[URBANTH-L]AAA and the strike

[Cathy Stanton]

I'm also a part-time adjunct lecturer who pays for her own health insurance
(my husband and I pay about $500 month for pretty crummy coverage). 
However, rather than saying, "Oh, those hotel workers don't know when
they're well off," I feel it's crucial to support labor efforts like this,
because it's one of our best hopes for eventually forcing some kind of
positive change in this rotten health care system.  The union involved in
this lockout has made the point that if they fail, it's not as though
things are going to get any better anywhere else for other workers, union
or non-union.  Rather, if they fail, it will only be one more episode in
the downward spiral - the famed "race to the bottom."  If they hold firm,
it may be the kind of rallying-point that we need if we're ever going to
take a real stance on health care reform.  This is an issue that's central
to many service-union organizing efforts these days, TAs and university
service workers included.  Divorcing ourselves from this issue in any way
just contributes to the bigger problem, and although I stand to lose money
I can't afford on my plane ticket etc., I support the union in holding
AAA's feet to the fire in this way.

Cathy Stanton
Tufts University

> [Original Message]
> From: susan mazur <susanmazur at hotmail.com>
> To: <wendy.hathaway at gmail.com>; <smaack at earthlink.net>
> Cc: <justiceactionnetwork at yahoogroups.com>; <hopevi at yahoogroups.com>;
<urbanth-l at lists.ysu.edu>; <robrien at temple.edu>; <usf-ant at lists.cas.usf.edu>
> Date: 10/22/2004 10:29:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [URBANTH-L]AAA and the strike
>
> I have to agree with the writer from Switzerland. Some of this seems a
tad 
> overwrought. I am also seeing that people are starting to use my brief 
> summary as a straw-man to attack. Following is my chain of reasoning with 
> responses in its entirety:
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------- 
> "susan mazur" <susanmazur at hotmail.com 10/21/04 09:26AM
>
> But where was the huge outpouring of support, and willingness to put over
a
> million dollars on the table, when the UC system TAs were striking? Or
other
> movements for fair labor in the academic world? My recollection is that,
> while many tenure track folks were willing to support us privately, there
> was no collective initiative from professional organizations like the AAA.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, please. But to me, it seems like many of these
> statements, while heartfelt, are made possible by a willingness to expend
> the money of others in support of a noble, though perhaps doomed cause.
>
> Susan,
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
> You are SO on target here!
>
> - sascha
>
>
>
> Below is an extremely sympathetic article detailing the plight of the
> Hotel union workers (deleted)
>
> If I may, I'd like to point out that they make the same HOURLY (if not a 
> little more) wage as my husband, who is also an immigrant, and who works 
> time and a half for a trucking firm to support us.
>
> They have the same YEARLY income as I reported last year as an adjunct.
In 
> addition, they have BENEFITS through their job, which I do not.
>
> I acquired benefits through my husband's (non union) job and we pay
> $340.00 per month for the privilege, which by the way, people have told
us 
> is a bargain. They are afraid of a hike to $270.00 per month IN FIVE
YEARS.
>
> Ahem.
>
> This is a serious issue in this country, and I think it deserves close 
> attention. The issue of affordable  healthcare is one of our society'
most 
> pressing concern when 45 million people do not have it.
>
> However, these people have job that pay "30% more than other SF hotel
> workers in non union hotels." Shouldn't we be concerned about patronizing 
> NON-UNION hotels as well?
>
> Charity begins at home, and unless the AAA is willing to simultaneously 
> issue a broad statement supporting any and all fair labor movements in 
> academia, they will be guilty of breathtaking hypocrisy.
>
> Off to work.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
> Susan
> hey, susan -
> please know that i absolutely adore you!
> you are so damned right with what you wrote below.
> and the way you go against the bs of pcs
> with your crystal clear logic is so impressive.
> keep at it!
>
> with warm regards,
>
> eva
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> In the interests of ideological purity - I hope that folks who vote to
> cancel make sure and divest themselves of any stocks in their portfolio
or  
> pension plans that run any of these companies, as well any of
their'strike 
> breaking' suppliers like Aramark. To not do so would be to profit off the 
> loss of those of us with unrecoverable travel expenses and the payoff to
the 
> Hilton that would ensue.
>
> I would also hope that these folks would make sure never to fly American
>
> Airlines, not to accept speaking engagements at Yale, or transact
> business with any number of other egregiously bad practitioners of labor 
> relations.
>
> My buck fifty sez - the AAA is a professional organization that I pay
> dues to in order to advance my career. They are not my choice of moral or 
> political arbiter. For that I have a religious community, poltical
> affiliation, and volunteer associations.
>
> S.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Susan:
>
> I find your points well taken.
>
> The AAA has not yet announced a decision, as far as I know.  But at the
> risk of annoying some people, I am astonished that anyone would
> recommend canceling the meetings under these circumstances.  To do so
> would likely bankrupt the AAA (loss of jobs in DC, maybe), add to the
> income of Hilton, and not benefit the strikers in any meaningful manner.
>
> Indeed, I wonder whether members of the AAA Board who would vote to
> incur serious economic loss in support of one side in a dispute in which
> the AAA is not a party, might be in breach of their fiduciary duty to
> the organization.
>
> It is clear enough that individuals may choose to come or not come; to
> cross picket lines or not, etc.  Doing so would not impose costs on
> others (it looks like Susan and others in her position would be
> "collateral damage" in the event of a cancellation), nor on the AAA as
> an organization.
>
> Regards to all,
>
> Bob
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Rob and SUNTA colleagues,
> AAA Exec Board is meeting this morning (Thursday) to consider the results
of
> 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.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
> >From Gina:
>
> ha! i like your take on this. i havent had the clarity of mind to have a 
> stance. i also think it shouldnt be cancelled. i doubt the exec committee 
> really thinks its should be cancelled. they're just worried about
reputation 
> and being pc.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
> >From Travis:
>
> S. -
>
> Thanks for the forwarding. Like I said I didn't
> even know that this was going on and whatever is
> decided, I think it's weird that incredibly
> important decisions are being discussed by the
> AAA and this is nowhere to be found online
> publicly.
>
> I, personally, wouldn't cross the picket lines,
> but I agree with you about the AAA's stance: it
> has to be all or nothing, no convenient
> agreements and poses here or there. This year I'm
> going for possible interviews, so I hope if it
> still goes down, perhaps I can meet with
> prospective employers at some nice coffeehouse in
> North Beach instead of the flimsy scary shacks
> the erect down in the basement.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 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
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Fingers...tired....too much....discourse...:-)
>
> Just kidding.
>
> Good answers/questions. I can say that my points were distilled from a
long 
> day of discussion on the SAE list. I basically feel that moral decisions
are 
> to be made by individuals and not for them by institutions. Many people I 
> have spoken to have no idea this was going on. Some will not cross
pickets 
> lines, others will. But to have the choice taken away? Not good.
>
> "Was AAA asked to support the UC TA strike?"
>
> Dunno -- were they asked to support this one? But I am not just referring
to 
> the UC Strike (and yes, I was involved and struck and yes I am a union 
> member and yes, I will have a hard time deciding what to do IF they are 
> still locked out come 11/17) but to all TA/Lecturer/Part-timer strikes. 
See 
> attached for what I consider to be a thought-provoking letter from one of 
> anthros larger lights to some part-timers under his purview.
>
> "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"
>
> But it did affect some members quite directly....and we vote on inanities 
> all the time. Why not something relevant once in a while?
>
> "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."
>
> Again, that is made on an individual and case-by-case basis by me in 
> response to my particular constellation of beliefs and circumstances. I 
> don't pay the AAA hundreds of dollars to do that for me, I pay them to 
> organize a meeting...
>
> "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?)."
>
> Yes, it does hold, as I am not the one cherry-picking which issues to get 
> involved in (abstract, romantic, easy to support) and which not to
(directly 
> affecting the profession and its context, messy, argifying). I don't care
if 
> they support fair labor by TAs, just as long as they are consistent and 
> don't support fair labor issues anywhere. OR support all fair labor
issues, 
> including uncomfortably close ones.
>
> "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."
>
> One can do this. My point was the larger one about this being a big ol' 
> dirty world and ain't none of us getting out clean! I spent my formative 
> years in San Francisco and the rest of the Bay Area, and have experienced 
> people twisting themselves into knots to prove their purity and devotion
to 
> one cause or another, usually committing some heinous hypocrisy in the 
> process. It is easy for tenured folks, who have lengthy CVs and their
travel 
> paid for, to indulge in one last noble hurrah, while once again the
junior 
> members sacrifice time, money, effort, and job opportunities.
>
> I make the same amount as those folks as an adjunct, and I don't have 
> benefits.
> I pay hundreds of dollars in dues, reg fees, travel, hotel, food, AND
lost 
> wages to be able to attend.
> My flight is booked. It is non-refundable. And by the way, I cannot
afford 
> to stay in the Hilton even if I wanted to, and no, I do not have a stock 
> portfolio to worry about, having liquidated my 401K long ago during
graduate 
> school.
>
> " 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."
>
> I agree. And luckily, I am not staying at that hotel. Would I enter to 
> transact business? Yes.
>
> Did I stay away from Ralph's during the Grocery Store strike? Yes, and I 
> shopped at Stater's, unionized, but not locked out.
>
> Did I enter Ralph's to use the Wells Fargo ATM? Yes.
>
> Do I feel I broke the picket line? No.
>
> One way or another, I am going to SF. Either I will be at the meetings,
or I 
> will be hanging out waiting for friends to get off work.
>
> Let us pray this is resolved positively!
>
> Susan
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools
and 
> more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> URBANTH-L mailing list
> URBANTH-L at lists.ysu.edu
> http://lists.ysu.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/urbanth-l