ACORN a Major Force in Voter Registration for Tenants in United Kingdom

New Orleans   Your mind just did a double take, right? ACORN and voter registration in the same sentence, that’s so 2008, right? Well, yes and no, but screw your head on tighter and focus, focus, focus, because now we’re talking about ACORN as a force for voter registration, and the setting is the United Kingdom. What’s up?

The snap election called by British Prime Minister Theresa May is coming soon, and voter registration has become more difficult in the UK. Until recently the head of a family with one swoop could register everyone in the household, now everyone must individually register. Other new rules that fit in with the global voter suppression efforts of conservatives impact potential young voters because universities, for example, are barred from registering students, largely to keep them from creating a voting block in the towns where they are located.

The other huge group that is being disenfranchised now in the UK is tenants, and ACORN’s base in England and Scotland is significantly composed of tenants, given the housing affordability and access crisis which has swept the UK. The Guardian quoting an ACORN report, noted that “ 93% of property owners are registered to vote but only 63% of renters.” Others say the number may be as low as 59%.

In a more recent article in The Guardian, the case was even clearer that ACORN is working to register and bring attention to millions of tenants being disenfranchised. The Guardian reported:

Campaigners have also warned that another high-risk group is the more than 3 million private renters in England. Generation Rent and ACORN, both pressure groups for renters’ rights, estimate that about 1.8m private renters have moved home since the 2016 referendum and must therefore register again.

Private renters are typically on tenancy agreements of no longer than 12 months and are six times more likely to move in a given year than homeowners, the groups said. A further 1.6 million private renters are estimated not to have been registered in the first place.

ACORN’s national organiser, Stuart Melvin, said renters’ rights were dependent on registering to vote. “Renters need a government that will reform the housing market to protect them from unfair evictions and rising rents, and we won’t get one unless we vote for it,” he said.

Before renters can do that, they need to make sure they’re registered, and when you are on the register it is too easy to fall off it when you move.”

Buzzfeed was even more specific on the importance of ACORN’s efforts noting that “research from Renters Vote, a campaign from renters rights groups ACORN and Generation Rent… say 1.8 million renters who are eligible to vote moved home since the EU referendum in June 2016 and will need to reregister in their new address, while a further 1.6 million renters were unregistered to start with…Renters move home six times more often than homeowners on average, due to the widespread use of 12-month assured short-hold tenancy agreements, meaning they have to register each time they move.”

This is a major issue given the upcoming election, and the clock is ticking. Despite the efforts of ACORN and our partners, a huge number of tenants will be left voiceless in this election, as ACORN’s national organizer, Stuart Melvin noted. There isn’t much doubt that that was the point of these voter suppression efforts.

One bright light for the future was included in the recommendations by a Guardian columnist of what needed to be done to fight this problem in the future, which we totally embrace:

6. Unionise

Official recognition for tenant unions, such as Acorn, Living Rent [ACORN’s affiliate] in Scotland, Tenant Voice and Generation Rent. Include them in discussions, invite them to select committees, listen to what they say.

Amen to that!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Could the US Labor Movement Lose 3 to 5 Million Members Under Trump?

Sheffield   Visiting with a British union organizer in touch with colleagues in the United States, I was shocked, though perhaps I should not have been, when he told me he had been hearing of worst-case scenario meetings of labor strategists meeting after the election estimating that the American labor movement could lose 3 to 5 million members based on policies and initiatives that might be unstoppable at every level under a Trump Administration. Needless to say, such a mammoth disgorging of union membership would be crippling, not just for existing unions, but for the entire array of progressive forces throughout the country.

In the last 35 years, union membership density in the US has already fallen from slightly over 20% of the organized workforce to barely 11%. There are somewhere around 14.5 million members of unions, so a loss of even 3 million would deplete membership by more than 20%. A loss of 5 million would rip away over one-third of US union membership. The private sector membership of unions is now less than 7%, and even without Trump, organizing strategists for 20 years have warned that without major restructuring of organizing programs and significant organizing initiatives and policy shifts, labor was on a path to only 5% density or one in twenty American workers enjoying union membership. The current jet fueled conservative assault is likely against the more than 35% public sector membership that remains in unions.

We already can see the attack unfolding on several fronts. Republican-controlled legislatures and statehouses have already eviscerated union security provisions in Kentucky and Missouri is likely to fall with the house already having acted and the senate approving after current contracts expire with the governor’s signature seemingly inevitable. Other states are on the list. A bill was offered in Congress and then withdrawn, but certainly close at hand. The other major front already manifesting itself is more broadly aimed at public sector workers. Memorandum attacking paid union leave time in the federal sector for grievance handling and contract enforcement is already proceeding. The defeat in Wisconsin, which had been the birthplace of public unionization, provides a road map for other states to follow, but as we have seen elsewhere home health care and home daycare membership won by executive orders can easily be withdrawn.

Antonio Scalia’s death provided temporary relief when the Supreme Court split on the issue of withdrawing union security provisions for public workers in California and one or two Trump nominees, barring another miracle, means that even in staunch labor redoubts public union membership at the city, county, state, and educational level could be devastating, as we have seen in Wisconsin. Powerhouses of progressive labor like the teachers, service employees, government workers, and even industrial and private sector unions like the communication workers, auto workers, and teamsters which also represent significant bargaining units of public workers would all be hit hard.

Some unions are reportedly taking steps to prepare for these losses, both in their organizing and servicing programs, but lessons from not only Wisconsin but also from the British labor movement where union security was lost under Prime Minister Thatcher, indicate the losses under any reckoning will be severe. Never make the mistake in believing this will be a crisis only for American workers and their organizations. Conservatives know well what progressives should never forget, crippling institutional labor will have a seismic impact on all progressive organizations and capacity.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail