COMMENTS: 90
Priority #1 for Working America -- Make It Easier to Unionize
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email.
After making millions of phone calls and knocking on millions of doors to elect Barack Obama, the nation's labor unions have begun a new campaign: to get the new president and Congress to pass legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize.
Unions, delighted that they will have a friend in the White House after eight years of fighting President Bush, also plan to push for universal health coverage and a huge stimulus program to create jobs and counter the downturn.
"Our major priority in the short and long term," said Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, "is to get the economy working for Americans who work."
But corporate America has already declared war on labor's push for new legislation that would help unions organize.
"This will be Armageddon," said Randel Johnson, vice president for labor policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce.
Labor's No. 1 priority is a piece of legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act, also known as the card-check bill. The bill would give workers the right to join a union as soon as a majority of employees at a workplace signed cards saying they wanted one. Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization.
With union membership sliding to 7.5 percent of the private-sector work force, one-third the rate in 1983, unions see enactment of the bill as the single most important step toward reversing their loss of membership and power. Some labor leaders predict that if the bill is passed, unions, which have 16 million members nationwide, would add at least five million workers to their rolls over the next few years.
"We really need fundamental change to counterbalance corporate power and reverse the decline of the middle class," said John J. Sweeney, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s president, "and that's why we support the Employee Free Choice Act."
Mr. Sweeney said labor unions were eager for a stimulus program to jump-start the economy and to help those hurt by the downturn. He called for extending unemployment benefits, increasing financing for food stamps, approving a rescue plan for Detroit's automakers and immediately spending more on rebuilding roads, bridges and schools.
Thomas J. Donohue, the chamber's president, criticized the card-check bill as "payback" that labor unions were expecting in return for their campaign efforts.
Bill Samuel, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s director of government affairs, disagreed, noting that President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. had co-sponsored the act as senators.
"This is not about payback," Mr. Samuel said. "We're looking to work with the new administration on a shared set of priorities that focus on lifting workers and improving the economy."
The A.F.L.-C.I.O. and Change to Win, the rival labor federation, campaigned all out for Mr. Obama, with labor leaders saying that unions and their political action committees spent nearly $450 million during the race.
Mr. Sweeney said that in the last four days of the campaign, 250,000 volunteers from A.F.L.-C.I.O. unions made 5.5 million phone calls and visited 3.9 million union households. All told, he said, unions reached out to more than 13 million voters in 24 states, with some undecided union members being contacted more than 30 times through phone calls, household visits and workplace conversations.
Union leaders say they were pivotal in helping Mr. Obama win several battleground states, including Florida, Indiana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. According to a voter poll by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 67 percent of members of A.F.L.-C.I.O. unions voted for Mr. Obama, a Democrat, and 30 percent for his Republican rival, Senator John McCain.
Stay up to date with the latest Economy headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Martin32 on Nov 18, 2008 2:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I don't want to be in a union
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: I don't want to be in a union
Posted by: yale
» RE: Union blues...
Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: I don't want to be in a union
Posted by: Ayla87
» Bad first choice, thats your fault.
Posted by: yale
» RE: Bad first choice, thats your fault.
Posted by: Ayla87
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AndyF on Nov 18, 2008 4:19 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What laws?
Posted by: Cybershaman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Nov 18, 2008 4:33 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Granted there were times the Unions leaders were as corrupt as their White collar counterparts- but those years died with Jimmy Hoffa. Once Reagan took office the downward slide was intensified. Every time the Corp Brass felt their wallets getting light, they went to the unions for another concession. And they got it! Little by little they have revoked many 'benefits' which were at one time standards. Even when the industry picked up, those concessions were never regained.
It's not been the Unions who have blocked Universal healthcare, it's been the Corps- The Healthcare industry and their profitable insurance allies.Seems the Big 3 were not only protecting the Oil Corps but also the Health care Providers and insurers. God Knows they wouldn't want to cross their Golfing Buddies.
What also becomes obvious is the fact that laying off blue collar always takes precedence over cutting the FAT in Middle & Upper mgt. Union workers give Up vision coverage and the CEO buys a villa in France with his lastest Bonus for having 'saved' the Corp money on their union contract!
These Corps have been using tactics much like the Mafia...'Don't give Us what we want, we'll destroy your ability to make an income'-it's called Extortion!
Didn't that cheap labor in Mexico help the bottom line? . Oh but they are, it's just they want ALL Global labor to be on the same low end playing field...Bigger Golden parachutes, Big brass Bonus'.
Just like every other commodity they must purchase, These corps want Labor to be as Cheap as possible and to do that they must destroy the ones upping the ante for the rest.God knows they don't want these other global workers to begin to demand a fair wage or ANY bennies.
The Big 3 are the root cause to our lagging behind in Auto manufacturing. They REFUSED to re tool and reasearch New fuel alterntives in the '80's! They knew Where the Oil was coming from to fill these gas guzzling Lead Sled and did nothing but perpetuate the addiction.It took the Auto industry to be the 'Pushers' for the Oil Corps and their M.E. Oil 'royal' bosses.There is as much blood on the Big 3's CEO's CFO's & COO's hands from 9/11(and the subsequent Invasions into Afghanistan & Iraq) as there is on the Oil corps.Consider if We had withdrawn from doing business in the M.E. in the '70's (after the first Oil & Hostage crisis) What would have been the rallying cry for the terrorists?. It's the fact that there are American Flags flying outside these Corp M.E. HQ's ....They want US off their Soil!
So if any of these Corps (Auto or Oil) want any Money from US, then they MUST close up shop in the M.E. entirely, Fire all the Top brass and prosecute those who have been Extorting money and jobs From US for Decades (undermining our economy)!
So before they come calling to the unions to give up what little is left of a decent job, Start from the Top where all these 'exec Decsions' have Caused the not only the demise of the American Auto industry, but this Countries Standing as an international economic powerhouse!Because the FACT is that the reason WE are such prolific consumers is because we have money...so cut the legs out of our ability to Buy shit and the Entire Global economy suffers. By pushing the American Worker into the Cheap labor market, you have lost a majority of your Consumers ability to purchase your products!The Top 1% (or even 5%) can NOT support an economy, and with no Middle class to support their whimsical lifestyle and HUGE Incomes, they too will fall.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 30 Yrs of Union busting MUST End!
Posted by: pinnacle
» but I went to college to become a ceo
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» RE: but I went to college to become a ceo
Posted by: pelican beak
» People overseas are being trained to do your job for pennies
Posted by: eeezzz
» RE: but I went to college...yeah...another Buffalo person......
Posted by: Allstar Cookie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 18, 2008 4:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 2thepoint on Nov 18, 2008 5:32 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One only needs to look at GM and how an average cost of an employee, including benefits, is about $75 compared to about $30 for foreign auto companies doing manufacturing in America to understand unions part in the destruction of these companies.
Additionally, unions have long been associated with illegal activities and organized crime. Considering that they have PAC's combined with the pressure they put on membership to vote a certain way I'd be concerned about that kind of power put in the hands of a few leaders!
So union membership is down - does one wonder why many companies go overseas for labor forces! Unions have no one to blame but themselves.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: There is a time for everything. I'd like to see the cost of the CEOs as well
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: There is a time for everything. I'd like to see the cost of the CEOs as well
Posted by: 2thepoint
» Unions have helped destroy the US auto industry--bullshit!
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Unions have helped destroy the US auto industry--bullshit!
Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Unions have helped destroy the US auto industry--bullshit!
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: There is a time for everything.
Posted by: jackyD
» Time to check your "facts".....
Posted by: Diecash1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals on Nov 18, 2008 6:09 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I think the New York Times just want more readers
Posted by: 2thepoint
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hms2004 on Nov 18, 2008 6:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Beck on Nov 18, 2008 7:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unions were powerful in the early 60s, and the economy was better, not worse. Taxes were high and there were alot of regulations. How do the rich and powerful get us to argue for them?
Tell me where you get your numbers. How much of the price of a new car is for the union members, and how much goes to the CEOs? I often see some aghast writer say, "X amount of the price of a new car goes to UNION HEALTH BENEFITS" although I've never seen any that say how much goes to CEO health benefits, or stock options, or bonuses, or retirement packages, or travel, etc.
We've been so suckered we can't even see it. We've been taught over the years to examine our own burdens upon companies and using the amounts WE cost them to prove what goes wrong. The heads have been given tacit permission to suck the companies dry with no explanation, because they'll need none. When the companies tank, we all step up and blame everyone but the guys in charge, the ones raking in absolute fortunes.
Oh, and we have to conveniently ignore history, as well. Times of strong unions are times of strong economies. Not the other way around.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 18, 2008 9:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on Nov 18, 2008 10:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ultimate-Anonymity spam
CLusterAble Spam
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Nov 18, 2008 12:47 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don't you cubicle moles wake up!
Just because you have a degree in "Internet networking" and wear a tie to work, doesn't mean you're really "in" management.
YOU'RE LABOR!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Nov 19, 2008 9:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Nov 18, 2008 6:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Expect massive resistance to any efforts to make union organization easier. Only unrelenting populist fervor can achieve this goal because the opposition is so strong. However it is true that putting power in the hands of labor is the best way to pursue economic justice.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Conservative trolls will try to confuse debate on this article.
Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Conservative trolls will try to confuse debate on this article.
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Conservative trolls will try to confuse debate on this article.
Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Gotta admire the pug-lickin's
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Gotta admire the pug-lickin's
Posted by: 2thepoint
» This arguement is so 1950's - not relevant to a global reality.
Posted by: eeezzz
» Slapping your great grandpappy
Posted by: americansheep
» My granddad did not have to compete with India and China
Posted by: eeezzz
» That's because union busting didn't exist back then and people weren't self-deluded unlike
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BeckyD on Nov 18, 2008 6:33 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If union leaders really have no problem with secret ballot as this article says, surely the legislation can be rewritten to eliminate the "lengthy, expensive, adversarial campaign" while preserving worker rights.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on Nov 18, 2008 7:10 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They blamed the union & the economy - barely touching on bad decisions by the execs.
Let's do that again: "they blamed the union" - yeah, those greedy S.O.B.s wallowing in wealth at $25 an hour... while Ford's CEO has to struggle along with a paltry 21 million a year. (a little over ten thousand dollars an hour)
Of course, the VP's rake in ten or twelve million. Then there are layers upon layers of other officers and execs. None of them design, build, or sell cars - yet they all make far more than the people who do.
We are an incredibly wealthy nation. Our productivity has risen so much that we can afford to give 21 million a year to people who don't work for a living.
All the while, the people who actually produce that wealth are losing their jobs and their homes. Washington is busily finding ways to give their tax dollars to the people who not only created the problems, but profited immensely in the process.
What's wrong with this picture?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Auto industry & the UAW. THAnk You!!!
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Auto industry & the UAW
Posted by: 2thepoint
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eeezzz on Nov 18, 2008 8:34 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: My clients are already shifting work overseas, so unless
Posted by: jwverez
» Ahhh- MY CLIENTS are taking the work away from US, sparkey
Posted by: eeezzz
» RE: spank me!
Posted by: Crazy H
» What?
Posted by: eeezzz
» RE: That!
Posted by: Crazy H
» LOL! At least your honest!
Posted by: eeezzz
» RE: My clients are already shifting work overseas, so unless
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Until your idea of a "peek" goes beyond looking for blame
Posted by: eeezzz
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eeezzz on Nov 18, 2008 9:44 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right now, it's all I can do to keep that at bay. If my employees start demanding more and more, my clients will bolt for sure.
It's a tightrope walk. Smart minds in other countries are relentlessly figuring out ways to get the work that Americans do now, for pennies on the dollar, in many cases. THIS IS REALITY, PEOPLE. And all of the new laws and regulations in the world won't keep this from happening.
All of those articles alternet and other sites print about how Americans take for granted their outrageous standard of living - maybe something to that....35 cents an hour is the bigtime in some of these places, and those people, underneath the poverty - just as potentially smart as you are.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Social liberal on Nov 18, 2008 9:59 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Average hourly cost of labor including benefit costs
Big 3: $ 73
Toyota: $ 48
Mgmt/
Professionals: $ 48
Goods producing: $ 32
All workers: $ 29
It says it all Toyota gives it workers fair wages and produces good and sustainability cars, Detroit has 50 % higher labor cost and a quality and sustainability that is unforgivable.
I am personally for unions being myself a union leader and negotiator for a Swedish union but when I see how irresponsible the UAW as well as the Teachers Union I despair of the US labor movement. Do they wish to go out of business, lose their jobs are they totally uninterested in the well being of the American people and its students?
You cannot have compensation higher than the consumer is willing to pay, if your product is overly priced, as US cars manufactured by the big 3 is, you should go out of business.
In Sweden Volvo and SAAB together with the unions did harsh reconstruction programs, laid of more than a 1/3 or the workers, automated on a massive scale, demanded much higher productivity, demanded much higher skill sets.
This was not enough SAAB and Volvo was not sustainable and was subsequently sold to Ford and GM.
Unionization is good only if the union is responsible, so far I cannot see any sign of that among US unions in particular the Teachers Union and the UAW. 2 unions with utterly selfish and disastrous policies for American society. High school drop out rates keep falling, incompetent teachers are protected and cars that nobody wants to buy is produced, at prices that are ridiculous.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Unfortunately, Americans cannot bear this truth
Posted by: eeezzz
» RE: Unfortunately, Trolls cannot bear this truth
Posted by: Crazy H
» Let's inflame the masses with bogus stats!
Posted by: eeezzz
» RE: Let's inflame the masses with bogus stats!
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Isn't grammar fun?
Posted by: Crazy H
» CEO pay and worker pay has no correlation
Posted by: Social liberal
» ROFLMAO!!!!!!
Posted by: sausage
» Corporatism has always sucked. Be it run by Big Corporations or Big Labor.
Posted by: Social liberal
» RE: Math Lesson
Posted by: Crazy H
» In small companies it is true but we were talking about large corporations
Posted by: Social liberal
» CEO pay and worker pay has no correlation as long as workers aren't blamed for financial problems
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» You care to provide a reference for your bs?
Posted by: sausage
» I prefer hard facts before ideology and paranoid delusions about the free market
Posted by: Social liberal
» Yeah...right...
Posted by: sausage
» Facts are facts, they have no opinion
Posted by: Social liberal
» Again, can we get the facts straight????
Posted by: Diecash1
» Can you give us a reference to your facts?
Posted by: Social liberal
» RE: Can you give us a reference to your facts?
Posted by: Diecash1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reggiewhitefish on Nov 18, 2008 12:03 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Nov 18, 2008 12:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One might think that working conditions would be lousy under the anti-union Reagan but, surprisingly enough, the Post Office then was still a fun place to work. I mean a bad day of fishing is always better than a good day at work, but it was tolerable. The carrier supervisors pretty much left the carriers alone to do their routes as they best saw fit.
Then we labored under George H.W. Bush, and nothing much changed except constant rumors of privatization and more automation. Mail sorting did become more automated during Bush One's administration, but management/craft relations remained on a fairly even keel but deteriorating.
When Bill Clinton ascended to the presidency in '93, all us carriers hoped that things would get better. It didn't.
With a Democrat in the White House organized labor, both public and private, hoped that something approaching the pre-PATCO days of 1981 would materialize. It didn't.
In fact working conditions down at the ol' PO headed down the toilet and, from what I hear from my friends yet in Postal blue, they are pretty much in poo up to their knees and sinking fast!
Management harassment is up! Overtime hours are up! I know, some think that working more overtime is what workers want, greed American that they are. But I know guys who were overtime hogs back when I was working who can't do it anymore. They're telling me they're working 10-12 hours a day on a regular basis and often getting called in to carry on their day off for at lest 10 hours. Money's good but a body needs some time off!
So I was taken aback last year when my union, the National Association of Letter Carriers, endorsed Hillary Clinton over John Edwards during the primaries.
Like it or not, from my worm's view perspective the Clinton administration was disastrous for organized labor.
If the in-coming Obama administration does not address issues important to organized labor, perhaps it's time to look elsewhere. Perhaps it's time to organize a new left-of-center coalition in opposition to the current centrist, pro-corporate Democratic Party.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vivachavez on Nov 18, 2008 1:02 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Eliminating unions will not bring back all of the manufacturing jobs. You can't pay someone $2/day in AMerica.
Eliminate unions if you want, but you will just see even more falling wages and benefits at a time when health care costs and income inequality is SOARING.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Truth- Unions are Good
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vivachavez on Nov 18, 2008 1:07 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Detroit dragged its feet on increasing fuel efficiency and has fought raising CAFE standards at every turn. Their decline is self-made.
Oh, and let's not forget the role that SOARING health care costs in the private sector have played in the demise of the Big 3. This screams for a comprehensive national health care system which will lower per capita health care expenditures and remove a HUGE liability from the Big 3's balance sheets.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eeezzz on Nov 18, 2008 2:58 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until they stop behaving like little children with their hands out and start making things happen on their own, they will forever be wage slaves-crying endlessly about how much they are being ripped off and how much more everybody and everything owes them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» eeezzz I think you're a bit confused.
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rickiey on Nov 19, 2008 6:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm better than they are. I'm not boasting, its a technical thing and I'm a natural. My work is better, it is faster, it is more professionally done, and it is work that our clients like more.
So I make more than my peers, even the ones that have worked on the job longer than I have. My raises are bigger than theirs, because I am worth more to the company than them.
If I belonged to a union, I would make less than them, even though I do more work better, simply because I have worked at the company less time than they have.
Is it too much to ask that my pay reflect MY performance? In a union, it would be.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joeocho88 on Nov 20, 2008 2:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joeocho88 on Nov 20, 2008 2:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero1 on Nov 22, 2008 2:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JohnBryansFontaine on Nov 24, 2008 11:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If his or her employer pays squat and can fire because, well, the sky is blue; if there is no more credit; and if our worker/consumer has maxed out their home as an ATM, how then will he or she be able to buy anything?
The answer: Collective bargaining to increase wages. So that money is re-redistributed to where it was in the nineties. Whereas Clinton was scandalous, his economic policy was far more moral than Bush II.
Of course, you can bore one and all by screaming 'Socialism' until you go horse, but your way has failed. Trickle-down economics is as great a failure as the Marxist version of Socialism.
We need Unions. We need them Now. The Employee Free Choice Act will create the Freedom to form them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Martin32 on Nov 18, 2008 2:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I don't want to be in a union
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: I don't want to be in a union
Posted by: yale
» RE: Union blues...
Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: I don't want to be in a union
Posted by: Ayla87
» Bad first choice, thats your fault.
Posted by: yale
» RE: Bad first choice, thats your fault.
Posted by: Ayla87
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AndyF on Nov 18, 2008 4:19 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What laws?
Posted by: Cybershaman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Nov 18, 2008 4:33 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Granted there were times the Unions leaders were as corrupt as their White collar counterparts- but those years died with Jimmy Hoffa. Once Reagan took office the downward slide was intensified. Every time the Corp Brass felt their wallets getting light, they went to the unions for another concession. And they got it! Little by little they have revoked many 'benefits' which were at one time standards. Even when the industry picked up, those concessions were never regained.
It's not been the Unions who have blocked Universal healthcare, it's been the Corps- The Healthcare industry and their profitable insurance allies.Seems the Big 3 were not only protecting the Oil Corps but also the Health care Providers and insurers. God Knows they wouldn't want to cross their Golfing Buddies.
What also becomes obvious is the fact that laying off blue collar always takes precedence over cutting the FAT in Middle & Upper mgt. Union workers give Up vision coverage and the CEO buys a villa in France with his lastest Bonus for having 'saved' the Corp money on their union contract!
These Corps have been using tactics much like the Mafia...'Don't give Us what we want, we'll destroy your ability to make an income'-it's called Extortion!
Didn't that cheap labor in Mexico help the bottom line? . Oh but they are, it's just they want ALL Global labor to be on the same low end playing field...Bigger Golden parachutes, Big brass Bonus'.
Just like every other commodity they must purchase, These corps want Labor to be as Cheap as possible and to do that they must destroy the ones upping the ante for the rest.God knows they don't want these other global workers to begin to demand a fair wage or ANY bennies.
The Big 3 are the root cause to our lagging behind in Auto manufacturing. They REFUSED to re tool and reasearch New fuel alterntives in the '80's! They knew Where the Oil was coming from to fill these gas guzzling Lead Sled and did nothing but perpetuate the addiction.It took the Auto industry to be the 'Pushers' for the Oil Corps and their M.E. Oil 'royal' bosses.There is as much blood on the Big 3's CEO's CFO's & COO's hands from 9/11(and the subsequent Invasions into Afghanistan & Iraq) as there is on the Oil corps.Consider if We had withdrawn from doing business in the M.E. in the '70's (after the first Oil & Hostage crisis) What would have been the rallying cry for the terrorists?. It's the fact that there are American Flags flying outside these Corp M.E. HQ's ....They want US off their Soil!
So if any of these Corps (Auto or Oil) want any Money from US, then they MUST close up shop in the M.E. entirely, Fire all the Top brass and prosecute those who have been Extorting money and jobs From US for Decades (undermining our economy)!
So before they come calling to the unions to give up what little is left of a decent job, Start from the Top where all these 'exec Decsions' have Caused the not only the demise of the American Auto industry, but this Countries Standing as an international economic powerhouse!Because the FACT is that the reason WE are such prolific consumers is because we have money...so cut the legs out of our ability to Buy shit and the Entire Global economy suffers. By pushing the American Worker into the Cheap labor market, you have lost a majority of your Consumers ability to purchase your products!The Top 1% (or even 5%) can NOT support an economy, and with no Middle class to support their whimsical lifestyle and HUGE Incomes, they too will fall.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 30 Yrs of Union busting MUST End!
Posted by: pinnacle
» but I went to college to become a ceo
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» RE: but I went to college to become a ceo
Posted by: pelican beak
» People overseas are being trained to do your job for pennies
Posted by: eeezzz
» RE: but I went to college...yeah...another Buffalo person......
Posted by: Allstar Cookie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 18, 2008 4:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 2thepoint on Nov 18, 2008 5:32 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One only needs to look at GM and how an average cost of an employee, including benefits, is about $75 compared to about $30 for foreign auto companies doing manufacturing in America to understand unions part in the destruction of these companies.
Additionally, unions have long been associated with illegal activities and organized crime. Considering that they have PAC's combined with the pressure they put on membership to vote a certain way I'd be concerned about that kind of power put in the hands of a few leaders!
So union membership is down - does one wonder why many companies go overseas for labor forces! Unions have no one to blame but themselves.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: There is a time for everything. I'd like to see the cost of the CEOs as well
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: There is a time for everything. I'd like to see the cost of the CEOs as well
Posted by: 2thepoint
» Unions have helped destroy the US auto industry--bullshit!
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Unions have helped destroy the US auto industry--bullshit!
Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Unions have helped destroy the US auto industry--bullshit!
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: There is a time for everything.
Posted by: jackyD
» Time to check your "facts".....
Posted by: Diecash1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals on Nov 18, 2008 6:09 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I think the New York Times just want more readers
Posted by: 2thepoint
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hms2004 on Nov 18, 2008 6:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Beck on Nov 18, 2008 7:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unions were powerful in the early 60s, and the economy was better, not worse. Taxes were high and there were alot of regulations. How do the rich and powerful get us to argue for them?
Tell me where you get your numbers. How much of the price of a new car is for the union members, and how much goes to the CEOs? I often see some aghast writer say, "X amount of the price of a new car goes to UNION HEALTH BENEFITS" although I've never seen any that say how much goes to CEO health benefits, or stock options, or bonuses, or retirement packages, or travel, etc.
We've been so suckered we can't even see it. We've been taught over the years to examine our own burdens upon companies and using the amounts WE cost them to prove what goes wrong. The heads have been given tacit permission to suck the companies dry with no explanation, because they'll need none. When the companies tank, we all step up and blame everyone but the guys in charge, the ones raking in absolute fortunes.
Oh, and we have to conveniently ignore history, as well. Times of strong unions are times of strong economies. Not the other way around.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 18, 2008 9:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on Nov 18, 2008 10:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ultimate-Anonymity spam
CLusterAble Spam
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Nov 18, 2008 12:47 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don't you cubicle moles wake up!
Just because you have a degree in "Internet networking" and wear a tie to work, doesn't mean you're really "in" management.
YOU'RE LABOR!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Nov 19, 2008 9:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Nov 18, 2008 6:22 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Expect massive resistance to any efforts to make union organization easier. Only unrelenting populist fervor can achieve this goal because the opposition is so strong. However it is true that putting power in the hands of labor is the best way to pursue economic justice.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Conservative trolls will try to confuse debate on this article.
Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Conservative trolls will try to confuse debate on this article.
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Conservative trolls will try to confuse debate on this article.
Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Gotta admire the pug-lickin's
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Gotta admire the pug-lickin's
Posted by: 2thepoint
» This arguement is so 1950's - not relevant to a global reality.
Posted by: eeezzz
» Slapping your great grandpappy
Posted by: americansheep
» My granddad did not have to compete with India and China
Posted by: eeezzz
» That's because union busting didn't exist back then and people weren't self-deluded unlike
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BeckyD on Nov 18, 2008 6:33 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If union leaders really have no problem with secret ballot as this article says, surely the legislation can be rewritten to eliminate the "lengthy, expensive, adversarial campaign" while preserving worker rights.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Crazy H on Nov 18, 2008 7:10 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They blamed the union & the economy - barely touching on bad decisions by the execs.
Let's do that again: "they blamed the union" - yeah, those greedy S.O.B.s wallowing in wealth at $25 an hour... while Ford's CEO has to struggle along with a paltry 21 million a year. (a little over ten thousand dollars an hour)
Of course, the VP's rake in ten or twelve million. Then there are layers upon layers of other officers and execs. None of them design, build, or sell cars - yet they all make far more than the people who do.
We are an incredibly wealthy nation. Our productivity has risen so much that we can afford to give 21 million a year to people who don't work for a living.
All the while, the people who actually produce that wealth are losing their jobs and their homes. Washington is busily finding ways to give their tax dollars to the people who not only created the problems, but profited immensely in the process.
What's wrong with this picture?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Auto industry & the UAW. THAnk You!!!
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Auto industry & the UAW
Posted by: 2thepoint
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eeezzz on Nov 18, 2008 8:34 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: My clients are already shifting work overseas, so unless
Posted by: jwverez
» Ahhh- MY CLIENTS are taking the work away from US, sparkey
Posted by: eeezzz
» RE: spank me!
Posted by: Crazy H
» What?
Posted by: eeezzz
» RE: That!
Posted by: Crazy H
» LOL! At least your honest!
Posted by: eeezzz
» RE: My clients are already shifting work overseas, so unless
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Until your idea of a "peek" goes beyond looking for blame
Posted by: eeezzz
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eeezzz on Nov 18, 2008 9:44 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right now, it's all I can do to keep that at bay. If my employees start demanding more and more, my clients will bolt for sure.
It's a tightrope walk. Smart minds in other countries are relentlessly figuring out ways to get the work that Americans do now, for pennies on the dollar, in many cases. THIS IS REALITY, PEOPLE. And all of the new laws and regulations in the world won't keep this from happening.
All of those articles alternet and other sites print about how Americans take for granted their outrageous standard of living - maybe something to that....35 cents an hour is the bigtime in some of these places, and those people, underneath the poverty - just as potentially smart as you are.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Social liberal on Nov 18, 2008 9:59 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Average hourly cost of labor including benefit costs
Big 3: $ 73
Toyota: $ 48
Mgmt/
Professionals: $ 48
Goods producing: $ 32
All workers: $ 29
It says it all Toyota gives it workers fair wages and produces good and sustainability cars, Detroit has 50 % higher labor cost and a quality and sustainability that is unforgivable.
I am personally for unions being myself a union leader and negotiator for a Swedish union but when I see how irresponsible the UAW as well as the Teachers Union I despair of the US labor movement. Do they wish to go out of business, lose their jobs are they totally uninterested in the well being of the American people and its students?
You cannot have compensation higher than the consumer is willing to pay, if your product is overly priced, as US cars manufactured by the big 3 is, you should go out of business.
In Sweden Volvo and SAAB together with the unions did harsh reconstruction programs, laid of more than a 1/3 or the workers, automated on a massive scale, demanded much higher productivity, demanded much higher skill sets.
This was not enough SAAB and Volvo was not sustainable and was subsequently sold to Ford and GM.
Unionization is good only if the union is responsible, so far I cannot see any sign of that among US unions in particular the Teachers Union and the UAW. 2 unions with utterly selfish and disastrous policies for American society. High school drop out rates keep falling, incompetent teachers are protected and cars that nobody wants to buy is produced, at prices that are ridiculous.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Unfortunately, Americans cannot bear this truth
Posted by: eeezzz
» RE: Unfortunately, Trolls cannot bear this truth
Posted by: Crazy H
» Let's inflame the masses with bogus stats!
Posted by: eeezzz
» RE: Let's inflame the masses with bogus stats!
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Isn't grammar fun?
Posted by: Crazy H
» CEO pay and worker pay has no correlation
Posted by: Social liberal
» ROFLMAO!!!!!!
Posted by: sausage
» Corporatism has always sucked. Be it run by Big Corporations or Big Labor.
Posted by: Social liberal
» RE: Math Lesson
Posted by: Crazy H
» In small companies it is true but we were talking about large corporations
Posted by: Social liberal
» CEO pay and worker pay has no correlation as long as workers aren't blamed for financial problems
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» You care to provide a reference for your bs?
Posted by: sausage
» I prefer hard facts before ideology and paranoid delusions about the free market
Posted by: Social liberal
» Yeah...right...
Posted by: sausage
» Facts are facts, they have no opinion
Posted by: Social liberal
» Again, can we get the facts straight????
Posted by: Diecash1
» Can you give us a reference to your facts?
Posted by: Social liberal
» RE: Can you give us a reference to your facts?
Posted by: Diecash1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reggiewhitefish on Nov 18, 2008 12:03 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Nov 18, 2008 12:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One might think that working conditions would be lousy under the anti-union Reagan but, surprisingly enough, the Post Office then was still a fun place to work. I mean a bad day of fishing is always better than a good day at work, but it was tolerable. The carrier supervisors pretty much left the carriers alone to do their routes as they best saw fit.
Then we labored under George H.W. Bush, and nothing much changed except constant rumors of privatization and more automation. Mail sorting did become more automated during Bush One's administration, but management/craft relations remained on a fairly even keel but deteriorating.
When Bill Clinton ascended to the presidency in '93, all us carriers hoped that things would get better. It didn't.
With a Democrat in the White House organized labor, both public and private, hoped that something approaching the pre-PATCO days of 1981 would materialize. It didn't.
In fact working conditions down at the ol' PO headed down the toilet and, from what I hear from my friends yet in Postal blue, they are pretty much in poo up to their knees and sinking fast!
Management harassment is up! Overtime hours are up! I know, some think that working more overtime is what workers want, greed American that they are. But I know guys who were overtime hogs back when I was working who can't do it anymore. They're telling me they're working 10-12 hours a day on a regular basis and often getting called in to carry on their day off for at lest 10 hours. Money's good but a body needs some time off!
So I was taken aback last year when my union, the National Association of Letter Carriers, endorsed Hillary Clinton over John Edwards during the primaries.
Like it or not, from my worm's view perspective the Clinton administration was disastrous for organized labor.
If the in-coming Obama administration does not address issues important to organized labor, perhaps it's time to look elsewhere. Perhaps it's time to organize a new left-of-center coalition in opposition to the current centrist, pro-corporate Democratic Party.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vivachavez on Nov 18, 2008 1:02 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Eliminating unions will not bring back all of the manufacturing jobs. You can't pay someone $2/day in AMerica.
Eliminate unions if you want, but you will just see even more falling wages and benefits at a time when health care costs and income inequality is SOARING.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Truth- Unions are Good
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vivachavez on Nov 18, 2008 1:07 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Detroit dragged its feet on increasing fuel efficiency and has fought raising CAFE standards at every turn. Their decline is self-made.
Oh, and let's not forget the role that SOARING health care costs in the private sector have played in the demise of the Big 3. This screams for a comprehensive national health care system which will lower per capita health care expenditures and remove a HUGE liability from the Big 3's balance sheets.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eeezzz on Nov 18, 2008 2:58 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until they stop behaving like little children with their hands out and start making things happen on their own, they will forever be wage slaves-crying endlessly about how much they are being ripped off and how much more everybody and everything owes them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» eeezzz I think you're a bit confused.
Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rickiey on Nov 19, 2008 6:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm better than they are. I'm not boasting, its a technical thing and I'm a natural. My work is better, it is faster, it is more professionally done, and it is work that our clients like more.
So I make more than my peers, even the ones that have worked on the job longer than I have. My raises are bigger than theirs, because I am worth more to the company than them.
If I belonged to a union, I would make less than them, even though I do more work better, simply because I have worked at the company less time than they have.
Is it too much to ask that my pay reflect MY performance? In a union, it would be.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joeocho88 on Nov 20, 2008 2:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joeocho88 on Nov 20, 2008 2:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero1 on Nov 22, 2008 2:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JohnBryansFontaine on Nov 24, 2008 11:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If his or her employer pays squat and can fire because, well, the sky is blue; if there is no more credit; and if our worker/consumer has maxed out their home as an ATM, how then will he or she be able to buy anything?
The answer: Collective bargaining to increase wages. So that money is re-redistributed to where it was in the nineties. Whereas Clinton was scandalous, his economic policy was far more moral than Bush II.
Of course, you can bore one and all by screaming 'Socialism' until you go horse, but your way has failed. Trickle-down economics is as great a failure as the Marxist version of Socialism.
We need Unions. We need them Now. The Employee Free Choice Act will create the Freedom to form them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Tax the Corporations and the Rich or Take Draconian Cuts -- the Decision Is Ours
Home Underwater? Walk Away from Geithner's Perverse 'Homeowner Relief' Plan
Fury at Wall St. Banks Fuels Public Action for Move Your Money Campaign




