Where to refuse this bullshit contract @ Berkeley

28 Nov

(from those who use it):

We’ve been talking for weeks about this no vote on a bullshit UAW contract that would not only effectively cut pay in real terms for GSIs, readers, and tutors, but would also demonstrate that the careerist bureaucrats who run the local can disregard the will of the membership without penalty.  We are here to show these functionaries that union power is rank-and-file power: we will take back our union.

The time has finally come to get out the vote.  This means that not only do we — rank-and-file members of 2865 — need you to come out and send this insult of a contract back to the bargaining table tomorrow, but we need you to bring all of your friends and colleagues out to do the same.  We know that as things stand, we have Berkeley and Santa Cruz on lock, and our comrades at Irvine are building quite the caucus as well.  However, who knows what kind of dirty shit the leadership is going to try to pull?  We didn’t expect them to call a statewide meeting just to spite rank-and-file organizers, so we need to be on guard against whatever these politicians try to pull on us.  Our best protection against this kind of authoritarian ploy is our strength in numbers.  That means that we need you and yours to come out and vote between Monday, November 29 and Thursday, December 2. Three polling stations will be open each day during that period, with two permanent locations and one roving location:

  • Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm: North Gate and Sather Gate
  • Mon 10am-2pm: Barrows Hall
  • Tues 10am-2pm: Evans Hall
  • Wed 10am-2pm: Moffitt Library
  • Thurs 10am-2pm: Kroeber Hall

Let’s send this bullshit contract back where it came from!

Union power is rank-and-file power!  UAW bureaucrats collude with management!

Are you thinking, “Alright, I’m down with rank-and-file power, but isn’t a novote effectively an anti-union vote?  That’s what I’m hearing from the union leadership.”  That is what you’re hearing from the union leadership.  Self-interested bureaucrats like local 2865 VP Daraka Larimore-Hall are feeding campus media lines like:

Members of the bargaining team that voted no on the issue weren’t present at a majority of the negotiation meetings and resurfaced in this reform movement that’s urging people to vote against the contract.  If this contract isn’t ratified, we may either resume negotiations, or the university could impose an impasse on us and we could ultimately end up with a worse contract.

Right.  This is the same logic you can hear our local’s President Christine Petit spout off to Irvine rank-and-file when she argues that in the given context — one in which our membership is the strongest in its history and undergrads and workers are mobilized in solidarity across the state — a strike is an inherently dangerous tactic.  This from union leaders?  Are they serious?  This is why we call them collaborators with management. When these fools are arguing that even a no vote is dangerous, you know something’s up.  What’s the risk?  Wecould (in the abstract) wind up with an inferior contract, Larimore-Hall tells us.Why? If management sees that membership will keep voting down this bullshit contract until they give us what we want; if they see a UC-wide strike as a viable threat instead of window dressing for a faux radical email from the UAW leadership; if they know that we won’t sell out our comrades for a few lines on our CVs like our current elected officials, then why would they be more likely to give us a subpar contract?  We already have a subpar contract, and it exists precisely because we these bureaucrats didn’t actually challenge management, let alone even attempt to engage the rank-and-file membership.

What would it look like to truly engage the membership?  Members of the bargaining team devise “actions” in the abstract and then expect them to be implemented at the drop of a hat.  At one point, they wanted grad students to bring their babies to Labor Relations and do something approximating a sit-in.  Great.  Only problem?  We don’t have a single member with a child who comes to our membership meetings.  Even worse, UAW International rep Mike Miller has (we assume jokingly) suggested on multiple occasions that membership should organize a building occupation.  Many of us already have over the course of the past year, and we’d love to see this materialize once again.  But when it comes to actually getting this off the ground, Miller conveniently disappears.  Unsurprising.  The bureaucrats always disappear when it comes to actually fighting management.  We challenge you to find an exception, and a half-assed “report card” with fake signatures doesn’t count.

So why is it so important to vote no this time around?  Does it really even matter?  We urge you to check out the following links and read up for yourself:

Wondering how the bureaucrats might respond to this campaign?  Wonder no longer. You can find a statement from the comprador elements of the bargaining team here.  Note that they tout a pay cut in real terms as “a contract without concessions” and “remarkable gains.”  Note too that they pat themselves on the back for engaging membership.  Right.  Those of us who actually go to membership meetings have only come into contact with these functionaries as they attempt to stifle the will of active members and criticize us as a small clique.  Before AWaDU existed, we were lucky to have a half dozen people show up at the monthly meetings; due to the efforts of the opposition caucus, we now have 50-70 turning out on a regular basis, with only 50 percent or so showing up every time.  In other words, far from a closed clique, we have finally begun to see a vibrant, rank-and-file based membership meetings.  At the last unofficial meeting, 75 people showed up to a barely advertised meeting, more than 2 dozen of whom had never before been to a union meeting. That’s why we scoff at these bureaucrats when they claim that they engage the membership.  Here at Those Who Use It, we’ve only come into contact with these careerists when they are patrolling our halls asking for more Jerry Brown money.  What about money for actually mobilizing the membership?  The most anti-labor Democratic gubernatorial candidate in years apparently mobilizes the membership according to these idiots.

No worries, though.  We are mobilizing rank-and-file.  If we wanted, we could easily recall some of these scumbags.  Why not go straight for Petit and Larimore-Hall?  We probably will, but one thing at a time.  So let’s get this novote off the ground and take back our union!

All power to the rank-and-file!

 

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Where to refuse this bullshit contract @ Berkeley”

  1. thosewhouseit November 28, 2010 at 8:43 pm #

    Much love to our comrades at UCI! Your caucus is truly raw — good politics and everything, or at least it seems that way from a distance. Keep it up!

  2. ucgradstrike November 29, 2010 at 7:42 am #

    😀 thanks! Mucho love your way too.

  3. Erik Nielsen November 30, 2010 at 3:04 pm #

    Could someone please make a coherent argument as to why to vote NO and support it with figures and evidence? Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but as of now this website appears to be more focused on a self-righteous, shit-talking smear campaign rather than making concise directed arguments. Again, maybe I’ve missed something.
    Also is this a UC wide organization or limited to one campus?

    • ucgradstrike November 30, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

      Dear Erik,

      If you were to read all of the postings on this website you would find a myriad of figures and links that point to all of the facts that were taken into account when writing these pieces. Please take into consideration that by asking for a NO vote what ucgradstrike is asking from our bargaining representatives is precisely to be better represented; to not settle for a 3-year contract that would put us below the rate of inflation and/or below the mean salary figures for T.A.s in public institutions nationwide. We are not seeking to destroy the Union, we are looking for it to fight for us. Also, our website is not “an organization”, it is merely a dissemination space for information relevant to our cause; even though a great majority of the text in this page is written by UC Irvine grad students, we also welcome collaborations from other campuses and interested parties.

  4. Erik Nielsen November 30, 2010 at 7:04 pm #

    Dear ucgradstrike,
    Thanks for clarifying and I appreciate what you are doing. I generally agree with much of what is on this website but the way it is presented is awful if you are trying to persuade the vast majority of UC graduate students who aren’t even that aware of what’s going on. Photoshopping people, other union members, with whom you disagree with into Stalin apparatchiks is divisive and immature and does not further the union cause. There are a number of graduate students who aren’t even union members, and by so viciously attacking our own other union members, even if for real and legitimate policy differences, it hurts the cause of a greater union, which is purportedly the goal of this website.

    In solidarity, if even in difference,
    Erik

  5. ucgradstrike November 30, 2010 at 8:49 pm #

    Thank you, Erik. We appreciate your solidarity. Also, fyi: that posting was not ours, it is a repost from Those Who Use It, we reposted it since we felt the commentary was useful as it shines light precisely on some of the issues which seem to cause some division among graduates.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: