Dispatches this week focuses on the New Jersey tradition of legislating against bad budget practices long after their impacts have crippled the state.
Runner’s diary, Thursday
I’m not sure what is up with my legs, but this morning’s run was difficult — and I only did three miles. To give readers an idea of what my legs are feeling like, I felt a twinge in both my hamstring and groing muscles on my left leg as I walked down the stairs a while ago. Maybe, it’s just age.
Labor flexes its muscles
A second story, however, may be just as important — the sit-in at the Republic Windows & Doors plant. The sit-in is a throwback to an earlier time of collective action and revolt, a time when workers banded together to stand up for their rights and to demand that they be treated with respect and dignity. And the workers at the plant know it.
Outraged and determined Chicago factory workers who were abruptly laid off this week have occupied their former workplace and say they won’t leave until they get the severance and vacation pay they say they’re owed.
The employees say they received three days notice their plant was closing. In the second day of a sit-in on the factory floor Saturday, about 250 union workers occupied the building in shifts while union leaders outside criticized a Wall Street bailout they say is leaving laborers behind.
About 50 workers sat on pallets and chairs inside the Republic Windows and Doors plant, supplied with donated food, sleeping bags and blankets. Leah Fried, an organizer with the United Electrical Workers, said the Chicago-based vinyl window manufacturer failed to give its 300 employees the 60 days’ notice required by law before shutting.
During the takeover, workers have been shoveling snow and cleaning the building, Fried said.
“We’re doing something we haven’t done since the 1930s, so we’re trying to make it work,” Fried said.
The action has the support of community activists and has drawn the attention of President-elect Barack Obama — who is a former community organizer in Chicago.
“I think that these workers, if they have earned these benefits and their pay, then these companies need to follow through on those commitments,” Obama said at a news conference.
The sit-in, which began Friday when about 240 workers began “protesting the loss of what they said is vacation and severance pay they’ve earned and the lack of notice about the closing.” The workers could be excused for viewing their protest through a narrow prism, but it is clear from the news coverage that they understand the larger implications of their actions.
Many said Monday that they appreciated the encouragement and national attention, recognizing that their effort had tapped into concerns about job security in a declining economy.
“I’m not scared because I’m not alone on this,” said Raul Flores, 25, who had worked at Republic for eight years. “We’re strong and we’re going to stay. This gives us the strength to keep going. This is going to be for everyone.”
That’s no understatement. The job action — coming at a time when the nation’s financial house is in disarray, when the Big Three automakers are facing bankruptcy and more and more people are losing their jobs and the safety net is in tatters — has the potential to trigger a wider protest. “Republic workers didn’t wait for government action,” Peter Drieier notes on Huffington Post.
They refused to walk away from their jobs quietly or to accept the argument that the lay-offs were an inevitable result of the nation’s economic hard times. They peacefully took over the plant, where some of them had worked for decades, and demanded that the Bank of America and Republic management find a solution. The workers insist that they won’t leave until getting assurances they will receive severance and vacation pay, but they also hope to find a way to keep the plant open.
Although by occupying the factory they are breaking the law, no politician has called for the Chicago Police Department to arrest them — a sure sign that their action has become a symbol of working families’ distress in the unraveling Bush economy. Millions of Americans, watching interviews with the workers on TV during the past few days, can identify with their plight – the loss of their jobs, their health insurance and perhaps their homes – only a few weeks before Christmas.
The soon-to-be new president seems to understand this.
“When it comes to the situation here in Chicago with the workers who are asking for their benefits and payments they have earned,” Obama said during a press briefing on Sunday, ” I think they are absolutely right. What’s happening to them is reflective of what’s happening across this economy.”
With that statement, Obama used his bully pulpit to endorse the workers’ protest and to put pressure on the Bank of America and Republic to forge a solution. Representatives of the company, BofA, and the union have been meeting at the bank’s office in downtown Chicago. Congressman Luis Gutierrez has been moderating the talks.
The symbolism of the workers’ take-over also adds credence to Obama’s call for a major government-funded infrastructure program that will stimulate several million jobs — almost all of them in the private sector — and help jump-start the ailing economy.
The protest, as I said, is a throwback — and may be a glimpse into the future:
Its worth recalling that FDR did not campaign for president in 1932 — three years into the Great Depression — as a proponent of government activism or with a clear plan for economic recovery. But in the five months between his election victory and his March 1933 inauguration, Depression conditions had worsened, and grassroots worker and community protests escalated throughout the country. As soon as he took office, Roosevelt became more vocal, using his bully pulpit — in speeches and radio addresses — to promote New Deal ideas, pushing banking reform, public works, relief for struggling farmers, and help for homeowners within the first few months of his administration. In June 1933 he signed the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which for the first time recognized workers’ right to collective bargaining.
Immediately, union activists gave speeches and posted signs — on posters and billboards, and in store windows — proclaiming, “The President wants you to join the union.” Workers responded, and union membership began to climb. When the Supreme Court ruled in May 1935 that NIRA was unconstitutional, FDR and Congress immediately enacted the National Labor Relations Act, often called the Wagner Act, to preserve workers’ right to organize. Workers became even bolder in order to protect their jobs and defend their rights. Department store clerks, bakers, hospital laundry workers, longshoremen, meatpackers, steelworkers, tire and auto workers, and others engaged in various forms of protest, including the first wave of “sit-down” strikes demanding recognition of their unions. The combination of government intervention and union activism laid the foundation for the post-World War 2 prosperity that lifted the majority of Americans into the middle class.
That social contract has now been shredded, spurred by two decades of government deregulation of business, widening inequality, increasing job insecurity, and the unraveling of the social safety net, including health insurance. These trends have been compounded during the Bush years — corrupt crony capitalism, the mortgage meltdown, escalating foreclosures, and large-scale lay-offs.
The bold factory take-over by the Republic workers in Chicago may be a fluke, or it just could be the opening salvo of a new wave of grassroots activism, not only by workers and their unions, but also by community groups, enviros, religious congregations, housing crusaders, and the millions of Americans inspired by Obama’s campaign who voted for the first time in November. Clearly the Republic workers’ protest has struck a nerve with the American people, including many who don’t share their plight but can nevertheless empathize with their predicament.
It would be uplifting and useful to see vigils and rallies in cities around the country on behalf of another New Deal — a pump-priming infrastructure plan, a “green jobs” investment program, a universal health insurance proposal, a long-overdue reform of corporate-friendly labor laws, a strategy to help Americans afford housing, and a significant federal investment in public schools and college financial aid.
Like FDR, Obama can use his bully pulpit to encourage Americans to organize and raise their voices — as he did Sunday in support of the workers at Republic Windows and Doors, a month before he officially takes office. But if Americans want the country to change direction, as the election results indicated, they’ll have to follow Obama’s advice, and the Republic workers’ example: change happens from the bottom up.
Talked down from the ledge
Rachel Maddow calls it “Talk Me Down,” which is as apt a phrase for the current progressive agita as any. This bit of indigestion, of course, comes from progressives’ high hopes for an Obama administration, from the expectation that he would be the liberal caricature crafted by the McCain campaign (only one of many caricatures tossed out there by the GOP).
The weeks since the election have seen a kind of schizophrenia on the left, with many of us — me included — bemoaning the president-elect’s choices for various cabinet posts and the lack of any movement progressives.
At the same time, the evidence is out there — at least on economic matters — that the Obama administration may just be the most progressive in memory. Consider this post from Robert Borosage at the Campaign for America’s Future:
Last weekend, pragmatic centrist Obama called for a bold recovery plan, grounded on strategic public investment rather than tax cuts to “help save or create” 2.5 million jobs, “while rebuilding our infrastructure, improving our schools, reducing our dependence on oil and saving billions of dollars.” Elements that would include a “massive effort” to make federal buildings energy efficient, the “largest investment in roads and bridges since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s, “the most sweeping” program to upgrade and repair the nation’s schools; and a new push to extend broadband to every corner of the country. While refusing to talk numbers, Obama pledged to “do what’s required to jolt this economy back into shape,” with anonymous advisers suggesting $500 billion to $700 billion as a possible price tag.
In scope and substance, Obama’s plan tracks the elements of the Main Street Recovery Program, released by the Campaign for America’s Future, and endorsed by more than 100 union, citizen action, women’s, environmental and other progressive groups, and some 120 progressive economists.
And, yet, there he is hanging with Lawrence Summers, which is OK by Borosage, so long as centrists like Summers and others to his right understand today’s changed reality — the center did not hold and had to move to the left, meaning that those of us once decried as being out of touch and on the fringe have become acceptable, if not mainstream, and it is Bill O’Reilly and his clones that are rightly viewed as working the lunatic fringe.
As Borosage says,
Welcome to the new center: post-partisan progressivism. “We’re all Keynesians now,” Richard Nixon once famously announced. And now the catastrophic failures of conservatism have set the stage for a new era of progressive reform. The election gave Obama a mandate and a majority for progressive reform: an end to the war in Iraq, health care for all, investment in new energy and education. He doesn’t seem to have backed off on any of his major commitments yet. And the economic crisis is forcing an ever bolder response, driving the entire “center” to the left.
Fear, politics and legislative inertia: Same-sex marriage in New Jersey
Every time a rational study is done on civil unions, they are found wanting.
Enter the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, which issued a report today confirming what it said nearly a year ago — and what most of us have been saying since well before the state Supreme Court put civil unions in play.
The panel found that
the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children. In a number of cases, the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for civil union couples.
The report continues:
The experience of this couple amply demonstrates that the provisioning of the rights of marriage through the separate status of civil unions perpetuates the unequal treatment of committed same-sex couples. Even if, given enough time,
civil unions are understood to provide rights and responsibilities equivalent to
those provided in marriage, they send a message to the public: same-sex couples
are not equal to opposite-sex married couples in the eyes of the law, that they
are “not good enough” to warrant true equality.This is the same message that racial segregation laws wrongfully sent. Separate treatment was wrong then and it is just as wrong now.
The commission offers these recommendations:
- The Legislature and Governor amend the law to allow same-sex couples to marry;
- The law be enacted expeditiously because any delay in marriage equality will harm all the people of New Jersey;
- and The Domestic Partnership Act should not be repealed, because it provides important protections to committed partners age 62 and older.
There already is legislation on the table, sponsored by Reed Gusciora,D-Princeton, in the Assembly. The legislation, which is before the Assembly Judiciary Committee — chaired by Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein, D-Plainsboro — would define marriage
as the legally recognized union of two consenting persons in a committed relationship. The bill provides that whenever the term “marriage” occurs or the term “man,” “woman,” “husband” or “wife” occurs in the context of marriage or any reference is made thereto in any law, statute, rule, regulation or order, the same shall be deemed to mean or refer to the union of two persons pursuant to the bill.
At the same time, the legislation would exempt religious officials from having to perform marriages — an important provision that allows the Civil Marriage and Religious Protection Act to remain consistent with both the religion clause of the First Amendment and the state’s constitution.
Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts, D-Camden, has long supported same-sex marriage, reaffirming that support today:
“As I have said many times before, same-sex marriage in New Jersey is only a matter of ‘when,’ not ‘if.’
“The Commission’s report should spark a renewed sense of purpose and urgency to overcoming one of society’s last remaining barriers to full equality for all residents.”
A great quote, of course. So why has the Gusciora bill been languishing all this time? One could assume that, given the authority over the legislative process enjoyed by the speaker in the Assembly, he could have made sure that the Gusciora bill was on the docket. Instead, it remains with the Judiciary Committee a full 11 months after officially being introduced.
Juan Melli, a columnist with PolitickerNJ, blames the Assembly’s failure — along with the state Senate’s and Gov. Jon Corzine’s — on politics and fear. He hopes — which is not the same thing as being hopeful — that the
report might provide enough cover to get a few more sponsors on the “Civil Marriage and Religious Protection Act,” which calls for full marriage equality. It might also serve as supporting evidence in a hypothetical court case challenging the current law; say, if a married couple from Massachusetts moved to New Jersey and found that their marriage was magically transformed into a civil union. It could also push those who are teetering on the edge of the issue, like Jon Corzine, who supported marriage equality while running for governor in 2005, later said he only supported civil unions, and most recently said he has “significant concerns” about civil unions actually providing equal rights.
More likely, however,
the legislation is unlikely to be considered at least until the next lame duck session, and conventional wisdom among head-counters is that there are enough votes to pass the bill in the Assembly, but not yet in the Senate.
The problem with voting during a lame duck session is that we’re never more than a year or two away from the next election, and if there’s one thing politicians care about more than anything, it’s keeping their jobs. The Assembly and governor are up for re-election in 2009, followed by congressional elections in 2010, and then the state Senate in 2011. No matter who is up, expect them to make excuses based more on fear than reality.
That would follow the historical pattern, of course:
Corzine didn’t want to bring up the issue this year for fear that a fired up right wing would hurt Democrats’ chances in the presidential election. Despite the narrow passage of the well-financed, anti-gay Proposition 8 in California, Barack Obama carried the state by 24 points — a remarkable 14 point improvement over John Kerry’s margin in 2004. So while the president-elect’s nation-wide coalition included the so-called “Racists for Obama”, he also received a large number of votes in California thanks to the “Homophobes for Obama.” Unless you believe the electorate is cleanly bifurcated, neither result should be surprising.
Nor should the result have come as a surprise to political observers in New Jersey. A recent Zogby poll commissioned by Garden State Equality found that only 21 percent of voters think that legislators who vote to give same-sex couples the right to marry would not be re-elected. But don’t expect that to stop the Chicken Littles from predicting the vault of heaven to collapse and men to rain down upon us all.
So, yes, civil unions have been a failure and allowing same-sex marriage is the right thing to do. It might even have public support. But don’t expect the Legislature to do anything in the short term — it just doesn’t have the cajones.