>>> john.halle at yale.edu 06/06/01 05:08PM >>>
>
> CB: Oh, I missed that. Does Santa Monica's ( New Haven's) ordinance
> claim to regulate employment contracts that do not involve the City of
> Santa Monica at all ?
Yup, everyone seems to have missed that and that's why it might be a big deal.
((((((((((
CB: Yes, it is a significant difference. Actually, I am interested in looking at the Santa Monica ordinance more , now that you focussed me on this.
I don't mean to be a knee-jerk pessimist, but ( jerk ) , I am concerned that this is too good to be true. Nonetheless, that the Green Party Mayor and Council are trying it is significant. Even if it is preempted or prohibited by state law or constitution, it would be a significant act of "civil disobedience" for those city officials to pass it.
(((((((((((
By the way, in case you missed it, Santa Monica is controlled by a Green Party mayor (Mike Feinstein) and city council. As I said before, this sort of activism is what one should expect from municipal government and might actually be meaningful rather than largely symbolic LW campaigns that only cover a small fraction of the city's workers and then impose the cost of the increased wages right back on the city's taxpayers.
Whether the model can be applied to other cities is the question. My understanding so far is that the barriers are 1) most state constitutions do not allow localities from establishing minimum wages and
((((((((((
CB: Yes, and the state enabling acts from which municipalities derive their powers. Or it may be that state or federal minimum wage statues preempt the field.
((((((((
2) the likelihood that business would move to neighboring cities rather than pay the increased wages.
((((((((
CB: This was the same way that corporations played cities off against each other on tax abatements and reductions.
This of course points to action at state level and fed level,( but not to contradict your main thesis on local political action)
((((((((
As for 1) I'd be interested to know whether the language allows for any wiggle room and/or whether it would be possible to legally challenge the provision in some way.
(((((((((
CB: Court challenge would probably not be the best route. It is well settled that state law and constitution are supreme relative local law. Challenge would have to be to change the statute or constitution.
((((((((
2) means that cities whose major employers are, for whatever reason, prevented from moving out should get going on comprehensive LW legislation now. For example, here we have a 12.5 billion dollar operation that sure as hell isn't going anywhere, pays a lot of its employees near starvation wages and doesn't pay any taxes to boot. Expansion of the LW here to hit that puppy seems like a no brainer to me. Am I missing something?
((((((((
CB: Yea , the struggle will be with Yale's political power in the state ( and city)
By the way, I worked at New Haven Legal Assistance Association in '79 -'81. Say helllo to Comrade Joelle Fishman. She is probably part of any LW ordinance effort.
(((((
Btw, I'm curious whether the Cambridge city council which passed resolutions in support of the Harvard sit-in has considered expanding its LW and if not why not.
> There is a Coalition for the Political Resurrection of Detroit active
> this year in the Detroit City election, but it is not at the level of
> electability yet.
>
Is this a third party effort or is it tied to the Dems? If the latter,there are reasons to be less than optimistic.
((((((((
CB: No, it's anti-Dems.
(((((((
> On the other hand, there have been a lot of grassroots activists
> elected to Mayor and City Council here over the years, and somehow
> this does not impact the control by the bourgeoisie. ( Ours include
> General Motors, Ford and Chrysler; I am looking at GM world
> headquarters out my office window) I once proposed aiming for ongoing
> mass control through continuous initiative, referenda and recall
> campaigns, but to really do that would require, none other than, state
> law changes, because the jurisdiction of mass initiatives, referenda
> are very limited.
One thing I've wondered about-maybe you know-is whether local government can do anything in support of strikes and organizing campaigns and has any power to prevent employers from engaging in union busting tactics.
((((((((
CB: It could, theoretically, support strikes by putting the police on the side of the strikers. That would be a real sign of a revolutionary situation.
But there isn't much or any legal jurisdiction in labor law proper for cities.
(((((((((
Is there any history of grassroots activists who really meant business (and I would not include Coleman Young in this category--though you can correct me if I'm wrong about that) and intervened to actively support labor against capital? If so, what did they try and did it work?
((((((((
CB: Confining myself to Detroit, not much, no really. Well , some Council members got arrested on the picket line of the Detroit newspaper workers' strike.
In 1936 , Michigan Governor Frank Murphy did not call in the state militia to stop the sitdown strike in Flint at GM. That was critical passive help. There may have been some other smaller actions by city officials that I don't know about.