2006 Endorsements: Bring Back the Greens

Election time is around the corner, and I’m sure you’re dying to read my endorsements. This election, in truth, offers a rare opportunity to alter the political landscape for a progressive change.

No, I’m not talking about the increasing likelihood of a Democratic sweep in New York. That is a foregone conclusion since the Republican party has collapsed under the weight of Pataki’s bland presidential ambitions and the national GOP’s right-wing extremism. The Republicans have put up scarecrows against the Spitzer and Clinton steamrollers, and are poised to lose members of their Congressional delegation and perhaps even control of the state Senate, ushering in what could become a generation of Democratic dominance in New York State. Don’t get too excited. Spitzer and the Democrats will govern from the center, and much of the tax-cutting, welfare-slashing, tuition-hiking agenda that Pataki carried out over three terms is now accepted as status quo.

What potential change this election provides is the opportunity to reshuffle ballot lines – an opportunity that only comes up every four years and only in the gubernatorial election. Any party that garners 50,001 votes for Governor remains on the ballot for the next four years. Aside from the big two, there are three other parties seeking to retain their ballot lines and four more looking to gain a new line. Only two of these are of interest. One is the Working Families Party, the progressive fusion party that has disappointed for eight years. When the WFP was founded, many of its early activists invoked the hallowed name of the American Labor Party, which for a few decades around the Depression was a progressive force in New York state politics. That party helped elect scores of Socialists, Communists and Laborites to office, while cross-endorsing the “good” Democrats and punishing Democrats who were too friendly with business and Jim Crow by running spoiler candidates against them and splitting the vote.

For the past eight years, the WFP has only endorsed Democrats, and not just the good ones. There can be no clearer case of a Democrat who votes against the interest of working people in New York than Hillary Clinton and yet the WFP is endorsing her for a second time! I got an e-mail from Pete Seeger the other day that a vote for the war-monger Clinton is actually a vote to bring the troops home. Only a longtime fellow traveller of the CP could embrace such confounding wisdom. If the WFP won’t withdraw support from Hillary, then it is clear that they will never oppose bad Democrats with their own independent candidates, and all the WFP is is a tool to deliver progressive and union votes to the Democratic machine.

I remain a registered voter in the Working Families party, holding out hope for a rank and file rebellion. Under New York’s slow as molasses system, only a registered voter of a given ballot line can petition or contest a party primary, and a change in enrollment must be made before the previous election day. For example, if Jonathan Tasini had decided to run his insurgent campaign against Hillary Clinton within the Working Families party, I could have collected petitions among fellow WFP registrants to force a primary – one that Tasini could have won, giving Hillary a public rebuke and continuing the anti-war campaign into the general election. But, Tasini would have had to have changed his party enrollment to WFP before last year’s mayoral election. And, thus, I remain registered in the WFP in case somebody decides to try to force a primary next year. But I won’t be voting for Eilliot Spitzer on the Working Families ballot line, and neither should you.

I will be voting for the Green Party, and so should you. The Greens had a ballot line from 1998 until 2002, and in that time ran hundreds of candidates for federal, state and local office – garnering hundreds of thousands of votes on a platform of peace, environmentalism and economic justice. Remember that Mayor of New Paltz who initiated a political crisis by marrying same sex couples? Jason West was elected on the Green Party ballot line. We need more rabble rousing in our elections, as only the Green Party can currently deliver.

Vote for Malachy McCourt for Governor on the Green Party ballot line. Malachy is a semi-famous author who recruited to run for whatever name recognition he has (such celebrity-seeking is a frustrating tendency among certain segments of the Greens). Nevertheless, only a vote for McCourt can give the Greens a ballot line for the next four years.

Vote for Howie Hawkins for U.S. Senate on the Green Party line. Howie is a long-time environmental and trade union activist, and was working hard for election reform long before you ever heard about “hanging chads.” He’s campaigning for an immediate end to the war, money for renewable energy and universal health care.

Vote for the Socialist Workers Party candidate for Comptroller. The SWP is a laughable Trotsky-Castro cult by now, but it’s important to give a little love for the “S” word. Also, unfortunately, the Greens’ candidate, Julia Willebrand, is representative of the party’s worst sectarian trend that has held it back as a more welcoming party of the broader left.

Vote for Rachel Trechler for Attorney General on the Green Party line. At least she’s an attorney, while the SWP candidate is typically unqualified. If you must vote for Cuomo, do so on the WFP line.

In Queens, I recommend write-in votes for most of the remaining contests. The judges are, as usual, all endorsed by the Democrats and Republicans and running unopposed. Write in your favorite lawbreakers as a protest. In my Congressional district, Greg Meeks is running unopposed, significantly without the Working Families Party’s support. Write in your own name. Whoever you are, you could do a better job than him.

The Little League Thief Who Was Never a Leader

The recent charges against former president of the NYC Central Labor Council, Brian McLaughlin, are incredibly disappointing. While most of his alleged embezzlement is not connected to his role as head of the local labor federation, the shocking abuse of power as an elected Assemblyman and community leader is a real black eye for the movement. (I mean, we simply do not need to be represented by the cartoonish villainy of a man who would steal $95,000 from a little league.)

The tabloids, of course, are touting this as a story of a corrupt union boss, the president of the most powerful labor body in the city. The sad truth is that Brian McLaughlin was a weak leader, totally beholden to the building trades who pursued the lowest common denominator agenda that couldn’t unite the various union locals that make up the council to support each other’s strikes and contract fights, or even support the same candidates. This weakness was my greatest complaint about McLaughlin up until now, but I always thought that at least he was honest. But, now, it turns out he’s not even that, and I would be lying if this didn’t shake my faith – if only a little – in a movement that allows itself to be “led” by such men.

The leaders of the Central Labor Council are responsibly talking about more oversight of the body’s officials, which is good. It’s discouraging to read that the lesson drawn by Dennis Hughes, the president of the state federation, is that no labor leader should also hold elected political office. The argument that one “can’t serve two masters” has been made by right-wingers who have been targeting McLaughlin for years. Of course it’s bullshit that the same is never said of corporate lawyers and lobbyists who hold office. Labor leaders, as representatives of the people, should ideally be represented in the halls of Congress, the Assembly and City Hall…ideally as members of a real Labor Party.

Finally, the news that Ed Ott is likely to remain as McLaughlin’s successor is reason for some celebration. I’ve known and worked with Ed for years. He’s one of the sharpest minds in our little movement. What I’ve always appreciated about Ed is his ability, when presented with a dilemma, to lay out the correct stand that the Labor Council should take, the pragmatic position that the council could take and then the lowest common denominator position that the Council would take. My hope is that with Ed finally at the helm, the CLC might finally opt more often to take the idealistic stands, rather than the past of least resistance.

Union Busting 102 at Pace University: Professors as Temps

I am continuing to guest blog at DMIblog, writing about unionization, academia and Kentucky River, and giving Pace University a black eye. This is my second post, which appears there. Please direct comments to that site.

The National Labor Relations Board’s terrible Kentucky River decisions, which this week greatly expanded the definition of “supervisors,” has handed the bosses a powerful new union busting tool. The implications for these decisions go far beyond hospitals and nurses and may eventually deny the right to form a union to all professional employees (perhaps a quarter of the entire workforce in a few short years, according to the NLRB).

The union rights of employees in higher education have been under assault for much longer. Back in 1980, the Supreme Court denied the right to organize to most college professors, ruling that if they sat on advisory and recommendatory committees, and had a say in recruitment, policies and curriculum, then they were de facto management. The decision put an abrupt halt to a modest wave of faculty organizing in the crazy, radical 70’s. Prior to this week’s NLRB decision, many faculty who once might have been considered management were ripe for organizing, with a new crop of CEO-style college presidents (like Pace University’s half-million dollar man, David Caputo, who, rest assured, is the villain of this post as well) imposing a corporate structure on colleges and ramming their policies down the throats of politically weakened faculty (Unfortunately, it would be hard to find any full-time professor who does not exercise “independent judgement” or “responsibly direct” someone, if only the department secretary).

The Academy is a strange medieval institution that has somehow survived into the early 21st century. It’s funny, then, that college CEOs have, as Labor Notes‘ Kim Moody has noted, turned to an equally old system to supplant it: the shape up. Colleges and universities have increasingly replaced full-time tenured faculty with adjunct professors, part-timers who make a fraction of the salary and benefits of full-timers and enjoy none of the free speech and job protections of tenure. Adjuncts account for a third of all faculty at four year institutions and as much as two thirds of the faculty at two year institutions.

Since nobody could argue (with a straight face, at least) that adjuncts have any real power or authority, they have retained the legal right to organize unions, and many have done so. In the New York area alone, the adjuncts at NYU, New School, Marymount among many others have organized in recent years. In 2004, adjuncts at Pace University (who make up a staggering 62% of the faculty) voted to form a union with the American Federation of Teachers and New York State United Teachers. Pace’s union busting advisors initially used some of the legal delay tactics that were eventually deployed against their bus drivers. The cutest bit of their cretinous creativity was arguing that the National Labor Relations Act (which, after all, governs relations between “Employees”, their “Unions” and “Employers”) did not apply to them because NYSUT, a state federation of local unions, was not a “Union”, itself, and that since the adjuncts’ petition was filed in between semesters when they are not teaching and not collecting a paycheck that they were not really “Employees” of the University, which was not, therefore, an “Employer” (which begs the question, what the hell are they doing to fill all that real estate down there at 1 Pace Plaza?).

In the face of their adjuncts’ rebellion, Pace decided to delay at the bargaining table, where dozens of negotiating sessions over the last two years have resulted in no real agreements on job security, compensation for office hours with students or pay increases that begin to approach parity with full-timers. Their goal is to frustrate and discourage the adjuncts, hoping they will abandon their union. “They are certainly not in any rush to come to an agreement,” says John Pawlowski, an adjunct professor of Biology who serves as president of the adjuncts’ union. “The University is resistant to its staff organizing, like any other employer,” says Pawlowski. Once upon a time, the university would have been better than “any other employer,” but, as Pawlowski notes, these days “most of [Pace’s] Board of Trustees come from the business world.”

Just like a corporate board, Pace’s trustees recently formed a presidential compensation committee that concluded that the university simply must receive a huge pay increase in order to stay competitive with executive compensation across academia. When asked exactly whether the members of Pace’s executive compensation experts had any experience in academia, Board member Anneilo Bianco cooly responded, “No, we’re all business people.”

Pace’s CEO, David Caputo, who “reluctantly” accepted a $100,000 raise has been pushing “merit” increases of less than 2.5% for the adjuncts. Since adjuncts don’t sit on committees, or even spend much time on campus outside of their lectures, their “merit” can only be determined by one thing: student evaluation forms. This makes perfect corporate sense if you view students and their parents as customers, degrees as product and teachers as temporary part-time workers. Just like McDonalds polls its customers, “On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you rate the friendliness of your server?,” Pace asks how clearly your professor explained material. Surely there’s no connection between a student’s anticipated grade and the rating they give their professor, and, certainly, such a salary policy won’t exacerbate the very real problem of grade inflation. Then again, maybe high grades are the sign of a successful business and happy customers?

That’s why the Union of Adjunct Faculty at Pace, the AFT, NYSUT and our friends in the labor movement will counter Pace’s self-congratulatory centennial celebrations this Friday, October 6th at 2:00 pm to demand that the university finally negotiate in good faith with its employees. What’s at stake is not merely what kind of education Pace will provide in its next hundred years, but the quality of higher education in general.

Union Busting 101 at Pace University: Delay, Appeal and Refuse to Bargain

I am currently guest blogging at DMIblog, highlighting the difficulties of union organizing through the NLRB (pre-Kentucky River, even!), specifically at Pace University. This is my first post, which appears there. Please direct comments to that site.

The business of union busting is booming, guided by law firms and consultants that are adept at manipulating the legal process to delay union recognition and stretch out their campaigns of harassment and intimidation to defeat workers’ attempts to gain a voice at work. The hallowed halls of academia are not immune to the ugliness of union busting, not with CEO-style presidents like Pace University’s David Caputo, who recently gave himself a $100,000 raise while doling out meager “merit” increases of less than 2.5% to his staff.

It’s no wonder that the employees of Pace have begun to organize. What is a wonder is that Pace will be celebrating an “employee recognition day” on Friday as part of the University’s centennial while refusing to recognize a tiny union of bus drivers who first successfully voted to form a union a year ago. The case of Pace is instructive of how the National Labor Relations Act has been perverted over the last 70 years to become a legal framework for union busting.

Two years ago, the adjunct professors at Pace organized a union with the American Federation of Teachers and New York State United Teachers to gain some measure of the respect and dignity that full-time professors are granted, to say nothing of a comparable salary. The University is trying to discourage the adjuncts at the bargaining table by half-heartedly engaging in dozens of fruitless negotiating sessions. They still have no contract, but that’s a story for a future post.

When the 19 employees of the university’s tiny transportation department decided to follow the adjuncts’ lead, Pace was determined to never recognize their union. “Overtime was being given out by favoritism, some guys got coffee breaks and some guys didn’t,” complains Jamie Cruz, a six-year veteran of the department who is now President of the Pace Transportation Union. “Our boss was running a dictatorship. It was his way or no way.” Cruz and almost all of his co-workers signed union cards last September. An NLRB election was scheduled for October 20th and Pace commenced an all-out campaign of captive audience meetings and high-pressure one-on-one meetings to break the workers’ resolve. A typical management anti-union campaign (and Pace is nothing if not a typical anti-union boss) is oddly schizophrenic. Kinda like Ike Turner in “What’s Love Got To Do With It.” One minute, they’re threatening their employees’ jobs and benefits. The next, they’re apologizing for past mistakes and begging for “one more chance.”

Despite the fact that management deposed the department’s hated dictator the day before the election, 13 of the 17 votes cast were for the union. That should have been the last word on the bus drivers’ choice to form a union. Instead, Pace objected to the election on the flimsiest of pretexts; that by the time management’s observers made it to the polling site, the NLRB agent had run out of “Observer” buttons. How this supposedly ruined the impartiality of the election is frankly irrelevant, even to Pace. It was simply an excuse to delay union recognition and to continue to hammer away at the bus drivers with the Ike Turner routine.

In November, seventeen of the bus drivers (including management’s observer!) signed a petition demanding that Pace respect their choice and recognize their union. However, in the interest of getting to the bargaining table quickly, the union agreed to forgo hearings and to conduct another election. In January of this year, the transportation employees of Pace University voted for a second time to form a union, albeit by a slightly smaller margin (the Ike Turner routine worked on three of the workers). Pace objected to the results of this election, too, complaining that they never got a hearing for the previous election. If they had gotten that hearing, and the NLRB actually found merit in their laughable appeals, the remedy would have been to merely hold the election again – as was done, resulting in victory for the union. This appeal, and twelve others, was the legal equivalent of a child crying, “No fair! Do over!” and was duly rejected by the NLRB.

It was not until April, however, that the NLRB finally certified the bus drivers’ union. Pace University continues to refuse to recognize the union and to bargain a contract. At this point, one year after the workers first formed their union, the NLRB has filed unfair labor practice charges against Pace and is taking them to federal court for breaking the law. It could take another six months before the U.S. Court of Appeals inevitably rules that Pace University is breaking the law and directs them to finally sit down at a negotiating table.

All this because a simple majority of a tiny department of bus drivers signed union cards and continue to support their union. Common sense would say, just recognize the union based upon the cards. Many unions are increasingly (and successfully) moving towards card check recognition, whereby an employer is compelled to “voluntarily” recognize a union if the majority of workers sign. One of our best shots at labor law reform is Ted Kennedy’s Employee Free Choice Act, which would legally compel employers to recognize unions if the majority of their employees sign union authorization cards. No elections, appeals, no reruns. Just cards. Look for Democrats to send this bill to George Bush’s desk for a prompt veto should they win Congress. Look for the business lobby to continue to rail against card check, and, left unchecked, look for Bush-appointed NLRB to curb card check recognition.

Finally, look for the Pace Transportation Union, the AFT, NYSUT and our friends in the labor movement to crash Pace University’s 100th Anniversary celebration at 1 Pace Plaza, across the street from New York City Hall, this Friday, October 6th at 2:00 pm, to demand that Pace recognize the union on their employee recognition day.