Latest news with #SEIU
The Hill
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Unions are right to stand with immigrants against ICE deportations
Conservatives and anti-union forces are hammering labor unions for our role in the demonstrations against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and Saturday's 'No Kings' rallies. But unions, including controversial Service Employees International Union California president David Huerta, are doing what we should be doing — standing up for our members and for workers as a whole against the enemies of labor. Labor's biggest mistake of the modern era was to allow the destruction of millions of industrial jobs without effective resistance. President Trump spoke the truth about deindustrialization in his 2017 Presidential Inaugural Address when he said, 'Rusted out factories [are] scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation … One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions and millions of American workers that were left behind.' It was Big Labor's disgraceful acquiescence to this catastrophic assault on American workers' livelihoods that has allowed Trump to pose as the friend of the American worker. He has successfully channeled workers' legitimate anger and resentment in the direction of immigrants instead of against the big businesses who destroyed America's industrial working class. While the labor movement in Los Angeles and in California is being criticized for our sympathies for so-called 'illegal aliens,' immigrants (legal or not) make up one-third of California's labor force. Most of California's 'illegals' arrived in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, many fleeing horrific U.S.-backed Central America dictatorships and the civil wars those regimes created. Most came too late to take advantage of President Ronald Reagan's 1986 immigration amnesty but are law-abiding and pay taxes in numerous ways and forms. Why would we turn our backs on them? As a trade unionist, the immigration status of my union brothers and sisters is of no import. The Trump Administration and the big business interests it serves seek to divide working people, but workers as a whole will either move forward together or fall back together. Attacks on one part of the working class cannot, over time, benefit the other parts. A major line of attack against labor argued by Aaron Withe, CEO of the anti-union Freedom Foundation, conservative investigative reporter Robert Schmid and others is that the average American is being forced to help finance the anti-ICE movement because the SEIU other unions resisting ICE 'rely on taxpayer-funded dues.' But this is not taxpayer money. It is workers' wages, and we have the right to do whatever they want with it, just as if we worked in the private sector. Moreover, union dues is money well spent. For example, in March, 2023 the SEIU and United Teachers Los Angeles jointly struck the Los Angeles Unified School District. Our picket lines held, SEIU won large pay increases and an extensive expansion of healthcare benefits for part-time employees, and UTLA won a good contract as well. Conservatives are almost unanimous in their condemnation of Huerta, who spent three nights in detention and is charged with conspiracy to impede an officer — a felony carrying a sentence of up to six years in prison. But Huerta was doing exactly what a good labor leader should be doing — putting himself out front and, if necessary, in harm's way for the benefit of his members and of workers. The fact that people on both the left and the right were so surprised by Huerta's incarceration is reflective of modern America's ignorance about labor history–effective labor leaders have usually had to risk incarceration. During the massive strikes that built organized labor in the 1930s, there were many workers and union leaders attacked, jailed, and even killed by police and National Guard. In 1948, John L. Lewis, combative leader of the United Mine Workers, was found guilty of criminal and civil contempt of court for failing to end a coal strike. In 1964, under then-Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa, truckers won the first National Master Freight Agreement, a national over-the-road contract said to have brought more workers into the middle class than any other single event in the history of labor organizing. In a long-running, politically-motivated prosecution by Robert F. Kennedy, who called the Teamsters the 'enemy within,' and others, Hoffa was convicted of jury tampering, attempted bribery, and fraud and incarcerated from 1967 until 1971. However, in the eyes of authorities, Hoffa's real crime had been his effectiveness as a labor leader. During the 1966 New York City Transit Workers Union strike, union leader Mike Quill led his 36,000 workers in shutting down the world's largest subway and bus system. Just as Huerta and unions are vilified today, Mayor John Lindsay called the strike 'defiance against eight million people' and, as British labor writer Ronan Burtenshaw explains, 'the New York Times called for the police and army to run the buses; William F. Buckley Jr wanted the National Guard.' A judge issued an injunction to stop the strike, but Quill tore it up in front of the media, saying, 'The judge can drop dead in his black robes. We will not call off the strike!' Quill and other leaders were arrested and jailed, but the TWU lines held, and they won the strike. The Trump Administration's assault on immigrant workers might be the catalyst for a revitalized labor movement with the kind of power unions like the TWU and the Teamsters once wielded. If so, all workers — immigrant or native born, male or female, white, Black, Latino, or other — will be the winners. Glenn Sacks teaches Social Studies and represents United Teachers Los Angeles at James Monroe High School in the Los Angeles Unified School District.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Will the public side with the protesters in LA? Here are some lessons from history
On 6 June, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) conducted aggressive raids in Los Angeles, sweeping up gainfully employed workers with no criminal record. This led to demonstrations outside the Los Angeles federal building. During these protests, David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) of California, was arrested alongside more than 100 others – leading to even larger demonstrations the next day. Donald Trump responded on 7 June by sending federal troops to Los Angeles to quell the protests without consulting Governor Gavin Newsom and, in fact, in defiance of Newsom's wishes. This dramatic federal response, paired with increasingly aggressive tactics by local police, led to the protests growing larger and escalating in their intensity. They've begun spreading to other major cities, too. Cue the culture war. On the right, the response was predictable: the federal clampdown was largely praised. Hyperbolic narratives about the protests and the protesters were uncritically amplified and affirmed. On the left, the response was no less predictable. There is a constellation of academic and media personalities who breathlessly root for all protests to escalate into violent revolution while another faction claims to support all the causes in principle but somehow never encounters an actual protest movement that they outright support. For my part, as I watched Waymo cars burning as Mexican flags fluttered behind them, I couldn't help but be reminded of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. In the documentary Sociology Is a Martial Art, he emphasized: 'I don't think it's a problem that young people are burning cars. I want them to be able to burn cars for a purpose.' It is, indeed, possible for burning cars to serve a purpose. However, it matters immensely who is perceived to have lit the fuse. It's uncomfortable to talk about, but all major successful social movements realized their goals with and through direct conflict. There's never been a case where people just held hands and sang Kumbaya, provoking those in power to nod and declare, 'I never thought of it that way,' and then voluntarily make difficult concessions without any threats or coercion needed. Attempts at persuasion are typically necessary for a movement's success, but they're rarely sufficient. Actual or anticipated violence, destruction and chaos also have their role to play. Civil rights leaders in the 1950s, for instance, went out of their way to provoke high-profile, violent and disproportionate responses from those who supported segregation. Leaders like Martin Luther King Jr had an intuitive understanding of what empirical social science now affirms: what matters isn't the presence or absence of violence but, rather, who gets blamed for any escalations that occur. The current anti-Ice protests have included clashes with police and occasional property damage. Melees, looting and destruction are perennially unpopular. Then again, so were civil rights-era bus boycotts, diner sit-ins and marches. In truth, the public rarely supports any form of social protest. Something similar holds for elite opinion-makers. In the civil rights era, as now, many who claimed to support social justice causes also described virtually any disruptive action taken in the service of those causes as counterproductive, whether it was violent or not. As I describe in my book, civil rights leaders across the board described these 'supporters' as the primary stumbling block for achieving equality. The simple truth is that most stakeholders in society – elites and normies alike, and across ideological lines – would prefer to stick with a suboptimal status quo than to embrace disruption in the service of an uncertain future state. Due to this widespread impulse, most successful social movements are deeply unpopular until after their victory is apparent. Insofar as they notch successes, it is often in defiance of public opinion. For instance, protests on US campuses against Israel's campaign of destruction in Gaza were deeply unpopular. However, for all their flaws and limitations, the demonstrations, and the broader cultural discussion around the protests, did get more people paying attention to what was happening in the Middle East. And as more people looked into Israel's disastrous campaign in Gaza, American support plummeted. Among Democrats, independents and Republicans alike, sympathy for Israelis over Palestinians is significantly lower today than before 7 October 2023. These patterns are not just evident in the US but also across western Europe and beyond. The Palestinian author Omar el-Akkad notes that when atrocities become widely recognized, everyone belatedly claims to have always been against them – even if they actively facilitated or denied the crimes while they were being carried out. Successful social movements function the opposite way: once they succeed, everyone paints themselves as having always been for them, even if the movements in question were deeply unpopular at the time. Martin Luther King Jr, for instance, was widely vilified towards the end of his life. Today, he has a federal holiday named after him. The lesson? Contemporaneous public polls about demonstrations tell us very little about the impact they'll ultimately have. So, how can we predict the likely impact of social movements? The best picture we have from empirical social science research is that conflict can help shift public opinion in favor of political causes, but it can also lead to blowback against those causes. The rule seems to be that whoever is perceived to have initiated violence loses: if the protesters are seen as sparking violence, citizens sour on the cause and support state crackdowns. If the government is seen as having provoked chaos through inept or overly aggressive action, the public grows more sympathetic to the protesters' cause (even if they continue to hold negative opinions about the protesters and the protests themselves). The 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles are an instructive example. They arose after King was unjustly beaten by law enforcement and the state failed to hold the perpetrators to account. In public opinion, the government was held liable for these legitimate grievances and outrage. As a result, the subsequent unrest seemed to generate further sympathy for police reform (even though most Americans frowned on the unrest itself). Stonewall was a literal riot. However, it was also widely understood that the conflict was, itself, a response to law enforcement raids on gay bars. Gay and trans people were being aggressively surveilled and harassed by the state, and began pushing back more forcefully for respect, privacy and autonomy. The government was the perceived aggressor, and this worked to the benefit of the cause. Hence, today, the Stonewall uprising is celebrated as a pivotal moment in civil rights history despite being characterized in a uniformly negative fashion at the time. This is not the way social movements always play out. If the protests come to be seen as being motivated primarily by animus, resentment or revenge (rather than positive or noble ideals), the public tends to grow more supportive of a crackdown against the movement. Likewise, if demonstrators seem pre-committed to violence, destruction and chaos, people who might otherwise be sympathetic to the cause tend to rapidly disassociate with the protesters and their stated objectives. The 6 January 2021 raid on the Capitol building, for instance, led to lower levels of affiliation with the GOP. Politicians who subsequently justified the insurrection performed especially poorly in the 2022 midterms (with negative spillover effects to Republican peers). The protests that followed George Floyd's murder were a mixed bag: in areas where demonstrations did not spiral into chaos or violence, the protests increased support for many police reforms and, incidentally, the Democratic party. In contexts where violence, looting, crime increases and extremist claims were more prevalent – where protesters seemed more focused on condemning, punishing or razing society rather than fixing it – trends moved in the opposite direction. Yet, although the Floyd-era protests themselves had an ambivalent effect on public support for criminal justice reform, the outcome of Trump's clampdown on the demonstrations was unambiguous: it led to a rapid erosion in GOP support among white Americans – likely costing Trump the 2020 election. Why? Because the president came off as an aggressor. Trump did not push for a crackdown reluctantly, after all other options were exhausted. He appeared to be hungry for conflict and eager to see the situation escalate. He seemed to relish norm violations and inflicting harm on his opponents. These perceptions were politically disastrous for him in 2020. They appear to be just as disastrous today. Right now, the public is split on whether the ongoing demonstrations in support of immigrants' rights are peaceful. Yet, broadly, Americans disapprove of these protests, just as they disapprove of most others. Critically, however, most also disapprove of Trump's decisions to deploy the national guard and the marines to Los Angeles. The federal agency at the heart of these protests, Ice, is not popular either. Americans broadly reject the agency's tactics of conducting arrests in plain clothes, stuffing people in unmarked vehicles, and wearing masks to shield their identities. The public also disagrees with deporting undocumented immigrants who were brought over as children, alongside policies that separate families, or actions that deny due process. Employers, meanwhile, have lobbied the White House to revise its policies, which seem to primarily target longstanding and gainfully employed workers rather than criminals or people free-riding on government benefits – to the detriment of core US industries. Even before the protests began, there were signs that Americans were souring on Trump's draconian approach to immigration, and public support has declined rapidly since the protests began on 6 June. Whether the demonstrations ultimately lead to still more erosion of public support for Trump or continued declines in public support for immigration will likely depend less on whether the demonstrations continue to escalate than on whom the public ultimately blames for any escalation that occurs. At present, it's not looking good for the White House. Musa al-Gharbi is a sociologist in the School of Communication and Journalism at Stony Brook University. His book, We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite, is out now with Princeton University Press. He is a Guardian US columnist
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Resistance 2.0 arrives with nationwide ‘No Kings' protests
As President Donald Trump's military parade rolls through the nation's capital on Saturday, millions of Americans across the country are taking part in the largest coordinated protests against the president since the start of his second administration. But while Trump's parade aims to show America's military prowess in its new era — remade under the administration's anti-diversity, equity and inclusion policies — over 2,000 protests planned for major cities and small towns across the country are expected to outdo the president's parade in scale. The demonstrations, organized by an extensive list of progressive organizations including the ACLU, Indivisible and the Service Employees International Union, are dubbed 'No Kings' protests, aiming to highlight Americans' resistance to the Trump administration. 'No Kings is really about standing up for democracy, standing up for people's rights and liberties in this country and against the gross abuse of power that we've seen consistently from the Trump administration,' ACLU's chief political and advocacy officer Deirdre Schifeling said in an interview earlier this week. Trump's military parade and the nationwide counterprotest come at a time of heightened political tensions across the country. In the last week alone, Trump deployed the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles over the objection of state and local officials amid protests — and some unrest — over the president's extensive deportation agenda; Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was manhandled and briefly handcuffed at a press conference for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem; and two Minnesota state lawmakers were shot, and one killed, early Saturday in what Minnesota Gov. Tim Waltz described as a politically motivated assassination. Over 100 of the protests were planned by volunteers in the past week alone, organizers said, popping up in response to the Trump administration's crackdown on anti-immigration detention protesters in California. 'The Trump administration's goal was to scare people, to make them afraid to stand up for their rights and afraid to protest and stand up for their immigrant neighbors. And it's backfired spectacularly,' Schifeling said. But Saturday's early morning shooting in Minnesota is already weighing on the events. A spokesperson to one prominent battleground Democratic Senate candidate with plans to participate in the demonstrations, granted anonymity to discuss security procedures, said that they are taking extra precautions after the attack in Minnesota. Walz recommended that people not attend events in the state in the aftermath of the killings. 'Out of an abundance of caution my Department of Public Safety is recommending that people do not attend any political rallies today in Minnesota until the suspect is apprehended,' he wrote on social media. But organizers elsewhere said the events will go on. Diane Morgan, a Cleveland-based mobilization coordinator with Our Revolution, said that in the wake of the shooting she's hearing from people on the ground who are saying that "more than anything else, it makes people more determined, much like what happened with LA,' to attend a protest Saturday. Democratic governors in several states — including North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs — released statements on the eve of the planned demonstrations, emphasizing the right to peacefully protest but urging Americans taking to the streets to remain peaceful. 'The right to peacefully protest is sacred and enshrined in our First Amendment, and I will always work to protect that right,' Stein said. 'I urge everyone who wishes to be heard to do so peacefully and lawfully.' While No Kings demonstrations are planned across the nation in what organizers expect to be 'the largest single day of protest in recent American history,' no protests are slated to take place in Washington itself. 'Rather than give him the excuse to crack down on peaceful counterprotests in downtown D.C., or give him the narrative device to claim that we're protesting the military, we said, okay, you can have downtown D.C.,' Ezra Levin, the co-founder and co-executive director of Indivisible, said. 'Instead, we should organize it everywhere else.' The military parade — which is set to mark the army's 250th anniversary, but also happens to fall on Trump's 79th birthday — will include over 6,000 marching soldiers, battle tanks and other military vehicles, as well as military aircraft accompanying the procession overhead. Army estimates place the cost of the festivities somewhere between $25 and $45 million, an expense that 60 percent of Americans say is not a good use of funds. But Saturday's festivities may yet face obstacles, with thunderstorms predicted to hit the city in the evening. But Trump is unfazed. 'OUR GREAT MILITARY PARADE IS ON, RAIN OR SHINE. REMEMBER, A RAINY DAY PARADE BRINGS GOOD LUCK. I'LL SEE YOU ALL IN D.C.,' the president wrote in a post on Truth Social Saturday morning. Trump has maintained, in the face of the No Kings protests, that he does not view himself as a monarch. 'No, no. We're not a king,' Trump said at the White House on Thursday. 'We're not a king at all, thank you very much.' Schifeling said she finds Trump's objections 'laughable.' 'This is a person who violates the law at every turn, and is doing everything in his power to intimidate and crush — using the vast power of the presidency and also power that he doesn't even have — to crush anybody that he perceives as disagreeing with him or as his enemies. Those are the actions of a king,' she said. Adam Wren contributed to this report.
Boston Globe
6 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
‘No Kings' march begins in Boston, alongside thousands participating in Pride parade
Related : Franklin Soults, regional communications manager for 32BJ SEIU, which represents building service workers, called the rally a stand against 'an administration for the billionaire class — and only the billionaire class, and generally the white, heterosexual billionaire class.' 'Oppressed people everywhere… need to join together,' said Soults, who spoke on behalf of the union's Lavender Caucus, which represents LGBTQ+ members of SEIU and advocates for their rights within the labor movement. 'We're a majority-immigrant union. Our members are directly affected by ICE. We've been training them to know their rights.' Soults also highlighted recent enforcement actions. Advertisement 'There have been instances of SEIU members detained,' he said referring to arrests during ICE protests in Los Angeles this week, including the detention of California labor leader David Huerta. 'The SEIU president in California was assaulted by ICE … he was taken into custody for three days.' Donna Sarti, 68, came from Framingham carrying a sign that read 'Crowns are for teeth' and 'King-free since 1776.' 'How could I not come out here today?' she said. 'I wish I was able to clone myself, because there were marches in so many places.' Advertisement Looking around the crowd, Sarti said her motivation to attend the protest came from close to home. 'I am just appalled at what I see people going through — especially my wonderful immigrant neighbors who are so afraid to even leave the house,' Sarti said. More than 1,800 'No Kings' protests are planned nationwide as part of a National Day of Action organized by 50501 (short for '50 protests, 50 states, one movement') and the Indivisible coalition, along with the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Black Voters Matter, and other groups. In Massachusetts, nearly 100 'No Kings' demonstrations are scheduled in cities and towns from the Berkshires to Nantucket, and from the North Shore to the South Coast. In Brockton, at least 80 people gathered for a 'No Kings' rally in a parking lot near Belmont Street. Despite the rain, participants carried signs opposing Trump's military parade while passing cars honked in support or screamed at participants in disapproval. Boston's 'No Kings but Yaaas Queen!' is organized by Mass 50501, Indivisible Massachusetts, and others groups. The protests span all 50 states and were originally planned in response to a military parade scheduled for Saturday evening in Washington, D.C., which will mark the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary. The parade, which is taking place on President Trump's birthday, is expected to feature tanks, military flyovers, and National Guard troops, with a reported cost of up to $45 million. Organizers say momentum for the protests accelerated after federalized National Guard troops and Marines were deployed to Los Angeles in response to protests over ICE raids and deportations in the city. According to the Advertisement Globe correspondent Jade Lozada contributed to this report. Material from the Associated Press was also used. This is a developing story. Nathan Metcalf can be reached at
Wall Street Journal
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
The Public-Sector Union Behind L.A.'s Immigration Agitation
The week's riots in Los Angeles kicked off with the June 6 arrest of David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union's California chapter. You might expect a union boss to favor immigration enforcement in the name of protecting his members' jobs. But SEIU California has built its brand—and its business—by obliterating the line between legal and illegal immigration. Operating as an open-borders lobby shop that also organizes workers, it has for four decades amassed political and cultural power in the Golden State for the purpose of undermining federal authority over immigration. Alerted by activists who monitor the movements of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in the city, Mr. Huerta led a group that attempted to block federal agents from executing search warrants at a warehouse in the city's Fashion District. ICE agents asked Mr. Huerta and others to clear a driveway for official vehicles. A federal criminal complaint alleges he rallied his comrades to 'stop the vehicles' and told them, 'It's a public sidewalk, they can't stop us.' Mr. Huerta refused a federal agent's order to move out of the driveway. He struggled with the officer, stumbled and fell but continued fighting. He was reportedly pepper-sprayed, handcuffed and taken to a hospital before being moved to the Metropolitan Detention Center. Mr. Huerta is charged with conspiracy to impede an officer, which can carry up to six years in prison. Following his arraignment Monday, he was released on a $50,000 appearance bond. By then he was already being hailed as a hero by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state's largest newspapers, and union leaders from the United Farm Workers, the Los Angeles teachers union and the California Federation of Labor. Even the Screen Actors Guild voiced its support. Mr. Huerta declared himself a victim of police violence and a representative of something universal. 'What happened to me is not about me,' he said in an SEIU statement. 'This is about something much bigger. This is about how we as a community stand together and resist the injustice that's happening.' But there's another possible factor in Mr. Huerta's arrest and the ensuing violence: money.
