Underclass

In response to: http://www.workingamerica.org/blog/2010/09/20/which-way-for-the-working-class/

Comment:

Interesting that there is a resurgence of discussions of “class” which has been taboo (except as an accusation by business elite) for so many years.

I’m afraid that it is a little premature. There are many difficulties standing in the way of a “class-wide” solidarity for labor and the left, and a number of issues that are still being ducked.

I’m thinking particularly of the relationship between: 1) the low-wage economy and the mid-wage economy; 2) immigrants and native-born; 3) employed and un-employed; 4) North/South U.S.; 5) U.S. and the world.

The “truest” mention of class that I’ve heard recently is in the notion of an “underclass.” As diluted as this may seem to some, I believe that it is an opening to a conversation that needs to happen.

What does an “underclass” mean? Most importantly, it goes straight to the heart of the employed/unemployed, low-wage/mid-wage, immigrant/native-born discussion.

Which is the underclass- someone who cannot find employment, or someone who is working in “sub-human” conditions?

Neo-Pinkertons

This is an excellent article, particularly the expose of the neo-Pinkerton techniques on display in radical forums. Pinkertons in the 20s and 30s were paid to infiltrate and disrupt the unions, Pinktertons today are hired by "think-tanks" to crap all over the web.

When estimates were finally put together the amount that was being paid to the Pinkertons by the major industrial companies came out it was truly staggering. I am sure the same will be found true of the neo-Pinkertons.

Mott's Strike

UPDATE: STRIKE IS OVER http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/business/14mott.html?src=busln

UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: A MUCH BETTER ARTICLE ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE STRIKE http://www.waynepost.com/latestnews/x907388753/Mott-s-strike-ends (hat-tip @banditelli)

Original post written in response to: http://www.workers.org/2010/us/mott_0909/

To the editor:

I am very glad to see you highlighting the strike at Mott's in Williamson on the front page of your newspaper! I wanted to add a couple of points, however.

First, while I agree completely that the Mott's workers are "defending the rights of all working people," I think it is justified to go one step further in this characterization: the Mott's struggle is one of the key struggles being waged over the future of the U.S. working class. The strike is being used as a test case by corporations, who want to see whether worker solidarity will hold firm. If support for the striking workers crumbles, it will be a clear signal to other employers that they can proceed apace with direct attacks on wages.

Second, a broad-scale movement towards wage-cutting is virtually assured by the latest economic data. Second quarter productivity figures from the BLS released in August showed a sharp decline of 1.8%. This is widely taken by the business class to mean that we have reached the limits of profit growth attainable by speedups. A second avenue of profit growth- capital investment in technology- is also ruled out by the current "slackness of demand," that is, we are already producing more than people can afford to buy. This leaves only one clear avenue for growing profits- a direct attack on wages, bolstered by maintaining high unemployment.

What does this mean for workers? We must aggressively assert class-wide solidarity with the Mott's workers. The three most important ways we can do this are: organize support for the Mott's picket line, contribute to the Mott's hardship fund, and build the boycott of Mott's products. Even small contributions make a great difference in this key struggle!

You can learn more about these actions at www.mottsworkers.com .

If we can defend the wholesale savaging of wages, we force the crisis back out into the open- in the form of a "double-dip" recession which must be acknowledged by the business class. If we cannot, it will only be a crisis for workers, borne in the silence and shame of personalized hardship, belt-tightening, and the desperate "race to the bottom."

Thank you again for bringing needed attention to this important struggle.

In solidarity,
Sam, NYC

Union members' questions

It's easy to feel really jaded about the politics of unions in the U.S.

As institutions, U.S. unions are expected to do a whole lot with very little, and are under near-constant attack. As a result, their politics are extremely defensive, and their policies are often confused.

Moreover, in order to defend their leadership roles (ie not get voted out), union leaders are forced to soft-sell their policies, cloaking them in soft-focus, feel-good rhetoric. Their politics are often difficult for rank-and-file members to discern, even more difficult than the "insider" politics of Washington (which, after all, considerable ink is devoted to analyzing for a popular audience).

With all that in mind, this is really rather touching- a genuine list of member concerns, addressing most of the important issues facing unions. I can only hope that Dick Trumka will work as hard on his answers as these folks collectively worked on their questions, and sound a note as true.

UPDATE: I want to add emphasis to this post...this is exactly the type of conversation that needs to be happening, and should be happening online. The fact that it is tucked away so deep in the AFL-CIO website is perhaps a problem, but maybe also why the seed that is growing here is so inspiring (and safe from right-wing hacks who would spam the sh!t out of any more public forum).

I strongly encourage all active unionists to look seriously at this list of questions and think hard about how you would answer them- there is a space in the forum for comments on each question, but please please be respectful of what is going on here and by g*d don't just piss some political boilerplate onto these thoughtful posters.

NELP report on low-wage job growth

NELP has released a preliminary report on recent job growth. From their press release:

While the recession depleted jobs in every field in 2008-2009, private industry growth since then has been disproportionately driven by industries that pay median wages below $15.00 an hour.

The best chart from the report:
(note that job losses on the lest measure a full year while job gains on the right measure 7 months- they are not meant to be directly measured against each other, just to show the difference in proportion)

Their conclusion:

The analyses presented in this data...reiterate the continuing crisis of weak job growth, one that is stalling economic recovery in communities across the country.

[They also document] a second trend that could be equally challenging to hopes for a broadly shared recovery: the disproportionate growth in mid- and especially lower-wage industries on the one hand, and the weak growth and even continued losses in higher-wage industries on the other.
...
[H]ow much of this unbalanced growth is permanent?...[W]hile we can expect some improvement in the wage profile of previously-temp jobs when permanent hiring picks up, it is difficult to predict whether there will be a significant impact on aggregate wage outcomes.

A primer on Immigration in the U.S.

General Summary

As of January 1, 2009, there were approximately 31 million immigrants in the United States. According to the Department of Homeland Security, slightly more than half of them are naturalized citizens, and approximately one-third lack proper authorization.

Immigration, taken as a whole, is an enormous contributor to the wealth of our society. According to a 2007 report by President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors (CEA), U.S. natives gain an estimated $37 billion a year from the presence of immigrants.

The CEA also reported that immigrants to the U.S.:
• contribute more to productivity and less to crime than the native-born
• tend to complement rather than replace U.S.-born workers, and
• have a long-term positive impact on public budgets

Unauthorized Immigrants

The basic problem with the way the debate is framed by anti-immigrant groups is that “legal” and “illegal” immigration are supposed to be different, unrelated phenomena. Numerous studies of immigrant populations have determined that unauthorized immigrants share many, if not most, characteristics with authorized immigrants. In fact, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that half of all unauthorized immigrants were authorized to enter the country, and only became classified as unauthorized after they either failed to renew or violated the terms of their visas.

There are commonly estimated to be about 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States, although the highest estimates put the number closer to 20 million. This group, by its very nature, tends to represent the poorest, least educated, and least well-connected of the foreign-born workers. Yet even within this skewed category, studies have failed to demonstrate that the net economic impact of undocumented immigrants is anything other than positive for the US economy. While they are among the lowest paid workers in the country, they receive significantly less in services and support from the government than other comparable groups.


Fiscal Impact of the Undocumented

Contrary to right-wing rhetoric, unauthorized immigrants pay taxes: state and federal payroll taxes as well as local sales, excise and property taxes. At the federal level, the fiscal impact of unauthorized immigrants is both positive and significant, particularly for the finances of the Social Security system. This is a notable example, because while many of the contributions of unauthorized immigrants go unrecorded, the accounting method of the Social Security Trust Fund clearly registers the overpayment of the undocumented, which amounts to an annual surplus of $7-8 billion. Since the 1980s, this fund has grown to over $500 billion, and represents a significant portion of the total social security trust of about $2.5 trillion (New York Times).

At the state and local level the impact of undocumented residents is more mixed. The Congressional Budget Office, in its survey of the impact of unauthorized immigrants on state and local coffers, found the net effect to be minor. Furthermore, where certain localities are adversely affected, the economic effect is comparable to that which occurs in many low-income and rural areas regardless of their immigrant populations; i.e., economic costs are concentrated, while economic benefits are externalized.

Conclusions

So what is the take-away? The immigration system, except in specific localities, is not really “broken” in any way that negatively affects the native-born. Immigration continues to play an overwhelmingly positive role in America’s public life. Where reform is necessary is in the extension of the rights of the undocumented.

Moreover, the problems attributed to undocumented immigrants are the same problems faced by all working-class Americans: exploitation, poverty, lack of political rights, and discrimination. These problems are the result of disenfranchisement, and will not be solved by policies designed to increase the exclusion and isolation of immigrants.

What, then, is the road forward? It is the same for immigrants and non-immigrants, documented and undocumented: build the institutions of democracy and civil society- labor unions, voting blocs, political education societies, and direct action groups. History tells us that the native-born must not exclude immigrants from these political vehicles- the result is divided, uncoordinated action, and ultimately, a weaker society, a weaker democracy, and a weaker America.