<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Dirty Hippies &#187; labor</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dirtyhippies.org/category/labor/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dirtyhippies.org</link>
	<description>Democracy. Unwashed.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:02:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Unions Enforce Democracy</title>
		<link>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/09/03/unions-enforce-democracy/</link>
		<comments>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/09/03/unions-enforce-democracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2012 18:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Johnson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirtyhippies.org/?p=2236</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>What is labor day? And why is it a national holiday?</p> <p>Labor Day is our national holiday to celebrate the contribution that regular working people make to our country and our economy. It is also a holiday that celebrates the way We, the People democracy can deliver prosperity to many, instead of great wealth to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is labor day?  And why is it a national holiday?</p>
<p>Labor Day is our national holiday to celebrate the contribution that regular working people make to our country and our economy.  It is also a holiday that celebrates the way We, the People democracy can deliver prosperity to many, instead of great wealth to just a few &#8212; when it works.  Strong unions help make it work.</p>
<h3>Systems That Enforce &#8220;More Stuff For A Few&#8221;</h3>
<p>History teaches of conflict between systems set up when a few people gain power and use that power to get more stuff for themselves at the expense of the rest, and the broad masses of regular people organizing themselves to overcome those power structures that get set up to enforce these &#8220;more stuff for a few&#8221; systems.</p>
<p>Power structures enforcing &#8220;more stuff for a few&#8221; often come with elaborate justifications to keep people from rising up and taking back power for the people.  Royalty is a system where &#8220;God said <em>my</em> family should be in charge, so shut up and keep quiet.&#8221;   The Nazis said they should be in charge because they were the übermensch, so shut up and keep quiet.  Russia had the nomenklatura, so shut up and keep quiet. Today we have &#8220;job creators,&#8221; who get most of the stuff because they already have most of the stuff, so shut up and keep quiet.</p>
<h3>&#8220;We, the People&#8221;</h3>
<p><em>This</em> country was formed when We, the People fought that battle and won. We overthrew a system that funneled the stuff to a few at the top, and enshrined in our Constitution a declaration we want this country to forever be run for the benefit of all of us, not just a few of us.</p>
<p>We fought to build and maintain this democratic society so that We, the People could share the benefits. </p>
<h3>Prosperity Is The Fruit Of Democracy</h3>
<p>Democracy offers protections. It lets us demand good wages and safety and environmental protections.  We, the People got a good share of the economic pie because those are the things people say they want when they have a say.  Because Americans had a say we built up a country with good schools, good infrastructure, good courts, and we made rules that said workers had to be safe, get a minimum wage, overtime, weekends&#8230; we protected the environment, we set up Social Security and Medicare and unemployment benefits to help us through hard times. <strong>We took care of each other. This made us prosperous.</strong> A share of the prosperity for the 99% was the fruit of democracy.</p>
<h3>Unions Enforce Democracy</h3>
<p>But it was unions that made this possible.  People on their own just do not have the ability to stand up against concentrated wealth and power, no matter how right their cause.  Even with our Constitution, a few were still able to use wealth and power to grab more for themselves, keeping regular people from obtaining a fair share of the pie.  So people organized themselves into labor unions, and as a united group said you give us a fair share or we stop working.  This was effective in industries that depended on the labor to keep production moving. </p>
<p><strong>Before unions came along to enforce democracy we didn&#8217;t get the share of the prosperity that democracy promised, after unions came along we did.</strong> Before unions we had 12 (or more)-hour workdays, seven days a week. Before unions we had low pay. Before unions we had no benefits. Before unions we certainly didn&#8217;t get vacations. Before unions we could be fired for no reason. Before unions a wealthy few were able use their wealth to pay off influence legislators and keep the rules bent in their favor. Unions organized and forced changes that brought a larger share of the pie to We, the People.</p>
<p><strong>Unions enforce the concept of democracy.</strong> Yes, We, the People were supposed to be in charge. Yes, the economy was supposed to be for our benefit. <a href="http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012052228/springs-shareholder-meeting-activism">Why else would We, the People allow corporations to exist in the first place?</a> But it was unions that gave people <em>the power</em> to enforce that idea. People organized together and demanded that We, the People get a share of the pie, and the results grew the pie. Unions are the reason we <strike>have</strike> had a middle class at all.</p>
<h3>The Corporate/Conservative Attack On Labor</h3>
<p><strong>But we let the protections slip</strong>, and allowed money to have too much influence over our political system &#8212; so of course those with money used that influence to bend the system their way.  Then we allowed companies to cross borders to escape the protections democracy offers &#8212; to non-democratic countries like China where workers have few rights, where pay is low, environmental protections practically non-existent. Companies locating manufacturing in places like have huge cost advantages over companies located in democracies that respect and protect the rights of citizens. This movement of manufacturing away from the borders of democracy weakened our unions, and shifted the balance of power away from We, the People.</p>
<p>There has been a massive corporate/conservative attack on labor and democracy over the last 3-4 decades. Billions of dollars have gone into a propaganda machine that tells us that labor unions are bad, that &#8220;labor bosses&#8221; just want things for themselves, that &#8220;union thugs&#8221; force businesses out of business, etc.</p>
<p>The successful attack on labor has contributed directly to this economy of massive inequality where workers don&#8217;t share in the product of the productivity they generate.</p>
<p>Lawrence  Mishel, at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, writes in <a href="http://www.epi.org/publication/ib342-unions-inequality-faltering-middle-class/"><em>Unions, inequality, and faltering middle-class wages</em></a>,</p>
<blockquote><p>Between 1973 and 2011, the median worker&#8217;s real hourly compensation (which includes wages and benefits) rose just 10.7 percent. Most of this growth occurred in the late 1990s wage boom, and once the boom subsided by 2002 and 2003, real wages and compen­sation stagnated for most workers&#8211;college graduates and high school graduates alike. This has made the last decade a &#8220;lost decade&#8221; for wage growth.</p>
<p>&#8230; A major factor driving these trends has been the ongoing erosion of unionization and the declining bargaining power of unions, along with the weakened ability of unions to set norms or labor standards that raise the wages of comparable nonunion workers. </p>
<p>&#8230; the forthcoming <em>The State of Working America, 12th Edition</em> presents a detailed analysis of the impact of unionization on wages and benefits and on wage inequality. Key findings include:</p>
<ul class="bloglist">
<li>The union wage premium&#8211;the percentage-higher wage earned by those covered by a collective bargain­ing contract&#8211;is 13.6 percent over­all (17.3 percent for men and 9.1 percent for women).</li>
<li>Unionized workers are 28.2 percent more likely to be covered by employer-provided health insurance and 53.9 percent more likely to have employer-provided pensions.</li>
<li>From 1973 to 2011, the share of the workforce represented by unions declined from 26.7 percent to 13.1 percent.</li>
<li>The decline of unions has affected middle-wage men more than any other group and explains about three-fourths of the expanded wage gap between white- and blue-collar men and over a fifth of the expanded wage gap between high school- and college-edu­cated men from 1978 to 2011.</li>
<li>An expanded analysis that includes the direct and norm-setting impact of unions shows that deunionization can explain about a third of the entire growth of wage inequality among men and around a fifth of the growth among women from 1973 to 2007.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<h3>The Social Contract</h3>
<p>Labor Day is about honoring the social contract.</p>
<p>Hedrick Smith writes in, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/opinion/henry-ford-when-capitalists-cared.html?_r=1&amp;nl=todaysheadlines&amp;emc=edit_th_20120903"><em>When Capitalists Cared</em></a> in the NY Times,</p>
<blockquote><p>From 1948 to 1973, the productivity of all nonfarm workers nearly doubled, as did average hourly compensation. But things changed dramatically starting in the late 1970s. Although productivity increased by 80.1 percent from 1973 to 2011, average wages rose only 4.2 percent and hourly compensation (wages plus benefits) rose only 10 percent over that time, according to government data analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute.</p>
<p>At the same time, corporate profits were booming. In 2006, the year before the Great Recession began, corporate profits garnered the largest share of national income since 1942, while the share going to wages and salaries sank to the lowest level since 1929. In the recession&#8217;s aftermath, corporate profits have bounced back while middle-class incomes have stagnated.</p>
<p>[. . .] In Germany, still a manufacturing and export powerhouse, average hourly pay has risen five times faster since 1985 than in the United States. The secret of Germany&#8217;s success, says Klaus Kleinfeld, who ran the German electrical giant Siemens before taking over the American aluminum company Alcoa in 2008, is &#8220;the social contract: the willingness of business, labor and political leaders to put aside some of their differences and make agreements in the national interests.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Unions enforce democracy.  Our system is not perfect, it does not by itself sufficiently protect our We, the People system from the constant efforts of some people to gain power &#8211; so they can get all the stuff for themselves at the expense of everyone else.  It is a fact of human nature proven by history that this happens.  <strong><strong>Without unions as an added kicker to help us enforce the promise of our We, the People constitution, those who have wealth and power are able to use that wealth and power to take control and grab all the stuff for themselves.</strong></strong>  We are seeing this happen again, right before our eyes.</p>
<p><em>This post originally appeared at <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/">Campaign for America&#8217;s Future</a> (CAF) at their <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog">Blog for OurFuture</a>.  I am a Fellow with CAF.</em></p>
<p><em><a href="http://caf.democracyinaction.org/o/11002/t/43/content.jsp?content_KEY=1">Sign up here for the CAF daily summary</a></em></p>
<div align="center"><a href="http://www.twitter.com/dcjohnson" target="_blank"><img style="margin-right:10px" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowDaveJohnsonOnTwitter.gif" width="250"></a><a href="http://www.twitter.com/ourfuture"><img src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowOurFutureonTwitter.gif" width="250"></a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/09/03/unions-enforce-democracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Mitt Romney Hates Unions</title>
		<link>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/05/10/why-mitt-romney-hates-unions/</link>
		<comments>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/05/10/why-mitt-romney-hates-unions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 21:41:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Johnson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirtyhippies.org/?p=2159</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Is this guy a Presidential candidate from a major party, or a fringe nut? He sounds like Rush Limbaugh. HuffPo: <a title="Mitt Romney: Obama 'Takes Marching Orders From Union Bosses'" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/mitt-romney-obama-union-bosses_n_1501582.html">Mitt Romney: Obama &#8216;Takes Marching Orders From Union Bosses&#8217;</a>,</p> <p>Speaking to a crowd at a campaign stop in Lansing, Mich., on Tuesday, presumptive GOP presidential [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is this guy a Presidential candidate from a major party, or a fringe nut?   He sounds like Rush Limbaugh.  HuffPo: <a title="Mitt Romney: Obama 'Takes Marching Orders From Union Bosses'" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/mitt-romney-obama-union-bosses_n_1501582.html"><em>Mitt Romney: Obama &#8216;Takes Marching Orders From Union Bosses&#8217;</em></a>,</p>
<blockquote><p>Speaking to a crowd at a campaign stop in Lansing, Mich., on Tuesday, presumptive GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney took a swipe at both President Barack Obama and organized labor, saying the president &#8220;takes his marching orders&#8221; from unions that cost American jobs.</p>
<p>&#8220;Liberalism once taught that unions would ensure lasting prosperity for workers,&#8221; Romney said at Lansing Community College. &#8220;Instead, they too often contributed to disappearing companies, disappearing industries and disappearing jobs. But like many politicians of the past, President Obama takes his marching orders from union bosses, rails against right-to-work states, fights to win union elections by eliminating the vote by secret ballot, and even denies an American company the right to build a factory in the American state of its choice.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<div align="center"></div>
<p></p>
<h3>When People Have A Say</h3>
<p>People who follow Romney&#8217;s line of reasoning think that we need to be more &#8220;business friendly&#8221; with low wages, low benefits, low environmental protections and low taxes on the rich <a href="http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012020715/china-very-business-friendly">so we can compete with countries like China</a>.  Here&#8217;s the thing, <strong>in countries like China the people don&#8217;t have a say.  When people have a say they say that they want higher wages, benefits, good schools, environmental protections and the rest of the prosperity that democracy brings to all the people</strong>, instead of huge amounts accumulating in the hands of just a few people.</p>
<h3>Unions Drove Wages And Benefits Up</h3>
<p>Romney&#8217;s argument that unions &#8220;contributed to disappearing companies, disappearing industries and disappearing jobs&#8221; is based on the idea that unions drove wages and benefits up.  He believes that good wages and benefits &#8212; namely US &#8212; are a &#8220;cost&#8221; instead of the reason that We, the People decided to develop the body of laws that allow corporations to exist, to use our infrastructure and educated people and laws and courts and police and all the other &#8220;public structures&#8221; as a foundation for doing business.  We, the People did that so that we &#8212; all of us &#8212; could benefit.  All of us, not just a few of us.</p>
<p>In that respect Romney is correct, unions and democracy brought us higher pay, benefits, &#8220;the weekend,&#8221; vacations, 40-hour workweeks and things like that.  Before unions came along to enforce the idea of democracy we didn&#8217;t, after unions we did.  Before unions we had 12-hours a day workdays, seven days a week.  Before unions we had low pay.  Before unions we had no benefits.  Before unions we didn&#8217;t get vacations.  Before unions we could be fired for no reason.  Unions are why we <strike>have</strike> had a middle class.  </p>
<p>Unions enforce the concept of democracy.  Yes, We, the People were supposed to be in charge.  Yes, the economy was supposed to be for <em>our</em> benefit.  <em>Why else would We, the People allow corporations to exist in the first place?</em>  But it was unions that gave people the <em>power</em> to enforce that idea.</p>
<h3>Laying People Off, Cutting Wages, Pocketing That Money For Himself</h3>
<p>Romney made his fortune buying up companies (not, by the way, using his own money, but <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/leveragedbuyout.asp">using the companies&#8217; own assets as collateral for the loans</a> to buy them with).  Then Romney fired many of the workers, making the rest do the extra work. He cut wages and benefits for the rest and then pocketed that money for himself.  <em>This</em> is the guy who says that good wages and benefits is what puts companies out of business.   <strong>In other words, Romney is saying that the problem with our economy is that we have a middle class.</strong>  Romney wants America to be more &#8220;business-friendly.&#8221;</p>
<p>Romney hates unions. They get in the way of doing business they way business was done &#8220;When Mitt Romney Came To Town:</p>
<div align="center"></div>
<p></p>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0119/Is-Mitt-Romney-really-a-job-creator-What-his-Bain-Capital-record-shows">the Christian Science Monitor</a>, this is the story of what happened to the workers in one company when the Romney/Bain machine &#8220;came to town&#8221;:</p>
<blockquote><p>The new owner, American Pad &amp; Paper, owned in turn by [Mitt Romney's] Bain Capital, told all 258 union workers they were fired, in a cost-cutting move. Security guards hustled them out of the building. They would be able to reapply for their jobs, at lesser wages and benefits, but not all would be rehired.</p></blockquote>
<p>Outsourcing jobs to places where people don&#8217;t have a say so they can&#8217;t demand good wages, firing people and making them reapply for their jobs but at half the pay, gutting people&#8217;s benefits, stripping companies, treating employees like throwaway Kleenex, closing factories, stealing pensions, borrowing and pocketing&#8230; Locust capitalism. Chop shops.  That&#8217;s Mitt Romney&#8217;s view of how to make money.  Unions are in the way.</p>
<h3>What Is Business-Friendly?</h3>
<p>Some quick thoughts about what &#8220;business-friendly&#8221; really means: (add your own thoughts in the comments)</p>
<p><strong><strong>Business-friendly</strong></strong> =</p>
<p>Low wages<br />
Longer hours<br />
No health benefits<br />
No pensions<br />
No vacations<br />
No sick pay<br />
Low taxes on the wealthy and their corporations<br />
&#8220;Smaller government,&#8221; &#8212; which means less &#8220;We, the People&#8221; in charge of things:</p>
<ul class="bloglist">
No safety rules<br />
No privacy rules<br />
No food inspections<br />
No environmental protections<br />
No consumer protections<br />
No citizen access to courts<br />
Arbitration<br />
Tort &#8220;reform&#8221; which means restricted access to courts
</ul>
<p>So what are your thoughts on this argument that we need to be more &#8220;business-friendly?&#8221;  What does the phrase even mean?  And what happens to the idea that We, the People have an economy for our own benefit?</p>
<p><em>This post originally appeared at <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/">Campaign for America&#8217;s Future</a> (CAF) at their <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog">Blog for OurFuture</a>.  I am a Fellow with CAF.</em></p>
<p><em><a href="http://caf.democracyinaction.org/o/11002/t/43/content.jsp?content_KEY=1">Sign up here for the CAF daily summary</a></em></p>
<div align="center"><a href="http://www.twitter.com/dcjohnson" target="_blank"><img style="margin-right:10px" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowDaveJohnsonOnTwitter.gif" width="250"></a><a href="http://www.twitter.com/ourfuture"><img src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowOurFutureonTwitter.gif" width="250"></a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/05/10/why-mitt-romney-hates-unions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Open Letter from Europe Against American Labor Intimidation Practices</title>
		<link>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/03/29/open-letter-from-europe-against-american-labor-intimidation-practices/</link>
		<comments>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/03/29/open-letter-from-europe-against-american-labor-intimidation-practices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:06:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Johnson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirtyhippies.org/?p=2076</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>“EMPLOYEES OF U.S. SUBSIDIARIES OF GERMAN COMPANIES, ESPECIALLY T-MOBILE USA, SHOULD BE ABLE TO EXERCISE THEIR UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO OPT FOR ORGANIZED REPRESENTATION IN THE COMPANY WITHOUT FEAR.”</p> <p><a href="http://files.cwa-union.org/tmobile/20120326-open-letter.pdf"></a>In an ad in the NY Times yesterday, 11 leading German legal scholars and politicians called on Deutsche Telekom and other German companies to stop using [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“EMPLOYEES OF U.S. SUBSIDIARIES OF GERMAN COMPANIES, ESPECIALLY T-MOBILE USA, SHOULD  BE ABLE TO EXERCISE THEIR UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO OPT FOR ORGANIZED REPRESENTATION IN THE COMPANY WITHOUT FEAR.”</p>
<p><a href="http://files.cwa-union.org/tmobile/20120326-open-letter.pdf"><img src="http://www.ourfuture.org/files/images/t-mobile-ad-pr.png" style="margin-left: 10px;float: right"></a>In an ad in the NY Times yesterday, 11 leading German legal scholars and politicians called on Deutsche Telekom and other German companies to stop using American-style union-hating tactics at their American subsidiaries.  In particular they asked these companies to “end all collaboration with U.S. consultants who advise employers how to fight employee representation.” </p>
<p><strong>Remarkable</strong></p>
<p>What is remarkable about this letter is the difference between European and American attitudes toward working people and labor rights.  In Europe it&#8217;s just a given that working people have dignity and respect.  To Europeans it is shocking to see a company try to fight against its own workers!  In the US working people face an atmosphere of constant intimidation, always pushing for lower wages, cuts in benefits, longer working hours, and subservience. </p>
<p>The letter speaks for itself, please read it: (<a href="http://files.cwa-union.org/tmobile/20120326-open-letter.pdf">click for original</a>)</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>To T-MOBILE USA and Other U.S. Subsidiaries of German Companies</strong></p>
<p><strong>AN OPEN LETTER ON WORKERS’ RIGHTS</strong></p>
<p>Globalization and the current crisis present particular challenges for the economy. Germany’s social market policy faces these challenges with its commitment to stakeholder values including employees and its responsibility towards the community. The respect for the interests of different players has already proven to be beneficial in previous periods of change. Essential elements of this approach are respectful cooperation and a balance of the differing interests of employees and employers. Since employees are in a structurally weaker position compared to employers, the freedom of association and freedom of opinion as human rights are especially vital.</p>
<p>The signatories urge that the employees of U.S. subsidiaries of German companies, especially T-Mobile USA, should be able to exercise their unrestricted right to opt for organized representation in the company without fear. They must not be influenced, pressured, or intimidated by employers if they exercise their basic right for freedom of association. The human right of freedom of speech notably entails this right as well.</p>
<p>Even in the Federal Republic of Germany there are shortsighted employers and lawyers who believe they can get away with a lack of integrity and respect toward unions and work councils and who think they can forgo cooperation. Practical experiences and scientific studies show, however, that employer conduct based on this model will ultimately be harmful to the company.</p>
<p><strong>We encourage T-Mobile USA and the other U.S. subsidiaries of German companies to take these experiences to heart and to abandon all efforts at union avoidance.</strong> Likewise, we ask them to end all collaboration with U.S. consultants who advise employers how to fight employee representation.</p>
<p><strong>Däubler-Gmelin</strong>, Prof. Dr. Herta, former Federal Minister of Justice, attorney, Berlin</p>
<p><strong>Baum</strong>, Gerhart R., former Minister of the Interior, attorney, Düsseldorf</p>
<p><strong>Müntefering</strong>, Franz, former Federal Minister for Labor and Social Affairs, German MP, Berlin</p>
<p><strong>Schmoldt</strong>, Hubertus, former Chairman of the Labor Union IG Mining, Chemical and Energy</p>
<p><strong>Hensche</strong>, Detlef, former Chairman of the Labor Union IG Media, attorney, Berlin</p>
<p><strong>Merzhäuser</strong>, Michael, attorney, Berlin</p>
<p><strong>Dieterich</strong>, Prof. Dr. Thomas, former President of the Federal Labor Court and former Judge of the Federal Constitutional Court, Kassel</p>
<p><strong>Blüm</strong>, Dr. Norbert, former Federal Minister for Labor and Social Affairs, Bonn </p>
<p><strong>Struck</strong>, Dr. Peter, former Federal Minister of Defense, President of Friedrich – Ebert – Foundation, Berlin </p>
<p><strong>Däubler</strong>, Prof. Dr. jur. Wolfgang, university professor (labor law, business law, international law), Bremen </p>
<p><strong>Schwegler</strong>, Dr. Lorenz, former Chairman of the Union for Trade, Banking and Insurance Carriers, attorney, Düsseldorf </p>
<p>Learn more at <a href="http://www.WeWorkBetterTogether.org">www.WeWorkBetterTogether.org</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Did you see that last line?  <strong>Learn more at <a href="http://www.WeWorkBetterTogether.org">www.WeWorkBetterTogether.org</a></strong></p>
<p><em>This post originally appeared at <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/">Campaign for America&#8217;s Future</a> (CAF) at their <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog">Blog for OurFuture</a>.  I am a Fellow with CAF.</em></p>
<p><em><a href="http://caf.democracyinaction.org/o/11002/t/43/content.jsp?content_KEY=1">Sign up here for the CAF daily summary</a><a href="http://zhonghuatraditionalsnacks.com/">.</a></em></p>
<div align="center"><a href="http://www.twitter.com/dcjohnson" target="_blank"><img style="margin-right:10px" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowDaveJohnsonOnTwitter.gif" width="250"></a><a href="http://www.twitter.com/ourfuturedotorg"><img src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowCAFonTwitter.gif" width="250"></a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/03/29/open-letter-from-europe-against-american-labor-intimidation-practices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It&#8217;s Time To Pass The Call-Center Bill</title>
		<link>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/03/07/its-time-to-pass-the-call-center-bill/</link>
		<comments>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/03/07/its-time-to-pass-the-call-center-bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:43:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Johnson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirtyhippies.org/?p=2055</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>There is a bipartisan bill in the Congress that regulates call centers, names companies that move jobs out of the country, gives customers the right to talk to Americans if they are having trouble understanding the support representative, protects private information that you give to the representative and bans federal grants or guaranteed loans to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a bipartisan bill in the Congress that regulates call centers, names companies that move jobs out of the country, gives customers the right to talk to Americans if they are having trouble understanding the support representative, protects private information that you give to the representative and bans federal grants or guaranteed loans to American companies that move call center jobs out of the US.  A group of big companies and their lobbying organizations has come out against the bill and the list shows you why you call your Representative and let them know you are for it, and for bills like it that protect consumers and jobs.</p>
<p><strong>The U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act</strong></p>
<p>The bipartisan <em>U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act</em>, H.R. 3596, has 75 sponsors in the House.  It can pass, so help give it a push.  It gives consumers the right to ask where the person they are speaking with is based, and ask for an American-based representative instead. Among the things this bill would accomplish:</p>
<ul class="bloglist">
<li>Require the Department of Labor to publicly list firms that move call center jobs overseas.
<li>Make these firms ineligible for any direct or indirect federal loans or loan guarantees for five years.
<li>Require 120 day advance notification of a proposed move off-shore.
<li>Require call center employees to tell U.S. consumers where they are located, if asked.
<li>Require that call centers transfer calls to a U.S. call center if asked.
</ul>
<p>I&#8217;ve written about the bill:</p>
<p>December: <a href="http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011125013/call-center-bill-would-let-customers-ask-talk-americans"><em>Call-Center Bill Would Let Customers Ask To Talk To Americans</em></a> and <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011125016/who-protects-info-you-give-offshored-call-centers"><em>Who Protects Info You Give To Offshored Call Centers?</em></a></p>
<p>January: <a href="http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012010209/india-and-philippines-declare-war-call-center-bill"><em>India And Philippines Declare War On Call Center Bill</em></a>.</p>
<p><strong>List Of Who&#8217;s Against It Shows Why You Should Be For It</strong></p>
<p>A number of companies and their lobbying organizations <a href="http://www.hrpolicy.org/downloads/2012/Letter_to_Full_House_on_HR_3596.pdf">put out a letter opposing H.R. 3596</a>, saying that giving the public info on companies that are outsourcing would create a &#8220;blacklist&#8221; and would &#8220;increase costs&#8221; (wages of the 99%).  The list shows why you want to support the bill:</p>
<ul class="bloglist">
<li>Cargill, Incorporated
<li>The Coalition of Service Industries
<li>Consumer Electronics Association
<li>Covergys Corporation
<li>HR Policy Association
<li>Kiewit Corporation
<li>LORD Corporation
<li>National Association of Manufacturers
<li>National Retail Federation
<li>Retail Industry Leaders Association
<li>Security Industry Association
<li>TechAmerica
<li>Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
<li>Texas Association of Business
<li>U.S. Chamber of Commerce
<li>Universal Weather and Aviation
</ul>
<p>Who is in charge here, big corporations and their lobbyists or We, the People?  Call your Representative and ask them to co-sponsor and vote for this bill.</p>
<p><em>This post originally appeared at <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/">Campaign for America&#8217;s Future</a> (CAF) at their <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog">Blog for OurFuture</a>.  I am a Fellow with CAF.</em></p>
<p><em><a href="http://caf.democracyinaction.org/o/11002/t/43/content.jsp?content_KEY=1">Sign up here for the CAF daily summary</a><a href="http://zhonghuatraditionalsnacks.com/">.</a></em></p>
<div align="center"><a href="http://www.twitter.com/dcjohnson" target="_blank"><img style="margin-right:10px" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowDaveJohnsonOnTwitter.gif" width="250"></a><a href="http://www.twitter.com/ourfuturedotorg"><img src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowCAFonTwitter.gif" width="250"></a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/03/07/its-time-to-pass-the-call-center-bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Free Trade Or Democracy, Can&#8217;t Have Both</title>
		<link>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/03/01/free-trade-or-democracy-cant-have-both/</link>
		<comments>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/03/01/free-trade-or-democracy-cant-have-both/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 22:05:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Johnson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Capitalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporatism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirtyhippies.org/?p=2043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Recent stories about the <a href="http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012010423/hold-cheaters-fraudsters-and-exploiters-accountable-get-our-economy-back">conditions of Apple&#8217;s contractors</a> in China have opened many people&#8217;s eyes about where our jobs, factories, industries and economy have been going, and why. The stories <a href="http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012010426/work-hard-job-today-or-work-hard-find-job-tomorrow">exposed that workers</a> live 6-to-12-to-a-room in dormitories, get rousted at midnight to work surprise 12-hour shifts, get paid very little, use toxic chemicals, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Recent stories about the <a href="http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012010423/hold-cheaters-fraudsters-and-exploiters-accountable-get-our-economy-back">conditions of Apple&#8217;s contractors</a> in China have opened many people&#8217;s eyes about where our jobs, factories, industries and economy have been going, and why.  The stories <a href="http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012010426/work-hard-job-today-or-work-hard-find-job-tomorrow">exposed that workers</a> live 6-to-12-to-a-room in dormitories, get rousted at midnight to work surprise 12-hour shifts, get paid very little, use toxic chemicals, suffer extreme pollution of the environment, etc.  Is this &#8220;trade?&#8221; Or is it something else?</p>
<p><strong>Is This &#8220;Trade?&#8221;</strong></p>
<p>&#8220;Trade&#8221; means to exchange, to buy and sell, you buy from me and I buy from you.  I have something you want and you have something I want, and we exchange.  We both end up better off than where we started.</p>
<p>Is it &#8220;trade&#8221; to close a factory here and move it to a country where people don&#8217;t have a say?  It is &#8220;trade&#8221; to just move all of the machines from a factory here to a factory there, send the same parts and raw materials over there, and then bring bring back whatever it was the factory used to make and sell it in the same places here?  <strong>Is that really &#8220;trade?&#8221;</strong>  Or would another word be more appropriate?  </p>
<p><strong>When People Have A Say</strong></p>
<p>When people have a say we insist on good wages, benefits, safe working conditions, and a clean environment.  We even go so far as to say we want good public schools, parks and opportunities for our smaller businesses.  When We, the People have a say we get so uppity and ask for the most outrageous things!</p>
<p><strong>Efficiency vs. Humanity</strong></p>
<p>Yes, countries where people do not have a say are more &#8220;efficient&#8221; and &#8220;<a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/institute/blog-entry/2012020715/china-very-business-friendly">business friendly</a>.&#8221;  Countries where people do not have a say can make things at a much lower cost than workers where people have rights.  But when we let exploitation of human beings be a competitive advantage it undermines our own democracy.  It means that democracy is a competitive disadvantage in world markets.    </p>
<p><strong>We Can&#8217;t &#8220;Compete&#8221; With This, We Have To <em>Fight</em> It</strong></p>
<p><strong>Let&#8217;s get right to the core of this.</strong>  Suppose the South actually did rise again, and they reimposed all-out slavery.  Would it be &#8220;trade&#8221; to close factories here and move them south, so the companies would have lower costs?</p>
<p>When we allow companies to just import stuff that is made by exploited workers in countries where people do not have a say, we are granting not-having-a-say an advantage over having a say.  <strong>We make democracy a competitive disadvantage.</strong></p>
<p><strong>This Is About Preserving Democracy, Not About &#8220;Trade&#8221; </strong></p>
<p>How often do you come across arguments that &#8220;globalization&#8221; and &#8220;free trade&#8221; mean that America&#8217;s workers have to accept that the days of good-paying jobs and US-based manufacturing are over?  We hear that countries like China are more &#8220;competitive.&#8221;  We hear that &#8220;trade&#8221; means that because it&#8217;s cheaper to make things over there we all benefit from lower-cost goods that we import.</p>
<p>How often do you hear that we need to cut wages and benefits, work longer hours, get rid of overtime and sick pay? They say we should shed unions, get rid of environmental and safety regulations, gut government services, and especially, especially, especially we should cut taxes.  </p>
<p>What they are saying is that we need to shed our democracy, to be more competitive.  </p>
<p>P.S. <a href="http://capwiz.com/americanmanufacturing/issues/alert/?alertid=60932291&amp;MC_plugin=2801">Tell Congress and the White House to Stop China&#8217;s Illegal and Unfair Trade Practices</a></p>
<p><em>This post originally appeared at <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/">Campaign for America&#8217;s Future</a> (CAF) at their <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog">Blog for OurFuture</a>.  I am a Fellow with CAF.</em></p>
<p><em><a href="http://caf.democracyinaction.org/o/11002/t/43/content.jsp?content_KEY=1">Sign up here for the CAF daily summary</a><a href="http://zhonghuatraditionalsnacks.com/">.</a></em></p>
<div align="center"><a href="http://www.twitter.com/dcjohnson" target="_blank"><img style="margin-right:10px" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowDaveJohnsonOnTwitter.gif" width="250"></a><a href="http://www.twitter.com/ourfuturedotorg"><img src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowCAFonTwitter.gif" width="250"></a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/03/01/free-trade-or-democracy-cant-have-both/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Labor&#8217;s Fight Is OUR Fight</title>
		<link>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/03/01/labors-fight-is-our-fight/</link>
		<comments>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/03/01/labors-fight-is-our-fight/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:23:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Johnson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Americans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirtyhippies.org/?p=2041</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Unions have been fighting the 1% vs 99% fight for more than 100 years. Now the rest of us are learning that this fight is also OUR fight. </p> <p>The story of organized labor has been a story of working people banding together to confront concentrated wealth and power. Unions have been fighting to get [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unions have been fighting the 1% vs 99% fight for more than 100 years.  Now the rest of us are learning that this fight is also OUR fight.  </p>
<p>The story of organized labor has been a story of working people banding together to confront concentrated wealth and power.  Unions have been fighting to get decent wages, benefits, better working conditions, on-the-job safety and respect.  Now, as the <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/features/reagan-revolution-home-roost">Reagan Revolution comes home to roost</a>, taking apart the middle class, the rest of us are learning that <strong>this is our fight, too</strong>.  </p>
<p>The story of America is a similar story to that of organized labor. The story of America is a story of We, the People banding together to fight the concentrated wealth and power of the British aristocracy.  Our <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/">Declaration of Independence</a> laid it out: we were fighting for a government that derives its powers from the consent of us, the people governed, not government by a wealthy aristocracy telling us what to do and making us work for their profit instead of for the betterment of all of us. <strong>It was the 99% vs the 1% then, and it is the 99% vs the 1% now.</strong></p>
<p><strong>We, the People</strong></p>
<p>Democracy is when We, the People decide things together &#8212; collectively &#8212; for the common good of all of us.  Our country originated from the idea of We, the People banding together to watch out for and protect each other, so we can all rise together for the common good, or &#8220;general welfare.&#8221;  <em>Collectively</em> we make decisions, and the result of this collective action is decisions <em>that work for all of us instead of just a few of us</em>.   This is the founding idea of our country.</p>
<p><strong>Unions Protect The Interests Of Working People</strong></p>
<p>The same is true for unions.  Unions work to bring We-the-People democracy to the workplace.  Like the old story about how it is harder to break a bundle of sticks than the same sticks one stick at a time, unions are organizations of working people, banding together so their collective power can confront the power of concentrated wealth.  By banding together in solidarity, working people are able to say, &#8220;<a href="http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012020821/we-people-have-say-no-you-cant-do"><em>No, you can&#8217;t do that!</em></a>,&#8221; and bargain for a better life <em>for all of us</em>.</p>
<p><strong>Organized Labor Sets The Standard</strong></p>
<p>The benefits that unions win don&#8217;t just go to the union members, they become the standard.  When labor won the fight for an 8-hour day and 40-hour workweek with overtime pay, that became the standard.  When labor fought for minimum wages, that became the standard, when labor fought for workplace safety, that became the standard.  Labor&#8217;s fight is a fight to set the standard for the rest of us.</p>
<p>Labor stands up to the 1%, and uses their organized power (bundle of sticks) to win better pay, benefits and working conditions for the 99%.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Although it is true that only about 20 percent of American workers are in unions, that 20 percent sets the standards across the board in salaries, benefits and working conditions. If you are making a decent salary in a non-union company, you owe that to the unions. One thing that corporations do not do is give out money out of the goodness of their hearts.&#8221;<br />
&#8211; Molly Ivins.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Eroded Rights</strong></p>
<p>Working people banding together to bargain with management &#8212; &#8220;collective&#8221; bargaining &#8212; is a fundamental right in the United States, but this right has eroded along with the rest of our democracy. For many years, the mechanisms of government that were supposed to enforce these rights were &#8220;captured&#8221; and instead were working against the rights of working people.  Bob Borosage explains, in, <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011125013/forgotten-leading-actor-american-dream-story"><em>The Forgotten Leading Actor In The American Dream Story</em></a>,</p>
<blockquote><p>Globalization gave manufacturers a large club in negotiations—concessions or jobs get shipped abroad. And often the reality was concessions AND jobs got shipped abroad. Corporations perfected techniques, often against the law, to crush organizing drives, and stymie new contracts for the few that succeeded. The National Labor Relations Board, stacked with corporate lobbyists under Republican presidents, turned a blind eye to systematic violations of the law.</p>
<p>So now union workers are down to about 7 percent of the private workforce. Virtually the only growing unions are public employees— teachers, nurses, cops. Not surprisingly, conservative Republican governors, led by Wisconsin&#8217;s Scott Walker and Ohio&#8217;s John Kasich, used the budget squeeze caused by the Great Recession to go after these unions, combining layoffs with efforts to eviscerate the right of public employees to organize and negotiate.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>The Fight Is On</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice.&#8221;<br />
&#8211; Dwight D. Eisenhower.</p></blockquote>
<p>Dorian Warren, at Salon in <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/19/americas_last_hope_a_strong_labor_movement/singleton/"><em>America’s last hope: A strong labor movement</em></a>, writes, </p>
<blockquote><p>The fate of the labor movement is the fate of American democracy. Without a strong countervailing force like organized labor, corporations and wealthy elites advancing their own interests are able to exert undue influence over the political system, as we’ve seen in every major policy debate of recent years.</p>
<p>Yet the American labor movement is in crisis and is the weakest it’s been in 100 years. That truism has been a progressive mantra since the Clinton administration. However, union density has continued to decline from roughly 16 percent in 1995 to 11.8 percent of all workers and just 6.9 percent of workers in the private sector. Unionized workers in the public sector now make up the majority of the labor movement for the first time in history, which is precisely why — a la Wisconsin and 14 other states — they have been targeted by the right for all out destruction.</p>
<p>&#8230; Contrary to the intent of the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, which made it national policy to encourage and promote collective bargaining, the NLRA now provides incentives for employers to break the law routinely and ignore any compulsion to negotiate collective agreements. When there is little outrage for the daily violations of workers’ liberty (employers fire workers illegally in 1 in 3 union campaigns for attempting to exercise freedom of association), our democracy is in peril.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Restore The Middle Class</strong></p>
<p>Unions brought us a middle class, and now that the power of organized labor has eroded we find ourselves in a fight to keep the middle class.  <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011125013/forgotten-leading-actor-american-dream-story">Borosage again</a>,</p>
<blockquote><p>We emerged from World War II with unions headed towards representing about 30% of the workforce. Fierce struggles with companies were needed to ensure that workers got a fair share of the rewards of their work. Unions were strong enough that non-union employers had to compete for good workers by offering comparable wages. Unions enforced the 40-hour week, overtime pay, paid vacations, health care and pensions, and family wages. Strong unions limited excesses in corporate boardrooms, a countervailing power beyond the letter of the contract. As profits and productivity rose, wages rose as well.</p>
<p>When unions were weakened and reduced, all that changed. Productivity and profits continued to rise, but wages did not. The ratio of CEO pay to the average worker pay went from 40 to 1 to more than 350 to 1. CEOs were given multimillion-dollar pay incentives to cook their books and merge and purge their companies. Unions were not strong enough to police the excess. America let multinationals define its trade and manufacturing strategy, hemorrhaging good jobs to mercantilist nations like China.</p>
<p>The result was the wealthiest few captured literally all the rewards of growth. And 90% of America struggled to stay afloat with stagnant wages, rising prices and growing debt.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Support Bargaining Rights For Labor </strong></p>
<p>We all need to understand that <strong>labor&#8217;s fight is our fight</strong>.  Now that labor is under attack across the country, we need to understand that we are also under attack.  As labor loses rights and power, all of our pay and benefits fall back.  We need to support the rights of working people to organize into unions and bargain collectively, to fight our fight, the 99% vs the 1%.  This battle right now is the whole ball game.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;To a right-winger, unions are awful. Why do right-wingers hate unions? Because collective bargaining is the power that a worker has against the corporation. Right-wingers hate that.&#8221;<br />
&#8211; Janeane Garofalo</p></blockquote>
<p><em>This post originally appeared at <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/">Campaign for America&#8217;s Future</a> (CAF) at their <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog">Blog for OurFuture</a>.  I am a Fellow with CAF.</em></p>
<p><em><a href="http://caf.democracyinaction.org/o/11002/t/43/content.jsp?content_KEY=1">Sign up here for the CAF daily summary</a><a href="http://zhonghuatraditionalsnacks.com/">.</a></em></p>
<div align="center"><a href="http://www.twitter.com/dcjohnson" target="_blank"><img style="margin-right:10px" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowDaveJohnsonOnTwitter.gif" width="250"></a><a href="http://www.twitter.com/ourfuturedotorg"><img src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowCAFonTwitter.gif" width="250"></a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/03/01/labors-fight-is-our-fight/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Crucial Senate Labor Vote Today &#8211; Actions You Can Take</title>
		<link>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/02/06/crucial-senate-labor-vote-today-actions-you-can-take/</link>
		<comments>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/02/06/crucial-senate-labor-vote-today-actions-you-can-take/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:13:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Johnson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CWA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEIU]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirtyhippies.org/?p=1992</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Senate votes today on restricting labor rights, in the FAA bill. Committee Dems caved and gave away union election rights. At least 18 unions including CWA,SEIU have voiced opposition. Here are some actions you can take right now.</p> <p>Last week, in <a href="http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012020502/faa-bill-still-anti-labor-call-your-senators">FAA Bill Still Anti-Labor! Call Your Senators!</a>:</p> <p>Why This Fight?</p> <p>The reason [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Senate votes today on restricting labor rights, in the FAA bill. Committee Dems caved and gave away union election rights.  At least 18 unions including CWA,SEIU have voiced opposition. Here are some actions you can take right now.</p>
<p>Last week, in <a href="http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012020502/faa-bill-still-anti-labor-call-your-senators"><em>FAA Bill Still Anti-Labor! Call Your Senators!</em></a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Why This Fight?</strong></p>
<p>The reason there is a fight over labor rules in an FAA bill <em>at all</em> is that Delta Airlines is trying to keep unions out, so the 1% can keep from paying good wages and benefits to the 99%.  And, as usually happens, they are offering the Republican Party a share of the take if they can just make it happen for them.  Such is our present-day political system.  It seems to come down to who is giving the most money to the Republican Party gets priority in legislation.  (&#8220;Drill, baby, drill!&#8221;)</p>
<p><strong>Compromise?</strong></p>
<p>If you start with a bill that says, &#8220;kill all the unions, kill all the unions, kill all the unions, kill all the unions&#8221; and take out one &#8220;kill all the unions&#8221; is that a compromise?  The unions are still killed three times over.</p>
<p>The FAA bill contains a number of provisions that make it nearly impossible to establish a union, including but not limited to:</p>
<ul class="bloglist">
<li> the percentage of workers that say they wan a vote on unionization increases from 35 to 50 percent
<li> tricky election run-off rules open up elections to even more company interference
<li> a procedure allowing for the wholesale decertification of a whole host of unions through mergers
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>CALL YOUR SENATORS NOW! <a href="http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=65">Click here for help</a>.</p>
<p>CREDO has <a href="http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/dems_faa/?r=5528027&amp;id=34447-1975807-1qqaiex">an action out, please click this</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Tell Senate Democrats: Stand with unions. Don&#8217;t cave to Republicans.</strong></p>
<p>For months, House Republicans have been trying to use the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as a way to attack labor unions.</p>
<p>And until recently, Senate Democrats along with their colleagues from the House and the White House have been standing strong and fighting back.</p>
<p>But now, Senate Democratic leadership is poised to cave to the rightwing and anti-worker Republicans in the House, and allow what should be a bill about aviation safety and security to become one that unilaterally changes labor law to the detriment of working people.</p>
<p>Tell Senate Democrats: Stand with unions. Don&#8217;t cave to Republicans.</p></blockquote>
<p>Tweet This:<br />
Call your Senators today and let them know that FAA Bill is a &#8220;No Compromise&#8221; http://bit.ly/yWAkMA @CWAUnion #1u #p2</p>
<p><strong>End Secret Corporate Campaign Cash</strong></p>
<p>While you are at it, join us going after the source of the problem.  <a href="http://action.ourfuture.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=161">Click here to <strong>End Secret Campaign Cash</strong></a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>End Secret Corporate Campaign Cash</strong></p>
<p>It has been two years since the Supreme Court decided in the infamous Citizens United case that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns. Since then, our democracy has been drowning in a tsunami of corporate special interest money. Our government is under the thumb of the Koch brothers instead of the hands of the people.</p>
<p>We cannot ultimately right this wrong until we can organize the states to pass a constitutional amendment that declares what everyone except Mitt Romney seems to understand: corporations are not people and money is not speech.</p>
<p>But until then, we can take action right now to force corporations to make their campaign spending public. Sign the petition below and tell the SEC: No more secret political money. <strong>Make all publicly traded corporations disclose their campaign spending to the public.</strong></p></blockquote>
<p><em>This post originally appeared at <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/">Campaign for America&#8217;s Future</a> (CAF) at their <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog">Blog for OurFuture</a>.  I am a Fellow with CAF.</em></p>
<p><em><a href="http://caf.democracyinaction.org/o/11002/t/43/content.jsp?content_KEY=1">Sign up here for the CAF daily summary</a>.</em></p>
<div align="center"><a href="http://www.twitter.com/dcjohnson" target="_blank"><img style="margin-right:10px" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowDaveJohnsonOnTwitter.gif" width="250"></a><a href="http://www.twitter.com/ourfuturedotorg"><img src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowCAFonTwitter.gif" width="250"></a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/02/06/crucial-senate-labor-vote-today-actions-you-can-take/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FAA Bill Still Anti-Labor! Call Your Senators!</title>
		<link>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/02/02/faa-bill-still-anti-labor-call-your-senators/</link>
		<comments>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/02/02/faa-bill-still-anti-labor-call-your-senators/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 16:19:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Johnson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Activism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirtyhippies.org/?p=1981</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Not long ago, in <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012010320/win-labor-faa-bill-drops-anti-union-language">A Win For Labor &#8211; FAA Bill Drops Anti-Union Language</a>, I wrote that, &#8220;negotiators have dropped the anti-union language for votes to start a union. Republicans were insisting that no-shows be counted as &#8220;No&#8221; votes. Delta&#8217;s check must have been mailed late.&#8221;</p> <p>Well, not so fast. While dropping a blatant [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not long ago, in <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012010320/win-labor-faa-bill-drops-anti-union-language"><em>A Win For Labor &#8211; FAA Bill Drops Anti-Union Language</em></a>, I wrote that, &#8220;negotiators have dropped the anti-union language for votes to start a union. Republicans were insisting that no-shows be counted as &#8220;No&#8221; votes. Delta&#8217;s check must have been mailed late.&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, not so fast.  While dropping a blatant anti-labor requirement that any non-voters be counted as &#8216;no&#8217; voters, it turns out that the bill remains solidly and sneakily anti-labor.  This is supposed to be <strong>a bill about airline safety and security</strong>, but the fight is over anti-labor provisions&#8230; what&#8217;s up with that?  Laura Clawson at Daily Kos writes in, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/30/1060027/-Unions-call-on-Democrats-to-reject-poison-pills-buried-in-Republican-compromise-on-FAA"><em>Unions call on Democrats to reject poison pills buried in Republican &#8216;compromise&#8217; on FAA</em></a>,</p>
<blockquote><p>When Republicans suggested that they would agree to a compromise on Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization, dropping their demand to count workers who did not vote in union representation elections as having voted against the union in exchange for raising the threshold of workers asking to get a union representation election from 35 percent to 50 percent, there were two possibilities: Either Republicans were dropping a huge demand in exchange for something relatively minor and it was a bit of a win, or there was something sneaky buried in what Republicans now wanted.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Why This Fight?</strong></p>
<p>The reason there is a fight over labor rules in an FAA bill <em>at all</em> is that Delta Airlines is trying to keep unions out, so the 1% can keep from paying good wages and benefits to the 99%.  And, as usually happens, they are offering the Republican Party a share of the take if they can just make it happen for them.  Such is our present-day political system.  It seems to come down to who is giving the most money to the Republican Party gets priority in legislation.  (&#8220;Drill, baby, drill!&#8221;)</p>
<p><strong>Compromise?</strong></p>
<p>If you start with a bill that says, &#8220;kill all the unions, kill all the unions, kill all the unions, kill all the unions&#8221; and take out one &#8220;kill all the unions&#8221; is that a compromise?  The unions are still killed three times over.</p>
<p>The FAA bill contains a number of provisions that make it nearly impossible to establish a union, including but not limited to:</p>
<ul class="bloglist">
<li> the percentage of workers that say they wan a vote on unionization increases from 35 to 50 percent
<li> tricky election run-off rules open up elections to even more company interference
<li> a procedure allowing for the wholesale decertification of a whole host of unions through mergers
</ul>
<p><strong>So Will Dems Cave?</strong></p>
<p>So the question is, will Democrats cave on this?  Some are saying that they have &#8220;made compromises&#8221; but what has happened is they took out one part that makes it almost impossible to form a union while leaving in other parts that make it nearly impossible to form a union.  The only &#8220;compromise&#8221; appears to be from <em>almost</em> impossible to <em>nearly</em> impossible and labor is screwed either way.  Or, from above, the unions are killed three times over instead of four times over.</p>
<p>As <a href="http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/01/31/eighteen-unions-blast-congress-for-faa-compromise-that-weakens-labor-law/">David Dayen reports at Firedoglake</a>, a number of labor organizations <a href="http://www.goiam.org/publications/pdfs/01_30_2012_JointRelease.pdf">have signed a letter</a> rejecting this &#8220;compromise.&#8221;  The unions signing the letter are the United Auto Workers union; Teamsters; Communications Workers of America; Association of Flight Attendants-CWA; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees-IBT; American Federation of Government Employees; International Association of Machinists; National Education Association; Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen-IBT; Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen; Service Employees Local 32BJ-National Conference of Fireman and Oilers; Sheet Metal Workers; United Steelworkers; American Train Dispatchers Association; Transportation Communications Union-IAM; Amalgamated Transit Union; United Transportation Union; and UniteHere.</p>
<p><strong>Fight Back Against Attacks By The 1%</strong></p>
<p>Stand with these unions to help protect the middle class from attacks by the 1%.  CALL YOUR SENATORS TODAY and tell them you want the FAA bill to be about airline safety and security, not busting unions.</p>
<p>Then, click here to sign a letter, <a href="http://action.cwa-union.org/c/1213/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=3555"><strong>Stop This Radical Threat to Workers&#8217; Rights</strong></a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Radical anti-union members of Congress are attempting to rewrite the Railway Labor Act and change the role of the National Mediation Board without debate or discussion. They have included drastic changes to the law in the FAA Reauthorization bill.</p>
<p>The changes these radicals are seeking would:</p>
<p>Make it much harder for airline and railroad workers to hold union representation elections.<br />
Threaten airline and railroad workers’ right to a secret ballot during union representation campaigns, allowing for management intimidation and retaliation.<br />
Allow airline and railroad management to decertify unions without an election in a merger.</p></blockquote>
<p><em>This post originally appeared at <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/">Campaign for America&#8217;s Future</a> (CAF) at their <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog">Blog for OurFuture</a>.  I am a Fellow with CAF.</em></p>
<p><em><a href="http://caf.democracyinaction.org/o/11002/t/43/content.jsp?content_KEY=1">Sign up here for the CAF daily summary</a>.</em></p>
<div align="center"><a href="http://www.twitter.com/dcjohnson" target="_blank"><img style="margin-right:10px" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowDaveJohnsonOnTwitter.gif" width="250"></a><a href="http://www.twitter.com/ourfuturedotorg"><img src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowCAFonTwitter.gif" width="250"></a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/02/02/faa-bill-still-anti-labor-call-your-senators/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>India And Philippines Declare War On Call Center Bill</title>
		<link>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/01/11/india-and-philippines-declare-war-on-call-center-bill/</link>
		<comments>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/01/11/india-and-philippines-declare-war-on-call-center-bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:34:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Johnson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jobs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirtyhippies.org/?p=1947</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Last month I wrote about a bill before Congress that would both help fight the offshoring of call-center jobs and protect consumers. Now the countries where we have been sending those jobs are organizing a lobbying campaign to fight the bill.</p> <p>The Bill</p> <p>There is a bipartisan bill before Congress, The U.S. Call Center Worker [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last month I wrote about a bill before Congress that would both help fight the offshoring of call-center jobs and protect consumers.  Now the countries where we have been sending those jobs are organizing a lobbying campaign to fight the bill.</p>
<p><strong>The Bill</strong></p>
<p>There is a bipartisan bill before Congress, <em>The U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act</em>, that would let the public know which companies are engaging in sending jobs out of the country, let customers ask to use an American call center instead, and ban federal grants or guaranteed loans to American companies that move call center jobs out of the US.  In <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/institute/blog-entry/2011125013/call-center-bill-would-let-customers-ask-talk-americans"><em>Call-Center Bill Would Let Customers Ask To Talk To Americans</em></a>, I wrote about some of the specifics and the reason the bill is needed,</p>
<blockquote><p>Today many call-center jobs are being moved out of the country to India and the Philippines. This costs American jobs, and can be very frustrating to consumers who have to speak to people who they cannot understand because of language problems or cultural differences. The The U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act gives consumers the right to ask where the person they are speaking with is based, and ask for an American-based representative instead. Among the things this bill would accomplish:</p>
<ul class="bloglist">
<li>Require the Department of Labor to publicly list firms that move call center jobs overseas.
<li>Make these firms ineligible for any direct or indirect federal loans or loan guarantees for five years.
<li>Require 120 day advance notification of a proposed move off-shore.
<li>Require call center employees to tell U.S. consumers where they are located, if asked.
<li>Require that call centers transfer calls to a U.S. call center if asked.
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Lobbying Campaign</strong></p>
<p>India and the Philippines are organizing a lobbying campaign <em>here</em> &#8212; yes, foreign countries lobby Congress to take our jobs &#8212; to keep this bill from even being considered.  <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/article2739064.ece">An article in The Hindu</a> explains, </p>
<blockquote><p>India&#8217;s ambassador to the United States Nirupama Rao said that India would work to protect its business interests in the context of a proposed U.S. legislation against outsourcing call centre works to countries, including India. </p></blockquote>
<p>The Manila Bulletin <a href="http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/346904/strong-us-lobby-team-pushed">gets specific</a>,</p>
<blockquote><p>President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III was urged to create and send a strong contingent of Filipinos that would persuade lawmakers in the US Congress to stop the passage of a bill that could kill the US$9-billion business processing outsourcing (BPO) in the country.</p>
<p>Eastern Samar Rep. Ben Evardone, chairman of the House Committee on Public Information, lamented that US House Bill No. 3596 or the Call Center and Consumers Protection Bill will discourage American companies from outsourcing services in other countries like the Philippines.</p>
<p><strong>“We have to act immediately by sending a strong lobby team in the US. I believe this will kill the BPO industry in the country,” </strong>Evardone said.</p></blockquote>
<p>In, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/anti-outsourcing-bill-uproar-india-philippines_n_1193958.html?1326127895"><em>Anti-Outsourcing Bill Stirs Fears In India, Philippines</em></a> at the <em>Huffington Post</em>, Dave Jamieson quotes Rep. Tim Bishop&#8217;s (D-N.Y.) reaction to this effort by India and the Philippines,</p>
<blockquote><p>When asked about such reactions, Bishop said that the fears in India and the Philippines reinforce the argument for the legislation.</p>
<p>&#8220;Frankly, the fact that both the Indian government and the Filipino government are reacting like this says that our bill is very badly needed,&#8221; he said. Most of the call center jobs lost in the U.S. are &#8220;sent primarily to India and the Philippines. So I hope [the bill] does have an impact.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8230; While discussing the call center legislation last month, Bishop said that &#8220;outsourcing is one of the scourges of our economy and one of the reasons we are struggling to knock down the unemployment rate and reduce the number of Americans who are out of work &#8230; We can&#8217;t prohibit it, but we can certainly discourage it.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Consumer Protection</strong></p>
<p>This is not just an offshoring issue, it is also a consumer-protection issue.  In <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011125016/who-protects-info-you-give-offshored-call-centers"><em>Who Protects Info You Give To Offshored Call Centers?</em></a>, I wrote about a study showing that offshoring of call centers causes us to lose protections on our privacy and financial information,</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Not JUST Jobs Lost &#8212; Data Privacy Is Lost, Too</strong></p>
<p>A new study by the Communication Workers of America backs up the need for that bill. The report is called, Why Shipping Call Center Jobs Overseas Hurts Us Back Home. The study found that offshoring call-centers undoes protection of Americans’ private information. Personal data can be available to people who could use it for criminal purposes. Also, once information is sent across borders governments do not need warrants to collect this info.</p></blockquote>
<p>The full text of the bill is <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3596/show">available here</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>H.R.3596</strong> &#8211; To require a publicly available a list of all employers that relocate a call center overseas and to make such companies ineligible for Federal grants or guaranteed loans and to require disclosure of the physical location of business agents engaging in customer service communications.</p></blockquote>
<p><em>This post originally appeared at <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/">Campaign for America&#8217;s Future</a> (CAF) at their <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog">Blog for OurFuture</a>.  I am a Fellow with CAF.</em></p>
<p><em><a href="http://caf.democracyinaction.org/o/11002/t/43/content.jsp?content_KEY=1">Sign up here for the CAF daily summary</a>.</em></p>
<div align="center"><a href="http://www.twitter.com/dcjohnson" target="_blank"><img style="margin-right:10px" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowDaveJohnsonOnTwitter.gif" width="250"></a><a href="http://www.twitter.com/ourfuturedotorg"><img src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowCAFonTwitter.gif" width="250"></a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/01/11/india-and-philippines-declare-war-on-call-center-bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Republicans Have Shut Down The NLRB. The President Must Act!</title>
		<link>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/01/03/republicans-have-shut-down-the-nlrb-the-president-must-act/</link>
		<comments>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/01/03/republicans-have-shut-down-the-nlrb-the-president-must-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:41:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dave Johnson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Unions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NLRB]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirtyhippies.org/?p=1899</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>As of now an agency of our government, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), is effectively shut down, unable to do its job. This is a &#8220;nullification&#8221; by Republicans, of laws that protect workers and companies, in exchange for campaign help from the 1%. They are simply obstructing, blocking appointments in order to keep the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As of now an agency of our government, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), is effectively shut down, unable to do its job.  This is a &#8220;nullification&#8221; by Republicans, of laws that protect workers <em>and companies</em>, in exchange for campaign help from the 1%. They are simply obstructing, blocking appointments <em>in order to keep the agency from functioning</em>. <strong>The President has a responsibility to keep the government operating</strong> and must use his power to make recess appointments to get the NLRB up and running.</p>
<p><strong>The NLRB</strong></p>
<p>The mission of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), <a href="https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act">by law</a>, is &#8220;to protect the rights of employees and employers, to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail certain private sector labor and management practices, which can harm the general welfare of workers, businesses and the U.S. economy.&#8221;</p>
<p>Once again, the reason we have the NLRB is:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;&#8230;to protect the rights of employees and employers, to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail certain private sector labor and management practices, which can harm the general welfare of workers, businesses and the U.S. economy.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>For readers who missed that, here it is in bold: </p>
<p><strong>&#8220;to protect the rights of employees and employers, to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail certain private sector labor and management practices, which can harm the general welfare of workers, businesses and the U.S. economy.&#8221;</strong></p>
<p><strong>It&#8217;s The Law</strong></p>
<p>That&#8217;s right, it is the policy of the U.S. government, and <em><strong>the law</strong></em>, to &#8220;encourage&#8221; unionization because higher wages and benefits helps Americans and our economy overall. By law. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s the law.</p>
<p><strong>Influence Of The 1%</strong></p>
<p>Yes, it&#8217;s the law.  But so what?  Paying good wages and providing benefits means that the 1% and their corporations might have to wait a bit longer to stash away a few billion more, so they are furious at such government &#8220;interference.&#8221; Yes, it is better for everyone in the long run when working people do better, but it isn&#8217;t better for the 1% <em>right now, this quarter</em>, so they fight every effort to help the middle class.  </p>
<p>The 1% and their big corporations have a lot of influence.  They dole out generous campaign contributions to those politicians who do their bidding.  And they set up &#8220;outside groups&#8221; that are allowed to spend unlimited amounts to help those they favor and fight those they do not.  And they hire lobbyists &#8212; and let current members of Congress and their staff know they can hire <em>them</em>, too, later, for extremely generous salaries, if they just play ball now.  </p>
<p><strong>Agency Shut Down</strong></p>
<p>In 2010 the Republican majority on the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the NLRB must have a quorum of board members or it cannot decide cases.  Ongoing Republican efforts to keep the Board from operating succeeded.  Over 600 decided cases were thrown out.  Big companies could continue to get away with firing people for trying to exercise their legal rights to organize unions so they could get better pay and benefits, regardless of what the laws said.</p>
<p>So Republicans are doing the bidding of the 1%.  Today the NLRB is effectively shut down because it does not have enough Board members to function.  Republicans in the Senate have blocked appointments to the Board, to keep it from operating, to prevent it from deciding cases, so that big companies can operate with impunity and continue to shovel all the gains from our economy up to the top 1%.</p>
<p><strong>Nullification</strong></p>
<p>&#8220;Nullification&#8221; was the pre-Civil War &#8220;states rights&#8221; practice of Southern states simply ignoring federal laws.  The Republicans are again engaging in nullification, on behalf of the 1%.</p>
<p>Kevin Drum at Mother Jones, in <a href="http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/12/nullification-makes-comeback"><em>Nullification Makes a Comeback</em></a>, explains,</p>
<blockquote><p>Republicans are refusing to allow votes on President Obama&#8217;s nominee to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and on his nominees to fill vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board. In both cases, the Republican refusal is explicity aimed at shutting down these agencies. </p>
<p>&#8230; Republicans make no bones about why they&#8217;re doing this. They opposed the CFPB from the start, and they&#8217;re now using the filibuster as a way of unilaterally preventing it from operating even though it was lawfully created by a vote of Congress and signed into law by the president. Likewise, they&#8217;re afraid the NLRB is about to make some rulings they dislike, so they&#8217;re using the filibuster as a way of shutting it down by denying it a quorum. </p></blockquote>
<p>The 1% are only 1%, and we are technically still supposed to be operating as a country where the majority rules.  So when they can&#8217;t get their way the 1% engage in various schemes to get their way.  We have seen an unprecedented use of filibusters to block the ability of the Congress to function.  We have seen hostage-taking and shutdown attempts.  In the case of the NLRB (and the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency) we are seeing another &#8220;nullification&#8221; effort &#8212; preventing the agency from operating by preventing appointments.</p>
<p>This is not politics, this is not bipartisanship, this is intentional obstruction to keep the government from operating.</p>
<p><strong>Where Is Our President?</strong></p>
<p>The President of the United States has a lot of power &#8212; if he chooses to exercise that power.  One of his powers is to make appointments himself at times when the Senate is unable to make appointments.  This is in the Constitution because the Founders understood how important it is to keep the government operating.</p>
<p>The Constitution is clear about the President&#8217;s power, and his implied responsibility to use that power to keep the government operating:</p>
<p>Article II Section 2: <em>The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.</em></p>
<p>Article II Section 3: &#8230;<em>he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;</em></p>
<p>If the House and Senate disagree on adjournment, the President can adjourn them. And when they are adjourned he can make recess appointments.  The Congress is engaging in <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/175449-house-forces-pro-forma-sessions-in-august-to-avoid-obama-recess-appointments">a charade of &#8220;pro-forma&#8221; sessions</a> to give the technical appearance of being in session <em>when they are not in session</em> as part of this obstruction/nullification strategy by the agents of the 1% to keep our government from functioning for the 99%.</p>
<p><strong>The 15-Second Option</strong></p>
<p>The President <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-williams/nlrb-and-cfpb-recess-appo_b_1169657.html">had the power</a> to make recess appointments at noon today, when the Senate was officially in recess <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=980DE1DC153FE433A2575BC0A9649D946297D6CF">between the first and second sessions of the 58th Senate</a>.  This would have kept this important agency in operation, doing its legally mandated job of protecting workers and companies.  The president didn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>President <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/recess-appointments-nobody-did-them-like-teddy/2011/12/08/gIQAJK1IgO_blog.html">Teddy Roosevelt used this power</a> in 1903 to appoint 160 officials.  The country survived.</p>
<p><strong>Adjourn And Appoint</strong></p>
<p><strong>We can&#8217;t wait.</strong> We have an extraordinary situation here, where one of the parties, as a political strategy, in exchange for campaign assistance from the 1%, is obstructing for the purpose of preventing the government from operating. It is the duty of the President to keep the government operating.</p>
<p>Mr. President, this is outrageous.  Working people <strong>need you</strong> to use your power to get the NLRB up and functioning.  Please, <a href="http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011104326/adjourn-and-appoint-we-can-t-wait-recess-appointments">adjourn and appoint &#8212; WE CAN&#8217;T WAIT!</a></p>
<p><em>This post originally appeared at <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/">Campaign for America&#8217;s Future</a> (CAF) at their <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/blog">Blog for OurFuture</a>.  I am a Fellow with CAF.</em></p>
<p><em><a href="http://caf.democracyinaction.org/o/11002/t/43/content.jsp?content_KEY=1">Sign up here for the CAF daily summary</a>.</em></p>
<div align="center"><a href="http://www.twitter.com/dcjohnson" target="_blank"><img style="margin-right:10px" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowDaveJohnsonOnTwitter.gif" width="250"></a><a href="http://www.twitter.com/ourfuturedotorg"><img src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb422/OurFuture/FollowCAFonTwitter.gif" width="250"></a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://dirtyhippies.org/2012/01/03/republicans-have-shut-down-the-nlrb-the-president-must-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
