|
Why Does Nikki Haley Neglect Working People of South Carolina? |
 |
|
by
|
|
Tuesday, 31 January 2012 08:10 |
Why does our lame governor obsess over unions? Is she that focused on political maneuvering for bigger and better things not including South Carolina?
"COLUMBIA — South Carolina Republican lawmakers say they want to get even tougher on unions to keep them out of the state. Gov. Nikki Haley says the state’s anti-union status is her best tool in recruiting businesses to South Carolina. The proposal introduced Tuesday in the House would increase penalties for unions that break state law, and require unions to detail their financial data to the state. Unions already file most of the data with the federal Labor Department. Haley also signed an executive order to ensure striking workers don’t get unemployment benefits."
While this state - and its people - climb out of a recession, Haley and her out-of-touch Republican cohorts in the general assembly just do not get it. They don't care. They really don't care about you.
Facts show this state is about as nonunion as you could get. Union membership is in single digits. So, why would our governor, who obviously knows there are more pressing issues in our state, focus on working people and their rights to better themselves?
It's a power grab. They simply want power - and more, more, more.
"South Carolina law already disqualifies unemployment insurance for striking workers. But the order is designed to ensure the state’s unemployment agency knows when workers are striking, and to prevent companies from having to fight a claim for benefits."
Haley is nothing more than a crybaby - and a pouting one at that. Plus, as a former legislator, you'd think she'd know the laws of the state before boohooing out loud about unions.
The best tool, Nikki, in recruiting businesses is our working people. You, Nikki, do not sacrifice on the shop floor hours and hours a day while wondering whether the company will stick around because of no union protections. The working people of this state have always put on a smile in the face of adversity and live their great days here without having to sell them as some marketing ploy.
Grow up, Nikki. How about try governing. We already have one Sarah Palin running around the country.
|
|
So, What About The State Of The Unions, Mr. President? |
|
|
by
|
|
Saturday, 28 January 2012 09:03 |
Unions? Organized labor? The AFL-CIO? Those words were nowhere to be heard in President Obama's State of the Union address, despite labor's vital role in the economy and strong support for Obama. The continued support of the labor movement is essential if the president is to carry out the bold plans he outlined and if he is to be re-elected.
The president's failure to mention one of the country's most important economic and political institutions was unfortunate. It was perhaps understandable, however, given the anti-union climate stirred up by attacks on public employee unions and their allies.
Obama's failure to mention unions and their leaders was ignored in the post-speech pronouncements of AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and other major unionists. They in fact proclaimed the speech a victory because of its endorsement of policies widely supported by labor.
"It was clear throughout the president's speech that the era of the one percent is over," Trumka declared. "We demanded a strong stand on behalf of working families – and the president delivered."
Trumka cited, in particular, Obama's promise to thoroughly investigate "misconduct in the mortgage industry that wrecked our economy," his promise to invest in jobs and infrastructure, and his proposed tax rules that would help the 99 percent.
President Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers praised Obama for making it clear "that children and our future must be priorities," and for noting "what America's teachers have long understood. We can't test our way to a middle class, we must educate our way to a middle class."
Praise, too, from President Leo Gerard of the United Steelworkers Union. He singled out Obama's promise to work "to bring manufacturing back to America." Gerard said, "The president's commitment to discourage job outsourcing and promote insourcing is a ticket to a better economy." It was most welcome news, added Trumka, to the millions of Americans who are unemployed.
President Gerald McEntee of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees described the president's speech as "a comprehensive plan to move our country forward, bolster job creation and find real solutions for the problems confronting our country."
McEntee noted that "in today's political environment, it takes guts to stand strong with working families – even when we make our voices heard, loud and clear, because the toxic influence of money in politics – which the president spoke out against – is powerful."
So, although Obama made no mention of organized labor in his address, he said much that greatly pleased labor, and made promises to carry out measures high on labor's economic and political agendas.
As the AFL-CIO's Trumka declared, Obama showed he "listened to the single mom working two jobs to get by, to the out-of-work construction worker, to the retired factory worker, to the student serving coffee to help pay for college." The president, in short, "voiced the aspirations and concerns of those who are too often ignored."
Trumka cited the similarities between Obama's approach and that of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Like the occupiers, the president is "speaking out forcefully against the staggering increase in inequality" between the one percent and the 99 percent. The president's speech, Trumka added, demonstrated "a focus on job creation Republican House and Senate leaders should follow."
It's clear, certainly, that as long as Obama continues on his current path, he'll have strong labor support. But should he stray, it's clear that labor will forcefully remind him of his promises and of the needs of those who work for a living – or who are attempting to work for a living.
Whatever Obama does is certain to be in startling contrast to his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, one of the most virulently anti-labor presidents in U.S. history. Obama has already rescinded several of Bush's executive orders that limited the union rights of some workers and has replaced openly anti-labor Bush appointees to labor-related federal agencies, boards and commissions with his openly pro-labor appointees, including Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis.
Imagine Bush, or any of his GOP allies, actually saying, as Obama did, that "we need to level the playing field for workers and the unions that represent their interests because we know you cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement."
Important words. But they need to be heard – and acted on – by the millions of Americans who know little or nothing of unions and their important position in our economic and political lives.
President Obama failed to take advantage of a great opportunity to explain the true nature of unions and their importance to the country-at-large and make clear the often vicious anti-unionism of his political enemies. He missed a chance to explain the crucial role labor is certain to play in attempts to carry out essential reforms.
Obama needed to speak out forcefully to try to counter the anti-unionism that is limiting the chances of many Americans to find decent jobs at decent pay and a strong voice in workplace and community matters.
Obama missed an important opportunity. But if he stays true to his promises, the president will have plenty of other chances to show the country the true nature of the labor movement and its opponents, to speak out in favor of unions and the importance of their members, leaders and supporters, and to carry out his proposed and much needed reforms designed to help the nation's working people.
Article By Dick Meister
www.dickmeister.com
|
|
|
Walter Johnson Did What Needed To Be Done |
|
|
by
|
|
Monday, 16 January 2012 16:11 |
Walter Johnson was everything a labor leader should be – a dedicated, unflinching, champion of working people and their unions. But more than that, Walter was also an unyielding advocate of all those inside and outside the labor movement who wanted – and badly needed – a decent living, or who were in any way oppressed.
Johnson, who died in San Francisco of a heart attack on Jan. 12 at age 87, devoted his life to that noble – yes, noble – task as head of the Department Store and Retail Clerks unions in San Francisco. He also later headed the SF Labor Council for nearly 20 years, from 1985 until his retirement in 2004.
Walter was a genuine humanitarian, a kind, thoughtful man who very much liked and sincerely wanted to help people, who freely acknowledged the contributions of others who joined him in his efforts for social, political and economic justice, who seemed always ready and eager to do what needed to be done.
He was a man of great good humor, an outgoing man who seemed to get along with just about everybody, even some of his toughest adversaries. I know, I know. That surely does sound like pure hyperbole. But, believe me, it's not, as many others who knew Walter Johnson could tell you.
Listen to Art Pulaski, who heads the California State AFL-CIO. He declared that Johnson "was a big and fearless advocate for everyone and anyone who was wronged, mistreated, put down, left out, pushed aside or just down on their luck. He was fearless because he always followed his faith, his values and his heart."
Despite the seriousness of his undertakings and his militancy, Johnson was no grim advocate. Whatever the situation, there was always lots of good-natured teasing, and jibes to be traded with friends. And jokes, always jokes – always! Corny, make-you-groan jokes usually, but effective at lessening the tensions that invariably came with the struggles he helped lead.
One look at Johnson's face made clear his Scandinavian background, a mixture of Norwegian and Swedish. But you wouldn't necessarily recognize him as a labor leader. He didn't fit the stereotype. He almost invariably dressed in coat and tie and otherwise looked more like the public image of a business leader, more like management than labor.
Many union leaders spend most of their time in their offices, but Walter was out on the picket lines, or marching or otherwise demonstrating in support of the demands of his union and others, as well as those of other organizations also demanding justice. He was arrested several times for joining in sit-ins and other demonstrations that the authorities wanted to halt. And Johnson kept that up, despite his retirement.
I met Walter thanks to my job as the Chronicle's labor editor. That was in the early 1960s, a few years after he had arrived in San Francisco from his native North Dakota to work as a Sears appliance salesman.
Dave Selvin, the labor historian and former public information officer for the Labor Council, had told me I should be sure to check out "a young guy" who'd just been elected president of the Department Store Employees. Walter Johnson, of course.
Selvin predicted good things for Johnson, and he was right.
Under Johnson's leadership, San Francisco store clerks, department store employees and others won labor contacts at least as rewarding as the contracts as those who held similar jobs elsewhere.
Johnson was a key leader in winning strong, virtually unprecedented support for labor from City Hall and the Board of Supervisors – especially from Mayor Joseph Alioto.
Union representatives were appointed to many city commissions, major job creating construction projects were approved, and Alioto stepped in to mediate settlements of major strikes. Picketing strikers could be pretty certain police wouldn't interfere. New businesses unfriendly to labor found it difficult to get the necessary city permits. Thanks to Johnson and other leaders, labor had gained considerable political clout to go with its considerable economic clout.
Johnson didn't fear clashing with the AFL-CIO and its other affiliated unions as long as he felt he was right. He was one of the few labor leaders to speak out against the Vietnam War, which was wholeheartedly supported by the AFL-CIO's national leadership and most of its affiliates.
Johnson was a leader in the growing global union movement that aims to create a powerful international labor federation that would bring the world's unions close together to deal with "global capitalism" and thus improve the often deplorable conditions of many workers in many countries.
Closer to home, Johnson was one of the first labor leaders to give unconditional support to the LGBT movement. He was an important supporter of proposals to create a gay organization within the labor movement, despite the homophobic nature of most unions at that time. Johnson played a key role in the founding of the LGBT group that became Pride at Work in 2004.
Nancy Wohlforth, the current president of Pride at Work and now an AFL-CIO Executive Council member, had approached Johnson with the idea of such a group in 1979 and was shocked when he readily agreed it was a great idea. Wohlforth was so thankful for his help she dubbed him "an honorary lesbian."
"Walter was thrilled," Wohlforth said.
She later was the new business manager of a San Francisco secretarial union that was on strike against a union group that employed its members. Wohlforth noted that Johnson could very easily have avoided being involved, but "he dove right in."
"He walked the picket line on rainy days and led a toy drive for the strikers during the Christmas holiday. He was, as always, so concerned that workers would know that they were supported at that difficult time.
"Working people's struggles were always on his mind. I'm sure he dreamed of them every night – and he constantly was coming up with ways to make people's lives better. He truly was my hero and he will be missed so much by all who were fortunate enough to know him."
Amen to that.
Article By Dick Meister
www.dickmeister.com
|
|
It's Do Or Die For The United Auto Workers |
|
|
by
|
|
Saturday, 14 January 2012 06:22 |
Historians invariably cite the sit-down strikes at the country's auto plants in the 1930s as a key to the spread of unionization throughout the automobile industry and throughout American industry generally.
The strikes helped establish the United Auto Workers Union – the UAW – as one of the country's most economically and politically powerful, progressive and influential organizations, and its president, Walter Reuther, as one of the country's important leaders.
But that was then, when the American automobile industry was virtually unchallenged by foreign automakers. Now U.S. automakers face heavy competition from Asian and German firms, especially from the firms that have opened plants in the United States. The steady growth of the non-union plants has been accompanied by a steady weakening of the UAW. The union's membership, once in the millions, has declined to 350,000.
There are 14 foreign-owned assembly plants and several dozen parts factories now operating in the American South and Midwest – "transplants," as the UAW calls the foreign-owned facilities. The transplants have become a major part of the U.S. auto industry, accounting for the industry's only growth in the past 30 years. They employ about 50,000 workers, and as Jane Slaughter of Labor Notes reports, the workers produced more than 40 percent of all vehicles made in the United States last year.
If the UAW is to regain its power and influence and standing as a cornerstone of the labor movement, it will have to organize the transplants, whose owners are generally as hostile to unions as their American predecessors were in the thirties.
Organizing the transplants could very well be as tough – or tougher – as organizing U.S. plants was eight decades ago. In the thirties, many auto workers were already organized and able to act as a strong unified body to demand union contracts – and get them. But today, the UAW is faced with having to first convince workers to join the union and then make a unified demand for contracts from their staunchly anti-union employers, most of them based in the heavily anti-union South.
As a recent report from Reuters News Service noted, workers in the transplants "have rebuffed the union repeatedly," in large part because of heavy employer pressures on them, including not-so-veiled threats of moving their plants elsewhere.
The UAW is initially seeking union rights for workers at the facilities owned and operated by the German companies Volkswagen and Daimler. The union sees the German companies as relatively easier targets than the Japanese and South Korean manufacturers who also operate U.S. plants.
Reuters found that the UAW's failure to organize workers at the foreign-owned facilities has put the union in a financial bind. It has forced the UAW to sell some of its assets and shift money from its fund for financing strikes in order to pay for its operations. That includes trying to organize workers in the foreign-owned plants at the same time that the decline in the union's membership has greatly lessened its dues income.
Despite its financial problems, the union is planning a worldwide $60 million campaign aimed at pressuring the transplants into agreeing to elections in which their workers could freely vote for or against unionization. The UAW is hoping to get strong support for elections from other unions and its Democratic political allies.
The UAW will also need broad public support, and that may not be easy to get, given the widespread popular opinion that the automobile industry's problems stem at least in part from the relatively high pay and benefits the union has won from auto makers. The union is trying to overcome that by promising that contracts resulting from the voting would commit the UAW to sharing responsibility with employers for "quality, innovation, flexibility and value." But if the union concedes what workers perceive as too much, it may lose many potential new members.
The situation facing the United Auto Workers, long one of America's most important institutions, is indeed drastic – so drastic, says UAW President Bob King, that if the union fails to effectively organize the foreign-owned plants, the union will have no future.
King insists he is not exaggerating. "I have said that repeatedly," he declared, "and I believe it."
Article By Dick Meister
www.dickmeister.com
|
|
