Like pilgrims, the conference attendees carried their prayers up to Wicks,
bearing witness to her earthly skin tone and sun-white hair. As they dropped the
little bags in front of her, she smiled softly and looked down at her table.
Afterward, she received a warm ovation for her introductory remarks about her
lifelong fight against corporate interests.
This is who Judy Wicks is.So why is it—no, how can it be—that across town at Sixth and Chestnut
streets in the seventh floor regional office of the National Labor Relations
Board, there sat a file containing a slew of unfair labor practices with which
Wicks is charged—practices that, if true, would amount to union busting?
***
For a week, Wicks heard nothing from the organizers. Then, on Nov. 3, a
letter addressed to "Judy" appeared on the same corkboard where she had posted
hers. It explained that organizing the White Dog was important because "this
restaurant must continue to be a model for socially responsible business," and
called on Judy to "live up to [her] values." The signature read, "White Dog
Organized for Leadership in Foodservice (W.O.L.F.)."
A sort of
leftier-than-thou back-and-forth ensued. Wicks posted another letter, this one
five pages, attacking the union:
Last night I went to hear John Wilhelm, the national head of [UNITE HERE],
speak at Penn. In a way, I went to see who it is that some of my staff look up
to more than me. … True, he did go to Yale, and he is a white male. I can't say
I have such credentials.
She continued to play on the theme of betrayal ("We have never had a "them'
and "us' here"), and to argue that a union would make things worse, not better:
It would charge unnecessary dues, she said, and add a bulky layer of bureaucracy
that was not tenable in a small restaurant. ("If there is a worker … who is not
doing his share of work, we could not fire him. Other staff will have to pull
the weight of the slacker. If a kitchen worker is outstanding … [executive chef]
Andy [Brown] will not be able to give that person a raise.")
The organizers, Wicks had decided, were misguided in their progressivism.
"I think some of the union people felt it was a logical step. They thought, "If
I'm truly a progressive person I should be unionized.'"
As for the union, Michael Mullins, a UNITE HERE organizer who
worked on the White Dog campaign, says Wicks' appeals to family and loyalty are
"boilerplate": startlingly similar to the anti-union rhetoric organizers are
accustomed to seeing from the likes of Wal-Mart. And her contention that a union
won't work in a restaurant, he says, is a classic canard: Small restaurants are
not a "growth market" for unions, he concedes, but, "Hotels used to say that
unions were good for autoworkers, automakers used to say [unions] were good for
meatpackers." To union advocates, Wicks' argument sounded a heck of a lot like
"not in my backyard."
What is the point of this? It's tiresome, and meaningless. So what if she doesn't want a union?! Are her employees organizing a union? And why are they organizing a union? What are the abuses of which she's been accused? That information would be a whole lot more helpful than this recapitulation of the "more lefty than lefty" schtick done here.
ReplyDeleteAs a worker, this degree of Stalinist self-involvement makes me want to put a gun to my head. Viva la party line politics!
Wouldn't it be better for the employees in this case to form their own independent union? They don't need an international union, especially one known for top-down leadership. It sounds like the owner would be more receptive. Not to mention it doesn't sound like this group is going to need the resources of UNITE-HERE-ie the workers would be getting very little in return for their dues. That is not how a union should operate. Sounds like the UNITE-HERE expanding at little up front cost, increasing their market-share and will be getting a good return on their investment. A union would be good for the employees but not UNITE-HERE. TOo bad it doesn't sound like the employees realize their own power.
ReplyDeleteAnon, try reading the article before you post. Might help with the tendency to make broad claims about what my agenda is (what party?) with little basis in fact.
ReplyDeleteKstrna, you ignore the fact that this is a hot shop of little dues value to the international - small number of workers, not particularly central to or demonstrative of any larger trends in the Philly imdustry. Unite-HERE is involved in this campaign because workers asked them to be, because these workers probably know that this is a very difficult climate for an independent union to exist in. I don't think that an independent union should be the way to go just because you think it might appease the owner. winks' hostility isn't doesn't seem directed at the fact that the workers want to be represented by Unite-HERE, but rather at the fact that the workers want any power outside of that which she is "generous" enough to afford them. I continue to believe that we should be working to create a left where blowhards and hypocrites like winks, whose commitment to worker justice stops whenever inconvenient, have no place.
Err, and by "winks," i mean "Wicks." Sorry. I'm an idiot.
ReplyDeleteI should also acknowledge that the title of this post originates in a Josh Eidelson quotation. See Josh, no quota.
I agree hypocrites have not place, which includes the top-down leadership of the UNITE-HERE. The people in charge aren't the problem, it is that the masses are not making the decisions themselves that is the problem. Wick is a progressive but she is also an owner. The system selects for her to behave a certain way and statistically speaking she is likely to act accordingly. It is the system that is the problem not the people. UNITE-HERE seems not to understand that nor does the Change to Win Coalition in general (well neither does the AFL-CIO, Democrats, most liberals/progressives) especially with mindset of we have to expand before democracy is truly implemented. My owner comment was at least in terms of what she is complaining about, it would undercut what few quibbles she at least rhetorically was using to push against unionization.
ReplyDeleteAn independent union can survive. If they have a majority they can shut the place down. The owner in order to break such a union would have to give up any label of progressivism, which is a label that has value to her business. You have to hit them where it hurts, the pocketbook. It isn't about appeasing the owner but rather empowering the workers directly and taking out the additional party that doesn't need to be there. The dues would be mostly "profit" for UNITE-HERE and generates publicity for them as well. Why does Coke put their machines in buildings with only a 100 people? Same reasons.
The failure of many progressives is that they seek to do good, to wield power to change the world for the better. The lesson is though, if you do that you usually end up like Wicks. It is a lesson I think UNITE-HERE leadership needs to think long and hard about. The failure of many is one of hubris. Far more in this world has evolved into being than has been designed.
Krstna -
ReplyDeleteYou explicitly compare Judy Wicks with UNITE HERE, and refer to the union representing restaurant workers as an "additional party." Those both seem like unnecessary exaggerations. Especially the "additional party" thing, which anyone reading this blog will recognize as union-busting language.
I work for UNITE HERE Local 2, representing hotel & restaurant employees in San Francisco, and I'm also a member of an independent staff union (the Local 2 Employees Association), so I have some perspective on both these things. You seem to be arguing that an independent union would be both more democratic and more effective, but I don't believe there's anything in this situation to suggest that conclusion. For one thing, there's nothing inherently true about independent unions that make them more democratic or bottom-up. Second, you seem believe that once a union reaches a certain size, its identity fundamentally changes, transforming it from a group of workers bound together into a bureaucracy that interferes with workers' lives -- an "additional party."
And once you've made that assumption, you're repeating the degrading assumptions made by every union-busting boss: that workers aren't capable of making these decisions for themselves.
One last thing: there are plenty of rational reasons why workers might choose UNITE HERE over an independent union, especially in this situation. The employer is small, and as such, is in a much better position to offer quality, affordable health benefits if it can join a larger health & welfare fund. That's better for workers. If they strike, as you suggest, they're unlikely to have built up any kind of strike fund reserves, and would have much more trouble getting outside help, making it difficult for people to stay out without finding another job. They wouldn't have the resources of the int'l union. Also, unions in small shops frequently benefit (in all kinds of ways) during collective bargaining if they can push for a master contract with other similar shops. That wouldn't be available with an independent union.
In my personal case, an independent union is a great fit -- for many of the reasons you've outlined. But if I was talking with workers who wanted to unionize in a San Francisco restaurant, I would strongly urge them to join Local 2. The strength of the union works to their advantage, the union standard is high, and it's well-maintained through collective bargaining, organizing, and action. However, if they wanted more freedoms and were willing to eschew the benefits and accept the risks, that would obviously be their decision.
In either case, it would still be _their_ union. Despite all your assertions about UNITE HERE's top-down leadership, the union always belongs to the workers -- whether independent or not.
alek the size has nothing to do with it. It is how the UNITE-HERE is organized. It is statements made by members of the Change to Win Coalition. It is my experience while being a member of GESO at Yale. It is based on talking with other members of GESO here at Yale while organizing in my department and bringing their concerns to the those in "leadership" positions. It was watching my father fight hard to keep his members in control of their local, making sure benefits stayed strong and fighting the international's push to work with bosses. Language used by Stern, head of the Change to Win Coalition. As a member was I involved or was my opinion even asked about the merger between HERE and UNITE? Was I asked whether joining the Change to Win Coalition a good idea or not? The answer is no. That is not a democratic union. THat is top down. Internationals do offer a lot. Unions are good. Are workers better off with a union than without, yes. The problem is most of the unions in our country have given up on class struggle. They push corporate partnerships. They talk about improving market share. They use the language of the bosses.
ReplyDeleteI do believe workers are able to capable of doing things themselves. GESO in my experience has not done that in my department. I have heard from multiple members of GESO that organizers have dismissed them when they did not go with the party line. Members being told not to question, not to worry and that they (the organizers) have thought about things more than the members. That is not democracy. That is not empowering, it only reinforces the notion that many have that they aren't equipped to be involved in such decisions. That is not what a union should be about.
The Change to Win strategy is to centralize without strong membership rights and democratic protections. The Carpenter's Union is the worst. Why would a "progressive" union team with them?
Openly being critical of how most unions are run is not anti-union. It is anti-the unions we have.
I have heard positive things about the SF local of the HERE. The members have pushed hard to maintain control and are active. Which is great. The problem is that it is more of the exception in this country. The true revolutionaries were forced out of the unions long ago and haven't been replaced.
I am sorry being critical of a union acting like a business, which in my experience is how the AFL-CIO & Change to Win are, is not anti-union anymore than being critical of Bush or Clinton is anti-American. It is language to cut off debate, to make someone conform or be thought of as other. It is the means to suppress critiques. Debate must be out in the open. Not behind closed doors.
My call for an independent union is based on my experience with UNITE-HERE. I think the workers can get a strong union on their own and get what they want, a strong voice in how the place is run.
It is my opinion GESO would be better off now. The strategies as learned from the HERE are not working, especially in the sciences. Most want a voice and not to be treated as a cog in a company but rather to be treated as students there to learn. We don't need a contract to codify the former. We need a contract to empower us to insure the latter and fight off the pressure of the former.
Kstrna -
ReplyDeleteWhat's your definition of an "independent union?" United Electrical (UE) identifies itself as independent because it's not affiliated with the AFL-CIO. But it's got locals, district councils, a national union charter (with which local charters can't conflict), etc. What about the CA Nurses Association, unaffiliated with anything, but representing over 65,000 RNs in CA, and actively organizing a national network of nurses associations? Do you think that affiliation with the AFL-CIO, or Change to Win, has anything to do with the "independence" of a union?
In my view, the only legitimate designation for an "independent" union is a union that's specific to a single employer, in a single shop. I belong to one of those. When I referred to size, I was talking not only about the number of members, but the number of different shops, their geographical spread, etc. Even with the narrowest interpretation, I don't believe there's anything inherently more democratic about an independent union.
It's clear that your problem is with UNITE HERE -- or, more specifically, with GESO -- but, apart from asserting that you thought workers could "get a strong union on their own," you didn't address any of the reasons why an independent union might hinder them. Or, for that matter, why Local 274 in Philly wouldn't offer them the same opportunity to build a "strong voice in how the place is run." I have a sneaking suspicion that the fact that a former GESO organizer is working with Local 274 may account for your dismissal in that regard. If your personal experiences with Michael Mullins lead you to believe that he wouldn't represent workers well -- I can speak to that, he was never my rep. I worked with him as an undergrad at Yale, and he seemed to be a sympathetic and effective organizer. But again, those White Dog employees can make that decision on their own too.
One last clarification: I wasn't accusing you of being anti-union because you criticize Change to Win, the AFL-CIO, UNITE HERE, or any other part of organized labor. I think that's clear from what I wrote, but if not, let me reiterate that internal dissent has been a critical factor in moving the labor movement forward.
I was pointing out that in your posts you consistently use third party rhetoric to refer to everything except "independent" unions. As such, you're dismissing the possibility that workers can gain respect, dignity, and a voice on the job through UNITE HERE or any other non-independent union (by whatever definition you're using) -- because it's a third party, with different interests and priorities.
That's disrespectful to me and the members I represent, as well as to the Philadelphia restaurant workers seeking to join UNITE HERE, the workers organizing at the Glendale Hilton, the 75 workers fired during their organizing drive at the LAX Hilton, the workers without a contract at Turtle Bay, the workers on strike for 3 years now at the Congress hotel in Chicago, and indeed the grad students at Yale who are struggling for recognition in GESO.
All those folks have made the decision to join (or seek to join) UNITE HERE as a way to win a voice on the job. You obviously have objections to that, but you're disrespecting their autonomy (and democratic rights) when you refer to their union as a third party. I pay dues to Local 2 as well as the LTEA. I voted in the officer elections last month. I sit in membership meetings. Even though UNITE HERE represents laundry workers in LA and casino workers in Atlantic City, I consider it my union as much as anyone else's.
When I speak of an independent union I am speaking of not being affiliated with the AFL-CIO nor the Change to Win Coalition. Will an independent union be automatically democratic? No. Do I think it has a better shot, the answer is yes. The quotes I have read from various leaders of those two umbrella organizations, reading about them and how they are set-up, how delegates are chosen for the various internationals making up those groups, decisions being made without consulting the membership, etc. I view many unions as a third party because that is how they act. I have seen people struggle to get unions and then seen internationals come in and crush their hopes. I have seen people truly fight for their fellow workers as internationals with their own interests squash those efforts.
ReplyDeleteThe unions in the AFL-CIO and Change to Win Coalition do offer more to workers than no union but I do think in the long run it would be better to have unions that go outside those groups and cultivate true union democracy. Unions that are willing to fight both Republicans and Democrats and form their own party. In the short term, I do think independent unions do not give up as much as you believe in terms of what they can offer v. those from AFL-CIO and Change to Win. I don't agree with everything the CA Nursing Association but what they have done is impressive while maintaining a pretty progressive focus, calling out at times other unions that have corporate partnerships.
As for GESO, at least in the biological sciences there are major problems. Yale created hostility created a situation in which GESO organizers had a bunker mentality which only reinforced the fears people had creating a downward spiral. It has improved with more organizers actually coming from the bio-sciences but the same strategies of organizing remain that tend to be very top down. Many strong voices gave up on the organization because of it & refuse to talk with GESO organizers because they don't think it is worth the time/effort given what they get in return. And those are the members.