The History of The Goito Street Urban Gardens in Livorno, Italy

By

LIVORNO, ITALY – A remarkable story of urban green protection, archaeology, and biodiversity is unfolding in the heart of Livorno.

The “Goito Street Urban Gardens” are a 6-hectare public green oasis.

They are famous in the city’s history for a major protest where citizens physically blocked heavy machinery. Today, this space faces a critical moment after the land was recently sold at a bankruptcy auction to a private developer.

The story began in 2013, when residents of Livorno recovered a huge piece of land that had been abandoned for over twenty years.

Many elderly people and regular citizens found a vital community space here. Together, they rolled up their sleeves and took care of the greenery day after day.  They cleared the overgrown areas, farmed the land, and watered the plants.

In this way, they transformed an illegal dumping ground into a thriving social garden, an open-air cultural center, and a vital green lung for the entire city.

The defense of this green space has deep roots. In March 2016, residents and activists formed a human shield to block three large bulldozers that had entered the area for a construction project. They successfully stopped the destruction of the park and saved it.

In the following years, the ecological and historical value of the site became even more clear.

Excavation work done by the citizens brought to light an extraordinary ancient well dating back to the late 1700s. 

This adds a deep and objective historical and archaeological value to the area.

This site holds an irreplaceable cultural heritage that requires protection under national cultural heritage laws to prevent it from being erased by real estate projects.

Despite the immense social and historical value of this natural area for Livorno, the 6-hectare park was recently put up for auction by the court. In July 2026, the land was officially sold for over 1 million euros to a private developer.

This puts this precious natural space at risk with a massive construction project.

The plan uses an “80/20” split, where 80% of the area would theoretically remain green and 20% would be built upon. However, this proposal brings a destructive reality.  To build that 20%, the project plans to completely cut down the entire woods present in the area. This compromise would erase the true natural heart of the park, its rich biodiversity, the protected animal species that find shelter there, and the fruits of years of community care. Citizens are asking the Municipality of Livorno to step in with an expropriation to officially turn the entire area into a 100% protected public park.

The story of the Goito Street Gardens reflects the battles of local communities worldwide to protect natural spaces and urban ecosystems from the spread of concrete and from construction projects that sacrifice trees and ancient woods. It shows how vital it is to keep green areas accessible and alive inside cities for the health and well-being of all citizens.

A total of 120 self-managed urban gardens have been created, along with small picnic areas under the trees, equipped with benches and tables. The site also hosts cultural and political initiatives.

In 2016, the former owner, a construction cooperative named CLC, tried to enter the area with bulldozers. They were blocked by a wall of activists who prevented them from entering. The activists were all reported for private violence but were later acquitted by a judge.

On July 30 of this year, the area was sold at auction for 1.2 million euros to a local businessman from Livorno, Stefano Frangerini. Over the years, his company has won numerous contracts from the Municipality of Livorno. The Court must hand over the land “free of people and property” within 120 days, so an eviction is expected in the coming weeks.

In recent days, highly attended public meetings have taken place. A large protest march took place on September 5, starting at 4:00 PM from the green space on Via Goito and heading to Piazza del Municipio. The demonstration was accompanied by three days of free camping, running from September 3 to September 6. Shortly, four permanent garrisons will be set up at the four entrances of the land to prepare to resist the eviction by any means.

Cancel Thanksgiving?  A Progressive Guide To Handling The Holidays

By

It’s a good thing that labor journalist and author Matt Witt was not running for governor of Wisconsin this year like DSA candidate Francesca Hong.

Democratic primary rivals and Republican opposition researchers would have badly distorted the message of Witt’s new book Make Holidays Your Own (Common Ground Press). It encourages creative rethinking of family gatherings and community practices on major holidays.

In their effort to discredit Hong, her foes in both parties created what the New York Timescalled a “social media kerfuffle” over old social media posts dissing Thanksgiving, Christmas, Valentine’s Day, and Halloween. The outspoken state legislator and former restaurant owner from Madison lost her August 11 primary despite polling very strongly beforehand. Given the annual sense of foreboding that overtakes millions of Americans when tense family re-unions draw near in late November, Hong’s past call for Thanksgiving to be “canceled” — because of its connection to “colonialism” — probably had its local fans.

Under fire on the campaign trail, Hong did concede that bringing people together around a table can be “a good thing.” But, according to the Times, she also courted controversy by “questioning the value of Valentine’s Day and Christmas trees.” So not only Wisconsin turkey farmers, but gift card sellers and Christmas tree growers — if sufficiently miffed — might have voted instead for the moderate Democrat from Milwaukee, David Crowley, who won the primary.

And even if Hong had prevailed, according to the Times, she faced the challenge of winning over voters like John Wilson, a 61-year old pharmacist from Platteville, WI., who usually “leans Democratic.” However, when asked whether he favored Hong or U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the Republican running for governor, Wilson chose the latter because “you have to take people at their word” about serious matters like Thanksgiving.

Tiffany has strong views on holidays too; in 2021, he was one of 14 House members who voted against making Juneteenth Day a federal holiday, which won’t be popular with African-American voters statewide.

Just A Few Days Off

In the future, left-leaning candidates can avoid even momentarily distracting flaps like this by reading Matt Witt’s book — hopefully, before pulling the trigger on Twitter, in a moment of pique. The few paid days off that most Americans get to enjoy should not be cancel culture targets, when, as the author argues, they can be celebrated in ways “more historically accurate, meaningful, inclusive, and fun.”

In Make Holidays Your Own, Witt offers much creative advice about dealing with that day, Mother’s Day, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, the 4th of July and eight others; his focus is on countering their crass commercialization, historical baggage, stultifying traditionalism, or exploitation by the right.

See, for example, the garish 250th birthday party staged on July 4 of this year in Washington, D.C. by the White House and its corporate funders. While no doubt critical of that, Abdul El-Sayed, the successful Democratic Senate primary winner in Michigan is definitely tip-toeing around the issue of fireworks on the 4th.

As the Times notes, “he has deleted a number of videos and posts where he floated the idea of abandoning fireworks on Independence Day.” El-Sayed’s press spokesperson is now reminding voters that he “is the former captain of his high school football team, loves Michigan football on Saturdays, and celebrates the Fourth of July with fireworks like the next Michigander.”

In other words, he’s an All-American guy! As Witt explains, “In every culture, holidays matter. They come with a message and symbols — with a story that reinforces a certain way of looking at society and passes on certain values to the next generation.” According to the author, what’s good about remaking holidays, in ways that send a different message “is that you don’t have to convince everyone in your community who doesn’t agree. They can celebrate however they want and so can you.”

A Labor Day History Lesson

1983: Covington, VA. Labor Day parade. Photo: Robert Gumpert

And sometimes the development of alternative celebrations — such as the reclaiming of May Day by the modern day, more immigrant influenced U.S. labor movement — can lead to two opportunities to picnic, protest, and march, rather than just one!

As a former communications director for the United Mine Workers and Service Employees International Union, the author delves, most informatively, into the political agenda behind the creation of Labor Day, as a counter to nascent working-class internationalism in the late 19th century.

Readers will learn that it was a corporate Democrat President — rather than any anti-union Republican — who first tried to erase the memory of May 1, as an international workers holiday born in the U.S.A., and replace it with an end of summer day-off out of step with the rest of the world.

To add insult to injury, May 1 then got officially rebranded, during the McCarthy era, as Law Day — although nobody, even corporate lawyers, get time off for that. Yet, thanks to multiple MAGA threats to the “rule of law” since Trump got re-elected, more than a thousand California bar members used their lunch hour to stage a first-time ever May Day-style protest in downtown San Francisco.

As Witt recounts, massive demonstrations seeking shorter working hours, occurred in Chicago and other U.S. cities on May 1, 1886; when repeated on May Day four years later, workers in “dozens of countries in Europe and Latin America also held rallies and marches to support the 8-hour day demand.”

Thereafter, much to the alarm of “robber barons” here and abroad, May 1 protests became “an annual event for workers all around the world” and an expression of cross-border solidarity between labor radicals of varying stripes.

Forget May Day?

By 1896, however, a business-backed resident of the White House named Grover Cleveland needed a “sop to unions.” He had, after all, just called out federal troops to crush the Pullman strike organized by the American Railway Union, a pioneering alternative to craft unionism led by future Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene Victor Debs (who was jailed for his role in the strike).

At Cleveland’s request, Congress declared that workers should be given a day off, every year, on the first Monday in September so, as Witt notes, “actions taken by U.S. unions would not be coordinated with their counterparts in the rest of the world.”

On the holiday counter-programming front, the good news is that May Day (as noted above) has made a major come-back over the last two decades. There is also “the shining example of the transformation of Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day as now observed in many cities and states.”

Thanks to the efforts of progressive veterans’ groups like Veterans for Peace and Common Defense, at least some commemorative events on Memorial Day and Veterans Day now focus on peace and justice issues, rather than uncritical celebration of past wars.

In his chapter on Martin Luther King Day, the author suggests a range of activities that “can be about the movement and not just the man.” (This is advice that venerators of Cesar Chavez are taking, but only belatedly, after recent revelations about his history of sexual abuse while president of the United Farm Workers.)

Witt reports that all proceeds from his book are going to Rethinking Schools, a “national nonprofit organization that supports social, economic, and environmental justice teaching at a time when the very idea of public education is under attack. Rethinking Schools’ materials have been used by tens of thousands of educators and have reached millions of students.”

Let’s hope that Make Holidays Your Own also gets into the hands of many educators who have to come up with fresh ideas for in-school celebrations of holidays, that cannot be cancelled even in blue states. But, of course, don’t want their personal creativity in the classroom (or pet peeves) unleashing a conservative backlash of the sort that did not help Hong.

About the author

Steve Early

Steve Early was an early member of Labor Party Advocates, a pre-curser to Tony Mazzocchi’s Labor Party. He’s been involved with the Communications Workers of America, as a national staffer or rank-and-file member, since 1980. He was a co-founder of Labor for Bernie and has written six books about labor, politics, or veterans affairs. He can be reached at Lsupport@aol.com View all posts by Steve Early →

Comment on Cancel Thanksgiving?  A Progressive Guide To Handling The Holidays

Share your opinion, leave a reply.

Posted in Mic check | Tagged: , ,

Door Knocking For Democracy In The Eastern Panhandle

By

Andy and I were working the doors on River Road just downstream from Shepherdstown – walking, hustling, climbing stairs, door knocking for democracy. It was a day along the Potomac made even more fun because everyone I meet was already supporting Jenny Thacker!

West Virginians and Americans know that our national and state leaders are working hard as they can to steal everything we have that ain’t nailed down.

West Virginians are already suffering unnecessary, cruel stress, tension and anxiety from Gov. Morrisey’s brutal promise to build data centers, creations of destruction in our communities. 

We know the GOP Governor Morrissey and his GOP majority passed HB 2014 which opened West Virginia up to all data center pollution and poison. The legislation also outlawed local officials and jurisdictions – eg towns and counties – from doing ANYTHING to protect local residents.

Berkeley County Indivisible is working hard to organize a town hall September 12 at 6pm at the Spring Mill High School.

Data centers are known community busters taking our ground water, poisoning our soil, dirtying our air and raising electric rates.

WITH NO POSITIVE RETURN FOR US

President Trump did a deal and made a promise to the high tech stupid rich who want us to serve them like serfs on medieval manor.

Our New Jersey Governor (Morrissey came from NJ and he and his wife were DC lobbyists) wants to turn us from Wild, Wonderful West Virginia  to Industrial West Virginia with data centers all over our beautiful, glorious natural creation.

Our president is focused on anything but us. He lost his war in Iran and all we got was 4 dollar gas, 5 dollar diesel and the danger of a world war.

Trump uses America’s people, its strength, military, wealth and good will to leverage hotel deals, real estate deals and crypto currency. He and his kids are taking what belongs to us.

Now is the time we regular folks stand up and step out to take justice and fairness and a better life for everyone personally.

Seven of us on the last Sunday of August gathered with Jenny Thacker to learn to door knock and then go do it so she and we can elect good folks.

Jenny is great. She is us. Everyday folks. She’s whip-smart, very hardworking for us, and wonderfully humble. A joy to work with. After we door knocked for a couple hours, I asked her what the door knocking means to her. This is her response:

“I wanted to make a difference. The more I talk to people,  the more I realize how much this community needs someone to step up who cares about our issues. I didnt know if I’d get support. I didn’t know that friends would join me. I just knew I had to do something. So I went to events almost every day. Tree plantings, town councils, festivals–every place where I could meet constituents and find out what they need from Charleston. And I started knocking on doors. It’s really intimidating the first time you knock on a stranger’s door. There have been lots of firsts. First time launching a campaign, first debate, first time talking at a fundraiser, first time asking for help with it all.”

“That Sunday afternoon was the first time a group of people came out to canvass with me. What a feeling of warmth when a bunch of people show up because they believe in you.”

“These people add to the movement that will make it possible to make change in Charleston. These people give me the support that will allow me to support the community.”

“THIS IS THE FORCE THAT POWERS THE MOVEMENT.” 

Thank you for standing up and stepping out, Jenny Thacker.

Labor Day is the traditional begin of serious campaigning and ground operations in neighborhoods, towns and counties.

So we’re already rolling on country roads and small town streets door knocking ahead of the old-fashioned beginning of campaigning.

We will bring you more stories from the streets. I’ll be out every week with Eastern Panhandle candidates who oppose data centers and oppose the Valley Link transmission line, will fight inflation and bring costs down and fight Trump’s inflation and fight for real freedom for all people. Aka Democrats.

Comeback of the Billionaire Tax and Lessons for the November election

By

San Francisco, CA. A tax service bus shelter ad urges paying even less taxes with the slogan “Get you Billions Back America.” Photo: Robert Gumpert

After six months of nonstop right-wing bloviating about the Terrible Horrible No Good Billionaire Tax (Proposition 40 on the upcoming November California ballot) and an accompanying “No” campaign supported by some leading liberal allies, there is new wind in the sails of progressive tax politics. 

“I don’t know how to lead a labor organization that stands to the right of the Democratic Party on economic issues”, said Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, the state affiliate of the AFL-CIO, just before her convention voted on August 4 to support the Billionaire Tax

Representing some two million plus workers within fifty unions, the CFLU wasn’t the only major organization to come out for Prop 40, a temporary 5% wealth tax on 250 California individuals, earlier this month. Gonzalez was referring to the endorsement delivered just days before by the California Democratic Party (CDP), which raised a single digit-laden hand at Governor Gavin Newsom, one of the most prominent opponents of Prop 40 (along with probable next Governor Xavier Becerra). 

Newsom seemed to think he could play it both ways, opposing the actually existing billionaire tax proposal in his own state, while calling for imaginary/aspirational higher taxes on billionaires and corporations at the federal level in preparation for his all-but-announced run for president. This transparently opportunistic ploy didn’t cut it with either the CDP or the delegates to the labor fed convention. As icing on the cake, the 100,000-member California Nurses Association also came out for Prop 40 the day before the CFLU convention. 

But as promising as all this movement may be for progressive tax advocates in the Golden State, the greater lesson may be in what it portends for messaging strategies more broadly in the midterm elections.

Slow drip

For the past two months, directly after the California Democratic primary eliminated Tom Steyer— the only major gubernatorial candidate supporting the Billionaire Tax—a slow drip of labor and liberal organizations trashed the proposal with reasoning ranging from somewhat principled to proven lies curated by $100 million in billionaire PAC monies. A week after the primary the 300,000-member California Teachers Association (CTA) and the state Building and Construction Trades Council (BTC) went public with their opposition, followed by Planned Parenthood, the California Medical Association and others.  The San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee, currently under control of the tech billionaires, recently changed its bylaws, presumably to allow it to vote to oppose Prop 40.

Why did the CTA—a leading advocate of the other progressive tax on the ballot, Prop 3—oppose a temporary tax meant to backfill a $20 billion per year hole in the state’s Medicaid budget created by Trump’s Big Ugly Bill? Some 14 million Californians are supported by Medi-Cal, the state version of Medicaid. The coming massive reduction in federal Medicaid funding, which pays for tax cuts for the richest Americans, directly impacts the students and families served by CTA members. As most teacher unions ritually announce in defense of their students every time a state public health budget is slashed, “You can’t teach a child who comes to your classroom sick.”

The answer is complicated, and I have addressed it in detail elsewhere. The short version is that the union that sponsored the Billionaire Tax, SEIU-United Health Care Workers, designed the tax to send 90% of its revenues to address the Medicaid problem, and the remaining 10% to be split among other services. This violated the understanding in Sacramento that 40% of general fund revenues should go to public education. It also raised, possibly, a hurdle to passage of Proposition 3, the Education and Health Care Act, planned by the longstanding progressive tax coalition CTA is part of before UHW launched the Billionaire Tax. 

Prop 3, an income tax on the top two percent of taxpayers in the state, has no lack of supporters. The coalition did its homework and by last year everyone to the left of Attila the Hun was on board its project, which is to make a temporary tax that currently brings in upwards of ten billion dollars a year for schools and services permanent. 

DOA?

As the organizations, or at least their leaders, were piling onto the anti-Billionaire Tax train, pundits rushed to pronounce Prop 40 dead on arrival. Mainstream media reportage breathlessly announced the “split” in the labor movement. Op eds in major newspapers by right-wing think tank wonks distorted the numbers to “prove” that the mechanism of the tax couldn’t work. Political newsletters pondered the arcane mysteries of Proposition 98, the ballot measure passed by voters in 1988 that mandates 40% of the California state budget to education. 

Undeterred, SEIU-United Health Care Workers (UHW) plugged away. Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna splashily supported the tax. It collected signatures and courted coalition partners like California Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which provided a dual endorsement of the Billionaire Tax and Proposition 3 early in the year. California Teamsters and California AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), along with two large hotel and restaurant union locals, came on board both taxes as well. UHW suffered and survived negotiations with Newsom’s office to relinquish the ballot measure if the Governor and Legislature would agree to a reduced 2% tax, an offer that Newsom rejected. It sent its organizers to talk with California Democratic Party delegates and unions in the labor federation. 

Molten Reservoir

The persistence paid off. Rumblings of discontent bubbled up within labor at top-down leadership maneuvering against what seemed to most rank and filers a righteous cause. One sign of what was to come emerged a week before the CFLU convention, when the local San Diego labor council and building trades council both voted to support the Billionaire Tax.

This points to a more significant issue than the infighting within labor and purportedly progressive organizations over a couple taxes. It should come as no surprise that a year and a half into the ruinous Trump 2.0, there is an enormous molten reservoir of electorate anger at billionaires— especially the insufferably arrogant tech bros leading the charge against the Billionaire Tax—ready to be tapped. 

Shifts in the electorate

Much of the attention around shifts in the electorate has been focused on the war inside the Democratic Party between youthful DSA and other left candidates for office versus old guard centrist Democrats. But equally significant to understanding what is and isn’t going to work in the mid-term elections is something that has always been the case: that the voters, when given the opportunity to vote to tax the rich, generally do so with enthusiasm. And when the theme is folded into the campaigns of left candidates—as in Mamdani’s in New York—it helps, both because of what it promises to fund on behalf of working people, and because it puts meat on the bones of populist economic appeals.

An opening now exists in the Golden State, three months before the election, to craft a united tax the rich campaign with national implications. California, launchpad to neoliberal tax politics with Prop 13 in 1978, can redeem this stain by passing the first state level wealth tax in the nation’s modern history at the same time as making a more traditional top bracket income tax permanent. Passage of both will not erase California’s vast economic inequalities overnight. It will not even mean that the rich are paying their fair share of taxes—just a fairer share. What it can do is firmly underscore the immense importance in elections of acknowledging economic inequality and doing something about it.

What will be needed to win both Props 3 and 40, against the tsunami of fascist billionaire anti-tax spending, is a common progressive tax message and grassroots campaign, an approach that will more likely bring victory to both measures than separate campaigns that ignore their commonalities. This common messaging should contain at its center the idea that education and health care are rights, not privileges, and that passage of both measures would represent the wealthy finally paying a fairer share for that common good.

One More Shot

By

On November 4, 2018, Gordon Mar was elected Supervisor of San Francisco’s District 4, a surprising change for the Sunset district. Gordon’s election was decisive and signaled that progressives can be elected anywhere in San Francisco if a coalition of labor and community organizations coalesce and mobilize around a candidate who represents not the just bread and butter issues of safety and taxes, but issues that include affordable housing, labor rights, and immigrant justice. Even in a district like the Sunset, a bastion of single-family homeownership (from the postwar Irish to a newer Chinese influx) who have historically paid more attention to development and law and order than the broader issues that those downtown socialists were always trying to shove down their throat….

In 2018 Gordon’s campaign was endorsed by both the San Francisco Labor Council andthe Building Trades Council. Along with District 4 leaders and the rest of immigrant housing and worker organizations that mobilize volunteers, the 2018 fall campaign was an exciting bustle of activity. I remember one crazy Saturday as we were dispatching over one hundred teams of volunteers to walk precincts, Gordon’s campaign team suddenly stopped so that they could waste time on a goddam photo shoot (a nice one!…) The thirty or forty coffee’d up sprinkler-fitters and sheetmetal apprentices who’d volunteered to drive out to the beach on their day off were pissed. Let’s get the fuck going! It was a good irritation to have. And every weekend one would watch the Local 38 Plumbers cable car, packed with volunteers, loud music and Gordon Mar signs rolling down Taraval and Noriega.

Gordon Mar was the type of candidate a progressive labor organizer gets wet dreams over. I was enthralled when he decided to run for office. His twin brother Eric had previously won two close elections to represent District 1 in the Richmond and many of the same tenant and housing activists from District 1 walked those flat streets on the other side of the Park. 

Longtime organizer with the Chinese Progressive Association (CPA), in 2014 he was recruited to lead a San Francisco chapter of Jobs with Justice (JwJ), the national labor and community organization formed by the AFL-CIO during the Reagan years. After the PATCO strike when replacement workers (scabs) were legally allowed to break the strike with no consequences the National Labor Relations Board was finally exposed as being useless. The right to strike without being fired/replaced was solidified by the Reagan Administration. A few national unions decided to form a parallel organization, city by city, which would include unions and activist community organizations like, say, the NAACP in Hartford.

The San Francisco chapter includes the nurses, hotel workers, teachers, public workers’ unions and progressive and faith based organizations such as the Chinese Progressive Association, Day Laborer and Domestic Workers Alliance, South of Market Community Action Network, and Coleman Advocates. They all volunteered to walk for Gordon.

In 2022 the 2018 collaboration had disappeared. Gordon lost, the first time an elected Supervisor lost his reelection. In San Francisco without coalitions, you lose.

Fast forward to June 2, 2026, the batshit gubernatorial primary where everybody endorsed everybody and the nice guy who, less than two months earlier was in 8th place and a consistent 5% polling, will now be our next governor.  Not much to get out of bed for.

And worse, anything that even smelled progressive (or Mayor Lurie didn’t support) died a clear death. The closest that labor, (and mostly the two biggest city employee unions) came to coalescing around anything was Measure D, the overpaid CEO tax to raise $200 million citywide to replace Trump’s cuts from the Big Beautiful Big. The measure began polling at almost 70% but lost by ten points. Those unions spent almost two million dollars and it wasn’t even close.

The only joy on June 2nd was that Connie Chan made the runoff.  Though Scott Weiner was decisively the winner, he didn’t win 2-1 as predicted. His 40% is a lot closer to Chan’s 30% and gives hope to Chan’s chance in November, especially since Nancy Pelosi has officially weighed in and Saikot Chakrabarti, the wealthy “progressive” carpetbagger, has already instructed and paid his campaign staff to stay on and continue his PAC to work for Chan.

Besides the San Francisco Labor Council and the Building Trades Council’s official endorsements there are large, organizing unions who will continue to support Scott Weiner: Carpenters, Laborers, Operating Engineers, United Food and Commercial Workers, National Union of Health Care Workers, SEIU Local 87 janitors. (Years ago Scott had a 100% union legislative scorecard.)

Scott has also earned the statewide endorsement of the California Democratic party. And in San Francisco as we know, our local DCCC, is stacked with anti-progressives. 

And then there’s a big subset of unions who wouldn’t necessarily support a progressive like Chan but hate Weiner enough that she earned their endorsements. Without boring you with the details, it’s mostly the building trades who have legitimate concerns for their PG&E members who have health care and pension benefits that would be severely altered with a new (City) employer – (Weiner has ramped up his PG&E bashing), and then there is Scott’s expansive statewide housing legislation which not only eliminates many local standards, but excludes language that the skilled plumbers, electricians, bricklayers, sheet metal (and all skilled construction trades) that requires workers to receive any certified apprenticeship training!  Major good gripes that ignore labor concerns.

On Chan’s side: The hotel workers and the California Nurses and electricians are all in and anchored the labor and community independent expenditure that was started to her get through the primary. Besides Pelosi, that PAC was a big reason her numbers were so much better than predicted.

In addition the biggest statewide unions, SEIU, had endorsed both Scott and Connie, but mid-campaign, they rescinded their dual endorsement when Scott came out and opposed Prop D, the CEO tax. They are now free to dedicate their resources for Chan only.  Even IFPTE Local 21, who spent considerable time and money on Prop D, could go all-in for Chan in for November.

So…. those who were distracted in June now have an opportunity to make history. Except for the usual fifteen to twenty ballot measures that folks will like or not like that that dilutes every election cycle – (public bank, yaay!!!) – the only thing of substance to salvage for labor and progressives after the June disaster is the once-in-a-generation replacement for San Francisco’s only seat in Congress. Seems like a big deal. I’d say it’s worth a shot.

Mimosa Is Not a Flower

By

Port of Livorno, Italy.. From left: Orlando wharf, Cappellini dock, Deposito Franco wharf and the old silo. Photo: Wiki Commons

This excerpt is taken from my novel “Mimosa Is Not a Flower” (Edizioni La Gru), which draws inspiration from the tragic 2017 flood in Livorno to tell the story of single women who were able to respond with tenacity to trauma, hardship, and life itself.

The Livorno flood claimed the lives of eight people. I don’t know who is to blame, but the morning after that tragic night, many ordinary people went out to help clear the mud from the streets. Even the dockworkers.

I wanted to dedicate this short passage to them.


On Monday, September 11, Cristian went to work early. He left home early. He already knew what had happened and had already agreed with some colleagues that once their shift was over, they would all go together to help.

They didn’t know who they would encounter once they arrived, but they certainly weren’t going to stand idly by.

Once at the cargo terminal, it seemed to him like a morning just like any other. In fact, that morning, the news of the ship’s delay gave everyone a chance to rest a bit and recharge their batteries.

It was already seven o’clock, but some were still dozing in the locker room, lulled by the triumphant notes of a dream they’d abandoned just moments before and had only just rediscovered.

Cristian had been on the dock for quite a while. He couldn’t sit still, even when there was nothing to do.

A few young men, standing by the dock and chatting among themselves, cast fleeting glances through the thick fog.

Someone with a cell phone in hand was trying to reach acquaintances in the southern part of town to make sure they were all right.

Others were joking around as if nothing were wrong, while still others were engaging in their usual conversations about their paychecks.

Cristian stared at them.

For a moment, they looked to him like little pebbles. 

They resembled the very fragments of asphalt and tar that they themselves were kicking as they walked through the puddles of rainwater, oblivious to the dampness that permeated the air, while they continued to discuss the previous night’s shift.

Perhaps he had that strange impression because he, too, felt that way that day—passive and confused—as he made his way between the wheels of the trailers and a few containers, hopping over potholes and pieces of sheet metal abandoned by truck drivers, moving from trailer to trailer in the silent yard, while the cargo ship slowly made its way into the harbor on the misty, hazy waters.

In the distance, through the mist, the skyscraper in Piazza Roma watched over them all, breathing its maternal breath slowly over a Livorno still half-asleep, and, like a lighthouse, it soon decided to reveal its peak, rising above all the grayness.

Out of the mist, the dockworkers gradually began to make out the outline of a whitish stern, but the waters remained still. 

Seagulls circled overhead as if to greet them.

The mooring crew waited, bundled up in their heavy jackets. 

A few sailors were already waving from the aft deck. The mooring went off without a hitch, and once the last line was pulled in, two of the sailors went ashore to meet them, while one of the two ramps was still moving.

Once it had been lowered, its dull scraping against the dock immediately drew everyone’s attention, pulling them away from their conversations or thoughts. Someone shouted, “Come on, kids, let’s get started!”

In Livornese: Andiamo bimbi, si ‘omincia!

And so that hoarse call rang out sharply through the air, and the work began.

As he set off on board, someone was still laughing, and as the boys’ jokes and their faces slowly receded from Cristian’s view, swallowed up by the ship’s hull, the clatter of the first chains being dropped onto the ground provided the missing piece to complete the picture. In that gray, timeless Livorno, where the pale daylight was beginning to dispel the fog, the subdued chatter of the deckhands became, for an instant, a fierce, rumbling buzz, before disappearing entirely. 

In the hold, on the barges, on the dockside. It was the hard work of the port.

But there were always those who felt like joking around to make it all a little easier to bear.

All of that was good for the heart.

For Cristian, this was an integral part of a perfect postcard—unlike any other, yet simple and powerful, like the sea that brought something new every day amid the murky waves: the shouted phrases, the friendly faces, making him forget his swollen, grease-stained hands. A heavy, age-old job.

For him, it was entirely part of a poem.

For him, it was all part of Livorno.

And Livorno needed help. Somehow, he was going to do something he’d always dreamed of doing.

He already understood what had happened: the photos circulating on the internet were pretty clear. His dream was a simple one, but something he’d longed for for years.

That is, having the chance to be there in a time of need—when his city was calling for help—was, for him, something priceless and once-in-a-lifetime.

Cristian spent the last few minutes of his shift with one foot already out the door. He couldn’t wait to leave, and when he finally hopped on his scooter, he opened the throttle wide and sped toward Via Mondolfi. Once he arrived, he didn’t have to ask anyone anything.

He already knew what to do.

Orgreave – Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied

By

John, a former miner on one of the bridges where the Battle of Orgreave took place. Photo: Marc Davenant

There are few more poignant sights in Britain than a mining village or town with no colliery. One legacy of the government of 1979 has been the proliferation of blighted post-industrial communities and the creation of a poverty, housing, and homelessness crisis on an unprecedented scale. Entire communities were abandoned to their fate, sowing the seeds for a breakdown of social cohesion and the casual disregard of the social contract with working class people. None of this happened by accident and the scars in these places, caused by the actions of Thatcher and her successors, will never be healed.

Back alley behind boarded up houses, former mining village, East Durham. Photo: Marc Davenant from his ‘Rebellion!’ project

On June 18, 1984, in a small village in South Yorkshire, England, a serious crime took place. Thousands of police officers in riot gear, with horses, shields and truncheons engaged in what could only be described as a ‘state-sanctioned police riot’ during which they attacked and brutalised striking miners who were there to picket the Orgreave coking plant. Nobody has ever been held to account for the events of that day. It was to become known as ‘The Battle of Orgreave’ but it wasn’t a battle it was a rout and was a turning point in the social history of Britain. From the perspective of organised labour, the country would never be the same again.

Much has been written about the Miners’ Strike of 1984, but one thing is clear, the strike was deliberately engineered by the then sitting government as part of a wider strategy to permanently degrade, and ultimately destroy, the power of organised labour across Britain. To a large extent they succeeded, and we are still living with the consequences of decisions made, by what can only be described as a group of neoliberal fundamentalists, nearly five decades ago.

What happened at Orgreave on that June day was long in the planning from the government’s perspective but just another picket as far as the miners were concerned. The strikers attended the picket completely unaware that the government was planning to deploy the full force of the State against them and had been preparing for this moment for years. 

Speaking of the events that day one miner said ‘Orgreave was planned because we were allowed in, cars coming from all over, down the M1 and M18 heading for Orgreave, they [the police] told us where to go and even where to park.’ Another miner who was there added ‘Nottinghamshire was like a police state, you were stopped every time you tried to get to a picket, but on the day of Orgreave we arrived at Junction 33 and when the police asked us where we were going, and we replied “Orgreave” they actually directed us where to go. They wanted to get all the miners there and then defeat us in that battle.’

One Welsh miner who travelled from South Wales to picket Orgreave said ‘it’s the only time I can remember being shown the way to a picket line. Prior to that we were being stopped in our cars, having to take wild detours over the mountain and back roads. That day we were like lambs to the slaughter.’

In May 1948, Nye Bevan, the Labour politician and architect of the NHS, described the UK press as ‘the most prostituted Press in the world, most of it owned by a gang of millionaires.’ He wasn’t wrong and when the Miners’ Strike began the right-wing media in the UK took every opportunity to discredit the strikers, deliberately spreading disinformation to undermine their cause with the general public. 

The myth that the miners attacked the police first at Orgreave has become the established narrative in many media accounts of the events that day. Nothing could be further from the truth. The BBC reversed the footage in its news broadcasts to create a false impression of where the fault lay, and many people accepted this as the truth and have believed it to this day. What actually happened at Orgreave and subsequently can be seen in Yvette Vanson’s powerful documentary ‘The Battle for Orgreave’.

The miners’ accounts of events are very different from those reported by the press ‘it were glorious weather, that’s why the miners were in T-shirts and plimsoles. The police were there in riot gear with horses, helmets, shields and truncheons, thousands of them.’ The idea that unarmed miners dressed like that would attack thousands of riot-geared up police is beyond the bounds of credibility but the false accounts in the media were never challenged at the time.

Following the police violence at Orgreave, 95 strikers were arrested and charged with riot, which carried a potential life sentence. Multiple police officers then perjured themselves by colluding and signing false witness statements to secure trumped up convictions. The miners were vilified by the press, labelled thugs and bully boys and the police were presented as the victims rather than the perpetrators. The criminal trials subsequently collapsed when the police account of events was shown to have been falsified but by then the damage had been done. 

What did come out in the trial was that the police had secretly developed a new manual on riot control, had purchased new equipment and had trained intensely for a prolonged period to facilitate the violent suppression of strikes across Britain. Orgreave was the first opportunity to deploy this State-sanctioned violence, and it is simply not credible to argue that the sitting government was not deeply involved in the planning.

The police realised from the events at Orgreave that they could now act with impunity, falsify witness statements, commit serious assault, pervert the course of justice and they would never be held to account. This was the very same police force (South Yorkshire) which was implicated in the Hillsborough disaster five years later in 1989 and who once again falsified their account of events. Michael Mansfield QC, who successfully defended the pickets in court described the trial as ‘the worst example of a mass frame-up… this century.’

The real truth of what happened behind the scenes in government, in the build-up to Orgreave and subsequently, has been hidden behind a veil of secrecy. After a long and hard-won campaign over decades by the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign a public inquiry has finally been granted, with the power to compel witnesses to attend and give evidence under oath. This includes senior politicians who were members of Thatcher’s government, like Michael Heseltine. 

Heseltine, who is now in the House of Lords, has long opposed any inquiry into what happened at Orgreave and when news of the inquiry broke, he called it ‘ridiculous’ when speaking to the BBC. He is certain to be required to attend as a witness having been a member of Thatcher’s secret ‘Misc 101 Committee’ which directed the government’s strike breaking strategy and drew up plans to declare a state of emergency and deploy the military against both the miners and the dock workers who were also on strike.

Many of the key players in the government of the day have now died as can be seen from the declassified secret papers which can now be viewed at the UK National Archives, an extract from which is below.

In addition, at least one police force has deliberately destroyed all of their records relating to the Miners’ Strike after it became clear that a public inquiry was likely. Whether the truth will finally come out remains to be seen.

When writing something like this I always try to present a balanced view. With Orgreave this is very difficult as the video and witness evidence are unequivocal and the South Yorkshire Police as well as the government made statements at the time, and subsequently, which have been shown to be untrue or misleading. 

Speaking after the police brutality at Orgreave Margaret Thatcher said “You saw the scenes that went on in television last night. I must tell you that what we have got is an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law, and it must not succeed. It must not succeed. There are those who are using violence and intimidation to impose their will on others who do not want it. They are failing because of…the magnificent police force well trained for carrying out their duties bravely and impartially… the rule of law must prevail over the rule of the mob.” This statement reinforced the lies already spread by the media and shortly afterwards she made her infamous speech describing the miners as ‘the enemy within’. The scenes on television which she referred to here were the scenes where the BBC had reversed the footage to make it look like the miners attacked the police as mentioned previously.

The South Yorkshire Police fabricated a narrative that their officers faced a barrage of missiles from the strikers and responded to that attack. They claimed that ‘the sky was black with missiles’ – a claim which was proven to be untrue in court when their own film footage of the day came to light and virtually no missiles were visible in advance of the police charge. In 1991 the South Yorkshire Police paid compensation of £425,000 to 39 miners who had sued for false arrest, assault and malicious prosecution but the police never admitted liability.

Whatever happens one thing is clear – none of the people who engineered the police violence at Orgreave, brutally assaulted the miners, lied to the media or broke multiple laws by falsifying evidence and committing perjury to secure the criminal conviction of innocent strikers will ever be held to account.

Footage and stories from the events at Orgreave can be seen in my exhibition Rebellion! which is currently on tour across the UK.

You can see work from photographer Marc Davenant’s “Rebellion” and “Outsiders” projects HERE

About the author

Marc Davenant

Marc Davenant is a working-class social documentary photographer who works with marginalised communities and uses photography to highlight social inequality. His Outsiders project on homelessness and substandard housing has had critical acclaim and has been turned into a book and a touring exhibition. Two-time winner of the Portrait of Britain competition, his work has been exhibited across the UK, internationally and inside the Houses of Parliament. Davenant’s current project is called Rebellion! and is a celebration and exploration of peaceful protest as an essential part of British cultural identity in the face of draconian anti-protest legislation. An exhibition of the photos and stories from Rebellion! will open in Newcastle in 2026 and then be toured around the U.K. View all posts by Marc Davenant →

Comment on Orgreave – Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied

Share your opinion, leave a reply.

Posted in Mic check | Tagged: , ,

An Open Letter to the California Labor Movement

By

Strike by the Inland Boatman’s Union on the Alcartraz tourist ferries. Photo: Robert Gumpert

After more than a half century studying, teaching, writing about and participating in the California labor movement, I am completely clear about one simple lesson: when we are united, we win, and when we allow ourselves to be divided, we lose.

This is, of course, not an original idea. We might look to Abraham Lincoln’s “A house divided against itself cannot stand” on the eve of the Civil War as one similar observation among many others along the way. But the difficulty, over and over again, is that powerful forces are always working to divide us, and they succeed all too often. And they are doing it again right now.

This year California’s unions have an unprecedented opportunity to tap the well-deserved anger its members are feeling toward the anti-union Trump administration and its ultra-rich supporters in our state. Two ‘tax the rich’ ballot measures, Prop 3 and Prop 40, will be voted on by the state’s electorate on November 3.

Prop 3 is a currently existing tax on the wealthiest two percent of income earners. Last year it brought over $14 billion into the state treasury to support public education, as well as other public services. But it is temporary. If allowed to expire it will cause devastating reductions in an already-strapped public education system. Prop 3 proposes to make it permanent.  

Prop 40 is a proposed temporary wealth tax on the state’s couple hundred billionaires. It would assess a one-time tax, to be paid over five years, on the billionaires’ collective hoard of two trillion dollars—a sum bloated by their federal tax cuts engineered by Trump and his congressional allies. The amount to be raised—one hundred billion dollars—will prevent cuts in Medi-Cal spending that otherwise will throw millions of the state’s poorest families off of their health care. 

Neither of these taxes will harm in the slightest the well-off people who will pay them and they will benefit all Californians who wish to be educated and healthy. A no-brainer for the labor movement, yes?

The state’s unions are in two camps supporting one or the other. There are only a handful of unions on board both measures. There are reasons for this, as there always are. Some of the reasons are better than others, but what they add up to is trouble for the state’s working families and the entire labor movement if either of the measures fail to pass. 

The obvious direct harm would be to students and patients, but it radiates outward from there to their families and communities. That’s easy to see. How does it harm the state’s unions? In general, unions, when they have their heads screwed on straight, understand the necessity for the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. Without that, the responsibility of supporting social services falls on the shoulders of the working class, union members and non-members alike, who generally are willing to take on their fair share, so long as their employers, large corporations and the rest of the capitalist class are doing so too.

The effort by a small cadre of ultra-conservative ultra-rich to divide and confuse the California working class over this issue has been underway since late last year. The sociopathic greed of a dozen or so megalomaniac tech bros have propelled them to spend an astonishing $125 million against the Billionaire Tax. Their arguments are simple and false, but when you have that kind of money to burn we enter the territory of Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels’ infamous advice that a big lie repeated enough times becomes true. Mailers, digital ads, right wing think tank “studies” and now an $87 million television buy are demonstrating two things: that the ideas of our contemporary right wing anti-tax propagandists owe much to fascist thinkers; and that the effectiveness of such a campaign is enhanced when it has largely gone unanswered by the proponents of Prop 40 and Prop 3.

Prop 40 proponents haven’t answered in kind because they don’t have that kind of money at their disposal. But they also haven’t shown that they are building the kind of grassroots union campaign—big coalition, major mobilization of rank and file members in phone banks, canvassing and visible street demonstrations; in other words, the best tools at unions’ disposal—that it will take to defeat the billionaires.

Prop 3 proponents haven’t answered because the attacks—so far—have only been against the billionaire tax, and the Prop 3 coalition leaders do not seem to understand that there is a higher principle involved here than the violations of labor coalition-building protocols committed by SEIU-UHW. The higher principle is, quite simply, the general good of the entire California working class—not to mention understanding the damage that will be done to momentum around the country for tax the rich campaigns (most recently successful in places like Massachusetts and Washington state) should the Billionaire Tax be defeated. A defeat will also hurt the chances of future progressive tax campaigns here in California.

Strikers march down street in Lawrence, Massachusetts during the 1912 strike. 31 December 1912 “Bread and Roses Strike of 1912: Two Months in Lawrence, Massachusetts, that Changed Labor History” Digital Public Library of America online exhibition

In 1912, during the massive “Bread and Roses” strike of textile workers in Lawrence, Massachusetts, Industrial Workers of the World leader Big Bill Haywood spread out his fingers during a speech and told the crowd, “This is how the AFL organizes”, and enumerated the different craft unions organizing separately from one another. He noted that individual fingers could be easily disabled. Combining his fingers into a fist, the miners’ union leader roared, “This is how the IWW organizes”. Acting upon that lesson led the Lawrence workers to victory. But memory within organized labor of that point has been, time after time, victim to a deadly historical amnesia.

The California Federation of Labor Unions meets on August 4 to debate and vote on Prop 3 and Prop 40, among other issues. A vote to endorse both measures is in the interest of every union in the federation and every one of its more than two million members. The delegates to the meeting would do well to heed the words of Haywood and not succumb to narrow trade-conscious interests and the barrage of lies launched by their class enemies. Instead, it’s time for a unified labor movement to lead.

Workplace Democracy Is Essential to Defending Democracy

By

America has celebrated its 250th year of existence. At the center of the American story is the promise of democracy, freedom, and equality. The actual history of the country is far more complicated than the grand narrative we often tell about ourselves, but one thing remains clear: the American project has always been defined by the struggle to become the democratic nation it claims to be.

But as we look back over the past decade, the democratic ideal does not feel like it is in ascendence. It feels like it is in decline. Autocratic regimes and the politics associated with them have gained power across the world, including in our own country. The question is why. Why has the idea of democracy frayed in the minds of so many people? Why does the idea that democracy is worth fighting for feel less certain than it should?

One major reason is that millions of people do not feel compelled to defend democracy in society because they are being denied any real experience of democracy at work. If people spend most of their lives in workplaces where they have little voice, little power, little protection, and little say over the conditions that shape their lives, it becomes harder for them to believe that democracy can protect them anywhere else.

Americans are taught to believe in two bedrock principles: freedom, and the idea that if you work hard you can succeed. Both principles have always existed in conflict with the reality of American life, but that conflict is sharper today. Americans spend more than a third of their lives at work. For many people, the workplace is the first and most direct place where they experience power. It is where we learn about authority in our public lives, who controls our time, who determines our value, and whether speaking up leads to change or punishment.

As a fourteen-year-old boy getting my first job at the grocery store down the street from where I grew up, I learned this power relationship the first day I placed the apron on. I learned that what I earned was controlled by the person above me. I heard from co-workers who had been there for years that the boss controlled everything and there was not much you could do to change it. If the manager did not like what you were doing, she could write you up and fire you. That was typical in my workplace, and it remains true in too many workplaces across the country, particularly where workers do not have a union.

At the time, I did not fully understand that unions could change the experience of work. I knew a little, mostly because my friend who worked at the union grocery store down the street was earning $7.25 an hour while I was earning $4.50 an hour. But beyond the higher wage, I did not yet understand what it meant to be a union worker. I did not understand that a unions gave you rights beyond the potential to earn higher wages.  Later on I learned that unions helped workers have a collective voice, they created a just process, and gave you power at work to challenge authority instead of simply enduring it.

What I was experiencing at work was a benevolent dictatorship. Inside that workplace community, I came to love and respect many people and through the work gained a sense of who I was. I worked hard because that was what I was taught what you did. I, also knew I was not going to be there forever. It was a job that allowed me to earn money to support myself growing up because my family could not afford to give me much beyond a roof over my head and food in my belly. The workplace reinforced a sense of self and dignity when you did the job you were hired to do. There were many positives drawn from working at the grocery store, and real meaning came from the work, even if some people dismissed it as “only” grocery work.

But alongside that dignity was constant uncertainty. If the manager did not like you, if expectations changed without warning, or if you could not keep up with whatever standard was being imposed that day, you could not get scheduled, lose opportunities for promotion or at worst lose your job. That uncertainty created a deep alienation from the work and sometimes even your coworkers. It told workers that the dignity they drew from the job was always conditional. It told them that the community they built at work existed only so long as management allowed it to exist.

As I left that job and entered the professional workplace, and later began organizing workers, I saw the same dynamics play out across the workplaces I was organizing. Workplaces were becoming more autocratic, not less. Employers began using technology, scheduling systems, surveillance, productivity metrics, algorithmic management, fear, favoritism, and subtle forms of retaliation to separate workers from one another and weaken the communities that had once been built through work. Some methods were overt: threats, discipline, firings and if workers tried to organize their employers launched anti-union campaigns. Others were covert: unstable schedules, isolation, constant monitoring, favoritism, individual incentives, and the quiet message that speaking up would cost you hours, status, advancement, or your job.

This is one reason the United States is drifting toward autocracy. As workers become less empowered and more isolated from one another, employers gain greater influence over how people experience authority, power, and collective action. Over time, many workplaces have become less capable of fostering the sense of dignity, solidarity, and community that once connected workers to one another. Instead, increasing surveillance, arbitrary decision-making, insecurity, and the constant pressure to compete can leave workers feeling isolated and disposable. The consequences extend beyond the workplace. When people spend much of their lives in environments where their voices carry little weight and collective action is discouraged, they are not only weakened as workers—they are weakened as democratic citizens. The workplace becomes a school for compliance rather than participation, making it harder for people to believe that democratic institutions can give them real influence over the forces shaping their lives.

The communities once built through consistent schedules, shared shifts, and long-term relationships with co-workers have been frayed and broken. Workers still draw dignity from their jobs, but it is harder to believe the employer values them. It is harder to believe their voice matters. It is harder to believe that collective action can change anything when every day at work teaches the opposite lesson.

Then people go home and see the world as it is. The wages they earn has less purchasing power. Their housing is less secure. Their schedules are less stable. Their benefits are less reliable. Their lives feel more precarious. They become conditioned to feel that they have less value, that their voice does not matter, and that effort is not rewarded in the way they were promised. Some people still find value and community in churches, civic organizations, neighborhood groups, or other institutions, but fewer people participate in those organizations than in previous generations. For many working people, the workplace remains one of the few places where democratic community could be rebuilt. Yet that workplace is becoming less benevolent and more autocratic by the day.

1982: New York, NY, Chinatown. Mostly Chinese garment workers strike ILGWU LU 23-25. Photo: Robert Gumpert

This is the central point: people cannot be expected to fight for democracy at home if they never experience democracy at work. Democracy cannot survive as an abstraction. It has to be practiced. It has to be felt. It has to be connected to the places where people actually experience power in their daily lives. And for most working people, that place is work.

That is why unions are critical to the core of democracy. Workplace democracy is essential to rebuilding the aspiration of democracy in our communities and in the country. A union gives workers a process for having a voice. It creates a structure for due process, just cause, collective bargaining, grievance rights, workplace representation, and accountability. It limits the ability of employers to make every decision unilaterally. It creates a democratic counterweight inside an otherwise autocratic institution.

Strike by the Inland Boatman’s Union on the Alcartraz tourist ferries. Photo: Robert Gumpert

Under current American labor law, even under the most favorable conditions, workers face a weak legal framework. But what is not weak is what happens when workers come together, organize, and hold their boss accountable. Unions become schools of democracy because they teach workers how to build collective structures to deal with power. They teach people through elections, negotiations, grievances, contract campaigns, strike votes, and workplace meetings that decisions can be influenced by organized, disciplined, and democratic action.

Even when workers lose a particular fight, the experience can still build democratic capacity. Workers learn how power responds. They learn who stands with them. They learn how to assess strength, build majority support, make arguments, take risks, and try again. That is democratic practice. It is not theoretical. It is lived.

1986: Braddock, PA. Steel town. Strikers at USW. Photo: Robert Gumpert

Unions are schools of democracy for another reason: they require people to work with one another differently. A union forces workers to listen to each other, understand different values and judgments, disagree honestly, compromise, and act collectively. It asks people to make decisions together, not simply as individuals trying to survive under the boss, but as a community trying to govern itself. Those are the essential habits of democratic life.

Democracy has to be practiced inside institutions that give ordinary people real agency. Within democratic unions, everyday working people who otherwise have little access to the levers of business or political power begin to understand democratic norms through experience. Unions give the working class collective resources: money, organization, leadership development, public voice, and the ability to influence a broader political agenda. When done right, union political engagement is grounded in the lived experience of organizing, bargaining, negotiations, and collective struggle.

This is also why union members participate at higher rates in elections than comparable nonunion workers. Across similar demographics, union members are generally more likely to vote. That participation is not accidental. It grows out of the democratic habits unions build. Workers who have voted on a contract, elected a bargaining committee, debated strategy in a meeting, filed grievances, or walked a picket line have practiced democracy in a concrete way. They have experienced what it means to act together and challenge power.

Demonstrations in all 50 states led by unions in solidarity with public sector unions facing cutbacks and loss of rights all over the country, but centered in Wisconsin. Photo; Robert Gumpert

That difference can shape major national outcomes. One only has to look at the results of the 2016 presidential election and the impact of right-to-work legislation in states such as Wisconsin and Michigan before that election. Weakening unions did not just weaken labor. It weakened democratic participation and helped put the country on the path toward the autocratic politics we are now confronting as we approach the 250th anniversary of the first modern democracy.

The workplace is where the frontlines against autocracy are built. It is where the working class learns about power. It is also where we have the opportunity to rebuild the aspiration for true democracy. In order for democracy to be defended, it must be practiced. In order for democracy to be practiced, workers must have the ability to exercise voice, build community, contest power, and win real changes where they spend so much of their lives.

That is why labor law reform and union organizing must be central to any serious democracy agenda. If reform movements across this country do not include the right to organize, bargain collectively, and build democratic power at work, they will fall short. We cannot expand democracy in the public square while leaving the workplace governed by fear, coercion, surveillance, and unilateral employer control.

Americans must feel valued. They must have the ability to influence the places where they spend a third of their waking lives. They must experience democracy not only as a vote every few years, but as a daily practice of dignity, voice, accountability, and collective power. Without workplace democracy, the fight against autocracy will remain incomplete. With unions, workers can experience democracy at work first — and from there, they can help defend and expand democracy everywhere else.

About the author

James Araby

James Araby is the Director of Strategic Campaigns for UFCW Local 5, a 25,000-member union based in the San Francisco Bay Area. He works across Northern California to build political, organizing, and bargaining power for workers in the grocery, retail, retail drug, cannabis, coffee, bookstore, outdoor retail, and agricultural industries. Araby leads UFCW Local 5’s strategic campaign work, including political campaigns, coalition building, legislative advocacy, communications, and new worker organizing. Since 2019, UFCW Local 5 has organized more than 2,000 workers across multiple industries, with Araby helping design campaigns from first contact through first contract. His recent work has focused on expanding worker power in emerging and changing sectors, including cannabis, specialty coffee, and outdoor retail, while advancing a broader public argument that democracy must be built not only at the ballot box, but also in the workplace. He writes and speaks about the connection between workplace democracy, economic dignity, and the fight against authoritarianism. Araby previously served as Executive Director of the UFCW Western States Council and has worked in the labor movement for more than twenty-five years. View all posts by James Araby →

Comment on Workplace Democracy Is Essential to Defending Democracy

Share your opinion, leave a reply.

Posted in Mic check | Tagged: , , , ,

Winning Majorities

By

Photo: Robert Gumpert 2026

We need to wrestle with how to formulate campaign language and public policy that are both just and can win the support of electoral majorities.  “Progressives” must recognize that everyday American voters don’t agree with their formulation of some major issues.  However, when carefully interviewed by poll takers, or approached by candidates who listen to voters, it turns out they support their substance.

Notice what is not mentioned in a current letter (July, 2026) from Bernie Sanders to supporters celebrating progressive and democratic socialist victories across the country:

Medicare for All; healthcare is a right, not a privilege.

Raise the minimum wage to a living wage so that no worker lives in poverty.

Make it easier for workers to join unions.

Build millions of low-income and affordable housing units.

End Citizens United and reform our corrupt campaign finance system.

Wealthy people should start paying their fair share of taxes.

Stop endless wars and a bloated military budget.

Address the existential threat of climate change.

Make AI work for all, not just billionaire Big Tech owners.

* Race

* Gender/gender orientation

* Immigration

* Voting rights

* Police

* Foreign policy beyond what is in the Bernie list

? (whatever I’m omitting)

Don’t forget, the November general election is still in front of us.  Don’t be sanguine about what happens then. 

The central question is: how do we deal with divisive, particularly non-economic, issues and win majorities?  Can we  develop language that expresses our values but doesn’t alienate people who are threatened in their own status or class identities?  Might it be that these values are, indeed, American values and that past formulations have alienated rather than convinced?

1.  Race and National Origin.  Historic discrimination in employment, housing and education, land theft, slavery, and other exclusion based on race must be recognized and compensated for.  Equality of opportunity should be recognized by public policy and enforced by legal and judicial action.  This principle should apply to all people who suffered the consequences of such discrimination.

2.  Gender and gender orientation.  Every person should have the right to be who God, Nature or his or her choice determines.  A person’s celebration of their identity should respect the identities and beliefs of others.  The resolution of the tension between the two should be a matter of  respectful public policy.  Courts, not mobs, should decide where the line is drawn.

3.  Immigration.  The United States is a nation of immigrants except for the Native Americans who preceded them.  In the past, each generation of immigrants faced discrimination based on their language, looks and country of origin.  In the 21st century, we must not repeat that history.  People leave their home country because of “push” factors—typically poverty, discrimination or fear of a tyrant at home. People head to another country because of “pull” factors.  When American foreign policy supports brutal dictators in their home, they are pushed to leave.  When American trade policy (such as NAFTA) eliminates jobs in their home, they are pushed to leave in order to feed their families.. We have no right to complain when American military intervention abroad makes us no better in our treatment of people in other countries than the English Empire’s treatment of colonists here that led to the American Revolution in 1776.

4.  Voting is the minimum act of responsible citizenship.  Few democratic countries in the world have more restrictive rules and regulations (gerrymandering, access to polling places, and requirements for registration to name a few) than the United States.  It is not a race in which we should be among the last.  Public policy, such as making election day a paid national holiday, should be our goal, not restricting the right to vote.

5.  Police Community Relations.  The job of police must be to fairly enforce the law, and to respect the rights of all people with whom they deal.  All people should have the right to live in and work at places free from crime.  When police lose public respect it undermines their ability to protect and defend all of us.  No one should be afraid to “call the cops,” yet it is a recognized fact that police have arbitrarily and capriciously hurt and even killed innocent people who called them for protection.  Cops who engage in these behaviors should be disciplined and for some behaviors fired.  Foot patrols, police living in neighborhoods they serve, police-community review boards and other policies should be adopted to insure police presence and fair treatment. None of these needs to interfere with police doing their jobs.

6.  The Wealth of Individuals.  No democratic country in the world has as many tax loopholes and tax policies to benefit the wealthy.  This reward of wealth has nothing to do with productivity.  Other countries, including Ireland, Norway, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Belgium and Denmark are productive than the United States; Austria, Netherlands, Germany and Sweden are close behind.  They have taxes based on the ability to pay, and recognize this tax structure us necessary to create a society in which no one is too rich because to be too rich is to have too much power, and to be too rich is to be to disconnected from the livee of the majority of the people.

7.  The power of corporations.  Public policy must  break-up vast concentrations of power whose application undermines and destroys democracy.  Corporations are too powerful when they can abandon whole cities, states and regions to maximize profit for the few shareholders who own the vast majority of their stock.  Corporations are too powerful when they can overturn governments in foreign countries  because they threaten to increase their taxes.  Corporations are too powerful when they can move because unions have won decent wages, hours, benefits and working conditions for their workers.

8.  Public versus Private Ownership.  Twenty percent of American public utilities are municipally owned.  Their rates and services match or are better than those of privately owned utilities.  Public transit systems provide rail, bus and streetcar travel at rates lower than, and with quality as good or better than, private counterparts.  The problems of monopoly that arise in public services can be eliminated when democratic government and citizen involvement regulate and control them in the places of their jurisdiction.  Corrupt government, not public ownership, is the source of problems.

9.  Foreign Policy.  In a world in which the United States is by an overwhelming margin the most powerful, we do not need more than 800 military bases scattered throughout Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and the Pacific Islands.  We do not need a military budget that consumes roughly one-half of our national treasury.  Since the end of the Cold War, we have intervened in the domestic politics of dozens of countries, often replacing struggling democracies with dictatorships.  We do not need to provide arms to foreign dictators who use them to suppress the rights of their own people.

The simple fact is that alienating language and policy formulations that were either not winnable—thus incapable of solving the problem they sought to address— or unnecessary have paralyzed us. “Defund the Police” was one of the most apparent of them.  Anti-Zionism is another (I have Zionist friends who passionately oppose what Israel is doing in Gaza and who support the right o the Jewish people to a nation state).  “Fuck ICE” is a third.  Open borders is a fourth.  

In the absence of international government, nations have the right and responsibility to control their borders—which does not mean they should do so discriminatorily.

There have been plenty of others. If we do not get past the moral blackmail that has been used by self-righteous people we will not win the support of the majority of the American people.

And note this:  two contradictory things can be true at the same time.  Yes, Jefferson owned slaves.  Yes, the Declaration of Independence is a powerful statement against tyranny.  We can walk and chew gum at the same time!

The real problem is among us—organizers, activists, policy wonks, counter-culturalists and others who, in their passionate commitment to justice, ignore the necessity to communicate with everyday people.  The individualism of the American people, media domination by big business, campaign expenditures, White working class “isms,” or some other rationalization for our failure, are not the immediate obstacle we face—it is us.  If we do not get past the problems that we present ourselves we will not successfully challenge the power structure we all want to overcome. 

And this related point should be kept in mind.  In Fragments of a Century, Michael Harrington argued, “If the Left wants to change this country because it hates it, then the people will never listen to the Left and the people will be right.”