The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) is a voluntary federation of 54 national and international labor unions, representing more than 10 million workers across the United States. Their mission is to improve the lives of working families—to bring economic justice to the workplace and social justice to the nation. To accomplish this mission they seek to build and change the American labor movement: by organising workers into unions, recruiting and training the next generation of organisers, garnering resources needed to organize and create strategies to win organizing campaigns and union contracts, and provide a strong political voice for workers in the country. The focus is also on fighting for an agenda for working families at all levels of government and empowering state federations. This will build and fortify a progressive coalition that speaks out for social and economic justice; wherein workers in the global economy, in the industries in which they are employed, in firms where they work, and on the job every day, can voice their opinions forcefully on the public issues that affect our lives. AFL-CIO seeks to transform the role of the union from an organization that focuses on a member's contract to one that gives workers a say in all the decisions that affect their working lives—from capital investments, to the quality of products and services, to how they organize their work. “We will create vibrant community labor councils that reach out to workers at the local level. We will strengthen the ties of labor to our allies. We will speak out in effective and creative ways on behalf of all working Americans”.

Session Description

Globalization, free-trades policies, and corporate driven labor policies in the U.S. have put pressure on the U.S. labor movement while simultaneously creating a growing number of workers, largely immigrants, who are super-exploited by unscrupulous employers. To exercise their rights, workers have been self-organizing by creating Worker Centers that advocate for their members through collective education and action, while also providing a broad array of assistance to its members and their families. In August 2006, the AFL-CIO decided to partner with Worker Centers across the country by formalizing ties between Central Labor Councils, State Federations and local Worker Centers. This workshop will share different models for collaboration for worker rights and immigration reform.

Suggested Presenters: (not all are confirmed)

Pablo Alvarado, Executive Director, National Day Labor Organizing Network

Caroline Murray, Director, Anti-Displacement Project/Casa Obrera

Eddie Acosta, Worker Center Coordinator, AFL-CIO

Victor Narro, Director, UCLA Downtown Labor Center

Marilyn Baird, Director, Central North Carolina Worker Center

There were about 60 people participating in this workshop, including the panelists. It was fairly mixed by gender. It was mainly white, Latino, and black. There were two women who spoke only Spanish and a woman translated for them (they sat next to her because there was no translation equipment). The participants ranged in age from 25-50, with most being about 35-45 years old.

Eddie Acosta (is the National Worker Center Coordinator for the AFL-CIO). The name of this session is a little different than the main focus of this workshop, which is on workers’ centers and labor unions.

Eddie introduced the other panelists:

1. Frances Boyes (Alliance to Develop Power, Springfield, Massachusetts, an anti-displacement project)

2. Joyce Johnson (Central Carolina Workers Center, which worked on the Smithville campaign. She’s from a right to work state, North Carolina.

3. Enco Moto (National Day Laborers’ Organizing Network)

Eddie Acosta: Many workers fall outside of unions: independent contractors, day laborers, etc. Uniting of workers is the main idea. There are about 160 workers centers in the US. AFL-CIO and its affiliate unions sometimes clash at the city hall with the workers’ centers. AFL-CIO varies locally in terms of its relationship to immigrant workers and day laborers but it is trying to improve this. There has been a split in the labor movement and pressure from the centers and from the Change to Win Coalition leading to this change. The AFL-CIO has adopted a charter to allow workers’ centers to join the AFL-CIO and be involved at a deeper level at the state and local levels. They can join and sit at the table with other unions. Worker centers similar to constituency groups such as CLUE will join central labor councils for a nominal fee. They cannot vote because they do not pay regular dues but they can join AFL-CIO committees and have a say on the issues. Local workers’ centers and unions vary and so do their relationships. This agreement started last August. Out of the 160 workers centers, about 15 belong to the interfaith network and 30 belong to the National Day Laborers’ Organizing Network. The specific agreement includes taking the same position on immigration reform at the national level; to work on laws to promote the interests of day laborers; and to help with court cases that can shift policy towards immigrant workers/day laborers.

Frances Boyes: (replaced another person on the panel, and is new to the organisation, and read from her notes) Tenants collectively own the buildings where they live and they own shops collectively. All members are low-income. Members created this workers’ center to create jobs and it functions as a hiring hall. The relationship with the AFL-CIO grew out of the local central labor council. They saw struggles of day laborers as their own. Casa Workers’ Center is open to ADP members and they organize construction workers. Contractors were not using immigrant labor. The workers’ center was built by materials donated by the unions. They see that they have mutual interests with the day laborers in terms of having good jobs. The agreement they developed is a 3 to 1 agreement that for every 3 union workers, one day laborer from the workers’ center will be hired. The center also functions as a legal services center. They train workers to prepare for when the raids of immigrants happen and what to do.

Joyce Johnson: is the director, standing in for the Economic Justice coordinator and is most familiar with this workers’ center. Their approach is one of community unionism, emphasizing dignity, work, and the potential of everyone, (“You are a resident and you are important”) and the campaign with K-mart became a model. Workers made efforts to unionize and were approached by their ministers who are key to change in the Bible Belt. There was a substantial difference in wages (between the day laborers and regular workers). Ministers supported the campaign and were arrested when they prayed outside the company’s doors. Students also got arrested and got involved through assignments for their labor studies program in the local university. The organisation is engaged with many different community groups. The Smithville campaign has become well known. It created a labor-community alliance, going to groceries selling Smithfield ham and other products and pressurising the groceries to boycott goods because of a lack of safe and good working conditions. Black, Latino, and white workers have joined together. The service workers are involved in welfare, education, housing, etc. and have used our information to help the day laborers. We refuse to be divided; we’re humans working together.

Enco Moto: Antilan represents about 30 organizations that are learning from each other. Our goals: 1. Changing the negative image that people have of day laborers. 2. Seeking to legalize immigrants. 3. Supporting all the efforts to do this and making sure that day laborers are included in all of the legislation that the AFL-CIO is supporting. 4. Protecting people’s civil and human rights and improving their working conditions. Often day laborers are not given proper training and equipment to do their jobs. They struggle with anti-immigrant sentiment within labor unions. It is important to have solidarity among all workers. The main differences among workers are in their wages and working conditions. What is required is for day laborers to become union members. The strategy is to identify bad contractors and pressure them to improve working conditions and give them breaks for example. They organize painters and other workers. It is important to validate the work that people do. Home Depot law would prohibit day laborers. This is how the national network got started. The relationship between unions and workers centers is that we learn from each other.

Discussion (Question & Answer session) with the audience:

A white man from Athens, GA: working with a workers’ center for Central American workers. How do you maintain a governing group with so much of a turnover among workers? A panelist acknowledges that this is difficult.

Enco Moto: There will be a national conference to bring worker center members together. He describes a worker center that collectively owns a housekeeping business and they use non-toxic cleaning chemicals that are good for the environment and they hope to bring more women into it and enlarge their company. This is a model for other cities. In Los Angeles, city council person Bernard Parks developed a bill for a city law that would require home improvement stores of a certain size to create a space for workers’ centers. This would set a precedent for other cities. Home Depot opposes this bill.

A white man (belongs to the Young Socialists from Minneapolis): describes a raid in the plants, wherein ICE took all non-white workers and did the same at the trailer parks. This was after the Sensen-Brenner bill was defeated and after the May Day protests. These raids are reactions to this. Immigrant rights are a life and death struggle for the labor movement. How do we build the immigrant rights movement? We don’t choose the lesser of two evils on immigration bills.

Eddie Acosta: The AFL-CIO bill was killed in the senate yesterday. Some people were sad but also relieved because this bill is a disaster for working people. In 1986, IRCA was passed and we supported employer sanctions for employing knowingly or not an undocumented immigrant. Since then, the AFL-CIO has changed its position on immigration policy. We seek to legalize all undocumented workers and to raise their wages. The bill represented a compromise on immigration and legalization was traded for guest worker program. What you do with future immigrants is important. If you are in the US, you should have equal rights. There should be no guest worker program. What you are for future flow is key. If workers come in for a job that needs to be filled because US workers are unavailable, then visas should be given for the number of workers that are needed. Match the number of visas to the number of non-US workers needed by employers and they should be given full labor rights. We are opposed to employer sanctions and the employer-identified program that identifies what workers are. 7-8,000 employers use this system. Most information is false and this can blacklist union organizers. AFL-CIO opposed the immigration bill and opposed the guest worker program but not all affiliated unions agree on immigration legislation. There should not be parallel movements. There is a need to bring the two movements together and address immigrants at the point of production.

Latina woman (an AFSC volunteer from New Hampshire who is on the national immigrant rights task force and on the labor committee). She says that each state can have their own regulations. Unfortunate truth is that workers on corners can be a problem sometimes.

Enco Moto: There is a need to educate people to keep the space clean and to not harass people.

Latina woman in audience (belongs to an immigrant rights group in Alburquerque New Mexico): What position will the AFL-CIO take in the future. Will they support a bill similar to what you stated in the next 7-8 years? How do you organize workers who feel alienated, temporary, and vulnerable?

Eddie: The Congress is still very conservative even though the Democrats now have the majority. Kennedy supported a pro-union bill, the employer of choice bill and he drove the immigration bill. No senator proposed a comprehensive immigration bill but would offer amendments to other bills that were pro-labor. The pro-labor and pro-immigrant lobbies have been divided. We can’t be divided on this issue. I am talking as an individual, not a representative of the AFL-CIO. We need to agree on principals. We cannot get a perfect bill. We cannot get what we want if we are divided. Kennedy is a good ally. We struck a bargain in the last bill. 12 million immigrants would be legalized in exchange for a guest worker program. Next year, there is not likely to be an immigration bill passed because it’s a presidential election year. What do we do to push back against the anti-immigration sentiment. We want to fix the Hoffman-Plastics decision. That decision upheld the legality of having a worker during a union organizing campaign answer regarding whether he was documented. Prior policy said that would illegal. We can’t have corporate control of immigration and labor laws. The AFL-CIO tends to separate immigration and labor issues.

Joyce Johnson: We are all together We use the resources of the documented workers to help the undocumented with theft of wages (back pay of wages) and the need for march permits.

White woman in audience: What are you doing to organize women?

Enco Moto: In Pasadena, CA, a workers center organized household workers. They were having meetings weekly and discussing gender issues, health, and safety. They reached out to eco-friendly organizations and met a group in San Francisco for workshops on environmentally friendly cleansers (non-toxic). They formed Magic Cleaners, a collectively owned company and they are bringing in more women into the company.

Joyce Johnson: The worker center and public services union combines key issues, such as child welfare and educational justice. They address women’s concerns with schools.

White man: There was a raid of immigrant workers in New Haven with only warrants for 10. They came in uninvited into their homes. They separated families. This was backlash against a proposal for giving them identification cards.

Joyce Johnson: There have also been problems with ICE. Unions and the Commission on the Status of Women have opposed these practices. Our organisation works in a community that is not very diverse, but the no-match issue arose in Smithfield and they negotiated for workers to stay. There was one case of clear racial discrimination in which black Hondurans were not questioned because they were black, not Latino. After this bill, how do we defend people against these raids?

Eli Green (Steelworkers union, a black male oil worker): There is a need to consummate this marriage between workers centers and unions. Black workers were historically used as strike breakers. There is a need to confront divisions among workers and anti-immigrant sentiment. There are some black, Latino, and white workers unclear on these issues. Minutemen organized a demonstration in Leimert Park (were invited to do so by Ted Hayes). About 60 minutemen showed up and 400 pro-immigrant people did. The police turned the minutemen away.

Joyce Johnson: But the culture within some unions isn’t open to receiving undocumented workers. People (undocumented) need to move into unions. Some courtships take longer than others.

Eddie Acosta: In the Change to Win unions, there’s not enough done to work well with immigrants at the local level. We are putting together a curriculum to distribute through the Central Labor Councils to educate local union members. Unions and workers centers are working together on this to overcome polarization among workers. You need to let people get their feelings out before you change their minds on these kinds of issues.

Cuban-American translator (from the Mississippi Immigrant Rights Association) states that she has something positive to share before the workshop ends. They are now accepting passports as ID’s for bank accounts, an issue her group worked on. She also encourages the participants to keep in touch and work together on these issues.

Summary:

The panelists in this session was generally reformist since it was calling for better immigration legislation, although socialists in the audience were urging a more radical line by the AFL-CIO around immigrants’ rights. Participants saw a positive role for the government in that they were pushing for better immigration and labor policies. At one point in the session, Eddie Acosta mentioned that there was a state legislator who had left the room that was an ally in terms of supporting workers and immigrants’ rights. The discussion was mainly focused on local and national politics rather than global politics. There was no discussion of the Social Forum process.

Participants seemed to be from various cities in the nation, though a bit more discussion of the South and Midwest than other regions in the US, both in terms of anti-immigrant sentiment actions/sentiments as well as model initiatives and organizing models.

Various participants in the discussion mainly seemed interested in learning from the experiences of the panelists and their advice for their local work with immigrant workers and workers’ centers, or were interested in getting involved in the AFL-CIO network. Others were interested in discussing national politics around immigration and how to improve immigration legislation and get the labor movement to help in this. There was also encouragement for people to continue to work on behalf of immigrant workers expressed and an effort to instill hope in people demoralized by the challenges by mentioning local victories. When the session ended, various participants came up to the panelists, especially Eddie and there was exchanging of cards, etc.

What group(s) organized this workshop? What unions or labor organizations (workers’ center or other organization) participated on the panel? Please list them.

AFL-CIO organized this workshop.

Panelists: AFL-CIO National Worker Center Coordinator for the AFL-CIO; Alliance to Develop Power, an anti-displacement project; Central Carolina Workers Center; AFL-CIO National Day Laborers’ Organizing Network.

Was the panel diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the panelists.

All panelists were between 35 and 50 years of age. It was gender balanced and racially diverse (though no Asians). There were 2 Latino men, a black woman, and a white woman.

Was the audience diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the audience.

There were about 60 people participating in this workshop, including the panelists. It was fairly mixed by gender. It was mainly white, Latino, and black. There are two women who speak only Spanish and a woman translates for them (they sit next to her b/c there is no translation equipment). The participants range in ages from 25-50, with most about 35-45 years old.

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

The AFL-CIO and its unions are building closer ties to workers centers and allowing workers centers to participate in AFL-CIO committees and to participate in Central Labor Councils for nominal fees.

Were community-labor alliances discussed? Which community groups were mentioned and what did they do?

Yes, students and ministers supported the Smitheville campaign in North Carolina by getting arrested. The campaign involved workers and various community groups. They went to groceries selling Smithfield ham and other products and pressured the groceries to boycott goods because of a lack of safe and good working conditions. There were back wages owed; they got them back.

Panelists and audience members emphasized the importance for the labor movement to support the immigrant rights movement and to work together for better immigration legislation and to support immigrants rights locally in terms of protecting them against immigration raids, the Minute Men, and promoting their rights locally.

International labor solidarity: Were examples of support for, or alliances with, unions in other countries discussed? Which countries? What kind of support or alliance was created and for what purpose?

No; the focus was national and local.

Cross-movement connections: Were connections to, or alliances with, other kinds of social movements discussed? What other movements and what links to the labor movement were made? If there was a shared goal or campaign, what was it?

See above; there were links made to the immigrants’ rights movement and to the environmental movements.

Were formal networks or coalitions formed or discussed? What was the purpose of this network or coalition?

The AFL-CIO and its unions are building closer ties to workers centers and have created a National Day Laborers Organizing Network and a network of workers’ centers.

Did informal networking occur before or after the session? Please describe.

Yes, people expressed interest in the workers’ center network and exchanged cards with the workers center network coordinator and other panelists.

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

One panelist emphasized the need for immigrant rights and labor activists to discuss immigration reform and cooperate on promoting better legislation. The on-going work of the workers’ centers and building links between immigrant workers and unions was discussed.

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

The main goal of the workshop seemed to inform people about the AFL-CIO’s network of workers’ centers to folks working with immigrant workers in their local areas so that they could expand this network. It also provided people with ideas on various ways that unions could support workers’ centers and immigrant workers’ rights.

Contact Details:

Fred Azcarate, Director, Voice@Work
815 16^th Street, NW, Washington DC 20006, Tel: 202-639-6229, Email: fazcarat@aflcio.org, Website: www.aflcio.org

Organizing in the Shadow of Slavery: Domestic Workers, Farm Workers and Low-Wage Workers in the South

Date and Venue: June 30, 2007 at the International C Room at the Westin Hotel

Proposing Organisation: Domestic Workers United

This workshop was being coordinated by participants in the National Gathering of Domestic/Household Workers taking place at the forum and represented 12 domestic workers organizations across the country, concentrated in New York, Washington DC, LA, and San Francisco Bay Area. They were all members of organizations of domestic workers - including housekeepers, nannies and elderly caregivers who are predominantly immigrant women of color low-wage workers organizing for power, respect, and fair working conditions.

Session Description

The session included a brief history of how the legacy of slavery has shaped the development of the economy in the US, and the persistent racism and sexism that has led to the ongoing exclusion of key workforces of color from recognition and basic workers rights. The exclusion of farm workers and domestic workers from the National Labor Relations Act, and the exclusion of civil sector workers in the South from the right to organize are two examples of this reality. This combined with neoliberal globalization has led to the deterioration of working conditions and the right to organize for all low-wage workers, mass displacement and migration, poverty, and exploitation of migrant farm and domestic workers from the global South in the US. Despite this, farm workers, domestic workers and low-wage workers in the South have been organizing for better conditions and continue to innovate new strategies to hold employers and the state accountable.

The session will put organizations organizing on these fronts in dialogue with each other and with labor historians and political economic theorists in order to deepen the analysis of the roots of oppression facing these workforces, identify the common histories and current struggles and strengthen the organizing through making connections. Organizations will present on their work and their organizing methods and engage one another on key questions related to building a coordinated low-wage workers movement in the US that can undo this racist, sexist legacy, and win justice and respect for all workers.

The audience had about 110 people and were mostly women and very racially and ethnically, mixed. It was mainly blacks and Latinos, but a fair number of men, Philipinos, Asian-Americans, and whites were also in the audience. There was a literature table with literature and t-shirts from 2 organizations for sale along the side. Various people picked up literature, bought shirts, etc. at the beginning and end of the session. Translation equipment was used throughout for Spanish-to-English translation. Since some panelists spoke English and others’ Spanish and there wasn’t enough equipment for everyone, we had to take turns using the equipment. The room was large and overflowing with people, with not enough chairs.

Moderator: The session began with a session panelist announcing the creation of a new national alliance of domestic worker organizations. A group of 4 DWU members sang a song, with audience participation and loud clapping with the music. A lot of cheering and clapping when they finish. Then everyone chanted, “We will fight, fight, fight…” It felt like a pep rally.

Moderator: The focus of this workshop is black workers/farm workers/domestic workers/immigrant workers. We have exploitation and globalization. Globalization is splitting our nations’ apart and hurting our homelands.

The national network includes about 12-14 organizations. The moderator calls out the names of these organizations and affiliated organization that are participating in this session, with a lot of cheering and representatives of each group were introduced: Domestic Workers United, Migrant Workers’ Association, Women Workers Project, South Asian Women, Committeee for Haitian Refugees, Philipino Workers’ Center, San Francisco Day Labor Women’s Collective, CHIRLA, Coalition for Immoklee Workers, Mississippi Workers’ Association, Garment Workers’ Center.

June Johnson (a black woman, probably with the AFL-CIO): US slavery was brutal and dehumanizing. There are apologies for slavery, but it was stolen labor just like labor is stolen today. People during these times, sustained themselves with traditional medicines and used tobacco to heal wounds. Those rich stand on that stolen labor and its dehumanizing slavery. “If you think you are nothing, your creativity is also stolen. We lost our sense of ourselves. We are pitted together against our brothers and sisters from Haiti and Vietnam and against Latinos. Our spirit helps us to survive. No matter what happens to us, we are fighting. Our fighting is from love for each other and for human beings. We have mis-education. Everything is based on exploiting people of color, indentured servitude, and exploitation”.

Gloria (Domestic worker from POWER in San Francisco, a Latina): The question is where does the US’ richness come from? Its wealth is based on slavery and it is not over. This country enslaves humanity and it has a new name, but it’s the same. Other people are brought here and not considered human beings and it continues. These descendents continue to suffer the ills. Many of us don’t understand. The system says they are poor because they don’t work, but they are exploited. When the first colonizers came, they look for other people to do the work that they don’t want to do themselves. The colonizers enslave Chicanas. First men and women do domestic work, but now it is mostly women and they are paid a very paltry sum. The conditions are terrible and it is an enslavement of every kind. It takes your energy away but we’re so strong, we go back anyway. Men think they are superior and keep women in their homes to serve others and all positions controlling the economy are kept away from women. But women are strong and shall continue to education ourselves. Women the ones taking care of children and they need to get out of their heads that men are superior.

Black Workers for Justice (black man from Raleigh, NC): Slavery and the oppression of slaves was based on racism and sexism. He is part of a state association of workers and women are still paid less than men. This still exists in the south. In the 1970s and 1980s, things changed. Now there are more Latinos. Where he grew up, there is Boundary Street and Line Street. These are the actual names of the streets. These are demarcation lines for apartheid. There is an absolute denial of power from working class people and black people. Most politicians are white. He lives in a right to work state (North Carolina). There are about 22 such states with laws that deny the right to collective bargaining. This is an important challenge for workers. During his participation in past WSFs, he heard that in South Africa all workers are given the right to collective bargaining and that this is a national law. There is urgent need for a national law like that. UN charters and free trade agreements give basic right to collective bargaining. How do we unite and fight for the rights of all workers, especially women workers? This is something we need to consider.

Coalition for Immoklee Workers (Philipino woman): Our master is the global capitalist system led by the US. Economic/social conditions have been created by global capitalism that colonizes the Philippines for raw material, cheap labor, and markets for their products. This exploitative relationship and structural adjustment programs and neoliberal policies have devastated countries; food has to even be imported. This creates forced migration of the unemployed/underemployed. Women have an unemployment rate of 11.5%, compared to 11.3% unemployment rate for men. But out of the 340,000 that migrate for work, 70% are women and 90% of them go into the services, mostly domestic workers. There are 200 million migrants. If we displace work, its like water and it goes elsewhere. So many jobs are outsourced (manufacturing and technical jobs). The labor that used to be done by black women (domestic work) is now being done by immigrant women. They’ve institutionalized slavery in this country by immigration laws that deny our basic labor rights as residents of the country. Domestic workers, like farm workers, are excluded from the National Labor Relations Act. Workers can be terminated if they organize. There is an innate contradiction between employers and workers and therefore the need to organize. Technically, workers are under minimum wage law and overtime laws but there are widespread violations of those laws. There is no social security or healthcare. Workers rely on medicines from the community and from their home countries to survive. These exclusions cannot be tolerated.

Black woman from the DWU: Domestic workers and farmworkers enable those who run the corporations to do their work, but this work is not recognized. Toxic chemicals are used in the fields. Workers have to educate themselves because they aren’t covered by OSHA. Whether an individual is documented or not, he/she has human rights and human rights are workers’ rights. When a person is aware of this, they cannot mess with you. They should be told that immigration shall be informed, and they (the employers) will be sanctioned. We need to stand up for ourselves.

Veronica (Coalition for Immoklee Workers-a Latina): We are exploited as agricultural and domestic workers and we have to get up early to work hard for very little money. Right now, we are fighting for our rights. We organize strikes and marches and attack large corporations like Taco Bell. The agricultural conditions are bad. The existing laws are violated. We have found at least six cases of modern slavery with bosses in full control of their lives (washing clothes, calling home, etc.). They found out that this is illegal. Indentured slavery also happened to black workers in Florida and North Carolina. They were taken to the fields and they were given drugs. The agricultural industry is very exploitative. What is the root of this problem? Modern slavery. The bosses isolate these workers so they won’t talk to other workers. They live in trailers in very poor conditions. The agricultural workers and the domestic workers’ work is not recognized but now we are fighting!

Chanting:(Very energetic and loud)

Si se puede! (repeats).

We will fight back this slavery attack! (repeats)

Grace Chang (Asian-American academic): She discusses visas and how dehumanization is institutionalized through these visas. In terms of the squalid working conditions, employers want to treat the workers like they are not people. It is largely immigrant and women of color and so employers think they can get away with it, but they are dead wrong (because the workers are fighting back). This labor trafficking in agricultural and domestic work is common but overlooked or taken for granted. Trafficking is associated instead with sex workers. People are ignorant and don’t realize it also happens in the agricultural and domestic labor industries. This trafficking is institutionalized and encouraged by bad immigration policies. Trafficking is defined in US federal laws as involving the recruitment or obtaining of person to work through force; including servitude and slavery. The US is the biggest trafficker and we need to hold the government accountable for this and to recognize the similarities between sex, agricultural, and domestic workers.

Audience member (Latina): Domestic workers also use toxic chemicals like agricultural workers do. We also need to recognize that construction workers are exploited.

Audience member (Latina): We work with domestic workers and day laborers. We experience exploitation because of sexism and racism and as immigrants. People’s labor rights are abused and their human rights as immigrants are abused. The immigration laws function very well to maintain a pool of undocumented workers and that’s their intention and then when the government proposes an immigration law, it’s a guest worker program. And the immigration proposal would have required $20,000 for a family of four to legalize and you must prove that you have had a constant employer and this disqualifies domestic workers and day laborers. This is unrealistic.

Panelist from Black Workers for Justice: we need to make a link to patriarchy. Most housekeepers are women and we need to link sexual harassment, workers’ lack of pay, etc. to patriarchy. Immigrant rights are another important part of their exploitation. We need to fully support the May 1^st marches and unions didn’t do this. We have an international petition for rights to collective bargaining and for a bill for workers’ rights. This is a struggle for democracy, for basic rights.

Panelist (black woman): We need to go back to our bases and what they need and are cooking up for change. Not all of our organizations were created at the same time and we need to learn from our grandparent organizations. These organizations have a lot to give and a lot to learn. We need to break down the sexism, racism, etc. that keeps us exploited. We are all equal and we need to break down the system of slavery. We’ve just planted a seed, we’ve just begun. (Giving advice to the newer organizations): Be clear about your differences and resolve them. Acknowledge your victories.

A panelist announces that over 12 domestic worker organizations joined together and formed a national network, the National Domestic Worker Alliance. A panelist: We need to turn things around and use our exclusions (e.g., from the NLRA, due to racism, etc.) as our strength.

We end the session with another round of chanting, denouncing slavery, exploitation, racism, sexism, etc. and upholding workers’ rights. The moderator also announced that the next session would be closed to the public and would be just for members of the organizations that were part of the new national network of domestic workers so that they could focus on the work of that network. There was a lot of informal networking at the end of the session, folks buying shirts, gathering literature, etc. Old friends saying hello, giving hugs to each other, etc.

Summary

The formation of the network along with pushing for the labor rights of domestic and agricultural workers and a national right to collective bargaining were the main concrete proposals discussed. There was no discussion of the Social Forum process, except the comment by the man from Black Workers for Justice about learning from international participants in a prior WSF. The panelists had a radical, intersectional perspective on the exploitation of these workers, emphasizing the intersection of class/race/gender/imperialism, etc. The panelists and participants seemed to represent different areas of the nation (but mainly the South/Northeast/West). This workshop seemed to be a pep rally and a consciousness raising session for members of the organizations involved; it also sought to educate non-members about their issues and organizing. It seemed to emphasize solidarity among the different workers, emphasizing the similarities in the workers’ situation and the need to work together. Ellen Reese spoke to a person in the Pilipino Workers’ Center, who was involved in a series of closed meetings, beginning the day before the USSF to discuss the formation of this new network and how it would operate and each organizations’ participation in it as well as what the network stood for and agreed on, etc.

What group(s) organized this workshop? What unions or labor organizations (workers’ center or other organization) participated on the panel? Please list them.

Who organized this workshop: “This workshop is coordinated by participants in the National Gathering of Domestic/Household Workers taking place at the forum. We represent 12 domestic workers organizations across the country, concentrated in New York, Washington DC, LA, and San Francisco Bay Area. We are all membership organizations of domestic workers - including housekeepers, nannies and elderly caregivers who are predominantly immigrant women of color low-wage workers organizing for power, respect, and fair working conditions.”

Organizations involved included: Domestic Workers United, Migrant Workers’ Association, Women Workers Project, South Asian Women, Committeee for Haitian Refugees, Philipino Workers’ Center, San Francisco Day Labor Women’s Collective, CHIRLA, Coalition for Immoklee Workers, Mississippi Workers’ Association, Garment Workers’ Center…

Panelists represented: Domestic Workers United, Black Workers for Justice, AFL-CIO, Central Carolina Workers’ Center, Coalition for Immokklee Workers, POWER (in San Francisco)

Was the panel diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the panelists.

There were 7 women and 1 man including the moderator; they were racially and ethnically diverse (though all people of color from the U.S.); the panel included 3 blacks, 3 Asians, 2 Latinos; at least 3 were immigrant workers.

Was the audience diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the audience.

The audience had about 110 people and perhaps even more than this. Participants were mostly women and very racially and ethnically, mixed. It was mainly blacks and Latinos, but a fair number of men, Philipinos, Asian-Americans, and whites were also in the audience.

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

They are forming a network of independent unions and workers centers organizing domestic workers, a group of workers that is under-represented in the labor movement. They emphasize the empowerment of women of color and emphasized the intersection of race, class, gender, and immigrant status. They emphasized cross-racial solidarity among women of color and emphasized the racial oppression that different groups experienced. The session was very energetic with lots of singing and chanting.

Were community-labor alliances discussed? Which community groups were mentioned and what did they do?

The Coalition of Immokklee Workers formed ties to students and community groups to pressure Taco Bell to improve the working conditions of tomato pickers.

No alliances were mentioned, but panelists discussed how exploitation in the global south contributed to immigration into the US and was negatively affecting people and workers in their home countries.

No formal networks were discussed, but panelists explained how their oppression was due to the rise of neoliberalism, bad immigration policies, patriarchy, racism, class oppression, bad labor policies, lack of human rights, etc. There seemed to be informal support for this network by the Black Workers for Justice (who was on the panel) and organizations for immigrants and refugees and day laborers were mentioned by various panelists and the moderator.

Were formal networks or coalitions formed or discussed? What was the purpose of this network or coalition?

Yes, see above.

Did informal networking occur before or after the session? Please describe.

The moderator also announced that the next session would be closed to the public and would be just for members of the organizations that were part of the new national network of domestic workers so that they could focus on the work of that network. There was a lot of informal networking at the end of the session, folks buying shirts, gathering literature, etc. Old friends saying hello, giving hugs to each other, etc.

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

No particular actions were discussed. The panelists from Black Workers for Justice discussed the need for a national right for the right to collective bargaining and opposition to “right to work” laws and the exclusion of domestic and agricultural workers from labor laws. The Coalition for Immoklee Workers’ campaign to improve agricultural workers’ rights was discussed.

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

See above. The main purpose seemed to be to educate the public about this network and the need to support it and to increase the solidarity among members of the organizations involved in this new network and for them to better understand the history of the oppression of the various workers and racial/ethnic groups involved and the exploitation they currently face.

Contact Details:

Ai-jen Poo, Organiser, Address: 2473 Valentine Avenue , Bronx, New York 10458, Tel: 718-220-7391x11. Email: domesticworkersunited@gmail.com, Website: www.domesticworkersunited.org

Transnational Unity in the Struggle for Migrant Workers Rights

Date and Venue: June 30, 2007, 1 pm, at Mezzanine Center room at the Atlanta Civic Center

Proposing Organisation: Boston May Day Coalition

The organisation came together to fill in the void produced when no rally was called on May Day 2006 in the City of Boston. In the recent past every May Day was marked by a rally and in particular related to the struggle of undocumented immigrant workers. The links between International Workers Day and the struggle of undocumented immigrant workers coming from all over the world cannot be clearer. We emphasize the historical aspects of these struggles from the Haymarket Square Affair in 1886 to the massive demonstrations of immigrant workers today in the U.S. From the struggle for the 8-hours work-day and the struggle for full rights for all immigrants today.

Session Description

This activity seeks to demonstrate the need to join forces in the world to confront the injustices of a condition created by contemporary capitalism: large masses of migrant workers desperately seeking work to survive. In that process they are abused, victimized, exploited and discriminated. The U.S. has large masses of exploited undocumented workers, nearly 12 millions in all. Yet, the "immigrant rights" movement in the U.S. has not joined in with the rest of the world but it must. We must move forward the agenda agreed upon at the World Social Forum in Nairobi, Kenya by the Migrant Workers Rights Assembly.

We must make ours the following principles agreed upon by the WSF-MWRA:

"Therefore, it is necessary to keep making the links between migration related questions and the larger struggle against neo-liberal policies that jeopardize everyone’s liberty. Together, we reaffirm our rejection of the idea that migration and migrants are a problem to be eradicated and that migrants are a source of insecurity, terrorism, or illegal trafficking. We refuse both to criminalize migrants and to accept the idea that migratory movements are somehow dangerous to people in the receiving countries. Laws concerning migration should be based on human rights rather than on security and repressive considerations. We call for a change of perspective in the debate on migration. We reaffirm that migrants participate in the transformation of societies and we reassert their positive and vital role. Migrants embody the international solidarity values we all defend. Migrants' rights are human rights."

The session appeared to be run by 2 people, an immigrant man (either South Asian or Middle Eastern). He said that he wasn’t in a union. The other organizer was a SEIU Local 521 member and was a black woman. Their literature included a petition for the US government to ratify the UN convention on migrant workers’ rights and they wanted people to copy, circulate them and send them back. There were about 18 participants; a fairly mixed group, including 2 Asians, Latinas, whites, and blacks.

Eastern European Woman: speaking about ways to make the struggle for migrant workers’ rights more transnational.

Progressive Labor Party (white man): He states that while armies defend the country to benefit the government, borders divide working people. The Party organized a May Day march and had a good turnout based on a communist line. He also highlighted the importance of having an international armed working class.

Boston May Day Coalition/session organizer: How do we move onto action? There are minimal protections and the movement must get stronger. Petitions indicate that those resisting are not afraid and are using a mechanism that has already been created by the UN and its protection of human rights. We need to fight to get the government to support UN conventions protecting migrant workers’ rights.

Man from New York: As the economic situation worsens and war continues, we need to build an underground railroad for immigrants. We need to attack the system rather than take an assimilationist approach.

SEIU Local 521/session organizer: No one is really safe in the global economy. She is a supporter of non-violent negotiations. Working in the home health care industry she mentioned that gains were made by acting collectively and supporting other workers’ struggles in others’ countries. She also mentioned that Social Forums were a source of encouragement.

IBEW Local 613 (an immigrant man from Japan): He said that he supported other workers but felt different because their working conditions were different from his. He is not undocumented and needs to work to help himself, but he can relate to the slogan on the banner. [It says “transnational unity for migrant workers rights; no worker is illegal”].

Boston May Day Coalition/session organizer: An example was sited of the IWW strike on May Day in Los Angeles as an important historical precedent. “When you become aware, what can you do? No movement is perfect. It will be a long, drawn out struggle, so pick small goals to work for or you’ll get frustrated”.

SEIU Local 521/session organizer: It is important to know people from another state/country and through this there is comprehension of why people move. People move because of layoffs. Its not them vs. us. Its us. We are quick to learn stereotypes but not how to bust them. You need to see the human side of it.

After the session was over, the IBEW member asked if any one was from the Atlanta area. He wanted to get their cards or contact information to stay in touch with them so that they could work on these issues together. He swapped contact information with two or three other people.

Summary

The concrete action was circulating the petition to the US government to ratify the UN conventions towards migrant workers’ rights. Thus, they saw a positive role for the government, even though they were critical of the US government. There was some conflict between reformists and radicals and on the use of violence, with the more radical members also portraying the US government as becoming more and more of a police state and instrument of the ruling class.

The organizers linked this session to the WSF process. They had a banner up that they had used during the 2007 WSF meeting and the idea of their petition grew out of their participation there and the Migrant Workers’ Assembly (see workshop description above). There was no discussion about future local/national social forums, but rather on taking ideas from this workshop back to your local community and organizing for immigrant/migrant workers’ rights locally. At the end, the local participants from Atlanta used it as a way to get to know each other for future collaboration around the issue.

What group(s) organized this workshop? What unions or labor organizations (workers’ center or other organization) participated on the panel? Please list them.

The Boston May Day Coalition. Facilitators included a member of SEIU Local 521 (home health care workers’ union)

Was the panel diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the panelists.

Facilitators were one man and one woman. The woman was African-American and the man an immigrant (couldn’t tell ethnicity). Both were older, in their 40s or 50s.

Was the audience diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the audience.

18 participants and they were seated in a circle and they were having a discussion. It was a fairly mixed group, including 2 Asians, Latinas, whites, and blacks but men seemed to outnumber women.

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

They emphasized the importance of both protesting for immigrants’ rights and circulating petitions for the US to recognize UN resolutions regarding migrant workers’ rights. They viewed workers and immigrants’ rights as intertwined.

Were community-labor alliances discussed? Which community groups were mentioned and what did they do?

Union members participated in the Boston May Day Coalition which also included community members.

Contact Details:

Sergio Reyes, Coalition Organiser, 33 Harrison Avenue 5th Fl, Boston, MA 02111, Tel: 6172905614, 6174410277, E-mail: sreyes1@yahoo.com, Website: www.bostonmayday.org

Solidarity Organizing: Case study Domestic Workers rights

Date and Venue: June 30, 2007 at Auditorium Back Right room at the Atlanta Civic Center

Proposing Organisation: Jews for Racial and Economic Justice

Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (JFREJ) is a membership-based organization founded in 1990. JFREJ engages Jews to pursue and win racial and economic justice in partnership with Jewish and allied people of color, low-income and immigrant communities in New York City.

Session Description

The Shalom Bayit: Justice for Domestic Workers is a Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (JFREJ) campaign to bring Jews into the struggle for dignity, respect and better working conditions for domestic workers (nannies, house cleaners, and eldercare providers). The campaign started when JFREJ joined hands with Domestic Workers United (DWU). DWU is a city-wide, industry-wide alliance of domestic workers and domestic worker organizations that have come together to gain respect and recognition for domestic workers, and establish fair labor standards in an industry where abuse and exploitation are the norm. JFREJ partners with and supports DWU's organizing by organizing employers of domestic workers to improve employment practices; bringing the issue to Jewish institutions at the grassroots level; and joining the fight for a Domestic Workers Bill of Rights in the NY State Legislature. The Shalom Bayit: Justice for Domestic Workers Campaign brings together many issues including immigrant justice, labor justice, and gender justice. JFREJ has created a model of solidarity organizing around this issue that builds power in an ally base with a complex understanding that domestic workers justice is the interest of us all. This session will engage members of communities interested in doing solidarity organizing or communities interested in developing partnerships with allies, in discussion and exercises that will deepen our ability to build movement across race and class lines.

Goal: To identify ways to fill strategic roles and build power with people and groups across the board.

Estimated Number of Attendees: 17

Composition:

Race-11 White, 4 Black, 1 Latino, 1Asian

Gender- 11 Female, 6 male

Language- English

1 Panelist referred to being part of a Queer Movement

Organizations on Panel: Danielle Feris and Margis from Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, Barbara from Domestic Workers United, and Alana from Jobs with Justice, New York.

Session Chronology

Ø Introductions included audience members and panelists. Everyone was asked to state what they thought when they heard the word “solidarity”. The responses ranged from the following responses which were then used to create a definition of solidarity.

o Response1-Showing up

o Response2-supporting peoples struggles

o Response3-stubborn togetherness

o Response4-durability

§ Definition: working together in a sustained and strategic way with plurality of struggles

Ø Exercise#1- everyone was asked to close their eyes and pick a “home”(whether it was one they grew up in, or one they remembered the most) and picture who did the housework and how it was valued? A few shared their experiences of mothers doing the work and the work not being valued at all, or recalled paying someone once a month to do the housework, but mom’s work was unpaid.

Ø Overview of JFREJ- founded in 1990 as a result of struggles and tension between black and Jewish communities in New York. The organization is a mix of people from different professions. In the beginning worked with Chinese organization in helping picket for Unions at Chinese Restaurants. After 9-11 JFREJ has worked with Arab/Muslim Communities. In 2002started focusing on Domestic Workers Rights, Immigrant Rights and Housing Rights. Composed of mostly white, Jewish, middle class individuals. Posed the question “How do you identify with a struggle when you are in a position of privilege?

Ø Exercise #2: As the panelists discuss their topics, audience members were asked to categorize their talks into:

Political Power

Moral Authority

Influential Voice

Ø Panelists

§ Case of Abuse: a domestic worker was locked in the basement of a house by a 7 year old that was playing around. When the women tried to climb out to get someone’s attention, she hurt her hand. The Employing agency escorted the woman to the hospital and after the hospital discharged her, the Employer told her she needed to go back to work and when the woman argued, the Employer said “I can leave you to die here and no one would even know”. The case was brought to Domestic Workers United-DWU, and they campaigned for a bill of rights for Domestic Workers and it passed with 49 votes to nothing at the state senate. Then DWU posed to organize employers of Domestic Workers, not employment agencies, rather those who employed domestic workers in their homes directly. Once they had a strategy, they contacted JFREJ, knowing that as middle class, whites, they would have access to people who hire domestic workers especially through their affiliations with synagogues in New York City. DWU went to June Town hall Meeting and a communal leader pledged to commit to helping JFREJ and the bill of rights for Domestic Workers.

Bill of Rights for Domestic Workers:

o A living wage, phased in from $12-$14 per hour by 2010

o Employer’s choice to provide health care coverage or a wage supplement

o Other basic work standards- time-and-a-half, one day off per 7-day calendar week, up to 12 weeks of family leave, paid time off for vacations and holidays, paid sick days, advance notice of termination, severance pay in accordance with number of years worked.

o A method for domestic workers to enforce these work standards in court.

§ Director of JFREJ -discussed the contradictions of being wealthy, being a feminist, and a socialist and at the same time hiring domestic workers. As an employer of domestic workers in her own home, she took the step to pay her, for when the family goes on vacation. The idea is to have employers of domestic workers commit to certain labor rights that other employers guarantee such as pay during vacation since the worker loses income for that period of time.

§ Jobs with Justice Representative - talked about the issues with coalitions where organizations come together for a very specific goal and when that goal is achieved the coalition falls apart. As a result of this issue, Jobs with Justice started using pledge cards that committed people to show up 5 times a year to struggles that are different from theirs.

Ø Facts:

§ Domestic Worker Industry is completely unregulated because it is comprised of immigrant women of color and Labor unions aren’t always in solidarity and have their own Agendas.

§ Currently there is nothing in legislation about Domestic Workers. MenàFields and WomenàHome. Eventually the labor of men in the fields was rectified with rights etc. however women still have no legal backing.

Ø Exercise #3: Wrapped up with “Next Steps”- What do people take home from this workshop?

§ Response1-“Using one communities power to raise the profile of another community”

§ Response2 “Influence of communities aside from your own community

§ Response3 “Draw strength from each other to build a bigger movement”

Ø In the end: passed around membership cards and asked for donations. Also passed around a copy of the bill of rights, and signature postcards for the bill to be sent to 4 different legislators.

Pre session conversations:

· One elderly white woman spoke of her experience with going to the WSF in Brazil in 2005 and described it as being “chaotic”. In comparing to USSF she said the USSF was much more organized and all workshops but 1 had been great for her.

· Another person talked of attending WSF in Porto Allegre 2003 and has also participated in the Latin American Regional WSF. She described the WSF as being massive with “100,000 people-changes the feeling”, the plenaries were held in soccer stadiums and had free internet service for people’s use. At the USSF they haven’t had guest speakers intentionally because the goal may have been to just bring communities together.

Summary

What group(s) organized this workshop? What unions or labor organizations (workers’ center or other organization) participated on the panel? Please list them.

· Jews for Racial and Economic Justice ( JFREJ )

· Domestic Workers United-Barbara/( DWU )

· Jobs with Justice-NY

Was the panel diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the panelists.

The panel consisted of 4 women, of which 3 were white and 1 black. The 3 white women were Jewish and the black woman was Haitian. All reside in NY. 1 Panelist referred to being part of a Queer Movement

Was the audience diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the audience.

Race-11 White, 4 Black, 1 Latino, 1 Asian, Gender- 11 Female, 6 male, Language- English

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

§ Jobs with Justice Representative: talked about the issues with coalitions where organizations come together for a very specific goal and when that goal is achieved the coalition falls apart. As a result of this issue, JWJ started using pledge cards that committed people to show up 5 times a year to struggles that are different from theirs.

§ Overview of JFREJ- founded in 1990 as a result of struggles and tension between black and Jewish communities in New York. The organization is a mix of people from different professions. In the beginning worked with Chinese organization in helping picket for Unions at Chinese Restaurants. After 9-11 JFREJ has worked with Arab/Muslim Communities. In 2002started focusing on Domestic Workers Rights, Immigrant Rights and Housing Rights. Composed of mostly white, Jewish, middle class individuals. Posed the question “How do you identify with a struggle when you are in a position of privilege?

§ Addressed class differences among labor unions and an organization like JFREJ which is composed of middle class, if not affluent, influential white women.

Were community-labor alliances discussed? Which community groups were mentioned and what did they do?

§ DWU posed to organize employers of Domestic Workers, not employment agencies, rather those who employed domestic workers in their homes directly. Once they had a strategy, they contacted JFREJ, knowing that as middle class, whites, they would have access to people who hire domestic workers especially through their affiliations with synagogues in New York City. DWU went to June Town hall Meeting and a communal leader pledged to commit to helping JFREJ and the bill of rights for Domestic Workers.

N/A

The Shalom Bayit: Justice for Domestic Workers Campaign brings together many issues including immigrant justice, labor justice, and gender justice. JFREJ has created a model of solidarity organizing around this issue that builds power in an ally base with a complex understanding that domestic workers justice is the interest of us all.

Were formal networks or coalitions formed or discussed? What was the purpose of this network or coalition?

Did informal networking occur before or after the session? Please describe.

Ø In the end: passed around membership cards and asked for donations. Also passed around a copy of the bill of rights, and signature postcards for the bill to be sent to 4 different legislators.

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

In the end: passed around membership cards and asked for donations. Also passed around a copy of the bill of rights, and signature postcards for the bill to be sent to 4 different legislators.

Ø Bill of Rights for Domestic Workers:

· A living wage, phased in from $12-$14 per hour by 2010

· Employer choice to provide health care coverage or a wage supplement

· Other basic work standards- time-and-a-half, one day off per 7-day calendar week, up to 12 wks of family leave, paid time off for vacations and holidays, paid sick days, advance notice of termination, severance pay in accordance with number of years worked.

· A method for domestic workers to enforce these work standards in court.

Ø Exercise #3: Wrapped up with “Next Steps”- What do people take home from this workshop?

§ Response1-“Using one communities power to raise the profile of another community”

§ Response2 “Influence of communities aside from your own community

§ Response3 “Draw strength from each other to build a bigger movement”

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

This session will engage members of communities interested in doing solidarity organizing or communities interested in developing partnerships with allies, in discussion and exercises that will deepen our ability to build movement across race and class lines.

Goal: To identify ways to fill strategic roles and build power with people and groups across the board.

Contact Details:

Danielle Feris, Community Organiser, 135 West 29th Street, #600, New York, 10001, Tel: 212-647-8966, 646-202-3962, E-mail: danielle@jfrej.org, Website: http://www.jfrej.org

How Low Can High-Tech Companies Go?

Stop them from polluting our communities, harming workers, and destroying the environment.

Date and Venue: June 29, 2007 at Room 1201 room at the Westin Hotel

Proposing Organisation: Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition

SVTC's Mission: Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition is a diverse organization engaged in research, advocacy, and grassroots organizing to promote human health and environmental justice in response to the rapid growth of the high-tech industry. SVTC's History: In 1982, groundwater contamination was discovered throughout Silicon Valley near high-tech manufacturing facilities. The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition was created and composed of high-tech workers, community members, law enforcement, emergency workers, and environmentalists. The Coalition pushed for and won legislation to inform the community and monitor further contamination. SVTC also lead the effort to bring in the EPA to identify 29 Superfund sites for immediate clean up. Today, SVTC continues its work to hold the industry accountable and shift it towards greater sustainability.

Session Description

This session will engage participants in a hands-on, interactive activity so they can see for themselves how the high-tech electronics industry is contributing to social injustice and environmental problems and more importantly, how they can get involved to stop it! Emphasis will be placed on describing the global inequity and racism associated when Western countries, including the U.S., use countries such as China, Taiwan and Africa as a dumping ground for our computer waste. Other issues covered will include: (a) Worker health and safety problems due to toxic chemicals in electronics manufacturing; (b) Impacts on communities located near high-tech facilities; (c) Environmental and health problems associated with irresponsible dumping of e-waste in poor countries; (d) The use of prison labor to dismantle electronics in substandard conditions, far removed from public scrutiny; (e) And more! We will also highlight a history of 25 years of successful people's movements that have confronted and challenged the high-tech industry through corporate, youth-led and community campaigns. Students from California will share their recent story of successfully pressuring the 10-campus University of California (UC) system to demand that all of their electronics be returned to the manufacturer and responsibly recycled. Our session will welcome and integrate the stories, experiences, and knowledge of other participants. Many corporations have proven to be adversaries by not recognizing the negative impacts they are having on people, communities and the environment and acting quickly to rectify problems. Campaigns to stop Shell, Monsanto, Dow Corporation and others have shown that people's movements can and will continue to create change for just, healthy and safe environments. Many strategies that communities and workers have used in campaigning against electronics companies have been in collaboration with groups and people fighting corporate globalization, inequity and racism, environmental racism and degradation, prison-industrial complexes and institutionalized racism, and resistance to U.S. destruction of community resources and environments globally, to create a more just and sustainable future. This workshop will look at some of these struggles and stories and the strategies used to win. This session will be conducted by a diverse group – including women of color and youth.

Estimated number of Attendees: 9 Attendees, 5 Panelists

Composition

Race- 5 White: 1 Latino: 2 Black: 1 Asian- Total;

Gender- 4 Male: 5 Women

Language: English

Panelists: 5 Women; 3 White: 2 Asian; Silicone Valley Toxics Coalition, UC Santa Barbara Student Representatives from campaign for Responsible Recylcing.

Structure of Session:

· Introductions (Panelists and Attendees)

· Facts & Statistics on Computer Usage

· Ten minute clip on an investigative report at a village in China-What recycling E products looks like? Field investigation by BAN- Basel Action Network.

· Reactions to Film

· Power point Presentation

· Victory Stories of SVTC- Silicone Valley Toxics Coalition[Presenters]

· Discussion-Questions/Answers

Content Notes:

80% of recycled computers go overseas. U.S is the largest consumer of electronic products. 47% of U.S children have TVs in their rooms. Kaiser Permanente Medical Facilities have Dell CPU’s in every patient’s room. In 2009 all TVs will switch from Analog to Digital-this will create a lot of E-waste.
Recycling= exporting which just gets rid of the problem on a local and national problem in the U.S. but creates waste in other places.
Clip on village in China- “Exporting Harm 2001”

Exporting computer monitors equals E-waste. Rice growing village turned into a junkyard, the E-waste piles up and the people of this village rummage through it to extract the “good stuff” such as copper etc. As a result of large amounts of E-waste, the pollution in this village increased. “For money, people have made the place dirty”. Computer waste, cartridges, video tapes are all usually dumped near the water which means people have to start transporting water.

Lead, Toxic, Hazardous

From the E-waste wires are burned in order to liberate them and to make steel, or plastic is melted, and circuit boards are disposed of through soldering.

Other Toxic Sweatshops happen in prisons. UNICORE recycles computers with the help of 900 inmates who get paid $.25-$1.25 per/hr. Prisoners are unaware of hazardous materials, and cannot unionize. In 2006, a prison guard reported the damage and hazardous environments the prisoners face while dismantling old computers. [Presented quotes from prisoners which indicated the conditions they worked in]
Next Panelist discussed the chemical components of a computer. Stating that they are comprised of Mercury, Colt an, and copper. To produce 10 tons of copper, 110 tons of waste is created. The complete computer is put together on Global level. Disk Drivers were manufactured in Thailand, Batteries are manufactured in China, Malaysia and India and the whole is assembled in Mexico. Electronic Production workers in China setup a facility wearing white coats with lining but were still exposed to hazardous waste. “Workers wear uniforms to protect the product rather than the worker.” AMD and Intel chip manufacturing companies setup a facility outside of New Mexico.

Accomplishments

Dell is offering to take back their computers and recycle them responsibly. They collaborate with Goodwill and other Recycling Companies to recycle away from prisons.
Workers in Silicon Valley were being exposed to chemicals that caused birth defects, cancer and other health risks. Now they have passed a law to provide information to workers in terms of what chemicals they are being exposed to on the job.
Green Peace has rated Apple really low on the environmentally safe products and Apple has committed to phasing out certain products and chemicals.
In 2006, 7 UC campuses created a campaign called Toxic Free U.C. They demanded that UCs adopt responsible recycling techniques. They setup tables to inform students and attended UC Regents Meetings. Networked with other environmental groups and other students groups and built coalitions, and sent letters to the UC President. As a result the UCs have committed to and are obligated to establishing responsible recycling for E-waste. On campus has setup bins for students to drop off products that would be considered E-waste such as Ipods, old computers etc.
One challenge is that Electronic Industries don’t acknowledge the hazards.

§ Provided concrete ways of taking actions

o Join Campaigns

o Organize on Campus

o Take back products to corporations

o Find elected officials

o Spread the word-[Showed 2-minute clip to pass around]

§ UC Santa Barbara student representative and Azma Coalition networked and exchanged information. Other conversations were happening around the room regarding their reactions to the session. Overall all the attendees enjoyed the session and a few felt that it was an eye-opener.

§ Panelists passed out a magazine on System Error- a resource for student activism on environmental, labor, and human rights problems associated with the high tech industry. Also handed out flyers with website info.

Summary

What group(s) organized this workshop? What unions or labor organizations (workers’ center or other organization) participated on the panel? Please list them.

Silicone Valley Toxics Coalition, UC Santa Barbara Student Representatives from campaign for Responsible Recycling.

Was the panel diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the panelists.

The panel consisted of 5 Women of which 3 were White and 2, Asian.

Was the audience diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the audience.

There were a total of 9 attendees. 5 White: 1 Latino: 2 Black: 1 Asian, 4 Male: 5 Women. Age: The audience was mostly comprised of ages 24-35, and there were 2 high school students as well.

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

In 2006, 7 UC campuses created a campaign called Toxic Free U.C. They demanded that UCs adopt responsible recycling techniques. They setup tables to inform students and attended UC Regents Meetings. Networked with other environmental groups and other students groups and built coalitions, and sent letters to the UC President. As a result the UCs have committed to and are obligated to establishing responsible recycling for E-waste. On campus has setup bins for students to drop off products that would be considered E-waste such as Ipods, old computers etc.
One challenge is that Electronic Industries don’t acknowledge the hazards.

The session was more of an awareness campaign rather than an organizing, and labor movement discussion. A lot of information and facts were given in order to encourage audience members to organize their own local campaigns.

Were community-labor alliances discussed? Which community groups were mentioned and what did they do?

The session was more of an awareness campaign rather than an organizing, and labor movement discussion. The organizations involved were BAN- Basel Action Network, and Silicone Valley Toxic Coalition

Many nations were mentioned as places where corporation get rid of toxic waste, however, panelists did not allude to any global movements.

None.

Were formal networks or coalitions formed or discussed? What was the purpose of this network or coalition?

UC students/Silicone Valley Toxic Coalition and BAN- The purpose of the coalition was to raise awareness and help college students organize and lobby locally.

Did informal networking occur before or after the session? Please describe.

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

§ Provided concrete ways of taking actions and organizing against corporations

o Join Campaigns

o Organize on Campus

o Take back products to corporations

o Find elected officials

o Spread the word-[Showed 2-minute clip to pass around]

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

The session was more of an awareness campaign rather than an organizing, and labor movement discussion. A lot of information and facts were given in order to encourage audience members to organize their own local campaigns.

Contact Details:

Aditi Vaidya, Programme Director, 760 N. First Street, San Jose, CA 95112. Tel: 408-287-6707, 415-279-0710. Email: avaidya@svtc.org. Website: www.svtc.org

The Role of International Solidarity in the Struggle of Public Sector Workers

Date: Friday, June 29, 2007 from 10:30 a.m – 12.30 p.m. Westin Hotel, Room 1401

Event description: This workshop focuses on the impact of neo-liberal policies on public sector workers and the role of community support and international solidarity in helping us deal together with the obstacles we face. We rely on the actual experience of labor organizations from the U.S., Mexico and Quebec. The initial speakers will set the stage by providing an analysis of the attack on public services as part of the neo-liberal agenda. The second section will use rank and file leaders to describe the challenges facing public sector workers in N.C. and their response: the North Carolina International Worker Justice Campaign (UE); in Chihuahua, Mexico and the response of workers there: the Federacion de Trabajadores Municipales de Chihuahua; and in Quebec and the response of workers there: the inter-union alliance of public service unions (SISP). The third section will discuss in some detail how we have linked our struggles in ways which have benefitted both of our organizations. In the final section we will divide into small groups to discuss ways to support these struggles. We will come back together in the end to discuss our conclusions.

*What ideas do you want the participants to take away?

A greater understanding of the neo-liberal agenda and how it impacts both workers and all us who use public services, and that workers and communities must work together to maintain and increase public services. The importance of international solidarity: how we can learn from each other, are stronger if we support each other’s struggles, and that these relationships can result in victories. Also that international law may be a useful tool when it is combined with organizing.

* How does your event connect to the USSF Crosscutting Themes? This workshop is designed to provide information, provoke reflection and discussion and stimulate planning. It is closely connected to many of the cross-cutting themes, especially neo-liberalism, institutionalized racism, international solidarity, and social and economic justice.

* How will the participants be engaged? We are using a combination of panels with a variety of speakers from different countries, power-point, providing time for discussion, and small group work to directly engage participants.

* What language will your activity be conducted in? In English, with translation from Spanish, and French

* Will you provide oral interpretation? Will you provide equipment (headset and transmitter) for interpretation? We can provide some translation equipment, and some translation from Spanish to English; we will need additional assistance in order to go from English to Spanish or French. And in any case it would be very helpful to have someone who could assist with Spanish and French translation.

* Will you provide handouts for attendees? In Spanish? Yes In English? Yes In another language (if so, state the language)? French USSF will not copy handouts for you.

* What is the biggest challenge/adversary your movement/organization faces? The strength of government which caters to corporate interests.

* What concrete alternative(s) do you propose? In the short run we are working to build stronger organizations and remove barriers to organization.

* What strategies do you propose to achieve these alternatives? Workers in the United States, Mexico and Quebec are using organizing, legislative initiatives, international law, community support and international solidarity to defend public services, confront racism, improve working conditions... in short to take on the fight against neoliberalism and to create a better world.

* Any other special needs? We will be using power point, so will need a screen (and computer if possible).

Organization Description: The United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) is an independent, national union, which was founded in 1936. UE is one of the few U.S. unions to combine aggressive organizing and a sense of political vision. Our membership has expanded from industrial plants to include many public and service sector locals, and we now represent assembly workers, machinists, clerical workers, plastic injection molders, tool and die makers, custodians, truck drivers, warehouse workers, sheet metal workers, technical workers, as well as public workers including social workers, scientists, librarians, day care and health care workers, truck drivers, sanitation workers, graduate employees and hundreds of other occupations. One of the hallmarks of UE is our democratic way of operating. The Union’s commitment to rank and file democracy is encapsulated in its slogan "The members run this union," and the common identity of our diverse membership is based on working together in a democratic, rank and file union. This means that UE members make all key decisions about how their locals run, and also determine policy on a district and national level. Education is an important element in our work and has been critical in helping UE members maintain an internationalist perspective and provide rank and file leadership. That leadership is one of the things that distinguishes our union, and is a major source of our strength. Our programmatic work takes place at four levels: 1) organizing and representing workers in their places of work; 2) fighting for a social, economic and political program which benefits working people, especially around the issues of workers' rights and national health care; 3)establishing relationships of solidarity between workers and their organizations in different countries; and 4) working to confront the power of corporations and the neo-liberal ideology, policies and structures of corporate globalization while at the same time working to develop alternatives.

Plan for session: Co-facilitators Larsene Taylor, UE and Jocelio Drummond, PSI

1. Overview

a. The attack on public services as part of the neo-liberal agenda

Lina Bonamie, president of the FIQ and representative of the inter-union alliance of public service unions (SISP), Benedicto Martínez from the Frente Auténtico del Trabajo and Bruce Klipple, Secretary-treasurer, UE

b. Questions and comments

2. Specific struggles of Public sector workers: North Carolina, Chihuahua, and Quebec

a. Background on N.C. and the North Carolina International Worker Justice Campaign: Ashaki Binta, UEREF and Jerry Ledbetter, UE Local 150

b. Background on Chihuahua and the Federación de Trabajadores Municipales de Chihuahua: Arturo Silva

c. Background on Quebec and the inter-union alliance of public service unions: Lina Bonamie, SISP

d. Questions and comments

3. International Solidarity

a. Linking our struggles Robin Alexander, UE and Benedicto Martinez, FAT

b. Solidarity between municipal workers in the US and Mexico Max Davis, UE and Arturo Silva, Federación de Trabajadores Municipales de Chihuahua

c. Questions and comments

4. Taking the struggle forward

a. Divide into small groups

b. Come back for conclusions

Speakers

1) Arcie Taylor (Black female)

2) Male (White)

3) General secretary of the UE named Bruce (White male) given by the UE.

The presentation included an overview (powerpoint) and Q & A session.

The presentation: Who are the public sector workers? They are teachers, trash pickers, etc who offer care to citizens at a low cost and are 16.3% of the total workforce. Labor strikes are present in almost all of the states in the US; yet, some states have more rights than other states. Also, Virginia and North Carolina are prohibited from striking and have no labor laws. There was a great emphasis on neoliberalism and how it affects budget cuts. Basically, free trade aids in eliminating government controls, which allows the private sector to rise.

Setting: An African American man from UE passed around a petition to sign for North Carolina, which would be presented in order to gains the right to strike. Also, there is Spanish translation for those who do not speak Spanish. At one point, an audience member, and African American female’s cell phone went off with the ringtone “WAR,” which set off a waves of cheers. The room is setup like a classroom. There is a projector, then long tables separating the audience from the speakers. The speakers are sitting behind the tables and the audience is set up in rows. The room is not that big, and the audience was told that more chairs would come; however, they never came. There are around 45-50 people, with some sitting on the floor. There anywhere from 6-10 African Americans with the rest mostly being white, and some “others.” There seems to be an equal amount of males and females.

Marcine Taylor: “how do we integrate culture?” She provided history from the rank-in-file perspective. Those in the UE came together with outside alliances (Mexico) when NAFTA was being debated. There was a cultural exchange, experiences were shared and solidarity built.

Arturo: the general secretary of UE of Chihuahua/Juarez speaks in Spanish. He notes that Chihuahua was in the same position as NC 35 years ago. He wants to give strategy to those in NC. His anecdote: no strikes were allowed; however, people took 4 sick days and the government gave in within one day because a day without the service workers made a large impact. They were able to win a hospital and get better healthcare as a result. But as a result of their union in Mexico, they don’t fire people but rather privatize in order to union-bust. A common belief that those have in Mexico is that all Americans have full benefits (gasps of awe from the audience). He wanted to reflect on how ties can be built because even those with similar experiences can have different ways to approach their struggles. He notes that they have been working with the UE for the last 15 years. He usually gets the question, “Why do all of this cultural stuff?” He answers, “This is how we got to know each other and the dynamics of our organizations.”

Dennis and Jerry Ledbetter (two black males): both work for international work justice rights for NC. They narrate the NC story to educate the general public and workers because international labor laws are not being met. They note that the government of NC is in constant violation of worker’s rights. They note that ¾ of the workers’ rights are not and ways of living are not being met. They took testimonials, academic reports, notes from public hearings, to plead their case to international jurists and filed a complaint in Dec. 2005.

Jerry: He is more of an inspirational-type speaker. He wants to convey that unions should team up with other organizations (they have teamed with NAACP, Black Workers for Justice for instance) and emphasized that sacrifice is huge (even though you may not benefit, other will in the future). “International solidarity is needed to build a collectivity.”

Max Davis- Steward: black male, discusses his trip to Mexico and what it did for him in terms of creating a new perspective in building international ties. He emphasized that you need to have this type of experience-going to another country- in order to note the similarities and also, the great differences. He gives many examples:

- Homes being much worse than in the US

- Class struggles that pit workers against one another

- Elementary school right next to detention centers

Overall, he felt that his trip to Mexico gave him a different perspective because of the cultural exchange that went on, as well as the shared experiences.

A speaker from Quebec did not have enough time to talk about the situation in Canada, but basically he noted that Canada is experiencing the same problem (a decrease in the public sector) even though Quebec’s public sector is rather large.

Summary

What group(s) organized this workshop? What unions or labor organizations (workers’ center or other organization) participated on the panel? Please list them.

- The United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE)

- North Carolina International Worker Justice Campaign (UE)

- Federacion de Trabajadores Municipales de Chihuahua

- Quebec: the Inter-Union Alliance of Public Service Unions (SISP)

Was the panel diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the panelists.

The panelist and speakers included: Two African American males (over 35), one African American female (over 35), two white males (over 40), one white male from Quebec (over 40) and two Mexican males (over 40) from Mexico. The two males from Mexico spoke Spanish during the session, while the rest of the people spoke English. All are rank and file leaders from their respective organizations.

Was the audience diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the audience.

There were around 45-50 people, with some sitting on the floor. There anywhere from 6-10 African Americans with the rest mostly being white, and some “others.” There seems to be an equal amount of males and females. Throughout the talk, more were shuffling in and out. Most were English speaking people, but there was a designated corner for those who speak Spanish. There was translation for French, but am not sure if that was utilized.

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

They wanted to stress the importance of international solidarity: how we can learn from each other, are stronger if we support each other’s struggles, and that these relationships can result in victories and that international law may be a useful tool when it is combined with organizing.

Were community-labor alliances discussed? Which community groups were mentioned and what did they do? Essentially, international ties were stressed.

Not applicable.

Were formal networks or coalitions formed or discussed? What was the purpose of this network or coalition? They essentially discussed international networks as stated above.

Did informal networking occur before or after the session? Please describe.

-There was a petition going around to lobby for rights for Union workers in North Carolina.

-The UE gave out a packet of literature for every audience member after the talk.

-Several audience members stayed behind to talk with Union stewards and leaders and queried about the tools they used to cross international boundaries.

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

-They wanted to keep researching and using international labor laws.

-Strengthen bonds of international ties.

-Obtain labor laws for North Carolina.

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

To provide a greater understanding of the neo-liberal agenda and how it impacts both workers and all us who use public services, and that workers and communities must work together to maintain and increase public services. Also, they wanted to stress the importance of international solidarity.

Building Solidarity from Below: Grassroots Labor Activism Today

Date: Friday, June 29, 2007 from 1:00-3:00, Westin Hotel, Atlanta Ballroom E

Event description

This will be a panel discussion on the state of the U.S. labor movement, and efforts by grassroots labor activists to rebuild it. We will feature three speakers:

Leonard Riley - Leonard is an executive board member of International Longshoreman's Local 1422, and a leader in the fight to defend the "Charleston 5" - dockworkers who were arrested on politically motivated charges of rioting, conspiracy to riot, and assaulting a police officer after a peaceful union picket was violently broken up by police. Leonard is now a co-chair of the Longshore Workers Coalition, a group of predominantly African-American dockworkers who are fighting to rid their union of corruption and mob influence, and build solidarity between Longshore workers on both coasts. Leonard is also a member of the Labor Notes Policy Committee. Leonard will talk about their struggle inside the ILA and how the fight for union reform is a key element to rebuilding the labor movement.

Yanira Merino - Yanira is the immigration coordinator the Laborers International Union. After migrating from El Salvador Yanira first got involved with the Laborers when she organized a union in her workplace, and she hasn't stopped since. She has worked as a union organizer, health and safety trainer, and has been an important link between the immigrant rights movement and the labor movement. Yanira is also a Labor Notes Policy Committee member. Yanira will talk about the immigrants rights movement and the role it plays rebuilding the labor movement.

Mark Brenner - Mark is the co-director of Labor Notes. Mark was a union activist and reformer for more than a decade before joining the Labor Notes staff. He has also been active in the living wage movement nationally. Mark will talk about grassroots efforts to rebuild the labor movement across the country. He will also discuss the way that progressives in the labor movement are building bridges with other struggles for social justice.

In terms of what we want people to take away from the meeting - we want folks to recognize the importance of the labor movement in the fight for social justice in the U.S. We also want folks to get a picture of the various ways that labor activists are working at the grassroots to build democracy, promote people of color leadership, and transform their unions into institutions that can fight for working people. The workshop connects very closely with the themes of the USSF, particularly the themes of immigrant rights and workers rights. Although this is being proposed as a panel discussion, panelists will speak only very briefly so that audience members can participate as fully as possible.

The workshop will be conducted in English. We have translation equipment and can provide translation as needed. We most likely will not provide handouts.

The challenge we face is that the US labor movement has been in steady decline for almost three decades. Although most union members recognize the problems - inattentive leaders, weak contracts, no interest in organizing by the union - they often don't see solutions to these problems. Since its founding, Labor Notes has provided concrete tools to union members to turn their unions into fighting organizations. Whether its promoting democracy within their unions, or learning the nuts in bolts of how to run strikes, contract campaigns, or organize community coalitions, Labor Notes has been there with the tools that union activists need. Since day one we have also been promoting solidarity and rank and file connections across different unions in the U.S., as well as international solidarity with workers in other countries.

We think that unions are an important force for social change in the U.S. However today's unions must be transformed into democratic institutions, that are willing to fight for the interests of their members, before they can realize their potential. They also must see themselves as part of a social movement - linking organized workers and unorganized workers, unions and communities. Efforts to rekindle the labor movement from top leaders have neglected their greatest asset - the millions of union members around the country. Ultimately, successful efforts to rebuild the labor movement will come from below--the fruits of thousands of rank and file union activists laboring in their respective unions today.

Organization Description

Since 1979 Labor Notes has been the voice of union activists who want to "put the movement back in the labor movement." Through our magazine, books, conferences and trainings Labor Notes has been there to help grassroots labor activists deal with the big issues we face in our movement--from labor-management cooperation to globalization and immigration. Even as labor’s fortunes have sagged, Labor Notes has grown--providing a home base for generation after generation of labor activists who aren’t ready to throw in the towel. From brawls with the titans of industry like General Motors and UPS, to the daily shopfloor scuffles with management, Labor Notes has found an audience wherever workers are fighting back and stand up for their rights and their dignity.

Session Description

There were about 30 people. Marc Brenner (from Labor Notes in NY) made the introductions. The rest of the panelists are a white man and woman with one black female panelist. In the audience, there is a low minority count. They consist of Latinos and Africans. The organization is 28 years old and their method is based on story-telling. It is a community based organization and other allies besides labor groups are involved such as social justice groups.

The white male panelist works for Verizon; the phone company and in Cingular stores. He notes that the Verizon company has a strategy, which is shrinking the union. There was House approval to help Verizon workers but the Senate vetoed it. Also, if you talk about unions, there is the danger of getting fired from the job. Also, the “one bill” is bad for workers because it moves jobs out, and jobs go to non-union workers. He proposed that unions should get involved with several groups besides other unions. He also noted that the police reported that there were only 1000 people at the march for the USSF.

Bree, a white female, is Vice President with CWA, Richmond, VA. She noted that unions should team up with community and faith based groups because the status quo does not work, nor do companies. “We need to fight back to the streets and get to the youth!” Also, it is about going outside of your local and reaching out for the community, so then they will not feel that you are greedy.

African woman from Brooklyn with FUREE: provides the history about her area in regard to public assistance that has been revoked. Also she discussed the lack of outreach in these matters. She drives home the fact that “People, like me, or anyone, do not have an interest to survive and make a career out of public assistance.”She also discussed regulated care and how it is being attacked and the problems of quality. With respect to her idea of how FUREE can network and work with other organisations, she felt that while FUREE is not particularly adept at this, but does have a relationship with UFT. She also notes underground issues such as racism in terms of the fire codes for care centers. She highlighted the split between the AFL –CIO and the disconnect from the members and the institution. “Unions have also forgot about working conditions, you barely hear about strikes these days, and can you form a partnership with your boss?” One of her main points is that you should not be afraid to admit when you don’t know how to do something. Also, she noted the split at the top, where people in the bottom are out of the loop. “We need to build a democracy internally and amongst each other!”

(Cards to boycott Verizon were passed out at this point)

Question and Answer with the audience

Comment: A white male PSC/CUNY- “Respect needs to be clear amongst one another. The childcare providers are not acknowledging each other”.

Comment: A white woman points out that the UAW is ineffective in getting 12 week stewards and asks about different tactics.

Comment: There is not an effective way that workers can contact their unions.

Response: A UE worker notes that they can put her in touch with a progressive union ally that has the resources.

Question: A white lady inquires to the FUREE representative about why she has not gone to ACORN?

Response: The FUREE representative addresses the white lady’s response. She notes that she did not want to bring this up but she will. Basically, the FUREE representative notes how she is disgusted with ATF/ACORN’s relationship and that they are in a husband and wife type situation, which poses a conflict of interest.

(The white lady becomes defensive and another member in the audience asks that they take up the argument after the meeting)

Question: Are there any tactics for turnovers?

Response: SLAP Network

Summary

What group(s) organized this workshop? What unions or labor organizations (workers’ center or other organization) participated on the panel? Please list them.

-Labor Notes

-Verizon Union workers

- CWA

- FUREE (Families United for Racial and Economic Equality)

Was the panel diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the panelists.

-There were two white males (one around 26 and the other over 40), one white female (around 25 years old) and one African American female (over 35). They are all American either from New York or Virginia.

Was the audience diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the audience.

There were 30+ people in the audiences, and it was equal in terms of gender. There were many white audience members (age range 25<) and scattered African American members (mostly female). There were a few Latinas (over 30) and a couple of Asians (Indian included, most female around 24). The talk was conducted in English, and there was no translation, so I suppose everyone there was an English speaker.

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

They used the method of storytelling, and also teamed up with non-union groups (such as FUREE).

Were community-labor alliances discussed? Which community groups were mentioned and what did they do?

It was stressed to reach out to the community, such as non-activist, and also non-union type organizations.

Not applicable (were supposed to have a speaker on immigrants, but was not present).

Cross-movement connections: Were connections to, or alliances with, other kinds of social movements discussed? What other movements and what links to the labor movement were made? If there was a shared goal or campaign, what was it?

A speaker from FUREE was present, and they have been trying to connect with Unions.

Were formal networks or coalitions formed or discussed? What was the purpose of this network or coalition?

FUREE is in alignment with Still We Rise (an alliance of NYC groups fighting to bring the agenda of poor to low income peoples to the forefront) and they are trying to connect with Unions for support.

Did informal networking occur before or after the session? Please describe.

-There are many people exchanging emails and information about their organizations.

-A Japanese immigrant asks on of the men from VA about tactics for a non-unified union because most members do not belong to the “old boys club.” They exchange information.

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

-Boycott of Verizon

-Team up with non-union organizations and vice versa.

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

They want people to recognize the importance of the labor movement in the fight for social justice in the U.S. They also want people to get a picture of the various ways that labor activists are working at the grassroots to build democracy, promote people of color leadership, and transform their unions into institutions that can fight for working people. They talk about grassroots efforts to rebuild the labor movement across the country and also discussed the way that progressives in the labor movement are building bridges with other struggles for social justice

Latin American Migrant Community Summit Report Back

Date: Saturday, June 30, 2007 from 3:30-5:30, Atlanta Civic Center-Balcony Left

Session Description

We propose an interactive report back from the Latin American Migrant Community Summit that is taking place in May of 1007 in Morelia Michoacán, Mexico, which I describe below. The USSF will be a great opportunity to share the results of this historic gathering of Latin American migrant communities from all over the hemisphere. Our goal is to have a session during the social forum that reports on the results of the Summit and engages participants in a dialogue and reflection about how to follow up on the resolutions on migration and development issues that emerge from the Migrant Summit.

Description of the Summit

The Americas is a hemisphere of migrants. Virtually all countries in the Americas experience some form of migration. As migration has increased dramatically in the past two decades, so have migrant organizations begun to form in many countries. These organizations take many forms, but they share a concern with building healthy communities, both in their adopted countries, and in their places of origin.

Over the past 18 months, a group of migrant leaders from organizations whose members emigrated from the Americas have been meeting to develop a space for information-sharing and joint strategy setting for Latino and Caribbean migrant leaders. The goal of this initiative is to position organized groups of Latin American immigrants as protagonists in the development of healthy communities, both in destination countries and in countries of origin.

Several hundred migrant leaders will use the Summit as a space to learn from each other about the many different forms of Latino and Caribbean migrant organizing taking place in the Americas and Europe. Groups will share learning about different approaches to decision-making and base-building, as well as fundraising and other institutional development strategies. The Summit will also give migrant-led groups the opportunity to deepen their understanding of the various policy spaces where decisions are made that affect migrants and their families, both at the national level and multi-lateral venues. An important objective of the Summit will be to amplify and exchange lessons learned about collective remittances and the possibility of making such social investments a more effective tool for supporting equitable and sustainable local development

Other issues of concern that will be addressed at the Summit include:

• Economic, cultural and social roots of migration

• Legal frameworks for managing migration and migrants rights across borders

• Migration from a gender perspective

• Social consequences of migration/impacts on families

• Public perception of migrants, and the need to articulate positive media messages on migrants and migration

• Human rights and migration (including social, economic and cultural rights)

• Culture and identity and the challenges for constructive integration efforts – with a focus on engaging the second generation

• Xenophobia and racism – strategies for overcoming these issues through healthy integration

• Leadership development: challenges, and how to overcome them

• The role of migrant communities in articulating new local and national development strategies

• The relationship between migration, remittances, and development

• Education – challenges for transnational communities

Organization Description

The National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities (NALACC) is a network of approximately 75 community-based organizations led by Latin American and Caribbean immigrants. NALACC member organizations are working to improve quality of life in their communities, both in the United States and in countries of origin. NALACC seeks to build transnational leadership capacity and increase immigrant civic participation, so that immigrants can advocate effectively for public policies that address the root causes of migration, as well as addressing the challenges faced by immigrants in the United States. To date, this latter work has focused on efforts to reform US immigration policies to make them more humane and effective. Over time, NALACC aspires to become a nationally and internationally known voice of organized Latino and Caribbean immigrant communities in the U.S. In particular, NALACC hopes to become an entity recognized for its ability to articulate the challenges faced by transnational immigrant communities, as well as viable solutions to those challenges. History NALACC emerged from a series of immigrant leadership summits that began in February 2004. During the first immigrant community “emergency” summit, representatives of about 30 Latin American and Caribbean immigrant-led organizations from around the country gathered to respond to President Bush’s announcement about immigrants and immigration made just a few weeks prior. The meeting also grew out of an increasing conviction among immigrant community-based organizations that the time is right to join forces to press for reform of current immigration laws, which have proven to be obsolete, unjust, and inoperable. Participants included representatives of immigrant communities from Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Colombia and the Dominican Republic, who signed a joint declaration. Motivated by the great participation of immigrant groups during these summits, participants agreed to set up a steering committee and formally “launch” a new Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean immigrant communities in November 2004. Since its inception, the organization has taken important steps forward in consolidating its role as a national and international voice on issues affecting transnational communities. NALACC local committees have formed and are now operating in seven cities: Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and San Francisco. NALACC members took a leadership role in organizing several of the large immigrant marches that took place in the Spring of 2006. Now NALACC is working to transform that dramatic outpouring of civic activism into coordinated advocacy at the local, state and national levels. The summit will not be annual because we cannot create change and note progress in a short amount of time. We proposed to make it 2-3 years in between. Several countries (Canada, Mexico), and the state of Illinois have volunteered to hold the next summit.

Session Description

There are about 14 people in the audience. There are 8 women and 5 men. One of the members is from the Socialist Workers Party. The talk is held in English and Spanish. Several themes were discussed: cultural transformation of migration, the origin and destination of immigration and transit countries, impacts on women, youth, family, human rights, and the social negative aspects of migration.

Question: To what extent do we welcome the support of the municipal and estate government?

Answer: Welcome their support because they have given a lot of money for the four day event.

Migrant women (Dominican): We want to use this space to discuss families and also discuss how to organize in the community. [More of an inspirational speech].

Question posed by the discussion leader: Why are we bridging and staying in the US? What are the conditions of our countries?

Gilberto: Who came to the summit? Migrants and leaders from Africa, Chile, Canada, Hawaii, US, Spain, to name a few came. There were more than 25 countries represented in the summit. -75% of roundtable discussants were migrants.

Question: Why do we leave?

Answer: There are political problems, instability, environmental degradation, natural disasters, poor economic development in our respective countries.

Question and Answer Session with the audience

1. Have there been any victories that you have heard of in terms of migrant rights?

Yes, for Latin Americans in Spain. For the last 15 years, they have had full rights and Spain issues legalizing processes every 2-3 years. They can participate in voting and there have even been migrant candidates (at least three).

General comment by the discussant leader: Mexicanos did not know about the terms Hispanic and Latino. Thus, identity is much more nuanced, and migrants are not aware of the negative connotations.

2. Why did NALACC come about?

Point of view is not being represented despite migrant’s large presence. Nationally, it mostly represents most of the Latino/Caribbeans in the US.

General comment: ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement) has had 75 raids over the past 18 months and not even 5,000 people were caught. Yet millions of people are scared of migrants and even though the figures are small, these raids are highly publicized. There are three criteria to put migrants on a list (not sure here, maybe for pardoning? Or citizenship?) 1) Temporary protective 2) defer enforced departure 3) congress has the powers

Example 1) Cubans were granted

Example 2) Feb 2001- Bush granted protective to El Salvadorians because of the earthquake.

Comments

· In terms of money issues, migrants and leaders of migrant organizations admire the Jewish and Cubans and how they have used their resources. The bill that just died was a 429 page document and the last 10 pages note an apology to the Jewish refugees. This showed to be a good indication of progress.

· About half of the migrants are female

Globalization, Mechanization, Farmworkers and Communities

Date and Venue: Thursday, 3:30-5:30 at the Westin (International room, D)

Language: English and Spanish with simultaneous translation. There were only two or three people who could only speak Spanish, maybe 10-15 who could speak English only.

Proposing Organisation

The Farmworker Association of Florida (FWAF) is a grassroots membership-based organization whose mission is to empower farmworkers and rural poor communities to respond to and gain control over the social, political, economic, workplace, health, and environmental justice issues affecting their lives. FWAF’s long-term vision is a social environment where farmworkers’ and immigrants’ contribution, dignity, and worth is acknowledged and valued through economic and social justice. This vision includes farmworkers and immigrants treated as equals, not discriminated against based on race, ethnicity, or socio-economic status. Toward this goal, FWAF’s programs and activities build leadership and activist skills among low-income communities of color who are disproportionately affected by environmental and health problems, racism, exploitation, and political under-representation. FWAF activities include leadership development; pesticide safety and environmental health education and training; community organizing to improve farmworker housing, wages, working conditions, and transportation; immigrants’ and workers’ rights advocacy; sustainable economic development initiatives; disaster preparedness and response; vocational rehabilitation for farmworkers; HIV/AIDS prevention education; peer support and education for pregnant and post-partum farmworker and minority women; partnering in community/academic research studies that focus on farmworker health concerns; and participating in local, statewide, regional, and national coalitions and collaborations to develop common ground on pertinent issues to work for progressive change.

Session Description: The session presenters introduced themselves briefly in English and Spanish, talked about the simultaneous translation and asked all those who would like to use the service to go speak with the translators in the corner. (The presenters had also spoken about this as people came in so most of the setup was already taken care of.)

· Most people were involved in some sort of immigrant rights campaigns and a few were involved with unions. Also there were a half-dozen or so farm workers at the session. About 80% of people were connected to the general topic of the session by movement affiliations or life histories. By and large the attendees were from states with large immigrant populations involved in agricultural work.

· Of those that took advantage of translation options, about a dozen seemed to be using it because they could not follow the Spanish speakers. There seemed to be only one person who was using the translation service because they could not understand English.

· The session was pretty well attended with an average of about 40 people in the room, although there was a lot of coming and going as people arrived late and left early. (About 60 plus people were there for at least some portion of the session.)

Panelists

Five people on this topic the first was a movement organizer, the second a current farm worker, the third appeared to be an academic affiliated with a university, the fourth and fifth were again movement organizers. The workshop panel was made up for four Hispanic males and one black woman (all, maybe, between 30 and 50). Two spoke in Spanish and one had been a migrant worker. It was not made clear where any of them currently lived.

The first speaker had been involved in agricultural labor for 30 years, although he was now involved in organizing with the Farmworkers Association of Florida. Some of the major themes of his comments were:

· mechanization obviously lowers the number of employees needed to work a field, but those employees retained are often forced to work in marginal fields ( that is not productive enough to justify

· reorganizing for mechanization) or through other changes forced to accept wages lower than the pre-mechanization levels.

· The Florida group had connections with a citrus pickers union in Brazil and the Brazilians had recently hosted them in an educational exchange. While wages in Brazil were less in absolute terms, the Brazilian workers were able to secure several major concessions from employers that made them relatively better off. For example, the Brazilian workers were asked to fill smaller bags, had paid lunch and coffee breaks, as a well as shorter work days (which had the additional advantage of making the season long enough that it could be a year round occupation).

· Later the Florida group hosted a similar exchange and the Brazilians were generally shocked at the poor standard of living, long working hours and conditions in the American citrus industry.

The second speaker had been working picking tomatoes and apples for many years and shared some personal experiences. Most frequently mentioned was a general speed-up of work. This meant that in many places the same amount of work could be done by fewer people, but also that those left could barely keep up with the pace set by the machines (ie: sorting tomatoes). Also, the increased pace of work meant shorter working days and shorter seasons, both of which meant lost wages.

The third speaker appeared to be affiliated with a university, but as mentioned above words were chosen very carefully (my guess would be he was a sympathetic adjunct, or an involved community college professor). More or less equated both globalization and neoliberalism with the pressure to produce below the cost of production, and that the squeeze for profits generally worked downward, being felt most strongly by employees and workers. He also commented on the following themes:

· Plants usually have to be modified for mechanical harvesting or weeding or whatever. In the case of oranges this meant getting the fruit to grow much higher in the tree so that it could be harvested from above by machines instead of from below by people.

· Fields generally have to be set up especially for mechanical harvesting, which often means moving production to new locations that may be ecologically problematic. Additionally, these new fields are often far from established communities and thus can prove disruptive of established patterns.

The fourth speaker repeated a lot of what had already been said by the first and third speaker, but did contribute a few new ideas. Most importantly she touched on the fact that very often the research programs backing up both the mechanical engineering of new machines and genetic modification of plants occur within the state university system. Thus, tax money is being spent in ways that are disapproved of by most taxpayers (according to studies). In the few cases where this has been challenged, the research programs ultimately moved to the private sector where they were free from any form of public oversight.

The fifth speaker touched on a lot of what had already been said. His unique contributions were really limited to mentioning the very limited economic base of small communities located near major citrus producing areas of Florida. As many jobs are seasonal or part time, some of these communities are poised to lose almost as many jobs as they currently have residents.

Audience Participation and Composition

There were several question from the audience, and even a few productive sidebar conversations, but the session was largely taken up by the five speakers. There was a good deal of diversity among the audience in terms of age, gender, race/ethnicity.

Networking and Future Plans

The topic of collaboration or networking did not really come up during the session itself. Afterwards, several of the participants hung around and talked with the presenters and/or each other, so there was some informal networking at this workshop.

Non-traditional approaches to organizing

The panelists linked the various issues in Florida to larger issues related to globalization and mechanization and had contacts with farmworkers in Brazil, but they did not really mention any novel strategies for organization or mobilization.

Community-labor alliances

The links between communities and the citrus industry in Florida were mentioned, namely that as the industry mechanized, jobs were lost and this meant wages lost to the community.

International labor solidarity and transnational coalitions

The Farmworkers Association of Florida, Inc. had contacts with a citrus pickers union in Brazil. They seemed to share a good deal of information and had recently participated in an education exchange. The Florida workers went to Brazil to observe working condition and live with the families of union members and later the Brazilian workers had done the same.

Cross-movement connections

None

Formal networks

The links with Brazilian citrus pickers discussed above.

Discussion of future plans and on-going campaigns

None

Main outcomes

The goal for the session stated in the program was to share information and this seemed to be the most significant outcome.

Contact Details:

Holly Baker, Grants Coordinator, 815 South Park Avenue, Apopka, Florida 32703, Tel: 321.322.8159, 321.433.9442, E-mail: hollybaker23@aol.com, Website: thefarmworkerassociationofflorida.org

Living Wage Campaign:

Building the Movement for Economic Justice

Date and Venue: Thursday, 10:30-1:00 Westin (Room 1403)

Language: English only

Proposing Organizations

ACORN and Atlanta Living Wage Campaign
ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families in the US, with over 220,000 member families organized into 850 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities across the country (We also have new affiliates in Canada, the Dominican Republic and Peru). Since 1970, ACORN has taken action and won victories on issues of concern to its members. ACORN’s priorities include: better housing, living wages for low-wage workers, more investment in our communities from banks and governments, and better public schools. ACORN achieves these goals by building community organizations that have the power to win changes -- through direct action, negotiation, legislation, and voter participation. ACORN has been the grassroots leader of the national living wage movement, winning over a dozen local living wage campaigns as well as 15 state minimum wage increases since 1997 – most notably leading four successful minimum wage ballot initiatives this November. ACORN's Living Wage Resource Center was established in 1998 to provide grassroots living wage/minimum wage coalitions with the research, policy and strategic organizing advice they need to build their effective capacity and connect their organizing to the broader struggle for economic justice and workers' rights.

Session Description

The U. S. Living Wage movement - now over a decade old - has delivered concrete benefits to millions of our country's lowest wage workers and is widely recognized as one of the most successful grassroots offensives in modern memory. But the real legacy of the

Living Wage movement is not a policy victory - but a political and organizing one. From the more than 150 local living wage ordinances - to the sweeping minimum wage ballot initiative wins in the last election - the community, labor and faith coalitions that have come together across the country to fight for higher wages at the local, state and national level have changed the public debate about work and wages, transformed the electorate (by motivating low income and minority communities to vote), and built the capacity of the orgs that make up the larger movement for economic justice.

Participants will get an overview of the living wage movement since 1994 - including toughest challenges and new directions in labor standards organizing (such as "big box" living wage campaigns, community benefits agreements, and fighting for paid sick days). Participants will also hear directly from organizers of both local and state efforts (both ballot and legislative). Participants will be asked to share their own experiences in living wage campaigns - but also to think about how to capitalize on the gains of the movement so far and take organizing around labor standards to the next level.

Introductions

After a brief introduction by the session organizers, Jen Kern (ACORN) and Cindia Cameron (Atlanta Living Wage Campaign), the audience introduced themselves (name, where we were from, movement affiliations, and reasons for attending).

· 25 to 35 people, although for the first half hour people continued to filter in and there was a lot of coming and going throughout.

· Ages seemed to range from 20s to 60s with most people being (roughly) 30 to 50. There was no age group that was clearly over-represented or visibly absent.

· Most (50-60%) people were involved with some organization that was actively engaged in a living wage campaign or had been in the very recent past. Almost everyone else was involved in groups with broadly similar interests, such as extension of health care, workers’ rights, unions and so on.

· Jen Kern mentioned that if people came to get information about a particular topic or had a specific question they would like answered we should have time to deal with them specifically towards the end of the session. Cindia Cameron wrote a few of these down on a sheet of paper posted to the front wall of the room. However, a few people came in after the session had started and due to the increased number of participants, we never returned to these questions.

Overview of Living Wage Successes

Jen Kern spent about 40 minutes on an overview of the movement, although there were a few brief question and answer exchanges in this section. They were generally very short and focused on clarification and points of information.

· First living wage laws created in 1994 Baltimore in a partnership between AFSCME and various local religious groups.

· Since then about 150 living wage laws have been created, although they vary in scope. Often they only cover workers who are employed directly by city and municipal governments, but more commonly they cover all contractors (and sometime subcontractors) that receive funds from the city governments in question.

· 17 states have passed statewide minimum wage laws higher than the national minimum wage, although these still often fall short of a true living wage.

· There have been a few cities that have passed living wage laws specifying that all businesses in the city must pay a certain basic hourly wage.

· A fairly common feature of these laws is a two-tiered system that allows businesses that provide health care benefits to pay a lower wage, while those that do not provide such benefits must pay a higher wage

Open Discussion Session

Toward the end of the overview section, there were several more substantive questions that other participants wanted to comment on, and after maybe the second or third such exchange the facilitator opened up the floor to a general discussion.

· Several people commented on the increasing cost of living and reasons for that. A participant who came in late, almost literally sat down and then raised his hand. He began speaking about the increased cost of health care and reasons for that. The session facilitator did acknowledge his comments but said health care was another topic and that we did not need to talk about it. Other participants agreed, and a few commented that it was strange somebody would have joined our conversation with such an authoritative voice so quickly.

· A person from a group working to implement a living wage in Tennessee spoke to problems they had in organizing campaigns in that state, and several other participants agreed on the point.

· One of the women who spoke several times generally framed her comments in terms of economic injustice being at the heart of all other forms of injustice, and other participants generally agreed. (She was sitting next to me so we had spoken before the session began and she was with an interfaith group organized around economic justice.)

· Other group commented on successes in organizing a citywide minimum wage in Santa Fe that was pretty close to what the group estimated the living wage was.

· Several people commented that they were part of a coalition of movements that had formed around living wage issues, and the fact that living wage campaigns were really good issues to organize coalitions around for several reasons.

Atlanta Living Wage Campaign: Cindia Cameron had come to share a specific story about attempts to organize a living wage for workers at the Atlanta airport.

· Several groups came together to try and organize a living wage campaign for workers at the Atlanta airport. They chose the airport because it employed a lot of low wage workers and seemed to be a project big enough to be worth taking on and yet small enough that it was manageable. Also they thought that in doing this they would only be taking on one of the big power players in Georgia politics (Delta) and thus might be able to “divide and conquer.”

· The group had received a good deal of support from both the Atlanta City council and the mayor and things seemed to be going very well. (The city of Atlanta apparently owns the airport and in such a way that a living wage law would take only a majority of city council members to endorse it to come into effect.)

· The woman presenting was not really sure what happened next, although she thought it seemed likely Delta simply realized how much paying all their subcontracted employees a living wage would cost. There was a major organization of big business in Georgia and these interests have an especially close relation with state lawmakers through the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. Within 30 days an amendment to the state constitution was passed that essentially undermined any future attempts by any city or county to increase wages beyond the federal minimum wage.

Legislative Setback and Potential Problems

From this story the facilitators shifted the group conversation to problems and set backs groups had encountered. Several people shared stories of defeated proposals and setbacks. Supporting proposals with devious wording and enforceable provisions seemed the most common ways for groups opposed to living wage proposals to defeat them.

Networking and Future Plans

Formal networks that came together to work on living wage campaigns were discussed. No proposals were made to create new formal networks and no future plans were made at this workshop. The topic of collaboration or networking came up briefly and people agreed to talk after the session. I hung around for a few minutes to finish writing up my notes and almost no one left the room. Most had moved around the room and were talking with other people and I did see several people exchanging cards or other information.

Panel Composition

The lead presenter was a white woman, I would guess 30 something and from comments she made a lesbian. The secondary presentor was also a white woman, and a I would guess between 50 and 60.

Composition of audience members

Ages seemed to range from 20s to 60s with most people being (roughly) 30 to 50. That is to say there was no age group that was clearly over represented or visibly absent. In terms of language and country of origin none mentioned being from a country other than the states and the session ran smoothly in English only.

Non-traditional approaches to organizing & labor-community coalitions

The organizers discussed the living wage cause as a good issue to build coalitions involving different groups/organizations around. One of the organizers discussed coalition building in Atlanta, and a couple of the participants shared similar stories.

International labor solidarity

Not discussed

Cross-movement connections

Links were made between the labor movement and others interested in securing a living wage, or at least raising the minimum wage, including those from faith-based organizations.

Main outcomes

The session seems to have been planned mainly as an informational session. Many people were already familiar with these campaigns since they had already been involved in them and exchanged their experiences. From my perspective the main outcome seems to have been the informal networking that occurred after the session.

Contact Details:

Jen Kern, Director, Living Wage Resource Center, 739 8^th Street SE, Washington DC 20003, Tel: 202.547.2500, 202.494.2603, Email: jkern@acorn.org, Website: www.acorn.org

The II Great American Boycott,

Immigrant Rights and May Day 2007

Date/Venue: Friday, 1:30-3:30 at the Westin (Room 1405)

Language: English mostly. Leaders spoke in English but a couple of the of the participants felt more comfortable speaking in Spanish and one of the leaders translated for a couple of them, while people who appeared to be friends of the other speakers translated for them.

Proposing Organisation

National Network on Cuba
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations establishes the principle that all people have the right to self-determination and national sovereignty. It is our belief that all peoples and nations have a right to determine their own destiny in a climate free of fear, disinformation and economic and military reprisals by other countries. The National Network on Cuba as a whole and the member organizations which compose it, are part of a historic tradition in the United States against intervention abroad and in support of the right of nations to self-determination, peace and sovereignty. The National Network on Cuba stands firmly behind the following principles which are at the foundation of our analysis, work and activities: We uphold and defend the right of the Cuban people to determine their own destiny and to freely pursue their own social, economic and cultural development. The Cuban people have a right to self-determination and national sovereignty. This is an inalienable right. Furthermore, we believe that the economic and cultural blockade imposed by the U.S. government for over 40 years on the Cuban people violates the most elementary principles of human rights and international law and is a direct challenge to Cuba's right to self-determination and national sovereignty. We oppose the use of immoral tools such as threats of military intervention, trade, cultural and scientific embargo, starvation diplomacy, and the promotion of disinformation about Cuba. We believe we have a responsibility to impact on U.S. foreign policy because it affects the well-being and quality of life domestically. We believe that Cuba's commitment to the basic rights of health, education and social welfare set an example to the world and that it has demonstrated a high moral and humanitarian character in its international support and solidarity to other Third World countries. We are committed to educating ourselves and the people of the United States about the historical developments and achievements of the people of Cuba. It is our belief that our work will serve to foster friendship between the people of Cuba and the United States that is based in truth. The National Network on Cuba is part of a U.S.-based movement that is opposed to war and political, military and economic intervention abroad. We oppose institutionalized racism at home and support peace with justice. We work actively to defend the right of Third World nations to pursue their own social, economic and cultural development.

Session Description:

We shall discuss the latest proposed immigrant legislation at the Congress and the current anti-immigrant movements. How it'll affect the immigrant communities, we will also exchange ideas with the main organizers the successful mobilizations of The II Great American Boycott, Immigrant Rights and May Day 2007 "A Day Without Immigrants" Future work in defense of immigrant rights. Presenters: Javier Rodriguez. leader of the March 25th Coalition, Los Angeles, California Ruben Solis, Director of the Southwest Workers Organization, San Antonio, Texas Ema Lozano Centro sin fronteras/Familia Latina Unida- Elvira Arellano National Sanctuary Rosendo Delgado Latinos Unidos de Michigan Teresa Gutierrez, Co-Organizers of the May 1 Coalition, New York City

Introductions

Almost everybody in the room was associated with an immigrants rights movements or a labor union. Also the Mexican Senatorial Representative from Mexico City was present (he was one of the people that spoke in Spanish and seemed well informed on the issues being discussed). There were about 20 people present. About two thirds of the audience and all of the presenters were people of color, about a third of attendees where white. There were slightly more men than women. The group seemed a little older than the Forum as a whole. I would guess I was the only person under 30, and most attendees seemed to be in the 40 to 60 range.

History of Michigan Boycott

Javier Rodriguez talked for almost half an hour and continued to speak even when a few people tried to ask questions. The major theme was the Michigan May Day boycott of 2006. (Although he repeatedly mentioned that Michigan was the only state that saw an increase in size of the protest from 2005, nothing was said of the 2007 boycott, or lack thereof.)

The decision was made within the United Michigan Latino organization to begin organizing for a boycott and March on May 1st in early January. The group had close ties with a couple of local radio stations that were helpful in spreading the word about the boycott early on, as well as frequent announcements in the weeks leading up to the boycott. In the final days before the boycott, and on the day of as well, the stations mentioned the event very often and also dedicated several of hours of airtime on the day before and day of as well. Leaders worked to spread the word throughout the community using various local organizations. One of the most important of which was the Catholic Deices, which was very supportive of the movement and arranged time for organizers to come and speak during masses throughout the state. The work with the church was carried out with the caveat that the event could not be called a boycott in so many words. They did agree to “no work, no school, no business” and United Michigan Latinos seemed happy with the rewording if it meant the cooperation of the Church. The boycott was very successful and several owners of businesses that remained open were talked into closing during the course of the day. In some cases, it sounds like strong-arm tactics may have been used.

Opinions on Immigration and Reform

Although the session leaders framed the transition to this topic in terms of starting a discussion on the failure of the most recently proposed immigration bill, the four workshop leaders did most of the speaking.

The first speaker (the same one who commented on the May Day boycott above) framed immigration from Mexico to America as a “scientifically proven inevitability.” He also commented on the obsolete and harmful nature of current laws.

The second speaker spoke about the ways that NAFTA favors large business. In particular agribusiness has been pushing small producers out in Mexico and the creation of maquiladoras along the border, only to be moved to Asia later. He also shared the personal story of a woman his family knew who had initially built TVs in a plant along the border. When the plant closed she took work as a live-in domestic in the States. The second job was not seen as good as the first because it involved being so far from home and, in a rather ironic twist the family she worked for owned a TV set of the brand and type she had made in her previous job.

The third speaker also spoke about a Schedule Four under the WTO as a program that would basically set up a system for monitoring migrant workers worldwide and provide almost no benefits to the workers themselves. He also mentioned several bilateral trade agreements the United States had made with small Central American countries that provided those workers with even less security and fewer rights than those from Mexico as part of the NAFTA framework.

The fourth speaker spoke at length about organizing May Day in New York. The movement was initially started by the old labor unions representing industrial workers who were largely white. Over time, the movement as a day of solidarity for labor declined in America, but it has stayed strong in other parts of the globe and recently been revived as movement involving large numbers of people of color.

The fifth speaker focused his comments on the most recent developments in the immigration reform debate in Congress. He asserted that Reagan admitted he made a mistake in setting up a program that allowed amnesty after just one year. The ruling classes were determined not to repeat the mistake and the most recent bill would have meant almost 20 years between application for citizenship and voting rights. Furthermore the proposed “touchback” was unrealistic, could potentially separate families and he felt was more of “dirty trick” than anything else (namely workers would by and large be refused re-entry). The proposed bill was employer-focused and he felt the nation needed a worker-focused bill. He did see the defeat of the bill as a measured victory because it would mean that immigration would be an important issue to organize around as Presidential elections drew near. He suggested that no matter who wins “Senora Reforma Immigracion” would be on the ballot everywhere.

Audience Participation

There were about 20 people in the room at this point and the lead presenter was something of a moderator and moved around the circle allowing those who wished to make comments. Because the other presenters commented on each new speaker’s thoughts, there was relatively little participation by the audience.

An older Anglo man from a communist organization expressed the view that if capital should have no borders, why should workers?

A woman of color who edited a bi-lingual publication spoke to some successes they had in reframing the issue of immigrant rights as a basic moral issue of fair pay for hard work.

One man asked if the presenters had any ideas on how his group might organize and target a boycott, but his question was not answered.

A young white male spoke to how a socialist third party might be an effective way to address some of the concerns brought up in the session.

Future Plans

No plans were made for the future, other than some general comments about making the next May Day boycott more effective than previous years. The session mainly focused on the presenters’ experiences and opinions.

Composition of panel

The panel was composed of five Hispanic men, I would guess 40 to 50. They all showed some bilingual skills, although no mention of country of origin or current country of residence was made.

Composition of audience

About two thirds of the audience and all of the presenters were people of color, about a third of attendees where white. There were slightly more men than women. The group seemed a little older than the Forum as a whole. I would guess I was the only person under 30, and most attendees seemed to be in the 40 to 60 range. (About 20 people were in the audience for most of the sessions time slot.)

Organizing strategies and community-labor alliances

The organizational strategies used to organize the May Day March and boycott relied heavily on coalition-building. Groups worked with other organizations to mobilize their members, worked with various radio stations in their area to publicize the actions, and obtained support from the local catholic diesis to spread the word about the event. The Deacon allowed organizers to speak at masses, on the condition that they could not use the word “boycott,” although they were permitted to use a phrase with the same meaning. While no other group was mentioned by name, it was clear that other groups were involved in organizing the event.

International labor solidarity

This was not discussed much, but it was mentioned that May Day is celebrated by workers around the world. Concerns about the impacts of free trade agreements on workers in Central America and Mexico were also expressed.

Formal networks

A network that had come together to organize the May Day protest in 2006 was discussed, but that group seems to have come together for that specific purpose and no new network organization was discussed.

Informal networking

No evidence of this.

Main outcomes of workshop

A good part of the session was filled with the discussion of previous events, and there was a short discussion of the most recently proposed immigration reform bill. The sharing of this information seemed to be the most visible outcome.

Contact Details:

Sobukwe Shukura, Co-Chair, 1026 Nielsen Dr, Clarkston, GA 30021, Tel: 404-456-7962, E-mail: Sobukwekuumba@yahoo.com, Website: CubaSolidarity.com

The Struggle of Workers in the Rust Belt

Date: June 28, 2007 (3:30 pm)

Proposing Organization

UNITE (formerly the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees) and HERE (Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union) merged on July 8, 2004 forming UNITE HERE. The union represents more than 450,000 active members and more than 400,000 retirees throughout North America. UNITE HERE boasts a diverse membership, comprised largely of immigrants and including high percentages of African-American, Latino, and Asian-American workers. The majority of UNITE HERE members are women. Organizing the unorganized in our industries is the top priority for UNITE HERE

Event Description

A workshop on “The Struggle of Rust Belt Workers” will address the devastating effects of U.S. trade policy and technological change in the Midwest. It will start with comments by a group of workers from the Midwest, who will describe how their industries were hit by job loss, and the effect this has had on life in the Midwest. We hope to have the participants in the workshop come away with a deeper appreciation of how profound the effects of globalization and technological change have been. We will describe how computerization has affected not just industrial jobs, but large numbers of jobs in the service and entertainment industries as well. We also want those attending to leave knowing that there are people urgently grappling with how to respond to this challenge. The workshop relates directly to the Cross-Cutting Themes of the U.S. Social Forum, in that the workshop will show the devastating effects of free trade and globalization. The biggest challenge we face is creating a new union movement to respond to a vastly changed environment. Our alternative is to empower the members of our union by educating them. Our strategy is to hold schools, develop a website, and use every challenge that the union faces as a teaching opportunity.

Estimated # of attendees: [not including panelists] 17

Composition of audience (gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, languages used, etc):

A majority of the audience was middle aged; several appeared to be in their 50’s, about 7 younger than 30, and the rest in the 30-50 range. None appeared to be older than 60. About 10 of the audience members were white, 1 was black, 3 were Latino, and 1 was Asian. Roughly one third of the individuals were female. English was the only spoken language used, although fliers were available in both English and Spanish.

Panelists (name, organizational affiliation, union, country, etc):

Noel Beasley is the International Vice President of UNITE HERE. He is a middle-aged white man from Chicago. Noel provided opening comments, introduced each of the panel speakers, and answered and fielded audience questions.

Kathy Hanshew is a white woman appearing to be in her 30’s. She is currently a union representative in Cincinnati and was president of a UNITE HERE local in northeastern Ohio.

Jacquie Chapman is a middle-aged black woman who has also worked in the auto parts industry. She is currently a member of a local in Cincinnati organizing workers in the Liz Claiborne distribution center.

Kenny Harrison is a middle-aged black man involved in organizing workers in the Redcats garment industry. He is president of a local in Indianapolis.

George Long is a middle-aged black man; he is president of a local in Columbus, Ohio that organizes workers in a Xerox distribution center.

Margarito Diaz is a young Latino man involved in organizing workers of 5-Star laundry in Chicago.

Paula Lenchan is a middle-aged white woman; she is president of a local that organizes casino workers in Southern Indiana.

Session Description

Noel Beasley began the event by introducing UNITE HERE, an affiliation of unions that represents both industrial workers and workers in the service industry, including laundry, food service, hotel and casino workers. Many of their members have moved back and forth between the industrial and service sector. He stated that his group came to the USSF to exchange ideas about the problems facing workers in both of these sectors in the “Rust Belt” (the upper Midwest).

Kathy Hanshew spoke about her experiences organizing workers in an Ohio auto parts shop. The shop started out in the 1940’s. In the beginning they made their own rubber and made it into auto parts. They were a “Tier-1” supplier, but later they became a “Tier-2” supplier after NAFTA was enacted. This means that everything began to be “piecemealed out” and the workforce was reduced. They stopped producing their own rubber because the company they supplied to began to get rubber from a source using cheaper labor. When the shop closed last December, the workers had nowhere to go. Some of them had been working most of their lives. In this part of Ohio there was no other work for them.

Jacquie Chapman also worked in auto parts manufacturing; she described her work for Ford Motor Company starting in the late 1970s. She described layoffs in the 1980s as Ford contracted to cheaper labor overseas. She claimed that now workers in this industry are even worse off; she lamented that workers today make less than what they earned in the 1980s and that layoffs and plant closings in the auto industry have affected the whole region. Part of the problem facing unions is that many workers don’t understand the benefits that unions can bring, even those that are members, and are afraid of the repercussions of speaking out. “They don’t want to lose what they have, but they don’t want to fight for what they could have.”

Kenny Harrison was part of an effort around 5-7 years ago to organize workers in an Indianapolis distribution center for ladies’ garments. The parent company was based in France, and this was an international organizing effort that involved trade unions across Europe and was ultimately successful. Kenny, the president of the local in Indianapolis, described how company managers and supervisors hostile to unions have made the organization of workers “a fight and struggle every step of the way.” He believes that the parent company in France is still bitter about the concessions they were forced to make. He stated that his supervisors try to keep a watch on him as he goes about his business, and that they were even opposed to giving him a place to store union contracts and other items. He claims that it is also sometimes a struggle to convince fellow workers that their strength lies in uniting.

In introducing the next speaker, Noel discussed how UNITE HERE has made efforts to unify the significant immigrant workforce in the upper Midwest around the struggle for immigrant rights and respect for diversity. George Long then spoke about challenges involved in organizing immigrant workers in a Columbus, Ohio Xerox distribution center. Some of the workers’ lack of English proficiency creates safety and worker relations problems. George claims that the company actually benefits from this because it prevents the workers from uniting. There is a very high turnover rate – the company hires new workers for several months, just until they start to understand and feel more confident, and then they are replaced. “It seems like the company is exploiting the workers, turning the regular workforce against the immigrant workers.” Long thinks this is a nationwide problem – corporations benefit from keeping workers disunited.

Margarito Diaz spoke about the problems facing workers for the 5-Star laundry company in urban Chicago. They are mostly immigrants – 90% Hispanic (mostly Mexican) and also Eastern European and African. Although the shop is unionized, challenges remain. Most of the Mexican workers do not understand unions and have little experience with them. The union is trying to educate workers about the issues relevant to them.

The final speaker, Paula Lenchan, spoke about workers in Ceasar’s Casino in Southern Indiana. Although there is generally a good relationship between the union and the management, they “still have to fight a lot for every little thing.” Some of the workers are still low-paid and overworked.

Noel concluded the panelist portion of the session by reiterating that workers in the upper Midwest are facing a period of major transition. Although the Midwest used to be a region that offered job security and a good standard of living for workers in manufacturing, now “there is nothing called stability. There is nothing called job security.” Cities like Detroit have been thrown into chaos. He mentioned Michael Moore’s documentary “Roger and Me” as an accurate depiction of what job loss can do to a community.

Question and Answer Session (with audience):

A number of questions were taken from the audience in the second half of the session. Noel was the main panelist to answer, but sometimes the others joined in.

Much of the questions and discussion focused on UNITE HERE’s training programs for workplace leaders. Noel described their “Three-and-a-Half Day” schools that use documentaries and guest speakers to educate workplace leaders from a wide geographical range. They offer four or five of these schools per year, each training 20 to 25 workplace leaders. A Latino man and woman who were involved with these schools elaborated on them. These schools are also conducted in Spanish for immigrant workers. Many workers that come from Mexico and Central America do not understand unions and do not want to be involved, but these schools help show them what the labor movement is and what it has achieved. Noel noted that it is an “extremely difficult period in which to be a workplace leader of a union” and that these leaders are often being recruited and trained in “conditions of retreat.” The union has a website, and many of the workplace leaders are able to use this as a resource for more educational material. Video and DVD in these schools is also very useful – for example, they used a film about the Civil War and Reconstruction to give workers some background about racism; they also have shown the films “Unprecedented” and “Bowling for Columbine.” Education “is the engine that pulls the train.”

While Noel was positive about these training programs, he was critical of traditional union meetings, which he said are really only perfunctory. Workers don’t want to come to them. The best way to really meet with workers is in the workplace itself.

The Latino man who spoke earlier about the training program argued that we need to have a debate about the future of work in America. Noel agreed and discussed the declining strength of unions in the United States. While a big section of the trade union movement wants to maintain the status quo, and another section wants to “go back to the good old days,” neither of these options are possible. “The question is what comes next.” We need to decide what we want the future of collective bargaining to be like in America – will it be strong, or will we go the way of Columbia, where unionists are persecuted?

Another topic that arose was how to go about educating average workers about what unions can do for them. Jacquie replied that we need to talk to people one-on-one and inform them of the positive things about unions, in order to counter negative preconceptions, such as that unions “only take our dues.” Noel added that the use of video and DVD as educational tools has been very successful. Workers can be shown films during their lunch breaks or given DVDs to take home.

Were plans for actions or future campaigns discussed?

Several specific campaigns were mentioned. Just before the panelists opened up the session to questions, a representative from Ontario, Canada talked about UNITE HERE’s struggle against American Eagle Outfitters, a company that is hindering its workers’ efforts to organize. UNITE HERE is calling for a boycott of this company (which they are calling “American Vulture”). The representative passed out stickers and fliers, told about their campaign’s web site, and urged us to fill out cards pledging that we would not purchase from American Eagle.

Also, during the question/discussion period a young man passed around a petition to “Repeal the Carolina Bargaining Ban.” A North Carolina law bans collective bargaining for public sector workers. The ban violates international law as established by the ILO. The petition is part of an effort to pressure the state legislature to repeal this law.

Non-traditional approaches to organizing and leadership development?

Much of the questions and discussion on this topic focused on UNITE HERE’s training programs for workplace leaders. Noel Beasley described their “3 ½ Day” schools that use documentaries and guest speakers to educate workplace leaders from a wide geographical range. They offer four or five of these schools per year, each training 20 to 25 workplace leaders. These schools are also conducted in Spanish for immigrant workers. The union has a website, and many of the workplace leaders are able to use this as a resource for more educational material. While Noel was positive about these training programs, he was critical of traditional union meetings, which he said are really only perfunctory. Workers don’t want to come to them. The best way to really meet with workers is in the workplace itself.

Were any cross-movement or transnational networks or community-labor coalitions discussed?

There was no discussion of cross-movement networks or community-labor alliances. Although the struggle for immigrant rights was a theme, this was framed in terms of a challenge for the labor movement. The only discussion of transnational networks emerged in the context of the international struggle against the France-based garment company, which involved European trade unions, particularly French, in addition to Kenny’s union. At another point, Noel mentioned sometimes bringing Columbian trade union leaders to his meetings, which helped put current struggles in perspective for American workers. In Columbia, unions are persecuted and belonging to one can be a death sentence.

Did you notice any networking happening among attendees?

There was not particular networking in terms of exchanging personal information, other than the petition that was passed around and the pledge cards for the “American Vulture” boycott. One woman also spoke up and advertised a documentary about workers and globalization that her group was distributing, and provided a web address where it could be found.

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

A representative from Ontario, Canada talked about UNITE HERE’s struggle against American Eagle Outfitters, a company that is trying to stop its workers from organizing. His union is calling for a boycott of this company (which they are calling “American Vulture”). The representative passed out stickers and fliers, told about their web site, and urged us to fill out cards pledging that we would not purchase from American Eagle. Also, during the question/discussion period a young man passed around a petition to “Repeal the Carolina Bargaining Ban.” A North Carolina law bans collective bargaining for public sector workers, which violates international law as established by the ILO. The petition is part of an effort to pressure the state legislature to repeal this law.

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

The main goal of the workshop was to to share information about the challenges facing workers in the upper Midwest and how UNITE HERE is trying to organize them. Panelists shared their experience in organizing a variety of different sectors. Audience members were very interested in the leadership training program, and this became a major theme in the discussion portion of the workshop.

Thematic Issues

There was very little discussion of the USSF/WSF process itself. In the beginning, Noel stated that UNITE HERE came to the USSF to exchange ideas. However, near the end he also said that “we need to start coming to some conclusions at these forums and are at the point where we need to develop a practical program”.

The session emphasized reformist goals – although globalization and neoliberal trade laws were identified as the key causes of job loss, no one expressed explicitly anti-capitalist attitudes.

The role of government was not a major theme in this session. When it did come up, it was presented as at best a possible tool to help workers, and at worst part of the problem. Noel was critical of the Bush administration’s lack of accountability and expressed regret that Congress was unable to pass its latest attempt at an immigration reform bill. While Noel did not support the legislation itself, he thought that it was good that Congress was discussing the issue. He also mentioned that the struggle for universal healthcare is currently his union’s main political fight. Overall, the attitude toward politics expressed here seemed to be one of engagement, but without illusions. The only international institution mentioned was the ILO, in the context of the petition against North Carolina’s anti-union law described above.

All of the participants seemed to identity strongly with the labor movement and there was no clear evidence of identification with other social movements, a global left, or the WSF process itself. This session focused explicitly on the upper Midwest and issues were generally framed as regional concerns, although there was an attempt to connect them to nationwide problems – for example, the declining strength of unions in the U.S. as a whole. One woman explicitly asked about UNITE HERE’s level of organization, and Noel explained that organizing campaigns and decision making is mainly done at the state level via state councils because workers primarily identify themselves with the (sub-national) region they belong to. Although globalization was mentioned as a cause of job loss, there was little direct talk about global-level processes – the focus was primarily upon how workers in the Rust Belt are affected

Contact Details:

Noel Beasley & Lynn Talbott, VP, managers, 333 S. Ashland Ave, Chicago, IL 60607-2775, Tel: 312-738-6100, Website: www.uniteheremidwest.org/en/

Domestic/Household Workers Organizing in the US

Date: June 29, 2007 (3:30 pm), held at: International C Room at Westin Hotel

Proposing Organization

Domestic Workers United

This workshop is being coordinated by participants in the National Gathering of Domestic and Household Workers taking place at the forum. We represent 12 domestic workers organizations across the country, concentrated in New York, Washington DC, LA, and San Francisco Bay Area. We are all membership organizations of domestic workers - including housekeepers, nannies and elderly caregivers who are predominantly immigrant women of color low-wage workers organizing for power, respect, and fair working conditions.

Event Description

This session will be a multi-media, collaborative presentation of domestic workers organizing across the US. Domestic/household workers representing organizations in New York, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area and Washington DC will present on the conditions facing domestic workers in their regions, the strategies they have been organizing with, and the victories and challenges that have emerged. Some important recent campaigns that will be highlighted include campaigns to end diplomatic immunity for abusive domestic employers who are diplomats, and the NY Statewide Campaign for a Domestic Workers Bill of Rights. Some important and innovative methods for organizing that have developed in this sector will also be highlighted including the targeting of individual employers, workers rights and leadership training programs, housekeeping cooperatives and negotiation trainings. Participants in the session will leave with a picture of domestic worker organizing nationally, as well as a sense of how domestic workers local conditions are tied to a broader political economic context of neoliberalism and migration.

Estimated # of attendees: 100

Composition of audience (gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, languages used, etc)

Most of the attendees were nonwhite, mostly Latino with some black individuals, including a group of 15-20 young African Americans from the Mississippi Workers’ Center for Human Rights. A large majority of the audience was female. There were a large number of young attendees – it looked as though at least half of the audience was under 30 – including several small children who played in the back of the room. This was a bilingual presentation – some of the panelists spoke English and some spoke Spanish. Headsets with earphones were available for attendees who were not bilingual. When the headsets were turned on, attendees could hear an interpreter translate the panelists’ words.

Panelists

The panelists were all women, mostly Latina, Filipina and South Asian. They spoke for a short time each about the groups they represented. Altogether there were 12 different organizations represented: Mujeres Unidas y Activas, POWER (People Organized to Win Employment Rights), Women’s Collective of La Raza Centro Legal, CHIRLA (Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles), Filipino Workers Center, La Senoras de Santa Maria, DWU (Domestic Workers United), Haitian Women for Haitian Refugees, Damayan, Andolan Organizing South Asian Workers, CAAAV Organizing Asian Communities, and Unity Housecleaners of Workplace Project.

Session Description

This was a very lively session with the atmosphere of a rally; audience members often clapped and cheered for the speakers, and several times broke out into chants of “ain‘t no power like the power of the people” and “si se puede!” It seemed like the attendees came to the session as much to encourage one another to continue their struggle as to exchange ideas.

Jocelyn, a Latina woman and domestic worker, introduced the session. The majority of domestic workers are immigrant and minority women, and include housekeepers, nannies, caretakers for elders, and others who work in the home. Jocelyn discussed the problems facing domestic workers in the United States. Since they are not considered “employees,” they are excluded from many of the legal rights and protections offered to other workers, including health and safety standards, the right to organize, federal minimum wage, and laws against discrimination based on age, race, nationality, sex, and disability. She likened the condition of domestic workers to slavery. Many domestic workers face mental and physical abuse and have very little recourse. Globalization and neoliberalism have forced many of these workers to migrate in search of work and they constitute a growing population within the United States. Domestic workers need to organize so that they can gain the power to secure workplace rights.

The next speaker, Alexis, from the Committee of Women Seeking Justice, discussed how the USSF not only allows domestic workers to stand up and be counted, but also to meet each other and learn about organizing taking place in other areas of the country, and talk together about what needs to be done in the future. She listed the names of all of the organizations represented at the workshop, punctuated by applause from the audience.

During the remainder of the workshop, panelists gave short presentations on the work being done by their organizations. Panelists were grouped regionally, beginning with San Francisco. Two women representing Mujeres Unidas y Activas, POWER, and the Women’s Collective of La Raza Centro spoke about these organizations’ activities, including surveying domestic workers about the abuses they had suffered in their jobs, conducting workshops to teach them about their rights, and bringing a bill before the state legislature. A computer presentation was projected on the wall, with images and voices of the women involved in the Day Labor Program of the Women’s Collective of La Raza Centro. The group organized to teach domestic workers about their labor rights and how to report violations. They want their work to be recognized and valued. In addition to training programs, the group does outreach work to get people involved, as well as some protest events.

The panelists from New York included representatives from Haitian Women for Haitian Refugees, CAAAV, Damayan (representing Filipina workers), Unity Housecleaners, La Senoras de Santa Maria, Andolan, and Domestic Workers United. Each spoke for 1-2 minutes about their organization’s goals and accomplishments. The woman from Domestic Workers United showed a brief film clip.

The presenters from Los Angeles included a woman who argued for the use of the term “home workers” rather than domestic workers because the former is a broader term; many people do not realize how much these workers do in addition to things like simply cleaning houses. They are often cooks, nannies, gardeners, or companions to elderly people. A representative from the Filipino Workers Center shared the case of Nana, a Filipina woman who immigrated to the U.S. because of the lack of jobs in the Philippines. She was hired by an executive to care for his sick mother, but she ended up locked in their house, forced to do cleaning and take care of their dog. After enduring constant verbal and physical abuse, she finally escaped and found the Filipino Workers Center. She was able to file a lawsuit against her employer, which she won. A Spanish-speaking woman from CHIRLA described how her organization presented a bill to the California state legislature in 2001. The bill was vetoed by the governor, but the group is continuing to work toward its goals.

The final presentation came from Alexis, who spoke about the Committee of Women Seeking Justice, a group organizing domestic workers in Washington, DC. This was accompanied by a slide presentation. Alexis discussed how domestic workers are often told lies to keep them from reporting abuse and rights violations, such as that Americans are violent and dangerous, that other Latinos are untrustworthy, or that Immigration will find them if they try to leave their places of work. Some women have literally been imprisoned in the houses where they work, and this group has physically gone in to rescue them. One of the group’s goals is a worker cooperative where women can own their own businesses and be their own employers. They are also advocating a “Domestic Workers Bill of Rights,” for which they have been fighting for 3 years. They presented this bill to the county council and it is scheduled to be introduced this summer.

Following a song performed by four of the women, there were several questions/comments taken from the audience. One woman brought up the immigration reform debate in Congress and the proposed guest worker program. Alexis said that we need to make sure guest workers have same rights and protections as any other worker – and that they will not be afraid to stand up for their rights for fear of losing their visas. Several other panelists also commented on this topic and were critical of the guest worker proposal.

Were plans for specific actions or future campaigns discussed?

This session seemed focused more on educating one another about past and ongoing campaigns than about planning future ones. One of the more specific campaigns mentioned was the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, advocated by the Committee of Women Seeking Justice. Alexis also mentioned that tomorrow the groups involved in the National Domestic Worker Convention (see below) will meet to talk about how to collectively work together and move forward.

Were any cross-movement or transnational networks or community-labor coalitions discussed?

Most of the coalitions discussed were those among the domestic worker organizations themselves, rather than with other community groups.  For instance, all of the groups represented in the session today are part of a larger meeting, the National Domestic Worker Convention, that gathered at the USSF to share experiences and ideas.  Although these groups largely represent immigrants, there was little discussion of transnational networks or organizations in other countries.  One exception was the representative from Damayan, who stressed the importance of connecting issues facing domestic workers in the United States to issues back home (Philippines).  Damayan is involved in supporting the movement for democracy in the Philippines, as well as the anti-war movement in the United States, believing that war is a tool the U.S. uses to enforce its exploitation of workers from poor countries.  There was also a woman in the audience who brought up a workers’ rights group in Peru that is part of the “Every Mother is a Working Mother” network.  She also mentioned the “Global Women‘s Strike,” which is an international network in support of women‘s rights.

Did you notice any networking happening among attendees?

Most of the coalitions discussed were those among the domestic worker organizations themselves. For instance, all of the groups represented in the session today are part of a larger meeting, the National Domestic Worker Convention that gathered at the USSF to share experiences and ideas.

In terms of informal networks, there was a lot of talking going on in the audience throughout the event, especially in the back of the room. It is possible that people were exchanging information informally, although I was not able to catch anything specific. A contact sheet was passed around with spaces for name, organization, email, and phone number. There were also many fliers and pamphlets on a side table in the room, providing information about the organizations for anyone interested. One panelist from Domestic Workers United urged everyone to bring these materials to their communities, worker centers, and churches to educate people.

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

These groups could all be considered non-traditional, in that they are working to organize people not traditionally counted as “employees” – domestic workers who clean houses, care for children and elderly, etc. The issues these workers face are often different from those faced by traditional employees.

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

One of the more specific campaigns mentioned was the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, advocated by the Committee of Women Seeking Justice.

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

It concluded with a song and a “unity clap.” It seemed that the attendees came to the session as much to encourage one another to continue their struggle as to exchange ideas.

Thematic Issues

There was little discussion of the USSF/WSF process. Alexis stated at the beginning that the USSF was a good opportunity for domestic worker groups to make themselves heard, share ideas, and learn about the work being done around the country by similar groups. The rally-type atmosphere in the workshop leads me to believe that a key part of why these groups came to the USSF was to gain encouragement and inspiration from one another’s stories of struggle and success.

The demands of the groups could not be termed as ‘radical’ – although there was discussion of globalization and neoliberalism as a root cause of immigration and workers’ problems, there were no explicitly anti-capitalist views presented. For the most part, the issue was framed as one affecting domestic workers in the U.S. at a national level – the representatives from different cities across the country helped to underscore this. The representative from Damayan did the most to connect issues facing domestic workers in the U.S. to global issues of neoliberalism and U.S. imperialism, which she considered the root of the problem, but other panelists focused exclusively on problems facing domestic workers in the United States.

The role of government was mentioned mainly in the context of bills submitted to state or local governments; the groups seemed to think that government could potentially play a positive role in protecting domestic workers’ rights. Indeed, what they are seeking are the same protections for domestic workers that the state ensures for other kinds of workers. International organizations were not mentioned apart from the World Bank and IMF, which the representative from Damayan mentioned critically.

Moreover, there was little evidence that participants identified with the USSF/WSF itself. They seemed to share a strong identity with each other as domestic workers and as immigrants – one that spanned racial, ethnic and national boundaries – but not necessarily with any other social movements. Although all of the panelists and the majority of attendees were women, there was no discussion of independent women’s or feminist movements. The workshop was in general very closely focused around the single issue of domestic workers’ rights.

Contact Details:

Aijen Poo, Organiser, 2473 Valentine Avenue,Bronx, NY, 10458, Tel: 718.220.7391x11, E-mail: domesticworkersunited@gmail.com, Website: http://www.domesticworkersunited.org/

Blue Green Alliances: Labor Unions Do Work with Environmental Groups

Date: June 30, 2007 (3:30) at Zena room at the Atlanta Marriott Downtown

Proposing Organisation

The United Steelworkers International Union (USW) is the largest industrial union in North America, representing 850,000 workers at paper, chemical, cement, steel, rubber and other facilities. The Sierra Club is the U.S.’s oldest and largest grassroots environmental organization with over one million members and supporters who work together to protect our communities and the planet.

Event Description

Historically labor unions and environmental groups have disagreed with and distrusted each other. While unions worried about losing jobs, environmental groups were perceived as wanting to shutdown polluting plants above all else. But things are changing. Misunderstandings from the past are being resolved as labor unions and environmental groups learn to work together. Labor unions are learning to see the importance of a clean environment for the health of workers and for economic prosperity. Environmental groups know that workers are the first and most exposed to toxic chemicals, and are realizing the value of collaborating with workers from polluting facilities. Our interests can often coincide and especially in the current political environment, we must work together. This is why the United Steelworkers (USW) and the Sierra Club have formed the Blue-Green Alliance nationally and locally in certain states to create “Good Jobs, A Clean Environment, and A Safer World.” The Blue-Green Alliance has worked on various joint projects, including, for example, a test case to curb the trade of certain products made from illegally logged timber because it violates international environmental standards and undercuts the U.S. paper industry.

Our presentation will highlight an environmental and worker-health issue we are working on locally and nationally. With other environmental, labor and community groups, USW and Sierra Club are working to pressure the DuPont company to phase out a toxic chemical known as the Teflon-chemical or PFOA. While pushing for the clean up of waterways and drinking water contaminated with PFOA, our combined pressure on the company will also protect USW workers who work with PFOA-related products. What’s even more interesting is that the coalition understands that labor issues also exist at DuPont and the groups have come together to draw attention to pension and retiree issues that on the surface seem separate from environmental concerns.

Estimated # of attendees: [not including panelists] 23

Composition of audience (gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, languages used, etc):

There were 11 women and 12 men in the audience. Roughly half of the attendees appeared to be under 30, with the rest middle-aged. Four were Latino and the rest were white. Two of the audience members, a man and a woman, were French Canadian and spoke with French accents. Many of the attendees were affiliated with either labor or environmental organizations.

Panelists (name, organizational affiliation, union, country, etc):

The presenters were Amy Dreeke, a young white woman affiliated with United Steelworkers, and Joshua Low, a young white man affiliated with the Sierra Club.

Summarize speakers’ main points and any debates that arose during the event. Include discussions of problems facing workers, strategies for social change, etc.

In 2006, Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope and USW International President Leo Gerard came together to sign a formal agreement creating the Blue Green Alliance, committed to working toward fair trade, clean energy, reducing global warming, and reducing toxic chemicals. USW is the largest industrial union in the United States and Canada, and the Sierra Club is the largest and oldest grassroots environmental organization in the U.S. Recently the Alliance has worked together in New Orleans to reduce toxic metals in the soil following Hurricane Katrina, and sponsored “Stop Outsourcing our Future,” a series of town hall meetings in Iowa dealing with ensuring good jobs and environmental protection.

Prior to this time, there was a tension between unions and environmental groups that has prevented them from working together. Each has been focused on its particular goal -- jobs or the environment -- without particular concern for the other. Environmental groups have sometimes sought to close plants without taking into account the workers there, while workers have stereotyped environmentalists as elitists. Fortunately this situation has changed, as both sides have realized the importance and benefits of working together. Cooperation allows for both more political power and the protection of two values -- good jobs and the environment -- that are BOTH important to American workers. Unions can help environmental groups by providing information about where pollution is, as well as resources like money, networks of activists and organizational experience. Reciprocally, environmental groups can help unions by informing workers about exposure to potentially harmful chemicals about which the company itself might not have told them. For example, workers at several DuPont plants did not know about their facilities’ emission of harmful dioxin until the Sierra Club informed them.

The Teflon-chemical campaign is one example of the work that the Blue Green Alliance has done together. Perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, is one of the chemicals used to make Teflon and other household products. It has been shown to cause birth defects, and likely cancer, in humans. When it was discovered that PFOA was contaminating the water around DuPont plants, the Alliance worked together to call for investigations and bring attention to the issue.

Question and Answer session with the audience

Following the panel presentation, the session was opened up for discussion. April first asked the audience what difficulties they foresee in getting labor and environmental groups to cooperate, and much of the discussion focused around this. A middle-aged Latino man stated that he thought the issue of new plant construction could be a difficult one for consensus formation; in Houston, where he is from, a new PVC plant is being built and while environmentalists are opposed to this, unions think it means new jobs. A young man who was a USW member replied that unions are more interested in plants where they already have members, not in new ones. He went on to say that the AFL-CIO and the International are “very very serious” about labor-environmental coalitions and are constantly involved in trying to educate members about environmental issues. A French Canadian woman spoke up about the conflict between labor and environmentalist groups in the Quebec wood industry, lamenting that “so far there’s no answer.” What is lacking is thought about long-term economic alternatives. An older woman described how her husband worked for years in a plant contaminated by PVC, and how when the union complained, the company hired temporary workers rather than cleaning up their act. She pointed out how plants can move to Mexico or other places overseas to escape environmental standards in the U.S. She believed that we need to seriously challenge the ability of companies to do whatever they want.

One point that came up was the need to think about long-term strategies, like alternative energy and sustainable development, because some production processes simply cannot be made “clean.” A middle-aged man from Kentucky spoke about the coal industry in central Appalachia. “There’s no such thing as clean coal,” he argued, because no matter how we try to clean up the process, even if we make “marshmallows” come out of the coal stacks, the process of mining is fundamentally dirty and destructive. Discussions like we are having now are “very needful.” So far the coal workers’ union, United Mine Workers of America, has not been very willing to cooperate with environmental groups because it are afraid of losing jobs. A woman pointed out that some activities, like mountaintop removal, are simply not sustainable and need to be replaced by development that is sustainable, which will require long-term planning, rather than simply thinking about how to clean up a single plant today. Josh mentioned that the Sierra Club has been working in Minnesota on energy issues, seeking to create alternatives so that we can have renewable energy sources rather than having to rely on dirty things like coal.

Another discussion question that April asked was what sort of language or approach is best to use to enlist workers in environmental campaigns. How do we persuade union members that they will not lose their jobs? One young man suggested giving workers examples of places where environmental protection efforts were successful, but where workers did not end up losing their jobs, to show them that this is possible. A young woman suggested getting mothers involved; they would be most likely to be concerned about the effects of pollution on children in the community. Another young woman thought the issue could be framed in terms of the future -- pollution now is going to compromise our ability to create future jobs. A common theme was the need to frame environmental degradation as a community problem that affects workers both on and off the job.

Were plans for specific actions or future campaigns discussed?

The Teflon-chemical campaign was one specific campaign that was discussed (see above).

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

Working with environmental organizations could be considered a new approach.

Were any cross-movement or transnational networks or coalitions discussed?

Apart from the Blue Green Alliance itself, upon which the session focused, there were some mentions of other movements. The theme of a clean environment as a community issue was repeatedly mentioned, and one woman suggested making alliances with community groups. Another woman explicitly asked whether there were any alliances between labor and movements like “a right to our city” that deal with community development issues like affordable housing and good transportation. One man replied that labor is often involved through community development corporations, but a young member of USW countered that workers rarely have much involvement in these things. Another man in the audience mentioned being a member of a coalition involving labor and environmental as well as human rights groups. One woman brought up the problem of environmental racism, pointing out that black communities often suffer the most from pollution, but no explicit links to African American or minority advocacy groups were discussed.

Josh of the Sierra Club mentioned that he would like to work with other unions besides the Steelworkers, such as UNITE HERE and service worker unions.

No transnational networks were discussed. One woman did describe how she went to a worker forum in Venezuela and liked how they had control over their plants and made decisions based upon the needs of the community.

Were community-labor alliances discussed? Which community groups were mentioned and what did they do?

The theme of a clean environment as a community issue was repeatedly mentioned, and one woman suggested labor and environmental groups should make alliances with community groups. Another woman explicitly asked whether there were any alliances between labor and movements like “a right to our city” that deal with community development issues, such as affordable housing and good transportation. A man replied that labor is often involved through community development corporations, but a young member of USW countered that workers rarely have much involvement in community planning.

Formal networks and informal networking:

The main coalition discussed was the Blue Green Alliance, a formal alliance between USW and the Sierra Club to work together on labor and environmental issues, particularly global warming and clean energy, fair trade, and reducing toxic chemical pollution. The Alliance was formed in June 2006.

A contact sheet was passed around near the end of the session. After the session a Latino man from Houston asked attendees to sign a petition to have the government investigate cancer-causing chemicals near a local school. The same man had earlier spoken about a PVC plant being built in Houston, and Joshua asked him if he had ever worked with the Sierra Club and invited him to talk after the session about possibly building a partnership to take action on things like the plant.

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

This session seemed more discussion-focused than some of the others; there was about an hour and a half devoted to discussion after a 30-minute presentation by the panelists. Audience members were encouraged to share their ideas about the challenges facing labor/environmental alliances and how to persuade workers to join environmental campaigns. This exchange of ideas about a newly-formed alliance seemed to be the main goal of the workshop.

Thematic Issues

There was no discussion of the USSF/WSF process. The attendees seemed to want reformist change and none of them seemed explicitly anti-capitalist. A woman, who visited Venezuela, argued that workers should have more control over their plants and that decisions should be made on the basis of what is best for the community, rather than what will make the most profit. The roles of government and international institutions were not discussed. The International of the AFL-CIO was brought up several times; the point was made that it lacks the power to force local unions to do anything, so that even if the International were to take a progressive environmental stance, it would not mean that local unions would be as willing to cooperate with environmental groups.

Both the local and the national seemed present in the discussion. Attendees often talked about the particular geographical areas they were from, and seemed to agree that environmental protection and ensuring good jobs were issues in which local communities needed to be involved. Much of the discussion centered around coal and the Appalachia region, but it was not limited to the US South and no one who spoke indicated being from Georgia. At the same time, they also seemed to think it was a national (or perhaps international, given the presence of the two Canadians) issue that involves long-term thinking about alternative kinds of production, and that it is not enough to focus on cleaning up any one single plant. The man from Houston at one point suggested that environmental organizations should form a hierarchy on a national level, like the unions under the AFL-CIO, and that the AFL-CIO should invite national environmental groups to sit on its board. This suggestion drew a little chuckle, and one man responded that environmental groups are too different from each other to follow such a model. A woman then contended that it’s the same for unions under the AFL-CIO (they are different too).

There seemed to be little evidence that participants necessarily identified with the WSF itself or with a global process or movement. They clearly identified with the labor and/or environmental movements, and perhaps with movements centered around human rights and community development, but nothing necessarily on a larger scale than that.

Contact Details:

April Dreeke, Campaign Researcher, 5 Gateway Center, #1, Pittsburgh, PA 15224, Tel: 412-562-2556, 818-795-2267, E-mail: adreeke@usw.org, Website: www.usw.org and www.sierraclub.org

Breaking the barriers to Unionization in the United States and Mexico

Date and Venue: July 3, 2007, 6/29 1pm-2:30 at St. Lukes Church, St. Lukes Room.

Proposing Organisation

United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE).

The United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) is an independent, national union which was founded in 1936. UE is one of the few U.S. unions to combine aggressive organizing and a sense of political vision. Our membership has expanded from industrial plants to include many public and service sector locals, and we now represent assembly workers, machinists, clerical workers, plastic injection molders, tool and die makers, custodians, truck drivers, warehouse workers, sheet metal workers, technical workers, as well as public workers including social workers, scientists, librarians, day care and health care workers, truck drivers, sanitation workers, graduate employees and hundreds of other occupations. One of the hallmarks of UE is our democratic way of operating. The Union’s commitment to rank and file democracy is encapsulated in its slogan "The members run this union," and the common identity of our diverse membership is based on working together in a democratic, rank and file union. This means that UE members make all key decisions about how their locals run, and also determine policy on a district and national level. Education is a critical element in our work and has been critical in helping UE members maintain an internationalist perspective and provide rank and file leadership. That leadership is one of the things that distinguishes our union, and is a major source of our strength. Our programmatic work takes place at four levels: 1) organizing and representing workers in their places of work; 2) fighting for a social, economic and political program which benefits working people, especially around the issues of workers' rights and national health care; 3)establishing relationships of solidarity between workers and their organizations in different countries; and 4) working to confront the power of corporations and the neo-liberal ideology, policies and structures of corporate globalization while at the same time working to develop alternatives.

Session Description

About 50 in audience. Two panels: the UE facilitators were Carol Landier and Bob Kingsley. The meeting started with two singers leading the whole audience in a song about peace and justice in Spanish and English.

First panel was a report from two Mexican independent trade unionists on the difficulties of organizing independent (non-PRI, non-company) unions in Mexico. Benedicto from Mexico City represented the Authentic Workers Party and UNT (National Union of Workers). He spoke about the legal and bureaucratic obstacles that make organizing a new union or local faces in Mexico. Arturo Silva from Juarez told of the struggles of public sector workers in the Mexican state of Chihuahua to organize.

There is no legal means for public sector workers to organize in Mexico. Arturo is the president of the Federation of Public Sector Workers in Chihuahua. Benedicto and Arturo spoke in Spanish and their words were translated into English.

Bob Kingsley then spoke and presented a power point with pictures. He said that the purpose of obstacles to unionization is to protect the interests of corporations. He showed a chart that indicated the declining unionization rate of American workers since 1992 when the series started. Bob also showed a chart depicting the trend in CEO incomes relative to the minimum wage. That ratio went from 51 in 1965 to 800 in 2006.

UE1 The second panel was made up of eight people, 3 women and five men. These were local union leaders of struggles to unionize workplaces in the U.S. and they told their stories. Company take-aways spurred workers to organize. Some won and some lost. Lara Bonilla worked at a welding shop with mostly immigrant employees. They won. The campaign for techies (installers) at DirecTV is still in process.

The North Carolina public employees in clued Raleigh City Sanitation. Angaza Sababu spoke about the importance of a union with a vision who would hang in there in a long tough battle.

Chris Townsend, from UE, Washington D.C, spoke about the effort to pass a labor law reform in congress. Bob Kingsley said that UE tries to be the left wing of the U.S. labor movement.

This meeting was very inspiring. If I were a young person I would work with UE. They are doing a great job fighting for worker rights at the local and legislative levels and they are making strong alliances with independent labor organizations in Mexico.

Contact Details:

Robin Alexander, Director of International Affairs, One Gateway Center, Suite 1400, Pittsburgh, PA, 15222, Tel: 412-471-8919, E-mail: International@ranknfile-ue.org, Website: www.ranknfile-ue.org, www.ueinternational.org, www.fatmexico.org.

Workers’s rights in the global economy

Date and Venue: Saturday, June 30 Plenary, 8 pm, at the Civic Center

Proposing Organisation

Jobs with Justice is a network of 40 local coalitions of labor, faith, community and student groups, promoting economic justice and worker rights.

Session Description

Moderator: Sarita Gupta, Director of Jobs for Justice. There were 6 speakers, 2 of whom were women, one black, one Asian. Two of the men spoke Spanish. The audience had about 300 people. The moderator asked the panelists to address several good questions, such as the relationship between the U.S. labor movement and the global labor movement.

Lucas Benitez of the Coaltion of Immolakee Workers in Florida told of the struggle of farmworkers who are not included under the National Labor Relations Act. The mainly immigrant farm workers have had success by targeting large retailers such as Taco Bell, who have been forced by threat of consumer boycott to sign agreements that require their suppliers of tomatoes to abide by labor agreements with farm worker unions. The “fair food” campaign is now targeting Burger King and plans to do Kentucky Fried Chicken. This has been a successful strategy.

Laphonza Butler of SEIU told the story of her mother, a security guard earning minimum wage who also has two other jobs. Laphonza discussed the current SEIU campaign to organize security workers, especially hotel and building guards, across the U.S. they will build on the success of the Justice for Janitors campaign.

Francisco Pacheco is with the National Day Labor Organizing Network. Francisco is himself an immigrant from El Salvador where he was involved in the revolution. He said that the NDLON is affiliating with the AFL-CIO, but he criticize “the older brothers” in the union movement who have failed to educate the white rank and file about relations with immigrants. He also mentioned the nefarious activities of the AFL-CIO in Central American in earlier decades where they supported company unions.

Ai-Jen Poo is a woman from L.A. is with the Domestic Workers United. She spoke about solidarity with workers in the Third World, building worker power globally and building toward a global general strike of unionized and non-unionized workers.

Stewart Acuff is a former general labor council director from Atlanta, member of Jobs with Justice, and now with the AFL-CIO. He spoke about how neoliberalism has been a class war in which corporations have attacked the worker class and that the answer is to fight back. He spoke about the labor reform legislation in congress for protecting and extending the right to organize unions. He said the AFL-CIO was committed to overcoming its past errors and deficiencies and he said that Jobs for Justice is the most important labor-community organization in the U.S.

It was my impression from what I saw that the AFL-CIO and the UE are competing with one another to be the most progressive, global, social movement, diverse unionists in the U.S. and SEIU is focusing more on specific campaigns such as the security workers project. What would be interesting would be to know whether other observers found evidence for or against these generalizations.

Contact Details

Sarita Gupta, Executive Director, Suite 200, 1325 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Tel: 202-393-1044, E-mail: sarita@jwj.org, Website: http://www.jwj.org/

People of Color and Students in the Labor Movement

Date: June 28, 10.30 am, Atlanta Ballroom D

Proposing Organization:United Students Against Sweatshops

Where is the labor movement going? How have the faces of the labor movement changed over the last 25 years? How is the labor movement equipped in this era of immigration and assimilation of different global diasporas, to change their current structure to address this issue of the working class across the board? Why is it important to have a multi-ethnic front of the labor movement? How should the labor movement be approaching youth? Why is it important to recruit people of color in the labor movement? In this panel discussion we will hear testimony of experience people of color in the labor movement and recent alumni involved in the student labor movement on their understanding of the future of labor and why it is important that they involved. We will touch upon themes such as immigration, access to education, globalization, and workers rights.

What group(s) organized this workshop? What unions or labor organizations (workers’ center or other organization) participated on the panel? Please list them.

United Students Against Sweatshops,

AFSCME, UNITE HERE, SOLIDARITY, NEW YORK UNION SEMESTER, ONE ORG FROM THE PHILIPPINES were present

Was the panel diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the panelists.

Workshop was conducted mainly by 1 person from USAS, Victoria, even though other USAS staff was present; she was a Latina in her mid-twenties

Was the audience diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the audience.

Racially: 75% People of Color, Ethnically diverse, of those=50% Latino/a

Age: 20-30

Country: All US, except the two ladies from the Philippines

# of Attendees: Approximately 30; ½ female, ½ male

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

Necessary to teach and train prospective leaders, people of color in particular. There is a need for more students of color within the educational system because if not, they are busy working underpaid jobs instead of trying to organize change.

The ladies from the Philippines discussed their story with their organization and that brought up the need for international unionizing. No country in particular was mentioned, however, if work at a local level is accomplished, an global impact is achieved.

There was a brief discussion on the immigrant rights movement, seeing that many immigrant workers (people of color) are un-unionized workers.

Were formal networks or coalitions formed or discussed? What was the purpose of this network or coalition?

No.

Did informal networking occur before or after the session? Please describe.

Many shared different stories of their own struggle within their campaign as an example for the discussion and collected similar thoughts on strategies, oppressive awareness, social consciousness, etc. After the workshop, it seemed that those who shared the most similar case or had agreed upon a certain point brought up during the discussion hung around and continued talking.

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

Nothing too specific; just supportive advice from one to another. For example, there was a female from Oregon who discussed an injunction imposed in her school to stop student organizations on campus from supporting unions; threat=fund cut of $10 million. Another member of the audience reminded her that it was still not a law, so there was a chance for change=ACT NOW!

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

The workshop served mainly as an open space for people of color to share their experiences within the labor movement. Many discussed useful strategies, ideas and thoughts which had achieved success within their campaign. Those who were not aware learned and those who already knew informed.

Worker Justice Struggles: What’s At Stake for Labor and Community?

Date: June 28, Thursday, 1 pm, Room 1208, Westin Room

Proposing Organization

Jobs with Justice

The struggle for good jobs and worker justice – “labor history, importance of labor history to social progress, current state of labor and union density”, economic reality of working class, trends “the systematic breakdown of worker rights in the US and failure to meet international labor rights standards”, current worker justice campaigns and how we can build leverage to victory such as Verizon wireless, Smithfield, Justice to Janitors, Bringing back the right to organize: Employee Free Choice Act.

What group(s) organized this workshop? What unions or labor organizations (workers’ center or other organization) participated on the panel?

Jobs With Justice

Was the panel diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced?

There were roughly six panelists. Three of them, 1 Latina who had a translator and two African Americans were there to tell their story.

Was the audience diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced?

Race: Mostly African-American and White, few Latinos/as

Age: Diverse

Number of Attendees: Approximately 50; more male than female

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

No.

Were community-labor alliances discussed? Which community groups were mentioned and what did they do?

DJ Cronin- Jobs for Justice, Boston, MA: 100-150 businesses and institutions asking them to honor workers were successful with mayors, not businesses

Male from Philly: “use the constituents within the community to help; working with limited resources but strength is found in numbers”

No, it focused on cases in Boston, Philadelphia and Smithfield, North Carolina within Jobs for Justice.

There was an obvious connection with the anti-corporate movement.

Male speaker on his union: Even though workers are subcontracted by universities they are still held responsible to let the students know where their money goes. They may say it’s not our problem but it is when they are the ones who decide which subcontractors to hire. “ Maximize your potential, since they are doing it…CORPORATE GREED!” “Corporations make you believe that they have all of the power, but they don’t! POWER LIES WITHIN THE WORKERS”

Were formal networks or coalitions formed or discussed? What was the purpose of this network or coalition?

Coalition: Everyone was handed and asked to sign anti-Verizon card stating that they either refused to buy any Verizon product and/or refused to renew their current contract. The collection of cards would be sent to Verizon to prove that they would lose a huge amount of customers if their workers are not allowed to unionize.

Did informal networking occur before or after the session? Please describe.

Not sure

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

This workshop was more informative than anything else. They had actual workers from factories speak about their personal experience. Throughout the discussion, other people from the audience jumped in and related the topic to their own campaign. There were a lot of successful stories which filled the room with a sense of hope and provided others with ideas for possible actions within their own community.

Verizon Worker Organizing

Date: Saturday, June 30, 2007

Proposing Organisation: Massachusetts Jobs with Justice

Session Description

The workshop was an introduction of the organization, their aims, and activities. The main aim is for worker’s justice for Verizon employees, mainly those in managerial positions because their benefits and very jobs have been threatened due to an increase in outsourcing and a “chipping away” of benefits. Grievance process overlooked, contracts were violated. In their experience they discovered they were not the only ones who had grievances with Verizon. Verizon’s customers who were not deemed economically sufficient were left out of the picture when it came to technological upgrading. This will be a planning session for coordination work being done to support workers at Verizon Wireless and Verizon Business in addition to other corporate accountability campaigns at Verizon such as fighting phone service sell offs in rural communities and redlining high speed tech services

Laura (National Jobs with Justice): gave an overview of the campaign and community access issues.

Field organiser (Midwest, ACORN): discussed other issues with CWA, targeting the company in a few different ways, and association with JWJ. What is wrong with Verizon? They do not help consumers from rural areas. As they are trying to shift over to wireless they are abandoning their old copper lines, they are selective with building new fiber-optics in richer areas not in poorer parts of cities because they believe they will not be making more profit there.

Chris (a technician): there is a need for stringent rules and regulations about how we receive our customers. “

Russ Davis (from Boston): spoke of the campaign targeting young people, where they want them to be hooked on to the cell phone. Cable industry has been anti union, wireless put in is its place is maintained by union members. He also outlined the strategies that backfired.

Summary

Was the panel diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the panelists.

The panel was not diverse in terms of age, the age range was about late 20’s to 30’s. All the panelists were white, spoke only English and were all from the United States. It was gender balanced, the main speaker was female and there was a worker who worked with phone lines was male. The main speaker Laura spoke for about 1/3 of the session but facilitated the whole thing, Chris, the phone line worker, spoke for the second third of the session.

Was the audience diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the audience.

The audience was generally around the same age as the panelists were ranging from late 20’s to 30’s. There was about 15 people: 3 black women and one black male, 1 Asian male, 6 white males.

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

The approach to labor organizing did seem traditional, however the whole movement seemed to be in it’s nascent stages because the main panelist, Laura, asked for suggestions on what they could do in terms of organizing; they did not have many other strategies and wanted new ideas.

Were community-labor alliances discussed? Which community groups were mentioned and what did they do?

Community-labor alliances were discussed in the introduction. They said that they have been trying to recruit support from neighborhoods that Verizon is neglecting due to their socio-economic status; Verizon is not updating the old copper lines (phone lines) to fiber-optics and not maintaining the old wires for people who do not wish to go wireless.

There was no international labor solidarity, no one outside of the United States was present or mentioned at this session.

Although there was no mention of other kinds of movements, they are trying to connect to residences that might have been adversely affected by Verizon’s neglect because of their lower socio-economic status. There was also mention of a possible alliance with workers from Duncun Doughnuts and with the USSAS. These groups of people that Jobs with Justice are trying to connect to were not present at the session.

Were formal networks or coalitions formed or discussed? What was the purpose of this network or coalition?

The formal networks formed and discussed were the Verizon workers from the billing centers located in New York and California along with the people who work out in the field with the phone lines, and now they are trying to form a connection with the customers of Verizon. Consumer choice/power is what they are trying to persuade because without the consumer Verizon would not be able to survive. The only Verizon billing center is located in New York, but even then their rights are slowly being taken away.

Did informal networking occur before or after the session? Please describe.

There was an informal exchange of contact information, via e-mail, after the session and a continued discussion of tactics Jobs with Justice could use in their fight against Verizon.

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

There was no mention of “future” action but rather it’s been an ongoing campaign it seemed. Throughout the forum there were people walking around with petitions to sign to go against Verizon if they did not change their ways.

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

The main goal of the forum was to gather new tactics and ideas on how to go about the issue of fighting for more rights that Verizon has been taking away slowly as well as to share with whoever is present what they have been doing so far in their movement.

The Worker’s Center Movement

Date: June 30, 2007 at Westin Hotel – International A.

Proposing Organization: Interfaith Worker Justice

Every day, more and more workers face abuse and exploitation in low-wage workplaces, such as restaurants, day labor sites, and small factories. Immigrant workers often face particularly blatant violation of their rights, including wages below the minimum wage, illegal and dangerous working conditions, and refusal to pay wages that workers have earned. Often, these workers work in industries and workplaces that are beyond the control of the union movement. The workers centre movement is an important and growing vehicle that is filling this gap and providing a space for low-wage and immigrant workers to organize and build power at their workplace and the broader community. Centers in the Interfaith Worker Justice Center Network Working conditions, and refusal to pay wages that workers have earned. Often, these workers work in industries and workplaces that are beyond the control of the union movement. The workers centre movement is an important and growing vehicle that is filling this gap and providing a space for low-wage and immigrant workers to organize and build power at their workplace and the broader community. Centers in the Interfaith Worker Justice Center Network are safe spaces where low-wage and migrant workers join people of faith, union organizers, lawyers and volunteers to enforce workers rights and fight sweatshop conditions. Centers hold popular education workshops that educate workers about their basic rights in the workplace, such as the right to minimum wage and overtime, healthy and safe conditions and the right to organize. The centers then work with workers to stand up for their rights and challenge illegal and unjust activity in the workplace. Worker self-determination is a central principle of the IWJ Worker’s Center Network. Organizers and advocates present workers with a variety of options for addressing workplace problems, including filing complaints with government enforcement agencies, consulting lawyers, organizing an union, or engaging in some kind of direct action with the support of the religious community. Centers would like to present a workshop (in Spanish with oral interpretation in English) on workers centers as a key vehicle in organizing for justice in the new economy. The goals of the workshop will be to educate participants in the importance of worker’s centers so that participants can look for ways to support worker’s centers in their home communities. The workshop will feature a presentation by Jose Oliva, Coordinator of IWJ Worker’s Center Network, along with representatives from one or more local worker’s centers, followed by facilitated conversation with workshop participants on economic justice struggles in their local communities.

Summary

Interfaith Worker Justice is an organization that creates a safe place in order for workers to come together and discuss their grievances about the workplace situation that started in Chicago. Originally, workers would complain about the poor workplace situations to their congregations/churches but the congregations didn’t know what to do so they redirected these matters to Interfaith. Interfaith came up with a Worker’s Right’s Manual which was a big hit because they got responses within 24 hours; many of those who responded were immigrant workers. Eventually Interfaith became national through the church networks that they’re associated with. Now, they have either volunteer or paid lawyers that are part of Interfaith chapters in order to help file collective complaints if it’s something small or file single huge complaints to uphold any broken policies.

Was the panel diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the panelists.

The panelists were not diverse in age, they seemed to be in their 20’s to 30’s. Both panelists Kristin Kumpf and Will Tansman were white but Kristin was fluent in Spanish as well as English. The main language spoken was English. Their country of residence is the United States, namely Chicago Illinois. They did not emphasize their religion or faith at all other than the fact that they started off and worked through churches. It was gender balanced.

Was the audience diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the audience.

The audience consisted of 10 females, 16 males, 2 of the women were Asian and the rest of the audience was an even mix of Hispanic (maybe Mexican) and white men and women. There were a few Spanish speakers who did not speak any English at all so they had interpreters for them. There was one particular woman who was part of an organization from Canada. There were a few children there, but they were there accompanying their parents. Ages ranged from about 5 years of age to about 60 from all ethnicities and races.

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

The way interfaith organized emphasized on the community through churches. Many of the workers who organize go through the church first and are then referred to Interfaith. Interfaith actually has lawyers that volunteer or are hired in order to deal with the grievances of the workers either collectively with minor accounts of worker abuse or single large accounts of worker abuse. The basis of this idea of lawyers working there is that lawyers are workers too and they should help other workers who are in the same situation they are.

Were community-labor alliances discussed? Which community groups were mentioned and what did they do?

The whole organization is for the community and is made up of community members. One story of how they first began their fights against worker injustice was when they tried to file legal suits against a company with the government. The company was not following legal regulations, the government took too long so they went as a group (a group of people from Interfaith and workers) to the manager of the company and got their demands met.

The organization seems to be focused mainly on the community of the United States so far; however there was a woman who was from Montreal, Canada, that may have informally swapped contact information with them. The Spanish speakers were from the immigrant community from Florida as well as other areas of the United States.

There were not any discussions discussed during the session however there were a few people that stayed after that may have discussed any possible connections. There was a man from Justice of the World Union from Gainesville Florida who interacted a lot with the panelists.

Were formal networks or coalitions formed or discussed? What was the purpose of this network or coalition?

No formal networks or coalitions were formed or discussed during the session.

Did informal networking occur before or after the session? Please describe.

Many people stayed after the session to continue to talk about various things however there I had to leave to go to the next session. There was an e-mail list formed.

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

Interfaith Worker Justice is an ongoing organization. They are continuing to form more workers’ centers throughout the United States. Whoever wants to create a worker’s center can contact IWJ; however the creation of a worker center requires donations and other forms of funding in order to start a place for workers to gather.

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

The main goal of the workshop was to inform people of what Interfaith is all about and about their success rate thus far. For the most part they are a growing organization that seems to reach out to the community, namely the immigrant community. In fact, one of their strategies is to reach out to other workers and as they states, in order to do so they must “speak the language.” If people did not when trying to form any collaboration with the workers, it would be pointless because no one will listen if they did not understand.

Organizing Immigrant Workers

Date: June 30, 2007

Proposing Organization: AFL-CIO

This workshop was intended to focus on two current campaigns to organize predominantly immigrant and migrant workers in the construction industry of the US Southwest and on the farms of North Carolina. Workers and organizers from each of these campaigns will describe the unique challenges and the absolute necessity in organizing immigrant and migrant workers. Although residential construction is a booming and profitable industry, workers have not fared nearly as well as the industry that employs them. However, the Building Justice Campaign is working to resolve this inequity. The campaign is working to raise industry standards for residential construction workers through the collective bargaining press. Through collective bargaining, workers in this industry will gain the necessary representation to help them win a just working environment with decent wages, safer conditions, better training and a voice on the job. The Building Justice campaign is a partnership organizing campaign comprised of the International Union of Painters (IUPAT) and the Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA), with the support of the AFL-CIO. In 2004, the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC) and thousands of Mexican agricultural workers won union recognition by the North Carolina Growers Association after a five year boycott of Mt. Olive Pickles. This historic victory provided ‘guest workers’ a direct voice in their own working conditions. The union has put into place an effective process to work with more than 600 growers to address grievances and conditions in the work sites. In 2005, FLOC opened an office in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, to ensure union members in Mexico had an immediate resource for information about their recruitment, problems with visas and to help them make working arrangements in the US. FLOC continues to organize in the Deep South to give a voice to the workers who labor under truly inhuman conditions for poverty wages.

Summary

There were 5 panellists, 2 of which mainly spoke Spanish so there was an interpreter. The main speaker, Margot went over the organization and what they have been doing so far in terms of immigrant house builders who work for this company called Pulte in the Arizona area. Pulte does not solely do business in Arizona but the session was focused on what happened in Arizona. The group there was an alliance of painters union, sheet metal’s union, roofers, and fellow AFL-CIO members. Margot went over the strategies that they’re using in order to achieve their goals and after that the two workers who actually experienced being hosed down by contractors hired by Pulte. They posted footage of the whole thing on youtube.com: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml00gVWhSGY; the hosing of the strikers lasted about 45 minutes to an hour long. They essentially spoke about immigration policy that served the interests of the corporate.

What group(s) organized this workshop? What unions or labor organizations (workers’ center or other organization) participated on the panel? Please list them.

AFL-CIO, Painters Union, Sheet Metal, Roofers, Fellow CIO

Was the panel diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the panelists.

The panelists were not too diverse in age, they ranged from late 20’s to 30’s. They identified as Chicano/a, half the panelists were bilingual with English and Spanish, the other half were mainly Spanish speakers. Their country of residence is the United States. It was not gender balanced; there was one female and three males on the panel not counting the interpreters.

Was the audience diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the audience.

There was about 12-15 people in the audience, the room was not totally filled. There was an even mix of Hispanic and white in the crowd with ages ranging from small children maybe around 5 to about people around the age of 50 or 60. A large portion of the audience was Spanish speakers and understood Spanish better than English while the English speakers did not understand Spanish at all. Their country of residence was also the United States. It was gender balanced. The same man who attended the Interfaith Workshop was also there.

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

They were one of the few sessions that outlined their who strategy in detail, they plotted a pie of Acctionistas(activists), Legal (Legal Action), Trabajadores (Workers), Communidad, iglesias, y estudiantes (network of community, churches and students), Compradores (Buyers), Contratistas (Contractors), and huelguistas (strikers) that work together in order to fight for their goals. The strategy that they used to gain public attention to their cause was not the mainstream media, but rather through the internet at www.youtube.com. Their link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml00gVWhSGY . Mainstream media did not even air the video that they recorded of the strikers being hosed down by water as they were striking so they had to use this alternate means of media.

Were community-labor alliances discussed? Which community groups were mentioned and what did they do?

The community-labor alliances in terms of buyers were definitely discussed in this session. The strikers would go up to the buyers in order to tell them that the houses that they worked on were not built correctly due to time restrictions in order to dissuade them from buying. In fact, some owners actually went to visit their houses as they were being built and told the workers building the houses not to rush because they wanted their home to be built correctly. The buyers would put in the extra cash to by more of the supplies that they were not provided with by the contractors Pulte (the corporation) hired. Much of the collaboration between the community/buyers was due to faulty building practices because of unrealistic time restrictions put on the workers.

There was no mention of international solidarity mentioned however their may be something with Mexico because many of these workers have ties to people in Mexico. They were specifically focused on the Arizona and New Mexico area. However, because these states are border-states, they mentioned a little on helping immigrants survive the journey through the Sonora desert.

There was a few mentions of other connections to other movements other than the different labor unions; the painters, sheet metal, roofers, and the AFL-CIO. They mentioned ACORN’s campaign against using lead based paint in construction to increase the standards of house building. This dealt with the standards of house building and was related to their cause.

Were formal networks or coalitions formed or discussed? What was the purpose of this network or coalition?

There were not formal networks or coalitions formed or discussed during the workshop other than the creation of an e-mail list for those who wanted to participate.

Did informal networking occur before or after the session? Please describe.

The man from the Justice of the World Union from Gainesville Florida who attended that continued to speak with the panelists after the session.

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

They said that they would e-mail those who have signed up if they have anything planned.

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

What the panelists presented was to tell us the strategies they have been using in order to achieve their goals and to tell us of the grievances the workers had to endure because of the corruption of the contractors. However it seemed that they were not really asking for any other type of help other than popular support and public awareness of the situation.

Women's Leadership in the Labor Movement

Date: June 29, 2007

Session organizers: WILD-Women’s Institute for Leadership Development South Florida Jobs with Justice www.wildlabor.org

Event Description

This workshop will provide a forum for leaders and activists from different areas of the country to discuss the state of women's leadership in the labor movement. We will compare challenges and share strategies that have worked to advance women's leadership within the labor movement. We will also look at racism and xenophobia within the labor movement and discuss ways of challenging these and building a stronger labor movement. The labor movement is under attack. The Bush administration and the National Labor Relations Board are extremely hostile to labor unions and workers. The prevailing cultural, political and economic climate in the US overwhelmingly favors corporations and profit over workers. Most labor unions are not only failing to gain ground, but are losing members. Within the labor movement, unions themselves are often flawed institutions and perpetuate oppression of women and people of color and/or are inattentive to issues of union democracy, racism and sexism. Unions often perpetuate xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment. There is also a great deal of mistrust and overall lack of contact between immigrant populations and African American communities. The voices and perspectives of women of color are profoundly underrepresented in union leadership, especially the perspectives of those women of color who have been economically marginalized and are immigrants. Bringing these perspectives forward requires multiple strategies. We believe that a stronger US labor movement demands the leadership of women, immigrants and people of color. We will discuss how to unite to face our common struggles, particularly the possibilities for women of color forming and leading strong black and brown coalitions.

Estimated # of Attendees: 15

Composition

Race- 6 Black, 5 White, 2 Asian, 2 Latino

Gender-3 male, 11 female

Language: English

Panelist Descriptions

§ STITCH- Women Unions in Central America, based in District of Columbia which has no voice in the U.S Government.

§ South Florida Jobs for Justice-Immigrant; Creator of Women’s Leadership Program

§ Board member of Women’s Institute for Leadership Development(WILD)

§ Director of WILD

§ Jobs with Justice-Immigrant Rights Advocate

Attendee Description

§ Kaiser Permanente United ASME

§ United Healthcare Workers West

§ Jobs with Justice, USSA organizer/trainer

§ Student

§ Political Prisoner Support Work

§ Activist/Journalist-Jobs with Justice; NAACP

§ Medical Student

§ Recently Laid off from hospital for attempting to organize a union

§ Northern Australia-Women in Vocation in Australia

§ ASHME-Jobs for South

Panelist Talks

1. WILD Director –Unions are not always democratic and representative of the workers, and unions are not always sexist, racist, and xenophobic. The mission is to encourage women to be effective leaders of unions. The Vision of Leadership at WILD is to be inclusive, democratic, and mobilizing; fighting all forms of oppression, and organizing. There are leadership trainings once a year for women over the summer where WILD teaches classes on organizing and leadership skills

2. Board member of WILD has worked in Public School System and once she joined WILD she learned how to speak in public and to be able to demand and fight sexism at her workplace. There is a 20/20 program where the organization takes 20 women and puts them in leadership roles in the next 20 years.

3. South Florida Jobs for Justice- While working on housing rights across borders, they found one common denominator, and women of color are leaders of campaigns. They are African American, Haitian, Latina, Jamaican etc. The women have had to fight and have made it. Coming from Miami-city of immigrants-there is a lot of mistrust among different groups which could be a result of language barriers and other factors. Because of this Union leaders take advantage of this division among different groups of women.

a. So Jobs for Justice created a space for diverse groups of Women Leaders. Called 3 organizations: WILD, STITCH and ???. The goal is to bring the African American women to Guatemala and Latina women to Haiti and build a coalition of “black and brown women to make them understand that there are similarities between the groups.”

Attendee Discussions

1. [Panelists posed questions] “What works? What are the obstacles?”

a. One common obstacle is that “we are many things: women, colored, age, have families and responsibilities”

b. Another Attendee discussed defining LeadershipàPanelists stated that Leadership is not the title of president “We are born Leaders, we must multitask”. Leadership isn’t a title or a position, it is action

c. Structural Challenges- E.g. a vice-president steps down and appoints a friend, the system becomes an obstacle.

2. [Question raised by Attendee] What do women bring to the Unions?

a. Unions have been the best device for union workers, especially because women run them democratically

3. Also discussed recruiting more Asian women for WILD because now is predominantly Brazilian and African American.

4. West Coast Women of Color Coalition in Sacramento shared experience about not receiving support from African American Men and Non African American men have been supportive.

5. [Posed Question: Whether any of the organizations were Global? WSF participation?]

a. STITCH works with Central American Unions because they work with workers who produce goods which are consumed in the U.S. Jobs with Justice is working with unions in Guatemala and Nicaragua at very grassroots level.

b. No to WSF because this is a new project that is only running for 3-4 months and the panelists were implying that the WSF is not at the grassroots level at least in terms of how they perceive it and what their goals are.

6. Attendees also raised the point that some unions have created informal coalitions and sometimes women leaders don’t tell their leaders who are often male that they are part of a women’s leadership organization

Networks

§ Someone from West Coast Women of Color Coalition in Sacramento shared information about her organization and stated that she had never heard of WILD & STITCH. Also said that she would get buss. Cards before she left the session.

§ Passed around sign-in sheet to network and also passed around buss. Cards and flyers. The information being passed around was not only from the panelists, some attendees also shared their information.

What group(s) organized this workshop? What unions or labor organizations (workers’ center or other organization) participated on the panel? Please list them.

§ STITCH- Women Unions in Central America, based in District of Columbia which has no voice in the U.S Gov’t.

§ South Florida Jobs for Justice-Immigrant; Creator of Women’s Leadership Program

§ Board member of Women’s Institute for Leadership Development(WILD)

§ Director of WILD

§ Jobs with Justice-Immigrant Rights Advocate

Was the panel diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the panelists.

Panelists were all women. They were racially diverse: 3 white, 2 Latina, 2 Black. All reside in U.S

Was the audience diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the audience.

The audience members were predominantly female.

Race- 6 Black, 5 White, 2 Asian, 2 Latino

Gender-3 male, 11 female

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

South Florida Jobs for Justice- While working on housing rights across borders, they found one common denominator, and women of color are leaders of campaigns. They are African American, Haitian, Latina, Jamaican etc. The women have had to fight and have made it. Coming from Miami-city of immigrants-there is a lot of mistrust among different groups which could be a result of language barriers and other factors. Because of this Union leaders take advantage of this division among different groups of women.

So Jobs for Justice created a space for diverse groups of Women Leaders. Called 3 organizations: WILD, STITCH and ???. The goal is to bring the African American women to Guatemala and Latina women to Haiti and build a coalition of “black and brown women to make them understand that there are similarities between the groups.”

Were community-labor alliances discussed? Which community groups were mentioned and what did they do?

Attendees also raised the point that some unions have created informal coalitions and sometimes women leaders don’t tell their leaders who are often male that they are part of a women’s leadership organization

Posed Question: Whether any of the organizations were Global? WSF participation?]

a. So Jobs for Justice created a space for diverse groups of Women Leaders. Called 3 organizations: WILD, STITCH. The goal is to bring the African American women to Guatemala and Latina women to Haiti and build a coalition of “black and brown women to make them understand that there are similarities between the groups.”

Were formal networks or coalitions formed or discussed? What was the purpose of this network or coalition?

Jobs for Justice created a space for diverse groups of Women Leaders. Called 3 organizations: WILD, STITCH and ???. The goal is to bring the African American women to Guatemala and Latina women to Haiti and build a coalition of “black and brown women to make them understand that there are similarities between the groups.”

Did informal networking occur before or after the session? Please describe.

§ Passed around sign-in sheet to network and also passed around buss. Cards and flyers. The information being passed around wasn’t only from the panelists; some attendees also share their information.

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

The Vision of Leadership at WILD is to be inclusive, democratic, and mobilizing; fighting all forms of oppression, and organizing. There are leadership trainings once a year for women over the summer where WILD teaches classes on organizing and leadership skills. There is a 20/20 program where the organization takes 20 women and puts them in leadership roles in the next 20 years. So Jobs for Justice created a space for diverse groups of Women Leaders. Called 3 organizations: WILD, STITCH. The goal is to bring the African American women to Guatemala and Latina women to Haiti and build a coalition of “black and brown women to make them understand that there are similarities between the groups.”

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

We believe that a stronger US labor movement demands the leadership of women, immigrants and people of color. We will discuss how to unite to face our common struggles, particularly the possibilities for women of color forming and leading strong black and brown coalitions.

Connecting Environmental Justice Movements

Date: June 30, 2007 - 10:30am

Proposing Organization: Climate Justice Chicago

People Reversing Global Warming is a multi-issue, multi-racial, multi-ethnic grassroots coalition dedicated to reversing global warming through a radical change in both the perception and definition of the problem, and prescriptions for action. In light of the urgent need to create a climate-safe planet, we have a common agreement about the need to initiate immediate local action in the following areas of daily living: - Environmental justice: anti-racism and ending class privilege - Local food and food security - Green collar jobs and worker rights - Zero waste manufacturing - Mass transit: building a cars-are-optional future - Renewable energy: carbon-free and nuclear-free - Green building, energy conservation and efficiency

Session Description

We will create a space to connect with others who are integrating environmental work with a justice agenda, to talk about our movements, best practices, and setbacks, and where we can strategize together with allies in the environmental justice movement. Creating a just and liveable future for all will require that we move beyond techno-fixes; that we embrace systemic change, create sustainable economies and justly allocate resources; and that we take action to address the environmental problems in our communities and our world. Climate Justice Chicago is a grassroots coalition of organizers, activists and NGOs, from a variety of areas of work, dedicated to reversing global warming. We focus on: - Environmental justice: anti-racism and ending class privilege - Local food and food security - Green collar jobs and worker rights - Zero waste manufacturing - Mass transit: building a cars-are-optional future - Renewable energy: carbon-free and nuclear-free - Green building, energy conservation and efficiency

Language: English

Handouts: Yes (English and Spanish)

Estimated number of attendees: 40

Describe the composition of attendees in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, languages used, etc.

Diverse crowd; even distribution between age and race. English language only used.

Describe panelists: name, organizational affiliation, country, etc.

Just Transition Alliance

Little Village Environmental Chicago

Communities for a Better Environment

React for Environmental Justice in Harlem

Observations

Session geared to pointing out successes of the environmental groups on the panel. Openings made for cross-organization collaboration will be continued in a follow-up session geared toward active collaboration. Panelists almost exclusively working at the grassroots level with less affluent communities, with limited resources (funding).

The focus was on direct work with communities rather than with the larger system in which it is embedded. There was tension with an audience-member with a more top-down approach to justice. The panelists brought up issues of race, class, strategy, alluding to divisions within the movement. Previous collaboration with top-down, wealthier groups (Sierra Club) led to being “shat on.”They pointed out that labor and environmentalism can be reconciled through the creation of “green jobs.” Collaboration noted to be largely with grassroots and community unions (not national unions). Conglomerate of activists with different approaches to reform.

Just Transition Alliance started with a focus on Oil. They worked with workers and communities that were low-income. A lot of education had to be disseminated. Stereotypes had to be surmounted so that participants understood each person’s point of view. They had mixed degrees of cooperation with unions in the area. Their main concern regarded what happens during transitional phases (as industries/communities move toward “greener” solutions/jobs/cultures). They are moving toward climate justice. By, altering coal refinery; what happens to income, healthcare, etc.? We need to account for restitution for lost jobs. Transportation Justice: new, affordable ways for public transit

Climate Justice in Chicago

Climate justice: Primarily environmental. International finance, globalization are factors in the environmental justice game. They advocate replacing coal power-plants with “green energy campuses.” This includes issues of energy efficiency, renewables (solar power, wind), fighting “safe nuclear energy.” The real issue/solution is the goal of doubling public-transit (which creates jobs). The environmental movement doesn’t take jobs away; energy efficiency creates jobs.

Communities for a Better Environment:

This organization is Richmond-based and focuses on the City of Chevron (where the refinery is located) because many jobs stem from it. They elected a “green” mayor who did not take campaign money from Chevron. Another city is Rodeo (home of the Conco-Phillips* refinery). That city not as receptive to their concerns. They need help from outside to educate.

Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice (since 1991)

They are located in the 2^nd most segregated state in country; 2^nd to LA in minorities living in pollution. About 87% of pollutants are in Detroit.There is a dilemma of running out of landfills, proposal for incinerator (to be built with Phillip Morris). AFSCME is against it while the Building Trades unions (white, middle class organization) are fighting for the incinerator. There is a city ordinance against roadside recycling. This County is looking at issues of global warming. The organization is working with them, even though they are not talking with the city of Detroit. There is a proposal for nuclear plant (their 3^rd). They developed a group for Environmental Justice, which focuses on issues of energy efficiency, clean technology, and other ‘green stuff.’ They are launching a 3 month training on how to work toward EJ.

React for EJ Harlem and Washington Heights

They are working personally within communities (1 on 1 on how to build change). They are educating people on energy star rating on AC; planting a tree, fluorescent bulbs, etc. They are educating communities about how environmental issues affect the person (asthma); how the people personally can relate to it. “Quick hit” solutions are not their personal approach. They are developing training on planning actions. The Diesel Leadership Council was created and they are focusing on how to organize and hold people accountable for their actions.

They are building a relationship with transportation workers union. We need more public transit. They are pushing for less fossil-fuel based transit. Pesticides is another issue they focus on; as the globe warms, more danger of insects and disease. There are connections between pesticides and low birth rates, etc. Tar beach and green roofs (grass on roofs) cool the building and decrease reliance on AC. They are working to restore an abandoned building to be green. They have contracts with 2 schools to have green roofs. They described their work in a section in Harlem that focuses on spreading green roofs. They are transforming communities without waiting for “those in power” is the way that we will, not only mitigate climate change, but transform society.

Question & Answer

Part of problem is educating the naysayers and upper-middle class who vote for non-environmentally-friendly initiatives. Another part of the problem is the salience of the problem for the communities at hand. For example, violence may be much more salient than environmentalism in certain communities.

About the solution “getting trained in solar in Chicago.” Where in Chicago can one get trained? How can training be done when people need to feed their families? etc

Answer: Community colleges and West Side Tech. There is a proposal in government to have all community colleges get education on solar energy.

A white, older, audience member argued that economic framework/consideration should be utilized to create demand for environmental concerns. Not doing enough “macro-work.”A panelist that she was in a privileged position and discussed how this white woman has access to resources that others don’t have. They have limited funds.This audience member replied that middle-class privileged groups need be in collaboration with the local communities.

The discussion then turned to the point-system for carbon trading and problems associated with it. Whom does it benefit (capitalists)? Also, this approach leads to making money for others and reinforces culture of money.

A panelist then asked the audience to point out organizational challenges. A list was created:

o White privilege / class privilege

o Connecting local issues w/ broader climate change

o Organizing around carbon trading

o Large environmental groups as coopting the movements

o High cost of “just transition” (moving toward “greener” jobs)

o Expanding and sustaining the organization; funding

o Finding common agenda

o Worker-owned cooperatives should be formed

o Culture of consumption

o Momentum behind compromise solutions

Connecting Environmental Justice Movements 2: Local Organizing Building to National Power

Date: 30 June 2007

Estimated number of attendees: 35ish; nearly all members of NGOs; primarily environmental activists.

Describe the composition of attendees in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, languages used, etc.

Representatives of all age demographics, but slightly disproportionately representing 20s – 30s. Attendees were primarily white with about equal numbers of males and females.

Observations

This session was geared toward collaborative work. They broke up into groups by region to address organizational goals, needs, and opportunities for future collaboration. The Forum was used as a networking resource.

One group (North East) actually used the time to plan collaborative activities. The other two regions did not seem to do this, but they created a list-serve. Groups admitted their obstacles toward collaboration. A representative from a wealthier group admitted guilt for cooptation of smaller movements. Grassroots groups are finding little room for collaboration. Each has goals that are very specific and localized, making collaborative action toward a common aim difficult.

Science greatly willing to help out with environmental movement, but this is not necessarily what the movement needs since scientists do not work directly with the communities.

A number of different regions and organizations were represented at this workshop. They decided to try to link potential networks by region. The discussion focused on personalizing the struggles, rather than large forum-type presentations.

Challenges of local campaigns (a list created in advance)

· Literacy and organizing

· Connecting knowledge and action

· Broadening support for campaign

· Mixed messages some environmental organizations are making to communities

· “clean coal”

· competition btw communities and groups

· funding going to “larger” environmental groups

· “conservative” groups that work within the political system.

· People of color underrepresented

· Alliance with labor

· Labor taking on popular issues (vs. direct concerns)

· Not directly taking into account the voices of those concerned

Group work was divided between regions.

3 questions to address:

1. what do you work on?

2. What are movement needs?

3. What are potential collaborative activities

a. Brainstorm, then prioritize

West group (creating lists of how we, as a group, addressed the 3 above questions)

This group was composed of primarily smaller environmental organizations. One representative admitted guilt for coopting other environmental organizations. One large environmental organization was here to actually work with smaller organizations.

Needs discussed and other ideas discussed:

· Data on local pollutants/polluters

· Principles of collaboration

· Do people contribute to each other’s work to collectively move forward?

· Groups getting broader support without stymieing the smaller ones.

· Raising profile as a unified movement

· Don’t undermine each other’s work

· Better communication between movements, as local campaigns can just outsource to other communities

· Collaborate, form a regional exchange

· Share successful models

· Come up with a regional vision

· Work beyond the environmental justice movement

· Creating more networks. What are supplemental networks that can be formed outside of EJ movements to increase power?

· Who else is working on these issues?

· How do form links between scientific communities and their contribution to the movement?

· What are the merits of national list-serves? (Answer: Awareness)

In terms of opportunities for Collaboration, a regional climate convergence in WA was announced.

What are the shared goals that people can work together toward? There was plenty of discussion without concrete plans forged. The focus was more on information sharing and creating list-serves.

Wrap-up (bringing the groups back together to report):

A commitment to stay together was expressed. They plan to share resources/emails with one another. EJCC has training materials and CCC (Climate Crisis Coalition) is an information resource.

It was brought to our attention that the USSF offered us to compile a Resolution for the Climate Justice Group. To be compiled by seven people. As of 5:30, nothing has been established. Someone asked whether anyone would volunteer to put this together (no hands were raised). In the final minutes of the session, a Resolution was worked on, using the Environmental Justice principles as a baseline. Some audience members voiced concerns on the wording of certain principles and stayed around when the session ended to revise the “Resolution.”

North East report: 2 collaborative convergences were formed and commitments were made to further collaborative work as follows: (1) To re-convene at the Climate Change Camp in New Orleans; (2) Attend inauguration protests.

There was a commitment to create regional networks regarding basic needs (health care, food, etc.). They also discussed a clearinghouse to present issues and accomplishments to see peoples’ stuff in one place. They also discussed an East coast education tour. This region successfully “committed” to future collaborative work, forging contacts and specifying events and dates.

Sweatshops & sweatshops in the fields: What can you do about it?

Date: June 29, 2007 - 3:30 pm

Organization Description

International Labor Rights Fund ILRF is an advocacy organization dedicated to achieving just and humane treatment for workers worldwide. ILRF serves a unique role among human rights organizations as advocates for and with working poor around the world. We believe that all workers have the right to a safe working environment where they are treated with dignity and respect, and where they can organize freely to defend and promote their rights and interests. We are committed to overcoming the problems of child labor, forced labor, and other abusive labor practices. We promote enforcement of labor rights internationally through public education and mobilization, research, litigation, legislation, and collaboration with labor, government and business groups. STITCH Women in Central America and the U.S. face similar challenges in the workplace, especially when it comes to low wages, discrimination, insufficient childcare services and dangerous working conditions. To change these shared conditions, STITCH, founded in 1998, unites Central American and U.S. women workers to exchange strategies on how to fight for economic justice in the workplace. STITCH equips women with the essential skills through trainings and educational tools, and in the process, builds lasting relationships with women across the two regions, further empowering women in the labor movement. STITCH also ensures women's voices are heard in global debates and discussions on issues that impact them: globalization, trade agreements, immigration policy, and global labor standards. U.S.LEAP The U.S.Labor Education in the Americas Project (U.S.LEAP) works to support the basic rights of workers in Central America, Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico, especially those who are employed directly or indirectly by U.S. companies. Founded in 1987 as the U.S./Guatemala Labor Education Project (U.S./GLEP) by trade unionists and human rights advocates concerned about the basic rights of Guatemalan workers, USLEAP has since expanded its work to other countries in the region. SweatFree Communities SweatFree Communities was founded in 2003 by anti-sweatshop organizers in Maine, Minnesota, New York, Wisconsin and elsewhere who had been working separately on local campaigns to convince school districts, cities, states, and other institutional purchasers to adopt “sweatfree” purchasing policies and stop tax dollars from subsidizing sweatshops and abusive child labor. SweatFree Communities created a structure to facilitate the sharing of resources and information and built a national sweatfree movement that has the unity and political strength to generate significant market demand for products that are made in humane conditions by workers who earn living wages.

Session Description

This workshop will focus on workers’ rights in global supply chains for manufactured and agricultural products. As Americans, we are actively engaged in supporting global supply chains and it’s up to us to be conscientious consumers. This workshop will examine some of the key issues connected to workers’ rights throughout supply chains of various products such as bananas and garments. If we as consumers continue to expect and demand low prices, labor rights will continue to deteriorate in the US and around the world as suppliers are forced to cut costs. This workshop will also include a dialogue and brainstorm about how we can use our buying power to promote companies that have respect for workers. This dialogue will focus on what localities and states have done to pass policies regulating government procurement of apparel for things like police uniforms.

There will also be an in depth focus on how global supply chains connect to women’s issues and immigration because it is often women that struggle in their home countries and then come to the US looking for economic stability only to then be thrown into the US economy that further discriminates against them.

Presenters include: - Beth Myers, STITCH (immigration and women) - Trina Tocco, International Labor Rights Fund (garments) - Charity Ryerson, USLEAP (bananas & cut flowers) - Liana Foxvog, SweatFree Communities (local government policies)

This workshop will provide simultaneous English to Spanish translation though we will not have equipment but rather whispering in the back of the room. Various groups will provide handouts and there will be some literature available in Spanish.

Estimated number of attendees: 35

Describe the composition of attendees in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, languages used, etc.

There were slightly more men than women. Almost exclusively white except for 2 blacks and 2 Asians. It was primarily a younger crowd.

Describe panelists: name, organizational affiliation, country, etc.

The panel was almost all young, white females, mostly in their late 20s and early 30s.

This session mostly focused on discussing the key issues rather discussing possible solutions to the problems, strategies, historical success stories, etc. The panelists first discussed the global-supply chain and various people involved in the steps: farms, manufacturing/processing, etc. They described the power relationship of whom has power over whom. Their goals is to frame the movement in terms of empowering the workers. They then provided a brief overview of their organizational work. They help workers in Guatemala, particularly women in the flower industry and also address immigrant rights. They shared personal stories. They discussed how people “fight sweatshops.”

Example: Dole plantation. There was a “strong union” involved with the producers of the Dole flower company. Unions formed in response to pesticides and chemicals, but Dole was “not budging.” International organizations becoming involved.

Strategy:

make negotiations with Dole
organize a boycott/consumer action

connect consumer (letters, calls, etc) to pressure Dole. Ex. Email campaigns
attacking Nike itself one alternative; petitions can also be sent to companies further down the line of the global supply chain

They then discussed brands and various companies, including Wal-Mart.

Demands:

1. Costs of production should reflect the costs of the product

2. Long-term contracts for employment

3. Price should reflect the living wage

They discussed the legal approach to end sweatshops. There are currently 6 states with sweat-free laws. However, it is difficult to monitor and translate into active practice. Student anti-sweatshop groups are pushing for enforcement mechanisms, including the use of independent monitors.

What strategies are there for addressing this issue?

-Local coalitions

-Schools making demands/raising consciousness

-NGO meetings with politicians

-Schools pressuring politicians

-USAS (United Students Against Sweatshops) is compiling lists of producers/distributors that use sweatshops

-Educate communities

Ideally a good strategy would be to get a company to negotiate with the government that houses the workers and attempt to get government protection for workers.

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

One group’s strategy was two-fold:

1. organize negotiations with [Dole]

2. organize consumer boycotts (email campaigns, letters, etc.)

Others’ strategies consisted of working with politicians and providing community education.

Were community-labor alliances discussed? Which community groups were mentioned and what did they do?

Only generally through attempting to enact consumer boycotts, and getting the population to participate in email campaigns, phone calls, and letter-writing, etc.

Attempts to meet with politicians, for example in Colombia, were made to address the grievances of the workers.

Not necessarily, but politicians and schools were brought into the mix to help to create anti-sweat laws (politicians) and to educate the community and identify producers/distributors that use sweat-labor (USAS).

Were formal networks or coalitions formed or discussed? What was the purpose of this network or coalition?

Politicians and schools (see above).

Did informal networking occur before or after the session? Please describe.

N.A

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

They discussed long-run goals or demands, rather than specific plans or campaigns.

1. Costs of production should reflect the costs of the product

2. Long-term contracts for employment

3. Price should reflect the living wage

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

The main purpose seemed to be consciousness-raising and to personalize the issues. They also shared their ideas for strategies and coalition building.

Justice in the Global Economy: International Solidarity Against Free Trade / For Fair Trade

Date: June 29, 2007 - 1:00pm

Proposing Organisation: AFL-CIO

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) is a voluntary federation of 54 national and international labor unions. We represent more than 10 million workers across the United States. The mission of the AFL-CIO is to improve the lives of working families—to bring economic justice to the workplace and social justice to our nation. To accomplish this mission we will build and change the American labor movement. We will build a broad movement of American workers by organizing workers into unions. We will recruit and train the next generation of organizers, mass the resources needed to organize and create the strategies to win organizing campaigns and union contracts. We will create a broad understanding of the need to organize among our members, our leadership and among unorganized workers. We will lead the labor movement in these efforts. We will build a strong political voice for workers in our nation. We will fight for an agenda for working families at all levels of government. We will empower state federations. We will build a broad progressive coalition that speaks out for social and economic justice. We will create a political force within the labor movement that will empower workers and speak forcefully on the public issues that affect our lives. We will change our unions to provide a new voice to workers in a changing economy. We will speak for working people in the global economy, in the industries in which we are employed, in the firms where we work, and on the job every day. We will transform the role of the union from an organization that focuses on a member's contract to one that gives workers a say in all the decisions that affect our working lives—from capital investments, to the quality of our products and services, to how we organize our work. We will change our labor movement by creating a new voice for workers in our communities. We will make the voices of working families heard across our nation and in our neighborhoods. We will create vibrant community labor councils that reach out to workers at the local level. We will strengthen the ties of labor to our allies. We will speak out in effective and creative ways on behalf of all working Americans.

Session Description

The workshop will include workers from around the world to discuss the potential impact of free trade agreements on working people and building international solidarity to fight neoliberal trade agreements and to propose fair economic alternatives. We will invite representatives from the US (AFL-CIO), Korea and Colombia with experience in national and international trade campaigns to engage with audience members on analyzing trade policy and building grass roots and international social movements.

The workshop will be in English and Spanish. The will have available factsheets, postcards and other media. The workshop connects to the USSF theme of worker rights. Participants will be asked to strategize about building resistance to proposed free trade agreements, and participating in those campaigns at the local, national and international level.

Estimated number of attendees: About 70 – 80.

Describe the composition of attendees in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, languages used, etc.

Racially and ethnically diverse, yet a slightly disproportionate representation of whites, and only one Asian. There was a section devoted to Spanish speakers. There was a slight majority of males. English, Spanish, and Portuguese were spoken.

Describe panelists: name, organizational affiliation, country, etc.

AFL-CIO, Labor lawyer by training. ITUC, representing the AFL-CIO. American

who invited:

CGT (female): an expert on globalization and migration from France

Gustavos : CUT-Central Unica dos Trabalhadores: largest labor union in Brazil

International Secretary of the MWF of the CGIL*. Italy.

Federation of Metal Workers De Silva: 2^nd largest union Força Sindical from Brazil.

All were seemingly between 35 – 50 in age. Portuguese, English, and Spanish were spoken. There were two females and three males.

Observations

This workshop was primarily informative about previous collaboration between unions for the North/South American unions; as well as on immigrant issues in the European unions. It also encouraged people to support various broad goals and strategies. The Brazilian called for continuing to work together for an implicit Pan Americanism. The European called for being mindful of immigrant issues.

Networks/coalitions have been formed previously between the AFL-CIO and the Brazilian unions, which may have contributed to the lack of conflict and desire to be diplomatic.

Introductory remarks

How do we as unionists deal with labor/human rights for migrant workers?
What is the importance of labor rights in the international global economy?

Not trade related

On immigration, there was a council resolution. AFL-CIO concluded that the system was victimizing the victims. We need pro-worker and pro immigrant legislation. Immigrant workers should have a right to vindicate their labor rights. We should use cooperation between countries, rather than coercion. We must have a whole system of sustainable agriculture. This is the worst of times, with globalization harming workers. It is also the best of times in terms of unprecedented unity. There is an international confederation of labor organizations, linking what had been independent unions.

Gustavo

AFL-CIO had a big part in organizing the Seattle protest (against the WTO) and this protest brought a framework to help the WSF.

Two things:

actions by workers in globalized economy must work together; north and south

Understanding that there can’t be an answer to globalization if we can’t work together

the unionism cannot work alone to halt globalization.

Need alliances with other social movements at the local, national and global level

FTAA ended as result of labor unions working together. This was framed not just as resistance against conservative tendencies, but as creating a vision of how trade and work should work between countries. Unionism should work with social movements and communities.

MWF / CGIL representative:

He discussed Italian tradition of migration/immigration. Victims of immigration; how should unions deal with such? Italian law says they are illegal. In order to become legal, they must have and fulfill a legal contract. When the contract is nullified, the legalization is nullified. Solutions: (1) Organizations should give conduit for migrants for addressing their concerns; (2) Collective bargaining: equal rights; even people under different conditions should have rights.

Italy’s conduits for collective bargaining: Italian labor law incorporates:

· National contract for all sectors

· Corporate agreements

Main tool is the national contract

Demands:

health and safety: accidents and protection; migrant labor more prone to have dangerous jobs
use working hours
national, bilateral commission of unions and companies to define changes about main questions like: organized communities

One victory: immigrants get the same pay and conditions of native Italians.

Things to fight against:

Trade and free-trade.
Racism

Brazilian representative:

We are seeing Social Forums as bringing global solidarity. At 1^st Xecal was only an economic bloc, but they created a separate sub-group for worker rights. One thing to develop is free transport without need for a passport. Big task is to develop a constitution of basic worker rights. Governments do not want this. Xecal and AFL-CIO worked out a protocol for basic labor rights. Next step: determine how many immigrant workers (esp Brazilian) there are in the United States. His organisation is seeking to work further with AFL-CIO for worker rights. We really believe that the root of things, the way to solve these immigration problems is to foster sustainable industries at the home country. Belief that with solidarity, we will honestly make another world possible.

CGT representative:

The new division of labor (NS, EW) creating new problems for unions. France has a history of importing labor and immigrants are used as scapegoats. EU is proposing contracts with Africa, Pacific, and Carribbean, which, if passed, would lead to catastrophic effects. It would allow for dumping. Unions are discussing and considering migration initiatives and immigration labor rights. We need cooperation between the receivers and deliverers of migrants.

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

All had a global-mindset in their talk. The AFL-CIO and Brazil explicitly made reference to cross-border linkages and alliances. CUT speaking of local, national and global alliances with other social movements as fruitful (social movements and communities should work together).

Forca Sindical striving for: Free movement without need for passport; Constitution for basic worker rights (which was worked out with AFL-CIO), and a world without borders.

Were community-labor alliances discussed? Which community groups were mentioned and what did they do?

Yes, see general statements above by CUT representative.

Brazil and the USA. AFL-CIO actively worked with CUT and continues to work with labor in the Americas to find common ground (against) the FTAA.

Connections should be made, according to the Brazilian unions, but they did not get into specifics regarding which movements. It was a general statement.

Were formal networks or coalitions formed or discussed? What was the purpose of this network or coalition?

Brazilian unions allied with the AFL-CIO against the FTAA, and were working towards a universal constitution for basic worker rights.

Did informal networking occur before or after the session? Please describe.

Yes. People approached the panelists and exchanged cards. Among members of the audience, card-exchanging seemed low-to-moderate. At least 30% seemed to be rank-and-file members, rather than organizers/NGO representatives, so may not have had cards to exchange.

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

AFL-CIO and Brazilian unions are joining in a fight for universal worker rights. The Italian representative discussed their fight against free trade and racism. CGT (France) representative discussed migration labor initiatives and immigration labor rights and the need for more cooperation between the deliverers and receivers of migrants.

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

The goals were mainly information dissemination about re-contextualizing the labor debate to think about international issues in regards to labor. It also provided information about the good work of the AFL-CIO is doing in terms of working with unions in other countries.

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers: Fighting for Fair Food

Date: June 28, 2007

Proposing Organization: Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW)

The CIW is a community-based worker organization. Our members are largely Latino, Haitian, and Mayan Indian immigrants working in low-wage jobs throughout the state of Florida. We strive to build our strength as a community on a basis of reflection and analysis, constant attention to coalition building across ethnic divisions, and an ongoing investment in leadership development to help our members continually develop their skills in community education and organization. From this basis we fight for, among other things: a fair wage for the work we do, more respect on the part of our bosses and the industries where we work, better and cheaper housing, stronger laws and stronger enforcement against those who would violate workers' rights, the right to organize on our jobs without fear of retaliation, and an end to indentured servitude in the fields.

Session Description

In March 2005, after a four-year national boycott and amidst growing pressure from students, churches, and communities throughout the country, fast-food giant Taco Bell agreed to meet all of our demands to improve wages and working conditions for Florida tomato pickers in its supply chain. This precedent-setting victory now gives us a strong foundation for pursuing deeper change throughout the entire $100 billion fast-food industry and, in turn, the Florida agricultural industry.

Over the past several years, through campaigns like the boycott and our anti-slavery work, Immokalee has evolved from being one of the poorest, most politically powerless communities in the country to become today a new and important public presence with forceful, committed leadership directly from the base of our community -- young, immigrant workers forging a future of livable wages and modern labor relations in Florida's fields.

This participatory, multimedia, English/Spanish session will explore the history and organizing methods of the CIW, paying particular attention to the Campaign for Fair Food, including recent developments in the CIW-led nationwide movement to hold McDonald's accountable for the sweatshop wages and working conditions in its tomato supply chain.

Demographics

Audience members: Estimated number of attendees: 35. About 20 more trickled in. Spanish and Korean translation was provided. The audience was very racially and ethnically diverse and about equally gender-represented

Panelists: Coalition of Immokalee workers

This was an informative session on the Coalition of Immokalee workers. Its primary aim seemed to be to provide inspiration and to share testimony of a successful strategy. There were no debates among workshop participants.

Panelists emphasized how networks were the key to social change. They formed alliances with religious groups, community groups, and students.

Strategy for this movement: It emphasizes education and consciousness-raising (for example, speaking tours). Higher wages were not attained from the farm-owners, but rather from Taco-Bell directly. They get the same base pay from the farm-owners, while Taco Bell gives the workers a separate check for the tomatoes that it purchases from the farm. This is a novel approach to handle wage-issues by bypassing parts of the hierarchy.

Workshop exercise: Think of a tomato, what do you think? (audience participation)

2^nd exercise: Who has heard of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers? When? (audience members said it was through the Taco Bell boycott, newspaper articles on the treatment of workers, etc.)

Description of a typical day (testimonial from a couple farmworkers):

They wake at about 4 to make lunch and go to work, go to a parking lot and look for work. They are taken to the fields at about 7 or 8 in the morning. They work with a bucket; 32lbs when full; they have to carry it over their shoulders in the hot sun. They are crouching when they are picking. They make about $15 day for picking 125 buckets. They pick about 2 tons of tomatoes or 4,000lbs. They do not make enough to feed and house themselves and to send money home. About 10 – 12 are living in a trailer. This was an incidence of slavery; workers held against their will. They were forced to work in one place. There were African-Americans and other people. Six cases of slavery were taken to court. When they first started, they asked the boss for better wages. They did a lot of actions: works, strikes, hunger-strikes, etc. They did this to no avail. Big corporations are buying these tomatoes (Taco Bell). There has been a boycott of Taco Bell for 4 years. Coalition of Immokalee Workers is conducting tours. They finally won a court victory in 2005. There were 22 incidences where students prevented Taco Bell from opening in their schools. Their allies include the following groups: Student Workers Alliance, coalitions of faith-based communities, schools, community groups, etc. The media is not necessarily a useful conduit. For example, Viacom owned a billboard and prevented advertisement.

Allicance of Prepared Food: committing to work with the CIW to work with companies to ensure purchase of non-exploitation food.

More audience participation: What do people think are qualities of “sustainable food?”

Answers: Organic, humane treatment of animals, environmental, etc.

Many times people would pay more for these products (organic, no animal treatment, etc.), but no alternatives for human rights; the farmers that produce the food that we eat. We need to raise consciousness about human rights.

Why do people eat fast food? The cost, not much time because of school or work. Their initial demand: 1cent more per pound of tomatoes. Cost not passed down to consumer. They try to get McDonald’s to sign a contract with growers, workers, and purchasers at one table. Try to make a code-of-conduct that is industry-wide. Many, ‘brother’ organizations of Taco Bell joined the organization. Today there’s McDonalds, Pizza Hut, A&W, KFC, Long John Silvers, … (6 big fast-food industries) that buy from these farms. We need to recompense to workers coming from a separate check from Taco Bell.

A video was shown:

History: a 17 year-old got beaten for drinking water.

Coalition of Immokalee Workers formed, beginning with a consumer boycott of Taco Bell. Rallies, students (Boot the Bell). In 2005, they won; then heading toward for McDonalds. McDonalds formed SAFE (additional certification) from growers. 11 suppliers stopped selling to these companies. The shareholders got the ability to vote for McDonald’s paying more farm workers. They pay more than 75 cents more per bucket for Burger King.

Question and Answer with the audience

Snowball effect; powerful corporations that sign agreements lead to other codes of conduct for other corporations to follow suit.

Starting with tomatoes, cause it’s kind of the bottom of priorities. Ripple effect toward other crops. It’s a beginning, a precedent. Never before has a union effectively attacked a fast food industry. Popular education as a strategy is a strategy found in Latin America and the Carribbean. It focuses on community consciousness-raising and weekly meetings.

What group(s) organized this workshop?

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers (not a union, per se). Student organizations were also involved on the panel.

Was the panel diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the panelists.

Primarily Hispanic panelists (5 or so), with a white moderator, all residents of the USA. Perhaps 63:35 ratio of males to females. There was one student and one NGO worker (white, female). The rest were Hispanic: 2 workers, 1 leader of CIW, and his wife.

Was the audience diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, language, and country of residence? Was it gender balanced? Describe the audience.

English, Spanish, Korean were spoken. The audience was racially and ethnically diverse and about equal numbers of men and women.

Was anything non-traditional in terms of the panelists’ approach to labor organizing, strategies, or leadership development?

It was grassroots, primarily using education of the masses (tours) as a weapon to progress. Alliances were formed with student organizations and the religious community.

It seems as if the student organizations get involved of their own accord, primarily through word-of-mouth. The CIW does not have to be the only one to reach out to these groups directly. A lot of informal affiliations are used (loose network of sympathizers who assume the cause and subsequently disseminate information and establish “ties” with the CIW). In other words, there seems to be minimal “working together” between the hub-and-spokes. Most of the spokes serve to only disseminate information and organize boycotts rather than being directly involved in the affairs of the CIW and strategizing, lobbying, etc.

Higher wages were not attained from the farm-owners, but rather from Taco-Bell directly (see above). When spreading their grievances against McDonald’s, they got shareholders to vote on raising wages.

They are targeting various corporations one-by-one. First Taco Bell, then McDonald’s, then Burger King. They are not trying to take over the world with one fell swoop. In a similar vein, they are focusing on tomatoes, because it is not the top priority for agriculture. Perhaps later they will move on to other crops, one-at-a-time. They rely on a strategy of baby-steps and incremental gains.

Were community-labor alliances discussed? Which community groups were mentioned and what did they do?

Students, churches, Students Workers Alliance, Alliance of Prepared Foods. These groups help in consciousness-raising, hosting talks, etc. Students and religious movements adopted the CIW’s grievances.

This was not really discussed. It is a very focused campaign with specific grievances.

Were formal networks or coalitions formed or discussed? What was the purpose of this network or coalition?

Same as above. The network/coalition was geared toward disseminating information.

Did informal networking occur before or after the session? Please describe.

Not before-hand. This session was more inspirational regarding one successful strategy, rather than being a session geared toward alliance-forming and collective problem-solving. It seemed like people were blown away by the session and forgot their own agendas.

Were future plans for actions/campaigns, or on-going actions/campaigns discussed? If so, what were they?

They are planning to move down the list of corporations from whom they are seeking higher wages. Next was Burger King. Flyers were distributed that stated their grievance against Burger King. Audience members could participate by personally forming campaigns to disseminate information about the grievances against the farming industry.

What seemed to be the main outcomes (or goals or purpose) of this workshop?

They disseminated information, getting people to follow by disseminating information themselves and boycotting [Burger King was the current target]. They also provided inspiration.