COMMENTS: 151
May Day Alert: Only Global Unions Can Stop the Race to the Bottom
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email.
At no time in history has there been a greater urgency or opportunity to form real global unions whose goal is to organize tens of millions of workers to win economic and social justice by counterbalancing global corporations on the world stage even as the power of the state declines.
Global labor solidarity, as currently practiced, is failing and will continue to fail in the face of the growing power of global corporations and the declining power of the state. Instead, global unions need to be formed whose purpose is to unite workers to negotiate global agreements with global corporations. The property services sector, which includes janitors and security officers, has many of the critical characteristics and immediate conditions needed to organize a true global union, and provides an important, but not unique, model of how a global union is possible. Globalization is creating change at an even faster pace than during industrialization. We need to understand how it is reshaping workers' lives and power around the globe, so that instead of being swept away by globalization, we can harness it to transform ourselves and the world. To win real power, workers and their unions need to build a movement defined not by what we are against, but by what we are for: a movement inspired by hope for a better world and a plan to achieve it. Anything else puts unions at risk of becoming as irrelevant as those who opposed industrialization in the hope of defending artisans and small craftsman.
Understanding globalization: the world is tilting
The world is tilting away from workers and unions and the traditional ways they've fought for and won justice -- away from the power of national governments, national unions, national solutions and government institutions developed to facilitate and regulate globalization. It is tilting toward global trade, giant global corporations, global solutions, and toward Asia, especially China and India. We can no longer depend on influencing bureaucratic global institutions, like the ILO, or fighting the entities that ultimately are accountable to or controlled by global corporations, like the WTO. Workers and their unions need to use their still-formidable power to counter the power of global corporations before the world tilts so far that unions are washed away, impoverishing workers who currently have unions and trapping workers who don't in ever-deeper poverty. The power equation needs to be balanced before democratic rule and institutions are destroyed.
Tilting toward global corporations
Since the formation of early global companies, like the English East India Co. (1600) and the Dutch East India Co. (1602), multinationals have spread around the world. In 1600 there were 500 global corporations. In 1914, there were 3,000; in 1992, 30,400; and by 2000, the total number of global corporations had ballooned to 63,000. Today, they are bigger and more powerful than ever before and no longer allegiant to the country in which they were born or are now headquartered.
As multinationals have grown, wealth and capital have become increasingly concentrated. Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 52 are not nations -- they are global corporations (see here for data). The problem isn't that corporations operate in more than one country -- it is that multinational corporations are so powerful that they increasingly dominate what happens in whole countries, hemispheres and the entire globe.
Tilting away from the state
For 150 years, trade unionists and progressives have viewed influencing and trying to gain control of the state as central to any strategy of winning a more just society. National governments still have enormous influence, but their power is diminishing every day.
As corporations grow in power, the state will find it increasingly difficult to mediate their behavior to protect workers and their unions. The state must be pressured now to act as a vehicle that can assist unions in gaining the ability to deal directly with multinational corporations both in their own countries and across the globe. This is a crucial distinction. Instead of depending on national governments to control global corporations, as states become weaker and corporations stronger, we need to pursue a strategy that anticipates the continued decline of state power and works to rebuild workers' strength today so we can deal independently and directly with global corporations in the future. We need to do so quickly, while states still have some power to regulate corporate behavior.
Tilting away from national unions
As global corporations grow and state power declines, national unions are shrinking in membership and power. Union density is down across the globe. From 1970 to 2000, 17 out of 20 countries surveyed by the OECD had experienced a decline in union density. Though many of these countries experienced an increase during the 1970s and 1980s, density declined in the 1990s. While the specifics and timing are different in each country, what is remarkable over the last 30 years is how similar the story and the results are. No country, no matter how strong its labor movement or progressive its history, is immune from these global trends. Density is starting to decline in Scandinavia, South Africa, Brazil, and South Korea, countries that until recently had stable or growing labor movements. In France, general strikes and mass worker and student mobilizations have slowed the rollback of workers' rights, but these are defensive strikes desperately trying to maintain standards that workers in surrounding countries are losing.
In country after country, unions began declining from their peak at first slowly, and then more and more quickly. As density declined, so has the ability to protect both collective bargaining and legislative gains.
The antidote to global corporations: global unions
Why aren't there global unions? For 150 years much of the argument for global unions has been abstract, theoretical and ideological. The simple argument was: Capitalism is global, therefore worker organizations should be too.
However, even though capitalism was global, the reality was most employers weren't. Theoretically, workers were stronger if united worldwide, but the day-to-day reality of unionized workers enabled them to win in developed and some developing countries through organizing and bargaining and using the power of governments to help them. Unionized workers saw workers in other countries as potential competition for their jobs rather than their allies. There was not an immediate, compelling reason or pressure to go beyond national boundaries. It is an ironic twist of history that globalization is itself creating the greatest opportunity to organize global unions among the poorest and least-skilled workers employed in the historically least organized sectors of the world economy, which are increasingly dominated by giant corporations. Even as manufacturing and mobile jobs, aided by new technology, are being shifted and dispersed around the globe, the infrastructure of the FIRE sector (finance, insurance and real estate) and the jobs needed to support it are increasingly concentrated in some 40 global cities.
These economic hubs directly depend on these service jobs, dramatically increasing the potential power of these workers. It is among the most invisible and seemingly powerless workers that we can build a global movement, reinvigorate trade unions, and face global corporations with genuinely countervailing power sufficiently strong to ensure that workers have the chance to lift themselves and their communities out of poverty. This is not to argue that global unions can't be formed in manufacturing or other sectors characterized by mobile jobs, but instead to say that at this time in history the opportunity is greatest in service jobs based in cities that are driving the world economy.
Starting in property services
As sociologist Saskia Sassen has pointed out, the increasing scope and complexity of the global economy leads multinational corporations to massive growth in the demand for services (legal, accounting, insurance, real estate, etc.) by firms in all industries. These service firms tend to gather in 40 to 50 "global" cities. In some ways, these global cities act as "engine rooms" for multinational corporations, or as Sassen puts it, they are the "sites for concrete operations of the global economies." The concentration of service firms also leads to a massive disparity in wealth in these cities, an increase in the number of blue-collar jobs, such as janitors, mechanics and security officers, and an increase in the numbers of immigrants and minorities. As Sassen states, we can think of these cities "as one key place where the contradictions of the internationalization of capital either come to rest or to conflict." Ironically, the poorest and least skilled workers employed by global corporations in these cities may be in the best position to challenge growing corporate dominance.
Companies that clean, secure, and maintain commercial, residential and other properties around the globe comprise an industry that annually grosses more than $170 billion, and multinational property services companies directly employ more than 3 million workers.
Property Services allows us to organize in a global industry that offers unique opportunities to build off the strengths of both existing unions and movements for justice in the world as part of a new movement for global fairness and equality. The 3 million workers directly employed by property service multinational corporations can provide the platform to strengthen and expand existing unions and to organize and establish new unions in cities and countries where they don't exist. Strengthened by agreements with global multinationals, national unions can expand their unions, uniting workers employed by smaller local employers as part of a broader strategy of uniting a majority of property services workers on a national and global level.
The plan: a new global union movement
Global unions should be true international unions rather than unions that operate in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico and call themselves internationals. They must organize workers and negotiate contracts to raise living and working standards across the globe. They need to focus on organizing and negotiating agreements with global companies, while they support and help organize companies and workers within national borders. They must be global unions that grow to amass real power, so they are not relegated to making policy suggestions, but have the strength to negotiate with the entities that set the rules under which global corporations operate.
There were tremendous obstacles to birthing national unions within one country: battles over leadership, balancing local versus national interests, protecting democracy locally while making decisions and governing nationally. And so will it be in forming global unions. Nationalism is growing in some countries, and unions from the United States are viewed with suspicion because of their past ties to the CIA. National unions worry about loss of autonomy. These issues and many more create greater obstacles to forming global unions than workers faced in forming national unions.
The world economy has changed and is integrating globally. To have a meaningful role in the 21st century, we must create true global unions whose vision, goals, purpose and governance combine national interests in the same way that national unions were formed in the 20th century. The global unions that result must be capable of coordinating, directing and transferring power and resources to counter the power of global corporations. Experience makes it abundantly clear that this isn't possible by just federating national unions whose primary mission, resource allocation and internal political identity are limited to one country. Global corporations don't subordinate their interest to individual countries and neither can workers. Either through the transformation of existing institutions or by creating new ones, workers need unions that unite them globally to increase their power, instead of fighting global corporations from a position of weakness and with limited coordination on a country-by-country basis.
In addition, the mission and goals of global unions cannot be limited to just economic improvements. To unite hundreds of millions of workers and build support for global unionism, global unions must be part of a campaign to protect and expand democracy in the face of worldwide megacorporations. Global unions must be seen as and be part of global campaigns for economic and social justice. Their mission and role is nothing less than to replace the declining power of the state with global unions as the equal and counterbalance to global corporations on the world stage. And the time to start is now.
Stay up to date with the latest Economy headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Temporary on May 1, 2007 12:11 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: A BAD IDEA! - AMEN!
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Is Big Business holding back on globalizing? Of course not.
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Is Big Business holding back on globalizing? Of course not.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Is Big Business holding back on globalizing? Of course not.
Posted by: Philip Newton
» WNAT ABOUT GLOBAL UNIONS FOR MANAUFACTURING?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: WNAT ABOUT GLOBAL UNIONS FOR MANAUFACTURING?
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: WNAT ABOUT GLOBAL UNIONS FOR MANAUFACTURING?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» Me, too!
Posted by: Philip Newton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HughScott on May 1, 2007 1:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption (irrefutable impeachment evidence).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Global" unions?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: "Global" unions?
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: "Global" unions?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: "Global" unions?
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: "Global" unions?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: "Global" unions?
Posted by: yellow
» CAN CAN WE PREVENT GLOBAL UNIONS FROM BEING COOPTED?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: CAN CAN WE PREVENT GLOBAL UNIONS FROM BEING COOPTED?
Posted by: yellow
» RE: CAN CAN WE PREVENT GLOBAL UNIONS FROM BEING COOPTED?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: CAN CAN WE PREVENT GLOBAL UNIONS FROM BEING COOPTED?
Posted by: yellow
» WHAT IS A CRACKER?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: WHAT IS A CRACKER?
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: saywhat? on May 1, 2007 6:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
at some point ceo's will have to give up their perverse bonuses and bargain at the table!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on May 1, 2007 6:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Globalism is inevitable, so don't bother fighting it as much as it is destroying any autonomy or livability around the entire world just shifting more and more money upwards to the already rich and those in a position to have their palms greased to sell out the workers of their nation. Just contemplate what designer color of chains you want to have clamped onto you. Just think about what color you'll paint your cell walls.
Yes, organize your unweildy "global" unions and protest your corporate owners all you want. Prepare for corruption and eventually accepting FAR less than you should actually have.
You can either be a slave and appologist for the plantation owners... or you can fight for your freedom.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» and nevermind...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» And.... how many of those talking about this are or have been union members?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» I'm a union member...
Posted by: sausage
» RE: I'm a union member...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I'm a union member...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» So what are YOU doing, Bob?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: So what are YOU doing, Bob?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: I'm a union member...
Posted by: sausage
» GLOBALIZATION IS INEVITABLE? JUST LIKE COMMUNISM WAS?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» Fight; how? Fight; what for?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Your "or else" is that you'll remove yourself from the voting pool.. not even bothering...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Your "or else" is that you'll remove yourself from the voting pool.. not even bothering...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Your "or else" is that you'll remove yourself from the voting pool.. not even bothering...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Your "or else" is that you'll remove yourself from the voting pool.. not even bothering...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on May 1, 2007 6:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course our "libertarian" friends bring up the canard of old fashioned communism. In fact certain features, universal health care, universal public schooling up through college, etc., were not all that bad. That is why Otto von Bismarck, the consummate conservative, appropriated those Marxian ideas, founding the modern European welfare state, in Hohenzollern Germany. But libertarians live under the delusion that the mere sound of their own individual farts somehow influence events round the world.
Besides, American exceptionalism is a dying dinosaur, as our corporationist friends are wont to tell us. Moreover, since Chinese and Indian workers will inevitably demand higher wages, our corporationist friends are already casting covetous eyes on Africa in their never-ending shell game of driving wages to the bottom to increase profit margins. And, as the world is a globe, by the time Asia and Africa are sucked dry, a poverty-stricken America will be ripe, once again, for the picking. The true internationalizing, if I can coin such a word, of the labor union movement is long overdue.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lincoln fan on May 1, 2007 8:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it's obvious that if the people are to be in control, there must be no organization bigger nor more powerful than their government. It's also a fact that the people must be in control of their government. The problem that the U.S. people face today is that the corporations control our government.
I think it boils down to this. We, the people, must take control of our government and take control of the corporations or we are doomed to virtual slavery or bloody revolution. I think that there is still time to regain our freedom peacefully.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: EagleMB
» MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS CONTROLLED BY THE PEOPLE?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS CONTROLLED BY THE PEOPLE?
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS CONTROLLED BY THE PEOPLE?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: I am familiar...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: I am familiar...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: No, I didn't...
Posted by: EagleMB
Comments are closed-
Posted by: otto on May 1, 2007 8:21 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: gerdhansel on May 1, 2007 10:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global corporations succeed because they play nation-states against one another.
But is global government really a good idea? Talk about too much power in too few hands. When nation-states get too big for their britches (like Nazi Germany or George Bush's USA) other nation states eventually put them in their place.
But who will challenge a rogue global government? The Martians?
Be careful what you wish for.
Sometimes I wonder if humanity wouldn't be better off living in the world of Mad Max or The Stand.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Well, Gerd... it need not be quite like Mad Max....
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: not possible without global government
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: solrev on May 1, 2007 10:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [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: CatDad on May 1, 2007 11:13 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]
» All I see from most people is capitulation to globalization.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» BILATERAL TRADE AGREEMENTS IN THE INTEREST OF AMERICA IS THE RIGHT APPROACH.
Posted by: poppop_schell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 1, 2007 11:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I belong to SEIU. My local (in Oregon) has great autonomy, and is able to draw on the resources of the SEIU International in DC. It is the best of both worlds. (I have had 23 years of activism in this union, enough time to have some perspective.) Members hold our democratically-controlled local acountable -- bet on it.
THe US labor movement is importing ideas and inspiration from Third World labor activists at least as much as we are exporting them from the US. These heroes in Korea, Mexico, South America and the Middle East, to name a few, know what it is to fight and die for the right to form a union. They wouldn't be doing it if it were not a vital and necessary thing.
No one would.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Supporting unions with no leverage is only hurting union members.
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Supporting unions with no leverage is only hurting union members.
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Supporting unions with no leverage is only hurting union members.
Posted by: EagleMB
» WAGES IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE!!!
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: WAGES IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE!!!
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: WAGES IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE!!!
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: WAGES IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE!!!
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: WAGES IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE!!! ROLE OF ARBITRATION
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: ROLE OF ARBITRATION (allow me to inform you)
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: OLE OF ARBITRATION (allow me to inform you)
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: OLE OF ARBITRATION (allow me to inform you)
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: OLE OF ARBITRATION (allow me to inform you)
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: OLE OF ARBITRATION (allow me to inform you)
Posted by: EagleMB
» Eagle:
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: It seems you are rationalizing...
Posted by: EagleMB
» OK. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE GIVING UNIONS LEVERAGE?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: OK. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE GIVING UNIONS LEVERAGE?
Posted by: EagleMB
» Eagle...
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: agle...
Posted by: EagleMB
» Lockouts and replacement workers
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Lockouts and replacement workers
Posted by: EagleMB
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 1, 2007 12:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Businesses in country A can trade with businesses in country B. Our government reserves the right to restrict trade in order to protect our fledgling industries, and your government also has that right. We expect labor standards in your country to be similar to labor standards in our country, and we expect environmental standards in your country to be similar to those in our country; if these standards are not met than trade will not be allowed. We will tax your imports at a reasonable level, and your government can also tax our exports to your country."
Globalization is not trade, it's colonization and slavery masquerading as free trade. David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage sets the stage for free trade, and can be summed up as Gains come because each country specializes in producing the good for which its comparative cost is lower.
For example: Mexico once had a healthy agricultural sector and could produce a lot of corn. The United States once had a healthy manufacturing sector and could produce a lot of steel. Thus, Mexico had a comparative advantage in corn production and the US had it in steel production; thus you'd expect steel to be sent to Mexico and corn to be sent to the US.
In todays world, the US government pays megacorps like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland massive subsidies which allow them to send corn to Mexico at artificially low prices, destroying Mexican agriculture. Now that the market has been cornered, Cargill etc. jack up the prices in Mexico, resulting in widespread poverty and massive levels of immigration to the US, where underpaid immigrants work on Cargill's factory farms. Similarly, US steel production is moved to countries where labor costs are low due to repression of employees by dictatorial governments. This is all made possible by the elaborate 'bilateral trade agreements' which are books of legalese that define how any business activity will be handled. That's not free trade, that's colonialism and slavery.
The most telling argument against the Clintons, and the reason that noone should vote for Hillary, is that they were wholehearted supporters of these arrangements (i.e. 1996 NAFTA). The only prominent candidates who have brought the issue up are Edwards and Kucinich; once Clinton and Obama saw that it hit a popular nerve they jumped on board - which is just their attempt to get more votes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» WONDERFUL: SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS FREE TRADE THEORY
Posted by: poppop_schell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on May 1, 2007 12:32 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]
» It's not a deal...
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: There are only 2 solutions...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: There are only 2 solutions...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: There are only 2 solutions...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: There are only 2 solutions...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» Bingo, Schell.
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: How will that stop outsourcing...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: How will that stop outsourcing...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: But you are not accounting for one thing...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: But you are not accounting for one thing...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: But you are not accounting for one thing...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: But you are not accounting for one thing...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: But you are not accounting for one thing...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: But you are not accounting for one thing...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: But you are not accounting for one thing...
Posted by: EagleMB
» AND SO RICARDO'S ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT BEING MET!!
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: But you are not accounting for one thing...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: EagleMB
» THE BEST INVESTMENT FOR LONG TERM SUCCESS IS IN HUMAN CAPITAL
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Sometimes it is...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Sometimes it is...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: HUMAN CAPITAL
Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: EagleMB
» Eagle, read "Mania in America."
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: agle, read "Mania in America."
Posted by: EagleMB
Comments are closed-
Posted by: snowhound on May 1, 2007 12:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we don't, we'll get exactly what we deserve.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Well we won't and we will
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Given up?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Hey Bob, I have one question?
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Hey Bob, I have one question?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Hey Bob, I have one question?
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Hey Bob, I have one question?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Hey Bob, I have one question?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» THIS IS NOT A LIBERAL VS CONSERVATIVE ISSUE!!!
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: THIS IS NOT A LIBERAL VS CONSERVATIVE ISSUE!!!
Posted by: yellow
» RE: THIS IS NOT A LIBERAL VS CONSERVATIVE ISSUE!!!
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: THIS IS NOT A LIBERAL VS CONSERVATIVE ISSUE!!!
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 1, 2007 4:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SEIU has proved that organizing lower-paid workers on a global scale is working. It is true that the industrial base of the US is eroding, and taking with it many union jobs. It is a big lift, but unions must follow the work and the workers.
It is not just about economics. Having a voice at work (like, not being fired at will for starters) and other contract protections are a vital part of what unions achieve -- if they have a united rank and file.
This, more than anything else, is the major cause of failed unions: there is no union without people willing to do the work of unions -- organizing and remaining organized. In part, we can be excused for buying the anti-union bill of goods from the US Chamber of Commerce and NAM, to name but two, but we have no excuse for our laziness, and that, more than any propaganda effort, is what is killing unions today.
That is why international unionism is good for the industrialized world as well as the Third World.
The Third World unionists have taught us the meaning of the words, "fight" and "organize."
Bless them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It ain't always about the money
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: It ain't always about the money
Posted by: Philip Newton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sum Won on May 2, 2007 3:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is left of the union movement can only survive by returning to its roots as a force for social justice. If it continues to seek greater power to allocate more for its members it only alienates it self from those who remain oppressed, or seek alternative forms of economic and social interaction. Unions need to use their remaining power to aid those who have chosen the human race over wage slave one. By engaging and supporting local initiatives that are focused on “the most salient issues of our day: climate change, poverty, deforestation, peace, water, hunger, conservation, human rights, and more” then they will gain the support, loyalty and admiration from a core constituency that it has lost touch with. In this manner a new role and purpose will unfold for them.
What are we doing to help that global democratic movement pop? Some highlights from the article but read it again and you will see the path.
“tens of millions of ordinary and not-so-ordinary people willing to confront despair, power, and incalculable odds in order to restore some semblance of grace, justice, and beauty to this world.” “part of a coalescence comprising hundreds of thousands of organizations with no center, codified beliefs, or charismatic leader. The movement grows and spreads in every city and country.” “The movement can't be divided because it is atomized -- small pieces loosely joined. It forms, gathers, and dissipates quickly. Many inside and out dismiss it as powerless, but it has been known to bring down governments, companies” “In place of isms are processes, concerns, and compassion. The movement demonstrates a pliable, resonant, and generous side of humanity.” “It will soon suffuse and permeate most institutions.” “It is not a liberal or conservative activity.
Our current Industrial model based "economy" is defined to exclude all work or production not intended for the market. These economic constraints are barriers that are no longer needed but exist to perpetuate the status quo and prevent us from moving forward. A post industrial economy can be modeled on aspects of a pre industrial one where they did not differentiate tasks into work and leisure. The term for what they did was living. It is in my opinion the only solution to the "jobless boom". In the same manner that those who ruled the feudal system were resistant to the birth of industrialization and the loss of power as their serfs became workers there are those in power today who fear the loss of privilege and status given the irrelevance of their roles without workers. The unfolding postindustrial economy provides the tools for “wage slaves” to become largely self sufficient and independent of employers but few have done so as the majority of us are like sheep that have forgotten how to be independent and prefer the comforts of captivity regardless of our eventual fate.
Think about “This unnamed movement's big contribution is the absence of one big idea; in its stead it offers thousands of practical and useful ideas” “It is trying to remake the world” “The movement has three basic roots: the environmental and social justice movements, and indigenous cultures' resistance to globalization-all of which are intertwining.” We can learn from as well as teach those indigenous cultures. The third wave, Alvin Toffler predicted could unfold.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why participate?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Devolution
Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: Devolution
Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: Devolution
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Devolution
Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: Devolution and UNITY 08?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Devolution and UNITY 08? WATCH OUT?
Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: Devolution and UNITY 08? WATCH OUT?
Posted by: poppop_schell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 2, 2007 7:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unions are returning to the values of social justice. I can think of few forces in this world wit the focus – and the power to carry off such an agenda. In alliance with other groups, such as environmental movements, Jobs With Justice, evangelical progressives, etc., unions are a powerful force for just such change as you advocate.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sum Won:
Posted by: Sum Won
» Newfoundland
Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: Newfoundland -- I hope so!
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Sum Won:
Posted by: Philip Newton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 3, 2007 7:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In short, the writer asserts, the machine is grinding at a rate that is not sustainable, enriching a few and impoverishing the rest of us. Our great technology is tapped into our MORE primitive and base instincts, and not serving our higher selves: that part of our minds which have learned cooperation and prize empathy and sustainability.
The lizard brain is at the switches. The monkey is flying the rocket. It's a mess.
If a rebalancing does not occur from some source -- unions, NGOs, stronger national politics -- then the machine will grind itself -- and our world -- into the dust.
One way or the other, balance will be found.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Stop bush now on May 4, 2007 1:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.Kucinich.US
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Temporary on May 1, 2007 12:11 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: A BAD IDEA! - AMEN!
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Is Big Business holding back on globalizing? Of course not.
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Is Big Business holding back on globalizing? Of course not.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Is Big Business holding back on globalizing? Of course not.
Posted by: Philip Newton
» WNAT ABOUT GLOBAL UNIONS FOR MANAUFACTURING?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: WNAT ABOUT GLOBAL UNIONS FOR MANAUFACTURING?
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: WNAT ABOUT GLOBAL UNIONS FOR MANAUFACTURING?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» Me, too!
Posted by: Philip Newton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HughScott on May 1, 2007 1:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption (irrefutable impeachment evidence).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Global" unions?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: "Global" unions?
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: "Global" unions?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: "Global" unions?
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: "Global" unions?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: "Global" unions?
Posted by: yellow
» CAN CAN WE PREVENT GLOBAL UNIONS FROM BEING COOPTED?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: CAN CAN WE PREVENT GLOBAL UNIONS FROM BEING COOPTED?
Posted by: yellow
» RE: CAN CAN WE PREVENT GLOBAL UNIONS FROM BEING COOPTED?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: CAN CAN WE PREVENT GLOBAL UNIONS FROM BEING COOPTED?
Posted by: yellow
» WHAT IS A CRACKER?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: WHAT IS A CRACKER?
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: saywhat? on May 1, 2007 6:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
at some point ceo's will have to give up their perverse bonuses and bargain at the table!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on May 1, 2007 6:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Globalism is inevitable, so don't bother fighting it as much as it is destroying any autonomy or livability around the entire world just shifting more and more money upwards to the already rich and those in a position to have their palms greased to sell out the workers of their nation. Just contemplate what designer color of chains you want to have clamped onto you. Just think about what color you'll paint your cell walls.
Yes, organize your unweildy "global" unions and protest your corporate owners all you want. Prepare for corruption and eventually accepting FAR less than you should actually have.
You can either be a slave and appologist for the plantation owners... or you can fight for your freedom.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» and nevermind...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» And.... how many of those talking about this are or have been union members?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» I'm a union member...
Posted by: sausage
» RE: I'm a union member...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I'm a union member...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» So what are YOU doing, Bob?
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: So what are YOU doing, Bob?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: I'm a union member...
Posted by: sausage
» GLOBALIZATION IS INEVITABLE? JUST LIKE COMMUNISM WAS?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» Fight; how? Fight; what for?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Your "or else" is that you'll remove yourself from the voting pool.. not even bothering...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Your "or else" is that you'll remove yourself from the voting pool.. not even bothering...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Your "or else" is that you'll remove yourself from the voting pool.. not even bothering...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Your "or else" is that you'll remove yourself from the voting pool.. not even bothering...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on May 1, 2007 6:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course our "libertarian" friends bring up the canard of old fashioned communism. In fact certain features, universal health care, universal public schooling up through college, etc., were not all that bad. That is why Otto von Bismarck, the consummate conservative, appropriated those Marxian ideas, founding the modern European welfare state, in Hohenzollern Germany. But libertarians live under the delusion that the mere sound of their own individual farts somehow influence events round the world.
Besides, American exceptionalism is a dying dinosaur, as our corporationist friends are wont to tell us. Moreover, since Chinese and Indian workers will inevitably demand higher wages, our corporationist friends are already casting covetous eyes on Africa in their never-ending shell game of driving wages to the bottom to increase profit margins. And, as the world is a globe, by the time Asia and Africa are sucked dry, a poverty-stricken America will be ripe, once again, for the picking. The true internationalizing, if I can coin such a word, of the labor union movement is long overdue.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lincoln fan on May 1, 2007 8:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it's obvious that if the people are to be in control, there must be no organization bigger nor more powerful than their government. It's also a fact that the people must be in control of their government. The problem that the U.S. people face today is that the corporations control our government.
I think it boils down to this. We, the people, must take control of our government and take control of the corporations or we are doomed to virtual slavery or bloody revolution. I think that there is still time to regain our freedom peacefully.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: EagleMB
» MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS CONTROLLED BY THE PEOPLE?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS CONTROLLED BY THE PEOPLE?
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS CONTROLLED BY THE PEOPLE?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: I am familiar...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: I am familiar...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Well the, problem solved...
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: No, I didn't...
Posted by: EagleMB
Comments are closed-
Posted by: otto on May 1, 2007 8:21 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: gerdhansel on May 1, 2007 10:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global corporations succeed because they play nation-states against one another.
But is global government really a good idea? Talk about too much power in too few hands. When nation-states get too big for their britches (like Nazi Germany or George Bush's USA) other nation states eventually put them in their place.
But who will challenge a rogue global government? The Martians?
Be careful what you wish for.
Sometimes I wonder if humanity wouldn't be better off living in the world of Mad Max or The Stand.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Well, Gerd... it need not be quite like Mad Max....
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: not possible without global government
Posted by: Lincoln fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: solrev on May 1, 2007 10:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [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: CatDad on May 1, 2007 11:13 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]
» All I see from most people is capitulation to globalization.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» BILATERAL TRADE AGREEMENTS IN THE INTEREST OF AMERICA IS THE RIGHT APPROACH.
Posted by: poppop_schell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 1, 2007 11:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I belong to SEIU. My local (in Oregon) has great autonomy, and is able to draw on the resources of the SEIU International in DC. It is the best of both worlds. (I have had 23 years of activism in this union, enough time to have some perspective.) Members hold our democratically-controlled local acountable -- bet on it.
THe US labor movement is importing ideas and inspiration from Third World labor activists at least as much as we are exporting them from the US. These heroes in Korea, Mexico, South America and the Middle East, to name a few, know what it is to fight and die for the right to form a union. They wouldn't be doing it if it were not a vital and necessary thing.
No one would.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Supporting unions with no leverage is only hurting union members.
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Supporting unions with no leverage is only hurting union members.
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Supporting unions with no leverage is only hurting union members.
Posted by: EagleMB
» WAGES IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE!!!
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: WAGES IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE!!!
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: WAGES IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE!!!
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: WAGES IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE!!!
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: WAGES IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE!!! ROLE OF ARBITRATION
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: ROLE OF ARBITRATION (allow me to inform you)
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: OLE OF ARBITRATION (allow me to inform you)
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: OLE OF ARBITRATION (allow me to inform you)
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: OLE OF ARBITRATION (allow me to inform you)
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: OLE OF ARBITRATION (allow me to inform you)
Posted by: EagleMB
» Eagle:
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: It seems you are rationalizing...
Posted by: EagleMB
» OK. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE GIVING UNIONS LEVERAGE?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: OK. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE GIVING UNIONS LEVERAGE?
Posted by: EagleMB
» Eagle...
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: agle...
Posted by: EagleMB
» Lockouts and replacement workers
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Lockouts and replacement workers
Posted by: EagleMB
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 1, 2007 12:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Businesses in country A can trade with businesses in country B. Our government reserves the right to restrict trade in order to protect our fledgling industries, and your government also has that right. We expect labor standards in your country to be similar to labor standards in our country, and we expect environmental standards in your country to be similar to those in our country; if these standards are not met than trade will not be allowed. We will tax your imports at a reasonable level, and your government can also tax our exports to your country."
Globalization is not trade, it's colonization and slavery masquerading as free trade. David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage sets the stage for free trade, and can be summed up as Gains come because each country specializes in producing the good for which its comparative cost is lower.
For example: Mexico once had a healthy agricultural sector and could produce a lot of corn. The United States once had a healthy manufacturing sector and could produce a lot of steel. Thus, Mexico had a comparative advantage in corn production and the US had it in steel production; thus you'd expect steel to be sent to Mexico and corn to be sent to the US.
In todays world, the US government pays megacorps like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland massive subsidies which allow them to send corn to Mexico at artificially low prices, destroying Mexican agriculture. Now that the market has been cornered, Cargill etc. jack up the prices in Mexico, resulting in widespread poverty and massive levels of immigration to the US, where underpaid immigrants work on Cargill's factory farms. Similarly, US steel production is moved to countries where labor costs are low due to repression of employees by dictatorial governments. This is all made possible by the elaborate 'bilateral trade agreements' which are books of legalese that define how any business activity will be handled. That's not free trade, that's colonialism and slavery.
The most telling argument against the Clintons, and the reason that noone should vote for Hillary, is that they were wholehearted supporters of these arrangements (i.e. 1996 NAFTA). The only prominent candidates who have brought the issue up are Edwards and Kucinich; once Clinton and Obama saw that it hit a popular nerve they jumped on board - which is just their attempt to get more votes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» WONDERFUL: SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS FREE TRADE THEORY
Posted by: poppop_schell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on May 1, 2007 12:32 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]
» It's not a deal...
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: There are only 2 solutions...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: There are only 2 solutions...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: There are only 2 solutions...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: There are only 2 solutions...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» Bingo, Schell.
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: How will that stop outsourcing...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: How will that stop outsourcing...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: But you are not accounting for one thing...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: But you are not accounting for one thing...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: But you are not accounting for one thing...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: But you are not accounting for one thing...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: But you are not accounting for one thing...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: But you are not accounting for one thing...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: But you are not accounting for one thing...
Posted by: EagleMB
» AND SO RICARDO'S ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT BEING MET!!
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: But you are not accounting for one thing...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: EagleMB
» THE BEST INVESTMENT FOR LONG TERM SUCCESS IS IN HUMAN CAPITAL
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Sometimes it is...
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Sometimes it is...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: HUMAN CAPITAL
Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: So you are proposing solution 1...
Posted by: EagleMB
» Eagle, read "Mania in America."
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: agle, read "Mania in America."
Posted by: EagleMB
Comments are closed-
Posted by: snowhound on May 1, 2007 12:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we don't, we'll get exactly what we deserve.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Well we won't and we will
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Given up?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Hey Bob, I have one question?
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Hey Bob, I have one question?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Hey Bob, I have one question?
Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Hey Bob, I have one question?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Hey Bob, I have one question?
Posted by: Lincoln fan
» THIS IS NOT A LIBERAL VS CONSERVATIVE ISSUE!!!
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: THIS IS NOT A LIBERAL VS CONSERVATIVE ISSUE!!!
Posted by: yellow
» RE: THIS IS NOT A LIBERAL VS CONSERVATIVE ISSUE!!!
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: THIS IS NOT A LIBERAL VS CONSERVATIVE ISSUE!!!
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 1, 2007 4:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SEIU has proved that organizing lower-paid workers on a global scale is working. It is true that the industrial base of the US is eroding, and taking with it many union jobs. It is a big lift, but unions must follow the work and the workers.
It is not just about economics. Having a voice at work (like, not being fired at will for starters) and other contract protections are a vital part of what unions achieve -- if they have a united rank and file.
This, more than anything else, is the major cause of failed unions: there is no union without people willing to do the work of unions -- organizing and remaining organized. In part, we can be excused for buying the anti-union bill of goods from the US Chamber of Commerce and NAM, to name but two, but we have no excuse for our laziness, and that, more than any propaganda effort, is what is killing unions today.
That is why international unionism is good for the industrialized world as well as the Third World.
The Third World unionists have taught us the meaning of the words, "fight" and "organize."
Bless them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It ain't always about the money
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: It ain't always about the money
Posted by: Philip Newton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sum Won on May 2, 2007 3:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is left of the union movement can only survive by returning to its roots as a force for social justice. If it continues to seek greater power to allocate more for its members it only alienates it self from those who remain oppressed, or seek alternative forms of economic and social interaction. Unions need to use their remaining power to aid those who have chosen the human race over wage slave one. By engaging and supporting local initiatives that are focused on “the most salient issues of our day: climate change, poverty, deforestation, peace, water, hunger, conservation, human rights, and more” then they will gain the support, loyalty and admiration from a core constituency that it has lost touch with. In this manner a new role and purpose will unfold for them.
What are we doing to help that global democratic movement pop? Some highlights from the article but read it again and you will see the path.
“tens of millions of ordinary and not-so-ordinary people willing to confront despair, power, and incalculable odds in order to restore some semblance of grace, justice, and beauty to this world.” “part of a coalescence comprising hundreds of thousands of organizations with no center, codified beliefs, or charismatic leader. The movement grows and spreads in every city and country.” “The movement can't be divided because it is atomized -- small pieces loosely joined. It forms, gathers, and dissipates quickly. Many inside and out dismiss it as powerless, but it has been known to bring down governments, companies” “In place of isms are processes, concerns, and compassion. The movement demonstrates a pliable, resonant, and generous side of humanity.” “It will soon suffuse and permeate most institutions.” “It is not a liberal or conservative activity.
Our current Industrial model based "economy" is defined to exclude all work or production not intended for the market. These economic constraints are barriers that are no longer needed but exist to perpetuate the status quo and prevent us from moving forward. A post industrial economy can be modeled on aspects of a pre industrial one where they did not differentiate tasks into work and leisure. The term for what they did was living. It is in my opinion the only solution to the "jobless boom". In the same manner that those who ruled the feudal system were resistant to the birth of industrialization and the loss of power as their serfs became workers there are those in power today who fear the loss of privilege and status given the irrelevance of their roles without workers. The unfolding postindustrial economy provides the tools for “wage slaves” to become largely self sufficient and independent of employers but few have done so as the majority of us are like sheep that have forgotten how to be independent and prefer the comforts of captivity regardless of our eventual fate.
Think about “This unnamed movement's big contribution is the absence of one big idea; in its stead it offers thousands of practical and useful ideas” “It is trying to remake the world” “The movement has three basic roots: the environmental and social justice movements, and indigenous cultures' resistance to globalization-all of which are intertwining.” We can learn from as well as teach those indigenous cultures. The third wave, Alvin Toffler predicted could unfold.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why participate?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Devolution
Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: Devolution
Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: Devolution
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Devolution
Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: Devolution and UNITY 08?
Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Devolution and UNITY 08? WATCH OUT?
Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: Devolution and UNITY 08? WATCH OUT?
Posted by: poppop_schell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 2, 2007 7:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unions are returning to the values of social justice. I can think of few forces in this world wit the focus – and the power to carry off such an agenda. In alliance with other groups, such as environmental movements, Jobs With Justice, evangelical progressives, etc., unions are a powerful force for just such change as you advocate.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sum Won:
Posted by: Sum Won
» Newfoundland
Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: Newfoundland -- I hope so!
Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Sum Won:
Posted by: Philip Newton
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 3, 2007 7:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In short, the writer asserts, the machine is grinding at a rate that is not sustainable, enriching a few and impoverishing the rest of us. Our great technology is tapped into our MORE primitive and base instincts, and not serving our higher selves: that part of our minds which have learned cooperation and prize empathy and sustainability.
The lizard brain is at the switches. The monkey is flying the rocket. It's a mess.
If a rebalancing does not occur from some source -- unions, NGOs, stronger national politics -- then the machine will grind itself -- and our world -- into the dust.
One way or the other, balance will be found.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Stop bush now on May 4, 2007 1:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.Kucinich.US
[« 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
Fury at Wall St. Banks Fuels Public Action for Move Your Money Campaign
Why Congress Wants You to Shun Your Local Bookstore and Shop at Amazon Instead




