A response to “Jersey City’s eviction proposal will help lawyers but not solve the real problem | Opinion” by Wendy Paul, Executive Director of the Apartment Owners Association:

“…let’s lay out what Paul’s op-ed forgot to mention: Dozens of studies have shown that Right to Counsel is an effective, moral and cost-saving solution to the housing crisis across the country. In New York City, before RTC was passed, only 1% of tenants had representation in landlord-tenant court, while 95% of landlords were represented. Now, 56% of all tenants are represented…in NYC, 84% of all tenants who were provided an RTC attorney remained in their homes.”

Read “Right-to-counsel laws proven to aid tenants, communities | Opinion” in the Jersey Journal

Published in The Daily Princetonian.

The following testimonial comes directly from a service worker at Princeton University, presenting an authentic sentiment of inadequate financial support and an uncaring institution; it is just one of many voices of frustration and despair on this campus. It has only been edited for clarity:

“My salary is not enough for a single father with two kids. I can not afford to [pay for] rent and utilities, [not to mention] car fuel and maintenance… I literally have to choose if I’m going to have breakfast or lunch most days ’cause the price of food is high and I can’t afford to eat both meals most days… I’m asked by office staff if I have plans for a summer vacation; I can’t even treat myself to McDonald’s, so a vacation is just a dream. The small 2% or 3% raises we get are always erased [by] the annual 3% raise we pay for health insurance. I have been working for Princeton for a little over 3 years, and my salary has gone up by less than 800 dollars for the year… I left a job that paid me significantly more, but I couldn’t pass up the chance to work for what I thought at the time was a world-class university. I have come to realize that it’s smoke and mirrors and Princeton wants to pay us middle to low-end of the scale and expect to be talked about in the same breath as Harvard, [but] Harvard facilities operations [get] paid higher [than] we do here. So maybe Princeton should lower their view of [themselves] until they truly start acting like the prestigious university that they are.”

Our service workers are vital to the University community, yet paradoxically exist in a space disparate from it: a space in which their concerns and fears aren’t important enough for the University to accommodate them. While the University offers legitimately helpful benefits including healthcare, childcare, and retirement funds, which are genuinely appreciated by workers, a survey of over 100 union workers on campus – conducted by Princeton YDSA – tells us that they are simply not enough. Instead, the ostensibly meaningful benefits mask the impacts of low wages on those that need to pay for rent, a car, or even just food for their kids.

While the University helps faculty and students thrive, workers are left to the wayside – as one campus worker described, the administration “doesn’t really care what we are facing on [a] daily basis.” Princeton should no longer brush these issues aside. It must take these concerns seriously and commit to supporting its service workers with meaningful compensation.

While the cost of living has increased month over month all across America for the past two years, many Americans have felt left behind by the corporations that employ them. These employers have offered meager raises to pacify their workers while annual costs of living have skyrocketed by 8 percent and even 12 percent in some states, and many corporations are raking in record profits in an economy that is failing to support its essential workers.

Princeton, disappointingly, is following these trends. According to the survey, despite requests from workers to be fairly compensated under the cost of living increases in New Jersey (which stand around 8 percent, Princeton acts as if circumstances have not changed, offering minimum pay increases below inflation and the cost of their benefits to unionized workers. In other words, our employees are effectively seeing their wages decline.

In the survey, workers detailed the extent of the deep financial issues they face which Princeton must make an effort to remedy. Many of the responses mentioned general cost of living hardships in New Jersey and Princeton saying, “fuel cost + mortgage / rent is unattainable for my union brothers / sisters,” “I have problems paying my bills and paying for food,” and “I can’t afford anything but the bare minimum.” Cost of living increases along with Princeton’s disgracefully low wages have created unacceptable conditions for many of our most valuable and essential workers. However, beyond these already appalling day-to-day living situations, some workers described absolutely devastating stories due to the lack of financial support from Princeton. Among the most heartbreaking comes from a worker who was forced to sell his home to afford rising expenses: “[I had] to sell my home. Everything is so expensive for everyone; a big increase should [have] happened long ago for us [essential] workers.”

The lack of essential cost-of-living adjustments is made more devastating by the cost of Princeton’s healthcare benefits. Despite receiving praise from many workers in the survey, many also criticized the fact that unionized employees’ negotiated annual raises (around 3 percent) are almost entirely negated by the rise in healthcare costs each year (also around 3 percent) — even before inflation. Princeton’s pay stagnation shows a blatant disregard for the deplorable conditions that their essential workers live in — conditions that are in direct contrast to Princeton’s status as the wealthiest per-capita university in the U.S.

Princeton must give its workers automatic, meaningful increases in wages that account for changes in the cost of living. Responding to our survey, 105 out of 116 workers said that they would “support automatic cost of living adjustments” as a baseline policy. In responses that provided more detail, many mentioned a desire for financial security and fair compensation. “Our current raises hardly even keep up with yearly increases in health care let alone everyday cost of living increases,” noted one worker. Another asserted: “We all deserve more than just a cost of living raise.” Yet given Vice President of Human Resources Romy Riddick’s claim that Princeton is “paying very close attention to the salaries and making market adjustments,” it is evident that Princeton only cares about the market viability of its wages, not the needs of its workers.

Given Princeton’s current indifference to these conditions, students must play an active role in pressuring the University to make real changes — most importantly, annual wage increases across the board for its workers to combat the rising cost of living. Students’ voices can genuinely influence the actions of the administration. Look to the incredible efforts of Divest Princeton, for instance, and their resilient campaign that resulted in the University divesting its endowment from publicly traded fossil fuel companies Their work is far from over, however, and so is ours. We encourage students to advocate on behalf of workers who have found their struggles invisible to and ignored by Princeton. Join us in our fight against the University’s negligence for our most essential workers to live a life free from immense and unnecessary turmoil and hardship.

To help us advocate for this vital change, we encourage you to sign on to student groups’ petition for the University to address campus workers’ needs. Also, please join us on May 1st as part of the Unidad Latina en Acción (ULA) May Day March for International Workers Day as we amplify workers’ grievances. The march begins at 112 Witherspoon Street on May 1 at 6:00pm and will feature speakers from YDSA, ULA, and other groups advocating for workers’ rights and empowerment.

Additionally, fighting on the side of Princeton’s campus workers in their attempt to receive fair and livable compensation is their local union, Local 175 of Service Workers International Union (SEIU). Made up of our indispensable workers (staff from dining halls, cleaning, maintenance, etc.), SEIU 175 is urging the University to better pay its workers. However, effectively utilizing the union to advocate on behalf of workers turns out to be quite difficult at Princeton, given their “no-strike” clause in the negotiated contract, as Bryce Springfield ’25 and Lucy Armengol ’26 argue in another piece.

David Beeson ’26 and Abdul-Bassit Fijabi ’24 are members of Young Democratic Socialists of America at Princeton. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of SEIU 175. This article was written alongside another in a series on campus labor.

Published in The Daily Princetonian.

Free speech is understood to be a central tenet of academic life at Princeton. Members of the University across the political spectrum have considered how free speech can and should be upheld on campus while maintaining a safe environment. But these conversations have failed to include an essential part of our campus community: workers. Until the University removes the ban on worker strikes, its commitment to free speech will remain hollow.

Members of the Service Employee International Union (SEIU) Local 175 (a union on campus that includes dining hall, custodial, and landscaping staff, among others) are unable to fully access their right to free speech. Workplace discussions about organizing are limited, and their freedom of expression is sharply restricted as well. Article 35 of their contract with the University prohibits the Union and employees from participating in “any strike, sympathy strike, work stoppage, concentrated slowdown, refusal to cross any picket line or interrupt work in any other way.”

Article 35 is justified under the University’s Statement on Freedom of Expression, which protects free speech unless it is “directly incompatible with the functioning of the University.” The University’s statement claims this is a “narrow exception to the general principle of freedom of expression.” However, strikes are one of the most meaningful and impactful practices of free speech.

Free speech has played a vital role in unionization and workers’ rights movements. In the early 20th century, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), an organization that advocated for workplace democracy through general and industrial unionism, engaged in a series of “free speech fights.” Members of the IWW spoke out and organized strikes across the United States, often resulting in their arrest. Many organizers refused to be released from prison and demanded a trial as a platform to advocate for both free speech and the right to strike and unionize.

Working conditions improved during the Progressive Era as the federal government was forced to make concessions to labor organizations in the face of strikes and other forms of union activism. For example, in the Bread and Roses Strike of 1912, mill workers who were predominantly immigrant women went on strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts, after their wages were decreased. 23,000 workers went on strike and almost 20,000 were on the picket line. Ultimately, the Bread and Roses Strike increased not only their own wages, but the wages of textile workers across New England.

Labor activism has played a critical role in achieving many of the labor protections which we take for granted, including weekends, overtime pay, and the elimination of child labor. Without the ability to strike, SEIU Local 175 is significantly disempowered in their contract negotiations with the University.

To investigate the state of worker satisfaction on campus, the Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA) at Princeton surveyed 116 union service workers during the Spring 2023 semester. On one hand, the survey found that most workers seemed grateful that the University offered relatively good non-wage benefits. However, as expressed by Abdul-Bassit Fijabi ‘24 and David Beeson ‘26 in a separate piece, surveyed workers have consistently expressed concerns; for example, some noted that they are woefully underpaid – especially in a time of high inflation – as staffing shortages and a sense of alienation plague many union shops on campus.

SEIU Local 175, which employs over 700 employees at Princeton University, makes active efforts to improve working conditions and wages for unionized workers. As one worker expressed, the union “[f]ights for all employees and has… sav[ed] employees’ jobs”; and as another notes, the union has “done well with getting us increased raise amounts over the past couple years.”

Yet, these aims are severely limited by the imbalance of power in the contract negotiations between the University and the Union, particularly when the University bans free expression in the form of a strike.

In the United States overall, unions consistently demonstrate strong benefits for workers, including up to a 20 percent income premium compared to similar non-union workers. Unions, moreover, demonstrate comparable lifetime earnings gains to those of a college degree despite earlier retirement, with a major part of the causal mechanism being the strike. As demonstrated by economist David Card, strikes in the US have historically had significantly positive effects on unionized workers’ wages, and such strikes were deeply intertwined with empowered labor unions.

Within the University of California system, this freedom of expression enabled educators to gain substantial improvements to students’ education quality and their workplace conditions, with 48 percent higher minimum wages for teaching assistants and 61 percent for graduate students. In 2022, even the mere threat of a strike among Kaiser Permanente nurses resulted in major improvements for both workers and patients, with 22.5 percent higher pay and improved staffing to provide improved patient care. More recently, though the fight continues, the Rutgers strike enabled faculty and graduate students to make strong gains, including 14 to 44 percent higher wages, after the Rutgers University administration simply refused to make reasonable concessions for its employees to see decent compensation for their contributions, by extension ensuring that educators can better serve their mentees.

With the no-strike clause in Article 35, SEIU Local 175 and the workers it represents have less power in their negotiations with the University, as they lack one of the most “powerful tool[s] for any union [to] express its voice,” as put by an anonymous employee. If the University disagrees with a demand, the union cannot effectively use its leverage to encourage the University to listen to workers.

This unconscionable restriction sharply contradicts the University’s romanticized rhetoric about its free speech policies, preventing workers from freely expressing themselves. Free speech is an essential value that must be accessible to everyone, including workers and including for expression that challenges Princeton University, if it is to truly value free expression. Even some past Supreme Court rulings have protected the right to strike on the grounds of protecting workers’ freedom of expression, such as Thornhill v. Alabama (1940) and NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co. (1962).

Although workers are severely limited in the extent of free expression permitted by the University, students do have the ability to platform the unheard grievances of workers. By acting in solidarity with the employees who sustain our education and living as students, we can show that students will not accept the University’s neglect and disrespect of workers’ needs and free speech principles.

We encourage you to sign on to student groups’ petition for the University to address campus workers’ needs. Additionally, please join YDSA on May 1st to amplify workers’ grievances as a part of Unidad Latina en Acción’s May Day Rally, starting at 112 Witherspoon St on May 1 at 6:00 pm.

Lucía Armengol ‘26 and Bryce Springfield ‘25 are members of Young Democratic Socialists of America at Princeton. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of SEIU 175. This article was written alongside another in a series on campus labor.

We're crossing the Hudson River once again to speak to our socialist comrades fighting for workers’ and tenants’ rights  in New Jersey. We’ll hear live from Isaac and Julia of the Right to Counsel campaign in Jersey City, now the priciest city in the nation, on their organizing to guarantee representation from an attorney for all tenants facing evictions and other housing issues. We also speak to Deepti, an undergraduate student at Rutgers University, and Sarah, a member of the grad union’s bargaining committee, on their recent and historic strike and what’s next for workers at the largest university in New Jersey.

To learn more and get involved with the Right to Counsel campaign in Jersey City, visit righttocounseljc.org.

Follow Rutgers AAUP-AFT at @ruaaup and Rutgers One Coalition at @r1coalition. 

There are two San Antonio DSA endorsed candidates on this guide and one proposition: Jalen McKee-Rodriguez in City Council District 2, Teri Castillo in City Council District 5, Prop A: San Antonio Justice Charter.

Candidates/propositions must seek the endorsement of SADSA and our general membership votes on the decision to endorse. Several community members have reached out to SADSA for a voter guide, so we have created one. It is by no means expansive and does not cover every race in our area, but we hope this can help inform your decisions if you’re looking to a socialist organization for electoral advice.

Our struggles go beyond the ballot box, but it is a site of struggle that we cannot withdraw from, we can take it back if we fight together. Join San Antonio DSA.

If you have any questions or comments, please don’t email SanAntonioDSA@gmail.com. 

In Bexar Co. you can vote at any voting location. You can go to the Bexar Co. Elections Department website to find voting locations, hours, your individual sample ballot and more.

City Council Landscape

It’s true the highs of 2021 have worn off. No matter how you slice it, City Council will be lurching to the right for the next two years. The 2023-2025 City Council will still be made of mostly centrists, but things just feel worse this time around. This Council has made historic investments though American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) decisions, Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) funding, and the largest municipal bond in history, but the vibes are most certainly fucked. 

There are a few bright spots in union and tenant organizing, but efforts desperately need to be ramped up to exert political pressure before monumental races in 2025. Alongside an open mayoral election, District 4, District 6, District 8 and District 9 will likely be open, if Councilmember Courage (D9) can secure a fourth term this year. The 2025 races will be on the heels of what will certainly be a very entertaining, and likely devastating, Presidential cycle that will most definitely change organizing landscape and conditions. 

We sincerely hope that no matter what happens on May 6th and over the next two years, you’ll commit to joining an organization (hopefully DSA dsausa.org/join) and start organizing. Regardless of where you see yourself “on the Left,” your politics are assuredly not reflected across local elected offices…but they should be, even a glimpse! Our Voters Guide is admittedly a bit bleak, no candidates aside from our endorsed candidates are receiving a recommendation before the runoff. We understand this might not really help people who want to vote, but don’t know for whomst. Unfortunately, the who this cycle is mostly anti-Prop A, Chambers of Commerce-types who all say generally the same thing. A total lack of political imagination fueled by a void of community organizing, being filled by (hopeful) careerist politicians. Two years ago, we fought to get Teri and Jalen elected to City Council. This year, we will make sure they stay, and two years from now we must get them comrades on Council. 

Organize where you work, organize where you live, and let's organize for a better San Antonio.

Click here to view full voter guide.

An open letter of solidarity with Salt Lake City Public Library Workers United

April 22nd, 2023

To the Salt Lake City Public Library Board of Directors, and to library patrons,

The Democratic Socialists of Salt Lake (DSSL) is first and foremost a socialist organization formed in the spirit and practice of working class solidarity and labor organizing.  Workers’ unions and collective bargaining are foundational pillars that hold working class power stable. Along with these pillars, public libraries are also necessary for the survival of democracy and working class people. Because of this, the DSSL is writing this letter on behalf of the 400+ members of the chapter to show public and proud support of the Salt Lake City Public Library workers’ efforts to unionize with Local 1004 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) as SLCPL Workers United.

Our chapter is an active and proud patron of the SLC Public Library (SLCPL). Since August, we have held each of our monthly hybrid general meetings at the main branch (including our next one on 4/24), we held our “Know Your Rights” tenant organizing trainings at multiple branches across the city over the past year, and our members have participated in events other community organizations have hosted at the library. Our chapter has several members who work with the SLCPL, and we have enjoyed utilizing the non-book materials, such as the button and sticker maker, that are accessible through the SLCPL.

Beyond the scope of our chapter, the SLCPL does vital work that this city would not be able to function without. The free Seed Library program is an imaginative success in the fight against food deserts and for sustainability across the valley. Hundreds of community members enjoy the book clubs, public forums, educational programs, youth programs, guest speakers, and author meet-and-greets the library puts on every year. But most importantly, the SLCPL is one of the last places in the city that every Salt Laker can go to and be welcomed, regardless of race, gender, class, ability, sexual orientation, immigration status, language, or age. The SLCPL is one of the only places in the state that is wholly democratic and equitable to all people. And it does all of this free of charge to everyone.

But it’s not “the entity” of the SLCPL who executes these wonders; the SLCPL would vanish in an instant without the intelligent, hardworking librarians, custodians, educators, and other workers who pour their heart and soul into their work and this city everyday. It is the workers that provide all the valuable resources there. It is them that create and execute all the innovative and world-class services and events the library puts on. These workers are positive examples to all people in our community; they embody the ideals the DSSL, and many Americans, hold very seriously: free speech, appreciation of the arts and humanities, community outreach, education, and social and economical justice. The SLCPL workers are the keepers of democracy and prophets of a better, more equitable and just, day.

The SLCPL is the embodiment of collaboration, so it is for these reasons and more that we demand that the SLCPL Board of Directors voluntarily recognize SLCPL Workers United upon demonstration of majority support and bargain in good faith with the representatives elected by the workers. We also demand that the Board passes resolution that solidify these collective bargaining rights and prevent any union busting any future board may consider. We also demand that the Board addresses the workers’ concerns regarding wages, benefits, equality, and their workplace democratic processes, as they know their own work situation better than anyone. The SLCPL workers are currently the only group of public employees in Salt Lake City who are not covered under any bargaining agreement, and this directly contradicts the main ideals this very institution stand.

The DSSL asks the Board to submit to workers’ demands, and will stand by the SLCPL workers’ through every success and struggle they endure; up to and including joining them on the picket line. Solidarity with the library workers now! And solidarity with them forever!

On behalf of our members,

The Democratic Socialists of Salt Lake Coordinating Committee

The post DSSL Proudly Supports the Unionizing Efforts of the Workers at the SLC Public Library first appeared on Salt Lake DSA.

Many of us frequently interact with United Parcel Service (UPS) workers in our daily lives. You see them driving down your street in their emblematic brown trucks. You count on them to deliver birthday gifts to far-flung family members. You may even chit-chat with the UPS worker who regularly delivers packages to your door. UPS is the third largest company headquartered in Atlanta, and it employs nearly 400,000 essential workers who are responsible for transporting 25 million packages and documents daily, across 220 different countries and territories. Millions of us rely on the hard work of UPS drivers and warehouse workers. But did you know that these workers are currently gearing up for a critical contract fight to win better wages, hours, and respect on the job?

All 350,000 non-management UPS workers throughout the U.S. are covered under a national contract, known as the National Master Agreement (NMA), that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) has with UPS. This contract governs their wages and working conditions.  Some UPS workers — but not all! — are also covered by a local “supplement,” which is a second contract negotiated by local or regional bargaining committees that often has stronger language than the NMA. So while all UPS Teamsters have some baseline protections, there is a lot of variation in the level of protection members receive depending on location. That’s why it’s crucial to have a strong NMA. 

And guess what? The NMA is currently up for renegotiation, which is a huge opportunity for UPS Teamsters trying to strengthen their contract. It will expire in just a few months, on July 31, 2023. This time around, IBT is being led by a newly-elected coalition of militant reformers, including General President Sean O’Brien. They’re done making concessions, and if UPS does not end two-tier driver jobs, raise pay for part-time workers, and give in on other key issues, the UPS Teamsters plan to strike nationwide on August 1, 2023. 

DSA is ready to go all in on this fight! Last weekend, DSA labor and electoral organizers from all over the country gathered in Chicago to announce that 71 and counting DSA electeds have signed on to support the UPS Teamsters this summer. Ahead of July 31, we’re gathering the support of members, our coworkers, and the larger community to stand with UPS Teamsters on the picket line when the time comes. We’re counting on YOU to get involved, sign the pledge, and take a moment to learn what this struggle is all about!

When was the last UPS Strike?

The last UPS Teamsters strike took place in August 1997, during which 185,000 UPS workers went on strike for a better contract. This was a pivotal moment for the U.S. labor movement. The strike lasted 15 days and cost UPS hundreds of millions of dollars. The company admitted that fears of even bigger losses led them to finally agree to IBT’s demands. In other words, the Teamsters showed their company and the world that, when well-organized and well-supported, workers hold the power. IBT won pay increases for part-time workers and drivers, secure pension plans and increased benefits, the conversion of 10,000 part-time jobs into full-time ones, and more.

Strikes have always played a vital role in the American labor movement, but striking actions have declined greatly in this country over the last four decades. Data from The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that 1,796,000 workers were involved in major work stoppages in 1974. That number hit a low in 2009 with just 12,500 workers participating in major work stoppages. Major strike activity saw a 35-year high in 2018 and 2019, according to Economic Policy Institute. Most recently, in 2022, 120,600 workers were involved in 23 major work stoppages, which was a nearly 50% increase from 2021. Though striking is becoming more popular and union approval rates are increasing in the U.S., UPS hasn’t dealt with a strike in over 20 years. The company is likely unprepared, but the Teamsters aren’t. IBT is ready to stand firm on its demands.

Teamsters’ Contract Demands for UPS Workers

As members of DSA and the Atlanta community gear up to support UPS Teamsters in their contract fight, it’s important to know what workers are fighting for so we can uplift their demands and spread the word! Here are a few of the most urgent issues that will decide if the Teamsters launch the largest strike in recent American history and why each demand is meaningful.

No more two-tiered driver classifications

The 22.4 full-time worker tier was created by the IBT’s 2018 contract with UPS, which was negotiated by former IBT General President and business unionist, James Hoffa Jr. This tier is made up of mostly new drivers who do the same work as more senior drivers — classified as regular full-time package car drivers (RPCD). RPCD pay tops out at $41 per hour, but 22.4’s pay ceiling is $6 per hour less. In addition to lower pay, 22.4s have much less control over their schedules than RPCDs, which leads to high turnover rates. 22.4 drivers deserve the same pay and protections as RPCDs. 

Higher pay for part-time workers

Despite what you may assume based on how often you see UPS drivers out and about, most Teamsters at UPS are not drivers. Over half work inside distribution facilities, and many of those workers are part-time. These part-time workers play a vital role in making sure UPS runs smoothly, and they deserve to be compensated fairly for their significant contributions. Starting part-time pay must be increased to above $20 an hour and catch-up raises must be given to existing part-time employees. 

UPS must also end its use of Market Rate Adjustment pay discrimination against part-time workers. MRAs can take the form of hourly rate increases or weekly bonuses and can cover a whole geographic area, a single center, or just certain shifts. By using MRAs, UPS has raised the wages of some workers without implementing raises across the board. The use of MRAs divides unions by pitting senior workers against new hires and even members at one building against another.

More full-time jobs

UPS needs to create more full-time 22.3 jobs, which are inside jobs doing tasks like sorting packages, loading and unloading semi-trucks, and more for 8 or more hours a day. The many part-time workers who are so critical to how UPS runs should be afforded more opportunities for reliable, full-time work if they want it. 

No more excessive overtime

Package drivers need stronger 9.5 rights, or the right to cap work at 9.5 hours, three times a week. All people deserve a life outside of work. At UPS, however, employees are often forced into working six days a week. Workers refer to this as the forced 6th punch. Workers who want overtime hours and pay should have the choice to pursue that, but it should be just that — a choice.

Job security for feeders and package drivers

Feeder drivers are usually workers who drive semi-trucks from warehouse to warehouse. UPS sometimes diverts this feeder work to nonunion carriers. It’s time to put an end to the subcontracting of feeder work. 

There must also be stronger protection for the jobs that are being eliminated by Access Point and Surepost. Access Points are local businesses that serve as drop-off and pick-up locations for people sending or receiving items through UPS. The company utilizes Access Point as a tactic to cut costs. Surepost is an economy service offered by UPS that delivers items through the USPS. Both render UPS drivers unnecessary, which cuts back on potential jobs.

Video camera and harassment protection

In recent months, there has been a push from UPS to install driver-facing cameras inside vehicles. The introduction of surveillance systems is made even more egregious by the fact that many company vehicles are not even properly outfitted with air conditioning, which has led to hospitalizations for drivers, and in one case, even death. Stronger language to protect workers from this kind of company harassment — including financial penalties against UPS for any violations — must be put in place.

Why Atlanta DSA stands with UPS Teamsters

As socialists, we’re committed to standing with the UPS Teamsters every step along the way of their contract battle because we believe that building power in the workplace is essential to building a better, more democratic economy and society for all working people. The entire working class must stand together with rank-and-file UPS Teamsters in this historic fight to show large corporations like UPS that when workers overcome divisions and unite as a class, we win!

As this is the largest private sector contract in the nation, IBT’s upcoming fight is sure to have a ripple effect in union organizing across the country. Workers make up the majority of the population and create all value in society, but in the U.S., we are highly unorganized with only 11% of U.S. workers represented by a union. To ensure the momentum continues, we should bring everyone into this campaign and work to elevate workers’ demand in a way that helps grow class consciousness among all workers. This campaign is a crucial opportunity to win not just a great, hard-earned contract for UPS workers nationwide, but to send a message to the working class: strikes get the goods! If UPS refuses to concede to workers’ demands and they decide to strike, workers far and wide will see in real-time the power they hold. 

How to support UPS Workers

Just like the Teamsters, DSA is asking members and supporters to get STRIKE READY! Sign the Strike Ready pledge and commit to standing in solidarity with IBT UPS workers this summer as they prepare for the biggest potential strike this country has seen in decades. Get updates on upcoming #StrikeReady events this summer, including educational panels, picket line trainings, rallies, and phone banks. Plus, check out the information we’ve put together on the contract fight at atldsa.org/ups-solidarity.

Talk to your union members, coworkers, friends, family, and neighbors about the potential strike! Get them to sign the pledge, attend a phone bank, or join you on the picket line in August. When the working class stands together to fight, we win!

After you’ve committed to join striking workers on the picket line this summer, make sure to brush up on DSA’s Picket Line Do’s and Don’t’s to be prepared and helpful during the strike!

Finally, to get involved in DSA’s strike solidarity and labor organizing work, get plugged in with our Labor Committee by emailing labor@atldsa.org. 

The post UPS Teamsters Gear up for the Contract Fight of a Lifetime appeared first on Red Clay Comrade.

The New York State budget is now 18 days late and while the media focuses on the horse trading going on between Governor Hochul and Senate and Assembly leadership behind closed doors in Albany, there are of course, as there always are, workers keeping everything running behind the scenes. 

Tonight we’re joined live by two of those legislative staffers, Astrid and John. We’ll talk to them about New York State Legislative Workers United - an effort to unionize and improve working conditions for legislative staffers across the state. 

You can follow New York State Legislative Workers United on Twitter at https://twitter.com/NYSLWU

A major housing bill is making its way through the Colorado legislature, SB23-213 – referred to as ‘land use’ – has driven much of the recent discussion over state housing policy. The bill, among other things, would enable greater housing density in municipalities around Colorado by compelling municipalities to change their land use regulations. In many cities, including Denver, it would effectively end single-family zoning and allow multiple units (currently up to 4) to be built on lots previously zoned for only one unit.

This legislation has much to like. Exclusionary and restrictive land use policy has made our housing and environmental crises worse, and it is important to use state power to break down this land use status quo. The rules to change occupancy limits are welcome, as are water audits, reforms to HOAs, and reduced parking requirements. We also recognize the importance of encouraging development patterns that are environmentally sustainable, promote housing density, and push cities away from suburban sprawl. We know that the status quo of single family zoning primarily serves to protect the interests of wealth and property values, not the interests of tenants. We do need more housing, and ultimately, housing for all. While this bill can inch us closer to housing for all, it is only one piece of a much larger puzzle.

Denver DSA’s support for SB23-213 is conditional. We demand that this land use bill passes together with two other critical housing bills: local control of rents (HB23-1115), which would enable municipalities in Colorado to enact rent control (aka local control of rents), and just cause eviction protections (HB23-1171). These bills are absolutely essential to defending tenants at a time of ever-increasing housing instability and exploitation from landlords. 

Through this legislative session, we have seen attention and support diverted away from these bills and towards land use, leading to a situation in which land use is upheld as a magic bullet for the state’s housing crisis. We reject this framing and demand that land use is passed together with local control of rents and just cause eviction protections. Otherwise, lawmakers are abandoning the immediate needs of tenants and instead opting for a legislative track that avoids direct confrontation with capital – namely the developer and landlord interests that wield substantial power over Colorado’s politics and that are invested in policy “solutions” to our housing crisis that prioritize their profits, not the needs of tenants. This imbalance of legislative attention, typical in prior sessions, is unsustainable in a context where renters are more cost burdened than ever while owners reap record profits. 

This legislation could very well be beneficial to our state in the long run. However, we have to temper our expectations for what it can achieve. We can’t rely on market-rate housing to solve our housing crisis. Moreover, the slogan of this bill, “More Housing Now” is misleading, as it will take many years, if not decades, for a significant amount of new housing to be built as a result of these policy changes to land use law. Without other major efforts to transform our housing system, including social housing, rent control, community land trusts, robust tenant protections, metro district reform, and tenant organizing — many tenants will continue to find themselves living in unstable, exploitative housing arrangements, and housing will continue to be financially out of reach for working people in our state. We are ultimately fighting for a transformation of our housing system to one in which enough housing is under democratic and community control to make housing a basic human right. It is imperative that we struggle for this transformation and build tenant power in all of our organizing and policy efforts. The land use bill does not, in any meaningful way, alleviate the necessity and urgency of this struggle. 

Land Use Reform is a good step, but its benefits are contingent on choices beyond the bill itself. 213 will not meaningfully address our housing crisis on its own, and must be implemented in conjunction with legislation that enables cities to pass rent control and just cause eviction protections, and must be amended to protect against displacement. Otherwise, we are continuing to neglect tenants and are missing an opportunity to bring about the fundamental changes that we so urgently need in our housing system.

By Claire Smallwood

During the 20th century, art was a powerful tool for protesting political injustice, as wars and revolutions made conflict and oppression visible around the world. With the onset of the Cold War, much of this oppression was imposed on leftists in particular through militarism, often with the support and assistance of the U.S. government. The violent character of these U.S. foreign affairs as well as their byproducts gave rise to a wave of protest art, one which criticized the perpetrators and honored their victims. Artwork of this sort emerged alongside the growing expressionist movement in the 20th century, though it remains prevalent in contemporary art as well. Looking at works by Oswaldo Guayasamín and Dadang Christanto, we can reflect on this history of anti-communist violence in the Cold War era, U.S. leadership within it, and how this state-of-affairs has been fought by artists then and now.

Oswaldo Guayasamin

Oswaldo Guayasamín was born in Quito, Ecuador in 1919. He was a painter and sculptor whose work was primarily in the expressionist style with cubist influences. He was largely inspired by Mexican muralism and his work was particularly influenced by José Clemente Orozco. He frequently criticized social and political issues in his artwork, “portraying rampant oppression, poverty, and political strife.” This was largely a result of his childhood experiences — as he lived through a violent coup and civil war in Ecuador in the early 1930s — and the inequity he saw during his travels across the Western hemisphere.

These sentiments are clearly reflected in La edad de la ira (the Age of Wrath), his “most expressive and politically-charged” period which he began in 1952. Guayasamín was a known leftist famously acquainted with Fidel Castro, and his opinions are made evident by his series. In it, he depicted major events from the 20th century, including the Vietnam War, World War II, and the Spanish Civil War as well as various dictatorships and militaristic neo-colonialism around the world. He “saw his works as rejecting ‘…all the violence that the incalculable forces of money have created in this world.’”

In attempting to capture the essence of this artistry, this article will analyze two paintings from this period: Reunión en el Pentágono I-V (Meeting at the Pentagon I-V) and Los torturados (The Tortured), both of which criticized United States involvement in Latin America during the Cold War era and reflected the horrors of the anti-communist violence caused by such interventions.

Reunión en el Pentagono I-V

In the polyptych painting Reunión en el Pentágono I-V, created in 1970, Oswaldo Guayasamín presents a criticism of US militarism and foreign policy during the Cold War, one which strived to fight the spread of communism. Guayasamin does this by depicting a scene of malicious US government officials meeting at the Pentagon — the headquarters of the US Department of Defense — a notable center for planning these efforts.

In the scene, five men are sitting at a table with one man situated in each panel, thus maintaining Guayasamín’s expressionist style as well as the cool-toned color scheme of his Edad de la Ira. The contrast between positive and negative space in the painting draws attention to the men, as the background is painted black while the figures and the table are painted in light gray, blue, white and beige. He creates texture by layering colors unevenly and applying his oil paints smoothly in certain places while scoring and scraping it off in others. This creates a rough and almost grotesque finish, emphasizing the abstracted depiction of the men.

The subject matter of this painting is exposed in the title, as it translates to Reunion at the Pentagon, indicating that these are militaristic men meeting at the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense. Guayasamín in particular is known for criticizing US involvement in Latin America, an act clearly executed in this work. Of course, these motivations were by no means unjustified, as the period from the 1940s to the early 1990s — otherwise known as the Cold War era — “the United States deployed military force or otherwise sought to overthrow a Latin American government whenever it felt ideologically threatened by the prospects of communism.” This intervention took many forms, including the financial support of parties that opposed leftist governments, the backing of right-wing military coups, the providing of arms to anti-communist groups, and the spreading anti-communist propaganda. Several of these destabilization efforts led to violent conflicts within the countries, as their impacts aided the establishment of brutal dictatorships and even instigated civil wars. Guayasamín himself said that “the attitude of the [US] government has been quite tragic for Latin America. There are repeated examples: Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Mexico.” From his leftist Ecuadorian perspective, he believed that “we have all been more or less victims, in one form or another, of the U.S. government,” a belief which influenced the painting Reunión en el Pentágono significantly.

Guayasamín’s distorted and almost comical presentation of the US militarists aims to evoke a feeling of disgust in the viewer. Small details such as the addition of sharp teeth and fingernails have been manipulated to project the maliciousness of the characters. The blocky shape of the men’s bodies and their bland color palette make them seem inhuman and convincingly stone-like. Through these components, it seems Guayasamín is commenting “that these figures of the oppressors, in this case… the United States…, do not have human interests in mind for they themselves are hardly even human, so emotionless and lifeless are they.”

He presents the men leaning forward onto the table with their hands placed in front of them, implying “a sense of activeness and control,” while simultaneously reflecting how the US military overbearingly forced itself into Latin American affairs. Each man is painted with different expressions and body positions, in line with their respective titles. For example, painting V is titled El Político, which translates to The Politician and includes a man glaring menacingly and wearing a military style hat, perhaps symbolizing the US government’s willingness to use military force to satisfy political interests. The men also appear “larger than life”, as the upper half of the men’s bodies alone takes up almost all of each canvas. All together, the panels make up a massive work, with each panel measuring 184 x 184 cm (over 6 by 6 ft). These proportions signify “the enormous power [the men] wield,” making the viewer feel small and powerless in comparison, thus echoing the immense power of the US military over Latin American people and their politics.

The clear purpose of the painting is to provoke criticism of the US government and portray them negatively, emphasizing in particular their anti-communist militarism in the Cold War. Such a notion fits within Guayasamín’s overarching goals as an artist, as he stated in an interview that “this is my form of fighting, I cannot take up a rifle but, damn it, I fight this way.”

Los torturados

In his 1977 work, Los torturados (The Tortured), Guayasamín presents a more specific example of US military involvement in Latin America, this time placing an emphasis on the victims rather than the perpetrators. The work specifically tackles the 1973 military coup in Chile, which was followed by extreme anti-leftist violence nationwide.

This oil painting is a triptych work depicting a stylized skeleton in each of its three panels. The bones of the skeletons are painted in dull shades of yellow but they are outlined in a bright red-orange color, centering the viewer’s focus on the skeleton. Red is frequently a symbol of danger, creating a feeling of urgency and concern for the skeletons in the viewer. The depiction of bones, rather than flesh, insinuates that the people are barely alive. However, the warm colors of the skeleton and its red outline, in contrast to the dark, cool toned background, emphasize that the skeletons are the only ‘human’ aspect of the painting. Thus, the people depicted are “stripped first of all material things and then even of their very own skin, so that we feel we are looking more at their flayed insides than their outer appearance, we immediately recognize them as living and suffering beings.”

The use of dark, blue toned colors in the background presents the location in which the skeletons exist as a cold and uncomfortable space. Similarly, the overlapping of limbs between the panels and the large size of the skeletons compared to the space provided in each panel gives the impression that the skeletons are confined in a small space. According to Leonard Folgarait, “the compression of the figures into the space of the picture plane [was] a ‘…torturous compression,’” turning the panels into a “prison for these figures, which portrays them as condemned to the situation they are in.”

At first glance, this painting resembles a crucifixion, as the skeletons’ bodies are positioned with their arms outstretched and bloody. The mouth of each skeleton is opened wide, as if they are screaming in agony. They are on their knees, seemingly begging for mercy. In the first two panels, the skeletons have bowed their heads, a sign that they are weak and defenseless against this violence they are experiencing. In the last panel, the skeleton looks up as they scream, perhaps reflecting a final cry for the pain to end. The bodies are dismembered and abstracted using cubist-style harsh lines and fractured shapes, with detached limbs and exposed bones, overtly demonstrating that the subjects are (as the title suggests) being tortured.

Considering these artistic descions within the context of 1970’s Latin America, this painting is a “commentary on the torture of civilians at the hands of military regimes.” According to Guayasamín, it refers especially to the 1973 US-backed military coup in Chile which overthrew democratically elected, socialist president Salvador Allende and instated General Augusto Pinochet, beginning his 17 year dictatorship.

The US government aided in the establishment of this dictatorship through a variety of methods which began in the early 1960’s, and were accelerated in 1970 when Allende was beginning to acquire power. As the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations report on covert action in Chile explains:

“On September 4, 1970, Allende won a plurality in Chile’s presidential election. Since no candidate had received a majority of the popular vote, the Chilean Constitution required that a joint session of its Congress decide between the first- and second-place finishers. The date set for the congressional session was October 24, 1970. The reaction in Washington to Allende’s plurality victory was immediate… On September 15, President Nixon informed CIA Director Richard Helms that an Allende regime in Chile would not be acceptable to the United States and instructed the CIA to play a direct role in organizing a military coup d’etat in Chile to prevent Allende’s accession to the Presidency… U.S. Government efforts to prevent Allende from assuming office proceeded on two tracks. Track I comprised all covert activities approved by the 40 Committee, including political, economic and propaganda activities. These activities were designed to induce Allende’s opponents in Chile to prevent his assumption of power, either through political or military means. Track II activities in Chile were undertaken in response to President Nixon’s September 15 order and were directed toward actively promoting and encouraging the Chilean military to move against allende.”

To the disappointment of the US government, Allende still managed to take power in October. However, US efforts toward a military coup continued between 1970 and 1973, as the US government maintained its connections with the Chilean military and was in direct communication with contacts that were planning a coup. It was already clear from Track II efforts that the US supported anti-Allende military action, which emboldened coup-planning groups to take action in 1973.

The US government also sponsored a massive propaganda campaign “in order to foster a ‘coup climate’ in Chile.” The main tool used during this time was the financial support of opposition media. One of the main recipients of US funding was El Mercurio, a newspaper which regularly published attacks against Allende, along with editorials which were “exhorting opposition against — and at times even calling for the overthrow of — ” Allende’s government. This spread of information was controlled by the US government, which was “putting reporters and editors on the payroll, writing articles and columns for placement and providing additional funds for operating expenses.” The goal of this campaign was to increase distrust of and unhappiness with the Allende government, to ultimately inspire military intervention. Although the CIA supported several other media outlets as well, El Mercurio had the largest impact; and “according to CIA documents, these efforts played a significant role in setting the stage for the military coup.”

Immediately after the successful 1973 coup, 6000 prisoners were brought to the Estadio Nacional in Chile where many were tortured and killed for supporting Allende’s government. This continued for months, and the total amounted to an estimated 20,000 prisoners. Among them was a singer named Victor Jara, who faced brutal treatment until he was eventually killed, because his songs were part of the nueva canción movement — an artistic movement which supported socialism. Many sources have suggested that Los torturados was inspired by this event and Víctor Jara’s death, as Guayasamín dedicated the painting to him. Like Guayasamín, Jara used art to oppose violence and express socialist thought. Thus, this painting emphasizes that artwork is a powerful weapon against injustice, but that it is not immune from suppression.

It is clear through this emotive work that Guayasamín intended to criticize anti-communist violence in Chile, imposed by a US-backed military regime, while emphasizing the suffering it caused on a more personal, individual level. With the historical context of Chile in mind, the heart-wrenching scene presented in Los torturados is far more powerful. In Guayasamín’s own words: “My painting is to hurt, to scratch and hit inside people’s hearts;” which Los torturados certainly does.

Dadang Christanto

Dadang Christanto was born in Central Java, Indonesia in 1957. He is an artist whose “body of work encompasses painting, drawing, sculpture, installation and performance” art; and his work regularly depicts “human suffering and communal grief.” More specifically, he has several pieces which were made to honor victims of political violence and crimes against humanity. As he explains, “my works can be confrontational, they can be stark reminders about dark chapters in a nation’s history, but ultimately, this kind of art is also about finding a certain peace, a more somber reflection on human suffering and grief.”

His passion for this subject is largely a product of his childhood experiences in 1965 in Indonesia. That year, his father was kidnapped from his home by soldiers for being a communist sympathizer and was never seen again. It is assumed that he was a victim of the anti-communist massacres which were occurring at the time, with the covert support of the US government. “As an eight year-old boy, Christanto was heavily affected by his father’s disappearance, thus his art has become inseparable from this tragedy.”

Christanto incorporates his emotions and experiences into his work through a recurring motif of graphic, stylized human heads and bodies. His paintings and drawings are frequently done on raw linen, and take the form of large scale installation work that makes use of multimedia applications. His use of unique materials is almost always symbolic, such as in his installation piece Slaughter Tunnel, in which he painted portraits of victims of the 1965 massacres in Indonesia on cardboard to represent how they were treated as “disposable” or meaningless. Repetition is another important aspect of his artwork. For example, Slaughter Tunnel and his piece Red Rain include repeated portraits while They Give Evidence includes 16 nearly identical statues holding clothes. Christanto’s piece M I S S I N G, which will be analyzed in this article, also maintains these themes.

M I S S I N G

Dadang Christanto’s M I S S I N G is a work of art created in 2018 to commemorate the victims of the US-backed, anti-communist mass killings in Indonesia in the 1960s. It is composed of 110 charcoal and acrylic portraits, each on individual rectangles of raw canvas which were pieced together to create a floor-to-ceiling installation. Each portrait depicts a human head on a dark background, with the faces appearing injured and bruised. While Christanto’s signature repetition is prevalent in this piece, each portrait clearly portrays a different person with varying injuries and facial expressions.

Christanto leaves a border of blank canvas around the portraits, keeping each separate from the rest — -despite them all being a part of the same artwork — perhaps emphasizing that each of the people depicted in the piece have individual identities. Only the faces of the individuals are visible in the painting, and they are covered in bruises and wounds, making them almost unrecognizable. As a person’s face is usually associated with their identity, focusing the subject of each portrait on their facial injuries could symbolize how the violence these individuals endured stripped them of their own identity.

The injuries endured by the individuals are emphasized by the color red, the only vibrant color present in the piece which is used sparingly in each portrait to depict blood. All other elements of the work are neutral, painted in a beige, gray, tan and black color scheme. These muted colors also add to the somber, lifeless tone of the work. The installation itself is massive — each of the portraits is 90 x 80 cm — totaling nearly 15 feet in height and 58 feet in width. Such proportions have the effect of overwhelming the viewer as they try to take in the piece as a whole.

The story behind Christanto’s M I S S I N G stems from the mass killings in Indonesia in 1965 and 1966 — which resulted in the deaths of anywhere between 100,000 to 2 million Indonesians — this is an approximation, as lack of documentation complicates the estimation of the total deaths. These massacres were a systematic effort to exterminate communists and anyone who was deemed an affiliate of the communist party. They were orchestrated by General Suharto, the Indonesian dictator who came to power via a coup in 1965. These anti-communist actions, which were carried out by the Indonesian military, were covertly supported and even aided by the US government.

Prior to the massacres, which were called “Operasi Penumpasan — Operation Annihilation,” the US had developed a strong relationship with members of the Indonesian military, including General Suharto. The US government was therefore well aware of, and even excited about, the massacre of alleged Indonesian communists. This was made clear when the US ambassador in Indonesia expressed that the “army has nevertheless been working hard at destroying PKI [Indonesian Communist Party] and I, for one, have increasing respect for its determination and organization in carrying out this crucial assignment.” The US also directly assisted the Indonesian military effort to “destroy [the communists] down to their roots,” a framing which had become the operation’s slogan. The US also provided small weapons to the military during this time, though their most significant contribution was intelligence, as the CIA provided “lists with the names of thousands of communists and suspected communists, and handed them over to the Army, so that these people could be murdered and ‘checked off’ the list.”

The massacres were characterized by a veil of secrecy, as they remained unofficial and never occurred in public. This meant that the victims simply went missing, leaving their family and friends with no information or sense of closure. The secrecy continued into contemporary times, as the Indonesian government had blocked public discussion of the massacres until 2016, when a tribunal found Indonesia guilty of crimes against humanity. The locations of mass graves from the massacres are still unknown, as is any confirmation of the victims’ identities. For Christanto, whose father was kidnapped during this period and never found, the lack of knowledge influenced the purpose of M I S S I N G. Its content was inspired by a news photographer who claimed to have accessed images of people who were tortured between 1965 and1966 but died before Christanto could contact him. Christanto “had always wondered if his father was amongst those in the photos”. This curiosity — and the subsequent search for the images — inspired him to depict the portraits of the 110 imagined victims in this piece.

Considering such a history, the overarching purpose of the piece is to oppose the silence surrounding these massacres and to commemorate its victims. This is most notably created by the overwhelmingly large size and number of portraits in the piece, both of which force the viewer to confront the extensive violence and suffering caused by the communist purges. The composition of the piece, which unifies the various portraits into one work of art, highlights how the victims of the 1965 tragedy are remembered as a group rather than as individuals with unique identities. Christanto’s emphasis on the individuality of each portrait draws attention to this lack of awareness and encourages the viewer to remember the individuals accordingly. This contrast between unity and separation creates a feeling of discomfort regarding the memory of the 1965 massacre and pushes the audience to criticize the limited attention it has received. Such is the case with many of Christanto’s works, which “are imbued with an aura of silence, precisely referencing the political silence that enveloped the injustices that have shaped his childhood.”

Though Christanto created M I S S I N G in 2018 — more than 50 years after the massacres — the piece functions as a reflection of the lasting impact this event had on both Christanto and the Indonesian community as a whole. It also criticizes how US-backed anti-communist sentiments led to unjustifiable violence and have since blocked the victims and their families from receiving well-deserved justice and closure.

In Reunion en el Pentagono, Los torturados, and M I S S I N G, a violent history of anti-communist militarism unfolds, notably one perpetuated by the US government during the Cold War era. Guayasamín and Christanto are only two of the many artists who used art as a means of resisting this violence. Yet, their works encapsulate the sentiments of the protest art category as a whole, always striving to criticize political violence, portray the suffering it causes, and honor its victims.

Art as Protest: Opposing Cold War-Era Anti-Communist Violence was originally published in The Michigan Specter on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.