[URBANTH-L]AAA and the strike

[Wendy Ann Hathaway]

I am a graduate student, with no stock options, savings, health care,
or a reliable car.   I also actively support unions, such as the GAU
here at the University of South Florida, and others with my sparse
income--not just striking workers on the other side of the continent. 
 I do not separate my religious, political, or volunteer activities
from my anthropological activities.  I do not believe that is
something that anthropologists should do.  As far as I am concerned, I
pay dues to the AAA not just for "career advancement" but for
representation as an anthropologist.

As an invested graduate student sincerely dedicated to the field and
practice of anthropology, I will not attend meetings in San Francisco
at the Hilton
to forward my career over someone else's quality of life.  And for the
record, I am scheduled to present.

In solidarity with those who struggle,

Wendy Hathaway
Tampa Neighborhood Mobility Study
University of South Florida
Tampa, Florida 33620


On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:16:31 -0700, Stephen Maack <smaack at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Good principled points, Susan.  You made me think.  Here are some of my
> thoughts about what you said.
> 
> Was AAA asked to support the UC TA strike?  If so, and they didn't, I won't
> defend that decision and AAA leadership might be hypocritical.  I don't
> recall being asked my opinion on that matter.  However, since AAA represents
> all its members as a professional organization (your point 1), it might have
> viewed the UC TA strike as a local event and decided not to take a position
> since it didn't affect most members.  The SF Hilton lockout/strike is also a
> local event, of course, and it is simply because the meeting is being held
> there that AAA is getting involved in considering what it might do in
> relation to the existence of the lockout/strike.  AAA has a code of ethics
> that professional anthropologists are expected to follow.  For many of us
> crossing a picket line to attend the AAA 2004 conference would violate our
> personal ethics and might be viewed as violating the letter and spirit of
> the AAA code of ethics -- I'd have to dig out the code and think about that.
> However, I suggest that you look at that code of ethics and then see if you
> can still so clearly draw the line between choice of moral or political
> positions and professional responsibilities as an anthropologist and in your
> career.  I find it tough to figure that in all cases what happens in and
> with a professional organization can be completely divorced from moral or
> political positions -- sometimes it can be, sometimes not.  I'm not sure
> your point 2 complaint logically holds if you decide to stick with your
> point 1, since opposing the UC TA strike would have been a political
> position (just as much as you might be suggesting that not supporting it
> was?).  Were you involved with the UC TA strike in some way?  Just curious.
> 
> Regarding 3 -- yup, you are right, I should review whether my stock
> portfolio has any Hilton stock.  Note, however, that some principled
> activists do not automatically divest themselves of stock in a company with
> which they disagree, but rather go to the stock meetings and try to raise
> points for change.  It's an alternate strategy and there is disagreement on
> which approach is best.  So point accepted.
> 
> Regarding 4 -- especially good point.  I suspect that we should ask the
> union picketing the SF Hilton what they think about us going to non-union
> hotels, if that decision is made.  I don't know -- might the union think
> that if we went to non-union hotels that this might make a point to the
> workers at those hotels that union organizing is supported by professionals?
> That might make the non-union hotel workers more interested in organizing
> when approached later by the union?  I'm not sure.  Since I frequently do
> not stay at conference hotels anyway, I should become more conscious of
> whether those hotels are unionized or not and how my potential stay there
> might affect that.  I do know that if a hotel was not yet unionized, but
> being picketed because workers were trying to create a union local there and
> were being blocked, I would not stay at that hotel.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Steve Maack
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: susan mazur [mailto:susanmazur at hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 5:02 PM
> > To: smaack at earthlink.net; robrien at temple.edu; urbanth-l at lists.ysu.edu
> > Subject: RE: [URBANTH-L]AAA and the strike
> >
> >
> > Here is my perspective:
> >
> > My perspective is as follows:
> >
> > 1) The AAA is first and foremost a professional organization that
> > I pay dues to in order to advance my career. It is not my venue of choice
> > for moral or political positions -- for that I have my religious
> community, political
> > affiliation, and volunteer association.
> >
> > 2) The AAA never actively supported the UC TA strike - or other
> > instance of unfair labor in academia - so their hypocrisy is breathtaking.
> >
> > 3) The people who vote for cancellation had better make sure their stock
> > portfolios and pension plans are divested of all shares related
> > to Hilton, the other hotels, and their suppliers, or they will be
> profiting from our
> > unrecoverable travel expenses and the 1.2 million dollar payout we as an
> > association would be liable for if we up and move sticks.
> >
> > 4) The AAA would be leaving a hotel with a lockout for a NON
> > UNION hotel in all likelihood - not necessarily a good outcome.
> >
> > Susan Mazur-Stommen, Ph.D.
> > Assistant Research Anthropologist
> > University of California, Riverside
> > www.susanmazur.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----Original Message Follows----
> > From: "Stephen Maack" <smaack at earthlink.net>
> > Reply-To: smaack at earthlink.net
> > To: "Robert T. O'Brien" <robrien at temple.edu>,<urbanth-l at lists.ysu.edu>
> > Subject: RE: [URBANTH-L]AAA and the strike
> > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:55:08 -0700
> >
> > Rob and SUNTA colleagues,
> > AAA Exec Board is meeting this morning (Thursday) to consider the
> > results o
> > their survey and how to proceed (or not) in relation to the AAA 2004
> > conference and the labor/management dispute at the SF Hilton.  AAA Exec
> > Board only started to ask AAA "members" for their opinions on what to do
> > about Tuesday, and at first only asked registrants for their opinions
> > leading to completion of the Exec Board survey.  I hadn't
> > registered yet, am
> > a NAPA Board member, and a 30 year plus member of AAA so was just a bit
> > upset over the Exec Board ONLY contacting registrants on a matter of
> > importance to all AAA (especially given cost implications).  So I am
> > responsible for working with the Section leaders that I personally know to
> > get all NAPA, SUNTA, and (indirectly -- through a SCAAN colleague) Society
> > for Latin American Anthropology members of AAA, as well as SCAAN members
> > informed of the survey and provided background as I could
> > yesterday.  Since
> > the AAA Executive Board is meeting now there may be further information
> > forthcoming soon about their decisions?
> >
> > Other Sections than SAW and SUNTA are starting to consider or have already
> > taken their own stances (I'm on the NAPA Board and we are trying to decide
> > if we will have a conference call on the matter tomorrow).  NAPA Board
> > members were sent this today from the Society for Medical
> > Anthropology, that
> > came to the following stance after a reportedly lively discussion:
> >
> > "The view of the Executive Board of the Society for Medical
> > Anthropology is
> > that for financial reasons the AAA should not cancel its contract with the
> > Hilton. Also for this reason, and due of the logistical problems involved,
> > the Board does not support the transfer of the meetings to San Jose.
> >
> > Many members are reluctant to cross a picket line, and many will not.
> > Consequently, we are in the process of making off-site arrangements for
> > various Society meetings and functions.  We encourage other sections to
> > consider doing the same thing.  We further encourage members who are so
> > interested and motivated to view this as an opportunity to engage in
> > creative and productive public action.  Our sentiment was captured well by
> > Board member Vincanne Adams:
> >
> > 'My suggestion to [the Board is], as others have suggested, that we honor
> > the strike while using the hotel in various ways:  by helping to carry
> > placards, making publicity over their cause, maybe devoting a
> > public session
> > for them to air their views within the conference, asking ethnographers to
> > document their efforts, and such.  One might view this as a postmodern
> > predicament in which old revolutionary tactics of simple worker
> > protest are
> > not the most effective, and in which using the media and our
> > strengths as a
> > discipline to help the cause in innovative and media saavy, as well as
> > anti-intuitive, ways might be more productive of a useful and supportive
> > outcome.  However, one might read this suggestion, following
> > Jameson, as an
> > unmappable mystification (and cooptation) of late capitalism.  It may be
> > that the strike will be resolved by that date anyway, but I think it would
> > be a huge loss to cancel the meeting.' "
> >
> > While I respect all the different opinions expressed, and the SMA
> > stance, I
> > personally disagree with it.  Although it would be very messy,
> > might not be
> > feasible, and could be divisive of AAA, I personally floated by the NAPA
> > Board a sequence of AAA actions that could let individual sections and
> > session organizers move their conference activities to San Jose, and let
> > those who wanted to continue at SF Hilton do their thing there.  In other
> > words, I say that we should vote with our feet as sections and
> > individuals -- and we might as well coordinate this jointly through AAA to
> > get better price deals.  A lot of people (including me) will not cross
> > picket lines -- and no way is the union going to go in to the
> > hotel they are
> > picketing to be present at an AAA meeting "public session"!!  If
> > AAA 2004 is
> > only held at the SF Hilton, I will not be there for any meetings
> > inside that
> > hotel, if the lockout or a strike is still in place -- and that is despite
> > my NAPA Board responsibilities.
> >
> > The potential cost to AAA of cancelling is $1.3 million, but various
> > factors -- including litigation potential (from either side), negotiated
> > settlements, Hilton renting rooms to others, Hilton loss of potential AAA
> > conference business later, Hilton bad press, etc., could bring the actual
> > cost to AAA of cancelling much lower than that.  Lawyers are for working
> > through such problems.  Even $1.3 million, while it sounds like a
> > lot, would
> > be an exposure of about $118 for each of the roughly 11,000 AAA members --
> > which could be covered in several ways, including four of five years of
> > membership fee increases, donation requests, etc.  To put the amount in
> > perspective, ONE night in a single at the SF Hilton costs $159 (plus taxes
> > and fees), at AAA 2004 conference rates.  So we are talking less than one
> > hotel night exposure per AAA member.  There are additional
> > implications for
> > people who might have non-refundable airfare or airfare/hotel arrangements
> > set up -- but the actual individual exposure there may be less than many
> > people seem to assume, since for about $100 or less one can often
> > reschedule
> > even non-refundable flights, and it is often possible to cancel
> > hotel rooms
> > up to 24 or 48 hours ahead of time at little or not cost.  So I actually
> > think the financial implications, while real and they need to be
> > considered,
> > are a bit of a red herring, and that the financial exposure could
> > be handled
> > by most individual anthropologists and by the Association if it chose to
> > take a principled stance supporting the union (or opposing the whole
> > situation) and cancelled.
> >
> > For background on the lockout itself (previously a strike) here
> > are a set of
> > links that I compiled yesterday from various sources (I haven't looked for
> > October 20 or 21 SF Chronicle articles yet):
> >
> > October 19 SF Chronicle article on relation of African-Americans and
> > immigrant workers to this labor dispute:
> >
> > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/
> > 2004/10/19
> > /EDGAB9B1851.DTL
> >
> > earlier SF Chronicle article from last Friday (n.b., I live in LA
> > that went
> > through a long grocery workers strike last year and has had its own hotel
> > workers picketing -- I have no inside info but my gut so no quick
> > resolution
> > of this labor/management dispute -- also see link to article above from
> > October 19)
> >
> > SAN FRANCISCO
> > Hotel talks resume -- sides soften stances
> > - George Raine, Chronicle Staff Writer
> > Friday, October 15, 2004
> >
> > Negotiations resumed Thursday evening in the bitter San Francisco hotel
> > workers' labor dispute, with employers promising to sweeten an earlier
> > proposal on wages, benefits and health care and the union proposing that
> > locked-out employees return to work with a pledge not to strike.
> >
> > Details of the hotels' proposal were not made public, pending their
> > discussion in negotiations at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium.
> > However, the
> > union, Local 2 of Unite Here, said just prior to the bargaining
> > session that
> > it would agree to a 90-day cooling off period (until Jan. 15) and
> > not strike
> > if the hotel operators would agree not to lock out workers during the
> > period.
> >
> > The hotel managers did not respond immediately Thursday to Local
> > 2 President
> > Mike Casey's proposal, but a spokesman, Cornell Fowler, was
> > skeptical. "The
> > quickest way to end this is to get in there and negotiate, and
> > that is what
> > we are looking forward to doing,'' he said before the session, which was
> > joined by a federal mediator.
> >
> > Referring to 4,000 locked-out union hotel workers in San Francisco, Casey
> > said: "This fight is about our livelihoods. Our top demand and
> > our continued
> > insistence is we be reinstated.''
> >
> > On Sept. 29, Local 2 walked out on strike at four of 14 hotels in the
> > bargaining group. The union said it would be a two-week strike,
> > ending last
> > Wednesday. The four hotels are the Argent Hotel, Crowne Plaza, Hilton San
> > Francisco and Intercontinental Mark Hopkins.
> >
> > In response, on Oct. 1, the hotel owners locked out union workers at the
> > remaining 10 hotels in the group, known as the San Francisco
> > Multi-Employer
> > Group. These are the Fairmont, Four Seasons, Grand Hyatt, Holiday
> > Inn Civic
> > Center, Holiday Inn Express & Suites Fisherman's Wharf, Holiday Inn at
> > Fisherman's Wharf, Palace, Hyatt Regency, Omni and Westin St. Francis.
> >
> > On Wednesday, the 1,400 workers ended their strike, but their employers at
> > the first four hotels then locked them out just as the other 10 hotels had
> > done to their 2,600 workers.
> >
> > San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is opposed to the lockout and this week
> > asked the two disparate sides to agree to a cooling-off period,
> > during which
> > the workers would return to work while a contract is negotiated. The union
> > was willing to return under those terms, but the hotels attached a
> > condition: They wanted the union to remove from the negotiating table its
> > desire to have a contract that either expires or can be reopened in 2006.
> > The union refused, and the notion of the cooling-off period appeared dead,
> > until revived by Casey on Thursday.
> >
> > In the original employers' proposal on health care, workers would pay $32.
> > 53 per month on a premium in the first year of a five-year contract,
> > increasing to $273.42 per month in the fifth year. That compares with $10
> > per month Local 2 workers have paid for years.
> >
> > The hotels, which before the strike and lockout were paying $630 per month
> > per employee for health care, would pay $683.30 per employee per month in
> > the first year, rising to $951.36 per employee per month in the
> > fifth year,
> > in the original proposal.
> >
> > E-mail George Raine at graine at sfchronicle.com
> >
> > Page B - 4
> > URL:
> > http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004
> > /10/15/BAG
> > V09AFQP1.DTL
> >
> > Articles going back in time (originally sent around by Robert Rotenberg to
> > the urbanth-l list):
> >
> > http://www.usatoday.com/travel/hotels/2004-09-29-san-francisco-str
> ike_x.htm
> >
> > http://www.btnmag.com/businesstravelnews/headlines/article_display
> > .jsp?vnu_c
> > ontent_id=1000653750
> >
> > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/01/MNG
> > IF92B1D1.D
> > TL
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Steve Maack
> >
> > Dr. Stephen C. Maack
> > Founder and Lead Consultant
> > dba REAP Change Consultants
> > 2872 Nicada Dr.
> > Los Angeles, CA 90077-2024
> > U.S.A.
> > smaack at earthlink.net
> > telephone (310) 384-9717
> > FAX (310) 474-4161
> > web site at http://www.reapchange.com
> >
> >  > -----Original Message-----
> >  > From: urbanth-l-bounces at lists.ysu.edu
> >  > [mailto:urbanth-l-bounces at lists.ysu.edu]On Behalf Of Robert T. O'Brien
> >  > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:21 AM
> >  > To: urbanth-l at lists.ysu.edu
> >  > Subject: [URBANTH-L]AAA and the strike
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > Dear Colleagues:
> >  >
> >  > I'm writing to ask what people know about AAA and the SF
> >  > UNITE HERE strike (now a lockout).
> >  >
> >  > I've seen many letters to the AAA Exec Board and to section
> >  > groups calling to move the conference. The SCA has called on
> >  > the Exec Board to move it. SAW is formulating a response now.
> >  >
> >  > Anyone else know what's going on within the AAA?
> >  >
> >  > Best,
> >  >
> >  > Rob O'Brien
> >  >  ********************************************
> >  > Robert T. O'Brien
> >  > Ph.D. Candidate
> >  > Department of Anthropology
> >  > Temple University
> >  > robrien at temple.edu
> >  > 215-803-5181
> >  >
> >  > "We're changing the world,...freedom is the Almighty's gift to
> >  > every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on
> >  > the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread
> >  > of freedom." GWB on
> >  > why God loves an imperialist
> >  >
> >  > "...a really diverse crowd here tonight. The haves, and the
> >  > have-mores. Some people call you elite. I call you my base." GWB
> >  > at the Al Smith fundraiser, October 19, 2000
> >  > ********************************************
> >  >
> >  > _______________________________________________
> >  > URBANTH-L mailing list
> >  > URBANTH-L at lists.ysu.edu
> >  > http://lists.ysu.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/urbanth-l
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > URBANTH-L mailing list
> > URBANTH-L at lists.ysu.edu
> > http://lists.ysu.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/urbanth-l
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -
> > it's FREE!
> > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> URBANTH-L mailing list
> URBANTH-L at lists.ysu.edu
> http://lists.ysu.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/urbanth-l
>