themcglynn.com/theliberal.net

Archive for January, 2012

31 Jan

Every single ruthless tactic from the playbook of union-busting was followed at NYU

When New Obama Chief of Staff Was NYU Exec, School Ceased Recognizing Union

By Josh Eidelson

President Barack Obama shakes hands with newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Jacob J. Lew, acting as U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, at the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue reception at the the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on June 3, 2010.   (White House photo/Public Domain)

But Obama administration maintains Lew supports right to organize.

Three months into a bitter strike, the Graduate Students Organizing Committee sent an e-mail to supporters.  “Like their refusal to bargain, their threats last fall, and the docking of prospective pay for striking,” the union wrote, “John Sexton and the NYU administration, aided by former Clintonites Jacob Lew and Cheryl Mills, are again hiding behind a right-wing, Republican NLRB.”

Six years, later, Lew and Mills are back in Washington. Mills is Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff at the State Department. Lew reprised his Clinton Administration role as director of the Office of Management and Budget—until last week, when Obama promoted him to White House Chief of Staff.

In 2004, Jacob Lew was the first hire by newly-appointed New York University President John Sexton. Lew served as NYU’s chief operating officer and executive vice president for the following two years, during which NYU withdrew recognition from its graduate student employees union and punished some participants in the ensuing strike. UAW Local 2110 President Maida Rosenstein, whose local includes GSOC, says Lew was “the point person” in “representing management’s position” against the union. (Full disclosure: the UAW is an In These Times sponsor)

“Every single ruthless tactic from the playbook of union-busting was followed at NYU,” says NYU Professor Andrew Ross.  Ross co-edited The University Against Itself, an anthology on the strike.

A White House spokesperson directed an inquiry to OMB Communications Director Kenneth Baer, who e-mailed, “Throughout his career, Jack Lew has been a strong supporter of the right of workers to organize – as has the President. And that belief will not change in his new role as Chief of Staff.” Baer declined further comment.

Spokespeople for the AFL-CIO and for the UAW International Union both declined to comment on Lew’s promotion.

Soon after Lew joined NYU in 2004, a Bush-appointed majority on the National Labor Relations Board issued its Brown University decision denying graduate student teachers the right to union recognition. That was a reversal of a Clinton-appointed majority’s NYU decision, which four years earlier had declared for the first time that graduate student employees were workers covered under the National Labor Relations Act (in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both co-sponsored legislation to restore graduate student employees’ rights).

(Full disclosure: My former employer, UNITE HERE, has an organizing campaign among Yale graduate students, which I actively supported as an undergraduate.)

GSOC had won an election in 2001 and, under Sexton’s predecessor, negotiated the first union contract between a private university and a graduate student workforce.  After Brown overturned NYU in 2004, NYU was no longer legally required to negotiate with GSOC – though nothing in the decision prevented it from doing so.  With a year until GSOC’s contract would expire, NYU announced a several-month process of deliberation and community input over whether or not to negotiate a new one.

On April 21, 2005, Rev. Jesse Jackson Jr. and New York City Council President Christine Quinn joined GSOC leaders outside the building housing Sexton’s office demanding a meeting. Lew met them and accepted a petition from GSOC’s membership calling for NYU to return to the bargaining table.

Instead, in a June memo to the NYU community, Lew and Provost David McLaughlin announced a “proposed decision,” pending a 30-day comment period, that “we should no longer use a union as an intermediary with our students.”  On August 2, NYU indicated to GSOC that it was interested instead in a “new paradigm,” under which GSOC could negotiate over a narrowed range of issues, no one could be required to pay union representation costs, and the university (rather than an arbitrator) would have final say on the resolution of any grievances.  GSOC responded on August 4 by reiterating its request for sit-down negotiations.

In a memo the next day, Lew and McLaughlin informed the public that “the university will not negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement with the UAW.” Lew and McLaughlin wrote that NYU had always maintained as a “core principle” that “graduate assistants are students, not workers,” but had accepted GSOC’s 2001 union recognition vote based on “the UAW’s representation that it would respect the University’s discretion on academic matters.”

They charged that GSOC had abused the contract’s grievance procedure to interfere with “academic decision-making,” and warned that “if even one arbitrator had sided with the UAW in any of these decisions, it would have had a profound impact on our faculty’s academic rights and ultimately the academic quality of the institution.”

“It is both disingenuous and risible,” American Association of University Professors President Jane Buck later retorted, “to assert that the mentoring relationship is harmed by good faith negotiations about salaries, benefits, and access to fair grievance procedures.”  GSOC, while defending the merits of the grievances, had offered three months earlier to drop all of them, and to include language broadening management’s discretion in a new contract.  (NYU did not respond to a request for comment.)

“Our membership, which had been covered by a contract that provided all kinds of rights and benefits, lost that contract, and has had to organize from scratch,” says Rosenstein.

Following Lew and McLaughlin’s e-mail, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney joined GSOC activists in civil disobedience on August 31, the final day of their contract.  In November of 2005, GSOC went on strike to win back union recognition.  On its first day, picketers held “Wanted” posters with Lew and McLaughlin’s faces.  Lew told a campus paper that “it would be a mistake for anyone to draw conclusions” based on the first day of the strike.  “It would be wrong to say nothing is going to happen; it would be wrong to say the place is going to be paralyzed.”

In The University Against Itself, GSOC activist Susan Valentine wrote that NYU campaigned against GSOC with “classic techniques such as interference from supervisors (faculty, in this case) and the threat–and fulfillment–of firings.”  Several aspects of the campaign, Valentine charged, would have been illegal had workers been covered under the Labor Relations Act.  Some faculty complained after discovering on the strike’s first day that NYU administrators were logged in as “observers” on the “virtual classroom” website Blackboard, which could be used to assess which teaching assistants were on strike. GSOC members said they were questioned about their union activity by supervisors.

In the strike’s third week, NYU issued the first of a series of threats that graduate students who remained on strike would be denied work and payment for future semesters.  Over a hundred international students sent Sexton a letter charging that such threats were putting them at risk of deportation. During the first two months of 2006, twenty strikers were fired.  That spring, NYU created a graduate student government which GSOC charged was another attempt at a “company union.”

“Suddenly the business of the university has become strikebreaking and unionbusting, not education,” wrote Cornell’s Kate Bronfenbrenner in January 2006.

The strike drew vocal support from major unions, politicians, and academics.  But when the strike ended in May 2006, GSOC had not won recognition.  The next month, Lew left NYU to become COO of Citigroup Global Wealth Management.

Jared Bernstein, a Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and former Chief Economist for Vice President Joe Biden, told the L.A. Times Friday that Lew is “a mild-mannered guy, but if you want to see him fight, put him in a position where he’s protecting disadvantaged people and he’ll go to the mat.  That’s something you don’t see enough of at that level of power.”

Interviewed last month, GSOC activist Dacia Mitchell said that one of GSOC’s major focuses since the strike has been electing a Democratic President who would make pro-union NLRB appointments.  A week before Lew’s promotion to Chief of Staff, GSOC received welcome news from the White House when Obama made three recess appointments to the NLRB, averting a shutdown of the agency and raising hopes that the Labor Board will rule on a new election petition filed by GSOC in 2010 and restore the NYU precedent.  Rosenstein, who was active in the GSOC campaign, says Obama “has in general been very supportive of our union, and labor in general.”

Regarding the Lew nomination, Rosenstein says, “That’s Washington politics.  A totally different role.  I have no idea whether he’ll be a good chief of staff or not.”  Asked whether Lew’s role in NYU’s campaign against her union should have been disqualifying, Rosenstein responds, “I would love it if he had a Chief of Staff who had a direct history of being very pro-union.  But he was in charge of the budget at NYU.  Within that context, he did what he did.  Maybe he’s learned something from it.”

Share
31 Jan

From Senator Bernie Sanders

Friends of Bernie Sanders

Dear The McGlynn,

I want to take this opportunity to update you about
what’s going on in Washington, and share my thoughts about the short and
long-term challenges we face as a nation.

In the coming weeks I
will step up my efforts to generate strong grassroots support for a
constitutional amendment I have introduced to overturn the disastrous
Citizens United Supreme Court decision of two years ago.
It
seems to me that there are about five people in this country who believe that a
corporation is a person. Unfortunately, they are all on the Supreme Court. The
result of this misguided 5-4 decision, one of the worst ever handed down by a
Supreme Court, is that corporations can now spend, without disclosure, unlimited
sums of money on political advertising. And we are seeing the results of that
ruling right now with big money interests and Super PACs spending huge sums on
television and radio advertising in the Republican primaries and in Senate
races. Unless we change it, that situation will only get worse in future
years.

The good news is that throughout the country grassroots activists
are working hard to reclaim our democracy and defeat Citizens United.
Resolutions in support of a constitutional amendment have already been passed in
cities and towns all over the country including New York, Los Angeles, Boulder,
Pueblo, Duluth, Oakland (CA), Albany (NY), Portland (OR), and Burlington (VT).
In Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state
legislators have introduced similar type resolutions.

Please get
involved in this issue. Play a role in demanding that your local government and
state legislature take a stand in demanding that Congress pass a constitutional
amendment to overturn Citizens United.
To a significant
degree, this is not a partisan issue. Most Americans, regardless of their
political ideology, do not believe that a handful of wealthy and powerful
special interests should be able to dominate our political process and elect –
or defeat — the candidates of their choice.

Another issue that I
am currently working on is postal reform legislation. While this is not a very
sexy issue, it is extremely important not only for the 600,000 employees of the
U.S. Postal Service, but for our entire economy.

As a result of
a very onerous and unfair requirement that they pay $5.5 billion a year into a
health benefit account for future retirees, as well as a significant decline in
first class mail because of increased e-mail use, the Postal Service faces
serious financial challenges. Their response has been to develop a draconian
proposal which would eliminate up to 200,000 jobs by shutting down over 3,000
small post offices, half (252) of their mail processing plants and end Saturday
and next-day mail delivery. This plan would result in a significant decline in
the speed of mail delivery service and, in my view, the beginning of a “death
spiral” for that vitally important agency. With a diminishment in the quality
and timeliness of the services the Postal Service provides, fewer and fewer
businesses and consumers will be interested in using the mail. The result will
be that postal deficits will grow larger, more cuts will continue to be made,
and eventually the Post Office will be a pale shadow of what it is
today.

During the next several weeks I, and a number of my colleagues,
will be working to improve the existing postal reform legislation which is due
to come to the floor of the Senate very shortly. Our goal will be to save jobs
in the Postal Service and maintain a high quality of service. We will also be
demanding that the Postal Service create a new and aggressive business model so
that it can effectively compete in today’s market and increase their revenue in
the digital age in which we live.

Lastly, I want to alert you to an
ongoing issue I have been involved with during all of my five years in the
Senate. Sadly, virtually every Republican in Congress and too many
Democrats are determined to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the
name of deficit reduction.
This is wrong! We must not allow them to
do that.

At a time when we have the most unequal distribution of wealth
and income of any major country on earth, and when working people are suffering
through the worst recession since the Great Depression, we must not make savage
cuts to programs which maintain the wellbeing and dignity of tens of millions of
struggling Americans. With 45,000 Americans dying each year because
they don’t get to a doctor when they should, and when 50 million Americans
already lack health insurance, how could anybody be calling for cuts in Medicare
or Medicaid?
The truth is that we should be moving toward a universal,
single-payer health care system, not decimating the limited public health
programs we now have in place.

In terms of Social Security, please
remember that Social Security today has a $2.5 trillion surplus, can pay out all
benefits owed to every eligible American for the next 25 years and, because it
is funded independently by the payroll tax, has not added one penny to our
national deficit or debt. Social Security must not be
cut!

Yes, we need to address the deficit crisis, but there are
fair and responsible ways to do that. While the rich get richer, their
effective tax rate is the lowest in decades. The top 1 percent must be
asked to pay their fair share of taxes.
While corporations are making
record-breaking profits, many of them enjoy outrageous tax-loopholes which
enable them to pay little or nothing in taxes. We must end corporate
tax loopholes.
The United States now spends three times as much on the
military as we did in 1997, and more than the rest of the world combined.
We must cut wasteful military spending.

Let me conclude
by thanking you for your activism in the fight for progressive values and for a
government which represents all the people, and not just the wealthy and
powerful. These are tough times for our country. We must continue to push
forward. This struggle is not just about you or me or our generation. It is
about the future of the country and our children and
grandchildren.

Thanks again for all that you are doing.

Best
Wishes,
Senator Bernie Sanders

Share
30 Jan

Once the president accuses a citizen of terrorism, execution without trial is permitted

Monday, Jan 30, 2012 7:55 AM 11:31:38 EST

The DoD chief says clearly: once the president accuses a citizen of terrorism, execution without trial is permitted

By Glenn Greenwald

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta listens as President Barack Obama speaks on the Defense Strategic Review, Thursday, Jan. 5, 2012, at the Pentagon. (Credit: AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

The O’Leary:

“I am become death . . .”

CBS News‘ Scott Pelley appears to be one of the very few American journalists bothered by, or even interested in, the fact that President Obama has asserted and exercised the power to target U.S. citizens for execution-by-CIA without a shred of due process and far from any battlefield. It was Pelley who deftly interrogated the GOP presidential candidates at a November debate about the propriety of due-process-free assassinations, prompting Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Michele Bachmann to applaud President Obama for assassinating Awlaki (just as Rick Perry, Dick and Liz Cheney, and Bill Kristol had done). Last night, Pelley did the same when he interviewed Defense Secretary and former CIA chief Leon Panetta on 60 Minutes. It’s well worth watching this three-minute clip because, although Panetta doesn’t say much that is new (he simply asserts the standard slogans and unproven assertions that Obama defenders on this topic always assert), watching a top Obama official, under decent questioning, defend the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination viscerally conveys the rigidly authoritarian mindset driving all of this:

 

Panetta’s answers are suffused with dubious and even factually false claims. It is, for instance, false that the U.S. provides due process to everyone apprehended for Terrorism. To the contrary, the Obama administration has been holding dozens of Terrorism suspects without any charges for years, and President Obama just signed into law a bill codifying the power of indefinite detention for accused Terrorists. But even if it were true that all Terrorism suspects who are detained were entitled to receive due process, that merely underscores how warped it is to assert the power to target them for execution without due process. After all, how can it be that the Government must prove guilt merely to imprison Terrorists but not to execute them?

But this is one of the towering, unanswerable hypocrisies of Democratic Party politics. The very same faction that pretended for years to be so distraught by Bush’s mere eavesdropping on and detention of accused Terrorists without due process is now perfectly content to have their own President kill accused Terrorists without due process, even when those targeted are their fellow citizens: obviously a far more Draconian and permanent abuse than eavesdropping or detention (identically, the very same faction that objected to Bush’s radical whole-world-is-a-Battlefield theory now must embrace exactly that theory to justify how someone riding in a car, or sitting at home, or sleeping in his bed, in a country where no war is declared, is “on a battlefield” at the time the CIA ends his life).

It is equally false, and independently both misleading and perverse, for Panetta to assert that a citizen in Awlaki’s position could come to the U.S. to assert his due process rights. For one thing, Awlaki was never charged or indicted for anything in the U.S. — he was simply executed without any charges (the Obama administration, after trying to kill him, reportedly “considered” charging him with crimes at one point but never did) – and thus, there was nothing to which he could “turn himself” in even if he wanted to. Even worse, President Obama’s hit list of those he approves for assassination is completely secret; we only learned that Awlaki was being targeted because someone happened to leak that fact to Dana Priest. The way the process normally works, as Reuters described it, is that targeted Americans are selected “by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions”; moreover, “there is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel” nor “any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.” So, absent a fortuitous leak (acts for which the Obama administration is vindictively doling out the most severe punishment), it would be impossible for American citizens to know that they’ve been selected for execution by President Obama (and thus obviously impossible to to assert one’s due process rights to stop it).

Worse still, if a judicial proceeding is commenced by a targeted American seeking to put a halt to the assassination attempt in the absence of a trial — as Awlaki’s father did, with the help of the ACLU and CCR, on behalf of his son — then the Obama DOJ will insist that the reasons for the assassination are “state secrets” and cannot be judicially examined, and independently, that such matters are for the President alone to decide and courts thus have no role to play in interfering with such decisions (see POINT II). American courts, largely deferential to claims of presidential secrecy and authority in the post-9/11 era, almost reflexively accept such claims. In other words, if a targeted American tries to assert these due process rights, the Obama administration will go into court and take exactly the opposite position of the one Panetta is claiming here: namely, that the person has no rights to have a court interfere in the President’s assassination order.

So for so many reasons, Panetta’s claim is utterly false: American citizens secretely targeted by President Obama for execution have no means of obtaining due process even in the unlikely case that they learn they have been so targeted. And this is all independent of Panetta’s warped notion that an American has to be on U.S. soil to claim constitutional protections, a wholesale rejection of well-settled Constitutional law that Americans have the right to travel abroad and, when they do, they retain their Constitutional rights against the U.S. government even when on foreign soil. As the Supreme Court put it in 1956, specifically discussing the requirement that a citizen be given a trial before punishment can be doled out (emphasis added):

At the beginning, we reject the idea that, when the United States acts against citizens abroad, it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. When the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution provide to protect his life and liberty should not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land. This is not a novel concept. To the contrary, it is as old as government.

But the final point is the most important and revealing of all: Panetta’s whole case rests on simply asserting, without proving, that Awlaki was a Terrorist trying to “kill Americans.” That, of course, is precisely what is in dispute: actual Yemen experts have long questioned whether Awlaki had any operational role at all in Al Qaeda (as opposed to a role as its advocate, which is clearly protected free speech). No evidence has been publicly presented that Awlaki had any such role. We simply have the untested, unverified accusations of government officials, such as Leon Panetta, that he is guilty: in other words, we have nothing but decrees of guilt. The U.S. Constitution, first and foremost, was designed to prohibit the doling out of punishments based on government accusations untested and unproven in a court of law; for those who doubt that, just read the relevant provisions (“No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court“; “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”).

But as I wrote the other day, “the U.S. really is a society that simply no longer believes in due process: once the defining feature of American freedom that is now scorned as some sort of fringe, radical, academic doctrine.” Instead:

Supporters of both political parties endorse, or at least tolerate, all manner of government punishment without so much as the pretense of a trial, based solely on government accusation: imprisonment for life, renditions to other countries, even assassinations of their fellow citizens. Simply uttering the word Terrorist, without proving it, is sufficient.

Here we have the U.S. Defense Secretary, life-long Democrat Leon Panetta, telling you as clearly as he can that this is exactly the operating premise of the administration in which he serves: once the President accuses you of being a Terrorist, a decision made in secert and with no checks or due process, we can do anything we want to you, including executing you wherever we find you. It’s hard to know what’s more extraordinary: that he feels so comfortable saying this right out in the open, or that so few people seem to mind.

* * * * *

ABC News‘ Jake Tapper pressed White House spokesman Jay Carney back in October about the evidence the administration possesses showing Awlaki’s guilt, and the same authoritarian decree issued: we have said he’s a Terrorist and that is all that is necessary.

 

Share
29 Jan

Romney is a Liar

 

Aids Anti-LGBT Discrimination

Only two weeks after Romney said that he opposed discrimination against LGBT Americans, his tax returns reveal a different story. The Republican presidential hopeful donated at least $35,000 to the Massachusetts Family Institute and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberties, as well as $4 million to the Mormon Church–all three organizations are notorious for their anti-LGBT discrimination.

The Massachusetts Family Institute is a vocal opponent of marriage equality, believes sexual orientation can be “cured,” and has worked against gay-straight alliances and other programs designed to make schools safer for LGBT students.

The Becket Fund is also vehemently opposed to marriage equality and has compared pro-equality activists to Al-Qaeda terrorists.

Source:

Share
24 Jan

No Words Necessary

Share

© 2012 themcglynn.com/theliberal.net | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)

Global Positioning System Gazettewordpress logo