The news is out: The Wall Street bankers we bailed out are giving themselves 2009 cash bonuses of a half million dollars on average -- not including stocks. Compare that with the $32,390 annual median wage for regular workers, and you find a formula for outrage.
The people who tanked our economy, took $700 billion in taxpayer money and refused to make job-creating loans are getting rewards that range into the millions.
Not bad for a year in which Main Street lost 4 million jobs.
No wonder people are mad.
When Wall Street needs help, elected leaders respond with bold and swift action. When Main Street cries for help, we get gridlock. No health care reform, no financial reform, no labor law reform, and a slow, timid effort on job creation.
The anger out there is well-deserved. Workers are hurting. We haven't seen so much militant sentiment demanding job creation and basic fairness since hundreds of thousands of people came to Washington for the March for Jobs and Freedom in 1963.
The Massachusetts Senate election last week signaled a working class revolt -- against business as usual and against politics as usual.
An AFL-CIO poll taken election night showed just how fed up people are -- they want results, and aren't seeing any.
Four out of five voters said their most important issue was strengthening the economy and creating more jobs. Controlling health care costs was next on their list, with 54 percent citing that as the main determinant of their vote.
And they said Democrats have not overreached on jobs, the economy and health care -- they have under-reached.
Forty-seven percent said their concern about Democrats is that they haven't succeeded in making needed change, while only 32 percent said they made too many changes too quickly. Even voters for Scott Brown were more concerned about a lack of change (50 percent) than about making too many changes too quickly (43 percent).
Contrary to what we're hearing from the corporate media, the Massachusetts election wasn't a referendum on health care reform (Brown actually lost among the 59 percent of voters who picked health care as one of their top two priorities). But it did send a clear message that voters rejected attacks on the middle class like the proposed excise tax on health care benefits. Voters who thought their health care would be taxed voted by 64 percent for Brown, while those who did not think so voted by 54 percent to 40 percent for Coakley.
The election was no endorsement of the Republican agenda either -- in fact, 58 percent of voters disapprove of the job being done by congressional Republicans.
Here's what one grassroots union leader learned from his experience in the Massachusetts race:
A year ago, the Democrats crowed that the Republicans were "irrelevant." Today, the Republicans think the Democrats are mortally wounded. Both are wrong. In our non-ideological party landscape, in hard times whoever strikes the best pose of wounded underdog wins. The same anger that elected Obama was hijacked to elect Scott Brown: "We want change!"
There was no outpouring for a right-wing agenda in Massachusetts. Brown only received 50,000 votes more than McCain. But Coakley received 850,000 fewer votes than Obama. The Republican base remained energized. The Democratic base and independent supporters stayed home.
Unless elected leaders and candidates deliver on job creation and the economy -- they're going to join the growing numbers of jobless Americans.
Members of Congress from both parties need to heed the wake-up call from Massachusetts and start taxing Wall Street wealth to create millions of good jobs fast. To get elected in 2010, they're going to have to PROVE they'll create the jobs we need in an economy we need with the health care we need -- and those who made the mess should pay the bill. Voters have heard too much talk already.
America's union movement is leading a broad uprising of working people ready to make sure elected leaders and candidates get the message and don't forget. Don't just watch for us in the streets -- join us.
With Supply Side economics we got trickle down- crap shot wages trickling nowhere.
Used to be nice you could get health insurance with your job because of unions.
Not that suprising that the GOP wants to crush Health Care so no one is insured.
Interesting that before we had the 40 hour week and minimum wage requirements(now gone, thank you Reagan) we only had slave wages and 12 -15 hour shifts for less money.
So tell me- who's better: The Unions( Democrats) or Corporations (Repugnants)
yeah, I wish that unions were not necessary, wish that corporations and small companies would treat their employees like real people, would want to do right... but that is not reality. Unions are nothing more than people standing together for the good of all...
Strong labor unions play a vital part in Germany's economic rise. They level the playing field between employer and employee. Yes, we have had corrupt union leaders as well over here. But the point is, we take it for granted all politicians are corrupt, bought and paid for, however when union people fail, folks get excited.
And yes, union workers are expensive. Those high wages and benefits of the 50s-70s certainly did little to help the American economy as a whole. Did average people spend money in local businesses? Did what they paid in taxes go for good public schools or scientific research?
At-will employees do work much cheaper. As we've seen over the last two decades, the decline in unions corrolates with incredible growth in management income. Which has certainly made the economy stronger, and better lives for all working Americans.
You are totally justified in feeling intense anger that those arrrogant unions did nothing for you. And by extension, anger at their spoiled members. Yes, replace as many as possible with robots, who demand no rights or benefits. Then working people will have to face the truth: they are not equal. They are servants.
Frankly, I'd rather have lower wages with a good employer, and a good personal rapport with same, in an at-will position where I can basically give notice at a moment's notice without any kind of penalty or reprisal, sort of be my own union steward in that regard, and decide what I will and won't put up with, without the monthly dues or a middleman.
They are one of the root causes for the growing unemployment and the moving of jobs offshore to other jurisdictions. Every union job causes the loss of hundreds of jobs in the private sector!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We also have call centers in Manila and I understand we pay more for for the office space than for the employees that sit at the desks. The office space costs $2.80 a day and the workers make $2.50.
Can you imagine working 8 or 10 hours a day and getting $2.50?
So your argument about Union workers causing all the problems is less than true. It would seem that management will always opt to pay the least they can, as long as they can. And if we have no unions you can bet Business will do everything in their power to drive wages down while maximizing profit.
No business man in his right mind would invest here in the US if he thinks he's going to face an extortionate union monopoly over his work force. He'll go elsewhere as he has been doing already for many years. Unions destroy jobs, kill investment & drive businesses into bankruptcy!
Thanks for posting.
Majority of Union Members Now Work for the Government: Union membership has moved with the jobs from private sector to government...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/business/23labor.html
...fortunately AFL-CIO is now a dinosaur; ie., you can stop pretending to be a D.I.N.O., and join the Republican's "populist" TEA BAG crowd: since (no thanks to the Union's leadership!) your members have been mis-lead for years to VOTE AGAINST THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS.
Whether the issue was The Environment -vs- "Union" Jobs, or a host of other issues, your conceit implicit (note the possessive tense) was that "jobs" belong to the Union, not the workers. Heckuva job there, Trumka; The only folks following you are the millions of now job-less union members lined up in un-employment benefits queues.
Now, unless you're very good at revising history, you would agree that GM made a total F#@%Ked up mess in its corporate direction and executive management for well over 15years. The prime example is GM putting Hummer as its flagship, when every intelligent economic analyst had said that big gas guzzling clunkers are out, and sleek small gas efficient (and electric cars) are in. What did GM executives do? They destroyed the electric car, and they persisted in their death-wish uncompetitive direction and ran up losses year after year. High healthcare costs contributed to the problems. Did the unions and workers have any say in the corporate direction of investment and production decisions? You would have to cleverly revise history to make anyone believe your blaming the victims for the American automanufacturers' systemic problems. Maybe you only saw what happened on the shop floor, and have no clue on what happened in the board rooms.
America is a nation of individuals. Our laws and our policies should reflect that, both in dealing with corporations (no lobbying, no bribes, no bailouts) and working people (fair labor laws, freedom to purchase affordable healthcare wherever we want, etc.). Unions are a means, but they should not be the "end" in society - fair, sustainable regulations for ALL people should be the "end."
States like Illinois on the verge of bankruptcy are saddled with having to pay 100% of health insurance plus pension benefits for life to state workers who can't be fired and -- surprise! -- are union workers.
Mr. Trumka, pointing to financial fatcats as bad guys does not make you one of the good guys.