Labor unions around the US rallied together June 8 to demand the release of a labor leader arrested and injured during Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Los Angeles.

David Huerta, president of Service Employees International Union California and SEIU United Service Workers West, was serving as a community observer during an ICE raid in Los Angeles on Friday when federal agents arrested him over allegations of interfering.

He was initially hospitalized and released later on Friday for injuries sustained during the arrest. Videos circulating online show officers shoving Huerta to the ground during the arrest before handcuffing him.

“What happened to me is not about me; this is about something much bigger. This is about how we as a community stand together and resist the injustice that’s happening,” Huerta said in a statement after his release from the hospital. “Hard-working people, and members of our family and our community, are being treated like criminals. We all collectively have to object to this madness because this is not justice. This is injustice. And we all have to stand on the right side of justice.”

“As the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda has unnecessarily targeted our hard-working immigrant brothers and sisters, David was exercising his constitutional rights and conducting legal observation of ICE activity in his community,” Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, said in a statement. “The labor movement stands with David and we will continue to demand justice for our union brother until he is released.”

Leaders of major unions convened hundreds of protesters outside justice department headquarters in Washington DC.

“David was the first one to say this isn’t just about him,” said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, the largest teachers union in the country. “We know what this administration is doing, so we are saying to Donald Trump and all of his allies: we will not, we will not, scapegoat immigrants.”

Jaime Contreras, an executive vice-president at the SEIU 32BJ, representing workers across the north-eastern United States, said Huerta’s case would serve as a rallying cry for his members and supporters, because “there’s a lot more people that agree with us than agree with them”.

“David for us is … he’s a labor leader, he’s a brother, he’s a union member, he’s a respected leader in California, and we’re here to let him know that he’s not alone,” Contreras said..

“We’re not gonna stand by that,” Contreras declared. “There’s always a next election, so we’re gonna make everybody pay at the voting booth when it comes to election time.”

In New York City, SEIU 32BJ’s president, Manny Pastreich, told union members and protesters: “Everything we hold dear is under attack. Unions, workers, freedom, immigrant communities, healthcare, the constitution, our union brothers and sisters.

“We must fight back. We reject these attacks on our communities and demand the immediate release of our union brother David Huerta,” he said.

Huerta, well-known among Democrats in California given his long record as a union leader in the state, received support from governor, Gavin Newsom and other Democratic officials across the US, including the House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries.

“SEIU refuses to be silent in the face of these horrific attacks on working communities. Standing in solidarity as a movement of working people is not new to us,” said April Verrett, international president of SEIU.

“SEIU protects the rights and dignity of hard-working people, and the safety of workers in the workplace. Imagine what it feels like for thousands of workers around the country to be attacked by masked men with weapons, or to bear witness to their co-workers getting dragged away, knowing their kids may not see them again. We demand David Huerta’s immediate release and an end to these abusive workplace raids.”

In addition to New York and Washington DC, SEIU led or participated in rallies in Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Portland, Oregon, Raleigh-Durham, Sacramento, San Francisco, Seattle and St Paul, Minnesota, to call for Huerta’s release, for the California national guard to stand down and for an end to the ICE raids..

Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the largest public employee union in the US, also called for Huerta’s release.

“Americans have a constitutional right to free speech. That right was violated when ICE agents violently arrested and injured Huerta as he peacefully observed immigration enforcement activity in his community,” Saunders said. “Huerta was exercising his legal right to speak out and bear witness.”\

Labor Start, 6/10, The Guardian, 6/9, Also see websites and news releases of AFL-CIO, SEIU, CWA, and several others.

Sally Field in scene from pro-labor movie Norma Rae

The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts has long been Washington, D.C.’s premiere stage for the arts and culture — originating with a 1958 act of Congress to advance artistic excellence as a symbol of U.S. cultural soft power. But under the second Donald Trump administration, the center has become the backdrop for much harder political conflict, as well as a roiling labor struggle in the nation’s capital. Since the White House seized control of the center in February, staff members who work on its cultural and educational programming have become increasingly angered and alarmed by mounting signs of managerial chaos, layoffs and political meddling in the historically bipartisan cultural organization.

On May 15, Kennedy Center staff announced their intention to form a union with the United Auto Workers, representing more than 172 staff members, in order ​“to ensure the Kennedy Center remains a beacon for bold, uncompromising art and education.”

In early February, Trump orchestrated a purge of Democrats from the center’s 36-member Board of Trustees, which had previously been split evenly between Democratic and Republican appointees, and replaced them with loyalists. In short order, the new board ousted longtime chair David Rubenstein, installed Trump in his place, and replaced the center’s president Deborah Rutter — who had served in the role for more than a decade — with interim president Richard Grenell, a Trump confidante and diplomat known for serving as a kind of ​“shadow Secretary of State,” pushing the ​“America First” foreign-policy agenda while Trump was out of office. The other new board members include a number of MAGA operatives and acolytes, most with little relationship to the performing arts: Second Lady Usha Vance; Attorney General Pam Bondi; Trump’s deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino; head of the White House personnel office and former MAGA super PAC leader Sergio Gor; Allison Lutnick, wife of billionaire Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick; Fox News hosts Laura Ingraham and Maria Bartiromo; and country music star Lee Greenwood, creator of the MAGA anthem ​“God Bless the USA.”

Since then, Kennedy Center staff have spent the past few months in an uneasy limbo, watching coworkers be arbitrarily fired and programs slashed, and fearful that their organization’s founding principles are being compromised by Trump-appointed ​“industry outsiders.” According to the union, 37 employees have been terminated since February, ​“including veteran administrators in the departments of public relations, marketing, development, government relations, education, and artistic programming.” The remaining staff say the center’s decision-making processes have become deeply opaque under the leadership of Trump appointees ​“with no formal job descriptions or professional background in the arts” and who communicate little with the career staffers.

While some programming planned prior to the takeover is proceeding, workers say the center is run under a new, unilateral management culture, prompting concerns that, even if they manage to keep their jobs, the staff who had previously planned and coordinated programs and shows with artists across a broad spectrum of genres and fields will lose their creative autonomy as Trump’s political cronies take over programming. Trump has dismissed the center’s past work as overly ​“woke,” claimed that it wasted money on ​“rampant political propaganda, DEI, and inappropriate shows” and vowed to revamp its operations. And Grenell announced earlier this month that the center is breaking with past practice to host non-union productions.

Ticket sales have reportedly tumbled by 50% this quarter, though it is difficult to assess the impact because, the union says, data on ticket sales is no longer reported regularly. The current leadership appears to be abandoning the center’s public-facing mission by undermining arts and education programming, for example, by cutting an initiative aimed at recruiting international artists and shutting down the Social Impact division, which supported programs and outreach for underserved communities, including collaborations with activist groups representing LGBTQ communities and communities of color, an artist residency focused on maternal health and ​“dance sanctuaries” with West African and Hawaiian dance companies.

In addition, the union accuses the new management of ​“mislead[ing] the public” about the organization’s finances, which had a $6 million surplus in 2023, to justify its funding cuts. This week, Grenell announced that he would initiate a federal investigation into alleged fraud and financial mismanagement at the Center.

Following their successful vote to form a union, center workers are now demanding ​“transparent and consistent terms for hiring and firing,” or ​“just cause” protections that would ensure no one is fired for arbitrary or retaliatory reasons, as well as the reinstatement of ​“ethical norms” to guide the center, including ​“freedom from partisan interference in programming, free speech protections, and the right to negotiate the terms of our employment.”

“The arts, and the performing arts in particular, is a very complex business,” one union member who works in the center’s programming department explains. ​“We have deep understanding and knowledge of the center itself and of the art forms, in ways that the folks that have been appointed into positions since February 12th are unlikely to have… We deeply believe that we are the ones most qualified to do this work and want to remain a part of the Kennedy Center for the safety and dignity of the artists and for audiences.”

The administrative and programming staff who comprise the new union include a number of workers who have worked alongside other unions for years, including UNITE HERE and Actors’ Equity Association. But it also includes staffers who never previously considered joining an organized labor movement — until Trump allies took over their workplace.

I truly had never thought about myself as a potential member of the labor union movement before. But with this turn of events, the Kennedy Center, which has been a nonpartisan institution since its founding, has become extremely political,” one staffer who works in the center’s education department told In These Times. ​“So I do think it’s important to come together, to bargain for different working conditions that pertain to things like the ability to make creative decisions, the ability to have a seat at the table when programming decisions are made, so that we can protect the needs of the artists, the students and the audiences that we serve.”

Other unions have sprung up in the arts and entertainment industries in recent months, signaling an increasing recognition of the precarity and vulnerability that is endemic to many jobs in creative fields, from low wages to sexual harassment to unstable gig work. In recent months, workers at several private art museums have unionized in order to both improve their working conditions and to combat discrimination and hierarchy in institutions that claim to follow a public-service mission. While the union drive at the Kennedy Center has arisen in the face of Trump’s direct political targeting, it’s also part of a chorus of voices in the arts demanding just labor conditions as a pillar of free expression.

“The Kennedy Center is not just a building; it’s a group of people, and art in a lot of ways is labor,” says the programming department staffer. ​“I think that the dignity of our ordinary coworkers who create extraordinary and amazing moments every single day, over 2,000 times a year at the Kennedy Center, is something that is worth standing up for and protecting through a labor union.”

In These Times, 5/23

After five years without a pay raise, United Airlines Flight Attendants, represented by the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA), and United Airlines reached an historic tentative agreement for 28,000 Flight Attendants.

The agreement includes:

  • Industry-leading compensation
  • Hotel, scheduling, reserve and other improvements
  • In the first year alone, Flight Attendants will gain 40% of total economic improvements
  • Plus, industry-leading retro pay.

The locally elected leaders of the 28,000 Flight Attendants will meet May 29th and 30th to review the full details before voting to send the agreement to the members for ratification. No further details of the tentative agreement will be released until the leadership concludes their review.

AFA-CWA Website, 5/23

FLASH!

At least half a dozen USAID employees who spoke to reporters after they thought they had been fired by the Trump administration have now received notices from the foreign aid agency’s internal human resources office that they are facing investigation for participating in interviews.

The workers, received an email in recent days carrying the subject line, “Administrative inquiry.” The email accused them of having “engaged with the press/media without authorization” and threatened “disciplinary action” including “removal from the U.S. Agency for International Development.” The action of USAID came after a federal judge blocked Trump’s order withdrawing union rights from federal workers (see item below).

Randy Chester, the vice president of the American Foreign Service Association, which is the union that represents USAID employees, blasted the move as “total intimidation.” And Abbe Lowell, a veteran Washington, D.C., attorney defending rights of federal workers, declared , “Federal employees do not surrender their constitutional rights when they take public service jobs.” 

CBS  News, 5/9

In April, President Trump issued an executive order rescinding the longstanding rights of  public employees in nearly a dozen government agencies and departments to join unions that represent them in collective bargaining. He also moved to end those unions’ existing contracts with the government.

Shortly afterward, a federal judge temporarily ·blocked the order, which relied on an obscure wartime provision in the federal labor laws that authorizes the president to exempt agencies engaged in national security work, though most of the employees affected had nothing to do with national security.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman was acting on a lawsuit filed  the National Treasury Employees Union, arguing that Trump exceeded his powers under the collective bargaining laws. At the court hearing, Judge Friedman, suggested that the order, affecting employees at the departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Treasury and Energy, the Office of Personnel Management, and other major agencies, appear targeted toward unions that have opposed his agenda, rather than national security concerns.

The judge ordered that  federal agencies resume engaging with their employees’ unions and to resume collecting dues payments, among other normal employee relations business.

Politico, 4/25

In the 1950’s one out-of-three American workers belonged to a union. Today, only 10.7 percent are union members – in the private sector, the number is down to a pitiful 6.4 percent. The decline in union membership has been a prime factor in the rise in inequality, the declining voter turnout among low-income workers and the inability to provide a check on corporate and big money influence in Washington and state capitals.

Contrast this with European countries where labor unions are very strong. As of 2013, more than two-thirds of workers in Denmark, Sweden, and Finland were union members. In France and Austria, while a minority of workers are in unions, 98 percent are covered by collective bargaining contracts.

One of the factors hindering the growth of American unions, according to an increasing number of labor scholars and union activists, is that the American approach to collective bargaining contracts, one that has been in place for nearly a hundred years, is completely outmoded. The model of unionizing that dominates American labor has been in place since the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. At least 30 percent of workers in a workplace petition for a union election. The National Labor Relations Board sets a time and place for the election to be held. If a majority of workers vote to be represented, then they’re all unionized.

Because unionization happens in individual companies and workplaces, the system is known as “enterprise-level” bargaining. And if you’re covered by an enterprise-level union contract, the system works pretty well. Unionized workers in the US enjoy significantly higher wages and better benefits than non-union workers.

The problem with this is that many industries have multiple workplaces so that union organizing has to take place at each workplace separately. And because any increase in pay and benefits comes out of corporate profits, it gives an employer incentive to fight union organizing at many different locations, where they hire more workers than at union shops, engage in often illegal tactics like calling mandatory meetings where workers are subjected to anti-union arguments and threats, including threats to close the plant or eliminate jobs.

European unions have largely solved the problem by bargaining  not at the company level but at the sector level — negotiating for all workers in an entire industry rather than just one company or workplace. In France, for example, an employers’ federation representing restaurants will negotiate with a union representing restaurant workers. They reach a deal, and then the government “extends” the deal to cover all restaurants and all restaurant workers. Everyone in the sector enjoys the pay and benefits that the union got employers to agree to.

Because every company, no matter how many of its employees are in a union, has to abide by the same pay and benefit deal, companies have less incentive to discourage union membership. Firms with more union members don’t have any competitive disadvantage relative to firms with fewer: They’re all paying the same wages and offering the same benefits. And employment growth doesn’t necessarily vary among firms based on how many workers are in unions, so in theory at least, there’s no reason for union membership to decay as firms with more union members don’t profit as much.

In the United States with its wide geographic disparity in population density and cost levels, it would be difficult to  implement such a system nation-wide. But it could be implemented on a state-wide or geographic section basis. In some states like New York, where union influence have succeeded in gaining a $15 minimum wage for fast-food workers, it could be the beginning of state-wide sectoral bargaining.

But, there’s a downside to this model. Non-union workers in an industry who have benefitted from the wage and benefits won by unions have little incentive to join the union and pay dues. In France, this has created a situation where some 98 percent of workers are covered by a union-bargained contract but only about seven or eight percent of French workers belong to a union – a smaller percentage even than in the United States. Some labor scholars have proposed ways of getting around this problem, like having the unions manage welfare funds, unemployment insurance and the like, but it’s pretty much still theoretical and untested.

At any rate, it’s all part of trying figure out howto rebuild a labor movement that is instrumental in stopping the increasing slide of income inequality that is the source of major economic problems in our country. For a fuller discussion of this question, click on the link below.

Vox, 4/17

Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images

In its latest union busting attempt the Trump administration is suing the American Federation of Government Employees to invalidate its collective bargaining contract.

Using an obscure provision of the law, President Trump issued an executive order March 27 excluding  government agencies from long-standing unionization rights if he determines that those agencies are primarily engaged in national security work. The order will affect federal workers who aren’t even involved in national security work if Trump says they are. It will involve about two-thirds of the federal work force.

The suit was filed in Waco, Texas before a judge, Alan Albright, a Trump appointee, in line with his practice of “judge shopping” for a friendly judge to hear his cases. It asks for a reinterpretation of federal law that would permit the agencies to rescind union contracts, rather than alleging any particular legal violations on the unions’ part. Much of the federal workforce has been unionized for decades. Roughly 32 percent of public sector workers are members of unions.

Politico, 3/28

FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) online interview with  Eric Blanc, assistant professor of labor studies at Rutgers University, author of Red State Revolt: The Teacher Strike Wave and Working-Class Politics;  We Are the Union: How Worker-to-Worker Organizing Is Revitalizing Labor and Winning Big . This piece has been lightly edited for space and clarity.

Eric Blanc: It’s hard to exaggerate the stakes of the fight right now around federal workers.There’s a reason that Musk and Trump have started by trying to decimate federal services and decimate federal unions, and that’s because they understand that these are blockages on their attempt to have sort of full authoritarian control over the government and to be able to just impose their reactionary agenda irrespective of the law. And they know that they need to not just fire the heads of these agencies, but they need to be able to have a workforce that is so terrified of the administration that they’ll comply even when the law is being broken.

And so they have to go out after these unions and break them. And in turn, the stakes for, really, all progressive, all working people, anybody who has a stake in democracy, are very high because this is the first major battle of the new administration. And if they’re able to mass fire federal workers despite their legal protections to have job protections, despite the reality that millions of Americans depend on these services—Social Security, Medicaid, just basic environmental health and safety protections—if they’re able to destroy these services upon which so many people depend, this is going to set a basis for them to then go even harder on the rest of society. So the implications of this battle are very high. It is the case, fortunately, that federal workers are starting to resist, but there’s going to need to be a lot more to be able to push back.

The basic response is straightforward, which is to highlight just how important these services are and to note that, far from having a massively expanded bureaucracy, the federal services, like most public services, have actually been starved over the last 50 years. The percentage of the workforce that works for the federal government has continued to decline for the last four decades. And so it’s just not the case that there’s this massively expanding bureaucracy. And if anything, many of the inefficiencies and the problems in the sector are due to a lack of resources and then the lack of ability to really make these the robust programs that they can and should be, and oftentimes in the past were.

So it’s just not the case that either there’s a massively expanded bureaucracy or that these services are somehow not important. The reality is that the American people, in some ways, don’t see all of these services. They take them for granted. They’re somewhat invisible. So the fact that, up until recently, planes weren’t crashing, well, that’s because you have federal regulators and have well-trained federal air traffic controllers. And so when you start to destroy these services, then all of a sudden it becomes more visible. What will happen if you stop regulating companies on pollution, for instance? Well, companies can go back and do what they did a hundred years ago, which is to systematically dump toxins into the soil, into water, and all of these other things that we almost take for granted now that are unacceptable. Well, if there’s no checks and balances on corporations, who’s going to prevent them from doing all of this?

And so I do think that there’s just a lot of basic education that needs to be put out there to counter these lies, essentially, of the Trump administration. For instance, the vast majority of federal workers don’t live in DC. This idea that this is all sort of rich bureaucrats in DC—over 80% of federal workers live all across the country, outside of DC. And just monetarily, it’s not the case these are people making hundreds of thousands of dollars, they’re making decent working class wages. Overwhelmingly, you can look at the data.

So we need to, I think, be really clear both of the importance of these services, but then also just to say it’s a complete myth that the reason that ordinary working class people are suffering is due to federal workers. It’s a tiny part of the federal budget, first of all, the payroll of federal workers. And if you just compare the amount of money that goes to federal workers to, say, the wealth of Elon Musk, there’s no comparison. Elon Musk, richest man on earth, has over $400 billion net worth. That’s almost double what federal workers, 2.3 million federal workers as a whole, make every year. So you just see the actual inequality is not coming from federal workers, it’s coming from the richest in our country and the world.

The example of the red state strikes are a prime indicator that even when you have very conservative people in power, in government, workers have an ability to use their workplace leverage and their community leverage to win.

And so in 2018, hundreds of thousands of teachers in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona and beyond went on strike. Even though those strikes were illegal, even though these were states in which the unions are very weak, right-to-work states, and even though the electorates in all of these states had voted for Donald Trump, nevertheless they got overwhelming support from the population because they had very simple, resonant demands, like more funding for schools, decent pay for teachers, making sure that there’s enough money so that students can get a decent education.

These things cut across partisan lines in a way that, similarly, I think that the defense of basic services like Social Security and Medicaid today really does cut across party lines. And the tactics, then, that they used were, well, first they had to get over the fear factor, because these were illegal strikes, so they had to find ways to start generating momentum amongst teachers. They did things like really basic escalating actions like asking people to wear red on one day. So they didn’t start by saying, “Let’s go on strike.” They said, “Can you do this one simple action together? Can we all wear the same color on a given day?” And then they asked the community to come in. They said, “Community members, can you meet us after school on this day? We’re going to talk about our issues together. We’re going to hold up some signs. We’re going to provide some information.”

So they built with escalating action towards eventually a mass strike. And they used a lot of social media because they couldn’t rely on the unions as much. Social media was very important for connecting workers across these states, for generating momentum. And eventually they were able to have extremely successful walkouts that, despite being illegal, nobody got retaliated against. They won, they forced the government to back down and to meet their demands. And so I do think that that is more or less the game plan for how we’re going to win around Musk and Trump. You have to essentially create enough of a backlash of working people, but then in conjunction with the community, that the politicians are forced to back down.

The basic problem with more traditional, staff-intensive unionism is that it’s just too expensive. It’s too costly, both in terms of money and time, to win big, to organize millions of workers. And whether it’s on offensive battles like unionizing Starbucks or Amazon, or whether it’s defensive battles right now, like defending federal workers, if you’re going to organize enough workers to fight back, there’s just not enough staff to be able to do that. And so part of the problem with the traditional method is that you just can’t win widely enough. You can’t win big enough.

Worker-to-worker organizing is essentially the form of organizing in which the types of roles that staff normally do are taken on by workers themselves. So strategizing, training and coaching other workers, initiating campaigns—these are things that then become the task and responsibility of workers themselves with coaching and with support, and oftentimes in conjunction with bigger unions. But workers just take on a higher degree of responsibility, and that has been shown to work. The biggest successes we’ve had in the labor movement in recent years, from the teacher strikes to Starbucks, which has organized now over 560 stores, forced one of the biggest companies in the world to the bargaining table. We’ve seen that it works.

And it’s just a question now of the rest of the labor movement really investing in this type of bottom-up organizing. And frankly, there is no alternative. The idea that so many in the labor leadership have, that we’re just going to elect Democrats and then they’ll turn it around—well, Democrats are sort of missing in action, and who knows when they’re going to come back into power. And so it’s really incumbent on the labor movement to stop looking from above and start looking, really, to its own rank and say, “Okay, if we’re going to save ourselves, that’s the only possible way. No one’s going to come save us from above.”

Workers are best placed to understand each other’s issues. They’re also the best placed to convince other workers to get on board. One of the things bosses always say whenever there’s a union drive or union fight is, “Oh, the union is this outside third party.” And sometimes there’s a little bit of truth to that. I don’t want to exaggerate the point, but there could be an aspect of the labor movement that can feel a little bit divorced from the direct ownership and experiences of workers. But when workers themselves are organizing, oftentimes in conjunction with unions, if they really are the people in the lead, then it becomes much harder for the bosses to third-party the union because it’s clear the union is the workers.

 I think that the Biden NLRB was very good and it helped workers unionize. So the fact that we don’t have that kind of NLRB anymore is a blow to the labor movement. I think we just have to acknowledge that. That being said, it’s still possible to unionize. You don’t need the NLRB to unionize. The labor movement grew and fought for many years before labor law was passed. And even today it’s very ambiguous. The NLRB is sort of paralyzed on a national level, but on a local level you can still run elections. And so it’s not even completely defunct. And I think it’s probably still possible to use it to a certain extent.

But the reality is that the legal terrain is harder than it was. On the other hand, the urgency is even higher, and you still see workers fighting back and organizing in record numbers. I’ve been really heartened by, despite the fact that the legal regime is harder, you’ve had some major union victories just in the last few weeks under Trump. For instance, in Philadelphia, Whole Foods workers unionizeddespite Trump, despite an intense union busting campaign coming straight on down from Jeff Bezos. This was only the second time Amazon—because Amazon’s the owner of Whole Foods now—has lost a union election, and that was just a few weeks ago in Philadelphia.

And so it shows that there is this real anger from below. And I think that there’s something, actually, about the Trump administration, that because it’s so fused to some of the richest people on earth with the administration in an oligarchic manner, but then unionization itself becomes almost a direct way to challenge the Trump regime. Because you’re going up against both their destruction of labor rights, and then also, frankly, it’s just the same people are up top. The bosses and the administration are almost indistinguishable at this point.

I think that the Achilles heel of Trump and his whole movement is that it claims to be populist and it appeals to working class people, but in reality is beholden to the richest people on the planet. So the best way to expose that is by waging battles around economic dignity. And the labor movement is the number one force that can do that, and force the politicians to show which side they’re on. Are you on the side of Jeff Bezos or are you on the side of low wage workers who are fighting back? Waging more and more of those battles, even if it’s harder because of the legal regime, I think is going to be one of the most crucial ways we have to undermine the support of MAGA amongst working people of all backgrounds.

One of the reasons why the right has made the inroads it has is that it’s been better at getting its story out there and waging the battles of ideas through the media, through social media, and through more mainstream media. And frankly, our side has trailed. Maybe it’s because we don’t have the same resources, but I think it’s also there’s an underestimation of how important it is to explain what is going on in the world, to name who the real enemies are, and to provide an explanation for people’s real anger and their real anxiety about what’s happening. I think it’s absolutely crucial. And I think we need to, as a labor movement, as progressives, as left, really push back and provide an alternative explanation that all of these problems are rooted in the power of billionaires. It’s not rooted because of the immigrants, not because of the federal workers, not because of trans kids.

And I’ll just say that one of the things I find to be hopeful is that social media is being used pretty effectively now by this new federal workers movement, which is that they have a new website, go.savepublicservices.com, through which anybody can sign up to get involved in the local actions happening nearby. It’s going to be a rapid response network to stop all of the layoffs that happen locally, wherever you live, and to save the services on which we depend. So people can go to that website, go.savepublicservices.com, and take advantage of that media opportunity to get involved locally.

FAIR website, 2/13

  ​

In an opening shot of the new round of Republican attacks on workers and their unions, the Utah governor has signed into law a measure banning the state from engaging in collective bargaining with unions representing the state’s public workers.

The law, which goes into effect July 1, is a harbinger of the broader attack on workers’ rights and union organizing in the wake of Donald Trump’s access to the presidency this year. It follows Trump’s firings at the National Labor Relations Board, an agency designed to protect workers and union rights, making it incapable of functioning.

The law was denounced by teachers unions as well as other public workers’ unions. Renee Pinkney, president of the Utah Education Association, blasted it as an intention to “silence educators and their collective voice” not only on their ability to negotiate salaries and working conditions, but also to matters affecting students and classrooms. The association called it a  “blatant attack on public employees and our right to advocate for the success of our profession and students.”

Orly Lobel, the director of the Center for Employment and Labor Policy at the University of San Diego, said the Utah law was “a strong antilabor signal and is compounded with national pressures to reduce public spending on education and other public services.”

Coming along with Trump’s firing of officials at the NLRB that enforces workers rights in private industry, declared Sharon Block, the executive director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy at Harvard Law School, “states taking away the rights of the public sector workers to engage in collective bargaining, you get to a point where that’s an incredibly serious threat to the labor movement.”

NY Times, 2/15

Costco workers, represented by the Teamsters union voted Jan. 19 to authorize a strike beginning Feb 1 if they do not have a contract by then. The union represents over 18,000 Costco workers around the country.

Eighty-five percent of the union membership at Costco stores nationwide voted for the strike, according to the union. “Our members have spoken loud and clear — Costco must deliver a fair contract, or they’ll be held accountable,” Teamsters General President Sean M. O’Brien said in a press release.

The wholesale giant recently reported $254 billion in annual revenue and $7.4 billion in net profits, which marked a 135% increase since 2018, the union said.

“Yet, despite these record gains, the company refuses to meet the Teamsters’ demands for fair wages and benefits that reflect the company’s enormous success.”

ABC News online, 1/20

President-elect Donald Trump’s designated appointment of Congresswoman Lori Michelle Chavez-DeRemer as Secretary of Labor in his incoming administration has been hailed in some quarters as an act friendly to labor. Others, however, were saying, “not so fast.”

Her labor-friendly bona fides come from the fact that she was only one of three Republicans in the House of Representatives who co-sponsored the pro-labor Protect the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. The act was defeated in the face of Republican opposition.

But AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler was skeptical that it would mean that the Trump administration would be friendly to workers. “Donald Trump is the President-elect of the United States—not Rep. Chavez-DeRemer—and it remains to be seen what she will be permitted to do as Secretary of Labor in an administration with a dramatically anti-worker agenda,” noted Shuler. “Despite having distanced himself from Project 2025 during his campaign, President-elect Trump has put forward several cabinet nominees with strong ties to [anti-union] Project 2025.”

And Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, the country’s largest teachers’ union, pointed out that it is the National Labor Relations Board that is charged with preventing union busting, not the Department of Labor. “During his first term, Trump appointed anti-worker, anti-union National Labor Relations Board members,” said Pringle. “Now he is threatening to take the unprecedented action of removing current pro-worker NLRB members in the middle of their term, replacing them with his corporate friends. And he is promising to appoint judges and justices who are hostile to workers and unions.”

As if to reinforce the perception that the Chavez DeRemer-appointment may be more symbolic than substantive, Trump quickly took pains to reassure the business community that his anti-union views have not changed. After business leaders expressed “alarm” at the appointment, he promised that he would pick a more “business-friendly” appointee for Deputy Secretary of Labor to run the day-to-day operations of the department.

In his first term, his appointees to the NLRB gave companies more time to fight unionization campaigns, more discretion over who gets overtime pay and more control over workers’ tips. He is expected to immediately fire the General Council, who has the authority to decide what sorts of cases the agency prosecutes. A new counsel there could work quickly to unwind cases including the agency’s recent efforts to hold Amazon.com Inc. liable for the treatment of its subcontracted drivers, whom the Teamsters are trying to organize.

Payday Report, 11/23Bloomberg News, 11/26