Day: September 14, 2008

Boeing Strike Continues

The strike has shut down the company’s plants in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Kansas, halting production of the company’s 737, 747, 767, and 777 airplanes.

the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) rejected the company’s latest offer. The strike was called only after the union agreed to a two-day negotiation extension requested by federal mediators and the governor of Washington.

Boeing is offering a meager 11 percent pay increase over three years, which means that workers will be forced to accept a substantial wage cut after inflation. The counterproposal by IAM, however, is barely an improvement over the company’s offer. The union is asking for a 13 percent increase over three years, which would still represent a cut in real wages.

Boeing is a very profitable company, pulling in $8.86 billion in net income from 2005 through 2007. It has over $10 billion in cash and marketable securities on hand, and has a backlog of orders lasting several years, including lucrative government contracts.

Boeing workers are also seeking to oppose further job cuts. Over the past decade, the number of workers at Boeing has been cut by more than half, from 60,000 to the current level of 27,000. The company has outsourced significance parts of its production process to lower-wage plants, reserving the main Boeing plants primarily for plane assembly. Boeing was able to secure greater flexibility in outsourcing in a 2002 contract signed by the IAM.

Nader’s Four Point Plan

First, he called for universal health care. This would be a single-payer set-up based upon “private delivery” of medical goods and services. He pointed to the irrationality of the US health care industry, which he said costs twice as much per capita compared to Canada and Switzerland.

Second, Nader called for what he termed a “living wage.” He was not specific about just what this would be, but he seemed to suggest that the current minimum wage should be based upon an incremental increase of the 1968 minimum wage adjusted to subsequent inflation. This would put the figure at nearly $11 per hour, he said.

Third, Nader called for a “massive expansion of law enforcement against corporate crime.” He pointed to the gutting of the regulatory agencies of the federal government as a basic cause of a number of problems, including workplace accidents and environmental degradation.

Fourth, he proposed a shift in US foreign policy in the Middle East. Nader called for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq within six months, and derided Obama’s proposed “withdrawal” that would leave 50,000 US military personnel and permanent bases in Iraq. Nader spent more time, however, discussing the Israeli-Palestinian question. He called for a two-state solution, and criticized Obama’s fervently pro-Israeli position as a betrayal that he sees arising from the power of the pro-Israeli lobbying group AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) over US politics.

Did Candidates Embrace A Draft?

In remarks that clearly pointed toward the restoration of the military draft under an Obama administration, the Democratic candidate said Thursday night that his job as president would include demanding that the American people recognize an “obligation” for military service. “If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some,” Senator Barack Obama declared.

Obama’s comments came as he and his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, took part in a forum on national service at Columbia University in New York City. Earlier in the day, both candidates joined in a memorial service at the site of the World Trade Center, commemorating the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

While “national service” encompasses more than the military, including such government-run programs as the Peace Corps, Americorps and Teach for America, as well as private and religious programs, both McCain and Obama focused on expanding the US Armed Forces as a major goal of the next administration, whether Democratic or Republican.

Obama went on to make his most direct statement of the campaign about expanding military service, declaring: “But it’s also important that a president speaks to military service as an obligation not just of some, but of many. You know, I traveled, obviously, a lot over the last 19 months. And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think it’s important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some.”

Could This Be The Beginning Of Something Ugly?

The Pakistani military on Friday warned that it could strike back at U.S. soldiers if they conducted cross-border raids from Afghanistan, escalating the tension between the allies as U.S. missiles again pounded suspected militant hideouts.

A statement issued Friday by the Pakistani military at the end of a two-day meeting said the government and military agreed on the need to defend the nation. “Pakistani troops on the spot will retaliate for any actions across the border,” Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, chief military spokesman, said. He didn’t provide details of possible actions, but the orders raised the prospect of the two allies shooting at each other even as they both increase the targeting of militants.

The Pakistani stance comes after it was revealed earlier this week that U.S. President George W. Bush approved secret orders in July clearing the way for Special Operations forces to conduct ground assaults in Pakistan without that government’s permission. U.S. commandos backed by a helicopter gunship recently raided a village in Pakistan’s border region, prompting a furious reaction in Pakistan.

But the substance of Pakistan’s threat will be fully known only if U.S. and Pakistani troops encounter each other on a combat mission. And Pakistan’s repeated, escalating rhetoric underscores how seriously it takes the issue. Earlier this week, Pakistan’s army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, warned that U.S. incursions into Pakistan wouldn’t be tolerated and that Pakistani forces would defend national sovereignty at all costs. “There is no question of any agreement or understanding with the coalition forces allowing them to strike inside Pakistan,” he said.

Internet Blamed For Rising Addictions

“The American Psychiatric Association does not recognize the term sex addiction, because it’s so broad. So generally, the terms hyper-sexuality, sexually compulsive behavior are what get used, but it’s very much a real condition, and what the latest scientific research is showing is that all addictions, whether it’s an addiction to alcohol, drugs, gambling, or sex, affects the human brain in the same way. So, I think we can definitely say that sexually compulsive behavior is a very real problem for millions of people.”

And Kerner points to the Internet as a culprit.

“The Internet, I think, has been the No. 1 enabler of the increase in sexually compulsive behavior. Whereas, in previous years, you might have thought of a sex addict as somebody who’s compulsively cheating, hooking up, having affairs, I think today, millions more men are vulnerable — especially men — are vulnerable to sexually compulsive behavior because of the proliferation of Internet porn and the easy access of Internet porn. So, I think that’s definitely the No. 1 problem for people who are suffering from sexually compulsive behavior.”

Today In Labor History

14 September

The Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers union calls off an unsuccessful three-month strike against U. S. Steel Corporation subsidiaries – 1901

Gastonia, N.C. textile mill striker and songwriter Ella Mae Wiggins, 29, the mother of nine, is killed when local vigilantes, thugs and a sheriff’s deputy force the pickup truck in which she is riding off the road and begin shooting – 1929

A striker is shot by a bog owner (and town elected official) during a walkout by some 1,500 cranberry pickers, members of the newly-formed Cape Cod Cranberry Pickers Union Local 1. State police were called, more strikers were shot and 64 were arrested. The strike was lost – 1933

Congress passes the Landrum-Griffin Act. The law expands many of the anti-labor provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, increasing union reporting requirements and restricting secondary boycotting and picketing – 1959

“Putting Our Country First”

McCain and Palin have embraced change but the message is that they will put our country first. But does that mean…..exactly? Mean? Besides being a cute, but effective little slogan.

But what does it mean?

Does it mean that Americans will live working? Maybe that there will be adequate healthcare of all people? Possibly that there will be more domestic spending? Or maybe keeping the US militarily strong? How about giving corporations more leeway to do as they want?

Just what does the phrase mean?

The amazing part of this election season is that half the voting population wants the US to move into the 21st century and the other half is stuck in the US of their fathers. That is the thinking of the wonderful 50’s.

So the election will come down to which sector will show up at the polls. Will Americans, as a nation, take a chance on the future or will we just be happy with living in the past?

In conclusion, which thinking is putting the country first?

The Most Dangerous Country

As he leaves Iraq this week, the outgoing US commander, General David Petraeus, is sounding far less optimistic than the Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, about the American situation in Iraq. General Petraeus says that it remains “fragile”, recent security gains are “not irreversible” and “this is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade… it’s not a war with a simple slogan.”

Compare this with Sarah Palin’s belief that “victory in Iraq is wholly in sight” and her criticism of Barack Obama for not using the word “victory”. The Republican contenders have made these claims of success for the “surge” – the American reinforcements sent last year – although they are demonstrably contradicted by the fact that the US has to keep more troops, some 138,000, in Iraq today than beforehand.

Playing down such killings, the Iraqi government and the US have launched a largely successful propaganda campaign to convince the world that “things are better” in Iraq and that life is returning to normal. One Iraqi journalist recorded his fury at watching newspapers around the world pick up a story that the world’s largest Ferris wheel was to be built in Baghdad, a city where there is usually only two hours of electricity a day.

The surge only achieved the degree of success it did because Iran, which played a central role in getting Nouri al-Maliki appointed Prime Minister in 2006, decided to back his government fully. It negotiated a ceasefire between the Iraqi government and the powerful movement of Muqtada al-Sadr in Basra, persuading the cleric to call his militiamen off the streets there, in March and again two months later in the Sadrist stronghold of Sadr City. It is very noticeable that in recent weeks the US has largely ceased its criticism of Iran. This is partly because of American preoccupation with Russia since the fighting began in Georgia in August, but it is also an implicit recognition that US security in Iraq is highly dependant on Iranian actions.

General Petraeus has had a measure of success in Iraq less because of his military skills than because he was one of the few American leaders to have some understanding of Iraqi politics. In January 2004, when he was commander of the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul, I asked him what was the most important piece of advice he could give to his successor. He said it was “not to align too closely with one ethnic group, political party, tribe, religious group or social element”. But today the US has no alternative but to support Mr Maliki and his Shia government, and to wink at the role of Iran in Iraq. If McCain supposes the US has won a military victory, and as president acts as if this were true, then he is laying the groundwork for a new war.