Posts

Posted on

The Devilish Fun of a Party Power Struggle

Veteran British actor Ian Richardson passed away recently. I took the opportunity afforded by my monthly mail order video subscription (no brand names, comrades) to stage a private film festival of Richardson’s best-known work, the BBC series, “House of Cards.”

The 1991 miniseries focuses on a fictional Tory power struggle following Thatcher’s ouster, as Francis Urquhart, the diabolically unassuming Chief Whip, plots to destabilize the government and sabotage his competitors. The filmmakers give more than a nod and a wink to Shakespeare. Urquhart’s Lady MacBeth-like wife is played by Lady MacBeth, Diane Fletcher (from the Polanski version), and F.U. frequently addresses the audience directly, to share his plotting or just to raise an eyebrow. It’s Richardson’s performance that turns what could have been a cheap gag into a darkly comic and chilling tale. The entire enterprise is devilish fun, right up to the shock ending.

The filmmakers revived the series for two sequels which compare less favorably to the original, if only because grabbing power is more fun than merely preserving it. “To Play the King” is more inherently British than the other series. Not because it focuses on a battle between an idealistic king and a cynical Prime Minister, but because, unlike entertainment fare tailored for American audiences, the filmmakers feel no need to make any of their main characters particularly likable. After all, the idealistic king’s politicking in favor of social welfare spending is no less an abuse of power as the Prime Minister’s Machiavellian dirty tricks, and is more hypocritical. Unfortunately, the filmmakers rely too heavily on F.U.’s ability to order “black-ops” mischief as a lazy deus ex machina to tie up the loose strands of an unwieldy plot.

“The Final Cut” is a slight return to form, finding F.U. struggling vainly to remain in office longer than Thatcher. The toll of time is conveyed interestingly, as ten years in office and gallons of blood on his hands, F.U. is surrounded by a cabinet and advisors than contain no familiar faces from the previous series. As the sins of his past inexorably catch up to him, his wife cold-bloodedly calculates how to preserve his legacy and their retirement finances.

As our own American political system gears up for a succession battle, it strikes me that few of the candidates are incapable of the cartoonish evil of Ian Richardson’s portrayal, but that none of them are capable of the wit and charm that makes the make believe politics of the “House of Cards” series so watch-able.

Posted on

Look for My Union Label

I’ve finally rejoined the National Writers Union (UAW Local 1181), the freelancers union. I had been a member when I was the editor of the Five Borough Institute’s newsletter, mainly because we wanted to have a bug on the masthead. I let my membership lapse during my long stint of unemployment, even though I had begun to write regularly for this blarg.

I realize I should be paying lip service to this supposed new media revolution, but truthfully, it’s hard to think of myself as a “Writer” because of a silly blog. I want to be in print. I’ve made sporadic attempts at submitting op-eds to local newspapers. Unfortunately, most of the community weeklies don’t publish opinion pieces. Even the one paper where I was briefly hired and quickly “dooced” doesn’t want actual opinions in their op-eds. I’m hoping that my renewed NWU membership will spur me on to try more seriously to get in print, even if that pesky “full-time union organizer / part-time graduate student” thing gets in the way.

Posted on

The Champions of “Democracy”

The changed political landscape affords the labor movement opportunities to change laws that make us weaker. These opportunities afford right-wing politicians and management consultants new opportunities to couch their attacks on workers’ collective rights to organize in terms of “democracy.” We have to counter this rhetoric before it becomes standard Newspeak.

First up, Maryland’s House Republican leader Anthony O’Donnell attacking a bill for agency fee for state employee unions: “Forcing people to fund a service that they don’t desire to have is patently undemocratic.” To Mr. O’Donnell, I say, I don’t support the war in Iraq – or indeed any military spending – as a “service.” Am I free, in the name of democracy, to evade my taxes? Employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement benefit from the wages, benefits and protections that the union has won, and have available to them a grievance machinery in which the union is required to expend resources to represent all employees. A union is a democratic organization – a government – that all the employees in the bargaining unit belong to, and can take part in. Free riders who don’t pay their dues are benefitting from representation without taxation, a costly drain on union finances that holds us back from further organizing.

Next up, Dick Cheney, announcing the President’s intention to veto the Employee Free Choice Act, declared, “It’s important for everyone in the debate to remember that secret ballots protect workers from intimidation and ensure the integrity of the process.” It’s hard to know where to begin with this one. A comment on the Bush administrations track record on the sanctity of the ballot? How about the administration’s suspension of collective bargaining rights for Homeland Security employees? Or maybe the Bush-appointed NLRB’s decision to suspend union authorization elections for up to eight million workers who have neither the authority not compensation of management as exempt “supervisors.” No, let’s skip the ad hominems and debate the words. Where does intimidation arise in the organizing process? Is it from co-workers appealing to each other’s sense of solidarity to join together, or is it the reign of terror that management typically launches in anticipation of an NLRB election? As our friends at CEPR have pointed out, one in five union activists can expect to be fired during an organizing campaign. The remainder can have their jobs threatened, face “predictions” of plant closure or layoffs and generally have their lives made miserable while waiting for an election. Most of these actions – particularly terminations – are illegal, but the enforcement is so lax and the penalties so slight (a wrongfully terminated employee can expect, on average, $2000 in back pay from the employer) that most employers view the costs as well worth it to keep a union out.

Most unions file for authorization with 60 to 70 percent voting yes by signing union cards. The NLRB conducts a superfluous second election that provides management with a window of opportunity to conduct a reign of terror against its employees. Our oh-so-democratic proponents of the secret ballot while likely claim that this campaign merely provides “the other side” a chance to introduce new facts into the “debate.” The truth is the only new “fact” that management introduces into a union election campaign is the fact that a worker who supports the union is in danger of losing his or her job. It is precisely this kind of intimidation that the Employee Free Choice act will put an end to by allowing employees to vote just once to form a union, in an atmosphere free of intimidation.

Posted on

Is Fair Housing Flying the Co-op?

The curiosity of a socialist owning real estate inspires much teasing from my friends. But why shouldn’t I own my own home? As our comrade, Barbara Garson has proven in her book, "Money Makes the World Go Around”, unless you stuff your cash in the mattress, you are inevitably invested in evil deeds. So why not invest in an evil that you control, your home? Taking a step further, I’ve been serving on my apartment co-op’s board of directors for about a year now. For a rickety, yet charming, old building our charge is a series of uncomfortable decisions. Should we delay refurbishing the elevator, or raise the monthly maintenance charge? Paint the lobby, or give the Super a raise? I sidestepped our controversial decision to begin eviction proceedings against one of our rent controlled tenants by not having been elected to the board by that time, but I have been a part of nearly half a dozen instances of that most New York real estate process, the co-op board interview and purchase approval.

We’re a pretty chill board. We don’t have any stringent financial requirements. We’ve approved buyers who put down as low as five percent (when just about every other building in the neighborhood requires a 20 percent down payment), figuring that even if you default on your loan, we’ll make our money back one way or the other. We also assume pets innocent before being proven guilty of loudness or aggression, and therefore don’t have a blanket “no pets” policy. And I, for one, don’t care who your sleep with as long as you are sleeping in your apartment with him or her, and not illegally subletting your place.

Not all boards are as good as this one. The NY Times real estate section is chock full of horror stories of boards using tenant applications as political footballs in struggles over power and wealth, as well as less-well documented instances of purchase applications being rejected for reasons of racism or heterosexism. With more than 332,000 households in New York belonging to co-ops, the City Council is taking action to ensure that hard-fought protections against housing discrimination are not gutted by our “stakeholder society,” by requiring boards to provide prompt and specific justifications for rejecting purchase applications. Our building’s management company – a necessary evil – is, like most management companies, organizing to defeat the bill and seeking to enlist the help of our co-op board members. The Real Estate Board of New York’s lobbying letter concludes, in relevant part:

Int. No. 119 of 2006 will drastically restrict the rights of co-op board members, shareholders and property managers. It will also significantly delay transactions which will hurt the coop market as a whole. More important, it will substantially increase litigation in the marketplace, and make it difficult for coops to recruit qualified shareholders to volunteer their time to be a part of a co-op board.

Any discrimination by board members is expressly forbidden in City, State and Federal law. Currently, under the City Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the Federal Fair Housing Act, cooperative boards are prohibited from discriminating against a potential buyer on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, military status, sexual orientation, age pregnancy, or disability. There are remedies within each of these statues for a party who believes he has been discriminated against. The legislation does not add to these protections that are already in place.

In response, I have two points. Firstly, individual members of co-op boards are, for the most part, shielded from personal liability for board decisions – which is a fact that our management companies frequently stress while they, for instance, encourage us to evict our rent controlled tenants. More than fear of litigation, fear of the management companies with which we enter into contract is a more likely culprit for intimidating shareholders from serving on co-op boards. Secondly, while there are plenty of anti-discrimination laws on the books, it is nearly impossible to prosecute such cases if co-op boards need not disclose the reasons for rejecting an applicant. Boards who reject applicants for legitimate reasons (for instance, poor finances, dangerous pets or speculative investments) need not fear the extra scrutiny and paperwork. Boards who run their buildings like the Jim Crow South deserve the exposure and financial liability that this bill threatens. The extra work that it will require on my board’s part will be well worth it to ensure that New York City remains a free and integrated society.