Sunday, October 30, 2011

For real change, Occupiers must reject Obama


There’s only one way the Occupy Wall Street movement can become like the tea parties, and that’s for Barack Obama to lose in 2012. Why? Because Obama is the most divisive figure in American politics today.
I suspect that sentence reads funny to some people because in the mainstream press, “divisive” is usually a term reserved for “conservatives we disagree with.” But as a factual matter it can apply to anybody who is, well, divisive.
Obviously, Obama divides the right and left. That’s not all that interesting or relevant (even if it does represent a failure to live up to his “one America” rhetoric from 2008). But Obama also divides everyone else. Independents, whom he desperately needs to win re-election, are split over Obama, with the bulk siding with Republicans.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1376923

Pro-Union Is Not Pro-Worker


A recurring theme from the current administration is that to be pro-organized labor is to be pro-worker.  Concurrently, the administration has consistently refuted that it is using class warfare as a theme.
For Joe Biden to incorrectly and belligerently suggest that being pro-union means being pro-worker is pure flawed logic.  He obviously has never worked as a supplier to a large union company or worked as an employee in a company supplying a union company.
A comment from Vice President Biden in March 2011 summed it up when he stated, "We don't see the value of collective bargaining; we see the absolute positive necessity of collective bargaining.  Let's get something straight: the only people who have the capacity -- organizational capacity and muscle -- to keep, as they say, the barbarians from the gate, is organized labor.  And make no mistake about it: the guys on the other team get it.  They know if they cripple labor, the gate is open, man.  The gate is wide open.  And we know that, too."
In my experiences helping groups avoid bankruptcy, the tier-1 and tier-2 suppliers to the auto industry and their employees, many of whom are UAW members as well, have suffered horribly at the hands of the big three (GM, Chrysler, and Ford) and the big one (the UAW).     
The suppliers to the auto industry have seen prices cut and wages slashed for their workers with the result that America has lost even more jobs overseas to help pay for the contract settlements with the auto manufacturers.  The loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States has even caused the UAW membership itself to plummet from 1.5 million members in 1979 to about 355,000 in 2010, yet the union fails to acknowledge its role in the decline of its own membership.   
The most recent labor negotiation with the UAW is concerning because of the impact it will have on workers at the suppliers to the big 3 or to the car buyers if prices are raised to pay for this contract.  After a taxpayer-funded bailout and substantial write-off of debt by GM and Chrysler, the auto company employees will reap bonuses and benefits unheard of in the rest of America in this current economic climate.  Class warfare at its finest!
While one might concede that it is wonderful to provide such benefits if you can afford them, those benefits can be paid only if, ultimately, the  customer is willing to pay a higher price for your product.  
Should the customer not want to pay a higher price, such bonuses and benefits must come from suppliers, the suppliers employees, shareholders (pension plans in many cases), and government.
The greed of this most recent labor negotiation in the middle of a recession/depression is palpable.  The sheer arrogance and abuse of power by the industry and its union reminds me of someone silly enough to fly to Washington, D.C. in a private jet to ask for a bailout -- not that anyone would be silly enough to do that.

CartoonsTrashyDemsRinos