TPMCafe | Talking Points Memo | Strikes, Filibusters And Movements

David Shorr: The Blindspot in Obama's Nuclear-Free Vision

M.J. Rosenberg: Clinton Ain't Buying Israel's Latest

Nov. 16-20: Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare
Jeanne Desko: Palin's Blame Game
Chris Hayes: What's Sarah Palin's Future In American Politics?
Richard Kim: Sympathy For The Devil?: Oprah and the Palin Media Blitz

« HSA Primer | Home | Getting into the guts of what's going wrong at the pharmacy »

From: Coffee House

Strikes, Filibusters And Movements

By Frank Joyce - January 31, 2006, 11:25AM

By experience and inclination, I am mostly a movement person. In my view, that’s where important social shifts originate. In other words, first you have a civil rights movement. Then you have a civil rights bill. Similarly, Ronald Reagan and his pals recognized that the labor movement had passed its peak strength by 1980. (For one thing, were that not the case, he wouldn’t have been elected in the first place.) So, busting PATCO as his first presidential act was the effect of labor’s decline—not it’s cause. (That’s not to say that having successfully busted PATCO, organized labor’s decline didn’t accelerate from that point forward. It did.)

As with all generalizations, there are exceptions—but basically, I’m sticking with my “world-view.” That said, a spirit of resistance and change can be critical in any arena at any given moment. So, count me in with those who think that Democrats blew a “Rosa Parks” opportunity by their pathetic inability to filibuster the Scalito nomination. If I am right that we are in a “wild-west” kind of time when an old social contract is obsolete and a new one is up for grabs, the search for “teachable” moments and potentially defining struggles anywhere and everywhere becomes more urgent. We do not actually have all the time in world to stop the neo-con juggernaut. That said, the specifics of the Scalito nomination have been much debated here and I don’t think I have more to add.

I do have some thoughts about a tough decision that is facing organized labor at this point: what to do about the unresolved contract of the NYC transit workers. By a close margin, I think they should very seriously consider doing the counterintuitive thing. They should strike again. Change to Win or the AFL-CIO or both should focus major resources on supporting them.

Of course I defer to the union itself to make the decision. There are no easy choices available to them. And to be clear, as I argued a ways back in a post about the strike by mechanics at Northwest Airlines, I am anything but an advocate of willy nilly striking. With all due respect to the airline mechanics union membership and none to its leadership—that was and is a stupid strike.

The situation of the transit workers, however, is different. One difference is “structural. Unlike most unions these days, the Transit workers were in a position to cause major disruption back in December and they did. That alone is exceptional. A major factor in the declining effectiveness of strikes is that they are not disruptive enough. No one needs to figure out how to achieve labor “peace” if there is no labor conflict that’s causing much pain to anyone but the strikers themselves.

Indeed, for the most part, employers have figured out how to negate the effectiveness of the strikes for workers is by blunting the disruptive effect. (In fact employers have gained so much ground that strikes are more often “called” or provoked these days by the employer rather than the union.)

Airplanes flew on schedule during the PATCO strike. Newspapers didn’t miss publishing a single issue during the five year newspaper strike in Detroit. Supermarkets sold groceries in Southern California during every single hour of the grocery strike, albeit not as many. For six years, Caterpillar made as many tractors in Peoria and elsewhere as it needed during the lockout/strike of the UAW. The owners of NHL hockey teams shut the game down for a whole season and did more damage to the players than they did to themselves. More recently, the previously mentioned mechanics strike at Northwest Airlines caused quite minor flight disruptions for just a few short days before things got back to normal (technically that strike is still in effect).

The transit strike wasn’t like that. Millions of transit riders became pedestrians, took cabs, formed car pools, had to work from home or just couldn’t get where they wanted at all. Business and the economy were affected. The strike had major impact. This kind of opportunity doesn’t come that often for unions these days.

But something else important, although more intangible, is also going on. Across the land awareness is growing that these fights are not just about a pension nickel here, a wages dime there and a health care dollar someplace else. Of course every effort was and will be made to trivialize the issues and portray transit workers as greedy, overpaid, pre-9/11, etc, etc, etc. But more and more people know better. The nickels, dimes and dollars are adding up. A quantitative change is becoming qualitative.

To say that it’s just about nickels and dimes is like arguing that Mrs. Parks needn’t have held her ground that day in Montgomery because another perfectly good seat was available less than two feet away. Whether working people have some say over their own destiny—including their income—is ultimately a moral issue. An empowered middle-class isn’t just about economic health. It’s about the health of democracy.

The moral high ground, of course, only gets you so far. Rosa Parks’ refusal to move to that seat just across the racial divide made history for at least two reasons. First, it was the right action at the right time in the right place. Sure there had been other acts of defiance, resistance and civil disobedience before hers. They didn’t “click.” Hers did.

Is the time right now for the transit workers? Of course there is no way to know for certain. But it sure could be. (I’m sure there were lots of people who told Mrs. Parks that 1956 would be a lot better year to do something radical than 1955.)

Mrs. Parks is rightly revered for a second reason. She was also a key player in first putting in place the basic plan to build on that moment of resistance. The 381 day boycott that followed Mrs. Parks’ arrest remains one of the great social change struggles ever. (Even George Bush had to praise the result 50 years later. Can there be a scintilla of doubt that at the time he would have been vehemently opposed?)

The Montgomery Bus Boycott has much to teach us. For starters, its organizers had to overcome the timidity, defeatism and passivity of the “we don’t dare rock the boat” leaders and members of Montgomery’s African-American community. Indeed, that may be the single most significant achievement of the boycott organizers.

They also, of course, needed effective organization and communication. (There was a provocative moment during Mrs. Parks’ funeral in Detroit when Al Sharpton said, Way back in 1955 they figured out how thousands of poor African-Americans could get around town for months without using the buses. You all have two cell phones in your pocket and access to the world-wide-web. Can you even get a block club meeting together?)

What the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP did not need in 1955 was any illusion that their action would be “popular” or met with anything but extreme antagonism. They had no doubt that the white establishment and most white citizens would be vigorously and quite probably even violently opposed. Should the transit workers strike again, the howls of hostility from all quarters will be loud and predictable. Yet, that’s the nature of change, isn’t it?

Now, did the Transit workers union do a good job of laying the groundwork for their strike back in December? I know this is Monday-morning quarterbacking but the clear answer is, no, they didn’t.

Their message was neither clear nor effectively communicated. And they could have done any number of things to offset the crocodile-tear claims that they were hurting “the poor people” and therefore didn’t deserve support. As with the bus boycott in Montgomery, for example, they could have worked with their own members, other unions and supportive organizations to develop car pools and other transportation alternatives for poor and working class people.

I wouldn’t and don’t recommend even contemplating striking again without addressing these deficiencies. But they are problems that can be solved. (If asked, I volunteer to help.)

My gut tells me we are at a time when the effect of a properly organized strike would be positive and far-reaching. As in Montgomery, perhaps most importantly, it would send the message that people can take a stand. And lord knows, brothers and sisters—we need some galvanizing struggles.

For more than 30 years now employers and ideologues have been coming after the unions. Many people did nothing, because they were not trade unionists. And now, using the essentially the same fear driven, bosses’ tactics that have been so effective against unions, George Bush et al have come for the White House, the Congress, the courts and the Constitution.

Deep polling, effective “framing,” and innovative and learned policy proposals are critically important. But without struggle, without drawing some lines in the sand, we are not going to stop the neo-con machine from sinking its fangs still deeper into our democracy. Jim Crow did not just fade away. It took courageous and dramatic resistance.

If others have something better to propose than a new, improved transit strike, fine. Let’s discuss.

13 Comments

| Leave a comment

So, busting PATCO as his first presidential act was the effect of labor’s decline—not it’s cause. (That’s not to say that having successfully busted PATCO, organized labor’s decline didn’t accelerate from that point forward. It did.)

FIRST presidential act? The strike didn't start until August 1981. Reagan had been in office almost seven months.

Posted by El Campesino
January 31, 2006 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink

Airplanes flew on schedule during the PATCO strike.

Some of them did:

On the first day of the strike on August 3, 85 percent of union controllers went out. More than 6,000 flights out of a daily load of about 14,000 were immediately canceled. Two days later, Reagan fired the striking controllers.
During the walkout, the FAA was able to keep air traffic at 70 percent of pre-strike levels,

Posted by El Campesino
January 31, 2006 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink

It seems to me, both comments are regarding details vs. the central idea of the article. The main point is about should the transit workers draw a line in the sand, and if they do, what can they do to make the public accept/understand what they are doing.

Posted by dcarney
January 31, 2006 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink

It was surprising that the strike generated as much public sympathy as it did. Most in the media played down the support but I believe that polling showed majority, but not overwhelming support. The problem is how long does public support last. The press during the last strike painted the workers as pampered high salaried blue collar workers who had a better deal than most. Getting any presentation that workers who fight for THEIR pensions are fighting for MY pension seems impossible in today's media.

Posted by 44dogs
January 31, 2006 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink

FOREIGNID: 88592
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 4120
AUTHOR: MS
DATE: 01/31/2006 02:28:13 PM

Posted by MS
January 31, 2006 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink

Your post raises another interesting theme for me. The failure (one should say 'refusal', not failure) of the Democratic Party to filibuster Alito seems to highlight the lack of coherent set of principles within the Party to rally around. One oft quoted reason for not filibustering was that such a move would be doomed to failure- essentially a tactical response. But the only other option is a principled response- yet what set of principles would justify a filibuster, even in the face of overwhelming opposition? Yes, you're right, without resistance, nothing will change. But resistance depends upon something something to strive for, a positive vision of change. Sadly, the Democratic Party lacks such a vision. That's why so many Democrats take the tactical approach. Yet, I dont feel, in my gut, that a revived labor movement, laudable as that would be, could serve that function today. Nor the civil rights movement, although both could become part of something new, something larger. More and more I feel that some variation of a unified people sharing an investment in thier common good has to be the theme. It's the precise counter to conservatism's commitment to the freedom of the individual to pursue their own self-interest. But I dont have the charisma or the talent to figure out how to say it so it makes sense. Anybody?

Posted by VicWooddell
January 31, 2006 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink

And from exactly the wrong geographic location. Calling for a filibuster from a luxury ski resort on a Thursday when Monday was scheduled for debate was crazy. Or maybe crazy like a fox.

Filibusters by definition only work when they are keeping the Senate from other business. I don't know if the Senate was in session on Friday, I think not. Certainly it was not in session on Saturday or Sunday. And as stated Monday was already scheduled for debate on Alito. So there was no filibuster. Instead we had a free painless vote for cloture that was only scheduled after any chance of a filibuster working had been eliminated.

Kerry's move caused exactly no pain for Republicans. From their perspective it put all of our potential major candidates for 2008 on record as opposing an up or down vote on Supreme Court justices. And all without taking away more than a couple of hours of floor time. Instead of confirming Alito at 4:30 PM on Monday, they had to wait until 11:00 AM on Tuesday. Not exactly blocking the course of business here.

What it did do was give the progressive netroots the illusion that Kerry, Clinton and Biden actually care about our agenda. "You like us, you really like us!". Of course they really like us only to the extent that they had to do nothing more than make a press statement. Steve Elmendorf let the cat out of the bag:

WaPo: Blogs attack from Left Key paragraph:

""The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."

Maybe someone can give a reasoned explanation of why Kerry delayed the launch of his 'filibuster' to to day that it could not have had any impact anywhere outside the netroots. Somehow I suspect a blatant attempt "to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left" goes a long way towards explaining it.

Well this Alito gambit is gaining neither my energy or my money. Move on the Progressive agenda in any way that actually means something and maybe I'll bite. But as far as I am concerned Kerry cynically gave us the Elmendorf treatment.

Posted by Bruce Webb
January 31, 2006 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink

Let me see if I've got this right...42 Senators voted 'no' on Alito. Presumably, that means 42 Senators didn't want him on the bench. Yet they wouldn't filibuster? They didn't filibuster because they were afraid the Republicans would change the rules to do away with the filibuster? A filibuster rule exists, yet you're afraid to use it--or--a filibuster rule does not exist. What's the difference?

Posted by Loki
January 31, 2006 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink

<span class="byline">So I want to talk about the Alito confirmation. There has been much debate in the lefty blogosphere about whether the attempted Alito filibuster was a good or bad thing. Most of the left realized that they didn't have the numbers to filibuster, but wanted to see lefty action. An after-the-fact analysis seems to conclude that the liberal left has made significant progress since 25 US Senators eventually decided to filibuster. While this is wildly short of the necessary votes, it is SIGNIFCANTLY higher than previous justices, especially right-wingers like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Well, I think this type of behavior was a mistake and let me explain why.

If the Democrats, as a minority party, voted this strongly to filibuster, just imagine what Republicans will do when they have a majority Senate and a Democratic president. And don't kid yourselves people. Democrats are MUCH more likely to take the presidency then the Senate, a more politically difficult task given the current political attitiudes in this country. This means that any Democratic president is going to face a huge uphill battle to confirm any Supreme Court nomination. Now, Republicans have a historical precedent to point to when they block any future Democratic nomination. Plus, unlike Democrats, they will have the numbers to successfully filibuster a nomination. Think about how centrist this candidate will need to be in order to pass confirmation hearings. Hey guys, great win! In effect, we fought a political impossible battle to win and instead have done long-term damage to a potential Democratic president if he (face it people, it will be a he) wins an election. So what again was the fucking point?

Also, I'm a little drunk, so I would like to entertain sound arguments about why I am wrong. Please prove me wrong. I'd prefer to be.</span&gt

Posted by Augie
January 31, 2006 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink

Democrats: Do not despair. We're doing better than years ago (when we had a majority in Congress). Scalia got all but 2 votes; and Dems couldn't defeat Clarence Thomas. The Demo leadership is willing to stand up, and that's a good thing!

from Digby (via Daily Kos):

So we only got 25 Senators to vote for a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee who, if defeated, would be replaced by someone just as bad by a president in the pocket of his radical right wing. Well.

Do you know how many votes the Republicans managed to get when uber wingnut Antonin Scalia was confirmed? 98. And Democrats had a majority. We didn't have to even think about a filibuster. We couldn't defeat Clarence Thomas and we had a majority, a huge push from women's groups and a very dramatic set of hearings that went into the wee hours of the morning. It is very, very tough to do.

...

When it became clear that the vote was going against the filibuster, Diane Feinstein, a puddle of lukewarm water if there ever was one, decided to backtrack and play to the base instead of the right wing. That's new folks. Given an opportunity to make an easy vote, until now she and others like her (who are legion) would always default to the right to prove their "centrist" bonafides. That's the DLC model. When you have a free vote always use it to show that you aren't liberal. That's why she was against it originally --- a reflexive nod to being "reasonable."

Obama had to choke out his support for a filibuster, but he did it. A calculation was made that he needed to play to the base instead of the punditocrisy who believe that being "bold" is voting with the Republicans. Don't underestimate how much pressure there is to do that, especially for a guy like Obama who is running for King of the Purple. The whole presidential club, including Biden joined the chorus.

The last time we had a serious outpouring from the grassroots was the Iraq War resolution. My Senator DiFi commented at thetime that she had never seen anything like the depth of passion coming from her constituents. But she voted for the war anyway. So did Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kerry and Reid. The entire leadership of the party. Every one of them went the other way this time. I know that some of you are cynical about these people (and ,well, they are politicans, so don't get all Claud Rains about it) but that means something. Every one of those people were running in one way or another in 2002 and they went the other way. The tide is shifting. There is something to be gained by doing the right thing.

...

This is a dramatic moment for the netroots. Get ready for marginalization, evocations of 1968 and 1972, calls for purging us from the party, the whole thing. That's what happens when the citizens rise up. Don't let it shake your will. We are the heart of the Democratic party and we can make a difference.

HERE ARE TNE SENATORS WHO SUPPORTED A FILIBUSTER:

Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (D-DE)
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
Clinton, Hillary Rodham (D-NY)
Dayton, Mark (D-MN)
Dodd, Christopher J. (D-CT)
Durbin, Richard (D-IL)
Feingold, Russell D. (D-WI)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Jeffords, James M. (I-VT)
Kennedy, Edward M. (D-MA)
Kerry, John F. (D-MA)
Lautenberg, Frank R. (D-NJ)
Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT)
Levin, Carl (D-MI)
Menendez, Robert (D-NJ)
Mikulski, Barbara A. (D-MD)
Murray, Patty (D-WA)
Obama, Barack (D-IL)
Reed, Jack (D-RI)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Sarbanes, Paul S. (D-MD)
Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY)
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)
Wyden, Ron (D-OR)

Posted by MS
January 31, 2006 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink

Well, Augie, you arnt wrong so much as making a judgement call that reasonable people might disagree with. You argue that the threat of Republican Payback after the Dems win the Presidency isnt worth trying to filibuster Alito when the filibuster seemed certain to be defeated. OK. But the other side of that argument is that when you hold certain values, when you have run for public office based on those values, then you should fight for those values even when (my old scoutmaster would say especially when) you dont think you are going to win. The conservative movement has not gotten where it is now by pandering to the mainstream (hard to admit, but true). Whatever else you can say about them, they actually believe the crap they say, or most of them do anyway, evident by the stands they took back when being conservative wasnt as cool as it is now (I believe this explains the "Trouble with Kansas" syndrome, people admire them for what they do, not what they say). We are where they were 30 years ago. We will never get where they are now unless we demonstrate a willingness to stand on principle, even when the odds are against us.

Posted by VicWooddell
February 2, 2006 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink

We need to go on a PURCHASING STRIKE against the companies that fund the Republican Party with campaign contributions and who lobby representatives and senators for narrow interest legislation.
.....
Join the revolution for progressive legislation.
.....
You can begin by including this text in with your letter, fax or phone call to a senator and representative.
.....

"Until the legislation or action I demand gets done I will boycott products from Republican contributors Walmart, Wendy's, Outback Steak House, Dominos Pizza, Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Eckerd, CVS and Walgreens, Curves for women health clubs, GE and Exxon/Mobil."
......
Hold Republican contributors accountable for their officeholders opposition to progress.
.....
Do you want to increase the minimum wage?
Write your senators and representative and demand they increase the minimum wage.
.....
Browse http://tinyurl.com/bl2fa
.....
Do you want to scrap the current meager Medicare Part D discount and replace it with 80 percent medication coverage under Medicare Part B?
.....
Write your senators and representative.
.....
Browse http://tinyurl.com/7zj69
.....

So you say that a boycott will take time or will not work?
.....
Nonsense.
......
Idiot conservatives called CBS 3 or 4 years ago in droves to protest the airing of a Reagan movie they did not see but heard that it would not portray Reagan well. They threatened a boycott of CBS and the advertisers.
.....
That did not take long to get CBS to shift the movie over to showtime which had a much smaller viewership.
.....
Many progressives called Sinclair Broadcasting in droves before the 2004 election threatening a boycott of them and their advertisers if they would not take a movie smearing John Kerry off the air. It worked quickly.
.....
If we can get a movie off Sinclair stations then whey can't we call companies in droves that give money to the Republican party and their candidates and Republican senators and representatives and threaten them with a boycott in order to get a comprehensive progressive agenda passed?
.....
Why?
.....

People must CALL their senators and representative AND these companies in droves making the connection between a boycott of these companies and a demand that they want a progressive agenda passed in congress.

JOIN THE STRIKE.

Posted by maximus77
February 6, 2006 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink

If the transit workers are stupid enough to strike again, Pataki will surely fire as many as he can get away with, and they will have only themselves and their feckless leaders to blame.

Posted by Sage
February 8, 2006 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink

Coming Soon	Nov. 30-Dec. 4
January 12-16