Here's an interesting article I came across on the AFL-CIO News Blog site. A few weeks ago, a coalition of Philadelphia-area rabbis and rabbinical students, along with the Philadelphia Jewish Labor Commitee, called on the former Republican and current Democrat Arlen Spector to support the EFCA. Now comes the Pope! Enjoy the article.
Papal Encyclical: Workers’ Rights to Form Unions Must Be Honored
Posted By Seth Michaels On July 8, 2009 @ 9:55 am In Legislation & Politics
In a new [1] encyclical released yesterday by Pope Benedict XVI, the leader of the Catholic Church discusses the challenges of a global economy. He notes that workers’ ability to form a union and bargain is at risk and makes it clear it’s a matter of moral imperative to preserve that freedom.
Here’s what the pope has to say on the need for workers to have the freedom to form unions:
Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labor unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church’s social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers’ associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honored today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.
The [2] Vatican and a wide variety of Catholic leaders have continued to express support throughout the year for workers’ freedom to form unions, and many Catholic [3] scholars and organizations like the [4] Catholic Labor Network and [5] Catholics for Working Families have come out in support of the [6] Employee Free Choice Act.
Article printed from AFL-CIO NOW BLOG: http://blog.aflcio.org
URL to article: http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/07/08/papal-encyclical-workers-rights-to-form-unions-must-be-honored/
Homes Still Cost Too Much
By John F. Wasik,
Author of Cul-de-Sac Syndrome: Turning Around the Unsustainable American Dream
You would think with home prices still dropping like hailstones in most areas, that homes would be bargains.
The present buyer's market obscures a key fact about the housing crisis though: millions sought the refuge of cheap credit, subprime and adjustable loans during the boom because they were the easiest routes to homeownership in a time when house prices far outpaced income growth.
The sad fact is that the Great American Dream is still out of reach for far too many and it was the declining affordability of decent houses that was one of the triggers of the housing bust.
It's not that home prices haven't plummeted as banks unload foreclosed homes at fire-sale prices. The national median home price fell to $169,000 in the first quarter, according to the National Association of Realtors. Bank-owned properties are selling at 20-percent to 50-percent discounts.
"Contrary to popular belief," says Jeffrey Lubell, executive director of the Center for Housing Policy, "the recent decline in home prices has not resolved the nation's housing affordability problem."
Homes cost too much even before the bubble, so home buyers were willing to do anything to get into the domicile of their dreams. After all, homeownership is an American birthright, or at least that promise was sold to Americans starting in 1946. "Buy as much house as you can afford!" That's what the bankers and real estate agents were telling us for generations because of generous tax breaks and easy, often government-guaranteed financing.
Unfortunately the cost of land, homebuilding, taxes and homeownership far exceed what millions of households are able to cover with nearly stagnant personal income growth in this century. Inflation simply ate away at wages that just weren't enough to pay ever-rising bills for property taxes, maintenance, health care, education and energy.
Even at the height of the boom, Harvard researchers at their Joint Center for Housing Studies found that almost 18 million households were paying more than half of their incomes for housing (about one-third is considered reasonable). They were also hit hard by rising energy costs, which rose twice as fast as total spending from 2004-2006.
That wasn't always the best advice. The Harvard group last year found that "nowhere in America does a full-time minimum wage job cover the cost of a modest two-bedroom rental at 30 percent of income." Those stranded in the low-wage service economy, left behind by the technological revolution of the 1990s, could barely afford to rent a decent place in most cities, much less buy.
Those families who are paying more than half of their budget for housing have little to nothing left over for healthcare, food, clothing and education. That hurts more than 14 million children living in low-income households, whose families had less than $600 per month on average for other essential expenses.
So was anyone surprised when brokers and subprime lenders targeted minority and low-to middle-income neighborhoods then walked away when they sold trillions of these mortgages to Wall Street and the largest banks? They were selling the American Dream!
From sparkling new suburbs in the Sun Belt to inner cities, cheap money and neutron-bomb adjustable loans meant nobody had to be house poor -- at least for a year or two. Then the explosion hit and we're still feeling the aftershocks.
Further exacerbating the affordability crisis was the tendency for municipalities to favor upscale, sprawling home developments over middle- and low-income housing. Since home values are directly fueling property tax income in most places, nearly every community can get more money for schools and public services. When you base property tax revenue on home valuations, bigger price tags translate into better-equipped schools, fire stations and libraries.
Yet building McMansion subdivisions only inflated the housing bubble and reduced the stock of affordable homes. From 2002-2005, home prices soared 45 percent in areas restricted to upscale building, versus 24 percent in unrestricted areas. Moreover, by creating these "spurbs," sprawling urban areas unconnected to transportation and city centers except by endless highways, homeowners costs rose to catch up with needed infrastructure, schools and other public services.
The housing crisis has given us a rare opportunity to re-evaluate and re-invent the American Dream. As I note in my new book The Cul-de-Sac Syndrome, if we're to increase the homeownership rate, government will have to create incentives to build more affordable housing.
We'll also have to find a way to de-link property taxes from funding local services to reduce the number of overpriced homes in a handful of areas. Perhaps even eliminating tax breaks for mortgage interest would keep prices at realistic levels because you wouldn't be subsidizing ever-larger mortgages.
Ultimately, though, the American home and community will have to be re-invented. Houses will need to be ultra-energy efficient to reduce long-term ownership costs and even produce their own energy. This can be done with factory-built, green homes.
Then we'll have to build -- or re-build -- high density, walkable communities that are close to jobs and retail outlets. This is already happening throughout the U.S., although building and zoning codes need to change to allow this to happen on a large scale. Even more federal incentives are needed for green building.
We've just experienced a great teaching moment in history. The American Dream as we know it was not sustainable. Now we have the chance to make it affordable, ecologically sound and socially beneficial. It's a rare opportunity.
©2009 John F. Wasik, author of Cul-de-Sac Syndrome: Turning Around the Unsustainable American Dream
Author Bio
John F. Wasik, author of Cul-de-Sac Syndrome: Turning Around the Unsustainable American Dream, is a personal finance columnist for Bloomberg News and the author of several books. His most recent book, The Merchant of Power, was praised by Studs Terkel and well reviewed by the New York Times. Wasik has won more than fifteen awards for consumer journalism including the 2008 Lisagor and several from the National Press Club. He has appeared on such national media as NBC, NPR, and PBS. He lives in Chicago. For more information please visit www.johnwasik.com
Poll Results
I asked you how we should deal with rouge nations such as North Korea (which launched a seventh missile and may be behind the recent cyber assault on US and South Korean business and government sites). 12% said of you said the best thing to do was to ignore them (kind of like the classroom showoff I suppose). 37% of you thought we should talk with them. Perhaps they can be reasoned with. I guess that comes from Neville Chamberlain School of Diplomacy. Interestingly, none of you thought we should talk with them and cave into their demands, which is exactly what the US government has been doing for years now. And an amazing 50% of you, however, thought we should remove theses bullies from power. Good idea. Now make nice boys…or else!
Showing posts with label EFCA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EFCA. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Illegals May Get Stimulus Checks
The Obama sponsored Economic Stimulus Package appears to be less than it seems (or perhaps more) when it comes to illegal aliens. The $800 billion deal could direct some of our taxpayer based money to illegal immigrants. How you ask? The legislation, which would direct a tax credit of $500 per worker, or $1000 per couple, would, on the face of it disqualify illegals since you must have a social security to get a check. But here’s the rub.
A House passed version would allow anyone with an individual taxpayer ID number to qualify for a stimulus check. Those who support this measure point out the illegal aliens should be “entitled” to receive a stimulus check since they can file tax returns using the same individual taxpayer ID number. So, illegal or not, since they (theoretically) pay income tax they argue, they should get a check just like everyone else. Opponents argue that illegal immigrants may or may not report all of their income and therefore should not be allowed to participate. Furthermore, they ask what part of “illegal” does Congress fail to understand? The previous stimulus check initially allowed illegal aliens to use their individual taxpayer ID numbers; however, a revolt lead by House Republicans forced the Democrats to modify legislation to require social security numbers only. The current legislation does not. Please contact your Congressman and Senator and ask that any stimulus package be restricted to US citizens only.
Union Yes!
Good news for unions and union supporters (and yes, that would include yours truly). According to the latest numbers, union membership is up for the second straight year. According to the US Department of Labor, union membership increased to 12.4%, which was up from 12.1% in 2007 (the level in 2006 was 12.0%). In terms of actual numbers, union member increased by 428,000, bringing the total to 16.1 million union brothers and sisters! Union membership peaked toward the end of the 1950’s when just over a quarter (26%) of the workforce carried a union card. The majority of workers at that time were in manufacturing and the defense industry.
To quote AFL-CIO President, John Sweeny, "Today's numbers confirm what many working people already know - that if given the chance, American workers are choosing to join unions in larger numbers”. President Obama is expected to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which would reverse a 2007 Supreme Court decision making it more difficult to initiate legal action over pay discrimination.
Government workers represent the largest group unionized. Average weekly wages among union employees was $881.00 compared to $691.00 among non-union workers. In addition, union workers had better working conditions, benefit and retirement plans compared to their non-union counterparts. And don’t think unions are for blue collar workers only. The fastest growing segment of new union members are in traditionally white collar jobs, especially education, training, and library workers with 38.7% unionized. Office workers and middle managers are also starting to seriously look at unionizing as companies continue to cut back, overwork, and outsource jobs.
So where do unions go from here? The next big battle will be a repeat of the Employee Free Choice Act which went down in defeat recently. Unions plan on a rematch with Big Business, but expect a very different outcome given the current political and economic climate. The EFCA would allow employees to form unions by majority vote without any interference by management or organized labor.
North Carolina Losing 1.2 Billion Dollars to Illegal Immigration
Below is an interesting article I recently received from FAIR---Federation for American Immigration Reform. According to the article, illegal immigration is costing North Carolina, a relatively poor Southern state, a whooping 1.2 billion dollars annually:
A report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) finds that illegal immigration costs North Carolina more than $1.2 billion a year. An additional $1.2 billion earned in the state is denied to the North Carolina economy by illegal aliens who sent remittances abroad. The report, The Costs of Illegal Immigration to North Carolinians looks at just three essential state services and programs: education, public health, and incarceration of criminal illegal aliens. Those impacts are:
K-12 Education. The estimated 120,000 children of illegal aliens in public schools cost taxpayers more than $1 billion annually.
Health care. Uncompensated health care for illegal aliens costs North Carolina an estimated $130 million a year.
Incarceration. Besides the human and economic costs of crimes by criminal illegal aliens, incarcerating the perpetrators carries a $49 million annual price tag.
According the report, tax collection from North Carolina’s illegal alien population amounts to about $225 million annually. However, if those jobs currently held by illegal aliens were filled by legal workers, often at higher wages, those taxes – and probably additional taxes – would be collected anyway.
The release of The Costs of Illegal Immigration to North Carolinians coincides with worsening fiscal news for the state. While the state spends more than $1.2 billion on services for illegal aliens, North Carolina is faced with a budget shortfall of $3 billion – about 10 percent of the total budget.
“The staggering $1.2 billion price tag for North Carolinians demonstrates the extent to which illegal immigration has become a nationwide phenomenon and a burden on American taxpayers in every region of the country,” noted Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “It is a burden that is especially onerous given the impact that the current economic crisis has already imposed on millions of American families and the havoc it is playing with state and local budgets.”
After years of ignoring North Carolina’s growing illegal immigration problem, the state now has more local police trained to identify and detain illegal aliens than all but one state, and has ended the practice of granting driver’s licenses to people who cannot prove they are legal residents. “As has been demonstrated in other states, consistent state-based policies can reverse the flow of illegal migration. North Carolina’s new governor, Bev Perdue, can ease the burdens on North Carolina taxpayers and reduce the state’s budget shortfall by continuing and strengthening state efforts to discourage illegal immigration,” Stein concluded.
About FAIR
Founded in 1979, FAIR is the country’s largest and oldest immigration reform group. With over 250,000 members nationwide, FAIR fights for immigration policies that serve national interests, not special interests. FAIR believes that immigration reform must enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs, preserve our environment, and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced. The full report is available at www.fairus.org.
Poll Results
We asked in our last poll is you were worried about losing your job. 41% of you said you were while 35% of you were not worried. 23% of you said you already lost your job (I'm sorry to see that). There is no doubt about it; we are living in historical times.
A House passed version would allow anyone with an individual taxpayer ID number to qualify for a stimulus check. Those who support this measure point out the illegal aliens should be “entitled” to receive a stimulus check since they can file tax returns using the same individual taxpayer ID number. So, illegal or not, since they (theoretically) pay income tax they argue, they should get a check just like everyone else. Opponents argue that illegal immigrants may or may not report all of their income and therefore should not be allowed to participate. Furthermore, they ask what part of “illegal” does Congress fail to understand? The previous stimulus check initially allowed illegal aliens to use their individual taxpayer ID numbers; however, a revolt lead by House Republicans forced the Democrats to modify legislation to require social security numbers only. The current legislation does not. Please contact your Congressman and Senator and ask that any stimulus package be restricted to US citizens only.
Union Yes!
Good news for unions and union supporters (and yes, that would include yours truly). According to the latest numbers, union membership is up for the second straight year. According to the US Department of Labor, union membership increased to 12.4%, which was up from 12.1% in 2007 (the level in 2006 was 12.0%). In terms of actual numbers, union member increased by 428,000, bringing the total to 16.1 million union brothers and sisters! Union membership peaked toward the end of the 1950’s when just over a quarter (26%) of the workforce carried a union card. The majority of workers at that time were in manufacturing and the defense industry.
To quote AFL-CIO President, John Sweeny, "Today's numbers confirm what many working people already know - that if given the chance, American workers are choosing to join unions in larger numbers”. President Obama is expected to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which would reverse a 2007 Supreme Court decision making it more difficult to initiate legal action over pay discrimination.
Government workers represent the largest group unionized. Average weekly wages among union employees was $881.00 compared to $691.00 among non-union workers. In addition, union workers had better working conditions, benefit and retirement plans compared to their non-union counterparts. And don’t think unions are for blue collar workers only. The fastest growing segment of new union members are in traditionally white collar jobs, especially education, training, and library workers with 38.7% unionized. Office workers and middle managers are also starting to seriously look at unionizing as companies continue to cut back, overwork, and outsource jobs.
So where do unions go from here? The next big battle will be a repeat of the Employee Free Choice Act which went down in defeat recently. Unions plan on a rematch with Big Business, but expect a very different outcome given the current political and economic climate. The EFCA would allow employees to form unions by majority vote without any interference by management or organized labor.
North Carolina Losing 1.2 Billion Dollars to Illegal Immigration
Below is an interesting article I recently received from FAIR---Federation for American Immigration Reform. According to the article, illegal immigration is costing North Carolina, a relatively poor Southern state, a whooping 1.2 billion dollars annually:
A report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) finds that illegal immigration costs North Carolina more than $1.2 billion a year. An additional $1.2 billion earned in the state is denied to the North Carolina economy by illegal aliens who sent remittances abroad. The report, The Costs of Illegal Immigration to North Carolinians looks at just three essential state services and programs: education, public health, and incarceration of criminal illegal aliens. Those impacts are:
K-12 Education. The estimated 120,000 children of illegal aliens in public schools cost taxpayers more than $1 billion annually.
Health care. Uncompensated health care for illegal aliens costs North Carolina an estimated $130 million a year.
Incarceration. Besides the human and economic costs of crimes by criminal illegal aliens, incarcerating the perpetrators carries a $49 million annual price tag.
According the report, tax collection from North Carolina’s illegal alien population amounts to about $225 million annually. However, if those jobs currently held by illegal aliens were filled by legal workers, often at higher wages, those taxes – and probably additional taxes – would be collected anyway.
The release of The Costs of Illegal Immigration to North Carolinians coincides with worsening fiscal news for the state. While the state spends more than $1.2 billion on services for illegal aliens, North Carolina is faced with a budget shortfall of $3 billion – about 10 percent of the total budget.
“The staggering $1.2 billion price tag for North Carolinians demonstrates the extent to which illegal immigration has become a nationwide phenomenon and a burden on American taxpayers in every region of the country,” noted Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “It is a burden that is especially onerous given the impact that the current economic crisis has already imposed on millions of American families and the havoc it is playing with state and local budgets.”
After years of ignoring North Carolina’s growing illegal immigration problem, the state now has more local police trained to identify and detain illegal aliens than all but one state, and has ended the practice of granting driver’s licenses to people who cannot prove they are legal residents. “As has been demonstrated in other states, consistent state-based policies can reverse the flow of illegal migration. North Carolina’s new governor, Bev Perdue, can ease the burdens on North Carolina taxpayers and reduce the state’s budget shortfall by continuing and strengthening state efforts to discourage illegal immigration,” Stein concluded.
About FAIR
Founded in 1979, FAIR is the country’s largest and oldest immigration reform group. With over 250,000 members nationwide, FAIR fights for immigration policies that serve national interests, not special interests. FAIR believes that immigration reform must enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs, preserve our environment, and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced. The full report is available at www.fairus.org.
Poll Results
We asked in our last poll is you were worried about losing your job. 41% of you said you were while 35% of you were not worried. 23% of you said you already lost your job (I'm sorry to see that). There is no doubt about it; we are living in historical times.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Where Does America Stand?
You know, I bet former presidential candidate John McCain has been thanking his lucky stars everyday since losing to Barak Obama. It seems things are worse…far worse than we were led to believe. If Obama succeeds in revitalizing the economy, stabilizing global relations, and securing our borders, he will go down as one of the greatest presidents ever in American history. If he fails on any of these points, both he and Democratic Party will be rode out of Washington in the back of a garbage truck. Frankly, it wouldn’t have mattered if McCain and the Republicans had won. They would get the same treatment. As it now stands, Americans are sick to death of what they see as both an economic failure brought on by corporate greed and a lack of governmental oversight. The Republican Party, after a long run, has demonstrated a complete and utter failure to protect the American household when they had the chance. Now, it’s the Democrats turn. The election itself, I think, was not Americans coming out in mass to elect our first bi-racial president (in fact, among the vast majority of non-black voters, I don’t race was even a factor), but was instead a vote against Bush's economic and foreign policies.
So, what are we looking at as Americans? Well, for starters, we’re looking at one of the longest and deepest recessions (some are already calling it a depression) since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The unemployment rate for October was 6.5%, which was double what most economists were expecting. The first couple weeks in December saw near record numbers of Americans being laid off; just fewer than 600,000. Since January 2008, there are over 1.2 million unemployed Americans, and that’s not including those who are underemployed, temporary, or part time seeking full time, or those who have simple given up and dropped below the radar. The unemployment rate is now expected to tip near 7.5% over the next three to six months. While the figures for Christmas, which can count for as much as a third to half of total annual sales aren’t in yet, many economists are forecasting a stocking full of coal for most retailers.
Personal consumption dropped 0.3%, or about $33.6 billion dollars. Disposable personal income decreased by $25.7 billion dollars, or about 0.2% while personal income increased 0.2% to $24.5 billion dollars. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell 0.5% in the third quarter according to the US Department of Commerce. During the same period, corporate profits were declined 1.2%. Non-financial corporate profits increased 6.7%. Yet, overall financial profits have dropped 20%. Industrial production, which includes factories and mines, has dropped 2.8% in September and a whopping 6.0% in the third quarter.
One of the few bright signs is the price of oil has continued to drop despite attempts by OPEC to boost the price by cutting oil production. Most Americans are now paying in the neighborhood of $1.68 a gallon, which is a far cry from the near $5.00 we were facing just a few months ago. However, the decline in gas prices hasn’t translated into cheaper heating bills. The US Department of Energy reported that Americans will pay an average of $2644 to heat our homes this winter; an increase of 33% over last year. Folks who use natural gas will pay an average of $1059 this winter to stay warm, which represents an increase of 23.8% over 2007. Combined, that’s $22 billion dollars more we’ll pay over last year. Oil companies meanwhile continue to rack up record profits while you and I turn down the thermostat and grab another blanket. Just in case you were wondering, Exxon posted a second quarter profit of $11.68 billion; the largest ever by any company. Or to put it another way, the profits of the top five oil companies was $1.5 trillion dollars in 2007, which was larger than the GDP of Canada.
Congress rushed through a massive bailout of the very people who caused our economic meltdown to the tune of $700 billion dollars. So what did these banks and other financial institutions do with the money? Good question. It seems many sent their corporate executives on some rather expensive junkets right after getting the money and many have simply told Congress it was none of their business what they were doing with our money. Yeah, seriously. It appears that in their hurry to appease Wallstreet, and over the very vocal objections of Main Street I should add, Congress failed to include language that would require some type of oversight or monitoring of how the money would be spent. Now, in my humble opinion, that was either intentional or a huge oversight bordering on incompetence.
Speaking of incompetence, what did you think by the heads of America’s automakers flying in on their private jets asking for a handout? These “gentlemen” have known of years where the auto industry was headed and did nothing. The second time around, the heads of “Big Three” at least had the decency to come by commercial carrier though none have gotten rid of their private jets or other diamond clustered perks (did you know that the average US chief executive earns 8.8 million dollars a year? Senior executives earn on average 364 times more than the average US worker). Auto industry leaders blame unions and unions blame management. The end result may be both standing in the unemployment line if they don’t learn to work together and quickly.
By the way, that $700 billion dollar bail out that the American People objected to and Congress ignored, increased the Federal Reserve's balance sheet from $900 billion dollars to $1.8 trillion dollars. To put it another way, that’s 13% of the GDP. The Treasury Department said it may have to float approximately $550 billion dollars in debt in the fourth quarter and anticipates floating another $368 billion in the first quarter of 2009. I’m no accountant, but in my opinion, you can’t run up those kinds of numbers and expect to stay afloat for long.
Meanwhile on the home front, state and local governments have been cutting every service that can, including sending employees on extended unpaid furloughs. Key programs, and by that I mean those which assist the elderly, children, and handicapped have been deeply impacted. State and local governments have passed on rates hike after rate hike on the very people who are hanging on by their by fingernails, namely the middle class. Quasigovernment government agencies responsible for water, gas and electric, and sewers have been trying to get rate increases through, and with some success. Local school systems, fire departments, the police, and EMS have been pressing for rate hikes too. Frankly, I’d like to know where they think this money is going to come from. The American People have been tapped dry.
I don’t envy president-elect Obama one bit. He’s got to hit the ground running and running hard. If he fails, the outcome may be more horrific than anyone can imagine.
Things I’d Like to See
What would I like to see President Obama do? I would like to see him get Wallstreet under control. That means eliminating financial derivatives, which led, in part, to our economic meltdown. I would like to see stronger monitoring of financial transactions. I would like to caps placed on executive compensation similar to Europe and Asia. I would like to see the US dollar tied to the gold standard again.
I would like to see a serious effort to get off imported domestic oil and gas. This means a major investment in alternative fuels. I would like it mandatory that any money the auto industry receives be in conjunction with the development new fuel efficient cars and trucks. No extension after extension like they did with emission control. A fixed firm date with specific criteria or they repay the loan in full and lump sum. I would like to see the airline industry nationalized like most every other nation. I think a single national airline may be the only way to save jobs, reduce costs, and maintain airline safety. I would like to oil and gas treated as a strategic resource, and that means government monitoring of production and distribution. While I think profits are wonderful, I think the level of profits being earned by the likes of Exxon and Shell is obscene. I would like to see a portion of those profits go to research and development of alternative fuels and energy as well as protecting the environment. I know many companies claim to do it already, but let’s just say I don’t believe their…huh…”hearts” are into it. Frankly, I don’t trust big business to look out for the interests of the common working man and woman.
I would like to see a complete overhaul of the tax code. Perhaps a flat or consumption tax. There’s really no reason the tax code should be any thicker than a sheet of notebook paper. And the beauty of this would be the elimination of the IRS. I would like to see personal savings account become tax exempt in order to encourage savings (Americans have the lowest savings rate of most developed nations). This in turn would provide banks with more money to lend. I would like to see the elimination of “corporate taxes” in the form of fees, service and late charges (or at least, allow them to be written off). Since when did we give corporations the right to tax us?
I believe we need a basic national health care system in the country. There is simply no reason our poor, handicapped, elderly or our children should be denied basic healthcare. Folks who can’t afford healthcare end up in the emergency rooms, which in turn clogs up an already overstrained medical situation and you and I end up paying for anyway in the form of higher rates. I think we need a basic coverage for all US citizens. Companies who can’t afford to offer their employees insurance will be in a better position to try and attract employees since they aren’t losing out to companies who can. Employers can offer supplemental packages as employment incentives. I think we should allow individuals to shop around for the best prescription rates, and if that includes buying from licensed companies in Canada or Mexico, so be it. If US pharmaceutical companies don’t like it, get competitive. I don’t think any non-US citizens should be entitled to any taxpayer based service or program.
I would like to see the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Management acts in unison when making decisions for the betterment of the company and its stockholders. I see no reason why employees should not have that same opportunity. However, employees should not be intimidated by either management or Labor. If the employees want to bring in a union, that’s great. If not, then that’s fine too. If management wants to avoid unionization, don’t wait until employees start doing card counts. Start by treating your employees like human beings. Pay them a decent wage. Treat them with respect. Keep the work facilities safe.
I would like to see a major emphasis on education. There is no reason that our kids should test lower than kids in some second and third world countries. If some students don’t want to learn, get them out of the ways of those who do. I think we should test kids to see where their academic skills are. Some may need to be directed to college and others into trades. We need to stop “teaching to tests” and get back to teaching critical thinking skills. We need to cut back on sports programs and put more emphasis on math, science, technology, as well as history, English, and the arts. They have the weekend and all summer for sports.
We need to stop acting as the world’s policeman. Obama needs to bring our troops home from Europe and Asia. We need to get out of the nation building business. Sure, people may elect governments we don’t like, but that’s their decision (let’s not forget too that we’ve been ousting governments we didn’t like since the 1950s, including supporting some brutal military juntas). We need to secure our borders, and this means more than walls, barded wire, and guards. We need to increase trade with our neighbors south of the border to help develop their domestic economies. If their economies are strong, there will be less interest in coming here illegally. Speaking of which, we need serious financial fines imposed on those who aid illegal workers. That includes for-profit and non-profit companies as well as religious institutions. Obama also needs to realize that a nation is bound together by a common culture and set of values. These are communicated by common language. In our case, that is English. Failure to develop this bond will result in the balkanization of America.
While this list is by no means conclusive, it would be a great start to any presidency. Obama has his work cut out for him. I wish him well with efforts.
Poll Results
We asked in our last poll how to deal with terrorists. 46% of you said you would respond in kind. While the remainder, almost equally split, thought you should either try to reason with terrorists or talk and fight back. Personally, I like the Israeli approach. You hit me, I’m going to hit back fast and harder. Then maybe, just maybe, you might like to talk instead
Thanks!
I would like to take a moment to you, the reader, for a great year here at AO. W'eve had some great articles, terrific feedback, and some amazing numbers in terms of readership. On behalf of AO, I would like to thank every one of you for reading AO. I wish you a happy, healthy, and successful 2009.
So, what are we looking at as Americans? Well, for starters, we’re looking at one of the longest and deepest recessions (some are already calling it a depression) since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The unemployment rate for October was 6.5%, which was double what most economists were expecting. The first couple weeks in December saw near record numbers of Americans being laid off; just fewer than 600,000. Since January 2008, there are over 1.2 million unemployed Americans, and that’s not including those who are underemployed, temporary, or part time seeking full time, or those who have simple given up and dropped below the radar. The unemployment rate is now expected to tip near 7.5% over the next three to six months. While the figures for Christmas, which can count for as much as a third to half of total annual sales aren’t in yet, many economists are forecasting a stocking full of coal for most retailers.
Personal consumption dropped 0.3%, or about $33.6 billion dollars. Disposable personal income decreased by $25.7 billion dollars, or about 0.2% while personal income increased 0.2% to $24.5 billion dollars. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell 0.5% in the third quarter according to the US Department of Commerce. During the same period, corporate profits were declined 1.2%. Non-financial corporate profits increased 6.7%. Yet, overall financial profits have dropped 20%. Industrial production, which includes factories and mines, has dropped 2.8% in September and a whopping 6.0% in the third quarter.
One of the few bright signs is the price of oil has continued to drop despite attempts by OPEC to boost the price by cutting oil production. Most Americans are now paying in the neighborhood of $1.68 a gallon, which is a far cry from the near $5.00 we were facing just a few months ago. However, the decline in gas prices hasn’t translated into cheaper heating bills. The US Department of Energy reported that Americans will pay an average of $2644 to heat our homes this winter; an increase of 33% over last year. Folks who use natural gas will pay an average of $1059 this winter to stay warm, which represents an increase of 23.8% over 2007. Combined, that’s $22 billion dollars more we’ll pay over last year. Oil companies meanwhile continue to rack up record profits while you and I turn down the thermostat and grab another blanket. Just in case you were wondering, Exxon posted a second quarter profit of $11.68 billion; the largest ever by any company. Or to put it another way, the profits of the top five oil companies was $1.5 trillion dollars in 2007, which was larger than the GDP of Canada.
Congress rushed through a massive bailout of the very people who caused our economic meltdown to the tune of $700 billion dollars. So what did these banks and other financial institutions do with the money? Good question. It seems many sent their corporate executives on some rather expensive junkets right after getting the money and many have simply told Congress it was none of their business what they were doing with our money. Yeah, seriously. It appears that in their hurry to appease Wallstreet, and over the very vocal objections of Main Street I should add, Congress failed to include language that would require some type of oversight or monitoring of how the money would be spent. Now, in my humble opinion, that was either intentional or a huge oversight bordering on incompetence.
Speaking of incompetence, what did you think by the heads of America’s automakers flying in on their private jets asking for a handout? These “gentlemen” have known of years where the auto industry was headed and did nothing. The second time around, the heads of “Big Three” at least had the decency to come by commercial carrier though none have gotten rid of their private jets or other diamond clustered perks (did you know that the average US chief executive earns 8.8 million dollars a year? Senior executives earn on average 364 times more than the average US worker). Auto industry leaders blame unions and unions blame management. The end result may be both standing in the unemployment line if they don’t learn to work together and quickly.
By the way, that $700 billion dollar bail out that the American People objected to and Congress ignored, increased the Federal Reserve's balance sheet from $900 billion dollars to $1.8 trillion dollars. To put it another way, that’s 13% of the GDP. The Treasury Department said it may have to float approximately $550 billion dollars in debt in the fourth quarter and anticipates floating another $368 billion in the first quarter of 2009. I’m no accountant, but in my opinion, you can’t run up those kinds of numbers and expect to stay afloat for long.
Meanwhile on the home front, state and local governments have been cutting every service that can, including sending employees on extended unpaid furloughs. Key programs, and by that I mean those which assist the elderly, children, and handicapped have been deeply impacted. State and local governments have passed on rates hike after rate hike on the very people who are hanging on by their by fingernails, namely the middle class. Quasigovernment government agencies responsible for water, gas and electric, and sewers have been trying to get rate increases through, and with some success. Local school systems, fire departments, the police, and EMS have been pressing for rate hikes too. Frankly, I’d like to know where they think this money is going to come from. The American People have been tapped dry.
I don’t envy president-elect Obama one bit. He’s got to hit the ground running and running hard. If he fails, the outcome may be more horrific than anyone can imagine.
Things I’d Like to See
What would I like to see President Obama do? I would like to see him get Wallstreet under control. That means eliminating financial derivatives, which led, in part, to our economic meltdown. I would like to see stronger monitoring of financial transactions. I would like to caps placed on executive compensation similar to Europe and Asia. I would like to see the US dollar tied to the gold standard again.
I would like to see a serious effort to get off imported domestic oil and gas. This means a major investment in alternative fuels. I would like it mandatory that any money the auto industry receives be in conjunction with the development new fuel efficient cars and trucks. No extension after extension like they did with emission control. A fixed firm date with specific criteria or they repay the loan in full and lump sum. I would like to see the airline industry nationalized like most every other nation. I think a single national airline may be the only way to save jobs, reduce costs, and maintain airline safety. I would like to oil and gas treated as a strategic resource, and that means government monitoring of production and distribution. While I think profits are wonderful, I think the level of profits being earned by the likes of Exxon and Shell is obscene. I would like to see a portion of those profits go to research and development of alternative fuels and energy as well as protecting the environment. I know many companies claim to do it already, but let’s just say I don’t believe their…huh…”hearts” are into it. Frankly, I don’t trust big business to look out for the interests of the common working man and woman.
I would like to see a complete overhaul of the tax code. Perhaps a flat or consumption tax. There’s really no reason the tax code should be any thicker than a sheet of notebook paper. And the beauty of this would be the elimination of the IRS. I would like to see personal savings account become tax exempt in order to encourage savings (Americans have the lowest savings rate of most developed nations). This in turn would provide banks with more money to lend. I would like to see the elimination of “corporate taxes” in the form of fees, service and late charges (or at least, allow them to be written off). Since when did we give corporations the right to tax us?
I believe we need a basic national health care system in the country. There is simply no reason our poor, handicapped, elderly or our children should be denied basic healthcare. Folks who can’t afford healthcare end up in the emergency rooms, which in turn clogs up an already overstrained medical situation and you and I end up paying for anyway in the form of higher rates. I think we need a basic coverage for all US citizens. Companies who can’t afford to offer their employees insurance will be in a better position to try and attract employees since they aren’t losing out to companies who can. Employers can offer supplemental packages as employment incentives. I think we should allow individuals to shop around for the best prescription rates, and if that includes buying from licensed companies in Canada or Mexico, so be it. If US pharmaceutical companies don’t like it, get competitive. I don’t think any non-US citizens should be entitled to any taxpayer based service or program.
I would like to see the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Management acts in unison when making decisions for the betterment of the company and its stockholders. I see no reason why employees should not have that same opportunity. However, employees should not be intimidated by either management or Labor. If the employees want to bring in a union, that’s great. If not, then that’s fine too. If management wants to avoid unionization, don’t wait until employees start doing card counts. Start by treating your employees like human beings. Pay them a decent wage. Treat them with respect. Keep the work facilities safe.
I would like to see a major emphasis on education. There is no reason that our kids should test lower than kids in some second and third world countries. If some students don’t want to learn, get them out of the ways of those who do. I think we should test kids to see where their academic skills are. Some may need to be directed to college and others into trades. We need to stop “teaching to tests” and get back to teaching critical thinking skills. We need to cut back on sports programs and put more emphasis on math, science, technology, as well as history, English, and the arts. They have the weekend and all summer for sports.
We need to stop acting as the world’s policeman. Obama needs to bring our troops home from Europe and Asia. We need to get out of the nation building business. Sure, people may elect governments we don’t like, but that’s their decision (let’s not forget too that we’ve been ousting governments we didn’t like since the 1950s, including supporting some brutal military juntas). We need to secure our borders, and this means more than walls, barded wire, and guards. We need to increase trade with our neighbors south of the border to help develop their domestic economies. If their economies are strong, there will be less interest in coming here illegally. Speaking of which, we need serious financial fines imposed on those who aid illegal workers. That includes for-profit and non-profit companies as well as religious institutions. Obama also needs to realize that a nation is bound together by a common culture and set of values. These are communicated by common language. In our case, that is English. Failure to develop this bond will result in the balkanization of America.
While this list is by no means conclusive, it would be a great start to any presidency. Obama has his work cut out for him. I wish him well with efforts.
Poll Results
We asked in our last poll how to deal with terrorists. 46% of you said you would respond in kind. While the remainder, almost equally split, thought you should either try to reason with terrorists or talk and fight back. Personally, I like the Israeli approach. You hit me, I’m going to hit back fast and harder. Then maybe, just maybe, you might like to talk instead
Thanks!
I would like to take a moment to you, the reader, for a great year here at AO. W'eve had some great articles, terrific feedback, and some amazing numbers in terms of readership. On behalf of AO, I would like to thank every one of you for reading AO. I wish you a happy, healthy, and successful 2009.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Unionfacts.com or Fiction?
Have you seen the Unionfacts.com commercials? If you haven’t, you’re in for a surprise. One segment of the commercial shows an “average” blue-collar cashier thanking union bosses for the “privilege” of paying union dues just to have a job. Another segment shows a factory worker thanking union bosses for giving money to candidates he doesn’t support. The next segment has a hospital employee thanking unions for working harder and getting paid less because she doesn’t have seniority. The last segment has a clerical employee thanking union bosses for harassing employees into joining a union.
The commercial invites readers to visit their webpage at Unionfacts.com, so I decided to do just that. The well designed site has some enticing pages, such as “Hijacking Elections”, “Union Profiles”, “When Voting Isn’t Private”, a “Fact” page, plus a section relating to the media and their ads. All very well written I might add. There was also a blog about Senator Orin Hatch on the Employee Free Choice Act. However, what interested me most was the “About Us” page.
Unionfacts.com is the product of the cerebral sounding Center for Union Facts, located in Washington, DC. They describe themselves a non-profit 501c (3) organization “supported by foundations, businesses, union members, and the general public”. Dedicated, they proclaim, to showing Americans about union leadership. They claim to be non-partisan and not anti-union. I suspect they must have looked at the Teamsters for A Democratic Union model (http://www.tdu.org/), which is dedicated to promote open and honest elections as well as responsible accounting of union financing (that isn’t to say that this organization isn’t without a certain amount of controversy too. Some union members accuse them of being front for anti-union groups). While the “About Us” page is informative, especially the FAQ, what was more interesting is that none of the officers were mentioned. So I decided to do a little online sleuthing.
Unionfacts.com was created by Washington business lobbyist Rick Berman of Richard Berman and Company. Mr. Berman’s claim to fame has been developing an ad campaigns against groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) on behalf of the liquor industry. He has lobbied on of behalf pro-tobacco interests groups against the Center for Disease Control, and been involved in campaigns against the American Medical Association and EarthSave International just to mention a couple (consumerdeception.com). He was a large contributor to Newt Gingrich’s GOPAC (sourcewatch.org.). He has also been a long time active member of the pro-business US Chamber of Commerce. Not exactly a stellar resume for the founder of what is portrayed as a “non-partisan” organization bent on spreading the “truth” (and I presume the “American Way”) about organized labor.
Now before I proceed any further, here’s the “disclaimer” portion of this article. I am a member of a writer’s union, which is part of both the UAW and the AFL-CIO, as well as the past state chairman of this union. I have also been a delegate to the Greater Louisville Central Labor Council. My grandfather was a member of the Order of Railroad Conductors and Brakemen (and yes, a Republican, which wasn’t as mutually exclusive in those days). My wife is a retired Teamster (Local 89), and her father (also a Republican by the way) was a member of IUE-CWA Local 761 at Louisville’s Appliance Park, owned by General Electric. I’ve been employed in “white collar” jobs my entire working career. I also teach business management and human resource management classes at the undergraduate and graduate level. I count as friends both labor and business leaders. I believe in a balanced playing field. My personal philosophy is that both groups have to work together. One can not dominate the other and expect to remain in business or employed for long.
Labor has done a lot for this country. It has given us established work hours, the 40 hour work week, health and education, benefits, vacations, child protections laws, safe working conditions, and the right to bargain just to mention a few. Business has given us more product diversity and a higher standard of living than any other nation in history. They have done this through intensive research and capital investment. It’s also true that most states have “right to work” laws, meaning that businesses are free to hire and fire you with no or little notice. But on the other hand, you’re free to accept, decline, or quit anytime you want. There are also “open” and “closed” shops, meaning that union membership isn’t available or required (“open”) or by accepting an offer, you are required to also join the union (“closed”).
Is this fair? I guess that depends on your perspective. The reason there is a union in the first place is that at one point in time, employees felt threatened (I’ve always said that the chief reason for unions was bad management). If you don’t want to join the union, don’t accept the job. But what if you want the job but not the union? At a closed shop you don’t have any choice. I’ve thought that instead of having an open or closed shop, that the company have two pay rates (after all, they already have exempted and non-exempted classifications) with corresponding benefit packages. In other words, give the perspective employee a reason to want to join the union—better pay and benefits along with job protection. Alternatively, the non-union employee would not be subject to seniority or other job restrictions.
When it comes to politics, I have to agree with the commercial---sort of. I don’t think anyone, union or not, should be required to give to political action funds. I think employees should be able to opt out of having their union dues or pay going to a particular candidate or party. Why? Because it’s my money and I’ll decide who I’ll donate it to. Unions long ago defaulted on the ability to strengthen their position by blindly supporting just one political party---the Democrats. Nowadays, unions are seen as little more than the party’s cash cows. Instead, unions should (as they did once upon a time) support the best candidates for office regardless of party. That ensures a balance on both sides of aisle and increases the likelihood of favorable legislation. Think it doesn’t work? Look at business. They back individuals in both parties and have done quite well at it thank you. When I ran for state representative against an incumbent Democrat, all of my 30 or so volunteers were either active or retired union members. They knew I could do a better job and the letter behind my name didn’t matter one hoot. Not all Democrats are blue collar working stiffs and not all Republicans are rich.
Let’s take another look at the commercials and website. Both are interesting for what they say and don’t say as I’ve already stated. But, you may be wondering, why run the commercials now? There’s no pending labor or business legislation coming up. The answer is deceptively simple. This is a presidential election year. Money that Labor would be spending on Democrats is now going to have to be diverted to defend unions against these ads. Labor put all its eggs in one basket so to speak, while business bought the whole chicken coop. So, thank you Unionfacts.com for bringing this object lesson to light.
(Americans have had enough of high gas prices. We’re tired of being the pawns of oil companies and Arab Sheiks. Well, that’s been the argument so far. But one thing is for sure. The debate over global warming and energy is just getting started. I thought you might enjoy this article by Jay Hakes. Mr. Hakes is the author of “A Declaration of Energy Independence”. You can also check out a recent interview of Jay at http://www.wwltv.com/video/news-index.html?nvid=267393 which discuses Mr. Pickens’ energy plan).
Boone Pickens’ Energy Crusade:
Prophet or Con Man?
T. Boone Pickens has broadcast his way right into the middle of a presidential election debate about United States energy policy. Americans are upset about $4 a gallon gasoline, and the iconoclastic oilman has bought a lot of air time to tell us what he thinks about the situation.
Pickens’ views have injected some fresh air into the public dialogue, and most of his ideas stand up pretty well to the scrutiny of serious energy analysis. But we must be careful not to replace one set of problems with another.
His ads and web site warn about the money sucked out of the American economy by its negative balance of trade in energy. Pickens has identified a problem as least as big as high prices at the pump. The energy trade deficit is larger than our trade imbalance with China and far more costly than the war in Iraq. Moreover, much of the money ends up in the hands of America’s enemies. Though some laissez-faire economists find this situation acceptable, it’s hard to argue that our dependence on foreign oil can be sustained at current levels over the long haul without further damage to the dollar and the general U.S. economy.
A vigorous American Petroleum Institute advertising campaign, President Bush, and presidential candidate John McCain imply we can drill our way out of our dependence on foreign oil. Pickens disagrees. Again, score one for the man living in our television screens. Offshore oil drilling is expensive and unlikely to lower oil prices or have a dramatic impact on the world oil market. We shouldn’t rule out some carefully monitored expansion of lands available for exploration and development. But opening up more offshore areas in a country that has been drilling away since 1859 won’t be a game changer in an expanding world oil market.
Pickens emphasizes renewable energy, particularly wind power, as a solution to our energy predicament. Wind supplies a significant share of energy in some European countries and is growing here. We should expand the role it plays in electric generation.
But overemphasis on wind can distract attention from solar power and biofuels (not derived from food products), which offer greater potential for further technical development.
The idea that we should use government subsidies to get wind and other renewables into the market overlooks a big problem. The amount of fuel we consume is so large that subsidies will have unacceptable budget impacts for any fuel that achieves broad usage. The key policy here is making sure the fossil fuels pay their own way for external costs related to national security and the environment.
We should also adopt a national renewable electric generation standard that mandates a greater share for these clean and domestic sources, as many states have already done. Last year, the U.S. Senate came very close to breaking a filibuster against such a standard. After what has transpired since that vote, the Congress should quickly adopt the standard next year with tougher provisions than in the 2007 version.
Pickens correctly points out that expanded use of wind and solar, while intermittent, can save significant amounts of natural gas, the most environmentally benign of our fossil fuels and largely available from domestic sources. He then advocates that natural gas resulting from this displacement be used to power America’s vehicles. This would cut the need for foreign oil, reduce pollution and has been technically doable for a long time.
But this is the fork in the road where Pickens makes the wrong turn. Until we figure out how to sequester the carbon emissions from coal-based electricity or add significantly to the number of nuclear plants, we face a critical need for natural gas to reduce the use of coal. After having ignored the problems of greenhouse gases and global warming for decades, our nation cannot add more coal plants without risking great damage to our climate. There’s not enough gas to take on bigger roles for both transportation and electricity.
Fortunately, there are other alternatives for powering our cars and trucks that will work as well or better than natural gas. First and foremost, we need to demand more efficient vehicles. The Energy Independence and Security Act passed last year mandates that the 25 miles per gallon currently required for cars and light trucks be raised to 35 mpg by the year 2020. But we should not have much trouble raising the standard by a mile and a half a year. That get’s us to 40 mpg by 2020 and 55 mpg by 2040.
Ethanol produced from corn kernels is not worth the federal subsidies currently provided. But we should be utilizing liquid fuels from other plant sources, such as corn stover (the waste materials left over), bagasse from sugar cane, wood chips, and switchgrass. Even more exciting, but perhaps further down the road, is biofuel produced from algae. We also have the option of plug-in electric hybrid vehicles, which are very attractive economically, especially if recharging takes place at night when the demand on the electric grid is low. In other words, we can take the bold action Pickens calls for and still reserve natural gas for electric generation.
The Texan who wants to end our addiction to foreign oil may not have every detail right, but we should be grateful that he’s calling for some mighty big solutions to some mighty big problems.
From 1993 to 2000, Jay Hakes headed the Energy Information Administration, the data and analytic arm of the U.S. Department of Energy. He has just published A Declaration of Energy Independence: How Freedom from Foreign Oil Can Improve National Security, Our Economy, and the Environment (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470267631.html
Poll Results
I asked if you thought candidates only were “fair game” when it came to politics, or if their families were subject to the same scrutiny. Interestingly, half of you said that the whole family was subject to the same level of public review as the candidate. The rest of you said that only children under 18 should be exempt. Wow, you all are a tough crowd!
The commercial invites readers to visit their webpage at Unionfacts.com, so I decided to do just that. The well designed site has some enticing pages, such as “Hijacking Elections”, “Union Profiles”, “When Voting Isn’t Private”, a “Fact” page, plus a section relating to the media and their ads. All very well written I might add. There was also a blog about Senator Orin Hatch on the Employee Free Choice Act. However, what interested me most was the “About Us” page.
Unionfacts.com is the product of the cerebral sounding Center for Union Facts, located in Washington, DC. They describe themselves a non-profit 501c (3) organization “supported by foundations, businesses, union members, and the general public”. Dedicated, they proclaim, to showing Americans about union leadership. They claim to be non-partisan and not anti-union. I suspect they must have looked at the Teamsters for A Democratic Union model (http://www.tdu.org/), which is dedicated to promote open and honest elections as well as responsible accounting of union financing (that isn’t to say that this organization isn’t without a certain amount of controversy too. Some union members accuse them of being front for anti-union groups). While the “About Us” page is informative, especially the FAQ, what was more interesting is that none of the officers were mentioned. So I decided to do a little online sleuthing.
Unionfacts.com was created by Washington business lobbyist Rick Berman of Richard Berman and Company. Mr. Berman’s claim to fame has been developing an ad campaigns against groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) on behalf of the liquor industry. He has lobbied on of behalf pro-tobacco interests groups against the Center for Disease Control, and been involved in campaigns against the American Medical Association and EarthSave International just to mention a couple (consumerdeception.com). He was a large contributor to Newt Gingrich’s GOPAC (sourcewatch.org.). He has also been a long time active member of the pro-business US Chamber of Commerce. Not exactly a stellar resume for the founder of what is portrayed as a “non-partisan” organization bent on spreading the “truth” (and I presume the “American Way”) about organized labor.
Now before I proceed any further, here’s the “disclaimer” portion of this article. I am a member of a writer’s union, which is part of both the UAW and the AFL-CIO, as well as the past state chairman of this union. I have also been a delegate to the Greater Louisville Central Labor Council. My grandfather was a member of the Order of Railroad Conductors and Brakemen (and yes, a Republican, which wasn’t as mutually exclusive in those days). My wife is a retired Teamster (Local 89), and her father (also a Republican by the way) was a member of IUE-CWA Local 761 at Louisville’s Appliance Park, owned by General Electric. I’ve been employed in “white collar” jobs my entire working career. I also teach business management and human resource management classes at the undergraduate and graduate level. I count as friends both labor and business leaders. I believe in a balanced playing field. My personal philosophy is that both groups have to work together. One can not dominate the other and expect to remain in business or employed for long.
Labor has done a lot for this country. It has given us established work hours, the 40 hour work week, health and education, benefits, vacations, child protections laws, safe working conditions, and the right to bargain just to mention a few. Business has given us more product diversity and a higher standard of living than any other nation in history. They have done this through intensive research and capital investment. It’s also true that most states have “right to work” laws, meaning that businesses are free to hire and fire you with no or little notice. But on the other hand, you’re free to accept, decline, or quit anytime you want. There are also “open” and “closed” shops, meaning that union membership isn’t available or required (“open”) or by accepting an offer, you are required to also join the union (“closed”).
Is this fair? I guess that depends on your perspective. The reason there is a union in the first place is that at one point in time, employees felt threatened (I’ve always said that the chief reason for unions was bad management). If you don’t want to join the union, don’t accept the job. But what if you want the job but not the union? At a closed shop you don’t have any choice. I’ve thought that instead of having an open or closed shop, that the company have two pay rates (after all, they already have exempted and non-exempted classifications) with corresponding benefit packages. In other words, give the perspective employee a reason to want to join the union—better pay and benefits along with job protection. Alternatively, the non-union employee would not be subject to seniority or other job restrictions.
When it comes to politics, I have to agree with the commercial---sort of. I don’t think anyone, union or not, should be required to give to political action funds. I think employees should be able to opt out of having their union dues or pay going to a particular candidate or party. Why? Because it’s my money and I’ll decide who I’ll donate it to. Unions long ago defaulted on the ability to strengthen their position by blindly supporting just one political party---the Democrats. Nowadays, unions are seen as little more than the party’s cash cows. Instead, unions should (as they did once upon a time) support the best candidates for office regardless of party. That ensures a balance on both sides of aisle and increases the likelihood of favorable legislation. Think it doesn’t work? Look at business. They back individuals in both parties and have done quite well at it thank you. When I ran for state representative against an incumbent Democrat, all of my 30 or so volunteers were either active or retired union members. They knew I could do a better job and the letter behind my name didn’t matter one hoot. Not all Democrats are blue collar working stiffs and not all Republicans are rich.
Let’s take another look at the commercials and website. Both are interesting for what they say and don’t say as I’ve already stated. But, you may be wondering, why run the commercials now? There’s no pending labor or business legislation coming up. The answer is deceptively simple. This is a presidential election year. Money that Labor would be spending on Democrats is now going to have to be diverted to defend unions against these ads. Labor put all its eggs in one basket so to speak, while business bought the whole chicken coop. So, thank you Unionfacts.com for bringing this object lesson to light.
(Americans have had enough of high gas prices. We’re tired of being the pawns of oil companies and Arab Sheiks. Well, that’s been the argument so far. But one thing is for sure. The debate over global warming and energy is just getting started. I thought you might enjoy this article by Jay Hakes. Mr. Hakes is the author of “A Declaration of Energy Independence”. You can also check out a recent interview of Jay at http://www.wwltv.com/video/news-index.html?nvid=267393 which discuses Mr. Pickens’ energy plan).
Boone Pickens’ Energy Crusade:
Prophet or Con Man?
T. Boone Pickens has broadcast his way right into the middle of a presidential election debate about United States energy policy. Americans are upset about $4 a gallon gasoline, and the iconoclastic oilman has bought a lot of air time to tell us what he thinks about the situation.
Pickens’ views have injected some fresh air into the public dialogue, and most of his ideas stand up pretty well to the scrutiny of serious energy analysis. But we must be careful not to replace one set of problems with another.
His ads and web site warn about the money sucked out of the American economy by its negative balance of trade in energy. Pickens has identified a problem as least as big as high prices at the pump. The energy trade deficit is larger than our trade imbalance with China and far more costly than the war in Iraq. Moreover, much of the money ends up in the hands of America’s enemies. Though some laissez-faire economists find this situation acceptable, it’s hard to argue that our dependence on foreign oil can be sustained at current levels over the long haul without further damage to the dollar and the general U.S. economy.
A vigorous American Petroleum Institute advertising campaign, President Bush, and presidential candidate John McCain imply we can drill our way out of our dependence on foreign oil. Pickens disagrees. Again, score one for the man living in our television screens. Offshore oil drilling is expensive and unlikely to lower oil prices or have a dramatic impact on the world oil market. We shouldn’t rule out some carefully monitored expansion of lands available for exploration and development. But opening up more offshore areas in a country that has been drilling away since 1859 won’t be a game changer in an expanding world oil market.
Pickens emphasizes renewable energy, particularly wind power, as a solution to our energy predicament. Wind supplies a significant share of energy in some European countries and is growing here. We should expand the role it plays in electric generation.
But overemphasis on wind can distract attention from solar power and biofuels (not derived from food products), which offer greater potential for further technical development.
The idea that we should use government subsidies to get wind and other renewables into the market overlooks a big problem. The amount of fuel we consume is so large that subsidies will have unacceptable budget impacts for any fuel that achieves broad usage. The key policy here is making sure the fossil fuels pay their own way for external costs related to national security and the environment.
We should also adopt a national renewable electric generation standard that mandates a greater share for these clean and domestic sources, as many states have already done. Last year, the U.S. Senate came very close to breaking a filibuster against such a standard. After what has transpired since that vote, the Congress should quickly adopt the standard next year with tougher provisions than in the 2007 version.
Pickens correctly points out that expanded use of wind and solar, while intermittent, can save significant amounts of natural gas, the most environmentally benign of our fossil fuels and largely available from domestic sources. He then advocates that natural gas resulting from this displacement be used to power America’s vehicles. This would cut the need for foreign oil, reduce pollution and has been technically doable for a long time.
But this is the fork in the road where Pickens makes the wrong turn. Until we figure out how to sequester the carbon emissions from coal-based electricity or add significantly to the number of nuclear plants, we face a critical need for natural gas to reduce the use of coal. After having ignored the problems of greenhouse gases and global warming for decades, our nation cannot add more coal plants without risking great damage to our climate. There’s not enough gas to take on bigger roles for both transportation and electricity.
Fortunately, there are other alternatives for powering our cars and trucks that will work as well or better than natural gas. First and foremost, we need to demand more efficient vehicles. The Energy Independence and Security Act passed last year mandates that the 25 miles per gallon currently required for cars and light trucks be raised to 35 mpg by the year 2020. But we should not have much trouble raising the standard by a mile and a half a year. That get’s us to 40 mpg by 2020 and 55 mpg by 2040.
Ethanol produced from corn kernels is not worth the federal subsidies currently provided. But we should be utilizing liquid fuels from other plant sources, such as corn stover (the waste materials left over), bagasse from sugar cane, wood chips, and switchgrass. Even more exciting, but perhaps further down the road, is biofuel produced from algae. We also have the option of plug-in electric hybrid vehicles, which are very attractive economically, especially if recharging takes place at night when the demand on the electric grid is low. In other words, we can take the bold action Pickens calls for and still reserve natural gas for electric generation.
The Texan who wants to end our addiction to foreign oil may not have every detail right, but we should be grateful that he’s calling for some mighty big solutions to some mighty big problems.
From 1993 to 2000, Jay Hakes headed the Energy Information Administration, the data and analytic arm of the U.S. Department of Energy. He has just published A Declaration of Energy Independence: How Freedom from Foreign Oil Can Improve National Security, Our Economy, and the Environment (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470267631.html
Poll Results
I asked if you thought candidates only were “fair game” when it came to politics, or if their families were subject to the same scrutiny. Interestingly, half of you said that the whole family was subject to the same level of public review as the candidate. The rest of you said that only children under 18 should be exempt. Wow, you all are a tough crowd!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)