By Jonathan Martin

On August 4, 1997, 185,000 members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) led by president Ron Carey began a fifteen-day strike that would cost the United Parcel Service (UPS) over $600 million. They won 10,000 full-time positions with higher salaries and benefits, and preserved Teamster’ pensions from UPS takeover.

John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO at the time, said of the strike, “You could make a million house calls, run a thousand television commercials, stage a hundred strawberry rallies, and still not come close to doing what the UPS strike did for organizing.”

On August 1, 2023, UPS Teamsters, now numbering 340,000, are ready to strike again if the company refuses to meet their demands. In an economy increasingly reliant on drivers to deliver online orders, and a logistics sector awash in COVID profits, the leverage of such a large strike is unmistakable. This would be nearly twice as large as the powerful 1997 strike; in fact, it would be the largest strike in the United States since the 1959 strike of around 500,000 steel workers.

Burned by concessions, Teamsters elect new leaders

Yet just five years ago, militant action by the Teamsters was off the table. In 2018, when a weak UPS contract was brought to the membership by James P. Hoffa’s bargaining team, they rejected it. Invoking an obscure provision in the IBT charter, Hoffa Jr. forced the contract through, angering many Teamsters. 

Especially contentious was the creation of a “two-tier” system for drivers. New full-time positions that split time between driving and warehouse work would earn less pay overall, and have no protections from overtime abuse. Teamsters say that in practice these workers largely act as delivery drivers, earning less pay for the same work as others. (This video offers an in-depth explanation.)

For many Teamsters, the overriding of their vote rejecting the contract was the final straw. Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) had been organizing for decades to reform the union and elect a more militant and democratic leadership, and in November 2021 they saw success. Teamsters United, a coalition made up of Hoffa critics and TDU members, successfully elected fourth-generation Teamster Sean O’Brien as president, and TDU leader Fred Zuckerman as its secretary-treasurer.

O’Brien has promised militancy and a win for the Teamsters, no matter what it takes.

Teamsters pose an array of demands

This year, the “two-tier” system implemented in 2018 is a key bargaining issue. Removing the so-called “22.4” category for drivers would see thousands of full-time workers get an immediate bump in pay, bringing them in line with the other full-time drivers doing the same job.

The Teamsters also seek to raise the pay of part-timers, who often earn little more than minimum wage. In 1997, part-time work was a key issue that resonated with the public, and became a rallying cry for the striking workers. In an economy driven by gig and part-time work, this demand could once again be key to winning the support of the public and could galvanize demands by workers in other sectors.

Another key issue is forced overtime, where workers are required to work a sixth day of the week (called the “six-day punch”). The Teamsters also want to address the driving conditions of workers. Many UPS trucks lack air conditioning units, hospitalizing workers during heat waves. 

These are some of the top national demands. However, the national contract only entered bargaining 3 weeks ago, as regional “supplements” to that contract are still being negotiated. (Currently, Oakland’s Local 70 and Zuckerman’s former Louisville local, the massive Local 89, are in the two regions that have not yet settled supplements.)

UPS has already begun to cry poor, making negative predictions about revenue in an attempt to undermine the Teamsters position. In reality, however, profits at UPS continue to grow.

According to data from TDU, UPS ships around 20 million packages each day, and made $13.8 billion in profit in 2022. It dwarfs its competitors, controlling nearly two-fifths (37%) of all revenue from package delivery services in the US. The company plans to reward its investors with $8.3 billion in dividends and buybacks 2023. 

A crucial link in the supply chain, UPS moves 6% of the United States’ GDP each year. A strike could cost UPS $185 million a day. 

Solidarity Delivers the Goods

In the past year, East Bay DSA and the broader community have stood in solidarity with thousands of workers on strike. This includes public education workers in Oakland, and last year’s strike of 48,000 academic workers at the University of California. 

UPS Teamsters supported both those strikes, turning out to the picket line at Global Family Elementary in solidarity with OEA. Many honored loading dock pickets at UC, helping build the power of UAW’s strike. 

The Teamsters’ contract fight is already mobilizing UPS workers in every state in the country, but if they are forced to strike, it could galvanize workers across the U.S. in the way that the West Virginia teachers’ strike did for education workers nationally in 2018. The current struggle represents a huge opportunity for national organizing both in the broader labor movement, and for community supporters here in the East Bay. 

We can stand in solidarity by contributing to organizing funds, educating other workers about the working conditions and demands of UPS Teamsters, and preparing for a possible strike on August 1. These networks not only strengthen the power of contract fights and strikes across union lines, but represent important linkages as unions like the Teamsters seek to unionize Amazon.

DSA members and their communities are getting strike ready with UPS, and helping strengthen the wave of labor militancy sweeping across the country. Many have already pledged to support a strike. From Trader Joes and Starbucks, to the Teachers’ Unions, to UPS, our solidarity is critical in the working class’s fight against the bosses and billionaire class.

Add your name to DSA’s pledge to support a strike.

Jonathan Martin is a member of East Bay DSA. 

In January, Cambridge police killed Arif Sayed Faisal, a 20-year-old UMass student experiencing a mental health crisis. Despite multiple protests and community outrage in the 5 months since the shooting, neither Cambridge Police (CPD) nor the established Police Review and Advisory Board (PRAB) have taken any concrete action to address the situation.

On February 14th, CPD determined that “based on all of the information that has been reviewed so far, the department has not identified any egregious misconduct or significant policy, training, equipment, or disciplinary violations.” Perhaps this is true – but this pronouncement comes from the very party whose actions are under scrutiny. Why should we accept it at face value?

Decades ago, the PRAB ceded its power back to CPD – the very organization PRAB is supposed to monitor! The PRAB, instead of investigating allegations of police misconduct themselves, decided to let the “Cambridge Police Department conduct investigations on behalf of the board.” This is ridiculous on its face. It should go without saying that Justice  without impartiality is not justice. But if the history of US police violence over the last decade has taught us anything, it’s that the police cannot be trusted to police themselves. 

Per current ordinanc language, the PRAB is hand-picked by our City Manager – who is themself not elected. It is past time for an elected PRAB – not one that is 3 steps removed from the voters and that has given up on its job. If we want any transparency or accountability from CPD, we must have a review board that is (1) independent from CPD and (2) accountable to our community, not an unelected bureaucrat.

On May 22nd, City Councillor Zondervan proposed a policy order that would do just that – by putting the question of electing the PRAB on the November ballot.

This would be an opportunity for our community – a community that has shown its disappointment in the lack of police accountability and transparency in our city – to have input on police disciplinary procedures.

The process around this policy order – Order #96 – was an embarrassment to democracy. After Zondervan introduced the order, typically it would have been discussed, debated, delayed (if councillors wanted more time for consideration), and ultimately, voted on. Instead, Councillor Toner did something virtually unprecedented: he motioned immediately to end debate and move straight to a vote.

His motion passed with a 6-3 vote, with Councillors Zondervan and Nolan, as well as Mayor Siddiqui, dissenting. (It’s worth pointing out that besides Zondervan, the other two dissenting voices presumably voted no because they wanted to speak on the order.)

Councillor Toner’s platform lists “promoting civil and inclusive dialogue” as his number one campaign priority. It was anything but civil and inclusive for Councillor Toner to end debate before his colleagues had had a chance to speak. His motion was disrespectful and anti-democratic, and it flew in the face of his own stated highest principles. Disgraceful.

The other five councillors who supported the motion to end debate are also to blame. It’s one thing to disagree with the proposal, but it’s another altogether to stifle debate on it. What were they afraid of? 

Once that motion passed, Order #96 was voted on and failed 1-8, with Zondervan as the lone “aye” vote. Many councillors expressed that their “no” votes were based not on the content of the order itself but the spontaneity of its introduction and the lack of prior discussion on it. But these are the same councillors who voted to close discussion!

If these councillors had wanted more time to consider the order before open debate, there is a separate option for that: City Councillors have the right to delay a vote on a proposed order until the next council meeting. This is a commonly used tool among councillors to ensure they can make informed decisions before taking votes. That six of our nine councillors chose to close discussion outright rather than exercise this option has no justification. All six of these councillors say they want to do everything they can in the aftermath of what happened to Faisal, but when given the chance to discuss legislation that’s popular with their constituents and could have actually made a difference, they abruptly abandoned those commitments.

When they did so, they also abandoned their commitment to listen to their constituents. In fact, the idea of a democratically elected PRAB was conceived not by Zondervan but by a group of constituents who asked him to propose the order.

This episode was a gross miscarriage of democracy and showed a disturbing disconnect between the City Council and their constituents – the working-class Cambridge community. The order’s failure shows that the council is not listening to the growing movement of people demanding justice for Faisal and accountability from the police, which is itself beyond disheartening, and the manner in which the bill failed is equally, if not more, infuriating. 

The Council’s redundant policy rules forbid any councillor from reintroducing this legislation this cycle, meaning no one will be able to propose this order until 2024. Cambridge won’t have the option to vote on whether we want an elected PRAB in 2023.   With this shameful, anti-democratic vote, the Council has determined that the voters can’t be trusted to decide what police accountability looks like – despite the complete inaction and lack of transparency surrounding Faisal’s murder. 

I hope the voters will keep this in mind as we elect our council this November – and that we replace these vanguards of the status quo with a city council that will uphold democracy and fight for police accountability. As proud socialists, we know that civilian monitoring and investigatory oversight of the police is not the end of the road. We know that the only thing that will stop police brutality is defunding and abolishing the police. But we have to start somewhere. We can start by watching and recommending discipline. 

There are zero San Antonio DSA endorsed candidates on this guide.

Candidates and 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. 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 Texas, a candidate must get more than 50% of a vote in a general election to win. If nobody reaches that threshold, the two biggest vote getters go to a runoff election. If you did not vote in the general you CAN vote in the runoff election. In Bexar County you can vote at any voting location. You can go to the Bexar County Elections Department website to find voting locations, hours, your individual sample ballot, and more.

City Council Landscape Post May 6th Election

The results of the May 6 election were largely predictable. Every incumbent won their seat outright (except Mario Bravo) and Mark Whyte won in District 10. The most exciting part of the night was watching our DSA endorsed candidates cross that finish line and get the win. This once again proves that prioritizing the working class is popular with working class communities. Not only did Jalen walk away with 56.04% of the vote—even though he had 9 opponents—he is also the first councilmember in District 2 elected to a second term in a decade. Teri walked away with 62.89% of the vote, after going against the same guy who ran against her in 2021. (He must have not gotten the memo that she’s the people's champ.) Another bright spot was Stephanie Torres’ win for SAISD School Board in District 5. Torres, a SAISD parent, won with 57.21% of the vote by running a grassroots campaign centered on student issues. We know she’ll be an ally to our education union comrades. You can find the rest of the election results here.

Since our May 6 voter guide the state of local control in Texas has gotten bleak. With Governor Abbott’s certain signature, HB 2127 will become law. We wish we could give you a list of everything it would affect and which local ordinances it would overturn, but the bill language is so broad that it is hard to say. There will surely be lawsuits and the bill will make its way through the courts. In the meantime, we must continue to build power where it is strategic. We sincerely hope that you'll commit to joining an organization (hopefully DSA dsausa.org/join) and start organizing. Organize where you work, organize where you live, and let's organize for a better San Antonio.

Click here to view full voter guide.

Yesterday, three organizers with the Atlanta Solidarity Fund were arrested by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation on charges of “money laundering” and “charity fraud” in an apparent effort to develop a RICO-like case against the Stop Cop City protest movement. These charges against civil rights organizers represent yet another scare tactic and unwarranted escalation by the same elite forces conspiring to build Cop City. We call for the immediate release of the arrested organizers with all charges dropped.

The Atlanta Solidarity Fund has for years provided bail and legal support for peaceful protestors — it is not a criminal organization. We stand in solidarity with the defendants against the corrupt politicians, police foundation, billionaires, and corporations pushing to undemocratically destroy public forests and build Cop City. It’s notable that the same Georgia prosecutors who routinely ignore blatant corruption at City Hall and the State Capitol are instead taking aim at working-class Atlantans fighting to preserve public land through peaceful protest. These arrests are acts of political repression by a right-wing, minoritarian regime which rules society to serve a handful of wealthy elites.

Since 2021, thousands of Atlanta residents have peacefully campaigned to oppose Cop City by legal and democratic means. All violent conflict over Cop City has been instigated by Mayor Andre Dickens, Brian Kemp’s State police, and the major corporations behind the Atlanta Police Foundation. Mayor Dickens and the Atlanta City Council have repeatedly and brazenly ignored the concerns of local residents and voters in authorizing the destruction of public Atlanta forest land and the violent eviction raid on peaceful protestors — all culminating in GBI’s violent murder of an environmental protester.

No amount of police repression can silence the voices of working-class Atlantans who are united in our resolve to stop Cop City. The crisis over this development has been ongoing for two years, and the popular resistance against Cop City will continue until Atlanta residents are able to decide on this issue in a free and fair election. We call on the Atlanta City Council to vote NO and reject the allocation of construction funds for Cop City. Instead, the council should order a democratic referendum to let the people of Atlanta decide whether the construction should proceed in the upcoming general election already scheduled for November 7, 2023.

Statement from the Atlanta DSA Steering Committee

Nearly two years out, was the DSA successful in implementing the will decided by the 2021 National Convention?

“The Jersey City City Council Wednesday night took the first step to establishing a “Right to Counsel” for the city’s tenants who comprise about 70 percent of the population and who, advocates say, face increasing prospects of evictions by landlords’ hiking rents to unprecedented numbers.”

Read “Right-To-Counsel Moves Forward, Smoke Shops to be Licensed” in Jersey City Times

“Jersey City is facing an eviction crisis. Rents are rising faster than incomes. Tenants deserve to know their rights and defend them. Developers have poured money into Jersey City. But not enough new units are affordable. More and more residents are being displaced. It’s time for developers to give back to the city…”

Read “Jersey City Council passes amended right to counsel ordinances on first reading” in Hudson County View

Right to Counsel JC Co-Chair Jake E. returned to DJ Trouble’s “This Is the Modern World” on WFMU!

Jake E, organizer for the Right to Counsel Campaign makes a second appearance on Jersey City’s very own WFMU to discuss the Right to Counsel campaign’s push ahead of the final vote on June 14th and tenants’ rights in Jersey City.

You can listen to the full interview here. Jake’s interview starts at 1:24:11 in the episode!

Tonight we are going to talk about winning. Earlier this month the Build Public Renewables Act passed through the New York State budget - a monumental victory for the Public Power NY Coalition that has been organizing for four years to pass the bill.

No outlet has covered the fight for Public Power in New York more than Revolutions Per Minute. Since day one in 2019, we’ve had lead organizers of the campaign on the show to speak about why we need Public Power and how we were going to win it.

Tonight on this special Best of BAI fund drive show - we’ll revisit some of those interviews and hear from the organizers who won socialist climate legislation here in New York. We’ll also hear past interviews with Assemblymembers Zohran Mamdani and Sarahana Shrestha 

If you’ve been listening along with us since day one, go to WBAI.org right now and make a donation to keep us on the air. 

You can follow the Public Power NY Coalition on twitter @PublicPowerNY

To learn more about how the Public Power NY Coalition won the Build Public Renewables Act watch BPRA: A Win in the Fight for a Green New Deal 

A bonus episode! Two different Q&A sessions with Joerg Rieger, Felipe Maia, and Jason Moore are bundled into this extra episode connected to Joerg's new book, "Theology in the Capitalocene." Listen for some great insights on religion, ecology, and solidarity in this turbulent era of creaturely life.