More

Bob Ostertag

Bob Ostertag

Posted: December 12, 2008 09:38 PM

Obama Opens the Door, Will Labor Go Through It?


This week demonstrated for all to see two directions for organized labor in the Obama era. You can support laid off workers occupying the factories of their former employers, or you can focus on cutting backroom deals with corrupt politicians.

I know, it's a tough call. Let's see. At best, the backroom deal route lands you on the front page in a very embarrassing light; at worst, you end up maybe in jail.

Occupying a factories, on the other hand, actually wins real stuff for people who are facing a very hard time. They might not have jobs, but at least they got what they were owed. Hooray! But that is trivial compared with what might be won if labor focused more generally on things like mobilizing workers to occupy factories instead of schmoozing the halls of power.

The plain truth is that the economic policies the Obama administration will actually implement will have far less to do with who gets appointed to what post than with whether there is a movement demanding economic justice from whoever's hand is on the policy lever. On the one hand, the people labor would like to see in positions of power will need pushing just as much as anyone from the other sectors of Obama's coalition. On the other hand, the "centrists" Obama has been naming are particularly vulnerable to being pushed right now. Given the scale of the crisis, they themselves are unsure of what to do, and this uncertainty will open doors for workers that would otherwise be closed. Just as importantly, the forces on the other side of the equation are so weak. Big capital is just as unsure of what to do as the technocrats in the center, and anyway corporate power has so little credibility at the moment it hardly matters what they think. Witness the big three automakers being rebuffed by the Republican minority in the Senate.

The centrist who should be pushed more than anyone is Barack Obama himself. And what is most promising of all, it seems that this view is shared by the President-elect himself. Speaking last Sunday of the factory occupation, Obama said,"When it comes to the situation here in Chicago with the workers who are asking for their benefits and payments they have earned, I think they are absolutely right. What's happening to them is reflective of what's happening across this economy."

Say what? Did we just hear the President-Elect of the United States encouraging workers to occupy factories in defense of their rights?

Just to make sure we got this right, here is the rest of the statement:

When you have a financial system that is shaky, credit contracts. Businesses large and small start cutting back on their plants and equipment and their workforces. That's why it's so important for us to maintain a strong financial system. But it's also important for us to make sure that the plans and programs that we design aren't just targeted at maintaining the solvency of banks, but they are designed to get money out the doors and to help people on Main Street. So, number one, I think that these workers, if they have earned their benefits and their pay, then these companies need to follow through on those commitments.


Number two, I think it is important for us to make sure that, moving forward, any economic plan we put in place helps businesses to meet payroll so we are not seeing these kinds of circumstances again. Have we done everything that we can to make sure credit is flowing to businesses and to families, and to students who are trying to get loans? And to homeowners who have been making payments on their homes but are still finding their property values so depressed that it becomes very difficult for them to make the mortgage payments?

That's where the rubber hits the road and that's going to be the central focus of my administration.

So, here we have big capital in complete retreat, a bunch of liberal technocrats coming into power, and their incoming boss aligning himself with workers engaged in direct action on the job site. This is not an alignment of forces I expected to see in this country in my lifetime.

The weak link in the chain, by far, is not Obama's much-criticized appointments, but rather the degree of labor mobilization at the base. Obama has essentially invited American workers to come out of the political cold and step into the sunshine. Are their leaders going to accept, or will the keep hanging out in the shadows of power, peddling their economic clout like a bail bond agent?

This week demonstrated for all to see two directions for organized labor in the Obama era. You can support laid off workers occupying the factories of their former employers, or you can focus on cutti...
This week demonstrated for all to see two directions for organized labor in the Obama era. You can support laid off workers occupying the factories of their former employers, or you can focus on cutti...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 12
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
02:23 PM on 12/15/2008
all unions are not created equal. a member of any particular local, could be independant, or affiliate with a regional group. that regional council could be independent or could belong to a national,international, united brotherhood,ect. afl-cio or non afl- cio. So one members union probebly has nothing in common with 90% of all other unions. alhough having common goals, they all work differantly. The airlines unions for example had a different contract with each airline so if a worker left united to go work for delta he left his seniority and benifits behind. the construction trade unions in southern california, carpenters for example signed the same contract with over 250 contractor. the contractors would pay only a per hr rate. and the pension, health, training was managed by the union relieving contractors of those messy personel issues. workers could switch employers without losing. .so in some cases it is not necesery to occupy factories, or try to cut deals with criminals. the answer is for labor is to trian thier workforce. is the u.a.w. doing this so they will be ahead of the game on electric cars or are they going to let someone else install the electrical components and motors in the 2011 chevy's
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Pdubya
01:02 PM on 12/14/2008
the headline is a bit fuzzy to me. shouldn't it read?: "obama opens window, will industry go out through it?"

deficit spending, even for "stimulus" will fall short if expenses are not cut elsewhere that outweigh what is spent on the stimulus.

otherwise, the debasement of our currency will continue. we can not "grow" our way out of this one without serious cuts in federal spending....our debt is too large.

printing and borrowing is sooooooooo pase'.

credit comes from savings, not more credit.
12:49 PM on 12/14/2008
This is interesting ...

"When you have a financial system that is shaky, credit contracts. Businesses large and small start cutting back on their plants and equipment and their workforces. That's why it's so important for us to maintain a strong financial system."

Is it possible to have a sound financial system that doesn't depend on credit ... that outlaws speculation ... that returns dollar for dollar.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elmoor
09:02 AM on 12/14/2008
It's a bottom-up thing, labor members. Make your voices heard.
10:16 PM on 12/13/2008
Laborers Yes... Most of Labor Leaders however have the integrity of an Illinois politician.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
1murillo
Can't be neutral on a moving train - Zinn
09:26 PM on 12/13/2008
It's incredible that BofA, Chase loaned money to Republic with the conditions that the money was to be spent on the workers.

If banks can say this, so can a willful government.

Obama has to hold himself back because otherwise he'll become (more than he already is) a GOP target.

There are a couple of Republicans that are interested in solving problems, but the Shelbys (in the 'move rightward' camp) currently have the GOP reins.
10:46 PM on 12/13/2008
The only reason Bank of America settled with Republic workers was because of Obama. Why? Obama is from Chicago, he supports organized labor, and it would be wise to get on the President Elect's good side. Bank of America didn't do it because they found a conscience.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vjoseph
08:10 PM on 12/13/2008
I think we already saw an inkling that labor is starting to rise up again with the way the UAW defended themselves against the machinations of the GOP. If the big Democratic Tent show a big united front to the GOP, everyone will win. But the key is unity. It's time to stop bickering about the Cabinet picks and start acting like an united front. We are going to need everyone to fall in line to fight the GOP. Don't think for one second they are not going to fight, we already saw that, this week
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
1murillo
Can't be neutral on a moving train - Zinn
09:21 PM on 12/13/2008
I agree.

-- The UAW stood up to the GOP's 'best' this week. The UAW has made and is willing to make unusually extreme concessions, but the GOP stupidly pushed too far.

If GWB doesn't spend the $15,000,000,000 he'll be remembered for the Iraq/Afghan wars, the economic meltdown, the housing collapse and the auto bankruptcy.

Those still calling for 'reorganization' of the Big 3 via Chapter 11 are deluding themselves and trying to hoodwink the reader. Jobs are already being lost, there's a better, more creative solution than saying, "Oops, you failed, hang in there and die slowly."

-- Republic in IL showed how peaceful direct action could work for the people and companies involved. The workers who participated are now 'empowered.' They should serve as ambassadors to much of the union to develop a more action-based movement than current unions.
06:57 PM on 12/13/2008
Oh what a wonderful post. I'm so in favor of strong unions..so in favor. I know this country's rise to greatness was partly due to a strong, healthy middle class, forged by unionization. But, I know -- hell we all know -- that unions have also become corrupt at the top and have often demanded more than is fair. Fairness and justice is key but "the easy life" isn't. Where my husband worked, it was a union place and he was in middle management -- not in the union. Years ago, they stopped paying my husband's health insurance -- any of it -- but the union employees still got theirs fully paid for. A year or so ago, union workers in his industry were asked to "partially pay" for their health insurance -- which is what most US workers are doing. They struck. It was awful for everyone. Finally some bargain was struck with the union getting most of what it wanted and guess what. My husbands place closed a few months ago.

So while I find it awful that management in corporations are paid way too much over their workers but I also despair of union leaders who get humongous salaries, and unions striking for compensation way above what average American workers are getting. So I loved your report because progressives have to be honest about "our side" as well.
09:50 PM on 12/13/2008
You imply the union was responsible for the closure. But no proof for it.
10:30 PM on 12/12/2008
"But it's also important for us to make sure that the plans and programs that we design aren't just targeted at maintaining the solvency of banks, but they are designed to get money out the doors and to help people on Main Street."

Whoa! Who said that? (Almost) POTUS? This is going to take some getting used to.