'A Tangible Way to Fight for the World I Want to Live In': Water Protector Arrested After Blockading Line 3 Pipe Yard

"Profits for a few are being privileged over the well-being of all communities near and far, present and future."

by Kenny Stancil, staff writer
Published on Monday, December 28, 2020
by Common Dreams

Before climbing a tripod in front of a tar sands pipe yard, Emma Harrison said, "I'm part of the Line 3 resistance movement because this pipeline embodies everything I believe is wrong with the world." (Photo: Honor the Earth/Twitter)

Water protector Emma Harrison was arrested Monday in Backus, Minnesota after successfully obstructing construction on Enbridge Energy's Line 3 pipeline project for several hours by ascending a tripod in front of a tar sands pipe yard owned by the Canadian company.

"I'm part of the Line 3 resistance movement because this pipeline embodies everything I believe is wrong with the world," Harrison said before she engaged in civil disobedience.

TODAY Water Protectors are at Backus, MN Line 3 pipe yard to block construction

via @GiniwCollective #StopLine3 @HonorTheEarth https://t.co/j15MEZgjze— MN350 (@MN_350) December 28, 2020

As Common Dreams has reported, climate justice and Indigenous rights advocates are opposed to the expansion of the Line 3 pipeline, which would send 760,000 barrels of crude oil every day through northern Minnesota, from Hardisty, Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin—traversing more than 800 wetland habitats, violating Ojubwe treaty rights, and putting current and future generations at risk of polluted water and a despoiled environment.

Since Enbridge began working on the pipeline in late November despite pending lawsuits, opponents have attempted to halt construction through a series of direct actions, including Monday's blockade. Democratic Gov. Tim Walz has responded "with complete silence," Line 3 resistance activists said in a statement.

When an Enbridge employee was killed in a worksite accident less than two weeks ago, the company resumed work after pausing for only a few hours.

BREAKING: Water Protector Arrested After Blockading Enbridge Line 3 Pipe-yard until 2pm.

This action is just 9 days after an Enbridge worker was killed at a Line 3 workyard, Enbridge has yet to comment on its unsafe practices. We’re standing up for your water, your health also. pic.twitter.com/pM8Lr09isq— giniw collective (@GiniwCollective) December 28, 2020

In a New York Times op-ed published Monday morning as people gathered to oppose the Line 3 pipeline, Louise Erdrich—a Minnesota-based novelist and poet as well as a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, a Native American tribe in North Dakota—called the project "a breathtaking betrayal" of tribal communities and the environment.

"This is not just another pipeline," Erdrich wrote. She continued:

It is a tar sands climate bomb; if completed, it will facilitate the production of crude oil for decades to come. Tar sands are among the most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet. The state's environmental impact assessment of the project found the pipeline's carbon output could be 193 million tons per year.

That's the equivalent of 50 coal-fired power plants or 38 million vehicles on our roads, according to Jim Doyle, a physicist at Macalester College who helped write a report from the climate action organization MN350 about the pipeline. He observed that the pipeline's greenhouse gas emissions are greater than the yearly output of the entire state.

If the pipeline is built, Minnesotans could turn off everything in the state, stop traveling, and still not come close to meeting the state's emission reduction goals. The impact assessment also states that the potential social cost of this pipeline is $287 billion over 30 years.

On top of the project's massive carbon footprint, "the extraction process for oil sands is deeply destructive," Erdrich noted. "The water used in processing is left in toxic holding ponds that cumulatively could fill 500,000 Olympic swimming pools."

Moreover, "if the pipelines were to leak, the sludgy mixture is almost impossible to clean up," she added. "The state's environmental impact statement notes that the pipeline will run through two watersheds that drain into Lake Superior. Any spill in the vicinity of the Great Lakes, which contain 84% of North America's available freshwater, is an existential threat to our water supply."

According to 350Kishwaukee, there were at least 1,000 spills by Enbridge pipelines between 1996 and 2004. Erdrich cited Rachel Havrelock, the founder of the University of Illinois Freshwater Lab, who said: "There is nowhere worse on earth to have an oil sands pipeline system than the Great Lakes region. It is, everything else aside, the world's worst planning."

Erdrich said that "with the Keystone XL Pipeline on hold and Line 5 challenged in Michigan, Enbridge is building as fast as it can to lock in pipeline infrastructure before regulatory agencies and governments institute rules on climate change... These Canada-based corporations are perpetrating a vast ecological crime, and Minnesota is their accomplice."

Prior to her arrest, Harrison said that "profits for a few are being privileged over the well-being of all communities near and far, present and future." She called stopping Line 3 "a tangible way to fight for the world I want to live in."

Climate Cost of Organic Meat Is Just as High as That of Conventionally Grown Animals: Study

"The prices are lying," said one of the study's researchers. "Climate costs are rising and we are all paying these costs." 

by Brett Wilkins, staff writer
Published on Wednesday, December 23, 2020
by Common Dreams


A newly published study concluded that the climate cost of organically produced animal products is just as high as that of their conventional counterparts.

 (Photo: Farm Sanctuary/Flickr/cc)

Advocates for eco-friendly, plant-based diets hailed a study published last week that revealed the climate cost of organic meat production is as high as that of conventionally produced animal products.

"We expected organic farming to score better for animal-based products but, for greenhouse gas emissions, it actually doesn't make much difference."
—Maximilian Pieper, Technical University of Munich

The study, published on December 15 in Nature Communication and reported Wednesday in The Guardian, used the German government's climate damage cost baseline of $219 per tonne of CO2 and determined that in order to cover climate costs, the farm-direct price of beef must rise by $7.31 per kilogram, while the per kilo price of chicken must increase by $3.66. The price of conventionally raised meat would have to rise by 40% in stores, while organic meat would need to be about 25% more expensive. Conventional milk would be one-third higher, while the price of organic milk would rise by 20%.

The researchers analyzed animal agriculture in Germany and concluded that the climate costs of organic beef and lamb are similar to that of their conventionally produced counterparts. And while they found that organic pork has a slightly lower climate cost than conventional pig meat, for organic chicken it was somewhat higher.

The cost of plant-based foods, on the other hand, would remain nearly the same.

'The cost of the climate damage caused by organic meat production is just as high as that of conventionally farmed meat, according to research.' There's never been a better time to try a plant-based diet, join us this Veganuary https://t.co/wdXB6xsbj1https://t.co/X68saquozf
— Veganuary (@veganuary) December 23, 2020

"We expected organic farming to score better for animal-based products but, for greenhouse gas emissions, it actually doesn't make much difference," Maximilian Pieper of the Technical University of Munich, who led the study, told The Guardian. "But in certain other aspects, organic is certainly better than conventional farming."

University of Greifswald researcher Amelie Michalke, who also participated in the study, said that "the prices are lying."

"Climate costs are rising and we are all paying these costs," she said.

While animals emit greenhouse gases in their excrement—and in the case of cows and sheep, through belching and farting—the grain fed to conventionally raised livestock can also contribute to emissions, especially if it is grown on land which has been deforested in places like South America's Amazon rainforest.

Animals raised organically are often grass-fed. But they also grow at a slower rate and spend more time expelling greenhouse gases before they are slaughtered.

"The climate damage costs for meat are especially startling if you compare them to the other categories. The price increases required are... 68 times higher than for plant-based products."
—Pieper

All animals also need water to live, and separate research has shown that the global average water footprint—the total amount of water needed—to produce a pound of beef is nearly 1,800 gallons. For a pound of pork, it's 576 gallons. In stark contrast, a pound of soybeans needs only 216 gallons of water; for corn, just 108 gallons.

The new study's researchers said the results show a need for government policies that reflect the true cost of eating animals, including a meat tax. Revenues from such corrective measures could be used to help farmers adopt more eco-friendly practices, and to provide relief to poor families and people affected by the climate crisis.

However, instead of encouraging Americans to consume less meat, the U.S. government subsidizes animal agriculture by as much as $38 billion annually. Shoppers pay artificially low prices for animal products at the supermarket checkout counter, while their tax dollars fund an industry whose retail sales approach $250 billion per year.

As David Simon notes in his 2013 book Meatonomics, for every $1 of product sold by the animal agriculture industry, taxpayers pay $2 in hidden costs, and a $4 McDonald's Big Mac really costs society $11.

If meat cost its actual price none of you leftist would be saying is classist to be vegan.
Its already cheaper to be vegan but imagine how much cheaper it would be if meat included its cost to society and climate in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
— Andrew Velez (@AndrewMVelez) December 16, 2020

"The climate damage costs for meat are especially startling if you compare them to the other categories," Pieper told The Guardian. "The price increases required are 10 times higher than for dairy products and 68 times higher than for plant-based products."

"The big difference is the simple effect that when you have a field of plants and you eat them directly, then that's the end of the [emissions], basically," he added. "But for beef, for example, you need 42kg of feed to just produce one kg of beef. This huge inefficiency explains the gap."

'If You Own the Seeds You Own the Food System': Campaigners Demand Public Ownership to Counter Big Ag Privatization

"Empty shelves during the pandemic made clear, allowing huge corporations to 'own' seeds is a very bad idea!"

by Kenny Stancil, staff writer
Published on Monday, December 28, 2020
by Common Dreams

Sarah Gattiker stores the 24,200th species of seed in the vault at Kew's Millennium Seed Bank, which now holds 10% of the world's wild plant species, on October 15, 2009 in Sussex, England. (Photo: Oli Scarff/Getty Images)

A growing number of people around the world are calling for the public ownership of seeds, which they say is essential for a more democratic and ecologically sound food system, as the coronavirus-driven spike in empty supermarket shelves and the continued loss of biodiversity this year sparked a rise in the popularity of saving and swapping seeds and shed more light on the negative consequences of allowing a handful of agrochemical corporations to dominate the global seed trade.

"Four companies have gained oligopolistic control over more than two-thirds of commercial seed and pesticide sales, while decimating the innovative contribution of public sector researchers and threatening the 12,000-year-old right of peasants to breed, save, and exchange their seeds."
—Pat Mooney, ETC Group

In the United Kingdom, the seed saving movement had been "quietly growing" for awhile, but "from March onwards, when the pandemic hit the U.K., seed producers and seed banks across the country were overwhelmed with demand," with multiple organizations experiencing a "sharp surge in orders, 600% in some cases," Alexandra Genova reported Monday in The Guardian.

"People crave connection," David Price, managing director of the Seed Cooperative, told The Guardian. "They want connection with other people and connection with the planet, and growing and saving seed is a way of getting both."

Genova noted that while "many British consumers feel disconnected from the processes of food production... seed saving allows everyone to be involved in the food system." Moreover, advocates say seed saving can contribute to reversing the dramatic decline in the availability of plant varieties that are "richly diverse, well adapted to the soil and local climate, and more resilient to climate change."

The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has estimated that since the beginning of the 20th century, roughly 75% of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops and 93% of unique seed varieties have disappeared. This biodiversity loss has been attributed to industrialized agriculture and what Genova called "the big boom in agrochemicals."

As the FAO has explained, the increasingly commercialized nature of plant breeding has permitted transnational seed and agrochemical corporations—which enjoy so-called plant breeders' rights that give "patent-like protection to breeders with limited monopoly rights over the production, marketing, and sale of their varieties"—to privatize access to genetic resources taken from countries in the global south.



Seed saving movement calls for seeds to be publicly owned. Empty shelves during the pandemic made clear, allowing huge corporations to "own" seeds is a very bad idea! Power to the People, not corporations. https://t.co/b7v4sE4elx

— B.E.A.T. (@TheBEATNews) December 28, 2020

Scholar-activist Pat Mooney of the ETC Group coined the term "biopiracy" to describe how genetic material originally nurtured by impoverished farmers is turned into patented seeds that now generate huge profits primarily for BASF, Bayer/Monsanto, ChemChina-Syngenta, and Corteva Agriscience.

In a 2018 report (pdf) on industrial food chain concentration, Mooney explained that these "four companies have gained oligopolistic control over more than two-thirds of commercial seed and pesticide sales, while decimating the innovative contribution of public sector researchers and threatening the 12,000-year-old right of peasants to breed, save, and exchange their seeds."

"I want all local communities or regions to have their own seed bank so everyone knows exactly where to get free seed."
—Helene Schulze, Seed Sovereignty Program of the U.K. and Ireland

The blossoming of what researchers Karine Peschard and Shalini Randeria call "seed activism" is "largely in response to the intensification of corporate seed enclosures and to the loss of agrobiodiversity," Genova reported. "Many seed savers are motivated by this idea of dismantling the increasing privatization of seeds... by drawing attention to the negative impact of such high levels of concentration." She continued:

Less than 50 years ago, most of the world enjoyed food that came from entirely open-pollinated seed varieties, which could be saved for future crops. Much of the seed sold now by the large companies are, in contrast, GM or F1 hybrid seeds. These cannot be saved for use in following years because they are genetically unstable and are protected by seed and patent laws, meaning most farmers are tied to chains of dependency.

According to Helene Schulze, who works on the Seed Sovereignty Program of the U.K. and Ireland and co-directs the London Freedom Seedbank, "Covid made people really understand how our food system is dominated by a few large corporations, and this has put a focus on seed sovereignty," which Genova defined as "a grower's right to breed and exchange diverse, open source seeds, which can be saved and are not patented, genetically modified, or owned by one of the four agrochemical companies that control more than 60% of the global seed trade."

Campaigners at Open Source Seeds, the Campaign for Seed Sovereignty, and elsewhere are pushing for seeds to be brought back into public ownership, arguing that "something as universal as food crops should belong to everyone, not a small group of agrochemical companies."

"This land was made a treasury for everyone to share" Seeds should not be private property https://t.co/4l7G1yFNMK
— Global Justice Manchester (@GlobalJustManc) December 28, 2020

"If you own the seeds you own the food system," Schulze told The Guardian. "Access to open-pollinated seeds is the cornerstone of food citizenship because it creates non-market access to growing."

"I want all local communities or regions to have their own seed bank," she added, "so everyone knows exactly where to get free seed."
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Ro Khanna Applauds 19 House Democrats Who Joined Him in Voting No on 'Bloated' $740 Billion Military Budget

"They are changing the culture of endless war and calling for more investment instead in the American people."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer
Published on Tuesday, December 29, 2020
by Common Dreams

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is seen on the House steps of the Capitol during votes on Friday, December 4, 2020. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

Just 20 House Democrats opted to break with their party and their Republican counterparts late Monday to vote against overriding President Donald Trump's veto of the National Defense Authorization Act, a sprawling bill that greenlights over $740 billion in military spending for fiscal year 2021.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), one the few House Democrats who voted against overriding the president's NDAA veto, applauded his colleagues for having "the courage tonight to vote no on the bloated defense budget."

"We're spending money on the modernization of nuclear weapons. And we can't find money to get food in to people who need it?"
—Rep. Ro Khanna"They are changing the culture of endless war and calling for more investment instead in the American people," said Khanna.

The veto override ultimately succeeded in the House by a 322-87 margin and now heads to the Senate, where Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other members of the Democratic caucus are threatening to hold up the NDAA in an effort to force a vote on $2,000 direct payments.

Here are the 20 Democrats who voted against overriding Trump's NDAA veto: Reps. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), Suzanne Bonamici (Ore.), Yvette Clarke (N.Y.), Mark DeSaulnier (Calif.), Adriano Espaillat (N.Y.), Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), Jesús García (Ill.), Jimmy Gomez (Calif.), Jared Huffman (Calif.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Joe Kennedy (Mass.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Grace Meng (N.Y.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.).

Nearly 70 House Republicans also voted against the veto override, but more out of allegiance to the president than opposition to out-of-control military spending.

Trump vetoed the NDAA last week not because of the bloated military budget, but rather because he objected to the exclusion of a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and inclusion of a provision ordering the Pentagon to rename military installations named after Confederate generals.

In an interview on Democracy Now! ahead of Monday's vote, Khanna said that while Trump's reasons for opposing the NDAA don't align with progressive objections, "the bottom line is, $740 billion is way too much defense spending."

"We're spending money on the modernization of nuclear weapons. And we can't find money to get food in to people who need it?" Khanna said. "We can't find money to get more rental assistance for folks who are going to face evictions? We can't find money to get $2,000 into the pockets of Americans? The priorities are wrong, and so I'm not going to vote to override his veto."

ACLU Reminds Biden of 'Moral and Legal Imperative' to Reverse Trump's Unlawful Asylum Policy


The civil liberties group stressed the new administration must "restore the right to asylum and end the government's ongoing violations of law."

by
Brett Wilkins, staff writer
Published on
Tuesday, December 22, 2020
by
Common Dreams

A camp for asylum-seekers stands next to the international bridge to the United States on December 9, 2019 in Matamoros, Mexico. (Photo: John Moore/Getty Images)


The ACLU on Tuesday reminded President-elect Joe Biden of the "moral and legal imperative" to reverse President Donald Trump's dangerous and illegal asylum policies, following reports that nominees for Biden's Cabinet are already walking back a campaign promise to end them on "day one" of the new administration.

"This is a classic bait and switch. It perpetuates Trump's dehumanization of migrants and breaks a core campaign promise."
—Rep. Ilhan Omar

Common Dreams reported Tuesday that Biden domestic policy adviser Susan Rice and national security adviser-designate Jake Sullivan appeared to be tamping down progressive expectations buoyed by Biden's pledge to end Trump administration's Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), commonly known as the "Remain in Mexico" asylum policy.

Under Trump's policy—part of a "zero tolerance" immigration framework in which thousands of migrants have been imprisoned in concentration camps and thousands of children have been forcibly seized, possibly indefinitely, from their parents—more than 66,000 asylum-seekers have been unlawfully denied entry into the U.S. and have been forced to live in tent encampments on the Mexican side of the border without access to adequate medical care, shelter, or legal aid.

"Donald Trump has slammed the door shut in the face of families fleeing persecution and violence," Biden tweeted in January. "On day one, I will eliminate President Trump's decision to limit asylum and end the MPP program."

However, Rice told Spanish wire service EFE Monday that while Biden "is committed to honoring and restoring our asylum laws," he will "need time" to undo Trump's immigration policies.

"Processing capacity at the border is not like a light that you can just switch on and off," said Rice. "Migrants and asylum-seekers absolutely should not believe those in the region peddling the idea that the border will be suddenly be fully open to process everyone on day one" of the new administration.




This apparent backpedaling prompted the ACLU to issue a statement reminding the Biden team that "every day the Trump administration's anti-asylum policies remain in place, our country puts peoples' lives at risk."

"It is the Biden administration's moral and legal imperative to expeditiously roll back all these Trump era policies, in order to restore the right to asylum and end the government's ongoing violations of law," the statement said.

It continued:


The ACLU welcomes and supports the commitments the incoming administration has made to end Trump policies and bring fairness to the asylum system. Following through on those commitments requires that the new administration immediately begin to safely process people seeking protection, ensure that no person is subjected to unlawful policies—like forced return to Mexico—and repair the damage Trump wreaked with the high sense of urgency required when life and death is at stake.

Other progressives weren't so gentle. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) fired off a tweet accusing the incoming administration of "a classic bait and switch."

"It perpetuates Trump's dehumanization of migrants and breaks a core campaign promise," Omar wrote. "Democrats lose big when administrations won't fulfill their promise. I urge the Biden transition team to reconsider this position."

The Union Members Who Voted for Trump Have to Be Organized—Not Ignored

If the Left is to win pro­gres­sive poli­cies (and the next pres­i­den­tial elec­tion), it needs a mil­i­tant labor move­ment.

by

Mindy Isser

Published on

Tuesday, December 29, 2020

by

In These Times

A union member listens to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden stump

in New Alexandria, Pa., on September 30, 2020. (Photo: Roberto Schmidt/Afp via Getty Images)

Although Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump will be leav­ing the White House, pro­gres­sives must reck­on with the fact that 74 mil­lion peo­ple — almost a third of whom came from house­holds mak­ing under $50,000—vot­ed for him. It is alarm­ing that so many work­ing-class peo­ple would vote against their class inter­ests, but per­haps most alarm­ing of all are the union mem­bers who were drawn in by Trump­ism. Before the 2016 elec­tion, Demo­c­ra­t­ic pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates had long won union house­holds by com­fort­able dou­ble-dig­it mar­gins; but in 2016 and 2020, Trump erod­ed those mar­gins. If the Left is to win pro­gres­sive poli­cies (and the next pres­i­den­tial elec­tion), it needs a mil­i­tant labor move­ment. Unions, after all, are one of the only effec­tive work­ing-class insti­tu­tions in this coun­try that can engage work­ers to build pow­er on the job and in soci­ety at large. We must under­stand who these union Trump vot­ers are, why they vot­ed for Trump, and what can be done to win them back. 

Many on the Left have writ­ten off Trump sup­port­ers as a lost cause or unwor­thy of effort. This response is under­stand­able, par­tic­u­lar­ly for peo­ple of col­or and oth­ers direct­ly harmed by Trump poli­cies. And we should by no means court the vocal sub­set of Trump­ists who are vir­u­lent white supremacists. 

If the goal of reach­ing out to Trump vot­ers is to acti­vate their pro­gres­sive beliefs strong­ly enough to influ­ence their vot­ing behav­ior, then union Trump vot­ers should be a promis­ing place to start.

But most Amer­i­cans hold a con­fus­ing mix of polit­i­cal beliefs that will nev­er fit square­ly with­in the Demo­c­ra­t­ic and Repub­li­can par­ties. When the group Work­ing Amer­i­ca held in-depth con­ver­sa­tions with more than 2,300 work­ing-class vot­ers in so-called bat­tle­ground states in 2016 and 2017, it found that beliefs didn’t map to par­ty lines: Vot­ers believed in both expand­ing the coal indus­try and pro­tect­ing the envi­ron­ment; in both uni­ver­sal health­care and keep­ing out ​“free­load­ing” refugees; in both ban­ning abor­tion and low­er­ing health­care costs. A 2019 poll from the Kaiser Fam­i­ly Foun­da­tion and Cook Polit­i­cal Report found that, in bat­tle­ground states, 70% of respon­dents sup­port­ed a path­way to cit­i­zen­ship for undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants and yet 71% felt it was a bad idea not to detain peo­ple who crossed the bor­der with­out doc­u­men­ta­tion. Not every issue dri­ves vot­ing behav­ior: 70% of Amer­i­cans sup­port Medicare for All, and yet the pres­i­den­tial can­di­date cham­pi­oning the pol­i­cy (Sen. Bernie Sanders) came up short. 

If the goal of reach­ing out to Trump vot­ers is to acti­vate their pro­gres­sive beliefs strong­ly enough to influ­ence their vot­ing behav­ior, then union Trump vot­ers should be a promis­ing place to start. A good union nat­u­ral­ly ties the fate of the work­er to oth­ers, a pow­er­ful counter-nar­ra­tive to the rugged indi­vid­u­al­ism our soci­ety (and Trump) pro­motes. Union mem­bers are also (the­o­ret­i­cal­ly) trained and expe­ri­enced in fight­ing their boss­es. Being part of a strug­gle against a boss means reliance on fel­low work­ers, regard­less of race and gen­der and oth­er social divi­sions. Unions them­selves, of course, need to embark on a far-reach­ing pro­gram for mem­ber­ship to put these strug­gles in con­text — one that doesn’t shy away from tough ques­tions in fear of upset­ting a (ten­u­ous) sense of unity. 

Dis­cus­sions around immi­gra­tion and racism, for exam­ple, are chal­leng­ing in their own right but have become espe­cial­ly charged since Trump took office. Avoid­ing these top­ics may pre­serve a sense of uni­ty in the short term but dam­ages the long-term abil­i­ty of work­ers to forge sol­id bonds of sol­i­dar­i­ty and orga­nize to fight against racism and social pro­grams like Medicare for All. 

To under­stand how unions might reach the union Trump vot­er, we can look at how sim­i­lar efforts have suc­ceed­ed and failed — and get to know union Trump vot­ers themselves. 

The Trump Unionist

Tony Rei­tano, 49, works in main­te­nance at a Bridge­stone plant in Iowa. He is a mem­ber of the Unit­ed Steel­work­ers and vot­ed for Trump in 2016 and 2020. Rei­tano tells In These Times, ​“I liked what [Trump] said about trade deals in 2016; that was a big thing for me … bring­ing jobs back to Amer­i­ca.” He adds, ​“And this time around, [Trump] did, or tried to accom­plish, all of the things he said he was going to do … like back­ing away from the [Trans-Pacif­ic Part­ner­ship].” (The Unit­ed Steel­work­ers, which endorsed Biden in 2020 and Clin­ton in 2016, oppos­es the trade deal, on the grounds that jobs would be lost.)

Trump vot­ers often cite their con­cern with jobs and wages as the rea­son they vot­ed for him. While most vot­ers rank the econ­o­my as one of their most impor­tant issues, 84% of Trump vot­ers rat­ed the econ­o­my as ​“very impor­tant” in 2020, com­pared to Biden sup­port­ers’ 66%.

Lynne (who didn’t want her last name used for fear of social retal­i­a­tion), 62, is a retired teacher and union mem­ber in the sub­urbs of Philadel­phia. A reg­is­tered Inde­pen­dent, Lynne vot­ed for Oba­ma in 2008, moved by his mes­sage of hope and change. Like Rei­tano, she was drawn to Trump in 2016 by his eco­nom­ic promis­es — and vot­ed Trump again in 2020. ​“You can’t care about oth­er poli­cies if you’re wor­ried about los­ing your house or if your chil­dren don’t have food or if your heat may get turned off,” Lynne tells In These Times. ​“Hav­ing shel­ter and food is everyone’s num­ber one con­cern. And with Trump, we had the low­est unem­ploy­ment rate in this coun­try … for every­one, includ­ing Lati­nos and Blacks.”

Trump clear­ly under­stood that a strong eco­nom­ic mes­sage would be the key to vic­to­ry, boast­ing about the unem­ploy­ment rate on the 2020 cam­paign trail. But the Trump unem­ploy­ment rate only decreased slight­ly before the pan­dem­ic, and like­ly because of Oba­ma-era poli­cies. Mean­while, wage growth has stag­nat­ed or declined for the bot­tom 70% of work­ers since the 1970s and the Job Qual­i­ty Index (a proxy for the over­all health of the U.S. jobs mar­ket) fell sig­nif­i­cant­ly after 2006 and nev­er recovered.

"Democ­rats' lack of will­ing­ness to name the ene­my—run­away cor­po­rate pow­er—just left a huge vac­u­um for the Right to use race and immigration."

Amid this uncer­tain­ty, Trump par­layed eco­nom­ic con­cerns into his brand of racism to dri­ve white vot­ers. Of course, many Trump vot­ers do not con­sid­er Trump an ardent racist. For exam­ple, Ernie Jus­tice, 76, a retired coal min­er in Ken­tucky, tells In These Times that ​“there’s not a racist drop of blood in Don­ald Trump.” Like Lynne, Jus­tice also vot­ed for Oba­ma and lat­er Trump. Lynne, too, says she ​“doesn’t real­ly see the racism.” 

But Trump cer­tain­ly asso­ci­at­ed the decline in qual­i­ty of life expe­ri­enced by white work­ers with not only the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty, but immi­grants and oth­er peo­ple of col­or. George Goehl, direc­tor of the nation­al grass­roots orga­niz­ing net­work People’s Action, says ​“Democ­rats’ lack of will­ing­ness to name the ene­my — run­away cor­po­rate pow­er — just left a huge vac­u­um for the Right to use race and immigration.”

While Repub­li­cans authored the so-called right-to-work leg­is­la­tion that has under­mined union orga­niz­ing, Democ­rats are the pro­po­nents of the free trade agree­ments that have decreased wages and off-shored jobs. Decades of eco­nom­ic dev­as­ta­tion — includ­ing loss of good union jobs in the Rust Belt, fac­to­ries mov­ing abroad and stag­nant wages— opened a door for Trump to step through. Goehl says peo­ple have ​“clear­ly been punched in the gut tons of times by neolib­er­al­ism” — and Trump’s cam­paign cap­i­tal­ized on that by promis­ing to bring back man­u­fac­tur­ing jobs.

This land­scape is dif­fi­cult for both unions and the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty. While union lead­er­ship has thrown its weight behind Democ­rats in hopes of bet­ter orga­niz­ing ter­rain, estab­lish­ment Democ­rats are caught between unions and their party’s alle­giance to big busi­ness. And the Democ­rats have a his­to­ry of mak­ing labor promis­es they don’t keep. In 2008, Oba­ma ran on pass­ing the Employ­ee Free Choice Act, which would have made the process of union­iza­tion faster and eas­i­er — but didn’t cham­pi­on the bill once elect­ed. And unions, which are no match for lob­by­ing efforts by giant cor­po­ra­tions like Wal­mart or Home Depot, couldn’t win the law alone. Repeat­ed dis­ap­point­ments have led union mem­bers to lose faith in insti­tu­tions they once held dear.

That loss of faith played out in the 2016 and 2020 elec­tions. After unions spent record amounts on cam­paigns to defeat Trump, Hillary Clin­ton won union house­holds by only 8% in 2016 (to Obama’s 18% in 2012), a small enough mar­gin to cost her Penn­syl­va­nia, Michi­gan and Wis­con­sin (and the elec­tion). And after unions broke that 2016 record in 2020, Biden won union house­holds by 16% (and won those three states back), but Trump won union house­holds in Ohio by 12% (which Oba­ma had won by 23%). Unions can spend huge amounts of mon­ey and mobi­lize the votes of a (declin­ing) por­tion of their mem­bers, but to keep those mem­bers from slip­ping away, they’ll need to do much more.

A Bat­tle of Ideas

Each of the three Trump vot­ers who spoke with In These Times for this sto­ry men­tioned jobs and the econ­o­my as big issues, but all inde­pen­dent­ly shared con­cerns about open bor­ders, lat­er abor­tions, and the creep of social­ism and com­mu­nism. These issues are dis­cussed near­ly con­stant­ly on Fox News and by con­ser­v­a­tive radio per­son­al­i­ties like Rush Lim­baugh and Sean Han­ni­ty. And as trust of the media is at an almost all-time low, many Trump sup­port­ers only tune into media that reflects what they already believe — just as cen­trist and lib­er­al Democ­rats watch CNN or MSNBC. Nev­er mind that the U.S.-Mexico bor­der wall was start­ed under Pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton, lat­er abor­tions are exceed­ing­ly rare and most social­ist orga­niz­ing is about basic rights, like health­care and a liv­ing wage.

Unions need to cut through the right-wing fog of dis­in­for­ma­tion by offer­ing edu­ca­tion­al pro­grams of their own to explain the sys­temic prob­lems caus­ing the decline in work­ers’ con­di­tions.

The con­stant onslaught of hate­ful mes­sages from rightwing media and the war waged against the work­ing class by the rich has led U.S. work­ers into a fog of con­fu­sion with­out an ide­o­log­i­cal bea­con to help clar­i­fy and fight back. The unions that have sur­vived have become more insu­lar, increas­ing­ly focused on the imme­di­ate issues of their own mem­bers, tak­ing a con­ces­sion­ary approach that treats boss­es like coali­tion part­ners. If the Left and unions hope to make appeals to union Trump vot­ers (and oth­er sec­tions of the work­ing class), this strat­e­gy must change.

Unions need to cut through the right-wing fog of dis­in­for­ma­tion by offer­ing edu­ca­tion­al pro­grams of their own to explain the sys­temic prob­lems caus­ing the decline in work­ers’ con­di­tions. One mod­el, offered by People’s Action, has shown that talk­ing with Trump sup­port­ers about sys­temic issues can effec­tive­ly shift atti­tudes. Begin­ning in 2017, George Goehl and People’s Action embarked on a rur­al and small-town orga­niz­ing project, focused on ​“deep can­vass­ing,” to show white peo­ple how sys­temic racism is real and active­ly harm­ing them and their com­mu­ni­ties. (Some of these peo­ple are union mem­bers, though many are not.) While many (espe­cial­ly non­white) peo­ple on the Left find it dif­fi­cult to have con­ver­sa­tions with Trump sup­port­ers (fear­ing abuse or just afraid of wast­ed ener­gy), Goehl sees the talks as cru­cial. ​“While you are much more like­ly to live in pover­ty if you are Black or Lati­no, the largest group of peo­ple liv­ing in pover­ty are white peo­ple,” Goehl says. ​“And a Left say­ing, ​‘We are not going to be in rela­tion­ship with the largest group of peo­ple liv­ing in pover­ty’ … seems nuts.” 

People’s Action has had near­ly 10,000 con­ver­sa­tions in rur­al areas since the 2016 elec­tion, most­ly with Oba­ma vot­ers who flipped to Trump. While immi­gra­tion is a con­tro­ver­sial issue all over the coun­try (includ­ing inside the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty), objec­tion to a wider immi­gra­tion pol­i­cy is high­er in rur­al areas, pre­sum­ably because of the ease of blam­ing immi­grants for a lack of jobs. Dur­ing their deep can­vass­es, People’s Action orga­niz­ers found that the mos­tused word was ​“lack,” and that eco­nom­ic inse­cu­ri­ty rever­ber­at­ed through all respons­es. ​“When we asked peo­ple who they saw as respon­si­ble for the declin­ing con­di­tions,” Goehl says, ​“peo­ple were able to pick mul­ti­ple answers, and 41% of peo­ple said undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants, but 81% [said] a gov­ern­ment encap­tured by corporations.”

Onah Ossai, an orga­niz­er with Penn­syl­va­nia Stands Up, which is affil­i­at­ed with People’s Action, tells In These Times, ​“Peo­ple at the top [are] using race and class to divide us so that they can turn around and pick our pock­ets. … Every­one [whose door we knock on] agrees with that.”

Melis­sa Crop­per, pres­i­dent of the Ohio Fed­er­a­tion of Teach­ers and sec­re­tary trea­sur­er of the Ohio AFL-CIO, echoes Goehl, telling In These Times, ​“It’s hard to get out and have these grass­roots-lev­el con­ver­sa­tions, but we need to invest in grass­roots orga­niz­ers from the com­mu­ni­ties who can have these con­ver­sa­tions and can work [on solu­tions] with the community.”

Unions can fol­low People’s Action by hold­ing more polit­i­cal dis­cus­sions with their mem­bers about how the labor move­ment (and the Left) fights for work­ing peo­ple. But they must also show the path for­ward — how work­ers them­selves can join the fight to rein in cor­po­rate power.

Rebuild­ing unions — orga­niz­ing more work­ers — is the first step toward a broad­er work­er coali­tion. But People’s Action and pro­gres­sive union­ists also believe race and class issues are keys to a coher­ent Left — because if we ignore them, the Right will use them to dri­ve a white, reac­tionary, pop­ulist movement.

“[Labor lead­ers] have to … explain the con­struc­tion of race and cap­i­tal­ism,” says Bill Fletch­er Jr., exec­u­tive edi­tor of The Glob­al African Work­er and for­mer AFL-CIO staffer. ​“The absence of that, and the reliance on so-called diver­si­ty pro­grams, at best teach­es tol­er­ance but does not get at the par­tic­u­lar role that race plays as a divi­sion of the work­ing class. They need to embark on mas­sive inter­nal edu­ca­tion­al efforts.”

Unions should place a high­er pre­mi­um on build­ing sol­i­dar­i­ty among the work­ing class as a whole, in all of its diver­si­ty. One exam­ple is the 2020 part­ner­ship between the Unit­ed Elec­tri­cal Work­ers (UE) and the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Social­ists of Amer­i­ca (DSA). The groups formed the Emer­gency Work­place Orga­niz­ing Com­mit­tee to help work­ers orga­nize on the job in the midst of Covid-19. It’s exact­ly the kind of alliance the Left and the labor move­ment should forge, ampli­fy­ing both groups’ impacts by orga­niz­ing new work­ers and engag­ing exist­ing membership.

These types of alliances demon­strate an atti­tude of ​“not me, us” (to quote Sanders’ pres­i­den­tial cam­paign slo­gan)— the key to build­ing work­er trust and tak­ing on the pow­er­ful forces ulti­mate­ly respon­si­ble for the eco­nom­ic inequal­i­ty so many expe­ri­ence. Rei­tano believes strong­ly in his union, but he wor­ries that new hires, who are immi­grants, won’t join the union or won’t fight for high­er wages, because they are used to low­er wage stan­dards. ​“If the union can edu­cate these peo­ple so they under­stand that we have to stand togeth­er, I think it’ll be okay,” he says. In a sit­u­a­tion like this, a union polit­i­cal edu­ca­tion pro­gram could not only engage new mem­bers, as Rei­tano sug­gests, but also forge sol­i­dar­i­ty and trust across the old guard/​new guard divide.

Cur­rent­ly, how­ev­er, many unions focus pri­mar­i­ly on mobi­liz­ing their mem­bers to vote, rather than on a more robust polit­i­cal pro­gram. In many cas­es, mem­bers don’t have a mech­a­nism to even offer input on the polit­i­cal endorse­ments of their locals and inter­na­tion­als. Instead, every union shop should have stew­ards who con­stant­ly engage work­ers in edu­ca­tion­al pro­grams and strug­gles on the shop floor. Unions launched cam­paigns like this in antic­i­pa­tion of the 2018 Janus Supreme Court deci­sion, which allowed pub­lic-sec­tor employ­ees in union shops to get the ben­e­fits of the union with­out pay­ing for them. Many unions around the coun­try began proac­tive cam­paigns to talk one-on-one with their mem­bers about the impor­tance of their union. In the con­ver­sa­tions, they stressed the pow­er of col­lec­tive action and exposed the right-wing forces try­ing to under­mine unions through Janus and oth­er mea­sures. They encour­aged mem­bers to recom­mit to being dues-pay­ing mem­bers even though they would soon have the abil­i­ty to become ​“free riders.”

None of this work will be easy, but unless unions com­mit to this edu­ca­tion­al work, Trump­ism will con­tin­ue to grow and the pos­si­bil­i­ty of achiev­ing pol­i­cy that can actu­al­ly help work­ing peo­ple will dimin­ish. (Left unchecked, Trump­ism also could dri­ve an increas­ing­ly vio­lent alt-Right.) The Left must sup­port unions in this work by engag­ing in part­ner­ships (like the DSA/UE part­ner­ship) and encour­ag­ing work­ers to orga­nize and union­ize.

The Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty, for its part, must prove itself wor­thy of the union vote. Right now, tens of mil­lions of work­ers (both union and nonunion) are suf­fer­ing through unem­ploy­ment, hous­ing inse­cu­ri­ty, hunger and a lack of health­care in a dev­as­tat­ing pan­dem­ic. The Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty lead­er­ship has bare­ly lift­ed a fin­ger to put up a real fight to win relief that is des­per­ate­ly need­ed by so many. They could take exam­ple from Sen. Sanders, who has voiced his oppo­si­tion to the most recent pro­posed ​“com­pro­mise” stim­u­lus bill. While mil­lions suf­fer through the coro­n­avirus pan­dem­ic with woe­ful­ly inad­e­quate fed­er­al sup­port, Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty lead­er­ship has refused to go big, choos­ing to ignore the pro­gres­sive Dems’ ear­ly push for month­ly cash pay­ments and expand­ed Medicare. With­out these steps, the Democ­rats should not expect work­ing peo­ple to vote for them with­out question.

With­out coun­ter­mea­sures from unions and Democ­rats alike, Repub­li­cans will con­tin­ue to turn the union vote. A 2020 Delaware Sen­ate race between Repub­li­can chal­lenger Lau­ren Witzke and Demo­c­ra­t­ic incum­bent Sen. Christo­pher Coons offers a glimpse of what’s to come. Though she lost (with 38% of the vote), Witzke ran on an ​“Amer­i­ca First” plat­form includ­ing sup­port for unions and col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing, oppo­si­tion to immi­gra­tion (on the basis that migrant work­ers wors­en con­di­tions of all work­ers), and an anti-abor­tion stance.

While Trump’s racism like­ly pro­voked many white pro­fes­sion­als to vote against him in 2020, it did not deter a grow­ing group of peo­ple of col­or — and what’s even more alarm­ing than a whites-only right-wing move­ment is a mul­tira­cial one. To counter the appeal of Trump­ism, we need to build a mul­tira­cial, work­ing-class labor move­ment that can arm work­ers with sol­i­dar­i­ty and a renewed com­mit­ment to strug­gle for the world we deserve.

Mindy Isser works in the labor movement and lives in Philadelphia.

© 2020 In These Times

Amazon Workers in Alabama Clear Hurdle in Fight for Historic Union Vote

The powerful company is now reportedly pushing for an in-person vote on unionizing, despite federal guidelines urging mail-in voting due to the coronavirus pandemic.

by

Julia Conley, staff writer

Published onThursday, December 24, 2020

Common Dreams

People protest working conditions outside of an Amazon warehouse fulfillment center on May 1, 2020 in the Staten Island borough of New York City. After the new year, Amazon warehouse workers in Alabama are expected to vote on whether they will unionize. (Photo: Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

Workers at an Amazon warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama are making strides in their fight to unionize following three days of hearings this week which resulted in an agreement with the company regarding which workers will be able to vote on joining a union.

Weeks after the workers filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to join the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU)—a move which, if successful, would make the warehouse the first unionized Amazon facility in the U.S.—the agreement reached broadened the employees who would be included in the proposed bargaining unit. 

Amazon representatives had argued that the 1,500 workers included in the original proposal should not be the only employees who vote on unionizing, as a total of 5,000 employees work at the warehouse. Seasonal workers will now be included in the proposed bargaining unit—which could make the threshold needed by the union backers more difficult to reach.

The NLRB has yet to schedule a date, but workers are expected to vote on unionizing early in 2021. 

Meanwhile, the RWDSU is countering misinformation they say Amazon officials are spreading, including a claim that anyone who signs a union card ahead of the vote can be forced to pay dues. 

"These are the tactics that union-busters do to get you not to believe in yourself," RWDSU representative Allan Gregory told workers in a video message this week. "This card says, federal government, we would like the opportunity to organize our workplace."

Amazon is also pushing for an in-person vote on unionizing, despite the coronavirus pandemic, according to The Hill. 

The NLRB has mainly been holding unionization votes by mail since March and is advocating for voting-by-mail in any county that is experiencing a 14-day Covid-19 positivity rate of 5% or higher. Jefferson County, where the Bessemer warehouse is located, has reported a weekly positivity rate of 16% or higher for more than three weeks. 

An Amazon spokesperson told The Hill Wednesday that the company doesn't believe the warehouse workers represent "the majority of our employees' views." 

But last spring, Amazon workers circulated at least two petitions, gathering a total of 6,000 employee signatures, demanding better pay and benefits amid the pandemic. Workers have also held protests this year at facilities in Staten Island; Chicago; Portland, Oregon; and other cities, over unsafe working conditions.  

'She's considered a terrorist': Family of Saudi activist condemns 'outrageous' jail sentence

One of Saudi Arabia’s most prominent women’s rights activists will appeal a nearly six-year jail sentence handed down Monday as her family hailed her courage. 

© Provided by NBC News

The activist, Loujain al-Hathloul, 31, broke down in tears as a Saudi judge sentenced her to five years and eight months in prison, her elder sister told NBC News on Tuesday.

The sister, Alia al-Hathloul, called the sentence "outrageous" and said she feared that the appeal could result in a harsher sentence. But said she was heartened by messages from supporters and well-wishers.

"I understood that no one believes in this verdict or this court, so it makes me feel relieved a bit for my sister," she said, speaking from Belgium where she lives.

“She wants to be considered innocent. This is her main objective,” she said. “She’s very courageous. … If it was my case I wouldn’t do that.”

Loujain Al-Hathloul was convicted of agitating for change in Saudi Arabia while serving a foreign agenda, using the internet to harm public order and cooperating with individuals and institutions that were involved in crimes under anti-terror laws, according to the state-linked Saudi news site Sabq.

NBC News was unable to verify the charges against her.

“She was extremely disappointed. She was crying a lot,” Alia al-Hathloul said. “She’s considered a terrorist.”

Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics

Rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have said the charges leveled against Loujain Al-Hathloul were entirely related to her human rights work and have called for her immediate and unconditional release.

Al-Hathloul made a name for herself as one of the few women to openly call for women’s right to drive in the deeply conservative kingdom, as well for an end to the country’s restrictive male guardianship system that had long limited women’s freedom of movement. She was arrested along with other female activists in May 2018, just weeks before the kingdom ended a decadeslong ban on women driving.

A spokesperson for Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Media told NBC News on Monday that two years and 10 months of Al-Hathloul’s sentence had been suspended and that the sentence was backdated to May 2018. This means she could be released by March, according to members of her family.

VIDEO Saudi Arabia's persecution of imprisoned women's rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul

Alia al-Hathloul said Tuesday that her sister planned to appeal not just the court’s sentence but another ruling that said she was not subjected to torture while in detention. Loujain al-Hathloul’s family say she has been subjected to electric shocks and has been sexually harassed.

Rights groups have said that other detained women’s rights activists have also been subjected to torture and sexual harassment. Saudi Arabia has denied the allegations.

Alia al-Hathloul said that her parents were also strong and optimistic but that recent weeks had been particularly tiring for them, as the Saudi authorities appeared to be rushing through her sister’s case despite it having been informally suspended for more than a year and a half at the regular criminal court. Last month, the case was moved to Saudi Arabia’s notorious Specialized Criminal Court, which specializes in handling terrorism cases.

“It gives me the impression that they want to get rid of her file, they want to save face,” Alia al-Hathloul said. “They don’t want to look like a loser.”

Alaa Al-Siddiq, executive director of London-based group ALQST, which advocates for human rights in Saudi Arabia, suggested that Saudi authorities may have given Loujain al-Hathloul a lesser sentence to appease the incoming administration of President-elect Joe Biden. Before the court’s ruling Monday, Al-Hathloul faced a potential sentence of 20 years in prison, according to Human Rights Watch.

“They want a fresh start with Joe Biden,” said Al-Siddiq.

 Loujain al-Hathloul (Facebook / AFP - Getty Images file)

Saudi Arabia has enjoyed close relations with President Donald Trump's administration but it is expected to have a frostier relationship with Biden’s team. Biden has pledged to "reassess" the U.S. relationship with the oil-rich kingdom and has described Saudi Arabia as a "pariah."

However, Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now, a human rights organization founded by slain Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi shortly before his death, said that the kingdom’s decision to convict Al-Hathloul sent a message to the world that Saudi Arabia is going to do as it pleases.