In an earlier era, labor unions had only themselves to rely on when engaging in bitter and violent battles with management, the police and company goon squads. That period, from the 1880s to the 1930s, seems like ancient history in today’s high tech, cell phone and media driven labor movement. These days self-help solidarity is only evoked during national elections when Democrats call for total union commitment to the party.

Times are a-changing. The LA labor movement, led by the mercurial Maria Helena Durazo, the head of LA County Federation of Labor, recently reached far back into the legacy of labor organizing with a citywide solidarity action. Between April 15 and 17, labor did something extraordinary: the entire breadth of unions in LA County collectively and successfully conducted “The March from Hollywood to the Docks.”

Designed to anchor labor solidarity, the march was also a launch for two years of coming intense wage and workplace negotiations involving almost 50% of the regional union membership. It sent a signal to management, key business associations and conservative politicians that they haven’t seen anything yet in terms of what the Federation is formulating to defend workplace rights, achieve wage gains and defend workers across the entire county.

The actions along Century Boulevard at LAX, combined with marches in support of the screen writers guild earlier this year and other recent labor activities, not only represented a monumental upgrade in labor cooperation, strategy and tactics, it drew in major support elements of the community at large. That has not always been the case. Labor for large periods was a house divided, with differing factions battling each other over resources and unionization strategy.

Indeed, the new labor movement in LA has transitioned beyond its hard-won stature as the vanguard labor force in the nation, into simultaneously being a pragmatic and effective political and labor coalition. It is now in the process of consolidating union power and workplace protections throughout the region while at the same time still pushing to bring other workers into middle-class wages. Recent actions to organize “rent-a-cops,” those grossly underpaid office building security guards, and the battle to get the private sector to recognize home health care workers, are among the most recent union drives.

Fundamentally, labor in LA has restructured its strategy to link middle class wages with regional growth and to force management in general across the region to enter into a pragmatic acknowledgment that labor peace is part of doing business. The April march, a triumph for Durazo, represented a European-scale grasp of what it takes to be a central player in LA’s future economic development.

Once it was endorsed by the Federation, the April mobilization saw a number of unions often at odds with each other -or more bluntly, with their leader, Ms. Durazo - not wanting to be left on the sidelines. Any labor leader caught “watching the procession on the sidewalk” might have faced the wrath of the broader membership. The march through the heart of LA with tens of thousands of union members and people from community support networks, probably forced the LA County Business Federation, the LA Chamber of Commerce and the powerful Central City Association, to spend as much time monitoring the historic action as did the federation itself. Hotel interests, manufacturers, the building industry association and media corporations, having tangled with labor in the recent past, were likely also keen observers of the march.

Hollywood to the Docks solidarity came in a time of other potentially disruptive factors to the movement beyond the coming wage negotiations, which will alone stretch even a united movement thin. A key challenge for labor is whether a supportive Mark Ridley-Thomas will be elected to the powerful LA County Board of Supervisors in the June election. Another test is The City of LA, specifically opposition to Mayor Villaraigosa’s proposals to eliminate hundreds of jobs this year to pay for more cops. Finally, the national elections will signal whether labor gets a Democratic break in organizing drives and in larger public policy issues, including federal attitudes toward public employee union contract issues.

Whatever the future challenges, if the solidarity of Hollywood to the Docks holds, LA and its economy are heading into interesting times.

The fact that the LAPD and Chief Bratton favor a ‘hands off policy’ in relation to those Angelenos sin papeles (without papers) is important in these days of tension, fascist policies against human rights and challenges to basic dignity in this society. Special Order 40 is the official policy of LA under which city staff, in particular LAPD officers, are not to become bogged down in demanding citizen status of any resident of this city.

What a breath of fresh air from that reactionary state on our eastern border, Arizona. There, policies are beyond racist, reverting to a period of open hostility against all Latina/os based solely on ethnicity. If you do not have total proof of citizenship, birth certificate, passport, green card and/or something that ‘looks good,’ Arizona authorities have the right to immediately schedule a meeting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with you.

Furthermore, a recent bill in the Arizona state legislature is designed to terminate Chicana/o Studies departments and classroom curriculum that advocates separatism. Books that are deemed ‘un-American’ by state cultural standards - which would most likely include my book, Barrio Urbanism, the first major book related to Chicana/os and city planning, and Rudy Acuna’s signature text, Occupied America - are apparently being readied for the burning pile. Gloria Andalusia’s Borderlands will most likely be number one on the target list.

Special Order 40 and LA’s immigration policy stands in direct contradiction to the irrational hysteria that has characterized Arizona’s legacy of racism in the modern era.

Why have the Chief and civic leaders adopted a humane policy against anti-immigrant bashing? A key factor is to reduce crime. The city needs to work with local residents to halt the street violence in working class neighborhoods. The LAPD needs allies and supporters, not enemies in the fight against entrenched gangs and predators. In addition, the city is neither responsible nor required to assume federal responsibilities in relation to international border issues.

Conversely, Arizona’s leaders persist in proving that they are overtly racist and anti- immigrant. I wonder if they think this is something ‘new’ for that state? Why legislators continue to bash the poor, spew hate against Latina/os, and one-up each other on draconian new laws, is beyond the logic of most Angelinos but is no mystery. The culture of that state has historically been strongly wedded to annihilation of “the other,” beginning with the destruction of First Nations followed by anti-unionism, protected hate speech and a history of overt racism against all minorities, legal or undocumented.

This period of economic decline only magnifies Arizona’s tried and true nativist bashing of immigrants - which fractures Latino families - and its cooperation with ICE to deport as many Latina/os as possible. This has a long legacy in the Southwest during similar difficult economic periods. Arizona is reaching back, but not too far back, in attempting to influence Congress on the immigration controversy.

What are the consequences for Arizona? The most obvious one is that intelligent Latina/os are leaving the state, refusing to patronize commercial areas, and are seeking work out of the state. This will cause a dramatic decline of the existing labor pool, increase the cost to employers and force prices to rise in the midst of a recession. You can also predict a net loss of local consumer spending, a serious decline in minority commercial districts and a reduction in sales taxes statewide.

Great news for the Arizona economy and the state’s general fund.

These recent actions in Arizona starkly contrast with policies in LA and California. Although some cities - Fresno is a good example - do mimic Arizona, most of the state has resisted the ugly temptation of hate legislation targeting selected sectors of our society.

ICE, conversely, has reverted in LA and California to the regressive period of the 1960s and 1970s, with community sweeps targeting those notorious areas of danger: mercados, escuelas, jardins y autobuses (markets, schools, parks and buses). Terrible places of criminal activities and anti social environments. Why? To arrest mothers and children where they are most vulnerable. These despicable raids are designed solely for publicity and represent a direct attempt by the Bush Administration to punish California for its enlightened policy on acceptance of the reality of immigrants in this society.

ICE is dismayed that Californians recognize the interrelationships with minorities, in particular Latina/os and Asians immigrants, economically, socially and politically. Having been in the vanguard of the civil rights movement and the home of the Black Power and Chicana/o Power movements of the ‘60s ‘70s, California has adopted a mature vista toward multiculturalism in all its manifestations. Minorities have also recognized the important linkages with Euro-American liberals and moderates in the future of this state.

The state’s economy is historically wedded to a dependency on low wage labor. In addition, the expanding strength of California’s labor movement, of which County Fed leader Maria Elena Durazo is a beacon to both LA and the nation, is a key political point of pride.

The exemplary stance of LAPD in acknowledging the reality of immigrants as full partners in the civic culture of this city, offers a counter vision to the fascists in Washington DC who continue to pursue regressive policies against the human rights of all residents. In this instance civic culture, the expanding Latina/o majority, the acceptance of multiculturalism and respecting basic human rights, are a credit to both the city and the entire state.

Once in a while those coastal breezes do offer a breath of fresh air from the foul and vicious racism that still haunts amerika.

Editor's Note: This past week the LA City Council voted to give the Mayor's office full control over all of LA's gang programs for 18 months- a compromise experimental period that may or may not answer the questions raised here a few days before the vote by urban expert David Diaz.

LA City Controller Laura Chick’s recently released consultant report on gangs - which purports to restructure the entire logic of the City’s gang strategy - is a politically inspired document intended to cede funding and power to Mayor Villaraigosa. Why? is the real question.

The report, notable for its failings and contradictions, puts forward a key premise that is in reality false: that there has been a street level gang intervention unit, policy and emphasis in LA City. In fact, due to a combination of strident opposition by the LAPD, reluctance to fund programs in which gang leaders would be incorporated into a crisis reduction strategy, and fear of public opposition, the city has historically funded only those prevention or intervention programs that function on a conventional client by client basis.

The report fails on a number of issues. It is beyond credibility that the Controller claims that
“no new money” would be required to address gang related problems. Moreover, the assertion that the major’s office should be ceded total control, has no foundational evidence presented in the report, not even comparative supportive evidence from other US cities.
Irrationally, the consultants propose a “one size fits all” model for all future gang crisis teams to operate in the city. No one in the gang intervention business would ever suggest that Crips and Bloods in South Central, East LA gangs, Mid-City Marasalvatrucha and 18th Street, the now infamous Avenues, Northeast and Central San Fernando gangs, or Mar Vista cliques, could ever be shoe-horned into a standardized model of street crisis intervention.

Of course, there is the de rigor bashing of the LA Bridges youth intervention program -mainly because of its sizeable budget (sizable only relative to the meager funding for this type of intervention.). The consultants are hardly forthcoming in evaluating the magnitude of what the gang crisis might be had the Bridges program not existed over the past decade, or in allowing for the ten of thousands of youths who have been diverted from gang membership by the courageous staff of this program.

Called on the carpet by City Council Member Tony Cardenas at a recent highly polarized meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on Gang Violence (he is the chair), the consultants presented a phantom budget rather than a reasoned, specific level of funding. They alluded to $19 million as potential resources. Virtually all of these funds are already allocated. Moreover, many of the existing programs most likely would not be eliminated as the consultants suggested; not all of the funds are for gangs; other types of existing intervention and prevention programs would be devastated (further magnifying the crisis), and neither the Mayor nor the Controller could “guarantee” that these funds were actually available as initially indicated in the findings presented by the Controller’s office.

Incredibility, the Controller’s report also indicates that the proposed new so-called “Gang Czar” most likely will not be adequately funded at the inception of this restructured office. On page 16, the report clearly indicates that the office “will be forced to operate with limited, perhaps insufficient, resources....”’ Translation: a proposal designed to fail!

The consultants load this proposed office with a significant level of administrative responsibilities, including the irrational goal of terminating “all” - yes all – existing gang related contracts, then having them re-bid within six months. They also propose that the office will undertake the reorganization of more than a dozen different programs, will redesign contract criteria, and take on a range of other duties.

This is an impossible threshold, and without “sufficient resources” an inexcusably ridiculous set of goals for a short timeframe.

The recommendation to place funding, authority and policy directly under the Mayor’s office also flies in the face of Charter Reform, in which the voters clearly endorsed the separation of powers a scant eight years ago.

Remember that Chief Bratton was in New York under direct control of a mayor who fired him due to jealousy not competence. He is in LA only because the New York City Council had no power to defend him. Think future Gang Czar and future mayor, who may not be so keen on a controversial street gang crisis policy.

Which brings us to the political nature of the report and to the burning question: what does the City Controller owe the Mayor for such a sweetheart report? I have neither an answer nor a guess.

The report’s numerous contradictions, problems and irrationalities call into question the qualifications of the consultants retained for the report, Sjoberg-Evershank Consulting, Inc.. They appear to be a mid-level group of government auditors whose main focus has been counting dollars and cents for a range of bureaucratic entities. Recently they obtained a number of contracts from the city. Their level of work in social issues is notably weak, and that’s being generous. There is no indication of prior experience on gang intervention.

Yet Laura Chick selected them to reconstruct the entire logic of gang intervention in the second largest city in the nation with perhaps the most complex gang cultures anywhere in the developed world. How this crew miraculously became qualified gang experts is an open question, of which the report only indicates an acute lack of prior knowledge. Their “One Size Fits All” premise is only one of the clues to their ignorance.

The coupe de grace was delivered by the consultant’s very own gang expert, Jorpa Leap, Ph.D., UCLA, in her testimony before the Cardenas Committee. Paraphrasing Ms. Leap’s first statement: “We all recognize that the gang crisis requires a substantial increasing in funding and programs...” Now, that’s an expert talking reality. Why the city and Laura Chick wasted some half million bucks on amateurs rather than contract directly with a team led by Dr. Leap and other experts is an open question.

To their credit, Council Members Cardenas, Reyes, Hahn, Huizar and Wesson have refused to buy this irrational bill of goods. This debate, in the political vernacular, has legs.