interviews
Labor and the White House
by Dave Weigel
March 31, 2021
This interview with Dave Weigel, national reporter covering politics for the Washington Post, was conducted and condensed by franknews and Payday Report.
DW | The White House's involvement in the Amazon union drive was a big surprise. I mean, we know where it could have originated, the union talked to the White House; they have kind of an open door with Biden that they didn't have with Trump. We know that Faiz Shakir, Bernie Sanders’ campaign chairman, and his group, Perfect Union, got involved. So, there was public pressure.
The fact that the White House and the president released that video was a big deal to people. And, he made this decision to get involved very early on in his presidency. It was within his first 50 days. He decided to do what hadn't been done before and give a message in support of the union. It was a very careful message. The new labor secretary, Marty Walsh, when asked specifically about Amazon, responded in more general tones.
But, no matter what happens, if you are in for a penny, you are in for a pound.
A lot of previous presidents, including Barack Obama, said a lot less about these union drives and, in doing so, limited their own exposure. If the drive didn't work, people didn't say that the president supported something that didn't work. The fact that Biden made a statement, early on, when it wasn't clear how this was going to go, is a real political statement of what they thought was important.
frank | How do you think his background plays a role in this?
He's always leaned in really hard and identified with workers in the same way he's tried to identify with different civil rights movements. Joe Biden has always wanted to be seen as the kind of person who is coming from Scranton, who has lived through the sixties, and who wants to jump to the front of the march if there is a struggle happening.
He frames everything in terms of fairness. He's not as natural as other members of the party in talking about this. When Bernie Sanders talks about this, for example, he talks about greed, he names CEOs, he says nobody deserves that much money, he talks about a maximum wage and how there should be no billionaires at all. Biden doesn't go that far. Biden has never gone after Jeff Bezos. He's never gone after individual heads of companies the way that Sanders does. He does this sort of a "Hey man, these guys are under assault, somebody needs to stick up for them."
That is something that he has always wanted to be part of his brand. Even when he was voting for trade deals like NAFTA as a Senator, he was never really comfortable. He had the same ideological mindset as a lot of the Democrats in the eighties and the nineties. He did it because he saw that that was the way things were moving and he voted strategically. But, the stuff that fired him up was when he could side with workers. It is the same thing with the projects he took on under Obama when he was Vice President.
During the Democratic primary, he didn't get the same amount of labor support that Hillary Clinton did, but, Sanders didn't get it either. There wasn't the same sort of a landslide of labor to get in early and say, this is our candidate. Instead, they were demanding more of the candidates.
I would cover presidential primary events with the Teamsters in Cedar Rapids or the Building Trades in DC and you would kind of look to the level of applause as an indicator. The interesting thing is that at those events Sanders would lay out the things he did and what he wanted to pass. Biden would go on at length about non-compete clauses and about wage theft and things like that. It was less, "I have studied all of the papers on this and I've decided this is my policy," and more of "this seems unfair and I'm against this thing."
I think the Democratic Party is increasingly understanding what labor can mean for them strategically.
Republicans have gotten kind of tangled up on labor. They have done better with union households, but they are basically the party of deregulation still. They've never really moved on the labor part of their messaging. That makes it easier for Biden to compete for these workers. When it comes down to it, Republicans want “right-to-work." Josh Hawley, who branded himself as a working-class candidate, for example, supports a national right-to-work.
Biden was very concerned with winning back more union households. Union workers were saying, “Democrats had the presidency for 16 years. What do they do for us?” Biden didn't have all the answers that labor wanted, but he was making a lot of specific promises about how he was going to act. He talked about infrastructure spending and about how he was going to run the NLRB and how he was going to approach employers. It was less than Sanders did, but that's way more than Democrats had done in the past.
I mean, the McCain/Romney era Republicans had no appeal to the sort of voters who voted for Obama twice and then voted for Trump. Biden only peeled back maybe 10% of them depending on where you're talking about, but it has made life easier for Democrats.
This fight has in large part been framed in the context of continuing a battle for civil rights. Do you see Biden lean into that messaging?
Biden did not really lean to the racial justice aspect or the civil rights legacy aspect of this labor fight. When the congressional delegation here came down a couple of weeks before the vote, they were much more explicit. Someone like Jamal Bowman or Cori Bush is much more comfortable saying that than Biden. That is the thing about Biden. He basically sets boundaries. He says what his position is and backs off and lets the action happen without his constant commentary. It's very different than Trump in that way too. And that's different than the Sanders position. And it's different than what Warren said her position would be as president.
Can you give us context on how or why you started covering this story?
I started covering the Amazon drive because of the president and members of Congress intervening. I mean, labor decided to get involved months before, but the fact that Democrats were getting involved was new. It has been interesting to monitor their investment in this over other Democratic Party causes.
There's a little bit of intervention from the Democrats, but not, I'd say equal to what Amazon is doing. They are not the advertisements on TV. We all know the Democratic party is kind of involved, but it is not the same political project that I've seen in other places.
There are two stories that kind of were happening at the same time; they have merged, but not completely. One is this labor drive, which is smaller than most drives that have succeeded. It is not overwhelming. You don't see labor signs everywhere you go. But, on the other hand, the level of national involvement is kind of new.
Had Biden said nothing, there would have been a story, but it wouldn't involve the White House, it wouldn't involve the Democratic Party, and it might not involve the PRO Act.
And I think that's going to change because of this.
New interview w/ @daveweigel @PaydayReport
— frank news (@FrankNewsUS) April 6, 2021
"The White House's involvement with the Amazon drive was a big surprise ... Previous presidents, Obama comes to mind, said a lot less. The fact that Biden did that early on is a political statement of what they thought was important." pic.twitter.com/MwYlmqE4xQ
That was a big decision Biden made to be a part of this.
Right. And that political story is interesting. The story here is much more independent. A lot of the people who've come in to help canvas are from smaller groups. You have Black Lives Matter and DSA groups from the area, but you don't have the Democratic Party getting involved in a huge way. I think that is something that people will revisit after the vote.
Should the Democratic Party, like most left parties in the world, be very involved with labor? Should they always take the side of labor?
Most social democratic parties are labor parties and they build up from there. Their coalition includes labor unions. In the British Labour Party, for example, labor has a role in electing the leadership. That is not the case here. That's the conversation I think they're going to start having when this votes over. For example, if there are, and the union says there are, hundreds of people around the country calling them saying, "Hey, I have some questions about what I can do at my fulfillment center in my town," that will be a question for Democrats.
And if Amazon wins, do you get spooked? Amazon has been very punchy in their PR. They might say that a bunch of elite Democrats stood with the union and the workers stood with Amazon. That is very comfortable turf for Amazon to be on, and that leaves a big question open for Democrats. If the union succeeds, throw all of that out the window. I think the lesson that everyone would take in that case would be that if it takes less than a three-minute video from the president to get momentum for something like this, then we should keep doing that. As we talk, I don't know the answer to that question. I think that is something that is going to be answered when the votes are in.
interviews
Q&A with Catalina de Onís
by Catalina de Onís
February 8, 2019
Catalina M. de Onís is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civic Communication and Media at Willamette University. Her research and teaching engage Latina/o/x studies, de/coloniality, race, environmental and energy studies, gender, and fieldwork. She is an affiliated faculty member with the Latin American Studies program and the Sustainability Institute.
How would you define Energy Democracy?
Energy democracy is essential for advancing energy justice, including by foregrounding the experiences, concerns, and needs of community members most impacted by different energy projects. A shift to renewable energy can replicate unjust power relations, so it’s important to be critical of “big green” projects that lack local community involvement and direction. For years, many Puerto Rican energy democracy advocates have been calling for roof-top solar and the need to have companies invest in local energy projects, rather than exporting the money to another place.
Elsewhere, I have defined “energy justice” as:
“Informed by environmental and climate justice, energy justice is concerned with how People of Color and low-income communities are impacted by global climate disruption, energy poverty, energy vulnerability, and decarbonization (i.e. transitioning from high-carbon energy sources, such as petroleum and coal, to low-carbon energies, such as wind and solar). Energy justice also struggles against the exploitation of indigenous lands and communities for high-risk and toxic energy development, from nuclear to fracked gas, and also recognizes the importance of sustainable jobs in the renewable energy sector and achieving energy security and sovereignty in relation to infrastructure, distribution, and access. Thus, this movement and discourse strives for direct community engagement to advance sustainable practices, including considerations of how, where, and for/by whom energy is produced, distributed, consumed, maintained, and disposed of (Sovacool & Dworkin, 2014).”
Is Energy Democracy inherently political?
Yes, energy democracy always involves politics and power struggles over energy sources and infrastructure, how that infrastructure comes to be, who decides, how it is maintained, and what policies advance or impede such projects. The political system in the United States, Puerto Rico, and in other countries throughout the world is entwined with energy industry interests that often have no problem with treating some communities as sacrifice zones to maximize their profits. There are large barriers to full participation in Puerto Rico, as evinced by the Fiscal Control Board’s website and the “public comment” process that requires submitting responses online and in English. As a result, the majority of Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico are not able to participate in their preferred language. Furthermore, energy conversations among liquefied gas (LNG) industry officials, members of la junta fiscal/the control board, and local politicians are discussing lifting the suffocating 1920 Merchant Marine Act, or the Jones Act, only for the purposes of importing LNG. This exception epitomizes how corporate energy interests and their political allies are willing to waive one aspect of an arbitrary law only to the extent convenient for them, rather than addressing widespread calls from civil society to lift this act entirely to transform Puerto Rico’s dependence on US ships and imports. One of the LNG tankers making the route between Florida and Puerto Rico is “Taino,” named after the Indigenous peoples who faced the brutalities of colonization.
What does the history of energy operations look like in Puerto Rico? What sort of legacies are left?
Puerto Rico’s heavy reliance on imported fuel oil from South America and liquefied gas from Trinidad and Tobago and increasingly from the United States shows how energy sovereignty has been denied. During the height of Operation Bootstrap, in the mid-1900s, Puerto Rico was used as a test site for the petrochemical industry; the energy required was enormous to support this component of US-empire building. Local artist Rafael Trelles illuminates the problem of abandoned industries, job loss, and environmental contamination in his moving 2011 artistic piece: “Monumento al Fracaso” (Monument to Failure). Another artistic intervention against environmental injustice, titled “Contaminado,” emphasizes the problem of coal ash dumping and the impacts on human health in the southern region of Puerto Rico. These artistic efforts have unfolded synergistically with grassroots movements agitating for Puerto Ricans’ self-determination over their own energy futures.
How do you begin to move past them?
First, it’s important to call attention to the toxic legacies that scar Puerto Rico’s landscape and that harm the health of local communities. For example, a 2016 epidemiological study found that various diseases and respiratory problems are disproportionately high in communities that are nearby fossil fuel plants. So, instead of moving past these toxic legacies, it’s important to note that many communities continue to live with this contamination on a daily basis. Given this reality, it’s important to note the urgency of a just transition to grassroots, renewable energy alternatives that both improve human and environmental health conditions and create local jobs to grow struggling local economies.
Can you describe the grassroots led efforts for energy happening in Puerto Rico right now?
Numerous grassroots solar energy projects are unfolding throughout Puerto Rico. The longtime environmental justice group Casa Pueblo has been a large solar advocate and leader. Another effort, which existed pre-Hurricane Maria, is Coqui Solar in southern Puerto Rico, home to the two most polluting power plants in the Big Island, and yet many residents in this area often face power outages and were some of the last to have power restored after the 2017 hurricane season. The project involves already-installed solar panels on the community center and the development of resident-installed solar panels on surrounding homes. Service-learning with Drs. Efrain O’Neill-Carrillo and Marcel Castro and their engineering students has been at the heart of this collaboration. Also with university ties, El Instituto Nacional de Energia y Sostenibilidad Isleña (the National Institute of Island Energy and Sustainability, or INESI) is involved in many projects and has been a champion of energy democracy for years, including hosting “dialogue tables” with various members of civil society.
How have citizens responded to these efforts?
Those who are locally impacted tend to respond with excitement about the possibilities, but it’s important to not suggest that every Puerto Rican supports solar. It’s important to not treat Puerto Ricans as a monolith.
How has this work adapted since Hurricane Maria? Is resilience built into each energy project?
There’s now greater financial and academic support for these grassroots, roof-top solar projects from outside groups. For example, local Puerto Rican scholars and community activists have been supporting visits and collaborations of numerous university groups—from the University of Oregon to MIT. These collaborations can be helpful, if they are committed to a long-term, sustainable relationships and put the interests and needs of local communities first. Otherwise, colonial relational patterns can too easily develop.
What policy is central to this work?
Energy policy must center the realities of impacted communities. Too often in Puerto Rico, there’s the façade of public participation. However, from language to technology barriers, a dramatic transformation must be made before approaches to energy projects in Puerto Rico begin to be about the people instead of maintaining fossil fuel energy interests and their political cronies.
What sort of new policy would benefit your efforts and incentivize more participation?
The efforts of INESI create a vision for energy democracy, based on years of conversations that include diverse energy actors. Ayuda Legal Puerto Rico also is an important legal resource.