FARMWORKERS ARE "ESSENTIAL" BUT EXCLUDED, AWAITING THE VIRUS
By David Bacon
The American Prospect and Capital & Main, 4/1/20
https://prospect.org/ and https://capitalandmain.com/
A worker cuts lettuce in a crew in California's Coachella Valley.
In fields and rural communities across the United States the nation's 2.5 million agricultural laborers are waiting for the shoe to drop - for the first cases of coronavirus among farmworkers. As they wait they are already feeling sharply the effects of the measures taken to contain the virus' spread.
Francisco Lozano, a farmworker in Santa Maria on California's central coast, says poverty makes this crisis much worse. In the winter, when there's no work, families live off meager savings from the previous season, and when those are exhausted, they borrow from family and friends. "This is the time work starts up again, picking strawberries," he says. "But instead of pulling ourselves out of debt our situation is worse now than ever. The fruit is bad, and they're paying by the hour - minimum wage [California's hourly minimum wage is $13]. That's not enough to live on."
Working conditions themselves have deteriorated. "Because of the rains we're working in the mud," he explains. "We work close to each other so social distancing is impossible. They tell us to wash our hands, but there are lots of people for each station and the soap runs out. People normally have colds at this time of year, and many of us have to work anyway because of the economic pressure. With the virus, that's dangerous. But the growers just want production."
Picking strawberries in the mud in Santa Maria
In Washington State one of the few farm jobs in March is cutting tulips, and Skagit County normally hosts a Tulip Festival in April. But three crews, each with 80 to 100 workers, started cutting only to be told that most would be laid off. According to Ramon Torres, president of Familias Unidas por la Justicia, the state's new farmworker union, "growers told them that no one is buying tulips. But the workers also suspect growers couldn't comply with the governor's orders to maintain social distancing of six feet between people. And now the workers who lost their jobs haven't been able to find any others."
Luis Jimenez, head of the Alianza Agricola in New York State, charges that the needs of farmworkers are ignored. With 4000 farms the state produces more yogurt and sour cream than any other area of the country, and most workers live in housing provided by the dairies. "But we can't buy food until we get off work, and by then the store shelves are empty - no rice or eggs or meat or paper," he says. "The growers tell us we have to stay home when we're not working, but then how do we eat?"
Like all workers interviewed for this story, Jimenez fears the arrival of the virus. "We live 8 to 10 people in a house, so how would we isolate? Some have their own room, but I know one farm where everyone sleeps in bunk beds in a big room. At work we have to help each other all the time, like when we have to move a cow. You can't do this alone, and the job requires it. The ranchers say that health is important, but I feel they're really only concerned with getting the work done."
Who Are These Essential Workers?
For the first time in U.S. history farmworkers have been officially declared "essential workers." Without their labor there would be no fruits, vegetables or dairy products in the stores. Yet the economic situation of farmworkers has never reflected that essential status - nor does it now. The last National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) by the U.S. Department of Labor in 2017 found that the average farmworker family had an annual income between $17,500 and $20,000.
More than half relied on at least one public assistance program, with 44 percent using Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California). A third received either food stamps or WIC nutrition assistance. But most telling for families facing the pandemic, less than half of farmworker families have health insurance, and among them, only a third got it from their employer. A third of farmworker families paid cash for doctor visits, and a quarter relied on Medicaid or Medicare.
Guiillermina Ortiz Diaz, Graciela, Eliadora, Ana Lilia and their mother Bernardina Diaz Martinez sleep and live in a single room in a house in Oxnard, where three other migrant families also live.
Exacerbating these problems, according to NAWS, half of all farmworkers are undocumented. Lack of legal status makes workers ineligible for almost all public benefits. Emergency rooms normally must accept people with serious conditions regardless of status, but otherwise, no papers usually means no healthcare.
Sandy Young, a family nurse practitioner at the Las Islas Family Medical Group clinic in Oxnard, California, says that "it's always been true that undocumented people fear that if they go to hospitals or clinics, their names will be give to ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement]. In our present situation that lack of free access can be critical."
The Las Islas clinic has a specific program to provide care in Mixteco, the language of the valley's main population of indigenous Mexican immigrants. Young describes them as "a young population, which in the current crisis is a plus factor. But their general health is bad and they usually get healthcare in a hospital emergency room, which is the most dangerous place."
The new interpretation by the Trump administration of the "public charge" policy would disqualify anyone from applying for a visa if they were deemed likely to receive public healthcare, housing or nutrition benefits. Undocumented families, therefore, fear that getting healthcare will stop them from gaining legal status in the future or being able to reunite families. People might stay at home with the coronavirus rather than seeking testing or treatment, she fears.
Further, without sick pay the pressure to keep working is intense. "We won't stop working," Jimenez declares. "We're willing to risk the virus. But I didn't come here to die. I came so that my family in Mexico will live. We don't know what will happen to those who get sick. How will we pay our bills and send money to help our families survive?"
The barracks for H-2A workers behind a razorwire-topped fence in central Washington State.
Undocumented workers are not the only group of farmworkers who are particularly vulnerable. Another group are workers in the H-2A visa program, through which growers and contractors recruit workers in other countries, who then work for the duration of a contract and afterwards must return home. Last year over 250,000 workers were brought to the U.S. under that program.
For these workers, living conditions make maintaining a social distance of six feet virtually impossible. Housing for H-2A workers in central Washington often consists of prefab dormitories, in which four workers sleep on bunk beds in a single small room, and many workers share a common kitchen.
According to attorney Corrie Arellano with California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), the legal aid organization for the state's farmworkers, growers and contractors bring about 800 workers to Santa Maria each year. "At first they filled up almost all the inexpensive motel rooms in town," she said. "Now they're renting out houses and apartments, and pushing up rents." In a case filed by CRLA attorneys in Santa Maria, Jose Gonzalez, Efrain Cruz, Ana Teresa Cruz and Rosaura Chavez were held a house in which 18 to 20 workers slept in two bedrooms, and were told they could only leave to go to work. One Santa Maria residence (at 1318 North Broadway) was listed as the residence of 80 of these workers.
According to Mary Bauer, general counsel for the Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, a group that advocates for the rights and welfare of H-2A workers, "it is unclear how workers will access medical care or be able to self-isolate if conditions require them to do so. Employers are not currently required to provide housing which allows workers to be quarantined where necessary."
A room in a dormitory for H-2A workers in central Washington State.
Despite the Trump administration's toxic anti-immigrant rhetoric, it has directed U.S. consulates to process H-2A visa applications by growers and contractors, while most other visa applications have been stopped. It even dropped a previous restriction in which visas would be given only to workers who had been contracted in previous years.
According to Edgar Franks, an organizer with Familias Unidas por la Justicia, "there are already 5000 H-2A workers in central Washington, and growers expect to have 20,000 by the end of August." In Santa Maria Francisco Lozano also reports the arrival of H-2A workers, and as growers bid for available apartments to house them, "rents have gone up very rapidly. Prices are going up too, and the stores are making a lot of money."
A Union Makes a Difference
While only a tiny percentage of farmworkers have unions, those who do usually have a better relationship with their employers and more secure rights and benefits, which translate into better preparation for the advent of the virus.
In Washington State Familias Unidas por la Justicia advocates for farmworkers with the state government. "The Governor says there should be money for workers," Torres says, "but it's distributed through the unemployment benefit system, where undocumented people can't get it because you have to have a Social Security number. We have a committee now that's meeting with him to recommend a better system."
At Sakuma Farms, where the union has its first contract, there are still big questions about the future. The strawberry harvest doesn't start until May, and the company calls workers who live in California in April to come for jobs that their union contract guarantees. "But will people be able to come?" Torres wonders. "And if and when they do come, they'll live in a labor camp with about 250 people close together. Will that be safe? If they can't come what will happen to them, and who will do the work here?"
Women in the labor camp at Sakuma Farms during the 2013 strike when their union, Familias Unidas pro la Justicia, was founded.
At another Washington employer, the big Chateau Ste. Michelle winery, worker Adelaida Mendoza, a member of the United Farm Workers, says the company provides safety training about the virus. "They've put out hand sanitizer and sanitizing wipes in the lunchrooms," she says. In addition to implementing social distancing, "they always have soap, water, and paper towels to clean our hands and disposable cups to drink water." Workers at the company have a union medical plan and sick leave.
Armando Elenes, the UFW's secretary treasurer, says that at Gallo Sonoma workers are assigned to separate rows of grape vines to provide social distancing, and have sick pay available. "In the mushroom sheds workers used to pick in pairs, because it's faster on the piece rate," he says. "Now each worker is given a different [growing] bed so they're not working side by side."
At the big Salinas-based D'Arrigo Brothers vegetable company UFW member Oswaldo Cisneros says that workers are making their own suggestions to the company for safer conditions. One broccoli rabe cutter, for instance, proposed harvesting plants on one side of a row first, and then afterwards the other, instead of cutting on both sides at the same time. Such an arrangement would keep workers more widely separated. "We think we should be at least 80 inches apart," he says.
Even in unionized companies, however, social distancing is not possible for some jobs. On machines for harvesting lettuce or other vegetables, there are often seats a fixed distance apart, corresponding to the distance between rows in the field underneath. "We don't push special equipment like masks and gloves because they can be carriers themselves," Elenes asserts. "People need to be trained not to touch their faces, to wash frequently and avoid physical contact." To do that the union has a network of stewards who themselves get training about how to help workers in the crew protect themselves.
A crew of union workers harvests lettuce in 2018 at D'Arrigo Brothers behind the lettuce machine.
"But some things are more difficult," he acknowledges. "People have to ride to work together. I don't know how you can get around that. If you can be contaminated opening a door, the only way is to wash your hands getting into and out of the car."
Other organizations are also trying to intervene to help keep the fields safe for workers. CRLA has sixteen offices in the agricultural valleys. In the past, lawyers interviewed workers in those offices, documenting complaints of violations of labor and health and safety laws. Community workers went out to the fields, interviewing laborers and making sure they had bathrooms and fresh water.
Now the group's lawyers and community outreach workers are challenged by the need to work remotely. "We do intake by phone," says Esmeralda Zendejas, Legal Director of CRLA's Agricultural Worker Program. "Our community workers can't go out to the fields, so now they call the people they know in the community to find out if there are violations. We're concerned not just about the normal issues like wage theft, but also about the new regulations to protect workers during the pandemic, and the benefits they should know about."
A recent outreach flyer tells workers that even though they are called "essential workers," they still have the right to shelter in place to maintain social distance, to leave home for work or other purposes only when it's necessary, and to stay home if they're sick or need to care for a sick family member. At work they have the right to hand-washing stations with soap and towels, clean bathrooms, accessible water with disposable cups, and protection equipment provided by the employer, like masks and gloves. Community workers leave the flyers in supermarkets and pharmacies, and speak out in social media and on radio programs.
Workers get into a crowded van to go to the fields in Oxnard.
Enforcement and Exclusion
Enforcement, however, is the big question. "California is coming up with good new measures to meet this crisis, but we need to be concerned about enforcement," Zendejas warns. "Some employers are trying to do the right thing but others are not. The price of the lack of enforcement could be very high." In Santa Maria, Lozano charges, "the growers won't even talk about giving sick leave, and they don't recognize sick days."
Pushing in the opposite direction, the UFW sent an open letter to the state's growers on March 17 calling them to take measures to protect workers' health. Those measures include providing 40 hours of sick leave; eliminating waiting periods for sick pay and the requirement for doctors' notes when workers claim it; cleaning and disinfecting frequently touched surfaces multiple times daily; and daycare assistance since schools are closed.
Union president Teresa Romero says she's received no response. The union also advocates legislation to extend federal relief and unemployment benefits to undocumented workers, mandatory plans to ensure social distancing, and accessible medical services including free testing, especially for non-union workers with no health care. Monterey County agricultural groups, she fumed, announced an "advisory" for worker protection, but "their only clear message to farm workers was they should keep working," she said.
Sandy Young with a patient at the Las Islas clinic in Oxnard.
Santa Barbara County has created a rapid response team. Heavily agricultural Ventura County next door, where nurse Sandy Young works, doesn't have one yet. She thinks it should. "We need that and practical measures like making free thermometers available to everyone, along with good information. A team could do assessments of the pressing needs. We have a mobile van we could use to give tests in neighborhoods, but we need a dedicated person to run it, and tests of course. In reality, though, our public health system here is completely overwhelmed."
As Congress began discussing a possible bailout and relief package, unions and community organizations began drafting proposals and demands. Thirty six organizations signed a letter to the administration drafted by the Washington DC advocacy organization Farmworker Justice, calling for more protections for H-2A workers. The recommendations included safe housing with quarantining facilities, safe transportation, testing of workers before entering the U.S., social distancing at work, and paid treatment for those who get sick.
For its part, CRLA provided two pages of bullet-point recommendations. Included were free testing and coverage for all COVID-19 related care regardless of insurance and immigration status, suspension of co-pays and sliding fee payments at clinics, improved food and nutrition services, and expansion of Medi-Cal eligibility to all ages regardless of immigration status.
Some groups went even further. The Food Chain Workers Alliance, a coalition of worker groups in food production and distribution, called for hazard pay at time-and-a-half for food workers, who "must have the right to organize so they can meaningfully exercise their labor rights and protect themselves and their communities." In addition, the Alliance advocated for supplemental income and unemployment benefits, 15 paid sick days per year and free healthcare for all workers.
On a crowded lettuce machine in Winterhaven, California, the distance between workers is much less than six feet.
The Food Chain Alliance was among several immigrant rights groups that have called for eliminating immigration status as a barrier to benefits, eliminating the public charge rule, and ending immigration enforcement against the undocumented and H-2A workers during the pandemic crisis.
The final $2 trillion bailout and relief package adopted by Congress, however, includes a bar forbidding the undocumented from receiving its benefits. The legislation, the CARES Act, provides extended unemployment and one-time cash payments to low and middle-income families. People who lack legal immigration status, and even U.S. citizen children who have at least one undocumented parent, are excluded, however. That exclusion encompasses the majority of the nation's farmworkers, and in California, as many as 70 percent of them.
Reaction was bitter. To Cisneros, "it's just a slap in the face. We're on the front lines. We're taking risks every day, and we never stop. It's not just the money. The fact that we do this work that people depend on should earn us the right to stay here."
"The bosses say we're essential to giving food to the country," Jimenez says, "It is unjust to exclude us because we don't have good Social Security numbers. We all pay taxes. Don't ignore us. Include us like other industries. We're here every day."
FUJ President Ramon Torres charges, "First they want to deport us, then they poison us with pesticides and pay us bad wages, and now they're afraid that there won't be any workers. They say we're essential and we should keep working during the coronavirus, but they don't give us the same benefits and protections that workers get in other industries. We need amnesty, a halt to the detentions and deportations, $25 an hour with overtime, health insurance, childcare, paid vacations and unions. That's the minimum we deserve!"
Nevertheless, Sandy Young tries to stay positive. "At least we're recognizing the importance of farmworkers and indigenous people in the broader community. Now we need to translate that into concern for their health." But the exclusion, and the anti-immigrant hysteria behind it, is still a troubling sign. "If things get worse, with 'us versus them,' it could be really bad," she warns.
Francisco Lozano with his wife at home in Santa Maria.
Tuesday, March 31, 2020
Monday, March 23, 2020
HAWAII: IN A PANDEMIC, NO STATE IS AN ISLAND
HAWAII: IN A PANDEMIC, NO STATE IS AN ISLAND
By David Bacon
Capital & Main, 3/23/20
https://capitalandmain.com/hawaii-no-state-is-an-island-0323
James "Jiro" Yuda protests continued flights to and from Hawaii as the Covid-19 pandemic worsens.
James "Jiro" Yuda holds a sign at the entrance to the access road to the Hilo, Hawaii, airport. It reads, in part, "Be Responsible. No More Flights to Hawaii." Yuda, 44, is the former deputy public defender on the Big Island, and now works in the Family Law Division of the Hawaii Department of the Attorney General. "I'm doing this," he tells Capital & Main, "because someone has to. Our leaders have to accept the reality of this situation, and what has to be done. We face an existential threat."
Yuda says his protest was motivated by the inactivity of the Big Island's political leaders in the face of the Covid-19 crisis. On March 20 Hawaii Lt. Governor Josh Green, an emergency room physician on the Big Island, urged the state to suspend "all non-essential travel" in and out of the islands. Some airlines have stopped or limited their service, including Hawaiian Airlines, which suspended its nonstop service between Maui and Las Vegas.
In the meantime, the Big Island's County Council urged Governor David Ige and island Mayor Harry Kim to impose a 15-day lockdown with a mandatory "shelter-in-place" order if conditions deteriorate, a move the mayor continues to oppose. In the meantime, another council resolution urged a limited restriction allowing only "essential businesses" to operate. Hawaii has a state government, and each island is a county with a mayor and council.
Kim has argued that it is sufficient for the island to help businesses use preventative practices and for the county to sanitize its public areas. In a broadcast statement last Tuesday Kim announced, "The County of Hawaii will maintain all of its services and operators as normal." He called a state directive on restaurant and church closures "a guide" and declared, "Within this county, restaurants, bars and places of worship may make their own decision as to open or close."
Some Big Island restaurants have begun serving take-out food only, while others still have table service. In the island's numerous farmers' markets, booths selling items other than food are now banned, while others selling fruit and vegetables from local farms continue. Hilo's Farmers' Market, normally thronged with people, has seemed virtually deserted, while other markets have closed entirely.
Yuda feels more urgent measures are necessary, like those imposed in California by Governor Gavin Newsom. "We can't carry on like this," he warns. "Look at what's happened in Italy." Hawaii's economy is more dependent on tourism than any other state's, and stopping travel to and from the islands would have an enormous impact, especially on workers in the tourism industry. While stringent measures will cause sacrifices, he acknowledges, "You can't work if you're dead. We have to put life before the economy."
Yuda is one of 10 candidates who have filed papers to run against Kim in the next mayoral election-a primary on August 8 and general election on November 3. Yuda says his priorities are public safety and climate change.
Photos: Maku'u farmers market in Pahoa, as people begin to be aware of the COVID 19 crisis
Photos: Farmers market in Hilo a week later, after people begin to stay away from crowded places
By David Bacon
Capital & Main, 3/23/20
https://capitalandmain.com/hawaii-no-state-is-an-island-0323
James "Jiro" Yuda protests continued flights to and from Hawaii as the Covid-19 pandemic worsens.
James "Jiro" Yuda holds a sign at the entrance to the access road to the Hilo, Hawaii, airport. It reads, in part, "Be Responsible. No More Flights to Hawaii." Yuda, 44, is the former deputy public defender on the Big Island, and now works in the Family Law Division of the Hawaii Department of the Attorney General. "I'm doing this," he tells Capital & Main, "because someone has to. Our leaders have to accept the reality of this situation, and what has to be done. We face an existential threat."
Yuda says his protest was motivated by the inactivity of the Big Island's political leaders in the face of the Covid-19 crisis. On March 20 Hawaii Lt. Governor Josh Green, an emergency room physician on the Big Island, urged the state to suspend "all non-essential travel" in and out of the islands. Some airlines have stopped or limited their service, including Hawaiian Airlines, which suspended its nonstop service between Maui and Las Vegas.
In the meantime, the Big Island's County Council urged Governor David Ige and island Mayor Harry Kim to impose a 15-day lockdown with a mandatory "shelter-in-place" order if conditions deteriorate, a move the mayor continues to oppose. In the meantime, another council resolution urged a limited restriction allowing only "essential businesses" to operate. Hawaii has a state government, and each island is a county with a mayor and council.
Kim has argued that it is sufficient for the island to help businesses use preventative practices and for the county to sanitize its public areas. In a broadcast statement last Tuesday Kim announced, "The County of Hawaii will maintain all of its services and operators as normal." He called a state directive on restaurant and church closures "a guide" and declared, "Within this county, restaurants, bars and places of worship may make their own decision as to open or close."
Some Big Island restaurants have begun serving take-out food only, while others still have table service. In the island's numerous farmers' markets, booths selling items other than food are now banned, while others selling fruit and vegetables from local farms continue. Hilo's Farmers' Market, normally thronged with people, has seemed virtually deserted, while other markets have closed entirely.
Yuda feels more urgent measures are necessary, like those imposed in California by Governor Gavin Newsom. "We can't carry on like this," he warns. "Look at what's happened in Italy." Hawaii's economy is more dependent on tourism than any other state's, and stopping travel to and from the islands would have an enormous impact, especially on workers in the tourism industry. While stringent measures will cause sacrifices, he acknowledges, "You can't work if you're dead. We have to put life before the economy."
Yuda is one of 10 candidates who have filed papers to run against Kim in the next mayoral election-a primary on August 8 and general election on November 3. Yuda says his priorities are public safety and climate change.
Photos: Maku'u farmers market in Pahoa, as people begin to be aware of the COVID 19 crisis
Photos: Farmers market in Hilo a week later, after people begin to stay away from crowded places
Tuesday, March 17, 2020
TWO DECADES AGO, MEXICO'S HUGE UNIVERSITY STRIKE DEFENDED FREE TUITION AND ACCESS
TWO DECADES AGO, MEXICO'S HUGE UNIVERSITY STRIKE DEFENDED FREE TUITION AND ACCESS
Historic photographs of Mexico's huge protest over the arrest of students and the invasion of its premier university
By David Bacon
The Stansbury Forum, 3/16/20
https://stansburyforum.com/
The student contingent from the Economics Faculty, one of the main centers of the strike.
Twenty years ago Mexico's Federal government moved to end the huge student strike at the National Autonomous University (UNAM). The strike, which began in 1999, reverberated far beyond Mexico. Like the WTO protest in Seattle, which took place at the same time, it became a global symbol of resistance to pressure by international financial institutions for austerity policies and the privatization of public services.
Social protests erupting throughout that period adopted radical tactics of taking over public spaces and impeding business as usual. The UNAM strike, however, was not just a brief confrontation in the streets. It lasted almost a year, during which students occupied the campus and shut down the operation of one of the world's largest universities.
The strike was organized to defend the historic principle of free tuition at Mexico's premier institution of higher education - with 270,000 students one of the largest and most respected in Latin America. Their key demand was repeal of a newly-instituted tuition in an institution that had always been free. The International Monetary Fund was demanding economic reforms, including ending government subsidies for public services. The government claimed it intended to charge only a symbolic amount - 800 pesos a semester ($85).
But students and university unions feared layoffs and other cost-cutting measures. Even 800 pesos was hardly a symbolic amount for many in Mexico. According to Alejandro Alvarez Bejar, economist and dean of UNAM's economics faculty, the average 5-member family at the time had an income of 5-6000 pesos (then $625-$750) a month, based on three of the five family members working full time. Millions of families earned less.
Students also charged that tuition and other reforms were part of a larger project to begin privatizing education. And in fact, over the next two decades Mexico's national government did try to impose corporate education reforms modeled after those in the U.S., much as the students predicted.
In the twenty years following the strike, a virtual war was fought by teachers against the national government, not just over tuition, but to reverse the neoliberal direction of Mexico's education policies. These battles culminated in the shooting of nine people at Nochixtlan, Oaxaca during a teachers' strike, and the disappearance of 43 students at the teacher training school in Ayotzinapa, Guerrero. Finally, the conflicts helped fuel the election of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, eighteen years after the UNAM uprising.
On taking office Lopez Obrador echoed the criticisms and demands of that seminal student strike. "Neoliberal economic policy has been a disaster, a calamity for the public life of the country," he told the Mexican Congress. "We will put aside the neoliberal hypocrisy. Those born poor will not be condemned to die poor." And speaking to tens of thousands of people afterwards in Mexico City's zocalo, he promised that "the so-called educational reform will be canceled, and the right to free education will be established [as mandated by] Article 3 of the Constitution at all levels of schooling."
The UNAM strike of 2000, therefore, was a class battle, but also one played out in the arena of electoral politics. In the year of the strike, Mexico's national government was still controlled by its old ruling party, the Party of the Institutionalized Revolution (PRI). The PRI sought to use the uproar over the conflict to prevent a rising leftwing political tide from winning that year's presidential election.
In two previous national elections the leftwing Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) almost succeeded in taking power. In 1988 only massive fraud prevented its candidate, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, from becoming president. In 1994, the ruling PRI campaigned successfully to elect Ernesto Zedillo by identifying Cardenas, who was again the PRD candidate, with the armed Zapatista rising in Chiapas. A vote for the PRI was portrayed as a vote for social stability, against armed conflict and social unrest.
In 2000 the PRI nominated Francisco Labastida, and Cardenas was the PRD presidential candidate for a third time. Labastida called for arresting the students as a response to what he called growing social chaos, much as Zedillo had used the suppression of the Zapatistas. In 1998, however, the mayor of Mexico City, one of the world's largest urban centers, became an elected position for the first time. The PRD's Cardenas was voted into this crucial office. After a year he resigned, however, in order to run for president once again. Rosario Robles, a PRD leader, then became mayor - the most powerful woman elected to office in Mexico.
By then the strike had started, and the students had broad public support, especially from the union for the university's workers (STUNAM - Sindicato de Trabajadores de UNAM). Nevertheless, Mexico's national PRI government never tried to negotiate with either students or teachers. Instead, it tried to order Robles to use the city police to occupy the campus and arrest students. She refused, saying it would violate the Mexican constitution. Cooperation would also have been viewed by PRD members as a political betrayal.
Instead, after the strike had gone on for nine months, the PRI itself intervened to occupy the campus, using its new anti-drug strike force, as well as army troops in police uniforms. Armed Federal agents arrested and jailed the leaders of the General Strike Committee (CGM - Consejo General de la Huelga), which students had created to organize demonstrations and the occupation of the campus.
After the arrests, Labastida criticized Robles, but in Mexico City the massive repression backfired. People were shocked when the military and police stormed onto the campus, a reminder of the violent and bloody massacre of students in 1968. Mexico, like most Latin American countries, has a tradition of university autonomy, which prohibits presence of government armed forces on the grounds of UNAM. In response over a hundred thousand people marched through the city to protest on February 9, 2000, an event documented in these photographs. During the march, large labor union contingents were interspersed among the students, in an effort to make difficult the arrest of those the government still sought.
The move by the PRI to end the strike killed its chances of winning Mexico City for Labastida. The most popular chant in the huge march was "Not one vote for the PRI!" But the Mexican countryside outside of Mexico City is more conservative, and the government's message wasn't intended for chilangos (Mexico City residents) anyway. In small towns and villages, the message of maintaining social stability was intended to keep the continued loyalty of a small, wealthy elite and the votes they controlled.
In the end, Labastida lost, but not to the PRD. People disgusted with the PRI's long corrupt reign, but manipulated by its social chaos propaganda, voted instead for Vicente Fox, candidate of the rightwing National Action Party. Students and their supporters paid the price. The charges against them were extreme. While the government admitted there was only minor damage to classrooms, 85 student leaders were charged with terrorism and denied bail. Arrest warrants were issued for another 400.
Nevertheless, the PRD's own relations with student leaders were often very difficult, although many strike participants were sons and daughters of the leftwing party's members. But the arrests united a very divided opposition. "While there were many disagreements on strike strategy, the government's action brought everyone together," said Jesus Martin del Campo, vice-chair of the PRD delegation in the Chamber of Deputies, and a founder of the radical caucus in the national teachers' union. "We all agreed that arresting the students and occupying the campus was wrong."
While the arrests and the police invasion of the campus were the immediate issues that brought together city residents, the underlying reason for the outpouring of support was economic. UNAM had been the place where Mexico's elite educated its children - the one place in Mexican society where they mixed with children of the working class. That mixing was a product of the free tuition and open access, guaranteed in the Mexican constitution in the wake of the revolution at the start of the twentieth century. Beginning in the 1980s, however, the wealthy increasingly began sending their children to private universities, which grew rapidly. They often went on to postgraduate work in the U.S., a choice unavailable to those without the money to pay for it.
The situation for most UNAM students was far different, however. Explained Alvarez Bejar, head of the economy faculty at UNAM, "Young people, when they get married, still live with their parents since they can't earn enough to live independently. This was a key argument during the UNAM strike, and the reason why it had so much support." PRD Senator Rosalbina Garabito, an economist, called the tuition proposal part of a larger picture. "The Mexican government has been enforcing an economic policy using high unemployment and falling wages to attract foreign investment," she said at the time. "Mexican workers have lost 70% of their buying power since 1982. For every 10 new jobs created, 6.7 have salaries below the level workers actually need to survive. We need to democratize the country, not just change political parties."
It took another 18 years and three elections for the left to win Mexico's national contest. And when in 2018 Lopez Obrador, himself a former Mexico City mayor, was elected president, it was still far from clear that he could implement his promised change in direction. The student strike of 2000, however, had shown long before that militant direct action could mobilize broad political support for education as a basic human right.
Students and supporters march through the historic center to the Zocalo
The contingent from the Sciences Faculty, another center of the strike.
Students holding the banner of the Economics Faculty.
Students chanting at the start of the march.
Professors from the Economics Faculty Alfonso Vadillo and Héctor Tamayo.
A contingent of supporters from the Mexican Electrical Workers Union (SME) carry a banner saying "Students - Mexico is With You!".
Activists and demonstrators were taken from the campus to the march by commandeered buses.
A handmade sign says "Political Prisoners - Freedom!"
A marcher calls for freedom for political prisoners.
A contingent of supporters came from Oaxaca, from the Triqui Movement for Unification and Struggle (MULT), an indigenous rights organization in Triqui indigenous communities
A Triqui marcher holds her infant son.
Faculty and parents march behind a banner calling for freedom for political prisoners.
Faculty and parents call for an end to the repression.
A marcher holds up her sign calling for freeing the arrested students.
The march passes the Monument to Cuauhtemoc, on its way to the Zocalo.
Students march and chant behind their banner.
Demonstrators stand on top of the bus that has brought them to the march.
Students call for "No More Repression"
Signs held by marchers compare the repression of the student strike in 2000 to the student massacre in 1968, and the President Ernesto Zedillo with former President Gustavo DÃaz Ordaz.
Faculty marching in support of students.
An older worker holds the Mexican flag, and wears the insignia of the university workers union STUNAM.
A university worker and STUNAM member.
These photographs are part of a larger body of images documenting social movements in Mexico. The archive of this work is in the Special Collections of the Green Library at Stanford University.
Historic photographs of Mexico's huge protest over the arrest of students and the invasion of its premier university
By David Bacon
The Stansbury Forum, 3/16/20
https://stansburyforum.com/
The student contingent from the Economics Faculty, one of the main centers of the strike.
Twenty years ago Mexico's Federal government moved to end the huge student strike at the National Autonomous University (UNAM). The strike, which began in 1999, reverberated far beyond Mexico. Like the WTO protest in Seattle, which took place at the same time, it became a global symbol of resistance to pressure by international financial institutions for austerity policies and the privatization of public services.
Social protests erupting throughout that period adopted radical tactics of taking over public spaces and impeding business as usual. The UNAM strike, however, was not just a brief confrontation in the streets. It lasted almost a year, during which students occupied the campus and shut down the operation of one of the world's largest universities.
The strike was organized to defend the historic principle of free tuition at Mexico's premier institution of higher education - with 270,000 students one of the largest and most respected in Latin America. Their key demand was repeal of a newly-instituted tuition in an institution that had always been free. The International Monetary Fund was demanding economic reforms, including ending government subsidies for public services. The government claimed it intended to charge only a symbolic amount - 800 pesos a semester ($85).
But students and university unions feared layoffs and other cost-cutting measures. Even 800 pesos was hardly a symbolic amount for many in Mexico. According to Alejandro Alvarez Bejar, economist and dean of UNAM's economics faculty, the average 5-member family at the time had an income of 5-6000 pesos (then $625-$750) a month, based on three of the five family members working full time. Millions of families earned less.
Students also charged that tuition and other reforms were part of a larger project to begin privatizing education. And in fact, over the next two decades Mexico's national government did try to impose corporate education reforms modeled after those in the U.S., much as the students predicted.
In the twenty years following the strike, a virtual war was fought by teachers against the national government, not just over tuition, but to reverse the neoliberal direction of Mexico's education policies. These battles culminated in the shooting of nine people at Nochixtlan, Oaxaca during a teachers' strike, and the disappearance of 43 students at the teacher training school in Ayotzinapa, Guerrero. Finally, the conflicts helped fuel the election of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, eighteen years after the UNAM uprising.
On taking office Lopez Obrador echoed the criticisms and demands of that seminal student strike. "Neoliberal economic policy has been a disaster, a calamity for the public life of the country," he told the Mexican Congress. "We will put aside the neoliberal hypocrisy. Those born poor will not be condemned to die poor." And speaking to tens of thousands of people afterwards in Mexico City's zocalo, he promised that "the so-called educational reform will be canceled, and the right to free education will be established [as mandated by] Article 3 of the Constitution at all levels of schooling."
The UNAM strike of 2000, therefore, was a class battle, but also one played out in the arena of electoral politics. In the year of the strike, Mexico's national government was still controlled by its old ruling party, the Party of the Institutionalized Revolution (PRI). The PRI sought to use the uproar over the conflict to prevent a rising leftwing political tide from winning that year's presidential election.
In two previous national elections the leftwing Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) almost succeeded in taking power. In 1988 only massive fraud prevented its candidate, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, from becoming president. In 1994, the ruling PRI campaigned successfully to elect Ernesto Zedillo by identifying Cardenas, who was again the PRD candidate, with the armed Zapatista rising in Chiapas. A vote for the PRI was portrayed as a vote for social stability, against armed conflict and social unrest.
In 2000 the PRI nominated Francisco Labastida, and Cardenas was the PRD presidential candidate for a third time. Labastida called for arresting the students as a response to what he called growing social chaos, much as Zedillo had used the suppression of the Zapatistas. In 1998, however, the mayor of Mexico City, one of the world's largest urban centers, became an elected position for the first time. The PRD's Cardenas was voted into this crucial office. After a year he resigned, however, in order to run for president once again. Rosario Robles, a PRD leader, then became mayor - the most powerful woman elected to office in Mexico.
By then the strike had started, and the students had broad public support, especially from the union for the university's workers (STUNAM - Sindicato de Trabajadores de UNAM). Nevertheless, Mexico's national PRI government never tried to negotiate with either students or teachers. Instead, it tried to order Robles to use the city police to occupy the campus and arrest students. She refused, saying it would violate the Mexican constitution. Cooperation would also have been viewed by PRD members as a political betrayal.
Instead, after the strike had gone on for nine months, the PRI itself intervened to occupy the campus, using its new anti-drug strike force, as well as army troops in police uniforms. Armed Federal agents arrested and jailed the leaders of the General Strike Committee (CGM - Consejo General de la Huelga), which students had created to organize demonstrations and the occupation of the campus.
After the arrests, Labastida criticized Robles, but in Mexico City the massive repression backfired. People were shocked when the military and police stormed onto the campus, a reminder of the violent and bloody massacre of students in 1968. Mexico, like most Latin American countries, has a tradition of university autonomy, which prohibits presence of government armed forces on the grounds of UNAM. In response over a hundred thousand people marched through the city to protest on February 9, 2000, an event documented in these photographs. During the march, large labor union contingents were interspersed among the students, in an effort to make difficult the arrest of those the government still sought.
The move by the PRI to end the strike killed its chances of winning Mexico City for Labastida. The most popular chant in the huge march was "Not one vote for the PRI!" But the Mexican countryside outside of Mexico City is more conservative, and the government's message wasn't intended for chilangos (Mexico City residents) anyway. In small towns and villages, the message of maintaining social stability was intended to keep the continued loyalty of a small, wealthy elite and the votes they controlled.
In the end, Labastida lost, but not to the PRD. People disgusted with the PRI's long corrupt reign, but manipulated by its social chaos propaganda, voted instead for Vicente Fox, candidate of the rightwing National Action Party. Students and their supporters paid the price. The charges against them were extreme. While the government admitted there was only minor damage to classrooms, 85 student leaders were charged with terrorism and denied bail. Arrest warrants were issued for another 400.
Nevertheless, the PRD's own relations with student leaders were often very difficult, although many strike participants were sons and daughters of the leftwing party's members. But the arrests united a very divided opposition. "While there were many disagreements on strike strategy, the government's action brought everyone together," said Jesus Martin del Campo, vice-chair of the PRD delegation in the Chamber of Deputies, and a founder of the radical caucus in the national teachers' union. "We all agreed that arresting the students and occupying the campus was wrong."
While the arrests and the police invasion of the campus were the immediate issues that brought together city residents, the underlying reason for the outpouring of support was economic. UNAM had been the place where Mexico's elite educated its children - the one place in Mexican society where they mixed with children of the working class. That mixing was a product of the free tuition and open access, guaranteed in the Mexican constitution in the wake of the revolution at the start of the twentieth century. Beginning in the 1980s, however, the wealthy increasingly began sending their children to private universities, which grew rapidly. They often went on to postgraduate work in the U.S., a choice unavailable to those without the money to pay for it.
The situation for most UNAM students was far different, however. Explained Alvarez Bejar, head of the economy faculty at UNAM, "Young people, when they get married, still live with their parents since they can't earn enough to live independently. This was a key argument during the UNAM strike, and the reason why it had so much support." PRD Senator Rosalbina Garabito, an economist, called the tuition proposal part of a larger picture. "The Mexican government has been enforcing an economic policy using high unemployment and falling wages to attract foreign investment," she said at the time. "Mexican workers have lost 70% of their buying power since 1982. For every 10 new jobs created, 6.7 have salaries below the level workers actually need to survive. We need to democratize the country, not just change political parties."
It took another 18 years and three elections for the left to win Mexico's national contest. And when in 2018 Lopez Obrador, himself a former Mexico City mayor, was elected president, it was still far from clear that he could implement his promised change in direction. The student strike of 2000, however, had shown long before that militant direct action could mobilize broad political support for education as a basic human right.
Students and supporters march through the historic center to the Zocalo
The contingent from the Sciences Faculty, another center of the strike.
Students holding the banner of the Economics Faculty.
Students chanting at the start of the march.
Professors from the Economics Faculty Alfonso Vadillo and Héctor Tamayo.
A contingent of supporters from the Mexican Electrical Workers Union (SME) carry a banner saying "Students - Mexico is With You!".
Activists and demonstrators were taken from the campus to the march by commandeered buses.
A handmade sign says "Political Prisoners - Freedom!"
A marcher calls for freedom for political prisoners.
A contingent of supporters came from Oaxaca, from the Triqui Movement for Unification and Struggle (MULT), an indigenous rights organization in Triqui indigenous communities
A Triqui marcher holds her infant son.
Faculty and parents march behind a banner calling for freedom for political prisoners.
Faculty and parents call for an end to the repression.
A marcher holds up her sign calling for freeing the arrested students.
The march passes the Monument to Cuauhtemoc, on its way to the Zocalo.
Students march and chant behind their banner.
Demonstrators stand on top of the bus that has brought them to the march.
Students call for "No More Repression"
Signs held by marchers compare the repression of the student strike in 2000 to the student massacre in 1968, and the President Ernesto Zedillo with former President Gustavo DÃaz Ordaz.
Faculty marching in support of students.
An older worker holds the Mexican flag, and wears the insignia of the university workers union STUNAM.
A university worker and STUNAM member.
These photographs are part of a larger body of images documenting social movements in Mexico. The archive of this work is in the Special Collections of the Green Library at Stanford University.
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
BARRED FROM STRIKING, AIRLINE FOOD WORKERS SIT DOWN IN TRAFFIC
BARRED FROM STRIKING, AIRLINE FOOD WORKERS SIT DOWN IN TRAFFIC
Photos and Story By David Bacon,
Truthout March 3, 2020
https://truthout.org/articles/barred-from-striking-airline-food-workers-seek-other-ways-to-protest/
Melieni Cruz, who helps prepare the meals passengers eat on airplanes, went thousands of dollars into debt because she couldn't pay her soaring medical bills. "When the doctor found cysts on my ovaries, I had to save for a year to afford the procedure, and my cysts got bigger and more painful the whole time," she said as she picketed the terminal at San Francisco International Airport (SFO).
Cruz works for LSG Sky Chefs, and her union, UNITE HERE Local 2, has been trying to renegotiate the contract that covers her and 1,500 other workers. The cost of health care premiums and wages are the big sticking points in bargaining. Medicare for All would certainly take Cruz's health care costs off the bargaining table, and ensure that she gets treatment without having to endure a year in pain to save enough money for it.
That's an important reason why Local 2 endorsed Bernie Sanders, who campaigned for Medicare for All long before the current presidential nomination race. Cruz went to work for LSG Sky Chefs for the medical coverage, for which she pays $150 a month on a wage of $18.16/hour. The deductible on the $8,000 surgery she needed put a huge hole in her income, and she's now afraid to go to the doctor.
Preserving affordable health care was one of the reasons why Local 2 went on strike at the Marriott hotels in San Francisco a year ago. For 61 days, hotel workers mounted picket lines in a strike coordinated with other UNITE HERE locals in nine cities. The union has one of the best health plans of any San Francisco union, paid for by the hotels, and workers struck to keep the hotels from making them pay for it. Fear of losing a similar plan kept Local 2's sister union in Las Vegas from supporting Sanders and Medicare for All, but many of its members voted for him anyway, knowing that not every worker in Las Vegas enjoys the health care that the casino workers have fought for.
In the airline food kitchens, however, the situation is very different. Roberto Alvarez, a worker who loads food onto planes, says, "I prepare food and beverage for some of the world's biggest airlines, but I have to go to a free clinic because my company insurance is so expensive that I can't afford it."
What's keeping airline food workers from following in the footsteps of their fellow Local 2 members in the hotels is an antiquated labor law. Candidates on the left side of the Democratic Party have supported some aspects of labor law reform that would make it easier to form unions. But the airline food workers' situation highlights the need for a further reform that has yet to make it onto the stage in the Democratic candidate debates.
Hotel workers in Local 2 and a handful of its sister unions around the country used a multicity strike to put pressure on the Marriott hotel chain - the world's largest hotel operator by far. Hotel workers are covered by the National Labor Relations Act. Under that law, striking can still be dangerous for workers, who risk being replaced by strikebreakers. But at least they can strike.
Effectively, Cruz, Alvarez, and the kitchen and catering workers in the airports cannot. Last June they took votes to strike in multiple cities. In San Francisco, 99 percent of the nearly 1,600 workers voted to strike for better conditions. But the Railway Labor Act keeps them from using the tactic hotel workers found so effective.
In order to shut down the U.S. economy, workers must stop goods and people from moving. That's a basic lesson in this country they learned the hard way on the railroads, in the years when the modern labor movement was born over a century and a half ago. Today airports fulfill the same function railroad stations did a century and more ago. A national job action in airports could bring transportation to a halt, much as strikes on the railroads did over a century ago. The Railway Labor Act was structured to keep both from happening.
To see how this repressive stranglehold was created, we have to go back to 1877, when Congress ended Reconstruction, withdrawing troops from the South that had protected the political enfranchisement of Black people following the Civil War. That same year the Great Railway Strike broke out in West Virginia. From Pennsylvania to Illinois, furious impoverished strikers burned roundhouses and railway cars. Troops - no longer protecting Black voting rights - were sent instead to put down what the government and the railroad barons feared was a worker insurrection.
One striking worker told the newspapers, "I had might as well die by the bullet as to starve to death by inches."
A quarter century later, workers again tried to cut the railroads' steel arteries. Eugene Debs organized the American Railway Union and led a quarter of a million workers in 27 states in one of the bitterest strikes in labor history. Once again, the Federal government called in the U.S. Army, broke the strike, and sent Debs to prison, where he became a socialist and war resister.
Despite violent repression, that long strike movement eventually forced Congress in 1916 to grant railroad workers a decades-old demand: the eight-hour day. When railroad workers won it, others demanded and won it too.
But as World War I unfolded, Debs - railing against the war - was sent to prison again, declaring, "While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." As Debs sat behind bars, President Woodrow Wilson and Congress created a Railroad Labor Board, which then cut wages. Railroad workers began another national strike; the Board declared it illegal, and the Department of Justice carried out the board's prohibition.
Then Congress passed the Railway Labor Act, to make sure that never happened again. The law's overt purpose was to make it virtually impossible for railroad workers to go on strike, by setting up an arbitration process under a National Mediation Board, which could last almost indefinitely. Unions were prohibited from taking job action before they'd exhausted its interminable steps. And as air travel became common, in 1936 Congress put the workers in the airline industry under the Act as well.
Today, this history of repression traps workers far from the cabs of locomotives or the cockpits of airplanes, but with effects as devastating in their way as the predicament described by the striker almost 150 years ago.
In an earlier era, transportation workers faced violence, but at least they could take action against the robber barons who directly employed them. Today, the airlines are not only protected by the Railway Labor Act, but by the fact that they long ago contracted out their meal preparation. They control the income of workers by negotiating the price of meals they pay to the kitchen companies, but the airlines are not the workers' legal employer. In response to February's demonstration, American Airlines in fact claimed, "We are not in a position to control the outcome of their negotiations or dictate what wages or benefits are agreed upon between the catering companies and their employees."
To the union, this is a legal fiction. One important provision of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act - the labor law reform that Democrats passed in the House of Representatives this year - is to limit the ability of corporations to contract out various aspects of their work. It would also prevent the permanent replacement of strikers. But of course, in order to benefit from this proposal if it passes, first workers in the airport kitchens have to win the right to strike itself.
To keep pressure on LSG Sky Chefs and the other main food supplier, Gate Gourmet, workers have picketed the American Airlines terminal periodically and organized sit-ins inside the soaring lobby. In mid-February, airport workers conducted a die-in, lying down inside the terminal while passengers steered their wheelie bags around them.
At the same time as that group of workers lay down inside the terminal, another group of workers walked into the road outside the terminal. Police stopped the stream of cars intent on dropping off passengers, and for half an hour, the union's activists sat singing and chanting on the asphalt as cops arrested each one.
This was a calm action, despite the evident frustration of would-be flyers. But it brought back memories of less diplomatic confrontations during earlier airport strikes. In 1989, Eastern Airlines pilots struck, and at the San Francisco airport activists stalled clunker vehicles in the terminal roadway, slashing their tires so they couldn't be easily moved. Traffic soon backed up and stopped the freeway - an experience that neither airport law enforcement and police nor the airport workers themselves have forgotten.
Less than half of the workers at Sky Chefs and Gate Gourmet have employer-provided health insurance, and only 10 percent have health coverage for their families.
But today, the level of frustration among workers and their union is growing. The denial of their right to strike will inevitably lead to further, and possibly more confrontational actions. Other airport workers will likely support them. This February many not only watched with obvious self-interest as the roadway was blocked, but also picketed alongside the kitchen workers. A group of pilots in uniform, some doubtless old enough to remember Eastern Airlines, joined the food service workers as well.
Airports are vulnerable. And they are as big a factor in the economy today as the railroads were when the Railway Labor Act was passed. SFO alone produced $10.7 billion in revenue in 2018 and employs 46,000 people. American Airlines, which pays Sky Chefs and Gate Gourmet, and determines what the food workers earn, made $1.9 billion in profit last year.
Yet less than half of the workers at Sky Chefs and Gate Gourmet have employer-provided health insurance, and only 10 percent have health coverage for their families.
"My health care is so unaffordable that I avoid important medical tests because I can't afford the bills," charged Local 2 member Linda Fajardo. "I work 12 hours a day just to make ends meet. American Airlines is rich enough to make sure that I can see the doctor and have a decent life."
Local 2's president, Anand Singh, was among those arrested in the street outside the terminal. He warned, "One job should be enough for the workers who cater American Airlines flights, and we're ready to do whatever it takes to make that happen." The National Mediation Board, whose members are appointed by the president, could seemingly care less.
The following are a selection from a wider set of images that you can see here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/56646659@N05/albums/72157713126601497
Airline kitchen workers, members of UNITE HERE Local 2, picket at the American Airlines terminal at San Francisco International Airport.
Airline kitchen workers picket at the American Airlines terminal at San Francisco International Airport.
Supporters of Bernie Sanders picket with airline food workers. UNITE HERE Local 2 has endorsed Sanders.
Workers enter the terminal to begin their civil disobedience.
Airline kitchen workers conduct a die-in at the American Airlines terminal at SFO.
Airline kitchen workers conduct a die-in at the American Airlines terminal at SFO.
Kevin O'Connor, regional organizer for Local 2, goes over the plan for civil disobedience with workers and supporters.
Tho Do, former secretary-treasurer of Local 2, leads demonstrators in sitting down in the roadway outside the American Airlines terminal.
Tina Chen, Local 2 secretary-treasurer, sits in the roadway with other Local 2 members and supporters.
Mike Casey, former president of Local 2, and Rudy Gonzalez, executive secretary of the San Francisco Labor Council, prepare to get arrested.
Police begin to arrest workers and supporters sitting in the roadway outside the American Airlines terminal.
As they prepare to be arrested, workers hold a banner shaming American Airlines.
Olga Miranda, president of San Francisco's janitors' union, SEIU Local 87, is arrested for sitting in the roadway.
Pilots march with airline food service workers outside the American Airlines terminal.
After the arrests and civil disobedience, airline kitchen workers continue to picket outside the terminal.
Photos and Story By David Bacon,
Truthout March 3, 2020
https://truthout.org/articles/barred-from-striking-airline-food-workers-seek-other-ways-to-protest/
Melieni Cruz, who helps prepare the meals passengers eat on airplanes, went thousands of dollars into debt because she couldn't pay her soaring medical bills. "When the doctor found cysts on my ovaries, I had to save for a year to afford the procedure, and my cysts got bigger and more painful the whole time," she said as she picketed the terminal at San Francisco International Airport (SFO).
Cruz works for LSG Sky Chefs, and her union, UNITE HERE Local 2, has been trying to renegotiate the contract that covers her and 1,500 other workers. The cost of health care premiums and wages are the big sticking points in bargaining. Medicare for All would certainly take Cruz's health care costs off the bargaining table, and ensure that she gets treatment without having to endure a year in pain to save enough money for it.
That's an important reason why Local 2 endorsed Bernie Sanders, who campaigned for Medicare for All long before the current presidential nomination race. Cruz went to work for LSG Sky Chefs for the medical coverage, for which she pays $150 a month on a wage of $18.16/hour. The deductible on the $8,000 surgery she needed put a huge hole in her income, and she's now afraid to go to the doctor.
Preserving affordable health care was one of the reasons why Local 2 went on strike at the Marriott hotels in San Francisco a year ago. For 61 days, hotel workers mounted picket lines in a strike coordinated with other UNITE HERE locals in nine cities. The union has one of the best health plans of any San Francisco union, paid for by the hotels, and workers struck to keep the hotels from making them pay for it. Fear of losing a similar plan kept Local 2's sister union in Las Vegas from supporting Sanders and Medicare for All, but many of its members voted for him anyway, knowing that not every worker in Las Vegas enjoys the health care that the casino workers have fought for.
In the airline food kitchens, however, the situation is very different. Roberto Alvarez, a worker who loads food onto planes, says, "I prepare food and beverage for some of the world's biggest airlines, but I have to go to a free clinic because my company insurance is so expensive that I can't afford it."
What's keeping airline food workers from following in the footsteps of their fellow Local 2 members in the hotels is an antiquated labor law. Candidates on the left side of the Democratic Party have supported some aspects of labor law reform that would make it easier to form unions. But the airline food workers' situation highlights the need for a further reform that has yet to make it onto the stage in the Democratic candidate debates.
Hotel workers in Local 2 and a handful of its sister unions around the country used a multicity strike to put pressure on the Marriott hotel chain - the world's largest hotel operator by far. Hotel workers are covered by the National Labor Relations Act. Under that law, striking can still be dangerous for workers, who risk being replaced by strikebreakers. But at least they can strike.
Effectively, Cruz, Alvarez, and the kitchen and catering workers in the airports cannot. Last June they took votes to strike in multiple cities. In San Francisco, 99 percent of the nearly 1,600 workers voted to strike for better conditions. But the Railway Labor Act keeps them from using the tactic hotel workers found so effective.
In order to shut down the U.S. economy, workers must stop goods and people from moving. That's a basic lesson in this country they learned the hard way on the railroads, in the years when the modern labor movement was born over a century and a half ago. Today airports fulfill the same function railroad stations did a century and more ago. A national job action in airports could bring transportation to a halt, much as strikes on the railroads did over a century ago. The Railway Labor Act was structured to keep both from happening.
To see how this repressive stranglehold was created, we have to go back to 1877, when Congress ended Reconstruction, withdrawing troops from the South that had protected the political enfranchisement of Black people following the Civil War. That same year the Great Railway Strike broke out in West Virginia. From Pennsylvania to Illinois, furious impoverished strikers burned roundhouses and railway cars. Troops - no longer protecting Black voting rights - were sent instead to put down what the government and the railroad barons feared was a worker insurrection.
One striking worker told the newspapers, "I had might as well die by the bullet as to starve to death by inches."
A quarter century later, workers again tried to cut the railroads' steel arteries. Eugene Debs organized the American Railway Union and led a quarter of a million workers in 27 states in one of the bitterest strikes in labor history. Once again, the Federal government called in the U.S. Army, broke the strike, and sent Debs to prison, where he became a socialist and war resister.
Despite violent repression, that long strike movement eventually forced Congress in 1916 to grant railroad workers a decades-old demand: the eight-hour day. When railroad workers won it, others demanded and won it too.
But as World War I unfolded, Debs - railing against the war - was sent to prison again, declaring, "While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." As Debs sat behind bars, President Woodrow Wilson and Congress created a Railroad Labor Board, which then cut wages. Railroad workers began another national strike; the Board declared it illegal, and the Department of Justice carried out the board's prohibition.
Then Congress passed the Railway Labor Act, to make sure that never happened again. The law's overt purpose was to make it virtually impossible for railroad workers to go on strike, by setting up an arbitration process under a National Mediation Board, which could last almost indefinitely. Unions were prohibited from taking job action before they'd exhausted its interminable steps. And as air travel became common, in 1936 Congress put the workers in the airline industry under the Act as well.
Today, this history of repression traps workers far from the cabs of locomotives or the cockpits of airplanes, but with effects as devastating in their way as the predicament described by the striker almost 150 years ago.
In an earlier era, transportation workers faced violence, but at least they could take action against the robber barons who directly employed them. Today, the airlines are not only protected by the Railway Labor Act, but by the fact that they long ago contracted out their meal preparation. They control the income of workers by negotiating the price of meals they pay to the kitchen companies, but the airlines are not the workers' legal employer. In response to February's demonstration, American Airlines in fact claimed, "We are not in a position to control the outcome of their negotiations or dictate what wages or benefits are agreed upon between the catering companies and their employees."
To the union, this is a legal fiction. One important provision of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act - the labor law reform that Democrats passed in the House of Representatives this year - is to limit the ability of corporations to contract out various aspects of their work. It would also prevent the permanent replacement of strikers. But of course, in order to benefit from this proposal if it passes, first workers in the airport kitchens have to win the right to strike itself.
To keep pressure on LSG Sky Chefs and the other main food supplier, Gate Gourmet, workers have picketed the American Airlines terminal periodically and organized sit-ins inside the soaring lobby. In mid-February, airport workers conducted a die-in, lying down inside the terminal while passengers steered their wheelie bags around them.
At the same time as that group of workers lay down inside the terminal, another group of workers walked into the road outside the terminal. Police stopped the stream of cars intent on dropping off passengers, and for half an hour, the union's activists sat singing and chanting on the asphalt as cops arrested each one.
This was a calm action, despite the evident frustration of would-be flyers. But it brought back memories of less diplomatic confrontations during earlier airport strikes. In 1989, Eastern Airlines pilots struck, and at the San Francisco airport activists stalled clunker vehicles in the terminal roadway, slashing their tires so they couldn't be easily moved. Traffic soon backed up and stopped the freeway - an experience that neither airport law enforcement and police nor the airport workers themselves have forgotten.
Less than half of the workers at Sky Chefs and Gate Gourmet have employer-provided health insurance, and only 10 percent have health coverage for their families.
But today, the level of frustration among workers and their union is growing. The denial of their right to strike will inevitably lead to further, and possibly more confrontational actions. Other airport workers will likely support them. This February many not only watched with obvious self-interest as the roadway was blocked, but also picketed alongside the kitchen workers. A group of pilots in uniform, some doubtless old enough to remember Eastern Airlines, joined the food service workers as well.
Airports are vulnerable. And they are as big a factor in the economy today as the railroads were when the Railway Labor Act was passed. SFO alone produced $10.7 billion in revenue in 2018 and employs 46,000 people. American Airlines, which pays Sky Chefs and Gate Gourmet, and determines what the food workers earn, made $1.9 billion in profit last year.
Yet less than half of the workers at Sky Chefs and Gate Gourmet have employer-provided health insurance, and only 10 percent have health coverage for their families.
"My health care is so unaffordable that I avoid important medical tests because I can't afford the bills," charged Local 2 member Linda Fajardo. "I work 12 hours a day just to make ends meet. American Airlines is rich enough to make sure that I can see the doctor and have a decent life."
Local 2's president, Anand Singh, was among those arrested in the street outside the terminal. He warned, "One job should be enough for the workers who cater American Airlines flights, and we're ready to do whatever it takes to make that happen." The National Mediation Board, whose members are appointed by the president, could seemingly care less.
The following are a selection from a wider set of images that you can see here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/56646659@N05/albums/72157713126601497
Airline kitchen workers, members of UNITE HERE Local 2, picket at the American Airlines terminal at San Francisco International Airport.
Airline kitchen workers picket at the American Airlines terminal at San Francisco International Airport.
Supporters of Bernie Sanders picket with airline food workers. UNITE HERE Local 2 has endorsed Sanders.
Workers enter the terminal to begin their civil disobedience.
Airline kitchen workers conduct a die-in at the American Airlines terminal at SFO.
Airline kitchen workers conduct a die-in at the American Airlines terminal at SFO.
Kevin O'Connor, regional organizer for Local 2, goes over the plan for civil disobedience with workers and supporters.
Tho Do, former secretary-treasurer of Local 2, leads demonstrators in sitting down in the roadway outside the American Airlines terminal.
Tina Chen, Local 2 secretary-treasurer, sits in the roadway with other Local 2 members and supporters.
Mike Casey, former president of Local 2, and Rudy Gonzalez, executive secretary of the San Francisco Labor Council, prepare to get arrested.
Police begin to arrest workers and supporters sitting in the roadway outside the American Airlines terminal.
As they prepare to be arrested, workers hold a banner shaming American Airlines.
Olga Miranda, president of San Francisco's janitors' union, SEIU Local 87, is arrested for sitting in the roadway.
Pilots march with airline food service workers outside the American Airlines terminal.
After the arrests and civil disobedience, airline kitchen workers continue to picket outside the terminal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)