Hanoi

We had started our trip with a small dust-up with the vice-president of the HCM City labor federation over the existence of wildcat strikes in China where he maintained stern denial and then open interest in other areas.  We then met with the vice-president of the entire VGFL along with the head of their international department in Hanoi at their central headquarters later in the week, where we got an entirely different impression.

It was clear in that conversation that there were strong and arguments going on the run-up to the coming policy congress about essential issues to unions and their members particularly on issues we believed were central around what we saw as “living wages.”  There was dispute covered in the papers around not simply the growth of the Vietnamese economy which has continued to roar above 6% even during the worldwide recession but also about the impact of inflation hovering now above 9% in 2010.    The minimum wage in Vietnam is 1,340,000 dong which is about $65.00 per month for a standard 48-hour workweek.  The very important Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry had argued to us that essentially it was a problem, but “get used to it” and we would have to agree to disagree.  The VGFL position was adamant and unyielding that something had to give on this issue, and that the wage set had to be a wage that would allow workers to adequately live not simply survive.

Other issues resonated with us from our conversations with the VGFL.  Their priorities and problems in dealing with foreign multi-nationals were issues we had in common.  They were particularly clear about the challenges in dealing with cleaning and security companies which was another verse from the SEIU songbook.  They claimed to have 1000 organizers and a goal to grow by 1.5 million members in the next few years from their current membership of about 6 to 7 million.  They  had achieved virtually 100% membership in state-owned industries and operations, but had almost no density in the informal sector but wanted to grow to 70% density in the rest of the formal, private sector.

Outside observers like Chuck Searcy, who we respected as an outside observer without a horse in the race, had the impression that the VGFL was militant and strident.  He reported that he read regularly about strikes and threatened strikes where the government had to intervene and settlement efforts were necessary to maintain labor peace.

On the other hand in our final meeting with PACCOM, the government liaison to NGO’s in Vietnam and our host in most ways, the head of the American desk almost offhandedly shared with us that the VGFL was funded directly by the government, and when I asked if that wasn’t the case as well for the other “associations” that were part of the Fatherland Front along with labor like the women’s union, veterans, and others, he indicated that certainly, they were all funded by the government.

We discussed with the representatives of the VGLF their relationships with the North American labor movement.  They knew Barbara Shailor, the long time assistant to AFL-CIO presidents for international affairs, very well and mentioned that Rudy Porter, the area chief – and long time friend of the Organizers’ Forum – had been there recently with a visiting delegation.  They emphasized that there were frequent exchanges along these lines as well as joint exchanges in unions in California.  They seemed confident that deeper, mutually beneficial relationships would develop.  They were wise and temperate in their remarks.

This whole problem of a state managed “market economy” presents a different kind of alignment between government, business, and labor which challenges the normal frameworks that we are used to leaning on as we analyze unions, therefore creating quite the puzzle for us.  At the same time where the Party and the government are so powerful, who would not want a strong voice for unions and labor in policy for workers?  Unions throughout the USA, Scandinavia, and Europe also get money from the government, so is this a matter of degree or a game changer?

We ended up with no one answer.  I think we have no choice but to fully engage such a labor movement, but there are a lot of apples and oranges out there and it would be a mistake to be confused that all unions are one thing or another.  Given the weakness of our own unions and labor movement and our ability to deliver for workers with the fickle friends in our own parties, I’m clear that we have to be careful throwing rocks from our glass windows at the very least.

Dallas Having represented subcontracted laborers on the back of City of Dallas for the last two years, United Labor Unions Local 100 has been at wits ends trying to prevent a slashing of the wages back down to the federal minimum in the City’s newly bid contract.  We have had our champions on the Council, but not enough votes to either win a “living wage” provision yet or to prevent such a gross injustice.  Saturday found us going “old school” with new friends and allies as we gird ourselves for what seems a longer fight against stark injustice.

In searching for allies and support for our workers, Kenneth Stretcher, Local 100’s Dallas office director, had found common cause with Peter Johnson, the head of the Dallas Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC).  SCLC was a legacy from its days in the forefront during Rev. Martin Luther King’s time, but was spry and enthusiastic about joining with the union on this issue partially as a bridge to the tragic, but momentous, last days of Dr. King in Memphis standing with sanitation workers on strike there.

Many false starts finally led to a true bearing, as we convened at Mt. Olive Lutheran Church on MLK Boulevard in South Dallas, the site of so much of the civil rights history of Dallas.  I could all most hear the echoes of long, tired strategy sessions coming through the basement walls as we prepared for the meeting.  When Johnson began the program the hands of history lay heavy with the introductions of some of the participants.  Ernie McMillan, was a legendary link to that great tradition.  A former city council woman was a major voice in the meeting.  One old warrior whose voice was still strong was introduced as tied through their mutual friendship with Stokely Carmichael.  East Texas Jobs with Justice was on hand to help along with other unions like CWA’s Texas State Employees Union.

Our garbage workers were moving as they told their stories of injuries and illnesses from the trucks along with the pride of their professions and the mystery that their work was so little valued.  James Fortenberry, who had led Local 100’s drives as a leader both in New Orleans and in Dallas where he had relocated as a hopper after Katrina, was articulate in his confusion why New Orleans could do so much better for sanitation workers than Dallas, even though Dallas charged almost 40% more for the service.

We spoke and planned for a long term struggle, and then marched in the heat the few blocks to the King statue in front of the City of Dallas center named after King.  To enjoy the video, here’s a great link from the Dallas Morning News: http://dallasnews.com/video

This fight wouldn’t get any easier, but it is critical to win.

The stark indifference to the workers’ plight was worn like a badge by the director of the Dallas sanitation department in a piece that ran the morning of our meeting and march.  Don’t believe me, her callousness equation of thirty cents on the bill versus a living wage for the workers comes from her own voice in the article that ran in Saturday’s Dallas Morning News by Rudolph Bush.  (I’ll ignore the fact that both her math and priorities are wrong!)

“Sanitation Director Mary Nix also noted that, while city workers have seen their pay cut recently, the federal minimum wage has increased since the passage of the previous sanitation contract.

City workers typically drive the city’s sanitation trucks. But the roughly 190 laborers who work on the back of the trucks and at the landfill are contracted through a private firm.

The terms of the deal approved by the council on June 23 require the contracting firm, All Temps1 Personnel, to pay time-and-a-half for overtime and to provide basic safety equipment.

Under the deal, the city will pay All Temps1 $9.72 for every hour a laborer works. The total cost of the contract to the city is about $11.3 million.

Council member Angela Hunt, who supported offering the workers a higher wage, said there simply wasn’t enough support on the council to defeat the proposed contract.

“This is very difficult work, and without their contribution our city would evolve quickly into unsanitary conditions,” she said.

She added that paying the workers a living wage would cycle more money through the local economy by their increased spending.

“It’s extremely difficult in these budget times to convince some council members that it’s in everyone’s best interest to provide a living wage to some of our most critical city workers,” she said.

According to figures provided by the Sanitation Department, increasing the workers’ hourly wage to $8.88 would have required a 30-cent increase to the monthly sanitation fee of $20.98.”

The organization, Canada Without Poverty (formerly Canadian Anti-Poverty Organization), had issued a number of statistics over the years and one that receives particular attention by ACORN Canada in its “white paper” supporting the Ottawa living wage campaign is the fact that CWP has calculated that the average Canadian only works 30.8 hours a week. Looking at the public policy impact, ACORN Canada has raised the issue, behind the scenes thus far in trial balloons on the campaign, that they believe there is an important and breakthrough case to be made for setting the minimum living wage for municipal contractors at the wage necessary for Ottawa citizen/workers to live and work in Ottawa even if they only make the average hours.

The difference in the living wage figure depending on the calculation of hours could move the number from the low end of what is needed at $10 something to the higher end of the range, closer to $15.00 hour. This will be an interesting debate no matter what decision ACORN Canada makes because the impact and policy implications are significant even if politics ends up winning the day on the number again.