Most recent Fight for 15 strike

I'm listening to a NPR show on the "strikes" right now and their news account has a clip from an interview with a staffer at a non-profit worker center in Los Angeles, but today I have listened to stories on local community radio and commercial stations too. Read a little in the business press as well.

While some attendees were clearly rank-and-file fast food workers, there were also lots of staffers from unions and non-profits, as well as clergy and government officials too. The SEIU pulled out its Adjunct Action activists and state-employed health care workers too (IHSS in California), as well as most of its union staffers across sectors. It seemed to be a mix by all accounts.

They all recited the script about the two goals of the movement, which are:

1. raising the wages of low-income workers (but when queried, by means of the passage of minimum wage laws)

2. securing the rights of such people “to form a union without retaliation from their employers” (which begs the question: how?)

The prevalent rationale given by most of them:

US government spends $153bn a year on food stamps and other assistance for low-wage workers, many of whom are adults raising children (from research at UC Berkeley's Labor Center)

Here's link to a Reuters story, which is amazing for how the bourgeois media is using phrases like "class struggle" and "working class" more often: "US labour: High stakes on low pay"

I guess it really bugs me that it's always called a strike. We wrote something up, with some people from the Communist League of Tampa, that we passed out at the rally yesterday (I didn't attend I had to work). I'll here a report back from them tonight. Basically we put forward a more concrete vision of what a union ought to mean in the workplace (rooted in rank and file control and direct action solutions to grievances, referencing Local 8 in Philly as well as the AWO), because the SEIU I'm sure is vague as shit on what a union even means. Also some stuff on reducing working hours, and why a call for 15 should be backed up with a call for it's immediacy; 15 on the working class' terms, not phased in over such and such year for such and such parts of the class. We made it clear that a strike is useless if it doesn't cost the boss any money; that shutting the production process down is key.

We're not really big enough to make a real dent, but our thinking was to reach out to any other wage-workers interested in communism and thinking about more effective tactics.

90% of the McDonalds store workers aren't affected by the 1$ an hour wage increase? Damn and for a moment there I thought the FF15 campaign had achieved a small victory.

But goddamn, when was the last time the minimum wage was increased? I remember making 7.50 an hour 8 years ago (which was the minimum wage in my state at the time). Hard to believe that with the current rate of inflation wages still havent changed!

Good Point Chilli.

Chilli Sauce

I guess it really bugs me that it's always called a strike

That's sort of fair enough, I get that argument - but if workers are striking, it also seems to also be a show of respect to call their action a strike.

Who are you talking about when you say "their action"? Unless workers are actually refusing work, it's not a strike. In many cases it's not. It would be useful to see accounts of where it is. From what I've heard, these protests are top-down affairs, called from SEIU headquarters in DC and executed by the PR firms they hire as consultants.

So are there two aspects- 1. The refusal of work (which is a sort of conditional thing, if this isn't there, it's not a strike) and then 2. the interruption of work, which does not necessarily follow from 1, yet differentiates an effective from a useless strike, for instance if workers are replaced.

Chilli Sauce

I think the larger point - which we can all agree with - is that for strikes to be successful, they need certain things like a certain critical mass, a strategy, and an understanding of what a strike is and what it's supposed to achieve.

Start here:

● what would critical mass mean? certain percentage of workers in the shop? in the industry? in the region? increase in union density? etc.?

● by what criteria would you (or any of us) judge these events to be successful? work stoppages and economic damage? management acquiescing to demands? electoral/legislative reform? (i.e. higher minimum wage laws), etc?

● what actually is the strategy? the SEIU is pretty transparent about the issues, but what are they trying to accomplish? what if things went beyond union issues (like class ones)? what role do "allies" play in all this? what's the endgame?

● what is a strike according to the NLRA, legal precedent, courts willingness in intervene with injunctions, political interference, etc.?

The original questions are fine. How about encouraging everyone to develop their own, original thoughts and have the freedom to express them?

H

The prevalent rationale given by most of them:

US government spends $153bn a year on food stamps and other assistance for low-wage workers, many of whom are adults raising children (from research at UC Berkeley's Labor Center)

I can't articulate it well now but I'm immensely uncomfortable with this rationale for a strike. It would clearly be more at home in a liberal plea for federal action on the minimum wage. Well, I suppose that all follows. . .

Good points, H. I mean we have to think concretely about what we want to achieve, even if we have only a foggy idea of how to get there, and look at possibilities in what they're doing that we can use to build power (maybe their are none, maybe we get in contact with some open-minded wage workers).

[deleted]

[deleted]

What's desperately needed besides deeper analysis of the history of these industries, is some kind of informal workers inquiry about conditions on the job. Only the rank-and-filers can do that. But it would give us a picture into the work process from the inside.

[subjective references removed]

Lots of these current accounts point to Seattle and San Francisco as success stories in the "Fight for $15." This is not historically accurate. The San Francisco Living Wage Coalition was founded in 1998, but has roots going back to similar efforts in the 1970s. They are why the current San Francisco minimum wage -- across the board, unlike the exemptions in Seattle's for size of workplace and the provision of benefits -- is $11.05 an hour. It goes up to $12.25 in 15 days, then to $13 in a year, and another dollar per year until it reaches $15 in 2018. Seattle's is much more convoluted and wages and phasing in of increases depends on whether the business has more or less than 500 employees. Depending on this and if benefits are provided, the minimum wage will reach $15 in 3, 4, 5 or 7 years.

So it's not the clear victory Fight for $15 campaigners are presenting.

Hey, if you guys want to call eachother names, split it off into a name calling thread! Or you know, Flame On!

admin: spat between two posters and some other related comments unpublished. Chilli sauce, this is a warning: desist from personal abuse. This is a public forum, so people can't instruct other posters not to comment on discussions. But you can choose who you engage with and who you don't. If you don't want to engage with someone, don't.

On "Critical Mass", I imagine this would = roughly 100 people willing to occupy a McDonalds if a worker is threatened with discipline for support of the movement + a lawyer and training for people to stay safe from the pigs.

Where would we get 100 people? I'm thinking labor-left people in the area, but mostly other workers who want a 15$/hr wage i.e. other McDonalds, Wendy's etc. By labor left, I mean communist workers who might already make 15 or above, not union officials or anything.

On the other hand, the problem here is that even 100 people seems out of this world impossible without either a great deal of effort, or events unfolding that are more spontaneous.... I dunno.

Pennoid

On "Critical Mass", I imagine this would = roughly 100 people willing to occupy a McDonalds if a worker is threatened with discipline for support of the movement + a lawyer and training for people to stay safe from the pigs.

Where would we get 100 people? I'm thinking labor-left people in the area, but mostly other workers who want a 15$/hr wage i.e. other McDonalds, Wendy's etc. By labor left, I mean communist workers who might already make 15 or above, not union officials or anything.

On the other hand, the problem here is that even 100 people seems out of this world impossible without either a great deal of effort, or events unfolding that are more spontaneous.... I dunno.

How did it actually go in Tampa? Did you get the report back?

And what you're suggesting regarding workplace occupations did happen during Occupy in places like New York, Seattle, Portland and Oakland, where there were significant critical masses carrying them out. An interesting question would be if the Black Lives Matter movement could mobilize workers for an occupation. Occupy was only 3 1/2 years ago.

Yes, the report back:

Mostly staff driven. Couple hundred people, most bussed in from Miami and other places (interesting considering the semi-wildcat in Miami a while back at wal-mart, right?) Took to the streets (6 lane road maybe?) and were marching down it from maybe a half hour. No workplaces were disrupted, no *real* strike activity related to concrete demands. The Mayor (Bob B(F)uckhorn) was apparently there. Cops were there basically guiding the marchers and forming a limit where they saw fit. SEIU drones guided marchers alongside the police.

Sorry I don't have more info. Our group discussed the event last night, and talked over the idea of a "critical mass" and what it would take to build working class communists, power, and win specifically 15/hr in Florida (Florida passed legislation that municipalities and counties can't set wages, and so 15 would either have to be wrenched from particular employers or passed on a state level).

If we don't get it #ShutItDown #FightFor15 on Fowler Ave in Tampa yesterday. #cantstop #wontstop #sorrynotsorry pic.twitter.com/ZjYi4waJay— Fight for 15 FL (@FightFor15FL) April 16, 2015 ">

If we don't get it #ShutItDown #FightFor15 on Fowler Ave in Tampa yesterday. #cantstop #wontstop #sorrynotsorry pic.twitter.com/ZjYi4waJay— Fight for 15 FL (@FightFor15FL) April 16, 2015

You can find FF15 Fl on twitter for some images.

Mayor Bob:
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/18302

From somebody in our group who DID attend the event, here is a more detailed rundown:

http://communistleaguetampa.org/2015/04/17/fight-for-15-reportback/

From the piece's conclusion:

I am glad that the CLT participated in this event, but it affirmed suspicions I have had about the organizing going on in FF15. I believe that we need a workers movement where workers themselves lead, and I don’t think the SEIU can or will provide that. As a fast food worker of sorts myself, perhaps we need an organization of our own in Tampa Bay, one that will represent our interests because it will be led by us as workers in Tampa. We can only get there through careful planning, organization, and follow through. For now, we of the CLT will keep watching what’s happening and reflecting on our own experiences as workers and as communists dedicated to the overthrow of the existing order.

Back on topic, apparently 50 Brinks Security guards in Chicago went on strike: http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/17852/brinks_strike_fight_for_15

Part of the mobilization for the Fight for 15 protests on April 15 were Adjunct Action and Faculty Forward, both SEIU organizing efforts. The former are part of the casualized unorganized workforce, but does anyone know if the latter is in response to the conservatism of guild-like American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which has always prided itself at never having had a strike? Adjunct Action and Faculty Forward walked out on April 15 in solidarity with Fight for $15, but with their own $15,000 per course demands. Did anyone participate in any of these?

The involvement of SEIU home health care workers is pretty clear, since these programs are funded by the states and come up on the chopping block in every round of budget negotiations. And the pay is barely above the minimum wage, but with strict restrictions on how many hours can be worked -- which constantly get reduced. This has caused a political tug-of-war about whether these are public sectors workers and if they should be unionized -- like a few years ago in Michigan.

One things is clear, the campaign is attempting to call in political capital:

SEIU blog

Politicians are going to have to grapple with this in the election cycle, because as the latest round of wage protests makes clear, the issue isn't going away anytime soon.

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich marches in Berkeley

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, when interviewed about pushing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to support raising the minimum wage said:

Trumka

Today’s actions by tens of thousands of workers significantly advance a raising wages agenda that gives every worker a chance to achieve the American Dream.

It would be great if more workers used the cover of these protests to stage strikes, like the Brinks workers in Chicago. Anyone know of any others?

boozemonarchy

H

The prevalent rationale given by most of them:

US government spends $153bn a year on food stamps and other assistance for low-wage workers, many of whom are adults raising children (from research at UC Berkeley's Labor Center)

I can't articulate it well now but I'm immensely uncomfortable with this rationale for a strike. It would clearly be more at home in a liberal plea for federal action on the minimum wage. Well, I suppose that all follows. . .

Here's the UC Berkeley study: "The High Public Cost of Low Wages," where you can see the correlation of the poverty wages and the work sectors targeted by the Fight for $15 Campaign: fast-food workers, child care workers, home care workers, and part-time college faculty. The study was funded by SEIU.

Obama vetoed a congressional move to block the "Union Election Rule," which makes unionizing easier under NRLB rules, so the demand for the "right to unionize" is in reference its implementation. Politico covered this, in "What's next for the union election rule? -- Fight for $15 goes global -- New disclosures detail SEIU spending," and tallied the campaign's expenses so far:

[quote=Politico]SEIU gave at least $14.7 million to state organizing committees that have led wage campaigns in cities throughout the country.[/quote]

and for consulting:

[quote=Politico]BerlinRosen, which has played a key role in media operations tied to Fight for $15 — and which McDonald’s intends to subpoena in connection with the NLRB joint-employer hearings — received $1.3 million from SEIU. (For those keeping score, SEIU paid BerlinRosen $848,000 in 2013 and $393,000 in 2012.) The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, collected $150,000 from the SEIU in 2014, and the National Employment Law Project, a labor law nonprofit, received $135,000.[/quote]

Can someone explain the downvoting in this thread? Do you feel that Hieronymous is "too critical" of the SEIU? Non-US person trying to wrap my head around this.

Here is a link to a PDF of the pamphlet we passed around. Fight for 15: Strategic and Critical Considerations

Pennoid

Here is a link to a PDF of the pamphlet we passed around. Fight for 15: Strategic and Critical Considerations

it will be cool if you posted that and the account of the action up in our library/news section respectively (if you wanted to duplicate all of your group's texts here that would be good!)

jura

Can someone explain the downvoting in this thread? Do you feel that Hieronymous is "too critical" of the SEIU? Non-US person trying to wrap my head around this.

i'm a US person, and i was about to post the same question.

Juan has been posting some. I'll try and upload others.

I sort of lean with H. here (except his borderline conspiratorial stuff around the ad agency), it doesn't really seem to be a "strike" anywhere. I've also noticed that they haven't been using that word as much anymore either. I know locally they didn't use it as much. The standard model here seems to be that a coalition of union staff, nonprofit staff, clergy/churches, Socialist Alternative and local Democratic Party politicians hold a rally and get some fast food workers who are not working right then or have called in sick to attend. I've heard a while ago that in some places, there were a minority of workers who were at work at that time, and they walked out and attended the rally. I've also seen at least a couple of fast food places in the news briefly swarmed with protesters. I've heard vague references to shop committees in places, but don't know if this is true or where they are. I haven't heard of any action by workers in fast food against management to address grievances, other then a few stop-work things and attending the rallies.

Before, it seemed pretty clear that the campaign was about putting pressure on Democrats to pass local and state minimum wage hikes. Lately, though, it seems as though its as equally about putting public, moral pressure on fast food enterprises to raise wages.

EDIT: Whatever the shortcomings of the campaign, it is changing the narrative around what low wage workers "deserve" and there's no doubt that it has changed how fast food workers think about what they "deserve". However, at least for the IWW, this hasn't translated to much as far as I'm aware. Despite having a fair amount of people in the industry, no one has been able to take advantage of this situation, although not from lack of trying. There's certainly nothing going in currently in the IWW, or in the wider Fight For $15 stuff that compares to what was done at Jimmy Johns in the Twin Cities or at Starbucks in multiple places.

I mean some of this could be due to IWW shortcomings, but I think that the Fight For $15 camapign actually hasn't raised stuff so far that people are down to do actual union organizing or workplace action yet. I think it has further solidified a spectator version of unionism that is as problematic as traditional trade unionism, which at least attempts to address grievances and get working people directly involved.

Just to clarify, too, I'm not trying to toot the IWW's horn too much here. The fast food campaigns I mentioned for sure had shortcomings. But they were organized by people on the shopfloor, had more active participation, did direct action and didn't rely on the media, paid staff, churches/clergy and local politicians.

I think the ad stuff is important. It's not a conspiratorial thing, but important to demonstrate just how much PR is the key tactic of the SEIU. I mean, PR as union tactic has resulted in nothing but glorious failure for the class. It makes me think of the Hormel strike in the 80's and the "corporate campaign."

EDIT: To be clearer: Pointing out the tons of money the SEIU spends on PR is useful to show people who think that the SEIU is conservative, but "with some really cool anarchists involved!"

Also, thanks Juan, for posting our shit.

:)

No problem.

I might have to go back and checks some older threads and articles. If SEIU is spending a significant amount more on PR than other aspects of the campaign there's a point there, and I think is further evidence of what I think the intentions are. But as far as the mere aspect of having a PR strategy or whatever itself, I don't think that's a big deal. The kind of stuff I understand PR firms do such is use developed press contacts, do press releases, create slogans, get TV/radio spots, make slick imagery etc. is not much different than what everyone on the left does, as well, only in a way more under-resourced and inefficient way.

jura

Do you feel that Hieronymous is "too critical" of the SEIU?

Too critical? Come on man, how could anyone feel that way when they're saving the American Dream, putting people to work (you know, arbeit macht frei), keeping "police on the beat" (think Ferguson here), and sending their solidarity to other movements: SEIU to #OccupyWallStreet: "We've Got Your Back"

Yeah, that's why I asked...

Downvotes..... I will never understand.

Pennoid

Downvotes..... I will never understand.

As the the internet and digital technology rewire our brains further and further into the shallows, life becomes more and more like Facebook. So why would people on libcom be any different?

And despite the self-congratulatory grandstanding of SEIU, UFCW, IBT and their allies, with claims of easy victories for their various integrated campaigns (FF15, OURWalmart & Clean & Safe Ports respectively, all three consulting with the lefty Berlin Rosen PR firm), the economy is tanking again and some indicators show that it's as bad as it was at the time of the Lehman Brothers collapse in September 2008. Basically, we're fucked and winning hearts and minds through globally coordinated media crusades isn't going to change that. And having Democratic apparatchiks, be they city council people, mayors, House Reps, or former cabinet ministers like Robert Reich, speak from the PR script doesn't change anything either. And the success stories are San Francisco and Seattle, where there won't be a $15 an hour minimum wage until 2018 -- at the earliest!

Here some of us might need to agree-to-disagree, but there's not much hope in scenarios where protests are masquerading as strikes, with extremely little or no rank-and-file participation, for lackluster demands like minimum wage laws and bolstering the already existing right to unionize under the NRLB's authority. And getting people off food stamps isn't a really inspiring rallying cry either.

But in the last 10 years there were two bright rays of hope: the 2006 May Day General Strike, when 5-8 million Latina/o workers walked off the job and successfully forced congress to back down on HR 4437, the anti-immigrant Sensenbrenner Act. Most of these workers came out of the service industry, many working in the same fast food and health care sector that Fight for $15 is trying to mobilize. Why isn't this inspiring example front and center? Probably because it beat the unions and non-profits to the punch, being spontaneous and largely leaderless -- and was victorious, despite the left establishment's unsuccessful attempt to steer it into symbolic emptyness.

So Fight for $15 (and OURWalmart and Clean & Safe Ports) came about as a direct response to the spontaneous and leaderless Occupy Movement. That's pretty irrefutable, as labor councils and bureaucrats got caught off guard again and were pretty transparent in the need to co-opt it and steer to their own ends (which includes their partners in the Democratic Party and allies who represent the NGO/non-profit/charitable foundation industrial complex).

It comes back to my tired old dogmatic mantra:

You can't make radical -- or even revolutionary -- ends with reformist -- and liberal -- means!

Your point about 2006 May Day general strike I agree with, but it did not get ahead of the nonprofits. Immigrant rights nonprofits were one of the biggest players, along with clergy and churches, in mobilizing people. It was not "spontaneous", I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. There were all sorts of Church-Immigrant Rights nonprofit coalitions that publicized the stuff widely. It was all over Spanish-language media such as radio and megacorporations such as the TV station, Univision. Pastors and priests were urging people to call into work and show up at the rallies.

Now, there were plenty of people with no connection with any of this, that participated in it. Maybe that's what you mean when you say spontaneous. Personally, I and the other Latino I worked with called in. We had no connection to any of these organizations, but we knew it was happening....because nonprofit people were getting on TV and radio.

It's actually funny that you mentioned 2006 May Day, because I do think of that day when thinking about Fight For $15 and whether events go beyond an organization. The many coalitions, churches, radio stations, TV channels, nonprofits that organized for that day probably didn't imagine so many people would come out. In later years, a lot of these groups backed off due to the backlash that came after 2006 in the form of the biggest immigration raids in American history. But there were now a layer of people who had participated in 2006 and now were doing organizing work on these issues. I think Fight For $15 has the same potential and that's why, although I mostly agree with you, I have generally mixed feelings about it.

I'm referring mostly to Los Angeles on May Day 2006, because in the final run-up to it the left came together with the political establishment to try to avert a strike and hold rallies in the evening instead -- and this attempted recuperation failed, at least in most West Coast cities. In L.A. this coalition was led by Catholic Archbishop Roger Mahony and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa -- who came from a labor background -- and included the whole labor-left establishment. Perhaps they feared the threatened strike by 15,000 troqueros at the L.A./Long Beach port complex, which in the end shut down commerce by 90% and resulted in backlogs that took months to clear.

And lots of the coordination came from FM radio, with DJs like El Cucuy and El Piolín, who were syndicated across Spanish-speaking North America. I've only found one good account of this, called "Adiós El Cucuy: Immigration and Laughter on Spanish-language Radio."

Also, on May 1, 2006 in Oakland the protest really took on the dynamism of a general strike. The march began in "deep" East Oakland with a few thousand. But it seemed like every dozen blocks it gained another couple thousand. By the time it hit the predominately Latina/o Fruitvale District (infamous because Oscar Grant was killed by a BART cop at the station there), it doubled again. When it had gone nearly 100 blocks and entered downtown, it had grown to over 50,000. It literally drew people out into the street. If the Fight for $15 had this sense of working class agency, who wouldn't be an uncompromising supporter?

The key question is why doesn't it?

iexist

Wow that sounds bad fucking ass!

It was. A truly unforgettable experience. That year I met 3 veterans from the '46 Oakland General Strike and they said the euphoric spirit was nearly identical.

Even though the connection was tenuous, it came right before the Oscar Grant riots in 2009 and into 2010 and laid the groundwork for student protests against austerity in 2010 -- that included walkouts at 3 Oakland high schools, partial ones at a couple community colleges and UC Berkeley, agitation at many K-12 schools -- and it was clear that many parents and their children participated in both May Day 2006 and the student walkouts.

Occupy Oakland exploded out of all this ferment. The almost non-stop 2 weeks of Black Lives Matter protests and riots in Berkeley and Oakland did too.

McDonald's just posted that it will close 700 restaurants -- and that profits are down 32% (Wall Street Journal, "Sales at McDonald's Remain Soggy," April 23, 2015).

The 700 closed restaurants will mostly be in key markets, like the U.S., Japan and China. The new CEO wants to make McDonald's a "modern and progressive burger company," with plans to "raise wages for restaurant workers, curb antibiotic use in its chicken, and test an all-day breakfast menu."

Similar to the recent decline of world dominating retailers like Walmart, perhaps this shows that the toxic mix of banally predictable junk food and low wages has got a bad rep. As McDonald's outlets close, they seem to be replaced by hipper, more ethnic and pseudo-healthy alternatives -- like Chipotle, Rubio's Fresh, Baja Fresh, Panda Express, etc., etc. Even Starbucks has expanded its menu for food and some even take meals there. And the trendy young and affluent don't drive-thru but have food delivered by new "on-demand service" mobile app-based startups like Postmates. The world is changing and McDonald's looks like it is heading for the dust, but it has a long way to go as it is still three times bigger than its next closest competitor (measured in sales), Subway.

I'll preface this by kindly requesting that people out there in cyberspace reserve their hostility for the message, not the messenger. I truly wish that some of this awful shit weren't true.

Here's a U.S. Chamber of Commerce study called "Labor’s Minimum Wage Exemption: Unions as the 'Low-Cost' Option" (as a pdf). It's premise is that unions are now backing down on across-the-boards municipal minimum wages and are advocating last-minute amendments that would allow exemptions for unionized companies. The takeaway seems to be that unions are offering businesses the option of lower wages in exchange for organized shops, in return they get more union density -- but in reality, we all know that it really means union coffers bolstered by more dues-paying members. Cynical as fuck, no?

Last week the City of Los Angeles passed a new wage ordinance that would gradually increase the minimum until it reached $15 an hour in 2020. But no sooner had they passed it than Rusty Hicks, leader of the L.A. County Federation of Labor, was asking for unionized businesses to be spared the minimum wage and only comply with federal laws around collective bargaining agreements -- making possible sub-minimum wages in some sectors. Here's the L.A. Times account, called "L.A. labor leaders seek minimum wage exemption for firms with union workers."

Here's a choice quote by a Chamber of Commerce hack, calling the unions out on their hypocrisy:

[quote=L.A. Times]"I'd refer everyone back to the statements of labor leaders over the past seven months that no one deserves a sub-minimum wage"[/quote]

Very few of the cities (none?) that appear to have conceded to the various Fight for $15/OURWalmart campaigns have granted across-the-board minimum wage laws. Here's a breakdown of the new rules in those cities:

San Francisco: on May 1, 2015 the minimum was raised from $11.05 to $12.25, and will gradually increase on July 1 of each year until it reaches $15 in 2018. Then it will annually be increased based on the Consumer Price Index. It also has opt-out provisions for unionized shops

Seattle: On Jan. 1, 2017 companies with 501 or more employees will have to pay their workers $15 an hour. Companies that contribute their employees' medical plans have an additional year to comply, and small businesses must meet the wage requirement between 2019 and 2021.

Oakland: As of this year, all waged employees must be paid $12.25 an hour. The new minimum wage, in addition to mandatory paid leave, resulted from a successful ballot measure last November.

Washington DC: On July 1, 2015 the minimum wage will increase to $10.50. Activists are pushing for a ballot measure for 2016 that would increase wages to $15 an hour.

Chicago: laws have been passed so that by 2019 workers must receive at least $13 an hour.

New York: Mayor Bill De Blasio is proposing that the city's minimum wage increases to $13 in 2016, then $15 by 2019.

Right now, in all these expensive cities, $15 is still a poverty wage. It'll probably become a sub-poverty wage by 2020.

Like some kind of business-union Murphy's Law, it only gets worse:

At Fight for $15 Convention, A Call from Clinton but Little Talk of Union
About 1,300 low-wage workers gathered in Detroit to celebrate minimum-wage hikes

[quote=Al Jazeera America]Detroit - Day two of the national Fight for $15 convention began with a surprise: a phone call from Hillary Clinton to a buoyant crowd of an estimated 1,300 fast-food workers.

"Thank you for marching in the streets to get that living wage," she said Sunday morning over the ballroom speakers. "No one who works an honest job in America should have to live in poverty. We need you out there, leading the fight against those who would rip away Americans' right to organize."

For the low-wage fast-food workers in attendance, Clinton's remarks and implicit appeal for votes were further proof that they are winning. As Mary Kay Henry, president of the 2.2 million-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which sponsors Fight for $15, said from the stage, "Powerful people all over the world are listening to you."[/quote]

(rest of the story: "At Fight for $15 convention, a call from Clinton but little talk of union")

[Despite fame and celebrity as a rapper, Boots was always dependable to advocate for a class struggle approach during Occupy Oakland. -H.]

The Problem With the Fight for 15

The Oakland-based activist and performer discusses the need for workers to look beyond city councils and form a radical new labor movement.

By Boots Riley Oakland, CA

July 20, 2015

Workers’ strike in Milwaukee. Photo by Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association. January 1, 2014.

Is the best way to achieve higher wages really legislation? Many think so. Across the country, working people are eagerly waiting to feel the effects of new laws that raise the minimum wage. Seattle will see an increase to $15 by 2021, and Los Angeles will see the same increase by 2020. But this strategy detracts from the only power dynamic that can actually overturn economic inequality: class struggle.

Legislative wage hikes fade fast into inflated prices. Worse, they teach folks that ultimately we need not organize – except to ask the state to change things for us. That’s a losing battle on all fronts and one that obscures class analysis. This analysis says that there are two classes under capitalism, whose economically ordained conflict propels the system: the working class, who creates the surplus value in commodities, and the ruling class, who receives most of the wealth of commodities.

Instead of ceding our collective power to city councils and corporate offices, we need to broaden and radicalize the movement for a living wage, embracing more powerful tactics that today’s union leaders have dismissed. It’s not simply about the outcomes of reform; it’s about how we win it. That’s what teaches us how to fight. That’s what builds a movement. Without a movement, we have no hope for real, sustainable change. We have no hope of getting rid of capitalism.

If wage struggles are undertaken through strikes, work stoppages and occupations that physically keep out scabs—"replacement workers" who would take the places of strikers—struggles for higher wages can expose exploitation as the primary contradiction of capitalism. They can show that workers have the power to change the relationship between labor and capital and can teach class analysis on a scale that no college class can.

Armed strikers in Colorado, before the Ludlow Massacre in 1914.

These tactics were used in the past: in 1945 and 1946 more than 4 million workers participated in the largest wave of strikes in American history. These strikes were so effective that in 1947 Congress, fearing union power, passed the Taft-Hartley Act to drastically restrict the tactics that organized labor could legally use, outlawing closed shops and strikes that affect whole industries, among other practices.

The left’s move away from class struggle is one of the legacies of the New Left movements of the 1960s. Throughout the 1910s and 1920s there were militant mining strikes in places like Alabama, Colorado and Montana – some involving armed strikers fighting company guns — and the 1930s brought occupations of factories in the Mid west. During this time the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) was influential in US politics through its members, “fellow travelers” or sympathizers, and ties to union organizers. The New Deal, the holy grail of liberal legislation, was put into place because the ruling class was afraid of the viable revolutionary movement in the United States.

In the 1940s, the Communist Party USA participated in the united front against fascism in order to defeat Hitler – simultaneously putting on hold challenges to the US government during the war. Revolutionaries no longer made public that they were revolutionaries, so as to maintain broad war-time unity. This, in turn, made the communist witch hunts of the 1950s very easy for the ruling class, as communist activity then seemed clandestine, rather than being out in the open as it had been in the past.

The McCarthy-era climate, revelations of atrocities committed by Stalin and the CPUSA’s weak response to both caused many splits within the party, and from these splits in the late 1950s and early 1960s came the beginning of the New Left. The New Left did things differently: no more showing people that they could stop the machinery of industry, forcing the bosses to meet demands or lose profit. Instead, their goal was to cause enough of a scene on the street that the media would cover it and embarrass administrators or politicians into meeting demands. This approach may have had some success at the time, but it’s not the model that today’s workers should use.

Our power lies not in the streets but at the pivot point of capitalism: the workplace.

I am hopeful about the new fast-food workers movement and the organizing at places like Walmart, but these struggles won’t succeed unless they eventually engage in non-symbolic, substantive solidarity strikes that target whole markets—in the case of retail outlets, these would be geographic regions, cities, counties, or sections of a state.

This would be illegal, yet necessary. Whole-industry solidarity strikes were made illegal precisely because they were extremely effective. Current unions stick to the letter of the law. This has made them very weak. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 89% of US workers are not in unions. I believe this is because they don’t think the unions can win. And they’re right for the most part, but that’s where radicals come in.

I suggest that radicals create new, militant unions that are upfront about their revolutionary ideals, clearly articulating that winning fights around wage hikes through militant strikes is but one step in a revolutionary strategy. Declaring that we’ll physically keep scabs out will increase workers’ faith in their ability to win.

These new unions will break the laws that make current unions so powerless, and union organizers may go to jail. Jail isn’t new to radicals. An actual militant labor movement could organize a strike that is so effective that we negotiate wage increases and demand that the prices of goods be tied to corresponding wage increases, ensuring that wage hikes have real effects.

This sort of movement has the potential to be popular. It could lead to widespread general strikes to affect policy and develop from there into a situation in which the workers take over the facilities en masse. This would be the start of a revolutionary situation – one in which a living wage is a right, not a polite request.

[This piece, commissioned by Creative Time Reports, has also been published by The Guardian.]

Looks like SEIU wins in New York. Great news imo!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/22/in-labor-victory-fast-food-workers-in-new-york-will-get-a-15-minimum-wage/

I think communists should always be supporting any push, however meager, towards a more humane society

Soapy

I think communists should always be supporting any push, however meager, towards a more humane society

Sure, but should we celebrate the "great news" due to this "push" in 2018 or 2021?

Hieronymous

Soapy

I think communists should always be supporting any push, however meager, towards a more humane society

Sure, but should we celebrate the "great news" due to this "push" in 2018 or 2021?

It's more than twice the federal minimum wage which has stagnated/declined since the late 1960s, I think it's safe to say this is a victory. A hell of a lot better than Chicago which seemingly tried to preempt this by raising the minimum wage to $10.

Obviously this does little or nothing for undocumented immigrants, people who have fallen out of the labor market, the disabled, ex-cons. Hence why it is no substitute for renewed struggle.

Still a good thing imo.

Soapy

Hieronymous

Soapy

I think communists should always be supporting any push, however meager, towards a more humane society

Sure, but should we celebrate the "great news" due to this "push" in 2018 or 2021?

It's more than twice the federal minimum wage which has stagnated/declined since the late 1960s, I think it's safe to say this is a victory. A hell of a lot better than Chicago which seemingly tried to preempt this by raising the minimum wage to $10.

Obviously this does little or nothing for undocumented immigrants, people who have fallen out of the labor market, the disabled, ex-cons. Hence why it is no substitute for renewed struggle.

Still a good thing imo.

When, if ever, does it extend beyond 200,000 fast food workers to the rest of the working class?

What are the union opt-out rules for New York?

Hieronymous

When, if ever, does it extend beyond 200,000 fast food workers to the rest of the working class?

What are the union opt-out rules for New York?

Cmon we all know that a wage hike in any low level sector will have a beneficial affect on wages in all other sectors.

Not sure about the union opt-out rules/don't know what those are.

Soapy

Not sure about the union opt-out rules/don't know what those are.

It's the deal the unions (especially SEIU) cut with the Democrats (see post #45 above for details).

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/nyregion/new-york-15-minimum-wage-what-fast-food-workers-need-to-know.html?ref=nyregion&gwh=6972A3799C1BC2BB55851D0011E5C39B&gwt=pay

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/nyregion/push-to-lift-hourly-pay-is-now-serious-business.html?ref=nyregion