[URBANTH-L]AAA and the strike
susan mazur
susanmazur at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 22 08:19:56 EDT 2004
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
More information about the URBANTH-L
mailing list