Christopher D. Cook

Republicans are now the party of lawlessness and disorder

If it was not clear before, the Senate impeachment trial has laid bare and unmasked Republican Party leaders as a group of political cowards who talk tough yet support lawlessness, anti-constitutional mayhem, and anarchy.

The barren naked truth, revealed starkly by this trial, is that the Republican Party has no interest in "law and order" or the Constitution. If that sounds inflammatory or defamatory, consider this: when was the last time the Republican Party leadership accepted even the slightest responsibility or accountability for anything they've done?

Now comes Trump's impeachment trial, the most extreme and blatant example of Republican lawlessness, mayhem and anarchy—and even with mountains of objective, incontrovertible, inarguable evidence of Trump's impeachable incitement of violent deadly insurrection riots, even now, with every excuse to convict Trump and not a single reason other than political cowardice and calculation not to, the Republican Party still, stunningly if predictably, refuses to apply its relentless mantra of "law and order" to its own.

Make no mistake: when it comes to policing black and Brown people, poor folks, leftists, and protests they disagree with, Trump and Republicans vociferously embrace "law and order" epansions of Patriot Act-style security state and police state crackdowns. The party's Nixonian enthrallment with policing and military might remain stridently intact.

But when that law and order carries consequences for their words and actions, suddenly the Republicans have no accountability, no responsibility, no toughness, no courage to stand by their actions and take the consequences.

When it comes to law and order for polluters, for corrupt or bankrupt corporations, or for routine and repeat violators of workplace safety laws, the Republicans are not just quiet about enforcing rules—they consistently undermine and erode that enforcement through budget and staff cuts and regulatory rollback.

Over the past four years, Trump and the Republicans gutted law and order for big business—dramatically underfunding and rolling back vital (and, back in the days of Nixon, bipartisan) protections for workers and our environment. There is no denying the Republican's avowed, active interest in lawlessness and disorder when it comes to the environment, the planet, and workers—they state it right in their policies. Less enforcement, less regulation. Less law and order for toxic polluters; less accountability or responsibility for oil and coal companies wrecking our planet and future; less regulation—less "law and order"—for food safety, corporate accountability, enforcement of civil rights, voting rights, fair housing, and so much more. As everyone knows, laws don't mean anything without enforcement. Republicans love law enforcement when it comes to cops and soldiers, but nothing else.

The impeachment trial was the Republicans' chance at partial redemption, some semblance of courage and integrity. The facts and evidence are objectively incontrovertible. There really is no debating that Trump incited a deadly insurrection riot, no more so than we might debate that the earth is round. Yet even now, when presented with the inarguable facts of how Trump's lies and incitements led directly to the deadly January 6 insurrection riots, even now, the Republican Party (save for a handful of brave leaders, who likely risk both electoral and death threats) has shown us they simply do not care about law and order when it comes to their own deadly deeds.

If nothing more comes of the impeachment trial, let these truths at least spread far and wide: Trump lied and incited deadly riots; the Republican Party leadership aided and abetted; and when faced with opportunities to own these profoundly grievous acts—to accept responsibility and accountability—they ducked, blinked, and failed. If nothing else comes of this debacle, let us never again hear the words "law and order," or "Constitutional originalism" from Republican Party leaders' lips. With their cowardly calculating decision to reject the conviction of Trump, they have forfeited this terrain, perhaps in perpetuity. No great loss there, except to the future of their own lost party.

Here Comes the Big Assault on Workers' Rights

Editor's note February 15, 2017: President Trump's nomination of fast-food executive Andy Puzder collapsed today amid widening concerns about his lengthy trail of labor violations, worker mistreatment, and personal scandals. It's a big win for unions and worker justice groups that vigorously battled Puzder—but who's up next for the job, and what's the larger Trump agenda for labor and workers? Beyond the Puzder meltdown and the next nominee, Trump and the Ryan Congress have an extensive detailed plan to undermine workers and unions--a plan with deep roots in Republican and right-wing circles.

Keep reading...Show less

Olive Garden Chief Gets a Leadership Award, Even Though His Company Is Bad for Workers, Health, Animals and the Environment

The CEO of America’s largest restaurant chain, Darden, is being honored today by Nation’s Restaurant News for “outstanding leadership, solid company performance and dedication to giving back”—despite the company’s record of misleading the public and its shareholders about the quality, sourcing and sustainability of its ingredients.

Keep reading...Show less

Why Have the Presidential Candidates Ignored America's Food Issues?

Remember the great 2016 presidential campaign debate about food and agriculture, the backbone of human nourishment and survival? Remember when the candidates were forced to articulate their stances on soil regeneration, farm subsidy inequities, labor abuse in the food industry, and how to rein in pesticides and GMOs while expanding organic diversified farming? Remember when the media pressed candidates to explain how they would make food and farming equitable, sustainable and healthful for generations to come?

Keep reading...Show less

Sorry, Eating Chicken Is a Moral Crime: The Real Horrors Behind America’s Most Popular Meat

Before slicing off your next bite of chicken, nibble on this for a moment: To get that bird to your table, workers make at least 20,000, sometimes up to 100,000, slicing and grabbing motions every day. To keep up with a “killing line” that runs ever faster to deliver America’s most popular meat to our plates – a breakneck rate of 140 birds a minute – a largely immigrant workforce of roughly 250,000 endures chronic and crippling injuries for poverty wages.

Keep reading...Show less

Seed Libraries Are Sprouting Up Across the Planet, and Corporate Dominated Govts Are Trying to Stop Them

It’s easy to take seeds for granted. Tiny dry pods hidden in packets and sacks, they make a brief appearance as gardeners and farmers collect them for future planting then later drop them into soil. They are not “what’s for dinner,” yet without them there would be no dinner. Seeds are the forgotten heroes of food—and of life itself.

Keep reading...Show less

How Big Food Has Co-opted America's Top Nutrition Group

When thousands of the nation’s nutritionists gathered in Philadelphia for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ 2012 annual conference, they plunked down $300 apiece to hear the latest thinking on food and health. Many were surprised to find that this thinking included a hefty portion of nutritional advice from food corporations that were major sponsors of the event. The conference featured panel sessions led by industry groups such as the National Dairy Council, and some twenty-three speakers with documented industry ties, while the conference center sported tent-sized informational booths featuring an array of America’s top food and beverage corporations, which had ponied up thousands of dollars for the chance to share their opinions on nutrition. As longtime dietitian Debra Riedesel explains, the Academy’s conferences feature “involvement in educational sessions by the very corporations responsible for creating the worst foods and beverages available on the planet. ... These multinational corporations were actually teaching the sessions to those of us responsible for educating the public.” 

Keep reading...Show less

Liberal Berkeley May Fine Homeless $75 for Sitting Down

Nearly half of America is poor or “near-poor,” government statistics show—below or near the poverty line, barely making ends meet. Anywhere from 1.5 million to 3.5 million Americans are homeless, and one in six children go hungry. Yet here in Berkeley, California, one of the country’s most famously liberal cities, business leaders aim to fine homeless people $75 for sitting on the sidewalk in commercial strips.

Keep reading...Show less

Congress Set to Take Food Aid Away From Millions of Hungry Americans

If conservatives and "moderates" of both parties get their way in the 2012 Farm Bill now winding its way through Congress, America's recession is about to get a whole lot worse for poor people. In the hallowed name of deficit reduction, the House Agriculture Committee is proposing cuts of up to $16 billion from federal food stamps (a Senate version would cut $4.5 billion) -- even as they protect billions in crop insurance for large-scale farmers and insurance corporations.

Keep reading...Show less

Are Corporations and Big Banks Making a Windfall From Food Stamps?

Perhaps you've heard: At a time of record need for food assistance among America's poor, the U.S. Senate is poised to cut roughly $4.5 billion from food stamps, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which 46 million Americans -- one in seven of us -- rely upon.

Keep reading...Show less

Why Are People Dying to Bring You Dinner? The Shocking Facts About Our Food System

Cesar Chavez, the champion of farmworkers' rights who gets his annual day of state recognition this Saturday, must be rolling in his grave. It's been 37 years since Governor Jerry Brown, in an earlier life, signed the landmark agricultural labor relations act--and soon California legislators will debate whether to enforce rules to provide water and shade to the 400,000 farmworkers who harvest our food.

Keep reading...Show less

Plowing Iraq for Profits

Iraq's Fertile Crescent, the fabled birthplace of ancient grains and agricultural civilization, is emerging as a new market opportunity for American agribusiness. Even as U.S. officials tout gracious shipments of food aid and technical assistance to thankful Iraqi farmers, the agenda articulated by government agencies and industry groups is clear – Iraq's fragile food sector, battered by decades of war and sanctions, is open for business.

U.S. exports of wheat, rice, soybean products and poultry to Iraq all ballooned in 2003 after sanctions were lifted. Freshly minted contracts show American wheat exporters are expanding sales (albeit still small) to Iraq, and congressional testimony by industry groups shows their keen interest in recapturing what was once, through the late '80s, a profitable destination for U.S. crops.

And the American project extends beyond prying this revived market away from Australia and other nations that did agricultural business with Saddam Hussein during the sanction decade. The broader agricultural plan includes privatizing state-run food companies, phasing out farm subsidies, boosting food prices and, possibly, introducing genetically altered seeds that are patented and not reusable – all moves that dovetail with an overall neoliberal strategy to open up and deregulate Iraq's markets.

This broader push for privatization is reflected in the language of Order 81, one of among 100 legal orders left behind by U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer's departed regime. This order, which covers patents and copyrights, including "protected plant varieties," calls for a "transition from a non-transparent centrally planned economy to a free-market economy."

Patenting the future

Order 81 paves the way for genetically modified crops (GMOs), stating: "Farmers shall be prohibited from reusing seeds of protected varieties." The order, exposed by Focus on the Global South and GRAIN in an October 2004 report, does not require Iraqi farmers to use GMOs. But it etches into Iraqi law WTO-style patent protections for genetically engineered crops – assuring U.S. GMO-producing firms a legally protected niche in the country's future.

Agricultural giant Monsanto, for one, claims to have no interest. "For the record, Monsanto has no plans to introduce biotechnology in Iraq," insists company spokesman Chris Horner. "It doesn't fit with our business plans." If security and other factors improve, Horner says, "there could be opportunities for conventional seeds and chemicals. ... I would not characterize it as an emerging market." The outcry about Order 81 has "no basis in fact," says Horner. "How many new patented seed varieties are there in Iraq? Zero."

But the law was enacted only last April, and activists say its implications are far-reaching. "If seeds had to be patented, there would have to be significantly more money in the farmer sector," says Antonia Juhasz, former program director for the International Forum on Globalization, who is writing a book about Iraq. "Only those who can afford to patent or buy patented seeds would remain farmers." At the same time, she suggests, the order establishes an economic beachhead into the rest of the region for the GMO industry.

Deborah James, global economy director at Global Exchange, calls seed-saving prohibitions like Order 81 "one of the biggest assaults on food security." Farmers, she explains, would be forced "to buy from multinational corporations like Monsanto, instead of doing what farmers have done throughout the millennia: guaranteeing food security by saving seed varieties."

Despite Monsanto's assurances, James cautions, "corporations never announce their plans to flood markets with genetically-modified food." Under NAFTA, "there wasn't supposed to be genetically modified corn coming to Mexico," yet GMO corn from the United States was discovered there in 2001. This February, a coalition of 70 groups from six Central American and Caribbean countries announced that GMOs – specifically, the infamous StarLink maize not authorized for human consumption – had been detected in U.N. food aid and commercial imports from the United States.

Liberation – for U.S. commodities

Meanwhile, the $100 million agricultural reconstruction project undertaken by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) aims to get the government out of food production. "The idea is to make this completely a free market," says Doug Pool, agriculture irrigation and environment specialist with the USAID's office of Iraq Reconstruction.

The USAID goal – mirroring U.S. and WTO policies – is to help the new government phase out farm subsidies. "The Minister of Agriculture has been quite good in doing that," says Pool. State enterprises, such as the Mesopotamia Seed Co., "need to be spun off and privatized," he said.

Other USAID efforts include an "agricultural mechanization program," deploying U.S. companies such as Case New Holland to rehabilitate Iraq's dilapidated farm machinery. While this may seem like a goodwill gesture, it has its payoffs. "Of course, the companies themselves will eventually sell replacement machinery and parts," adds Pool, "so it will be a good deal for them."

Indeed, while Pool emphasizes USAID's project to expand and revitalize Iraq's farm sector, U.S. commodity exporters are hungrily eyeing renewed market opportunities – which could undercut Iraq's farmers. "Iraq was once a significant commercial market for U.S. farm products, with sales approaching $1 billion in the 1980s," former agriculture secretary Ann Veneman told a conference of farm broadcasters in 2003. "It has the potential, once again, to be a significant commercial market."

According to John King, vice chairman of the USA Rice Council, Iraq was the top market for U.S. rice in the late '80s, prior to the 1991 Gulf war. "The U.S. rice industry wants to play a major role once again in supplying rice to Iraq," King told the U.S. House Agriculture Committee this past June. "With the current challenges facing the U.S. rice industry ... renewed Iraqi market access could have a tremendous impact in value-added sales."

King added: "The liberation of Iraq in 2003 by coalition forces has brought freedom to the Iraqi people. The resumption of trade has also provided hope for the U.S. rice industry."

The American wheat industry is also poised for a new export banquet. That industry – which at one point in the '70s had a 100 percent market share in Iraq – recently secured its first exports there in years. "Iraq is under a lot of pressure to buy wheat from the United States," said a disheartened executive from the Grains Council of Australia, a top wheat exporter to Iraq.

History's lessons

Critics of American agribusiness warn that this confluence of privatization policies, GMO-friendly patent protections and U.S. exports is a volatile mix that could further destabilize war-ravaged Iraqi farmers while producing few benefits for their American counterparts.

"Any profit that's made will go to the companies that export it to Iraq, not to farmers," says George Naylor, Iowa farmer and president of the National Family Farm Coalition. Foisting Iraqi growers into a privatized free market will "destroy" small family farms there, just as similar policies have done in the United States, Naylor insists.

Mark Ritchie, president of the Minneapolis-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, argues that the U.S.-led overhaul of Iraq's agriculture is a "completely ideological" endeavor that ignores historic lessons. Well-recorded failings of large-scale industrial agriculture in the former Soviet Union and in the United States, he says, "haven't deterred people who ideologically think that's the way to go, so we're going to repeat the mistakes again if we have a chance."

Ultimately, Ritchie says, American taxpayers may also pay a stiff price for any wartime export bubble. He points to the Vietnam War, during which the American rice industry was temporarily enriched by huge exports. Then the postwar market evaporated, and the industry was propped up with big subsidy payments. "The U.S. can create a giant export flow for underpriced commodities, and taxpayers can just pay through the nose," Ritchie warns. "The dangers to producers there are real, and the dangers to American taxpayers are equally real, and Vietnam has shown us how devastating this is."

Environmental Hogwash

Chicken has taken on a whole new meaning for Faye Lear, of White Plains, in western Kentucky, who lives 300 feet from two giant barns containing thousands of birds laying eggs for Tyson Foods.

There are the sickening wafts of ammonia and bird feather dust that chase her inside from her front porch. Clouds of well-fed flies swarm her car windows. Once a year, when the barns are emptied for cleaning, mass infestations of mice overrun the neighborhood.

"It's like an open sewer for a big city," says Lear, who works as a nurse. "It's nauseating, it burns your eyes. I wouldn't call them a farm – they're like an industry."

Across the country, thousands of these "factory farms" – each warehousing thousands of tightly confined hogs, chickens or cows – produce potentially toxic air emissions. These fumes are the byproduct of 1.3 billion tons of waste created annually by the sprawling compounds, which are the top polluters of America's waterways according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Despite this torrent of manure, and a growing number of lawsuits by sickened neighbors, "there are essentially no pollution controls on these operations whatsoever," says Sierra Club attorney Barclay Rogers. "The environment is being wrecked by these operations."

But the EPA isn't ready to stanch this stench anytime soon. According to documents obtained by the Sierra Club through a Freedom of Information Act request, the EPA has developed a voluntary air monitoring program in close collaboration with animal-industry groups such as the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and the US Poultry and Egg Association. (The cattle industry chose not to participate.)

The plan, still being hashed out internally at the agency "resolves [participating companies'] civil liability for potential violations" of federal clean air laws. In effect, this would mean a two-year amnesty from enforcement of the Clean Air Act – as well as immunity from federal Superfund and environmental right-to-know laws. During this time, some of the nation's largest pig and chicken facilities would gather air emissions data. Only later could they be penalized for exceeding the emmissions limits for ammonia and hydrogen sulfide.

Environmentalists are up in arms. "The exchange of data for prosecutorial immunity is antithetical to the notion of aggressive environmental enforcement," says Rogers.

"These [poultry] operations are generating extraordinary quantities of ammonia gas," says Rogers. Ammonia gas is listed as an "Extremely Hazardous Substance" in the Superfund law and is a key contributor to particulate matter pollutants. Indeed, EPA researchers have found that "animal husbandry operations" are responsible for 73 percent of all ammonia released into the air nationwide.

In 2001, EPA inspectors detected disturbingly high releases of ammonia from Buckeye Egg Farm in Ohio, then the nation's fourth-largest egg producer. Some Buckeye facilities were churning out 700-800 tons of particulate matter per year – far in excess of the federal air-quality reporting standard of 250 tons. After years of enforcement battles begun under the Clinton administration, the EPA this past February secured a Clean Air Act settlement and a $880,598 civil penalty against the now-defunct Buckeye.

A 1999 analysis of air data by the Environmental Defense Fund found that hog operations spew 167 million pounds of ammonia nitrogen into the atmosphere each year in North Carolina alone. "Studies in the North Carolina region where hog facilities are clustered show that the level of ammonia in rain has doubled in the past decade," the report stated.

Epidemiological studies, meanwhile, suggest the fumes may cause increased rates of asthma, chronic bronchitis and other respiratory disorders. A 1999 report prepared by epidemiologist Steve Wing for the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services found that people residing near a large hog facility suffered increased levels of nausea, diarrhea and respiratory problems.

The livestock industry dismisses such information. "There has not been anything scientifically proven that these hog barns would cause any ill to human beings," says Kara Flynn, director of communications for the NPPC. "I travel routinely to hog farms and I've never smelled anything that caused me any grief ... it's actually very pleasant, surprisingly, fairly normal." Flynn says, "We are paying for that study to take place so that they [EPA] can ... come up with regulations that impact us. I think that's more than fair."

The EPA – citing a 2002 National Academy of Sciences report calling for further study – insists that it needs more information before it can enforce the law. "A lot of people assume we know the quantity and type of emissions coming from these [animal feeding operations] and we don't," says EPA Press Secretary Cynthia Bergman. Rather than going after companies one by one, says Bergman, "a better way is to figure out what their emissions are industrywide."

But critics say the Bush administration's EPA has dragged its feet and stifled the momentum of factory-farm enforcement begun under President Clinton. Michele Merkel, a former EPA staff attorney now working with the Washington DC-based Environmental Integrity Project, says the agency "hasn't initiated one investigation in four years. They're not doing anything."

Most distressing, says Merkel, is that the EPA has spent years negotiating a voluntary "safe harbor" approach when the agency has long had the "authority to gather the kind of data it needs to determine emissions levels at these industrial farming operations. It doesn't need industry's permission. It doesn't need to sign up to this voluntary agreement. They're privatizing a rulemaking process."

Environmentalists call the EPA plan a "sweetheart" deal between the Bush administration and the livestock sector, which contributed $3.46 million to candidates for federal office in 2004, 79 percent of it to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Indeed, on September 16 the NPPC presented its "Friend of the Pork Producer" award to President Bush, citing his "tireless efforts to use reason and science in shaping environmental policies impacting agriculture."

Now Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) is preparing legislation to exempt industrial farms from federal Superfund and right-to-know laws altogether, potentially rendering the EPA plan moot. A coalition of 33 family farm and environmental groups is lobbying hard to block the rider.

Temps Demand a New Deal

Contingent, adj: 1. liable to occur but not certain; possible 2. conditional 3. accidentalAmid Silicon Valley's torrid dot-com boom, stories abound of peach-fuzzed college graduates pulling down six-figure salaries and, in short order, securing their American dream. For them there is no shortage of opportunity -- for new business ventures, luxury cars and seven-figure homes. Yet beneath this gilded veneer a class war is brewing. The Valley's legions of temps dream of getting full-time jobs and keeping homelessness at bay in a place where the median home price has soared to $365,000 and a standard two-bedroom apartment rents for $1,500 a month.For veteran Silicon Valley temp workers like Julian Cornejo, the stark disparities drive home the point that temps -- long underpaid, underemployed and "disposable" -- must band together to improve conditions and restrict the ability of employers to exploit their labor. Cornejo's experience illustrates the precariousness of the contingent life. A mechanical designer with thirty years' experience, he has been stuck on the temp-work treadmill, with no benefits or job security, for fifteen years. After suffering a shoulder injury while temping at a Palo Alto semiconductor firm in 1998, Cornejo spent nearly a year fighting his temp agency for workers' compensation, leaving him broke and in debt. His wife and kids moved out to escape the financial and emotional stress. Then, his bills mounting and paychecks dwindling, Cornejo lost his apartment. He has been staying in a homeless shelter for months. Cornejo applied for a community college course on computer-aided design, which could give him the skills to escape temping -- but there's a one-year waiting list because the school doesn't have enough full-time faculty.Fed up with the powerlessness and isolation, in February of last year Cornejo went looking for a temp labor union. What he found, thanks to a story in a local newspaper, was a unique temp workers' association called Working Partnerships USA. Launched by San Jose's South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council in 1995, Working Partnerships runs a nonprofit temp firm and offers health insurance for temps. Emphasizing membership services, it occupies one end of a spectrum of new organizations for contingent workers, rising up both within and outside unions, that are giving voice and structure to a growing chorus of temp-worker frustrations. As Eileen Wodjula, a Working Partnerships member and Silicon Valley temp for several years, puts it, "We have to start all over again, with a new workers' movement."The explosion of temping and the shifting of employment relationships away from traditional jobs poses what may be organized labor's greatest challenge and opportunity since World War II: organizing the swelling ranks of temps, day laborers, contract and leased workers whose perpetual job insecurity forms the porous foundation of today's supposedly stellar economy. A handful of unions and dozens of advocacy groups are experimenting with a tactically and politically diverse range of approaches. Some are organizing temps directly into existing unions; in LA 74,000 homecare workers classified as independent contractors joined the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in February 1999, after pressuring the county to set up a public agency to act as their employer in collective bargaining. Other unions and community groups are creating nonprofit temp agencies and Consumer Reports-style codes of conduct designed, in the spirit of constructive engagement, to coax the temp industry into undertaking voluntary reforms. The Chicago Coalition for the Homeless is helping temps and day laborers, many of whom live in city shelters, to form workers' centers and co-ops to negotiate better wages and conditions. And a New York City-based nonprofit called Working Today focuses on harnessing affordable and portable healthcare and other benefits for New York's self-employed and other independent contractors, while advocating policy reforms for its 93,000 members nationwide.Spearheading the movement is a thirty-five-group umbrella coalition called the National Alliance For Fair Employment, which promotes a deliberately flexible range of solutions. "We see the need for a multipronged strategy because with the rise of temping and a real restructuring of the labor market, there is absolutely no one fix," explains Tim Costello, director of the Boston-based Campaign on Contingent Work, an alliance member group. With a national "rollout" this spring, the alliance, which includes worker justice groups from twenty states and Washington, DC, hopes to create a national presence to bolster contingent organizing and legislative campaigns. With input from the AFL-CIO and other labor groups, the alliance is creating a network and political profile for initiatives ranging from local grassroots organizing to state and federal legislation aimed at expanding contingent workers' currently minimal protections under equal pay, pension and labor organizing laws.Although advocates embrace a big-tent approach, there is a "tension in this whole area of contingent work between outlawing the hiring of temporary workers" and reforming conditions, says Chris Owens, the AFL-CIO's assistant director for public policy. It's no coincidence that the rise of contingency has paralleled the decline of unionization -- to the point where a stunning 90 percent of all private-sector workers are nonunion. Backed against the wall since the Reagan years, most unions have, until lately, assumed a defensive posture, opposing the creation of temp jobs as a unionbusting strategy rather than looking for ways to unionize temps. Asked how unions can build temp-worker power, one union official says, "I don't feel like we have an answer for that yet. We are at the bottom of the ocean with a teaspoon on this issue."The AFL-CIO now calls contingent labor a "priority issue," but high-level officials there acknowledge that labor has yet to make the all-out push required to organize temps on any significant scale. "There's a serious question as to whether organized labor will put the money and resources together to do it," says organizing director Kirk Adams. "That's still an open question." Labor's answer will determine not only how (and how many) temp workers are organized but also the extent to which unions wield power and control work in an increasingly temp-dependent economy.Millions of 'Second-Class Workers'The scope and role of contingent labor in today's economy is staggering. Nearly one-third of America's workers -- about 30 million -- toil in temporary, contracted, self-employed, leased, part-time and other "nonstandard" arrangements, according to a 1998-99 study by the Economic Policy Institute. Over the past decade, the temp industry has enjoyed phenomenal growth, outpacing most sectors of the economy. Since 1990 the number of workers employed daily by temp agencies has shot up from 1.2 million to 2.9 million, according to the American Staffing Association. Temp jobs constitute a startling 25 percent of all new jobs created since 1984.In a fundamental restructuring of work, businesses now farm out not just special projects but everyday functions like office cleaning, payroll processing, human resources departments and entire clerical and assembly-line units. "It's all a function of companies trying to externalize any cost that is not core to what they do," explains Amy Dean, executive officer of the South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council. Adds employment relations professor George Gonos of SUNY-Potsdam, who has studied temp labor for twenty years, "This is about a massive secondary labor market that has been created in every occupational group, producing a burgeoning group of second-class workers."Contingent jobs are embedded in every sector of the economy, affecting workers of all collars. Their diverse ranks include high-tech software engineers and office workers; janitors, taxicab drivers and chicken catchers misclassified as independent contractors; adjunct college professors; and home healthcare workers. As Ellen Bravo, co-director of 9 to 5, the National Association for Working Women, puts it, "This is a labor problem that crosses class."What potentially unites such disparate workers is the tenuous status they all share -- and the fact that they take home nearly $100 less per week than their nominally permanent counterparts. Government and industry studies show 60-70 percent of contingents wish for something more stable. Just 20 percent of contingent workers (and under 4 percent of all temps) receive employer health insurance, compared with more than 50 percent of noncontingent workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Similarly, only one-fourth of contingent workers are eligible for employer pension plans, while nearly half of permanent workers qualify. Perhaps most significant, the vast majority of contingents fall through vast loopholes in worker-protection laws and have no union representation. They have been cast adrift to fend for themselves in an increasingly volatile labor market.Now avenues for collective response are emerging. The National Alliance For Fair Employment has drafted codes of conduct that use the pressures of publicity -- both good and bad -- to convince temp agencies to treat temps in ways workers once took for granted: providing detailed job descriptions of wages, benefits and duration of assignments; insuring that temps get the same safety equipment as permanent workers; allowing temps to register with several agencies and to get permanent jobs with client companies; and allowing temps at unionized client companies to join collective bargaining agreements.Yet such voluntary measures only go so far. And the sheer diversity and mobility of contingent jobs complicates direct organizing, making legislation critical to obtaining equal pay and benefits for temps. "Whatever power can be generated at the workplace must be directed to getting regulations across the labor market," says Costello. "We don't want to rely on workplace-by-workplace, association-by-association standards."On the movement's legislative docket:* the Massachusetts Workplace Equity Bill, sponsored by dozens of state legislators, which would require equal pay and benefits for contingent workers who do the same work as permanent employees;* Congressional measures authored by Illinois Representative Lane Evans that would prohibit companies from cutting contingents out of pension plans, extend health and safety protections to temps and outlaw pay discrimination against temps; the bills, with six co-sponsors each, are still in committee;* Washington State's Employee Benefits Fairness Act of 2000, which would ban companies' "permatemp" strategies of misclassifying employees as temp or contract workers in order to deny them benefits such as paid leave and stock discounts;* temp worker "right to know" measures, passed in Rhode Island and South Carolina and proposed in Washington State, which would require agencies to provide temps with job descriptions, pay rates and work schedules.Temp-industry officials insist that new laws and unions are unnecessary. Edward Lenz, senior vice president of the American Staffing Association (a trade group representing 1,400 temp companies), says the temp industry opposes equalizing benefits for temps because "employers ought to be free to say 'we're going to provide coverage to this group of workers and not to that group of workers.'" Lenz adds, "Although it may strike some people as arbitrary or unfair, the law currently allows them to do that, for reasons that don't have to be justified." So the industry and its clients continue to benefit from pension and labor laws that don't cover "that group" -- namely, temps. The National Labor Relations Act, for instance, typically excludes temps from forming bargaining units with permanent workers, a serious hindrance to their unionization. Numerous proposals to reform this have made little headway.Reform or Revolution?For unions, the soaring use of temps raises some vexing questions. How, for instance, do you organize ever-mobile temp workers who are employed by several agencies and who move among dozens of job sites in a single year? Are temps best served by a union of their own that can bargain with local and national temp agencies, or by allying themselves, shop by shop, with their permanent jobmates? Should unions try to reform the temp industry, compete with it or combat its very existence?Around the country, different answers are emerging, yielding varying degrees of success. Throughout Rhode Island, temp companies line inner-city neighborhoods "on almost every corner, like liquor stores," says Mario Bueno, program coordinator for the United Workers Committee, part of a statewide United Campaign for Permanent Jobs, involving unions, churches and community groups. Low-wage temps working on factory assembly lines (who must pay $15-$20 a week for company buses to outlying factories) "are doing the exact same work they always did as permanents," says Bueno, and they "are not filling in for anybody." Yet many persist for years in manual "temp" jobs without healthcare (or even access to the company microwave in the lunchroom), under the impression they will eventually be hired as permanent workers. Temps from textile mills, jewelry factories and canning companies have used public hearings and direct actions to pressure Rhode Island to pass legislation requiring temp agencies to disclose job descriptions, pay rates and work schedules. The United Campaign also pushed (unsuccessfully) for rules limiting prohibitive "conversion fees" that temp firms charge client companies when they want to hire one of their workers for a permanent job.In Silicon Valley, with a temp-labor boom "going on against the backdrop of prosperity," Amy Dean of the South Bay Labor Council created the multipurpose Working Partnerships USA that Cornejo stumbled upon, which has garnered much national press attention. Instead of organizing temps into a union, the council tapped foundation funding to set up Working Partnerships, which emphasizes tangibles like a temp-worker healthcare plan with income-adjusted premiums and a type of temp-worker hiring hall. "Our goal is not to build Temporary Workers of the World Unite," says Dean, who three years ago was picked by AFL-CIO president John Sweeney to head a committee on the future of the labor movement. "When you ask people why they want to join this organization, they don't say, So I can go in the street and advocate for better conditions. They say, I want portable benefits, I want a job."So, following in the footsteps of a mid-nineties effort by Bay Area temps and the Industrial Workers of the World to create a worker-owned temp agency, Working Partnerships has launched a nonprofit "socially responsible" staffing firm that aims to give temps a bigger slice of the pie and to act as a role model for how competing agencies should treat their workers. So far it's been tough going: While 150 workers have enrolled in the service, many need additional training; the agency currently has just three to five temps working on any given day and pays them a minimum wage of $10 an hour, says Lisa Hoyos of Working Partnerships' staffing service. The agency is targeting large union firms, public agencies and small private-sector companies as job-placement clients. The ultimate goal, says Hoyos, is to be a self-sustaining firm providing pensions and benefits to all its temps. The nonprofit agency is part of a broader strategy to create a membership organization with benefits and other education and training opportunities, says Dean, who plans a public relations campaign via radio, print and the Internet to draw temps from throughout the region. Working Partnerships will then try to cajole area temp agencies to abide voluntarily by a code of conduct.In New Jersey a similar code-of-conduct campaign has benefited from low unemployment rates, as temp agencies are "scrambling to get bodies," says Barrie Peterson, employment specialist with the nonprofit United Labor Agency of Bergen County, which runs the Bergen Employment Action Project's Temp Worker Alliance. So far thirty-two New Jersey temp companies, mostly small to mid-size firms that "want to distinguish themselves as a high-practice agency," have signed the project's fair-conduct code, says Peterson. The project publishes a consumer guide listing "best practice" temp agencies that abide by the code, a strategy to promote more labor-friendly firms and to help temps shop around for better treatment.But ultimately such voluntarism must be backed by concrete temp-worker power, says SUNY's George Gonos. "The code of conduct means nothing on paper unless you organize.... If you can't move significant numbers of temp workers from one agency to another because the second agency is adhering to your code, you have no market power whatsoever. The whole strategy from time immemorial has to be about power, control over the labor market."Don't Mourn, OrganizeWhile Working Partnerships USA and others stress the need for innovation, some unions have found success organizing temps the old-fashioned way. "Too many people have bought the notion that temporary workers are unorganizable," says Wade Rathke, whose union, SEIU Local 100 in New Orleans, has organized and won contracts for temp garbage-truck workers. When New Orleans privatized its municipal garbage collection in the eighties, "all the laborers on the back of the truck were contracted to a variety of temp agencies, some of which existed almost solely to provide labor for the sanitation department," says Rathke. Suddenly 250 longtime city "hoppers," who toss trash into the trucks, were temps receiving minimum wage and no benefits."The irony is these workers had a lot more control over the jobs than you might think," Rathke notes. "They controlled the work because they were the ones who knew how to do it, and when they had an issue the garbage still had to be picked up." Precisely because they were temps, the hoppers could choose just when to withhold their labor. A few years ago, in the middle of a scorching New Orleans summer "we came to one of those periods where we were just too damn tired to work," says Rathke, forcing the companies to come to the bargaining table or risk losing their contracts as resident complaints piled up by the hundreds. The key tactic for temps, he says, is "to look at the combustion points, where they have to be there for the work to be done, and you have some power in the situation."On the other end of the temp spectrum, contingent high-tech workers at Microsoft and other Washington firms in the Puget Sound region are crafting their own union, called WashTech, in a steadfastly anti-union sector. They are targeting thousands of web designers, technical writers and software engineers -- including more than 3,000 at Microsoft alone -- employed for years through temp agencies and denied access to company healthcare and pensions, as well as stock options. So far 250 temps at fifty high-tech companies have joined the union, affiliated with the Communications Workers of America.High-tech temps "might want flexibility, but they are not choosing to go without healthcare, without a pension plan and without the same kind of labor protections that are afforded other workers in this country," says WashTech co-founder Marcus Courtney, himself a temp test engineer at Microsoft. Instead of focusing on the temp agencies, WashTech organizes temps at their work sites, says Courtney. "Our organization is not about some agency that doesn't employ them, it's about where they work."Battling temp isolation and "employers' tactics of fear and intimidation," WashTech is using the Internet and e-mail, as well as collective actions, to bring temps together, says Courtney. When twenty Microsoft temps represented by WashTech tried to form a collective-bargaining unit, neither Microsoft nor the four temp agencies involved would recognize them. But the workers' pressure paid off, as Microsoft quietly began acceding to their demands for wage parity and job reclassifications to reflect their skill levels. "They got those changes because they organized," says Courtney. Their efforts have been buoyed by a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last May that Microsoft illegally misclassified regular staff as temps and independent contractors to deny them stock options and other benefits. This January the US Supreme Court, for the second time, refused to hear Microsoft's appeal of the circuit decision. Now, however, Microsoft is fighting back by limiting the terms of temp workers to avoid paying benefits.Day Laborers Get StrategicFar outside the universe of traditional unions, day laborers, mostly Latino and African-American, are building their own collective-action groups. In Portland, Oregon, where "most of the building trade unions are pretty white," it's "almost not even an option" for day laborers to join, says Jeri Sundval, formerly of the Workers Organizing Committee there. The committee began organizing day laborers in 1996, initially fighting a wave of anti-immigrant legislation and constant harassment by the INS and local police. "We're like the urban farmworkers," says Sundval."In the hierarchy of needs, these folks are way at the bottom. They are worrying about food and shelter every day," says Sundval. Portland's day laborers, numbering about 100 in winter and up to 500 in summer, were stuck at Oregon's $6.50 minimum wage and were easily cheated since they were paid in cash with no recordkeeping. Organizing block by block, the laborers agreed to work for no less than $8 per hour -- a standard that Sundval says has been upheld. Now the committee, which helps represent the laborers in hundreds of wage and unemployment claims, is setting up a workers' center, where the laborers can "wait for work in dignity," protected from Portland's near-ceaseless rains.In Chicago, police sweeps and flagrant day-labor-agency abuses have inspired uprisings among the city's burgeoning, largely Latino day-labor force. According to Chirag Mehta, researcher at the University of Illinois Center for Urban Economic Development, somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 Chicagoans rely on day labor; this includes some 75 percent of the city's homeless shelter residents, a recent study by the center found. "They are living day by day, working day by day in a cycle of homelessness and day labor," says the center's research director, Nikolas Theodore. Many are undocumented immigrants, according to Jos� Landaverde, Latino task force coordinator for the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, which is helping the laborers get organized. Recently three laborers, angered at being underpaid, showed Landaverde their paychecks: "They worked eight hours and got paid $28.25 for the day. The employment agencies do whatever they want because they assume the workers don't have documents."But in February these workers, many of them women, fought back with loud street protests, public hearings and a one-day strike against one of the day-labor agencies. With good media coverage and help from a city alderman, they shut down two agencies that were operating without licenses and allegedly taking illegal deductions for nonexistent benefits and pensions, says coalition organizer Dan Giloth. The coalition, working closely with Jobs with Justice, the Interfaith Committee for Workers' Rights and various local unions, is lobbying the city to spend $1.9 million to finance eight workers' centers where day laborers can wait for work in peace. The centers would be run by day-laborer board members, says Giloth, and are part of a long-term strategy to create a day-laborers' co-op to negotiate better wages and conditions.As the contingent-workers movement gains ground, the potential for new organizing hits up against serious financial limitations. Apart from a few large grants from the French American Charitable Trust, the Ford Foundation and others, there is meager financial support for the contingent-workers movement. "Right now we are a few bones connected to maybe a skeleton," says Peterson of the Bergen Employment Action Project, which operates on just $15,000 a year. "All of us are struggling to somehow get our local projects to survive."But union officials close to the movement say there is another significant hurdle -- organized labor's general lack of awareness about the need to unite contingent workers with permanent employees. "Most people, including many local unions, don't know that contingent labor is quicksand under their feet," says Maureen Ridge of SEIU Local 925 in Boston, which works closely with the Massachusetts Campaign on Contingent Work. Because temps are especially difficult to organize under current labor law, says Ridge, unions usually seek easier paths to expand their shrinking memberships. "Why would we be looking at all these temp workers who can't be organized under the National Labor Relations Act when there are still all these other workers out there who can be, and when we are shrinking and we need to grow quickly? You only have so many resources, so many hours in a day, and we are all focused on survival.... All of this work on temps is out of the realm of our regular work." As contingent jobs increasingly become America's regular work, the challenge is to make the organizing of contingent workers part of organized labor's regular work. That process has only just begun.Christopher D. Cook is an award-winning investigative journalist who reports widely on labor, welfare and other issues. He has written for Harper's Magazine, The Christian Science Monitor, The Progressive and In These Times.
@2022 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by