How feminists do March Madness

So, of course, I’m pulling for OSU in the sweet sixteen, because come at me bro. I don’t even care, if I can deal with KS during football season I can deal with haters in March.

Regardless, we feminists did March Madness a little different. And thanks to Mother Jones, I didn’t have to set up a bracket.

So as you can see North Dakota wins! And women lose. North Dakota’s Governor, Jack Dalrymple signed 6 week abortion ban because a fetal heartbeat might be detected on Tuesday. Governor Dalrymple also signed a measure to ban abortions based on genetic defects, which is a first in the nation. So progressive.

Abortion-rights advocates argue this is an attempt to close North Dakota’s one abortion clinic. Supporters of the fetal heartbeat measure claim it is a challenge to Roe, which legalized abortion up until a fetus is viable at 22 to 24 weeks. This is their aim all along because anti-choicers don’t care about babies or women’s health obviously, they just want to overturn Roe.  Abortion-advocates are gearing up for a costly fight in the courts. I honestly don't know what this will look like, but here's hoping we destroy personhood and put an end to this mess.

So this marriage equality thing

I wanted to say something about SCOTUS hearing marriage equality cases, but before I do: I am a CIS, straight, white, college educated, woman. I want to state all of that as an indicator that while I’m an ally, I not a direct part of the LGBTQ community. So, my opinion is rooted firmly in academic knowledge and allies. Also, I’m in favor of marriage equality, well as in favor of marriage as I can get.

I have my fingers-crossed like most of the US that SCOTUS overturns Prop 8 and DOMA. However, I don’t really want to talk about marriage because queer equality isn’t just the right to marry, which seems to be getting lost somewhere in the emphasis on Prop 8 on Tuesday. A good part of the gay rights movement revolved around developing a cultural alternative to stratightness. Also, mainstream America’s embrace of gay marriage puts me in mind of that “as long as you’re trying to be like us, we’re cool, but don’t get all f***y here.” What about queer open relationships? Or straight for that matter? Will individuals within these groups be protected? Probably not. Because deep down Americans are ok with people who are trying really hard to be like them, but shun our way of thinking and we’ll strip you of rights, well as fast as we can throw you in Gtimo.

But even if we’re going to stay solely in the realm of LGBTQ issues, didn’t Tennessee just outlaw acknowledging the existence of gay people in the classroom? How about labor protections so you can’t get fired for coming out? As Justice Kennedy pointed out, think of the children, who don’t qualify for TANF because of the required paternity declaration. What about the mothers who don’t want to declare paternity because the child is actually being raised by two women, and the father has no responsibility? Oh, yeah, we get all sexist and anti-gay up in TANF policy.

All, I’m saying is I’d like to see some of this support on the other issues surrounding LGBTQ individuals and their community outside of marriage. Oh by the way, HRC was kind of anti-trans for a long time. A lot of the mainstream LGB community were for a long time. Though, most have come around and/or trying to.

But at the end of the day, this is how we coalition build. We work with people who might have a less than desirable history, but are trying to get better, on an issue of their choosing, and then we get our turn. Because discrimination and oppression hurts everyone regardless if the specific type of discrimination we’re talking about doesn’t affect you. So yeah, today gay marriage, and tomorrow let’s take the Arizona ban on sex separated bathrooms, which eliminates space for trans individuals. And hell, Thursday let’s open up another abortion clinic in North Dakota, someone said they are trying really hard to close the one they have.

Ohio, now with less hating gay people

Let me begin by saying, this is why I don’t travel. I shouldn’t be allowed to go further from my front door than what I can drive within eight hours. I was back in the DC area Sunday night/Monday morning, but opted to stay in bed all day Monday. Paid Sick Leave, bitches.

According to the Columbus Dispatch’s Tom Dodge, Ohioan’s views on gay marriage have changed. This poll is particularly interesting as the US Supreme Court hears Prop 8. I guess it was a good thing Ohio passed restrictive anti-gay laws back when I was in undergrad in 2004. Dodged a bullet there.

We passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and women, which passed with 62% of the vote. Now, however, 54% back a new amendment to repeal the 2004 ban, which “allow[s] two consenting adults to marry, regardless of their gender.”

The argument is that the electorate in Ohio has changed; shifting to reflect more young people who are cool with gay marriage. Naturally, there are still people in Ohio worrying about how gay marriage will destroy their faith (these people are probably in the closet and think once gay marriage is legal they will be compelled to marry people of the same gender). The article interviewed a woman working on behalf of gay marriage and a religious zealot, who it was hard to even pretend to take seriously, after all her argument was based in what the Bible says is ok and not ok. Personally, I like my blended fabric, but I am after all a heathen.

Three-fourths of Ohioans under 35 years-old are in favor of gay marriage. The poll was conducted by cellphones and land lines by Saperstein Associates of 1,003 adults who were randomly selected from March 5 to 10 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. The results were weighted to reflect the population, and the response rate was about 28%, which is a shitty response rate, but expected given it was a phone poll. The poll was financed by The Dispatch. They support the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s transparency initiative.

Hyatt's Labor Issues don't stand much of a chance in Baltimore

Bruce Vail had a piece for LaborNotes on the Baltimore City Hyatt Labor Dispute. Late last week, Hyatt Corp received a vote of “no confidence” from Baltimore City Council when the Labor Committee advanced the resolution to cease Hyatt’s union suppression efforts. The resolution pressures Hyatt to sign a “labor Peace Agreement,” which would allow Local 7’s organizing campaign at the Hyatt Regency Baltimore to move forward without obstruction from managers. The 3-0 vote came on March 14, and now heads to the full City Council, where it will pass.

A two-hour hearing on the resolution was pretty one-sided where Hyatt workers and their supporters detailed the labor problems. 100 union backers filled the council chamber, and Hyatt refused to send a representative to defend the company opting to send a letter. Baltimore is just part of UNITE HERE’s “Hyatt Hurts” campaign that launched last year in an effort to broaden union representation at Hyatt hotels.

Hyatt is feeling the burn and has issued a statement last week applauding the new contract settlements with UNITE HERE locals at three different locations (Philly, Denver, and San Diego). The statement includes mentions of smaller settlements with units of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Service Employees International Union, and International Longshore & Warehouse Union. Hyatt’s attempts at labor harmony are spreading to Baltimore now where Hyatt has made an offer to settle a specific grievance: Hyatt’s hiring of numerous low-wage temporary workers instead of we;;-paid permanent employees this results in denying temp workers better wages and benefits while hindering the unions ability to organize.

Naturally, Hyatt’s attempts to not be an awful employer might have something to do with the rumors that President Obama is interested in appointing Hyatt heiress Penny Pritzker as US Secretary of Commerce. She has come under fire as being bad on labor and the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) beat her back recently. Interestingly, in Baltimore UNITE HERE appears to have a great deal of power based on legal commitments dating back to 1979.

Well, fingers-crossed this ends well. I always get nervous when labor looks like it is going to win without doing much. That and I look around for Hoffa, just kidding B told me where he was buried.

Finally, Obama has a nominee I can get behind

I got pretty excited on Tuesday when I read about Obama’s Nominee for Labor Department Head, Thomas Perez. Bryce Covert wrote about it for The Nation, but given Obama’s track record I think I’ll have a tempered optimism. [Aside, I’m writing this in advance because I’m on vacation this week so I’m assuming President Obama is nominating Thomas Perez.]

 

Perez is currently the assistant attorney general for civil rights, and he really looks like a progressive you guys. He cracked down on voting restrictions, police brutality, harassment against LGBT students, and other issues at the Department of Justice while bring a history of promoting immigration reform and labor rights. *sigh of relief*

 

Way back in the early 200s, Perez ran for Maryland’s Montgomery County Council and won, which made him the second person of color elected to that body (progressive Maryland). While there, he pushed the domestic workers bill of rights. *mind blown* The bill passed after this left the council, but it required those who employ domestic workers to care for their children to give workers a written contract detailing their wages and benefits and to obtain a written statement if a worker declines the offer; it requires the employers provide line-in help with a separate room that has a lock to sleep in and to ensure “reasonable access” to a bathroom, the kitchen, and laundry room. The original bill also included a minimum wage of $10.50 an hour and mandatory paid leave and health insurance, but these provisions were stripped from the bill.

 

Domestic workers in the US are entitled to a minimum wage and overtime, but most workers don’t know their rights and few can access them. State level bills seek to codify these rights and guarantee others, and organize an industry that is exceptionally difficult to organize.

 

I’ve mentioned in the past both New York passage of the law and California’s Jerry Brown killing it last year, but it was reintroduced this year. At the same time this movement is gaining speed, home health aids may be getting some good news from the Department of Labor; they will be protected by national labor laws. Yep, because we excluded people from labor laws. Specifically, home health aids have been excluded from minimum wage and overtime laws, but a DOL rule change could grant them these protections.

 

Domestic workers and home health aids are two fast growing industries in the US, and we need to extend labor protections to them. They frequently suffer from poor working conditions, low pay, and few benefits. State level bills could ensure that these workers are valued even with a federal rule change.

 

Perez could be a friend to these workers as they continue to fight for labor protections. Given Perez’s history of supporting domestic workers’ rights and support for immigration reform, he could be a great asset bringing attention to the movement.