What is the ISO's position on the San Francisco pension attack?

[RedTrackWorker]

What is the ISO's position on the San Francisco pension attack?

SEIU Local 1021 represents the lower-paid half of San Francisco's city workforce and is the single largest public union there. Larry Bradshaw, who writes for Socialist Worker and spoke at the ISO’s Socialism 2010 Conference in Chicago in July, won the position of third VP when a reform slate swept the elections in early 2010.

Not long afterwards, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi put forward a city charter amendment that would force city workers to pay more for their pensions and healthcare and would raise their retirement age. The ISO opposed the measure, and then rescinded an invitation to speak at its West Coast conference which it had given for San Francisco Green Party politician Matt Gonzalez; Gonzalez he had come out in support of Adachi's measure. The San Francisco Bay Guardian reported that the ISO instead backed Bradshaw’s attitude towards the amendment. (See http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/06/29/socialists-unfriend-matt-gonzalez.)

On May 24, 2011, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, along with a coalition of city union leaders, unveiled a similar amendment. His amendment raises the retirement age and increases the pension and healthcare contributions of city workers. While the increases are less than in Adachi's proposal, it gives management a majority vote on the board that administers healthcare benefits, which means they could increase premiums and reduce benefits; it also introduces a second-tier for cost-of-living-adjustments for pensions.

There has already been opposition to this deal. The 1021 West Bay Retiree's Chapter voted to oppose both deals (http://www.upwa.info/documents/7-12-11PressConf-retiree.htm). The July 12th press conference and protest against both deals – which features 1021 members, retirees and others passionately denouncing this attack on their living standards and arguing against their union leadership's support for these attacks – is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzuba3rtYM.

One retiree sarcastically wrote in to a 1021 discussion list saying, “After 37 years with the City, I'm really glad I won't be able to afford to health care in two years and maybe I won't be able to afford groceries, either.” She went on to sign her email “Yours in solidarity and POVERTY.” (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SF_COPE/message/706.)

In the Bay Guardian article announcing the mayor's deal, it notes that SEIU 1021 is withholding support for the deal that the other city unions have accepted. (http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2011/05/24/seiu-1021-withholds-support-newly-unveiled-pension-proposal. ) But it goes on to quote Bradshaw as saying “We’re stuck on one issue,” namely that for 570 of the workers, the cuts would compound with a concessionary deal the union had already reached. The pay cut issue represents a $5-6 million slice of a $750 million dollar giveback.

The article goes on to state, “Bradshaw said SEIU 1021 had hoped to fix the problem in order to be able to get on board and voice their support during the announcement this morning.” They even sent a representative to the unveiling of the proposal. Why? The article states: “Bradshaw said they sent a representative as a sign of respect for the collaborative process.”

One union official reported on June 22, 2011 that at a meeting with the mayor the previous today, “VP Bradshaw told the Mayor that 1021 would like to support the Charter Amendment without opposition but 1021 needed the City to restore the 'deskilled' members [those who face the compounding pay cut issue].” (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SF_COPE/message/698.) Labor activist Steve Zeltzer also reported that 1021 and specifically Bradshaw support the deal overall. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UPWA/message/987.) Another newspaper quoted the 1021 representative at the unveiling as saying: "We’re supportive of everything that’s gone into putting this together.” (http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/05/mayors-pension-reform-lacks-union-s-endorsement.)

It seems that the ISO has dug itself into a position of supporting an anti-worker deal that many San Francisco union militants oppose. Are these reports accurate? Does the ISO still support Bradhaw’s approach?

[RedTrackWorker]

Anybody out there on the west coast following this attack on public workers that can share context and more info?

[Olentzero]

So all the rest of the unions who support this deal uncritically get a pass from you, while the one union with an officer who has connections to the ISO draws fire?

Stupid goddamn sectarian.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That probably has something to do with the ISO being a socialist organization that claims to be for the liberation of the working class, while the other union bureaucrats are openly for class collaboration.

[Olentzero]

And a member of which is part of the only union at the table offering even token resistance to a rotten deal - something RTW openly admits:
In the Bay Guardian article announcing the mayor's deal, it notes that SEIU 1021 is withholding support for the deal that the other city unions have accepted.

This is to say nothing of the fact that Bradshaw is 3rd VP of SEIU 1021, so he's nowhere near pulling the strings alone on this one; nor does RTW consider the possibility that as a democratic centralist, Bradshaw likely considers himself accountable to the rank-and-file membership and thereby bound to act in accordance with the decisions they have made. If the union wants the deal, all he can do is try to make the best of it - and seriously, trying to make sure that some union members don't lose their whole hand while others just lose a pinky is commendable, under the circumstances.

"All the other unions suck, we can ignore them" is a lousy argument at best. Not to say that there's little or nothing to criticize about many union bureaucrats, but that refusing to criticize them because they are that crappy does nothing to try to polarize the rank and file of those unions. All RTW is doing right now is construction a sectarian version of the net that catches the minnows while letting the sharks swim free. And it's a poorly constructed net in any case, built as it is on deliberate ignorance of the facts as shown above.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So socialists fight for the emancipation of the working class by "offering token resistance to a rotten deal?"


This is to say nothing of the fact that Bradshaw is 3rd VP of SEIU 1021, so he's nowhere near pulling the strings alone on this one; nor does RTW consider the possibility that as a democratic centralist, Bradshaw likely considers himself accountable to the rank-and-file membership and thereby bound to act in accordance with the decisions they have made.So the rank-and-file wants to have its pension attacked?


If the union wants the deal, all he can do is try to make the best of it - and seriously, trying to make sure that some union members don't lose their whole hand while others just lose a pinky is commendable, under the circumstances.I sincerely doubt that the individual workers involved want to see their retirements shredded. But even if the majority of them did, that wouldn't mean that the thing to do is to fall in line behind them. That's called tailing. If all you do is tail the most backward elements of the working class, you are not a fighter or a militant... you are a cheerleader.

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement." - The Communist Manifesto

You're supposed to point the way forward, not chase after the caboose.


"All the other unions suck, we can ignore them" is a lousy argument at best. Not to say that there's little or nothing to criticize about many union bureaucrats, but that refusing to criticize them because they are that crappy does nothing to try to polarize the rank and file of those unions. All RTW is doing right now is construction a sectarian version of the net that catches the minnows while letting the sharks swim free. And it's a poorly constructed net in any case, built as it is on deliberate ignorance of the facts as shown above.I think it's more a question of why the self-proclaimed socialist involved is acting in a similar way as the pro-capitalist leadership. "Everyone else is doing it" isn't much of a response, especially when everyone else is a union bureaucrat.

Of all the things to criticize the LRP for, I don't think lack of criticism for union leaders is one. I don't think you're very familiar with them if you believe that to be the case. Why don't you read over some of the back issues of Revolutionary Track Worker and their other materials? You'll find plenty of criticism.

[Olentzero]

Of all the things to criticize the LRP for, I don't think lack of criticism for union leaders is one. I don't think you're very familiar with them if you believe that to be the case.Oh, I'm quite familiar with them, thanks. They were a regular feature of the audience at the ISO regional conferences in New York, where they basically did nothing but find meetings where there were lots of newer members and contacts, then offer ten-minute interventions about how much we sucked and how we weren't really revolutionary.

I'd actually forgotten that I've said on these forums that I wouldn't indulge this sectarian garbage, and I'm going to try harder to remember that from here on in.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

how we weren't really revolutionary.

That's one thing everyone (outside of the ISO itself) can agree on.

[Olentzero]

Go fuck yourself.

[syndicat]

This is to say nothing of the fact that Bradshaw is 3rd VP of SEIU 1021, so he's nowhere near pulling the strings alone on this one; nor does RTW consider the possibility that as a democratic centralist, Bradshaw likely considers himself accountable to the rank-and-file membership and thereby bound to act in accordance with the decisions they have made. I

you mean the members are responsible for the concessions? what was their role in this? SEIU 1021 has a large staff and seems to me to be pretty much a staff-exec board driven union. Didn't they negotiate this deal?

[RedTrackWorker]

First, I apologize for posting something that appears to be out of date. According to various news sources, SEIU 1021 now backs the "consensus" pension deal (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=95437). That's all the detail I know however, more would be helpful.

Second, I would rather be a stupid goddamn sectarian a thousand times over than to be someone who supports concessions.

Third, I'll give Olentzero the best possible interpretation of his criticism on critiquing the ISO union official and not the others. Olentzero, this is a post on an internet forum about the revolutionary left. It is not a leaflet for workers in San Francisco. If it were an agitational leaflet for workers there, I would agree with your criticism. But it is not. It is a post on a forum to discussing revolution and the revolutionary left, so I posted to get feedback and more info on what was going on, as I'm not familiar with San Fran and 1021 in any general way. I thought this forum was a place for such discussion. If you have any suggestions for how I could have gone about this better, feel free to share, otherwise, it sounds like you're flinging mud to avoid the issue (i.e. being a genuine, textbook sectarian).


And a member of which is part of the only union at the table offering even token resistance to a rotten deal - something RTW openly admits

The problem is the I do not admit they are offering "token resistance to a rotten deal." I admit they were offering token resistance to get a very small aspect of a rotten deal changed. Two very different things and as I just pointed out, even that no longer appears to be the case. Do you think we should praise a union official for holding out over less than 1% of a concessionary deal but accepting 99% of it?


This is to say nothing of the fact that Bradshaw is 3rd VP of SEIU 1021, so he's nowhere near pulling the strings alone on this one; nor does RTW consider the possibility that as a democratic centralist, Bradshaw likely considers himself accountable to the rank-and-file membership and thereby bound to act in accordance with the decisions they have made.

There are two big issues here, one of principle and one of fact.
1) On principle, to the idea that Bradshaw was simply following "discipline" whether of the ranks or staff, I stand with James Cannon:

It has been argued here that ‘we must go through the experiences with the workers.' That is a very good formula, provided you do not make it universal. We go with the workers only through those experiences which have a class nature. We go with them through the experiences of strikes, even though we may think a given strike untimely. We may even go with the workers through the experience of putting a reformist labor party in office, provided it is a real labor party and subject to certain pressures of the workers, in order that they may learn from their experience that reformism is not the correct program for the working class.
But we do not go through the experience of class collaboration with the workers. There we draw the line. We did not go through the experience of the workers when they supported the imperialist war. We drew back when they went through the experience of people's fronts in Europe. We stood on the side and we told them they were wrong. We did not compromise ourselves. If another man takes poison, you do not have to join him in the experiment. Just tell him it is no good. But don't offer to prove it by your personal example.

This concessionary deal we're talking about is textbook class collaboration--it is poison. Do you disagree? How is Bradshaw not telling workers to swallow a poisoned pill in this case? That's the question you haven't even tried to answer, but if you took the interests of the workers as your starting point and not the interests of your organization, I would think you would've tried to answer it.

2) On fact, http://seiu1021.org/minutes/18843. The minutes of SEIU 1021 Executive Board are online. I've read them. You're welcome to show me were Bradshaw voted against the deal and then decided to "make the best of it". Otherwise, you're just making stuff up.


And it's a poorly constructed net in any case, built as it is on deliberate ignorance of the facts as shown above.

What facts? I posted to articles and youtube video of protests against the deal. To counter your offer speculation and unfounded accusations.

[A Marxist Historian]

And a member of which is part of the only union at the table offering even token resistance to a rotten deal - something RTW openly admits:

This is to say nothing of the fact that Bradshaw is 3rd VP of SEIU 1021, so he's nowhere near pulling the strings alone on this one; nor does RTW consider the possibility that as a democratic centralist, Bradshaw likely considers himself accountable to the rank-and-file membership and thereby bound to act in accordance with the decisions they have made. If the union wants the deal, all he can do is try to make the best of it - and seriously, trying to make sure that some union members don't lose their whole hand while others just lose a pinky is commendable, under the circumstances.

Yes, if the ranks voted enthusiastically for this deal, out of fear of something even worse, as 3rd VP of SEIU 1021 Bradshaw would be obliged to grit his teeth and go along, while arguing vociferously to all and sundry that this is a mistake, amd, like Olentzero says, trying to make the best of it over the bargaining table. But this is obviously not what Bradshaw is doing, and claiming that he is is deceptive.

US unions aren't democratic centralist, they are bureaucratic centralist, and it seems as if Bradshaw is making his bones as a responsible member of the bureaucracy.

This is not a workers strike that requires united action and discipline, this is behind-the-scenes negotiations with management in which the rank and file are just spectators, and the retirees at least are getting the shaft and publicly unhappy about it.


"All the other unions suck, we can ignore them" is a lousy argument at best. Not to say that there's little or nothing to criticize about many union bureaucrats, but that refusing to criticize them because they are that crappy does nothing to try to polarize the rank and file of those unions. All RTW is doing right now is construction a sectarian version of the net that catches the minnows while letting the sharks swim free. And it's a poorly constructed net in any case, built as it is on deliberate ignorance of the facts as shown above.

What? Union bureaucrats in America selling out the membership? That's news? As journalists say, that's a "dog bites man" story. Now, a bureaucrats who doesn't, that's news, that's man bites dog.

Clearly Bradshaw is not in that category.

-M.H.-

[RedTrackWorker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJtrKJo8-6M SEIU rank and file activists critique the union's support of the bill, charging the union leaders lied to get the members to pass support for it at a meeting that wasn't advertised. They also talk about how in some ways the union-supported measure is worse than the other one (the one put forward by the guy whose pension measure the ISO uninvited someone for supporting). Note: I don't have any independent source for verification outside this video.

[RedTrackWorker]

Radio interview with SEIU 1021 shop steward who opposes both pension attacks, including the one endorsed by 1021: http://www.anngarrison.com/audio/san-francisco-rank-and-file-labors-three-positions-on-measures-c-and-d.
The interview notes the Green Party has come out against both pension measures which one can see here: http://www.sfgreenparty.org/endorsements.
Still nothing on socialistworker.org that I can find.

[RedTrackWorker]

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2011/09/24/640_retirees_confront_those_leaving_yes_on_c.jpg

Thankfully there was a protest organized at the kick-off rally for prop C (the "consensus" pension attack).

See a radio interview here:
http://www.anngarrison.com/audio/san-francisco-city-workers-and-retirees-protest-proposition-c
And a report with photos here:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/09/24/18691237.php

You can see the union-backed pension attack campaign site here:
http://www.yesoncnoond.com/about/
Members listed included:
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
Mayor Ed Lee
John Burton, Chair, California Democratic Party
Thomas Mazzucco, President, Police Commission
...and of course SEIU 1021, which at last word includes the support of ISO-affliated VP Larry Bradshaw.

[RedTrackWorker]

Again, I don't have independent sources of confirmation so can't vouch for any particular report or particular detail but here's another report:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UPWA/message/1047

Angry San Francisco City Retirees and City Workers Backlash Against Concession Bargaining
“Consensus Deal” Between SF Billionaires, Demo & Republican Politicians and Union Tops
SF Left Paralyzed With Fear To Oppose Open Attack On SF Public Workers

By Steve Zeltzer

September 25, 2011
[snip]

When SEIU 1021 West Bay Retirees Chapter leaders asked to be on the negotiations with Mayor Ed Lee and “liberal” billionaire Warren Hellman, SEIU 1021 Vice President Larry Bradshaw from San Francisco opposed their participation arguing that since they were no longer working for the city they could not be on the bargaining team. He also threatened the retirees chapter leaders not to publish a ballot statement against the “consensus” pension healthcare retirement initiative according to chapter members. Bradshaw who is also a trade union leader and supporter ISO/Socialist Worker argued that the SF SEIU 1021 Bargaining Committee refused to walk out of the negotiations and he had no choice but to go along with the concessions in the initiative. In fact, Bradshaw admitted that since the bargaining committee would not walk from the negotiations he proposed that they “get something” from continuing the concession bargaining. His proposal was that in return for going along with pension and changes to the Healthcare Board System changes the city would agree to continue a premiums to San Francisco city museum guards who had previously been cut back to 32 hours by Mayor Newsom and the City. The contract was re-opened by the city and a deal was made to get these workers to support the concession pension and healthcare retirement proposals.
[snip]

Top SEIU 1021 elected leaders in San Francisco Bradshaw and Alexander Alysabeth who is the political director of the entire 55,000 member local also refused to hold any mass labor rallies against the attacks on pensions and to demand that the 24 billionaires in San Francisco pay for the economic crisis. They also abandoned any demand that increased taxes be put on the billionaires and wealthy in San Francisco instead of attacks on their own members.

[snip]
Most of the left organizations that have supporters on the San Francisco Labor Council all supported this concession deal. This included the Party for Socialist Liberation PSL, Workers World Party WWP, Solidarity and Workers Compass, Freedom Socialist Party along with Socialist Organizer. It was left to rank and file workers and delegates to challenge the open support for a anti-labor ballot initiative supported by union busters Sean Elsbernd and billionaire Warren Hellman.

[RED DAVE]

Speaking as someone who is politically fairly close to the ISO, I would appreciate a response from someone in the ISO to the points brought up the LRP.

RED DAVE

[Olentzero]

Try contacting Bradshaw. Seriously.

The assumption here is that he ran for union office at the behest of and under the direction of the ISO, and that either the local branch or the national organization has a say in, and direct influence over, his actions as a union officer. It is an assumption that is completely and utterly baseless. Bradshaw ran for office on his own initiative and neither California nor Chicago devote any time whatsoever to the issues he concerns himself with in that position.

Broaching the subject here, where Bradshaw isn't around to defend himself directly, is intellectually and politically dishonest. The only people around on this list are in general ISO members who are even less involved in and aware of this issue than Chicago. We have no hand in the question and we damn sure don't owe RTW or anyone else an explanation for it.

You want the straight dope? Go to Bradshaw. Get your answers from the one person who actually knows the situation. All this debate is doing here is annoying those ISO members (like me) who are already familiar with the LRP's tactics and stirring up shit. Pure sectarianism.

[RedTrackWorker]

Bradshaw ran for office on his own initiative and neither California nor Chicago devote any time whatsoever to the issues he concerns himself with in that position.

Broaching the subject here, where Bradshaw isn't around to defend himself directly, is intellectually and politically dishonest. The only people around on this list are in general ISO members who are even less involved in and aware of this issue than Chicago. We have no hand in the question and we damn sure don't owe RTW or anyone else an explanation for it.

Really? For one, as reported in the first post, last year the ISO did take initiative on a pension attack and for someone that wasn't associated with their organization:

The ISO strongly opposes Adachi's measure and supports the position laid out in the SF Bay Guardian by Larry Bradshaw and Roxanne Sanchez. During these times of severe attacks on workers and union members (and especially public sector unions), we can't see any progressive basis upon which to support this measure. While organizing this conference, we have done our best to build solidarity between union and non-union workers, students and community members from many different backgrounds. We went so far as to move the conference location from San Francisco to Oakland in order to respect Local 2's hotel boycott and potential job actions. Under these circumstances, we feel it sends the wrong message to have a prominent supporter of the Adachi initiative speaking at the conference. (http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/06/29/socialists-unfriend-matt-gonzalez)

I don't see how anyone could accept your position of it being a personal matter but the idea that the ISO is paying no attention to the issue seems a bit off if only a year ago they were taking action and basing that action on what Bradshaw was saying on the same basic issue I'm talking about now. Was the ISO being 'sectarian' then?

I just have to repeat this part: "neither California nor Chicago devote any time whatsoever to the issues he concerns himself with in that position."

If this is the case, you do realize that's just as damning an accusation? I mean, having someone associated with your organization in the leadership of the largest public union in a long-time labor town and you're ignoring them? I'm embarrassed to have to argue this stuff.

[RedTrackWorker]

Video from the protest against the kick off rally for Prop C
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvaUxJ8-Vlc
kvaUxJ8-Vlc

@5:04 brenda barros, SEIU worker and union delegate, speaking at protest:

healthcare is a right. we should be fighting for universal healthcare, not allowing governments to charge people expensive amounts of money just so they can get healthcare. people should be able to take care of their children without suffering. .... we're going to fight you, and fight you and fight you to the end. to the union leaders, you're going to have a price to pay for this. your members will not forget what you have done to them.

@11:17 Larry Bradshaw in white shirt laughing with Sean Elsbernd, "author of the proposition also wrote an initiative Prop G in the previous election which banned the right of TWU 250 A Transit drivers from negotiating working conditions" and keynote speaker for prop C rally.

@20:23 You can barely understand anything as Prop C supporters (I think that's Bradshaw in the middle) came outside because the jeers from the workers and retirees are so loud.

@16:30 or about, a couple of minute confrontation with one of the union leaders with calls of "sell out!" from the crowd. You could tell he's a union leader with the sound off by the look of studied condescension on his face.

(I've seen Larry Bradshaw in person and up close at the ISO's Socialism conference, where if I had known about this deal, would've called him and them out. Skinny, gray beard, glasses. Pics for reference: http://www.nathanielturner.com/bradshawslonsky.jpg and video of him at Labor Notes http://blip.tv/file/3594127 in which he essentially brags about being smart enough not to call a rally against layoffs because it would be small anyway.)