2011-12-06 "Milk-Moscone vigil draws crowd" by David Duran from "Bay Area Reporter" newspaper[http://www.edgesanfrancisco.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=127401]
A volunteer places flowers on the fence at Harvey Milk Plaza Sunday for the 33rd vigil for Harvey Milk and George Moscone. (Photo: David Duran)
A volunteer places flowers on the fence at Harvey Milk Plaza Sunday for the 33rd vigil for Harvey Milk and George Moscone. (Photo: David Duran)
Dozens gathered in the Castro Sunday, November 27 on the 33rd anniversary of the assassination of San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone.
The event has been a city tradition since the murders. Milk was one of the first out gay politicians to be elected to public office in the country. But after serving in office less than a year, he and Moscone were shot to death inside their City Hall offices by disgruntled former Supervisor Dan White.
This year’s vigil started at Harvey Milk Plaza in the Castro and was led by Stephany Joy Ashley, president of the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club. A beautiful memorial of flowers was placed to honor the lives of the men and candles were lit to help people take a moment to reflect on the impact of what Milk actually did for the LGBT community and for many other groups.
The crowd was mostly of an older generation, and more and more gathered as the speakers were introduced. Folks passing by would ask what was going on and once they found out, they mostly gave a nod of acceptance but continued on with what they were doing.
Longtime Milk friend and fellow activist Cleve Jones was one of the speakers. It was an emotional Jones who brought some in the crowd to tears. He touched on the smaller crowds that were coming year after year, a point made by others as well.
"I want to turn that around. There needs to be more of us next year and more than that the following year," he proclaimed. "I feel sorry for young people, they are with us and we need to reach out to them and they need to be encouraged.
"Harvey Milk was a real man, he was a neighbor. He was an honest man and he changed the world," Jones added.
Many city politicians, including out city Treasurer Jose Cisneros, were in attendance and offered remarks.
"When Harvey came to the Castro in the 1970s it was a much different place than it is now," he told the crowd.
Openly gay District 8 Supervisor Scott Weiner, who represents the Castro, said people still want basic public services.
"It’s the same things we are fighting for now, the deterioration of public services," he said.
Out Supervisor David Campos said that after a major motion picture, Milk, and the legislation establishing Harvey Milk Day in California, Milk is more mainstream and known by more people. But, he said, people need to do more than just speak of a man.
"We as queer people, we want to be part of the system, but we want to change the system so it’s fair and just for everyone," said Campos.
The current Occupy movement was referenced by former Supervisor Carol Ruth Silver, who urged people to attend and support Occupy San Francisco.
"Inside each one of you and me lies the strength," and "not enough of us are going," said Silver, who served with Milk on the board.
She urged the crowd to join her and not forget the legacy of Milk, who if he were alive today, would most likely be full a supporter of the Occupy protests.
Harry Britt, who succeeded Milk on the Board of Supervisors, said that he saw hope and possibilities within the community. He reminded everyone that "remembering is not the thing Milk would have wanted us to do," but instead to make the night a time of recommitment. A recommitment to the community, to the movement, or just to try and make a difference however big or small that may be, Britt said.
After the speeches, people lit candles and took flowers on a beautiful march down Market Street and through the neighborhood. It was led by the Brass Liberation Orchestra, the players having volunteered their time to play their uplifting tunes, bringing people to their windows as the crowd passed by. As they marched through the streets, more and more joined in the walk and the crowd grew and grew. When the crowd, which had doubled by end, reached the intersection of 18th and Castro, there was a moment when it overtook the intersection and cheered for Milk.
By the time the march reached the site of Milk’s old camera store (now the Human Rights Campaign store) the street was flooded with folks holding candles. The band played while people danced and cheered. And then, after all the noise, came a poignant moment of silence when everyone just stood in remembrance. A vigil was created in front of what is now is the HRC store. Many stood there long after the music stopped and long after the crowd left to remember Milk and remember what he did for the city.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
2011-12-06 "SUPPORT THE WEST COAST PORT BLOCKADE!" from "BAIL OUT THE PEOPLE MOVEMENT - SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND"
For up to date information, fliers & posters, see [www.westcoastportshutdown.org]. Watch this video on YouTube for a flavor of what it's all about: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGqncu3wlEI&feature=youtube]
---
BLOCKADE ACTIONS PLANNED AT THE FOLLOWING PORTS:
SAN DIEGO, LA/LONG BEACH, HUENEME (central CA),
OAKLAND, PORTLAND, SEATTLE, TACOMA
Battle lines have formed as the West Coast Occupies, from San Diego to Alaska, flex their collective muscle against the federally coordinated, brutal attacks against the Occupy movement across the country. Solidarity actions have been called by OWS in New York and inland locations, as well.
West Coast Occupies are organizing to support the struggle of the ILWU longshoremen in Longview, Washington. Longshoremen there are waging a ferocious battle against transnational EGT, controlled by Bunge Ltd. —of the grain cartel that controls most of the world’s trade in food products. EGT hired scabs to break the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in an attempt to drive down wages and destroy the union.
The Occupies are also aligning with the struggle of port truckers, who are fighting for the right to organize for union representation. 26 of them were fired in LA, for wearing Teamster jackets to work. Occupy LA and Long Beach are targeting SSA, an anti-union port terminal operator, majority owned by Goldman Sachs, the notorious Wall Street investment bank. Teamster president Jimmy Hoffa Jr. has publicly expressed support for the Occupy movement. Finally the west coast Occupies are targeting the ports as major commercial centers, showing that they can strike at the institutions which help to aggregate the wealth of the 1%, to disrupt Wall Street on the waterfront. It’s the history of the militant ILWU which enables this attack to have teeth. The ILWU rank and file have historically supported political struggles such as the anti-apartheid movement, the anti-war movement, in defense of Palestine in the face of attacks on Gaza, in support of the Wisconsin struggle against union busting, etc.
The 1%, under the banner of the Port of Oakland, launched the 1st volley of their assault yesterday, 12/4, with full page ads in the San Francisco Chronicle and Oakland Tribune, against the planned Occupy port blockade. They know all too well how powerful this movement has become, evidenced by the historic general strike and blockade of the Port of Oakland on November 2, when the Occupy movement, with the support of the ILWU rank and file and port truckers shut down the entire port.
The battle is just beginning. EGT is planning to bring a huge grain ship to the Port of Longview, sometime this month or early January, to unload the grain piled up there with the use of scab labor. That isn’t going to happen without a major fight. Plans are in the works for phase two of this struggle. Caravans will be heading up to Longview to support the ILWU’s fight to keep their jobs and maintain their union. Port truckers in Oakland have also had teach-ins to help the Occupy movement understand what the conditions they are struggling against.The battle is on!
For up to date information, fliers & posters, see [www.westcoastportshutdown.org]. Watch this video on YouTube for a flavor of what it's all about: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGqncu3wlEI&feature=youtube]
---
BLOCKADE ACTIONS PLANNED AT THE FOLLOWING PORTS:
SAN DIEGO, LA/LONG BEACH, HUENEME (central CA),
OAKLAND, PORTLAND, SEATTLE, TACOMA
Battle lines have formed as the West Coast Occupies, from San Diego to Alaska, flex their collective muscle against the federally coordinated, brutal attacks against the Occupy movement across the country. Solidarity actions have been called by OWS in New York and inland locations, as well.
West Coast Occupies are organizing to support the struggle of the ILWU longshoremen in Longview, Washington. Longshoremen there are waging a ferocious battle against transnational EGT, controlled by Bunge Ltd. —of the grain cartel that controls most of the world’s trade in food products. EGT hired scabs to break the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in an attempt to drive down wages and destroy the union.
The Occupies are also aligning with the struggle of port truckers, who are fighting for the right to organize for union representation. 26 of them were fired in LA, for wearing Teamster jackets to work. Occupy LA and Long Beach are targeting SSA, an anti-union port terminal operator, majority owned by Goldman Sachs, the notorious Wall Street investment bank. Teamster president Jimmy Hoffa Jr. has publicly expressed support for the Occupy movement. Finally the west coast Occupies are targeting the ports as major commercial centers, showing that they can strike at the institutions which help to aggregate the wealth of the 1%, to disrupt Wall Street on the waterfront. It’s the history of the militant ILWU which enables this attack to have teeth. The ILWU rank and file have historically supported political struggles such as the anti-apartheid movement, the anti-war movement, in defense of Palestine in the face of attacks on Gaza, in support of the Wisconsin struggle against union busting, etc.
The 1%, under the banner of the Port of Oakland, launched the 1st volley of their assault yesterday, 12/4, with full page ads in the San Francisco Chronicle and Oakland Tribune, against the planned Occupy port blockade. They know all too well how powerful this movement has become, evidenced by the historic general strike and blockade of the Port of Oakland on November 2, when the Occupy movement, with the support of the ILWU rank and file and port truckers shut down the entire port.
The battle is just beginning. EGT is planning to bring a huge grain ship to the Port of Longview, sometime this month or early January, to unload the grain piled up there with the use of scab labor. That isn’t going to happen without a major fight. Plans are in the works for phase two of this struggle. Caravans will be heading up to Longview to support the ILWU’s fight to keep their jobs and maintain their union. Port truckers in Oakland have also had teach-ins to help the Occupy movement understand what the conditions they are struggling against.The battle is on!
2011-12-06 "WW interview with longshore workers on 'SOLIDARITY OF LABOR ABOVE ALL ELSE'" from "Workers World"
[www.workers.org/2011/us/ilwu_1215]
Clarence Thomas is executive board member and past secretary-treasurer of ILWU Local 10 and co-chair of the Million Worker March movement, which was initiated by Local 10 and supported by the ILWU Longshore Caucus. Leo Robinson is retired and co-founder of African American Longshore Coalition. He is a former member of the ILWU Local 10 executive board, a national convener of the MWM movement and its major benefactor.
---
As pressure builds for the Dec. 12 West Coast port shutdown, the capitalist owners and their media began a battle of ideas to blunt this powerful threat to their profits and control — even for a day.
Two International Longshore and Warehouse Union members — Clarence Thomas, who is a third-generation longshoreman in Oakland, and Leo Robinson, who is now retired — spoke with Workers World reporter Cheryl LaBash. Both men have held elected office in ILWU Local 10 and have been key labor activists during their years of work in the ports.
WW: The Nov. 21 ILWU Longshore Coast Committee memorandum states, “Any public demonstration is not a ‘picketline’ under the PCL&CA [Pacific Coast Longshore & Clerk’s Agreement] … Remember, public demonstrations are public demonstrations, not ‘picketlines.’ Only labor unions picket as referenced in the contract.” What is your reaction?
Clarence Thomas: A picket line is a public demonstration — whether called by organized labor or not. It is legitimate. There are established protocols in these situations. To suggest to longshoremen that they shouldn’t follow them demands clarification. It is one thing to state for the record that the union is not involved, but another thing to erase the historical memory of ILWU’s traditions and practices included in the Ten Guiding Principles of the ILWU adopted at the 1953 biennial convention in San Francisco. [Ten Guiding Principles reproduced below]
Leo Robinson: The international has taken the position somehow that the contract is more important than not only defending our interest in terms of this EGT [grain terminal jurisdictional dispute] but having a connection to the Occupy [Wall Street] movement in that when you go through the Ten Guiding Principles of the ILWU, we’re talking about labor unity. Does that include the teachers? Does that include state, county and municipal workers? Those questions need to be analyzed as to who supports whom. The Occupy movement is not separate and apart from the labor movement.
Clarence Thomas: Labor is now officially part of the Occupy movement. That has happened. The recent [New York Times] article done by Steven Greenhouse on Nov. 9 is called ‘Standing arm in arm.’
The Teamsters have been supported by the OWS against Sotheby’s auction house. OWS has been supportive of Communication Workers in its struggle with Verizon. Mary Kay Henry, International President of the Service Employees, has called for expanding the Occupy movement by taking workers to Washington, D.C., to occupy Washington particularly Congress and congressional hearings demanding 15 million jobs by Jan. 1.
Leo Robinson: There was the occupation in Madison, Wis. That was labor-led. People are trying to confuse the issue by saying we are somehow separated from the Occupy movement. More than anything else the Occupy movement is a direct challenge or raises the question of the the rights of capital as opposed to the rights of the worker. I don’t understand that the contract supersedes the just demands of the labor movement. It says so right here in the 10 guiding principles of the ILWU.
Article 4 is very clear. Very clear. “...‘To help any worker in distress’ must be a daily guide in the life of every trade union and its individual members. Labor solidarity means just that. Unions have to accept the fact that solidarity of labor stands above all else, including even the so-called sanctity of the contract. We cannot adopt for ourselves the policies of union leaders who insist that because they have a contract, their members are compelled to perform work, even behind a picket line.” It says picket line. It doesn’t say union picket line. It says picket line. It says: “Every picket line must be respected as if it were our own.”
Clarence Thomas: Only 7.2 percent of private sector workers have union representation today, the lowest since 1900. Facing a critical moment, the labor movement has been reenergized by the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Leo Robinson: Any number of times this union [Local 10] has observed picket lines, including Easter Sunday 1977 when the community put up a picket line at Pier 27 to picket South African cargo. Longshoremen observed that picket line for two days. So I don’t understand how all of a sudden the sanctity of the contract outweighs the need to demonstrate solidarity. It just does not compute. It doesn’t make sense.
WW: What were the similarities between that event and what is going on now with the Occupy movement?
Clarence Thomas: The first action against South African apartheid was a community picket line. It was not authorized by the union. It was a community picket line from start to finish.
Leo Robinson: It was about 5,000 people out there on the Embarcadero [eastern waterfront and roadway of the Port of San Francisco] for two days running a community picket line opposing South African apartheid. Local 10 officers took the position that it was an unsafe situation and our members were not going to cross that picket line, period. It was ruled as such by the arbitrator.
WW: Who determines whether a situation is safe or unsafe?
Leo Robinson: We have never waited for the employer to declare what is safe or unsafe. It is always the union that moves first. We don’t ask the employers what is safe or unsafe. They wouldn’t give a damn one way or the other as long as they got their ship worked. If the police have to escort you in or out, that is patently saying it is unsafe. What if someone decides to throw a rock while you’re being escorted in by the police? Does it make it hurt any less? A longshoreman determines what is safe for him or her — on the job and off.
Clarence Thomas: Our members have been hurt by the police and so has the OWS movement. In 2003 when we were standing by at a picket, police shot our members with wooden bullets. In Longview, Wash., at the EGT Grain Terminal, ILWU members and their families have been hurt by the police. We don’t want the police to do anything for us.
WW: What is happening at the grain terminal in Longview?
Clarence Thomas: Our union is at an historical juncture. Our jurisdiction is being challenged up and down the coast — the issue of logs and Local 10 and use of “robotics.” There has been nothing like this since 1934. If ILWU members don’t honor the community picket lines, it will cause an irreparable breach with the community. If the ILWU can’t support the community, why should the community support the ILWU in 2014 contract negotiations or when the new grain agreement is up next year? Who knows what the employer has up their sleeve when they demanded only a one-year contract.
Leo Robinson: Grain work provides 30 percent of our welfare contributions. Who knows … let’s say that EGT is successful. It will open the door for other grain operators to try to work anybody.
WW: Aren’t the ports private?
Clarence Thomas: These ports are the people’s ports. Ports belong to the people of the Pacific Coast. The money came from the taxpayers in California, Oregon and Washington. EGT was subsidized by the Port of Longview. So the people have the right to go down there and protest how their tax dollars have been ripped off.
WW: Wall Street is in New York City. What do the West Coast ports have to do with that?
Leo Robinson: To show you the link, last year in the ILWU Dispatcher - a sister from Local 10 was foreclosed on. I am certain she’s not the only one.
Clarence Thomas: Fifty-one percent of Stevedoring Services of America is owned by Goldman Sachs. EGT is a multinational conglomerate trying to control the distribution of food products around the world. The face of Wall Street is in the ports.
WW: Any closing comments?
Clarence Thomas: The ILWU is not some special interest group. We are a rank-and-file militant, democratic union that has a long history of being in the vanguard of the social justice and labor movement.
We don’t cross community picket lines. When people begin to do so they have completely turned their backs on the ILWU’s 10 guiding principles. Is it coincidental that Harry Bridges’ name has not been asserted in relation to the OWS movement and the history of militancy? Is it an accident? How can we not talk about Harry Bridges? That is how we got what we have today.
"ILWU: Ten Guiding Principles" from "ILWU Local 13" website
1. A union is built on its members. The strength, understanding and unity of membership can determine the union’s course and it’s advancements. The members who work, who make up the union and pay dues, can best determine their own destiny. If the facts are honestly presented to the members in the ranks, they will best judge what should be done and how it should be done. In brief, It is the membership of the union which is the best judge of its own welfare; not the officers, not the employers, not politicians and fair weather friends of labor. Above all, this approach is based on the conviction that given the truth and the opportunity to determine their own course of action, the rank and file in 99 cases out of 100 will take the right path in their interests of all the people.
2. Labor unity is at all times the key for a successful economic advancement. Anything that detracts from labor unity hurts all labor. Any group of workers through craft unionism or through cozy deals at the expense of others will in the long run gain but little and inevitably lose both its substance and its friends. No matter how difficult the going, a union must fight in every possible way to advance the principles of labor unity.
3. Workers are indivisible. There can be no discrimination because of race, color, creed, national origin, religious or political belief. Any division among the workers can help no one but the employers. Discrimination is a weapon of the boss. Its entire history is proof that it has served no other purpose than to pit worker against worker to their own destruction.
4. “To help any worker in distress” must be a daily guide in the life of every trade union and its individual members. Labor solidarity means just that. Unions have to accept the fact that solidarity of labor stands above all else, including even the so-called sanctity of contract. We cannot adopt for ourselves the policies of union leaders who insist that because they have a contract, their members are compelled to perform work, even behind a picket line. Every picket line must be respected as if it were our own.
5. Any union, if it to fulfill its appointed task, must put aside all internal differences and issues to combine for the common cause of advancing the welfare of the membership. No union can successfully fulfill its purpose in life if it allows itself to be distracted by any issue which causes division in its ranks and undermines the unity which all labor must have in the face of the employer.
6. The days are long gone when a union can consider dealing with single employers. The powerful financial interests of the country are bound together in every conceivable type of united organization to promote their own welfare and to resist the demands of labor. Labor can no longer win with the ancient weapons of taking on a single employer in an industry any more than it can hope to win through the worn-out dream of withholding its skill until an employer sues for peace. The employers of this country are part of a well organized, carefully coordinated, effective fighting machine. They can be met only on equal terms which requires industry-wide bargaining and the most extensive economic strength of organized labor.
7. Just as water flows to its lowest level, so do wages if the bulk of the workers are left unorganized. The day of craft unionism-the aristocracy of labor-was over when mass production was introduced. To organize the unorganized must be the cardinal principle of any union worth its salt; and to accomplish this is not merely in the interest of the unorganized, it is for the benefits of the organized as well.
8. The basic aspirations and desires of the workers throughout the world are the same. Workers are workers the world over. International solidarity, particularly among maritime workers, is essential to their protection and a guarantee of reserve economic power in times of strife.
9. A new type of unionism is called for which does not confine its ambitions and demands only to wages. Conditions of work, security of employment and adequate provisions for the workers and their families in times of need are of equal, if not greater importance, than the hourly wage.
10. Jurisdictional warfare and jurisdictional raiding must be outlawed by labor itself. Nothing can do as much damage to the ranks of labor and the principle of labor unity and solidarity as jurisdictional bickering and raiding among unions. Both public support and strike victories are jeopardized by jurisdictional warfare.
[www.workers.org/2011/us/ilwu_1215]
Clarence Thomas is executive board member and past secretary-treasurer of ILWU Local 10 and co-chair of the Million Worker March movement, which was initiated by Local 10 and supported by the ILWU Longshore Caucus. Leo Robinson is retired and co-founder of African American Longshore Coalition. He is a former member of the ILWU Local 10 executive board, a national convener of the MWM movement and its major benefactor.
---
As pressure builds for the Dec. 12 West Coast port shutdown, the capitalist owners and their media began a battle of ideas to blunt this powerful threat to their profits and control — even for a day.
Two International Longshore and Warehouse Union members — Clarence Thomas, who is a third-generation longshoreman in Oakland, and Leo Robinson, who is now retired — spoke with Workers World reporter Cheryl LaBash. Both men have held elected office in ILWU Local 10 and have been key labor activists during their years of work in the ports.
WW: The Nov. 21 ILWU Longshore Coast Committee memorandum states, “Any public demonstration is not a ‘picketline’ under the PCL&CA [Pacific Coast Longshore & Clerk’s Agreement] … Remember, public demonstrations are public demonstrations, not ‘picketlines.’ Only labor unions picket as referenced in the contract.” What is your reaction?
Clarence Thomas: A picket line is a public demonstration — whether called by organized labor or not. It is legitimate. There are established protocols in these situations. To suggest to longshoremen that they shouldn’t follow them demands clarification. It is one thing to state for the record that the union is not involved, but another thing to erase the historical memory of ILWU’s traditions and practices included in the Ten Guiding Principles of the ILWU adopted at the 1953 biennial convention in San Francisco. [Ten Guiding Principles reproduced below]
Leo Robinson: The international has taken the position somehow that the contract is more important than not only defending our interest in terms of this EGT [grain terminal jurisdictional dispute] but having a connection to the Occupy [Wall Street] movement in that when you go through the Ten Guiding Principles of the ILWU, we’re talking about labor unity. Does that include the teachers? Does that include state, county and municipal workers? Those questions need to be analyzed as to who supports whom. The Occupy movement is not separate and apart from the labor movement.
Clarence Thomas: Labor is now officially part of the Occupy movement. That has happened. The recent [New York Times] article done by Steven Greenhouse on Nov. 9 is called ‘Standing arm in arm.’
The Teamsters have been supported by the OWS against Sotheby’s auction house. OWS has been supportive of Communication Workers in its struggle with Verizon. Mary Kay Henry, International President of the Service Employees, has called for expanding the Occupy movement by taking workers to Washington, D.C., to occupy Washington particularly Congress and congressional hearings demanding 15 million jobs by Jan. 1.
Leo Robinson: There was the occupation in Madison, Wis. That was labor-led. People are trying to confuse the issue by saying we are somehow separated from the Occupy movement. More than anything else the Occupy movement is a direct challenge or raises the question of the the rights of capital as opposed to the rights of the worker. I don’t understand that the contract supersedes the just demands of the labor movement. It says so right here in the 10 guiding principles of the ILWU.
Article 4 is very clear. Very clear. “...‘To help any worker in distress’ must be a daily guide in the life of every trade union and its individual members. Labor solidarity means just that. Unions have to accept the fact that solidarity of labor stands above all else, including even the so-called sanctity of the contract. We cannot adopt for ourselves the policies of union leaders who insist that because they have a contract, their members are compelled to perform work, even behind a picket line.” It says picket line. It doesn’t say union picket line. It says picket line. It says: “Every picket line must be respected as if it were our own.”
Clarence Thomas: Only 7.2 percent of private sector workers have union representation today, the lowest since 1900. Facing a critical moment, the labor movement has been reenergized by the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Leo Robinson: Any number of times this union [Local 10] has observed picket lines, including Easter Sunday 1977 when the community put up a picket line at Pier 27 to picket South African cargo. Longshoremen observed that picket line for two days. So I don’t understand how all of a sudden the sanctity of the contract outweighs the need to demonstrate solidarity. It just does not compute. It doesn’t make sense.
WW: What were the similarities between that event and what is going on now with the Occupy movement?
Clarence Thomas: The first action against South African apartheid was a community picket line. It was not authorized by the union. It was a community picket line from start to finish.
Leo Robinson: It was about 5,000 people out there on the Embarcadero [eastern waterfront and roadway of the Port of San Francisco] for two days running a community picket line opposing South African apartheid. Local 10 officers took the position that it was an unsafe situation and our members were not going to cross that picket line, period. It was ruled as such by the arbitrator.
WW: Who determines whether a situation is safe or unsafe?
Leo Robinson: We have never waited for the employer to declare what is safe or unsafe. It is always the union that moves first. We don’t ask the employers what is safe or unsafe. They wouldn’t give a damn one way or the other as long as they got their ship worked. If the police have to escort you in or out, that is patently saying it is unsafe. What if someone decides to throw a rock while you’re being escorted in by the police? Does it make it hurt any less? A longshoreman determines what is safe for him or her — on the job and off.
Clarence Thomas: Our members have been hurt by the police and so has the OWS movement. In 2003 when we were standing by at a picket, police shot our members with wooden bullets. In Longview, Wash., at the EGT Grain Terminal, ILWU members and their families have been hurt by the police. We don’t want the police to do anything for us.
WW: What is happening at the grain terminal in Longview?
Clarence Thomas: Our union is at an historical juncture. Our jurisdiction is being challenged up and down the coast — the issue of logs and Local 10 and use of “robotics.” There has been nothing like this since 1934. If ILWU members don’t honor the community picket lines, it will cause an irreparable breach with the community. If the ILWU can’t support the community, why should the community support the ILWU in 2014 contract negotiations or when the new grain agreement is up next year? Who knows what the employer has up their sleeve when they demanded only a one-year contract.
Leo Robinson: Grain work provides 30 percent of our welfare contributions. Who knows … let’s say that EGT is successful. It will open the door for other grain operators to try to work anybody.
WW: Aren’t the ports private?
Clarence Thomas: These ports are the people’s ports. Ports belong to the people of the Pacific Coast. The money came from the taxpayers in California, Oregon and Washington. EGT was subsidized by the Port of Longview. So the people have the right to go down there and protest how their tax dollars have been ripped off.
WW: Wall Street is in New York City. What do the West Coast ports have to do with that?
Leo Robinson: To show you the link, last year in the ILWU Dispatcher - a sister from Local 10 was foreclosed on. I am certain she’s not the only one.
Clarence Thomas: Fifty-one percent of Stevedoring Services of America is owned by Goldman Sachs. EGT is a multinational conglomerate trying to control the distribution of food products around the world. The face of Wall Street is in the ports.
WW: Any closing comments?
Clarence Thomas: The ILWU is not some special interest group. We are a rank-and-file militant, democratic union that has a long history of being in the vanguard of the social justice and labor movement.
We don’t cross community picket lines. When people begin to do so they have completely turned their backs on the ILWU’s 10 guiding principles. Is it coincidental that Harry Bridges’ name has not been asserted in relation to the OWS movement and the history of militancy? Is it an accident? How can we not talk about Harry Bridges? That is how we got what we have today.
"ILWU: Ten Guiding Principles" from "ILWU Local 13" website
1. A union is built on its members. The strength, understanding and unity of membership can determine the union’s course and it’s advancements. The members who work, who make up the union and pay dues, can best determine their own destiny. If the facts are honestly presented to the members in the ranks, they will best judge what should be done and how it should be done. In brief, It is the membership of the union which is the best judge of its own welfare; not the officers, not the employers, not politicians and fair weather friends of labor. Above all, this approach is based on the conviction that given the truth and the opportunity to determine their own course of action, the rank and file in 99 cases out of 100 will take the right path in their interests of all the people.
2. Labor unity is at all times the key for a successful economic advancement. Anything that detracts from labor unity hurts all labor. Any group of workers through craft unionism or through cozy deals at the expense of others will in the long run gain but little and inevitably lose both its substance and its friends. No matter how difficult the going, a union must fight in every possible way to advance the principles of labor unity.
3. Workers are indivisible. There can be no discrimination because of race, color, creed, national origin, religious or political belief. Any division among the workers can help no one but the employers. Discrimination is a weapon of the boss. Its entire history is proof that it has served no other purpose than to pit worker against worker to their own destruction.
4. “To help any worker in distress” must be a daily guide in the life of every trade union and its individual members. Labor solidarity means just that. Unions have to accept the fact that solidarity of labor stands above all else, including even the so-called sanctity of contract. We cannot adopt for ourselves the policies of union leaders who insist that because they have a contract, their members are compelled to perform work, even behind a picket line. Every picket line must be respected as if it were our own.
5. Any union, if it to fulfill its appointed task, must put aside all internal differences and issues to combine for the common cause of advancing the welfare of the membership. No union can successfully fulfill its purpose in life if it allows itself to be distracted by any issue which causes division in its ranks and undermines the unity which all labor must have in the face of the employer.
6. The days are long gone when a union can consider dealing with single employers. The powerful financial interests of the country are bound together in every conceivable type of united organization to promote their own welfare and to resist the demands of labor. Labor can no longer win with the ancient weapons of taking on a single employer in an industry any more than it can hope to win through the worn-out dream of withholding its skill until an employer sues for peace. The employers of this country are part of a well organized, carefully coordinated, effective fighting machine. They can be met only on equal terms which requires industry-wide bargaining and the most extensive economic strength of organized labor.
7. Just as water flows to its lowest level, so do wages if the bulk of the workers are left unorganized. The day of craft unionism-the aristocracy of labor-was over when mass production was introduced. To organize the unorganized must be the cardinal principle of any union worth its salt; and to accomplish this is not merely in the interest of the unorganized, it is for the benefits of the organized as well.
8. The basic aspirations and desires of the workers throughout the world are the same. Workers are workers the world over. International solidarity, particularly among maritime workers, is essential to their protection and a guarantee of reserve economic power in times of strife.
9. A new type of unionism is called for which does not confine its ambitions and demands only to wages. Conditions of work, security of employment and adequate provisions for the workers and their families in times of need are of equal, if not greater importance, than the hourly wage.
10. Jurisdictional warfare and jurisdictional raiding must be outlawed by labor itself. Nothing can do as much damage to the ranks of labor and the principle of labor unity and solidarity as jurisdictional bickering and raiding among unions. Both public support and strike victories are jeopardized by jurisdictional warfare.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Occupy Eureka
2011-12-05 "Trial Begins Wed (Dec 7) from Occupy Eureka Arrest"
Please come support, either in the courtroom or at the Occupy Eureka site (so others can be in court), while I go to jury trial regarding my November 10 arrest.
Wed, Dec 7th until it's over (probably about 5 work days)
Humboldt County Courthouse, Floor 2, Crtrm# 2
8:30am - 12:00pm every day
Already, thug Sgt.Mike Guy from the Eureka Police Department was on the witness stand today (Mon, Dec 5) for a pretrial motion I brought regarding the lawlessness of my arrest. This case involves coordinated police attack(s) on Occupy Eureka, unlawful arrest, and the targeting of people who videotape police. All three of those realities are part of this criminal case against me, wherein the District Attorney has charged me with Resisting, Obstructing, or Delaying an Officer in the course of his lawful duty. The only way the DA can win cases like this is with LIES, an inherently rotten legal system, and juries made up of people who've been programed to blindly trust whoever wears a uniform of brutality, in spite of the pain s/he inflicts on us.
The actions by the County of Humboldt and City of Eureka governments and cops are extremely and increasingly repressive. Regarding the ongoing attack on Occupy Eureka: they continue to steal, arrest, and abuse Occupy Eureka participants, claiming that every possible form of expression and protest at the courthouse (even outside of the huge chain link fence erected to prohibit public presence) is illegal. Every sign, banner, and visual created or exhibited by Occupy Eureka has been stolen by the police. The County and City are fabricating laws daily to deem almost every activity or expression illegal in front of the courthouse. Candlelight vigils- illegal, they say. Displaying a banner- illegal they say. Allowing a sign to touch the sidewalk- illegal they say. And they send cops, often in riot gear, to make sure we cannot demonstrate.
This is a very serious moment as we experience, in broad daylight and in the dark of night, blatant destruction of our rights to assemble, protest, express ourselves- destruction implemented through direct violence, intimidation, and incarceration.
Please stand up and fight.
Feel free to email me at peoplesarc@gmail.com regarding the trial and please come and support in the courtroom.
SOLIDARITY WORKS
Please come support, either in the courtroom or at the Occupy Eureka site (so others can be in court), while I go to jury trial regarding my November 10 arrest.
Wed, Dec 7th until it's over (probably about 5 work days)
Humboldt County Courthouse, Floor 2, Crtrm# 2
8:30am - 12:00pm every day
Already, thug Sgt.Mike Guy from the Eureka Police Department was on the witness stand today (Mon, Dec 5) for a pretrial motion I brought regarding the lawlessness of my arrest. This case involves coordinated police attack(s) on Occupy Eureka, unlawful arrest, and the targeting of people who videotape police. All three of those realities are part of this criminal case against me, wherein the District Attorney has charged me with Resisting, Obstructing, or Delaying an Officer in the course of his lawful duty. The only way the DA can win cases like this is with LIES, an inherently rotten legal system, and juries made up of people who've been programed to blindly trust whoever wears a uniform of brutality, in spite of the pain s/he inflicts on us.
The actions by the County of Humboldt and City of Eureka governments and cops are extremely and increasingly repressive. Regarding the ongoing attack on Occupy Eureka: they continue to steal, arrest, and abuse Occupy Eureka participants, claiming that every possible form of expression and protest at the courthouse (even outside of the huge chain link fence erected to prohibit public presence) is illegal. Every sign, banner, and visual created or exhibited by Occupy Eureka has been stolen by the police. The County and City are fabricating laws daily to deem almost every activity or expression illegal in front of the courthouse. Candlelight vigils- illegal, they say. Displaying a banner- illegal they say. Allowing a sign to touch the sidewalk- illegal they say. And they send cops, often in riot gear, to make sure we cannot demonstrate.
This is a very serious moment as we experience, in broad daylight and in the dark of night, blatant destruction of our rights to assemble, protest, express ourselves- destruction implemented through direct violence, intimidation, and incarceration.
Please stand up and fight.
Feel free to email me at peoplesarc@gmail.com regarding the trial and please come and support in the courtroom.
SOLIDARITY WORKS
Sunday, December 4, 2011
2011-12-04 "The quiet exodus of African Americans from S.F." by John Diaz from "San Francisco Chronicle"
[http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-12-04/opinion/30476382_1_black-middle-class-quiet-exodus-migration]
Two years ago, the Mayor's Task Force on African American out-migration painted a grim portrait of the disappearance of a black middle class from San Francisco. It was chock full of statistics - on dropout rates, on income and poverty, on incarceration levels - that documented the dire plight of many of the 46,779 African Americans who remained in the city. The 31-page report was packed with myriad recommendations and a sense of urgency. So what became of it?
"Nothing has been done. Zero," said the Rev. Amos Brown, a former city supervisor and a member of that task force.
"We're still losing ground," said Fred Jordan, also a task force member and president of the San Francisco African American Chamber of Commerce. "Our businesses are gone, we're trying to hold on to the ones we have left."
The 2010 census corroborates the contention of prominent African American leaders that the three-decade exodus of blacks from San Francisco is continuing. The migration of African Americans to the suburbs generally is neither unusual nor a cause for alarm: A recent Brookings analysis of metropolitan-area population shifts in the 2000s showed that "black flight" from major cities was occurring across the nation, often driven by decidedly positive factors. African American families have been gaining affluence and options. Housing discrimination, institutional and informal, has been fading. The suburbs have been growing more diverse and less isolating to minorities who moved there.
"What is going on in San Francisco," said Corey Cook, a University of San Francisco political science professor, "is unique and it is acute."
It is also more than a bit ironic in a city that prides itself on tolerance and appreciation of diversity in all forms.
"What is happening in San Francisco, this bastion of progressivism?" asked James McCray Jr., director of the Tabernacle Community Development Corp.
"The flip side of this out-migration issue is: Why is there no in-migration?" McCray continued. "Why are there no African Americans or Latinos coming here to contribute to this great city?"
McCray hit on the point that most strikingly distinguishes San Francisco from other major cities - and one that received only secondary attention from the 2009 task force report, which focused on the need to keep its existing residents. It is the lack of newly arriving African Americans, as much as the out-migration trend, that has resulted in the black population decline from a 1970 peak of 13.4 percent of city residents to just 6.1 percent in the 2010 census.
"We are bereft of an African American middle class here ... They're gone," said the Rev. Edgar E. Boyd of the Bethel A.M.E. Church.
The 2009 task force report, the result of a two-year effort, laid out the numbers. One out of 4 African Americans in San Francisco lived in poverty. Blacks accounted for nearly half of all public housing spots. African Americans were far more likely than the population at large to become "victims of crime and criminalization." One out of 7 had been arrested for a felony. One in 4 residents over the age of 25 were high school graduates.
Any improvements from that 2009 report have been modest at best. The Board of Education and Superintendent Carlos Garcia have made closure of the "achievement gap" a top priority - and it has narrowed slightly - but the last test scores showed just 31.5 percent of African American students were at grade-level proficiency in English. That compares with 57 percent overall.
"Until we close the gap - shame on us," Garcia told The Chronicle when those scores came out in August.
At least the schools were required to maintain a scorecard. What bothered many of the African American leaders who met with our editorial board last week was the lack of City Hall follow-up to the task force convened by Mayor Gavin Newsom and Supervisor Sophie Maxwell. Newsom has gone on to the state Capitol as lieutenant governor. Maxwell has been termed out.
Who, if anyone, will see that the promises of a city commitment will be kept, the community representatives wondered.
Task force recommendations ranged from funding and regulatory schemes to increase homeownership to preschool programs in low-income neighborhoods to targeted crime-fighting strategies and career training and business development efforts tailored for African Americans.
"Most people don't know about the report - it's buried, it's filed away," said Leona Bridges, a director of the Municipal Transportation Agency. "Any good strategic plan needs benchmarks. It needs follow-through and accountability."
Newsom said his administration did track efforts on the task-force recommendations, and a report just before he left office showed "substantial progress in every category" - including education, environmental stewardship and economic development.
"To be candid, I'm surprised by their comments," Newsom said of the critics.
Still, if they are not seeing the effects in their neighborhoods - and San Francisco's black population continues to decline, as it has - then City Hall obviously has more work to do.
Growth and decline of the black population in San Francisco
Source: Report of the San Francisco Mayor's Task Force on African American Out-Migration, 2009. [http:// sfg.ly/rASJg6]
* 1910 -1,642 (0.4% of residents)
* 1940 - 4,846
* 1950 - 43,000 (5.6% of residents) World War II surge in military-related jobs brought a large migration of blacks from the rural South and Midwest.
* 1970 - 88,000 (13.4% of residents) Peak of African American population in the city; cultural, social and economic hubs thrive in the Fillmore and Bayview.
* 1990 - 78,989
* 2010 - 48,870 (6.1% of residents)
[http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-12-04/opinion/30476382_1_black-middle-class-quiet-exodus-migration]
Two years ago, the Mayor's Task Force on African American out-migration painted a grim portrait of the disappearance of a black middle class from San Francisco. It was chock full of statistics - on dropout rates, on income and poverty, on incarceration levels - that documented the dire plight of many of the 46,779 African Americans who remained in the city. The 31-page report was packed with myriad recommendations and a sense of urgency. So what became of it?
"Nothing has been done. Zero," said the Rev. Amos Brown, a former city supervisor and a member of that task force.
"We're still losing ground," said Fred Jordan, also a task force member and president of the San Francisco African American Chamber of Commerce. "Our businesses are gone, we're trying to hold on to the ones we have left."
The 2010 census corroborates the contention of prominent African American leaders that the three-decade exodus of blacks from San Francisco is continuing. The migration of African Americans to the suburbs generally is neither unusual nor a cause for alarm: A recent Brookings analysis of metropolitan-area population shifts in the 2000s showed that "black flight" from major cities was occurring across the nation, often driven by decidedly positive factors. African American families have been gaining affluence and options. Housing discrimination, institutional and informal, has been fading. The suburbs have been growing more diverse and less isolating to minorities who moved there.
"What is going on in San Francisco," said Corey Cook, a University of San Francisco political science professor, "is unique and it is acute."
It is also more than a bit ironic in a city that prides itself on tolerance and appreciation of diversity in all forms.
"What is happening in San Francisco, this bastion of progressivism?" asked James McCray Jr., director of the Tabernacle Community Development Corp.
"The flip side of this out-migration issue is: Why is there no in-migration?" McCray continued. "Why are there no African Americans or Latinos coming here to contribute to this great city?"
McCray hit on the point that most strikingly distinguishes San Francisco from other major cities - and one that received only secondary attention from the 2009 task force report, which focused on the need to keep its existing residents. It is the lack of newly arriving African Americans, as much as the out-migration trend, that has resulted in the black population decline from a 1970 peak of 13.4 percent of city residents to just 6.1 percent in the 2010 census.
"We are bereft of an African American middle class here ... They're gone," said the Rev. Edgar E. Boyd of the Bethel A.M.E. Church.
The 2009 task force report, the result of a two-year effort, laid out the numbers. One out of 4 African Americans in San Francisco lived in poverty. Blacks accounted for nearly half of all public housing spots. African Americans were far more likely than the population at large to become "victims of crime and criminalization." One out of 7 had been arrested for a felony. One in 4 residents over the age of 25 were high school graduates.
Any improvements from that 2009 report have been modest at best. The Board of Education and Superintendent Carlos Garcia have made closure of the "achievement gap" a top priority - and it has narrowed slightly - but the last test scores showed just 31.5 percent of African American students were at grade-level proficiency in English. That compares with 57 percent overall.
"Until we close the gap - shame on us," Garcia told The Chronicle when those scores came out in August.
At least the schools were required to maintain a scorecard. What bothered many of the African American leaders who met with our editorial board last week was the lack of City Hall follow-up to the task force convened by Mayor Gavin Newsom and Supervisor Sophie Maxwell. Newsom has gone on to the state Capitol as lieutenant governor. Maxwell has been termed out.
Who, if anyone, will see that the promises of a city commitment will be kept, the community representatives wondered.
Task force recommendations ranged from funding and regulatory schemes to increase homeownership to preschool programs in low-income neighborhoods to targeted crime-fighting strategies and career training and business development efforts tailored for African Americans.
"Most people don't know about the report - it's buried, it's filed away," said Leona Bridges, a director of the Municipal Transportation Agency. "Any good strategic plan needs benchmarks. It needs follow-through and accountability."
Newsom said his administration did track efforts on the task-force recommendations, and a report just before he left office showed "substantial progress in every category" - including education, environmental stewardship and economic development.
"To be candid, I'm surprised by their comments," Newsom said of the critics.
Still, if they are not seeing the effects in their neighborhoods - and San Francisco's black population continues to decline, as it has - then City Hall obviously has more work to do.
Growth and decline of the black population in San Francisco
Source: Report of the San Francisco Mayor's Task Force on African American Out-Migration, 2009. [http:// sfg.ly/rASJg6]
* 1910 -1,642 (0.4% of residents)
* 1940 - 4,846
* 1950 - 43,000 (5.6% of residents) World War II surge in military-related jobs brought a large migration of blacks from the rural South and Midwest.
* 1970 - 88,000 (13.4% of residents) Peak of African American population in the city; cultural, social and economic hubs thrive in the Fillmore and Bayview.
* 1990 - 78,989
* 2010 - 48,870 (6.1% of residents)
Saturday, December 3, 2011
2011-12-03 "Occupy L.A. takes its fight to foreclosure auction; Protesters disrupt bidding outside Norwalk courthouse on homes owned by banks and title companies with chants of 'Shame on you' and 'Banks got bailed out / We got sold out.'" from "Los Angeles Times"
[http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/03/local/la-me-occupy-foreclosure-20111203]
Several times a week, a group of investors gathers in Norwalk to bid on homes that have been foreclosed.
The midmorning auction outside the Los Angeles County Superior Court building is a high-stakes, but usually low-key affair. On Friday, bidders sat in the sun in lawn chairs, and the auctioneer looked relaxed in a pair of baggy sweat pants.
But just as the auction was getting started, a commotion erupted from across the lawn. It was a group of protesters, marching with posters and howling an angry chant. "Banks got bailed out / We got sold out!"
Some wore T-shirts identifying themselves as members of local labor unions. Others wore arm bands printed with "99%" — a now-famous reference that revealed a different allegiance.
Occupy L.A. may have lost its home outside City Hall this week, but protesters plan to continue the acts of civil disobedience that helped the movement capture national attention.
Demonstrations against the foreclosure process may be key among them, said one protester who spent nearly two months living on the City Hall lawn at Occupy L.A., and who hitched a ride to Norwalk to take part in Friday's action.
The protester, Abe, wouldn't give his last name, but said anger at the foreclosure crisis, and at banks that he believes haven't done enough to help homeowners get more favorable loans, helped draw him to Occupy in the first place.
Friday's protest was organized in conjunction with Good Jobs L.A., a coalition of labor unions and other community organizations. Although some within the Occupy movement have expressed fears that their protest may be co-opted by other groups — including unions — Abe said he isn't worried about that.
"I don't think we should align with any power structure," he said. "But anyone who wants to stand in solidarity with us, we're happy to have them."
As the protesters circled the auction, the bidders drew closer so they could hear over chants of "Shame on you!"
On the auction block this day were properties from throughout the county — from Torrance to Van Nuys. Next up was a home on West 59th Place in South L.A.
The protesters booed. The bidding started. "Do I have $113,300?" the auctioneer asked. He is hired to sell the properties by the banks and title companies that own the homes.
"$115,000" said one man.
"$116,000," said another.
The price climbed and climbed. When it hit $130,000, protester Carlos Marroquin started shouting.
"Whose home is that? Whose home are you buying?" he yelled. "Do you know that families are breaking apart? People fought for those homes, and you guys are just taking them away."
Marroquin, who lost his own home to foreclosure, said he speaks from experience. "It destroyed my marriage and hurt my kids," he said.
A member of Occupy L.A. since its Oct. 1 beginning, he set up a tent there and said he helped counsel 300 families facing foreclosure.
At first, bidders seemed amused by the hubbub — and the news reporters and photographers it had attracted.
"I kind of like it," one said to another. "I like crazy, though."
But as the morning wore on, and one protester held a microphone up to an amplification system, producing a deafening squeal, the bidder's patience wore down. "They're getting annoying," he said.
Another bidder, Mike Lalani, told protesters that the buyers were the wrong target.
"Your protest is good, it's great, but it's misguided," he said. "You need to be saddened that these homes are being lost in the first place."
The auctioneer agreed: "You guys need to go higher on the food chain."
They have, of course. Last month, police arrested dozens of protesters in demonstrations in downtown's financial district, including one at Bank of America plaza.
At that protest and elsewhere, protesters have deployed tents — a symbol of the Occupy L.A. encampment — in their demonstrations.
A tent made an appearance Friday, when protesters offered to sell it to the bidders. A vigorous bidding war broke out. The final price: $20.
[http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/03/local/la-me-occupy-foreclosure-20111203]
Several times a week, a group of investors gathers in Norwalk to bid on homes that have been foreclosed.
The midmorning auction outside the Los Angeles County Superior Court building is a high-stakes, but usually low-key affair. On Friday, bidders sat in the sun in lawn chairs, and the auctioneer looked relaxed in a pair of baggy sweat pants.
But just as the auction was getting started, a commotion erupted from across the lawn. It was a group of protesters, marching with posters and howling an angry chant. "Banks got bailed out / We got sold out!"
Some wore T-shirts identifying themselves as members of local labor unions. Others wore arm bands printed with "99%" — a now-famous reference that revealed a different allegiance.
Occupy L.A. may have lost its home outside City Hall this week, but protesters plan to continue the acts of civil disobedience that helped the movement capture national attention.
Demonstrations against the foreclosure process may be key among them, said one protester who spent nearly two months living on the City Hall lawn at Occupy L.A., and who hitched a ride to Norwalk to take part in Friday's action.
The protester, Abe, wouldn't give his last name, but said anger at the foreclosure crisis, and at banks that he believes haven't done enough to help homeowners get more favorable loans, helped draw him to Occupy in the first place.
Friday's protest was organized in conjunction with Good Jobs L.A., a coalition of labor unions and other community organizations. Although some within the Occupy movement have expressed fears that their protest may be co-opted by other groups — including unions — Abe said he isn't worried about that.
"I don't think we should align with any power structure," he said. "But anyone who wants to stand in solidarity with us, we're happy to have them."
As the protesters circled the auction, the bidders drew closer so they could hear over chants of "Shame on you!"
On the auction block this day were properties from throughout the county — from Torrance to Van Nuys. Next up was a home on West 59th Place in South L.A.
The protesters booed. The bidding started. "Do I have $113,300?" the auctioneer asked. He is hired to sell the properties by the banks and title companies that own the homes.
"$115,000" said one man.
"$116,000," said another.
The price climbed and climbed. When it hit $130,000, protester Carlos Marroquin started shouting.
"Whose home is that? Whose home are you buying?" he yelled. "Do you know that families are breaking apart? People fought for those homes, and you guys are just taking them away."
Marroquin, who lost his own home to foreclosure, said he speaks from experience. "It destroyed my marriage and hurt my kids," he said.
A member of Occupy L.A. since its Oct. 1 beginning, he set up a tent there and said he helped counsel 300 families facing foreclosure.
At first, bidders seemed amused by the hubbub — and the news reporters and photographers it had attracted.
"I kind of like it," one said to another. "I like crazy, though."
But as the morning wore on, and one protester held a microphone up to an amplification system, producing a deafening squeal, the bidder's patience wore down. "They're getting annoying," he said.
Another bidder, Mike Lalani, told protesters that the buyers were the wrong target.
"Your protest is good, it's great, but it's misguided," he said. "You need to be saddened that these homes are being lost in the first place."
The auctioneer agreed: "You guys need to go higher on the food chain."
They have, of course. Last month, police arrested dozens of protesters in demonstrations in downtown's financial district, including one at Bank of America plaza.
At that protest and elsewhere, protesters have deployed tents — a symbol of the Occupy L.A. encampment — in their demonstrations.
A tent made an appearance Friday, when protesters offered to sell it to the bidders. A vigorous bidding war broke out. The final price: $20.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
