[Sdalliance] Open Letter to May 1st Coalition

Tue Mar 7 13:26:58 PST 2017

👏👏👏

On Mar 7, 2017 12:08 PM, "LAILA AZIZ" <lailaaziz at icloud.com> wrote:

> Greetings Comrades,
> First and foremost I want to extend my apologies for not keeping up with
> the listserv and missing some critical information. Today, I went through
> the communications from the end of February up until now. I have a few
> questions:
>
> 1. Self Defense Committee: How were the delegates or members for the Self
> Defense Committee selected? What is the power structure? There seems to be
> a few issues regarding this.
> 2. Communications Committee: Who are the people on this listserv? What
> organizations do they represent? How can we ensure our people are protected
> in their communication? There are a few people engaging in discussion and
> others are just looking which could potentially be an unsafe place for
> many.
> 3. Colectivo Zapatista Demand Letter: What is the Collective Resistance
> stance on supporting our comrade's stance on protecting workers? If enough
> delegates ratify this don't we then support them as a collective? What does
> this support look like in action? I may not understand the true governance
> and function of our committees and delegates.
> 4. In Person Meeting: was there a meeting scheduled in person to iron out
> some of these issues?
> 5. Healing Circles: Have we incorporated what our comrades are offering
> into our alliance to make communication more effective? If so when will
> this take place?
>
> On Mar 06, 2017, at 09:27 PM, Ryan Stray <ryanstraysd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> PSL San Diego's letter on Kasparian/UFCW/the Labor Council question.
>
> https://www.facebook.com/SanDiegoPSL/posts/1287922804623314
>
> In light of the recent allegations that Mickey Kasparian has engaged in
> sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation, the Party for
> Socialism and Liberation calls for his immediate resignation or termination
> as president of both the San Diego Labor Council and United Food and
> Commercial Workers.
>
> As a working class party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation defends
> the rights of all workers, including those employed by a union. We defend
> the right for all workers to work in a safe environment. It is shameful
> that a union, whose very reason for existence is to fight for the rights of
> its workers, has refused to even investigate the serious allegations of
> abuse, bullying, and retaliation within its own ranks. Those who are
> protecting and defending this sexist behavior are guilty of supporting it.
> We hold all bosses accountable to the rights of workers regardless if they
> are union bosses. At a time when workers’ rights are under attack we need
> real leadership and strength, not weak abusers of power who undermine
> everything organizers have fought and struggled for.
>
> Reactionary patriarchal forces will always try to put the victims of abuse
> on trial rather than their abusers. The PSL has worked closely with Sandy
> and Anabel in the past, and we know them to be trustworthy and honest
> fighters for working class people. These Chicana organizers have helped
> improve the lives of untold numbers of workers through their work for the
> union; that union should be rewarding them for their accomplishments, not
> degrading or abusing them because they speak up in their own workplace. We
> encourage other workers within the United Food and Commercial Workers to
> come forward and to know that the PSL stands with you. We are also calling
> on other progressive, leftist, and revolutionary organization to join us in
> our defense of Sandy, Isabel, and Anabel, and we invite others to sign onto
> this letter.
>
> If you support this effort, let us know and add your name to a list of
> community and grassroots organizations that demand justice and real union
> leadership.
>
> The San Diego branch of the Party for Socialism and Liberation
> sandiego at pslweb.org
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 6, 2017 7:10 PM, "Tanner Smith" <gulfcoastsurfer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just seconding what Yesi said.  No problem with the letter being sent.  I
>> was only referring to this debate via email.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Yesenia Padilla <
>> yeseniatpadilla at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Compas:
>>>
>>> I don't believe Tanner was saying that Colectivo shouldn't have sent out
>>> the email, as we did agree at the mass meeting that Colectivo should send
>>> the letter for orgs/individuals to review, and to contact Colectivo
>>> directly about signing on if they choose to do so.
>>>
>>> Colectivo sending the letter out through the listserv is absolutely
>>> fine, it was agreed to, and it was agreed to that people would contact
>>> Colectivo directly if they chose to sign on.
>>>
>>> I believe what Tanner was referring the ensuing debate only, not the
>>> sending of the email.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Yesi
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:08 PM, colectivo zapatista <
>>> colectivozapatistainfo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Its a little late in the game. Folks should have said, when Colectivo
>>>> Zapatista brought up the letter in the mass mtg,  "Compas, can you please
>>>> send the letter in xyz way"? Now. It seems like a quick "let's not talk
>>>> about this issue, cause it could be divisive", approach. Where was the
>>>> protocol notice before? What other way could we have sent the letter for ;
>>>> all folks to review?
>>>>  Just being real compas.
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 6, 2017 12:52 PM, "Tanner Smith" <gulfcoastsurfer at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just a reminder, and speaking from Communications Committee.  This
>>>>> listserv is strictly for discussing business of CRSD.  It is not an
>>>>> appropriate forum for debate.  This particular conversation needs to wrap
>>>>> up in this space.  Please email me if you have any questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tanner
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Rafael Bautista <rafadaone at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fred, I am not sure if you are aware but this  is a list serv for SD
>>>>>> Collective Resistance, not SDAJ.  Either way, this liberal ideology that is
>>>>>> plaguing people on the "left" is very worrisome.  Here we have an adopted
>>>>>> points of unity that explicitly states that we are anti-sexist but we have
>>>>>> Fred talking about some kind of situation that is up for debate.  This is
>>>>>> not up for debate.  Yes, It will carry its due process in the courts but
>>>>>> people are already aware of the events.  Not only because the allegations
>>>>>> come from very credible and incredible women, but because we have seen time
>>>>>> and time again the tactics of petty bourgois bosses.  Mickey is a union
>>>>>> boss that has sided with the wealthy time and time again, usually for
>>>>>> self-gain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The letter also mentions Genoveva, who comrades have been suppressed
>>>>>> by.  I am actually even more disappointed when people who can make a
>>>>>> difference, like Fred who is a delegate to the Labor Council (from
>>>>>> UC/AFT Local 2034; not coming out in support of the workers who are being
>>>>>> abused by corrupt union bosses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Fred Lonidier <pres2034 at san.rr.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rya,
>>>>>>> I am on the SDAJ listserve as a member so the emails about May 1 and
>>>>>>> the matter of Kasparian came to me that way.  It seems related to planning
>>>>>>> for May 1.  I am a delegate to the Labor Council (from UC/AFT Local 2034)
>>>>>>> which endorsed SEIU's plans.  I signed up to work on that event.  The
>>>>>>> matter of allegations is very serious but very hard to weigh in on without
>>>>>>> evidence or witnesses which can come to some adjudicating body, either
>>>>>>> internal to the UFCW, the CLC and/or the law.  The labor movement has had
>>>>>>> to be very diligent about due process as, in relations with employers, we
>>>>>>> have nothing without it and supervisors, owners and even other workers can
>>>>>>> make all kinds of claims which, without due process, can and has caused
>>>>>>> enormous damage to workers and our unions.  It is distressing to see the
>>>>>>> pickets and read the allegations but, at the same time, hard to take a
>>>>>>> stand on without the weight of evidence.  And I am aware that all kinds of
>>>>>>> acts against vulnerable people never get justice because they occur out of
>>>>>>> the sight of others willing to come forward.
>>>>>>> Fred
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cw rape
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know who you are, and I don't think you came to any mass
>>>>>>> meeting so i wonder how you got on this listserv, but I want to point out
>>>>>>> that (one of the) allegation(s) about Mickey specifically involves
>>>>>>> pressuring his staff into a sexual relationship. A claim of due process
>>>>>>> might mean something in a world where UFCW or any local or national labor
>>>>>>> body as investigating. But UFCW and the Labor Council have chosen not to,
>>>>>>> and there is no criminal case, and as such there is no possibility of due
>>>>>>> process from any body that could pass judgement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are multiple claims from multiple female staff members of the
>>>>>>> UFCW. What is it that leads you to side eye these women who are coming
>>>>>>> forward in a climate that deligitimizes their claims inside the very union
>>>>>>> they fought for, not to mention society at large? Why are you siding with a
>>>>>>> literal boss in a clear harassment and discrimination case?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rya
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 5, 2017 8:38 PM, "Fred Lonidier" <pres2034 at san.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, Ryan, I think you want to be very careful here.  So far there
>>>>>>> are allegations leveled at Kasparian and we see the pickets at the Delegate
>>>>>>> meetings.  But he is entitled to due process and whether he "attacked his
>>>>>>> workers" or not has yet to be established.  So far, he has the full
>>>>>>> confidence of the CLC Executive Board and the Delegates.  At any rate, the
>>>>>>> CLC is on board with May 1 as it is being headed up by SEIU.
>>>>>>> My laptop is pretty old so I don't seem to be able to access the
>>>>>>> letter to which you refer.  Can you send it as an attachment?
>>>>>>> Fred
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mickey Kasparian is named in the letter explicitly, right? The man
>>>>>>> attacked his workers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ryan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Sdalliance mailing list
>>>>>>>> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
>>>>>>>> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Sdalliance mailing list
>>>>>>> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
>>>>>>> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Sdalliance mailing list
>>>>>> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
>>>>>> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Sdalliance mailing list
>>>>> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
>>>>> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sdalliance mailing list
>>>> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
>>>> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Yesenia Padilla*
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sdalliance mailing list
>> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
>> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Sdalliance mailing list
> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sdalliance mailing list
> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/sdalliance/attachments/20170307/3539b95e/attachment-0001.html>