Scoop

Like all of Woody Allen’s movies since his “early, funny ones,””Scoop” has received pretty uneven reviews. One camp considers it a loose, freewheeling trifle. The other, a plodding, boring mess. Count me in the former camp.

“Scoop” is silly fun. It’s got Woody being Woody – stammering, neuroses, card tricks and Vaudeville humor – minus the distasteful groping of young ladies (a Herculean feat for any man when you are the Director and the delectable Scarlett Johansen is your star). Ms. Johansen, herself, works better here than in “Match Point.” While she’s got the figure and sultry good looks to be a femme fatale, she may take a couple of decades to grow into that role. In the meantime, she is better suited to play awkward, unsure girls who happen – purely by accident – to be sexy.

Building on a few borrowed plot points from “Match Point,” that movie and this one can be seen as a pair as a major improvement of the central gimmick of “Melinda & Melinda,” that is, that comedy and tragedy can be mined from similar material.

The biggest crowd pleaser that’s something other than one of Woody’s one-liners was the response to the site gag of Woody driving around in one of them lil Smart Car “Two-fers.” This, I don’t understand. Seeing our diminutive hero tool around the English countryside in one of those glorified go-karts makes me pine for the day when we will finally see the little buggers zipping around our New York City streets. Perhaps in the next Woody Allen movie.

Selling Us Down the Kentucky River

Leaving for school tomorrow, now seems a good time to reflect upon the greatest current threat to labor unions: the group of cases that are collectively called “Kentucky River.” Jonathan Tasini efficiently sums them up:


In a normal, sane world, these cases (involving nurses) would not pass the smell test: the employers are seeking to classify these nurses as “supervisors” because they exercise “independent judgement” (“yes, that patient is going into cardiac arrest so I better do something”) and “responsibly direct other employees.” Doing so, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute, would potentially take as many as 8 million workers out of union bargaining units. Poof. with the stroke of a pen.

If the Bush-dominated National Labor Relations Board rules as predicted against the rights of professional, skilled and educated workers than the boss whose workers I have been organizing for the past few months can legally refuse to deal with our union. That this system could justify denying the right to organize and bargain collectively to a group of workers who may have wide discretion in their daily assignments but are denied any kind of job security, are frequently paid a pittance and denied pensions, maternity benefits, child care and more with no power to do anything about it individually is an indictment of the state of federally protected workers’ rights. It begs the question: is it time to abandon federal labor law?

Prior to 1937, labor relations in the U.S. had a Wild West character. Unions organized and struck employers and ensured that “unfair” (read: non-union) products would not be bought, sold or distributed by union members. Bosses on the other hand fired and blacklisted union activists and set up sham “company unions” to nullify their workers’ complaints. Workers’ rights (and pay and benefits) were guaranteed only insofar as the collective strength of the unions could make the boss’ violation of them a Very Bad Idea.

This resulted in so much strike activity and economic instability that the government finally intervened and with the National Labor Relations Act established certain legal rights for workers engaging in collective activity, as well as an orderly process for enforcing those rights and certifying workers’ choice of union representatives through elections. The law worked well and millions of workers took the opportunity to organize unions at their jobs, winning massive pay increases, great new benefits and generally contributing to the nation’s economic recovery following the Depression and war.

But the law never covered all workers, only those defined as “employees” under the act. Government employees were excluded, and only gained rights as state governments passed laws that covered them. In a nod to the racist Dixiecrats, whose support was essential to passing the law, farm workers and domestic employees were excluded. Employees who worked for companies not engaged in interstate commerce (which was more narrowly defined before the civil rights movement), like hotel and restaurant employees, were not covered at first. We often make the mistake of saying, as a shorthand, that these workers who are not defined as “employees” under the act can’t be in unions. What’s more accurate is that their legal status is still in that pre-1937 Wild West. They can still organize, and if they are effectively united and strong can compel an employer to recognize and deal with their union, but the Boss is also free to fire and blacklist anyone at all.

Of course, the Boss has been pretty free to fire, harass and intimidate employees who are trying to form a union for a long time now. Decades of Reagan and Bush Board decisions, backed up by a few key Supreme Court decisions, have perverted the law so that it now exists as a framework for employers to conduct a legal 30 day reign of terror before a union authorization election. For this reason, most unions that are serious about organizing have largely abandoned the NLRB election process in favor of pressure campaigns to get the employer to voluntarily recognize the union based upon a majority of workers signing union authorization cards. Fearing the threat to its union-breaking authority, the NLRB is considering a rule that would deny card check-certified unions the traditional 12 month time bar against petitions to certify or decertify any union following recognition, effectively forcing a costly election.

The problem with completely abandoning the NLRB process is that subsequent amendments, in 1947 and 1959, also defined a “union” under the act and created a legal framework for liquidating renegade unions. For example, when the government decided that Communists couldn’t hold elected positions in labor unions, well, you might ask, what constitutional authority did they have to limit anyone’s right to free assembly? The answer is none, really. You are free to organize a free association, elect a Communist as your president and call yourselves a union, but the NLRB need not legally recognize you as a “union” and can keep you off any certification (or decertification) ballot. So, for example, when the old CIO-affiliated United Electrical Employees (UE) refused to comply with the anti-Communist provisions of the Taft-Hartley amendments to the act, the AFL’s International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) petitioned to replace them as the certified bargaining representative at scores of companies, and only the IBEW was allowed to appear on the ballot, resulting in tens of thousands of UE members being “raided” by the IBEW and leaving the UE a shadow of its former self.

The same legal fate awaits any union that violates provisions of the act, including especially those that ban powerful union strategies like expanding picket lines to companies that are allied with the principal employer, refusing to ship, sell or stock any goods made by non-union workers and demanding union recognition for so-called “supervisors.”

All of the unions that I have worked for are in a position to withstand such a threat. Sure, some chintzy “union” could exploit the situation to petition for a sham election and replace the Hotel Trades Council or 1199 as the titular, legal “union” on record, but the workers would know which union secured the strong contract, high wages and excellent benefits that made their jobs “good jobs,” and would retain loyalty to the real, renegade union. But such bold and effective unions are, alas, not the norm.

The union I currently work for is also in a strong position to fight the law. The vast majority of our contracts are characterized by shockingly high salaries and generous benefits that translate to significant member loyalty and we have the additional protection of having most of our members working in the public sector, which is not affected by the NLRB at all. Plus, we have “no raid” deals with our closest competitors.

But it’s still scary as hell to step outside the relative comfort of 70 years of established law and go back to the Wild West.

More Notoriety

You can’t even pump your gas in this town without people interviewing you for a newspaper article (See next to last paragraph).


A YELLOW LIGHT FOR POLICE’S RACE PLAN
Experts and LI drivers say Suffolk police should proceed with caution in project to record race of those stopped for traffic violations

BY JENNIFER MALONEY

Newsday Staff Writer

July 12, 2006

Law enforcement experts and Suffolk residents reacted with skepticism yesterday to the Suffolk police department’s plan to gather data as a check against racial profiling.

The opinions came a day after Suffolk police said they are recording the race of drivers stopped on the Long Island Expressway and Sunrise Highway for routine traffic violations in an effort to document if cops are profiling residents by race. The department, which began the initiative about two months ago and will continue for the next six to 12 months, hopes the data gathered will help prove that Suffolk officers don’t give tickets more often to members of a particular race.

But many drivers interviewed yesterday objected to the method of gathering the data — and particularly to the fact that officers note the drivers’ race without consulting them.

“They’re assuming the race,” said Erica Lopez, 23, of Huntington Station. “What if I’m Italian? What if I’m black? That’s not going to get anything except some statistics that prove nothing.”

Peter Moskos, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the data gathered will be meaningless unless it is compared with statistics on how often different races commit traffic violations.

In New Jersey, a similar project showed that more blacks were pulled over for speeding than other races, he said. But an academic study later showed that blacks there were more likely to speed, he said.

“If it’s skewed, you need someone else to figure out if that’s justified or not, because it might be,” Moskos said.

Suffolk police spokesman Tim Motz said the department will consider “all potential statistical variables” when it analyzes the data. “It’s a very complex issue. They’re looking at everything.”

Motz did not say whether the department has access to statistics on how often different races commit traffic violations.

While many Suffolk drivers agreed yesterday that racial profiling occurs, some said gathering data on race will only exacerbate the problem.

“So they’re going to conduct racial profiling to test how much racial profiling they do?” said Shaun Richman, 27, a Queens resident who commutes to Hauppauge.

Others applauded the department’s effort. “I think it’s proactive,” said Marie Orlando, 43, of Brightwaters. “It’s not like they’re ignoring it.”

Frank Zeidler, Greatest Living American, Is Dead

Frank Zeidler, former Mayor of Milwaukee and Chairman Emeritus of the Socialist Party USA, died last night at the age of 93. Frank occupies a unique place in history as the last bona-fide Socialist mayor of a major American city, serving three terms between 1948 and 1960. To the rest of the country, Milwaukee in the 1950’s seems so bland, so middle-American and middle-class that it was the setting of the tv sitcom “Happy Days.” The most political that “Happy Days” ever got was that Richie Cunningham voted for Adlai Stevenson while his father supported Ike. Meanwhile, their Socialist mayor was holding regular press conferences on the steps of City Hall to denounce the state’ red-baiting Senator, Joseph McCarthy.

The Socialists were a major political party in Milwaukee in the first half of the 20th century, electing numerous state legislators, city council members, a Congressman and two mayors before Frank. The first Mayor, Emil Seidel, served a brief term in 1910 focused on cleaning the city up, closing brothels and gambling parlors, establishing a fire department and improving sanitation and plumbing. The revolutionists of the era, and the “scientific” Marxists of today, scoff at this “sewer socialism,” but it did inspire voter loyalty and keep the party in power.

The Democrats and Republicans teamed up to vote Seidel out of office, but the Socialists returned to office in 1916 with Dan Hoan, who served a staggering 24 years as Mayor. Hoan focused on running an honest government and improving electricity, transportation and sewage. He did succeed in building the first public housing in the country in 1923, but otherwise the more progressive elements of his political agenda were frustrated by a moderate city council until the changed political climate of the 1930’s gave him room to experiment with jobs programs and public ownership.

Hoan was finally defeated for office in 1940 by the Democrat Carl Zeidler, who was Frank’s brother. Carl died “in office” while fighting in the war in Europe. Frank ran to fill out his term and came in fourth in the election.

Frank Zeidler joined the Socialist Party in 1922, when he was 20. Starting in the late 1930’s, he had been running as the party’s candidate for offices as varied as state treasurer, Congress and Governor of Wisconsin – winning a seat on the Milwaukee school board and the position of county surveyor. In 1948, the Socialist Party again asked Frank Zeidler to be its candidate for Mayor. The combination of the Zeidler family name and the Socialists’ still-impressive street organization resulted in Frank’s victory over a field of four candidates, including Dan Hoan who had abandoned the SP for the Democrats.

Zeidler’s administration was challenged to respond to post-war urban development, particularly “white flight” from the city. Zeidler’s masterstroke was the annexation of Milwaukee’s outlying areas, doubling the city’s size and shoring up its tax base to ensure that the city remain solvent and continue to provide services to all its residents. Zeidler was proud of the 3200 units of public housing he built, and the great expansion of the library and parks systems. “The most difficult problem,” Zeidler noted of his administration in a 1997 interview, “was defending the right of individuals of whatever race or ethnic stock to have equal opportunity in this city.” Faced with a reactionary coalition that planned a race-baiting campaign against a fourth Zeidler term, Frank sought to avoid such divisiveness and chose not to run again, citing health reasons.

He actually was in poor health. Frank was always in poor health. He actually dropped out of college because of heart problems. He had a quadruple bypass in 1997 that gave him a new lease on life, but he still maintained a dark, fatalistic humor about his health. If you invited him to any event, he would usually reply that he’d be glad to go if he was still alive.

Frank Zeidler remained a constant presence around Milwaukee, constantly lecturing and attending meetings and always available to the press for a quote. Kinda like Ed Koch, but pleasant. The Socialist Party’s street organization, though a shadow of its former self, remains and that, combined with the legacy of the Zeidler and Hoan administrations, makes the party still a contender in Milwaukee politics as in 2001 when its candidate, Wendell Harris, polled 20%, forcing a run-off. The press treated that election like a fluke that was more a vindication of Frank Zeidler (who remained a party stalwart despite declining fortunes) than of the idea of socialism. So beloved in Milwaukee was Frank that when I was doing publicity for the party’s 100th anniversary conference, a reporter from the Journal-Sentinel asked me what most party members thought of him and I replied that we all think that Frank is a really great man. That somehow was quoted as “the greatest living American,” which flattered and embarrassed Frank.

Frank remained a stalwart of the party. He rallied the party loyalists into a reorganization in 1973 when most of the “scientific” intellectuals marched into the Democratic and Republican parties. He ran for President in 1976 with the mission of saving the party. That campaign recruited the people who would staff the organization for the next three decades. He chaired the party for a number of years before stepping back to the more honorary position of Chairman Emeritus. Ever the Jimmy Higgins, he could often be found sweeping the floors at the party’s office on Old World Third Street.

Frank’s memoir of his years in office, “A Socialist in City Government,” was finally published last year. Bizarrely, the publishers retitled it “A Liberal in City Government,” wagering that readers would find the thought of a liberal in power so unique and fascinating that it would sell more. Go figure.

That book is still sitting on my “to read” pile, under all my school books. Maggie Phair had forwarded it to me a few months ago, during my brief tenure as editor of “Socialist” magazine, suggesting it as good source material for an obituary (which we didn’t think would be so urgently needed). Frank’s epitaph should be his socialist convictions. Speaking on the 100th anniversary of the Wisconsin party, he said, “The basic concept of socialism…still remains and illuminates a dark world. That concept is of a world of commonwealths cooperating with each other for the betterment of all peoples.”