Letter From Munich, 1953
Munich, June 12, 1953
Dear Jay,
It’s over a half a year now, since we stood on that ship to say goodby. You asked me to write and I promised to do so. To tell you the truth I hesitated because I did not want to be carried away with my feelings. I was a very disappointed man, not because of the court proceedings, the prison, ect. but because of my so called friends, the last days in the Union, the way Georgette was treated and Sindeys promises were certainly an agony to go through with. If you took away the carfare from the collection money for Georgette, she could not have existed on the support. She took the bus only to save money and she could have visited me more often but $30 was too much. Many a guest of Local 6 was more expensive that all the Local spend. You certainly cannot count the court and lawyers expenses of which nothing came to me. I am sure I saved many others a lot of troubles and I could have had an easy way out. All those that knew my dilemma from the beginning and insisted on holding the fort have certainly some obligations. All ratting came from within the International as you know. O yes I was in Dachau the other day and some fellows seem to know a certain Dutchman’s past his name was Hausend and later Hownsend. Very interesting how he became anti Nazi all of a sudden.
Since I am here I was mostly busy with my affairs. The only political demonstration I witnessed was May 1st. Somehow I was drenched by the police after the big meeting. It was very interesting and reminded me on the early days on Union Square. The water was easyer than theirs and the police men were rather hesitating but efficient. There was less of the bunch of foreigner attitude. I had lots of problems with my papers, also to find a place to stay for me and Georgette. The temporary room with my mother and sister could not be counted on. My mother is 86 and a sick person. Her mind is in her childhood as she has a hardening of the arteries. She does not recognize me any more only from the past she remembers. Rooms are scarce and expensive. They wanted from 200 to 400 marks a month for a furnished place. I finally arranged with my brother to let me built a big room in his house. What a job to get permission but all was ready when Georgette came although most of it was built illegal. So we have a room with all the comfort. We raise chickens, have our eggs, our vegetables, our fruits. I get the food wholesale. We are managing. The building and all the expenses since we left amount to $7000, so we are now depending on the income from the Flushing mortgage of 82.50 a month which is fine if nothing happens. It seems that the old age pension I counted on is very questionable. I can always take care of myself as you said but it is an irony that I fought far far back for pension and security, I had it on the old Hotelworker program in 1917 and now I have such a tight squeeze. Hugo Ernst did not object to 50 a week that time. And the testimonial. He wanted me to get a body guard so everything could be safely transferred. Lehman in Local 1 gets 25 a week. So some of our officers realize what price I am paying. I was not impressed by that editorial in Local 6 about me. It was carefully worded that I had something to do with the Hotel Workers but it did not need Local 89 to answer 15. Did I not serve time before in fighting injunctions. Those were 20 years before 6 and we always had a Union. Even my wife worked and my children saw me in jail when they were 6 years old. That a blackmailer like Ventura should get a job is not understandable to me in my old fashioned Union concept. That fruit basket presented by Herman was certainly a joke. Anybody traveling on a Swedish ship knows that you get all the fruit and canned fish you want and candy is poison for me as a diabetic person. The Swedish stewardesses send their thanks, as I did not want trouble with the rostrum duties. I would have liked the money much better and could use it. I had some troubles about my papers – first my registration, had to trace my ancestors 3 generations, then I needed my identification card. Had to see the Chief Justice of the Bavarian Court and the Police Commissioner, ect. Luckily my brother is well known. To get my passport I had to go to Bonn. American pressure was there all over and after 3 months I got it. By the way Kay’s brother is in a real top position. He is nat’l President of the Government employees and has access all over. Finally I became a divisininlandzerman. I can work, get a job, have a car. They had my money stopped in the bank until I passed all that. I need a briefcase just to carry my papers with me. I wanted to drive a car and had to go to auto drivers school and pass a police test with all sorts of theoretical questions. Everything the hard way. MY New York license was canceled, me being a felon. One thing the German union officials were very nice and were concerned if I needed assistance. They offered direct help which I would be ashamed to take. I must say that the generous help of Local 89 had helped to provide me with a few comforts.
So you have an idea how I feel and what I do. My best regards to all friends and I will get around to write a few soon. Hoping you are in good health.
I remain with best wishes,
Mike
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.
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.
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.