Two IDF soldiers injured in Huwara terror shooting, marking third attack in a month

The Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack.

By World Israel News Staff

Two IDF soldiers were wounded in a shooting attack in Huwara on Saturday evening, marking the third terror attack in the Palestinian town in the past month.

The soldiers were listed as being in serious and moderate condition, respectively. They were transferred to Rabin Medical Center for further treatment.

The terrorist fired from a passing vehicle before fleeing the scene.

The IDF has launched a manhunt to find the terrorist. The highway that cuts through Huwara, in northern Samaria, has been shut down as have the roads around the Nablus (Shechem) area.

The Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, the armed wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terror group, claimed responsibility for the shooting attack.

The terror group called on “all the Palestinian people and their living forces to form a united front in the Palestinian resistance,” a statement from the brigades said.

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant met with IDF chief Herzi Halevi and head of the Shin Bet security agency, Ronen Bar, and other military brass for a situational assessment.

Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem welcomed the attack, saying “For the third time in a month, the resistance strikes the occupation army in the same place in the town of Huwara, and reaffirms the occupation’s ineptitude in confronting the resistance youth.”

“The resistance in [Judea and Samaria] has proved it is capable of surprising the occupation every time.”

Samaria Council head Yossi Dagan slammed the government over its “neglect.”

“We won’t make allowances for the government because we voted for it,” Dagan said. “The government is continuing the policy of the previous one and it’s beginning to feel like neglect. We demand the return of security checkpoints and the gathering of weapons.”

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said: “IDF soldiers and Jews in Samaria are driving on terror-riddled roads especially in Huwara, and it’s time to get some order in the town, set up permanent checkpoints, and close shops that are a danger.”

Saturday’s shooting marks the third such attack in Huwara in a month. Early in March, two Israeli brothers, Hallel and Yagel Yaniv, were murdered in a drive-by shooting and last week, former U.S. Marine David Stern was shot while driving through the town with his young children family. After being shot at at point blank range, Stern, a martial arts instructor, managed to shoot and neutralize the terrorist.

The post Two IDF soldiers injured in Huwara terror shooting, marking third attack in a month appeared first on World Israel News.

Public Education Is Vital for Democracy. But It’s Not the Solution to Poverty or Inequality.

“I love the poorly educated,” Donald Trump told supporters in Nevada after they helped him notch a decisive win in the state’s 2016 Republican caucuses. The line was typical: dashed off, casually cruel, instantly divisive. And it instantly distinguished Trump from his competitors in both parties. He wasn’t promising his supporters a brighter future, but […]

Defense Minister Gallant calls to halt judicial reform legislation

“The branches need a new balance, which will strengthen public faith. But such sweeping changes cannot occur without dialogue.”

By World Israel News Staff

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on Saturday night made a dramatic televised appeal calling on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to halt the judicial reform, warning that the rift in the country has caused “immediate and tangible danger” to Israel’s security.

Gallant acknowledged that changes to the judiciary were needed, but that they should happen through dialogue.

“The branches need a new balance, which will strengthen public faith. But such sweeping changes cannot occur without dialogue.”

“I have never encountered the intensity of anger and pain as I have seen now. The rift within the nation has penetrated deep into the IDF and the defense establishment – this is a immediate and tangible danger to the security of Israel,” he said.

He also called on the opposition to put an immediate end to the IDF reservist protests.

Likud MKs Yuli Edelstein and David Bitan backed Gallant’s call to halt the legislation.

Edelstein, who chairs the Knesset’s powerful Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, thanked Gallant for “joining the path I’ve been leading for weeks.”

“The majority of the people want and understand the need for changes in the judiciary, but this must be done with patience, dialogue and widespread negotiations in order to reach a wide consensus,” he said in a statement.

Bitan tweeted: “I back the words of my friend the defense minister.”

Opposition leader Yair Lapid hailed Gallant’s “brave and critical step.”

“The coup seriously harms national security and it is his role and responsibility to stop the dangerous escalation,” Lapid said.

“Stop everything, do not pass the change in the committee for the appointment of judges and the Deri law this week, and come and hold talks at the president’s residence,” he added.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to fire Gallant.

“I call on the prime minister to fire Gallant, who came in with the votes of the right, but surrendered to the pressure of those who refused orders [to serve in the military], and tries to put a stop to the important reform,” Ben Gvir said.

Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi expressed remorse that “our defense minister gave in to pressure from the left.”

He added that “we won’t cancel the people’s vote to satisfy the elite and the media.”

The post Defense Minister Gallant calls to halt judicial reform legislation appeared first on World Israel News.

WATCH: Ultra-Orthodox teens record record-breaking 96% pass rate in Israel’s tough CPA exams

“Our goal was single-minded: to pass the exam and start working.”

By World Israel News Staff

Israeli lawmaker Moshe Gafni (UTJ), who chairs the Finance Committee, this week hailed a record-breaking 96% pass rates for Israel’s CPA exams by ultra-Orthodox Beis Yaakov seminar students, beating out leading universities by a large margin.

Of the 95 young charedi women who took the test, which is known for being extremely difficult, 91 passed.

“Our goal was single-minded: to pass the exam and start working,” Maayan Hanun, a charedi woman who recently passed the exam, said. “When you have such a goal in mind, you run with it all the way. It was our lives for the past two years and nothing got in our way.”

“הוכחה שהחברה החרדית היא הזדמנות – לא נטל”: 96% מתלמידות הסמינר החרדיות שניגשו לבחינת ההסמכה בראיית חשבון עברו אותה בהצלחה – בלי תעודת בגרות@AkivaWeisz pic.twitter.com/v6dXYqx85V

— כאן חדשות (@kann_news) March 20, 2023

“I told everyone I met as well as everyone who knows me to pray for me to pass. Me and the girls I study [the course] with went to the kotel the day before the exam. My aunt recited psalms until the exam was over,” Chaya Saruk, another passing candidate, said.

Bar Ilan University came second, but by a much lower pass rate. Of the 97 students who sat the exam, only 67% passed. Tel Aviv University recorded a pass rate of 54% for 39 students, while only 34% of the 47 students from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem passed.

The post WATCH: Ultra-Orthodox teens record record-breaking 96% pass rate in Israel’s tough CPA exams appeared first on World Israel News.

John Brophy Is the Most Important Labor Leader Nobody Knows

John Brophy earned the moniker “Mr. CIO” in the 1930s for his excellent organizing for the Congress of Industrial Organizations. He was steadfast and never flashy, which is perhaps why he’s been forgotten. It’s also what makes him a model for our times.

Labor leader John Brophy (1883–1963). (Wikimedia Commons)

Like many readers of this publication, I have a special place in my heart for one Bernie Sanders. The period bracketed by his two presidential primary runs has been without question the most exciting political moment of my life. Despite his losses, I still think Bernie is the model for the Left of a principled and strategic politician. We do ourselves no favors in hastening a “post-Bernie” era or thinking we have nothing left to learn from the man.

Above all we can learn from Bernie’s consistency. It’s what allows him to stand aloof from the culture wars, a seeming moral anchor in a rancorous and cynical political climate. It’s what endowed him with the trustworthiness that made it possible for a democratic socialist to have a shot at winning the nomination of an avowedly capitalist party. If you’ve heard one Bernie speech, you’ve heard them all: unionized jobs, Medicare for All, a Green New Deal. He’s so steadfast and predictable that his critics can’t decide whether to condemn him for being an extremist or for being, well, boring.

Bernie belongs to a long and rich tradition of American radicalism. Of its many luminaries, one embodies this quality of consistency particularly well, and perhaps this is why his name, John Brophy, is not a household one. Brophy was a true working-class hero: as national director of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) during its ascendance, Brophy was a key player in many of the struggles that laid the groundwork for the New Deal order. And as the one person to internally challenge John L. Lewis — perhaps the most egotistical and spiteful maniac the American labor movement ever produced — before Lewis’s departure from the CIO, Brophy stood boldly for democracy and solidarity at a high personal price.

It should also be said that Brophy was indeed boring: friends called him “loquacious,” but even close colleagues would sometimes wince before going into meetings with him, knowing Brophy’s penchant for exercising ten words where one would do. Loquacity aside, Brophy had that same Sanders consistency. His basic program — nationalizing basic industries, shortening the working day, organizing the unorganized, giving working people a greater voice in American democracy — was formulated early on in his life and echoed unwaveringly throughout. Brophy always put principles before personal matters, and his steady manner helped channel volatile personalities into productive organizational action, action that just so happened to lay the groundwork for the most prosperous time for working people in American history. We should all aspire to be so boring.

Son of the Mines

Brophy was born in an English mining family. His father and his uncle, John’s namesake, were both miners. His grandfather died of a stroke while waiting to be lowered into the shaft, and even his great-grandmother was a miner before female labor in the mines was outlawed. The only traditions that ran as strong as mining in the Brophy family were Catholicism and unionism. When Brophy came with his family to the United States from England at age nine, he remained rooted in all three family traditions.

Despite enduring the pressures of desperate poverty and working as a full-time miner in Pennsylvania beginning at age twelve, Brophy found plenty of time for reading. He recalls in his autobiography that one of the greatest events of his childhood was when his mother collected some quantity of boys’ magazines from a lady for whom she did domestic work. In his adolescence, he was especially drawn to the writing of Richard Ely, Henry Demarest Lloyd, Henry George, Eugene Debs, and other critics of capitalism.

Brophy speaking at an outdoor labor rally at Six Mile Run, Pennsylvania, August 17, 1924. (Catholic University of America Digital Collections)

Brophy was a unionist above all else, but he was close to both socialists and socialist analysis. Economist Carter Goodrich said Brophy was a radical “of the sort whose favorite words are ‘program’ and ‘plan’ and ‘thought out beforehand.’” From very early on, and consistently throughout his career, he was sharply critical of the ultra-left, particularly the Communist Party. He believed that a clear, bold progressive program — the nationalization of the mines, organizing the unorganized, a six-hour day, and union democracy — laid out the best course between a blinkered business unionism and Communist “intellectualism.” Despite this position, he opposed red-baiting where it divided unionists.

In 1917, Brophy was elected president of District Two of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), and in 1926, he challenged John L. Lewis himself for the presidency of the whole union in a campaign entitled “Save the Union.” Lewis, of course, was later to be the face of the CIO, but in the mid-1920s he had few organizing triumphs to his name and was making the UMWA more autocratic by the day.

When Lewis won the election, Brophy knew that there had been foul play at work. But he and allies like Powers Hapgood also believed that his insurgent campaign had been skillfully split by Lewis’s red-baiting, which made much of the fact that Communists had supported Brophy, despite their disagreements. Hapgood lamented, “Must they [Communists] always be told to go to hell and their cooperation refused in certain things in which every honest progressive believes merely because we differ from them in ultimate revolutionary ideology?”

Brophy’s defeat was complete. Not only did he lose his local presidency, but Lewis also expelled him from the UMWA for supposed “dual unionism.” From his expulsion in 1928 until his return to mining and unionism in 1933, Brophy, who had dedicated his life to the labor, was effectively exiled from the labor movement.

The only traditions that ran as strong as mining in the Brophy family were Catholicism and unionism.

Lewis had totally vanquished his rival, but having done so, he found himself commanding a quickly shrinking empire: from a high of half a million bituminous coal miners in 1921, membership had fallen to eighty thousand by mid-1928. Lewis had soundly defeated the “Save the Union” campaign, and as implicitly promised, the union collapsed with the Depression.

“For downright blundering, mad, unreasoning, stupid, destructive, and disloyal leadership,” District 12 president Frank Farrington seethed, “Lewis’s action has never been equalled by any leader in the organized labor movement of America.”

Back in Action

In June 1933, the same month that the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) passed, Brophy returned to mining and to his local. Word got back to Lewis, who invited him to meet. As if he had not ruined the man’s life, Lewis explained to Brophy that their past differences were simply over the question of “timing,” not substance. Brophy was understandably wary of Lewis’s overtures, but he nonetheless accepted a UMWA staff job when it was offered.

Brophy finally returns to good standing in the UMWA in 1934. (Catholic University of America Digital Collections)

Lewis, for his part, had indeed changed. He was still the same power-obsessed petty tyrant, but he understood the moment better than most: Section 7a of the NIRA, guaranteeing workers the right to “organize unions of their own choosing,” was a game changer. In September 1933, Lewis capitalized on rank-and-file rebelliousness to pressure operators and Roosevelt into a contract covering all of the major bituminous districts.

With a generational victory in the bag, Lewis looked around him and chastised other labor leaders for squandering an opportunity. The craft orientation of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) was its limitation, and Lewis was determined to overcome it. His determination was symbolized in the right jab that Lewis landed on carpenters’ union president William Hutcheson, one that he supposedly delivered after having leapt over several rows of chairs at the October 1935 AFL convention. A month later, the first CIO office in Washington, DC, was opened by Brophy, now the CIO’s national director.

Brophy conferring with John L. Lewis at the 1937 CIO convention. (Catholic University of America Digital Collections)

It’s difficult to know what gave Lewis such confidence in Brophy, given their history. Perhaps part of it was a “keep your friends close, but your enemies closer” philosophy. Maybe he also understood that his own dominant personality needed some balancing for the organization to be successful. By all accounts, Brophy’s impact as director was a universally positive one. In Walter Reuther and James Carey’s portrayal:

He was in the forefront of every organizing campaign that made national headlines during the last six years of the 1930s. It was John Brophy who helped rally striking rubber workers in Akron after they discovered that they could “shut the machines down.” It was John Brophy who climbed a barbed-wire fence in Flint to encourage sitdown strikers not to surrender. It was John Brophy who went to New Orleans and Jersey City despite publicized threats that if he addressed scheduled labor rallies, he would never leave either city alive. And, it was John Brophy who helped form the Steel Workers Organizing Committee.

If anything, Reuther and Carey underplay his role in the sit-down strike in Flint. Brophy had the foresight to see that UAW president Homer Martin was not up to the task of holding out on GM during the strike, and he stepped in to serve as a key liaison to Governor Frank Murphy, skillfully finding ways for him to avoid breaking the strike. After the strike, he was also the CIO’s representative on the negotiating committee, bringing much-needed contractual knowledge to the table.

It was Brophy who climbed a barbed-wire fence in Flint to encourage sit-down strikers not to surrender.

Brophy also played the key role in developing the CIO’s internal culture. He personally drafted the regional structures, central bodies, and certificates of affiliation that gave the CIO internal structure and established it as a true rival organization of the AFL. And despite his own aversion to Communism, he defended people like Harry Bridges of the longshoremen’s union against red-baiting. Anything that divided the labor movement was abhorrent to Brophy.

Brophy with Powers Hapgood (left) and Adolph Germer (right) organizing the rubber workers in Akron, Ohio, 1936. (John Brophy, A Miner’s Life [University of Wisconsin Press, 1964]).More generally, Brophy traveled ceaselessly during this time, serving as a mediating link between the rank and file and CIO leadership. For this he gained the moniker “Mr CIO” — a development that no doubt rankled Lewis. He also challenged Lewis on substantive questions: for instance, Lewis was initially opposed to the Tennessee Valley Authority, which he saw as a threat to coal production in the region. Brophy eventually convinced him that “an organization which stood for improving the conditions of the common people could not oppose the TVA.”

Servant of the Program

For all this, Brophy’s position was an appointed rather than elected one. When the time came in 1938 to elect leadership in an organization that Brophy gave structure to, Lewis publicly opposed his candidacy for secretaryship, putting forth his daughter Kathryn instead.

It’s possible that Brophy could have won the election despite Lewis’s opposition, given the respect he had earned as national director. But ever wary of causing internal division, Brophy would not allow his name to be put up for nomination. As his autobiography editor notes in frustration, “He never allowed himself to become a ‘big shot,’ nor was he diverted from what he liked to call the ‘larger program’ in pursuit of lesser objectives.” The next year he was replaced as organizational director by Allan Haywood, a Lewis acolyte.

He never allowed himself to become a ‘big shot,’ nor was he diverted from what he liked to call the ‘larger program’ in pursuit of lesser objectives.

Sister Camilla Mullay, Brophy’s biographer, speculates on a few possible reasons for Brophy’s demotion. The only other person to be demoted in 1939 was Bridges, leading many to think that the “menace of Communism” was at the forefront of Lewis’s thinking. But Brophy was well-known to be as opposed to Communism as any other CIO leader, and much more aligned philosophically with the socialists. (Brophy was never a member of the Socialist Party, as he believed the “rigid doctrines of Marxist materialism” were at odds with his own Christian humanism, but in most matters of political ideology and practice, he was a socialist.)

Mullay finds more convincing the idea that Lewis believed Brophy simply unsuitable to the moment. Workers had been pounding at the door demanding to join the CIO in the mid-’30s. Lewis saw the road ahead to be a more difficult one from an organizing perspective, and perhaps he felt that Haywood, an apolitical yes-man who liked being “one of the boys,” was more appropriate to the task of organizing the unorganized than Brophy, the mild-mannered intellectual and religious abstainer from drink.

The obvious reason for Brophy’s demotion, however, might be the truest one. Brophy was the anti-Lewis, a reputation he could not live down even while acting as Lewis’s spokesman. Mullay helpfully summarizes their differences:

Except for a brief period in the mid-nineteen thirties, John L. Lewis personified for Brophy the laissez-faire philosophy, the business unionism, and the dictatorial leadership that he detested as evil. Philosophic differences led Lewis to give in to the coal operators in 1922 when Brophy held out for continuing the strike. This philosophic divergence caused Lewis to write in 1925 that the coal industry could be cured by the free play of natural economic laws, and Brophy to urge the nationalization of mines. Typical again were their attitudes in the 1928 election: Lewis voted for Hoover, Brophy, for Thomas. Actually Lewis’ drive to organize the unorganized, which drew Brophy to his side as an enthusiastic collaborator, sprang not from the desire to push the entire larger program, but from the need to secure the UMWA flanks, the captive mines owned by the steel industry. Lewis demanded personal loyalty, Brophy, union democracy. Lewis was concerned with personal power, Brophy with principles, institutions, and movements. Lewis thought it fitting that he be chauffeured in a limousine to his big office; Brophy believed a labor leader should live like a rank-and-filer.

Given their opposition, it makes sense that Lewis and Brophy’s relationship would end bitterly — and that when Lewis turned the reins of the CIO over to Philip Murray and then promptly alienated himself from Murray, Sidney Hillman, and other labor leaders, Brophy once again found a home in the CIO. Murray appointed him to the War Labor Board, where he tirelessly championed economic planning led by labor. As he said in 1941:

It has become apparent during the last decade and more that industrial management, if left to its own devices, is utterly incapable of organizing our American economy on a basis of full production, high wages, and low prices. It is essential that other elements of our society step into that breach. . . . Labor alone at once knows how the job is done and has the will to do it, not in the interest of private profit, but with the welfare of the nation as a whole in mind.

Brophy was particularly drawn to the CIO’s Industry Council Plan (ICP), which proposed “the creation of joint industry and labor management councils” to be responsible for managing each of the industries jointly. This plan was hatched during the war to coordinate defense production, but Brophy saw the plan as an urgent peacetime initiative as well. He spoke on the ICP consistently at CIO conventions, well past the point when anyone else in organized labor was listening, through to his retirement in 1961 and passing in 1963.

Writing to Walter Reuther in 1958, Brophy described the aim of the ICP as “democratically arrived at policies dealing with the use of America’s natural resources, the elimination of depressed areas, and the availability and cost of electric power.” After the war, he served on the Missouri Valley Authority (MVA) Committee and pushed for the creation of an MVA on the model of the TVA. As with the ICP idea itself, the MVA was one of Brophy’s “vigorous instruments for attaining the long-range goal — full integration of workers into the social and economic planning process,” a goal that was both untimely and timeless.

Brophy laying a CIO wreath in Mexico with Walter Reuther and Dan Benedict on December 13, 1954. (Catholic University of America Digital Collections)

Being Boring From Within

The historian Robert Zieger has written that “until 1941, in most things except name the CIO was the UMW and John L. Lewis.” To the broader public, Lewis’s gigantic face and booming voice personified the new labor behemoth.

But comparatively out of sight, moving from town to town, mine to mine, plant to plant, Brophy gained the reputation of being “Mr CIO.” It fit him much better than it did Lewis, who could only ever be John L. Lewis. Brophy, by contrast, melded with the organization in its period of ascendance, and he bore a lifelong commitment to the basic principles for which the CIO is known — organizing the unorganized and incorporating workers’ voices into an industrial democracy.

Out of sight, moving from town to town, mine to mine, plant to plant, John Brophy gained the reputation of being ‘Mr CIO.’

Of the many lessons Brophy’s life and social philosophy have to offer, the fundamental simplicity of the socialist program might be the most important. Despite all its enemies’ bluster about scandalous extremism, at the end of the day socialism is just not that interesting. In the face of political demagoguery and absurd culture wars, it points back again and again to material interests and worker empowerment. Contemporary socialists may fill magazines and podcasts with infinitely interesting discussions of the “leftist perspective on x,” but socialism itself is fairly bereft of opinions. It doesn’t know the latest. It’s not holding court at a bar. It is impervious to “vibe shifts.”

If Brophy is any example, we could all do well to be a little less interesting, less opinionated, less acerbic, and much more focused on the long-term program. Bayard Rustin once wrote in a very different political context:

Genuine radicalism . . . is not measured by how loud and abusively one can shout or by the purity and beauty of one’s rhetoric. Rather, genuine radicalism seeks fundamental change through concerted, intelligent and long-range commitment. . . . Obviously there is much wrong with the trade union movement; obviously there is much wrong with black people in the United States; obviously there is much wrong with white liberals; obviously wherever we look we can find fault. But the only result of endless fault-finding is that you end up in a corner with the few people who are as good and pure as you are. It renders impossible the building of a political movement capable of directing its attention to the most basic task of all — the redistribution of wealth. . . . Those self-appointed spokesmen who raise divisive issues to prove the superiority of their politics are not really radical. By confusing and distracting from the real sources of social change, they retard the struggle for equality and justice.

When the next upsurge happens, it will be incumbent on the Left to cast off its own quixotic concerns and serve as the trusted and principled channel through which the demands of working people are directed to transformational gains. This means, among other things, being more principle than personality, more program than opinion, more Brophy than Lewis. “The most important labor leader nobody knows” has much to teach us in this regard.

Much of the biographical material here is taken from Sister M. Camilla Mullay’s 1966 dissertation, “John Brophy, Militant Labor Leader and Reformer: the CIO Years,” and John Brophy’s autobiography, A Miner’s Life. Also consulted were Melvyn Dubofsky and Warren Van Tine’s John L. Lewis: A Biography, and Robert Zieger’s The CIO: 1935–1955.

Video: The UK Parliament Speech About mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines. Andrew Bridgen, M.P.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate This Article button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe …

The post Video: The UK Parliament Speech About mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines. Andrew Bridgen, M.P. appeared first on Global Research.

Academic Workers at Rutgers University in New Jersey Are Poised to Strike

Unions representing grad workers, postdocs, and faculty at Rutgers University have been without a contract for almost nine months; earlier in March, they voted by 94% to authorize a strike. We talked to two workers about their contract fight.

A Rutgers AAUP-AFT demonstration. (Rutgers AAUP-AFT / Facebook)

At Rutgers University in New Jersey, graduate student workers, postdocs, and faculty have been working without a contract since June 30 of last year. Workers say that the university is refusing to budge on their unions’ core demands, which include living wages, greater job security for adjuncts, and better health care coverage for adjuncts and certain categories of grad workers. On March 10, Rutgers American Association of University Professors–American Federation of Teachers (AAUP-AFT), representing grad workers and full-time faculty, and the Part-Time Lecturer Faculty Chapter (PTLFC) AAUP-AFT, representing adjuncts, announced that their members had voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike, with 80 percent of members turning out to vote, and 94 percent of them voting in favor. Jacobin’s Sara Wexler spoke to worker-organizers from each union about their contract demands and why they say workers are ready to go on strike.

Sara Wexler

Can you tell me what led to this strike vote?

Bryan Sacks

My unit is the adjuncts’ union at Rutgers, the PTLFC. What led to the vote was a fairly long campaign that we undertook going back at least a couple of years. To be fair, we didn’t know it would lead to a strike authorization vote — but it did because of, broadly speaking, management’s intransigence, its delay tactics, and its unwillingness to seriously consider the core demands that we’re making as we negotiate a contract.

Our contract expired June 30, so we’ve been out of a contract around nine months. We’ve put forward a host of proposals, but the three central ones are demands for equal pay for equal work, for job security provisions that we currently lack, and for subsidized health care consistent with other employees at Rutgers.

Liana Katz

My unit is the full-time faculty and grad worker unit; we also represent postdocs as well as education opportunity fund counselors. Since our contract expired, we’ve been engaged in a massive push of grassroots organizing, in parallel with the bargaining that we’ve done at the table with the university administration.

This has involved a lot of different things. It has looked like actions on the ground and informational pickets at all of Rutgers’s campuses. It has looked like members going out and talking to other members, posting up in publicly accessible parts of campus just to be visible and build a community around the union. We’ve also had members leading trainings in phone banking, essentially doing a massive outreach push to folks who are already union members, as well as to those who had not yet joined the union to bring them into the fold.

We’ve been doing this work in parallel with Bryan’s union, with the adjuncts as well as with undergrad students and several community organizations in New Brunswick, which is where the largest Rutgers campus is located. We have a series of demands on the table right now that we refer to as our “bargaining for the common good” demands. These concern undergrad student issues, as well as community issues. So we’ve been organizing in tandem — not just with members in our own unit, but also community members and students.

Bryan Sacks

We’ve been organizing continuously for the last couple of years. We pride ourselves on being a democratic union. Our executive board, which is comprised of about fifteen people, prides ourselves on democratic unionism. We strive to stay in close communication with our members, because our theory of democratic unionism is that we’re only as strong as our members. We made very clear to our members all along here as we built up to this — this approach to “peak militancy” — that we can’t win anything ourselves. There’s fifteen of us. We can only do it with the eight hundred or 1,200 or 1,700 or hopefully as much as 2,600 or 2,700 PTLs [part-time lecturers] who teach in the course of a year at Rutgers. That’s where our power lies.

We pride ourselves on being a democratic union. Our theory is that we’re only as strong as our members.

We all take that very seriously, and that’s played itself out in regular town-hall communications, various social events, happy hours, and such. Our organizing committee has worked on each of Rutgers’s campuses to reach out to rank-and-file members more or less on a continuous basis. What accounts more than anything else, I would say, for that 94 percent yes vote is folks who are engaged, who’ve been informed, and who’ve told us they want action.

Sara Wexler

Could you say a little bit more about the undergraduate and community involvement?

Liana Katz

We’ve been primarily organizing with a group of students who are part of an organization called Rutgers One on the New Brunswick campus, and with community groups Cosecha and New Labor, which are rooted in New Brunswick, and they’ve put forward and developed a series of demands. The primary one, I would say, is calling for a rent freeze in all the properties that Rutgers owns because rents have been skyrocketing in New Brunswick. It’s not only unaffordable for students.

Another issue for students is that the condition of the dorms that they live in that Rutgers owns and maintains is incredibly poor — with issues from sewage leaks to mold in the showers — for the price that they’re paying now. The price is not reflected in the quality of the housing that they have access to.

But also, there’s this upward pressure on rents in New Brunswick because Rutgers is the largest landlord in that community. So when Rutgers raises its rents, it puts pressure on landlords to raise their rents as well, and it’s becoming increasingly unaffordable for community members to stay in place. So that’s a joint community and student demand.

Also, we’re looking at things like ending the punitive practices that the university has around fines and fees for undergrad students: they’re not able to access their transcripts or graduate if they have outstanding debt to the university. We’re trying to end that practice as well as create a fund for workers who were left out of the governmental COVID payments during earlier phases of the pandemic. New Brunswick has a large immigrant community, and some of its members, due to citizenship status issues, did not have access to those federal government payments.

Sara Wexler

What do you want to see in the new contract? What are your demands?

Bryan Sacks

There are dozens of individual demands, but the three core demands that the Rutgers adjunct union is making are for equal pay for equal work with our full-time nontenure-track teaching faculty colleagues, for longer-term appointments and work guarantees within those appointments — job security — and for subsidized health care, either in the form of participation in the state health benefits program, or through participation in the plan that’s offered to grad fellows at the university.

The first of those, equal pay for equal work, refers to the fact that, depending on how you determine what a fair, full-time equivalent is for the work that nontenure-track full-time faculty do, we’re paid by somewhere between 40 and 100 percent less. We’ve made demands to address that yawning gap, which opened up about ten years ago; before that our salaries were not identical but were more closely in alignment.

Our contention is that we do basically the same work as those nontenure-track teaching faculty. They strongly support our demands, by the way; they’re part of Liana’s unit as well. We are very happy, of course, that they achieved the salary gains that they did two cycles ago. But we want PTLs to be paid equally to what they’re paid, and we’ve proposed fractional appointments to address that — that PTLs would be paid a fraction of what NTTs [nontenure-track teaching faculty] are paid based on that full-time equivalent combined with their minimum yearly salaries. We put that across the table to the administration back in June. It took until December for us to get a counterproposal, and we’ve only had one exchange back and forth since.

That second demand, for job security provisions in the form of longer terms . . . Adjuncts at Rutgers work term to term, no matter how long they’ve been here. You can’t accrue any real security, no matter if you’ve taught for five years, ten years, or fifteen years in some cases. One person on our board has been here forty-two years, and she still works term to term. That means we have to reapply for our jobs every term. We need to get new appointment letters every term.

Adjuncts at Rutgers work term to term, no matter how long they’ve been here. You can’t accrue any real security.

It’s a source of great frustration, and it’s undignified, of course. This is one of the things we hear most from our rank-and-file members. We want timely appointment letters, and we want longer appointments.

In some ways, health care is the hardest demand, because of the state’s involvement in the health benefit program — for example, there’s a need for litigation to get PTLs full participation in the state plan. But without getting far into the details, we do have a strategy around moving the ball significantly on health care.

Sara Wexler

What are the grad student workers’ demands?

Liana Katz

The demands are certainly overlapping in the sense that adjuncts and grad workers are some of the most vulnerable and some of the most taken-advantage-of workers at Rutgers. We’re fighting for basic provisions that we need to sustain ourselves, that you would think wouldn’t be this hard for us to achieve. But here we are.

We have several core demands for grad workers, the first of which is a salary that moves us closer to earning a living wage in the area of New Jersey where Rutgers is. Currently grad workers who are working as a TA [teaching assistant] or a GA [graduate assistant], which is a research assistant — if you’re on a nine-month contract, you earn just a little bit over $30,000 a year. We also have a category of grad workers who are on fellowship, who earn even less, usually around $25,000 a year; for a nine-month appointment, that can go even lower, to $20,000. There may be some grad workers who are earning even less than that.

What we’re asking for in terms of salary is for grad workers to be started at around $37,000 at the beginning of the contract, and then that would go up to around $41,000 at the end. Again, this is just a basic need that we have because we’re not earning enough to support ourselves, to support our families, while we’re trying to complete our degrees — at the same time as we’re doing an immense amount of work for Rutgers University itself.

A second crucial demand is that grad workers on fellowship be brought into the bargaining unit with TAs, GAs, and full-time faculty. Right now, they’re not part of our bargaining unit. They’re not considered workers by the university, even though in some cases, especially in STEM fields, they’re performing the same work over the course of their time at Rutgers whether they’re a research assistant or on fellowship. When you’re on fellowship, again, the pay is even worse than when you’re a TA or a GA, and you don’t have access to the state health insurance that TAs, GAs, and faculty members have access to.

I’ve had two years on fellowship and two years as a TA, and I’m switching back and forth between not only earning different amounts of money, but also between different health insurance plans. I think this is an issue that affects a lot of grad workers who are on fellowship. If you have serious health concerns or are just trying to stay on top of your health needs, it’s extremely challenging to go back and forth between the one plan that’s pretty good and another plan that’s really not adequate. We want to bring fellows into our bargaining unit so that they can receive the same pay and the same health insurance as teaching assistants and research assistants.

Our other two demands are around access to funding. The first one is a demand for five years of guaranteed funding for grad workers who are pursuing a PhD. Funding packages are extremely uneven across the university. In my department, we have access to four years of guaranteed funding, but there are other departments where you might only have two or one. It depends on the financial situation of your department and what it can offer you when you’re admitted.

In most cases, even in the departments where you have a more generous funding package, it’s often not enough to successfully complete your degree and to do the work that you set out to do when you began your graduate education. So we’re asking for a guaranteed five years for those who need it. We’re also asking for a one-year funding extension for people whose research was delayed by the pandemic. Many of us were forced to completely stop our research during that time or had very limited access to our labs or our field sites. For many grad workers who are trying to finish up their degrees now, their timelines have been severely delayed. Departments have done what they can to support their grad students, but we need the university to step up in this moment and provide extra funding for those of us who need it.

Sara Wexler

Have there been any updates from the university since the strike authorization vote?

Bryan Sacks

On Friday, the presidents of our two unions were sent letters by the special counsel at Rutgers, who’s also the head of the Office of University Labor Relations. He leads bargaining for the university’s side, and the letter, which referred to a potential work stoppage, was meant to intimidate. I think that’s a fair assessment of it. It referred to communications that union leadership was making to its members and concern that some of those communications might not be fully informing our members as to the consequences of a work stoppage or strike, which, as they were told, is plainly illegal.

The administration needs to show our members that it has heard us. To date, it has not.

Now, in New Jersey, there’s no statute that prohibits public employees or public university employees from going on strike. There’s a case-law environment that is open to interpretation for sure. But this was expected. The university wants us to think that it’s going to take the strongest possible actions against any action that we take, in an effort to scare members or to intimidate us. I’m not going to be intimidated. I’m going to listen to what my members say, and I’m going to communicate with those members what the situation is and allow for the best decisions to be made on their behalf.

Sara Wexler

How do you feel about the prospect of going on strike?

Liana Katz

Something that has happened since we have taken that strike authorization vote is that we’ve started doing picket line trainings so that if we end up going out on strike, we can do so safely and effectively. Last I was told, we’ve already had 250 people sign up for those trainings. Those are people who are interested in leading and organizing their own picket line, which I think is a strong showing that we are ready and that our members are ready for this, should we decide that we need to take this step.

Bryan Sacks

Members of my unit took that training today, which they reported back was very well attended, and it’s still in early days for sign-ups. The sign-ups are happening every day. So we are encouraged by that.

At the same time, of course, we want a good, fair, negotiated settlement that meets our demands. That’s what we want. You take a strike authorization vote for a variety of reasons, and one of them is to signal to the university that you’re prepared to take the strongest actions if it continues to not be satisfactorily responsive to what you’ve been proposing. I take that responsibility very seriously. Nobody who’s in a position of elected leadership should expose their memberships to any undue risk — but the key word is undue. The administration needs to show our members that it has heard us. To date, it has not.

Sara Wexler

How has the contract fight affected the academic community at Rutgers?

Bryan Sacks

One thing that’s been very heartening for my unit, the adjuncts’ unit, is that we’ve been brought in and made part of a coalition of Rutgers unions that coalesced around the beginning of the pandemic. I’m talking now about nineteen unions at Rutgers that have more than twenty thousand members total in them. We formed a coalition to respond to the various impacts that the pandemic was bringing to bear. So we’ve been working with one another since that time on a variety of issues that have cropped up, related to the impact of the pandemic health and safety issues, remote work, telework — things like this that affect a lot of different units.

We’ve made great progress in getting the administration to deal with us collectively. Prior to the time I’m referring to, the administration had no interest in being at the same table or even being in the same room to negotiate impacts, say, for something like the pandemic. But we’ve won the ability to do that. We are currently bargaining over several provisions together — not all nineteen of us, of course, because not all nineteen unions are up for a contract. But that has been critical, that there is both an actual coalition and a coalition mindset among various unions.

You referenced the strike authorization vote that was taken by Liana’s unit and my unit; also the medical faculty recently completed their own vote. Being in such close alignment with the other faculty locals has been extremely heartening for my unit, adjuncts, who for a variety of reasons often feel like we’re out there by ourselves at the university, invisible, forgotten, and often as a result of that, the first to be disposed with when the administration can get away with it.

Liana Katz

There is a narrative out there, which the university administration is also pushing a little bit, that union organizing and a strike would be harmful to students: if their professors and their TAs are not holding class, they’re going to be missing out on their vital education that they’ve come to Rutgers for. Something that’s been exciting for me is seeing the close organizing between our unions and also our undergrads, because they’ve done a lot of work to do outreach to their peers — going to classrooms, for example, and doing class reps, educating folks about the bargaining situation, educating folks about what union and labor organizing means, what it looks like, what it has looked like on Rutgers campuses in the past, and what it looks like in the present.

It’s been great to work with the undergrad activists and see this close collaboration between students, faculty, and grad workers across the board, because we are the ones who make Rutgers what it is. We’re the ones who do the work, and we are the ones who create the community there. It’s deepened our relationships across all of these different communities that make up the university.

This coming Friday, there is going to be a punk show that is a fundraiser for our joint full-time and adjunct unit strike funds. There’s a storied punk community in New Brunswick that has these famous house shows — this was an idea that originated there, with students and community members who wanted to do something in solidarity and to mobilize the local bands, mobilize their communities in support of the potential strike and our union organizing.

Sara Wexler

How do you imagine the new contract changing things for students, faculty, and postdocs at Rutgers?

Liana Katz

For grad students, these demands have the potential to be extremely transformational. If we’re able to attain what we have put across the table now, or close to that, it’ll get grad students much closer to a living wage, which would allow folks to take care of themselves and their families much more effectively. It would also allow us stability as we pursue our degrees and perform work on campus. And I think these demands have the potential to make pursuing a PhD more accessible to a wider category of folks who might not be able to do so because of how much you get paid when you’re doing grad work.

What’s equally exciting is that all the organizing that we’ve done, the fact that we’ve put these bold demands on the table . . . I think it sets us up nicely to continue to do this work, to continue to grow our movement, and to have the power to ask for even more next time.

Bryan Sacks

From the perspective of PTLs: if we’re able to achieve these demands, it’ll put a real dent in the degree of contingency and the precarity that we live in at Rutgers and have been forced to live in our entire careers. It will allow PTLs to do things like plan their lives for more than a few months out. To know that we’ll actually have an appointment that might go on for a year or two years or three years will allow us to feel part of departments — to feel that we’re not just, in the very fitting word, an adjunct, who’s there to do a job as little as possible and more or less be invisible.

If we’re able to achieve these demands, it’ll put a real dent in the degree of contingency and the precarity that adjuncts live in at Rutgers and have been forced to live in our entire careers.

And it’s going to be a benefit for students, for us to win our demands. We can’t tell students that we’ll be around to mentor them next term. We can’t even tell them a lot of times what classes we’re teaching. When they ask us, “Professor, I’d like to take another course with you, what are you teaching?”, we can’t even tell them that. A lot of times, we can’t meet them in our offices, because we don’t have offices. Sometimes between semesters, the university shuts down our email accounts because we’re no longer employees and we haven’t been hired for the next term, and students are trying to communicate with us. We only learn afterward. Who knows how many times we never learned this, because they don’t ever see us or hear from us again?

This kind of thing is outrageous at a university that’s supposed to prioritize student experience. As bad as precarity is for adjuncts, it’s also terrible for students. So we anticipate, to the degree that we can win these demands, that we can change the relationship between adjuncts and the university, and therefore also change the relationship of a lot of students with their university.

“Global Hegemony”: America’s Grand Strategy in the Asia-Pacific

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate This Article button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe …

The post “Global Hegemony”: America’s Grand Strategy in the Asia-Pacific appeared first on Global Research.

Abu Ghraib Survivor: Taking the Hood Off 20 Years After Iraq War

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate This Article button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe …

The post Abu Ghraib Survivor: Taking the Hood Off 20 Years After Iraq War appeared first on Global Research.