A blog of things I find interesting. Mostly revolving around unions, workers rights, politics, and too much of my amateur photography. I am a Michigan labor union staffer, MSU alum,and a politics junkie.

Posts Tagged: republicans

Chomsky on the only American political party: The Business Party

Chomsky on the only American political party: The Business Party

Text

Today was a good day. A ruckus was made in the Capitol rotunda fighting for women’s rights, and I was within 10 feet of Governor Snyder as he left the building. We made eye contact for a brief moment, and in that wonderful moment… I yelled “UNION BUSTER!”

There is no amount of money that would equal how good it felt to do that. And if you frown upon yelling at elected officials, at least I refrained from calling him a “cheese eating union busting rat” or a “petite fascist”.

Five Reasons Why Michigan’s Anti-Abortion Bill Is The Nation’s Worst

Oh hey look, the Michigan GOP took a break from destroying democracy, workers’ rights, and public education to find a new project: the War on Women. Hurray, right wing social engineering.

——
From Think Progress:

The Michigan House has passed HB 5711, the nation’s most restrictive anti-abortion bill that combines some of the worst attacks on women’s access to abortion care into one bill. The massive 45-page, Republican-backed legislation limits when a woman could have an abortion and puts a greater, unnecessary burden on abortion providers.

Opponents have loudly protested against the measure that has been jammed through the legislature — it was introduced on May 31 and a committee approved it last week — and Democratic lawmakers spoke out against it before the House passed the bill 70-39. “This bill is not about protecting women’s health,” said state Rep. Kate Segal (D).

Here’s what you should know about these far-reaching anti-abortion bills:

1) Bans Abortions After 20 Weeks, Even For Rape And Incest Victims: A woman would not be able to have an abortion after 20 weeks of gestation based on the widely disputed idea that a fetus can feel pain after that point. The only exception would be if a woman’s life was in danger.

2) Transforms Doctors Into Detectives: The Republican-backed legislation would make it a crime for anyone to coerce a woman into having an abortion. Doctors will have to give their patients a questionnaire to inform them of the illegality of coercion and determine if the woman had been coerced or is the victim of domestic abuse before the abortion procedure.

3) Limits Access For Rural Women: Under the omnibus bill, doctors would have to be physically present to perform a medical abortion, thus preventing a doctor from administering abortion-inducing medication by consulting via telephone or internet. This would especially hurt rural women, who may have to travel hours to meet in-person with a specialist.

4) Requires Doctors To Purchase Costly Malpractice Insurance: If HB 5711 goes into effect, then doctors would be required to carry $1 million in liability insurance if they perform five or more abortions each month or have been subject to two more more civil suits in the past seven years, among other requirements. But the qualifications are so vague that almost all doctors who perform abortions could be required to carry the additional liability insurance at a potential cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

5) Regulates Clinics Out Of Existence: HB 5711 would create new regulations so that any clinic that provides six or more abortions in a month or one which advertises abortion services would have to be licensed as a “freestanding surgical outpatient facility.” That means that even if a clinic does not offer surgical abortions, it would be required to have a full surgical suite.

Now that the state House has passed the largest of the three bills, it will likely approve the two companion measures as well. Even though lawmakers rushed the bill through the House, the state Senate is not expected to vote on the measure until September. The body is composed of 26 Republicans and 12 Democrats.

Annie-Rose Strasser contributed to this report.

NLRB: GOP heavy hitter Adelson must bargain with guards’ union

SheldonAdelson520x300

BETHLEHEM, Pa. (PAI)—The National Labor Relations Board has ordered the Sands Casino in Bethlehem, Pa., owned by GOP heavy hitter Sheldon Adelson, to bargain with the independent union its security guards voted for almost a year ago.

In its 3-0 vote on May 30, the board said management did not raise any issues not covered in its prior campaign against the unionization drive by the Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association (LEEBA), an independent union based in Catskill, N.Y. LEEBA won overwhelmingly among the approximately 130 officers.

Adelson owns casinos in Hong Kong and Las Vegas in addition to his small Pennsylvania casino. None of the 40,000 workers at any Sands casino are unionized.

And when Unite Here’s largest local, #226 in Las Vegas, tried to leaflet visitors to his casino there eight years ago during an organizing drive, while its members stood on a public sidewalk, Adelson fought that issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. He claimed the sidewalk was private property.

But Adelson is now more widely known as the mogul whose $10 million-plus bankrolled the SuperPAC that kept former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s bid for the party’s presidential nomination alive. Adelson is now turning his SuperPAC’s giving to funding pro-GOP ads in the fall presidential race and the Senate race in Nevada.

The Bethlehem casino’s management tried to raise a new issue before the board, that the union had “impermissibly delegated” its duties to Local 777 - the LEEBA-adopted name for the organizing effort in Bethlehem, taken from luckiest numbers at a casino. Sands sought a hearing on that, but the board turned it down.

“The respondent (Sands) admits, that on March 2, 2012, the union requested bargaining with the respondent. The respondent admits, that by letter dated March 6, 2012, the union was notified the respondent refused to recognize and bargain. There is no indication that any entity other than the certified union has requested, or will request, recognition and bargaining from the respondent,” NLRB said. So, no new hearing is needed, it added.

Sands said it would appeal the board’s ruling to federal court in D.C., further delaying bargaining. That disappointed the union, its leaders told media outlets.

“On July 22, it’s going to be a year since we voted to get the union in,” said George Bonser, the guards’ lead delegate. “We were hoping to sit down and negotiate.”

LEEBA membership coordinator Peter Luck added Sands “has the right” to take the NLRB’s ruling to court. “But our members, at the same time, have the right to organize. At some point in this process it becomes frivolous. I think we’re at that point.”

Photo: Sheldon Adelson, chairman and CEO of The Las Vegas Sands Corporation in this Aug. 28, 2008 file photo. Kin Cheung/AP

the march of tyranny

the march of tyranny

The Other America, 2012: Confronting the Poverty Epidemic

Clarksdale, Mississippi, might seem an unlikely starting point for a meditation on twenty-first-century American inequality. After all, the music the town’s fame rests on is born of the sorrow and racial exploitations of another century. Clarksdale proudly markets itself as the home of the blues: the world’s best blues musicians still come to jam in the little Delta town where W.C. Handy once lived, where Bessie Smith died and where Robert Johnson supposedly made his infamous pact with the devil at a crossroads on the edge of town.

Clarksdale, Mississippi, might seem an unlikely starting point for a meditation on twenty-first-century American inequality. After all, the music the town’s fame rests on is born of the sorrow and racial exploitations of another century. Clarksdale proudly markets itself as the home of the blues: the world’s best blues musicians still come to jam in the little Delta town where W.C. Handy once lived, where Bessie Smith died and where Robert Johnson supposedly made his infamous pact with the devil at a crossroads on the edge of town.

… (click the link to read the rest of one of the best articles on poverty that I’ve ever read)

Labor Unions' Fight for the 99% Goes Way Beyond Raising Campaign Dollars

Labor is an integral part of the progressive coalition, one of the only forces capable of acting as a counterweight to the organized money that’s taken over our politics.
 
Protesters pack the Wisconsin State Capitol building.
Photo Credit: Ken Ilio
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Labor headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

Picture thousands of people streaming across the Brooklyn Bridge, with UAW, 1199 SEIU, and Teamsters’ “Stop the War on Workers” signs held aloft, as projections on the side of the Verizon building declared, “We Are the 99%!”

Or think about thousands more thronging into the Wisconsin Capitol, singing “Which Side are You On?” as teachers and students held hands and firefighters marched in with bagpipes, all to fight Governor Scott Walker’s attack on public workers’ unions.

Recall a parade through Columbus, Ohio, workers and their allies dancing in the streets as they delivered 1.3 million petition signatures to the Secretary of State on their way to overturning Governor John Kasich’s anti-union bill.

Those are just a few recent images of struggle that organized labor has given America in the past year. Images of working people banding together, union members side by side with workers who don’t enjoy union protections, with their families and friends. For me, the indelible moment was October 14, at 5 AM in Zuccotti Park, when thousands of union members showed up — transit workers and teachers and construction laborers – to defend a few hundred kids who’d occupied a park and brought the idea of economic inequality back to the lips of a nation.

——-

Click the link for the rest of the article.

Explaining Socialism To A Republican

I was talking recently with a new friend who I’m just getting to know. She tends to be somewhat conservative, while I lean more toward the progressive side.

When our conversation drifted to politics, somehow the dreaded word “socialism” came up. My friend seemed totally shocked when I said “All socialism isn’t bad”.  She became very serious and replied “So you want to take money away from the rich and give to the poor?”  I smiled and said “No, not at all.  Why do you think socialism mean taking money from the rich and giving to the poor?

“Well it is, isn’t it?” was her reply.


I explained to her that I rather liked something called Democratic Socialism, just as Senator Bernie Sanders, talk show host Thom Hartman, and many other people do. Democratic Socialism consists of a democratic form of government with a mix of socialism and capitalism. I proceeded to explain to her the actual meaning terms “democracy” and “socialism”.

Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens take part. It is government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Socialism is where we all put our resources together and work for the common good of us all and not just for our own benefit. In this sense, we are sharing the wealth within society.

Of course when people hear that term, “Share the wealth” they start screaming, “OMG you want to rob from the rich and give it all to the poor!”  But that is NOT what Democratic Socialism means.

To a Democratic Socialist, sharing the wealth means pooling tax money together to design social programs that benefit ALL citizens of that country, city, state, etc.

The fire and police departments are both excellent examples of Democratic Socialism in America.  Rather than leaving each individual responsible for protecting their own home from fire, everyone pools their money together, through taxes, to maintain a fire and police department. It’s operated under a non-profit status, and yes, your tax dollars pay for putting out other people’s fires. It would almost seem absurd to think of some corporation profiting from putting out fires.  But it’s more efficient and far less expensive to have government run fire departments funded by tax dollars.

Similarly, public education is another social program in the USA. It benefits all of us to have a taxpayer supported, publicly run education system. Unfortunately, in America, the public education system ends with high school.  Most of Europe now provides low cost or free college education for their citizens. This is because their citizens understand that an educated society is a safer, more productive and more prosperous society. Living in such a society, everyone benefits from public education.

When an American graduates from college, they usually hold burdensome debt in the form of student loans that may take 10 to even 30 years to pay off. Instead of being able to start a business or invest in their career, the college graduate has to send off monthly payments for years on end.

On the other hand, a new college graduate from a European country begins without the burdensome debt that an American is forced to take on. The young man or woman is freer to start up businesses, take an economic risk on a new venture, or invest more money in the economy, instead of spending their money paying off student loans to for-profit financial institutions.  Of course this does not benefit wealthy corporations, but it does greatly benefit everyone in that society.

EXAMPLE  American style capitalistic program for college: If you pay (average) $20,000 annually for four years of college, that will total $80,000 + interest for student loans. The interest you would owe could easily total or exceed the $80,000 you originally borrowed, which means your degree could cost in excess of $100,000.

EXAMPLE  European style social program for college: Your college classes are paid for through government taxes.  When you graduate from that college and begin your career, you also start paying an extra tax for fellow citizens to attend college.

Question - You might be thinking how is that fair? If you’re no longer attending college, why would you want to help everyone else pay for their college degree?

Answer - Every working citizen pays a tax that is equivalent to say, $20 monthly.  If you work for 40 years and then retire, you will have paid $9,600 into the Social college program.  So you could say that your degree ends up costing only $9,600. When everyone pools their money together and the program is non-profit, the price goes down tremendously. This allows you to keep more of your hard earned cash!

Health care is another example: If your employer does not provide health insurance, you must purchase a policy independently.  The cost will be thousands of dollars annually, in addition to deductible and co-pays.

In Holland, an individual will pay around $35 monthly, period.  Everyone pays into the system and this helps reduce the price for everyone, so they get to keep more of their hard earned cash.

In the United States we are told and frequently reminded that anything run by the government is bad and that everything should be operated by for-profit companies. Of course, with for-profit entities the cost to the consumer is much higher because they have corporate executives who expect compensation packages of tens of millions of dollars and shareholders who expect to be paid dividends, and so on.

This (and more) pushes up the price of everything, with much more money going to the already rich and powerful, which in turn, leaves the middle class with less spending money and creates greater class separation.

This economic framework makes it much more difficult for average Joes to ”lift themselves up by their bootstraps” and raise themselves to a higher economic standing.

So next time you hear the word “socialism” and “spreading the wealth” in the same breath, understand that this is a serious misconception.

Social programs require tax money and your taxes may be higher. But as you can see everyone benefits because other costs go down and, in the long run, you get to keep more of your hard earned cash!

Democratic Socialism does NOT mean taking from the rich and giving to the poor.  It works to benefit everyone so the rich can no longer take advantage of the poor and middle class.

Republican Attack on Fair Union Election Rule Fails in Senate

It’s certainly not the Employee Free Choice Act, but this NLRB rule change will help cut out a lot of the legal bullshit an employer can throw at workers when they’re trying to form a union.

“The rule is due to take effect April 30 and it will help alleviate the delays, inefficiencies, abuse of process and unnecessary litigation that plague the current system. Under current rules, workers can be forced to wait months or even years before they are allowed to vote on joining a union and then begin bargaining for a fair contract. The new NLRB rule eliminates many of those roadblocks by reducing current delays and eliminating frivolous litigation.”

From the AFL-CIO:

Congressional Republicans today failed in their latest attempt to roll back workers’ rights. The Senate defeated (45-54) a measure (S.J. Res. 36) to kill a new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rule that makes modest changes in the procedures for workers who want to vote on whether to form a union. It also would have banned the NLRB from ever issuing any similar fair election rule.

Before the vote, the White House announced that President Obama opposed the Republican assault on workers and would veto the legislation if it got to his desk.

The administration is committed to supporting the right of workers to join and participate in a union and bargain for fair wages, benefits and a safe workplace.  These rights are fundamental to better conditions for American workers and to an open, just, economically fair and prosperous society.  S.J. Res. 36 attacks these bedrock American values. 

Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project (NELP), said of the Republican proposal:

It is disappointing that in the face of growing income inequality and stagnant wages for all but the highest earners, lawmakers would fail to stand by workers who seek only to exercise their legal rights in an atmosphere free of intimidation and retaliation.

The rule is due to take effect April 30 and it will help alleviate the delays, inefficiencies, abuse of process and unnecessary litigation that plague the current system. Under current rules, workers can be forced to wait months or even years before they are allowed to vote on joining a union and then begin bargaining for a fair contract. The new NLRB rule eliminates many of those roadblocks by reducing current delays and eliminating frivolous litigation.

Contrary to the vitriolic attacks by Republican lawmakers, the new rule does not encourage or discourage unionization and it applies to elections to form a union and elections to decertify a union.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the Republican attack on the NLRB,” is just the latest in this relentless series of nationally coordinated assaults on workers and collective bargaining rights.”

In an op-ed today in The Hill, John Logan, professor and director of Labor and Employment Studies at San Francisco State University, wrote:

Never in its history has the NLRB experienced anything quite like the political attacks of the past 15 months. But the root cause of the controversy is not, as [Republicans] would have us believe, that the board has moved to the left. Rather, the GOP has moved far to the right and no longer believes that workers should be free to select representatives of their own choosing and engage in collective bargaining to improve their terms and conditions of work.

In November, House Republicans approved a bill that gives employers new tools to combat and delay elections by workers who try to form unions. It was a direct response to the new NLRB election rule. The Senate didn’t take up the measure.

Congressional Republicans have made nearly 50 separate assaults on the NLRB since last year by holding hearings, issuing subpoenas and proposing bills to gut the agency’s funding and eliminate its ability to hold employers accountable for violating workers’ rights, according to American Rights at Work (ARAW). Click here for a detailed look.

Romney mum on labor leaks

The GOP candidate has not fired an advisor who allegedly received leaked docs from a member of the NLRB

Mitt Romney and Terence Flynn, the NLRB member who allegedly leaked information to a campaign advisor.

Mitt Romney and Terence Flynn, the NLRB member who allegedly leaked information to a campaign advisor.  (Credit: AP)

It’s been almost three weeks since the release of a National Labor Relations Board Inspector General report finding that Republican NLRB member Terence Flynn violated ethics rules. Since then, members of Congress from both parties have said the Justice Department should review the allegations. Flynn has bulked up his defense team with a former inspector general of his own — Glenn Fine, who investigated the Bush DOJ. But there’s been no comment on the scandal from the White House, which promoted Flynn, or from the Romney campaign, whose advisor Peter Schaumber allegedly received secret info from him.

“This is the cronyism and bias that you absolutely don’t want in a government agency,” says Jeffrey Hirsch, a former NLRB attorney who now teaches law at the University of North Carolina. “If [Flynn] found out one of his board staff was giving info to, say, a Democratic former board member,” says Hirsch, “I can’t imagine he wouldn’t fire the person on the spot.” (Spokespersons for the White House and NLRB Chairman Mark Pearce both declined Salon’s request for comment. The Romney campaign did not respond to multiple requests.)

The NLRB, which enforces and interprets U.S. labor law, has become a lightning rod for right-wing attacks. As Salon has reported, the IG found that Flynn leaked info to Schaumber and other conservatives last year, while employed by the NLRB as counsel for a Republican member. After Obama recess-appointed Flynn and two Democrats as new NLRB members in January, Mitt Romney ran a South Carolina TV ad blasting the president for appointing “union stooges.” Schaumber, the co-chair of Romney Labor Policy Advisory Committee, warned at the National Review’s blog that one of those Democrats raised “an appearance of partiality that will undermine public confidence” in his rulings.

But it’s Flynn, not a Democrat, who now stands accused of leaking internal info to private parties with a stake in NLRB cases — including Schaumber. The report alleges Flynn sent Schaumber documents ranging from internal legal advice memos to an email mentioning a precedent the board might revisit. In an emailed statement, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington executive director Melanie Sloan said, “There is no place in government for someone who leaks confidential information and lies to investigators.”

The Romney campaign, which Tuesday devoted a press release to imagining anti-Obama tweets Debbie Wasserman Schultz might have written in 2008, has been silent on the scandal. Not that Romney is above weighing in on NLRB emails: When an internal email came out last fall in which NLRB general counsel Lafe Solomon appeared to make a joke about hurting the economy, Romney called for Solomon to resign. AFL-CIO general counsel Lynn Rhinehart says that contrast is “really outrageous and hypocritical, and tells us a lot about the candidate.” The AFL-CIO launched a Web petition last month urging Flynn to resign, and Romney to cut ties to Schaumber.

Flynn maintains he did nothing wrong. One of his attorneys, Barry Coburn, wrote a letter to the inspector general condemning the report and stating that Flynn’s conduct was “innocuous … a Board member’s or Counsel’s job is not to live in an isolated bubble, but rather to be appropriately available to those outside the agency, and to interact meaningfully with the Board’s constituency.”  Coburn declined further comment.

Former NLRB general counsel Fred Feinstein says he’s not aware of any past allegations of NLRB staff “giving information to specific individuals on one side, but not the other one.” Feinstein notes that he’s not speaking to the merits of the allegations against Flynn, but says that, “The way in which the information flow is handled is an important part of the process, and being careful about that is part of protecting the integrity of the process.” Feinstein adds that when he served as the board’s top prosecutor under President Clinton, “we took that responsibility quite seriously,” because “when it’s compromised, it compromises the ability of the agency to carry out its responsibilities.”

Flynn and Schaumber could face more embarrassing disclosures ahead — from the House, the Senate, and the Department of Justice. Following the release of the IG report, Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, wrote to the committee Chairman Darrell Issa requesting that the committee hold transcribed interviews with Schaumber and with Peter Kirsanow, another conservative former NLRB member named by the IG as a recipient of confidential info. A spokesperson says that Cummings has not received a response from Issa.  (Issa did not respond to Salon’s request for comment.)

The IG report also notes that its investigators only had access to Flynn’s more recent emails. Last week, Sen. Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, wrote to Flynn requesting correspondence from the past five years. Harkin gave Flynn an April 9 deadline; a committee spokesperson says that the senator has granted an extension, at the request of Flynn’s lawyer, to Monday, April 16.

But the real action could be at the Justice Department. Rep. George Miller, the ranking Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee, wrote to the attorney general March 23 requesting a review of the IG report. The same day, the committee’s Republican chairman, Rep. John Kline, noted in a statement that the report “had been appropriately referred to the Department of Justice.” Hirsch says the White House may be avoiding comment on the issue to avoid the appearance of interference with any DOJ investigation.  (A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment.)

Meanwhile, the Labor page on Romney’s website still prominently features an essay by Schaumber, bashing “misguided administrative actions by partisans at the NLRB” and promising that Romney will appoint NLRB members who pursue “flexibility” and “cooperative” labor relations. Hirsch says that as former NLRB members, Schaumber and Kirsanow “knew they shouldn’t have taken that stuff, and they clearly kept accepting it.” The situation is “incredibly ironic,” says Hirsch, “given all the criticism that the board has taken by Republicans” for supposed bias. “There’s no question that this was inappropriate. And so the silence is deafening.”

Josh Eidelson is a freelance journalist and a contributor at The American Prospect and In These Times. After receiving his MA in Political Science, he worked as a union organizer for five years.More Josh Eidelson