A Bluecollar View

It's Been A Long Time

2005-02-09T12:14:00.000-08:00

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Abraham Lincoln

Unions, China and the Smiley Face

2004-11-23T09:55:00.000-08:00

It's been a while, been busy.

But couldnt pass this one up:

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aEZnFXxTPDTU&refer=news_index

Wal-Mart wont allow unions in the US, but they will in China. How nice.

The Civil War Continues?

2004-11-12T14:16:00.000-08:00

Check out these maps:

http://www.learner.org/biographyofamerica/prog10/maps/

http://election.cbsnews.com/election2004/

... almost all former free states voted Kerry ... the former slave states voted Bush:

Trust Me

2004-11-10T20:55:00.000-08:00

Employers suing retirees in order to eliminate their obligation to pay retirement benefits negotiated and written into labor contracts? You bet. This is America. Home of the corporation ... an entity with the rights of a man. Sick.

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110003711129469246,00.html?mod=home%5Fpage%5Fone%5Fus

The Battle Begins

2004-11-10T11:11:00.000-08:00

So, the battle for future of the American labor movement has begun. And the NY Times even wrote two articles on the topic.

This first link discussses the internal reassesment of the AFL-CIO:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Labor-Future.html

The second link highlights the internal union divisions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/national/10labor.html

The third provides information onf Andy Stern and SEIU's ideas for saving the labor movement:
http://www.unitetowin.org/

Who is right?

And how do we save the labor movement?

I hope to address that later this week.

Good Jobs

2004-11-08T18:55:00.000-08:00

Havent been posting as much as of late, not that many people are reading this. Stopped, rather been trying to, stop coffee consumption and coffee is my gasoline. Thus the slow pace of my brain and thus the posts.

What is the solution to outsourcing (and the problem of the working poor (if you work you shouldnt be poor)? Economist and journalist Robert Kuttner lays it out:

Remedy to outsourcing: better US jobs
By Robert Kuttner April 28, 2004
LAST WEEK I addressed the dilemma of job outsourcing. I promised some remedies in this column.

In truth, the outsourcing of American jobs is one relatively small facet of the larger problem -- the steady erosion of jobs that pay middle-class wages. A global economy makes this challenge more difficult because it puts many American workers into direct competition with foreigners who are happy to work for less.

Most of the solution to the outsourcing problem, however, is domestic. In recent decades, institutions that once produced a more equal society have been dismantled or weakened. These included government regulation of wages and working conditions, of industry practices, of a worker's right to choose a union (or not), as well as various social investments that once contributed good jobs. If we can rebuild these, the loss of some jobs overseas will continue to be a problem, but a manageable one.

The majority of jobs in the economy today are in the service sector, and many of these need to be close to the customer. A job in a hotel, a nursing home, a restaurant, a university, or a public school cannot easily be outsourced overseas.
So the first remedy is to make these good jobs. We can do this with higher minimum wages, local living wage ordinances, by enforcing the right of workers to join unions, and structuring these jobs to encourage and reward higher skills and career paths.

Enforcement of the Wagner Act, which allows American workers a free choice to vote in a union, has become a joke. Employers find it cheaper to fire pro-union workers, hire fancy law firms to conduct union-busting campaigns, and pay the very infrequent fine.

One happy exception speaks volumes -- the successful struggle by the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees to turn Las Vegas into a union town. Today, the most humble workers in Vegas's hotels -- those who clean the rooms -- are paid middle-class salaries with health benefits and have career opportunities. They are becoming homeowners and starting to live the American dream. The higher labor costs are a drop in the casino bucket.

After all, no inherent economic logic required semi-skilled factory workers to earn middle-class wages. What made the difference was strong unions and federal enforcement of the right to organize. Blue-collar service jobs could pay decently, too.

Second, we need more human service jobs that pay professional salaries by addressing unmet social needs. At many hospitals, nursing staffs are spread thin. Residents in nursing homes are cared for mainly by inadequately trained people earning barely above minimum wage with very high turnover rates. Budget cuts have decimated mental health services. America's children need a whole new set of professionally trained child development workers.

These social needs should be met in the time-tested way -- by taxing those who can afford to pay and using the proceeds for social investments. America's social outlays have been reduced to the level of the 1950s. Let's have a new marriage between necessary services and good jobs.

Third, while manufacturing jobs may never employ the work force they once did, public policy can help stimulate an advanced manufacturing economy. Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, but the US government did -- as a byproduct of defense spending. A lot of very good jobs were created as high-tech industries took off.

Government subsidy of biotech research, likewise, has helped incubate an industry with good jobs both in research and manufacturing.

Government could work alongside private industry to invest in new technologies for energy independence. We could make a national commitment to bring broadband cable service to every home, which would create a huge new market for jobs. These strategies would both create millions of good jobs in research, services, and manufacturing.

Trade and oursourcing do need to be addressed, too. If workers in countries that trade with the United States are assured the right to form unions, wage competition will be less of a problem. Repealing tax incentives to outsource jobs would also help. If we enforce fair trade, the United States could have more export opportunities to balance our increased imports.

One approach to creating good jobs, however, is a proven failure: George Bush's strategy of cutting taxes, gutting regulation, and trusting private industry to do the rest. This path has led to a few astronomically compensated executive jobs, a bonanza for a few fortunate investors, and a slow slide for the working middle class. Ultimately, many roads are available in the new economy. How to reconcile globalism with good American jobs remains a political choice.

Robert Kuttner's is co-editor of The American Prospect. His column appears regularly in the Globe

We Need Economic Populism

2004-11-05T11:10:00.000-08:00

Hopefully the election will prompt the Democratic establishment to wake up and get back to its' roots ... the working class.

Thomas Frank's op-ed in the NYTimes puts it this way:

The first thing Democrats must try to grasp as they cast their eyes over the smoking ruins of the election is the continuing power of the culture wars. Thirty-six years ago, President Richard Nixon championed a noble "silent majority" while his vice president, Spiro Agnew, accused liberals of twisting the news. In nearly every election since, liberalism has been vilified as a flag-burning, treason-coddling, upper-class affectation. This year voters claimed to rank "values" as a more important issue than the economy and even the war in Iraq.

And yet, Democrats still have no coherent framework for confronting this chronic complaint, much less understanding it. Instead, they "triangulate," they accommodate, they declare themselves converts to the Republican religion of the market, they sign off on Nafta and welfare reform, they try to be more hawkish than the Republican militarists. And they lose. And they lose again. Meanwhile, out in Red America, the right-wing populist revolt continues apace, its fury at the "liberal elite" undiminished by the Democrats' conciliatory gestures or the passage of time.

Like many such movements, this long-running conservative revolt is rife with contradictions. It is an uprising of the common people whose long-term economic effect has been to shower riches upon the already wealthy and degrade the lives of the very people who are rising up. It is a reaction against mass culture that refuses to call into question the basic institutions of corporate America that make mass culture what it is. It is a revolution that plans to overthrow the aristocrats by cutting their taxes.

Still, the power of the conservative rebellion is undeniable. It presents a way of talking about life in which we are all victims of a haughty overclass - "liberals" - that makes our movies, publishes our newspapers, teaches our children, and hands down judgments from the bench. These liberals generally tell us how to go about our lives, without any consideration for our values or traditions.

The culture wars, in other words, are a way of framing the ever-powerful subject of social class. They are a way for Republicans to speak on behalf of the forgotten man without causing any problems for their core big-business constituency.

Against this militant, aggrieved, full-throated philosophy the Democrats chose to go with ... what? Their usual soft centrism, creating space for this constituency and that, taking care to antagonize no one, declining even to criticize the president, really, at their convention. And despite huge get-out-the-vote efforts and an enormous treasury, Democrats lost the battle of voter motivation before it started.

Worse: While conservatives were sharpening their sense of class victimization, Democrats had all but abandoned the field. For some time, the centrist Democratic establishment in Washington has been enamored of the notion that, since the industrial age is ending, the party must forget about blue-collar workers and their issues and embrace the "professional" class. During the 2004 campaign these new, business-friendly Democrats received high-profile assistance from idealistic tycoons and openly embraced trendy management theory. They imagined themselves the "metro" party of cool billionaires engaged in some kind of cosmic combat with the square billionaires of the "retro" Republican Party.

Yet this would have been a perfect year to give the Republicans a Trumanesque spanking for the many corporate scandals that they have countenanced and, in some ways, enabled. Taking such a stand would also have provided Democrats with a way to address and maybe even defeat the angry populism that informs the "values" issues while simultaneously mobilizing their base.
To short-circuit the Republican appeals to blue-collar constituents, Democrats must confront the cultural populism of the wedge issues with genuine economic populism. They must dust off their own majoritarian militancy instead of suppressing it; sharpen the distinctions between the parties instead of minimizing them; emphasize the contradictions of culture-war populism instead of ignoring them; and speak forthrightly about who gains and who loses from conservative economic policy.

What is more likely, of course, is that Democratic officialdom will simply see this week's disaster as a reason to redouble their efforts to move to the right. They will give in on, say, Social Security privatization or income tax "reform" and will continue to dream their happy dreams about becoming the party of the enlightened corporate class. And they will be surprised all over again two or four years from now when the conservative populists of the Red America, poorer and angrier than ever, deal the "party of the people" yet another stunning blow.

Thomas Frank is the author, most recently, of "What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America."

Coalminers

2004-11-02T14:13:00.000-08:00

Uncle Tupelo, the band that spawned Wilco and Son Volt, wrote and performed a song called Coalminer. Below are the lyrics.

come, all you coalminers
wherever you may be
and listen to the story
that I relate to thee
my name is nothing extra
but the truth to you I tell

I am a coalminer
and I'm sure I wish you well
I was born in old Kentucky
in a coal camp, born and bred
I know about old beans
bulldog gravy and cornbread

I know how the miners work and slave
in the coalmines every day
for a dollar in the company store
for that is all they pay
mining is the most dangerous work
in our land today

plenty of dirty, slaving work
for very little pay
coalminers, won't you wake up
and open your eyes and see
what this dirty capitalist system
has done to you and me

dear miners, they will slave you
until you can't work no more
and what will you get for your labor
but a dollar in the company store
a tumbledown shack to live in
snow and rain pouring through the top
and you have to pay the company rent
and your payments will never stop

they take our very lifeblood
they take our children's lives
take fathers away from children
take husbands away from wives

coalminers, won't you organize
wherever you may be
and make this a land of freedom
for workers, like you and me

I am a coalminer
and I'm sure I wish you well
let's sink this capitalist system
to the darkest pits of hell

Econ 101

2004-10-31T23:25:00.000-08:00

A basic economic explanation of why including labor rights in free trade trade agreements makes sense.

Abolish the Worst Forms of Child Labor
Countries that allow child labor are damaging their long-run growth prospects. If children are in the factories and fields then they are not getting an education. If they are not getting an education, then they will not be able to provide the human capital and skills necessary to advance their countries economies.

Abolish Forced (Slave) Labor
Countries that allow forced labor and slave labor are competing solely on wages. A focus on wage competition precludes a focus on technological assimilation and advancement. So a country allowing forced labor hurts itself in the long run becuase it never advances technologically.

End Employment Discrimination
Employment discrimination results in an inefficient sorting in the labor market. The workers best suited for the job may not get the job (b/c they may be discriminated against) and the job will then be performed with sub=par results (relative to a non-discriminitory policy).

Allow Freedom of Association
I mentioned this one in a previous post ... in summary: freedom of association leads to unions leads to more equal sharing of profits leads to greater purchasing power in the population leads to increased domestic demand leads to growth of domestic industries leads to insulation from financial shocks and crisis originating outside of the country.

I realize the world is a complicated place. But economic models are always simplified. Thus my conclusions above.

Don't forget to vote!

Andean Free Trade, Fair Trade & Service Sector Work

2004-10-29T08:05:00.000-07:00

Well, it looks like we have signed a free trade agreement with the several Andean countries (Colombia, Peru, Bolivia)...just needs to be sent to Congress. See: http://www.ustr.gov and click the trade agreements/bilateral link.

Did you read the press release in the paper? Hear the talking points from Kerry or Bush? Me neither. Funny how an appointed official has the power to bargain my and your economic future away.

I do not posit that all trade is bad, in fact it is absolutely necessary. But FAIR TRADE must be the way. See the links below for some information on fair trade efforts, mainly for coffee farmers in the South, but its a start: http://www.fairlabor.org/ or http://www.transfairusa.org/. So when you order your morning coffee at the local shop, ask for fair trade coffee and give them the link if they dont know what you're talking about.

And speaking of coffee, the old Wobblies, the Industrial Workers of the World (you know, the "One Big Union") recently organized a Starbucks shop in NYC: http://www.iww.org/unions/iu660/starbucks/

Reality is that jobs like mine, factory work, are going away, well, going to the Third World (hey, those folks ned jobs too!). So the unions and us workers need to organize the service sector. And make service sector jobs what bluecollar jobs are today. Yea, thats right. Working the counter at Burger King or sacking groceries at Kroger ought not be viewed as a 'bad' job. The only thing that will change it is ORGANIZING! Here are links to a few unions that are doing what they can (given the virtual prohibition of the freedom of association in this country ... another post soon):
http://www.seiu.org/ or http://www.ufcw.org/ or http://www.unitehere.org/ or http://fastaflcio.org/

Solidarity.

A Better Explanation

2004-10-28T12:42:00.001-07:00

A recent interview with Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich asked the following question:

We understand that there is a link between human rights and labor rights, but can you comment on economic and political arguments for including labor rights in free trade agreements?

Reich answered by saying:

Poor countries obviously cannot afford the same degree of labor protection we give our workers in this country in terms of minimum wages and working conditions. That doesn't mean, however, that poor countries should not be held to some minimum standard--that's where human rights come in. There should not be slavery or forced labor or child labor--that is, the employment of children under the age of 15, seven days a week, ten hours a day. That sort of thing should be prohibited. There ought to be a universal right for workers to form labor unions if they so wish. These are basic human rights, regardless of whether a nation is rich or poor. But then we come to a set of labor standards that should be understood as relative to the wealth of a nation. As poor nations become richer, they should be expected to raise their minimum wages and improve their working conditions. There's no reason that both of these sets of standards, one having to do with human rights and one having to do with steady improvements in minimum wages and working conditions as nations become richer, shouldn't be included in all trade treaties.

Much like Don Evans, Mr. Reich is terrible out of touch. First, he didnt even answer the question. Second, he thinks we are so stupid that he must reiterate that worker rights are human rights.

Mr. Reich we all know that child labor and forced labor (aka slavery) are wrong. But this softball question gave you the chance to make the case politically and economically for both workers and the nation as a whole ... and you blew it. Let me, a lifetime factory worker explain it to you, the former Secretary of Labor;

First, the core labor rights, as defined by the International Labor Organization are the freedom from forced labor, freedome from child labor, freedom from employment discrimination and the freedom of association.

Second, these rights make sense for American workers b/c we no longer have to compete with child or slave laborers. We will still have to compete with low-wage workers in foreign countries. But eliminating the child/slave competition raises the bar for us and helps, a little bit, to get us to a more level playing field.

Third, these rights make sense for the United States government for several reasons. Most important being the fact that the freedome of association generates unions. Unions are friends of democracy (what could be more democratic than a union local? unions teach people what deomcracy means). And unions are foes of autocracy. Recent history is ripe with examples ... Solidarity in Poland, COASTU Unions in South Africa, uprisings in the Phillipines, Argentina and the list goes on! Unions can help spread democracy peacefully!

Fourth, the countries we trade with with be more economically stable. Freedom of association leads to unions leads to more equal sharing of wealth leads to increased domestic demand. Increased domestic demand means two things: the foreign countries can afford to but more of our goods and the foreign countries will be less effected by financial crisis (such as the Asian Financial Crisis) ... so we dont have to bail everyone out.

So who loses out?

In the long run, no one.

In the short term, corporations ... they might have to pay a fair wage for a short period of time, but aggregate global demand will eventually increase ... thus generating more business.

My next post will lay out the arguement for labor rights from a less political and more classical (well, keynesian actually) perspective.

Finally

2004-10-27T20:46:00.000-07:00

Congrats to the Red Sox and their working class fans.

If the Sox can win the Series, then the unions of old can rise from the grave as well!

Out of Touch

2004-10-25T19:57:00.000-07:00

Watching Commerce Secretary Don Evans speak on CNN this afternoon reminded me of just how out of touch our leaders are with working people. I dare say that, with execpetion of Teddy Kennedy and possibly John Edwards, few political elites get it.

An example of Evans ignorance is clear in this op'ed he penned for the Wall Street Journal earlier this summer. I am including the op-ed as well as my response, which, surprise wasnt printed.

----------------

Here is a link to the Evans op-ed:
http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive/2004/Jun/29-739914.html

----------------

My unpublished reply:

Early in his editorial Evans states that "we are working closely with the Chinese government to ensure that trade takes place through open markets and on a level playing field."

The rest of the editorial is dedicated to Evans' idea of a level playing field: resolving WTO cases, making intellectual property theft a serious/punishable crime, lowering trade barriers, improving the regulatory system, reducing capital controls and ending government micromanagement of the market.

Evans' ends his misguided pice by explaining that, "The Bush Administration is determined becuase we know that American workers excel on even terms and we recognize that open markets spur economic growth and create jobs in America."

Are we to assume that a level playing field for American companies translates to "even terms" for American workers? Very interesting.

But in addition to Evans' points I would suggest that a level playing field for American workers might also include some pressure on China to respect worker rights, end the salve laor or 'lagoi' camps and allow the market to set wages.

Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao is scheduled to visit China in the near future. She might address these issues? I hope so.

------------------

P.S. Secretary of Labor Chao didnt address these issues.

UNITE HERE in SF & The NUP

2004-10-24T09:36:00.000-07:00

The battle of UNITEHERE hotel workers versus their employers in San Francisco is an important issue for all working people and the future of the labor movement.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/23/BAGOL9F6MP1.DTL

The union is demanding a meager pay raise to compensate for skyrocketing health care costs.

More important for the labor movement as a whole, though, is the demand for a 2 year contract. Why is this important? Becuase a 2 year contract will put the San Fran workers on the same 'bargaining schedule' as the hotel workers in most other major cities. So 2 years from now UNITEHERE can bargain across cities, can bargain as an industry. It is a consolidation of bargaining power for working people.

This consolidation of power throughout an entire industry is one of the key tenants of an inter-AFL-CIO reform effort headed up by UNITEHERE's Bruce Raynor and John Wilhelm, SEIU's Andy Stern and several others. The idea is to reform the AFL-CIO from 70 small unions into 15 large unions organized by industry. And instead of organizning and bargaining worksite by worksite, the union could organize and bargain by industry.

The San Francisco hotel battle is an important one for the NUP.

The "NUP" has pros and cons ... but at least someone in the AFL-CIO leadership is thinking of change. Businesses are always changing tactics ... the AFL-CIO has hd the same structure and strategy since the 1940's.

For more information on the "NUP" see the following links or just do a google search:

http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2003/10/a.html

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Mar2004/johnson0304.html

War on the Working Class? Watch Tonight!

2004-10-22T11:09:00.000-07:00

NOW with Bill Moyers - Class in America PBS Channel 13 Friday, October 22, 2004, 8:30pm (in New York City) check for listingsnationwide on www.pbs.org/now/

Rebroadcast on Sunday, October 24th, 11pm For the first time, a frank discussion on class warfare and it'simplications on domestic issues and the war in Iraq.

Are changes in labor laws, tax law enforcement, and the war in Iraq all offensives in a class war on working Americans? Bill Moyers sits down with Michael Zweig for a look at policy changes, he says, are designed to serve big business and the corporate elites at the expense of America's working class.

Zweig is Professor of Economics and founder of the Center for Study of Working Class Life at the State University of New York at Stony Brook(www.workingclass.sunysb.edu). He is the author of, THE WORKING CLASSMAJORITY: AMERICA'S BEST KEPT SECRET (2000, Cornell University Press), andis editor of WHAT'S CLASS GOT TO DO WITH IT? AMERICAN SOCIETY IN THETWENTY-FIRST CENTURY (2004, Cornell University Press).

Don't Inconvience the Employing/Advising Class

2004-10-21T21:16:00.000-07:00

Excuse my generalizations. They are for dramatic effect, but I do think they do possess truth.

The employing and advising classes often cite Adam Smith's work, The Wealth of Nations, as great testamony to laissez-faire economics. The 'invisible hand' of the market should rule. Inequality be damned! If the 'market' says so, it must be the natural and right state of things!

I didnt know Mr. Smith, but I do think he would be disgusted with the use of his name and his work to explain away or legitimize massive inequalities in income.

"Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people regarded as an advantage or an inconviency? The answer seems at first abundantly plain. Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater pat can never be regarded as an inconviency to the whole." -Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 7

Intervention in the 'market' to equalize the accumulation of wealth, or better and less invasive, observation of the freedom of association which would allow workers to raise their wages and thus the wage floor and reduce inequality, could 'never be regarded as an inconvinency."

But it is.

Add this to the fact that our 'conservative' President touts radical change.

The world is on it's head.

Resource for Working People

2004-10-18T07:05:00.000-07:00

Interested in labor standards and trade.

The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) website has a lot of information on this topic:

http://www.icftu.org/focus.asp?Issue=trade&Language=EN

Global Trade That Works For All

2004-10-15T09:48:00.000-07:00

My last posted provided a glimpse of how I feel the playing field should be leveled for American workers. We shouldnt have to compete with workers who work for slave wages, anywhere. All workers deserve better. And all workers should fight to get better.

The Catholic Church released the following on Labor Day 2004. It is a good read:

http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/ld04.htm

50/50 to 20/80

2004-10-14T17:26:00.000-07:00

I wrote this letter to the editor of my local paper some months ago. It still applies. An 'economic recovey' without sufficient job creation. The article informs why ...

------------------------

The editorial “Economic Surge” in yesterday’s Times informed us that our supposed economic recovery has been coupled with increasing job losses and declining wages. It was also stated that improving such economic indicators matters more than this quarterly rebound in GDP.

I agree. But the real question is, how likely is it that we will see an improvement in this area? A recent report released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York provides some insight.

The report states that all recoveries combine cyclical and structural job adjustments. Cyclical adjustments are "reversible responses to lulls in demand": industries lay off workers during the recession and then rehire them when business activity picks up. With structural adjustments the losses are permanent: industries eliminate jobs, forcing workers to seek new employment in other industries and sectors.

Whereas previous recessions have seen a 50/50 mix of cyclical to structural adjustments, the current situation pans out to be 20/80 cyclical to structural. In simpler terms, 8 out of 10 jobs lost in this recession have been outright eliminated from their industry. Where are these jobs going?

One answer is that jobs are going overseas. While it is difficult to determine an exact number (last December the Bush Administration quietly axed a Department of Labor program that tracked mass layoffs of workers when factories close and move overseas) it is safe to say that the answer is, “too many”. Another answer is that jobs are moving from the well-paying manufacturing industry to the relatively low-paying service industry.

Chances are that any future ‘job creation’ will result in more low-paying service sector positions. In addition, American workers are continually forced to compete with the sweatshop wages paid in many overseas countries, further depressing wages at home. American wages and thus American purchasing power is in a long-term downward spiral.

The Bush Administration’s tax cut and pro-business policies may have sparked a one-quarter jump in GDP, but it won’t stop the bleeding of the American middle class. We need a real plan for recovery, one that encourages American businesses to hire Americans and one that requires our trading partners to pay their workers a minimum wage. I hope President Bush has the political courage to step forward with a true economic plan, instead of trying to pass off his tax-cut plan as the answer.

I doubt he does.

I Need Cash, Not Vacation.

2004-10-13T11:32:00.000-07:00

I have been putting in a good amount of overtime lately, thus the dearth of actual opinion/inight articles here. Instead I have been posting qoutations, links and op-eds I have found around the papers. I promise I will get back to opinion in the near future.

Speaking of overtime, the new Bush overtime rules have garnered some attention (I say some b/c most major papers carried the story for a single day on the inner pages ... most local papers, at least the ones up here didnt even give it a single paragraph) as of late.

Some, like the AFL-CIO, have claimed the new rules will adversely affect 6 million workers. Others, like anti-worker law firms, have claimed it will actually expand the number of people eligible for overtime.

The reality is that it isn't the rules that matter, it is how employers use them. My prediction is that most employers will continue paying overtime as they did before for their current employees. But they will utilize the new rules for any new hires. That way the current workforce wont complain. And the new workers wont have say in it. Overall, I predict a net decline in the number of workers getting overtime.

Since when has an employer ever done something out of sympathy with workers? Every benefit we have has either been fought for, or is required by the labor market. What do I mean by required by the labor market? Employers dont offer great benefits out of the niceness of their soul-less hearts. They offer them becuase the labor market requires it. Unions fought for benefits. And to compete with comapnies that do offer benefits, the one's who didnt had to start offering them ... in order to attract employees.

The bigger, scarier overtime issue comes from Bush's new push to give employers the opportunity to substitute vacation hours for overtime pay. Mr. Bush couches this as giving employees a choice, but that is just another misleading statement from the Misleader in Chief.

The Flextime Plan requires companies to count overtime as any hours over 80 in a two week period. That means I could work 79 hours this week and 1 next week and get ZERO overtime credit for it. It also allows employers to substitute vacation hours for actual overtime pay. So if I worked 79 hours this week and 2 hours next week for a total of 81 hours, I would get a pathetic 1 hour vacation time credit.

When Bush says that employees have the choice he is dead wrong. Why? Under thc urrent rules the employer must pay me for overtime. Under the proposed Flextime Plan I accrue vacation hours and THEN I HAVE TO ASK THE BOSS FOR PERMISSION TO USE THEM! So the choice, friends, aint ours ... its our employers'!

To hell with that .... with wages falling, median income on the decline and proces going up I need CASH, not vacation!

Founding Father of Organized Labor

2004-10-11T07:26:00.000-07:00

Samuel Gompers once said,

"What does labor want? We want more schoolhouses and less jails; more books and less arsenals; more learning and less vice; more leisure and less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of the opportunities to cultivate our better natures, to make manhood more noble, womanhood more beautiful, and childhood more happy and bright."

These are all things I want too.

Human Rights for Workers (Link)

2004-10-09T07:29:00.000-07:00

A man in Chicago by the name of Bob Sesner puts out a monthly newsletter on the globalization effects working people. He thinks that globalization requires that workers rights be viewed as human rights. I agree.

http://www.senser.com/

Open Letter to Kerry Writers

2004-10-08T08:06:00.000-07:00

If anyone working for the Kerry campiagn sees this damn website, please pass on these stock answers to Mr. Kerry.

If someone asks you why you 'for the war and then voted against supporting the troops', please respond by saying:

I voted to give the President the authority to go to war because I trusted that Mr. Bush would execute the war the right way. I voted against the money package becuase, by that time, Mr. Bush didnt execute the war the right war and had proven that he couldnt be trusted to make good decisions. I wasn't going to write a blank check to a man I don't trust.

And if possible, follow it up with:

Further, over 7 of the 20 billion dollars for reconstruction in that second bill was money earmarked for Halliburton. President Bush says that by voting I didnt support the troops ... no, that's flat out wrong. I think we could have done better. I think we can do better. Lining the pockets of oil barons isnt my idea of supporting the troops.

---------------

On the topic of jobs I assume that Bush will either skirt the issue or, more likley, insist in a very Orwellian way that the economy is strong and getting stronger. So Kerry can respond with a Dick Cheney zinger. I suggest Mr. Kerry say this at some point in the jobs debate:

Your rhetoric on a jobs and the economy, Mr. President, would be a lot more credible if there was a record to back it up. There isn't.

You cannot continue to mislead the American people by insisting during a Presidential debate that the economy is strong and getting stronger.

You are the first President since Depression-era Herbert Hoover to reside over a net loss in jobs ... workers' wages are falling, median family income has dropped, an additional 5 million people now live in poverty, 20% of American children live in poverty and millions more live without health insurance.

All of this, Mr. President, happened on your watch.

Democracy In Action @ The Bargaining Table

2004-10-07T13:47:00.000-07:00

The following is an op-ed from the San Francisco Gate (10/4/4).

The author is very clear on the need for collective bargaining and what it means to regular people, like you and I.

----------------

NEWS COVERAGE of the San Francisco strike and contract negotiations between major hotel chains and the UNITE HERE union signals a possible wrinkle in plans for travelers to the Bay Area, Los Angeles and Washington, DC. When 10,000 workers strike and prepare for work stoppages, the focus on the potential inconvenience to consumers obscures the public good of the collective bargaining process.

Collective bargaining is democracy in action at a time when America needs it most. We live in an era where companies have more control over our lives both on and off the clock. Corporate bottom lines dictate where we can afford to live, how much time we spend with our families, how we manage our health, and the quality of care we receive in our golden years.

Rarely do ordinary people have an opportunity to come together in large numbers and help shape the big decisions that impact their lives and indirectly affect all of us. The collective bargaining table requires employers and workers to apply human ingenuity to the challenges of the new economy and reach compromises that serve mutual interests.

Hotel workers are taking a stand to ensure that their companies not only lead the industry in profitability, but in upholding basic American ideals about work. Many of the standards that have defined American jobs and facilitated the growth of the middle class were negotiated at the bargaining table. The 40-hour workweek, the weekend, family and medical leave, and basic safety and health protections are not the result of corporate benevolence, but negotiations between workers and employers.

The decision to strike is one that UNITE HERE members did not make lightly. Beyond fair compensation, hotel workers are fighting for a say on issues such as workload increases and disciplinary processes. "I feel that the risk is worth taking...if it's going to come to us getting a fair contract," said Los Angeles housekeeping employee Steven Whitlock.
Hotel workers shouldn't have to carry the torch of advancing workplace democracy alone.

Changing global and domestic economic realities require the participation of more of us at the bargaining table, yet companies fear a level playing field. That's why 75 percent of employers with workforces engaged in organizing campaigns hire consultants to stop unions. And, it's the reason why 20,000 workers in this country are fired and discriminated against every year for participating in union organizing activity.

Polls show that 42 million workers want unions, but corporations would lead us to believe that unions are an antiquated idea. What's archaic is the return of poor working conditions and jobs that can't sustain families. It should come as no surprise that as union membership declines, the number of dead-end, low-paying jobs rises. There is a strong connection between recent overtime pay cuts, the steady loss of jobs to overseas and shrinking spaces for workers and employers to come together and negotiate on equal footing.

Blue collar, white collar, or no collar or at all -- everyone has a stake in defending workers' rights to form unions and collectively bargain. A place at the table for American workers is one bargain none of us can afford to lose.

David Bonior is chairman of American Rights at Work, a workers' rights advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. He also is a professor of labor studies at Wayne State University.

I'd Give My Left Arm

2004-10-06T06:38:00.000-07:00

The North Country needs jobs. A Walmart will bring jobs, but at what cost?

The retailer is one of the country’s most egregious offenders of workers rights. It is facing 38 lawsuits filed by workers in 30 states accusing the company of forcing them to work long hours off the clock. Additionally, a class action lawsuit was recently filed charging that the company discriminates against its female employees in promotions, compensation and job assignments. Finally, most positions at Walmart stores are part-time and lack health benefits.

Guaranteed low prices will benefit local consumers, but could have unfortunate impacts on local retailers. The newer supercenter stores usually include a grocery, pharmacy, photo-shop, and even a garage. It is doubtful that existing local merchants will be able to compete with the world’s largest importer of Chinese goods. It is highly likely that some long-time local businesses will be closing their doors soon after the arrival of Walmart.

Should our town rely on a global retailer with a history of bullying local governments to be the primary source of jobs in the county? Picture this scenario: Five years from now Walmart has become the prime employer in town, demands property tax breaks that the town can’t afford, and having no loyalty to the area closes shop when the tax breaks aren’t passed, lots of people are out of work and local businesses have gone under. It could happen.

These are things that should be considered before bending over backwards to accommodate Walmart or,Mister Mayor, offering up your left arm to get a Walmat. Local governments should extract promises of fair wages, decent benefits, locked-in property tax rates and a commitment to remain in the area. The fate of local merchants should also be kept in mind.

Monkey Trial Philosophy

2004-10-05T09:37:00.000-07:00

With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the race, for the developing of character in men, than any other association of men.

-Clarence Darrow

The Real Cost of Walmart

2004-10-05T09:33:00.000-07:00

AFL-CIO has a new site that outlines the true cost of Walmart. Check it out:

http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/walmart/

On a side note, Walmart is felling out the area up here to see about setting up shop/tearing down town. The mayor said that he'd "give his left arm for a Walmart". I have written a response to his idiotic comment and will post it tomorrow. In fact I may start a string of anti-Walton postings here, at least thats what my coffee is telling me to do ...

Debate This.

2004-10-01T09:12:00.000-07:00

Graveyard shift is 10pm - 6am ... I caught about half of the debate before I had to hit the road.

Bush seemed off.

Guess that happens when you dont have a decent record to stand on and all you can do is spew simple platitudes about 'hard work'. By the way, what does Bush know about hard work? He might know about difficult decisions, but hard work? The problem with saying 'difficult decisions' is that fact that it highlights the fact that the decisions he made, while difficult, were wrong.

And if Bush had a hard time defending his foreign policy, which some people could argue is done some good, imagine how foolish he will look defending his absolutely dismal domestic record? I might take the night off for that debate. That will be good humor.

Scanning the morning papers, I have to say the good old Boston Globe has it right:

Kerry's turnaround
October 1, 2004

FOR SIX months since the effective end of the primary season, President Bush has been portrayed as better able to control the debate by staying on message while John Kerry sends mixed messages. Last night at the first televised presidential debate, that equation was turned on its head.

Despite a game attempt by the president to depict Kerry as indecisive, it was Kerry who attacked Bush for sending mixed messages in matters of homeland security -- by cutting funds for firefighters and other first responders, by failing to protect seaports and bridges, and especially by shifting his focus from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein.

Kerry even managed to turn around the president's presumed best asset: his determination and spine. "You can be certain but you can also be wrong," Kerry said succinctly.
Kerry painted a stinging picture of the American effort in Iraq. "I don't know if the president is aware of what's going on over there," he said, and ticked off a litany of horrors: the insurgencies, the beheadings, the barely contained chaos, each month bringing a higher toll than the last of Americans dead. When Kerry said, "This president isn't getting the job done," it had the unmistakable click of truth.

Meanwhile, the president's much vaunted ability to stay on message seemed more like a life raft he was grabbing as tough questioning in the 90-minute debate bore in on him and the essential thinness of his message was revealed. His repeated assurance, "We are going to win in Iraq," began to seem petulant, almost querulous.

Kerry appeared more knowledgeable, especially in discussing the threat from North Korea and unsecured nuclear material in Russia. He was persuasive when he complained that "35 countries were in a better position to make weapons than Saddam Hussein" when Bush went to war.

When Bush dismissed Kerry's proposal for engaging North Korea in bilateral talks as a poor move that would marginalize China, Kerry deftly undercut his credibility: "Just because the president says it can't be done doesn't mean it can't be done," Kerry said, adding, "This is the president who said there were weapons, who said `Mission Accomplished.' "

All that said, no one should misunderestimate the appeal of the president's steadfastness. "People know where I stand," he said. "People out there know what I believe." His short, truncated sentences may look disjointed and dull-witted on paper but often came across as sharp and focused when spoken.

On at least three occasions last night, Bush said, "The best way to win is to constantly stay on the offensive." He may have been thinking of his campaign as much as the war on terror. But last night he was not winning.

Boss Says ...

2004-10-01T09:04:00.000-07:00

Election spin in full effect.

Boss has posted flyers out in the parking lot (not in the actual mill, that would be too obvious) informing us, the workers unable to form an opinion of our own, that Bush is 'better for business.'

Okay, but does 'better for business' translate into 'better for workers'? Doubtful.

GDP is growing, but we aint going with it.

Check out this site, which tracks jobs in the US. Keep in mind that they have their spin too. But the point is clear.

http://jobwatch.org/states/index.html

Honest Abe says ...

2004-09-30T11:12:00.000-07:00

Quotation of the Week:

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

- Abraham Lincoln

Now that is a Republican I could support.

Flip Flop, Flip Flop

2004-09-30T06:16:00.000-07:00

Some people like to harp on John Kerry’s propensity to flip-flop on the issues. What these people fail to realize is that President Bush, in his much shorter pubic career, has made quite a hobby of flip-flopping as well.

While campaigning in 2000, President Bush promised not to touch the Social Security surplus. He then raided the surplus in order to pay for his upper-class tax cut. He also described gay marriage as an issue that should be left up to the states to decide. That was before he drafted a federal Constitutional amendment seeking to ban it. Bush also stated that the U.S. would not engage in nation building, but he initiated a war to change regimes in Iraq.

Bush’s flip-flops continued well into his tenure as President. He opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (which was introduced in a bill drafted by Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman). Now he tries to mislead voters into thinking it was his creation. Bush opposed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform and called it an “infringement of free expression”. Then he signed the bill into law and touts this as proof of his reformist platform.

The President’s foreign policy is mired in flip-flops as well. Bush stated that we would never negotiate with North Korea, yet we are now engaged in talks with a member of his “axis of evil.” Most disturbing, Bush initially proclaimed that he wanted Bin Laden dead or alive and then during a 3/13/02 press conference Bush said, “I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him.”
The list goes on and on. Any reasonable person could only reach one conclusion … our current President has broken many promises, flip-flopped on numerous issues and continues to mislead the American people. It’s wrong. And it’s time for change.

I Drink With The Lights On

2004-09-29T11:57:00.000-07:00

Always have.

This town has got 2 beer joints ... one for the factory and lumber workers and one for the 'elites'. The 'elites' are the teachers and businessmen. Even in this rusting old village we fail to see the promise of solidarity. the one thing we all have in common is work, or at least a desire to work. But we have to stay on opposite sides of the street. Why? I dont know.

Wally's is the workers joint. Lights are always on. Jukebox is free (you have to ask the bar matron for a 'red quarter' (quarters the owner has painted red) to put in the juke ... but she gives em out without reservation)). Open all day ... for the nightshifters who want a morning snack.

Keddy's is across the street, literally. Prices are higher (1 buck draft at Wal's ... 1.50 at Ked's) as a result of the elite premium. Even have to use your own money for the juke. And the lights are dimmed.

But back to the point ... the lights on in Wally's. People wonder why they do that? I say they do it so we can see each other ... us workers, knowing the truth ... we know we are ugly, no reason to be vain, just show the world, or at leas the other bar patrons. It's also cause the mills run with lights on and we dont want light to be associated with just working, y'know? We gots to have some fun in the lights as well!

What War Are We Fighting?

2004-09-28T09:40:00.000-07:00

President Bush and Donny Rumsfield tell us the 'war on terror' requires new strategies and new tactics. I agree. I don't care if you think the wars have been justified, the question still remains ... why are we fighting this war like we would have fought those damn Commies?

We invade Afghanistan, smash the Taliban and 'take' Kabul. Within months of 'capturing the capitol' our President diverts his attention (and most of our troops) from the mountains to the deserts of Iraq. We invade Iraq, smash the regular Iraqi army and 'take' Baghdad. Mr. President dresses up in a flight suit, flys out to an aircraft carrier, prances around on deck and imlies that the mission has been accomplished.

So the taking of a capitol city (two, actually) constitutes accomplishing our mission? Is this not a 20th century perspective? We are still fighting States, not Terror! We might have been able to beat the Germans by taking Berlin ... beat the Commies by taking Moscow ... but you dont beat Terror by sacking capitol cities!

If Mr. Bushie wanted to take the capitol of Terror he might better do what he can to end poverty in the Middle East and allow those folks a bit of self-determination. That, though, would require him to stop propping up his friends in the Saudi Royal family.

Until then, Bushie and Rumsfield will continue fighting this new war with new strategies ... which to them seems to mean fighting old wars with fewer troops. Recipe for disaster.

By the way ... OBL is still at large, all our attention is diverted to Iraq and the Sunni Triangle has become a haven for terrorists that didnt exist before the invasion. Way to go, Prez.

Just Tax My Wages

2004-09-24T11:56:00.000-07:00

One of these days I'll get together a decent commentary on the movement towards taxing work and only work. But for now, sheck out this report:

http://www.ctj.org/corpfed04pr.pdf

If corporations don't pay taxes and neither do the rich, then who does? You got it. You and me. But most of us are too stupid to see past the $300 check we got in the mail a year or so ago. Dumb and happy. How I wish I could be.

The Graveyard & My Life

2004-09-23T17:50:00.000-07:00

A bit about me before I hop in the old Cheyenne and head over to the factory for the graveyard shift.

First, the graveyward shift ... I love it. No bosses around, just us laborers. We run that shop and we convert more paper than they other two shifts, although we run on a skeleton crew. Any workingmen out there will understand. Left to our own devices, minus the ever watchful eye of the bossman, we get it together.

So, about me.

Just turned 53, over half a century of dirt and grease under my fingernails. Hard to beleive some times. Have a wonderful wife and three kids (whom have all finished college, thanks to my and th eold lady's hard work and the union wages). As I dont want to get too personal I'll leave the family talk there, for now.

After barely graduating from high school (catholic school) I moved to Florida, lived with Grandma and worked in a factory making bowling pins. Then moved up to Celeveland and landed a job in a machine shop, making heavy machinery that other factories used. Upon reflection I am amazed at how easy it was to walk into town and get myself a well-paying job back then ... no more.

Eventually moved back home to the North Country and went to work in a paper factory, same paper factory that my Gramps organized and where my Pops spent his life. Spent 24 years in that box and made a good life of it.

The 'mill' closed down in '98.

Boss just called a meeting,"we regret to inform you that life as you know it is over".

Was it ever.

Unemployment, followed by a string of short term jobs ... stocking shelves in a grocery for minimum wage ... tossing lumber in a lunberyard for 7 bucks an hour ... unemployment again ... stocking shelves in the grocery again ... worki as a mechnics assistant ... back to the lumber yard ... then to a warehouse pushing pallets of boxes around ... and finally, after 6 years of wandering, a job in a paper mill again. Oh the sweet smell of sulfur in the air!

So, I'm off ... to the graveyard.

Roll change, baby!

More later.

The Worker is Poorer, So Are We All

2004-09-23T11:52:00.000-07:00

Entry #2.

President Bush’s campaign website says “Three years. Three tax cuts. An economic recovery unleashed.” There is no arguing that we have had three tax cuts in three years, but has this unleashed and economic recovery? Let’s see if the numbers support this claim.

In February 2002 Bush promised that his tax cuts would create 6 million new jobs, instead since then we have lost more than 1 million jobs. Bush stands to be the first President since Depression-era Herbert Hoover to reside over a net loss in jobs while in office.

Information on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website indicates that close to 9 million people are currently out of work. The Economic Policy Institute estimates another 9 million people have either given up looking for work or are working part-time and can’t find full time work. Taken together almost 13% of working-age Americans are unemployed or underemployed.

More striking is a 2004 Census Bureau report informing that since 2002 median family income has fallen by over $1500, more than 5.2 million people have lost their health insurance and an additional 4.2 million more people fell below the poverty line.

If these statistics show “an economic recovery unleashed” then I would hate to see a recession.

President Reagan once asked, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Americans ought to ask themselves that question right now. And while a few of you might be better off, the average American worker is not … and that makes us all poorer.

Let's Drink to the Salt of the Earth (You and Me)

2004-09-21T11:46:00.000-07:00

Entry #1.

A sad September rain is drowning out the life of the day. I think I 'll head down to Wally's in a bit and have a few drafts with the boys. No doubt I'll drop a quarter in the juke for the Rolling Stones' ode to the working man, 'Salt of the Earth'.

Starting today I'll give a shot at getting my thoughts out here into cyberspace. I am a working man and damn proud of it. That is where this blog is coming from.

But for now, I'm off ... Let's Drink!

Let's drink to the hard working people
Let's drink to the lowly of birth
Raise your glass to the good and the evil
Let's drink to the salt of the earth

Say a prayer for the common foot soldier
Spare a thought for his back breaking work
Say a prayer for his wife and his children
Who burn the fires and who still till the earth

And when I search a faceless crowd
A swirling mass of gray andBlack and white
They don't look real to me
In fact, they look so strange

Raise your glass to the hard working people
Let's drink to the uncounted heads
Let's think of the wavering millions
Who need leading but get gamblers instead
Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter

Empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters
A choice of cancer or polio
And when I look in the faceless crowd
A swirling mass of grays andBlack and white

They don't look real to me
Or don't they look so strange
Let's drink to the hard working people
Let's think of the lowly of birth
Spare a thought for the rag taggy people

Let's drink to the salt of the earth
Let's drink to the hard working people
Let's drink to the salt of the earth
Let's drink to the two thousand million
Let's think of the humble of birth