I couldn't let Mayday pass without commenting on a film I had first seen several years ago. The title of this film is "Bread and Roses", and it depicts the fictionalized struggle of a group of janitors in Los Angeles to unionize. It thus takes its inspiration from the "Justice for Janitors" campaigns that arose almost 25 years ago, but introduces dramatic elements to make an appealing film that portrays a triumpth that is obtained against almost impossible odds.
As is typically the case with most films that deal with Latino life, it begins with the moment of crossing. Maya is smuggled across the border in a journey that, in light of the difficulties of contemporary crossings where the border has become increasingly militarized and the full weight of technology has been brought to bear, seems almost painless. It is still an arduous crossing carried out by dangerous individuals, but it isn't the odyssey that takes contemporary crossers through the scorching hot and barren terrains of Arizona and other border states, where casualty rates have risen dramatically.
The movie is premised on a series of conflicts that seem to succeed each other in rapid succession. Maya moves into her new job after having failed as a waitress and we get a chance to see working conditions that take a heavy spiritual toll. The supervisor or boss, played by George Lopez, is a loud and coarse and paternalistic individual, who browbeats his workers continually. He seems to fire workers almost at will, and revels in his power. While watching his performance I found it impossible to divorce it from his persona as the famous Chicano comedian who tells bitterly honest stories of his childhood, mainly because I don't wish to see him in the role of the "heavy". However, the dynamic is portrayed honestly, and the existence of abusive bosses who take advantage of their largely immigrant workforces is amply confirmed by experiences recounted to me by many friends and family members.
The revelations are paced according to the dictates of a movie that wishes to move the action along at a brisk pace. Maya quite frankly seems to seethe with rebellion, and yet she is tolerated by her boss who otherwise would not seem to tolerate any resistance. She takes the step and invites the labor organizer, Sam Shapiro, to come and address a group of workers that she gathers.
Their is a love triangle that somehow does not ring true. It is hard to believe that she and Sam could have a bout of flirtation, but the bonding that takes place between the workers somehow seems more plausible and, if we had to admit it, more emotionally satisfying. We see them progress from fear and disbelief and almost mute submission to a forthright and energizing hope that gives them confidence, even though they are still in the position of the figurative underdog battling long odds.
Other revelations and consequences ensue, but what strikes me as they proceed is that they don't quite capture the long grind of a process such as this one. The film is compressed to accord with artistic dictates, and in my experience, having lived in Los Angeles and preserving as I do a vague awareness of this struggle during the 90s, I seem to remember a long series of actions that were met with many reverses. The alternative press (The LA Weekly, a publication that is otherwise quick to proclaim conspiracies in the most hyperbolic terms) did devote some coverage to the movement, and it would appear as well from time to time in the regular media. It was a long grind, from what I remember, but in the film the desired result is achieved almost instanteously. Perhaps this serves as well to encourage what might be a misleading but well-intentioned goal, which is that of emphasizing the postive outcome that clearly was not obtained without prolonged pain. Many workers lost their positions, many lost the little security they had, and many quite simply were deported or were forced to leave of their own initiative. The casualties are missing in this film.
And yet, the film is appealing because of the uplifting nature of this narrative. While Maya may prove to be the only casualty of this battle, removed as she is from the group, we are left to harbor the hope that such a story can inspire others. But the climate in this country has turned very ugly in the last ten years, and what seemed plausible back in the 90s seems almost impossible now. Political rhetoric has become even more vitriolic against not only immigrant workers but also the labor movement, and this has served to engender a new nativist movement that, in the wake of the calamitous crash of the economy, has moved public opinion to favor the corporations that have systematically mismanaged our economy. We have this repressive movement now that wishes to remove all regulation, and we have the spectacle of more states such as North Carolina that, to follow the model of other states in the South, have enacted policies that undermine unions, proclaiming themselves "right to work" states. I am astounded at the hypocrisy of these corporations that have been undermining the economy and eliminating jobs for decades, and yet now claim that they should be saved from any regulation in order to allow them to create new jobs.
The problem is not cartoonish goons such as Mr. Perez. It is a system that seems as impregnable as ever, and has harnassed the power of fear on a wider scale, justifying the villification of workers as a hindrance to job creation, but failing to take the blame for their own unrestrained greed and mismanagement. We are more firmly under the control of corporations than ever before, and stories such as this one in which a small group of immigrant workers manage to unionize and gain concessions seems all the more unlikely.
Labor and workers are, as always, an afterthought. Dignity does not accrue to the service or white collar or public sector employees. Now, the Tea Party and other repressive movements have elevated once again the tycoons of business as the paragons of virtue, avators that mesmerize us with their power and their appetite and their unrestrained greed. And, whether they take the form of visionary leaders such as Steve Jobs or more shadowy figures such as the Koch brothers, it is ultimately dangerous to our democracy to invest any group of people with such authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment