Labor on The Huffington Post

Larry McNeely: In The Public Interest : Pharma Can Do More

2009-12-08T08:33:25Z

In recent decades, as rising health costs have squeezed American families, businesses and taxpayers, the pharmaceutical industry has reaped fortunes from those rising costs. But a good part of their success has been at taxpayer expense because of a boondoggle subsidy to PhRMA that dates back to the establishment of Medicare Part D.

In 2003, PhRMA's allies in Congress ensured that low-income seniors who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare would no longer receive prescription drugs purchased at a lower Medicaid rates. The result is that taxpayers, who pick up the tab for most of these indigent seniors' drug bills, were overcharged.

Fortunately, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) is fighting to end this subsidy in this year's health reform legislation.

But after cutting a deal this spring that would limit their contribution to reform to $8 billion per year, PhRMA and its army of Washington lobbyists have balked at spending even one more dollar to fix the health care crisis that their high drug prices helped create. Even though reform would result in more than 30 million additional Americans with prescription drug coverage.

With the Senate fighting hard to pass a bill that would tackle rising costs AND extend coverage to millions more Americans, the time has come for PhRMA to pay its fair share.

Other groups are doing all they can to get to a compromise that will work. And when you look past the headlines and cable news pundits, you find a remarkable story of sacrifice and leadership.

Progressives have had to postpone their hopes for a single payer system, or even a public option based on Medicare, in return for immediate steps to rein in private insurers and extend coverage.

Budget hawks are overcoming their resistance to additional government spending in the short term because health reform will mean lower deficits over the long term.

The labor movement may ultimately have to swallow some version of a tax on high-cost plans, which is anathema to many unions, to achieve their long-sought goal of health coverage for all American workers

Hospitals, many of which are struggling, have volunteered twice as much in savings as PhRMA - $155 billion over ten years - in the expectation of a new system that will cover more Americans and reward the best care.

The leaders of all these sectors, and many others, have staked out tough, courageous positions to win reform that will ultimately benefit each of them, their constituents, and the country as a whole. All of them may continue to wrangle over the details of reform that matter to them, but they remain supportive of the broader effort, because they - like U.S. PIRG - sees that it is in the public interest to do so.

But if Congress asks for a single cent more from PhRMA, its CEO, Billy Tauzin, appears ready to turn against reform altogether. When Americans are still struggling to afford the prescriptions they need, this callousness is just not right.

On December 3rd, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) filed an amendment to the health reform bill that would demand more from PhRMA. Ending the giveaway would save taxpayers $106 billion over ten years, and Nelson would use finally close the Medicare Part D "doughnut hole" which denies seniors of all incomes full prescription drug coverage.

Since PhRMA has benefited so much from our costly health system; it's about time they gave something back.

María Elena Durazo: Wal-Mart of Construction Industry Launches Another Assault on Its Workers

2009-12-07T18:26:32Z

Apparently not content with denying its own workers access to affordable health care, the anti-worker Associated Builders & Contractors has teamed up with its right-wing friends to fight President Obama's health care reform efforts.

Using the profits its member companies have reaped by denying unorganized construction workers health care coverage and under investing in worker training, ABC and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are funding grossly misleading attack ads against reform.

ABC wants to do for America what it has already done for the construction industry, which was once a pillar of the American middle class. It's no coincidence that real wages for constructions workers have declined as unionization rates in construction have dropped from more than 80 percent to less than 15 percent due to aggressive, anti-worker campaigns orchestrated by ABC. After decades of ABC fighting workers rights, the construction industry now has the highest rate of uninsured workers of any industry in California. Nearly 40 percent of construction workers in California went without health care for a portion of 2005, according to a recent study by UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research. Many of those workers labor for firms that belong to ABC, which wants to keep them without health coverage by defeating the Obama- and Democratic-sponsored health reform plans.

Union construction workers, in contrast, enjoy good health care benefits, career development through high quality apprenticeship programs and portable retirement benefits. And workers are leading the fight to expand health care coverage.

It is bad enough ABC is part of the problem, but it is even worse that it is fighting the solution. ABC affiliates in California should denounce the ad and work with workers to find a solution for our broken health care system.

María Elena Durazo: With 'Friends' Like Lou Dobbs, Who Needs Enemies?

2009-12-03T16:04:54Z

Longtime immigrant basher Lou Dobbs recently declared on Telemundo that he's now one of the Latino community's "greatest friends, and I mean for us to work together."

This comes from a xenophobe, mind you, who has falsely accused undocumented workers of spreading leprosy, once said "Mexico has become our enemy" and has called Latino immigrants an "army of invaders."

But Dobbs is now reportedly contemplating a run for president or a U.S. Senate seat in New Jersey. And just like the politicians he's attacked for pandering to "ethnocentric special interests," he's done a complete 180 on the issue of immigration reform.

On Telemundo, Dobbs said he now supports a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers after years of deriding such proposals as "amnesty."

Dobbs must think we have short memories.

For years, Dobbs has given a platform to right-wing extremist Minutemen. A few of these renegades who have appeared on his show have ties to white supremacist groups.

He, more than anyone else in the media, has been a cheerleader for extreme deportation policies that break up families and tear apart communities. By airing misleading distortions and fallacies on an almost nightly basis, Dobbs shared more responsibility than anyone for the hostile political environment facing undocumented workers.

For Mr. Dobbs to now come asking for Latino votes after leading the fight to have our relatives and neighbors deported is nothing short of insulting.

Pat Earley: It is Not Our Parents Workplace Anymore

2009-11-21T12:39:00Z

Today's workplace is not the same as our parent's traditional workplace where a high school education and a willingness to work was a ticket to success. For a majority of our parents, their employment expectations included full-time employment with a fixed career objective and a comfortable retirement package to reward their efforts. They defined themselves through their jobs and identified themselves through the work they performed believing that if they were loyal employees, worked hard and followed the rules they could eventually climb the corporate ladder and achieve financial and personal success. For many, their work environments consisted of telephone land-lines and IBM Selectric typewriters, and figuring out how to load the paper in the office Xerox machine was considered high tech.

In contrast, today's workers can expect to change jobs and even their careers many times during their employment. They must be able to keep up with the increased pace of technological changes and no longer does a high school diploma guarantee employment. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, today, 62% of all U.S. jobs now require two-year or four-year degrees or higher, or they require special postsecondary occupation certificates or apprenticeships.

At the same time, according to the PEW Research Center, as of October, 2008, approximately 15% of young adults ages 18 to 24 did not complete high school; in fact, currently the United States is now the only industrialized country where young people are less likely than their parents to earn a diploma. Further, according to a newly released Census Bureau report, although college enrollment among 18 - 24 year old young adults has increased to 39.6%, approximately 60% of these students are projected to drop out of college before completing their degree programs. Contrast these figures to the fact that the percentage of jobs that will require a two-year or four-year degree or special occupational training is projected to be 75% by the year 2020, and one begins to understand the workforce dilemma facing today's labor market.

With the decline in skilled workers including the massive exodus of baby boomers expected to leave the workforce in the next decade, the elimination of low-skilled jobs and the drop in talent necessary to fill high-tech/knowledge-based positions, many employers are beginning to experience a shortage in their labor pools. A new sense of urgency has entered the workforce and although the unemployment rate is projected to reach approximately 10.5% by next year, the need for highly skilled workers is accelerating at an alarming rate. STEM jobs, (i.e., jobs that are emerging in the science, technology, engineering, or mathematical fields), are even now being outsourced to countries such as Japan, Singapore or other countries with highly educated labor pools. And this situation is only projected to get worse. According to a recent article published in "The Futurist" and written by Edward Gordon, within the next decade "some technology-based industries will be seeking to replace 100% of their workforce."

How we choose to address these challenges determines the economic stability of our country for years to come. Business leaders, educators, labor and union organizations and government officials must play a more active role in investing in an improved educational system; while at the same time, employers must look to creating new workplace strategies for tomorrow's workers. Cooperative efforts must take place to promote and expand successful public-private partnerships which include mentoring programs, internships and vocational and technical opportunities, just to name a few. It is imperative that workforce leaders recognize that our educational system is directly proportional to our country's economic success.

In addition, shifts in generational values and attitudes need to be addressed. Today's workers are more interested in maintaining a work-life balance; they are seeking jobs that offer flexible work arrangements to address both the needs of their employers but also the needs of their families. They are looking for jobs that offer arrangements such as workplace health programs, telecommuting options, green sustainability and job share and part-time options. In order to recruit and retain the talent pool necessary to address tomorrow's challenges, employers must seriously consider the deficiencies in today's workforce and begin to develop solutions to better improve our educational system, create new incentives to attract tomorrow's workers, and stay competitive in a global marketplace.

Paul Krugman: Germany's Jobs, Unemployment Miracle Can Teach US

2009-11-17T01:32:01Z

Germany's jobs miracle hasn't received much attention in this country -- but it's real, it's striking, and it raises serious questions about whether the U.S. government is doing the right things to fight unemployment.

Brendan Smith: Will Climate Protection Legislation Protect Workers Too?

2009-11-12T10:35:28Z

One great fear is blocking public support for climate protection: The fear that protecting the planet will destroy millions of jobs.

Without a bold program to protect workers from the effects of climate protection, the struggle against global warming can all too easily come to be perceived as a struggle against American workers.

Climate protection advocates have often addressed the threat of possible job losses by pointing out that a transition to green energy would create far more jobs than it would eliminate. While that may be true, it also misses the point. The fact that some people get new jobs provides little solace for the individuals and communities who have lost theirs. They must be protected.

The Great Fear

Fear of job loss is the centerpiece of the campaign against climate protection legislation.

According to the website of the anti-climate protection coalition Energy Citizens, "This legislation will cost more than two million American jobs -- hurting millions of Americans who work in or depend on trucking, farming, manufacturing, mining, small business and energy production--or use their cars to commute to work." The US Chamber of Commerce, Senator Sam Brownback, and local "tea party" protests have similarly made job loss the central argument against climate legislation.

Unless climate protection advocates effectively address these fears, both they and the legislation the support risk a devastating backlash from American afraid of losing their jobs.

Recognizing Reality: Some Jobs Will Be Lost

Studies indicate that over the long run, climate protection will have limited effect on the total number of jobs in the United States: Jobs gained will more or less compensate for jobs lost. Some studies indicate that overall jobs will actually be gained because green jobs are more labor intensive than those they replace. For example, an analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that 185,000 new jobs would be created by 2020 if utilities generate an average of 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources.

While the employment effects of climate protection legislation are likely to be neutral or positive, they may be considerably greater in industries that make or use products with high carbon footprints. As the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the House climate bill, for example, says it will probably have "only a small effect on total employment in the long run." However, "The small effect on overall employment would mask a significant shift in the composition of employment over time."

A cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide emissions would reduce the number of jobs in industries that produce carbon-based energy, use energy in their production process, or produce products whose use involves energy consumption, because those industries would experience the greatest increases in costs and declines in sales.

Studies vary regarding how many jobs might shift as a result of climate change legislation from hundreds of thousands to several million jobs depending on the year. While this is a small proportion of American jobs, the CBO notes that, "The process of shifting employment can have substantial costs for the workers, families, and communities involved." Of workers who were unemployed during 2003, almost half left the labor force altogether rather than finding another job. Even those who eventually find new jobs may lose twenty percent of their lifetime income. Such effects are likely to be far greater in today's high-unemployment economy.

What's Wrong With Proposed Legislation?

Proposed climate legislation includes provisions that are designed to ameliorate the negative employment effects of climate protection. These programs are to be paid for from the auction of carbon emission allowances.

Industry subsidies: Much of the strategy for such amelioration lies in providing subsidies to particular industries -- notably petroleum refiners and trade-exposed, energy-intensive industries. In its summary of the bill, the Senate Committee maintains that the Act "doesn't just create jobs for the future -- it also protects existing jobs in the manufacturing sector as our economy transforms" by providing "support for energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries like chemicals to ensure that U.S. manufacturing remains competitive in the new energy economy."

As the CBO points out, this "dampens the reallocation of output and employment to industries that produce fewer carbon emissions," counteracting the bill's basic purpose of carbon reduction.

This approach has another problem. There is no guarantee that the subsidies will actually be used to maintain or increase employment in such firms. On the contrary, the availability of funds for investment is often used to introduce new employment-reducing technology or to close facilities and relocate production elsewhere in other cities, states, or countries. The legislation provides no guarantees against such results. It represents a highly uncertain "trickle down" approach to protecting workers' livelihoods and economic security.

Transition assistance: The proposed legislation also provides "transition assistance" to individual workers displaced by climate protection policies.

The House bill, for example, establishes a Climate Change Worker Adjustment Assistance program which provides eligible impacted workers 70% of average weekly wages for 156 weeks, 80 percent of monthly health care premiums, job training assistance, up to $1,500 for job search assistance, up to $1,500 for moving assistance, and employment services. The Senate "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act" contains similar provisions.

This approach to transition assistance is largely based on the Trade Adjustment Act (TAA) worker assistance model. It provides a small supplement to unemployment and funding for modest job retraining. But many workers and unions despise that approach. In practice it strings individuals and communities along in marginality without helping them to establish a new, decent life. It typically provides training for jobs that don't exist in communities that have already been devastated by economic change. TAA-style programs are also notorious for long strings of fine print that end up excluding a large proportion of workers affected by change from the benefits they seem to offer.

The Solution: Fix Climate Legislation To Protect Workers

Protecting and restoring individuals: Workers who lose their jobs because of climate protection policies should receive full wages and benefits for at least three years. They should be eligible for up to four years education or training including tuition and living expenses. Those unable to take advantage of such a program because of age or other reasons should be guaranteed decent pensions with healthcare. The opportunity for individuals to access higher education and advanced training will also mesh with the need for the region to develop new labor force capabilities for the new green economy.

Protecting and restoring communities: The long- term effects of climate protection require compensation not just for individuals but for hard-hit communities. Surprisingly, a useful model here comes from John McCain's 1988 tobacco bill. It established a Community Revitalization Trust Fund which would provide economic development grants over a twenty-five year period for

business development and employment-creating activities "to provide a more viable economic base and enhance opportunities for improved incomes, living standards and contributions by rural individuals to the economic and social development communities"

activities that "expand existing infrastructure, facilities, and services to capitalize on opportunities to diversify economies in tobacco communities that support the development of new industries or commercial ventures,"

initiatives designed to "create or expand locally owned value-added processing and marketing operations in tobacco communities," and technical assistance.

A move to protect communities potentially threatened by cutbacks in coal production can serve as a way to jumpstart the transition away from coal and other carbon-intensive industries. Eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, and the rest of the Appalachian coalfield can be made a model of job-positive transition from coal to renewable energy and conservation. Green jobs can be specifically targeted to the communities that will be affected by coal production to preemptively create local jobs that will provide an alternative source of employment.

Protecting and Restoring Regions

During the Great Depression, a regional economic development program, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), transformed one of America's poorest regions by means of massive energy development. While 75 years later the TVA itself has become a target of environmental criticism, the principle of regional economic development through development of a new energy source is highly applicable to the Appalachian coalfields today. While the TVA by no means provides a model to follow slavishly today, it does provide an instructive example of a transformative use of new forms of energy as the basis for the construction of a new economy.

A regional economic development program could make synergistic many aspects of a new green economy. For example, renewable energy production and distribution could provide employment, a secure power supply, and an economic base for many local communities. And they could also provide stable demand for products that could be manufactured in those communities, thereby providing additional jobs.

A pioneering program to build a new economy in Appalachia based on renewable energy and the economic development it supports can provide an image of the new economy we need to build nationally.

Protecting and restoring retirees: It is outrageous that an American worker can have worked hard all their life only to discover that their pension and retirement health benefits are threatened due to their employers' economic adversity or strategy. Climate legislation should guarantee that no worker will lose pension benefits as a result of climate protection measures.

Steps to strengthen worker protections in climate legislation are already under discussion. For example, on November 5, 2009 Senator Bob Casey introduced S. 2742, the American Worker and Community Assistance Act. Co-sponsored by Senator Sherrod Brown, the bill would establish a Climate Change Worker Transition and Community Assistance program to provide targeted help to workers who may be adversely affected by climate legislation. Under it communities and groups of communities could receive funding to develop a strategic plan for diversifying employment opportunities, environmental remediation projects, and conversion of underutilized facilities for more productive uses. Communities could then apply for grants to implement the plan. Communities with low per capita incomes, high unemployment, and loss of traditional sources of employment would be given preference for support. Commenting on the bill, AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka said, "It is essential that workers and communities impacted by climate change policy be provided with the tools to transition into the new clean energy economy and the millions of new jobs that stand to be created."

Green and Fair

Protecting the climate and protecting workers are not alternatives. Neither will happen without the other.

It is a basic principle of fairness that the burden of policies that are necessary for society - like protecting the earth's climate -- shouldn't be borne by a small minority who happen to be victimized by their side effects. Unless workers and communities are protected against the unintended effects of climate protection, there is likely to be a backlash that threatens the whole effort to save the planet. The challenge for the architects of climate protection is to craft and implement policies to give such workers confidence that they will be protected as America goes green.

Advocates can use a worker-friendly climate protection policy to take the offensive to turn around the public debate: Not only will the legislation create millions of new green jobs, it will also honor and protect those workers and retirees who have contributed their working lives to meeting our nation's economic and energy needs.

The alternative -- failure to act in time to save our earth's climate -- will lead not only to natural but to economic devastation for our country and the world.

[cross-posted with the Labor Network For Sustainability Blog and drafted with Jeremy Brecher]

Michael Gould-Wartofsky: Bomb Appalachia (and Face the Music)

2009-11-09T14:33:25Z

They don't take it lying down, these people.

And King Coal sure does dish it out. Last week, Massey Energy Company continued the bombing of Coal River Mountain, West Virginia, the Friends of Coal distributed "Let's Learn About Coal" coloring books to kids, and the Senate confirmed a coal company-approved "Dirty Coal Czar" as director of the U.S. Office of Surface Mining.

Meanwhile, the good people of Appalachia and their friends in the climate justice movement plotted their next move and hoped that you might join them.

Theirs is a coast-to-coast campaign to save Appalachia's mountains and streams -- and Appalachians' homes, jobs, and culture -- from the devastating coal mining practice known as mountaintop removal.

On October 30, they took on King Coal the way Mother Jones took on King Coal: with courage, coordination, creativity.

They sat in at the offices of the Environmental Protection Agency in DC. They descended on the local outposts of the EPA and JP Morgan Chase -- Big Coal's biggest bankroller still standing -- in over twenty cities nationwide, with zombie marches, bank sit-ins and "carnivals of destruction" at corporate headquarters.

Hundreds have already been arrested in a campaign of nonviolent direct action crisscrossing the Appalachian warzone, which stretches across some of the poorest regions of West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and southwestern Virginia. Massey machinery has been blockaded. Mountain bombing missions have been called off.

A burgeoning alliance -- recalling the "Teamsters and Turtles" alliance that rocked the World Trade Organization in the streets of Seattle 10 years ago this month -- has united the fed-up-and-not-gonna-take-it-anymore residents of coalfield communities with the civilly disobedient youth of the climate justice movement.

In essence, they are doing what the Environmental Protection Agency was supposed to be doing all along -- the work of environmental protection--while fighting for their lives and the future of life itself on the frontlines of America's new coal wars.

Mountaintop removal involves a simple, 5-step process of coal extraction.

Clearcut forest (Cost to date: 1.2 million acres and unknown numbers of species).

Blow top off mountain (Cost to date: 500 of the world's oldest mountains).

Dig for coal; double profits. (Cost to date: Billions of dollars in federal subsidies).

Dump waste in local streambeds (Cost to date: Over 2,000 miles of streams).

Process coal, leave toxic "slurry" in open impoundments (Cost to life: Unknown).

Following extraction, there is "reclamation." Three further steps inevitably follow that exact a human cost on everyone but the coal barons:

Replace local community with golf course, parking lot, or other "higher use" where mountain used to stand. (Cost to communities: Unquantifiable.)

Replace workers; hang out to dry. (Cost to workers: Over 25 years in WV, as coal production grew 75%, jobs were cut in half, and less of them were union.)

Neglect to clean up or care for victims. (Cost to Appalachia: From 3,975 to 10,923 "excess annual age-adjusted deaths in coal mining areas" -- every year -- according to a recent study published in Public Health Reports.)

All you need to blow up a mountain these days is an EPA permit, a handful of nonunion workers, and massive quantities of explosives (around 4 million pounds a day). Use of mountaintop removal has exploded since 2002, when the Bush administration began changing the wording of exemptions to a rule requiring stream buffer zones.

This administrative sleight of hand, undertaken directly on behalf of the coal companies, allowed them to begin depositing all the waste from the coal mining process in streambeds and waterways and to continue what author Jim Biggers has called "one of the largest displacements of U.S. citizens since the nineteenth century."

Many of these folks looked to President Obama for a new era in Appalachia. But instead, as they've seen over at Coal River Mountain, it looks remarkably like business as usual.

While the Obama administration has expressed its intent to regulate mountaintop removal -- and the EPA is taking a closer look at 79 pending mountaintop removal permits -- it has done nothing on the ground to put a halt to the work of the draglifts and the dynamite.

Last month, the Department of the Interior announced its decision to put off any changes to the Bush rules until 2011 -- at the earliest.

And an original draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed in the House in June was, according to Rep. Henry Waxman himself, based on a blueprint from the Climate Action Partnership, an industry group that includes Duke Energy and other coal companies. The loopholes are vast--as vast as the Coal Lobby's spending this year.

The "clean coal" lobby is playing as dirty as ever, not unlike other "clean energy lobbies." The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity has a budget of over $45 million, according to a report from the Center for Public Integrity, and its PACs and employees made $15.6 million in campaign contributions in 2008 (extending their generosity to McCain, Obama, and 87 percent of Congress).

In a classic case of astroturfing, a contractor for the coalition sent 14 forged letters purporting to be from members of the NAACP and Creciendo Juntos, a Latino community group, to members of Congress arguing against new regulations.

But even new regulations are not enough. While Congress fiddles, the heritage of Appalachia is going up in smoke. Whatever hope there is now rests with the growing ranks of the bluegrassroots movement to ban mountaintop removal once and for all -- and replace it with green jobs, clean energy, and an economy that doesn't blow up but builds up.

In the land of black lung, a green heart beats.

And green looks a little different from here than it does from Washington, DC or Wall Street. Here, green has long been a way of life. The deep green of the mountains and the valleys, the "cricks" and the "hollers." The fiddler's green of an old-timey song or a story of hardbitten everyday heroes born of the blackened belly of these mountains.

Once upon a time in Appalachia, these folks' grandfathers moved mountains for pennies -- their grandmothers, too, for less -- working for these very same coal companies. From the Battle of Blair Mountain, WV to Bloody Harlan County, KY, they fought and died so that their own children might live a better life on this once-green land.

Now, the onetime movers of mountains are mounting a movement, together with the children of another America, to keep those mountains where they belong.

And they, like the mountains, aren't going down easy.

B.D. Gallof: NHLPA: So What Is the Rumpus and Why is It Important?

2009-11-02T09:07:36Z

In a
large woods of tall trees, another poor soul is on his knees, crying
for his life. A dark figure stands in the killing posture, poised.

No, this isn't the Coen Brothers gem of a movie, Miller's Crossing. This is what has been happening to heads of the NHL's Player Association ever since Bob Goodenow stepped down after the NHLPA bowed to the pressure of a NHL owner run lockout that canceled the 2004 and 2005 hockey season.

"Nobody knows anybody. Not that well." - Tom Reagan, Miller's Crossing

Ever since then, player solidarity and vision has been splintered as
the head of the NHLPA has become like the drummer to Spinal Tap.

And beneath the surface lies a Dashiell Hammet-like caper that is
vying to hammer out a battle to different gangs... The old guard and
the new class of players. Behind both are player agents who are tied to
player rights and contract values like Ahab to the White Whale.

So the lay of the land is tremendously unsettled, and games are
played by both sides in what is a tug of war that seems to get top
brass of the NHLPA effectively shot in the woods.

Perhaps the only thing missing in all this is the troublesome dame who has emeshed them all deep within a woven web.

Our tale begins as all do, noir style, as bodies fall without much
clarity as to why. Those following these goings on the usual mainstream
of blog venues are getting their information in drips and drabs, but
nothing seems very clear.

In fact the more we seem to know, the more confusing it seems to get.

Is this the new NHLPA designated meeting place these days?

There was a complaint that ran through the din
the other day of why was all this NHLPA rumpus important or even a main
news story. This portends for an entire league, as there are
severe undercurrents that will either lead to a bloody work stoppage,
or just a scattered mess of players under the NHL owner's foot.

You say you don't care?

You will when there is another canceled season, ladies and gents.

This is why many journalists and bloggers have been following these goings on with some concern.

For those
who aren't privy to the shenanigans, basically, the NHLPA has been about
as steady as Michael J. Fox using a jackhammer. Or for those squeamish,
Andre Agassi after a few cans of 'special' JOLT. Or for even more
squeamish, how about any of the Toronto Maple Leaf goalies? There you go.

Basically, the inmates have done more than just run the asylum. The players have taken out the heads of the NHLPA as if this is Survivor, but with Don Cherry instead of the affable host Jeff Probst.

Infighting,
politicking, backstabbing, tattling, you name it...it has happened with
the NHLPA in the last few years, ever since they bowed to the NHL in
the last CBA. So, one would think they rallied and reorganized? Far
from it. The politics underneath and subsequent drama mean quite a bit
to what amounts to several car wrecks before a looming CBA where two
sides must hash out differences under that bargaining agreement. Add in
it might be very likely that a recession is still affecting things,
make the future even more murky.

Thus, the
ripples of what is a floundering NHLPA will have effects to their own
strength and positioning when it is high noon. Just as a NHL who had a
fiasco in Phoenix as a rogue came in and tried to move them and showed
flaws in their own armor which has a few more dents like a non-espn
agreement, US clubs in trouble, last few expansion teams in the red,
and a few fiascoes like Boots and other embarrassments.

To act like these aren't important or have effect on what might transpire is almost being willingly obtuse.

Furthermore,
the politics beneath the mechanics might be more than even it seems to
the naked eye. There might be a battle going on of new players and old
with a few agents thrown in pivoting and entrenched on either side.

If
there is one person smack dab in the middle of things of all the goings
on, it is a player who is not even paying union dues this year as he
sits in the AHL hoping a team signs him at the ripe age of 47 years
old. Chris Chelios made it his business to topple Ted Saskin back in 2007. He accused player agent Don Meehan of undermining the NHLPA back then as well. Chelios, in fact, has a large part to play in the propping up Paul Kelly as NHLPA head when he had an executive search firm headed by his old buddy, former Flyer's Captain, Dave Poulin.

Then out
went Kelly, taken out by the very rules that Chelios and others
ratified, but by a new class of players. Those who helped topple Kelly
were of the new school of players who took exception at Kelly's attempt
to find out what players were saying about him in meetings and an internal audit of players spending.

: "Now, if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust?"

Then, suddenly, post-coup, Chelios and others were front and center. Ian Penny,
who was someone who had blood on his hands getting Kelly removed, was
now in charge as players began to try to investigate on what exactly
transpired.

Chelios
was part of a committee of vets that were mandated to look into it.
Instead, they, led by Chelios and per sources and even Steve Larmer,
his former teammate declared that they, "exceeded their mandate". Steve then did what many others have been doing like lemmings going over a cliff: resigning.

Exceeding
the mandate seems almost an understatement as Chelios, per Ian Penny's
letter of resignation, describing the AHL defenseman as almost a
cloddish overwrought Phillip Marlowe on steroids. Chelios was purposely
strong-arming his way on a mission, using someone from the NHLPA's offices to feed
him information, to make the current structure implode on its own
volition.

Chelios rode in with some leeway to investigate, seemed to
carry a Bazooka of a gun and an axe to grind, and never seemed to investigate
anything at all. Just clean house.

His actions
attempted to hamstring the current actions of the NHLPA brass, trying
to make them not talk to one another. Nowhere through all this did
this committee seem to actually do what it was created to do in the
first place: investigate.

Instead, Mike Ouellet will be acting Executive Director, and the old guard now leads again.
Sources cite that Ouellet was the person feeding Chelios piecemeal of
every NHLPA email, phone call and meeting information, as Chelios was
cowboying his way to clean house.

Some
say this 'cleaning of house' needed to happen. Yet this is the third
sweeping post-CBA. The old guard is now back in charge. To say that somehow things are solved or cleaned-up are far
from accurate. If anything it seerms even more unsettled. Players and agents seem split on the goings-on,
and solidarity seems hard to find.

Some feel that Chelios needs
to get out of the way, besides retire at the overripe age of 47, so that newer players can put
forth their own identity and create some balance. The fact that several
agents sit on different sides of all this might be the most dangerous
thing of all, as they speak in many a players ear devisively.

It simply cannot be over with all these cooks seem to have a stick....errr...spoon in the stew. In fact, do not be surprised to what happens next in this sordid tale of bloody mayhem in the land of hockey and a union in deep trouble.

: Chelios, you know the commissioner...

Jamie Starr: On National Weatherization Day, a New Bunch of Skilled Denver Workers Pioneer National Green Jobs Movement

2009-10-30T16:21:19Z

Public perception of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) seems to be that it's sort of enigmatic; people aren't quite sure what's happening with all of that money. There are some new infrastructure projects popping up here and there (with accompanying signs denoting a relation to the ARRA), but a great deal of activity goes on behind the scenes -- away from the public eye. We need the economic stimulus to ignite more visible, community based initiatives like the Laborers' International Union of North America's (LIUNA's) weatherization training program.

Today in Brighton, I watched LIUNA graduate its first group of skilled and certified Denver-area weatherization workers, in what is a monumental first step toward a nationwide movement to teach, credential, and employ workers in the weatherization trade (a.k.a. making people's homes more energy efficient). It was a fitting ceremony, considering that today, October 30th, is National Weatherization Day (betcha didn't know that). LIUNA's program is geared to kill two birds with one stone. By training, and then employing workers to retrofit the millions poorly insulated American homes -- which cost the average family hundreds of extra dollars each year, and substantially increase our aggregate carbon emissions -- unemployed people gain jobs, and in the process, we lessen our dependence on dirty (and war-causing) sources of energy (it's estimated that for each home we weatherize, we save the energy equivalent of more than five barrels of oil each year, most of which comes from the Middle East at present).

Once rolled out, LIUNA's training program could create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, reduce household energy costs by $3.5 billion per year, and save the equivalent of 500 million barrels of oil annually. Those impressive (albeit aspirational) figures aside, the most valuable aspect of the program -- to me -- is that it's working from the inside, out; it's empowering jobless people within individual communities by teaching them a valuable skill-set that will enable them to support their families through fulfilling careers.

Some background on this topic: The ARRA invested $5 billion to expand the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program and meet the Obama Administration's goal of weatherizing one million homes each year. This is a nearly 10-fold increase in the amount typically invested in weatherizing poorly insulated homes, but it is still not enough to fix all of the nation's energy inefficient homes. DOE recently announced that it will be allocating over $400 million in competitive energy efficiency grants, which could help fund weatherization projects in cities like Denver and around the country. LIUNA is working with partners, such as the Sierra Club, Change to Win, Clean Economy Network, and FRESC to help close the remaining weatherization investment gap and identify ways to ramp up both public and private investment in America's weatherization industry, including "pay-as-you-save" models, utility partnerships, bonds and pension fund investments.

Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Don Mares, congratulates the first group of LIUNA weatherization program graduates.

Richard Trumka: Showdown in Chicago

2009-10-22T13:44:00Z

I'm going to Chicago next week for the American Bankers Association meeting. Oddly, I haven't been invited to the Roaring '20's dance party I hear they're having.

Why wouldn't they celebrate the era of wild money and hot times (which slid into the Great Depression)? After all, the bankers are doing well these days.

They're doing well because after financial institutions caused the global economic crisis, we bailed them out, to the tune of some $700 billion.

Now they're in good enough shape to pay the suits $7 billion in bonuses for driving working families and our economy to our knees -- to the verge of a second full-fledged depression.

Things might be turning around for the bankers, but for the rest of us, unemployment heads toward 10 percent and home foreclosures continue to devastate families and communities. Working families have lost health care, pensions and savings--and in exchange we've gotten predatory lending, outrageous overdraft fees and sky-high credit card interest rates.

Meanwhile, the bankers are doing the Charleston, taking taxpayer money, handing out bonuses for disastrous failure, becoming profitable without lending money that could put people back to work -- and spending billions lobbying Congress to kill financial reform.

Shameless. Absolutely shameless.

On Tuesday, about 5,000 of us will be in Chicago to tell them what we think.

It's called the Showdown in Chicago. We're gathering outside the American Bankers Association meeting to demand financial reform and re-regulation that will allow us to rebuild our communities, our lives and the real economy.

We've got a lot to rebuild.

For decades, these bankers have been dealing to each other in what amounts to their own private casino, inventing more and more exotic financial vehicles together and basically regulating themselves. Their Wild West capitalism allowed them to take outsized risk with no oversight and then come hat in hand to the American taxpayers when their house of cards collapsed.

They've become a menace. No one is safe while their private casino bankrupts the real economy and ignores necessary investments in jobs, health care and retirement without oversight or regulation.

This is a complicated topic, but we can break down a plan for reform into four basic needs.

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) that President Obama has proposed. This agency would protect the public against credit card and mortgage rip-offs. The agencies that were supposed to protect us from financial meltdown failed. The CFPA would place consumer protection authority in the hands of a single agency that would monitor banks and other institutions and their credit products like mortgages and credit cards -- but not your butcher, as a ridiculous over-the-top ad by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce claimed.
A council of regulators to identify and fix systemic risks that could threaten the entire financial system -- risks such as institutions becoming "too big to fail," too complex or too interconnected. When the government intervenes, the purpose has to be to protect the public, not just rescue executives and rich investors. The past year has proven that the Federal Reserve Board is just too close to the banks. We need either to reform and democratize the Fed or to give this job to a true public agency. Let's do it right.
Bring the "shadow markets" into the daylight. Most people probably don't really know what hedge funds, private equity funds and derivatives are or do. You're not supposed to -- it makes them easy to manipulate. They've been unregulated and totally lacking in transparency. These vehicles need serious regulation and oversight before they suck more money into the black hole of convoluted transactions.
Reform corporate governance and CEO compensation to protect the interests of long-term investors -- people saving for retirement, not speculating.

It's time we hold banks and other financial institutions accountable for making this mess that required trillions of our dollars to clean up.

It's time to hold them accountable for the pain they've inflicted on working families.

It's time to put them back to work for working people, supporting families and jobs.

I've been spending a lot of time on Capitol Hill, calling for reform in meetings with committee chairs and other members of Congress. And everywhere I go, financial industry lobbyists are there, pushing back all out to block reform.

Congress is deciding right now how it will shape financial reform -- we need congressional support and intense presidential leadership.

Call your members of Congress. They're sure hearing from front groups for the banks. They need to hear from you, too. Tell them to produce a financial system that isn't set up to reward big banks at the expense of everyone else. The money has to start flowing to regular people and businesses that can create jobs.

And if you're in Chicago on Tuesday, join me. We'll meet up at 10:30 a.m. at Wacker Drive and Michigan Avenue to march to the Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers where the bankers are meeting.

See you at the Showdown.

Are you going to be attending the protests? Consider covering the protests as a citizen journalist for the HuffPost. You can sign up here.

Nick Jefferson: Saying "No" to Democracy

2009-10-20T14:48:13Z

"This is about a culture of management that seems to think in a democracy that the workforce have to do just what they're told."

This happens to have been said by Billy Hayes, the General Secretary of the UK's Communication Workers Union, currently at loggerheads with the management of Royal Mail about the very future of the mail delivery industry, in a dispute which could easily become a key barometer of the state of global industrial relations in the 21st century.

But Mr. Hayes is by no means unique in this view.

More to the point, this view is by no means unique even to union officials or aggrieved workers: I have heard senior managers within organizations all over the world say pretty much the same thing.

Which is, of course, surprising, to say the least.

Why would anyone take such a line?

Because if one takes this argument to its logical extreme, disaster necessarily awaits.

Manifestly, not everyone in an organization will agree. This is particularly likely to be the case where the short term interests of staff are endangered by a course of action that is right for the long term interests of the organisation, as is the case with Britain's Royal Mail.

If, as the Hayes line requires, we make majority agreement -- or democracy -- a condition precedent of key management decisions, deadlock, stagnation and ultimately terminal decline ensue.

This is no idle conjecture, and it certainly isn't a political point. It is a simple reflection of reality, and something that I have seen with my own eyes, over and again, across the globe.

When organizations start to place such a high premium on consensus in decision-making, they start to fail.

Given that neither workers nor management want to see organizational failure, why is the Hayes line so earnestly pursued?

Unions and their leaders have short term political considerations, of course. So too, arguably, do managers. But the real issue here is a deeply entrenched, and terribly well-intentioned, confusion.

Throughout the 20th century, people in organizations quite properly started to say "hang on a minute, this top-down, autocratic 'you will do this when I tell you' culture is no longer appropriate; as managers we should be more consultative and involve our people more, not least because they might have some useful things to say".

Spot on. You tend to get more productive organizations if everyone is allowed to contribute fully.

The difficulty is that that people have confused "consultation" -- let's hear what our people have to say and then make a decision which may or may not accord with their thinking -- with "consensus", ie. let's ask our people what they think and then all make this decision together.

In my experience, the tendency for managers to want to see the latter can be overwhelming. This is doubly so, perhaps understandably, in those organizations which have a history of punitive, thoughtless management and are desperate to show that they "have changed".

The problem is, they have changed too much. The pendulum has swung too far the other way, and the cult of uber-consensualism has emerged as an insidious force inside too many organizations.

Because -- somewhat counter-intuitively -- democracy, in the sense that we know and cherish it politically, does not in fact make for better organizations.

It kills them.

Bruce Raynor: Upcoming HBO Documentary Views Economic Crisis Through a New Lens

2009-10-15T23:44:10Z

In New York City, the garment industry has long been known as the "schmatta" trade. Schmatta is Yiddish for "rag", and that little piece of jargon speaks volumes about the history and traditions of the industry, New York City and working class people in this country. Even after 35 years of helping workers in the garment industry, I never could have imagined that a documentary would be made with the title "Schmatta." But award-winning director Marc Levin and the folks at HBO have done just that. In doing so, they tell the story of the New York City Garment District.

Work in the garment industry once constituted the largest job sector in the city. You couldn't walk down the sidewalk in the Garment District without risking getting run over by a rolling rack of dresses or suits. The garment jobs - union jobs - lifted people up, put a decent wage in their pockets, and created tremendous wealth for New York City. The strong garment worker unions fought to reform a system that was unjust and dangerous. The unions built housing for workers and even formed a bank.

Schmatta: From Rags to Riches to Rags (debuting on HBO on October 19th at 9:00), looks at the Garment District as a microcosm of the larger economic crisis impacting the U.S. and the world. It includes interviews with pattern makers, designers, fashion executives - as well as Joe Raico, a garment cutter and President of Workers United Local 10, and me.

Schmatta details the tragic Triangle Shirtwaist Fire of 1911 and the massive response by working people to form unions and to make their factories safe. The fire, and the horrific working conditions across the industry, created a movement among people who were new to this country, but profoundly familiar with the power Americans have to create change. The film pulls back the curtain on the glamorous and decadent world of fashion and reveals the stories of workers. It talks about the immigrants, initially Jewish and Italian, and later Latin American and Chinese, who beat a path into the middle-class through the Garment District. They fought to make their lives and the lives of their children better. And now so many of our country's leaders in science, law, education, politics and other fields are just one generation out of the garment shops.

Garment workers won safer workplaces, better hours, wages, and benefits for themselves, but they also became a critical voice in the national push for reforms like Social Security and later civil rights. Their pride in both their craft and in their role as agents of change - represented by the Union Label - extended beyond the district to an activism that helped improve the lives of the poor and the middle-class.

Schmatta also depicts the factors that led to the off-shoring of nearly all domestic garment manufacturing and significant portions of other manufacturing sectors - the rise of deregulation, the attacks on workers that were emboldened by President Reagan's breaking of the air traffic controllers strike in 1981, and job-killing trade agreements including NAFTA.

While it's true that the loss of so many jobs has been devastating for American workers, there is a great deal of good that can come from a documentary that helps advance a dialogue about many critical issues in our country today.

The trend of manufacturing jobs moving overseas, whether it's clothing or cars, is unacceptable. We cannot become a country that no longer makes any of the products we buy. We must continue to fight against trade deals that hurt the American worker. Join us in taking action here.

The contribution of immigrants to the U.S. is undeniable. It is the story of this country's success. We must continue to work for real immigration reform. (Take action here).

Sweatshop conditions still exist, both domestically and around the globe. Workers suffer everyday in unsafe workplaces that threaten their safety and, indeed, their lives. We must continue the global fight against sweatshops.

Finally, it has been the right to organize that has enabled workers to lift themselves up out of poverty, put food on the table, and send their children to college. We must put real power to organize in the hands of workers by passing the Employee Free Choice Act. (Take Action here).

Anyone who cares about maintaining and growing the middle-class in this country should watch Schmatta on October 19th. The film tells a storied history and raises questions that are central to the future of the American Dream.

Richard Trumka: The Chamber of Commerce's Jobs Deception Campaign

2009-10-14T14:54:20Z

Unions are popularly known as "the folks who brought you the weekend." In contrast, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has the distinction of trying to take away the weekend--along with overtime pay, the minimum wage, Buy America rules, workers' freedom to form unions, child labor standards....The list is long and ugly.

So it's farcical that today the Chamber launched a campaign estimated to run in the tens of millions of dollars to promote job creation.

The Chamber's campaign originally started out as an attack against financial regulation--until the Chamber found out how strongly U.S. taxpayers support reining in Big Banks and the financial industry's widespread shady practices. So the Chamber conveniently changed the packaging to purportedly focus on jobs, which in fact the American people desperately need.

Look at who accompanied the Chamber suits while they were announcing their Orweillian-named "free enterprise campaign." As Sam Stein reported here:

Many of the individuals featured on Wednesday are long-standing donors to Republican candidates and groups that have fought efforts to enhance regulation. And, in one case, the business leader appearing alongside [Thomas] Donohue to decry the interference of government in the market place received business through the benefit of government contracts.

Yet, while millions of America's workers struggle to find jobs in an economy where there are more than six workers searching for every one job, the Chamber repeatedly opposed extending unemployment insurance. Can't have government interference in the marketplace, after all. Or aid to jobless workers. The same workers the Chamber's smoke-and-mirrors campaign is supposed to be all about.

The Chamber also is joining with Big Banks and financial giants to try and kill a proposed agency that would protect U.S. consumers from being preyed upon by unscrupulous banks, mortgage lenders and many of the same financial institutions that helped create our nation's economic disaster. The Obama administration's proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which this week is being considered in the House Financial Services Committee, would regulate products such as credit cards and home loans, while ensuring the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission oversaw the $450 trillion "derivatives" market that sunk the world economy.

The Chamber is spending $2 million in attack ads, claiming that the new agency would hamstring even your local butcher from extending you credit for a week. It's the same sorry effort at deception and outright lies that the health insurance industry now is trying to pull in the debate over health care reform. Tell enough lies and hope someone believes you.

As President Obama said in response to the Chamber's distortion:

"We've made clear that only businesses that offer financial services would be affected by this agency. I don't know how many of your butchers are offering financial services," Obama said to laughter.

The Chamber is so twisted up in deception it seems unable to even provide accurate membership numbers. Writing in Mother Jones this week, David Corn points to a big discrepancy between the Chamber's public membership numbers and reality.

In testimony before Congress, statements to the press, and on its website, the Chamber claims to represent "3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions." In reality, the number is probably closer to 200,000.

Not sure if the 200,000 includes Apple Inc., Pacific Gas & Electric and the other giant corporations that recently have pulled their membership from the Chamber because of its draconian stand on climate change.

The Chamber's so-called "free enterprise" campaign has been tried before. After World War II, the National Association of Manufacturers led a similar such effort. That campaign to sell capitalism to U.S. consumers incurred the derision of no less than the editors of Fortune magazine, who found similar sentiments among business executives represented on the boards of the business associations that supposedly represented them.

In dismissing the campaign as ludicrous, one such executive described it this way:

The best way we can demonstrate the importance of Free Enterprise is to make it work.

It's clearly not working now. And although the Chamber may try to wrap itself in the shiny trappings of a feel-good campaign, its repeated attacks on consumers and workers demonstrate who the Chamber stands for: Wall Street not Main Street.

Employers Cut Pay, Hours For Those Still On The Job

2009-10-13T23:21:24Z

In recent decades, layoffs were the standard procedure for shrinking labor costs. Reducing the wages of those who remained on the job was considered demoralizing and risky: the best workers would jump to another employer. But now pay cuts, sometimes the result of downgrades in rank or shortened workweeks, are occurring more frequently than at any time since the Great Depression.

Arlene Holt Baker: Women and People of Color Down for the Count in Jobless Recovery

2009-10-13T12:17:08Z

A close look at the unemployment figures shows that while white males are taking it on the chin in this recession, women and people of color are down for the count.

Although, in this recession, unemployment is rising faster for whites than for African Americans, the fact is that the jobless rate for minorities is still significantly higher than that of whites and has been for a long time. And with this recession looking to be long and deep, these higher rates of unemployment could have dramatic consequences for economic security, homeownership and child poverty rates, among other things.

Testifying last month before a U.S. House committee, Algernon Austin, director of the Program on Race, Ethnicity and the Economy at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), pointed out that in this recession, America's racial and ethnic minorities are hurting more than the average worker.

For example, in September 2009, the white unemployment rate reached a high of 9 percent. However, the African American unemployment rate was more than 70 percent higher--15.4 percent.

For the 11 months prior to the start of the recession in December 2007, black workers' unemployment rate averaged 8.2 percent. It was not until April of this year that the white jobless rate reached 8 percent.

Even in "good" economic times, minority communities suffer from rates of unemployment that are often double those of white workers.

At the same time, Hispanic Americans have experienced the greatest percentage increase in their unemployment rate. The Hispanic unemployment rate was 6.2 percent in December 2007. It more than doubled to reach 12.7 percent in September of this year.

When you factor in workers who are not counted in the official unemployment figures because they are too discouraged to look for work, the numbers go even higher--reaching 20.9 percent for African American males, 14.7 percent for Hispanic males and 11.8 percent for white males in 2007, according to Austin's analysis.

Add in the underemployment rate of workers who would like to work full-time but only have part-time work and the picture gets even bleaker. Nearly one in four Hispanics (23.8 percent) and African Americans (23.4 percent) are unemployed or underemployed.

The prospects for young workers of color are even worse. Just 10 years ago, 60 percent of 16-24-year-olds had a job. Today, just 48 percent do, the lowest rate of young worker employment since World War II. Young workers are nearly twice as likely to be unemployed as the overall population--18 percent, compared with the overall unemployment rate of 9.8 percent. The jobless rate soars to 27.3 percent for young African American workers and 21.3 percent for young Hispanic workers.

For women, who actually have a lower jobless rate than men, the official numbers don't tell the full story. Working women also have been hurt by manufacturing job loss during this recession. The impact is often worse for women because many are single parents.

A new report by the public policy research group Demos shows when women lose manufacturing jobs, they rarely manage to get back into jobs with similar pay or benefits.

One reason women workers are so adversely affected by manufacturing job loss is that they are concentrated in industries that have been drastically affected by the surge in cheap imports over the past decade, such as textiles, apparel and leather. Women make up more than 50 percent of the total workforce in these industries. Faced with high levels of foreign competition, these jobs have had high levels of trade-related job displacement.

The authors estimate the industries with the highest percentage of women workers lost nearly 500,000 jobs between 1999 and 2008. And when women do get new jobs, they still are hurting because they get paid less. Women are still paid only 77 cents to every dollar paid to a man, and with the price of everyday necessities going up, women who support families are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.

Lisa Belkin, writing in the New York Times, says women also are concentrated in lower-paying industries, like health care and education, where there have been fewer layoffs, rather than in higher-paying realms, like finance, construction and manufacturing, which have contracted.

This economic crisis is a jobs crisis, and there can be no strong and sustainable recovery until employment begins to grow. The Obama administration's aggressive actions have clearly brought us "back from the brink" of what might have been a second Great Depression, but we will need a lot more sustained and expanded fiscal stimulus and direct job creation if we are to see a robust recovery.

The Obama administration and Congress should continue to extend unemployment benefits and bolster aid to budget-constrained states and cities. Further, the administration must speed public investment in education and training, repairing our nation's deteriorating infrastructure and building a greener economy.

Working Americans, male and female, of all races and ethnicities, also need the Employee Free Choice Act to ensure that when our economy rebounds women and people of color will be able to share in the recovery.

Bus Service Slowdown: Contract Feud Between MTA And Transit Workers Could Lead To Commute Problems

2009-10-09T08:21:27Z

Straphangers beware: your commute could take longer next Wednesday because of the simmering contract dispute between transit workers and the MTA.

A text message urging bus drivers to "slow it down" during a "day of outrage" circulated among drivers in at least four depots on Thursday.

Brendan Smith: World Leaders Fiddle While the World Burns: Time for a New Climate Strategy

2009-10-06T18:42:44Z

Obama's climate czar Carol Browner said last week there will be no U.S. climate protection legislation before the Copenhagen conference and that she doesn't know if a global agreement on binding cuts in greenhouse gas emissions can be made in Copenhagen. She added that she had hope for progress because the world's top leaders recognize global warming is a problem.

As the torturous Copenhagen negotiations and the already-inadequate U.S. climate protection legislation falter, the earth is being imperiled by a failure of its political systems. We know what needs to be done to halt global warming; we have the technology and resources to halt it; we know the consequences of not doing what we know must be done. If the "world's top leaders" recognize that "global warming is a problem" and do nothing about it, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

While the earth burns, the "world's top leaders" are standing around pointing the finger at each other like a bunch of arsonists trying to distract the world's attention from their handiwork. The U.S. attacks China for its growing carbon emissions. China, backed by 130 other third world countries, justly attacks the developed countries for their failure to take responsibility for their damage to the planet's atmosphere -- but then continue their plans to build new climate-destroying coal-fired power plants week by week. The EU piously condemns the U.S. position, but doesn't care enough to take the Americans on.

The failure of current climate protection strategies tells us that the current strategy of lobbying governments to fix global warming will not work.

In the past, the failure of establishments to solve problems that they and their people recognize has often led to the emergence of radical movements demanding real change. Remember, for example, how betrayed government promises for racial equality and nuclear disarmament helped spawn the civil rights, ban-the-bomb, and new left movements of the 1960s.

The complicity of governments and the corporations and investors for whom they are so often speaking to halt the destruction of our biosphere may similarly help spawn a new climate protection movement: a convergence of those in the environmental, labor, food, globalization, anti-poverty, peace, student, and other movements who grasp urgency and believe radical action as the only way forward.

We have learned a great deal more about the science of climate change and what must be done to halt it. But we have barely begun to discuss what kind of political change is necessary to do what must be done. Here are some principles to discuss for an alternative climate protection strategy:

1. Existing institutions, specifically states and markets, have decisively proven themselves unable to halt the plunge toward destruction of the biosphere.

2. National and world political systems are as dysfunctional for survival today as feudal principalities were for protecting their people in the face of capitalism and the modern nation state.

3. States are not legitimate if they allow their terrain or their institutions to be used to destroy the global environment. They have no right to govern. They are climate outlaws whose authority it is not only our right but our obligation to challenge.

4. Property rights are not legitimate if property is used to destroy the global environment. Corporations that emit greenhouse gases have no right to their property. They too are climate outlaws whose possessions it is not only our right but our obligation to challenge.

5. A climate protection movement must be conceived, not as governments agreeing to climate protection measures, but as people imposing rules on states, markets, and other institutions. We can begin to apply these rules locally by direct action wherever we are; we can support each others' action around the globe; and we can support the right of all the world's people to monitor and halt climate destroying emissions.

6. The legitimation for policy and action must be global necessity, not just national or other limited interest.

7. The blockades of coal facilities by direct action that have recently emerged in countries around the world form a brilliant beginning to this process. A new climate movement must expand that effort to impose climate protection rules by direct action.

8. Governments, corporations, and other institutions that threaten the survival of the planet should be subject to global popular boycotts and sanctions.

9. National and international economic policies must be redesigned to maximize global resources going to climate protection, rather than competing over the location of "green" production.

We need to make true for climate protection what President Dwight D. Eisenhower said about peace: "I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it." Popular demand forced competing governments to agree to a nuclear test ban treaty. Today global popular demand for climate protection should utilize the same dynamic to tell governments and corporations that they will be regarded as nothing but outlaws if the continue to destroy the earth's environment.

Drafted with Jeremy Brecher and Tim Costello.

Brendan Smith: Unions Need to Sever All Ties with Anti-Climate Bill Groups

2009-10-02T12:23:49Z

Under escalating pressure from activists, Nike, the utility giant Pacific Gas & Electric Company, and others have publicly resigned from the US Chamber of Commerce over its opposition to climate protection policies. It's time for labor unions to follow suit by cutting all ties with groups opposing climate legislation like the Chamber-funded Energy Citizen's Alliance.

The AFL-CIO's newly elected president Richard Trumka recently told an audience at the "Jobs, Justice, and Climate" conference: "The AFL-CIO and all the unions in North America are strongly on board the global campaign to reduce carbon emissions and stabilize climate change. Working together with environmental organizations we hope to reverse practices that put our very survival at risk."

So why have some labor unions thrown their support behind the Energy Citizens Alliance, a nationwide front-group lobbying against climate mitigation legislation and funded by the likes of the Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute?

According to Energy Citizen's website, the group's objective is to force "Congress to reject climate change policies that could raise energy costs and eliminate American jobs." They opposed the Waxman-Markey climate bill and are now furiously lobbying against the Senate version, claiming it will have "negative effects for families, small businesses, farmers and truckers--but the fact remains that all Americans that drive or fly will feel the impact."

Besides the Chamber and API, the alliance's membership includes Laborers' Local 341, Building and Construction Trades Council of South Central Alaska, and the Pipefitters' United Association Local 375. The rest of the membership reads like a "who's who" of the most anti-union and anti-environmental lobbies in the country, including: the National Association of Manufactures, Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, and the American Conservative Union.

Even worse, at least one AFL-CIO state president has become a spokesman for the alliance. At a recent Energy Citizens rally in Alaska, organized to demand that "Senators Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski to reject costly climate change policies", Vince Beltrami, president of the Alaska AFL-CIO, warned the crowd that one-third of Alaska's workers owe their jobs to the oil industry, and that climate legislation "will cost jobs in the long term." Energy Citizens is sponsoring 20 similar rallies around the country to aid efforts to defeat any and all climate legislation.

The AFL-CIO and their affiliates have come a long way on climate change. They opposed Kyoto Protocol in 1990's, despite the fact that unions from Europe, Canada and elsewhere supported it. Fortunately that started to change at the end of 2006 when the AFL-CIO formed a new Energy Task Force and began to engage with the issue in new ways. Its 2007 report, Jobs and Energy for the 21st Century, acknowledged that "human use of fossil fuels is undisputedly contributing to global warming, causing rising sea levels, changes in climate patterns and threats to coastal regions."

More recently labor and environmental coalitions such as the Blue Green Alliance and the Apollo Alliance have dedicated significant resources to fighting for green jobs and climate mitigation policies. The AFL-CIO sent member delegations to Bali and other international climate change convening. And the AFL-CIO supported the Waxman-Markey climate bill.

That's why labor affiliates joining forces with the Chamber of Commerce to support astro-turf groups like Energy Citizens is so disturbing. According to a recent editorial by the NYT, "no organization in this country has done more to undermine" climate legislation than the Chamber of Commerce. This is the same organization that recently called for a "Scopes monkey trial" questioning the science behind the EPA's preliminary finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health.

At every turn, labor is advocating for the creation of millions of "green jobs." The AFL-CIO recently opened a new Center for Green Jobs at the National Labor College and unions fought hard to secure federal funds for green job creation in the House and Senate climate bills. At last month's AFL-CIO convention, even Energy Citizen ally Vince Beltrami publicly endorsed Resolution 10 entitled "Creating and Retaining Sustainable Good Green Jobs." So why are these same union officials trying to see that those jobs are never created?

What's even more frustrating is that the Energy Citizen's Alliance membership is composed of the very corporate lobbies that have led the charge against labor's number one legislative priority: The Employee Free Choice Act. How can labor ask environmental groups to support their legislative priorities when some unions are working against the single most important environmental issue of our time

If PG&E and Nike can cut ties with the Chamber, isn't it time for labor to do the same?

Diane Tucker: Alert The TV News Media: Obamanomics Isn't Working

2009-10-02T09:22:52Z

According to government data released today, the unemployment rate rose to a 26-year high
of 9.8 percent in September as 263,000 more Americans lost their jobs. The last president to govern with such high unemployment was Ronald Reagan in 1982. Back then, the TV news media often aired footage that showed union leaders, the unemployed, and Democrats characterizing Reagan's economic policies as sadistic. Yet for some reason, in 2009 most TV news outlets are giving President Barack Obama a free pass on equally bleak numbers.

The Business and Media Institute just released a special report that exposes the double-standard in unemployment coverage. Here are some of the major findings:

In 1982, an overwhelming majority (91 percent) of stories mentioning the Reagan Administration were negative, while in 2009 only 7 percent of Obama Administration mentions were negative.

Unemployment stories in 1982 mentioned the Reagan administration 71 percent of the time, but unemployment stories in 2009 mentioned the Obama administration only 40 percent of the time.

Shame On You, Charles Gibson: The unemployment rate reached 9.4 percent under both Reagan and Obama. But ABC's Charles Gibson covered the identical rate very differently in 1982 and 2009. Gibson told viewers on May 7, 1982, "There really isn't any good news in the statistics. All the numbers are bad." But this year Gibson turned into an optimist, saying on August 7, 2009, that he hoped "the economy may be finally turning the corner."

Instead of using stimulus money to immediately create jobs for millions of unemployed Americans, Obama first gave our taxpayer dollars to the so-called "too big to fail" financial firms, a decision some are calling a bad precedent. It's hard to argue with business journalist John Cassidy, who had this to say in the New Yorker magazine this week:

Since the federal government has now demonstrated that it will do whatever is necessary to prevent the collapse of the largest financial firms, their top executives will have an even greater incentive to enter perilous lines of business. If things turn out well, they will receive big bonuses and the value of their stock options will increase. If things go wrong, the taxpayer will be left to pick up some of the tab.

Compare Obama's strategy to the approach of former president Franklin Roosevelt, who used taxpayer dollars to provide nearly 8 million jobs between 1935 and 1943. FDR's program, while not perfect, employed people to build public buildings, projects, and roads. The program fed children, and redistributed food, clothing and housing. Today almost every community in America has a park, bridge or school constructed by Americans working for FDR's new deal agency, the Work Projects Administration.

Naturally President Obama has agreed that job creation is "the single most important thing we can do," but talk is cheap. Obama predicted the stimulus plan would likely create three to four million jobs, but that hasn't happened yet. Today 15.1 million people are unemployed in the United States, and the number is still growing. Some 52 percent have exhausted state jobless benefits, and some are reaching the end of the makeshift strands of emergency extensions.

But, hey, no worries -- the President and First Lady are appearing on all the TV news broadcasts this week, super-excited about trying to lure the Olympics to Chicago.

Obamanomics isn't just jobless, it's heartless.

* * *

UPDATE 10.02.09 Despite President Obama's whirlwind trip to promote his adopted city, Chicago was eliminated in the first round of International Olympic Committee consideration today.

Meanwhile, upon hearing the grim unemployment numbers, Obama said simply, "We'll just have to grind it out." (Easy for him to say, he's got a job.)

UPDATE 10.03.09 "Wanted: Leadership on Jobs" says the NYTimes editorial staff.

UPDATE 10.04.09 "It's the Unemployment, Stupid" says Robert Kuttner, co-editor of the American Prospect.

UPDATE 10.05.09 "Does Obama Get It?" asks Bob Herbert, NYTimes op/ed columnist.

UPDATE 11.1.09 "Are 650,000 jobs enough?" asks Benjamin F. Carlson at the AtlanticWire.

Bennet gets seat on Senate health, education committee

2009-09-29T16:46:50Z

Colorado's U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet said Tuesday he has been chosen to serve on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, a panel that is playing a key role in the health-reform debate.

Frances Beinecke: The G20, Climate Talks, and Trade Measures: Keeping Jobs in America

2009-09-25T11:23:30Z

The G20 Summit has arrived in Pittsburgh on the heels of the Climate Summit in New York. These back-to-back meetings on the world's climate and the world's economy signify that protecting the planet has economic dimensions. So let's ask the question that's on many doubters' minds. Won't new climate legislation hurt American industry? Won't it send jobs overseas?

The answer is no, it won't.

The energy and climate bill the House passed in June was carefully designed to keep today's manufacturing jobs here in America and to grow millions of new ones. That is why it won the support of the United Steelworkers Union and other unions and of manufacturing giants such as Alcoa and DuPont.

These companies and unions recognize that the race to lead the global market for clean energy solutions has begun. If America wants to win that contest, we must make a national commitment to reducing carbon emissions, and we must invest heavily in the clean-energy technologies that will get us there.

This is the fastest, cleanest, most cost-effective way to reindustrialize America. It means millions of new, skilled and well-paying jobs.
At the same time that we launch this clean energy transformation, we need to make sure we don't inadvertently shift today's manufacturing production and emissions abroad. The House climate bill included two transitional measures to do just that.

1. Carbon Allowances for Steel and Other Energy-Intensive Industries
Companies that manufacture steel, cement, aluminum, or other energy-intensive products and compete heavily with imports are concerned that not only will they have to pay for the carbon pollution allowances they'll need under a climate bill, but then they fear they'll lose business to foreign suppliers from countries without carbon limits.

That's a legitimate concern. So as a transitional measure, while we work to ramp up climate protection measures in all countries, the House bill provides for these energy-intensive, trade-exposed manufacturers to get most of their carbon allocations for free. The total amount of free allowances for these industries is capped at 13.4 percent of the entire allowance pie, and it starts to phase out after the first 15 years.

The allowances are designed to neutralize any incentive for American customers to shift to imports, or for American producers to move offshore.

These free allowances are a temporary measure. They are designed to bridge the gap between when the United States passes carbon limits and when China, India, and other nations adopt sectoral caps or full national caps.

NRDC, along with leading labor unions and manufacturers, supports this approach. But some companies are are getting greedy, jockeying for even more free allowances--as much as 20 percent of allowance pie. It's not fair to over-compensate them, especially when the money comes out of someone else's pocket--the pool of money needed to help low income families or to fund clean tech research.

2. The Border Adjustment Starting in 2020
The House bill has a second measure to address these concerns: border adjustments. Border adjustments are another way to level the playing field between nations with carbon limits and those without. If someone wants to import steel into the U.S. from a nation that doesn't adequately control its carbon pollution, they would have to purchase carbon allowances at our border.

Because this approach could be inflammatory in both international trade circles and climate treaty talks, the House bill allows a decade, until 2020, before border adjustments would kick in.

The bill also guards against overkill by making sure that free allowances and border adjustments don't add up to more than what's needed to level the playing field. The President can dial back both the free allowances and the border adjustments as other countries step up their climate efforts.

If all goes well over the next decade, there might be no need for the border adjustments at all. But the tool will be there if necessary.

Positioning America to Lead the Clean Energy Market
If we use these two mechanisms correctly, America can seize the green energy opportunity--as well as hold our own in traditional manufacturing. We can even jump ahead of other nations and win a disproportionate share of the market. And in the process, we will create millions of jobs.

But if we go overboard, and permit companies to get free allowances that are worth more than their costs, we will be taking money away from efforts to help struggling families and pay for adaptation.

Instead, we should make sure that workers, manufacturers, and American families all get their fair share.

This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog.

Jonathan Handel: SAG Moderates Win Presidency, Secretary and Additional Seats

2009-09-24T23:03:50Z

In a victory for the SAG moderate coalition (Unite for Strength/USAN/independents), the UFS candidates for president, Ken Howard, and secretary, Amy Aquino, won the union's national offices.

However, the election was close: Howard's total was slightly less than the two hardline candidates added together (Anne-Marie Johnson and Seymour Cassel) and Aquino's was slightly more than that of incumbent Connie Stevens. So the union is still very divided, and Howard acknowledged that the results were not a landslide and that the union is very divided, while saying that he planned to reach out to MF supporters.

On the national board, the moderates showed strength as well: They picked up 4 of 11 seats in Hollywood and held all of the NY and regional (RBD) seats. I estimate that this brings the moderate's board majority to around 60%, vs. 40% for MF, but that's a very rough calculation and I'm not sure at this point.

On the Hollywood board, the results were more dramatic: 21 of 33 Hollywood board seats went to the moderates. Added to the 6 they (and independents) already control, that's 27 out of 55 - just shy of 50%.

UFS spokesman Ned Vaughn said he expected to see SAG and AFTRA jointly negotiating wih the studios next year. Howard said he'd reach out to AFTRA and the other guids. On the subject of merger with AFTRA, Howard disputed claims from 6 years ago that merger would hurt SAG members' pensions.

The challenge for the moderates is to build a record of accomplishment, hire David White on a permanent basis, build relations with AFTRA and other guilds/unions, pick up more seats in next years' July-Sept elections, then go into negotiations with the studios Oct. 1 (2010, i.e., next year). After that - work on merger. A tough road ahead.
--------------------------

SAG Press Release:

KEN HOWARD ELECTED AS SCREEN ACTORS GUILD PRESIDENT;
AMY AQUINO ELECTED AS SECRETARY-TREASURER

Guild Also Announces Results of National Board Elections

Los Angeles (September 24, 2009)--Screen Actors Guild today announced results of elections for its top two elected positions. Ken Howard will serve as Screen Actors Guild president and Amy Aquino will serve as secretary-treasurer. Both will serve two-year terms beginning September 25.

Ballots were mailed to 99,485 paid-up SAG members on August 25, and 27,295 were tabulated today, for a return of 27.44 percent. Presidential candidates Ken Howard received 12,895 votes, with Anne-Marie Johnson coming in second with 8,906 votes, Seymour Cassel got 4,838 votes, and Asmar Muhammad received 402 votes.

"I'd like to be among the first to extend my heartfelt congratulations to our newly elected Screen Actors Guild national leadership. I look forward to working closely with our new president, Ken Howard, and new secretary-treasurer, Amy Aquino, as we focus on the wide range of critical issues facing our members in the coming year," said SAG Interim National Executive Director David White. "I also extend my thanks, and the gratitude of SAG members and staff to Alan Rosenberg and Connie Stevens for their service and sacrifice on behalf of our union."

"I am deeply honored to be chosen by the membership to lead the Screen Actors Guild," said Ken Howard. "I campaigned on the promise that I'd do everything in my power to strengthen our position at the bargaining table by building a greater unity with AFTRA and the other entertainment unions, and that's exactly what I intend to do. Despite the sharp differences that those of us active in Guild affairs sometimes have over strategy and tactics, we need to continually remind ourselves that we're all on the same team, fighting for the same thing -- and by pulling together, we'll only grow stronger."

"I am truly honored that the members have entrusted me with this responsibility," said Amy Aquino. "Progress has already been made toward strengthening SAG's finances and I want to make sure it continues. Only by fortifying SAG in this way can we hope to ensure the protections that performers need in these challenging times."

Screen Actors Guild also announced election results for the National Board of Directors. Twenty-two of the 69 national board seats were open for election this year, representing Screen Actors Guild's Hollywood, New York and Regional Branch divisions.

"It is my privilege to welcome and congratulate our newly elected Screen Actors Guild National Board of Directors for 2009-2010," said White. "Along with our staff nationwide, I look forward to working with them to pursue a robust agenda as we navigate the Guild through these changing times."

The National Board members elected today will assume office on September 25 for terms of three years.

SAG's Hollywood Division elected eleven National Board members; the New York Division elected four National Board members; and seven National Board members were elected from the union's branches in Chicago, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Philadelphia, Portland and San Diego.

National Board members elected from the Hollywood Division: Martin Sheen, Ed Harris, Elliott Gould, Ed Asner, Anne-Marie Johnson, Connie Stevens, Diane Ladd, Dulé Hill, Hill Harper, Nancy Travis, and Marcia Wallace (all three-year terms).

The following were elected to serve as National Board alternates and to the Hollywood Division Board of Directors (all one-year terms). Gabrielle Carteris, Jenny O'Hara, Michael O'Keefe, Clyde Kusatsu, Dawnn Lewis, Doug Savant, Michelle Allsopp, Alan Rosenberg, D. W. Moffett, Joe Bologna, Robert Hays, Jason George, L. Scott Caldwell, Clark Gregg, Patrick Fabian, Bill Smitrovich, Ellen Crawford, Stacey Travis, Mandy Steckelberg, Renee Taylor, Bernie Casey and John Carroll Lynch.

National Board members elected from the New York Division: Sharon Washington, Monica Trombetta, Sam Freed and Liz Zazzi (all three-year terms). Additionally, New York Division members elected Mike Hodge as NY Division President.

The following were elected to serve as national board alternates and to the New York Division board of directors (all one-year terms.) Manny Alfaro, Sheila Head, Marc Baron, Joe Narciso, Jay Potter, Dave Bachman, John Rothman, Kevin Scullin and Justin Barrett.

National Board members elected from the Regional Branch Division: John Carter Brown (Chicago - three-year term), David Hartley-Margolin (Colorado - three-year term), Dave Corey (Florida - three-year term), Scott Rogers (Hawaii - three-year term), Helen McNutt (Philadelphia - three-year term), Mary McDonald-Lewis (Portland - three-year term), Don Ahles (San Diego - three-year term).

Ballots for all eligible SAG members in Hollywood and New York were mailed on August 25 with a September 24 return deadline and were tabulated today by the independent election company Integrity Voting Systems. A total of 13,718 ballots were tabulated in the Hollywood Division (representing 25.25 percent of ballots mailed in the Hollywood Division) and 5,997 ballots were tabulated in the New York Division (representing 26.11 percent of ballots mailed in the New York Division). The number of ballots returned in the Regional Branch elections varied by region.

For complete results, please visit SAG.org.

Jonathan Handel: SAG Moderates Win NY and Everywhere Else

2009-09-24T18:43:54Z

According to unofficial sources, and as SAGWatch is reporting, SAG moderates have won every open NY Board seat that was up, and all the regional seats that were up as well.

Hollywood results are not in yet (expected in 1.5 hrs or so), but all the seats up in Hollywood are hardline Membership First - thus, they can only lose more seats, or hold Hollywood numbers at best.

Presidential and Secretary results are expected in 1.5 hrs also, but the NY and RBD (regional) results don't bode well for MF, especially since two hardline presidential candidates (Anne-Marie Johnson and Seymour Cassel) are splitting the hardline vote. The interesting question will be whether moderate Unite for Strength candidate Ken Howard achieves a vote total greater than the sum of Johnson and Cassel.

If not, the hardliners can be expected to declare a moral victory, and the signal to AFTRA may be that SAG has still not turned a corner sufficient to realistically talk about merger. Indeed, unless Howard gets well over 60% of the vote, AFTRA may still be gun shy, since 60% is the threshold needing to approve merger. SAG has failed twice in the last decade to achieve that threshold, and AFTRA leaders have indicated that they won't discuss merger unless the signals from SAG are more favorable than they have been.

Either way, management should remember that moderates as well as hardliners have indicated that they will be ready to seek a strike authorization during the next negotiations if necessary, as I reported recently. It's going to take flexible negotiations by management to avoid a meltdown in 2010 (early negotiations start Oct. 1, 2010,just a year away) and 2011.

More later.

Brendan Smith: Green Workers Need a Voice in the Climate Change Debate

2009-09-24T15:25:41Z

Working out on my oyster boat this week, I've been slurping my catch and wondering what sort of future lies ahead for those of us who work in industries already being impacted by climate change.

Some like me will be the first to experience the negative effects: I run a small organic oyster farm that faces extinction within the next 40 years because my oysters will not survive rising carbon emissions. Friends of mine are firefighters already facing hotter and more frequent wildfires.

Others work in industries that will gain jobs as a result of efforts to protect the climate: as electrical workers installing solar panels, steelworkers assembling wind turbines and as government workers being redeployed as environmental accountants.

Still others work in industries that will be transformed by climate protection policies, such as coal mining and forestry, who need and want to be part of the green workforce of the future.

As workers we stand on the front lines of the transition to a new green economy. Those of us earning our living in industries impacted by climate change and who believe in the need for both good jobs and sustainable environmental policy, have a stake in the national and global climate change debate and in building a greener, more just economy.

Unlike everyone else, we have both our livelihoods and our planet on the line, giving us a special interest and role in finding real solutions to climate change that also address the economic dimension effectively.

So far, as the politicians fiddle while the world burns, we've remained on the sidelines. We have a stake in the outcome of this fight. It's time to come together and play a role in shaping our future.

Gloria Duffy: Rethinking the Value of Work

2009-09-22T19:00:37Z

A few years ago, just as the dot-com recession was beginning to ease, I gave one of my least well-received commencement speeches. It was to graduates of the College of Marin.

My message to these community college graduates was to take a lesson from the previous few years, during which many young people had gambled on the success of dot-com businesses, then lost their jobs when those enterprises crumbled. Choose professions, I argued, that might not be as glamorous, but which offer more stable long-term prospects. Be a little bit hesitant to jump off into a start-up company. Look carefully at the business model of new enterprises to determine whether they make sense and have the ability to survive, whether they have the capital and resources available to grow. I warned against the boom mentality that had driven the dot-com cycle.

Usually I give more uplifting commencement speeches, and normally the graduates are pleased. But when I finished this speech, the applause was weak and the graduates looked less than thrilled by this cautionary message.

But here we are again, as we attempt to clamber out of the greatest economic trough since the depression of the 1930s. Some heartening signs are appearing - the Conference Board and the Economic Cycles Research Institute both point out that leading economic indicators have increased now for three months in a row, which has always before presaged the end of a recession.

Yet California unemployment is a startling 12%, and some analysts are referring to this as a recession with an "L-shaped" economic path; that is, one where the recession may bottom out, but the upward swing may be a long time in coming. The level of employment we have enjoyed at the height of the recent (and somewhat false) economic booms may never be recovered, at least through jobs of the type that existed at the peaks of the booms.

Over the past couple of decades, many workers have been lured by the prospects of easy money into new Internet businesses, real estate speculation, and participating in too-good-to-be-true financial deals. While new developments and directions are essential for a growing economy, I return to my unpopular commencement message of a few years ago. Our workforce needs to develop a more skeptical attitude towards schemes that promise leaps in wealth but are hollow at the core, and likely to leave workers stranded before long.

This raises the question of what kind of workforce we need in the United States. I believe we need to rediscover the honor of more traditional forms of work, such as manufacturing things, fixing things, providing services, doing manual labor, growing crops, creating value perhaps in more incremental ways than we have sought recently. Even as white collar employment declines, we have unmet needs in our economy where traditionally blue collar skills are in demand. And as is often said now, the beauty of many of these jobs is that they cannot be exported.

For example, I recently took my bike to a shop for some work, and was told that there would be a two month wait because they didn't have enough mechanics to keep up with their repair orders. It is always difficult to find people to fix things around the house. We are shipping fresh food in from other countries, expending great amounts of energy for transportation, when we can easily grow these crops in our fertile Santa Clara and Central Valleys.

Work that promises big dividends is not the only type of labor that has value. Rather than regarding the changes in their employment possibilities as a sign of downward mobility, some people who were employed in the real estate industry, or state government or finance or other sectors that have cut back might reevaluate certain types of labor that they may have previously dismissed as low-status.

And who is to say that white collar work should have greater status than blue collar work, anyway? I often think of a friend, Robert McCormick Adams. A distinguished anthropologist, he was Secretary of the Smithsonian from 1984-1994. He also built his home in Colorado entirely by hand, collecting the stone from the surrounding countryside and placing it himself, cutting and finishing every piece of wood, laying every piece of tile. He has blended the white collar and blue collar in his own life.

Even for those who have had white collar jobs, honor and satisfaction can be found in being a chef, a farmer, a gardener, a builder, a carpenter, a potter, a painter, a mechanic. There are ways to add value, devise new methods, exercise creativity and create excellence in each of these vocations. And who knows, they might become the next Julia Child, or Thomas Jefferson, who was a farmer long before becoming President of the United States.