Day: June 9, 2008

Professor’s Labor History

Thanx to Joes’s union Review for the history lessons that we all should learn from.

WEEKEND LABOR HISTORY: Speculator mine disaster. 164 killed at Butte, MT (6/6/1917); A general strike by some 12,000 autoworkers and others in Lansing, MI. shuts down the city for a month in what has become known as the city’s “Labor Holiday”. The strike was precipitated by the arrest of nine workers, including the wife of the auto workers local union president: the arrest left three children in the couple’s home unattended (6/6/1937); Labor Party founding convention opens in Cleveland, OH (6/6/1996); Militia sent to Cripple Creek, CO, to suppress Western Federation of Miners strike (6/7/1904); Sole performance of Pageant of the Patterson Strike, created and performed by 1,000 mill workers from the silk industry strike, New York City (6/7/1913); Unemployed riot in London (6/8/1886); A battle between the Militia and striking miners at Dunnville, CO ended with six union members dead and 15 taken prisoner. Seventy-nine of the strikers were deported to Kansas two days later (6/8/1904).

Should Unions Be More Democratic?

An article written by David Macaray:  But my answer is YES they should be….right now there is not much democracy in a  union, about as much as there is in the voting once every four years or so.

One of the bitterest ironies of recent political campaigns is that the Republican party has managed, with some success,  to tar their Democratic foes with the label of “elitist.”  Mind you, these are the same Republicans who have opposed any and all attempts to loosen up bureaucratic procedures that would allow more people to register to vote.

They are the same Republicans who opposed allowing same-day, on-site voter registration, or having 18-year olds automatically registered to vote at the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) when they get a new license or register a car.  These ideas were simply too wildly egalitarian to suit them.

Republicans don’t want everyone to vote.  They don’t want minorities to vote; they don’t want the young, the progressive, the disenfranchised or the unemployed to vote.  These are the same Republicans who argued against the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Acts, the same ones who opposed repeal of the poll tax in order to prevent African-Americans from voting.  And yet, they have the nerve to piously accuse the Democrats of being “elitist.”

Labor unions are different, at least in principle.  Because there is a fundamental trust involved in a workers’ collective, a genuine bond linking the rank-and-file and their officers against a common “adversary,” unions generally want as many members as possible to vote in elections.  A large turnout is a symbol of unity and commitment.

That’s not to say that a small turnout can’t be a healthy, encouraging sign.  Frequently, voter apathy is evidence of the rank-and-file’s belief that things are purring along well enough not to want to change them.  Rightly or wrongly, in this scenario not voting is interpreted as tacit approval of the status quo.

But there seems to be a growing dissatisfaction among union members regarding how their votes are actually cast.  Instead of voting directly for a candidate, many union members (especially those belonging to the larger unions) are required to vote for a convention delegate who, in turn, does the actual electing.

This arrangement is not quite the same as the electoral college system we use to elect our president, but it shares some similarities.  And one critical similarity is that it’s a procedure which overwhelmingly favors the “professional” politician over the “amateur.”

There is currently an internecine battle raging in the SEIU (Service Employees International Union), America’s fastest-growing union, between Sal Rosselli, the president of a large and influential California SEIU local, and Andrew Stern, president of the International.  One of the sticky issues in this dispute is Rosselli’s insistence that the SEIU abandon the convention delegate format and allow its members to vote directly for national candidates.

Although Stern opposes this change, he can’t condemn Rosselli too harshly for being “radical,” or for wanting to rock the boat, since it was Stern himself who, in 2005, rebelliously led the charge that resulted in seven huge unions (including the Teamsters) leaving the AFL-CIO and forming a labor coalition of their own, called Change to Win.

Taking on the estimable AFL-CIO was a \ risky move by Stern.  Had he lost, he would have been cast as an overly ambitious malcontent; but by winning, he instantly leap-frogged into the national limelight, and is now generally recognized as America’s most important labor figure.  Andy Stern now does things like meet face-to-face with President Bush, and fly to China as a guest of Lee Scott, Wal-Mart’s CEO.

So why do labor unions still cling to the delegate format?  Why do unions prefer a large and robust voter turnout for elections, yet, simultaneously, not wish to go the direct vote route?  Arguably, it’s for the same reason that both American political parties oppose jettisoning the electoral college system—i.e., because it’s a system that favors the “ruling class.”  After all, if you start allowing everyone’s vote to count the same, you risk setting in motion something you can’t control.

To be fair, there’s always been a decent counter-argument to this—an argument against having too much “raw democracy” in the mix.  Namely, that there’s a fine line between the noble “will of the people” and the scary “whim of the mob.”   People are easily influenced.  If they weren’t, beer and auto companies wouldn’t spend billions of dollars a year on advertising.

Still, we shouldn’t overlook the fact that, bad choices aside, we’ve managed to stay in business as a Republic by voting directly for our mayors, state legislators, congressmen, senators and governors.  Unless you have an intrinsic mistrust or contempt for the common man, what would be so wrong in extending this “raw democracy” to include electing a president?

And the same certainly goes for labor unions.  Over the years, unions (not counting some rare exceptions) have elected their Local officers via a direct vote.  Workers have been allowed to directly choose their own leaders.  Why not adopt this same format for choosing the leaders of their Internationals?  If nothing else, it would demonstrate to the membership that organized labor (unlike the politicians in Washington) has the utmost confidence in their constituency . . . the people.

US Loses Influence Over Saudis

For decades, Saudi Arabia worked with its dominant customer, the United States, to keep world oil markets stable and advance common political goals.

But the surging price of oil, which soared more than $10 a barrel Friday to a record-high $138.54, has made it plain that those days are over. New forces, including a weak dollar and an oil-thirsty Asia, have blunted the United States’ leverage and helped sour the two countries’ relationship.

As gasoline prices have risen, the White House has unsuccessfully exhorted the Saudis to step up production, and Congress has threatened retaliation. But the situation now is a far cry from the days when the U.S. economy dominated the direction of the petroleum market.

But the Saudi government has been dismayed by the consequences of the war in Iraq and by what it sees as a weak Bush administration commitment to the Palestinians.

The relationship is shaping up as a political issue for the fall campaign, certainly among congressional candidates and perhaps among presidential candidates.

With a 20-million-barrel-per-day habit, the U.S. remains the world’s largest oil customer, even though its daily consumption over the years has dropped from one-third of total daily production to one-fourth.

But the U.S. can no longer guarantee on its own that producers will have the markets they need for their oil. Nor can the Saudis, alone, ramp up production in sufficient amounts to stabilize prices.

China and other Asian nations now use about 17 million barrels a day. That’s up more than 20% since 2003, and booming growth is expected to continue
The Saudis helped the United States for years as “doves” within the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries on the issue of oil prices. They were willing to moderately increase production, fearing that high prices could cause the United States and others to seek alternate supplies or cut consumption, as happened in the 1980s in reaction to the oil price shocks of the 1970s.

But attitudes have been shifting. Many believe the Saudis have grown more interested in conserving their supplies for later generations, and confident that if U.S. consumption drops, the economies of China, India and others will take up the slack.

By the end of 2007, it was also apparent that the Saudis no longer believed they could substantially affect prices by increasing production. Now, Saudi oil experts believe that the price run-up is due to such factors as investor speculation, the weak dollar and limited output from such key producers as Iraq, Iran and Venezuela.

U.S. lawmakers, meanwhile, have proposed various measures to force the Saudis to boost production. One, sponsored by Senate Democrats, threatens withdrawal of a proposed $1.4 billion in pending arms sales.

All in all, it appears that the Saudis are fed up with Washington and its policies.

Can Obama Get The Clinton Women?

This has been a story for awhile now and not many have a good answer to the question.  Can Obama win over the Clinton women?  Or will they truly vote for McCain?

Barack Obama at last has won the endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the woman who came closer to the Democratic presidential nomination than any other. Now he has to win over her millions of female supporters.

Women have been sent to “the back of the bus” again, says Mary Jane Coughlin, 46, a Long Island copywriter who says she will write in Clinton’s name in November rather than vote for Obama. “We work twice as hard to get half as far.

Obama has said he will stress the differences between himself and presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, especially on issues such as health care, judicial appointments and abortion rights. Obama campaign spokeswoman Linda Douglass says female voters will respond to Obama’s life in a “female-centric” family, as he discusses the influences of his mother, grandmother, wife and mother-in-law. The gender gap in the primaries wasn’t anti-Obama, she says, but pro-Clinton. “I don’t think it was about him, it was about her.”

Groups such as NARAL Pro-Choice America, which endorsed the Illinois senator last month, will also help. The abortion-rights group plans to spend $10 million in the presidential and congressional elections this year, said president Nancy Keenan. It also will target independent and GOP women who favor abortion rights, particularly suburban ones in Pennsylvania and other swing states.

Clinton consistently won the votes of women during the primaries. Women 65 and older were strongest in their support: She won them by an average of 24 percentage points in contests where voters were surveyed as they left polling places.

In her farewell remarks Saturday, Clinton urged her supporters to back Obama, but acknowledged that their desire to elect a woman will have to wait. “We have to work together for what still can be. And that is why I will work my heart out to make sure that Sen. Obama is our next president,” Clinton said.

Obama could face a challenge to win over some women who, in Clinton’s loss, feel they’ve been disrespected by the Democratic Party and are stinging over what they believe was sexism in cable news coverage of her campaign.

Now that the primaries are over and the presumptive candidate has been chosen will the women that were the dir hard supporters actually come to the rescue of the Obama candidacy?  Your thoughts?

Want Universal Health Care?

Here’s a cold truth: Despite much media hand-wringing on the subject, most of us give about as much thought to those who lack health coverage as we do to soybean subsidies.The major obstacle to change? Those of us with insurance simply don’t care very much about those without it. It’s only when health care costs spike sharply, the economy totters or private employers begin to cut back on benefits that the lack of universal health care comes into focus. Noticing the steadily growing ranks of the uninsured, the broad American public — “us” — begins to worry that we’ll soon be joining the ranks of “them.”

The reality, however, is that only a minority of the uninsured are either the typical Redbook reader or that nice shopkeeper down the street. Two-thirds of those without health insurance are poor or near poor, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. And there are clear disparities in how different racial and ethnic groups are affected. Only 13 percent of non-Hispanic white Americans is uninsured, compared with 36 percent of Hispanics, 33 percent of Native Americans, 22 percent of blacks and 17 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders.

Politicians understand what this means in practical terms. If a lack of health insurance were truly a white middle-class crisis, then conservatives and liberals would long ago have joined together, carved out a compromise and done something. Instead, we’re served a constantly recycled set of excuses for legislative stalemate.

It has been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican running unsuccessfully on the Bull Moose Party ticket, boldly became the first presidential candidate to promise universal health coverage. That was in 1912. Nearly a century later, we’re still waiting for a leader with the courage and skill to break through our fears and successfully lead the charge up that particular hill.