The battle has resumed in Wisconsin. The state supreme court has allowed Governor Scott Walker to strip bargaining rights from state workers.
Meanwhile, governors and legislators in New Hampshire and Missouri are attacking private unions, seeking to make the states so-called “open shop” where workers can get all the benefits of being union members without paying union dues. Needless to say this ploy undermines the capacity of unions to do much of anything. Other Republican governors and legislatures are following suit.
Republicans in Congress are taking aim at the National Labor Relations Board, which issued a relatively minor proposed rule change allowing workers to vote on whether to unionize soon after a union has been proposed, rather than allowing employers to delay the vote for years. Many employers have used the delaying tactics to retaliate against workers who try to organize, and intimidate others into rejecting a union.
This war on workers’ rights is an assault on the middle class, and it is undermining the American economy.
The American economy can’t get out of neutral until American workers have more money in their pockets to buy what they produce. And unions are the best way to give them the bargaining power to get better pay.
For three decades after World War II – I call it the “Great Prosperity” – wages rose in tandem with productivity. Americans shared the gains of growth, and had enough money to buy what they produced.
That’s largely due to the role of labor unions. In 1955, over a third of American workers in the private sector were unionized. Today, fewer than 7 percent are.
With the decline of unions came the stagnation of American wages. More and more of the total income and wealth of America has gone to the very top. Middle-class purchasing power depended on mothers going into paid work, everyone working longer hours, and, finally, the middle class going deep into debt, using their homes as collateral.
But now all these coping mechanisms are exhausted — and we’re living with the consequence.
Some say the Great Prosperity was an anomaly. America’s major competitors lay in ruins. We had the world to ourselves. According to this view, there’s no going back.
But this view is wrong. If you want to see the same basic bargain we had then, take a look at Germany now.
Germany is growing much faster than the United States. Its unemployment rate is now only 6.1 percent (we’re now at 9.1 percent).
What’s Germany’s secret? In sharp contrast to the decades of stagnant wages in America, real average hourly pay has risen almost 30 percent there since 1985. Germany has been investing substantially in education and infrastructure.
How did German workers do it? A big part of the story is German labor unions are still powerful enough to insist that German workers get their fair share of the economy’s gains.
That’s why pay at the top in Germany hasn’t risen any faster than pay in the middle. As David Leonhardt reported in the New York Times recently, the top 1 percent of German households earns about 11 percent of all income – a percent that hasn’t changed in four decades.
Contrast this with the United States, where the top 1 percent went from getting 9 percent of total income in the late 1970s to more than 20 percent today.
The only way back toward sustained growth and prosperity in the United States is to remake the basic bargain linking pay to productivity. This would give the American middle class the purchasing power they need to keep the economy going.
Part of the answer is, as in Germany, stronger labor unions — unions strong enough to demand a fair share of the gains from productivity growth.
The current Republican assault on workers’ rights continues a thirty-year war on American workers’ wages. That long-term war has finally taken its toll on the American economy.
It’s time to fight back.
By: Robert Reich, RobertReich Blog, June 15, 2011
June 16, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Class Warfare, Collective Bargaining, Congress, Conservatives, Democracy, Economy, Equal Rights, GOP, Gov Scott Walker, Governors, Ideologues, Ideology, Jobs, Labor, Lawmakers, Middle Class, Politics, Public Employees, Right Wing, State Legislatures, States, Union Busting, Unions, Wealthy, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Republicans | Anti-Union, Germany, Income, National Labor Relations Board, Wages, Wisconsin Supreme Court, Workers Rights |
Leave a comment
The current assault on collective-bargaining rights shows that ideology and smash-mouth politics can triumph over economic reality.
Unions did not cause our economic mess: Greedy bankers drove the financial system to the brink of collapse. Moreover, public workers’ desire for decent wages and benefits is not busting state budgets: The same recession is starving states of essential revenue.
Destroying unions will do nothing to create more jobs or balance budgets, but it will further impoverish millions of American workers.
Yet, with the national union membership rate barely more than 10 percent, why should the rest of the work force care about unions? There are three reasons everyone who works for a living should want to rebuild the American labor movement.
First, if you want a job with a living wage and decent benefits, then you want a strong labor movement. When unions decline, many workers — whether organized or not — see a drop in their standard of living. And driving down wages does not help the American economy, which depends on strong consumer spending.
Second, if you like spending time on the weekends with your friends and family, then you want a strong labor movement. Unions struggled for many decades to get laws mandating an eight-hour day, a minimum wage and a ban on child labor. Given what is happening across the country today, with basic rights being heaved out the window, working people need unions to preserve the gains they have made.
Finally, if you believe in a healthy democracy, then you want a strong labor movement. Many unions work for more than just good wages and benefits; organized labor has also campaigned for access to affordable health care and for protecting the rights of immigrant workers.
So regardless of whether you belong to a union, every working American should be worried about the current open season on workers’ rights.
If the labor movement is weakened further, we will lose one of the last bulwarks against unbridled corporate greed and one of the last champions for dignity at work and a decent standard of living.
By: David Zonderman, CommonDreams.org, Originally published in The Providence Journal, May 26, 2011
May 27, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Banks, Collective Bargaining, Democracy, Economic Recovery, Economy, Gov Scott Walker, Governors, Health Care, Ideologues, Ideology, Immigrants, Income Gap, Jobs, Labor, Lawmakers, Middle Class, Politics, Public Employees, Republicans, State Legislatures, States, Union Busting, Unions | Benefits, Minimum Wage, Politicians, Public Workers, Wages, Workers, Workers Rights |
Leave a comment
Conservatives have had their sights on public-sector workers for a while and for good reason. Public-sector workers represent two favorite targets: organized labor and government. I am a public-sector employee and union member, so I can’t help but take these attacks and struggles personally. I am also a veteran of the welfare “reform” battles of the 1990s, and the debates over public-sector workers are strikingly similar.
Like welfare moms, public-sector workers have been painted as greedy [fill-in-the-blank barnyard animals], feeding from the public trough and targeted as the primary source of what’s wrong with government today.
Like 1990s welfare-reform debates, this one is dominated by more fiction than fact. For example, previous and recent research consistently shows public-sector workers actually earn less than private-sector workers with comparable skills and experience. While many, but not all, public-sector workers who work long enough for the public sector have a defined-benefit pension, the unfunded portions of those pensions are often due to bad state policy, not union negotiations.
In some states, like my own, Massachusetts, current workers are paying most of their pension costs through their own contributions into interest-bearing pension funds. Because state and local governments with defined pensions do not contribute to social security, there are currently cost savings. The upshot is that the cost of pensions may not be as high as some are arguing.
It is true that health-insurance costs for current retirees are expensive and worrisome. But this is because of the rising costs in private health insurance. Making workers pay more for their health-care benefits will erode the compensation base of public-sector workers, but it won’t get at the real problem of escalating health-care costs.
During the welfare debates, one of the arguments used to justify punitive legislative changes was spun around the fact that welfare moms who did get low-wage employment could also get child-care assistance—while other moms could not. Sound familiar? Public-sector workers do have employer-sponsored benefits many private-sector workers no longer get. But benefits haven’t improved in the public sector over the last 20 years; indeed most public-sector workers are paying more for the same benefits.
Over the same period, many private-sector workers have been stripped of their employer-provided benefits even as profits have soared. Instead of asking why corporate America is stripping middle-class workers of decent health-care coverage and retirement plans, the demand is to strip public-sector workers of theirs.
The new Cadillac-driving welfare queens are the handful of errant politicians who game the pension system and a few highly paid administrators getting handsome pensions. Sure they exist, but are hardly representative. The typical public-sector worker is a woman, most often working as a teacher, secretary or social worker. Women comprise 60% of all state and local workers (compared to their 47% representation in the private work force). And those three occupations make up 40% of the state and local work force.
Shaking down public-sector unions may make some feel better about solving government fiscal problems, but the end result will be more lousy jobs for educated and skilled workers. It will also not stem the red ink that is causing states to disinvest in much-needed human and physical infrastructure with budget cuts. But eroding wages and benefits combined with public-sector bashing will send a very loud market signal to the best and brightest currently thinking about becoming teachers, librarians, or social workers to do something else.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walter is leading the attack on public-sector workers today. In the 1990s it was another Wisconsin governor, Tommy Thompson, who was a leader in demanding and implementing punitive changes to his state’s welfare system. His plan became a model for the rest of the states and federal welfare legislation in 1996. Then there were horror stories and welfare bashing, but not much in the way of discussing the real issue of decent paying jobs that poor and low-income mothers on and off welfare needed to support their families. The main result of welfare reform was the growth in working-poor moms.
There is one important difference. Public-sector workers, unlike welfare moms, have unions and a cadre of supporters behind them.
By: Randy Albelda, CommonDreams.org, May 12, 2011
May 12, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Class Warfare, Collective Bargaining, Conservatives, Deficits, Economy, GOP, Gov Scott Walker, Government, Health Care, Jobs, Lawmakers, Middle Class, Politics, Public, Public Employees, Republicans, Social Security, State Legislatures, States, Teachers, Union Busting, Unions, Wisconsin, Women | Defined Benefits, Employers, Organized Labor, Pension Costs, Pensions, Politicians, Private Sector, Secretaries, Social Workers, Teachers, Wages, Welfare, Welfare Reform |
Leave a comment
Squeezing, gouging, soaking, it’s all the same, and it’s all wrong. The richest Americans, we hear it said, pay most of the federal income taxes. That’s true. But since 1980 their AFTER-TAX SHARE of America’s income has TRIPLED. That’s a trillion dollars a year in extra income for the wealthiest 1%.
A trillion dollars is seven times more than the budget deficits of all 50 states combined.
A trillion dollars, if it hadn’t been redistributed to the rich, would provide an extra $10,000 a year for every family that has contributed to American productivity since 1980.
The defenders of unlimited wealth insist that the very rich have earned their money. But what does EARN mean? Does it mean that the million richest families worked harder than the other 99 million families for thirty years? Does it mean that one man can bet against the mortgage industry and make enough money to pay the salaries of 100,000 health care workers? Does it mean using American research and infrastructure and national security to build a corporation that pays zero federal income taxes?
Most of the fortunate 1% benefited from tax cuts, financial system de-regulation, ownership of 50% of the stock market, and a 15% capital gains tax. According to a study by the University of California, in 2008 only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries.
The very rich claim that their income growth stimulates the economy. But it hasn’t happened. Low-income earners spend a greater percentage of their overall income on consumption, but they have less purchasing power than they had thirty years ago.
What the very rich won’t admit is that they benefit the most from government-funded research, national security, infrastructure, property rights, and a financial industry tailored to their pleasure and profit.
Instead, they claim that anyone can be rich if only they work hard. Much of America wouldn’t know if this is true. They haven’t had a chance to work lately.
By: Paul Buchheit, CommonDreams.org, May 10, 2011
May 11, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Banks, Budget, Businesses, Conservatives, Consumers, Debt Ceiling, Deficits, Economic Recovery, Economy, Financial Institutions, Government, Government Shut Down, Income Gap, Middle Class, Minimum Wage, Politics, Regulations, Republicans, Tax Increases, Taxes, Wall Street | Bush Tax Cuts, Deregulation, Financial Industry, Government Contracts, Government Research, Income Taxes, Infrastructure, Low Income, National Security, Purchasing Power, Rich, Salaries, Stock Market, Wages, Wealthy, Workers |
1 Comment
As with any election, there are competing narratives about what message the voters were sending last November when Democrats got routed in the mid-terms. Each party has offered a view on the meaning of the election. In the Democrats’ view, an economically anxious electorate was focused on jobs and repudiated Obama’s party for not delivering on job growth. In this telling, voters did not reject a liberal agenda but saw health care and other issues as diversions from their immediate pressing economic concerns. And there is some evidence to support this view: Nearly two out of three voters picked the economy as the single most important issue in deciding their vote, and Republicans won that vote. Republicans, on the other hand, argue that voters threw out Democrats in record numbers because they recoiled at incredible levels of government spending. And, indeed, some exit polling showed that voters registered their opposition to a more activist federal government: 56 percent said the government is doing too much, while only 38 percent said the government should do more to solve problems. Meanwhile, 40 percent of voters favored deficit-reduction.
Now, Republicans are intent on using their interpretation of the election to achieve their policy goals. They are offering a budget blueprint that slashes spending on Medicare and Medicaid and other government programs. Representative Paul Ryan’s plan dramatically cuts services to the middle class. As my colleague Jonathan Chait has pointed out, these cuts would be made by lowering taxes on the wealthy and corporations. The whole proposal, in other words, represents a giant redistribution of wealth away from the middle class toward the rich. As the Congressional Budget Office notes about Ryan’s plan for Medicare, for example, “most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system.” What Ryan is really saying, then, is in the middle of this recession, after a decade of declining wages, the real problem in our country is that middle-class Americans have too many services and the rich have been too put upon. And he seems to think he has public support to back him up.
But are Ryan and other Republicans about to walk over quicksand, fooled by the illusion of firm ground beneath their feet after the November elections? Do Americans really want slashes to programs that serve them? Evidence suggests not—meaning Paul Ryan is teetering on the edge of a cliff, threatening to take all House Republicans down with him.
Even the Tea Party movement, whose momentum was built on outrage at government spending, seems to be waning somewhat; the movement’s rallies that once boasted huge numbers now bring only hundreds to the Capitol. As poll analyst Charlie Cook has pointed out, independents have also shifted to being more neutral toward government intervention in the economy over the last few months—from 60 percent saying the government was trying to do too much in October to only 47 percent agreeing with that idea now. (Or, seen from another angle, in the same time frame, people saying the government should do more has risen from 38 percent to 51 percent). And, perhaps even more ominous for Republicans, according to a recent Kaiser poll, 56 percent of Americans do not support any Medicare reductions, 35 percent support minor reductions, and only 8 percent support major reductions. The story is the same with Medicaid: 47 percent do not support Medicaid reductions, 39 percent support minor reductions and 13 percent support major reductions.
Dress it up as he likes, Paul Ryan is proposing to do just what polls show the American people don’t want—to shift more costs shift to individuals, including middle-class Americans. And many House Republicans agree with him, although, already, a few members are refusing to embrace the Ryan budget proposal. Politico has reported that several more vulnerable Republican members, including Blake Farenthold, Sean Duffy, and Ann Marie Buerkle, have called the plan bold, yet not embraced the details.
After every election, the victors try to define and act on their mandate. As Ryan and other Republicans rush through their effort to slash spending, however, they would do well to ask themselves whether it’s what the public really wants—or whether they’re woefully misreading the voters, and setting themselves up for disaster in the next election.
By: Neera Tanden, The New Republic, April 7, 2011
April 11, 2011
Posted by raemd95 |
Conservatives, Democracy, Democrats, Economic Recovery, Economy, Elections, Federal Budget, GOP, Government, Health Care, Ideology, Jobs, Lawmakers, Medicaid, Medicare, Middle Class, Politics, Populism, Public Opinion, Republicans, Right Wing, Tea Party, Voters | Electorate, House Republicans, Kaiser Poll, Liberals, Midterms, Recession, Rep Paul Ryan, Wages |
Leave a comment
Unknown Feed
mykeystrokes.com 