Thursday, December 1, 2011
Occupy LA
2012-12-01 "Why we are occupying the ports in solidarity with port workers and communities" from "Anti-Racist Action - LA" and "Occupy LA"
We are occupying the ports, as part of a day of action, boycott and march for full legalization and good jobs for all to draw attention to and protest the criminal system of concentrated wealth that depends on local and global exploitation of working people, and the denial of workers' rights to organize for decent pay, working conditions and benefits, in disregard for the environment and the health and safety of surrounding communities. Port workers, particularly port truck drivers, have repeatedly shut down the ports around similar demands of migrant rights and workers' rights which have not yet been met.
A group of truck drivers recently attempting to organize for representation with the Teamsters were summarily fired by an Australian shipping company here in the LA/LB harbor. ILWU workers at the Longview WA port have been displaced by scabs. Most port truck drivers in the harbor are denied the right to organize because they are treated as independent contractors who are forced to bear all the costs of their work, their benefits and any delays out of their own pockets from their piece-rate pay. We are demanding better pay for the drivers, standing up for workers' rights, and seeking to rebuild the economy so that there are good jobs for all. Currently in the ports locally, about 8 containers of imports come in as imports for every one that goes out as exports. Community residents are concerned about the rat-infested graveyard of unused shipping containers that has piled up. If the US had balanced trade, with as much going out in exports as comes in, there would be plentiful work and good, well-paying jobs for all, on and off the waterfront.
Why we are focusing on SSA Marine terminals and facilities -
SSA Marine, a company owned by the investment bank Goldman Sachs, exemplifies the rising corporate greed that sinks all boats and that is ruining our economy for its own selfish profits. SSA Marine is a war profiteer, that got a contract under the occupation of Iraq to run the port there to off load US war materiel. SSA Marine is a criminal despoiler of the environment. They were recently convicted in Bellingham WA of illegally building an unpermitted access road to the site of the proposed terminal. SSA Marine is unconcerned about worker safety. They were recently exposed in Oakland of having failed to notify longshore workers of a potentially explosive cargo they were working on, air conditioners that had been recharged in Vietnam with the wrong gas, and some which had already exploded.
SSA Marine is anti-union. Their Shippers container trans-shipment facility, located in Carson on Sepulveda, is jurisdictionally considered part of the port under the law, and therefore should fall under the ILWU contract with the Pacific Maritime Association, but its workers are not so represented. Goldman Sachs, the parent company, got billions in bail-out funds, particularly via insurance giant AIG, which nearly failed because of its "credit default swaps" that helped fuel the housing bubble and then deepen its collapse. They are currently in the process of trying to evict a group of mostly migrant residents from a property (built on public land with public funds) in Harbor City that they control.
Why we are acting independently of organized labor -
Although we are working with and reaching out to rank and file port workers, we understand that labor unions are constrained under reactionary, anti-union federal legislation such as Taft-Hartley, passed during the Cold War to reverse the gains of labor under the Depression era Wagner Act, from taking job actions on the basis of solidarity or for political causes or demands. As concerned working people organizing for direct action to express and exert our civic concerns and responsibility, we will be engaging in a public, legal mass protest and rally, and a community picket line at SSA facilities to press our exposure of the above-cited depradation by greedy corporations, our support of working people and the 99%, and to stand up for migrant rights against the scapegoat mentality that blames poor immigrant workers for the flaws and crimes that the wealthy are really responsible for.
How you can join us -
Meet at Harry Bridges Park in Long Beach (near the Queen Mary at the foot of the 710 freeway, or a short shuttle bus ride from the end of the Blue Line) at 5:00 AM on Monday Dec. 12. Host a discussion in your home or at your school, union or neighborhood or religious group. Contact us at occupytheports@gmail.com or call 323-901-4269 to get a flyer that you can share. Or come out to one of the occupation general assemblies in Los Angeles, Long Beach or neighboring communities (start your own if there is none).
We are occupying the ports, as part of a day of action, boycott and march for full legalization and good jobs for all to draw attention to and protest the criminal system of concentrated wealth that depends on local and global exploitation of working people, and the denial of workers' rights to organize for decent pay, working conditions and benefits, in disregard for the environment and the health and safety of surrounding communities. Port workers, particularly port truck drivers, have repeatedly shut down the ports around similar demands of migrant rights and workers' rights which have not yet been met.
A group of truck drivers recently attempting to organize for representation with the Teamsters were summarily fired by an Australian shipping company here in the LA/LB harbor. ILWU workers at the Longview WA port have been displaced by scabs. Most port truck drivers in the harbor are denied the right to organize because they are treated as independent contractors who are forced to bear all the costs of their work, their benefits and any delays out of their own pockets from their piece-rate pay. We are demanding better pay for the drivers, standing up for workers' rights, and seeking to rebuild the economy so that there are good jobs for all. Currently in the ports locally, about 8 containers of imports come in as imports for every one that goes out as exports. Community residents are concerned about the rat-infested graveyard of unused shipping containers that has piled up. If the US had balanced trade, with as much going out in exports as comes in, there would be plentiful work and good, well-paying jobs for all, on and off the waterfront.
Why we are focusing on SSA Marine terminals and facilities -
SSA Marine, a company owned by the investment bank Goldman Sachs, exemplifies the rising corporate greed that sinks all boats and that is ruining our economy for its own selfish profits. SSA Marine is a war profiteer, that got a contract under the occupation of Iraq to run the port there to off load US war materiel. SSA Marine is a criminal despoiler of the environment. They were recently convicted in Bellingham WA of illegally building an unpermitted access road to the site of the proposed terminal. SSA Marine is unconcerned about worker safety. They were recently exposed in Oakland of having failed to notify longshore workers of a potentially explosive cargo they were working on, air conditioners that had been recharged in Vietnam with the wrong gas, and some which had already exploded.
SSA Marine is anti-union. Their Shippers container trans-shipment facility, located in Carson on Sepulveda, is jurisdictionally considered part of the port under the law, and therefore should fall under the ILWU contract with the Pacific Maritime Association, but its workers are not so represented. Goldman Sachs, the parent company, got billions in bail-out funds, particularly via insurance giant AIG, which nearly failed because of its "credit default swaps" that helped fuel the housing bubble and then deepen its collapse. They are currently in the process of trying to evict a group of mostly migrant residents from a property (built on public land with public funds) in Harbor City that they control.
Why we are acting independently of organized labor -
Although we are working with and reaching out to rank and file port workers, we understand that labor unions are constrained under reactionary, anti-union federal legislation such as Taft-Hartley, passed during the Cold War to reverse the gains of labor under the Depression era Wagner Act, from taking job actions on the basis of solidarity or for political causes or demands. As concerned working people organizing for direct action to express and exert our civic concerns and responsibility, we will be engaging in a public, legal mass protest and rally, and a community picket line at SSA facilities to press our exposure of the above-cited depradation by greedy corporations, our support of working people and the 99%, and to stand up for migrant rights against the scapegoat mentality that blames poor immigrant workers for the flaws and crimes that the wealthy are really responsible for.
How you can join us -
Meet at Harry Bridges Park in Long Beach (near the Queen Mary at the foot of the 710 freeway, or a short shuttle bus ride from the end of the Blue Line) at 5:00 AM on Monday Dec. 12. Host a discussion in your home or at your school, union or neighborhood or religious group. Contact us at occupytheports@gmail.com or call 323-901-4269 to get a flyer that you can share. Or come out to one of the occupation general assemblies in Los Angeles, Long Beach or neighboring communities (start your own if there is none).
2011-12-01 "More pay issues at Calif. state universities-Privatization Being Pushed By Regents" by
Nanette Asimov from "San Francisco Chronicle"
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/30/BAIR1M6B7K.DTL]
Fearing violence, California State University trustees will cancel next week's vote on salaries for campus presidents, they said Wednesday - the same day a state senator criticized the University of California regents for handing out state-funded raises of up to 22 percent to some of UC's best-paid executives.
"Time and time again, rather than protecting the needs of students and California families, the regents and trustees line the pockets of their top executives," Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, said Wednesday after learning that the pay raises were among the actions taken by the regents in a Monday teleconference protested by students on campuses around the state.
Yee's assessment echoed that of thousands of student protesters who have joined the Occupy movement in recent weeks and likened university leaders to Wall Street fat cats for paying themselves more money even as they consistently raise tuition.
"While these public administrators are living high on the hog, many Californians are struggling," Yee said.
On Monday, the UC regents gave a 9.9 percent raise to each of three vice chancellors. Another vice chancellor, Joseph Castro of UCSF, received a 7.5 percent increase, raising his pay to $252,625 a year.
The regents also gave raises to the head attorneys at six campuses, including 8.9 percent to Marcia Canning of UCSF and 21.19 percent to Steven Drown of UC Davis, increasing their base pay to $255,000 a year. Carole Rossi of UC Santa Cruz received a 13.9 percent increase, raising her annual pay to $215,000.
The regents also used nonstate funds to give raises of nearly 14 percent and 23 percent to two executives at UC Davis and UC Santa Cruz.
Raises are "a tough argument to make in this environment," acknowledged UC spokeswoman Lynn Tierney. "At the same time, it's critical to ensure that we have the best possible people."
Meanwhile, the CSU trustees had scheduled a special meeting in Long Beach on Monday, not to award raises but to vote on a new policy for determining how much to pay CSU's 23 campus presidents.
They canceled it because "we couldn't guarantee the safety of people coming to the meeting," said CSU spokeswoman Claudia Keith. At their last meeting on Nov. 16, when the trustees raised tuition by 9 percent, protesters clashed with police at CSU headquarters in Long Beach, breaking the building's glass door and sending one officer to the hospital.
CSU makes presidential salary decisions by looking at what other universities are paying, and has used the same 10 public and five private universities as a comparison group since 1993.
But the economy and the universities have changed in that time, and the trustees had been expected to adopt a new comparison system on Monday. The proposal groups CSU campuses into categories, comparing each with different universities based on the characteristics of those campuses.
San Diego State, for example, is the only campus with a high level of research, so it would be compared with other research-focused institutions.
San Francisco State and San Jose State are among six CSU campuses with a mid-range level of research as well as high enrollment.
Other campuses are smaller, and would be compared against schools of similar sizes.
Another issue the trustees were to take up on Monday was raising private money for presidential salaries if state lawmakers approve a cap on executive pay in bad budget years. Yee introduced such a bill in 2009, which was vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Among the ideas proposed are a 1 percent surcharge on such services as housing and parking, creating a fund where donors could chip in, and offering a CSU credit card for alumni in which a percentage of charges would go to presidential salaries.
Asked why these methods would be considered for executive pay but not for shoring up CSU's cash-strapped academic program, Keith said it was less expensive to bolster the presidents than the entire faculty.
"They're a much smaller group," Keith said of the presidents. "There are only 23 of them, compared with 20,000 faculty members."
The trustees expect to take up the presidential pay issues at their next scheduled meeting, on Jan. 24 and 25.
Nanette Asimov from "San Francisco Chronicle"
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/30/BAIR1M6B7K.DTL]
Fearing violence, California State University trustees will cancel next week's vote on salaries for campus presidents, they said Wednesday - the same day a state senator criticized the University of California regents for handing out state-funded raises of up to 22 percent to some of UC's best-paid executives.
"Time and time again, rather than protecting the needs of students and California families, the regents and trustees line the pockets of their top executives," Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, said Wednesday after learning that the pay raises were among the actions taken by the regents in a Monday teleconference protested by students on campuses around the state.
Yee's assessment echoed that of thousands of student protesters who have joined the Occupy movement in recent weeks and likened university leaders to Wall Street fat cats for paying themselves more money even as they consistently raise tuition.
"While these public administrators are living high on the hog, many Californians are struggling," Yee said.
On Monday, the UC regents gave a 9.9 percent raise to each of three vice chancellors. Another vice chancellor, Joseph Castro of UCSF, received a 7.5 percent increase, raising his pay to $252,625 a year.
The regents also gave raises to the head attorneys at six campuses, including 8.9 percent to Marcia Canning of UCSF and 21.19 percent to Steven Drown of UC Davis, increasing their base pay to $255,000 a year. Carole Rossi of UC Santa Cruz received a 13.9 percent increase, raising her annual pay to $215,000.
The regents also used nonstate funds to give raises of nearly 14 percent and 23 percent to two executives at UC Davis and UC Santa Cruz.
Raises are "a tough argument to make in this environment," acknowledged UC spokeswoman Lynn Tierney. "At the same time, it's critical to ensure that we have the best possible people."
Meanwhile, the CSU trustees had scheduled a special meeting in Long Beach on Monday, not to award raises but to vote on a new policy for determining how much to pay CSU's 23 campus presidents.
They canceled it because "we couldn't guarantee the safety of people coming to the meeting," said CSU spokeswoman Claudia Keith. At their last meeting on Nov. 16, when the trustees raised tuition by 9 percent, protesters clashed with police at CSU headquarters in Long Beach, breaking the building's glass door and sending one officer to the hospital.
CSU makes presidential salary decisions by looking at what other universities are paying, and has used the same 10 public and five private universities as a comparison group since 1993.
But the economy and the universities have changed in that time, and the trustees had been expected to adopt a new comparison system on Monday. The proposal groups CSU campuses into categories, comparing each with different universities based on the characteristics of those campuses.
San Diego State, for example, is the only campus with a high level of research, so it would be compared with other research-focused institutions.
San Francisco State and San Jose State are among six CSU campuses with a mid-range level of research as well as high enrollment.
Other campuses are smaller, and would be compared against schools of similar sizes.
Another issue the trustees were to take up on Monday was raising private money for presidential salaries if state lawmakers approve a cap on executive pay in bad budget years. Yee introduced such a bill in 2009, which was vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Among the ideas proposed are a 1 percent surcharge on such services as housing and parking, creating a fund where donors could chip in, and offering a CSU credit card for alumni in which a percentage of charges would go to presidential salaries.
Asked why these methods would be considered for executive pay but not for shoring up CSU's cash-strapped academic program, Keith said it was less expensive to bolster the presidents than the entire faculty.
"They're a much smaller group," Keith said of the presidents. "There are only 23 of them, compared with 20,000 faculty members."
The trustees expect to take up the presidential pay issues at their next scheduled meeting, on Jan. 24 and 25.
2011-12-01 "Small, spirited rally kicks off Occupy Napa Valley College" by Sarah Rohrs from "Vallejo Times-Herald"
[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/rss/ci_19446690]
NAPA -- Though small, a rally Wednesday to kick off Occupy Napa Valley College drew several passionate speakers decrying cuts to higher education, and a perceived widening gap between the rich and the poor.
Starting today, students and others in support of Occupy Napa Valley College will set up a four-day encampment in an overflow parking lot on the Napa campus.
The group will also stage a Saturday rally and march with Napa labor, political and religious organizations.
"We support Occupy Wall Street," student speaker Julio Soriano said, referring to the two-month old movement in New York City protesting a concentration of power and financial resources in 1 percent of the population, including banks, wealthy and special interest groups.
"We are the 99 percent," Soriano said. "We are workers funding this country and the rest of the world."
Students, in particular, protested fee hikes, cut classes, and also pledged support for the downtown Occupy Napa protests.
The noon Saturday march will focus on Napa State Hospital employees and their struggle with budget cuts, staff layoffs and other working conditions.
The University of California at Berkeley and University of California at Davis are sites of other student-led occupy protests.
Green Party presidential contender Jill Stein of Boston gave a lengthy speech stressing cuts to colleges hurt the future of the country. She also briefly outlined her platform.
"This is 'Ground Zero' for our economy and future of the planet," Stein said. "This represents a true uprising of Democracy and justice."
Associated Students of Napa Valley leader Alex Shantz said the group had been working with college administrators so the protest would go smoothly.
The encampment will not result in increased police presence and will be outfitted with Port-a-potties and other facilities, Director of Public Relations Betty Malmgren said
[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/rss/ci_19446690]
NAPA -- Though small, a rally Wednesday to kick off Occupy Napa Valley College drew several passionate speakers decrying cuts to higher education, and a perceived widening gap between the rich and the poor.
Starting today, students and others in support of Occupy Napa Valley College will set up a four-day encampment in an overflow parking lot on the Napa campus.
The group will also stage a Saturday rally and march with Napa labor, political and religious organizations.
"We support Occupy Wall Street," student speaker Julio Soriano said, referring to the two-month old movement in New York City protesting a concentration of power and financial resources in 1 percent of the population, including banks, wealthy and special interest groups.
"We are the 99 percent," Soriano said. "We are workers funding this country and the rest of the world."
Students, in particular, protested fee hikes, cut classes, and also pledged support for the downtown Occupy Napa protests.
The noon Saturday march will focus on Napa State Hospital employees and their struggle with budget cuts, staff layoffs and other working conditions.
The University of California at Berkeley and University of California at Davis are sites of other student-led occupy protests.
Green Party presidential contender Jill Stein of Boston gave a lengthy speech stressing cuts to colleges hurt the future of the country. She also briefly outlined her platform.
"This is 'Ground Zero' for our economy and future of the planet," Stein said. "This represents a true uprising of Democracy and justice."
Associated Students of Napa Valley leader Alex Shantz said the group had been working with college administrators so the protest would go smoothly.
The encampment will not result in increased police presence and will be outfitted with Port-a-potties and other facilities, Director of Public Relations Betty Malmgren said
2011-12-01 "Why America’s 99% have rebelled"
from "New Internationalist" magazine Issue 448 [http://newint.org/columns/mark-engler/2011/12/01/why-americas-ninety-nine-per-cent-have-rebelled/]:
Mark Engler is a senior analyst with Foreign Policy In Focus and author of How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy (Nation Books, 2008). He can be reached via the website: DemocracyUprising.com.
---
If you haven’t seen it yet, you owe yourself a visit. If you’re already familiar with it, go back to remind yourself why the #Occupy movement is so powerful.
I am referring to the We are the 99 per cent blog [http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/], the most direct and articulate explanation available of why so many – across the US and beyond – have rebelled. The site is a blog to which people submit pictures of themselves. Usually, a person holds out a notebook or sheet of paper, their face partially obscured. On the paper, they have written their stories. Almost always, you can see their eyes.
A stocky man with a short beard, maybe in his forties, has written neatly in marker: ‘947 days unemployed. 2,000+ resumes sent out. 0 job prospects.’
A young woman in light lipstick: ‘I’m a full-time grad student and a full-time worker. I have chronic, excruciating migraines. I live in fear of the next attack. I can barely cover rent, gas, and groceries. I can’t afford a doctor’s visit, let alone health insurance.’
A woman with a weary stare: ‘My husband has been looking for work for five years. I support him, myself, our six-year-old son, and (increasingly) my ageing parents. Now my job is in jeopardy too.’
They write: ‘I am one paycheck away from not being able to make my loan payments.’ ‘I am 32 years old and live with my mother.’ ‘I have lost hope.’ ‘What am I doing wrong?’
They sign their messages, ‘I am the 99%’.
You will not get through all of the stories. As I write, there are 185 pages of them. Yet the message of the site is immediately clear: while our society’s richest one per cent enjoys a hugely disproportionate share of wealth and income, the economy has left the vast majority of us behind.
The majority has had enough.
Conservatives say that those protesting Wall Street are just complaining. Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain tells them, ‘Get a job’.
As a response to the movement’s website, rightwingers have made a blog called ‘We are the 53 per cent’. It is based on the misleading notion that since only around half of Americans pay federal income taxes, the rest are freeloading. (In fact, even those not subject to federal taxes on income nevertheless pay state and local taxes, gas and excise taxes, plus mandatory contributions for Medicare and Social Security.)
The ‘53 per cent’ stories are testimonials to dogged determination. One man, a father of a five-month-old, expresses pride in working 70-hour weeks in an effort to pay $100,000 in student loans. ‘I will be responsible for my own success through character and hard work,’ he writes. Another story that has gained notoriety reads: ‘I am a former Marine. I work two jobs. I don’t have health insurance… I haven’t had four consecutive days off in over four years. But I don’t blame Wall Street. Suck it up, you whiners.’
These stories only reinforce the message of the occupations. For if you’re working nearly all of your waking hours, we think you deserve healthcare. We want you to be free of crippling debt. In fact, we want these things for those who work 40 hours per week. We believe a just society should allow you to spend time with your children.
In large part, the difference between the two blogs is not the description of our economic plight. It’s whether individuals have recognized their personal struggles as part of something larger.
Those who have joined the #Occupy movement are not whining. They are drawing strength from shared experience. They are laying bare the failure of a system. And they are doing something to change it.
Their signature is not merely a denunciation of economic inequality. It is an assertion of a solution: true democracy and collective action. It is a statement of power. We are the 99 per cent.
Photo by David Shankbone under a CC Licence
Mark Engler is a senior analyst with Foreign Policy In Focus and author of How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy (Nation Books, 2008). He can be reached via the website: DemocracyUprising.com.
---
If you haven’t seen it yet, you owe yourself a visit. If you’re already familiar with it, go back to remind yourself why the #Occupy movement is so powerful.
I am referring to the We are the 99 per cent blog [http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/], the most direct and articulate explanation available of why so many – across the US and beyond – have rebelled. The site is a blog to which people submit pictures of themselves. Usually, a person holds out a notebook or sheet of paper, their face partially obscured. On the paper, they have written their stories. Almost always, you can see their eyes.
A stocky man with a short beard, maybe in his forties, has written neatly in marker: ‘947 days unemployed. 2,000+ resumes sent out. 0 job prospects.’
A young woman in light lipstick: ‘I’m a full-time grad student and a full-time worker. I have chronic, excruciating migraines. I live in fear of the next attack. I can barely cover rent, gas, and groceries. I can’t afford a doctor’s visit, let alone health insurance.’
A woman with a weary stare: ‘My husband has been looking for work for five years. I support him, myself, our six-year-old son, and (increasingly) my ageing parents. Now my job is in jeopardy too.’
They write: ‘I am one paycheck away from not being able to make my loan payments.’ ‘I am 32 years old and live with my mother.’ ‘I have lost hope.’ ‘What am I doing wrong?’
They sign their messages, ‘I am the 99%’.
You will not get through all of the stories. As I write, there are 185 pages of them. Yet the message of the site is immediately clear: while our society’s richest one per cent enjoys a hugely disproportionate share of wealth and income, the economy has left the vast majority of us behind.
The majority has had enough.
Conservatives say that those protesting Wall Street are just complaining. Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain tells them, ‘Get a job’.
As a response to the movement’s website, rightwingers have made a blog called ‘We are the 53 per cent’. It is based on the misleading notion that since only around half of Americans pay federal income taxes, the rest are freeloading. (In fact, even those not subject to federal taxes on income nevertheless pay state and local taxes, gas and excise taxes, plus mandatory contributions for Medicare and Social Security.)
The ‘53 per cent’ stories are testimonials to dogged determination. One man, a father of a five-month-old, expresses pride in working 70-hour weeks in an effort to pay $100,000 in student loans. ‘I will be responsible for my own success through character and hard work,’ he writes. Another story that has gained notoriety reads: ‘I am a former Marine. I work two jobs. I don’t have health insurance… I haven’t had four consecutive days off in over four years. But I don’t blame Wall Street. Suck it up, you whiners.’
These stories only reinforce the message of the occupations. For if you’re working nearly all of your waking hours, we think you deserve healthcare. We want you to be free of crippling debt. In fact, we want these things for those who work 40 hours per week. We believe a just society should allow you to spend time with your children.
In large part, the difference between the two blogs is not the description of our economic plight. It’s whether individuals have recognized their personal struggles as part of something larger.
Those who have joined the #Occupy movement are not whining. They are drawing strength from shared experience. They are laying bare the failure of a system. And they are doing something to change it.
Their signature is not merely a denunciation of economic inequality. It is an assertion of a solution: true democracy and collective action. It is a statement of power. We are the 99 per cent.
Photo by David Shankbone under a CC Licence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
