General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDemocrats must have a concrete plan to empower workers
Democrats must have a concrete plan to empower workersIn recent months, many prominent Democrats have spoken out in favor of some typically overlooked causes: collective bargaining and organized labor.
Asked last month how he would revive the middle class, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he would make it easier to form unions. In a speech at a Democratic women's group in Washington a few days earlier, Hillary Clinton said, the American middle class was built, in part, by the right for people to organize and bargain on behalf of themselves.
"Collective bargaining," Maryland Governor and potential Democratic presidential candidate Martin OMalley recently said, runs contrary to [the Republican] belief that keeping wages low somehow makes Americas economy better.
Abandoned for decades by a Democratic Party eager to cozy up with Wall Street and advance a neoliberal economic agenda, unions are once again being lauded by top party leaders. But what is behind this warm embrace?
Part of the reason for the Democrats praise for labor is the recent spotlight on the ever-growing levels of economic inequality in the United States. Another reason is political expediency: With the 2016 election campaign looming, politicians are pandering to a base that they normally take for granted.
But Democrats cannot afford to pay only lip service to organized labor when the moment is convenient. Unless they take real measures to shore up employees rights to collectively organize, the Democratic Party will be courting a major crisis, as will Americas working families.
Numbers dont lie
The economic inequality in the U.S. has dominated the headlines in recent years. From the Occupy Wall Street movement to French economist Thomas Pikettys bestseller Capital in the 21st Century and new reports on runaway executive pay, it has become clear that politicians can no longer ignore the growing divide between the most affluent and the rest of America.
However, its not just politicians who have come to understand that unchecked markets cannot create widely shared prosperity. Top economists, including Larry Summers, former Chief Economist of the World Bank, economic advisor to President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton, have acknowledged the importance of unions in building the American middle class.
Workers should have the right to collectively bargain if that is what they desire, Summers said in an interview with the Harvard Business Review in February. I am concerned that in recent times that right has eroded because employers have been permitted to retaliate against those who seek to organize workers with impunity.
Summers change of heart is as decisive an about face as one can imagine. High union wages are likely to cause job losses in the unionized sector of the economy, Summers, who has long been seen as a representative of the business-aligned neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party, wrote in 1993. At the time he was steering the party away from pro-labor positions at home, while also pushing for the privatization of public assetsabroad, which undermined unions globally.
Major financial institutions are making the same about-face. The International Monetary Fund, which for decades has strongly advised governments to roll back social services and make labor markets more flexible, has also come to the defense of labor unions.
Historically, unions have played an important role in the introduction of fundamental social and labor rights [and that] the weakening of unions can lead to less redistribution and higher net income inequality, IMF economists Florence Jaumotte and Carolina Osorio Buitron noted in a new report published last month. They called for a reaffirmation of labor standards that allow willing workers to bargain collectively.
Unless they back up their rhetoric with a concerete plan to empower workers, Democrats may soon face the power and influence of billionaire conservative activists such as Charles and David Koch without unions counterbalance
There is another reason why Democratic leaders are rallying around unions: They want to counter the Republican Partys attack on unions and their members.
Republicans, corporate leaders and their lobbyists understand that organized labor is one of the few constituencies capable of acting as a counterbalance to organized money. To eliminate this hostile force, they have redoubled their efforts to defund unions and shrink their membership rolls.
They have made considerable progress in the past three years. In 2012, two former fortresses of labor power, Indiana and Michigan, allowed employees to opt out of paying union dues even when they benefit from such contracts. On March 6, Gov. Scott Walker signed similar legislation in Wisconsin, the birthplace of public-sector unionism bringing the total number of so-called right-to-work states to 25.
Bruce Rauner, the newly elected Republican governor of Illinois, has also endorsed similar laws in his state, making weaker labor protections the basis for his economic development strategy. Democrats are starting to sense that they have a problem.
Unfortunately, the realization comes after three decades of taking unions for granted and refusing to heed labors call when they had the opportunity to advance its goals.
In 2008, unions went all out to support candidate Barack Obama and help secure a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. In exchange, Democrats did little. Obama delayed the Employee Free Choice Act, which was the AFL-CIOs primary policy goal. This measure, which would have made it easier for workers to join unions, was eventually dropped without a show of presidential muscle.
This is part of a long pattern. In 1992, Bill Clinton pledged to support legislation banning the permanent replacement of striking workers during his presidential bid. After the bill failed with White Houses perfunctory support, the administration pushed through the pro-corporate North American Free Trade Agreement in the face of intense union opposition. The deal resulted in the offshoring of 700,000 jobs.
Continuing this trend, President Obama has now allied with the Republican majority Congress in negotiating the largest free-trade agreement in history, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). AFL-CIO presidentRichard Trumka considers the TPP the latest in a series of trade deals that have served as thinly disguised tools to increase corporate profits by poisoning workers, polluting the environment and hiding information from consumers.
Rhetoric is not enough
Democrats and economists belated attention to organized labor is welcome. But unless they back up their rhetoric by shoring up the right of employees to freely organize and advance their interests, Democrats may soon face the power and influence of billionaire conservative activists such as Charles and David Koch without unions counterbalance.
Defending workers rights will require better protection at the state level. But it will also mean being proactive: Updating labor laws to make it easier for workers to organize; mandating real sanctions against employers who illegally fire workers for organizing; and making high labor standards the centerpiece of U.S. trade policy, rather than an afterthought. It also entails creating new rules to allow the millions of increasingly contingent and outsourced workers who are excluded from the current system to have collective representation.
There is an emerging consensus that the decline in unions is creating a major inequality crisis for United States. Its going to create a major crisis for the Democratic Party too, unless leading party leaders become more than fickle friends who offer kind words during election season, but grow distant once in office. Employees in the U.S. need to have their rights protected. Democrats have an opportunity to do just that by capitalizing on the shifting consensus on organized labor and Republican assault on workers rights.
Article with links (I still can't seem to do the embedded links here)
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/4/democrats-must-have-a-concrete-plan-to-empower-workers.html
About the author:
Amy B. Dean is a fellow of the Century Foundation and a principal of ABD Ventures, a consulting firm that works to develop innovative strategies for organizations devoted to social change. She is a co-author, with David Reynolds, of A New New Deal: How Regional Activism Will Reshape the American Labor Movement.
She was also the first female, and at the time, the youngest, President and CEO of the South Bay AFL-CIO
Just an aside: Amy is an old friend, someone that we knew was destined for greatness. And what fun we had with politics back in the day. The Deans, always outspoken and on point, their neighbors and friends, nieces of Walter Mondale, and my family, very political and my dad in local government (asked by Governor Dan Walker and Richard J. Daley to run for the US Senate. Mom said no.) There were some other families in our little town that were liberals and outspoken, but it was a pretty Republican area back then
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)The last election, workers stayed home, if they care about their lives,
they should start by voting!!
marym625
(17,997 posts)That will get people out to vote
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)She was Dem and progressive long before we used the term: she was
Dem during the dark Regan years:, many Dem's gave up: She and
and Bill kept fighting.
marym625
(17,997 posts)It's not a progressive piece of work, nor should it be something any Democrat supports.
When she gets out of bed with Wall Street and denounces the TPP, I will buy her rhetoric
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Why does it fall to Hillary to stop the tppi, Obama is for the treaty: which
if it was any good, we would be able to read it anytime.
When Hillary's in charge she will set her own policies, she was against Nafta, she
doesn't want TTPI: but the dem's seem to want to vote for it!!
marym625
(17,997 posts)She is running for President. The last definitive comments she made about TTP were in support. Are you honestly saying, that as a candidate for President she should not have to say where she stands on the TPP?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Country was divided, I wanted Nafta, but turned out to be a bad deal.
I am against large trade deals, the give up US sovereignty.
marym625
(17,997 posts)You didn't answer my question.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary not out selling tppi, becasuse she is not for it!!
But if she were President she would want fast track, like all other Presidents they want fast tack authority
I don't agree with with this and most Dem's don't
We can have disagreement with Obama, and Hillary, I believe they mean well, but
I think they are wrong!
marym625
(17,997 posts)And her last definitive comment about it was pro-TPP and fast track.
Anyone running for president should comment on current concerns of this magnitude.
Yes, I agree, it's bad. It's wrong. And the fact we can't see it and Congress has been told not to share it, stinks
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Its enough she is not out there shilling for the TPP:
She will be running on most of Obama's record: she needs him
making great speeches on her behalf.
I would keep quite if I were her right now!! Speaking out willing get Obama angry,
and it won't change the out come of the TPP.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Sorry. That's not an acceptable game.
If that bill passes whoever is President next gets to pit through what they want, no questions asked. This is not a time for a candidate to remain silent.
There's no point in us continuing to say the same thing. We disagree on this. We're allowed. One of the last few things we get to do
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)It would be very stupid to speak out on TPP: it won't change anything:
but it would turn Obama against her. She is good prudent politician, she
is doing the right thing.
She needs Obama on her side to win the Presidency: Her silents tells us a lot:
also I don't think she knows more about TTP than we do, the only people
have seen the deal our Senators with special permission and special conditions.
If this bill goes down and Hillary were a cause of it, some important business would
would go after her: NO Hillary's smart this TPP is not her fight, its Obama's he believes in
it and has nothing to lose, let him stick his neck out for it!
marym625
(17,997 posts)And I'm done
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)And I am done!
marym625
(17,997 posts)I came back because I forgot to say this.
You talk about this is not her fight and how she needs President Obama's backing so she should remain silent. I do not want anyone in the highest office on the land that cannot and will not stand up for her position, and especially will not stand for the people she is asking to represent.
The cowardice, the manipulation and hiding to be self serving is not Presidential. It is not smart for anyone but Hillary. It's bad politics and it shows complete lack of any caring what happens to the average American.
So, please, keep touting and shouting your defense of her silence. It will only help those of us that refuse to vote for her, O'Malley and Sanders.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)O'Malley and Sanders have a different role to play in the party: they have
nothing on the line. Ideologues don't get elected
Hillary and Dem's need to get elected for all of us, if the GOP wins: this country will
go to war against Iran.
You find some other dumb politician to chase you ideologue dreams, Hillary need
to prudent and stay out of the TPP:
She will be running on Obama's record, and she needs him to make speeches for
her. Hillary need to concentrate getting elected.
It will take everything and everyone, to stand up against the GOP
If you were advising Hillary, she would be out of the race in days!! We cannot afford
to many mistakes.
We all Know Hillary Hillary is a fighter but she must chose her battles wisely.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I am tired of this. I will not converse with people who support bullshit. You use the word ideologues incorrectly once and correctly once btw.
I am putting you on ignore. Dishonesty in any aspect is not okay with me
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 26, 2015, 04:02 PM - Edit history (1)
You can check out because you don't like polices, but
like I said, whether we like it or not Dem's cannot
afford to lose this fight:
The GOP are planning a war with Iran, if they win the politics of
day it could cost American lives.
No matter what my opinions are of the reality of life or politics I
need to stay engaged for the lives of others.
That is what Hillary is doing by putting her life on the line, for
all us!!
Keep your Chin up!!
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 24, 2015, 04:57 PM - Edit history (1)
If Hillary wanted to support TPP, she could have made speech,
she has left this to Obama and Dem's in the Senate, the American
people need to speak up!
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)it is the primary job of a political party to motivate voters to go to the polls and vote for their candidates.
NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
Democrats got the butt waxed because they FAILED to do We the People's bidding when put in office last time.
Quit making excuses for them. You are being played.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Democracy is not a spectator sport!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Not a reason.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)The Democratic party is the party of the people, the GOP is for the 1%:
elleng
(131,055 posts)And eliminating the income cap on Soc Sec?
marym625
(17,997 posts)Of course.
It was under Amy that San Jose had the highest minimum wage in the country at the time. I can't remember for sure but I believe it was $10 per hour and that was back in the 90s.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Labor, and working class voters, are generally taken for granted by Democrats. As Rahm Emmanuel once rhetorically asked: Where do they have to go?
President Obama once promised to lace up his walking shoes and march in Madison Wisconsin. I was there numerous times with fellow union brothers and sisters. I did not see him there. I did not hear him mention the word union during any debates.
The EFCA legislation was another casualty of Democratic indifference. Speeches are nice, but action is better.
merrily
(45,251 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And given the two party system in the US, the left is limited to local parties, or fusion style voting. We all know the problem, it is the solution that is lacking. Or the ability to implement a solution.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I say "no."
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)When voting turnout is light, the GOP crazies exercise even more influence because they DO vote. In my state, Illinois, the GOP governor won in 2014 with 53% of a 34% turnout. He basically got the votes of 18% of the electorate because most people could not be bothered to vote.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Low turnout is the result of lackluster candidates. It is the Party's responsibility to earn our votes, rather than our responsibility to pull the lever for whatever candidate they present.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And is there any responsibility on the part of the voters to participate more fully in Dem Party activities? To run for local positions in the Party, for example? Or to attend local party meetings?
The Party is actually composed of people who vote for Democrats. As Thomm Hartmann has said, why do average citizens not get involved in the day to day activities of the party?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Democracy isn't easy - you have to work at it.
Having been deeply involved in grass roots organizing, I can attest that it's not easy to mobilize people - and, once mobilized, exactly what do you do with your volunteers?
One impediment to recruiting new blood is entrenched decision makers who refuse to allow newcomers a real seat at the table. I've seen this myself - organizers want new blood to canvass, make phone calls, and stuff envelopes, but are very resistant to allowing newcomers to take part in decision-making. This can make the suggestion to "attend local Party meetings" somewhat unhelpful to those wanting change - the people in charge of those Party meetings more often than not don't want input on change, they want volunteers to get work done.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Both in the local political organization and at union meetings. You are, unfortunately, right on the money when it comes to many leaders wanting free labor for the tedious work. The solution is to keep pushing, try to recruit like-minded confederates, and wear the leaders down. We did that in our union local. It was a long process but it can be done.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)In larger, national organizations the local chapters are often simply instructed what to do, and the flow of ideas is one-way: top to bottom.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)no weeds grow in astroturf. Unfortunately, WE are seen as weeds.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I can't take credit for it, just posting it. I was very excited to read it this morning.
The indifference and the bullshit rhetoric has to end.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I read a lot, online and print, but I love all the items that I would not have seen because people here find them.
Agreed, rhetoric is nice, and it can get one fired up, but actions are what get things done.
marym625
(17,997 posts)She writes many good things. I will probably start posting more of her stuff
pampango
(24,692 posts)And the Center for American Progress had some great ideas at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/news/2014/09/17/97287/the-top-10-solutions-to-cut-poverty-and-grow-the-middle-class/
marym625
(17,997 posts)Great links!
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)proportion to what they take from society.
merrily
(45,251 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Now they just need to actually do something
merrily
(45,251 posts)(Saw a post this morning saying today is the 451st anniversary of Shakespeare's birth--but I forgot to check the date of the post.)
That's a really cool bit of history. I will have to look for the post. Thank you
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)choose who our owner will be and the color of our obedience collars.
The pukes assign you arbitrarily and you can have a collar that is any color as long as it's black, as Henry Ford used to say about the Model T.
marym625
(17,997 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,686 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Thanks for the K&R, OS!
Ron Green
(9,823 posts)Gar Alperovitz, that's when I'm ready to get on board.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)That's headed in the right direction...
marym625
(17,997 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)I am sharing the post with Amy so hopefully, she will see all the good feedback
Response to marym625 (Original post)
marym625 This message was self-deleted by its author.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Very deliberate -
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Always so happy to see you!
Autumn
(45,120 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Glad you liked it. Wish I could take credit for it
Autumn
(45,120 posts)She has so many great articles. I will probably start posting more.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I believe every worker in the world needs one.
marym625
(17,997 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)And if the Democrats don't, can't, or won't, I don't need them.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Absolutely sick to death of this third way crap. Let's start calling it what it is, the GOP.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)He raised huge amt's of money from the general public:
marym625
(17,997 posts)What kind of logic is that?
I don't want a candidate that is that much of a coward
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 27, 2015, 02:06 PM - Edit history (1)
Being brave doesn't get people elected: Lincoln's first rule and Bill Clinton is
to get elected anyway your can, then you can rule the way you want!
If you were advising a campaign it that would we done in weeks.
Winning a political fight takes money and smarts: Ideologues are useless, practical
people know what is prudent to win. The president is not just the Head of the Country
he is the Head politician in the country: He practices the art of what it possible, which
is the definition of politics.
Just remember we need to win at all cost the GOP is planning to take this country to
war: If Hillary and the Dem's lose we will all lose!!
marym625
(17,997 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)If Hillary wins: Citizens United Ends,
Higher taxes on the Rich
Women's right to is chose stayed
Obama care extended
Climate Change measures go forward
New programs to end student debt
New construction (roads bridges and High ways) huge boost to the middle class
The country and is people all got rich and stayed out
of war under the Clinton's
This would could go on for miles!!!!
Hillary will sign anything Warren and Sanders get enough votes for!!
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)By all means of calculations, minimum wage should be $22.
midnight
(26,624 posts)All the politicians saw it, but were unable to do anything about it. For the Democratic party to go forward supporting labor they need to step away from TPP and other corporate bill of rights.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Wisconsin should be the poster for why Walker shouldn't be in any office. I don't understand how he is ahead in the polls. Frightening thought...