By Siobhan M.

In recent years, Republicans have waged an increasingly aggressive war on transgender rights. Through bans on transition-related healthcare, sports participation restrictions, prohibitions on access to public spaces, and much more, Republican-controlled states are wreaking havoc on the lives of their trans residents in an effort to drive them out of public life and further stir the passions of their most frenzied adherents. 

Donald Trump has made restricting trans rights a centerpiece of his campaign, promising to ban federal funding for “promoting” gender transition and airing ads relentlessly criticizing Kamala Harris’s past support for providing transition-related care for people held in government custody. The right-wing Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, Project 2025, promises to roll back regulatory protections on LGBTQ+ rights, including by permitting harassment at work and banning trans people from the military. There is little doubt that the Republican Party is an existential threat to transgender people in this country.

At times, Democrats have drawn a stark contrast and taken relatively strong positions supporting trans rights. Harris herself, as Trump’s ads love to point out, stated her support for trans healthcare in government custody in 2019–though she argued the opposite position in her capacity as California Attorney General in 2015. Trans women, Sarah McBride and Danica Roem, were invited to speak at the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions, respectively. LGBTQ+ advocacy non-profit organizations have, in recent decades, been some of the most visible supporters of LGBTQ+ rights. Their advocacy and relationship-building within the Democratic Party has helped shore up LGBTQ+ rights in blue states, and their legal advocacy against anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, often specifically in red states, has led to well-known victories like Lawrence v. Texas (2003), U.S. v. Windsor (2013), Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), and Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).

Democrats Retreat On Trans Rights

However, in the face of increased Republican pressure on the issue, the Democratic Party establishment has notably changed their tune on trans rights. No trans people spoke at the 2024 DNC, and trans rights were only briefly mentioned twice. Harris’s response to these Trump ads—other than silence—has been to criticize Trump for transition-related procedures provided to incarcerated people during his administration. The Biden administration, in May, went along with a Republican plan to ban Pride flags at U.S. embassies. The Democratic nominees for U.S. Senate in Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin are even running ads explicitly opposing trans rights.

The response from some to concerns about this harmful messaging has been to suggest that while the Democratic Party’s messaging is unsupportive, their policies show they have trans people’s backs. However, a closer look reveals the Democratic Party has been souring on its previously-broad conceptions of trans rights since at least April of 2023. Then, in an early indication of wavering support among establishment Democrats, the Biden administration issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding “Sex Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic Teams” under Title IX, the landmark law requiring sex equality in education. The administration could have used this as a moment for a full-throated defense of trans kids’ rights to play with their friends. They had a defensible legal position—it would have been consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in Bostock to treat anti-trans discrimination as prohibited discrimination based on sex. Instead, Biden’s Department of Education put together a weak, unmanageable rule that allowed Democrats to claim they were protecting trans kids while leaving gaping holes for discriminatory policies. This proposed rule was written with the most obvious benefits for trans youth who are able to begin hormone therapy before starting puberty, but between unsupportive parents, the costs of receiving medical care, and state bans on youth transition, this encompasses only a tiny fraction of trans people. For all others who do begin endogenous puberty, the rule spells out the formula for Republican bans, allowing restrictions on sports participation based on alleged concerns over competitive fairness or injury risk.

A closer look reveals the Democratic Party has been souring on its previously-broad conceptions of trans rights.

On the issue of trans students’ sports participation, the closeness of LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations to the Democratic Party may have stifled criticism of the proposed rule. Shortly after it was released, a coalition of more than 20 progressive organizations, including several which explicitly exist to advocate for LGBTQ+ people, issued a press release lauding Biden’s “restoring and reinforcing vital civil rights protections for all students.” The organizations knew of the rule’s grave flaws–they even said in this release that “this regulation does not go far enough”–but they still advocated for it and, with a largely celebratory tone, congratulated Biden’s administration for issuing it.

To their credit, Democrats’ other proposed Title IX rule, “Enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 With Respect to Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Light of Bostock v. Clayton County,” was generally seen quite positively by advocates for trans rights when it was proposed in June of 2021, excepting the absence of protections in sport. It recognized harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity as prohibited sex-based harassment and granted trans students’ rights to use gender-appropriate bathrooms and locker rooms. However, after it was challenged in court, Democrats and their appointed justices ultimately appeared to abandon the proposal. In her dissent in Department of Education v. Louisiana (2024), Justice Sonia Sotomayor—an Obama appointee—wrote, “Every Member of the Court agrees” to block “three provisions of that Rule: 34 CFR §106.10 (2023) (defining sex discrimination), §106.31(a)(2) (prohibiting schools from preventing individuals from accessing certain sex-separated spaces consistent with their gender identity), and §106.2’s definition of hostile environment harassment.” Sotomayor further acknowledged the Biden administration, despite proposing the rule, “does not contest” the blocking of provisions allowing locker room and bathroom access or prohibiting a hostile school environment for queer and trans students. This even has implications beyond schools–the Affordable Care Act’s protections against discrimination in healthcare also flow from Title IX, meaning federal protections for queer and trans people in medical settings are now also at significant risk.

Establishment Democratic Party Senators and their allies are also starting to take anti-trans legislative action. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) blocked a federal judge nominee on the grounds that she had previously ruled to allow an incarcerated trans woman to transfer to a women’s prison–sending a signal to careerist-oriented judges to not make similar rulings in the future. Sen. Joe Manchin (I-WV), a former Democrat still in their Senate caucus, also joined with Republicans to push through committee prohibitions on some trans healthcare for veterans and their families. Across the highest levels of American government, trans people are seeing a sharp change in tune from a Democratic Party that was recently proud of its support for trans rights.

Where Is This Headed?

One does not need to look far to see the potential end point. In the United Kingdom, the Labour Party, once supportive of trans rights as part of a broadly left agenda, has made a sharp rightward turn and is now leading a government that appears intent on driving trans people from existence in the UK. Labour have maintained a Tory ban on hormone therapy, including puberty blockers, from trans youth, forcing them to endure an excruciating puberty we have the capacity to prevent, but not entirely reverse. There are also disturbing reports of National Health Service GPs discontinuing their adult patients’ hormone therapy and functionally forcing them to detransition. When a formerly-supportive party turns on a vulnerable constituency, the consequences are dire.

Notably, Labour leader Keir Starmer’s heads of strategy and policy were in Washington to meet with Democratic Party strategists in early September. These Labour Party advisors suggested Harris go “on the front foot and launch[] a new policy on” immigration akin to Starmer’s “Border Security Command,” and encouraged Harris to think about a “longer-term question of making sure that the Democrats stay on the center ground.”

The Democratic Party’s changed tune on trans rights is beginning to echo their dramatic shift in immigration policy. When Trump made anti-immigrant sentiment central to his 2016 campaign, Democrats responded with forceful calls that “no human is illegal” and a platform to “defend against those who would exclude or eliminate legal immigration avenues and denigrate immigrants.” As Trump and Republicans have continued attacking immigrants, however, the Democratic Party has largely stopped speaking up in defense of immigrants and ceded more and more ground on immigration policy. Biden’s administration has worked to expand Trump’s border wall, even pushing to waive environmental regulations to allow them to do so more quickly. The administration has also taken executive action to significantly reduce avenues to apply for asylum. Perhaps most publicly, in early 2024, Biden and Congressional Democrats pushed a harsh immigration bill that Biden himself called the “toughest” in decades. After Republicans refused to pass the bill, Biden excoriated them in his State of the Union, touting the bill’s potential to “hire 1,500 more border security agents and officers” and its endorsements by the Border Patrol Union and the Chamber of Commerce and asking conservatives, “what are you against?” This total surrender by the Democratic Party to right-wing framing and policy on immigration could be an ominous sign for their commitment to trans rights.

Only A Socialist Workers’ Movement Can Win Lasting Protections

In the face of Republican exterminationist policies and increasing Democratic indifference, trans people must find another vehicle to fight for our rights–and socialist organizing is that vehicle. 

As long as capitalism exists, the right wing of the capitalist class will seek out cultural issues upon which to divide and conquer the working class. Hatred against minorities, whether immigrants, queer and trans people, religious minorities, or people of color, is time and time again intentionally stoked by the funds of billionaire donors, fanned by right wing media outlets, and all coordinated by right wing political operatives. For many of these capitalists, fueling hatred is “just business, don’t take it personally.”

But for those of us on the receiving end, this hatred they cultivate is profoundly personal and often violent. As long as the capitalist system remains, so too will exist the incentive and ability for a handful of billionaires to turn working people against one another. Every improvement won under the leadership of the liberal wing of the capitalist class is in jeopardy of being revoked from day one, so long as the capitalist system remains intact. The only solution which can win lasting security for trans people, and all marginalized groups, is to replace capitalism with a socialist system. Instead of being used to sow division, the resources of society, and especially our media, can be used to educate society on our beautiful diversity and collective commonality. The supposed divide between culturally-conservative working-class people and socially-progressive urban and college-educated people is not insurmountable. This was proven by the socialist-led Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners campaign, a story dramatized in the movie Pride (2014), in an inspiring demonstration that these two sections of society can be united in struggle.

Ultimately it will not be trans people organizing as a minority, but the socialist-led working class which will have the ability to contest for power with the capitalist class and win.

Ultimately it will not be trans people organizing as a minority, but the socialist-led working class which will have the ability to contest for power with the capitalist class and win, establishing a workers’ government which can carry out the socialist transformation of our economic and social structure. Without abandoning for a second the fight for the particular issues facing trans people, trans socialists must take their place in this fight for a socialist workers’ movement, especially by joining trade unions and working to form a new party.Trans and gender-nonconforming people are already leaders across socialist movements, including several members of DSA chapter leadership across Massachusetts. Evan MacKay–a nonbinary person, member of the Cambridge LGBTQ+ Commission, and DSA member and endorsee–came within a handful of votes in their bid earlier this year to unseat establishment Democrat Marjorie Decker. DSA is engaged in a nationwide campaign to protect and expand Trans Rights and Bodily Autonomy.

Still, we must do more. We must organize our workplaces into militant unions prepared to break with the Democratic Party and fight for causes like nationalized healthcare, including free and readily-available gender-affirming care on demand. We must dramatically scale up our political mobilization to escape the capitalist economic system that keeps trans people in financial precarity. We must build socialist, working-class power to fight for true trans liberation. Let every trans comrade take their place in the front ranks!

Siobhan M. is Treasurer of Boston DSA, Secretary of her UAW unit, and a UAWD member. The views expressed herein do not represent her employer.

COLUMBUS — The Columbus chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) issues the following recommendations to residents of Ohio.

1. In For Issue 1, YES.
2. In For Issue 46, YES.
3. In For Issue 47, YES.
4. In For U.S. President, NO RECOMMENDATION.
5. In For U.S. Senator, NO RECOMMENDATION.
6. In For Justice of the Supreme Court, vote MELODY STEWART.
7. In For Justice of the Supreme Court, vote MICHAEL DONNELLY.
8. In For Justice of the Supreme Court, vote LISA FORBES.

A detailed rationale for each recommendation follows.

Disclaimer: No recommendations made here are endorsements. Columbus DSA has not endorsed any candidate in this upcoming election. These recommendations are tactical considerations meant to minimize the harm likely to occur to the working class here and abroad as a result of this election.

Do you lament the lack of socialist, abolitionist, and pro-BDS candidates running for office? You can be a part of changing that, whether by running for office yourself or helping us to discover and cultivate future socialists-in-office. To advance the democratic socialist movement in Central Ohio, join DSA today: www.columbusdsa.org/join/.

Endorsed “YES” vote for Issue 1

Issue 1, the Citizens-Not-Politicians anti-gerrymandering ballot initiative, is an absolutely vital step to increase democratic representation in Ohio. We are proud to have overwhelmingly voted to endorse a YES vote for Issue 1 at our September General Meeting. 

Gerrymandering will always be a problem in politics: entrenched power has a habit of working to stay entrenched. Although Issue 1 is unlikely to eliminate the threat of gerrymandering, and we must always stay vigilant, the protections provided by the amendment and the constitutional body it creates to draw districts are much better than the politician-ran redistricting body we are currently oppressed by. Instead of having politicians draw their own districts and keeping power in the hands of political parties, Issue 1 would create a redistricting body made up of representatives from the two largest parties AND political independents (those who do not vote in partisan primaries). 

Issue 1 provides an opportunity for political voices outside entrenched parties – like us – to have a role in shaping the future of the state by creating a more realistic legislature that actually aligns with how Ohioans vote. This would be an incredible blow against the GOP-dominated state legislature, which has entrenched their supermajority not through the power of their politics (which are unpopular and not supported by Ohioans), but through bureaucratic rule-making such as redistricting. Fairer districts would also provide more opportunities for us to run our own socialist candidates in the future, creating additional pathways for us to build the power of the working class and begin to create the foundations of a party that actually serves working people instead of simply using them as an electoral base for liberal half-measures. 

It is absolutely vital that we pass Issue 1, and we strongly endorse a YES vote. Columbus DSA is also hosting canvasses in support of Issue 1 each Sunday at 1:30pm. Visit our calendar at columbusdsa.org/calendar to join one of our canvases.

Recommended “YES” vote for Issue 46

Issue 46 is a property tax levy to fund Franklin County Children Services (FCCS). Columbus DSA supports programs that help both children and families and strive for them to be robust. This is what taxes are supposed to be for: direct, material services to the people. FCCS provides a variety of important services including an abuse hotline, mental health counseling, adoption and foster care, and mentorship services. Columbus DSA has not officially endorsed Issue 46, but we recommend a YES vote to provide funding to FCCS. 

Recommended “YES” vote for Issue 47

Issue 47 is a sales tax levy providing funds to improve public transportation in the Columbus area with the Central Ohio Transport Authority (COTA) and LINKUS. More accessible and widespread public transportation is vital to driving demand away from automobiles. This would reduce pollution, help the climate, make roads and sidewalks safer. Too many of our neighbors have died while simply walking or biking city streets due to cars. The proposed funds would also be used for sidewalks, greenways, and bike paths, making our city more accessible and providing alternatives to personal cars. Columbus DSA wants to see our city thrive, and this is one way to do that while helping the world too. While we have not officially endorsed Issue 47, we recommend a YES vote on Issue 47 to fund COTA/LINKUS.  

No endorsement for President

There are no candidates for President who are fighting for working-class power on Ohio’s ballot. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris; at the end of the day, these are our options for the presidential election. These are also two candidates Columbus DSA cannot and will not endorse. We have already seen the disastrous consequences of a Trump presidency, and while a Harris White House may be less disastrous than another Trump term, Harris has not done nearly enough to earn Columbus DSA’s endorsement. She refuses to end weapon shipments to Israel despite their ongoing genocide of Palestinians and violent invasion of Lebanon. She has withdrawn support for Medicare For All – which she supported in her 2020 presidential run – and has recommitted to increased oil drilling and supporting fracking. Harris has made no commitment to ending the massive wealth disparity between rich and poor, and she has done little to fight corporate power in her time in office. 

Ohio is not even considered a “battleground” state anymore due to the abject failure of the Ohio Democrats to offer Ohio workers anything of value, so considerations of “tactical voting” are entirely worthless. Besides, we are not blind to the fact that Democrats are not working to save us from the corporate-fascist alliance that is building to take power. In many ways, they have aided and abetted it, and this nation is now at a point where half-measures are no longer good enough. 

Therefore, we offer no recommendations for the Presidential race. Members should choose for themselves the best course of action in this race. 

No endorsement in the Senate race

As with the presidential race, we cannot extend an endorsement to either of Ohio’s Senate candidates. Bernie Moreno has been involved in several lawsuits from former employees for discrimination and wage theft. Despite being an immigrant himself, he supports the mass deportation of immigrants, who are just working people just trying to make a living. He has also spoken against bodily autonomy, complaining that women over 50 should not care whether or not we have a right to an abortion. Sherrod Brown has a long history of support for working people and unions, but the majority of his policy focus is on trade, which often favors business owners over workers. These policies often harm working people in other countries for the profit of American big business. While he did vote to send humanitarian aid to the Palestinians in Gaza, he has failed to call for a ceasefire to end the genocide, voting again and again to send Israel military funding instead. While Brown may do less harm than Moreno in the long run, Columbus DSA cannot endorse lukewarm support for working people and failure to stand up against genocide. We offer no recommendations for the Senate race, and members should choose for themselves the best course of action in this race. Furthermore, the Senate should be abolished.

Recommendation for Supreme Court Candidates

Melody Stewart, Michael Donnelly, & Lisa Forbes 

The Ohio Supreme Court has been held under a Republican stranglehold for 40 over years. While many decisions over this time have shown that they are inadequate to be in such a position of power, there have been a few over the past 2 years and some coming up that are why we are recommending Melody Stewart, Michael Donnelly, & Lisa Forbes. One, we endorsed Issue 1(reasoning above), the Republicans on the Supreme Court have shown that they will do nothing to stop their friends, like Frank LaRose, Mike Dewine and other Republicans officials in the state from drawing unconstitutional maps, putting incorrect language on the ballot, to confuse voters and blatant voter suppression tactics, like allowing someone to drop off your ballot at a Dropbox. The Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment established a clear framework protecting everyone’s right to access abortion, but it is up to our court system to make sure that this amendment doesn’t just become a meaningless piece of paper. We need justices that will enforce the amendment, not ignore it like they have with anti-gerrymandering legislation. We would also like to have Supreme Court justices that do not change the definitions of words to benefit corporate America. 

by Anonymous

Editor’s Note: An abridged version of this article previously appeared in SUNY Geneseo’s student newspaper, The Lamron. Republished with permission.

Those in administrative positions will never be able to create a sense of community. University bureaucrats imposing policies and procedures onto the general university membership does not allow for a space for an open, united community. Moreover, administrators cannot create a community when the consequence of civic disobedience is institution-sanctioned violence. 

The New York Times estimates that “3,100 people have been arrested or detained on campuses across the country” since April 18, 2024, for their involvement in protesting over the inexcusable mass slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. This comes after an Associated Press article in January of this year stated, “more than 1,230 people have been charged” for their involvement in the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol Attack. 

I find it astonishing that more students/university members have been arrested than attempted insurrectionists. It is outright reprehensible that most arrests were made on peaceful demonstrators. A statement from the Human Rights Institute at Columbia University even mentioned that “The NYPD said that protesters were, ‘peaceful, offered no resistance whatsoever, and were saying what they wanted to say in a peaceful manner.’” Most individuals arrested broke no actual laws but violated unjust, undemocratic campus policies.

Last semester, when I was a student at the University at Buffalo, I witnessed the brutal arrest of fifteen people. The demonstration was peaceful, but despite this, UB called in several different police departments, roughly eighty law enforcement officers, to disperse and arrest the protesters. The officers then turned to the student bystanders and pushed us into the nearby buildings. During this process, officers ripped a student’s hijab off and attempted to use intimidation tactics and language to corral us inside. 

Long after the detained protesters were shipped off using university buses, a smaller police presence remained. Days later, students organized a vigil, which caused part of the campus to be completely shut down, and undercover officers walked amongst grieving individuals. To what point will it be acceptable to call out these colleges for what they are? Antidemocratic hedge funds with at least one functional library.

Colleges and universities nationwide, including Geneseo, are passing tyrannical policies that further limit students’ right to expression and organization. I find it hard to believe these policies would have been rushed through had the protests in the spring been about anything other than universities’ complicity in their investments in war profiteering and, subsequently genocide. Based on the SUNY Board of Trustees’ Rules on the Maintenance of Public Order, students’ right to organize has never been protected. The ability to have a right to freedom of expression means nothing if the right to organize collectively is effectively nullified. 

SUNY has a principle called “Shared Governance,” where policies and decisions are supposed to be worked on not just by administrators, and to be more transparent. While good in theory, it is deeply and seemingly purposely flawed. This only continues the cycle of undemocratic behavior of the university apparatus. According to Geneseo’s Policy on Policies, “All College policies require the approval of the President’s Cabinet. If the policy materials affect student life, it must be approved by the College Council. Such approval should be obtained after the policy is approved by the Cabinet.” This is absurd. Firstly, the Governor appoints members of the College Council. Secondly, it effectively makes the College Council just a rubber stamp. Only one student, the Student Association President, is on the College Council. This is not a good representation of student life. 

I believe that proposed policies related to student life should be discussed with students before they are implemented. Allowing the proposed policy to be discussed and voted on by the Student Senate would increase much-needed transparency at Geneseo. Given the recent slew of policies passed and approved directly related to student rights and responsibilities, it further proves that administrators are worried about students organizing together, which is why to allow more ways of accessible collaboration, rather than separation with a false sense of transparency. 

The lack of accessible transparency is an ongoing problem not just at Geneseo. The President of Monroe Community College (MCC) decided it would be best to supply public safety officers with long guns in the case of an emergency. It was not adequately announced, and it took an article from a local news company that put it on most students’ radar. Students immediately wrote emails to the administration and the college president about their concerns about this matter. One administrator mentioned that there were “already enough meetings” about the matter and that students should have attended them. 

The three meetings in question were mostly inaccessible to the general student population. The first meeting was held in a dorm building. MCC is overwhelmingly a commuter school, with the vast majority of the student population living off campus. How is holding a meeting in a key-card-access-only building accessible to the campus environment? The second meeting was held during a monthly MCC Board of Trustees meeting. Students are not permitted to speak at the meeting without requesting ahead of time. Meeting agendas are posted before, but many students are unaware of the importance of the Board since it is not effectively communicated. 

The third meeting, like the Board of Trustees, was poorly planned. It was here that the Student Government Association was asked to pass a resolution supporting the purchase of long guns. Again, there was no prior discussion that the topic would be discussed, and also the “speak to the senate” section is before resolutions are voted on. If students were not properly informed about the resolutions, how is it fair to speak beforehand? 

If colleges and universities nationwide truly claim to stand for the ideals of diversity, equity, and inclusion, they need to start being more equitable and inclusive. Transparency without inclusivity and diversity is not equity. Transparency without inclusivity and diversity is not equity. If colleges intend to be and continue to be purposely inaccessibly transparent after demands of change, then they are outwardly oppressive.

Student movements may have different main goals, but all eventually boil down to the struggle for democracy. Despite what colleges and university administrators claim about their democratic-adjacent systems, none of that matters if students do not have the right to organize together. We as students may have a student government, but that isn’t enough. We need a student union. A union to protect us while we organize to call out the undemocratic and unjust rules that limit our rights to freedom of peaceful expression. 

Currently, these structures and systems incentivize us to be competitive, not collaborative with each other. Clubs and organizations may foster small communities, but not a united community. Administrators across the country have seen what happens when students are united. Meaningful change happens when students are united. If we want to protect and enhance our rights, we must unite and demand our colleges to be democratic, not bureaucratic. Accessible transparency is worth fighting for. Expressing and organizing ourselves is worth fighting for. Demanding democracy is worth fighting for. We the students deserve nothing less.

The post ON-CAMPUS DEMOCRACY DOES NOT EXIST first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

Seattle DSA Housing Justice Working Group statement written by Tom Barnard

On September 19th, the Seattle City Council finally unveiled its alternative to I-137 after refusing to act earlier to put it on the November ballot. Clearly trying to subvert the newly created Seattle Social Housing Developer (SSHD), the council created an alternative which results in significantly less funding, contains methods to keep the developer from accessing that funding, and creates a bureaucratic process designed to erect operational roadblocks. 

The council’s alternative cuts funding for new housing from approximately $50 million/yr to a maximum of $10 million/yr, and then sunset in five years. This would sharply curtail the number of units that could be purchased or built, setting the SSHD up to fail. 

Worse yet, instead of creating a new excess compensation tax aimed at the richest companies in the City, it would raid existing funds from the JumpStart payroll expense tax, most of which is currently earmarked for other affordable housing projects limited to people making less than 80% of the area median income (AMI). This not only deprives other essential social services of funds, but also forces the SSHD to compete for those funds with other affordable housing nonprofits. During public comment, spokespeople from the Low Income Housing Institute and Plymouth Housing urged the council to vote “no” on the alternative.

In fact, the Council’s option would not create social housing at all, as incomes for the housing units would be capped at 80% AMI. As specified in I-135, Social housing is a mixed-income housing model in which wealthier tenants, at 120% AMI, subsidize the rents of those making less, with rents permanently capped at 30% of residents’ income. 

Council members engaged in various attempts at rhetorical subterfuge by describing the alternative as “proof of concept” for social housing, which in fact it is not. Sponsor Maritza Rivera claimed their alternative, “balances the need for innovation with the need for accountability” without giving “a blank check to yet another new agency that does not have the experience creating housing.” And after doing everything they could to keep it from the November ballot, Councilmember Rob Saka claimed that having two competing measures on the ballot was “simply good governance … centering choice [and] optionality.”

The fact is that the Seattle City Council and its real estate backers who fueled their rise to power are attempting to keep in place a housing system which does work for the vast majority of Seattle renters. Tenants face ever increasing rental rates that beggar them, from developments owned by Wall Street dark money investors whose only interest is a maximum return on investment. Seattle DSA’s Housing Justice Working Group believes that housing is a human right and we stand in solidarity with House our Neighbors and coalition partners in opposition to the Council’s alternative.

Seattle voters will not be fooled. The idea of social housing is on an upswing, from the recent King County workforce housing initiative, to ongoing discussions at the state level, to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s brand new legislation that will establish and fund federal social housing. SDSA’s successful effort to get the signatures necessary to place I-137 on the ballot will need to follow up later this year with a vigorous effort to turn out the vote for the February ballot.

To get involved in the fight to fund social housing, join us at the Let’s Build Social Housing Prop 1A Field Kickoff. Join your fellow social housing supporters to learn about how we’re going to win Prop1A (formerly I-137) at the February 11th, 2025 ballot. We’ll have a couple activities, refreshments, and an update from House Our Neighbors and campaign field staff about the strategy to win funding for social housing at the ballot with your help. Hope to see you all there!

Saturday, November 9 from 5:30 – 7pm PST at 800 Hiawatha Pl S. Seattle, WA 98144

RSVP: https://mobilize.us/s/NvTOuZ

The post Seattle DSA Will Always Stand with Social Housing appeared first on Seattle Democratic Socialists of America.

The Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee is providing crucial lessons for unions and organizing everywhere. It might be an example of labor’s best bet.

The post EWOC Is Modeling a Path Forward for Labor appeared first on EWOC.

By Connor Wright

CAMBRIDGE – It’s a crisp 45 degrees on Friday morning, but instead of finding warmth at their desks inside, workers at the Cambridge Public Library (CPL) are standing out on the broad strip of sidewalk in front of the main branch.

All 20 or so library workers wear coordinated T-shirts, carrying signs that read “HONK IF YOU LOVE LIBRARY WORKERS” and “FAIR CONTRACT NOW.” Parents driving their kids to the nearby Cambridge Ringe and Latin School honk their support, as do construction vans, garbage trucks, and buses. A few workers carry a large green banner with the name of these workers’ union: the Cambridge Public Library Staff Association (CPLSA), Local 4928.

This is no one-off action. Library workers have been organizing similar rallies every Friday morning. The weekly standouts are part of a months-long campaign for a fair contract, as the CPLSA fights to address long-simmering workplace issues in the CPL system that have reached a boiling point this year.

Worn Down and Pushed Out

The CPL is consistently one of the highest-rated public departments in Cambridge, a fact library management is quick to tout to their staff. But as multiple staff described to Working Mass, their working conditions at the CPL don’t match their high degree of support from the public.

One big issue is pay. Library workers technically received raises in their last contract – 2% in 2021, 2.5% in 2022, and 2.5% in 2023. But these “raises” either just held even with inflation over those three years, or fell well below it. In terms of real wages, that means the city has been slowly cutting pay at the CPL, making it nearly impossible for library workers to live in the community they serve.

Hill Saxton, the Senior Youth Services Librarian at the Central Square branch, has been working at the CPL for almost 9 years. They described Cambridge’s cost of living spiraling out of control for library workers, a sentiment echoed by every CPLSA member Working Mass talked to.

“Very few members live in Cambridge,” said Saxton, waving at a honking car. “Some of us can afford Somerville, but even that is becoming really expensive. We’re getting pushed further and further away from work.”

Cambridge rent costs have soared in recent years. In May 2024, the average cost of a studio apartment in the city was $2,339 a month, according to Boston Pads, a real estate networking and research company. Even as a senior librarian – at $38.81, one of the highest-paid positions in the CPL – more than a third of your pay could be sunk into rent, just to afford the smallest possible apartment in the city that employs you.

In this round of contract negotiations, management is making a similar wage offer. According to the CPLSA, the figures currently on the table are a 3% raise in 2024, 3.5% in 2025, and 2.5% in 2026 – all numbers that are unlikely to rise above inflation.

Michael Roberson, a 13-year librarian and vice chair of the CPLSA’s executive board, has been through three contract negotiations in his time at CPL. He didn’t mince words about library management’s most recent offer when he spoke with Working Mass.

“If you’re offering a wage ‘increase’ that falls below inflation – that’s a pay cut,” said Roberson. “The city is not budging on wage increases in any real way, even though inflation has gone way up.”

Sick time is another major issue for library workers. They receive just one sick day a month, in addition to 3.75 days they can use any time during the year.

During the first years of the Covid-19 pandemic, Cambridge mandated two weeks of paid sick time on top of whatever sick time employers offered. But that Covid-specific time expired in 2023.

Now, with Covid still a reality, workers are “maxing out their sick time, and that forces people to come to work sick because they need the money,” according to Saxton.

CPLSA members also emphasized their fight against workplace bullying and harassment. The union is fighting for stronger contract language to protect members from this type of ugly behavior from managers.

Multiple workers described instances of bullying and harassment from upper management. These issues are often dealt with slowly or not at all, even when formal grievances are filed.

“When a grievance is made by a staff member who has been harassed, it’s not dealt with in a timely manner,” one longtime CPL staff person, who wanted to remain anonymous, told Working Mass. “It becomes this rot under the surface because it’s not responsibly handled.”

Churn and Burn at the CPL

These deep-seated problems are causing CPL to lose staff at an alarming rate. According to an internal count provided by the CPLSA, the number of workers who leave the library system has increased every year since 2020, more than doubling between 2020-2021 and climbing steadily each year since.

Year	Number of staff leaving CPL
2019	12
2020	11
2021	23
2022	25
2023	26
2024	26 (as of October 1)

In 2023, 26 library workers left the CPL. That accounts for a staggering 25% of CPLSA’s entire membership, which is just over 100 library staff across all CPL branches. The same number have already left so far in 2024, and workers expect even more resignations by the end of the year.

“The amount of people we’re losing is frightening,” Violet*, who has worked at CPL since the start of the pandemic, told Working Mass. (*Violet wanted to use a pseudonym to protect herself and her coworkers from retaliation.)

“Administration has tried to say that the vacancies are due to internal promotion, but the numbers speak for themselves – 26 people have left the organization altogether.”

“People are leaving because it’s not sustainable,” added Saxton, the Central Square librarian. “We have an amazing staff, we want to keep all our staff. But we need people to feel supported, to be able to make a living wage and take care of their families, and that’s currently not the case.”

Stonewalling from Library Admin, City Managers

CPLSA members have tried to address these issues by raising them directly with management and filing formal grievances. Both avenues have run up against stonewalling from library management.

Progress at the bargaining table has been slow to nonexistent. According to Roberson, the CPLSA vice chair, library and city representatives have yet to address any of the union’s core demands. At a particularly contentious bargaining early in October, they refused to even engage with a package of compromise proposals put together by the union.

“We brought them a pretty comprehensive package,” Roberson told Working Mass. “We’ve really tried to compromise with them and meet them halfway where we could, while still keeping in a lot of these concerns that our members really want to see reflected in the next contract. But we’ve been told by representatives of the city that they are ‘unwilling’ to move on this – and they’ve repeatedly used that word, ‘unwilling.’”

With negotiations stalled, the CPLSA has been experimenting with new tactics to put pressure on library administration.

“We’ve tried to bring solutions to administration behind-the-scenes,” said CPLSA member Violet, who has been involved in negotiations. “Because that hasn’t been working, now we’re standing out and letting the community in, so they can nudge our administration to listen to what we’ve been telling them.”

CPLSA Goes on Offense

To break through the impasse in bargaining, CPLSA is running a contract campaign, aiming to get its own members and the whole Cambridge community involved in its fight for a better library system.

CPLSA members have organized the Friday standouts, run coordinated T-shirt days, and often observe bargaining sessions, where the union’s 8-person executive board sits across from library administration and city management.

Library patrons and community members also regularly show up to the Friday morning rallies. Local union members often support as well, especially teachers from the Cambridge Education Association (CEA), who went through their own contract fight with the city last year.

“When we talk to people in the community they’re really excited to support us,” said one library worker, gesturing to a group of people who had stopped to chat. “People love the library, and they’re starting to recognize that the union is the library.”

To better organize this community support, CPLSA has launched a letter-writing campaign aimed at library management, Cambridge City Council, and City Manager Yi An-Huang. City officials have received hundreds of letters criticizing the city’s handling of negotiations and supporting the CPLSA’s demands. The union has also been doing outreach at local events.

For Violet, reaching out to the community makes sense, since the union’s demands would help both workers and library patrons.

“The things that we’re talking about – they affect the community,” she explained. “The less staff we have, the less we can be there for patrons the way we want to be…. We want to be transparent with the community in a way that management hasn’t been.”

Fortunately for library supporters, the CPLSA has made it easy to plug into their campaign. Links to send letters to city management can be found on the union’s Linktree, and the weekly standouts are held from 8-9am every Friday morning outside the CPL’s main branch, 449 Broadway, Cambridge, MA, 02138.

The CPLSA may have a long fight ahead of them. Next Wednesday is the last formal bargaining session before the union and the city enter mediation, a slow, bureaucratic process that can just as easily lead to a weak contract as a strong one.

Still, members have no plans to turn down the pressure and seem determined to make real gains in this contract.

“They don’t want to back down,” said Hill Saxton of management and city officials. “But we don’t plan on backing down either.”

Connor Wright is a member of Boston DSA and a labor reporter for Working Mass.

The Labor Branch Organizing Committee wants to share some reflections and opinions about the TCDSA Convention, and also invite you to an important labor event. On one hand, DSA union activists were understandably disappointed that our labor priority proposal did not make it in the top three priorities of the TCDSA Convention. On the other […]

You make the most impact in your organizing campaign by talking with your co-workers, but what about introverts? How can they organize?

The post Workplace Organizing Tips for Introverts appeared first on EWOC.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not represent the official position of Working Mass.

by Jake Scarponi

Last month, the UAWD reform caucus held its first national convention since taking power in the nation’s fifth largest union. While UAWD’s rise to power over the last two years has been impressive, the convention revealed a deep division over what political strategy the caucus should take up moving forward. For socialists, the dominant tendency of bread-and-butter reformism in UAWD which avoids clear political fights is insufficient to lead UAW on a collision course with not merely individual bosses or union bureaucrats, but the capitalist order as a whole.

While not the first caucus of its kind even within the United Auto Workers (UAW) union, Unite All Workers for Democracy (UAWD) is the latest organized expression of discontent with the UAW’s old guard.

The Reuther Caucus – later, the Administration Caucus (AC) – has, until recently, wielded nearly unbroken hegemonic power in the UAW for decades. Its style of “business unionism” (which Burns and Foster define well) has dug the UAW into a deep rut of class collaboration and concessionary contracts, particularly in critical manufacturing locals. 

UAWD was not the first caucus to campaign for direct elections of officers on the UAW’s International Executive Board (IEB), but a massive corruption scandal resulted in the UAW being placed under federal monitorship. A referendum on direct elections was imposed by the state, and UAWD used this opening in its “One Member, One Vote” campaign. After UAW members voted in favor of direct elections, UAWD swept all seven seats that its Members United slate contested, including that of current President Shawn Fain. UAWD also experienced some reform victories at the UAW’s most recent Constitutional Conventions – for example, strike pay accumulating immediately rather than starting at day eight – for which it needed to run delegation candidates and coordinate votes.

Political conditions thus far have allowed the caucus to move from one central objective to the next: win the right to direct elections; run a slate and win a majority on the IEB; bring amendments to the Constitutional Convention; strike at the Big Three auto manufacturers to begin to reverse decades of concessions. But this string of victories has fulfilled UAWD’s initial plans so successfully that next steps are now unclear. And so, without an immediate, unifying goal around which to mobilize and recruit UAW members, political tensions have sharpened within UAWD. 

The question of UAWD’s direction and purpose is of utmost importance for socialists to evaluate – this is not the first iteration of “reform caucus unionism,” and we must ask ourselves whether this approach is truly an effective tool for activating layers of the working class into direct struggle against the organized forces of capital. To be effective, the caucus must be a useful space for generative political struggle and the organizing of workers.

These tensions were especially prescient heading into UAWD’s first in-person convention in Southfield, Michigan, where the caucus voted in a set of elections for half of its Steering Committee (terms are two years and staggered annually). A second portion of its annual membership meeting will occur at a later date wherein other business will be taken up. Much of the resolutions on the table will deal with similar political questions as were raised in the recent elections.

The TDU Effect

UAWD is often summarized as “Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU), but for the UAW.” We should ask ourselves, then: where did TDU come from, and how does it situate itself in the labor movement today?

TDU, like Labor Notes and the Bread and Roses caucus of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), shares some lineage and certain ideological traditions rooted in the ideas of Hal Draper’s Independent Socialist Club. Historically, TDU has fought similar fights as UAWD, pushing back against corrupt business unionism and uplifting rank-and-file demands. But even though TDU is largely run by socialists, it has avoided clearly expressing a socialist politics, instead limiting itself to a populist critique of bosses and bureaucrats to drive procedural democratic reforms while focusing on building unity around “bread and butter” economic issues. Social justice unionism doesn’t escape the grasp of TDU, Labor Notes, or Bread and Roses, but there lacks a coherent vision for or concerted effort towards politicizing the trade union movement on the questions of socialism and class conflict.

Furthermore, and despite the caucus’s focus on member democracy within the larger union, TDU’s model of reform caucus unionism is driven heavily by the caucus’ staff and top elected leadership. The actual membership of TDU meets only once a year at its convention, a meeting which arguably serves more as a training hub for developing organizing skills and a showcase of unity rather than a forum for caucus members to make decisions about their role in the labor movement. Case in point: Teamsters Mobilize was met with hostility for bringing a resolution on Palestinian solidarity, and one Teamsters Mobilize member was banned from TDU for openly criticizing the latter. Rather than consider in good faith and challenge competing visions for TDU, its inner circle is determined to stifle debate under the pretense that “politics don’t belong here.”

But isn’t that determination inherently political? Isn’t declaring that TDU’s focus is “not [on] issuing report cards or attacks against our coalition partners” as Sean O’Brien publicly courts and donates members’ money to reactionary electeds political? Is TDU actually “independent” from Teamsters leadership if there’s no room for critique? Isn’t the act of TDU members deciding to launch Teamsters Against Trump as a strictly TDU-unaffiliated campaign undeniably political?

These are political decisions – relating both to internal union politics and broader, national politics – and the intentional “papering over” of such disagreements and dynamics in TDU is a concerted, top-down political action. Labor Notes performs a similar “papering over” when it invites Mike Miller – UAW Region 6’s director, known for repressive leadership and historic AC alignment – as a guest alongside UAWD reformers. Some Bread and Roses members similarly resist debate about DSA’s approach to labor solidarity work, but the status quo that Draper’s theories have enjoyed does not mean theirs is some kind of “neutral” outlook on the work itself; it’s political, and has every right to be deliberated. Dancing around politics is a recipe for letting our strategies stagnate and inviting the easy cooptation of our reform movements by elements of the old guard we swore to struggle against.

Convention: Election Results and Their Implications

TDU is not just relevant as a point of comparison to UAWD. Its inner circle and sitting leadership have personal connections to UAWD’s Steering Committee. Ken Paff – founding TDU member and head caucus staff of many years – was consulted during the planning of UAWD’s convention, and was present as a special guest alongside Sean Orr, a co-chair of TDU’s International Steering Committee. Some segments of the UAWD Steering Committee welcome them as mentors; others object to their union politics and seek a different path. The same can be said of the rest of UAWD’s membership.

This schism was decidedly explicit between the two slates running for UAWD Steering Committee offices. The UAWD Call to Action slate drew its program around political independence of the caucus from its IEB candidates as well as the ruling class, increased transparency of the Steering Committee’s closed meetings, membership control over caucus staff, and specific plans for building UAWD at the local level where the old guard persists. That first point includes the right to be critical of the IEB, primarily as it relates to cutting off UAWD’s relationship with Secretary-Treasurer Margaret Mock and Vice President Rich Boyer, both of whom ran on UAWD’s Members United slate and have since grossly mishandled their respective duties and become oppositional towards Fain and the rest of the slate.

The UAWD Strong slate, by comparison, built its image and program around claiming ownership over any and all of the caucus’ accomplishments and structural proposals for building unity and cutting down contention. Both slates are interested in building and empowering the organization, but where one takes strong positions on how to do so, the other would rather avoid political confrontation and deliberation, TDU-style. Unfortunately, Labor Notes’ coverage (co-written by Jane Slaughter, one of several Bread and Roses members who also attended convention as a special guest) might leave the impression that elections were simply between a camp that wants to do rank-and-file organizing and one that seems to want to un-endorse Members United candidates instead.

The latter slate swept the elections it contested, and the tendency it represents maintains a level of incumbency on the Steering Committee. The conclusion of the Steering Committee elections and the moments immediately following made that clear: the MC opened by declaring that “internal politics are over,” an IEB member subsequently echoed refrains for “unity,” and a shirt signed by President Fain was raffled off after he gave his own remarks (the only remarks in recent memory during which he actually named our organization, despite frequent publicized appearances).

The relationship UAWD has with Members United is complicated by the fact that no one expected to win so resoundingly. Conversations about the nature of that relationship did not take place before the elections were won. With two notable exceptions, however, basic principles of the caucus have not been undermined, and UAWD should be proud to have elected leaders so far ahead of just about any officers of the last several decades. Despite some missteps for which he deserves some amount of critique, Fain’s call for a general strike in 2028 is a testament to this integrity. But the IEB question is critical to the reform movement’s future. Avoiding politics in the name of a vague sense of unity serves the interests not of the masses of UAW members, but of the officers endorsed by UAWD who say, “trust me as a free agent to execute your agenda in spite of other political and structural forces pushing me away from it.”

Is the caucus in place to serve its elected officers on the IEB, or are those officers in place to advance the cause of the caucus that elected them? What is that cause, and how is the caucus actively deliberating and intentionally pursuing it?

Beyond Bread-and-Butter Reformism 

Socialists must work in support of every democratic reform and wage increase for the workers’ movement, no matter how small. Union reform caucuses could be powerful spaces to engage in generative political struggle and activate members of the working class into conflict against both capitalists and backwards union bureaucrats. But if reform caucuses are failing to meet that purpose and become instruments of simply changing the guard of union leadership, then getting in line behind them for the sake of “unity,” their potential in truly empowering the rank-and-file and advancing the socialist cause is limited. Ultimately, we know that no reform can be durable without the complete undoing of the capitalist system, and we must carry out our work in the labor movement with that understanding in mind.

Is our goal socialism, or is it only a larger, procedurally-reformed labor movement? If we wait for the labor movement to “ripen” for the injection of socialist politics, won’t a depoliticized labor movement be just as vulnerable to the political and economic forces of capital as it has been historically? We must remember that the Congress of Industrial Organizations was only crushed after its unions started to cave to redbaiting under post-war McCarthyism, and we must ask ourselves what could or should have been different in historic episodes such as those.

After all, high wages and fair elections mean little when the world is burning. Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the increasing drumbeat towards a war with China, and the ever-exacerbating climate crisis all impose duties on socialists and workers alike which go far beyond issues of the shop floor. These issues require a political approach, which cannot help but bring us into direct conflict with the sharpest edges of capitalist-imperialism.

A political approach will not only build a labor movement capable of weathering the storms capital will inevitably hurl at it, but will enlist the workers’ movement as the main pillar of the socialist fight to overthrow capitalism, our highest goal. It is common sense that we cannot achieve such results accidentally, but must set these principles, strategies, and tactics out explicitly. If the point of socialists supporting the reform caucus movement is to win the unions to socialism, then socialists must bring our socialist politics openly into the reform caucuses and push for them to be adopted into the program of the caucus. It’s not enough to bide our time and wait for reform candidates to lead us by the nose into transformative victories for the working class. Elected leadership can create openings for us to seize on, but ultimately, we must be prepared to agitate the masses into fighting for itself against the ruling class and its business-union collaborators. The workplace is a political domain under capitalism – act like it!

Jake Scarponi is a UAW and UAWD member and a member of Worcester DSA.

This is a transformative election for the City of Portland, which will select the first cohort of leaders for the brand new city government. Portland DSA’s two amazing candidates will come ready to fight for social and economic justice, offering a fresh vision for Portland following years of rule by candidates committed to regressive policies.

City government has a tremendous amount of power over critical issues like housing, public safety, climate resilience, and more. It’s time for a city that prioritizes the needs of its citizens over downtown developers who live in the suburbs.

Endorsement, Green Lights, Red Lights, and Renter’s Bill of Rights

Endorsed (Rank #1)

Portland DSA’s two endorsed candidates, Tiffany Koyama Lane & Mitch Green, will be listed first — with a “#1” symbol and additional details about our endorsement. We think you should rank them number one in Districts 3 and 4!

Preferred Candidate/Green Light

Portland DSA’s preferred candidates rose to the top through an internal process that included a mock election, extensive research by Portland DSA’s Socialists in Office Committee, as well as a member forum.

Renter’s Bill of Rights: A house icon indicates green light candidates who have signed the Renter’s Bill of Rights.

DSA Member: A rose icon indicates green light candidates who are also members of Portland DSA. Join us!

District 1

For District 1, Portland DSA has greenlighted six candidates and encourages you to rank all of them. None were endorsed by the chapter:

District 2

For District 2, Portland DSA has greenlighted six candidates and encourages you to rank all of them. None were endorsed by the chapter:

*Jonathan Tasini is a member of Portland DSA. We regret the error.

District 3

For District 3 Portland DSA has greenlighted six candidates and encourages you to rank all of them. It includes Tiffany Koyama Lane who Portland DSA endorsed!

Rank Tiffany Koyama Lane #1 on your ballot! Portland DSA was proud to endorse her earlier this year. We have been out non-stop knocking doors and calling voters for Tiffany. Teacher Tiffany is a leader in the Portland Association of Teachers and their successful strike last November. Tiffany comes from a background of collective action based in the labor movement. We consider her election to validate the struggles of educators that were raised in that strike. Nike put their executive in as chair of the school board, we are striking back and putting a union teacher on City Council.

District 4

For District 4 Portland DSA has greenlighted five candidates and encourages you to rank all of them. It also includes Mitch Green who Portland DSA endorsed!

Rank Mitch Green #1 on your ballot! Portland DSA was proud to endorse Mitch earlier this year. We have been out non-stop knocking doors and calling voters for him. Mitch is a mainstay of Portland DSA, picket lines, and karaoke bars. He’s been a member for six years and has served as our treasurer. Mitch is an open, proud socialist who wears his membership on his sleeve.

Mayor

For Mayor we do not have an endorsed candidate and were only able to pick 4 from the list:

Red Light / Do Not Rank

The following is our list of candidates we encourage members not to rank at all on their ballot. These are candidates who were endorsed by the Portland Police Association (police union) and United for Portland / the Portland Metro Chamber (formally known as the Portland Business Alliance). Some are vitriolically opposed to the Renters Bill of Rights. Others are critics of the teachers’ union. None of them belong on your ballot. Portland DSA is supportive of the Don’t Rank Rene movement and we want it to be clear which candidates have stood against our movement and its demands like Jesse Cornett and Jon Walker.

Many candidates for the new Portland city government are not listed in the Portland DSA’s voters guide. Voters might consider ranking these candidates to fill out the ballot if they run out of DSA-endorsed or preferred candidates to rank. Filling out your ballot helps to keep Red Light (Do Not Rank) candidates out of office.

Made it to the end? WOW. Ready to take action and secure a pro-working class majority on Portland City Council? Take the pledge here and join our movement!