Subscribe to “Nonviolence Radio” on Apple Podcasts, Android, Spotify or via RSS.
It seems there is a cultural myth that union organizing is inherently nonviolent. On the one hand, any demonstration of the power of “people” versus greed and corruption in the workplace seems to tick the box in our cultural imagination about what nonviolence looks like. Images of warehouse workers from Amazon or coffee baristas advocating for better work conditions and better pay are poignant and tell a story of the people fighting against exploitation. Cultural memories of the Farm Workers Grape Boycott are iconic in nonviolence imagery. It all seems so cut and dry.
But for those on the inside — who participate, or are considering participating, in unions — there’s a more nuanced situation, where the structures of organizing have embedded inequalities that are hard to overlook. What’s more, the methods of bargaining and protest tell an “old story” of us versus them, creating enemy images and perpetuating a cultural story of good-guy/bad-guy victimization — instead of using strategies of conflict escalation, de-escalation, and transformation rooted in an ethic of bridge building and belonging. This has led to many, especially in younger generations, feeling discontent with unions, and seeking out new ways of building Social Justice methods into labor organizing if they will join one at all.
Erik Olson Fernández is proud that while he has had many years of experience organizing for nonviolent social change as a community organizer and in the labor movement with healthcare and public education unions, he began his training like Gandhi, as an attorney. Committed to bringing out the true sense of “union” in his union organizing work, he is currently working with the California Teachers’ Association and educators in Sonoma County, California, emphasizing systemic change within unions and the social structures that target the most vulnerable.
I originally got into labor organizing when I was doing community organizing work. I had gone to law school, but I had always focused more on organizing people, having grown up poor in the United States with a single mother from Mexico who struggled economically.
I was looking for a way in which to change the social structure that created the poverty that I grew up in and that others were forced to live with. So, I began studying previous social movements and looked to Gandhi and King as models and studied how they did the organizing. You know, what Gandhi did in South Africa, what King, and particularly the young leaders in the 1960s Freedom Movement, did to organize their communities in the South.
On this episode of Nonviolence Radio, Erik discusses the power of Unions when they are woven through and through with the principles and strategies of nonviolence.
—
Stephanie: This is Nonviolence Radio. I’m your host, Stephanie Van Hook and I’m here with my co-host Michael Nagler, and we’re from the Metta Center for Nonviolence in Petaluma, CA.
Today’s show is about labor organizing and nonviolence. While strikes and protests may be tactics used within labor organizing, the work to make unions more aligned with the principles of nonviolence, not just the tactics, is an ongoing struggle that many people are passionate about.
We had the chance to sit down with Erik Olson Fernandez, a union organizer at the California Teachers Association to learn about his path of incorporating the principles of Gandhi and King into his efforts to build not only ‘union power’ but the power of unity, or what MLK called Beloved Community.
Erik: Hi, I’m Erik Olson Fernández. I’m a union organizer at the California Teachers Association. And I work with the educators in Sonoma County. And we’re working hard to create the schools that our students and educators deserve, through Social Justice Unionism, which is based on the lessons from the history of nonviolent struggle and previous movements.
Stephanie: I’m curious to better understand what got you into labor organizing.
Erik: I originally got into labor organizing when I was doing community organizing work. I had gone to law school, but I had always focused more on organizing people, having grown up poor in the United States with a single mother from Mexico who struggled economically.
I was looking for a way in which to change the social structure that created the poverty that I grew up in and that others were forced to live with. So, I began studying previous social movements and looked to Gandhi and King as models and studied how they did the organizing. You know, what Gandhi did in South Africa, what King, and particularly the young leaders in the 1960s Freedom Movement, did to organize their communities in the South.
And so, I actually started with community organizing. It was done through the churches.
I was doing a training at a church in San Diego, and after I had completed the training, a union organizer came up to me and said, “You ought to come work for the unions.” And that’s initially how I started and eventually begin working with the Educators Union here in California.
I’ve been working in the labor movement for 21 years now. And I’ve only worked for education unions and healthcare unions. So, mostly women workforce. Very similar histories, right? Caring professions, who have been disregarded and overlooked and underpaid for most of the professions. So, that’s how I initially got into the –
Michael: Wonderful work.
Erik: Thank you very much.
Stephanie: What does a labor organizer do?
Erik: So, a labor organizer in my experience, in my perspective, is an educator, really. It’s just really training, letting people know what their rights are, so they can defend them. Helping them understand, you know, certain values and principles and ideas that they already sort of know, but you help them draw them out so that you remind them of them.
For instance, with the union, of course, you have to help people – the whole point is to create unity. And that can be hard sometimes, right? But you have to just draw that out and remind everybody of – and so, we also help –
Here in Sonoma County, I help educators with their negotiations. We help them so if there’s a contract violation, help them figure out how we address that through – potentially through grievances, through potential meetings to address mediation, or we help with fact findings and negotiations. And then also advice with the strikes when we end up having to take those kinds of actions as well.
Stephanie: Can you give an example of a contract violation and also maybe some of the circumstances that have led to some teacher strikes in the area?
Erik: A situation that led to teacher’s strikes here in Sonoma County – so prior to 2019, there had not been a strike here in Sonoma County for 40 years. But when I arrived here five years ago in 2018, I was astonished by the wages and the health care. They were really depressed. So, that has been the main issue that has led to strikes.
Since we’ve implemented this Social Justice Unionism, where we’re studying the history of nonviolent struggle and learning the lessons from the 1930s of unionism and 1960s Freedom Struggle, we have had three strikes that were short and successful and led to historic agreements. And they were primarily around educators not being able to pay the rent and to be able to retain and recruit the best educators for our students. Because as educators leave the profession in record numbers, particularly over the last few years, where the profession is really facing unprecedented challenges.
And so, here in Sonoma County has been where they face those similar challenges and even greater because the cost of living here is so high.
And so, that has been the primary issue, along with some other things like making sure the schools have a nurse and a counselor at each school site. Because California is horrific when it comes to the number of adults per student in our schools.
Stephanie: So, what are some of the principles of labor organizing or striking that you have learned from – let’s start with Gandhi, in particular.
Erik: I think some of the key lessons from Gandhi are – you know, it’s that famous quote where they ask Gandhi, “What do you do in terms of if he would prefer that someone fight back as opposed to someone is cowardly and not fight back, right?
I think that’s a really key piece, particularly with educators. Educators are very nice folks who are willing to put up with a lot when they shouldn’t. So, I think it’s important for us as union organizers to help folks think about how they can balance the need to be assertive, right? Not aggressive, but assertive. But at the same time, being respectful and professional in everything that we do.
So, I think that’s one of the key things that we have to do. And again, particularly with caring professions, where sometimes we are willing to take sacrifice to a level that’s not healthy or helpful. And so, that’s one of the key lessons that I think that Gandhi teaches us.
I think the other piece that we have is just there’s a systematic place. Before we go to a strike, we’re not going to start with that, right? We’re going to try negotiations first and see if that works. If that doesn’t work, right?
And even prior to that, if you look at the steps that Gandhi lays out, you know, you’re supposed to do your investigation and research and make sure you have all your facts together. You go in and negotiations. You make rational arguments that are both moral and logical.
If that still doesn’t work, which unfortunately it doesn’t work, often with employers who are worried about control and those kinds of things. And sometimes, it’s blatant that they have the money. But still, it becomes an issue more of control. And so, you still have to take the next step.
So, here in California, we have a process where the next step with public employees is to go to impasse mediation. So, then we go to mediation. That doesn’t work. Then we go to a fact-finding, which is essentially like an arbitration.
And then, with that arbitration, then, only then, do we strike.
So, I think that whole process of going through that is very similar to the process both Gandhi and King have laid and how they should approach nonviolence in practice and in principles.
Michael: Here at the Metta Center, Eric, you may be familiar with it, we have a model called the escalation curve. And this is exactly the trajectory that we try to line out. And often, you can identify where a movement is going wrong by saying, “You’re at the wrong point of the curve. You shouldn’t be doing that yet.” Or “You better get a little more assertive or else.”
And I guess the guiding principle of it is always to try to let the opponent save face and to meet your demands the easiest way that you can. You’re making it easy for the opponent to meet your demands. That’s kind of on the theory level. Is that something that you have experienced or that you practiced or try to reach?
Erik: You know, I always say to our educators that in everything that we do, we need to be professional and respectful. And so, when we approach collective bargaining, we should do that as well.
And when we do that, you know, again, it’s kind of like, I sometimes joke with the educators that, you know, Gandhi and King were both very nice and respectful. It doesn’t mean they were liked by the British Empire, right? For instance.
So, the same thing with school districts and employers. They don’t always like it, even if you’re professional and respectful.
So, what we do is we do what we have to do and carry out our work, assertively but professionally and respectfully, in accordance with nonviolent struggle and history.
And I think what we do is we leave the door open for reconciliation. That doesn’t mean that the person is going to choose to reconcile, right? We don’t have control over that. And sometimes, honestly, I’ll analogize it to the 1960s Freedom Struggle. You know, Bull Conner was not going to accept our offer to reconcile, you know, and same thing with some of these school districts, unfortunately.
But we have to conduct ourselves in a manner that leaves the door open for that. And, you know, if possible, we like to end the negotiations even after a strike with a handshake and reconciliation.
Stephanie: So, it’s like you keep that ideal of reconciliation, a beloved community, in mind as you’re going through the process with people. That this isn’t us against them?
Erik: Exactly. It’s what we’re changing – trying to change, is the social structure that created this. And there is definitely a structure here in California and across the country that has created a system where a mostly women profession, who is vastly underpaid compared to other professionals with similar education, where the schools, for instance, here in California are filled with students that are students of color, 60% or around that are free and reduced lunch, right? So, these are poor kids in our schools, and they’re being taught by mostly women. That’s not by accident that the students aren’t getting the education that they deserve, and the educators aren’t getting their fair compensation to do the work that’s so important.
It’s this structure that we’re trying to change. And we’re trying to get folks to think in a new way, but that can be difficult, as you all know. So, it is the structure there that we’re seeking to change. Yeah.
Michael: I remember vividly having a conversation with a colleague of mine at the University of California, a medievalist. We were complaining about how we were treated. And we were saying, “You know, they know they’ve got us because we love our work. We love what we’re doing. It’s not a job for us. It’s a profession.”
And the administration, in this case, it went on up to the State of California, takes full advantage of that. You mentioned that teachers tend to be nice guys. Do you think they’re sometimes put upon by people – not, maybe, quite this cynical, but knowing that they’re dedicated? It’s a profession. It’s not just a job. And so, that can make them a little bit more vulnerable.
Erik: There’s no doubt that that’s the case. The district administrators do manipulate that for their own benefit and use it as a form of abuse. That is certainly a key factor.
And I think even here in Sonoma County, it’s good to see educators are actually calling out the administrators for using that approach which is destructive and harmful.
Yeah, it’s something that has to be changed. That’s part of the key work, as I mentioned earlier, that us getting to the point where our folks are – recognize that, and are fighting back against that approach, that has been very successful, honestly.
Michael: You know, Erik, you’re probably more aware of this than I am, but there’s a long history, both, of this kind of exploitation we’re talking about, and also, another problem that you touched on, which is when you first have to make people aware that they’re being exploited, that’s a dangerous moment. They can burst out in violent and destructive ways.
And you see this in Gandhi’s career all the time. You have to get the mill workers to understand what’s being done to them, but then quickly segue into a nonviolent response. Is that dynamic something that you’ve encountered?
Erik: Yes. it’s really critical to have a credible plan to win that reinforces the ideas of nonviolent struggle. Because when you have that anger, it’s like Gandhi’s grandson, Arun Gandhi, talks about the gift of anger, right?
That the anger is legitimate, but we need to channel it in an appropriate manner. So, that’s what we have to do in those critical moments, is have a legitimate plan to change the circumstances and to lay that vision out so that folks can feel comfortable in participating in a collective effort, collective bargaining that will change the circumstances.
And they know they don’t have to sort of get belligerent or sort of act out because there’s a way in which they can proceed that allows them to accomplish the goal that they want.
Stephanie: Let’s talk about the flip side, those who are opposed to union organizing and labor activism. What kinds of techniques and tools do they use to keep people from achieving their labor goal?
Erik: So, I think again the key piece is creating an effective union. If you have an effective union that’s actually creating life-altering conditions, then it’s going to be really effective in pushing back at these attempts to say that unions are not good.
And so, the key thing is to effectively implement an effective union strategy that shows results. And if you do that, then again, these attempts to – and, you know, fortunately we’re living in times right now where we’re seeing the highest union approval ratings since 1965, where 71% of the public is approving of unions.
I think there’s also a key piece where young folks are – right now, if you look at places like Starbucks and REI, you know, some of these – Amazon. Some of these young folks are looking to establishing their own unions instead of joining up with some of the established unions. And I think that’s a challenge for the labor movement right now because basically, they’re saying, “The established unions aren’t effective enough, and we do something that’s more progressive, that’s more effective.” So, I think that that’s an issue that the labor movement is going to have to confront.
And then you have, you know, these attacks. And fortunately, the labor movement has been able to survive during these attacks. A few years ago, the Supreme Court passed – decided on a case called Janus, that basically made it so that individuals who did not contribute to the union could still benefit from the union without contributing dues or participating in any way.
So, it’s almost as if you go to dinner and everybody eats, but not everybody contributes and yet, you still benefit from the arrangement. And so, that was done by the wealthy elite who control the Supreme Court.
So, what you have is this dynamic where you have some folks who can, again, at the local level can benefit from the union without having to contribute. And so, what we have to do again, is just simply make the union effective.
And so, for instance, if you are not a member, you don’t get to vote in a strike vote. You don’t get to say yes or no to the contract provisions. You don’t get to say what you want in the contract.
So, there’s this direct link where the unions are making sure that, if they’re democratic, they show the value of the union membership. And when we’ve had to have strike votes, many of the non-members here in Sonoma County have joined.
Luckily, here in Sonoma County, we have a very high union membership rate. And so, we don’t have a huge problem with this here. And even across the country, the anti-union folks thought that Janus was going to be a very decisive blow to the unions and public sector unions in particular. And it has not been.
Since then, you actually have seen the statewide teacher’s strikes in West Virginia and Arizona and all of that, that have taken place in these places where you otherwise might not think that those would happen.
So, it’s actually gone the other way in a lot of ways.
Stephanie: I can’t quite understand why somebody wouldn’t join a union. Can you help us to understand that a little bit more? What would be –
Erik: In my experience, it’s usually because folks grew up in a family where unions were not liked, or they actually were a part of a union that did not change their working conditions. They were essentially collecting dues but not doing anything about it. It was a do-nothing union.
If we’re going to get folks to join unions, we have to make them effective.
Michael: Erik, do you find that teachers in general, and Sonoma County teachers in particular, are more aware of nonviolence than maybe the general public? And/or, are more open to it if they haven’t been aware of it?
Erik: I think that here in Sonoma County, the educators are more open to the idea of nonviolence than I’ve seen in most other places. I also think that, that like everywhere else, nonviolence is not an integral part of the discussion unless we deliberately make it so.
And so, there has to be that critical discussion to make it deliberate and to include it as a part of everything that we do. So, again, here in Sonoma County, we have purposely talked about the 1930s sit-down strikes and how they’re connected to the 1960 sit-ins, right? And in fact, here on Nonviolence Radio, you know, I’ve shared a quote from James Farmer where he’s making that direct link between the 1930 sit-ins and the – his sit-ins that he conducted later on in the Freedom Struggle.
James Farmer: I think it was in 1942 in the City of Chicago, the sit-in. Why a sit-in? And how did we come upon the idea of a sit-in? Gandhi didn’t have sit-ins. They, as far as I know, they were not necessary in his situation.
Well, we took the idea of a sit-in, first, we called it a sit-down, taking it from the history of labor – the labor movement in this country. In the 1930s when the workers in the Ford River Rouge plant – when the CIO, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, was being organized. During one strike, the workers had a sit-down and took over the factory. A sit-down strike.
Michael: If you’re sitting there at the assembly line or wherever, then it’s not so easy for them to take your place. It’s not so easy for the employer to say, “You left a gap, so I had to fill it.” That sounds to me like a wonderful technique because it obviates the possibility of scabs.
Erik: And it also prevents the whole notion that you don’t want to work. You are saying you want to work, right? And you’re forcing them to – and folks don’t often, nowadays, understand why we need pickets. The whole idea of picket lines is to prevent scabs, right? As Jack London here famously in Sonoma County called them, right? Scabs – to cross over and take the work.
Michael: There’s a striking analogy here that when people were asked to not pay war appropriations, after a while, they hit on the very important idea of taking that money and doing something else with it so that it wouldn’t seem like they just didn’t feel like paying, but that they were making a principled statement.
And here you have the same thing. It’s not just like, “Oh, I think I’d rather go fishing,” but that no, this is a principled statement. And I think it’s very much the same dynamic there.
Erik: Absolutely. When we have our strikes, we require – everyone is required to show up and picket and to be there to demonstrate that they are, in fact, wanting to work and would love to be working with the students. It’s just that the current conditions will never change unless we take the kinds of actions that we’re taking now.
And I think it’s really important too to also think about the whole notion of the strike vote. The strike vote is really critical because – so here in Sonoma Country, we require that at least 90% of the entire bargaining unit vote to strike, in order for us to go on strike.
And the reason we do that is because if we were to have 51% of our folks vote to strike, that would show unity or strength. It would show division and weakness. But by having a 90%+ vote – and here in Sonoma County it’s been almost unanimous in our 18 strike votes that we’ve had in the last few years, that demonstrates to the district, to the employer, it’s a visible way to see that there’s strength and unity. And it tells the districts that they need to be serious.
And also, the other piece is, I think it’s a sort of demonstration of love on behalf of the educators. Because it shows that they care and love the students by saying we need to change this.
And it says that they care and love each other because most educators are not in very good financial situations, but there are some who are. But those folks still vote to strike because they know that their colleagues are not. So, it’s a demonstration that, “I support you even if I don’t even know you, necessarily.”
Michael: That is very sensible, and it reminds of the whole principle of consensus rather than voting. Because voting can be very divisive, and that’s the last thing that you want in this situation. So, that’s a good way around it, it seems to me.
Erik: Yes. I think it’s really critical because the whole notion of consensus is you’re trying to get everyone, as many people as possible, to come to the same component. And that’s critical if you’re trying to create a union, right? In unity.
station break
Again, one of the things that we’re trying to do is create democracy in the workplace and beyond. That’s the real purpose of unions, in my experience. And if we create that democracy, and we have these 90+% vote requirements, it’s critical because it’s a demonstration of how critically important democracy is.
Because imagine if we apply that standard of 90%+ to elections, we would never have a president, right? We would never have schoolboard members. We would never have what this 90+% of folks who are, again, not just in the union, but everyone in the whole bargaining unit.
So, that is showing us how as Americans we can come together. Because in the workplace you find folks from all kinds of backgrounds, all kinds of religions, all kinds, you know, you have a whole very diverse situation. And you’re still creating that unity and that democracy in that place, which is very critical because in my years in the labor movement, even with unions, people are terrorized in the workplace.
The level of fear is so high in the United States in the workplace, and we can’t have a democracy in the larger society if we don’t have a democracy in the workplace, which is where we spend most of our waking hours.
You know, we really have these little petty tyrannical workplaces where people are, again, terrorized in many ways. Fear has, in lots of situations, is really a heavy burden for folks on a day-to-day basis in the United States.
Michael: And not just in the United States because Gandhi felt – he learned very quickly that fear was the biggest obstacle. And that once you overcame fear, you could do almost anything. If you didn’t overcome fear, no amount of organizing or speaking or pamphlet writing was going to get you anywhere.
So, that leads to a very important question, Erik. How do you address the fear on the part of these employees?
Erik: So, I think the main thing we have to do is to get folks to remember their mission.
Educators, as I mentioned, are in the profession because it’s a calling, really. And if you remind them of their calling, and then you remind them of their faith, and their colleagues, in my experience, that is really critical to overcome that fear.
And then you, again, have to give people a credible plan of action that could lead to success. So, if you do that, and in Sonoma County, we’re very deliberate about connecting the work that we’re doing now to this great legacy of King and Gandhi and AJ Muste and James Lawson and these folks who have been successful and have created dramatic changes in our society. And, you know, educators, like everybody else, are inspired by that.
Michael: Couldn’t help noticing, Erik, that Cesar Chavez didn’t show up in that list. Can you explain why?
Erik: Well, I think we should all be inspired by Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta and the Farm Worker Movement, particularly in its earlier stages, when there were great sacrifices and great victories and commitments to the workers and nonviolence.
But I think that there are some critical lessons for us, right? And I think as educators, as people, we need to also be honest about what has transpired and what’s taken place and what we can learn from history.
And unfortunately, I think there’s some very regrettable things that Cesar Chavez has done in terms of, for instance, the Filipino workers were a key piece in the Farm Worker Movement. And despite –
My understanding is, despite some warnings not to go to the Philippines under the dictator Marcos, he went to the Philippines nevertheless.
Additionally, there were some other things that he just didn’t have, in my view, the foresight, the vision that others like Gandhi and King did. Didn’t understand the connections between, for instance, Mexico – Mexican workers crossing the border to the United States and connecting that struggle of the Mexican worker to the struggle of the farm workers here in the United States.
And so, I really encourage folks to ream more about this in Miriam Pawel’s book. You know, as the years go on, more things come out about some of our leaders. There are some troubling things with Cesar Chavez.
Stephanie: Earlier in this interview you discussed that younger people, in particular, joining unions are looking for more progressive organizing. You also called that Social Justice Unionism. So, what does that mean exactly?
Erik: It essentially is us fighting for changing the not just the working conditions of our educators in the schools, but fighting for change of the learning conditions of the students at the same time, as well as changing the conditions of the larger society.
So, unfortunately a lot of unions have taken sort of a business unionism approach to unions. Where it’s very black and white, and they’re just looking at the needs of their members without looking at the larger context, the students and the larger society which is creating the problems for the students and the educators.
So, Social Justice Unionism simply is trying to look at the entire context in which we’re working in to change that and using the lessons of the past to guide us.
Michael: I’m so reminded of some of my experiences at the University of California because we taught in departments. And it’s so easy for the department to get in-drawn and struggle for its own benefit without recognizing that they’re part of a whole and that they’re benefitted by the whole when it rises. So, it’s a self-defeating thing. And the morally unsatisfactory thing.
And it’s beginning to sound like it’s a human thing. So, you know, our job always is to enlarge people’s vision, get them to understand the context that they fit in.
Erik: And that’s a particularly big problem here in the United States, right? Where there’s so much emphasis on individualism. And that’s a critical piece is, you know, there has to be someone deliberately going around talking to everyone to create unity and cohesion.
Let’s think about Gandhi in South Africa. Gandhi went around and talked to every Indian in South Africa and organized that community and listened to them and found out what the key concerns were, and then developed a vision that everyone could coalesce around.
Stephanie: I was wondering if you could speak to the role of the general public or other stakeholders that aren’t participants in a union such as – and teachers in schools, you’re looking at parents, students, the larger community knowing what’s going on. What is the way that unions will organize to help influence public opinion, and what do you hope that the public will do to help support union organizing?
Erik: So, a typical campaign starts by obviously organizing ourselves first, and creating that unity amongst our members, right? Our educators.
And then from there, we then expand because we’ve done the work that we needed to do to be united and to have a plan and a vision. Then we reach out to, for instance, our other unions in the school districts.
Then we reach out also, obviously, to the parents and to the larger community. So, for instance, in Social Justice Unionism, you’re not just going to talk to the voters during an election. You’re going to talk to the voters throughout everyday democracy we’re trying to create.
Where, for instance, the school district is funded by public dollars. And so, how well does the public know where their public dollars are going? Do they know that they have teachers who are 40 years old and married and living in a garage?
Do they know that their health care is adequate, that they’re with our students, and they’re financially overwhelmed? Do they know that there aren’t enough counselors and school psychologists and school nurses and all of those kinds of things?
So, that is the key piece where we’re reaching out and educating not just ourselves, but the larger society and the public as well, and then fight to help us create the schools that our students and educators deserve by reaching out to the school boards, for instance. Because they are the ones who elected the school board. Now it’s time for them to keep them accountable and for them to carry out the vision and to listen to the community in that regard.
So, for instance, when we have unfortunately had to go on strike, we reached out to the voters and to the parents and the community and asked them to contact the school board and to do the right thing.
You know, there’s other situations where, for instance, let’s say we have a superintendent who’s not doing what they need to do. We also would share those – like when we’ve had to take a vote of no confidence, we share that also with the public so that they know because most parents don’t know what the superintendents are doing or not doing and so forth.
Stephanie: You talked about voting – voting in school board. What do you want people to know about gender and racial equity in these positions, and how they represent or don’t represent the larger population of teachers and union members?
Erik: So, obviously, the public elects the school boards, school board members. And one of the most critical decisions that school board members make is who is going to be the superintendent to run the day-to-day operations of the school district?
You know, unfortunately in this country, as I mentioned earlier, we have mostly women profession who is mistreated and underpaid and so forth. But we also have this dynamic, as I mentioned earlier, where about 70 something % of the superintendents are male, when most educators are female.
And even you have a dynamic where men are paid more than women in a mostly women profession. So, it’s a sad situation that we obviously need to work on and change.
And that same dynamic is actually true of nurses as well. Where in nursing, the percentage of women is much higher. It’s like 90 something %, I think. And yet, male nurses make more than female nurses, which is astonishing.
Stephanie: So, I wanted to go back to this topic of strikes and striking that you’ve been discussing. First of all, what makes a strike nonviolent? Is striking in itself sufficient for nonviolence? And if not, what does make it fully nonviolent?
Erik: So, yeah. A strike in itself is not nonviolence. It has to have a certain character in order for it to be nonviolent. It has to have a legitimate goal where the participants are seeking to accomplish justice and democracy.
And the strike is simply a tactic that’s consistent with goal and that process.
And, you know, obviously, you can have strikes that are violent. Labor history is filled many examples of that, where strikes were not very peaceful. But again, we here in Sonoma County are very deliberate of connecting our legacy to nonviolent struggle and highlighting, for instance, AJ Muste who was involved with unions and nonviolence in the early 1900s.
And, you know, everything that we do, is we talk about carrying on this legacy of Gandhi and King, and ensuring that we’re respectful and professional in everything that we do. And so, it is critical, the character of the strike and the intention of the people involved in the strike, what their goal is, what their feelings are.
I guess it’s similar to anger that we talked about earlier. You can be angry, but if you’re channeling it in a proper way, then it’s –
The other key thing with the strikes is that, again, it’s really just simply a tactic because the ultimate goal of a strike is not to strike. The goal is to change the power dynamic so that we can create a different social structure that will, in this case of educators in Sonoma County, that will create the schools that our students and educators deserve.
Stephanie: Well, thank you very much for all of this, this sort of brief quick education into unions. So, how has all of this changed you, Erik?
Erik: Working with the educators here in Sonoma County has actually really inspired me to think that a nonviolent struggle, attacking the social ills in our society right now, is possible here on a broader context.
So, right now, I think one of the major challenges that we have is a social structure that’s based on huge economic inequalities that essentially form all kinds of disease in a variety of different ways, whether it’s in health care, or education, or the social structure in itself, where this individualism that we talked about earlier.
And I think here I’ve been inspired by the educators here in Sonoma County, what they accomplished in a very short time when just a few years ago it was not a very pretty picture. It was depressed wages and health care. There had not been a strike in 40 years. And now, in a very short time, with a little bit of encouragement, the educators have transformed themselves, transformed the educational landscape here in Sonoma County.
And then now we see this larger – on a larger picture across the nation, now where young people are organizing unions on a massive scale that we haven’t seen for decades. So, this actually is the most optimistic that I have been in many, many years.
Stephanie: And with your own personal commitment to nonviolence, I’m just curious what do you do to continue your study on a daily basis for those who are in a similar position or in a similar situation who are interested in learning more.
Erik: So, yeah. I mean, I’m one of those library nerds, right? That I’m at the library all the time. I always have several books that I’ve taken out, and I’m reading through them. I’m reading the new King biography now.
I have the Nonviolence Daily on my desk as well. It’s just a part of my life. My kids have grown up also, learning about Dr. King and Gandhi in my house. In my office, I have pictures of both of them.
My daughter just graduated and there’s a funny story where we were living in Chicago, and she was 6-years-old at the time. Again, she just graduated high school, but at the time she was 6. And we were moving back to California, to San Diego at the time.
We were selling everything that we had. We had a yard sale and there was a picture I had of Dr. King in a frame. And she got upset that I was going to sell the Dr. King picture. And I said, “No, we’re only selling the frame. We’re not selling the picture.” So, for her graduate gift, I gave her that picture.
Michael: I want to try to now be a little bit more specific about something that I am interested in and have asked about before. And that is replicating and defusing the values that are in your movement and in your personal approach.
And so, I’m wondering – it’s kind of the opposite of your question Stephanie, about what do you read? I’m wondering what do you write? What do you do to get these ideas out to the public, especially, I would think, on the heels of a successful campaign?
Erik: Well, I’ve written a couple of articles in Waging Nonviolence that you can find there. And those are the main places that I’ve put this down. And I think the other place where this has been defused to other people is now you have a whole slew of educators here in Sonoma County who have learned these lessons and implemented these lessons.
So, you have literally now hundreds, maybe even more than a thousand folks who have participated in these campaigns, who have learned these lessons, and who now know how to create unity and democracy in the workplace and know that nonviolence has to be the method in which we do that. So, that’s the key piece.
But I think I would love to think more about how to institutionalize this. I’ve studied somewhat Reverend Bernard Lafayette, and he talks about, of course, his last conversation with Dr. King where he talked about how do we institutionalize and internationalize nonviolence?
I would love to be a part of doing that in any way possible. So, maybe writing is something, putting this down on paper and sharing that is a way to do that.
Michael: Well, I’m glad Nonviolence Radio can be of a little help.
Stephanie: You’ve been listening to Nonviolence Radio. We want to thank our Guest, Erik Olson Fernandez for joining us and sharing his vision and story.
With special thanks to Matt Watrous, Annie Hewitt, and Sophia Pechaty
To Our mother station KWMR, especially Ian and Jeffery, to our syndicators across Pacifica, and at Waging Nonviolence, we’re grateful.
To find this interview and to learn more about nonviolence, visit MettaCenter.org or NonviolenceRadio.org
Until the next time, please take care of one another.