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.

The Man Who United Labor and the Environment

By Will Tanzman, AlterNet. Posted January 3, 2008.


Tony Mazzocchi was a leader in the movement to make industrial production less harmful to workers and the natural environment.

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

More stories by Will Tanzman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In the last 10 years, labor-environmental alliances have experienced an upswing. In 1999, thousands of union members and environmentalists came together to fight the World Trade Organization on the streets of Seattle. A coalition of labor unions and environmentalists created the Apollo Alliance in 2004 in order to promote a national program of "green-collar jobs" that will protect the environment and decrease the United States' reliance on imported oil. The Apollo Alliance was joined in early 2007 by the Union Sportsman's Alliance, a coalition of conservationists and unions with members who hunt, fish and enjoy the outdoors. In addition to these national efforts, a number of local organizations, coalitions and government agencies have kicked off "green jobs" programs of various sorts.

The work of these alliances is important because it addresses one of the most penetrating criticisms of the environmental movement: the charge that environmentalists ignore human needs. According to this critique, environmentalists are willing to throw thousands of workers out of jobs in order to save an owl that doesn't particularly matter in the grand scheme of things. The fact that many working-class Americans believe that environmental protection is not in their self-interest is a major obstacle for successful environmental regulation. Fortunately for both the environmental movement and workers, economic justice and environmental protection don't have to be mutually exclusive. Every worker deserves a good job, but there is no reason that job shouldn't be in the field of building renewable energy infrastructure, improving energy efficiency in houses and offices or running public transportation. The strength of the green jobs movement is that it is committed to promoting economic justice by creating precisely that set of jobs and ensuring that these jobs provide living wages and decent benefits.

Because of significant clashes between labor and environmental groups in the 1980s and '90s around logging, industrial emissions and auto-efficiency standards, many people are unaware of the long history of labor-environmental partnerships. Fortunately, a book was published last month that reminds us of some important moments in that history. The Man Who Hated Work and Loved Labor: the Life and Times of Tony Mazzocchi, by Les Leopold, is the inspiring story of a union leader who was a pioneer in labor-environmental coalition-building.

During more than five decades in the labor movement from the 1950s until his death in 2003, Mazzocchi was a key leader in the movement to make industrial production less harmful to workers, residents of the communities surrounding factories and the natural environment.

Leopold chronicles Mazzocchi's organizing in a variety of social movements and describes his personal life in some detail. Mazzocchi's involvement in the environmental movement is only one part of the book, but a part that is particularly relevant to the struggles in today's economy. Through the lens of Mazzocchi's life and work, Leopold provides a fascinating account of some of the early episodes in the history of labor-environmental collaboration, which can teach us useful lessons for the continuation of that work today.

Tony Mazzocchi joined the labor movement in New York in 1950 as an assembly line worker at a unionized cosmetics factory. Within a few years, he had emerged as a leader in the factory's local union, which soon merged into the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW). Like many of the progressive unions that organized during the 1930s and 1940s, Mazzocchi's local union fought for improvements in the factory, but the movement did not stop at the factory gates. Mazzocchi led his local to help organize unions in a number of other factories in the surrounding area, and he engaged his membership in a variety of local political issues, including support for the early civil rights movement.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: tony mazzocchi, the man who hated work an, unions, environment, green jobs

Will Tanzman is an organizer with Interfaith Worker Justice.

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:
Nice work!
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 2, 2008 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In reality, environmental, labor and economic and racial discrimination issues all go hand in hand. Just look at the most polluted regions of the country - they're the poorest.

As far as the spotted owl issue goes, the solution there is selective cutting - which the financiers don't like, because it requires more labor and care than clearcutting, thus reducing their profit margins. Selective cutting leaves most trees standing, avoiding the erosion that kills off all the salmon, for example.

The standard corporate PR involves trying to wedge these issues apart - so that the hand behind the devastation can remain hidden. They'd rather have labor groups and environmental groups at each other's throats, and they spend a lot of time and money trying to achieve that.

Essentially, the corporate mindset is that every penny spent on worker safety and health protection is a subtraction from their bottom line. Every penny spent on environmental protection (smokestack scrubbers, etc.) is another subtraction from the bottom line.

If the U.S. government enacts regulations on worker health and safety due to popular demand, the corporatocracy responds by trying to ship those industries overseas to China, Mexico, and other countries where labor and environmental protections don't exist - and they get politicians to support "free trade agreements" that allow them to do so - a strategy that was supported by Reagan, by Bush, by Clinton, and by Bush Jr.

That's why savvy labor and environmental groups fight agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, MEFTA, etc.

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

There Are Real Conflicts Between These Interests
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Jan 2, 2008 11:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author's bias is clearly shown in identification of the owls v. loggers issue. Instead of identifying the issue as a humans killing trees and destroying the habitat of a species whose habitat has already been greatly reduced by bad human behavior, including overpopulation, the author makes it look like environmentalists were the problem. Gee, how about something like, "there are far too many humans and they virtually all live in environmentally destructive ways, and environmentalists were just trying to save a tiny portion of the forests that used to be here before loggers destroyed them"? Instead, we are portrayed as the bad guys? Gimme a break!

Environmentalists who want to preserve the natural world can never align themselves with labor in this society, because the basis of the economy is destruction of the Earth. (That's what it means when they teach you in Economics 101 that all economics are based on natural resources, i.e., resource extraction.) Despite the progress the author of the article points out, there have been several major clashes between environmentalists and labor recently.

Labor still advocates oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), labor tried to stop a solar power program in California that will place solar panels on one million roofs (Governor Schwarzenegger saved the program, probably the only good environmental thing he's done aside from grandstanding on global warming), and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) workers demanded such unreasonably high pay in their last contract (they are paid well above the average salaries for both area residents and for others doing similar work, and they don't actually do much because BART is mostly automated) that fares have increased dramatically and service is becoming horrible, which has reduced ridership and caused people to drive.

Labor and environmentalists can work together on some issues, such as reversing investors' rights agreements like NAFTA and GATT, but unless we change the foundation of our economy and unless labor is willing to prioritize the environment over selfish material desires, there can be no real, deep-seated alliance here.

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