Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Priority #1 for Working America -- Make It Easier to Unionize

By Steven Greenhouse, The New York Times. Posted November 18, 2008.


Huge union campaign will hopefully counterbalance "corporate power and reverse the decline of the middle class."
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

After making millions of phone calls and knocking on millions of doors to elect Barack Obama, the nation's labor unions have begun a new campaign: to get the new president and Congress to pass legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize.

Unions, delighted that they will have a friend in the White House after eight years of fighting President Bush, also plan to push for universal health coverage and a huge stimulus program to create jobs and counter the downturn.

"Our major priority in the short and long term," said Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, "is to get the economy working for Americans who work."

But corporate America has already declared war on labor's push for new legislation that would help unions organize.

"This will be Armageddon," said Randel Johnson, vice president for labor policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce.

Labor's No. 1 priority is a piece of legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act, also known as the card-check bill. The bill would give workers the right to join a union as soon as a majority of employees at a workplace signed cards saying they wanted one. Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization.

With union membership sliding to 7.5 percent of the private-sector work force, one-third the rate in 1983, unions see enactment of the bill as the single most important step toward reversing their loss of membership and power. Some labor leaders predict that if the bill is passed, unions, which have 16 million members nationwide, would add at least five million workers to their rolls over the next few years.

"We really need fundamental change to counterbalance corporate power and reverse the decline of the middle class," said John J. Sweeney, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s president, "and that's why we support the Employee Free Choice Act."

Mr. Sweeney said labor unions were eager for a stimulus program to jump-start the economy and to help those hurt by the downturn. He called for extending unemployment benefits, increasing financing for food stamps, approving a rescue plan for Detroit's automakers and immediately spending more on rebuilding roads, bridges and schools.

Thomas J. Donohue, the chamber's president, criticized the card-check bill as "payback" that labor unions were expecting in return for their campaign efforts.

Bill Samuel, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s director of government affairs, disagreed, noting that President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. had co-sponsored the act as senators.

"This is not about payback," Mr. Samuel said. "We're looking to work with the new administration on a shared set of priorities that focus on lifting workers and improving the economy."

The A.F.L.-C.I.O. and Change to Win, the rival labor federation, campaigned all out for Mr. Obama, with labor leaders saying that unions and their political action committees spent nearly $450 million during the race.

Mr. Sweeney said that in the last four days of the campaign, 250,000 volunteers from A.F.L.-C.I.O. unions made 5.5 million phone calls and visited 3.9 million union households. All told, he said, unions reached out to more than 13 million voters in 24 states, with some undecided union members being contacted more than 30 times through phone calls, household visits and workplace conversations.

Union leaders say they were pivotal in helping Mr. Obama win several battleground states, including Florida, Indiana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. According to a voter poll by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 67 percent of members of A.F.L.-C.I.O. unions voted for Mr. Obama, a Democrat, and 30 percent for his Republican rival, Senator John McCain.


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

See more stories tagged with: obama, unions, card check, efca

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! 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:
Business / Government
Posted by: Martin32 on Nov 18, 2008 2:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just as governments use wartime as an excuse to erode civil liberties, so businesses use recession to erode worker's rights. Now is the perfect time for this bill. All workers should be in unions - even if you don't need the protection yourself, your contribution may be helping someone else avoid the corporate shaft.

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

» RE: Union blues... Posted by: Cybershaman
How about enforcing existing law first?
Posted by: AndyF on Nov 18, 2008 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What would be better than card check is enforcement of the existing laws and direction from the government that elections need to be held quickly. Lack of enforcement of existing laws has led to many of the current employer abuses. Card check is overkill and could lead to abuses by unions.

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

» RE: What laws? Posted by: Cybershaman
30 Yrs of Union busting MUST End!
Posted by: Purple Girl on Nov 18, 2008 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being a MI'er and a Union Carpenter's wife, I have watched decade after decade of Unions being undermined and maligned.
Granted there were times the Unions leaders were as corrupt as their White collar counterparts- but those years died with Jimmy Hoffa. Once Reagan took office the downward slide was intensified. Every time the Corp Brass felt their wallets getting light, they went to the unions for another concession. And they got it! Little by little they have revoked many 'benefits' which were at one time standards. Even when the industry picked up, those concessions were never regained.
It's not been the Unions who have blocked Universal healthcare, it's been the Corps- The Healthcare industry and their profitable insurance allies.Seems the Big 3 were not only protecting the Oil Corps but also the Health care Providers and insurers. God Knows they wouldn't want to cross their Golfing Buddies.
What also becomes obvious is the fact that laying off blue collar always takes precedence over cutting the FAT in Middle & Upper mgt. Union workers give Up vision coverage and the CEO buys a villa in France with his lastest Bonus for having 'saved' the Corp money on their union contract!
These Corps have been using tactics much like the Mafia...'Don't give Us what we want, we'll destroy your ability to make an income'-it's called Extortion!
Didn't that cheap labor in Mexico help the bottom line? . Oh but they are, it's just they want ALL Global labor to be on the same low end playing field...Bigger Golden parachutes, Big brass Bonus'.
Just like every other commodity they must purchase, These corps want Labor to be as Cheap as possible and to do that they must destroy the ones upping the ante for the rest.God knows they don't want these other global workers to begin to demand a fair wage or ANY bennies.
The Big 3 are the root cause to our lagging behind in Auto manufacturing. They REFUSED to re tool and reasearch New fuel alterntives in the '80's! They knew Where the Oil was coming from to fill these gas guzzling Lead Sled and did nothing but perpetuate the addiction.It took the Auto industry to be the 'Pushers' for the Oil Corps and their M.E. Oil 'royal' bosses.There is as much blood on the Big 3's CEO's CFO's & COO's hands from 9/11(and the subsequent Invasions into Afghanistan & Iraq) as there is on the Oil corps.Consider if We had withdrawn from doing business in the M.E. in the '70's (after the first Oil & Hostage crisis) What would have been the rallying cry for the terrorists?. It's the fact that there are American Flags flying outside these Corp M.E. HQ's ....They want US off their Soil!
So if any of these Corps (Auto or Oil) want any Money from US, then they MUST close up shop in the M.E. entirely, Fire all the Top brass and prosecute those who have been Extorting money and jobs From US for Decades (undermining our economy)!
So before they come calling to the unions to give up what little is left of a decent job, Start from the Top where all these 'exec Decsions' have Caused the not only the demise of the American Auto industry, but this Countries Standing as an international economic powerhouse!Because the FACT is that the reason WE are such prolific consumers is because we have money...so cut the legs out of our ability to Buy shit and the Entire Global economy suffers. By pushing the American Worker into the Cheap labor market, you have lost a majority of your Consumers ability to purchase your products!The Top 1% (or even 5%) can NOT support an economy, and with no Middle class to support their whimsical lifestyle and HUGE Incomes, they too will fall.

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

» but I went to college to become a ceo Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
Warning: Mark Warner was heavily supported by the Chamber of Commerce so
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 18, 2008 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
don't be surprised if he is one of those Dems who filibuster this legislation. But if he does change his tune, well, that's another story. As for Obama passing this bill, I don't see him giving it priority given his zeal to bail out Big Auto.

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

There is a time for everything.
Posted by: 2thepoint on Nov 18, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I never understood the love affair with labor unions. Everything has it's time and place.. unions time has long passed in many industries.. in some it may still be valid.

One only needs to look at GM and how an average cost of an employee, including benefits, is about $75 compared to about $30 for foreign auto companies doing manufacturing in America to understand unions part in the destruction of these companies.

Additionally, unions have long been associated with illegal activities and organized crime. Considering that they have PAC's combined with the pressure they put on membership to vote a certain way I'd be concerned about that kind of power put in the hands of a few leaders!

So union membership is down - does one wonder why many companies go overseas for labor forces! Unions have no one to blame but themselves.

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

I think the New York Times just want more readers
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals on Nov 18, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the free market sucks for them

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

RE: Unions
Posted by: hms2004 on Nov 18, 2008 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not true, the Union's don't get to decide what products the companies manufacture. The reason the big 3 are in the toilet is because they've been making shitty cars that use up way too much gas. If they made a good product they wouldn't be in this mess. Do you think the big 3 consult with the UAW on design and tooling decisions? If you think so you're an idiot, those are management functions.

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

RE: Unions didn't screw the big 3, or they'd have done it in the early 60s when they were strong
Posted by: Beck on Nov 18, 2008 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Detroit and I can tell you how the big 3 screwed themselves. They kept making huge vehicles while those vehicles were piling up unsold in the state fairgrounds and employee lots at Metro Airport. They forced as many as they could on dealerships, who complained that they weren't selling. This wasn't after gas went to $4 a gallon, this was at least 4 years ago. It was during the time that the Prius was selling without advertising, and with long waiting lists. Our newspaper has a car section almost every day, and there were many articles about why the Big 3 didn't build cars like the Prius. Oh, they had such logical-sounding explanations, which all boiled down to "we build what the customer wants" with NO explanation of the thousands of behemoths sitting unsold.

Unions were powerful in the early 60s, and the economy was better, not worse. Taxes were high and there were alot of regulations. How do the rich and powerful get us to argue for them?

Tell me where you get your numbers. How much of the price of a new car is for the union members, and how much goes to the CEOs? I often see some aghast writer say, "X amount of the price of a new car goes to UNION HEALTH BENEFITS" although I've never seen any that say how much goes to CEO health benefits, or stock options, or bonuses, or retirement packages, or travel, etc.

We've been so suckered we can't even see it. We've been taught over the years to examine our own burdens upon companies and using the amounts WE cost them to prove what goes wrong. The heads have been given tacit permission to suck the companies dry with no explanation, because they'll need none. When the companies tank, we all step up and blame everyone but the guys in charge, the ones raking in absolute fortunes.

Oh, and we have to conveniently ignore history, as well. Times of strong unions are times of strong economies. Not the other way around.

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

RE: Unions
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 18, 2008 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Detroit screwed themselves, not to mention thousands of their employees. When the country needed and wanted a reliable commuter car they continued to force feed us big expensive chrome monsters that were impractical and expensive. Enter Toyota & Nissan. A no brainer. They gave us what we wanted and needed. Back then every American who bought a foreign car had a twinge of guilt. They were not American made and we knew where the auto industry was headed 30 yrs. ago. But detroit ignored the very people who no longer wanted their cars. They are still paying the price. So are their employees. The customer was right but the big guys ignored us. Labor unions work all over the world. It's an ancient arrangement that keeps things fair. Anna

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

I thought you had to PAY for advertising on Alternet
Posted by: Crazy H on Nov 18, 2008 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... but it seems that all you have to do is to post a single, brain-dead comment. Then you can post a link to your sub-standard privacy suite. (If you want secure email, find an offshore server - many are free, unlike Ultimate-Spamm-a-ninny.)


Ultimate-Anonymity spam

CLusterAble Spam

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

And don't you wish you were in a union
Posted by: sausage on Nov 18, 2008 12:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your post reads like that of some white collar twerp stuck a cubicle somewhere, whose position is totally at the mercy of some other white collar twerp in a slightly elevated level of management.

Why don't you cubicle moles wake up!

Just because you have a degree in "Internet networking" and wear a tie to work, doesn't mean you're really "in" management.

YOU'RE LABOR!!

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

Jess, how do you expect to sell your privacy product here
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Nov 19, 2008 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if you're gonna say shit like that?

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

Conservative trolls will try to confuse debate on this article.
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Nov 18, 2008 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The greatest fear of conservatives is labor issues, more than falling support for the Iraq War or anything else. Their primary concern is money - the money they make off of labor by keeping them low paid and not offering benefits and security.

Expect massive resistance to any efforts to make union organization easier. Only unrelenting populist fervor can achieve this goal because the opposition is so strong. However it is true that putting power in the hands of labor is the best way to pursue economic justice.

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

» Slapping your great grandpappy Posted by: americansheep
Not just business leaders have a problem with this
Posted by: BeckyD on Nov 18, 2008 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't have a problem with unions - I was a union member for 7 years (NEA) and saw some of the good we were able to do. I'd like to see more workplaces unionized and try to shop at union groceries, etc. However, I am totally against eliminating the ability of workers to vote secretly as to whether they wish to unionize. The concept of the secret ballot is key to true choice.

If union leaders really have no problem with secret ballot as this article says, surely the legislation can be rewritten to eliminate the "lengthy, expensive, adversarial campaign" while preserving worker rights.

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

Auto industry & the UAW
Posted by: Crazy H on Nov 18, 2008 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Picked up the paper this morning & there was an article on the problems that the "Big Three" (medium two?) are facing.

They blamed the union & the economy - barely touching on bad decisions by the execs.

Let's do that again: "they blamed the union" - yeah, those greedy S.O.B.s wallowing in wealth at $25 an hour... while Ford's CEO has to struggle along with a paltry 21 million a year. (a little over ten thousand dollars an hour)

Of course, the VP's rake in ten or twelve million. Then there are layers upon layers of other officers and execs. None of them design, build, or sell cars - yet they all make far more than the people who do.

We are an incredibly wealthy nation. Our productivity has risen so much that we can afford to give 21 million a year to people who don't work for a living.

All the while, the people who actually produce that wealth are losing their jobs and their homes. Washington is busily finding ways to give their tax dollars to the people who not only created the problems, but profited immensely in the process.

What's wrong with this picture?

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

» RE: Auto industry & the UAW Posted by: 2thepoint
My clients are already shifting work overseas, so unless
Posted by: eeezzz on Nov 18, 2008 8:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you figure out a way to make these unions global, you really have no idea of the damage that will be done by applying a mid-20th century concept to a post-millennium reality. Your daddy's good old days are over,sparkey. I dare you to get down on the ground and try creating jobs instead of signaling out "evil" employers as being the problem and puninishing them for dealing with the bigger picture concerning current employment realities- a concept that you can't bear to even take a real peek at.

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

» RE: spank me! Posted by: Crazy H
» What? Posted by: eeezzz
» RE: That! Posted by: Crazy H
» LOL! At least your honest! Posted by: eeezzz
Americans don't understand current employment reality
Posted by: eeezzz on Nov 18, 2008 9:44 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most employment is contracted out. I find work for my employees through other larger clients. I train my employees to do this work. If the larger companies think that the rates that I charge for the work are competitive, they stick with me. If some guy from India, or China, or even Germany offers my client a substanstial rate cut, it won't matter how well we have done the job in the past, my clients will say: "this is no reflection on you, our budgets have been cut to the bone." Lately, this is not even BS.
Right now, it's all I can do to keep that at bay. If my employees start demanding more and more, my clients will bolt for sure.
It's a tightrope walk. Smart minds in other countries are relentlessly figuring out ways to get the work that Americans do now, for pennies on the dollar, in many cases. THIS IS REALITY, PEOPLE. And all of the new laws and regulations in the world won't keep this from happening.
All of those articles alternet and other sites print about how Americans take for granted their outrageous standard of living - maybe something to that....35 cents an hour is the bigtime in some of these places, and those people, underneath the poverty - just as potentially smart as you are.

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

Unionizing is OK but the UAW and Teachers Unions stinks to high heaven
Posted by: Social liberal on Nov 18, 2008 9:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a very interesting statistic:

Average hourly cost of labor including benefit costs

Big 3: $ 73
Toyota: $ 48
Mgmt/
Professionals: $ 48
Goods producing: $ 32
All workers: $ 29

It says it all Toyota gives it workers fair wages and produces good and sustainability cars, Detroit has 50 % higher labor cost and a quality and sustainability that is unforgivable.

I am personally for unions being myself a union leader and negotiator for a Swedish union but when I see how irresponsible the UAW as well as the Teachers Union I despair of the US labor movement. Do they wish to go out of business, lose their jobs are they totally uninterested in the well being of the American people and its students?

You cannot have compensation higher than the consumer is willing to pay, if your product is overly priced, as US cars manufactured by the big 3 is, you should go out of business.

In Sweden Volvo and SAAB together with the unions did harsh reconstruction programs, laid of more than a 1/3 or the workers, automated on a massive scale, demanded much higher productivity, demanded much higher skill sets.

This was not enough SAAB and Volvo was not sustainable and was subsequently sold to Ford and GM.

Unionization is good only if the union is responsible, so far I cannot see any sign of that among US unions in particular the Teachers Union and the UAW. 2 unions with utterly selfish and disastrous policies for American society. High school drop out rates keep falling, incompetent teachers are protected and cars that nobody wants to buy is produced, at prices that are ridiculous.

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

» RE: Isn't grammar fun? Posted by: Crazy H
» ROFLMAO!!!!!! Posted by: sausage
» RE: Math Lesson Posted by: Crazy H
» Yeah...right... Posted by: sausage
» Facts are facts, they have no opinion Posted by: Social liberal
reggiewhitefish
Posted by: reggiewhitefish on Nov 18, 2008 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
unions were always, and still are the peoples answer to corporate tyranny. the current failure of the finantual system is a direct result of the unions loss of strength, which is itself a result of political force applied against unions. the difference between desire and demand is purchasing power, and the ONLY force to ever raise the lifestyle of the producers is collective barganing. this is true across time and all cultures ( the U.S. pre unions was a sweatshop of child labor and industrial desease just like the ones in third world trading partners today.) there will be no recovery in our economy until there is demand, and re-establishing credit will not accomplish this, as we as a nation are allready tapped to the extreem of our ability to repay. only a larger share of the goods and services going to the producers of these goods and services will suffice. this can be aided by political action in the tax arena ( encourging employeers to manufacture here instead of offshore) and by making union organizing easier. if this is not done we will continue our decline into third world poverty just like the workers that the transnational corps prefer and use against us in "free trade", and there will be no market for anything but essentials. this can only lead to revolution or slavery.

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

Clinton stabbed his union supporters in the back
Posted by: sausage on Nov 18, 2008 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until I was laid low by an enlarged heart, I carried mail for the United States Postal Service. I started during Reagan's second term.

One might think that working conditions would be lousy under the anti-union Reagan but, surprisingly enough, the Post Office then was still a fun place to work. I mean a bad day of fishing is always better than a good day at work, but it was tolerable. The carrier supervisors pretty much left the carriers alone to do their routes as they best saw fit.

Then we labored under George H.W. Bush, and nothing much changed except constant rumors of privatization and more automation. Mail sorting did become more automated during Bush One's administration, but management/craft relations remained on a fairly even keel but deteriorating.

When Bill Clinton ascended to the presidency in '93, all us carriers hoped that things would get better. It didn't.

With a Democrat in the White House organized labor, both public and private, hoped that something approaching the pre-PATCO days of 1981 would materialize. It didn't.

In fact working conditions down at the ol' PO headed down the toilet and, from what I hear from my friends yet in Postal blue, they are pretty much in poo up to their knees and sinking fast!

Management harassment is up! Overtime hours are up! I know, some think that working more overtime is what workers want, greed American that they are. But I know guys who were overtime hogs back when I was working who can't do it anymore. They're telling me they're working 10-12 hours a day on a regular basis and often getting called in to carry on their day off for at lest 10 hours. Money's good but a body needs some time off!

So I was taken aback last year when my union, the National Association of Letter Carriers, endorsed Hillary Clinton over John Edwards during the primaries.

Like it or not, from my worm's view perspective the Clinton administration was disastrous for organized labor.

If the in-coming Obama administration does not address issues important to organized labor, perhaps it's time to look elsewhere. Perhaps it's time to organize a new left-of-center coalition in opposition to the current centrist, pro-corporate Democratic Party.

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

The Truth- Unions are Good
Posted by: vivachavez on Nov 18, 2008 1:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America will never be able to compete with the cost of labor in the thrid world. Corporations are always looking for the cheapest labor and when they deem compensation levels in a particular country/region too high, they move on elsewhere. This is already happening in CHina, where rising wealth and development has increased labor costs such that manufacturers are looking towards Vietnam and the rest of Indochina for more cheap labor.

Eliminating unions will not bring back all of the manufacturing jobs. You can't pay someone $2/day in AMerica.

Eliminate unions if you want, but you will just see even more falling wages and benefits at a time when health care costs and income inequality is SOARING.

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

» RE: The Truth- Unions are Good Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Poor Products are Killing the Big 3
Posted by: vivachavez on Nov 18, 2008 1:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THe Big 3 are struggling because their management refused to see the changing market demands- more fuel efficient cars are popular and selling extremely well. Toyota and Honda saw this long before Detroit, and cornered the market on hybrid technology. Wages and benefits in Japan are no less than in America but these companies are weathering the economic downturn much better than the Big 3.

Detroit dragged its feet on increasing fuel efficiency and has fought raising CAFE standards at every turn. Their decline is self-made.

Oh, and let's not forget the role that SOARING health care costs in the private sector have played in the demise of the Big 3. This screams for a comprehensive national health care system which will lower per capita health care expenditures and remove a HUGE liability from the Big 3's balance sheets.

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

This article and most posters are stuck in a 20th century paradigm
Posted by: eeezzz on Nov 18, 2008 2:58 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the one where a big-daddy company or a big- daddy union or a big-daddy president protects them always and brings them endless goodies while providing them with interesting and meaningful and well-paying work, paying their taxes for them every week, and just taking care of them generally in every way.
Until they stop behaving like little children with their hands out and start making things happen on their own, they will forever be wage slaves-crying endlessly about how much they are being ripped off and how much more everybody and everything owes them.

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

My problem with unions
Posted by: rickiey on Nov 19, 2008 6:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very simply is this. I work in a technical job with the exact same job duties as plenty of other people in the exact same job description.

I'm better than they are. I'm not boasting, its a technical thing and I'm a natural. My work is better, it is faster, it is more professionally done, and it is work that our clients like more.

So I make more than my peers, even the ones that have worked on the job longer than I have. My raises are bigger than theirs, because I am worth more to the company than them.

If I belonged to a union, I would make less than them, even though I do more work better, simply because I have worked at the company less time than they have.

Is it too much to ask that my pay reflect MY performance? In a union, it would be.

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

Unions Seem to be Just as Corrupt as Corporate Bosses
Posted by: joeocho88 on Nov 20, 2008 2:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember desparately trying to unionize the front shop in Texas newspapers when I realized that what would happen to me now --that I would have only social security to rely on in my retirement--did in fact happen! The folks in Washington D.C. where the Writer's Guild was then located REFUSED to help. Seems like there was some Good Old Boy agreement that Unions would stay out of Texas. The labor policy in Texas is influenced by the slavery of the South and the Patron system of Mexico and Spain! Workers have NO rights here ESPECIALLY FEMALE ONES AND MINORITIES AND OLDER WORKERS ( over 40). I wasn't able to move to the Northeastern seaboard, but I knew many people who had lived and worked there when jobs started to be outsourced. They said that the Labor Unions took money out of their paychecks or you didn't work there and that they corroborated with the Bosses to screw the workers over. They told me that the union bosses were just as out of touch with the workers as the politicians in Washington D.C. and the bosses because the workers were regarded as interchangeable and replaceable. In other words, YOU ARE A CYPHER! And a trained ape or a THIRD WORLD PhD or a Chinese prison camp inmate could do your work for a fraction and so Bush I, Clinton, et all made sure that someone could. I have met undocumented MEXICAN workers who were turned out of THEIR jobs(They have labor unions in Mexico too!) when their workplaces closed down and their jobs were outsourced. I couldn't see ANY advantage that the unions had --if they were taking money out of your check. THAT WAS THE POINT OF UNIONS! I WAS MAKING $150 A WEEK WITH NO BENEFITS! IF THE UNION TAKES MONEY OUT OF THAT AMOUNT, HOW WOULD I LIVE? I WOULD JOIN IF THE UNION COULD GUARANTEE ME JOB SECURITY,A PENSION AND HEALTHCARE ( Imagine NEVER having had a job that provided health insurance or ANY benefits whatsoever if it hadn't been for OSHA and WAGES & HOURS ( God bless them both!) and you will see what I went through and hundreds of others like me went through. THE UNIONS WERE NOT THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM AND NOW THAT THEY SEEM TO NEED US --WE AREN'T THERE BECAUSE WE WERE ALL FIRED,LAID OFF, UNEMPLOYED FOR SO LONG, I HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT IT IS LIKE TO HAVE A STEADY JOB, AND HAVING TO RESORT TO ALMOST ANY MEANS JUST TO SURVIVE! And how am I so sure that THE UNIONS will not prevent DISCRIMINATION in age, gender, ethnitcity, disability in THE INITIAL HIRING PROCESS???? THOSE ARE THE ISSUES I CARE ABOUT! THOSE ARE THE ISSUES I WANTED THE WRITERS'GUILD TO DISCUSS WITH ME. BUT THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE TOO GOOD TO DEAL WITH ME. And let us not forget the THEFT of the entire International Typographical Union's PENSION FUNDS! ( They were the back shops of the old letterpress shops in newspapers!) And rumors of Organized Criminal involvement in labor unions... I AM NOT SO SURE I WANT TO TALK WITH LABOR UNIONS ANYMORE! I GUESS THEY ARE LIARS, CROOKS AND THUGS JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE ALLEGED PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO TAKE OUR MONEY FROM US!

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

Unions Seem to be Just as Corrupt as Corporate Bosses
Posted by: joeocho88 on Nov 20, 2008 2:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember desparately trying to unionize the front shop in Texas newspapers when I realized that what would happen to me now --that I would have only social security to rely on in my retirement--did in fact happen! The folks in Washington D.C. where the Writer's Guild was then located REFUSED to help. Seems like there was some Good Old Boy agreement that Unions would stay out of Texas. The labor policy in Texas is influenced by the slavery of the South and the Patron system of Mexico and Spain! Workers have NO rights here ESPECIALLY FEMALE ONES AND MINORITIES AND OLDER WORKERS ( over 40). I wasn't able to move to the Northeastern seaboard, but I knew many people who had lived and worked there when jobs started to be outsourced. They said that the Labor Unions took money out of their paychecks or you didn't work there and that they corroborated with the Bosses to screw the workers over. They told me that the union bosses were just as out of touch with the workers as the politicians in Washington D.C. and the bosses because the workers were regarded as interchangeable and replaceable. In other words, YOU ARE A CYPHER! And a trained ape or a THIRD WORLD PhD or a Chinese prison camp inmate could do your work for a fraction and so Bush I, Clinton, et all made sure that someone could. I have met undocumented MEXICAN workers who were turned out of THEIR jobs(They have labor unions in Mexico too!) when their workplaces closed down and their jobs were outsourced. I couldn't see ANY advantage that the unions had --if they were taking money out of your check. THAT WAS THE POINT OF UNIONS! I WAS MAKING $150 A WEEK WITH NO BENEFITS! IF THE UNION TAKES MONEY OUT OF THAT AMOUNT, HOW WOULD I LIVE? I WOULD JOIN IF THE UNION COULD GUARANTEE ME JOB SECURITY,A PENSION AND HEALTHCARE ( Imagine NEVER having had a job that provided health insurance or ANY benefits whatsoever if it hadn't been for OSHA and WAGES & HOURS ( God bless them both!) and you will see what I went through and hundreds of others like me went through. THE UNIONS WERE NOT THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM AND NOW THAT THEY SEEM TO NEED US --WE AREN'T THERE BECAUSE WE WERE ALL FIRED,LAID OFF, UNEMPLOYED FOR SO LONG, I HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT IT IS LIKE TO HAVE A STEADY JOB, AND HAVING TO RESORT TO ALMOST ANY MEANS JUST TO SURVIVE! And how am I so sure that THE UNIONS will not prevent DISCRIMINATION in age, gender, ethnitcity, disability in THE INITIAL HIRING PROCESS???? THOSE ARE THE ISSUES I CARE ABOUT! THOSE ARE THE ISSUES I WANTED THE WRITERS'GUILD TO DISCUSS WITH ME. BUT THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE TOO GOOD TO DEAL WITH ME. And let us not forget the THEFT of the entire International Typographical Union's PENSION FUNDS! ( They were the back shops of the old letterpress shops in newspapers!) And rumors of Organized Criminal involvement in labor unions... I AM NOT SO SURE I WANT TO TALK WITH LABOR UNIONS ANYMORE! I GUESS THEY ARE LIARS, CROOKS AND THUGS JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE ALLEGED PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO TAKE OUR MONEY FROM US!

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

Only in America
Posted by: gellero1 on Nov 22, 2008 2:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does the working class think it's middle class.

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

The EFCA Must be enacted ASAP
Posted by: JohnBryansFontaine on Nov 24, 2008 11:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One question rises above all others in this economy: How does the worker/consumer buy stuff?

If his or her employer pays squat and can fire because, well, the sky is blue; if there is no more credit; and if our worker/consumer has maxed out their home as an ATM, how then will he or she be able to buy anything?

The answer: Collective bargaining to increase wages. So that money is re-redistributed to where it was in the nineties. Whereas Clinton was scandalous, his economic policy was far more moral than Bush II.

Of course, you can bore one and all by screaming 'Socialism' until you go horse, but your way has failed. Trickle-down economics is as great a failure as the Marxist version of Socialism.

We need Unions. We need them Now. The Employee Free Choice Act will create the Freedom to form them.

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

  • 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