Posts Tagged ‘unions’

Unions are the Unpatriot, Jihadists, Liberal, Terrorist, Atheist, Neighbor Who Wants to Kill you

In Current Events, Economics on August 20, 2011 at 19:43

Tex Shelters here, and I assert that unions are dangerous. They have done so much harm to real America that they alone are the reason we are in dire debt to China.

Back in late 1800s, the Knights of Labor cut into our profits by forcing us to consider the eight hour day. After about 50 years of labor agitation, the Adamson Act was passed in 1917. It forced railroads to institute an eight hour day and pay overtime. It is not a coincidence that this bill passed the same years as the Russian Revolution; the eight hour day was was a communist attack on America. The American Federation of Labor forced the government, through threat of strike, to cut back on worker’s hours, thus reducing our constitutional and God given right to exploit workers for maximum profit.

Union workers get higher pay which leads to inflation, and working families pay more for goods and services. Forget the fact that these same families have members in unions that make higher pay and will thus be unaffected by the slight increase in the cost of consumer goods. Forget the fact that when union workers get paid more, all workers get paid more.  No, we must focus on the inflationary effects of rising wages. And remember non-union workers: union workers are out to get you by making more money than you and getting benefits you don’t have. You must attack union workers and NOT attack the increasingly wealthy corporations and CEOs that keep cutting your pay and benefits and moving your jobs to another state or country. It is fellow workers that are out to get you, so you must get them first. Thank you.

Please America, keep thinking that unions cause unemployment, for that helps us manipulate the reserve pool of labor we have created in the United States. Yes, when a union worker makes more money than you, it means we have less money to hire more people, for we must keep our giant bonuses and luxury homes and hire more management to deal with unruly union workers and the restless unemployed. Moreover, our security costs go up as we have to defend against the retribution of the increasing number of workers we lay off. All this is the fault of unions, so go after them and leave us alone.

You must avoid unions because in a union you vote. In many unions, you vote directly on issues that affect you at work, and we don’t like direct democracy. Unions are corrupt bastions of collective people. If people work alone, like Bernie Maddoff or Martha Stewart or Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom, or Ken Lay of Enron, and many many more, then there is less room for corruption. But working collectively, like unions do, leads to corruption. For example, it was unions that forced Wall Street to commit corporate crimes and manipulate the markets leading to the recent economic collapse.

The most criminal thing that unions have done to America is to keep young children out of the work force. Unions worked with feminists, another cause of the current economic crisis, to rid the land of child labor. What did this group of mothers and laborers have against children? Women pretended to care about stunted growth, lost childhoods, lack of education, injuries and exploitation of children in factories because they were lonely at home for 10-12 hours a day as their eight-year-olds explored workplace opportunities shoveling coal and sewing garments for wealthy children.

And unions were even worse. They wanted these cushy jobs for themselves. By preventing children from working, they not only raised the cost of clothing and other goods for the people, they increased the power of unions and created a more educated, more dangerous, population of future progressives that lead to the progressive movement in the early 1900s that we have never recovered from.

Modern day unions have made our schools unsafe for god and guns. Teachers are the most dangerous type of worker left in the United States because they are the only large block of union workers left, outside of the police and firefighters. And we can’t attack the police and firefighters and get away with it. Thus, we attack the teachers because they get in the way of corporatization of the educational experience and work to prevent the dumbing down of the learning experience. If teachers weren’t in the way, we would have a population of worker drones willing to live off of slop and ready to let the Republicans and their patrons control everything from whom we vote for to where we shit.

As you can see, unions are dangerously getting in the way of our final solution for America. Won’t you join me in attacking unions and other workers and help us subjugate you?

Tex Shelters

Bosses lies about unions

The NEA Endorses a less worse Enemy in President Obama

In Current Events, Election Politics on July 7, 2011 at 18:48

Facing the reality of Republican hatred of unions and teachers, the National Education Association Representative Authority voted July 4th to endorse Barack Obama for reelection, 5,414 to 2,102. http://www.counterpunch.org/gibson07052011.html In the past, the NEA made its presidential endorsement the year of the election, but this time felt compelled to call for an endorsement a year early.
What was in it for the largest teachers union in the nation? It’s not as if Obama has been a strong ally and supporter of teachers and their unions since becoming president. President Obama voiced support Monday for the mass firings of educators at a failing Rhode Island school”  where the school superintendent fired all 93 teachers and other staff in the small Central Fall district, the poorest district in the state. “”If a school continues to fail its students year after year after year, if it doesn’t show signs of improvement, then there’s got to be a sense of accountability,” he said.” (ibid) Instead of looking at the validity of the tests, the methods of teaching, the poverty level of the area, and other factors, Obama just outright supports the superintendent over the teachers. Obama’s unwillingness to get the facts about education and testing is a hallmark for his policies such as Race to the Top.

President Obama also supports merit based pay, a system that has been found flawed on many levels. It pits teacher against teacher and limits education funds. Merit based pay ignores the reality of schools and that every year is a new challenge for every teacher and every student. It is a way to bust unions and takes the power away from the teachers and gives it to superintendents and lawmakers.

Merit based pay also rewards teachers that can fake test scores and teach to the test. It rewards prevarication. Is this really the type of teaching we want?  Race to the Top for “Obama and his Education Secretary Arnie Duncan means more testing, more uniformity, more charter schools and more punishment for creative teachers that try to help students love learning as autonomous human beings.” (link)

In total, Obama supports summary firings of teachers, merit based pay, a high stakes testing regime that punishes teachers and takes them away from actual teaching, charter schools where teachers will be less accountability to city and state standards and not have to join a union (in essence union busting), and a competitive funding model that rewards schools for following a national dictum thus crushing local autonomy. These dictums include testing and charter schools and other union busting policies.

“IN ADDITION to these backwards priorities, Obama has presided over some of the harshest attacks on public education in decades. As education scholar Diane Ravitch has pointed out, when it comes to education, Obama’s presidency has been like Bush’s third term.” (link)

So why did the NEA endorse Obama, and why did they support him so early instead of waiting for next year? Teachers are rightfully fearful of their future under a Republican regime. They might have also learned their caving technique from the example Obama has laid forth in his capitulation to the Republicans on the budget, taxes and other issues.
So instead of holding out for something better from Obama, they reacted out of fear of a Republican nation and endorsed him early. The NEA also sees that they have flagging support amongst many Democrats (see Cuomo in New York) and wanted to get on board early to boost their national stature. (link)

So, what is in it for Obama? President Obama doesn’t need the money from the teachers. He will already be getting millions from corporations and individuals. Reuters reports that the President might surpass $1 billion this election and already has the record of over $750 million dollars for his 2008 campaign. (link) Obama doesn’t really need the teachers’ money. So what does the NEA endorsement give him?

What the endorsement does is give political cover to a president whose policies amount to union busting. Generally, teachers’ unions are liberal and many people rely on endorsements to inform their voting. “Well, if the teachers endorse him, then he’s okay with me.”  It also ensures that some union members will work for his campaign, and they can be tireless workers.

However, as one teacher/delegate put it, not all were pleased by the early endorsement, “I am a building rep for the NEA.  I actually spoke personally with about 2/3 of my unionized teachers when the early endorsement – the first such in NEA history – was proposed.  Out of the more than 80 teachers with whom I spoke only one supported the early endorsement.  Many did not like giving up what little leverage the union had with the administration.” (link)

Teachers deserve better treatment than President Obama, Secretary Duncan, Congress and state governments have been rendering. Until they realize this, they will continue to act like abused children who keep expecting one parent to stand up for them against the abusive alcoholic parent. This doesn’t mean that teachers should stop voting for and supporting Democrats, it means that they need to stop working for Democrats and others that want to take away their power, pay, autonomy and careers. It means not giving an early endorsing to a President who is not an ally.

A good class based criticism of the NEA endorsement to be found at Counterpunch.

Tex Shelters

Blame Workers at Your Own Peril

In Current Events, Economics on July 4, 2011 at 04:25

Photo courtesy of Moral Low Ground at http://morallowground.com/tag/wisconsin-protests/

If you are an owner of a business, a CEO, upper management or a Congressperson, congratulations. Otherwise, with a few exceptions, you are a worker. Whenever a worker is blamed for being lazy or greedy or the cause of the economic downturn, they are blaming you. You are being blamed for the faulty management of the economy by greedy people who don’t give a damn what happens to you and will scapegoat you for their atrocious decisions. The fallout for their mismanagement of production, loans, credit, distribution and over-reaching will land on you. And the media and far too much of the American populous buys into the blame laid on the workers.

If a worker has a bad performance record or does something immoral or illegal on the job, the worker gets fired; if corporate owners or CEOs have bad performance records or do something illegal or immoral on the job, the worker gets fired. This holds true for the history of capitalism in the United States. Even though you had nothing to do with the decisions that bankrupted your firm, you will take the hit. Even in the NBA, workers take the blame for poor management decisions.

What is happening in the NBA is what has been happening to workers in all industries for at least three decades. The owners of the thirty NBA franchises are asking for their players, the workers, to take a pay cut. The owners believe the last bargaining agreement gave too much to the players, and that is why they are losing money.

According to the NBA commissioner Bug Selig, 22 of 30 teams lost money during the last NBA season. However, the data the owners use to “prove” that they are losing money is questionable. For the moment, let’s say that despite making over 4.3 billion this last season, that teams have lost over $300 million as the commissioner claims. Why have they lost this money? They claim it’s due to the contracts they pay the players. However, the owners agreed to pay these contracts.

What player wouldn’t take the extra money if it were offered them? “Sorry Mr. James (LeBron). We suddenly realized that we overpaid you by 40%, and we want $5.8 million of that $14.5 million contract back.” Good luck with that. Are movie producers going to ask big stars to give money back after their movie flops? “Sorry Mr. Hanks, you have to give back that $5 million we paid you for the movie. As for that percentage of the profits we promised you? There is no profit. The NBA owners agreed to the outrageous contracts and salaries for the players and if they can’t make a profit, it’s not the fault of the players.

In other industries the workers have it far worse. At least most of the NBA players have made millions doing something they like, and even if they do take a 40% pay cut, the average salary to throw a ball around a gym will be $2.88 million. That’s not bad at all. But workers in other industries are losing benefits, hours and jobs, much of it due to rotten management decisions.

In 2007, the U.S. auto industry was about to collapse and many people were blaming the workers’ pay and pensions for this. (Watch the Video) But the workers were not designing the cars that didn’t sell, and Toyota was doing well opening plants in the U.S. What was the difference? One can make a an argument that worker’s compensation is a huge challenge for U.S. automakers. However, it’s not current compensation that is cause of the financial trouble.

Part of the problem is that the compensation to retired workers at the big three automakers raises the average cost of compensation to oft quoted $70 and hour rate. But that includes ALL compensation to ALL workers, current and retired. Foreign companies now operating in the U.S. don’t have that pool of retired workers U.S. manufacturers promised to take care of.  In addition, the big three agreed to these contracts when there was little competition from abroad. Current workers are not to blame for management’s lack of foresight.
And do we really want to “race to bottom” as Bob Herbert of the New York Times put it, and punish those that worked 20 plus years making automobiles when the big three were really big?

Do we want to sink all boats when it means that what would come next is the lowering of everyone’s salaries or even the dream of many Republicans, including Michelle Bachmann, an end to the minimum wage?

“Life before minimum wage” is a great book project for a full time journalist like Naomi Klein to take up, but if you want a glimpse of it, read The Shame of the Cities for starters. If you want poverty statistics to be even worse and more money for billionaires, please, let’s get rid of the minimum wage. It’s already NOT a living wage. Without a minimum wage, we would have a killing wage.

Another big cost for the automakers, and other companies, is health care. Obama and the Democratic Congress made a weak stab at reducing these costs and we will see how it turns out in a couple of years when the Affordable Health Care for America Act comes into affect (2014). But the workers have nothing to do with the rising health care costs. They don’t manage HMOs or insurance companies and don’t control costs of the care that is included in their contracts. This is true for all workers, not just those in the auto industry.

Autoworkers also didn’t order the SUVs that the American public stopped buying after the rise in gas prices around 2007. But the workers take the blame when the CEOs of these companies make bad decisions and then fly private jets to ask for bailouts.

In 2007, the year before bailout negotiations, the CEOs of GM and Chrysler were paid $14.4 million and $21.7 million consecutively, not counting other forms of compensation such as stock and bonuses. (link) According to the article and sources there in, the head of Ford was paid $1 and money based on performance. And all three big three CEOs did promise to take $1 on the books after getting a bailout from us. At least these companies have been losing money, and one obvious and easy place to look for savings is payroll.

Companies that laid off the most workers since the latest recession gave out the biggest bonuses:

“A new report concludes that chief executives of the 50 firms that have laid off the most workers since the onset of the economic crisis in 2008 took home 42 percent more pay in 2009 than their peers at other large U.S. companies…Each of the 50 companies examined in the report laid off at least 3,000 workers between November 2008 and April 2010…Those CEOs include HP’s Hurd, who slashed 6,400 jobs in 2009 — a year when his compensation amounted to $24.2 million.” (link)

The message is clear: to get a large bonus, you must layoff the most workers. In fact, CEO pay now is greater than before the recession. I guess they aren’t responsible for the downturn in the economy. It’s the workers’ fault.

The latest scapegoat is the public sector workers, specifically teachers. A USA today article misleadingly states that public sector workers in 41 states make more money than private sector workers. In a very limited sense, that is true. However, when you compare all salaries of public workers, many having at least a bachelor’s degree, to workers of all kinds, including low-wage workers in companies such as Wal-Mart and McDonalds and other large department stores and fast food chains, it is not a legitimate comparison. Of course those with more invested into education, on average, will make more money, on average.
If you compare levels of education, public sector workers with equal education and experience make less than their private sector peers.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research compared compensation for public and private sector workers, and unlike the faulty USA today study, factored in age and education.  They found that while the lowest paid workers in New England, public to private, Janitors in a state office say, and a Wal-Mart worker, the public sector worker makes slightly more. And it’s not exurbanite. Janitors at Harvard, for example, can’t afford to live in the Boston area and work at the prestigious university.

Moreover, if you look at professionals working in New England with four or more years of university, public to private, the public sector workers take a “wage penalty” of 13%. That means that they earn 13% less than their counterparts in the private sector with the same experience and education. So much for overpaying the public sector workers.

Then why the attack on public sector workers? First, it scores points with the under and uneducated base of the Republican party while also scoring points with the free marketeers who see the public sector interfering with their profits. The lower wages are for everyone, the better they feel. These two groups dominate the Republican Party where much of this attack on the public sector comes from.

Take Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, please. Governor Walker wants public sector workers to give up their collective bargaining rights under the guise of state deficits. But the right to collectively bargain has nothing to do with deficits. Wisconsin was even looking at a surplus before Walker gave a round of corporate tax cuts to his friends. And once Walker was able to give those tax breaks to corporations, he had to get the money somewhere. So he went after the enemies of the Republicans, the workers, specifically those in the public sector.

Obviously, it is an attempt the bust the unions during a time of crisis while taking down a major supporter of the Democrats. And while unions, the membership and their supporters are putting their efforts into the push back against union busting, CEOs and the elite are garnering more compensation for themselves and paying less in taxes.
There is a two-fold genius in this Republican lead attack on workers in the United States. First, if Republicans and other free marketeers can get workers bickering with each other, then they are easier to manipulate. With workers divided, the corporate elite and their lackeys in Congress can easily defeat their opposition. Second, if you can bust or weaken the unions then a major barrier to total corporate control will be less of a factor.

So, keep calling Republican workers fascists and haters and keep attacking liberal workers over abortion and for being socialist and see where that gets you. You are playing right into the hands of the bourgeoisie. Or, you can go after the Corporodems and the Koch brother’s drones and others who are attacking workers. How about supporting workers against cuts to hard-earned pay and benefits instead? Abortion and god and climate change and gay marriage and Islamophobia are only distractions from the class warfare the wealthy are waging against all U.S. citizens.

Watch Noam Chomsky go after the Corporodems, Obama and others.

Join U.S. Uncut

Tex Shelters