• Des syndicats dénoncent une campagne publicitaire du livre de Jordan Bardella dans les gares SNCF
    https://www.bfmtv.com/politique/front-national/des-syndicats-denoncent-une-campagne-publicitaire-du-livre-de-jordan-bardella

    Le seen
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1077397
    étant dépourvu de lien j’ai cherché, alors ...

    17.10.2024 - Hachette Livre a négocié auprès de la régie publicitaire de la SNCF la réservation de panneaux dans les gares pour promouvoir l’ouvrage du président du RN, qui doit paraître début novembre. Sans que l’entreprise ne connaisse le nom de l’auteur du livre.

    Un « choc » et de la « colère ». Les syndicats CGT et Sud Rail de la SNCF ont interpellé le président de l’entreprise de transports, Jean-Pierre Farandou, ce jeudi 17 octobre. Motif de leur mécontentement : les gares pourraient faire l’objet prochainement d’une campagne publicitaire d’ampleur concernant le livre du président du Rassemblement national, Jordan Bardella (Ce que je porte, Éditions Fayards), dont la parution est prévue le 9 novembre.

    Hachette Livre, maison maire de Fayard, détenue par le milliardaire conservateur Vincent Bolloré, a négocié avec la régie publicitaire de la SNCF la réservation de 581 panneaux publicitaires dans des gares, apprend-on dans Libération et l’Humanité ce mercredi 16 octobre. Au total 100 gares sont concernées, à Paris et en Île-de-France (67), ainsi qu’en province (43) pour une période s’étalant du 25 novembre au 17 décembre, indique Libération.

    « Parti raciste, xénophobe, homophobe, sexiste »

    Une « provocation » qui doit cesser pour la CGT cheminots. « Vous n’ignorez pas l’engagement qu’a été celui de la CGT avant l’été (lors des législatives, NDLR), pour éviter le pire, à savoir l’accession de M.Bardella à Matignon », écrit le syndicat à l’adresse de Jean-Pierre Farandou dans un post partagé sur Facebook.

    « Nous l’avons fait parce que le FN/RN est un parti raciste, xénophobe, homophobe, sexiste, totalement contraire à nos valeurs qui au contraire prônent la tolérance, le vivre-ensemble. »

    Même ton pour Sud Rail, qui martèle son « opposition totale » au RN. Tout en soulignant que le « Conseil d’État a confirmé le positionnement à l’extrême droite » de la formation lepenniste, le syndicat rappelle dans une lettre que le FN, devenu RN, « a été créé par des Waffen-SS, des collaborateurs du régime de Vichy et des membres de l’OAS ».

    « En début d’année, la régie publicitaire de la RATP et de la SNCF Mediatransports n’a pas eu de problème pour retirer les affiches de l’humoriste Waly Dia et interrompre la campagne pourtant validée dans un premier temps au motif que celle-ci ’présente un caractère politique incompatible avec le devoir de neutralité qui s’impose dans les transports publics et pourrait être considérée comme diffamatoire ou injurieuse’ », écrit encore Sud Rail.

    De son côté, la SNCF n’était pas au courant, Fayard n’étant pas dans l’obligation de préciser que les panneaux réservés concerneraient l’ouvrage de Jordan Bardella. Auprès de Franceinfo, Mediatransports, la régie publicitaire de la SNCF, a cependant indiqué qu’elle pouvait "refuser une campagne d’affichage, même si elle a été réservée.

    « On vérifie si elle est conforme à la loi et aux obligations déontologiques et contractuelles. Dans ce cas, les gares sont des lieux publics, il y a donc par exemple une obligation de neutralité politique qui s’applique », a précisé l’entreprise qui attend de recevoir les « visuels » de cette campagne pour se prononcer.

    #SNCF #bataille_du_rail #extrême_droite #syndicalisme #résistance #cheminots

  • South Korea’s Repressive Laws Deny Workers Their Rights
    https://jacobin.com/2024/10/south-korea-workers-rights-law


    Members from the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) participate in a protest against of the government’s labor policies on May 31, 2023, in Seoul, South Korea. (Chris Jung / NurPhoto via Getty Images)

    La corée c’est comme l’Allemagne mais davantage confucéen surtout quand on regarde les droits restreints des employés.

    2.10.2024 by Jamie Doucette - The ousting of a popular government official in Seoul last month was linked to Korean laws that bar many workers from engaging in political activity. A draconian system known as the “prosecutor republic” helps conservative elites maintain their power.

    A ruling by South Korea’s Supreme Court in early September upheld a suspended sentence against Cho Hee-yeon, the popular superintendent of Seoul’s Metropolitan Office of Education and a progressive sociologist and civil society leader.

    Cho is known for his efforts to expand free school meals, protect student rights, and limit private high schools. The ruling forced him to resign from his position, one akin to education minister for a city of nearly ten million people.

    The removal of Cho is an injustice that speaks volumes about the present-day Korean power structure. Decades after the formal end of military rule, Korean workers still face stifling legal constraints on their freedom to engage in political activity. This is one of many obstacles facing the Korean left as it struggles to maintain a presence in national politics.
    A Political Crime

    What was the nature of Cho’s crime? He was charged under the Public Official Election Act in 2021 with abusing his power by helping to rehire five teachers from the Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union (KTU) who had previously faced charges under the same act. One was accused of posting defamatory messages on online message boards during the 2002 presidential elections (and subsequently pardoned), while the remaining four were sanctioned for collecting donations to support a candidate in the 2008 superintendent elections.

    The original cases highlighted the limits on Korean workers’ freedom of association rights. Korea is one of the few countries that prohibit teachers from joining parties, supporting candidates, and expressing their political opinions publicly. Korea’s former conservative president Park Geun-hye effectively banned the KTU in 2014 for retaining dismissed teachers as members, rendering it an “illegal organization” for almost seven years, despite criticism from the International Labour Organization (ILO) and other international bodies.

    A Supreme Court ruling eventually restored the union’s legal status in 2020. Park herself was impeached during the Candlelight Revolution of 2016–17 for a string of scandals and authoritarian political maneuverings involving Korea’s large conglomerates (the chaebol), former prosecutors, and close confidantes.

    To help address the issue of the dismissed teachers, Cho sought legal advice on rehiring them and took the principled opinion that it was fair to consider their applications through a special recruitment process in 2019. Despite his indictment on charges that this process was illegal, Cho’s overall record as education superintendent was validated when he was one of the few prominent progressives to be reelected in the 2022 local elections, in his case for a third time.
    Prosecutor Republic

    Cho’s case is symptomatic of a deeper struggle that involves the power of a conservative bloc in Korean politics and the struggle to put forward a substantive left alternative. It was the first such case to be selected by Korea’s newly established Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO).

    This independent office, established in 2021, was created in the wake of the Candlelight Revolution and #MeToo protests to investigate high-profile cases of corruption, collusion, and wrongdoing. Prominent prosecutors, supported by the conservative opposition, resisted this change as a threat to their autonomy. Many observers saw the targeting of Cho for the CIO’s first case as a sign that the prosecutors were determined to keep control and use their power to frustrate progressive politics.

    Analysts have used the phrase “politics by public security” (공안정국) to describe this brand of politics in Korea, with the “prosecutor republic” (검찰공화국) as its current iteration. Prosecutors have long wielded enormous power over processes of investigation and indictment while maintaining close relations with the media and conservative elites. This is rooted in a legacy that dates back to Korea’s colonial era and the Cold War dictatorships that came after it.

    This legal/political nexus helped fuel the Candlelight Revolution and led to efforts by the liberal administration of Moon Jae-in to tackle its power. Ironically, Moon’s reform push ended with the election of a conservative president, Yoon Suk-yeol, who hailed from the prosecution service itself. In office, Yoon has appointed former prosecutors who are close to him to prominent positions across his administration, from finance and trade to communications and public administration.

    Yoon’s rise was intimately bound up with the politics of prosecution reform during Moon’s administration. Moon sought to put limits on the powers of investigation exercised by prosecutors and transfer greater responsibility for investigations to the police. He also set up the CIO as a special, independent body to handle the investigation and indictment of high-ranking officials.

    As Moon’s prosecutor general, Yoon objected to these reforms and eventually resigned in protest. Meanwhile, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office investigated Moon’s minister of justice, Cho Kuk, who was tasked with overseeing the reform process. The investigation revealed some minor examples of corruption that undermined Moon’s promises to address inequality and challenge the status quo.

    Specifically, Cho, a former criminal law professor at Korea’s elite Seoul National University, and his wife (also a professor) were accused of forging documents and using their influence to gain admission for their children to prestigious high schools and universities, among other allegations. Cho’s actions upset many people, especially young voters who resented his behavior and saw it as no different from the conceit and opportunity hoarding of the wealthy elite (who are often called “gold spoons”). As the scandal broke, it seemed hypocritical for Cho to be tasked with institutionalizing Moon’s pledge to create a society where “opportunities are equal, processes are fair, and outcomes are just.”

    As a result, the fight over prosecution reform devolved into a politics of personality, polarizing around one’s stance toward Cho Kuk himself, who at that time was considered to be Moon’s most likely successor. Cho’s supporters depicted him as a figure who was suffering to keep the Candlelight movement alive, while the conservative bloc pointed to his record as evidence that the Left now represented “vested interests” to be overcome. Cho had participated in a variety of socialist and progressive movements since the 1980s and declared himself to be both a liberal and a socialist in his confirmation hearing.

    This focus on Cho’s personal track record helped the conservative bloc to appropriate the rhetoric of “fairness” by shrewdly appointing Yoon as its presidential candidate. The perception of Yoon as an independent prosecutor who was not beholden to the elite enabled the conservative party to rebrand itself.

    Yoon had previously led the investigation into Park Geun-hye and had prosecuted several chaebol heads and conservative appointees. An analogy for US politics would be if the Republican Party had selected Robert Mueller as its candidate following his investigation into Russian electoral interference.
    Prosecution Reform as Social Reform?

    The controversy about Cho obscured the nature and purpose of prosecution reform. As civil society organizations like the Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice pointed out, the planned prosecution reform would do little to advance a comprehensive vision of economic democracy, a slogan on which Moon had long campaigned.

    Such critics noted how the conglomerates had long evaded punishment for illegal acts, including bribery and anti-worker policies, due to the failure of the prosecution service to vigorously investigate and indict them. This problem, they argued, could not be fully resolved through prosecution reform without significant reform of the chaebol system itself.

    One could make the same criticism of the administration’s half-hearted labor law reforms. Cho Kuk himself pressured unions to help negotiate a flexible working-hours agreement that weakened Moon’s pledges to institute a fifty-two-hour workweek and expand the minimum wage.

    The administration also kept in place laws that enabled brutal damage claims against workers for trade union activity. It did not pass comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, and it took a selective approach to ratifying the core conventions of the ILO on freedom of association and collective bargaining, leaving many restrictions on workers’ rights intact.

    While Cho’s prosecution reforms did eventually pass, the lack of a broader, egalitarian plan for legal reform that might have helped secure stronger political rights for workers left prosecutors with substantial powers that they could use to frustrate progressive demands. If the Moon administration had granted stronger recognition of political rights for teachers and translated the ILO’s conventions into domestic law more effectively, it would have been much more difficult for the authorities to launch cases against teachers and other workers for engaging in political activity. Such cases ultimately led to the ousting of Superintendent Cho.

    Yoon’s 2022 presidential run thus benefited from his liberal predecessor’s lack of a comprehensive vision. The brand of “fairness” that Yoon campaigned on has proved to be distinctively anti-egalitarian.

    During the election, he promised to disband the Ministry of Gender Equality, claiming that it was unfair to men. This was in spite of Korea’s abysmal record on gender equality, with the worst wage gap between male and female workers in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In office, Yoon ramped up the practice of using damage claims and other punitive measures against workers to suppress strikes while seeking to institute a new sixty-nine-hour working week.

    In addition to former prosecutors, Yoon has also appointed several figures from the Korean New Right, who advocate sympathetic views of Japanese colonialism and Korea’s military dictatorships, to head important cultural and social institutions such as the Independence Hall, the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and the National Human Rights Commission. Taking a page from their anti-communist playbook, Yoon now frequently claims that “communist totalitarian” and “anti-state” forces have disguised themselves as legitimate progressive and human rights activists.
    A Left Alternative?

    Conservative forces were routed in this spring’s legislative elections, turning Yoon into a lame-duck president. However, that does not mean the election was a victory for the Left, whose parties were largely wiped out. An alliance between the Justice and Green Parties failed to win any seats, while the left-nationalist Jinbo (“Progressive”) Party took three seats through an alliance with the Democratic Party (DP), which is now by far the largest parliamentary group.

    As Kap Seol has explained, the fate of the left parties was partly because of the sabotage of Korea’s proportional representation voting system under Moon’s tenure to favor satellite parties associated with the dominant players in the National Assembly. This limited the number of seats available for independent minor parties. But many voters who were unhappy with perceived cronyism of DP leader Lee Jae-myung also flocked to a new party created by Cho Kuk.

    The standard English translation of the new group’s name — 조국혁신당 — as the “Rebuilding Korea Party” does not capture its close association with Cho himself. “Cho Kuk” can be read phonetically in Korean as “my country” or “my fatherland,” so a more literal translation would be “Cho Kuk Innovation Party” and/or “My Innovative Country Party.”

    The party’s main pledge is to reform the “prosecutorial dictatorship” of the Yoon administration and impeach the president. It presents this issue both as a political goal and as a personal vendetta for the judicial harassment of Cho and his family: his wife served several years in prison, and Cho himself faces jail time in the future if he loses his appeal.

    For many observers, the rise of Cho’s party speaks to the lack of a strong left alternative. While the group does include many center-left reformers from the Moon administration, it is mostly populated by figures associated with the so-called Gangnam Left, in reference to the affluent Seoul district. The term conjures up an image of property-owning, university-educated professionals who tend to vote progressive but also benefit from and seek to maintain their elite status.

    For the moment, both Cho and the Democratic Party have embraced pro-labor issues. These include a long-awaited revision to protect freedom of association and end punitive damage claims against workers. This is known as the Yellow Envelope Law, after a public campaign in 2014 to help workers pay back such claims. They also talk about creating a “Seventh Republic” through constitutional reforms to expand social rights and popular participation as well as supporting initiatives to secure the political rights of teachers.

    The problem is that the promised labor law revision could have easily been carried out when Cho and the DP were in power. The current president will continue to veto such efforts as long as he remains in office. Moreover, Cho and the Democrats have mostly borrowed these progressive policies from the Justice Party, the force they demolished in the recent elections.

    Despite its own internal problems and its drift away from labor activism, the Justice Party still has a more egalitarian agenda than Cho’s single-issue force. Its absence from parliamentary politics is sure to leave a void. With Korean politics seemingly anchored in a personality-driven party system, the Left faces the challenge of reconstructing progressive politics along genuinely popular and egalitarian lines.

    #Corée #syndicalisme #politique #répression

  • Eugene Debs : “The Scab Is the Natural Born Foe of Labor”
    https://jacobin.com/2024/09/eugene-debs-scabs-labor-day


    Eugene Debs in 1900

    Une belle tirade contre la vermine de briseurs de grève par le grand syndicaliste et fondateur du syndicat des Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). On aimerait entendre plus souvent ce genre de discours à propos des abjects bellicistes et d’autres ennemis de classe.

    2.9.2024 by Eugene Debs - This Labor Day weekend, we share Eugene Debs’s 1888 broadside against that most hateful of characters: the strikebreaker. The scab “sinks to the level of a loathsome reptile,” Debs writes. “He becomes a walking, breathing stench.”

    Philosophers, particularly those who have sought to solve the simpler mysteries of creation, have always been greatly perplexed when endeavoring to find any plausible reason for the existence of certain insects and reptiles, which curse the earth, the air, and the water. They have never succeeded. The mystery is unexplained and unexplainable. But, while it is impossible to explain the whys and the wherefores of repulsive, pestiferous, and poisonous creatures, we may study their habits and guard against contact with them.

    It becomes our duty at this writing to discuss the “scab.” Generally, people quickly comprehend what is meant when a creature, in the form of a man, is referred to as a “scab.” Shakespeare says, a “scab” is a “low fellow” — how low the great bard does not intimate, but he doubtless believed that a “scab” was the lowest in the list of bipeds. The term “scab” has a significance wholly repulsive. It is suggestive of filth, disease, and corruption. There is nothing in the term “scab” to redeem it from loathing. When a creature in the form of a man rightfully receives the sobriquet of “scab,” he is known to be a mass of moral putrescence. He sinks to the level of a loathsome reptile. Honorable men shun him as they would a pestilence. A scabby sheep, a mangy dog, outrank him. He becomes a walking, breathing stench. He is as destitute of soul as a dungeon toad. He is as heartless as a man-eating tiger. He has no more conscience than a tarantula. To call him a dog would be an insult to the whole canine race.
    A poster from the 1888 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad strike. (Wikimedia Commons)

    The average scab is a moral leper — unclean through and through, so vulgar and beastly in his instincts that he is as destitute of all sense of obligation, of what is due to others, as a hungry hog with its snout in a swill tub. The scab is a sneak — analyze him, resolve him to his original elements, and all the subtle arts of the chemist would never discover the millionth part of a milligram of manhood. A scab is as totally deficient of ability to comprehend the right as a piratical wolf. Being depraved by nature and association, he has no more ambition than a buzzard. When he sees a manly endeavor on the part of others to better their condition, the incident simply suggests to his mind that there is a chance for him, and with his hat under his arm and with bowed form he asks, like a menial, to work for wages that an honorable man refuses. The scab always comes to the front when honest workingmen strike against oppression and injustice. On such occasions, employers fish for scabs in the stinking pools of idleness and depravity, and they are ready to do their duty for such considerations as their masters may offer. The scab is a filthy wretch, who though the Mississippi ran bank-full of soap suds, could not wash him clean in a thousand years.

    The scab is the natural born foe of labor in its efforts to advance from the condition of servitude to independence, and such he has been found to be in the struggle of the engineers and firemen with the CB&Q [The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad, which saw a major strike in 1888], and he is destined to play the same degenerate role in the future. The scab merits universal reprobation, and that will be the verdict of all honorable men.

    Eugene V. Debs
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

    Debs’ Speech of Sedition
    https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Debs%27_Speech_of_Sedition#1

    A June 16, 1918, speech denouncing the First World War, and the military draft. Labour leader Eugene V. Debs was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for the crime of sedition after giving this speech, though his sentence was commuted before he completed his third year.

    Le discours

    Comrades, friends and fellow-workers, for this very cordial greeting, this very hearty reception, I thank you all with the fullest appreciation of your interest in and your devotion to the cause for which I am to speak to you this afternoon.

    To speak for labor; to plead the cause of the men and women and children who toil; to serve the working class, has always been to me a high privilege; a duty of love.

    I have just returned from a visit over yonder, where three of our most loyal comrades are paying the penalty for their devotion to the cause of the working class. They have come to realize, as many of us have, that it is extremely dangerous to exercise the constitutional right of free speech in a country fighting to make democracy safe in the world.

    I realize that, in speaking to you this afternoon, there are certain limitations placed upon the right of free speech. I must be exceedingly careful, prudent, as to what I say, and even more careful and prudent as to how I say it. I may not be able to say all I think; but I am not going to say anything that I do not think. I would rather a thousand times be a free soul in jail than to be a sycophant and coward in the streets. They may put those boys in jail—and some of the rest of us in jail—but they cannot put the Socialist movement in jail. Those prison bars separate their bodies from ours, but their souls are here this afternoon. They are simply paying the penalty that all men have paid in all the ages of history for standing erect, and for seeking to pave the way to better conditions for mankind.

    If it had not been for the men and women who, in the past, have had the moral courage to go to jail, we would still be in the jungles.

    This assemblage is exceedingly good to look upon. I wish it were possible for me to give you what you are giving me this afternoon. What I say here amounts to but little; what I see here is exceedingly important. You workers in Ohio, enlisted in the greatest cause ever organized in the interest of your class, are making history today in the face of threatening opposition of all kinds—history that is going to be read with profound interest by coming generations.

    There is but one thing you have to be concerned about, and that is that you keep foursquare with the principles of the international Socialist movement. It is only when you begin to compromise that trouble begins. So far as I am concerned, it does not matter what others may say, or think, or do, as long as I am sure that I am right with myself and the cause. There are so many who seek refuge in the popular side of a great question. As a Socialist, I have long since learned how to stand alone. For the last month I have been traveling over the Hoosier State; and, let me say to you, that, in all my connection with the Socialist movement, I have never seen such meetings, such enthusiasm, such unity of purpose; never have I seen such a promising outlook as there is today, notwithstanding the statement published repeatedly that our leaders have deserted us. Well, for myself, I never had much faith in leaders. I am willing to be charged with almost anything, rather than to be charged with being a leader. I am suspicious of leaders, and especially of the intellectual variety. Give me the rank and file every day in the week. If you go to the city of Washington, and you examine the pages of the Congressional Directory, you will find that almost all of those corporation lawyers and cowardly politicians, members of Congress, and misrepresentatives of the masses—you will find that almost all of them claim, in glowing terms, that they have risen from the ranks to places of eminence and distinction. I am very glad I cannot make that claim for myself. I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from the ranks.

    When I came away from Indiana, the comrades said: “When you cross the line and get over into the Buckeye State, tell the comrades there that we are on duty and doing duty. Give them for us, a hearty greeting, and tell them that we are going to make a record this fall that will be read around the world.”

    The Socialists of Ohio, it appears, are very much alive this year. The party has been killed recently, which, no doubt, accounts for its extraordinary activity. There is nothing that helps the Socialist Party so much as receiving an occasional deathblow. The oftener it is killed the more active, the more energetic, the more powerful it becomes.

    They who have been reading the capitalist newspapers realize what a capacity they have for lying. We have been reading them lately. They know all about the Socialist Party—the Socialist movement, except what is true. Only the other day they took an article that I had written—and most of you have read it—most of you members of the party, at least—and they made it appear that I had undergone a marvelous transformation. I had suddenly become changed—had in fact come to my senses; I had ceased to be a wicked Socialist, and had become a respectable Socialist, a patriotic Socialist—as if I had ever been anything else.

    What was the purpose of this deliberate misrepresentation? It is so self-evident that it suggests itself. The purpose was to sow the seeds of dissension in our ranks; to have it appear that we were divided among ourselves; that we were pitted against each other, to our mutual undoing. But Socialists were not born yesterday. They know how to read capitalist newspapers; and to believe exactly the opposite of what they read.

    Why should a Socialist be discouraged on the eve of the greatest triumph in all the history of the Socialist movement? It is true that these are anxious, trying days for us all—testing days for the women and men who are upholding the banner of labor in the struggle of the working class of all the world against the exploiters of all the world; a time in which the weak and cowardly will falter and fail and desert. They lack the fiber to endure the revolutionary test; they fall away; they disappear as if they had never been. On the other hand, they who are animated by the unconquerable spirit of the social revolution; they who have the moral courage to stand erect and assert their convictions; stand by them; fight for them; go to jail or to hell for them, if need be—they are writing their names, in this crucial hour—they are writing their names in faceless letters in the history of mankind.

    Those boys over yonder—those comrades of ours—and how I love them! Aye, they are my younger brothers; their very names throb in my heart, thrill in my veins, and surge in my soul. I am proud of them; they are there for us; and we are here for them. Their lips, though temporarily mute, are more eloquent than ever before; and their voice, though silent, is heard around the world.

    Are we opposed to Prussian militarism? Why, we have been fighting it since the day the Socialist movement was born; and we are going to continue to fight it, day and night, until it is wiped from the face of the earth. Between us there is no truce—no compromise.

    But, before I proceed along this line, let me recall a little history, in which I think we are all interested.

    In 1869 that grand old warrior of the social revolution, the elder Liebknecht, was arrested and sentenced to prison for three months, because of his war, as a Socialist, on the Kaiser and on the Junkers that rule Germany. In the meantime the Franco-Prussian war broke out. Liebknecht and Bebel were the Socialist members in the Reichstag. They were the only two who had the courage to protest against taking Alsace-Lorraine from France and annexing it to Germany. And for this they were sentenced two years to a prison fortress charged with high treason; because, even in that early day, almost fifty years ago, these leaders, these forerunners of the international Socialist movement were fighting the Kaiser and fighting the Junkers of Germany. They have continued to fight them from that day to this. Multiplied thousands of Socialists have languished in the jails of Germany because of their heroic warfare upon the despotic ruling class of that country.

    Let us come down the line a little farther. You remember that, at the close of Theodore Roosevelt’s second term as President, he went over to Africa to make war on some of his ancestors. You remember that, at the close of his expedition, he visited the capitals of Europe; and that he was wined and dined, dignified and glorified by all the Kaisers and Czars and Emperors of the Old World. He visited Potsdam while the Kaiser was there; and, according to the accounts published in the American newspapers, he and the Kaiser were soon on the most familiar terms. They were hilariously intimate with each other, and slapped each other on the back. After Roosevelt had reviewed the Kaiser’s troops, according to the same accounts, he became enthusiastic over the Kaiser’s legions and said: “If I had that kind of an army, I could conquer the world.” He knew the Kaiser then just as well as he knows him now. He knew that he was the Kaiser, the Beast of Berlin. And yet, he permitted himself to be entertained by that Beast of Berlin; had his feet under the mahogany of the Beast of Berlin; was cheek by jowl with the Beast of Berlin. And, while Roosevelt was being entertained royally by the German Kaiser, that same Kaiser was putting the leaders of the Socialist Party in jail for fighting the Kaiser and the Junkers of Germany. Roosevelt was the guest of honor in the white house of the Kaiser, while the Socialists were in the jails of the Kaiser for fighting the Kaiser. Who then was fighting for democracy? Roosevelt? Roosevelt, who was honored by the Kaiser, or the Socialists who were in jail by order of the Kaiser?
    Birds of a feather flock together

    edit

    When the newspapers reported that Kaiser Wilhelm and ex-President Theodore recognized each other at sight, were perfectly intimate with each other at the first touch, they made the admission that is fatal to the claim of Theodore Roosevelt, that he is the friend of the common people and the champion of democracy; they admitted that they were kith and kin; that they were very much alike; that their ideas and ideals were about the same. If Theodore Roosevelt is the great champion of democracy—the arch-foe of autocracy, what business had he as the guest of honor of the Prussian Kaiser? And when he met the Kaiser, and did honor to the Kaiser, under the terms imputed to him, wasn’t it pretty strong proof that he himself was a Kaiser at heart? Now, after being the guest of Emperor Wilhelm, the Beast of Berlin, he comes back to this country, and wants you to send ten million men over there to kill the Kaiser; to murder his former friend and pal. Rather queer, isn’t it? And yet, he is the patriot, and we are the traitors. I challenge you to find a Socialist anywhere on the face of the earth who was ever the guest of the Beast of Berlin, except as an inmate of his prison—the elder Liebknecht and the younger Liebknecht, the heroic son of his immortal sire.

    A little more history along the same line. In 1902 Prince Henry paid a visit to this country. Do you remember him? I do, exceedingly well. Prince Henry is the brother of Emperor Wilhelm. Prince Henry is another Beast of Berlin, an autocrat, an aristocrat, a Junker of Junkers—very much despised by our American patriots. He came over here in 1902 as the representative of Kaiser Wilhelm; he was received by Congress and by several state legislatures—among others, by the state legislature of Massachusetts, then in session. He was invited there by the capitalist captains of that so-called commonwealth. And when Prince Henry arrived, there was one member of that body who kept his self-respect, put on his hat, and as Henry, the Prince, walked in, that member of the body walked out. And that was James F. Carey, the Socialist member of that body. All the rest—all the rest of the representatives in the Massachusetts legislature—all, all of them—joined in doing honor, in the most servile spirit, to the high representative of the autocracy of Europe. And the only man who left that body, was a Socialist. And yet , and yet they have the hardihood to claim that they are fighting autocracy and that we are in the service of the German government.

    A little more history along the same line. I have a distinct recollection of it. It occurred fifteen years ago when Prince Henry came here. All of our plutocracy, all of the wealthy representatives living along Fifth Avenue—all, all of them—threw their palace doors wide open and received Prince Henry with open arms. But they were not satisfied with this; they got down and grovelled in the dust at his feet. Our plutocracy—women and men alike—vied with each other to lick the boots of Prince Henry, the brother and representative of the “Beast of Berlin.” And still our plutocracy, our Junkers, would have us believe that all the Junkers are confined to Germany. It is precisely because we refuse to believe this that they brand us as disloyalists. They want our eyes focused on the Junkers in Berlin so that we will not see those within our own borders.

    I hate, I loathe, I despise Junkers and junkerdom. I have no earthly use for the Junkers of Germany, and not one particle more use for the Junkers in the United States.

    They tell us that we live in a great free republic; that our institutions are democratic; that we are a free and self-governing people. This is too much, even for a joke. But it is not a subject for levity; it is an exceedingly serious matter.

    To whom do the Wall Street Junkers in our country marry their daughters? After they have wrung their countless millions from your sweat, your agony and your life’s blood, in a time of war as in a time of peace, they invest these untold millions in the purchase of titles of broken-down aristocrats, such as princes, dukes, counts and other parasites and no-accounts. Would they be satisfied to wed their daughters to honest workingmen? To real democrats? Oh, no! They scour the markets of Europe for vampires who are titled and nothing else. And they swap their millions for the titles, so that matrimony with them becomes literally a matter of money.

    These are the gentry who are today wrapped up in the American flag, who shout their claim from the housetops that they are the only patriots, and who have their magnifying glasses in hand, scanning the country for evidence of disloyalty, eager to apply the brand of treason to the men who dare to even whisper their opposition to Junker rule in the United States. No wonder Sam Johnson declared that “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” He must have had this Wall Street gentry in mind, or at least their prototypes, for in every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the people.

    They would have you believe that the Socialist Party consists in the main of disloyalists and traitors. It is true in a sense not at all to their discredit. We frankly admit that we are disloyalists and traitors to the real traitors of this nation; to the gang that on the Pacific coast are trying to hang Tom Mooney and Warren Billings in spite of their well-known innocence and the protest of practically the whole civilized world.

    I know Tom Mooney intimately—as if he were my own brother. He is an absolutely honest man. He had no more to do with the crime with which he was charged and for which he was convicted than I had. And if he ought to go to the gallows, so ought I. If he is guilty every man who belongs to a labor organization or to the Socialist Party is likewise guilty.

    What is Tom Mooney guilty of? I will tell you. I am familiar with his record. For years he has been fighting bravely and without compromise the battles of the working class out on the Pacific coast. He refused to be bribed and he could not be browbeaten. In spite of all attempts to intimidate him he continued loyally in the service of the organized workers, and for this he became a marked man. The henchmen of the powerful and corrupt corporations, concluding finally that he could not be bought or bribed or bullied, decided he must therefore be murdered. That is why Tom Mooney is today a life prisoner, and why he would have been hanged as a felon long ago but for the world-wide protest of the working class.

    Let us review another bit of history. You remember Francis J. Heney, special investigator of the state of California, who was shot down in cold blood in the courtroom in San Francisco. You remember that dastardly crime, do you not? The United Railways, consisting of a lot of plutocrats and highbinders represented by the Chamber of Commerce, absolutely control the city of San Francisco. The city was and is their private reservation. Their will is the supreme law. Take your stand against them and question their authority, and you are doomed. They do not hesitate a moment to plot murder or any other crime to perpetuate their corrupt and enslaving regime. Tom Mooney was the chief representative of the working class they could not control. They own the railways; they control the great industries; they are the industrial masters and the political rulers of the people. From their decision there is no appeal. They are the autocrats of the Pacific coast—as cruel and infamous as any that ever ruled in Germany or any other country in the old world. When their rule became so corrupt that at last a grand jury indicted them and they were placed on trial, and Francis J. Heney was selected to assist in their prosecution, this gang, represented by the Chamber of Commerce; this gang of plutocrats, autocrats and highbinders, hired an assassin to shoot Heney down in the courtroom. Heney, however, happened to live through it. But that was not their fault. The same identical gang that hired the murderer to kill Heney also hired false witnesses to swear away the life of Tom Mooney and, foiled in that, they have kept him in a foul prisonhole ever since.

    Every solitary one of these aristocratic conspirators and would-be murderers claims to be an arch-patriot; every one of them insists that the war is being waged to make the world safe for democracy. What humbug! What rot! What false pretense! These autocrats, these tyrants, these red-handed robbers and murderers, the “patriots,” while the men who have the courage to stand face to face with them, speak the truth, and fight for their exploited victims—they are the disloyalists and traitors. If this be true, I want to take my place side by side with the traitors in this fight.

    The other day they sentenced Kate Richards O’Hare to the penitentiary for five years. Think of sentencing a woman to the penitentiary simply for talking. The United States, under plutocratic rule, is the only country that would send a woman to prison for five years for exercising the right of free speech. If this be treason, let them make the most of it.

    Let me review a bit of history in connection with this case. I have known Kate Richards O’Hare intimately for twenty years. I am familiar with her public record. Personally I know her as if she were my own sister. All who know Mrs. O’Hare know her to be a woman of unquestioned integrity.’ And they also know that she is a woman of unimpeachable loyalty to the Socialist movement. When she went out into North Dakota to make her speech, followed by plain-clothes men in the service of the government intent upon effecting her arrest and securing her prosecution and conviction—when she went out there, it was with the full knowledge on her part that sooner or later these detectives would accomplish their purpose. She made her speech, and that speech was deliberately misrepresented for the purpose of securing her conviction. The only testimony against her was that of a hired witness. And when the farmers, the men and women who were in the audience she addressed—when they went to Bismarck where the trial was held to testify in her favor, to swear that she had not used the language she was charged with having used, the judge refused to allow them to go upon the stand. This would seem incredible to me if I had not had some experience of my own with federal courts.

    Who appoints our federal judges? The people? In all the history of the country, the working class have never named a federal judge. There are 121 of these judges and every solitary one holds his position, his tenure, through the influence and power of corporate capital. The corporations and trusts dictate their appointment. And when they go to the bench, they go not to serve the people, but to serve the interests that place them and keep them where they are.

    Why, the other day, by a vote of five to four—a kind of craps game—come seven, come ‘leven—they declared the child labor law unconstitutional—a law secured after twenty years of education and agitation on the part of all kinds of people. And yet, by a majority of one, the Supreme Court a body of corporation lawyers, with just one exception, wiped that law from the statute books, and this in our so-called democracy, so that we may continue to grind the flesh and blood and bones of puny little children into profits for the Junkers of Wall Street. And this in a country that boasts of fighting to make the world safe for democracy! The history of this country is being written in the blood of the childhood the industrial lords have murdered.

    These are not palatable truths to them. They do not like to hear them; and what is more they do not want you to hear them. And that is why they brand us as undesirable citizens , and as disloyalists and traitors. If we were actual traitors—traitors to the people and to their welfare and progress, we would be regarded as eminently respectable citizens of the republic; we would hold high office, have princely incomes, and ride in limousines; and we would be pointed out as the elect who have succeeded in life in honorable pursuit, and worthy of emulation by the youth of the land. It is precisely because we are disloyal to the traitors that we are loyal to the people of this nation.

    Scott Nearing! You have heard of Scott Nearing. He is the greatest teacher in the United States. He was in the University of Pennsylvania until the Board of Trustees, consisting of great capitalists, captains of industry, found that he was teaching sound economics to the students in his classes. This sealed his fate in that institution. They sneeringly charged—just as the same usurers, money-changers, pharisees, hypocrites charged the Judean Carpenter some twenty centuries ago—that he was a false teacher and that he was stirring up the people.

    The Man of Galilee, the Carpenter, the workingman who became the revolutionary agitator of his day soon found himself to be an undesirable citizen in the eyes of the ruling knaves and they had him crucified. And now their lineal descendants say of Scott Nearing, “He is preaching false economics. We cannot crucify him as we did his elder brother but we can deprive him of employment and so cut off his income and starve him to death or into submission. We will not only discharge him but place his name upon the blacklist and make it impossible for him to earn a living. He is a dangerous man for he is teaching the truth and opening the eyes of the people.” And the truth, oh, the truth has always been unpalatable and intolerable to the class who live out of the sweat and misery of the working class.

    Max Eastman has been indicted and his paper suppressed, just as the papers with which I have been connected have all been suppressed. What a wonderful compliment they pay us! They are afraid that we may mislead and contaminate you. You are their wards; they are your guardians and they know what is best for you to read and hear and know. They are bound to see to it that our vicious doctrines do not reach your ears. And so in our great democracy, under our free institutions, they flatter our press by suppression; and they ignorantly imagine that they have silenced revolutionary propaganda in the United States. What an awful mistake they make for our benefit! As a matter of justice to them we should respond with resolutions of thanks and gratitude. Thousands of people who had never before heard of our papers are now inquiring for and insisting upon seeing them. They have succeeded only in arousing curiosity in our literature and propaganda. And woe to him who reads Socialist literature from curiosity! He is surely a goner. I have known of a thousand experiments but never one that failed.

    John M. Work! You know John, now on the editorial staff of the Milwaukee Leader! When I first knew him he was a lawyer out in Iowa. The capitalists out there became alarmed because of the rapid growth of the Socialist movement. So they said: “We have to find some able fellow to fight this menace.” They concluded that John Work was the man for the job and they said to him: “John, you are a bright young lawyer; you have a brilliant future before you. We want to engage you to find out all you can about socialism and then proceed to counteract its baneful effects and check its further growth.”

    John at once provided himself with Socialist literature and began his study of the red menace, with the result that after he had read and digested a few volumes he was a full-fledged Socialist and has been fighting for socialism ever since.

    How stupid and shortsighted the ruling class really is! Cupidity is stone blind. It has no vision. The greedy, profit-seeking exploiter cannot see beyond the end of his nose. He can see a chance for an “opening”; he is cunning enough to know what graft is and where it is, and how it can be secured, but vision he has none—not the slightest. He knows nothing of the great throbbing world that spreads out in all directions. He has no capacity for literature; no appreciation of art; no soul for beauty. That is the penalty the parasites pay for the violation of the laws of life. The Rockefellers are blind. Every move they make in their game of greed but hastens their own doom. Every blow they strike at the Socialist movement reacts upon themselves. Every time they strike at us they hit themselves. It never fails. Every time they strangle a Socialist paper they add a thousand voices proclaiming the truth of the principles of socialism and the ideals of the Socialist movement. They help us in spite of themselves.

    Socialism is a growing idea; an expanding philosophy. It is spreading over the entire face of the earth: It is as vain to resist it as it would be to arrest the sunrise on the morrow. It is coming, coming, coming all along the line. Can you not see it? If not, I advise you to consult an oculist. There is certainly something the matter with your vision. It is the mightiest movement in the history of mankind. What a privilege to serve it! I have regretted a thousand times that I can do so little for the movement that has done so much for me. The little that I am, the little that I am hoping to be, I owe to the Socialist movement. It has given me my ideas and ideals; my principles and convictions, and I would not exchange one of them for all of Rockefeller’s bloodstained dollars. It has taught me how to serve—a lesson to me of priceless value. It has taught me the ecstasy in the handclasp of a comrade. It has enabled me to hold high communion with you, and made it possible for me to take my place side by side with you in the great struggle for the better day; to multiply myself over and over again, to thrill with a fresh-born manhood; to feel life truly worthwhile; to open new avenues of vision; to spread out glorious vistas; to know that I am kin to all that throbs; to be class-conscious, and to realize that, regardless of nationality, race, creed, color or sex, every man, every woman who toils, who renders useful service, every member of the working class without an exception, is my comrade, my brother and sister—and that to serve them and their cause is the highest duty of my life.

    And in their service I can feel myself expand; I can rise to the stature of a man and claim the right to a place on earth—a place where I can stand and strive to speed the day of industrial freedom and social justice.

    Yes, my comrades, my heart is attuned to yours. Aye, all our hearts now throb as one great heart responsive to the battle cry of the social revolution. Here, in this alert and inspiring assemblage our hearts are with the Bolsheviki of Russia. Those heroic men and women, those unconquerable comrades have by their incomparable valor and sacrifice added fresh luster to the fame of the international movement. Those Russian comrades of ours have made greater sacrifices, have suffered more, and have shed more heroic blood than any like number of men and women anywhere on earth; they have laid the foundation of the first real democracy that ever drew the breath of life in this world. And the very first act of the triumphant Russian revolution was to proclaim a state of peace with all mankind, coupled with a fervent moral appeal, not to kings, not to emperors, rulers or diplomats but to the people of all nations. Here we have the very breath of democracy, the quintessence of the dawning freedom. The Russian revolution proclaimed its glorious triumph in its ringing and inspiring appeal to the peoples of all the earth. In a humane and fraternal spirit new Russia, emancipated at last from the curse of the centuries, called upon all nations engaged in the frightful war, the Central Powers as well as the Allies, to send representatives to a conference to lay down terms of peace that should be just and lasting. Here was the supreme opportunity to strike the blow to make the world safe for democracy. Was there any response to that noble appeal that in some day to come will be written in letters of gold in the history of the world? Was there any response whatever to that appeal for universal peace? No, not the slightest attention was paid to it by the Christian nations engaged in the terrible slaughter.

    It has been charged that Lenin and Trotsky and the leaders of the revolution were treacherous, that they made a traitorous peace with Germany. Let us consider that proposition briefly. At the time of the revolution Russia had been three years in the war. Under the Czar she had lost more than four million of her ill-clad, poorly-equipped, half-starved soldiers, slain outright or disabled on the field of battle. She was absolutely bankrupt. Her soldiers were mainly without arms. This was what was bequeathed to the revolution by the Czar and his regime; and for this condition Lenin and Trotsky were not responsible, nor the Bolsheviki. For this appalling state of affairs the Czar and his rotten bureaucracy were solely responsible. When the Bolsheviki came into power and went through the archives they found and exposed the secret treaties—the treaties that were made between the Czar and the French government, the British government and the Italian government, proposing, after the victory was achieved, to dismember the German Empire and destroy the Central Powers. These treaties have never been denied nor repudiated. Very little has been said about them in the American press. I have a copy of these treaties, showing that the purpose of the Allies is exactly the purpose of the Central Powers, and that is the conquest and spoilation of the weaker nations that has always been the purpose of war.

    Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. In the Middle Ages when the feudal lords who inhabited the castles whose towers may still be seen along the Rhine concluded to enlarge their domains, to increase their power, their prestige and their wealth they declared war upon one another. But they themselves did not go to war any more than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street go to war. The feudal barons of the Middle Ages, the economic predecessors of the capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable serfs fought all the battles. The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to revere their masters; to believe that when their masters declared war upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to fall upon one another and to cut one another’s throats for the profit and glory of the lords and barons who held them in contempt. And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose—especially their lives.

    They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people.

    And here let me emphasize the fact—and it cannot be repeated too often—that the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace.

    Yours not to reason why;
    Yours but to do and die.

    That is their motto and we object on the part of the awakening workers of this nation.

    If war is right let it be declared by the people. You who have your lives to lose, you certainly above all others have the right to decide the momentous issue of war or peace.

    Rose Pastor Stokes! And when I mention her name I take off my hat. Here we have another heroic and inspiring comrade. She had her millions of dollars at command. Did her wealth restrain her an instant? On the contrary her supreme devotion to the cause outweighed all considerations of a financial or social nature. She went out boldly to plead the cause of the working class and they rewarded her high courage with a ten years’ sentence to the penitentiary. Think of it! Ten years! What atrocious crime had she committed? What frightful things had she said? Let me answer candidly. She said nothing more than I have said here this afternoon. I want to admit—I want to admit without reservation that if Rose Pastor Stokes is guilty of crime, so am I. If she is guilty for the brave part she has taken in this testing time of human souls I would not be cowardly enough to plead my innocence. And if she ought to be sent to the penitentiary for ten years, so ought I without a doubt.

    What did Rose Pastor Stokes say? Why, she said that a government could not at the same time serve both the profiteers and the victims of the profiteers. Is it not true? Certainly it is and no one can successfully dispute it.

    Roosevelt said a thousand times more in the very same paper, the Kansas City Star. Roosevelt said vauntingly the other day that he would be heard if he went to jail. He knows very well that he is taking no risk of going to jail. He is shrewdly laying his wires for the Republican nomination in 1920 and he is an adept in making the appeal of the demagogue. He would do anything to discredit the Wilson administration that he may give himself and his party all credit. That is the only rivalry there is between the two old capitalist parties—the Republican Party and the Democratic Party—the political twins of the master class. They are not going to have any friction between them this fall. They are all patriots in this campaign, and they are going to combine to prevent the election of any disloyal Socialist. I have never heard anyone tell of any difference between these corrupt capitalist parties. Do you know of any? I certainly do not. The situation is that one is in and the other trying to break in, and that is substantially the only difference between them.

    Rose Pastor Stokes never uttered a word she did not have a legal, constitutional right to utter. But her message to the people, the message that stirred their thoughts and opened their eyes—that must be suppressed; her voice must be silenced. And so she was promptly subjected to a mock trial and sentenced to the penitentiary for ten years. Her conviction was a foregone conclusion. The trial of a Socialist in a capitalist court is at best a farcical affair. What ghost of a chance had she in a court with a packed jury and a corporation tool on the bench? Not the least in the world. And so she goes to the penitentiary for ten years if they carry out their brutal and disgraceful graceful program. For my part I do not think they will. In fact I feel sure they will not. If the war were over tomorrow the prison doors would open to our people. They simply mean to silence the voice of protest during the war.

    What a compliment it is to the Socialist movement to be thus persecuted for the sake of the truth! The truth alone will make the people free. And for this reason the truth must not be permitted to reach the people. The truth has always been dangerous to the rule of the rogue, the exploiter, the robber. So the truth must be ruthlessly suppressed. That is why they are trying to destroy the Socialist movement; and every time they strike a blow they add a thousand new voices to the hosts proclaiming that socialism is the hope of humanity and has come to emancipate the people from their final form of servitude.

    How good this sip of cool water from the hand of a comrade! It is as refreshing as if it were out on the desert waste. And how good it is to look into your glowing faces this afternoon! You are really good looking to me, I assure you. And I am glad there are so many of you. Your tribe has increased amazingly since first I came here. You used to be so few and far between. A few years ago when you struck a town the first thing you had to do was to see if you could locate a Socialist; and you were pretty lucky if you struck the trail of one before you left town. If he happened to be the only one and he is still living, he is now regarded as a pioneer and pathfinder; he holds a place of honor in your esteem, and he has lodgment in the hearts of all who have come after him. It is far different now. You can hardly throw a stone in the dark without hitting a Socialist. They are everywhere in increasing numbers; and what marvelous changes are taking place in the people!

    Some years ago I was to speak at Warren in this state. It happened to be at the time that President McKinley was assassinated. In common with all others I deplored that tragic event. There is not a Socialist who would have been guilty of that crime. We do not attack individuals. We do not seek to avenge ourselves upon those opposed to our faith. We have no fight with individuals as such. We are capable of pitying those who hate us. We do not hate them; we know better; we would freely give them a cup of water if they needed it. There is no room in our hearts for hate, except for the system, the social system in which it is possible for one man to amass a stupendous fortune doing nothing, while millions of others suffer and struggle and agonize and die for the bare necessities of existence.

    President McKinley, as I have said, had been assassinated. I was first to speak at Portsmouth, having been booked there some time before the assassination. Promptly the Christian ministers of Portsmouth met in special session and passed a resolution declaring that “Debs, more than any other person, was responsible for the assassination of our beloved President.” It was due to the doctrine that Debs was preaching that this crime was committed, according to these patriotic parsons, and so this pious gentry, the followers of the meek and lowly Nazarene, concluded that I must not be permitted to enter the city. And they had the mayor issue an order to that effect. I went there soon after, however. I was to speak at Warren, where President McKinley’s double-cousin was postmaster. I went there and registered. I was soon afterward invited to leave the hotel. I was exceedingly undesirable that day. I was served with notice that the hall would not be opened and that I would not be permitted to speak. I sent back word to the mayor by the only Socialist left in town—and he only remained because they did not know he was there—I sent word to the mayor that I would speak in Warren that night, according to schedule, or I would leave there in a box for the return turn trip.

    The Grand Army of the Republic called a special meeting and then marched to the hall in full uniform and occupied the front seats in order to silence me if my speech did not suit them. I went to the hall, however, found it open, and made my speech. There was no interruption. I told the audience frankly who was responsible for the President’s assassination. I said: “As long as there is misery caused by robbery at the bottom there will be assassination at the top.” I showed them, evidently to their satisfaction, that it was their own capitalist system that was responsible; the system that had impoverished and brutalized the ancestors of the poor witless boy who had murdered the President. Yes, I made my speech that night and it was well received but when I left there I was still an “undesirable citizen.”

    Some years later I returned to Warren. It seemed that the whole population was out for the occasion. I was received with open arms. I was no longer a demagogue; no longer a fanatic or an undesirable citizen. I had become exceedingly respectable simply because the Socialists had increased in numbers and socialism had grown in influence and power. If ever I become entirely respectable I shall be quite sure that I have outlived myself.

    It is the minorities who have made the history of this world. It is the few who have had the courage to take their places at the front; who have been true enough to themselves to speak the truth that was in them; who have dared oppose the established order of things; who have espoused the cause of the suffering, struggling poor; who have upheld without regard to personal consequences the cause of freedom and righteousness. It is they, the heroic, self-sacrificing few who have made the history of the race and who have paved the way from barbarism to civilization. The many prefer to remain upon the popular side. They lack the courage and vision to join a despised minority that stands for a principle; they have not the moral fiber that withstands, endures and finally conquers. They are to be pitied and not treated with contempt for they cannot help their cowardice. But, thank God, in every age and in every nation there have been the brave and self-reliant few, and they have been sufficient to their historic task; and we, who are here today, are under infinite obligations to them because they suffered, they sacrificed, they went to jail, they had their bones broken upon the wheel, they were burned at the stake and their ashes scattered to the winds by the hands of hate and revenge in their struggle to leave the world better for us than they found it for themselves. We are under eternal obligations to them because of what they did and what they suffered for us and the only way we can discharge that obligation is by doing the best we can for those who are to come after us. And this is the high purpose of every Socialist on earth. Everywhere they are animated by the same lofty principles; everywhere they have the same noble ideals; everywhere they are clasping hands across national boundary lines; everywhere they are calling one another Comrade, the blessed word that springs from the heart of unity and bursts into blossom upon the lips. Each passing day they are getting into closer touch all along the battle line, waging the holy war of the working class of the world against the ruling and exploiting class of the world. They make many mistakes and they profit by them all. They encounter numerous defeats, and grow stronger through them all. They never take a backward step.

    The heart of the international Socialist never beats a retreat.

    They are pressing forward, here, there and everywhere, in all the zones that girdle the globe. Everywhere these awakening workers, these class-conscious proletarians, these hardy sons and daughters of honest toil are proclaiming the glad tidings of the coming emancipation, everywhere their hearts are attuned to the most sacred cause that ever challenged men and women to action in all the history of the world. Everywhere they are moving toward democracy and the dawn; marching toward the sunrise, their faces all aglow with the light of the coming day. These are the Socialists, the most zealous and enthusiastic crusaders the world has ever known. They are making history that will light up the horizon of coming generations, for their mission is the emancipation of the human race. They have been reviled; they have been ridiculed, persecuted, imprisoned and have suffered death, but they have been sufficient to themselves and their cause, and their final triumph is but a question of time.

    Do you wish to hasten the day of victory? Join the Socialist Party! Don’t wait for the morrow. Join now! Enroll your name without fear and take your place where you belong. You cannot do your duty by proxy. You have got to do it yourself and do it squarely and then as you look yourself in the face you will have no occasion to blush. You will know what it is to be a real man or woman. You will lose nothing; you will gain everything. Not only will you lose nothing but you will find something of infinite value, and that something will be yourself. And that is your supreme need—to find yourself—to really know yourself and your purpose in life.

    You need at this time especially to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder. You need to know that you were not created to work and produce and impoverish yourself to enrich an idle exploiter. You need to know that you have a mind to improve, a soul to develop, and a manhood to sustain.

    You need to know that it is your duty to rise above the animal plane of existence. You need to know that it is for you to know something about literature and science and art. You need to know that you are verging on the edge of a great new world. You need to get in touch with your comrades and fellow workers and to become conscious of your interests, your powers and your possibilities as a class. You need to know that you belong to the great majority of mankind. You need to know that as long as you are ignorant, as long as you are indifferent, as long as you are apathetic, unorganized and content, you will remain exactly where you are. You will be exploited; you will be degraded, and you will have to beg for a job. You will get just enough for your slavish toil to keep you in working order, and you will be looked down upon with scorn and contempt by the very parasites that live and luxuriate out of your sweat and unpaid labor.

    If you would be respected you have got to begin by respecting yourself. Stand up squarely and look yourself in the face and see a man! Do not allow yourself to fall into the predicament of the poor fellow who, after he had heard a Socialist speech concluded that he too ought to be a Socialist. The argument he had heard was unanswerable. “Yes,” he said to himself, “all the speaker said was true and I certainly ought to join the party.” But after a while he allowed his ardor to cool and he soberly concluded that by joining the party he might anger his boss and lose his job. He then concluded: “I can’t take the chance.” That night he slept alone. There was something on his conscience and it resulted in a dreadful dream. Men always have such dreams when they betray themselves. A Socialist is free to go to bed with a clear conscience. He goes to sleep with his manhood and he awakens and walks forth in the morning with his self-respect. He is unafraid and he can look the whole world in the face, without a tremor and without a blush. But this poor weakling who lacked the courage to do the bidding of his reason and conscience was haunted by a startling dream and at midnight he awoke in terror, bounded from his bed and exclaimed: “My God, there is nobody in this room.” He was absolutely right. There was nobody in that room.

    How would you like to sleep in a room that had nobody in it? It is an awful thing to be nobody. That is certainly a state of mind to get out of, the sooner the better.

    There is a great deal of hope for Baker, Ruthenberg and Wagenknecht who are in jail for their convictions; but for the fellow that is nobody there is no pardoning power. He is “in” for life. Anybody can be nobody; but it takes a man to be somebody.

    To turn your back on the corrupt Republican Party and the still more corrupt Democratic Party—the gold-dust lackeys of the ruling class counts for still more after you have stepped out of those popular and corrupt capitalist parties to join a minority party that has an ideal, that stands for a principle, and fights for a cause. This will be the most important change you have ever made and the time will come when you will thank me for having made the suggestion. It was the day of days for me. I remember it well. It was like passing from midnight darkness to the noontide light of day. It came almost like a flash and found me ready. It must have been in such a flash that great, seething, throbbing Russia, prepared by centuries of slavery and tears and martyrdom, was transformed from a dark continent to a land of living light.

    There is something splendid, something sustaining and inspiring in the prompting of the heart to be true to yourself and to the best you know, especially in a crucial hour of your life. You are in the crucible today, my Socialist comrades! You are going to be tried by fire, to what extent no one knows. If you are weak-fibered and fainthearted you will be lost to the Socialist movement. We will have to bid you goodbye. You are not the stuff of which revolutions are made. We are sorry for you unless you chance to be an “intellectual.” The “intellectuals,” many of them, are already gone. No loss on our side nor gain on the other.

    I am always amused in the discussion of the “intellectual” phase of this question. It is the same old standard under which the rank and file are judged. What would become of the sheep if they had no shepherd to lead them out of the wilderness into the land of milk and honey?

    Oh, yes, “I am your shepherd and ye are my mutton.”

    They would have us believe that if we had no “intellectuals” we would have no movement. They would have our party, the rank and file, controlled by the “intellectual” bosses as the Republican and Democratic parties are controlled. These capitalist parties are managed by “intellectual” leaders and the rank and file are sheep that follow the bellwether to the shambles.

    In the Republican and Democratic parties you of the common herd are not expected to think. That is not only unnecessary but might lead you astray. That is what the “intellectual” leaders are for. They do the thinking and you do the voting. They ride in carriages at the front where the band plays and you tramp in the mud, bringing up the rear with great enthusiasm.

    The capitalist system affects to have great regard and reward for intellect, and the capitalists give themselves full credit for having superior brains. When we have ventured to say that the time would come when the working class would rule they have bluntly answered “Never! it requires brains to rule.” The workers of course have none. And they certainly try hard to prove it by proudly supporting the political parties of their masters under whose administration they are kept in poverty and servitude.

    The government is now operating its railroads for the more effective prosecution of the war. Private ownership has broken down utterly and the government has had to come to the rescue. We have always said that the people ought to own the railroads and operate them for the benefit of the people. We advocated that twenty years ago. But the capitalists and their henchmen emphatically objected. “You have got to have brains to run the railroads,” they tauntingly retorted. Well, the other day McAdoo, the governor-general of the railroads under government operation; discharged all the high-salaried presidents and other supernumeraries. In other words, he fired the “brains” bodily and yet all the trains have been coming and going on schedule time. Have you noticed any change for the worse since the “brains” are gone? It is a brainless system now, being operated by “hands.” But a good deal more efficiently than it had been operated by so-called “brains” before. And this determines infallibly the quality of their vaunted, high-priced capitalist “brains.” It is the kind you can get at a reasonable figure at the market place. They have always given themselves credit for having superior brains and given this as the reason for the supremacy of their class. It is true that they have the brains that indicates the cunning of the fox, the wolf, but as for brains denoting real intelligence and the measure of intellectual capacity they are the most woefully ignorant people on earth. Give me a hundred capitalists just as you find them here in Ohio and let me ask them a dozen simple questions about the history of their own country and I will prove to you that they are as ignorant and unlettered as any you may find in the so-called lower class. They know little of history; they are strangers to science; they are ignorant of sociology and blind to art but they know how to exploit, how to gouge, how to rob, and do it with legal sanction. They always proceed legally for the reaon that the class which has the power to rob upon a large scale has also the power to control the government and legalize their robbery. I regret that lack of time prevents me from discussing this phase of the question more at length.

    They are continually talking about your patriotic duty. It is not their but your patriotic duty that they are concerned about. There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty never takes them to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches.

    And now among other things they are urging you to “cultivate” war gardens, while at the same time a government war report just issued shows that practically 52 percent of the arable, tillable soil is held out of use by the landlords, speculators and profiteers. They themselves do not cultivate the soil. They could not if they would. Nor do they allow others to cultivate it. They keep it idle to enrich themselves, to pocket the millions of dollars of unearned increment. Who is it that makes this land valuable while it is fenced in and kept out of use? It is the people. Who pockets this tremendous accumulation of value? The landlords. And these landlords who toil not and spin not are supreme among American “patriots.”

    In passing I suggest that we stop a moment to think about the term “landlord.” “LANDLORD!” Lord of the Land! The lord of the land is indeed a superpatriot. This lord who practically owns the earth tells you that we are fighting this war to make the world safe for democracy—he who shuts out all humanity from his private domain; he who profiteers at the expense of the people who have been slain and mutilated by multiplied thousands, under pretense of being the great American patriot. It is he, this identical patriot who is in fact the archenemy of the people; it is he that you need to wipe from power. It is he who is a far greater menace to your liberty and your well-being than the Prussian Junkers on the other side of the Atlantic ocean.

    Fifty-two percent of the land kept out of use, according to their own figures! They tell you that there is an alarming shortage of flour and that you need to produce more. They tell you further that you have got to save wheat so that more can be exported for the soldiers who are fighting on the other side, while half of your tillable soil is held out of use by the landlords and profiteers. What do you think of that?

    Again, they tell you there is a coal famine now in the state of Ohio. The state of Indiana, where I live, is largely underlaid with coal. There is practically an inexhaustible supply. The coal is banked beneath our very feet. It is within touch all about us—all we can possibly use and more. And here are the miners, ready to enter the mines. Here is the machinery ready to be put into operation to increase the output to any desired capacity. And three weeks ago a national officer of the United Mine Workers issued and published a statement to the Labor Department of the United States government to the effect that the 600,000 coal miners in the United States at this time, when they talk about a coal famine, are not permitted to work more than half time. I have been around over Indiana for many years. I have often been in the coal fields; again and again I have seen the miners idle while at the same time there was a scarcity of coal.

    They tell you that you ought to buy your coal right away; that you may freeze next winter if you do not. At the same time they charge you three prices for your coal! Oh, yes, this ought to suit you perfectly if you vote the Republican or Democratic ticket and believe in the private ownership of the coal mines and their operation for private profit.

    The coal mines now being privately owned, the operators want a scarcity of coal so they can boost their prices and enrich themselves accordingly. If an abundance of coal were mined there would be lower prices and this would not suit the mine owners. Prices soar and profits increase when there is a scarcity of coal.

    It is also apparent that there is collusion between the mine owners and the railroads. The mine owners declare there are no cars while the railroad men insist that there is no coal. And between them they delude, defraud and rob the people.

    Let us illustrate a vital point. Here is the coal in great deposits all about us; here are the miners and the machinery of production. Why should there be a coal famine upon the one hand and an army of idle and hungry miners on the other hand? Is it not an incredibly stupid situation, an almost idiotic if not criminal state of affairs?

    We Socialists say: “Take possession of the mines in the name of the people.” Set the miners at work and give every miner the equivalent of all the coal he produces. Reduce the work day in proportion to the development of productive machinery. That would at once settle the matter of a coal famine and of idle miners. But that is too simple a proposition and the people will have none of it. The time will come, however, when the people will be driven to take such action for there is no other efficient and permanent solution of the problem.

    In the present system the miner, a wage slave, gets down into a pit 300 or 400 feet deep. He works hard and produces a ton of coal. But he does not own an ounce of it. That coal belongs to some mine-owning plutocrat who may be in New York or sailing the high seas in his private yacht; or he may be hobnobbing with royalty in the capitals of Europe, and that is where most of them were before the war was declared. The industrial captain, so- called, who lives in Paris, London, Vienna or some other center of gaiety does not have to work to revel in luxury. He owns the mines and he might as well own the miners.

    That is where you workers are and where you will remain as long as you give your support to the political parties of your masters and exploiters. You vote these miners out of a job and reduce them to corporation vassals and paupers.

    We Socialists say: “Take possession of the mines; call the miner to work and return to him the equivalent of the value of his product.” He can then build himself a comfortable home; live in it; enjoy it with his family. He can provide himself and his wife and children with clothes—good clothes—not shoddy; wholesome food in abundance, education for the children, and the chance to live the lives of civilized human beings, while at the same time the people will get coal at just what it costs to mine it.

    Of course that would be socialism as far as it goes. But you are not in favor of that program. It is too visionary because it is so simple and practical. So you will have to continue to wait until winter is upon you before you get your coal and then pay three prices for it because you insist upon voting a capitalist ticket and giving your support to the present wage-slave system. The trouble with you is that you are still in a capitalist state of mind.

    Lincoln said: “If you want that thing that is the thing you want”; and you will get it to your heart’s content. But some good day you will wake up and realize that a change is needed and wonder why you did not know it long before. Yes, a change is certainly needed, not merely a change of party but a change of system; a change from slavery to freedom and from despotism to democracy, wide as the world. When this change comes at last, we shall rise from brutehood to brotherhood, and to accomplish it we have to educate and organize the workers industrially and politically, but not along the zigzag craft lines laid down by Gompers, who through all of his career has favored the master class. You never hear the capitalist press speak of him nowadays except in praise and adulation. He has recently come into great prominence as a patriot. You never find him on the unpopular side of a great issue. He is always conservative, satisfied to leave the labor problem to be settled finally at the banqueting board with Elihu Root, Andrew Carnegie and the rest of the plutocratic civic federationists. When they drink wine and smoke scab cigars together the labor question is settled so far as they are concerned.

    And while they are praising Gompers they are denouncing the I.W.W. There are few men who have the courage to say a word in favor of the I.W.W. I have. Let me say here that I have great respect for the I.W.W. Far greater than I have for their infamous detractors.

    Listen! There has just been published a pamphlet called “The Truth About the I.W.W.” It has been issued after long and thorough investigation by five men of unquestioned standing in the capitalist world. At the head of these investigators was Professor John Graham Brooks of Harvard University, and next to him John A. Fish of the Survey of the Religious Organizations of Pittsburgh, and Mr. Bruere, the government investigator. Five of these prominent men conducted an impartial examination of the I.W.W. To quote their own words they “followed its trail.” They examined into its doings beginning at Bisbee where the “patriots,” the cowardly business men, the arch-criminals, made up the mob that deported 1,200 workingmen under the most brutal conditions, charging them with being members of the I.W.W. when they knew it to be false.

    It is only necessary to label a man “I.W.W.” to have him lynched as they did Praeger, an absolutely innocent man. He was a Socialist and bore a German name, and that was his crime. A rumor was started that he was disloyal and he was promptly seized and lynched by the cowardly mob of so-called “patriots.”

    War makes possible all such crimes and outrages. And war comes in spite of the people. When Wall Street says war the press says war and the pulpit promptly follows with its Amen. In every age the pulpit has been on the side of the rulers and not on the side of the people. That is one reason why the preachers so fiercely denounce the I.W.W.

    Take the time to read this pamphlet about the I.W.W. Don’t take the word of Wall Street and its press as final. Read this report by five impartial and highly reputable men who made their investigation to know the truth, and that they might tell the truth to the American people. They declare that the I.W.W. in all its career never committed as much violence against the ruling class as the ruling class has committed against the I.W.W.

    You are not now reading any reports in the daily press about the trial at Chicago, are you? They used to publish extensive reports when the trial first began, and to prate about what they proposed to prove against the I.W.W. as a gigantic conspiracy against the government. The trial has continued until they have exhausted all their testimony and they have not yet proven violence in a single instance. No, not one! They are utterly without incriminating testimony and yet 112 men are in the dock after lying in jail for months without the shadow of a crime upon them save that of belonging to the I.W.W. That is enough it would seem to convict any man of any crime and send his body to prison and his soul to hell. Just whisper the name of the I.W.W. and you are branded as a disloyalist. And the reason for this is wholly to the credit of the I.W.W., for whatever may be charged against it the I.W.W. has always fought for the bottom dog. And that is why Haywood is despised and prosecuted while Gompers is lauded and glorified by the same gang.

    Now what you workers need is to organize, not along craft lines but along revolutionary industrial lines. All of you workers in a given industry, regardless of your trade or occupation, should belong to one and the same union.

    Political action and industrial action must supplement and sustain each other. You will never vote the Socialist republic into existence. You will have to lay its foundations in industrial organization. The industrial union is the forerunner of industrial democracy. In the shop where the workers are associated is where industrial democracy has its beginning. Organize according to your industries! Get together in every department of industrial service! United and acting together for the common good your power is invincible.

    When you have organized industrially you will soon learn that you can manage as well as operate industry. You will soon realize that you do not need the idle masters and exploiters. They are simply parasites. They do not employ you as you imagine but you employ them to take from you what you produce, and that is how they function in industry. You can certainly dispense with them in that capacity. You do not need them to depend upon for your jobs. You can never be free while you work and live by their sufferance. You must own your own tools and then you will control your own jobs, enjoy the products of your own labor and be free men instead of industrial slaves.

    Organize industrially and make your organization complete. Then unite in the Socialist Party. Vote as you strike and strike as you vote.

    Your union and your party embrace the working class. The Socialist Party expresses the interests, hopes and aspirations of the toilers of all the world.

    Get your fellow workers into the industrial union and the political party to which they rightly belong, especially this year, this historic year in which the forces of labor will assert themselves as they never have before. This is the year that calls for men and women who have courage, the manhood and womanhood to do their duty.

    Get into the Socialist Party and take your place in its ranks; help to inspire the weak and strengthen the faltering, and do your share to speed the coming of the brighter and better day for us all.

    When we unite and act together on the industrial field and when we vote together on election day we shall develop the supreme power of the one class that can and will bring permanent peace to the world. We shall then have the intelligence, the courage and the power for our great task. In due time industry will be organized on a cooperative basis. We shall conquer the public power. We shall then transfer the title deeds of the railroads, the telegraph lines, the mines, mills and great industries to the people in their collective capacity; we shall take possession of all these social utilities in the name of the people. We shall then have industrial democracy. We shall be a free nation whose government is of and by and for the people.

    And now for all of us to do our duty! The clarion call is ringing in our ears and we cannot falter without being convicted of treason to ourselves and to our great cause.

    Do not worry over the charge of treason to your masters, but be concerned about the treason that involves yourselves. Be true to yourself and you cannot be a traitor to any good cause on earth.

    Yes, in good time we are going to sweep into power in this nation and throughout the world. We are going to destroy all enslaving and degrading capitalist institutions and re-create them as free and humanizing institutions. The world is daily changing before our eyes. The sun of capitalism is setting; the sun of socialism is rising. It is our duty to build the new nation and the free republic. We need industrial and social builders. We Socialists are the builders of the beautiful world that is to be. We are all pledged to do our part. We are inviting—aye challenging you this afternoon in the name of your own manhood and womanhood to join us and do your part.

    In due time the hour will strike and this great cause triumphant—the greatest in history—will proclaim the emancipation of the working class and the brotherhood of all mankind.

    #USA #syndicalisme

  • Le dialogue social sous contrôle
    https://laviedesidees.fr/Le-dialogue-social-sous-controle

    Que recouvre la notion floue de « dialogue social » ? Comment se transforment ses pratiques et à quoi servent en définitive ces dispositifs d’échanges institutionnels ? Ce nouvel ouvrage de la collection Puf/Vie des idées dévoile ce qui se cache derrière les #Politique de réduction du « coût du travail ».

    #État #syndicalisme #entreprise #conflits_sociaux #sociologie_du_travail

  • French Game Developers Allege Mismanagement, Go On Strike In Minecraft (And Real Life) - Aftermath
    https://aftermath.site/spiders-mismanagement-strike-minecraft-greedfall

    To hear French game dev union STJV tell it, workers at Spiders – the studio behind flawed but consistently-ambitious role-playing games like Greedfall, Steelrising, and The Technomancer – are not having a good time right now. Today the union published an open letter to management alleging a litany of deal-breaking issues at the company, which has been signed by 44 out of 95 Spiders staffers. Next week the studio will go on strike – (partially) in Minecraft.

    #jeux_vidéo #jeu_vidéo #business #ressources_humaines #spiders #grève #jeu_vidéo_greedfall #jeu_vidéo_steelrising #jeu_vidéo_the_technomancer #jeu_vidéo_minecraft #syndicalisme #stjv

  • Allemagne : Entre défense des profits et conscience climatique – IG Metall et la mutation écologique et sociale

    Dans le cadre de la conversion sociale et écologique, il n’y a pas que la résistance du capital à surmonter, il y a aussi les réticences et pressions au sein des syndicats.
    Hans Köbrich a travaillé de nombreuses années dans l’industrie automobile. Aujourd’hui à la retraite, il est toujours actif syndicalement et participe au groupe de travail sur l’internationalisme d’IG Metall Berlin, qui entretient et développe des relations internationales avec des partenaires au niveau des organisations de base. Le groupe de travail se préoccupe également beaucoup de la question « changement climatique et monde du travail », ce qui l’amène à organiser différentes initiatives de sensibilisation dans les entreprises et les syndicats.
    Gerhard Klas s’est entretenu avec Hans Köbrich.

    https://entreleslignesentrelesmots.wordpress.com/2015/01/10/le-modele-allemand-et-loffensive-contre-les-droits-sociaux/#comment-61780

    #allemagne #syndicalisme #ecologie

  • World of Warcraft developers form Blizzard’s largest and most inclusive union - The Verge
    https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/24/24205366/world-of-warcraft-developers-form-union-blizzard-entertainment

    More than 500 developers at Blizzard Entertainment who work on World of Warcraft have voted to form a union. The World of Warcraft GameMakers Guild, formed with the assistance of the Communication Workers of America (CWA), is composed of employees across every department, including designers, engineers, artists, producers, and more. Together, they have formed the largest wall-to-wall union — or a union inclusive of multiple departments and disciplines — at Microsoft.

    #jeu_vidéo #jeux_vidéo #activision_blizzard #microsoft #syndicalisme #syndicat #cwa

  • Soziale Konflikte versus Patriotismus
    https://www.nd-aktuell.de/artikel/1182966.ukraine-krieg-soziale-konflikte-versus-patriotismus.html

    14.6.2024 von Raul Zelik -Wie ukrainische Gewerkschafter die Situation in ihrem Land einschätzen

    Zwei Jahre nach dem russischen Überfall ist die Lage in der Ukraine festgefahren. Obwohl ein Großteil der Bevölkerung die Folgen einer militärischen Niederlage fürchtet, versuchen viele Jüngere sich der Zwangsrekrutierung zu entziehen. Auf einer Gewerkschaftskonferenz in Berlin sprachen wir mit ukrainischen Kolleginnen und Kollegen über ihre Einschätzung der Lage.

    Die Hochschullehrerin

    Natalia Suslo, die im zentralukrainischen Krywyj Rih als Hochschullehrerin an der Technischen Universität arbeitet und Fachkräfte für das Stahlwerk von AcelorMittal ausbildet, vermeidet einen patriotischen Tonfall, wenn sie über den Krieg spricht. »Wir wollen ihn nicht, sondern eine wirtschaftliche Perspektive.« Allerdings schwingt in dem Satz auch mit, worum es bei dem Konflikt geht: Die Ukrainer*innen wollen selbst entscheiden können, ob sie ökonomisch sich Richtung Ost oder West orientieren.

    Sowohl die Universität als auch das Stahlwerk, in dem nach wie vor 20.000 Menschen beschäftigt sind, seien regelmäßig von Raketenangriffen betroffen, berichtet Suslo. Ihre Heimatstadt Krywyj Rih liegt etwa 150 Kilometer westlich von Saporischschja, wo Russland vor bald zwei Jahren das Atomkraftwerk besetzte. Die Beschäftigten bei ArcelorMittal unterstützten zwar die ukrainische Armee, seien aber nicht an der Kriegsproduktion beteiligt. »Wir haben aus eigener Initiative Schutzwesten und Nachtsichtgeräte für Soldaten gekauft. Aber wir stellen keine Rüstungsgüter her.« Die Belegschaft versuche vor allem wirtschaftlich etwas zum wirtschaftlichen Aufbau des Landes beizutragen.

    Auch wenn es aus Suslos Sicht nach wie vor einen starken Widerstandswillen der Bevölkerung gibt, verheimlicht die Hochschullehrerin nicht, dass an ihrer Universität viele Studierende den Abschluss hinauszögerten, um nicht eingezogen zu werden. »Das ist verständlich«, sagt Suslo. »Im Krieg sollten diejenigen kämpfen, die das gelernt haben. Bei uns möchten viele Beschäftigte durch ihre Arbeit einen wirtschaftlichen Beitrag zum Sieg leisten – und nicht durch einen Fronteinsatz.«

    Auf die Frage, ob der nach dem russischen Überfall überbordende ukrainische Patriotismus nicht auch zu einem Problem geworden sei, reagiert Suslo zögerlich. Kulturelle und Sprachunterschiede seien in der Ukraine eigentlich keine Konfliktlinien. Aus den besetzten Gebieten seien viele Russischsprachige in die Zentralukraine geflohen. Gleichzeitig erkennt die Hochschullehrerin aber auch an: »In der Öffentlichkeit versuchen wir unsere Identität zu zeigen, in dem wir Ukrainisch sprechen.«

    Die Krankenpflegerin

    Bei der im westukrainischen Lwiw lebenden Oksana Slobodiana fällt die Darstellung der Lage patriotischer aus. Für die Krankenpflegerin, die 2019 die Gewerkschaft »Be Like Nina« gründete, geht es um die Verteidigung der schon lange missachteten ukrainischen Identität. »Unser Kampf dauert seit einem Jahrhundert«, sagt sie. »Der Konflikt wird erst enden, wenn Russland die Grenzen unseres Landes anerkennt.«

    Dennoch verschließt Slobodiana keineswegs die Augen vor den sozialen Widersprüchen im eigenen Land. Die Lage für Beschäftigte sei schon vor dem Krieg alles andere als einfach gewesen. »Aber jetzt ist alles noch schwieriger. Mit der Verhängung des Kriegsrechts hat die Regierung neoliberale Gesetze verabschiedet, und die Arbeitgeber schränken unsere Rechte ein.« Sorgen bereitet der Gewerkschafterin vor allem die Privatisierung des Gesundheitswesens. Sie sei zwar nicht grundsätzlich gegen Privatkliniken, aber befürchte, dass Menschen mit geringem Einkommen immer schlechter versorgt würden. Enttäuschung äußert sie auch über das Verhalten vieler Reicher, die im Krieg nur den eigenen Vorteil vor Augen oder sich gleich ganz im Ausland in Sicherheit gebracht hätten.

    Auf die Nachfrage, ob sie es als Gewerkschafterin nicht auch als Verlust empfinde, wenn die eher plurinationale Identität, wie es sie in Zeiten der Sowjetunion gab, durch nationalistische Zuordnungen verdrängt werde, reagiert Slobodiana mit Kopfschütteln. »Klassenbewusstsein ist wichtig, aber ich möchte nicht in die sowjetische Vergangenheit zurückversetzt werden. Die ukrainische Identität hatte in der Sowjetunion keinen Platz. Meine Familie wurde damals verfolgt und hat sehr gelitten. Wir wollen – wie Polen oder Deutsche – als Nation anerkannt sein.«

    Der Organizer

    Der junge Organizer Artjom Tidwa von der kleinen linken Organisation Sozialnyj Ruch (Soziale Bewegung) führt sowohl nationale als auch pragmatische Argumente ins Feld, warum ein Sieg Russlands seiner Meinung nach unbedingt verhindert werden muss. »Ob die Ukrainer als ethnische Gruppe weiter existieren, hängt vom Ausgang des Kriegs ab. Wenn man von Russen spricht, denkt man nicht an Kalmücken oder Tartaren. Die russische imperiale Konstruktion erkennt ihre Existenz nicht an. Dasselbe würde nach einer Niederlage auch für uns gelten.« Darüber hinaus geht es Tidwa aber auch um soziale und politische Grundrechte. »Die Russen haben viele Aktive aus Zivilgesellschaft, Gewerkschaften und NGOs entführt. Außerdem ist die Neoliberalisierung in Russland weiter fortgeschritten«, betont der in Kiew lebende Organizer. »In der Ukraine gibt es zwar auch gewerkschaftsfeindliche Gesetze, aber die sind ans Kriegsrecht gebunden. In Russland dagegen ist es normal, wegen einer Demonstration verhaftet zu werden.« So sitze beispielsweise der Gründer einer russischen Rider-Gewerkschaft im Gefängnis. In der Ukraine dagegen seien die Polizeieinheiten zur Bekämpfung von Demonstrationen nach der Maidan-Revolution 2014 aufgelöst worden.

    Ihm sei durchaus bewusst, dass auch die Europäische Union ihre ökonomischen Interessen verfolge und aus der Situation Profit zu schlagen versuche. »Aber bei einer Integration Richtung EU hat unsere Gesellschaft eine Chance auf eine Zukunft. Bei einer Unterwerfung unter Russland sehe ich das nicht.« Es sei Aufgabe der europäischen und ukrainischen Linken zu verhindern, dass die Ukraine einer neoliberalen Beutepolitik zum Opfer falle.

    Tidwas Organisation hat seit Kriegsbeginn in mehreren Städten soziale Zentren gegründet, die als Treffpunkte für Feministinnen, Gewerkschafter und emanzipatorische Linke dienen. Außerdem kooperiert die Gruppe mit internationalen Organisationen bei lokalen Projekten zur Wasser- und Stromversorgung. »Wir setzen auf Solidaritätsnetzwerke und versuchen die Bedeutung von Selbstorganisation zu vermitteln.«

    Dass die sowjetische Geschichte in der Ukraine nur noch negativ bewertet wird, hält Tidwa für einen Fehler. »Die meisten Schlachten im Krieg gegen Nazi-Deutschland fanden auf ukrainischem Territorium statt. Es ist falsch, diese Geschichte Russland zu überlassen. Putin steht in der zaristischen Tradition. Die Selbstverteidigung der Ukraine hingegen hat etwas Kommunistisches. Ohne das kostenlose Nahverkehrssystem und die öffentlichen Eisenbahnen wäre unsere Gesellschaft in den ersten Kriegsmonaten zusammengebrochen.«

    Dass die ukrainische Identität heute so stark betont wird, bezeichnet Tidwa, der mit der eigenen Mutter Russisch spricht, als »postkolonialen Reflex«. Gleichzeitig hofft er darauf, dass es in den kommenden Jahren eine alternative Perspektive auf die Geschichte geben wird. »Wenn man sich früher als Linker bezeichnete, meinten die Leute, man würde die stalnistische Hungerpolitik der 1930er Jahre befürworten«, sagt Tidwa. »Wir wollen eine andere Vision von Sozialismus. Dafür brauchen wir keine Hammer-und-Sichel-Tattoos und T-Shirts mit sowjetischen Symbolen.«

    Die Studentin

    Katia Grizewa, von der Studentenorganisation Prjama Dija (Direkte Aktion) sieht das ähnlich. Die wichtigste Forderung ihrer Gruppe, die etwa 100 Studierende organisiert, sei die Verteidigung des öffentlichen Bildungssystems. Die Politik der westlichen Regierungen hält Grizewa in diesem Zusammenhang für wenig hilfreich. »Neoliberale Reformen sind auf dem Vormarsch, für viele Menschen verschlechtern sich die Lebensbedingungen.« Ein großes Problem für die Studierenden sei, dass der Unterricht wegen der Zerstörung von Universitätsgebäuden fast nur noch online stattfinde. Ihre männlichen Kommilitonen beschwerten sich zudem darüber, dass sie das Land wegen der Wehrpflicht nicht mehr verlassen dürfen.

    Der Ansatz von Prjama Dija sei es, Studierende zusammenzubringen und solidarische Werte zu fördern. Dabei gehe es natürlich auch um die politische Zukunft der Linken. »Die Menschen werden uns danach beurteilen, was wir jetzt machen«, sagte Grizewa. »Wenn wir heute nicht kämpfen, wird die Politik nach dem Krieg nur noch von Rechten und Neoliberalen bestimmt sein.«

    Hört man den Aktivist*innen zu, ist man eher skeptisch, ob der Widerstand gegen die russische Invasion eine emanzipatorische Perspektive besitzt. Die Hoffnung ukrainischer Linker besteht eher darin, eine Verschlechterung der Lebens- und Organisationsbedingungen zu verhindern.

    #Ukraime #guerre #syndicalisme

  • Umkämpfte Koalitionsfreiheit : FU Berlin mahnt Gewerkschafter ab
    https://www.nd-aktuell.de/artikel/1182964.union-busting-umkaempfte-koalitionsfreiheit-fu-berlin-mahnt-gewer


    Die Rechtsanwälte Benedikt Hopmann und Reinhold Niemerg vor ihrer Kanzlei in der Schönhauser Allee Foto : nd/Christian Lelek

    La Freie Universität Berlin (FUB) prépare le licenciement de plusieurs syndicalistes sous prétexte de se défendre défendre contre des affirmations injurieuses. Le groupe syndical de la fac dit dans un pamphlet que le comportement anti-syndical constitue une agression contre les droits démocratiques des employés et contribue ainsi à la montée de l’extrême droite.

    Les argument des syndicalistes et avocats sont nombreux et solides. Le chancelier de l’université et les gérants de ses entreprises font tout pour réduire les salaires et vont jusqu’à refuser de payer des millions en primes prévues dans les conventions collectives.

    Lee patrins de la FUB ont forcé les employés de service du jardin botanique et des cliniques universitaires à travailler pour des sociétés privées sans convention collective fondées seulement pour réduire les salaires. Ils citent des recherches scientifiques qui montrent une correlation entre l’absence de droits démocratiques au sein des entreprises et la propagation de tendances d’extrême droite.
    On verra si les juges du tribunal du travail suivront les arguments des avocats.

    14.6.2024 Interview: Christian Lelek - Sie sind als Anwälte eines Beschäftigten der FU Berlin mandatiert. Ihr Mandant ist Vorstandsmitglied der Betriebsgruppe der Gewerkschaft Verdi und wehrt sich gegen eine Abmahnung. Ende Mai fand ein erster Termin vor dem Arbeitsgericht statt. Worum geht es genau?

    Reinhold Niemerg: Anlass der Abmahnung war ein Artikel, der auf der Internetseite der Betriebsgruppe stand. Abgemahnt wurden alle Vorstandsmitglieder – wir vertreten einen von ihnen. Es gehen aber noch weitere Betroffene gerichtlich dagegen vor.

    Benedikt Hopmann: Entscheidend ist, was in dem Text stand. Im Grunde war es ein Aufruf, sich an den großen Demonstrationen gegen rechts, insbesondere die AfD, zu beteiligen. »Beteiligt euch als Gewerkschafter« war die Stoßrichtung. Der Aufruf beginnt mit der Einschätzung, dass die Regierung die Bevölkerung durch ihre Abschiebepolitik sowie Erhöhung der Rüstungs- und Kürzung der Sozialausgaben nach rechts treibt. »Rechtes Gedankengut wächst am besten in einem Klima der Prekarität.« Natürlich fragten sich die Mitglieder als Beschäftigte: »Wie sieht es bei uns im Betrieb aus?« Und ihre Antwort lautete: »Das gilt auch für unseren Arbeitgeber. Wer Tarifverträge nicht einhält, Mitbestimmung und demokratische Prozesse im Betrieb aktiv bekämpft, sorgt für politischen Verdruss.« Dadurch fördere die FU den Rechtsruck und den Aufstieg der AfD.

    Wie begründet denn die FU die Abmahnung?

    BH: Das vom Präsidenten unterzeichnete Schreiben greift den Vorwurf auf, die FU würde aktiv Mitbestimmung sowie demokratische Prozesse bekämpfen und als gewerkschaftsfeindlicher Arbeitgeber der AfD und der politischen Rechten den Weg bereiten. »All dies ist offensichtlich unzutreffend«, heißt es in der Abmahnung. Der Artikel stelle eine loyalitäts-, eine ehrverletzende Kritik des Arbeitgebers dar, womit der Betriebsgruppenvorstand seine arbeitsvertraglichen Pflichten verletzt habe. Die genannten Vorwürfe seien außerdem nicht von der Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt.

    Auf Abmahnungen trifft man im Arbeitsalltag immer wieder. Warum hat sie in diesem Fall besonderes Gewicht?

    RN: Eine Abmahnung hat prinzipiell besonderes Gewicht. Sie steht nicht einfach nur in der Personalakte, vielmehr ist sie das Instrument zur Vorbereitung einer Kündigung. Die Arbeitgeberin weiß genau, was sie mit so einer Abmahnung macht. Ziel ist es in dem konkreten Fall, in Zukunft zu verhindern, dass gleichgerichtete politische Aussagen von dieser gewerkschaftlichen Gruppe geäußert werden. Insofern ist die Abmahnung als Einschüchterung zu werten.

    BH: Das ist ein Angriff auf die Betätigungsfreiheit der Gewerkschaften in den Betrieben, die als Koalitionsfreiheit in Artikel 9 des Grundgesetzes geschützt ist. Schließlich entsteht Meinung in hitzigen Auseinandersetzungen. Wenn ich mich durch einen Artikel zu Unrecht beschuldigt oder angegriffen fühle, dann gibt es ausgefeilte Wege, auf denen ich dem begegnen kann: das Pressegesetz, das Zivilrecht und schließlich das Strafrecht. Warum nutzt der Arbeitgeber im vorliegenden Fall diese Instrumente nicht und setzt stattdessen gleich am Arbeitsverhältnis an? Es wird gewissermaßen mit der Existenzgrundlage der Beschäftigten gespielt, sobald diese eine Meinung äußern, die dem Unternehmen nicht passt. Aber genau da beginnt die gewerkschaftliche Betätigungsfreiheit.

    Warum denken Sie, geht das Präsidium sogleich und ausschließlich den arbeitsrechtlichen Weg?

    RN: Es ist letztlich das wirksamste Mittel, um einzuschüchtern. Damit zielt die FU direkt auf die Existenz, und zwar der Gewerkschaft, auf den Gewerkschafter, der sich vor Ort betätigt. Der Einschüchterungsversuch soll die Gewerkschaftsarbeit vor Ort beeinflussen.

    Wieso denken Sie, dass die Abmahnung nicht rechtmäßig ist?

    BH: Zunächst stützt sich die Betriebsgruppe in ihrer Argumentation auf Tatsachen. Der Verstoß gegen den Tarifvertrag ist dadurch belegt, dass erst aufgrund einer lang anhaltenden gewerkschaftlichen Kampagne 312 Beschäftigten Zuschläge von insgesamt über zwei Millionen Euro nachgezahlt wurden. Ein zweites wichtiges Tatsachen-Element ist die Ausgliederung von Arbeiten. Outsourcing ist in den letzten Jahrzehnten wie ein Sturm durch die Betriebe gefegt, was für eine massive Tarifflucht gesorgt hat. Das gilt an der FU eben für die Reinigung. Und schließlich sind es auch die Verstöße gegen die Mitbestimmungsrechte der Personalräte, die nachweislich verletzt wurden und deren Einhaltung eingeklagt werden musste. Das sind aus unserer Sicht Tatsachen, die kaum bestritten werden können. Die FU geht aber noch weiter und sagt, die Kritik der Betriebsgruppe, dass die Uni mit ihrer Politik, dem rechten Rand in die Karten spiele, sei ehrverletzend, selbst wenn die Tatsachen stimmen.

    Und das halten Sie auch für unhaltbar?

    BH: Ja, denn der Zusammenhang zwischen diesen Angriffen auf Mitbestimmung und Tarifverträge und der Entwicklung nach rechts ist in Studien, die wir als Belege anführen, bereits nachgewiesen worden: Armutsgefährdung und die Zustimmung zu rechtsextremen Parteien korrelieren. Andererseits sind es vor allem Tarifverträge, die dieser Armutsgefährdung entgegenwirken. Wenn man diese Zusammenhänge ernst nimmt, bedeutet das eben, dass sich die Politik ändern muss – großflächig und in den einzelnen Betrieben.

    In der Begründung der Abmahnung beanstandet die FU, dass sie als gewerkschaftsfeindlicher Arbeitgeber tituliert wird.

    BH: Wir haben es hier mit einer Betriebsgruppe von Verdi zu tun. Und für eine Gewerkschaft im Betrieb hängt die Wertung, ob ein Arbeitgeber gewerkschaftsfeindlich ist, maßgeblich davon ab, ob er sich an Tarifverträge hält.

    Die Betriebsgruppe schlägt den argumentativen Bogen, dass gewerkschaftsfeindliches Verhalten Vertrauen in die Demokratie untergrabe.

    BH: Auseinandersetzungen um Tarifverträge sind demokratische Prozesse: Wenn eine Belegschaft zum Beispiel mittels Streik versucht, ihre Interessen durchzusetzen, ist das ein demokratischer Prozess, weil die Beschäftigten sich unmittelbar an der Ausgestaltung ihrer Arbeitsbedingungen, Löhne, Urlaub etc. beteiligen. Diese Beteiligung ist konkreter Ausdruck von Demokratie. Wenn ein Tarifvertrag abgeschlossen wird, bestimmt nicht mehr der Unternehmer allein die Arbeitsbedingungen.

    Es geht Ihnen nicht nur um die Abmahnung, sondern auch darum, festzustellen, dass hier die Koalitionsfreiheit verletzt und Verfassungsbruch begangen wurde.

    BH: Ja, die Abmahnung würde als unrechtmäßig aus der Personalakte verschwinden, wenn festgestellt würde, dass das von Ihnen genannte Grundrecht verletzt wurde.

    Von Ferne betrachtet streiten sich FU und Gewerkschaft schon immer gerne. Nun eine Gerichtskampagne gegen eine Abmahnung. Warum ist dieses Klein-Klein relevant?

    BH: Der Konflikt an der FU ist beispielhaft und hat deswegen weit über die FU hinaus Bedeutung. Es geht um die Frage: Warum wird denn die AfD immer stärker? Das beantwortet die Betriebsgruppe, indem sie sagt: »Das, was die AfD will, macht zum Teil die Regierungspolitik. Der massive Abbau von sozialen Leistungen, der Kampf gegen die Tarifbindung, die Verschlechterung der Arbeits- und Lebensbedingungen von großen Teilen der Bevölkerung einerseits und die Aufblähung des Rüstungshaushalts andererseits bereiten der AfD den Weg.« Der Kampf um den erreichten Lebensstandard ist ein Kampf, der in zahllosen Betrieben stattfindet – häufig lautlos, aber wirksam von Unternehmerseite gegen die Beschäftigten geführt. Die Gegenwehr der Beschäftigten zur Verteidigung ihres Lebensstandards ist nicht nur ein Kampf gegen die Unternehmer, sondern auch gegen rechts. Doch die Beschäftigten finden wenig politische Unterstützung. Der krasse Schwund der Tarifbindung zeigt, was uns verloren gegangen ist.

    RN: Ein Blick in die Vergangenheit zeigt zudem, dass das Klein-Klein eine Geschichte hat und in der Fläche stattfindet. In den Nullerjahren gründete die FU für den Botanischen Garten eine eigenständige Firma, die weit unter Tariflohnniveau bezahlte. Das setzt sich im Umgang mit dem Personalrat fort, der seine Beteiligung regelmäßig per Gericht durchsetzen muss. Unterm Strich summiert sich das Klein-Klein zu einer Auseinandersetzung um die Einhaltung von Regelungen zugunsten der Beschäftigten, wie sie in den Gesetzen und Tarifverträgen verankert sind – eine Auseinandersetzung, hinter der handfeste Interessen auf beiden Seiten stehen.

    Ein Richterspruch ist erst für Dezember vorgesehen. Was würde es bedeuten, sollte ein Urteil in Ihrem Sinne fallen?

    RN: Der Versuch, die Betriebsgruppe einzuschüchtern, wäre gescheitert. Damit wäre der Weg offen, dass in Zukunft weiter Politikfelder thematisiert und problematisiert werden können. Ein negatives Urteil hingegen wäre ein Angriff auf die Gewerkschaften, die sich in solchen Betriebsgruppen konstituieren. Deshalb geht es unserer Ansicht nach hier letztlich um die Verteidigung der grundrechtlich verankerten Koalitionsfreiheit.

    Benedikt Hopmann wehrte im Fall »Emmely« die Kündigung einer Kassiererin für das Unterschlagen von Pfandbonds im Wert von 1,30 Euro ab. Aktuell vertritt er Kuriere des Lieferdienstes Gorillas. Deren Kündigung wegen der Teilnahme an wilden Streiks verstoße Hopmann zufolge gegen europäisches Recht.
    Reinhold Niemerg vertritt als Fachanwalt für Arbeitsrecht Beschäftigte sowie Betriebs­räte in der betrieblichen Praxis.

    #Allemagne #Berlin #université #syndicalisme #droit_du_travail #

  • La mutinerie du Paoli
    https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/les-pieds-sur-terre/la-mutinerie-du-paoli-3492317

    En 2005, la Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée est au bord de la faillite et le gouvernement décide de la privatiser. Les marins se mettent alors en grève, montent à bord du navire fleuron de la société, le “Pascal Paoli” et le détournent vers la Corse.

    Tin tin tin !

    #syndicalisme #Corse #service_public #bateau #piraterie #mutinerie #SNCM #audio #radio #France_Culture

  • Le lobbying agricole de la FNSEA à la loupe - Splann ! | ONG d’enquêtes journalistiques en Bretagne
    https://splann.org/lobby-agricole-fnsea

    Splann ! publie la totalité des mandats de quatre figures clefs du syndicat agricole, la FNSEA. Ils siègent partout : dans les instances de santé publique, de qualité de l’air, d’environnement, de gestion de parc naturel, de gestion des risques industriels, mais aussi dans la presse agricole ou l’événementiel. Une domination qui étouffe la démocratie syndicale.

    #FNSEA #syndicalisme-agricole #lobbying

  • De la nécessité de déplacer la centralité du #Travail
    https://ecologiesocialeetcommunalisme.org/2024/05/08/de-la-necessite-de-deplacer-la-centralite-du-travail

    Il est pratiquement impossible aujourd’hui d’avoir une conversation avec quelqu’un sans que le sujet du travail ne soit abordé. Où que vous travailliez, il est rare que les conversations ne commencent pas par cette question : Et alors ? Comment ça va ton boulot ? Que vous le vouliez ou non, il est vrai que sans […]

    #Communalisme #[VF] #Communautarisme #Condition_ouvrière #Coopératives #Murray_Bookchin #Politique #Syndicalisme


    https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/46a8338aaea3e8c2f0b55823f63e5830dbaf48b194f5c58c33332e1e74e5d5dd?s=96&d=

  • « Une atteinte à la liberté d’expression » : le syndicat brestois Olivier Cuzon visé par une plainte de Gérald Darmanin - France Bleu
    https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/faits-divers-justice/une-atteinte-a-la-liberte-d-expression-le-syndicat-brestois-olivier-cuzon

    Le professeur et syndicat brestois Olivier Cuzon est visé par une plainte pour diffamation à l’encontre de la police et la gendarmerie. Plainte déposée par le ministre de l’Intérieur Gérald Darmanin, indique Olivier Cuzon dans un communiqué. L’homme a été entendu ce vendredi 19 avril après-midi au commissariat de Brest.

    "C’est la publication d’un article sur le site de Sud éducation 29, dont je suis le « directeur de publication du journal » qui est à l’origine de cette plainte, lit-on dans le communiqué. Le paragraphe sur lequel est fondé la plainte est le suivant : « Ce questionnement est important quand on connait la culture droitière, misogyne et homophobe sous de trop nombreux képis. Les enquêtes de Médiapart révélant l’existence de groupuscules nazis dans certaines casernes, les groupes de discussions racistes des policiers et gendarmes, ou la participation récente de militaires en civil à la répression des dernières émeutes de banlieues ne plaident pas en faveur du républicanisme des militaires. ».

    Olivier Couzon poursuit : "Il y a dans cette plainte une atteinte intolérable à la liberté d’expression d’un journal syndical, qui par principe a une expression engagée." Et conclut : "Au delà, cette plainte s’inscrit dans un contexte plus global de tentatives de mettre un coup de pression contre des militant.es qui s’expriment librement pour faire connaître leurs analyses des politiques gouvernementales."

    #Police #Liberté_expression #Syndicalisme

  • Organizing for Power - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
    https://www.dsausa.org/organizing4power

    Our greatest power comes from collective action, and we have a window of opportunity to flex that power in the face of rising authoritarianism, climate change, and potential nuclear war.

    We are excited to announce our partnership with the Organizing for Power global training program and invite DSA chapters, national committees, and individual members to participate. UPDATE: Registration for this course has now closed.

    O4P is a training program for organizers, developed by labor, community and electoral organizer and educator Jane McAlevey, coordinated by Ethan Earle (a longtime DSA member and former IC co-chair), and funded by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. Since its founding in 2019, O4P has trained nearly 25,000 union and other organizers from 110+ countries participating in 12 different languages.

    This training is about winning, pure and simple. It focuses on building strong organization by talking to people who aren’t already with us, and together launching strategic, high participation campaigns that are equipped to win… against bosses, landlords and all the others who benefit from exploitation and violence against the working class of the world.

    Logistical details:

    The training series launches May 10 and runs for six consecutive Tuesdays, finishing June 14.
    Each session is held twice for its global audience, first from 12-2pm ET and again from 8-10pm ET.
    This training is FREE.
    Advanced registration is REQUIRED. Registration is now closed.

    Over these six weeks, you will work on important core skills:

    organic leader identification
    word choice
    conducting structured organizing conversations
    charting and list work
    developing structure tests to gauge, show off and build power

    Key to all of this is interacting with fellow organizers to practice these skills. Weeks 2-5 include breakout groups — sometimes with DSAers and others with participants from across the world — and each week includes “campaign practice assignments” for you to do between sessions.

    It has been a challenging period for DSA and the broader US left. In the face of profound dangers, from climate change to a rigid political system to murderous bosses, we have spent too much energy fighting with each other, against people we should be joining with in shared struggle. So join with DSA comrades — and fellow organizers from around the world — to together build our networks, skill sets, and collective campaigns capable of winning real power for the working classes of the world!

    You can learn more about this, O4P’s 5th training, at Organizing for Power’s Core Fundamentals, or see its results in action in this video highlighting Berlin hospital workers who used a previous training to build toward a multi-sector strike that won a standard-setting collective agreement. Learn about the DSA training series in 2019 that inspired O4P here.

    #syndicalisme #USA #politique

  • My thoughts after attending the “Workers Rising Everywhere” training – Organizing.work
    https://organizing.work/2021/07/my-thoughts-after-attending-the-workers-rising-everywhere-training

    Ce participant canadien d’un stage O4P admire l’efficacité de l’approche de Jane McAlevey pour gagner des majorités et conclure des contrats bénéfiques pour un grand nombre de prolétaires, mais il n’est pas d’accord avec le rôle à son avis trop passif des ouvriers impliqués dans les actions syndicales suivant O4P. Je me demande comment on peut arriver à de telles conclusions à moins d’être sous l’influence de l’idéologie individualiste petite bourgeoise typique pour l’ère néolibérale. On s’engage bien pour obtenir des augmentations garanties par des contrats signés entre le syndicat et les employeurs, n’est-ce pas ?

    My thoughts after attending the “Workers Rising Everywhere” training

    A grocery store worker reflects on his experience attending the latest installment of Jane McAlevey’s “Organizing for Power” series.

    Over the course of late May and June, I attended a training entitled “Workers Rising Everywhere,” part of the Organizing for Power (O4P) series, developed by Jane McAlevey and hosted/funded by the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung. The training billed itself as “focus[ed] on building large (super!) majorities in settings such as workplaces, unions, and housing complexes in order to win the toughest campaigns and organizing battles.” As a non-unionized retail worker for Canada’s largest grocery chain, the pitch was certainly appealing.

    For a bit of background, the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung is affiliated with DIE LINKE (literally, “The Left”), the German “democratic socialist” political party which succeeded the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, who ruled East Germany from 1949 until 1989. Jane McAlevey is an American author, academic, and professional organizer who is best known for her work as a high-ranking staff person at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Other lead trainers were, as well, union staffers with impressive job titles like “Senior Organizer.”

    I must confess that this knowledge predisposed me to view things somewhat cynically from the outset. My personal experiences with socialist political parties and with union staffers have been a mixed bag. Nevertheless, McAlevey’s work is highly regarded by many labor organizers, and I figured the skills being taught might be valuable regardless of whatever strategic disagreements I might have with the teachers.
    Organizers versus workers

    Right from “go,” it felt like I was not the intended audience for the training. This was by professional organizers and for professional organizers. Though the word “coworker” did appear in two role-play descriptions, the framing was never a meeting between equals; role-play scenarios were about “the organizer” trying to get “the coworker” to sign a petition. It was always implicit that “the organizer” was working for “the union,” and never actually working alongside the object of the conversation.

    On an immediately practical level, there was no discussion whatsoever about any risks the organizer might face. The assumption seemed to be baked in that fear of retaliation was a problem for the people the organizer was speaking with, but never the organizer themself. It also seemed implicit that those of us in the training were above the messiness and complications of the workplace. We were never asked to think about our position, relationships, and so on.

    This runs entirely counter to my own experience “in the thick of it.” It’s as though, as organizers, we were assumed to have no skin in the game; to be able to act without any constraint or need for relational awareness. Of particular note, there was no training whatsoever on asking workers to meet one-on-one outside of work. It was heavily implied that organizing conversations could be had in break rooms or around the workplace. My own experience tells me that this is a recipe for getting pulled into a one-on-one meeting with the boss. Needless to say, not a lesson someone should be set up to learn the hard way.

    Anyway, if this framing of “the organizer” is problematic, its corresponding view of the people to be organized bordered on condescending. Despite the regular use of words like “empowerment,” and “participation,” it seemed that what was on offer was a model in which the organizer molds more-or-less pliable material. Questions about strategy, or even tactics, are never posed to the objects of organizing. While the organizer needs to understand the worker-object (e.g. to learn what their grievances are), this is solely so that the organizer can effectively pitch the way that their prefabricated solution will resolve those grievances.

    Put in more direct terms, there was no point in the O4P version of the “structured organizing conversation” in which we were encouraged to ask questions like, “What do you think we could do about this?” “How have you dealt with this issue in the past?” “What do you think it would take to change this?” If workers had any insights into what resolving a grievance might look like, we weren’t being trained to seek out and hear them.

    Unfortunately, in my view, this isn’t just an oversight or mistake. It reflects the essence of the strategy being promoted.
    Where is power?

    At the core of the Organizing for Power strategy is a particular notion of where power is located. In the materials we studied (chapters from McAlevey’s books), we were presented with victories won at the bargaining table and in the realm of legislation. The power we were being taught to organize for was never something exercised on the level of the day-to-day workplace, but always through institutional channels, always legalistic, and never oriented toward founding new types of power outside of these existing relationships.

    For example, in most of our role-playing, the goal was to gather signatures for a “majority petition.” The purpose of this petition was always to bolster the strength of the union at the negotiating table. To be clear, I’m not necessarily opposed to petitions, and have had some success using them in my own workplace, but there is a crucial difference. In O4P, the petition was always subordinate to the negotiation of a contract, and is never an immediate expression of a demand.

    Action was never about workers directly exercising their power on a particular problem. Even the the 2019 United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) strike is told through a lens which exemplifies the work of progressive union leaders and staffers in organizing the six-day strike, and declares an unqualified victory won in “twenty-two hour, marathon round-the-clock negotiation between the teachers’ union and management,” backed by the display of large rallies and marches. In this story, the teachers themselves appear as set-pieces, a sort of “Potemkin union,” displayed to awe the people McAlevey refers to as “political elites.”

    In this context, the orientation toward “supermajorities” takes on a very different meaning than I might have hoped. Rather than a supermajority of workers organized to realize their collective capacity for action, what we have is more like a big number to impress bosses. Rather than a model for direct democracy and workplace control, we have an army to be marched out (and back in) by labor’s generals.
    Workers rising

    My primary point of reference for seeing these differences is the Industrial Workers of the World’s Organizer Training (OT) programme, which is attentive to the details of how power functions in the workplace between bosses and workers. The OT emphasizes the relationships between workers, and their strategic understanding of their own workflow. It aims at developing workers as class-conscious organizers capable of building grassroots workplace democracy and exercising power directly.

    Where O4P tasks professional organizers with leading more-or-less recalcitrant workers to “victory,” the OT teaches workers to build solidarity with co-workers as peers. Where O4P encourages a specialized role for “activists” in taking action, the OT teaches building a workplace committee that democratically decides on actions. Where O4P sees “organic leaders” as necessary henchmen to be recruited, the OT sees leaders as embedded in a complex web of relationships which may need to be disrupted (see the excellent “Leadership is not Governance”).

    The fact is, in my day-to-day as a worker, the applications of the OT are readily apparent, and feel rooted in my direct experience. In contrast, “Workers Rising Everywhere” reminded me of the training I received in a job door-knocking to collect donations for an NGO. I don’t make the comparison simply to be dismissive — the NGO in question was genuinely interested in building power (in the form of membership, money, and signatures) to make positive change (ending the expansion of the Alberta tar sands). However, when we signed up members, it was so that their voice could be expressed through the NGO, which had ready-made infrastructure, strategy, and political relationships. And in a sense, this model really does work as far as its goal goes of gathering names, getting people to hold signs, and lobbying for reforms. What the NGO didn’t do, or to be fair promise to do, was transform the everyday relationships of power that shape people’s lives.
    Conclusion

    In the end, my disappointment with what I learned about “organizing for power” in McAlevey’s training isn’t that the methods aren’t a “winning” strategy. I genuinely believe that, as far as the goals of workplace contractualism and electoral politics are concerned, they’re excellent. Organizing membership, regularly testing capacity, and endeavouring to enter any negotiation with a strong majority is all extremely practical. Unfortunately, for deeper, more fundamental change — for building working-class power as I conceive of it — they are insufficient. In the end, despite radical-sounding phrases being thrown around, the “workers rising” was just bog-standard business unionism reunited with the lost enthusiasm of its heyday.

    x362014 is a grocery worker and IWW member living in .

    #syndicalisme #USA #Canada

  • How Jane McAlevey Transformed the Labor Movement | The New Yorker
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/persons-of-interest/how-jane-mcalevey-transformed-the-labor-movement

    Avec son programme O4P (Organize for Power) Jane McAlevey encourage et soutient les inistiatives syndicales dans le monde entier.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_McAlevey#Personal_life

    In 2009, McAlevey was diagnosed with early-stage ovarian cancer, and underwent a year of intensive treatment. On April 14, 2024, McAlevey announced on her website that she had entered home-hospice care the week before, a result of a multiple myeloma cancer diagnosed in the Fall of 2021.

    October 17, 2023 by Eleni Schirmer - The renowned organizer and theorist has a terminal-cancer diagnosis. But she has long been fighting the clock.

    This past January, Jane McAlevey spent a week in Connecticut leading an organizing blitz. In union parlance, a blitz is a quick, concentrated organizing effort, designed to engage as many workers as possible in a short period of time. The campaign’s goals were ambitious—to bring some twenty-five thousand home health-care workers into a fight not just against their bosses but against the broader social and economic problems weighing on them, including issues such as a lack of affordable housing, insufficient public transportation, and the need for debt relief. For seven days, McAlevey and about two hundred other organizers went door to door, talking to thousands of people—mostly Black and brown women employed by nursing homes, group homes, and home health-care companies. McAlevey and her team told them, “This is a new program to bring power all of you have, but often aren’t aware of, to the table.”

    For McAlevey, one of the nation’s preëminent labor organizers and strategists, the project presented a chance to revisit a strategy that she had advanced twenty-some years ago in Stamford, Connecticut, known as the “whole worker” method. In the nineties, a lack of affordable housing in Stamford—located in one of the wealthiest counties in the country—overshadowed nearly every other issue on workers’ minds. This was not a problem that could be solved by unions alone, but unions, if strategically harnessed, had the horsepower to fight it. McAlevey began organizing workers in four different sectors—janitors, cabdrivers, city clerks, and nursing-home aides—and determined that they could exert influence through the city’s churches. (“Note to labor,” McAlevey wrote about this campaign, years later. “Workers relate more to their faith than to their job, and fear God more than they fear the boss.”) Soon the city’s most powerful preachers were hosting bargaining sessions in church basements. By the time the campaign finished, more than four thousand workers had their first union and new contracts to boot. Their efforts also saved multiple public-housing projects from demolition, won fifteen million dollars for the units’ improvements, and secured new ordinances that mandated affordable-housing levels going forward.

    In the intervening decades, McAlevey has become not just an expert organizer but a social scientist of organizing’s methodology. She has written four books that have become touchstones for a new generation of labor leaders. Rather than instructing organizers to run as hard as they can in whatever direction they happen to be facing, McAlevey emphasizes strategy. She advises organizers to first conduct what she calls a power-structure analysis, which asks who has the power to change an issue (not always the most obvious targets) and what power workers have to influence those actors. She then leads workers through a series of escalating actions, from attending a meeting to wearing buttons to work to joining walkouts: she calls these “structure tests.” During the past decade, Amazon warehouse workers and Los Angeles teachers have drawn on McAlevey’s approach. (McAlevey informally advised the New Yorker Union during negotiations for its first contract, which was signed in 2021.) If at any point during this past hot labor summer, or the decade leading up to it, you encountered a group of workers strutting on a picket line or jubilantly making demands well beyond the scope of their own wages, chances are that many of them had been reading McAlevey.

    When McAlevey went back to Connecticut this past winter, she hoped that the campaign would form the basis for a book about the whole-worker methodology. The project is significant for two reasons. First, it’s her most ambitious research effort to date, involving not only tens of thousands of health-care workers but also their churches, tenants’ unions, and neighborhood councils. Unions generally limit their organizing sphere to the workplace, leaving broader social issues to political campaigns. But this approach cedes what McAlevey calls the third front of power: workers’ relationships to their communities. Without this degree of coördination, workers were unlikely to achieve anything close to their goals, which include winning a twenty-five-dollar-an-hour minimum wage and affordable health insurance.

    More fundamentally, the project is likely to be McAlevey’s last. In September, 2021, she was diagnosed with a high-risk variety of multiple myeloma. Since her diagnosis, each treatment option that her medical team has offered her has failed, faster than expected. Days prior to leading the blitz this January, McAlevey was hospitalized to receive an emergency treatment; she was thought to be living her last days. She persuaded doctors to release her—she had a blitz to lead, and the clock was running out.

    For McAlevey, relentlessness is a way of life. She talks fast, swears often, is blunt to the point of brashness, laughs easily. She has little tolerance for mediocrity, particularly on the left. Trade-union leadership, she once remarked, “choose every day . . . to lose.” When I was preparing to visit her in New York, on a cloudy April weekend, McAlevey sent me an agenda for my stay: on Saturday, we had drinks with an organizer, dinner at seven, and then all serious conversation wrapped up by tipoff. It was the Warriors vs. the Kings, Game One of the playoffs. McAlevey, who has lived part time in the Bay Area for the past twenty years, is a diehard Golden State fan.

    When I arrived at McAlevey’s place, a rent-controlled apartment in Manhattan, she welcomed me warmly, in jeans, heeled sandals, and a Warriors jersey. For most of her recent public events, she had taken to wearing a wig, concealing the effects of chemotherapy, but at home she goes without. When I visited, a layer of fine, downy hair was just beginning to grow back.

    I sat at the table while she bustled around, making salad and thawing a jar of homemade pesto for pasta. When I had first approached her about writing this piece, she’d told me that she didn’t want her cancer diagnosis to appear in the story. This was understandable but not possible: among other things, doing so would require me to strip a thread from McAlevey’s life. When Jane was about three years old, her mother, Hazel McAlevey, who was very ill with breast cancer, was taken to live elsewhere, in order to prevent Jane from witnessing her mother’s decline. At age forty-four, Hazel died. Jane was five.

    The family lived in Sloatsburg, forty miles outside New York City. There, Jane’s father, John McAlevey, became a politician, winning office first as the mayor and then as a supervisor in the county. Jane spent most of her early years grubby and unsupervised, trailing her older siblings everywhere. She became dearly attached to her older sister Catherine, who became the family’s caretaker as a young adolescent. As her reward for doing all the cooking, cleaning, tending, minding of the house, and minding of the children, Catherine was granted the largest bedroom, replete with a stereo, a television, and a prime location next to the bathroom. “I would do anything to get into that room,” Jane recalled. Though the younger siblings envied Catherine’s belongings, she was the heart of the family. “We always said she was the most loved McAlevey,” Jane recalled, “because she was everyone’s sister, mother. She played every role.”

    Raising seven kids on the wages of one public servant was difficult. When Jane was around ten, her father nearly went bankrupt, an experience that Jane only later understood as an embarrassment. Around this time, he remarried. At odds with her stepmother, Jane left home at age sixteen. As her stepbrother explained, “Jane was always at the bottom of something awful growing up. Her mother was taken off to die. Our father had no clue how to take care of family. And Jane was always at the bottom of the pile.”

    For a time, McAlevey stayed with her older sister Bri, who was living in a radical co-op in Manhattan, before enrolling at SUNY Buffalo, where she waited tables to pay for her schooling. When Governor Mario Cuomo proposed tuition hikes, she got swept up in campus organizing. As she told me, “I literally could not afford more than two hundred dollars a semester.” In her first semester at SUNY, Jane and others packed bus after bus with enraged students to register their complaints in Albany. Cuomo dropped his proposed increase. SUNY students claimed the victory.

    Shortly thereafter, McAlevey ran a successful campaign for president of the student body at SUNY Buffalo, as part of a slate whose platform was no tuition increases, no rent increases, no military-defense programs on campus, and no athletic fees. McAlevey effectively began working full time as the president of the Student Association of State University of New York. Divestment from apartheid South Africa had been a priority for SUNY student organizers for more than a decade, but Janice Fine, a former S.A.S.U. student organizer who is now a labor-studies professor at Rutgers, told me that their efforts had been poorly focussed. McAlevey changed that, shifting the target from the SUNY chancellor, Clifton R. Wharton, Jr., to Governor Cuomo. As Fine explained, “We went from targeting somebody who was an appointed official to someone who was elected, someone much more vulnerable to national perception.” In 1985, the board of trustees voted to divest $11.5 million in stock from companies who did business in apartheid South Africa.

    McAlevey got her first job in the labor movement running the Stamford, Connecticut, campaign. Afterward, she was hired by the Service Employees International Union (S.E.I.U.) to organize hospital workers in Las Vegas. McAlevey wrote in a memoir, “The union had no discernible power in any field. The workers were weak as hell in terms of anything that had to do with organizing or mobilizing. And I’d been sent there to clean the place up in general, and specifically to organize new hospital workers into the union.”

    Inspired by union tactics from the thirties, McAlevey began running open bargaining sessions, in which hundreds of workers sat head to head with the boss. “The idea is to demonstrate to the boss and to the workers themselves that the workers are standing together and the union is in charge,” McAlevey wrote, years later. Rather than having negotiators present demands, she identified workers who were passionate about each issue, and could speak directly to the employer about patient-nurse ratios, schedules, or wages. Fredo Serrano, a local nurse, told me, “Jane could figure out people. She knew what we needed. She knew where the influence had to be. She knew who the leaders were.”

    During one session, workers found themselves facing off against a notoriously hostile management negotiator, who was also a vigorous gum chewer. The more irritated he became, the louder he would chomp, scornfully blowing bubbles. “It became an outward sign of his contempt for the workers and for Jane,” Kristin Warner, a fellow-organizer, recalled. During a break, a worker wondered how the negotiator would respond if everyone started chewing gum. Jane and the staff organizers jumped at the idea and ran out to get supplies. The next time the negotiations hit an impasse, two hundred health-care workers in the bargaining room carefully unwrapped their gum and chewed it—one loud, smacking wall.

    But McAlevey’s vision of a worker-led, militant union put her at odds with the national union’s leaders, who hoped that the union would strike a deal with hospital corporate leadership. In the fall of 2006, when Vegas hospital workers were on the verge of a strike, the S.E.I.U.’s national legal leader called McAlevey. “It was a most unusual phone call,” McAlevey told me. The legal leader warned McAlevey that the national union had just renegotiated a national labor-peace accord; strikes were now off the table. If the locals disobeyed the national’s directives, they could run the risk of being placed under trusteeship, removing much of their hard-earned democratic character. (The S.E.I.U. declined to comment.)

    McAlevey told all of the worker leaders to come to her house for an emergency meeting. When they arrived, McAlevey explained the choice: they could follow national orders and call off their strike vote, or they could go forward with their plan and risk having their union doors padlocked by the national leadership. The group agreed to proceed with the strike vote. “Those workers didn’t give a shit. We were doing this,” McAlevey said. When the team notified the national legal staff the next morning, McAlevey knew that it would be only a matter of time until she would have to leave the S.E.I.U.

    Within weeks, Jane received another life-changing phone call: her sister Catherine had just been diagnosed with breast cancer. Jane got on the next flight to New York, where Catherine lived. “We spent forty-eight hours hugging and crying, and then making a plan, with me committing to regularly come home to visit,” McAlevey said. Like Jane, Catherine had long blond hair. “I told Catherine’s partner that when the first sign of hair falling out happened, to call me, and I’d be there,” McAlevey recalled. Weeks later, McAlevey was sitting with her sister at a wig store in New York, holding her hand while her sister’s head got shaved, clumps of hair falling to the floor. “Catherine was crying so hysterically, they had to keep stopping with the razor,” McAlevey told me. “I just remember thinking to myself, Act like you’re going to get through this.”

    Her sister’s diagnosis confirmed a deep foreboding. As McAlevey put it, “I always believed I was going to die in my early forties from breast cancer, just like my mother.” In early 2008, roughly a year into treatments, Catherine learned that she carried a BRCA1 gene mutation that is associated with increased risks of aggressive cancer. Catherine’s results prompted Jane to get tested. She was positive. Preventive surgeries revealed that she had early-stage ovarian cancer. As McAlevey wrote some years later, “The fuse was lit and burning early in my 40s. Just like my mother. Just like my sister.”
    Jane McAlevey standing outside on a balcony wearing jeans and a pink top
    Organizing is not an art of telling people what to do, McAlevey explains, but of listening for what they cannot abide.

    During the next year, McAlevey recovered from multiple surgeries related to her ovarian cancer and the BRCA1 gene. Stuck at home, she began writing. The resulting book, her memoir, “Raising Expectations,” reads like a shotgun spray, a fusillade of labor-organizing battle stories. Some of Jane’s mentors, including the sociologist Frances Fox Piven, wanted something more measured. Piven nudged her toward graduate school to work through her insights. So, just weeks shy of forty-five, McAlevey enrolled in a sociology doctoral program at CUNY Graduate Center.

    McAlevey spent her second summer of graduate school in the Adirondacks, on a writing retreat at the Blue Mountain Center, to finish revisions of “Raising Expectations.” One Friday in August, Catherine and her partner were planning to pick up McAlevey to spend the weekend in Saratoga Springs. But, the day before, Harriet Barlow, a mentor of Jane’s and the director of the Blue Mountain Center, approached Jane to let her know that her sister’s partner was on the phone. She told Jane that Catherine’s cancer was back. “I walked out of the office, and I remember looking at Harriet and saying, ‘My sister’s going to die,’ ” McAlevey recalled. The following spring, Catherine passed away.

    McAlevey, who had taken time away from graduate school to care for Catherine, returned to CUNY to finish her degree. Shortly after she graduated, her dissertation was published as a book, “No Shortcuts,” dedicated to Catherine. “No Shortcuts” describes three common pathways to create change: advocating, mobilizing, and organizing. Advocacy relies on lawyers, consultants, and lobbyists to secure one-time wins, often via backroom deals. Mobilizing draws in activists to participate in rallies or protests. McAlevey distinguishes both of these activities from organizing, which she defines as something stronger and more abiding. For McAlevey, organizing means that “ordinary people help make the power analysis, design the strategy, and achieve the outcome.” The book outlines the key elements of McAlevey’s method, from conducting a power-structure analysis and stress tests to identifying leaders in the rank and file. But it also offers a radical theory of power. Organizing is not an art of telling people what to do, McAlevey explains, but of listening for what they cannot abide. “Anger is there before you are,” the opening page of “No Shortcuts” declares. “Channel it, don’t defuse it.”

    Almost instantly, “No Shortcuts” became an underground bible of organizing. In the summer of 2017, a West Virginia history teacher named Jay O’Neal started a labor-themed reading group with some colleagues. “We were, like, the teaching conditions suck in West Virginia,” he told me. “How can we get our unions moving and doing something?” McAlevey’s distinctions between advocacy, mobilizing, and organizing gave the group language for their frustration, and her emphasis on power structures helped them decide to target the state legislature. “It’s like when you’re growing up and you hear, like, a love song, and you’re, like, Oh, that’s exactly how I’ve been feeling,” O’Neal explained. Within months, O’Neal and his colleagues led a statewide walkout that set off the #RedForEd teachers’ strikes. In 2017, the leaders of Los Angeles’s teachers’ union had a chapter-by-chapter discussion of “No Shortcuts” that guided the buildup to the union’s successful strike in 2019.

    McAlevey’s influence spread to other progressive struggles. Naomi Klein, the leading climate activist and writer, told me that McAlevey’s focus on winning helped the movement to reframe the climate crisis as a power struggle. “We’re not losing because people don’t know there’s a problem,” Klein told me. “We’re losing because there are vested interests who may not be large in number, but they are mighty in their political and economic power.” McAlevey’s work, she went on, asked, “Where’s your war room? Where’s your power map? Have you stress-tested?” I recently found myself talking to a McGill professor from Nigeria who studies African diasporic social movements. “Oh, Jane!” she exclaimed, when I told her about this piece. “My Nigerian comrades have trained with her.”

    Some union organizers similarly concerned with building worker power have wondered if McAlevey’s path from union complacency to union militancy breezes over a critical component: union democracy. Mike Parker—a veteran labor organizer, educator, and author, who died last year—once observed that workers often must win the fight for the union presidency before they can win the fight with the boss. But such struggles get little airtime in McAlevey’s work. “It’s as if she hopes that current leaders will see the light and ‘empower’ their members from above,” Parker wrote. Others have taken this argument further, charging McAlevey with an overreliance on professional staff at the expense of a radically empowered rank-and-file. McAlevey throws up her hands at this critique. “The idea that you’re just gonna beat Amazon when you’ve never run a campaign in your life is, like, seriously? Gimme a fucking break,” she told me.

    After Amazon workers in Alabama failed to unionize, in the spring of 2021, McAlevey published a column in The Nation about the campaign’s weak points. “When there are more outside supporters and staff being quoted and featured in a campaign than there are workers from the facility, that’s a clear sign that defeat is looming,” she wrote. The piece drew heated criticism. Some saw it as punching down. Union leadership blamed high employee turnover for their failures. McAlevey, however, stood by her assessment. “When you do something that’s stupid, I’m gonna call it out,” she told me. “I will not take a word of that article back.”

    What some may perceive as arrogance is perhaps better understood as impatience. McAlevey has no time to waste. In fact, none of us do. She just perceives this scarcity more acutely than most. In recent months, she said, she has been working harder than ever: “I feel great and I feel horrible. I feel frenetic.”

    In March of 2022, after five months of intensive chemotherapy, McAlevey received a stem-cell transplant. For three months, she sealed herself in her apartment, recovering, but also revising a new book, which had just received peer reviews. Published this spring, “Rules to Win By,” which she co-authored with Abby Lawlor, is part theory and part nuts and bolts; its focus is McAlevey’s strategy of using big, open bargaining sessions to secure winning contracts.

    When autumn arrived, McAlevey, who is a senior policy fellow at the Labor Center at the University of California, Berkeley, joined thousands of her U.C. co-workers on strike. One day, on the picket line, she collapsed—probably the result of a long bike ride the day before, she thought. She went to the hospital, where a panel of blood work revealed that the stem-cell transplant had failed; a treatment that typically results in five to seven years of remission had lasted her less than a year. McAlevey was put on high-dose chemotherapy and underwent radiation treatments on her hip and jaw.

    By Christmas, it became clear that the treatment plan wasn’t working. The most promising treatment for multiple myeloma was a course of cellular immunotherapy, but McAlevey’s doctors believed that her condition wasn’t stable enough to make her a promising candidate. “It wasn’t worth it to any doctors to get me in their clinical trials,” McAlevey told me. Uncharacteristically, she paused. “That was pretty intense.”

    Shortly after the New Year, a group of McAlevey’s closest friends met at her home in California to help arrange her affairs. Together, they packed up nearly fifty boxes of McAlevey’s favorite belongings—clothing, pottery, art work, jewelry, books—which would be sent to close friends and family upon her death. The next week, she flew to New York to begin an intensive treatment regimen at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. If this treatment did not take, she would be heading to hospice. Friends and family from around the world lined up next to her hospital bed, crying, telling her they loved her. “I called it death tourism,” McAlevey told me. She was grateful for it.

    When the treatment ended, with no hitches, McAlevey began negotiating her release. The blitz in Connecticut was to start at the end of the month. “I mean, I hadn’t reacted badly to any of their tests or treatments,” she told me. “I just wanted them to let me the hell out of here. And my doctor was, like, We’re not getting you out of here to go do some crazy thing with a bunch of people, and I said, ‘Yeah, actually, you are.’ ” McAlevey, the expert negotiator, won.

    By this past spring, Jane had defied doctors’ predictions: she was not dead. This piece of good news coincided with another—“Rules to Win By” was about to launch. On March 25th, McAlevey’s friends held a party to toast her accomplishments, including still being alive and completing a book.

    The party was at the People’s Forum, a political-education and event space in midtown Manhattan. In the morning, fifty or so guests joined a live discussion of McAlevey’s legacy for the podcast “The Dig.” McAlevey, who was wearing jeans, puffy purple shoes, and a sleeveless, peach blouse, took the stage, along with her interviewer, the Jacobin editor Micah Uetricht. Uetricht lobbed slow, arching questions at McAlevey that allowed her to reflect on her life’s work. Organizing is a craft. Everyone can do it, but it depends on concrete methods and skills. “Every day, for organizers, there’s a strategic choice, the possibility of choosing a way to win. I write books to call people out and say, ‘Let’s try to win today,’ ” McAlevey explained.

    When the session ended, I looked around the room. A few rows from me, an older, mustached man wearing a flannel shirt caught my eye. I recognized him as Marshall Ganz, a famed labor organizer with Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Workers campaign, who is widely credited with developing the grassroots model for Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential run. Speaking softly, almost musically, he told me, “Jane and I, we belong to the same church. We fundamentally believe that people have power—not as props, not as resources, but as people with agency.” We were among the last guests still in the room when he pulled out his phone and began reading me a Mary Oliver poem that, he said, reminds him of McAlevey. “I look upon time as no more than an idea,” Ganz read. “Each body a lion of courage, and something / precious to the earth.”

    By evening, the rows of folding chairs had been cleared out to make a dance floor, bottles of wine and champagne had replaced the coffee carafes, and hot trays of catered Lebanese food lined the back walls. McAlevey had changed out of her jeans and wore a sweeping red dress and heels, with her head bare. The crowd milled around, sipping champagne, until the party’s m.c.s, two comedians, announced the first activity: Icebreaker Jane Bingo. Everyone received a bingo grid with squares containing phrases like “Too intimidated by Jane to hit on her”; “Have a selfie with Bernie Sanders”; “Are also dying.”

    In a toast, Janice Fine, Jane’s longtime friend and comrade, reported that McAlevey had fired her from the party-planning committee. “I was making things too emotional,” she chuckled. Bronwyn Dobchuk-Land, a friend of Jane’s from graduate school at CUNY and a criminal-justice professor at the University of Winnipeg, teased, “Well, Jane, if you had known your life was going to be cut short, do you think you would have come to Winnipeg three times? Joke’s on you.” Dobchuk-Land told of a time when Jane took a very pregnant Bronwyn on a vigorous walk to the top of Winnipeg’s “Garbage Hill,” precipitating Bronwyn’s labor. While Bronwyn was in the hospital, Jane cleaned her house, stocked her fridge, and did her laundry. She was the first friend to hold Bronwyn’s daughter. “And I believe she planned it that way,” Dobchuk-Land said. “To know Jane is to be organized by her.”

    #syndicalisme #USA

  • Wie Jane McAlevey die Arbeiterbewegung veränderte
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/persons-of-interest/how-jane-mcalevey-transformed-the-labor-movement

    17.4.2024 von Eleni Schirmer - Die renommierte Organisatorin und Theoretikerin hat Krebs im Endstadium. Sie kämpft schon lange gegen die Zeit.

    Im Januar dieses Jahres verbrachte Jane McAlevey eine Woche in Connecticut, um eine Blitzaktion zu leiten. Im Gewerkschaftsjargon ist eine Blitzaktion eine schnelle, konzentrierte Organisierungsmaßnahme, die darauf abzielt, in kurzer Zeit so viele Arbeitnehmer wie möglich zu erreichen. Die Ziele der Kampagne waren ehrgeizig: Etwa 25.000 Beschäftigte in der häuslichen Krankenpflege sollten nicht nur gegen ihre Chefs kämpfen, sondern auch gegen die allgemeinen sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Probleme, die auf ihnen lasten, wie z. B. der Mangel an bezahlbarem Wohnraum, unzureichende öffentliche Verkehrsmittel und die Notwendigkeit eines Schuldenerlasses. Sieben Tage lang gingen McAlevey und etwa zweihundert andere Organisatoren von Tür zu Tür und sprachen mit Tausenden von Menschen, vor allem mit schwarzen und braunen Frauen, die in Pflegeheimen, Wohngruppen und häuslichen Pflegediensten beschäftigt sind. McAlevey und ihr Team sagten ihnen: „Dies ist ein neues Programm, um die Macht, die ihr alle habt, euch aber oft nicht bewusst ist, an den Tisch zu bringen.“
    Für McAlevey, eine der landesweit führenden Gewerkschaftsorganisatorinnen und -strategen, bot das Projekt die Gelegenheit, eine Strategie wieder aufzugreifen, die sie vor über zwanzig Jahren in Stamford, Connecticut, entwickelt hatte und die als „whole worker“-Methode bekannt ist. In den neunziger Jahren überschattete der Mangel an erschwinglichem Wohnraum in Stamford, das in einem der reichsten Bezirke des Landes liegt, fast alle anderen Themen, die die Arbeitnehmer beschäftigten. Dieses Problem konnte nicht von den Gewerkschaften allein gelöst werden, aber die Gewerkschaften verfügten, wenn sie strategisch eingesetzt wurden, über die Kraft, es zu bekämpfen. McAlevey begann mit der Organisierung von Arbeitnehmern in vier verschiedenen Sektoren - Hausmeister, Taxifahrer, Stadtangestellte und Pflegeheimhelfer - und stellte fest, dass sie über die Kirchen der Stadt Einfluss nehmen konnten. ("Anmerkung an die Gewerkschaften", schrieb McAlevey Jahre später über diese Kampagne. „Arbeiter haben eine engere Beziehung zu ihrem Glauben als zu ihrem Job und fürchten Gott mehr als ihren Chef“). Bald schon veranstalteten die einflussreichsten Prediger der Stadt Verhandlungssitzungen in Kirchenkellern. Als die Kampagne zu Ende war, hatten mehr als viertausend Arbeiter ihre erste Gewerkschaft und dazu noch neue Verträge. Ihre Bemühungen bewahrten auch mehrere öffentliche Wohnungsbauprojekte vor dem Abriss, brachten fünfzehn Millionen Dollar für die Verbesserung der Wohnungen ein und sorgten für neue Verordnungen, die künftig erschwingliche Wohnungen vorschrieben.
    In den vergangenen Jahrzehnten hat sich McAlevey nicht nur zu einer Expertin in Sachen Organisation entwickelt, sondern auch zu einer Sozialwissenschaftlerin, die sich mit der Methodik der Organisation befasst. Sie hat vier Bücher geschrieben, die zu Prüfsteinen für eine neue Generation von Gewerkschaftsführern geworden sind. Anstatt Organisatoren anzuweisen, so viel wie möglich in die Richtung zu rennen, in die sie gerade schauen, legt McAlevey Wert auf Strategie. Sie rät den Organisatoren, zunächst eine so genannte Machtstrukturanalyse durchzuführen, bei der gefragt wird, wer die Macht hat, ein Thema zu verändern (nicht immer die offensichtlichsten Ziele) und welche Macht die Arbeitnehmer haben, diese Akteure zu beeinflussen. Dann führt sie die Arbeiter durch eine Reihe von eskalierenden Aktionen, von der Teilnahme an einer Versammlung über das Tragen von Buttons zur Arbeit bis hin zur Teilnahme an Arbeitsniederlegungen: Sie nennt diese „Strukturtests“. In den letzten zehn Jahren haben sich die Lagerarbeiter von Amazon und die Lehrer von Los Angeles auf McAleveys Ansatz gestützt. (McAlevey beriet die New Yorker Gewerkschaft informell bei den Verhandlungen für ihren ersten Vertrag, der 2021 unterzeichnet wurde.) Wenn Sie während des vergangenen heißen Arbeitssommers oder in den zehn Jahren davor einer Gruppe von Arbeitern begegnet sind, die auf einer Streikpostenkette stolziert sind oder jubelnd Forderungen gestellt haben, die weit über ihre eigenen Löhne hinausgingen, stehen die Chancen gut, dass viele von ihnen McAlevey gelesen haben.
    Als McAlevey im vergangenen Winter nach Connecticut zurückkehrte, hoffte sie, dass die Kampagne die Grundlage für ein Buch über die Gesamtarbeitermethode bilden würde. Das Projekt ist aus zwei Gründen von Bedeutung. Erstens ist es ihr bisher ehrgeizigstes Forschungsprojekt, an dem nicht nur Zehntausende von Beschäftigten im Gesundheitswesen beteiligt sind, sondern auch ihre Kirchen, Mietergewerkschaften und Nachbarschaftsräte. Die Gewerkschaften beschränken ihren Organisationsbereich im Allgemeinen auf den Arbeitsplatz und überlassen umfassendere soziale Fragen den politischen Kampagnen. Doch bei diesem Ansatz wird das aufgegeben, was McAlevey die dritte Front der Macht nennt: die Beziehungen der Arbeitnehmer zu ihren Gemeinschaften. Ohne ein solches Maß an Koordination ist es unwahrscheinlich, dass die Arbeitnehmer auch nur annähernd ihre Ziele erreichen, zu denen ein Mindestlohn von 25 Dollar pro Stunde und eine bezahlbare Krankenversicherung gehören.
    Noch wichtiger ist, dass das Projekt wahrscheinlich McAleveys letztes sein wird. Im September 2021 wurde bei ihr eine Hochrisiko-Variante des Multiplen Myeloms diagnostiziert. Seit ihrer Diagnose ist jede Behandlungsmöglichkeit, die ihr von ihrem Ärzteteam angeboten wurde, schneller als erwartet gescheitert. Wenige Tage vor der Blitzaktion im Januar dieses Jahres wurde McAlevey für eine Notfallbehandlung ins Krankenhaus eingeliefert; man ging davon aus, dass sie ihre letzten Tage erleben würde. Sie überredete die Ärzte, sie zu entlassen - sie hatte eine Blitzaktion zu leiten, und die Zeit lief ihr davon.
    Für McAlevey ist die Unerbittlichkeit eine Lebenseinstellung. Sie redet schnell, flucht oft, ist unverblümt bis hin zur Unverschämtheit und lacht leicht. Sie hat wenig Toleranz für Mittelmäßigkeit, insbesondere auf der Linken. Die Gewerkschaftsführung, so bemerkte sie einmal, „entscheidet sich jeden Tag ... dafür, zu verlieren“. Als ich mich darauf vorbereitete, sie an einem wolkenverhangenen Aprilwochenende in New York zu besuchen, schickte mir McAlevey einen Zeitplan für meinen Aufenthalt: Am Samstag gab es Drinks mit einem Organisator, um sieben Uhr Abendessen, und bis zum Anpfiff des Spiels waren alle ernsthaften Gespräche beendet. Es war das Spiel der Warriors gegen die Kings, Spiel eins der Playoffs. McAlevey, der in den letzten zwanzig Jahren teilweise in der Bay Area gelebt hat, ist ein eingefleischter Golden-State-Fan.
    Als ich bei McAlevey ankam, einer mietpreisgebundenen Wohnung in Manhattan, begrüßte sie mich herzlich in Jeans, hochhackigen Sandalen und einem Warriors-Trikot. Bei den meisten ihrer öffentlichen Auftritte in letzter Zeit trug sie eine Perücke, um die Auswirkungen der Chemotherapie zu verbergen, aber zu Hause trägt sie keine. Als ich sie besuchte, begann gerade eine Schicht feiner, flaumiger Haare nachzuwachsen.
    Ich saß am Tisch, während sie emsig Salat zubereitete und ein Glas mit selbstgemachtem Pesto für die Pasta auftaute. Als ich sie zum ersten Mal darauf ansprach, diesen Artikel zu schreiben, hatte sie mir gesagt, sie wolle nicht, dass ihre Krebsdiagnose in der Geschichte auftaucht. Das war zwar verständlich, aber nicht möglich: Unter anderem hätte ich dafür einen Faden aus McAleveys Leben reißen müssen. Als Jane etwa drei Jahre alt war, wurde ihre Mutter, Hazel McAlevey, die schwer an Brustkrebs erkrankt war, in ein anderes Haus gebracht, damit Jane den Verfall ihrer Mutter nicht miterleben musste. Im Alter von vierundvierzig Jahren starb Hazel. Jane war fünf Jahre alt.
    Die Familie lebte in Sloatsburg, vierzig Meilen außerhalb von New York City. Dort wurde Janes Vater, John McAlevey, Politiker, der zunächst das Amt des Bürgermeisters und dann das des Bezirksaufsehers errang. Jane verbrachte die meiste Zeit ihrer frühen Jahre schmuddelig und unbeaufsichtigt und lief ihren älteren Geschwistern überallhin nach. Sie hängte sich sehr an ihre ältere Schwester Catherine, die als junge Heranwachsende die Haushälterin der Familie wurde. Als Belohnung dafür, dass sie sich um das Kochen, Putzen, Hüten des Hauses und der Kinder kümmerte, erhielt Catherine das größte Schlafzimmer mit einer Stereoanlage, einem Fernseher und einem erstklassigen Platz neben dem Badezimmer. „Ich würde alles tun, um in dieses Zimmer zu kommen“, erinnerte sich Jane. Obwohl die jüngeren Geschwister Catherine um ihr Hab und Gut beneideten, war sie das Herz der Familie. „Wir haben immer gesagt, dass sie die beliebteste McAlevey war“, erinnerte sich Jane, „denn sie war für alle die Schwester, die Mutter. Sie hat jede Rolle gespielt.“
    Sieben Kinder mit dem Gehalt eines Staatsbediensteten großzuziehen, war schwierig. Als Jane etwa zehn Jahre alt war, ging ihr Vater fast bankrott, eine Erfahrung, die Jane erst später als peinlich empfand. Etwa zu dieser Zeit heiratete er erneut. Im Streit mit ihrer Stiefmutter verließ Jane im Alter von sechzehn Jahren ihr Zuhause. Ihr Stiefbruder erklärte: „Jane war immer der Grund für etwas Schreckliches, als sie aufwuchs. Ihre Mutter wurde zum Sterben weggebracht. Unser Vater hatte keine Ahnung, wie man sich um die Familie kümmert. Und Jane war immer das Schlusslicht.“
    Eine Zeit lang wohnte McAlevey bei ihrer älteren Schwester Bri, die in einer radikalen Wohngemeinschaft in Manhattan lebte, bevor sie sich an der SUNY Buffalo einschrieb, wo sie kellnerte, um ihre Ausbildung zu finanzieren. Als Gouverneur Mario Cuomo Studiengebührenerhöhungen vorschlug, engagierte sie sich in der Campus-Organisation. Wie sie mir erzählte, „konnte ich mir buchstäblich nicht mehr als zweihundert Dollar pro Semester leisten“. In ihrem ersten Semester an der SUNY füllten Jane und andere einen Bus nach dem anderen mit wütenden Studenten, um ihre Beschwerden in Albany vorzutragen. Cuomo ließ seine geplante Erhöhung fallen. Die SUNY-Studenten beanspruchten den Sieg für sich.
    Kurz darauf kandidierte McAlevey erfolgreich für das Amt des Präsidenten der Studentenschaft an der SUNY Buffalo, als Teil einer Liste, deren Programm keine Erhöhung der Studiengebühren, keine Erhöhung der Mieten, keine militärischen Verteidigungsprogramme auf dem Campus und keine Sportgebühren vorsah. McAlevey begann tatsächlich Vollzeit als Präsident der Studentenvereinigung der State University of New York zu arbeiten. Die Abkehr von der Apartheid in Südafrika hatte für die Studentenorganisation der SUNY seit mehr als einem Jahrzehnt Priorität, aber Janice Fine, eine ehemalige S.A.S.U.-Studentenorganisatorin, die jetzt Professorin für Arbeitsstudien an der Rutgers University ist, sagte mir, dass ihre Bemühungen wenig zielgerichtet gewesen seien. McAlevey änderte dies, indem er das Ziel vom SUNY-Kanzler Clifton R. Wharton Jr. auf Gouverneur Cuomo verlagerte. Fine erklärte: „Wir nahmen nicht mehr jemanden ins Visier, der ein ernannter Beamter war, sondern jemanden, der gewählt wurde, jemanden, der für die nationale Wahrnehmung viel anfälliger war.“ 1985 beschloss das Kuratorium, Aktien im Wert von 11,5 Millionen Dollar von Unternehmen zu veräußern, die mit dem südafrikanischen Apartheidsystem Geschäfte machten.
    McAlevey erhielt ihren ersten Job in der Arbeiterbewegung, als sie die Kampagne in Stamford, Connecticut, leitete. Danach wurde sie von der Service Employees International Union (S.E.I.U.) angeworben, um Krankenhausmitarbeiter in Las Vegas zu organisieren. McAlevey schrieb in ihren Memoiren: „Die Gewerkschaft hatte in keinem Bereich eine erkennbare Macht. Die Arbeiter waren verdammt schwach in Bezug auf alles, was mit Organisieren oder Mobilisieren zu tun hatte. Und ich war dorthin geschickt worden, um allgemein aufzuräumen und speziell neue Krankenhausmitarbeiter in der Gewerkschaft zu organisieren.“
    Inspiriert von Gewerkschaftstaktiken aus den dreißiger Jahren begann McAlevey, offene Verhandlungsrunden zu veranstalten, bei denen Hunderte von Arbeitnehmern dem Chef direkt gegenübersaßen. „Die Idee ist, dem Chef und den Beschäftigten selbst zu zeigen, dass die Beschäftigten zusammenstehen und die Gewerkschaft das Sagen hat“, schrieb McAlevey Jahre später. Anstatt Verhandlungsführer mit Forderungen zu beauftragen, suchte sie nach Arbeitnehmern, denen die einzelnen Themen am Herzen lagen und die direkt mit dem Arbeitgeber über das Verhältnis zwischen Patienten und Pflegern, die Dienstpläne oder die Löhne sprechen konnten. Fredo Serrano, ein ortsansässiger Krankenpfleger, sagte mir: „Jane konnte die Leute erkennen. Sie wusste, was wir brauchten. Sie wusste, wo der Einfluss sein musste. Sie wusste, wer die Führungskräfte waren.“
    Während einer Sitzung sahen sich die Arbeitnehmer einem notorisch feindseligen Verhandlungsführer der Unternehmensleitung gegenüber, der auch noch heftig Kaugummi kaute. Je gereizter er wurde, desto lauter kaute er und pustete verächtlich Blasen. „Das war ein äußeres Zeichen seiner Verachtung für die Arbeiter und für Jane“, erinnerte sich Kristin Warner, eine Mitorganisatorin. In einer Pause fragte ein Arbeiter, wie der Verhandlungsführer reagieren würde, wenn alle anfangen würden, Kaugummi zu kauen. Jane und die Mitarbeiterorganisatoren sprangen auf die Idee an und rannten los, um Nachschub zu holen. Als die Verhandlungen das nächste Mal in eine Sackgasse gerieten, packten zweihundert Beschäftigte des Gesundheitswesens im Verhandlungssaal vorsichtig ihren Kaugummi aus und kauten ihn - mit einem lauten, schmatzenden Geräusch an der Wand.
    McAleveys Vision einer von den Arbeitnehmern geführten, kämpferischen Gewerkschaft brachte sie jedoch in Konflikt mit der nationalen Gewerkschaftsführung, die hoffte, dass die Gewerkschaft eine Einigung mit der Unternehmensführung des Krankenhauses erzielen würde. Im Herbst 2006, als die Krankenhausbeschäftigten in Las Vegas kurz vor einem Streik standen, rief der nationale Rechtsvertreter der S.E.I.U. McAlevey an. „Es war ein höchst ungewöhnlicher Anruf“, sagte McAlevey. Der Leiter der Rechtsabteilung warnte McAlevey, dass die nationale Gewerkschaft gerade ein nationales Arbeitsfriedensabkommen neu ausgehandelt habe; Streiks seien nun vom Tisch. Wenn die Ortsverbände die Richtlinien der nationalen Gewerkschaft missachteten, liefen sie Gefahr, unter Treuhänderschaft gestellt zu werden, wodurch ihnen ein Großteil ihres hart erarbeiteten demokratischen Charakters genommen würde. (Die S.E.I.U. lehnte eine Stellungnahme ab.)
    McAlevey forderte alle Arbeiterführer auf, zu einer Dringlichkeitssitzung in ihr Haus zu kommen. Als sie dort ankamen, erklärte McAlevey, dass sie die Wahl hätten: Sie könnten die nationalen Anweisungen befolgen und ihre Streikabstimmung absagen, oder sie könnten ihren Plan weiterverfolgen und riskieren, dass die nationale Führung ihre Gewerkschaftstüren mit einem Vorhängeschloss verschließt. Die Gruppe stimmte zu, die Streikabstimmung durchzuführen. „Diese Arbeiter haben sich einen Dreck geschert. Wir haben es getan“, sagte McAlevey. Als das Team am nächsten Morgen die nationale Rechtsabteilung informierte, wusste McAlevey, dass es nur eine Frage der Zeit sein würde, bis sie die S.E.I.U. verlassen müsste.
    Innerhalb weniger Wochen erhielt Jane einen weiteren lebensverändernden Anruf: Bei ihrer Schwester Catherine war gerade Brustkrebs diagnostiziert worden. Jane nahm den nächsten Flug nach New York, wo Catherine lebte. „Wir verbrachten achtundvierzig Stunden damit, uns zu umarmen und zu weinen, und machten dann einen Plan, in dem ich mich verpflichtete, regelmäßig nach Hause zu kommen und sie zu besuchen“, sagte McAlevey. Wie Jane hatte auch Catherine langes blondes Haar. „Ich sagte Catherines Partner, er solle mich beim ersten Anzeichen von Haarausfall anrufen, und ich würde da sein“, erinnert sich McAlevey. Wochen später saß McAlevey mit ihrer Schwester in einem Perückengeschäft in New York und hielt ihre Hand, während der Kopf ihrer Schwester rasiert wurde und Haarbüschel auf den Boden fielen. „Catherine weinte so hysterisch, dass sie immer wieder mit der Rasierklinge aufhören mussten“, erzählte McAlevey. „Ich weiß nur noch, dass ich mir dachte: Du wirst das schon schaffen.
    Die Diagnose ihrer Schwester bestätigte eine tiefe Vorahnung. Ich habe immer geglaubt, dass ich in meinen frühen Vierzigern an Brustkrebs sterben würde, genau wie meine Mutter“, so McAlevey. Anfang 2008, etwa ein Jahr nach Beginn der Behandlung, erfuhr Catherine, dass sie Trägerin einer BRCA1-Genmutation ist, die mit einem erhöhten Risiko für aggressiven Krebs verbunden ist. Die Ergebnisse von Catherine veranlassten Jane, sich testen zu lassen. Sie war positiv. Präventive Operationen zeigten, dass sie Eierstockkrebs im Frühstadium hatte. Wie McAlevey einige Jahre später schrieb: „Die Lunte brannte schon in meinen 40ern. Genau wie bei meiner Mutter. Genau wie meine Schwester.“
    Im Laufe des nächsten Jahres erholte sich McAlevey von mehreren Operationen im Zusammenhang mit ihrem Eierstockkrebs und dem BRCA1-Gen. Da sie zu Hause festsaß, begann sie zu schreiben. Das daraus resultierende Buch, ihre Memoiren „Raising Expectations“, liest sich wie eine Schrotflinte, eine Fusillade von Kampfgeschichten über die Organisation von Arbeit. Einige von Janes Mentoren, darunter die Soziologin Frances Fox Piven, wollten etwas Maßvolleres. Piven drängte sie, ein Studium zu absolvieren, um ihre Erkenntnisse zu vertiefen. Wenige Wochen vor ihrem fünfundvierzigsten Geburtstag schrieb sich McAlevey für ein Doktorandenprogramm in Soziologie am CUNY Graduate Center ein.
    Den zweiten Sommer ihres Studiums verbrachte McAlevey in den Adirondacks, wo sie sich im Blue Mountain Center zum Schreiben zurückzog, um die Überarbeitung von Raising Expectations" abzuschließen. An einem Freitag im August wollten Catherine und ihr Partner McAlevey abholen, um das Wochenende in Saratoga Springs zu verbringen. Doch am Tag zuvor wandte sich Harriet Barlow, eine Mentorin von Jane und Leiterin des Blue Mountain Center, an Jane, um ihr mitzuteilen, dass der Partner ihrer Schwester am Telefon sei. Sie teilte Jane mit, dass Catherines Krebs wieder da sei. „Ich ging aus dem Büro und ich weiß noch, wie ich Harriet ansah und sagte: ’Meine Schwester wird sterben’“, erinnert sich McAlevey. Im folgenden Frühjahr verstarb Catherine.
    McAlevey, die eine Auszeit von der Graduiertenschule genommen hatte, um sich um Catherine zu kümmern, kehrte an die CUNY zurück, um ihren Abschluss zu machen. Kurz nach ihrem Abschluss wurde ihre Dissertation als Buch veröffentlicht, „No Shortcuts“, das Catherine gewidmet ist. „No Shortcuts“ beschreibt drei gängige Wege, um Veränderungen herbeizuführen: Advocacy, Mobilisierung und Organisierung. Advocacy stützt sich auf Anwälte, Berater und Lobbyisten, um einmalige Erfolge zu erzielen, oft über Hinterzimmerabsprachen. Die Mobilisierung zieht Aktivisten an, die an Kundgebungen oder Protesten teilnehmen. McAlevey unterscheidet diese beiden Aktivitäten vom Organisieren, das sie als etwas Stärkeres und Beständigeres definiert. Für McAlevey bedeutet Organisieren, dass „gewöhnliche Menschen helfen, die Machtanalyse zu erstellen, die Strategie zu entwerfen und das Ergebnis zu erreichen“. Das Buch umreißt die Schlüsselelemente von McAleveys Methode, von der Durchführung einer Machtstrukturanalyse und Stresstests bis zur Identifizierung von Führungspersönlichkeiten in der Basis. Aber es bietet auch eine radikale Theorie der Macht. Organisieren ist keine Kunst, den Leuten zu sagen, was sie tun sollen, erklärt McAlevey, sondern darauf zu hören, was sie nicht ertragen können. „Die Wut ist da, bevor du da bist“, heißt es auf der ersten Seite von „No Shortcuts“. „Kanalisieren Sie ihn, entschärfen Sie ihn nicht.“
    Fast augenblicklich wurde „No Shortcuts“ zu einer Untergrundbibel der Organisierung. Im Sommer 2017 gründete ein Geschichtslehrer aus West Virginia namens Jay O’Neal mit einigen Kollegen eine Lesegruppe zum Thema Arbeit. „Wir waren der Meinung, dass die Unterrichtsbedingungen in West Virginia beschissen sind“, sagte er mir. „Wie können wir unsere Gewerkschaften dazu bringen, sich zu bewegen und etwas zu tun?“ McAleveys Unterscheidungen zwischen Interessenvertretung, Mobilisierung und Organisierung gaben der Gruppe eine Sprache für ihre Frustration, und ihre Betonung der Machtstrukturen half ihnen bei der Entscheidung, sich an die staatliche Legislative zu wenden. „Es ist, als ob man als Heranwachsender ein Liebeslied hört und denkt: Oh, genau so habe ich mich gefühlt“, erklärte O’Neal. Innerhalb weniger Monate führten O’Neal und seine Kollegen eine landesweite Arbeitsniederlegung an, die die #RedForEd-Lehrerstreiks auslöste. Im Jahr 2017 diskutierten die Führer der Lehrergewerkschaft von Los Angeles Kapitel für Kapitel über „No Shortcuts“, das die Vorbereitung auf den erfolgreichen Streik der Gewerkschaft im Jahr 2019 leitete.
    McAleveys Einfluss breitete sich auf andere progressive Kämpfe aus. Naomi Klein, die führende Klimaaktivistin und Schriftstellerin, sagte mir, dass McAleveys Fokus auf das Gewinnen der Bewegung geholfen hat, die Klimakrise als Machtkampf zu begreifen. „Wir verlieren nicht, weil die Leute nicht wissen, dass es ein Problem gibt“, sagte mir Klein. "Wir verlieren, weil es Interessengruppen gibt, die vielleicht nicht sehr zahlreich sind, aber ihre politische und wirtschaftliche Macht ist gewaltig. McAleveys Arbeit, fuhr sie fort, frage: „Wo ist Ihr Kriegsraum? Wo ist Ihre Machtkarte? Haben Sie einen Stresstest gemacht?“ Kürzlich unterhielt ich mich mit einer McGill-Professorin aus Nigeria, die sich mit sozialen Bewegungen in der afrikanischen Diaspora beschäftigt. „Oh, Jane!“, rief sie aus, als ich ihr von diesem Artikel erzählte. „Meine nigerianischen Kameraden haben mit ihr trainiert.“
    Einige Gewerkschaftsorganisatoren, die sich ebenfalls um den Aufbau von Arbeitermacht bemühen, haben sich gefragt, ob McAleveys Weg von gewerkschaftlicher Selbstgefälligkeit zu gewerkschaftlicher Militanz an einer entscheidenden Komponente vorbeigeht: der gewerkschaftlichen Demokratie. Mike Parker - ein Veteran der Gewerkschaftsorganisation, Pädagoge und Autor, der im vergangenen Jahr verstorben ist - stellte einmal fest, dass die Arbeitnehmer oft den Kampf um den Gewerkschaftsvorsitz gewinnen müssen, bevor sie den Kampf mit dem Chef gewinnen können. Aber solche Kämpfe kommen in McAleveys Arbeit kaum zur Sprache. „Es ist, als ob sie hofft, dass die derzeitigen Gewerkschaftsführer das Licht sehen und ihre Mitglieder von oben herab ’ermächtigen’“, schrieb Parker. Andere haben dieses Argument weiter ausgeführt und McAlevey vorgeworfen, sie verlasse sich zu sehr auf professionelles Personal auf Kosten einer radikal gestärkten Basis. McAlevey wehrt sich gegen diese Kritik. „Die Idee, dass man Amazon einfach besiegt, wenn man noch nie in seinem Leben eine Kampagne geführt hat, ist doch ernsthaft? Mach mal halblang“, sagte sie mir.
    Nachdem es den Amazon-Arbeitern in Alabama nicht gelungen war, sich gewerkschaftlich zu organisieren, veröffentlichte McAlevey im Frühjahr 2021 eine Kolumne in The Nation über die Schwachstellen der Kampagne. „Wenn es mehr externe Unterstützer und Mitarbeiter gibt, die in einer Kampagne zitiert und vorgestellt werden, als Beschäftigte des Werks, ist das ein klares Zeichen dafür, dass sich eine Niederlage abzeichnet“, schrieb sie. Der Artikel löste heftige Kritik aus. Einige sahen darin eine Verharmlosung. Die Gewerkschaftsführung machte die hohe Mitarbeiterfluktuation für ihr Versagen verantwortlich. McAlevey blieb jedoch bei ihrer Einschätzung. „Wenn Sie etwas Dummes tun, werde ich es anprangern“, sagte sie mir. "Ich werde kein einziges Wort dieses Artikels zurücknehmen.
    Was manche als Arroganz empfinden mögen, ist vielleicht besser als Ungeduld zu verstehen. McAlevey hat keine Zeit zu verlieren. In der Tat hat das niemand von uns. Sie nimmt diese Knappheit nur deutlicher wahr als die meisten. In den letzten Monaten, sagt sie, hat sie härter gearbeitet als je zuvor: „Ich fühle mich großartig und ich fühle mich schrecklich. Ich fühle mich frenetisch.“
    Im März 2022 erhielt McAlevey nach fünf Monaten intensiver Chemotherapie eine Stammzellentransplantation. Drei Monate lang schloss sie sich in ihrer Wohnung ein, um sich zu erholen, aber auch, um ein neues Buch zu überarbeiten, das gerade von Fachkollegen begutachtet worden war. Das in diesem Frühjahr veröffentlichte Buch „Rules to Win By“, das sie gemeinsam mit Abby Lawlor verfasst hat, ist teils theoretisch, teils praxisorientiert; im Mittelpunkt steht McAleveys Strategie, große, offene Verhandlungsrunden zu nutzen, um Verträge zu gewinnen.
    Im Herbst schloss sich McAlevey, die als Senior Policy Fellow am Labor Center der University of California, Berkeley, tätig ist, Tausenden ihrer Kolleginnen und Kollegen an, die an der Universität von Kalifornien streikten. Eines Tages brach sie auf der Streikpostenkette zusammen - wahrscheinlich die Folge einer langen Fahrradtour am Vortag, dachte sie. Sie kam ins Krankenhaus, wo ein Bluttest ergab, dass die Stammzellentransplantation fehlgeschlagen war; eine Behandlung, die normalerweise zu fünf bis sieben Jahren Remission führt, hatte bei ihr weniger als ein Jahr gedauert. McAlevey erhielt eine hochdosierte Chemotherapie und wurde an der Hüfte und am Kiefer bestrahlt.
    Zu Weihnachten wurde klar, dass der Behandlungsplan nicht funktionierte. Die vielversprechendste Behandlung für das Multiple Myelom war eine zelluläre Immuntherapie, aber McAleveys Ärzte waren der Meinung, dass ihr Zustand nicht stabil genug war, um sie für eine solche Behandlung in Frage zu stellen. „Es hat sich für die Ärzte nicht gelohnt, mich in ihre klinischen Studien aufzunehmen“, sagte McAlevey zu mir. Untypisch für sie hielt sie inne. „Das war ziemlich heftig.“
    Kurz nach Neujahr traf sich eine Gruppe von McAleveys engsten Freunden in ihrem Haus in Kalifornien, um ihre Angelegenheiten zu regeln. Gemeinsam packten sie fast fünfzig Kisten mit McAleveys liebsten Habseligkeiten - Kleidung, Töpferwaren, Kunstwerke, Schmuck, Bücher -, die nach ihrem Tod an enge Freunde und Verwandte geschickt werden sollten. In der nächsten Woche flog sie nach New York, um im Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center eine intensive Behandlung zu beginnen. Sollte diese Behandlung nicht anschlagen, würde sie in ein Hospiz kommen. Freunde und Familienangehörige aus aller Welt reihten sich weinend an ihrem Krankenhausbett auf und sagten ihr, dass sie sie liebten. „Ich nannte es Todestourismus“, sagte McAlevey. Sie war dankbar dafür.
    Als die Behandlung ohne Probleme abgeschlossen war, begann McAlevey, über ihre Entlassung zu verhandeln. Die Blitzaktion in Connecticut sollte Ende des Monats beginnen. „Ich meine, ich hatte auf keinen der Tests oder Behandlungen schlecht reagiert“, sagte sie mir. „Ich wollte einfach nur, dass sie mich hier rauslassen. Und mein Arzt sagte: Wir holen Sie hier nicht raus, damit Sie etwas Verrücktes mit einem Haufen Leute machen, und ich sagte: ’Doch, eigentlich schon.’“ McAlevey, der erfahrene Verhandlungsführer, gewann.
    Im vergangenen Frühjahr hatte Jane die Prognosen der Ärzte widerlegt: Sie war nicht tot. Diese gute Nachricht fiel mit einer anderen zusammen: „Rules to Win By“ stand kurz vor der Veröffentlichung. Am 25. März veranstalteten McAleveys Freunde eine Party, um auf ihre Leistungen anzustoßen: dass sie noch am Leben ist und ein Buch fertiggestellt hat.
    Die Party fand im People’s Forum statt, einem Raum für politische Bildung und Veranstaltungen in Midtown Manhattan. Am Morgen nahmen etwa fünfzig Gäste an einer Live-Diskussion über McAleveys Vermächtnis für den Podcast „The Dig“ teil. McAlevey, die Jeans, lila Schuhe und eine ärmellose, pfirsichfarbene Bluse trug, betrat die Bühne zusammen mit ihrem Interviewer, dem Jacobin-Redakteur Micah Uetricht. Uetricht löcherte McAlevey mit langsamen, bogenförmigen Fragen, die es ihr ermöglichten, über ihr Lebenswerk zu reflektieren. Organisieren ist ein Handwerk. Jeder kann es tun, aber es hängt von konkreten Methoden und Fähigkeiten ab. „Für Organisatoren gibt es jeden Tag eine strategische Wahl, die Möglichkeit, einen Weg zu wählen, um zu gewinnen. Ich schreibe Bücher, um die Leute aufzurufen und zu sagen: ’Lasst uns heute versuchen zu gewinnen’“, erklärte McAlevey.
    Als die Sitzung endete, schaute ich mich im Raum um. Ein paar Reihen von mir entfernt fiel mir ein älterer Mann mit Schnurrbart und Flanellhemd auf. Ich erkannte ihn als Marshall Ganz, ein berühmter Gewerkschaftsorganisator der United Farm Workers-Kampagne von Cesar Chavez, der weithin für die Entwicklung des Basismodells für Barack Obamas Präsidentschaftskandidatur 2008 verantwortlich gemacht wird. Er sprach leise, fast musikalisch, und sagte mir: Jane und ich gehören derselben Kirche an. Wir glauben grundsätzlich daran, dass Menschen Macht haben - nicht als Requisiten, nicht als Ressourcen, sondern als Menschen mit Macht." Wir gehörten zu den letzten Gästen, die noch im Raum waren, als er sein Handy zückte und begann, mir ein Gedicht von Mary Oliver vorzulesen, das ihn, wie er sagte, an McAlevey erinnerte. „Ich betrachte die Zeit nur als eine Idee“, las Ganz vor. „Jeder Körper ein Löwe des Mutes und etwas / Kostbares für die Erde.“
    Am Abend waren die Reihen der Klappstühle zu einer Tanzfläche umfunktioniert worden, Wein- und Champagnerflaschen hatten die Kaffeekaraffen ersetzt, und heiße Tabletts mit libanesischem Essen säumten die Rückwände. McAlevey hatte ihre Jeans ausgezogen und trug ein ausladendes rotes Kleid und hohe Absätze, wobei sie den Kopf frei hatte. Die Menge schlenderte umher und nippte am Champagner, bis die Leiter der Party, zwei Komödianten, die erste Aktivität ankündigten: Eisbrecher-Jane-Bingo. Jeder erhielt ein Bingo-Raster mit Feldern, die Sätze enthielten wie „Zu eingeschüchtert von Jane, um sie anzubaggern“; „Ein Selfie mit Bernie Sanders machen“; „Auch im Sterben liegen“.
    In einer Ansprache berichtete Janice Fine, Janes langjährige Freundin und Genossin, dass McAlevey sie aus dem Planungskomitee der Party gefeuert hatte. „Ich habe die Dinge zu emotional gemacht“, lachte sie. Bronwyn Dobchuk-Land, eine Freundin von Jane aus ihrer Studienzeit an der CUNY und Professorin für Strafrecht an der Universität von Winnipeg, scherzte: „Nun, Jane, wenn du gewusst hättest, dass dein Leben verkürzt werden würde, glaubst du, du wärst dann dreimal nach Winnipeg gekommen? Der Witz geht auf dein Konto.“ Dobchuk-Land erzählte, wie Jane mit der hochschwangeren Bronwyn einen anstrengenden Spaziergang auf den Gipfel des „Garbage Hill“ in Winnipeg unternahm, was Bronwyns Wehen auslöste. Während Bronwyn im Krankenhaus lag, putzte Jane ihr Haus, füllte ihren Kühlschrank auf und wusch ihre Wäsche. Sie war die erste Freundin, die Bronwyns Tochter im Arm hielt. „Und ich glaube, sie hat es so geplant“, sagte Dobchuk-Land. „Jane zu kennen, bedeutet, von ihr organisiert zu werden.“

    #syndicalisme #USA

  • BSW - eine Perspektive für Arbeitnehmer*innen
    https://arbeitnehmerpolitik.wordpress.com
    https://arbeitnehmerpolitik.wordpress.com
    Le parti Bündnis Sarah Wagenknecht comprend un fort courant syndical de gauche. Le 29 avril à Berlin les anciens membres du parti Die Linke Jutta Matuschek et Ralf Krämer présenteront leur projet pour le parti BSW. Les interessés sont priés de s’inscrire pour l’événement auprès de Gotthard Krupp ou Harri Grünberg.

    #Berlin #Tempelhof #Dudenstraße #BSW #syndicalisme #gauche

  • Gewerkschaften gegen Aufrüstung und Krieg! Friedensfähigkeit statt Kriegstüchtigkeit!
    https://gewerkschaften-gegen-aufruestung.de


    Les syndicalistes allemands pour une politique de paix, pétition en ligne.

    Die Welt wird von immer neuen Kriegen erschüttert, Menschen werden getötet, Länder verwüstet. Das Risiko eines großen Krieges zwischen den Atommächten wächst und bedroht die Menschheit weltweit. Gigantische Finanzmittel und Ressourcen werden für Krieg und Militär verpulvert. Statt damit die großen Probleme von Armut und Unterentwicklung, maroder Infrastruktur und katastrophalen Mängeln in Bildung und Pflege, Klimawandel und Naturzerstörung zu bekämpfen.

    Die deutsche Regierung und Parlamentsmehrheiten beteiligen sich an dieser verheerenden Politik. Sie reden über „Kriegstüchtigkeit“ und sogar über „eigene“ Atombewaffnung, statt sich mit aller Kraft für ein Ende der Kriege, für Frieden und gemeinsame Problemlösungen einzusetzen. Die Ausgaben für Militär sollen 2024 auf zwei Prozent der Wirtschaftsleistung, über 85 Milliarden Euro, erhöht werden und in den kommenden Jahren weiter steigen. Während in den sozialen Bereichen, bei Bildung und Infrastruktur gravierend gekürzt wird und die Lasten der Klimapolitik auf die Masse der Bevölkerung abgewälzt werden.

    Die Gewerkschaften müssen sich unüberhörbar für Friedensfähigkeit statt „Kriegstüchtigkeit“ einsetzen, für Abrüstung und Rüstungskontrolle, Verhandlungen und friedliche Konfliktlösungen. Für Geld für Soziales und Bildung statt für Waffen. Das ergibt sich aus ihrer Tradition und ihren Beschlüssen. Auch und besonders in den aktuellen Auseinandersetzungen um die internationale Politik und um die Haushaltspolitik!

    Wir fordern unsere Gewerkschaften und ihre Vorstände auf, den Beschlüssen und ihrer Verantwortung gerecht zu werden! Die Gewerkschaften müssen sich laut und entschieden zu Wort melden und ihre Kraft wirksam machen: gegen Kriege und gegen Aufrüstung!

    #Allemagne #syndicalisme #mouvement_pour_la_paix #armement #guerre

  • « La société contre l’Etat »
    http://anarlivres.free.fr/pages/nouveau.html#philosophia

    « La société contre l’Etat ». Ce thème cher aux anarchistes sera le sujet de réflexion des Rencontres de Sophie, organisées par l’association Philosophia, du 15 au 17 mars, à partir de 14 h 30, à l’Ecole nationale supérieure d’architecture (ENSA) de Nantes. Au programme (http://philosophia.fr/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/PROGRAMME-PDF-1.pdf), des conférences, des débats et un abécédaire. Nous avons été particulièrement alléchés par une intervention de Jean-Christophe Angault (spécialiste de Bakounine) sur « Etat, violence et légitimité », un débat avec Fabien Jobard et Agnès Naudin (une policière en délicatesse avec l’institution), un cours d’Edouard Jourdain sur « Etat et anarchisme », un autre débat sur « Une société sans Etat, ça marche ? », une conférence d’Elsa Dorlin sur « La plèbe en nous. Légitime défense et auto-défense » et un entretien avec la secrétaire générale de la CGT, Sophie Binet, pour « Entre la société et l’Etat, les syndicats »… Entrée libre. ENSA, 6, quai François-Mitterrand, Nantes.

    #Etat #philosophie #anarchisme #ENSA #syndicalisme

  • Votre vieux monde ? Dans nos syndicats, on n’en veut pas non plus !

    Resyfem salue la décision du 18 décembre 2023 rendue par le Tribunal correctionnel de Brest condamnant Marc Hébert pour harcèlement sexuel aggravé, par personne abusant de l’autorité que lui confère ses fonctions : c’est une victoire pour les victimes qui ont dû se battre seules face à une procédure très dure pendant 3 ans, sans soutien de leur syndicat.

    Resyfem salue la décision du 18 décembre 2023 rendue par le Tribunal correctionnel de Brest condamnant Marc Hébert pour harcèlement sexuel aggravé, par personne abusant de l’autorité que lui confère ses fonctions

    https://entreleslignesentrelesmots.wordpress.com/2024/01/22/votre-vieux-monde-dans-nos-syndicats-on-nen-ve

    #féminisme #violence #syndicat

    • Elles ont également dû faire face [au sein de FO] à une défense caractéristique des agresseurs sexuels dans un cadre militant ou politique : elles ont été taxées de menteuses, à la tête d’une « cabale syndicale » (la théorie du complot est quasiment une constante quand les victimes sont plusieurs) ; une d’entre elles a même été qualifiée de « lesbienne militante partisane de l’émasculation des mâles » ! [source : Résyfem – Réseau de Syndicalistes Féministes]

      #VSS #syndicalisme

  • Workers at a Boeing Supplier Raised Issues About Defects. The Company Didn’t Listen.
    https://jacobin.com/2024/01/alaska-airlines-boeing-parts-malfunction-workers-spirit-aerosystems

    La sous-traitance et le licenciement de techniciens expérimentés menace la sécurité des avions Boeing. Ces problèmes touchent toutee les entreprises et organisations qui sont gérées dans le but d’optimisation financière. Là c’est la vie des passagers qui est mise en danger, ailleurs on détruit des structures d’entraide et on oblige des millions d’employés à travailler pour un salair de misère. Les dégats se sentent partout, dans tous les pays capitalistes. Il n’y a que les symdicats et le mouvement ouvrier qui peuvent nous protéger contre.

    9.1.2024 by Katya Schwenk, David Sirota , Lucy Dean Stockton, Joel Warner - Less than a month before a catastrophic aircraft failure prompted the grounding of more than 150 of Boeing’s commercial aircraft, documents were filed in federal court alleging that former employees at the company’s subcontractor repeatedly warned corporate officials about safety problems and were told to falsify records.

    One of the employees at Spirit AeroSystems, which reportedly manufactured the door plug that blew out of an Alaska Airlines flight over Portland, Oregon, allegedly told company officials about an “excessive amount of defects,” according to the federal complaint and corresponding internal corporate documents reviewed by us.

    According to the court documents, the employee told a colleague that “he believed it was just a matter of time until a major defect escaped to a customer.”

    The allegations come from a federal securities lawsuit accusing Spirit of deliberately covering up systematic quality-control problems, encouraging workers to undercount defects, and retaliating against those who raised safety concerns. Read the full complaint here.

    Although the cause of the Boeing airplane’s failure is still unclear, some aviation experts say the allegations against Spirit are emblematic of how brand-name manufacturers’ practice of outsourcing aerospace construction has led to worrisome safety issues.

    They argue that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has failed to properly regulate companies like Spirit, which was given a $75 million public subsidy from Pete Buttigieg’s Transportation Department in 2021, reported more than $5 billion in revenues in 2022, and bills itself as “one of the world’s largest manufacturers of aerostructures for commercial airplanes.”

    “The FAA’s chronic, systemic, and longtime funding gap is a key problem in having the staffing, resources, and travel budgets to provide proper oversight,” said William McGee, a senior fellow for aviation and travel at the American Economic Liberties Project, who has served on a panel advising the US Transportation Department. “Ultimately, the FAA has failed to provide adequate policing of outsourced work, both at aircraft manufacturing facilities and at airline maintenance facilities.”

    David Sidman, a spokesperson for Boeing, declined to comment on the allegations raised in the lawsuit. “We defer to Spirit for any comment,” he wrote in an email to us.

    Spirit AeroSystems did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the federal lawsuit’s allegations. The company has not yet filed a response to the complaint in court.

    “At Spirit AeroSystems, our primary focus is the quality and product integrity of the aircraft structures we deliver,” the company said in a written statement after the Alaska Airlines episode.

    The FAA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on its oversight of Spirit.
    “Business Depends Largely on Sales of Components for a Single Aircraft”

    Spirit was established in 2005 as a spin-off company from Boeing. The publicly traded firm remains heavily reliant on Boeing, which has lobbied to delay federal safety mandates. According to Spirit’s own Securities and Exchange Commission filings, the company’s “business depends largely on sales of components for a single aircraft program, the B737,” the latest version of which — the 737 Max 9 — has now been temporarily grounded, pending inspections by operators.

    Spirit and Boeing are closely intertwined. Spirit’s new CEO Patrick Shanahan was a Trump administration Pentagon official who previously worked at Boeing for more than thirty years, serving as the company’s vice president of various programs, including supply chain and operations, all while the company reported lobbying federal officials on airline safety issues. Spirit’s senior vice president Terry George, in charge of operations engineering, tooling, and facilities, also previously served as Boeing’s manager on the 737 program.

    Last week’s high-altitude debacle — which forced an Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9’s emergency landing in Portland — came just a few years after Spirit was named in FAA actions against Boeing. In 2019 and 2020, the agency alleged that Spirit delivered parts to Boeing that did not comply with safety standards, then “proposed that Boeing accept the parts as delivered” — and “Boeing subsequently presented [the parts] as ready for airworthiness certification” on hundreds of aircraft.

    Then came the class-action lawsuit: In May 2023, a group of Spirit AeroSystems’ shareholders filed a complaint against the company, claiming it made misleading statements and withheld information about production troubles and quality-control issues before media reports of the problems led to a major drop in Spirit’s market value.

    An amended version of the complaint, filed on December 19, provides more expansive charges against the company, citing detailed accounts by former employees alleging extensive quality-control problems at Spirit.

    Company executives “concealed from investors that Spirit suffered from widespread and sustained quality failures,” the complaint alleges. “These failures included defects such as the routine presence of foreign object debris (‘FOD’) in Spirit products, missing fasteners, peeling paint, and poor skin quality. Such constant quality failures resulted in part from Spirit’s culture which prioritized production numbers and short-term financial outcomes over product quality, and Spirit’s related failure to hire sufficient personnel to deliver quality products at the rates demanded by Spirit and its customers including Boeing.”
    “We Are Being Asked to Purposely Record Inaccurate Information”

    The court documents allege that on Feruary 22, 2022, one Spirit inspection worker explicitly told company management that he was being instructed to misrepresent the number of defects he was working on.

    “You are asking us to record in a inaccurately [sic] way the number of defects,” he wrote in an email to a company official. “This make [sic] us and put us in a very uncomfortable situation.”

    The worker, who is unnamed in the federal court case, submitted an ethics complaint to the company detailing what had occurred, writing in it that the inspection team had “been put on [sic] a very unethical place,” and emphasizing the “excessive amount of defects” workers were encountering.

    “We are being asked to purposely record inaccurate information,” the inspection worker wrote in the ethics complaint.

    He then sent an email to Spirit’s then CEO, Tom Gentile, attaching the ethics complaint and detailing his concerns, saying it was his “last resort.”

    When the employee had first expressed concerns to his supervisor about the mandate, the supervisor responded “that if he refused to do as he was told, [the supervisor] would fire him on the spot,” the court documents allege.

    After the worker sent the first email, he was allegedly demoted from his position by management, and the rest of the inspection team was told to continue using the new system of logging defects.

    Ultimately, the worker’s complaint was sustained, and he was restored to his prior position with back pay, according to the complaint. He quit several months later, however, and claimed that other inspection team members he had worked with had been moved to new positions when, according to management, they documented “too many defects.”
    “Spirit Concealed the Defect”

    In August 2023, news broke that Boeing had discovered a defect in its MAX 737s, delaying rollout of the four hundred planes it had set to deliver this year. Spirit had incorrectly manufactured key equipment for the fuselage system, as the company acknowledged in a press statement.

    But these defects had been discovered by Spirit months before they became public, according to the December court filings.

    The court documents claim that a former quality auditor with Spirit, Joshua Dean, identified the manufacturing defects — bulkhead holes that were improperly drilled — in October 2022, nearly a year before Boeing first said that the defect had been discovered. Dean identified the issue and sent his findings to supervisors on multiple occasions, telling management at one point that it was “the worst finding” he had encountered during his time as an auditor.

    “The aft pressure bulkhead is a critical part of an airplane, which is necessary to maintain cabin pressure during flight,” the complaint says. “Dean reported this defect to multiple Spirit employees over a period of several months, including submitting formal written findings to his manager. However, Spirit concealed the defect.”

    In April 2023, after Dean continued to raise concerns about the defects, Spirit fired him, the complaint says.

    In October 2023, Boeing and Spirit announced they were expanding the scope of their inspections. The FAA has said it is monitoring the inspections, but said in October there was “no immediate safety concern” as a result of the bulkhead defects.
    “Emphasis on Pushing Out Product Over Quality”

    Workers cited in the federal complaint attributed the alleged problems at Spirit to a culture that prioritized moving products down the factory line as quickly as possible — at any cost. The company has been under pressure from Boeing to ramp up production, and in earnings calls, Spirit’s shareholders have pressed the company’s executives about its production rates.

    According to the Financial Times, after the extended grounding of Boeing’s entire fleet of 737 Max airlines following two major crashes in 2018 and 2019, “the plane maker has sought to increase its output rate and gain back market share it lost to Airbus,” its European rival.

    Spirit, which also produces airframe components for Airbus, has felt the pressure of that demand. As Shanahan noted in Spirit’s third-quarter earnings call on November 1, “When you look at the demand for commercial airplanes, having two of the biggest customers in the world and not being able to satisfy the demand, it should command our full attention.”

    According to the court records, workers believed Spirit placed an “emphasis on pushing out product over quality.” Inspection workers were allegedly told to overlook defects on final walkthroughs, as Spirit “just wanted to ship its completed products as quickly as possible.”

    Dean claimed to have noticed a significant deterioration in Spirit’s workforce after Spirit went through several rounds of mass layoffs in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the huge influx in government funding they received.

    According to court documents, Dean said that “Spirit laid off or voluntarily retired a large number of senior engineers and mechanics, leaving a disproportionate number of new and less experienced personnel.”
    “Over-Tightening or Under-Tightening That Could Threaten the Structural Integrity”

    After the Alaska Airlines plane was grounded, United Airlines launched an independent inspection of its planes. Initial reporting shows that inspectors found multiple loose bolts throughout several Boeing 737 Max 9 planes. Alaska Airlines is currently conducting an audit of its aircraft.

    Concerns about properly tightened equipment were detailed in the federal complaint.

    “Auditors repeatedly found torque wrenches in mechanics’ toolboxes that were not properly calibrated,” said the complaint, citing another former Spirit employee. “This was potentially a serious problem, as a torque wrench that is out of calibration may not torque fasteners to the correct levels, resulting in over-tightening or under-tightening that could threaten the structural integrity of the parts in question.”

    According to former employees cited in the court documents, in a company-wide “toolbox audit,” more than one hundred of up to 1,400 wrenches were found out of alignment.

    On Spirit’s November earnings call, after investors pressed the company’s new CEO about its quality-control problems, Shanahan promised that the company was working to fix the issues — and its reputation.

    “The mindset I have is that we can be zero defects,” he said. “We can eliminate all defects. . . . But every day, we have to put time and attention to that.”

    #USA #aviation #sécurité #syndicalisme #travail #sous-traitance #salaire

  • Tesla Has Bitten Off More Than It Can Chew by Picking a Fight With Swedish Unions
    https://jacobin.com/2023/12/tesla-swedish-unions-nordic-elon-musk-labor-green-transition

    Since the end of October, mechanics at Tesla workshops in Sweden have been striking in an attempt to pressure the firm to agree to collective bargaining with the Swedish Metalworkers’ Union.

    Tesla does not manufacture cars in Sweden, so the strike covers only 130 workers. Despite the small number of affected workers, this has become a very prominent strike in the region because it pits two powerful parties against one another.

    On one side is Tesla, by far the world’s most valued automaker, currently valued higher than the next nine car companies combined. It boasts 130,000 workers and the top two best-selling EV models. On the other side is the Swedish Metalworkers’ Union, a union with 230,000 members organizing 80 percent of all workers in its sectors. With a large membership that has not taken party in many strikes, the union has amassed a war chest of about $1 billion. It is able to pay the striking workers 130 percent of their salaries.

    #syndicalisme #Tesla #Elon_Musk #Suède

  • Streikrecht : Streik soll politisch werden
    https://taz.de/Streikrecht/!5976123

    L’Allemagne ne connaît pas le droit de grêve, il n’y a qu’un droit de coaltion abstrait pour tous. Les règles juridiques encadrant les grèves sont l’oeuvre d’un juge nationalsocialiste historique et sanctionnent toute grève sans soutien d’un syndicat officiel ou pour de revendications non tarifaires. Les grèves politiques sont explictement interdites.

    Une initiative politique autour de notre avocat Benedikt Hopmann est en train de porter une affaire devant la cour de justice européenne afin d’obtenir le droit de grève comme il existe en France et d’autres pays europeens

    13.12.2023 von Peter Nowak - Die Kampagne für ein umfassendes Streikrecht lädt zur Diskussion, um Arbeitskämpfe auszuweiten.

    Die Kampagne für ein umfassendes Streikrecht lädt zur Diskussion, um Arbeitskämpfe auszuweiten
    Streikende auf den Straßen setzen sich für ihre Recht ein

    Wenn es um die Verteidigung der Menschenrechte geht, denken viele nicht unbedingt an das Streikrecht der Lohnabhängigen in Deutschland. Zu Unrecht, findet Rechtsanwalt Benedikt Hopmann. „Streikrecht ist ein Menschenrecht und das ist in Deutschland noch längst nicht umfassend verwirklicht.“

    Das will der Jurist ändern. Gemeinsam mit der Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft (GEW), Stadtteilinitiativen und juristischen Gruppen hat er sich im vergangenen Jahr in der Kampagne für ein umfassendes Streikrecht zusammengeschlossen. An diesem Donnerstag lädt das Bündnis zu einer Diskussionsveranstaltung mit Theresa Tschenker ein, die zum politischen Streikrecht in der BRD nach 1945 promoviert hat. Denn in der Bundesrepublik gibt es im Vergleich zu anderen europäischen Ländern ein besonders restriktives Streikrecht.

    Das hat vor allem mit Hans Carl Nipperdey zu tun. Er war in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus einer der Kommentatoren des Gesetzes zur nationalen Arbeit und hat 1952 während eines Arbeitskampfes ein Gutachten erstellt, das bis heute das Streikrecht maßgeblich beeinflusst. Dazu gehört das Verbot politischer und verbandsfreier Streiks, also eines Arbeitskampfes ohne gewerkschaftliche Beteiligung.

    Das Bündnis will die Spuren des NS-Arbeitsrechtlers Nipperdey tilgen. Der Kampf um ein umfassendes Streikrecht gilt einigen der Ak­ti­vis­t*in­nen daher auch als ein Stück Antifaschismus. Das Besondere an der Kampagne ist aber vor allem, dass sie nicht in einem Gewerkschaftsbüro erdacht wurde. Vielmehr hat der Kampf für ein umfassendes Streikrecht in den vergangenen Jahren im Arbeitsalltag vieler prekär Beschäftigter ganz praktisch an Aktualität gewonnen.

    Besonders die Arbeitskämpfe der Lieferdienste werden durch das restriktive Streikrecht massiv behindert. Weil die Rider, wie sich die Ku­rier­fah­re­r*in­nen nennen, oft nicht in Gewerkschaften organisiert sind, wird ihnen das Streikrecht abgesprochen. Vor dem Arbeitsgericht haben die Rider in den vergangenen Monaten daher immer wieder ein umfassendes Streikrecht eingefordert. Und dieses etwa durch wilde Streiks auch ganz praktisch ausgeübt „Rechte müssen wir uns erkämpfen, in dem wir sie uns nehmen“, so ein Mitglied der Kampagne für ein umfassendes Streikrecht, der anonym bleiben möchte.

    #Allemagne #syndicalisme #travail #droit #justice #grève

  • Direct Elections for Labor Leaders Make for More Militant Unions
    https://jacobin.com/2023/12/elections-democracy-union-leadership-militancy
    Voilà comment rendre les syndicats plus démocratiques et efficaces

    12.5.2023 by Chris Bohner - From the UAW to the Writers Guild, this year’s biggest contract victories have been won by unions in which members directly elect their leaders. That’s a right denied to most US union members — but it may be the key to unleashing broader labor militancy.

    The labor movement is rightfully celebrating recent contract victories by the United Auto Workers, Teamsters, SAG-AFTRA and the Writers Guild of America, which together cover nearly 650,000 workers. An essential thread uniting the campaigns is that the top union officers were all directly elected by the members, a basic democratic right denied to many union members in the United States. As other unions seek to learn lessons from these historic contract fights, a key takeaway is that a vibrant democratic process — “one member, one vote” — is crucial to a revitalized labor movement.

    A robust democratic process certainly played a major role in the United Auto Workers (UAW) contract fight with the Big Three automakers and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) campaign against UPS. Leading up to their contract expirations, both the UAW and Teamsters had highly competitive and contested elections for their top leadership positions, directly engaging the membership in debates about the union’s negotiation strategy with employers and concessionary contracts, improvements in strike benefits, and the removal of antidemocratic obstacles. For example, at the Teamsters’ convention, delegates removed a constitutional provision that previously allowed union officers to impose a contract even if a majority of members voted against it. Injected with the energy of a contested election, the recent UAW and Teamster conventions were marked by spirited debates about union strategy, engaging members for the upcoming contract fights.

    But a review of the constitutions of the twenty largest unions in the United States shows that “one member, one vote” is a right denied to most union members. Of the top twenty unions — representing approximately 13.3 million members and 83 percent of all US union workers — only six have direct elections. Only 20 percent of all union members, or 2.7 million, have the right to directly elect their top officers. In contrast, 80 percent of members, or 10.6 million workers, have no such right.

    Apart from the Teamsters and UAW, the only other large unions with a form of direct elections are the Steelworkers, Machinists, SAG-AFTRA, and the National Association of Letter Carriers. Some smaller unions, like the Writers Guild and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), also have direct elections.

    The Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) used to have direct elections as part of a consent decree with the Department of Justice, but the union’s executive board eliminated the practice in 2010. The Operating Engineers (IUOE) and Carpenters also had direct elections, but they moved to a delegate system in the 1960s.

    Maybe it’s a fluke of the calendar, but the majority of strikes in 2023 (through October) were led by unions with “one member, one vote” policies, even though they represent a minority of unions. According to the Department of Labor, 448,000 workers have been on strike this year, and approximately 250,000 workers (by my count), or 56 percent of strikers, are affiliated with unions that have direct elections. Perhaps a more democratic union is a more militant union.
    “One Member, One Vote” vs. the Delegate Convention System

    As opposed to direct elections, most unions chose their top officers indirectly, electing delegates to a regularly scheduled convention at the local level through a membership vote. Those elected delegates then nominate and elect the top officers.

    While formally democratic, the flaws of the delegate convention system have been widely documented. Rather than promoting worker participation and vigorous democratic debate, the delegate system tends to entrench incumbents who can deploy the union’s vast legal, financial, political, and organizational resources to maintain power and stifle reform challenges. As a result, many unions are effectively run by a semipermanent officer and staff strata insulated from member control and accountability, leading to weakened organizations and a ground ripe for corruption.

    Under the delegate convention system, the rise of new leadership at a union is typically triggered by the retirement or death of a labor official rather than a challenger winning a contested election. Union conventions, a huge opportunity to involve the membership in organizing and contract campaigns, instead often resemble a choreographed beauty pageant thrown by the ruling party in a one-party state. With few substantive issues debated and without contested leadership fights, it’s not surprising that labor reporters don’t bother covering most union conventions.

    Despite the long-term decline in union membership and urgent debates about the strategic direction of labor, few of the top leaders of large unions even faced a challenger at their last convention, as the table below shows. Of the fourteen unions without direct elections, only five had a challenger for the top position. In contrast, of the six large unions with direct elections, four had contested elections.

    For over forty years, union reform movements — led by groups like Labor Notes and the Association for Union Democracy — have challenged this system, arguing for a broad array of democratic reforms to rebuild the labor movement. As Mike Parker and Martha Gruelle argue in their classic book Democracy Is Power:

    Some unions do, and many could, operate democratically with a convention system. But for most major U.S. unions, changing to a direct election for international officers would provide an opportunity to rebuild the union on the basis of member control.

    Opponents of direct elections argue that contested elections and direct democracy could promote unnecessary conflict and fuel internecine civil wars, weakening a union’s ability to challenge vastly more powerful corporations in contract and organizing fights.

    But the UAW’s recent history tells a different story. While the strike at the Big Three automakers has been hailed by many as one of the most consequential strikes in decades, it is also the direct result of a highly democratic process. Since 2021, the UAW has held multiple elections and membership votes, including approving a referendum for direct elections of officers; electing delegates to the convention; holding two general membership elections for top officers (including the runoff); approving a strike vote at the Big Three; and, most recently, holding ratification votes for the auto contracts. While many of these votes have been contentious and close-fought, the end result has been a more engaged membership and a revitalized union.
    Democracy, Finance Unionism, and Reform Caucuses

    One impact of labor’s flawed governance system is the perpetuation of “finance unionism,” a practice in which union leadership focuses on the continual accumulation of financial assets rather than using those resources for mass organizing and militant strike activity. According to Department of Labor data, since 2010, organized labor has lost nearly half a million members — yet labor’s net assets (assets minus debt) have increased from $14 billion to $33 billion in 2022, a 127 percent increase. A union leadership class insulated from real democratic control helps make finance unionism possible.

    However, as the UAW demonstrates, when a union moves to direct elections of leadership, it is more apt to use its financial assets for strikes and growth. For example, rather than continuing to invest the UAW’s massive strike fund in Wall Street hedge funds and private equity, the directly elected officers used those assets to fund a militant and successful strike, likely costing the union close to $100 million in strike benefits. And on the heels of the contract victory, the union has announced an ambitious campaign goal of organizing 150,000 nonunion autoworkers at thirteen companies.

    The lack of direct elections of officers also makes the task of internal union caucuses pushing for democratic reform — i.e., internal opposition parties like the Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) or the UAW’s Unite All Workers for Democracy (UAWD) — much more difficult to achieve.

    This was on vivid display this year at the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) convention. Led by one of the largest UFCW locals, the Essential Workers For Democracy reform caucus proposed a raft of commonsense resolutions, including requiring only a majority vote to authorize strikes (scrapping the two-thirds requirement), strike benefits beginning on day one, capping salaries for international local staff and officers to $250,000, and devoting at least 20 percent of the union’s budget to organizing new workers.

    Yet these basic reforms were overwhelmingly defeated at the convention, with only a handful of locals supporting the resolutions. If the general membership of the UFCW had direct elections, these resolutions would have likely received widespread support (just as UAW and Teamster members supported similar measures at their conventions). Essential Workers For Democracy is building toward the 2028 UFCW convention for another crack at direct elections, but the labor movement needs these reforms now.
    Reform From the Right or the Left?

    No large union in the past forty years has voluntarily adopted “one member, one vote.” While reform caucuses at the Teamsters and UAW had pushed for direct elections for years, it did not become a reality until the Department of Justice (DoJ) filed criminal complaints at both unions and imposed democratic reforms as a remedy to rampant corruption and criminality facilitated by the delegate election system.

    In the case of the Teamsters, the union reached a settlement with George W. Bush’s administration to implement direct elections after the filing of a wide-ranging racketeering lawsuit by the DoJ (and lobbying by TDU). The UAW reached a settlement with the Donald Trump DoJ to hold a referendum on direct elections (64 percent of UAW members voted yes) after the filing of a broad criminal complaint.

    Ironically, anti-union Republican administrations were an important component of democratic reform at the UAW and Teamsters. But the history of labor reform is filled with strange bedfellows.

    For example, in 1959, Congress passed the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). Broadly seen as an attack on unions by business groups seeking to roll back new organizing, the law tightened restrictions on secondary boycotts, restricted pickets for union recognition, and banned Communists from holding union office. But the law also provided crucial reforms, including a bill of rights for union members, secret ballot elections for union officers, the right of members to see their union contracts, and the public disclosure of union annual financial reports.

    Even the Trump administration’s Department of Labor proposed meaningful reforms, including requiring unions to disclose their totals spent on organizing versus collective bargaining (very difficult data for members to obtain from most unions), the size of strike funds, and whether union officers are receiving multiple salaries from different labor bodies (“double dipping”). In addition, the Department of Labor proposed requiring more public unions to file financial reports, as many are currently exempt from the LMRDA. These reforms were widely opposed by organized labor and were shelved after Joe Biden assumed power.

    Unfortunately, if labor continues its long resistance to democratic initiatives like direct elections and greater transparency, these reforms may be imposed by hostile political forces like the George H. W. Bush administration’s takeover of the Teamsters in 1989, or the 1959 LMRDA reforms that were paired with a rollback of important labor rights like secondary boycotts. No one in the labor movement should desire a scenario where the state steps in to control a free and autonomous labor movement. But with freedom comes the responsibility to engage in democratic self-reform.

    Such democratic reform — as the UAW and Teamster contract fights illustrate — strengthens the power of the labor movement by mobilizing the membership in big fights and developing consensus on labor strategies through open debate. While “one member, one vote” threatens the power of the semipermanent strata of labor leaders and staff, sometimes the greatest act of leadership is to voluntarily devolve that power.

    Rather than fighting democratic reform initiatives, it is high time for organized labor to let the members decide by holding referenda on direct elections for officers. While the delegate convention system can be democratic, it has too often been the ally of corruption and passivity. If this system is worth defending, then it should be put up to a vote by the membership. Ultimately, as Labor Notes pointed out twenty-five years ago, “Union democracy — defined as rank-and-file power — is the essential ingredient for restoring the power of the labor movement.”

    #USA #syndicalisme #démocratie