Redefinition lies at the heart of the world the Bush administration wants to create. After all, we now have a “sovereign Iraq” still occupied by 140,000 American troops and with every “ministry” stocked with its own genuine American advisor. Meanwhile, back home, those tax cuts the President pushed through are “leveling the playing field” for all Americans, or as George Bush put it recently at a training facility for carpenters in Las Vegas: “I also believe one of the reasons that we have overcome these obstacles [to better times] is because we provided well-timed tax relief to the small businesses and the workers of America. If a construction worker has got more money in his pocket, he’s going to demand an additional good or a service. That’s how the economy works. That’s why the tax relief was important.”
Actually, here’s how his tax cuts worked out: “The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said one-third of the tax cuts had gone to the richest 1% of Americans, who earn an average of $1.2m a year. The average tax cut for them totaled $78,500. By contrast, those in the middle income bracket got a tax cut of $1,000 and the poorest fifth were doled out the majestic sum of $250 for the whole year.” And then, of course, there’s our “health-care president” on whose watch “the number of Americans without health insurance has climbed by 4 million, to nearly 44 million.”
And now, more good redefinitional news. Thanks to a set of new federal guidelines on overtime work pushed through by the Bush administration, all sorts of people have automatically gained status in our society and can proudly call themselves “management” or “administration.” As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich pointed out, “the rules redefine the term ‘executive’ to include manual workers who sometimes supervise two or three people. And, he says another one or two million ‘team leaders’ who don’t supervise anyone will lose [overtime] eligibility by being reclassified as ‘administrators.'” Of course, as bona fide members of the managing team, they no longer will be paid overtime wages for overtime work. But there’s no gain without pain, is there?
Oh, and as for our “jobs president,” I won’t even mention the name Herbert Hoover. In fact, just don’t get me started. Fortunately, I don’t have to. Below, Mike Davis makes clear what’s happening to working-class jobs in this country and, whatever the verbiage on the campaign trail this fall, how little anyone is doing to stop more of the same. Tom
The Ghost Shirts
By Mike Davis
September, 1, 1934: Millions of cotton spindles stopped spinning. Across the Southern Piedmont, mill whistles blew but workers didn’t come to work. The most exploited industrial workforce in the United States — the “lint heads” of the Carolinas, Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama — was on strike.
As mill owners appealed frantically for injunctions, tear gas, and the National Guard, a vast, peaceful army of textile workers demolished the image of Southern labor as culturally servile and unorganizable. With voices honed to spare beauty in the choirs of mountain Baptist churches, they sang, instead, powerful hymns of solidarity.
And they were robustly answered (often in Portuguese, Italian, or French) by the mill workers of New England who joined what became the first industry-wide general strike of the 1930s. It was also the most violently repressed. Before FDR (more concerned to appease the “lords of the loom” than to liberate their slaves) cajoled the national textile union to call off the strike, thousands had been beaten, tear-gassed, and arrested. Thirteen — mostly in the South — had been shot dead.
Now, seventy years later, with only a handful of moist-eyed veterans left alive to remember the heroism and heartbreak of the Great Textile Strike, the cotton spindles in Dixie have once again stopped spinning. But this time they’ve stopped forever. The American textile and clothing industries are dying. Since the inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001, 350,000 textile jobs — almost a third of the total — have been lost. Another 400,000 jobs are expected to disappear by the end of the decade.
Textile manufacture in the Piedmont, today as in 1934, is largely a monoculture, and as the mills close, towns die with them. Already too many Main Streets in the upland South are populated only by thrift stores, drug counseling services, and military recruiters. The parallel decline of the clothing industry is likewise eroding the survival economy of recent Latino and Asian immigrants in the tenement districts of downtown Los Angeles, New York, and Miami. Soon even sweatshops will be remembered with nostalgia.
Thus, another large segment of the American industrial working class is being fast-forwarded to that brave new world that Kurt Vonnegut predicted with such eerie prescience in his 1952 novel, Player Piano: a society of discarded laborers whose only option is enlistment in the imperial legions fighting wars for oil and other resources on distant frontiers. (Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 — particularly scenes of Marine recruiters trawling for Flint, Michigan’s unemployed youth — is, of course, Player Piano in real time.)
This almost invisible tragedy — who talks about plant closures on Fox News or CNBC? — is part of a larger global jobs catastrophe that follows in the wake of trade liberalization. The final quota barriers protecting American textile and garment jobs will be dismantled next January. Since Beijing’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, its soft exports to the United States have doubled, and the British Financial Times predicts that China will grab the greater share of the global market in a breathtakingly rapid restructuring that will eliminate millions of jobs worldwide from Danville to Dhaka.
China’s chief comparative advantage, as the AFL-CIO argued last March in a petition asking the U.S. trade representative to promote the rights of Chinese factory labor, emerges from the government’s “unremitting repression of workers’ rights” and the ruthless exploitation of an estimated 100 million rural migrants. Indeed, a recent article in Monthly Review claims that economic inequality in China, once amongst the lowest in the world, has now risen to “near Brazilian and South African levels.”
The Bush administration, not surprisingly, rejected the AFL-CIO appeal to enforce the (non-binding) core covenants of the International Labor Organization; nor can labor expect much more solidarity from a Democratic Party that prides itself on NAFTA and the WTO. Certainly, John Edwards may strike some heroic poses outside shuttered textile plants in his home state of North Carolina, but that doesn’t mean, to quote an absurd campaign slogan, “help is on the way.” The dominant Party line, as argued on the op-ed page of the New York Times recently by William Gould IV (former President Clinton’s chairman of the National Labor Relations Board), is instead “keep labor standards out of trade agreements.”
In the eyes of most leading Democrats, the epochal achievement of the Clinton years was bringing the wealth and glamour of the “New Economy” into the party. No chance, then, that a Kerry-Edwards White House would risk biotech’s intellectual property rights or Hollywood’s lucrative royalties in the new capitalist China for the sake of some “lint-heads” in Georgia or undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles.
In the face of this free-trade juggernaut, unionized textile and garment workers (since 1995 fused together in a single union called UNITE) merged this summer with HERE, the dynamic hotel-workers union. Although UNITE HERE promises to devote half of its budget to new organizing, it may be too late to save the jobs imminently imperiled by trade liberalization. Edna Bonacich (coauthor of Behind the Label: Inequality in the Los Angeles Apparel Industry) is both a leading academic expert and a respected activist. I asked her for a frank view of the situation. “UNITE,” she said, “will likely lose a big chunk of its membership. Already the union has shifted focus from garment workers, believing it is hopeless to organize them because of the potential flight of the industry offshore.”
“Certainly Los Angeles, as an apparel center and magnet for immigrants,” she continued, “will suffer severe consequences. The victims will tend to be the newest and poorest of immigrants. Whatever of the industry remains in the United States is guaranteed to operate at the lowest levels of worker protection.” Bonacich believes that heroic but localized fights against plant closure are doomed to failure. “This is too big an issue to handle on a piecemeal basis,” she concludes, conceding that a recipe for globalized worker resistance to global capital — “the political question of our times” — remains elusive.
In Player Piano, the remnants of the skilled working class (like the last of the Plains Indians) form a millenarian resistance movement, the “Ghost Shirts,” before final defeat and disorganization. On the forgotten anniversary of an epic strike, Vonnegut’s cautionary tale has a new meaning.
Copyright C2004 Mike Davis