NEA Sheds Crocodile Tears for the Poor

President Obama has sent his budget plan to Congress, hoping to appease Republicans by slashing $400 billion from Medicare and other health programs (according to NEA Today) and cutting cost of living increases for Social Security recipients. Not surprisingly, Republicans are saying this isn’t enough and they have no intention of supporting any tax hikes, whatsoever. Some pundits are referring to the process as Obama negotiating with himself.

Needless to say, the cuts will hurt seniors and the poor the most (but on the brighter side, the wealthy will be able to continue to enjoying record low tax rates and subsidies for their businesses). These cuts could also have a trickle-down effect on schools. By stripping away some of the safety net for poor families, children will inevitably feel some of the cuts, which could lead to increases in malnutrition, untreated medical conditions, premature births, stress and elevated levels of cortisol, and other factors that can impair cognitive development, memory and learning.

National Educators Association (NEA) President Dennis Van Roekel criticized the plan, saying:

“Right now the focus should be on protecting and increasing benefits for our seniors, not pulling the rug out from under them . . . Social Security belongs to the people who have worked hard all their lives, contributed to the program, and relied on the promise that they and their family will be able to collect benefits that accurately reflect the cost of living when they retire. . . Any budget proposal must be balanced and fair by demanding more of the wealthiest and corporations while staying true to our nation’s commitment to seniors and those most in need.”

These comments are little more than crocodile tears coming from a man who earns close to $400,000 per year in salary and benefits and who will likely be set for life with a comfortable retirement, thanks to his members’ dues. While he may in fact feel sympathy for the poor and seniors, he is completely unwilling to do anything about it besides making a few impotent complaints—and certainly nothing that might jeopardize his income, status or personal freedom.

If NEA was a fighting union, if it really gave a damned about the wellbeing of America’s poor families and children (or simply wanted to see significant gains in educational outcomes), it would mobilize its hundreds of thousands of members to protest the entire budget debate vigorously, with direct action, civil disobedience and even strikes. The NEA is the largest union in the country. It has vast resources and could have significant influence on policy if it were to move away from its unreliable and weak strategy of lobbying and campaign financing and start exercising its true power: its members’ ability to withhold their labor.

One reason why the NEA will not do this is because it does not want to offend its darling in the White House. Despite the fact that Obama has done nothing to reduce the damage caused by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and actually worsened it with his Race to the Top (RttT), he continues to pay lip service to the notion of improving public education (which seems to be sufficient to mollify many on the left). In fairness, his budget proposal does include an additional $75 billion to fund pre-school for all low- to moderate-income 4-year-olds. Yet for many middle class families, the only preschool options available are expensive private schools that suck up large portions of their disposable income. Obama’s budget will provide no relief for these families. More to the point, since we know that pre-K programs have significant benefits for children’s long-term academic success, why not extend the existing free public education system to include all children, starting at the pre-K level? This would have the additional benefit of allowing many parents to get back to work without having to lose a large chunk of their income to overpriced private preschools.

Van Roekel is also probably pleased with the supposed billions of dollars that will go toward education jobs to replace those lost due to the sequester cuts. However, jobs, in and of themselves, are nothing to support, particularly if those jobs are for low pay, with poor benefits and unreasonable demands or lack security. Why not increase unemployment benefits, welfare and other safety net programs to a level that provides all Americans with material security and comfort until they get back on their feet, instead of continuing with the cynical and punitive system that provides only a fraction of what one needs to survive and only for a timeframe that is insufficient for finding another decent job?

Additionally, why strive for putting teachers back in front of 30-40 kids per classroom, which is all that will happen with Obama’s proposal? Why not demand sufficient funding to bring all high school classes in the country down to 20 students per teacher, and the lower grade levels down to 10 or 15 students per teacher? This would not only create a lot of jobs, but it would provide teachers sufficient time to attend to the individual and diverse needs of their students; identify physical, emotional or academic problems before they spiral out of control; and provide more engaging, student-centered, inquiry-based lessons and rely less on canned curriculum, bubble in tests and rote memorization.

Today in Labor History—December 14

Daneil DeLeon, 1902 (from Wikipedia, public domain)

December 14, 1852 -- Daniel DeLeon was born on this date in Curacao, West Indies. DeLeon was one of the founding members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). He was also a leader of the pro-political action faction within the IWW that hoped to create socialism through the ballot box. Soon after the founding of the IWW, his faction lost out to the pro-Direct Action faction, led by Big Bill Haywood, and eventually broke off to form the short-lived Workers International Industrial Union. (From the Daily Bleed and Wikipedia)

Errico Malatesta (from Wikipedia, public domain)

 December 14, 1853 – Italian anarchist theorist and militant Errico Malatestawas born on this date in Santa Maria Capua Vetere, Naples. (From the Daily Bleed )

December 14, 1957 – Dave Beck, General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, was convicted of embezzling from his own union. (From the Daily Bleed )

Polish 1970 protests in Gdynia: body of  Zbyszek Godlewski) carried by the demonstrators.(from Wikipedia, public domain)

 December 14, 1970 – Strikes began in Gdansk, Poland, and spread to Gdynia, Szczecin, other industrial centers, with widespread factory occupations. Rioting toppled the Communist government, only to see it replaced with a new military regime. Labor resistance and protest continued in Gdansk, leading to the formation of Solidarnosc, which toppled the Communist government once and for all in the 1980s. (From the Daily Bleed )

December 14, 1992 – 300,000 coal workers struck against Poland’s "Solidarity" government. (From the Daily Bleed )

December 14, 1995 – 33,000 members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers ended a 69-day strike at Boeing, winning increases in pay and health benefits and job protections against subcontracting.. (From Workday Minnesota)

What’s Wrong With 99% Spring?

There has been lots of talk about the “99% Spring” and growing interest by mainstream unions in confronting corporate greed. There has also been a lot of criticism of “99% Spring” by OWS veterans who fear that Democratic Party Hacks will coopt and dilute their movement. Indeed, there is evidence it is a front group for MoveOn.org.

Regardless of the intent or consequences of the “99% Spring” movement, it shares with the OWS a fundamental naiveté and ignorance about the actual source of our financial woes that prevent either movement from achieving many of their stated goals.

The 99% Spring movement wants to “Tell the story of our economy: how we got here, who’s responsible, what a different future could look like. . . “  Yet both the 99% Spring and OWS movements blame the economic crisis on the “1%,” or a “greedy few” who merely need to be reined in with tougher laws and better enforcement. They both accuse the 1% of being “exceedingly” rich (as if slightly rich were okay) because they “cheated and rigged the political system in their favor.”

This critique ignores the fact that our current economic crisis is merely a worsening of conditions that existed prior to the meltdown. There has always been a minority who possessed most of the wealth because they owned the businesses and machinery of production and paid their employees a fraction of the value of their labor. As a result of this relationship, there has always been unemployment, poverty, homelessness, hunger, uncertainty, debt and despair for the rest of us. The American Dream has always been exactly that, a dream, with only a rare few ever rising from poverty into wealth. And the wealthy minority has always controlled the political system. Indeed, it was designed to protect their interests and maintain their power. At its best, the political system gives us the annual right (duty?) to vote for our rulers and oppressors and give our consent to our own exploitation, not to change it in a way that would give us actual power or wealth.

Today’s Crisis is Not Unique

The situation today might seem worse than any in generations, but it is not unique or unusual under capitalism. Indeed, it is often compared with the Great Depression, while today’s wealth gap is often compared with the Roaring 20’s. There were many other historically significant depressions, recessions and panics, too. A terrible protracted depression lasted from 1873-1896, known as the “Great Depression” until overshadowed by the more recent one. The Panic of 1837 began with a collapsed real estate bubble in New York, leading to five years of depression.

Certainly things have been better than they are today. Not long ago it was easier for a middle class family to send their children to college and for one parent to earn enough to support the whole family. Those days seem to be gone. Incomes (relative to the cost of living) have declined steadily since the 1970s (coinciding with the declining power of unions). The costs of college and health insurance have been increasing at a much faster rate than inflation, making them increasingly out of reach for more and more Americans. The gap between the rich and the poor has been growing rapidly since the Reagan era.

If 99% Spring and OWS are only interested in reforms that restore middle class wealth and hope to their pre-Bush or pre-Reagan levels, fine. But they must remember that even if they succeed it will only be temporary. As long as a system based on economic exploitation, wage slavery, and dependence persists, those who profit from it will always try to squeeze more from their employees; reduce wages and benefits; exploit existing laws, write new ones and even break laws whenever it is profitable to do so. Consider that the ruling elite spent decades whittling away at the regulations of the New Deal and the union gains of the 1940s.

The “1%” is Not to Blame

Even when unions were at their strongest or when the wealth gap was smaller or when middle class Americans felt more hopeful, there was still a tiny minority of bosses, landlords, administrators, and CEOS who controlled the economy and political system. This class was (and is) defined by their ability to hire and fire workers, dictate working conditions, and manipulate the political system for their economic and social gain, not by their membership in the group of millionaires making up the richest 1%. Many are not even millionaires, nor members of the “1%” (e.g., most K-12 superintendents and site administrators), yet they maintain considerable control over our working and living conditions. They are allied with the “1%” and tend to make decisions that benefit the wealthiest members of society. They are, indeed, members of the ruling elite, despite their “modest” incomes, and their existence as a class is fundamental to the problems that OWS and 99% Spring decry.

Both movements want to “reclaim our” America, yet the America they want back was never “ours” to reclaim. It has always been “their country” economically and politically. While we might occasionally win a raise, the vast majority of us will remain politically and economically subservient so long as we accept the existing political and economic systems. We will continue to be paid a fraction of the value of our labor, with our bosses pocketing the difference so long as we continue to accept their right to do so, something both movements accept.

Direct Action Gets the Goods

A classic IWW (Wobbly) slogan is: “Direct Action Gets the Goods.” The “99% Spring” movement has been emphasizing nonviolent direct action as their tactic of choice, in the “spirit of Martin Luther King and Gandhi,” but apparently not in the spirit of the Wobblies, who have been discredited by the bosses, politicians and conservative activists as anarchists, reds, saboteurs, terrorists, and wing nuts.

The Wobblies defined direct action as the opposite of political action. They eschewed political action entirely, arguing that it was divisive (since union members came from various parties and political tendencies, including anarchism) and ineffective (since the political system exists to maintain the wealth and power of the bosses and continues to do so regardless of how workers’ vote).

While the Wobblies did participate in protests and street demonstrations, their most effective tactics were the ones that slowed down or halted production (e.g., working to rule, striking, sit-down strikes, sabotage, General Strikes). And while the Wobblies did fight for incremental gains like wage increases, union contracts, collective bargaining, safety rules and job security, they did so with ultimate goal of abolishing wage slavery in its entirety. They understood that the Employing Class (i.e., anyone with the power to hire and fire) was their class enemy and that as long as this class persisted, workers would always have to fight just to survive.

Aside from a few acts of solidarity with labor (e.g., shutting down ports or marching with striking workers), the OWS has focused primarily on occupying symbolic spaces, a tactic that has applied almost no pressure at all on the bosses, had no impact on their profits, and hardly even made them nervous. Now the 99% Spring movement wants to jump in and get union workers and the Democratic party faithful to do the same.

Even if we ignore the problems with their economic critique and assume that they develop a modest, reformist platform (e.g., stronger financial laws; single payer healthcare; pensions for everyone), marching in the streets, transferring money from large banks to local credit unions, and occupying public squares are unlikely to succeed unless they are accompanied with threats to profits. What made the occupation of the Wisconsin State House potentially effective was not the occupation itself, but the fact that so many workers were not at work. Had the mainstream unions not wimped out and sent their members home with the promise of an electoral or legislative victory, the occupation might have evolved into a General Strike, which would have a much greater chance of pressuring legislators to back down on their union busting agenda.

OWS Is Already Sanitized and Mainstreamed

An article in Gawker lamented that the 99% Spring will “likely . . . drown it out and sanitize [OWS], mainstreaming progressive populist outrage by beating it down. . .” An article in the Daily Kos shared this fear.

The problem with this analysis is that OWS was already sanitized and mainstreamed from the moment of its birth by the very nature of its tactics and message. The mainstream media loves the movement. It’s safe and sympathetic, it’s patriotic, and it doesn’t threaten profits or political power. Who could possibly be fearful of college students asking for student debt relief, uninsured people asking for healthcare, unemployed people asking for jobs, disillusioned voters asking for less financial influence on the political system, evicted home owners asking for mortgage relief, and people in general asking that the filthy rich be a little nicer and less greedy?

So long as the movements do not threaten profits or the security of the bosses and ruling  elite they will continue with business as usual and the status quo will prevail.

Today in Labor History—December 14

Daneil DeLeon, 1902 (from Wikipedia, public domain)

December 14, 1852 -- Daniel DeLeon was born on this date in Curacao, West Indies. DeLeon was one of the founding members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). He was also a leader of the pro-political action faction within the IWW that hoped to create socialism through the ballot box. Soon after the founding of the IWW, his faction lost out to the pro-Direct Action faction, led by Big Bill Haywood, and eventually broke off to form the short-lived Workers International Industrial Union. (From the Daily Bleed and Wikipedia)

Errico Malatesta (from Wikipedia, public domain)

 December 14, 1853 – Italian anarchist theorist and militant Errico Malatesta was born on this date in Santa Maria Capua Vetere, Naples. (From the Daily Bleed )

December 14, 1957 – Dave Beck, General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, was convicted of embezzling from his own union. (From the Daily Bleed )

Polish 1970 protests in Gdynia: body of  Zbyszek Godlewski) carried by the demonstrators.(from Wikipedia, public domain)

 December 14, 1970 – Strikes began in Gdansk, Poland, and spread to Gdynia, Szczecin, other industrial centers, with widespread factory occupations. Rioting toppled the Communist government, only to see it replaced with a new military regime. Labor resistance and protest continued in Gdansk, leading to the formation of Solidarnosc, which toppled the Communist government once and for all in the 1980s. (From the Daily Bleed )

December 14, 1992 – 300,000 coal workers struck against Poland’s "Solidarity" government. (From the Daily Bleed )

December 14, 1995 – 33,000 members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers ended a 69-day strike at Boeing, winning increases in pay and health benefits and job protections against subcontracting.. (From Workday Minnesota)

Abortion Rights, Labor and the Left

The San Francisco Chronicle printed a cartoon in the opinion page on July 18 showing teachers, social workers and public sector workers under attack, with the caption “Attacking public sector workers is attacking women.” I mentioned it to my wife and asked her where the feminists were? She said they were probably overwhelmed fighting for reproductive rights.

While the fight for women’s reproductive and health rights is important, I would argue that it is one of many struggles that would benefit from greater worker power. Do we simply want women to have the right and access to an unpleasant medical procedure or to have improved overall social and economic status, wellbeing and health? The latter would necessarily include accessible, affordable and quality reproductive healthcare, contraception and abortion, something that many women currently do not have, especially lower income women.

The vast majority of abortions and unintended pregnancies occur among lower income women. 42% of women obtaining abortions have incomes below the federal poverty level, according to the Guttmacher Institute, while 27% have incomes between 100% and 200% of the poverty level ($10,000-20,000 per year for a single woman with no children). Thus, 69% of women obtaining abortions could be considered poor or low income. The abortion rate for poor women has been growing, too, over the past decade, while the rate for affluent women has been declining. Furthermore, the Guttmacher Institute reports that 75% of women who obtain abortions cite inability to afford a child as one of the reasons for having the procedure. Lower income women also tend to have worse overall health and nutrition, which increases the chances of a medically necessary abortion, while poverty decreases access to perinatal care and contraceptives. Also, while affluent women have far fewer unintended pregnancies, they are much more likely to be able to provide materially for their children, decreasing the need for abortion.

Poor women have a higher rate of unintended pregnancies than affluent women. Between 1994 and 2001, the rate of unintended pregnancies increased 29% for women living below the poverty line, while it decreased 20% among women with incomes that were double the poverty line or higher. Poor women are four times more likely to have an unintended pregnancy and three times more likely to have an abortion than affluent women. Unintended pregnancies cost taxpayers over $11 billion per year, according to the Guttmacher Institute, while preventing these pregnancies would save the public an average of $5.6 billion per year. Guttmacher also says that because the vast majority of abortions result from unintended pregnancies, one of the best methods for reducing abortions and unintended pregnancies is better access to affordable contraceptives. They suggest that the current recession has made it more difficult for lower income women to obtain contraceptives, thus contributing to their growing rate of abortions.

Many pro-choice advocates argue that abortion increases economic opportunities for women. Again, I am not arguing against abortion. It should continue to be legal, affordable and accessible for many reasons. However, this argument conflates a medical procedure with future wealth, when it is actually the absence of children and the numerous expenses associated with childrearing, not abortion itself that is the basis for this. If poor women are more likely to have an unintended pregnancy, then reducing poverty would not only improve women’s economic welfare directly, but indirectly, too, by reducing the chances that they are forced to provide materially for a child before they are ready to do so. However, even this argument is not entirely consistent with the evidence. Contrary to pundits and activists on the Right and the Left, while delaying childbearing generally improves the economic welfare of affluent women, it lowers the economic welfare of lower income women. Several studies indicate that poor women who have children early, particularly as teens, thus being freed of child-raising duties by their late-20s to pursue employment opportunities, had higher incomes than their peers who had children in their 20s and 30s, and were less likely to be living in poverty (See Mike Males). This is not to say that teens should be encouraged to have children or denied access to abortion. Lower income teen mothers are still much less likely to become affluent adults than their affluent peers. But this tendency has far more to do with their lack of privileges growing up and as young adults, than it does with motherhood or lack of access to abortion. Lower income children continue to lack privileges such as health insurance, good nutrition, clean environments, enriching summer activities like camp, vacations and summer school, while as young adults they continue to lack privileges like inheritance, business connections, and the ability to afford college.

Clearly, by elevating women’s economic power, we would significantly increase their health and material security, thus reducing unwanted pregnancies and the most common reason for abortions. This ought to be the goal for many additional reasons, too. By increasing women’s economic status, we necessarily improve the health and educational outcomes for their children, who will be more likely to be born at a healthy weight and time, receive adequate nutrition and healthcare, and avoid much of the familial stress that accompanies financial insecurity. Each of these would decrease the number of children with cognitive impairments and learning disabilities. However, in order to improve women’s economic status, we need a strong labor movement that has the power to demand higher wages, better health care, and safer working conditions for all workers.

There is another reason why workers’ power should be at the very top of the progressive agenda. Workers have the most powerful weapon available for achieving most progressive goals—the strike. Petitions, demonstrations, letter-writing sometimes have a little influence on a few policy-makers, but they do not put any real pressure on them. The one thing that does pressure the ruling class is a threat to their profits, a threat that can most effectively be carried out when workers refuse to work or engage in other forms of direct action that slow down production. Therefore, a strong and militant labor movement is necessary for the rest of the left to achieve its goals, including the protection of women’s reproductive and health rights. In a July 18 interview on KPFA’s “Letters From Washington,”

Ralph Nadar said that Obama doesn’t have to listen to progressives because they have no bargaining power. In other words, he doesn’t need their votes (or, expects he’ll get their votes anyway) and they are too weak to gum up the cogs of capitalism, thus posing no threat to his ability to raise funds or maintain his current support. The left can whine and complain about his appointment to the consumer protection agency, war mongering, capitulations to Wall Street, and abandonment of the poor and working class, but what are they really do about it?

Returning to the cartoon in the Chronicle it, is important to recognize that an attack on public sector workers is not just an attack on women. It is an attack on all of us, as it lowers overall wages and material security and decreases the quality and availability of public services upon which we all depend. Similarly, any attack on women’s reproductive rights is also an attack on all of us as it weakens women’s status in society, decreases their social and physical independence, and helps to perpetuate poverty, each of which has social costs for everyone. When women are devalued in society, when anyone is devalued or has lesser rights or protections, it increases the vulnerability of each of us.

The basis of solidarity is the recognition that we are all in it together, that an injury to one is an injury to all. Not one of us can truly be free if any one of us is economically or socially deprived. When workers start to live by this truth, instead of pitting themselves against other workers, they will unite to fight for the wellbeing of all workers, not just to obtain better working conditions and wages, but for all the good things in life, including adequate healthcare and nutrition, a clean environment, control over their working conditions and an end to the wage system itself.