Each January, during our national commemorations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we are reminded of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the freedom rides, the Birmingham campaign, the 1963 March on Washington, and the events in Selma. Little emphasis, however, is placed on Dr. King's commitment, expressed most explicitly at the end of his life, to securing human and economic rights for all people--African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and poor Whites. Perhaps we omit the latter because we prefer to embrace the mythical, symbolic Dr. King we have created, the "gentle, nonviolent martyr for civil rights," as opposed to the fierce freedom fighter that he was. Yet it bears remembering that Dr. King was a courageous man who was arrested dozens of times, who was stabbed by a mentally ill person, who was spied on by the FBI, and whose home was bombed. Despite these risks, he was outspoken and steadfast in his efforts to dismantle the racial hierarchy created by Jim Crow racism and the hierarchy of economic privilege created by an exploitative capitalist system. Perhaps we neglect the fullness and revolutionary nature of Dr. King's legacy during our celebrations because in our "feel good" society we prefer to focus on past success and progress as opposed to the hard work that remains to be done....

... In some ways, the Occupy Wall Street protesters resemble the civil rights activists of the 1950s and 1960s. Like them, the OWS protesters are mostly young--though some are older. They are also optimistic and are able to imagine this country as it ought to be, as opposed to as it is. Unfortunately, like the protesters of the 1960s, they have also been subject to crackdowns by law enforcement personnel and other governmental officials who are perhaps overly fearful and intolerant of civil unrest and disobedience. But while there may be similarities, in many ways, the OWS movement is different--and if not different, then curious--in at least two ways that merit greater reflection. ...

From the abstract:  
The stated goal of the nation's largest workfare program, New York City's "Work Experience Program" (WEP), is to provide welfare recipients with adequate training and relevant job experience so that they can successfully compete for work in the private sector. When it became apparent that the program was not living up to its stated ideals, the workfare workers began a union organizing drive late in 1996. However, the city administration formally opposed the unionization campaign on economic grounds and by arguing that workfare workers were not employees per se. In this article, I argue that workfare workers are a type of contingent public sector employee, discuss and analyze the New York City WEP worker unionization campaign and provide recommendations how this drive could have used the idea that workfare workers are contingent public sector employees in pursuit of a potentially more successful outcome.

In the past decade, domestic workers have created a robust worker movement and sustained organizing in states like New York and California, as well as nationally and internationally....

The success of domestic worker organizing in the twenty-first century may seem like an anomaly against the backdrop of increased hostility towards unionized labor and an overall decline in wages and benefits for workers. The contemporary domestic worker movement, beginning in the 1990s, builds upon centuries of organizing and agitation by domestic workers and others for a cultural shift that values domestic labor as real work. The current movement fundamentally alters past organizing models, linking the struggle to a broader movement for social justice. Unlike past organizing efforts, domestic workers are at the helm of the contemporary movement. They have made significant strides, through their leadership and visibility, moving the cultural paradigm and building a broad-based alliance with labor, social justice activists, faith-based organizations, women's groups, and students. Using a historical lens, this article analyzes the contemporary domestic worker movement's success and momentum in transforming cultural attitudes toward favoring the legal protection of domestic workers....

... [T]he fundamental problem with our economy is the same: a lack of consumer demand means substantial investment and hiring in the U.S. are often irrational from a business perspective. The nation's sky-high unemployment and underemployment rates are the biggest immediate cause of the anemic demand. But a closer look at the long-term trends underlying consumer spending power suggests another, less recognized culprit lurking in the weeds: union busting.

To understand how a decades-long legacy of union busting is making our recovery harder, consider the role that organized labor has traditionally played in ensuring that working people - who make up most consumers -- receive a larger share of the economy's gains and thus have money to spend consuming. Unions bargain collectively for better wages and benefits for their members. But unions also raise compensation for workers they don't represent: a recent study by professors Bruce Western and Jake Rosenfeld finds that by scaring non-union employers into raising wages to avoid unionization, promoting norms of fair pay, and lobbying for public policies that raise wages, unions substantially boost compensation for non-union employees in addition to their own members.

...An analysis of union elections from 1999 to 2003 revealed that when workers attempted to organize a union, 96 percent of employers mounted a campaign against their effort. Three quarters of employers hired outside consultants....