Workers are repairing the facade of the building where we rent our winter apartment. They started on the 17th floor on January 2 and today they've finally made it to the fourth floor, and right now they're drilling and chiseling and scraping away the old finish right outside the window next to my desk.
We've gotten to know them over the days we've been here and they're funny and polite and happy and at least two of them have pretty good voices when they sing. I don't want to think like this but I'm way south of the Mason-Dixon line, so here goes: Even though they're white, I'm reminded of the old plantation slaves. Not because they're funny and polite and happy and can sing -- no, that would be stereotyping -- but because my husband just came in, spitting with rage, to tell me that they're working out there in the cold (and in the heat when it's hot), on a swaying scaffold, working a 79 1/2-hour work week, and they're getting no overtime.
It started like this: My husband went out to kibitz and said, joking, "Don't you guys ever have a day off?" (Because this has been going on non-stop every day since we got here, including Saturdays and Sundays) And one of the guys said, "Ha! You got it! I worked 79 1/2 hours last week." And my husband, joking, said, "Wow, you better be getting some good overtime."
And the guy looks at him like he's from Michigan or something (the old Michigan, not this new one), and says, "There's no overtime."
And my husband says, not joking now, "They can't do that. It's against the law. You're entitled to overtime if you work more than 40 hours, and they could get in big trouble if they don't give it to you."
And one of them says, "Yeah, we know. But if we complain we could lose our jobs."
So that's that. They're out there singing. And I'm writing this on the dining room table because I can't think in there with all the noise. And it turns out I can't think out here, either, because, try as I might, I don't know what I'm supposed to say now.
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".
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.
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.
Nearly every morning lately I wake up feeling as though my heart is ripping out of my chest. My loves are still my loves, my health is okay, and it looks like there's a chance my measly but adequate bank account may outlive me, so for a while there the cause of these major palpitations was a bit of a mystery.
I'm slow sometimes, I admit, but I've had my suspicions. Now it's official: it's my country that is breaking my heart. My country has nearly lost her mind. She falls for any smooth-talking con man who promises eternal prosperity but who's actually reveling in finding new ways to rob her blind. For quite a few decades there, I thought she was big enough and bold enough, with a heart strong enough (and a memory long enough) to see past the big bucks and slick facades and recognize the same old deviltry that has plagued her so often before. But it's no use pretending. She has lost her sizzle and maybe even her will to live. She's giving up.
What a blow to those of us who've been desperately trying to think of ways to stop this madness. (And what madness to think we actually could.) We've hammered, we've hollered, we've cajoled, we've used humor when nothing was funny. We've marched, we've sung, we've preached, we've even tried voting. Nothing has worked.
Now a number of sovereign states have moved in for the kill and it's likely they'll be the ones big enough to put the final nails in the coffin. Even the states you would think should know better* have been seduced into voting against their own best interests by the big money power-mongers. One by one, they're giving control over to "small-government" campaigners who, once in office, are enjoying the hell out of yanking off the wool they've pulled over so many eyes. (*Read my own besieged Michigan, expected to be the first of the 50 states to turn wholly and officially private.)
Much time and energy is spent citing articles and providing links to some brilliant arguments against what's been happening to our country. (Joseph Stiglitz has a chilling rundown of the takeover in the May Vanity Fair.) But frankly, words -- even brilliant words-- can't save an entire nation. Words can anger us and encourage us and enlighten us, but being aware is a far cry from being in charge. Ask any prisoner or slave.
Stiglitz writes in Vanity Fair: "Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business."
Even 180 years ago it was wishful thinking on de Tocqueville's part. We've always had the self-interest groups among us and they've rarely been in danger of properly understanding. They've always dreamed of taking over and running things their way. They've always tried to pretend that the "Democracy" tag doesn't exist. But we've always had clearer heads prevailing, knocking them sideways before their power and greed got completely out of hand. Up until now. Now it appears their ruthless tenacity has finally paid off.
We know who they are. They operate out in the open without fear of incarceration or retribution or even of losing the least little bit of their fortunes. They can't lose. Their big money is safely kept far from these shores and there's nothing we can say or do that will hurt their feelings or make them think any less of themselves. These are the people bent on forcing our country to her knees in order to line their own pockets and feel the power. These are the people Jim Hightower describes in his must-read column:
Funded and orchestrated by such hard-core, anti-laborite billionaires like the Kochs, DeVoses, Bradleys, Scaifes, Coorses, and Waltons, the right wing has declared open season on public employees. But don't think that the assault by corporate extremists stops there. Using the GOP and the tea partiers as their political foot soldiers -- they intend to dismantle the public sphere, crush all unions, downsize the entire middle class, and banish egalitarianism as an American ideal. Ready or not, our nation has devolved into a new and nasty civil war, with moneyed elites now charging into legislatures and courts to separate their good fortunes from the working class and to establish themselves as a de facto plutocracy.
My country is breaking my heart. What hurts the most is how easily she gave up. I never thought I would see this once-proud nation lying in a rusted heap, bankrupt and riven and the laughingstock of the world. I thought she was as much a fighter as the men and women who worked so long and so hard to keep her strong. I never once thought she'd forget where she came from and let us down.
*
*
Okay, this was the week of Charlie Sheen. He was all over the place (in more ways than one) and actually set a Guinness World Record by opening a Twitter account and getting a million followers in 25 hours and 17 minutes. (Thereby giving some credence to his semi-delusional "Rock Star of the Planet" claim.)
But there are a few of us who would rather be talking about his "Two and a Half Men" co-star, Jon Cryer. William K. Wolfrum (known affectionately as "Wolfie" to a teeny-tiny contingency) set aside his vast storehouse of wild Charlie Sheen events and went digging for the real Jon Cryer, instead. Yay and yay--and may I say? Yay.
***
I have a confession to make. It has to do with my addiction to the Academy Awards, so if you're not interested, or if you think it may drastically change your image of me for the worst, then it's on to the next piece with you--with my blessing.
I have never missed watching the Oscars since their very first telecast on March 19, 1953. Not one. I've slept through parts of them, and groaned through many of them, but I have a reputation to uphold now, and I guess this is how it will be until the end of (my) time. In my small circle it is known as "Mona's Only Claim to Fame", and I hang onto it for dear life.
So this year I sat through it, and only fell asleep for what I'm guessing was about 5 minutes, 31 seconds. If I could have timed my naps to James Franco's appearances, I would have been almost as happy as I was when "The King's Speech" won best picture. I like the guy and I hate to add to the pile-ups on whatever the heck he thought he was doing up there, but man, he was dreadful. (Anne Hathaway clearly saw she was in the middle of a train wreck and was trying not to panic, but there were moments when I thought she was going to tear off one of her many dresses and run screaming out of the theater.)
But for Franco, it wasn't over even when it was over. He got into a Tweet war with a 20-year-old fellow Yalie (He's working on a Doctorate in English at Yale), and she posted this about him in her blog: "Combined with his Oscars hosting performance and in accordance with the opinion of commenter's [sic] on my last blog, I'm becoming convinced that James Franco's whole life is a form of postmodern performance art. In that context, his Twitter fits right in." Oh, ouch. That's harsh.
***
Here, I'll insert the joke that has gone so viral I think I saw it on a banner streaming off the back of a plane the other day. It's too long for a bumper sticker, otherwise it would be there, too. It's everywhere, and now it's here because I love it:
"A public union employee, a tea party activist, and a CEO are sitting at a table in the middle of which sits a plate with a dozen cookies. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, 'Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie.'"
***
But on to the serious political stuff: John Boehner's House is dumping the Green, cornstarch-based tableware in the House cafeterias and replacing it with the petroleum-based, non-biodegradable plastic of the olden days. Take THAT you Greenies! Take THAT, Nancy Pelosi! Want more salt rubbed in those wounds? The contract for the Styrofoam cups went to a former Koch Industries executive. It's just one thing after another, isn't it?
***
But there are lemons and then there is lemonade. Ever wondered how you could get that grin off of John Boehner's happy/sad/happy/sad/happy face? As often happens in periods of adversity there comes a shining moment of resourceful brilliance. This was just one little sparkle, but I'm in awe of the person who started this one: On the Planned Parenthood donation page there is a link to "Honorary Giving". There is a button for "I would like to make this gift in honor of" Then a fill-in the-blank where John Boehner's name could go. Then an address block where an acknowledgment will be sent to: John Boehner!
So. . .Donate $5 to Planned Parenthood and do it in John Boehner's name. He'll receive as many acknowledgments from Planned Parenthood as there are those of us who decide to do it. So come on, let's do it!
This was another week where Wisconsin labor kept the lights on. I can't let this go without bringing in a bright moment from that on-going effort to defend the rights to representation for people in Wisconsin and all across the country. This is Marge Holicek, a 92 year-old woman who was a proud member of the union and is still out there fighting for their rights:
Last week Mother Jones (not the magazine) was on the move again. When the AFL-CIO headquarters in Frankfort, KY sold their building, the union moved the Mary Harris ("Mother") Jones monument that had stood outside of the old building to it's new digs in Paducah. The seven-ton stone work went through rain and sleet and flat tires and pig farms on its journey to its new home, and honestly, you would think it was Mother Jones herself pushing them on, giving them strength, whipping their butts to get the job done. Yay, they did it! And they're claiming not a single cuss-word was uttered. (Not sure Mother Jones would have approved of that.)
But this gives me an excuse to use this MJ quote: "I asked a man in prison once how he happened to be there and he said he had stolen a pair of shoes. I told him if he had stolen a railroad he would be a United States Senator."
Speaking of things porcine (Not Mother Jones. Oh, God, no!), the Department of Natural Resources and Environment says there are 3,000 to 5,000 feral pigs scattered across 65 of Michigan's 83 counties, and they've declared them an invasive species. The headline read: Michigan Declares War on Pesky Feral Pigs. I declare. I've been in almost every one of Michigan's counties at one time or another, and I've never, ever, ever heard tell of a feral pig being spotted in any of them.
So, reading further. . .there are at least 65 private swine-hunting preserves in Michigan. Uh huh. Now we're getting somewhere:
Owners of hunting preserves — at least 65 swine hunting sites are in Michigan — said their security measures are adequate and the threat of wild pigs is overstated. But the DNRE, farmers and some hunters say the bristly boars are wreaking havoc. The pigs, considered to be omnivores, eat practically anything, including endangered wild plants, the eggs of game birds, young deer or lambs, reptiles and farm crops. "They will really rip up a farmer's fields," DNRE spokeswoman Mary Detloff said. "Overnight, they can destroy acres of corn and wheat. They dig wallows 3 feet deep and 5 feet wide, which are a real danger to farming equipment." The pigs, which can maintain a running speed of 15 mph and are capable of bursts of 30 mph, are generally viewed by state officials as big cockroaches with tusks. The DNRE has essentially OK'd shooting the pigs on sight. "Basically, our policy is shoot first and ask questions later," Detloff said
Sarah Palin appeared on the Christian Broadcasting Network the other day to give her views on Obama and Egypt and that 3 AM phone call, and, as usual, it's a dazzler. She's not all that enthused in regards to. . .something, which, I admit, passed over me because I was busy looking at the backgrounds. There was a big old smiley Reagan face picture strategically placed behind David Brodey, the interviewer. In the bookcase behind Sarah, just to the right, a strategically placed book about Reagan, again with the smiley face. I heard the word "volatile" but it got past me because my mind was elsewhere. I'm always waiting for that high C--the highest note she can reach before she has to run back down the scale. Fascinating!
Michelle Bachmann spoke at CPAC this year and got that crowd going! They especially liked the part at the end about Free Drinks for Everybody. Yep, Bachmann offered to pick up the bar tab for all 11,000 attendees. Limit of one, of course. Tim Pawlenty says he's going to do it, too, today. Oh, those Republican hi-jinxers! Are they special, or what?
So you probably heard that Arianna Huffington sold HuffPo to AOL this week? Did this shock you, too? No? You always were smarter than me:
There are also some indications that she has sold out in the ideological sense and committed the Huffington Post to joining the mainstream media - the evil "MSM" of "HuffPo" blogger ire. Announcing the deal, she and her new boss went out of their way to say that the new Huffington Post would emphasize things other than the liberal politics on which the brand was built. AOL Chairman Tim Armstrong said he thinks "Arianna has the same interest we do, which is serving consumers' needs and going beyond the just straight political needs of people." Huffington agreed, boasting that only 15 percent of her eponymous site's traffic is for politics (that's down from 50 percent a couple of years ago), and she emphasized that politics is just one of two dozen "sections," including a new one devoted to covering divorces. "It's time for all of us in journalism to move beyond left and right," Huffington said Monday on PBS's "NewsHour." "Truly, it is an obsolete way of looking at the problems America is facing."
I used to think I knew Arianna (strictly in the sideline sense. I really don't know anybody), the Arianna of "Pigs at the Trough", "Fanatics and Fools" and "Third World America". But now. . .Arianna, I hardly knew ye. girl. Granted, I don't understand a word you say when you speak, but I thought I was reading you loud and clear in your books. Just goes to show. . .fool me once, shame on me, fool me thrice, shame on. . .yeah.
There is no question that Arianna has cojones, but does she have Baals? No, that would be silly. It's Fort Wayne, Indiana, that has the Baals. Or, had. I was sorry to hear there will be no Harry Baals building in Fort Wayne, Indiana any time soon. We could have kept that hoary joke going for years.
But speaking of. . . I guess you heard about Alan Simpson's Green Weenie comment? Rachel Maddow takes it on in Debunktion Junction and adds some other great Simpson doozies. (You just have to get through the Jeb Bush stuff but it's worth it) Candy Crowley's reaction? Priceless.
So, okay, we're going from the ridiculous to the sublime--or at least somewhere in between. President Obama went to Marquette, Michigan on Thursday to talk up his plan to make wireless available to 98% of the U.S. He chose Marquette, not because it's the most beautiful "city" in the entire Upper Peninsula, bar none, but because the entire town and the surrounding area up to 40 miles beyond is wired and nobody has to pay a penny for it. (Promo spot: If you ever get a chance to go to Marquette, you would be a fool not to do it, it's that great. And while you're up there you could go up the road to Ishpeming and visit Da Yooper Tourist Trap and Museum, where you'll find Big Gus, the world's largest running chain saw, and you could buy a poster of the best Upper Peninsula outhouses.)
But understandably, when President Obama visited Marquette yesterday (100 miles from my birthplace, if you care), the whole place went nuts. They even gave him a Stormy Kromer hat!
But besides Obama's visit to the U.P, Michigan was in the news big time earlier in the week, on Super Bowl Sunday. You who don't know and love Detroit may not be able to understand it, but the Eminem/Chrysler homage to our city caused a whole bunch of us to get really, really teary. I wrote my own homage to Detroit in November, 2009 (it still gets more hits than any other post on my blog), and there have been many others, but nothing could make as much of an impact as that two-minute sizzler of an advertisement:
And here is my cartoon of the week. It's by Mike Thompson for the Detroit Free Press:
The reasons for the stillbirth of the new progressive era are many and much discussed. There's the death of liberal and moderate Republicanism, the reluctance of some administration officials and congressional Democrats to challenge the banks, the ever-larger role of money in politics (see reluctance to challenge banks, above), the weakness of labor, the dysfunctionality of the Senate -- the list is long and familiar. But if there's a common feature to the political landscapes in which Carter, Clinton and now Obama were compelled to work, it's the absence of a vibrant left movement.
Alas, it's true. The "left movement"--the true left movement, not the middle-of-the-road "Progressives" nor the loony "Lefties"--is no longer vibrant. We lost our glow long ago, when we decided the worst thing we could ever do to ourselves was to get in the position of being considered Socialists. We even dropped "social programs" from our lexicon lest someone should suspect us of Commie leanings. Then we dropped social programs altogether, just in case.
We either forgot or ignored the real contributions unions had brought us since before our grandparents were young, and turned on them just when we needed them the most. We let the actor Ronald Reagan make the first incision and then stood back, wringing our hands, while the strength of our labor movement slowly seeped away.
Our voices were no more than mere whispers when American jobs by the millions moved to foreign countries. No representative howls from these quarters when American manufacturing and American wages moved toward the downslide while corporate America's profits went soaring through the stratosphere.
We never completely bought the notion that all was right with the world, that our path to prosperity was named "deregulation", that the people in power had even a nibble of a clue, but every time we turned around someone wicked or more cunning was stealing our soapbox. So we shut up. Or so it seemed, for all the good our grousing and complaining did.
For eight long Bushwhacked years, we moaned and groaned and predicted the predictable outcomes. And when they came, we got nothing for our troubles except to be able to utter a wholly unsatisfying "We told you so". Because for eight long Bushwhacked years we, the Liberals afraid to speak our own name, had no real leaders.
Nobody stood out as the one willing and courageous and strong enough to take on corrupt big government and big business (even more dazzlingly corrupt). We've had many voices--many fine voices--like Eleanor Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, MLK, Walter Reuther, Cesar Chavez, Barbara Jordan, Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Anthony Weiner, Sheldon Whitehouse, Byron Dorgan (Yes, I've heard--but he still has a voice), Elizabeth Warren, Bill Moyers, Rachel Maddow. We've had Molly Ivins, Michael Moore, Jim Hightower, and now Al Franken, who's laughing all the way to the Hill.
But where is the one strong leader leading the charge to help put our country back together again? To take on the jammers and scammers in high places? To demolish the Fat Cats' havens? To get people back to work? To keep families healthy and safe, without poverty looming? For awhile there, we thought it was going to be Barack Obama. For a while, I think even Barack Obama thought it was going to be him. But it isn't. It's clear he's not the one.
No leader. Oh, well. . .so be it.
What??
Wait, that was last year. This year--2010--we're going to have to do it ourselves. We who see ourselves as the perennial, ineffectual caretakers are going to have to make our presence known. Don't answer to "Liberal", I don't care. Call yourselves "Progressives", I don't care. Just do what liberals have always done. Help the poor, feed the hungry, nurture the children, restore human dignity, and advocate, always, for equity and honesty.
This year is the year of the PEOPLE. We are the people. Only we can make it happen. We can't do it alone. We can't even do it with rooms full of like-minded people. In order to be heard, we have to do it by the millions. There are millions of us out of work with nothing but time on our hands. There are millions of us who are retired, with no real schedule, who remember what it was like when the middle class was on top and want that back again. There are millions of us with brain power and skills working at no-hope jobs through no fault of our own. And there are millions of us who are union members who need a refresher course in labor struggles and organized ass-kicking.
2010. The Year of the People. Last I looked, that's us.
On Tuesday two emails appeared in my box, both asking me for help in doing something about the sorry state of labor in this country. One was from John Sweeney, the outgoing AFL-CIO president. This is his message in its entirety:
Dear Ramona,
Yesterday at the opening session of the 2009 AFL-CIO Convention in Pittsburgh, I had the opportunity to thank my family, staff and labor leaders from across the country and around the world for their commitment, personal sacrifice and hard work during the past 14 years. Today, I want to thank you.
I've loved our labor movement all my life. There is no greater honor than the opportunity to serve working people. It has been an amazing 14 years, and together we transformed the debate over globalization and helped redefine the global labor movement as a champion of workers' rights. We called the hand of the greedy corporations that sent our jobs overseas, scammed our mortgage markets and nearly destroyed our economy.
We brought health care and labor law reform to the top of our national agenda. We seated a pro-working-family majority in the United States Congress. We elected a champion of working families as the first African American president in the history of our country.
We changed the direction of our country, and we should be just as proud of how we changed our movement. We built the strongest grassroots political operation in our country and brought hundreds of thousands of union volunteers into the fight to protect the dreams we share. We knew we were faced with building a movement on changing ground, and we reached out to organizations and workers outside our walls.
At the opening of our 2009 convention, I'm filled with optimism. We've helped create one of those rare moments when history invites dramatic improvement in the human condition.
But the excitement over our possibilities is tempered by the realities of our times. We're seeing glimmers of an economic recovery, yet nearly 20 million of our brothers and sisters are still without work. The poor and the out-of-work are no longer invisible or abstract figures—they're our friends and neighbors, our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters.
We're on the cusp of the greatest advance in labor law reform in 70 years, but we're taking heavy fire from the corporate captains of deceit. We're closer than ever to winning our long struggle for universal health care, but our success has kindled a firestorm of meanness stoked by politicians playing on fear, racism, nativism and greed.
Every one of our achievements represents unfinished business—and the tasks we're challenged with are daunting. But if there is one thing we've learned over the past 14 years, it is this: Miracles present themselves on the shoulders of commitment, unity and action.
At the center of these is unity—the solidarity that flows through the marrow of our movement. For us, solidarity is more than just a strategy, it's a way of life. We believe in helping each other. We care about our brothers and sisters.
Solidarity is what gives workers the collective courage to form a union, to fight back against a greedy employer.
Solidarity is what compelled thousands of first responders and construction workers to risk their lives at Ground Zero eight years ago last Friday.
Solidarity is what saved 155 airline passengers who could have drowned in the icy waters of the Hudson River.
Solidarity is what compels a firefighter to dive into an inferno to save a stranger, a teacher to refuse to give up on a child or back off from a battle with a school board. Now it is up to you to bring even more solidarity, revive our economy and make it work for everyone.
We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act and help millions of America's workers lift their lives and realize their aspirations. We will guarantee every family in America health care when they need it. And we will be true to our enduring mission of improving the lives of working families, bringing fairness and dignity to our workplaces and securing economic and social equity in our nation.
That's our mission, that's our job—let's get at it.
John J. Sweeney
AFL-CIO President
Labor Warrior At-Large
It started, "Dear Ramona", and was signed by Mark Mix, head of NRW. (Somewhere down the road, I either accidentally wandered onto their website or they got my email address from somewhere and added me to their list. However it happened, I've been getting regular emailings from them. At first, I couldn't believe what I was reading and I almost took my name off of their list. But then the "know your enemy" strategy kicked in and so, when I can stomach it, I venture into enemy territory and open one of their links.)
But what struck me about those two emails was the stark contrasts of opinion about the same issue. Who is right? (The question is rhetorical. I know the answer.)
Mark Mix (no relation to Tom Mix, he says. That should make Tom very happy.) and his crowd want me to believe that:
The Right to Work principle--the guiding concept of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation--affirms the right of every American to work for a living without being compelled to belong to a union. Compulsory unionism in any form--"union," "closed," or "agency" shop--is a contradiction of the Right to Work principle and the fundamental human right that the principle represents. The National Right to Work Committee advocates that every individual must have the right, but must not be compelled, to join a labor union. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation assists employees who are victimized because of their assertion of that principle.
Meanwhile, the AFL-CIO wants me to believe they're wrong:
To set the record (and the name) straight, right to work for less doesn’t guarantee any rights. In fact, by weakening unions and collective bargaining, it destroys the best job security protection that exists: the union contract. Meanwhile, it allows workers to pay nothing and get all the benefits of union membership. Right to work laws say unions must represent all eligible employees, whether they pay dues or not. This forces unions to use their time and members’ dues money to provide union benefits to free riders who are not willing to pay their fair share.
Mark Mix and pals ask, What effect does a Right to Work law have on a state's standard of living?
The National Right to Work Committee has called attention to the fact that Right to Work states enjoy a higher standard of living than do non-Right to Work states. Families in Right to Work states, on average, have greater after-tax income and purchasing power than do those families living in non-Right to Work states, independent studies reveal. What's more, Right to Work states have greater economic vitality, official Department of Labor statistics show, with faster growth in manufacturing and nonagricultural jobs, lower unemployment rates and fewer work stoppages.
The AFL-CIO says the opposite:
Right to work laws lower wages for everyone. The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167).[1] Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549).[2] Working families in states without right to work laws have higher wages and benefit from healthier tax bases that improve their quality of life.
While Mark Mix and posse see smoke signals on the horizon:
How does compulsory unionism affect government policy?
Compulsory unionism is primarily responsible for the Tax-and-Spend policies of the U.S. Congress. Under their federally-granted coercive powers, union officials collect some $4.5 billion annually in compulsory dues and funnel much of it into unreported campaign operations to elect and control congressional majorities dedicated to higher taxes and increased government spending.
The AFL-CIO sees a safe haven:
Right to work endangers safety and health standards that protect workers on the job by weakening unions that help to ensure worker safety by fighting for tougher safety rules. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher in states with right to work, where unions can’t speak up on behalf of workers.[3]
Mark Mix sees coercion everywhere but in the boss's office:
What is "exclusive representation"?
"Exclusive representation" is the special coercive privilege, given by federal law, that empowers union officials to represent all employees in a company's bargaining unit. This "compulsory union representation" deprives employees, even in Right to Work states, of their right to bargain for themselves. Union officials demand this power, then use it as their excuse to force employees to pay dues for representation they do not want.
The unions see it as protection: Federal law already protects workers who don’t want to join a union to get or keep their jobs. Supporters claim right to work laws protect employees from being forced to join unions. Don’t be fooled—federal law already does this, as well as protecting nonmembers from paying for union activities that violate their religious or political beliefs. This individual freedom argument is a sham.
The email from Mark Mix might have scared the beejesus out of me if I hadn't already seen his kind in action before. He said:
During the last elections, Big Labor spent more than a BILLION dollars in forced-dues cash to create a national tidal wave of victories for its handpicked candidates.
Now they’re demanding PAYBACK!The union bosses are moving at lightning speed to ram through the most extreme socialistic items on their agenda --they’ve been waiting decades for exactly this moment!But at the very top of their agenda are moves to seize more special privileges for coercive unionism. In fact, forced unionism power grabs are at the very heart of the bailout bills, health care overhaul bills, and numerous other laws being pushed by Congress right now.
Man! Where do I sign up? But. . .what's this?
Now I’m writing to all of the Foundation’s best supporters because, according to my calculations, if you and our other most generous supporters gave a gift of $250 to the Foundation today, it would be enough to fully fund the rest of our 2009 program.
I realize that $250 is a lot to ask, but so much is at stake.
You see, I know a few people won’t give at all right now. They will count on others to carry their load.
That's why, if at all possible, I ask you for a very generous contribution of $500.
That may be more than you’ve given in a single gift before, but I hope you will seriously consider digging this deep.
More than anything, such a request is a testament to just how critical the Foundation’s ongoing projects and financial needs are.
But, if I can count on generous donors like you to give such a contribution now, I could put aside any thoughts of scaling back our program and focus on the business of challenging Big Labor’s abuses.
I hope you understand how much is at stake.
With the resources provided by your contribution, the Foundation can maintain and perhaps even increase its aggressive attack on Big Labor’s compulsory unionism schemes. Your support could not come at a better time than now, given the challenges we face.
We’ve been able to rely on you before, and I’m hoping that you’ll come through for the Foundation now. If, for some reason, you just can’t send $500 today, please give at least the full $250 or whatever you can afford right away.
Whether you give $500 or $250 -- or if a lesser amount is the most you can afford right now -- please submit your Supporter's Directive giving me your advice and be as generous as you are able.
Please, help today. Your contribution will make a difference.
Sincerely,
Mark Mix
P.S. The union bosses are moving at lightning speed to crush all opposition to expansion of their government-granted special privileges. This is their best shot in decades to move Card Check Forced Unionism and other radical measures into reality.
The National Right to Work Foundation has its back against the wall as we fight Big Labor’s assault. Yet at this crucial moment, I fear the Foundation will not have the resources to fight against all the threats you and I face.
"Less than a century ago the laborer had no rights, little or no respect, and led a life which was socially submerged and barren….American industry organized misery into sweatshops and proclaimed the right of capital to act without restraints and without conscience. The inspiring answer to this intolerable and dehumanizing existence was economic organization through trade unions. The worker became determined not to wait for charitable impulses to grow in his employer. He constructed the means by which fairer sharing of the fruits of his toil had to be given to him or the wheels of industry, which he alone turned, would halt and wealth for no one would be available… "History is a great teacher. Now everyone knows that the labor movement did not diminish the strength of the nation but enlarged it. By raising the living standards of millions, labor miraculously created a market for industry and lifted the whole nation to undreamed of levels of production. Those who attack labor forget these simple truths, but history remembers them.
- Martin Luther King, AFL-CIO address, December 11, 1961
The story of the labor movement in America is a sweeping epic, a saga of betrayal and redemption, a tender love story, a tragedy worthy of the Greeks. As in any good story, there is hope, there is conflict; there are victims and villains, there are cowards and there are heroes. For some who have followed the story, the end has already come. For others, the hope lives on. But, as in any great movement, in any great story, the paradigm changes, the characters along with it. For labor, the days of glory, of prosperity, have dwindled. There are many who see this as a sign of progress. They've already picked out the casket.
Most of those named here are gone now. If they could come back today, would they lament the present conditions? No question.
Would they see their own hard work as wasted? Not likely. For how much worse would it have been without them.
Would they put their heads together and come up with a solution? Oh, yes--yes they would.
Would the solution be revolution? We could only hope.
Would they lead us again? Right down the path to victory.
But they are not here, and time and events have passed them by. There are still some who fight the battles of the workplace with a fervor we could only hope would make a difference, but shouting the truth in the wilderness is, in the end, about as effective as whispering in a crowd.
Labor Day, the celebration of our laborers, began as a union event in 1882 and eventually became a nationwide holiday. I can remember my dad taking me to a huge Labor Day parade in downtown Detroit when I was a child. The crowds lined Woodward Avenue by the thousands, but they were almost dwarfed by the rows of marchers holding banners and singing the songs of labor. The people lining the avenue cheered them on mightily, raucously, my dad along with them, and I cheered, too. The outpouring of emotion was frightening, yet thrilling. And even at that young age (I couldn't have been more than eight or nine) I sensed that we were a part of something important.
Are there still Labor Day parades today? Are they in celebration of labor and not just the holiday?
According to the DOL: The character of the Labor Day celebration has undergone a change in recent years, especially in large industrial centers where mass displays and huge parades have proved a problem. This change, however, is more a shift in emphasis and medium of expression. Labor Day addresses by leading union officials, industrialists, educators, clerics and government officials are given wide coverage in newspapers, radio, and television.
Our new labor secretary, Hilda Solis, said this at the Union League Club of Chicago on September 2:
From the Great Depression to 9/11, Americans have faced tough times and we beat them. Together. This time will be no different. The fact that the daughter of immigrants is the nation's 25th Secretary of Labor is testament that anything is possible in our country. My mother was a minimum wage worker at a toy assembly plant and was a member of the United Rubber Workers Union, now the Steelworkers. My father worked in a battery recycling plant and was a Teamsters shop steward. Many people have influenced me, mentored me, and inspired me:
Martin Luther King Jr. who sparked my passion for civil and human rights;
Dolores Huerta who had her ribs broken in the struggle but never her spirit; and
Cesar Chavez, who inspired me and the world by simply saying: "Si Se Puede!" --Yes, We Can!
I am a product of:
The women's movement.
The labor movement.
The environmental movement.
The social justice movement.
And I'm married to a small business owner.
I'm proud of all that. It is what defines me and shapes my goal as Labor Secretary: Good Jobs For Everyone. And here's what I mean by "good jobs":
Jobs that can support a family by increasing incomes and narrowing the wage gap;
Jobs that are safe and secure, and give people a voice in the workplace;
Jobs that are sustainable and innovative — like green jobs — that export products not paychecks.
And jobs that rebuild a strong middle class.
I want to believe, even in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that the people who labor in and for this country will take back their rightful positions as the vanguards for prosperity, and that those in power will be there to move them forward. To all who labor in the factories, in the warehouses, in the fields, in the offices, in the schools, and behind the counters, may this day be the turning point. May tomorrow bring the changes that have so long been promised.
Our force is in our numbers. Our weapons are pride and determination. Our hope is in ourselves.
After co-sponsoring the original labor bill in 2005, and wholeheartedly endorsing the Employee Free Choice Act in 2007 (the only Republican senator to do so), Arlen Specter has now reneged and will vote against it for what he wants us to believe are the purest of reasons:
"On the merits [of voting against the bill], the issue which has emerged at the top of the list for me is the elimination of the secret ballot which is the cornerstone of how contests are decided in a democratic society. The bill’s requirement for compulsory arbitration if an agreement is not reached within 120 days may subject the employer to a deal he or she cannot live with. Such arbitration runs contrary to the basic tenet of the Wagner Act for collective bargaining which makes the employer liable only for a deal he or she agrees to. The arbitration provision could be substantially improved by the last best offer procedure which would limit the arbitrator’s discretion and prompt the parties to move to more reasonable positions. "
This is phony. The secret ballot is the second step to voting in a union. The first step is getting 50% of the workforce to agree to holding an election. In most, if not all, instances that's done by signing cards indicating you either want or don't want to have a vote on union representation.
Specter says, "The problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employees Free Choice legislation. Employers understandably complain that adding a burden would result in further job losses."
What burden? According to Specter and all the others who oppose the EFCA, it's not necessary anyway. Any employee group who wants a union is free to hold secret ballot elections now. That's true, isn't it?
No, it's not. Of course it's not. Employers can and do thwart any inclination to bring in unions. Specter talks about "intimidation" by those mythical union thugs who, if they knew your name, would come pounding on your door at all hours to get you to sign, but barely mentions the very real pressures employers put on their employees if even a hint of the word "union" wafts through their doors.
So a recession isn't a good time to be talking about forming unions. How about when times were good and Big Business was raking in the dough? When CEOs and COOS and stockholders were sitting on their satin cushions singing the praises of Free Market capitalism? When American jobs were being outsourced to third world countries, paying the lowest possible wages so that profits could go toward living the lavish life and not toward anything as mundane as sharing? Could they talk about forming unions then?
Let's get some real numbers in here. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, union membership in 2008 was a mere 12.4% of the workforce. Within that percentage, the union membership rate for public sector workers (36.8 percent) was substantially higher thanthe rate for private industry workers (7.6 percent).
So who is cheering the loudest now that Specter has caved? The Chamber of Commerce is positively giddy over it. So is the National Association of Manufacturers. And this is where it gets personal for me.
John Engler, former Republican governor of Michigan, is now the president of the National Association of Manufacturers. (They must feel like the Maytag repairman here in America)
This is what Engler said about Specter's decision: "I am very pleased that Senator Arlen Specter has decided to vote against cloture on the EFCA. EFCA is a flawed piece of legislation that will destroy jobs and prolong the current economic recession. Manufacturers stand behind Senator Specter's decision to vote against EFCA and appreciate this decision to put working men and women, the economy and the nation first."
Now, before you get all dewy-eyed about this, let me just warn you. I know John Engler and he's no FDR. He's no Warren Buffett, either. Trust me.
When John Engler was governor of Michigan, my Michigan, darkness fell across the villages in LiberalLand. We never had a chance. Reaganism, Big Business boosterism, and the nonsense called "Trickle Down" were still very much in vogue.
The governor's mission, at one point, (after he had already done away with poverty programs) was to kill any state funding for the Arts. The Arts are always the wretched stepchildren whenever belts need tightening (after programs for the poor, of course), and we should have seen it coming.
In the early 1990s I applied for and received a state grant to work on a lengthy writing project. I was thrilled beyond belief when my application was accepted, but foolish, foolish me. . .I completely forgot who we were dealing with. Most of the grantees--the smart ones--took their money and ran. Some of them chose to leave their grant money in the state's coffers until the next year, but I was one of those who chose to take half of the grant in one year and leave the other half for the next.
Even before the next year rolled around, Engler was already making noises about Arts excesses, and in spite of petitions and marches to the Capitol steps and pleas to our legislative and congressional leaders, any grant monies we were supposed to receive were taken away. Gone. For good.
We had contracts. We had it in writing. It was promised to us. And the contracts were not honored.
Now, that might not seem like such a sad story, given what is happening in Michigan today, but I offer it here as an example of how easily The Powers can ignore honorable contracts whenever they think they have the right.
We should know by now that without watchdogs, without binding equity, without the force of numbers, the masses in this country will never come out ahead. If the past eight to 12 years haven't shown us what happens when the Chamber of Commerce and all its attendant abettors run the show, I don't know what it's going to take to make it any clearer.
They'll get away with this phony attack against the unions and the EFCA if we let them. Big Business in America doesn't deserve even a moment of hesitation, of let-up now. Write your congresspeople, write our president, blog this issue to death. Do whatever it takes to send the message that American workers made this country and American workers deserve to share in the riches. It's so fundamental, it shouldn't even be an issue. So again I ask: How the hell did we let this happen? And when are we going to do something about it?
The real scandal of AIG isn't just that American taxpayers have so far committed $170 billion to the giant insurer because it is thought to be too big to fail -- the most money ever funneled to a single company by a government since the dawn of capitalism -- nor even that AIG's notoriously failing executives, at the very unit responsible for the catastrophic credit-default swaps at the very center of the debacle, are planning to give themselves over $100 million in bonuses. The scandal is that even at this late date, even in a new administration dedicated to doing it all differently, Americans still have so little say over what is happening with our money. Robert Reichhere.
I'm going to make this short because I want to go off and think about that number, $170 BILLION. I might have to get out my handy calculator again, but from right here, right now that looks like a whole hell of a lot of money.
I guess we're supposed to feel good about the $100 million worth of bonuses going to those needy, worthy AIG execs, since it's nowhere near $170 BILLION.
I guess we should all feel good about honoring contracts. After all, these same people have always been so good about honoring contracts with their workers. Doesn't Big Business enter into contracts with ALL workers? Don't they promise, at the hiring of those workers, that if they do their jobs they'll be entitled to job security, pay raises, reasonable benefits--and best of all, down the road, a bankable, safe retirement fund that'll take them happily and healthily into their Golden Years?
What? They don't? They haven't? I'm shocked. I thought all those other figures--more than 600,000 workers losing jobs EVERY MONTH--were just more socialist propaganda.
Those unemployment lines? Pshaw! They're people who really don't want to work and would rather collect checks from the government. (See Erin Burnett's "maybe, possibly, some people say, let's look at China" here.)
Seven hundred out-of-work Americans standing in line for a handful of jobs? Grand-standers, actors even, probably hired by the Democrats to make a pathetic point.
A Bailout LOAN for GM? Ridiculous! The unions must die. . .
But let's, in the name of all that's holy, save those CEO bonuses. We will not survive as a civilization without them. We can't let AIG fail!!
But wait. . .that was yesterday. This is today. Is there anybody today, besides Erin Burnett, who believes that taxpayers should be paying huge multi-million dollar bonuses to AIG execs? Erin, dearheart, was just on Morning Joe claiming that if AIG doesn't honor those contracts, they'll end up paying twice that amount to some upstanding businessmen in London who are obviously entitled. To which Mort Zuckerman, sitting on the set, said, Outrageous! It's a rogue operation in London. AIG should never have had dealings with them. (How come Erin didn't know that?)
So can we all agree now that if we're going to own 80% of AIG we should have a say in who gets what? Thank you. Now can we, the taxpayers, light a fire under our leaders and get them to do what they promised to do when we gave them all of the power?
I think we can. The calculator can wait. Those number are too big for my little mind, anyway. I'm going after my congressmen instead. I've got their numbers and I know how to use them.
"This is about real people who, through no fault of their own, are laid off because of a recession. They need to be able to put food on the table. . . So you better believe I'm going to take every dollar that is coming to Michigan. And if my colleagues here in Minnesota and South Carolina don't get — don't use theirs, I'm going to be first in line to say for my people, for our citizens, to put people to work and to make sure that they can survive through this, I'll take their dollars, too."Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm on Fox News, 2/22/09
__________________________
Is there anything more foolish in these times than a governor of a poor state pouting about a stimulus bill that doesn't exactly address their wishes? Well, yes, there is something more foolish. Saying "no" to the money the bill could provide for their poor state. That's dumb.
From an AP story, published 2/22/09: "Some Democrats took a harder line at a news conference arranged by the Democratic Governors Association to praise President Barack Obama for his leadership on the stimulus. Association chairman Brian Schweitzer of Montana and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley dismissed GOP detractors as 'fringe' Republicans eager to score political points.
'All of us are committed to working with President Obama to pull our nation's economy out of the ditch that George W. Bush ran it into,' O'Malley said. 'If some of the fringe governors don't want to do that, they need to step aside and not stand in the way of the nation's interests.'
The line drew a rebuke from [Mark] Sanford, governor of South Carolina, and chairman of the Republican Governors Association. 'I think in this instance I would humbly suggest that the real fringe are those that are supporting the stimulus,' Sanford said. 'It is not at all in keeping with the principles that made this country great, not at all in keeping with economic reality, not in keeping with a stable dollar, and not in keeping with the sentiments of most of this country.' "
Uh huh. That "in keeping" part? Where was it when those upstanding loyalists were cheering on the Bush team as they screwed with our banks, our military, our land, our jobs, our homes, our kids, our elders, and our heads?
These people act as if they had nothing to do with the reasons for this recession-fast-becoming-a-depression. NOW they have all the answers. NOW they've found their integrity. NOW they stand on principal. Where the hell were they when the Bush Bunch was steamrolling us into near oblivion?
In case they've missed it, let me just remind them that it was on their watch that the de-reg party went into full swing. Oh, what fun they all had at our expense. Their message to us po' folks was, "Get out of our way while we drink from the fount of Greed. Someday, if you play your cards right, you can drink from it, too." (That's how GWB was able to wrangle eight years in our White House. Half the country bought into that absurdity. Their real message was, "We deserve it and you don't, so don't hold your breath. But keep on keeping us here".)
We've paid dearly for their drunken excesses, and the bills keep piling up. They nearly destroyed us and now, instead of feeling any sense of shame, they want to shove us aside again in order to keep their swanky soirees going.
(By the way, last night, when President Obama addressed congress for the first time, he introduced Ty'Sheoma Bethea, a high school student from South Carolina--Sanford's state--who had written a letter to members of congress pleading for help to save her crumbling school. Obama quoted from her letter: "We are not quitters. That's what she said. We are not quitters." Tell that to Mark Sanford.)
Here in Michigan, a labor state, we're hurting more than most because we're still under the apparent delusion that manufacturing is a necessary component to a strong, vibrant nation. Silly us.
In her weekly radio address, our governor, Jennifer Granholm, said, "We will be using this federal recovery funding to create all kinds of jobs for all kinds of people. We'll create jobs today building infrastructure, fixing roads and bridges, and repairing sewers all across the state. And we'll create jobs tomorrow by creating demand for new alternative energy products and projects. We'll be investing in a new energy infrastructure and weatherizing homes and businesses from one end of the state to the other."
Sounds like a plan. So if Mark Sanford and Bobby Jindal and Haley Barbour don't want the money for the people of their states--and if the people of their states go along with that whole cutting-off-their-noses-to-spite-their-faces game--we Michiganders will gladly take it off their hands. We have plenty of uses for it, none of which involves lining pockets or selling down rivers.
It's fashionable these days among the politicians, pundits and so-called experts to claim that free trade is actually good for us. They say it enables us to buy cheaper goods made with cheap foreign labor and this, in turn, raises our standard of living. With all due respect, the free traders need to ask themselves a more fundamental question: how will Americans buy those goods when they don't even have a paycheck that covers their mortgage, much less the college tuition for their children?
Virg Bernero, Mayor, Lansing, MI
Virg Bernero is my new hero. The mayor of Lansing, Michigan is taking the message of the American laborer and shoving it so tightly down the throats of the pundits, they're getting bilious just thinking about him.
When they began inviting him onto their shows last fall to talk about the prospects of a Big Three bailout, they thought they were dealing with the biggest yokel on the planet. This'll be fun! You could see it in the smirks on their faces, in their sit-back-and-laugh postures, in their questions meant to provoke rather than inform. Outside of Ron Gettelfinger, the president of UAW, (I'm elevating him to hero status, too), who the heck would be out there speaking FOR labor these days? And who in their right mind would do it on, of all places, Fox News?
Well, it turns out that Virg would--every chance he got--and once he was on a roll, nobody was going to shut him up. In November he sparred with Neil Cavuto twice in three days.
In December he did it again, caling the Auto Companies "the most patriotic companies in America". Virg says when all the other companies were shipping their jobs overseas, the American auto companies stayed in America. It's true--to a point. They have shipped some jobs overseas, just not as many. But can we talk about this? Apparently not. See how quickly he's bid a fond adieu by the interviewers.
Here he spends some quality time with some of the folks at CNN--John Roberts, Ali Velshi, Ciran Chetry and Christine Romans--all apparent experts on what this country needs to get going again.
Ali Velshi to Virg: ". . .It's the fact that things are made more cheaply in other parts of the world, which has, in a lot of cases, helped many Americans in their standard of living. They've been able to buy cheaper goods."
Virg: "I disagree vehemently. . ." (It was early in the interview. Virg hadn't gotten his steam up.)
Virg, picking up speed: "I'm tired of hearing the American worker being beat up upon, and people told you need to be more competitive; you need to be more competitive. What they're really talking about is 'cut your wages, cut your benefits, work for nothing, like some peasant somewhere else in the world'. Well, I'm sorry--I'm tired of the American standard of living brought down to the lowest common denominator. We need fair trade agreements fairly enforced."
Christine Romans, using the tired 'some people say' tactic , said: "You will hear from a lot of decision makers that manufacturing is very 20th century and this is a service economy and that we have to innovate and we have to come up with the next thing that's going to move the economy forward. How does that square with Michigan and its labor base?"
Lordy, did she really say that? Yes, Virg heard it, too, but to his credit, given the condescension dripping from her tongue, he remembered what his mother taught him about being polite to women--even silly women--and gave Ms. Romans way more nice than she deserved.
"With all due respect," Virg said, "That--what you just said--I've heard it before. I'm not saying this about you. . . "
Okay. With that out of the way, he wasted no time in getting back on track:
". . .But that is absolute bull. That has been perpetrated by Wall Street. The idea that you can be a service economy. . .What are you servicing? How can you service. . . What are you going to serve? Hamburgers? That is total, utter nonsense that Wall Street has been spewing for years. That's part of the unholy alliance. We need manufacturing in this country. Manufacturing is at the apex of the economy. When you give up manufacturing, you are giving up your future."
That interview was on February 6. I don't know where else Virg has been since then, but just the other day (February 18) he finally quit sparring and went for the jugular, totally obliterating Fox News's Greg Jarrett, who just wanted to know why the unions shouldn't go ahead and give their concession speeches already and get out of Big Business's hair.
Oh, that Virg! He has to talk fast, and he has to talk straight, because it may not be long before the air waves are closed to him forever. You can't have pro-labor people out there making too much sense.
The interesting thing about the Bernero blitz is that those talking points are nothing new. It's a conversation that has gone on in every labor family, ever since unions began surfacing in the early part of the 20th Century. During the Reagan years, when the systematic undermining of labor unions began to get serious, the conversations grew hot and heavy, but, outside of the interested few, nobody else cared.
Along with watching the government-condoned slow but sure destruction of our labor unions, most of the country sat passively still while Big Business thumbed their noses at good old American Can-Do and Know-How by moving major chunks of our formerly vibrant manufacturing base outside our borders. A precious few protested when millions of jobs were outsourced and lost to Americans on the strength of wage packages alone. For years it was okay by us (you, that is) that millions of American wage-earners took home smaller paychecks and forfeited better benefits so that the Fat Cats who owned the businesses could live the life-styles of Sultans and Kings.
This is what happened because of it: Our economy has collapsed in ways we couldn't have even imagined a mere eight years ago, on Inaugural Day, 2000.
We're in a protracted war brought on by hubris and greed, and encouraged by stupidity.
We owe our souls to our national credit company, communist China, and we can't pay them back because we don't make anything anymore.
Health care costs are going through the roof while health care benefits are a thing of the past for many, many millions.
Our food, our water, our very air isn't safe.
We're slowly selling off our natural resources to the highest bidder because we can't afford to keep them anymore.
And hundreds of thousands of American citizens are losing their jobs every month. (That's every month.)
So this shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody, given the sorry state of our nation, but the Fat Cat glory days are over. You'll be getting no more sacrificial lambs from what's left of our puny work force. Even the workers in the south are finally waking up to the con game called "low wages and no benefits are good for me and you--especially me".
In order to build an essential, strong labor force in this country, we need labor activists to combat the still mighty hold of the greedy Kings of Commerce who would rather see our nation destroyed than give up their thrones.
People like Virg Bernero and Ron Gettelfinger and, occasionaly, Barack Obama, understand the important role labor needs to play in order to bring us back to prosperity. We need good jobs that pay well in order to get back to spending again. (People without money don't buy things. I'm just saying, because some people still don't get it.)
On the campaign trail Barack Obama said, loud and clear, "I believe we have to reverse many of the policies toward organized labor that we have seen over the past eight years, policies with which I have sharply disagreed." and "You cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement."
Hold him to that. Labor doesn't have a chance if it doesn't organize. "Solidarity Forever" isn't just a song. It's a battle cry again.
