In the afternoon I did my second presentation to another group of activists, intellectuals, and potential supports, this time in a juxtaposed baroque room in the Social Democratic Party building right behind a fancy, beer joint with taps at individual tables (?!?).  The crowd included a former Czech ambassador to the United Nations from the late ’60′s, organizers of cooperatives, a philosophy professor who had traveled over from Bratislava, and, among others, a free lance researcher worried about the aging “demographics” of the Czech people and the funding for Social Security, so needless to say, I felt right at home.

The questions got most interested  when they honed into the notion of a Living Wage Campaign for the Czech Republic.  The minimum wage is 8000 crowns per month (Czech like UK has not gone euro) and has been frozen for 7 years in a familiar lament.  They do have the ability from what I could tell to do initiated petitions, so a lot of these stories resonated deeply.  There was some difficulty understanding the notion of a “community-labor” partnership because such an idea was so far removed from experience, but the more that people began to understand the concept of building a base that was not just right wing and property protecting on the community level, the more excited people became about forging ahead in this direction.  Frankly, I got excited at the notion of this kind of campaign here as well.

We rushed from this meeting to the imposing building of the Federation of Trade Unions where somehow Michal Ulver, our head organizer for ACORN Czech, had gotten us an invitation to sit in on a critical meeting that was assembling a coalition of the trade unions and progressive political parties to breakthrough on the economic challenges and stalemate from the right-center governing party.  Perhaps a dozen men and women were assembled around the conference room and despite uneven translation one had no difficulty recognizing that this was a group able to handle hard problems with good humor and quick conversation and compromise in order to make things happen.  The plan was designed to forge a three-pronged strategy for a mid-November general strike led by the Federation, a petition to the government, and a coordinated legislative push in Parliament.  At least one-third of the participants had been former ministers in previous governments with portfolios in health, social security of labor, so these were experienced hands who had traveled the roads back and forth between politics and government and labor.   Part of what was unusual here is that despite the fact that the Communist Party has the most seats in the Parliament, they are not able to form a government because other parties will not coalesce with them.  In this meeting they were more than an equal and enthusiastic presence embraced fully by all of the other parties and formations in the room.  Fascinating!

In my final debriefing for the day it turned out that some of our meetings were garnering some press attention on the internet, TV, and print, so perhaps we were providing support and sustenance for our new affiliate here.  At the least I was impressed here in the “heart of Europe” about our prospects for the future and the potential our organizing might have in such friendly soil.

New Orleans

How?  We could do this by upping the ante and putting protection of collective bargaining on the 2012 ballot with the Presidential election in Ohio, perhaps still the most critical of all battleground states.

Wisconsin has the right of recall and this is being engaged currently by unions and others in reaction to Governor Scott Walker’s moves to eviscerate public sector worker collective bargaining rights.  This was the successful strategy in California several years ago fueled by Congressman Darrell Issa’s resources which dislodged Governor Gray Davis within two years of his election and then replacing him with Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Wisconsin does not have a initiative and referendum procedure at the state level, so despite positive opinion polls in the state currently to protect bargaining there is no way to get there from here.  Neither New Jersey nor Indiana allow statewide initiatives and referenda, though about 20% of New Jersey’s local jurisdictions do so depending on the map this could be an opportunity to construct a tactical and strategic bulwark against some of the more draconian measures being proposed by Governor Christie there.

Were protections for union workers on the ballot in Ohio in 2012 there is no question it would energize the low-and-moderate income base, and this was certainly in evidence several years ago when ACORN and allies moved to put an increase in the minimum wage on the ballot there.  A revitalized labor movement in Ohio aligned with Obama there could make a huge difference in securing his re-election.  Tactical protective initiatives in Missouri, Nevada, Washington, and similar states that are important in the Obama column could also be important, and in several of these states workers are desperate for more protections.

There are two problems.  First, it takes a huge effort to put a measure on the ballot, mount the campaign, and hang on for the victory more than 18 months from now with the same fervor labor is showing today, even though now is the absolute perfect time to be preparing for just such efforts.  Secondly, Ohio is one of the few states that allow off-year initiatives, and given the current assault there are undoubtedly many pushing an immediate effort to place the measure on the ballot in Ohio for the fall of 2011.

A 2011 effort – and victory – might also break well for both labor and Obama if it finally proved again that these were fighting times and we had the will and way to win.  The residue of such a struggle and success might embed deeply enough to secure deeper participation in Ohio and still put Ohio in the best place for a union future and an Obama second term.

Either way these are not times for holding your cards, but demand laying down big bets while it’s still possible and it’s we are still a player in the game.

Vancouver

I think it speaks to the need for a provincial (statewide) strategy for increasing the minimum wage, as difficult as that might be given the likely fierce opposition of Premier Gordon Campbell, who sits on top of provincial government now with the Liberal Party.  Talking to leaders and staff of the BCGEU, there seems no question that it is legal to bring forward an initiative petition.  The requirements are stiff though and results are uncertain.

A petition would have to be registered with the Elections office, and once secured the petitioner would have 90 days to get the required signatures, meaning 10 % of the registered voters in each riding (legislative district).  Then there is a period for verification of the signatures (about 40 days) and a referral to the legislative standing committee to determine whether to table the bill or force a province wide vote.  If a vote were required, then the election would be held in late September, 2011.  This is not a slam dunk still, since winning a vote of the people does not enact the measure, but instead forces the bill to be part of the gristmill of the legislative process where it may be amended and rise or fall.  So, there’s no denying this would be a huge lift and a fierce fight.

Those are the “cons,” but here are the “pros.”

• Unbelievably the minimum wage in British Columbia is the lowest in Canada and has not been increased since 2001.  Literally NO ONE thinks it is a fair wage for anyone at this point.
• Labor has density still in British Columbia, and if convinced to join and lead this fight with groups like ACORN Canada and others, including the parties out of power, has the breadth and depth to make a difference.
• We need issues that force the question of fair and just wages for work into the public and political debate about community development and citizen wealth, and as we have seen in numerous communities and states in both Canada and the United States, nothing does the job better than forcing the forefront the reality of inadequate minimum wages.  Let Gordon Campbell stand in front of a fast moving train for fair wages and see let’s see if there’s any way for him to put the pieces back together if he opposes the popular will.
• Win, lose, or draw, the progressive forces in BC win by showing leadership on this issue and bringing forward a fight on an issue that would be so widely popular and eminently reasonable as raising the minimum wage.   A noxious matter with negative public policy impacts around “harmonizing” the sales tax is headed towards a vote, and we could use something on our side of the fence which is even more widely popular.

The dilemma before the Prince George city council is familiar to us.  We saw a piece of this debate as part of the winning coalition in winning a real living wage for contract employees in New Westminster.  In order to embolden politicians to do the right thing around living wages, we need to create the debate and pressure for fair and just minimum wages, and it is difficult to imagine a better way to do this than to push forward an initiative petition and let the people step up and be counted, first with their signatures, and later, if necessary, with their votes.

Visiting with the leaders in Prince George was exciting.  It made me start to think that British Columbia should be first, not last.

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.

New Orleans              

            On unions Silverstein writes:  “Labor unions are abundant, but most are funded and controlled by employers or the government, and independent activists have been fired, suspended, sued, and otherwise targeted for repression.” 

            On pay Silverstein writes two things:  first, that based on a 2008 survey pay has “stagnated…at 33 cents an hour, lower than anywhere but Bangladesh,” and, secondly, that the monthly minimum wage was $45 USD in 2000 and is now $56 while buying power has been cut by 37% due to inflation.

            On monitoring and the sham that corporate social irresponsibility is foisting off on the consumer:  “Since then, an entire monitoring industry has emerged:  a profusion of auditing firms, consulting companies, NGOs…that apparel makers pay handsomely to develop monitoring tools, offer advice, and write up countless glossy reports.  For workers at apparel plants, though, the benefits have proved elusive.  A recent study…reviewed Nike’s own data and found that conditions had ‘stagnated or deteriorated’ at 78% of company’s supplier factories between 1998 and 2005.”  He adds, “…since the apparel companies’ dues pay for the monitoring firms that inspect their plants, they tend to get the lax policing that they want.”

            The article is scathing in its criticism of the International Labor Organization and its so-called “Better Factories” program labeling it a “whitewash.”

            By the end of the article I was willing to take a vow never to read Nicholas Kristof and his neo-liberal proselytizing again, which I have largely done already, since his paternalistic, hectoring tone tends to obscure his concerns anyway.  I was also encouraged to find a lengthy quote from Jeff Ballinger as well saying that today unfortunately there is “no fundamental difference in the way factories are run, because you still have the same predatory model of outsourcing.”

            A proposal that apparel workers receive nothing less than $5 USD per day and then go up by $1 USD per day is interesting, but given that the results of a huge, powerful, and seemingly effective social movement to end sweatshops and their goods in the US market has been so compromised, diluted, and now rendered impotent, by the end of the article, that seemed only a curiosity insisted on by some Harper’s editor hoping to have something in this long piece that was marginally upbeat, rather than debilitating and depressing.