MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Last week Michigan's Republican-majority legislature, with no committee meetings, no floor debate, in a rush to get this done before January when their control lessens, voted to add my beautiful state to a growing number of states--23 of them so far--that have been downgraded to what some have been led to believe is an assurance of a "Right-to-Work".
http://wearethepeoplemichigan.com/ |
Anyone coming from another country would think, reading that, that it could only be a good thing. Everybody should have the right to work, after all, and what kind of crazy country needs to legislate that?
But, as usual, the proponents have chosen a reasonable-sounding misnomer in order to cover the cruelty behind their crass actions.
What it really means is that everybody in my state will, in fact, have the right to work (as does everyone of working age on the planet), but any other right--even those that others before them have fought long and hard for--equitable wages, benefits, pensions, work-place safety, grievance representation--will be left outside the door. Those rights will no longer be rights unless the employer says they are.
State Right-to-Work laws (known as "right-to-work-for-less laws" in our circles) give approval to open shops, where union participation and the collection of union dues is voluntary, not compulsory--a simple step geared to defund and thus defang union activity.
To workers who have been convinced that the company will take care of them, who see progress in not having to pay union dues, who encourage Right-to-Work laws because it's not fair that union members make more money than they do, what is happening in Michigan and the 23 other states is a liberation of sorts. To others (like me) it's more like tumbling downhill after years of working our way up the mountain.
The people proposing Michigan's move to Right-to-Work understand that money is power--and why wouldn't they? Millions of Big Money dollars went into the campaign to make this happen. There's a reason these people hate unions. Unions attempt to give a portion of power to the working class by way of equitable wages and fairness in the workplace. All of that, of course, costs employers more money, which, if you follow their logic, is a really mean thing for their ungrateful worker-bees to try to do.
The truth is, few businesses are one-person operations. Employers need employees, and employees have a right to expect to be paid well for their efforts. The truth is, wages and benefits have stagnated in this country since the 1970s, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who would argue that it coincided with the drastic drop in union activity.
The truth is, workers need representation and the ability to collectively bargain for wages, benefits and workplace rights.
The truth is, we are stronger as a country when workplaces are seen as a shared venture, with everyone profiting. (Sometimes, it's true, the ones at the top have to be dragged into that argument, but the end result is always the same: When everybody profits, the country profits.)
So let's look at what others are saying about this:
Media Matters looks at the myths the Wall Street Journal is pushing about Right-to-Work.
Chris Savage at Eclectablog, the go-to blog for understanding Michigan political shenanigans, guest-posts about RTW on the AFL-CIO website.
Stephen Henderson, Detroit Free Press Editorial Page editor, says, "Do the Math". it never works.
Rep. Brandon Dillon (D-Grand Rapids) speaks out against the RTW bill, calling it "the freedom to freeload" (FYI: Grand Rapids is the grand bastion of conservatism in our state. We like it when Dems are represented there.)
Union activist Jamie Sanderson, from Georgetown, SC, looks at Michigan's RTW battle through other eyes.
Andy Kroll at Mother Jones weighs in, calling it a "Scott Walker showdown", after the Wisconsin governor's efforts to kill public unions in that state.
And finally, Kenneth Quinnell over at the AFL-CIO blog exposes the Koch Brothers connection with the flurry of the "right to work for less" laws in Michigan and other Republican-led states.
This battle isn't over.
I know. We say that all the time. Well, here it is again.
As long as there are people left to fight, battles are never over, and this one, the battle for worker rights in Michigan, the birthplace of the modern union movement, is a landmark battle worth fighting. Big money is prepared to fight us to the end. They want to win. They think they will win. But they've underestimated us before, and the truth is, it didn't hurt them in the least when workers won.
We didn't become a great country by caving to big interests. We became a great country by working together to build a strong and expanding middle class. And we did it because we recognized the value and worth of laborers.
And when we didn't any longer, the truth is, our great country declined.
(Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices)
Comments
This is a bloody shame, Ramona.
by Doctor Cleveland on Sat, 12/08/2012 - 1:32pm
I already addressed our wonderful situation in Minnesota which came very close to union Armageddon as well as almost every important issue a state can face.
But if people keep voting for repubs on the state level and voting for dems on the Federal level things will just get worse. I have no idea what these people are thinking although gerrymandering comes into play of course.
The repubs on the state level will continue to attack the people's right to vote which is really what this union issue is all about.
Like you say, the fight continues.
by Richard Day on Sat, 12/08/2012 - 3:43pm
Some may say that as a matter of individual liberty, people should be allowed to not join unions.
by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sat, 12/08/2012 - 3:59pm
My Frank Capra-esque ending would be that despite Right to Work laws, union membership went up ... and the more I think about it, the more I like the idea. I mean, the assumption by Republicans and the Koch Brothers, et al is that Right to Work laws would kill the unions... What if that assumption proved not to be true? Wouldn't that be the best revenge? Perhaps the unions, instead of concentrating their fight in challenging the law, should focus on explaining and showing why being a union member is so much better than not being one and then let the public vote to for the unions, rather than against the Right to Work laws ... Just a thought.
by MrSmith1 on Sat, 12/08/2012 - 5:01pm
You hit something in me!
In Mississippi it might be different.
But are the Northern folks gonna fall for this?
A billion dollars went into this last election from folks engaging the internet.
If the union men and women want some salvation; work for it!
This is a good comment.
So I hereby render unto Smith the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site; given to all of him from all of me!
THIS IS IMPORTANT.
Unions as a paradigm? or a model? need to change with the times!
by Richard Day on Sat, 12/08/2012 - 5:12pm
And a good thought at that. But how much more explaining has to be done? They're fighting against factions that have already convinced millions that unions have had their day and are no longer necessary, all evidence to the contrary.
I frankly don't know how to combat that. I see the unions putting themselves out there, trying to convince workers that they need representation, they need collective bargaining, but they're not getting through.
In the Capra film, there would be a happy ending. In real life, this is but one more nail in labor's coffin.
by Ramona on Sat, 12/08/2012 - 9:20pm
If unions are so great, why do they need to force workers to accept their "representation"? And what does it say about union's views of workers, that their best argument against Right to Work is that too many workers will "freeload" if given the choice about paying union dues?
by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 12:17am
Exactly my point. Unions should be able to make their case based on the merits. Fighting the law makes it appear that the critics are right and that unions can't compete when workers are given a choice.
by MrSmith1 on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 2:42am
I think what you and Anonymous are missing is that the unions don't force themselves into closed shops, they're voted in. Company employees have to vote on whether a union can come in to represent them. If the majority vote them in, then the agreement is that all employees will be represented and all will pay union dues. There's no other way for the unions to have the kind of power they'll need to represent the employees effectively.
The reason the Chamber of Commerce and the manufacturers associations work so hard to turn pro-labor states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana into RTW states is because the PR advantages are priceless. Up to now the northern, industrial states have been free from the powerlessness that comes with Right to Work. It was almost impossible to imagine that these states would ever go the way of the dismal south when it came to lower wages and fewer worker rights and protections.
The Koch Brothers, ALEC, and Michigan's Mackinac Center worked hard to make this happen and much of their efforts centered on just your arguments: Why should anybody be forced to pay union dues or join a union if they don't want to? The unions are too pushy, they're too greedy, they're trying to take worker rights away.
Looks like it worked, and here we are. Never mind that all evidence shows that workers in Right to Work states do not and never have benefited from all that "freedom".
by Ramona on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 8:57am
I see your point. I guess I just don't see the PR advantage of RTW laws to be all that great in today's reality. I think it was a huge advantage for Conservatives in the 1980's, when the "Greedy unions" meme of Ronald Reagan was devastating ... mostly because there was a big enough sliver of truth in it to be swallowed whole.
But after 30+ years of employers making obscene profits, often on the backs of their employees, not so much. The 21st century, where salaries for almost everyone in what used to be called the middle class, have been either stagnant or decreasing should be fertile ground for a smart, well-articulated union message that doesn't try to over-reach..
.
by MrSmith1 on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 11:28am
It's not that the union leaders aren't talking, it's that apparently nobody's listening.
Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworker's Union, is out there making the case all the time. He's a good man, passionately committed to helping America's workers get out of this hole.
Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, is out there all the time, trying to keep it real for the poor and middle class, the ones most affected by our economy's downturn.
UAW president Bob King may not be as "out there" as Gerard and Trumka, but he lets his voice be heard when it's necessary.
Add to their voices a multitude of union leaders all singing the same songs and I don't see how much more you can expect of them
Over-reach? How could anything be over-reach in this environment? Again, it sounds like buzzwords by union haters, telling them to just shut the hell up. I'm glad Walter Reuther and other like him weren't turned back by people who accused them of wanting too much too fast--or of not articulating their demands (demands, not wishes) well enough.
by Ramona on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 12:13pm
The PR advantage isn't in the RTW laws, it's in the perception that they've broken the unions. The weaker the unions the less support from all areas. Workers will think the unions can't do anything for them so why bother, and the ones looking to exploit workers will be happy as hell that once again the unions lost.
So goodbye unions.
by Ramona on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 1:22pm
New York's laws seem to make a certain amount of sense in this regard. If you enter a unionized profession, you can be forced to pay dues, to the extent that you are represented by collective bargaining. But you can, if it suits you, opt out of the union's political activity and you can refuse to pay the portion of dues that the union uses for political purposes.
by Michael Maiello on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 11:46am
This relates to a point I have discussed at length with a hard core Republican friend. He thinks it is wrong that unions have the political power that they do. He is against anything "union" and so he objects to union money going to campaign contributions, which money as you note comes out of a specified parts of the members dues, the part designated to the union's PAC. In my union experience in Texas, and I always assumed it to be the case in all states, that part of the member's dues could be set at whatever rate the member chose and it was clear that it was money allocated by the member to be used by the union to buy politicians. Union leaders begged members for bigger commitments to their PAC but could not force them. My friend would then go on to argue against my stand that if I invest in a company the management has been given no right to use a portion of my investment to buy the soul of a politician. It is not enough that CEO's that make millions and pay a lower tax rate than me can contribute as much as they choose to, they should also be be able to confiscate some portion of my investment money to give to the candidate of THEIR choice which is almost certainly not the one I would choose to give MY money to.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 1:19pm
I don't see it as "buying" politicians, I see it as supporting politicians who will work for the workers.
It's always interesting to me that nobody is offended by big business's support groups and the dues they pay in order to belong, but let the lowly worker want that same kind of support and all hell breaks loose.
by Ramona on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 1:26pm
I really don't get how people can look at our system and conclude that the problem is that workers have too much power over politicians. I, for one, am tired of being pushed around by those fat cat teachers, fire fighters, transit workers and machinists.
by Michael Maiello on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 2:06pm
This sounds like a communism.
Now I aint sayin' you are a communism.
I am just sayin' that you-all sound like a communism.
the end
by Richard Day on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 2:10pm
Sounds ta me like common sense. And common sense is for commernists!
by Michael Maiello on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 4:17pm
(Sarcasm alert ...) Well sure, the whole problem with public education, and the reason we desperately need to privatize education, is the all-powerful, evil teacher's union. Want proof? Albert Shanker, a one-time head of the teacher's union, had an atomic bomb ... and started a nuclear war ... So I guess, in fairness, it's about time the poor, put-upon people who so graciously let us work for them, get some fair treatment for a change.
by MrSmith1 on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 2:48pm
Have you ever wondered why the once mighty unions never used their political and financial clout to acquire a significant enough ownership in major companies to influence wages and benefits from the inside? For example, why did the UAW wait until 2011 when their influence was waning to seek seats on GM, Ford and Chrysler boards?
More to the point, why did they not use their financial strength to increase their share holdings in these companies back when they needed their first bailout back in the 70s and again more recently. With a big enough ownership stake, they could have had more than one seat on each board as well as significant influence on management.
Why did they, labor, choose confrontation and coercion to wring concessions from capital over beating them at their own game?
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 2:48pm
Gee, I don't know. Maybe because their role is to represent workers and not seek to own shares of the companies where workers are employed?
The UAW, AFL-CIO and the Steelworkers unions, for example, represent workers in many different companies. What would be the advantage to spending worker dues on single company shares?
They shouldn't have to "beat them at their own game" in order to "wring concessions" from them. They should stand their ground--confront--based on equity and fairness. Their strength is in their ability to represent the employees and bargain for wages, benefits and rights. Becoming a part of the company would only undermine those efforts.
I, frankly, don't see that happening. I would be sorely disappointed in them if they did go that route.
by Ramona on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 3:41pm
I did try but I guess I should have tried harder not to inflame.
I was not suggesting the unions use all their resources to buy one whole company. The automakers were and are public companies and it is not as if the unions you mentioned do not already have investment divisions who own a sizeable amount of their stocks, among other securities Some times controlling interest in a troubled company can be had with as little as 5-10% ownership. Why not seize the opportunity of hard times and low share prices gain a greater degree of control over management?
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 4:38pm
Didn't mean to snarl, Emma. It was those words "confrontation" and "coercion" that did it, I guess. I don't see bargaining as "confrontation". and I don't know where "coercion" fits in.
But I do value your opinion, even when I don't necessarily agree.
by Ramona on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 5:12pm
It's an interesting topic. And, it's been tried. trkingmomoe, just below, talks about some examples. United Airlines is another. I suspect, unfortunately, that employee ownership or board representation doesn't solve everything because, at a certain point, there is a real tension between the needs and desires of owners and labor (and customers, for that matter).
by Michael Maiello on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 4:47pm
If you work for a company has or that wants to establish an ESOP, beware. It is highly likely that current inside owners are looking to cash out.
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 5:01pm
That's a really interesting point. If the owners can't sell to a competitor or investment fund, selling to the employees, especially over time in a managed way, definitely serves their interest.
Now, "the owners looking to cash out" doesn't necessarily mean the business doesn't have a future. It could be a personal decision or a need for eventual liquidity or, in many cases, for estate planning purposes (the kids say they'd prefer cash to the business). But there is a "they sold, you bought" element to this. The owners obviously want to sell at a premium. Whether or not the business is worth it, in the long run, is always an open question.
by Michael Maiello on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 6:10pm
Yes.... and why I said beware and not avoid. Whether it makes sense depends on many factors. Still think employee ownership of public shares trumps private shares. Easier, maybe truer, valuations and more liquidity.
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 6:19pm
The tension between labor and management never goes away. It's expected on both sides. Whenever labor capitulates, expecting some sort of compromise, it's a sign from the big guys that they're dealing with weaklings and the discussion is over.
Whenever management capitulates, hell freezes over.
by Ramona on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 5:03pm
Almost reminds me of Democrats and Republicans...
by Michael Maiello on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 6:11pm
by trkingmomoe on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 4:15pm
Questioning whether unions have done their best by labor is not the same as being completely against them. Unfortunately the way our current economy is structured, they are often necessary sticks to get capital and the politicians it owns to do the right thing.
Would you by chance be a UPS teamster? If so, I have so many questions I would like to ask.
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 4:57pm
by trkingmomoe on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 6:52pm
yes, Trking, I think we created a monster with this election. They don't take losing lightly. This is just the beginning of the takeover ambushes. If we can't convince enough people that there are factions out there willing to destroy this country for their own gain, we're in big trouble.
by Ramona on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 5:25pm
We might be going down, Mona, but we're going down kicking and screaming.
Partial transcript from Electablog....
I loved the applause at the end.
by wabby on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 6:40pm
That was great, wasn't it? I have it on my list above, too. I love the fact that he's a Dem from Grand Rapids. That must be a first!
(I just watched it again, thanks to your posting of the video. I'll never get tired of it. )
by Ramona on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 7:12pm
Durn. I missed where you had already posted it.
No kidding. A Dem from DeVosland is like finding a sacred unicorn in an evil forest.
There's supposed to be some kind of a gathering in Lansing to protest. It will be interesting to see if it will bring out more folks than did the v*gina uproar.
One of my kids lives in Lansing now. I'll have to phone him and find out if he'll be in the crowd.
by wabby on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 7:22pm
Just got this from Chris at Eclectablog. Wisconsin union members are on their way to Michigan to rally against RTW on Tuesday.
by Ramona on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 7:34pm
Gonna be a party, looks like.
by wabby on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 8:24pm
by trkingmomoe on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 7:53pm
Are you a bettin' woman, momoe? 'Cause I'll bet you a fancy cake pan no one will hear peep one from the MSM about any of the protesters showing up at the capital in Lansing. The Michigan papers will cover it but it won't go national. The only way to keep the people motivated is to keep it going in the blogs.
by wabby on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 8:18pm
Ed Schultz and MSNBC's cameras will be there. This is right in his wheel house. It is good for several exclusive shows. By the way he ranks twice in the top 20 news shows in his 8 and 11 PM time slots. He and Rachel have the 2 most watched news shows outside of Fox news. MSNBC will be all over it because they have been climbing in the ratings and want to keep them up now that the election is over. NBC will show clips on Tuesday evening broadcast if their cameras are there.
Oh I don't need any more fancy pans. I just got done moving them all to a larger closet. LOL Which do you want? Vintage or new bundt pan.
by trkingmomoe on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 9:04pm
I'm betting Rachel will be on top of it, too. She won't be there, but she'll be reporting the activities. I don't know how much good any of that does, but it's a great morale boost for the people making the effort to rally.
by Ramona on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 9:19pm
No cable or satellite for me so I'm clueless about MSNBC shows. But, good for them if they have their cameras there. (We are also out of range for an NBC station so no help there either.) I've seen one story from AP so maybe there will be a bigger MSM presence than Wisconsin got. I hope so.
I don't need any more fancy cake pans either! hahahaha I seldom use the ones I do have!
by wabby on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 9:52pm
Here you go, Flower. All the good stuff is in clips. You can find all the other guys there, too, on the banner. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/
by Ramona on Sun, 12/09/2012 - 10:22pm
I don't have cable or satellite either but I watch all the clips every day from the night before's show. I am sure their following is just as high on internet and have a larger viewership all total then the top fox news shows. I can't imagine any one wanting to keep up with fox on the internet. They would just listen to Rush and call their grandkids to talk them through their computer errors.
by trkingmomoe on Mon, 12/10/2012 - 2:16am