« November 2005 | Main | January 2006 »

Unite, Workers! (Unless I miss my train)

So for now it looks like the transit workers in New York are back on the job, while mediation continues. An outside observer would be forgiven for wondering what they gained - a three day strike, heavy punitive fines for union workers (and possible jail time for the union leadership) for no contract, and no guarantee. Strikes are rare in this country - far rarer than in Europe - so it was interesting to me that there was a strike at all. Was going on strike justified?

First we must ask, what constitutes justification? To the MTA board and Michael Bloomberg, I doubt there is any such thing as a 'justified' strike. From the standpoint of union workers on the other hand, who are faced with shrinking health and pension benefits and rising costs while the MTA sits on a surplus of funds, a withdrawal of labor is fighting for hard-earned conditions and fairness.

The dynamics of a strike have come a long way. The history of the labor movement in this country (as well as Britain) is a story of violence and extraordinary courage in the face of blatantly amoral exploitation from politicians and industry barons. It's important to note that a mere hundred years ago, child labor was commonplace here, in sweatshops and factories where businesses thought nothing of children working eleven hour days in appalling conditions in the name of profit. Now of course it's in China and Indonesia, so it's far easier to ignore - besides, I need my cheap sneakers.

Striking workers of the period were subject to harassment, assault, and risk of death by employer-hired thugs or even federal troops. In many cases, strikes did not achieve the stated goals of the workers, but what the strikes did achieve was to raise the consciousness of the country. It is remarkable to me that despite the fact that strikes were often broken, people were still prepared to withhold their labor to fight for fair and safe working conditions. It is because of the bravery of the workers in the late 19th century that workers today enjoy laws protecting them. The right to organize, the right to assemble and the right to withhold labor are to me natural rights that any worker should enjoy. There are limits to such rights in the name of maintaining national stability and security, but those limits need to be carefully applied.

The organized labor movement is going through some tough times. In this country, recent research offers some stark statistics - 12.5 percent of private sector workers in a union (down from 20 percent in 1983), and 36 percent of government workers. The industries that lent themselves well to collective bargaining are disappearing from the labor landscape; blue collar assembly and manufacturing is destined for the Far East or parts unknown, and white collar workers have never been significantly unionized by comparison to start with. That government (which includes local and state government) workers are more unionized is no surprise; it is much harder for a town to fire its entire police force or teaching staff and recruit new workers overnight than it is for a small business to fire a difficult employee and place an ad in the newspaper for a replacement. Public sector workers have that leverage of being more difficult to replace that most private sector employees do not enjoy, along with the fact the public sector workers are the only game in town; there are not multiple firefighting firms competing for your business, for example, as used to be the case many years ago.

While many of the benefits unionized workers have fought for, like health and safety legislation, benefits both public and private sector, other benefits like guaranteed contracts, pensions and work hours are unique to those fortunate enough to be in the union. There is a very wide gulf today between those workers - particularly those on contracts like those at the MTA. How many private sector employees do you know whose employer provides a pension plan? Not a 401(k); an honest-to-God pension plan. For that matter, how many get premium-paid health insurance? Or have the right to retire at 55 and collect on their pension? Not all that many.

The upshot of this is public sympathy for strikers is on the wane (though it should be noted such sympathy has never been particularly high in this country, as it seems unions are still regarded with suspicion, as if hairy horrible communists will emerge any second to drag the nation into a pit of Bolshevik anarchy). Public opinion is what drives people to the polls and to the voting booth for elections, referendums, propositions and anything else that might affect public (or private) sector labor law. Any union going out on strike has to consider public opinion to their cause carefully, if they are to avoid being demonized when the next election rolls around and corporate special interests are seeking to roll back labor protections as they invariably do. A badly timed or ill-supported strike could do far worse than cost a fine - it could do lasting damage to legal protections in that state where the strike took place - or even at the federal level.

With this in mind, the transit strike had little positive going for it, strategically. Public support was at best mixed. Wall Street brokers had private coaches chartered to take their suits to the office, and Mayor Bloomberg certainly wasn't inconvenienced in his daily commute. For the myriad of little guys and gals out there who need to get to work or they /don't get paid/, though, the strike was truly painful. The TWU perhaps should have taken a page from the London Underground RMT playbook; they tend to exercise what are known as 'wildcat' strikes; strikes pre-publiclized and only lasting a set period. The disruption is annoying, but not quite as bruising, and it certainly has an effect.

In closing, given that the transit workers were being faced with - heaven forbid - having to pay for healthcare(!) and starting to feel the demographic squeeze of pension commitments which have already burnt thousands upon thousands of workers across the country, I am not overly sympathetic to their plight. I truly wish they didn't have such choices to make, or have to start paying more money to secure retirement or healthcare. The tactics of the MTA were definitely not conducive to an easy resolution to this dispute. The fact is though, such demands are not much worse in comparison to the struggles the average unprotected worker is going through. The TWU were not 'thugs' or 'terrorists' for striking - far from it. I support their right to do so, and I think they were very brave to take the stance they did. Unfortunately not the right time or the right fight, and it just may have done more harm than good, long term.

The average American worker no longer looks at unionized workers as 'one of us' but increasingly as a protected enclave interested only in their own goals. If the labor movement persist in actions that hurt the weakest of the workforce while attempting to dent the strongest, it will come back to haunt them at the ballot box.

Posted by union_jack at 09:51 PM | Comments (1)

Tis the season…

I was thinking of writing about Christmas from the standpoint of over commercialism, crazed, panting mall denizens fighting over the last Xbox360, commenting on the pollution of other nations with Westernized materialism masquerading as religion, bemoaning the lack of ‘genuine holiday spirit’ and mocking the current perception that liberals hate Santa and Jesus in equal measure this week (It’s true, we do. Honest. Damn that Jesus and his message of love, tolerance and forgiveness, none of which are liberal values, I guess). I could do this, but it would be somewhat predictable (and I did, I’d have nothing to write about next week). Besides, I kind of like Christmas, much as I’m loathe to admit it. So for once, a post about more personal recollections! Next week we can talk about how spoilt brats need to do manual labor to earn gifts.

When I was much younger, Christmas was certainly magical. I definitely bought into Santa, and his myriad arcane powers. In fact, my belief was a little too strong. As my mother found out shortly after I was able to talk (and write lists), I had no guilt feelings whatsoever about asking for the biggest shiniest thing on the shelf. After all, since Santa was bringing it, mum’s checkbook simply was not a factor to be considered. Thankfully I’m not a parent, so I haven’t yet had to deal with that careful dance between magical elf-created Playstation consoles and crushing reality (It must have been easier fifty years ago when more toys were things like wooden trains. Santa can apparently make iPods now, and his elves work out of a sweatshop in Beijing).

Anyway, my firm belief in Santa’s omnipotence changed one memorable night. My parents were out for the evening, and I was being babysat. Having got it into my head that the babysitter REALLY, REALLY wanted to play a board game with a brat who just wouldn’t go to bed at a decent hour, I rummaged through various closets and cupboards. I remember being intent on my mission, pushing various parcels and boxes out of the way before I finally noticed something was amiss. They were gift wrapped. They had labels. Labels marked as for me! But in the place on the label marked ‘From’ it didn’t say ‘Mum and Dad’. Instead, the dreaded words FROM SANTA. But.. it wasn’t Christmas yet! While I don’t remember the babysitter’s name or anything about them for some reason, I still remember the crushing looming realization that everything was not as I thought it was. I remember saying ‘Oh…’ in a very quiet voice and carefully putting things back and closing the cupboard almost like I was closing the door on a chunk of my world. I suppose it would be the equivalent of a fervent Intelligent Design advocate looking at Paris Hilton and finally realizing there’s just no way some intelligence produced that - or if it did, it was a diabolical joke on the rest of mankind.

With that heartbreaking tale out of the way, I feel it is important to note that this did not in any way prevent me from enjoying the toys with their bogus labels. I was an extremely mercenary little brat. More stuff may be tainted with the fake-Santa label, but it was still Stuff. And Stuff is good. I don’t remember if my demands got less intricate after this new de-mystified Christmas; I do remember still poring over gift catalogs for hours on end, so I don’t think so, at least in terms of providing a large list of things. While I knew I wouldn’t get everything, the cardinal rule was you ask for a lot and bargain down - handy skills to craft at whatever age.

When do you know that you’re finally grown up? I think Christmas is one of those holidays that mark that shift from ‘fun’ to ‘socks’. When you get socks (or a tie, or aftershave, or strange perfume, or an obscure kitchen ‘time saving appliance’ like an apple core recycling juicemaker) then welcome! You are now an adult. You will never again wake up breathless on Christmas morning wondering what Santa gave you, though you may wake up breathless in mid January when the mailman brings the Visa bill. Somehow, it’s just not the same kind of magic.

However you spend your holiday season, I hope it’s a happy and safe one. And you don’t get too many pairs of socks.

Posted by union_jack at 10:08 PM | Comments (2)

Redemption vs. Responsibility

Should the death penalty be abolished? Can clemency ever be justified in a capital crime case? Can someone guilty of murder ever be considered 'redeemed'? I think the answers to all three questions are 'yes'. If you've been following the news lately, the case of Stanley 'Tookie' Williams will certainly have crossed your eyes. This man, found guilty of four murders in 1979 has reached what appears to be the end of the long appeals process with the rejection of clemency by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Did Arnold do the right thing? Yes. Why do I think so?

I have been a death penalty opponent for many years now. The United Kingdom has fully abolished the death penalty; the final act of law which removed it from my country was the ratification of Protocol 6 of the European convention of Human rights. We are not alone in this - all other European member states have also signed up to this convention. Despite this, there is still a reasonably solid measure of support for the death penalty in Britain. Whenever a particularly gruesome crime occurs, it is usually accompanied by an upswing in support for the penalty, with various supporting arguments. Support seems to oscillate from 40 percent to well over 60 percent, depending on the source. It would be fair to say we as a nation are divided about it, as is the United States.

Is being against the death penalty the easy option? It is interesting to me that opponents of the death penalty are often derided as 'weak', 'soft on crime', 'spineless', and so on. I take the opposite view. It's a lot harder to -not- kill some of the offenders than it is to spare their lives in some cases. I offer as one such example the case of two men accused of shooting to death an American nun in the Amazon. From a completely emotional, visceral standpoint it would give me nothing but pleasure to have the opportunity to return the favor. Sadly, shooting the guilty parties would not bring the victim back. It would give me pleasure, yes; perhaps even a sense of restoring balance. Would it make society any safer? Perhaps, if it is assumed such men, if free, may kill again. Perhaps, if it assumed such a fate would prevent others from doing the same. Unfortunately, that is a lot of assumption.

The flaws in the justice system - in fact, in any human system - lie at the heart of my opposition to death as a State response to crime. It is no surprise to me that those on Death Row in this country are disproportionately minorities (newsflash : it's not because they commit more murders, but that they're more likely to be convicted). No system can be guaranteed as perfect. Since it cannot, it is inevitable that innocent men and women will die as a result. My second opposition is cost. It may come as a shock to some (it did to me) that the cost of incarcerating a prisoner in this country for life is actually LESS than putting them to death. * This is because when you factor in the appeals and greater scrutiny of the court that is attracted to a capital case, the State ends up paying far more in lawyer's fees than they do on providing a cell (In fairness, this particular reason is more US-centric; in countries wtihout much of a fair legal system, it's often cheaper to execute them after a five minute trial; but then we get back to the fallibility argument). Finally, I oppose the death penalty on moral grounds. I feel strongly that no-one has the right to take a life; and that restriction starts with the State. Some families who have been victims of murder (in some cases their own children) feel the same way. Not all victims demand death as a punishment. And finally, in the case of the truly abhorrent murderer, it's too quick. I'd gladly pay for keeping someone in a cell for forty years rather than offering them a fast, painless hanging. To me? That's money well spent.

To focus on Williams' case, I did not know anything about him before it started making headlines. When I first did read about it, my instinctive reaction was that a man who has made an attempt to change his life and atone for crimes should be recognized. On the face of it, a Nobel-prize nominated prisoner who has worked for years to teach children of the failings and ultimate end that the gang life can lead to, has been the focus of numerous appeals from churchmen, actors, activists and members of his own community.. well. If he's not deserving of clemency, who can be? What message does it send anyone if the State says, in effect 'nothing you do after the conviction matters or makes a difference to your end. You are in prison. Prison is a place to rot, not to reflect and find a new path.'. Amnesty International offers a useful summary of the case here.

The other side of the case presents a starkly different view. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office recaps the entire path that led to this juncture, starting with describing the crimes in detail. The methodology employed and the nature of the murders are quite simply, revolting, with nothing whatsoever to offer in terms of mitigating circumstance. It goes on to illustrate a plot orchestrated by Williams to attempt to break out of jail shortly after his arrest. It details Williams' refusal to offer insights into the gang he once was a part of, and ends on the reasonable observation that there have been 24 years of appeals and hearings and at ever step of the way, Williams' conviction has been upheld.

What is the 'right' decision?

Even on the face of the repugnant nature of the murders, I would be prepared to support clemency in this case. This is not because I oppose the death penalty; since I believe the penalty for such premeditated murder should be life without parole, the only function of clemency in my world would be to actually allow the inmate back on the street at some future point in time. That was never an option for Williams; even had Schwarzenegger offered clemency it would have been to reduce the sentence of death by injection to death by passage of time. He would still die behind bars; the only difference would be the date. I would support clemency because it is the human thing to do. If you say someone is completely beyond redemption, you strip them of their humanity and reduce them to an animal. The hope that someone can change their ways has to be at the heart of our justice. Without it, there is no future once convicted - and precious little motivation to try to change.

All that I believe. But not for Williams. He doesn't qualify. Firstly, he has never taken responsibility for even being involved in the crime, much less the man behind the trigger. Moreover, his refusal to talk to the authorities about his former gang ('Tookie don't snitch', apparently) gives the immediate lie to true reform. A true reformist, not to put too fine a point on it, snitches. The instinct to not 'rat' on your friends is a very powerful one. We see it in many walks of life; when police don't report corrupt colleagues, when communities don't testify in trials. (In Boston, they recently banned the sale of 'Stop Snitching' shirts. Though I disagree with the ban, based on First Amendment rights, I also disagree with that message. Stop snitching, save a drug dealer? I don't think so).

The argument he deserves clemency also crumbles when his books and nominations are offered in support. Being nominated for a Nobel prize sounds far more impressive than it actually is; any University Professor can nominate someone for a Nobel prize. George W. Bush himself has been nominated for a Peace Prize (a fact that should stick in any peace activist's craw). Williams' books and comments on the gang lifestyle are worthy. Perhaps they have helped reach some people - I hope they have. But the very first step on the road to redemption is responsibility. If he does not take responsibility for the crimes that put him behind bars he has not truly begun to redeem himself.

I think the execution - any execution - is a waste of a life. It will not bring back the victims or bring peace to the streets. While behind bars, Williams could offer more to society as an example and a symbol than he will in a coffin. But to argue for clemency because I oppose the death penalty would be intellectually dishonest. While I do not support the death penalty, as long as the people of California vote for it (however misguided I feel it is) it is the law. Williams knew the penalty for murder when he committed the crimes. He has had years behind bars to offer remorse and truly work against gangs and gang violence. He has not taken those opportunities or applied that knowledge. His fate, ultimately, has been sealed by his own hand.

Posted by union_jack at 07:57 PM | Comments (5)

Freakin’ Channel Choosing

It’s always amusing to me when you get to see two different spheres of corporate interest bumping up against each other. In particular it gets entertaining when the traditional allies of corporate interest are thusly torn between which of their patrons to support at any given time. The tap-dancing that ensues in the halls of power is a mighty rhythm indeed. We saw a little hint of this with the FCC’s recent (and to some, surprising) ‘re-appraisal’ of last year’s report that stated that ‘a la carte’ pricing models in cable television would drive prices up for consumers.

In case you don’t hold with all those fancy French words for describing matters in this country (I could call it ‘Freedom Cable’ too, if it’d help), a la carte pricing is essentially the notion that a consumer should be able to pay for only those channels in the cable lineup that they want, rather than have to deal with bundling packages, as we do today. On the face of it, this seems an eminently reasonable consumer driven notion that dovetails nicely with the concept of a free market, red in tooth and claw. Successful channels prosper, and unpopular (read : unprofitable) channels will go the way of the dodo.

The Federal Communication Commission undertook a study last year to look into the matter, at the behest of Congress. Let’s go back a year first of all to look at what the Washington Post said about the FCC’s findings in the grand ole year of 2004. The big conclusion was that the ‘average’ consumer could expect a rise in prices of up to thirty percent, if they bought the specific channels, rather than a bundling package. In addition the report rejected the notion of government regulation in favor of fostering competition and technology to lower prices in the long run. How you can ‘foster competition’ in a monopoly environment without government involvement is a strange question to me, but we’ll let this slide. The main point is the FCC was very pro-entrenched business interest in its outlook.

All this changed when the new FCC chairman, Kevin Martin, did a complete about-face on this finding, when he stated that a la carte pricing models would lower cable bills and allow greater parental control. Why the sudden turnaround? Surely the cable companies are as anti competition as they have ever been (in fairness, as any company is. No company likes competition). Well, they are not the only forces in play here.

The first opposition to cable companies are the the traditional phone companies like Verizon and AT&T - they have no problem at all with a la carte offerings. How altruistic and public spirited of them! Well, not really. The reason they love the idea is they’re trying to break into this monopoly market; anything that reduces the death-grip held by cable companies in conjunction with the big networks is music to their ears. Naturally, if the shoe was on the other foot, they’d be the first in line protesting that a la carte pricing just wasn’t possible, but I digress.

The second -and perhaps more politically awkward- force involved is that of a rising social conservative influence; nominally this is the pro-family pro-parent lobby, ably embodied by the Parents Televisoin Council. They had some great things to say about last year’s FCC findings - you can see the best here. I will share one quote directly.

Why should people be forced to pay for anal sex on FX when they want the Disney Channel? Why should they be forced to pay for South Park’s characters masturbating a dog to the point of ejaculation when they want The Discovery Channel?

Now I'm not a huge fan of channel bundling myself, but saying it's the slippery slope towards unwanted anal sex and dog jacking is a bit of a logical leap. Two points here. Firstly, I’ve yet to find any anal sex on the FX channel. If there is some, tell me what time and day. And secondly, that was a really funny South Park episode. *

Getting back on topic, the PTC viewpoint is clearly stated, and they have every right to their opinions, and every right to lobby their elected officials. Since it is pretty unlikely that cable channels will be subject to outright censorship (that old First Amendment protection), their ‘next best’ goal of a la carte price models is fair enough. I think they’re right; they shouldn’t have to pay for a channel if they find it objectionable, whatever the reason. (The fact parents can and should be spending time with their kids and making sure they’re not watching South Park is another discussion).

When the forces of social conservatism versus big business fight it is always uncomfortable for the Republican party. It is hard to be business friendly and allow them to merrily screw consumers when some of these consumers happen to be your electoral base. Until businesses are given the vote directly (don’t laugh, it could happen), they have to at least be seen to be attempting to placate the social conservatives of their party. This is why I think we’re seeing the rumblings from the brand new FCC chairman, who feels their pain and wrings his hands over ‘coarse programming’.

The real irony at bottom is the government didn’t budge an inch when the arguments for a la carte pricing (consumer choice, free market, let the best channels win) were purely business related; if one is supposedly for the free market, and yet encourages monopoly manipulation of that market, then one is a fool or a liar (or bought). Bring in the anguished forces of concerned conservative parents, though, and suddenly the government wishes to be seen to be concerned and doing something!

Business can take heart though; Forbes magazine at least sees little to fear. After all; the networks don’t like a la carte, and they’re the ones providing content. As long as they insist you get MTV with Nickelodeon, or FX with Cartoon Network, the a la carte proponents will face an uphill battle.

In closing, those who favor a la carte programming in the name of consumer choice and a fairer market should be very wary of this newfound FCC enthusiasm and their new strange bedfellow in the social conservative movement. After all, the goals of the PTC are to prevent indecency in programming (in part by having FCC indecency standards apply to cable television broadcasts, something the FCC chairman has seemed to favor). One is left with the suspicion they’d not be protesting bundling at all, if the only channels available were suitably ‘decent’. Now that would be the ideal! Bundled, anticompetitive monopoly run cable television that is all safely decent and predictable, so you can park the rug rat in front of the tv with confidence. It’s pro family AND pro business!

* Though not as funny as the one where Cartman proved you’d poop out your mouth if you shoved food up your.. well, yeah. You can guess the rest, you’re an imaginative lot.

Posted by union_jack at 11:00 PM | Comments (0)