The Labor Games: Time for An American Comeback
By Thom Hartmann A...
It’s the bottom of the 9th inning, and corporate America is just one out away from another major victory. According to a new study from the International Trade Union Confederation, corporate America has all but destroyed workers’ rights in our country. The study looked at things like workers’ ability to strike or protest, to engage in collective bargaining, and their basic civil liberties.
A 97-point evaluation of labor-related criteria by the International Trade Union Confederation found that the United States ranks as bad as Pakistan, Indonesia, and Thailand when it comes to workers’ rights. And the only countries that are ranked worse than the U.S. in the study are countries that are experiencing “open violent conflict.” Of course this shouldn’t come as a surprise.
Over the last three years alone, more than a dozen corporate-friendly Republican-controlled states have put limits on collective bargaining for public employees, and 19 other states have pushed for right-to-work-for-less laws that destroy private unions. But the U.S. didn’t always used to be at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to workers’ rights.
For nearly a century, it was unions and strong workers’ rights that made us proud to call America home. And it was thanks to unions that America had a strong and robust middle class. But, over the last three decades or so, corporate America and the wealthy elite have been waging an all-out war on workers, and on the very unions that helped build our country.
As result, ever since Reagan came to Washington, corporate profits have been on the rise. But as corporate profits have been rising, America’s union membership rate has been in a freefall. And a study by Tali Kristal, a sociologist at the University of Haifa in Israel, found that the relationship between rising corporate profits and falling union membership is undeniable.
Speaking to the Huffington Post about the study, Kristal said that, “It’s a zero sum game: whatever is not going to workers, goes to corporations. Union decline not only increased wage gaps among workers, but also enabled capitalists to grab a larger slice of the national income pie at the expense of all workers, including the highly skilled.”
But corporate America’s war on workers’ rights isn’t just hurting unions and the labor movement. It’s hurting the American middle-class too. As the group Unions Work has pointed out, while union membership has been declining steadily since the late 1960’s, middle class income has also been shrinking.
Similarly, a study by the Economic Policy Institute found that the drop in union membership that America has seen over the past three decades has contributed to our country’s income inequality epidemic. So, not only is corporate America trying to score a knock-out blow against workers’ rights, it’s also systematically destroying the American middle class, while making the rich richer.
But what corporate America and its Republican allies in Washington fail to understand is that America’s economy is strongest when the middle-class is thriving. And the American middle class only thrives when there are strong workers’ rights and when union membership is high. It’s not just a freak coincidence that in the 1940’s and 1950’s when union density was at its highest, income inequality was at record lows.
Fortunately, all across our country, working-class Americans are fighting back, and standing up for workers’ rights. From the Fight for 15 to the fast food strikes across the nation, Americans are saying enough is enough, and are fighting to bring back the unions and robust middle class that once made our nation great. So, while we may be in the bottom of the 9th inning, and corporate America may have our backs up against a wall, there’s still time for us to come back and win this thing.
It’s time to restore the labor rights that we’ve lost, repeal Taft-Hartley, stop the insanity of Right To Work For Less, rebuild the American middle class, and make our nation great again.
Comments
#2
Chi Matt -- I think its formal name was "Employee Free Choice Act".
#3
Thank you. I just checked it out. It looks like the purpose of the bill was to make it easier for unions to win the right to represent workers, if 50% of the workers signed on? So then an existing union, like the SEIU, would come in and see how many signatures they could get to represent the workers of a company?
Not sure how I feel about that. Every now and then, we get solicitors in our neighborhood who want us to sign petitions to get certain people on the ballot or to support this or that cause. That always makes me uncomfortable, because if you say no, they know where you live and that you don't support them. That could lead to trouble. I can see card check going a similar way. Once you're outed as being someone who didn't support it, they could make your work life hell.
And when it comes to chain stores, would the card check rules apply to each individual store, or to the whole chain? If, for example, a McDonalds with 30 employees signed on with a union, don't you think McDonalds, or the franchisee, would just close that one to set an example? One or two closed stores wouldn't hurt them at all, and people would get the message.
#4
Without workers having bargaining power, we've got a problem. Yeah unions have had their problems, which anti-union shills will exploit to whatever end suits their purpose. But the working class needs unions. Even non-union workers need unions because they raise the bar for everyone. Without those who do the actual work having a voice at "the table", there is no gainful employment; only indentured servitude. - AIW
#5
I'm so thoroughly disgusted with people trying to solicit me at my door or on my phone that I hardly ever answer either. If I see someone at my door, via my surveillance cameras, I can usually determine, right off, that they are going to try to sell me something. They are either carrying a clipboard or something else that gives them away. I've seen some pretty rough-looking people standing at my door as well. It just isn't worth it, anymore, to open the door for anyone unless you know them. It is never in my best interest to do so.
I have Caller ID on my phone and no answering machine. It just displays the number. So, I don't pick up unless I recognize the number. And I have a list of good and bad numbers right by my phone that I can scan. I usually investigate who the caller is (but not by calling the number back) and I always find that they are, almost always, robo-callers associated with scammers. By not answering, it sends the message that I never pick up and eventually they stop calling. It takes a while but they do finally give up...even robo-caller lists get culled eventually.
Another good reason not to always answer your phone, or door, is that it lets callers (potential burglars) know if you are home. If they call a number of times and you answer and then they either do a pitch or just hang up then later they call again and you don't answer it tells them that you are not at home and they will realize that they have picked an easy target. If you never answer the phone, or door, they can never analyze, for sure, when someone is home or not.
#6
Quote Palindromedary:I usually investigate who the caller is (but not by calling the number back) and I always find that they are, almost always, robo-callers associated with scammers.
Palindromedary ~ Good for you! I hate those calls too. I also have caller id and an answering machine. The outgoing message is a robotic voice. I don't record my own message just so that people won't hear my voice. It simply states that "No one is available to take your call, please leave a message." That way any personal calls that come in from an unknown number have a second chance to get screened and let me know who they are. No message with a strange number gets no response.
I too have noticed the same numbers popping up regularly that bother me because they always call and don't give up. A few times out of sheer frustration I picked up the phone just to tell them to stop calling and take my number off their list. I'm just sick of the phone ringing all the time with junk. It forces me to drop what I'm doing and look at the id. That's very intrusive and annoying. I'm surprised that robo-calling is even legal. There is nothing I would like better than to help bring some of these scammers and con artists to justice.
That brings me to my question, how do you investigate the caller? I'd love to be able to do that without talking to anyone.
#7
Chi Matt -- You are just describing the pain of democracy (or as I like to call it peer pressure). The good thing about democracy is that it is better than what we currently have, as well as, better than anything else humankind has ever come up with.
With respect to your McDonald's case, I think unions are well aware of that scenario. I assume they would organize statewide and beyond.
#8
WOW Palin & Marc, I sure relate to your experiences and observations regarding robo calls and scammers; all that bullshit invading our space via our phones! Ain't it special. And if you're in any line of business, in any capacity, they're like horse flies.
I also get calls where, for a few seconds, you hear a rustling sound or some kind of muffled background noise, then a "click". I often wonder if it's someone casing the place.
Years ago I tried caller ID, for the express purpose of identifying the sources of those calls I'd found especially annoying. It was no help at all; I mean, none whatsoever! The calls I especially wanted to retaliate against were never identified. In place of the caller's phone number was displayed a one-word message: "Unavailable". So I gave up on caller ID. I cancelled the service. Haven't had it since. - AIW
P.S. Whatever happened to that so-called "Do-Not-Call" list, anyway?! What an impotent, toothless, meaningless gesture that turned out to be! Tokenism without substance.
#9
I just type the telephone number into Google Search...like xxx-xxx-xxxx and I will usually get a lot of hits some of which are useful to determine if the calls are scammers. Lots of other people get the same calls and post their comments about them. Some of those people have a message recorder and others try calling those numbers back. Other people have actually answered the calls and have reported who was calling. But some of those "whocalledme" web sites are scams themselves hoping that you will pay them money to get more information...but from what I've read...you usually don't get any more information than what you can get by surfing around.
One thing I've worried about is that by my typing that number into the search engine and clicking on some of those web sites, they may be collecting information about you anyway. Any time you connect to a web site they know your IP number, the kind of browser you are using, what operating system you're using, and probably your MAC address, as well as other information about you. And there are tools that they can use to snoop through your mail address list to steal your contacts. And, of course, they can do a lot more snooping than that as well.
Lots of people ranting on those web sites are hopping mad that even though they are on the "Do Not Call" list they still get calls.
Google used to have a reverse look-up service for phone numbers but they stopped because they claimed that too many people were complaining that it was a violation of their privacy and wanted to be removed from the listings. Yeah, I'll bet!..all those robo-caller owners didn't want people to know who they were. AT&T doesn't help much either...talk about partners in crime...they won't do much to stop the problem either.
I also do a search on the area code and prefix which tells me the general area from where the calls originated. And they come from all over the US and international...some aren't eve valid area codes or prefixes. Spoofed numbers most likely. And you can't rely on what the Caller ID display says as far as who the caller is. They can spoof the displayed caller name as well.
#10
Not that it's any of my business, but you all still have land lines? One of the benefits of only having a cell phone is that you can program it to only ring for callers who are in your contact list - people you know are real and you want to talk to. If you're not on that list, it doesn't even ring. Straight to voicemail, where they rarely bother to leave a message.
I remember being told back when cell phones first came out that you needed a land line for emergencies, since they can be traced to a physical location. Thanks to the built-in GPS of a smart phone, that's not a problem anymore. Sometimes, you may actually want the government to be able to track you, like if you're laying on the ground with two broken legs.
#11
I need you all to define some things for me before I can reply.
What do you mean by "Working Class"? Is that manual laborers? Or anyone who makes their money selling their time? Would that include owners of businesses, who still have to work, even if it's just to do the behind-the-scenes paperwork?
I also need to know where you draw the line between employer and employee. For a chain store, the "employer" is, ultimately, the shareholders. Everyone else, from the cashiers to the store managers to the CEO, are "employees".
And, since this comes up a lot, what is a "fair share" of taxes someone should pay? Is it a percentage, or an absolute number? Is a $1,000 annual tax burden fair for some people, while a $10,000,000 annual tax burden is fair for others, as long as the percentages of their income are the same?
#12
ChicagoMatt ~ I can't speak for everyone however this is how I define these terms.
Working Class -- A social group who are employed for wages. Especially in manual labor or industry. They put in hourly or salary wages for their time spent.
Employer -- Is a business or organization that employs people. It includes not only the owners, but the managers, bosses, chiefs, executives, and every member of the controlling group heading the business or organization that exercises power over others. Someone with the power to hire and fire an employee.
Employee -- any person employed for salary or wages who is not at the executive level and is answerable to someone representing that level.
Fair taxes -- are taxes that represent a percentage of income determined by the amount of income. Also known as progressive taxes, fair taxes increase percentage with increases in income. The theory behind this proven system is that higher income earners need less of their income and are greater dependant on the commons. Therefore, it is their responsibility to pay more of a percentage of their income. Conversely, lower income earners use less of the commons and can afford less taxes. Therefore, they pay the lowest percentage of their income in taxes.
#13
Chi Matt -- If we all have different answers how is that going to help you?
Working class -- Anyone making $70,000 or less. I pick this number because this is the level at which the correlation between income and happiness almost disappears.
Shareholders as employers? -- Are you aware of the case where the shareholders voted for a proposal and the board of directors said go f*** yourself? Shareholders only get to express their feelings.
Fair share of taxes -- I think the taxation levels should be determined by what helps the economy the most. The tax structure from the 1930's until Kennedy/Johnson changed them seems to have been shown to help the economy more than any other tax structure.
#14
Employer -- Is a business or organization that employs people. It includes not only the owners, but the managers, bosses, chiefs, executives, and every member of the controlling group heading the business or organization that exercises power over others. Someone with the power to hire and fire an employee.
With how much the workplace has changed over the years, as we've moved from a manufacturing to a service economy.
In my retail experience, there were two basic types of employees - the people who were making a career out of it, and the people who were just biding their time until something better came along / they finished school / summer was over, etc... There were just enough promotions for the "career" types to keep them content. Dangling the possibility of becoming a store manager, which for my chain meant 60-hour workweeks for about $60,000 per year, was good motivation for most people.
Safety, which is one of the things unions fight for, isn't really a pressing concern for your average retail employee. It's in the store's best interest to keep you safe anyway, so you don't sue. The biggest safety hazard was a customer attacking you, and nothing a union could do would stop that.
And everyone, from the District Managers down, are just following the orders from the corpoate office. It's hard for the average employee to get mad at people they never even see. You may think your boss is an asshole, but to think he is part of some big conspiracy to keep you down seems a little far-fetched. The managers are just trading their time for a wage like everyone else at the store.
The theory behind this proven system is that higher income earners need less of their income and are greater dependant on the commons.
How can you prove someone needs less of their own income? Unless you go into the research to find that form the beginning? Like, designing the experiment to give you the results you want. I get nervous when people start talking about how much other people "need". It makes the person saying it seem very judgemental. Just because I, personally, can't afford a luxury car, I don't go around telling other people they don't need it as well.
I do admit that wealthier people are more dependant on the commons. Bill Gates, for example, wouldn't have anything if not for the roads that delivered his product, the power lines that enable it, etc...
#15
Shareholders as employers? -- Are you aware of the case where the shareholders voted for a proposal and the board of directors said go f*** yourself? Shareholders only get to express their feelings.
Publicly-held companies are legally required to act in the best interest of their shareholders, which generally means making them the most money. If a company's board intentionally does something that costs the shareholders money, the shareholders can sue. If, for example, the CEO of WalMart suddenly gets a conscious and decides to give every employee a 100% raise, not only can he be fired, but he can be sued by the shareholders.
PS, I said "100% raise" instead of $15 an hour minimum, because you'd have to raise everyone else's incomes proportionately, which some people forget.
#16
Chi Matt -- As long as you are researching it anyway the following statement is interesting
Quote Chi Matt:Publicly-held companies are legally required to act in the best interest of their shareholders, which generally means making them the most money.
This legal requirement came about from charter mongering. Before charter mongering they also had to benefit the public good of the state.
If the shareholders have to sue the board to get something done, that does not sound like the shareholder is an employer.
#17
If the shareholders have to sue the board to get something done, that does not sound like the shareholder is an employer.
Suing the board for repayment of lost stock value is step two. Firing the board is step one.
Employers can sue employees, if those employees cost the employer enough money (by doing something illegal) to make it worthwhile. If, for example, a truck driver is caught selling stock out of the back of their truck, and a dollar amount can be put on the total value of the items stolen, the employer can sue that person as an individual for damages.
On a related note, when I worked retail, we were told very plainly that if we did something that harmed a customer, their property, or another worker, the company would not give us legal protection. That is, we could be sued personally for things that we did while on the job. If I was helping a customer load something into their car, and I dropped it on their foot, I could be personally liable. I always thought that was a little shady on their part.
#18
Quote hater22:I am going to do something which will open up people’s eyes.Like what? Give us a hint!
#19
Yet another shoot out with police near Las Vegas...not related to the earlier one in Las Vegas.
Gee, I sure hope that wasn't you, h.
When you make such a statement, it make me wonder.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/jun/11/man-killed-shootout-henderso...
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
From Screwed:
"I think many of us recognize that for all but the wealthiest, life in America is getting increasingly hard. Screwed explores why, showing how this is no accidental process, but rather the product of conscious political choices, choices we can change with enough courage and commitment. Like all of Thom’s great work, it helps show us the way forward."
From Screwed:
"If we are going to live in a Democracy, we need to have a healthy middle class. Thom Hartmann shows us how the ‘cons’ have wronged this country, and tells us what needs to be done to reclaim what it is to be American."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Never one to shy away from the truth, Thom Hartmann’s collected works are inspiring, wise, and compelling. His work lights the way to a better America."
There you go! You're catching on:))