RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Happy Labor Day! There Has Never Been a Middle Class Without Strong Unions Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=35798"><span class="small">Jon Schwarz, The Intercept</span></a>   
Monday, 05 September 2016 10:53

Schwarz writes: "The entire Republican Party and the ruling heights of the Democratic Party loathe unions. Yet they also claim they want to build a strong U.S. middle class. This makes no sense. Wanting to build a middle class while hating unions is like wanting to build a house while hating hammers."

'Fight for Fifteen' protest. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
'Fight for Fifteen' protest. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)


Happy Labor Day! There Has Never Been a Middle Class Without Strong Unions

By Jon Schwarz, The Intercept

05 September 16

 

he entire Republican Party and the ruling heights of the Democratic Party loathe unions. Yet they also claim they want to build a strong U.S. middle class.

This makes no sense. Wanting to build a middle class while hating unions is like wanting to build a house while hating hammers.

Sure, maybe hammers — like every tool humans have ever invented — aren’t 100 percent perfect. Maybe when you use a hammer you sometimes hit your thumb. But if you hate hammers and spend most of your time trying to destroy them, you’re never, ever going to build a house.

Likewise, no country on earth has ever created a strong middle class without strong unions. If you genuinely want the U.S. to have a strong middle class again, that means you want lots of people in lots of unions.

The bad news, of course, is that the U.S. is going in exactly the opposite direction. Union membership has collapsed in the past 40 years, falling from 24 percent to 11 percent. And even those numbers conceal the uglier reality that union membership is now 35 percent in the public sector but just 6.7 percent in the private sector. That private sector percentage is now lower than it’s been in over 100 years.

Not coincidentally, wealth inequality – which fell tremendously during the decades after World War II when the U.S. was most heavily unionized – has soared back to the levels seen 100 years ago.

The reason for this is straightforward. During the decades after World War II, wages went up hand in hand with productivity. Since the mid-1970s, as union membership has declined, that’s largely stopped happening. Instead, most of the increased wealth from productivity gains has been seized by the people at the top.

Even conservative calculations show that if wages had gone up in step with productivity, families with the median household income of around $52,000 per year would now be making about 25 percent more, or $65,000. Alternately, if we could take the increased productivity in time off, regular families could keep making $52,000 per year but only work four-fifths as much – e.g., people working 40 hours a week could work just 32 hours for the same pay.

So more and better unions would almost certainly translate directly into higher pay and better benefits for everyone, including people not in unions.

However, the effects of unions in building a middle class go far beyond that, in a myriad of ways.

For instance, the degree to which a country has created high-quality, universal health care is generally correlated with the strength of organized labor in that country. Canada’s single payer system was born in one province, Saskatchewan, and survived to spread to the rest of the country thanks to Saskatchewan’s unions. Now Canadians live longer than Americans even as their health care system is far cheaper than ours.

U.S. unions were also key allies for other social movements, such as the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Today, people generally say Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered the “I Have a Dream” speech at the March on Washington – but in fact it was the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, and it was largely organized by A. Philip Randolph of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. Among the other speakers was Walter Reuther, president of the United Auto Workers.

And unions have many other positive effects, including ones so subtle they never show up in history books. Here’s one I personally know of:

Dean Baker, co-director of a Washington, D.C. think tank called the Center for Economic and Policy Research, or CEPR, is arguably the only economist in the U.S. who both recognized the danger of the gigantic U.S. housing bubble in the mid-2000s and warned about it loudly.

But Baker didn’t appear out of nowhere. His first job in Washington was at the Economic Policy Institute, which was founded in 1986 with a five-year funding pledge from eight unions. His foothold there made it possible for him to eventually co-found CEPR and make his case on the housing bubble. (I know this about Baker because I briefly worked for CEPR long ago.)

So the wise use of union resources played a key role in the eventual creation of some extremely important knowledge. Baker alone wasn’t able to get the political system to respond before Wall Street shot the U.S. economy in the stomach – but it’s certainly possible to imagine a different history, in which stronger unions created perches for additional economists who cared about reality, and they worked with stronger unions to organize to stave off our ongoing catastrophe. In other words, if the U.S. had a stronger labor movement, the whole country could be perhaps $10 trillion richer.

So enjoy the day off. But if you’d like to see an American middle class again at some point before you die, spend some time thinking about how to get more hammers into everybody’s hands.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Unarmed Dakota Pipeline Protesters Withstand Dogs and Mace, Drive Back Enbridge Security Forces Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 05 September 2016 10:22

Ash writes: "The bulldozers returned to the site of the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline project Saturday. The protesters, anchored by Standing Rock Sioux tribal activists, rallied quickly to defend 'the land.' The result was a chaotic confrontation between white private security forces armed with mace and attack dogs and an unarmed multi-ethnic coalition of Americans determined to stop them in their tracks."

September 3, 2016, Two protesters come face to face to with pipeline industry security dogs. 6 protesters were treated for dog bite injuries. (photo: Getty Images)
September 3, 2016, Two protesters come face to face to with pipeline industry security dogs. 6 protesters were treated for dog bite injuries. (photo: Getty Images)


Unarmed Dakota Pipeline Protesters Withstand Dogs and Mace, Drive Back Enbridge Security Forces

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

05 September 16

 

he bulldozers returned to the site of the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline project Saturday. The protesters, anchored by Standing Rock Sioux tribal activists, rallied quickly to defend “the land.” The result was a chaotic confrontation between white private security forces armed with mace and attack dogs and an unarmed multi-ethnic coalition of Americans determined to stop them in their tracks.

The all-white security personnel did not hesitate to use their mace, and unleash the dogs. Multiple protesters were treated at the scene for pepper spray exposure and dog bites. The snouts and mouths of the dogs could be seen smeared with human blood. Security forces claim four security personnel and two dogs were injured.

The protesters did not back down. Withstanding the attacks and risking personal injury, they advanced toward security, dogs, and bulldozers alike, demanding the work cease and the Enbridge personnel depart.


September 3, 2016, The scene near Cannonball, North Dakota as a protester stood in the way of truck. (photo: Reuters)

The construction site quickly took on the feel of a battlefield. Skirmishes erupted around the newly plowed mounds and trenches, with cameras and reports from Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! rolling.

As it became clear that the protesters would not be intimidated, Enbridge security reigned in their dogs and began to withdraw, finally departing in their pickup trucks and SUVs.

The Dakota Access Pipeline, also known as the Bakken Pipeline System, is backed by a murky affiliation of energy industry players including Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., Energy Transfer Partners, L.P, Marathon Petroleum Corp., and Sunoco Logistics Partners, L.P., with Enbridge playing a central role.


September 3, 2016, A pipeline industry security stands at the ready with a dog. (photo: Tomasalejo)

Late last week, Enbridge announced it was rolling up the separate but related Sandpiper Pipeline project in the face of heavy protests and mounting losses.

Also last week, the City of Minneapolis passed a City Council resolution in support of the indigenous resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline on the Standing Rock Reservation. It was the third such municipal resolution to be passed. St. Paul and Seattle have passed similar resolutions recently.

This most recent confrontation and the violence surrounding it are likely to strengthen the resolve of those standing in defiance of the Dakota Access Pipeline. If the fate of the Keystone XL and Sandpiper pipelines is any indicator, local resistance may yet again prevail.


Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Reality of Free Trade Deals Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=39255"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Website</span></a>   
Monday, 05 September 2016 08:33

Reich writes: "If we want the public to continue to support free trade, we've got to ensure that everyone benefits from it."

Robert Reich. (photo: AP)
Robert Reich. (photo: AP)


The Reality of Free Trade Deals

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Website

05 September 16

 

ree trade is figuring prominently in the upcoming presidential election. Donald Trump is against it. Hillary Clinton has expressed qualms.

Economists still think free trade benefits most Americans, but according to polls, only 35% of voters agree.

Why this discrepancy?

Because economists support any policy that improves efficiency and they typically define a policy as efficient if the people who benefit from it could compensate those who lose from it and still come out ahead.

But this way of looking at things leaves out 3 big realities.

1. Inequality keeps growing. In a society of widening inequality, the winners are often wealthier than the losers, so even if they fully compensate the losers, as the winners gain more ground, the losers may feel even worse off.

2. Safety nets keep unraveling. As a practical matter, the winners don’t compensate the losers. Most of the losers from trade, the millions whose good jobs have been lost, don’t even have access to unemployment insurance. Trade adjustment assistance is a joke. America invests less in jobs training as a percent of our economy than almost any other advanced nation.

3. Median pay keeps dropping. Those whose paychecks have been declining because of trade don’t make up for those declines by having access to cheaper goods and services from abroad. Yes, those cheaper goods help but adjusted for inflation, the median hourly pay of production workers is still lower today than it was in 1974.

So if we want the public to continue to support free trade, we’ve got to ensure that everyone benefits from it.

This means we need a genuine reemployment system – including not only unemployment insurance, but also income insurance. So if you lose your job and have to take one that pays less, you get a portion of the difference for up to a year.

More basically, we’ve got to ensure that the gains from trade are more widely shared.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Today Belongs to Workers Print
Monday, 05 September 2016 08:31

Goulet writes: "Labor Day was born from the most radical struggles of the nineteenth century. Celebrate it."

Striking railway workers blocking trains in New York city, 1886. (photo: Library of Congress)
Striking railway workers blocking trains in New York city, 1886. (photo: Library of Congress)


Today Belongs to Workers

By Tim Goulet, Jacobin

05 September 16

 

Labor Day was born from the most radical struggles of the nineteenth century. Celebrate it.

or most Americans, Labor Day marks a change in the seasons: summer has ended, football is about to begin, and millions of students return to school. Celebrations consist of taking advantage of deep discounts on patio furniture and mattresses.

Not that there’s much political enthusiasm for Labor Day on the Left, either.

Many depict it as a tokenistic “gift” from capitalist politicians who wanted a sanitized May Day, that could capture militancy and disperse it into “responsible” channels. This narrative calls Labor Day a “bosses’ holiday” that marks the working class’s historic defeat.

This not only misrepresents the day’s history, but also forces us to choose one holiday over the other, as if there were not enough room on the calendar for two days that celebrate workers.

May Day undoubtedly belongs to us: it symbolizes internationalism and solidarity. But Labor Day also has roots in our radical tradition. The militant struggles of the 1880s produced both holidays, and Labor Day’s proponents also fought for the eight-hour day.

However, as the labor movement evolved — fracturing across different social layers and political tendencies — the holidays took on different meanings. Labor Day now stands for the working class’s capture by conservative politicians, while May Day became synonymous with revolutionary action.

But those who see Labor Day as a sop to “buy off” workers gloss over the holiday’s positive effects and the struggles of those who fought for it. The workers’ movement and the socialists so integral to its early days created Labor Day. It did not begin as a national holiday, but as self-activity in the streets.

Working Revolution

The end of the nineteenth century was shattered by economic volatility and recurrent crises. The years following the Civil War saw a massive investment in Northern industry. Capital restructuring gave rise to factory production and monopolies.

New production techniques radically reshaped relations on the shop floor. Craft workers simultaneously enjoyed greater power and suffered from increasing levels of exploitation. Mechanization had begun in earnest, and skilled work was being replaced with a simplified division of labor. In this context, the working class was drawn to fledgling social-democratic movement.

Mass immigration injected a constant stream of labor power into the job market. These immigrants — hundreds of thousands a year — formed ethnic enclaves, established their own labor organizations, and contributed to a constantly changing working-class culture. Many brought social-democratic politics with them; others gravitated toward it thanks to the miserable conditions in American factories and cities.

Other struggles found hope in labor’s militancy. The collapse of Reconstruction took back many of black Americans’ social, political, and economic gains and allowed new forms of institutional racism to develop. The fight for women’s suffrage — spurred by emancipation — was temporarily defeated. This all translated into struggle, and the last decades of the nineteenth century erupted into strikes, riots, and mass protest.

The Eight-Hour Holiday

Most historical depictions of Labor Day begin when Grover Cleveland sanctioned a federal holiday in 1894; hence the claim that Labor Day has “conservative roots.”

In reality, however, Labor Day started twelve years earlier — even before the 1886 Haymarket events that inspired May Day — with a mass rally in New York. On September 5, 1882, socialists, the Knights of Labor, and various left organizations associated with the Central Labor Union (CLU) organized a march calling for shorter hours, higher pay, safer working conditions — and a labor holiday. That year, New York had been the scene of spirited labor struggles. On January 30, thousands of workers thronged Cooper Union to support Irish tenants protesting their British landlords.

Notable labor agitators gave speeches, but two names on the roster loom largest: Peter McGuire, general secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, and eventual co-founder of the AFL; and Mathew Maguire, International Association of Machinists member and leader of the CLU. Both belonged to the same branch of the Socialist Labor Party (SLP), which was created in 1877, as the successor to the Social Democratic Workingmen’s Party.

Historians still debate who initially demanded a labor holiday. But the CLU appointed a committee to organize the mass demonstration, and on September 5 ten thousand workers took an unpaid day off and marched from City Hall through Union Square to Forty-Second Street.

This event would soon become annual, spreading to other cities, states, and municipalities as the movement for a labor day grew. In 1885 and 1886, various American cities declared the first Monday in September to be a workers’ holiday, and on February 21, 1887, Oregon became the first state to recognize Labor Day. Massachusetts, Colorado, New York, and New Jersey followed later that year.

The activists who participated in and helped organize these early rallies also fought for the eight-hour day. Without that struggle, a labor holiday providing eight paid hours off was unthinkable. In fact, the slogan so synonymous with May Day — “Eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, and eight hours for what we will” — appeared on banners at the first Labor Day demonstration in 1882.

Cleveland’s Miscalculation

But it wasn’t until 1894 that Grover Cleveland, a conservative Democrat, declared Labor Day a federal holiday. Not coincidentally, his announcement came at the close of a mass strike.

In June of that year, workers who built Pullman railroad cars had joined Eugene Debs’s American Railway Union (ARU). They were angry that their steep pay cuts were not matched by rent reductions in their company town. As a result, 125,000 railroad workers refused to move any trains that had a Pullman car attached to it.

Cleveland called out the National Guard to police the railways but could not convince the strikers to resume work. Claiming that it was interfering with the postal service, Richard Olney, former attorney general, forced the courts to issue the first federal injunction against a strike.

When Debs refused to call the work stoppage off, he was jailed for six months. At least thirty workers were killed during the government’s violent suppression of the strike. This violence was openly condemned by New York’s Central Labor Union, who stood in full solidarity with the ARU.

Six days after it ended, Cleveland made Labor Day a national holiday, hoping it would defuse class anger and deflect attention away from the more militant May Day. But the president had other concerns too. It was a midterm election year, and Cleveland — serving his second nonconsecutive term — did not want to appear an enemy of organized labor. Yet he miscalculated: legalizing Labor Day could not make up for smashing the Pullman Strike and jailing Debs. He lost his reelection campaign, and the labor movement didn’t stay quiet for long.

Cleveland did not simply invent Labor Day, as we are often led to believe. The holiday represents a partial victory that reflects the labor movement’s strength, which pressed its weight on the scales of politics and forced a federal reform.

Like most reforms, it had a dual character: on the one hand, it absorbed and nullified some worker militancy; on the other, it ceded ground to the unions and put them in a better position to win future demands. Seeing it merely as a weapon instituted from the top down obscures the class struggle that led directly to its adoption.

Two Days for Workers

Since then, the holiday’s vibrancy has risen and fallen with the labor movement.

Early Labor Day rallies helped build working-class culture, and had all the dynamism of a general strike: workers marched under unfurled red flags, sang labor songs, and heard incendiary speeches from the labor radicals of the day, including Eugene Debs. It faded in the twenties, but was revived in the thirties, when, for example, the CIO’s Steel Workers Organizing Committee led a Labor Day march on Jones & Laughlin Steel during the 1937 Little Steel strike.

The movement waned again but the PATCO, Staley, Caterpillar, and Hormel strikes — infused with an urgent sense of solidarity — regenerated the holiday in the eighties and nineties.

Further, Labor Day has turned into the conservative labor holiday because of the movement’s political trajectory. In 1886, the AFL’s creation allowed trade-union bureaucrats — disconnected from the workplace and invested with special privileges — to gain more control over the movement. This cut out the craft-worker socialists who had originally played a major role in not only the fight for a labor holiday, but also for shorter hours, fairer pay, and better working conditions. Moreover, when the Knights of Labor collapsed, workers lost an effective counterweight to craft elitism. This played a decisive role in the right turn of figures like McGuire.

Labor Day became the property of Samuel Gompers and the AFL: it was popularly associated with nationalism and anti-radicalism. But crucially, none of this appeared in the holiday’s nineteenth-century history.

If today Labor Day has become a depoliticized, corporate, and generic ritual, this fact proves that capital is winning. Labor Day would likely regain its old spirit with a new eruption in labor militancy.

We shouldn’t base our assessment of the holiday on an unbalanced retelling of its history; we should honor its real origins and meaning. The best parts of Labor Day should be reclaimed, and its lessons distilled for workers and the Left.

We can accommodate two labor holidays; one for the Haymarket martyrs, and one for the fallen at Pullman.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Prisons Aren't the Answer on Immigration Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=23770"><span class="small">Editorial Board, The New York Times</span></a>   
Monday, 05 September 2016 08:27

Excerpt: "Whether private prison contracts should be canceled or simply not renewed, or whether Homeland Security should contract with state or county lockups, or run its own, will need to be answered. But the administration should first be asking itself why it locks up so many immigrants who are not safety threats."

Immigrants in detention. (photo: Claritza Jimenez/WP)
Immigrants in detention. (photo: Claritza Jimenez/WP)


Prisons Aren't the Answer on Immigration

By Editorial Board, The New York Times

05 September 16

 

he Department of Homeland Security announced late last month that it is considering ending its use of private prisons, as the Justice Department has decided to do. The Homeland Security secretary, Jeh Johnson, told his department’s advisory council to study the issue and report back to him by the end of November.

That gives him only a few weeks to read, review and act before everything gets bumped to the Trump or Clinton administration. To save time, Mr. Johnson could do the wise thing and end the contracts now.

There is no need to further study the failings of the private prison industry. Mr. Johnson only has to read the Justice Department inspector general’s report in August about the prevalence of safety and security problems at private prisons, or a recent Mother Jones article that looks inside a brutal, mismanaged Louisiana prison run by Corrections Corporation of America, one of two companies that dominate the immigrant-prison business.

READ MORE


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 Next > End >>

Page 1911 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN