By Jim Miller
Among the stories that you may have missed during the stretch run of the primary season was some significantly bad news out of labor on the national front when several large unions in the building trades came out against a plan by some of the biggest public sector unions to join forces with environmentalist Tom Steyer in order to fund a major anti-Trump get out the vote operation in the fall. The New York Times noted that:
Two of the Democratic Party’s most loyal constituencies, labor and environmentalists, are clashing over an effort to raise tens of millions of dollars for an ambitious voter turnout operation aimed at defeating Donald J. Trump in the November election.
The rift developed after some in the labor movement, whose cash flow has dwindled and whose political clout has been increasingly imperiled, announced a partnership last week with a wealthy environmentalist, Tom Steyer, to help bankroll a new fund dedicated to electing Democrats.
That joint initiative enraged members of the nation’s biggest construction unions, already on edge about the rising influence of climate-change activists. The building-trades unions view Mr. Steyer’s environmental agenda as a threat to the jobs that can be created through infrastructure projects like new gas pipelines.
Thus, rather than having the vision to embrace the great potential of a labor-green alliance and work toward building a sustainable future that addresses climate change and fights for good sustainable jobs, a small reactionary element of the labor movement preferred instead to throw down the gauntlet and embrace a narrow, future-killing business unionism.
The good news here is that this group of unions doesn’t come close to speaking for the entire labor movement or even the majority of the building trades, many of whom have earnestly been pursuing ways to find common cause with environmental partners. There has been positive movement locally, nationally, and internationally in a more progressive direction with my union, the California Federation of Teachers, embracing a climate justice agenda here in California and SEIU heading in a similar direction at the national level, along with many others. But clearly, much work remains to be done inside the house of labor.
Too Much Big Green?
Elsewhere in environmentalist circles, activists were pondering news of a recent report critical of what Naomi Klein has called the “big green” strategy in the environmental movement. As the Huffington Post related:
A searing new report says the environmental movement is not winning and lays the blame squarely on the failed policies of environmental funders. The movement hasn’t won any “significant policy changes at the federal level in the United States since the 1980s” because funders have favored top-down elite strategies and have neglected to support a robust grassroots infrastructure. Environmental funders spent a whopping $10 billion between 2000 and 2009 but achieved relatively little because they failed to underwrite grassroots groups that are essential for any large-scale change, the report says. . . . Environmental funders mainly support large, professionalized environmental organizations instead of the scrappy community-based groups that are most heavily impacted by environmental harms. Organizations with annual budgets greater than $5 million make up only two percent of all environmental groups, yet receive more than half of all environmental grants and donations. For building a movement, funding priorities seem upside down.
In the report, “Why the Environmental Movement is Not Winning,” the National Committee for Responsible Philanthropy suggests that what funders should be doing in response to this situation is investing more money in grassroots action and building the infrastructure that can support a broad-based social movement rather than sticking with top-down professionalized “activism.”
Putting these two developments together, it is clear that in order to change everything those in both the labor and environmental movements need to start in their own houses.
Jim Miller
Latest posts by Jim Miller (see all)
- The San Diego Free Press Was a Gift - December 10, 2018
- Democracy Unchained: How to Win the Future - December 3, 2018
- Oligarchy Sucks: Billionaires Are Undermining Our Democracy and Killing the Planet - November 26, 2018
Most unions represent only the narrow selfish interests of those that comprise that particular union. This is not what is needed at this time. What is needed is a broad based coalition of environmentalists and those who work for a living – the 99%. The upper class just sits on their assets which have risen more in recent years than most people’s paychecks.
Witness the rise in housing prices in San Diego and elsewhere. Ditto for the stock market. Inflation of asset bubbles has produced more wealth and income than all the union efforts put together. There needs to be a broadly based union of the 99%, not the narrow interest unions we have today.
Got a source for that ‘most unions’ idea? Or is that something that “everybody knows?”
Not sure where the “most unions” comment comes from since Jim Miller spells out that the pushback to environmental issues emanates from a narrow sector of labor. His quote, in fact, is:
“a small reactionary element of the labor movement preferred instead to throw down the gauntlet and embrace a narrow, future-killing business unionism.
The good news here is that this group of unions doesn’t come close to speaking for the entire labor movement or even the majority of the building trades, many of whom have earnestly been pursuing ways to find common cause with environmental partners. There has been positive movement locally, nationally, and internationally in a more progressive direction with my union, the California Federation of Teachers, embracing a climate justice agenda here in California and SEIU heading in a similar direction at the national level, along with many others. But clearly, much work remains to be done inside the house of labor.”
This hardly represents “most unions.” Both my local (the same as Jim’s) and my statewide are guided by social justice unionism, thus our environmental efforts fall in line with that philosophy. The AFL-CIO, as Miller states, is working in concert with environmentalists. So, again, like Doug, I’m not sure where the notion of “most unions” comes from.
“Looking at data from national surveys, we find that union members are on average more likely than the general population to display pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors.”
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/19145/climate-change-unions-labor-members-blue-green-alliance
Please see Items 200 and 201 Linked below for Civic San Diego’s plan to use RPTTF Residual Distribution from the City of San Diego’s General Fund for extra off-budget Administrative and Project Mangement costs for the Successor Agency (SA). The Department of Finance (DOF) denied extra Administrative and Project Management Cost for the Successor Agency, impacting Civic San Diego, and the Off-Budget Non-General Fund Administrative Slush Funds of the City Attorney, Comptroller, Financial Management, Debt Management, Real Estate Assets Department (READ), General Government Services?, Other Consultants, etc.
Notice that the costs for the Administrative Slush Funds for City Departments funded by the General Fund are not included in the FY-2017 Budget as Item 202.
See Items 204 to 209 for the massive amounts of Non-Pensionable Pay/Benefit increases for FY-2014 to FY-2018, and Pensionable Pay Increases for FY-2019 and FY-2020 for SDCERS as Items 204-209.
Only the Police Department Raises for FY-2017 are included in the FY-2017 Budget and Independent Budget Analyst (IBA) Budget Reports. These new Labor Negotiated MOUs and Side Letters for Items 204-209, for FY-2017 to FY-2020 are not included in Item 202 the FY-2017 Budget.
Note Item 202 the FY-2017 Budget will be approved before Items 204-209 which includes MOU and Side Letter Pay/Benefit increases for majority of SDCERS Unions. Shady.
These massive Pay/Benefit increases come from constant labor negotiations where our Strong Mayor Faulconer is not the Lead Negotiator. Therefore City staff is negotiated with themselves without long-term analysis.
The funding to these Pay/Benefit Increase came from liquedated the $500,967,008 = $501 million = $0.5 Billion of created Successor Agency RPTTF Residual Distributions. When the goal is always zero to pay back the $1.5 Billion in Successor Agency ROPS-10 Debts.
20160613_Item-150_Semi-Annual_Capital_Improvement_Program_Budget_Monitoring-Revisions
http://tinyurl.com/20160613a
20160613_Item-200_FY-2017_SA_Budget_Successor_Agency_Administrative-Project-Management_Budget_CivicSD_CityAttorney_Comptroller_Financial_Management
http://tinyurl.com/20160613b
20160613_Item-201_FY-2017_Civic_San_Diego_Budget_Administrative-Project-Management_ROPS-10
http://tinyurl.com/20160613c
20160613_Item-202_FY-2017_Budget_Approval_Mayor_Faulconer_City_Council_Priorities
http://tinyurl.com/20160613d
20160613_Item-203_FY-2016_Year-End_Budget_Monitoring_Report_Adjustment_IBA-16-051
http://tinyurl.com/20160613e
20160613_Item-204_FY-2017-FY-2020_MOU_Fire_Fighters_IAFF_Local_145_Pay-Benefit_Increases_Non-Pensionable-17-18_&_Pensionable-19-20
http://tinyurl.com/20160613f
20160613_Item-205_FY-2017-FY-2020_SDMEA_Union_Side_Letter_Articles_38-53_Transportation_Benefit_Increases_Non-Pensionable-17-18_&_Pensionable-19-20
http://tinyurl.com/20160613g
20160613_Item-206_FY-2017-FY-2020_SDMEA_Unon_Side_Letter-2_Articles_4-28_Reopener_Flexible_Benefits_Plan_Increases_Non-Pensionable-17-18_&_Pensionable-19-20
http://tinyurl.com/20160613h
20160613_Item-207_FY-2017-FY-2019_MOU_DCAA_City_Attorneys_Pay-Benefit_Increases_Non-Pensionable-17-18_&_Pensionable-19
http://tinyurl.com/20160613i
20160613_Item-208_FY-2017-FY-2020_MOU_Lifeguards_Teamsters_Local_911_Pay-Benefit_Increases_Non-Pensionable-17-18_&_Pensionable-19-20
http://tinyurl.com/20160613j
20160613_Item-209_FY-2017-FY-2020_MOU_Fed_State_Municipal_Employees_Local_127_Pay-Benefit_Increases_Non-Pensionable-17-18_&_Pensionable-19-20
http://tinyurl.com/20160613k
The building trades here in SD are all in on a Chargers stadium to the detriment of the surrounding working class barrios and the rest of San Diego residents. They also want a new hotel (and the crappy, though unionized, service jobs it will provide) at Seaport Village to finalize the walling off of the SD Bay. Hopefully, neither will happen.