← Economic Update with Richard D. Wolff
Economic Update with Richard D. Wolff
Economic Update: Capitalism Makes Few Winners, Many Losers
00:55:54
Loading summary
Transcript108 lines
- [00:10]
A
Welcome, friends, to another edition of Economic Update, a weekly program devoted to the economic dimensions of our lives. Jobs, incomes, debts, those now, those in the future, and those besetting our children and as they face the future, too. I'm your host, Richard Wolff. I've been a professor of economics all my adult life, and my hope is that it has prepared me to offer these economic updates about what's happening around us. I want to begin today with a small European country's sudden transformation. The country is Armenia, a place of 3 million people that was, until relatively recently a Soviet republic, is now an independent country. And it has suffered, after leaving the declining Soviet Union, from corruption, from a deepening sense of inequality that was real. And finally, by that marker of inequality, when young people in large numbers leave a country because they can't see a future for themselves and so emigrate something afflicting Greece, something afflicting many of the problematized countries, particularly in the south of Europe. So it was with great hope that the Armenian people and those of us who watch noticed that there were spring demonstrations across the spring of this year that were finally bitter enough and large enough to force out of power the old Republican party and particularly its president, Sarg Syan. I hope I pronounced that correctly. And into office came the opposition party led by Nicol Pashinian. The reason I bring this up is not only to celebrate a progressive change of government, particularly one brought out by mass action of people, which is the most democratic way it's ever done. But I want to raise a fundamental question, not just for Armenia, but for all the other countries that have had, or may soon have springs like this of their own, like the Tunisian Spring and the Arab Spring and so on. They make political changes, they throw out the old scoundrels, and they bring in new people devoted to fighting corruption, to ending the inequality, to making it no longer a problem for young people to build the future at home. But the truth of it is, unless you are willing to change the basic economic system, you cannot achieve those ends. A political revolution without the economic transformation needed to go along with it will not succeed. That, in effect, was the lesson of the decline of the Soviet Union. The end of it was political changes were made, no doubt long overdue. But the economic changes that had to go with it were not of the sort or the depth needed to support societies that are not driven towards inequality, corruption, and so on. You have to face the reality that these kinds of transformation offer an opportunity not just for political but for economic transformation. And the real question is Will these new progressive forces that come into power after springs like this understand the need and have the political determination to change their economic systems? My next economic update has to do with banks here in the United States. They've been in recent weeks reporting record profits. Banking is doing really well and I want to tell us all to be thoughtful about that in the following. The same banks that are rolling in the profits have been complaining bitterly over the last year or two about the Dodd Frank bill. That bill passed in the wake of the crash of 2008 that actually put some limits on what banks could do in the hope of forestalling yet crisis. The bank said it would hurt them, harm them, cripple them. Oh, the language. You should have listened to it, as I unfortunately had to do. And yet here it comes. The Dodd Frank bill has nothing to do with bank profitability. They've been more profitable with it than they had been before without it. Sure enough, the tax cut last December is helping bank profits too. That's right. The tax cut and the Dodd Frank bill are signs that the banking industry is able to get the political support it wants. Cut taxes and no real reform either. Why? Because the people who live off profit run this society now and they want to run it to make more of those profits. That's what they do. They complain about anything and everything that stands in their way even as they make more money. It's kind of a politics of pay to play. And the banks have a lot of money to use and they're playing the government every which way they can. And it's working out really well for them. Third update for today. Early on, Mr. Trump boasted about what he had done for the Harley Davidson Company, the big motorcycle producer. He was saving jobs. He was making America great again by keeping jobs here. Then came the tax cut at the end of last year, providing a big boost in the profits for, you guessed it, Harley Davidson. And what did Harley Davidson decide to do after all that political theater about saving jobs? They decided that with the extra money they had by not having to pay taxes, they could close their famous plant in Kansas City. 800 workers would lose their jobs. And that's exactly what's happening. And the company is moving to York, Pennsylvania where wages are significantly lower than they were in Kansas City. Not only that, with new machines there'll be a net loss of about 350 jobs. No warning was given to the workers in Kansas city, despite the 22 year partnership. That's the word they used between the company and the two unionssteel Workers and machinists that represent the workers. What did Harley Davidson say? I'm going to read it to you because I want you to listen to what they said after you know the reality of what they did. This is a decision we did not take lightly. The Kansas City plant has been assembling Harley Davidson motorcycles since 1997. And our employees will leave a great legacy of quality price and manufacturing leadership. We are grateful to them and the Kansas City community for their many years of support and their service to our dealers and our riders. Wow. Thank you. We're dumping you. Have a nice day. With no warning, no preparation and no funds to help any of the 800 families left jobless by their profit driven decision. Oh, and by the way, did they say anything about the theater they had undertaken with Mr. Trump to help him politically? Not a word. Meanwhile, Harley Davidson also announced it's opening a plant in Thailand and it already has two. One in India and one in Brazil. Making America great again, not its highest priority. It also took its extra tax savings and increased the dividend to its shareholders. And it bought back 15 million of its shares in the market at a cost of $700 million. Put into the hands of shareholders who sold their shares back. And about all this, Mr. Trump has so far nothing to say. The theater is over. The photos were taken. Who cares what the reality is? Well, you can be sure Kansas City is learning that it better care. Next. My attention was caught, as I'm sure many of yours was, also by the news from Vancouver, Washington and Oregon. A young boy, 15 years old in Vancouver, Washington, tossed a firecracker into a forest. And the end result was a forest fire that burned 48,000 acres. Terrible thing, no question about it. Thoughtless, careless, A terrible mistake by a 15 year old boy. The Oregon judge presiding over his trial sentenced him. And remember, he was 15 when he did this. To five years probation, 1400 hours of community service. And get this, a $36 million fine. And said something like punishment befits the consequences of the boy's action. All I can ask you to do is to remember that Jamie Dimon, the head of Morgan Stanley, and Lloyd Blankfein, the head of Goldman Sachs, did things in their capacity that harmed way more people and way more of this country than anything the 15 year old boy could be accused of doing. And they got no probation, no hours of community service and no fine whatsoever. Crime befitting what? Punishment befitting what crimes? Justice in the United States, if you want to call it that, at this point in the program I would like to particularly thank our Patreon community. That's what we call the folks who in the past may have been listeners but wanted to see this program as the television program it all also is. And anyone can do that. And we encourage you to do that by going to Patreon P A T R e o n patreon.com economicupdate we really appreciate your doing that and the support that that shows us you feel for what we are doing. I want to also ask you to subscribe to our YouTube channel. It is an important step in building our reputation, in building our reach as a program delivering special kinds of news and analysis to our supporters. If you Watch us on YouTube, please remember to subscribe. I'm very proud also to tell you that on our website democracyatwork.info we now have a store with all kinds of interesting mugs and shirts and other things. I want to stress to you that they are made by union co ops. We take seriously our commitment to support workers who have built a co op and who are part of unions that protect and defend the interests of working people. Take a look democracyatwork.infostore just go to our website, look for store and you can see what there is from this bevy of union co op products. And finally at our website you'll also be able to follow Puerto Rico Forward, a special blog that we produce, also available on Apple Podcasts and Google Play. Returning to our updates, the next one has to do with the Federal Reserve in the United States, our central bank. They do a special kind of research that we find very valuable called the Survey of Household Economics and Decision Making and they recently released this survey for the year 2017 and they list there some information very valuable for economists, but two particular items I want to bring to your attention because they are wonderful snapshots into the reality of the American economy right now. Here's the first one. An emergency expense of $400 would cause what kind of problems for American families? A medical emergency? Something breaks in the house, whatever $400 cost. 40% of Americans cannot cover an emergency $400 expense without either borrowing from others or selling possessions. In other words, 40%, just under half of American families do not have $400 in money readily available in the event of an emergency costing $400. That, friends, is an inadequate economic situation. You should not be in that situation forced either to borrow from other people or sell your possessions to handle a $400 emergency. If, as the Federal Reserve smartly decided, if we raise it to $1,000. An emergency that costs 1,000 and believe me, be easier to make a list of emergencies that cost 1000 than to make a list of emergencies that cost 400. Well then it would easily be over half the American people cannot meet an emergency demand for $1,000 without either selling possessions or borrowing from other people. The majority of Americans are in tough economic shape. That's the truth. The other statistic that just jumped out at me from the Federal reserve was that 20% of Americans knew some other person who was addicted either to opioids or other painkillers. One in five Americans knew somebody. Think about it. Next, let's go to Hamburg, Germany. Something interesting happened there that's also worth your time. My attention. In Hamburg, Germany, the decision was made by the local authorities to close several major highways to older diesel cars and trucks. Number of cars and trucks involved, over 200,000 were basically told you can't use these highways anymore. That's the equivalent of being told something that you have spent a lot of money on is effectively unusable on major arteries in and around the city where you live and or work. This was done after the European Commission declared that Germany, among other countries were was violating the pollution limits, pollution emission from vehicle limits that were harming the health of the people, which is the job of the European Commission to protect the health. It turns out that Hamburg is one of 80 cities where nitrogen dioxide levels exceed European safety threshold levels. Now, why the old diesel cars and why is pollution too high? The answer has a lot to do with what used to be called the VW scandal, but is now a scandal involving virtually all automobile makers. They faked emissions tests, or rather to be more accurate, they installed devices into their diesel vehicles that allowed them to report lower pollution emissions during the testing than they actually emitted on the road, thereby exceeding the safety limits. Now that's a nice way to put it. Let me put it more bluntly. They damage the health of their own people in huge numbers so badly that the European Commission has to come down on them and forbid them to let these cars run on the roads. This is a direct result of the scandal and the horror that the Europeans understandably feel at the betrayal that they were subjected to by the profit driven decisions of car companies to make more money, no matter what it did to the air and the health of the people of Europe. It's a stunning. Maybe a little too late, maybe a little too little, but it's something and it's an admission that's worthy of some attention. My next update has to do with a poll. A poll of 250 emergency physicians that were surveyed and asked if they had experienced a shortage or absence of critical medicine in their emergency departments in hospitals and clinics in the past month. Here's what drew my attention. More than one third of the physicians polled said patient outcomes had been negatively affected as a result of these shortages. Nearly 90% said they had to take time away from patients to deal with these shortages. And 97% said they had to substitute other medications from those they would have preferred for their patients. I want to remind everyone listening and watching, Americans pay more for their health care than any other people on this planet. We have the most expensive hospitals, doctors, insurance policies, drugs, medical equipment in the world. But the quality of the care we get, as shown in the fact that our longevity is mediocre, our need to go to the hospital is not at all at the bottom as it should be. We pay more. And now it turns out we can't even get reliable supplies of the drugs we need. Drugs are produced as a private capitalist commodity in this society. They're produced and marketed to make money for the companies that do it. That's the primary thing. And so if they need to create shortages, maybe to make you use this medicine rather than that one, because maybe this one is more profitable than that one. Well, that's what we allow private companies to do. So I have to report to you serious medical shortages while we pay the highest prices in the world for this sort of of medical care. I want to close out the first half of our program today by what might be called good news. Although it depends a little on your perspective, I admit. The fifth edition of a remarkable book. It's called the Wealth Ex Billionaire Census. That's right. It's a annual report that takes a look at all the billionaires and how they're doing. This is not very difficult to do. There aren't very many of them, a couple of thousand, more or less. So I want to tell you how they did in the last full year, 2017, because I'm sure you'll be happy for them. Here we go. The wealth of the billionaires on this planet rose during 2017 by 24%. Let me do that again, and let me be stark with you for a moment. I want you to ask, how did the wealth grow that you have that the people you know have, that the people you know about have? Did it do that well, last year, did your wealth grow by 24%? See, if you're a billionaire, you don't need it to grow like that. If you're not, you do. But in capitalism, it works the other way. The ones who need it don't get it, and the ones who don't need it do. And if you allow that system to continue, you will allow it to produce these kinds of results, which people like me will have the bad taste to report to you. The billionaire population also rebounded in 2017, up by 15%. Here we go. 2,754 individuals. That's right. 2,754 individuals, the largest number on record, are now billionaires. Wow. Any other interesting results? Yeah, couple. First, it used to be that most billionaires were located geographically in North America. But with 2017, that changed. Where are most billionaires now located? Asia. I'm an American. I was brought up to think that this was the land of wealth and power and dominance and you name it, all the superlatives wrapped into one. How undignified that in the era, the first full year of Donald Trump's presidency, he's presiding over a shift of the locus of billionaires from a declining part of the world economy to the rising sun of another part, billionaires. Of course, it's a dubious distinction if you think about it, because billionaires in Asia are even further from the economic conditions of the mass of their people than billionaires elsewhere in the world. So it's clear that inside of Asia, like inside of Europe, like inside of the United States, the inequality keeps growing out of control. For me to say to you that the billionaires of the world saw their wealth go up by 24% when no one else did means that the inequality, the distance between the rich and the rest of us keeps getting worse and worse. This is a capitalist system, like a train running down the track, seeing the stone wall, but apparently powerless to stop what's coming. I want to thank you for your attention. We've come to the end of the first half of Economic Update. Please stay with us after a short break. We will be right back. Welcome back, friends, to the second half of Economic Update. It is with real pleasure and satisfaction that I present to you in this second half a discussion with two people who have done something extraordinary and courageous and important for the history of the United States. One is a worker and the other one is a student. And not the least of what they've achieved is a unity, a working together, an honest, collaborative coalition, because they shared some common concerns and commitments and proved themselves able to work together despite all the factors that prevent that from happening so often in the United States. My first guest is Roderick Prude. He's a food service worker who has over 15 years of experience and currently works as he has for a while at the cafeteria owned and operated by the New School University in New York City. He's worked there since 2014. My second guest is Dylan Nam. He's a student at the New School University. He studies sociology and politics and he was part of the group of students who in support of those workers at the cafeteria, such as Roderick Prude, occupied that cafeteria and together they were able to achieve a victory that I want you to know about and that we are here today to discuss. So please join me in welcoming Roderick and Dylan to Economic Update. So first let me thank both of you for joining me today and being willing to come and talk about your situation. So let me start by asking one of you to give me or to give our listeners and our viewers a brief summary of what happened. Why did this occupation take place, what led to it and where does it stand now?
- [30:19]
B
Well, start. The company I worked for, Chartwell, was they were losing the contract or giving up on the school, whatever. And the executive chef and the building manager of this new school decided that they wanted to take over the kitchen as far as like run the kitchen and not have another company. Company come in and take over. So with that they wanted just to get rid of all the employees and start fresh with like non union workers. That's what they wanted to do. And so we were also given like just the opportunity around there. We weren't given opportunity like to transfer anything else. It was like a last minute thing. We notified at that last minute within, within a month that you would lose your job. Yeah, we was notified within a month that we were going to lose our jobs. Like May 16th was supposed to be our last day and it wasn't right at all. So the students also, they were also notified that the situation that was going on and they decided on their own basically to step in and help us.
- [31:37]
A
So tell. Good. Thank you, Roderick.
- [31:40]
C
Just to corroborate there, tell me a.
- [31:41]
A
Little bit about how the students came to do what Roderick did.
- [31:45]
C
Right. So a student group, a communist student group at the school heard about what was happening and put together a meeting that I believe happened on 27 April to discuss what to do about it. Because all of the students weren't happy that 32 workers were being fired just so the school could benefit and reap more rewards and profit off of our cafeteria.
- [32:12]
A
Can I just interrupt for a moment? So the firing of the basically letting these 32 workers go with a month's notice, your understanding was this would allow the university then to either through that company. Chartwell.
- [32:27]
B
No, not through the company.
- [32:28]
A
Not through the company directly take over the cafeteria and substitute lower wage nonunion workers or even student part time student workers and so make more money out of the cafeteria. That was your understanding of what was driving this situation?
- [32:47]
C
Right. The email they sent out would say they would hire some workers and then they'd hire student workers as well. And so the communist student group allied with the other students and the workers and they began an occupation of the cafeteria on May 1st, on May Day.
- [33:07]
A
Tell us a little bit, what exactly does that mean to occupy? Well, I'm not sure everybody knows what it meant.
- [33:14]
C
Hundreds of students marched into the cafeteria, which is on the second floor of our University center on Fifth Avenue and 14th Street. They marched into the cafeteria and there was chanting, a couple who made speeches about what was going on. Some of the workers spoke about what was happening.
- [33:32]
A
Did the workers know that this was gonna happen?
- [33:35]
B
Yes. Yeah, we knew whatever was gonna happen.
- [33:37]
C
Yeah, there was collaboration.
- [33:38]
B
Management didn't really take it seriously. They really. Because they prepared a lot of food that day. And I was like, I don't know why you're doing this because it's not gonna turn out good for you.
- [33:51]
C
It didn't go to waste. We took the food and so hundreds of students went into the cafeteria. People sat down. I don't think the plan was to occupy as long as we did, but it ended up just like, I think throughout the day, people decided that it could work, people could stay there. And plans were set to stay overnight. And we had about, I think 50 people the first night stay in the cafeteria. People were sleeping on couches. We brought couches in.
- [34:20]
A
Tell me why. In other words, what was the reasoning that said let's stay here, you know, instead of letting it close at the normal time?
- [34:29]
B
Oh no, it was still open because we had two more weeks left of school. So they would have just brought in tent workers, you know, they'd have brought in temporary workers because even if we weren't allowed to work, they would have had somebody to come in and do it, you know. So right. While the kids being there and shutting it down didn't allow anybody to come in, operate anything, it gave a bunch.
- [34:53]
C
Of pressure on the school and it.
- [34:55]
A
So the school could not what it.
- [34:57]
B
Had to do what they wanted to do.
- [35:00]
C
And we actually ended up running the cafeteria. We had a full kitchen going. We provided three Meals a day for all of the occupiers and for anyone else who decided to come and visit the occupation the following week. When a strike happened at the school from Sensuaw, we provided food for them, became a strike kitchen.
- [35:21]
A
Where did the supplies come from that allow you to do that?
- [35:23]
B
We had a lot of different supporters, a lot of different organizations brought in food. They brought in coffee, juice, whatever.
- [35:32]
C
A lot of students as well.
- [35:33]
A
So the occupying students and workers produced the meals out of the food that was brought?
- [35:39]
B
Yes.
- [35:40]
A
So the university didn't provide the food?
- [35:42]
B
Not at all.
- [35:43]
C
No, not at all. They stopped giving food.
- [35:44]
B
They locked the kitchen.
- [35:46]
A
They locked the kitchen.
- [35:47]
C
They shut off some of the power sources. They shut off the stoves.
- [35:50]
B
They shut off the stove and some of the electricity for safety reasons.
- [35:54]
C
They said, yeah, but we got electric skillets.
- [35:59]
A
And so you still cooked food?
- [36:01]
C
Yeah, we still cooked food. There was full meals three times a day at the time.
- [36:05]
A
How long did this occupation last?
- [36:08]
C
16 days, from May 1 to May 16.
- [36:14]
A
What was the reaction of the university? As best you could tell, at first.
- [36:19]
C
They came down just to listen. I think that was the second. That was the first day? Yeah, first day they came down. David Van Zant, the president, came down and they said no to some of the demands, like Steven Stabile, who made the decision to fire the workers and end the contract. One of the demands was to have him removed. He said, no, that's not happening. But then he was shouted down almost by some of the students, and there was very little, like, reaction from them in terms of, like, progress. They were sort of just, like. They didn't know what to do. It definitely caught them off guard. One thing they did was transfer our dining dollars, which is what people use for, like, their meals, to, like, you could use it elsewhere. So they tried to make it, like, not as impactful for students and try to, like, lessen the impact we were having. But what people did then was they went out and bought gift cards and gave it to us, and they would buy food at, like, Whole Foods and bring it in for us so we would have hundreds of dollars worth of food instead of buying the food, the really expensive food that the university provides.
- [37:22]
A
So there was some genuine solidarity here of helping each other.
- [37:26]
C
Definitely.
- [37:26]
A
How did the workers feel about this? How did. As the occupation went on? You know, this is an unusual experience.
- [37:34]
B
Yeah, it was. I mean, this is the first time I ever experienced anything like this.
- [37:38]
A
Yeah. How did you see it or feel about it?
- [37:41]
B
Because, I mean, normally. I mean, in normal situation, like, if Another company was coming in to take over a contract from, from a school or cafeteria or anything. It would just switch over. Easy is just changing the name tag, you know, but this time around it just, it was just the opposite. You know, it's like the executive chef wanted to do. Take over and run this thing. He wanted to change things and he fed them a lot of, I mean, I don't know, sold them a lot of bridges and they actually went for it and they didn't really know exactly what they were getting into when he did, when he did this, you know, so did.
- [38:25]
A
How did you react when the students. I mean.
- [38:27]
B
Well, I mean, I was surprised, I mean that so many of them came out and I mean, I really feel that if they didn't, that we would have had a rougher time getting to where we're at now. We've been really.
- [38:44]
A
So you feel the students doing this helped save your job?
- [38:48]
B
Yes, yes, it was definitely.
- [38:50]
A
I mean, on one level then, this can be called, without exaggerating, a victory in the sense that the students decision to occupy the cafeteria was an important part of saving 32 people from losing. From losing their livelihoods and losing their jobs.
- [39:12]
C
I mean, as of like May 1, they had 32 workers were without a job. They were not going to be rehired come May 16. There's two weeks, two weeks and two days later. All of the workers now will have a job at the new school.
- [39:26]
A
And tell me about the role of the union in all of this.
- [39:28]
B
Well, my union, Local 100, I mean.
- [39:32]
A
This is the Unite Here union.
- [39:34]
B
Yeah, Unite Here. I mean, they stepped up and you know, basically with the time that they were given, you know, they really did a lot within that short time, you know, and being that the kids, what they did with that occupation, they did that gave them more time, they gave the union more time to fight, you know, more, I mean, actually more strength, you know what I'm saying?
- [39:54]
A
Yes, clearly.
- [39:55]
B
So, I mean, like I said, together and both coming from both angles because the union itself can do. But so much because of the legal, legal matters, you know, we can't say certain things. They can't say certain things. They can't do certain things because it's legal.
- [40:14]
A
Legal issues.
- [40:15]
B
Sure, sure, legal issues. But the kids, they could basically do what they want, you know what I'm saying? So that helped us a great deal.
- [40:23]
C
I know a lot of the students felt like the union wouldn't be enough and that we had to step in and do what the union couldn't.
- [40:31]
A
Right.
- [40:33]
C
Whether I mean, the politics behind that.
- [40:35]
B
As far as, like the executive chef, for instance, you know, situations that things that he was doing in the kitchen that weren't up to par, I couldn't speak about it, but give it to them and they can speak, they can do what they want with it, you know.
- [40:53]
A
Let me ask you a question that I'm sure is on the mind of many of our viewers and our listeners. My suspicion, I wish it weren't true, but my suspicion is in many schools around the country where they have cafeterias, if this sort of thing had been done by the university, the students wouldn't have seen the issue this way and acted. What's happening? Is something going on, not just here in New York City, but more broadly in this country, that students would step up and do what you've just told us about. I know it's hard for you to answer. I can't answer the question either. But how do you account for the fact that in this moment, in this country's history, students did this?
- [41:37]
B
I mean, I speak to a lot of the kids there. You, you know, and they see as this, soon they're going to be in the working field and they're going to deal with some of these issues that I'm dealing with now. A lot of these issues I'm dealing with now. So, I mean, they noticed that. And I mean, just like I said, they're going to be in the future.
- [42:00]
A
In the same position.
- [42:01]
B
In the same position, you know, or not wanting to be in those positions at all. So.
- [42:06]
A
So they feel some sort of solidarity or they're in the same boat as you guys.
- [42:11]
C
I think it's a level of class consciousness that's being spread around through, like, the strikes in West Virginia and definitely through universities as students educate themselves more in why capitalism doesn't work and how it doesn't work and how to fight it. I think people, these sort of things would become much more common and much more successful. And because there's no reason why we should let 32 workers be fired. There's no reason at all why that should exist in our society. Just because someone wants to make more money. These people's lives were going to be destroyed. They had their families, their children, just health insurance, just so many things just because someone wanted to make a better profit. And that's just not acceptable, especially where we go to school, where, like, a cafeteria should not be for profit. It should be for feeding the students. It should be just for, like, there shouldn't be money being made there and people's lives shouldn't be destroyed because of it either.
- [43:12]
A
I remember when at one meeting that there was a lot of discussion that it was fairly expensive, this cafeteria, as the price of this sort of cooked food goes, that the university was in a sense already making money by the prices it charged. You have thoughts about that or.
- [43:34]
B
Yeah, I mean, well, my thought is like, you know, they, the management, they ask for certain these are outrageous pay rates, you know, and for them, you know, and it's like. And you're doing nothing, basically. You know, there's not so much you do in the college cafeteria, you know, and with all that money being generated.
- [43:59]
A
For them, the people at the top, the managers.
- [44:02]
B
Exactly, yes. And that could have been spread it out for the employees themselves, you know, I mean, it's hard enough as it is in New York, you know. Yeah, it's expensive for us to live, you know, and then also with them trying to bust a union, I mean, anywhere in the United States or whatever. I mean, if people work without unions, I mean, I feel for them, like, I feel. I mean, because without a union you basically have no protection at all from management doing whatever they want to do with you. And it's just not right at all.
- [44:40]
A
Speaking of prices, I'm struck if I can pursue one point there. The notion that the pay, the money for salaries and wages could have been spread a lot more equally rather than giving as much to the managers and as little to the workers. I noticed that there was a demand for a while coming from the workers and the students, if I understood it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you wanted to convert this business into a kind of worker co op, a kind of collective effort to run it by yourselves partly to avoid an overpaid management level.
- [45:19]
C
Right. I think.
- [45:20]
A
Is that the case? And tell me a little bit about that and how that came to be something of interest.
- [45:25]
C
I think there's a high interest in social democracy and like workplace democracy, as in the workers want to be able to choose who. Who and students, in a sense, want to be able to choose who the. Who the management is. And I think there definitely wants to be more income equality and much less inequality in terms of the management being paid ridiculously high amounts and the workers ridiculously low. I think, like, looking into practicalities of it, it's a pretty large undertaking and a lot goes into it, especially with like the current contracts and the political maneuverings of the school, because they obviously don't want that.
- [46:03]
A
Did they make that clear in a sense that they would Be willing to give the workers back their jobs and so on, but not talk about a cooperative workplace. I'm just asking whether.
- [46:17]
B
Well, as far as that has to go with the contract. So they haven't really worked on that as yet. And with this extension with Chartwell, that gives them the time to work out things.
- [46:30]
C
Right. So they were given a two year extension on the previous contract they had. So they keep their jobs for another two years. And in that time the school plans to work with UNITE here to create a new contract with them and the school. And in that time, I think would be the ability to work out a more democratic workplace and more equality through pay.
- [46:51]
A
Is the union committed to doing that also?
- [46:53]
B
Yes, yes, that's what the union basically is going to be working, like he said, with the school, with president of the school and the vice president, it.
- [47:03]
C
Was his name, I mean, David Van Zant.
- [47:06]
B
Steven Stupid. Right.
- [47:08]
A
So am I right to say that it was a double victory that you achieved, saving the jobs for 32 workers and you took some steps towards a more democratic, more cooperative, less unequal organization of the work in the cafeteria?
- [47:28]
C
I think there's a lot of work that needs to go into that for it to be a reality. But I think it's definitely. There's a high level of interest. There's a high level of. There's a lot of students and workers who will be working to make that happen in the following semesters. There's a lot of interest and I think it's definitely a possibility and a goal.
- [47:49]
A
Well, let me ask you a question. Many people in this country, for reasons you all know about, we all live here, think that somehow a business, any kind of business, a cafeteria, but any business has to, for some reason no one has ever explained to me, has to have a tiny group of people at the top who run the show and get paid a ton of money, and then an army of people who do the work who don't get a ton of money and who are told what to do. The order givers and the order takers, the well paid. You get it. You are saying that you believe, if I understand you right, that there really is an alternative and that you want that alternative where you work. And by extension, I'm assuming you'd want that for your fellow American in other workplaces to have. That makes this more than a struggle at the new school of the university in this little corner of New York City. It makes it something that means the world to everybody. I mean, you guys are, dare I say it, you're kind of pioneers, you're pushing for something that for most Americans is a new thought, let alone a new reality in America at least. In America, yes. And there are many other plots in the world too. This is fairly widespread. I mean, I guess I want you to also understand that's partly why I've wanted you to come on the program. This is very important stuff. It's important for you, obviously for your life and your situation, but its importance goes way beyond that. It's sort of remarkable. How do you feel about the collaboration? In other words, what's left in your taste for this experience of a month or more now of real working together students and workers? That doesn't happen very often. It's sort of interesting. I'm wondering how it plays out in your life.
- [49:54]
B
For me, for the experience that I had, I worked as a temp worker, I worked with TIP agency, like staffing agency. And I worked on different cafeterias all over different colleges, all over the city. And I basically never seen anything like it, you know, and it was, I mean it was incredible. I mean that these kids actually stepped up for us, you know, and spoke up for us. But my job, my job, my co workers jobs, you know what I'm saying? And they stuck behind us 100%.
- [50:30]
A
And how do you feel about that?
- [50:31]
B
Like I said, it's incredible. It's really amazing they did this.
- [50:37]
A
I've been a professor all my life. I've very rarely seen students do that occasionally. And these are moments that I remember because they're like you, they stand out. What about you? How do you feel about this experience?
- [50:50]
C
I think it was an amazing experience. I think that we built a community that's very strong within the new school. People always complain that they have to find a community in the new school that's tough to find. And we created, I think, an amazing space. Whenever people visited, we had people, people visit from different universities, from different like organizations and they.
- [51:10]
A
Around New York, around New York City.
- [51:11]
C
I mean even as like far as, like Boston and even farther, like people from Yale, people from all over the country. We had actually a speaker, Yanis Varoufakis, he was there and he loved the space. He let us speak actually for a bit at his event. But overall I think we created an amazing political space which is hard to do in the first place with the many different political ideologies. We created a space that people felt comfortable in, that people lived in for two weeks straight. And I think it's developed ties that will be really hard to break and has Strengthened us as individuals and as a group to get things done.
- [51:54]
A
Do you think the students will stay with it over the life of this extended contract so that you can deepen the kind of solidarity and collaboration you've had already?
- [52:04]
B
I really do. I still speak with a lot of the guys from the organization, and like I said, they're still there behind us 100%, you know, no matter what happens. I mean, even if we have to do this again, we're going to do it again, you know.
- [52:20]
A
Interesting.
- [52:21]
B
We're not going to give up.
- [52:22]
A
That's right. And the university has to deal with that, too. They're not dealing with people that they can treat the way they thought they could because you kind of let them know, no, that doesn't fly anymore.
- [52:33]
B
It wasn't actually so much what I saw later. It wasn't actually so much the administration from the school. It was basically the company, the concession of the.
- [52:46]
A
What's the name again?
- [52:46]
B
Chartwell.
- [52:47]
A
Chartwell.
- [52:48]
B
Yeah, it was Chartwell, but it was the management Chartwell sent there that created their own, like, little. Like, how would you say, their little business that they. Democracy or whatever, you know, and they ran it and they kept things, like, concealed from the school itself, like the administration, you know, they didn't know a lot of things that were going on in that cafeteria.
- [53:15]
A
You know, it's an old. I'll put on my hat as an economist. It's an old criticism of institutions like schools, but also cities and many other institutions who say they're going to be more efficient by bringing in an outside company. But the irony is that company now, between the institution and the job to be done, can undo that efficiency by all. The things everybody doesn't know, they keep under, you know, keep on the reps. That's right. Gentlemen, thank you very much. I really appreciate it. And I hope that my audience shares my sense of excitement that you guys broke through a barrier and did something that not only you, but the whole country should be proud of. Thank you very, very much. Thank you for having us and thank you all for joining us. I hope you found this conversation about a worker student alliance and an occupation of a university cafeteria as important in what it says about where we are as a nation and where we might still go. As I think this story does convey, I want to thank truthout.org, that remarkable independent source of news and analysis that has been partnering with us for years. And I want to end by asking you in your family, your neighborhood, your workplace, share what you've learned from this program. Share it with others. Extend the reach that we can have in this society at this time. Be a partner for economic update. I look forward to speaking with you again next week.