Reactions to story from MSN
'Card check' best hope for auto workers union?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ id/ 27836262/
One advantage the Honda and Hyundai plants in Alabama have over the General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford plants in Michigan is lower labor costs. But what if the UAW could more easily organize workers at Honda and Hyundai?
Reactions / posts that link to this article
View all reactions »-
How The Dems Would Solve The Auto Crisis
http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/how-the-dems-woul...This is a sign of what these idiots are bringing to the table… from MSNBC One advantage the Honda and Hyundai plants in Alabama have over the General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford plants in Michigan is lower labor costs. That’s because, in part, auto workers in Michigan are represented by the UAW and workers in Alabama aren’t. This cost differential has been a theme of the debate this week in Congress over whether taxpayers should subsidize GM, Ford and Chrysler. But what if the UAW could more easily organize workers at Honda and Hyundai? UAW-represented workers at Honda and Hyundai could then bargain for higher wages. The Employee Free Choice Act, passed by the House of Representatives last year, but stymied in the Senate, aims to make unionization easier by allowing workers to join a union by signing a card rather than by going through a secret-ballot election. The bill is called “card check” for short. It’s undemocratic and leads to obvious intimidation… something the Democrats are all for. So the solution is to raise the costs of well-run businesses to save the ones that shouldn’t be in business? photo credit: mil8
-
Corporate Progressivism Sets its Sites on the South
http://theheritagefoundry.org/2008/11/24/corporate-progressi...Corporate Progressivism Sets its Sites on the South Posted November 24th, 2008 at 11.13am in Entrepreneurship. A major reason the Big Three auto makers can’t turn a profit as they are currently organized is due to the generous union contracts they signed years ago. As you can see below, the Big Three are paying about $25 more per hour than their domestic competitors: So what happens if Congress refuses to write a big check for the Big Three? don’t worry, they have a Plan B. MSNBC reports: But what if the UAW could more easily organize workers at Honda and Hyundai? UAW-represented workers at Honda and Hyundai could then bargain for higher wages. The Employee Free Choice Act, passed by the House of Representatives last year, but stymied n the Senate, aims to make unionization easier by allowing workers to join a union by signing a card rather than by going through a secret-ballot election. The bill is called “card check” for short. … The shrinkage of GM, partly due to competition from Honda, Hyundai, and other plants in Alabama and other states, has decimated the UAW. … A UAW ally, Rep. Tim Ryan, D- Ohio, said enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act “would level the playing field. Each facility would be competing on the same playing field.” Got that? The left wants to do for the newly successful manufacturing states what the Big Three and unions did for Michigan. Oh, and by the way, MSNBC also reports: The UAW’s political action committee spent $11.5 million to help Democratic candidates this year. Now that’s some change you can pay for. Author: Conn Carroll
-
More on the UAW, the Auto Industry, and EFCA
http://lookaroundhr.com/2008/11/24/more-on-the-uaw-the-auto-...I recently read a couple pretty interesting articles from Tom Curry, National Affairs Writer for MSNBC.com. They talked about a couple topics that have been on my mind. This article talks about the proposed bailout and the viewpoints from supporters and opponents. They talk with Members of Congress from the union-heavy industrial Midwest, home of the troubled automakers; and members from the South, home of automakers that actually make a profit on the cars they produce. They also talk about EFCA and what it might do to the South. Rep. Tim Ryan, an Ohio Democrat said EFCA “would level the playing field. Each facility would be competing on the same playing field.” In response, Sen. John Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said, “I suppose they could share the misery and everybody could be stuck with $70 an hour labor costs.” I believe the failure of the Big 3, which exposed bad management and extremely high labor costs, may put EFCA on the back-burner for the time being. Labor argues that EFCA is needed to raise everyone’s standard of living, but people may not put much credence in the union’s words when they see an industry run by the unions on the brink of collapse. In a second article, Curry pitted the North vs. the South in the battle over bailing out the Big 3. This article concentrated on the fact that many of the opponents of the bail out are from districts and states that have foreign automakers that are doing pretty well for themselves. The reason for the success- the ability to change with the environment around them. Sen. Jeff Sessions said he visited the Honda plant in Alabama recently and the company is changing its assembly line from the fuel-hungry Odyssey minivan to the more efficient Accord sedan in response to the demand for more-efficient cars. “Those are the kinds of things a smart company does, so they are gaining market share,” he said. And here is a similar quote related to the Toyota plant in Kentucky: Sen. Jim Bunning added that Toyota, with 9,000 employees at its Georgetown, Ky., plant “is having trouble, too. They reduced output 14 percent and they reduced all their temporary employees, about 600 of them.” But he said that with a line of hybrid SUVs Toyota is “geared up way ahead of the SUV for the gasoline crunch.” Bunning, interestingly, is from a state that is home to both foreign and domestic automakers. Posted in business, labor
-
‘Card check’ best hope for auto workers union?
http://playcarracing.net/card-check-best-hope-for-auto-worke...‘Card check’ best hope for auto workers union? One advantage the Honda and Hyundai plants in Alabama have over the General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford plants in Michigan is lower labor costs. But what if the UAW could more easily organize workers at Honda and Hyundai? Go to Source MSNBC.com: Autos, Play Car Racing News 0 Comments. Posted by Admin
-
‘Card check’ best hope for auto workers union?
http://www.carzsite.com/card-check-best-hope-for-auto-worker...‘Card check’ best hope for auto workers union? Under Category: News One advantage the Honda and Hyundai plants in Alabama have over the General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford plants in Michigan is lower labor costs. But what if the UAW could more easily organize workers at Honda and Hyundai?
-
Saving Detroit: Is there corporatism in our future?
http://sixthcolumn.typepad.com/duckwalls/2008/11/saving-detr...A question being asked is: Is crippling Honda and Toyota appropriate for leveling the field so that Detroit's big three can rebound? Kausfiles at Slate: The New Plan? Cripple Honda! Save Detroit with Card Check! Eliminating the secret ballot and making it easier to organize U.S. Honda and Toyota workers (and imposing contract terms via binding arbitration) would "level the playing field," says Dem. Congressman Tim Ryan. ... Then when Honda and Toyota responded by importing more cars from abroad, we could have import quotas! Eventually the whole automotive sector could be planned by Congress in conjunction with existing business and labor interest groups. Red State has seen the future and it is corporatist. What is corporatism: the control of a state or organization by large interest groups. At the Wikipedia: Historically, corporatism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is held by civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and/or professional groups. These civic assemblies are known as corporations (not the same as the legally incorporated business entities known as corporations, though some are such). Corporations are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over the social and economic life of their respective areas. Thus, for example, a steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common policy on prices and wages. When the political and economic power of a country rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place. The word "corporatism" is derived from the Latin word for body, corpus. This meaning was not connected with the specific notion of a business corporation, but rather a general reference to anything collected as a body. Its usage reflects medieval European concepts of a whole society in which the various components – e.g., guilds, universities, monasteries, the various estates, etc. – each play a part in the life of the society, just as the various parts of the body serve specific roles in the life of a body. According to various theorists, corporatism was an attempt to create a modern version of feudalism by merging the "corporate" interests with those of the state. It became popular during the rule of Getulio Vargas in Brazil during the 1920s and 1930s when issues of social welfare arose. He implemented a form that promoted what was then referred to as modern capitalism. Its objective was to be moderate, and not completely open to free markets. Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby a state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through corporations. This usage is particularly common in the area of East Asian studies, and is sometimes also referred to as state corporatism. Some analysts have applied the term neocorporatism to certain practices in Western European countries, such the Proporz system in Austria.[1] At a popular level in recent years "corporatism" has been used to mean the promotion of the interests of private corporations in government over the interests of the public. What is meant by a "modern version of feudalism" or Neofeudalism? Neofeudalism literally means "New Feudalism" and implies a contemporary rebirth of policies of governance and economy reminiscent of those present in many pre-industrial feudal societies. The concept is one in which government policies are instituted with the effect (deliberate or otherwise) of systematically increasing the wealth gap between the rich and the poor while increasing the power of the rich and decreasing the power of the poor (also see wealth condensation). This effect is considered to be similar to the effects of traditional feudalism. The definition of the term is disputed and can be loosely employed as a pejorative term to attack political opponents. General Among the issues claimed to be associated with the idea of neofeudalism in contemporary society are class stratification, globalization, mass immigration/illegal immigration, open borders policies, multinational corporations, and "neo-corporatism."[1] Neofeudalism is part of the controversy over income redistribution born out of massive societal shifts during the industrial revolution. At the time the issue was wealth disparity between classes, landholders, entrepreneurs, peasants, workers, and other economic and social groups. Neofeudalism encompasses the current debate over globalization to include entire societies, countries, regions ("North" versus "South," "Western" versus "non-Western"), and supra-national non-state actors. Unlike other geopolitical issues such as environmentalism and security, the concept of "neofeudalism" largely focuses on economics. In a proposed party-neutral definition of the term, the traits ascribed to a theoretical emerging neofeudalism would not belong to one political party alone but would be emergent throughout the whole political system in all or at least several major parties. This definition describes a version of neofeudalism with its origin squarely in the realm of business interests and the interests of business owners actively advancing agendas that benefit them personally through political action committees and lobbying efforts directed at politicians not in one, but in every political party. This is a version of the "accidental" or unintentional definition of neofeudalism and describes it as the projected result of rich individuals using their wealth and connections in legal ways to influence politics strongly to their personal advantage over a period of time. In this party-neutral definition there is no cabal or secret society deliberately guiding national politics, but rather the sum effect of the pressures put on politics by the wealthy and elite can be described as moving towards a sort of "new feudalism." Feudal systems in antique societies usually had the common feature of being ruled by an extremely wealthy and powerful upper class (nobles and aristocrats) with nearly complete legal power over the lives and well-being of the impoverished lower classes of laborers, craftsmen, service professionals, farmer workers, and bond-servants (individuals with debts so excessive that their only legal options were debtor's prison, life as homeless "outlaws," or service to the upper class as serfs or houseservants). The feudal upper classes were not subject to the same set of laws as the lower classes. Thus one of the basic criteria for categorizing a society feudalistic or neofeudalistic might be simply that its laws and customs are designed to best serve the landed and wealthy while offering substantially lesser legal protections to the landless and working classes and those in debt. Such a system need not evolve out of any deliberate desire to oppress the working classes but rather may arise simply through a process of gradually changing the legal systems of a country to best serve the common interests of the upper classes (i.e. less taxation on unearned incomes and interest, more privileges for the wealthy than for the working class or landless, lighter penalties for committing "white collar" crimes, right to purchase expensive exemptions from wartime drafts, etc.). Recognition of similarities between such ancient social systems and a given current society is the condition most likely to lead to accusations of neofeudalism, regardless of the ongoing controversy over what actually constitutes neofeudalism. One rebuff to application of the term neofeudalism in the contemporary political setting is that such historical feudalism maintained caste without consideration of capital, where commoners who accumulated capital could at best elevate their rank to that of merchants, and class gaps of aristocracy were unbreachable even by private wealth until the late stages and breakdown of feudalism. To that extent, the labeling of monopoly capitalism as neofeudalism can be seen as a misnomer. Others would argue, however, that the prefix "neo" is meant to distinguish modern feudalism from the old kind and that use of the term only means that it mimics many of the effects of the old feudalism: an entrenched, fabulously wealthy elite, held in place by low taxes on capital and no taxes on estates; and a large and growing class of uneducated, unskilled labor brought in by unchecked immigration (both legal and illegal), and kept in check by high levels of personal debt, and high taxes on earned income (payroll, income, sales, property, etc.) Another specific and alternative application of the term neofeudalism alleges that corporate and government policies make workers dependent on the corporations, as well as making the economic power of the corporations greater than the power of national governments. This, detractors say, leads to a situation where workers are dependent on private interests that are more powerful than government, resembling the situation that prevailed during historic feudalism. Although it should be noted that in feudal law localized prerogatives were considered government. Use and Etymology There is controversy over the correct application of neofeudalism as a term, and its political usage is often highly charged with partisan prejudice. Neofeudalism is often used by critics to describe political policies of opponents, and in extreme cases there may be asserted to be a deliberate drive towards a re-imagination of feudal systems of governance for implementation within the context of an information age society. The term seems to have been originated as a criticism of the paternalistic left; an early example being the essay Galbraith's Neo-Feudalism[2] published in 1961. The term is still used by some on the right in that sense in the twenty-first century: Although he would later become a naturalized American citizen, Soros remains in social outlook very much a European and believer in the paternalistic neo-feudalism euphemistically called "democratic socialism" or "social democracy."[3] One of its applications to current politicians is that it explains the support of some for both high levels of nearly uncontrolled immigration and of reduced taxation on the rich. Politicians thus targeted by the term are also frequently opposed to minimum wage laws, claiming they would reduce job opportunities for the poor and the young, even though their support for open borders is based on the claim that the economy is already producing too many jobs. These policies, traditionalists say, would continue to devalue the labor of the working class while creating a wealthy elite that is permanently entrenched in the style of a feudal state. Other applications might include pointing to an individual politician's family history of holding high elected office as possible evidence supporting accusations of an emerging hereditary aristocracy (another common characteristic of feudal societies). Traditional Feudalism Feudalism is a political system of power dispersed and balanced between king and nobles. This system refers to a general set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility of Europe during the Middle Ages, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals, and fiefs. Neofeudalism in popular culture Frank Herbert's Dune series of novels is set in the distant future with a neofeudalistic galactic empire known as the Imperium after the Butlerian Jihad which prohibits all kinds of thinking machine technology, even its simpler forms. [Note: Butlerian Jihad is an event in the back-story of Frank Herbert's fictional Dune universe. It led to the outlawing of certain technologies, including artificial insemination and "thinking machines" (computers), conscious robots. ("Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of the human mind." It is clear from statements by certain characters with memories of the Jihad that it is a semi-religious social upheaval initiated by humans who felt repulsed by how guided and controlled they had become by machines.] References 1. ^ Thom Hartmann, "Time to Remove the Bananas...and Return Our Republic to Democracy", CommonDreams.org, 6 November 2002 [1] 2. ^ George Reisman Human Events, February 1961 [2] 3. ^ Lowell Ponte "George Soros: Billionaire for the Left" Front Page Magazine Why do people choose facism? [From The Dangerous Allure of Fascist Government.] Why People Choose Fascism The similarity among fascist regimes is no accident: fascism addressed the deeply-held concerns of some proportion of the societies it arose in, and promised comprehensive, aggressive reforms to address those issues. By examining fascism in terms of the needs it addresses, we can better understand how democracies can go fascist. The Need For Supremacy The rallying cry of every nationalist group worldwide is "We're Number One!" People are drawn to being a part of something great, and strong national identity is a core component to fascist mass movements because it puts the State on a pedestal. The same goes for religious or ethnic supremacy. Perhaps it's "whites" and "Christians" in addition to "Americans." The point is that fascism embraces the idea that "us" is better than "them." Better need not mean more powerful or more rich; it often means "more pure," "morally superior," or other ambiguous qualifiers of superiority. The myth of supremacy is critically important because anything that questions that supremacy can be seen as a destructive force. Those who question the myth are attacked as being insufficiently patriotic, even treasonous, because of the need to believe. The Need For Consensus A common thread among supporters of fascist policies is an aggressive dislike of disagreement, as mentioned above. It's not enough for some that they believe their own nation to be supreme - they imagine a nation unified in belief and action, free of dissent. Those who support fascist policies not only feel visceral anger when faced with dissent, but they tend to filter their exposure to the media to actively ignore such dissent. Part of the reason fascist leaders have had such success in disseminating propaganda is that their supporters are inclined to believe anything that agrees with their worldview, and to reject anything that disagrees with it. The presence of other opinions offends fascist mass movements, who take great comfort in being part of a group. The Need For Safety Fascism plays on the fears of the people, and a fascist regime is forever displaying itself as under attack. When military threats aren't apparent, the threat of sleeper cells, attacks on culture, or other forms of "invasion" are invoked. The supreme nation is, in a fascist mentality, forever under siege by an aggressive, self-destructive world. Consequently, massive steps are taken to ensure that not only is the nation safe, but the nation's culture is safe as well. Fascist states invariably invest heavily in state security, whether or not a real threat exists. Because of this widespread fear of threats, both foreign and domestic, a society's need for safety can trump their good sense, and the apparatus of authoritarianism is usually erected under the auspices of keeping a nation safe. The Need For Retribution Protecting the country from evil is not enough. Fascist policies call for an overwhelming response to real or imagined transgressions. Those guilty of crimes, the thinking goes, deserve to be treated as traitors, because any crime is a crime against the nation and the national interests. In the fascist mindset, "criminals" are a different class of citizen, inferior by definition to the "good folk" and not entitled to the same rights and privileges. It is from this thinking that human rights abuses are not only perpetrated by fascist states, but even condoned by its citizens. This thinking extends to dissenters as well. The fascist masses are uncompromising in their attacks on critics, and (because their cause is noble) any tactics are acceptable. Smearing enemies of the state and generally making their lives miserable is simply "just deserts" in this view. The Need For Sacrifice Perhaps the most perverse component of fascist mass movements is the call to sacrifice for the good of the state. Not only are civil liberties and civil services scaled back, but these sacrifices are embraced as being "for the good of the nation." Fascist citizens hold a common belief that win-win scenarios are fantasies, that all policy situations are zero-sum games. The flip-side of this is that anyone who isn't willing to sacrifice those things is accused of wanting the nation to fail. The fascist ideology imagines that such sacrifices are not only sufficient - they are necessary, and must be made. Anyone who doesn't agree is a coward or a parasite. Here are the characteristics of Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia [Britt: Facism Anyone?] 1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. 2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. 3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. 4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. 5. Rampant sexism. 6. A controlled mass media. 7. Obsession with national security. 8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. 9. Power of corporations protected. 10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. 11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. 12. Obsession with crime and punishment. 13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. 14. Fraudulent elections.
-
'Card check' best hope for auto workers union?
http://www.narbosa.com/2008/11/card-check-best-hope-for-auto...Nation: When taking away the secret vote is the best hope of leveling the playing field between the Big 3 in the north and everyone else in the New car south, everyone will suffer because of the union drek. A UAW ally, Rep. Tim Ryan, D- Ohio, said enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act “would level the playing field. Each facility would be competing on the same playing field.” He noted, “We have a (GM) facility in Lordstown, Ohio, where I’m from. GM just moved a lot of their production to build the new ‘Cruze’ in that facility and added a thousand jobs three or four months ago, and they just took them away” due to the economic distress. “It’s a union plant; the union worked with GM; they took some concessions, they made the deal work, and GM invested in the plant,” Ryan said. Given the UAW members’ willingness to cooperate at Lordstown, Ryan said, “It’s hard to say that somehow the South has an advantage.” If the “card check” bill became law, then “I suppose they could share the misery and everybody could be stuck with $70 an hour labor costs,” said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., sardonically.
-
Card Check: The Goal is to Hamper Competitiveness?
http://www.shopfloor.org/2008/11/22/card-check-the-goal-is-t...MSNBC’s Tom Curry reviews one aspect of the debate over federal aid to the domestic auto industry, “‘Card check’ best hope for auto workers union?” The answer is surely no, of course not, are you serious? Mickey Kaus at Slate rebuts one argument by supporters of the Employee Free Choice Act: The New Plan? Cripple Honda! Save Detroit with Card Check! Eliminating the secret ballot and making it easier to organize U.S. Honda and Toyota workers (and imposing contract terms via binding arbitration) would “level the playing field,” says Dem. Congressman Tim Ryan. … Then when Honda and Toyota responded by importing more cars from abroad, we could have import quotas! Eventually the whole automotive sector could be planned by Congress in conjunction with existing business and labor interest groups. Red State has seen the future and it is corporatist. …12:21 P.M. The answer to Detroit’s problem is not to make other automakers in the United States less competitive through passage of the anti-democratic Employee Free Choice Act, forcing unwilling employees into unions that would impose rigid, costly work rules. The story features another argument: UAW ally Rep. Dale Kildee, D- Mich., who was represents Flint, Mich., the city where GM was born, said that joining a union is only the first step. “After you get recognized, you still have to bargain,” he pointed out. “You can get recognized under the Employee Free Choice method or the election method. It’s what happens afterwards in the bargaining that really determines the differences (in wages).” Actually, passage of the Employee Free Choice Act would discourage good-faith bargaining by newly recognized unions. If the union can prevent completion of a first contract within a brief 120 days, a federal arbitrator imposes — imposes — binding arbitration on the parties for two years. No negotiation or renegotiation is possible, even if the contract proves to be completely unfair to one side or another, even if the contract destroys a company’s ability to compete. These are among the many, many reasons that employers regard the Employee Free Choice Act not just as anti-democratic, but also disruptive and destructive. To reaffirm those arguments, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace this week sent a letter to members of Congress reminding them of them of the strong, even passionate opposition to the card check legislation. From the news release and letter: The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, a group of more than 500 organizations, is united in opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act because we believe this bill severely undermines long standing principles of balance and fairness in federal labor law. Make no mistake; the purpose of EFCA is not labor law reform. The legislation is a dramatic assault on the rights of employees and employers that threatens to severely undermine any chance at a constructive dialogue on labor law reform. The key provisions in this legislation represent egregious attempts to limit the rights of employees and employers and will severely diminish the ability of U.S. business to succeed in our globally competitive market. The letter lists the members of the Coalition, which includes the National Association of Manufacturers.
More rising blog posts
-
Business »
More Lessons From The 2008 Financial Markets -
Lifestyle »
Curly Skateboard by Loren Kulesus -
Politics »
"It's Hell in Here" "They are Bombing 1.5 million People in a Cage" -
Technology »
Motorola announces A3100, Renew, and Tundra VA76r -
Entertainment »
Flash Forward: Jamal Woolard In Notorious -
Sports »
USC Can’t Shake Oregon State in Football or Basketball
More rising news stories
-
Business »
Billionaire kills himself over financial crisis -
Lifestyle »
Aspiring to Lead a Troubled Party -
Politics »
Treasury says TARP costs $26.55 million through January -
Technology »
Dead stars harbor asteroids -
Entertainment »
Video: Snowman towers nearly 2 stories -
Sports »
Broncos bring in Cowboys' Garrett for interview
