The headline of Garrison Cox’sNov. 28 guest columnmay proclaim “‘Fight for Fifteen’ movement has its math wrong”, but his incomplete research and unsubstantiated conclusions fail to add up.
kouroshziabari.com Mark-Vorpahl.jpg
For instance, the article claims “…there is no research that recommends a $15 minimum wage.” What about economic research heavyweights like former Labor Secretary Robert Reich’s article “Why the minimum wage should really be raised to $15 an hour,” or the Oregon Center for Public Policy’s “$15 minimum wage means real gains for workers“?
Unfortunately, it seems Cox slacked off with his homework by ignoring Oregon’s own history of large minimum wage hikes. Otherwise his worries about $15 being too “drastic” would likely be calmed.
From 1972-1976 Oregon’s minimum wage increased 84 percent over four years, an average of 21 percent each year.From 1989-1991 it increased 42 percent over two years, again a 21 percent average annual increase. Oregon’s economy and small businesses did well after each substantial raise.
The proposed increase to $15 phases in over three years, with an average annual increase of 20.6 percent.We are hardly wandering into unexplored territory. Hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers benefited from those proportionally larger minimum wage increases, and the corporate economists’ dire warnings and predictions came to nothing. There is no reason to expect a different outcome this time, despite Cox’s warnings.
The notion that Cox attributes to 15 Now PDX that “workers should not live in poverty if they work full-time” was actually the intent of the first federal minimum wage law.F.D.R. said: “No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country,” and, “By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.”
A $15 minimum wage is barely, if even, enough to provide Oregonians a decent living, according to MIT, Alliance for a Just Society, National Low Income Housing Coalition and others. It would help 740,000 Oregonians who currently make under $15 to rise above “a bare subsistence level.”
Cox is right to point out the need for rent control. However, experience has shown that we can’t depend on our legislators by themselves for anything adequate towards affordable housing or minimum wage. It will take a movement to effectively counter corporate interests and opposition to any humane housing policy or decent minimum wage increase that takes away from their profits. A movement like this is developing in Oregon demanding a $15 minimum wage.If Cox is serious about his support for rent control, he should consider that winning $15 will not only help people afford rent more easily, but the developing movement for $15 also creates opportunities to win other demands such as a housing policy that really benefits our working class communities. Cox should consider what is needed to build unity and win support for rent control, rather than falling into an ill-considered approach of dividing the grassroots.
MARK VORPAHL
Mark Vorpahlis an union steward, social justice activist, and writer for Workers’ Action –www.workerscompass.org.
Mark is a member of the 15 Now PDX Steering Committee and can be reached at: Portland@workerscompass.org
As AFL-CIO convention delegates gather in Los Angeles this weekend to discuss, as President Rich Trumka has put it, how to “do things different,” and become “integrated in the community in every way,” they would do well to take a page from the book of the far feistier Jobs with Justice. Trumka says labor now needs to make common cause with other progressive organizations, from the Sierra Club to the NAACP; local JwJ chapters have been working in community coalitions for 25 years.
Reviewer Mark Vorpahl from the Portland, Oregon, chapter extracts some lessons from JwJ’s record, and points the way forward. –Eds.
What Can We Learn from 25 Years of Jobs with Justice?
As AFL-CIO convention delegates gather in Los Angeles this weekend to discuss, as President Rich Trumka has put it, how to “do things different,” and become “integrated in the community in every way,” they would do well to take a page from the book of the far feistier Jobs with Justice. Trumka says labor now needs to make common cause with other progressive organizations, from the Sierra Club to the NAACP; local JwJ chapters have been working in community coalitions for 25 years.
Reviewer Mark Vorpahl from the Portland, Oregon, chapter extracts some lessons from JwJ’s record, and points the way forward. –Eds.
It’s no secret that the last 30 years have seen a brutal corporate assault on U.S. workers. Incomes and union membership rates have plummeted, unemployment is soaring, and the two corporate parties have joined forces to go after our previously untouchable historic gains.
This class war has largely been one-sided—but not entirely. The organization Jobs with Justice, for one, demonstrates that the workers’ movement is still lively, innovative, and capable of resistance.
A well-organized, tantalizing, and frequently inspiring new collection of interviews and essays, Jobs with Justice: 25 Years, 25 Voices, traces the group’s history and points toward what could be a promising future.
JwJ is an ongoing national coalition with 40 chapters where, in the words of co-founder Stewart Acuff, “community leaders and leaders of faith can sit down as equals with labor leaders and plan campaigns and plan initiatives.”
It has created a space where union members can count on activists focused on community issues to support their workplace struggles—and vice versa.
‘I’ll Be There’
JwJ’s “I’ll Be There” pledge encapsulates this commitment. “Those who signed the ‘I’ll Be There’ pledge card realized that if we were there five times a year for someone else’s fight, we might start winning,” according to Communications Workers President Larry Cohen, a co-founder of JwJ and national board member.
While the pledge could be reduced to “I’ll show up at your event if you show up at mine,” victories won through collaboration promote a deeper solidarity. Participants begin to realize that no struggle is isolated, and learn the meaning of “An injury to one is an injury to all” from their own experience.
With this model, JwJ is able to stretch the boundaries of what union leaders are usually willing to take on. As Carl Rosen, co-founder of Chicago JwJ and president of the United Electrical Workers Western Region, wrote:
To me, the most important impact of Chicago Jobs with Justice has been its role in breaking [machine politics] up, and instead helping Chicago regain a much more independent labor movement where the labor leadership can stand up on behalf of what they think is right for their members. They aren’t beholden to elected officials or anyone else.
By uniting union and non-union workers, JwJ can even sometimes embolden labor to take on corporate politicians of both parties. It builds its power for political change from the grassroots—rather than running lobbying campaigns with no strength behind them, as many unions do.
One disappointment is the omission of the Vermont Workers Center, which is that state's chapter of Jobs with Justice. In 1998 the VMC launched its “Healthcare Is a Human Right” campaign and changed what was politically possible in the state. As a result, Vermont politicians passed legislation with the potential to create universal health care and a single-payer plan—in striking contrast with the rest of the country and with Obamacare.
VWC activists are now following up with “Put People First: The People’s Budget Campaign,” an alternative to the cuts only/shared sacrifice budgets of the Democrats and the Republicans. The book would have greatly benefited from detailed discussion of the VMC’s work.
A Single National Campaign Is Needed
Reading about these victories is inspiring. But there are limitations, too.
JwJ chapters’ efforts are largely local and scattered all over the issues map, without prioritization. Meanwhile, politicians of the 1% are busy erasing the gains made by the union and civil rights movements, and the political voice of workers has diminished to an ignorable whisper. The rights to jobs, health care, education, housing, and a good retirement are under attack, while the corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes to lift the well-being of all.
The AFL-CIO has passed resolutions and some labor leaders have made powerful statements in defense of these rights. But they have not committed serious resources toward building a mass movement. Gains for workers are now considered politically impossible and unrealistic.
By fighting its many defensive local battles, JwJ cannot hope to pose a challenge to corporate domination, except in isolated incidences. While admirable, these campaigns are like sticking fingers into the cracks of a crumbling dam.
How might JwJ develop to meet the present challenges? The group could consolidate its efforts into a focused national campaign that can draw in the widest layers of the 99%.
The movement should demand a federal jobs program—as the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom did, and the AFL-CIO is on record advocating—to be paid for by taxing the rich, the corporations, and Wall Street.
Because of its efforts over the last 25 years, JwJ is in a good position to promote a united movement of labor and its community allies for economic justice—starting first and foremost with the right to good jobs.
Mark Vorpahl is a steward in Service Employees Local 49, social justice activist, and member of the Portland chapter of Jobs with Justice. He can be reached at Portland@workerscompass.org.
What Can We Learn from 25 Years of Jobs with Justice?
607
As AFL-CIO convention delegates gather in Los Angeles this weekend to discuss, as President Rich Trumka has put it, how to “do things different,” and become “integrated in the community in every way,” they would do well to take a page from the book of the far feistier Jobs with Justice. Trumka says labor now needs to make common cause with other progressive organizations, from the Sierra Club to the NAACP; local JwJ chapters have been working in community coalitions for 25 years.
Reviewer Mark Vorpahl from the Portland, Oregon, chapter extracts some lessons from JwJ’s record, and points the way forward. –Eds.
It’s no secret that the last 30 years have seen a brutal corporate assault on U.S. workers. Incomes and union membership rates have plummeted, unemployment is soaring, and the two corporate parties have joined forces to go after our previously untouchable historic gains.
This class war has largely been one-sided—but not entirely. The organization Jobs with Justice, for one, demonstrates that the workers’ movement is still lively, innovative, and capable of resistance.
A well-organized, tantalizing, and frequently inspiring new collection of interviews and essays, Jobs with Justice: 25 Years, 25 Voices, traces the group’s history and points toward what could be a promising future.
JwJ is an ongoing national coalition with 40 chapters where, in the words of co-founder Stewart Acuff, “community leaders and leaders of faith can sit down as equals with labor leaders and plan campaigns and plan initiatives.”
It has created a space where union members can count on activists focused on community issues to support their workplace struggles—and vice versa.
‘I’ll Be There’
JwJ’s “I’ll Be There” pledge encapsulates this commitment. “Those who signed the ‘I’ll Be There’ pledge card realized that if we were there five times a year for someone else’s fight, we might start winning,” according to Communications Workers President Larry Cohen, a co-founder of JwJ and national board member.
While the pledge could be reduced to “I’ll show up at your event if you show up at mine,” victories won through collaboration promote a deeper solidarity. Participants begin to realize that no struggle is isolated, and learn the meaning of “An injury to one is an injury to all” from their own experience.
With this model, JwJ is able to stretch the boundaries of what union leaders are usually willing to take on. As Carl Rosen, co-founder of Chicago JwJ and president of the United Electrical Workers Western Region, wrote:
To me, the most important impact of Chicago Jobs with Justice has been its role in breaking [machine politics] up, and instead helping Chicago regain a much more independent labor movement where the labor leadership can stand up on behalf of what they think is right for their members. They aren’t beholden to elected officials or anyone else.
By uniting union and non-union workers, JwJ can even sometimes embolden labor to take on corporate politicians of both parties. It builds its power for political change from the grassroots—rather than running lobbying campaigns with no strength behind them, as many unions do.
One disappointment is the omission of the Vermont Workers Center, which is that state's chapter of Jobs with Justice. In 1998 the VMC launched its “Healthcare Is a Human Right” campaign and changed what was politically possible in the state. As a result, Vermont politicians passed legislation with the potential to create universal health care and a single-payer plan—in striking contrast with the rest of the country and with Obamacare.
VWC activists are now following up with “Put People First: The People’s Budget Campaign,” an alternative to the cuts only/shared sacrifice budgets of the Democrats and the Republicans. The book would have greatly benefited from detailed discussion of the VMC’s work.
A Single National Campaign Is Needed
Reading about these victories is inspiring. But there are limitations, too.
JwJ chapters’ efforts are largely local and scattered all over the issues map, without prioritization. Meanwhile, politicians of the 1% are busy erasing the gains made by the union and civil rights movements, and the political voice of workers has diminished to an ignorable whisper. The rights to jobs, health care, education, housing, and a good retirement are under attack, while the corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes to lift the well-being of all.
The AFL-CIO has passed resolutions and some labor leaders have made powerful statements in defense of these rights. But they have not committed serious resources toward building a mass movement. Gains for workers are now considered politically impossible and unrealistic.
By fighting its many defensive local battles, JwJ cannot hope to pose a challenge to corporate domination, except in isolated incidences. While admirable, these campaigns are like sticking fingers into the cracks of a crumbling dam.
How might JwJ develop to meet the present challenges? The group could consolidate its efforts into a focused national campaign that can draw in the widest layers of the 99%.
The movement should demand a federal jobs program—as the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom did, and the AFL-CIO is on record advocating—to be paid for by taxing the rich, the corporations, and Wall Street.
Because of its efforts over the last 25 years, JwJ is in a good position to promote a united movement of labor and its community allies for economic justice—starting first and foremost with the right to good jobs.
Mark Vorpahl is a steward in Service Employees Local 49, social justice activist, and member of the Portland chapter of Jobs with Justice. He can be reached at Portland@workerscompass.org.
- See more at: http://www.labornotes.org/blogs/2013/09/what-can-we-learn-25-years-jobs-justice#sthash.yAPLYlGX.dpuf
Opposition Grows Fierce to Austerity Cuts in Portland
April 22, 2013
Photo by Paul
By Mark Vorpahl
On April 11 over 400 people packed the third public Portland Budget Hearing, which was organized by the City of Portland and which left many spilling out beyond the room where the hearing took place. More importantly, for the City Council there was an unexpected critical outpouring from the vast majority who attended. For the first time, the City Council and Mayor Charlie Hales began to lose control over their attempts to sell austerity.
This was in sharp contrast to business as usual. Portland budget hearings are generally tightly controlled, polite affairs. What are the reasons for this movement towards a more charged polarized event?
Like many U.S. cities since the onset of the Great Recession in 2008, Portland, Oregon has faced several consecutive years of budget cuts at the cost of lost jobs and its communities’ livability. While the politicians promoting these cuts said they were necessary squeezes for a prosperous future, they have only led to more austerity in the subsequent years.
Now the City Council and the newly elected mayor, Charlie Hales, are not only promoting more of the same — they are threatening Portland’s citizens with the most severe cuts yet. We have been told that there is a $21 million hole in the city’s General Fund, according to latest estimates.
Mayor Hales has asked each city department to submit proposed budgets with 10 percent less revenue. These include already underfunded housing programs, community centers, funding for parks, after school programs, youth employment services, and many other services and jobs. It is no exaggeration to say that many lives and Portland’s future are being left to precariously dangle in the wind as the City Council goes through its process of demanding austerity cuts.
The myth that Portland is broke and that “sacrifices have to be made” is meant to leave those facing the austerity ax powerless and divided. However, the deficit in Portland’s General Fund is not an accounting problem. It is a political issue.
This latest budget crisis poses the question of “who does Portland’s elected leaders serve, the city’s majority of working class communities or big business and the wealthy?” So far, while the 99% have been suffering with all the belt tightening, Portland’s 1% have been left to grow fat.
With such results, it is only a matter of time before increasing numbers of people start concluding that “enough is enough.” The city government’s narrowly constructed and carefully controlled austerity narrative, meant to divide and weaken Portland’s working class communities, is beginning to create the opposite reaction to its intended effect. That is, we are seeing the beginnings of a potential united social movement against the actions and threats of the city government that privileges the corporations at the expense of Portland’s communities.
The Hearing
Those attending the public hearing on April 11 included representatives from the Metropolitan Youth Commission, Laborers International Local 483, Portland Community College, Portland Safety Net, SUN Schools, Eastside Action Plan, Elders in Action, AFSCME Local 189, COPPEA (City of Portland Professional Employees Association) and numerous others. They came with prepared testimonial statements, t-shirts and signs defending the programs they need.
Also attending were members of Jobs with Justice, the People’s Budget Project, and the Solidarity Against Austerity Committee (SAAC). These groups saw the hearing as an opportunity to begin building unity among Portland’s working class communities to oppose all cuts.
Pulling this off required that attendees knew the moment they walked in that the hearing was not going to be business as usual, and that a collective approach towards defending all the programs facing cuts was to be encouraged. A colorful banner over the doors to the hearing room read, “Communities United To Stop Cuts!”
Laborers International Local 483 passed out so many red t-shirts reading “Community & City Workers’ United” that once everyone put them on, it looked like the hearing had transformed into a political rally in Venezuela. Hundreds of stickers were passed out reading “Communities United to Stop Cuts” and “Raise Revenue Not Unemployment,” as well as dozens of placards with the same messages.
In the testimonials, the first volley against the City Council’s austerity rationale was fired by Professor Robin Hahnel, a Portland State University economist. In a calm manner he made several powerful points, including:
When there is still much too much unemployment and no imminent danger of inflation, fiscal austerity is insane! Economic theory predicts it. History proves it. And any competent economist who is not in the service of the 1% will tell you as much.
The City Council’s attempt to cut off Professor Hahnel resulted in a loud protest from the audience. At the end of his short presentation the room erupted in approval, with spontaneous shouts to the City Council of “Go get the money!” In other words, tax the rich. This was the first of several such moments throughout the evening.
Most of the many testimonies of the evening consisted of community members passionately defending the programs they depend on. There were also a large number of statements exposing the myth that Portland is broke. These speakers pointed out the city tax breaks handed out to corporations that, if eliminated, could create enough revenue to close the General Fund deficit and provide an economic stimulus for Portland’s communities.
They argued for raising the rate of Portland’s business license fee for those who are making millions, which is currently only 2.2 percent. They also advocated moving money from the city’s Internal Service Funds (ISF) to the General Fund. The ISF has grown from $68.8 million five years ago to over $106.7 million today, with little transparency about what it is used for. (The U.S. Public Interest Research Group gave the Portland Budget a D- grade for transparency.)
Despite what the council and mainstream media claim, there is no shortage of money in Portland or in Oregon. We live in the richest country in the world, one that has huge concentrations of wealth at the top,” said school counselor and SAAC activist Steven Siegel. “Please do your job and represent the people. Go get the money! Raise revenue! Enough cuts!
Several speakers turned around to directly address the audience, asking them to raise their hands or stand up if they were against all cuts. From this writer’s vantage point, not a single person refused to respond approvingly to the requests.
Moving Forward
Far from the passive theater meant to maintain the appearance of democracy, the public Portland Budget Hearing last week transformed into a movement-building event. This was because of a union/community partnership that refused to sacrifice its independence in order to gain favor from politicians. Rather, its aim was to draw out, in the broadest way, the understanding that those threatened by cuts can stand strongest when they stand together. Solidarity is the foundation of the 99%’s strength and it is our only hope towards reversing austerity and the corporate agenda behind it.
As if to underline the urgent need for this development, the next day it was learned that the City Council has been meeting with Nike. Over $80 million in incentives were reportedly being offered to Nike to expand into Portland. Considering that these politicians are threatening the city’s communities with potentially devastating cuts, it is hard to imagine a sharper confirmation that their priority and allegiance lies with high capital. It will take a power stronger than Nike’s billions to set things straight — and that power is v
Opposition Grows Fierce to Austerity Cuts in Portland
April 22, 2013
Photo by Paul
By Mark Vorpahl
On April 11 over 400 people packed the third public Portland Budget Hearing, which was organized by the City of Portland and which left many spilling out beyond the room where the hearing took place. More importantly, for the City Council there was an unexpected critical outpouring from the vast majority who attended. For the first time, the City Council and Mayor Charlie Hales began to lose control over their attempts to sell austerity.
This was in sharp contrast to business as usual. Portland budget hearings are generally tightly controlled, polite affairs. What are the reasons for this movement towards a more charged polarized event?
Like many U.S. cities since the onset of the Great Recession in 2008, Portland, Oregon has faced several consecutive years of budget cuts at the cost of lost jobs and its communities’ livability. While the politicians promoting these cuts said they were necessary squeezes for a prosperous future, they have only led to more austerity in the subsequent years.
Now the City Council and the newly elected mayor, Charlie Hales, are not only promoting more of the same — they are threatening Portland’s citizens with the most severe cuts yet. We have been told that there is a $21 million hole in the city’s General Fund, according to latest estimates.
Mayor Hales has asked each city department to submit proposed budgets with 10 percent less revenue. These include already underfunded housing programs, community centers, funding for parks, after school programs, youth employment services, and many other services and jobs. It is no exaggeration to say that many lives and Portland’s future are being left to precariously dangle in the wind as the City Council goes through its process of demanding austerity cuts.
The myth that Portland is broke and that “sacrifices have to be made” is meant to leave those facing the austerity ax powerless and divided. However, the deficit in Portland’s General Fund is not an accounting problem. It is a political issue.
This latest budget crisis poses the question of “who does Portland’s elected leaders serve, the city’s majority of working class communities or big business and the wealthy?” So far, while the 99% have been suffering with all the belt tightening, Portland’s 1% have been left to grow fat.
With such results, it is only a matter of time before increasing numbers of people start concluding that “enough is enough.” The city government’s narrowly constructed and carefully controlled austerity narrative, meant to divide and weaken Portland’s working class communities, is beginning to create the opposite reaction to its intended effect. That is, we are seeing the beginnings of a potential united social movement against the actions and threats of the city government that privileges the corporations at the expense of Portland’s communities.
The Hearing
Those attending the public hearing on April 11 included representatives from the Metropolitan Youth Commission, Laborers International Local 483, Portland Community College, Portland Safety Net, SUN Schools, Eastside Action Plan, Elders in Action, AFSCME Local 189, COPPEA (City of Portland Professional Employees Association) and numerous others. They came with prepared testimonial statements, t-shirts and signs defending the programs they need.
Also attending were members of Jobs with Justice, the People’s Budget Project, and the Solidarity Against Austerity Committee (SAAC). These groups saw the hearing as an opportunity to begin building unity among Portland’s working class communities to oppose all cuts.
Pulling this off required that attendees knew the moment they walked in that the hearing was not going to be business as usual, and that a collective approach towards defending all the programs facing cuts was to be encouraged. A colorful banner over the doors to the hearing room read, “Communities United To Stop Cuts!”
Laborers International Local 483 passed out so many red t-shirts reading “Community & City Workers’ United” that once everyone put them on, it looked like the hearing had transformed into a political rally in Venezuela. Hundreds of stickers were passed out reading “Communities United to Stop Cuts” and “Raise Revenue Not Unemployment,” as well as dozens of placards with the same messages.
In the testimonials, the first volley against the City Council’s austerity rationale was fired by Professor Robin Hahnel, a Portland State University economist. In a calm manner he made several powerful points, including:
When there is still much too much unemployment and no imminent danger of inflation, fiscal austerity is insane! Economic theory predicts it. History proves it. And any competent economist who is not in the service of the 1% will tell you as much.
The City Council’s attempt to cut off Professor Hahnel resulted in a loud protest from the audience. At the end of his short presentation the room erupted in approval, with spontaneous shouts to the City Council of “Go get the money!” In other words, tax the rich. This was the first of several such moments throughout the evening.
Most of the many testimonies of the evening consisted of community members passionately defending the programs they depend on. There were also a large number of statements exposing the myth that Portland is broke. These speakers pointed out the city tax breaks handed out to corporations that, if eliminated, could create enough revenue to close the General Fund deficit and provide an economic stimulus for Portland’s communities.
They argued for raising the rate of Portland’s business license fee for th
Opposition Grows Fierce to Austerity Cuts in Portland
April 22, 2013
Photo by Paul
By Mark Vorpahl
On April 11 over 400 people packed the third public Portland Budget Hearing, which was organized by the City of Portland and which left many spilling out beyond the room where the hearing took place. More importantly, for the City Council there was an unexpected critical outpouring from the vast majority who attended. For the first time, the City Council and Mayor Charlie Hales began to lose control over their attempts to sell austerity.
This was in sharp contrast to business as usual. Portland budget hearings are generally tightly controlled, polite affairs. What are the reasons for this movement towards a more charged polarized event?
Like many U.S. cities since the onset of the Great Recession in 2008, Portland, Oregon has faced several consecutive years of budget cuts at the cost of lost jobs and its communities’ livability. While the politicians promoting these cuts said they were necessary squeezes for a prosperous future, they have only led to more austerity in the subsequent years.
Now the City Council and the newly elected mayor, Charlie Hales, are not only promoting more of the same — they are threatening Portland’s citizens with the most severe cuts yet. We have been told that there is a $21 million hole in the city’s General Fund, according to latest estimates.
Mayor Hales has asked each city department to submit proposed budgets with 10 percent less revenue. These include already underfunded housing programs, community centers, funding for parks, after school programs, youth employment services, and many other services and jobs. It is no exaggeration to say that many lives and Portland’s future are being left to precariously dangle in the wind as the City Council goes through its process of demanding austerity cuts.
The myth that Portland is broke and that “sacrifices have to be made” is meant to leave those facing the austerity ax powerless and divided. However, the deficit in Portland’s General Fund is not an accounting problem. It is a political issue.
This latest budget crisis poses the question of “who does Portland’s elected leaders serve, the city’s majority of working class communities or big business and the wealthy?” So far, while the 99% have been suffering with all the belt tightening, Portland’s 1% have been left to grow fat.
With such results, it is only a matter of time before increasing numbers of people start concluding that “enough is enough.” The city government’s narrowly constructed and carefully controlled austerity narrative, meant to divide and weaken Portland’s working class communities, is beginning to create the opposite reaction to its intended effect. That is, we are seeing the beginnings of a potential united social movement against the actions and threats of the city government that privileges the corporations at the expense of Portland’s communities.
The Hearing
Those attending the public hearing on April 11 included representatives from the Metropolitan Youth Commission, Laborers International Local 483, Portland Community College, Portland Safety Net, SUN Schools, Eastside Action Plan, Elders in Action, AFSCME Local 189, COPPEA (City of Portland Professional Employees Association) and numerous others. They came with prepared testimonial statements, t-shirts and signs defending the programs they need.
Also attending were members of Jobs with Justice, the People’s Budget Project, and the Solidarity Against Austerity Committee (SAAC). These groups saw the hearing as an opportunity to begin building unity among Portland’s working class communities to oppose all cuts.
Pulling this off required that attendees knew the moment they walked in that the hearing was not going to be business as usual, and that a collective approach towards defending all the programs facing cuts was to be encouraged. A colorful banner over the doors to the hearing room read, “Communities United To Stop Cuts!”
Laborers International Local 483 passed out so many red t-shirts reading “Community & City Workers’ United” that once everyone put them on, it looked like the hearing had transformed into a political rally in Venezuela. Hundreds of stickers were passed out reading “Communities United to Stop Cuts” and “Raise Revenue Not Unemployment,” as well as dozens of placards with the same messages.
In the testimonials, the first volley against the City Council’s austerity rationale was fired by Professor Robin Hahnel, a Portland State University economist. In a calm manner he made several powerful points, including:
When there is still much too much unemployment and no imminent danger of inflation, fiscal austerity is insane! Economic theory predicts it. History proves it. And any competent economist who is not in the service of the 1% will tell you as much.
The City Council’s attempt to cut off Professor Hahnel resulted in a loud protest from the audience. At the end of his short presentation the room erupted in approval, with spontaneous shouts to the City Council of “Go get the money!” In other words, tax the rich. This was the first of several such moments throughout the evening.
Most of the many testimonies of the evening consisted of community members passionately defending the programs they depend on. There were also a large number of statements exposing the myth that Portland is broke. These speakers pointed out the city tax breaks handed out to corporations that, if eliminated, could create enough revenue to close the General Fund deficit and provide an economic stimulus for Portland’s communities.
They argued for raising the rate of Portland’s business license fee for those who are making millions, which is currently only 2.2 percent. They also advocated moving money from the city’s Internal Service Funds (ISF) to the General Fund. The ISF has grown from $68.8 million five years ago to over $106.7 million today, with little transparency about what it is used for. (The U.S. Public Interest Research Group gave the Portland Budget a D- grade for transparency.)
Despite what the council and mainstream media claim, there is no shortage of money in Portland or in Oregon. We live in the richest country in the world, one that has huge concentrations of wealth at the top,” said school counselor and SAAC activist Steven Siegel. “Please do your job and represent the people. Go get the money! Raise revenue! Enough cuts!
Several speakers turned around to directly address the audience, a
Opposition Grows Fierce to Austerity Cuts in Portland
April 22, 2013
Photo by Paul
By Mark Vorpahl
On April 11 over 400 people packed the third public Portland Budget Hearing, which was organized by the City of Portland and which left many spilling out beyond the room where the hearing took place. More importantly, for the City Council there was an unexpected critical outpouring from the vast majority who attended. For the first time, the City Council and Mayor Charlie Hales began to lose control over their attempts to sell austerity.
This was in sharp contrast to business as usual. Portland budget hearings are generally tightly controlled, polite affairs. What are the reasons for this movement towards a more charged polarized event?
Like many U.S. cities since the onset of the Great Recession in 2008, Portland, Oregon has faced several consecutive years of budget cuts at the cost of lost jobs and its communities’ livability. While the politicians promoting these cuts said they were necessary squeezes for a prosperous future, they have only led to more austerity in the subsequent years.
Now the City Council and the newly elected mayor, Charlie Hales, are not only promoting more of the same — they are threatening Portland’s citizens with the most severe cuts yet. We have been told that there is a $21 million hole in the city’s General Fund, according to latest estimates.
Mayor Hales has asked each city department to submit proposed budgets with 10 percent less revenue. These include already underfunded housing programs, community centers, funding for parks, after school programs, youth employment services, and many other services and jobs. It is no exaggeration to say that many lives and Portland’s future are being left to precariously dangle in the wind as the City Council goes through its process of demanding austerity cuts.
The myth that Portland is broke and that “sacrifices have to be made” is meant to leave those facing the austerity ax powerless and divided. However, the deficit in Portland’s General Fund is not an accounting problem. It is a political issue.
This latest budget crisis poses the question of “who does Portland’s elected leaders serve, the city’s majority of working class communities or big business and the wealthy?” So far, while the 99% have been suffering with all the belt tightening, Portland’s 1% have been left to grow fat.
With such results, it is only a matter of time before increasing numbers of people start concluding that “enough is enough.” The city government’s narrowly constructed and carefully controlled austerity narrative, meant to divide and weaken Portland’s working class communities, is beginning to create the opposite reaction to its intended effect. That is, we are seeing the beginnings of a potential united social movement against the actions and threats of the city government that privileges the corporations at the expense of Portland’s communities.
The Hearing
Those attending the public hearing on April 11 included representatives from the Metropolitan Youth Commission, Laborers International Local 483, Portland Community College, Portland Safety Net, SUN Schools, Eastside Action Plan, Elders in Action, AFSCME Local 189, COPPEA (City of Portland Professional Employees Association) and numerous others. They came with prepared testimonial statements, t-shirts and signs defending the programs they need.
Also attending were members of Jobs with Justice, the People’s Budget Project, and the Solidarity Against Austerity Committee (SAAC). These groups saw the hearing as an opportunity to begin building unity among Portland’s working class communities to oppose all cuts.
Pulling this off required that attendees knew the moment they walked in that the hearing was not going to be business as usual, and that a collective approach towards defending all the programs facing cuts was to be encouraged. A colorful banner over the doors to the hearing room read, “Communities United To Stop Cuts!”
Laborers International Local 483 passed out so many red t-shirts reading “Community & City Workers’ United” that once everyone put them on, it looked like the hearing had transformed into a political rally in Venezuela. Hundreds of stickers were passed out reading “Communities United to Stop Cuts” and “Raise Revenue Not Unemployment,” as well as dozens of placards with the same messages.
In the testimonials, the first volley against the City Council’s austerity rationale was fired by Professor Robin Hahnel, a Portland State University economist. In a calm manner he made several powerful points, including:
When there is still much too much unemployment and no imminent danger of inflation, fiscal austerity is insane! Economic theory predicts it. History proves it. And any competent economist who is not in the service of the 1% will tell you as much.
The City Council’s attempt to cut off Professor Hahnel resulted in a loud protest from the audience. At the end of his short presentation the room erupted in approval, with spontaneous shouts to the City Council of “Go get the money!” In other words, tax the rich. This was the first of several such moments throughout the evening.
Most of the many testimonies of the evening consisted of community members passionately defending the programs they depend on. There were also a large number of statements exposing the myth that Portland is broke. These speakers pointed out the city tax breaks handed out to corporations that, if eliminated, could create enough revenue to close the General Fund deficit and provide an economic stimulus for Portland’s communities.
They argued for raising the rate of Portland’s business license fee for those who are making millions, which is currently only 2.2 percent. They also advocated moving money from the city’s Internal Service Funds (ISF) to the General Fund. The ISF has grown from $68.8 million five years ago to over $106.7 million today, with little transparency about what it is used for. (The U.S. Public Interest Research Group gave the Portland Budget a D- grade for transparency.)
Despite what the council and mainstream media claim, there is no shortage of money in Portland or in Oregon. We live in the richest country in the world, one that has huge concentrations of wealth at the top,” said school counselor and SAAC activist Steven Siegel. “Please do your job and represent the people. Go get the money! Raise revenue! Enough cuts!
Several speakers turned around to directly address the audience, asking them to raise their hands or stand up if they were against all cuts. From this writer’s vantage point, not a single person refused to respond approvingly to the requests.
Moving Forward
Far from the passive theater meant to maintain the appearance of democracy, the public Portland Budget Hearing last week transformed into a movement-building event. This was because of a union/community partnership that refused to sacrifice its independence in order to gain favor from politicians. Rather, its aim was to draw out, in the broadest way, the understanding that those threatened by cuts can stand strongest when they stand together. Solidarity is the foundation of the 99%’s strength and it is our only hope towards reversing austerity and the corporate agenda behind it.
As if to underline the urgent need for this development, the next day it was learned that the City Council has been meeting with Nike. Over $80 million in incentives were reportedly being offered to Nike to expand into Portland. Considering that these politicians are threatening the city’s communities with potentially devastating cuts, it is hard to imagine a sharper confirmation that their priority and allegiance lies with high capital. It will take a power stronger than Nike’s billions to set things straight — and that power is visible when our communities’ numbers are united.
Mayor Hales is scheduled to announce the initial detailed budget proposal on May 1, and May 16 will be the last public hearing. On July 1, the final budget is scheduled to go into effect. There is much grassroots work that needs to be done to promote a people’s budget that will turn austerity around. But we are off to a promising beginning.
And the potential impact of developments in Portland has a national scope. As cities across the U.S. face similar cuts, with both major political parties lining up to cut Social Security and Medicare, it is clear that only we, the people, can save ourselves and reverse the direction the country is going. In Portland, there is a chance to wage a comeback that can win. And any such example could prove infectious.
Mark Vorpahl is a union steward, social justice activist and a writer for Workers Action and Occupy.com. He can be reached at Portland@workerscompass.org.
sking them to raise their hands or stand up if they were against all cuts. From this writer’s vantage point, not a single person refused to respond approvingly to the requests.
Moving Forward
Far from the passive theater meant to maintain the appearance of democracy, the public Portland Budget Hearing last week transformed into a movement-building event. This was because of a union/community partnership that refused to sacrifice its independence in order to gain favor from politicians. Rather, its aim was to draw out, in the broadest way, the understanding that those threatened by cuts can stand strongest when they stand together. Solidarity is the foundation of the 99%’s strength and it is our only hope towards reversing austerity and the corporate agenda behind it.
As if to underline the urgent need for this development, the next day it was learned that the City Council has been meeting with Nike. Over $80 million in incentives were reportedly being offered to Nike to expand into Portland. Considering that these politicians are threatening the city’s communities with potentially devastating cuts, it is hard to imagine a sharper confirmation that their priority and allegiance lies with high capital. It will take a power stronger than Nike’s billions to set things straight — and that power is visible when our communities’ numbers are united.
Mayor Hales is scheduled to announce the initial detailed budget proposal on May 1, and May 16 will be the last public hearing. On July 1, the final budget is scheduled to go into effect. There is much grassroots work that needs to be done to promote a people’s budget that will turn austerity around. But we are off to a promising beginning.
And the potential impact of developments in Portland has a national scope. As cities across the U.S. face similar cuts, with both major political parties lining up to cut Social Security and Medicare, it is clear that only we, the people, can save ourselves and reverse the direction the country is going. In Portland, there is a chance to wage a comeback that can win. And any such example could prove infectious.
Mark Vorpahl is a union steward, social justice activist and a writer for Workers Action and Occupy.com. He can be reached at Portland@workerscompass.org.
ose who are making millions, which is currently only 2.2 percent. They also advocated moving money from the city’s Internal Service Funds (ISF) to the General Fund. The ISF has grown from $68.8 million five years ago to over $106.7 million today, with little transparency about what it is used for. (The U.S. Public Interest Research Group gave the Portland Budget a D- grade for transparency.)
Despite what the council and mainstream media claim, there is no shortage of money in Portland or in Oregon. We live in the richest country in the world, one that has huge concentrations of wealth at the top,” said school counselor and SAAC activist Steven Siegel. “Please do your job and represent the people. Go get the money! Raise revenue! Enough cuts!
Several speakers turned around to directly address the audience, asking them to raise their hands or stand up if they were against all cuts. From this writer’s vantage point, not a single person refused to respond approvingly to the requests.
Moving Forward
Far from the passive theater meant to maintain the appearance of democracy, the public Portland Budget Hearing last week transformed into a movement-building event. This was because of a union/community partnership that refused to sacrifice its independence in order to gain favor from politicians. Rather, its aim was to draw out, in the broadest way, the understanding that those threatened by cuts can stand strongest when they stand together. Solidarity is the foundation of the 99%’s strength and it is our only hope towards reversing austerity and the corporate agenda behind it.
As if to underline the urgent need for this development, the next day it was learned that the City Council has been meeting with Nike. Over $80 million in incentives were reportedly being offered to Nike to expand into Portland. Considering that these politicians are threatening the city’s communities with potentially devastating cuts, it is hard to imagine a sharper confirmation that their priority and allegiance lies with high capital. It will take a power stronger than Nike’s billions to set things straight — and that power is visible when our communities’ numbers are united.
Mayor Hales is scheduled to announce the initial detailed budget proposal on May 1, and May 16 will be the last public hearing. On July 1, the final budget is scheduled to go into effect. There is much grassroots work that needs to be done to promote a people’s budget that will turn austerity around. But we are off to a promising beginning.
And the potential impact of developments in Portland has a national scope. As cities across the U.S. face similar cuts, with both major political parties lining up to cut Social Security and Medicare, it is clear that only we, the people, can save ourselves and reverse the direction the country is going. In Portland, there is a chance to wage a comeback that can win. And any such example could prove infectious.
Mark Vorpahl is a union steward, social justice activist and a writer for Workers Action and Occupy.com. He can be reached at Portland@workerscompass.org.
isible when our communities’ numbers are united.
Mayor Hales is scheduled to announce the initial detailed budget proposal on May 1, and May 16 will be the last public hearing. On July 1, the final budget is scheduled to go into effect. There is much grassroots work that needs to be done to promote a people’s budget that will turn austerity around. But we are off to a promising beginning.
And the potential impact of developments in Portland has a national scope. As cities across the U.S. face similar cuts, with both major political parties lining up to cut Social Security and Medicare, it is clear that only we, the people, can save ourselves and reverse the direction the country is going. In Portland, there is a chance to wage a comeback that can win. And any such example could prove infectious.
Mark Vorpahl is a union steward, social justice activist and a writer for Workers Action and Occupy.com. He can be reached at Portland@workerscompass.org.
The Choice In Portland: Austerity Versus a People's Budget
Mon, 03/04/2013 - 20:10
By Mark Vorpahl
It's no secret that most cities, counties, states and school districts in the U.S. are facing big deficits. What is less understood is the extent to which austerity cuts have become politicians' bi-partisan response to the situation. The dramatic measures being implemented in Portland, Oregon are no exception.
By "austerity" is meant a bag of policies intent on "reforming," that is, reducing spending by cutting jobs and public services, tearing up social contracts that workers have benefited from, and, in general, making workers and the poor do all the sacrificing to close budgetary imbalances. These austerity measures range from potential cuts to Social Security and Medicare to cuts on a local level that go after our schools, social services, parks, and infrastructure.
While this "sacrificing" is imposed on the vast majority of citizens, obscenely low tax rates for big business and the wealthy are being left in place as their profits swell and their dominance over the political system increases. To appreciate the scope of this trend, one need merely note this New York Times Op-Ed, which pointed out that there are "nearly $1.1 trillion in annual deductions, credits and other tax breaks that flow disproportionately to the highest income Americans and that cost more, each year, than Medicare and Medicaid combined."
The Case in Portland
Portland's newly elected Democratic Mayor Charlie Hales has announced that there is a $25-to-$40 million hole in the city's budget. In response, he is demanding that all 27 city bureaus submit budget proposals with 10 percent cuts. This latest round follows several consecutive years of budget cuts.
The cuts already put into effect have resulted in lost jobs, underfunded services and a decline in Portland's livability. While it is not clear yet how Hales will wield his cleaver, he is signaling that his cuts will be the deepest yet. The programs that he has already targeted - at-risk teen summer internships, job-training efforts and youth bus passes, among others - will have an immediate impact on great numbers of households, shifting the costs of these publicly funded programs onto the shoulders of families that can least take the burden.
The majority of Portland's residents can ill afford the costs of trying to close the deficit without damaging the regional economy further. Portland's unemployment rate is 7.9 percent. According to the Business Journal, 8.3 percent of Portland families live below the poverty level; for families with children the number is 12.9 percent, and 27.4 percent for single, divorced and separated women. If he gets his way, Mayor Hales’s austerity axe will continue to swing at the city's most vulnerable citizens.
Portland's top companies make hundreds of millions, if not billions, every year. In Oregon the share of total state income collected by the wealthiest 1 percent increased by 70 percent from 1979 to 2009. In contrast, during that same period, the bottom 80 percent of Oregonians saw their income decline.
In 2009 the highest effective state tax rate for corporations with profits over $10 million was less than 1 percent. For a middle income Oregon household, the average effective rate of payment was 4.1 percent.
If corporations paid the same rate of state and city income taxes that is expected of most citizens, there would be no deficit, no crisis, no need for cuts. Given the vast amount of untouched revenue tucked away in these corporate coffers, Hales’s call for public "sacrifice" to balance the city's budget amounts to a shell game to distract people from asking, "Where is the money?"
Portland is not broke. The problem is that those with the money are being let off the hook.
Special Arrangements
In addition, Portland's city budget is far from transparent. It is divided into a General Fund, which is where the so-called deficit is located, as well as Internal Service Funds (ISF). ISFs are unrestricted net assets of the city. They can be used for any purpose. The amount of money in this part of the budget has been steadily increasing. In 2010-2011, the ISF balance was $120.6 million.
But rather than using this money to benefit Portland's working class communities, the City Council keeps it stashed away for pet projects to lure wealthy investors to the city. Since the ISF lacks transparency and accountability, it is difficult to determine how the money in these funds is used; we only know that it isn't available when the tax paying public needs it.
Another way Portland's politicians stash away huge sums to benefit big business is through the use of Urban Renewal (UR). UR requires that money be spent on development projects in a certain area. The revenue created by this development, including property taxes, remains locked up in the area for decades — from 20 to 50 years.
UR taxes in 2010-2011 amounted to $35 million for the city of Portland alone. These funds can only be spent in the UR areas from which they were collected. Consequently, while the posh UR area of Portland's Pearl District enjoys more public funds than it needs, elsewhere in Portland school closures are looming, streets remain unpaved and infrastructure and park maintenance is done on the cheap, if at all.
Put simply, UR is a means of enriching developers and other corporate interests — like big contributors to politicians’ campaign funds — to the detriment of Portland's working class communities. The fact that this model, which results in widening inequality, continues to be pursued by those advocating cuts to public programs could not make more clear where these politicians’ allegiances lie.
While Mayor Hales is blaming the city's deficit on several factors, the math does not add up. When low corporate tax rates, the millions kept in shady city funds, and the revenue drain of development programs such as UR are taken into account, it becomes clear that Portland's deficit hawks are manufacturing a crisis in order to continue arrangements where workers are left to pay for big business’ greed.
Our Priorities, Our Budget
In addition to the "I feel your pain" displays by Mayor Hales towards those affected by his cuts, he will also employ the tactic of divide and conquer. Those threatened by these cuts will be told the lie that raising revenue by taxing big business and the wealthy is off the table. "The pie is only so big," promoters of the cuts moan, "you must decide your own priorities." And in this way they hope to set different communities and unions against one another.
It should be clear, for reasons already discussed, how false this storyline is. While there is likely more than a little padding in upper management that can be cut, and plenty of taxes that remain uncollected, the truth is that a real solution to Portland's deficit won't emerge until these priorities are confronted and turned around.
What would a budget that prioritizes peoples' needs look like? Rather than job cutting, it would fund job creation. Instead of slashing social programs, it would build a thriving and accountable public sector. And corporate interests would take second place behind the health of working class communities. A people's budget could easily be funded if the 1 percent paid their fair share in taxes and were not given the driver's seat in determining Portland's development and political policies.
To change business as usual in Portland will require mobilizing an independent grassroots social force to oppose Hales’s cuts and the corporate interests behind them. It will take a unified Labor and community movement capable of expanding its goals towards winning a people's budget.
The demands to unite such a movement must be those that the greatest numbers are willing to mobilize behind. "No Cuts! Tax the Rich!" would be a good place to start. While each union and community group has its own priorities, highlighting those which build the broadest unity in mass campaigns and rallies is the best way to bring these organizations' specific concerns and struggles to the greatest number.
With his austerity cuts, Mayor Hales has issued a challenge to the grassroots. A unified fightback is necessary to meet it. With such a movement it will be possible to shift the political dialogue towards measures that serve the vast majority of citizens. Without it, Portland will be left with Hales’s cuts and worse.
At the same time, a big fight is gearing up as Oregon's democratic governor has threatened cuts to public workers' jobs and retirement benefits, on the tail of passing emergency legislation to lock in Nike's absurdly low tax rate for 30 years. In building a citywide response, Labor and community groups will be strengthening their capacity to take on austerity at a statewide level as well.
Every city, county and statewide struggle against the corporate austerity attacks can set an example for and strengthen our ability to resist cuts to Medicare, Social Security and other socially needed federal programs. From this resistance a movement can develop with the ability not only to resist attacks -- but to fight for and implement policies that benefit all working people.
Mark Vorpahl is a union steward, social justice activist and a writer for Workers Action. He can be reached at Portland@workerscompass.org
The Arrest of George Zimmerman
by MARK VORPAHL
Weeks after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey has announced that his killer, George Zimmerman, will be charged with second degree murder. Though originally allowed to walk scot free without any charges, Zimmerman is now behind bars. It is hard to think of another case that has swung so widely from one extreme to another.
The mass actions that have taken place nationally, protesting how the killing of Trayvon Martin was initially handled, including an April 9th action organized by “Dream Defenders” that peacefully shut down the Sanford Police Department for five hours, have had a measurable impact. Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee was forced to temporarily resign because of the controversy. The Federal Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has opened up an investigation on the matter. And now the rallies and demonstrations have produced the announcement of Special Prosecutor Angela Corey. None of this would have occurred without the collective grass-roots efforts of thousands who were motivated not only by outrage over this particular tragedy, but all that it has come to epitomize.
Continuing Wounds
Painful wounds, when there are no serious attempts to heal the underlying medical condition creating them, are doomed to continually flare up. The tragic killing of Trayvon Martin and the initial release of his killer, George Zimmerman, without consequence, has inflamed one such wound in the U.S. — yet again. That is, we continue to live in a nation that is characterized by institutionalized racism, and this is reflected by the actions of a “justice system” more intent on criminalizing according to race than protecting the innocent.
Hardly more than a year goes by, and sometimes a merely a matter of months, without another killing or beating of a Black person at the hands of the police or vigilante gaining national attention, followed by the perpetrators of these crimes getting off with little or no consequence. Between these national events are countless similar tragedies that continue to prick at the painful truth of racial inequality under the law. In addition, nearly 1 million adult African Americans are behind bars, an eightfold increase from three decades ago. This, combined with sharply worsening statistics for African Americans when compared to whites in everything from unemployment to infant mortality, demonstrate that the U.S. economic/political/justice system has racism built into its foundation.
This was indirectly acknowledged in the popular call to arrest Zimmerman. Behind this is the recognition that, in order for the most elementary legal steps to be taken when matters of race are involved, it is not enough to simply allow the courts and laws work on their own — as though this has been effective. It is necessary to demand these steps through mass action.
Business as usual
The turn-around with the arrest of George Zimmerman is all the more remarkable because the killing of Trayvon Martin was expected to be swept under the rug. Such an expectation was not unrealistic.
The state sanctioned killing of African Americans by police or vigilantes, without legal consequences for the killers or outrage by the press, is more routine than is generally acknowledged. According to Kali Akuno and Arlene Eisen in http://mxgm.org/trayvon-martin-is-all-of-us/ there were at least 30 such deaths in the first three months of 2012 alone. Of these 30 victims, 20 were definitely unarmed, 12 were innocent of any illegal or threatening behavior and in all but two cases, it appears that any illegal and/or harmful behavior could have been stopped without lethal force.
In addition, George Zimmerman is a white/Hispanic man with important connections. His father is a retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate, a fact that is likely to be viewed favorably by any police department. He was well known to police as a zealous crime watch volunteer, frequently reporting “a suspicious person” in his gated neighborhood. While one officer wanted to at least charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, this was quickly put to a stop. State Attorney General Wolfinger drove 50 miles out to Sanford to intervene. It is important to know that Wolfinger has a questionable history of selective prosecution. Most pertinently, in 2005, he failed to file charges against two white security guards who shot in the back and killed a Black youth, Travares McGill, as he attempted to drive away after being confronted by them. Wolfinger’s failure to file charges against Zimmerman was his typical response in such cases.
Stand Your Ground
Zimmerman was originally released under the pretext of the “Stand Your Ground” law. This law dismisses the idea that a defender has a “duty to retreat” from a dangerous and escalating situation in order to not be charged in the killing of an assailant. Though Zimmerman was following Martin, was armed, and was nearly 100 pounds larger than the teenager, those that set him free claimed that they could not file charges because Zimmerman alleged that Martin had physically attacked him and, therefore, he acted in accordance to “Stand Your Ground.” As misguided as this law is, however, blaming it on the miscarriage of justice that resulted in Zimmerman’s release doesn’t hold water. The authors of the law insist that it doesn’t apply in this case. Senator Peaden, one of the authors, has told the Miami Herald that Zimmerman lost his claim to Stand Your Ground: “When he said ‘I’m following him’ [to a 911 dispatcher who told Zimmerman not to go after Martin], he lost his defense.” In other words, Stand Your Ground was only a convenient excuse for letting Zimmerman go, not a rope that tied the police department’s hands.
The problems that allowed the police to originally release Zimmerman are not the result of badly conceived laws — though these do not help. They are the result of an economic/political system dominated by the interests of a wealthy few who are better able to enrich themselves by dividing workers along racial lines. The racial inequalities operative in how the legal system is applied, not to mention job opportunities and living standards, make it more difficult for all workers to unite for better wages and political rights. Consequently, the call for justice for Trayvon Martin, and the daily other examples of racially motivated injustice, are not exclusively an issue of Black oppression. They are also working class and human rights issues. It is in the interests of all workers to unite against such examples of racism.
At this point, it is impossible to confidently predict how events will unfold with the case against Zimmerman. What is known is the need to build and expand from the mass work that has been done to create a movement that can wash away the foundations of racism in this country.
The proposed increase to $15 phases in over three years, with an average annual increase of 20.6 percent. We are hardly wandering into unexplored territory. Hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers benefited from those proportionally larger minimum wage increases, and the corporate economists’ dire warnings and predictions came to nothing. There is no reason to expect a different outcome this time, despite Cox’s warnings.
A $15 minimum wage is barely, if even, enough to provide Oregonians a decent living, according to MIT, Alliance for a Just Society, National Low Income Housing Coalition and others. It would help 740,000 Oregonians who currently make under $15 to rise above “a bare subsistence level.”
A movement like this is developing in Oregon demanding a $15 minimum wage. If Cox is serious about his support for rent control, he should consider that winning $15 will not only help people afford rent more easily, but the developing movement for $15 also creates opportunities to win other demands such as a housing policy that really benefits our working class communities. Cox should consider what is needed to build unity and win support for rent control, rather than falling into an ill-considered approach of dividing the grassroots.
MARK VORPAHL
