Vol. 80/No. 34      September 12, 2016

 

25, 50, and 75 Years Ago

 

September 13, 1991

HARTFORD, Connecticut — Fifty demonstrators gathered here August 30 to demand “Freedom and Justice for the Puerto Rico/Hartford 15! Drop the Charges!”

The event marked the sixth anniversary of the launching of the FBI operation that resulted in the arrests of 15 Puerto Rican independence activists.

They were brought from the island of Puerto Rico to Connecticut and forced to spend many months in pretrial detention before a public outcry forced their release. The case of the Hartford 15 has received international attention because it highlights Puerto Rico’s status as a colony of the United States.

In 1989, five of the 15 were put on trial. Four were convicted on charges of conspiracy in connection with a 1983 robbery. These four received sentences ranging from 15 to 65 years.

September 12, 1966

Increasing numbers of unionists are recognizing the urgent need for wage-escalator clauses in union contracts. Without such clauses to provide for wage increases in compensation for price increases, real wages will decline sharply.

But also, it is being recognized that there are serious flaws in the escalator clauses now being included in union pacts. The biggest defect is that virtually all of them use as their official guide the Consumer Price Index of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.

It has become increasingly apparent over the years that the BLS figures are rigged to minimize actual increases in living costs. The index does not take into account the widespread practice of lowering quality standards as a means of raising prices.

September 13, 1941

The famous Minneapolis Union Defense Guard, organized three years ago by members of Local 544 of the teamsters union, will be the center of the government’s case in the trial of 29 leaders of the Socialist Workers Party and of the Motor Transport and Allied Workers Industrial Union, Local 544-CIO.

Originally the government set out to convict the defendants on the basis of their militant opposition to the Roosevelt war program and the shackling of the labor movement to the war machine.

However, a council of war decided it was too dangerous to press the case on the basis of their anti-war policy, which might win much popular sympathy for the defendants, and it was decided instead to accuse them of “arming the workers,” which they claim was the function of the Union Defense Guard.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home