Showing posts with label labor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label labor. Show all posts

Monday, October 9, 2023

UAW leader conflates rural(ish) and working class as declares class warfare

I was fascinated to hear over the weekend an audio clip by Shawn Fain, leader of the United Auto Workers Union (UAW), that did something you hear more and more these days:  conflating the working class--here, specifically the striking UAW workers--with rural concepts like rednecks.  Here's what Fain said:  
They look at me and they see some redneck from Indiana.  They look at you and see somebody they would never have over for dinner or let ride on their yacht or fly on their private jet.

* * * 

They think they know us, but us autoworkers know better. We may be foul mouthed, but we're strategic. We may get fired up, but we're disciplined. And we may get rowdy. But we're organized.

The NPR story continues: 

Fain was also eager to reassure UAW members that the union's unprecedented strike strategy is working. The union struck all three companies at once, but started with just a handful of plants.

While making these comments, Fain was wearing a t-shirt that said "Eat the Rich."

I very much appreciate what some would characterize as Fain's open class warfare.  I think it's necessary.  And I think it's honest.  And I believe he is accurate in stating that the corporate leadership of GM and the other automobile manufacturers would not, in fact, rub elbows with the UAW's rank and file.   

Cross-posted to Legal Ruralism.

Sunday, February 12, 2023

Blue-collar workers in the news, especially following Biden's State of the Union address

The New York Times ran two stories by Jonathan Weissman in quick succession last week.  The first was headlined, "Biden Aims to Win Back White Working-Class Voters Through Their Wallets," ran on February 8.  Interestingly, the print headline was a bit more direct about the class issue, "Biden Aims Pitch at White Voters without Degrees."  The subheads are "A Vow to Lift Wages" and "Speech Outlined a Path to Increase and Improve Blue-Collar Jobs."  Here are some key excerpts: 

With his call for a “blue-collar blueprint to rebuild America,” President Biden on Tuesday night acknowledged rhetorically what Democrats have been preparing for two years: a fierce campaign to win back white working-class voters through the creation of hundreds of thousands of well-paid jobs that do not require a college degree.

Mr. Biden’s economically focused State of the Union address may have avoided the cultural appeals to the white working class that former President Donald J. Trump harnessed so effectively, the grievances encapsulated by fears of immigration, racial and gender diversity, and the sloganeering of the intellectual left. But at the speech’s heart was an appeal to Congress to “finish the job” and a simple challenge. “Let’s offer every American the path to a good career whether they go to college or not,” he said.

In truth, much of that path was already laid by the last Congress with the signing of a $1 trillion infrastructure bill, a $280 billion measure to rekindle a domestic semiconductor industry and the Inflation Reduction Act, which included $370 billion for low-emission energy to combat climate change.

The second story by Weissman ran two days later under the headline, "As Federal Cash Flows to Unions, Democrats Hope to Reap the Rewards."  The dateline is Bridgeport, West Virginia, population 9,325, part of the Clarksburg, W.V. micropolitan area, and it leads with the story of Mark Raddish, the grandson of a coal miner who has recently gone to work in the green energy sector.  Raddish followed his grandfather's advice not to become a coal miner.  Instead, he got "an eduction and land[ed] a pipe fitters' union job" that then went overseas.   

[Raddish then] took a leap of faith late last year and signed on as West Virginia Employee No. 2 for Sparkz, a California-based electric vehicle battery start-up. The company was enticed here, in the wooded hills outside Bridgeport, W.Va., in part by generous federal tax subsidies and in part by the United Mine Workers of America, which is recruiting out-of-work coal miners for the company’s new plant in a faded industrial park.

It is no accident that this plant, rising in place of a shuttered plate-glass factory, is bringing yet another alternative-energy company to rural West Virginia. Federal money is pouring into the growing industry, with thick strings attached to reward companies that pay union wages, employ union apprentices and buy American steel, iron and components.
President Biden and the Democrats who pushed those provisions are hoping that more union members will bring more political strength for unions after decades of decline. White working-class voters, even union members, have sided with Republicans on social issues, and still tend to see the G.O.P. as their economic ally, as well.

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

The yellow vests and Macron's working-class problem (but nary a mention of race or ethnicity)

National Public Radio's most recent coverage of the three-weeks of "yellow vest" protests in France puts elites/elitism v. working class concerns/realities squarely at the center of the conflict.  Most obviously at stake is a gas-tax hike that was set to go into effect on January 1.  Macron's government announced today that the tax increase has been put on hold.  Here's a quote from this morning's story:
"Originally, the yellow vest protesters were people from rural areas who have to drive long distances as part of their daily life. They said they couldn't afford the hike in fuel prices. Protests appeared in pockets around France to denounce Macron's green tax and then quickly grew into a larger movement that includes members of the working and middle classes who are expressing their frustration about slipping standards of living. They say their incomes are too high to qualify for social welfare benefits but too low to make ends meet. The movement has no official leadership and was organized initially through social media groups." 
The protests' initial target was the fuel tax — but they quickly homed in on Macron as the man behind the hike. 
"Macron faced down the unions when he passed his labor market overhaul last year," NPR's Eleanor Beardsley reports from Paris. "So he wasn't worried about the grassroots, leaderless yellow vest movement when it first appeared. But three weeks on, the movement is turning out to be the biggest challenge of Macron's presidency." 
The movement is channeling the anger of working-class people across France who are struggling, Eleanor says, adding, "They perceive Macron as arrogant and deaf to their suffering."
In the version of this (or another) story aired this morning (but for which a transcript is not available online), some French political scientists were quoted, including one who used the word "hatred" to describe how French workers feel about Macron, who represents the elites and has no ability to understand or empathize with worker struggles. Here is some prior reporting on the protests (Nov. 23 and Dec. 3), which have turned quite violent and destructive of property in recent days.

This quote from yesterday's story by Eleanor Beardsley is vivid and illustrative, with many references to geography: small towns, heartland, etc:
Well, they rose up three weeks ago - and they all put these yellow vests that you have to keep - every French motorist keeps in their car - against a new gas tax that's supposed to begin in January. But it's a very different movement. It's not backed by the unions. It has no leaders, so there's - we haven't seen anything like this before. Basically, it's being described as a revolt from the other France - not the France of the big cities, you know, the rich France, but the - from the France that can't make ends meet every month, from the rural areas, the small towns, you know, blue-collar workers, farmers. You know, it's just showing - this movement - how split France is, really, between rich and poor. And these protesters - they also accuse French President Emmanuel Macron of being arrogant and completely out of touch with their problems, the problems of the working and underclass.
* * * 
Now, they're saying Macron loves the powerful, the rich, the CEOs, but he has complete disdain for the people. And this - the woman says, "we're governed by mafia bankers, and Macron is a pawn of Rothschild's bank and JPMorgan."
* * * 
Well, up to now, about 80 percent of the French say they support the demands because they say a lot of people can't make ends meet and they're ignored.
And the New York Times coverage from December 2under the headline, "'Yellow Vests' Riot in Paris, but Their Anger is Rooted Deep in France," includes this vignette of a poor town in central France:
But if it was the shattered glass and burned cars along Rue de Rivoli or Boulevard Haussmann in Paris that finally got Mr. Macron’s attention, the movement — named for the roadside safety vests worn by demonstrators — has in fact welled up from silent towns like GuĂ©ret, an administrative center of 13,000 people, lost in the small valleys of central France. 
Far from any big city, it sits in one of the poorest departments of France, where the public hospital is the biggest employer. The cafe in the main square is empty by midafternoon. The hulks of burned-out cars dot the moribund train station’s tiny parking lot, abandoned by citizens too poor to maintain them. 
In places like these, a quiet fear gnaws at households: What happens when the money runs out around the 20th? What do I put in the refrigerator with nothing left in the account and the electricity bill to pay? Which meal should I skip today? How do I tell my wife again there is no going out this weekend?
Can't help note how interestingly patriarchal that last line/question from Adam Nossiter's NYT story is.  Nossiter continues:
It is not deep poverty, but ever-present unease in the small cities, towns and villages over what is becoming known as “the other France,” away from the glitzy Parisian boulevards that were the scene of rioting this weekend.
So, again, the agitation began in a rural place but had to migrate to the city to get people's attention.  Further, the unrest does transcend the rural-urban divide because what underlies it is profound income inequality; that income inequality is perhaps more evident in rural areas because--as with the "flyover states" in the United States and far northern California within the Golden State, these populations feel unseen.  They don't feel that overwhelming urban and elite decision-makers see their plight, and they certainly don't feel that their pain is prioritized.

I'm showing here some screen shots of Twitter activity about the protests, some of which speak to that sense of feeling overlooked:





Speaking of those involved in the protests, Alissa Rubin wrote in the New York Times on December 3 that protestors are
men and women who rely on their cars to get to work and take care of their families [including] small-business owners, independent contractors, farmers, home aides, nurses and truck drivers [who] live and work primarily in rural towns and in the suburbs or exurbs of France’s big cities, many earning just enough to get by.
Rubin also helpfully details precisely how the movement emerged, starting with a petition seeking support for lower gasoline taxes. That petition was initiated by a woman who has an Internet cosmetics business in an exurb south of Paris, and it eventually went viral with the help of social media.

France is a very diverse country, and a significant percentage of its population is of north African descent.  Many immigrants also come to France from other parts of Africa--and the world.  It is thus interesting that I've seen nothing in reporting on the "yellow vest" protests about race.  I wonder if immigrant communities tend to be on one side or the other of this political divide?  Reporting on such phenomena (politics, protests, income inequality) in the United States inevitably centers race and immigration?  We don't permit whiteness to be transparent, the default.  Why are journalists not doing the same regarding France?

I also can't help think of the parallel to California, where the recent gas tax increase caused particular agitation in the state's rural communities, in part because people in rural California are more likely to be on fixed incomes, financially strapped, and driving longer distances.  I'm also thinking about how this arguably parallels unrest in the Catalan region of Spain, where rural folks have been (and are?) the primary agitators regarding the secession movement--so much so that the tractor became the symbol of the movement.  On that, read more here.

I also can't help think of the role that Europe's recent policy of austerity has played in all of this.

Cross-posted to Legal Ruralism.

Sunday, September 2, 2018

The white supremacist narrative of the North American Free Trade Agreement


Last week, President Trump announced a preliminary bilateral trade agreement with Mexico, making good on one of his campaign promises to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The general consensus seems to be that most of NAFTA will remain in place with some modernizing changes, including new trade rules on auto manufacturing, intellectual property, and labor rights. While the overall wisdoms of the agreement are far beyond my grasp of economic policy, it is interesting to consider why NAFTA has proved to be such a galvanizing issue for Trump’s base. One possible explanation is the white supremacist narrative that frames NAFTA as a concession to foreigners and an active harm towards the white working class.

A persuasive view to many Americans is that more free trade means more globalization, which in turn means less jobs for U.S. workers and more jobs for foreign workers. Adherence to this narrative was particularly strong in the Trump coalition. Among those who agreed that the effect of international trade was to take away U.S. jobs in CNN’s exit polling data, 64% were Trump voters, compared to only 32% of Clinton voters.

However, protectionism alone is race-neutral and enjoys broad support among progressive union-backers and conservative nationalists alike. My theory is that the link between NAFTA and white supremacy* is completed when support for renegotiation of NAFTA becomes an expression of white discomfort with non-white and specifically Mexican immigration and participation in labor markets, a link that is actively supported by President Trump.

One data point that supports this theory is that those who have an unfavorable view of Mexico are much more likely to oppose NAFTA. Only 50% of those who oppose NAFTA have a favorable view of Mexico as opposed to 81% among those who support NAFTA. This data is even more persuasive when one considers that that nine out of ten Americans have a favorable view of Canada, a significantly whiter country, regardless of their support for NAFTA.  

Support for NAFTA also breaks down along racial lines, with 66% of Hispanics and 59% of African-Americans agreeing that NAFTA is good for the U.S., while only 46% of non-Hispanic whites agree. Though a more directed survey and further disaggregation to specifically target the white working class would be helpful, this data indicates that opposition to NAFTA is highly correlated to negative views on Mexico.


Trump also actively panders to white supremacy in his characterizations of NAFTA, by specifically directing criticism towards Mexico and imagining NAFTA as a national humiliation of white America. For example:



In these tweets, Trump intentionally draws a link between NAFTA and unauthorized immigration, even though the connection is tenuous at best. Trump frequently describes NAFTA as being the carrot for the stick of his anti-immigrant policies, such as the border wall. It is also clear that Trump’s opposition to NAFTA is really about Mexico and not white-dominated Canada. Of all of his tweets about NAFTA that singled out a specific country, Trump directed six of them at Mexico, while only one was directed at Canada.

To Trump, NAFTA is a source of national humiliation, and he uses dramatic terms like “disaster”, “devastation”, or “pathetic” to describe the agreement. Although not specifically directed towards NAFTA, Trump also described another trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), as a “continuing rape of our country” (emphasis added). Describing free trade agreements with non-white countries as “rape” draws a rhetorical closeness between his dog-whistles on free trade policies with his more patently white supremacist remarks that Mexicans were rapists.

Humiliation and violation of the white race by non-whites and foreigners is a typical narrative pushed by white supremacists in the past. Trump wants his supporters to believe that his political opponents past support of NAFTA was a contribution to the humiliation of America’s white working class and an abdication to Mexico’s dual threats of competition in the labor market and increasing influence in traditionally white-dominated American society. The message is simple: support for NAFTA is a betrayal of the white working class to foreigners, and opposition is a reaffirmation of America as a white country.

To the long suffering white working class, this rhetoric could be appealing because it allows them to place blame squarely upon Mexicans, when the reality of their predicament may very well be that they “died the death of a thousand cuts” due to globalization, weakening of unions, deregulation, deindustrialization, technological development, and many other factors. All this makes one question whether Trump’s statement that there was "no political necessity to keep Canada in the new NAFTA deal" is actually a comment on the negotiations. It may just be that Trump is telling the world that he considers his duty to the white supremacists among his supporters as fully met after he has vanquished his non-white foes in negotiations.

None of this is to say that there are not valid complaints about NAFTA from the white working class that lack any twinge of white supremacy. For example, for the white working class in the auto industry, the update is arguably a welcome change to the shifts in manufacturing that occurred under the original NAFTA, and the United Automobile Workers (UAW) labor union described the negotiations as “on track”.

However, what we should be concerned with is whether white working-class opposition to NAFTA is for principled reasons that have to do with job-growth and a strong economy, or if opposition is influenced by white supremacy and animus towards Mexicans. We all have a special interest in ensuring that our economic policy is guided by sound consideration of  strategy and not white supremacy. A good starting point would be better data that examines this question more significantly as it pertains to the white working class and also more broader recognition of how Trump’s rhetoric is based on white supremacist attitudes.

----------------------------------

I use the word "white supremacy" because efforts to preserve white supremacy are the reason that the American racial hierarchy persists.