Defend Arizona Workers, Abolish the Police Unions

At times like these -- of austerity and broad attacks on workers, the poor and the excluded -- it must first be pointed out that the state revenue crisis is fake.  In Arizona, the justification for massive cuts and fee increases runs immediately up against the hard fact that while the right wing government is pleading poverty and cutting health and assistance programs for the poor, it is also busy slashing corporate taxes.  Famously, two out of three corporations in the Copper State pay no taxes and recurring proposals for a "flat tax" would shift the tax burden even further onto the poor and working class -- a group that already pays disproportionately more of their income than Arizona's rich.

It's in this context that a new series of anti-union bills have been introduced into the legislature.  Backed by the generally reactionary far right Goldwater Institute, these laws would remove basic rights of free association and self-defense from Arizona workers.  Among the deletions: automatic deductions and collective bargaining rights over pay and benefits.  And, unlike other states, such as Wisconsin, where similar legislation has been introduced, in Arizona police and fire departments are not excluded.  This comes in the context of an ongoing series of attacks on unions in Arizona.

In Arizona only six percent of workers are unionized, and this skews heavily towards public sector workers.  Perhaps not surprisingly, Arizona has one of the lowest percentage of unionized workers in the US, but even that small number is in decline, and last year many workers took the opportunity of the weakening of automatic deduction laws to leave unions that they felt had been poorly representing them, engaging in the classic 'dues strike'.  In Arizona, public sector unions have been increasingly seen by their members as functioning not to defend workers, but rather to manage the imposition of austerity in ways that don't rile up the rank and file.

And, of course, in any labor fight, conflicts with the police are never far off.  That's what makes these bills so interesting,  Given the important role of police as strikebreakers and the enforcers of capital's will, one tends to assume that almost certainly Arizona's right wing ideologues will have to pull a Wisconsin and create exceptions for the police and fire departments.  As we have recently seen in the case of Kyrsten Sinema's liberal candidacy for Congress, even so-called progressives in the state depend on the political support of the racist police unions.

Indeed, Synema recently accepted the endorsement of the worst police union in the state (although choosing is hard), the Professional Law Enforcement Association, famous for its vigorous advocacy for Arizona's anti-immigrant SB1070 law and unconscionable defense of Officer Richard Chrisman, who tortured, shot and killed unarmed Danny Rodriguez as well as his dog in his home on October 5, 2010.  Famously, PLEA President Mark Spencer not only helped bail Chrisman out with union funds, but also held a fund-raiser bbq for his defense.  But such it is with police unions.

Beyond that, if there is to be a fight that breaks out beyond the strict legislative boundaries enforced by the union bureaucracy and leadership, like perhaps a general strike, bosses and government officials will need the police to impose their class objectives.  Police, of course, are not just regular members of the working class.  They are paid to wage a never-ending war on poor people, folks of color in particular, and to maintain capitalist relations of property, wage labor and commodity production.

I've been reading Kristian Williams excellent book, "Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America" and he goes into quite a bit of depth about the history and reactionary tendencies of police unions that set them apart from and against other unions.  What strikes me as particularly relevant in the current situation is his analysis of the different ways that police union demands function versus the demands of other public sector workers.  Setting aside wage and benefit bargaining, the demands and lobbying of most public sector workers tends to involve benefits for the broader working class.  That is, teachers in the past have very often demand smaller class sizes, increased funding for free breakfast and lunch programs, and other social programs concomitant with their role.  For instance, the American Federation of Teachers in recent years joined the boycott of Arizona over SB1070.  These sorts of trends bear out amongst most other public sector unions.

However, this is not true when it comes to the police.  The results of police union bargaining tend much more strongly in the exact opposite direction.  Also, because of the often mutually beneficial relationship between police unions, the police bureaucracy, government and politicians, police negotiations and the lobbying that their organizations engage in tend to lead directly to increased budgets for weapons and equipment, expansion of police and jail facilities and other infrastructure to be used against the poor and marginalized populations.  So, while most public sector bargaining and lobbying can lead to increased services, police bargaining and lobbying leads to more murdered and imprisoned poor people, and the wrecked and ruined lives that go with it.  Beyond that, police union bureaucracy serves to protect cops from the consequences of their policing through its various internal discipline procedures.

So, if the legislature sticks to its ideology of right wing austerity and attacks on workers over the class pragmatism of privileging the police, there may be an opportunity to seriously weaken the police unions in Arizona, striking a blow for the working class and the poor and greatly opening up possibilities for further struggle.  To do this, workers will have to be brave enough to recognize their opposing interests to the police and to say, "Defend Arizona Workers, Abolish the Police Unions".

Lines will have to be drawn, but they won't be new lines.  In all likelihood this will mean contradicting the union bosses who will play, as is their habit, towards the racist, classist law and order line of safety and protection.  If we ever want to break out of this system of never-ending work, in which waged labor dominates our lives and we negotiate pitifully with the bosses for small glimpses of freedom and dignity, this will necessarily mean taking on the final defenders of work, the police.  Public sector workers may find it expedient in the short term to hide behind the boys in blue, but long term, given the fight that is coming, that strategy may come back to haunt them.

Thoughts on our role in the emerging struggle against the racist state of Arizona

This is not meant to be a final conclusion, just an attempt to get my initial thoughts down about what we could be facing and the means I see as the best way to approach it.

As what seems like the inevitable signing of Russell Pearce's anti-immigrant law grows near, driving a nail into the coffin that is the political strategy pursued by local pro-migrant organizers, the question increasingly becomes what will be the nature of the resistance that will emerge to oppose it. Politics as a means of settling it is clearly dead. There is no political solution and there is no one left to appeal to. Friday's ICE raids proved that. We need to be thinking about the kind of resistance that will work and how we can organize it.

Likewise, we need to be thinking about what the terrain of struggle will be. Who will be our allies? What or who will we target? If we are done trying to convince, what does that mean? It seems to me that the only option left is a campaign of direct action aimed at causing real consequences for the system. We must begin to develop the organizational forms that can disrupt and shut down the functions of the state and Capital in Arizona if need be. The sort of forms that can cause havoc and can respond quickly to the ongoing crisis with a variety of creative resistance measures.

The natural form in my opinion is the affinity group and some kind of facilitating structure for coordination, perhaps a spokescouncil or an assembly. Perhaps the latter that can transform into the former when necessary. Above all, this limited organization must be anti-political, anti-bureaucratic and horizontal. Anyone who can put together an affinity group and agree to a few key points should be able to participate, but no politicians or political parties should be allowed in. For guidance in this we can look to the Zapatistas "Other Campaign". The politicians have failed us utterly, as we always knew they would. We must be done with them.

To my mind, the natural starting point for defining participation in such a group would be the DO@ statement. If someone can agree with that, then they should be able to participate in the resistance we organize. If not, they are, of course, free to do their own thing, as anyone is. Perhaps boiling them down a bit would be worthwhile to develop a clear and concise criteria for organizing. Perhaps there are other criteria that would work just as well. We need to be thinking about that. In particular we need to think of ways to keep the leftist activists out.

One thing the DO@ statement brings to the table is a broader view of the struggle beyond just the country politicos that have been the general focus of movement leadership in town. Whether that was a good way to organize or not is irrelevant now: the problem, with this new law, will be clearly and unambiguously bigger than the county. The DO@ refrain, "Free movement for all, no dislocations for anyone", likewise seems a good starting point to me.

One thing to keep our eye on is the machinations of the leftist managers of struggle. They are desperate now. Already they have tried to intervene against direct action and the will in all likelihood continue to do so. They know they have little to offer the resistance now, but that doesn't mean they won't use all manner of tricks to try to hold on to the movement. It's time for them to recognize failure when they see it. Whatever role they have now must be in bringing their counsel to support the direct action movement that must certainly begin the second that law is signed. I'm sure they have a lot to share, but they must admit that the nature of the struggle is now much changed and so naturally should our tactics and strategies. Rather than scaring people with charges, fines and jail times, they need to be organizing legal defense for what may come. Certainly they have much to offer in this regard.

We also need to be thinking about our opposition and our potential allies. At the Tempe Tea Party rally libertarians stood outside flyering against Pearce's law. This continues to be an important breach in the front of white supremacy and we must recognize it. We must continue to engage it and we must continue to push on that contradiction so that others are emboldened to break with the racist trajectory. We have to also be building connections, not necessarily finding a base of support, but finding sympathizers. We'll need each other. We are autonomous and speak for ourselves, but there are friends out there. Let's get to know and encourage each other.

Likewise, aside from direct action, we need to be producing literature, flyers and media on a scale that we heretofore have not considered in Phoenix. Thousands and thousands of copies must be distributed. We need to think about going places we haven't gone before. Sports games. Gun shows. Malls. Churches. "What side are you on?" we must demand. The priority must be in getting arguments in the hands of white people that can force them to choose one side or the other. We cannot allow the luxury of the middle ground anymore. This similarly goes for the liberal activists and party hacks who will try to negotiate on their own and others' behalves. We must make this position impossible. Our role is to push as far and as hard as we can and to refuse compromise.

These are some of the initial thoughts I have on the struggle that seems likely ahead of us. Above all, we must be creative and refuse to be pushed into the narrow paths of struggle that the state, leftist managers and the reactionary right will attempt to impose on us. Lift your eyes and look to the horizon. Take in the broader view. Look for places where we are strong, where they are weak, or where we can act vigorously and quickly. Consider our strengths versus their weaknesses. Look for contradictions that will be profitable. Fortify yourself, find your comrades and get ready. Solidarity means attack!