The lessons we can learn from the Houston janitors

This is a guest-post from Stephen Lerner.  Lerner is Director of SEIU's Property Services Division. With 1.8 million members, SEIU is the largest and fastest-growing union in America.

Today, 5,300 of Houston's janitors work part-time, are paid just $20 a day and get no health insurance for scrubbing the floors and cleaning the toilets of some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Within 24 months, the workers' income will double and they will have secure, affordable health insurance. Why? They joined together, formed a union, and fought like hell to win a new labor contract that guarantees those things and more.

The janitors' seemingly unlikely victory teaches some important lessons because it tears down some conventional wisdom about what it is going to take to change our country.

1) Houston janitors are a beacon of hope for all of us.  The janitors' victory proves that just because you live in the South where workers' wages have been kept low and rights have been stifled by anti-union corporations helped by anti-worker politicians, doesn't mean you can't have the same shot at the American Dream as workers everywhere.  These janitors had everything working against them:  They are low-wage, part-time workers, the majority of them are recent immigrants, and they were up against some of the richest corporations in the world, like the big oil company Chevron.  The conventional wisdom says any one of these obstacles by itself would have made victory impossible.  But they won, because they had a strategy.  Backed by the right strategy, workers can win - in the South, or anywhere.

2) The high number of uninsured is indefensible.  From the beginning, affordable health care was a critical goal for the janitors.  A contract without health care would have been unacceptable.  And the janitors were not alone - in the very first week of the strike, Houston's mayor publicly argued that these workers must have health insurance.  He understood - as more politicians are beginning to understand - that the cost of the uninsured is passed on to all of us, and it's a problem that needs to be addressed by covering more people, not less.  Ultimately Houston's largest corporations, whether they agreed or not, were not willing to have that debate.

3) The need for better jobs crosses racial lines.  Too often, African Americans and Latino immigrants have been pitted against one another, fighting over bad jobs that don't pay enough and don't offer health care.  But in the Houston strike, "black and brown" national leaders united to support this largely immigrant workforce.  Dozens of African American leaders - many of them veterans of the civil rights movement of the 1960s - lent their support to help these mostly Latina women win better jobs.  And it's no coincidence that many of the same non-violent, civil disobedience tactics that helped spur the civil rights movement were also effective in Houston.

4) Globalization can be a tool for workers to raise their living standards. It used to be that to win a union contract, workers just had to join with co-workers in their building or factory. Not any more. Like manufacturing did before, the service industry is nationalizing and globalizing. Houston janitors were able to draw on the strength of SEIU janitors from throughout the US who work for the same employers in buildings owned by the same multinational real estate landlords. Globally, union workers in Mexico City, Moscow, London, and Berlin held actions in support of Houston strikers. The workers get it - they know that if their multinational employers are holding wages down in Houston, their own living standards are on the line. With the service economy going global, janitors and other workers have the opportunity to turn globalization on its head and use it as a tool to improve their lives.

So what does this all mean?  Working people in this country are hungry for change.  We saw it in the election, when voters, 80% of whom listed economic issues as "extremely" or "very important," elected a new Congress that campaigned explicitly on issues of raising the minimum wage and health care.  We definitely saw it in the thousands of Houston janitors willing to risk everything to change their lives and win a better future for themselves and their families.  

And with the Houston janitors' victory, we see that unions, with the right strategies, can be a vehicle to unite workers and their allies in a real movement for economic and social justice.



Display:


Truly indeed the Houston Janitors (none / 0)

are a beacon of Hope.  They unified regardless of color or ethnicity and they won!

The kicked the giant!


by Lizzy on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 05:13:06 PM EST

Change takes place in the streets (none / 0)

Then the politicians line up like little trained pigs.

Even Jack Kennedy, whom I can't help thinking about a lot today, for all his idealism was moved first and last by social and economic realities.

Therefore, affected people, like those brave janitors,  must stand up for their own rights; rights cannot be ladled out like gravy over the potatoes as the well-fed do once a year at the homeless shelter.

I have enormous respect for SEIU, which has achieved so much success by this very principle: SEIU helps those who help themselves. For the janitors to be organized, they first had to want to be organized.

It wasn't until Jack Kennedy looked out the window and saw Martin Luther King addressing a numberless crowd--a crowd, by the way, primarily assembled union organizer Bayard Rustin--that President Kennedy turned to his brother and said, "we've got to do something."

God bless the courage of those janitors, and god the labor movement.

I'm not just for class war. I'm for winning it.
.


by stevehigh on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 07:47:44 PM EST

Solidarity forever indeed n/t (none / 0)


by Crablaw on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 09:27:50 PM EST

Go SEIU! (3.00 / 1)

I think this really shows the power of the strategy of the Change to Win unions.  By syncing the contracts in multiple cities with each other, like UNITE-HERE has been trying to do for hotel workers, the labor movement will have more power to deal with corporations that work on a national or international scale.

Glad to see your point about #3: here in NYC, strikes have been pretty racialized.  The transit strike was largely viewed through the prism of race here.

Thanks for staying on this story like a hawk, Matt.  I would have never come across it unless it was up here.  Even the Houston Chronicle (from what I can gather online) had pretty light coverage.


by brooklynmfs on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 10:18:55 PM EST

Re: Go SEIU! (3.00 / 1)

From the beginning of the labor movement, anti-unionists have played on race to divide workers.  They still do.


by dashiell on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 11:07:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Go SEIU! (none / 0)

anti-unionists have played on race to divide workers.  They still do.

In the Pennsylvania tourist trap of Jim Thorpe (they buried the former Oklahoma hero there that even Arkansas didn't want), there is a prison museum.  The prison doors occasionally were opened so the cheering crowds could see them hang the Molly Maguires in bunches.  The Molly Maguires were Irish workers that the mine owners thought might have radical notions about unionizing or something.  One mine owner had a supervisor murdered and framed the Molly Maguires (the name comes from a legendary Irish rebel).  Good economics.  Saved on the supervisor's pay and got rid of possible trouble at the same time.

They aren't as good at economics in Texas these days though they do plenty of killing there yet.

I recommend that museum for what it's worth to see how primitive a prison from another millenium can be.  I believe it was closed in 1996.

Best,  Terry


by terryhallinan on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 09:35:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Change in the law (3.00 / 1)

A change in law here would make a huge difference in organizing a union. A majority of workers would join a union, pay dues, go to meetings and participate in union elections if they could. If they weren't harassed by employers. If employers didn't hire high priced lawyer-thugs to advise them on how to defeat a union organizing.

A change in law, called card check, would allow workers to establish a union at work by simply signing a membership card in support of a union. When a majority of workers have signed and received membership cards, magic! - a union is formed. Next there is a meeting to elect officers (democracy!) and handle business like scheduling meetings with employers. Simple. Like joining the PTA. So why can't workers form their democracy at work without employer interference? Duh.

Now there is a waiting period after card-signing and before the required election for or against the union. During that period the employer illegally fires pro-union workers or threatens them with job loss or takes them behind closed doors to explain their "point of view." They have the power to coerce and intimidate. Card check would avoid that election and pre-election period and would acknowledge that the power is with the employer. If a majority signs cards, they have a union.  

There's no sense asking why unions have lost membership without acknowledging the laws that protect employers who harass union organizers. We need a card check law to protect workers who organize.


by mrobinsong on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 11:14:25 AM EST

Re: The lessons we can learn from the Houston jani (3.00 / 1)

I think that you should invite someone from a union to become a front-pager here.  Connecting the netroots with labor (and environment) is to our mutual benefit.


by JJCPA on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 11:24:49 AM EST

Re: The lessons we can learn from the Houston jani (1.00 / 1)

This type of thread always depresses me.

It's sad to see so many well-intentioned people framing an this issue as a fight of good vs. evil.  Assuming the unions = good, the opposition = evil.

They assume their support of the unions makes them a good person.  Anyone who disagrees is bad.

This is so saddening because it isn't the case.  Both sides need to stop assuming the other side is "evil." And in this case there are many equally well-intentioned people on the other side.  Accepting this is the first step to forming a more well-reasoned worldview.  Afterall, this is the "reality-based" community.

The best example of a well-intentioned individual who is against what you are advocating is the recently deceased Milton Friedman.  Milton Friedman was extraordinarily compassionate about the  well-being of all people, but he took a different view because he felt it was better.

So, let me comment on the two issues you are all strongly supporting

1) Raising the minimum wage.

I voted democrat in every election, but it's saddening to see them take this policy stance.  It's more depressing to learn so many people support it (especially considering most of the supporters a) aren't receiving minimum wage b) don't know anyone that makes minimum wage).  I can understand a naive individual making minimum wage supporting this policy.  But its pure intellectual laziness for so many other people to support a flawed policy.

And for a democratic politician it amounts to "vote buying" when they push for these policies.  It's incompetent and corrupt to buy votes by hurting your country.  

Consider the alternative:

The Earned Income Tax Credit achieves the same result for a lower-skilled worker as a minimum wage increase does.  It can easily supplement a workers income by the exact same amount as a minimum wage increase.

In fact, the EITC has an absolute advantage over the minimum wage as a policy tool, but we choose the minimum wage.  Why? Intellectual laziness.  The minimum wage is easier to understand so politicians use it to buy votes, and we all rally behind them.

2) The unions are always the good guy, and the corporations are always the bad guy.

From a moral perspective... unions steal freedom from an entity that should be its sole possessor.  
The union never created the corporation - it's owners did.  But the union wants to steal the freedom of choice from the corporation's owners. Why support such a thing?

"Because the poor workers are being repressed..." This is such a cynical view of our country.  I could understand the view if all we had were repressive companies, but employees have the opportunity to leave a repressive corporation by choosing to work for a well-intentioned one.  And plenty of well-intentioned companies exist in our society.  In fact, there is an economic incentive for corporations to treat their workers well.  It's easier to hire and retain good workers if you are viewed well by your employees.

I'm not going to go much further, as this post is already quite long... but the core point is this.

If you see things in terms of black and white (unions = always good, corporation = always bad or vice versa) you can never have a well-balanced understanding.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the lens thru which most of us here view this issue.  

If you have some time, here is a video worth watching:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid= 6813529239937418232&q=milton+friedma n


by consta on Thu Nov 23, 2006 at 08:40:01 PM EST

I disagree (none / 0)

Compared to the minimum wage raise, the EITC has a very heavy administrative burden, has no general positive effect on workers who make above the minimum wage the way a minimum wage raise does, and costs taxpayers money.  The EITC has its place in the policy toolbox, but if it's a choice between raising the minimum wage or spending lots of money to subsidize poverty wages, I will choose the former.

as for #2, you are saying corporations are people, too?


by brooklynmfs on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 04:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.