Showing posts with label labor standards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label labor standards. Show all posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
Don't Trust A Republican Waxing Philosophical About Democracy
It's awfully sad that the Journal Sentinel has sunk so low they need to publish hacks, like Christian Schneider of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, and claim they're furthering debate, clarifying the issues, or even practicing journalism.
Yes, those darned "union sympathizers" have mucked up our sparkling democracy. Never before, claims Schneider, have things gotten so messy.
Rather strange that the party (Republicans) which prefers shouting and heckling at town hall meetings, mudslinging instead of debate, and sabotaging elections (tearing up recall petitions, running Republicans as Democrats in democratic primaries, creating the phony voter fraud issue, etc.) is suddenly up in arms over the sanctity of the process.
Mr. Schneider wants us to know, "The current use of the recall is far different from what the original drafters had envisioned ... In Wisconsin's history, only two state elected officials had been successfully recalled before 2011. Nationally, only two governors have ever been recalled from office. Yet in 2012, Wisconsin will be seeing its 15th recall election in the span of one year."
He forgets the numerous uprisings in our history where vast numbers marched and rallied, and forced politicians to do as the majority of citizens wanted.
Now we're actually going through the drudgery of the whole recall process. That seems sophisticated considering what once was.
As Schneider points out, "At the time the recall amendment was adopted [1926], supporters believed the threat of recall would keep elected officials representative of the people. As the argument went, officials would be more responsive to the public than to special interests if their constituents could pull them out of office for corruption. Numerous progressives argued that recalls would aid in keeping the influence of money out of politics."
He then, with keen misdirection, claims the recall efforts are at fault for the flood of money in our electoral process. Seemingly oblivious to the recent Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court. You know, the decision that made corporations people and ruled it's OK to funnel limitless money to a Super PAC to fund campaigns without transparency.
Schneider then, astoundingly, cackles "The modern recall is being used in a way that its original supporters never expected or likely would have endorsed. As recall supporter and progressive leader Robert M. La Follette Sr. once said, "the supreme issue involving all others is the encroachment of the powerful few upon the rights of the many." The modern use of the recall demonstrates that to be true."
Over 41 percent of the number of people who voted (2,158,723) during the last gubernatorial election signed recall petitions (900,938). Hardly just a "powerful few." But I guess that's part of the civilized Republican response to this messiness - blame it on the "thug" "union sympathizers" and pretend it's some small-numbered fringe interest group.
Nevertheless, all of the smoke and mirrors used by Schneider and the WPRI can't hide the truth - Scott Walker is being recalled because the policies he has pursued since being elected do not match up to those which he campaigned on, nor are they the policies many citizens want. Concealed carry, ending the Equal Pay Act, ending collective bargaining ... if Walker's radical agenda was made clear during his initial gubernatorial run, he never would have been elected.
Yes, those darned "union sympathizers" have mucked up our sparkling democracy. Never before, claims Schneider, have things gotten so messy.
Rather strange that the party (Republicans) which prefers shouting and heckling at town hall meetings, mudslinging instead of debate, and sabotaging elections (tearing up recall petitions, running Republicans as Democrats in democratic primaries, creating the phony voter fraud issue, etc.) is suddenly up in arms over the sanctity of the process.
Mr. Schneider wants us to know, "The current use of the recall is far different from what the original drafters had envisioned ... In Wisconsin's history, only two state elected officials had been successfully recalled before 2011. Nationally, only two governors have ever been recalled from office. Yet in 2012, Wisconsin will be seeing its 15th recall election in the span of one year."
He forgets the numerous uprisings in our history where vast numbers marched and rallied, and forced politicians to do as the majority of citizens wanted.
Now we're actually going through the drudgery of the whole recall process. That seems sophisticated considering what once was.
As Schneider points out, "At the time the recall amendment was adopted [1926], supporters believed the threat of recall would keep elected officials representative of the people. As the argument went, officials would be more responsive to the public than to special interests if their constituents could pull them out of office for corruption. Numerous progressives argued that recalls would aid in keeping the influence of money out of politics."
He then, with keen misdirection, claims the recall efforts are at fault for the flood of money in our electoral process. Seemingly oblivious to the recent Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court. You know, the decision that made corporations people and ruled it's OK to funnel limitless money to a Super PAC to fund campaigns without transparency.
Schneider then, astoundingly, cackles "The modern recall is being used in a way that its original supporters never expected or likely would have endorsed. As recall supporter and progressive leader Robert M. La Follette Sr. once said, "the supreme issue involving all others is the encroachment of the powerful few upon the rights of the many." The modern use of the recall demonstrates that to be true."
Over 41 percent of the number of people who voted (2,158,723) during the last gubernatorial election signed recall petitions (900,938). Hardly just a "powerful few." But I guess that's part of the civilized Republican response to this messiness - blame it on the "thug" "union sympathizers" and pretend it's some small-numbered fringe interest group.
Nevertheless, all of the smoke and mirrors used by Schneider and the WPRI can't hide the truth - Scott Walker is being recalled because the policies he has pursued since being elected do not match up to those which he campaigned on, nor are they the policies many citizens want. Concealed carry, ending the Equal Pay Act, ending collective bargaining ... if Walker's radical agenda was made clear during his initial gubernatorial run, he never would have been elected.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Using Purchasing Power To Support Good Jobs
Welcome To The Union Shop!
"When we polled our online activists last year, we found out that Americans are eager to show their support for workers by purchasing union-made products and services. But 82 percent of the people we polled also said that buying union is easier said than done—simply because they don’t know which products make the cut.
So we decided it was time to provide consumers withsimple tools for using their purchasing power in support of good, American jobs. Every week we’ll feature a new post profiling a union-made product or service to keep conscientious consumers like you in the know."
Products by Category:
"When we polled our online activists last year, we found out that Americans are eager to show their support for workers by purchasing union-made products and services. But 82 percent of the people we polled also said that buying union is easier said than done—simply because they don’t know which products make the cut.
So we decided it was time to provide consumers withsimple tools for using their purchasing power in support of good, American jobs. Every week we’ll feature a new post profiling a union-made product or service to keep conscientious consumers like you in the know."
Products by Category:
- Apparel
- Automotive (check back soon)
- Books & Games
- Cleaning (check back soon)
- Food & Beverage
- Gifts & Seasonal
- Home Improvement & Appliances
- Hotels & Hospitality (check back soon)
- Kitchen & Bath
- Sports & Recreation
- Stores
- Sweets & Snacks
- Travel & Tourism
- Miscellaneous (check back soon)
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Standards For State Economic Development Subsidy Programs
Good Jobs First has released a new report, Money For Something: Job Creation & Job Quality Standards For State Economic Development Subsidy Programs.
Excerpts:
"At a time when unemployment remains high and states and cities are spending an estimated $70 billion a year in the name of economic development, taxpayers are right to ask if such expenditures are creating a substantial number of good jobs. An analysis of major state economic development programs finds that many subsidy programs require little if any job creation. Fewer than half provide any kind of wage standard for the workers at subsidized companies, and fewer than a fourth require any sort of healthcare coverage."
"These findings come from a careful analysis by Good Jobs First of the most significant subsidy programs in all 50 states and the District of Columbia—238 programs in all, which together cost taxpayers more than $11 billion a year (amounts are not available for 20 of them). The programs include corporate income tax credits (for job creation, capital investment, and/or research & development), cash grants, low‐cost or forgivable loans, enterprise zones, reimbursement for worker training expenses and other types of company‐specific state assistance. (Subsidies that are enabled by state law but whose costs are borne by local governments, such as property tax abatements, are not among the programs examined.)"
"We rate each of the 238 programs on three primary criteria (and several derivative qualities): whether they require recipient companies to meet job‐creation or other quantifiable performance standards; whether the subsidized companies have to pay their workers above a certain wage level; and whether the companies have to provide their workers healthcare coverage or other employee benefits."
"Fewer than half (98) of the 238 programs impose a wage requirement on subsidized employers, and only 53 of those wage standards are tied to labor market rates, which are a more effective benchmark for economic development than fixed amounts that can stagnate in the manner of the federal minimum wage."
"Based on our criteria, the states with the best average program scores are: Nevada (82), North Carolina (79), Vermont (77), Iowa (70), Maryland (68), and Oklahoma (66). The worst averages are: District of Columbia (4), Alaska (5), Wyoming (10), Oregon (13), Washington (18), Hawaii (19) and North Dakota (19). Twenty‐three states score above 40, which is the average for all the states."
Excerpts:
"At a time when unemployment remains high and states and cities are spending an estimated $70 billion a year in the name of economic development, taxpayers are right to ask if such expenditures are creating a substantial number of good jobs. An analysis of major state economic development programs finds that many subsidy programs require little if any job creation. Fewer than half provide any kind of wage standard for the workers at subsidized companies, and fewer than a fourth require any sort of healthcare coverage."
"These findings come from a careful analysis by Good Jobs First of the most significant subsidy programs in all 50 states and the District of Columbia—238 programs in all, which together cost taxpayers more than $11 billion a year (amounts are not available for 20 of them). The programs include corporate income tax credits (for job creation, capital investment, and/or research & development), cash grants, low‐cost or forgivable loans, enterprise zones, reimbursement for worker training expenses and other types of company‐specific state assistance. (Subsidies that are enabled by state law but whose costs are borne by local governments, such as property tax abatements, are not among the programs examined.)"
"We rate each of the 238 programs on three primary criteria (and several derivative qualities): whether they require recipient companies to meet job‐creation or other quantifiable performance standards; whether the subsidized companies have to pay their workers above a certain wage level; and whether the companies have to provide their workers healthcare coverage or other employee benefits."
"Fewer than half (98) of the 238 programs impose a wage requirement on subsidized employers, and only 53 of those wage standards are tied to labor market rates, which are a more effective benchmark for economic development than fixed amounts that can stagnate in the manner of the federal minimum wage."
"Based on our criteria, the states with the best average program scores are: Nevada (82), North Carolina (79), Vermont (77), Iowa (70), Maryland (68), and Oklahoma (66). The worst averages are: District of Columbia (4), Alaska (5), Wyoming (10), Oregon (13), Washington (18), Hawaii (19) and North Dakota (19). Twenty‐three states score above 40, which is the average for all the states."
Friday, June 17, 2011
American Labor Law Devolution
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Nudging Away Nonsense
Patrick McIlheran, conservative ideologue and propagandist of the Milwaukee-Journal Sentinel, has yet another infuriatingly misinformed (as usual) screed pertaining to a government mandate - when taxpayers fund over a million dollars of a private project, decent wages must be paid to the workers of the project.
Seems rational. Oh, but not in McIlheran's race-to-the-bottom model of development.
How dare the government demand that there be labor standards in projects where they're paying over a millions dollars! By now, we know the drill: give our tax dollars to the private sector, let them do what they wish, expect nothing, and shut our collective mouth. Sounds like a great investment - because I believe in corporations and the free markets and I know, deep down in my heart, that somehow it'll all work out best for all of us, gosh golly. [Please excuse the dripping sarcasm.]
By the way, how are all those privatization schemes, private sector financial innovations, and deregulatory initiatives working out?
From the article: "If we have a problem with people getting jobs," said Council President Willie Hines, an ordinance opponent, "the solution can't be to increase wages." The "increase" in wages is better thought of as the interest paid by the private developer on the risk assumed by the government in helping to fund/start the project.
A business is choosing to develop a site because of the income stream, the cash flow, that can be generated from that site. Every site is not duplicable anywhere we'd like. Certain spots have better exposure and demand, and that's why those sites are chosen for whatever project may be planned (except of course when "subsidies" - bribery or pay-off is a better descriptor - distort the market by courting a business to move with tax breaks and exemptions to what could be considered a comparatively less than optimal site). This fact squashes the claim that a developer can just go anywhere else they want. Cheapness is not a comparative advantage. And, as has been repeatedly found in numerous studies, labor cost is not the boogey-man the race-to-the-bottom cabal claims it to be [see For Further Reading below].
For McIlheran, being paid an honest days wage for an honest days work is "suspect." Our labor laws and standards, the labor movement in general, all part of a nefarious conspiracy. Luckily McIlheran, Mr. Consistency, doesn't have any type of representation in his profession of journalism. Oh, wait, I almost forgot about the Newspaper Guild, the International Federation of Journalists, the International Press Institute, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the National Writers Union.
He also shows another glaringly uninformed - regarding sprawl and the environment - viewpoint, "You see buildings rising, instead, out where the parking is free and the costs are lower. Developers and their tenants have choices." It doesn't even cross his mind that there might be negative economic and environmental issues with this type of development. More on this obliviousness here and here.
He also then tries to take a shot at the sick day ordinance and the 'tax hell' (as some falsely try to claim) that oppresses business here, "This sick leave outrage is part of a continuum. From high taxes to a weird fee on going out of business to a general feeling that they're seen as the class enemy, businesses aren't finding our city a welcoming place. Why, then, would leaders want to give entrepreneurs one more reason to leave?"
As 9 to 5 has noted, "Since enactment of paid sick time on February 5, 2007, San Francisco has maintained a competitive job growth rate that has exceeded the average growth rate of nearby counties without paid sick days. Likely benefits include improved health outcomes, speedier recoveries for workers and their families, and greater family economic stability with more consistent employment tenure." Another no-brainer with a case study for evidence. But that doesn't jibe with the McIlheran narrative, so forget it.
[Michael Rosen, of Midcoast Views, has an interesting post about Milwaukee developers and their lobbying efforts to undermine the ordinance.]
The problem is, most of what the McIlherans of the world think, most of the policies they push, have no grounding in solid empirical data. It's an ad hoc paradigm they operate from where they mold reality to fit into their narrow worldview. They imagine it, therefore it must be so.
But keep railing for the interests of the powerful at the expense of the many, Mr. McIlheran. Big Business will always be eager to pay for shills willing to present their propaganda to the public.
For Further Reading:
A New Development Paradigm
Attracting Economic Development - At What Cost?
Beginner's Guide to Accountable Development
Building Good Jobs & Strong Communities
Economic Benefits of Union Membership
How Unions Help All Workers
NAFTA: Still Not Working
Shielding Public Incentives for Corporate Relocations from Public Scrutiny
The Economic Civil War
Union Advantage By The Numbers
Union Wage Advantage for Low-wage Workers
Want Change?
Seems rational. Oh, but not in McIlheran's race-to-the-bottom model of development.
How dare the government demand that there be labor standards in projects where they're paying over a millions dollars! By now, we know the drill: give our tax dollars to the private sector, let them do what they wish, expect nothing, and shut our collective mouth. Sounds like a great investment - because I believe in corporations and the free markets and I know, deep down in my heart, that somehow it'll all work out best for all of us, gosh golly. [Please excuse the dripping sarcasm.]
By the way, how are all those privatization schemes, private sector financial innovations, and deregulatory initiatives working out?
From the article: "If we have a problem with people getting jobs," said Council President Willie Hines, an ordinance opponent, "the solution can't be to increase wages." The "increase" in wages is better thought of as the interest paid by the private developer on the risk assumed by the government in helping to fund/start the project.
A business is choosing to develop a site because of the income stream, the cash flow, that can be generated from that site. Every site is not duplicable anywhere we'd like. Certain spots have better exposure and demand, and that's why those sites are chosen for whatever project may be planned (except of course when "subsidies" - bribery or pay-off is a better descriptor - distort the market by courting a business to move with tax breaks and exemptions to what could be considered a comparatively less than optimal site). This fact squashes the claim that a developer can just go anywhere else they want. Cheapness is not a comparative advantage. And, as has been repeatedly found in numerous studies, labor cost is not the boogey-man the race-to-the-bottom cabal claims it to be [see For Further Reading below].
For McIlheran, being paid an honest days wage for an honest days work is "suspect." Our labor laws and standards, the labor movement in general, all part of a nefarious conspiracy. Luckily McIlheran, Mr. Consistency, doesn't have any type of representation in his profession of journalism. Oh, wait, I almost forgot about the Newspaper Guild, the International Federation of Journalists, the International Press Institute, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the National Writers Union.
He also shows another glaringly uninformed - regarding sprawl and the environment - viewpoint, "You see buildings rising, instead, out where the parking is free and the costs are lower. Developers and their tenants have choices." It doesn't even cross his mind that there might be negative economic and environmental issues with this type of development. More on this obliviousness here and here.
He also then tries to take a shot at the sick day ordinance and the 'tax hell' (as some falsely try to claim) that oppresses business here, "This sick leave outrage is part of a continuum. From high taxes to a weird fee on going out of business to a general feeling that they're seen as the class enemy, businesses aren't finding our city a welcoming place. Why, then, would leaders want to give entrepreneurs one more reason to leave?"
As 9 to 5 has noted, "Since enactment of paid sick time on February 5, 2007, San Francisco has maintained a competitive job growth rate that has exceeded the average growth rate of nearby counties without paid sick days. Likely benefits include improved health outcomes, speedier recoveries for workers and their families, and greater family economic stability with more consistent employment tenure." Another no-brainer with a case study for evidence. But that doesn't jibe with the McIlheran narrative, so forget it.
[Michael Rosen, of Midcoast Views, has an interesting post about Milwaukee developers and their lobbying efforts to undermine the ordinance.]
The problem is, most of what the McIlherans of the world think, most of the policies they push, have no grounding in solid empirical data. It's an ad hoc paradigm they operate from where they mold reality to fit into their narrow worldview. They imagine it, therefore it must be so.
But keep railing for the interests of the powerful at the expense of the many, Mr. McIlheran. Big Business will always be eager to pay for shills willing to present their propaganda to the public.
For Further Reading:
A New Development Paradigm
Attracting Economic Development - At What Cost?
Beginner's Guide to Accountable Development
Building Good Jobs & Strong Communities
Economic Benefits of Union Membership
How Unions Help All Workers
NAFTA: Still Not Working
Shielding Public Incentives for Corporate Relocations from Public Scrutiny
The Economic Civil War
Union Advantage By The Numbers
Union Wage Advantage for Low-wage Workers
Want Change?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)