Thursday, June 27, 2024

A Charter School Network in Los Angeles Goes Union

AN INTERVIEW WITH NICOLE BARRAZA MARIN HODGES

Earlier this month, teachers at all six Citizens of the World charter schools in Los Angeles voted overwhelmingly to unionize with United Teachers Los Angeles. Jacobin spoke to two teachers about the organizing drive.


A teacher greets her class during the first day of school in California on August 11, 2022. (Paul Bersebach / MediaNews Group / Orange County Register via Getty Images)

INTERVIEW BYSARA WEXLER
06.26.2024
JACOBIN


On June 12, United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) announced that teachers at all six schools in the Citizens of the World Charter School network voted overwhelmingly to unionize. The teachers, who backed the union with 90 percent support, are unionizing as the Citizens of the World Charter (CWC) Educators United local of UTLA.

Citizens of the World teachers join a small segment of unionized charter-school teachers, who represent about 11 percent of all teachers employed by charters. The win is significant because if unions were to succeed in growing their presence in charter schools more broadly, it would mean a major blow to charter boosters’ decades-long effort to undermine teachers’ unions. Jacobin contributor Sara Wexler spoke to two Citizens of the World teachers about their organizing drive and why they decided to unionize.
SARA WEXLER

What sparked the decision to unionize?

MARIN HODGES

The educators at Citizens of the World, Los Angeles, care deeply about our students and our mission, but teachers’ voices have not always been central to our decision-making process. So while teachers have attempted to advocate for themselves in the past, we’ve seen little meaningful change because of the top-down structure of our organization. Having a union will give teachers more input in decisions that are affecting them directly, which will make our school a more positive environment for both educators and our students.
NICOLE BARRAZA

It feels like we don’t have an equal stake when it comes to our voices being heard and decisions being made. I personally feel frustrated by that because we are the ones that the decisions and policies affect the most, along with our students. It’s really important that we are able to have a say in how things are run at our schools, because we know firsthand what’s going to help our conditions for our students.
SARA WEXLER

Do you have specific examples of your voices not being heard, or policies or conditions that you would have liked to have input on?
NICOLE BARRAZA

There are two specific things recently. One is our changing salary table, which is a very different structure than what it has been in the past. On the new salary table that Citizens of the World approved, educational experience [i.e., relevant college or graduate coursework] does not carry as much weight anymore; it’s more about how many years you’ve taught. That in itself I was not very excited about, but also, the new salary scale got approved rather quickly. I know there were lots of teachers who were at the board meetings voicing their concerns about it. I worry about retention of staff, because the longer someone has been teaching, [the better they are typically] able to serve our students.

The other thing is, Citizens of the World had been talking about changing our special-education program and the type of support we need. It feels as though they’re going to be cutting back, and that is something that I feel we need more support in typically. Being on the ground as a teacher, I see the needs more clearly than people who are in the regional support office do.
SARA WEXLER

Can you give me a timeline of the organizing for the union? When did the organizing begin, and what did the lead-up to the vote look like?
MARIN HODGES

Educators at Citizens of the World Los Angeles have been discussing unionizing for much longer than I have been a part of the organization. But the conversations have really ramped up over the past few months, starting around April when we were presented with the opportunity to work with United Teachers Los Angeles.Once we were confident that we had a supermajority of over 85 percent of our educators on board, we introduced the official petition to join UTLA.
NICOLE BARRAZA

From what I know, teachers have been talking about this for years. Changes like the salary table [adjustment], I think, prompted us to mobilize more quickly.
SARA WEXLER

How exactly did you go about organizing?
MARIN HODGES

There were representatives across each of the campuses who started having conversations with each of our individual educators to see where people were at. Once we were confident that we had a supermajority of over 85 percent of our educators on board, we introduced the official petition to join UTLA.
NICOLE BARRAZA

I came on a little bit later. I feel like it was trickling throughout the teachers, the conversations. . . . One of the representatives at my school was trying to tackle those conversations with other educators one-on-one, to share the information and what we needed in order to unionize. That felt like a little bit of a slow process because we were trying to be discreet about it and make sure that everybody felt like they knew what was going on in those one-on-one conversations.

When I was brought in at our campus specifically — we’re three floors, and the main person who was organizing at our campus was on the first floor. She was friendly with the first- and second-floor people, but didn’t know anyone on the third floor that well. So that became my torch to bear, to pass it on to the upper-grade teachers who I had a relationship with.
SARA WEXLER

Did you face any challenges or obstacles, whether that was convincing other teachers or overcoming resistance from school administration?
NICOLE BARRAZA

Again, we had over 90 percent of educators sign the petition, we do have a very high level of support among our teachers. I think the only reticence I faced was that some teachers might have felt a little bit scared, because it is a change.

But so many of us were on board. And for various reasons: each teacher has had some sort of dissatisfaction somewhere. Again, whether it was the salary table or changes in special education, there are things that we know could be improved or done in a different way. So even teachers who were a little like, “I’m not sure about signing” were still expressing their verbal support for us — at least the teachers I talked to. Even if we didn’t get their signatures, they still were like, “I want to be kept in the loop, and I want to see where it goes; I want to be involved more in the future. I’m just maybe not ready right now.”

At my campus, my administration has not made any comment to us yet. I don’t know exactly how they feel or if they will be an obstacle. Similarly, there are some parents who have shown support at my campus, but I haven’t received much negative feedback.
MARIN HODGES

We didn’t receive much pushback from educators. Almost everybody was on board.

I think we love our school; we all care about making our organization a better place. I would agree that there was a little bit of fear or hesitation from some educators because we don’t always associate charter schools with unions. But I think reminding them that this particular union [UTLA] represents over a thousand charter educators at nine different schools across Los Angeles was helpful. And emphasizing the supermajority — that we had over 90 percent of educators that were on the same page and that we are all stronger together — was important in having those discussions with people who were a little more hesitant.
SARA WEXLER

You have previously taught at schools that did have unions in the past. Did you sense differences coming into a charter school without a union in the work environment?
NICOLE BARRAZA

I love Citizens of the World Charter, and I decided to work there despite there not being a union. Every time I’ve been at a school that has a union, I think I felt a little more at ease. You just feel a little more protected. So when there were talks about starting a union here, to me it was a no-brainer: of course I would love to be a part of a union.

For me, the draw of Citizens of the World was based on other things. We were very focused on diversity and inclusion, on social justice education for students, and social emotional learning. We’re encouraged and expected to be teaching those topics to our students. And that is the type of school I was looking for.

Even though there was no union, and I knew I would be getting a pay cut from where I was before, those were such big draws to me that it didn’t really matter. I was willing to take that hit.

But there are things for which it is nice to have that union representation. Not having a contract is something that can feel challenging at a charter school; you don’t know what’s going to happen year to year.Not having a contract is something that can feel challenging at a charter school; you don’t know what’s going to happen year to year.

I had an issue with my offer letter this past year, and it all got worked out. But I had to have a meeting with someone in our regional support office, and I remember feeling like this is something that a union rep would help me with. I was feeling like I don’t have anyone to turn to — I can’t really ask my administration for help. It was a small instance where I was like, man, this is what a union is for, for those tough conversations and that protection, and that extra voice and support in those rooms.

So it does feel different being here, and I’m hopeful that as our union grows and continues and we’re able to successfully get a contract with our employer, everybody will feel that across the board. I hope that all our educators at our school feel more at ease and confident with themselves and their jobs.
SARA WEXLER

You’re going into bargaining soon. What do you think your main demands will be at the bargaining table?
MARIN HODGES

Our charter includes seven different campuses across five different regions. We all have our own unique communities that we serve and our own unique needs. In the fall, we will start the process of soliciting input from our educators to make sure that we are representative of all the needs that we see across all of our campuses.

Some of the things that have come up in conversation already have been smaller class sizes, smaller caseloads for our special education teachers, more teaching assistants [TAs] in our classrooms, more funding for our arts programs. So a wide variety of issues that we will definitely tailor down once we start having more specific conversations with the educators we are representing.
SARA WEXLER

How do you imagine a union changing your experience at your workplace?
NICOLE BARRAZA

My hope is that it will make our teaching more sustainable. It’s not a secret that nationwide, teaching is just not a very sustainable job. Things like lower class sizes, extra support in the form of teaching assistants — all those things can help make your job as a teacher more manageable and can improve the learning experience for our students.

To me, creating an environment where teachers feel supported, where the job can be done for a long time, is the goal. But [improving] those working conditions for our teachers is what is best for the students as well, because a thriving teacher is going to have thriving students.
MARIN HODGES

Citizens of the World attracts some really incredible people. I love the people that I work with. They all care deeply about our school and about our students, but the workload is unsustainable at times. I’m hoping that having a union will help us with teacher retention so that we can recruit and retain amazing educators across Los Angeles, which will ultimately help our students.
SARA WEXLER

Do you mind saying more about your working conditions, like the heavy workload you just mentioned?
MARIN HODGES

From a middle-school perspective, taking away TAs puts that responsibility back on the lead teacher, meaning that we might not be able to provide as much support for our students, especially those who really need the extra help. Adding additional classes for teachers, additional grade levels from year to year — so maybe one year you’re teaching eighth grade, and the next year you have to teach eighth and seventh grade. Larger caseloads for our special education teachers is also a big concern: they’re adding more and more students every year.
NICOLE BARRAZA

Generally, in education, there’s always a million things to do, and we have little prep time. That’s another thing we didn’t mention: our specialist time, which is our planning time, has been shortening.That workload is very time-consuming. And I don’t mean time-consuming in the constraints of my work hours — I mean outside of my work hours it’s a lot.

I’m trying to think of how to explain the demands of teaching in a sound bite. You’re on for seven hours a day with your students. Every decision in the classroom is for them. One way I’ve seen it explained is: you’re presenting a seven-hour meeting, and then after that you have to use your own time to plan for that, in addition to meetings and trainings and miscellaneous things that pop up.

That workload is very time-consuming. And I don’t mean time-consuming in the constraints of my work hours — I mean outside of my work hours it’s a lot.

Having those extra supports, even little things like having a teaching assistant, even for part of the day, makes a huge difference. Because they can help manage the classroom; they can help you run small groups. They can help a lot with social-emotional needs of the students that you, as the one adult in the room, can’t always get to, or that are challenging to get to.

I envision a better world for our teachers. In general, we need more support. And I am hopeful that this union for our school can be a step in the right direction to give teachers the support that they need.

CONTRIBUTORS

Nicole Barraza is a fourth-grade teacher at Citizens of the World Charter Silver Lake Elementary. She has been with Citizens of the World Charter for two years and has been teaching for seven years.

Marin Hodges is an eighth-grade math teacher at Citizens of the World Charter School Silver Lake. She has been with the organization for two years.

Sara Wexler is a member of UAW Local 2710 and a PhD student at Columbia University.

Breaking with labor, Teamster Leader O’Brien Accepts Trump’s Invitation to Speak at Republican Convention


SUNDAY 23 JUNE 2024, BY DAN LA BOTZ
In a shocking development, the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Sean O’Brien, has accepted an invitation from presidential candidate Donald J. Trump to speak at the Republican National Convention (RNC) July 15-18 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

His decision to speak at the convention constitutes a tacit endorsement of the far-right Republican billionaire candidate whose attitudes and policies are racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, and homophobic and whose party is anti-union. It represents a break with the rest of the U.S. labor movement as most unions have historically supported the Democratic Party and have endorsed President Joe Biden.

“Our GREAT convention will unify Americans and demonstrate to the nation’s working families they come first,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, announcing O’Brien’s acceptance. “When I am back in the White House, the hardworking Teamsters, and all working Americans, will once again have a country they can afford to live in and be respected around the world.”

O’Brien has given a big boost to Trump. The Teamster leader said he would also like to spear at the Democratic Party convention in August, but having attended the Republican’s he may not be welcome.

The Teamsters, with 1.5 million members, is the country’s fourth largest union and the biggest private sector union. O’Brien had just announced that the small Amazon Labor Union would affiliate with the Teamsters, and he promised that the Teamster would organize the company’s 1,525,000 workers. A development that raised workers’ hope.

O’Brien’s agreement to speak was a political shock, it was not a surprise. In early January O’Brien went to have dinner with Trump at the former president’s mansion at Mar-a-Lago, Florida. At that time, John Palmer, the Teamsters international vice president at-large denounced Trump as “a known union buster, scab, and insurrectionist.” Later that month the Teamsters broke with decades of loyalty to the Democrats and gave a $45,000 donation to the RNC and also has given money to Republican candidates.

Trump’s announcement that O’Brien would speak at the Republican Convention coincided with announcements that Timothy Mellon, heir of the $1.4 billion Mellon family fortune, had given $50 million to a political action committee supporting Trump. And at the same time Trump, in an appeal to his Evangelical and white Christian nationalist supporters, came out in favor of a new Louisiana state law that requires the Ten Commandments be posted in every classroom. And most important in terms of timing, the announcement comes on the eve of the U.S. presidential debates and will be a talking point for Trump who will use O’Brien’s support as proof that he is the candidate of working people. O’Brien’s implicit endorsement of Trump is a betrayal of the labor movement’s value of democracy, equality, and justice.

No doubt O’Brien’s alignment with Trump will be most disappointing to the young leftist labor activists who supported him. Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) invited O’Brien to speak at its convention and endorsed him for president of the Teamsters while the progressive labor education center Labor Notes also touted him. TDU and Labor Notes brought young union activists from the Democratic Socialist of America into both O’Brien’s campaign for Teamster president and into the Teamsters UPS contract campaign.

TDU’s leaders believed that after 45 years of organizing—all but five spent in the opposition— by allying with O’Brien, they were finally on the inside and could be more successful organizing the ranks. Maybe so. But at what cost?

23 June 2024

P.S.

If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.

UK
Mick Lynch Has Put Working-Class Politics Back on the Agenda
  JACOBIN
06.21.2024

British railworkers’ leader Mick Lynch came to prominence as part of the 2022 strike wave. Lynch’s popularity shows the appetite for unapologetic class politics, although trade unions still face major obstacles to converting that mood into power.


Mick Lynch at the SSE Arena, Belfast, June 15, 2024.
 (Brian Lawless / PA Images via Getty Images)

Review of Gregor Gall, Mick Lynch: The Making of a Working-Class Hero (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2024).


“I’m a working-class bloke leading a trade union dispute about jobs, pay and conditions of service.” These were the words that Mick Lynch, the general secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT), used to rebuke Good Morning Britain television show presenter Richard Madeley in June 2022.

It was one of several high-profile interviews that marked the beginning of Britain’s first national rail strike since 1989. Lynch’s calm and collected style when responding to Madeley’s accusation that he was a dangerous “Marxist,” along with his refusal to suffer fools gladly, made him an instant celebrity who seemed to accord with the sentiment of the moment.

He led a workforce that was at the apex of Britain’s growing strike wave. Lynch was the poster child for a year marked by the highest number of days lost to industrial action since the 1980s — a time when Margaret Thatcher was in power, many industries (including rail) were still nationalized, and levels of union membership and density were both significantly higher.

In contrast with the 1980s, this time around, Britain’s trade unions enjoyed a high level of popularity in public opinion polling. In the context of mounting inflation, they succeeded in popularizing the perspective that workers were not to blame for Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine or the spiraling energy prices that followed. Lynch’s sentiments appeared crucially moderate and reasonable in an era when old-school hysteria about trade union power seemed difficult to justify.

Another memorable moment from the early days of the national rail dispute took place during an interview with Sky News journalist Kay Burley. The veteran broadcaster insisted that she had memories of the bitter picket lines from the 1984–85 miners’ strike that had engulfed Britain’s coalfields in a defining, yearlong industrial conflict.

Burley meant to suggest that scenes of violent clashes between RMT members, strikebreaking workers, passengers attempting to enter stations, and the police might be about to unfold in towns and cities across the country. Lynch had only to point to the scene behind him to pour cold water on this sentiment: a small group of entirely peaceful picketers at a London station were out leafleting to passersby. He then exclaimed: “does it look like the miners’ strike?”

The National Rail Dispute

Lynch’s celebrity and the spectacle of the public rallying behind his members had both long faded by the time the RMT’s dual disputes with the network operator National Rail and the privatized train operating companies (TOCs) came to an end in the summer of 2023. There had been a long-running series of protracted days of strike action but only limited progress.Mick Lynch was the poster child for a year marked by the highest number of days lost to industrial action since the 1980s.

Lynch himself candidly told a BBC documentary that the agreement was “not a great deal” but insisted nevertheless that it was the best his members could hope for in the circumstances. Both rail disputes ended with below-inflation pay raises along with relatively limited no-redundancy clauses that only seemed to have postponed the worst effects of rail “modernization” for a few years.

The power of RMT members had been displayed during the strike, primarily through major disruptions to passenger services. However, the limits of that power — or more precisely, its limited ability to sway either the government or the privatized train operators — were also clearly displayed in the dispute’s outcome.

By mid-March 2023, around half of all train services in Britain were running during days of action against the TOCs. Unlike the RMT’s striking members, who were losing a day’s pay for each day of strike action, the TOCs were being compensated under the terms of their contracts to run the services.

As the strike wore on, Lynch and his union attempted to maintain public support and obtain a resolution by underlining the fact that Britain’s privatized rail system — or in practice England’s, due to public ownership of rail transport in Scotland and Wales — created a perverse incentive for employer hostility.

The government was subsidizing the TOCs for losses incurred during industrial action. It was keen to use RMT members as pawns in a political game of selectively awarding higher pay raises. Some workers, such as National Health Service staff, were rewarded with higher pay raises than others, like the supposedly undeserving and “greedy” militant rail workers.

Labor Movement Biographer

Gregor Gall’s new book, Mick Lynch: The Making of a Working-Class Hero, begins from the seemingly jarring gap between the bang of summer 2022 and the whimper with which the rail dispute ended. The biography attempts to account for these circumstances and Lynch’s central role in them. It demonstrates an attentiveness to the detail of trade union structures and the relationships between government, private business, and organized workers that determine industrial relations on Britain’s railways.Gregor Gall’s new book begins from the seemingly jarring gap between the bang of summer 2022 and the whimper with which the rail dispute ended.

Gall is a visiting professor at the University of Glasgow and the University of Leeds. He was formerly professor of industrial relations at the University of Bradford. Gall is a highly experienced commentator on British trade unionism and labor movement politics. He regularly writes newspaper and magazine columns and has published academic research on topics including factory occupations, financial services staff, and postal workers.

In addition, Gall is also a serial biographer. His second-to-last book was a biography of Joe Strummer, the Clash’s frontman and an influential purveyor of left-wing cultural politics in Britain during the 1970s and ’80s. More directly anticipating his Lynch book, Gall has also published biographies of contemporary socialists and trade unionists.

The latter works include a study of Tommy Sheridan, the Scottish Socialist Party leader. Sheridan briefly led a party that obtained significant electoral success on the back of opposing the Iraq War before succumbing to internal divisions, with Sheridan’s own actions and personality playing a central role.

Gall also wrote a biography of Bob Crow, who served as the RMT’s general secretary from 2001 until his untimely death in 2014. This work serves as an important background and foil for Gall’s assessment of Lynch.

Crow was Britain’s best-known trade unionist in his time as leader of the RMT. He headed a union that defied the trend in terms of recruiting members and securing agreements that improved pay and conditions under the leadership of an unabashed socialist.

The Making of Mick Lynch

One of the valuable contributions the book makes is an explanation of where Mick Lynch comes from, in terms of his upbringing, sociological background, and political perspectives. Gall has had to work around the fact that Lynch himself and the RMT did not cooperate with his research. This has primarily left Gall reliant on published material as well as comments from some of Lynch’s comrades who were willing to speak to him.One of the valuable contributions the book makes is an explanation of where Mick Lynch comes from, in terms of his upbringing, sociological background, and political perspectives.

Gall has nevertheless assembled a helpful picture of Lynch’s background, in no small part relying on the trade union leader’s own description of his family circumstances. Lynch was born to two Irish parents in 1962 and grew up in Paddington in West London.

His father was an engineering worker and a committed trade unionist who served as a shop steward. His mother worked as a domestic servant, a shopworker, and a cleaner. Lynch has described growing up in slum housing around coal fires, tin baths, and an outside toilet before the family moved to the much-improved conditions provided by council housing at the Warwick Estate.

As a second-generation Irish immigrant, Lynch was surrounded by other people from similar backgrounds, but there was also a distinctively cosmopolitan tone to his London Catholic environment that included others with Italian, Polish, and Caribbean heritage. Lynch’s father died shortly before he began work after completing his mandatory period of schooling and started an electrician apprenticeship.

Lynch’s parents made a lasting impression on him. They were strongly in support of trade unionism, the Labour Party, and what Lynch calls the “small ‘s’ socialism” that came from a world shaped by hard manual jobs, going to the pub on a Saturday, and attending Catholic mass on a Sunday.

Lynch joined the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union (EETPU) as a teenage apprentice in the late 1970s. By this time, the union was solidly under the control of a virulently anti-communist right-wing faction. He nevertheless had positive memories of union power, including systems of card inspection being organized by union activists and officials at building sites.

Around a decade later, Lynch was involved in leading a breakaway union, the Electrical and Plumbing Industries Union (EIPU), in 1988. The EIPU was formed after the EETPU was expelled from the Trades Union Congress (TUC) for signing single-union deals at companies where it had few members.

After several years of stagnation and failure, the EIPU was eventually absorbed into the larger Transport and General Workers’ Union (TGWU). Lynch concluded “it was probably a mistake” to try and form a breakaway union. This was an important lesson for Lynch, who has since prioritized pursuing politics through official labor-movement channels.
Trade Union Leader

After finding himself blacklisted by employers for his union activities, Lynch pursued a history degree that consolidated his commitment to reading and learning. One memorable moment during Lynch’s period of television celebrity involved him explaining the virtues of his hero, the Irish socialist and revolutionary James Connolly, to the British public.After finding himself blacklisted by employers for his union activities, Lynch pursued a history degree that consolidated his commitment to reading and learning.

Lynch profiled Connolly primarily as a trade union organizer who had succeeded in organizing often bitterly divided Protestant and Catholic workers in Belfast around their shared economic interests. This is another indicator of the variety of class politics that shapes his worldview.

The path to Lynch’s rise in the RMT goes via the Channel Tunnel that runs between the south coast of England and northern France. After Lynch began working for Eurostar, the company that runs Britain’s continental rail services, he once again became embroiled in union activism.

In 2004, Lynch organized a successful strike ballot that served as leverage in pay negotiations. He also helped to organize Eurostar’s international currency exchange staff and supported Chubb Security staff in their battle for recognition.

It was through his role as a Eurostar branch official that Lynch found himself elected as a delegate to national annual general meetings and then standing for election for the RMT’s National Executive Committee. Members of the committee serve three-year terms as paid officials of the union but are not allowed to run for consecutive terms. Lynch failed when he stood in 2005 but was successful in 2008.

Detailed discussions about Lynch’s orientations within the union sustain Gall’s analysis of his industrial politics. Gall profiles Lynch as a pragmatist who prioritizes improving the pay and conditions of RMT members. Lynch was aligned with Mick Cash, his immediate predecessor as general secretary, and opposed the “far-left” activists associated with the Campaign for a Fighting Democratic Union.

Lynch stood for the position of general secretary in 2021 and won overwhelmingly on the slogan of “experience you can trust.” He has also consistently opposed the political strategy of backing small far-left electoral vehicles that Bob Crow favored.

Lynch backed a proposal for the RMT to reaffiliate to the Labour Party in 2018, under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, but lost the internal vote. He has since personally advocated a vote for Labour under Keir Starmer, but also expressed discontent over Labour’s failure to support strike action by his members or offer a more radical program for economic change.

A Laborist Working-Class Hero?

Gall deploys the conceptualization of the working-class hero to assess Lynch, especially in relation to his performance as a union leader in 2022 and 2023.

The subtitle of Gall’s book, “The Making of a Working-Class Hero,” is no mere afterthought. Gall deploys the conceptualization of the working-class hero to assess Lynch, especially in relation to his performance as a union leader in 2022 and 2023.

This is a problematic approach to a biography that at times seems to take on an unhelpfully esoteric quality. For instance, when citing Lynch’s hobbies and interests, Gall makes the following remark:


While Lynch is a devout football fan, which is still a mass working-class pastime and pursuit, he is also well read and an avid film buff, marking him out as different from the average working-class person.

I’m not convinced that enjoying cinema is so unusual for a man of Lynch’s class and age. Moreover, trade union leaders have often been men from working-class backgrounds who have sought and obtained the benefits of education, even in circumstances when that has gone against the grain of most of the people around them.

A perhaps greater and less incidental problem, however, is the fact that Lynch himself has never sought to be assessed on whether or not he was a working-class hero. Gall cites press and social-media usage of the term to support his own assessment, which certainly does have some value in understanding why Lynch was so popular in the summer of 2022 amid the rising public support for trade unionism.

However, there is a central contradiction that Gall is trying to explore. Why has this broadly favorable shift in public opinion toward unions coexisted with declining union density and power, with the overall number of union members in Britain falling by two hundred thousand in the year of strikes over 2022 and 2023?

There is a subtext in Gall’s book suggesting that Lynch might have pursued different strategic options, resulting in different and more successful outcomes, if he had possessed a different political and industrial outlook.

Gall notes, for instance, that Lynch distanced himself from a “general strike” policy that the RMT had endorsed in 2022, sidestepping the question as a matter for the TUC. Despite Lynch’s prominent support for the Enough Is Enough campaign, which for a time organized large rallies across British cities in the second half of 2022, the political energy generated by industrial action petered out even before the disputes themselves.

Yet it’s hard to find much reason for surprise in Lynch’s orientation. Lynch pursued industrial disputes as actions mounted by and for railworkers. The fact that he succeeded in popularizing a political case behind workers’ interests in explicit class terms — announcing that “the working class is back” — is far more remarkable than the fact these strikes didn’t lead to a larger political resurgence.

A Broader Base

Lynch’s appeal demonstrates that there remains an audience for an economically defined form of working-class politics with roots in workplace organization. But the experience of the last few years also shows that any such politics will have to build from a larger base than one particular union that is overwhelmingly tied to a strategically placed but still relatively small section of Britain’s workforce.

To paraphrase Karl Marx, Mick Lynch has made history, but he hasn’t done so in circumstances of his own choosing. The evidence presented by Gall demonstrates that the traditions of laborism — particularly when it comes to the separation between “industrial” and “political” realms — remain alive and well in Britain’s union movement.

Trade union leaders broadly operate within the industrial sphere and orientate toward bargaining with employers to achieve the best conditions that they can. The political sphere is usually a second-order concern for them. This is especially true for unions like the RMT that are so tied to a particular sector or occupational grouping.

Gall claims that a major distinction between Crow and Lynch concerns the fact the latter has shown “no room for revolution” whereas the former did. But this seems to be a relatively trivial distinction, since both leaders have been primarily defined by their role as industrially minded union leaders who have sought to improve the pay and conditions of their members through stronger union organization and collective bargaining.

CONTRIBUTOR
Ewan Gibbs teaches history at the University of Glasgow.
Boeing Has Allies in the Biden Justice Department

Boeing is facing scrutiny from the Justice Department that could lead to criminal charges. But a department official involved in the case formerly consulted on behalf of the company — just one among many such officials with close corporate connections.



Families of victims of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302, a Boeing 737 Max 8 that crashed in 2019, display photos of their loved ones as Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun testifies before a subcommittee of the Senate Energy and National Resources Committee, Washington, DC, June 18, 2024. (Allison Bailey / Middle East Images / AFP via Getty Images)

JACOBIN
06.25.2024

Aformer Boeing consultant is among the Justice Department officials who will soon determine whether the aviation behemoth will face criminal charges in the wake of two fatal plane crashes and ongoing safety problems, according to federal disclosures.

Additionally, Boeing’s top lobbyist — Ziad Ojakli, a former aide to President George W. Bush — has been at events with President Joe Biden at the White House at least five times since 2021, according to White House visitor log disclosures reviewed by us. Boeing’s CEO, David Calhoun, has attended events with Biden three times since 2022.

Though federal prosecutors have reportedly recommended criminal charges against the company, it is unclear whether those recommendations will be followed by the Biden administration, which has allowed corporate prosecutions to remain near record lows. Biden officials have handed out more than sixty deferred- or non-prosecution agreements in corporate cases, and the amount of money recovered in such cases has dramatically plummeted.

On Monday, Reuters reported that lower-level Justice Department prosecutors overseeing a 2021 criminal case against Boeing had recommended criminal charges against the company to top agency officials. The case was revived last month in the wake of recent high-profile safety scandals at the company.

But many of the top officials who are now deliberating on whether to charge Boeing come from some of the nation’s largest corporate law and consulting firms — and one previously worked on the company’s behalf.

Lisa Monaco, the deputy attorney general and second-in-command at the agency, had Boeing as a client during her time at WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm cofounded by Secretary of State Antony Blinken. In January 2021 as she was being appointed to her current position, Monaco reported owning between $1,001 and $15,000 of Boeing stock, according to financial disclosure forms; she reported the same in 2022. Monaco did not report Boeing stock holdings in her 2023 disclosure forms.

Other key players at the center of the Boeing deal are Nicole Argentieri, the acting chief of the Justice Department’s criminal division, and Glenn Leon, chief of the Justice Department’s criminal fraud section. Both have done time in the corporate world — and have a record of handing down agreements that are favorable to companies accused of misconduct like Boeing.

In the year since Argentieri took charge, the agency has offered industry-friendly deferred prosecution agreements and nonprosecution agreements — the same kind of deal that has allowed Boeing to avoid a trial on fraud charges — in nearly all major corporate fraud cases.

In five out of seven major fraud cases resolved over the last year, and in all cases that involved companies based in the United States, deferred prosecution agreements were offered, according to records of enforcement actions.

In recent years, the Department of Justice has prosecuted fewer corporations than ever, reaching a twenty-five-year low of cases against companies in 2021 and only moderately increasing since.In recent years, the Department of Justice has prosecuted fewer corporations than ever.

Instead, the department has encouraged companies to self-police by expanding their own corporate compliance programs, through which companies ensure they are abiding by applicable laws and regulations. If corporations have this self-policing system in place, they’re offered leniency in potential enforcement actions, Monaco and a former assistant attorney general said in two separate speeches on the matter.

Some advocates blame the revolving door between the high-paying corporate world and enforcement jobs at the Justice Department for the reluctance to go after companies like Boeing.

“As long as these top people at these enforcement agencies are then able to go into the private sector and get a salary that is three or five or ten times their government salary, there’s going to be a revolving door,” said Peter Reilly, a professor at Texas A&M University School of Law who is part of the legal team representing families of victims of the 2018 and 2019 Boeing crashes.

As a result, he said, decisions in major corporate cases will inevitably “be influenced by people looking out for what they want to do after their government job.”

Monaco is a prime example of this. She currently oversees national security matters and criminal prosecutions by the Justice Department, among other key roles. Monaco previously represented companies including Apple, ExxonMobil, and Kia Motors at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, which is reportedly one of the country’s highest-paying law firms.

Dozens of former O’Melveny & Myers employees have gone on to serve in high-level roles — such as secretaries of state and transportation, national security advisor, White House counsel, and other positions — in Democratic and Republican administrations, the law firm brags on its website.

While Argentieri has prosecutorial bona fides — spending a decade as a mob prosecutor in New York’s federal courts — she, too, has done stints in the lucrative world of white-collar defense. From 2018 to 2022, she was a partner at O’Melveny & Myers, during which time she was said to have “amassed a growing list of high-powered clients,” including billionaire private equity investor and Trump ally Tom Barrack.

“There are all of these people coming from Big Law, and at Big Law, they were defending these giant corporations,” said Andrea Beaty, research director at the Revolving Door Project, an organization that scrutinizes executive branch appointees. “And now they’re expected to be on the other side of the table.”The revolving door also works the other way around — many attorneys depart for private sector jobs after a stint in government.

Monaco’s relationship with Boeing, Beaty said, “speaks to the nonadversarial relationship” between these companies and the country’s top law enforcement officials.

And, as Beaty noted, the revolving door also works the other way around — many attorneys depart for private sector jobs after a stint in government. One lead prosecutor on the Boeing case in 2021 has since departed her work as US attorney for a job with Kirkland & Ellis, a white-collar defense firm that Boeing is now relying on for advice on its legal troubles. Boeing’s current chief legal officer, Brett Gerry, is also a Justice Department alum — and raked in $6.2 million from the company in 2022.

The Department of Justice did not return our request for comment.
Boeing Under Fire

Boeing’s controversial deferred prosecution agreement in 2021 came after two Boeing 737 Max planes crashed in 2018 and 2019, killing 346 passengers. The deal between the aerospace company and the Justice Department, which allowed Boeing and its senior executives to avoid criminal prosecution on fraud charges, was shrouded in secrecy and came in the Trump administration’s final days as the former president was grabbing headlines for his role in the Capitol insurrection.

At the time, victims’ family members alleged that the prosecutors working under Trump broke the law when they failed to consult with family members before the deal was finalized.

After a Boeing plane suffered a midflight blowout at ten thousand feet over Portland this January, exposing ongoing issues with Boeing’s planes, pressure to hold the company accountable for its shoddy manufacturing intensified. Experts told us that the 2021 immunity deal, which expired just days after the near catastrophe, could come under question as reports of fraud at Boeing and its subcontractors surfaced in the wake of the incident.

Specifically, whistleblowers at Spirit AeroSystems, a Boeing subcontractor, allegedly told company officials about an “excessive amount of defects” in the manufacturing process in the months leading up to the midflight blowout, according to federal documents revealed by us.


In May, federal prosecutors notified Boeing that they believed the company had violated the terms of the immunity deal — the first step to reviving the criminal fraud case from 2021. Now, the Justice Department has until July 7 to actually bring those charges, as some prosecutors have reportedly recommended.

The families of victims are demanding that the Justice Department take action.

In an April letter sent to criminal fraud section chief Leon, a lawyer representing victims’ families said federal prosecutors laid out five key areas where they believed Boeing violated the deferred prosecution agreement. The letter also highlighted how the families have been kept in the dark regarding false statements by the Trump-run Justice Department, how the prosecution agreement was reached, and why the case was filed in a Texas court known to issue corporate-friendly rulings, among other issues.The families of victims are demanding that the Justice Department take action.

“Many observers have wondered why the Justice Department strangely chose to file its conspiracy charge against Boeing in the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas,” the letter states. “Seattle, Chicago, and [Washington] D.C. all seem much more obvious choices — not to mention more potentially convenient locations for the victims’ families.”

Last week, families sent another letter addressed to Leon and Argentieri demanding that the agency pursue criminal charges against Boeing. They also are seeking a $24.8 billion fine against the company over the 2018 and 2019 crashes.

“These are some of the strongest people I’ve ever met in my life, and all they want is justice for their loved ones and safety for the flying public,” said Reilly, the professor and advocate for the victims’ families. “And they will continue to work at this until they get it.”

Yet it’s unclear where the Justice Department will ultimately land.

Monday’s report from Reuters, which suggested that some prosecutors on the case had asked for charges, was preceded by a New York Times report that the Justice Department is, instead, leaning toward an independent monitor.

“If the prosecutors want to prosecute, who are the high officials within [the Justice Department] serving as a block to that happening?” Reilly said of the rumors circling around the deliberations.

Though he said he did not know the answer to that question, he guessed that the Justice Department’s political appointees — the same ones who previously consulted for Boeing and worked for major corporate law firms — were the most likely roadblock.
“Without Fear of Retaliation”

The Boeing deferred prosecution agreement was signed in January 2021 under the Trump administration — around the time when the use of these immunity deals was particularly popular in cases of corporate misdeeds.

Deferred prosecution agreements originated as a tool for prosecutors to grant a reprieve to low-level offenders for petty crimes. But over the last two decades, they have become a tool for big corporations to avoid facing a trial — or a guilty plea — in some of the country’s biggest corporate misconduct cases.Over the last two decades, deferred prosecution agreements have become a tool for big corporations to avoid facing a trial — or a guilty plea — in some of the country’s biggest corporate misconduct cases.

The use of such agreements reached a high in 2015 and 2016, and has fallen slightly in recent years. But Biden’s Justice Department continues to deploy them, despite criticism that they are essentially a free pass for companies. Unlike plea deals, judges don’t review deferred prosecution agreements, which allow the agreements to be far more lenient.

Aside from the Justice Department’s robust antitrust division, which has been revitalized under the Biden administration, corporate prosecutions under the leadership of Monaco and Attorney General Merrick Garland have been sluggish.

In the fall, Argentieri defended the criminal division’s use of deferred prosecution agreements, telling lawmakers at a Senate hearing that the agreements “are not a pass,” under bipartisan pressure to ramp up enforcement.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome in the Boeing case, the fact that the Justice Department challenged the immunity deal at all was a sign of how much pressure the case had brought on prosecutors, said Beaty, the researcher at the Revolving Door Project.

“If the DOJ [Department of Justice] were to hold Boeing accountable, obviously that would be extremely encouraging,” said Beaty. “But this would be unusual in the overall trend of how they handle these types of cases.”

In March 2023, the Justice Department’s Criminal Division issued a memo on corporate compliance programs, stating that prosecutors should consider “the adequacy and effectiveness of the corporation’s compliance program at the time of the offense, as well as at the time of a charging decision.”

“Prosecutors should assess whether the company’s complaint-handling process includes proactive measures to create a workplace atmosphere without fear of retaliation, appropriate processes for the submission of complaints, and processes to protect whistleblowers,” the memo states. “The company’s top leaders — the board of directors and executives — set the tone for the rest of the company.”

This type of workplace atmosphere has clearly not been set at Boeing: during a Senate hearing on June 18, Boeing CEO David Calhoun admitted that whistleblowers were retaliated against.

“We have taken action on people who have retaliated,” Calhoun told senators during the hearing.

Despite her previous clientele, Monaco has claimed in the past that she has “no tolerance” for corporate misconduct as a prosecutor. “We will hold those that break the law accountable,” she said in one 2021 speech.

In the case of Boeing, Monaco and her colleagues have a matter of days left to make their decision.

You can subscribe to David Sirota’s investigative journalism project, the Lever, here.

CONTRIBUTORS

Katya Schwenk is a journalist based in Phoenix, Arizona.

Freddy Brewster is a freelance reporter and has been published in the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, CalMatters, the Lost Coast Outpost, and other outlets across California.

Helen Santoro is a journalist based in Colorado.