Pride at Work’s latest stunt infiltrating the Westin St. Francis is now a YouTube sensation, generating over 35,000 hits yesterday.  It was featured on two local evening news shows, the progressive webzine Common Dreams, and the LGBT blog Towleroad – and on countless Facebook pages.  But besides being a fun video, it deftly shows how activists can adapt to new ways of getting their message out.  Mass rallies are much less effective today than they were in the Sixties, but too often progressives want to re-live this era by using the same tools and expecting a different result.  People don’t get their news from just a few channels anymore, so it’s possible to have a march with thousands of people with little effect.  Today, ideas catch fire and take hold through online social networks.  “Caught in a Bad Hotel” was not the first YouTube flashmob, but it was the first one with a political purpose. And hopefully, it won’t be the last.

In Taking On the System, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas made a point that I’ve been thinking a lot over the past two years.  Whatever era they live in, activists must adapt to the most effective medium to get their message across.  In the 1920’s and 30’s, Gandhi used newsreels to show how the British were exploiting his people.  Martin Luther King used television to cover civil rights marches, and to capture the hateful response from Southern law enforcement.  But today, people get their news in a far more fragmented way – on the Internet, through their friends, on Facebook and in silly YouTube videos.

I argued this point yesterday on (where else?) my Facebook page, but not everyone was convinced.  The video was fun, but how do we know it will be effective at getting people to boycott the Westin St. Francis?

A friend responded with this point: “It will be seen by a lot more people than your average – ‘what do we want and when do we want it’ protest – because as much as I am pro union and will support boycotts, I don’t forward info on every single boycott because seriously, nobody would read my reports if I did.  I saw the YouTube video and then saw that the Palace Hotel was part of the boycott list and canceled my reservations for tea at the Garden Room. I probably would not have found out about the boycott if it wasn’t entertaining enough to go viral, and I definitely wouldn’t have posted it in my [Facebook] status and then five of my friends probably wouldn’t have posted in theirs …”

In the 21st Century, people spend a lot of time online – and a huge amount on Facebook, talking to their friends and procrastinating.  A fun YouTube video can go viral, because you’re reaching people where they’re at – and it’s easy for them to post it on their page.

As far as getting “bang for your buck,” Pride at Work hit a home run.  They didn’t have to mobilize a huge number of people, the whole action took 5 minutes and nobody got arrested.  How many times can you say that – and get that amount of media coverage?

Could Pride at Work have done a similar direct action without YouTube or Facebook?  Of course, but no one would have seen it – unless they happened to be in the Westin St. Francis at the time, or activists were lucky to get reporters present – never a sure thing.  

And while onlookers in the hotel appeared supportive (activists handed out flyers during the flashmob about the hotel boycott), it can be difficult convincing an apolitical tourist who already paid for their room to check out of the hotel in solidarity.  By broadcasting it on YouTube and generating a viral campaign, more will hear about it and not stay there.

We won’t know how effective “Caught in a Bad Hotel” will be until Gay Pride weekend, when thousands of LGBT tourists come into town.  The Westin St. Francis was targeted in part because a lot of them stay there that weekend.  Pride at Work used the Lady Gaga theme to let them know they are welcome in San Francisco, but don’t stay at a “bad hotel.”  Getting a plug yesterday in Towleroad was very helpful, because the popular blog on gay politics and culture is based in New York.

“Caught in a Bad Hotel” didn’t just make me happy because it’s a fun video.  It made me hopeful that creative activists can use this medium to more effectively get their message out.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

What do you get when you combine good old direct action tactics, a boisterous hotel boycott and a Lady Gaga hit?  

A YouTube flashmob called “Caught in a Bad Hotel.”  On May 8th, San Francisco Pride at Work teamed up with One Struggle One Fight and the Brass Liberation Orchestra in a direct action to urge a boycott of the Westin St. Francis on Union Square.  Workers at the hotel have been fighting for a fair union contract that includes decent wages and healthcare benefits, and are now calling on the community to boycott the Westin St. Francis, along with other downtown hotels.  

Besides being a very fun and enjoyable video, this kind of protest is far more effective than the standard demonstrations that liberal San Francisco has gotten used to.  In Taking On the System, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas argues that political activists must adapt to the technology of their era.  Gandhi used newsreels shown in movie theaters, Sixties protesters used the mass street protest — which was effective at the time, because everyone only watched 3 channels and getting Walter Cronkite on your side could move the country.  Today, with our decentralized media and more people online, YouTube flash-mobs are the direct action of the future.

This 5-minute video is one of the funnest political protests I’ve ever seen.  As one participant later said, “it’s more fun to protest with the gays, cause we’ve got the attitude and we know how to dance.”  For more details, check out http://www.sfprideatwork.org

For SEIU, It’s Still About Rules Being Broken:



When the trial started two weeks ago, it was clearly stated what this was all about. It was about rules, the dangers of thinking you can be above them, and the consequences for then refusing to follow them. In his opening arguments, Gary Kholman, attorney for the 150,000 members that were abandoned by Rosselli and his co-defendants, told the jury that he will lay out evidence that showed how the defendants, in reaction to “constitutional mandates” placed upon them by the international, began to plot and put into motion a set of premeditated actions in response. The sole purpose of these actions by the defendants was to pilfer the union’s treasury, hijack the local’s valuable information network, and ultimately steal members away and put them into a new organization with shady beginnings. In the two weeks that followed those opening statements by Mr. Kholman, witness after witness after witness came forward to testify. They told how they were recruited to either lie to and cheat members out of due representation, or how they were intimidated into cooperation. Mountains of documents, many from the defendants’ own hands, were put into evidence. We read secret e-mails, task lists, minutes and notes of meetings, correspondence, and watched videos that showed the evolution of this “great plan” of these 26 OUTSIDERS that sought to destroy our union of over eighty years.

In his closing arguments today, Kholman again reminded the jury what this has always been about rules and consequences. These defendants always had three honorable options before them;

–         Accept the rules and abide by them

–         Work within the system to change the rules

–         Leave the organization

Instead, they chose a fourth, dishonorable option, to defy the rules and breach the rules that govern our union. The means they used to reach that end were equally dishonorable! Taking members’ dues monies off the books into a secret slush fund, pirating our confidential information into a shadow database, and creating secret groups that held clandestine meetings. Appalling as that is, the worst offense they made against us was to lie to us and then recruit us as pawns in their sinister scheme.

In society, and the organizations within them, rules are what bind us together and keep  us from falling into chaos. Regardless how one felt about the 2000 Bush v Gore election drama, it was because rules were in place that an “orderly transition” occurred from one president to the next. Hard as it may have been for Gore to accept the result, can you imagine what shambles our democracy would be put into if he had decided to not accept or abide by it and instead conspired to have the “blue states” secede? That’s what Rosselli and the others are trying to do.

For NUHW, It’s Still About Distraction and Distortion:

Two weeks ago Dan Siegel, attorney for Rosselli and his co-defendants, chose to talk about what this trial was NOT about. He wanted to talk about Andy Stern, his salary and a book he wrote. He wanted to preach about democracy and tyranny. He told us how his clients’ actions were “motivated by patient care.” These attempts to distract the jury only got him stiff admonishments from the judge who then instructed him to follow the rules. Throughout the trial, he offered no evidence to refute our claims against his clients…only spin. He put forth witnesses that proudly verified claims of violent actions, then insinuated the victims were to blame. On the stand, his clients broke down, and Rosselli himself became as nervous as a “sinner in church!”

In his closing arguments today, Siegel offered nothing new…only spin. He spoke about gazing at the stars and pondered the horoscope signs they formed. He dipped his feet into various conspiracy theories like the government’s involvement in 9-11 and the CIA’s role in the Kennedy assassination. From this, he gathered that SEIU our union of over eighty years, is like Iran. He defended his clients’ obstructive actions as mere “expression,” saying they cannot be held accountable for them, but then referred to them as “terrible conspirators.”  Mr. Siegel obviously has never stepped foot in any of our facilities, this much was evident when he had the nerve to ask “Did anything horrible really happen?”  The answer to that Mr. Siegel, YES!!! Ask any of the 150,000 members your clients left behind.

With both sides resting their cases, a milestone has been reached in the federal lawsuit against ousted SEIU-UHW President Sal Rosselli and his 25 co-defendants. The case is being tried in federal court in San Francisco before U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup.

Ms. “Ungovernable Situation” Takes The Stand:



Barbara Lewis, author of the now infamous “Ungovernable Situation” memo, which plotted out leaving our union in chaos after they were ousted from power, took the stand. From her we learned how she spent $41, 871 at Kinko’s to print decertification petitions. When asked if she put her staff on “Code Orange,” she replied that she could not recall. However, a January 22, 2009 memo was shown where she instructed trusted staff to:

–     Always be accessible by phone

–     Not to plan for any sleep – OUCH!

–     Be on 24 hour standby

And yes, she did say “Code Orange.” She was asked if as high ranking officer of UHW how she felt about trusteeship being imposed to which she said very saddened by the whole situation. Mr. Kohlman then showed a video clip where she called it “A great day for our union.” Ooops.



“Define Forming”

NUHW co-founder John Borsos was one of the final witnesses in the case. Despite his lack of recollect, the jury was shown a memo where lawyers advised him to “lay low” about active resistance to the international. He was told to “launder” it through an intermediary. At one point Mr. Kohlman asked him if one still works for one union and uses the resources of that union to start forming a new union, would he consider that stealing. His answer “depends on how you define forming.” He then insisted that despite the similarities between this case and the Colcord case of 2005, it’s a different situation. Different, apparently, because he’s the one on the hot seat.

(Colcord case: In 2005 three organizers while still employed by UHW used union resources such as the member database among other stuff to form a new union to organize EMT workers at AMR. Rosselli and UHW sued the three and won a judgment against them. In this trial, UHW makes the same claim, that Rosselli and the other defendants used UHW resources to form NUHW while they were still the top officers/employees of UHW.)

Tomorrow we will hear the closing arguments and the judge will give the jury instructions they will use for their deliberations.

STATE SEN. Mark Leno has represented the Marin/Sonoma 3rd District for only a short time, but might be interested in trading in that seat for the mayor’s job in San Francisco. There are many variables that could get in the way.

More over the flip…

Leno would be eligible to run for a second four-year term in 2012. However, he could be campaigning in different ZIP codes when the district lines are redrawn next year as a result of the decennial census-taking. These will be determined by a newly created nonpartisan commission that stripped the Legislature of this power with passage of Proposition 11.

When that work is done, Leno’s district, which presently includes a portion of San Francisco, could be moved entirely north of the Golden Gate or possibly reoriented south of the city to exclude Marin and Sonoma entirely.

It could also remain unchanged – a result which Leno would prefer – since he received 80 percent of the general election vote after a very contentious primary that ousted former Senator Carole Migden in what is a very safe Democratic district.

Apparently Leno’s interest in City Hall was bolstered by a recent San Francisco Chamber of Commerce survey of nine wannabe candidates which showed him coming in first. Until now fellow state Sen. Leland Yee had been leading in the early polls.

When asked how serious these ambitions are, Leno responded, “It is way off in the future and I love representing the people in Marin and Sonoma.”

Any plans he may have will be further complicated by several possible scenarios all of which involve Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to run for lieutenant governor.

Were Newsom to win in the primary, and then in November beat the sitting lieutenant governor, most likely Republican Sen. Abe Maldonado, assuming the Assembly confirms him, an interim mayor would have to be either appointed or elected to serve out the year remaining in Newsom’s term.

The guessing game is in full swing as to who that might be with the incumbent thereby getting a strong handle up in the next election.

Former Mayor Willie Brown is mentioned as the safest choice since he cannot run for another term. Another alternative might be the appointment of Board President David Chiu, as acting mayor providing he could muster six votes besides his own.

The principal beneficiary of a Leno Administration would be San Rafael Assemblyman Jared Huffman, who is termed out in 2012 and will no doubt be eying the state Senate.

But were Leno to lose his bid for mayor, since he does not have to surrender his seat to run, he could face Huffman who he would consider his strongest opponent in a re-election race.

The last piece of this musical chairs puzzle revolves around Rep. Lynn Woolsey’s plans. Were she to decide to retire, that seat would be an immediate prize with both Huffman and Leno potential contenders.

For now, Leno plans on becoming better known in his district. Although their future paths could tangle, he and Huffman enjoy a close working relationship and are providing North Bay voters with a double punch that is the strongest in years.

In my next column I take a closer look at Leno’s track record and his stances on controversial issues such as Marin Clean Energy (he is strongly in favor), and the state’s fiscal mess.

With SF Mayor Gavin Newsom now officially running for Lt. Gov, this could make a significant difference for that race as well as the future of San Francisco’s governance:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s idea of holding a special election to name his successor if he’s elected lieutenant governor appears to be DOA.

Newsom doesn’t have the six votes on the Board of Supervisors needed to place a charter amendment on the November ballot to require an election, and there doesn’t appear to be much interest downtown for an expensive and rushed petition to get the 47,000 signatures needed to go around the supes. (SF Chronicle)

Thing is, this is ultimately a good government measure. People should get the right to vote for their mayor, but as Supervisor Chris Daly pointed out, they should also get the right to vote for their Supervisor.  I think they would likely get a good chunk of support for a measure that allowed for special elections for both offices.  However, I don’t think that option is on the table.  So, we work with the system that we have got. It may not be perfect, but it generally works.

Of course, this leaves a problem for Mayor Newsom. Much of his base of support will only support him if he can ensure that he won’t be replaced by a mayor significantly to his left.  And with a majority of the Board of Supervisors being to his left, that seems to be the likely scenario.  Under the State Law, if he won LG, he would take office on Jan 3, 2011, and any new board of Supervisors wouldn’t be seated until Jan 8, 2011. Thus, any gains made by “moderates” in the 2010 board elections won’t affect the Mayoral appointment. The current board is the board that chooses Newsom’s replacement.

So, that leaves Newsom one option to win back his friends, bump back his swearing-in date.  At this point it is far from clear if that is possible, and to do so for the sole purpose of affecting his replacement would certainly look hyper-political. And it would likely leave a bad taste in the mouths of San Franciscans.

Of course, there is an option in the LG race as well. In order to get to the general, Newsom will have to defeat Janice Hahn: whom we found impressive in an interview in November.  Newsom has an early lead in polling that he spread around before entering the race.  However, that almost certainly reflects name ID more than anything else.  

Hahn faces an uphill climb, and it is unclear whether she can raise enough money to raise her name ID up enough to compete with Newsom.  On a related note, she’s filed an FPPC complaint against Newsom for potentially exceeding voluntary spending limits and taking too much money from a few donors, saying that the Gov. campaign and the LG campaign should be considered one race. The outcome of that decision could also have serious ramifications for the LG race.

Yesterday, as I was heading down to SF’s Financial District, I was greeted at the MUNI station by a guy I now know to be Jarred Roussel, an organizer for the “March Against MUNI.” As he was hopping in and out of trains to announce the protest against MUNI, he passed out flyers and exclaimed how the muni drivers were sucking up all the money.  But, it seems that Roussel was a smidge uninformed, starting with his own purpose:

March Against Muni is most certainly not against Muni. (KALW News)

As Robert pointed out last weekend, It seems that the protest was something of a astroturf campaign against the transit workers.  The transit workers, who drive our public transportation and then get blamed because the traffic was bad, or that somebody on the bus was jerk.  But, in the end, it was labor who won this round:

“March Against Muni,” the odd amalgam of largely young, hip people deeply incensed at rude Muni drivers, paper Fast Passes, and other maladies were scheduled to have their big march through downtown today. But that’s not exactly what happened. Instead, an event occurred that their protest material seemed to decry as impossible: The Muni drivers showed up early.

Ten minutes before the marching portion of March Against Muni was set to commence, a far larger, louder, and more spirited contingent of Muni operators strode onto the scene, and drowned out the novice protesters’ wails. For those keeping score at home, the marching Muni drivers out-marched March Against Muni. And this was no mass movement; perhaps 200 drivers showed up compared to 50 to 100 March Against Muni folks. The lot of them would have fit in an articulated bus. (SF Weekly)

The transit workers had a clear message, it’s management’s fault. While that’s not totally accurate, it does tell a larger part of the story than the rambling series of misstatements coming out of the March Against Muni camp.  

MUNI has been crippled by underfunding for the last ten years. It has been plundered by the state during the incessant budget cuts, forcing it to make up the revenue subsidies in the form of fare hikes. It has been plundered by the Mayor and his allies, notably Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, in the form of “work orders” that take money away from transit and reassign it to places more opportune for one reason or another.

And yet now the same Supervisor Elsbernd who has supported the “work orders” is now pushing an anti-labor ballot measure attack against the transit workers. An interesting “square the circle” part of this? Former Newsom campaign advisor Eric Jaye has been brought on by the transit workers to fight the measure.

In the end, what MUNI needs more than anything else is a consistent revenue stream that is under constant attack from one source or another.  Elsbernd’s anti-labor populist attack, even if successful, only plays around the edges. It doesn’t address the root cause of MUNI’s problems, and really only would bring in a small portion of the money needed to fix muni.

Transit agencies all over the state are facing similar problems. Their budgets have been slashed and nobody is providing good answers on how we pay for one of the most vital engines of economic growth. We can either plan poorly attended marches to make broad misstatements, or we can seriously study the issue and find ways to make our infrastructure work again. I opt for the latter.

“I’m going to have all the [health care] negotiations around a big table.  And it will be televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.” – Barack Obama, 2008

2008 was the Year of Change – when voters ushered in a new progressive era.  But a year later, health care has been hijacked by extortionists – just so we can “cut a deal” to get 60 U.S. Senators.  In Sacramento, a back-room state budget deal likewise sold progressives down the river.  And in San Francisco, the City and Muni budgets were also made behind closed doors – letting the powerful still call the shots.  We can’t elect candidates who promise “change” – unless it also comes with a public and transparent decision-making process.

What’s Killing Health Care Reform?

Barack Obama always said “change” would only come if we demand it.  His campaign was inspiring because he said it was more than about himself.  Like FDR told activists in 1933 to “make me do it,” Obama would keep his volunteers engaged after the election – and would mobilize the base to help him, and make him pass a successful progressive agenda.

But we never had those health care negotiations on C-SPAN.  If we’d had, the grassroots could have followed what was going on and played a meaningful role.  Instead, Obama ignored the lessons of community organizing by letting the process play itself out the old Washington way – behind closed doors, where private insurance lobbyists have undue influence.

I don’t recall how or when single-payer was taken “off the table” – except that Senator Max Baucus said it was.  Without single payer, progressives focused on the public option – which although a compromise, could have held insurance companies accountable.  Everyone knew it was tough and compromise would happen, but we were supposed to be part of that decision.

And there was no way for the grassroots to remain engaged in an effective way – because none of the details of “compromise” were vetted in a public forum.  We instead had to rely on unsourced rumors in the news and blogs about whether the public option was still alive.  Now that it’s dead, we don’t know who killed it – because it was all done behind closed doors.

Consider what Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle back in January 2008 before the California primary.  After promising to put health care talks on C-SPAN, he explained that it “builds accountability in the system.  Now that Congressman is put on the spot.  I would not underestimate the degree to which shame is a healthy emotion, and that you can shame Congress into doing the right thing if people know what’s going on.”

Instead, Max Baucus wasted everyone’s time by drafting a “bi-partisan compromise” that even the Republican Senators he handpicked opposed.  Then, Harry Reid convened a “Gang of Ten” Democrats (5 progressives and 5 conservatives) to craft something that could get 60 votes.  That’s how we got the Medicare compromise, but Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson – who were in the Gang of Ten – backstabbed everyone by opposing it.  Incredibly, the White House then pressured Reid to cave into Lieberman’s tantrum.

What should they have done?  Call their bluff.  Over 51 Senate Democrats support the public option, so bring it to the Senate floor – and force Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln to filibuster it in broad daylight with Republicans.  Let the public see who’s obstructing change, and who should be blamed for it.  As long as Reid remains obsessed with getting 60 votes, these “Democrats” evade the responsibility of ever having to cast a “no” vote.  And of course, the insurance companies laugh all the way to the bank.

Sacramento: Two-Thirds Rule Leads to Faustian Bargains

We all know the problem in Sacramento.  California is a very blue state – so Democrats have permanent control of the legislature, but not enough to have the two-thirds required to pass a budget.  So the Republicans (who are more right-wing than Republicans in any other state) hold the budget hostage by refusing to vote for a single tax increase, even if the state has to make unconscionable budget cuts.  They have nothing to lose, and don’t get held accountable – because they are “the minority party” so don’t run the legislature.

But Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn’t help things, and inevitably the budget gets crafted by the “Big Five” – an extra-legal group that includes the Governor, Assembly Speaker, State Senate President and Minority Leaders in each house.  Democrats are outnumbered three-to-two, and none of their meetings are public.  Republicans won’t support any taxes at all, and don’t care if the state falls off a cliff.  As a result, we get the kind of budget that gets worse every year – and we don’t know why particular concessions were made.

Even worse, Democrats consistently get the blame – because virtually every legislator feels compelled to vote for the budget.  Meanwhile, most Republicans still vote “no.”

San Francisco: Supes Got Played Behind Closed Doors

I spent a lot of time this year at City Hall on budget matters – and nothing convinced me more about the folly of back-room deals.  Progressives have a majority on the Board of Supervisors, and if they stick together – while building bridges with “swing votes” like Sophie Maxwell and Bevan Dufty – can challenge a Mayor who has been disengaged, unwilling to work with progressives and dead-wrong on the City’s budget priorities.

Board President David Chiu’s performance at the May 6th Budget & Finance Committee was admirable, and showed the value of public meetings.  After grilling MTA Chief Nat Ford about the Muni budget, he made it clear that the Supervisors had seven votes to stop fare hikes and service cuts.  The mistake he made was to think the Mayor would negotiate in good faith.

One week later, the hope and promise that came out of that meeting was gone – with a backroom deal that barely improved the awful MTA budget.  Newsom got Chiu to go along based on a manufactured threat, and it didn’t help that Chiu was the lone progressive negotiating in the room.  John Avalos tried to salvage the situation, but by then it was too late.  An agreement had been reached.

When the Board tackled the City budget in June – combing through Mayor Newsom’s awful proposal – I expected the Supervisors to make substantive changes at the Budget Committee, using the spotlight of a public meeting to amend the budget.  And for a while, they were on the right track by taking the symbolic (but unprecedented) step of tinkering with the Interim Budget.  But with notable exceptions, little was changed in those Committee meetings to the Mayor’s proposal.

On July 1st, John Avalos and David Chiu concluded marathon budget negotiations with the Mayor’s Office – all behind closed doors.  The Budget Committee even started 10½ hours past schedule, because everyone was waiting for the deal.  When we learned all the details, it fell short of where we should have been.  Crucial programs were saved, but the Mayor’s Office still had five press secretaries – although a majority of Supervisors would surely vote to cut them.  But rather than do just that in a public meeting, it died a quiet death in Room 200.

It’s hard being a progressive – at the federal, state or local level – because you’re always fighting.  You were elected to bring social change, but our system of government allows the powerful to maintain a status quo.  That’s why it’s so important to push for an open and transparent process – to maximize public accountability when politicians undercut change.  If these decisions and votes are made out of the open, progressive officials can get more help from the media and grassroots activists to achieve the change that we need.

2008 was the Year of Change, when America elected Barack Obama and expanded the Democratic majorities in Congress.  We did not elect Olympia Snowe, Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson (none of whom were elected last year) to dictate our health care policy.  

California is a deep blue state, but we allow right-wing politicians who act more like Teabaggers than public servants to decide our budget.  And San Franciscans last year voted to keep a progressive Board of Supervisors, not to let the Mayor undercut them.

But when deals are made behind closed doors, progressives lose the levers of influence.  2009 was the year that backroom deals sank change.  In 2010, it’s time to let the sun shine in.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.