In February 2011 Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin introduced legislation that was built to destroy the public unions in his state. While unions had been attacked for generations, such a public and direct assault on the right to organize and bargain sent shockwaves throughout the labor movement. Wisconsin was a surprising epicenter, as it was the first state that granted collective bargaining rights to employees in 1959, workers compensation in 1911, unemployment insurance in 1932 and it is the birthplace of the largest public employee union in the country, AFSCME (Cronon 2011). The unions in Wisconsin, with their rank and file workers largely taking the lead, organized a stirring protest movement unmatched in recent American labor history. After several dramatic twists and turns, Governor Walker’s legislation is now law in Wisconsin. The Walker Administration in Wisconsin is not alone in its attack on public unions. Since the November 2010 elections, the National Conference of State Legislatures has “identified 744 bills in virtually every state in the country that target public sector bargaining” (Logan 2011). Such anti-union sentiment has ridden the wave of public frustration with the current state of the economy and inability of the Obama Administration to take constructive action to alleviate the financial pains felt by people across the nation. Under these circumstances corporate and capitalist interests are now waging a full war on public sector unions and the labor movement as a whole. In order to successfully turn the tide, the American labor movement must develop a thorough strategy rooted in the philosophy of nonviolence which calls for courageous direct action aimed at winning over the hearts and minds of the American public. Such a movement must have the principle of militant love as its foundation. Even more important, the American labor movement must have the courage to examine its current state and open up itself to new trains of thought, strategy and organizational structure.
In November of 2010, the countryin economic hardship with an unemployment rate at 9.8, wars still raging abroad and a lack of a distinct vision for the future instilled by President Obama, the Republican party dominated midterm elections. The Republican party netted five senate seats, 63 seats in the House of Representatives, nearly 700 state assembly seats while twelve states shifted from Democratic to Republican governorship (Kerr 2010; Politico 2010). Just two years removed from a Democratic Party surge following the mottos of “hope” and “change”, ultra conservatives had regained political power and the ears of many Americans.
This huge victory by the GOP was fueled by many factors; but the inability of President Obama and his administration to deliver on the change they promised and failure to articulate their cause to the American people surely was one of the key fuels of the flame. Angry, wanting change and stuck in the sinkhole of the two-party system, Americans feverishly voted for Republican candidates who mirrored their anger and frustration. That fateful election day brought in Republican candidates that would have been considered far too radical in years past; throughout all levels of government were introduced a slew of corporate sponsored candidates determined to continue the privatization and corporatization of America.
Scott Walker the son of a Baptist preacher was always timely and precise in his political moves. Having failed to win a state election at the age of 22, he subsequently moved to a more Republican leaning district to further his political ambitions. Walker won a special election for a state assembly seat in 1993, taking advantage of a political scandal that left the seat vacant. He won another special election in 2002 to serve as Milwaukee county executive where in protest of state employee compensation, gave back half of his annual salary. Though he eventually only gave back 10% of his salary, the move provided some legitimize in his fight against government spending (Schultze 2002).
Throughout these years Walker held very close ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization that partners the business community with elected officials to draft corporate friendly legislation. Walker was in fact one of the only members of the Wisconsin Assembly who listed their partnership with ALEC in their official biographies. Across the country ALEC has been behind bills creating tax breaks for tobacco companies, increasing incarceration to benefit private prisons and anti-immigrant laws such as Arizona’s SB1070 (Bottari 2011). With such a close relationship with ALEC it does not come as a surprise that Walker would count on the billionaire capitalist Koch brothers, large supporters of ALEC, during his campaign to become governor of Wisconsin.
Scott Walker would win the 2010 Wisconsin governor race, his second run at the position, with 52% of the vote. The Koch brothers gave thousands to the campaign and even more to the Republican Governors Association and thanks to revised campaign rules, many other corporations were able to support Walker’s campaign at unprecedented levels (Kroll 2011). Once in office Walker quickly offered his corporate sponsors a thank you by cutting taxes to businesses (despite a billion dollar state deficit) by $67 million over the course of two years (Bauer 2011). This signaled the beginning of a new era in Wisconsin; an era where large corporate entities would have nearly direct control of the state government.
In 2010 15.1 percent of workers in Wisconsin were represented by labor unions, 380,000 workers in all (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011). In the United States, 36.2 percent of public workers are unionized compared to just 6.9 percent of private sector workers (2010). In total, 7.6 million public workers and 7.1 million private sector workers were unionized in the last calendar year (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011). The on going mission of capitalists to defeat the American labor movement, momentarily successful with its fight against private sector unions, now needed to shift its crosshairs. With the economic downturn and local budget deficits combining with the election of hard right wing corporate officials; the stage was set for a brutal attack on public sector workers and unions.
On February 11, Governor Walker introduced a bill to address a $137 million dollar state budget deficit,; a deficit largely induced by cutting taxes on business and corporations. Imbedded in this bill was a measure to strictly limit the collective bargaining power of public employees to wage increase only up to the increase in cost of living rate. Moreover the measure made public employees pay more into their healthcare and retirement benefits. Furthermore the bill alarming insisted that public unions recertify each year and that the state would no longer allow for dues to be automatically deducted from employee’s paychecks. The public sector in Wisconsin had been under attack for a number of years under Democratic Party rule. With tea-partiers and corporate backed Republicans now in office, a more holistic and concerted offensive was now being launched (Swanson 2011).
The Walker bill was aimed at three key functions of the public unions in Wisconsin. Firstly, by essentially eliminating the unions’ power to collectively bargaining, the union would loose one of its most important means to create justice at the workplace. Without the right to collectively bargain, the unions would loose the ability to fight for better wages and benefits. Without such advocacy abilities, workers would have lower incentive to pay union dues or organize their workplace into a bargaining unit. With public union dues no longer directly collect through state paychecks, dues would have to be collected directly from the workers. This would make it even more difficult for Wisconsin public sector unions to retain membership. The third mallet cracking the public unions foundation in Walkers bill is the need for unionized public workplaces to recertify the union each year. With limited power to collectively bargain and potentially growing numbers of workers not paying dues; workplaces would then be annually enticed to vote out the defunct union. Other sections of the bill asserted that union contracts with the state could only be one year in length and that over a hundred top state jobs would be directly appointed by the Governor. The bill took hits to the union’s power of bargaining, ability to raise funds and to exist in a workplace. With these three initiatives the corporate Walker bill was clearly designed to destroy Wisconsin’s public unions.
Union led protests began rather small on Sunday February 13th, with a hundred protestors demonstrating at the capitol and another hundred or so at the Governors mansion. By Tuesday some 13,000 people protested in and around the capitol building as classes were canceled in the Madison School District due to teachers calling out to join the protest. Joining the teachers were 800 high school students who marched to the capitol building. The protests quickly swelled to 30,000 on February 16th, as democratic lawmakers began to flee the state and go into hiding. A move intended to make it impossible for the bill to pass through the state assembly as a certain number of legislatures would need to be in attendance for the bill as it stood to pass. On February 18th some schools had to close for a third straight day, while the next day some 70,000 people gathered at the state capitol (Mackin 2011).
As the battle was in full tilt, other clashes erupted throughout the country. In Indiana, Democratic lawmakers fled the state and demanded that eleven anti-union and education related bills be dropped, most notably a bill that would have made Indiana a right to work state (Sewell and Hinkel 2011). In Ohio thousands gathered to protest Governor John Kasich’s move to strip state workers of collective bargaining rights (Dayen 2011). President Obama finally made a statement on these events on February 18th by correctly observing that Governor Walker’s bill was unleashing an “assault” on labor unions. The Obama administrations organizing wing, Organizing for American and the Democratic Party had been mobilizing people in Wisconsin and elsewhere for several days, presumably showing where the Administrations heart was at. Yet overall it appeared that Obama once again failed to fully use his presidential influence on a vital progressive issue, instead trying to balance a fine line of modesty in a misplaced effort to appease capitalist and workers alike.
By February 23rd Governor Walker had shown no signs of relenting in his pursuit to get the controversial legislation passed; even issuing a threat to layoff 1,500 workers if the anti-union bill was not passed in a timely fashion (Dolan 2011). The next day, amidst twenty four hour protests within and outside the Wisconsin Capitol building, the Republicans in the State Assembly were able to overcome a Democratic party led filibuster and quickly and shockingly pass the corporate legislation (CBS/AP 2011). In Response the protests grew to 100,000 by February 26 (Sewell 2011). Two days later Governor Walker began to make moves to shutdown the capitol but was largely rebuffed by the state police unions who strongly showed their solidarity with the protesters, some police leadership even sleeping overnight in the capitol (Walker 2011). With the situation quickly escalating, some unions began planning for a statewide general strike, a move that electrified the protestors and progressives across the country (Elk 2011).
Despite such growing momentum, the protest movement began to show signs of weakening. After a March 2nd court ruling that while the Capitol building should maintain normal hours of operation, protestors should not stay the night, the occupiers of the building obliged to leave (Quinn 2011). This minor defeat showed that the earlier calls to refuse to leave the capitol building under any circumstances were not backed up by a strategy or the courage to carry out such a pledge (Davey 2011). As the protests continued Governor Walker and his business allies had a difficult time mustering public support. Only 700 people attended a rally to support the Governor and his anti-union bill on March 6th, an event co-sponsored by the Koch brothers funded Americans for Prosperity. This event came on the heals of a $320,000 advertisement campaign to increase support of the anti-union bill and a ten day bus tour, all funded by Americans for Prosperity (Politico 2011).
On March 8th Walker proposed amendments to his bill that offered very minor concessions to the public unions; such as extending the maximum length of union contracts to two years from the proposed one year limit and allowing unions to negotiate wages with no restrictions (AP 2011). It would soon be clear that this move was simply a political show, meant to display a false perception of sensibility on the part of Walker and the backers of the bill. Alarmingly, the bill was separated from the financial package and quickly passed the senate on March 9th. One day later the revised bill was passed by the state assembly and the next day it was signed into law by Governor Walker. This turn of events took the public by surprise but it was a move that those in Wisconsin’s labor movement had long been prepared for (Swanson 2011). Lawsuits were filed, 100,000 people came out and protested on March 12th as firefighters and other workers took mass amounts of funds out of banks that supported Walker.
After some initial success in the courts, on June 14 the Wisconsin Supreme court reinstated the law (Davey 2011). Despite all of the protests, popular support against the bill and nationwide solidarity campaigns; Governor Walker, APEC, the Koch brothers and assorted capitalist successfully passed legislation decimating the public unions in Wisconsin. It is clear that despite all the criticisms of Walker, he was willing to risk everything on this piece of legislation. Amongst closer examination it is clear that the labor movement was unable to make equal risk, despite their very existence on the line. In the following sections the Wisconsin Labor movements response will be analyzed and a proposed strategy will be recommended.
To date the Wisconsin labor movements response to the Walker bill has been to organize recall elections for the Republican legislators who voted for the bill and eventually, for Walker himself. While this process unfolds, internal organizing will be the focus within the labor unions themselves. Organizing of existing members is needed in order to prepare for future battles with Governor Walker and the corporations who back him, to mobilize for the recall elections and of utmost importance, in order to organize members to pay their dues. With the two main fronts of recall elections and internal organizing, Doug Swanson, an official with the American Federation of Teachers of Wisconsin (2011) asserts that it will take four-five years to overturn the Walker legislation. Until that point the Wisconsin labor movement will need to continue to mobilize ceaselessly just in order to stay afloat.
In the years leading up to Scott Walker’s election, the Labor Movement in Wisconsin was systemically “lethargic” and had grown “very comfortable in the servicing model” (Swanson 2011). Little attention had been given to internal and external organizing and comfort with the status quo of operations had set in. An example highlighting this point is the fact that during the protest movement, many of the Wisconsin’s public union lacked vital information about their members. Most of these unions only had the work emails and phone numbers for their members; lacking direct personal contact information. This made it difficult to contact and mobilize members at this critical time. With the understanding that internal organizing had been lagging for some time, it is amazing that such huge numbers of people were successfully mobilized for protests and actions. One has to wonder how much more effective the movement could have been if the labor movement in the state had been more proactive and had actively engaged with its membership in recent years (Swanson 2011).
While there seemed to be a lack of organizing of the “bottom”, or union members, there had been vital organizing of the “top”, the union leadership, before the crisis. Over ten years ago in response to changes in the state health care plan, public employee unions in the state began to collectively meet as the “Healthcare Coalition” in order to build a collaborative relationship and curb the practice of competing with one another for state funds. Labeled “the gang of eighteen” this group continued to meet every month for the past decade. This existing relationship based on trust, information sharing and personal friendship amongst the various public employee unions was vital in organizing an effective response to Governor Walker’s anti-union legislation. The Wisconsin AFL-CIO had also been involved in building statewide solidarity before the Walker crisis. On September 27, 2010 Phil Neuenfeldt was elected the new president of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO (Wisconsin State AFL-CIO 2011). Neuenfeldt, who rose out of the machinists union, was well respected and well liked in the state labor movement. Most importantly, upon entering his new position as president, he immediately formed several committees that partnered private and public sector union’s leadership. These partnerships proved vital in ensuring solidarity amongst the private and public sector unions, while also laying the foundation for smooth coordination of messaging and actions once the protests were sparked. (Swanson 2011).
Once Walker’s legislation was introduced, immediate despair naturally set in amongst some union leadership. Swanson recalled, “it was good to keep sharp objects away from people” (2011). Needing to do something, organically the union staffers began to organize for the fight ahead and began to craft a strategy. With no idea about how many workers could be organized to take action due to the lack of internal organizing in years past, the first peg of the strategy laid out was to move enough people into the streets to slow down the bill. Walker had initially demanded that the bill be passed and signed into law within six days, so slowly down the bill was of utmost importance. If it was slowed down, then the hope was to swing a few key republican senators who would then in effect stop its passage in the state senate. If anything, moving mass numbers of people would draw a line in the sand, making it known to Governor Walker that he could not push the unions any further. This strategy would prove to have mixed results, but one shining success was moving people into the streets, something that labor leaders thought would prove to be more difficult. In fact the mass crowds who arrived at the capitol were more a result of grass root and student organizing and individual anger rather then a top-down union strategy. As Swanson observed “the membership got ahead of the leadership…and the leadership has been playing catch-up ever since” (Swanson 2011).
The organizing on the ground during the protest movement was quite impressive. A nearby unionized hotel became the epicenter of organizing. Originally the state AFL-CIO rented out a few hotel rooms and a conference room, but soon union locals and progressive organization from around the country had rented out the entire facility. This hotel became a place where union members and leaders from across the state could share information and develop collective messaging. “Tables” were set up where information was being collected and disseminated about every aspect of the protest movement. Such coordination under such high pressure conditions had rarely been seen in the modern United States labor movement (Swanson 2011).
The Wisconsin labor movement’s response to the crisis in their state was admirable. Within days of the bill being introduced thousands of people had been moved into the streets and soon the protest would capture the attention of the world. This all happened despite a lack of internal organizing within the movement; although the relationships that had been fostered with union leadership prior to the crisis would prove to be vital to presenting a united front. While the protest movement was successful in delaying passage of the bill and showing the governor that the labor movement was a force; the legislation in question still passed and much of the public at large in the state (and beyond) are still hostile to organized labor. The most difficult part of this battle lies ahead. After all the protests, marches and defiant energy, how to continue such a movement can be a struggle in and of itself. Doug Swanson with the Wisconsin AFT sums up the concerns of many when confiding that the he is “in fear we are not going to keep this movement going” (2011).
The labor movement and progressive allies in Wisconsin must now respond in a holistic manner to the nationwide attacks on public employee unions, workers and the labor movement as a whole. The battle in Wisconsin to stop Walker’s bill from getting passed and going into effect, the recall elections and political maneuvering; these battles are part of a broader war that is unfolding. Instead of simply responding to particular crisis as they arise, the unions in Wisconsin and throughout America must produce a comprehensive, long-term strategy to change the deep cultural and social-economic conditions that give rise to anti-union sentiment. At the same time there must be an effort to drastically reform the image of the American labor movement. Labor faces it’s most difficult time in nearly one hundred years. With millions unemployed, wealth racing towards the top earners and austerity the word of the day; labor unions are needed now more then ever. To become prominent once again unions must step out of the cocoons of their aging customs and into the light of courageous action.
Labor has too many times proven that it can be pushed aside. Disciplined direct action must be taken to prove that this is no longer the case. Scott Walker has proven that he is willing to risk losing his Governorship for the sake of passing anti-union legislation. The Republican lawmakers in the Wisconsin assembly have also proven that they are willing to risk losing their positions for the sake of passing this law. The public employee unions must be prepared to make a similar sacrifice. Calls of a general strike electrified union members and progressive activists in Wisconsin, yet such a bold was never truly considered an option for the union leaders (Swanson, 2011). This or any other bold direct action taken must be done so strategically, methodically, with intricate coordination and with intensive training beforehand. A protest movement is not enough. The corporate interests who have been actively battling unions over the past thirty years (and beyond) have gladly witnessed the slow decay of the American labor movement. The labor movement must wake up to realize that time is not on their side; responding to the current crisis within the rules of the current system will not produce positive results. There is no time to wait, waiting equals death.
In order to be successful, organized direct action to improve conditions for the working class in America must be rooted in the foundations of active nonviolence and agape love. These phrases have unfortunately been attributed to weakness, passivity and “hippiness”. In truth nonviolence is the ultimate weapon for oppressed people. True nonviolence is actually a synthesis of violence and passivity; taking the militancy and energy of violence and fusing it with the desire not to harm others associated with being passive. Militant peace requires discipline, a distinction between the underlying conditions of a problem and the persons acting act those conditions, with action being taken on these underlying conditions with the goal of creating systematic, long term change.
Another vital component to building a successful workers movement in Wisconsin and beyond is the need to occupy the moral high ground in the conflict. Overall the corporations and their sponsored politicians have been largely successful in conveying to the public that unions are corrupt, greedy and the enemy of the people. Moreover, there has been an effort to discredit public unions as taking advantage of the system and causing state budget crises. More specifically, Governor Walker, through rescinding his salary earlier in his political career was able to sway many people to believing that he was committed to reducing the state spending. Equally the labor movement must strategically strive to occupy the moral high ground in the public’s eye. More time will be granted to this subject in this paper; but nonviolence is specifically geared towards gaining this high ground and winning over the hearts of the public. For a movement to be successful, it must have the support or active participation of the public. The labor movement must dedicate itself to this goal.
Nonviolence has also been mistaken as simply a tactic. In truth nonviolent tactics will only reach their full potential when matched with a philosophical understanding and grounding in nonviolence and the understanding of unconditional love. The underlying conditions and forces such as greed, capitalism and corporations must be viciously attacked. Yet the people who are advocates and leaders of these forces must be offered love and reconciliation. For even if Governor Walker was recalled and removed from office, the underlying conditions that made his actions possible would still exist. The people can change, but the conditions will remain the same. Thus in order to bring about change a new system must be created and the hearts of the public won over to accepted the need for such a system. Directing energy at the conditions and love towards the people will also have the effect of gaining the before mentioned moral high ground. This is one of the most important aspects of nonviolence. When this strategy is not successfully invoked, anger can take over people and be taken advantage of by the oppressors.
Numerous incidents occurred in Wisconsin that were shown as proof by the media of labor union ‘thuggery”. From making signs comparing Governor Walker to Hitler, chanting “Fox Lies” during a Fox broadcast, a teacher telling a Fox News reporter that “I hate you because it makes me feel good” to a union supporter tearing up petitions to recall a democratic official; these acts while momentarily feeling good, are destructive to the cause and incompatible with the need to change over the hearts of the public (Maggie, 2011, Stromberg 2011, Youtube 2011). During the age of the viral internet, the chance for such missteps is great; thus the training needed for a nonviolent movement must be even more comprehensive. The progressive and labor movement must re-direct their anger and hate. Hating CEO’s, political leaders and members of Fox News does little good. Chanting shame is not going to win over the public or change the “shamed” persons position. Only by positioning a movement as peaceful, loving and full of compassion can it be most protected from media smearing. Acting out of love is not only the right thing to do; it is the most strategically sound practice.
Courage, a key foundation of nonviolence would greatly benefit the American labor movement. Courage is needed for the labor leaders and rank and file members to evaluate their practices and embrace new strategies. Courage is also needed to make the necessary decisions to take bold action to address the economic injustices in the United States. More specifically, in Wisconsin, courage is needed to take direct action to address the Walker administration and the anti-union sentiment in the state. In the practice of nonviolence, direct action is only taken as a means to create fairer and even keeled negotiations. The anti-union bill in Wisconsin explicitly makes fair negotiation for public workers impossible. While the protests of February and March in Madison were certainly examples of direct action, the fizzling out of the movement is only a victory for the corporations. It has been wisely said that just as one has a moral obligation to follow just laws, one has an equal obligation to disobey unjust laws. The anti-union legislation in Wisconsin cannot be obeyed. The public unions could for example, insist on wage and benefit improvements that are not covered under the new collective bargaining restrictions, and if the needs are not met, the workers should go on strike. While such a move would be bold, to strategically and courageously combat injustice is far better then to slowly wither away under the heat of oppression. A strike by the public employee unions under such circumstances would have to be done only after intensive training, a development of a long term strategy and the understanding that the strikers would have to be willing to give up everything for the cause.
Public union strikes are not unheralded, before the PATCO disaster In the 1970’s; public union strikes were actually very common. In 1968 there were 411 strikes by public workers, in 1969 412. Throughout the 1970’s there were an average of 375 such strikes a year (Murolo 2011). Thus the public employee workers of Wisconsin would have plenty of examples to study, learn from and techniques to institute. If there were a strike by the public employees of Wisconsin, it would be wise to have it geared not only to benefit their own well-being, but also the well-being of all citizens of the state. The striking working could for example actively organize private sector workers into unions in a partnership with the private sector unions, while calling for greater economic justice in the state and creative means for solving the state budget crisis.
Beyond developing a culture of active nonviolence as the spearhead of the next great American labor movement, several other steps should be taken to refocus and reshape organized labor. These brief recommendations apply to Wisconsin and organized American labor as a whole.
Union self-purification; labor unions are largely seen as corrupt, top-down run and veiled in some sort of secrecy. If unions want this to change, they must analyze how they are run and what types of improvements they could make. Democracy should be promoted amongst the rank and file workers, a step that would go hand in hand with internal organizing and empowering of the union members. If members feel they have an actual say in how the union is run, they will certainly be more passionate about the union and connected with it’s causes. To this end, the American labor movement needs to create more transparency in regards to how they are managed.
Attending an Umass-Amherst ULA sessions it is common to hear how labor unions are often some of the worst employers. This reality that unions are poor employers is grotesque, disheartening and completely incompatible with creating a better world for workers. Those employed by labor unions should be treated fairly, should work under forty hours a week and have their input and wisdom respected. Doing this is not only the morally right thing to do; it also makes strategic sense, as happy workers will be more productive and energetic about the cause. The practice of hiring young college graduates and burning them out and then moving on to the next batch is alarming and deeply saddening. The means practiced must match the end goal. Thus unions must treat their own employees better in order to build a better world for all workers.
Moreover, the ballooning salaries of labor leaders must be capped and lowered. While certain labor leaders certainly deserve to be paid a decent sum, salaries of $200,000 or more not only looks bad publicly, but also raises questions about where such a highly paid persons interests are. Just as with top wage earners anywhere, keeping the status quo in order to not lose such a position of power could be a top priority for many of these well-paid labor leaders. This stunts the growth of new leadership and vision while making it difficult dynamic new strategies to emerge. Earning so much also saps away courage, as taking any step out of line could cause the loss of such a high paying position. Furthermore, once labor leaders begin earning several hundred thousand dollars a year, their interests are far removed from the everyday workers they are to represent.
Any movement to internally reinvent the internal structure of labor unions is going to be a tough, yet necessary expedition. In all likelihood, such a movement would have to be led by the rank and file workers and low level staff people. Doing some level of self examination and self purification is a necessary step that needs to be taken before trying to change the outside world. If the creation of a beloved community, a fair, just and transparent society is the goal, then fairness, justice and transparency must first be brought to the structures that will bring about such change.
Very related to the process of self-purification is the need for organized labor to change the image of the labor movement. The public perception of labor unions is not good. People with little knowledge of labor unions are skeptical about the need for their existence or what their role really is. More shockingly, most Americans have little understanding of labors dramatic history in the United States and the concerted effort over the years by corporations to destroy them. Once self-purification is moving forward, a strategic public relations campaign should be launched introducing to America what labor unions are, and what they stand for. Too often labor unions are seen simply taking a defensive position; unions should be more proactive in getting their message across to the American people. Workshops, public events, leafleting, information spreading through social media sites, advertisements, speaker campaigns and other education events should be organized. These events would be better serve if the language used were positive and proactive. Labor’s messaging should focus more on the positive of labor unions, not simply the negatives of corporations and capitalists. The goal here must be to create a positive public image.
Finally, after these first two steps, the private sector must be intensively organized. One reason that public unions are so susceptible to attack is because fewer and fewer Americans understand the importance of labor unions through direct experience. With the tumbling of union density it is safe to say that many people have been in unions where the relationship ended sourly, with layoffs or decertification. In order to increase awareness of the benefits of labor unions, new workers, particularly in the private sector, must be organized. With a reinvented public image of labor unions and a new way of doing business, labor unions will find a more understanding audience when organizing new workers. For years labor scholars and advocates have been calling for a renewed focus on organizing. Such a recommendation is nothing new. Yet with the continued attacked on unions in America, there is the clear temptation to go into a defensive mode. Going into defense and slowly dying is playing into the hands of big business. Organizing of workers at all levels, particularly low-income workers, and even unemployed workers, needs to be done now. In order to be fully successful, a great new organizing campaign should be preceded by union self purification and a revamping of labors public image all grounded in the philosophy and way of life of nonviolence.
With an ongoing recession compiled by years of tax cuts devastating state budgets, high unemployment and stagnant wage growth in the private sector; public unions have become an easy target for capitalist politicians. Moreover, with private sector union density it’s lowest since 1900 and a weary public image, the whole concept of the labor union is largely viewed in a negative light by the American public. These conditions have made it possible for public employee unions to be directly attacked. State by state labor battles can be won by voting in new elected officials or by organizing recall elections, but only by addressing the root conditions can a tree of justice blossom. While idealistic in nature, the recommendations laid out in this paper offer a clear way forward for the American labor movement to make systematic changes that will have lasting results. The labor movement of the United States has for too long been the American labor stagnation, it is time for the labor movement to move. Move towards justice, move towards equality and move with courage.
Work Cited
AP. 2011. “Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker Proposes Union Compromise” Retrieved July 26, 2011 (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/03/08/wisconsin-governor-scott-walker-proposes-union-compromise.html)
Bauer, Scott. 2011. “Wisconsin Legislature Passes Tax Cut” Retrieved August 1, 2011 (http://www.boston.com/business/taxes/articles/2011/01/25/wisconsin_legislature_set_to_pass_tax_cuts/)
Bottari, Mary. 2011. “ALEC Bills in Wisconsin.” PR Watch. Retrieved July 23, 2011 (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/07/10880/alec-bills-wisconsin)
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. “Union Affiliation of Employed Wage and Salary Workers by State.” Retrieved July 24, 2011 (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t05.htm)
CBS.AP. 2011. “Wis. Assembly Passes Anti-Union Bill.” CBS News, February 25, 2011. Retrieved July 25 2011
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/25/national/main20036322.shtml)
Cronon, William. 2011. “Wisconsin’s Radical Break.” New York Times, March 21, 2011. Retrieved July 23, 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/opinion/22cronon.html)
Davey, Monica. 2011. “Protesters in Wisconsin Say They are Staying Put.” New York Times, February 20, 2011. Retrieved July 26 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/us/21wisconsin.html?_r=2)
Davey, Monica. 2011. “Wisconsin Court Reinstates Law on Union Rights.” New York Times, June 14, 2011. Retrieved July 26 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/us/politics/15wisconsin.htm)
Dayen, David. 2011. “Ohio, Indiana See Protests Against Anti-Union Bills.” Retrieved July 25, 2011 (http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/02/21/ohio-indiana-see-protests-against-anti-union-bills)
Dolan, Eric. 2011. “Gov. Scott Walker Threatens Layoffs if Democrats Don’t Return to vote” Retrieved July 24, 2011 (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/23/gov-scott-walker-threatens-layoffs-if-democrats-dont-return-to-vote-2/)
Elk, Mike. 2011. “Madison AFL-CIO Votes to Prepare for General Strike.” Retrieved July 25, 2011 (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/madison-area-afl-cio-votes-to-prepare-for-general-strike)
Kerr, Jennifer. 2011. “State Elections: Republicans Gain Control of Key State Legislatures” Retrieved July 23, 2011 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/state-elections-legislatures_n_778103.html)
Kroll, Andy 2011. “Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Funded by the Koch Bros.” Mother Jones, February 18, 2011. Retrieved July 30, 2011
(http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/wisconsin-scott-walker-koch-brothers)
Logan, John 2011. “The ILO Must Condemn U.S. Anti-Union Legisltation” Retrieved July 24, 2011 http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/speakout/john_logan_ilo.cfm
Mackin, Teresa. 2011. “Upwards of 70,000 Rally at State Capitol” Retrieved July 24, 2011 (http://www.wkow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14062370)
Maggie 2011. “Wisconsin Union Thugs Destroy Recall Petition of Democrat Jim Holperin: Police Union Members Watch.” Retrieved July 29, 2011 (http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011/03/wisconsin-union-thugs-destroy-recall-petition-of-democrat-jim-holperin-police-union-members-watch/)
Murolo, Priscilla 2011. “#8 ULA Workers in the Public Sector”. Notes provided on in-class presentation for 2011 ULA Winter Session. Retrieved August 7, 2011
Politico. 2011 “Scott Walker’s Backers Rally in Madison” Retrieved July 27, 2011 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50751_Page2.html)
Politico. 2010 “2010 Election Map” Retrieved July 23, 2011 (http://www.politico.com/2010/maps/)
Quinn, Rob. 2011 “Protesters Leave Wisconsin Capitol.” Retrieved July 25, 2011 (http://www.newser.com/story/113342/protesters-leave-wisconsin-capitol.html)
Schultze, Steve. 2002. “Walker was Drawn to Politics From his Earliest Days.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 29, 2002. Retrieved July 23, 2011 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3KcaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mj8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4753,7161800&dq=scott+walker+ibm+wisconsin&hl=en)
Sewell, Abby. “Protesters out in Force Nationwide to Oppose Wisconsin’s Anti-Union Bill.” Los Angeles Times, February 26, 2011. Retrieved July 25, 2011 (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/26/nation/la-na-wisconsin-protests-20110227)
Sewell, Abby and Dan Hinkel. 2011. “Union Fight Extends to Indiana.” Los Angeles Times, February 24, 2011. Retrieved July 24, 2011 (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/24/nation/la-na-midwest-union-20110224)
Stromber, Stephen. 2011. “Wisconsin’s Governor is not Hitler.” Washington Post, February 12, 2011. Retrieved July 28, 2011 http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/wisconsins_governor_is_not_hit.html
Walker, Don. 2011. “ State Capitol Will Remain Open; Police Group says it Stands with Protesters” Retrieved July 24, 2011 (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/116923148.html)
Wisconsin State AFL-CIO . 2011. “Officers and Staff” Retrieved August 1, 2011 (http://wisaflcio.org/index.cfm?action=cat&categoryID=a401c49a-ed55-4747-8d3b-d550d36ddf08)
Youtube. 2011 “Wisconsin Union Thugs go Crazy on Fox News Reporter” Retrieved August 7, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ub04Tf-kqU
Youtube. 2011 “Fox News Reporter Assaulted by Union Thug” Retrieved August 7, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOP902PvlaM&feature=related
Youtube . 2011 “Union Protester Threatens to Break Mike Tobin’s Neck” Retrieved August 7, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ANPk_vBFEM&feature=player_embedded
Appendix
Six Principles of Kingian Nonviolence
1. Nonviolence is a way of life for courageous people
2. The Beloved Community is the framework for the future
3. Attack forces of evil, not persons doing evil
4. Avoid internal violence of the spirit as well as external physical violence
5. Accept suffering without retaliation for the sake of the cause to achieve a goal
6. The universe is on the side of justice
Six Steps of Kingian Nonviolence
1. Information Gathering
2. Education
3. Personal Commitment (self-purification)
4. Negotiation
5. Direct Action
6. Reconciliation
(www.phoenixnonviolence.org)
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Oregon is a Beacon of Hope
By Abel Collins
With all the commotion last month surrounding Massachusetts’s election of Scott Brown, it was easy to lose track of a story whose implications may be far more important. On January 26 in Oregon, an historic vote was cast in which the people supported two tax increases; one, an income tax increase on the wealthy, and a second on corporations. It was the first time the voters of Oregon enacted an income tax increase since the Depression. Yeah, that’s a long time, and it indicates that something monumental is happening in the country.
Ironically, the populism that Brown rode to victory in Mass. and that Republicans hope will return them to power was evident in Oregon’s vote to raise taxes, a distinctly un-Republican initiative. The people are acting to change a system that has come to disproportionately benefit corporations and the wealthy and that isn’t good for Democrats or Republicans. People are demanding change, and they are demanding fiscal responsibility so they don’t get stuck with a bigger bill down the road to see it happen.
What this vote shows is that the people understand the need to raise revenues to pay for social services, and they are willing to raise taxes to do it. For decades, the dirty word that politicians and policymakers have been scared to even mouth is taxes, considering it the equivalent of political suicide. Yet, the people understand the need for taxes, and they are willing to pay them, so long as the revenues raised are well used.
State governments around the nation should take note, because state revenues are in dire straits and making budget cuts cannot be the only answer. Indeed, large cuts are certain to diminish revenues further. It’s time for state politicians to stop avoiding the issue and honestly admit to the people what they already know, taxes are part of the solution. It would be wise also to recognize what Oregonians realized, new and increased taxes must be born proportionally by those who can afford to pay them.
I, for one, am sick of the evasions from politicians when they claim they would love to enact good policy but that would require them to raise taxes and would be politically infeasible. From this point forward, I am going to demand leadership and courage in facing these issues. No more excuses. Thank you, Oregon.
Here is the web address of an article that details the Oregon election:
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/voters_pass_tax_measures_by_bi.html
With all the commotion last month surrounding Massachusetts’s election of Scott Brown, it was easy to lose track of a story whose implications may be far more important. On January 26 in Oregon, an historic vote was cast in which the people supported two tax increases; one, an income tax increase on the wealthy, and a second on corporations. It was the first time the voters of Oregon enacted an income tax increase since the Depression. Yeah, that’s a long time, and it indicates that something monumental is happening in the country.
Ironically, the populism that Brown rode to victory in Mass. and that Republicans hope will return them to power was evident in Oregon’s vote to raise taxes, a distinctly un-Republican initiative. The people are acting to change a system that has come to disproportionately benefit corporations and the wealthy and that isn’t good for Democrats or Republicans. People are demanding change, and they are demanding fiscal responsibility so they don’t get stuck with a bigger bill down the road to see it happen.
What this vote shows is that the people understand the need to raise revenues to pay for social services, and they are willing to raise taxes to do it. For decades, the dirty word that politicians and policymakers have been scared to even mouth is taxes, considering it the equivalent of political suicide. Yet, the people understand the need for taxes, and they are willing to pay them, so long as the revenues raised are well used.
State governments around the nation should take note, because state revenues are in dire straits and making budget cuts cannot be the only answer. Indeed, large cuts are certain to diminish revenues further. It’s time for state politicians to stop avoiding the issue and honestly admit to the people what they already know, taxes are part of the solution. It would be wise also to recognize what Oregonians realized, new and increased taxes must be born proportionally by those who can afford to pay them.
I, for one, am sick of the evasions from politicians when they claim they would love to enact good policy but that would require them to raise taxes and would be politically infeasible. From this point forward, I am going to demand leadership and courage in facing these issues. No more excuses. Thank you, Oregon.
Here is the web address of an article that details the Oregon election:
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/voters_pass_tax_measures_by_bi.html
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Flaws of Cap and Trade: Part II: The Validators
By Abel Collins
The second weakness in the administration of the cap and trade system is found in the creation and validation of the carbon credits themselves. Typically, a carbon credit comes into being when an industry proposes a new business model that will allow it to reduce its carbon emissions. Each credit is claimed to be the equivalent of one metric ton of carbon reductions. This credit is then sold to a dirty industry to offset its own pollution. The claimed reduction must be substantiated at the outset by an audit from a rating agency called a validator and must subsequently be verified to have actually occurred by another similar audit.
Worldwide, there are less than thirty such validators, and the market is dominated by just two. The industry or business looking to create carbon credits hires one of these validators to certify its creation. The biggest certification requirement, aside from actually curbing carbon emissions, is that the project meets an additionality standard, proving that the carbon reducing project would not occur without the capital made available through the credits. Once the credit has been sanctioned by the validator, it can be sold in the carbon market. Complicating this picture further is the fact that many of the emissions reducing projects get their funding from venture capital through the large banks that control the carbon markets.
Here, then, is the problem. The validators are paid by the industries that are having their projects regulated, creating a monstrous conflict of interest and potential corruption. Reviewing the work of the validators to this point, it has been discovered that forty percent of projects do not meet additionality standards. Furthermore, the credits only produce 65-85% of the reductions that they promised. When graded, none of the validators received a grade higher than a D. Whether through corruption or incompetence, this administrative system is a proven failure.
Looking forward, the carbon market is already the fastest growing commodity market in the world, and it promises to get exponentially larger if the United States adopts a cap and trade policy. Clearly, major improvements to the administration of cap and trade are necessary if it is to function effectively. The question is, at what cost. Even if the conflicts of interest can be mitigated, the sheer amount of resources and bureaucracy that will be needed for the validation and verification process will produce tons of carbon emissions. There has to be a better way.
Please go to the address below and read this important article from Harper’s Magazine for more information on the validation and certification process.
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/Conning-the-Climate.pdf
The second weakness in the administration of the cap and trade system is found in the creation and validation of the carbon credits themselves. Typically, a carbon credit comes into being when an industry proposes a new business model that will allow it to reduce its carbon emissions. Each credit is claimed to be the equivalent of one metric ton of carbon reductions. This credit is then sold to a dirty industry to offset its own pollution. The claimed reduction must be substantiated at the outset by an audit from a rating agency called a validator and must subsequently be verified to have actually occurred by another similar audit.
Worldwide, there are less than thirty such validators, and the market is dominated by just two. The industry or business looking to create carbon credits hires one of these validators to certify its creation. The biggest certification requirement, aside from actually curbing carbon emissions, is that the project meets an additionality standard, proving that the carbon reducing project would not occur without the capital made available through the credits. Once the credit has been sanctioned by the validator, it can be sold in the carbon market. Complicating this picture further is the fact that many of the emissions reducing projects get their funding from venture capital through the large banks that control the carbon markets.
Here, then, is the problem. The validators are paid by the industries that are having their projects regulated, creating a monstrous conflict of interest and potential corruption. Reviewing the work of the validators to this point, it has been discovered that forty percent of projects do not meet additionality standards. Furthermore, the credits only produce 65-85% of the reductions that they promised. When graded, none of the validators received a grade higher than a D. Whether through corruption or incompetence, this administrative system is a proven failure.
Looking forward, the carbon market is already the fastest growing commodity market in the world, and it promises to get exponentially larger if the United States adopts a cap and trade policy. Clearly, major improvements to the administration of cap and trade are necessary if it is to function effectively. The question is, at what cost. Even if the conflicts of interest can be mitigated, the sheer amount of resources and bureaucracy that will be needed for the validation and verification process will produce tons of carbon emissions. There has to be a better way.
Please go to the address below and read this important article from Harper’s Magazine for more information on the validation and certification process.
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/Conning-the-Climate.pdf
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
The Flaws of Cap and Trade: Part I: The Market
By Abel Collins
On paper, cap and trade offers a versatile regulatory strategy to reduce carbon emissions. Rather than the blunt tool of a blanket tax, the innovation of the carbon credit allows industries that might find it particularly onerous to cut carbon pollution to promote other sectors of the economy to make reductions in their place. By creating a carbon market, the world theoretically summons the mystical invisible hand of market efficiency theory to produce the most effective reductions.
Of course, market efficiency theory is now seen as a rather naïve economic model that is disproven on a daily basis, and ideas that make a lot of sense on paper are often met with resistance by reality. Such is the case with cap and trade. The translation of the theory into cap and trade reality is fraught with problems.
The most glaring problem is administration, and it is manifold. Before we delve into the many failings of the administration of cap and trade, it is important to note with administrative costs that resources dedicated to organizing and maintaining the system (administration) are resources that are being taken away from actually addressing the issue that the system is designed to resolve (e.g. healthcare). With cap and trade, there are two distinct areas of administration; the carbon markets, and the validation and verification of the carbon credits to be traded within those markets.
Large banks, notably J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, have graciously offered to administer the commodity markets for carbon credits. They have not made this offer out of concern about global warming or because they have any expertise in environmental matters. No, like everything else they do, they run the carbon markets in pursuit of profits, and there are many to be had.
Not only do the banks get paid to oversee the transactions in the marketplace, they are further allowed to use this position of advantage as they trade within it. Of even greater concern is how they can manipulate the market through unregulated financial instruments (i.e. derivatives, CDOs, etc.). With massive government subsidies aimed at reducing carbon emissions and unlimited sums of low-interest money available to the big banks, carbon markets are primed for overleveraging and bubble formation. As the markets get more and more manipulated, they will become less and less transparent and farther removed from their mission. Indeed, the carbon market, itself, is a secondary approach, regulating an intangible commodity to address climate change, and it in no way needs to be made more abstract through financial wizardry.
On paper, cap and trade offers a versatile regulatory strategy to reduce carbon emissions. Rather than the blunt tool of a blanket tax, the innovation of the carbon credit allows industries that might find it particularly onerous to cut carbon pollution to promote other sectors of the economy to make reductions in their place. By creating a carbon market, the world theoretically summons the mystical invisible hand of market efficiency theory to produce the most effective reductions.
Of course, market efficiency theory is now seen as a rather naïve economic model that is disproven on a daily basis, and ideas that make a lot of sense on paper are often met with resistance by reality. Such is the case with cap and trade. The translation of the theory into cap and trade reality is fraught with problems.
The most glaring problem is administration, and it is manifold. Before we delve into the many failings of the administration of cap and trade, it is important to note with administrative costs that resources dedicated to organizing and maintaining the system (administration) are resources that are being taken away from actually addressing the issue that the system is designed to resolve (e.g. healthcare). With cap and trade, there are two distinct areas of administration; the carbon markets, and the validation and verification of the carbon credits to be traded within those markets.
Large banks, notably J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, have graciously offered to administer the commodity markets for carbon credits. They have not made this offer out of concern about global warming or because they have any expertise in environmental matters. No, like everything else they do, they run the carbon markets in pursuit of profits, and there are many to be had.
Not only do the banks get paid to oversee the transactions in the marketplace, they are further allowed to use this position of advantage as they trade within it. Of even greater concern is how they can manipulate the market through unregulated financial instruments (i.e. derivatives, CDOs, etc.). With massive government subsidies aimed at reducing carbon emissions and unlimited sums of low-interest money available to the big banks, carbon markets are primed for overleveraging and bubble formation. As the markets get more and more manipulated, they will become less and less transparent and farther removed from their mission. Indeed, the carbon market, itself, is a secondary approach, regulating an intangible commodity to address climate change, and it in no way needs to be made more abstract through financial wizardry.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Attack Forces of Evil, Not Persons Doing Evil
By Nicolas Katkevich
Attack forces of evil not persons doing evil, is in many ways, the one principle of Kingian Nonviolence that the progressive movement immediately needs to adopt in order to become more effective in their pursuits and to begin tapping in to the power of Nonviolence.
During the recent Bush presidency I attended several anti-war/pro-peace demonstrations. At all of these demonstrations were signs, caricatures and chants denouncing George W. Bush as an ignorant fool. The energy and spirit was full of hate directed towards the man. While it is quite understandable as to why there would be anger and outrage direct at Mr. Bush; this type of hate and focused attack on an individual accomplishes nothing. The United States militarism, economic disparity and other social ills are not the fault of one person. Nor will these issues be resolved simply by electing the correct person into power. Rather, if we want to create true change, we must address the root conditions and causes of our country’s problems. We must create systemic, lasting change. This is where our energy must be focused.
Look at our situation today. George Bush is gone, and a new Democratic President is in office, and yet we still are fighting wars in the Middle East. It is clear that war and militarism were not solely energies stemming from Bush; rather the philosophy and use of violence is something that plagues us all. We must work together to overcome violence at the local and international level, through awakening peace within ourselves and by showing others the faults of violence.
Moreover, we must carry on movements with the realization that even our greatest enemy my soon be our greatest ally. Through our self-suffering we must look to arouse the conscious and hearts of not only the public, but our assailants as well. For the goal of Nonviolence is to win over people’s hearts and to create a “win-win” situation rather then a “win-loose” situation that we are accustomed to. We must reach out warmly, yet firmly to our assailants and show them that we do not wish to punish them, yet uplift them. Our love and compassion cannot be limited to only those whom we currently consider our friends and allies. Only through the power of Agape, unconditional love, will we be able to transform ourselves, our communities and our world.
Attack forces of evil not persons doing evil, is in many ways, the one principle of Kingian Nonviolence that the progressive movement immediately needs to adopt in order to become more effective in their pursuits and to begin tapping in to the power of Nonviolence.
During the recent Bush presidency I attended several anti-war/pro-peace demonstrations. At all of these demonstrations were signs, caricatures and chants denouncing George W. Bush as an ignorant fool. The energy and spirit was full of hate directed towards the man. While it is quite understandable as to why there would be anger and outrage direct at Mr. Bush; this type of hate and focused attack on an individual accomplishes nothing. The United States militarism, economic disparity and other social ills are not the fault of one person. Nor will these issues be resolved simply by electing the correct person into power. Rather, if we want to create true change, we must address the root conditions and causes of our country’s problems. We must create systemic, lasting change. This is where our energy must be focused.
Look at our situation today. George Bush is gone, and a new Democratic President is in office, and yet we still are fighting wars in the Middle East. It is clear that war and militarism were not solely energies stemming from Bush; rather the philosophy and use of violence is something that plagues us all. We must work together to overcome violence at the local and international level, through awakening peace within ourselves and by showing others the faults of violence.
Moreover, we must carry on movements with the realization that even our greatest enemy my soon be our greatest ally. Through our self-suffering we must look to arouse the conscious and hearts of not only the public, but our assailants as well. For the goal of Nonviolence is to win over people’s hearts and to create a “win-win” situation rather then a “win-loose” situation that we are accustomed to. We must reach out warmly, yet firmly to our assailants and show them that we do not wish to punish them, yet uplift them. Our love and compassion cannot be limited to only those whom we currently consider our friends and allies. Only through the power of Agape, unconditional love, will we be able to transform ourselves, our communities and our world.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Cap and Trade vs. Carbon Tax
By Abel Collins
As large and complex an issue as fighting Climate Change is, I will tackle it in a series of posts in order to give it due attention. In the spirit of full disclosure, I feel compelled to say that I work for the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group that is devoting many of its resources toward averting global warming as much as is still possible. The Sierra Club is lobbying for strong legislation in Congress to address the issue this year. The plan the Club supports involves a cap and trade system. The views that I express here are not the views of the Sierra Club. These are my personal opinions.
Last year for the first time, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation to address the clear and present danger of Climate Change. Not only is Climate Change (or Global Warming) a current problem, costing some 200,000 lives and untold billions of dollars in damages annually; it threatens to become an apocalyptic catastrophe if we fail to act swiftly in reducing our output of Greenhouse gases.
The House and the Administration have been rightly lauded for belatedly making an effort to deal with this issue more than ten years after the rest of the world took action with the Kyoto Protocol. The key tool for reducing carbon emissions in both the House legislation and the Kyoto accord is a cap and trade system. The basic concept with cap and trade is to commoditize carbon emissions into carbon credits that represent a reduction in emissions. The ‘cap’ refers to the total amount of carbon allowed into the atmosphere. The ‘trade’ refers to the exchange of the carbon credits between industries, other businesses, and individuals through the carbon market. Carbon emitting industries can thus buy carbon credits to offset their pollution and thereby create incentives to cut carbon pollution.
The alternate policy for reducing carbon emissions that is sometimes mentioned but never seriously considered is a carbon tax. (Other options are conceivable, but given the pea sized brain with which governments operate, two choices seem to be the maximum that can be deliberated at any one time.) The carbon tax is just what it sounds like; a levy on industries, other businesses, and people who produce carbon emissions through their economic activity. It is a simple and direct way to make polluters pay proportionally for their emissions. The carbon tax is routinely dismissed, because, we are told, it is politically infeasible. The argument is that the tax would be too punitive on businesses that would then pass the huge cost along to consumers.
I contend that the Cap and Trade system is inherently inefficient and dangerously flawed. In practice, cap and trade has not produced the carbon reductions that were promised by the carbon credits. Furthermore, the carbon market is helplessly vulnerable to corruption through financial manipulation. If the nations of the world truly want to combat Climate Change, they need to consider implementing a carbon tax.
As large and complex an issue as fighting Climate Change is, I will tackle it in a series of posts in order to give it due attention. In the spirit of full disclosure, I feel compelled to say that I work for the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group that is devoting many of its resources toward averting global warming as much as is still possible. The Sierra Club is lobbying for strong legislation in Congress to address the issue this year. The plan the Club supports involves a cap and trade system. The views that I express here are not the views of the Sierra Club. These are my personal opinions.
Last year for the first time, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation to address the clear and present danger of Climate Change. Not only is Climate Change (or Global Warming) a current problem, costing some 200,000 lives and untold billions of dollars in damages annually; it threatens to become an apocalyptic catastrophe if we fail to act swiftly in reducing our output of Greenhouse gases.
The House and the Administration have been rightly lauded for belatedly making an effort to deal with this issue more than ten years after the rest of the world took action with the Kyoto Protocol. The key tool for reducing carbon emissions in both the House legislation and the Kyoto accord is a cap and trade system. The basic concept with cap and trade is to commoditize carbon emissions into carbon credits that represent a reduction in emissions. The ‘cap’ refers to the total amount of carbon allowed into the atmosphere. The ‘trade’ refers to the exchange of the carbon credits between industries, other businesses, and individuals through the carbon market. Carbon emitting industries can thus buy carbon credits to offset their pollution and thereby create incentives to cut carbon pollution.
The alternate policy for reducing carbon emissions that is sometimes mentioned but never seriously considered is a carbon tax. (Other options are conceivable, but given the pea sized brain with which governments operate, two choices seem to be the maximum that can be deliberated at any one time.) The carbon tax is just what it sounds like; a levy on industries, other businesses, and people who produce carbon emissions through their economic activity. It is a simple and direct way to make polluters pay proportionally for their emissions. The carbon tax is routinely dismissed, because, we are told, it is politically infeasible. The argument is that the tax would be too punitive on businesses that would then pass the huge cost along to consumers.
I contend that the Cap and Trade system is inherently inefficient and dangerously flawed. In practice, cap and trade has not produced the carbon reductions that were promised by the carbon credits. Furthermore, the carbon market is helplessly vulnerable to corruption through financial manipulation. If the nations of the world truly want to combat Climate Change, they need to consider implementing a carbon tax.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Be It Resolved
By Abel Collins
I have freedom of speech,
They say.
It’s even guaranteed
In writing,
The constitution binding.
Equally, I must have the freedom to listen;
To hear and give credence,
To believe if I must
One thing or another.
Call that religion.
I do not want a captive audience.
I want them free and freely associated.
Everything’s written down in Washington,
Stored in marble halls where we keep the country’s warranties.
I have many rights.
But here’s the rub,
Rights are not possessions.
They are ideas that take form only in action.
Pend here
Upon notions
Do I have the ability to express these freedoms?
Consider speech:
First of all,
Every voice must carry through a medium.
Already, I feel a little restricted…
I mean; I want a medium that allows me to speak to everybody
I want to turn to all seven billion of you and say,
‘Whoa there, how’s it going?
We’re going to just take a little break here
Spare me ten minutes
A moment of silence to rest your mind on the beauty around you:
The spectacle of nature and the wonder of civilization.
This beauty in you
As you are their individual reflection.
Mostly though, rest your attention upon the beauty in the people around you.
Yes, in this we are all kindred
We share this moment
This choice to be aware of the beauty that always surrounds us
That we are integral parts of.
Let this kinship be trust
Now, everyone put down your weapons
Whether metaphorical or physical.
Accept peace, and let’s move on
There’s much to accomplish
Humanity to save
Stars to reach
We must work together if we want to get it done.’
Ten minutes of free speech is all I need,
But it’s really just a dream.
The sound of my voice does not travel very far,
And what I say may sound good,
But the volume is turned too low.
Instead people hear the clarion call to fear
Bullhorns on bully pulpits
Talking to the nodding heads of people entranced by the steady beat of war drums.
The volume is kept loud and constant
Because if we had silence to think about what they threaten
The hypocrisy would be so monstrous and obvious
The only recourse could be revolution.
Orwell.
Yet I do have this voice,
And though my freedom is not all I hope for,
I can speak with those beautiful people near to me.
Some may even exercise their freedom to listen,
And surely something will happen when I say,
‘We can all speak a little louder.
Help me turn up the volume.’
I have freedom of speech,
They say.
It’s even guaranteed
In writing,
The constitution binding.
Equally, I must have the freedom to listen;
To hear and give credence,
To believe if I must
One thing or another.
Call that religion.
I do not want a captive audience.
I want them free and freely associated.
Everything’s written down in Washington,
Stored in marble halls where we keep the country’s warranties.
I have many rights.
But here’s the rub,
Rights are not possessions.
They are ideas that take form only in action.
Pend here
Upon notions
Do I have the ability to express these freedoms?
Consider speech:
First of all,
Every voice must carry through a medium.
Already, I feel a little restricted…
I mean; I want a medium that allows me to speak to everybody
I want to turn to all seven billion of you and say,
‘Whoa there, how’s it going?
We’re going to just take a little break here
Spare me ten minutes
A moment of silence to rest your mind on the beauty around you:
The spectacle of nature and the wonder of civilization.
This beauty in you
As you are their individual reflection.
Mostly though, rest your attention upon the beauty in the people around you.
Yes, in this we are all kindred
We share this moment
This choice to be aware of the beauty that always surrounds us
That we are integral parts of.
Let this kinship be trust
Now, everyone put down your weapons
Whether metaphorical or physical.
Accept peace, and let’s move on
There’s much to accomplish
Humanity to save
Stars to reach
We must work together if we want to get it done.’
Ten minutes of free speech is all I need,
But it’s really just a dream.
The sound of my voice does not travel very far,
And what I say may sound good,
But the volume is turned too low.
Instead people hear the clarion call to fear
Bullhorns on bully pulpits
Talking to the nodding heads of people entranced by the steady beat of war drums.
The volume is kept loud and constant
Because if we had silence to think about what they threaten
The hypocrisy would be so monstrous and obvious
The only recourse could be revolution.
Orwell.
Yet I do have this voice,
And though my freedom is not all I hope for,
I can speak with those beautiful people near to me.
Some may even exercise their freedom to listen,
And surely something will happen when I say,
‘We can all speak a little louder.
Help me turn up the volume.’
Monday, February 1, 2010
Babaji
Posted by: Nicolas Katkevich
The poem below is said to be the last message of Shri Haidakhan Babaji, a spirtual leader from India. I have this posted on a wall in my bedroom and I find it to be a great outline of how one should aspire to live their life. I thought I should share it on this blog:
Love and serve all humanity.
Assist everyone.
Be happy, be courteous.
Be a dynamo of irrepressible joy.
Recognize God and goodness in every face.
There is no saint without a past and no sinner without a future.
Praise everyone. If you cannot praise someone, let them out of your life.
Be original, be inventive.
Be courageous. Take courage again and again.
Do not imitate; be strong, be upright.
Do not lean on the crutches of others.
Think with your own head. Be yourself.
All perfection and every divine virtue are hidden within you. Reveal them to the world.
Wisdom, too, is already within you. Let it shine forth.
Let the Lord's grace set you free.
Let your life be that of the rose; in silence, it speaks the language of fragrance.
I am always with you
Shri Babaji
1984
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Motivation
By Abel Collins
Last week, I finished reading a book called Beyond the Limits written in 1990 by Meadows et al. For those unfamiliar with it, the book is a follow up to The Limits of Growth published in 1972. In both cases, the books detail exhaustive studies of the socio-economic and environmental states of the world to get an accurate picture of where humanity is headed. The scientists who conducted the studies and authored the books used systems analysis and a computer model named World3 to extrapolate potential futures for the human population and its quality of life.
The scary thing is that maintaining the status quo of the 1970s led inevitably to a population and standard of living collapse within this century, generally by about 2070. Even with the most optimistic assumptions, continuing the trends of exponential economic and population growth was certain to lead to a catastrophe due to a combination of overpopulation, resource depletion, and pollution.
The scarier thing is that it has now been forty years, and all we have done is accelerate. Economic growth and development has been the dominant force organizing the world for more than half a century. We even gave it a fancy name, globalization, though all it really amounts to is the increased utilization of our finite resources in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Likewise, the human population grows unabated.
According to the scientists’ models, the only way to avoid cataclysmic collapse is to embrace a sustainable model to replace the growth model. If we had embraced such a model in 1970, we could have achieved a stable population with a high standard of living by 2050. If we had made the change in 1995, we could have reached a slightly larger stable population with a lower standard of living. In the case of putting off the transition to a sustainable way of life until 2015, humanity faces a small population crash in the latter half of the twenty-first century followed by stable population with a significantly lower standard of living.
Here we are, five years from 2015. We are already seeing the telltale signs that we have overshot our limits and our destined for collapse. Peak oil is at hand, and other resources are being depleted just as quickly. Deserts are spreading. We are working harder and harder to feed the people of the world, and we are getting diminishing returns. Fisheries are being exhausted around the globe. Perhaps most importantly, clean water is becoming harder to come by. Add to these troubling symptoms the specter of climate change that already is happening faster than was foreseen and we face a terrible reality.
Here we are, five years from 2015, and from time to time I’m asked how or why I came to be an activist. I could speak to you of ideals that I have in plenty, but I don’t need to go that far. Rather, I reply snarkily, ‘wouldn’t you act if you saw that you were about to drive over a cliff?’ The truth is our culture is not sustainable. Exponential growth, economically or population wise, is not compatible with the finite nature of the world. Common sense, call it self-preservation, dictates that I act to change the course we are on. I am determined that it is possible, and I would encourage you to act with me. Let’s build a sustainable future.
Last week, I finished reading a book called Beyond the Limits written in 1990 by Meadows et al. For those unfamiliar with it, the book is a follow up to The Limits of Growth published in 1972. In both cases, the books detail exhaustive studies of the socio-economic and environmental states of the world to get an accurate picture of where humanity is headed. The scientists who conducted the studies and authored the books used systems analysis and a computer model named World3 to extrapolate potential futures for the human population and its quality of life.
The scary thing is that maintaining the status quo of the 1970s led inevitably to a population and standard of living collapse within this century, generally by about 2070. Even with the most optimistic assumptions, continuing the trends of exponential economic and population growth was certain to lead to a catastrophe due to a combination of overpopulation, resource depletion, and pollution.
The scarier thing is that it has now been forty years, and all we have done is accelerate. Economic growth and development has been the dominant force organizing the world for more than half a century. We even gave it a fancy name, globalization, though all it really amounts to is the increased utilization of our finite resources in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Likewise, the human population grows unabated.
According to the scientists’ models, the only way to avoid cataclysmic collapse is to embrace a sustainable model to replace the growth model. If we had embraced such a model in 1970, we could have achieved a stable population with a high standard of living by 2050. If we had made the change in 1995, we could have reached a slightly larger stable population with a lower standard of living. In the case of putting off the transition to a sustainable way of life until 2015, humanity faces a small population crash in the latter half of the twenty-first century followed by stable population with a significantly lower standard of living.
Here we are, five years from 2015. We are already seeing the telltale signs that we have overshot our limits and our destined for collapse. Peak oil is at hand, and other resources are being depleted just as quickly. Deserts are spreading. We are working harder and harder to feed the people of the world, and we are getting diminishing returns. Fisheries are being exhausted around the globe. Perhaps most importantly, clean water is becoming harder to come by. Add to these troubling symptoms the specter of climate change that already is happening faster than was foreseen and we face a terrible reality.
Here we are, five years from 2015, and from time to time I’m asked how or why I came to be an activist. I could speak to you of ideals that I have in plenty, but I don’t need to go that far. Rather, I reply snarkily, ‘wouldn’t you act if you saw that you were about to drive over a cliff?’ The truth is our culture is not sustainable. Exponential growth, economically or population wise, is not compatible with the finite nature of the world. Common sense, call it self-preservation, dictates that I act to change the course we are on. I am determined that it is possible, and I would encourage you to act with me. Let’s build a sustainable future.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Mr. Zinn
By Abel Collins
Today, I dedicated a few minutes of silent contemplation to the work of Howard Zinn in honor of his long and fruitful life. He died yesterday, but the effects of his contributions to the profession of history and his tireless activism will continue to have profound influence on our world.
He stripped away the glory, melodrama, and ego worship that is so prevalent in the study of history, and what was left was a much more accurate picture of reality. Zinn legitimized the lives of the countless people that have lived and sacrificed their lives to progress without fame or notoriety, and, in so doing, he legitimized all of us. For despite what most historians believe, it is the actions of each and every one of us that determine the course of history.
Beneath the pride and posturing, great leaders are primarily figureheads and would count for very little without the support of the masses behind them. Indeed, the greatest leaders throughout history have been those who realized the context of their power; those who have known that the communities they serve are the real heroes of change and the leaders are merely privileged to articulate their progress to the rest of society. Thus, we circle back to Howard Zinn, who was just such a leader. He gave strength to us who believe in and fight for equality, freedom, and fraternity by recognizing us as the true motive force in humankind’s search for humanity, and, together, we will go that much farther in finding it.
If you have not read A People’s History, do yourself a favor and take it out from the local library or even go the extra step and buy it. Heck, it may even be sitting in your bookshelf already, untouched since college. In any case, pick it up and take some time to reacquaint yourself with our history, our story. Take a few pages at a time. There is no rush. For myself, I kept it in the bathroom and finished it over the course of about three months, and I will probably do the same again when I realize that I need a reminder of what we have done, what we are doing, and where we are going.
Today, I dedicated a few minutes of silent contemplation to the work of Howard Zinn in honor of his long and fruitful life. He died yesterday, but the effects of his contributions to the profession of history and his tireless activism will continue to have profound influence on our world.
He stripped away the glory, melodrama, and ego worship that is so prevalent in the study of history, and what was left was a much more accurate picture of reality. Zinn legitimized the lives of the countless people that have lived and sacrificed their lives to progress without fame or notoriety, and, in so doing, he legitimized all of us. For despite what most historians believe, it is the actions of each and every one of us that determine the course of history.
Beneath the pride and posturing, great leaders are primarily figureheads and would count for very little without the support of the masses behind them. Indeed, the greatest leaders throughout history have been those who realized the context of their power; those who have known that the communities they serve are the real heroes of change and the leaders are merely privileged to articulate their progress to the rest of society. Thus, we circle back to Howard Zinn, who was just such a leader. He gave strength to us who believe in and fight for equality, freedom, and fraternity by recognizing us as the true motive force in humankind’s search for humanity, and, together, we will go that much farther in finding it.
If you have not read A People’s History, do yourself a favor and take it out from the local library or even go the extra step and buy it. Heck, it may even be sitting in your bookshelf already, untouched since college. In any case, pick it up and take some time to reacquaint yourself with our history, our story. Take a few pages at a time. There is no rush. For myself, I kept it in the bathroom and finished it over the course of about three months, and I will probably do the same again when I realize that I need a reminder of what we have done, what we are doing, and where we are going.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Howard Zinn
Posted by: Nicolas Katkevich
Howard Zinn passed away yesterday at the age of 87. Zinn was a dynamic and insightful author, activist and speaker who eloquently critiqued the American government and it's use of war and deception. Here is a quick video of Mr. Zinn recently speaking about President Obama and the wars in the Middle East.
Howard Zinn passed away yesterday at the age of 87. Zinn was a dynamic and insightful author, activist and speaker who eloquently critiqued the American government and it's use of war and deception. Here is a quick video of Mr. Zinn recently speaking about President Obama and the wars in the Middle East.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)