******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Andy, unfortunately, while the union is key in keeping job numbers up, thus their defense of tree trimmers and the unionized tree trimming companies, it generally is very right wing. There is agreement that neither the union nor the company will attack each other in public or oppose the demands of either party when discussions over rate increases, public power proposals and so on come up in the State. Thus, the union deploys its staff to lobby to support rate increases even as the company and union bargain for a new contract every 3 or 4 years. One will never find the union attacking the Company in public unless a Company action directly negatively effects the membership. With the spate of proposals for *Municipalization* in San Francisco and other communities, the union mobilizes resources to oppose it, like they did in 2000 when two similar proposals for a buy out of the grid occurred in SF. I see no change in this class collaboration. Understand, Local members are paid far in excess of similar employees at Public Power entities like SMUD or the DWP in LA. There is likely no question that had the proposals gone through in 2000, which I worked for as it happens, ex-PG&E and now public power workers would of taken a big hit eventually. Of course that would depend as well on the dynamic of fighting to maintain high wages and could of been taken up by other SF employees to raise standards to what the PG&E contract had in it. It is hard to tell what would of happened. Additionally there was an "institutional" prerogative against this as public employees are not part of the NLRA and thus representation if 100% based on City laws, in this case the San Francisco, or State, Charter. With 2000 employees in SF it would of meant the possible loss of these 2000 employees to other unions already established in City. Lastly, to give you an idea of my unions collaborationist perspectives, in the 90s I went to a pre-negotiation union conference for all shop stewards. The Assistant Union manager got up and first thing he does is "do you want to negotiate or do you want to strike?". Amazingly every one bought into this nonsense except for a few socialists and ex-socialists who were there. The unions *brags* about never having gone on strike. That is what we were up against and what rank and file militants are still up against. David Walters On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 7:44 AM Andrew Pollack via Marxism < [email protected]> wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > Would like to hear more about the union's position and activities, as well > as of communities. > This is important not only for energy workers and consumers but for climate > change activism as well -- i.e. if we are to get past the (hugely > impressive) street rallies the question of worker/community control will > have to be posed at specific strategic sites. > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/dwaltersmia%40gmail.com > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
