacy of the civil rights movement in this country. At first I thought it was that the mainstream has a hard time linking struggles. They are better at understanding labor struggles, immigrant struggles, civil rights struggles as separate and isolated phenomena. But now I wonder if it could be that mainstream America has yet to recover from the demands imposed on them by the civil rights movement, could never accept King's final call for economic justice, and now views all calls emanating from the Black community for social or economic justice with contempt?
More than 1,000 people, marched and rallied on Monday. Most of the protesters and marchers were Black. The demeaning tone of the coverage seemed to suggest that anything organized by Black people with hints of the civil rights movement, is actually little more than vaudeville. Something to be ridiculed and demeaned. A NYT article led with "In an act of street theater intended to recall the civil rights movement of the 1960's". A Times opinion piece referred to the 1,000 plus gathering of activists to voice their anger over the jailing of a labor leader as a "pep rally". It further went on to describe the protest as a two act opera that Toussaint had orchestrated for himself. The Post, of course, had its usual slew of ridiculous headlines like "Jailbird on Parade" and "Marching on Tombs-day, Roger's jail production".
Race has been an undercurrent in the fight since the beginning. The public sector remains one of the few places where Black workers have some density in jobs that offer decent wages and benefits. Any attacks on public sector workers is automatically an attack on the economic viability of the Black community. From Bloomberg's "thug" comments to an interesting NY 1 poll that got almost no coverage in the press during strike, race has been present. The poll revealed that about 54% of New Yorkers, overall, believed that what the union was asking for was reasonable. But it also took a look at how New Yorkers felt along racial lines. 35% of white New Yorkers blamed the union for the strike, while only 12% of Blacks did, and 17% of Latinos. Only 38% of whites thought that the unions demands were fair. But 75% of Blacks and Latinos thought that the union was justified in its demands.
When I watched the broadcast coverage of the march that evening, reporters on the street asked mostly white commuters if they thought Toussaint deserved what he got. They all said yes, although a couple anchors weighed in with "well, there was a mix of comments so those don't reflect what all New Yorkers think". But balance in reported apparently wasn't an issue. As I rode the 2 train home to Brooklyn that evening my own "woman on the street" experience made the poll real. Tired West Indian and African American workers piled into the train car, saw my TWU local 100 bandana and said "did they put in jail? That's a damn shame."
"The Full Court Wal-Mart Press"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (April 19, 2006)
Is this it? Is the battle about to be joined? Is Wal-Mart now fully prepared to force New York City to accept them warts and all? Well if the motion over the last couple of days is any indication the answer is yes.
NY 1 quotes Council Speaker Christine Quinn, being always consistent in her position that Wal-Mart is bad for NY, at a Crain's Business Breakfast yesterday. And apparently Wal-Mart has been doing its rounds to Council offices in an effort to gain support for a store in all five boroughs.
But most disturbing is the release of a survey reported in Crain's that essentially says that 60% of New Yorkers want a Wal-Mart in the city and 62% of those would like one in their neighborhood. The survey by Voter Consumer Research also reveals the greatest support, 75%, comes from low-income communities. I'm certain that there are any number of groups that could conduct their own survey and get different results. But none-the-less, these numbers suggest that those who understand the negative impact that Wal-Mart has on communities, simply are not reaching the right constituencies with the right message.
Wal-Marts' business model of low-prices, low-wages, and low-benefits has had the effect of driving out competition (meaning local business), increasing poverty in the neighborhoods where they operate, and forcing huge numbers of their employees on to public assistance programs. The long-term damage to workers and our economy far outweigh the immediate need for cheap stuff.
What NYC needs is a good organizing drive. One that focuses on organizing low-income and working-class neighborhoods around a community standards platform. One that brings neighborhood people together to analyze the clear implications of Wal-Marts model. And one that builds a unified front that will not accept poverty jobs in exchange for a smiley face and company cheers. It won't take much to turn those public opinion numbers around, we can't be duped so easily. But we are a bit behind on this and before Wal-Mart spins it into a story about how unions are thwarting the destiny of low-income communities of color, we better get busy.
"State Senate Republicans Calling for Subsidy Accountability?"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (April 12, 2006)
Last week Republican State Senator George Maziarz, penned an op-ed in The Buffalo News calling for significant reforms in the way that Industrial Development Agencies (IDA) across the state hand out tax-payer dollars to businesses. In the coming days he will introduce sweeping reform legislation in the Senate that could drastically alter the expectations for companies that receive public subsidies. An identical bill will be introduced in the Assembly by Democratic Assembly Member Bob Sweeney, a long-time advocate of IDA reform.
The anticipated introduction of this legislation comes as a flurry of activity is taking place around the state on the issue. Last night, the Ulster County Legislature passed a resolution, 31-0, supporting key reform measures including wage and environmental standards, increased reporting and transparency, and measures for recouping subsidies when promises have not been met. The Rockland and Erie County Legislatures have both introduced similar resolutions aimed at consolidating support for the passage of state-wide reform. And on this coming Monday in Rochester, Buffalo, and Yonkers community activist will be joined by their local and state representative to commemorate Tax Day by holding press events and demonstrations calling for greater accountability in the use of public dollars and higher expectations for the recipients of our generous subsidies.
This subsidy accountability campaign represents one of those critical opportunities to tie upstate and downstate communities together, to identify and work on common problems, and to resist the temptation to fight one another for dwindling state resources. Real and meaningful subsidy accountability gives our regions, communities, and neighborhoods an important tool to alter how development happens and how economic strategies are implemented. Ultimately for both upstate and downstate communities, we need comprehensive economic strategies that are about increasing the quality of jobs, increasing access to those jobs, and developing communities in a healthy and sustainable way. Passing IDA reform this year will take us a long way toward more strategic and focused use of our tax dollars.
"Like a good neighbor, Wal-Mart is there"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (April 5, 2006)
Just when I thought Wal-Mart couldn't look any more desperate in its attempt to salvage its crumbling image. Yesterday the NY Times reported on the Wal-Mart Jobs and Opportunity Zones, an effort by Wal-Mart to "help" competitors in urban areas adjust to the presence of the local business killer. According to a report released last year by the Brennan Center for Justice the introduction of Wal-Mart into a community results in substantially reduced sales and market share for local businesses and we know from previous reports that this pressure leads to the outright disappearance of local mom-and-pop stores.
So the giant take-no-prisoners company is now going to offer assistance to those who would be destroyed in the form of direct grants, seminars, and free advertising. There are at least two, maybe obvious, take-aways from this new program:
1. Perhaps the most obvious, is that there is nothing about improving job quality or opportunity as the name might suggest. So call them enterprise zones or business improvement zones. Wal-Mart could use these 50 zones that they are creating to experiment with increasing the wages and benefits of employees in their own stores or maybe agree to neutrality in a couple and see if their workers would like union representation. But this effort is about minimizing business opposition and discouraging the development of organized opposition like the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, not actually creating better jobs for these communities and expanding the number of good jobs available. And, of course, this is really about Wal-Mart not wanting to be accused of destroying minority-owned businesses which will bear the brunt of the impact of the giant entering "urban" markets. Which leads to my other point...
2. "Urban" areas with "high unemployment" and "high crime"? Well my-my, Wal-Mart, who on earth could you be referring to? I am disgusted to no end by this company trying to push their poverty-wage jobs on already poor communities of color and then looking for thank yous. The Brennan Center report also sites two other important stats, 1. communities experience job loss, not gain, when Wal-Mart enters and, 2. poverty actually increases in communities when big-daddy arrives on the scene pimpin' his low-wage, no benefit jobs. I don't think that one of the policy solutions recommended for addressing the disconnection of Black men from the workforce was "increase the number of jobs that keep families in poverty".
So let's review. The any job is a good job strategy for reducing poverty can't possibly work and should be rejected at every turn by community members, local elected officials, clergy, and progressive-minded leaders everywhere. Our communities deserve better. We need to increase the standards and the expectations that we have for multi-national corporations that wish to do business in our neighborhoods.
"Can NY top LA?"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (March 31, 2006)
As the immigration debate heats up and large scale protests mount around the country, one can't help but hear the whisper, "where is NYC?". With students from LA to North Virginia walking out of their classrooms and DJ's playing the role of mobilizers we find ourselves witnessing a scale of mobilization that organizers in this country only dream about.
But what of us here in the most diverse city on the planet? Recently there has been a call to organize a mass protest here in coordination with cities around the nation on April 10th. Big numbers are being tossed about - 500,000 going once, going twice, do I hear 1,000,000? Our potential is certainly great and our disgust with the current batch of legislation and reactionary rhetoric no less than anywhere, but is mobilizing the immigrant community in NY the same as mobilizing in LA?
We are not unclear about the importance of immigrants to the very fabric of our community, but can we pull-off a half a million person march or rally? Should the numbers of the Carribean Day parade be used as an indicator for what is possible? Do the number of people who attend reflect our willingness and determination to fight around the core issues of this debate? Should we be focused on raising consciousness and deepening alliances for this fight or should we be focused on the size of our demonstration?
We may in fact hit numbers in the hundreds of thousands on April 10th (if not more) but if we do not the measure of our success should be the diversity of representation and the numbers of people who continue to engage in the fight after the banners come down.
"More Calls for Accountability"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (March 29, 2006)
I posted awhile back on growing concerns in Yonkers and elsewhere in Westchester about large scale developments that are sucking up public money with little to no returns. This week The Buffalo News printed an opinion piece that calls the question on clawbacks, the mechanism that allows a government entity to take back all or a portion of subsidies from a company for failure to meet promised goals.
Here in the city the question about benefits, accountability, and transparency have come up in many forums. But around the state communities are asking the same questions and have found an important ally as mentioned in The Buffalo News article. As first reported in The Crain's Insider, State Comptroller Alan Hevesi is conducting an audit of local Industrial Development Agencies (IDA) to determine their effectiveness or, as the preliminary results would indicate, their scandalousness. Giving money (and more money, and more money) to companies that promise the world and deliver nothing seems to be one of the findings, but the general sloppiness of reporting, tracking, and low to no expectations of subsidy recipients will undoubtedly be high on the list for a failing grade.
As the movement for greater accountability and higher standards for our economic development strategies grows, we will undoubtedly hear more from both upstate and downstate communities about what is going wrong and ideas for how to make it right.
In the coming weeks IDA reform legislation will be introduced in both the Senate and the Assembly. If you could give your legislators the Top 10 Ways to Make Businesses Receiving Subsidies More Accountable, what would be on the list?
"Ah, the French"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (March 22, 2006)
I know we're supposed to hate the French, but dammit I love 'em. When it comes to gettin' in the streets to protest what's wrong or stand up for what's right there are not many who can hold a candle to the French. The recent protests by unions and students over Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin's proposals to change labor law demonstrate this fact once again. Tens of thousands of people in street to protect one category of workers from what is seen as an unfair practice, is almost unimaginable in this country. We could imagine ten people, maybe a thousand people (on a really good day) out chanting and carrying signs about refusing to weaken labor law.
It's hard not to make the comparison between workers' rights struggles here and what's going on there. The transit workers, and other municipal unions, struggled mightily for core quality of life issues - health care for ones self and family and a pension for dignity in old age. They still have no contract. They were vilified in the press. There was constant worry about how long the public would "tolerate" the striking workers. In France cities are getting shut down, not for health care or pension, but in order to prevent businesses from being able to terminate youth without cause. No one is being called thugs or criminals, and this could go on weeks before the general public began to whisper complaints.
Here, we see these goings on through the lens of disdain provided by our press. We bristle at the thought that these efforts are protecting a "social-welfare state" or "entitlements", unable to see or even understand the deeply held belief that all work (and workers) should be valued, respected, and rewarded and that government has a role to play in codifying our beliefs into laws and policies that reflect our values. We could debate whether or not smashing car windows is the best strategy, but at the end of the day, this fight is what all worker fights are about -dignity, respect, and fairness.
"Subsidies? Toward What End?"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (March 17, 2006)
There was a great article in the NY Times yesterday on the use of public subsidies to encourage housing development. ACORN released an important report that looks at the use of 421-a subsidies and the relationship of those tax breaks (or lack there of) to the development of affordable housing.
The Mayor's task force, that is in the process of re-evaluating the 421-a program, presents us with an interesting opportunity to debate not just housing subsidies but how public capital in general is used. Subsidizing condos for the affluent doesn't quite seem like the appropriate use of tax payer money. Nor does subsidizing businesses or developments that in turn pay New Yorkers wages that lock them into poverty.
The ACORN report and the Mayor's task force raise critical questions that we should answer and hopefully not in isolation from other critical issues. This question of how public subsidies are used should not happen separate from the question of how do we address the growing poverty in NYC or what do we do about the widening gap between rich and poor in the state. Hopefully the Mayor's poverty initiative crew is in loop on the 421-a conversation.
"CBA Drama"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (March 15, 2006)
The NY Observer posted a piece yesterday titled, The CBA at Atlantic Yards: But Is It Legal? that highlights some choice quotes from the New York City Bar's panel discussion on the topic of CBA's.
CBA's are one tool for attempting to insure accountable development in communities. To either place the hopes and dreams of a community on them or to dismiss them as inherently undemocratic is a failure to understand the potential as well as the limitation of this tool.
As far as their legality Julian Gross, a California-based attorney who has worked with a number of coalitions on the CBA's, comments that their legality is tied to the responsibilities placed on both developer and the coalitions.
It's surprising that one development in this city has sparked such an emotional exchange and attack, not on the developers, not on electeds who continue to give away the store, but on one little tool. The indictment of CBA's is so sweeping and the language - undemocratic, illegal - so damning. Matthew Shuerman is correct when he acknowledges that CBA's grew out of the absence of effective action from elected officials who couldn't do enough for business interests as their constituents were bearing the brunt of the negative impact of development. But it also came from progressive elected officials looking for policy tools to mitigate the power of developers and business associations in city hall. Self-organized community coalitions worked with these elected officials to reposition the needs of communities, build and deepen relationships, engage business interests, and reframe the debate about what development should look like and who shold benefit. That's democracy.
If the tool isn't working evolve it, fix it, come up with something new. But let's not throw it out because we don't like one of dozens of agreements won across the country.
"Calling for Development Accountability"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (March 10, 2006)
From around the state a coalition of community, policy, labor, and environmental organizations and have come together to form the New York State Initiative for Development Accountability (NYS IDA). Frustrated by the lack of quality jobs, transparency, and community participation in development as well as the negative environmental impacts of never-ending sprawl, these groups are targeting a main engine of subsidy distribution - Industrial Development Agencies (IDA) - for reform.
IDA's hand out hundreds of millions of dollars a year in property tax breaks to companies across the state for the promise of new jobs and ostensibly other economic development "benefits". But from North Country to Suffolk actual benefits are often underwhelming and sometimes completely scandalous. From the promise of jobs that actually result in net jobs lost, to counties stealing businesses (and jobs) with the lure of more tax breaks than their neighbors, to businesses with a long list of labor and environmental violations receiving tax-payer money IDA's have not lived up to their promise.
In the coming months the Development Accountability coalition will be pushing for a set of reforms at the state level that include wage standards (prevailing and living wage), local hiring, community impact reports, increased transparency, a greater role for the public in the process, increased environmental standards, clawbacks ("do what you promise or give us back the loot"), and other important measures. The inclusion of these reforms in the subsidy giveaway process would transform how development impacts the real lives of people who should be benefiting more from the economic growth of their communities.
The Senate and the Assembly must act by July to incorporate these reforms and the coalition is working in regions across the state to make sure that local communities and the elected officials who represent them are speaking in one loud voice for subsidy accountability.
"The Everyday Low Prices of Blogging for Wal-Mart"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (March 8, 2006)
Blog readers beware. While you might think you are reading the independent opinions and corporate-influence-free ideas of political pundits across the country, what you might actually be getting is a word-for-word opinion, straight from the Wal-Mart PR spin machine. While nothing seems to be too low for Wal-Mart (prices, wages, benefits) I still was a little surprised to learn that they've targeted the blogosphere in their search for friends and even more surprised to learn that conservative bloggers are lifting the words right off the PR presses and passing them off as original material. Talk about moving a message.
It's interesting though to get a look at whose support Wal-Mart believes they must consolidate. MoveOn certainly has transformed what is defined as a mobilizable base. And here I thought that given their usual commercials highlighting working-class African Americans playing basketball with their kids, or single African American mothers shopping with kids or their girlfriends, or Queen Latifah, or Beyonce... I thought Wal-Mart was almost exclusively focused on trying to convince working-class communities of color, and specifically African Americans, that everyday low prices should always outweigh dignity, respect, and a decent paycheck. I mean if Destiny's Child and their families shop there for Christmas presents doesn't that excuse the fact that the children of "associates" don't have health insurance?
Trying to convince these communities would make sense, since it is in these communities that Wal-Mart is trying to expand their low-road job show. And the relative ease with which they seem to slide into these communities is a sad commentary on the economic outlook of the regular folks who reside there. Having to decide between a crappy job or no job is not only a terrible position to be in but a false choice as well because Wal-Mart doesn't have to offer crappy jobs and we don't have to accept them as the only option.
But alas, poor Wal-Mart. In search of a friend. A company that seemed invincible is suddenly in desperate need of good PR. So, I'd like to be helpful to them and here's my little tip for Wal-Mart (and everyone else who they've inspired with their low-road business model): Wanna change your public image? Pay a decent wage; let your "associates" decide for themselves whether they would like union representation or not (and, oh, don't close the store if they choose the union); don't discriminate against women, people of color, or immigrants (go ahead, settle those law suits); and do what every other self-respecting, responsible employer does and provide affordable healthcare.
"NYC Health Care Security Act passes - Again"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (March 3, 2006)
In a second rebuke of the mayor's position on requiring businesses to pay for health coverage for workers, the New York city council again overrode a mayoral veto on amendments to the Health Care Security Act (HCSA) this week.
The bill requires large grocery stores to cover some of the cost of their employees health care expenditures. The new law would provide and secure health benefits for more than ten thousand workers in the grocery industry. First past in August of last year, the bill went through a series of amendments late in the year to strengthen the legislation and win over remaining opposition. For the second time, Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the bill's sponsor, successfully organized the council override.
The grocery industry is challenging similar legislation in the state of Maryland and in Suffolk County. Here in NYC, a recent state supreme court decision which essentially said that the mayor can simply choose not to enforce laws that he doesn't like, puts the enactment and enforcement of HCSA at risk. But these challenges are not a deterrent for the "fair share" movement that is growing across the country. At the heart of the effort is a call for employer responsibility and an attempt to stem the growing health care crisis.
As state and local legislative bodies confirm and reconfirm their commitment to this policy model it signals a willingness on the part of lawmakers to reach for sound and creative solutions to these problems in spite of executive opposition. It's this kind of courageous leadership that is desperately needed by working people as they experience the erosion of their quality of life with fewer and fewer protections.
"Their Day In Court: TWU Leaders Face the Judge"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (March 1, 2006)
On Friday, Roger Toussaint, Ed Watt, and Darlyne Lawson will file into a Brooklyn courthouse in the next segment of the transit strike of 2005, and thus beginning the official criminalization phase of this drama. The three union leaders face personal fines, fines for the union, and the potential of losing dues check-off, which would mean that the union could no longer systematically collect dues from their members.
Criminalizing workers and their leaders for acting to maintain a decent quality of life for themselves and their families smacks of the worst kind of anti-union, anti-worker hostility. There is a new and sinister campaign to discredit unions including an effort lead by an organization called The Center for Union Facts. This group recently placed full page ads in a number of national newspapers including the New York Times, that blames unions for job losses and plant closures in the US. Corporate irresponsibility and a global trade policy that sends jobs around the globe in search of cheaper and cheaper labor, and more and more desperate people apparently has nothing to do with plant closures. These business-lead and financed anti-worker efforts continue the downward free-for-all that characterizes the lives of workers in this country and around the world. There is no bottom, only increased profits for a few, and an ever eroding quality of life for workers.
On Thursday, community groups, faith leaders, and other supporters will gather at city hall to demonstrate their ongoing support for TWU local 100 and their fight for dignity and respect in the workplace. These supporter know that this fight is about more than simple bread and butter issues but is about the future of all workers, union and non-union, in our City and beyond.
"Supporting Unions Abroad, Undermining Them at Home"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (February 20, 2006)
Last week Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice put forward an $85 million proposal to support the development of dissident causes in Iran. The money would go to Iranian reformers, political dissidents, human rights organizations, non-governmental organizations, political organizations and labor unions. Labor Unions? The Bush Administration supports the growth and development of labor unions?
With declining wages, public sector attacks on health care and pension benefits, Administration attacks on unions that represent federal employees, a federal labor relations board made more useless than it was before Bush took over, CAFTA, and prevailing wage exemptions follow the hurricane Katrina fiasco I was under the impression that the Bush regime despised labor unions. Who knew?
Apparently the Bush Administration believes that unions are a necessary and important factor in developing and maintaining a democracy. And in fact, the Administration seems to be saying, labor unions are such a vital component of a democratic society that they should be supported with tax dollars.
Now, if we could only see some demonstration of this new found support for labor here at home. I'm sure the AF-CIO and Change To Win will be holding their collective breath.
Read this on the DMI Blog.
"Omnipotence: strengthening the mayor's hand"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (February 15, 2006)
In a ruling yesterday, the states highest court sided with the Bloomberg administration by striking down the Equal Benefits law that would have provided that certain city contractors pay benefits for the domestic partners of their employees. While this is certainly a set back in advancing domestic partner rights, it represents a major set back for the advancement of progressive public policy and a disturbing trend of accepting the expansion of executive power.
The ruling stated, "Where a local law seems to the mayor to conflict with a state or federal one, the mayor's obligation is to obey the latter, as the mayor has done here,". Seems to the mayor to conflict? The mayor has no obligation to prove that there is a conflict, he can simply not enforce any law where he claims that there is a potential conflict. Last year the Council overrode a number mayoral veto's. This ruling has the potential to make many of those, and other, hard fought legislative victories obsolete simply because the mayor does not agree with them. So much for our system of checks and balances.
The dissenting opinion said, "an executive who believes that a law is unconstitutional is not powerless but must follow a process by which the judiciary - and not the executive - determines the issue in the first instance." So without going to court, the mayor can just simply ignore the legislation that the council passes. The burden will be on the Council and advocacy groups to spend money in the courts just to get laws that attempt to protect working people and others, like the Equal Benefits bill and the Health Care Security Act, enforced.
It is no secret that the balance of power in city hall is heavily tilted toward the mayor. This uneven relationship ultimately hurts the citizens of our city by silencing the voice of their local representative. In 2009, 40 of the 51 council seats will turn over due to term-limits, we will elect a new mayor, and I would suggest that we add in to this transformation of our local government, the passage of charter reform amendments that can correct the current imbalance.
Read this on the DMI Blog.
"Development, Development Everywhere"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (February 10, 2006)
From Brooklyn to the Bronx, from Queens to Yonkers the bustling business of development is thriving. But we've come up with too few answers to the inherent tensions that exist in growth and economic development - who should pay for it, what do we get for our financial investment, what's the real impact on local communities, and who get's to decide.
The sheer scale of the public subsidies that are doled out to private, incredibly wealthy developers should intensify our efforts to come up with good progressive answers to the questions. What we've managed to come up with is a well-known tool called the community benefits agreement or CBA, not to be confused with a collective bargaining agreement or CBA. CBA's have been used all over the country to extract compensation or benefits for local communities that are being disrupted by large-scale development and as a defense against development gone wild.
CBA's in the hands of self-organized community coalitions have won important benefits for local communities but CBA's in the hands of developers looking for good PR are dangerous. As we look at the ongoing controversy surrounding the Bronx Terminal Market and numerous developments in Yonkers and related subsidy abuse we must ask ourselves are CBA's always the best answer and who should be leading the process?
Legislating CBA's has to be part of the answer. Taking key segments in CBA's out of the arbitrary negotiation process and making them public policy should be one goal. There is no negotiating over job quality. Wage and benefit standards are non-negotiable. Prevailing wage and living wage shouldn't even be on the table. Environmental standards and containing sprawl are non-negotiable. Local hiring is non-negotiable. A clear role for community residents in the decision-making process is non-negotiable. Setting a floor will allow local communities to focus their negotiations on other desperately needed community benefits like affordable housing, childcare centers, open space, etc.
Now, to be sure there are countless other issues to be addressed including what's the compensation for those who lose like homeowners in downtown Brooklyn or small businesses in greenpoint/Williamsburg that no longer fit into the rezoned vision of the neighborhood. But establishing conditions as public policy that set the parameters for our expectations for developments that receive public money will take us long way toward comprehensive, inclusive economic benefits for all.
Read this on the DMI Blog.
"Taking Health Care Off the Table"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (February 8, 2006)
While the president is offering up lame excuses for health care reform that will only benefit (surprise) those with enough income to put some aside in health savings accounts, municipalities and states across the country are moving to enact real reform. Employer responsibility is the message of the day and local and state governments are stepping up to address the problem in the absence of federal action.
A report issued by the Washington State Senate found that the state subsidizes Wal-Mart to the tune of $12 million annually for health coverage of their low-paid workers. Maryland passed, over a governor's veto, their "Fair Share" health care bill that will require large employers to pay a minimum toward the health costs of their employers. In California, after "pay or play" went down in flames to a confused electorate, municipalities like San Francisco are stepping into the breach offering legislation that would insure coverage for preventive care.
And here in the Empire State, the New York City Health Care Security Act will insure minimum health care contributions from large and medium groceries beginning July 1 and the Suffolk County Fair Share for Health Care legislation will do the same. On the state level, state Senator Diane Savino is introducing Maryland-style legislation that will cut across industries targeting large companies and the Working Families Party and allies including Jobs With Justice are gearing up for a "Fair Share" battle for this legislative session in Albany.
Read this on the DMI Blog.
"The City's New Anti-Poverty Program:
Gut Union Contracts & Gentrify Bushwick"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (January 27, 2006)
With great skill Mayor Bloomberg laid out his plan for reducing poverty in our city. It includes an attack on pensions for workers, "We will work with labor and legislative leaders on innovative pension modifications for future workers". Ah yes, innovative cutbacks not just the regular slash and bleed kind.
It included adding more anxiety for families around their ability to cover the cost of health care, "Today, nearly all private sector employees contribute to their health care". Well then that settles it. If everyone in the private sector is doing it then it must be right. Now, there's a thought on how to deal with poverty and provide job security for workers, let's look to Delphi and Wal-Mart as models.
It included a nod to the city's success in drop kicking people off of public assistance, "Today, the number of New Yorkers on welfare is at a 40-year-low". Yes, and today poverty in New York City is at an all-time high. Think there's a connection?
And then there's Bushwick and Bed-Stuy and Melrose. Already seeing the early onset of gentrification these communities can now expect a blue ribbon task force-style transformation.
To be fair and honest there were laudable goals in the state of the city address. Increasing apprenticeship opportunities in construction for communities of color, health coverage for every child in school, efficient and effective programs for getting job training and placement to job seekers, and other hopeful ideas. But we could add in having higher standards for the distribution of public subsidies. Make wage and benefit standards and local hiring policies conditions for receiving public money. Let's guarantee that the 250,000 new jobs to be created are quality jobs not poverty jobs.
The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa said at the US Conference of Mayors this week, "As mayors, I think we can all agree that we saw reflections of all our cities in the faces of the people stranded on the rooftops of the Lower 9th Ward ... Poverty must be made a moral issue, dealt with by the "collective will" of communities. The federal government must do more, but so must the private sector".
Attempting to lay out a plan for addressing poverty is, in fact, a noble action. But the last time I checked strong unions, and their inevitably strong contracts, were one of the best anti-poverty programs that we've ever had.
Read this on the DMI Blog.
"Lessons from the Transit Strike"
By Adrianne Shropshire Drum Major Institute Fellow & JwJ Executive Director (January 26, 2006)
Last week the evolving story of the transit workers strike of 2005 took a surprising turn for the worst when union members rejected the contract recommended to them by their leadership by a razor thin margin of 7 votes. Roger Toussaint, Ed Watt, and Darlyne Lawson still do not know their fate as it relates to contempt of court charges against them for leading their union in an "illegal" strike. And many of us began our post holiday reflection about the life and legacy of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by connecting the struggles of 40 years ago to our current conditions. The transit strike, regardless of the new developments, pulled hard at the string that ties us to our history of struggle for justice in this country. It made the often forgotten link between labor struggles and civil rights struggles. In 1961 King described that link in this way, "Our needs are identical with labor's needs: decent wages, fair working conditions, livable housing, old age security, health and welfare measures, conditions in which families can grow, have education for their children and respect in the community. That is why Negroes support labor's demands and fight laws which curb labor. That is why the labor-hater and the labor-baiter is virtually always a twin-headed creature spewing anti-Negro epithets from one mouth and anti-labor propaganda from the other mouth".
While viewed with suspicion by every broadcast and print media outlet in New York City, Roger Toussaint's framing of his unions strike as a modern day civil rights action was and is completely accurate. It was civil disobedience of the highest order. It spoke to the moral imperatives facing our nation. It raised the question of how much we do or do not value the work of the working class and the degree to which many New Yorker's have accepted the notion that we are undeserving, have no right to demand better, and should quietly accept less. It was about more than a contract.
In the midst of the strike I worried that we were missing a strategic opportunity, as a movement, to advance a working class agenda. In the wake of the strike I can't help but wonder: as Local 100 was battling on the inside, holding down the picket lines, and spinning the story to the high ground, what would the rest of us have been doing if this were the height of the civil rights movement?
There were no coordinated mass actions beyond the ones organized by the union and none at all targeting the Mayor, the Governor, or the MTA to demonstrate broad public support for the fight. There were no mass meetings held in communities aimed at consolidating and holding public opinion. There were no direct actions targeting NYC tabloids for their descent to new lows in slandering the union leaders and membership. There was no coordinated media strategy aimed at shifting the debate to reinforce Toussaint's "more than a contract" message or the "dignity and respect" message or force the debate toward a hard look at the role of the Taylor law in suppressing the most basic right of workers. There were lots of people walking across the Brooklyn bridge but not with picket signs.
To be fair, there were acts of solidarity. Ministers planned press events, staff and members of organizations leafleted the public, organizations mobilized to the TWU rallies. But these uncoordinated acts could not measure up to the scale of the moment. In the end, this is not about pointing fingers or saying who should have done what and better. But it is a recognition of how far we are from where we need to be, the current limits of our organizing, and our ability to mobilize at scale.
Given the strategic importance of New York City to the global economy, how our movement (not just individual unions) responds to attacks on the working class takes on increasing significance. It remains to be seen whether or not TWU can pull a victory out of the current crisis. And from a larger movement perspective, we can probably conclude that the movement lost important strategic positioning - the issue of the "inevitably eroding pension" seems to have successfully been implanted in the public consciousness. The possibility of losing both tactical and strategic battles in one fell swoop does not bode well for our movement. The measure of our ability to learn will be in how well we prepare now for these fights.
Read this on the DMI Blog.
Jobs with Justice
