A Warrior for Workers

posted by John Nichols on 12/19/2008 @ 08:42am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (63)

Subscribe Now

When the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor decided in 2000 that it would stop giving "rubber stamp" backing to disappointing Democrats, the federation's dynamic leader at the time, Miguel Contreras, declared: "We've lifted the bar for endorsements."

"It's not enough to say you're for a minimum-wage increase and expect our backing," Contreras explained. "We want candidates who make a commitment to be with us on every vote, and to be with us on the picket lines."

The first candidate to leap the bar and secure the backing of the labor group was a California legislator named Hilda Solis, who was challenging incumbent Democratic Congressman Matthew Martinez.

Martinez's labor record was reasonably good. But he had disappointed the unions by supporting free-trade deals favored by the Clinton administration -- and by failing to show up on those picket lines.

Solis, who had worked closely with the United Farm Workers, the Service Employees and other unions, won the 2000 Democratic primary in an east L.A. district. And Contreras declared that "a warrior for working families" had been sent to Washington.

Contreras was proven right.

Solis has been a steady pro-labor and progressive member of the House, taking a leadership role in fights to write union-friendly labor laws that will make it easier for workers to organize and bargain collectively, to reframe the trade debate and to defend the rights of women workers in the U.S. and abroad.

Solis has voted with the AFL-CIO 97 percent of the time since coming to Congress.

Solis serves on the board of directors of the pro-labor group American Rights at Work -- along with board chair David Bonior, the former Michigan congressman who has been her mentor and ally over the years.

Solis still shows up for picket lines.

And, now, she is President-elect Barack Obama's designee to join his Cabinet as the next Secretary of Labor.

Miguel Contreras, who died too young a few years back, is smiling today.

After too many years of attacks by Republicans and compromises by Democrats, this country's toiling millions are looking at the prospect of having a Labor Secretary who serves as a "warrior for workers."

Comments (63)

Happy firsties, everyone.

(That's what a little caffine will do for you.)

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/19/2008 @ 08:48am
Okay, I'm crabby again.

************************************************************ Miguel Contreras, declared: "We've lifted the bar for endorsements." ************************************************************

Maybe Miguel's English-as-a-second-language teacher should have told him the cliche is "raised the bar" not "lifted the bar".

Or was Miguel intending this as a subtle propaganda framing device to subconciously connect "workers" with "lifting"?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/19/2008 @ 08:54am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/19/2008 @ 08:54am

Live by the grammer sword, die by the grammer sword, Darin.

You sure you're going to be Webster's and Strunk & White yourself from now on????

Posted by Mask at 12/19/2008 @ 09:28am
We need all the help we can get in choosing people who are for the workers right now. We've had too many chosen by the Bush administration who are only out there for their own self interests and to hell with the working class!!! So let's hope we can finally see a team that will actually work for the average worker and get some confidence back in this country.

Posted by Caj at 12/19/2008 @ 09:28am
At what point when your English teacher started writing "cliche" on your papers did it become a cliche? This bears to mind the question: is a simile like a metaphor?

Posted by onthehelm at 12/19/2008 @ 09:34am
Maybe Miguel's English-as-a-second-language teacher should have told him the cliche is "raised the bar" not "lifted the bar".----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/19/2008 @ 08:54am

BTW, Darin, curious on this too. Why do you think Miguel Contreras NEEDED an "English-as-a-second language" teacher?

Do you know where he was born?

Posted by Mask at 12/19/2008 @ 09:56am
And the bone has finally been thrown to the base!

And that's one (ONE!) progressive in a cabinet and administration packed with pro-finance, pro-bank, pro-free trade, pro-agribusiness, pro-torture, pro-war, pro-occupation types.

Yee haa, it's okay to be an Obamamaniac again!

Posted by cka2nd at 12/19/2008 @ 10:18am
Crab, you never answered my question. Are you endorsing the Matthew Alexander brand of psychological torture over the physical techniques? Posted by twillie at 12/18/2008 @ 10:48pm

Missed the question.

The Army Field Guide on Interrogation recommends befriending the subject. This is what Alexander said worked. What torture are you talking about?

"I taught the members of my unit a new methodology -- one based on building rapport with suspects, showing cultural understanding and using good old-fashioned brainpower to tease out information. I personally conducted more than 300 interrogations, and I supervised more than 1,000. The methods my team used are not classified (they're listed in the unclassified Field Manual), but the way we used them was, I like to think, unique. We got to know our enemies, we learned to negotiate with them, and we adapted criminal investigative techniques to our work (something that the Field Manual permits, under the concept of "ruses and trickery"). It worked. Our efforts started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi."

Over the course of this renaissance in interrogation tactics, our attitudes changed. We no longer saw our prisoners as the stereotypical al-Qaeda evildoers we had been repeatedly briefed to expect; we saw them as Sunni Iraqis, often family men protecting themselves from Shiite militias and trying to ensure that their fellow Sunnis would still have some access to wealth and power in the new Iraq. Most surprisingly, they turned out to despise al-Qaeda in Iraq as much as they despised us, but Zarqawi and his thugs were willing to provide them with arms and money. I pointed this out to Gen. George Casey, the former top U.S. commander in Iraq, when he visited my prison in the summer of 2006. He did not respond.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/19/2008 @ 10:37am
Deepthroat died.

RIP, you are a hero.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/19/2008 @ 10:45am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/19/2008 @ 10:39am |

If only we did not have workers, the economy would be booming!!

"We have located the reason we are losing money, you guys on the line. If you stop building widgets the company will save millions".

Posted by crabwalk at 12/19/2008 @ 10:53am
LUVVY, who damaged the US war effort? The "far left" or the policies of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld? According to Troops and John McCain, the latter, along with you.

Any shame at all?

any regrets for calling Obama a Marxist?

Posted by crabwalk at 12/19/2008 @ 10:56am
Damn workers demand too much!!

CEO salaries rose 12 percent in 2004 compared with average raises of 3.6 percent for rank-and-file workers

In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, the second-highest level of this ratio in the 40 years for which there are data. In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks.

In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker; this ratio grew to 35 in 1978 and to 71 in 1989. The ratio surged in the 1990s and hit 300 at the end of the recovery in 2000. The fall in the stock market reduced CEO stock-related pay (e.g., options) causing CEO pay to moderate to 143 times that of an average worker in 2002. Since then, however, CEO pay has exploded and by 2005 the average CEO was paid $10,982,000 a year, or 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861).-economic policy institute

yep, worker pay is what is holding America back.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/19/2008 @ 11:06am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/19/2008 @ 10:39am

I thought you kept telling us he was going to do that with ALL his cabinet appointments?!??!!???

Posted by Mask at 12/19/2008 @ 11:10am
According to a recent study by ERI Economic Research Institute and The Wall Street Journal, executive compensation grew substantially faster than corporate earnings in the past year. The study of 45 randomly selected public companies found that executive compensation increased 20.5 percent from a year ago, while revenues grew just 2.8 percent.

During the past 12 months, overall total compensation of the highest-paid executive increased 20.5 percent while revenues increased 2.8 percent, the study found. As of February 2008, the average top executive received overall total compensation of $18,813,697, according to the study. In comparison, the median pay for workers rose only 3.5 percent to $36,140 in 2007, from $34,892 the previous year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.-AFLCIO

Posted by crabwalk at 12/19/2008 @ 11:11am
I think it's about time a cap was put on all CEO's bonus pay....why does the worker on the ground floor have to live on a pittance and they keep giving themselves a bonus every five minutes. Let's face it if any of these CEO's lost their jobs would they be hurting any, of course not they are made for life, but the average worker will be hurting beyond belief and that can't be right. It makes you wonder how they even earn their pay these CEO's especially if the company goes bust...who was minding the store when that happened!!!

Posted by Caj at 12/19/2008 @ 11:22am
"he has also appointed some true leftists like Daschle, Solis, Duncan, Browner, and Sutley"

Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/19/2008 @ 11:26am

If Dascle is a leftist -- and thus surely deserving of the anthrax attempt on his life for the committed rightwing terror monger -- then Energy Sec designate Chu is without any doubt an admixture of, and "Manchurian candidate" for, the most hardened Marxist-Leninist tendencies of Che, Chairman Mao, Jane Fonda, and the two headed, all-powerful master omni-manipulator behind it all: Henry Waxman/Harry Reid.

Anyway, enuff of this secular tripe. Got Rapture, LOVIE? Tell us aaaalllll about it. Spare no detail. When will the Big Day of The Happy Event arrive?

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 12/19/2008 @ 11:47am
We should all be glad that Mr. Obama finally, in his last Cabinet position named, appointed a token liberal to his administration.

Literal Republicans in the administration outnumber "liberals" in the Obama administration 2 to 1. It is an inarguable factual matter that the Obama administration is more a Republican administration than a liberal Democrat administration.

Posted by syfriendly at 12/19/2008 @ 12:05pm
Safely, we can conclude that the Obama administration will be largely a right-wing administration in all respects except for a soft spot for unions, assuming the new labor secretary is not simply a ceremonial appointee who will be undercut and end-run'd in general.

Posted by syfriendly at 12/19/2008 @ 12:17pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/19/2008 @ 11:26am

Well as noted yesterday, LVLIB, your "base line" for "true leftist" starts about Chuck Hagel or even further Right, given you claimed Dubya wasn't a friend to corporations.

Posted by Mask at 12/19/2008 @ 12:50pm
She sounds like a good appointment. After her time as Labor Secretary, she might like to try for the U. S. Senate in California. She should also get some foreign policy experience. I believe the Union movement could be a good vehicle for change in the Democratic Party and the Nation. Labor tends to have a more practical approach to politics. I was a member of the teamsters and the Service Employees Union for L. A. County. Being against "Free Trade" is not a left or right issue. While he goes a little nuts at times, Lou Dobbs is not too happy with "Free Trade".

Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/19/2008 @ 3:37pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/19/2008 @ 1:07pm

Won't it be fun when your position with the insurance firm is transfered to virtual reality. A kiosk in a shopping center with a good program, backed by off-shore support should be cost effective in replacing you. A notary public may be required in some cases. Har, har...you're on your way out!

Posted by Sorelish at 12/19/2008 @ 3:45pm
"If you think this current recession is bad just sit back and watch how the Obamanation administration cracks down on all those job creating businesses and industry creating capitalist! Now we are going to see some real equality with third world nations brought about!"

Yes, because all those job creating businesses are doing great under this administration. Weren't there like 550,000 jobs created last month? Oh wait, they were destroyed. My bad.

Posted by onthehelm at 12/19/2008 @ 7:12pm
Meaningless appointment.

The neo liberal, imperialist agenda that is wrecking America still reigns in the Clinton III, oops, I mean Obama Administration.

Most of Bill's, there I go again, Barack's appointments could (would) have been made by mad bomber John McSame.

Posted by neaguy at 12/19/2008 @ 8:50pm
How is it that lvliberty could even have expected Obama would have been appointing whatever he terms Marxist types? If you bothered to actually read about the guy, you'd know he is not even close to that--he's much more like Bill Clinton, the best Republican president since Eisenhower. There is no way he would be promoting even what you deem radical. It is really stunning that you would think otherwise and says a lot about how much of the populous deals with reality.

Posted by onthehelm at 12/19/2008 @ 8:53pm
The appointment of Hilda Solis will continue the present Democratic course of economic protectionism and trade war. Solis may help the unions on some fronts, but her principal contribution to the whole capitalist system will be the marshalling of U.S. labor behind imperialist interests. American workers must reach out to the workers and farmers in other countries. However, Solis will blow smoke to disguise new U.S. wars and interventions. WinWin

Posted by WinWin at 12/19/2008 @ 9:02pm
All too correct about California, Comanchenation. The truth has long been obvious that CA is a failed society. Government is completely out of control; this is especially true of spending, driven by corrupt politicians and labor unions holding the entire state hostage. Those forces may well drive CA into bankruptcy during this economic crisis. Tax policy and bad regulation are crushing the economy and creating droves of talented refugees who leave for a better life in nearby states. The invasion of illegal immigrants is destroying American culture in CA, creating American refugees, and costing a veritable fortune (welfare benefits, medical benefits, and other services, in many cases illegally handed out to illegals by a corrupt state government, not to mention the costs of educating children of illegals and of fighting crime by gangs); mass illegal immigration is turning many parts of the state into violent, dysfunctional third-world slums. Moreover, the huge populations in arid regions of the state are completely unsustainable, as deadly pollution and recurring droughts and ever-returning wildfires attest. Equally unsustainable is the narcissistic obsession with instant gratification, excessive consumption, and plain old hedonism so characteristic of CA lifestyles.

CA is so far gone that I am deeply afraid that some will resort to revolution to bring it back from the brink of utter collapse. Moreover, this absurd, decrepit monstrosity known as the "Golden State" could represent the future of the entire nation if present trends continue. We must earnestly hope that the incoming administration will combat the insanity and save the country.

Posted by feinfein at 12/20/2008 @ 07:02am
You sure you're going to be Webster's and Strunk & White yourself from now on????

Posted by Mask at 12/19/2008 @ 09:28am

An excellent point since I clearly should have used the word "idiom" rather then "cliche". I was incredibly cranky yesterday. My lame attempt at playing the stereotype of an ignorant old grouch by stereotyping someone with the name "Miguel" with the English-as-a-second-language crack was completely uncalled for.

I apologize and will strive to do better.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/20/2008 @ 07:11am
I showed up because I saw this on the WSJ page from a reader and thought it germain: ***********************************************************

Readers' Corner

"Is there any chance that unions would agree to accept card check in reverse? If an employer gathered cards signed by 51% of its workforce stating that they no longer wished to be represented by the union, would the union agree to pack up and leave?" -- Paul Cooper, responding to "The Employee Free Choice Act Is Unconstitutional."

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/20/2008 @ 07:21am
I think it's about time a cap was put on all CEO's bonus pay....why does the worker on the ground floor have to live on a pittance and they keep giving themselves a bonus every five minutes.

Posted by Caj at 12/19/2008 @ 11:22am

There is a very rational answer, that I'm sure you don't want to hear. The reason is that the CEO can make a difference in the company's stock price and a single worker cannot.

If your job is to run a lathe, assemble engines, operate a hackhoe, put shoes in a box, pound nails with a hammer, etc. there is a physical limit to your potential productivity. It is humanly impossible for one person to produce that many more shoes than the guy next to him to make a measureable impact on a company's return on capital.

If the CEO decides to close the facility in Detroit, take a $50 million tax loss on the building, move the production to Mexico thus cutting labor costs by 60%, and using this as a threat to other facilities and wringing union consessions to lower labor costs 10%, that CEO has increased the return on capital from 10% to 12%, which in turn drives the stock price from $22 to $25.

Since there are 500 million shares that represbnts an increase in value to the share holders of $1.5 billion dollars. Which more than justifies his $15 million bonus.

Show me the worker who can clean enough urinals to increase shareholder value by $1.5 billion.

The fact of the matter is, there are about 100 million people in this country who can start a nut on a bolt on the 15th and 27th rib of a 747 wing (the others use rivits). There are fewer than a thousand who can do the job of Boing's CEO.

It's supply and demand.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/20/2008 @ 07:37am
oops Boeing's CEO

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/20/2008 @ 07:56am
Darin, what if the company loses market share or is going bankrupt. why is it that the union must take all the hits, when the CEO's salary grew at an exponentially faster rate than the workers?

Show me a company that can exist without people to make the widget. Your "service economy" theory is hitting reality, 500,000 jobs lost in one month.

I can tell you have little idea what it takes to actually make things. You guys love to hold the "unskilled worker" up as the norm, but the reality is that Boeing is full of highly skilled machinists, mechanics, electricians and other skilled tradesmen and women. People that work in production come up with ideas that save millions of dollars. Your disdain for them is born of great ignorance and greater arrogance.

Meanwhile, the super duper CEO's at AIG, Lehman Bros and Fannie MAe are doing great things for our national economy. Steve Nardelli, a complete failure at Home Depot is now running a car company, but I am sure it is the unions fault that the company is going down the tubes.Don Carty hastily left American Airlines after very publicly botching negotiations with the company's union in 2003, but three years later, he landed a job as chairman of Virgin Airlines. And George Shaheen took the helm as C.E.O. of Siebel Systems in 2005 after previously driving the online grocer Webvan into the gutter. After a good run as president of Sony Electronics in the mid-'90s, Carl Yankowski became C.E.O. of Reebok in 1998. But his time at the struggling shoemaker lasted only 14 months, as sales dropped almost 10 percent over the first nine months of 1999. Consumer electronics company Palm, then a division of 3Com, proceeded to give the C.E.O. reins over to Yankowski in 1999 following the sudden departure of then-president Robin Abrams

Posted by crabwalk at 12/20/2008 @ 10:26am
oops Boeing's CEO

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at

Yes maybe not everyone can be a CEO as you say, but surely they hold some responsibility if their company runs into a financial mess...they can't just sit there and watch it go down the tubes and then expect the government to bail them out!!! If they are giving themselves high wages to start with...whether or not they earn that kind of money is still questionable to me...and the company is going down hill, how can they justify these extortionate bonus packages regardless!!!

Posted by Caj at 12/20/2008 @ 10:29am
Why do the Christian ne0-cons defend the CEO's "right" to golden parachutes, even when their company tanks, but think 2 weeks of being paid while a factory retools is just too much to ask?

The great irony is that as people that used to make 70-80k working on an assembly line lose their jobs to the neo-con utopia of using communist labor from China and Vietnam, and get new "service jobs" at 25k.year, the self described wealthy cons will need to make up the tax revenue. And they will whine and cry the whole time about how they are "victims". As the formerly well paid workers line up at the free clinic, the cons will moan and bitch about having to pick up the tab, just like they did for years with Wal-Mart employees.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/20/2008 @ 10:32am
Isn't it great that Darin WANTS to move as many jobs as possible to other countries? I guess this goes along with helping Al Qaeda.

Patriotism ain't what it used to be. It used to be about loving your country and wanting all of us to succeed. Now it seems to be about fear and helping your neighbor to the unemployment line.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/20/2008 @ 10:41am
When Susan Mediger-Paul went into labor in 1995 and gave birth prematurely to her third child, she knew the health insurance provided by her employer would not cover the cost. Nor would it pay for the birth of her fourth and fifth child later on, in 1998 and 1999. She said she relied on Minnesota Care, the state's public assistance healthcare, to pay for the multiple hospitalizations of her children, two of whom suffered from asthma.

Mediger-Paul seems an unlikely candidate for public assistance healthcare. She held a good-paying job as an accountant at Wal-Mart, the infamously profitable company and the largest private sector employer in the nation.

So why was Mediger-Paul on the dole?

Because "Wal-Mart's health insurance was awful!" she says. Mediger-Paul opted out of the company health plan, she says, to pay into the state healthcare system. "I had two preemies and they both had asthma--there was no way I would have made it on Wal-Mart's insurance." With cheap premiums but large deductibles and gaps in care, she says the Wal-Mart insurance wouldn't even have covered her kids' vaccinations. -

--In 2004, a UC-Berkeley study reported that the state's Wal-Mart workers and their dependents received $86 million in public assistance, including healthcare, welfare and free school lunch programs.-

Georgia was the first state to take action, passing a bill that required public reporting of employers for all those enrolled in the state healthcare system. When the numbers were tallied earlier this year, it was little surprise that Wal-Mart topped the list, with more than 10,000 children of its workers receiving public healthcare. Out of the 13 states that have gathered similar data, Wal-Mart has topped the list of 12.ALTERNET

Pay now, or pay later. Whine now or whine later

Posted by crabwalk at 12/20/2008 @ 10:48am
CEO's "make it happen":

Agriprocessors;

On September 9, 2008, Agriprocessors, its owner and three of its current or past managers were each charged with more than 9,000 violations of child labor laws.

On October 30, 2008, former CEO Sholom Rubashkin was charged with abetting aggravated identity theft, which carries a mandatory two-year minimum sentence. Sholom Rubashkin, the son of Agriprocessors owner Aaron Rubashkin, was CEO from 1987 until being removed after the May 2008 immigration raid.[37] Rubashkin was arrested again on November 13, 2008 at his Postville home on Federal charges of bank fraud.

On 12 May 2008, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) staged a raid that was described as the largest of the year. Federal authorities arrested hundreds of illegal immigrant workers during the raid. ICE spokesman Tim Counts said that "The raid was aimed at seeking evidence of identity theft, stolen Social Security numbers and for people who are in the country illegally" [2]. According to the U.S. attorney's office for the Northern District of Iowa, those arrested "include 290 Guatemalans, 93 Mexicans, 2 Israelis and 4 Ukrainians"

In December, the bankruptcy court approved a $2.5 million loan for Agriprocessors to allow it to resume poultry processing through at least January 9, 2009

Posted by crabwalk at 12/20/2008 @ 10:58am
wage caps for Ceos? a better idea is to bring back the 90% top tax bracket. we've done it before, we can do it again.

Posted by emile duBois at 12/20/2008 @ 10:58am
Unions help keep people of the Dole, they keep illegal immigrants out of factories. I would think that the neo-cons would be in favor of those things, instead of focusing on the activities of the unions in the 70's.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/20/2008 @ 11:09am
In 2006, boards paid CEOs $1 billion while kicking them out the door. That is according to an article in the New York Times which totaled up the amount of severance paid to 36 CEOs who departed in less than glorious fashion from their publicly-traded employers last year.

the Times article presents a rogues gallery of value destroyers. The 12 failed CEOs mentioned got $654 million as a parting gift after destroying $161 billion in shareholder value -- a 30% decline during their tenure.

Peter Dolan, Bristol Myers Squibb Co. (NYSE: BMY) destroyed $55.6 billion in shareholder value over 5.3 years.

David Edmonson, RadioShack Corp. (NYSE: RSH) destroyed $1.2 billion in shareholder value over 9 months.

Martin McGuinn, Mellon Financial Corp. (NYSE: MEL) destroyed $2.9 billion in shareholder value over 7.1 years.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/20/2008 @ 11:15am
Maybe Darin could explain why worker productivity has increased, while wages have stagnated, while CEO pay has increased?

It must be the CEO that is increasing worker productivity, while the lazy worker stands around with his thumb up his ass.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/20/2008 @ 11:24am
Posted by emile duBois at 12/20/2008 @ 10:58am

no, emile, that would cause us to lose the wars!! Iraq is just like WWII, except for the paying for it part, and the winning it part, and the... well, it's not at all like WWII, now is it?

In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861

During World War I the top rate rose to 77%;

During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose again. In the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, the top rate was 75%. The top rate reached 94% during the war and remained at 91% until 1964.

1993-2000, top rate set at 39.6% (hmmm, what was the economic climate like in the '90's?)

2003-2008- top rate set at 35%. Where is the growth?

Posted by crabwalk at 12/20/2008 @ 11:34am
Hey!!! Look at this!!!

Chrysler is owned mostly by Cerebus, not an auto manufacturer but a private equity company. They are running the show, assisted by the aforementioned failed Home Depot CEO. But digging deeper, who do we find ?

Dan Quayle!! Chairman of Cerberus Global Investments, LLC.

Dan Quayle, hand out for Darins tax dollar!!

Posted by crabwalk at 12/20/2008 @ 11:44am
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/12/09/

chrysler-cerberus-bailout-oped-cx_dg_1210gerstein.html

Dan Quayle and John Snow, socialists for Bush's base.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/20/2008 @ 11:56am
Posted by crabwalk at 12/20/2008 @ 11:34am

Been reading some of your stuff Crabs and the questions you ask and implicit solutions you suggest are the sort of stuff that many, perhaps without a pocket calculator or view to economic history ask, even in my little country.

If you get your PC out you will find that if you were to divvy up all the CEO's salaries between your approximate 155 million employed workers it may only amount to a few measly dollars per week extra for each worker. Play around with those figures a bit and apart from envy you may find that it would make little significant difference in the pockets of the "workers".

On the tax rates, we were all "socialists" once but in reality those high tax rates of a bygone era were a reflection of how collectively poor our societies then were. Our tax rates have been slowly coming down since the 1950s and our present "socialist" Labor government is handing out money in the form of social security and tax rates decreases as fast as it can print the stuff. All the while trying to decrease the top tax rates "to keep the brightest and best Aussies" in the country.

I'm pretty sure that like us you have, in a material sense, never had it better and though you have government debt it is not outside its normal historical range and for those reasons there is no need to increase your tax rates (The present financial mess is just one of those hiccups that will soon be sorted out in a cooperative way on a global scale. Pundits here are predicting full steam ahead for the global economy toward the end of 2009).

The interesting thing we can note is that all the players, including the incoming US administration, are working toward market solutions to solve the present problems as they work better than anything else.

Posted by lrjones4 at 12/20/2008 @ 7:09pm
"Isn't it great that Darin WANTS to move as many jobs as possible to other countries? I guess this goes along with helping Al Qaeda. Patriotism ain't what it used to be. It used to be about loving your country and wanting all of us to succeed. Now it seems to be about fear and helping your neighbor to the unemployment line."

Posted by crabwalk at 12/20/2008 @ 10:41am

Sorry, crabwalk, how is Darin helping Al Qaeda?

Posted by twillie at 12/20/2008 @ 11:40pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/20/2008 @ 8:15pm

Or she could have had an abortion.

Or, Mal Wart could have paid her a good wage, but that would entail "integrity".

----

Sorry, crabwalk, how is Darin helping Al Qaeda? Posted by twillie at 12/20/2008 @ 11:40pm

Same way you do, by supporting policies that swell their ranks, by fulfilling their wishes and goals of having the US bogged down in Iraq and by extending a war they like.

----

LR, What if we took the last raise granted to the UAW by the CEO and spread it among the shareholders? Would that equate to what you posted above? Why don't you do the math for me.

"If you get your PC out you will find that if you were to divvy up all the CEO's salaries between your approximate 155 million employed workers it may only amount to a few measly dollars per week extra for each worker"

top five guys = $38,738,321 in 2007. Ford has roughly 50,000 hourly workers (1/5 it's work force, but nobody is asking for wage cuts for the other 190,000, why is that?)

So, if only five guys took less, each worker could pay his own healthcare costs for a month a year. Pennies add up.

GM's CEO's pay went up 64% last year. Now they want tax money to pay him this year.

what if Dan Quayle took a pay, benefit compensation cut? Why is there no outcry over his pay? Do you honestly think Dan Quayle works harder or smarter than a union machinist? If it is good for the company for hourly workers to take a cut, why not the managers of the company that owns them? Why are Dan and the former Treasury Secretary holding their hands out for guvt money when they have enough in their firm to cover Chrysler till times get better?

Posted by crabwalk at 12/21/2008 @ 08:51am
Maybe you cons should tell us what "family values" actually means. I thought it was about no teen pregnancies, but that went out the window with Bristol Palin. Obviously it does not mean Daddy bringing home a decent income, because you guys are dead set against that. It does not mean having a paid vacation so that a parent can spend time with the kids, you are against that. It does not mean supplying healthcare to the kids, you are against that. It does not mean keeping a company in the US so that the jobs stay here.

I guess it just means "No fags!".

BTW, what does patriotism mean to you guys? Waving the flag? Reciting the Pledge? But NOT keeping AMericas employed, NOT keeping your tax dollars here to pay for your war, helping our enemies during the war?

Yep, "the left" is destroying America.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/21/2008 @ 09:03am
No comments about Dan Quayle asking for your money HAPPYcoward?

I guess unions are an easier target than the guy you voted for. What about John Snow or Henry Paulson asking for your money?

The US banking industry has less productivity when compared to their German and Japanese counterparts. No comments about the overpaid bank managers, cons? Why is that? They caused more damage than the union auto worker, $700,000,000 worth.

Why the selective attacks on those that get dirty for their money?

Posted by crabwalk at 12/21/2008 @ 09:07am
If a company is losing money why does it have to be the "worker's who have to take a cut in pay...no bonus's etc and yet management don't do the same??? Surely they should set and example and do just that...decrease their salaries, no more pay raises until the company is back on it's feet. I would think they would earn more respect from their workers and get more out of them production wise if that would happen...but no,that is not what the top dogs want. The attitude of the top brass is always the same let the workers loose some of their hard earned money and we'll just take more for us!!!! Greed is a more powerful force than fairness with a lot of these CEO's/Manager's and yet when the company goes bust, the top brass come out of it smelling of roses with their huge severance packages and the average worker comes away with "zippo" just a few dollars to live on. Time for all these CEO's/ Manager's to be held accountable and if the company does turn around, they should be fired for letting it get that bad in the first place. Sounds simplistic I know, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to know that the buck stops with the high ranking top brass.

Posted by Caj at 12/21/2008 @ 09:16am
HILDA SOLIS IS NOT THE ANSWER AND SOLUTION FOR USA'S PROBLEM. ONE GOOD APPLE DOESN'T FIX HUNDREDS OF THE ROTTEN ZIONIST APPLES' OF OBAMA'S CABINET LIKE RAHM EMMANUEL AND ROBERT GATES (2 WAR HAWKS)

THE SOLUTION AND HOPE OF USA LIES IN THE LOWER-CLASS AMERICANS !!

You know I was thinking something about the only way that we can get out of poverty and increase our living standards. I think that the only way that most americans have of increasing their living standars is by creating a united socialist party of honest, moralist, puritan leaders who if they get to possitions of power, won't even steal a cent. Because the main reason of why USA is bankrupt it is really because most of the high cupula politicians of both parties cannot see 1 million dollars in their hands and not steal. I think that government corruption, stealing from our tax dollars is really the main reason of why USA is economically destroyed.

And that burocratic corruption coming from both of the US traditional parties (Democrats and Republicans) it is the main reason of why there are so many americans living in poverty, in a terrible situation.

Until the lower-classes of USA wake up, and unite into a single political party led by honest, puritan people, the poor americans won't have a chance of getting out of poverty.

You still might see tons of middle-class americans, and you might think that middle-class americans are good, and would side with a Socialist Workers United Party, but we have to realize, that middle-class Americans are capitalists, right-wingers, and have a bourgoise lifestyle, a very conservative, a very CNN, FOX news, Hollywood movies oriented lifestyle. So there is no hope in tryin to wake up middle-class conservative american folks.

Posted by marxist-socialist at 12/21/2008 @ 10:10am
"if you were to divvy up all the CEO's salaries between your approximate 155 million employed workers it may only amount to a few measly dollars per week extra for each worker."

In 2006, bottom 60% of households (each making no more than $60,000/year) together received 26.5% of aggregate national income, and top 5% (earning more than $174,000) made 22.3%. If you transferred 10% of the aggregate income from top 5% to bottom 60% (cut in half the top 5%'s income), that would be about a 50% raise for the bottom 60%.

So income inequality is not a measly few dollars. Even a smaller chunk out of a smaller fraction at the top (say 25% of the income of the top 2% of households) would probably be a significant amount for poor and working class families. Of course, whether doing that is feasible or a good idea is another question.

Data from http://www.census.gov, 2009 Statistical Abstract of the US, Table 675.

Posted by areader at 12/21/2008 @ 5:03pm
"Same way you do, by supporting policies that swell their ranks, by fulfilling their wishes and goals of having the US bogged down in Iraq and by extending a war they like." Posted by crabwalk at 12/21/2008 @ 08:51am

Which policies?

Posted by twillie at 12/22/2008 @ 12:25am
Posted by areader at 12/21/2008 @ 5:03pm

Very interesting AR but Crabs mentioned CEO's salaries, which you will find, don't have quite the effect of your less discriminatory redistribution. I was almost going to mention that your suggestion sounds like heaven on earth until I remembered the parable of the talents so that sort of sharing the folding stuff around has not been found even in heaven and most certainly not yet on earth.

You of course were more interested in the arithmetic and allowed that it may not be a good idea. My information is that even socialists paid their doctors and scientists more than their street sweepers but that is another story that is justified on grounds like incentive, reward for ability and educational effort and value for money, at least in terms of demand and supply. A sort of amoral market distribution, if I may be so crass.

Posted by lrjones4 at 12/22/2008 @ 05:22am
Posted by crabwalk at 12/21/2008 @ 08:51am

I suppose my assumption was a little less elitist than yours, Crabs, in that I had in mind a larger and less well paid group than those poor, very well paid, process workers who assemble what foreigners regard, rightly or wrongly, as very shoddily designed and assembled autos and, which for many years have been sneeringly referred to as "yank tanks" in my homeland. Mainly because of their massive size, poor fuel economy and very poor road handling qualities. (Did you not tell us somewhere that you are a Jap car fan?).

I just hope you are using a PC that was made in China.

Posted by lrjones4 at 12/22/2008 @ 05:48am
The math of redistribution of wealth is interesting because it gives us an idea of what can be accomplished. Spreading the wealth from the top brackets to the bottom brackets can make a significant improvements in people's lives, but it won't turn poor people into rich people.

Of course the idea isn't to simply take money from the rich and give it to others. But progressives need to work for tax, wage, benefit, and labor policies that make it harder to pay the rich more and easier to pay the poor more. In that regard Solis' appointment is a hopeful sign. Workers in this country need stronger unions, especially in retail and service sectors where it's not competition with third world countries pushing down wages.

Arguments that government can't improve on the "natural" income structure are misleading. In a big company both management and labor are crucial. Eliminate either side and total revenue goes to zero. It may be true (though it isn't certain) that, if an individual company is forced to pay the boss less or the workers more than it likes, it will be less productive. For instance a better candidate for CEO might go work for another company. If policies make it harder for all companies to pay vast sums to the boss or lousy wages to the workers, the companies should still be about as efficient. I find it hard to believe that the best managers would all retire if typical CEO compensation ramped down from $10 million to $5 million!

Posted by areader at 12/22/2008 @ 09:40am
Hey ther, areader, did you see this shocking development? Incentives matter: *************************************************************

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article- 1099637/Britains-generous-welfare- created-benefits-baby-boom.html

Britain's generous welfare system 'has created benefits baby boom'

Labour hikes in benefits for mothers produced a baby boom among poor families, Government-sponsored research showed today.

Tax credits and big increases in means-tested state payments have resulted in 45,000 extra babies a year - around one in 15 of all children born.

And it found that young women with the least education stopped using contraception after the benefits were pushed up because they were trying to get pregnant.

The findings mean that Gordon Brown's benefit reforms now stand alongside immigration as the main reason why the number of babies born in Britain is going up.

They also signal that that decisions of millions of people, especially those on low incomes, are powerfully influenced by the way the Government arranges the benefit system and taxation.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/22/2008 @ 10:19am
So what constitutes a successful society? Everyone has the same whether you feel like getting out of bed before noon or not?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/22/2008 @ 10:21am
That's right Darin, every body except you is lazy.

Much simpler now.

Oops, it seems these people that you hold in such disdain are merely following the rules of your Lord.

"As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it."-Genesis 9:7

ALternate translation in Simple English: "And now, be fertile and have increase; have offspring on the earth and become great in number."

Then somewhere in the Big Book of Suggestions is the edict to take care of the poor, elderly, sick, unfortunate and the least among us, for that is how ye shall be judged.

Ahhh, the neo-conundrums you guys create for yourselves.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/22/2008 @ 11:28am
Luke 21:1-3

And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/22/2008 @ 11:36am
Yes, Darin, incentives matter. Government policy should promote productive or socially positive behavior. Our economic system should reward people more for working more, and for producing more valuable things, and for doing things which are more difficult or take special talents or training.

But does this always have to translate into making the rich richer? If all companies have to pay more for their average worker and consequently end up paying their CEO's only 50 or 100 times average worker salary instead of 250 times, are all the qualified managers going to just quit and play golf? If capital gains are taxed at the same rate as all other income, are investors really going to say "forget it, I'm anticipating a 4% rate of return instead of 5%, I'll just by another boat instead"?

Posted by areader at 12/22/2008 @ 12:55pm
Luke 21:1-3

And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/22/2008 @ 11:36am

I take it Preacherman, that thus there is great advantage in being poor, which should lead us, in charity, to keep the wages of those we wish to bless as low as possible?

Posted by lrjones4 at 12/22/2008 @ 7:38pm
Published: December 23, 2008

Wal-Mart said on Tuesday that it would pay at least $352 million, and possibly far more, to settle lawsuits across the country claiming that it forced employees to work off the clock. Several lawyers described it as the largest settlement ever for lawsuits over wage violations.

The dozens of wage-and-hour suits against Wal-Mart accused the company and its managers of various illegal tactics. Those included forcing employees to work unpaid off the clock, erasing hours from time cards and preventing workers from taking lunch and other breaks that were promised by the company or guaranteed by state laws.

The settlement -- which wipes out all but 12 pending wage-and-hour lawsuits against Wal-Mart -- also gives the company a cleaner slate as a new administration enters the White House. President-elect Barack Obama has indicated he will make wage-and-hour enforcement a priority, and groups critical of Wal-Mart suggested that the company had reached the settlement to avoid becoming a target of stepped-up enforcement.

"Wal-Mart is scared with what they're going to face in an Obama administration," said David Nassar, of Wal-Mart Watch, a union-financed advocacy group. "You clean up your house before the in-laws come over. That's what they're trying to do."

Posted by crabwalk at 12/25/2008 @ 12:40pm
In a case still pending, Wal-Mart has appealed a 2005 verdict in which a California jury ordered it to pay $172 million for making employees miss meal breaks.

In 2006, a jury in Pennsylvania awarded $78 million against Wal-Mart in a lawsuit over rest breaks and off-the-clock work. Last year, a judge increased that award to $188 million to include damages, interest and lawyers' fees. Wal-Mart has also appealed that ruling.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/25/2008 @ 12:43pm