That’s a line from one of the ‘freedom songs’ of the civil rights movement, but these days it seems an appropriate slogan for the American trade union movement, as we struggle against an economic and legal order more and more stacked against American working people. Never have the words Martin Luther King wrote in the Birmingham jail, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” rung so true for the women and men whose labor makes this great nation possible. And in the tradition of King, the time has come to confront that injustice, even when it takes the form of a law.
There has never been a significant movement for progressive social change in this nation that has not had to employ civil disobedience against unjust laws, from the abolitionists who violated the ‘slave fugitive law’ to the feminists who fought for women’s suffrage, from the trade union movement that held ‘sit down’ strikes in automobile factories to the civil rights movement that “sat in” in segregated lunch counters. Today, there would be no American teacher unions if it were not for the courageous New York City teachers who went on strike for recognition as a union in 1960 – in defiance of the New York State law which forbade such a strike. That is our history, one which we will never forget. We are a union that stands proudly in the tradition of King and of his mentor, the African-American trade union leader A. Phillip Randolph.
The editorial page of the New York Post has never struck us a place of deep historical insight, or for that matter, minimal historical literacy. But their editorial this week, “Randi Gets Real,” manages to break new ground in willful historical ignorance. They object to the fact that UFT President Randi Weingarten led a trade union rally in defense of TWU President Roger Toussaint, who was jailed this week for violating an unjust law by leading a strike. And they are galled by Randi’s declaration at that rally that “Any labor leader who believes in the righteousness of our cause knows that at one time or another we may have to go to jail.” Feigning complete ignorance of the democratic tradition of civil disobedience to unjust laws, and of the ways in which labor laws in the United States [including New York State’s Taylor Law] are stacked against workers and unions, they proclaim that Randi is “expressing her regret that there are any legal restraints on unions at all.” Perhaps they are left with this rather lame excuse for commentary because they regret most of the political and economic progress that has come to the United States as a result of citizens who have taken on the sacrifice of jail to challenge unjust laws, but consider it impolitic to say so.
The Post concludes, “for once, it wasn’t about ‘the children.’ How refreshing.” How wrong. The slogan of the UFT in 1960, in that first act of collective civil disobedience, was “Teachers want what students need.” That remains our focus, as we take on a Department of Education that keeps teachers from providing what students need. And what better lesson to give our students than that when moral and political principle demands sacrifice on the part of teachers, we are prepared to assume that burden. “We ain’t scared of your jails.”
10 Comments:
1 phyllis c. murray
· Apr 28, 2006 at 10:43 pm
On Disobeying Unjust Laws
By Phyllis C. Murray
“How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all” An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” Martin Luther King Jr. Birmingham 1963
Presently, strikes, although unlawful, have been the only weapon unions have had to force employers to recognize and deal with their labor unions. In fact, the AFT has documented the fact that trade unionists have been persecuted and jailed for exercising their democratic rights. There are incalculable cases where “labor organizations and democracy activists are under siege,” globally.
In New York State trade unionists have had to wrestle with the Taylor Law from its inception. The law was put into effect in 1967, during the Rockefeller Administration. This was in response to the Transit Strike of 1966. Section 210 of the Taylor Law states that the municipal workers are not allowed to strike. Furthermore, it requires binding Public Employment Relations Board arbitration in the event of an impasse in negotiations. There is even a fine for striking. Plus many trade unionists, like Roger Toussaint, TWU President, have gone to jail. Surely, this “law degrades the human personality.”
The Taylor Law seems to fit the mode of an unfair law because it to penalizes labor and not management. Management seems unscathed as it moves toward the negotiation table at a snails pace. Hence, the impetus for management to negotiate contracts in a timely manner or negotiate in good faith is absent. There seems to be no penalty for management. Yet, the penalties for the UFT strikes of 1967, 1968 and 1975 are now a part of our Labor Union History.
Even the most recent attempts to negotiate with the city, took over two and a half years. Yes, two and a half years before the city even approached the bargaining table in good faith. Yet, there were no threats or reprisals on tap for management. Thus, it is obvious that changes to the Taylor Law are needed so that one can address the current inequity unions face at the bargaining table.
As we prepare, for a new set of negotiations to begin, we know that our past efforts to reform the Taylor Law have never proven successful. Even after our COPE dollars were used to underwrite lobbying efforts aimed at advocating for a change in this unfair law. However, we must perservere. We have done it before.
As indicated by Abe Levine,former UFT Vice President, “During my 50 years on the Executive Board, our Union has grown tremendoulsy in membership and influence. We have weathered many crises and have been successful in our efforts.”
And surely any union that works to uplift the “human personality” is a just union. We must press on!
Phyllis C. Murray
UFT Chapter Leader
District 8 Region 2
2 Persam1197
· Apr 29, 2006 at 7:30 am
The time has come for unionized labor to plan long-term for the continued assault on the working class. We need to not only support our union brethren throughout the country, we need to show symbolic demonstrations of power. Since our corporations have globalized, our unions must do the same and raise the standard of living everywhere, leaving no place on the planet to exploit.
On the local level, what happens to one union happens to all. If there really were only 500 people marching with Toussaint, we need to do better.
3 jd2718
· Apr 29, 2006 at 8:19 am
“If there really were only 500 people marching with Toussaint, we need to do better.”
Agreed. But we also need to recognize that this is a start. I am proud that our president is sounding more militant. It will inspire and help us build more of the same, and just as much, it probably reflects feelings of militancy that are already growing within our ranks.
“Since our corporations have globalized, our unions must do the same and raise the standard of living everywhere, leaving no place on the planet to exploit.”
Way cool. I’ll march in your parade. Now, if we could get a few million to join us…
Wild tangent: Leo, I really like your title A few months ago I finally bought a cd player, and now have a total of 3 cds – but one is Pete Seeger’s June ‘63 Carnegie Hall concert, where, among other things, he introduces a northern audience to “I ain’t afraid of your jail….” and a dance called the “wobble” that apparently went with it.
Jonathan
4 Chaz
· Apr 29, 2006 at 12:57 pm
I would have been happy to march, if I was not so tired from the extra work at my school. Ducking food thrown at me in the student cafeteria, chasing students during hallway duty, and getting sick smelling the stench from the bathroom. Not to metion the extra 37.5 minutes I am working. Maybe after the next wonderful contract I’ll consider marching.
5 NYC Educator
· Apr 29, 2006 at 5:39 pm
You’re absolutely correct about the New York Post. They are vehemently anti-labor, anti-union, and anti-teacher, and they don’t give a damn about the facts.
Naturally, along with the entire Edwize writing staff, they strongly supported our most recent contract.
6 Persam1197
· Apr 29, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Speaking for myself, I actually was glad the TWU went on strike in December. It showed the path we all should take: no contract, no work. I’m trying to imagine what would have happened if ALL municipal unions had pooled their resources in solidarity; in other words, all of the unions providing the financial support necessary for the TWU to sustain the strike.
As it stands, the TWU is now reduced to just another union that works without a contract and will eventually get screwed in arbitration.
7 BXMSTeacher
· May 1, 2006 at 8:54 am
i’m glad the transit union went on strike. I was very impressed with the way in which the workers went on strike to fight for what most of us take for granted: a fair contract that provides basic things like health insurance, etc.
Like persam, I wonder what would have happened if ALL of the unions stood together as a show of solidarity and supported the TWU..not just in terms of physical support, but financial, etc.
And, kudos to Randi for taking the stance she did during the transit strike!
8 curious3
· May 2, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Two questions:
1. What is wrong with arbitration?
2. How do you know that the contract offered to the TWU was unfair?
Ken
9 Chaz
· May 2, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Curious3:
Because arbitrators almost always follow the pattern set by the the city who sets it by picking the weakest union who is desperate for a piddling raise.
read my comments on #1
10 jd2718
· May 3, 2006 at 6:08 am
“2. How do you know that the contract offered to the TWU was unfair?”
For me, the answer is easy. I have a side, not only when my union bargains, but when any union bargains. And that side is the union and the working people it represents. We never get what we should; we try to come as close as possible.
The moment someone believes it is worth discussing, either that person can be convinced that there are two sides and that their interests lie on our side, or they cannot.
I sense that you dislike unions (correct me if I am mistaken). If that is the case, then there might be discussion about unions in general, but without agreement there, discussion of contract particulars would be pointless. It would be as if we speak mutually incomprehensible languages.
jonathan