This story originally appeared in Labor Notes on Mar. 28, 2025. It is shared here with permission.
In his broadest attack on federal workers and their unions to date, President Donald Trump on Thursday announced an Executive Order that claimed to end collective bargaining rights for nearly the whole federal workforce. Early estimates have the move affecting 700,000 to 1 million federal workers, including at the Veterans Administration and the Departments of Defense, Energy, State, Interior, Justice, Treasury, Health and Human Services, and even Agriculture.
This gutting of federal worker rights has the potential to be a pivotal, existential moment for the labor movement. It is a step that recognizes that the Trump administration’s rampage against the federal government is hitting a roadblock: unions.
Much remains to be seen: How quickly will the government move to execute the order? How much of it will stand up to challenges in court? Members of the Federal Unionists Network (FUN), who have been protesting ongoing firings and cuts, are holding an emergency organizing call on Sunday, March 30.
ECHOES OF PATCO
The move echoes past attacks on federal and public sector unions, including President Ronald Reagan firing 11,000 striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Reagan’s move signaled “open season” on the labor movement, public and private sector alike.
The dubious mechanism that Trump is using to revoke these rights involves declaring wide swaths of the federal workforce to be too “sensitive” for union rights.
The Executive Order claims that workers across the government have “as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.”
Historically the interpretation of this has been much narrower. While CIA operatives have not been eligible for collective bargaining, nurses at the Veterans Administration have. These rights have been law since the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, and in various forms for years prior, starting with an executive order by President Kennedy in 1962.
For example, the Veterans Administration has the largest concentration of civilian workers in the federal government, with more than 486,000 workers. The Trump Executive Order declares all of them to be excluded from collective bargaining rights.
A MILLION WORKERS AFFECTED
The order names 10 departments in part or in full, and eight other governmental bodies like agencies or commissions, ranging from all civilian employees at the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency to all workers at the Centers for Disease Control (a part of the Department of Health and Human Services) and the General Services Administration.
Federal unions immediately denounced the Executive Order, promising to challenge it in court. Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal union, said in a statement that AFGE “will fight relentlessly to protect our rights, our members, and all working Americans from these unprecedented attacks.”
It is unclear how quickly the federal government and its various agencies will act to nullify contracts and all that come with them.
At the Transportation Security Administration, where collective bargaining rights were axed in recent weeks, the impact was felt immediately: union representatives on union leave were called back to work, grievances were dropped, and contractual protections around scheduling were thrown out the window.
Some protests already in the works may become outlets for justified anger about the wholesale destruction of the federal labor movement.
Organizers with the FUN, a cross-union network of federal workers that has jumped into action as the crisis has deepened, are organizing local “Let Us Work” actions for federal workers impacted by layoffs and hosting the Sunday emergency organizing call March 30.
National mobilizations under the banner of “Hands Off” are also already planned for April 5.
This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Joe DeManuelle-Hall.
President Donald Trump’s latest attack on the working class was delivered in the form of an executive order late Thursday that seeks to strip the collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal government workers, a move that labor rights advocates said is not only unlawful but once again exposes Trump’s deep antagonism toward working people and their families.
As we’ve mentioned many times before on the show, movements today are a part of a legacy of extraordinary actions taken by ordinary people. Tapping into our own labor history provides us with a blueprint for action in today’s turbulent world.
On March 25th, 1911, a fire began in the scrap bins under a cutter’s table on the 8th floor of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City. Within minutes, the entire floor was engulfed in flames, spreading to the ninth floor and 10th floors–where 200+ workers were just finishing up to go home for the night. By the time workers were alerted to the conflagration, options for escaping the fire were few. By the time the fire was brought under control, 146 workers were dead. New York City saw sweeping reforms in the aftermath of the fire, catapulting some pro-reform lobbyists like Francis Perkins all the way to the highest halls of government with the introduction of the New Deal 20 years later.
Near the 114th anniversary of this tragedy, Mel sat down with labor historian Dr. Erik Loomis, professor at the University of Rhode Island and author of his forthcoming book, Organizing America: Stories of Americans Who Fought for Justice to talk about the struggle for better working conditions in the garment industry in New York City, the fire itself and the reforms enacted afterwards, and why it’s important to learn from our own labor history in this current moment.
Studio Production: Mel Buer Post-Production: Jules Taylor
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Mel Buer:
Welcome everyone to Working People, a podcast about the lives, jobs, dreams, and struggles of the working class today. Working People is a proud member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network and is brought to you in partnership within these Times Magazine and the Real News Network. This show is produced by Jules Taylor and made possible by the support of listeners like you. My name is Mel Buer and I’ve been your host for the month of March. Next week, max will be back at the helm for the month of April, bringing you more stories from the working class today for the last episode of this month, we’re taking a moment to train an eye on the past. As I’ve mentioned many times before, movements today are part of a legacy of extraordinary actions taken by ordinary people. Tapping into our own labor history provides us with a blueprint for action in today’s turbulent world.
With that in mind, we’re talking about the triangle shirt, waist Factory fire. Today on March 25th, 1911, a fire began in the scrap bins under a cutter’s table on the eighth floor of the Triangle Shirt Waist Factory in New York City. Within minutes, the entire floor was engulfed in flames spreading to the ninth and 10th floors where 200 plus workers were just finishing up to go home for the night. By the time workers were alerted to the conflagration options for escaping the fire were few, by the time the fire was brought under control, 146 workers were dead. New York City saw sweeping reforms in the aftermath of the fire, even catapulting some pro reform lobbyists like Francis Perkins all the way to the highest halls of government. With the introduction of the New Deal, 20 years later near the a hundred and 14th anniversary of this tragedy, I’m sitting down with labor historian Dr. Erik Loomis, professor at the University of Rhode Island, an author of his forthcoming book, organizing America Stories of Americans who Fought for Justice to talk about the struggle for better working conditions in the garment industry in New York City, the fire itself and the reforms enacted afterwards, and why it’s important to learn from our own labor history in this current moment. Thanks for coming on the show, Dr. Loomis. I really appreciate you taking some time this morning to talk about a very important piece of our labor history.
Erik Loomis:
Thanks for having me. I’m very happy to be here.
Mel Buer:
To start off this conversation, I just want to give our listeners a little bit of a chance to get to know you and who you are. So who are you, where do you teach? What kind of work do you do?
Erik Loomis:
Sure. So my name is Erik Loomis. I am a history professor at the University of Rhode Island. I focus on labor history. I’m also environmental history, so I teach a lot of courses at my university. I kind of cover a lot of ground in US history that people don’t necessarily otherwise would be able to take. So I try to offer things that students need or want, but I make sure I teach a lot of labor history. I’m teaching labor history right now and super awesome, a great group of students, and so that’s been a lot of fun. And then I write about these issues in any number of different ways. Everything from I write at the liberal blog, lawyers, guns of Money, a lot of that’s about labor history. I have this day labor history series that I started there that I also syndicate do threads on Blue Sky to give a lesson almost every day. Not quite every day, but almost every day I have a lesson about labor history that’s out there. So yeah, so I do what I can to publicize our labor history basically.
Mel Buer:
Yeah, I think that’s actually a good place to start with our conversation. One thing that I like to do when I am hosting this podcast is sort of pull back the curtain on what it means to organize within the labor movement and to kind of give folks a sense of the nuts and bolts of what that looks like, but also to really help our listeners tap into the legacy of organizing in the United States, which is long storied, often violent, and really important to ground ourselves in this space. So to start this conversation, let’s just talk about what it means to learn about our own labor and movement history. And as a historian, why is it important to pay attention to and learn about this?
Erik Loomis:
Yeah, I have a lot of thoughts about that and this book have coming out in the fall or I guess late summer Organizing America kind of gets into this a lot because I am very interested in sort of like what do we do with our past? Every American, everybody probably in the world tell stories about the past for themselves, and those stories often reflect what they need in the present. So why do we could tell all of these different stories about all of these different moments in time, and that includes in our labor history. So triangle is a horrible fire, one of the worst things that have ever happened. Of course, we’re going to get into this, but it’s far from the only mass death incident in American labor history. Why do we tell that story? So I’m really interested in why do we tell these stories that we tell and what do they do for us?
And for me anyway as a labor historian, and I think different historians would have different answers for this question. I don’t represent the historical community on this. For me, there’s a combination of things. Some of it’s inspiration, and I think that would be something a lot of people would say, right? We could be inspired by these movements in the past. And I agree with that. But I also think, and maybe we’ll get into this as we talk about triangle, that sometimes when we tell stories that are strictly inspirational, we actually lose something that I have this idea of our movement history and the way we teach it is a Mount Rushmore sort of thing, which in my world is not a compliment. It’s like I know how I have a great idea how to represent the past. Let’s blow some faces into a mountain in South Dakota.
What a great idea. And everybody could come gaze, and I’m like, oh, it George Washington. Oh, he’s so wonderful. But we kind of do that with our movement history. We sort of gaze up as Malcolm and King and Chavez and Rosa and Debs, and we kind of look up. It was like, wow, if only we could have those leaders today. And I would try to counter that a little bit because if you get into the details of what they were doing, they didn’t really know what they were doing at the time either. And I think in some ways learning our labor history is really useful to sort of ground ourselves not only in what they achieved, but the fact that we’re not really that different than them. We can be them. We can become that person. And I think that’s a really important piece of it that I really try to emphasize is the humanity, the mistakes and the realization that there’s not that big of a difference between our struggles and the struggles that they had.
Mel Buer:
And we’ll talk about this a little bit later in the conversation, but I read David Re’s Triangle in preparation of this episode and beyond the book, the book itself is kind of a monumental achievement in really kind of laying out the conditions leading up to the fire, the minute by minute details of the fire, which are harrowing and horrifying, and the reform movement that was born out of the fire plus the manslaughter trial. And we’ll talk all about this here in a moment, but the thing that strikes me the most about reading these books, and this is something that I come across often when I read labor history, is that good historians, good journalists through their archive work, resurrect these people in a way that makes them far more real than just a photo on a labor website or a story about these monumental achievements.
As you say, these are human beings who could have at another time been my neighbor or I could have been sitting next to them at a factory table, and their lives are full of the same sort of quiet dignity and indignities that we suffer and enjoy as working class people today. So I feel my background is in, I have a master’s degree and in literature, I did a lot of work within archives for my own work research when I was in grad school. And I’m always struck by the ability to take what is just a little short newspaper clipping or a receipt or some sort of bit of detritus that makes its way forward into our current moment and to really kind of build life from it and depth from it and memory and to sort of share in that humanity. And so I agree, I think that especially with labor history, not only does it provide the playbook for how to potentially tackle some of these similar problems that we are experiencing with Triangle and with the shirt, waist Factory workers strike that happened a year prior to the fire, they’re going up against the same sort of political machine that we have now.
They’re going up against the same sort of exploitation and indignities that workers are experiencing now. And you can learn a lot from the ways in which they organized and often their failures to be able to have a sense of what you can do in this moment.
Erik Loomis:
Yeah, and I think it’s also worth noting, while you don’t want to overdraw the lessons from the past, I mean the past and the present are not exactly the same thing, but within, we live just thinking here of American labor history, we live in a society that is shaped by a series of political and economic constructs, and by looking at our labor history, we can also get a sense of in our present debates around anything from the relationship of labor unions to democratic party or issues of democratic unionism or strikes or whatever it may be, a really deep dive examination into our labor history can really do a lot to suggest the potentials or limits of various contemporary issues that we’re talking about. Again, not that the past necessarily is a restriction on what’s possible in the present, but the basic structure of our economy and government has not changed a lot over the centuries. And even with Trumpism, I mean, everything that’s happening right now is basically a return to the conditions of the Triangle fire that we’re talking about. And some of those strategies used back then may become more valuable again with the destruction of labor law and the other horrible things that are happening right now. So I think that those deeper dives into our labor history, real discussions of our labor history as opposed to just snippets, but really help us move conversations at the contemporary labor and movement building world forward in some very concrete and useful ways.
Mel Buer:
Right. Well, I think that’s a good segue into getting into the meat of the discussion today, which is to talk about the triangle shirt, waste Factory Fire, which happened on March 25th, 1911. First, I kind of want to put it in a bit of wider context about what was going on in New York City at the time. So in the early 20th century, garment production was the largest manufacturing business in America. In the decades leading up to the early 20th century, there was this popularization of standardized off the rack fashion during the Industrial Revolution. It meant that instead of making clothing at home or via various sort of cottage industries, the Industrial Revolution standardized that entire process and turned it into the ability to walk into a clothing store like Nordstrom’s or something and to pull a sized garment off the rack. And prior to more mechanized processes that didn’t require as many hands in the process, these garment production factories were staffed by hundreds and thousands of workers. And the largest piece of that was in New York City, in the east end of the city. So just to give our readers, our listeners a sense here, what do these conditions look like for workers at the time who worked in specifically the garment industry in New York?
Erik Loomis:
Sure. Yeah, it’s rough work. You had a mostly immigrant workforce, particularly Jewish immigrants, some Italians as well. And that was working in clothing was something that quite a few of these immigrants had brought over from particularly Russia where there had been a lot of tailors and cutters and things like this. They enter into a growing American garment workforce that you accurately described, and that is happening at a moment in the late 19th and into the early 20th century. We’re beginning to see a shift so that a lot of the early sweatshop industry in New York was home-based. Basically, this contractor would move things out through these subcontracting systems and put things in people’s homes. And so you think about a tiny little New York apartment on say the Lower East side where a lot of this was taking place and people might complain today of their studio apartment, how small it’s, but there could be 10 to 15 people living in that at the time.
And then during the day, they’re working in it right there. They’re basically moving, what they have is for furniture to the side and putting the sewing machines in there. By the 1905 or so, that’s beginning to shift pretty heavily to what we would think of more of as a modern sweatshop, that it becomes more efficient for contractors to have the work in a particular place such as the location of the factory that would become notable for the triangle fire. And that was a very exploitative workforce. They hired mostly women thinking that they could control ’em. Work weeks could be 65 to 75 hours a week, but also tremendously unstable. And so you’d be working those 65, 75 hours a week if there was work, but then if the orders dried up, you went to nothing. So rather than have a consistent 40 hour week or even more than that, but consistent, it was either all the time or nothing at all. The women worked basically between three to $10 a week for all of these hours, which was poverty wages, even at that higher level. And factory owners really tried to control workers’ movements. Locking doors was super common. Fear of these workers stealing cloth and things like that would lead to searches requesting permission to use very unsanitary and disgusting bathrooms, fines all the time at work being required, supply your own supplies such as needles and things like this. Sexual harassment of these workers was a real problem. It’s a rough way to work,
Mel Buer:
And I kind of want to draw a parallel. It’s not a one-to-one, but I do want to draw a parallel from these sort of sweat up conditions that lead into this sort of wider factories that come through in the mid 19 aughts to sort of gig work that we see in some industries today where it is truly a race to the bottom in terms of payment wages and conditions and in these sort of sweatshop conditions. Absolutely. You would find that these contractors were a dime a dozen, and if you were the type of person who wanted to ask more for more wages for what you were working, they could throw you out and find someone within 15 minutes by walking to a market down the street. We see these conditions a lot in the sort of gig economy, certainly in some of the white collar industries like writing or things of that nature where people are making pennies on the dollar for some of the work that they do. And you can sort of see those parallels. And it didn’t just because these factories then establish themselves within a garment district and start employing 500 to a thousand workers per factory or what have you, doesn’t necessarily mean that those conditions improved much.
Erik Loomis:
Oh, absolutely not. I mean, in many cases they became worse. I mean, homework is not a great thing by any stretch of the imagination, but you had a certain control over your, no one’s sexually harassing you, no one’s locking the door, no one’s saying you can’t go to the bathroom. So conditions were probably even worse. I mean, the whole point of centralizing it is of course to maximize profit and you are continuing to maximize profit by exploiting this very frankly, easily exploited workforce for the reason that you discuss in that you have masses and masses of people coming to the United States at this time. And there was a lot of people desperate for work.
Mel Buer:
I think I read a statistic that was like Ellis Island was processing upwards of like 5,000 people a week at the height of peak of that piece of immigration. So you can imagine streams of individuals coming in after spending a week in the bow of a ship, making it through the sort of gauntlet that is Ellis Island and then ending up in the streets of New York and wanting to engage in some sort of employment that they can have skills for.
Erik Loomis:
And a lot of times part of the reason they’re willing to accept these horrible wages other than not having a whole lot of other options is that the first thing they’re trying to do is get their families over.
And so the more people that are working even in exploitative conditions, the more money they can save to get the cousins over or get, A lot of times a father would go first, save money, get their family over, and then they’d kind of collectively get that extended family over. And given that these were Jewish immigrants in Russia at this time, a lot of that is desperately escaping the state sponsored antisemitism that’s going on at that time. So there was very real reasons for these workers to sacrifice a lot, even knowing that they’re working in a terrible job because they had higher calling at that point.
Mel Buer:
Right. Well, and this kind of brings us to a remarkable sort of labor action that happened in 1909. So we have at this point 20 to 40,000 garment workers in New York City who are working in various factories, the triangle fame factory, I think they had what four other locations that were making various items. They’re called shirt waste. They’re, or essentially blouses varying sort of degrees of fashion with lace and other things. But there were also factories all over the lower East side and the east side of New York that were doing some of the same stuff. And in 1909, in response to worsening conditions, there was a massive strike in the garment district that lasted close to a year, I believe, that was led primarily by women over 20,000 garment workers took to the streets and they walked out of dozens of factories in the garment district on strike.
And something that kind of gets missed a little bit in history, maybe this is just me loving a good name for it, but they called it the uprising of the 20,000 and it was considered an opening salvo and a new struggle for better working conditions in the industrialized sort of industries in New York City. So maybe we can kind of start with the strike itself and really kind of underscore how revolutionary it was to see a militant fighting union of primarily women leading this particular labor action and sort of how those impacts reverberated into the following years and decades.
Erik Loomis:
The union they had that was in that industry, it was called the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, or the ILG as it’s commonly known. But ironically, the leadership of the union was basically all men and men had taken over that union, and a lot of these men were skilled cutters and things like this. And even despite the name, they weren’t really that comfortable with masses of women in the workforce. I mean, they brought over gender ideologies as well. And so in New York, you have in those weeks and months leading up to this strike, which begins in November of 1909, you have young organizers, again, mostly Jewish women, some of whom who will become pretty famous in the future, Clara Lemick, Roche Schneiderman, Pauly Newman, all of which will become pretty famous names in American labor and reform history are organizing and the factories to say, we don’t have to live this way.
It’s not necessary that our conditions are so exploitative. Some of them came from families who had brought radical politics with them, which was a growing thing in the Jewish communities in Eastern Europe at the time through the Jewish fund. Others did not. Lelet came from quite politically conservative families who were outraged that their daughter was engaging in such radical activities. But it all begins to come to a head that fall. And there’s a big meeting in New York, I think a Cooper Union. And the point of the meeting in part is for labor leaders to try to cut the strike off. So the ILG member, the president’s there and other leading figures are there, American Federation of Labor Head, Samuel GOPer shows up and basically urges caution. And you have these, you can almost imagine it, it’s like two hours of these guys getting up and talking and going on and on and trying to kill time and trying to really undermine what they saw as a rebellion of low skilled workers that they feared would undermine the very limited gains that they had made in other parts of the garment industry.
And finally, after listening to this Lemick, who is this very small woman, the very tiny young woman gets up and basically marches up to the stage. And in Yiddish says, and I’m going to quote what she says here, I am a working girl, one of those who are on strike against intolerable conditions. I am tired of listening to speakers. You talk in general terms, what we are here to decide is whether we shall or shall not strike. I offer a resolution that a general strike be declared now. And she simply overwhelmed all those men on the stage. The workers walked out the day
Mel Buer:
Right standing ovation for that, the whole place just, and they had overflow for that as well. It was a very, very large meeting of workers, I think. And Clara Lemick specifically is unique in that she is probably in my reading over the last couple of years of labor history, a really solid example of what happens when you can successfully salt workplaces. She would hop from factory to factory, get hired on and salt the crap out of the workplace, organize those workers and bring them out on strike. And inevitably for some reason, she would either leave the job or get fired from the job and she would move on to the next one. And her organizing was so dangerous to the factory owners that they actually had her followed and she got the crap beaten out of her in the street and the next day and for the following weeks, you could see her on street corners displaying the bruises on her face. And using that as a rhetorical sort of example to say, we’re onto something, join us. And I dunno, as a woman in the labor movement, I find those examples to be really meaningful to anyone who’s listening to these sort of stories is that you may not even know who Clara Le is, but she is truly a revolutionary spirit in the labor movement.
Erik Loomis:
And I think that learning about people like that, I think there’s this whole, people like to say history repeats itself, which it doesn’t. Don’t ever say that to a historian, but there is these lessons out there. There are these people out there that you can be like, wow, they really did this amazing work and they suffered for it. I mean, getting the shit beat out of you is not a great story. That sucks. And she will be during the strike itself, lime Lake is beaten by a cop and suffer six broken ribs. She’s arrested 17 times during the strike. So it’s not, and these stories from the past, it’s not great. But I think that in a moment in which I think you see a lot of activism out there, or the beginnings of whatever we’re trying to do to stop Trump and all this horrible stuff. And there seems to me to be a lot of, I want something to happen, but I don’t actually want anything to happen to me.
I’m scared of something happening to me. And the reality is things are probably going to be happening to us. And learning that you can take that and build from it, I think is a critically important thing. It is a little bit of a side note, but I was just, yesterday in my labor history class, we were reading oral history from Harry Bridges, the great organizer of the longshoreman. And my students were struck because he talks in this oral history. He’s like, yeah, every day the cops would beat the shit out of us, and then the next day we would just come back and keep doing the same thing. And it blew their mind that you could do that. And I think these are the things that are important to understand, to bring from that past to the present. Lelet can be very inspiring this way.
Mel Buer:
So what was the outcome of the strike? So they were on strike for quite some time. A lot of these young women were arrested, sent to the workhouse for a brief period of time. You had some really interesting cross class solidarity and fundraising. Even JP Morgan’s own daughter was fundraising for the strike at one point. Funnily enough, they kind of moved away from support of the strike after some pretty hefty socialism and socialist rhetoric entered the sort of demand structure of the strike. But what was the outcome? What happened to these workers?
Erik Loomis:
Yeah, I mean, the answer is in a sense, it is both a win and a lush. I mean, the cross class stuff is fascinating. These wealthy women come out, some of which would be big players in the future. I mean Francis Perkins, we’ll get into later is one of them, right? And this is a moment, this progressive era is a moment in which middle and upper class, particularly younger people are looking at society and they’re saying the things our fathers created in this era of uncontrolled capitalism, they’re just way out of control. And maybe these workers have a point. So there’d be these tentative alliances, which as you described, it’s one of the things that happen. What will happen to the strike itself is that by and large, the owners very much including the men who would own the triangle fire, were definitely there to resist as much as they could.
And after about 11 weeks, workers begin to, they start trickling back. I mean, because the international, the ILG, they still didn’t really support the strike, and they didn’t have the ability to have a big strike fund or anything like that anyway, so they don’t win a union shop. They don’t win a lot of workplace safety gains. But the manufacturers do agree to some real concessions. The work week drops to 52 hours in most of these factories that were four paid holidays a year. You don’t have to buy your own work materials anymore. And there’s kind of a vague agreement to negotiate pay rates, which is not really followed that much in the aftermath, but there were real material wins. What there was not were material wins about the conditions of work, which will be a huge problem going forward for the union, though that ILG local, local 25 really expands to become a big power player in New York for the next several years. And so the workers themselves feel very empowered by what happened to them. It’s a victory,
Mel Buer:
Right? And many of these workers who picketed outside the Triangle Factory are some of the ones who walked into work on March 25th, the 1911 and did not come out. And now on to sort of the hard conversation here. So this is a year after the strike workers have gone back to work. March 25th, 1911 workers walk into the ASH building, the Lower East Side. They took the elevators up to the upper floors to the triangle shirt, waist factory, which occupies the eighth, ninth, and 10th floors of the Ash building, which is now owned by cuny, right? It’s a science building, university science building.
Erik Loomis:
I think it’s N-Y-U-N-Y-U,
Mel Buer:
Yeah,
Erik Loomis:
NYU.
Mel Buer:
Yeah. So as I said earlier, I read Triangle, which is a very good book that kind of digs into the conditions of the garment workers, and it gives a minute by minute accounting of the triangle fire itself. I’d never really taken the time to learn the details of the fire. I found that there’s those sections of the book to be frankly harrowing, openly crying while reading it. It is, I don’t want to get into really the hardcore details of it because it is really upsetting and maybe for a lot of folks, but suffice to say, so the conditions in these couple of floors, eight and nine are floors where the factory work is being done. The 10th floor is kind of where the owners sit. They have a showroom. There is some tables for packaging and shipping the items that are put together, but the vast majority of materials are being worked on on those two lower floors.
So the fire begins right around the time of the closing bell. Folks were getting up to leave right around what 5:00 PM And something to note about these particular setups is that the cutters who are the ones who do the sort of precision cutting of the materials that are then sewn together in a sort of assembly line style at various parts in the factory are dropping scraps of highly flammable cotton materials into a bin underneath their cutting tables. And we learn later during the manslaughter trial that those bins are only emptied like four times a year. And so you can imagine that what’s underneath these tables is tons and tons of extremely flammable cotton and lace materials that just pile up. And obviously there’s a no smoking sign in every floor because this is a highly flammable workplace environment. Some of these cutters still smoked at the tables. And on the evening of March 25th, we’re not quite sure exactly what got thrown into the bucket, but it was probably a still lit match or a cigarette butt or a cigar butt that gets thrown into one of the buckets under the table and it lights a fire within what, I think it’s like less than 10 minutes. That entire floor is on fire.
Erik Loomis:
Yeah, I mean, so it starts on the eighth floor
And everybody on the eighth floor gets out. They call up to the 10th floor as you point out that the office or the owners are, and those guys are all able to get out. You have those close New York buildings and you can kind of hot from building to building in that area, but in the panic sort of people forgot to call the ninth floor. And within just a few minutes, you have this raging fire on the eighth floor smoke coming up to the ninth, and the doors are locked to get out and there’s an elevator and some workers do get out via the elevator. About a hundred are able to get out in those few minutes before the elevator becomes non-functional. But then you have 146 workers still stuck up there and there’s nothing that they can do. They try to open the door, they’re looking for the key, nobody can find it, and they end up facing a choice of burning the death or jumping from the ninth floor,
And then they all die. So you have 146 dead workers. This was not particularly uncommon. I mean the numbers were high, but you had more workers than that die in coal mines pretty frequently. And you also had other garment fires that were hardly uncommon. There had just been one the year before in Newark, across the bay from New York, but no one sees that. The thing about these sweatshops is that it’s a very low capital industry. All you really need is some sewing machines and a few other things. So you can set these up anywhere. So as you pointed out, it’s an afternoon. It is a nice day. We’re in March right now, and there’s been a couple of nice days, and everyone including myself is like, oh my God, I’m so happy to be outside. It’s sunny, including I look outside the day. It’s a beautiful day here in Rhode Island. And so that’s how people were, right? And so it’s late afternoon. People are strolling around. It’s the lower East side, but it’s kind of on the border of more prosperous areas. So people are just walking around and all of a sudden plumes of smoke will rise up and all these people head over to see what’s up and what’s up is a mass death incident.
And what made this different was honestly for our American history is not the numbers, it’s the fact that this became a public event. People saw this, people saw the people making their clothes die, and that makes an enormous difference in the response of a nation that had traditionally been quite indifferent to workplace death.
Mel Buer:
And there were a number of things that might have made this less of a mass casualty sort of incident. The owners of the Triangle Factory could have at any time updated their factories with fire suppression systems. This was not something that was particularly new. Fire safe factories had been a thing for a number of decades prior to this horrible tragedy. There is an interesting note in Von Dre’s book that suggests that perhaps the two owners were setting fire to their previous, trying to essentially commit insurance fraud in order to get rid of some of their previous stock in previous years. There’s no indication that this was anything other than accident. I want to make that clear. But the way that the building was designed was not designed very well for escape. There were no fire drills that were happening with any sort of regularity that would’ve made it easier for workers to have a direction to go.
And yes, there is. There were two exits, two doors. One door was kept locked in order to reduce the amount of stealing that was happening. Whether that’s true or not, doesn’t really matter. Folks had to go through essentially a carousel at the other door in order to get their things searched before they could leave, which obviously is leading to serious bottlenecking in times of panic. And even the fire escape didn’t really have, it wasn’t really a fire escape. It wasn’t quite rated for the amount of people to run down the steps, and it did not lead to anywhere. There was no clear egress to the street at the bottom of the fire escape. And unfortunately, it was just a rickety thing and it collapsed. And 35 people died plunging to their desks because the fire escape collapsed. So we have all of these things, these things that contributed to a really horrendous workplace accident.
And you’re right, tens of thousands of folks were on the streets watching on buildings nearby. There’s dozens and dozens of sort of accounts of the fire. And even Francis Perkins, who figures a little bit later was standing on the street watching this happen, and they’re watching workers hold each other outside of the windows of the ninth floor and drop their friends onto the concrete, and they’re seeing others who are flying out of the windows on fire. This is a really horrendous thing for a lot of people to witness. And to your point, there is a testament to how affecting it was for folks to witness this and hear about this happening in the days after the event when they lined the victims up for identification at the pier, sort of a coroner’s warehouse. There were tens of thousands of people there who were thousands of people who just wanted to walk through and potentially pay their respects, but also family members who were trying to find their loved ones. And even in the days afterward during these funeral processions, you have folks standing out for hours in the rain watching these funeral processions as folks are identified and then taken to various cemeteries around the city. So we can kind of start there in terms of just beyond the real sort of impact of this and how this moved into answering the question, what are we going to do about this in the years leading after the tragedy?
Erik Loomis:
Yeah. Well, it’s a mixed bag. I mean, first as you point out, the owners blanket Harris were incredibly negligent. They had been really the most anti-union of all of the major garment worker owners or garment factory owners in the uprising. They really don’t get any serious legal punishment for it. In fact, they just, what? They kind of disappeared from the record, but we know that they at least attempt to open up another factory. They don’t even seem to care after all these workers die. They’re really indifferent. But part of the legacy of Triangle, we’re moving in that direction. And it is interesting because it kind of shifts from a worker story to a middle class performer story
Because Perkins is there and she’s already involved in some of these issues, but she gets really motivated to become a much more active labor reformer, and of course later will become the first female cabinet member Secretary of Labor under FDR for his 12 years. And really a truly remarkable human being. But the changes that come are not really about workplace activism. What happens is that Perkins, Robert Wagner, who’s a rising politician in the New York legislature who will later be the sponsor of the National Labor Relations Act, that creates the system of labor negotiation that we sort of still have today, although it’s probably disappearing soon, thanks to our lovely Supreme Court. But the union election process is something that kind of has some things that come out of this. But in the immediate aftermath, there’s serious investigations that happen. And what it leads to are important things around fire safety, building safety, things like this.
So the New York Fire Department could only really handle fires up to the seventh floor of a building. This starts on the eighth floor. There’s changes around that. There’s changes around the kinds of conditions that are allowed in a workplace around issues of flammability, for instance. And these are truly important advances. And New York becomes a leader in creating a safer workplace. But the flip side of that is that at almost the very same time that’s happening, the textile industry begins to leave places like New York, and so they don’t have to deal with Claral LEC anymore. They begin to move to North Carolina, to Alabama, to Tennessee. And you have a whole nother generation of, because again, I mean part of the reason that people like Blank and Harris don’t hardly care where you had other industries that are taking these issues more seriously is that the capital investment needed to open a sweatshop is so they’re not protecting a serious level of investment. And so you could recreate these factories in east Tennessee and Western North Carolina and avoid immigrants, avoid socialists, avoid any union traditions. And so by the twenties and thirties, that’s all shifted down there and you have a new generation of labor organizing that takes place down there, new generations of violence in a industry that proves quite resistant to changing its fundamental ways that it operates, including to the present.
Mel Buer:
Right. So I mean, what’s the sort of antidote to that? I mean, I know that particularly with Francis Perkins and the sort of committees that were born out of the Triangle Fire, they didn’t just stop with garment factories is my understanding. They spent a lot of time, energy, and they had the political will because Tammany’s political machine sort of backed this as they’re moving into the mid-teens to really sort of begin to look at places like candy factories and bakeries and the various sort of industrial places that are also in need of reform. And so we see this sort of new decade or so of real, the political will is there essentially to support these sort of this reform movement that then brings us into what ultimately becomes FDRs new deal and things of that nature. But I guess my question is if the political will didn’t exist, if Tammany wasn’t willing to back these sort of plays because they are sort of seeing the writing on the wall, they’re seeing that there is enormous among voters, enormous need and want for increased oversight things, more progressive working conditions, things of that nature, would we have the same sort of, I guess you could call them policy wins within the labor movement?
Erik Loomis:
Probably not. I mean, I think the political atmosphere is very, very important. And I think that we sometimes ignore that in our contemporary conversations too, our peril. It really is a matter of kind of a combination of worker activism and a particular moment in time in which the politics are ready to act, in which people who have more access to power are willing to do what workers want them to do, either because they support it genuinely or they’re afraid of the worker power.
And this really leads into the New Deal. I mean, these things, the rise of Perkins and the creation of National Labor Relations Act and all of this is a part of two decades, really 25 years by that point, consistent working class struggle to try to pressure the political world to create these changes. Tammany needed to do it because Tammany was relying on working class voters as its core. They had a heavy, they were very heavily involved in the immigrant communities and providing services and things like that. And if those people weren’t going to come out and vote for Tammany politicians, then Tammany was potentially going to lose out. It was in their interest to see this through. New York had a far from universal, but it had a lot of capital, progressive politicians like these middle class people who saw needs for legitimate reform. And that begins to, of course, then influence the Democratic Party.
The Republican party remains tremendously hostile to almost all of this and create, thanks to the Great Depression and other conditions, the ability of this to go relatively national in 1930s, the rise of Perkins, the rise of Wagner, the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, all of that stuff is super critical. So yes, I mean the political side of it is real. And this is the thing is you see other worker struggles. It’s not like when these factories say textiles move to Tennessee and North Carolina that all workers acquiesce to this system, they struggle too. But the problem there is that the governors are just willing to call the National Guard to shoot them, and there’s not the political will there. And that is still a problem that we see in when we’re talking even before we get into issues of globalization, which if we’re talking about this industry, we have to talk about the reality is that the United States, even today, the politics of New York or the politics of Tennessee, let’s just say they’re a little different, and workers have a lot more power in a place like New York City in part because politicians will listen to them. We’re in Tennessee where I used to live as well and was working in labor issues. They don’t care what you have to say.
Mel Buer:
How do you get folks to have such, to have a heel turn on that? How do you start to begin to pull those threats in service of the labor movement? What are some ways in your experience that workers can kind of with a clear eye see as a sort of pathway towards really engendering more political will for better worker legislation?
Erik Loomis:
Honestly, I think a lot of it has to, I think there needs to be a lot more internal political organizing within unions. I think this is a serious problem in the contemporary framework is that a lot of unions are not really doing a lot of political education in their rank and file. And we see this in the kinds of the ways in which Trump has made inroads in the working class and things like this. At the time back then you had the level of political education. If you read union newsletters just as an example, they’re engaging. It could be even relatively conservative unions like say the Carpenter’s Union.
They’re engaging in very significant political education, like helping workers understand their position in society, helping them figure out how they’re going, what their proper action is. As a carpenter or as a wobbly or as a member of a communist union later, it really goes across the political spectrum. What is your role as a worker in this society? And that was in states where those conditions kind of lent themselves to that could lead to serious political action supporting candidates. And that’s going to become really crucial. So if we’re thinking if we move forward to the thirties and we think about the Flint Sitdown strike, a big reason why the Flint Sitdown Strike Succeeds is that the governor of Michigan, Frank Murphy, has been elected by workers and had pledged as part of his platform to never use the national guard against workers. So workers had elected this person who then does what he says he’s going to do, will not forcibly evict these sit down strikers from that GM plant in Flynn and in GM at that point has no other options. They were relying on state power to crush those workers, which had been the standard way of the past.
And so that stuff can make just an enormous serious difference. But in some ways, it has to start with unions doing the work themselves to be like, we are going to engage in a serious political education aspect for our members. And that does not just mean showing up two weeks before the election and telling you who to vote for, but actually building worker power by getting an everyday person who’s a busy person, who’s got kids and soccer practice or wants to hang out at the bar or whatever they want to do to get them to take that time that they don’t really have and to understand their position in society. And I think that’s really critical.
Mel Buer:
I think as we kind of round out this conversation, I think also are living in a time where there’s like what 9% union density we are and have been for quite some time sort of fighting this rear guard battle against the interests of capital and the exploitation of the workforce. And rightfully, I think a lot of unions have spent a lot of their time and energy and money on trying to continue to bring in new organizing is a way to stop the slow bleed that is union organizing in this country. The problem is it feels like this needs to be, this is becoming or has always been a sort of multi-front fight struggle here. And in the last couple of years, especially as I’ve been working as a labor reporter, I’ve been feeling pretty heartened by the amount of new independent organizing that has been happening. And I really hope that it’ll continue and there’s ways in which we can kind of maybe begin to become more militant in a new generation and to allow these more militant, younger folks to really kind of push forward policy and education that they’re bringing into as the sort of shot in the arm to the labor movement. But yeah, we have an uphill battle quite a bit.
Erik Loomis:
Well, I think it’s worth noting Claire Lemick had an uphill battle too, right? I mean, what you’re describing is a lot of what Lemick and Newman and Schneiderman and these other leaders were facing, right? A union leadership that was pretty fat and happy with what they had. They were really nervous about young people coming and taking over the movement and they didn’t really support them when they did, and it just didn’t matter, right? Lemlich did it anyway, and she spent the rest of her life as this incredible organizer doing all sorts of things, ending her life, actually helping the nursing home workers out in California where she was by the time she was an older woman, helping them organize into their own union and forcing the nursing home to honor the United Farm workers. Great boycott. So she continued organizing forever, but never really, actually never with the support of the international lady garment workers union leadership, I mean, she had to fight for a pension from them in the fifties and they were like, oh no, it’s that woman again.
I think it’s important to understand for younger organizers that the idea that the power structure, even within the labor movement’s just going to roll over for you. They’re not going to do that. You just do it anyway. They just create a scenario where they don’t actually matter anymore. And I think that’s important. And we’ve seen that to some extent. I mean, some of the things that say that the Starbucks workers have done, for example, which is regenerated a lot of energy, but at the same time, because of these larger political conditions, has not led to a growth in the actual overall labor movement, which is part of our story too.
Mel Buer:
Yeah. Well, thank you so much for coming on the show, Eric. We’re going to have to end it here. Please come back on anytime to talk about your forthcoming book, come back anytime to talk about history. I mean, I’ll be doing some history episodes when I come back here to host in May and hoping to do one on the Memorial Day massacre here in Chicago and hopefully something about Mayday. So if you’d like to come back on and chat about that, I’d love to have you.
Erik Loomis:
I’m always happy to chat about labor history, so anytime you want.
Mel Buer:
Great. Thank you so much.
Erik Loomis:
Hey, thank you.
Mel Buer:
That’s it for us here at Working People. We’ll see you back here next week for another episode, and if you can’t wait that long, then go explore all the great work we’re doing at the Real News Network where we do grassroots journalism, lifting up the voices and stories from the front lines of struggle. Sign up for the Real News newsletter so you never miss a story and help us do more work like this by going to the real news.com/donate and becoming a supporter today. It really makes a difference. I’m Mel Buer and thanks so much for sticking around. We’ll see you next time.
Libby Lindsay spent 21 years working underground as a miner for Bethlehem Steel in West Virginia. She saw many safety improvements over the years, and always felt grateful that she could call the local Mine Safety and Health Administration office whenever she wondered whether a rule was being followed. She joined the safety committees launched by the local chapter of the United Mine Workers, which collaborated with the agency to watchdog coal companies. She understood the price that had been paid for the regulations it enforced. “Every law was written in blood,” she said. “It’s there because somebody was injured or killed.”
Still, she and others who work the nation’s mines worry President Trump is about to limit the agency’s local reach. As his administration targets federal buildings for closure and sale, 35 of its offices are on the list. Fifteen are in Appalachian coalfields, with seven in eastern Kentucky alone and the others concentrated in southern West Virginia and southeastern Pennsylvania. Of the remaining 20 offices, many are in the West, in remote corners of Wyoming, Nevada, and Colorado. Miners’ advocates worry these closures could reduce the capacity of an agency that’s vastly improved mining safety over the past 50 years or so and could play a vital role as the Trump administration promotes fossil fuels like coal, and as decarbonization efforts increase the need for lithium and other metals.
Since its inception in 1977, the agency has operated under the auspices of the Department of Labor to reduce the risks of what has always been one of the world’s most dangerous jobs. Before Congress created the agency, known as MSHA, hundreds of miners died each year, in explosions, tunnel collapses, and equipment malfunctions. (The number was far higher through the 1940s, often reaching into the thousands.) Last year, 31 people died in mining accidents, according to the agency’s data. Even after accounting for coal’s steady decline, that tally, while still tragic, reflects major strides in safety.
“Coal mining is a tough business. It’s a very competitive business. There’s always a temptation to compete on safety, to cut corners on safety, to make that your competitive advantage as a mine operator,” Christopher Mark, a government mine safety specialist who has spent decades making the job safer, told Grist. “And it’s our job to make sure that nobody can do that.”
Trump’s pick to lead MSHA, Wayne Palmer, who is awaiting confirmation, previously was vice president of the Essential Minerals Association, a trade association representing extraction companies. The Department of Labor declined to comment on the proposed lease terminations. A representative of the U.S. General Services Administration, which manages federal offices, told Grist that any locations being considered for closure have been made aware of that, and some lease terminations may be rescinded or not issued at all.
Many of the country’s remaining underground coal mines – the most dangerous kind – are located in Appalachia. MSHA has historically placed its field offices in mining communities. Although the number of coal mines has declined by more than half since 2008, tens of thousands of miners still work the coalfields. Many of them still venture underground.
The dwindling number of fatalities comes even as the MSHA has been plagued by continued staffing and funding shortfalls, with the federal Office of the Inspector General repeatedly admonishing the agency for falling below its own annual inspection targets. It also has recommended more frequent sampling to ensure mine operators protect workers from toxic coal and silica dust. After decades of work, federal regulators finally tightened silica exposure rules, but miners and their advocates worry too little staffing and too few inspections could hamper enforcement.
“There are going to be fewer inspections, which means that operators that are not following the rules are going to get away with not following the rules for longer than they would have,” said Chelsea Barnes, the director of government affairs and strategy at environmental justice nonprofit Appalachian Voices. The organization has worked with union members and advocates for those with black lung disease to lobby for stricter silica dust exposure limits.
Last month, the United Mine Workers’ Association denounced the proposed office closures. As demand for coal continues to decline, it worries that companies could pinch pennies to maximize profits — or avoid bankruptcy. ”Companies are completely dependent upon the price of coal,” said Phil Smith, executive assistant to union president Cecil Roberts. ”[If] it’s bad enough, they think, ‘Well, we can cut a corner here. We can pick a penny there.’”
The Biden administration made an effort to staff the agency. In the waning days of Biden’s term, Chris Williamson, who led the agency at the time, told Grist he was “very proud of rebuilding our team” because “you can’t go out and enforce the silica standard or enforce other things if you don’t have the people in place to do it.” The union worries that the Trump administration, which has pursued sweeping layoffs throughout the government, will target MSHA, where many of the Biden hires remain probationary employees. Despite the previous administration’s attempts to bolster the agency, it still missed inspections due to understaffing.
Anyone who isn’t terminated will have to relocate to larger offices if Trump shutters local outposts, placing them further from the mines they keep tabs on. In addition to inspecting underground mines at least quarterly and surface mines biannually, inspectors make more frequent checks of operations where toxic gases are present. They also respond to complaints. Work now done by people in the offices throughout eastern Kentucky likely would be consolidated in Lexington, Kentucky, or Wise County, Virginia, which are 200 miles apart.
The Upper Big Branch memorial in Whitesville is dedicated to coal miners who died in a 2010 explosion just up the road. Andrew Lichtenstein / Corbis via Getty Images
Field offices have been consolidated before, and mining experts acknowledged there may be a time and a place for such things, but it’s highly unusual to close so many without due process. In early March, the House Committee on Education and Workforce submitted a letter to Vince Micone, the acting secretary of labor, requesting documents and information on the closures and expressing concern that as many as 90 mine inspection job offers may have been rescinded. Their letter specifically referred to the agency’s history of understaffing that led to catastrophes like the Upper Big Branch mine explosion that killed 29 people in 2010, the nation’s worst mining accident in four decades.
“One of the lessons of the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster, according to MSHA’s own internal investigation, is that staffing disruptions at the managerial level resulted in MSHA’s inspectors failing to adequately address smaller-scale methane explosions in the months leading up the massive explosion that killed 29 miners fifteen years ago this April,” read the letter, which was signed by Democratic representatives Bobby Scott of Virginia and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.
The impact of potential cuts stretches far beyond coal, into the mines that will extract the lithium and other metals needed for clean energy and other industries. As of last year, the nation employed almost 256,000 metal and nonmetal miners who pull copper, zinc, and other things from the earth. “It’s an agency that matters, regardless of how we’re producing our energy,” said Chelsea Barnes of Appalachian Voices.
After spending so much time in the mines, Lindsay is concerned by the direction the Trump administration is heading, even as lawmakers in states like West Virginia and Kentucky have in recent years attempted to roll back regulations. “That’s going to be the future of MSHA,” she said. “They’re going to be in name only. Miners are going to die. And nobody but their families are going to care.”
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Mar. 20, 2025. It is shared here with permission under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
As U.S. President Donald Trump prepares to sign an executive order Thursday directing officials to shut down the Department of Education, Democratic politicians, teachers and communities across the nation are vowing legal and other challenges to the move.
Trump is set to check off a longtime Republican wish list item by signing a directive ordering Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the states.”
Shutting down the department—which was created in 1979 to ensure equitable access to public education and employs more than 4,000 people—will require an act of Congress, both houses of which are controlled by Republicans.
“Trump and his Cabinet of billionaires are trying to destroy the Department of Education so they can privatize more schools.”
Thursday’s expected order follows the department’s announcement earlier this month that it would fire half of its workforce. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and more than three dozen Democratic senators condemned the move and Trump’s impending Department of Education shutdown as “a national disgrace.”
Abolishing the Department of Education is one of the top goals of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led roadmap for a far-right takeover and gutting of the federal government closely linked to Trump, despite his unconvincing efforts to distance himself from the highly controversial plan.
U.S. Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) called Trump’s bid to abolish the Department of Education “more bullshit” and vowed to fight the president’s “illegal behavior until the cows come home.”
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said on social media: “Trump and his Cabinet of billionaires are trying to destroy the Department of Education so they can privatize more schools. The result: making it even harder to ensure that ALL students have access to a quality education. Another outrageous, illegal scam. We will fight this.”
It's the billionaires vs. the kids of America.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk side with the billionaires.
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, a Democrat, warned that “ending the U.S. Department of Education will decimate our education system and devastate families across the country.”
“Support for students with special needs and those in rural and urban schools will be gone,” he added. “We will stop at nothing to protect N.J. and fight this reckless action.”
Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association (NEA)—the nation’s largest labor union—said in a statement Thursday that “Donald Trump and Elon Musk have aimed their wrecking ball at public schools and the futures of the 50 million students in rural, suburban, and urban communities across America, by dismantling public education to pay for tax handouts for billionaires.”
Musk—the de facto head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—is the world’s richest person. Trump and McMahon are also billionaires.
“If successful, Trump’s continued actions will hurt all students by sending class sizes soaring, cutting job training programs, making higher education more expensive and out of reach for middle-class families, taking away special education services for students with disabilities, and gutting student civil rights protections,” Pringle warned.
“This morning, in hundreds of communities across the nation, thousands of families, educators, students, and community leaders joined together outside of neighborhood public schools to rally against taking away resources and support for our students,” she continued. “And, we are just getting started. Every day we are growing our movement to protect our students and public schools.”
“We won’t be silent as anti-public education politicians try to steal opportunities from our students, our families, and our communities to pay for tax cuts for billionaires,” Pringle added. “Together with parents and allies, we will continue to organize, advocate, and mobilize so that all students have well-resourced schools that allow every student to grow into their full brilliance.”
Yolanda, a special ed assistant, is on the frontlines of Trump’s attack on public education. His latest move to eliminate the Department of Education threatens her job & the students she supports—along with school aides, bus drivers, custodians & educators who keep our schools… pic.twitter.com/rTiCULim8A
National Parents Union president Keri Rodrigues said that closing the Department of Education would disproportionately affect the most vulnerable students and communities.
“Let’s be clear: Before federal oversight, millions of children—particularly those with disabilities and those from our most vulnerable communities—were denied the opportunities they deserved,” Rodrigues said in a statement. “The Department of Education was created to ensure that every child, regardless of background or ZIP code, has access to a public education that prepares them for their future. Eliminating it would roll back decades of progress, leaving countless children behind in an education system that has historically failed the most marginalized.”
The ACLU is circulating a petition calling on Congress to “save the Department of Education.”
“The Department of Education has an enormous effect on the day-to-day lives of students across the country,” the petition states. “They are tasked with protecting civil rights on campus and ensuring that every student—regardless of where they live; their family’s income; or their race, sex, gender identity, or disability—has equal access to education.”
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, responded to Trump’s looming order in four words: “See you in court.”
Recently, a friend asked me: if I could be a henchwoman for any villain in movies, TV, or any media, who would I choose? I chose the DC comic book villain Lex Luthor. Working for his business, LexCorp, would just be a 9-to-5 job with a 401(k) and a dental plan, with the bonus of never having to fight Superman or any other hero. Why would they bother fighting a low-level office worker?
In comic books, wealth is a superpower. The ability to make henchmen do their bidding is the only way most villains can stand up to heroes, and it allows heroes to focus on what they want to do. Batman, for instance, can maintain his lifestyle because of the people working for Wayne Enterprises. Even in fiction, an individual’s relationship to production dictates the manner of life they live. Superheroes and villains can perform super-powered acts of labor, or they have access to other people’s labor.
When I was younger, my favorite comic book was Green Lantern. Each Green Lantern gets their power from a ring given to them by space aliens called the Guardians of the Universe. These ancient beings have the ability to distribute superpowers like candy, using the recipients of their rings to form a galactic police force that suppresses their enemies and assists their allies. The Guardians’ control over the production of these rings gives them incredible power, even by comic book standards.
Strength alone isn’t what wins a fight in comics. The good guys usually succeed, and the bad guys typically lose in the end, but not before causing harm to raise the stakes for the hero. A villain who can’t beat the hero can still make that hero choose between saving the city and saving their love interest. A female love interest is often just a prop to move the story along; she has no real agency.
The term “fridging” describes a trope in fiction where women are harmed to motivate male protagonists. “Fridging” was coined after a 1999 issue of Green Lantern where the Lantern’s girlfriend was killed and stuffed into a refrigerator. Society conditions us to its worldview, and if we don’t think critically about what we consume, it leaves an impression on us. Feminism can help us understand media and power structures, but it takes multiple lenses to build a complete worldview.
I love questions like, “Who would you hench for?” It gives us a chance to think about media in a new way. Before learning dialectical materialism, I would have said I’d hench for the Guardians of the Universe and become a Green Lantern—mostly to start a conversation about how the Guardians are the real bad guys. Now, I’d rather answer honestly: if my boss told me to fight Batman, I’d quit.
Of course, I wouldn’t cut it as a real henchwoman; they wouldn’t even hire me. Why would an employer hire someone who won’t do what they want? Why would DC Comics hire a writer who writes about changing the status quo? In capitalist media, people who want to change the status quo are portrayed as the bad guys, while those who restore and protect it are good.
The more people see a piece of media, the greater the impression it leaves on society. DC Comics and every other major media producer know they have power over society that the average worker does not. They don’t want to give up that power, so their stories will always be biased in their favor. The rich heroes like Batman are good because they sustain the society they interact with. The villains like Lex Luthor are bad because they are trying to change things. Luthor’s changes might be harmful, but systemic change of any kind is almost always depicted negatively.
Movies, books, music—whatever form of media we consume—shapes who we are. “Who would you hench for?” doesn’t just look at media from a fictional perspective; it gives us a chance to examine ourselves and each other. Fridging not only leads to a misogynistic way of thinking, but it also shows that this is the status quo media wants to protect.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t consume media; I could only write this much about Green Lantern and Batman because I’ve read a lot of those comics. I’m sure Iron Man would be a good example, but I haven’t read many Iron Man comics. We should spend our leisure time enjoying what we love. Just remember, if we don’t work on conditioning ourselves, someone else will.
Feminism and dialectical materialism pair well together. Dialectics helps us understand how things are interconnected. The quality of a piece of media is not limited to how entertaining it is; it also includes who produced it and its effect on the consumer. How something affects and is affected by its environment is crucial to understanding it. Feminism can show us what qualities to look for. Media produced by men for men, with little input or consideration for women, often ends up with sexist undertones, even if it is entertaining.
We are what we eat, or as Ralph Waldo Emerson put it, “I cannot remember the books I’ve read any more than the meals I have eaten; even so, they have made me.” Sometimes (or: Perhaps?) the most radical thing we can do to take control over our worldview is to be critical of what we consume. We can seek out media that helps shape a revolutionary perspective.
I’d really like to know what my readers think. Tell me who you would hench for in the comments.
This week, we’re taking a more national focus, and checking in with the National Association of Letter Carriers, who have been embroiled in a years-long contract negotiation with the US Postal Service.
In our episode today, I’m sitting down with Melissa Rakestraw, member of the National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 825 in Chicago, IL, to discuss the state of negotiations with our nation’s letter carriers, the unprecedented rejection of the recent Tentative Agreement and what happens next, and what would happen if the US Postal Service was privatized.
As a short editorial note before we begin, the interest arbitration process between USPS and the Letter Carriers began on March 17th, with Dennis R. Nolan set as the neutral arbitrator. This episode was recorded at the end of February, before those dates had been set.
Postal workers are also set to hit the streets this weekend–“Fight Like Hell!” rallies are scheduled for March 23 across the country to protest the proposed privatization of the US Postal Service.
Studio Production: Mel Buer Post-Production: Jules Taylor
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Mel Buer:
I got work. Welcome everyone to Working People, a podcast about the lives, jobs, dreams, and struggles of the working class today. Working People is a proud member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network and is brought to you in partnership within these Times Magazine and the Real News Network. This show is produced by Jules Taylor and made possible by the support of listeners like you. My name is Mel Er and I’m your host for the month of March. Continue to stay tuned this month as we share the mic with workers from all over this country and discuss pressing issues central to today’s labor movement. In these last two weeks, we’ve spoken with workers at multiple unions in Southern California who are working diligently on breaking Deadlocks in their own negotiations. If you haven’t checked those out, you can find those episodes@therealnews.com under our podcast page. This week we’re taking a more national focus and checking in with the National Association of Letter Carriers who have themselves been embroiled in a year’s long contract negotiation with United States Postal Service.
In our episode today, I’m sitting down with Melissa Rakestraw, member of the National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 8 2 5 in Chicago, Illinois, and we’re discussing the state of negotiations with our nation’s letter carriers, the unprecedented rejection of the recent tentative agreement and what happens next and what would happen if the US Postal Service was privatized. As a short editorial note before we begin, this episode was recorded at the end of February before interest arbitration dates had been set. Those interest arbitration dates began on March 17th with Dennis R. Nolan set as the neutral arbitrator in this situation with me today to discuss their current negotiations and the threat of a privatized postal service is Melissa Rastro, member of the National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 8 2 5 in Chicago, Illinois. Thanks for coming on, Melissa.
Melissa Rakestraw:
Thanks a lot. I appreciate you having me.
Mel Buer:
I’m glad you’re here. I’d like to kick off this conversation first by giving our listeners a chance to get to know a bit more about you, your work, your organizing, and your union. So what is na? The Association of Letter Carriers, right? National Association of Letter Carriers and who do they represent? How many members do you have, that kind of stuff.
Melissa Rakestraw:
Right. So the NALC is a national association of letter carriers. We’ve existed since the 1890s. We didn’t have collective bargaining rights with the post office until after the great postal strike of 1970 largest wildcat strike in US history. And at that point too, that’s when they moved the post office out of the cabinet and into its own organization. The NALC. I personally have carried mail since 1995. I’m a letter carrier. The last two years I’ve been a full-time officer for my local branch 8 25. We have a lot of offices that we represent all throughout Chicago suburbs. We also represent some smaller offices throughout the state of Illinois. We represent around 1800 active letter carriers and we have around 3000 members total in our branch. So I’m also on the executive council for the Illinois State Association of Letter Carriers. We represent all letter carriers throughout the state of Illinois in our region within the NALC, there’s 15 regions and we’re one of 15.
Mel Buer:
How many members nationally do you have whereabouts?
Melissa Rakestraw:
Yeah, I think it’s around 200,000 in that range. It varies. It might be 189,000, but it does vary. And then around 60% of that would be active carriers because we have a large pool of retirees
Mel Buer:
And these are the folks who are outside of the mail handling post office who are delivering your mail to on route to your house every day.
Melissa Rakestraw:
So yeah, we’re the people that everybody sees as their mailman, the person in the truck in funny little truck where we drive on the wrong side and we’re coming to your doorstep hopefully every day to deliver your mail Monday through Saturday and we are one of the most beloved group of workers out there. Most people love their mailman. We call ourselves letter carriers, but I don’t have any problem with the term mailman myself again and again in pollings you see that the American public is very happy with their letter carrier and their mail service. Over the last few years we’ve seen some of that get deteriorated because of a postmaster general who was slowing down service and increasing rates. But letter carriers are out there every day watching kids grow up, checking on elderly residents who greet them at their mailbox every day. I’ve worked with people who have saved people from burning homes who have donated kidneys to their customers on their route. We are embedded in our communities. We aren’t just out there to do a job. We are out there to look out for the people who live on our routes.
Mel Buer:
I mean, I just certainly in my lifetime have had numerous friendships with letter carriers on the various routes that I’ve lived on, and so I definitely see that. One thing that I would like to kind of draw in our listeners’ attention to is you’ve been in the midst of bargaining a national contract for quite some time, a couple of years at this point, and just recently members voted to reject a tentative agreement with the postal service. For the benefit of our listeners, can you give us a bit of an overview about these negotiations, what’s been going on, what’s at stake and what the demands are for where members across the country, and then maybe we can kind of discuss why this tentative agreement was rejected.
Melissa Rakestraw:
Sure. So right before covid hit, we negotiated a contract and it was set to expire in May of 2023. Throughout covid letter carriers kept working every day. We made sure our customers got all the things that they needed to order online because they couldn’t go to stores. We delivered testing kits for covid, we delivered everything. We kept the economy running in a lot of senses. We were told we were essential workers. We were not paid hazard pay, we were not paid anything extra. We were told by our national leadership that we would get our pay and we would get what we deserve for being so crucial to the US public. When our contract expired, our contract expired in May of 2023. Our national president has pretty much full control over bargaining. He doesn’t have to include any of the rest of the elected officers, so he runs it.
He was negotiating with the postal service throughout the summer. He was giving us updates at different wrap sessions saying that he was planning on seeing seven to 9% salary increases for us year wage wise, our wages were the worst of any. If you look up wages with the rate of inflation, the letter carrier or postal workers’ wages suffered the worst in comparison to inflation over the last five years. So even though we actually have cost of living allowance adjustments, we don’t get full call. So our national president was telling us he’s trying to get seven to 9% increases and people expected that We’re seeing UPS, which we feel is comparable to us, same industry. They don’t actually have to walk house to house like we do, and their top of scale is $49 an hour. Right now our top of scale is under $37 an hour.
So it’s a huge gap and the law actually says that the postal service is supposed to pay us wages that are comparable to the private sector. We are nowhere near that, nowhere close to it. It takes 13 years for letter carrier to get to the top of the pay scale, which is interminably too long. We’ve had problems staffing post offices ever since Covid because the starting pay and the conditions are too low, the conditions are terrible, people are abused by management, they have low wages and we can’t keep people. And so we’re having very high expectations out of this contract to get considerable pay increases and to address poor working conditions, management’s refusal to comply with the contract, violating the same things over and over, forced mandatory overtime all across the country. Here in Chicago, the post office has paid out millions of dollars to the local NALC branch for not complying with contract settlements.
Now it is ludicrous if you think that them just failing to abide by the agreements they’ve already signed, that alone is costing them millions of dollars. Nobody in management does anything about it. We wanted some resolutions through our contract to force management to comply with our settlements, to give carriers the right to say, when I’m done with my shift, I can go home. You can’t keep me here. 12, 13, 14, 15 hours. You’re seeing people forced to work 16 hours. And it’s so dangerous because our jobs are mainly on the street all day. You’re dealing with traffic, you’re dealing with so many unknown things. We’ve seen crimes against letter carriers skyrocket at one point every day in Chicago, there were numerous robberies of letter carriers out on their route. We’re like sitting ducks out there and nobody’s doing anything to help us. So we had such high expectations of this contract.
We finally were handed tentative agreement in October of 2024, well past 500 days, and it was 1.3% increase per year. A pitance and insult, quite frankly, no protections around the mandatory overtime for people who don’t want to work overtime, no protections in regards to enforcing our contract and management compliance with our contract. And we actually had giveaways where we were agreeing to lower our fixed office time. We have certain things we have to do every morning and they give us credit for that amount of time and they were trying to take back some of that time arbitrarily.
It wasn’t just that the monetary amount of 1.3% was so insulting, which it was also the fact that we’re getting work rules that don’t make sense for us either and make our jobs worse and harder and more difficult, which should not be the goal of a collective bargaining situation. So there were a record amount of people who voted in the vote for the tentative agreement. We at least have that right to vote it up or down. It was rejected by two thirds of the people who voted, which was also something that was historic. A tentative agreement hasn’t been voted down in the NALC since the early eighties, and we organized a vote no campaign. It went across the country. There were folks that started kind of a caucus that you call Build a Fighting NALC, that originated up in Minnesota that was talking about open bargaining and letting the membership know exactly what’s going on during bargaining because our national president wasn’t letting us know that there have been other groups too that have formed around these demands for open bargaining so we know what’s being bargained for and we can hold our leadership accountable.
And these same groups that had fought for open bargaining, like Build A Fighting NALC, the Care for President campaign and the concerned letter carriers group all said when we got this tentative agreement, well now this is an insult and we’re going to have to build a vote no campaign, which was very successful and it was a relief to see that the membership said, this is not sufficient. We will not accept this. You have to do better.
Mel Buer:
Right. I want to take a moment to talk about the historic nature of this vote no campaign. As you said, a contract hasn’t been voted down since the eighties, and there have been a number of labor reporters in the last couple of weeks who have really kind of underscored the sort of unprecedented nature of that. Does that sort of speak to the ways in which conditions either under this current postmaster, general Louis Dejo who may be leaving soon or the sort of deterioration of these conditions and what it means to work as a letter carrier, which historically has been a pretty stable career position? Right,
Melissa Rakestraw:
Right. Yeah, absolutely. So when people take a job in the post office, historically it was looked at as a career. It was looked as something that you’re working towards a pension, particularly with letter carriers. After we reach a minimum retirement age of around 57 and we have 30 years in, we can retire. And by that point your body’s been through enough that you really can’t, in a lot of cases work longer than that. We have the highest rate of injury of any federal worker just because of the physical nature of our job. So people’s expectations with this contract coming out of Covid, seeing what’s going on around us with other unions having historic wins with UPS, with UAW and their standup strikes, it was so invigorating to see those victories and what those workers were able to win. And then feeling like, Hey, it’s our turn now and we were made this promise that you are going to be rewarded for sticking with it, for sticking through covid, for putting up with all the mandatory overtime and now is your time.
That’s how letter carriers felt like now is our time. And when we saw this tentative agreement, it felt like it was an insult from management. Number one, they’ve just given themselves raises. And then it was also an insult from our national president that he would think this was an acceptable deal to try to get us to accept. He went around and campaigned for this deal all over the country and had wrap sessions where he would tell people how wonderful it was and when we’re like, no, it’s not wonderful. We’re not stupid. Don’t try to force feed us this nonsense. And he did everything he could to try to get it to be accepted and people still said no. And that’s not been over the last four decades since the early eighties. It’s not been the type of union where leadership was opposed and leadership was seen as not having fought for us for a very long time. Our national president was one of the people that had led the wildcat stripe, then Sobrato out of New York City, and he was a fighter and he won a lot of advances for letter carriers and we maybe slept on that tradition and got to a point where it was just a business unionist approach that the head of our union thought he could sit down with the head of management and they could figure out a deal and it would be fair and it was anything but
Mel Buer:
Right. Well now you’ve reached the tentative agreement has been rejected and the executive council voted unanimously on February 19th not to agree to terms with a postal service that would’ve given you a modified tentative agreement to vote on. So now technically we’ve reached the point where US Postal Service officials have been notified that they are at impasse, which for the benefit of our listeners really means that there is a stalemate that cannot really be sort of adjudicated between the two parties. They need to bring in a third party to kind of talk about this. And so coming up, this is being recorded on February 28th, likely we will hear dates about hearings that will be coming up in the coming weeks and months in what’s called an interest arbitration process. The proposals on both sides will be considered by a three person panel and then hopefully that means that there will be an agreement that can be reached through this arbitration process. My question for you, watching all of this, being a part of this vote no campaign and hearing from membership over the last months and really years, how do you feel about this development? Do you feel like this is moving in a positive direction? Is it something that is frustrating because you wish it hadn’t gotten to this point? How do you feel?
Melissa Rakestraw:
Well, it’s very frustrating because it’s been over 600 days now since our contract expired, and that means no raises for anybody, no cost of living increases, nothing flat, stagnant wages that we’re already behind. So that’s extremely frustrating. The other aspect of it that’s really frustrating is the union could have forced this negotiation to go into interest arbitration in the fall of 2023. Our national president could have said, then listen, you guys are not anywhere near offering us what we deserve. We’re sending it to the interest arbitration panel and we’ll take our chances. We feel like we have a good argument. And that didn’t happen. He allowed management to drop the plow and slow negotiations and not, and draw this out to the point that where we’re at now and this interest arbitration process, normally both sides will present briefs and witnesses and go through all aspects of the contract.
We present economic issues, work related issues, all of that. But now with the threat of the postal service being moved in the Department of Commerce, having our independent authority taken away, not being run by the Board of Governors anymore, realizing that we may not have anyone in management to negotiate with if those things happen, the union has decided to agree with management to go to an expedited process wherein the union is only going to present economic issues or pay scale management is entitled to put forward what they would like, but the union will put forward our issues. We are not going to be doing briefs, so the membership isn’t going to know after the fact what was asked for on our side, which is very disappointing and it’s a process that lacks transparency and quite frankly needs to be changed. So we’re going to put forward our economic proposals to the arbitrator.
The arbitration panel is three arbitrators, one picked by the union, one picked by management, and then one who we both agree on who’s the tiebreaker. And it sounds to me like in the expedited process, we basically play our case out to the mutually agreed upon arbitrator. He’ll go back and forth and talk to both sides and try to make an expedited ruling. We’re not putting forward as many things as we normally would. Now our national president is telling us that he wants to keep some of the work rules that they agreed on with management. He thinks they’re good even though the membership didn’t just vote down the contract because of the economic issues. People aren’t happy with the work rule issues either. He seems to think they’re a quote win so he can agree to memos with management to put a lot of these work issues into the contract. People are trying to push back on that in the union and say, Hey, let’s leave the work rules how they are right now in the current contract, extend that out and just simply deal with the pay because we know we can work with the current rules we have and how to navigate those,
But we think that your new work rules are not going to be helpful to us. So that fight now is playing itself out as well. And the threats, it’s not existential. I guess it’s an actual real threat from this current administration to attack and get the postal service and invalidate our collective bargaining agreements. So we’ve waited over 600 days for a raise and the longer this plays out, the worse we feel it will be for us. So
Mel Buer:
Yeah, it sounds like to me you waited till the house was on fire before you turned on the hose. And now with these threat, we will talk more when we come back from the break specifically about privatizing the postal service and what that would do to both workers and consumers. But it seems like at this point there’s not enough runway left to be able to get a decent contract out of this current contract period. And again, I want to underscore here that the contract expired in May of 2023. So the contract that is currently being negotiated to a stalemate at this point is supposed to run from 2023 to 2026. And we ran into this with the railroad unions a couple of years back where two and a half years of contract negotiations, we almost went to a national rail strike. The real news reported on this at the time, by the time that it was all said and done and the ink was dry, they were two and a half months out from negotiating the next contract because the periods expire. And so there’s this bottlenecking here that seems to be pretty pronounced, particularly in the NALC that is making it difficult for workers to get paid and also to plan for a much more uncertain future.
Melissa Rakestraw:
And it’s not always been standard that it takes over 600 days for us to negotiate a contract.
There have been some that we might not get an agreement until maybe a year after the contract has expired, but it’s been particularly exacerbated in this process. And after the tentative agreement was voted down, the union went into a 15 day period with management where they could try to renegotiate some of the specifics. Management offered 1.3% and 1.4% and 1.7% increases, which our executive counsel said, no, that’s not sufficient either. We’re not even going to send it back out to the membership for another vote because it’s so paltry at that point. Due to the NALC constitution, our national president does have the authority to call a work stoppage. Now it’s illegal. We have a no strike clause in our expired contract that we agree to abide by. And part of the reason it goes before this arbitration process is that the arbitrator is supposed to give us something that’s halfway decent to keep us happy, so we don’t want to strike. And it really undercuts the rights of the workers to be able to get a decent wage, which we’re not getting, and we also can’t strike or walk off the job and in this current, and we don’t want to have to do that. We don’t want to have to hurt the communities we serve and our customers. It’s not what we want to do, but it also puts our backs against the wall. There aren’t a lot of options open to us, quite frankly.
Mel Buer:
Right, and this is a common theme among many, many collective bargaining agreements and unions across this country. It’s sort of a thorn in the side of most organizers is that these no strike clauses are often very standard in contracts, which removes really the sort of the one real bargaining chip that you have to withhold your labor in order to forced through an agreement that is actually beneficial to workers. I want to turn now to developments at the federal level where the current administration seems to be laying the groundwork for total privatization of the US Postal Service. In February, multiple media outlets reported on the plan saying, president Donald Trump plans to disband the US Postal Services Board of Governors and place the agency under direct control of the Commerce Department and Secretary Howard Lutnick. Can you, Melissa, can you just give us a sense for listeners who really aren’t quite sure what this means, what would this plan look like the postal service as it is now and how it would be changed?
Melissa Rakestraw:
So the plan is a bad deal for customers and for workers. It’s not going to be good for the American public or the postal worker, either one. It’s going to create an environment if the privatization is able to move forward the way that they’ve planned it, where they could sell off access to your mailbox to private companies right now, for security reasons and a lot of reasons, the only people that have the legal right to access your mailbox is your letter carrier. Other people can’t be coming around digging around in there, seeing what’s in there, taking things out, messing with your mailbox. It’s a federal crime, so there is that protection. They want to sell off mailbox access to private companies so that they can have their own low wage workforce delivering items into people’s mailboxes. In addition to that, it would put it in, if the post office is privatized and you don’t have that lower rate universal service that the postal service provides, it’s not going to have, well, what’s going to happen is private companies are going to be able to raise their prices through the roof.
UPS FedEx, Amazon is not going to have the competition of the efficient postal service delivery standards where you can get things fairly quickly and at a very affordable rate once you don’t have the post office’s lower rates there, those private companies are going to have an even bigger monopoly than they already do. For instance, for some things, the same exact package sent through the post office might be $30 and it’s going to cost you a hundred to send it through UPS. And it’s the same exact service. Local businesses and especially people who run businesses out of their homes and send things through the mail service, if they had to send everything through UPS or FedEx, they would go out of business. It’s just that simple. And the other process of this is too, it’s already started to happen where they’re slowing down the mail service and the customers, it’s hard for them to rely upon timely delivery, which was intentional by postal management.
The Trump appointed postmaster, general Louis DeJoy who prioritized just the delivery of packages, he was consolidating sorting centers. There’s a huge backup. They’re not hiring enough people to timely sort the mail. So you create a situation to make customers less reliant upon the postal service, then you say, well, now we’re going to sell off these services to the highest bidder, right? So that’s going to crush small businesses, independent people who rely on the postal service to send out whatever products they sell, and the consumer, so many people, it is part of their process now to order everything online and the post office is the only delivery service that’s really affordable, quite frankly, and the competition we provide there. The other huge aspect of this is they want to invalidate our collective bargaining agreements. If they’re able to move us into commerce, they want to make it illegal to even have a union.
It would be the way things were pre 1970, pre Wildcat strike where the workers weren’t allowed to organize. They had to go to Congress to beg for wage increases and benefits. It was a very unfair system, quite frankly. There were people that had to live on public assistance to get by. And we’re actually seeing a situation now where even though we are unionized workforce, our new hires have such a low wage scale that a lot of them are getting public assistance as well. They’re finding themselves in situations they can’t afford rent in the communities where they work. A lot of cities where there’s a high cost of San Francisco, for example, they can’t find letter carriers to work in those cities because nobody can afford to live near where they work. That’s going to be deteriorated even further under the plan that’s being put forward.
This plan was put out in 2018 by then Secretary Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, talking about their ideas of making the post office a privatized entity, getting rid of the pensions that we receive, making the people who are already locked into a pension have a longer term before they can qualify. Right now, we can retire after 30 years and believe me, your body is ready after carrying mail for 30 years. They want to make it so that doesn’t matter anymore. Of course, we have a social security gap payment. I could retire when I’m 57 and between 57 and 62 when I can collect social security, I’d receive a gap payment to make up for the fact that I can’t get social security yet. They would get rid of that. They want us to pay a higher percentage of our wages into our pensions, of course a higher percentage of our wages into our healthcare. And they claim that, well, this is justified because the private sector doesn’t necessarily have the same sort of pension benefits. And my answer to that would be, well, that’s because of 40 years of union busting and destroying unions in this country, and the private sector deserves those benefits too. Allowing them to come in and attack our unions and take those things away would be a huge hit for the entire working class, not just for letter carriers. We should be fighting for these same benefits in all unions
As opposed to saying, well, you shouldn’t be getting it because private sector workers may not have it.
Mel Buer:
So what’s the recourse then? Let’s spend some time on this because we’ve talked a little bit about if we see a privatized US Postal service and we see these sort of collective bargaining agreements become null and void, it dovetails into the conversation that I think a lot of folks in union organizing are having about what happens when they remove the rest of the teeth from the NLRA and what recourse do unions have to begin organizing. Now, my personal opinion as a union journalist should have happened, should have started maybe like a year or a couple or five, 10 years ago. The minute that we started seeing these flashing red lights that this is what they were trying to dismantle, especially with the SpaceX case and what’s going on with Elon Musk’s companies and Google and Waffle House of all places suing to make parts of the NLRA and Noll and void. What does that look like for workers in this country and especially for letter carriers in your own context? Right,
Melissa Rakestraw:
Right. So let me backtrack a little bit because something you talked about there. At first when we’re talking about how the attacks on the postal workers affect our communities and other folks, we do the last mile of delivery for other companies. We go where they don’t go. There’s a lot of inner city neighborhoods, the Amazon UPS, they opt out, they’re not going there. Rural areas, we’re not going there. We’ll give it to the post office, let them deliver it. Those folks aren’t going to have a service or what service they may get is going to be terrible and very high priced. So that kind of attack on our jobs attacks our communities as well. And when we talk about moving forward, what’s it look like? That’s why I’m so adamant that we have settled for a terrible contract and that we have to fight these privatization efforts because we are the largest unionized workforce in a civilian workforce outside of the federal government directly.
Anything that they can do and attack us and our unions, they can do to anybody else, if not worse. And if you’re talking about having, they want to create a workplace non-unionized, take us back. We should be going the opposite direction with trying to unionize the places that aren’t unionized, whether it be the Amazon delivery drivers, Amazon warehouses, all of these networks going forward. We’ve seen some gains in non-unionized workplaces unionizing, and at the same token, you’ve seen unionized workers attacked as well. So I truly believe our only way forward is through solidarity. It’s what has sustained the labor movement from day one and the birth of the labor movement came out of the Great Depression. And then we see the robber Baron era. I think we’re looking at a modern robber baron era where you’re allowing someone, the richest man in the world who is a union buster, who has done everything he can to keep unions out of his workplaces now come into our realm and say, I’m going after the big dogs.
I’m going after these folks who’ve been unionized for decades and are implanted across the whole entire country. So it’s time that all of us have to stick together and fight back. And I’ve seen this across the federal workforce as well. When you see people attacked in the national parks, even in the IRS Social Security Administration, his attacks on the OPM and the Social Security Administration are going to impact all of us who rely upon the services of those departments. Like right now, OPM administers our pensions. They deal with a lot of the administration of our healthcare plans. It’s whenever you have an issue, it already takes forever to find someone to help you with your problem, and it’s going to be even worse and even more exacerbated now that those folks’ jobs are going to be cut and these are people that actually provide a worthwhile service to workers, to the American public at large. And all of us have to step forward and demand better because no one’s coming to save us. The courts aren’t going to save us. No elected officials are going to save us. It’s going to be our own fight back that wins this.
It’s the only thing that’s ever won anything significant for workers in the past, and we have to get back to that one-on-one organizing with their coworkers and within our unions, within our branches than in our communities, in other unions, in our communities, and we’re all in this together. The attacks that have gone on on the immigrant community, on the trans community, L-G-B-T-Q community, it’s all related. We can’t step back and say, well, maybe I’m not in that community or does it impact me directly? So it’s not my fight well wrong, it is our fight and we’ve got to figure out how not to let them divide us because there’s more of us than there are of them, and solidarity is our way forward.
Mel Buer:
If there’s one thing that even a sort of half-hearted study of labor history can teach you is that we’ve been here before and we were very successful as American activists, as folks who have inherited the legacy of the labor movement of the feminist movement, of the civil rights movement, that we’ve been through much worse conditions and we won everything that we have today because of the work that we as members of the working class have done in this country, which is an amazing thing to think about and internalize when if any of my listeners are sitting here absolutely overwhelmed by the last two and a half months, two months of really intense not great things coming out of this administration, there is a way forward, as some of my friends like to say, we’re not cooked yet. There is a space for us to be able to organize, and especially in the federal workforce, what we’re seeing is the boss is the best organizer because a lot of people are joining unions when they previously didn’t think they needed to or decided not to.
And this is kind of a radicalizing moment for a lot of folks. And so it’s a reminder to just be where your hands are at and do something that will help you feel less helpless if you can get out of your house to kind of engage in something that’s going to help you. And that really kind of takes me to my last question here, which is something to do as we are experiencing threats against the postal service and NALC has recently put out a call to all branches of the union to organize rallies in opposition to this privatization. They are to be scheduled for March 23rd. This episode will be out on March 19th to say hell no to a private postal service. So just want to read a little bit from a statement by NALC President Brian Renfro who said these local rallies nationwide will bring together NALC members and the public to show their support for letter carriers, all postal employees and the postal service at a crucial time. This is an opportunity to educate our customers about everything at stake if the postal service is privatized or restructured. So really I want to give us a moment to talk about what are these things that you’re hoping to communicate to the American public with these rallies and how can our listeners show support for letter carriers and to get more engaged in through these rallies and other various actions that they can take?
Melissa Rakestraw:
Right. So one of the things I would suggest is look for the rallies in your communities on March 23rd. Ask your letter carrier, Hey, where’s the local rally that you guys are having? Because most likely every branch in the country is going to be organizing something. So I would encourage folks to ask their letter carrier, what is your local planning? And I’d like to show up with your sign that says, I love my post office and hands off hell no to dismantling the postal service. I think that kind of support with four letter carriers and seeing our community support us is so invigorating and gives us the kind of energy to realize we are not alone in this fight. That’s one thing I’ve tried to express with my membership is that we have a huge fight on our hands. Don’t underestimate it. However, we are not helpless and we are not going to be anybody’s victim because we can fight this and we can win.
And like you said, the blueprints are there from the labor movement of the past. So I’m going to love to see customers come out and support us. Talk to your letter carrier about what’s going on, ask them questions to educate yourself too of what you can do to help out. We run the largest food drive in the country is run by the letter carriers union every Saturday before the second Saturday in May. And we take what we gather from every door that we deliver to and we deliver it to our local food banks because we know that there’s need this need in our communities. We’ve done this for over 30 years and it’s something that we take very seriously. We take a lot of pride in and when we see the customers then appreciating us, showing up to our rallies, honking when they drive by one of our protests, it makes us realize that they appreciate us too.
They appreciate what we do for them, that they appreciate us being there. They appreciate us checking on their elderly neighbor if she or he hasn’t picked up their mail for a couple days and finding out what’s going on and also knowing that we aren’t alone. We can get together with other folks in our community who are also wanting to fight back. I was really encouraged because last Saturday here in a suburban area outside Chicago, the town’s called Lyle, Illinois, there’s a Tesla dealership and there were over 400 people who showed up outside of it to protest just random people from the community. And this is not a hotbed of activism, right? In the city of Chicago, you expect to see a lot of protests and that kind of thing out in the suburban areas. Not so much usually, but it showed me that people want to fight. People do not want to take this line down. People know that there’s a lot at stake here and that they are coming after all of us. The entire working class is under attack here. It’s not just this group or that group. It’s all of us.
Mel Buer:
Agreed, agreed. And again, really to underscore this last couple of minutes, really just to remind folks that are listening to this that are feeling dismayed by how things are going for us, and it’s been kind of a precipitous drop. It’s been going pretty bad for a while. Certainly through the last couple of administrations we’ve been feeling this kind of squeeze, especially since 2008, but it is getting, I dunno, I suppose I could say it has to get worse before it gets better. But the thing is is that this is also allowing folks to kind of reach a place where they can reach into these movements in a way that maybe they didn’t feel they had a way to before. And to engage in a very simple act of solidarity is a very radicalizing thing and a very positive thing. There’s nothing quite like it really.
And being able to kind of remind yourself that, especially with the letter carriers, these are members of your community that come to your house every day that know you, your family, your neighbors, and are often neighbors themselves. So these are the things to think about is that if you’re feeling like there’s just too much going on, then this is a really important piece where you can just get out of the house and in Chicago it’ll be nicer than it has been in terms of weather for the last couple of weeks. Be able to stand out in the warmth and get to know the folks that you see driving around your neighborhood every day. Before I let you go though, I just want to ask if you have any final parting thoughts for the folks listening either to continue to show support for letter carriers or how to feel more connected to their community or if you have some thoughts about folks who are looking to organize and don’t know where to start, what are some things to keep in mind for anyone who’s getting into this and who’s new to it?
Melissa Rakestraw:
So I think one of the things would be if you’re aware of something going on, go to it. Go to an organizing meeting, go introduce yourself. Say, Hey, I’ve never done this before, but I want to get involved because the people who have been organizing for years, upon years upon years, love to see new people come to the door and say, Hey, what can I do to help? You mentioned that the feeling that people get when you engage in a collective action, it’s really hard to explain if you haven’t done it. I can remember in 2012 when the CTU Chicago Teachers Union went on strike and the odds were pitted against them with Rah Emanuel being the mayor of the 1% trying to crush their union quite frankly, and when we surrounded city hall on every side, it’s a huge block in downtown Chicago and it was just a sea of red and thousands of people and you’re all on the same wavelength and realize we all want the same thing and they’re going to have to give it to us and just sporadic things that happen of that nature.
We’ve seen starting from Occupy even before that in Wisconsin when public workers fought back the Black Lives Matter movement where people took to the streets and said, this is not okay and we deserve better and we’re not in the prep with it anymore. The Standing Rock show down that went on and I think over the last few years we haven’t seen as much of people in the streets and fighting back and we’re going to have to get back into that and not just being on the streets, but being organized off the streets and getting into organizing meetings, getting into spaces, whether it be in our unions, our community groups where we can discuss strategy and a path forward and what are our demands and what can we all agree on. There’s a lot of things we can agree on and we should put those as our things that we all want to bring us together in our union.
Yeah, we have been fighting for a better contract for ourselves and now we realize we have to take that fight out into the community for the very survival of the post office itself. The US’ oldest institution that predates the Constitution that Benjamin Franklin founded before the signing of the Constitution of this country that established an infrastructure in this country literally was established through the post office. The history is incredible and this is the history that belongs to the working people of the us. It’s not something that we can allow the oligarchs and the billionaires to come in and take away from us and dismantle and destroy because once they’ve crushed it, it’s going to be a lot harder to build it back. So we have to meet them and show them we aren’t backing down, that we’re all willing to fight for it and there’s more of us than there are of them. We always have to keep that in mind and you’re going to lose every battle you don’t fight. The only way we can win is to fight and when we fight, we win.
Mel Buer:
Well said. Melissa, thank you so much for coming on the show today. I really appreciate it. Thanks
Melissa Rakestraw:
A lot for having me.
Mel Buer:
That’s it for us here at Working People. We’ll see you back here next week for another episode and if you can’t wait that long, then go explore all the great work we’re doing at the Real News Network where we do grassroots journalism, lifting up the voices and stories from the front lines of struggle. Sign up for the Real News newsletter so you never miss a story and help us do more work like this by going to the real news.com/donate and becoming a supporter today. It really makes a difference. I’m Mel er and thanks so much for sticking around. We’ll see you next time.
Janine Jackson interviewed Rutgers University’s Eric Blanc about worker-to-worker organizing as a key force of resistance for the March 7, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
Janine Jackson: The difficult and disturbing political moment is throwing some underlying fissures in US society into relief. Along with which side some folks turn out to be on, we’re learning what levers of power regular people actually have and how we can use them. And we’re reminded that the antidote to fear and confusion is one another, is community, including the particularly powerful form of community that is a labor union. Indeed, workers can wield power even shy of a union, though that’s not a story you will often read about in major media.
EB: It’s hard to exaggerate the stakes of the fight right now around federal workers. There’s a reason that Musk and Trump have started by trying to decimate federal services and decimate federal unions, and that’s because they understand that these are blockages on their attempt to have sort of full authoritarian control over the government and to be able to just impose their reactionary agenda irrespective of the law. And they know that they need to not just fire the heads of these agencies, but they need to be able to have a workforce that is so terrified of the administration that they’ll comply even when the law is being broken.
And so they have to go out after these unions and break them. And in turn, the stakes for, really, all progressive, all working people, anybody who has a stake in democracy, are very high because this is the first major battle of the new administration. And if they’re able to mass fire federal workers despite their legal protections to have job protections, despite the reality that millions of Americans depend on these services—Social Security, Medicaid, just basic environmental health and safety protections—if they’re able to destroy these services upon which so many people depend, this is going to set a basis for them to then go even harder on the rest of society. So think about immigrants and trans people and all of that. So the implications of this battle are very high. It is the case, fortunately, that federal workers are starting to resist, but there’s going to need to be a lot more to be able to push back.
JJ: Well, I grew up outside of DC. Both my parents worked at federal agencies. All of my summer jobs were at federal agencies, and anyone with direct experience knows that, with 0.0 illusions about perfection—but we understand that there are widespread misunderstandings and myths about government, generally, and about federal workers, specifically. Trump says, “We’re bloated, we’re sloppy. We have a lot of people that aren’t doing their job.” How do we push back against that narrative?
EB: Yeah, I think the basic response is straightforward, which is to highlight just how important these services are and to note that, far from having a massively expanded bureaucracy, the federal services, like most public services, have actually been starved over the last 50 years. The percentage of the workforce that works for the federal government has continued to decline for the last four decades. And so it’s just not the case that there’s this massively expanding bureaucracy. And if anything, many of the inefficiencies and the problems in the sector are due to a lack of resources and then the lack of ability to really make these the robust programs that they can and should be, and oftentimes in the past were.
So it’s just not the case that either there’s a massively expanded bureaucracy or that these services are somehow not important. The reality is that the American people, in some ways, don’t see all of these services. They take them for granted. They’re somewhat invisible. So the fact that, up until recently, planes weren’t crashing, well, that’s because you have federal regulators and have well-trained federal air traffic controllers. And so when you start to destroy these services, then all of a sudden it becomes more visible. What will happen if you stop regulating companies on pollution, for instance? Well, companies can go back and do what they did a hundred years ago, which is to systematically dump toxins into the soil, into water, and all of these other things that we almost take for granted now that are unacceptable. Well, if there’s no checks and balances on corporations, who’s going to prevent them from doing all of this?
And so I do think that there’s just a lot of basic education that needs to be put out there to counter these lies, essentially, of the Trump administration. For instance, the vast majority of federal workers don’t live in DC. This idea that this is all sort of rich bureaucrats in DC—over 80% of federal workers live all across the country, outside of DC. And just monetarily, it’s not the case these are people making hundreds of thousands of dollars, they’re making decent working class wages. Overwhelmingly, you can look at the data.
So we need to, I think, be really clear both of the importance of these services, but then also just to say it’s a complete myth that the reason that ordinary working class people are suffering is due to federal workers. It’s a tiny part of the federal budget, first of all, the payroll of federal workers. And if you just compare the amount of money that goes to federal workers to, say, the wealth of Elon Musk, there’s no comparison. Elon Musk, richest man on earth, has over $400 billion net worth. That’s almost double what federal workers, 2.3 million federal workers as a whole, make every year. So you just see the actual inequality is not coming from federal workers, it’s coming from the richest in our country and the world.
JJ: Well, an arm we have, a lever we have, is worker organizing to push back against this, besides us at home being angry and throwing our shoes at the TV. We can work together and we have historical models, we have contemporary models and examples of how that can work and how that can play out.
I want to ask you to talk about the 2018 teacher strikes, because I see that you have lifted that up as a kind of analog, that there are lessons to be learned about places like West Virginia and Oklahoma, red states that in 2018 had this strike by teachers that, against all odds, one would say, were popular, connected with community, and were, in their measure, successful. I wonder what you think some of the tactical lessons were learned there. What did we learn from those strikes?
EB: That’s a good question, and I think it’s important to start by just noting that these strikes are a good example of why we shouldn’t just succumb to despair now. There’s an overall sense of doom and gloom that nothing can be done because Trump’s in power, but I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think it’s accurate that nothing can be done. And the example of the red state strikes are a prime indicator that even when you have very conservative people in power, in government, workers have an ability to use their workplace leverage and their community leverage to win.
And so in 2018, hundreds of thousands of teachers in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona and beyond went on strike. Even though those strikes were illegal, even though these were states in which the unions are very weak, right-to-work states, and even though the electorates in all of these states had voted for Donald Trump, nevertheless they got overwhelming support from the population because they had very simple, resonant demands, like more funding for schools, decent pay for teachers, make sure that there’s enough money so that students can get a decent education.
These things cut across partisan lines in a way that, similarly, I think that the defense of basic services like Social Security and Medicaid today really does cut across party lines. And the tactics, then, that they used were, well, first they had to get over the fear factor, because these were illegal strikes, so they had to find ways to start generating momentum amongst teachers. They did things like really basic escalating actions like asking people to wear red on one day. So they didn’t start by saying, “Let’s go on strike.” They said, “Can you do this one simple action together? Can we all wear the same color on a given day?” And then they asked the community to come in. They said, “Community members, can you meet us after school on this day? We’re going to talk about our issues together. We’re going to hold up some signs. We’re going to provide some information.”
So they built with escalating action towards eventually a mass strike. And they used a lot of social media because they couldn’t rely on the unions as much. Social media was very important for connecting workers across these states, for generating momentum. And eventually they were able to have extremely successful walkouts that, despite being illegal, nobody got retaliated against. They won, they forced the government to back down and to meet their demands. And so I do think that that is more or less the game plan for how we’re going to win around Musk and Trump. You have to essentially create enough of a backlash of working people, but then in conjunction with the community, that the politicians are forced to back down.
JJ: Well in worker-to-worker organizing, it seems like what you’re talking about here, I think a lot of us who have worked with organized labor or have that memory think of it as a top-down enterprise. And so worker-to-worker organizing is not just like a bright spot, something to look at, but a way forward, something that can be replicated. You direct something called the Worker to Worker Collaborative. Can you maybe just tell us a little bit about what worker-to-worker organizing is or how it’s different from a model that some folks may hold in their head?
EB: Yeah. The basic problem with more traditional, staff-intensive unionism is that it’s just too expensive. It’s too costly, both in terms of money and time, to win big, to organize millions of workers. And whether it’s on offensive battles like unionizing Starbucks or Amazon, or whether it’s defensive battles right now, like defending federal workers, if you’re going to organize enough workers to fight back, there’s just not enough staff to be able to do that. And so part of the problem with the traditional method is that you just can’t win widely enough. You can’t win big enough.
Worker-to-worker organizing is essentially the form of organizing in which the types of roles that staff normally do are taken on by workers themselves. So strategizing, training and coaching other workers, initiating campaigns—these are things that then become the task and responsibility of workers themselves with coaching and with support, and oftentimes in conjunction with bigger unions. But workers just take on a higher degree of responsibility, and that has been shown to work. The biggest successes we’ve had in the labor movement in recent years, from the teacher strikes, which we talked about, to Starbucks, which has organized now over 560 stores, forced one of the biggest companies in the world to the bargaining table. We’ve seen that it works.
And it’s just a question now of the rest of the labor movement really investing in this type of bottom-up organizing. And frankly, there is no alternative. The idea that so many in the labor leadership have, that we’re just going to elect Democrats and then they’ll turn it around—well, Democrats are sort of missing in action, and who knows when they’re going to come back into power. And so it’s really incumbent on the labor movement to stop looking from above and start looking, really, to its own rank and say, “Okay, if we’re going to save ourselves, that’s the only possible way. No one’s going to come save us from above.”
JJ: And it seems that it develops also with just a more organic, if I could say, understanding of what the issues are because it’s workers themselves formulating that message rather than leadership saying, “We think this is what will sell, or we think this is what we can get across.” It seems more likely to actually reflect workers’ real concerns.
EB: Yeah, that’s right. I mean, workers are best placed to understand each other’s issues. They’re also the best placed to convince other workers to get on board. One of the things bosses always say whenever there’s a union drive or union fight is, “Oh, the union is this outside third party.” And sometimes there’s a little bit of truth to that. I don’t want to exaggerate the point, but there could be an aspect of the labor movement that can feel a little bit divorced from the direct ownership and experiences of workers. But when workers themselves are organizing, oftentimes in conjunction with unions, but if they really are the people in the lead, then it becomes much harder for the bosses to third-party the union because it’s clear the union is the workers.
JJ: Right, right. Well, how much does it matter, for this kind of bottom-up organizing, whatever it is that’s happening at the NLRB [National Labor Relations Board]? What role—I don’t even actually know what’s happening, it’s in flux as is everything. But you think that maybe not that we shouldn’t worry about it, not that we shouldn’t think about it, but we shouldn’t over-worry about machinations at the NLRB, yeah?
EB: Well, I do think that the Biden NLRB was very good and it helped workers unionize. So the fact that we don’t have that NLRB anymore is a blow to the labor movement. I think we just have to acknowledge that. That being said, it’s still possible to unionize. You don’t need the NLRB to unionize. The labor movement grew and fought for many years before labor law was passed. And even today it’s very ambiguous. The NLRB is sort of paralyzed on a national level, but on a local level you can still run elections. And so it’s not even completely defunct. And I think it’s probably still possible to use it to a certain extent.
But the reality is that the legal terrain is harder than it was. On the other hand, the urgency is even higher, and you still see workers fighting back and organizing in record numbers. I’ve been really heartened by, despite the fact that the legal regime is harder, you’ve had some major union victories just in the last few weeks under Trump. For instance, in Philadelphia, Whole Foods workers unionized despite Trump, despite an intense union busting campaign coming straight on down from Jeff Bezos. This was only the second time Amazon—because Amazon’s the owner of Whole Foods now—has lost a union election, and that was just a few weeks ago in Philadelphia.
And so it shows that there is this real anger from below. And I think that there’s something, actually, about the Trump administration, that because it’s so fused to some of the richest people on earth with the administration in an oligarchic manner, but then unionization itself becomes almost a direct way to challenge the Trump regime. Because you’re going up against both their destruction of labor rights, and then also, frankly, it’s just the same people are up top. The bosses and the administration are almost indistinguishable at this point.
JJ: And I feel like entities like Amazon, like Whole Foods, have presented themselves as sort of the future of business, the future of the way we do things. And so I think labor actions, first of all, recognizing that it’s still workers doing this and it’s not happening in a lab somewhere, they just seem like especially important places to call attention to in terms of labor activity.
Eric Blanc: “ I think that the Achilles heel of Trump and his whole movement is that it claims to be populist and it appeals to working class people, but in reality is beholden to the richest people on the planet. So the best way to expose that is by waging battles around economic dignity.”
EB: Yeah. And I think that the Achilles heel of Trump and his whole movement is that it claims to be populist and it appeals to working class people, but in reality is beholden to the richest people on the planet. So the best way to expose that is by waging battles around economic dignity, right? And the labor movement is the number one force that can do that, and force the politicians to show which side they’re on. Are you on the side of Jeff Bezos or are you on the side of low wage workers who are fighting back? Waging more and more of those battles, even if it’s harder because of the legal regime, I think is going to be one of the most crucial ways we have to undermine the support of MAGA amongst working people of all backgrounds.
JJ: Well, and we need one another for that support as we go forward. Well, finally, unless you’re living in a hole or unless you actually like what’s happening, it’s very clear that business as usual isn’t going to do, kind of wherever you’re walking in life, we need to be doing something bigger, bolder. But we know that there are people, to put it crudely, who are more afraid of disruption than they are of suffering. Disruption sounds very scary, doing things the way they haven’t been done yesterday, even though we do have history that we can point to, is scary.
And I think that makes the stories we tell one another and the stories we tell ourselves so important, the coherence of the vision of the future that we’re able to put out there is so crucial. And of course, that brings me back to media. You mentioned the importance of social media, independent media, just the stories that we tell, the stories that we lift up, the people that we lift up. It seems so important to this fight. It’s not meta phenomena. So I just wonder, finally, what you see as a role for different kinds of media going forward?
EB: Okay. I think it’s absolutely crucial. One of the reasons why the right has made the inroads it has is that it’s been better at getting its story out there and waging the battles of ideas through the media, through social media, and through more mainstream media. And frankly, our side has trailed. Maybe it’s because we don’t have the same resources, but I think it’s also there’s an underestimation of how important it is to explain what is going on in the world, to name who the real enemies are, and to provide an explanation for people’s real anger and their real anxiety about what’s happening. So yeah, I think it’s absolutely crucial. And I think we need to, as a labor movement, as progressives, as left, really push back and provide an alternative explanation that all of these problems are rooted in the power of billionaires. It’s not rooted because of the immigrants, not because of the federal workers, not because of trans kids.
And I’ll just say that one of the things I find to be hopeful is that social media is being used pretty effectively now by this new federal workers movement, and I’ll give you one plug, which is that they have a new website, go.savepublicservices.com, through which anybody can sign up to get involved in the local actions happening nearby. It’s going to be a rapid response network to stop all of the layoffs that happen locally, wherever you live, and to save the services on which we depend. So people can go to that website, go.savepublicservices.com, and take advantage of that media opportunity to get involved locally.
San Jose, CA – On Monday, March 10, around 1500 bus and light rail operators and mechanics for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), walked off the job. The workers are represented by Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 265. This is the first strike at the VTA since its founding in 1973.
Around 9 a.m. upwards of 70 ATU rank-and-file members could be seen picketing in front of the VTA headquarters as the strike began. Pickets were held at four other light rail and bus yards beginning at 4 a.m.
VTA and ATU have been in contract negotiations since August.
This week, we’re staying in Southern California, where the workers of Touchstone Climbing Gym in Los Angeles have been negotiating their first contract with their employer. Touchstone Climbing, a regional climbing gym with over a dozen locations in California, experienced a wave of unionization in its Los Angeles locations early last year. The successful campaign with Workers United created a wall-to-wall union at each of the company’s five locations in the Los Angeles area. Members of the LA-based gym are often themselves union members, and the response from the climbing community has been overwhelmingly positive.
However, workers have been navigating a frustrating negotiation in order to reach an agreement on a first contract. Chief among workers’ demands is better communications, higher safety standards, and better pay.
With me today to discuss their unionization, and their negotiations are Ryan Barkauskas, PT desk staff at the Post in Pasadena and Jess Kim, former desk staff at the Post in Pasadena, now FT Workers United organizer.
Studio Production: Mel Buer Post-Production: Jules Taylor
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Mel Buer:
I got work. Welcome everyone to Working People, a podcast about the lives, jobs, dreams, and struggles of the working class today. Working People is a proud member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network and is brought to you in partnership within these Times Magazine and the Real News Network. This show is produced by Jules Taylor and made possible by the support of listeners like you. My name is Mel Buer and I’m your host for the month of March. Stay tuned this month as we share the mic with workers from all over this country and discuss pressing issues central to today’s labor movement. Last week we checked in with behavioral healthcare workers in Southern California as they entered their 20th week on strike. If you haven’t checked out that episode, be sure to head on over to our channels and take a listen. This week, we’re staying in Southern California where the workers of Touchstone climbing gym in Los Angeles have been negotiating their first contract with their employer.
Touchstone Climbing, a regional climbing gym with over a dozen locations in California experienced a wave of unionization in its Los Angeles locations. Early last year, successful campaign with Workers United created a wall to Wall Union at each of the company’s five locations in the Los Angeles area. And members of the LA based gym are often themselves union members, and the response from the climbing community has been overwhelmingly positive. However, workers have been navigating a frustrating negotiation in order to reach an agreement on a first contract. Chief among workers demands is better communication, higher safety standards, and better pay with me today to discuss their unionization. Their negotiations are Ryan Markowski, part-time desk staff at the Post in Pasadena, and Jess Kim, former desk staff at the Post in Pasadena, and now full-time Workers United organizer. Welcome to the show guys. Thanks for coming on. Thanks for having us.
Ryan Barkauskas:
Yeah, thank you.
Mel Buer:
Yeah. Okay, so to kick things off, we got a lot to talk about. I really kind of just wanted to start by giving our listeners a bit of background on this current struggle that you’re engaged in. Jess, if you would like just to start this conversation, can you tell me a little bit about the climbing gyms that you used to work at, that the bargaining unit works at? How many locations does Touchstone own in California, in Los Angeles? What is the sort of makeup of this particular shop?
Jess Kim:
Yeah, of course. So there’s Touchstone Climbing, which is where our story originated. They are a chain just in California that’s fairly large. They have five locations in the Los Angeles area. They have Burbank, Hollywood, Pasadena, Culver City, and downtown. And last year they opened one in Torrance as well, so it five are in our bargaining unit because that’s when we organized. And there’s one more in Torrance Class five that has not been added. And then up north they have another big clump of gyms, especially around the Bay Area. I think it’s about 10 more gyms, Ryan, I think, and then they’re opening a couple more this year up there.
Mel Buer:
How big is the bargaining unit? How many employees?
Jess Kim:
It’s about 170 employees inside the unit. We did organize wall to wall, which means everyone inside of the building who is not a supervisor is included, so that’s disc staff, route setters, safety staff coaches, yoga instructors, janitorial and maintenance employees.
Mel Buer:
Ryan, what are the sort of jobs that folks are doing at a climbing gym? For our listeners who maybe aren’t in the climbing community, they may have never set foot inside of a climbing gym, don’t even know what it looks like or what the sort of space is. Could you kind of clue us in on what that is?
Ryan Barkauskas:
Absolutely. There’s a lot of kind of guest relations because it is a gym that requires servicing and some customer facing. So me personally, being a desk staff, I greet people, I check them in. I assist people with their memberships. I do instruction as well. And besides just the general maintenance and the upkeep of the gym, a large part of our responsibility is the interaction with the community. There’s additional roles such as safety staff that largely their position is meant to just facilitate those lessons, get people first acclimated with climbing, and then be keeping everybody safe. But something that’s usually encouraged and that we really appreciate about the job is walking the floor, being there with the climbers, letting them know about community events, how to be active in this great community, but really, yeah, again, that’s just a couple of the small roles. There’s coaches, there are youth teams that we foster. There are yoga instructors, separate fitness instructors past that, and just as Jess said, there’s janitorial, there’s maintenance, there’s everything that requires this building to continue to function.
Mel Buer:
Would you say, Jess, that these gyms are sort of situated and interfacing really well with the community, just as Ryan has said, but give us an idea of what the climbing community looks like in Los Angeles or in the United States? What does it feel like to you?
Jess Kim:
Yeah. Well, the climbing community is legendary, perhaps just among ourselves for our comradeship and our support. I’ll drop a little hint that when we form a local, we’ll be local 69 because we believe in mutual care. So I started climbing actually on the east coast, and when I was over there, I got in because my friend in college wanted to learn how to escape the zombie apocalypse, and this seemed like the best route for her, and I am a adamant people pleaser, so I was like, sure, let’s go. We got sucked into the climate community there, and everyone is just so supportive, kind, no matter what you look like, if you’ve ever do other sports before, people don’t care. Everyone can get on there and touch those colorful holds on the wall, and we love to see it. So I love being part of that community.
There is a rash of a bros, as in many of the sports, and I feel like that’s just entertainment for other people who come to the gym. You see a man grunting on the wall, just let that go. He’s doing his business up there, he’s getting his emotions out. In California, we are lucky because in LA we have such a strong union community, and so many of our climbers work in industries that are prolific within the working class and organizing within the working class. So we have Hollywood, all those entertainment unions, which I’m a part of. Ryan works in Hollywood as well. We have teachers unions. We’re so active, so we have a very strong community that sees each other in and outside of the gym. And we’re lucky actually at Touchstone, we have groups called Affinity Groups, and these are specialized meetups for people of color, for queer folks. We have lager, thes, brew crush, Eskimos, hair cliff hangers for disabled climbers. We have lots of ways for people to find their people in the gym, and that’s what we love about it.
Mel Buer:
Yeah, I’m new to climbing just recently started in the last couple of months, and I would say that it’s the same experience for me. It seems like there’s a very low barrier to entry and that everyone is welcome. And it seems like that’s kind of baked into the community that you have lived and worked in for as many years as you have. One thing that I do want to ask though is you formed this union in the end of 2023, and there was some issues that were happening at your gyms in LA that kind of pushed you to really collectively organize. Ryan, do you just kind of want to tell us what the issues were and why it was important that folks came together and filed for a union?
Ryan Barkauskas:
Yeah, there were a few errors, a few omissions and inconsistencies. We were seeing pay being different from location to location. You could work someone else’s coverage and be expected to not be paid their same rate. There wasn’t proper a ladder of seniority, there weren’t establish ways to really protect yourself and have look a path to advancement, better checking in with our bosses, they touched on kind of had this mentality of, oh, we’re so mom and pop. We so easily can just directly work with you. And that works to an extent. But when there can be things that come up that jeopardize our safety that worry us, and that we feel like, Hey, we’d like to have more communication with you every now and then we’ll just get a little bit of like, no, I think we’re doing okay though. That sparked, I think a lot of that organizing us feeling like, but this is our opinion, and wouldn’t you like to hear that? And to just kind of be told, no, I think we know best.
Mel Buer:
We’re a family here. Take your pizza party and walk out the door kind of experience.
Jess Kim:
We didn’t even get pizza that rough.
Mel Buer:
So you tried to solve these problems and tried to open up lines of communication with management ahead of organizing, and they just weren’t receptive at all.
Ryan Barkauskas:
It’s a very short progression and still what they encourage is very informal means of we just go to our direct manager and our direct managers are then supposed to be the go-between, but that puts a lot on that middleman. If they make a failure in communication or if it just escalates there and our remote admins just deem it not necessary. We feel like we don’t have any direct say, and it can make us really feel powerless, especially if we don’t, unfortunately might not have the best relationship with our managers. We can hope for the best, but that can only do so much when they’re always like, oh, let’s just talk about it. Let’s make it informal. It doesn’t always work.
Mel Buer:
It doesn’t seem like there’s, when things are informal like that, A, there’s a lot of bottlenecking that happens because there’s a lot of people who are passing messages along in a game of telephone, the worst game of telephone ever, people’s livelihoods, and B, it seems like there’s no documentation for you to be able to track solutions. Does that sound accurate in this situation?
Ryan Barkauskas:
Yeah, I think we’ve struggled in that way for sure. There can be some paper trails of emails, but past that, they even changed our communication systems when they changed programs on us to Slack, which I’m sure many people are on, but just simple requests that we have of just like, Hey, can we just put this in writing? Can it be more consistent? Can you include this group in the Slack? Maybe there’s a certain job title that isn’t even on the team communications yet, and they miss announcements. They’re resistant to do even that, and we’re like, why should it be so hard to even just share information?
Mel Buer:
Right. Well, Jess, how did folks come together in January? What was the process for really coming to start collectively organizing and forming this union? One thing that I like to do, especially on this show, is that many of our listeners aren’t really familiar with how unions come together, and a lot of these episodes that I do is really the aim is to sort of pull back the curtain a little bit on what that organizing looks like. So what did that look like for you and the bargaining unit here with Touchstone Workers United?
Jess Kim:
Yeah, of course. So when I had started working at Touchstone, I feel like people joked about forming a union like, oh, we should do that, but there wasn’t any real action despite all these frustrations that Ryan had described. And we had a really unfortunate incident that made the LA Times in October and November of 2023 where there was a threat made against the gym that was very specific, and there was an FBI investigation started, and the company communicated so poorly that the workers and the customers were put in danger, and obviously that doesn’t go over well. And the response from the company was not apologetic. It was very much a little blamey to be honest, and didn’t make people feel comfortable in the workplace. And because of that, like Ryan said, we had a centralized system for most employees to talk to each other with management prior to this.
And because so many people were documenting the status of the threat at these different locations and talking Touchstone did shut down that method of communication, but we had already exchanged emails, so we had a big email thread going with mostly employees and had already signed a petition to help with that situation. So because many of us were talking already, it was pretty simple to be like, you know what? We’re going to really organize. We also are fortunate that at Touchstone, we cover each other’s shifts frequently for desk staff, so we travel to other locations, we get to talk to each other, and then our setters and coaches and instructors, most of ’em work at multiple locations as well. So there’s a good flow of communication. Plus we all hang out. We hang out after hours, we climb, we hang out outside to climb. We have the unifier of being addicted to climbing.
So once we have the comms going, just like classic union campaigns, but if the listeners aren’t familiar, we live in America and in America, you do not want to talk about the union campaign openly, unfortunately, because it is really difficult to protect someone from being fired or retaliated against at this stage in the campaign. So if you’re organizing, you want to use non-work emails, you want to meet offsite, you want to talk in person, and you want to make sure that everyone who’s involved knows that they don’t want to just be talking about the union at this specific workplace out at the grocery store. You never know who’s around. So unfortunately, that’s the reality. So yeah, we just got people talking. We had the emails and then we distributed what are called the NLRB. There are cards indicating your interest in a union, you want 30% of the workforce to sign to file for an election, but kind of the gold standard in most unions now is getting more than 70% of workers to sign because you need a bigger majority to win an election. And so we were able to get that very easily and very quickly because we had the impetus from people feeling very unsafe, even with the security guards that were hired by Touchstone for a brief period of time who were not the best. I will say.
Mel Buer:
Oh, yeah, I mean, yes. One thing to also note here too is when you’re talking about a majority that’s 70% or more is what people call a super majority of cards signed. It’s essentially alerting the NL rrb that if you were to have an election, say for example, you file and your employer doesn’t voluntarily recognize your union, it then goes to a union election that is put on by the NLRB. You’re essentially telling them with confidence that you will win that election because more than a majority, a super majority of your eligible bargaining unit has signed cards saying, yes, I will vote yes. Right. It’s also really good when you file and you present this information to your management, to your boss, you can say, I don’t know, man, 80% of us are already for this. It might just be easier. It’s going to happen.
You might as well just say, yes, let’s get this party rolling. And oftentimes if they’re receptive, they will voluntarily recognize and then your union can be certified and then you can really start the process of negotiations for first contract. So if any of our listeners are feeling the opaqueness of that, that’s the general sort of gist of how unions can be certified in this country. And Jess, you are right. Oftentimes what happens with organizing situations is you really kind of have to plan and prepare for how you’re going to approach people in order to get them interested in the union. I have certainly been in situations in the service industry where I’m from in Nebraska where we tried to organize unions at the bars that we worked at, and unfortunately the organizing was happening in places that got overheard by management. And so they will begin to do things like captive audience meetings, like leaning on certain members to say no to this process.
All of this is technically illegal or there’s a line there. But oftentimes management is not interested in seeing workers collectively organize. They view it as a loss of power in the workplace because often, especially with Touchstone or Ryan, I’m sure you can kind of note this as well, it seems like they have enough of a profit in order to handle anything in terms, and we’ll talk about negotiations after our break here in 15 minutes or so, but it would seem that they have enough money in their pockets to be able to handle you asking for a raise. You know what I mean? So I don’t know if you feel the same way, but it seems to me, especially in all of my reporting, when we have a struggle like a bargaining that goes sideways or a picket line that forms or a strike, oftentimes it’s a question of power. Who wants to have power in the workplace? And Ryan, what are your thoughts on that? What has it felt like to kind of collectively come into your own power as a worker with Touchstone Workers United?
Ryan Barkauskas:
It feels, I mean, it feels empowering or dare I say, nothing really great comes that easy. It’s just really frustrating to recognize how much work and resistance this will involve. Like you said, companies might sit you down and try to talk you out of it. We had that moment. I remember when our CEO and one of the other CFOs came in, and that’s their last little ditch effort to say, Hey, we think we could serve you better if you don’t do this. And at that little meeting, our CEO promises to us, and this feels almost like a little bit of manipulation, how he says, I will not be a union busting CEO if you choose to ratify, I will accept that. Okay. I guess that’s what the majority of my work was wanted. I thought I knew better, but if you tell me this, that’s what I’ll hear.
So what we’ve seen is the opposite of that. I felt inspired to propose to put myself on this bargaining committee only as a part-time staff as well. Most of the people that I’m really trying to fight for are my full-time friends that are more invested in this company that really want to make this like their homes. And I just saw the failings of the communication that what we were getting from our higher ups, and I was like, well, maybe I could lend a part of that. I think maybe I’m a little bit wishful in my thinking when negotiations are a little bit more red and very protected. Everything is said through one lawyer and it’s been frustrating, but really what it’s shown is the need for this was like, wow, I guess. Yeah, his words weren’t exactly true when he said that.
Mel Buer:
No, I think you bring a good point in here, Ryan, is that oftentimes management does feel, it feels a little squeaky talking to him when you’re talking about organizing a union. What’s that one meme? All the questions you have are answered by my t-shirt that says, I’m not going to union bust. You know what I mean? It feels weird, but I will say, you did the thing you filed for election. Did they voluntarily recognize the union? No, they did not. Okay. Absolutely
Jess Kim:
Not. They didn’t even answer or voluntarily.
Mel Buer:
So yes, it was all bs. Them sitting you down and saying, oh, we will. We’ll hear that answer. No. And so you went through the election. What was the results of the election?
Jess Kim:
Yeah, I don’t remember the exact numbers. It was fairly close. We had a number of issues. We had a lot of union busting from the employer. Like Ryan said, we had those captive audience meetings, which again are illegal if you’re in the US currently anywhere in the US it is illegal, but especially in California, it was already illegal to have those meetings, which is when the employer comes in and tells you not to accept the union or try to persuade you to not unionize. We also had people like managers threatening that if you unionize, your benefits will be taken away or you won’t be able to talk to your manager anymore. And we received, which is my favorite daily mail to our house in just stacks from the company that was these big, bold, why unions are terrible headlines saying they’re going to come into our homes.
And it was like Scooby Doo investigation out there. It was rough. It was not factual. And then we got an apology letter actually from the CEO mark that was like, oh, I’m so sorry. I didn’t realize that there were so many mailings because people were so angry about getting this pile of mail at their house. And I think there’s something there too in that the anti-union efforts can become from the employer can be so annoying and out of touch and irritating that actually drives more people to want to unionize. We’ve had folks who went to a captive audience meeting undecided, and they came out being like, man, those assholes, I want to be with you guys. We’re like, yeah, that makes sense.
Mel Buer:
Yeah, the best organizers, often the boss. We’ve seen that certainly in the federal worker unions in the last month or so, folks who never would’ve joined the union have seen what’s been going on at the federal level and they’re like, ah, actually, give me a card. Let me sign. I am tired of this. One more thing before we go to the break here, and then when we come back, we’re going to talk about the negotiations themselves and how things have been going since then because all of this has happened in early 2024 or so. But how has the climbing community responded to your unionizing effort, Ryan?
Ryan Barkauskas:
Geez, overwhelming support. It really is, like you said, how accepting the community is. The motto is the crag is for everybody outdoors. We take care of nature, we take care of it all. We just want to continue to enjoy this. We want everything that’s left behind to be shared and loved by all. And yeah, like Jess said, so many people are a member of II are working freelance in so many different disciplines and jobs, and so they hear about this and every time I’ve told someone that what’s happened, they say, that’s amazing. I’m happy for you guys. And they’re checking in. They want to know how to support. So really the community is really behind us and these are the relationships that we have. We talk to these people every single day. We have become really good friends and we are around them constantly and we’re all invested in each other. So to have the behind us really, really means a lot.
Mel Buer:
Jess, from your position as an organizer, how have you sort of seen the sort of community response to both the union effort that was successful? And now as you’re getting into deep into your negotiations at this point, how has the community response been in terms of support, in terms of reaching out to Workers United and wanting to share their experiences with the unionized gyms? What has that been like for you on your end?
Jess Kim:
Yeah, I agree with Brian. Completely overwhelming support. I was only recently fired from Touchstone in, I want to say October. So I’ve only been a full-time organizer with Workers United a few months, but we have an Instagram account for our workers. It’s at Touchstone Workers United. We get a ton of dms from people offering support from high profile climbers to local people in our community to people across the US who want to support, and they’re a part of their local climbing community. We also get interest from other gyms in the US who are asking, how do we organize? Can you walk us through it? And of course, we’re very happy to. It’s been truly wonderful. We haven’t gotten a single negative dm. What also really gets me is I discovered some Reddit threads yesterday about the organizing and wow. People in there are so supportive and so petty. There’s some memes on there that absolutely sent me. It was just, wow, I love the support, what the level of petty is, just That’s beautiful. It’s a beautiful thing.
Mel Buer:
Yeah, you got to laugh at it when things are so frustrating. So we’ve kind of talked about how the organizing was last year. How long have you guys been in negotiation process? When did you start bargaining for your first contract?
Jess Kim:
We started our first session in September, 2024.
Mel Buer:
Okay, so it’s been, what is that, four months? No longer, five months, six months of bargaining.
Jess Kim:
Yep. A long time.
Mel Buer:
Not. Great. Okay. Let’s kind of break it down a little bit. So just overall, Ryan, you’ve spoken about some of the frustration in the organizing prior to the election and probably in the aftermath as well, and you are on the bargaining committee overall. Let’s start there broadly. How have the negotiations been going?
Ryan Barkauskas:
Like pulling teeth? Yeah, me going into that with some hope that, oh, I could just start a real good line of communication. I could just appeal to reason. And what we’re met with is a lawyer from a notoriously anti-union firm who does all of the speaking. We are faced with three other representatives of our company, none of which really add anything to the conversation unless he has a question. Simple things that we would love to just be able the flow of information and to be able to actually go back and forth across the table are usually met with, oh, I guess I’ll have to look into that, and maybe we won’t hear back until six weeks later when the next meeting is right. And so it’s really frustrating to see this wall that I think has been put up by the company to say, Hey, this is us just really worried about our self-interests and we’re going to hold onto this as best as we can and give you as little as we can. In the six months that we’ve been meeting, we have two or three tentative TAs on the contract, and they’re very basic, the ones that we have. So it’s really been a struggle.
Mel Buer:
What are some of the main bargaining priorities that you went in there with? Obviously you’re talking about parody and wages, you’re talking about better safety conditions. What are some of the specifics of that that you really are really pushing for as you continue these negotiations with the company?
Jess Kim:
Yeah. Well, we based our campaign on three kind of pillars, which is safety, equity, and empowerment. Ryan spoke before about difference in wages between employees doing the same job. We’ve been there the same amount of time. The only difference could be gender, it could be anything. It’s just not unfair, it’s not fair. So our contract has a series of articles in our non economics. Most of our articles regard safety issues that we have in the gym. So a lot of it’s just compliance with general federal and state law. There’s a lot of things that are not compliant with law. We’ve had OSHA come in several times for different violations, and it’s simply just not an environment where you feel safe as a worker or where customers feel safe. And it’s very frustrating that there is no mechanism in America to really have companies comply with different laws.
For example, we have the workplace violence prevention law in California, which can law in July of last year of 2024. And in that employers are supposed to design blueprints with the employees, with the employees, like a collaborative effort on how to react to active shooters and how to react to different violent scenarios in the workplace. And given our history in 2023 of having issues related to this, it’s incredible that we not only don’t have a plan, but we have requested a plan many, many times in bargaining via email, people in person to our HR director. And there’s, there’s no compliance with that, and there’s nothing you can do. So outside of the union contract, what path you’re going to pursue with the contract, we can put that through the grievance and arbitration procedure, get that amended, get anything reparations back into it, because it’s not fair that workers want to simply go to work and not fear for their safety, and they want to comply with basic, the most basic laws that we have, which aren’t even that strong in America for safety protections.
And we don’t have those. So safety’s a big thing. Wages for sure, we have a lot of issues with the wages in the climbing community. There’s this history, this beautiful romantic dirtbag history of climbers who are living off the earth and they’re climbing outside. And in the past, they would just work at a gym for six months to get enough money for the whole rest of the year. Then they’d go climb and work on their projects, which is beautiful. But no one can build a savings on what is out here at the climbing gyms. We’re chasing minimum wage. They’re highly skilled positions. Our route setters have to use power tools at heights of 40 feet. They have to communicate with each other and use all these safety measures, and they design routes every single day that are different on three different styles of terrain. And they also take in consideration people who might be vi or visually impaired, people who have different abilities.
So there’s certifications involved. There’s a lot of factors. So to be offering people basically minimum wage, especially in a city like Los Angeles or up in the Bay Area is also not acceptable for us. It’s just not livable. And we do have staff who can’t afford housing and things like that. So that is a huge factor for us. And then the final thing is, as Ryan touched on some of our most basic asks are respect, like building communication structures within the company. We asked for a joint labor management committee, which could meet whenever there’s large safety issues. We asked for to bring back that centralized communication platform that people, everyone was able to use to get notices on new policies or talk about issues that are affecting all of the gyms. And we built in structure as well for what to do when someone receives warning when someone gets disciplined or is leading toward discipline.
And another big issue in our community is sexual harassment. We work in the fitness industry. We ask for different levels of how are we addressing issues in our gyms, these that are very prolific. And so our biggest issues are not building a new handbook or building a new code of conduct. It’s like we’re asking for basic compliance with laws. We’re asking for livable wages for folks, and we’re asking for basic safety protections both legally and mentally and with sexual harassment and ways to address these issues because Touchstone does not have an internal structure, an internal path for these problems. And in the past when people report discrimination or sexual harassment, they can just go unanswered or the answer is deal with it yourself. And that’s not okay. That’s not a safe environment for people to be working.
Mel Buer:
You want to make sure that people stay at their jobs. And these are basic sort of protocols and structures. The cool thing about a union for many of our listeners who maybe aren’t aware is that within the collective bargaining agreement that you ultimately agree on, it is a binding document that both sides sign. So when you ask for these things and they agree to them instead of this pie in the sky, yeah, we’ll get to it, trust us, you now have a binding legal contract that you can point to that says, actually, you said you’d get this to us six months ago. We gave you some time. Now we’re going to start pulling on this thread so that we can actually bring you to do this thing so that you are compliant or we’ll grieve you, we’ll file a grievance. We’ll bring in these mediators to say they haven’t done their side of the bargain, and we have.
And so the things that you’re asking for, you’ve touched a little bit, just some clarity for any of our listeners who maybe aren’t familiar. When you are negotiating, you’re negotiating both non-economic and economic proposals. The non-economic ones fit in the realm of these protocols that you’re talking about, these communication structures, safety plans and things of that nature. And then the economics is going to be obviously your wages, potential benefits, retirement health insurance, things that you may be a pension, perhaps, things that these that deal with the material conditions of the workers who will then be receiving those benefits. So oftentimes during bargaining, you will ta a small piece of that means a tentative agreement. It means you’ve come to an agreement on one provision in your contract, and then you can move on to the next. And sometimes it takes a while, but six months is a long time.
However, there are folks who have been bargaining for years and years and haven’t reached a conclusion. And oftentimes it leads to this frustration that you’re talking about, Ryan, where the assumption is, and maybe this is just me being idealistic, but the assumption is that you would come to the table in what’s called good faith, meaning you are willing to work towards a solution, you’re willing to make compromises and to have a collaborative sort of conversation that ultimately ends in the better working conditions for all happier workers means more profits oftentimes. And for whatever reason, oftentimes the company just decides to throw that out the window the second that you start asking for these things. So I want to ask, you’ve laid out a lot of these proposals, Ryan, you’ve already talked about the frustration, but what has been the sort of response to these demands?
Ryan Barkauskas:
It’s been a lot of legal jargon and slowing down the process really gumming it up. A large contention right now is something that we’ve had to call out and that we might be filing an unfair labor practice for this as well, is we’re arguing that they’re not in good faith for the fact that we have not received counter proposals on our economic proposals
Mel Buer:
Yet,
Ryan Barkauskas:
Ever. When did
Mel Buer:
You introduce them? When was the first time you introduced
Ryan Barkauskas:
’em? Those? A couple months ago.
Mel Buer:
So they should have something by
Ryan Barkauskas:
Now. Yeah, yeah. We had a change in our healthcare that was presented to us with very limited notice that then we had to see if we could bargain, which in itself is unfair labor practice. They’re changing conditions on us. And we very quickly were like, okay, we need to talk about this because this is affecting our bottom line. We’re met with a response of, well, if you would like to keep your same health insurance, maybe you’ll all just take a pay cut. And you can imagine when that was at the table, our reaction and how much that hurt to hear. And yeah, since then there has been just a real slowness on the non economics. They’re feeling like they’re just doing the bare minimum and their argument, which is truly just holding that bargaining chip against us saying, Hey, we want to see more movement on the non economics before we even talk to you about economics. Their justification saying Maybe we don’t know what you’re really going to be wanting to hold onto, but that’s trying to take all the power for themselves to say, we want to see you sacrifice more and to know what you’re willing to give when we should be bargaining the entire agreement when everything should be open to discussion. So it’s been frustrating as always to just receive lots of words and have to comb through them and say, oh, okay, what do they even mean by this?
Mel Buer:
And
Jess Kim:
It’s like homies, they ask for our economic proposals, we delivered them, and then they were like, actually, we’re not going to look at them. They’re like, oh, are you sure? Because we’re bargaining health insurance. They’re like, yeah, I don’t think it’s appropriate at this time. We’ll come back to it. And it’s been four months and we’re like, you asked for it, so we delivered. You got to response. I mean, it’s a long time.
Mel Buer:
Yeah, so it feels like it’s just completely fallen off the rails a little bit. You’re not really getting the movement, even the conversation towards the movement that you’ve been hoping for. And yeah, I can see how that would be an extremely frustrating experience. When’s your next bargaining session? When are you supposed to meet next?
Ryan Barkauskas:
Yeah, we have the next one about two weeks, March 10th.
Mel Buer:
What’s next? Just keep doing it. Keep doing the deal and see if you can make it work. I mean, I know that you’ve been pretty open about the frustrations with the negotiations on your social media and your town halls that you do. And really just kind of trying to gather more support from the community to really puts a pressure on management to come back to the table in good faith and to really kind of come to a solution because no one wants to be bargaining a contract for six months, for a year for however long you just want it done. You want to be able to sign the thing and get back to work. Some gym goers have put together a request for a boycott of the gym calling for people to cancel memberships and to send in letters of support. I’ve seen action networks that were put together in the last couple of months for this. One big question. I do want to ask, especially about something as important as calling for a boycott. Has the union itself called for a boycott as these negotiations have continued? And if not, what can supporters do to support the union and their negotiations to continue that sort of pressure for management to do the bare minimum, the right thing instead of canceling their membership? What are some thoughts that you have?
Jess Kim:
Yeah, so regarding the boycott, we as the union did not call the boycott. We don’t sanction the boycott. We appreciate the intention of the people who are calling for it, and it is a very powerful move for customers to make. For the union, we mostly just reserve our power to call a strike. So a boycott is when customers choose not to patronize a business. And a strike is when workers will not be working and they ask. Customers also do not come to the business, but we saw on social media there’s been some interchange of the terms, so we just want to be a little bit clearer there. And we found, first of all, the support from the community as always is incredible. And for people who are thinking of organizing, I think one of the most powerful tools that we have is communication because Touchstone is not great at communicating either consistently or clearly or responding in general to messages.
So for us, it was very important in our campaign to always have a weekly update. Every Wednesday we send an email to every employee in the unit with what’s going on, even if nothing big is going on that week. And then of course we have our social media. So if customers or members or community members want to support, we have a couple ways at our gym front desks right now, we have what are called union support cards. They look like a belay card for your harness, but they have a little pledge that you are amazing first of all, and second, you support the union and you support the workers. So get a little ego boost and a little color and add it to your harness two. We also have car signs. So these signs say, I support a unionized gym workers, or I demand better pay and benefits for touchstone workers.
You can leave them in your car around town in the parking lots. We’ve seen them in the wild, which is really cool the last couple of weeks here in la, and we also have a rally coming up. I don’t know when this episode is going to be released, but we have a rally coming up on March 7th in city at 6:00 PM It’ll be outside of our gym location, cliff Seve along the street, but it’s going to be a huge party. We’re going to have music, other unions are coming in, they’re bringing their soundtracks. It’s going to be a delight. It’s only going to be for an hour. If you are a worker, as we sent our email, do not walk off the job. We are not closing the gym down. If you’re on break, come on out and join us. It’ll be a great time. And we also have union pins people can wear. You can put on your chalk bag, put it on your gear, also wear it on your shirt. And we have union, so we only have a little bit of those left, but we are partnering with a local lining brand that people love. I don’t want to announce it yet, but let me just say people love this brand and they’re designing our next round of shirts, which will be available not only for our staff, but we’ll also be available to the public.
Mel Buer:
This episode is going to be out on March 12th. So when you have your rally, grab some video, send me some links, we’ll put some links in the description. We’ll put some photos up at the rally to see how much of a party it was so that folks can kind of see that. We’ve got a couple of minutes left here. Ryan, I want to start with you to the folks that are thinking of organizing in any capacity, their shop, whether with attaching themselves to a large union like the Teamsters for example, or doing it themselves, what words of advice, support, solidarity would you start with? What would you tell them if they were in your email inbox today?
Ryan Barkauskas:
Consider your most basic needs and your coworkers. This is clearly what we need for ourselves, but what we believe our community needs, what our friends and coworkers need. So considering them, we I think are very good at checking in and working as a team, but to be organized in such a way means really understanding, oh, I don’t need the same thing that they need there, but have these conversations, right? Understand if that’s going to be that necessary step for you guys, what it means. Ask other unions, understand the process. It can be scary. There was a lot of disinformation. There’s a lot of saying like, oh, are we going to be paying dues before we even have a contract? No, that could be something that could be thrown at you and made you worried. You can wonder if it’s all going to be worth it, and then just be patient. Nothing that great. Is that easy?
Mel Buer:
Do you think it’s worth it, Ryan?
Ryan Barkauskas:
I think so. I mean, again, the evidence of how much we’ve struggled against this makes me feel like the fight, it has really become worth it. And to have the support of everybody to just make, I just want this community to be the best it can be. When I moved out to la, I knew right away I was going to climb it touchstone. It had the name and the relationships I formed with some of the employees was what got me in as an employee myself. And so it’s always had this relationship with the company and I want the best for it, and I’ll continue to want that and have to fight for it.
Mel Buer:
What about you, Jess? What would you say to someone, I know you’ve already talked about folks coming into the dms and asking about how to organize, but to anyone who’s looking to organize, what are some thoughts that you have that you would like to share?
Jess Kim:
Yeah, I want to echo what you said earlier, actually, Mel, is that when you are organizing for the company, it’s not about money, it’s about power. People do not want to see the power be taken away from them. And you as the worker, you have the power. You keep the company going every day. You are on the floor, you’re facing the customers. If you and your coworkers chose not to work, to slow down work, to not comply with different policies, you truly have the power. The people who are giving you, not orders but directions and new policies, they don’t know how to do your job. They can’t do it like you. So be brave. It’s scary. But you as a group have power. And there’s an image on social media that I love of a big fish chasing a school of fish. But when the school of fish turn around together, they chase off that big fish. Kind of like finding Nemo when they all get out of the net. Okay, so swim together, just keep swimming. Don’t come from me, Pixar. And that is the message I want to be.
Mel Buer:
Yeah, I mean, I want to reiterate that for my listeners. Folks have been listening to me on this podcast and other podcast for many a year talking about union organizing specifically. But really what it comes down to really is just you collectively have power and also you are an expert in your own workplace. These CEOs sitting in their nice houses up in San Francisco or wherever the hell they’re sitting with, their very deep velvet lined pockets are not standing there on the shop floor with you. They don’t necessarily know what’s going on. You do. You are an expert at your job. You’ve spent many, many years building skills. It doesn’t matter where you work. If you’re working in a call center, if you’re working at a climbing gym, if you’re working as a barista, if you’re in the steel manufacturing business, it doesn’t matter, right?
Anytime that you’ve put into this vocation, this work experience, this wage labor that we spend so much of our time doing, eventually you become an expert in it. And so you know what you need and you know what will make the job better. And final thought for me before I let you folks go and let you have the rest of your night is really just do it anyways. Even if you’re freaked out, as my mom likes to say, walk through the fear and see what happens on the other side. Because oftentimes what you’ll end up with is a better place to work and a sense of security and a sense of belonging. And I will tell you, and anyone who has experienced it will tell you that feelings, true solidarity for the first time is better than anything that you could possibly imagine. And we’re living through some really harsh times right now.
So if you can build that solidarity with yourself in the workplace, with your friends that you spend so much time trauma bonding over behind a bar or a desk or wherever you are, and you can also, I don’t know, kick management in the pants a little bit, I think it’s probably worth it. So Jess, Ryan, thank you so much for coming on the show today and for giving us really an interesting sort of look into this independent union organizing that you are doing and Godspeed with your negotiations. Hopefully this is one of the things that’ll help kick management in the pants to just get moving. And you are welcome back on the show anytime to talk about updates, to talk about events that you’re doing. And yeah, thanks so much for coming on.
Ryan Barkauskas:
Thanks Mel. We appreciate the platform.
Jess Kim:
Thank you. So good to meet you. Come climb. We will catch
Ryan Barkauskas:
You. Yes. Welcome to the cult as I always tell our members.
Mel Buer:
One thing to note before we end our episode for the day after we finished recording, Ryan and Jess let me know that multiple members of their bargaining unit were deeply impacted by the Eaton Fire in Altadena this past January. If you’d like to support them, I have shared GoFundMe links in the description for those members. That’s it for us here at Working People. We’ll see you back here next week for another episode, and if you can’t wait that long, then go explore all the great work we’re doing at the Real News Network where we do grassroots journalism, lifting up the voices and stories from the front lines of struggle. Sign up for the Real News newsletter so you never miss a story and help us do more work like this by going to the real news.com/donate and becoming a supporter today. It really makes a difference. I’m Mel er and thanks so much for sticking around. We’ll see you next time.
Though as a child Hunter Furr saw his father and grandfather come home from prison “tired and stressed,” he became the third generation of his family to work at Caswell Correctional Center in North Carolina, a job he described in 2022 as “a good experience. In this line of work, it’s a family and a brotherhood that no other job can give you.” In 2023, Frank Squillante followed the career path…
After workers unionized at six Nestle-owned Blue Bottle coffee shops in Massachusetts in 2024, they have been in the midst of a pitched struggle to secure a first contract for their members. Their landslide victory against the multinational corporation has been a source of optimism for the coffee industry, and the union has enjoyed broad support from their customers, other unions in Massachusetts, and even workers along the international supply chain. Now, months into bargaining, frustrations mount as the company seems determined to drag things out as long as possible.
Bringing in the Union Busters
As with past union campaigns at Nestle-owned companies, the corporation brought in Ogletree Deakins to handle the union campaign and negotiations at Blue Bottle. According to watchdog organization LaborLab, Ogletree Deakins is the nation’s “second largest management-side law firm specializing in union avoidance.” Over the past 40 years, Ogletree has played a leading role in keeping many multinational corporations operating in the US union-free—one of at least four major union avoidance law firms that have taken their union-busting tactics into an international arena in recent years.
Workers at Blue Bottle understand the stakes as they continue to push for their demands at the bargaining table, and have been frustrated by the company’s attempts to drag bargaining out. “[It’s] certainly frustrating,” said Alex Pine, vice president of Blue Bottle Independent Union (BBIU). “I think that their entire bargaining strategy, and certainly Ogletree Deakins’s, is to delay bargaining to demoralize membership.”
Despite these frustrations, bargaining continues. In the last bargaining session, held on Feb. 21, the union secured tentative agreements for a number of their noneconomic proposals, but have seen no movement on key economic issues, including wages and holidays. The union faces an uphill battle in continuing to secure neutral meeting places—of which there are precious few. They have been able to meet in city hall locations, which are free to use, but scheduling difficulties at Cambridge City Hall have delayed bargaining even further. The company has repeatedly pushed to meet in conference halls, but the union is unable to afford the associated costs with renting those spaces. Other alternatives for bargaining, including Zoom, have been roundly rejected by the company. “The company certainly could afford to cover the cost of a bargaining space, they just don’t want to,” Pine said in an email. “They understand that the more time we have to spend looking for a location to meet means less time to organize.”
The union’s demands form a comprehensive package that would vastly improve the conditions that their baristas and other staff labor under. Chief among those demands are wages that are comparable with the cost of living in Massachusetts, democratic control in the workplace, and protection from harassment. To that end, they have asked for $30 an hour for their baristas, which would meet the minimum threshold for the high cost of living in the Boston area, as well as fairer scheduling, better PTO and holiday schedules, a more comprehensive healthcare plan, and the ability to accrue sick time for their employees.
“[It’s] certainly frustrating,” said Alex Pine, vice president of Blue Bottle Independent Union (BBIU). “I think that their entire bargaining strategy, and certainly Ogletree Deakins’s, is to delay bargaining to demoralize membership.”
Perhaps more important, they have asked for a “just cause” clause to be included in their contract, which would restrict management from issuing what the union alleges are retaliatory write-ups. Since the union took their campaign public last year, multiple workers have been terminated without recourse–something that the union is working diligently to fix. Additionally, the union alleges that the company continues to create a hostile work environment for its employees.
In January, the union staged a walkout in protest of the closing of their Prudential Center location without guaranteeing hours or a tip differential to workers that needed to be transferred to other locations. In a Jan. 25 statement, BBIU noted that they had filed 16 unfair labor practice complaints against the company, saying saying that Blue Bottle “engaged in union busting by writing up members for petty infractions, cutting hours of vocal supporters, unilaterally changing store operating hours without bargaining with the union, and more. In another unforced error by management, in September Blue Bottle fired union organizer Remy Roskin without any prior discipline. Even with the company agreeing to bargain over Roskin’s termination, workers say that Blue Bottle has unnecessarily strained the relationship between management and employees.”
Taking on the megacorp
Just as with union campaigns at Starbucks, Amazon, and other multinational corporations, the workers of BBIU have no illusions about the monumental task ahead of them. A megacorporation like Nestle, which posted profits of over $10 billion in 2024 and projected continued growth in its coffee portfolio for the foreseeable future, seems to tower like Goliath over the organizing efforts of its coffee shops in Massachusetts. Against these odds, BBIU remains committed to fighting for better conditions in their workplaces, no matter how incremental it may seem.
The workers of BBIU have no illusions about the monumental task ahead of them.
“It feels really good. I’ll tell people [at school] like, ‘Oh, I’m in a union [organizing] against a company owned by Nestle,’ and they’re immediately like, ‘hell yeah.’ The fact that we’ve already, in a very real sense, won so much, like we had this landslide union victory,” said Abby Sato, barista and BBIU organizer. “Even though at the table it doesn’t feel like these huge wins in the larger schemes of things, we are kind of tipping the scale, so it does feel really good, and it does feel like when we come together, we can make real change,” they added.
This sense of victory has helped bargaining committee members stay positive, even as the company drags things out. “This is the thing that gets me kind of excited when thinking about what we’re up against is all of the possibilities that exist,” Pine said. Since the union won their election, members of BBIU have been in contact with members of Sinaltrainal in Colombia, the union representing coffee workers farther down the supply chain. Workers in Colombia have been in a nearly year-long labor dispute with Nestle over mass layoffs–including of sick employees. Last month, bargaining sessions were meant to begin, but have since been suspended.
For Pine, the regular messages of international solidarity from their union siblings along the supply chain have had a buoying effect. “Although the conditions of our workplaces are very different, it means a lot to me that we’re able to send messages of support to each other, talk about issues that we have with the company, and to have that kind of shared sense of international solidarity,” Pine said. That solidarity has given hope to Pine that they and their fellow workers can join a global movement to organize Nestle. “I think that there is a very real chance that we can begin to organize across the supply chain.”
For now, members are working on keeping morale up as bargaining stretches into yet another month. The union has worked hard to build up a strong union culture within their bargaining unit by continuing to hold social events and other gatherings. Pine believes that in the absence of any really meaningful social institutions or third spaces, the union is a source of community and shared power for their membership and supporters. “Even completely new members that don’t really understand what a union is already have positive feelings about it, because they understand that this can be a source or a space of a different way of life, really,” Pine said. “This is something collectively focused that gives people a sense of autonomy in their lives.”
Labor advocates condemned Friday’s announcement by the Trump administration that it will end collective bargaining for Transportation Safety Administration security officers, a move described by one union leader as an act of “dangerous union-busting ripped from the pages of Project 2025.” The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claimed in a statement Friday that collective bargaining…
Is the nation’s biggest union workforce, at the Postal Service, President Trump’s next target? The Washington Post broke the news February 20 that Trump was on the verge of issuing an executive order to dissolve the independent leadership of USPS and move it into the executive branch under the Department of Commerce, now led by enthusiastic privatizer Howard Lutnick, a Wall Street banker.
Two days before the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Anna “Razor Blade” Flemmings took to a podium in pearls and a red Communication Workers of America union T-shirt and spoke her mind. “I want better for me, my coworkers and our children,” said Flemmings, 58, who handles calls to 1-800-MEDICARE for Maximus Inc., a government contractor. A couple dozen of her Maximus coworkers…
The history of the labor movement in the Mohawk Valley is an extremely rich yet untapped field. This is not to say that there’s no labor historiography of the region, but it seems lacking compared to other areas of New York. Utica itself has experienced or been adjacently involved with a number of strikes since at least the mid-19th century. The textile strike of 1919, the newspaper strike of 1967, the teachers strike of 1971, these are only a few of the likely dozens if not hundreds of strikes that have occurred in this city, let alone the whole of the Mohawk Valley. I’ve made it my mission as a historian to highlight the hidden radical kernels of the Mohawk Valley, including community action, politics, and of course, the labor movement. One piece of labor history that’s gone unseen is the 1934 strike held by workers employed by the Civil Works Administration program.
On March 12, 1934, employees of the Civil Works Administration (CWA), a New Deal project designed for job creation to alleviate symptoms of the Great Depression, initiated a strike after facing a reduction in wages. Projects involving the CWA around Utica were put to a screeching halt when a reported 2,000 workers out of 2,500 organized to protest their wages being cut from fifty cents an hour to forty cents, in addition to a reduction of their weekly hours from thirty hours a week to twenty-four. The following day, between 600 and 700 workers representing the strike embarked on a march through the city headed for the office the city’s CWA director’s office. The goal of this march was simply to speak with the program’s director, one Howard Graburn, and demand “a square deal.” Seven workers, part of a “grievance committee,” met with Graburn. As stated at this meeting:
They told him they could not live on $9.60 a week, the amount to be provided on the basis of an order last week from Washington. Until that order came, the men hard earned $15 a week.
The CWA strike shares similarities with several other strikes before, during, and after it in that the police immediately labeled the workers as agitators and demonized their fight as one based on violent tactics. Then-Police Chief Timothy D. McCarthy even believed the idea that the workers were going to the director’s office to “tear the building down.” McCarthy even went as far as sending an emergency squad to the CWA office where one Captain Denis Jankiewicz urged the office to dismiss clerical staff and put the building under lockdown. Jankiewicz’s suggestion was rejected by Chester Smith, the associate director of the Utica office. Of course, this wasn’t the case. The march went off without a single reported incident of violence or use of inflammatory, agitative rhetoric. Patrick McCabe, one of the leaders of this strike, asserted that there would be no violence on the part of him or his fellow workers.
McCabe was integral in providing a voice for his disgruntled comrades. As one of the leaders he signed highly important telegrams sent out to the heads of the CWA in both Washington and New York State. According to one paper, the telegrams go as follows:
The several hundred employees of the CWA here in Utica have quietly left their work and have protested the cut in wages and hours because the same is not keeping up with the spirit of this work as directed by our noble president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
We ask that we be given thirty hours a week and fifty cents an hour which was paid at the beginning of this work.
Accusations of violence from the police here parallel the experiences of striking workers during the Little Falls Textile Strike of 1912-1913. Despite assertions from figures in the strike such as George R. Lunn, Helen Schloss, and several others for the strikers to utilize non-violent tactics in their fight, the police continuously painted the strikers and their supporters in the Socialist Party of America (SPA) and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) as agitators who would only bring violence to Little Falls. The strikers faced constant accusations of violence and disruptiveness, but several accounts show that any violence was instigated by the police and the privately hired deputies brought in by the mill owners.
CWA workers in Utica held further grievances with the fact that the white-collar sector of the CWA offices were spared from the cuts that the blue-collar sector faced. A textbook example of classism, leaders of the Utica protests presented a demand for the publication of the names and salaries of the clerical staff who for some reason weren’t thrown into the same perils that they were.
Part of what makes the CWA strikers’ plight so intriguing is that it held valley-wide and national implications. According to one paper, when the strikers presented their issues to Graburn, the director announced that: “…all the strikers might return to work in the morning with the exception of 200 who had been working on protecting walls in a creek project.”
Though they reportedly were spared from these cuts branches of the CWA in the nearby towns of New York Mills, Whitesboro, and Yorkville told McCabe that there was serious consideration to initiate a “sympathy strike” in solidarity with their fellow workingmen. This proposed sympathy strike wouldn’t end up materializing, but the threat of a mass uprising of workers in the Mohawk Valley was present even if only for a very brief period. In the same vein, workers in numerous other cities throughout the country went on strike due to these cuts coming from the federal level. One article highlights strikes in Boston, Massachusetts, in addition to both Bristol and Allenton, Pennsylvania with various motivations, ranging from demanding a return to their previous wages to the reinstating of laid off workers.
Just two days after flooding the streets of Utica, the CWA workers’ demands were officially met on Wednesday the 14th, at least partially. One article from The Daily Sentinel in Rome states that the Utica workers would be regaining both their fifty cents an hour and their thirty-hour workweek, however this is only mentioned in part of the article’s title. Two pieces from The Glens Falls Times point only to the return to the fifty cents. One piece from the paper has no mention of a return to thirty hours, and one published on March 15 states that although the pay would return to normal, the hours would not. Despite the apparent compromise basically thrusted upon the workers, McCabe was met with a roaring applause when he announced to his comrades that they would be able to return to work on Thursday with their original wages.
The Civil Works Administration program would be retired at the end of March, meaning that in retrospect the fight of those in Utica only seemed to delay the inevitable. That being said though, the strike is still of great significance in that it exemplifies the power of organized labor in defending the interests of the working class, in addition to shedding light on the radical history of the Mohawk Valley. May we be inspired by history and use this history of struggle to help us understand how to approach the problems of our day.
This week on CounterSpin: A NASA official warned workers to maybe think about not wearing their badges in public, to protect themselves from harassment against people identifiable as federal workers by MAGA randos who feel deputized by Trump and Musk to do…well, whatever it is Trump and Musk suggest.
It’s early days of the Trump/Musk federal smash and grab, and the harms are already piling up. But so too is the resistance. And federal workers, presumed to be easy targets—based in part on years of corporate media coverage telling us government is fat and lazy and the private sector does everything better—are also on the front lines of the fightback.
A strike by Southern California healthcare workers at Kaiser organized under the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) has now carried on for 20 weeks, prompting the intervention of California Governor Gavin Newsom. After months of deadlock, Kaiser refused to yield to workers’ demands for pensions and adequate time to attend to patient care duties. Over a month after Newsom’s office offered to bring both sides into mediation, Kaiser finally agreed to sit down with the Governor’s mediators, with sessions beginning on March 10. Mental health patients in particular have been left in the lurch by Kaiser’s intransigence, and the crisis is only worsening as the aftermath of the recent Los Angeles wildfires takes its toll on the area’s residents. Working People co-host Mel Buer investigates the ongoing strike in this interview with Kaiser workers Jessica Rentz and Adriana Webb.
Editor’s note: this episode was recorded on February 25, 2025, before Kaiser agreed to mediation on March 3, 2025.
Additional links/info:
Previous coverage of the strike from The Real News:
Are you looking to downsize your organization in the sloppiest possible way? Dismiss staff without severance pay? Devalue them and their work on their way out the door, making them feel miserable?
If so, Dejected Associates is ready to work with you. Our team of employees were emotionally abused by their fathers, bullied in childhood, and ready to take their anger out on your employees. We’ll use a chainsaw, not a scalpel, feeding their hopes for the future into our wood chipper. Best of all, we’ll do it en masse so they’ll all be competing for new jobs elsewhere at the same time.
But hurry. Avoid regret before a judge’s order rescinds this unusual opportunity to cut costs while boosting your self-esteem.
Here is my brief bio. Please do not post my e-mail address in it:
Nick Phosphorus writes poetry and fiction and has been published in a variety of literary magazines.
This week on Reveal, we celebrate our 10-year anniversary with a look back at some of our favorite stories, from investigations into water shortages in drought-prone California to labor abuses in the Dominican Republic. And we interview the journalists behind the reporting to explain what happened after the stories aired.
Last Saturday was a cold, blustery but sunny day in Chicago, when twenty-five of us picketed Tesla’s showroom at 900 N. Rush Street. Located just west of Chicago’s famed “Magnificent Mile” shopping district, the streets on the weekends are crowded with the wealthy that live in the area and tourists from around the globe. But, there are plenty of people that work in the many retail shops and those out window shopping. It’s a perfect location for a Tesla showroom whose pricey cars are for the rich or those who want to appear to be rich.
It was the second weekend of protests targeting Tesla , whose notorious CEO is Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and best known Nazi. Sitting at the right hand of President Donald Trump, Musk has been the president’s hatchet man destroying the United States’ already ragged welfare state, savaging the Federal workforce, paralyzing agencies designated to protect unions and the environment, and the list keeps expanding daily. The wide variety of Federal workers across the country and their unions right now face the brunt of the offensive, but resistance has been building.
Protests and rallies by Federal workers have taken place and a new rank and file Federal workers network has emerged, it will take some time for workplace struggle to meet their challenge thrown at them, which is historically unprecedented. When President Ronald Reagan fired striking Federal air traffic controllers in 1981, represented by PATCO that endorsed Reagan for president the previous year, it was seen as historically unprecedented and the signal for a rollback of the U.S. trade union movement for two decades that followed.
The Trump administration’s blitzkrieg attack has caught many off-guard, despite plenty of forewarning of what was going to come if he won the election. However, Trump’s policies have not proved popular, while the conspicuous role of the super-billionaire Musk has added to their unpopularity. Republican Congressman who have held “town hall meetings” have faced the wrath of their constituents, and the milk-toast Democrats are also catching hell from theirs as well. Meanwhile, Musk and Vice-President J.D. Vance’s interventions in European politics bolstering far right and straight-up Nazi parties, like the Alternative for Germany (AfD), have also shocked many people.
Tesla takedown
Elon Musk derives much of his wealth from his stock ownership of Tesla and Space X, along with his faux reputation as a “genius inventor” and innovative “clean energy” businessman. Despite their swagger and arrogance, Musk has weak spots that we should be punching as hard as we can right now. Tesla is the prime target. Tesla’s sales have plummeted in Europe and one of the major reasons for this has been Musk’s promotion of the far right. Accordingto the New York Times:
In Germany, home to Tesla’s only factory in Europe, only 1,277 new Tesla vehicles were registered in the month, the German Federal Motor Transport Authority reported on Wednesday. German consumers turned instead to domestic and Chinese automakers for electric cars, which recorded a 54 percent increase in demand in January.
Tesla’s sales plummeted 63 percent in France in January from a year earlier, and 12 percent in Britain, where Mr. Musk riled Prime Minister Keir Starmer through inflammatory social media posts. Sweden, where a mechanics’ strike against Tesla is now in its second year, saw demand for its cars slide 44 percent last month, while sales in Norway dropped 38 percent.
Meanwhile, in the United States, the Times reported:
The decline is also noticeable in the United States, although not as steep. In California, the largest U.S. market for electric cars, Tesla’s sales have been declining for months. Registration of new Tesla vehicles fell 11.6 percent there in 2024 even as overall sales of electric cars and trucks climbed 1.2 percent, according to the California New Car Dealers Association.
We can do better here in the United States. Musk must be made into a pariah and buying his cars and pickups is socially unacceptable. Inspired by actor, director, and documentary filmmaker Alex Winter protests have taken place at Tesla showrooms all over the United States. Largely organized through social media, especially at Bluesky’s #takedowntesla, many have drawn a handful to many dozens of people. Winter explained in Rolling Stone how the call for against Tesla happened:
On Monday, Feb. 10, the fearless and brilliant sociologist Joan Donovan made a simple post on Bluesky: “Come out and participate in an international picket #TeslaTakeover locally. Stand up and be counted!” I’d met Donovan when I was touring for my documentary about the role of YouTube in the rise of the far-right, and I like the idea of Tesla store protests, so I sent her a direct message asking if I could do some organizing to help drive turnout. She said yes, and I immediately cleared time from my day and got busy. First, I reached out to organizers and allies I’ve met in the 15 years that I’ve been trying to raise the alarm about the rising power of Silicon Valley oligarchs. Next, I made a quick database and sign-up form using online tools. Then I posted it all to Bluesky. And that was it. What I assumed would be a relatively small, one day event.
The burst of activism is refreshing and exciting. Winter calculated:
There have now been protests outside of Tesla locations in over 100 cities, and the movement is picking up speed and going global. Our website has thousands of visitors a day, signing on for protests, creating their own and downloading our resources. Just as many people are showing up in front of Tesla real estate through entirely separate organizations, like Indivisible and a new formation of rank and file federal workers called the Federal Unionists Network. Another massive day of action is planned this weekend. There are reports that Tesla’s shareholders are already souring on the company’s CEO and chairperson. The stock is dipping.
Global War Against Unions
Targeting Musk and Tesla is an important development in the struggle against the second trump and Fascism in the United States. Yet, for the movement to become sustainable it has to move beyond appeals to “Sell your Tesla. Dump your stock.” Most of us will never own a Tesla or own stock in the company. One of the most important lessons we can learn from the struggle against the last, infamous Auto-magnet Fascist Henry Ford is the importance of union organization. Ford was the last of the Big Three to sign a contract with the young UAW in 1941, ending a long dark era for Ford workers.
Elon Musk is waging a global war against unions from Fremont, California to Sweden to Berlin. His promotion of the far right is part of a plan to keep his plants unorganized and his workers under his thumb. The struggle against Fascism and organizing the Tesla plants are one and the same struggle. Driving him from the White House would be a huge victory, while organizing his plants could push him into oblivion.
I love artificial banana flavor. I enjoyed Runts candy when I was a kid, and I still enjoy yellow Laffy Taffy from time to time. Something about its bright color and vibrant flavor stands out to me. But I understand why some people don’t like it. I mean, it doesn’t even taste like a banana, or does it?
The bananas we see in the grocery store are called Cavendish. Although artificial Cavendish flavor exists, the bold flavor from our childhood is still the most common banana flavor. The artificial banana flavor that doesn’t seem banana-like to us is meant to taste like a Gros Michel banana, a fruit that was the standard banana until the 1950s.
The Gros Michel, or Big Mike, was widely popular in the United States from the late 1800s until its disappearance. Sweet, creamy, and cheap, it was widely consumed. However, it went through frequent periods of unavailability, which was immortalized in the 1922 swing jazz song “Yes! We Have No Bananas.”
You’ve seen the seeds of a Cavendish banana; they are those tiny specks you see when you slice one open. Just like Gros Michels, Cavendish bananas were bred to have small seeds so they could be eaten easily. Breeders were cloning their crops and didn’t need them to have seeds anyway. Cloning was faster and more cost-effective, but it left the crop vulnerable to infection. Without the ability to gain immunity through reproduction, the cloned Gros Michel went through periods of unavailability until it eventually disappeared from grocery store shelves entirely. Now, you can only order Big Mikes online as an expensive novelty.
Looking at the current state of things doesn’t give us the whole picture. To understand things as they are now, we must also understand how they came to be. To understand something as simple as the flavor of a banana—or as complex as a human being—we need to consider the many other aspects that intersect with it. But with so many ways to approach a subject, how can we determine which points of intersection are important?
We need to identify the chief determining factor in an individual’s life; only then will we have a starting point for studying a subject. What determines the matter of life someone lives is their relationship to the means of production.
In ancient Rome, you could have been a slave—someone who was owned and treated as property—or someone who neither owned slaves nor was a slave. Or you could have been a slave owner who had control over other people. Obviously, the slave owner had the most power, having de facto control over a person’s life and economic power by controlling someone else’s labor for their benefit.
Under a feudal economic system, you could be a serf condemned to stay on land owned by a lord but who had far greater freedom than a slave. Or you could be neither serf nor lord and have no say over most of the land and its use. Obviously, the feudal lord who owned land and controlled the production on that land had the most power.
How much time we have to live our lives is determined by our relationship with production. Do we have to participate in production on behalf of another person? Do we work for ourselves, or do we sit back while others do the work for us? Do we produce medicine and consumer goods to be enjoyed, or do we have to produce bananas because the country that invaded us wants bananas? When we apply dialectical materialism to history, it becomes clear that studying production and people’s relation to it is the correct way to understand history. This is called historical materialism and leads to some profound conclusions. Production and its development over time have distinct features that must be understood before history can be understood, and therefore before anything in the present zeitgeist can be understood.
First, production never stays still for very long; it is always fluctuating. These changes in production are what cause changes in individuals’ lives. Changes in the mode of production cause the greatest leaps in the manner of life people live. A worker under capitalism is better off than a serf, both because of their personal freedom and because capitalism produces more life-improving commodities. I’ll take air conditioning and refrigerators over a medieval farm any day of the week.
Second, whenever labor combines with capital to produce something, it is called a productive force. Changes in the development of production always begin with changes in productive forces. The Industrial Revolution happened because workers began working in factories, starting a feedback loop where more factories were built, further incentivizing workers to leave rural farms for industrial work, which in turn incentivized the creation of more factories.
Third, new productive forces do not develop separately from old ones. While capitalists seized more and more private property, feudal lords controlled less and less until disappearing as a class altogether. Individuals cannot predict when the next qualitative change in development will happen.
When a plantation owner grows a crop by cloning, they are only thinking about lightening their load and making more capital. They cannot foresee that this will lead to major crop failures and have such a societal impact that people will write songs about it. They cannot predict that this will lead to a change in production and leave an impact on society so great it is still felt a century later.
Artificial banana flavor contains isoamyl acetate, a chemical also found in Gros Michel bananas. Isoamyl acetate gives it that distinct taste I can only describe as “yellow”. But how did the banana we grew up on come to be so different from this older banana? Before we can understand artificial banana flavor, we first need to understand the history of banana production.
The land where Gros Michels were grown was mostly owned by businesses from the United States. The workers who produced the bananas did not own the land, harvesting equipment, or transportation. Corporations like United Fruit bribed politicians and used paramilitary groups to suppress any attempts by the workers to improve their conditions. They worked seven days a week for little money. These were typical conditions in Banana Republics, where fruit companies owned massive amounts of land and resources in small countries, and the inhabitants didn’t have ownership over their own homes.
United Fruit would even convince the U.S. government to invade countries on their behalf. The military would brutally invade and crush all opposition while leaving the real criminals—the wealthy landowners—unharmed. Countries like Costa Rica, Colombia, and Guatemala, just to name a few, were routinely subjected to horrible conditions imposed on them by their northern neighbors. Big Mikes could be so cheap and accessible because the workers producing them were being exploited. “Yes! We Have No Bananas” is about crop failures, but it is also about worker strikes that would halt banana production and shipping. Strikes were common and one of the only ways workers could bargain for better working conditions.
Despite corporations’ best efforts, they were and are still unable to maintain a constant state of banana production. This is because production, by its very nature, is constantly changing. Those changes start with labor’s use of the means of production. Either there was no crop, or workers were striking and withholding their labor. While capitalists currently dictate production, laborers organize and fight for control over it. Every strike or protest, every action the working class takes together, is one step closer to change. Elements of socialism exist all around us, silently building up, waiting for enough quantitative changes to make the next major leap in production. Labor has always been at odds with those who owned the land they worked on. This is what Karl Marx had in mind when he said, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.”
Isoamyl acetate has been so simple to produce that it has been used as an artificial flavor since the 1800s. Complicated flavors that taste realistic are available, but something so simple that it was used 100 years before I was born is just easier to make. Just like with real bananas, those who own flavor production want as little investment as possible with as much yield as possible. They don’t care if their banana flavor doesn’t taste like any banana, you’ve ever had; it’s cost-effective to produce, so that’s what they produce.
Only by studying banana flavor through historical materialism, by examining its production and relationship with labor, can we understand why Gros Michels left such a cultural impact and why their flavor is still used today. Every single subject has this much history behind it. Every subject is interconnecting with adjacent subjects and always comes back to production and labor’s struggle against those who own production.
The number one thing determining our lives is our relationship with production. If we didn’t have to spend so much time at work, we could study whatever subjects we wanted. If we received the full value of our labor, we could afford the healthcare we need or travel to see the places we’ve always wanted to visit. When we take an active role in our work instead of working for someone else, we find that work more satisfying. The next time you hear about a strike or a protest, remember that those are forces leading to change, and we can see them building up right before our very eyes. The next time you see a banana, remember that banana is the result of the struggle between labor and capital, the same struggle that determines the manner of life we all live.
In this urgent episode of Working People, we focus on the Trump-Musk administration’s all-out assault on federal workers and its takeover and reordering of our entire system of government. “At least 20,000 federal workers have so far been fired by the Trump administration,” Ed Pilkington and Chris Stein report in The Guardian, “most of them recent hires on probationary periods who lack employment protections. In addition, the White House claims that more than 75,000 employees have accepted its offer of deferred resignations. The purge has prompted speculation that Trump is engaging in one of the biggest job cutting rounds in US history, which could have a powerful knock-on effect on the American economy.”
This already-chaotic situation got even more chaotic this weekend when Elon Musk, the richest man in the world and Donald Trump’s unelected executioner of federal agencies, demanded that over 2 million federal workers detail what they do at their jobs in bullet points over email on Monday or face dismissal. While Musk’s order has now been rescinded, the chaos, confusion, and naked corruption unleashed by the Trump-Musk administration’s assault on the federal government, federal workers, and the people who depend on them is intensifying with each passing day. In today’s episode, we take you to the front lines of struggle and hear directly from three federal workers about what is happening inside the federal government, why it concerns all of us, and how federal workers and concerned citizens of all stripes are fighting back.
Panelists include: Cat Farman, president of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Union, Local 335 of the National Treasury Employees Union; Jasmine McAllister, a rank-and-file CFPB Union member and data scientist who was illegally fired two weeks ago; and Will Munger, a rangeland scientist who works across the intermountain west and who, until this month, served as a postdoctoral researcher with the USDA Agricultural Research Service.
Featured Music…Jules Taylor, “Working People” Theme Song
Studio Production: Maximillian Alvarez Post-Production: Jules Taylor
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Alright. Welcome everyone to Working People, a podcast about the lives, jobs, dreams, and struggles of the working class today. Working People is a proud member of the Labor Radio Podcast Network and is brought to you in partnership within these Times Magazine and the Real News Network. This show is produced by Jules Taylor and made possible by the support of listeners like you. My name is Maximilian Alvarez and we’ve got an urgent episode for y’all. Today we are focusing on the Trump Musk administration’s all out assault on federal workers in the United States Constitution and its takeover and reordering of our entire system of government. We are recording today’s episode on Monday, February 24th, and things just keep getting more hectic, absurd, and terrifying by the minute. As Ed Pilkington and Chris Stein reported this morning in the Guardian quote, at least 20,000 federal workers have so far been fired by the Trump administration, most of them recent hires on probationary periods who lack employment protections.
In addition, the White House claims that more than 75,000 employees have accepted its offer of deferred resignations. The purge has prompted speculation that Trump is engaging in one of the biggest job cutting rounds in US history, which could have a powerful knock on effect on the American economy. Now, this already chaotic situation got even more chaotic this weekend when as Pilkington and Stein continue, Elon Musk, the Tesla billionaire turned White House sanctioned cost cutter demanded federal workers detail what they do at their jobs in bullet points or faced dismissal. The Saturday email sent to millions of employees was the latest salvo in Musk’s campaign authorized by Donald Trump to dramatically downsize the federal government. Musk’s Ultimatum was sent out on Saturday in a mass email to federal employees from the Office of Personnel Management, one of the first federal organs, Musk and his team on the so-called Department of Government Efficiency infiltrated after Trump was sworn in, the message gave all the US governments more than 2 million workers, barely 48 hours to itemize their accomplishments in the past week in five bullet points and in a post on X Musk indicated that failure to respond will be taken as a resignation.
The order provoked instant chaos across the government with Trump’s own appointed leadership in federal agencies responding in starkly different ways, workers in the Social Security Administration and the Health and Human Services Department were told to comply with the email. And CNN reported that the Department of Transportation ordered all of its employees to respond to the musk email by its deadline that included air traffic controllers who are currently struggling with severe understaffing and a spate of recent accidents. Several other agencies told their employees to refrain, including the FBI, where the new director Trump Loyalist Cash Patel asked agents to please pause any responses. Now, this is a fast moving crisis with long-term consequences that concern all of us, but we cannot understand this crisis if we are swimming in seas of misinformation and if our mainstream media channels and our social media feeds are just not giving us the information that we need, or they’re actively suppressing our access to the voices of current and former federal workers who are on the front lines of struggle right now and on this show and across the Real News Network, we are doing everything we can to counteract that.
And that’s exactly what we’re doing today to help us navigate this mess and to help us figure out how we can fight back before it’s too late, not as red or blue or non-voters, but as fellow working people, the working class of this country, I’m honored to be joined today on the show by three guests. Kat Farman is president of the CFPB Union, which is local 3 3 5 of the National Treasury Employees Union, and they represent workers at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the CFPB, the agency that was created to protect consumers after the 2008 financial crisis and subprime mortgage lending scandal, an agency that was effectively shut down by the Trump Musk administration two weeks ago after having clawed back over $21 billion from Wall Street banks and credit card companies for defrauded customers. We are also joined by Jasmine McAllister, a rank and file CFPB Union member and a data scientist before she was illegally fired two weeks ago, along with around 180 employees at the CFPB.
And last but not least, we are joined by Will Munger. Will is a rangeland scientist who works across the Intermountain West and around the world. Before the Valentine’s Day massacre, he served as postdoctoral researcher with the USDA Agricultural Research Service. Kat Jasmine will thank you all so much for joining us today, and I really, really wish that we were connecting under less horrifying circumstances, but I’m so grateful to have you all here with us and in the first 15 minutes here, I want to start with where we are right now as of this recording on Monday, February 24th. By the time this episode comes out later this week, we’ll presumably know more about the fallout from Musk’s absurd mandate to federal workers this weekend and about who complied and who didn’t. I wish it could be taken for granted that people see right through all of this, that they see federal workers like yourselves as human beings and understand the incalculable impact that this techno fascist coup and all these firings are going to have on all of us that they see Musk and his drugged out, neo-Nazi insane clown, CEO posts and nakedly self-serving corrupt behavior, and they see him for what he is and that they see the Trump administration and all this oligarch led destruction and reordering of our government, our economy, and our society to serve their profit and power motives.
But we know that we can’t take that for granted because Musk Trump, Fox News and the entire ripe wing media apparatus, the social media algorithms controlling our feeds, they’re all pushing the narrative that this is righteous vengeance against the anti-American deep state against wokeness and waste, and a lot of people are buying it. So can we start by going around the table, having y’all briefly introduce yourselves and walk listeners through what this has all looked like for you three over the past week or so and what you want people to know about what’s actually happening to our government in real life in real time?
Cat Farman:
Yeah, thank you, max. Thanks for having us and thanks for being a voice for working people and for the working people who are under attack, specifically in public services working for our federal government. And that includes not just federal workers, but people who work at contractors. There are a lot of private contracting businesses that people are losing their jobs there because Musk is attacking those jobs too. There’s a lot of working people under attack right now. So I’ve been working at the CFPB now for 10 years, and when I got this job, I was excited because I had been working in tech before that, going from small company to small company, just trying to get my foot in the door and prove myself and also get compensated for the work that I do. And one of the things that I struggled with working in the private sector was I wasn’t really finding a lot of opportunities where I live in Philadelphia and the opportunities that did exist were very corporate in nature.
It was a lot of building websites and application software for companies like Ben and Jerry’s or Papa John’s, and those are kind of cool, fun projects to do. But it felt like what it was, which is I’m just being exploited to create something for someone else’s profit, and I’m spending a lot of my life and my time building and crafting very detail oriented code bases and designs for someone to just sell pizza, and it didn’t feel very useful. So I was really excited to find that the folks at CFPB were hiring and that it was to do work using my skills and my technology background to actually provide a socially useful service to the public. So I’ve worked on projects like the consumer complaint database website, which is where before two weeks ago, any person in the USA who had an issue with your big bank, your financial service provider, your mortgage lender or servicer, your student loan servicer, if they were not responding to you because they don’t, right?
They have bad customer service experiences on purpose. They want you to give up. Instead, you can come to the CFPB, you used to be able to submit a complaint or call us, do it on our website and we would require a response from the company in two weeks. That is not happening anymore, but that’s the kind of service that I got to work on and use my skills for good. So we were talking about someone like me who grew up in small town in East Texas, and I was lucky to have internet growing up in that small town. And then to get to use those skills and have a career in that, but find the jobs are wanting few and far between, don’t pay as well as we were told tech skills can get and they’re kind of miserable. And then to be able to come into public service and actually give something back with those skills and know that all the time and effort I’m putting, working 40 hour work weeks or longer, it’s actually doing something useful for society.
That was just a huge shift in my career that I was so excited about and coming into working at the bureau, been there for 10 years, and then realizing also a lot of the benefits that I in my head always ascribe to a government job, stability, security, a decent pay, even if it’s not as high as a private sector, but it’s going to be enough benefits like retirement. We have a pension. These things that I associated with government jobs, they come from unions. It was actually our union contract that got us those and unions fought and won those and have protected those. And unions remain under attack for decades. And in the federal work sector, it’s one of the last sectors that’s got higher than average numbers of unionization. I think it’s still only a third of the sector that’s unionized though, right? So it’s like 34% instead of 10% of Americans in general, but it’s still a higher percentage.
So I learned a lot about unions. This is the first union job I had all the things that made my family from Texas really excited that here I was. I moved to the big city far away and then I was able to get a good stable government job. They knew what that meant, all those things that represents to them. They come from unions and union contracts. So having that for the first time too had been just a total shift and getting involved in our union to fight to protect those things under the first Trump administration and then since to expand on them when we’ve had opportunities to, and then now here we are where the entire sector is under attack. It’s been eyeopening and it’s also been quite a joy to realize we rest on all this labor history that brought us here to where we are today, but also to see that we still have much to learn from that past if we’re going to be able to even survive the current moment.
We have this revived labor movement in this country and federal workers have been a part of that. CFPB union is a part of that. And I believe that is one reason we’re under attack right now. And that’s something that I hope listeners understand that we’re being targeted because we’re unions, because we’re labor and that these attacks are on the right wing that are trying to paint us as faceless DC bureaucrats or suits in Washington are lies meant to obscure the reality, which is where are your neighbors, where your family, your friends, where your community members who are working people and our services that we provide serve working people. We provide those services to the public for free funded by the government. And that means Elon Musk can’t make a buck off of it. And so when he comes in to shut down the CPB to steal our data and to fire our workers illegally when we are the ones who would be regulating his payment processing plans for x.com, it’s because he doesn’t want us standing in the way of him making a buck. And he has no need for any public services for people who are just working, people who want public goods to be provided to them so that they can have a little bit of a shot against the big that we regulate or the financial companies, what Elon wants to be.
That is what he’s doing. He’s seeing no value in the public services that federal workers provide, and if he can’t make a buck off it, then he’s going to find a way. Yeah.
Jasmine McAllister:
Thanks Max. Thanks for having us. Yeah, I wanted to address the first part of what you were asking. So you had mentioned this language that it’s like anti wokeness and the deep state and waste and all of that. And to be honest, I think that’s a distraction and that’s just excuses that they’re using to do what they really want. When you think about who these people are, they have dedicated their whole lives to accumulating wealth and power. They want to keep doing that. It’s like a machine that can’t be satisfied and they’re bad bosses. They’ll make people work in factories in a natural disaster. You think of tech jobs as being cushy, but then once people start to get more bold and organize and try to start unions at their tech companies like mass layoffs, no, it’s not stable. So yeah, I think that they do really want to attack the idea that you can have a stable, dignified job.
It might not make as much money as you could elsewhere, but it’s stable contributes to public life. That idea is threatening to who they are as bosses and what they are in the labor market. So I think that’s threatening to them as well as just organized labor in general. So their strategy to execute on destroying organized labor, destroying the federal services, destroying the federal workforce and making them the only big bad bosses in town. Their strategy to do that is to cause chaos and confusion. So you’d mentioned some headlines from this weekend and yeah, I think maybe you also mentioned that I was legally fired two weeks ago that firing was illegal. I feel like the news is covering it as layoffs. It’s something that’s allowed to happen as routine. It is possible to have a reduction in force in the federal government, but it needs to be thoughtful.
There’s rules and processes for how this is normally followed. If you want to take that kind of action and do it thoughtfully, which they’re completely ignoring, and in terms of what it looks like on the ground, it does feel chaotic and confusing, especially when it’s kind of hard to sort your attention because I feel like I’ll try to be like, okay, a lot’s happening, but I’m going to focus on what I can do and what’s in front of me and what’s in my control. But then I’ll get texts from like, oh, my parents, they saw a headline and they’re like, oh, did you know Elon Musk is saying people resign if they don’t reply to this email? But Elon Musk is not in our chain of command. That’s something that I think is being covered as just a fact when that’s not anyone’s boss. And you’ve seen a diversity in responses from different agencies. And
Maximillian Alvarez:
In fact, if this were in a bizarro world where Republicans did not have a trifecta control of the government, you would have folks on the other side of the aisle screaming about the illegality of all of this. But essentially what the culmination of that GOP trifecta is, is that no one in Congress is doing anything about the blatantly illegal actions of the unelected richest man in the world taking a meat cleaver to our government agencies.
Jasmine McAllister:
Exactly. Yeah. And I think in the absence of leadership from Congress, I think it’s really on each of us as individuals either as federal workers or just American citizens, to do what’s within each of our individual power. So one thing that our union has been really good about is reminding people their rights and their obligations in terms of legal orders. And so one thing that we’ll say is there’s all these rules about what sort of information can be shared where and who gets access to what. And there’s a lot of details there, but if you’re a federal worker listening to this, just remembering I do what my boss tells me to do, and if I’m getting an order from someone who’s not at my agency or not in my chain of command, I ask my boss, is this an order? And I think it violates x, y, Z rules and they can correct you, but don’t do anything that’s illegal and don’t comply. Don’t be scared into complying just because you’re scared. They’re trying to cause chaos and confusion. It’s working, but we need to remain clear-eyed about what our processes are to make our democracy work.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Will I want to bring you in here. We had Kat and Jasmine giving their on the ground accounts of the past couple weeks. I’m wondering what that looked like from your vantage point, not being in DC, but being directly impacted by this same top-down takeover.
Will Munger:
Sure. Well, thanks for having us on Max and Jasmine and Kat, my heart goes out too. And solidarity, this has been a really hard week for everyone. We’re definitely all in this together. I want to paint you a picture of the landscape where I work. I work and live in rural Idaho and Montana. I work with mostly ranchers who are working on public lands as well as the public land managers who are responsible for those public lands, as well as a number of scientists who are doing research and science for the betterment and management of those public lands. And so in my day-to-day job, I talk with ranchers about the issues that are facing them. These are complex issues in the west, there’s multiple jurisdictions, and it’s not just about producing food and fiber for the American people, but also there’s a number of new ask that are being asked of farmers and ranchers to conserve biodiversity, to help mitigate climate change, to deal with rapidly changing rural communities and land fragmentation.
So the challenges facing America’s farmers and ranchers are numerous, and having a federal agricultural research service is so important because we can do public interest research that the private sector isn’t able to do. And so me and my team were actually on our way back from the Society for Range Management meeting where we had been talking with ranchers and public land managers from around the country when we got the call that we were getting fired. And we were actually really shocked and surprised is so many people were. But one thing that I think is unique about my experience is I’m a young scientist. This is my first year in the service. I defended my dissertation in April of last year. And like Kat was talking about, to come from a rural community be able to have a federal job is and be able to serve your community is something that’s really important.
And a lot of young people are really excited to be here because day in day out, we hear from our stakeholders about how important the work that we do is. And when we got the news that we had been fired, it was just a real shock for us because we had been at this conference where we were getting really great feedback while we were hearing from our stakeholders that we were performing at a very high level and actually addressing a lot of the challenges that they’re facing. So it’s pretty dispiriting. But I think the thing I really want to uphold and really call attention to is the impact that these mass terminations have on rural communities out west. A lot of these communities are public lands communities where the people that were fired in this live and work in their livelihoods are interwoven with these lands, these rangers, firefighters, and also locksmiths, mule packers, educators. It’s a real range of people that have been hit by these. And some ranger districts that I’ve heard from have lost 50% of their crews, entire trail crews have been decimated. And over the last week, there’ve been a number of protests in these small towns. This is McCall, Idaho, Flagstaff, Arizona, my hometown of Logan, Utah. Hundreds and thousands of people are coming out in these small towns to say, Hey, these are public servants who serve our interest, who are taking care of our public lands, and we’re going to stand up for them.
Our stakeholders have been really active in making calls to the higher powers it be. And I think this is important because these are no democrats. These are mostly red states. These are mostly conservative agricultural communities, and they feel like projects that they have put a lot of time and effort into are being attacked here. And I think that that’s really important to recognize is that this is a moment where we can really bridge the urban rural divide and listen to each other and really think about what is the point of public science, of public service and what are the goods that brings? And I think this is a real clarifying moment. And the other thing I want to really highlight is the impact to young workers. I coached the range team at Utah State. I’m in contact with a number of young workers around the west, and they are really feeling decimated where these entry level jobs, these probationary positions that were terminated, this is our pathway where young people find their place in the world and can be compensated and rewarded for serving their communities.
And to cut that off is really cruel and not efficient at all. And here’s the real deep irony about calling this governmental efficiency is that so many of these programs are because of years of experience that this works. We responded to the Dust Bowl by creating conservation districts and watershed science so that we don’t have the impact of the Dust Bowl anymore. And our public land servants who are working on the range of issues that our communities are facing are really public servants who deserve to be supported. And that’s why I think it’s so important that we’re raising our voice and making these connections between rural America and what’s happening back east and in our cities.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Let’s take a quick step back and help listeners hear what we’ve been trying to get them to hear since the very first episode of this podcast that your fellow workers doing the unsung work that makes our whole society and economy run are human beings just like you. Can we go back around the table and have each of you just talk a bit more about how you personally got into doing this work, what that day-to-day work entailed before all of this madness with the second Trump administration and how that work contributed directly and indirectly to the public Good. I
Cat Farman:
Came into CFPB 10 years ago now as a web developer and technologist and looking for purpose. And I think that’s really common for people of the millennial generation. And we grew up in a time when we were told, if you go to college and find meaning and passion, there will be jobs and a good life waiting for you on the other side. And then we saw the lie of the 2008 financial crash and the great recession, and that was not the case and that there was no magical great American dream waiting for us after all. And in fact, to the extent that it ever existed, they were doing everything they needed and wanted to do to take away any of the foundations of that. And that includes bailing out corporations and big banks instead of American homeowners who lost their houses in that crisis and lost their jobs.
Maximillian Alvarez:
I feel I got to state, just as a disclaimer, as folks who listen to this show know my family was one of those, the very first interview I ever did on this show was with my dad, Jesus Alvarez, talking about what it was like for our family to lose the house that I grew up in. So I feel like I have to say that for if nothing else, to make the disclaimer, but also to make the point that this impacts millions and millions of us.
Cat Farman:
Yes. And so I hear Will speaking about how the fact that these jobs exist that we’re talking about, that will and Jasmine have been unjustly legally fired from now that these careers exist, that these services exist for the public good is because we’ve learned from past disasters, like you said, the Dust Bowl, that’s the Great Depression. And then with the Great Recession, one of the lessons was there needs to be actual oversight in a central agency of government of these Wall Street banks that they don’t crash the economy and screw over the American people on such a scale again. And that includes regulating the mortgage market and auto loan market lenders and financial products. And that’s what CFPB was created to do. So I hear a lot of patterns, a lot of these services. There were a reason that we were created was because there was a moment, a history of greed and disaster resulting from that greed. And so here we are again. Greed is attacking these and creating disastrous economic effects already on American people. So we already know this history, it’s repeating. We’re in this new gilded age where the billionaires are running away with everything again and seeing if they’ll get away with it. So I think it’s important to remember that history and look back and see what’s going to be necessary for us to put a stop to this coup that’s happening and this corporate takeover of public good.
But yeah, so came to work at CFPB, it was in that context of the sort of disillusionment of being a working person realizing I’m going to have to work the rest of how long of my life and seeing the fallout of the economic, the great recession, and that impact on me and my generation friends and family members too. And again, Jasmine and Will talking about too, and then seeing opportunity in finding a public service job that’s got some security behind it, and that is meant to actually provide a social counterbalance, these forces of greed, corruption, corporate malfeasance, fraud by the billionaire and CEO class. So I’m still very proud to be able to do that work and it is motivating in a way that getting up in the morning to sell pizza every day is not and never was in those previous private sector jobs that I had.
One of the other differences I found too is that the small business tyrant experience is real. I worked for the small business tyrants at previous jobs and they have these little fiefdoms and there are not a lot of protections for workers in those kinds of jobs in this country. The difference is vast between working at those kinds of workplaces and going and working in public sector. And something too, and this is something shameful about some of these places I worked in technology, they shut out people of color, women of color, people like me from these industries, and I had never worked with a black coworker until I worked at the CFPB in technology. I never had a technology job where I had a black colleague in Philadelphia. So that kind of shameful discrimination and industry-wide creating hass and have nots who has access to certain kinds of work and salaries that come along with that, right? That’s something that in the public sector there are a lot more rules, regulations, and there’s a lot less segregation because of that. And I think that’s really key too, to keep in mind a part of the reason that we’re under attack right now is this is federal workforce is one of the more diverse and representative of the American people generally in all areas of demographics. And that is something that billionaires don’t want and certainly racist people like Musk and Trump are against too.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Jasmine, I want to come to you and ask if you could pick up where we left off and just say more about how you got into working at the CFPB, what that work entailed and how that work contributed to the public good.
Jasmine McAllister:
Yeah, so I was doing pretty similar work at the state level before coming to CFPB. So I was at the New York State Attorney General’s office similar to CFPB. CFPB has a law enforcement function among other functions. So I was doing law enforcement at the state level for all types of laws in New York state. So like labor laws, voting rights access or some of the things I worked on as well as consumer financial protection. So an everyday person when they interact with their auto lender, what sort of rice do they have and how do they make sure they’re not getting cheated? So that was the type of work I was doing beforehand and I spent many years building those skills up. It’s pretty complicated work. I’m a data scientist and when you investigate these companies, it’s not like they’re sitting around saying, yeah, sure, this is how we’re breaking the law.
It’s pretty complicated. The lawyers have to develop their legal theories and then they talk to us and we say, okay, what type of data might exist? If we look at that data, how can we tell what’s really happening? It’s usually millions of rows of data that we have to link together. So yeah, it’s a pretty specialized skillset that I developed elsewhere and it was pretty competitive to get the job. More than a thousand people applied to my posting and my team had four people hired from that thousand. So yeah, so it’s pretty complicated work and it’s pretty hard to find the skills for this. And all four of us, me and my coworkers, we had to take a technical test that was pretty difficult. We all hit the ground running right away, but then I talk about it being an illegal firing. The excuse that they gave is that it’s performance based. So for new hires, it is possible to fire them for performance based issues, but they fired all new hires in one day at 9:00 PM and it’s just not possible that all of us we’re not performing our jobs, and that’s really just a loophole that they’re trying to use to bully people, and it is illegal. What happened,
Cat Farman:
We have supervisors too who had no say in these firings, right? So your supervisor didn’t say your performance was bad. They didn’t even ask your supervisor because that wasn’t one. Yeah.
Jasmine McAllister:
Well, and my specific supervisor saw this coming. So my specific supervisor was proactively thought that this administration would do this and was sending emails up his chain of command all the way to the director saying, Hey, I know they’re going to try this tactic. These people I would vouch for. It was very difficult to hire them. His supervisor, supervisor agreed. Everyone who would normally have the power in a decision like this to evaluate performance has said no. The performance was extraordinary for these four people. And I think that’s true for all 180 of us who were fired. We have in writing, I have a proactive supervisor, but other people, there’s supervisors now are saying, I would be a reference. Their supervisors are posting on LinkedIn trying to help people get jobs. It’s clearly not performance based and they’re just trying to bully us.
So anyways, that was a tangent. But yeah, I’ve always been interested in holding power to account. I’ve always been interested in balancing out the power imbalances that exist in the world. And yeah, I’ve been doing that data work for a long time. I started doing it in CF PB six months ago. Some of the cases I’ve worked on since joining have to do with illegal overdraft fees. So one such case, it’s the biggest credit union in the country. They provide services to military families and they were doing this thing with illegal overdraft fees where it would say one balance in your account when you make the payment. So you’re like, okay, I’m at the grocery store, I’m looking at my basket. Can I afford this extra item? Oh, cool, I have $40 in my account. I’m going to make sure I’m under that $40. You pay your grocery bill and then the next day you see that actually the way that the transactions were posted in the order that they came in means that by the time that your $35 grocery bill hits your account, actually it was less than that by that time, and now you get an illegal overdraft fee.
So that’s not supposed to happen. That’s deceptive. And that’s something that CF PB got them to stop doing. And we won money for people who were cheated in this way. There were other things happening at this company too where you’re like, okay, cool, I need to buy something, but my friend owes me money. They send me a Zelle payment and then I buy the thing I need to buy, but actually the Zelle payment won’t be posted until the next business day. And that’s something that they were not forthcoming about disclosing. And these are military families. I think that that’s something that is a pretty sympathetic, I think that this sort of thing happens to people across the country and that’s why CPB exists to protect anyone. But the fact that this was happening to military families is an extra layer of they’ve served their country and now the institution that would protect them from this sort of predatory behaviors being abolished.
Maximillian Alvarez:
And I mean it really underlines a point that we’ve been making throughout the conversation here that will brought up even earlier, right? It is like maybe people are cheering this kind of top-down government destruction on for partisan reasons, but it is going to have fully nonpartisan effects for all working people regardless of what state they live in. And will, I wanted to bring you back in here and ask if you could talk a bit more about the communities you serve, the work that you do there and how that work is as much in the public interest as what we’re talking about here with the CFPB, even if it’s not something that folks know about or see if they don’t live in a rural redder district.
Will Munger:
So the constituency that I work with are mostly ranchers who are working on a mix of both private and public lands. And on these public lands are multiple resources that are public. And so for example, there’s a huge demand for restoration of species like grizzly bears and wolves and bighorn sheep, which puts sometimes that into conflict with ranching families. So for example, there’s a disease transmission issue that happens between domestic and wild sheep that causes a pneumonia that can destroy wild sheep populations. And so doing really important genetic research, epidemiological research as well as community-based research to figure out how can we restore bighorn populations and have domestic sheep grazing, what’s the right combination? That’s one example of a lot of these complicated, both agricultural and public lands management issues, and obviously wolves and grizzly bears and the introduction of large carnivores in the Intermountain West is another huge issue that are impacting people.
And I think I also want to recognize that a lot of my stakeholders who I’ve been talking to and I’ve been doing qualitative research, interviewing a lot of people, so have a little bit of a grounds to stand on. They do see that there have been too many regulations. They do see their livelihoods diminished and they do want to see some reform. And so that is really important to acknowledge that that demand is out there as well. However, the group that I was working in was specifically created to address these complex public lines challenges by organizing collaborative science efforts rather than having a top-down loading dock model of science where a scientists say, oh, we have the silver bullet. Here’s what these communities have to do. We’re working with ranchers saying, what are the issues that are important to you and how can we work together to make science that is relevant to your livelihoods, to public lands, conservation issues, and be able to find that sweet spot?
And so our project has been years in the making. It takes a lot of work to build relationships both with livestock producers as well as environmental groups who have had conflict with those public land agencies and ranchers. So it takes a lot of time to build that trust and then it takes a really specialized set of specialized team that has geneticists, fire ecologists, social scientists, collaborative experts and facilitators to make these things happen. So these efforts take years and a lot of public investment to turn a page on these issues. And so when you come in and decimate that, that has a real impact on people.
Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been seeing letters from different wool grower organizations, different stockman’s organizations, different public lands, employee unions who are saying a very similar thing, which is these public servants are serving our interests, our livelihoods, our public lands, and we want to stand up for them because these projects have direct impact on our livelihood. And I think that’s the really important thing to drive home here, is that this is not a political game in the rural west. These are operators who are working on thin margins. These are wildlife populations that have been endangered and are in a route to recovery, and we need really innovative science to keep those things happening. The other part I think that is really important that goes back to some of the larger political economic changes, is that we’re seeing changes in public land ownership out west.
We’re seeing efforts to take over public land, and we are also seeing billionaires buying up working ranches and turning it into resorts, and it’s third and fourth and fifth and 14th homes. And so that both destroys working ranch livelihoods, but then also destroys that wildlife habitat. And so there’s I think, an opportunity to combine some convergences. Where can we build new political coalitions that can bring forth a vision of what might unite us, what might really help take care of rural communities going into the future? And so both Kat and Jasmine were talking earlier about it’s a little disorienting right now. There’s just so much new, so much feed, and that’s the flood the zone strategy, right? It’s the shock and awe that makes us just forget that we are in a web of relationships that are connected and responsible to each other. And so I think what I really want to emphasize is that our relationships make us strong. And whether that’s a union working in a big city, whether that’s a community group working out in the rural west, we need to uplift that next generation and continue to take care of each other during this hard time.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Kat, Jasmine will, there’s so much more I want to talk to you about, but I know we only have a little time left. And in that time I wanted to go back around the table and ask if you could say a little more about who’s fighting back right now and how, right? Is it unions, your unions, other unions will mentioned earlier that the stakeholders that you work with on a day-to-day basis or writing letters to the federal government urging them to not continue with these cuts, these layoffs, this top-down destruction. Are there elected officials who are leading a fight? Can you tell folks more about who’s fighting back and how? And I also wanted to ask by way of rounding out if you had any parting messages that you wanted to leave listeners with about why they need to care about all of this, how they can get involved in that fight, but also who and what we’re fighting against and who or what we’re fighting for here.
Cat Farman:
Well, thank you, max. We’re fighting for ourselves. One of my union comrades today put it perfectly. It’s not Elon versus government, it’s Elon versus everyone. This is about a billionaire and his rich buddies seizing power and getting rid of anything they cannot profit off of no matter the collateral damage because it does not personally affect him. What he doesn’t care. So that’s what’s at stake. And we’re not exaggerating when we say that. I think who’s organizing, who’s fighting back, who’s doing what, definitely I’ve seen workers being the first to sound the alarm, and we’ve tried to do that as well at CFUB Union. We know we’re under attack. We’ve been under attack since we were created because we regulate the biggest banks in the world and we give Americans money back when they get ripped off by these banks. We are the agency that sued Wells Fargo and got people money back from Wells Fargo fraud.
So of course we were under attack again under this second Trump administration. And so what’s gratifying is to see workers are still and continue to be fighting back every day and sounding the alarm about the implications for all of us not waiting for us to lose all these services before we sound the alarm and warn people. Now we know that social security, Medicare, Medicaid, these pillars of what’s left of a welfare state in this country that provides some security for people in old age or in ill health, that these are under attack and they’ll be in the next on the chopping block. So we have to fight back. We don’t really have a choice, right? People subsist on government public services because they’re public good. That was democratically created by the people for the people. That’s not to say that everything in government matches that ideal, and we’re always going to have to work hard to reach full democracy in this country and everywhere.
And that battle always seems to come down to the people versus the greedy, wealthy business owners who don’t care about democracy or public good because they can’t make money off of it. So what we’re doing is continuing to be in the streets and in the courts and everywhere where we need to be on the podcast, on the radio shows to sound the alarm, fight back, get people to join our fight. So CPB Union, we’re hosting pickets multiple times a week all over the country. One of the things that people don’t realize about this fight is that federal workers, most of us are outside of dc. It’s 80% of federal workers that work and live outside of the capital of Washington. So I think all of us on this show right now, we work and live outside of DC so we are representative of that and we are doing actions all across the country too.
So CFPB Union, we have workers in 40 states. We have a lot of folks who are the ones that go into banks to make sure that they’re following the law that live in rural communities, small towns, small cities, big cities all across the country if someone in Hawaii. So we have people everywhere. And what we’re doing along with our pickets DC and New York on Thursday is we’re also having events outside of our regional offices. That’s Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco. We are also going to Tesla dealerships where those are to bring the picket and the union and the fight to where Musk makes his money too. And we are going outside of the big banks. So everyone’s got a big bank in your town, no matter how small or there’s a big bank probably near you, you can go outside and info picket and tell people what’s going on.
Just tell people, did you know that this bank is operating lawlessly for the last two weeks because of Musk and this government corporate takeover that’s happening? That means that no one’s watching the big banks to make sure that they’re following the law. So if are you really going to trust your paychecks and your savings and your dollars with a bank that has zero oversight right now? That is what’s happening. The biggest banks in the country are not being supervised. The laws are not being enforced at those banks. We’ve been told to stop working. So for two weeks they’re operating without any oversight or accountability to the American public. So we invite folks to join us and post on social media. When you do that, spread the heat around where it belongs, do town halls and wherever you are, your local congress member needs to feel the heat bully your local Congress person, bully your local Republican. They need to take the heat for this and answer to what’s happening. What are they doing to stop it? Bully your local Democrat too.
Jasmine McAllister:
They all need to stop it.
Yeah, I definitely agree, Kat, you said that it’s not Elon Musk fighting the government. It’s really all of us fighting for ourselves. One thing that someone had mentioned to me this morning that I knew but kind of forgot just how many people are directly impacted by this, there’s us who work in the federal government, but also a lot of local state, local government, state government and nonprofits for land on federal funding as well. So in my role at the union, I’ve been trying to just build as many connections as possible either within the union or since I live in New York with other federal workers who live in New York, or after the conversation this morning, I’m like, I should try to figure out a way to build a relationship with people who are at these other levels of government or nonprofits that also their jobs are also on the line and their work is on the line and the services they provide to people might go away without this.
Yeah, and I think that’s related to what Will had said about our web of relationships making us strong. I think thinking about, okay, whose interests are aligned with mine? Who can be my allies, who can be in my coalition? And at a very broad level, I think that’s the whole 99%. I think they try to distract us with these different social issues and the different buzzwords, but it’s actually the 99% against the 1% or even the 0.01%. It’s a handful of guys versus the rest of us. So I think that, yeah, and this is maybe a tangent, but I feel like after the 2016 election in my more liberal leftist community, there was kind of a lot of chatter of talk to your racist uncle at Thanksgiving. And it’s like, that’s not what relationship building looks like and you’re just going to further push each other away if you have a big fight at Thanksgiving, I think about who you have access to and who you can influence and do that in a way that’s true and respectful to the relationship you have and the love that you hold for each other. I think that’s really important. And yeah, I mean I think there’s some of us who are in unions and can go through that bridge or our jobs are aligned, but there’s also people where it’s just like your family, whether or not they realize it does have interest aligned with you if they have to have a job to pay rent or a mortgage and eat food. So I think also just thinking about your relationships and then one quick plug, five calls.org makes it really easy to call your congress people and other representatives
Cat Farman:
Five calls.org to bully your local congress person.
Will Munger:
Well, I think those are some great steps and the town hall thing I think is really important right now, particularly in rural communities for folks who are impacted out west, showing up at these protests down at the courthouse, talking to your coworkers, talking to the folks at the bar, talking to the folks at your church. I just think we got to have this conversation from the bottom up. I’ve been reading a really great book by Robin Wall Kimer called The Service Ferrets about reciprocity and abundance in the natural world, and she’s a Potawatomi ecologist and really kind of brings a lot of indigenous science and to the table. And one thing that has really struck me in this web of relationships is whether it’s responding to climate change attacks by billionaires, pandemics, bottom up mutual aid where we’re taking care of each other, making sure no one falls through really, I think is that’s the jam in this social movement that’s got to come and whatever the political outcome, the more we can build relations with each other, with people who are different than us, who might speak a different language, who might have a job that’s different than ours.
I just think the powers that be these billionaires, they want us separated, they want us hating on each other and any way that we can find solidarity from the bottom up to reimagine how we get through this period together, but then also continue to thrive together in the face of all the challenges that we’re up against, I think that that’s something that we can be able to practice day in and day out and we’ve got to stick together on this one, I think.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Alright, gang, that’s going to wrap things up for us this week. Once again, I want to thank our guest, KA Farman, Jasmine McAllister and Will Munger. I want to thank you all for listening and I want to thank you for caring. We’ll see you all back here next week for another episode of Working People. And if you can’t wait that long, then go explore all the great work that we’re doing at The Real News Network where we do grassroots journalism that lifts up the voices and stories from the front lines of struggle. Sign up for the real newsletter so you never miss a story and help us do more work like this by going to the real news.com/donate and becoming a supporter today. I promise you it really makes a difference. I’m Maximillian Alvarez, take care of yourselves. Take care of each other. Solidarity forever
Needleman credits Schuhrke with providing “a clearly written, comprehensive and meticulously documented account of the AFL-CIO’s decades of subversive actions aimed at dividing, replacing or just destroying labor federations and movements throughout the world.” In the name of fighting communism, this campaign began before the Cold War, peaked during the Cold War and continues after the Cold War under the auspices of the AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center. By undermining militant trade unionism and pro-labor political leaders in Europe and the Third World, the AFL-CIO not only palpably worsened the wages and conditions of workers abroad but also injured American workers by diverting resources that could have been used for domestic organizing to the pursuit of the government’s foreign policy objectives and by making these countries more attractive for American capital investment encouraged the deindustrialization that began in earnest in the 1980s.
All that Needleman says is true, but it leaves out part of the story, namely why did labor play this role?
One could come away from Needleman’s review as well as many other accounts by thinking that labor’s anti-communism just represented a kneejerk response to the Cold War or a kind of psychological disturbance, a form of paranoia. Of course, labor’s anticommunism did reflect the times and had an exaggerated and irrational aspect. Schuhrke, however, explains that labor’s anti-communism was rooted in the dominant ideology of the labor movement that emerged under AFL leader Samuel Gompers in the 1890s. This was the ideology of class collaboration. This ideology posited that labor would benefit by cooperating with employers to increase production, productivity and profits and by eschewing strikes and other conflicts and by avoiding political involvement with any radical movements or parties. This ideology reflected the interests of what Karl Marx called the “labor aristocracy,” the most well-placed members of the labor movement.
The ideology of class collaboration did not reign uncontested. Throughout the history of American labor, another ideology opposed it, namely the ideology of class struggle. His ideology reflected an analysis by Karl Marx and others that under capitalism the interests of workers and capitalists were inherently and inevitably in conflict. Demands for better wages, shorter hours, and safer conditions inevitably conflicted with the capitalists’ desire for greater profits. In this situation, workers could advance only by using strikes, slowdowns, and other means of force to wring concessions from the capitalists. Early in his career as leader of the Cigarmakers, Samuel Gompers read Marx and more or less agreed with his analysis and its implications for trade unions. At a time when the Knights of Labor, the largest labor organization of its time, welcomed workers and nonworkers and relied on education and cooperatives to improve the workers’ lot rather than strikes, Gompers argued that workers needed an organization exclusively of workers, and one that defended the workers’ right to strike. By the end of the 19th century, as President of the AFL, Gompers changed beliefs and came to embody the ideology of class collaboration, and while not opposing strikes in principle, opposed them in practice.
In opposition to Gompers, the ideology of class struggle gained adherents. Before World War I the ideology of class struggle was embraced by the William Haywood and the Western Federation of Miners, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and the Industrial Workers of the World, the Syndicalist League of North America, and leftwing Socialists like Eugene V. Debs. In the 1920s and early 1930s, the class struggle ideology found expression in William Z. Foster and the Communist Party and the Communist-initiated Trade Union Education League, and later the Trade Union Unity League. From the mid-1930s to the end of the 1940s, militant class struggle ideas served as the ideology of the Communists and other militants who organized the industrial unions of the CIO. After the expulsion of the so-called Communist-led unions by the CIO in 1949, the ideology of class conflict was largely confined to those unions that had been expelled and to pockets of Communists and leftists in other unions. George Meany and the leaders of the AFL-CIO trumpeted the dominant ideology of class collaboration.
Leading capitalists and politicians, at least among those not openly hostile to unions, supported the ideology of class collaboration. Promoting this ideology was the raison d’etre of the National Civic Federation, an organization of capitalists and union leaders formed in 1900, whose first president was the capitalist Republican Mark Hanna and whose vice-president was Samuel Gompers, president of AFL. Thus, the ideology of class collaboration represented the ideology of the capitalists within the labor movement. This ideology did not result in any meaningful gains for workers or labor. From 1900 until 1935, most workers labored under subsistence wages, long hours, unhealthy conditions, and less than 10 percent of the workers (mainly skilled workers, and miners and garment workers) belonged to a union.
This situation did not change until the mid-1930s when Communists, Socialists and other militants with a class struggle orientation succeeded in organizing the workers in such mass production industries auto, rubber, steel and electrical, waged successful strikes, won union recognition and collective bargaining agreements, and became the leaders of these unions.
The scandalous foreign policy that mainstream labor pursued and that Schuhrke describes cannot be understood apart from the equally scandalous behavior that most labor leaders followed at home. Needleman does not fully appreciate this connection. This is reflected by her neglect of Schuhrke’s discussion of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU).
At the end of World War II, unions in the Allied countries formed the WFTU. This move was spearheaded by the Soviet trade unions and the CIO. Following meetings of representatives of the Soviet trade unions and the CIO, the CIO issued a document calling for cooperation of all the trade unions in the allied countries and the promotion of peace, justice and prosperity for all workers. In a preface, Phil Murray, President of the CIO, wrote, “I consider this document of first-rate importance, not only for American labor but for all who are interested in knowing the truth about the Soviet trade union movement and promoting friendship and understanding between the peoples of our two countries.”1
As constituted in October 1945 and headquartered in Paris, the WFTU represented unions in 56 countries, representing 67,000,000 workers. The largest organizations were those of the USSR, Great Britain, the USA (CIO), Italy, France, and Latin America. The preamble of its constitution stated that its purposes, among others, were to organize and unite trade unions in the whole world, to assist workers in less developed countries in forming unions, to fight against fascism, to combat war and the causes of war, to support the economic, social and democratic rights of workers, as well as the worker security and full employment, the progressive improvement of wages, hours and working conditions, and social security for workers and their families.2 Underpinning the WFTU was a shared ideology of militant, class- struggle unionism.
Schuhrke points out that the WFTU and its affiliated unions became the major target of the AFL’s disruptive anticommunist campaign. In 1945, the AFL established a Free Trade Union Committee (FTUC) which would serve in Schuhrke’s words as “its primary weapon for waging the Cold War.” Initially, free trade unions referred to unions purportedly not dominated by a Communist state, but “by 1945 the term was being used by the AFL as a synonym for anticommunist unionism. In other words, even if a union were autonomous and democratic, the AFL would still consider it illegitimate and ‘unfree’ if it happened to be led or influenced by communists.” This included, for example, the French CGT (General Confederation of Labor), the largest labor federation in France, two thirds of whose affiliates were led by Communists. After 1949, when the CIO’s expelled its leftwing unions and acquiesced in the Taft-Hartley Act’s requirement that all union officers sign non-Communist affidavits, the CIO leaders adopted the AFL’s “free trade unionism” position and rejected the WFTU. This meant not only the rejection of unions in Communist countries and unions anywhere led by Communists but also a rejection of the kind of class struggle unionism that these unions represented, that is to say a unionism rooted in the Marxist idea that the essential interests of labor and capital were in conflict, and that furthering the interests of labor required international cooperation and economic and political struggle on behalf of their interests and against the employers.
Support for “free trade unionism” meant that American labor leaders would become adjuncts of American foreign policy. It also meant adherence to a class collaboration ideology at home. It meant that AFL leaders like George Meany and the UAW (United Automobile Workers) leader Walter Reuther (head of the CIO after 1952) opposed the kind of progressive, class struggle oriented unionism that the WFTU and the CIO had hitherto stood for and adopted a unionism that prioritized class collaboration, the idea that the interests of workers was best served by cooperating with the employer and the foreign policy operations of the government. After World War II, Walter Reuther, who continues to enjoy an undeserved reputation as a progressive labor leader, actually spearheaded the class collaboration ideology. Schuhrke said, “Instead of a constant struggle for control of the workplace through strikes, slowdowns, and similar militant tactics, Reuther held that unionized workers would gain far more by behaving themselves on the shop floor and boosting production in exchange for getting to partner with government and industry in economic planning.”
Did the class collaboration bring workers and unions the benefits Reuther promised? It opened a spigot of government money to fund labor’s overseas operations, and gained leaders like Reuther a measure of respectability, but in the main, it produced the exact opposite of what was promised. Labor organizing diminished. The CIO abandoned Operation Dixie, its stillborn campaign to organize the South, which remained ever since a bastion of the open shop and right-to-work laws. After expelling eleven leftwing unions like the United Electrical Workers (UE) and the Farm Equipment Workers (FE) in 1949, the CIO devoted resources to raiding the members of the expelled unions instead of organizing the unorganized. The Communist and other militant organizers of the CIO’s heyday were shunted aside. Reuther and his followers weakened the steward system, abandoned the right to strike between contracts, extended the length of collective bargaining agreements (often to five years), introduced the idea that wage increases should be linked to productivity gains, initiated labor-management administered benefit programs, and downplayed civil rights, and made labor a junior partner of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the percentage of organized workers peaked in the mid-1950s at about 33 percent and declined thereafter. Today less than 10 percent of workers belong to unions. Moreover, in Left Out: Reds and America’s Industrial Unions, Judith Stepan-Norris and Maurice Zeitlin show, unions led by non-Communists, acted less militantly, gained worse contracts, and behaved less democratically than unions led by or influenced by Communists.
Moreover, by undermining militant trade unions abroad and cooperating with rightwing dictators who suppressed unions, the AFL-CIO contributed to the low wage environment in Latin America and Asia that produced the offshoring and deindustrialization that has plagued the American working class since the late 1970s.
In the end, Schuhrke’s treatment of labor’s global anticommunist crusade provides a more trenchant and far-reaching critique of mainstream labor leadership than even such a discerning reviewer as Needleman recognizes.
Schuhrke’s book provokes a question that goes beyond his focus on labor’s foreign policy. After the expulsion of the leftwing CIO unions in 1949, what happened to the militant, class struggle ideology? The radical tradition remained alive in what remained of the left-wing CIO as UE, FE and the Westcoast Longshoremen. Schuhrke shows that an echo of this ideology manifested itself in dissent from the AFL-CIO’s foreign policy. In the 1960s and 1970s, opposition to the War in Vietnam developed in some sections of the labor movement, and in the 1980s a segment of labor supported the movement for democracy and human rights in El Salvador and the movement against South African apartheid.
Still, the real “untold story” was the persistence of labor activists who, even through the dark days of the Cold War and McCarthyism, upheld a militant class struggle ideology. These were mainly Communists and those who had been or remained close to them. Schuhrke does not mention them. Indeed, he does not mention any Communist role after 1947. Of course, the ranks and influence of those who upheld the ideas of militant class struggle were greatly reduced by the persecution and ostracism of those times. One has only to look at the fate of UAW Local 248 at Allis-Chalmers in Milwaukee and its leader Harold Christoffel to appreciate the sledgehammer that fell on such militant unionists. (See Stephen Meyer, Stalin Over Wisconsin.) Nevertheless, these ideas had a voice in such leaders as Mo Foner and Leon Davis of District 1199 of Hospital Workers, and David Livingston and Cleveland Robinson of District 65 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Workers (RWDSU). It also had a voice in UAW Local 600 at Ford, which with some 60,000 members in the 1950s was the largest local union in the world and which practiced what historians Stepan-Norris and Zeitlin (see above) called a “homegrown American workers’ version of “‘Communist ideology.’” It also continued in the ideas and practices of the Farm Equipment Workers (FE) at International Harvester. (See Toni Gilpin, The Long Deep Grudge: A Story of Big Capital, Radical Labor and Class War in the American Heartland.)
The main proponent of militant trade unionism and class struggle ideas after 1950 was the Communist Party and its affiliated organizations. Until 1960, William Z. Foster kept promoting class struggle unionism in his writings, and the Party kept his books, including American Trade Unionism and Pages from a Worker’s Life, in print. George Morris, labor editor of the Daily Worker, wrote a regular column on labor and several books including in 1967 one of the first accounts of American labor’s betrayals abroad, CIA and American Labor: The Subversion of the AFL-CIO’s Foreign Policy. Moreover, the International Publishers issued Philip Foner’s multi-volume The History of the Labor Movement in the United States, which recounted the contest between class collaboration and class conflict in the history of American labor. In 1971, Foner published American Labor and the Indo-China War: The Growth of Union Opposition. This book and Morris’s show that labor’s anticommunist crusade abroad was not completely, as Schurhrke would have it, an “untold story.” Plus, the Party-affiliated Labor Research Association produced a yearly fact book of working class conditions and labor struggles. Throughout the Cold War, the WFTU maintained an American presence through its representatives, Ernest DeMaio, Fred Gaboury and Frank Goldsmith, who promoted militant unionism and international solidarity. These figures remain heroes of an untold story.
In his recent book, The Truth About the ’37 Oshawa GM Strike in Canada, Tony Leah submits that the revival of American and Canadian labor will depend on absorbing an important lesson of that struggle, namely the need to transform unions into “organizations that are based on the interests of their members as part of the working class — on class struggle not class collaboration.” This transformation will involve learning the history that Schuhrke tells as well as the history he does not tell, namely the history of those who against all odds kept the ideas of Marxist class struggle alive to pass on to a new generation of activists.
TAIPEI, Taiwan – Chinese fishing vessels used North Korean forced labor, keeping workers at sea for up to a decade, a U.K.-based non-governmental organization said, potentially in breach of U.N. sanctions.
United Nations member states are subject to strict sanctions prohibiting the use of North Korean labor. Enforced by the U.N. Security Council, these measures are intended to curb Pyongyang’s practice of exporting labor and goods to finance its weapons programs.
But the Environmental Justice Foundation, or EJF, said in its report on Monday that at least 12 Chinese deep-water fishing vessels employed North Korean crew between 2019 and 2024 in the Indian Ocean.
The group cited Indonesian and Philippine workers who had worked on Chinese fishing boats as saying some North Korean crew were kept at sea for up to a decade, transferred from vessel to vessel and often temporarily transferred to other ships to avoid being detected at foreign ports, with their salary given to their government.
“This indicates that vessel captains, and likely vessel owners, were aware that the use of this labour was prohibited,” said the rights group.
Mauritian authorities in 2022 reportedly detained six North Korean workers when a Chinese fishing vessel docked at Port Louis, the group said.
Under U.N. Security Council Resolution 2397 adopted in 2017, member states were required to repatriate all North Koreans earning income within their jurisdiction by December 2019.
Another crew member testified to having worked with North Koreans who “had never stepped foot on land for eight years.”
“Concerted efforts were made to hide the presence of North Koreans on these vessels, and that those North Koreans on board were forced to work for as many as 10 years at sea, in some instances without ever stepping foot on land,” the group said, citing testimony from other crewmen.
The North Koreans described in the EJF report were likely sent to work on the boats by their government, which is one of several forms of forced labour which the U.N. office of the human rights high commissioner says has become “deeply institutionalized” in the closed-off authoritarian country.
The group also said that North Korean workers were not allowed to contact their families.
“They never communicated with their wives or others while at sea as they were not allowed to bring a mobile phone,” one interviewee told EJF.
Lin Jian, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, said on Thursday that he was “not familiar with” the report.
“Let me say more broadly that China all along carries out offshore fishing in accordance with laws and regulations. China’s relevant cooperation with the DPRK is conducted within the framework of international law,” Lin told a regular briefing. He did not elaborate.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK, is North Korea’s official name.
A Chinese flag flutters on a fishing boat while a China Coast Guard patrols at the disputed Scarborough Shoal, April 5, 2017.(Erik De Castro/Reuters)
China operates the world’s largest deep-sea fishing fleet, with thousands of vessels operating in international waters and along the coasts of other nations.
The fleet has faced widespread criticism for exploitative practices, including the use of forced labor, human trafficking, and inhumane working conditions.
Reports from international media and human rights organizations have documented cases of crew members, often from developing countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines, being subjected to long working hours, withheld wages, physical abuse, and even fatalities due to harsh conditions at sea.
The fleet has also been accused of engaging in illegal fishing practices, depleting marine resources, and violating the sovereignty of other nations’ waters. Despite mounting scrutiny, regulatory oversight remains weak, and many abuses go unchecked.
Despite international sanctions prohibiting their employment, China remains one of the primary destinations for North Korean workers
Tens of thousands are reportedly employed in Chinese factories, seafood processing plants, and textile industries, often under exploitative conditions.
These workers, whose wages are largely funneled back to the North Korean regime, are subjected to strict surveillance, poor living conditions, and limited freedom of movement.
Human rights organizations have raised concerns over forced labor, excessive working hours, and wage confiscation, highlighting violations of U.N. sanctions.
Edited by Mike Firn.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Taejun Kang for RFA.
Across Maryland’s prison system, incarcerated workers assemble furniture, sew clothing, and even manufacture cleaning chemicals. In spite of making the state more than $50 million annually in revenue, these workers are compensated below the minimum wage in a system akin to slavery. But how does the system of forced prison labor really work, and how do state laws keep this industry running? Rattling the Bars investigates how Maryland law requires government institutions to purchase prison-made products, and how legislators like State Senator Antonio Hayes are working to change that.
Producer: Cameron Granadino
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Mansa Musa:
Welcome to Rattling The Bars. Recently, I had the opportunity to speak to State Senator Antonio Hayes from the 40th district of Baltimore City about a bill he sponsored around prison labor in Maryland. The bill was designed to regulate Maryland Correctional Enterprise, which is the prison industry in Maryland, around their preferential treatment they receive for contracts, be it furniture, tags, clothing, or any chemicals that’s used for cleaning. The purpose of the bill was to regulate how much money they were getting from free prison labor.
Antonio Hayes:
They bring in anywhere in a high $50 million a year in business that they’re generating. So they perform everything from furniture making to license plates, to, in some cases, even on the Eastern shore, they have inmates working on poultry farms and agriculture. So the variety of services that they offered have expanded dramatically since its inception.
So here’s the thing, it’s not just state universities. All state universities are using it. The General Assembly is using it. The Maryland Department of Labor is using it. The Maryland Department of Education is using it. Maryland State Police is using it. Maryland DHS is using it. If you are a state agency, you are required by state procurement law to purchase from MCE as long as they have the product. So that’s why they’re able to bring in that type of revenue. Like I said, if you look at their annual reports, it’s somewhere around $58 million a year.
Mansa Musa:
Later, you will hear a conversation I had with former prisoner Lonnell Sligh, who was sentenced in Maryland, but was sent out of state to Kansas. And while in Kansas, he worked in prison industry. I was surprised to hear how Kansas is treating this prison labor force versus how prisoners are being treated throughout the United States of America. But first, you’ll hear this conversation with Senator Antonio Hayes.
I want you to talk a little bit about why you felt the need to get in this particular space, because this is not a space that people get in. You hear stuff about prison, okay, the conditions in prison, the medical in prison, the lack of food, parole, probation. But very rarely do you hear someone say, “Well, let me look at the industry or the job that’s being provided to prisoners.” Why’d you look at this particular direction?
Antonio Hayes:
Yeah. So interesting enough, I’ve been supporting a gentleman back home in Baltimore that has an organization called Emage, E-M-A-G-E, Entrepreneurs Making And Growing Enterprises. So the brother had reached out to me and said, “Hey, I’m manufacturing clothing, but I hear the correctional system is teaching brothers and sisters behind the wall these skills. I’d like to connect with them. So when brothers and sisters return into the community, I’d like to hire them.” Muslim brother, real good, very active member of the community. So I said, “Excellent. Let me reach out to Corrections.”
So I found the organization, MCE-
Mansa Musa:
Yeah. Maryland Correctional Enterprises.
Antonio Hayes:
Maryland Correctional Enterprises. And I asked them to come out and do a site visit with me so we could build a pipeline of individuals returning back to West Baltimore, Baltimore City period, especially if they’re already learning these skills so they could get jobs. And I’ll never forget the CEO at the time responding to me, pretty much saying, “Look, we’re in the middle of a pandemic. How dare you invite us to come into the community?” So I was taken aback by the thought that they would clap back in such a way. But if you look at my legislative agenda, it’s really focused around economics. A lot of the things that I push is around economics.
When my mom showed me how to shoot dice in West Baltimore-
Mansa Musa:
Right, right.
Antonio Hayes:
… one of the things she used to always say, “If it don’t make dollars, it don’t make sense.”
Mansa Musa:
That’s right.
Antonio Hayes:
So when I looked at this, like why MCE existed and the fact that they had a procurement law in the state, a preferred provider status, there’s three organizations that have a preferred provider status. It’s America Works, who hire individuals that have disabilities to have employment. Because if they didn’t do it, these individuals would probably be getting state resources from some other pot. But it takes people who have disabilities, so people who are somehow impaired. There’s another organization called Blind Industries.
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Antonio Hayes:
They supply janitorial products to the state of Maryland, and these people are blind or visually impaired. And then you had MCE, which were people who were incarcerated for whatever reason. And it didn’t seem to really fit with the other two that were serving populations of individuals with disabilities. So then I began to research even more the existence and how much money they were generating. And I found out, here in the state of Maryland, they were generating revenue of upwards of fifty-something million dollars a year. Whereas, the individuals who are incarcerated, the individuals that were doing the work, were getting paid no more than a $1.16 a day. So that alarmed me, one, the fact that they had a monopoly, because they were eliminating opportunities for other individuals to participate in the economy. Right?
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Antonio Hayes:
So they had a monopoly over. And then two, they had an unfair advantage, because they were essentially paying wages that were subordinate to any other wage anyone could afford. So their overhead was so much cheaper, because they were taking advantage of the status of people who are incarcerated and paying them far less than anyone else could even think of competing against.
Mansa Musa:
And you know, it’s ironic, because as we’re sitting there, we’re talking, and we’re at this table, these chairs, all this furniture was made at Maryland Correctional Enterprise. But on back, I worked in the cash shop at Maryland Correctional Enterprise. And prior to becoming Maryland Correctional Enterprise, it was State Use-
Antonio Hayes:
State Use Industries, correct.
Mansa Musa:
… which is my next lead to my next question. So this particular, going back to your point, it’s three people, or it’s three organizations, three industries that get preferential treatment, but they created… In your research, did you find out that they created this entity solely to be able to get that preferential treatment procurement, or was it a bid more on who is going to get the third slot? Because the first two slots, I can understand, they [inaudible 00:07:45] the Maryland Penitentiary. Some guys had brought in. And they were networking with the Library of Congress to try to bring all the books in the Library of Congress into Braille. And they were getting minimum wage, and they were paying it to the social security. All that was being done in that entity.
But from your research, was this particular… Maryland Correctional Enterprise, was this created as an institution by the private sector for the sole reason to have access to the label?
Antonio Hayes:
Right. So what I found was, actually, the federal government at some point had made it against the law to transfer prison-made goods across state lines. So in order for the industry to… So also, there’s some tie to this. This has really evolved as a result of the abolition of the 13th Amendment.
Mansa Musa:
Right, right.
Antonio Hayes:
So when you had the abolition of slavery, and individuals… They lost a workforce that they would’ve had.
Mansa Musa:
That’s right.
Antonio Hayes:
So there was a need to supplement that workforce, and the way they did that was through the, what is it called? The loophole in the constitution-
Mansa Musa:
The constitution, right.
Antonio Hayes:
… that said that slavery was illegal except for those who were being incarcerated-
Mansa Musa:
Convicted of a crime, right.
Antonio Hayes:
… due to convicted of a crime. But in Maryland and another state, I think they needed a way to create an artificial audience, because they didn’t necessarily have an audience to make the purchases in order to make it sustainable. So what they did was they put this preferred provider label on it through the state procurement so they could create an audience and customer base to support the work that they were doing.
Mansa Musa:
Okay. And now I can see. I can see it now, because, like you say, it’s all about exploitation of labor on the 13th amendment, giving them the right to use convicted convicts. So they saw that loophole, they saw the opportunity.
Antonio Hayes:
Yes.
Mansa Musa:
This is continuing black hole. They saw the opportunity. Okay. As we wrap up on this particular segment of this thing, you spoke on the economics, that’s your focus. And we know that, coming out of prison, a person having job, the likelihood of coming back to prison is slim to none. Because if you got an income… This is just my philosophy, and I’m a returning citizen, I came out of prison. Once I got an income, it allowed me to be able to get my own place. It allowed me to be able to create a savings. It allowed me to get my credit score.
In terms of, from your perspective, what would it look like if, and this is something that you might want to look at from your office level, as opposed to the opposition of them having that right, wouldn’t it be more feasible if they gave minimum wage? If the advocacy from policy would be, “Okay, you get this preferential treatment, but in order to get it, you have to provide minimum wage and you got to let them pay into their social security.” Is that something that you could see happening?
Antonio Hayes:
I think something that shows that isn’t as unbalanced as the current system is, is definitely where we want to be. Remember, a lot of the stuff that I do is around economics. I would’ve never looked at the criminal justice system or this system as something that I would want to focus on. I just wanted to make sure that individuals that were returning back to the communities that I grew up in, West Baltimore, had an opportunity to be successful. And this current system, the way it’s structured, it doesn’t give individuals an opportunity to transition back into the community, to have a greater chance of success. It’s literally setting them up for failure.
And my last visit to Jessa, I met three individuals, if you combine their sentences together, they had a hundred years. Some of them were life, some of them were never coming back to the community, ever. And I know to some degree, you need something for these individuals to do. But what I’m told anecdotally is the people that most likely will have these opportunities are people who have very long sentences. Because from a labor perspective, going back to the whole 13th Amendment thing, it’s more predictable that they will be around for a long time, as opposed to just the opposite, using this as a training opportunity. So when they reintegrate back into society, they will have a better chance of being successful and a productive member of society.
I think this current system, the way it’s working, even if you look at the suppliers, where are they getting the equipment from? We’re subsidizing MCE, and the supplies we’re getting from, from somewhere out of state. Right?
Mansa Musa:
Yeah.
Antonio Hayes:
We’re not even doing business. This wood is being procured from some out of state company. We’re not supporting Maryland jobs. So I think we need to just reevaluate and deconstruct piece by piece, how could we better get a better return on its investment, not just for the state, but also for the individuals who are producing these products that we enjoy?
Mansa Musa:
That was Senator Antonio Hayes, who, as you could see, sponsored a bill to try to get the labor force, prison labor force in Maryland regulated. We’ll keep you updated on the developments of that bill.
Now, my conversation with Lonnell Sligh. Lonnell Sligh told me about his experience in working with the prison industry in Kansas. He told me that the average prisoner in Kansas has saved up to $75,000 while working in prison industry. That it doesn’t matter how much time you’re serving, if you have a life sentence or not, most of the prisoners that’s working in the industry have long term. But because of them being able to work in the prison industry, they’re able to save money, to assist their families, pay taxes, buying to social security, and more importantly, live with some kind of dignity while they’re incarcerated.
Lonnell Sligh:
The blessing of me going to Kansas, I saw the other side of that slave industry that we called and we thought about for so many years. Now, going to Kansas, I saw an opportunity where they afforded guys to work a minimum wage job. And in that, guys were making living wages. I met guys that had 60, 70 or a hundred thousand dollars in their account.
Mansa Musa:
From working in the prison industry?
Lonnell Sligh:
From working in the prison industry. So when I saw that, that kind of changed my mindset. Because at first, I thought it was a joke. Because they asked me say, “Hey, Mr. Sligh, you want to work in the minimum wage shop? Because you’re doing a lot of good things.” And I said, “Man, get out of here.”
So going back to what I was saying, when I found out that it was true and I was afforded to get a job there, it changed my whole outlook on it. Because now, my wheels started turning on, how can we make this better?
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Lonnell Sligh:
You know what I mean? How can we change the narrative?
Mansa Musa:
Right. Okay. In every regard, okay, how did you change the narrative? Because, okay, now, reality being reality, Kansas might be an anomaly, and by that, I mean that might be in and of itself something that they doing. But overall, when you look at the prison industry throughout the United States of America, and it’s massive, they don’t have that narrative. So what would you say? How would you address that? What would you say about the Kansas model and the need to adapt it to other states’ prison industries?
Lonnell Sligh:
Well, you know firsthand that when I first came back to Maryland, my whole mindset was bringing some of the things from Kansas back to Maryland and taking some of the things that was progressive and good for Kansas back to Kansas. Now, the prison industry, we are in process now trying to bring that to Maryland. And one of the things that I’m advocating for, and I’m sure, because in the process when I got the job and I saw how we can, it’s an opportunity to make some changes and make it better for the people that’s inside, I crafted a set of guidelines and things that I presented to the administration.
So one of the things was allowing people with long-term sentences to be afforded that opportunity. So when they gave it to me, and I showed them through example that… Because I was never supposed to get out of prison.
Mansa Musa:
Right, right.
Lonnell Sligh:
So I was never supposed to have that job. But the blessing in that, I showed them two sides of promise, and that was that now the companies that were coming in there had a long-term person that can be there that they can depend on, because they had a high turnover rate.
Then secondly, I crafted a thing as far as giving dudes the opportunity to learn financial literacy, things of that nature. Because one of the things that I know for sure, a lot of guys that’s getting those jobs, that was getting those jobs were leaving out of the prison with a lot of money, but they were just as ignorant as when they came in.
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Lonnell Sligh:
So if you got a hundred thousand dollars in your account and you don’t know how to pay bills or you don’t know any financial literacy, the first thing you’re going to do is go out and buy a Cadillac, a bunch of flashy clothes.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah, yeah.
Lonnell Sligh:
So you’re going to end up broke or back in prison. So that’s one of the things that we are working to craft, bringing this to Maryland, having it upfront, having a criteria, a curriculum that’s designated the design for success. And one of the things that, like I said, in Kansas, the politicians, the prison industry, the corporate industry, if y’all want to help with this cause, you say you want to give people a second chance, what better way than bringing in private industry jobs, but making it something for the better, not as a slave camp?
Mansa Musa:
In terms of, how did you come out? And were you able to come out, after being in the industry, to be able to feel some sense of security financially? Or were you in need of getting support from family members to make sure that you had what you needed? Or were you able to save some money, bottom line?
Lonnell Sligh:
Absolutely.
Mansa Musa:
Not going into how much.
Lonnell Sligh:
Yeah.
Mansa Musa:
But what did your savings allow you to do in terms of adjust, readjust back into society? That’s really what it’s all about. If you’re coming out and you can’t adjust in society with the money that you made out of the industry, if you don’t have no sense of security with the money that you’re making out of industry, then likely your chances of survival is slim to nothing.
Lonnell Sligh:
Yeah. But I’m going to take it back even before, because remember, I was never supposed to get out of prison.
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Lonnell Sligh:
So having that job really took a burden off of my family.
Mansa Musa:
Okay.
Lonnell Sligh:
And it took a burden off of me, because now I didn’t have to reach out and ask for money, somebody to send me money to make commissary. So my whole strategy when I first got the job, because remember, I wasn’t ever thinking about getting out of prison, so my thing was helping my family, saving as much money as I can, building a bank account, like some of them guys that I knew had 60, 70, a hundred thousand dollars in their account.
So then I transitioned over to finding out that now I may have an opportunity to get out of prison. So that really changed the whole narrative and outlook that I had, because now I got in my mind that if I’m able to get out, not only can I afford to pay for a lawyer to help this cause, but now when I get out, I don’t have to come out in a desperate situation not knowing where I’m going to live at, not knowing if I can put a roof over my head or get a car.
Mansa Musa:
Right. Right, right. So then in that regard, the model that Kansas had in terms of giving the minimum wage, allowing you to pay into your social security, and allowing you to save, in that model, it allowed for you to transition back in society. But more importantly, while you were incarcerated, it allowed for you to be able to feel a sense of self-sufficiency in terms of taking care of your family, or providing for your children, not having to rely on them to put money on your phone or put money in your books. So that Kansas model is really a model that you think that… Well, then let’s just ask this, why do you think that other states haven’t adapted this model?
Lonnell Sligh:
Because one of the things we know is that it’s an old mindset. It’s an old way of thinking, that’s not progressive. And it’s not beneficial for a lot of states to transition or to try to do something better. They don’t want to help us. They don’t want to help the incarcerated person or the person that’s serving their times, even though they say their Division of Corrections. And they need to change that name from the Division of Corrections, because they’re not helping correct anything.
Mansa Musa:
Right, right, right.
Lonnell Sligh:
But Kansas most definitely afforded the opportunity for… But their mindset when this first started was in the seventies, so they were about making a dollar themselves.
Mansa Musa:
Right, right, right, right.
Lonnell Sligh:
So it evolved, and just like I said, it was still a hundred years behind the timing, by me being afforded to get in that space, it was a blessing because I was able to help bring a different light to it. But other states, just like I say, it’s about their bottom line and their control and old way of thinking. But my thing is, and what I’m advocating for is, is that you have to think outside the box. Because if you don’t think outside the box, then you’re going to get the same results, the same thing.
Mansa Musa:
Well, how do you address this part of the conversation? That long-term imprisonment people, that most people in those situations, those jobs after you spoke on this and have long-term, and so therefore, the benefits for them is not in comparison to the benefits of people that got short-term that can get the skill and get the money and come out. How do you… Can you have it both ways, or either/or?
Lonnell Sligh:
I think, for me, you can have it both ways. But one of the things that we mess up so much on in our way of thinking in society and in the department, we’re stuck on a certain way of thinking. So my thing is that, if you want to breed a successful person, no matter what kind of time you have… That’s my focus and my mindset, because I took a stance knowing I was never getting out of prison, but I took a stance that I was going to better myself and I was going to walk every day and do the things that I needed to make myself successful and act like I was getting out of prison tomorrow, even though I knew I was never getting out of prison. So for me, it was about me better than myself.
So having a minimum wage job or allowing a person to have a job that they can create wages, it makes a better person. It gives you a better product, whether you’re getting out or not. But you have to instill those things in people so that they can understand that it’s a different way. If not, you’re going to think that old way of thinking. Nothing is going to change.
Mansa Musa:
There you have it. Two conversations about prison labor. The prison industry. I worked in MCE. I earned 90 cents a day, a dollar and something with bonuses, approximately $2.10. The bonuses came from how much labor we produced.
On the other hand, you had the conversation I had with Lonnell about Kansas. In Maryland, I didn’t pay taxes, I wasn’t allowed to pay into the social security. I didn’t pay medical, and I didn’t pay rent. In Kansas, a person is allowed to pay into social security. That means when he get released, he had his quarters to retire. Pay the medical. That means, if he is released, he’ll be able to afford medical. Pay taxes. That means that he’s also making a contribution to society in that form. But more importantly, they’re allowed to save money. And in saving money, they will become less of a burden on the state upon their release.
What would you prefer? A person that earns slave wages and don’t pay back into society, or a system where the person is paying into society in the form of taxes, social security, medical, and also becoming economically sufficient upon their release? Tell me what you think.
Speaker 4:
Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories, and struggles that you care about most. We need your help to keep doing this work, so please tap your screen now, subscribe, and donate to the Real News Network. Solidarity forever.
Last June, months before her release date, Paula Drake remembers getting called to fight the Gorman Fire in Los Angeles County, California. She was part of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Malibu Conservation Camp #13, which is jointly operated by CDCR and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD).
When her crew arrived at the fire, she remembers, it covered about 500 acres, but by the next day, it had spread to 15,000 acres. Drake knew how to hike through the mountains with a 40-pound bag on her back and run a chainsaw through the rugged terrain — skills that made it possible to help contain the fire. Out of that experience, she felt pride and camaraderie with her crew.
Drake remembers “just feeling like you’re a part of something bigger and being able to give back to a community that has deemed us unredeemable, and being able to be like a productive member of society.” She returned home in November and is pursuing a career in firefighting.
“The experience there was absolutely amazing,” she said. “It was amazing enough to where I decided, coming home, that this is something that I would like to do with my life, and be able to grow in the firefighter industry, and hopefully make it a career.”
Incarcerated firefighters make up 30% of California’s firefighting crews, and those who participate in the program are able to live at one of the many conservation camps or fire stations outside of prison, where they are given training and work alongside the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire) or the LACFD. Drake said that, while it is still a prison program, the fire camps allowed her to have more freedom.
Drake said she would make about six dollars a day, and an additional dollar per hour she was working a fire. A seasonal CAL Fire firefighter gets paid a salary of more than $50,000 a year.
“Society has deemed us these dangerous criminals that shouldn’t be allowed to have their freedom, yet, here we are running chainsaws and given these tools that are highly dangerous, so is it really even necessary for people like us to be somewhere where we’re stripped of our freedom?” Drake said. “I just think that people don’t realize what an impact it has on us and the community.”
While versions of the CDCR firefighting program have been around in California for over a century, they became the subject of headlines earlier this year when several fires broke out across California and over 1,100 incarcerated firefighters were deployed to fight the Eaton Fire, Hughes Fire, and Palisades Fire in Los Angeles County, which destroyed hundreds of homes and businesses. These firefighters were out for days at a time, and had no contact with their families. However, many reported a sense of pride that they were helping the community.
Even though they put their lives at risk and do the same jobs as any other fire crew, those who are incarcerated get paid between five to ten dollars a day by CDCR, plus an extra dollar an hour by CAL Fire when they are deployed to an active fire. As she worked second saw—a position where she helped clear the terrain with a chainsaw—in the fire crew, Drake said she would make about six dollars a day, and an additional dollar per hour she was working a fire. A seasonal CAL Fire firefighter gets paid a salary of more than $50,000 a year.
“You’ve got paid crew members working right next to you, doing the same exact job, but getting paid a hell of a lot more, and we interact with these crews, we cut lines with them,” Drake said. “We’re putting ourselves at risk. The compensation doesn’t really match up with the job that we’re doing.
In many cases, incarcerated firefighters are saving lives. Eduardo Herrera, who was a firefighter while incarcerated, remembers being called to a traffic collision in Los Angeles County. He was assigned what the LACFD calls “landing zone coordination” to arrange for a helicopter to pick up victims. At that time, while awaiting transport, a victim went unconscious, so Herrera had to perform CPR. He later found out that the individual that he was performing CPR on was a deputy sheriff of 27 years on his way to work.
“I was an incarcerated municipal firefighter, so not only was I serving the community, I actually helped save lives of our law enforcement, which is a very unique situation,” Herrera said.
He remembers other police officers and military members thanking him for his work and shaking his hand.
Herrera described his experience as “something that most of the public are not aware of. I think that that’s just another story of the capacity of change and what we’re capable of doing in spite of our circumstances.”
During the two years he worked in this program, Herrera, who was released in 2020, resided at a fire station in Mule Creek. He remembers being deployed to residential structure fires, rescues, traffic collisions, medical calls, and vegetation and wildlife fires. He said that participating in the program reduced his sentence by just under three years.
Hererra said that he is glad that the public is becoming more aware of the important work of firefighters who are incarcerated—people who “have maybe made a mistake in their lives, but they’re no longer defined by that mistake and wanting to pay it forward and make a difference.” He said it is important the public know what change looks like and what it can be and what it can mean for their communities.
“I’m glad that now we’re having this dialogue, and the narrative is starting to be changed in regards to seeing the capacity that we have to serve the community,” Herrera said. “It gives people hope. I believe the public wants to hear stories of hope and redemption.”
Herrera is now a firefighter with CAL Fire in the Riverside unit. He said that while he was incarcerated, he did not make as much as he makes now.
“The discussion about pay is always going to be a discussion, because we definitely didn’t make what your normal firefighter that’s out here makes,” Herrera said. “At the end of the day, we’re the hard workers, we work two times harder, if not more, than anybody else, because we had more to prove, and there was a sense of pride that went with it.”
“Incarcerated firefighters are on the frontlines saving lives,” Bryan said in an email. “They are heroes just like everybody else on the frontlines and they deserve to be paid like it.”
Last month, Assembly Member Isaac Bryan introduced a bill, AB 247, which would ensure incarcerated firefighters are paid an hourly wage equal to the lowest nonincarcerated firefighter in the state for the time that they are actively fighting a fire.
“Incarcerated firefighters are on the frontlines saving lives,” Bryan said in an email. “They are heroes just like everybody else on the frontlines and they deserve to be paid like it.”
Sam Lewis, executive director of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition—which helped write and introduce AB 247—said that incarcerated firefighters have returned to their fire camps and have been in good spirits about the job they did. He said that the ARC, who owns the Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp for incarcerated youth, provided more microwaves, an air conditioning unit, new boots, and sporting equipment for the youth who returned from fighting fires. Through donations, they were also able to give all of them hygiene packages that include new toothbrushes, lotion, deodorant, nice soap—things he said they might not normally be able to get while incarcerated.
In the time that passed since the fire, Lewis said six youth at the camp who were fighting the fires have been released and received a $2,500 scholarship as they transition out of incarceration into training to become full-fledged firefighters. Lewis said the work they are doing to save homes and lives is important, and that they should be paid the same as the lowest paid firefighters on any other crew.
“The fact that they get paid basically $10 is not equitable, it’s not fair,” Lewis said. “They’re putting their lives on the line too. Why wouldn’t they be paid for something that they’re providing that’s needed, desperately needing in the state of California? So it was a simple question of equity.”
Lewis said that people who are incarcerated often want to demonstrate that they’ve changed and be able to give back to their communities, and participating in the program has been a way for people to transform their lives.
“Sometimes people end up in jails or prisons with the belief that they don’t have value, and it’s clear that every human being has value once you find out what your purpose is,” Lewis said. “In many instances, people who have an opportunity to go to these fire camps find that their purpose is to be of service to their communities in this way, and so it’s a way of them being able to demonstrate their commitment to their communities, but also to find their pathway to redemption.”
Screenshot of UPS’s scrubbed January 6 statement page.
A friend alerted me that United Parcel Service (UPS), the global, package delivery behemoth, had removed its condemnations of the January 6th insurrection from its website. The big story of the 2024 election was the movement of the heart of Big Capital, most prominently Big Tech, into Trump’s camp. UPS’s scrubbing of January 6 is a belated but important bending at the knee of President Donald Trump.
His rapid expansion of presidential power, union-busting, and rollback of every major legislative victory of the working class and oppressed peoples in this country during the last century is going to be a huge boon to UPS, whatever tensions exist over international trade agreements. Back in October 2022, I summarized the lucrative relationship between UPS and the first Trump administration:
“The Trump years were good ones for UPS’s corporate leaders. While the company was cool toward former President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, it moved quickly to reconcile with him after his election. UPS contributed heavily to Trump’s 2016 inauguration fund. UPS Executive Chairman David Abney was treated to a state dinner at the Trump White House, while CEO Carol Tomé later hosted Trump at UPS’s facility at Atlanta’s International Airport. UPS was central to Trump administration initiatives in the early months of the pandemic, including Project Airbridge and Operation Warp Speed.
However, relations became strained with Trump following the 2020 presidential election. Tomé denounced the attack on the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021. “We are appalled by the lawlessness and violence that unfolded at the U.S. Capitol and strongly condemn the actions of those individuals who participated in the illegal activities that destroyed property and cost lives,” she wrote. Tomé, however, failed to mention Trump by name.
Screenshot of UPS’s original statement.
Along with other major corporations, UPS threatened to suspend campaign contributions to U.S. House and Senate Republicans, who voted against the certification of the election of Joe Biden as president, known as the Sedition caucus. Within a few months UPS and other major corporations and corporate lobbying groups changed their minds. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) reported:
‘Corporate and industry group political action committees have donated more than $44 million directly to the campaigns and leadership PACs of the 147 members of the Sedition Caucus. Companies and trade associations that pledged to suspend donations have given more than $12 million to the campaign and leadership PACs of the Sedition Caucus.
Koch Industries ($626,500), American Crystal Sugar ($530,000), Home Depot ($525,000), Boeing ($488,000), and UPS ($479,500) have contributed the most money to members of the Sedition Caucus through their corporate PACs.’
Tomé’s reconciliation with representatives who legitimized Trump’s attempted presidential coup — and who may control Congress after the November midterm elections — shouldn’t surprise us. Trump lavished huge gifts on UPS and Corporate America that have made them richer.”
Screenshot from C-Span.
The second Trump presidency has the potential to be even more lucrative for UPS, given that the bulk of UPS’s unionized workers are Teamsters and led by prominent Trump ally Sean O’Brien. This situation cannot hold. UPS Teamsters are literally caught between a rock and a hard place, a situation that could lead to unrest and demands for change from the rank and file.