NAME: Ira Grupper
EMAIL: irag@iglou.com
DATE: 05/09/2009

TITLE: A more united labor wages...'

LABOR PAEANS—May 2009
by Ira Grupper
(published by FORsooth, newspaper of Louisville, Kentucky chapter of F.O.R. [Fellowship of Reconciliation] )

A more united labor wages uphill fight for free choice

The good news is that the two warring union coalitions in the U.S., the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, have formed the National Labor Coordinating Committee. It will consist of presidents of twelve of the nation’s largest unions, and include the National Education Association.

There is no love lost between the unions in their respective camps, which makes this thrust all the more remarkable. Serious problems remain: turf wars over hospital workers in California and elsewhere, and the bitter split-up of the UNITE-HERE union, and more.

Additionally, organized labor may be facing a major setback in the most contentious fight over labor laws since the 1940s: the Employee Free Choice Act. As this column is being put to bed, unions seem to lack the 60 votes needed to block a Senate filibuster against the Employee Free Choice Act, the bill that would give workers the right to have their union recognized as soon as a majority signs cards calling for a union. The change would make it easy to bypass so-called secret-ballot elections, which are traditionally harder for unions to win.

Sen. Arlen Specter, a “liberal Republican” who labor thought it could influence, caved in to Big Capital. Somewhat-liberal Democrat Diane Feinstein also seems not to be willing to back it. The struggle continues.

On the local front, there was a bad storm here in Louisville months ago. The city is way behind in picking up all the branches and debris strewn all around. Much criticism of the city administration has been leveled.

Comes now Mayor Jerry Abramson, in a March 31 letter to the Louisville Courier-Journal: “The crews are doing a great job, sacrificing their weekends and spending time away from their families to get our city back to normal. Starting last weekend, our 24 city crews were aided by private companies, which should significantly speed up the process

”I wanted to hire the contractors weeks ago. However, because the city crews are union members, city government cannot contract for work that would normally be assigned to the unions without their approval.

“…When the union agreed, we moved quickly--taking bids on March 20 and awarding the contracts six days later.” Now, your columnist has a few questions: Is it okay for the mayor to hire non-union labor when there are lots of union folk who could use the work? Were the union crews forced to work overtime? And, why did the union cave on this issue? Well, at least the visitors to the Churchill Downs racing shrine for the Kentucky Derby won’t have to see the debris. And that’s what really counts.

Bill Londrigan, president of the Kentucky State AFL-CIO, in his April 11newsletter, informs us: “It certainly was business as usual when the usual suspects introduced their perennial favorites, right-to-work-for-less and repeal of prevailing wage. The winner of this session’s anti-worker, anti-union award must go to Sen. Damon Thayer, who introduced the standard right-to-work-for-less (SB 165), repeal of prevailing wage on school construction projects (SB 145) and an increase in the prevailing wage threshold (SB 146).

“ Rep. Joe Fischer also deserves recognition for introducing a prevailing wage repeal amendment to HB 143, along with Rep. Sal Santoro who introduced a floor amendment to HB 144 to repeal prevailing wage on school construction projects. These three are a real promising trio of legislators, except that not one of their bills or amendments were ever called or heard in either the House or Senate. The memory of 2,000 agitated union members in the Capitol Rotunda must still be fresh in the minds of those legislators who witnessed that event.”

Bill also reported on those legislators who attack coal mine safety: “Three separate bills, each targeted to a particular aspect of coal mine safety, were introduced…They were all defeated through a concerted effort of your labor lobbyists, allied groups and several widows of deceased coal miners.”

“(Also killed was a bill) which would restore the civil rights of felons.” There were some good bills that passed. “Also signed into law was the union-inspired SB 33, which requires that flags flown on public buildings in the Commonwealth are made in the U.S.A.”

Speaking of patriotism, a few weeks ago the CBS “Sunday Morning” television show aired a segment, “America's Class Warfare.” Reporter Jeff Greenfield explored “the roots and the history of anger in America. And how the class warfare argument has played out, and is playing out, in the face of our current economic crisis. “ Wowee! “Is too much wealth and power concentrated at the top? Should the government try to redress that balance? Or is that idea nothing but ‘class warfare’?

Jeff then goes on: “Two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson denounced ‘bankers and speculators’ as the biggest danger to the Republic. President Andrew Jackson waged war against the Second Bank of the United States, and the ‘elite circle’ of financiers.

“And Franklin Delano Roosevelt began his Presidency by indicting the ‘money changers’ who, he said, had caused the Great Depression.”

Well, your scribe knows at least one good quote, from Santayana: “Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”

Notwithstanding quotes from the bourgeoisie’s enlightened sector, Jobs With Justice reports: “Companies aren't supposed to attack workers who want a union, but Rite Aid and other employers are doing it every day. When 650 workers at Rite Aid's distribution center in Lancaster, CA, wanted to join a union to address problems like sweltering heat in the warehouse, the company threatened and fired them.

“The federal government was preparing to charge Rite Aid with 49 labor law violations, but let the company off with a slap on the wrist. After workers prevailed and voted to join the International Longshore and Warehouse Union last March, Rite Aid continued the attacks. Now the company is refusing to sign a first contract and has hired an anti-union consulting firm to guide the company through the decertification process. This situation at Rite Aid is a perfect example of why passing the Employee Free Choice Act is so important.” And why, your reporter must say, its shelving is such a tragedy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The door to resumption of trade with Cuba has opened a little, with President Obama allowing Cubans residing in the U.S. to travel freely to the island. Hopefully, and soon, we will all be able to visit this island. After all, is Vietnam more “communist” than Cuba? We have full diplomatic and trade with Vietnam.

U.S. hands are not clean with regard to Cuba. The Miami Herald reported on April 8: “A federal grand jury (in El Paso, Texas—I.G.) handed up a new indictment against Luis Posada Carriles, for the first time linking the Cuban exile militant in a U.S. legal proceeding to a series of 1997 tourist-site bombings in Cuba that killed an Italian national.

“… The perjury counts were added to the previous indictment that accused Posada of lying in his citizenship application about how he got into the United States. Another new charge is obstruction of a U.S. investigation into ``international terrorism.''

Truth be told, there have been numerous attempts to overthrow the Cuban government , by force and violence, most notable being the Bay of Pigs invasion (La Batalla de Girón), in 1961.

Should Cuba sit still while possibly Mr. Posada Carriles, and others like him, plan invasions, possible murders? Which brings us to a terrible injustice. The Cuban Five are five Cuban men who are in U.S. prison, serving four life sentences and 75 years collectively, after being wrongly convicted in U.S. federal court in Miami, on June 8, 2001.

They are Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando González and René González. The Five were falsely accused by the U.S. government of committing espionage conspiracy against the United States, and other related charges.

But the Five pointed out, in their defense, that they were involved in monitoring the actions of Miami-based terrorist groups, in order to prevent terrorist attacks on Cuba. Their actions were never directed at the U.S. government. They never harmed anyone, nor ever possessed nor used any weapons while in the United States. The Cuban Five’s mission was to stop terrorism. Over the years, more than 3,000 Cubans have died as a result of terrorist attacks.

Terrorist Miami groups like Comandos F4 and Brothers to the Rescue operate with complete impunity, from within the United States—with, they claim, the knowledge and support of the FBI and CIA. So, Cuba decided to send the Five Cubans to Miami to monitor the terrorists. The Cuban Five infiltrated the terrorist organizations in Miami to inform Cuba of imminent attacks.

But instead of arresting the terrorists, the FBI arrested the Cuban Five ANTI-terrorists on September 12, 1998, and held them in solitary confinement for 17 months in Miami. They were put on trial in November 2000. With the seven-month trial based in Miami, a virtual witchhunt atmosphere existed. Defense attorneys’ motions for a change of venue were denied five times by the judge, although it was obvious that a fair trial was impossible in that city.

The Cuban Five were convicted June 8, 2001 and sentenced to four life terms and 75 years in December, 2001. On August 9, 2005, after seven years of imprisonment, the Cuban Five won an unprecedented victory on appeal. A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the convictions of the Cuban Five and ordered a new trial outside of Miami.

However, on Oct. 31, the 11th Circuit Court vacated the three-judge panel’s ruling and granted an “en banc” hearing before the full panel of 12 judges. Exactly one year after the victory that granted the Five a new trial, the panel voted 10 to 2 to deny the Five a new trial, and instead affirmed the trial court.

This case is a political case; the Cuban Five are political prisoners. Important declarations have been made by hundreds of parliamentarians in Britain, Italy, and the European and Latin American Parliaments. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions, with five judges, ruled that there were irregularities in the Five’s trial and arrest, effectively denying them a fair trial and calling on the U.S. government to remedy this injustice.

Adriana Pérez, wife of Gerardo Hernandez, has requested, and been denied, a visa to see her husband in prison in the U.S.. For a decade, the United States government has denied this couple the possibility of seeing each other. Doesn’t she, and don’t the other wives, have the right to visit their husbands?

Contact Ira Grupper: irag@iglou.com