Labor, Civil, and Social Rights

Erik Loomis is doing wonderful things at Lawyers, Guns, and Money. This time, he is doing a wonderful thing by bringing to my attention what Jake Blumgart is doing.

It is for these reasons that Kahlenberg and Marvit argue that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act should be extended to cover labor organizing. In Why Labor Organizing Should be a Civil Right (available April 1), the authors claim it is time to change both the broken legal system that ineffectually “protects” American workers like Ballard, and the tactics of reformers who want to change it.

Kahlenberg and Marvit first argue the legal case. Title VII provides a powerful defense against discrimination based on race, sex, age, and religion (among others). Under the Civil Rights Act the employee can opt out of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission process (close to the civil rights equivalent of the NLRB) and take the case to a federal court, before a jury, where they are provided with the means to retain a lawyer if they do not have the necessary funds.

Such suits are not an easy win. The opponent is almost always a business with substantial legal and monetary resources. But the incentives are not one-sided: Employees stand to win much more than $5,000. As Kahlenberg and Marvit note, “a plaintiff may be awarded a variety of remedies, including back pay (with interest), reinstatement or front pay, equitable relief, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.” Lost overtime, health and pension benefits are included, as are “money damages to cover emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish.” These cases also make the right of “discovery” available, opening up internal documents and data to the court and the public—a prospect many companies dread. In short, firing workers would no longer be a painless way to stamp out a union organizing drive.

This goes back to my post earlier today on labor and contraception, and why I don't categorize issues along an economic/social divide, or an economic/civil rights divide. I see the fight instead as being to what extent do we want to embed the principle of autonomous control by individuals and self-organized communities over their decisions and actions into our institutions. It is not my position that maximizing this is always preferential, nor that there are not in fact tradeoffs and conflict between which individuals and communities are accorded preferential treatment in their capacity to have authority over their decisions: racist store-owners, most people would agree, should be denied a capacity to exclude people based on color (or class, but fewer people agree) from their establishments, and racist unions should be denied the capacity to organize their associations as they see fit if that involves the exclusion of persons from other social categories.

But labor rights are civil rights are association (labor organizing) rights are social (privacy) rights . Abortion restrictions, yellow-dog contracts, and the exclusion of workers from a say in the operation of their workplace are all instances of the same basic conflict: who should be accorded authority in a given place and a given area, and how far does this authority over persons extend.

Anti-Labor Philosophy and Birth Control

Santorum, from February's ginned up controversy on birth control:

"When government gives you rights, the government can tell you how to exercise those rights," Santorum said during his victory speech in St. Charles, Mo. "And we saw that just in the last week, with a group of people, a small group of people — just Catholics in the United States of America! — who were told you have a right to health care, but you will have the health care that we tell you you have to give your people, whether it is against the teachings of your church or not."

This is the language of subordinate control, of having a train of dependents whose lives are structured not by their own autonomous decisions and their own self-chosen values, but by yours. The "your people" Santorum is referring to, of course, are the employees at Catholic institutions, many of which serve public purposes, and who are themselves often not Catholic.

This is core of anti-labor philosophy: the belief that an employer's relatively legitimate authority (control over the means and ends of a discrete decision area) over employees in the workplace extends outward into the private and social life of the worker. The fight between the 'free labor' liberal and more radical labor philosophies was, in one sense, about the authority of the employer in the demarcated work space. It's good to know that we've so conceded the authority of the employer in the 'workplace' that we can once again make room for the fight over the employer's authority in the total life of the worker.

This, by the way, is why I am always reluctant to embrace the "fiscal liberal/social liberal" dichotomy.

God what an ass

Delegate Holman, to the Indiana State Constitutional Convention in 1851. This convention, more than any of the other antebellum conventions I have read, is the supremacists' coven: male supremacy, white supremacy, Anglo-Saxon supremacy.

"It was remarked by the gentleman from Posey, that he feared women did not receive the same consideration which they would receive if they were allowed to exercise the right of suffrage; [Holman] feared that the same justice is not meted out to them, that would be if they exercised the rights of the politician. I have no doubt, sir, that in such an event, our whining politicians would be everlastingly weeping over the wrongs done to the rights of the fair voters, as they are now, upon every occasion, mourning over the wrongs which their fellow citizens are suffering, with very commendable patience however, but I doubt, sir, whether the sparkling eyes of our fair friends would grow any brighter, or that their rosy lips would wear any sweeter smiles if they were besieged by politicians asking hnmbly for their votes."

God forbid.

This is the convention where delegate Dobson would declare, rather impetuously,

"whenever you begin to talk about making negroes equal with white men, I begin to think about leaving the country."

This would be mocked throughout the country at the time, and, to my ears at least, rings in Mark Twain's portrayal of Huck's pap:

"Oh, yes, this is a wonderful govment, wonderful. Why, looky here. There was a free nigger there from Ohio -- a mulatter, most as white as a white man. He had the whitest shirt on you ever see, too, and the shiniest hat; and there ain't a man in that town that's got as fine clothes as what he had; and he had a gold watch and chain, and a silver-headed cane -- the awfulest old gray-headed nabob in the State. And what do you think? They said he was a p'fessor in a college, and could talk all kinds of languages, and knowed everything. And that ain't the wust. They said he could VOTE when he was at home. Well, that let me out. Thinks I, what is the country a-coming to? It was 'lection day, and I was just about to go and vote myself if I warn't too drunk to get there; but when they told me there was a State in this country where they'd let that nigger vote, I drawed out. I says I'll never vote agin. Them's the very words I said; they all heard me; and the country may rot for all me -- I'll never vote agin as long as I live.

Back to Indiana: the delegate was offering an amendment, to the a resolution inquiring as to whether the committee on the elective franchise would find it expedient to report back a separate provision on black suffrage that would be sent to the people for popular rejection, for such was the foregone conclusion. The amendment was that anyone who would vote at the referendum in favor of black suffrage would themselves lose the right to vote, unless the egalitarian suffragists were in the majority. Dobson continues:

"The substance of my amendment is--and I want it fairly understood --that if those who are in favor of negro suffrage are in the majority, we will leave the country;  and if we are stronger than they, let them leave and we will remain. Let every man be asked this question at the polls, and, as he shall answer, let it be known who he is. The free soil question does not come up here that is quite a different thing. But as far as the question of negro suffrage is concerned, if we are to have any more of it, I want to act upon jt in this most definite manner. I am satisfied that perhaps three fourths of the citizens of the  State would rather leave, if the negroes were to be allowed to come here and exercise the elective franchise." 

One delegate, Barry, who disclaimed and qualified and caveated, nonetheless had the courage--for it is courage, of a sort--to offer an amendment directing that the committee report back a suffrage clause allowing blacks to vote. He would not support his amendment. This, more daring stand was undertaken by  Edward Ralph May, a Democrat and a member of the state legislature. The vote was 1-122. He would die one year later, with his wife. Time to praise famous men.

Update: May only grows in esteem:

" Respecting woman, sir, it is unbecoming in me to say much. My theory, however, is this: I believe woman to be essentially the same with man. Whether we regard her moral, her physical, or her intellectual nature, we find her the same with man, yet different. And, sir, as I think, in that difference consists woman's excellency .... [U]pon the vexed question of woman's rights. My theory is simply this, I can give it in a single remark: In my treatment of women I would always act upon this general principle, to grant unto woman whatever rights and privileges she demanded at the hands of man. ... I say then , in all my legislation for women I would be guided by the one principle to grant unto her whatever, on the whole she might think necessary for her good--I do not mean what some individual one might ask, not what the young girl might heedlessly wish,  or the old woman might peevishly crave,  but what women in the aggregate, women collectively, might ask for--... And, sir, for one, I very frankly say that if after such a mutual consultation and such a deliberate consideration, women should then ask to share the rights and privileges of man, I would be the last person to withhold from them a single one. But, sir, I would also ask woman to recollect that from the exercise of man's rights and privileges would result certain duties from the performance of which she must not seek to shrink."

Now there is still plenty in here to condemn and critique, the categorization of different types of women, from the foolish to the peevish. But, as I've written before, the past can be lonely. You search in vain for someone who will not disappoint, but are left a heart with no companion, a soul without a king. So you take what you can get. Obviously, I expect May to be defending slavery an all-out assault on the rights of labor in the next few pages, but I will savor the moment while it lasts.

Salt of the Earth

1954. The Union against the Bosses. The Mexicans against the Anglos. The Women against the Men. Excellent film, embedding three struggles for equality in the broader context of class conflict, with the labor movement being the necessary vehicle for the realization of racial, sexual, and class equality. But equality is not just some abstraction. The demand for equality is a means of achieving something with a bit more spleen to it: dignity. It is dignity that is the object of struggle.

Dignity is central to the film, and is perhaps best materialized in the radio Esperanza had urged Ramon to purchase ("installment plans, the curse of the working man"). 

The film was written by Michael Wilson, directed by Herbert J. Biberman, and produced by Paul Jarrico, all of whom had been blacklisted for alleged communist politics. The film was bankrolled by the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, which had been kicked out the CIO in 1950 because it would not purge the communists from the leadership [1].


Two of the professional actors, Will Geer and Rosaura Revueltas, would be blacklisted by the studios for working on the film. Most of the actors were non-professionals from the community and the Mine, Mill local that had been at the center of the actual strike against Empire Zinc. From Wikipedia

The film was denounced by the United States House of Representatives for its communist sympathies, and the FBI investigated the film's financing. The American Legion called for a nation-wide boycott of the film. Film-processing labs were told not to work on Salt of the Earth and unionized projectionists were instructed not to show it.

After its opening night in New York City, the film languished for 10 years because all but 12 theaters in the country refused to screen it. By one journalist's account: "During the course of production in New Mexico in 1953, the trade press denounced it as a subversive plot, anti-Communist vigilantes fired rifle shots at the set, the film's leading lady [Rosaura Revueltas] was deported to Mexico, and from time to time a small airplane buzzed noisily overhead....The film, edited in secret, was stored for safekeeping in an anonymous wooden shack in Los Angeles."....  The Hollywood Reporter charged at the time that it was made "under direct orders of the Kremlin." Pauline Kael, who reviewed the film for Sight and Sound in 1954, said it was "as clear a piece of Communist propaganda as we have had in many years."

Watch the film and assess where, exactly, you see the communist propaganda. Here it is:

[1] It was, alongside Harry Bridges' International Longshore and Warehouse Union, one of the most racially progressive unions in the United States. So, of course, the CIO would try to break Mine, Mill by encouraging its white locals in the south to defect. Mine, Mill would eventually fold into the Steelworkers' union. 

The procurement process...

.... I can't remember where I found this, but it was on a website that had various wartime propaganda posters, specifically ones related to STDs. Total war requires total commitment, or something to that effect. The well-known loose lips were apparently not the only looseness over which the armed forces were concerned.

But I get a kick out of the image for the following reasons:

1. The use of the term procurable. Calls to mind the language of a mid-level bureaucrat, in the procurement office, natch, trying to talk himself up before going out on the pull in an off-base bar. Or Woody Guthrie's lesser-known song, "There are more procurable gals than one."
2. Now point (1) is really only enjoyable for the first few moments, before it dawns on you that procurable is shorthand for prostitute. At which point you move on from the euphemism and onto the stats. 98% of prostitutes have venereal disease. That is a high number, especially since we are talking about a wartime mobilization, often based overseas in rationing, bombed-out towns and newly expanded ports, where the supply of prostitution has almost certainly ballooned. That is, many if not most of the prostitutes will have only recently shifted into the trade, in response to the pull of inflated prices and the push of wartime dislocation.  I suspect that this is a number that may be true in more stable prostitution markets, although I also suspect that the prostitution market is especially prone to high turnover, with new entries, re-entries, and departures. Still it seems high, and the initial guffaw of reading the high stat without fully comprehending the euphemism suggests a looseness in meaning that may be intentional. Yes, prostitutes. But, more broadly, the morally suspect women who might want to dance.
3. The contrast between the identical women, the cookie cutter imaginary of the procurable woman, with the slightly more diverse, but still not individualized, servicemen. They look like navy men, of different rank, and with only slightly different styles of catcalling and appreciation. All procurable women are the same (or, to be accurate, 98% of them are the same); all servicemen are the same, distinguished not by personal characteristics but by their rank and their branch. This is mid-twentieth century warfare's worldview writ mundane and small.
4. The women having (but not really carrying) a banner has an almost soviet quality to it, the revolutionary vanguard of the doppleganger procurable woman. The posture of the women, when taken in the aggregate, suggests the fascist goose-step, or, at minimum, a soldiers' march. The boys don't have a chance.

So, there we are.

Family Structure and Political Ambition

Via the Monkey Cage, a new paper by Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox:

Based on data from the 2011 Citizen Political Ambition Study – a new, national survey of nearly 4,000 “potential candidates” for all levels of office – we provide the first thorough analysis of the manner in which traditional family arrangements affect the initial decision to run for office. Despite a substantial gender gap in political ambition, and the persistence of traditional family structures and gender roles among potential candidates, our findings culminate to provide clear evidence that traditional family dynamics do not account for the gender gap in potential candidates‟ interest in running for office. Neither marital and parental status, nor the division of labor pertaining to household tasks and childcare, predict interest in pursuing elective office, taking steps typically associated with a campaign, or actually declaring a candidacy. Further, family arrangements do not influence patterns of political recruitment or potential candidates‟ self-evaluations of their qualifications to run for office, which serve as two leading predictors of political ambition. This is not to downplay the fact that the gender gap in political ambition remains substantial and unchanging. But it is to suggest that family arrangements are not a contributing factor.

They conclude by suggesting that structural and psychological barriers--namely political recruitment and  self-perceived qualification--are the major barriers to more women running for office.

One thing that surprised me was the lack of a question about child care workers. I have moved in the nanny circuit, and there was a presumption among the class of families (women and men in law, business, education, and political activism) sampled here that a child needs a nanny, or more accurately, that a mother needs a nanny [1]. The father's business (and for many of the father, 'business' is a very generous description of what they do or the time burdens imposed upon them) was, supposedly, far too consuming for them to take on a greater share of parental responsibilities. More often than not, these fathers also believed that the burden was shared relatively equally, although most would concede that their wives bore a slight disproportion. They figured, well shit, the kids exhaust me... there is no way she could be doing much more than I am. The mother knows better, and they get a nanny. I wouldn't expect this to have much of an effect, and certainly I agree that the structural impediment of candidate recruitment is the more important cause. But it was an odd omission.

[1] This is a biased sample of anecdotes on my part: I knew these people through nannies, and so of course they had normalized the belief that all families with members pursuing professional careers needed nannies.