(GOP) Crippling the Right to Organize
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
UNLESS something changes in Washington, American workers will, on New Year’s Day, effectively lose their right to be represented by a union.
Two of the five seats on the National Labor Relations Board, which protects collective bargaining, are vacant, and on Dec. 31, the term of Craig Becker, a labor lawyer whom President Obama named to the board last year through a recess appointment, will expire. Without a quorum, the Supreme Court ruled last year, the board cannot decide cases.
What would this mean?
Workers illegally fired for union organizing won’t be reinstated with back pay. Employers will be able to get away with interfering with Union Elections. Perhaps most important, employers won’t have to recognize unions despite a majority vote by workers. Without the board to enforce Labor Law, most companies will not voluntarily deal with unions.
If this nightmare comes to pass, it will represent the culmination of three decades of Republican resistance to the Labor Board — an unwillingness to recognize the fundamental right of workers to band together, if they wish, to seek better pay and working conditions. But Mr. Obama is also partly to blame; in trying to install partisan stalwarts on the board, as his predecessors did, he is all but guaranteeing that the impasse will continue. On Wednesday, he announced his intention to nominate two pro-union lawyers to the board, though there is no realistic chance that either can gain Senate confirmation anytime soon.
For decades after its creation in 1935, the Labor Board was a relatively fair arbiter between labor and capital. It has protected workers’ right to organize by, among other things, overseeing elections that decide on union representation. Employers may not engage in unfair labor practices, like intimidating organizers and discriminating against union members. Unions are prohibited, too, from doing things like improperly pressuring workers to join.
The system began to run into trouble in the 1970s. Employers found loopholes that enabled them to delay the board’s administrative proceedings, sometimes for years. Reforms intended to speed up the board’s resolution of disputes have repeatedly foundered in Congress.
The precipitous decline of organized labor — principally a result of economic forces, not legal ones — cemented Unions’ dependence on the board, despite its imperfections. Meanwhile, business interests, represented by an increasingly conservative Republican Party, became more assertive in fighting unions.
The Board became dysfunctional. Traditionally, members were career civil servants or distinguished lawyers and academics from across the country. But starting in the Reagan era, the board’s composition began to tilt toward Washington insiders like former Congressional staff members and former lobbyists.
Starting with a compromise that allowed my confirmation in 1994, the Board’s members and general counsel have been nominated in groups. In contrast to the old system, the new “batching” meant that nominees were named as a package acceptable to both parties. As a result, the board came to be filled with rigid ideologues.
Under President George W. Bush, the board all but stopped using its discretion to obtain court orders against employers before the board’s own, convoluted, administrative process was completed — a power that, used fairly, is a crucial protection for workers. In 2007, in what has been called the September Massacre, the board issued rulings that made it easier for employers to block Union organizing and harder for illegally fired employees to collect back pay. Democratic senators then blocked Mr. Bush from making recess appointments to the board, as President Bill Clinton had done. For 27 months, until March 2010, the board operated with only two members; in June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that it needed at least three to issue decisions.
Under Mr. Obama, the Board has begun to take enforcement more seriously, by pursuing the court orders that the board under Mr. Bush had abandoned. Sadly, though, the board has also been plagued by unnecessary controversy. In April, the acting general counsel issued a complaint over Boeing’s decision to build airplanes at a nonunion plant in South Carolina, following a dispute with Boeing machinists in Washington State. Although the complaint was dropped last week after the machinists reached a new contract agreement with Boeing, the controversy reignited Republican threats to cut financing for the board.
In my view, the complaint against Boeing was legally flawed, but the threats to cut the board’s budget represent unacceptable political interference. The shenanigans continue: last month, before the board tentatively approved new proposals that would expedite unionization elections, the sole Republican member threatened to resign, which would have again deprived the board of a quorum.
Mr. Obama needs to make this an election-year issue; if the board goes dark in January, he should draw attention to Congressional obstructionism during the campaign and defend the board’s role in protecting employees and employers. A new vision for labor-management cooperation must include not only a more powerful board, but also a less partisan one, with members who are independent and neutral experts. Otherwise, the partisan morass will continue, and American workers will suffer.
By William B. Gould, NY Times
William B. Gould IV, a law professor at Stanford, was chairman of the National Labor Relations Board from 1994 to 1998.
Editor: This Board member thinks there are "neutral Labor experts"?
After the Rethuglian attack on Labor Unions since 1970, there are only
Union Busting Experts working for management, and rank and files'
Union Building Experts. Obama must appoint Commissioners during
the Recess.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Worker-Owner Co-Ops Spreading
Worker-Owners of America, Unite!
Ross MacDonald
By GAR ALPEROVITZ
Published: December 14, 2011
THE Occupy Wall Street protests have come and mostly gone, and whether they continue to have an impact or not, they have brought an astounding fact to the public’s attention: a mere 1 percent of Americans own just under half of the country’s financial assets and other investments. America, it would seem, is less equitable than ever, thanks to our no-holds-barred capitalist system.
But at another level, something different has been quietly brewing in recent decades: more and more Americans are involved in co-ops, worker-owned companies and other alternatives to the traditional capitalist model. We may, in fact, be moving toward a hybrid system, something different from both traditional capitalism and socialism, without anyone even noticing.
Some 130 million Americans, for example, now participate in the ownership of co-op businesses and credit unions. More than 13 million Americans have become worker-owners of more than 11,000 employee-owned companies, six million more than belong to private-sector unions.
And worker-owned companies make a difference. In Cleveland, for instance, an integrated group of worker-owned companies, supported in part by the purchasing power of large hospitals and universities, has taken the lead in local solar-panel installation, “green” institutional laundry services and a commercial hydroponic greenhouse capable of producing more than three million heads of lettuce a year.
Local and state governments are likewise changing the nature of American capitalism. Almost half the states manage venture capital efforts, taking partial ownership in new businesses. Calpers, California’s public pension authority, helps finance local development projects; in Alaska, state oil revenues provide each resident with dividends from public investment strategies as a matter of right; in Alabama, public pension investing has long focused on state economic development.
Moreover, this year some 14 states began to consider legislation to create public Banks similar to the longstanding Bank of North Dakota; 15 more began to consider some form of single-payer or public-option health care plan.
Some of these developments, like rural co-ops and credit unions, have their origins in the New Deal era; some go back even further, to the Grange movement of the 1880s. The most widespread form of worker ownership stems from 1970s legislation that provided tax benefits to owners of small businesses who sold to their employees when they retired. Reagan-era domestic-spending cuts spurred nonprofits to form social enterprises that used profits to help finance their missions.
Recently, growing economic pain has provided a further catalyst. The Cleveland cooperatives are an answer to urban decay that traditional job training, small-business and other development strategies simply do not touch. They also build on a 30-year history of Ohio employee-ownership experiments traceable to the collapse of the steel industry in the 1970s and ’80s.
Further policy changes are likely. In Indiana, the Republican state treasurer, Richard Mourdock, is using state deposits to lower interest costs to employee-owned companies, a precedent others states could easily follow. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, is developing legislation to support worker-owned strategies like that of Cleveland in other cities. And several policy analysts have proposed expanding existing government “set aside” procurement programs for small businesses to include co-ops and other democratized enterprises.
If such cooperative efforts continue to increase in number, scale and sophistication, they may suggest the outlines, however tentative, of something very different from both traditional, corporate-dominated capitalism and traditional socialism.
It’s easy to overestimate the possibilities of a new system. These efforts are minor compared with the power of Wall Street banks and the other giants of the American economy. On the other hand, it is precisely these institutions that have created enormous economic problems and fueled public anger.
During the populist and progressive eras, a decades-long buildup of public anger led to major policy shifts, many of which simply took existing ideas from local and state efforts to the national stage. Furthermore, we have already seen how, in moments of crisis, the nationalization of auto giants like General Motors and Chrysler can suddenly become a reality. When the next financial breakdown occurs, huge injections of public money may well lead to de facto takeovers of major banks.
And while the American public has long supported the capitalist model, that, too, may be changing. In 2009 a Rasmussen poll reported that Americans under 30 years old were “essentially evenly divided” as to whether they preferred “capitalism” or “socialism.”
A long era of economic stagnation could well lead to a profound national debate about an America that is dominated neither by giant corporations nor by socialist bureaucrats. It would be a fitting next direction for a troubled nation that has long styled itself as of, by and for the people.
But at another level, something different has been quietly brewing in recent decades: more and more Americans are involved in co-ops, worker-owned companies and other alternatives to the traditional capitalist model. We may, in fact, be moving toward a hybrid system, something different from both traditional capitalism and socialism, without anyone even noticing.
Some 130 million Americans, for example, now participate in the ownership of co-op businesses and credit unions. More than 13 million Americans have become worker-owners of more than 11,000 employee-owned companies, six million more than belong to private-sector unions.
And worker-owned companies make a difference. In Cleveland, for instance, an integrated group of worker-owned companies, supported in part by the purchasing power of large hospitals and universities, has taken the lead in local solar-panel installation, “green” institutional laundry services and a commercial hydroponic greenhouse capable of producing more than three million heads of lettuce a year.
Local and state governments are likewise changing the nature of American capitalism. Almost half the states manage venture capital efforts, taking partial ownership in new businesses. Calpers, California’s public pension authority, helps finance local development projects; in Alaska, state oil revenues provide each resident with dividends from public investment strategies as a matter of right; in Alabama, public pension investing has long focused on state economic development.
Moreover, this year some 14 states began to consider legislation to create public Banks similar to the longstanding Bank of North Dakota; 15 more began to consider some form of single-payer or public-option health care plan.
Some of these developments, like rural co-ops and credit unions, have their origins in the New Deal era; some go back even further, to the Grange movement of the 1880s. The most widespread form of worker ownership stems from 1970s legislation that provided tax benefits to owners of small businesses who sold to their employees when they retired. Reagan-era domestic-spending cuts spurred nonprofits to form social enterprises that used profits to help finance their missions.
Recently, growing economic pain has provided a further catalyst. The Cleveland cooperatives are an answer to urban decay that traditional job training, small-business and other development strategies simply do not touch. They also build on a 30-year history of Ohio employee-ownership experiments traceable to the collapse of the steel industry in the 1970s and ’80s.
Further policy changes are likely. In Indiana, the Republican state treasurer, Richard Mourdock, is using state deposits to lower interest costs to employee-owned companies, a precedent others states could easily follow. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, is developing legislation to support worker-owned strategies like that of Cleveland in other cities. And several policy analysts have proposed expanding existing government “set aside” procurement programs for small businesses to include co-ops and other democratized enterprises.
If such cooperative efforts continue to increase in number, scale and sophistication, they may suggest the outlines, however tentative, of something very different from both traditional, corporate-dominated capitalism and traditional socialism.
It’s easy to overestimate the possibilities of a new system. These efforts are minor compared with the power of Wall Street banks and the other giants of the American economy. On the other hand, it is precisely these institutions that have created enormous economic problems and fueled public anger.
During the populist and progressive eras, a decades-long buildup of public anger led to major policy shifts, many of which simply took existing ideas from local and state efforts to the national stage. Furthermore, we have already seen how, in moments of crisis, the nationalization of auto giants like General Motors and Chrysler can suddenly become a reality. When the next financial breakdown occurs, huge injections of public money may well lead to de facto takeovers of major banks.
And while the American public has long supported the capitalist model, that, too, may be changing. In 2009 a Rasmussen poll reported that Americans under 30 years old were “essentially evenly divided” as to whether they preferred “capitalism” or “socialism.”
A long era of economic stagnation could well lead to a profound national debate about an America that is dominated neither by giant corporations nor by socialist bureaucrats. It would be a fitting next direction for a troubled nation that has long styled itself as of, by and for the people.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
London Strike Spreads to 1000 Cities
'Biggest strike in a generation' for Britain's public sector workers
More than two thirds of British schools were shut on Wednesday as an estimated two million public sector workers staged a one-day walkout in a row over pension reforms.
Unions claimed the strike, which saw thousands of hospital operations cancelled and caused delays at British airports, was the biggest industrial action in the UK for more than thirty years.
Employees responsible for delivering many of Britain's public services are angry over plans to raise their retirement age to 67 and force workers to increase their monthly pension contributions.
The government insists that workers must face up to a stark new reality. The British economy is barely growing and is feeling the effects of the eurozone crisis, not to mention the UK's own debt problems.
Ministers claim that workers in the public sector, which includes Britain's largest employer, the National Health Service (NHS), have seen their standard of living rise dramatically over the last ten years, while those on the private sector payroll have seen average incomes fall.
Public opinion divided
But some workers say the government has exaggerated just how generous public sector pensions are, in an attempt to split public opinion.
"The average pension for people working in the NHS is 8,000 pounds (9,340 euros; $12,554) a year," said Jackie Hall, a child psychotherapist for the NHS. "It's made out as if the rest of the country is financing something which is exorbitant. But it's actually something very modest and really well earned," said Hall, who joined Wednesday's march through central London with her colleagues.
More than 25,000 people turned out for the rally on the banks of the River Thames, just a short walk from London's famous Houses of Parliament.
Union officials hoped that despite battling a coalition government determined to cut Britain's enormous public deficit, the one-day strike would help force officials to rethink their offer.
"We've been in negotiations with the government since January," said Karen Jennings, assistant deputy secretary of Unison, Britain's largest public sector union. "It was only the day before we announced our ballot that the government went to parliament and made some concessions," she added.
Economic outlook worsens
But in a warning that unions may be too optimistic, UK Chancellor George Osborne told parliament less than 24 hours earlier, that additional austerity measures were necessary to bring down Britain's debt levels.
Public sector workers, he said, could expect just a one percent annual pay increase between now and 2014. Osborne said he had no option but to bring forward plans to increase the retirement age.
Workers attending the London rally say morale in many parts of the UK's public sector is at an all-time low.
"I'm now facing a time when I'm reconsidering my career because I'd be much better off in the private sector," said Judith McAteer, a teacher from the London borough of Lewisham.
"Conditions are getting worse and the only thing you had to look forward to was a decent pension. But that's being taken away from us as well," added McAteer who moved to the British capital from Northern Ireland because of a lack of employment prospects.
Despite those worries, analysts warn that Britain's public sector faces even tougher times. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that another 330,000 jobs will have to be lost before 2015 in addition to nearly half a million positions already earmarked to be cut.
Women bear the brunt
Unions say that women will be disproportionately affected by the reforms as many are employed as nurses, teachers and social workers.
"Women are looking after people every day of the week. They're the cohesive side of society," said Karen Jennings from the union Unison. "I think people, and the female voter in particular, will make sure that the government rues the day if they don't concede," she warned.
Unlike many health workers, Britain's 400,000 nurses did not take part in the strike. Nurses unions, who are due to ballot their members about industrial action in January, are equally worried about the government's plans to increase pension contributions.
Union leaders says it is the equivalent of a three percent tax increase, at a time when inflation in the UK has reached more than five percent and Britain's sales tax was raised to 20 percent.
"What the government is saying to us is 'you can pay more, work longer and get a lot less at the end of it'," said Faith Thornhill, who works at University College Hospital in London.
The nurse, who joined a picket line for striking workers warned ministers that they may end up with a much bigger pension bill: "A lot of us can't afford the increase and may have to leave the scheme," said Thornhill. "If that happens and the scheme collapses, we'll be more reliant on our state pension and it will cost the government more."
Minimal Disruption
More than a thousand similar rallies were held all over the UK. An estimated 20,000 people marched through the streets of Manchester, another 10,000 protested in Glasgow.
Despite fears that the one-day strike would bring much of Britain to a standstill, commentators said the disruption was minimal. Border officials arranged alternative cover for customs officers at UK ports and airports. Contingency plans at hospitals and local government offices helped keep services running.
About a third of council staff in England and Wales were not at work on Wednesday.
Prime Minister David Cameron played down the impact of the walk-out described the strike as a "damp squib" while Trades Union Congress general secretary Brendan Barber said the strike was "a terrific success".
Author: Nik Martin
Editor: Joanna Impey
<http://mobile.dw-world.de/english/ua.2/mobile.A-15569126-1433.html>
More than two thirds of British schools were shut on Wednesday as an estimated two million public sector workers staged a one-day walkout in a row over pension reforms.
Unions claimed the strike, which saw thousands of hospital operations cancelled and caused delays at British airports, was the biggest industrial action in the UK for more than thirty years.
Employees responsible for delivering many of Britain's public services are angry over plans to raise their retirement age to 67 and force workers to increase their monthly pension contributions.
The government insists that workers must face up to a stark new reality. The British economy is barely growing and is feeling the effects of the eurozone crisis, not to mention the UK's own debt problems.
Ministers claim that workers in the public sector, which includes Britain's largest employer, the National Health Service (NHS), have seen their standard of living rise dramatically over the last ten years, while those on the private sector payroll have seen average incomes fall.
Public opinion divided
But some workers say the government has exaggerated just how generous public sector pensions are, in an attempt to split public opinion.
"The average pension for people working in the NHS is 8,000 pounds (9,340 euros; $12,554) a year," said Jackie Hall, a child psychotherapist for the NHS. "It's made out as if the rest of the country is financing something which is exorbitant. But it's actually something very modest and really well earned," said Hall, who joined Wednesday's march through central London with her colleagues.
More than 25,000 people turned out for the rally on the banks of the River Thames, just a short walk from London's famous Houses of Parliament.
Union officials hoped that despite battling a coalition government determined to cut Britain's enormous public deficit, the one-day strike would help force officials to rethink their offer.
"We've been in negotiations with the government since January," said Karen Jennings, assistant deputy secretary of Unison, Britain's largest public sector union. "It was only the day before we announced our ballot that the government went to parliament and made some concessions," she added.
Economic outlook worsens
But in a warning that unions may be too optimistic, UK Chancellor George Osborne told parliament less than 24 hours earlier, that additional austerity measures were necessary to bring down Britain's debt levels.
Public sector workers, he said, could expect just a one percent annual pay increase between now and 2014. Osborne said he had no option but to bring forward plans to increase the retirement age.
Workers attending the London rally say morale in many parts of the UK's public sector is at an all-time low.
"I'm now facing a time when I'm reconsidering my career because I'd be much better off in the private sector," said Judith McAteer, a teacher from the London borough of Lewisham.
"Conditions are getting worse and the only thing you had to look forward to was a decent pension. But that's being taken away from us as well," added McAteer who moved to the British capital from Northern Ireland because of a lack of employment prospects.
Despite those worries, analysts warn that Britain's public sector faces even tougher times. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that another 330,000 jobs will have to be lost before 2015 in addition to nearly half a million positions already earmarked to be cut.
Women bear the brunt
Unions say that women will be disproportionately affected by the reforms as many are employed as nurses, teachers and social workers.
"Women are looking after people every day of the week. They're the cohesive side of society," said Karen Jennings from the union Unison. "I think people, and the female voter in particular, will make sure that the government rues the day if they don't concede," she warned.
Unlike many health workers, Britain's 400,000 nurses did not take part in the strike. Nurses unions, who are due to ballot their members about industrial action in January, are equally worried about the government's plans to increase pension contributions.
Union leaders says it is the equivalent of a three percent tax increase, at a time when inflation in the UK has reached more than five percent and Britain's sales tax was raised to 20 percent.
"What the government is saying to us is 'you can pay more, work longer and get a lot less at the end of it'," said Faith Thornhill, who works at University College Hospital in London.
The nurse, who joined a picket line for striking workers warned ministers that they may end up with a much bigger pension bill: "A lot of us can't afford the increase and may have to leave the scheme," said Thornhill. "If that happens and the scheme collapses, we'll be more reliant on our state pension and it will cost the government more."
Minimal Disruption
More than a thousand similar rallies were held all over the UK. An estimated 20,000 people marched through the streets of Manchester, another 10,000 protested in Glasgow.
Despite fears that the one-day strike would bring much of Britain to a standstill, commentators said the disruption was minimal. Border officials arranged alternative cover for customs officers at UK ports and airports. Contingency plans at hospitals and local government offices helped keep services running.
About a third of council staff in England and Wales were not at work on Wednesday.
Prime Minister David Cameron played down the impact of the walk-out described the strike as a "damp squib" while Trades Union Congress general secretary Brendan Barber said the strike was "a terrific success".
Author: Nik Martin
Editor: Joanna Impey
<http://mobile.dw-world.de/english/ua.2/mobile.A-15569126-1433.html>
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Students Back Workers' General Strike
UK Students begin wave of occupations to back public sector strikes
David Willetts abandons Cambridge University speech as protesters take over lecture hall to oppose £9,000 tuition fees. Occupied lecture halls and buildings would act as bases for students to plan further action backing strikes by about 3 million public sector workers – expected to be the biggest day of industrial action since the winter of discontent in 1979.
Police at the student protest over university tuition fees and public sector cuts in London on 9 November, when the Met warned baton rounds could be used.
Students are planning a wave of campus occupations and protests in the run-up to nationwide strikes next week, the Guardian has learned.
Occupations called by the student group National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts (NCAFC) ahead of the trade union day of action on 30 November have already happened at Birmingham and Cambridge universities.
Higher education minister David Willetts had to abandon a speech on the Idea of University on Tuesday night after students heckled him from the stage and began occupying Cambridge's largest lecture hall.
The occupations, in opposition to the government's white paper on education reform, which would formalise the £9,000 rise in tuition fees, are expected to break out across the country.
NCAFC said that occupied lecture halls and buildings would act as bases for students to plan further action backing strikes by about 3 million public sector workers – expected to be the biggest day of industrial action since the winter of discontent in 1979.
The group's co-founder, Michael Chessum, said: "It's all terribly unpredictable. We may well see actions and occupations popping up all other the country today and in the coming week."
In front of an audience of more than a hundred, Willetts was forced to sit in a corner of the stage of Lady Mitchell Hall, as students read out a prepared statement.
Student James Jackson said activists from Cambridge Defend Education read out a prepared statement which was repeated sentence by sentence by other demonstrators in the audience – a technique used by Occupy activists.
Making reference to recent student protests in which the Metropolitan police said baton rounds could be used to prevent disorder, the statement said: "You can threaten to shoot us with rubber bullets; you can arrest us; you can imprison us; you can criminalise our dissent; you can blight a hundred thousand lives … but you cannot break us because we are more resolute, more numerous, and more determined than you … Go home, David."
After sitting on the stage, they eventually forced the minister's departure.
"At first Willetts seemed to want to carry on," Jackson said. "After the second minute he sat in a corner then [the organisers] closed the blinds on him, still waiting for us to stop and leave. When we didn't, I think he decided it was time for him to go and so he just left."
Jackson, 21, who is reading art history, said that after Willetts' departure the group occupied the hall and were now receiving support from academics who were bringing them food and supplies.
Silkie Carlo, 22, studying psychology, who was also part of the action said : "Cambridge is serious about defending education. Particularly from an institution that is seen as upper middle class, the most privileged students, it's important that we understand that the rise in fees affect us and the progress of the university. We don't want to study in that kind of place."
In the early hours of Wedenesday, Birmingham students occupied an abandoned gatehouse on the northern edge of their campus, where they plan to hold a series of lectures.
by Shiv Malik
Guardian (London)
David Willetts abandons Cambridge University speech as protesters take over lecture hall to oppose £9,000 tuition fees. Occupied lecture halls and buildings would act as bases for students to plan further action backing strikes by about 3 million public sector workers – expected to be the biggest day of industrial action since the winter of discontent in 1979.
Police at the student protest over university tuition fees and public sector cuts in London on 9 November, when the Met warned baton rounds could be used.
Students are planning a wave of campus occupations and protests in the run-up to nationwide strikes next week, the Guardian has learned.
Occupations called by the student group National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts (NCAFC) ahead of the trade union day of action on 30 November have already happened at Birmingham and Cambridge universities.
Higher education minister David Willetts had to abandon a speech on the Idea of University on Tuesday night after students heckled him from the stage and began occupying Cambridge's largest lecture hall.
The occupations, in opposition to the government's white paper on education reform, which would formalise the £9,000 rise in tuition fees, are expected to break out across the country.
NCAFC said that occupied lecture halls and buildings would act as bases for students to plan further action backing strikes by about 3 million public sector workers – expected to be the biggest day of industrial action since the winter of discontent in 1979.
The group's co-founder, Michael Chessum, said: "It's all terribly unpredictable. We may well see actions and occupations popping up all other the country today and in the coming week."
In front of an audience of more than a hundred, Willetts was forced to sit in a corner of the stage of Lady Mitchell Hall, as students read out a prepared statement.
Student James Jackson said activists from Cambridge Defend Education read out a prepared statement which was repeated sentence by sentence by other demonstrators in the audience – a technique used by Occupy activists.
Making reference to recent student protests in which the Metropolitan police said baton rounds could be used to prevent disorder, the statement said: "You can threaten to shoot us with rubber bullets; you can arrest us; you can imprison us; you can criminalise our dissent; you can blight a hundred thousand lives … but you cannot break us because we are more resolute, more numerous, and more determined than you … Go home, David."
After sitting on the stage, they eventually forced the minister's departure.
"At first Willetts seemed to want to carry on," Jackson said. "After the second minute he sat in a corner then [the organisers] closed the blinds on him, still waiting for us to stop and leave. When we didn't, I think he decided it was time for him to go and so he just left."
Jackson, 21, who is reading art history, said that after Willetts' departure the group occupied the hall and were now receiving support from academics who were bringing them food and supplies.
Silkie Carlo, 22, studying psychology, who was also part of the action said : "Cambridge is serious about defending education. Particularly from an institution that is seen as upper middle class, the most privileged students, it's important that we understand that the rise in fees affect us and the progress of the university. We don't want to study in that kind of place."
In the early hours of Wedenesday, Birmingham students occupied an abandoned gatehouse on the northern edge of their campus, where they plan to hold a series of lectures.
by Shiv Malik
Guardian (London)
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Wide Strike in Britain Planned
UK Unions to Back Public Workers' Strikes
Nurses at the GMB have voted for walkouts over pension reform. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Britain's three largest trade Unions are set to back Strike action by public sector Workers on 30 November after teaching assistants, refuse collectors and nurses at the GMB voted for walkouts over pension reform, with members of Unite expected to follow on Thursday.
Up to 300,000 GMB members will join local government and NHS staff at Unison, the largest public sector union, in the biggest bout of industrial action in decades when more than two million people could take part. Unite is also expected to confirm a yes vote in a ballot of 150,000 workers after voting closed, in a move that would see the biggest powers in the labour movement swing behind mass walkouts and protests.
The GMB's national officer for public services, Brian Strutton, said: "It is now clear that millions of workers will be protesting on 30 November at the government's attack on jobs and pensions."
Strutton added that the government had in effect conceded it had got pension reform "wrong" after offering concessions in recent talks. "It is not too late for the government to pull back from this confrontation and scrap this attack on pensions," he said.
The GMB, which has members in the NHS, civil service and local governmentthroughout the UK, said members voted by more than four to one in favour of strike action with a turnout of 33%, similar to Unison's. It declined to reveal how many people were balloted.
Ucatt, which represents workers who maintain and repair buildings, also urged the government to water down its pension proposals and head off strikes as it announced that more than 3,400 members had backed strikes.
On Friday the NASUWT teachers' union will announce the result of a strike ballot for 227,500 teachers in England and Wales. Last week members of the National Association of Head Teachers voted for strike action over pension plans – the first strike vote in the union's 114-year history – raising the possibility of thousands of schools closing on 30 November. More than 20 unions could take industrial action, although the government is still in talks over reforms to pensions for public sector workers in the fields of education, health, the civil service and local government.
The government is proposing to raise the retirement age and increase employee contributions, while switching the uprating of pensions from the higher RPI rate of inflation to the lower CPI rate. However, a recent offer of concessions included raising the accrual rate – a measure of the rate at which pensions grow – and pledging that anyone within 10 years of retirement from 1 April next year would not see a reduction in their pension pot. Government sources have also indicated that a day of mass action will not jeopardise further talks.
Meanwhile, NHS Employers, which represents major care providers such as hospitals,has
warned NHS staff that they would "poison the working atmosphere" inside the health service and "ruin" years of harmonious industrial relations by striking on 30 November.
Dean Royles, its director, adopted his toughest stance yet on the Day of Action when he spoke to 500 NHS bosses at the organisation's annual conference in Liverpoolon Wednesday. He also increased the temperature by highlighting the potentially damaging effect of strike action on patients.
"More yes-votes would be a further disappointment for the NHS and patients, and it's very likely industrial action would mean delays and distress for patients who need treatment," he said. "Whatever the rights and wrongs of this dispute – and whatever does or does not happen on 30 November – I want all parties involved to recognise that we have benefited from a very positive industrial relations climate, built on partnership working, in the NHS for many years. This has served our patients, our staff and employers really well.
"We must work together to preserve it. None of us would want anything to ruin it. Whether you agree with industrial action or whether you don't, we all know that even one day of strike action can poison the working atmosphere. We must come together, work together and find solutions together, locally and nationally, on behalf of our patients to ensure there is a positive working environment beyond 30 November."
A Department of Health spokeswoman said it urged NHS staff to "think carefully about the effect on patients of any action they may be considering. Pensions are important to everyone – but patients should come first". Ministers' recent concessions on future public sector pensions meant that "the NHS pension will remain one of the very best available, providing a guaranteed pension level for all employees".
The NHS has contingency plans to ensure that patients' quality of care is not affected on 30 November, which will see suitably-qualified staff redeployed to cover for those on strike, she added.
Nurses at the GMB have voted for walkouts over pension reform. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Britain's three largest trade Unions are set to back Strike action by public sector Workers on 30 November after teaching assistants, refuse collectors and nurses at the GMB voted for walkouts over pension reform, with members of Unite expected to follow on Thursday.
Up to 300,000 GMB members will join local government and NHS staff at Unison, the largest public sector union, in the biggest bout of industrial action in decades when more than two million people could take part. Unite is also expected to confirm a yes vote in a ballot of 150,000 workers after voting closed, in a move that would see the biggest powers in the labour movement swing behind mass walkouts and protests.
The GMB's national officer for public services, Brian Strutton, said: "It is now clear that millions of workers will be protesting on 30 November at the government's attack on jobs and pensions."
Strutton added that the government had in effect conceded it had got pension reform "wrong" after offering concessions in recent talks. "It is not too late for the government to pull back from this confrontation and scrap this attack on pensions," he said.
The GMB, which has members in the NHS, civil service and local governmentthroughout the UK, said members voted by more than four to one in favour of strike action with a turnout of 33%, similar to Unison's. It declined to reveal how many people were balloted.
Ucatt, which represents workers who maintain and repair buildings, also urged the government to water down its pension proposals and head off strikes as it announced that more than 3,400 members had backed strikes.
On Friday the NASUWT teachers' union will announce the result of a strike ballot for 227,500 teachers in England and Wales. Last week members of the National Association of Head Teachers voted for strike action over pension plans – the first strike vote in the union's 114-year history – raising the possibility of thousands of schools closing on 30 November. More than 20 unions could take industrial action, although the government is still in talks over reforms to pensions for public sector workers in the fields of education, health, the civil service and local government.
The government is proposing to raise the retirement age and increase employee contributions, while switching the uprating of pensions from the higher RPI rate of inflation to the lower CPI rate. However, a recent offer of concessions included raising the accrual rate – a measure of the rate at which pensions grow – and pledging that anyone within 10 years of retirement from 1 April next year would not see a reduction in their pension pot. Government sources have also indicated that a day of mass action will not jeopardise further talks.
Meanwhile, NHS Employers, which represents major care providers such as hospitals,has
warned NHS staff that they would "poison the working atmosphere" inside the health service and "ruin" years of harmonious industrial relations by striking on 30 November.
Dean Royles, its director, adopted his toughest stance yet on the Day of Action when he spoke to 500 NHS bosses at the organisation's annual conference in Liverpoolon Wednesday. He also increased the temperature by highlighting the potentially damaging effect of strike action on patients.
"More yes-votes would be a further disappointment for the NHS and patients, and it's very likely industrial action would mean delays and distress for patients who need treatment," he said. "Whatever the rights and wrongs of this dispute – and whatever does or does not happen on 30 November – I want all parties involved to recognise that we have benefited from a very positive industrial relations climate, built on partnership working, in the NHS for many years. This has served our patients, our staff and employers really well.
"We must work together to preserve it. None of us would want anything to ruin it. Whether you agree with industrial action or whether you don't, we all know that even one day of strike action can poison the working atmosphere. We must come together, work together and find solutions together, locally and nationally, on behalf of our patients to ensure there is a positive working environment beyond 30 November."
A Department of Health spokeswoman said it urged NHS staff to "think carefully about the effect on patients of any action they may be considering. Pensions are important to everyone – but patients should come first". Ministers' recent concessions on future public sector pensions meant that "the NHS pension will remain one of the very best available, providing a guaranteed pension level for all employees".
The NHS has contingency plans to ensure that patients' quality of care is not affected on 30 November, which will see suitably-qualified staff redeployed to cover for those on strike, she added.
Friday, November 4, 2011
British Government Workers Strike Nov. 30
UK Unison Members vote to Strike over Pensions Cuts
Public sector workers set to walk out on 30 November as government and Union bosses row over 29% ballot turnout
Unison members marching against government spending cuts in March. Photograph: Paul Brown / Rex Features
The prospect of Britain's most significant bout of industrial unrest in decades loomed closer after the country's main public sector trade union, Unison, voted in favour of Strikes on 30 November.
Unison balloted 1.1 million members across the public sector, from nurses to probation officers and librarians, who are now likely to join teachers and health professionals in a national day of action over Pension reforms (cuts).
The Union's general secretary, Dave Prentis, said the "decisive" yes vote reflected deep concerns over the changes. But the Union traded blows with government ministers over the scale of its mandate, as fewer than one in three members took part in the UK's biggest ever industrial ballot. "Today's yes vote signals the green light for the first day of strike action, and we will be joining with other unions in the TUC-co-ordinated day of action on 30 November," said Prentis.
Unison balloted 750,000 local government workers and 350,000 health employees, with 245,358 members voting yes to strike action and 70,253 voting no, representing a majority of 78%.
The turnout of 29% was pounced on by the Cabinet Office ministerFrancis Maude, who claimed it showed "extremely limited" support for walkouts.
Prentis dismissed Maude's comments, saying that participation was high for a ballot of more than one million union members: "It is a massive yes vote by any standard."
About two million public sector workers could take part in the 30 November strikes, with the GMB and Unite Unions also due to announce ballot results soon.
The vote comes after the government sought to break months of deadlock in negotiations this week. On Wednesday, ministers tabled concessions including raising the accrual rate – a measure of the rate at which pensions grow – and pledging that anyone within 10 years of retirement from 1 April next year would not see a reduction in their pension pot.
But they have refused to backtrack on elements of the changes that still anger rank and file union members, including a decision to uprate pensions and benefits in line with the consumer prices index rather than the current retail prices index, which rises at a higher rate.
Senior Union figures believe the concessions have come too late to prevent the day of action from going ahead, although negotiations are expected to continue through to an end-of-year deadline.
Downing Street said that the Strike would be harmful. The Prime Minister's spokeswoman said: "It is extremely disappointing and potentially damaging. It is putting delivery [of public services] at risk."
The remarks were echoed by Maude, who has been involved in negotiations with the trade unions along with Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury.
Maude said: "I urge the trade unions to devote their energy to reaching agreement and not to unnecessary and damaging strike action."
Ministers are irritated with the Unions for triggering a strike while negotiations on pension reforms are still going on. But the government is making clear that it does not regard the Strikes on 30 November as a dealbreaker.
It points out that the deadline for an agreement on Pension reform falls a month later. A Strike before then is regarded as an unhelpful and hostile act, but it will not jeopardise talks.
Rachel Reeves, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "We're on the side of all those people who rely on services which may be affected by strike action. Strikes are a sign of failure and, even at this late stage, we urge both the government and the unions to exhaust every avenue before industrial action is taken."
The planned day of action will include regional rallies but no central event akin to the March for the Alternative, in which more than a quarter of a million people took to the streets of London over spending cuts in March. Instead, there is likely to be a focus on smaller displays of dissent, including lunchtime protests at workplaces.
NHS Employers, which represents major health service employers such as hospitals and mental health trusts in England, said the 25% turnout among Unison's 360,000 members in the NHS showed that staff's dedication to patient care made them unwilling to strike.
"This yes vote is disappointing for the NHS, but the majority of staff did not vote," said Dean Royles, the organisation's director.
"NHS staff are passionate about the care of patients and are reluctant to withdraw their labour. This is reflected in the low number of NHS staff turning out."
Patients would suffer if the day of action went ahead as planned, he claimed. "If, on this turnout, the Unions did decide to press ahead, that would cause delays in treatment and distress to patients. I would urge all sides to keep on talking, and we will play our part in that. It is premature to consider industrial action before discussions have concluded, particularly with a revised offer newly on the table."
On Wednesday, the general secretary of the TUC, Brendan Barber, acknowledged the "material" shift in the government's position, but said preparations for the protests would not be shelved. "As things stand, it will certainly be going ahead," he said.
Brian Strutton, the GMB's national secretary for public services and one of the main Union negotiators, said the Unison turnout was on a par with strike votes on pension reform under the Labour government.
"Turnout is always an issue in the large-scale industrial action ballots and, checking back on previous disputes, it seems 20%-30% is the norm," he said. "So Unison's result looks very respectable, and the majority is clear enough to dispel any doubts."
Gail Cartmail, the assistant General Secretary of Unite and another negotiator, said the government's latest proposals represented the first serious effort by ministers to negotiate Pension reform after months of deadlock.
"I see this as a start to negotiations. The problem is that it is now November," she said, echoing the GMB's concerns that the concessions might be "too little, too late".
Partial History of General Strikes
Shutting It All Down:
The Power of General Strikes in U.S. History
BY ERIK LOOMIS
A flyer advertises Occupy Oakland's call for a general strike. (Photo by Flickr userallaboutgeorge, Creative Commons license)
Incredibly threatening to those in power, they rarely succeed. But they do build solidarity.
As protesters gather Wednesday for the general strike called by Occupy Oakland, it's worth looking at the history of this tactic. General strikes are rare in American social movements, because they are difficult to coordinate. On the other hand, few actions offer a more direct challenge to those in power. What can Occupy Oakland learn from their activist ancestors to help its participants draw strength? How have general strikes affected long-term labor and social movements?
The two major general strikes in American history are the Seattle General Strike of 1919 and the Oakland General Strike of 1946. In 1919, the workers of Seattle engaged in a three-day mass action calling all city workers onto the streets. This was the first citywide collective action in American history known as a general strike.
The Pacific Northwest in the early 20th century was a center of radicalism. Horrible working conditions in the timber industry, already radicalized immigrants from Scandinavia, activist dockworkers and the popularity of the Industrial Workers of the World among the region’s thousands of transient workers made Seattle a fertile center of radical thought that even influenced labor organizations affiliated with the traditionally moderate American Federation of Labor (AFL).
The strike began with shipyard workers but was quickly joined by workers around the city. By February 6, over 60,000 workers were on the streets where they remained for four days. In an atmosphere fearful of radicalism after the Bolshevik Revolution, conservatives around the nation declared the strike the first step toward revolution.
The two major general strikes in American history are the Seattle General Strike of 1919 and the Oakland General Strike of 1946. In 1919, the workers of Seattle engaged in a three-day mass action calling all city workers onto the streets. This was the first citywide collective action in American history known as a general strike.
The Pacific Northwest in the early 20th century was a center of radicalism. Horrible working conditions in the timber industry, already radicalized immigrants from Scandinavia, activist dockworkers and the popularity of the Industrial Workers of the World among the region’s thousands of transient workers made Seattle a fertile center of radical thought that even influenced labor organizations affiliated with the traditionally moderate American Federation of Labor (AFL).
The strike began with shipyard workers but was quickly joined by workers around the city. By February 6, over 60,000 workers were on the streets where they remained for four days. In an atmosphere fearful of radicalism after the Bolshevik Revolution, conservatives around the nation declared the strike the first step toward revolution.
Seattle mayor Ole Hanson took the lead in crushing the strike ordering the National Guard to take control of the city’s light company. Fearing long-term fallout, national AFL leaders denounced the strike and it quickly fell apart. After its defeat, the labor movement in Seattle fell apart, a victim of both internal fighting and the vicious Red Scare that followed World War I.
The Oakland General Strike came out of the massive changes to the Bay Area during World War II. Hundreds of thousands of Americans moved to San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, and other cities to work in wartime industries. The Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) had achieved major successes in organizing American workers during the late 1930s. Often using communist organizers, the CIO built on the militancy of American labor to become a powerful force in opposition to both the more traditional AFL and conservative business interests.
During World War II, the AFL and CIO turned their energies toward defeating the fascist menace of Germany and Japan. The administration of Franklin Roosevelt, wanting to avoid strikes that would undermine wartime production, brought both the AFL and CIO into wartime planning. But while consumer prices rose during the war, wages did not. The motivated and radicalized workers wanted to strike, but their leaders and the federal government urged them to work through it.
When the war ended however, the country was overtaken by a wave of strikes. In 1946, 4.5 million workers went on strike throughout the United States, the greatest number of strikers in one year in American history. Wages did not keep up with rapidly rising prices and higher wages were the core demand of almost all the strikers.
The situation in Oakland was especially volatile because of the city’s Retail Merchants Association, a powerful and deeply anti-union business organization. These department stores owners employed mostly women, who they believed would accept low wages. The Department and Specialty Store Employees Union Local 1265 organized workers at these downtown stores. Early in 1946, they won victories at smaller stores and decided to take on the biggest retailers, Kahn’s and Hastings. A month-long strike ensued in the late fall of 1946. Beginning mere blocks from Occupy Oakland’s encampment, this turned into one of the biggest challenges to corporate America in the postwar years.
Although the CIO had the more radical agenda, it was actually the AFL who decided to call for a general strike on December 2, 1946 in support of the striking department store workers. AFL workers around Oakland walked off their jobs—bus drivers, teamsters, sailors, machinists, cannery workers, railroad porters, waiters, waitresses, cooks. For over two days, Oakland shut down. Over 100,000 workers participated in the strike.
The strikers controlled Oakland. All businesses except for pharmacies and food markets shut down. Bars could stay open but could only serve beer and had to put their juke boxes outside and allow for their free use. Couples literally danced in the streets. Recently returned war veterans created squadrons to prepare for battle. Union leadership took a back seat to rank and file actions.
Although it is often spun in Oakland legend that the General Strike was a successful action, it really wasn’t. A majority of workers wanted to continue striking and CIO unions considered joining in support, but the strike fell apart because of a single corrupt labor leader. Dave Beck, the head of the Teamsters and Jimmy Hoffa’s mentor, forced a compromise when he pulled his powerful union off the lines and endorsed a moderate settlement that accomplished almost nothing and quite literally did not address the department store workers concerns at all. While the still agitated workers managed to elect several labor representatives to the city council, the entire apparatus of the city used the General Strike to attack all labor. The police, the city government, and the Oakland Tribune combined to resist not only the Unionization of the department stores, but all Labor in Oakland.
While Oakland remained a strong Union city after this, the strikes of 1946 around the nation and especially the Oakland General Strike led to the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Taft-Hartley was an open attack on the labor movement, limiting labor’s ability to strike, banning sympathy strikes (which could make it legally difficult for today’s unions to support Occupy Oakland’s General Strike), and allow individual states to pass so-called “right to work” laws, meaning that just because there is a Union at your workplace doesn’t mean you have to join it.
The Oakland General Strike came out of the massive changes to the Bay Area during World War II. Hundreds of thousands of Americans moved to San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, and other cities to work in wartime industries. The Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) had achieved major successes in organizing American workers during the late 1930s. Often using communist organizers, the CIO built on the militancy of American labor to become a powerful force in opposition to both the more traditional AFL and conservative business interests.
During World War II, the AFL and CIO turned their energies toward defeating the fascist menace of Germany and Japan. The administration of Franklin Roosevelt, wanting to avoid strikes that would undermine wartime production, brought both the AFL and CIO into wartime planning. But while consumer prices rose during the war, wages did not. The motivated and radicalized workers wanted to strike, but their leaders and the federal government urged them to work through it.
When the war ended however, the country was overtaken by a wave of strikes. In 1946, 4.5 million workers went on strike throughout the United States, the greatest number of strikers in one year in American history. Wages did not keep up with rapidly rising prices and higher wages were the core demand of almost all the strikers.
The situation in Oakland was especially volatile because of the city’s Retail Merchants Association, a powerful and deeply anti-union business organization. These department stores owners employed mostly women, who they believed would accept low wages. The Department and Specialty Store Employees Union Local 1265 organized workers at these downtown stores. Early in 1946, they won victories at smaller stores and decided to take on the biggest retailers, Kahn’s and Hastings. A month-long strike ensued in the late fall of 1946. Beginning mere blocks from Occupy Oakland’s encampment, this turned into one of the biggest challenges to corporate America in the postwar years.
Although the CIO had the more radical agenda, it was actually the AFL who decided to call for a general strike on December 2, 1946 in support of the striking department store workers. AFL workers around Oakland walked off their jobs—bus drivers, teamsters, sailors, machinists, cannery workers, railroad porters, waiters, waitresses, cooks. For over two days, Oakland shut down. Over 100,000 workers participated in the strike.
The strikers controlled Oakland. All businesses except for pharmacies and food markets shut down. Bars could stay open but could only serve beer and had to put their juke boxes outside and allow for their free use. Couples literally danced in the streets. Recently returned war veterans created squadrons to prepare for battle. Union leadership took a back seat to rank and file actions.
Although it is often spun in Oakland legend that the General Strike was a successful action, it really wasn’t. A majority of workers wanted to continue striking and CIO unions considered joining in support, but the strike fell apart because of a single corrupt labor leader. Dave Beck, the head of the Teamsters and Jimmy Hoffa’s mentor, forced a compromise when he pulled his powerful union off the lines and endorsed a moderate settlement that accomplished almost nothing and quite literally did not address the department store workers concerns at all. While the still agitated workers managed to elect several labor representatives to the city council, the entire apparatus of the city used the General Strike to attack all labor. The police, the city government, and the Oakland Tribune combined to resist not only the Unionization of the department stores, but all Labor in Oakland.
While Oakland remained a strong Union city after this, the strikes of 1946 around the nation and especially the Oakland General Strike led to the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Taft-Hartley was an open attack on the labor movement, limiting labor’s ability to strike, banning sympathy strikes (which could make it legally difficult for today’s unions to support Occupy Oakland’s General Strike), and allow individual states to pass so-called “right to work” laws, meaning that just because there is a Union at your workplace doesn’t mean you have to join it.
Soon after, the McCarthy era began and radical Unionism of any kind became suspicious, with the CIO kicking the Communist organizers and entire Communist-led unions out of the Federation, turning its back on its radical history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)