Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 23:59:37 -0400 (EDT) 20 Jul 1998 23:59:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 23:59:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Clawson Subject: labor network at A.S.A. convention To: Labor-Rap@csf.colorado.edu (This message is being posted to Labor-Rap and sent to all those who attended last year's session; please excuse duplication, and please pass on to others who might miss this.) TO: Sociology Labor Network FROM: Dan Clawson (clawson@sadri.umass.edu) Fernando Gapasin (fgapasin@ucla.edu) Judy Stepan-Norris (jstepann@uci.edu) RE: ASA Meetings in San Francisco This year the Sociology Labor Network (SLN) will meet on Saturday evening August 22 at 8:30 p.m. in Continental Parlor 2. (If you forget the room, it will be listed in the program.) The agenda includes at least the four items below, not necessarily in this order, but will expand if people submit additional agenda items. If you have topics we should discuss, please let one or more of us know. 1. ANNOUNCEMENTS of labor related events. 2. SECTION FORMATION A petition is circulating about forming an ASA section on Labor and Labor Movements. This is one of the items we discussed at last year's meeting, and want to discuss again this year. Last year, some people supported forming a section and others opposed it. The petition is being circulated in the belief (1) that last year's opponents argued that those who wanted to do so could and should proceed, and although opponents didn't think it worth while, most of them would not oppose others forming a section (2) that unless we gather signatures by the end of the convention we will be delayed an additional year and (3) that we will have an opportunity to discuss this and could decide to end the effort if the group opposes it. In order to form a section, we must collect the signatures of at least 100 dues paying ASA members, who state their intention of joining the section and paying section dues for two years. If we do that by the end of the convention, we will be listed on the dues renewal check-off form; at that point, we must get 300 dues paying members to become officially recognized. We also need a vision statement and formal proposal; those are now being drafted and should be available soon. We should discuss the pro's and con's of section formation, and if we (or a group of us) wish to proceed, should establish a committee to do so. Some of the arguments in favor of section formation are that it will provide us an institutional base and a way to involve a set of people in leadership, will generate research and scholarship, improve intellectual networking, and will also facilitate political activity separate from, but connected to, the section. Arguments against are that it will remove a political edge and lead us to become professionalized, that it will take too much time and energy, and that it conflicts with (and potentially might weaken) other sections, such as social movements or work, organizations, and occupations. It is obviously possible both to form a section and to continue a separate Sociology Labor Network. 3. RELATIONS WITH NON A.S.A. GROUPS Two groups in particular. (1) In the past year Scholars, Artists, and Writers for Social Justice (SAWSJ) formed. It grows out of the teach-in movement, and intends to build relations between the labor movement and intellectuals, including academics from all disciplines, as well as artists, writers, and musicians. (2) The Labor Party is supported by both international and local unions, and has a program calling for a constitutional guarantee of a job at a living wage and a host of other progressive issues. We should discuss what relationship, if any, we want to have with these or other groups. 4. DEFENSE OF LABOR ACADEMICS In at least two cases in the past year, labor-friendly academics have been hit with law suits intended to intimidate them. Ellen Starbird will tell us about the Laney College Labor Studies case; students (with an identifiable banner) demonstrated against the unloading of a scab ship; the Pacific Maritime Association sued the demonstrators, specifically naming the Laney College Labor Studies Club. In the other case, Kate Bronfenbrenner testified before a Congressional town meeting, saying that her research found Beverly Enterprises to be "one of the most notorious labor law violators" in the country. Beverly sued her for half a million dollars, but at least as important demanded that she turn over all her research materials for the past ten years, so they and their experts could check her research. The information they demanded contains some of the most confidential material imaginable: interviews with union lead organizers, where they reported what tactics they used, what the company did that was effective, and in general provided an inside picture of their campaign -- something that would be of enormous benefit not only to Beverly, but to all union busting employers. Beverly appears to be determined to sue Kate; twice their suit has been dismissed, and each time they've come back again. As a result of the suit, the media have been reluctant to quote Bronfenbrenner, who has been one of the main people asked to provide a labor- friendly perspective on issues, and of course it's made it difficult to get her other work done. I might also note that in both these cases, the primary attack was directed at an untenured woman. We need to talk about a way to respond to these (and other future such) situations. To my mind, it isn't enough to simply defend the people under attack; if the corporations that file these SLAPP suits do not pay a price, such suits will only increase. We have to turn the tables, for example, by getting the word out about Beverly's labor law record, so that far more people than ever before realize that it has been repeatedly sanctioned for its labor law violations, that Fortune magazine labelled it one of the worst corporations in America, and so on. 5. ASA SUPPORT OF DETROIT FREE PRESS Chris Rhomberg has circulated a letter noting that the ASA Spivack Fellow will be working with/for the Detroit Free Press, one of the most notorious union busting corporations in America. He notes that it is difficult to believe the ASA would have assigned someone to work with the old South African government, or with a fraternity known for sexual attacks on women. Why do they find it permissible to work with and for union busters, and to have the ASA as an organization legitimate these activities? It seems we need to work on some ASA internal education. (As a side note: this year the SSSP is holding its meetings in a non-union hotel; their council knew what it was doing and decided that was okay.) For both items 4 and 5, we might want to circulate petitions throughout the meetings, and bring those to the ASA business meeting seeking further action. Please plan to attend the meeting (Saturday night, August 22, 8:30 p.m., Continental Parlor 2) and send in your additional agenda items to any of the three of us. You may also, of course, use Labor-Rap (or other means) to communicate ideas broadly. See you in San Francisco. P.S. Please SPREAD THE WORD; we want as many people as possible, with as many ideas and activities as possible. As in all organizing, make it your responsibility to recruit people. -- Dan Clawson 413-545-5974 (work) Dept. of Sociology 413-545-0746 (fax) W-36 Machmer Hall 413-586-6235 (home) Univ. of Massachusetts Amherst MA 01003 email = clawson@sadri.umass.edu