feminism and labor – and more

some essential reading:

National Hyatt Boycott Unites Workers, Feminists, LGBQT Activists, and More

Worker rights are a feminist issue and should be considered as such, but often they get short shrift in feminist spaces. Let’s not forget that International Women’s Day started as International Working Women’s Day, and that some of the earliest feminist agitators were fighting in the front lines of factory strikes during the Industrial Revolution. Fierce seamstresses and other workers striking for better working conditions inspired wealthier women, some of whom decided to take up their cause after being inspired by seeing them hold their ground for days and weeks, even in the face of intimidation from police as well as thugs hired to break their strikes. Women involved in the fight for suffrage also helped organise women’s unions, and played an active role in labour advocacy.

The connections between labour and feminism should be obvious; many workers are women, women are often mistreated in the workplace, and fighting for not just fair wages but fair conditions should be an obvious extension of feminist ethics. This holds especially true in the case of low-wage workers, who are particularly vulnerable to abuse. Low-wage workers in agriculture, the hospitality industry, health care, and among household staffs tend to be immigrant women, some of whom are making less than minimum wage, many of whom are afraid to report any abuses they experience in the workplace because they need to retain their jobs and are terrified of harassment or deportation.

Yet, the modern feminist movement has been falling down on the job when it comes to supporting workers; there’s a lot of discussion about how women can ‘have it all,’ which focuses on aspirational middle class ideals of success and says virtually nothing about the lives of low-income women. There’s also a lot of conversation about the wage gap, which is an undeniable problem, but it’s a problem that hits women of colour and women with disabilities particularly hard, especially at the low end of the payscale, and that’s not discussed as frequently.

There’s less discussion of the grueling working conditions for the immigrant women who make the United States tick, moving silently and invisibly through our lives. The women who get up before dawn to pick produce in the fields of the Central Valley, the women who process poultry in crowded, unhealthy conditions in the Midwest, the women who lug heavy cleaning carts down the carpeted hallways of hotels from coast to coast, cleaning room after room after room and leaving chocolates on the pillow as they go.

Union UNITE HERE aims to change that with a nationwide boycott targeting Hyatt hotels which started today. The union has been involved in anti-Hyatt actions across the United States on a primarily local and regional level, but today, it’s taking the boycott center stage and demanding that Hyatt treat its workers better. And the union is being joined in a coalition that includes major feminist and LGBQT leaders among others; this is a collective effort to fight for workers that goes beyond labour organisers, and aims to include everyone with a stake in the fight. […]

@ Tiger Beatdown

Limitele PR-ului, sau de ce boicotez Carol 53

Sa fii artist activist e evident una dintre alegerile la moda: Bienala de Bucuresti e organizata de Pavilionul Unicredit, unul dintre sefii caruia i-a pus la punct la un moment dat pe niste punkisti tineri cu fraza „eu sunt autoritatea(!) in anarhism, ca-l predau la universitate”, in timp ce criticii institutiei zic, tot de pe o pozitie de stanga, ca „singurul lucru radical pe acolo e freza lor”, si sirul de exemple ar fi usor de continuat. Sosul de „probleme urbane” – „interventie in spatiul public” – „critica sociala”, preparat dupa retete mai mult sau mai putin autentice, in versiune mai consistenta sau mai apoasa merge cu orice, si poate sa ajute si la pus mana pe bani europeni (daca n-a iesit prea iute).

E de inteles astfel cum grupul de arhitecti si artisti rezidenti la Carol 53 se intituleaza squatteri (chiar daca manifestul lor de pe zid declara spatiul apolitic). S-a ocupat Centrul Dansului Contemporan, a existat Spatiul Comun, s-a tinut la barul din Dianei o discutie cu aceasta tema (grupul format acolo se cheama „squatting in bucuresti” pe facebook) si, privite din Bucuresti, chiar si „romkocsma”- urile din Budapesta („birturi de ruina”, case inchiriate si folosite ca baruri scumpe inaintea demolarii lor programate, cu o estetica de reciclare si improvizare) pot sa para autentice pentru cei interesati numai de design – hai sa ne folosim de brand cat mai e cool! Unul dintre organizatori e specialist in relatii publice, deci aveau ajutorul unui expert la pozitionarea initiativei.

Problema e ca in afara de o aura estetica vaga, cuvantul „squat” are si un inteles si se refera la activitatea oamenilor de a sta in locuri fara permisiune legala (sau, ca substantiv, la asemenea spatii ocupate). E ceva ce fac in primul rand saracii, in lipsa de alternative. Avem favelele noastre, in crestere (vezi studiile lui Catalin Berescu), ale caror bordeie improvizate stau pe teren fara permisiunea proprietarilor. Saracii fara casa din oras stau nu numai pe strada si in canale, dar si in case ruinate nefolosite. (Primaria nu prea ii da afara, pentru ca si ei ii e mai usor sa ii vada pe acesti oameni descurcandu-se in asemenea cladiri decat sa finanteze camine etc. pentru ei.)

Conform discutiilor cu persoane implicate in proiect si articolelor publicate pe TOTB si Indymedia, Carol 53, una dintre numeroasele vile retrocedate proprietarului, a fost locuinta unei familii de 11 persoane de etnie roma, din care 3 sunt copii sub 4 ani si o femeie era gravida in luna a 9-a (a nascut dupa evacuare). Continue reading