Bloomberg Set To Announce Thousands Of Layoffs in NYC

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Mayor Michael Bloomberg today is set to order thousands of layoffs in an effort to reduce the city's $3 billion budget deficit.

At a budget briefing today, the mayor's office is expected to announce job and service cuts to be phased in over the next 18 months. Sources tell NY1 the cuts will be wide ranging – including cuts at the Department of Education.

The Department of Finance is expected to lose about 100 jobs. Services for seniors, libraries and cultural centers will also be hit.
The expect savings will be $1.5 billion.

The mayor hinted at the cuts yesterday, but did not confirm which agencies would be affected.


"Anybody that thinks that we have enough money to continue doing the things we've been doing, the ways we've been doing them, is mistaken,” said Bloomberg. “We're gonna have to find ways to do more with less and doing more with less incidentally always means fewer people, because 80 percent of our budget is spent on salaries and benefits."


Bloomberg’s budget team is expected to propose closing 20 fire companies at night. That's after his suggestion last year to completely close 20 fire companies was met with opposition.


The layoffs come on the heels of the mayor's order back in September, directing agency heads to cut 5.4 percent from their budgets and 8 percent from spending plans for the next year.

[redSHARP]

this should get interesting. keep posting updates.

[RED DAVE]

Considering that the civil service union leaders in New York have no guts, they will bow down and accept this. There are scattered unions with some moxy, like the transit workers, but it's a grim landscape in the most highly unionized city in the US (largely due to the civil service workers who are under attack).

Oh, yeah, Bloomberg is the wealthiest person in the Big Apple.

RED DAVE

[RedTrackWorker]

The governor-elect, Democratic Cuomo, has already announced plans for attacking the public sector unions and supported current-governor Paterson violating a signed agreement not to layoff state employees till the new year.
Red Dave is right that most union leaders in NY will just accept this. He is also right that a few stand out, such as Transport Workers Union Local 100--except the problem is it had almost 1000 members laid off this year and it only put up a smokescreen "fight" (Solidarity helped fan the smoke and the ISO certainly did its part not to swim against the stream by playing friendly with the now-incumbents during the election and having yet--that I've seen at least--to criticize and point to another way forward).
1199 is another place to look for resistance, but it too has already suffered layoffs with no response so far.
Plus Obama's announced 2-year wage freeze for federal workers, which is going to encourage state and local governments to do the same, along with private employers....
Well, we have our work cut out for us.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The governor-elect, Democratic Cuomo, has already announced plans for attacking the public sector unions and supported current-governor Paterson violating a signed agreement not to layoff state employees till the new year.
Red Dave is right that most union leaders in NY will just accept this. He is also right that a few stand out, such as Transport Workers Union Local 100--except the problem is it had almost 1000 members laid off this year and it only put up a smokescreen "fight" (Solidarity helped fan the smoke and the ISO certainly did its part not to swim against the stream by playing friendly with the now-incumbents during the election and having yet--that I've seen at least--to criticize and point to another way forward).
1199 is another place to look for resistance, but it too has already suffered layoffs with no response so far.
Plus Obama's announced 2-year wage freeze for federal workers, which is going to encourage state and local governments to do the same, along with private employers....
Well, we have our work cut out for us.

In general I agree with what you are saying, but just to note: Solidarity, the ISO, and IWW supported Howie Hawkins on the grounds that he was exposing Cuomo's attacks on unions. Putting aside the valid question of weather that - supporting a progressive anti-Democrat 3rd party candidate - is a good tactic for trying to build opposition or not, it is clearly not the case that any of these groups were giving a blank check to the now-incumbents or Democrats in general or the union leadership for supporting these assholes.


PALADINO'S OPPONENT, Andrew Cuomo, is the ultimate New York state Democratic Party insider. His father, Mario, was governor for 11 years, and Andrew often seems to be running on the divine right of Cuomos to be Governor of New York.

Like most New York Democrats, Andrew Cuomo will take a progressive stand on almost any issue so long as he doesn't have to do anything about it.

For example, Cuomo says he supports gay marriage. But last year, when a gay marriage bill was pending in the state senate, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists asked him to call Democratic senators to ask them to support the bill. But according to the New York Times, Cuomo was "was all but invisible" when the vote was pending. The Democratic-controlled senate defeated the gay marriage bill.

Cuomo is heavily indebted to real estate and business interests. He has received a $55,000 campaign contribution from a real estate holding company identified only as the owner of a Manhattan parking lot. His campaign finance chairman, billionaire real estate developer Andrew Farkas, went from being the target of a Cuomo-initiated federal action when he was ousing and Urban Development Secretary under Bill Clinton, to becoming his employer--and now, one of his leading contributors.

At the same time, he is trying to pose as an outsider by promising to attack public employees and poor and working people. Cuomo says that if he's elected he'll freeze the pay of all state workers. He also says he'll slash spending on Medicaid, education and pensions.





And yet even supposedly pro-labor Democratic candidates were blunt about the fact that they, too, would take aim at the unions. In New York, Gov.-elect Andrew Cuomo explicitly stated (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/09/06/2010-09-06_labor_be_part_of_the_solution.html) that his model was the so-called "social contract" of the mid-1970s in which public-sector unions took huge concessions to bail out a bankrupt New York City. His campaign message for the unions was so harsh that a New York Times headline described his program as an "offensive" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/nyregion/25cuomo.html) against organized labor.

And that's at least one campaign promise that Cuomo is going to try to keep. According to the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704679204575647100823804586.html), Cuomo is assembling a team of business lobbying groups to wage a $10 million, anti-union campaign.
A similar scene is playing out across the country in California. Jerry Brown, while campaigning to return to his old job as governor earlier this year, declared that he would have to "do things that labor doesn't like"--including reducing public employee pensions.

But that didn't stop the state's biggest public-sector union, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California, from pumping $11.2 million into Brown's campaign, plus 90,000 hours of phone-banking and canvassing.


But yes, we certainty have our work cut out for us and it will probably get bleaker before our side can begin to organize rank and file fight-back against both the bosses, the Democratic "allies", and the business-unionist and anti-democratic leadership of the big unions. After-all it took a couple of loosing (or at least mixed results) major strikes in the 1930s before the turning point came. It won't be easy, but the ruling class is going to keep slamming the working class and causing class struggles to pop up regardless of how ready workers are right now and that means we do have opportunities to try and win workers to our ideas and tactics and try to organize an opposition to the two parties of austerity and union-busting.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But yes, we certainty have our work cut out for us and it will probably get bleaker before our side can begin to organize rank and file fight-back against both the bosses, the Democratic "allies", and the business-unionist and anti-democratic leadership of the big unions. After-all it took a couple of loosing (or at least mixed results) major strikes in the 1930s before the turning point came. It won't be easy, but the ruling class is going to keep slamming the working class and causing class struggles to pop up regardless of how ready workers are right now and that means we do have opportunities to try and win workers to our ideas and tactics and try to organize an opposition to the two parties of austerity and union-busting.

Are you going to accomplish all of this by featuring Democratic Party candidates prominently on magazine covers, participating in "socialist contingents" of Democratic Party rallies, and dragging what remains of the unions into the capitalist courts like the ISO has done in recent years?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Are you going to accomplish all of this by featuring Democratic Party candidates prominently on magazine covers, participating in "socialist contingents" of Democratic Party rallies, and dragging what remains of the unions into the capitalist courts like the ISO has done in recent years?You mean like this?

http://www.isreview.org/images/cover66ar.jpghttp://www.isreview.org/images/cover61ar.jpghttp://www.isreview.org/images/cover13ar.jpg

How are you going to accomplish anything by misleading your political audience about the positions of other groups? Please stop embarrassing yourself by repeating this false claim that I have disproven (sp?) with quotes from both the magazine and online SW each time you have repeated it.

http://www.isreview.org/images/cover35ar.jpg

OMG, the ISO supports Bush!

http://www.isreview.org/images/cover51ar.jpg

And Cuba!:ohmy:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

OK, suppose for the sake of argument we accept your argument that the ISO opposed Obama from the beginning and pretend that its members didn't join Obama election celebrations.

Did "International Socialists" not build Teamsters for a Democratic Union, which sued the Teamsters in the Capitalists courts in order to get its candidate elected (paving the way for that very same candidate to be removed by the government after the union launched a national UPS strike)?

Did the ISO not participate in the recent "National Unity" Democratic Party rally in DC in the lead up to the 2010 elections as a part of the "socialist contingent?"

Is the ISO not a member of the United For Peace & Justice popular front which promotes Democrats and eases off protests ahead of "historic elections?"

[RedTrackWorker]

In general I agree with what you are saying, but just to note: Solidarity, the ISO, and IWW supported Howie Hawkins on the grounds that he was exposing Cuomo's attacks on unions. Putting aside the valid question of weather that - supporting a progressive anti-Democrat 3rd party candidate - is a good tactic for trying to build opposition or not, it is clearly not the case that any of these groups were giving a blank check to the now-incumbents or Democrats in general or the union leadership for supporting these assholes.

First, if I said something that implied the ISO or Solidarity were covering for the Cuomo, I did not meant to imply that. I did mean to say that they cover for the union leadership that is holding back the struggle and supporting the Democrats (even if they did not endorse Cuomo specifically).
Just look at what both groups wrote on the "Take Back Our Union" slate and have (or have not) written during the layoff fights in TWU Local 100. Or their coverage of the Shaws strike (on which Labor Notes published a letter criticizing its coverage), or the Boron strike (on which the ISO published a letter criticizing its coverage).

[Jimmie Higgins]

OK, suppose for the sake of argument we accept your argument that the ISO opposed Obama from the beginning and pretend that its members didn't join Obama election celebrations.There is no "sake of argument" I have repeatedly demonstrated with quotes and explanations of our political positions and reasoning in discussions with you and yet you keep making these assertions based on the flimsy "evidence" of magazine covers (as long as you ignore the words that go with the images) and a report-back blog from election night 2008.

I have no desire to continue having this argument with you simply because you do not seem interested in my counter-points and evidence. Besides, this thread has been derailed enough already. If you are sincerely interested in what our political thinking was at various points during the election and after the election, then PM me or start another thread.

Since I have already tried to explain our positions to you and already had this discussion, it leads me to believe that either...

A) you are not interested in the actual debate as much as you are spreading these half-truths designed to misrepresent the ISO's position and cast doubt on our actual and openly stated political aims and intentions. I don't think it's this one - that describes Soviet Dude more I think.

B) you have some kind of short-term memory loss or something - if this is the case I hope it wasn't from some accident like falling into a frozen pond, I hope it was from something fun like too much weed, LSD, or alcohol.

C) you have an a-priori (is that the right term?) conclusion that all "Leninist" groups are evil and lie or something. It's an understandable conclusion thanks to the shitty legacy of the CPs, but I'd argue it's a conclusion that doesn't hold up to scrutiny and can not be generalized to all groups that organize or a certain way. So you have this preconceived notion and either since the ISO's politics are a little more plaitable to you than the RCP or some other groups, or maybe it's just because we are a relatively large goldfish in the tiny pond of the US left, you conclude that somewhere we must be doing something that's wrong that supports your pre-conceived conclusion. My guess it that it's this one.

D) You just like to make these assertions with the hope that I loose my temper. I hope it's this last one because that would make these arguments of yours more endearing to me since I have to admit, it's hella funny to watch me loose it.:tt2:

But seriously, if you want to have a genuine back and forth, PM me or start another thread, but I don't want to dig up a bunch of quotes to counter these absurd charges and misrepresentations only to have you ignore the evidence and throw more shallow accusations my way.

Seriously, the left is tiny and the working class is under sever attack right now. If people think that the things holding back the left right now are the ISO, Solidarity, or the IWW or the RCP or any other group, they need to get their priorities in check. There are more people out there who are angry and beginning to question things than the entire radical left could even begin to relate to. The ISO does not support Democrats or Obama - if you disagree with our approach to dealing with these issues, then fair enough, let's have that debate and offer your alternatives. Better yet, go out and organize to prove in practice that your political ideas and tactics work out better and attract more people to the cause of self-emancipation. If people know something that's really working, then great, show us, teach the rest of the left.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ok, these questions are new so I'll give em a shot:



Did "International Socialists" not build Teamsters for a Democratic Union, which sued the Teamsters in the Capitalists courts in order to get its candidate elected (paving the way for that very same candidate to be removed by the government after the union launched a national UPS strike)?Christ, Glen Beck, you're right -- George Soros is behind it all!

Are you kidding me: a organization started by the group that preceded our own?


Did the ISO not participate in the recent "National Unity" Democratic Party rally in DC in the lead up to the 2010 elections as a part of the "socialist contingent?"That's a fair question. The answer is yes we did as did groups representing probably half of the organized socialists on this website. But as the "socialist contingent's" statement said:


We do not, however, share the goals of the AFL-CIO, the NAACP and other organizations which hope to achieve jobs and justice by supporting Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in the national elections on November 2.
Is the ISO not a member of the United For Peace & Justice popular front which promotes Democrats and eases off protests ahead of "historic elections?"Yes, we have the same criticism of their politics. This is from 2008 - before the election:


While the U.S. continues to occupy Iraq and is planning a major escalation of forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the conference drew only 248 attendees, fewer than at its convention last year. Such a low turnout should come as no surprise; UFPJ has not called a major national antiwar demonstration in close to two years and has invested the bulk of its forces either directly or indirectly in campaigning for the Democratic Party.

[Jimmie Higgins]

First, if I said something that implied the ISO or Solidarity were covering for the Cuomo, I did not meant to imply that. I did mean to say that they cover for the union leadership that is holding back the struggle and supporting the Democrats (even if they did not endorse Cuomo specifically).
Just look at what both groups wrote on the "Take Back Our Union" slate and have (or have not) written during the layoff fights in TWU Local 100. Or their coverage of the Shaws strike (on which Labor Notes published a letter criticizing its coverage), or the Boron strike (on which the ISO published a letter criticizing its coverage).I have to admit I am not all that familiar with these specific "Take Back Our Union" reform struggles, being a left-coaster and all. Are you saying that the ISO supports the union reformers who then are not critical and sharp enough of the Democrats (if not outright supporters)? We didn't have much involvement in the Boron strike, I do remember one report on it, but I'm not sure what your criticism of it is. Again is it because the article didn't explicitly make an argument about the ILWU supporting Obama or something?

[RedTrackWorker]

I have to admit I am not all that familiar with these specific "Take Back Our Union" reform struggles, being a left-coaster and all. Are you saying that the ISO supports the union reformers who then are not critical and sharp enough of the Democrats (if not outright supporters)? We didn't have much involvement in the Boron strike, I do remember one report on it, but I'm not sure what your criticism of it is. Again is it because the article didn't explicitly make an argument about the ILWU supporting Obama or something?

I was commenting less on the union leaders' relationship to the Democrats than to basic union activity to defend their members.
A basic piece of union work right now is: should a contract be voted up or down? Was it a victory or defeat?
The ISO proclaims the Boron strike a victory:
http://socialistworker.org/2010/05/19/boron-strike-ends-in-victory
Then prints a letter explaining why it's not:
http://socialistworker.org/2010/05/27/bad-strategy-in-boron-strike
But with no comment. And along the way up to the contract, was the ISO warning that it was heading for defeat, if that is where it ended up? No.

And in my union, what I'm talking about is that there were almost 1000 layoffs and there was a union leadership going through the motions, trying not to rock the boat but trying to keep up a left cover by holding a few rallies and such. And a Solidarity member on the Exec. Board would denounce me and my group for criticizing the union leaders and saying more was possible and needed. And the ISO would invite an organizer from the slate (Marvin Holland) to various events of theirs in NYC to speak from the podium--I'm not sure if he actually ever showed up now that I think about it, but they also interviewed him with no criticisms and as far as I saw, had nothing to saw about the fight to stop layoffs in Local 100, which was one of the main places one would look for a fightback in NYC.
Instead, and maybe I should leave personal pique out of this, when I go to ISO events, they tell me how I'm sitting on the sideline (if they call on me at all), when in fact, I'm working by 600 volts with 40-ton trains and discussing revolutionary politics with my co-workers.


Seriously, the left is tiny and the working class is under sever attack right now. If people think that the things holding back the left right now are the ISO, Solidarity, or the IWW or the RCP or any other group, they need to get their priorities in check.

From http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/laborSV5.html:

The far left in the United States can be so routinely dismissed as a serious political factor today that few commentators even bother to take the trouble. Even socialists underestimate their own significance. History should teach those whose task it is to understand and change the world that the “obvious” is frequently far from the reality. George Bernard Shaw remarked that youth was unfortunately wasted upon the young. Be that as it may; it is certain that history is wasted upon historians and Marxists who make no fruitful use of it.
....
When such events [outbreaks of class struggle] occur the far left will be thrust toward the center of the stage. Its role will be as decisive as it will be unexpected. That left will not emerge as a virginal force but as a historically conditioned product of its own past which includes our present. What the left will do in the decisive times ahead is being substantially affected by the activities and ideas of the small but feverishly alive far left groups today. It is critical to investigate what these groups are doing, thinking, learning -- and teaching -- today in order to understand and affect what the left will do tomorrow. Far left policies in the trade unions must be central to our examination, since the unions are the most powerfully organized section of the working class and are therefore a key to the unfolding class struggle.

Look at France, what held back the workers there? Yes, it was the trade union leaders, but could those leaders have maintained their grip if, for instance, the NPA consistently pointed out a line of march through a general strike to victory and over the heads of the union leaders? And when did the ISO criticize the NPA for anything, or point out its opportunistic uses and withdrawals of the general strike call? Such activities are conditioning the leaders of tomorrow for future betrayals, and help hold back the self-activity of the workers today.