LiUNA! Laborers' Local 261 San Francisco, CA
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Friday, November 16, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Thursday, October 18, 2012
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
LiUNA! 261 PRECINCT/GOTV/Campaign Events: October 20th in SF, November 3rd in Oakland.
Vote Early, or Vote November 6th!
Board of Supervisors, District 1: David Lee
Board of Supervisors, District 3: David Chiu
Board of Supervisors, District 5: Christina Olague (#1), and London Breed (#2)
Board of Supervisors, District 7: F.X. Crowley (#1), and Norman Yee (#2)
Board of Supervisors, District 9: David Campos
Board of Supervisors, District 11: John Avalos
Board of Education (four seats): Sandra Fewer, Matt Haney, Shaman Walton and Jill Wynns
Community College Board (four seats): Natalie Berg, Chris Jackson, Rafael Mandelman, Rodrigo Santos
Yes on Proposition A (City College Parcel Tax, District Measure)
*Yes on Proposition B (Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond, Bond Measure)
*Yes on Proposition C (Housing Trust Fund, Charter Amendment)
Yes on Proposition D (Consolidating Odd-Year Municipal Elections, Charter Amendment)
*Yes on Proposition E (Gross Receipts Tax, Ordinance)
*No on Proposition F (Water and Environment Plan, Ordinance)
Yes on Proposition G (Policy Opposing Corporate Personhood, Declaration of Policy)
Thursday, April 26, 2012
YES - 8 Washington! 2:00pm May 15, 2012 City Hall: Board of Supervisors.
8 Washington BOS Hearing
TUESDAY, MAY 15 @ 2pm
CITY HALL - Board of Supervisors Chambers, Room 250
*Please send me an email confirming your attendance
Also, there is now still time to send letters of support to the Supervisors. Please let me know if you would like a sample letter of support.
On another brighter note, the project has been the recipient of some positive press in the past week. In case you missed it:
I am pleased to announce that San Francisco Business Times has weighed in once again in support of 8 Washington – in a blistering critique of NIMBY opponents in last Friday’s newspaper – as has planning expert Jim Chappell, the former director SPUR, in an op-ed in yesterday’s Chronicle.
Noting that opponents of 8 Washington can’t win on the merits, the Business Times describes a conscious effort to game the system, in which “delay isn’t just a result of the process … it is the whole point of the process.” The paper reaffirmed its enthusiastic support for the project, whose “merits are considerable, and have been recognized by a lengthening roster of San Francisco organizations.” The Business Times concludes that the president of the Board of Supervisors “has thrown his lot in with this coalition of the narrow-minded. So it is up to the other 10 supervisors to do the right thing. There are always close calls and difficult choices in city government — but this one is easy and obvious.”
Meanwhile, former SPUR director Chappell argued in yesterday’s Chronicle that “if we could set aside the rhetoric for a moment, and look at our Embarcadero, look at this proposal, and look for what is in the best interests of the city, I am confident the majority of San Franciscans would join the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, The Chronicle and others who have urged approval of 8 Washington.”
Placing the heights of the project in perspective and noting the decades of planning that produced 8 Washington, as well as the myriad public benefits, Chappell believes “we as a city have the opportunity to implement smart urban development consistent with hard-fought planning principles.”
Monday, April 23, 2012
Why We Fight, as an Alliance for Jobs & Sustainable Growth, & as a Labor Caucus!
During the last two years, the Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth has made formidable strides toward accomplishing the goals of creating more good paying jobs and fostering sustainable economic growth in San Francisco. This document is intended to set forth an analysis of the environment the Alliance Labor Caucus is working within, together with how we intend to deal with it.
Although our efforts in 2011 were entirely local, just as it is important to see the forest through the trees (because it’s good to know if a firestorm is approaching), it’s wise for us to consider the broader picture and evaluate from that perspective where we are and where we want to go.
The National Scene and What’s at Stake in 2012.
As has been reported by both the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, over the past few decades the national outlook for workers has gone from bad to worse. A quick review of our recent history tells the story. Reaganomics, dominant now for over thirty years, brought an end to a period of prosperity that had extended from 1947 until 1975, not just for the top 1% or 10%, but across the board. After the Great Depression and WWII, Democrats and Republicans alike agreed that a larger role for the federal government was necessary if we were to avoid another crash and keep the nation secure. Labor productivity doubled, as did the median income, while wages for the bottom 20% did even better. This widespread prosperity resulted from the creation of a mixed economy that fostered capital development, while tempering our economy with a strong dose of government over-sight. These included the establishment of reasonable regulations and the creation, over time, of a “safety net” which helped our middle class to grow exponentially, making possible the attainment of a decent standard of living for American workers. Even President Nixon, a conservative Republican, acknowledged this when he stated in 1971: “we are all Keynesians now.”
That all changed beginning with the presidency of Ronald Reagan, who famously declared in 1981, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Ever since, taxes on the rich have been slashed along with government expenditures on public services, infrastructure, education, environmental protections, alternative energy, housing and research and development. Good jobs became scarce due in part to technological developments, but more so because U. S. manufacturers exported millions of jobs abroad to take advantage of cheap labor. Wages for American workers have flattened since the mid-‘70s and as a result, in an effort to keep up, wage earners worked longer hours and borrowed more while unemployment and under-employment soared. The middle class got smaller and the “American Dream” became nothing but a dream for too many. It is being asserted by many that our country is in decline and that drastic changes will be necessary if things are to be turned around. (Republicans can’t take all the blame for aiding the rush towards income inequality. It was Bill Clinton who declared: “the era of big government is over” in the late 1990s, as his administration was deregulating the financial markets.) However, some Americans escaped the downslide. While the standard of living for the middle class deteriorated, compensation for CEOs and the top 5% increased enormously. This, despite the fact that the 2008 financial meltdown was caused in significant part by highly paid CEOs who had for years been leading their companies into illegal practices and/or bankruptcy. Much of their money was made off of inflated housing prices and clever new financial instruments that concealed risk. Nonetheless, as the housing bubble was bursting and their firms were headed towards bankruptcy, many of Wall Street’s financial wizards continued to take home millions of dollars in bonuses. The Republicans today are far to the right of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon (and so are too many Democrats) and more in line with the Robber Barons of the 19th century. This became evident when in Wisconsin, Scott Walker led a Republican effort (other Republican governors took similar actions) to reverse public sector collective bargaining statutes that several decades earlier had been supported and enacted by both Democratic and Republican administrations and legislatures. We know from our own past that similar periods of unacceptable levels of income inequality occurred and were overcome. The Gilded Age at the end of the 19th century (dominated by corporate robber barons) and the Roaring Twenties that led to the Great Depression, were also caused by corruption, financial excesses and inordinate corporate control over government. Nonetheless, both periods produced broad-based progressive movements capable of resonating with voters--- backed by the labor movement. It was the progressive movement that succeeded in mobilizing sufficient support to persuade the government to produce the economic system that brought about the era of broad prosperity mentioned above. Government was not then perceived as “the problem” but was unmistakably a critical and necessary part of the solution. It was the government---not the private sector--- that produced a federal income tax, fair labor standards, women’s suffrage and the direct election of senators in the early 20th century. Then again, during and after the Great Depression and WWII, it was the government that pushed the economy towards full employment, established progressive tax rates (with steep rates on the top income earners), gave us the G.I. Bill, enacted reasonable financial regulations, created social security, set minimum wage rates, established the 40 hour work week, passed the NLRB (approximately 1/3 of workers were union members in the mid-1950s), provided for Medicare---and finally, adopted effective legislation intended to assure equal opportunity for all Americans. All of these government actions were taken as a result of progressive movements that were solidly supported by an overwhelming majority of the labor movement. What is at stake in 2012 is the standard of living of Americans who work for a living, those who make up the major part of our Country’s widely heralded middle class. The November 2012 election will see a conservative Republican candidate for President who is intent on destroying the mixed economy that was created in the 20th century by deeply diminishing the role of government. He (or she) and his party will seek to return to an age where there was virtually no regulation of the economy, a diminished safety net and no right to engage in collective bargaining. They will claim they seek to establish a “free market” economic system based on unfettered capitalism--- but that is just the rhetoric they use to argue for dismantling the “safety net.” In fact, Big Business has become quite adept at gaining government assistance in exploiting our natural resources and obtaining government loans, subsidies, tax breaks and other forms of favorable treatment. When they assert they stand for “freedom” and “free markets” what they mean is freedom for Wall Street and Big Business from consumer safeguards, taxes and oversight. It was the lack of such oversight that began with deregulation under the Clinton Administration and continued under President Bush that led to the bursting of the stock market bubble in 2000 and the financial crash that began in 2008. Should the economic policies now being urged by either of the two remaining Republican candidates for President be implemented, our nation will definitely be in decline, as will the standard of living of the overwhelming majority of Americans. The Potential for Labor in San Francisco San Francisco has been an epicenter of liberal activism at least since the1960s when there were protests against the House Un-American Activities Committee at City Hall and sit-ins and demonstrations in support of the Civil Rights Movement at the Sheraton Palace Hotel and “Auto Row” on Van Ness Avenue. The City is and has for some time been, by any reasonable definition, one of the most progressive in the country. A large majority of residents is supportive of all of the progressive achievements set forth above and our local population is as pro-labor as that of any major city in the United States. In addition, issues popular with progressives such as campaign finance reform, the “single payer” approach to health care reform, the development of clean, safe alternative energy, social and economic equality and affordable housing--- are all popular in San Francisco. Finally, the City’s electorate has consistently voted for the Democratic Party candidates in state and national elections and will undoubtedly vote once again in November 2012 overwhelmingly against the Republican candidate for President. Last November, our City’s progressive character was clearly demonstrated by solid votes in favor of bond measures requiring significant expenditures for schools and street repairs (both needed and received over two thirds of the vote). In addition, 69 % of the voters approved Proposition C, a consensus pension reform measure negotiated by Mayor Lee and City labor organizations, while rejecting Proposition D, a competing measure that would have saved taxpayers significantly more. Proposition D was defeated because, unlike Proposition C, it was not arrived at by consensus with the city’s public sector labor organizations. Clearly a large majority of San Franciscans is not anti-labor and the City remains a place where progressive issues, including those most essential to the labor community, can obtain wide support. “Bay Guardian Progressives”. However, something seems to be amiss. Despite this favorable environment, Labor’s ability to move a pro-jobs, pro-working family agenda in San Francisco is and has been under threat from the same kind of gridlock politics that grips the nation. Ironically, however, the parties who lead the charge here come from the left, not the right - a few individuals, previously recognized as leaders of San Francisco’s liberal or progressive majority, who are no longer in sync with the City’s residents. In an effort to retain what influence they have and/or regain what influence they lost, they have sought divisive issues to rally around, rather than to address the many concerns that would resonate with San Francisco’s broader progressive base. These “Bay Guardian Progressives” (they acquired their name from BeyondChron’s Randy Shaw) have by their actions defined a “progressive” so narrowly as to exclude a great many San Franciscans who regularly support progressive issues and self-identify as progressives. Excluded would be tens of thousands of progressive San Franciscans who are deeply concerned about the need for more good jobs; the state of our national, state and local economies; the shrinking middle class; the escalating cost of education, affordable/workforce housing and increasing income inequality. Particularly problematic for labor is the fact that these “progressive” leaders have too often given too little weight to jobs and the local economy when balancing the pros and cons of private sector projects. Aaron Peskin, a full-fledged Bay Guardian Progressive, gained prominence while on the Board of Supervisors when the economy was quite good. He and his like-minded colleagues were successful for a period and must be credited with some quite important accomplishments. For example, they significantly slowed the proliferation of live-work lofts in middle class neighborhoods; made clear affordable housing, protections for tenants and other compensation would be required by developers in return for their projects; gave the Board authority to appoint members of some important city commissions, and passed the City’s Health Care Security Ordinance. Their endorsements became gold for a while, and many thought a real “progressive machine” had arrived that could sustain itself. However, Aaron and some of his adherents lost much of their support when they began engaging in self-serving political tactics in an attempt to maintain or regain political power. The most notable activity of these “progressives” (Bay Guardian variety) after the selection of Ed Lee as interim-mayor was to propose in July 2011 three measures for the November ballot. All three were politically motivated reactions to legislation that had been passed by majorities of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (BOS) over their objections. The first was to overturn the very popular “Care not Cash” measure that was implemented in May 2004 and which placed over 3,500 homeless clients in permanent housing, decreased the number of clients receiving County Adult Assistance 85%, from 2,334 to approximately 360, and saved about $14 million--- which was used to finance 1,300 units of permanent supportive housing and related services. The second was to ban the demolition of apartment houses with 50 or more rental units (a reaction to the passage by a majority of the BOS of the Park Merced development project) and the third sought to ban the leasing of park facilities, including clubhouses and prohibit charging any new entrance fees, even those on non-residents (this was a reaction to a failed effort by Aaron Peskin and a minority of the “progressive” supervisors to discontinue a small entry fee on non-residents at the botanical gardens in Golden Gate Park). However, their political motives were transparent and the issues they chose in an effort to rally what was their base of support, were less than inspirational. In fact, the three measures generated widespread opposition and within a few weeks Board members who had voted to put the measures on the ballot began withdrawing their support. As a result, none reached the ballot. However, the former progressive leaders would run one more play. In 2007 the City had expanded its Medicaid and other indigent medical programs into the “Healthy San Francisco” program, which subsidizes certain medical services for eligible residents. It’s a great program for which the San Francisco Labor Council (SFLC) and Supervisor Campos deserve much credit. However, there was a “loophole” in the law, which some small businesses were taking advantage of to avoid making payments. The Mayor and all members of the BOS agreed the loophole had to be closed, but there was disagreement as to how that should be accomplished. The “progressive” approach would clearly close the loophole, but at a price that would negatively impact small businesses that were complying with the intent of the legislation, in addition to those who were not. The Mayor and Supervisor David Chiu introduced a less costly compromise amendment that also was intended to close the loophole. However, if this proposal did not produce the desired results (the program would be closely monitored), further remedial action would be taken to assure all were paying the amounts contemplated by the ordinance. Mayor Lee and Supervisor Chiu’s compromise proposal was enacted---after which the “progressives” claimed they would see to it their proposal would be on the June 2012 ballot. While this saga has not yet played out, the insistence on plugging the loophole one way rather than another is not likely to become the kind of galvanizing issue the “progressives” were hoping for. Positive Mood-Shift at City Hall. While these former progressive leaders were looking for issues with which to distinguish themselves, the local media was reporting favorably on a noticeable mood shift at City Hall. The Interim Mayor (Ed Lee) and the Board of Supervisors were getting things done with less political grandstanding and bickering. Major private sector projects had been approved for Bayview/Hunters Point, Treasure Island and Parkmerced that will produce tens of thousands of good jobs for many years. The Mayor and Board President David Chiu also laid the groundwork for the revitalization of the Mid-Market area (and more good jobs) by allowing Twitter to benefit from a temporary payroll tax exemption. (Sometimes a tax break for business makes sense for all of us.) Yet, the “Bay Guardian Progressives” opposed all of these projects. In doing so they were not just out of sync with most workers and San Franciscans, but also began to be perceived as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. San Franciscans for the most part were increasingly concerned with growing income inequality, other threats to the middle class including the lack of workforce housing, increases in foreclosures and poverty, a dearth of new job opportunities and the escalating costs of health care and education. Improving our local economy and creating thousands of jobs in the private sector would go a long way to solving some of these problems, at least to the extent that could be done locally, and Mayor Lee and a majority of the members of the Board seemed on the right track. By contrast, the “progressive” opposition seemed obstructionist. Overturning “Care not Cash,” opposing the continuance of a small entrance fee on non-residents at the botanical gardens and insisting on one method of “plugging the loophole” in the Health care Security Ordinance over another, were not the kind of issues that were going to inspire a broad enough following for the “progressives” to regain their political mojo. It was not a surprise then when in November 2011, the voters in this progressive, democratic city elected a progressive Democrat, Ed Lee, to the office of Mayor. The Bay Guardian, DCCC and the SFLC. While the Bay Guardian, as an alternative newspaper, may take pride in being in the vanguard of what it defines as a “progressive” movement, one might expect a somewhat more pragmatic approach for the Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) and the San Francisco Labor Council (SFLC). After all, the DCCC and the SFLC are expected to bring home the bacon for their constituents, rather than experiment with different philosophical or ideological approaches. In San Francisco, where Democrats outnumber Republicans six to one, one would think the Democratic Party endorsed candidates would be winning rather handily. However, rather than moderate their positions with respect to the endorsement of candidates, to allow them to remain in step with their constituents (something that would have happened naturally had the DCCC broadened its base of support beyond Districts 5, 6, 8 and 9), the DCCC, while under the influence of the “progressives”, apparently chose not to do so. As a result, the DCCC’s leadership has most recently been illusory with respect to the candidates it has endorsed. The San Francisco Labor Council (SFLC) has, from our perspective, been all too quick to support these former progressive leaders. This hasn’t worked out well. For example, during the last two years the SFLC, in response to its affiliates, declared as its top priority the defeat of pension reform measures that were sponsored and put on the ballot by “progressives” without consulting with the affected unions---Proposition B in 2010 and Proposition D in 2011. The financial and human resources spent to defeat these two “pension reform” measures by local labor unions and their members were enormous. Yet, the major campaigns supporting both of these propositions were led by Matt Gonzalez and Jeff Adachi. Gonzalez was one of the “progressives” who had been endorsed by the SFLC (against Mayor Newsome) and in 2011 the SFLC very publicly announced its alliance with the DCCC---while the DCCC was itself endorsing Jeff Adachi (then simultaneously campaigning for both the office of Public Defender and leading the campaign in support of Proposition B). Another “progressive,” Chris Daly, also armed with previous SFLC endorsements, supported Adachi and Gonzalez when he publicly opposed Proposition C in 2011. The recent endorsement by the SFLC of City Attorney Dennis Herrera for Mayor was also a bad choice for labor as Herrera’s campaign, attempting to distinguish their candidate from others in the field, featured his opposition to the 1.7-mile Central Subway project. This is a project that had been backed by labor for decades as well as by all of San Francisco’s mayors since Diane Feinstein, by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Senator Barbara Boxer and dozens of members and former members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Strong support from the start came from leaders of the City’s Chinese-American community, which was only intensified when the Embarcadero Freeway and its Broadway ramp were demolished after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, severing a connection between Chinatown’s concentrated population of Chinese immigrants and the Bay Area’s larger Chinese-American community. This federally funded project will bring into the City almost $1 billion U.S. dollars and thousands of union jobs, while saving users of the San Francisco transit system 7,800 hours each workday. The SFLC’s endorsement of Herrera seems to have been based on his having been endorsed by the DCCC, the Bay Guardian and other “progressive” leaders--- and not because he was supportive of a labor agenda. Finally, the SFLC’s leadership, evidently seeing a need to revive the “progressives”, was quick to support them in their failed effort to regain their political clout by having placed on the ballot measures overturning “Care Not Cash”, banning fees on non-residents for use of city park properties and the demolition of apartment houses of 50 or more units as mentioned above. The Alliance Labor Caucus. Members of the Alliance Labor Caucus are proud members of their unions and the labor organizations they are affiliated with. We have come together to take advantage of an opportunity to work with the business community and our local government to the extent we can, in support of political, community and business efforts to make San Francisco a better place for our members to live, work, and educate our children. Alliances such as that which we have formed have been very successful in the past in San Francisco and elsewhere, and the people of San Francisco seem most receptive. However, while our inclination is to also support Democratic Party endorsed candidates and that party’s platform, we will not go down the same road as the “Bay Guardian Progressives” and the DCCC when they take position on political issues and candidates clearly in opposition to the basic needs of our memberships, as has been the case all too often. The danger of continuing to follow the lead of the now out-of-favor “Bay Guardian Progressives” is in our opinion, that were we to do so we could easily slip into the same political dysfunction all too apparent in Washington D.C. The inability of the two major parties to engage in good faith negotiations and reach the compromises obviously necessary for the good of our country, is now recognized world-wide as a the major overriding problem preventing us from effectively dealing with our economic troubles. We do not believe that it would be good for San Francisco to follow that example--- and that is where the “progressives” who have sought to regain political control have unfortunately been willing to lead us to regain their political power. Thus, last year the Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth endorsed Ed Lee for Mayor, something that could not have been accomplished without the full support of the Alliance Labor Caucus. That support was there, despite his not being endorsed by either the DCCC or the SFLC, because Ed Lee, a former civil rights attorney, was very good on our issues (his campaign declared jobs and the local economy to be his top priorities and his record as Mayor previously and since has shown that commitment to be real); he was not hostile to any of our political allies, to any responsible neighborhood or community organizations, nor to any other entities that we were concerned with; and he was clearly electable (polls showed his favorable ratings to be far better than any other candidate in the field). Inexplicable to us was the SFLC’s decision to join the DCCC and the Bay Guardian, in deciding not to endorse as its first, second or third choice for Mayor, the progressive, democratic candidate that all polls showed was most likely to be elected. Whatever their rationale---and we can only surmise it was due in significant part to its close relationship to the DCCC and particularly its Chair, we were compelled to move in a different direction on behalf of our memberships. We believe that San Francisco’s unions can best serve their memberships by making a serious and honest effort, together with the labor organizations they are affiliated with, to work with the Lee Administration and the business community when they can on issues of mutual concern---and that is what we are going to do. San Francisco’s progressive residents, who have clearly expressed their desire to see the City get things done with a minimal amount of political bickering, deserve no less.
As has been reported by both the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, over the past few decades the national outlook for workers has gone from bad to worse. A quick review of our recent history tells the story. Reaganomics, dominant now for over thirty years, brought an end to a period of prosperity that had extended from 1947 until 1975, not just for the top 1% or 10%, but across the board. After the Great Depression and WWII, Democrats and Republicans alike agreed that a larger role for the federal government was necessary if we were to avoid another crash and keep the nation secure. Labor productivity doubled, as did the median income, while wages for the bottom 20% did even better. This widespread prosperity resulted from the creation of a mixed economy that fostered capital development, while tempering our economy with a strong dose of government over-sight. These included the establishment of reasonable regulations and the creation, over time, of a “safety net” which helped our middle class to grow exponentially, making possible the attainment of a decent standard of living for American workers. Even President Nixon, a conservative Republican, acknowledged this when he stated in 1971: “we are all Keynesians now.”
That all changed beginning with the presidency of Ronald Reagan, who famously declared in 1981, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Ever since, taxes on the rich have been slashed along with government expenditures on public services, infrastructure, education, environmental protections, alternative energy, housing and research and development. Good jobs became scarce due in part to technological developments, but more so because U. S. manufacturers exported millions of jobs abroad to take advantage of cheap labor. Wages for American workers have flattened since the mid-‘70s and as a result, in an effort to keep up, wage earners worked longer hours and borrowed more while unemployment and under-employment soared. The middle class got smaller and the “American Dream” became nothing but a dream for too many. It is being asserted by many that our country is in decline and that drastic changes will be necessary if things are to be turned around. (Republicans can’t take all the blame for aiding the rush towards income inequality. It was Bill Clinton who declared: “the era of big government is over” in the late 1990s, as his administration was deregulating the financial markets.) However, some Americans escaped the downslide. While the standard of living for the middle class deteriorated, compensation for CEOs and the top 5% increased enormously. This, despite the fact that the 2008 financial meltdown was caused in significant part by highly paid CEOs who had for years been leading their companies into illegal practices and/or bankruptcy. Much of their money was made off of inflated housing prices and clever new financial instruments that concealed risk. Nonetheless, as the housing bubble was bursting and their firms were headed towards bankruptcy, many of Wall Street’s financial wizards continued to take home millions of dollars in bonuses. The Republicans today are far to the right of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon (and so are too many Democrats) and more in line with the Robber Barons of the 19th century. This became evident when in Wisconsin, Scott Walker led a Republican effort (other Republican governors took similar actions) to reverse public sector collective bargaining statutes that several decades earlier had been supported and enacted by both Democratic and Republican administrations and legislatures. We know from our own past that similar periods of unacceptable levels of income inequality occurred and were overcome. The Gilded Age at the end of the 19th century (dominated by corporate robber barons) and the Roaring Twenties that led to the Great Depression, were also caused by corruption, financial excesses and inordinate corporate control over government. Nonetheless, both periods produced broad-based progressive movements capable of resonating with voters--- backed by the labor movement. It was the progressive movement that succeeded in mobilizing sufficient support to persuade the government to produce the economic system that brought about the era of broad prosperity mentioned above. Government was not then perceived as “the problem” but was unmistakably a critical and necessary part of the solution. It was the government---not the private sector--- that produced a federal income tax, fair labor standards, women’s suffrage and the direct election of senators in the early 20th century. Then again, during and after the Great Depression and WWII, it was the government that pushed the economy towards full employment, established progressive tax rates (with steep rates on the top income earners), gave us the G.I. Bill, enacted reasonable financial regulations, created social security, set minimum wage rates, established the 40 hour work week, passed the NLRB (approximately 1/3 of workers were union members in the mid-1950s), provided for Medicare---and finally, adopted effective legislation intended to assure equal opportunity for all Americans. All of these government actions were taken as a result of progressive movements that were solidly supported by an overwhelming majority of the labor movement. What is at stake in 2012 is the standard of living of Americans who work for a living, those who make up the major part of our Country’s widely heralded middle class. The November 2012 election will see a conservative Republican candidate for President who is intent on destroying the mixed economy that was created in the 20th century by deeply diminishing the role of government. He (or she) and his party will seek to return to an age where there was virtually no regulation of the economy, a diminished safety net and no right to engage in collective bargaining. They will claim they seek to establish a “free market” economic system based on unfettered capitalism--- but that is just the rhetoric they use to argue for dismantling the “safety net.” In fact, Big Business has become quite adept at gaining government assistance in exploiting our natural resources and obtaining government loans, subsidies, tax breaks and other forms of favorable treatment. When they assert they stand for “freedom” and “free markets” what they mean is freedom for Wall Street and Big Business from consumer safeguards, taxes and oversight. It was the lack of such oversight that began with deregulation under the Clinton Administration and continued under President Bush that led to the bursting of the stock market bubble in 2000 and the financial crash that began in 2008. Should the economic policies now being urged by either of the two remaining Republican candidates for President be implemented, our nation will definitely be in decline, as will the standard of living of the overwhelming majority of Americans. The Potential for Labor in San Francisco San Francisco has been an epicenter of liberal activism at least since the1960s when there were protests against the House Un-American Activities Committee at City Hall and sit-ins and demonstrations in support of the Civil Rights Movement at the Sheraton Palace Hotel and “Auto Row” on Van Ness Avenue. The City is and has for some time been, by any reasonable definition, one of the most progressive in the country. A large majority of residents is supportive of all of the progressive achievements set forth above and our local population is as pro-labor as that of any major city in the United States. In addition, issues popular with progressives such as campaign finance reform, the “single payer” approach to health care reform, the development of clean, safe alternative energy, social and economic equality and affordable housing--- are all popular in San Francisco. Finally, the City’s electorate has consistently voted for the Democratic Party candidates in state and national elections and will undoubtedly vote once again in November 2012 overwhelmingly against the Republican candidate for President. Last November, our City’s progressive character was clearly demonstrated by solid votes in favor of bond measures requiring significant expenditures for schools and street repairs (both needed and received over two thirds of the vote). In addition, 69 % of the voters approved Proposition C, a consensus pension reform measure negotiated by Mayor Lee and City labor organizations, while rejecting Proposition D, a competing measure that would have saved taxpayers significantly more. Proposition D was defeated because, unlike Proposition C, it was not arrived at by consensus with the city’s public sector labor organizations. Clearly a large majority of San Franciscans is not anti-labor and the City remains a place where progressive issues, including those most essential to the labor community, can obtain wide support. “Bay Guardian Progressives”. However, something seems to be amiss. Despite this favorable environment, Labor’s ability to move a pro-jobs, pro-working family agenda in San Francisco is and has been under threat from the same kind of gridlock politics that grips the nation. Ironically, however, the parties who lead the charge here come from the left, not the right - a few individuals, previously recognized as leaders of San Francisco’s liberal or progressive majority, who are no longer in sync with the City’s residents. In an effort to retain what influence they have and/or regain what influence they lost, they have sought divisive issues to rally around, rather than to address the many concerns that would resonate with San Francisco’s broader progressive base. These “Bay Guardian Progressives” (they acquired their name from BeyondChron’s Randy Shaw) have by their actions defined a “progressive” so narrowly as to exclude a great many San Franciscans who regularly support progressive issues and self-identify as progressives. Excluded would be tens of thousands of progressive San Franciscans who are deeply concerned about the need for more good jobs; the state of our national, state and local economies; the shrinking middle class; the escalating cost of education, affordable/workforce housing and increasing income inequality. Particularly problematic for labor is the fact that these “progressive” leaders have too often given too little weight to jobs and the local economy when balancing the pros and cons of private sector projects. Aaron Peskin, a full-fledged Bay Guardian Progressive, gained prominence while on the Board of Supervisors when the economy was quite good. He and his like-minded colleagues were successful for a period and must be credited with some quite important accomplishments. For example, they significantly slowed the proliferation of live-work lofts in middle class neighborhoods; made clear affordable housing, protections for tenants and other compensation would be required by developers in return for their projects; gave the Board authority to appoint members of some important city commissions, and passed the City’s Health Care Security Ordinance. Their endorsements became gold for a while, and many thought a real “progressive machine” had arrived that could sustain itself. However, Aaron and some of his adherents lost much of their support when they began engaging in self-serving political tactics in an attempt to maintain or regain political power. The most notable activity of these “progressives” (Bay Guardian variety) after the selection of Ed Lee as interim-mayor was to propose in July 2011 three measures for the November ballot. All three were politically motivated reactions to legislation that had been passed by majorities of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (BOS) over their objections. The first was to overturn the very popular “Care not Cash” measure that was implemented in May 2004 and which placed over 3,500 homeless clients in permanent housing, decreased the number of clients receiving County Adult Assistance 85%, from 2,334 to approximately 360, and saved about $14 million--- which was used to finance 1,300 units of permanent supportive housing and related services. The second was to ban the demolition of apartment houses with 50 or more rental units (a reaction to the passage by a majority of the BOS of the Park Merced development project) and the third sought to ban the leasing of park facilities, including clubhouses and prohibit charging any new entrance fees, even those on non-residents (this was a reaction to a failed effort by Aaron Peskin and a minority of the “progressive” supervisors to discontinue a small entry fee on non-residents at the botanical gardens in Golden Gate Park). However, their political motives were transparent and the issues they chose in an effort to rally what was their base of support, were less than inspirational. In fact, the three measures generated widespread opposition and within a few weeks Board members who had voted to put the measures on the ballot began withdrawing their support. As a result, none reached the ballot. However, the former progressive leaders would run one more play. In 2007 the City had expanded its Medicaid and other indigent medical programs into the “Healthy San Francisco” program, which subsidizes certain medical services for eligible residents. It’s a great program for which the San Francisco Labor Council (SFLC) and Supervisor Campos deserve much credit. However, there was a “loophole” in the law, which some small businesses were taking advantage of to avoid making payments. The Mayor and all members of the BOS agreed the loophole had to be closed, but there was disagreement as to how that should be accomplished. The “progressive” approach would clearly close the loophole, but at a price that would negatively impact small businesses that were complying with the intent of the legislation, in addition to those who were not. The Mayor and Supervisor David Chiu introduced a less costly compromise amendment that also was intended to close the loophole. However, if this proposal did not produce the desired results (the program would be closely monitored), further remedial action would be taken to assure all were paying the amounts contemplated by the ordinance. Mayor Lee and Supervisor Chiu’s compromise proposal was enacted---after which the “progressives” claimed they would see to it their proposal would be on the June 2012 ballot. While this saga has not yet played out, the insistence on plugging the loophole one way rather than another is not likely to become the kind of galvanizing issue the “progressives” were hoping for. Positive Mood-Shift at City Hall. While these former progressive leaders were looking for issues with which to distinguish themselves, the local media was reporting favorably on a noticeable mood shift at City Hall. The Interim Mayor (Ed Lee) and the Board of Supervisors were getting things done with less political grandstanding and bickering. Major private sector projects had been approved for Bayview/Hunters Point, Treasure Island and Parkmerced that will produce tens of thousands of good jobs for many years. The Mayor and Board President David Chiu also laid the groundwork for the revitalization of the Mid-Market area (and more good jobs) by allowing Twitter to benefit from a temporary payroll tax exemption. (Sometimes a tax break for business makes sense for all of us.) Yet, the “Bay Guardian Progressives” opposed all of these projects. In doing so they were not just out of sync with most workers and San Franciscans, but also began to be perceived as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. San Franciscans for the most part were increasingly concerned with growing income inequality, other threats to the middle class including the lack of workforce housing, increases in foreclosures and poverty, a dearth of new job opportunities and the escalating costs of health care and education. Improving our local economy and creating thousands of jobs in the private sector would go a long way to solving some of these problems, at least to the extent that could be done locally, and Mayor Lee and a majority of the members of the Board seemed on the right track. By contrast, the “progressive” opposition seemed obstructionist. Overturning “Care not Cash,” opposing the continuance of a small entrance fee on non-residents at the botanical gardens and insisting on one method of “plugging the loophole” in the Health care Security Ordinance over another, were not the kind of issues that were going to inspire a broad enough following for the “progressives” to regain their political mojo. It was not a surprise then when in November 2011, the voters in this progressive, democratic city elected a progressive Democrat, Ed Lee, to the office of Mayor. The Bay Guardian, DCCC and the SFLC. While the Bay Guardian, as an alternative newspaper, may take pride in being in the vanguard of what it defines as a “progressive” movement, one might expect a somewhat more pragmatic approach for the Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) and the San Francisco Labor Council (SFLC). After all, the DCCC and the SFLC are expected to bring home the bacon for their constituents, rather than experiment with different philosophical or ideological approaches. In San Francisco, where Democrats outnumber Republicans six to one, one would think the Democratic Party endorsed candidates would be winning rather handily. However, rather than moderate their positions with respect to the endorsement of candidates, to allow them to remain in step with their constituents (something that would have happened naturally had the DCCC broadened its base of support beyond Districts 5, 6, 8 and 9), the DCCC, while under the influence of the “progressives”, apparently chose not to do so. As a result, the DCCC’s leadership has most recently been illusory with respect to the candidates it has endorsed. The San Francisco Labor Council (SFLC) has, from our perspective, been all too quick to support these former progressive leaders. This hasn’t worked out well. For example, during the last two years the SFLC, in response to its affiliates, declared as its top priority the defeat of pension reform measures that were sponsored and put on the ballot by “progressives” without consulting with the affected unions---Proposition B in 2010 and Proposition D in 2011. The financial and human resources spent to defeat these two “pension reform” measures by local labor unions and their members were enormous. Yet, the major campaigns supporting both of these propositions were led by Matt Gonzalez and Jeff Adachi. Gonzalez was one of the “progressives” who had been endorsed by the SFLC (against Mayor Newsome) and in 2011 the SFLC very publicly announced its alliance with the DCCC---while the DCCC was itself endorsing Jeff Adachi (then simultaneously campaigning for both the office of Public Defender and leading the campaign in support of Proposition B). Another “progressive,” Chris Daly, also armed with previous SFLC endorsements, supported Adachi and Gonzalez when he publicly opposed Proposition C in 2011. The recent endorsement by the SFLC of City Attorney Dennis Herrera for Mayor was also a bad choice for labor as Herrera’s campaign, attempting to distinguish their candidate from others in the field, featured his opposition to the 1.7-mile Central Subway project. This is a project that had been backed by labor for decades as well as by all of San Francisco’s mayors since Diane Feinstein, by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Senator Barbara Boxer and dozens of members and former members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Strong support from the start came from leaders of the City’s Chinese-American community, which was only intensified when the Embarcadero Freeway and its Broadway ramp were demolished after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, severing a connection between Chinatown’s concentrated population of Chinese immigrants and the Bay Area’s larger Chinese-American community. This federally funded project will bring into the City almost $1 billion U.S. dollars and thousands of union jobs, while saving users of the San Francisco transit system 7,800 hours each workday. The SFLC’s endorsement of Herrera seems to have been based on his having been endorsed by the DCCC, the Bay Guardian and other “progressive” leaders--- and not because he was supportive of a labor agenda. Finally, the SFLC’s leadership, evidently seeing a need to revive the “progressives”, was quick to support them in their failed effort to regain their political clout by having placed on the ballot measures overturning “Care Not Cash”, banning fees on non-residents for use of city park properties and the demolition of apartment houses of 50 or more units as mentioned above. The Alliance Labor Caucus. Members of the Alliance Labor Caucus are proud members of their unions and the labor organizations they are affiliated with. We have come together to take advantage of an opportunity to work with the business community and our local government to the extent we can, in support of political, community and business efforts to make San Francisco a better place for our members to live, work, and educate our children. Alliances such as that which we have formed have been very successful in the past in San Francisco and elsewhere, and the people of San Francisco seem most receptive. However, while our inclination is to also support Democratic Party endorsed candidates and that party’s platform, we will not go down the same road as the “Bay Guardian Progressives” and the DCCC when they take position on political issues and candidates clearly in opposition to the basic needs of our memberships, as has been the case all too often. The danger of continuing to follow the lead of the now out-of-favor “Bay Guardian Progressives” is in our opinion, that were we to do so we could easily slip into the same political dysfunction all too apparent in Washington D.C. The inability of the two major parties to engage in good faith negotiations and reach the compromises obviously necessary for the good of our country, is now recognized world-wide as a the major overriding problem preventing us from effectively dealing with our economic troubles. We do not believe that it would be good for San Francisco to follow that example--- and that is where the “progressives” who have sought to regain political control have unfortunately been willing to lead us to regain their political power. Thus, last year the Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth endorsed Ed Lee for Mayor, something that could not have been accomplished without the full support of the Alliance Labor Caucus. That support was there, despite his not being endorsed by either the DCCC or the SFLC, because Ed Lee, a former civil rights attorney, was very good on our issues (his campaign declared jobs and the local economy to be his top priorities and his record as Mayor previously and since has shown that commitment to be real); he was not hostile to any of our political allies, to any responsible neighborhood or community organizations, nor to any other entities that we were concerned with; and he was clearly electable (polls showed his favorable ratings to be far better than any other candidate in the field). Inexplicable to us was the SFLC’s decision to join the DCCC and the Bay Guardian, in deciding not to endorse as its first, second or third choice for Mayor, the progressive, democratic candidate that all polls showed was most likely to be elected. Whatever their rationale---and we can only surmise it was due in significant part to its close relationship to the DCCC and particularly its Chair, we were compelled to move in a different direction on behalf of our memberships. We believe that San Francisco’s unions can best serve their memberships by making a serious and honest effort, together with the labor organizations they are affiliated with, to work with the Lee Administration and the business community when they can on issues of mutual concern---and that is what we are going to do. San Francisco’s progressive residents, who have clearly expressed their desire to see the City get things done with a minimal amount of political bickering, deserve no less.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Mayor Edwin Lee, DA George Gascon, & Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi Share the Victory Circle for the 2011 Cycle!
November 9, 2011:
It is official, the election that 100s and 100s of Union members have been working on for the past year has ended. Of particular interest to the men & women of LiUNA!, Local 261 is the passage of propositions A, B, & C as well as the successful campaigns of endorsed candidates Edwin Lee, George Gascon, and Ross Mirkarimi for Mayor, D.A., and Sheriff.
ED LEE 55961 31.11%
JOHN AVALOS 33594 18.68%
DENNIS HERRERA 20392 11.34%
DAVID CHIU 16652 9.26%
LELAND YEE 13530 7.52%
JEFF ADACHI 11613 6.46%
BEVAN DUFTY 8531 4.74%
for up to date results click here
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Saturday, October 8, 2011
LiUNA!, SEIU 87, Carpenters' 22, & SEIU UHW KICKOFF Walking Efforts for 2011 in the Mission with over 250 workers!
 |
| 2011 We Fight, We Win! |
We Fight, We Win!, 2011 kicks off at LiUNA!, Local 261.
Today, over 250 workers from the Laborers' Union, Carpenters' Union, Custodians' SEIU Local 87, & Healthcare Workers' SEIU-UHW converged in the Mission District and walked well over a hundred precincts to get the workers' message out. At the conclusion of the precinct walking effort, in which several vans took workers all over the City, the union members enjoyed an excellent BBQ celebration of solidarity and an open bar as the Blue Angels flew overhead.
The workers and union members were clearly delighted with special appearances from State Senator Leland Yee, Board President David Chiu, and Supervisors Scott Weiner & Malia Cohen, who all talked about the importance of the upcoming election. Also joining in the event were SF Labor Council Director Tim Paulson, Commissioners London Breed, Ahsha Safai, & Tom Harrison, Tom Hsieh of the Democratic County Committee, Executive Director of the Alliance for Jobs & Sustainable Growth, Vince Courtney, and many many more supporters of this great effort.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
THIS Saturday October 8th, 10am walk, 3:00pm UNITY BBQ & ... on Twitpic
THIS Saturday October 8th, 10am walk, 3:00pm UNITY BBQ & ... on Twitpic
THIS Saturday October 8th, 10am walk, 3:00pm UNITY BBQ & Celebration! (program @ 3:30,) at Local 261. Join hundreds of workers, union members, and Friends of Labor as we blanket the City with our message about what is important to working families, and good for San Francisco.
THIS Saturday October 8th, 10am walk, 3:00pm UNITY BBQ & Celebration! (program @ 3:30,) at Local 261. Join hundreds of workers, union members, and Friends of Labor as we blanket the City with our message about what is important to working families, and good for San Francisco.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)