Looks like Southern California grocery workers got a better contract without striking than they ended up getting after the ugly 2004 strike.  Details to come, but this is the email from the UFCW:

Today, Southern California’s grocery workers agreed to a tentative contract with the management of Ralphs, Vons and Albertsons. This is a fair contract that obtains our primary goals of wage increases for everyone while protecting health care coverage.

This is not just a victory for grocery workers, this is a victory for all of us. You stood with grocery workers in support of strong, middle class jobs that strengthen our communities, and while it certainly took longer than we hoped, in the end we got a contract without having to go on strike.

Three years ago, Southern California’s grocery workers were forced to accept an unfair contract. Today, thanks to your support, we negotiated a fair contract on our terms.

This took seven long months of negotiations, but it looks like grocery workers will have their first raise in five years.  Good work by the UFCW for standing strong and not backing down.

As I mentioned, the CDP affirmed their support for net neutrality this weekend with a strong resolution that reflected the concerns of both labor interests and the progressive movement.  Brad Parker of PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) commended the process in the Sunday session as proof that the Progressive Caucus and the more institutional elements of the CDP can work together.  On that score alone, it’s a win. 

The best part, by the way, was that Speed Matters (the CWA’s astroturf campaign) spent major dollars creating a glossy brochure that they put on everybody’s seat this morning, and it included what they thought would be the resolution.  Biggest waste of money I’ve ever seen.  Ha!

As for how to translate this into policy, since after all it is merely a nonbinding resolution, that’s what I’d like to address.  These resolutions sit on some corner of the CDP website and collect e-dust.  They have no meaning unless they are publicized.  So here’s what I propose.

Every Democratic member of Congress and the state legislature should be getting calls this week.  You should say, “Hello, I’m a constituent, the California Democratic Party just passed a resolution supporting the preservation of a free and open Internet.  I would like (the congresscritter) to abide by the wishes of his/her party and support any legislation codifying the principle of net neutrality.  If you would like to look at the text I can fax it to you.”  Let’s hold our representatives to the demands of the Party they represent, as well as their constituents. 

The preservation of a free and open Internet is critical to the continued innovation and entrepreneurship of this country, as well as the free flow of information needed for a well-informed citizenry and the rights to free speech and freedom of assembly.  We can move this forward in California.  We know that, at the state level, Mark Leno sought to introduce net neutrality legislation back in February.  That needs to return next year and we need to organize around it right now.

This can also work for other resolutions, especially the one on parole and sentencing reform that passed this weekend.  Really they are completely useless unless publicized in this manner.  Let’s allow them to have some impact, otherwise the hard work crafting them and managing them on the Resolutions Committee goes to naught, and nobody wants that.

On the flip, I’ve added the resolution text if you want to fax it to your legislators.  Please call Congress and the State Legislature today.

Support of Affordable High Speed Internet for America and Internet Neutrality (it’s actually Network Neutrality –ed.)

WHEREAS to secure the rights of assembly, and free speech online, which are guaranteed by the Constitution and encourage new innovative American businesses to flourish , Americans are entitled to and require open, equal and impartial Internet access; we need high speed internet for our homes, schools, hospitals and workplaces to grow jobs and our economy; enable innovations in telemedicine, education, public safety and government services; foster independence for people with disabilities and strengthen democratic discourse and civic participation and;

WHEREAS the United States – the country that invented the Internet – has fallen from first to sixteenth in internet adoption; US consumers pay more for slower speeds than people in other advanced nations; millions of Americans, especially in rural and low income areas do not have access to affordable, high speed broadband; then United States alone among the advanced nations has no national, Internet policy; the US definition of “high speed” at 200 kilobytes per second (kbps) is too slow and has not changed in nine years: the US and California collections of broadband data does not tell us what we need to know about broadband deployment, adoption, speeds and prices and consumer and worker protections must be safeguarded on high speed networks and;

WHEREAS the growth of a free and open Internet has provided historic advances in the realms of democracy, free speech, communications, research and economic development; California and US consumers are entitled to and require open, unfettered access to the lawful Internet content of their choice without interference by any entity, public or private; build out of universal, high speed, high capacity networks will promote an open Internet by eliminating bandwidth scarcity;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party endorses national,  state and local policies to promote affordable, high speed broadband for all with strong protections for consumers and the workers who build, maintain and service those networks; and a national goal for universal access and deployment of network capable of delivering 10 megabytes per second downstream and 1 megabyte per second upstream by the year 2010 and the California Democratic Party supports federal and state initiatives to improve data collection on high speed broadband deployment, adoption, speed and prices as a necessary first step; upgrading the current definition of high speed to 2 megabytes per second downstream, 1 megabyte per second upstream and policies that promote public programs to stimulate build out of high speed networks to all home and businesses in the nation and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party in order to promote vigorous free speech, a vibrant business community, and unfettered access to all information on the Internet, supports policies to preserve an open, neutral and interconnected Internet; protect against any degradation or blocking of access to any websites for content on the Internet and insure consumers have the right to free email; encourages build out of high speed networks to all homes and businesses so that everyone can go where they want and upload or download what they want on the Internet as a public utility maintained by union workers.

Submitted by the
Labor Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party

I would say that the mood of participants coming out of the executive board meeting of the CDP in Sacramento was a 180 from the mood coming out of the Convention.  Clearly there was a lot of upset over the way the final session of the Convention ended, and many felt that the small-d democratic process was not being respected.  That was most certainly not the case this weekend, which shows to me that the message was received by the leadership in the party.  There were debates and issues raised and passionate sentiments about various matters, but in the end everyone had their say, votes were held, and the system worked.  That’s about the most you can ask for.

Progressives hold far slimmer numbers at an executive board meeting than they do at a convention.  Yet the work that came out of this meeting, in particular on resolutions, was far more progressive, because they are the most organized group in the party and they take the process seriously, and in addition are prepared to work within it to arrive at the desired results.  A very strong antiwar resolution, an impressive resolution supporting parole and sentencing reform, and finally the breakthrough on net neutrality are all successes to be lauded.  They were diligent, tireless and skillful at understanding the system, and that bore fruit.  Ultimately, those resolutions have little more than symbolic value.  The attempt to restore pre-primary delegate caucuses failed, but there was a concession on opening the filing process, and most important, small-d democratic processes were respected and seen through.  That the Party Chair felt the need to make several statements regarding a 58-county strategy and financial matters shows that there is an understanding that members have some serious concerns about resource allocation.  This is a major victory for those who would like to see their spot on the map receive the care and attention they feel it needs.  The Finance Chair, Erik Bradley, made every effort to welcome new voices into the process.  He is seeking people in every county for low-donor events and input on spending money in those counties, and everyone should take him up on it instead of privately grumbling.

I think everyone should be pleased with the way in which the CDP is better reflecting the views and concerns of its constituents, and how Democrats of all stripes are getting involved from inside the tent to make the party more effective and responsive.  Aside from one ill-timed comment from the Chairman about “the blogs,” I’m pleased with how things went.

The merged resolution that came out of negotiations between the Progressive Caucus and the Labor Caucus (specifically Brad Parker of PDA and Jim Gordon of CWA) yielded a very favorable document that was passed through the Resolutions Committee.  In addition, a resolution in support of parole and sentencing reform passed the committee and is on its way to passage.  There’s definitely a different feeling at this meeting; because it’s not as high-profile as a convention, the hard work of progressive activists is being rewarded.  I think that the whole resolutions process is a SYMBOLIC exercise that gives you a sense of where the rank and file of the party is going ideologically, and certainly it’s becoming more progressive.  There’s still a lot of work to be done to turn that symbolism into some real action; it involves making in-roads in county committees and building a progressive bench.  But I think some of the old guard are worried (more on that later).

The new net neutrality language, which I think offers some excellent framing devices, on the flip:

Support of Affordable High Speed Internet for America and Internet Neutrality (it’s actually Network Neutrality –ed.)

WHEREAS to secure the rights of assembly, and free speech online, which are guaranteed by the Constitution and encourage new innovative American businesses to flourish , Americans are entitled to and require open, equal and impartial Internet access; we need high speed internet for our homes, schools, hospitals and workplaces to grow jobs and our economy; enable innovations in telemedicine, education, public safety and government services; foster independence for people with disabilities and strengthen democratic discourse and civic participation and;

WHEREAS the United States – the country that invented the Internet – has fallen from first to sixteenth in internet adoption; US consumers pay more for slower speeds than people in other advanced nations; millions of Americans, especially in rural and low income areas do not have access to affordable, high speed broadband; then United States alone among the advanced nations has no national, Internet policy; the US definition of “high speed” at 200 kilobytes per second (kbps) is too slow and has not changed in nine years: the US and California collections of broadband data does not tell us what we need to know about broadband deployment, adoption, speeds and prices and consumer and worker protections must be safeguarded on high speed networks and;

WHEREAS the growth of a free and open Internet has provided historic advances in the realms of democracy, free speech, communications, research and economic development; California and US consumers are entitled to and require open, unfettered access to the lawful Internet content of their choice without interference by any entity, public or private; build out of universal, high speed, high capacity networks will promote an open Internet by eliminating bandwidth scarcity;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party endorses national,  state and local policies to promote affordable, high speed broadband for all with strong protections for consumers and the workers who build, maintain and service those networks; and a national goal for universal access and deployment of network capable of delivering 10 megabytes per second downstream and 1 megabyte per second upstream by the year 2010 and the California Democratic Party supports federal and state initiatives to improve data collection on high speed broadband deployment, adoption, speed and prices as a necessary first step; upgrading the current definition of high speed to 2 megabytes per second downstream, 1 megabyte per second upstream and policies that promote public programs to stimulate build out of high speed networks to all home and businesses in the nation and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party in order to promote vigorous free speech, a vibrant business community, and unfettered access to all information on the Internet, supports policies to preserve an open, neutral and interconnected Internet; protect against any degradation or blocking of access to any websites for content on the Internet and insure consumers have the right to free email; encourages build out of high speed networks to all homes and businesses so that everyone can go where they want and upload or download what they want on the Internet as a public utility maintained by union workers.

Submitted by the
Labor Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party

Let me just say that I think this resolutions thing is a much ado about nothing.  More than anything it is instructive for how the party responds to its rank-and-file.  Nevertheless, I’m here, and so your intrepid blogger will follow it for you.

But first of all, let me make a couple remarks about Art Torres’ comments in the general session.  I’m disappointed and annoyed that he resorted to blaming “the blogs” for criticism that the Party received after the last convention, as part of some comments that he made justifying the CDP’s efforts to compete statewide.  It’s an unfair and deliberately vague characterization.  What blogs?  Which bloggers?  Is there anything specific?  And can you say with a straight face that the ONLY or even the main people to take issue with various matters that happened at the convention are bloggers?  The rank-and-file grassroots wrote those resolutions.  The rank-and-file grassroots had the problems with how they were handled in the resolutions committee.  They had the issues with the quorum call.  They led the fight to create an Audit Committee and the resultant fallout.

We REPORTED it.  And I stand behind my belief that reporting the facts and making opinions on policies and events are NOT personal attacks.  It’s a convenient excuse to blame “mean dirty hippie bloggers” for every criticism ever leveled at the Party.  People have substantive questions, and blogs are one way, and really one of the smaller ways, for people to express those questions.  I think that, at least on this site, there was an extremely healthy debate about the convention fallout, and it’s simply unfair for Torres to lash out in that way.

I will add that the fact that Torres felt the need to defend himself, and defend the Party’s goal of electing Democrats statewide and implementing a 58-county strategy, is a win in itself.  I think we all want to work to that end; it’s certainly a major part of what we do here at Calitics.  You can quote me on that, Art.  By name.

I’ll toss some notes about the Resolutions Committee in the extended entry.

So far, not much has really happened.  The Iraq resolution (the real sticking point at last year’s convention) is being worked on through Karen Bernal on the sidelines.  Still waiting on the only resolutions that interest me, one on parole and sentencing reform, and the merged net neutrality resolution.

So I typed up a long transcript of the debate in the Labor Caucus on the two competing net neutrality resolutions, but the computer ate it.  So let me summarize.

When we last left our story at the CDP convention, the various net neutrality resolutions were referred to the Labor Caucus.  The caucus officers got together and put together a resolution that merged some of the elements of the other ones.  The chair of the Caucus is Jim Gordon, a member of CWA (Communications Workers of America).  Now, CWA has been pushing an astroturf campaign called “Speed Matters,” which advocates for building out high-speed networks by reserving a piece of the bandwidth for proprietary video services for the telecoms.  That is ludicrous, and a wormhole into overturning the principle of net neutrality and a completely open Internet for everyone. 

So Brad Parker, of Progressive Democrats of America, submitted a different resolution, one that demands equal access and no two-tiered structure on the Internet, where telecoms can extract payment in return for speedy content delivery.  And in the Labor Caucus this morning, both proposals were heard and a compromise position is in the process of being reached.  This is good news.  The caucus rank-and-file was clearly in support of equal access and net neutrality, and not for reserving any special services for telecoms.  Jim Gordon’s defense was that “if we don’t build out the Internet, it’ll tumble.”  Right, because they’re standing in bread lines at AT&T.  We all believe that it’s pathetic that the United States is 16th in connectivity in the world, but we do not believe that telecoms need another revenue stream to incentivize them to build it.  Indeed, the calcification of our connectivity is a DIRECT result of the laws being written for the benefit of telecoms who have no reason to innovate.  The Internet is the lifeblood of communication in America, and it cannot be controlled in any part by private interests, it should be like a public utility.

At the meeting, a compromise was reached, and the two competing resolutions (both endorsed by the Labor Caucus) is being merged into one.  Brad Parker is writing the new resolution and is confident that the bit about “reserving a portion of the bandwidth” will be struck out.  The people of the CDP have spoken, and I believe we will come out with a resolution we can all get behind.  I found that when you explain this issue in clear terms, people understand it.  It’s a free speech and free press.

Back at our hotel in Sacramento with hekebolos after the first day of the executive board meeting of the CDP.  I spent most of my time in the Progressive Caucus, and since Donald Lathbury of the California Majority Report had his laptop with him and I didn’t, I’ll outsource the running commentary to him.

I will say that the caucus was once again the most well-attended, most organized group in the CDP, and I sense that people there are growing more confident in their ability to make real change happen within the party.  There have been setbacks, no doubt, but they continue on.

I will say something about the net neutrality debate tomorrow.  Brad Parker from PDA (Progressive Democrats of America), as I mentioned, will be debating Jim Gordon, chair of the Labor Caucus and a member of CWA (Communications Workers of America), tomorrow morning.  I’ll be liveblogging.  But the outcome of that debate, while entertaining, is irrelevant to what will happen tomorrow.  There will be two resolutions in the Resolutions Committee – one by Brad Parker, and one by Jim Gordon.  I haven’t seen the text of either, but I can safely assume that Parker’s supports the principle of a free and open Internet without discriminating against any content provider, no matter how big or small, while Gordon’s talks about “building out broadband access” and implicitly endorses the telecoms getting additional revenue streams by forcing content providers to pay them for high-speed access.  As Parker put it today, “broadband for the haves, and dial-up for the never-wills” is what the telecoms want.

So this will play out tomorow in resolutions, and Brian will have the inside scoop, I assume.  Meanwhile, Elizabeth Edwards will address the general session at 9:30 am tomorrow.

And on an unrelated note, our hotel is hosting the largest anime convention in Sacramento.  I’m the only one here without an oversized sword and a lion costume.  Hekebolos has his on right now.

UPDATE: I should mention that there was an informal and highly unscientific Presidential straw poll at the Progressive Caucus, and Edwards won overwhelmingly.

The results: Gravel 0, Dodd 0, Biden 1, Clinton 2, Undecided 6, Richardson 10, Obama 12, Kucinich 17, Gore 27, and Edwards 47.

With 16 months to go before Election Day, some Democratic challengers are getting a little more visible in their efforts to unseat Republican incumbents.  I see good news at the very top of the target list, and elsewhere we’re still waiting to see who will run.  Let’s focus on the top 10 races where a Republican is currently serving, knowing that we are still going to have a fight in CA-11 to re-elect Jerry McNerney (although that probably won’t be against Guy Houston, who may be on trial for fraud at the time).

So let’s take a look at the top 10 challenges.  I’m going to rank them in order of most possible pickup, including their number from the last roundup.  I’m also adding the “Boxer number.”  Basically, seeing how Boxer fared in her 2004 re-election against Bill Jones in a particular district is a decent indicator of how partisan it is.  If I put “57,” that means Boxer received 57% of the vote.  Anything over 50, obviously, is good. (over)

1) CA-04 (Doolittle).  Last month: 1.  Boxer number: 40.  Everyone that Rep. John Doolittle has ever known or worked with is currently talking to the FBI.  The sense is that it’s just a matter of time.  His newfound antiwar stance didn’t translate into a vote for responsible redeployment yesterday; it was all talk.  Charlie Brown (who has a spiffy new website) has released a comprehensive national security plan that is a good read.  I have not seen him release any full Q2 fundraising numbers just yet, but given that he’s one of only two spotlighted candidates on Blue Majority, I’m sure they’ll be solid.  We do know that he raised over $45,000 on ActBlue with almost 1,000 contributors.  That’s significant.

2) CA-26 (Dreier).  Last month: 2.  Boxer number: 48.  The more I hear about this race, the more I like it.  I think this should be the number one target for Southern California progressives.  Dreier is lashed to Bush (and in his case Giuliani) like everybody else in the California caucus; but he’s got a swing district and a real challenger.  Russ Warner, who ran last time, announced that he raised around $100,000 in the 2nd quarter, and has over $150,000 cash on hand.  According to the press release, “Warner has more money on hand at this early stage of the campaign than all but one Democratic nominee has ever raised and spent against David Dreier in the entire general election since he was first elected to Congress in 1980.”  This account of Warner shows that he is getting local coverage, and the fact that he has the endorsement of Hilda Solis is a major coup.  That his son is serving a tour in Iraq right now adds an emotional appeal.

There is at least one other challenger who’s raising money at a decent clip.  Hoyt Hilsman also has $150,000 CoH after having loaned his campaign $100,000 personally.  Hilsman is an author and a professor.

3) CA-24 (Gallegly).  Last month: 3.  Boxer number: 47.  It’s still retirement watch for Elton Gallegly.  He has $800,000 in the bank, which would presume a run.  But he had $1.1 million in the bank two years ago, when he retired and then clumsily returned to the race.  We know at least 3 people are mounting a run against him; 2006 opponent Jill Martinez, 2004 opponent Brett Wagner, and my friend and fellow delegate Mary Pallant.  Richard Francis, a prominent lawyer, has also made a little noise about running.  So the sharks are circling and waiting to see what Gallegly will do.

4) CA-50 (Bilbray).  Last month: 5.  Boxer number: 48.  The fact that there are three legitimate challengers to Brian Bilbray shows that there is some Democratic activism within the district.  Our San Diego correspondent Lucas O’Connor has given us this account of Michael Wray’s efforts at outreach to Democrats.  John Lee Evans and Nick Leibham are also making the rounds in the district.  As for Brian Bilbray, we do know that he hates brown people and he bottles his own beer.  I don’t know if he’s committed a firing offense, though certainly there’s a pro-Bush voting record opponents can highlight.

5) CA-41 (Lewis).  Last month: 3.  Boxer number: 43.  There’s also a retirement watch of sorts here, as we all wait and see if Robert Novak’s report that Lewis won’t seek re-election is true.  We also learned this week that Lewis is dedicated to helping his constituents in Washington, DC, where he requested a $500,000 earmark for a Metro station that would be three blocks from his Capitol-area home.  That could be turned into a defining issue in an election.  There are rumblings that it would be best for Republicans to urge Lewis to retire, so of course they won’t do it.  There is still no word on whether attorney Tim Prince will jump into this race, at least that I’ve heard.

6) CA-44 (Calvert).  Last month: 8.  Boxer number: 45.  The next of the “corruption boys” of the GOP, Calvert is in trouble over a recent grand jury ruling that showed a city government agency illegally sold him and other investors a four-acre parcel of land a few years back.  He doesn’t seem deterred by it, and really the grand jury ruled against the government agency and not him.  This is absolutely a district where we should run someone strong.  A recent report showed that Riverside County is poised to become the second-largest in the state, behind only Los Angeles County.  Democrats need visibility there in a big way.  Defenders of Wildlife is running ads against Calvert, so they obviously see some vulnerabilities there.

7) CA-42 (Miller).  Last month: 6.  Boxer number: 41.  Gary Miller rounds out the GOP corruption boys.  It’s such a Republican seat that just making him spend money will be a win.  Not much to report this month.

8) CA-45 (Bono).  Last month: 8.  Boxer number: 49.  I would love to have more to say about this race, but sadly, I don’t.  She is apparently one of Washington’s most eligible bachelorettes.  That’s all I’ve got for ya.

9) CA-25 (McKeon).  Last month: 9.  Boxer number: 45.  McKeon, the ranking Democrat Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, railed against the recent passage of an increase in the Pell Grant to make college more affordable for our best an brightest.  Yeah, because that would be terrible.  I would love to see someone challenge this guy.

10) CA-52 (open seat).  Last month: 10.  Boxer number: 44.  Despite it being an open seat, I still don’t expect to see anyone beating Duncan Hunter’s son while he’s serving in Iraq.