Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

In Keeping Down American Workers, Corporate Crime Pays

By Ben Zipperer and John Schmitt, AlterNet. Posted July 20, 2007.


Crime may not pay for ordinary criminals, but companies avoid paying millions in wages and benefits by committing crimes against their workers.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Belief in God Hurting America?
David Villano

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
The Vampire Banks Are Back: Will There Ever Be Meaningful Financial Reform?
Dean Baker

DrugReporter:
The War on Weed: Marijuana Is Basically Harmless -- The Monumentally Stupid Drug War Is Not
Jim Hightower

Environment:
White House Garden Won't Make Up for Obama's Nomination of Pesticide Lobbyist for US Chief Agriculture Negotiator
Jill Richardson

Food:
Don't Be Scared of Food: Are We Being Needlessly Hysterical About Food Safety?
David E. Gumpert

Health and Wellness:
47,000 Women Could Die As a Result of the New Mammogram Guidelines
George Lakoff

Immigration:
Hate Group, FAIR, Is Looking for "Ethnically Ambiguous" Actors to Amplify Its Racism
Adam Luna

Media and Technology:
The Memory Scrub About Why Ft. Hood Happened Is Almost Complete ... If It Weren't for Archives
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
Just When You Thought It Was Safe: 3 Potential Obstacles to Health-Care Reform
Adele M. Stan

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Can't We Look Away From Sarah Palin?
Vanessa Richmond

Rights and Liberties:
Murder at Guantanamo? The Mysterious, Unsolved Death of Mohammad Saleh al Hanashi
Jeffrey S. Kaye

Sex and Relationships:
Hot Mormon Muffins and Models for Jesus: What's With All the Sexy Christians?
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Poseidon's Financial Shell Game: Why Is a Private Desalination Plant Asking for Public Money?
Peter Gleick

World:
What Nidal Hasan, Timothy McVeigh, and the Beltway Sniper Have in Common: All Were Scarred by Pointless U.S. Wars
Nora Eisenberg

More stories by Ben Zipperer John Schmitt

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

President Dwight D. Eisenhower once lambasted union busters, proclaiming, "Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice." But the fools today are actually acting quite rationally. Facing trivial penalties, anti-union employers are increasingly breaking the law to keep their workers from organizing.

Fifty years ago, more than 30 percent of private-sector workers were organized. That share today is 8 percent. Globalization and the new, technology-driven economy have contributed to the decline, but advanced economies in Europe survive these same developments and still have union coverage rates of around 80 percent.

Much of the falloff in the United States is not due to the "new" economy or waning worker interest; it's instead the result of illegal intimidation by employers. Our recent analysis of cases brought before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which oversees union-management relations in most of the private sector, shows that employers illegally fire as many as 1 in 5 union organizers.

Actions by the world's largest employer are a case in point. When butchers at Wal-Mart's Jacksonville, Texas, store joined the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Wal-Mart permanently closed its meat-cutting departments, switched to prepackaged meat and fired four of the union supporters.

Wal-Mart's not alone, as much of the business community hates unions. Unions fight for increased wages and benefits and for redistributing earnings from employers to workers. Corporate managers, on the other hand, try to maximize profits for shareholders and compensation packages for those at the top. Compelled by the threat of lower profits, many employers will do whatever it takes to avoid a union workplace.

Not infrequently, this means breaking the law. The National Labor Relations Act (NRLB) makes it illegal to intimidate or fire workers for union activity. Yet, according to our study of data from the NLRB, there has been a steep rise in illegal firings of pro-union workers in the last few years. Currently, 1 in 53 is dumped during an election campaign, more than 50 percent higher than the chance of being fired in the late 1990s.

Employers generally fire the workers who are leading the union organizing drives. If 10 percent of union supporters are actually organizers in their workplace, NLRB data show that about 1 in 5 is fired illegally for their activism.

Interestingly, union membership has actually increased in the public sector. Whereas the private sector -- the bulk of the U.S. economy -- has seen unionization fall by three-quarters over the last 50 years, public-sector union membership has tripled over the same period to about 36 percent. Persistent, illegal activity by employers in the private sector explains this disparity. Illegal firings exist in the public sector too, of course, but they are far less prevalent. Civil service protections that most private sector workers don't enjoy ensure that firings are more onerous for the government than they are for a business.

Union busters, or "fools" in Eisenhower's assessment, make a simple decision about costs and benefits. In a worst-case scenario, the cost of firing a union supporter includes legal proceedings and remuneration to the discharged employee. At a maximum, discharged employees will receive missed earnings minus any income they have earned in the meantime. The total award usually amounts to less than $4,000, a small price to pay to avoid sharing profits with employees through a union-negotiated contract.

More than half of nonsupervisory workers who aren't union members, want to be. The U.S. Senate voted last month to kill the Employee Free Choice Act, setting back another opportunity to increase fines and reduce the incentives for anti-union employers to break the law. Without those reforms, the current cost of illegal employer aggression ensures that crime really does pay.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: labor, economics, efca, union-busting

Ben Zipperer is a researcher and John Schmitt is senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
sacrifices for the good of all
Posted by: shangrilalad on Jul 20, 2007 4:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that Republicans have consolidated all power unto themselves, all three branches of government and the Monopoly Media, they will never relinquish that power. Forget elections, they’ve rigged them in the past and have increased their ability to do so in the future. Bound by no scruples, they have a huge advantage over bungling, tongue-tied and frightened Democrats who answer to the same corporate masters as Republicans.

Americans have no legal recourse to reverse the Republican Coup d’etat because we have no leaders to unify and lead us. None of the corporate sponsored predators and parasites in Washington will save us, because they profit from the corruption they have so carefully crafted. Systematic corruption long proceeded and enabled the Coup d’etat. Until American’s accept these facts, we are stalemated.

So what then are our options?

We all know the answer to that.

But hey, we’re a get along, go along kind of people willing to just hunker down and hope for the best. All things come to and end, and besides, what’s the worst that could happen?
Germany survived the Nazis, and so can we.

The Jews, gypsies, lefties, intellectuals, feebleminded, and inferior races, however, are on their own.

We’ve got to make “sacrifices for the good of all.”

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So what then are our options? Posted by: Lincoln fan
When I read stuff like this
Posted by: Cruella on Jul 20, 2007 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...it's like I can feel democracy slipping through my fingers!

In the UK the government is always talking about how corporates can benefit society, while they hand out stacks of grants and tax breaks to them.

And then we hear that if we want to change the course of politics we need to get our hands in our pockets and pay for it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oversimplification
Posted by: Leman on Jul 20, 2007 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is so one-sided that it made me close one eye to read it. It states the fact:
Fifty years ago, more than 30 percent of private-sector workers were organized. That share today is 8 percent.
and proceeds to tell us that the drop is because of worker intimidation. Yes, it is - in part. And I'll even take the author's word for it - maybe intimidation plays a larger role here than I thought.

But this is not the main reason for unions' phasing-out. And even Reagan's assaults do not entirely explain it. I tend to agree with Dr. Aronovitz ("How class works"): unions died because they ceased to be centers of direct action, on one hand, but never managed to gain any party representation, on the other hand. They are stuck in a limbo, where they became sclerotic bureaucracies without much of a political clout (aside from supporting Democrat candidates in elections).

The author mentions that union membership did not decline in Europe. I think the reason for it is because unions there are a real political force, in most places actually represented in the government by their own party. The other reason is an overall socialist sentiment (not to say cultural tradition) in Europe. American society is more individualist, which is why if you are worth anything you'd be too busy selling yourself to the highest bidder, rather than chanting slogans.

All this is strictly abstract, of course. Since it draws heavily on research by a clearly leftist academician, it definitely does not reflect my personal position on the issue. In case anybody wonders about where I stand: I believe unions are a menace and should be avoided like a plague - both by workers and by business owners. On the other hand, I believe any kind of intimidation (especially illegal) is outrageous and should be dealt with in the most severe manner. For those of you who can not understand this inconsistency, here is an analogy: I don't drink and I think getting drunk is stupid - but I would not advocate forceful closing of bars and liquor stores. To each - its own. You wanna join a union - you should be able to, that's your personal choice. I won't, but that's my personal choice too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Killing the American dream
Posted by: dougo on Jul 20, 2007 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is what the corporate titans have in mind. Oh not their dream of the good life but yours. They jet around the country in their $45000 dollar an hour Lear jets and pay the employees a pittance. They just have to get rid of that little 70 ft. yacht, too dinky,must have the 160 footer or bigger. The six or seven mansions across the country and around the world, the finest of automobiles,few American made, while the workers who make it all possible for them struggle to pay the rent or mortgage, put food on the table and clothe their children. America must change and soon or we will continue to fall into the depths of a total oligarchical slave nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Union's big mistake.
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jul 20, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The unions have made the same mistake that progressives make; blind loyalty to the Democratic Party. Look at the record. Click On Open Secrets Big business finances the campaigns of both parties and both parties pay them back handsomely.

On the other hand, both parties know that union members and liberals will vote Democratic. The Republicans wrrite them off and do nothing for them. The Democrats take them for granted and do nothing for them.

I think that the answer is this; tell both parties before the election that they won't get your vote unless they earn it.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Union's big mistake. Posted by: richholland
Francis
Posted by: Francis on Jul 20, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The disparities in wealth distribution in America during the Gilded Age were symptomatic of the political and economic rot of the times which came to a crashing halt with the great depression. A halt which brought many Wall Streeters back to earth, literally and figuratively.

Human nature has not changed a bit, nor will it ever. Extreme wealth continues to beget extreme wealth. Indifference to the poor and suffering is unabated. Corporatist fantasies that the party will go on forever displace rational conclusions to the contrary.

Wealth and political power are inseparable in America, two sides of the same coin. Progressivism gains traction only when conscience is introduced into the equation. America's current ethical climate appears conscience-free, indeed, belligerently anti-conscience...witness the panorama of war-loving, SUV driving yahoos yammering on their cell phones as they race through red lights to hearth and home in order to watch, read or listen to one Rupert Murdoch production or another. With a permanently atomized society, deliberately so rendered by the corporate media in order to deter any threat of concerted democratic action rearing it's ugly anti-corporatist head, the status quo is safe.

Just as the neocons fortold the necessity of another Pearl Harbor, required to provide the political critical mass to launch their plan for militarized world domination, I fear that the survival and revival of progressivism, too, will require a cataclysm, similar to the depression , to truly educate America as to the need for revolutionary change in our political system.

Of course, the neocons are gearing up for another 9/11 in order to take us further into totalitarian fascism and away from progressivism. And just like the first 9/11, they may very well succeed in getting their wish. After all, they have surely had their fair share of happy coincidences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Answer, Add or Edit this Survey on Wants, Needs, and Behavior
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Jul 20, 2007 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you had a large sum of money, and voting Republican could help you keep more of it…would you? (You might justify keeping more money to help your family, or to avoid hyperinflation).

If you were paid a large sum of money to express any point of view that is neoconservative, and actively, legally support them, (since you no longer need to work to survive)…would you? (You might substitute liberal for neocon, any view opposite your own, and you can use the excuse to survive by any means necessary).

If you wanted children, instead of procreating...would you adopt? (There's no law against giving birth, and we still have and support that freedom).

Are we ok with our liberal heroes, with their large sums of money, and their attitude and mistreatment of others? Ralph Nader on The Skeleton Closet was a real shocker, or do some research on Michael Moore, who is some people’s favorite, obese, wealthy Manhattanite. But we don’t begrudge his millions of dollars, or those who "survive by any (legal) means necessary," do we...unless we disagree or hate them? (Search: any person or topic and add "fraud" or "liar" or "thief"; experiment some, and of course you may want to get a second opinion). Maybe we're okay with how (some) prominent liberals treat others or the planet because they're fighting the good fight (for us).

Getting upset at one aspect of life, but disregarding any and all other aspects, doesn’t make solid connections between your terrible life and the lives of others, or how your Happy Meal impacts the planet, or when things get really bad for Americans why they didn't try to make their own lives more simple.

Who doesn't realize the following helps others like you: Buying and consuming less; living in communal or smaller housing (about 400 sq ft per person in either case), without useless décor; unplug electronics when not in use or invest in newer more efficient product/appliance/HVAC or live off the grid; utilize public transportation or bike; ate local vegetarian (or vegan) food that wasn’t processed or frozen; dressed in second-hand clothing; exercised; recycled; helped others; became active in local and global politics, and what else have I (or you) forgotten here? (Eating healthy and new tech costs more, yes, but wouldn’t we save more money living cheaply, to be able to afford these things?)

Does anyone who complains take responsibility for their actions or how their lack of action affects others equally or less fortunate than themselves? What do AlterNet readers think of themselves, if the circumstances they are in could change for the better...but for a price? Do any AlterNet readers who post liberal have large sums of money? Part of having more is doing with less, and we all feel we deserve more and the disparity of incomes between rich and poor in this country are wide (search: “Gini Index”) but why do we keep forgetting (or failing to mention) billions suffer more than we do? How are we not contributing to the overall mess when we buy cheap imports and are guilty of many of these excesses, not the least by having more (or any) children?

This month’s Popular Science magazine states 50% of the world's mercury comes from China's coal burning industry and overpopulation, so why don’t we stop buying from them and/or step in with the best technology to clean their smokestacks, or built fast neutron reactors (search: “fast reactor”, or “fast neutron reactor” or “fast accelerating reactor”) which use the last 95% of fissional materials normally left unused (which also cannot be used to build nuclear weapons)? What’s missing or wrong with this picture?

Why can't we have that utopia? Is it because the powers that be need conflict, for profit, where even our heroes have learned to make a buck off our suffering?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

agree with "oversimplification" comments
Posted by: jiclemens on Jul 20, 2007 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To add to this, there are fundamental differences between public sector and private sector unions. In the public sector unions have strict guidelines and cannot negotiate salaries or promote political activities. That leaves them with a mandate to lobby for worker safety issues and mediate worker/supervisor disputes. This has lead to a generally safer and more pleasant workplace whether or not salaries are ideal. In the private sector it is so much about money that unions have a reputation for being dishonest, willing to bully corporations out of existance for an extra buck and sucking up too much of the employee's hard earned bucks for fluff like lousy dental insurance plans and trinkets and not being there when needed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You don't know nothin' Posted by: sausage
Give 'em an inch
Posted by: willymack on Jul 20, 2007 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And they'll take a mile. Nothing new here, folks. I don't pretend to be able to see into the minds of corporate thugs. I wouldn't want to wade in that cesspool, anyway. I think most of us don't give a hang about what compels corporate scumbags to become such greedy bastards; we just want to do our jobs, go home, and be left alone. Getting ahead is becoming an increasingly unobtainable goal, however, and getting that expensive play-pretty is becoming more difficult and risky all the time. My neighbor recently showed up with an expensive new motorcycle and asked if I wanted to go for a ride with him. Of course, I'll never turn down an offer like that, so off we went. After riding for a while, we decided to take a break at a food mart and parked our bikes. I asked the neighbor how he could afford his ride (Harley Electra Glide, full dress). He told me: "I can't, but I got it anyway". You know what I think? The corporatocracy has got us right where they want us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's one
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Jul 20, 2007 11:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JETBLUE TERMINATES UNION ACTIVIST
FLIGHT ATTENDANT AFTER ASSAULT BY PASSENGER

Washington, DC - A JetBlue flight attendant and supporter of the
Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA-CWA) organizing campaign at
her carrier was recently terminated for what appears to be a blatant
anti-union tactic by JetBlue executives. Last month, off-duty senior
flight attendant Mala Amarsingh was getting ready to board a flight from
Las Vegas to New York when an intoxicated passenger approached her in
the gate area and began to verbally assault her. The drunken passenger,
who was denied boarding on previous flights, then spat in her face and
eventually resorted to physical threats. Several days later, after
filing an incident report, Amarsingh was terminated by JetBlue
management for using a curse word in response to the shocking incident.


"I believe that if this happened to any other JetBlue employee,
management would not have stooped to termination, but because I am a
vocal and proud supporter of AFA-CWA, management saw me as a threat and
used this incident as a pretext to get rid of me," said Amarsingh.
"I love being a flight attendant and I have been a loyal employee.
It is unfortunate that JetBlue management chose to condone physical and
verbal assaults from a passenger as a means to cover up their union
busting."

Union busting, often referred to as a union avoidance campaign,
unfortunately is standard practice by employers. According to American
Rights at Work, over 82 percent of employers hire high priced union
busting consultants to fight union organizing drives. However, in the
case of Amarsingh, being physically and verbally assaulted was all it
took for JetBlue to destroy her career.

"The actions of JetBlue management in this situation are
deplorable," exclaimed Patricia Friend, AFA-CWA International
President. "Ms. Amarsingh was assaulted, and instead of standing up
for an employee who has given a great deal to the company, management
decided to use this incident as an opportunity to slow the progress of
an organizing campaign. This action clearly illustrates why JetBlue
flight attendants need the protection AFA-CWA can provide them. If
management will not stand behind their employees after an assault, how
can they claim to have their employees' best interests in mind?"

For over 60 years, the Association of Flight Attendants has been
serving as the voice for flight attendants in the workplace, in the
aviation industry, in the media and on Capitol Hill. More than 55,000
flight attendants at 20 airlines come together to form AFA-CWA, the
world's largest flight attendant union. AFA is part of the
700,000-member strong Communications Workers of America (CWA), AFL-CIO.
Visit us at www.afanet.org.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here's one Posted by: Lincoln fan
Race to the bottom
Posted by: eosrk on Jul 20, 2007 5:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
10-15 years from now, the US will have the conditions of a third world nation, where the rich have all the money, and the poor are being killed off by other poor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unions fail...
Posted by: vultureculture on Jul 20, 2007 10:07 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) because to finance their operation, they must become a business similar to those they oppose.
2) because of legislation lobbied for by the opposing businesses to limit the services they can offer and the customers that can use them.
3) because as a business a union cannot compete selling their services to their artificially limited market with the businesses not suffering similar constraints.
4) because of intentional and unintentional propaganda as to the need and usefulness of the services they provide.
5) because of people closing one or both eyes and avoiding issues that are not of popular interest or of concern to their social circle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporations have many 'tactics' in cheating workers
Posted by: Blue Heron on Jul 21, 2007 3:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been aware of the Union debate. But how about companies keeping employees as 'permatemps?' Those who are in this position don't dare sue, as they feel fortunate to have a job in an economy that is still far from booming. Microsoft had lawsuits against them for keeping permatemps. Hopefully we'll see more. It's simply cruel to deny an employee basic rights such as health care in a country where the health care system is virtually non-existent. Companies are really good at putting workers through obscene guilt trips as well, making them feel lower than worms, even when they are extremely well qualified. Maybe we should have a 'contract' too - that we will not purchase products from a company engaging in such tactics, whether they be tech, retail or other goods.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Davos Agenda: When Is Enough, Enough?
Posted by: NeoCogito on Jul 22, 2007 2:49 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has our, Gov't Been Outsourced?

While we are spoon-fed frivolous news by the the Big-8 Corporate Media Cartel-- a propaganda tool since the 90's, the Davos Demagogues are hammering the last coffin nails in "Democracy." You probably don't want candidates big media promotes, nor those they spin covertly with faint, trite & irrelevant criticism. The PTB (powers-that-be) have been running the U.S. in Davos Switzerland, independent of the people since the 90's.
Chaos--helps, it keeps the people in stress-mode & ill-equipped to re-tool democracy to what it was before the Davos Agenda took off in the 90's. The slick Davos Demagogues determine U.S. policy in Switzerland. What a cool idea to keep their offshore agenda within running distance of their secret bank accounts. NAFTA's 1,000-plus pages give international investors extraordinary rights to override government protections of workers and the environment. It sets up secret panels, rife with conflicts of interest, to judge disputes from which there is no appeal. It makes virtually all nonmilitary government services subject to privatization and systematically undercuts the public sector's ability to regulate business. "NAFTA happened," said the then-chairman of American Express, "because of the drive Bill Clinton gave it. He stood up against his two prime constituents, labor and environment, to drive it home over their dead bodies."

As the well respected journalist Christopher Hitchens says in his book: "No One Left To Lie To": "The legacy of Bill Clinton is the expiration of American liberalism," and "the Clinton machine, if successful, will become the model of pseudo-democracy for the coming century." Looking at their "legacy," Clinton's latest grandstand, to finance a museum dedicated to --what!?--- Woodstock!? has gotta!! be a joke. I mean-- do military generals hold benefits for Pacifists? Their mission since they began w/Lieberman, 30 years ago or more has always been , to surround themselves with the most predatory of the "uber" powerful; their jihad was not against republicans, it was against liberals.

NAFTA and the end of corporate regulations was only the beginning. The Clinton/Republican alliance then pushed through the WTO agreement and the subsequent deal with China that traded off more US industrial jobs in exchange for protections for US investors in that huge Asian market. Not only has this produced a massive trade deficit with China and further downward pressure on US wages, it has also sent some 250,000 jobs from Mexico to China, precipitating the Mexican exodus causing further upheavel in the U.S.

Clinton "Bashing?" Say What? His administration was the most radically conservative in modern history but unconscionably few Americans have the faintest clue about the halacious SCOPE of the radical hard-right transformation of the 90's. Even Hillary's claim to fame with her often touted Health-Care "initiative" is her! secret--for two good reasons-- Big Insurance Corps & Big Pharm.

The Clinton's pity-party & the Monica-martyrdom gave them a free pass for a decade and a half-- It worked! like a charm, to shut down POLITICAL inquiry and, especially scrutiny that might reveal their right-wing legacy. Voters need a break!, an end to the secrecy, duplicity & strategic misguidance---- We need some authentic! opposition to Clinton/Bush-- from the battlefield to the stock exchange, banks, insurance companies -and health care, Enough is Enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And If I... Posted by: bob t
No Labor Relations Board
Posted by: Scott Tabor on Jul 24, 2007 5:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the Senate not supporting the EFCA (Eployee Free Choice Act) the Wal-Marts of the world can take a sigh of relief. The bad part is with the NLRB! Bush and Company have stacked the deck with his personal buddies to make sure that nobody has a chance in hell of getting fair treatment. We Can make a difference by changing who is in the White House in 2008. Make sure that who ever you vote for is going to support the WORKING CLASS

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And that is why they are not...
Posted by: bob t on Jul 26, 2007 12:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...in the least pro-life, nor are their enablers the two big religions that are so staunchly aligned with the right wing Rethugs.
Were they truly pro-lifers they would not be so endlessly killing the living. The best that could be said about them is that they are pro-birth. But they are not even that, were they pro-birth they would make sure that every pregnant women would have adequate prenatal care and they don't even do that.
The right wing so called and self described pro-lifers are obsessed with money and political power as are their enablers, the Catholic Church , my church but not me, and the evangelical fundamentalists. Hagee and the Pope deserve each other.
Unfortunately the rest of us are in their gunsights, as they fully intend to drive their hypocritical religious values down our throats. The 59 million who voted for Bush have the other 241 million of us by the throat.
So much for our God given FREE WILL. Once they have taken that from us they will own our souls. No FREE WILL equals NO SOUL.
Even God, the Father, has not taken away our FREE WILL.
And whats even more amazing is how they endlessly rationalise their own corrupt behavior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement