Fast Food Workers’ Strike

Remember back when fast food workers from the major chains walked off the job in protest? Yeah, well obviously they did it again, but this time in 100 cities, more actually, but I don’t have a head count. This strike included cities in the south where they have minimum wages lower than the federal minimum wage.

 

Allison Kilkenny continues to write about it for The Nation. These workers are calling for $15 an hour wages, which is close to a living wage and fringe benefits. Kilkenny’s piece includes interviews noting how difficult it is to live off poverty wages. These interviews note a lack of resources for the underpaid employees. Overall, these workers feel undervalued and defeated, and the organizing going is giving them hope.

 

This link will take you to a map of where the strikes took place.

 

Some of you may have noticed on Twitter and Facebook last week that I had a long, too long, conversation with a libertarian about fair pay. His arguments are weak, which you know because he perpetually switched between them when facts disproved him. Mostly his argument centered on a race to the bottom argument where poverty wages are the only way to have large numbers of jobs and make a profit. This is a shitty argument because paying people a fair wage enables them to buy the product they are producing (as proven by noted capitalist and anti-labor force, Henry Ford). Also, jobs increase over time because more people can afford the products and thus they need more product.

 

However, we went around and around. In the end this comes down to people or profit. The rights of human beings verses corporations. Also, despite what the Supreme Court has said, corporations are not people. If the goal is mass profits for a few then higher wages will hurt them, if the goal is a work force that can support itself and buy products then an increase in wages will help.

 

This libertarian also made some amazing arguments about how everyone can work two jobs (two minimum wage jobs at the federal level is only $14.50 per hour). He did it after all with no privileges, like being white and a man. The obliviousness of libertarians is astounding.

 

Fingers crossed the largest fast food strike is successful. Hopefully, these workers will get living wages, but the Dems aren’t going to get anywhere in Congress. Republicans are going to shut this bill down every time the Dems try to push a bill through, and the White House will be no help. This has to be a grassroots movement where the elected officials are actually afraid of losing their positions. I doubt this will happen because of gerrymandering. Maybe on a local level? Well, this took a depressing turn.

Happy Labor Day, the service industry is in revolt

I go to Panera too much. There is this one guy who works there that gives me hell for it. He’s awesome, and as such should be my best friend, but instead we talk about man problems. He also doesn’t support the service industry strikes. I asked him about them last Thursday. I told him I partially expected to walk over and see McDonalds and Panera shut down due to a picket line. Both chains are across the street from the university. This employee told me he hadn’t heard anything about the strikes, but that they were paid ok and that fast food workers are teenagers. I respect his opinion, but fast food workers aren’t teenagers. The average age is 35, most are women, and people of color.

Thursday, fast food workers (and some retailers) went on strike in 60 cities (including in Cleveland, according to my parents). They want a living wage of $15 per hour from the large corporations making money off of low-wage workers. This minimum wage would be more than double the national minimum wage of $7.25. Allison Kilkenny, as always, had an excellent piece for The Nation, entitled, “Courage is contagious: Fast food workers expected to protest low wages nationwide.”

You may remember low-wage workers walking off the job last November in New York as a one day protest. However, by the summer the movement expanded and included thousands of workers across the country. This included Detroit, Chicago, New York, and Kansas City. It is important to remember these workers have no labor protections; they don’t have a union. Every time they walk off they lose money and possibly their jobs (because of retaliation). However, on Thursday, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Memphis, and Raleigh joined this list with the backing of SEIU.

According to Kilkenny, there have already been benefits to the strikes. Some strikers in New York and Chicago saw their wages increase after the strike. Additionally, these benefits have encouraged other workers to protest for living wages. Some workers are calling for a union in addition to the living wages. The goal of action such as these strikes it to send a message to the corporations employing low-wage workers.

A few things to remember: these workers aren’t covered by a union so they have few protections, which makes this all the more amazing and inspiring, and these workers are “special populations.” Special populations usually refers to marginalized populations like women, people of color, immigrants, young people, the elderly, etc. Additionally, because these workers don’t have a union this movement is union driven (though it is union backed). Also, this being Labor Day, this isn’t the only labor fight going on right now. Wal-mart’s workers are still fighting their fight, domestic workers, immigrants, LGBT workers and trans workers specifically, teachers in Philly and Chicago, and right there in Washington DC where retail workers are fighting to increase the minimum wage with possible the help of the Council.

Voting for Hillary for President

Jessica Valenti wrote a piece for The Nation on why she will be voting for Hillary Clinton in the next presidential election, provided of course Hillary receives the nomination; 2016 is a long way away people. As many people know, I’m not a huge fan of Valenti. I prefer her articles over books, but I recognize her as an activist and scholar for the feminist movement, and she acts as a great entry point/author for white people and men who aren’t familiar with feminism.

However, this article is compelling, not because I think Hillary is great, because I have a lot of problems with her politics, and not because women should vote for other women just because they are women, but because I’m angry and frustrated and tired. At the end of the day, I and thousands of other women, people of color, and poor people are going to get screwed so let it be a woman this time. Maybe just maybe, women’s health (including reproductive health) won’t be front and center on the chopping block or used to play easy politics and worst case it remains there. That is where I am right now; women can’t lose any more ground unless we start moving toward an Atwood like dystopia straight up outlawing abortion and preventing women from having access to money and property…no one tell the Republicans; they'll think that is a great idea.

Valenti argues, “Next time around, though, I’m voting for a woman. Not because I believe that the female Democratic candidate (and I think we all have a good idea who that will be) is guaranteed to be the most feminist, but because I’m just too fed up to do anything else. I’ve made a full transition from youthful idealism to jaded orneriness, and my vote will be just as angry as I am.”

Preach. Valenti continues to talk about EMILY’s List and their new campaign aimed at putting a woman (a specific woman) in the White House. She notes that more women are running for office, winning, and that the US is ready for a woman president. EMILY’s List has some polling data that shows 86% of people believe the US is ready to elect a female president. Some of this might come from the frustration with the all-male show we’ve had in a lot of places not just the presidency. Valenti asserts, “women aren’t just ready to see more of their gender in power—they’re champing at the bit.”

I can’t say I agree or disagree with this comment. For me, power, the concept is less important, than the ability to do something anything that is different from the status quo at this point. Valenti argues that breaking through the political glass ceiling isn’t enough of a reason to vote for a woman just because she is a woman. Women politicians aren’t inherently more friendly to women’s policy concerns see leader of crazy town Bachman as an example. Additionally, when putting gender first, white women usually take the lead, and when in politics this means wealthy white women.

But Valenti is tired and so am I. This is the part of the article where she lists her frustrations about campus rapists being “punished” by researchers and not prison, the sexual misconduct by the people in charge of sexual misconduct in the military, war over reproductive rights, the leading cause of death for pregnant women is their partner, President Obama is playing politics over Plan B because some people in this country are idiots.

None of these things are going to change just because a woman is at the helm, in fact I know that the president doesn’t have that much power, more so every year it feels, but they aren’t omnipotent. But Valenti is right, a woman president could act as a reminder that we have made some progress…not equal representation in Congress or on the Supreme Court, but some.

Valenti also posits that maybe a woman president will help feminists stop playing defense all the time. It obviously won’t end sexism, but the argument can be made that it will change the conversation. Of course, we’ll hear from the same people who think racism is over now that we’ve had a black president, but they can be ignored. I’m with Valenti on her point about politicians being disappointing, and if they are going to be disappointing then why not let a woman disappoint us? Equal representation in disappointment.

Valenti concludes by noting that after Hillary was appointed Secretary of State, a record number of countries appointed female ambassadors to the US. So there is something to be said for figureheads. Valenti finishes her article with this, “I don’t know that my course of action is the one I’d recommend for others—in many ways, it’s a marker of my dying idealism. But I do know that seeing a woman hold the nation’s highest office would bring me great joy, and that if there’s anything American women need right now, it’s a win.”

I know this isn’t going to sit well with a few people who read this blog; on the other hand some of you are going to love this. But first, while I’m not H-Rod’s biggest fan, I would remind everyone to check their privilege and note my cynicism. I’m just tired. I’m tired of “women’s issues” being over looked and undervalued because they disproportionally impact women when they should be considered human rights issues.  For example, take this article on RH Reality Check entitled, “Anti-Abortion Laws are Crimes Against Women.” No, they are crimes against humanity because women are people and human! Surprise. Now, yes, I’m arguing about language, but this is how we silence people we relegate them to a subgroup and ignore them or write them off. It is a tried and true practice. I’m tried of women being told to wait our turn while the world is moving forward on other important issues. Now, I’m all for solidarity, but why not advance progressive causes across the board or at least hold our ground while the Planned Parenthood faces defunding and anti-choice legislation is popping up all over the country, and by the way solidarity works both ways, and it is time the mens (gay, straight, bi, and trans) get on our team too. I read an article this week about men my age not being opposed to women in leadership roles, but also not advancing the cause because they believe this is a zero sum game. Fuck you buddy.

But in the end, I am tired, and I probably will vote for Hillary or the Green Party because of where I live and none of it matters anyway. But if I’m back in the Cleveland by 2016, you can bet on me voting for Hillary if nothing else out of exhaustion.

A brief and limited history of the women’s movement and how we get nothing from asking “how far have feminists come?”

I’m not sold on this “how far have feminists come?” question.  I seem to be finding it everywhere this week because of the 50^th anniversary of the Feminine Mystique. I object to the premise that we’re working on a linear progression model. For example, in some areas we have come quite “far” of course that metric isn’t defined, and others like repro rights we’re still fighting the same 1973 fight though perhaps with a greater intensity. However, it was Ruth Rosen’s piece, “Feminism Has Come a Long Way—Or Has it?” republished for The Nation that caught my attention.

 Rosen’s article looks at how far women have come since the mid-twentieth century.  She points out that in the 1960s jobs ads were segregated by gender, women were openly paid less, some bars refused to serve women, all banks denied married women credit cards and loans, some states excluded women from jury duty, women weren’t acceptable to be on the radio or host the news, no women on the Supreme Court, etc, etc. She outlines a lot of things that seem pretty ridiculous now. Of course, repro rights also makes the list as does representation of woman in professional leadership roles or lack thereof. Also notably, the public held the view that victims of rape “asked for it.” 

 Then on August 27, 1970, 50,000 women marched down NYC’s Fifth Ave demanding three rights: legal abortion, universal childcare, and equal pay. There was a fourth aspect, which was an end to violence against women, but the movement lacked the language for this yet.  Rosen notes none of these have come to fruition.
 However, as the movement developed activist started to name their grievances and turned to policy and law to change things. Rape was defined moving away from being a crime of passion and lust to being one about power and violence. Rape included date rape and martial rape (just read Against Our Will). Then of course came the first part of the backlash and a shit show on the activists’ part. I give you “all feminists are lesbians and the lavender menace”. Gay rights evolves and so did access to the birth control pill and development of sexual liberation. . Abortion was a slow and hard fight, but in 1973 Roe v. Wade was handed down as a victory for women. Then we developed the language for sexual harassment, which culminated in Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. During this time, we also re-framed the discussion around domestic violence. 

 All this is legit history of the women’s movement, and not complete because of a lack of racial and class inclusion. 

So the women’s movement was scary for some men and took them by surprise, but now women are everywhere. We have some protections under law, though they usually come with a variety of challenges. Women also run companies, hold high office (though not the highest), and have leadership positions across the board. Rosen brings up women and men serving in combat as a win, which I’m not sure about. 

However, this is the point in Rosen’s article where she discusses the common perception that we won, and we can back it in and go home. LIES! Also not Rosen’s opinion she is referencing the generally held belief.  Rosen notes the state by state attempts to ban abortion (which I’ve written extensively about so not going over that again), the lack of access to affordable childcare, fair pay (which makes me laugh), and violence against women where we couldn’t get the VAWA passed. 

In 1971, Congress passed the Comprehensive Childcare Act (CCA), which was vetoed by Nixon. Naturally, this would harm the family and help the communists. But really this is an attempt to keep women out of the workforce (come at me bro). Rosen discusses the class ramifications of childcare including the exhaustion poor families go through. Also, she notes that universal pre-K might assist in alleviating these issues a bit. In 1970, women made on average 59% of men’s wages; now we make 77%. Of course let’s remember the racial and educational disparities (women of color make a lot less than white men). Rosen includes a discussion of poverty (70% of the poor are women and children) and dead end jobs in her discussion of fair pay. Violence against women wasn’t included in the original list of demands which shocks some people, but not really. Rosen discusses the evolution of violence against women and rape on an international scale citing the UN international resolution and the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights where they declared violence against women and girls is a violation of their human rights. After a lot of debate some “customs,” which included wife beating and honor killings, were recognized as crimes. However, not much has changed on a daily practical level. Women are still told we’re responsible for our safety because being a women makes you unsafe to move freely in public space or in the cases of famous athlete’s partners in their own homes (some snark there on violence against women perpetrated by partners). Rosen uses the brutal gang rapes in India as an example; I’d extend this to include the gang rapes in the US particularly the young girl blamed for her attire this past year. 

At the end of her article, Rosen declares: “So, yes, we’ve come a long way, but without achieving full access to legal abortion, comprehensive childcare, or equal pay—those three demands from so many decades ago. Nor have we won the right to enjoy public space without fearing violence, rape, or worse.

I always knew this was the longest revolution, one that would take a century or more to unfold. It’s upended most of our lives, and significantly improved so many of them. Nothing will ever be the same. Yet there’s still such a long way to go. I doubt I’ll see full gender equality in my lifetime.”

So most of these articles end kind of like this with a motivating the base conclusion. GO FIGHT WIN. But I still reject the linear aspect of these articles. I feel the movement is far more complicated. Additionally, Rosen’s piece leaves out violence against same sex partners which we’re trying to get included in the VAWA or discussions about how violence against women is connected to poverty. I just feel like these pieces provide some pretty superficial cheer-leading.