Page 1 of 1 pages
McEntee is a joke.
Posted by Tom Laney on Jan 16, 2004 at 5:43 PM
Tom Laney is a farce.
Posted by neil on Jan 16, 2004 at 7:15 PM
Yes, labor organizing is the key alternative to the well organized Republican Right. So is Public Relations. A careful study of the websites PRWatch.org and Opensecrets.org should be basic reading for all progressives and labor organizers. Corporations own the Republican Party, and they use PR to
confuse and control plain folks with spin and with the so-called “culture wars,” which are a distraction from the class warfare that is being waged and won by corporations. And the newly empowered media cartels have demonstrated they will bend to the will of the Republican leadership.
Globalization and the commodification of labor now mean a return to the opposing interests of corporations and labor. Multi-national corporations have no loyalty to the American people; only labor unions and organizations allied with unions can represent their interests.
Yet labor unions do not speak with one voice in Iowa today(1-17-04). AFSCME backs one candidate, all others back Gephart. And the AFL-CIO does not reach out to knowledge workers, southerners, or intellectuals. I, for one, would volunteer to help organize the south for free, even though I am self employed.
All over the country, there is work to be done in nursing homes, Wal Marts, and hospitals. Nurses, especially, should be organized. And the exploitation of Wal Mart workers must be challenged, beginning in California.
Labor must make alliances with the progressive movement, young anti-globalists, veterans’ groups, and with the new progressive think tanks. There must be global strategies to cope with the rising tide of globalization, which will not go away. Knowledge workers must be protected, and the creation of skilled blue collar jobs must be encouraged through national policy incentives. Grocery workers and other such workers must be organized.
I was heartened to see that Steelworkers demonstrated in Miami together with young anti-globalists and retirees.
Labor missed the opportunity to cope with and prepare for globalization in the early 1970’s when it began. Is the AFL-CIO to hidebound to adapt to the post-modern age? I hope not.
Posted by Robert Menuet on Jan 17, 2004 at 9:48 AM
I appreciate the specificity of some of Mr. McEntee’s agenda (real penalties for violators of labor laws, first contract arbitration, something that forces employers to stop interfering in union organizing drives), but submit that it is too White House - focused, waiting for the next White Knight to win back the presidency and implement the progressive agenda. We’ve got lots of cities, counties and states that are labor-friendly. What can we do in these jurisdictions? What is the model legislation that a progressive municipality should implement? The presidential race is fun and dramatic and glamorous, but since most of us vote in states that are foregone conclusions, campaigns that focus on the presidency doesn’t leave us much to actually do. What can we do with our potentially progressive state and local governments?
Posted by Dan Johnson-Weinberger on Jan 18, 2004 at 10:31 AM
While it may be easier to draw new people into the organized labor and other grassroots political movements by focusing on bread/butter/popular issues like healthcare, jobs, civil liberties, labor rights, education, environment etc., the labor movement should also focus on several other less popular issues of vital importance for workers in a democracy: 1) public financing of campaigns, 2) increased civic education in our schools, 3) media reform, including deconglomerization, free airtime to candidates, a revival of the FCC’s “fairness doctrine”, etc. and finally 4) proportional representation (this is the hardest, as it would of course require a rewriting of our constitution).
As we try to elect progressive candidates in all 3 or 4 levels of government, it is essential that we push for these 4 reforms so that whatever we accomplish on the bread/butter/popular issues is permament, so that it has a better chance of lasting in the future. These 4 reforms are necessary for a healthy democracy where the majority of American’s interests are truly represented.
The first three are pretty self explanatory in why they’re important, especially for readers of this magazine. I’ll elaborate a little more about proportional representation, which hardly ever gets addressed except in political science courses. This would entail abolishing the current single member per district system of representation we now use. Instead, there would be many members in larger districts, so that the distribution of member seats is based on the proportion of votes that that each party won (e.g. if there are 10 seats and party A won 30% of votes, party B 20%, party C 40%, party D 10%, then party A would have 3 seats, party B 2 seats, and you get the idea).
Posted by Phil on Jan 18, 2004 at 9:41 PM
Proportional representation allows more than just 2 viable parties to form because you no longer need a plurality to gain seats. So what’s the advantage in this? Well people would be able to vote for candidates in parties that more accurately reflect their own views. The problem right now is that the GOP has successfully convinced half of the voting population to vote against their economic interests by confusing them with moral/social/religious issues.
Currently, when we want these people to join us in progressive politics, we are asking them to vote against their heart on these moral/social/religious issues. With a multiparty system, these people could join a party that is economically left but more conservative on these moral/social/religious issues. In the end, the policies made will better reflect what the public wants.
Posted by Phil on Jan 18, 2004 at 9:42 PM
I will support unions when unions support AMERICANS! The unions position on illegal aliens is contrary to common sense. If an employee has a never ending supply of cheap labor who are willing scabs, the unions will never succeed. The position is SO lacking in logic it makes me think that the unions have sold out just like our politicians.
Vicky
www.rescueamericanjobs.org
Posted by Vicky Davis on Jan 20, 2004 at 9:05 AM
How about funding a labor-oriented national daily newspaper, something of a USA-Labor Today paper which could be funded easily by the AFL-CIO and would provide a much-needed alternative to the anti-labor dailies present in every major city.
Posted by Tracy on Jan 20, 2004 at 2:28 PM
Two quick points: Phil is right to call for a modern electoral system that allows for candidates of minor parties to get elected by proportional representation, but wrong to suggest that it requires a re-writing of our constitution. Cambrdige, Mass. uses PR right now, and we should start in our cities and states that use multi-member districts (like Maryland) with a proportional voting system. Just giving voters cumulative voting rights (where they can get all their votes to one candidate in a multi-member district) is the easiest way to get PR. And Tracy’s point is well-taken: why aren’t unions investing some of their massive pension funds into a national labor newspaper? The newspaper industry is quite profitable, and I’ll bet that lots of union members’ pension funds are currently invested in USA TODAY (I believe Gannett is a publicly-traded company, but I could be wrong). The Chicago Sun-Times is up for sale—why don’t the unions buy that paper?
Posted by Dan Johnson-Weinberger on Feb 7, 2004 at 7:31 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
McEntee is a joke.
Tom Laney is a farce.
Yes, labor organizing is the key alternative to the well organized Republican Right. So is Public Relations. A careful study of the websites PRWatch.org and Opensecrets.org should be basic reading for all progressives and labor organizers. Corporations own the Republican Party, and they use PR to
confuse and control plain folks with spin and with the so-called “culture wars,” which are a distraction from the class warfare that is being waged and won by corporations. And the newly empowered media cartels have demonstrated they will bend to the will of the Republican leadership.
Globalization and the commodification of labor now mean a return to the opposing interests of corporations and labor. Multi-national corporations have no loyalty to the American people; only labor unions and organizations allied with unions can represent their interests.
Yet labor unions do not speak with one voice in Iowa today(1-17-04). AFSCME backs one candidate, all others back Gephart. And the AFL-CIO does not reach out to knowledge workers, southerners, or intellectuals. I, for one, would volunteer to help organize the south for free, even though I am self employed.
All over the country, there is work to be done in nursing homes, Wal Marts, and hospitals. Nurses, especially, should be organized. And the exploitation of Wal Mart workers must be challenged, beginning in California.
Labor must make alliances with the progressive movement, young anti-globalists, veterans’ groups, and with the new progressive think tanks. There must be global strategies to cope with the rising tide of globalization, which will not go away. Knowledge workers must be protected, and the creation of skilled blue collar jobs must be encouraged through national policy incentives. Grocery workers and other such workers must be organized.
I was heartened to see that Steelworkers demonstrated in Miami together with young anti-globalists and retirees.
Labor missed the opportunity to cope with and prepare for globalization in the early 1970’s when it began. Is the AFL-CIO to hidebound to adapt to the post-modern age? I hope not.
I appreciate the specificity of some of Mr. McEntee’s agenda (real penalties for violators of labor laws, first contract arbitration, something that forces employers to stop interfering in union organizing drives), but submit that it is too White House - focused, waiting for the next White Knight to win back the presidency and implement the progressive agenda. We’ve got lots of cities, counties and states that are labor-friendly. What can we do in these jurisdictions? What is the model legislation that a progressive municipality should implement? The presidential race is fun and dramatic and glamorous, but since most of us vote in states that are foregone conclusions, campaigns that focus on the presidency doesn’t leave us much to actually do. What can we do with our potentially progressive state and local governments?
While it may be easier to draw new people into the organized labor and other grassroots political movements by focusing on bread/butter/popular issues like healthcare, jobs, civil liberties, labor rights, education, environment etc., the labor movement should also focus on several other less popular issues of vital importance for workers in a democracy: 1) public financing of campaigns, 2) increased civic education in our schools, 3) media reform, including deconglomerization, free airtime to candidates, a revival of the FCC’s “fairness doctrine”, etc. and finally 4) proportional representation (this is the hardest, as it would of course require a rewriting of our constitution).
As we try to elect progressive candidates in all 3 or 4 levels of government, it is essential that we push for these 4 reforms so that whatever we accomplish on the bread/butter/popular issues is permament, so that it has a better chance of lasting in the future. These 4 reforms are necessary for a healthy democracy where the majority of American’s interests are truly represented.
The first three are pretty self explanatory in why they’re important, especially for readers of this magazine. I’ll elaborate a little more about proportional representation, which hardly ever gets addressed except in political science courses. This would entail abolishing the current single member per district system of representation we now use. Instead, there would be many members in larger districts, so that the distribution of member seats is based on the proportion of votes that that each party won (e.g. if there are 10 seats and party A won 30% of votes, party B 20%, party C 40%, party D 10%, then party A would have 3 seats, party B 2 seats, and you get the idea).
Proportional representation allows more than just 2 viable parties to form because you no longer need a plurality to gain seats. So what’s the advantage in this? Well people would be able to vote for candidates in parties that more accurately reflect their own views. The problem right now is that the GOP has successfully convinced half of the voting population to vote against their economic interests by confusing them with moral/social/religious issues.
Currently, when we want these people to join us in progressive politics, we are asking them to vote against their heart on these moral/social/religious issues. With a multiparty system, these people could join a party that is economically left but more conservative on these moral/social/religious issues. In the end, the policies made will better reflect what the public wants.
I will support unions when unions support AMERICANS! The unions position on illegal aliens is contrary to common sense. If an employee has a never ending supply of cheap labor who are willing scabs, the unions will never succeed. The position is SO lacking in logic it makes me think that the unions have sold out just like our politicians.
Vicky
www.rescueamericanjobs.org
How about funding a labor-oriented national daily newspaper, something of a USA-Labor Today paper which could be funded easily by the AFL-CIO and would provide a much-needed alternative to the anti-labor dailies present in every major city.
Two quick points: Phil is right to call for a modern electoral system that allows for candidates of minor parties to get elected by proportional representation, but wrong to suggest that it requires a re-writing of our constitution. Cambrdige, Mass. uses PR right now, and we should start in our cities and states that use multi-member districts (like Maryland) with a proportional voting system. Just giving voters cumulative voting rights (where they can get all their votes to one candidate in a multi-member district) is the easiest way to get PR. And Tracy’s point is well-taken: why aren’t unions investing some of their massive pension funds into a national labor newspaper? The newspaper industry is quite profitable, and I’ll bet that lots of union members’ pension funds are currently invested in USA TODAY (I believe Gannett is a publicly-traded company, but I could be wrong). The Chicago Sun-Times is up for sale—why don’t the unions buy that paper?
register a new account »Posting Security