Thug In Pastels

This morning’s Star Tribune has a story about an up to now untold story behind the “Working Families Agenda” that has been so controversial in Minneapolis.  The headline, “Target had quiet talks with labor on Minneapolis workplace rules,” does not accurately describe either the contents of the article or what actually happened this past summer when, as part of the preparation for introduction of an ordinance on fair scheduling, earned sick and safe time, and protections from wage theft, advocates from community groups (CTUL, NOC, TakeAction Minnesota, Working America),  and unions met regularly with Target Corporation. Adam Belz writes:

Target Corp., the largest private employer in Minneapolis, worked closely with the backers of the workplace scheduling ordinance that angered many businesses before city leaders dropped it last month.

Target executives helped proponents of workers’ rights craft a rough framework for the ordinance, though one that was less onerous than the proposal that emerged publicly from the City Council, which would have forced businesses to tell workers their schedule 28 days in advance.

The company’s involvement, which until now hasn’t been disclosed, reflects Target’s concern about what shape future scheduling rules will take. While the rule would have affected only a few hundred Target employees — at three regular Target stores and one Target Express in the city — it could have influenced the national discussion on workers’ rights, which affects the retailer because it must deal with the costs of varying work rules across the country.

While the Downtown Council, the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce and others rallied around Working Families Agenda by claiming there was “no problem” to be solved, Target Corp. and many other smaller businesses were engaged with advocates and workers trying to find solutions.

Several of the community groups at the Target table have now had a long history of working with Target, one that stems from years of often tense relationships and friction caused by disagreements we had with the company.  TakeAction Minnesota’s Justice for All Campaign, as the article details, helped move Target to implement “Ban the Box” policies internally and support them as public policy for all busineses as well.  CTUL’s multi-year campaign to raise standards in the retail cleaning industry not only brought Target to the table as one of the most important retailers using subcontracted janitorial companies, but as a result of that campaign the company adopted a Responsible Contractor Policy for its cleaning vendors.

This background  is important as a lesson to advocates.  Target was not at the table simply out of the goodness of their hearts. It was the result of years of hard work.  That said, now that we have what is, in essence, a community bargaining table with a major corporation, I am happy to praise them for not taking the route that so much of the Minneapolis business community has taken when it comes to low wage workers, looking away and claiming there is no problem to be solved.  Target has sat down with workers and advocates to find solutions.

CTUL’s multi-year campaign to improve standards in the cleaning industry has included multiple strikes.

Advocates are used to, while working on policy, sitting across the table from elected officials.  If we acknowledge, however, that corporations have enormous amounts of power in our polities, doesn’t it make sense to also mount campaigns aimed at bring those truly powerful folks to the bargaining table as well?

Do we agree on everything while at that table? Of course not. Having a partner willing to talk and problem-solve, however, is invaluable, and that is what is today distinguishes Target from so much of the business community in Minneapolis. While some told low wage workers their problems are imaginary, and while they still plot to ensure those workers do not have access to sick leave, others engage productively. In a progressive city like Minneapolis, this is the model that business should follow.

Amity Foster, one of the #BlackLivesMatter protesters being prosecuted by the City Attorney of The Mall of America, er, Bloomington, pointed us on Facebook to a cutting edge artistic collaboration between the Minneapolis Institute of Arts and the MOA:

In Irony We Trust

You too can have a Limited Edition T-shirt made by contemporary artist Jenny Holzer. Among those to choose from:

This lovely T will go perfectly with an a-line skirt for your next courtroom appearance in front of City Attorney Sandra Johnson:

Arraignment-wear!

Or, if you may prefer, try this little number, which we like to call the Jordan Kushner look – in honor of the attorney arguing in court that the millions of taxpayer dollars spent on the Mall of America, as well as the hand-in-glove coordination between the City Attorney of Bloomington and the MOA, should mean this “private” mall should be considered “quasi-governmental” property:

Especially designed for Jordan Kushner, Esq.!

The new designs are super sleek, relaxed cotton that won’t wrinkle! They’re Iron- and Irony-Free!

El Donald

“It’s something ironic,” said Ivan Arellano, 29, who is from Mexico and obtained legal status through marriage. He now works as a mason laying the stonework for the lobby floor and walls of what will become the Trump International Hotel.

“The majority of us are Hispanics, many who came illegally,” Arellano said in Spanish. “And we’re all here working very hard to build a better life for our families.”

This should surprise no one. When we hear there are around 11 million undocumented persons living in the U.S., I often wonder where people like Mr. Trump think they are. The answer: everywhere. They are integrated into communities and industries. Some industries, like agriculture, would fall apart without their labor.

That’s why I always say: Against Illegal Immigration? Live by your values and Boycott Food.

What, me, whitemansplain?

White People, Listen!

This morning I am reminded of the classic piece of black feminist theory, Hazel Carby’s essay White Woman Listen!, where she wrote;

Much contemporary debate has posed the question of the relation between race and gender, in terms that attempt to parallel race and gender divisions. It can be argued that as processes, racism and sexism are similar. Ideologically for example, they both con- struct common sense through reference to “natural” and “biological” differences. It has also been argued that the categories of race and gender are both socially constructed and that, therefore, they have little internal coherence as concepts. Furthermore, it is possible to parallel racialized and gendered divisions in the sense that the possibilities of amelioration through legislation appear to be equally ineffectual in both cases. Michele Barrett, however, has pointed out that it is not possible to argue for parallels because as soon as historical analysis is made, it becomes obvious that the institutions which have to be analyzed are different, as are the forms of analysis needed. We would agree that the construction of such parallels is fruitless and often proves little more than a mere academic exercise; but there are other reasons for our dismissal of these kinds of debate. The experience of black women does not enter the parameters of parallelism. The fact that black women are subject to the simultaneous oppression of patriarchy, class, and “race” is the prime reason for not employing parallels that render their position and experience not only marginal but also invisible.

I’ve been thinking about the intersections of race, gender and privilege since last night, when I read the exchange in the photo above.  Wintana Melekin is a friend, an organizer with Neighborhoods Organizing for Change in Minneapolis, and someone I consider one of the key young voices of Minnesota today who will be a state leader of tomorrow.  Expressing emotional exhaustion after the Charleston Massacre, Wintana suggested in this Facebook post that white people engage with each other on the issue of racism.  It seems an uncontroversial request.

Enter David Koch, owner of the Minneapolis restaurant Seven, who took the opportunity not to talk to fellow white people about racism but rather to lecture Wintana about her ignorance.  Mansplaining doesn’t quite do Koch’s words justice. Whitemansplaining doesn’t even quite do it. This is a colossally, epically perfect example of how not to talk about race to a person of color if you are white, especially after a tragedy like South Carolina. I am stunned and all i can think to say is, White People Listen!:

• If you feel compelled to tell a black person that you know more about race and racism than they do, Just don’t.  Stop yourself. Don’t.
• If the country is in the middle of a crisis, with African-Americans being verifiably, explicitly, repeatedly, under attack, and you think you are the one who is being singled out, generalized about and you feel you just have to share that feeling with the world, Just don’t. Stop yourself. Don’t.
• If your reaction to a white nationalist who wore the flag of Rhodesia on his jacket and killed nine black people in church is a burning desire to lecture a young black woman about the real problem — black on black crime, Just Don’t. Stop yourself. Don’t.
• If you’re a man feeling compelled to open a conversation with a young black woman with the words, “young lady”, Just Don’t. Stop yourself. Don’t.
• If you cannot read a cry of pain and react with empathy and real engagement Just Don’t.  Stop yourself. Don’t.