Labor and the Environmental Movement: Allies or Adversaries?

Posted By: dhubbard

With President Obama promising long overdue action on the climate crisis, I decided to address the ongoing tensions between elements of the global labor and environmental movements in this talk I gave last week at the 7th International Conference on Labor Law and Social Security in Havana, Cuba. Much of it is based on work I did with Roger Toussaint at the TWU.

In the United States, the corporate-controlled media has cast the labor and environmental movements as bitter enemies in a struggle over jobs versus the environment.  And there have been sharp divisions between some unions and environmental organizations, most recently over the future of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which would transport so-called bitumen sands from Canada through the United States to refineries on the Gulf Coast, where the bitumen sands would be processed into petroleum, largely for export.

Yet the reality, when one looks more closely, is that these movements are not only natural allies, they must both succeed for either movement to survive.  It is a myth that Union members do not support a safe and healthy environment.   Union members don’t only want their working environments to be safe and healthy, they want healthy communities and a healthy planet for themselves, their children and their grandchildren.

We also share the same enemies.  The missionaries of market fundamentalism and the deniers of climate science are the very same forces that are attacking unions and holding the global economy hostage in their effort to destroy the safety net for people around the world. The billionaire Koch Brothers, who have bankrolled both the attacks on the labor movement and climate science denial in the United States, are but one example.

It is no exaggeration to say that taking the lead in responding to climate change represents labor’s greatest opportunity to rebuild the labor movement by helping to build the green economy of the 21st century.

Let me put it bluntly.  The climate crisis is a dagger aimed at the heart of the trade union movement. It is a job destroyer.  For years, there has been an overwhelming scientific consensus that humans burning fossil fuels are pouring so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate that has caused an unprecedented and potentially devastating threat to life on this planet. Specifically, scientists agree that if the global temperature increases 2⁰ Centigrade above pre-industrial levels, the effects of the climate crisis on the planet and human life will become irreversible, with crop failures, water shortages, sea-level rises, species extinctions and increased disease.  Hundreds of millions of workers around the world will suffer permanent job losses as a result of damage to infrastructure for water, energy, transportation and public health, as well as important economic sectors such as manufacturing, agriculture, and tourism.  A landmark 2007 study on the economics of climate change, known as the Stern Review, concluded that global warming, if left unchecked, would lead to a massive economic downturn comparable to the combined effects of the two world wars and the Great Depression of the 20th century.  Yet the greenhouse gases humanity has already put in the atmosphere will raise global temperatures by 2⁰ even if we stop producing carbon today.

Many more vulnerable countries have been experiencing the impacts of the climate crisis for years.  While the crisis is a long-term phenomenon, with short-term variations in temperature, in the United States, we have recently suffered through consecutive years of record heat, devastating hurricanes and forest fires, which scientists agree have been made much worse by the climate crisis.  For example, scientists say that the combination of higher sea levels and more intense storm surge attributable to the climate crisis added about 15” to the flooding in lower Manhattan from Hurricane Sandy, which drove hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and closed many offices for weeks, including my own.

When it comes to the future of the planet, we all have “skin in the game.”

The only way to stop the doomsday scenario from happening is to dramatically reduce fossil fuel production and consumption and transition to clean energy sources, beginning immediately.  As AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka recently said, “we have to act to cut those emissions, and act now.”  Specifically, the world’s scientists agree that, to keep the global temperature increase under 2 degrees, humanity must reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by the year 2020, and by 80% below those levels by 2050.  (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

That is why the International Trade Union Confederation, at its 2009 Congress in Vancouver, unanimously adopted a resolution calling for a fair, ambitious and binding international climate change agreement and just transition policy aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and dependence on fossil fuels while improving people’s living standards.  The ITUC specifically called for the reduction in ghg emissions necessary to limit the global rise in temperature to a maximum of 2°C, and expressed “strong support” for precisely the dramatic emissions reductions called for by the world’s scientists.

This is a very tall order.  We cannot get there without making a profound transition, beginning right now, from a global economy that is dominated by market fundamentalists who defy any consideration of the public good, towards a more sustainable economic future based upon fairer, more equitable, healthier societies.  And we have to protect miners, power plant workers and other workers who will be impacted by climate protection measures as part of the transition.

This necessity provides the biggest and perhaps only real opportunity for growth of the labor movement over the next generation.  Achieving the goal of a fair, ambitious and binding global climate agreement will make it necessary to retool and re-engineer the entire global economy.  If done properly, this retooling will lead to a massive expansion of jobs. To save our movement and our planet, we need to build a massive global social movement with the power to force governments to generate policies and funding for millions of “climate jobs” that will help us make the transition to a low carbon economy.  We need millions of new jobs in railroad and pipeline repair, public transit, bridge construction and repair, energy conservation, upgrading the grid, and developing alternative fuels and energy sources, among others.  These are jobs that can help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency.

It is past time for massive public investments in infrastructure modernization and repair and climate protection as a means of putting people to work and laying the foundations of a more sustainable economic future. Such work can be a central part of building a new energy system, saving our water infrastructure, building a new transportation system, and constructing sustainable cities – everything that’s necessary to halt human destruction of the climate.

On a second front, the environmental justice movement, the struggle to fairly address the disparate impact of environmental devastation on poor and working class people, communities of color, indigenous people and emerging nations, is a huge intersection and popular front touching on the core concerns of billions of people.  It has created an enormous opportunity to advance a social justice agenda on a scale we’ve never seen before.

The simultaneous and closely related crises of the environment and of the economy ought to have been a nail in the coffin of the neoliberalism of the last few decades. Instead we see a resurgence of market fundamentalism in the austerity policies being implemented throughout Europe, the United States, and parts of the Americas and the Caribbean that have not yet experienced their own versions of the Bolivarian revolution. These forces of austerity are seeking to dismantle both the social safety net and the very notion that Governments have fundamental obligations to their citizens to ensure decent work, food, housing, health, and lives free of conditions that oppress the human spirit.

The resurgence of austerity and market fundamentalism suggests that, so far, labor and the other movements for social justice have failed to build the capacity to use the opening created by the global economic and environmental crises to build the momentum to drive the economic transition we need.

Over the last century and more, the labor movement often displayed the ability to anticipate and greatly impact, if not lead, emerging social movements and literally change the world on behalf of those who work for and have stood on the side of equality, liberation from oppression, and progress. The difficulty we see in labor taking its place at the front of the environmental and climate justice movements, in my country and other countries, is a matter of grave concern.  We cannot simply view the call for environmental and climate justice as an irritant and take the attitude that it is fine to let the floods come – as long as it is after our watch is over.  It is vital for the very survival of labor that we rise to the occasion.

Sectors of the environmental movement, for their part, do not yet fully appreciate the need to move jobs and decent work to the core of their agendas.  They must join us in the fight, as some are, for a just transition that protects the well-being of workers and communities who may be hurt by side-effects of climate protection policies.  Every time environmentalists fight to shut down a fossil fuel production facility they must fight just as hard for new union jobs that protect the futures of the workers and communities whose livelihoods come from fossil fuel production.

Naturally, there is tension between these positions.  We need to confront these differences, allow space to have the conversation, and allow some time for them to play themselves out.  As precious and rare as it is, we need to “give time time.”  Because time is in fact short and events are fast moving, my sense is that the course of events will either help our movements sober and awaken, or render some of us irrelevant and obsolete.

Strategically, the environmental and climate justice movements need to join in demanding that governments take up their obligations to provide quality public services, including decent work, clean water, health care, education, transportation and access to culture.  While people are increasingly aware of environmental impacts, they still tend to connect them to their self-interests only in a remote sense. One challenge is to work on the language and conversation about environmental and climate justice so that what people actually hear with their “inner ear” moves them to action; so that environmental justice becomes the “human rights” issue of this generation.

To accomplish this, we in labor must more aggressively educate our ranks and incorporate environmental and climate justice demands not only into our contract negotiations connected to the health, safety and opportunities of our members, but into our work to build strong coalitions standing together with broader communities.

To conclude, the fight to defend and extend the concept of the “public good” and the struggles for climate and environmental justice are cutting edge issues that separate a serious, forward looking unionism that builds broad coalitions to defend our longer term interests, and the brand of trade unionism that pursues only short-term, narrowly conceived self-interest.  The labor movement has to remain a change agent.  If we confine ourselves to the current so-called realities, we lose.  Historically, change has always sprung from people who saw beyond their current time and place, never from those who confined themselves to the politically possible as defined by the powers-that-be.  Systemic change has never been “realistic”. It is both impossible and necessary. Together, we can do it. Si se puede!

Surviving the Next Superstorm: Transportation Labor and the Climate Crisis

Posted By: dhubbard

In the weeks after Superstorm Sandy, New York’s transport workers worked round the clock driving buses and trains, emptying the tunnels of water, cleaning debris off tracks and out of stations, and doing the other backbreaking work needed to get the New York City area transportation network back up and running.

But it  didn’t have to be that way.

For years, scientists have documented that New York City is extremely vulnerable to episodic flood events as a result of the climate crisis.[1]

Many scientists have concluded that the storm surge and flooding in New York during and after Hurricane Sandy were made more severe by the climate crisis.[2]

For example, Katharine Hayhoe, a climate researcher at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, said human-caused climate change likely contributed to the storm surge at The Battery in Lower Manhattan, with 15 inches of long-term sea level rise recorded at that location the result of human-caused sea level rise, sinking land, and changes in ocean currents.[3]  One expert has referred to the climate crisis as a “systemic” causal factor of Sandy.[4]

There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate crisis is the result of human activity.[5]

And there is no dispute that there are several means available to protect against flooding by monster storm surges, including storm barriers and the construction of new wetlands.

In short, the flooding of low lying areas in New York City was both exacerbated and could have been mitigated by human activity.  It was not strictly a “natural phenomenon”

It is past time for union leaders to take the climate crisis seriously, and to begin taking action to protect their members and the infrastructure they build and maintain from future storms of this type.  Because, tragically, Superstorms like Sandy are going to keep happening—and getting worse– until politicians and people wake up to the reality of the climate crisis.

Here are three immediate steps leaders of urban transportation unions can and must take, in ascending order of importance.

1.  Unions should establish voluntary relief funds to help their members and allied communities who suffer in these types of disasters and to fund efforts to prevent them from recurring.  They should demand that employers add these funds to the list of approved charities to which members can donate via paycheck deduction.  The relief funds should be administered by union members who establish the parameters of the fund, and balance its “advocacy” and “charity” components.

2.  Unions must advocate for a permanent source of funding for our nation’s public transportation systems to protect them from being knocked out like New York City’s was after Sandy.  (Check out some ideas for how to do that here and here.) Without functioning subway and bus systems, moving people and conducting business in our country’s large metropolitan areas is impossible. And giving people more public transportation options is essential to reducing the severity of the climate crisis.3.  Most important, labor needs to assume its natural leadership role in the growing movement to stop the climate crisis.  It is vital to the survival of the labor movement that it build strong coalitions with other social movements. The environmental movement is the most powerful global social movement, and a key ally for labor’s future growth. Union  members not only want their working environments to be safe and healthy, they want healthy communities and a healthy planet for themselves, their children and their grandchildren.

We need a Green New Deal that creates hundreds of thousands of the union jobs of the future–in energy conservation, upgrading the grid, developing alternative fuels and energy sources, and maintaining and expanding public transportation jobs that can help us reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and improve energy efficiency

Anyone who still doubts the importance of the climate crisis to our survival hasn’t lived through the havoc that a non-functioning transportation system brought to the New York region in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy.


[1] See, e.g., “Impacts of Sea Level Rise in the New York City Metropolitan Area,” Global and Planetary Change (December 2001), http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818101001503.  The combined effects of more powerful storms caused by the climate crisis (so-called storm climatology change) and climate change-induced rise in sea level are likely to result in storm surge flooding that presently occurs only once every 100 years in New York City occurring every 3 to 20 years, and the present 500 year flooding to occur every 25 to 240 years by the end of the century.  “Physically based assessment of hurricane surge threat under climate change,” Nature Climate Change (January 2012), doi.org/jnm.  Sandy, which resulted in a storm surge that peaked at 3.5 meters above average sea level in lower Manhattan, was a 500 year storm.  The New York City Panel on Climate Change estimated in 2011 that by 2100, rising sea levels could bring so-called 100 year floods every 25 years. “Developing coastal adaptation to climate change in the New York City infrastructure-shed: process, approach, tools, and strategies”, Climactic Change (May 2011), doi.org/fdq5g8.  However, this study did not take into account changes to storm patterns expected with climate change.

[2] “How Global Warming Made Hurricane Sandy Worse,” Climate Central (November 1, 2012), http://www.climatecentral.org/news/how-global-warming-made-hurricane-sandy-worse-15190;  “Hurricane Sandy Damage Partly Caused By Climate Change, Scientists Say,” Huffington Post, November 6, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/hurricane-damage-climate-change_n_2081960.html;    “Climate Change Didn’t Cause hurricane Sandy, But it Sure Made it Worse,” Mother Jones, November 8, 2012, http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/11/climate-change-didnt-cause-hurricane-sandy-it-sure-made-it-worse.

[3] “How Global Warming Made Hurricane Sandy Worse,” supra note 2.

[4] Lakoff, “Global warming systemically caused Hurricane Sandy,” Berkeley Blog (November 2012), http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/11/05/global-warming-systemically-caused-hurricane-sandy/ According to Lakoff:

A systemic cause may be one of a number of multiple causes. It may require some special conditions. It may be indirect, working through a network of more direct causes. It may be probabilistic, occurring with a significantly high probability. It may require a feedback mechanism. In general, causation in ecosystems, biological systems, economic systems, and social systems tends not to be direct, but is no less causal. And because it is not direct causation, it requires all the greater attention if it is to be understood and its negative effects controlled.

[5] See, e.g., “Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (2007), http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.

 

Trade Unions, the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and the Redistribution of Wealth and Social Power

Posted By: dhubbard

This is a talk I gave last Tuesday to the 2012 Welfare Conference organized by the Norwegian trade union movement.  The crisis in the European Union and the potential collapse of the European Social Model (market economy with strong state support for education, health care and other social welfare programs) was a recurring theme of the event.  I tried to suggest one alternative for a path to a new approach in the latter half of the talk.

It drives me crazy how the global corporate media, especially in their coverage of the European economic crisis, tries to brainwash us to believe that there are no alternatives to the current world order, or that any that might come about would be disastrous.  It was good to be reminded by the speakers in this conference that our economic system is a human construct, and that the one we have constructed serves only a very few.

Trade Unions, the Occupy Wall Street Movement, and the Redistribution of Wealth and Social Power

By Dean Hubbard

We are living through a critical and inspiring moment in history, as ordinary people around the world, many for the first time, have been stepping up in movements like

 

 

Occupy Wall Street all over the United States,

 

 

 

the “indignados” movements in Greece

 

 

 

 

and Spain,

 

 

 

 

 

 

the student hunger strikers in Chile,

 

Zócalo, Mexico City, May 1 2012

 

 

 

 

 

independent trade unionists in Mexico,

Tahrir Square, Cairo Egypt

 

 

 

 

 

labor-led uprisings in the so-called Middle East,

 

 

and other anti-austerity movements throughout Europe.

They have all been using the human mic to say “NO!” with one voice to a world of corporate greed, where the richest 1%, who have everything, have used that power only to create unemployment, inequality, homelessness, environmental devastation, and an overwhelming sense of powerlessness and alienation on the part of ordinary people everywhere.

The kitchen at Occupy Philly fed three meals a day to all who wanted to eat.

People are through waiting, and are moving themselves to create a new world in which the 99% have a voice, in which human rights become more important than property interests.

General Assembly, Occupy Philly, October 2011

And they are saying, in essence, “we will occupy our public spaces and we will carry out direct actions and build a new democratic community until we believe that new world is being born.”

OWS labor solidarity rally, October 5 2011

Who would have thought that a tiny band of young people in New York would have helped inspire such a powerful worldwide mobilization?

If we take a look back, it’s not that surprising.

For at least the last 30 years, elites in the United States have been the chief proponent of a particularly brutal form of capitalism known worldwide as neoliberalism, and referred to in Latin America as the “Washington Consensus.”

The predictable result of this globalization of market fundamentalism has been a rapidly widening gulf between the haves and have-nots, whether in the U.S. (as shown above) or elsewhere.  And 30 years ago there was already a gulf that can be traced back to colonialism and slavery and the industrial revolution.

But it is in the last 3 years that the global Lords of Finance and acolytes of market fundamentalism used the system shock of the current global financial crisis to attempt to impose the same “structural adjustment” on the working classes of the empire that they did on the former colonies. And it is only since then that massive, class-based resistance movements have awakened in Europe and the United States.

In the United States, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in January 2010 relied on a finding that corporations are persons and money is their “free speech” to open the floodgates of corporate spending in politics. Massive corporations and billionaires used this opening to fund the “Tea Party,” drowning the November 2010 mid-term elections in a flood of corporate cash. This lead to the takeover by the far right of the U.S. House of Representatives, 638 state legislative seats, and control of both the state legislature and the Governor’s mansion in 21 states.

The extreme right then chose Wisconsin as the launching pad for the most vicious all-out nationwide assault on organized workers, immigrants, people of color and poor people in our lifetimes.

But students led the Capitol occupation in Wisconsin,

voters rejected anti-union legislation in Ohio,

and immigrants and their advocates fought back with marches, hunger strikes and lawsuits nationwide.

These events and others combined with the uprisings in Europe, Latin America and the so-called Middle East to create the necessary conditions for the birth and growth —so far— of the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States.

 

 

 

Although severe state repression succeeded in reducing the size and even shutting down many of the U.S. occupations over the winter, the movement has begun blooming again this spring.

Union Square, New York City, May 1 2012

Around the country, people turned out for the most widespread and militant May Day mobilizations in the United States in a century.

We prepared for this event and many more to follow with a historic grass roots mobilization to train 100,000 people around the country in the techniques of nonviolent direct action. It was called the 99% Spring.

The OWS movement has succeeded in bringing the issues of concentrated wealth, inequality, and the threat that oligarchy poses to democracy to public attention in the United States in a way that the labor movement has been unable to do on its own or even in coalition for decades.   These issues raised by OWS are core, existential issues for the labor movement and for the working class in the United States and around the world.

In Europe, as you all know better than me, similar movements have helped begin to turn the tide against European austerity.  Resistance to the politics of austerity has spread from the young indignados of Spain and Greece to the general European electorate.

In recent weeks, voters in Germany, France, Greece, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Romania have rejected politicians they see as proponents of Europe’s neoliberal austerity. In Ireland, the anti-austerity tide is swelling support for a “no” vote in the May 31 referendum on the European Union’s neoliberal fiscal pact.

While voter discontent has opened space for the emergence of left alternatives to hopelessly compromised Social Democrats, like Greece’s “True Left Party” (Syriza), it has also led to massive gains for far-right, anti-immigrant parties. As you all experienced so tragically here in Norway last year, and we have experienced over and over again in the U.S., right wing populism presents a particularly dangerous and repellent response to capitalism in crisis. Le Pen in France, the Freedom Party in the Netherlands, and the Golden Dawn in Greece, all mirror the politics of Tea Party conservatives in the U.S.

 

 

 

 

 

In my country, the racist right stokes the fears of the white working class by blaming immigrants and people of color for the destruction of the promise of the so-called American Dream, distracting workers’ attention from the corporate elites who outsourced their jobs and the compromised and corrupt politicians who allowed it to happen. Sadly, this kind of demagoguery often succeeds in spurring violent reactions that shut down progressive change.

Given this context, where are we headed?

For me, as someone who has spent the last nine months with one foot in the Occupy movement and one foot in the labor movement, the answer to that question depends on the answer to another question.  How deeply invested will the labor movement be in the Occupy movement as it re-emerges this spring and summer? Will the Occupy movement be viewed as a distraction from the real business of re-electing the President, or will it be treated as an equally necessary element of the struggle for workers’ human rights and social and economic justice?

Some U.S. unions were among the earliest supporters of the Occupy movement, and share many of its ideals.

However, the labor movement and the Occupy movement are also quite different. Unlike most U.S. unions, many participants in the Occupy movement take an explicitly anti-capitalist position. At the same time, other Occupy activists display a strong streak of economic libertarianism, which is at odds with the Social Democracy favored by many U.S. union members. The Occupy movement makes a point of not having a set of demands or a defined leadership, while, as we all know, trade unions are structured representative bodies that carefully formulate programs and demands. 

As Ursula Levelt of the National Lawyers Guild Labor and Employment Committee has pointed out, one benefit of the collaboration between labor and the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States has been the revival of what were once the basic tools of the labor movement—strikes, occupations, and other militant appeals to solidarity. The experience of these last months has also reminded us, however, that in the U.S. labor unions have weaker rights to freedom of association than other activists, consumers, and, of course corporations.

These legal restrictions on workers’ collective action are far more repressive than what the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and association, allows for other types of popular protests.

Occupy activists learned this from hard experience when their labor allies were reluctant to employ militant tactics favored by the Occupiers in key actions.

For example, while dock workers in California may have wanted to join Occupiers in shutting down the Oakland port in solidarity with the workers who had a dispute with a grain shipper seeking to open a non-union facility in Washington, the courts would likely have found that to be a “secondary” strike, which the law treats as unprotected and unlawful.  Union participation would have allowed employers not only to shut down picket lines with injunctions and punish unions with fines, but to fire the workers involved.  Occupy activists recognized no such limits and proceeded to shut down the port of Oakland, California on November 2nd and December 12th, over the objections of their union allies.

The Occupy activists’ ability to legally defy the worst parts of federal labor law gave them a freedom to act that labor did not have—and in the example I just discussed may have helped win the battle with that non-union grain shipper. Let me be clear.  OWS protesters did not just act when they knew the law permitted them to do so.  They also risked arrest, and inspired many in the labor movement with their creative, militant actions.

Although the strategies, tactics and cultures of the labor and OWS movements are different, they share the goal of greater economic justice and democracy.  Each movement stands to benefit from working with the other. The U.S. labor movement, for example, desperately needs an infusion of the youth, courageous street action and willingness to challenge the fundamental injustices of our economic system that permeate the Occupy movement.  Many, perhaps most, unions need challenges from below to ossified, overly cautious, bureaucratic decision-making structures that have contributed to decades of decline.

Some labor leaders feel threatened by these kinds of changes, and therefore resist them or believe they can ignore the Occupy movement.  This would be a historic error on the scale of the failure to embrace and become part of the anti-war and civil rights movements of the 1960s.

However, many unions do recognize the importance of the movement and are getting on board, at least with material support, if not mobilizing their members to participate.

On the other hand, some participants in the Occupy movement make the mistake of seeing all law and government and even leadership and organizational discipline as the enemy.  They believe that a participatory democratic process and street action are all that are needed to transform society. Participants in the Occupy movement will benefit from working with veteran trade union activists who do not lecture from on high but demonstrate through joint action over the course of time that this is a naïve and overly simplistic view of how social change works.

As someone who has been part of the movement for economic justice for many years, my intuition is that this long overdue class-based uprising in the United States and Europe will evolve and grow over the course of the spring and summer, if we continue to apply sustained, politically strategic “street heat” that is too strong for too long for politicians to bear.

Many Occupy activists and rebellious European youth are understandably fed up with and completely cynical about electoral politics. Yet, as every trade unionist knows, it cannot be ignored.  Electoral politics is a site of real contestation over power that directly impacts workers’ livelihoods and their families’ futures.

So what do I mean by politically strategic? The reason the right in my country made such a concerted effort to pass voter suppression, anti-immigrant and anti-union laws in 2010 was simple:  The 2008 Presidential elections saw record numbers of union members, students, people of color, recent immigrants and low income voters cast their ballots.  Members of these communities voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama in 2008.  These are the same communities whose votes would be blocked disproportionately if voter ID and anti-immigrant laws were passed.  And weakening unions removes one of the last obstacles to total political and economic hegemony by billionaires and their political agents.

So the US labor movement, instead of focusing exclusively on electing helpful politicians, should be organizing and mobilizing our members and building coalitions with the Occupy movement and others around the issues of immigrant rights, voter suppression and responses to the attacks on collective bargaining in politically strategic states. If they remain truly independent, these coalitions have the potential both to build on the momentum of the Occupy movement to create sustained political pressure from the streets, and to energize the electorate to vote out proponents of austerity, as we are seeing in Europe.

The chief internal problem the labor movement faces is that, in the half century since the Great Depression, many unions have become so institutionally entangled with the Democratic Party and so focused on servicing members and lobbying politicians that they have lost the capacity to effectively mobilize mass movements for systemic change.

This is why the Occupy movement presents such an important opportunity for labor.  It is only by building a sustained popular global movement on a greater scale than anything any of us have ever experienced that we will be able to halt the rise of right wing hate groups, stop the politics of austerity, and shift power relations in favor of the global majority.

This is serious business. Neoliberal capital will seek to crush those who stand in its way. Practically speaking, how are we preparing to help the Greek left win the elections on June 17, and to survive the onslaught if they do?  If the left wins and makes good on its promise to stop repaying the debt, and the dominant states of the European Union and their neoliberal paymasters decide to crack down, where will Greece get its oil? Where will they get financial credits?

Given that the Lords of Finance have turned the weapons of empire on the people of the colonizing countries, perhaps it is time for those us who live in those countries to look south for inspiration.

 

 

 

I am thinking in particular of Latin America, where decades of broad popular resistance to neoliberalism among formerly colonized countries has paid off in long-term shifts in political and economic power relations.  For example, Cuba has been joined by Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, several Caribbean nations, and to a lesser extent even Argentina and Brazil, in building a regional alliance for integration premised on social solidarity and mutual aid rather than exploitation and market fundamentalism.

The member states of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of our America, or ALBA, are in the process of introducing a new regional currency, the SUCRE, and an alternative banking system.  They already have a regional television network, and member states have developed trade agreements based on solidarity and mutual need, such as the exchange of doctors for oil between Cuba and Venezuela.

With respect, the experience of the ALBA countries suggests that it may not be the vision of European unity that is flawed, but the existing neoliberal model of the European Union.  ALBA suggests that a path towards an alternative vision for a United Europe is not a pipe dream.  As they say in Spanish, “se hace el camino por andar.” You make the path by walking it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If we in the labor movement give ourselves heart and soul to the Occupy and indignados movements, and articulate a clear vision for an alternative to the neoliberal status quo, we will help sustain and build the global mass mobilization against austerity for the long term.  Then, we will win the argument where it counts—in the workplace and the streets. Our voices, our bodies, our actions have power—let’s use them.

International Tribunal Notes Progress, Condemns Continuing Violations of Workers’ Human Rights in Mexico, Calls for Permanent Tribunal

Posted By: dhubbard

May Day rally, Mexico City 2012

From April 29 to May 3, I served on the International Tribunal for Trade Union Freedom of Association (Tribunal Internacional de Libertad Sindical, or TILS), which successfully concluded its fourth set of public hearings and made its third annual public declaration in the Zócalo (main plaza) at the May Day mobilization of independent unions in Mexico City. The Tribunal is composed of preeminent jurists, scholars, writers and human rights activists from throughout the Americas, as well as Spain. We experienced a powerful solidarity as we once again helped give voice to the cries of workers in Mexico for justice and human rights.

Map of Mexico in 1794 on back wall of Tribunal hearing room

Continued Violations of Workers’ Human Rights

The TILS held a public hearing on Sunday, April 29, at which 17 different independent unions presented testimony on grave abuses of the fundamental rights of human beings at work by the Mexican government, working hand-in hand with transnational corporations and “protection” and clientelist (or “charro”) unions.

These range from the continued detention of 12 members of the Mexican Electric Utility workers union (Sindicato Mexicano de Electricistas, or SME) as political prisoners, to the government’s ongoing refusal to release the bodies of 65 members of the Miners (Mineros) union killed in the Pasta de Conchos mine explosion, to its refusal to reinstate 26 trade union activists who were ousted at gunpoint by paramilitaries from their jobs at the state-owned oil company PEMEX.  New violations include Honda’s hiring of armed paramilitary guards to prevent representatives of a recently recognized independent union from meeting with workers, and many other abuses of workers’ human rights.

You can watch video (in Spanish) of the testimony at the Tribunal’s public hearing here: http://www.youtube.com/user/TILSMexico

Progress

At the same time, the Tribunal recognized that advances have occurred in the past year, as a result not only of the advocacy of the Tribunal but of amicus submissions from groups like the International Commission for Labor Rights (ICLR), solidarity provided by the international labor movement (as demonstrated by the work of the Tri-national Solidarity alliance and others), and most importantly the continued courageous activism of independent unions and their members in Mexico.

TILS press conference, May 2, 2012

The most significant advance came as the Tribunal was conducting its work in Mexico City on May 2. Shortly after the Tribunal ended a press conference, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Mexico’s highest court) issued a ruling that the state must recognize the election 4 years ago of Napoleón Gómez Urrutia as Secretary General of the Mineros Union, overturning the denial of “toma de nota” (administrative recognition of the union’s elected leadership without which the union has no legal existence) by the Secretary of Labor of the Administration of Mexican President Felipe Calderón.

Urrutia has been in exile in Canada for six years because of fraudulent criminal charges against him by the Mexican government.  The government initiated these charges after Urrutia referred to the 2006 deaths of the 65 miners at the Pasta de Conchas mine, owned by Grupo Mexico, Mexico’s most powerful corporation and the strongest political ally of the right wing PAN party of President Calderón, as “industrial homicide.”  This was viewed as a betrayal by Grupo Mexico and the governing party, who expected Urrutia to continue in the “charro” tradition of his father, who preceded him as President of the Mineros union.

The week before the Tribunal began its work, a federal court dismissed the last of the eight arrest warrants against Urrutia, although the government may still appeal. The May 2 ruling confirmed that the Supreme Court is serious about a decision it made last summer holding that the state may not interfere with the internal affairs of a union by improperly denying “toma de nota” to its elected leadership.

Declaration to Hundreds of Thousands of Workers at May Day Rally

On May 1, the international workers’ holiday, as Occupy-inspired protesters moved through the streets of U.S. cities, the Tribunal delivered its Declaration to hundreds of thousands of workers who filled the Zócalo, Mexico City’s historic central plaza.

Tribunal members with representatives of independent oil workers union at May Day rally

Among other things, the Tribunal declared to Mexican workers,

This is a special May Day. All over the world, workers are leaving their workplaces to show that better times lie ahead, and they are not willing to pay the costs of a crisis they did not cause. Even in the U.S., where until recently the origins of May 1 seemed to be forgotten, large mobilizations are taking place. Occupy, the Indignados–disgruntled workers are out in the streets everywhere. Today we hear in the major streets and plazas around the world the cry, “We are the 99%,” which resounds with the international solidarity among the peoples. . .

The criminalization of social protest, the outlawing of strikes, and especially the limits on freedom of association are an expression of [a] gradual but accelerating advance on the rights of working people.

Thus, today freedom of association and the ability of workers to organize independently of employers and governments is more than ever a necessity for survival of the working class and even of humanity. The exercise of human and social rights, and true democracy, cannot be complete without the freedom of those work for a living to associate without coercion of any kind.

. . . [T]he International Tribunal has confirmed a sharp increase of the violation of the rights of all the workers of Mexico, as well as the criminalization of social protest, in the midst of an alarming militarization of the country and violence that we know has claimed 60,000 lives. The exile of the leader of the miners’ union and the political prisoners of SME (the Mexican electric utility workers union) are the best examples of this criminalization. We demand his return and their immediate release. . .

But we also found that workers in virtually all sectors – industry, energy and telecommunications, services, and education-are victims of all kinds of abuses. A long chain of obstacles is interposed to the free exercise of trade union organization. Despite the law, [bureaucratic] mechanisms . . . are still being misused and applied arbitrarily by the authorities. Incredibly, we found that in the supposedly democratic Federal District (Mexico City), the Local Labor Board has issued a decree that illegally adds more than 300 “criteria” as prerequisites to granting recognition.

 We also condemn the growing abuses by transnational corporations in the country, as in the cases of Honda and Atento-Spanish Telephone, as well as  Wal-Mart which, in addition to newly evidenced corrupt practices, benefits from a whole system of labor abuse in complicity with the authorities, including obstruction of real unionization. . .

Sister and brothers, Mexican workers,
Nothing is inevitable. South America and other regions of the world are already showing that with organization and the determined struggle of the peoples, paths other than neoliberalism can be found, with more democracy and freedoms. It is possible. You can recover the freedom of association and with it the possibility of improving your living conditions. Today, May 1st, in all the streets of the world and here in Mexico, the workers are showing what a mobilized society can make possible.  In the end, the workers will win.

You can watch the video of the live Declaration in Spanish here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EtuCNLJmM8

The Tribunal’s Resolution

Tribunal members discuss resolution

The Tribunal has completed a draft of a detailed Resolution, which examines the facts of each of the 19 cases presented to it, analyzes the cases under relevant national and international labor rights norms, and makes detailed conclusions and recommendations regarding each, as well as the general situation facing independent unions and workers in Mexico.  The members of the Tribunal expect to finalize and release the Resolution before the end of May. A Permanent Tribunal

The members of the Tribunal continued the discussions that they began last May regarding the establishment of a Permanent Tribunal for the Americas.  The members of the Tribunal agreed that workers and unions throughout the continent, in Guatemala, Honduras, Chile, the United States and elsewhere, are facing a human rights emergency. In their discussions, TILS members agreed to begin by preparing a founding document which they will circulate– as a draft – to Global Union Federations, progressive international lawyers’ organizations, national union affiliates, and other worker advocacy and human rights organizations seeking their participation and support.

TILS members agree unanimously on a number of principles: The Permanent Tribunal will be autonomous—it will not be controlled or subsumed by any existing institution or organization.  It will be pluralistic and inclusive—it will invite the participation of all independent unions and workers’ organizations, regardless of affiliation or politics.  It will be open—it will hold public sessions and circulate its findings publicly.  It will be independent—Tribunal members and the Tribunal’s Organizing Committee, not funders or outside supporters, will make decisions.

Members of the Permanent Tribunal may include not only labor lawyers and academics but also people from broader society and culture who are of importance to the movement for workers’ collective and individual human rights.  The Permanent Tribunal will seek not to compete with existing institutions or organizations that deal with similar issues but to complement their work.

Finally, the TILS members discussed convening a founding meeting of the Permanent Tribunal’s potential participants and supporters in Brasilia this August, where the Hemisphere’s Ministers of Labor will be holding their own meetings at the same time.  TILS members anticipate that, at that meeting, the Permanent Tribunal will approve guidelines that reflect the foregoing principles and criteria, and make a decision regarding the country to host and be the subject of the Permanent Tribunal’s first cases.

In short, the sustained work of TILS in Mexico has produced concrete, positive results for workers and independent unions there, and the prospects for an autonomous, pluralistic, open Permanent Tribunal for the Americas are exciting and real.

Why is White Supremacy Rearing its Ugly Head Again?

Posted By: dhubbard

In some circles, overt racism is re-emerging from the shadows to which it seemed to have been at least semi-relegated for the last few decades.

Trayvon Martin

The righteous outrage generated by the refusal of Florida law enforcement authorities to arrest the vigilante who shot and killed unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin has spurred an ugly backlash. And it’s not just coming from internet trolls.  Even so-called mainstream media are now using an ahistorical racial equivalence as an almost invisible fig leaf for stories spewing far-right hate speech.  Take this one from Fox News, for instance, which calls neo-Nazis prowling the streets of Sanford, Florida, where Trayvon Martin was gunned down, a “civil rights group:”

The Fox reporter who interviews the Nazi leader fails to challenge him at all, even when he calls the Nazis a “white civil rights organization” and says, “the blacks have Al Sharpton, the whites have the National Socialists [Nazis].”

Each of the remaining Republican Presidential candidates has also been picking up on and channeling the zeitgeist of racial strereotypes, hatred and ignorance:

Santorum:

Gingrich:

And, last but certainly not least, Romney, who by virtue of his front-runner status, gets two videos:

The mainstreaming of this kind of thinking is made possible by the comfortable (for white people) illusion of supposedly color-blind “post-racialism,” as if history could be made to vanish and race could be magically extracted from our socially constituted reality. This is the kind of thinking that leads to reporters for a Fox news channel being unable to distinguish a “civil rights group” from a gang of white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

Let’s be clear. “Racism” is an ideology that reflects and seeks to reinforce power relations premised on the lie of white racial supremacy. I’m talking about power relations that protect a pyramidal hierarchy built on a spectrum of skin color privilege, with midnight black crushed at the base, lily-white at the rarified top, and the gradations of the rainbow in between. Race is a social construct that uses skin color as a marker for social and economic status.

Credit: Adam Curry

The recent surge of neo-Jim Crow era racial attitudes can be tracked in part to the election of our first African-American President.  The day after Obama’s election, media reported a run on guns and ammunition. The weapons pushers couldn’t keep their product on the shelves.

This wasn’t just about the misguided fear that after Obama took office in January he would push for more stringent gun control laws.  It was more visceral than that. There were and are millions of Americans who believed that when we elected Obama, it was the beginning of Armageddon, because the mental racial pyramid they carried in their subconscious got turned upside down, and all the irrational fears that prop up the ideology of white supremacy came tumbling out. For these folks, it was as if history was about to have its revenge, as if they were about to be crushed by the generations of Afro-Latino-First Nations-Asian ancestors whose bodies and lives paid for the privilege those of us who were born with light skin carry every day of our lives.  It was time to go get a gun.

You couldn’t miss it in the Tea Party:

Or with the birthers:

The Tea Party folks were so desperate to prove their racial attitudes are not what they in fact are, they clumsily embraced a right-wing pizza salesman with a history of sexual harassment- who happened to be African-descended – as their “white knight.”   That didn’t work out so well.  Nor did their flirtation with Michelle “Black People Should be Grateful for the Christianizing Influence of Slavery” Bachmann or Rick “N—–head” Perry or Donald “Birther-Lover” Trump or Ron “”The Confederacy was Right” Paul.  As we’ve already sen, finalists Santorum, Gingrich and Romney have all quite clearly demonstrated overtly racist attitudes too.

If you want empirical evidence of the recent surge in racist hate, here it is:

Source: Southern Poverty Law Center

Don’t get me wrong.  We all carry the social disease of white supremacy. Nobody’s immune.  Whatever our skin color. In some cases, it’s way down deep, or there’s just a trace.  But it infects us all.  The folks I’m talking about just have the most obvious cases.  Sometimes the ones you can’t see are more dangerous.

But today I’m reflecting on how and why it seems to have become okay to express views that support violence against darker-skinned people.  Part of it is a reaction to economic hard times. Blaming darker-skinned people for economic problems, whether it’s African-descended people or immigrants from the global south, is a tried and true tactic of the right. This tactic is clever because it distracts people from the real source of their oppression by setting them against each other.  Look at the number of anti-immigrant laws introduced in the first few months of last year alone:

Source: Uprooted

We should really be schooled to these tactics by now.  Rulers have been using them against us since at least the 17th century, when the white indentured servants and small farmers were getting a little too close to the African slaves in agitating for freedom. African slavery, like today’s use of vulnerable immigrant or “guest” workers, lowered the wages of European-descended laborers.  If the slaves and the white farmers rebelled, if they got together, freed the slaves and took over the land, that was in all their interests (that was what 40 acres and a mule—although it came much later– was all about).  But it threatened the powerful landowners.  So in Virginia, for example, the elite landowners cut a deal with the European-descended indentured servants—you can own a little property, we’ll call you a freeholder, you can even vote, and the best part is we’ll give you a job making sure these African slaves don’t run away. That’s the beginning of white privilege. Divide and rule.

In fact, the concept of “whiteness” didn’t really exist in what became the U.S. before then. So historically, the concepts of race and race privilege emerged from colonialism and the development of global capitalism, when a tiny group of European elites, acting in their own economic interests, used the false ideology of white supremacy to divide working class and poor European-descended people from and accomplish the global subjugation of darker-skinned peoples.

 

Credit: Barry Deutsch

Today, fear of dark-skinned people, whether they are undocumented so-called “illegal” immigrants or black young people, serves much the same purpose it did in the 17th century.

In reality, the proportion of serious violent crimes committed by African-Americans have been level and even declined slightly over the last thirty years.  Yet since Ronald Reagan became President in 1980 the incarceration rate for blacks has more than tripled.  (Tonry) Blacks are now 10 times more likely to be incarcerated than whites.  (Human Rights Watch).

What are the causes of this?  Loic Wacquant argues that prison is the latest in the historical series of “peculiar institutions” that have taken on the task of confining and defining African-Americans, following slavery, Jim Crow racial subordination laws, and the ghetto.  In the post-industrial era, the vestiges of the neighborhoods demarcated by skin color and the expanding prison system entrap a population of young African-Americans who have been rejected by the deregulated labor market that Clyde Woods refers to as part of a “neoplantation” development tradition. Around the world the term that’s often used to refer to this phenomenon is neoliberalism.

Source: African-American Golden Legacy

Specifically, the elimination of social welfare programs that began during the Reagan administration and came to fruition during the Clinton administration with the 1996 welfare reform, which was said to be intended to break a cycle of dependence, instead recreated a much deeper and more dangerous form of dependency.   The disappearance of the very limited safety net that the government provided, combined with global economic policies that support outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, capital and labor mobility, wages below the level needed to survive, classes of people who are less than full citizens, educational disaster zones and incarceration as a substitute for education, threw the historically marginalized sectors of our society, including the African-American working class, undocumented immigrants, poor people, together with much of the post-WWII middle class, into dependence upon what Woods calls the plantation owners of the late 20th and 21st century.  These are the same folks that the Occupy Wall Street movement has us referring to as the 1%.

A deliberately weak federal authority has failed in its obligation to protect the economic human rights of education, housing, jobs, income support and child care for all. It has allowed the creation of a privatized state, at least in terms of these rights. African-American youth and other historically marginalized people have been thrown on the “mercy” of the so-called prison-industrial complex.  Young black people who are considered unnecessary in the globalized, deindustrialized service economy of 21st century America are warehoused in prisons and ghettos,

Source: Collateral Costs: Incarceration's Effect on Economic Mobility, The Pew Charitable Trusts

 

or shot as they return home from buying Skittles and iced tea.

Clyde Woods and others argue that the so-called “discourse of black savagery” is a conscious political strategy predicated on white economic and racial fears that is essential to this neoplantation development model.  The persistence of this discourse is  exemplified by incidents ranging from the infamous Willie Horton ads in the 1988 Presidential campaign to Don Imus’ racially and sexually disparaging remarks about the Rutgers womens’ basketball team to the media’s obsession with Trayvon Martin’s school suspensions (as if that justified killing him) to the failure to arrest George Zimmerman.

When the economy is okay, and the ruling class feels relatively secure, overt racism can be safely stowed away, ready for use when needed.  During those times, we see the emergence of a more sophisticated form of white privilege. Tim Wise calls this version of white privilege “enlightened exceptionalism”: Individual darker-skinned people who don’t make white people uncomfortable—if they talk a certain way and their skin isn’t TOO dark and they don’t act “threatening”–are okay. We might even vote for them for President, as Harry Reid so awkwardly pointed out.

Credit: Charles Harris, 1948

The rest of those dark-skinned people?  Uh uh.  Most white folks still carry around a battered old suitcase bulging with stereotypes and fears about those “others.”

 

 

Note the doll

Of course, even after Obama’s election, the reality continued to be that the vast majority of darker-skinned people were crushed at the bottom of the global pyramid of wealth and power.  But pundits in the mainstream media invented this new category of people of color who, the pundits said, “transcended” their race. These “liberal” commentators invented and embraced the idea of a “post-racial” Presidency, in hopes that if we wished away the reality of white privilege and white supremacy, those irritating activists who persist in challenging the whole racial power structure would be marginalized and might just go away.   Meanwhile, who was asking white people to “transcend” their whiteness?  Whiteness is not “normal” —as we’ve seen, it’s an ethnic construct used to maintain the power and privilege of a very narrow spectrum of rulers at the top.

It was silly to believe that Obama’s election alone was enough to threaten the old social hierarchy of race. But some white folks believed it.  And his election happened in the midst of an economic crisis. The combined impact of the two “crises” (from the perspective of those whose reality was premised on the old order) was enough to crash the comparatively “civil” discourse of the new racism and unleash the rabid dogs of the new Jim Crow.

Those dogs don’t just attack people of color like Trayvon Martin or Shaima Alawadi or Dannaer Fields or Bobby Clark or William Allen. They attack everybody in different ways.

Entrance to the gated community in Sanford, Florida where Trayvon Martin was fatally shot by Neighborhood Watch vigilante George Zimmerman. Credit: David Manning/Reuters

They attack fear-filled white folks too, who, in seeking the illusion of “safety” from our country’s changing demographics by barring entry into their gated communities, instead lock themselves into a stilted and stunted world in which Mitt Romney’s “trees the right size, buildings the right size” dog-tied-to-the-top-of-the-car world view defines normalcy.  The rabid dogs of racism attack many people of color with crushing self-hatred. They deny us all the richness of life in a society of equals, where each of us celebrates the diversity of everybody’s humanity.

I don’t know about you, but if I’m forced to pick, I’ll take Obama’s soulful “Let’s Stay  Together”

over Romney’s milquetoast “America the Beautiful” any day.

But the point is we shouldn’t have to choose.  Let’s face it, Katherine Bates’ and Samuel Ward’s beautiful song sounded a whole lot better when Ray Charles got through with it.

And our country would be a whole lot better with more communication, more equality and a lot less fear of the “other.”

As the Occupy movement re-emerges this spring, we must give the struggle for racial equality more prominence, foregrounding police “stop and frisk” tactics against youth of color, the disparate impact of bank foreclosures and debt slavery on people of color (along with the rest of the 99%), and the desperate need to transform a history of racial inhumanity into a present of real equality.

But until African-American youth and other young people of color gain the tools to rebuild their lives, until the U.S. as a nation, as a society, finally redresses the legacy of slavery, we will have an increasingly restive and alienated African-American urban underclass.  This is a struggle that young people of color must lead.  It is a positive project in which the rest of us should be prepared to support them with our hearts, our souls, our resources, our work and our lives. When we do that, as a nation, as a society, in Sanford, in New Orleans, in New York, in LA, in Chicago, in Detroit, “from sea to shining sea,” we will truly be engaged in the process of building the nation that our country has long claimed to be.

Voter Suppression: Why it Matters

Posted By: dhubbard

The 2012 election is taking pace in the midst of an economic crisis that is having a devastating impact on working people around the world, union and non-union.  Naturally, working families in the U.S. are absorbed in the day-to-day struggle to survive in difficult times.

However, we also face a political crisis.  Well-funded conservative voter suppression efforts seek to turn the clock back to the days when workers couldn’t organize and the only people who could vote were white men who owned property.

After the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which unleashed unlimited “independent” corporate political expenditures, billionaires bankrolled the Tea Party movement and let loose a flood of cash to elect over 600 new Republican legislators and governors in the 2010 mid-term elections.  Political control shifted from Democrats to Republicans in states all over the country, as well as in the U.S. House.  The American Legislative Exchange Council, the coordinating body for right wing legislative initiatives, developed a national voter suppression strategy based on direct attacks against the groups that made Obama’s election possible by voting in record numbers in 2008: union members, young people, people of color (especially African-Americans and Latinos) and recent immigrants.

These voter suppression initiatives included direct attacks on public sector collective bargaining, right to work (without a union) laws, paycheck deception, voter i.d. laws and anti-immigrant laws.The outcome of the 2012 elections will directly impact the economic and political crises we face now.

Why focus on voter suppression?
Last year, Tea-Party inspired legislators in 34 states introduced voter ID laws that, in effect, would disenfranchise 21 million voters who don’t possess the kind of ID these laws mandate, even though years of research have shown voter impersonation to be an extremely rare, almost nonexistent problem.

The number of bills introduced in state capitals last year seeking to restrict or eliminate collective bargaining rights of public workers was staggering — 820— in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.  In past years, there have rarely been more than 100 such proposals nationwide.


Anti-immigrant bills were introduced in 36 states last year, almost all of which were copycat versions of Arizona’s SB 1070, which effectively legalized racial profiling.

Arizona-style anti-immigrant laws 2011 (Source: NCLR)

So why is there such a concerted effort to pass voter suppression and anti-union laws now? It’s simple:  The 2008 Presidential elections saw record numbers of union members, students, people of color, recent immigrants and low income voters cast their ballots.  Some 15.1 percent more African-Americans cast ballots in 2008 than in the 2004 elections. For Latinos, the increase in 2008 was 28.4 percent. These are the same communities whose votes would be blocked disproportionately if voter ID and anti-immigrant laws were passed. Similarly, weakening unions removes one of the last obstacles to total political control by billionaires and their allies.

These laws should be opposed on their merits, because they are un-American—they are designed to both keep people from exercising their hard-won right to vote and to dilute the impact of their votes if they do.  In one sense, they are trying to hold back the tide of change.  On the other hand, they could also have a significant, long-term impact on the kind of country we live in, and on our ability as workers to band together for a voice at work.

Voter Suppression: What’s the State of Play?
Let’s look at the potential consequences of voter suppression legislation in just three of the dozens of states that were targeted after the Tea Party sweep in the 2010 mid-term elections: Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin. Each of those states was a staging ground for  the assault on workers’ rights that began last winter. All are considered election battleground states that could go either way in the 2012 elections.

2012 Electoral map (battleground states are tan)

Electoral votes:

Florida:                  29
Ohio:                     18
Wisconsin:             10
Total:                      57

Thus, these three states alone, if brought from the undecided to the Obama camp, would raise the President’s projected electoral votes from 202 to 259–within one small-to-medium size state of the 270 he needs for victory.

Anti-union legislation:

Anti-union legislation was proposed and passed in all 3 of those Republican-controlled battleground states in 2011.  Let’s just look at the state of play in two of them, Ohio and Wisconsin:

Ohioans overwhelmingly voted in a November referendum to repeal that state’s virtual ban on collective bargaining, 61-39%. The monumental effort behind that victory put the infrastructure in place for a tremendous ground game in the November election.  Now Republican leaders are panicking, with the Attorney General calling on the legislature to repeal the voter suppression initiative they passed last year, out of fear that Democrats will turn out in massive numbers in November to vote on the referendum to repeal it.  At the same time, the enemies of labor have filed the paperwork to get a Right to Work (without a union) Constitutional amendment on the ballot in Ohio this November.

The Wisconsin recall will set the stage for the Presidential election in November. Wisconsin was one of several Midwestern states (like Ohio) that gave Barack Obama solid victories in 2008 but then, upset about continuing economic woes, elected Republicans, including Governor Scott Walker, in significant numbers in 2010.

Wisconsinites submitted over 1 million signatures to recall Scott Walker on January 17, shattering all expectations, leaving the threshold of 540,000 in the dust, and demonstrating the depth of continued public outrage over the attack on collective bargaining he unleashed last winter.  And the good news doesn’t stop there.  United Wisconsin also submitted hundreds of thousands of additional signatures supporting the recall of 5 Walker allies, including Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch.

If Walker is recalled, he will be only the third Governor in the history of the Republic to be handed that fate by angry voters.  It will show that Wisconsinites, like their neighbors in Ohio, have repudiated the Tea Party agenda driven by far-right politicians who came to power during the 2010 mid-term elections with the financial help of billionaires like the Koch Brothers, taking advantage of the Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United decision.

Workers’ rights activists in the Sunshine State defeated the most outrageous of the avalanche of anti-union bills pressed by Republican state legislators in 2011, a Worker Gag law that would have prohibited union dues money from being used for political purposes without similarly limiting corporate dues.  They also defeated a bill that would have required members of public unions to recertify their unions each year, a bill that would have required unions to send each member a reminder of how they can decertify the union, and a bill that would have prohibited local communities from passing ordinances to prevent theft of wages by unscrupulous employers.  However, the most right wing Florida legislature in 60 years did succeed in passing a number of new laws that will be deeply harmful to workers and ordinary people.  They passed a law which, in a time of record joblessness, reduces the duration of unemployment benefits by up to 54%, depending on the state’s unemployment rate.  Right wing Republican Governor Rick Scott also signed a new law that ends teacher tenure and establishes a merit pay plan based on student test scores.

Direct voter suppression legislation:

Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin were also among the many states in which Republican politicians passed vote suppressing “voter i.d.” laws in 2011.  A report by Sarah Jaffe  describes the impact of the voter i.d. laws in those three states:

Florida. The ground zero of voter suppression … Former President Bill Clinton turned his wrath Rick Scott’s way over one provision, that imposes a five-year waiting period for ex-prisoners to get their voting rights back.

“Why should we disenfranchise people forever once they’ve paid their price? Because most of them in Florida were African Americans and Hispanics who would tend to vote for Democrats, that’s why,” he said.

Scott’s bill requires outside groups who register voters to register their volunteers with the state and face fines if they don’t turn in ballots within 48 hours—the League of Women Voters says it’ll shut down voter registration activity.

It cuts down early voting from 15 days to eight—this after the 2008 election saw more than half of all votes in Florida cast early or by absentee ballot.

Cristina Francisco-McGuire of the Progressive States Network noted of 2008:

“… Overall, 1.1 million African American voters cast ballots in the state [in 2008], and 96% of those votes went to Obama. Obama won the state by a margin of less than 240,000 votes, thanks in part to the 54% of African American voters who cast a ballot at early voting sites.”

… The Florida ACLU and Project Vote have challenged the law under the Voting Rights Act of 1965—and in five counties, the law cannot go into effect without pre-clearance by the Justice Department because of the long history of black voter suppression there. Historian Karl Shepard, incensed by attacks on voters in Florida and around the country, noted the long history of Southern voter disenfranchisement, and warns, “Welcome to the new face of Jim Crow – in 2011 – black people and college students.”

 

(Ohio State Rep. Robert Mecklenborg was one of the key sponsors of Ohio’s bill that [requires] a driver’s license or one of five other forms of ID to vote. It’s been called possibly the nation’s most restrictive voter identification law because of the narrow range of acceptable documents. Meanwhile, not content with pushing for stricter requirements for voters, Ohio Republicans passed a bill that will shorten the period of time in which people can vote, and eliminate the “Golden Week” in which voters can both register to vote and cast an in-person absentee ballot. Early voting allows people without flexible schedules more time to vote and cuts down on long election-day poll lines, and same-day voter registration has been shown to significantly increase voter turnout.…

 

Meredith Clark called [Wisconsin Governor] Walker’s voter suppression bill his “evil genius masterpiece,” and it’s easy to see why. The bill changes the residency requirement from 10 days to 28 days before the election (effective immediately), shortens early voting (also effective immediately), enacts a strict photo ID requirement as of 2012 that will require state overhaul of student ID as well as requiring extra proof of residency from students … Clark noted:

“According to a University of Milwaukee study, non-white Wisconsin voters are far less likely to have a valid driver’s license than white voters, and nearly a quarter of voters older than 65 lack one. This means thousands of elderly and men and women of color will be required to pay for new identification cards before they will be allowed to exercise their right to vote. There are four times as many people of color living in poverty as there are white people. Democratic State Senator Lena Taylor called it a poll tax, and she’s right.”

Since Jaffe wrote her report, Ohio workers’ rights activists have succeeded in placing a referendum on the ballot to repeal the voter i.d. law there. Under Ohio law, that means the law doesn’t take effect unless and until voters approve it.

In short, strong worker fightback struggles in each of these three Republican-controlled battleground states rolled back or blocked Tea Party anti-union measures.  Ultimately, Republican anti-union and voter-suppression measures failed completely in Ohio, and had mixed success in Wisconsin and Florida.

As busy as working families are fighting for survival in this desperate economy (and it is desperate for working folks out there, despite the rosy picture painted by the corporate media), it is also vital that we take a look at the big picture and realize just how high the stakes are this election year, and how seriously these union-busting and voter suppression laws could impact our futures.

Durban Climate Talks End in Agreement, but Fall Short

Posted By: dhubbard

(All images in this post: ITUC)
Reposted from TWU Workers’ Rights are Human Rights page.
A comprehensive global treaty on climate change appears to be within reach for the first time after agreement was reached at the United Nations climate negotiations in Durban, South Africa in the early hours of Sunday morning.  However, the agreement does not include the immediate emissions cuts needed to avert irreversible climate disaster.  

Negotiators agreed to start work on a new climate deal that would have legal force and require both developed and developing countries to cut their carbon emissions. The terms now need to be agreed by 2015 and take effect beginning in 2020.


International Vice President Roger Toussaint, who represented TWU at the talks, was asked why it matters whether or not we deal with climate change. Toussaint replied, “Because if we do not, our country’s economy and direction will be dictated by the needs of the energy companies, and our children’s future will be sacrificed for them.”


The agreement came just in time, as the current global treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (which the U.S. never signed) expires in 2012. The international labor movement had come to the talks urging that the Kyoto Protocol at least be extended while a new agreement is being negotiated, and that a roadmap be established leading to a global agreement before 2015. 


However, the deal did little to address the scale of emissions cuts needed, and labor and environmental groups said this was a major shortcoming.  For example, the ITUC, which represents the international trade union movement, expressed its disappointment that climate negotiators in Durban had agreed a platform to continue negotiations, but without any guarantees that will make the cuts to emissions demanded by science to stop a climate disaster.


“The Kyoto Protocol, a critical piece in the climate agreement, survived the talks but without key countries, without commitments on emission reductions and with major loopholes. And a new negotiating round was launched aimed at being implemented in 2020,” said Sharan Burrow, President of the ITUC.


Scientists have warned the delay to 2020 puts the planet, and people at great risk of irreversible damage from rising temperatures.


“This delay must not distract from the immediate action governments need to take to invest in a low-carbon economy and create green jobs and a Just Transition,” said Sharan Burrow.  “Unions will not wait until 2020 for action to reduce emissions and reshape economies. “

The two weeks of talks — the last 60 hours of which was a single marathon negotiating session — ended with a surprise decision just before dawn on Sunday. The UK Guardian reported that with tempers rising and the talks minutes from being abandoned, the chair, South African foreign minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, ordered China, India, the US, Britain, France, Sweden, Gambia, Brazil and Poland to meet in a small group or “huddle”. Surrounded by nearly 100 delegates on the floor of the hall, they were forced to talk among themselves to try to reach a new form of words acceptable to all. And they did.

The agreement requires for the first time that developing countries, including China, which recently surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest overall emitter of greenhouse gases, agreeing to be legally bound to curb their emissions. Seemingly in exchange, the U.S., now the second biggest emitter and still the largest per capita emitter, also agreed that the new pact would have “legal force” – a step it considered in 1997 with the Kyoto protocol, but abandoned as Congress made clear it would not ratify that agreement. Previously, the Obama administration had said that it would only agree to a binding agreement if large developing countries like China would also agree to accept emissions cuts.  

At the Copenhagen talks in late 2009, President Obama put on the table the “Copenhagen Accord” in which countries announced emissions reductions for 2020 based on a voluntary system. However, reductions pledged by nations under that Accord fall dramatically short of the reductions the scientific community say are required to stabilize the world’s climate. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading scientific body dealing with climate change, the developed countries need to reduce their emissions below1990 levels by 25-40% on average by 2020. According to the Stockholm Institute, the emissions reductions for 2020 filed under the Copenhagen Accord—which remain aspirational—will set the world on a pathway to as much as 5 degrees Celsius of global warming, which is way above the level scientists say will lead to an “irreversible” climate crisis.


The agreement also ensured that developing countries will soon begin to gain access to billions of dollars in financial assistance from the developed world to help them move to a green economy and cope with the effects of climate change.

Global Unions Advocated Strong Steps

In both a public statement and a letter to US chief negotiator Todd Stern, the Blue Green Alliance (which represents 14 union and environmental partners) declared climate change to be “a dire and urgent threat” and called on the US to both support a binding agreement and to do what it could to make up for lost time in reducing US emissions. Unions were seriously engaged in the official talks inside the convention center, but they also worked on the outside along with other social movements. Discussions focused on how to address the climate crisis in ways that are effective and equitable—and to fill the vacuum left by the inaction of governments. Addressing the 10,000-person march in Durban on Saturday, December 3, South Africa’s leading trade union figure, COSATU general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi, said, “We demand action not tourism. This cannot be a world conference in which everybody came just to have a nice time.” 

Vavi and other trade union leaders and climate justice advocates got at least part of what they asked for.

(Based on reporting by the UK Guardian, the International Trade Union Confederation, and the Cornell Global Labor Institute)

Thank you Ohio

Posted By: dhubbard

( Photo: AFL-CIO ) Final GOTV push, No on 2, Columbus Ohio, November 8, 2011.  (l. to r.: JW Johnson, Managing Dir, Leg. and Govt. Affairs, TWU; Richard Trumka, President, AFL-CIO; Dean Hubbard; Theotis James, In’l. Rep., AFL-CIO)

Ohio voters came out in full force Tuesday to repeal the Ohio law, SB5, which would have practically eliminated public sector collective bargaining in the state.
In the most closely watched election since Tea-Party billionaires and their political hired hands launched an all out assault on workers’ human rights last winter, Ohioans resoundingly rejected SB5 by a 61-39 percent margin.
Last night’s victory was the culmination of a massive grassroots effort, coordinated by We Are Ohio, to repeal the law that was rammed through Ohio’s legislature this past spring, despite massive protests.  In a matter of weeks, activists collected nearly 1. 3 million signatures, five times the number needed to place the repeal referendum on the ballot.
TWU members were at the core of a broad national coalition that petitioned, canvassed, phone banked and volunteered in Ohio to ensure SB5 would be repealed.
The people of Ohio have fired a shot that will be heard around the country. They have let it be known that working people and the 99% will not stand aside and watch as oligarchs try to steal their hard-won rights in a quest for total control of our democracy.
So thank you Ohio, from everyone in the labor movement and from all Americans of conscience.  And thank you to TWU members for keeping the faith, standing strong and winning this fight for all of us.

(l. to r.: Carl Martin, JW Johnson, unknown, Robert Gless, all of TWU)

ILO Upholds TWU Complaint, Finds NY Strike Ban Violates Workers’ Human Rights

Posted By: dhubbard

Reposted from TWU Workers’ Rights are Human Rights page

James C. Little, President of the Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO (TWU), announced today that the Committee on Freedom of Association of the International Labor Organization (ILO) has found that the New York law banning and penalizing public worker strikes violates fundamental workers’ rights protected by international law. This decision upholds a complaint filed in 2009 by Little and former Local 100 President (now International Vice President) Roger Toussaint.

The Committee found that the outright ban on public sector strikes under New York’s Taylor Law, as well as the punishments it imposes on “illegal” strikes (including fines, loss of dues check off and imprisonment of union leaders), violates the Freedom of Association protected under ILO Conventions 87 and 98. 

The Committee recommended that the U.S. government 

take steps aimed at bringing the state legislation, through the amendment of the relevant provisions of the Taylor Law, into conformity with freedom of association principles so that only (1) public servants exercising authority in the name of the state and (2) workers of essential services in the strict sense of the term may be restricted in their right to 
strike. 

The Committee also urged the Government

to take measures without delay to ensure that the union is fully compensated in respect of the sanctions and the withdrawal of check-off and to take steps for the compensation of Mr. Toussaint for his ten-day detention and the additional sanctions imposed against the striking workers. 

Little said, “This ruling from the ILO, which pertains to the critical New York City transit sector, could become a spearhead for the American labor movement’s defense of the rights of public sector workers, and eventually spur re-shaping of U.S. law in this area.” 

The complaint was based on New York’s response to TWU Local 100’s 60 hour strike in December 2005. At that time, New York’s MTA had a $1 billion surplus, but was insisting on concessions that included divisive two tier pensions and health care proposals. These concessions, which the strike prevented, would have tripled employee contributions, with the result that workers would have lost tens of millions of dollars in earnings by now and hundreds of millions over the long run. New York State courts responded to the strike with an array of penalties, including a $2.5 million fine on the union, a penalty of an additional day’s lost pay for each day each worker was out on strike, personal fines on the top three officers, and jail time for the Local President. Most harmfully, the courts ordered an end to Local 100’s automatic dues check off. This last penalty, which ultimately lasted 18 months, struck observers as nothing less than an effort to break Local 100, intimidate the entire labor movement and eliminate the threat of any public sector strike in the future. But TWU’s flagship Local was not so easy to kill.

The ILO, a tri-partite (governments, employers and unions) agency of the United Nations, has long held that the right to strike is an essential element of the Freedom of Association and the right to collective bargaining protected by core Conventions 87 and 98. (They are called “core” Conventions because, since 1998, the ILO has found that they are “fundamental to the rights of human beings at work.”) The ILO Committee on Freedom of Association has repeatedly ruled that, as a founding member of the ILO that has agreed to follow the ILO Constitution, the United States is bound by the principles of these Conventions. In other words, even though the U.S. has failed to ratify Conventions 87 and 98, they simply elaborate the key principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining already contained in the ILO Constitution, by which all ILO member states, including the U.S., are bound. The ILO Constitution is a treaty obligation of the U.S., and under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal and state courts are bound by it, even if state laws, such as the Taylor Law, contradict it.

Plainly put, the right to strike is an element of the Freedom of Association, which is the highest law of the land. The Taylor Law’s ban on and penalties for strikes, as applied to TWU Local 100 and its members in 2005, violated this Freedom. 

Little added, “It is now up to U.S. courts and government agencies to rectify this wrong. TWU will be there every step of the way to help make sure they do.”

Click here to read the Decision and the Complaint

Occupy Wall Street is Dr. King’s Unfinished Business: “Your Whole Structure Must Be Changed”

Posted By: dhubbard

This essay was originally posted on the Middle Collegiate Church Economic Justice Facebook page (my church). It was inspired by a blog post on OWS by our senior minister, the Rev. Dr. Jacqueline Lewis. 

General Assembly, Zuccotti Park, Sept. 30, 2011

Zuccotti Park, October 2, 2011
OWS is Dr. King’s Unfinished Business.
I remember Jacqui saying a couple years ago that we need to have an honest conversation about money. That conversation was about giving. Now you could say the Creator is acting through the Occupy Wall Street movement to tell us it’s time to have another even more difficult and more honest conversation about money.  This time, as Jacqui points out, it’s about class.  As someone who has been part of the movement for economic justice for many years, my feeling is, “hooray! It’s about time!” 

As Jacqui says, this is not about naming, blaming or shaming individuals.  But it is about having the courage to make the fundamental systemic changes we need to make to move towards what Jacqui calls God’s economy. These are not small changes. It is great that Middle members generously give clothes and food to people who need it. This is important work. It is God’s work.  But God asks us to do more.  Much more. 
 
Even a cursory look at the data will tell you that this country has been experiencing a rapidly widening gulf between the haves and have-nots for the last 30 years. And 30 years ago there was already a gulf– a gulf between the haves and have-nots that has existed as long as this country has. It goes back as far as colonialism and slavery and the industrial revolution. And all these historic events have to be seen through the lens of the particular form of capitalism that dominates our economy. 
  

OWS labor solidarity rally, Oct. 5, 2011

 
Lots of people believe that there will always be poor people, and there’s really not much we can do about economic injustice.  While the first part of that truism may be true, the second is most definitely false.  There may always be poor people, but there is plenty we can do to create more economic justice, to move closer to the kind of economy that God wants for us.  I believe God is weeping with joy as this Occupy Wall Street movement unfolds.  God is not neutral about class any more than God is neutral about race or gender or sexual identity. God wants racial equality. God wants gender equality. God wants LGBTI equality.  And God wants economic equality. 
 
I’m sure that makes some people uncomfortable. God’s will always does, especially when equality requires people of faith with unjust privileges to give some up.  I imagine someone asking, “but I earned my money, how is that an unjust privilege?”  The answer is found in the parable that Jacqui paraphrased from Matthew 20:1-16, in which workers who were hired early in the morning to work in the vineyard got the same pay as those who came at the end of the day. Another way to relate the message of this teaching is “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”

Occupy Wall Street People’s Library

OWS Good Neighbor Policy

OWS labor table

One of the most eloquent human vehicles for this message, in my view, was our beloved Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.   Many people are not aware that Dr. King began to focus more on economic justice than any other issues during the last years of his life.  In 1966 he began working in low income neighborhoods in Chicago and other northern cities to address economic inequality and injustice, and in 1968 when he was killed, he was working on organizing the Poor People’s Campaign, bringing together poor and moderate income people of all races in an attempt to win an “economic bill of rights.”
 
His words ring truer today than they did 43 years ago.  I would go so far as to say the struggle for economic justice, the struggle we see now manifested in the Occupy Wall Street movement, is Dr. King’s last and biggest piece of unfinished business. It is business an assassin’s bullet left us to complete for him. 
 
In a speech called  Beyond Vietnam– A Time to Break the Silence, which Dr. King gave on April 4, 1967, he said,
 
On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life’s roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: “This is not just.” It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: “This is not just.” . . . America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values.
  
In August 1967, Dr. King developed this theme further in a speech to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, called Where Do We Go From Here?  Here is an excerpt:
 
. . . I want to say to you as I move to my conclusion, as we talk about “Where do we go from here?” that we must honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, “Why are there forty million poor people in America?” And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life’s marketplace. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. And you see, my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, “Who owns the oil?” You begin to ask the question, “Who owns the iron ore?” You begin to ask the question, “Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that’s two-thirds water?” These are words that must be said.
 
Now, don’t think you have me in a bind today. I’m not talking about communism. What I’m talking about is far beyond communism… What I’m saying to you this morning is communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social. And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both. Now, when I say questioning the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated.
 
And if you will let me be a preacher just a little bit. One day, one night, a juror came to Jesus and he wanted to know what he could do to be saved. Jesus didn’t get bogged down on the kind of isolated approach of what you shouldn’t do. . . He said something altogether different, because Jesus realized something basic: that if a man will lie, he will steal. And if a man will steal, he will kill. So instead of just getting bogged down on one thing, Jesus looked at him and said, “Nicodemus, you must be born again.” In other words, “Your whole structure must be changed.”
 
A nation that will keep people in slavery for 244 years will “thingify” them and make them things. And therefore, they will exploit them and poor people generally economically. And a nation that will exploit economically will have to have foreign investments and everything else, and it will have to use its military might to protect them. All of these problems are tied together. What I’m saying today is that we must go from this convention and say, “America, you must be born again! 
 
And on March 31, 1968, less than a week before he died in Memphis, where he went to support the city’s striking garbage workers in their struggle for economic justice, he left no doubt about where this nation must go, in a speech called Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution:
 
This is America’s opportunity to help bridge the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. The question is whether America will do it. There is nothing new about poverty. . . The real question is whether we have the will.
 
In a few weeks some of us are coming to Washington to see if the will is still alive or if it is alive in this nation. We are coming to Washington in a Poor People’s Campaign. . .
 
We read one day, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” But if a man doesn’t have a job or an income, he has neither life nor liberty nor the possibility for the pursuit of happiness. He merely exists.
 
We are coming to ask America to be true to the huge promissory note that it signed years ago. And we are coming to engage in dramatic nonviolent action, to call attention to the gulf between promise and fulfillment; to make the invisible visible…
 
One day we will have to stand before the God of history and we will talk in terms of things we’ve done. Yes, we will be able to say we built gargantuan bridges to span the seas, we built gigantic buildings to kiss the skies. Yes, we made our submarines to penetrate oceanic depths. We brought into being many other things with our scientific and technological power.
 
It seems that I can hear the God of history saying, “That was not enough! But I was hungry, and ye fed me not. I was naked, and ye clothed me not. I was devoid of a decent sanitary house to live in, and ye provided no shelter for me. And consequently, you cannot enter the kingdom of greatness. If ye do it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye do it unto me.” That’s the question facing America today.
 
And that’s still the question facing America today.  Dr. King last asked the question in 1968. Since April 4 of that year, the question has hung in the air, unanswered.  The Occupy Wall Street movement demands that we answer it.