Sara Horowitz
Sep 5 2011
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/a-jobs-plan-for-the-post-cubicle-economy/244549
Sara Horowitz the founder of Freelancers Union, a nonprofit organization representing the interests and concerns of the independent workforce.
Just as workers left the plow for the assembly line, they are now leaving the cubicle for the coffee shop. Here's what Washington needs to know--and what it needs to do.
About 150 years ago, American workers began a profound shift from farms to factories. After suffering through poor work conditions, low pay, and no workplace protections, the workers organized and successfully helped build the framework of laws that became known as FDR's New Deal. This landmark legislation from the 1930s protected workers and supported labor unions by limiting the number of hours that could be worked and setting a baseline minimum pay. But from a larger perspective, the New Deal demonstrated that government had acknowledged the shift in the U.S. workforce, heard their voice, and created a new system in which they could thrive.
Now we find ourselves in the middle of an equally large transition: just as workers left the plow for the assembly line, they are now leaving the cubicle for the coffee shop. Welcome to the Gig Economy, where over 42 million Americans are working independently - as freelancers, part-timers, consultants, contractors, and the self-employed. They are simultaneously holding multiple jobs, working for different employers, and mastering diverse skills. They are accountants and fashion designers and website architects. And, they are completely left out of the New Deal, which protects the rest of the workforce.
If the New Deal had evolved to meet the ever-expanding U.S. workforce, then independent workers would have access to unemployment insurance, affordable health insurance, protection from discrimination, and guaranteed payment for their work. Instead, New Deal protections are stuck in the last century, and those basic needs are out of reach for one-third of the workforce. But we can't simply extend the New Deal to include all workers. Instead, the New Deal must be updated to reflect this new reality. A "new" New Deal will require creating a completely new paradigm for worker supports and building completely new systems for those supports.
The New Deal was based on linking all rights to a single job, which made sense for the Manufacturing Era. At that time, people worked for one company for a long time, so attaching protections to the job was the easiest way to cover the majority of workers. The "new" New Deal must be rooted in portability and mobility. The protections and rights must be centered on the individual, not the job, and must move with the individual from gig to gig.
Take the example of health insurance. Large companies benefit from big cost savings because existing laws allow them to group workers together in large risk pools. But as the way we work today becomes more outsourced, open, and flexible, smaller groups that share an affinity outside of work at a large company should be able to group together to share in these same cost savings. Some of health reform's proposed solutions, like creating Consumer Owned and Operated Plans (CO-OPs) are a great start in harnessing the power of smaller groups, but the savings are still tilted toward large companies, not the independent workers of the Gig Economy
Unemployment insurance is another example. If we simply plug freelancers into our unemployment system, the system would quickly go bankrupt since freelancers - who have no certainty of gigs - experience frequent periods of unemployment. Instead, we could allow freelancers to contribute to a pre-tax fund during flush times that they could draw from during lean times.
Coming together in unions is another right attached to a job and not available to independent workers, meaning they can't fully leverage their political power. By evolving this policy to allow freelancers to unionize, seemingly disparate workers would recognize their shared needs and have the ability to come together to get their needs met. (At Freelancers Union, this is what we call "new unionism," where we're bringing independent workers together to create power in politics and power in markets.)
Creating a "new" New Deal is crucial if we want to build economic security for one-third - and growing - of the workforce. Just as government acknowledged the shift from agrarian to industrial work, and thus created the New Deal, it's now time to acknowledge the shift happening today. But this isn't just about evolving our laws - it's about the changing role of government in our society. As government subsidies are declining, it's up to all of us to be entrepreneurial and together build solutions to these problems, something I'll discuss in a future column. For the workers of the Gig Economy, social media, collaborative consumption, and crowdsourcing are tools of the trade. Our "new" New Deal must follow suit and be created - collaboratively - by us.
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
30 Years Ago Today: The Day the Middle Class Died...
A letter from Michael Moore Friday, August 5th, 2011
Friends,
From time to time, someone under 30 will ask me, "When did this all begin, America's downward slide?" They say they've heard of a time when working people could raise a family and send the kids to college on just one parent's income (and that college in states like California and New York was almost free). That anyone who wanted a decent paying job could get one. That people only worked five days a week, eight hours a day, got the whole weekend off and had a paid vacation every summer. That many jobs were union jobs, from baggers at the grocery store to the guy painting your house, and this meant that no matter how "lowly" your job was you had guarantees of a pension, occasional raises, health insurance and someone to stick up for you if you were unfairly treated.
Young people have heard of this mythical time -- but it was no myth, it was real. And when they ask, "When did this all end?", I say, "It ended on this day: August 5th, 1981."
Beginning on this date, 30 years ago, Big Business and the Right Wing decided to "go for it" -- to see if they could actually destroy the middle class so that they could become richer themselves.
And they've succeeded.
On August 5, 1981, President Ronald Reagan fired every member of the air traffic controllers union (PATCO) who'd defied his order to return to work and declared their union illegal. They had been on strike for just two days.
It was a bold and brash move. No one had ever tried it. What made it even bolder was that PATCO was one of only three unions that had endorsed Reagan for president! It sent a shock wave through workers across the country. If he would do this to the people who were with him, what would he do to us?
Reagan had been backed by Wall Street in his run for the White House and they, along with right-wing Christians, wanted to restructure America and turn back the tide that President Franklin D. Roosevelt started -- a tide that was intended to make life better for the average working person. The rich hated paying better wages and providing benefits. They hated paying taxes even more. And they despised unions. The right-wing Christians hated anything that sounded like socialism or holding out a helping hand to minorities or women.
Reagan promised to end all that. So when the air traffic controllers went on strike, he seized the moment. In getting rid of every single last one of them and outlawing their union, he sent a clear and strong message: The days of everyone having a comfortable middle class life were over. America, from now on, would be run this way:
* The super-rich will make more, much much more, and the rest of you will scramble for the crumbs that are left.
* Everyone must work! Mom, Dad, the teenagers in the house! Dad, you work a second job! Kids, here's your latch-key! Your parents might be home in time to put you to bed.
* 50 million of you must go without health insurance! And health insurance companies: you go ahead and decide who you want to help -- or not.
* Unions are evil! You will not belong to a union! You do not need an advocate! Shut up and get back to work! No, you can't leave now, we're not done. Your kids can make their own dinner.
* You want to go to college? No problem -- just sign here and be in hock to a bank for the next 20 years!
* What's "a raise"? Get back to work and shut up!
And so it went. But Reagan could not have pulled this off by himself in 1981. He had some big help:
The AFL-CIO.
The biggest organization of unions in America told its members to cross the picket lines of the air traffic controllers and go to work. And that's just what these union members did. Union pilots, flight attendants, delivery truck drivers, baggage handlers -- they all crossed the line and helped to break the strike. And union members of all stripes crossed the picket lines and continued to fly.
Reagan and Wall Street could not believe their eyes! Hundreds of thousands of working people and union members endorsing the firing of fellow union members. It was Christmas in August for Corporate America.
And that was the beginning of the end. Reagan and the Republicans knew they could get away with anything -- and they did. They slashed taxes on the rich. They made it harder for you to start a union at your workplace. They eliminated safety regulations on the job. They ignored the monopoly laws and allowed thousands of companies to merge or be bought out and closed down. Corporations froze wages and threatened to move overseas if the workers didn't accept lower pay and less benefits. And when the workers agreed to work for less, they moved the jobs overseas anyway.
And at every step along the way, the majority of Americans went along with this. There was little opposition or fight-back. The "masses" did not rise up and protect their jobs, their homes, their schools (which used to be the best in the world). They just accepted their fate and took the beating.
I have often wondered what would have happened had we all just stopped flying, period, back in 1981. What if all the unions had said to Reagan, "Give those controllers their jobs back or we're shutting the country down!"? You know what would have happened. The corporate elite and their boy Reagan would have buckled.
But we didn't do it. And so, bit by bit, piece by piece, in the ensuing 30 years, those in power have destroyed the middle class of our country and, in turn, have wrecked the future for our young people. Wages have remained stagnant for 30 years. Take a look at the statistics and you can see that every decline we're now suffering with had its beginning in 1981 (here's a little scene to illustrate that from my last movie).
It all began on this day, 30 years ago. One of the darkest days in American history. And we let it happen to us. Yes, they had the money, and the media and the cops. But we had 200 million of us. Ever wonder what it would look like if 200 million got truly upset and wanted their country, their life, their job, their weekend, their time with their kids back?
Have we all just given up? What are we waiting for? Forget about the 20% who support the Tea Party -- we are the other 80%! This decline will only end when we demand it. And not through an online petition or a tweet. We are going to have to turn the TV and the computer and the video games off and get out in the streets (like they've done in Wisconsin). Some of you need to run for local office next year. We need to demand that the Democrats either get a spine and stop taking corporate money -- or step aside.
When is enough, enough? The middle class dream will not just magically reappear. Wall Street's plan is clear: America is to be a nation of Haves and Have Nothings. Is that OK for you?
Why not use today to pause and think about the little steps you can take to turn this around in your neighborhood, at your workplace, in your school? Is there any better day to start than today?
Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com
Friends,
From time to time, someone under 30 will ask me, "When did this all begin, America's downward slide?" They say they've heard of a time when working people could raise a family and send the kids to college on just one parent's income (and that college in states like California and New York was almost free). That anyone who wanted a decent paying job could get one. That people only worked five days a week, eight hours a day, got the whole weekend off and had a paid vacation every summer. That many jobs were union jobs, from baggers at the grocery store to the guy painting your house, and this meant that no matter how "lowly" your job was you had guarantees of a pension, occasional raises, health insurance and someone to stick up for you if you were unfairly treated.
Young people have heard of this mythical time -- but it was no myth, it was real. And when they ask, "When did this all end?", I say, "It ended on this day: August 5th, 1981."
Beginning on this date, 30 years ago, Big Business and the Right Wing decided to "go for it" -- to see if they could actually destroy the middle class so that they could become richer themselves.
And they've succeeded.
On August 5, 1981, President Ronald Reagan fired every member of the air traffic controllers union (PATCO) who'd defied his order to return to work and declared their union illegal. They had been on strike for just two days.
It was a bold and brash move. No one had ever tried it. What made it even bolder was that PATCO was one of only three unions that had endorsed Reagan for president! It sent a shock wave through workers across the country. If he would do this to the people who were with him, what would he do to us?
Reagan had been backed by Wall Street in his run for the White House and they, along with right-wing Christians, wanted to restructure America and turn back the tide that President Franklin D. Roosevelt started -- a tide that was intended to make life better for the average working person. The rich hated paying better wages and providing benefits. They hated paying taxes even more. And they despised unions. The right-wing Christians hated anything that sounded like socialism or holding out a helping hand to minorities or women.
Reagan promised to end all that. So when the air traffic controllers went on strike, he seized the moment. In getting rid of every single last one of them and outlawing their union, he sent a clear and strong message: The days of everyone having a comfortable middle class life were over. America, from now on, would be run this way:
* The super-rich will make more, much much more, and the rest of you will scramble for the crumbs that are left.
* Everyone must work! Mom, Dad, the teenagers in the house! Dad, you work a second job! Kids, here's your latch-key! Your parents might be home in time to put you to bed.
* 50 million of you must go without health insurance! And health insurance companies: you go ahead and decide who you want to help -- or not.
* Unions are evil! You will not belong to a union! You do not need an advocate! Shut up and get back to work! No, you can't leave now, we're not done. Your kids can make their own dinner.
* You want to go to college? No problem -- just sign here and be in hock to a bank for the next 20 years!
* What's "a raise"? Get back to work and shut up!
And so it went. But Reagan could not have pulled this off by himself in 1981. He had some big help:
The AFL-CIO.
The biggest organization of unions in America told its members to cross the picket lines of the air traffic controllers and go to work. And that's just what these union members did. Union pilots, flight attendants, delivery truck drivers, baggage handlers -- they all crossed the line and helped to break the strike. And union members of all stripes crossed the picket lines and continued to fly.
Reagan and Wall Street could not believe their eyes! Hundreds of thousands of working people and union members endorsing the firing of fellow union members. It was Christmas in August for Corporate America.
And that was the beginning of the end. Reagan and the Republicans knew they could get away with anything -- and they did. They slashed taxes on the rich. They made it harder for you to start a union at your workplace. They eliminated safety regulations on the job. They ignored the monopoly laws and allowed thousands of companies to merge or be bought out and closed down. Corporations froze wages and threatened to move overseas if the workers didn't accept lower pay and less benefits. And when the workers agreed to work for less, they moved the jobs overseas anyway.
And at every step along the way, the majority of Americans went along with this. There was little opposition or fight-back. The "masses" did not rise up and protect their jobs, their homes, their schools (which used to be the best in the world). They just accepted their fate and took the beating.
I have often wondered what would have happened had we all just stopped flying, period, back in 1981. What if all the unions had said to Reagan, "Give those controllers their jobs back or we're shutting the country down!"? You know what would have happened. The corporate elite and their boy Reagan would have buckled.
But we didn't do it. And so, bit by bit, piece by piece, in the ensuing 30 years, those in power have destroyed the middle class of our country and, in turn, have wrecked the future for our young people. Wages have remained stagnant for 30 years. Take a look at the statistics and you can see that every decline we're now suffering with had its beginning in 1981 (here's a little scene to illustrate that from my last movie).
It all began on this day, 30 years ago. One of the darkest days in American history. And we let it happen to us. Yes, they had the money, and the media and the cops. But we had 200 million of us. Ever wonder what it would look like if 200 million got truly upset and wanted their country, their life, their job, their weekend, their time with their kids back?
Have we all just given up? What are we waiting for? Forget about the 20% who support the Tea Party -- we are the other 80%! This decline will only end when we demand it. And not through an online petition or a tweet. We are going to have to turn the TV and the computer and the video games off and get out in the streets (like they've done in Wisconsin). Some of you need to run for local office next year. We need to demand that the Democrats either get a spine and stop taking corporate money -- or step aside.
When is enough, enough? The middle class dream will not just magically reappear. Wall Street's plan is clear: America is to be a nation of Haves and Have Nothings. Is that OK for you?
Why not use today to pause and think about the little steps you can take to turn this around in your neighborhood, at your workplace, in your school? Is there any better day to start than today?
Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Target forces employees to watch this anti-union propaganda video
06.13.11
David Edwards
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/target-forces-employees-to-watch-this-anti-union-propaganda-video
Gawker obtained a training video that Target uses to warn its employees about the danger of joining a union.
The 13-milute video titled “Think Hard Before You Sign” is hosted by Doug and Maria, two actors posing as Target employees.
“We’re a target because we’re a threat to unions,” Doug claims. “The unions that represent grocery store workers.”
“When we take business away from unionized grocery stores that means they need fewer employees,” Maria continues.
“And fewer grocery store employees means fewer union members. And fewer members? Well that’s a problem for the union business. That’s right, I said business. Union business,” Doug adds.
“With a union you no longer have your own voice. Have a great suggestion? You can’t take it directly to your manager. You have to go through the union layers. Need help with a problem? Same thing. Someone else will do the talking for you. And there’s no guarantee you’ll like what they have to say. Guarantees. Guarantees and promises. That’s something else you might hear from a union. Unions often make big promises about wages and benefit increases if the team member will only sign their card. Those are promises they can’t keep,” Maria insists.
“The risk of getting a union with out a vote, big promises that can’t be kept, pressure on guests not to shop at our stores, for all those reasons and a whole lot more please think hard before you sign any card or petition,” Maria concludes.
David Edwards
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/target-forces-employees-to-watch-this-anti-union-propaganda-video
Gawker obtained a training video that Target uses to warn its employees about the danger of joining a union.
The 13-milute video titled “Think Hard Before You Sign” is hosted by Doug and Maria, two actors posing as Target employees.
“We’re a target because we’re a threat to unions,” Doug claims. “The unions that represent grocery store workers.”
“When we take business away from unionized grocery stores that means they need fewer employees,” Maria continues.
“And fewer grocery store employees means fewer union members. And fewer members? Well that’s a problem for the union business. That’s right, I said business. Union business,” Doug adds.
“With a union you no longer have your own voice. Have a great suggestion? You can’t take it directly to your manager. You have to go through the union layers. Need help with a problem? Same thing. Someone else will do the talking for you. And there’s no guarantee you’ll like what they have to say. Guarantees. Guarantees and promises. That’s something else you might hear from a union. Unions often make big promises about wages and benefit increases if the team member will only sign their card. Those are promises they can’t keep,” Maria insists.
“The risk of getting a union with out a vote, big promises that can’t be kept, pressure on guests not to shop at our stores, for all those reasons and a whole lot more please think hard before you sign any card or petition,” Maria concludes.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Dick Morris' Plan for Economic Recovery: Bankrupt States; Break Unions
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/dick-morris-plan-economic-recovery-bankrupt
Dick Morris' Plan for Economic Recovery: Bankrupt States; Break Unions
karoli
Friday Aug 06, 2010
It's silly season, and Republican consultants are leaving no stone unturned in their effort to confuse, conflate, attack and stir up anger and fear. But Dick Morris' latest may possibly be one of the most evil.
It seems that the Senate's passage of the aid to states package has thrown a monkey wrench into Morris' strategy for bringing the country to its knees. Here are some quotes from his website (which I will not link...Google it if you want them):
The opening salvo: Frame aid to states as a "bailout".
As long as the Democrats control Congress, they will continue to rubber-stamp Obama’s requests for bailouts of profligate states. But when the Republicans take control, they will be less than forthcoming. Republicans will ask the central question: Why should taxpayers from states that have cut their budgets and observed spending restraint, pay for the extravagances of the other states? Why should forty-seven states have to pay for California, New York, and Michigan?
Hmmmm. Will those 47 states refuse to accept the federal dollars which kept their states' budgets balanced last year? Why did Rick Perry accept the federal aid for Texas? So he could campaign on a balanced budget, of course.
But really, this is just the foundation. Morris' plan is much more evil than simply electing enough representatives to Congress to block federal aid to states.
The Republican solution to state financial distress should be simple: The Party should insist on a change in the federal bankruptcy law providing for a procedure for state bankruptcy (none now exists). This process must call for abrogation of all state and local public employee union contracts as is usually done in private sector bankruptcies. By freeing states and local governments (including school boards) of their union obligations on wages, work rules, staffing, and pensions, they have a chance to survive and, indeed, to prosper. But merely subsidizing these massive expenditures just prolongs the misery of the states in question.
Simply put: Bankrupt the states to break union contracts, then step in with federal dollars to rehabilitate states after they've stripped state employees of their pensions.
That Dick Morris is a real prince. There are also some serious flaws in his argument, beginning with his attack on state pensions.
Let's have a look at the city of Bell as a case study. The corrupt Bell City Council, City Manager and other overpaid officials all accrued pensions based upon salaries greater than what the President of the United States earns. Have a look around at other cities and you'll discover that pension obligations for true rank and file employees aren't the problem.
The real problem is with those overpaid ELECTED city officials who make far too much and end up sucking reserves out of municipal pension funds for employees. Non-union CalPERS officials approved pension benefits based on those high salaries so that Bell city officials could accrue a full pension without the required number of years of service to do so.
Did I mention those Bell crooks aren't union? Just in case I didn't, they're not.
In light of that, Dick Morris' closer is particularly insidious:
The collapse of overspending state governments must trigger the diminution of the power unions hold over their budgets and their politics. Their coming bankruptcies offer an opportunity for reform and the Republican Congress – backed by newly elected Republican state governments – give us precisely the opportunity we need to effectuate it.
In relative terms, this is a far more "revolutionary" and "tyrannical" proposal than anything I've heard from the Democrats. It's mind-numbingly evil, in fact. Bankrupt states, break unions, then bring in a rush of new "Republicans" to break the backbone of this country.
I don't think so.
Dick Morris' Plan for Economic Recovery: Bankrupt States; Break Unions
karoli
Friday Aug 06, 2010
It's silly season, and Republican consultants are leaving no stone unturned in their effort to confuse, conflate, attack and stir up anger and fear. But Dick Morris' latest may possibly be one of the most evil.
It seems that the Senate's passage of the aid to states package has thrown a monkey wrench into Morris' strategy for bringing the country to its knees. Here are some quotes from his website (which I will not link...Google it if you want them):
The opening salvo: Frame aid to states as a "bailout".
As long as the Democrats control Congress, they will continue to rubber-stamp Obama’s requests for bailouts of profligate states. But when the Republicans take control, they will be less than forthcoming. Republicans will ask the central question: Why should taxpayers from states that have cut their budgets and observed spending restraint, pay for the extravagances of the other states? Why should forty-seven states have to pay for California, New York, and Michigan?
Hmmmm. Will those 47 states refuse to accept the federal dollars which kept their states' budgets balanced last year? Why did Rick Perry accept the federal aid for Texas? So he could campaign on a balanced budget, of course.
But really, this is just the foundation. Morris' plan is much more evil than simply electing enough representatives to Congress to block federal aid to states.
The Republican solution to state financial distress should be simple: The Party should insist on a change in the federal bankruptcy law providing for a procedure for state bankruptcy (none now exists). This process must call for abrogation of all state and local public employee union contracts as is usually done in private sector bankruptcies. By freeing states and local governments (including school boards) of their union obligations on wages, work rules, staffing, and pensions, they have a chance to survive and, indeed, to prosper. But merely subsidizing these massive expenditures just prolongs the misery of the states in question.
Simply put: Bankrupt the states to break union contracts, then step in with federal dollars to rehabilitate states after they've stripped state employees of their pensions.
That Dick Morris is a real prince. There are also some serious flaws in his argument, beginning with his attack on state pensions.
Let's have a look at the city of Bell as a case study. The corrupt Bell City Council, City Manager and other overpaid officials all accrued pensions based upon salaries greater than what the President of the United States earns. Have a look around at other cities and you'll discover that pension obligations for true rank and file employees aren't the problem.
The real problem is with those overpaid ELECTED city officials who make far too much and end up sucking reserves out of municipal pension funds for employees. Non-union CalPERS officials approved pension benefits based on those high salaries so that Bell city officials could accrue a full pension without the required number of years of service to do so.
Did I mention those Bell crooks aren't union? Just in case I didn't, they're not.
In light of that, Dick Morris' closer is particularly insidious:
The collapse of overspending state governments must trigger the diminution of the power unions hold over their budgets and their politics. Their coming bankruptcies offer an opportunity for reform and the Republican Congress – backed by newly elected Republican state governments – give us precisely the opportunity we need to effectuate it.
In relative terms, this is a far more "revolutionary" and "tyrannical" proposal than anything I've heard from the Democrats. It's mind-numbingly evil, in fact. Bankrupt states, break unions, then bring in a rush of new "Republicans" to break the backbone of this country.
I don't think so.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Unions Members March, Demand Bankers ‘Fix The Mess’
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-29/unions-members-march-demand-bankers-fix-the-mess-correct-.html
Unions Members March, Demand Bankers ‘Fix The Mess’
April 29, 2010
By Holly Rosenkrantz
April 29 (Bloomberg) -- AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka led thousands of labor-union protesters in a march on Wall Street, chanting that investment banks must “fix the mess that you made” by paying more taxes and lending more money.
“It’s time for special taxes for bank bonuses,” Trumka said today at a rally outside City Hall that began after floor trading ended at the New York Stock Exchange. “When you engage in rampant and risky speculation, you are going to pay your fair share in taxes.”
The rally caps a drive by the nation’s largest organization of labor unions called the “Make Wall Street Pay” campaign. Protesters, some dressed as pirates, today held signs saying “Break Up Megabanks” and “Hey Big Banks -- Less Bail, More Jail.” Rallies have targeted Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the most profitable securities firm, and the five biggest U.S. banks.
Trumka started the march yelling “Let’s let Wall Street hear us, all the way down to the bull” at Bowling Green, the scheduled end point for the protest.
Police estimated more than 7,500 people gathered in the park south of City Hall, before the crowd headed south past the stock exchange carrying signs reading “Reclaim Our Democracy” and “Hold Banks Accountable.”
“They are tax dodgers, they aren’t putting anything back into the community,” said Otis J. Loweryberg, 84, a former International Business Machines Corp. worker in Delaware. “They only think about self -- self-motivation, self-preservation. How do these guys go home at night when people have no food on the table.”
‘Fed Up’
Wayne Usilton, 63, a former Chrysler Corp. worker from Delaware, said he joined more than 40 other union members from his state for the event traveling by bus to the event.
“The average person on Main Street is just fed up with big business and Wall Street manipulation,” Usilton said.
Brendan Plunkett, 46, a corporate bond trader, was heading home to Essex Falls, New Jersey, as the marchers walked down Broadway.
“If they care so much about the country, they should go to work and be productive and stop with the protests,” he said. “It’s all nonsense to me, and it always will be.”
The AFL-CIO, the 11-million-member labor federation, is urging Congress to impose a transaction tax on securities trading to help cover the $900 billion cost for a government jobs program they want lawmakers to create.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has said he opposes the transaction tax, though Trumka told reporters today it is picking up interest within the Obama administration. “We talk about it all the time,” Trumka said. “The conversation is getting better and more analytical.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business lobbying group, opposes the tax, which it says would hurt more than bankers.
“Wall Street must create” and “not destroy real lives, real hopes, real dreams,” Trumka said. “The bankers, the brokers, and big shots on Wall Street must understand.”
--With assistance from Esme E. Deprez and Moira Herbst in New York. Editors: Steve Geimann, Romaine Bostick
To contact the reporter on this story: Holly Rosenkrantz in New York at hrosenkrantz@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Liebert at lliebert@bloomberg.net.
Unions Members March, Demand Bankers ‘Fix The Mess’
April 29, 2010
By Holly Rosenkrantz
April 29 (Bloomberg) -- AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka led thousands of labor-union protesters in a march on Wall Street, chanting that investment banks must “fix the mess that you made” by paying more taxes and lending more money.
“It’s time for special taxes for bank bonuses,” Trumka said today at a rally outside City Hall that began after floor trading ended at the New York Stock Exchange. “When you engage in rampant and risky speculation, you are going to pay your fair share in taxes.”
The rally caps a drive by the nation’s largest organization of labor unions called the “Make Wall Street Pay” campaign. Protesters, some dressed as pirates, today held signs saying “Break Up Megabanks” and “Hey Big Banks -- Less Bail, More Jail.” Rallies have targeted Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the most profitable securities firm, and the five biggest U.S. banks.
Trumka started the march yelling “Let’s let Wall Street hear us, all the way down to the bull” at Bowling Green, the scheduled end point for the protest.
Police estimated more than 7,500 people gathered in the park south of City Hall, before the crowd headed south past the stock exchange carrying signs reading “Reclaim Our Democracy” and “Hold Banks Accountable.”
“They are tax dodgers, they aren’t putting anything back into the community,” said Otis J. Loweryberg, 84, a former International Business Machines Corp. worker in Delaware. “They only think about self -- self-motivation, self-preservation. How do these guys go home at night when people have no food on the table.”
‘Fed Up’
Wayne Usilton, 63, a former Chrysler Corp. worker from Delaware, said he joined more than 40 other union members from his state for the event traveling by bus to the event.
“The average person on Main Street is just fed up with big business and Wall Street manipulation,” Usilton said.
Brendan Plunkett, 46, a corporate bond trader, was heading home to Essex Falls, New Jersey, as the marchers walked down Broadway.
“If they care so much about the country, they should go to work and be productive and stop with the protests,” he said. “It’s all nonsense to me, and it always will be.”
The AFL-CIO, the 11-million-member labor federation, is urging Congress to impose a transaction tax on securities trading to help cover the $900 billion cost for a government jobs program they want lawmakers to create.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has said he opposes the transaction tax, though Trumka told reporters today it is picking up interest within the Obama administration. “We talk about it all the time,” Trumka said. “The conversation is getting better and more analytical.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business lobbying group, opposes the tax, which it says would hurt more than bankers.
“Wall Street must create” and “not destroy real lives, real hopes, real dreams,” Trumka said. “The bankers, the brokers, and big shots on Wall Street must understand.”
--With assistance from Esme E. Deprez and Moira Herbst in New York. Editors: Steve Geimann, Romaine Bostick
To contact the reporter on this story: Holly Rosenkrantz in New York at hrosenkrantz@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Liebert at lliebert@bloomberg.net.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
In Discussion of Mine Disaster Coverage, Only Imaginary Unions Allowed
http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/04/16/in-discussion-of-mine-disaster-coverage-only-imaginary-unions-allowed/
In Discussion of Mine Disaster Coverage, Only Imaginary Unions Allowed
04/16/2010 by Peter Hart
Andrew Tyndall makes a good point about how the network newcasts covered the Upper Big Branch mining disaster (flagged by Liz Cox Barrett at CJR):
Not once, in all five days of coverage, did a single reporter mention the organization that has worked hardest over the decades to make sure that mining management does not cut safety corners and that miners can monitor their own working conditions with impunity. The union went unmentioned, as did the fact that the Upper Big Branch workforce went unorganized.
Rush Limbaugh, for his part, did mention the miners union--to bash the non-existent union at Massey (Think Progress, 4/13/10):
Where was the union? The union is generally holding these companies up demanding all kinds of safety. Why were these miners continuing to work in what apparently was an unsafe atmosphere?
Alerted to the fact that Massey was, in fact, famously anti-union, and had busted the union at the Upper Big Branch mine, Limbaugh tried to find a way to save himself (4/15/10):
So I checked the e-mail during the break and a bunch of people say: "Hey, Rush, there was no union at that mine. At that Massey mine there was no union. Blankenship kept the union out of there. You can't blame the union for it." The left are trying to blame the Massey disaster on its union-busting, in fact. But: "In 2009 the National Labor Relations Board agreed with a decision that Massey Energy rehire 85 coal miners who said they had been discriminated against because they were union members." So there were union workers there, and so the United Mine Workers should have been overseeing their safety.... You people, it's been 21 years. At some point you are going to learn: If you go up against me on a challenge of fact, you are going to be wrong. It's just that simple.
Is it really that simple? Workers who belong to a union getting their jobs back at a non-union mine is not at all the same as workers having the protection of a union contract. But one of the remarkable things about Limbaugh is that even his most logically tenuous claims may be built on a foundation of make-believe. As UMWA president Cecil Roberts pointed out in the AFL-CIO blog (4/16/10):
Yesterday, Rush said on his program, "But in 2009, the [NLRB] agreed with the decision that Massey Energy rehire 85 coal miners who said they had been discriminated against because they were union members. So there were union workers there. So the United Mine Workers should have been overseeing their safety, the United Mine Workers of America."
Wrong again, Rush. The decision you refer to was AT ANOTHER MINE! And Massey is appealing that decision, meaning the workers who were discriminated against at the Cannelton mine (in another county from the Upper Big Branch mine) have yet to reclaim their rightful jobs as the NLRB ordered.
Those are the facts. Who's wrong now, Rush?
In Discussion of Mine Disaster Coverage, Only Imaginary Unions Allowed
04/16/2010 by Peter Hart
Andrew Tyndall makes a good point about how the network newcasts covered the Upper Big Branch mining disaster (flagged by Liz Cox Barrett at CJR):
Not once, in all five days of coverage, did a single reporter mention the organization that has worked hardest over the decades to make sure that mining management does not cut safety corners and that miners can monitor their own working conditions with impunity. The union went unmentioned, as did the fact that the Upper Big Branch workforce went unorganized.
Rush Limbaugh, for his part, did mention the miners union--to bash the non-existent union at Massey (Think Progress, 4/13/10):
Where was the union? The union is generally holding these companies up demanding all kinds of safety. Why were these miners continuing to work in what apparently was an unsafe atmosphere?
Alerted to the fact that Massey was, in fact, famously anti-union, and had busted the union at the Upper Big Branch mine, Limbaugh tried to find a way to save himself (4/15/10):
So I checked the e-mail during the break and a bunch of people say: "Hey, Rush, there was no union at that mine. At that Massey mine there was no union. Blankenship kept the union out of there. You can't blame the union for it." The left are trying to blame the Massey disaster on its union-busting, in fact. But: "In 2009 the National Labor Relations Board agreed with a decision that Massey Energy rehire 85 coal miners who said they had been discriminated against because they were union members." So there were union workers there, and so the United Mine Workers should have been overseeing their safety.... You people, it's been 21 years. At some point you are going to learn: If you go up against me on a challenge of fact, you are going to be wrong. It's just that simple.
Is it really that simple? Workers who belong to a union getting their jobs back at a non-union mine is not at all the same as workers having the protection of a union contract. But one of the remarkable things about Limbaugh is that even his most logically tenuous claims may be built on a foundation of make-believe. As UMWA president Cecil Roberts pointed out in the AFL-CIO blog (4/16/10):
Yesterday, Rush said on his program, "But in 2009, the [NLRB] agreed with the decision that Massey Energy rehire 85 coal miners who said they had been discriminated against because they were union members. So there were union workers there. So the United Mine Workers should have been overseeing their safety, the United Mine Workers of America."
Wrong again, Rush. The decision you refer to was AT ANOTHER MINE! And Massey is appealing that decision, meaning the workers who were discriminated against at the Cannelton mine (in another county from the Upper Big Branch mine) have yet to reclaim their rightful jobs as the NLRB ordered.
Those are the facts. Who's wrong now, Rush?
Sunday, December 30, 2007
State of the Unions
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/opinion/24krugman.html
December 24, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
State of the Unions
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Once upon a time, back when America had a strong middle class, it also had a strong union movement.
These two facts were connected. Unions negotiated good wages and benefits for their workers, gains that often ended up being matched even by nonunion employers. They also provided an important counterbalance to the political influence of corporations and the economic elite.
Today, however, the American union movement is a shadow of its former self, except among government workers. In 1973, almost a quarter of private-sector employees were union members, but last year the figure was down to a mere 7.4 percent.
Yet unions still matter politically. And right now they’re at the heart of a nasty political scuffle among Democrats. Before I get to that, however, let’s talk about what happened to American labor over the last 35 years.
It’s often assumed that the U.S. labor movement died a natural death, that it was made obsolete by globalization and technological change. But what really happened is that beginning in the 1970s, corporate America, which had previously had a largely cooperative relationship with unions, in effect declared war on organized labor.
Don’t take my word for it; read Business Week, which published an article in 2002 titled “How Wal-Mart Keeps Unions at Bay.” The article explained that “over the past two decades, Corporate America has perfected its ability to fend off labor groups.” It then described the tactics — some legal, some illegal, all involving a healthy dose of intimidation — that Wal-Mart and other giant firms use to block organizing drives.
These hardball tactics have been enabled by a political environment that has been deeply hostile to organized labor, both because politicians favored employers’ interests and because conservatives sought to weaken the Democratic Party. “We’re going to crush labor as a political entity,” Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist, once declared.
But the times may be changing. A newly energized progressive movement seems to be on the ascendant, and unions are a key part of that movement. Most notably, the Service Employees International Union has played a key role in pushing for health care reform. And unions will be an important force in the Democrats’ favor in next year’s election.
Or maybe not — which brings us to the latest from Iowa.
Whoever receives the Democratic presidential nomination will receive labor’s support in the general election. Meanwhile, however, unions are supporting favored candidates. Hillary Clinton — who for a time seemed the clear front-runner — has received the most union support. John Edwards, whose populist message resonates with labor, has also received considerable labor support.
But Barack Obama, though he has a solid pro-labor voting record, has not — in part, perhaps, because his message of “a new kind of politics” that will transcend bitter partisanship doesn’t make much sense to union leaders who know, from the experience of confronting corporations and their political allies head on, that partisanship isn’t going away anytime soon.
O.K., that’s politics. But now Mr. Obama has lashed out at Mr. Edwards because two 527s — independent groups that are allowed to support candidates, but are legally forbidden from coordinating directly with their campaigns — are running ads on his rival’s behalf. They are, Mr. Obama says, representative of the kind of “special interests” that “have too much influence in Washington.”
The thing, though, is that both of these 527s represent union groups — in the case of the larger group, local branches of the S.E.I.U. who consider Mr. Edwards the strongest candidate on health reform. So Mr. Obama’s attack raises a couple of questions.
First, does it make sense, in the current political and economic environment, for Democrats to lump unions in with corporate groups as examples of the special interests we need to stand up to?
Second, is Mr. Obama saying that if nominated, he’d be willing to run without support from labor 527s, which might be crucial to the Democrats? If not, how does he avoid having his own current words used against him by the Republican nominee?
Part of what happened here, I think, is that Mr. Obama, looking for a stick with which to beat an opponent who has lately acquired some momentum, either carelessly or cynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would affect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, to campaign effectively. In this sense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security.
Beyond that, the episode illustrates what’s wrong with campaigning on generalities about political transformation and trying to avoid sounding partisan.
It may be partisan to say that a 527 run by labor unions supporting health care reform isn’t the same thing as a 527 run by insurance companies opposing it. But it’s also the simple truth.
December 24, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
State of the Unions
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Once upon a time, back when America had a strong middle class, it also had a strong union movement.
These two facts were connected. Unions negotiated good wages and benefits for their workers, gains that often ended up being matched even by nonunion employers. They also provided an important counterbalance to the political influence of corporations and the economic elite.
Today, however, the American union movement is a shadow of its former self, except among government workers. In 1973, almost a quarter of private-sector employees were union members, but last year the figure was down to a mere 7.4 percent.
Yet unions still matter politically. And right now they’re at the heart of a nasty political scuffle among Democrats. Before I get to that, however, let’s talk about what happened to American labor over the last 35 years.
It’s often assumed that the U.S. labor movement died a natural death, that it was made obsolete by globalization and technological change. But what really happened is that beginning in the 1970s, corporate America, which had previously had a largely cooperative relationship with unions, in effect declared war on organized labor.
Don’t take my word for it; read Business Week, which published an article in 2002 titled “How Wal-Mart Keeps Unions at Bay.” The article explained that “over the past two decades, Corporate America has perfected its ability to fend off labor groups.” It then described the tactics — some legal, some illegal, all involving a healthy dose of intimidation — that Wal-Mart and other giant firms use to block organizing drives.
These hardball tactics have been enabled by a political environment that has been deeply hostile to organized labor, both because politicians favored employers’ interests and because conservatives sought to weaken the Democratic Party. “We’re going to crush labor as a political entity,” Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist, once declared.
But the times may be changing. A newly energized progressive movement seems to be on the ascendant, and unions are a key part of that movement. Most notably, the Service Employees International Union has played a key role in pushing for health care reform. And unions will be an important force in the Democrats’ favor in next year’s election.
Or maybe not — which brings us to the latest from Iowa.
Whoever receives the Democratic presidential nomination will receive labor’s support in the general election. Meanwhile, however, unions are supporting favored candidates. Hillary Clinton — who for a time seemed the clear front-runner — has received the most union support. John Edwards, whose populist message resonates with labor, has also received considerable labor support.
But Barack Obama, though he has a solid pro-labor voting record, has not — in part, perhaps, because his message of “a new kind of politics” that will transcend bitter partisanship doesn’t make much sense to union leaders who know, from the experience of confronting corporations and their political allies head on, that partisanship isn’t going away anytime soon.
O.K., that’s politics. But now Mr. Obama has lashed out at Mr. Edwards because two 527s — independent groups that are allowed to support candidates, but are legally forbidden from coordinating directly with their campaigns — are running ads on his rival’s behalf. They are, Mr. Obama says, representative of the kind of “special interests” that “have too much influence in Washington.”
The thing, though, is that both of these 527s represent union groups — in the case of the larger group, local branches of the S.E.I.U. who consider Mr. Edwards the strongest candidate on health reform. So Mr. Obama’s attack raises a couple of questions.
First, does it make sense, in the current political and economic environment, for Democrats to lump unions in with corporate groups as examples of the special interests we need to stand up to?
Second, is Mr. Obama saying that if nominated, he’d be willing to run without support from labor 527s, which might be crucial to the Democrats? If not, how does he avoid having his own current words used against him by the Republican nominee?
Part of what happened here, I think, is that Mr. Obama, looking for a stick with which to beat an opponent who has lately acquired some momentum, either carelessly or cynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would affect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, to campaign effectively. In this sense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security.
Beyond that, the episode illustrates what’s wrong with campaigning on generalities about political transformation and trying to avoid sounding partisan.
It may be partisan to say that a 527 run by labor unions supporting health care reform isn’t the same thing as a 527 run by insurance companies opposing it. But it’s also the simple truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
