See below. Harry Cason is a long-time, eccentric adjunct activist at CUNY.
Over the past day, meanwhile, the CUNY Struggle listserv has been consumed with
cutesy back-and-forth about the kind of things they will sell at a proposed
bake sale.
From: sandorcuny@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:31:49 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Democrats, PERB, and an unaccustomed silence Re: Early planning
for elections
To: cuny-struggle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hcason@xxxxxxxxx
In response to Harry Cason:
You asked what decertification means to me. My most recent experience with the
subject was a few months ago, when the Brod Kitchen (formerly Hot and Crusty)
employers launched an all-out attack on the workers union and tried to have
decertification proceedings initiated. What they wound up doing instead was
firing the union president and closing the bakeries entirely, destroying the
jobs of the undocumented immigrant and African American workforce. We organized
protests of several hundred unionists, student and immigrant activists -- among
them many workers from newly unionized B&H Photo -- under the slogan "Stop
union-busting at Brod Kitchen." You can see videos on this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNVmkbk5kqg ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjb9FVNH2ZU
Another recent experience with the topic came when my comrade Wyatt McMinn of
the painters union and Class Struggle Workers-Portland was arrested and put on
trial for protesting the "Freedom Foundation" -- a "right-to-work" outfit which
specializes, among other things, in advising on union decertification. See, for
example:http://archive.myfreedomfoundation.com/blog/liberty-live/detail/by-the-numbers-union-decertifications-in-washington.html
and
http://archive.myfreedomfoundation.com/blog/liberty-live/detail/how-to-change-or-eliminate-union-representation-in-your-workplace.html
.
Another recent example is what's happened in Wisconsin:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/15/wisconsin-teachers-union-decertified-in-latest-blow-to-labor-under-walker-law.html
Going to the PERB, the government body established by the Taylor Law to
administer that law, is the very opposite of fighting against the two-tier
labor system. We have yet to hear a response from most organizers of this group
as to what they have to say about this.
Regarding the rest of the steps you cite:
Taking over the New Caucus? The New Caucus is the ruling union bureaucracy in
our union. It is the unreformable, organic expression of subordination to the
two-tier system, the Taylor Law and the Democratic Party. Though one is a
bourgeois party and the other a transmission belt for that party into the labor
movement, trying to reform the New Caucus actually is a bit like trying to
reform the Democratic Party. A very dismal chimera indeed.
How about starting a caucus, you ask. But on what programmatic basis -- that is
the first and most fundamental question. What is shown by MORE, the New Caucus
itself, and the whole history of "rank and file" caucuses for "better
representation and more democracy"? (Miners for Democracy, teamsters for a
Democratic Union, New Directions in the TWU, a myriad of caucuses over the
years in the CWA, UAW, Steelworkers, and so on...) They are built on a basis
that does not break programmatically and in practice from labor's subordination
to the capitalist state, its parties, politicians and institutions. As a
result, such caucuses end up refurbishing the bureaucracy. So long as this
continues, the situation of the union movement keeps getting worse.
What about a separate adjunct union? This issue was intensively debated by
adjunct activists after the 2008 contract betrayal. The activists who founded
the CCU urged people to look at the concrete experience of separate adjunct
unions that carried out strikes (some of them starting with high morale and
very competent organizing) at Columbia, NYU, and elsewhere in the New York
area. They were defeated as the other separate unions crossed their picket
lines. More broadly, we are for industrial unionism -- one employer, one union.
Actually all university employees should be in one single union.
The task remains to organize the contingent majority at CUNY on a
class-struggle basis that does not respect or abide by the bosses' and
bureaucrats' "rules of the game," and aims at linking up with thousands of CUNY
students and with the massive potential power of the working class and
oppressed of New York City. This is not an easy or rapid task, and there is no
way around the hard and persistent work it requires.
Outrage at the PSC leadership is absolutely justified and needs to be built and
organized. But the strategic debates are not some basket of baked goods with
smiley-face frosting that can be sampled and consumed according to taste. They
involve big stakes and are actually counterposed.
In order even to begin to approach these issues, a clear and hard demarcation
must be made against going to the government of the class enemy and bringing it
into our affairs.
-- Sándor
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Harry Cason <hcason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sandor,
What does decertification mean to you?
If we cannot use the paltry capitalist mechanisms we are given, and we cannot
get out of our capitalist structured Union (system), that virtually completely
ignores us and keeps us pinned in like the police do on a picket line, then
what do you suggest.
Virtually all of us who support the idea of leaving the PSC and forming our own
Union that actually represents us, would also support forming our own caucus or
taking over the New Caucus.
So what is your problem with having a flexible strategy, that hits from all
directions?
If you want to form a separate caucus, I think most of us would support the
effort, however, I think it would be easier, and politically more interesting,
to just take over the New Caucus.
Harry
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Sandor John <sandorcuny@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jay:
There was no "deal" whatsoever with Tami Gold or anyone else from the New
Caucus. Nor is even the basic mathematics of your claim true, as can easily be
checked on line. I was elected as delegate twice (2008 and 2011) and defeated
last time (2014), in each case running on a program that explicitly denounced
the two-tier contracts and the New Caucus, including its subordination to the
Democratic Party, while raising class-struggle positions on a range of crucial
issues.
As noted, the falseness of your claim can be verified on line. In the 2008
Hunter chapter elections, only a total of 6 people ran for 8 delegate spots
(not counting the chapter chair, automatically a delegate).
http://archive.psc-cuny.org/Elections/CCNYHunterElections08.pdfI was one of the ;
6 elected, running as an independent explicitly opposed to the New Caucus. In
the 2011 elections, only a total of 5 people ran for 9 delegate spots. I was
again elected as an independent explicitly opposed to the New Caucus.
http://www.psc-cuny.org/notice-spring-2011-chapter-electionshttp://www.psc-cuny.org/clarion/august-2011/psc-chapter-election-results
As an example of the programmatic basis on which I ran in opposition to the New
Caucus, my 2011 election statement is attached. If you or others would like to
see the statements from other years, just let me know.
In the 2014 chapter elections, 10 people ran for 9 delegate spots; the New
Caucus ran 9 (in order to get me out of the DA), who were elected by slate
voting. I ran as an independent and was defeated. No, to my knowledge the
numbers and composition of the New Caucus slate was not decided on by Jeremy
Glick, but reflect a decision by the top PSC leadership. For example, PSC top
officer Mike Fabricant, who sits on the DA ex officio, was, unlike in prior
years, one of the New Caucus delegate candidates from
Hunter.http://www.psc-cuny.org/clarion/july-2014/spring-2014-chapter-elections
So where does this BS come from?
-- Sándor
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Jay Arena <jarenanynola@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sandor, My understanding is that when you won as an independent for one of the
Delegate positions at Hunter it was a result of deal you cut with then Hunter
PSC chapter chair Tami Gold, a New caucus member and a ‘feminist for Obama’
supporter. As in most PSC chapter elections, the election was a basically
uncontested one, dominated by a New Caucus slate that left open one slot in the
delegate position which allowed you to gain a seat. I’m glad you won because
of the positions you defended and advocated, but just wanted to confirm how you
won. Was it the current chapter chair, Jeremy Glick—who prefaced his support
for the proposed concessionary contract at the last DA by listing all his
Leftist credentials and accomplishments-- who moved to ice you out? Your
experience does underscore the anti-democratic nature of slate voting. Ruth
Wangerin and I ran as independents for one of the delegate positions at CSI in
the Spring elections, as did James Hoff at BMCC . Despite all of us doing
serious outreach and running on a clear issue-based platform, we were at a
distinct disadvantage due to the slate voting system which allowed the new
Caucus slate to gather a bunch of candidates, most of whom do not even attend
union meeting, let alone show up at any actions. Does anyone else have a
critique of the slate voting system? Jay From: cuny-struggle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cuny-struggle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sandor John
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 11:46 AM
To: Jason Schulman <jaschul@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Andrew Battle <andrew.battle@xxxxxxxxx>; CUNY Struggle
<cuny-struggle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; dossthane@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Democrats, PERB, and an unaccustomed silence Re: Early planning
for elections In response to Jason: Since when does the need to take a position
on the key defining issues for the labor movement, including education workers
= a push for "ideological uniformity"? The latest... let's call it: red
herring. On the contrary, the push to not address these issues can only equal
avoiding the underlying causes of the problems that beset us in the PSC and the
labor movement as a whole. These issues include racist police terror, the
presence of capitalism's armed guardians within labor unions, the Taylor Law
denying labor's basic right to strike(which union bureaucrats like because it
gives them an excuse not to strike plus it includes a devil's bargain making it
"easier" to unionize so long as unions agree to have no power). No fighting
union movement can emerge unless it takes up the challenge to mobilize labor's
power against imperialist war -- as pointed to by the 2008 ILWU longshore
strike against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that shut down all 29 West Coast
ports in 2008.(Guess where that came from.) It means addressing the need to
mobilize the power of the working class against all forms of oppression, as
pointed to by West Coast dockers' work stoppages against police terror, the
"Hard Hats for Gay Rights" organized in Portland after the Orlando massacre,
and other examples. Key to taking on these issues is clearly and openly
addressing the structure of social and political control capped by labor's
subjugation to the parties and politicians of the capitalist status quo. If
one treats treat these questions as somehow external to the struggle against
CUNY's two-tier system, it's a classic example of "economism" -- that is,
keeping the struggle within limits acceptable to the capitalist order. And that
means defeat after defeat, including on the two-tier system. The point here is
that the sellouts of the entire union bureaucracy, including its ever-"new" and
"newer" refurbishers, are directly derived from their social role as mediators
and enforcers for the Democratic Party. Seeking to discourage debate on this
issue is a favor only tothose who seek to maintain that subjugation to the
government party. For the record, no, the CCU is not and does not seek to be a
caucus, nor has it run or supported candidates in union or other elections. For
a definition of the CCU, and a summary of how it arose in response to the 2008
contract betrayal, see: https://cunycontingents.wordpress.com/about/ Class ;
Struggle Education Workers, on the other hand, is an opposition tendency
working to build a new, class-struggle leadership in education workers' unions,
and has run candidates in union elections (such as Marjorie Stamberg in the UFT
and myself in the PSC). It does this on a program addressing the vital social
and political issues that are evaded by (or worse in the case of MORE) the
lowest-common-denominator "reform" caucuses that consistently replicate the
union bureaucracy. To give some examples of what this has meant in the context
of the PSC: as a member of the PSC Delegate Assembly elected as an independent
on the CSEW program and vocally opposed to the New Caucus, I initiated fights
against the two-tier system, for adjunct and HEO rights, against the
leadership's ban on non-"full timers" voting in the Pathways referendum, in
solidarity with Gaza education workers bombed by Israel, in solidarity with
teachers strikes in Puerto Rico and Oaxaca, against the union's affiliation to
the "Working Families Party" (a Democratic front group), against its
endorsement of Obama in 2008 and 2012, for union action against CUNY's
employment of war criminal David Petraeus and the police repression of student
protestors, etc. As a result, in the last Hunter College elections, the New
Caucus ran a slate of 9 "full-timers" (most of whom never attend union
meetings) against me to get me out of the DA. To act effectively against the
sell-outs of the New Caucus leadership, it is necessary to get to the roots of
those betrayals. General talk about uniting on the basis of good intentions is
no different from what the New Caucus itself did to get elected in the first
place. PERB: Still waiting to hear from the "CUNY Struggle" organizers as to
their position on the announced plans for going to the Taylor Law enforcement
body of the capitalist state to decertify the union. -- Sándor John On Tue,
Jul 26, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Jason Schulman <jaschul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Sandor, With
all due respect, if you're hoping for ideological uniformity on this list,
you're not going to find it here. CUNY Struggle is not The Revolutionary Party
(or even The Revolutionary Caucus) and there's no chance of it becoming such.
You or I may not like this, but such is life, and if you spend much of your
time berating those more moderate than you (which is most of the working class
population of the U.S., BTW), you're going to end up working only with
yourself. For the record I have no intention of voting for H. Clinton (note:
even plenty of his delegates at the Democratic National Convention refuse to do
so, despite Sanders' request that they do -- I saw this again and again in
interviews with his delegates on MSNBC). If others on this list insist on
voting for her, I doubt there's much I can do to convince them otherwise. Most
have made their minds up at this point. Understandable fear of Trump will lead
many to cast a vote they don't actually want to cast. In regard to PERB, I
agree with you but it's not as if formal votes on this issue have been taken by
this list's membership. I suggested building an alternative caucus to the New
Caucus and if that fails to make much headway then we can talk about adjuncts
separating ourselves from the PSC. From what I can tell, from reading this
list's archives, that's more-or-less where most people here stand. If your
purpose here is to criticize everyone who doesn't have precisely your political
positions, then that strikes me as a waste of time. You have CCU, comrade.
Isn't that effectively a caucus, or planning to be so? Why not work on building
that and then we'll see whose arguments seem the most convincing to CUNY
adjuncts (and adjunct-friendly "full-timers")? Best, Jason On Tue, Jul 26,
2016 at 9:38 AM, Sandor John <sandorcuny@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Usually voluble
"leftists" on this list, who are leading public representatives of "CUNY
Struggle," have fallen oddly silent in the midst of all the vows to follow
Sanders et al. in supporting Hillary Clinton -- candidate for Commander and
Deporter in Chief from the governing party of U.S. imperialism, of drones,
racist police terror and the war on public education. is it that you seek, as
leftists in MORE have done, to build a caucus with supporters of the current
government party in order to run candidates in the union? (For those interested
in what MORE actually is, this is a clue as to why MORE's 2016 election
platform says not a word about unions' support to the bosses' parties, about
racist police terror, about cops and military recruiters in the schools, about
opposition to imperialist war, about solidarity with striking teachers in
Mexico and Brazil, or even about the Taylor Law ... :
https://morecaucusnyc.org/2016/01/02/our-2016-platform/ ;) Nor has there been
any response at all to the section on PERB in my previous post (perhaps this
too is inimical to "unity" at all costs?): "PERB and decertification: Lastly,
burning outrage at the latest betrayal by the union leadership is more than
called for and should be expressed loudly and raucously. But to fight such
betrayals is impossible without a basic understanding of the class line. This
was at the core of the disputes that occurred on this list over the strike
authorization vote. Now, if anything, it's even worse: people on this list
(presumably members of what now does describe itself as a group, CUNY Struggle)
are planning on going to the PERB to take steps to decertify the union. "The
PERB is an agency of the bosses' government -- concretely, "PERB is the agency
established by the Taylor Law to administer that Law," as stated on its site:
http://www.perb.ny.gov/faq.asp You think this strike-breaking agency is the ;
adjuncts' friend? "The proposal to bring the Taylor Law administrators of the
capitalist state into our affairs is completely counterposed to the most basic
needs and interests of the CUNY workforce, and must be opposed in the strongest
terms. Yet far from having been opposed on principle, this plan is treated
simply as one amongst a basket of options. "Where do the rest of you stand on
this? " -- Sándor John On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Andrew Battle
<andrew.battle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Jason and welcome to the list. As of now
there is not but it is an idea that has been floated by many. My basic sense is
that organized opposition within the PSC is still in its early stages so people
are exploring different options. Some are investigating the idea of
decertifying the PSC as the bargaining unit for part-time faculty while others
are looking at building adjunct power within the union, whether through running
candidates, forming a caucus, some combination of those, or other means. If
Jason or anyone else on this list is interested in helping to explore these or
other options I can put you in touch with people who are working on one or
another of those ideas. Best,Andy On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:36 AM, jaschul
<jaschul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi. I just joined this group. Is there an official
CUNY Struggle "party" that's been established that would compete with the New
Caucus? I'm all for it, I just want to know.
On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:36:50 PM UTC-4, doss...@xxxxxxx wrote:If my
figuring is correct, half the CUNY campuses should be having union elections
next April (and the union as a wholein April 2018). If you're on one of those
campuses, you'relikely to start receiving information about the election atthe
end of the Fall semester, unless efforts to suppressvoting mean not really
talking about it much. Generally,preparations for the battle, if it seems a
battle is to take place, begin in the semester before the election. This
meansthat while you're fighting the contract, it would make senseto begin
strategizing for the next set of elections, identifyingthe campuses where
they're to take place, discussing possibleslates of candidates, figuring out
how to get necessary printingdone cheaply and how to use media to be sure that
the bargainingunit members on all these campuses know how to vote foran
adjunct-led union. Take advantage of the meetings you arealready having at
contract actions to plan intra- and inter-campussupport for campaigns to elect
adjuncts to union leadershippositions on the campuses. (It might be wise not to
announceany provisional slates until after Spring renewal letters come out;and
yes, note that Spring elections do mean a smaller adjunctpopulation on the
campuses. Investigate the voting rights ofpersons typically employed only in
Fall semester.)
Adjuncts are probably unlikely to take over the Retirees Chapter (2400
members), but from unofficial numbers I've seen when trying to find official
numbers (still haven't actually found those), something like 14,000 out of a
25,000-member bargaining unit are adjuncts orgrad students. You're close to 60%
of the unit even including theretirees, and well above 60% excluding them
(since I don't believethey can vote in both campus elections and in the Retiree
chapter).
Nearly every chapter except the Retirees and probably the GraduateCenter (as
grad students are likely to be teaching at other campuses,not the Grad Center)
should be led by an adjunct slate. The unionshould have a vice-president for
tenure-track affairs, rather than avice-president for adjunct affairs.
I beleive it took New Caucus more than a single 3-year cycle to take power from
the Unity Caucus, its predecessor. It won some and lost some in its first years
on individual campuses. But given the basic logic of numbers, adjuncts should
be able to either take over New Caucusor simply replace it with a more
democratic caucus in the next 2-5 years.
Of course, these numbers didn't suddenly appear overnight. Adjunctleadership
arguably should have already taken over, though it hasn't.
So, make it happen.
Thane Doss--
This is the CUNY Struggle mailing list.
website: cunystruggle.org
facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cunystruggle/
twitter: @cunystruggle
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CUNY
Struggle" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to cuny-struggle+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To post to this group, send email to cuny-struggle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cuny-struggle/168898ab-0eea-4549-975d-fb86ab3ea648%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- ;
This is the CUNY Struggle mailing list.
website: cunystruggle.org
facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cunystruggle/
twitter: @cunystruggle
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CUNY
Struggle" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to cuny-struggle+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To post to this group, send email to cuny-struggle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx view
this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cuny-struggle/CAN5JudeTsQmKM2AEdqqpx59qpgyvn5q_of0jm%3Ds%2Be6O--oOB0w%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- ;
This is the CUNY Struggle mailing list.
website: cunystruggle.org
facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cunystruggle/
twitter: @cunystruggle
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CUNY
Struggle" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to cuny-struggle+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To post to this group, send email to cuny-struggle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx view
this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cuny-struggle/CAPsXh2%3DY_yCEakHNf_rj33dfDszmrN-SwJ-iOrN_ps5X2LmxEA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- Jason SchulmanCoeditor, New Politics magazine --
This is the CUNY Struggle mailing list.
website: cunystruggle.org
facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cunystruggle/
twitter: @cunystruggle
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CUNY
Struggle" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to cuny-struggle+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To post to this group, send email to cuny-struggle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cuny-struggle/CAPsXh2%3DooBrTyFqeTNue6eB5MTi1j8-GOSyn-jztvqG7-0c2hw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
This is the CUNY Struggle mailing list.
website: cunystruggle.org
facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cunystruggle/
twitter: @cunystruggle
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CUNY
Struggle" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to cuny-struggle+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To post to this group, send email to cuny-struggle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cuny-struggle/CAPsXh2%3DSyr4kwktevbgLVm5OpNz1QXHASMn3im1o36YYKTQtcA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
This is the CUNY Struggle mailing list.
website: cunystruggle.org
facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cunystruggle/
twitter: @cunystruggle
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CUNY
Struggle" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to cuny-struggle+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To post to this group, send email to cuny-struggle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cuny-struggle/CAPsXh2%3DxPkYB2LLNjDCoYO7Bp9v6cD%2Bk2OJ-dEPPcuFt8f1r%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
