It’s The Power, Stupid

July 19, 2015 § 4 Comments

I keep thinking about Thomas Piketty and the relentlessly increasing degree of wealth and income inequality he describes.  Every month when a new report comes out and news anchors talk about the state of our economy, the story is, “Our economy is doing better, but wage rates are lagging.”  The working class is going back to work, but they’re not being paid as much for their work.  As the Chicanos say, “Mucho trabajo.  Poco dinero.”  [Actually the rest of this old toast, which I will edit, goes “Ching**** tu madre.  Viva Madero!”  LIke most gringos, I learned to curse in Spanish before I learned anything else.]

I’ve  been thinking about what governments should do to reverse this process.  I now believe my reasoning has been flawed.  Government policies are based on political power.  A tiny percentage of our voting population exercises giant influence on government policy.  Their influence results from control of money contributed to candidates and so-called “PACs”.   In other words, their money translates to political power.

Our state and federal capitols are brokerage houses where political power shapes bargains between the interests of the wealthy and interests of the working class.  There is a growing imbalance of that power.   So, the solution to the inequality described by Piketty must focus on that imbalance.

The Private Sector 

There is another component to Piketty’s inequality:  In our capitalist system most bargains are struck in the private sector, between workers and employers.  There, again, is a glaring imbalance of power.  When I look and listen to the political rhetoric leading toward the 2015 election season, I hear and see nothing about this private sector power imbalance.  I don’t believe redistribution of wealth through reform of the tax system will occur unless it is accompanied by a re-balancing of bargaining power in the private sector.

That private sector re-balancing can be accomplished only if workers are allowed to use their power the same way that employers use theirs:  By making strategic  choices of how and where they use their power.  Employers control where and how to invest their money.  Workers must be allowed to control where and how they invest their work.

How can workers empower that control?  There are three ways.  First, workers have the power to control where and how they and their supporters consume goods and services.  That power is called boycott.  Second, workers have the power to control where and how they work.  That power is called the power to strike.  Third, workers have the power to use social media, mass media and the internet to recruit and persuade their families and supporters to join them in their struggles and bargains with owners and managers.

Politicians who seek support of working class Americans should support workers’ rights to exercise all three of those powers.   Union organizing should be facilitated and encouraged.  Campaign rhetoric should feature lifting legal restrictions on secondary boycotts.  Politicians who rely on the votes of workers should show up on the picket lines of labor disputes and worker demonstrations seeking workplace justice.

The problem with “Occupy Wall Street” was its focus on a workplace where the working class could not exercise power.  Fast food chains and retail shopping chains are appropriate targets for worker power, not Wall Street.  The labor movement needs to broaden its focus and labor’s political allies need to join in that effort.

Making Political Parties Relevant

It is absurd that Scott Walker is basing a strong political challenge in Wisconsin on his union busting credentials.  Every Democratic candidate should spend time in Wisconsin denouncing him as an enemy of worker justice.

The deafening silence of Democratic Party leaders concerning issues discussed here threatens to render the Party irrelevant to the most pressing issues of our time.  We cannot correct unjust distribution of power in our country as long as every mention of Bernie Sanders by the TV talking heads includes dismissive comments comparing him to Hillary Clinton.  We have intelligent, experienced attractive political leaders.  Our problem is:  They fear to speak the truth about wealth inequality.  That injustice will not be solved by government hand-outs.  It will be solved by empowering the working class and re-balancing bargaining between workers and employers.

How Can Low Wage Employees be Organized?

We need new models for strikes.  It is unrealistic to expect workers earning minimum wage incomes to walk off jobs and stay off until employment contracts are negotiated.  Social media could be used to direct carefully planned one-day strikes.  The workers in a particular location can be recruited and given a coded direction and asked to keep it secret.  When all, or a majority, of the staff at a particular location have agreed, they wait for an email or twitter message with the code phrase.  The next day, they fail to show up for work.  The next day they return to work.  If this works, the pattern of low-wage targets could be like the bumpers in a pinball machine.

Of course, the chain could fire all of them, but that would compound the disruption of its business.  If the recruitment process occurs in multiple locations, a retaliatory one-day shut-down at another location would discourage the mass discharge strategy.  Also, the present labor laws have protection for “concerted activity” and there might be a remedy for management’s retaliatory discharge.

What I am suggesting is a strategy requiring months of preliminary planning and education.  An online campaign to identify employees of a specific chain in a specific area should precede “one-day pinball strikes”.  Google has a program called “Google Groups” available for this kind of organizing.  I assume it would attract “fink” members who would rat out the workers, but unions have been surviving finks forever.  There are risks in any strategy.

Suppose a campaign to organize MacDonald employees:  Justice At McDonalds  “JAM”.  A JAM Google Group would be created.  Some cheap radio advertising would invite McDonalds employees to sign on the JAM group. Joiners would be identified by email addresses.  Some pamphlets would be handed to some McDonalds employees at shift change times.  When the recruitment campaign has progressed far enough, a meeting would be scheduled at a community center or a church.

After most or all of the employees at a particular McDonalds were identified, the above “pinball one-day strike” procedure would be implemented.

This kind of organizing would be initiated by one or more of our established unions.  The Teamsters or SEIU (Service Employees International Union) are likely candidates.  They would not be trying to organize the fast food workers into their union. This would follow the model of the Mine Workers launching the Steelworkers in the ’30’s.  Minimum wage workers at McDonalds would not be able to pay the dues of a major international union and their needs differ from those of the sponsoring union.  The JAM members would  elect their own leaders.

The established unions could offer training, money and advice,  but not domination and incorporation.  This would have to be done carefully because established unions have assets and are vulnerable to damage suits.  The kind of JAM union I am suggesting should take care to operate without assets.  It should operate like an AA organization.  No dues, some hat-passing at meetings, no buildings, no vehicles.  Some friendly groups might contribute funds for particular projects.  This “business model” would discourage creative corporate lawyers from filing law suits complaining about boycotts, trespassing, trade libel etc.  Judgement proof is handy insulation from damage suits.

I can’t anticipate the goals of a JAM union.  I would suggest a simplified contract with a “just cause” requirement for discipline or discharge, a grievance procedure and some small increase in the wage scales.

80% of McDonalds restaurants are owned by franchisees.  This would complicate collective bargaining but this could be overcome by targeting a few of the most popular locations in an area, posting a prominent sign at those with JAM contracts and waging a boycott campaign against those who refuse the JAM effort.  This would follow the model of the New Deal’s “Blue Eagle” campaign.  That was ruled unconstitutional by a recalcitrant Supreme Court.  Because JAM boycotts would not be sponsored by the government, constitutional issues would not apply.


These Sunday afternoon musings are born of frustration.  I have small confidence that a political system dependent on billion dollar contributors will ever redistribute the wealth necessary to save America’s working class from wage slavery and global exploitation.  Nibbling around the edges of the problem will not work.  The descamisados must be organized because they are numerous enough to counter the money-driven forces of wealth.

§ 4 Responses to It’s The Power, Stupid

  • tubularsock says:

    Well Robert, Tubularsock thinks that much of what you have written here is correct but you are talking to the wind. In a closed two party system controlled by corporations we have both the Democrats and Republicans irrelevant to democracy but not to plutocracy. In fact, it is working very well!

    Tubularsock would suggest to burn it all down and then just groove in the rubble.

    An added comment from Tubularsock. I did like your joke when you said, “We have intelligent, experienced attractive political leaders.” Yes, you have GOT TO BE kidding!


    • Bob Hall says:

      No. I was not kidding. I don’t blame the problems with our political system on our candidates.[I am not, of course, referring to GOP candidates.] Politicians react to pressure and demand from the electorate. Our job is to organize and generate that pressure and demand. I know it looks grim and discouraging now but I refuse to believe that plutocracy is invincible and permanent. My reading of history does not make me confident that “groove in the rubble” is a strategy likely to lead to a country where I want to live. I think you and I agree on the identity of the enemy. We just differ about how to react to the enemy. I don’t like the present Democratic Party but it’s the only game in town.

      Liked by 1 person

  • danallosso says:

    Good work. Lots to think about here. I think another area that needs to be addressed is the space occupied by intellectuals (academics and public pundits), where for the most part we’re still pretending there has never been such a thing as class in America and that the only type of power that matters is political. You say “economic power” to these folks and even many so-called liberals look at you like you have two heads. That has to change.


  • davidsonchan says:


    Did you hear Bernie Sanders the other night when he was in Houston? Quite a performance. No chance of winning, but perhaps the best candidate, in terms of his values, since FDR. Let’s hear it for the democratic socialists!



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading It’s The Power, Stupid at Robert Hall.


%d bloggers like this: