One More from the Gipper

Right around the time the nation was commemorating the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth came a story out of Allentown, Pennsylvania that had the makings of great comedy – if it weren’t true.  It had to do with a judge who apparently pocketed $2.8 million in bribes in exchange for sending kids to a privately operated detention center run by a friend.  Now, the late president was never mentioned in the reporting of these events because, of course, he’s long dead and obviously had no direct involvement in them, but he really should be remembered because without Dutch Reagan the story would probably never have happened.

The Honorable Mark Ciavarella, it seems, was a seriously committed privatizer.  According to prosecutors, the former judge (he and a co-defendant left the bench after charges were filed), engineered the closure of a county-operated juvenile detention center and helped steer an eight figure contract to a private facility called Pennsylvania Child Care, operated by a friend of his.  What could be wrong with a place called Pennsylvania Child Care?  Well, it seems that in order to fill his friend’s facility – and justify the awarding of the state contract – the judge pretty much started acting the role of the boogeyman some parents used to threaten their kids with:  Play with fire and you know what’ll happen to you?  You’ll go to jail for arson. And indeed Ciavarella sent a 10 year old girl to “Child Care” when she accidentally set her room on fire.  Along with the one who gave a cop the finger.  And the one who made fun of the assistant principal on MySpace.

For the most part, the judge doesn’t actually dispute that the money passed into his hands.  Says he considered it a “finder’s fee.”  Says, “I was told it was legal money. I was told it was something that I was entitled to.”  Most likely he got that opinion from another judge, I’d guess.

So what’s all this got to do with the Great Communicator?  Well, if you’re old enough to remember his presidency, you may also remember that when he took office this story couldn’t have happened because private prisons were something out of history.  To the extent that Americans knew anything about them it was from movies about the Confederacy and the Reconstruction Era South.  Again, Reagan himself had nothing personally to do with the first modern private prison takeover in Hamilton County, Tennessee in 1984, but it’s no accident that it happened on his watch.

First off, Reagan was also a seriously committed privatizer, although in his case the commitment was based on ideology rather than personal profit.  Taking the lead from his friend, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Reagan established the first White House Office of Privatization.  He also set up a Commission on Privatization whose list of 78 recommendations included contracting out the management of prisons, jails and detention centers.

Probably of equal importance to our current story, however, was the boost Reagan gave the War on Drugs.  He may not have been the one to first declare it (Richard Nixon did that) but it was he who established the Office of National Drug Control Policy and his White House rallied the troops in that “War” on a level not seen in any other administration.  Remember Nancy Reagan and “Just say no”?

Predictably, the escalation of the War on Drugs brought an increase in the number of prisoners taken.  There were about half a million total in the correctional system when Reagan took office.  But the Anti-Drug Abuse Act that he signed in 1986 brought on mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession and soon the number jailed would start to exceed the capacity of the nation’s existing criminal justice system.  And since the Reagan Administration railed against government spending in general, when prison capacity was exceeded, rather than engage in raising the money required to build new facilities, some governmental entities started turning to the private sector to build them – just as the Reagan’s people said they should.  Today private corporations manage about 200,000 prisoners, nearly ten percent of the total prison and jail populations that are now four times what they were when he took office.

As we have seen, Judge Ciavarella’s continuing legal education seems not to have been up to snuff, so he may well not be up on his history either and may not have been grateful to the Gipper for the “finder’s fees” he was pocketing – but he should have been.

Review of Embedded With Organized Labor

Embedded With Organized Labor: Journalistic Reflections on the Class War at Home, by Steve Early
Monthly Review Press, 288 pages, $16.95

Ed Sadlowski; Jay, Maine; Pittstown Coal, Tony Mazzochi, the Charlestown Five; Ron Carey – as the names float by on the pages of “Embedded With Organized Labor: Journalistic Reflections on the Class War at Home,” it sometimes seems that Steve Early’s new collection of articles must encompass every person, place, or corporation of significance to the labor movement over the past four decades.  Not quite, but actually the volume’s thirty nine essays – most of them book reviews – cover even more ground than that.  For instance, there’s stories of labor journalists from the deep past of whom you’ve likely never heard.  But the topic most of interest to Early, recently retired from the Communications Workers of America but preferring to think of himself as “redeployed,” is the future of the American labor movement.

There was a time when leftists of a certain age asked themselves how they could love a labor movement that didn’t seem to want to love them back. Certainly the welcome mat wasn’t out on that day Early recalls “In May of 1970, [when] hundreds of flag-waving New York City construction workers … attacked a crowd of antiwar demonstrators on Wall Street.”  The breach between labor and the left would actually broaden two years later when the AFL-CIO refused to back George McGovern against Richard Nixon.  The South Dakota Senator would come closer to espousing the politics of the leftists of the day than any other Democratic nominee in their life time, but for AFL-CIO President George Meany he was too antiwar, too radical. Some see payback in McGovern’s current opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act.  But ironically, the individual he cites for past opposition to the concept of binding arbitration that constitutes one of the bill’s components is none other than Meany.

Still some, like Early, persisted.  A few unions like the United Electrical Workers (UE), which to this day maintains the egalitarian tradition of paying no official a salary higher than the highest you can earn under a UE union contract, actually worked with and encouraged student radicals – such as this writer.  (Early drops the sobering fact that this honorable organization – which had half a million members before leaving the CIO in 1949 rather than submit to the government-driven purge of Communist Party members going on in other unions – has now shrunken to 17,000 members.)

Acceptance came much harder in most other unions, though, but ultimately those who didn’t see the labor movement as a collection of “real-life Archie Bunkers who railed against a whole generation of spoiled ‘meathead’ college kids,” would even prevail, to a degree, and by “the fall of 1999,” Early notes, “steelworkers and radical students were seen marching side by side (or at least on the same side) in street protests against the World Trade Organization.”

The signal change of those intervening years was John Sweeney’s 1995 election as AFL-CIO president.  Although a book that Early reviews on that subject bears the tile, “Not Your Father’s Union Movement,” his election did represent a return to the past in the sense that afterward the labor movement would again more or less openly welcome the left as it generally had before the Cold War.  Of course, with Joseph Stalin now more than forty years dead and the Soviet Union itself gone for a decade, this thaw came none too quickly.

Sweeney comes in for his share of criticism in Early’s book, yet it seems fair to say that he did pretty much try to do what he said he would  –  reverse the long term decline of labor that Early notes in the book’s first paragraph: “When I first got involved the labor movement in the early 1970s, unions still represented almost a quarter of the country’s workforce.  Now, unionization is down to 12.4 percent overall and only 7.6 percent in private industry.”  Sweeney had assumed the Federation’s leadership largely on the strength of the fact that his own Service Employees International Union (SEIU) had been an exception to the general downward trend, largely due to the fact that much of its constituency was public employees, more than a third of whom are now unionized.

But Sweeney has not been particularly successful in reversing the overall trend, although SEIU has continued growing to the point where it is has become the nation’s largest union.  And in 2005, Andy Stern, Sweeney’s successor at SEIU, led unions comprising about a third of the AFL-CIO’s membership into a rival Change to Win federation dedicated to doing what Sweeney could not.  About the best thing that can be said about the split to this point is that it has not damaged the labor movement nearly as badly as some had feared.  The overall national percentage of union membership has even risen for the past two years, although it remains lower than before the split.

Not one to see easy fixes for labor’s decline, Early is skeptical that even the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) currently pending in Congress will represent the cure-all some hope for.  He cites a Canadian labor relations scholar’s findings that “union density and bargaining coverage are falling even in provinces such as Saskatchewan and Quebec that have card check and first-arbitration clauses” – precisely the EFCA items that its advocates hope will save union representation drives from the often debilitating process of National Labor Relations Board elections and management refusal to bargain.  The measures he thinks are really needed – repeal of “Taft-Hartley Act restrictions on real union solidarity and the Supreme Court’s seventy-year old sanctioning of the use of striker replacement” are not part of political discourse today – “except in the speeches of Ralph Nader.”

And as SEIU has dominated the labor movement of recent years, so it dominates Early’s book, with Stern coming in for fairly severe criticism.  “Since 1996,” he writes, “when Stern replaced Sweeney, 40 SEIU locals – or 14 percent of its 275 affiliates – have been put under trusteeship to implant new officers.”  While he grants that “[S]ome of those ousted ran old-guard fiefdoms,” others just didn’t want to go along with what he views as questionable programs coming from the top, and perhaps the “air of arrogance and exclusivity” emanating from some SEIU staffers or an “attitudinal style … closer … to Silicon Valley entrepreneurs than to veteran staffers of the trade union movement” that one reviewed author describes.

(The largest of these trusteeship battles is currently playing out with the leadership of the newly formed National Union of Healthcare Workers claiming to have filed decertification petitions aimed at taking back close to 2/3 of the 150,000 members it formerly led in SEIU’s now trusteed California-based United Healthcare Workers West.)

The fact that book reviews constitute the core of Early’s book naturally constrains him largely to topics that other writers have chosen and many of the more interesting matters are raised only peripherally.  There is the fairly central question of just what a labor radical is to do.  At the one end are the “colonizers” like Wellesley graduate Elly Leary, interviewed in Staughton and Alice Lynd’s “The New Rank and File,” who spent twelve years building cars at the Framingham, Massachusetts General Motors plant.  Jobs like this were hard enough, Early notes, “without the additional task of proselytizing.” The group of radicals that Leary eventually became part of was just about learning its ass from its elbow on how to proceed sensibly when the plant closed in 1989 and they were deindustrialized out of the working class.

At the other end there is “SEIU’s ‘best and brightest’” who come in for Early’s criticism because “most have never been a janitor, security guard, nursing home worker, home health care aide or public employee.”  Of course, Early himself came in for that very criticism back in the mid-1970s as he recounts in the book’s first piece: when he was interviewing coal miners for the United Mine Workers Journal, one obviously wary miner politely shook hands with him, then “looked me in the eye and said knowingly, ‘Ah, pencil hands.’”

And then there’s the question of why the labor radicals do what they do.  I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb in saying that most of the people we encounter in these pages saw themselves as socialists, if not by that name precisely then by some synonym they thought more appropriate to the time and place.  They weren’t motivated just by the hope of a better labor movement, but of a better country, a better world – and they saw the labor movement as the best means to that end.  For that sort of thing we will have to wait for Early’s next book, though – he is currently writing his history of the sixties radicals and the labor movement.  But the current book will give you plenty to chew on for the moment.  And, oh yes, it comes with an excellent index, unusual in an essay collection, but extremely useful because this book is dense – and I mean that as a complement.

Tax Resisting Takes a Stand on Tax Day

Last Wednesday was tax day for most Americans. I say “most Americans” because there are some who recognize the legal obligation to pay taxes, but who chose not to pay some or all of their taxes for ethical or moral reasons. And, in big cities all over the United States, groups gathered on April 15 to protest the bank bailouts, gay marriage laws, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with the argument that paying taxes to the federal government encourages corporatism, discrimination, or unjust combat.

In the United States, some citizens subject themselves to IRS fines and penalties and actually resist paying taxes. And while many Americans may be disgruntled by Timothy Geithner’s bank plan, tax resisting (not to be confused with tax evasion, which is subject even stricter penalties and possible jail time), has always has been an integral part of American democracy in spite of the the fact that it is subject to fines and penalties. In the 1790s the first US Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, implemented a controversial luxury tax on whiskey that had some citizens so riled up that they actually tarred and feathered a handful of tax collectors. While Hamilton insisted that the tax had to be instated in order to pay off debts from the Revolutionary War, the tax resisters were not pleased with that explanation, and in 1794 Washington had to send an army of 12,000 to rural Pennsylvania to quell a rebellion (by the time the troops arrived, the dissenters had dispersed).

Of course, Henry David Thoreau is probably the most famous tax resister, spending a night in jail for refusing to pay six years of back taxes on the principle that he did not support the Mexican-American War and institutionalized slavery. But what about today? Is withholding taxes, despite the fact that it is subject to heavy government penalties, still one of the best ways to show anger and frustration towards one’s government?

A resident of Brooklyn, who I will call Barb Smith for purposes of anonymity, thinks that if you’re frustrated with your government, it makes you a “more responsible citizen.” At a demonstration on the front steps of the New York Post Office, she and fellow disgruntled citizens gathered to lend their voice to the anti-war movement. Handing out fliers that document military spending in this country, Smith, a third-year tax resister and war protester, pointed out that, “Money has an impact and where you spend your money has an impact. My decision [not to pay federal taxes] is in alignment with my conscience.”

Also gathered on the steps on the Post Office was a small group of elderly women from an international pacifist organization. One woman brandished a sign that said, “Raging Grannies and their Daughters.”

However, the sign did not mention granddaughters and Smith noted that, “Unfortunately, there are not many young people involved [in the tax resisting movement]. It’s mostly middle-aged and older people who are passionate about the issue.”

However, despite the age gap, the movement definitely gained momentum this year in cities around the country. Fox News had all day coverage of  “tea parties” in cities like Atlanta and Salt Lake City where protesters angrily voiced their tax boycott of the Wall Street bailouts. In Austin, Texas, Governor Rick Perry galvanized a crowd of angry citizens and even suggested that Texas might secede one day while, in downtown Houston, close to 2,000 people turned out to protest the federal government and threaten secession.

In Boston (the home of the first tea party back in 1773) gay rights groups gathered to protest their inability to file federal joint tax returns, even though Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage. A group with similar concerns gathered on the steps of the New York Post Office but when asked, none claimed to be resisting taxes. “We just want Albany to give us equality,” one woman implored.

Yet, despite all the hoopla surrounding tax resisting this year, the demonstrations still beg the question, does tax resisting in spite of the potential penalties really make a difference?

“I don’t know if the IRS cares,” another protester, who I will call Mark Johnson for anonymity, a fifth year tax resister from New Jersey said, “but I’m appalled at what the money is used for and I resist with a token amount.”

When asked what he does with the money he owes, Johnson insists, “I don’t keep it, I give it to organizations that do good that hopefully counterbalance what the government would do with the money. This year, I’m giving the $198 I owe and I’m sending it to the Iraq Collateral Repair Project.”

And, while he admits he only protests with a small amount of money, Johnson notes that there “is not enough outrage” and that he does the little that he can to press the point that he is not pleased with military spending in this country.

Although it is doubtful that Congress or the Obama administration paid much attention to tea parties, protests, or tax resister demonstrations on Wednesday, many see tax resistance, despite the fact that it is illegal, as the one act outside of voting that citizens can participate in to vocalize their disappointment with their government. And, while there is always the possibility that you can be audited, Smith notes that, “This is America. I’m not afraid of the IRS.”

Editor’s Note: This Web site does NOT in any way endorse or condone any act of tax resisting or tax evasion. Because of possibly incriminating statements, the names of quoted individuals were changed at the request of the editor.

A Free Choice? Making the Case for American Workers

Over the past week, there has been substantial media coverage of the public rancor over A.I.G. bonuses, the Obama administration’s ballooning deficit spending, and Timothy Geithner’s plan to buy up toxic debt. And while Washington’s economic policies certainly deserve to be on everyone’s minds, there is another issue that could affect millions of workers that is getting far less play in the news but definitely a lot of heated debate among union leaders, corporations, and Congress—“card-check” voting.

Its official name is the Employee Free Choice Act and it would amend the National Labor Act of 1935 to essentially make union organization much easier for workers. The legislation would allow workers to form a union if a majority signs pro-union cards and would forgo the current practice of secret ballot elections. Other provisions would impose binding arbitration when employers and unions fail to reach a contract after 120 days and would substantially increase fines on employers who jeopardize union activities.

Proponents of the plan are many Democrats and large unions (including AFL-CIO and SEIU) who say that the current restrictions for unions put their members’ rights at a disadvantage. Many advocates for the change in the law, such as the union coalition Change to Win, say that private voting encourages intimidation and coercion of companies’ employees who wish to unionize. The act would also encourage a speedier and more thorough process in contract disputes and would triple the damages imposed against companies who do not adhere to union standards.

There are many opponents of this measure—both corporate and political—who view this legislation as an ends-to-justify the means type of regulation. The Chamber of Commerce has been very outspoken in its disapproval of the Act and notes that it could disenfranchise both parties (employers and workers) in the long run.  Under the proposed new rules, union organizers would be under no obligation to notify their employers that they are going to launch a union drive.  In addition, the “card check” policy would abolish secret-ballot elections even if many workers wish to have them. Also, in the instance that the companies and the newly formed unions fail to reach an agreement within a limited time frame, a federal government arbitrator must step in to mediate the contract so that a deal is reached—even if the outcome is not ideal for either party.

On Tuesday, Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) said he would oppose the union “card-check” measure and, without his support, the legislation would likely fail in the Senate. Noting that he may very well be the “deciding vote,” Specter, who was the only Republican to vote for cloture in the previous Congress, says he is against the Act because it “will result in further job losses.” Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Costco, and several other large corporations agree. (It should be noted that Specter faces a stiff primary challenge from his right flank in 2010.) Whole Foods CEO John Mackey told the Washington Post on Sunday that the binding arbitration clause is “not the way we normally do things in the United States” and that allowing workers to organize without a secret ballot “violates a bedrock principle of American democracy.”

While corporations certainly are justified to feel threatened by this Act, ultimately, the workers are the ones who should receive some long overdue benefits. While Specter may consider the legislation a possible hindrance to labor and Mackey even deems it un-American, the rebuttal should be what is more beneficial to the labor movement than empowering workers and what is more American than appealing to the government for the rights of its citizens? According to Change to Win, low-wage workers only earn 83 cents on the dollar of what they were earning 35 years ago. What’s more is that Pennsylvania State University’s Poverty in America Project concludes that “in 2003, almost 25% of the nation’s counties had low per-capita incomes below one half the national average or less, high unemployment, low labor force participation rates, and a high dependency on government transfer payments-all measures of economic distress.” Most of these counties are located in areas with a relatively low levels of union penetration, such as the Deep South.

According to MSNBC, the vote on the EFCA might get pushed back to 2011 and  the Obama administration will be “quietly” happy since they support it but don’t really have the energy to fight for it at the moment. However, if this bill does come to vote and fails in the Senate, then compromised legislation will undoubtedly be pushed through that could do more harm than good for both employers and employees. To avoid that from happening, corporations worried about the Employee Free Choice Act should reach out to their employees and hold forums where both parties can speak their minds and try to understand each other’s positions. One of the reasons this issue has become a Congressional matter is because many large companies have at times failed to look out for the interests of their workers and put fiscal profits ahead of human capital. If these large corporations truly want to temper these regulations, then they must have an open dialogue with their employees and offer some solutions such as health care, transportation vouchers, child care benefits, higher wages, organizational tranparency, and more employee input into the decision-making processes of the organization. The only way to curb workers’ desire to unionize is to provide similar financial and non-financial benefits under a corporate business model. And, with low-wage workers who are unionized ultimately earning an average of 44% more than their non-union counterparts, even in these hard economic times it going to be a hard bargain to sell non-represented workers anything short of that improvement.

11/2 Swing State Power Rankings

With only two days left until Election Day, Demockracy is pleased to give its updated ranking of the top five swing states. Today’s rankings will be based on where the candidates were yesterday and where they will be today:

5. Missouri

Obama held what was most likely his last Missouri rally in Springfield, Missouri last night. While probably not a tipping point state, Missouri currently looks up for grabs.

4. Pennsylvania

McCain and Palin both visited the Keystone state again yesterday, and McCain will be there again today. While Obama still seems to have a significant advantage here, an upset here is probably McCain’s only realistic shot at 270 electoral votes.

3. Virginia

Sarah Palin and John McCain did a swing through Virginia yesterday, and Hillary Clinton will be there today. If Obama wins Virginia and Pennsylvania, McCain’s path to 270 will be virtually impossible.

2. Florida

John McCain will hold a Miami rally tonight, and Joe and Jill Biden will make three campaign appearances in Florida today. Florida appears to be the real stake-in-the-heart state that the Obama campaign wishes to drive into the McCain campaign’s electoral heart.

1. Ohio

Joe Biden spent most of yesterday in the Buckeye state, and Barack and Michelle Obama will spend the full day there today, with stops in Columbus, Cleveland, and Cincinnati. In addition, Sarah Palin will also make three Ohio stops today. Ohio looks to be ground zero again.

10/31 Swing State Power Rankings

In honor of All Hallows Eve, today’s Swing State Power Rankings will focus on the five states Demockracy believes will be most likely to keep us up past the bewitching hour on Election Night with dirty tricks, hanging chads, and provisional spooks…

5. Pennsylvania

Unlike most swing states, Pennsylvania does not have early voting. Therefore, polls could be flooded. Long lines and dirty tricks may ensue.

4. Missouri

Missouri is known for Election Night chaos. In 2000, polls were held open for several hours to accommodate those who still hadn’t been able to vote. These problems resurfaced this February on Super Tuesday.

3. Colorado

As one of the top-tier tipping point states and one of the last competitive states to close its polls, Colorado has the potential to keep us up with fright! If the election is not decided by the time Colorado begins to tabulate their votes, expect all eyes to turn to the Rockies.

2. Ohio

After 2004, how could Ohio not be near the top of the list? A maldistribution of voting machines caused seven or eight hour lines in some areas. For instance, many students at Kenyon College didn’t get to vote until 2 am, AFTER Ohio had been called for George W. Bush. Why? There was one working voting machine for thousands of voters. Ohio has a new Secretary of State this year, but election irregularities would not be a surprise. Obama has called thousands of lawyers to the Buckeye State.

1. Florida.

2000. Hanging Chads. Supreme Court. December. Enough said…

10/28 Swing State Power Rankings

Based on campaign visits, polls, and the visceral reactions of Demockracy writers, we’ll be doing state power rankings for the final week of the campaign. Here are the rankings for Monday, October 27:

5. Pennsylvania

Although not competitive in the polls, three out of the four presidential candidates visited here Monday. This alone guarantees the commonwealth a spot in the top five. However, because of recent polls, we can’t legitimize putting it any higher.

4. Colorado Over 100,000 showed up strong for Senator Obama in Denver on Sunday. Although Senator McCain has reportedly pulled some resources out of Colorado, it still remains relatively close. Obama was here in an attempt to seal the deal.

3. Florida

Florida appears to be trending back to McCain and is again a true tossup state in our eyes. Having 27 electoral votes, its sheer size keeps it near the top of the list. Joe Biden will making two stops in the sunshine state on Tuesday.

2. Virginia Virginia continues to lean heavily toward Senator Obama. With 13 electoral votes, it is the largest Bush state that looks very likely to turn blue this year. Senator Obama will be here on Tuesday to try to put this state away.

1. Ohio Ohio jumps to the top of our list day, largely because Obama launched his “closing argument’ speech/message in Canton, Ohio on Monday. This fact, combined with relatively tight polls that are trending slightly in Senator Obama’s favor, give Ohio the top spot for today. We believe that all the signs are on the wall for Ohio to be one of Obama’s final stops next Sunday or Monday.

John King: McCain Pulling Out of Colorado

CNN’s keeper of the election board, John King, is reporting tonight that McCain will be pulling out of Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa. Apparently he will re-divert resources for an all out push for Pennsylvania and Florida. New Mexico and Iowa are not surprises. However, Colorado does come as somewhat of a surprise.  Does McCain really think that he has a better chance in Pennsylvania than in Colorado? Either their internal polling is very different from independent national polling, or they only have the resources to go on the offensive in one state. Since Pennsylvania has the most electoral votes (21) of any Kerry state that is even moderately competitive, it may simply be McCain’s best worst option.

Pennsylvania: Deep Blue?

Two new polls out of Pennsylvania today from two of the most respected pollsters in the business:

Survey USA: Obama 55-McCain 40

Rasmussen: Obama 54-McCain 41

Are there any Kerry OR Gore states that McCain has any shot of winning? If not, that’s 264 electoral votes for Obama, meaning he must win only one state that Bush won in both 2000 and 2004.

(By the way, both of these pollsters show Ohio close to even.)

McCain Pulls Out of Michigan

Today, John McCain officially gave up on his attempt to turn Michigan red. He claims that resources will be re devoted places like Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin. From our recent electoral projection, we understand Ohio and Florida. But, Wisconsin? He seriously thinks he’s got a better chance there than in Michigan? We would disagree.

Now that Michigan is off the table, McCain is only currently on the offensive in two Kerry states–Pennsylvania and New Hampshire (despite what he says about Wisconsin and Minnesota). With recent polls showing Obama up by as many as 14 points in Pennsylvania, one wonders if the Keystone state is next.