Stern, the Gropenfuhrer and Universal Health Care

[Rich Gibson <rgibson@pipeline.com>]

First , on Stern and SEIU

Andy Stern is the president of the Service Employees International Union, 
which was born out of the Chicago, Capone, mob. SEIU's recent gains in 
membership have come, in part, from organizing people already organized 
into independent unions who were threatened with SEIU (and other AFL) raids 
if they did not affiliate, and, in part, by organizing low-wage workers, 
then bargaining the legal minimum wage for them, deducting dues, and 
declaring that a victory. The Justice For Janitors campaign is a tragic 
fraud. Many, if not most, of Stern's low wage members earn less than 
WalMart employees.

Stern is running a dues-based protection racket. He controls the workers on 
behalf of the bosses, and occasionally creates a spectacle of militancy in 
order to maintain the sheen of unionism, and to convince the bosses that he 
is useful.

Stern is absolutely and openly opposed to any reasonable form of union 
democracy, typically amalgamating locals into giant mega-locals scattered 
over wide areas that are easily controlled by Stern and the staff. Stern 
uses the old GM boss, Alfred Sloan, as a management model. Bill Gates 
thinks Sloan's book on managing GM is the best book on running a 
corporation that exists.

Stern is fully committed to the typical US labor policy of supporting US 
imperialism, including supporting it to the point of destroying unions in 
other nations through, for example, the American Institute for Labor 
Development, and the National Endowment for Democracy----both fronts for 
the CIA.

Stern recently led several unions out of the AFL-CIO, into what he calls 
the Change to Win Coalition. The CTW includes some of the most mobbed up 
unions in the USA, including UNITE-HERE, and the Teamsters. It also 
includes the utterly bankrupt UFCWA which managed to lose the California 
Grocery Strike. http://eserver.org/clogic/2004/gibson.html

Now,  are Arnold Swarzeneggar and Andy Stern about to really care whether 
or not the mass of American working people gain substantive low-cost health 
care, when the social system that they so clearly support, capitalism 
thrashing about in decay, cannot give the mass of people in the US real 
health care, under any circumstances, but surely not now when wars 
everywhere drain the national treasury? Probably not.

When Andy Stern and Arnold Swarzenagger sit down, they are not talking 
about helping any working person. They are talking about screwing us again.

That said, there is a move that comes out of sectors of the US ruling class 
to set up a publicly tax-financed system of health care. GM and Ford and 
Chrysler (and some states, like Mass.) are all toying with the idea, not 
because they care a bit about health care, but because their health care 
systems that they bargained with the nearly dead UAW are expensive. They 
would like to shift that burden onto taxpayers (and since the tax system 
has been foisted almost entirely onto the backs of poor and working people 
in the last thirty years, that would mean a health care system that was 
grossly under-funded, completely inadequate, and backed by an unfair method 
of revenue). http://www.rohan.sdsu.edu/%7Ergibson/UAWJune2006.htm

Arguing against the GM et al tax-based health care maneuver are the bosses 
of several unions which own pension funds with investments , very 
profitable and often corrupt investments, in private health care companies. 
Some AFL-CIO affiliates collect dues from workers in private health care 
companies, and don't want that golden goose killed. The AFL has opposed 
universal health care, as I think you see it, since early in the last century.

Even Richard Nixon had a health care plan that most people would support, 
ie, he wanted a plan that would force about 2/3 of the employers in the US 
to pay for the full health care for every worker they had. The AFL-CIO 
fought against that. But Nixon's plan would probably offer good health care 
to more people than any "universal health care" program that the US or any 
state legislature can adopt.

You might want to Google "Ullilco" and see how the leadership of the 
AFL-CIO dealt with that. Here is a start
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/08/national/08LABO.html?ex=1154145600&en=c1e880203c3425b7&ei=5070

The California Nurses Association appears to me to be a high-point in 
current US unionism. Their leaders appear to be bright, creative, and 
committed. While I do not agree with them in thinking that a union will get 
them far, I credit them with intelligence and courage, and the nurses who 
back them as well. If I were to name a union that I would first trust (and 
then check on) it would be the CNA. For the rest of the AFL-CIO ledership, 
I wouldn't believe a word their leaders told me, without overwhelming 
evidence. The Nurses picketed Andy and Arnold (and rightly called all those 
labor bosses like Stern "scabs") for good reason.

Most of the above comes from my practical experience with SEIU, AFSCME, the 
UAW, and the AFL-CIO, as well as NEA and AFT.

However, the book, Solidarity For Sale, by Fitch, adds many details, for 
those interested. Fitch argues that the US labor movement is utterly and 
completely corrupt, but suggests that he knows some ways to reform it. 
Fitch does not really get to why the US labor movement is corrupt, so his 
reforms are pretty hollow.

However, his idea to take away automatic dues check off is appealing. While 
it would do little to the nature of US unionism, and it would make people 
see unions as even more of a vending machine than they do today, at least 
it would be a better vending machine. I organized in states with, and 
without, mandatory checkoff, on union staff. I preferred without. The 
ability to quit the union kept the staff awake.

But, there is no way to reform the US Labor Movement. Attempting it is a 
waste of time, as the dedicated Trotskyists of the Teamsters for a 
Democratic Union and the hardworking people at Labor Notes seem unable to 
learn. A century of US unionism should contain some lessons that do not 
need to be repeated.

US unions are systematically divisive, by nation, race, job, job 
description, community, sex/gender. The leadership of US unionism is 
embedded with US intelligence agencies. The key US union goals of 
collective bargaining and contracts are mere bickering over the conditions 
of slavery.

Unionism, as we know it in the US, encourages people to view the world from 
the narrowest conceivable outlook, that is, "will this be good for me in my 
niche?", when our rightful standpoint should be, "What will this do to the 
working class of the world, of which I am a part?" The outlook of the 
unions, that is, the unity of government, labor, and business in the 
national interest, is a vital component of fascism. That outlook is set up 
by the bribe made available to labor bosses from the fruits of US 
imperialism, which is losing ground fast. Reform within those divisions and 
on that terrain is not only not possible, but undesirable.

As fascism emerges, watch the US union halls become places to hand out the 
brown shirts.

New forms of organization are matters of life and death.

There is a counter-history to the story of US (AFL-CIO/NEA) unionism. It's 
wrapped up in the Industrial Workers of the World, the Western Federation 
of Miners,  the earliest days of the Communist Party, Staughton :Lynd's 
work in the Freedom Schools, the State Workers Organizing Committee in 
Michigan, etc. While these movements can be described in many complex ways, 
a few things stand out: (1) You are what you do, not what you claim (2) 
equality (3) direct action for control of the work place and communities 
(4) democracy as a method of education, and vice versa (5) internationalism 
and antiracism (6) solidarity, an injury to one is an injury to all (for 
example, if you are proctoring high-stakes tests without fighting back, you 
are not only engaged in child abuse, you are setting yourself up for a loss).

We will have real universal health care (which would mean not only 
preventative care, but an education system that did not fear sexual 
pleasure, decent food for everyone, free preventative dental care, real 
care of the environment so we are not drinking poison water or swimming in 
sewage, etc) when we get rid of capitalism. There is nothing wrong with 
wanting to improve our lot, but working for reform under the sole banner of 
health care today misses the point.

best r



At 10:12 PM 7/26/2006 -0400, you wrote:
> "Stern (SEIU President) repeating a statement that has been controversial 
> within the labor movement, said that the "employer-based" system of 
> healthcare is dying and should be replaced with universal coverage."
>
> Stern is correct, employer-based healthcare is harming workers and nearly 
> every California resident.  It is important for him to bring this to media 
> attention...worth sitting with Schwarzenegger.
>
> This is the first I've heard that unions are not supporting universal 
> health care.  Is this more spin by media? More information on universal 
> health care and SB840 is available here:
>
> <http://www.healthcareforall.org>www.healthcareforall.org
>
> --Marc