It’s not about the creative class, it’s about Justice
As we reported, last week Michigan Governor Rick signed House Bill 4770, which is legislation that will end domestic partner benefits for public sector workers.
House Bill 4770 was introduced by State Rep. Dave Agema, who has a history of introducing and supporting far right policies that target immigrants, Muslims, workers and the poor. Agema pushed House Bill 4770 because he supports anti-LGBT policies, despite his claims that he just wants to fix the state budget.
However, many people and some LBGT organizations have been arguing that eliminating domestic partner benefits for public sector workers won’t do the economy in Michigan any good because it will not help the state to “retain and attract members of the creative class.”
This language is straight from Richard Florida and is often the mantra of area chambers of commerce. But this argument is ultimately misleading and even harmful.
First, the argument that there can be no discrimination in hiring practices for Michigan’s economy to thrive just doesn’t hold up to history. Michigan’s economy was thriving in the late 19th century and through most of the 20th century even at a time while racial minorities were second-class citizens. The auto industry in Michigan did not suffer from Jim Crow laws that were still in place up until the Civil Rights movement forced the federal government’s hand in passing some reforms. In fact, the Big Three automakers benefited from racial discrimination.
Second, Michigan’s economy, like the rest of the country, has not been hurt from treating women as second-class citizens. Women still don’t make the same amount of money that men do for the same amount of work. After decades of efforts to eliminate the wage gap, women still only make 77% of the wages that men make, according to the National Committee on Pay Equity. Most Michigan businesses have not suffered historically because they pay women disproportionately less than men.
Third, the argument that discrimination against LGBT couples will not attract the creative class only holds up for those in the LGBT community who are part of the young, urban professional sector. What about people who identify as LGBT or Queer and are in the working class? Surely there are those who identify as LGBT who work in fast food, who change the beds in hotels, who work as cooks, janitors, factory workers, take care of the elderly and do all the jobs that are not part of the so-called creative class. Using the creative class argument just re-enforced tiered class structure, which values those who work in IT or marketing over those who care for the sick.
Fourth, supporting this creative class argument with data from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is not only weak, it echoes a pro-corporate position that is based on identity politics. As we have noted in recent local news coverage about Whirlpool’s 100% rating from HRC, the narrow identity politics approach ignores other aspects of corporate behavior such as labor practices, environmental concerns and the electoral influence of such companies. Just look at HRC’s corporate partner page and you can see companies like Nike, Goldman Sachs, BP, Chevron and Chase Bank. It’s a line-up of some of the most environmentally destructive, anti-worker and greed driven entities on the planet. Hell, even the poster child for corporate greed, Bank of America, is a corporate partner of HRC.
Lastly, when arguing against discrimination we should always argue passionate from the perspective that it is about justice! We cannot create a slippery slope argument like retaining talent, but should champion the basic idea that no one should be denied health care benefits. Do you think that public sector workers who no longer have domestic partner benefits in Michigan are thinking, “damn, now we won’t be able to attract the creative class.” No, they are thinking, how the hell are we going to afford medical treatment for people we care about.
Until we are motivated primarily by justice we will not be able to protect each other from the inequality that is inherently part of contemporary neo-liberal capitalism. We need to think and act through an intersectional lens that incorporates gender, class, race, sexual orientation, immigration status and the environment into how we discern the politics and practices of the corporate world and government policies. If there is no justice, there will be no peace.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 
Applause, Jeff. Let us defend things for their intrinsic value, not their instrumental value.
Also ever since Richard Florida introduced the term ” creative class” in his pop-sociology book “The Rise of the Creative Class” artists, writers, actors, etc have been usurped by the insidious idea that art is valuable because it generates business. Case in point is ArtPrize and the Devos’s 5×5 night. Art is creative when it generates money is the message.
This not only is a misreading of what makes truly creative people valuable it is a new type of cultural control where our creative culture becomes more an more dependent on who controls the context by which art lives in society.
Just look at what is happening to the GRAM. Major exhibitions on Princess Diana’s clothes, family friendly programing, and the sponsorship of a Symposium about the branding of the Michigan aesthetics all point to a dumbing down of intellectualism. I bet you’ll see a name change in years to come to some corporate of family name sake.
Partnership benefits have gotten a lot of publicity thanks to various activist groups. This new law, of course,affects any public worker in Michiga who is unmarried and whose are receiving health insurance and other benefits, not just LGBTQ people, although they have led the fight to gain attention about it.
Now it appears that universities may be exempt from the law in Michigan because of the way their by-laws are written, although that is still up in the air. All told, this bill affects a small portion of approximately 33,000 state employees in Michigan who are eligible for these benefits.
The total number of employees affected? 138. Yes, you read that right. This admittedly is a cruel law that underscores the conservative belief that certain people are not to be treated equally in our society. It’s obvious it’s about bigotry and not about Snyder’s “fiscal responsibility.” There certainly is little cost-savings to be had from removing 138 health insurance policies from the public payroll. And that makes it very important to fight the bill, because it is truly the thin edge of the wedge, legislatively speaking, to open the doors to many more LGBTQ-bigoted legsislation.
But let’s also keep our priorities straight.. The same week Snyder signed this bill into law, he also signed a bill that affects the 3.9 million people currently working in Michigan: the bill that changes and severely curtails workers’ compensation. It forces people to return to work before their doctors advise it reasonable, and also forces them to accept lower-paying jobs offered by their employers, some without benefits, when they return. There is no guarantee any longer that they can ever return to the job they had before they were injured.
For some reason, this bill has received little attention in the media, and no sexy jumping-into-the-fray-to-fight-injustice moves on the part of the ACLU, and yet it affects millions of Michigan workers, not just 138 of them.
I’m getting a little tired of all the sturm und drang and hand-wringing over a bill that may actually be stopped in its tracks by existing university by-laws (most of those who receive partnership benefits are working for public universities). I am much more concerned about a law that could financially cripple and endanger the health of every Michigan worker who is injured on the job. Where is the outcry over that? Where’s the effort to overturn it?
Let’s be motivated by the injustice of that horror show of a bill, too. Let’s take a look at all of the injustices being done to workers by the Snyder regime and not just focus all our attention on the one that’s currently making the most noise..
Thanks for this Kate. It underscores the point of my article which is that we can not be outraged by individual policies and use a business argument to defend them. Identity politics will not get us very far, especially when the entities promoting identity politics are in bed with corporate America.
I was glad to see you make that point, Jeff–thanks.