Not only did union leaders throw money and time behind Jerry Brown's campaign for governor, but now many of them are endorsing Brown's savage austerity budget.
The 340,000-member California Teachers Association (CTA) is one of the largest unions in California and, potentially, one of the most powerful forces in the state. What does CTA have to say about this budget that hits hard at all working and poor people, and especially hard at those who are worst off? CTA leadership is asking its 800-member State Council to endorse and campaign for Brown's package of vicious cuts and regressive taxes. CTA President David Sanchez says, "For the first time in seven years, we have a governor's package that includes revenues to help solve the state's $25 billion deficit." Sure. By extending Schwarzenegger's regressive taxes for another 5 years; by lopping $1.7 billion from MediCal; by cutting CalWORKS (welfare-to-work) by $1.5 billion; by decimating higher education with $1.4 billion in cuts; etc.
CTA's Sanchez isn't alone. SEIU Local 1000 President Yvonne Walker appeared on radio last week to announce her support for Brown's budget. When the stunned radio host asked her why, Walker replied, "I like its balance. It doesn't cut from just one area." (!!)
The labor bureaucrats, like the politicians in Sacramento and Washington, say that "There Is No Alternative" to making the working class pay for the huge deficits created by the $4.7-trillion bailout of Wall Street ($2 trillion of which is still unpaid) and the mega-trillion in cumulative spending on the war machine. But there are very clear alternatives:
First, increase taxes on the wealthy to increase state revenue by $14 billion. The highest-earning one percent of Californians have an average income of $1.8 million per year (sources: Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy; California Budget Project). If these high-rollers paid on average $50,000 more in income tax, the state would take in an additional $7.6 billion. The next highest-earning 4 percent of Californians earn an average of $310,000 / year. Increasing their taxes by $10,000 would bring in another $6.1 billion.
Second, amend Proposition 13 to increase taxes on corporate property but not on homeowners. This would raise more than $5 billion / year.
Third, impose a tax on oil extraction to bring in $1.5 billion / year more. (Every other oil-producing state has an oil extraction tax).
Finally, close the tax loopholes that allow more than half of California corporations to pay no tax at all.
(And of course, beyond California, labor ought to be taking the lead in organizing national protests -- including work stoppages and other job actions -- to demand that the $2 trillion in bailout money still owed by the big banks be repaid immediately and used to restore and expand essential public programs and create jobs.)
This kind of program won't win without a fight. But it's something labor ought to be fighting for. Instead, Sanchez, Walker, et al. try to convince us that not only do we need to accept the cuts, we have to enthusiastically praise Jerry Brown and the other politicians who do their best to pump up corporate profits and private wealth at our expense.
8 comments:
it's truly disgusting how there is no outcry amongst the average people against this sort of tyranny
its well past time to restore progressive tax rates on the wealthy
this is just absurd
You're alternate proposals are not realistic. I'd like to hear your ideas AFTER you've talked to thousands of workers (as I have) and AFTER you yourself have tried to organize the kinds of mass protests you propose (as I have tried). The things you spew do NOT resonate with the masses. Therefore, your statements are irrelevant. The union presidents have an obligations to minimize the negative impacts on their membership. Considering the climate, I think they are doing the best they can. But then again, it is real easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe. Go do something usefull.
Marycat says that the proposals are “not realistic”. This is exactly what the employer says. Of course, increasing the taxes on the rich is not realistic from their point of view, nor were Unions. And what climate is she talking about? It is never the climate from the employers viewpoint, Marycat is simply expressing the employers' arguments here.
I have found a completely different mood among workers that they would support these measures. They are not confident that they can be won because their officials in their Unions tell them they can’t and that concessions have to be taken.
Marycat admits that her conversations with workers are all about how they have to be realistic (accept cuts) and that we can’t win. So no wonder she has failed in her attempts to generate much response. How can you mobilize people around a program of concessions? “Come down to the meeting, we are recommending cuts in pay and benefits.” Doesn’t have that ring to it does it?
Marycat is hostile to these “modest” proposals because to mobilize around them would bring her in to conflict with the employers. And if she is saying that we need to “minimize” the attacks now therefore reducing workers’ living standards further. Is she saying that things will improve and the employers will increase living standards in the future. If so, how does she explain this?
I think if the Union leadership from the top down took up these proposals and had a real organizing campaign (they spent $200 million on getting Brown and his colleagues elected) around them, they would receive tremendous support.
I think a discussion about whether the only option is to "minimize" the effects of the war on workers as opposed to making gains can be productive but Marycat's use of terms like "spew" and "snipe" and accusing people with different points of view as "sitting on the sidelines" doesn't make that easy.
She didn't convince me the author's proposals she opposes are not realistic. Rather it seems like she is intent on deterring anyone from putting proposals other than hers forward at all.
Marykats response should not be a surprise to any trade union or community activist. The mantra of minimizing the damage is pervasive.
First of all the labour leadership never engages in self-criticsm.
They offer their members and the public little to no historical perspective re how we got to the place of concessions, labour peace and "there is no alternative" way of thinking. They have tied themselves to the democratic party in the US based on the same thinking. They will consistently marginalize dissent within the ranks at all levels, force criticism to the side lines and then accuse activists of "sitting on the sidelines.They refuse to make the kinds of links between between trade union struggles in the public sector, refuse to use their resources financial and human to go into neighbourhoods and become part of the struggles that average people and marginalized sections of our communities are engaged in everyday.Token endorsements and taking a few flags to sites of struggle within trade unions and in communities does not cut it.
Resolutions passed at Locals moreoften than not sit on the shelf gathering dust rather than used as opportunities to launch genuine struggle and mobilizations.
The community links they make are largely with groups who believe that "constructive engagement" with politicians and with the bosses will do the trick. The political question of demands is never linked up with what methods of mobilizing not just "labour" but all working class people is required to beat back the employer and the politicians. They then turn around and blame the membership. Clearly the challenges have to come from dissenters within trade union Locals struggling to build a base of support. The divisions between "average people" and members of trade unions must be broken down and this requires making links based on fight back strategies not only among the various public and private sector unions but with all working people in all communities. This will not come from the top unless they are forced from below.
This is in reply to "unionmarykat".
Jerry Brown's proposed budget extends regressive taxes while cutting essential services. In other words, it tells low-income working and poor people to both bear the brunt of paying for the crisis that they didn't create, while cutting programs they depend on to get by. You say, "The things you spew do NOT resonate with the masses?" Is that a fact? Do you think that working and poor people are delighted with cuts to medical care? Are CSU, UC and community college staff thrilled with layoffs? Are families who can't make ends meet clamoring for those regressive tax hikes to be extended? Of course not! But they don't see a way to fight, and it's people like you who argue that they shouldn't be fighting at all. Because that's really what you're saying, isn't it?
Let me be concrete. Six years ago, CTA began to promote a campaign to modify Prop 13 -- essentially, to enable "split-roll" property taxation that would increase corporate but not individual property taxes. This would have brought in more than $5 billion per year, and would have gone a long way towards reversing the chronic California budget crisis that set in after Prop 13 passed in 1978. But just as the campaign was getting under way, CTA pulled out, saying that preliminary polling gave the proposal only a little over 40%. This made no sense to those of us involved on the ground, since the campaign had barely gotten under way and could surely have convinced many more. And, in fact, the real reason did eventually come out. Three years ago, during committee meetings at CTA State Council, I and others forced the issue of relaunching a split-roll tax campaign. CTA leadership brought in top staff who explained that "If we were to fight to increase corporate property taxes, then business would go after the agency shop." In other words, there's a clear line here -- the class line -- and the corporations recognize that they're fighting us over allocation and distribution of essential programs and services, and who pays for them. We need to recognize that as well. And act on it.
The fact is, for years and years the "union presidents" you defend have not fought for what's needed. It's always the same refrain: "it's not the right time to start, you're just sitting on the sidelines throwing stones, etc. ad nauseum." Had the money that's gone to swell the coffers of Democratic Party candidates instead gone to funding campaigns for what working people need, we'd be living in a different kind of California today. When will be a good time to propose and fight for alternatives? When unions represent less than 5% of the work force? When millions are openly starving, and when schools resemble 19th-century workhouses? Because that's where we're headed, and all you and your "union president" friends want to say is, "OK. But can we get there more slowly?"
Jack wrote, quoting a union official:
"If we were to fight to increase corporate property taxes, then business would go after the agency shop."
That says it all; why fight at all then? Because no matter what we do, the boss will fight back. I was on the picket lines every day of the grocery workers strike here in California. Strikers from the south were brought up north to man informational picket lines to get shoppers to boycott.
I became well known with the picketers and walked up to the line one day when a Business Agent from here was talking with them. He saw me and scurried off as he wasn't supposed to be talking to them according to Labor law.
The guys looked all depressed and when I asked them what's up they said they had mentioned my suggestion to him that their fellow members working inside should be pulled off the job. He told them it was impossible because "the boss would fire everyone" the striker said.
"Well, he certainly would want to" I said. But we don't start from a position that we can't do this or that because the boss will retaliate. We start from a position that we need to pull the others off the job to win so how can we do it and not get fired?
And with regard to them moving to other locales to escape, this raises the need for our own party that can pass legislation to stop this or nationalize certain industries. The housing mortgage industry is nationalized and if the present is not a favorable time to raise these issues I don't know when will be.
Post a Comment