Central NJ Democratic Socialists (“CNJ DSA”) is committed to providing a safe and inclusive environment for everyone, regardless of gender, race, or class, to organize without fear of harassment. We aim to design a space that amplifies and protects marginalized voices by developing a policy for reporting grievances based on the harassment policy Resolution 33 which was passed at the DSA National Convention in August 2017, while adding several extra protections not guaranteed by the Resolution and an eye towards restorative justice, healing, and victim support.

DSA’s national harassment policy can be found at: https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/harassment-policy-resolution-33/

Section 1.0 Policy Overview

A. Scope Of This Policy

Prohibited behavior. Members shall not engage in harassment on the basis of sex, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, physical appearance, disability, race, color, religion, national origin, class, age, or profession. Harassing or abusive behavior, such as unwelcome attention, inappropriate or offensive remarks, slurs, or jokes, physical or verbal intimidation, stalking, inappropriate physical contact or proximity, and other verbal and physical conduct constitute harassment when:

• Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of a member’s continued affiliation with DSA;
• Submission or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for organizational decisions affecting such individual; or
• Such conduct has the purpose or effect of creating a hostile environment interfering with an individual’s capacity to organize within DSA.
• Other protected classes. Harassment based on categories not encompassed by those listed section (a) will be evaluated at the discretion of the Harassment and Grievance Officer (“HGO”) and Steering Committee (“SC”) representatives.
• Members may also file grievances not directed at a specific individual, such as hostile environments and other systemic issues. Investigation in these cases shall center and seek to support the grievant in determining the appropriate remedy.

B. Reporting Harassment

Complaints. Members may follow the standard complaint process as set out in the following sections if they believe they have been harassed by another member. Time Limitations. There will be no time limits requiring the grievant to file a report within any amount of time after the alleged harassment has occurred.

C. This document describes the complaint procedure adopted by CNJ DSA. If any grievant does not feel that their concerns can be adequately addressed by CNJ DSA, they may pursue a complaint with National Grievance Officers and the NPC without going through the Chapter procedure first.

D. The SC of CNJ DSA will publicize this policy and make HGO contact information available to membership as often as possible, including, but not limited to: Chapter- wide emails, meeting agendas, social media, and online chapter communication platforms.

Section 2.0 Harassment and Grievance Officers

A. Membership shall elect two members to serve as HGOs. Due to the gendered nature of many harassment complaints at the National level, no more than one HGO may be cismale. HGOs may not be SC members, but may run for Steering Committee when their HGO term has ended. Election of HGOs will follow standard procedures outlined in the Chapter bylaws. HGOs will serve staggered two-year terms.

B. HGO Responsibilities

• Receive, acknowledge receipt of, and archive grievant reports
• Contact the accused to notify them of the accusations, request their written response, and archive any written response
• Conduct any necessary investigation of the claim
• Present their findings to the Steering Committee with a written report.
• If necessary, take disciplinary action and report the discipline administered to the Steering Committee.
• Present an anonymized version of the report to deliver to membership after conclusion of an investigation. The HGOs may make exceptions to anonymity in service of the restorative justice process, in the case of any member who has been removed from the chapter permanently or temporarily as a result of the investigation.
• Compile a yearly report that details:
• How many reports were made
• How many were taken to the formal disciplinary process
• How many disciplinary actions were taken
• Any recommended changes for making the reporting system effective, preferably informed by survey of membership

C. Removal of an HGO.

An HGO may resign at any time. If an HGO fails to perform their duties fairly, diligently, and ethically, there may be cause for removal. The SC may remove an HGO by majority vote after the HGO is informed of the cause for removal and given the opportunity to self- advocate to the SC.

Section 3.0 Complaints

A. Making A Complaint The SC will establish a confidential email for submitting complaints, which is monitored only by the HGOs. Login information will be changed at each new term or sooner. The SC will make a complaint form available upon request that is linked to the HGO email.

On the form, the grievant may have the option to submit the complaint as an emergency, in which case an expedited investigation will take place. If a grievant objects to both HGOs viewing a complaint, they may contact one HGO directly and confidentially. The identities of all involved parties will remain confidential to everyone who is not an HGO, including the SC (and at the request of the grievant, disclosure may also be denied to the HGO not currently investigating the case), pending the outcome of the investigation, except as necessary for a complete investigation. Multiple complaints against one person may be consolidated into a single investigation. Any grievant may veto this consolidation. Grievants have the right to a proxy or representative of their choosing to speak on their behalf and act as the primary contact with HGOs throughout the investigation.

B. Recusal

An HGO is required to recuse themselves from any investigation involving either a complainant or accused who is a close friend or family member of the HGO, or with whom the HGO has an extensive working relationship or past or present romantic or sexual relationship. An HGO should also recuse themselves if other conflicts would present an appearance of impropriety. Such potential conflicts may be raised by any party or by any member of leadership at the outset of an investigation and may be determined by other

Section 4.0 Responding To A Complaint

A. Informal conversation/mediation

Some complaints may be resolved without the need for a formal grievance process. In this case, there may be an informal conversation between parties mediated by an HGO. In an informal mediation, all parties must attend voluntarily and express a desire for resolution; the HGO remains neutral; each person has the ability to state their perspectives uninterrupted; the mediator may follow the general structure of affective questioning; and the goal is to find a solution to the conflict that is primarily developed and mutually agreed upon by all parties. a final summary of the conversation is made available to the SC, but the SC does not participate in the results of the mediation.

B. Filing Official Grievance.

After a written report has been submitted, whether through the email hotline or otherwise:

1. The HGO(s) will contact the grievant within three days to acknowledge receipt of the complaint and set up a conversation.
2. The HGO(s) will contact the accused member within five days to notify them that a report has been filed against them and request a written response to the report either affirming or denying its substance.
3. The accused will submit their written response within seven days of being notified. If the accused fails to meet this deadline or request an extension, the HGO will consult the grievant first regarding appropriate disciplinary measures.
4. If the accused denies the substance of the report, the HGO will set up a conversation. The HGO overseeing the dispute will have the option to investigate the report by:
   1. interviewing other members with direct knowledge of the substance of the report;
   2. requesting documentation from either the grievant or accused or any other parties directly involved; or
   3. employing any and all other means deemed necessary, with the utmost respect for the confidentiality and emotional needs of the parties, within a time period not to exceed ten days.
5. When victims are closed out of the disciplinary process, they are re-victimized. In order to avoid replicating the oppressive structures of our current judicial system, before reaching a conclusion, the HGO(s) will schedule a final conversation with the grievant following the general guidelines of post-conflict affective questioning. The purpose is to amplify the voices of victims and consider their needs and perspectives when moving forward with disciplinary action or otherwise.

C. The HGO(s) responsible for investigating the dispute will determine whether the report is credible and take appropriate disciplinary action, if necessary, as soon as practicable, without exceeding thirty days. The HGO(s) may notify SC of the accuser’s report and its substance at any time after the report is filed, but must give written notice to both the accuser and the accused member before doing so.

Section 5.0 Remedies and penalties

A. Determinations

All reports will be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the HGO(s) associated with the accuser’s reporting channel. The ultimate determination in each case will be made by the HGO(s).

B. Standard for Determining if a Report is Credible

The HGOs will find a factual allegation is “credible” if it more-likely-than-not occurred.

C. Remedies and Penalties

1. If the HGOs find a factual allegation to be credible, they are authorized to carry out disciplinary action, which may include:
   1. A formal discussion between the accused and the HGOs and/or Steering Committee to develop a plan for repairing the harm;
   2. Suspension from committee meetings and other chapter or organizational events;
   3. Removal from chapter committee(s);
   4. Removal from the chapter; and
   5. Any and all other relief deemed necessary and just by the HGO(s).
2. The SC will enforce any suspensions or expulsions in accordance with chapter procedures.

Section 6.0 Appeals Process

A. Either party may appeal the final result of the grievance by filling out an appeal form, available upon request from an HGO or the Steering Committee. Appeals must be filed within thirty days of receiving written notice of the decision. The limited grounds for appeal are:

1. Either party believes the behavior was not interpreted using the standards for harassment set out in Section 1a;
2. Procedural errors, misconduct, or conflicts of interest affected the fairness of the outcome; and
3. The remedy or penalty determined by the HGOs was disproportionate to the violation committed

B. Appeals will be heard by the Harassment and Grievance Officers of North or South Jersey DSA, provided they have adopted a policy agreeing to this arrangement. They will follow Central Jersey’s grievance policy in deciding the appeal.

C. Nothing in this policy can limit a member’s right to file an appeal directly with the national organization.

Section 7.0 Retaliation

This policy prohibits retaliation against any member for bringing a complaint of harassment pursuant to this policy. This policy also prohibits retaliation against a person who assists someone with a complaint of harassment, or participates in any manner in an investigation or resolution of a complaint of discrimination or harassment. Retaliatory behaviors includes threats, intimidation, reprisals, and/or adverse actions related to organizing. If any party to the complaint believes there has been retaliation, they may inform the HGO who will determine whether to factor the retaliation into the original complaint, or treat it as an individual incident.

The post Harassment And Grievance Policy appeared first on Central NJ DSA.

Frank Emspak argues that Starbucks workers can win a union and a contract at Starbucks if the labor movement acts like a labor movement.

Update from State Street Starbucks

Our union sympathetic manager has quit because he “can no longer ethically work for this company”. Our new store manager has been selected and is a universally disliked leader who is known for firing union organizers. We have also learned that our district manager expects our store specifically, though not others, to follow a scheduling system made by an AI. Because of this, in the school year when we typically have about 50+ workers, we are now being told we will not be permitted more than 25 workers, including supervisors and the store manager. Our outgoing store manager told me that this is not only to cut labor even more but that it is a tactic to wear workers down, presumably to the point they are just so exhausted they either A. quit or B. fail to perform to new standards so they will be fired. After that, corporate will likely return to full staff with new hires brought in to decertify the union.

(from Frank’s communications with State Street Starbucks workers)

Workers at Starbucks have decided to unionize in at least 200 locations throughout the US.  However, as might be expected, Starbucks has refused to negotiate a contract with any location. The company has been fined for unfair labor practices and has even agreed to reinstate some workers. But the NLRB process itself is fatally flawed. It is clear that we must find other ways to alter the balance of forces, so that Starbucks understands that it is in their best interest to negotiate a fair contract with unionized locations.

The NLRB thicket  

In the 1930s, the NLRB was set up to regulate union recognition battles then erupting across America. It was not designed to facilitate union organization but to channel it. Over the years, especially with the passage of the Taft-Hartley act in 1947, and through various court decisions since then, many of the tactics that unions used to organize and encourage firms to bargain were ruled to be illegal or unfair labor practices. 

There is more bad news on the labor law front. Companies have developed the deadly art of delay. As Megan K Stack described the situation, Starbucks just did what companies do. In ways that are perfectly legal, they delay, delay, and delay until a union victory appears fruitless to those that organized the union in the first place. The process of delay effectively undermines the union’s power. Extreme turnover in industries like Starbucks and food service in general means that delay can mean the people who voted for a union are not there when the firm mounts a decertification challenge. 

Extreme delays also make it harder and harder to convince workers that it’s worth risking their jobs for a contract that can’t be realized in their time as workers there. As reported in the publication Dollars and Sense, the average length of time it takes to obtain a first contract after winning a union representation election has increased from 375 days in 2007 to 575 days in the years 2020-2022, an increase of 35 percent. After 3 years, 32 percent of those unions formed more than 3 years ago still do not have a contract. At the same time the number of union representation elections is increasing: 1522 in 2022 with a 76 percent union win rate.

It is true that in some cases unions can file unfair labor practices cases demanding that the company negotiate or order the reinstatement of a person fired for union activity. Even should the union win, the remedy is generally to make whole; that is, to hire the person back with back wages. Most workers are in no position to wait the year or two (plus appeals) that such cases can take. In addition, the NLRB cannot impose monetary penalties.

Just in case delay and appeal did not stack the deck enough, firms (or unions) can also appeal. Even if the National Labor Relations Board makes a decision and administrative law judges concur with that decision or make their own, it can be appealed in the federal Courts. But as Take Back the Court reports, more than 80 percent of Supreme Court rulings favor the corporations so that actual implementation of a pro-worker ruling can be delayed for years, and when it gets to the Supreme Court, there is a 4 out of 5 chance that the ruling will be pro-management.

In any case Congress has been unwilling to pass legislation to improve the process to even come close to balancing the playing field, never mind providing meaningful protections for workers who seek to organize a union.

Given that history, think of what it would take to make American labor law correspond with the rest of existing law. For example, in the rest of society, punishment (jail time, fines, etc.) are imposed after a trial and a finding of guilt. In labor law, the opposite is true. Punishment (suspension or  firing) is imposed by management immediately, and then at some future point a trial is held. 

Clearly, the NLRB route doesn’t work.

But the limits imposed by the NLRB process are only part of the problem. As the New York Times pointed out so clearly, Starbucks, in its efforts to defeat unionization, simply did what companies do. So far, there have been no egregious physical assaults on workers, mass closings of Starbucks shops in a city, or widespread discharges. These are not the iron and coal police of Pennsylvania in the 1930s. Delay, delay, and appeal are the methods of choice to defeat the union, and these are all legal. Every once in a while, Starbucks gets out of line and is charged with an unfair labor practice, but these instances are neither widespread enough nor costly enough to force any changes in the company’s behavior.

There are other barriers to organization in firms like Starbucks that go beyond labor law. Starbucks has thousands of workplaces, and although the presentation of products and the culture of the location are determined at the top, the multiplicity of locations means that there is a lack of employee concentration. This employment structure effectively makes it more difficult to use the strike weapon. 

An effective strike shuts a company down, inflicting enough pain to force management to the table for meaningful negotiations.  It provides enough leverage to alter the balance of forces between management and labor.  But a strike at Starbucks, which operates 9,000 stores in the U.S., would have to involve a much larger number of locations than the union has currently organized to really impact the company’s financial performance. To an extent, the effective use of social media and communication systems like Zoom can overcome only some of the challenges.

Is it possible to conceive of a solution within the current legal and organizational framework to achieve contracts? Is it possible to conceive that a firm could agree to implement a neutrality agreement that in effect allows the union to campaign for recognition without opposition from management? Such an agreement, negotiated at the top between union leadership and Starbucks, could in theory level the playing field. But a neutrality agreement with teeth in it usually results from an effective nationwide corporate campaign of a scope and popularity of the United Farm Workers campaign against Gallo wines a generation ago. Looking at a company like Starbucks, a corporate campaign would also have to include a serious financial offensive as well as a political offensive beyond the scope of a consumer boycott.  

A variant of neutrality would require the company to agree to neutrality during an election as well as an agreement to accept a contract, national or regional, covering all the employees who vote for a union. The agreement between the United Auto Workers and General Motor after the Flint sit-down strike ended in 1937, General Electric agreements with United Electrical Workers,  and the agreement between the United Steel workers and U.S. Steel in 1937 were of this type. 

But while neutrality or outright union recognition pending a vote has been successful in many public sector campaigns, the private sector is another question. Absent political pressure available in the public sector, we have seen that these agreements do not necessarily result in union victories–as has been the case with the United Automobile Workers at Mercedes Benz in Alabama. Indeed, a meaningful neutrality agreement is possible only when it mirrors the situation on the ground, thus becoming an agreement that enables the already-existing organization and impulse of the workforce. It is a ratification of democracy, not a system to replace it. Specifically the union would have to be acting like a union,organizing departments or groups of workers to be demanding fair treatment, better schedules or acting on health and safety complaints. Public actions supported by a majority of workers, enough to get noticed and show that collective action is worthwhile. If these small actions are supported by a majority it is very hard for management to impose discipline, illustrating strength in numbers.

A short look at U.S. labor history  

In the 1920s, working people faced a grim reality. All of the hi-tech industries of the day–auto, electrical, steel, paper, and chemical–were almost completely nonunion. To say that these industries were nonunion understates the situation, as many of these firms had their own police and thugs, as well as the courts, to attack workers who wanted to organize. It was also obvious that the dominant labor organization of the day, the American Federation of Labor, and its craft-based orientation were simply incapable of organizing the new industries. 

As the 1920s rolled on, more and more workers realized that they needed a new form of organization; they developed the industrial form of organization–essentially a wall-to-wall approach. Everyone in a location would be in the same union. This realization was stimulated by groups of class-conscious workers, many of whom were in socialist or communist organizations. The new form of organization resulted in the unionization of General Motors, General Electric, U.S. Steel, and others.

Today, major industries–from technology to food service–are unorganized. If the union movement is unable to organize those firms, it will become increasingly marginalized. The GEs and GMs of yesterday are the Apple, Amazon, Epics, and Starbucks of today. Meanwhile, as in the past, workers in those firms are crying out for organization and, in many cases, taking steps to do it themselves.

PULL: The Starbucks workers will determine the best union or organization to represent their interests. … We need a focused effort, city by city, area by area, to lend support to those workers who are now in motion. 

Moving forward: Doing the same thing more vigorously will do nothing 

It is clear that if the company continues to do what it does naturally and organized labor does the same, then the results will be the same–derailing or stifling the movement.

The implications of this assessment are obvious. Progressive workers fought within the AFL to organize the unorganized along industrial lines.

This form of organization, necessary to win contracts with firms like Starbucks, will require innovation in the way we precede. The source of that innovation will be a focus and mobilization of progressives within the labor movement to force changes in the way we operate. The change envisioned is a change of attitude from defensiveness or passivity to  one where the  local labor  movement is on the offensive.  This means that our local labor and progressive organizations should not wait until workers come to it , but to be out there in the community and the workplace with the message  that we are here for you. Starbucks workers -and all workers attempting to organize  must know that aside from the  union organizer that the labor community has their backs.

Those changes will make it possible for the labor movement to enable Starbucks workers to win. The Starbucks workers, just as workers in other generations and other circumstances, seem to be able to organize themselves and appeal for outside help to secure a contract. It is that next step– winning the contract–that will require political and organizational mobilization.

What existing structures are at our disposal that could be a basis for change?

Our assumption is that if it is too costly for Starbucks to maintain their massive resistance to unionization in any particular market they will either abandon that market or agree to a contract. Obviously there is a limit to the abandonment strategy.

Denying the company their market is the best remaining option for the workers involved. The labor movement has a structure in place that can serve as a basis for a campaign of support for Starbucks workers. There are several hundred labor councils in the United States. Many of them are in markets essential to Starbucks growth. In addition, there are hundreds of progressive community centered groups, many focused on dealing with specific working class issues which could join any labor council initiative to support Starbucks workers.

If those labor councils, as a matter of policy, mobilized their memberships to boycott Starbucks locations–no matter which union was organizing them–until the company recognized the union and signed a contract, perhaps we might make some progress.

Clearly there are barriers to this strategy. Not all unions are in labor councils, especially some of those organizing Starbucks workers. The disorganization of organized labor puts the issue of what progressives in those labor councils and in those unions organizing Starbucks need to do to place the interests of the Starbucks workers ahead of the parochial interests of their local union or labor council.

This strategy depends on the collective of unions in any area accepting the notion that union consciousness means challenging these barriers. This is no easy task, but it has the advantage of being clear. A program focusing its support for Starbucks workers will enable workers to take action. It also means that Starbucks workers, who wish to engage in organizing their workplace, will know that someone has their back. 

The Starbucks workers will determine the best union or organization to represent their interests. That is their right. Maybe workers will develop new forms of organization as workers did in the 1930s; maybe not. But we in the labor movement have a responsibility to do all we can to find ways to move past the present impasse. We need a focused effort, city by city, area by area, to lend support to those workers who are now in motion. 

The author would like to thank Mike Locker for his suggestions and assistance in developing this article.

ADDENDUM: I wrote this article during the summer of 2023 as workers in Starbucks continued their efforts to organize. Since then workers conducted a successful strike at about 300 locations during Red Cup day- but the company remained unmoved. While the company faces numerous unfair labor practice charges there is apparently no effort on the part of the NLRB or the Biden administration to call out Starbucks for the labor violator that it is. If anything the November strikes demonstrate the need for massive support for Starbucks workers from the labor movement as a whole.  The purpose of direct action is to cause enough pain to a company so as to encourage it to meet the union as an equal. We are not quite there yet.

On November 7th Tacoma voters passed the strongest tenant protections in Washington State, despite the landlord opposition shattering all previous spending records to defeat us. Tacoma DSA launched the campaign and built Tacoma for All into a broad labor-community coalition to win Initiative #1. We overcame efforts by the Mayor and City Council to derail our campaign, first by attempting to co-opt the movement with a watered down alternative, and then with a competing initiative.

Backed by the 8,000 grocery workers in UFCW 367 and the wider Pierce County Central Labor Council, Tacoma for All built a 100-strong volunteer army to knock over 20,000 doors. The victory of Initiative #1, and DSA-endorsed city council candidate Jamika Scott, has transformed DSA into a center of gravity for working-class politics in Tacoma.

Meanwhile, Whatcom DSA helped win two major ballot initiatives: one to raise the minimum wage in Bellingham, and a second to compel landlords pay tenants relocation assistance when rent hikes over 8% force renters to move. DSA plays a central role in Community First Whatcom, the coalition behind both initiatives. After winning two ballot initiatives in 2021, this is the second round of victories for Whatcom DSA and the coalition, cementing the organized left as major force in Bellingham politics.

My first interview is with four fellow leaders of Tacoma DSA, who co-led the initiative campaign with me. My second interview is with Cleveland Harris, a leader in Whatcom DSA and the chair of Community First Whatcom.

Thanks to Jason Corey and Max van Ginneken for mixing and editing the audio for this episode, and to Val Ross for the cover art.

Earlier this month, voters nationwide went to the polls. In Ohio, The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety, listed on the ballot as Issue 1, passed with 57% of Ohioians voting to codify a right to an abortion, contraception, and other reproductive rights into the state Constitution, in a clear rebuke to the near total-ban on abortion pushed through by the far-right Republican Ohio Legislature in the wake of the Supreme Court Dobbs Decision. While here in New York, voters elected their City Council members, and DSA-endorsed incumbents, Tiffany Caban of District 22 in Queens and Alexa Aviles of District 38 in Sunset Park, won resounding bids for reelection in their districts. Tonight, we will hear from Julie from Cleveland DSA, about the statewide effort across several Ohio DSA chapters to mobilize voters to the polls in support of reproductive rights. We will also be joined in-studio with Stef from NYC-DSA Electoral Working Group and Anna from the Aviles campaign to discuss the City Council races and what’s in store for DSA electoral politics in 2024. 

You can become a DSA member at https://act.dsausa.org/donate/membership/ 

To get more involved in the NYC DSA Electoral Working Group go to https://socialists.nyc/ or email at electoral@socialists.nyc

To join a phonebank to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, visit https://www.dsausa.org/no-money-for-massacres-phonebanks/

Join us this Sunday for Comradesgiving, November 26 from 3:00 to 5:30pm at the Gallatin Labor Temple. We will be sharing food and continuing the conversation around Social Housing and why a Public Housing Authority is needed. We will also be practicing how to write and submit public comment in preparation for the upcoming Gallatin County Commission hearing (Tues 11/28) to determine whether a Public Housing Authority should be established at the county level. Join us for a potluck with comrades. Multiple dietary restrictions are being considered, including vegan and vegetarian options. RSVP here.

Can’t make it, but want to show your support for establishing a PHA? See here for directions for submitting public comment to the Gallatin County Commissioners. Public comment for the County is due by November 27.

Menendez Jr. Rejects Calls for a Ceasefire from 4 NJ Groups

For Immediate Release: November 21st 2023

Contact: northnj@dsanj.org

Last night, representatives from North NJ DSA, Jewish Voice for Peace Northern NJ, American Muslims for Palestine NJ, and Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) NJ, met with Rep. Rob Menendez Jr. (NJ-08). In the meeting NNJ DSA reiterated our calls for the Congressman’s immediate co-sponsorship of the Bush-Tlaib Ceasefire resolution, H.Res 786. 

After mounting pressure from our organizations it’s clear Menendez Jr. has not moved an inch on the matter. Despite 66% of Americans, and over 80% of Democrats agreeing with calls for a ceasefire, the freshman Congressman appears uninterested in “meeting the moment” like he often says he is.

Even more disappointing was the Congressman’s claim in the meeting that he’s subject to an “internal struggle on this issue” and that “he wants to be better.” To be clear: This moment is more than just a struggle for the Congressman. This is a genocide happening in real time and Menendez Jr. has power through his position in Congress that he is not utilizing. The Congressman will also not be joining us tonight at 5:30pm outside Jersey City Hall for a teach-in on why and how the humanitarian crisis in Gaza are part of a decades long struggle to displace Palestinians, and how Palestine resists genocide. 

We urge constituents of New Jersey’s eighth congressional district to continue to make calls and send emails to Menendez Jr. and to turn out to events like tonight’s, to demand a ceasefire co-sponsorship from the Congressman.  

The post Menendez Jr. Rejects Calls for a Ceasefire from 4 NJ Groups first appeared on North NJ DSA.

Over 200 Wilmingtonians came out on November 19 to show their support for a ceasefire in Gaza and end to Israeli apartheid. The event was organized by members of a local pro-Palestinian group along with Wilmington DSA members and our comrades in Liberate ILM. We urged the crowd to sign the open letter demanding a ceasefire resolution and to commit to boycotting companies that are doing business with Israel as part of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. We had several great speakers who shared personal connections to loved ones in Palestine and others who educated the crowd on the role of the apartheid state in maintaining capitalist hegemony in the Middle East, including a speech from our Chair to wrap up the afternoon. DSA provided safety marshals and manned the poster making station so that attendees could create their own sign to show support for human rights and for peace.

What are our demands?

As socialists, we stand against settler colonialism and genocide. We understand the role that Israel plays in the U.S. imperial war machine and that the genocide being perpetuated by Israel is primarily funded by the United States.

Our immediate demands are simple:

1. An immediate ceasefire and end to collective punishment.
2. Humanitarian aid to Gaza.
3. Equal rights for all Palestinians.

How can you get involved?

You can stay up to date on local action and changes to our campaign by bookmarking our Palestinian Liberation webpage.

1. Sign the open letter demanding a ceasefire resolution from our local government officials.
2. Show up to events! We need your support to show elected officials that they face serious pressure for continuing to stand with an apartheid state.
3. Volunteer your time. We need folks to help put on rallies, print fliers, and call people and our representatives. Email the chapter and we can get you set up.

Durham's tenants are in a crisis, and despite proponent’s claims, the developer-and-landlord-led “fix” to the building code known as “Simplifying Code for Affordable Development,” or SCAD, will neither solve or barely improve affordable housing in our community. Rising rents in Durham are displacing residents, mostly from working-class Black and brown communities, to make room for mostly wealthier and whiter tenants. Our elected officials are left to accept the neoliberal myth that “the market will find a solution” and yet, despite having green-lit a lot of new development, affordable housing units remain at a premium. Durham City Council should vote against SCAD. 

For the past year, the Council has been considering SCAD – a massive amendment to the building code brought forward by Jim Anthony, a large Raleigh-based developer. The plan proposes many amendments to Durham’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the document that the city provides to inform private developers of all the procedures, zoning rules and districts and standards they will need to follow in order to be allowed to build to code. Cities can use this to get private entities to enact the will of the city. For example, Durham’s current UDO provides a density bonus—where a developer is allowed to build a larger building than would have been allowed otherwise—if at least 15% of units are available for rent at 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). With the illegality of rent control and public housing, the most effective ways to address the affordability crisis outside of decommodifying housing, the UDO is the city’s sole tool with which it can ensure enough affordable housing options exist for its residents. Even this tool is blunted by NC state law that does not allow UDOs to mandate affordable housing. As such, any changes to affordable housing in the UDO has to meet the needs and come from the working class. 

Proponents of SCAD will point to the fact that the amendment will increase the number of affordable rentals by 10 percentage points to 25% at 60% AMI if developers choose to utilize the bonus. This is a necessary and good change for the working class. However, SCAD also decreases how long the units have to remain affordable—reducing the required affordable housing period from 30 years to 5 years for rental units, and first sale for sale units. Both changes effectively reduce the stable housing and wealth-building opportunities SCAD purportedly claims it provides to the working class. On top of the reduction in the period of affordability, SCAD will allow developers to build lower-quality “affordable” units, permitting developers to create slums to squeeze profits out of poorer renters. And once the 5-year affordability requirement expires, landlords can then maximize their profits by evicting the poorer residents to then exploit white-collar tenants with higher rent budgets 5 years later. SCAD’s  affordable housing “solution” works out to a temporary reduction (or “investment”) in landlord passive income that is part of the larger community-displacing, environment-destroying luxury developments that developers have been building in Durham, continuing the transfer of wealth from the working class to the capitalist class. 

The City Council is set to vote on SCAD before the next council is seated. Voting the entire SCAD amendment as-is into the UDO would be a massive mistake the lame duck council will leave the incoming council to deal with. Not only is SCAD an ineffective solution, it is an anti-democratic cash grab backed by a coalition of landlords and developers who, on average, own 11.8 properties and 6.3 businesses. (Anthony, the primary architect of SCAD, is on record having said about Durham’s poorest residents that “gentrification is necessary to erase the ‘blight’”.) It is no surprise then, that SCAD does not ensure homes for fixed-, low-, and no-income parts of the working class who often fall below 30% AMI. Considering the importance the UDO is to development in Durham and the ramifications changes to it will have for decades to come, the Council must ensure that any changes made to the UDO serve Durham’s working class.

Keeping the 30 year affordability requirement in the current UDO is the bare minimum we must do to keep Durham affordable. Combining the minimum with changes in the UDO to further motivate affordable housing development could finally yield in greater affordable housing built in Durham. In addition to keeping the minimum duration, future Councils must also discern the types of developments it is approving—the only way to ensure Durham has affordable housing is to build affordable housing. Luxury housing, like other forms of wealth, will not trickle down. Continuing what we have been doing by approving fewer, larger, sprawling, poorly connected units that net developers the most profit (as recently done with the Perry Farm project) will only exacerbate traffic, high rents, environmental damage, and the climate crisis. We urge the Durham City Council to vote no on SCAD!

Madison Tenant Power

Madison, WI – On Monday, Porchlight tenants and their housing allies crashed a charity event for Porchlight, Inc., the nonprofit that runs Porchlight Men’s Shelter, in order to warn potential donors about dangerous living conditions. One person wore a cockroach costume.

Madison Wisconsin Homeless Union and Madison Tenant Power are calling attention to unsanitary and unsafe conditions in Porchlight properties in Madison, including: apartments full of cockroaches, bedbugs, and other pests; lack of bedding (tenants sleeping on the floor); and units that are not properly air conditioned or heated. Porchlight staff hang up the phone on housing advocates when they contact Porchlight about maintenance issues.

Porchlight is a non-profit organization that operates housing, as well as the Safe Haven day shelter and a men’s night shelter. Porchlight’s CEO receives a salary of over $100,000 while tenants face unsafe conditions. Porchlight has received paid contracts from the city to operate their facilities, and is about to receive another $24 million contract. Porchlight no longer accepts HUD-VASH vouchers from veterans.

Madison Tenant Power and Madison Wisconsin Homeless Union call on the City County Homeless Issues Committee and City and County government to investigate conditions at Porchlight properties. Porchlight tenants and their allies are asking the city to investigate abuse and neglect in Porchlight facilities, and for Porchlight’s city contracts to be pulled in favor of running these services as a public, common good.

Salt Lake DSA is proud to announce our endorsement of chapter member and mayoral candidate Michael Valentine for the role of Salt Lake City mayor, with 88.5% of voting members voting in favor of endorsement. We strongly encourage our members and supporters living in Salt Lake City to rank Michael Valentine as their #1 choice in this ranked choice election and to share this announcement with their friends and family. 

Michael joined our chapter in June of this year on the invitation of a member and after speaking at our local convention in May, and he has been an active member since. While he is known for his work in fighting to save the Utah Pantages theater, Michael’s activism goes beyond one building. Michael has stood in solidarity with Salt Lake’s union workers by gathering signatures and standing on the picket line with our chapter in support of Starbucks and UPS workers, he’s been gracious in letting us use his cider shop for chapter events, and he’s been on the streets with the community fighting for the international working class against police repression and Israeli apartheid. Michael understands that the issues facing Salt Lake City are all symptoms of capitalism, and he knows how to organize with socialist principles in order to enact positive change for the most marginalized Salt Lakers. He is the embodiment of democratic socialist values, and we are more than lucky to have him as a chapter member and mayoral candidate. 

Throughout this mayoral race, Michael has consistently shown not only through his words, but also his actions, that he is the only candidate that understands the needs and struggles of working class Salt Lakers. He’s the only candidate who is a renter, he’s the only candidate who isn’t a millionaire, he’s the only candidate who has experienced homelessness, and he’s the only candidate that speaks up for the community, even if it’s politically unpopular. We know he’s the only candidate serious about curing homelessness, reforming the SLCPD, bettering the living conditions of the working class and saving the Great Salt Lake.

Voting ends on November 21st, and the last day to register is Monday, November 13th. Vote Michael Valentine in as the first DSA member and first socialist mayor in Salt Lake City!

The post Salt Lake DSA Endorses Michael Valentine for Salt Lake City Mayor first appeared on Salt Lake DSA.