It would sure be nice if all of this took off. I'm still pretty pessimistic about the whole Occupy deal. It does seem like if a General Strike could work anywhere in the US, it would be in Oakland. There's a solidarity noise demo tonight at OccupyMN, we'll see how that goes.
There were people Occupying Inwood at my subway stop this morning. Just holding signs, not camping out, but participating.
Worrying about how you'd explain it to management or whether one can use one's floating sick days does seem to be missing the point of a general strike by a pretty wide margin. So tragically so, in fact, that I have to wonder if it's meant seriously. Worrying about who's going to save the kittens and orphans if not you might be a better reason.
But I suspect the real reason most people won't be able to go on a general strike for any great length of time is that their jobs aren't part of a union infrastructure, they're living paycheck to paycheck for the necessities and won't have anyone to support them if they get fired. Note that the people who've come out loudest in support of the Oakland general strike tend to come from professions that are still unionized.
3 is just about the size of it. If we had 28% unemployment like Spain, or were more heavily unionized, or people were a little further down the path of immiseration, I would be more sanguine about the chances for things going off. As it is, too many people will (rightly) make the calculation that they have far more to lose in the short term than they likely stand to gain in the long term.
Notice something: Oakland is where the Occupy movement voted to try a general strike of sorts. Since the Longshoreman's union is onside, this will have an effect.
Oakland is also where the worst police brutality has occurred, and it began before the vote on the general strike.
The police and mayor are fools. By committing atrocities, they are forcing people to engage in effective action. They are forcing the protestors to strike back and do something which will actually hurt the powerful.
But the police and mayor are also doing the necessary work of educating people. These folks would not believe those of us who told them that simple peaceful protest would not accomplish anything. Only the police, and a Democratic mayor whose resume is that of a DFH, could convince them of that.
Here's where I reveal myself to be part of the capitalist oppressor overclass or whatever, but:
Last night, I was getting a massage in Oakland, at a place where the staff is exclusively Chinese, and broadly speaking seem to be recent immigrants. My girlfriend and I are regulars there, and our masseurs sometimes chat with us (communication can be somewhat difficult as the masseurs usually have fairly limited English, and my girlfriend and I have zero Mandarin). They were all abuzz about the general strike, and wanted to talk about it. I was amused to find that:
1. They seemed broadly puzzled about the strike. Like, they sort of wanted the protesters to understand that if they didn't work, they wouldn't get paid. Though one of them had heard that unions pay their employees on strikes, and he thought that was completely hilarious.
2. They were tossing around ideas about how to use the general strike to drum up business for the massage parlor. They joked about going down there and offering free massages to people who were tired from holding up signs.
3. They wanted us to understand that if we were going to take the day off tomorrow, the massage parlor would be open, as it is every day including New Year's (they informed us), so we should come on down.
4. I couldn't tell if this was a joke or a serious concern: they wanted to know if the electricity and water would turn off since nobody (besides, they emphasized, masseurs) would be working.
5. And then they got onto a riff about how all the soldiers would stop working, and, thus, naturally, the US would be invaded by Japan. Or flooded with Japanese refugees fleeing Fukushima. As one does.
A serious general strike is something you'd have to lay a lot of groundwork for. You don't get union members to walk without planning and education. (Wildcat strikes are very, very rare nowadays.) 99% of Americans don't know what a general strike is, nor that they've happened here in the past.
I'm figuring that the call for a general strike is actually to give the ILA legal grounds not to cross the picket line so that Occupy can shut down the port.
6: Well, that is kinda the heart of the problem, isn't it? The late-19th/early-20th century US radicals were largely from recent immigrant backgrounds. And there are immigrants doing radical activism now, but we in the assimilated white radical scene have not done the work we need to do to connect with them. What useful thing do I have to say to the Mexican guys who work in the kitchen of the Chinese restaurant, when I can't even speak the language?
Apparently the one IWW-organized shop in Oakland has a no-strike clause in its contract. Oh, the bitter irony.
4: I wonder if generalized rising prosperity levels tend to doom political solidarity on the left.
Back in the day, if you knuckled under to the oligarchs and were still near starvation, the risk/benefit calculation was different. Freedom's just another word for nuthin' left to lose, eh?
4 is, word for word, what I told several of my graduate students (who are representatives for their union) yesterday. Still, I'll head down to Oakland today to march. The real question, though, is what I'll do if a general strike comes to Davis. Probably strike, I guess. But I've been very reluctant to cancel class/take up class time with any of this. Our students have seen their tuition go up by more than 30% during this recession, and the vast majority of them, when asked, don't want to see contact hours spent on non-academic activities. I suppose the answer might be a teach-in.
11: When we had this problem, the faculty who supported the strike taught their classes off campus. Fairly pointless I suppose.
12: I don't think it's pointless at all. You gotta know who your friends are, right? During the last AFSCME strike at the U of M, lots of community orgs opened their doors to classes and lots of professors and TAs refused to cross the picket line. That meant a lot to the strikers, and definitely helped their cause.
OT: IEEE Spectrum reports on Fukushima I. Astonishingly, remember all that stuff we kept arguing about? Turns out it was all baseless rumour and speculation. How could it happen?
Worrying about how you'd explain it to management or whether one can use one's floating sick days does seem to be missing the point of a general strike by a pretty wide margin. So tragically so, in fact, that I have to wonder if it's meant seriously.
I know it's missing the point, absolutely.
15: Yes, well, comity. I'm pleased to provide independent confirmation.
Though if it's "vanishingly unlikely that anyone at work is conservative," it would stand to reason that there are probably one or two people who would understand the desire to participate in the Occupy movement.
Apparently the one IWW-organized shop in Oakland has a no-strike clause in its contract. Oh, the bitter irony.
That's … impressive.
I suppose the answer might be a teach-in.
Good idea. Is there a critical mass of on-side faculty at Wafer U. to make this happen?
Strike for what? I'm not big on the whole "OWS needs a demand" thing but it does seem like strikes need to be for something.
I'd had the same thought. I don't know.
Of course, any expressions of solidarity are helpful right now. A teach-in sounds very good, since it's not particularly associated with specific demands, and if there were ever a teachable moment, this is one.
Strike for what? I'm not big on the whole "OWS needs a demand" thing but it does seem like strikes need to be for something.
Why? A strike is a demonstration of support, just like the occupations.
Incidentally, I've seen some local blogs quoting local union materials (non-public-sector) saying they were not striking, but that members would take the day off work for a "mass day of action." Is sympathetic striking still illegal in the US, Taft-Hartley or something?
I think it is -- haven't looked at the issue in forever, but that's my memory.
Except, as I noted above, that some contracts allow workers to honor picket lines.
20: A one-day strike doesn't really need a demand. It's a pure show of force.
My sister works right there. Says it is a big, amazing crowd of normal looking people and not a cop in sight.
So it turns out my office was closing at 3 and I hadn't gotten the memo, which would have been a great compromise if I hadn't gotten a migraine in the interim.
When I briefly worked on EFCA it seemed like just about every kind of strike was illegal, and trying to join a union might as well be illegal.
EFCA would have been way better to pass than health care reform, but the Obama Administration was totally uninterested. If I could make one single change in the law it would be reestablishing the right to organize, that would make the biggest difference.
30: Pretty much. Some of the Wobblies have gotten pretty adept at exploiting the very few "loopholes" to file Unfair Labor Practices notices with the NLRB. It sounds like there's definitely still plenty of pro-union people at the NLRB, but they are heavily constrained by Taft-Hartley.
I'm figuring that the call for a general strike is actually to give the ILA legal grounds not to cross the picket line so that Occupy can shut down the port.
Can you flesh this out a bit? The Longshoremen can go on strike to avoid removing the Occupy people? But why would that have to be a General Strike instead of an ILA one?
No, they can't go on strike, but they don't have to cross a picket line. If the picket line comes down, the longshoremen go back to work.
A good friend of mine has been doing yeoman's work at Occupy L.A., helping to build bridges between local social movements and the occupiers. He and a friend who works in City Hall (whose lawn is occupied) have corroborated the picture painted by this piece, which is that it's become kind of a scabby party down there. Specifically, the south lawn is a non-stop drum and pot party full of hippies, crustypunks, and the homeless, and the north lawn is where the various affinity groups and organizers have concentrated themselves.
I've been down a couple of times, once to kick down a few sawbills and walk around, and another time for Succot, and I signed up on a list to help out with a labor teach-in that hasn't happened. But mostly it's felt like there's a perfect distance to keep from Occupy L.A. in order to draw maximum inspiration from it, and that distance is not too close.
This was some surprisingly good prodding from our local liberal bigfoot.
But mostly it's felt like there's a perfect distance to keep from Occupy L.A. in order to draw maximum inspiration from it, and that distance is not too close.
Oh, too bad. I was thinking we should go be Occupy L.A. tourists some weekend soon. (Occupy Santa Barbara most times I've dropped by has consisted of like five weary hippies, a handful of prominent local homeless people, two tents, and some signs propped up here and there.)
Occupy Anchorage is great. There were four or five people there today, which is the most I've ever seen (I think they get more on the weekends). People who are friends with me on Facebook will have seen this picture before, but I uploaded a few others to Flickr as well. They were taken on Halloween, when it was 25 degrees out and actively snowing.
I've been meaning to check out Occupy Vancouver, but haven't. Sometimes I feel like I'm a bit too much like Miles Coverdale.
That thread also features ogged hating on Burning Man, then a bunch of arguing about barbecue. This is what we now call Classic Unfogged.
My usual tram back home from the hospital passes the two (1) OccupyAmsterdam camps and I was worried to see a huge number of police vans and riot squad at Dam square, near the main camp yesterday. Then I remembered it was just Ajax playing Champions League that night...
(1) Footnote to previous post: one being really, really pathetic, just three tents or so under a couple of trees at Museumplein.
||
I want to write a letter to the Department of Education to complain about their crappy new web site and that the new contractor's knowledge and customer service has gone way down.
I don't think that the ombudsman is the right place to go based on the fact that that office says that they are a place of last resort and that they resolve disputes between students and educational institutions.
To whom should I address it?
|>
And my home town has been occupied! Occupy Bradford, who'd a thought it...mind you, of course, technically Manchester was the first occupation in the UK, they came down to the OccupyLSX GM to tell us to hurry up.
42. Write to the Education Secretary (Federal or Mass?). If it works like it does here, your letter will be copied to various different civil servants to draft responses to your distinct issues, which will then be collated in a reply from somebody on the Secretary's staff ("Secretary Bloggs has asked me to write in response to your letter of...")
Copy your initial letter to the Ombudsman and your representative in the federal/state congress.
no occupying, for sure, but apparently there's going to be s slutwalk in narnia?!
I don't really know anything about these things, but for good measure maybe also write the Ed OIG.