I will read your blog and take some time to consider your ideas, but you know, the broadly socialist, or collectivist, or whatever you want to call it, left, has quite a history of taking on wage labor, the state and money.

But finally, to get back to my original comment, I’m a trade unionist, a transit worker, a rank and filer, not a bureaucrat. It’s not so much that I am accepting or embracing our position as wage laborers as I’m acknowledging the fact that we are way, way deep into that position. I’ve been pitching Streetsblog to some of my union officers. You probably wouldn’t like them, but they know a lot about getting certain kinds of things done. What I keep telling them is, “Pay attention to these people. We might be able to put something together and help each other out.” You don’t seem to get coalition politics.

On the topic of “green reaganism” as you put it, i couldn’t agree more. The “left” (however you determine who’s in it) has seemingly given up the prospect of radically changing society for the better. A fact that pains me everyday.

What the far left has done is begin a dialogue on the vision for that program, and importantly if you ask me, no one organization or group of individuals have dominated that dialogue. That dialogue might take several decades, but as Noam Chomsky recently said in an interview, the solidarity movements have created a historically unique social movement, one advocating on behalf of other people, and opposing policies that materially benefit one’s own social position.

These movements are in their infancy, and any lack of “victories” is mostly because these movements are not yet mature, their activists have not yet figured out how to most effectively use the leverage these movements have, and people are still becoming more used to organizing through the model of solidarity movements.

It took organized labor over 140 years of struggle for a shorter workday before the 8-hour workday became federal law (From the strike of Philadelphia Carpenters for a 10-hour workday in 1791 to the passing of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938).

Solidarity movements already have a number of “victories” under their belt, from their role in the anti-Apartheid movement, to the anti-WTO and globalization movements (there have been no successful WTO talks since Seattle ’99), to their expanding role in supporting environmental, immigrant and prisoner rights, and the anti-war movements just to name a few.

What i am trying to get at is that though the far left may still be riding with training wheels, at least they are beginning to learn to ride. Organized labor on the other hand, has forgotten how to ride and has no interest re-learning. As much as it pains me to say this (I have been an organizer with a major labor union for several years and a supporter of labor throughout my life), organized labor has become just what the IWW said it would: the aristocracy of skilled and organized workers, devoted to maintaining the privileges of membership. Even the “progressive unions” like SEIU or UNITE HERE, are only interested in organizing in so far as organizing will make it easier to maintain their members’ standards, they are not agents of societal transformation or change.

The American left needs more honest dialogue and more honest attempts to remake the world. Sadly the labor movement seems to no longer prioritize honest dialogue, nor does organized labor seek to change the world. It was the desire to change the world and the facilitation of dialogue among actors that changed the world during the industrial revolution. Organized labor would do well to remember their own roots.

But you do make a core point that should be sung from the rooftops – to differentiate between Unions and workers themselves, to better highlight where the disconnect happens. What about the workers who don’t have a Union rep?

In my own humble opinion, another key issue that doesn’t get enough airtime are the demographic tends of the unionized workforce. I think your piece implies but doesn’t directly touch upon the reality of age, race, country of origin, neighborhood preferences, etc. as they relate to Union adaptation to new progressive trends, or vice versa. Simply put, there is an age and demographic thing that helps to maintain the splits, where they occur. Lots of older union members and leaders just don’t culturally value the same things younger progressives do .

For a slighly more academic take through the national lens, see Avent today: http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=2003

History makes for fun reading, but accomplishment, winning, achievement is what counts. Fighting the good fight and going down AND NOT LEARNING FROM IT does nobody any good.

I cannot remember the last time that the Building and Construction Trade unions entered into coalition with, showed solidarity with anyone but wealthy developers and the City’s business elite.

Luke 4:23: “Physician, heal thyself! Whatever we heard was done at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.”

-marc

The City already restricts the free speech of those doing business with the City, in that those with contracts cannot contribute the campaigns of a decision maker. We need to extend that definition of “doing business” to broadly encompass those “receiving an entitlement” or being paid to realize that entitlement.

When labor carries political water for corporations and would go against the express will of San Francisco voters on matters like historical preservation or transportation, then solidarity is a myth, the only coalitions involved here are those opposed to San Francisco voters, and those segments of labor needs to be called for their reactionary politics.

-marc

Good thing the rest of the bay area left is never at each others’ throats so casting stones at labor is pretty easy… er right.

“(why not eliminate banking, real estate, advertising, military production, shoddy commodity production, bad medicine, etc.?)”

while I agree that bad medicine should be done away with, I’m not clear on how that relates to unions… and as far as banking, real estate, advertising go I’m not even sure what you mean by eliminating them. How are you going to eliminate real estate? I can see changing our banking system, but getting rid of it? Banking serves a very real need in human society. I can see changing some of the rules of banking, but if you want to eliminate it you need to explain why, and what will replace it. Advertising will not go away as long as people buy and sell anything. Shoddy commidity production and military production are completely different than the other subjects, and also need much more explanation as well.

Do people know that the Netherlands and Germany allow workers to choose part-time work? Dutch workers produce and earn about as much per hour as American workers, but because of this law, the average Dutch worker works only 75% as many hours per year and earns/spends only 75% as much per year as the average American worker – dramatically reducing their environmental impact. Of course, they can afford to work less in part because they live in rowhouses rather than suburbia and bicycle rather than driving.

I am hoping to stir up some political activity in Berkeley around this issue after the economy recovers. Anyone who is interested, please contact me at siegel@preservenet.com

I think Dutch-style choice of work hours is politically possible, despite its radical implications, because 1)it does not increase businesses overall labor costs and make them less competitive interntionally, 2) it is a matter of choice and does not force shorter hours on anyone. Once we frame it as a matter of choice, it is hard for me to imagine that anyone will say: no, I think people should be forced to work more, consume more, and pollute more even if they don’t want to.

For more info, see my 4-page white paper “Work Time and Global Warming” at http://www.preservenet.com/studies/WorkTimeGlobalWarming.html.

In a world where everyone is blind, the one eyed person is liege. And since most working people are not organized, politicians take the convenient shortcut of dealing with organized labor as the Designated Stakeholder On Behalf Of Working People. The same thing happens with nonprofits, and together, the two structures, one as a facilitator of corporate stability and the other as replicator of corporate authoritarianism, form a sealed barrier between public participation and where the decisions are made.

The US has been made to be the labor camp of capitalism, with most of us working harder and longer for less to provide stability to the US empire’s military and economic apparatus. The lack of wage growth and the elimination of anti-usury laws since the 1970s have seen lagging incomes supplanted by easy credit which guarantees more interest streams flowing Wall Street’s way. Unions have been irrelevant in halting this development.

Even when workers get ahead, like in the software industry, government finds a way to make special exceptions to visa rules to allow lower wage workers to drive down domestic wages of that which has not yet been outsourced. Again, organized labor has been AWOL for working Americans on the H1-B matter.

Fortunately, the regime of Bush II came our way, and in eight short years, Dubya accomplished that which the most radical anarchists, leftists and liberals could not–they kneecapped the American empire economically, militarily and politically!

Now that the financial system which we toiled in the work camp to keep righted has annihilated the global economy, ruined many people’s good thing. In the aftermath of this, as Obama realizes that he cannot reinflate the system, Europe, Russia and China have no incentive to relegitimate that model. So in order for the US to be a meaningful participant in the global economy, it is going to have to reconfigure its economic priorities so that others are reasonably well insulated from the chance of future contaimination.

Odds are, that with Wall Street foundering, once their bluff is called in their current spasm of economic terrorism, we will see the US move towards a more European social democratic model. But no matter what, the US will not have access to cheap raw materials at hand like it did when it finally recovered after WWII. As the dollar loses appeal as a reserve currency, we will have to pay full freight for our consumption, and since the US is not really producing much the rest of the world wants to the extent that most of us are participating in that production, we can count on our hand being forced towards a much lighter footprint.

My read is that we are seeing the second shoe to drop at the end of the Cold War, and that we are equivalently between the time the Berlin Wall fell and the final demise of the Soviet Union.

This is a good thing.

-marc

You could tax the rich and invest in social programs or income for the poor. But that will only get you so far. Some of us actually LIKE what we do and are happy to put our creative energy in our work and are working hard for a reward. I’m not rich yet, but if I work my butt off for no real reward, I don’t know where that will get me.. I’ll either want to leave the country or push a broom for 35 hours a week. A mind is a horrible thing to waste.