Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Arkansas, Exxon Is Threatening to Arrest Reporters But Otherwise Telling Nobody Nothing
- It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security
- An Outpouring of Love and Support for Bradley Manning to Receive the Nobel Peace Prize
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- Fukushima Meltdown Driving Increased Abnormalities Among US Infants
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- The Treason of Intellectuals
- The Growing Campaign to Revoke Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
Popular content
Today's Top News
Amid Possible Strike, D.C. Labor and Occupy Movements March Together
If Wall Street has become the symbolic nerve center for greed and inequality, its political traffic merges onto K Street, Washington DC’s Broadway for deep-pocketed corporate lobbyists.
But like Wall Street, K Street is now also home to activists who are fed up with a system that rewards the wealthy while delivering nothing but cuts to the rest of us. Part of the general Occupy Wall Street movement that has spread around the country, “Occupy DC” activists are camped out in MacPherson Square where they are working to replicate the kind of occupation that has rocked the streets of New York’s financial district for the last month.
Photo by Chris Garlock, Union City
This week, K Street was also part of a march route for building cleaners fighting for a fair contract. The workers – who are preparing for a possible strike in the coming days – marched shoulder to shoulder with Occupy DC protestors.
With their contract that was set to expire on October 15 at 12:01 a.m. – a deadline that has now been extended to October 17 – members of SEIU 32BJ have voted to strike if a settlement is not reached. The union and other labor groups assembled at a park near MacPherson Square on Wednesday where they were joined by Occupy DC and other occupying protestors in the city.
Chanting “Sí se puede” and “No contract, no peace,” close to 500 workers and their Occupy protest supporters marched in the rain through downtown donned in SEIU’s signature purple shirts and hats. Activists from MacPherson Square wore union-tagged parkas as they marched with a banner that read “Occupy DC.”
The nearly 12,000 office cleaners who have been in contract negotiations since early September are fighting for fair raises, reasonable workload standards, and more full-time jobs with benefits. A large majority of the predominately Latino workforce is forced to work part-time, bringing home poverty wages and almost no benefits. Some workers make as little as $9 an hour. Many are expected to do the same amount of work in four hours with half the number of staff than they had only a few years ago.
Meanwhile, DC’s commercial real estate sector is thriving, with one of the strongest markets in the nation. Cleaning companies in the Washington Service Contractors Association have been pushing back against workers who are demanding a contract that reflects the rising cost of living in the area. The companies claim that current wages and other terms agreed to in the 2007 contract were reasonable before the onset of the Great Recession from which they say the industry is still recovering.
But for 32BJ and its members, such claims are belied by the fact that building owners are enjoying their most profitable year since the economic crisis hit. According to the Washington Post, the chief executive of Boston Properties, one of the largest building owners in D.C., told analysts on a conference call in August that while the outlook for the economy in general “certainly doesn’t look promising…what is relatively good are the commercial office buildings in major cities.” One commercial real estate expert estimates that only 8 percent of operating costs for large building owners in D.C. goes toward cleaning services.
In other words, the large commercial building owners are not so different from the corporate titans and hedge fund managers on Wall Street sitting on $2 trillion while teachers are being laid off and the poor are being kicked off of public assistance. Occupy protestors and the workers of 32BJ are demanding their fair share from the wealthy minority at the top.
And the janitors’ fight extends far beyond Washington D.C. The struggle in the nation’s capital is part of a larger 32BJ contract battle that involves some 60,000 building cleaners from Connecticut to Virginia. As one of SEIU’s mega-locals, 32BJ affiliated with the national union as a result of the latter’s “Justice for Janitors” campaign in the 1990s.
At Wednesday’s protest, 32NJ Capitol Area Director Jaime Contreras affirmed that the workers are ready to strike if need be. He pointed to the rising cost of rent and transportation that workers face in the area and vowed to fight until a fair contract is won.
Speaking to the larger injustices that the janitors’ struggle symbolizes, Contreras reminded workers and the Occupy protestors at their side that CEO pay went up 21 percent in 2010.
“Something is wrong in America when one percent of the people own 33 percent of the wealth,” he said. “We’re not afraid of the bosses. We will fight to the end until we win a fair contract.”
Others to address the workers included Gustavo Torres, executive director of CASA de Maryland, an immigrant rights community organization, and Joslyn Williams, president of the Metropolitan Washington Council, AFL-CIO. City Councilmember Jim Graham spoke as well. He and the rest of the City Council have signed a pledge in support of the janitors.
The convergence of labor and the Occupy protestors at the action highlighted the fact that both groups are engaged in the same struggle. In broad terms, they are all fighting against economic inequality and a system that puts the priorities of profit above the needs of people.
And with the workers and activists linking arms, organized labor and Occupy protestors in the nation’s capital have an opportunity to put more muscle into the movement against corporate greed. Whether or not this solidarity can be sustained with the combination of labor and other left forces remains to be seen.
The wave of protest occupations against corporate greed that began on Wall Street has taken the country by storm. In cities across the U.S. masses of people are calling out Wall Street barons and the politicians in both parties who do their bidding. While the media and other establishment figures have at times been easily puzzled by the protestors’ purpose, the reason for this organized expression of rage couldn’t be more obvious.
People are coming together because workers and the poor – or “the 99 percent,” as protestors call themselves – are suffering the effects of an economic crisis created by the same parasitic class at the top that continues to enjoy the spoils of its class war against the rest of society. The accumulated anger produced by decades of class warfare against workers and the poor has found expression in this struggle – a struggle born in an age of bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, home foreclosures, union-busting, record unemployment, and merciless cuts to social spending.
That this movement has swept the country was not inevitable, but nor is it surprising. The support of the labor movement has undoubtedly helped attract wider layers of society into the struggle, including union members, the unemployed and the underemployed,
In New York, local unions like Transport Workers Union Local 100 and SEIU 1199 threw their weight behind the protests. Along with the sympathy generated by unprovoked police violence against Occupy protestors, high-profile endorsements at the national level from the AFL-CIO and others propelled the Occupy Wall Street movement onto the stage of national politics.
In Washington, DC, protestors have also received endorsements from a number of local unions. On Wednesday, the Occupy protestors marched to the National Labor Relations Board, calling for fairer labor laws, before joining Communication Workers of America (CWA) at a Verizon Wireless store – CWA members at Verizon are still stuck in contract negotiations with Verizon following their historic two-week strike on the east coast involving 45,000 workers back in August. The final stop for Occupy protestors on the labor march was the janitors’ protest. There, activists expressed solidarity with the workers and invited the workers to join them in their occupation.
This was an important step in the local Occupy movement. Following the tense scene in Manhattan this week that concluded with a victory against the threatened eviction of protestors of Zuccotti Park, a new jolt of energy and determination is fueling the movement in the lead-up to this weekend’s global day of action. In D.C. the day of action will include a massive march and rally for jobs and justice led by Rev. Al Sharpton and the National Action Network, commemorating the life of Dr. Martin Luther King at the site of the new national memorial built in his honor. The march promises to bring together labor, civil rights activists, and the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Efforts to put the thrust of organized labor behind the Occupy struggle in D.C. in the longterm, however, are complicated by the fact that there are still two separate occupations in the city. One was planned months before the Occupy Wall Street movement emerged and began a few days after protestors in MacPherson Square – who are more directly tied to the Occupy Wall Street movement – started their occupation.
The hundreds who have been camping out in Freedom Plaza in what is called the “Stop the Machine” occupation present a longer list of issues and demands than Occupy DC protestors have raised, including anti-war and environmental justice demands. Both Stop the Machine in Freedom Plaza and Occupy DC in MacPherson Square have been mutually supportive of each other, but there are also signs of tension. Efforts on both ends to merge the two occupations have been met with resistance, especially in MacPherson Square.
This division has been a source of frustration for some who argue that it will be difficult for D.C. labor and other groups to unify with a struggle that is itself divided.
As Clara Castillo, a rank-and-file member of 32BJ said on Wednesday, “We are stronger united – that’s why we are here.”
That’s as true for the Occupy movement as it is for the janitors. The looming prospect of a walkout among janitors will be an important test for the local movement as the level of strike solidarity among protestors will help determine if broader forces can be brought into the struggle.
That solidarity would also underscore the need for unity among the protestors and the instrumental role that the organized working-class can play in the larger fight against the injustices trafficked by Wall Street and K Street.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


27 Comments so far
Show AllNice that Labor finally joined - and they're welcome to march alongside. But the minute they want to diffuse the momentum, they've been too late to the party to get control. Let's treat them with respectful suspicion.
I was typing while you were posting, I'm gratified to see there are others that are thinking along the same lines.
Hopefully all participants will stop focussing on "corporate GREED". Greed has always existed and will exist until humans are extinct and nobody will ever be able to change that.
Until the focus shifts to eliminating CORPORATE CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT, which FDR's New Deal proved to be an achievable goal, the movement's purpose will continue to be questioned and no progress made.
Although corporate greed continued to exist from the advent of the New Deal in 1934 until Ronny Raygun and his successors destroyed it, that greed was held in check and unable to negatively impact the rest of us. Today corporate greed drives every decision the US Government makes and negatively impacts all of us.
O! And here we go again with the 'humanity is basically greedy and evil' song. Puh-leez. Back in the Great Depression of the 30's Hershey cut his work force hours so he could hire more people even if it cut his profits.
We won't get anywhere until we can get out of the 'humanity is basically bad' box. All you have to do is look closely at these (and past) protests to see how hard people are working to get along together in non-violent activities.
Now, if you want to work to eliminate the Corporations as Persons situation, I'm with you. It allows the few real crazies for whom money is a victory token to rob us blind, and removing it will make all our lives better.
Organized labor marching side by side because they have a labor dispute, because they have a contract coming up, is not helpful. Making this about Unions or their problems is not helpful, even the perception is not helpful if it is about specific Union concerns.
And "Chanting “Sí se puede” is about as helpful as driving a nail through your foot. This is playing right (no pun intended) into their hands. When middle America see's that on the news they are reminded of one of the things most are opposed to.
And stop right there, if you don't know that middle America is who we are trying to recruit, that the power resides in the swing voters, the independents you are simply clueless. If you believe change will come through the magic of osmosis or some sort of "revolution" or doing away with capitalism, that voting or working politically dosen't matter or that there will be a a sudden agreement to hand over the key's to the car so to speak, you might want to apply for residence in the real world.
Propaganda is fine as long as you don't begin to believe your own.
I want to reinforce your thoughts. OCW is NOT about unions. OCW is bigger than that. The union's have a selfish agenda. Environmentalism means nothing to union workers. They WANT to build the tar sands oil pipeline through the heart of America. If unions want to join the OCW movement as individuals, that is fine, but as an organization, that is hubris. There may be some commonalities but we do not want to be joined at the hip, and , there are many serious differences. OCW got hijacked by the unions in Washington. That should end NOW or OCW is finished as a movement.
The unions want to join now and make it about them. Politicians want to join and try to make it about them. I would be definitely suspicious if SEIU is the union involved after having been through one of these labor/union /benefits wars with them taking the lead and hogging the media and not letting those involved be heard. Support is always good but let's hope those there can keep them in a secondary support position.
How blind can you be? The unions have been fighting these battles for a century! If you haven't marched with a union member before now, shame on you!
Truth be told, most of the OWS participants, young and old, are there for each of their own "selfish agendas", just like the unions are. The young can't get jobs or pay their student loans back, the old cannot pay the mortgage, can't retire, yadda yadda, yadda.
OWS will succeed ONLY if it can attract, unify and maintain unity among diverse interests whose only common denominator is likely to be that they are part of the 99% getting screwed by the 1%.
OWS will succeed only if it attracts Middle Americans. I don't see Middle America faces in these protests. They just aren't there. I wish the best for the OWS movement. I back it. I'm looking closely to see if its something I can offer real support to, and right now, I'm not sure. Diversity? Of course. But that includes a blend of regular citizens along the side of 'hipsters'. Right now it seems they're willing to be the Whore for the usual suspects. Wham-bam-thank-you-mam, one night stand'nr.
Sadly, I think you're right. Most of the "regular citizens" I've talked to about this prefer not to think of themselves as part of the unwashed masses. They like to think they are still upwardly mobile, despite all the evidence to the contrary. More points for our wonderful education/propaganda system.
Are you ignoring the polls?
70% "agreement" with Occupiers' grievances in FOXNews poll of over 200,000 people indicates that "Middle America" backs this thing more than you think.
They just don't want to stand in the rain and listen to 5 dozen 22-year-olds in a row talk about their feelings on things is all. ;)
SEIU, the darlings of WS, turn to bite the hand. They care for nothing but their own agenda. I was wondering when these pro-amnesty (AKA cheap labor) organizations were going to infiltrate and dilute the movement. I heard one of their loud mouths a week or two ago on Democracy Now.
Even though John F. Butterfield said "shame on you" and "how blind can you be" to my comments about SEIU, my experience trying to "march with them" to save my own job was not a positive one. Unions may have been fighting this battle for a hundred or more years, but there's always the coziness of some high profile senior union officials to the people they're negotiating with, the gangster association that the Teamsters and others have had, and so on. The idea of unions appeals to me in theory, but SEIU -- at least the branch my coworkers and I belonged to -- doesn't.
Sorry, Paranoid Pessimist, my response was way too hasty and I can agree with much of what you are saying. I know what it is like to try to contend with both employer and union shortcomings at the same time. Sometimes the "senior union officials" are in office because of appreciation of battles they fought long ago and not for what they have recently done or are currently doing. Also, they are usually from the big states, at least in my experience. Struggle is a process. Make friends and have as much fun as you can along the way. I hope you are a process person. If you are a goals person, as I have a very strong tendency to be, you won't have much fun or many friends; and if the goals are never reached . . .
It is unclear from your post if are now gainfully employed. I hope you are and wish you well.
I like the way Brian summarized it:
"....People are coming together because workers and the poor – or “the 99 percent,” as protestors call themselves – are suffering the effects of an economic crisis created by the same parasitic class at the top that continues to enjoy the spoils of its class war against the rest of society. The accumulated anger produced by decades of class warfare against workers and the poor has found expression in this struggle – a struggle born in an age of bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, home foreclosures, union-busting, record unemployment, and merciless cuts to social spending."
but wish that he had also included "and trillions of taxpayers' dollars thrown away in useless overseas wars of aggression" . . . . .That the wars are directly also responsible for the economic mess we find ourselves in is undeniable.
All military war spending is money that is NOT being used to rebuild America.
The Mafia were good at the "protection racket," money paid for "insurance" your home or shop wouldn't be busted up or set on fire ---------but they are nothing compared to the excesses of the USA.
The only difference between Wall Street and the mafia is that Wall Street owns more politicians. Its all organized crime.
The name of the movement is “Occupy TOGETHER” (emphasis added) – at least that’s the name of the central website. Yet, there are some who do not share the spirit of unity conveyed by the name. There are some who don’t believe certain issues and groups should not be brought into the fold. Of course, there are forces that absolutely do not belong in this struggle, including libertarians who want no regulation of Wall Street (precisely the opposite of what this movement is about), or people with bigoted views who buy into the same oppressive politics (i.e. racism, anti-abortion, etc.) that the ruling one percent use to keep our side divided.
But there are some who don’t think unions have a place in the OWS struggle. And still there are others who evidently think immigrant rights, LGBT rights and other anti-oppression issues should stay out. On the one hand, the suspicion toward mainstream liberal groups and union leadership is absolutely right. But, in the labor movement, there is a difference between the leadership and the rank-and-file. To assert that the latter as a collective is bad for the movement is utterly wrongheaded and counterproductive. It is based on a totally simplistic understanding of the labor movement and working-class politics in this country – and it’s rooted in an ahistorical perspective on movement-building. I believe that those who have such views are in the minority. But in certain places they are very vocal and they need to be challenged. For those who want to exclude issues of oppression, they lack any serious analysis of the interconnectedness of these issues and the overall system of exploitation and greed. Racism, sexism, homophobia – these are all weapons wielded to keep “the 99 percent” divided. We cannot mount an effective struggle against Wall Street, the banks, and the capitalist system as a whole without making the fight against the oppressive politics of the ruling class an integral part of that struggle. And to the argument that this movement has yet to incorporate "Middle America" and it's so far just a gathering of hippies, go down to one of these occupations and talk to people. There are in fact construction workers, teachers, and the unemployed who are part of this struggle. Yes, there needs to be more. The involvement of organized labor is critical to bringing these sections of the population more fully into this movement.
In D.C. some Occupy protestors rightly do not want their efforts to be co-opted by larger liberal organizations. The danger of such organizations turning the movement into a get-out-the-vote operation for the Democratic Party is absolutely something we need to be weary of – the Occupy movement must remain fiercely independent of the Democrats, who are part of the problem. In that sense, suspicious and exclusive impulses are somewhat understandable. When taken to the extreme and applied without nuance, however, these impulses are unhealthy and seriously problematic for the movement. Thankfully, the sentiment does not appear to be hampering the wider struggle on a national and international level because so many other sections of society have joined the movement and so exclusivity and sectarianism is more of a minority view. But in D.C. the local peculiarities of the struggle are being dominated in certain ways by such politics. There is a dangerous strand of sectarianism that runs through the prefigurative, lifestyle politics of some of the protestors here. Such politics are based on a moralism that lends itself to personalistic conflict and sectarianism. It’s a divisiveness that flows from a refusal among some to articulate concrete demands. And, frankly, it flows from the contradictory and profoundly undemocratic nature of a group that pushes the illusion of “leaderless” struggle. There are always leaders in any movement, whether they are formally recognized as such or not – the difference is that de facto leaders cannot be held accountable when we pretend they don’t exist.
The failure to see past organizational turf wars and understand the need to bring larger layers of society into this movement presents a serious problem for Occupy activists in DC. We need a united front, not “autonomous,” unconnected spaces of struggle. Hopefully the divisions can be overcome here in D.C. and anywhere else that they may be threatening to stifle the movement.
Occupy TOGETHER!
Very nicely reasoned and expressed, SubDisp.
I expressed basically the same thoughts, though nowhere near as eloquently, a few days ago and a few worthy CDers saw fit to jump up and down on me with spiked boots. Here's hoping your literary power soothes the savage beast.
No, there are not always leaders. Especially when the forces that are crushing human hope and creativity are bearing on so many. I refer you to a wonderful little book on empirical studies "The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations" by Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom. You can get a used copy cheap at Amazon.
One of the truly great successes of the plutarchy has been ridicule: protesters are dirty drug using hippies and leaderless groups are powerless. Leaders limit the size and potential of groups. What the plutarchs really fear is any action taken by large groups of people who are starved for their lives, who are willing to fight for the lives of their children and friends and neighbors. This isn't just about jobs and some kind of Adam Smith selfishness. It's about real standards of living, and health, and justice and being able to live in a country we feel good about.
You can't kill that kind of passion: it will find a way.
It might be better to say "in any human grouping, including consensus-based-decision-making, most participants will be 'leaders' (directional forces) sometimes and 'followers' (reinforcing elements) other times. But some participants will be 'leaders' more often than not, and vice versa. And a few -but important few- will only participate as 'leaders' or 'followers'."
Anthropologically speaking, this is generally accepted as a fact of human interaction.
The risk in "leaderless" anything is that failure to address this fact of human interaction can lead to "unofficial" or crypto-leaders that guide the consensus without checks that would be in place in groupings that addressed this fact.
I will check out the book you referenced. In the meantime, check out the essay "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" - if you haven't read it already (just google it).
The fact is there are always individuals who emerge at the fore of a group's decision-making process, whether it's by virtue of the fact that they are able to devote more time than others or simply because of outspoken personality - usually both. I've been to meetings of plenty of groups that claimed to be leaderless and the leaders were clearly identifiable to me - even if they didn't call themselves leaders. It is an organic reality in group interaction among human beings. The question is whether we want such a reality to be democratically structured or not. Paradoxically, groups that claim to be leaderless often have an even more authoritarian bent - even though it is unspoke and subtle - than those that have formal leaders. Individuals more involved and who speak the most effectively take charge, however informally, over the direction of the group. I see it happen all the time. The problem is, in those settings, there is no formal process for the group to democratically chose which person or persons should take the lead. And there is no formal process to hold those individuals accountable because no one wants to admit that they are leaders even though they essentially function as leaders within the group.
...but I will see about getting a copy of The Starfish and the Spider.
The plutarchs, through their media (Plato would be proud of them), have worked very hard to raise us up with ideas that keep us in their thrall. The great thing about the empirical stance is that it allows us to break through the propaganda.
I am reminded of a story that explains leaderlessness very well in terms of cleaning up after a party. In the first story, each of the women in the group looks around and does whatever task is nearest her to do...pick up the dishes, take up leftovers. A strictly leaderless, community of effort. In the second story, a man stands up and gives orders.
While we are talking books..."A Paradise Built in Hell" by Rebecca Solnit also breaks stereotypes.
___________________________________
Great social change in large populations cannot occur without a number of strong leaders that work cooperatively together according to an agreed upon system or structure. It is my personal opinion that the leadership structure should also be as decentralized as possible while maintaining discipline, strong communication, and efficient decision-making. In addition, the leadership should be highly respectful and responsive to all active members within the movement.
That 'strong leader' idea is a box and a trap. It is exactly what the plutarchs want to believe...that the people are so stupid they need a leader, and it is the leader's fault. Kill him, win the war.
See 'Governing the Commons" by nobel price winner Ostrom for yet another example of communal success.
Leaders can be co-opted, influenced even assassinated. They're individuals with easily recognizable weaknesses. The 1% don't have an easily recognizable target. The power and strength lies in the sum of each individual in this movement. BTW, I've been on the streets participating. Reminds me of the Vietnam protests in that their weren't very many leaders but it started to permeate and resonate with all parts of our society.
Ralph Nadar was an invited guest speaker at Occupation of Freedom Plaza. After the usual criticisms about crony capitalism, corporate capitalism, global capitalism, etc. he concluded his remarks with a specific warning: Do not allow Occupation of Freedom Plaza to be co-opted by johnnies-come-lately.