Showing posts with label collaboration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label collaboration. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

AFL-CIO Complicity in Violence Against Latin American Labor


School of the Americas Demonstration, 2006 (Image from Flickr, by Crazbabe 21)
Columbia has been called the most dangerous place in the world to be a union member. Since 1986, nearly 2900 unionists have been killed in that country, Counter Punch reported this week.   In 2010, over half the union members killed worldwide were Columbian. At least 28 labor leaders were killed there in 2011, while 600 teachers were physically threatened. 

Though the AFL-CIO has criticized Columbia’s horrendous record on labor, there have been several Wikileaks cables that show a more equivocal role for the union. The AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center’s Rhett Doumitt (who aided in the coup against Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, according to Counter Punch), accused members of CUT, the largest labor confederation in Colombia, of being Stalinists and hardline communists, thus setting them up in the minds of Columbia’s death squads as legitimate targets for violence. He also agreed with the Columbian government that many of the union members killed were victims of “common crime,” and not political violence, thus trivializing the violence against union members and sending the message that killing unionists is okay, so long as it is made to look like a mugging or robbery.

Of course the AFL-CIO has a long history of collaborating with the State Department and the CIA in undermining unions and revolutionary struggles throughout the world (see here, here and here), particularly during the Cold War, but starting back under Samuel Gomper’s leadership and continuing unabated through the present. A Wikileaks cable from Peru revealed that the AFL-CIO sided with the Peruvian government in a recent legal victory that reduced 10-fold the number of teachers who could engage in full-time union activities and still receive their teachers’ salaries. Cables also suggested that anti-Sandinista unions in Nicaragua seek the support of the AFL-CIO in working to unseat Daniel Ortega.

While it is reprehensible that any labor organization would doing anything to jeopardize the safety of fellow workers abroad, the AFL-CIO’s collaboration with the State Department also undermines the interests of American workers. Strong condemnation of Columbia’s treatment of union members combined with direct action locally could have derailed the Free Trade Agreement with Columbia, which has made it easier to export jobs to that country.

So long as wages and working conditions are worse elsewhere, capitalists will continue to move jobs to those countries, not only contributing to local unemployment, but driving down wages and working conditions at home.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Pragmatism Beats Out Occupy and Bunga Bunga for Word of Year


Merriam-Webster is calling “pragmatic” the word of the year, saying there were more searches for this one word in 2011 than any other word, including “occupy,” according to the Daily Mail.
Congressional Super Committe (by DonkeyHotey)
 Searches for the term “pragmatic” spiked this past year when Congress voted to increase the debt ceiling and when its super committee tried to slash the deficit. This I found curious considering that the word “pragmatic” is far more useful, comprehensible and, one would think, more well-known than the words “deficit” or “debt ceiling.” But maybe Americans’ attention and curiosity glazed over once they got past the “pragmatism” that was being imposed on them by their rulers. Perhaps that was all they needed to know, that those who truly understand these things were simply creating a logical solution to incomprehensible problems, and that was good enough!

That “pragmatic” beat out “occupy” will surely be a disappointment to the 99%, who are certain that they truly are the 99% and that their favorite tactic, ”occupying” should therefore have received 99% of the votes, while “pragmatic,” which is clearly what the 1% want the 99% to be, should have only received 1% of the votes. This paradox may best be explained by the 99%’s confidence that they all know what they’re talking about already when they say they are “occupying” this and that. Therefore, the 99% don’t need to look up the word “occupy.” In contrast, as members of the 99% who are subject to the “pragmatism” being imposed by the 1%, they felt inclined to do a little homework and make sure that this “pragmatism” business really was in their best interests.
(Image from Flickr, Boris.rasin)
 While the 99% are all certain that everyone understands the term “Occupy,” and are now using the term for most anything they want to change—Wall Street, Wal-Mart, Department of Education, internet, Republican minds, couches, Sesame Street—they seem to forget that their own government—which is to say, the 1%—has been “occupying” Iraq and Afghanistan for the past decade, not to mention Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Samoa for much longer. So, if we add together the occupations being carried out in the name of the 99% and those being carried out by the 1%, it would seem that everyone is occupying or being occupied.

Apropos (which, alas, was not one of the contenders this year) to ending military and imperialist occupations, two of my favorite pieces of political graffiti from the 1980s were: “U.S. out of America,” and the variant “U.S. out of my reproductive organs.” There were, of course, some nationalistic feminists in those days, one of whom spray-painted the following on a San Francisco wall: “Free Tampons, Not Kuwait.” Inspired by these retro-slogans, I would like to suggest some new slogans for the 2010s like: “Free Time, Not Markets!” or “In A Classless Society We Are All the 50%!”

This double use of the term “occupy” to mean something good that “the people” do to resist the “bad governments” that “occupy” other nations for “bad reasons,” reminds me of the term “collaborate,” which is supposedly a good thing that good teachers do to help their students, even though it is also a terrible thing that the Vichy government did to help the Nazis. Both “occupation” and “collaboration” can lead to repression, brutality and death for innocent people. In fact, the terms are quite connected in that occupiers rely on collaborators to help them achieve their goals. The Palestinian Authority has acted as a collaborator with the Israeli government in the suppression of the Palestinian people. The mainstream trade unions have acted as collaborators with the capitalists to ensure that working people stay on the job and accept compromises and take-backs that keep profits high and salaries low. Scabs collaborate with bosses to undermine strikes. Spies and informants collaborate with the police and military to undermine activist groups like OWS.

Teacher “collaboration” is a funny thing. The notion of a bunch of professionals sitting down together to brainstorm solutions to educational problems, develop innovative curriculum, and discuss the issues and needs of shared students certainly makes a lot of sense and seems worthwhile. However, the term “collaboration” in the context of education is a fraught, poorly defined and often abused term. It is commonly used to mean “embrace what I say and what I’m doing and graciously assist in it, whether or not you agree.” Teachers who ask too many questions, who point out logical inconsistencies or who critique reforms and policies are often accused of being “bad collaborators.” Teacher evaluations generally include how well they “collaborate,” a subjective observation that can be used to punish teachers who aren’t cheerleaders for the reform du jour.
Charlie Sheen Has Tigers Blood (image from Flickr, by Ssoosay)
 Speaking of collaboration, what could be a greater collaboration than that between Hollywood and the public? Hollywood provides billions of dollars’ worth of mindless garbage for our consumption and we not only consume it hungrily, but stalk their stars’ every move, no matter how pitiful. Take “Tiger’s Blood,” another top contender for word of the year—a term I had no idea was now in the popular vernacular. I had to look this one up, being the out-of-touch OG (old guy) that I am and was delighted to discover that it came from a Tweet by Charlie Sheen. Tiger’s Blood, it seems, is what runs through his veins, somehow making him impervious to addiction (and likely contributing to both his inflated ego and his stupidity). The fact that this word went viral and was even considered for word of the year is testament to how desperate the American people are for a distraction to their miseries. Wetting oneself over royal weddings and scandals is pathetic enough, but following every ridiculous tweet by drunken Hollywood bottom feeders like Charlie Sheen??? Come on, people, get a life!

Speaking of getting a life, I would like to humbly (or humblebragly) request that those esteemed billionaires who seem to know so much about how to do my job, kindly eat feces and die. Yes, “humblebrag” was another top contender. According to Urban Dictionary, it means to subtly let other people know how fantastic you are by doing it in a self-deprecating manner, or self-promotion of the most despicable and loathsome sort, generally delivered via social media. An example of a “humblebrag” would be if I posted the following to my blog or Twitter feed: ”As everybody knows, teachers all come from the bottom one-third of their graduating classes. So the 4.0 GPA I earned was nothing compared with the 12.0 GPA’s earned by the overachievers at my university.”
Would Anyone Care To Bunga Bunga? (Berlusconi caricature by DonkeyHotey, flickr)
 My vote for the word of the year, however, has to go to an antiquated, but very evocative term that made a recent comeback. “Bunga bunga” dates back to 1910 or earlier, according to Wikipedia. However, it grew in popularity last year when Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi used it to refer to his infamous orgies. Wikipedia says that “bunga bunga” may mean an underwater orgy, an African-style ritual performed by naked women for male spectators, with pole dancing and competitive stripteases by women dressed as nurses and cops. My guess is the term is a variation on bung or bunghole, as in having one’s head in the bung or “Whoops, Silvio’s stuck his tongue in the bung again.” Or, as Gargantua recited to Grangousier at the tender young age of five (In Rabelais’ political satire): 

Thy Bung
Hath Flung
Some Dung
                --On us

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Unions Standing With (And On) Wall Street Protesters

Today, hundreds of union members plan to march with Wall Street protesters. At least 4 major New York unions have officially thrown their support behind the movement, in addition to some national unions and Richard Trumka.

One of the New York unions that proclaimed its support of the movement is the TWU (Transport Workers Union) Local 100, whose members work for the Metropolitan Transit Association (MTA).

However, MTA busses and drivers were commandeered by the NYPD to help transport the 700 demonstrators who were arrested for marching across the Brooklyn Bridge last week. While it was reported in the Gothamist.com that one driver told the passengers to get out and wait for the next bus, it appears that all or most of the other drivers dutifully collaborated with their bosses and the police to help suppress protesters.

It seems rather hypocritical and wimpy to proclaim support for a movement and at the same time collaborate to suppress it.

In what some might call a better-late-than-never move, the union will ask the New York State Supreme Court for a restraining order against the city to prevent the NYPD from any more "forced use" of Local 100's bus drivers. "

Yet, it is entirely possible that they will lose in court and continue to be compelled to collaborate with the police. Then what? Will they withdraw their support from the movement, so as to be logically consistent, or will they continue to “support” the movement in words, while suppressing the movement in action?

A fighting union and real solidarity both require personal sacrifice, including the risk of jail and job loss. If TWU workers really care about the success of the movement, they will refuse to drive protesters to jail, regardless of the courts and the threats of their employers and they would have done this from the start.

And if they are subjected to retaliation by their bosses, they should immediately stop working entirely, which would paralyze the city and create a virtual general strike, as workers and shoppers would be severely hampered in the ability to get to work and shopping. Furthermore, other unions should also strike in solidarity if this happens, increasing the TWU members’ strength and sending a strong message to the bosses.