Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > November > 13 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USObama, Dems wrong on labor vote
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The push by organized labor to sidestep the secret ballot and instead establish unions by collecting worker signatures already promises to be one of the hottest political issues of 2009. President-elect Barack Obama, who was elected with strong labor support, has promised to fight for the “card check” signature system, and conservatives have made it clear that they are drawing a line in the sand against that change.
On this issue, the Democrats and labor are wrong. There’s no secret why they seek the change — it would make union organizing easier. But allowing formation of unions through the gathering of signatures rather than the secret ballot also would expose workers to unfair and unnecessary intimidation, in some cases all but forcing them to take stances against their better judgment. That’s hard to justify.
That said, there’s a lot more to the story.
For the past eight years, the Bush administration has worked diligently to defang agencies created to protect workers, consumers, patients, investors, the environment, etc. The consequence of that deregulatory approach has been felt most directly and obviously in the financial system, where the Bush administration’s reluctance to regulate Wall Street contributed significantly to the collapse now sending the economy into a deep recession. But that’s just one example of a pattern across the federal bureaucracy.
At the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the number of inspectors was cut from 605 in 2002 to 496 in 2006 even as mining increased; enforcement and fines were cut back significantly. At the Environmental Protection Agency, enforcement actions and fines against polluters also have been drastically reduced as staff is discouraged from confronting business. Enforcement also has been cut at the Occupational Health and Safety Administration in favor of “voluntary compliance,” the same approach that regulators took to Wall Street.
And as the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission now acknowledges, the financial upheaval has “made it absolutely clear that voluntary regulation does not work” and that the concept “was fundamentally flawed from the beginning.”
Something similar took place at the National Labor Relations Board, the agency created to ensure a fair playing field between labor and management. Under the Bush administration and Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, the NLRB consistently and single-mindedly has taken the side of management against labor, in many cases overturning precedents that are decades old. Labor has understandably concluded that the system is stacked against it. In one case last year involving a nursing home, for example, the board allowed an existing union to be decertified not through secret ballot, but through a petition signed by a majority of nursing home employees.
While that was a significant change in the NLRB’s previous practice, it also casts the card-check issue in a whole new light. Conservatives argue —- somewhat correctly —- that it is a violation of the democratic process and all that is true and good about America if you abandon the secret ballot and try to create a union through collecting signatures. Yet somehow, they deem it legal, acceptable and proper to decertify a union by that same illegitimate means.
As the Bush administration exits, a lot of scandals are going to bubble up out of the bureaucracy about favors done, rules ignored, employees intimidated, etc., on behalf of industry and other special interests. And people and groups that have been on the losing end for eight years are eager for retribution.
Natural as that sentiment might be, it’s a bad way to run government. The goal of the Obama administration should be to correct inequities, not create new ones. A new labor secretary, a revamped labor-relations board — the five-member panel has three vacancies — and a new commitment to applying the law fairly and reforming it where needed can go a long way toward correcting inequities that the card-check system is supposed to fix.
Services »
Comments
By AJC/DNC Management
November 13, 2008 7:06 AM | Link to this
Aahhh, yes, there goes the Unions under the bus.
Did you guys enjoy your consolation campaign promise?
Don’t worry, the libs will promise you the same thing in 2010.
Suckers.
By Mike
November 13, 2008 7:24 AM | Link to this
LOL. Of course Bookman didn’t bring any of this up before the election, as it might have hurt his candidate if people knew his unjustifiable objections to private union voting. (Of course Bookman wants to blame Obama’s views on the matter on Bush. What else is new?)
Any reason why you waited til now to talk about this Jay? I guess before the election you were too busy harping on “uppity” comments and Palin’s wardrobe.
By Joey
November 13, 2008 7:24 AM | Link to this
I see the Democratic Congress sending President Obama a Bill with the union vote change attached. President Obama will reluctantly sign the bill because of the importance of the “primary” subject of the Bill. My guess this will happen by the end of April.
But don’t worry Jay, you will always have this post to point when you, with regret and hesitation, support Obama’s decision to sign for the good of the Nation.
By College Professor
November 13, 2008 7:48 AM | Link to this
I don’t believe it! Bookman actually criticizing his God and his Church. What’s next?
By AJC/DNC Management
November 13, 2008 7:51 AM | Link to this
Newt Gingrich is right that the election results were more a commentary on the GOP’s recent performance than an invalidation of conservative ideals. No Republican, not even an Abraham Lincoln, could have won this election. The good news is that the country continues to run away from the Left faster than a hillbilly from work.
Despite the dubious legacy of Bush and the Democratic landslide, no one denies there has been a noticeable shift right, in particular among the young and the working class. Obama won some of these voters this time around, but they are by no means lost for good.-AmSpec
Now if we can only give them real Conservatives to vote for instead of these mealy mouthed “moderates.”
By DB, Gwinnettian
November 13, 2008 7:59 AM | Link to this
Mr. Bookman, a suggestion: Perhaps the card-check system can be given a sunset provision of (say) two years, by which time we can determine whether those inequities borne of 20 years of labor evisceration from Reagan > Bush > Bush (and, to be honest, a fair amount under Clinton) are really being adequately addressed.
Speaking of specifics, does anyone have a link to the actual language of the bill (s) under consideration?
By "The Corporal"
November 13, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this
To Jay
I just picked myself up off the floor. This is the first time I recall you nailing Obama or your own party on anything ….. and conveniently after the election.
Are you trying to get an early retirement (fired) from the AJC ?
By ron
November 13, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this
I have been a life long advocate for unions,but not this kind of union.This is the jack boot type organizing that America doesn’t need.This type union is not representing it’s members but rather it’s own agenda,which is oftentimes at odds with the people from which they are extracting dues.Over a short period of time these unions become only a place for the members to leave their money.They get no representation at all.
By Rocco Pedestrian
November 13, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this
The union-busting that has gone on over the past 28 years is disgusting. Half the young lawyers in Atlanta downtown mega-firms are working night & day on “labor and regulatory” issues, meaning they fight unions and figure out ways to break anti-pollution, worker safety, and anti-trust laws for their corporate overlords. I was sad when I missed out on such a job, but now I’m happy to be an honest street-level lawyer in the suburbs. Labor has such a long way to catch up and such a formidable enemy; I think the signature gathering is a good rule until middle class workers are making so much money that it isn’t fair anymore. In the interest of full disclosure: Yes we Can!
By Soixante huitard
November 13, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this
Calm down boys. You all act like it’s major news to criticize something in your own side’s positions.
Why is that?
Is it because to you EVERYTHING is about the STRUGGLE, KEEPING THE FAITH, which is to say, KEEPING UP APPEARANCES ? Huh, is that it?
Interesting what you guys reveal about yourselves sometimes.
Anyway, as I posted last night there’s a scarecrow in this state with a mouth that’s very big for a scarecrow. He won’t shut it. And he’s making this state more of a laughingstock - which isn’t exactly a funeral for me - than it already is.
What do you think about your scarecrow and his rube ways, boiz?
As the Bush administration exits, a lot of scandals are going to bubble up out of the bureaucracy about favors done, rules ignored, employees intimidated, etc.
You won’t be able to see the floor below you for the vermin.
By Joey
November 13, 2008 8:18 AM | Link to this
I have difficulty believing that all you people are taking Jay at his word on this.
He and Luc-ko-vich have a long history of publishing one or two things that they can point bring up in the future to “clearly” demonstrate how objective and fair they are.
Balderdash!
By Soixante huitard
November 13, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this
He and Luc-ko-vich have a long history of publishing one or two things that they can point bring up in the future to “clearly” demonstrate how objective and fair they are.
Bray on, asses.
This morning I could smell the stable from unusually far off. Guess it’s been a restless night, huh boiz?
By TN Gelding
November 13, 2008 8:24 AM | Link to this
I don’t see it being passed.
But the pendulum definitely has swung back toward management. We need to change the company/employee relationship where unions wouldn’t be needed. They need each other and should have the same goals.
…no mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology.
~Ronald Reagan
By Ray
November 13, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
Bookman,.
Is there hope for you? Can a liberal be wrong about anything? I heard the trumpets blow on high and a strange aura appear over the AJC press building this morning. Could it be that there is at last one thing about the Annointed One’s platform that you take issue with? I would have never thought that this would occur. I think that I liked you better as an unrepentant liberal hack. If you become a journalist, who will be call names and throw insults at? Take it back, Bookman, please….. we name callers are getting concerned.
By AJC/DNC Management
November 13, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this
Legislatively, Republicans can begin clarifying their convictions by pressing to limit the scope and duration of what a Republican administration has unleashed — the increasingly indiscriminate intrusion of government into financing the private sector. McConnell believes the bailout legislation was “necessary but not necessarily precedential.” It should be considered a one-time response to a once-in-a-century crisis, and should be terminated “as soon as possible” by government selling the assets it has acquired in order to recoup the money it has spent.-George Will
Meanwhile, the democrats want to expand it to include automakers, the NY Times, abortion doctors, ACORN and anyone one else that is willing to apply for government assistance, save for all of the rubes that actually work and earn money.
Somebody has to pay for the bailout.
By "The Corporal"
November 13, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this
To Soixante huitard
Now Soixy, I must disagree with your 8:15 post.
It is news when liberals criticize something in their own party because it is so rarely done and certainly not during the campaign.
You’ve followed my posts long enough to know I try to have a little integrity. If it’s wrong - it’s wrong and I have nailed Bush and the Republicans many times.
Argue all day long but I will stand my ground that that is one of the major differences between liberals and conservatives.
By Joey
November 13, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this
Sixty-Eighter:
Thank you for that compliment. It is a compliment for you to have “Bray on, Asses”.
Obviously you know the truth of what I wrote.
By leni
November 13, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this
second thoughts dept.
Joan Didion , David Corn (Mother Jones) Camille Paglia are beginning to feel some unease about the Obama they voted for. Don’t know if the pangs will ease or turn into echte Schmerz.
By Taxpayer
November 13, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this
Yes indeed, Jay. The Bush administration has certainly been busy these past eight years, destroying virtually everything decent in its path. This administration would do Sherman proud, in a demented sort of way that only the blind faithful of this Republican party would appreciate. It surely does take faith to believe that any good could ever come from this reign of terror that history may rightfully record as The Bush Dynasty — America’s Dark Ages. The sheer callousness alone, of so many within this administration and even the Republican party, should be sufficient to give even the most devout follower reason to pause…Yet. My hope is that this nation has indeed seen the need to reverse course and begin to right this ship while we still can. So, good bye, Bush administration and good riddance. Now, as your last act in office, show us, we the people, some true compassion — put down that pen and spare us all. Have mercy.
By Soixante huitard
November 13, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this
Thank you for that compliment. It is a compliment for you to have “Bray on, Asses”.
Any time, Joey Boy. :-)
By Shawny
November 13, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
If you dive down deep into the actions of unions, you will find that activities often conflict with the interests of their members, but instead, work to the benefit of their leaders. There are criminal undertones that have existed for years and continue to this day.
Unions are on the decline, and for very good reason…they are no longer necessary. Employers have to offer substantial benefits, pay, and fairness to keep employees in recent times. Employees no longer need the protections unions gave them back when long hours, bad working conditions, and unfair treatment was the norm.
Bookman, you are correct in that if this passes, it will be a blow to fairness and a sham. Local sites will organize due to strong arm enforcement, not the general will of the employees. That is wrong and not in the best interest of companies or workers. If Obama and the dems push for this, it is our duty to exercise our displeasure with them and oust them in the next election.
By Soixante huitard
November 13, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this
Corporal: You’ve followed my posts long enough to know I try to have a little integrity.
Which word gets the stress in that sentence? Just kidding. :-)
No, I know this to be true, Corporal, and your money is good with me.
But I did want to at least get the class calmed down a bit this morning, lest we have to call in the principle. What with all the commotion. Such boisterousness just after the morning bell can augur ill for a long, productive day of learning.
Argue all day long but I will stand my ground that that is one of the major differences between liberals and conservatives.
Then it’s a challenge — challenge accepted! (Shake hands.) I invite all to be honest and in good faith adjudicate which side can be most honestly critical of his or her own side over time. What do you say?
If it’s wrong - it’s wrong and I have nailed Bush and the Republicans many times.
That’s good, Corporal.
By AJC/DNC Management
November 13, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.
Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.
Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.
And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.-New York Times
And the Urinal “fell for it” too, as I remember, right Jay?
By Joey
November 13, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
To continue the new spirit of objectivity and fairplay Jay’s next post will be about our need to accept the will of the voters.
Jay will focus on the California vote. He will implore the people of California to accept the vote and condemn the people who forced Scott Eckern to resign as the Scaramento Theater director after 5 years at the post simply because he supported what he believed in.
Note: Let me be clear, I am not opposed to any two adult humans to be legally married. I extend that further, I am not opposed to a marriage between more than two people regardless of their sex.
By AmVet
November 13, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
No Republican, not even an Abraham Lincoln, could have won this election.
This may be one of the most stupid things I have ever seen written, and now repeated, this year.
OF COURSE, they could have won this election! But not with that abysmal lot of losers they trotted out on that stage!
Lincoln won because he had REAL ideas to help the nation in a desperate time. And he won because he had great INTEGRITY.
The GOP has NOBODY even remotely close to that description now. Fred Thompson? Rudy Giuliani? Mitt Romney? All the very antithesis of Lincoln. Gutless to a man and myopically intractable.
The GOP needs to grow up and grow a pair. Quick! If they wish to avoid being the next exhibit in that Creation Museum in Kentucky.
I gather most Americans really don’t care what their fate is anymore, until they tell their lunatic fringe, Bible thumping nut jobs to start their own demented party…
By AJC/DNC Management
November 13, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
One lawyer who offered Democrats advice during the presidential campaign suggested that Obama could decide to keep on several of the nation’s 93 U.S. attorneys, such as Patrick J. Fitzgerald in Chicago, in a bid to demonstrate that merit trumps political connections. Fitzgerald, who prosecuted former vice presidential aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a Democratic fundraiser with ties to Obama, is a political independent.- Washington Post
Gosh, and here I thought you couldn’t fire attorneys for political reasons?
Will the faux outrage from the pinko media, including our very own kookman, extend to the new administration?
Hmmmmm?
By Soixante huitard
November 13, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
Jay will focus on the California vote. He will implore the people of California to accept the vote and condemn the people who forced Scott Eckern to resign as the Scaramento Theater director after 5 years at the post simply because he supported what he believed in.
Ah! I was just going to post regarding this very matter which I found this to be objectionable based on what I know of the case, but I don’t know all the details yet.
I’ll do you one better. Savage in my opinion went a little too far last night in debating Perkins on AC360. I say this as someone who has some sympathy with his position. But nonetheless. He shouldn’t shout down his oppnents — which he bordered on — and he shouldn’t personalize his grievances - which he did.
By Goldie
November 13, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
The goal of the Obama administration should be to correct inequities, not create new ones.
Thank you, JAY— and we Dems need to be diligent about letting the Obama administration know whenever they’re veering off the side of the road while attempting to over-correct…
By Morningstar
November 13, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this
By Shawny November 13, 2008 8:50 AM | Employers have to offer substantial benefits, pay, and fairness to keep employees in recent times. Employees no longer need the protections unions gave them back when long hours, bad working conditions, and unfair treatment was the norm.
I agree with some of what you’re saying. However, companies comply with fair pay, and other labor laws because of the threat of unions or prosecution.
Although in recent years unions have overstepped their bounds, without them the country would resort back to a ‘rich or poor’ society that existed in pre-union times.
The Bush administration has clearly tried to destroy unions, and everything else worthwhile in it’s path, so I have a problem thinking we’ve “advanced” so far in our thinking that companies will automatically do right by their employees.
Unions, corporations et. al. need restrictions, but we must remember that the workers did not CREATE unions. Companies CREATED unions by allowing their greed to overcome any common decency and caring for mankind.
By mm
November 13, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this
Management,
Here’s your shift to the right.
Click the voting shifts button. Where is all the red?
By Swami Dave
November 13, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this
Jay:
It would appear that opposition to “card check” is something on which we can agree.
While I may not share all of your issues with the Bush administration & its regulatory record, I do agree that allowing a current union to be decertified by a petition was wrong.
For the same reasons that allowing certification to occur under risk of undue influence without the security of a secret ballot, the equitable position would be to require a similar campaign & secret ballot vote to decertify it.
-Swami Dave
By Taxpayer
November 13, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
The current economic mess, created by the so-called “advanced thinking” of today’s leaders in government and business, should be sufficient to give pause to anyone with thoughts of yielding the reins to those amongst us who would dare to utter words such as “trust me”. Will we ever learn. I surely have my doubts.
By getalife
November 13, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this
The Dems are dead wrong on the bailout too:
TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL: THE BAILOUT IS “A MESS”
I guess we have to hope the gop will reverse the bailout.
Oh geez.
By Soixante huitard
November 13, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this
Shawny: Employees no longer need the protections unions gave them back when long hours, bad working conditions, and unfair treatment was the norm.
Surprising to still hear such utopian sentiments uttered these days, what with late 20th C assumptions as to economic policy truisms serving us so well.
Does anyone else see a parallel here?
By JM
November 13, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
I will forego the argument over whether or not union leadership is the scum of the seedy side of what’s wrong with America.
Maybe we can deal with that topic at the same time we discuss the character of Americans who serve as board members of corporations who basically vote themselves raises.
The fact remains that it is very difficult for unions to establish themselves. I see no way of making the card signing secret. And the union has to get 50% of the membership to vote for it in a secret ballot. But this is NOT 50% of those who vote, it is 50% of the entire work force, regardless if they vote or not. It also includes retired and furloughed personnel.
So it’s definately stacked against the unions.
You may feel that unions are a bad thing for a lot of reasons, but this change in IMHO only levels the playing field.
Now let’s take a look at what unions really offer.
1) A safer work environment.
2) A fair wage.
3) Training to do the job safely and do it well.
4) Motivated employees who are often more content.
5) Oh yeah, and let’s not forget “The Weekend, brought to you by the Union”.
I think you all just fear what you don’t understand.
Unions can only help this country, not hurt it.
Workers who are educated on the matter know the difference.
By AmVet
November 13, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
And as the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission now acknowledges, the financial upheaval has “made it absolutely clear that voluntary regulation does not work” and that the concept “was fundamentally flawed from the beginning.”
NO SHIITE!
Sometimes I think the “men” who run this country are absolutely disgraceful.
They absolutely KNEW that letting the foxes guard the hen house would result in all of these enormous problems, but they decided that taking the dirty money and looking away was better than having the balls to take a stand and do the Nancy Reagan - just say no.
And it was better. For them. At the expense of the justice and the cost to the nation.
So this is just not a matter of plain old stupidity, amazing greed and ignorance, though I grant you there appears to be a fair amount of that in the White House especially, and on Capitol Hill.
What we are talking about here, are men who are essentially immoral, unethical and ultra-bribeable.
And all the neo-cons from Dusty to Pat Robertson can clamor otherwise and try to defend the indefensible. As enablers they are a huge part of the clusterf&ck these unconscionable scumbags intentionally created.
Heads should roll, and George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, should be impeached and among many others should do time.
By Morningstar
November 13, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer @ 9:32AM - Our “advanced” thinkers will continue to run roughshod over everything and everyone in their path, if they are not subjected to accountability.
We do not learn. One need only look at the past to see what can happen now and in the future. I read something to the effect of “The past is never dead.” I believe if was from something of William Faulkner (forgive me Faulkner, wherever you are, if it wasn’t you).
By Taxpayer
November 13, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
Warning - The Surgeon General would declare that breathing polluted air is hazardous to your health, if the Bush Administration would let him reveal the truth. Not only that, it actually costs a lot of money in lost work and health care — sort of like smoking except without the filter.
By AJC/DNC Management
November 13, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
By getalife November 13, 2008 9:34 AM The Dems are dead wrong on the bailout too: TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL: THE BAILOUT IS “A MESS” I guess we have to hope the gop will reverse the bailout. Oh geez.
And now Oblahmi wants to double up the Chinese money given to the automakers:
OBAMA PUSHES $50B FOR AUTOMAKERS…
Hell, even the automakers only wanted 25B.
What about our children, y’all?
By getalife
November 13, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
Andy,
Jay is writing about unions but there will be no jobs. The beginning of layoffs have just started. It is going be a job massacre.
I heard one Senator say if we do not stop the bailouts, the American people will rise up to stop it.
It is time to rise up.
This will not end well.
By RealityKing
November 13, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this
Clearly the MSM has put the progressive agenda ahead of the public’s right to know. Great example Jay..
By Soixante huitard
November 13, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
They absolutely KNEW that letting the foxes guard the hen house would result in all of these enormous problems…
They themselves were the foxes, AmVet.
By AJC/DNC Management
November 13, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
al-Gitmo: You reckon?
CHICAGO (CBS) ― Mayor Richard M. Daley says the economic woes in Chicago will get much worse, and more local workers could soon be getting pink slips.
“This is going to be all year, so it’s going to be a very frightening economy,” Mayor Daley said. “Each one tells me what they’re laying off, and they’re going to double that next year. We’re talking huge numbers of permanent layoffs for people in the economy. It’s going to have a huge effect on all businesses.”
They wished for a depression so that they could win an election.
It’s all yours, bay bee.
Have fun with it.
By Taxpayer
November 13, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
The Bush administration should just invite Hugo Chavez to the White House and begin discussions on the most efficient approaches to take in nationalizing America’s financial institutions and other businesses. After all, the Fed already owns Fannie and Freddie and AIG. They are too big to fail, you know. A more diverse portfolio should include a few auto makers, a telecom company such as AT&T in the back pocket (you just never know when that might come in handy), and an oil company or two. What’s Bush waiting for. He needs to finalize his legacy. This is no time to be remorseful over a prematurely displayed “Mission Accomplished” banner.
By Joey
November 13, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
A 9:59 post mentioned smoking. That cause me to wonder:
Will President Obama smoke in the Whitehouse? Air Force One? The Camp David House? In the vehicles he uses?
It may be a law.
And to Soixante: I have heard of a radio talker called Savage, but have never listened to him.
By AmVet
November 13, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
When members of Congress or the administration or the corporate CEOs or the empirically starved right-wing ideologues start whining about regulation the right-wing echo chamber goes wild. When the absence of adequate regulation lets an industry wreak havoc, Congress and the administration meekly admit a bit of regulation might have averted disaster. The corporate CEOs, expelled with their lucrative golden parachutes, have “no comment.”
We and others have been telling members of Congress, government regulators and members of the media about the structural and operational problems of Fannie and Freddie for years. I have written many columns about the lack of proper regulation of Fannie and Freddie. I testified before Congress personally on this matter.
In May of 1998, we even held a conference dedicated to Fannie and Freddie. In my welcoming statement to the conference participants, I noted that we would be discussing the adequacy of capital required of Fannie and Freddie and the efficacy of regulation of the two GSEs. I noted that both corporations had been enjoying good times. And, I cautioned that one of the unintended consequences of fat profits over a long period is the tendency of governments and private corporations to start believing in fantasies about living happily ever after in the glory of ever-rising profits.
Ralph Nader - Sept 9, 2008
By Soixante huitard
November 13, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
And to Soixante: I have heard of a radio talker called Savage, but have never listened to him.
Different Savage. I’m talking about Dan Savage, gay rights activist. He is CNN’s go-to guy for the gay rights side whenever this debate comes up, opposite Perkins.
By getalife
November 13, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
It happened on w’s watch Andy.
The Senate bailout hearing is nothing but doom and gloom.
Man, they really screwed up this time.
Greedy bas-tards.
By "The Corporal"
November 13, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
To Soixante huitard
Re: your 8:53
Yes Ma’am (you must be/have been a teacher)……. :o)
You’re on but I think you will be disappointed especially with this blog. You didn’t see it during the campaign and you won’t see much of it now unless he really breaks bad on the unwashed masses and their car payments/mortgages.
By AmVet
November 13, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
It happened on w’s watch Andy.
No question, getalife.
And far worse, he exacerbated the problems by continuing the debacle via his “ownership society” and gutting the SEC’s corporate oversight and policing agencies as soon as he got into office.
Just one of many campaign “promises” he broke…
And I hope that after decades of gullibly trusting these “leaders”, rank and file Americans will begin anew a participatory democracy and a grass roots effort to throw these two political parties out on their ears unless and until they start working for us and not the other way around…
By Shawny
November 13, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
You may think unions are great, but it is because of the unions that GM, et al in the US are in trouble. They bow down to them in each contract, putting them at a $1000-$2000 per car disadvantage vs. their competition, simply due to pay and benefits. There are instances where they pay employees not to work. This kind of pillaging would collapse most businesses. They survived as long as they did with the UAW only because there was no competition from outside of the big 3 until the late 70s. Now they can’t afford to pay out what they do to support their market.
If you always side with the us vs. them mental midgets, you fail to see the big picture of what is now a globally competitive business environment. There can be labor laws to correct inequities and keep employers in check without labor unions that hamstring companies pushing wages and benefits that aren’t realistic, given the skill and effort required in their labor.
By "The Corporal"
November 13, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
Why did the chicken cross the road?
SARAH PALIN: Before it got to the other side, I shot the chicken, cleaned and dressed it, and had chicken burgers for lunch.
BARACK OBAMA: The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a change! The chicken wanted change!
JOHN MCCAIN: My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.
HILLARY CLINTON: When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure right from Day One that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn’t about me.
GEORGE W. BUSH: We don’t really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.
DICK CHENEY: Where’s my gun?
BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road withthat chicken. What is your definition of chicken?
AL GORE: I invented the chicken.
By cranky old man
November 13, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
I’ve got mixed feelings about unions. They are largely responsible for many of the changes that differentiate current working conditions from those of the 19th century. And if they disappear entirely, we may eventually some aspects of that era return.
Does anyone here really want to be payed in company scrip instead of US dollars? Do you really want to eliminate OSHA and simultaneously put a cap on damages a jury can award for employer negligence? Do you want to work 70-80 hours per week without overtime pay?
Employers have already had success in eliminating or eroding many of these protections and others over the years. Some employers simply ignore rules they don’t like, knowing that the odds of being successfully prosecuted are slim. Even if they are caught and convicted, the penalties often cost them less than they would have spent by following the law in the first place.
On the other hand, all the points Jay makes about card checks vs. elections give me pause. Some unions have a history of intimidation, corruption, and ties to organized crime. Of course, the rough-and-tumble nature of union tactics in the past were largely a defense mechanism against employers who were all too willing to hire Pinkerton men with baseball bats. I believe these problems are significantly less prevalent than in the past, but perhaps some of this is due to the shrinking significance of unions. Also, employers have become far more subtle and sensitive to public opinion. They have become adept at finding loopholes and low key ways to circumvent the rules. If unions experience a resurgence in membership and influence, however, the undesirable elements may once again see them as potentially lucrative cash cows, and start to creep back in.
By Taxpayer
November 13, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
A post at 10:23 expressed concern about President Elect Obama and whether he would be smoking in certain places. While I find it nice that this person would be so concerned with Obama’s health, I also find it rather peculiar that this person expressed no concern regarding the health, safety and welfare of we the people, i.e., the topic discussed in the referenced post. Then again, little thought from some people on matters of most importance is simply a fact of life…and death.
By AmVet
November 13, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
Shawny, no doubt.
And as an aside, second rate designs, second rate performance and reliability, abysmal fuel economy and US self-imposed currency inequities have nothing to do with the Detroit ostriches impending implosion…
By leni
November 13, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
Did I read that right? Do they have principles in schools here? In most schools they teach them—noblesse oblige and stuff like that.
By Soixante huitard
November 13, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
What’s up cranky? (I’ve got mixed feelings about unions. They are largely responsible for many of the changes that differentiate current working conditions from those of the 19th century. And if they disappear entirely, we may eventually some aspects of that era return.)
Not only will we lose those things, we are losing them.
Some unions have a history of intimidation, corruption, and ties to organized crime.
And rapacious corporations (calm down, righties! I’m not saying all corporations) are not? Look at the Camorra in Italy.
Look, I’m not an expert on this subject, but I’m highly suspicous of suspicion of unions. It’s part of what gave us W after all.
C’mon Management, where’s your next blast? Let’s go! No smoking in the courtyard!
By CommunistAJC
November 13, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
JAY BOOKMAN, Once this bill is signed you can say hello to more GM’s. Walmart is the primary target of the democrats. Sam Walton was dead on when he said unions would be the death of capitalism. Unions are out for themselves and not the workers. GM has become an insurance company rather than a car company. Bad bad news for America.
By Soixante huitard
November 13, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this
Corporal: Yes Ma’am (you must be/have been a teacher)……. :o)
You’re getting warmer.
You’re on but I think you will be disappointed especially with this blog. You didn’t see it during the campaign and you won’t see much of it now unless he really breaks bad on the unwashed masses and their car payments/mortgages.
Believe me, I’m under no illusions. But I’m not sure I follow the second part of your statement.
By "The Corporal"
November 13, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
To Soixante huitard
Translation: If he doesn’t come through with all of his promises the type of people who voted only for their pockets (the ones interviewed on on the street who thought Palin was his running mate) will break bad on him and the pressure will be on to find fault wherever they can.
By "The Corporal"
November 13, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
Unions used to be a necessary evil but they have run their course.
I was a member of the “Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen** once as a brakeman during my college years (I wonder if it is “Trainpeople or Trainpersons” now?) and all they did was think of ways to mess with management and make easy overtime.
An Old Song:
“Everyone stand up and holler for the Union ……. Let’s give the brotherhood a cheer. Everyone stand up and holler for the Union. We ain’t hit a lick all year !”
By Soixante huitard
November 13, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
We’ll see how it goes Corporal.
As far as promises go, those are bound to lead to disillusionment. Only promise Barack Obama made to me as far as I’m concerned is to be a fighter in implementing a progresive economic agenda. I’m not greatly concerned about its direct effect on me in economic terms.
Hey, by the way, conservative bloggers are drooling at the frightful numbers at the NY Times right now. I guess they’re dreaming of a possible Murdoch takeover of the times building. Who knows? Maybe it’ll happen.
By Joey
November 13, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer (11:10);
I have been in business for over 26 years. I have never allow anyone to smoke inside my building or my vehicles. Smokers must go outside to the truck dock.
I was suggesting that President Obama, or Bush or Palin, should not be exempt from smoking laws.
That said if I owned a bar, or similar business, I would want the option of allowing smoking or not. Anyone who does not want to be in a bar that allows smoking, employee or customer, has the freewill to decide not to enter or to stay.
By LOLO
November 13, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
This kind of presidential power is disturbing.
That’s why some of my favorite presidents are those who nobody has heard of. They simply didn’t screw up much because they didn’t do all that much to promote populism. Thanks Chester Arthur!
By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
November 13, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Unions served a purpose in the early stages of the industrialization of our nation when workers were viciously exploited. But today, unions serve no useful purpose and are a pox on this same great nation - point in case, the automobile industry.
By RW-(the original)
November 13, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
What’s going on with the server today? I’ll try this without the links.
Jay B.,
I don’t agree with a reverse “card check” and I don’t know any other conservatives that do.
Is this the nursing home you’re talking about?
Employees at Canton United Helpers Nursing Home voted by a slim margin to join the SEIU in 2001. Since then, according to a local union representative, many workers had filed petitions for decertification at every contract renewal meeting. Pro-union sentiment prevailed during the last vote in 2005, but again by the slimmest of margins. After workers at the facility field yet another decertification petition for this December’s contract meeting, the SEIU decided to walk away.
If so it seems the facts don’t match your story.
By thogwummpy
November 13, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
Holy crap! Did Jay "Marx" Bookman actually take off his deep Left jackboots for once?!?! Conservatives were talking about this secret ballot issue for months on end, and couldn't get the mainstream media to say a peep about it! Well, I guess the election is over...and journalists can indulge in a little honest examination of Obama NOW THAT IT'S TOO LATE.By Soixante huitard
November 13, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
Shawny: You may think unions are great, but it is because of the unions that GM, et al in the US are in trouble.
Who said anything about great?
They suck, if you ask me.
It’s sort of like this: what was that famous Churchill quote about democracy? Could we get a paraphrase on that for this context maybe? I think so.
By Sissy Saxby
November 13, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
You’re right Jay, the problem with this country is that working people have too much power.
By Peadawg
November 13, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
Bookman and all you other democrats…be careful what you wish for because you just might get it…idiots.
By leni
November 13, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
Derrida, Derrida, Foucault, O My!
Derrida, Foucault,Foucault,, O My!
By cranky old man
November 13, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this
Soixante huitard,
Don’t get me wrong. I’m far more in favor of unions than against. It’s just the card check thing I’m not too sure about. I think we might get more bang for the buck by changing the rules to make it harder for employers to play games before a union election. Maybe shorten the time span between getting enough signatures to force a vote and actually having the election. And make the penalties for intimidation of employees far more harsh than they are right now. And actually fund and staff the enforcement agencies properly so the employers know their odds of being prosecuted and punished are very high. Also, there should be penalties for companies that threaten to close any store/factory that unionizes. That has probably been the biggest union killer in the past few decades. It’s too easy to move businesses to “right-to-work” states or overseas.
I work for a major Atlanta based airline which shall remain nameless. We are, apart from our pilots, non-unionized. Due to a recent merger with another airline that is heavily unionized, we will soon have to vote on whether we want to keep the unions for the combined work force. We haven’t needed a union in the past, because the rest of the industry was so heavily unionized. Management’s preferred tactic for avoiding unionization used to be to pay wages that were at the top of the industry. Due to the turmoil of recent years, we’ve taken several pay cuts, and the philosophy has changed to paying the industry average, plus annual profit-sharing if the company makes money. So far, the new method hasn’t made up for the loss of salary, but that is mostly due to the price of oil. And next year we’ll probably still be in the hole because traffic will be lower due to the economy. Now, if we ever have a few boom years like the late ‘90s, we’ll probably come out ahead. We are, however, getting a 3% raise in January. (To put it in perspective, it would have to be a 14% raise to bring us back to 2001 levels.)
I’m still on the fence over which way to vote. I think, for the most part, management has treated us as well as they could in the past. And the mere threat of possible unionization has essentially yielded us most of benefits, without having to pay the monthly dues. But who knows what future management teams will do? And, if we pass up this opportunity to unionize, we probably won’t get another one any time soon. And I recall an account one of my fellow employees relayed to me of an employee meeting years ago. A crusty old mechanic asked a senior executive if he had an employment contract with the company. The executive said he did. Then the mechanic asked, “Well, if you think you need a contract, why wouldn’t we need one?”
By Soixante huitard
November 13, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this
Now now peabrain, I mean peadog, you ought not to talk that way around here. We gentlemen here. We nice folk and talk nice.
What makes you think they’re a bunch of democrats in here anyway?
Take me for example. I may vote democrat, but don’t forget, when push comes to shove I’m a soixante huitard not a democrat.
By Fly_on_the_Wall
November 13, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this
Corporal @ 11:07 - those were some funny lines! We need more true humor from the right.
As to the statements about how companies are providing benefits to their workers without having a union force them to do so, I sort of disagree with that statement. The company I work for has been cutting benefits and pay over the last 5 years while it has been making record profits. Go figure. To me this all comes back to the believe that self-regulation will work. If the failure at Wall Street proves anything it proves that self-regulation is a fantasy. Once the amount of profit started to get big Wall Street looked the other way. This holds true for any group/institution/business/union, once the POTENTIAL amounts of money exceed what people thought was possible then greed takes over and self-regulation goes right out the window.
By Peadawg
November 13, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
Soixante huitard, calling someone peabrain is talking nice? Lol, you just contradicted yourself.
By "The Corporal"
November 13, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
To Flyonthe_Wall
Thank you - someone sent them to me.
There were a lot of other names but too lengthy.
By Soixante huitard
November 13, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
Just seeing if you’re on your toes, PDawg!
By Obubba
November 13, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this
Jay, for once we actually agree. I can only imagine how different your tone would have been had the Republican party endorsed this same initiative.
By chairman
November 13, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this
The push by organized labor to sidestep the secret ballot and instead establish unions by collecting worker signatures already promises to be one of the hottest political issues of 2009.
If that’s so, why is it only now being discussed by journalists(term used loosely)? Here are a few other interesting stories that the journalists(sic) in this country might want to look into, now that it’s safe to: Fannie and Freddie Chris Dodd Charles Rangel Barney Phrrankth Victory in Iraq ACORN
But still, Jay, I appreciate the effort you took to devote most of a column obstinsably criticising Democrats to attacking George Bush, essentially blaming him for making such a bill neccessary.
By Baby steps
November 13, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this
Jay, your attempt at “fair and balanced” is a start.
Perhaps you can follow this by providing Obama/Biden’s definitions of “tax cut”, “fair”, “patriotic” and “middle class” (though the latter seems to be a moving target…).
By HIllbilly Deluxe
November 13, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this
I guess I’m an anamoly. I’m a conservative who supports Labor Unions. I think they have made major mistakes at times but in the long run the pluses have outweighed the minuses. They should have spent less time involved in politics and more time looking out for their members.
My Daddy is a 60 year UAW member (long retired but still pays his dues). Having grown up around these men I’ve heard all the stories of the conditions they worked under in the 1930’s and 1940’s.
I do believe that votes should be by secret ballot though. It’s the American way. Let each person be free to vote the way they choose without intimidation. This goes for de-certification votes as well as votes to establish unions.
By LOLO
November 13, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
Apparantly George Bush is responsible for pretty much everything in some way shape or form, from the current press for the union signiture cards to the amount of sea ice in Greenland. This man sure does have a lot of power. C’mon people. Be reasonable. It takes a Congress and many members of a thick, multipartisian bureaucracy for pretty much anything to happen, good or bad. Very few actions can be directly related back to the president no matter who it is. This is not to say Bush, Clinton, Etc have not had there major screw-ups. It’s just that Jay equates deregulation with the need for democrats to push this new union bill along. It’s kinda like Obama is gonna make me rich…I guess I’ll just have to cling to my guns and religion for a few more months.
By Gene Spennato
November 13, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this
For once, you wrote an opinion I mostly agree with.
Your usual Bush bashing aside, you were right on the mark regarding Card Check. I had to read the beginning of paragraph two twice. “On this issue, the democrats & labor are wrong” . Was somebody holding a gun to your head? Anyone who has ever attending union meetings surely knows that intimidation and mob mentalities rein supreme. As long as we’re in agreement for the first time ever, why not discuss labor union’s role in the demise of the car industry. Did we learn nothing from Eastern Airlines?
By Gene Spennato
November 13, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
For once, you wrote an opinion I mostly agree with.
Your usual Bush bashing aside, you were right on the mark regarding Card Check. I had to read the beginning of paragraph two twice. “On this issue, the democrats & labor are wrong” . Was somebody holding a gun to your head? Anyone who has ever attending union meetings surely knows that intimidation and mob mentalities rein supreme. As long as we’re in agreement for the first time ever, why not discuss labor union’s role in the demise of the car industry. Did we learn nothing from Eastern Airlines?
By JackLeg
November 13, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this
OK, Chad lets talk facts, how does a ID card discriminate? How come all votes “found” where for only the dimacrats? Coincidence? The facts are that even in a dimacratic district there will be, as per our latest election, about 48% will not be voting dimacrat, so how come ONLY dimacrat votes are being found? The facts are that if you flip a coin in the air 50% of the time it will land heads and 50% tales, so please explain how this coin 100% of the time lands on tales. Anybody can see that the real voter fraud is the dimacrats and in Minnesota.
By h ryder
November 13, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this
More and more businesses will be leaving the U.S. if this card checkoff system for unionization becomes legal.
By Swami Dave
November 13, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this
Cranky:
I happen to think that you have some valid suggestions that might be a much better alternative to legislation like “card check” to support the rights of employees to organize if they choose, but minimize the influence of external players (management or unions themselves) on the free exercise of that choice.
Shorter time frames between petition and the election to minimize the outside influence. Tougher enforcement for intimidation (from either set of parties). Adequately staffed agencies responsible for enforcement.
Steps that can be upheld to ensure that all parties have rights and responsiblities within the relationship should be the goal.
I do disagree with one of your points specifically as it relates to the right of employers to close operations or move to what they perceive as a “friendlier” location in the event of a successful union vote.
Frankly, workers have the right to organize, but with that right comes the possible consequence that management would decide to suspend or move operations. The workers choice is a public notification for management to conduct all negotiations on behalf of them with their selected representatives; management has the choice to negotiate with the representation or end the relationship (basically close or move).
Under this model, both sides hold implied threats so each has some power in the relationship (workers - collectively we will or will not work based on your negotiations with our representatives; management - as an organization we will decide whether to continue employment opportunities with you as a group collectively).
Other than that, I had no problem with your suggestions.
-Swami Dave