Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Union to Input: Outgo!

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted April 25, 2005.


A progressive film festival would do almost anything to respect a union boycott of the Hilton this May -- except lose over a half million dollars in penalties. The union will accept nothing less.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Rory O'Connor

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Sally Jo Fifer has a million dollar problem.

Fifer heads the Independent Television Service (ITVS), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting-funded home for independent producers. Fifer and her organization are caught in the middle of a fierce labor dispute between the San Francisco Hilton Hotel and Unite Here Local 2, which represents hotel and restaurant workers.

The Hilton and 13 other hotels are at odds with more than 4,000 union workers in stalled contract negotiations that have no date for resumption. The union says it is fighting for "fair wages and pensions, affordable health care, and a respectful relationship now and in the future."

Following a two week strike last fall and a subsequent five week lockout, union members are now working and the hotels are at full service during an open-ended cooling off period brokered in November by Mayor Gavin Newsom. With no new talks scheduled, union representatives are now asking the public to boycott the hotels.

Fifer says she "absolutely understands and respects and supports" the union position.

To Michael Casey, president of local 2, the way to support the union is clear. "Get out of the hotel," says Casey. "That's how to help us."

Fifer's problem? ITVS is sponsoring Input 2005, an important international public media conference to be held May 1-5 at the Hilton, and Fifer says she can't afford to move it, citing a $663,000 penalty clause in the contract with the hotel, along with hundreds of thousands of estimated relocation costs.

The annual conference, "dedicated to the proposition that television should be public service in the public interest, and that access to the most honest, innovative, provocative, courageous and challenging broadcasting is a universal fundamental human right," brings together thousands of independent and public television professionals from dozens of countries. Held in a different country every May, it was last in the US six years ago, and last in the Bay Area -- long a center for independent media -- twenty-six. In addition to screening programs, the conference often leads to co-productions and joint ventures among participants.

In the last month, Local 2 supporters have launched an e-mail campaign to numerous independent media organizations and producers, encouraging them to join in putting pressure on ITVS and INPUT to relocate the conference from the Hilton. Fifer says she's "heartsick" about the situation, but has no choice. "Ironically, one of the reasons we chose the hotel in the first place was because it was unionized," she says, adding that the contract did have an escape clause in the event of a strike. Since there is no strike now -- only the union call for a boycott -- ITVS has been advised that it is in a binding legal agreement with the hotel, and Fifer says her publicly funded non-profit group lacks sufficient financial resources not to proceed as planned. Nevertheless, Fifer would like to be supportive of the union, and says she has suggested some creative alternatives, such as "sponsoring screenings of labor films, holding forums and discussions, and having independent filmmakers document the struggle of local 2 against the hotels.

"We've offered to support the union in any way we could," says Fifer. "Just because I can't move the conference, doesn't mean I don't support the union!"

"If you support them financially, you're NOT supporting us," counters local 2 Boycott Community Coordinator Kelly Dugan. "We don't want any other support. The fight is economic. The only way to support us is to honor the boycott -- either move or you're aiding our enemy."


Digg!

This and other articles by Rory O'Connor are available on his blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
the collaboration goes deep
Posted by: mungojelly on Apr 26, 2005 2:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is why it's hard to agitate for change in this society. It's hard not to collaborate with the enemy when the enemy owns almost all the land, almost all the establishments, almost all the institutions. It leads to all sorts of absurdities: Progressive labor activists being waited on by minimum wage janitors & maids & clerks, "Save The Rainforest" posters written on virgin posterboard, etc.

It's not impossible to escape this sort of dilemma, but it does require *fundamentally* questioning the assumptions you were raised with as a member of this society. Personally I am an Anarchist. You may not agree with our politics, but as activists who are trying to change fundamental relationships of inequality in our society, there is still a lot you could learn from how we've structured our resistance.

Our praxis (or at least, my own, not *all* under the Anarchist flag would agree) is that the means *must* encapsulate the ends. Staying at the Hilton is collaboration even if they're *not* presently having a strike, because a world with Hiltons (at least as they presently are: wealthy owners, struggling workers, all sorts of environmental toxins, the exclusion of the poor) is simply not the world we desire to live in or create.

What then *can* you do (you may wonder), given that so much in our society is so distant from what we'd like to see? Well, it does require some creativity. As an example, a common Anarchist solution for where to stay during large events is to arrange for visitors to be hosted in the homes of locals, or in other noncommercial spaces such as churches, community centers, squats or even outdoors. The disadvantages of this approach include that you don't get the comforts & amenities of being waited on by poor people (we consider this also a positive point), & the advantages include more communication, solidarity, trust & connection between activists (& needless to say, vastly reduced costs).

Even if you reject the Anarchist critiques of authority, government & property, that should not dissuade you from learning from our methods. Just imagine what all of the millions of dollars spent on "progressive causes"-- but in fact simply turned around & sent back out the door to the ruling class in exchange for trinkets (lawn signs, pamphlets littered on the ground, fancy hotel stays)-- imagine what it could do if actually applied efficiently toward the process of change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The union should bend
Posted by: Sothis on Apr 26, 2005 2:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that given the particulars of the situation, the union should give up on its rigidity and support the festival. After all, the festival is there in least in part because the Hilton is unionized, thus showing its support of unions. Both nonprofits and unions are struggling to survive these days and need to support each other. Unions that are this rigid toward their friends are risking alienating all their supporters. And what a sendup it would be - documentaries being shown inside the Hilton about how the Hilton suppresses its workers!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't fall for it, don't be scabs
Posted by: herb on Apr 26, 2005 10:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if people actually know what scab means? If you go to work at someplace under strike. I bet these people don't even know what a Wobbly is. Neat con they pulled on the "progressive" film makers though. Real dirty. Nixon would have been proud. Regan would have applauded the stealth involved in trapping these people in an untenable situation AND destroying the festival too. Slick. Sick, but slick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When to be nice
Posted by: jcminterp on Apr 27, 2005 12:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Geez, I'd like to agree with the union, but someone should work on coalition skills. "We don't want any other support." Really? Did they have to say the others are "aiding our enemy"? Maybe there is no middle ground on doing business with the boycott, but maybe that's the problem with consumer boycotts. If there is no "creative solution," maybe that's for lack of creativity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cal
Posted by: cal on Apr 27, 2005 8:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given that ITVS chose the Hilton because it's unionized, and there's a strike clause in the contract, and the whole thing was arranged before the labor problems started, why doesn't the union try to work with its supporter by calling a strike for that week? Then the union - the people with the most direct interest in the labor issues - can put its own money, and not anyone else's, where its mouth is.

Because of the penalty clause, the only people who would lose - a lot - in this "war" are people who don't have a direct stake in the outcome: ITVS. The union wouldn't lose anything, because they're still at work. The Hilton wouldn't make as much as they would if the conference were held there, but they won't come away with nothing, either - ITVS would have to pay anyway. ITVS - funded with taxpayers' money - would bear the entire cost of "supporting" the union.

Is the union leadership really serving its members by putting supporters in such an untenable position? Is it really helpful to the members for the leaders to demand that supporters make sacrifices, and then turn around and slap the hand that's extended to try to help by making denigrating and belittling comments about their supporters? If that's their idea of "negotiation", then they're no different from, and certainly no better than, the corporation they hate to work for.

I've always been generally supportive of unions, and definitely of the workers, but my personal experience is that union leadership is, like the leadership of many organizations, much more interested in protecting itself than the people it supposedly speaks for, and has a stunningly narrow view of the consequences of many of their actions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

have unions outlived their usefulness?
Posted by: commonsense on May 1, 2005 2:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just going off the healthcare issue mentioned in the article,
maybe the question should be asked as to whether unions
have grown beyond their respective charters in terms of
their real purpose of giving people a 'fair shake', and instead
have now turned into hired muscle putting the squeeze on
industries already otherwise in trouble. Every penny added
to the operating overhead of a given company or corporation
is just one more straw on the camel's back, bringing the
whole apparatus that much closer to disaster.

One of the driving forces putting offshoring at the top
of the corporate 'to do' list is that very overhead, and
the more expectations are levied against employers
to provide this or that benefit is just another vote in favor
of hiring from overseas for 1/3 the cost of an american worker's package...definitely food for thought in a globally
competitive market, where such corporate largesse is
not only unheard of, but also unthinkable due to much tighter profit margins. GM and Ford are cases in point in what happens when you let a union really start digging into your profitability, both major american auto-makers are flirting
with bankruptcy and eventual poverty due to years and years of acceding to union demands for this,that and the other.
Plainly put, it's just not sustainable. Unless unions become more progressive in their capacity to make concessions on
behalf of the workers they represent, they will find themselves at an empty bargaining table with no chips to play, because companies will either go bust, or move entirely to china or elsewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]