COMMENTS: 30
Can Labor Revive the American Dream?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email.
The financial markets are in tatters, consumer spending is anemic and the recession continues to deepen, but corporate America is keeping its eyes on the prize: crushing organized labor. The Center for Union Facts, a business front group, has taken out full-page ads in newspapers linking SEIU president Andy Stern to the Rod Blagojevich scandal. The Chamber of Commerce is capitalizing on the debate over the Big Three bailout to claim that "unions drove the auto companies off the cliff," while minority leader Mitch McConnell and other Republican senators insist on steep wage cuts. A December 10 Republican strategy memo revealed their central obsession: "Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor," the memo read. "This is a precursor to card check" -- a clear reference to the Employee Free Choice Act.
In the lead-up to the election, the co-founder of Home Depot, Bernie Marcus, called Employee Free Choice "the demise of civilization." Wal-Mart summoned store managers into mandatory meetings to warn them against it. Industrial launderer Cintas launched a website to oppose it. The retail industry associations paid blue-chip lobbying firms to block it. The Chamber of Commerce hired Bush Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's chief of staff to run its opposition campaign, which trashed the bill as antidemocratic because it allows workers to bypass a formal election. Business groups spent tens of millions on ads attacking Democrats in tight Senate races, including $5 million targeting challenger Jeff Merkley of Oregon, a supporter of the bill who was smeared with a mailer accusing him of doing the bidding of corrupt labor leaders and trailed at every campaign appearance by a grim reaper claiming "Merkley kills democracy." "I've never seen anything like it," says Merkley's campaign manager, John Isaac, "where a group spent so much money to insert their issue into a campaign."
At first glance, Employee Free Choice looks like little more than a technical fix. In addition to allowing unionizing through majority sign-up, it stiffens penalties for intimidating or firing union supporters and imposes arbitration when a company refuses to bargain a first contract. But as the leading corporate lobbies recognize, the bill could have far-reaching effects. By reviving unions, it could push up wages, realigning the broken economy so that company profits are spread beyond CEOs. It could help rein in corporate power and, perhaps most threatening to a business community that has enjoyed decades of deregulation, sustain a progressive majority in Washington in the years to come. If progressives aren't doing the math, conservatives are. "Unions don't spend money to elect Republicans," Senator John Ensign told a group of executives this past fall. "They spend money to elect Democrats. From our perspective, this would have devastating consequences."
Throughout his run for president, Obama was explicit in his support for Employee Free Choice and his understanding of the forces arrayed against it. "If a majority of workers want a union, they should get a union; it's that simple," he told union members in Pennsylvania in April. "Let's stand up to the business lobby." Since his election, he's sent other friendly signals: supporting a factory takeover by pink-slipped glass workers in Chicago and tapping Representative Hilda Solis as labor secretary. While her predecessor stacked the labor department with experienced unionbusters and gutted regulations and workplace safety inspections, Solis has been a regular on Los Angeles picket lines and pushed a minimum-wage hike into law as a state legislator. Significantly, she made an impassioned plea from the House floor for the Employee Free Choice Act.
But the business lobby Obama once railed against is now giving him a taste of its wares. The Chamber denounced the bill in op-eds as "payback" to "union bosses" that would signal the end of "workplace democracy" and the advent of "Soviet-style thuggery." All the big industry associations called press conferences to declare war. "This will be Armageddon," one top Chamber official said of the battle ahead. Another pointedly warned Obama against "picking a fight right away on a major, titanic clash." Obama's advisers got the memo. At a November gathering of CEOs, Rahm Emanuel refused to answer a question about the bill, and that same month economic adviser Jennifer Granholm called it "divisive." Obama recently restated his commitment to ending the "barriers and roadblocks" to unionization but avoided any reference to the bill itself. "The Chamber is fanning the flames on this, saying this is the epic battle between labor and business," says a key strategist working to pass the measure, "and it scares the shit out of the Obama people and some of the Democrats."
Stay up to date with the latest Economy headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jarbo on Jan 19, 2009 2:58 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess being in SAG and AFTRA have been of no importance to him. Whatta dope.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Please tell us the story of how your union brother was able to make money off The Sopranos.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: Please tell us the story of how your union brother was able to make money off The Sopranos.
Posted by: jarbo
» ah the Cart and Baggers Union
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jarbo on Jan 19, 2009 3:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There ya go - the corporate tool/US Chamber of Commerce types couldn't possibly let this happen in one of the (somewhat former) strongholds of unionism (the US).
Wonder who's gonna filibuster this and which Dems and Repubs will cross party lines. Probably gonna lose Landrieu - she's in the deep "right-to-work-for-less" South and far to the right for a dem. But might get Collins and Snowe, maybe Specter on board.
I'd love to see those bastards at Tyson have to deal with unions. Poor little wuzzums - gotta pay the Mexicans more than minimum wage? Let Mommy fix you some soup.
And let's see just how many shops Walmart and McDonald's are willing to close to keep the unions out. Should be interesting - point of diminishing returns there, guys.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jan 19, 2009 4:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish democrats would start putting forward legislation just so the public can see where these parasites in Congress stand. Obummer wants 80 votes on legislation? What's wrong with 51 votes and then seeing who will filibuster and calling them out for the greedy and uncaring tools that they are? A few years ago republicans were calling filibustering traitorous when it was a procedure democrats should have been pursuing. Now republicans threaten to filibuster in a much more traitorous way, democrats delay or refuse to put forward legislation because of such threats. Come on democrats! Can you or will you ever really stand up for your country and the majority of it's people or will you continue to suckle on the poisonous tit of big business?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: electron on Jan 19, 2009 4:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Unions saw the writing on the wall
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jstuv on Jan 19, 2009 5:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
…To Dismember Trade Unions and Organizations.
Is the American Society interested in a totalitarian government?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Totalitarian Government
Posted by: Midway54
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pdxjoe on Jan 19, 2009 6:39 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: littlepitcher on Jan 19, 2009 7:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The threats utilized by management are all too real. I ran an independent, non-union labor action in 1991 and have had to outrun, evade, and fight blacklisting since that time. HR actually utilized employees to "catch me working" and get me terminated via harassment and ridicule campaigns utilizing dishonest co-workers.
I've had a small business and several minimum wage jobs, paid off and lost a house to foreclosure, No one should have to endure this as the price of trying to get a living wage for self and co-workers. The shameful irony is that blacklisting is a Federal offense but it's never, ever prosecuted.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: faceinthecrowd on Jan 19, 2009 8:26 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess someone making up their own mind without being pressured is just too inefficient of a way to vote.
Don't change the way you operate to get people to vote for you, just change the way the people must vote so they can't not vote for you.
Modern democracy in action.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» privacy of voting is screwing Americans
Posted by: billwald
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Jan 19, 2009 8:48 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: Labor unions today are nothing like the ones decades ago. They're privatized !
Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Labor unions today are nothing like the ones decades ago. They're privatized !
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JerseyGeoff on Jan 19, 2009 9:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Single Payer won't come easy but without the these big visible Unions, I'm afraid it might not come at all- despite the many cost advantages single payer yields to overseas employers( that giant sucking sound?) Do unions want to be in the healthcare biz- or is it a case that these are topdown unions working for leaders agendas only?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Whither Labor?
Posted by: willymack
» The Labor leadership has been tickled into corruption and privatization.
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peacelf on Jan 19, 2009 10:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While, the Employee Free Choice Act and worker rights will improve the chances for workers to earn decent wages and benefits, the idea of upward mobility is a myth, as less than 1% of americans actually move up the SES ladder. Most americans end up in the same social class as their parents. Many earn less than their predecessors.
The perpetuation of the "dream" helps the wealthy corporations by convincing everyone that we can someday be rich, therefore we should celebrate (and embrace) the power that wealth provides. In reality, workers are best served to maintain and improve on what we have and challenge corporate power's grip on power.
peace NOW!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: billwald on Jan 19, 2009 10:39 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What happened? The unions forgot the working class and started concentrating on high salary people like Boeing engineers and teachers. They thought that pushing the minimum wage was all the working class people needed. There was more dues money in engineers.
In the 50's any kid who graduated from high school could get himself a union apprenticeship and get paid while learning a good paying trade. But now, thanks to the minimum wage, a small shop can't afford to hire a kid who doesn't know anything and is maybe only good for sweeping the shop floor.
So now the kid has to take out a loan so he can go to a junior college to get a high school education and learn a blue collar trade. Instead of junior colleges, the trade schools are renamed "community colleges" and give "degrees" instead of certificates. Now days, the kid who doesn't know more than high school kid did in the 50's thinks he is a college graduate. College grads don't need unions, do they?
Thanks to this dumbing down of Americans, colleges claiming to train kids for entry level blue collar jobs, another ten years and garbage truck drivers will need a 2 year degree.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: unions crewed themselves by pushing the minimum wage
Posted by: Animal
» Sweden had the Answer.
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT NOW on Jan 19, 2009 12:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a video message to supporters, Obama gives his campaign organization a name -- "Organizing for America" -- part of the ongoing effort to keep up the grassroots movement started during his presidential campaign once he's formally installed in the White House.
Organizing For America begins with the passing of the Employee Free Choice Act.
The Employee Free Choice Act is nothing new it only reestablishes the Joy Silk Doctrine of 1949
History
In 1949, the NLRB's Joy Silk Doctrine established that "an employer could lawfully refuse to bargain with a union claiming representative status through possession of authorization cards only if he had a 'good faith doubt' as to the union's majority status.This policy was changed in 1966 with the ruling in Aaron Brothers, where "the Board made it clear that it had shifted the burden to the General Counsel to show bad faith and that an employer 'will not be held to have violated his bargaining obligation... simply because he refuses to rely upon cards. 'If passed, the proposed Employee Free Choice Act would return the NLRB policy to the Joy Silk Doctrine and allow employer challenges to card check elections only when illegal coercion or fraud is charged.
In 1969, Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the majority opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the use of card check. Warren stated, "Almost from the inception of the Act, then, it was recognized that a union did not have to be certified as the winner of a Board election to invoke a bargaining obligation; it could establish majority status by other means... by showing convincing support, for instance, by a union-called strike or strike vote, or, as here, by possession of cards signed by a majority of the employees authorizing the union to represent them for collective bargaining purposes." The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of card check, and Warren cited prior affirmations in NLRB v. Bradford Dyeing Assn., (1940); Franks Bros. Co. v. NLRB,[(1944); United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Flooring Co., (1956).
For More Information on EFCA please visit our website and blog
linked text Employee Free Choice Act . Org
linked text EFCA NOW BLOG
linked text Labor Union Resources
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 19, 2009 12:37 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The Right Stimulus Package would surely create more jobs in the unionized sector. Both are possible!
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Jan 19, 2009 3:33 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]
» RE: Ya gotta love Madison Avenue
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Colten A on Jan 25, 2009 10:52 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: jarbo on Jan 19, 2009 2:58 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess being in SAG and AFTRA have been of no importance to him. Whatta dope.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Please tell us the story of how your union brother was able to make money off The Sopranos.
Posted by: and_abottleofrum
» RE: Please tell us the story of how your union brother was able to make money off The Sopranos.
Posted by: jarbo
» ah the Cart and Baggers Union
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jarbo on Jan 19, 2009 3:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There ya go - the corporate tool/US Chamber of Commerce types couldn't possibly let this happen in one of the (somewhat former) strongholds of unionism (the US).
Wonder who's gonna filibuster this and which Dems and Repubs will cross party lines. Probably gonna lose Landrieu - she's in the deep "right-to-work-for-less" South and far to the right for a dem. But might get Collins and Snowe, maybe Specter on board.
I'd love to see those bastards at Tyson have to deal with unions. Poor little wuzzums - gotta pay the Mexicans more than minimum wage? Let Mommy fix you some soup.
And let's see just how many shops Walmart and McDonald's are willing to close to keep the unions out. Should be interesting - point of diminishing returns there, guys.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jan 19, 2009 4:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish democrats would start putting forward legislation just so the public can see where these parasites in Congress stand. Obummer wants 80 votes on legislation? What's wrong with 51 votes and then seeing who will filibuster and calling them out for the greedy and uncaring tools that they are? A few years ago republicans were calling filibustering traitorous when it was a procedure democrats should have been pursuing. Now republicans threaten to filibuster in a much more traitorous way, democrats delay or refuse to put forward legislation because of such threats. Come on democrats! Can you or will you ever really stand up for your country and the majority of it's people or will you continue to suckle on the poisonous tit of big business?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: electron on Jan 19, 2009 4:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Unions saw the writing on the wall
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jstuv on Jan 19, 2009 5:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
…To Dismember Trade Unions and Organizations.
Is the American Society interested in a totalitarian government?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Totalitarian Government
Posted by: Midway54
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pdxjoe on Jan 19, 2009 6:39 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: littlepitcher on Jan 19, 2009 7:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The threats utilized by management are all too real. I ran an independent, non-union labor action in 1991 and have had to outrun, evade, and fight blacklisting since that time. HR actually utilized employees to "catch me working" and get me terminated via harassment and ridicule campaigns utilizing dishonest co-workers.
I've had a small business and several minimum wage jobs, paid off and lost a house to foreclosure, No one should have to endure this as the price of trying to get a living wage for self and co-workers. The shameful irony is that blacklisting is a Federal offense but it's never, ever prosecuted.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: faceinthecrowd on Jan 19, 2009 8:26 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess someone making up their own mind without being pressured is just too inefficient of a way to vote.
Don't change the way you operate to get people to vote for you, just change the way the people must vote so they can't not vote for you.
Modern democracy in action.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» privacy of voting is screwing Americans
Posted by: billwald
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Jan 19, 2009 8:48 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: Labor unions today are nothing like the ones decades ago. They're privatized !
Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Labor unions today are nothing like the ones decades ago. They're privatized !
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JerseyGeoff on Jan 19, 2009 9:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Single Payer won't come easy but without the these big visible Unions, I'm afraid it might not come at all- despite the many cost advantages single payer yields to overseas employers( that giant sucking sound?) Do unions want to be in the healthcare biz- or is it a case that these are topdown unions working for leaders agendas only?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Whither Labor?
Posted by: willymack
» The Labor leadership has been tickled into corruption and privatization.
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peacelf on Jan 19, 2009 10:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While, the Employee Free Choice Act and worker rights will improve the chances for workers to earn decent wages and benefits, the idea of upward mobility is a myth, as less than 1% of americans actually move up the SES ladder. Most americans end up in the same social class as their parents. Many earn less than their predecessors.
The perpetuation of the "dream" helps the wealthy corporations by convincing everyone that we can someday be rich, therefore we should celebrate (and embrace) the power that wealth provides. In reality, workers are best served to maintain and improve on what we have and challenge corporate power's grip on power.
peace NOW!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: billwald on Jan 19, 2009 10:39 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What happened? The unions forgot the working class and started concentrating on high salary people like Boeing engineers and teachers. They thought that pushing the minimum wage was all the working class people needed. There was more dues money in engineers.
In the 50's any kid who graduated from high school could get himself a union apprenticeship and get paid while learning a good paying trade. But now, thanks to the minimum wage, a small shop can't afford to hire a kid who doesn't know anything and is maybe only good for sweeping the shop floor.
So now the kid has to take out a loan so he can go to a junior college to get a high school education and learn a blue collar trade. Instead of junior colleges, the trade schools are renamed "community colleges" and give "degrees" instead of certificates. Now days, the kid who doesn't know more than high school kid did in the 50's thinks he is a college graduate. College grads don't need unions, do they?
Thanks to this dumbing down of Americans, colleges claiming to train kids for entry level blue collar jobs, another ten years and garbage truck drivers will need a 2 year degree.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: unions crewed themselves by pushing the minimum wage
Posted by: Animal
» Sweden had the Answer.
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT NOW on Jan 19, 2009 12:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a video message to supporters, Obama gives his campaign organization a name -- "Organizing for America" -- part of the ongoing effort to keep up the grassroots movement started during his presidential campaign once he's formally installed in the White House.
Organizing For America begins with the passing of the Employee Free Choice Act.
The Employee Free Choice Act is nothing new it only reestablishes the Joy Silk Doctrine of 1949
History
In 1949, the NLRB's Joy Silk Doctrine established that "an employer could lawfully refuse to bargain with a union claiming representative status through possession of authorization cards only if he had a 'good faith doubt' as to the union's majority status.This policy was changed in 1966 with the ruling in Aaron Brothers, where "the Board made it clear that it had shifted the burden to the General Counsel to show bad faith and that an employer 'will not be held to have violated his bargaining obligation... simply because he refuses to rely upon cards. 'If passed, the proposed Employee Free Choice Act would return the NLRB policy to the Joy Silk Doctrine and allow employer challenges to card check elections only when illegal coercion or fraud is charged.
In 1969, Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the majority opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the use of card check. Warren stated, "Almost from the inception of the Act, then, it was recognized that a union did not have to be certified as the winner of a Board election to invoke a bargaining obligation; it could establish majority status by other means... by showing convincing support, for instance, by a union-called strike or strike vote, or, as here, by possession of cards signed by a majority of the employees authorizing the union to represent them for collective bargaining purposes." The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of card check, and Warren cited prior affirmations in NLRB v. Bradford Dyeing Assn., (1940); Franks Bros. Co. v. NLRB,[(1944); United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Flooring Co., (1956).
For More Information on EFCA please visit our website and blog
linked text Employee Free Choice Act . Org
linked text EFCA NOW BLOG
linked text Labor Union Resources
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 19, 2009 12:37 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The Right Stimulus Package would surely create more jobs in the unionized sector. Both are possible!
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Jan 19, 2009 3:33 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]
» RE: Ya gotta love Madison Avenue
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Colten A on Jan 25, 2009 10:52 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]
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




