Daily Kos

Whose Side Are You On?

Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:20:10 PM PDT

There are usually two sides to every issue. Never is it more true when it comes to the fundamental freedoms of the American people when they are at work.

There are those who take seriously the basic and fundamental right found in the US Constitution and in every other of of just about every free industrialized country:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

Then there are those who put the special interests of a small privilidged elite above those of their people.

Workers should be able to join unions if they please and employers should feel free to fire them if they do, as they should. Currently they cannot fire them, at least openly.

Free Republic

Only someone with a demented mind or a callous heart would support a one sided, employer dominated system that has resulted in 46.6 million people living without health insurance - where white collar workers see their lives crash into homelessness - where  the number of American children living in poverty is increasing at an alarming rate   and where a child dies because his mother didn't have the health insurance necessary to take care of his tooth infection.

In the last 74 years since the passage of labor law reform that actually made it legal to join a union, only on a handful of occasions has new legislation passed that benefited the American working class.  The last was in 1993 with the Family Medical Leave Act and the time before was the inception of OSHA in 1969.  That's it.

In that 74 years, the American middle class has witnessed a constant erosion in its wages and living conditions.  We went from where one parent had the option of working to where both are a necessity in one generation.  And even then, a two parent income today is hardly enough for most Americans not when you need to make at least $84,957 just to qualify for a new home.

There are those today who want to hold onto a Soviet-style system that has denied millions of Americans the chance to better their economic condition.  They represent a small, elite group of CEOs, financiers, and conservative activists who look at a larger and stronger middle class as a threat to their hold on power.  Funny how they like to call those on the left communists and pinkos when the very system they are defending resembles nothing called American but looks more like a plot setting from a Cold War era book about gulags:

Imagine a local state or national election where you are required to take Republican Party literature before entering the voting booth - while at the same time all opposing material is banned from the premises.  

Imagine the penalty for anyone caught soliciting opposition literature being the loss of their livelihood with little legal recourse.

Imagine every television station in the week leading up to the election being required to broadcast "Path to 9/11" over and over again with Red Dawn and a few other conservative - sided films thrown in for good measure.

Imagine being a fence sitter whose not sure how you're going to vote and are required to attend a mandatory briefing from a group of local authority figures in a closed room with no witnesses.

If that is not sufficient, imagine your candidate winning the election by a convincing margin, only to sit and wait for years as your opponent files objection after objection to the election.  Or maybe the opponent chooses to ignore the election - as it is done in NLRB elections and practiced by dictators such as Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

DO YOU CALL ANY OF THAT FREE, FAIR AND DEMOCRATIC?  

I don't and neither would I suspect every sane American citizen.  

Today, the grasp that the right wing and their elite friends have held onto power through a system like this will be slighlty loosened.

The House is on the verge of passing the landmark Employee Free Choice Act with a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans.  

The Act will protect the long ignored right of Americans to choose whether or not to negotiate a contract at work.  The same type of contract their employers enjoy.

60 million American workers say they would join a union if they could.  But only 15 million belong.  The current system of NLRB labor laws sis what's blocking millions from the choice of whether or they should try to enter the middle class.  

You don't have to be a union supporter to know the system needs fixing.

You don't need to be a union supporter to know which side you're on - the side of people who want to truly solve the burgeoning economic problems of the middle class or the side of people like Dick Cheney and his colleaguesn below - all of whom have histories of resisting free and open Democracy with sham elections.

cheney

cheney2

cheney3

Tags: Employee Free Choice Act, labor, unions (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 22 comments

  •  nice stats :) (8+ / 0-)

    hey Paul, nice stats! Everytime a blogger links to the DMI middle class talking points(like you did) a DMI staffer gets her wings.  Its true, I saw it in  Capra movie.

    www.DMIBlog.com Politics, Policy and the American Dream

    by DMIer on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:22:06 PM PDT

  •  The Employee Free Choice Act (5+ / 0-)

    passed the house :) 241-185

    It will face a much tougher time in the Senate, but it is great progress.

    P.S. another great diary Paul

  •  Anybody know (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, shaharazade, slksfca

    If any Dems voted against it and who were they?

    •  two dems voted against (0+ / 0-)

      I can't remember their names, but I believe it was the two Georgians who barely won in the last cycle.  They have a right to worry, and we should cut them some slack for now, but if it comes down to it and we need to overturn a veto and can scare enough Republicans, we'll have to give these guys the squeeze...

      Annui Coeptis: Novus Ordo Seclorum

      by CapitolDragoon on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 07:12:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Union or no union (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    PaulVA

    my boss needs to worry about one or I'll never get a Cola.

    And I don't mean Killer Coke.

    Americans for Effective and Equitable Government www.agilepeople.org

    by try democracy on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:32:03 PM PDT

  •  Red Dawn Isn't Conservative At All (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    PaulVA, redcardphreek

    What makes you say that? It's totally liberal.

    •  I look at it this way (0+ / 0-)

      But then I found out it was funded and pushed by the NRA.  I have no problem with gun rights (especially with the current crop of secret this and secret that) but there was some conservative influence on it.

      •  But The NRA Is Liberal (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        PaulVA

        Scroll down for the article.

        The Liberal NRA

        Last week, in a moment of banter with my co-workers (most of them confirmed Blue-Staters) who know that my hobby is IPSC competition, I commented that "No, I'm not a member of the NRA. They're too liberal."

        Big laugh. They thought I was joking.

        See? The NRA agrees with democratic speechwriters apparently that the Second Amendment says:

        Dead ducks and deer being necessary to the sportsmanship of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

        I jest... Or do I. Neither. Just making an accurate point I believe.

        We in fact live in a country that is accurately described as liberal, if not always in relation to other parts of itself. The NRA has a very different idea of the point of gun ownership than does the rulership of Iran or Venezuela for example, or than Hussein or the Taliban had. Or than the Swiss have.

  •  Great diary (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    PaulVA, Sychotic1, shaharazade

    Good pix, too.

  •  thanks great diary (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    PaulVA, Sychotic1

    This makes me feel better about congress. The progressives are starting to move legislation,that actually benefits working people. Labor is everyone except the very top, and effects us all from white collar, to migrant farm workers.

    My block used to an affordable neighborhood, my neighbor pointed out the other day that none of us here would now even be eligible for a loan. Our needed income is now 120,00o. It amazes me that so many people distrust unions and buy into the let the market settle it meme. This insanity forces us all to be working poor no matter our profession.

    "And if my thought-dreams could be seen They'd probably put my head in a guillotine" Bob Dylan

    by shaharazade on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:57:08 PM PDT

  •  I'd throw the Americans With Disabilities Act (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Pesto, PaulVA

    in with the other two you mentioned.

    When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.

    by clonecone on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 02:17:46 PM PDT

    •  Also the 1974 amendments to the NLRA (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      PaulVA

      that expanded the scope of the Act to include workers in health care institutions (IIRC, these amendments also covered workers at non-health-care-related non-profits, although they may have been covered before 1974).

      "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

      by Pesto on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 03:08:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Unions get a black eye... (0+ / 0-)

    Because most promote members based upon seniority rather than merit and everyone makes the same no matter how good or bad your work is.

  •  I don't oppose Unions per se (0+ / 0-)

    but politics as usual.

    My very limited experience with unions meant that I couldn't take a very nice job without joining one. The dues would have eaten up the income increase, and of course the union had a politics section.

    I think that if you wish to join a union you may. Period. They can negotiate on your behalf and you are a happy guy. If you don't wish to join then you can negotiate solely on your own behalf with the employer. And you are a happy guy.

    The above is philosophy, the reality is that there is no good answer.

    44 y/o male, $$ self sufficient, great w/my kids, wed 25 years, & knows that actions have logical results. How much more out the box can you get nowadays?

    by pegwinn2 on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 04:05:22 PM PDT

    •  there is a good answer (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      PaulVA

      its the system that makes the options seem unfair.  Without the general existence of unions, your salary would be much much lower at any job, let alone just at that one job, even after the union dues.

      The salary may have been the same after the dues were paid, but now you have physical and political power within the work place that you did not have before.

      So the next time you and your coworkers think you deserve a raise, your success would be much more likely.

      Wages and dues are just the tip of the union iceberg, the benefits go far beyond that and aren't always measurable in statistics and numbers....how do you measure respect?

      What you are vaguely referring to is so called "right-to-work" philosophy which has proven disastrous for unions and workers.  Can anybody help me out on comparisons to workers rights and benefits in right-to-work states? thanks!

      Annui Coeptis: Novus Ordo Seclorum

      by CapitolDragoon on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 07:32:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There was a time (0+ / 0-)

        when unions were invaluable. That time has passed I think.

        Since the majority of Americans work for small business why do I need a union? I negotiate directly with the owner.

        Since you asked about right-to-work I googled it and highlighted Texas Law.

        Based on a quick reading I see nothing disastrous except maybe for the unions themselves or perhaps for the union bosses in Texas.

        I'm not trying to be combative at all. I have never belonged to a union and only brushed against the one I described above. So if you can enlighten me, I would appreciate it.

        44 y/o male, $$ self sufficient, great w/my kids, wed 25 years, & knows that actions have logical results. How much more out the box can you get nowadays?

        by pegwinn2 on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 08:25:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good, but I contest a couple points (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    PaulVA

    I would say that the following statement is incorrect.

    In that 74 years, the American middle class has witnessed a constant erosion in its wages and living conditions.

    From 1933 when the Wagner Act was passed until the 50s and 60s when the Taft-Hartley act really started having a negative impact on unions and the global economic forces began eroding unions labor sector base the American middle class worker's condition improved dramatically.

    Saying that it has been eroding for 74 years makes it sound like the legalization of unions caused such a constant decline.  Also the statement isnt true.  I believe that it was in the early 60s or late 50s, when labor was at its peak (1/3 of labor force in a union) that wages were at their highest ever percentage of GDP, and measured up best against the cost of living.

    The famed Labor-Management Accord also contributed to this because our system works best when their is not class warfare.  Nowadays, Big Business is instigating class warfare by cutting worker's wages and benefits while fighting tooth and nail against organizing drives.

    A better statement would be to say that for two or three decades, the economy and the lives of average Americans improved relatively proportionally to the strength of the labor movement, but when the labor movement began its decline, those factors which define our standard of living began their "constant erosion" as well.  Perhaps that is what you meant to say?

    Is that not a fair assessment?

    Annui Coeptis: Novus Ordo Seclorum

    by CapitolDragoon on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 07:10:37 PM PDT

Permalink | 22 comments