Pro-Union Bumper Stickers on Toyotas

We have a great mix of people at the ULA program here in Amherst. That’s one of the biggest appeals that this program held for me when I applied. In my narrow corner of the New York labor movement, I’m just not likely to make friends with Machinists and Auto Workers, nor with Canadian trade unionists or union activists from the South.

My brother Dave Rossi, a Canadian Auto Worker (he’s the guy with the cheerleader on his shoulders in this picture; no, he did not throw her in the air), can get pretty riled up when he sees a pro-union bumper sticker on the back of a Toyota or a Honda. In an atmosphere where everyone is boycotting something (don’t buy Coke, don’t shop at Wal-Mart, avoid Poland Spring water, cancel your Verizon cellphone contract, etc.), it’s easy to feel a little outraged when your comrades buy a non-union product that competes directly with the company that you work for to undercut market share and threaten good union jobs.

My only quibbles are, first, that I used to drive a Toyota. It was an 18-year-old model that was given to me by a good friend when I was in dire straits and which I promptly drove to death. Income limitations and the nature of used cars makes principled shopping difficult for many. (The same goes for shopping at Wal-Mart; there’s really no excuse for driving out 25 miles from Queens to Valley Stream or Garden City in order to get cheap underwear, but it can be awfully hard for someone living in rural Arkansas to find anything but Wal-Mart to shop at.)

Second, I’m frustrated that “Buy American” auto campaigns serve to support bad, antisocial business decisions by the Bosses. SUVs are a crime against nature. Trucks and minivans are too fucking big for city streets. But these behemoths are what Detroit produces and promotes. I didn’t see many ads for compact, fuel efficient American cars during last night’s Patriots game. I saw Hummers and SUVs and pickups. Those are sexy and manly and exciting, according to the ads. With the exception of the Chrysler PT Cruiser (which, let’s face it, is German), I can’t think of a compact American car that is designed nearly as stylishly. This feels like a conspiracy to me. Since there’s not as much profit in those smaller cars, the Big Three promote the monster trucks instead and then say, see, Americans aren’t interested in compact cars. And we support this with our “Buy American” campaigns, which shoppers are clearly tuning out as they go on buying their compact Hondas and Toyotas.

It reminds me of working for the Hotel Employees union, where our emphasis shifted from insisting that if Indian casinos were to be built in the Catskills that their employees should have the free choice to join a union to lobbying to build those casinos in order to create more jobs – the destructive effects of gambling on society be damned! It’s not our job to promote the Boss’ business. It’s our job to organize workers to defend their interests on the job.

Speaking of which, Honda and Toyota have built plants in the southern United States. But where is the United Autoworkers’ organizing directed? Graduate teaching assistants in the Northeast! Yes, of course those are Right-to-Work states, and the challenges are many and the odds are long. But it’s not like the law was on the UAW’s side when they conducted sit-in strikes in the 1930’s. It’s not like Ford welcomed Walter Reuther with open arms. This is our challenge. Where are our priorities?

In the meantime, Dave Rossi is right. A good trade unionist has no business buying a new Honda or Toyota. Look for the union label, comrades.

Scholastic Update

I forgot to mention that I’m away at school in Amherst this week and next. In a stab at credibility as an actual UMass student, I try to do as many “regular student” things on campus as possible. So, yesterday, a few of my union brothers and I went to a Minutemen basketball game (they beat St. Joe’s 68-58).

I’ve never been to school where there were cheerleaders before.

Cover Controversy

The new issue of “The Socialist” magazine is out in the mail, and, to my utter befuddlement, its cover is provoking some controversy.

Apparently, some comrades take exception to linking Rosa Parks’ image and legacy with a stupid teevee show, no matter the ironic effect intended. The party’s female Co-Chair thinks that linking Parks with “Desperate Housewives” is “historically inaccurate, belittling to her as an individual, and demeaning to the Civil Rights movement.” Our young, white male Co-Vice Chair denounces the cover as “controversial in the eyes of women or people of color,” and Wayne Rossi dismisses it as “a smarmy, self-satisfied pop-culture reference…that sets a bad tone for the enterprise.”

I produce each issue of the magazine in collaboration with an Editorial Board, and I am always sure to direct their attention to items that I think might spur controversy (for example, I was awfully worried about the response to pinkocommiebastard’s investment advice). I never in a million years thought this cover would provoke any controversy. I was proud of it, thought the graphic was terrific, and was worried that – if anything – the “Desperate Housewives” allusion would be perceived as cliched or boring. No one on the Editorial Board thought it controversial, either.

When the inimitable Quinn Brisben submitted his article on Rosa Parks, I was excited to publish it. It is a typically breezy, yet gripping, account of the backstage planning and maneuvering of the Montgomery bus boycott, as well as the years of planning that went into it, and the spontaneous civil disobedience that started it. It is scholarly and funny, full of well-researched history, anecdotes and personal remembrances.

It was not intended to be the cover story until Steven Baumann, responding to a request for an illustration of Parks’ mug shot, submitted the stark and lovely graphic that now graces the cover. His Rosa Parks looks saintly and simultaneously dangerous. I took one look at it, and that phrase that is being bandied about in our media immediately came to mind: desperate housewife.

Here was a woman in a truly desperate situation: a second-class (well, third-class, as a woman) citizen who is daily spat upon by those on top in society, who trains and studies to overcome it and finally engages in a brave and noble act that puts her life, her livelihood and her reputation in peril.

Contrast that with a teevee soap opera about bored women in the affluent suburbs plotting adultery and mayhem and figure out what we are making fun of with the cover.

Please, let me know what you think.

Six Dollar Movie Review: Capote

Phillip Seymour Hoffman perfectly impersonates the late author (as far as I can tell, based upon the clips I have seen of his later TeeVee appearances as a professional celebrity), and brings a subtle complexity to the role of Truman Capote as he uses (and abuses) everyone around him while researching and writing “In Cold Blood.”

Capote traveled to a sleepy Kansas town that was the site of a grisly quadruple murder in 1959 to write a story for “The New Yorker” but worked instead for five years on the first “non-fiction novel.” He traded on his celebrity to gain the confidence of the wives of the town’s lawmen and used his money to fund the legal appeals of the murderers in order to win their trust and keep them alive long enough to get their side of the story. Of course, he needed to have them swinging from the gallows in order to have an ending for his book. That conflict is at the heart of this movie, which handily shifts its tone as the subject matter grows darker and ratchets up the tension as it builds towards the inevitable (but still shocking) climax.