I was reading a post from Shirah (from Unbossed) on Dailykos about the Pittston strike. As I read the comments I found this one which I think everyone should read:

was one of many that participated in the Pittston strike.It was the best of times,and also worst of times.

The best of times was the support that was shown by other unions,the clergy,and other supporters.The brotherhood we shared,and the total dedication to a cause that we knew was right was a moving thing.

I along with more than two thousand others were also arrested because we believed in our cause.

The worst of times was the fear of not knowing if you would ever return to your job,if your family would have health care,or if you had a future.

It was very disturbing to watch a government assist a corporation to accomplish its goals.The state police lost a lot of respect by their actions on behalf of Pittston.

(note) I went to see Joe Biden at the Russell county fair grounds in September.I left saddened even though there was a nice crowd at least 95% were retiress,and their wives.Theres not many working miners left.

The entire piece on Pittston is really well worth the read.

Read More...

I opened my e-mail to find this little ditty...

Dear friend:

Four years ago, I asked for your support as we kicked off my mayoral campaign. (Yeah, you even came to my house and talked to my neighbors) With your support, we won a resounding victory and have begun to make the District the world class city we know it can be. (Wasn't much of a choice now, was there?) Now just a few days before our 1st finance filing of this campaign, I'm asking you to support me again by making a contribution online (I'd rather eat my left breast) at http://no,Iwon'tprovidethelink.com.

We're at 87% of our January 31st fundraising goal, so your immediate online contribution is critical. Let's show everyone how excited DC is about the work that we have done (and now, maybe I'll eat the right breast). Contribute now at http://no,Iwon'tprovidethelink.com.

Please feel free to forward this to your friends and encourage to give now. (Look I am, I'm recommending they keep their money and give it to your opponent, I've got my fingers crossed that you get an opponent) Thank you for your continued support. (Clearly, you don't read my blog Mayor, nor do your cronies. After all, I'm just one of the little people, so why bother? That seems to sum you up to me...why bother with the little people.)

Sincerely,
Adrian M. Fenty
Mayor, Washington, DC

Yeah, the bold comments are mine. It's just what I thought as I grabbed the garbage can to hurl into it while reading his garbage. Can't wait to see his next appeal.

Read More...

I found this front paged over at Dailykos:

Ah, the carnage of the the long goodbye:

WASHINGTON — President Bush issued an executive order on Monday that denies collective bargaining rights to about 8,600 federal employees who work in law enforcement, intelligence and other agencies responsible for national security.

Mr. Bush said it would be inconsistent with "national security requirements" to allow those employees to engage in collective bargaining with respect to the conditions of their employment.

Among those affected are 5,000 employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which is now part of the Justice Department.

The text of the executive order can be found here.

Because nothing ensures our national security quite like people who aren't allowed to organize for decent pay and working conditions. Seems to me these are exactly the types of employees you would want to keep off the "disgruntled worker" list.

This is most excellent, isn't it?

Not only has this administration tossed workers aside, destroyed enforcement of labor laws, reduced funding for OSHA, MSHA and fought against regulations for just about everything, here, they even take a pot shot at the employees at Energy, Transportation, Homeland Security, Treasury and of course, Justice, from the White House:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7103(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, and in order to reflect the effects of the reorganization and restructuring of the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation, and the Treasury on their subdivisions exempted from coverage under the Federal Labor-Management Relations Program, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Determinations. The subdivisions of the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation, and the Treasury set forth in sections 2 through 6 of this order are hereby determined to have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work. It is further determined that chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, cannot be applied to these subdivisions in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations.

And just what offices are affected, here are just a few:

Department of Energy:
(e) The Savannah River Operations Office.

Homeland Security:
(a) Office of the Military Advisor.

(b) The following office within the Management Directorate:

(1) Office of Security.

(c) Office of Operations Coordination.

(d) Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement.

(h) The following offices and subdivisions within United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement:

(1) The Office of Investigations.

(2) The Office of International Affairs.

(3) The Office of Intelligence.

(4) The National Incident Response Unit.

(i) The following office within the Transportation Security Administration:

(1) The Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service.

Isn't this a most excellent list of random agencies and subdivisions?

ec. 4. Department of Justice. Executive Order 12171 of November 19, 1979, as amended, is further amended by:

(a) revising subsection (g) of section 1-209 to read as follows:

"(g) National Security Division."; and

(b) adding to the end of section 1-209 the following new subsection:

"(h) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives."

It's pretty far reaching for a list of obscure agencies. The funny thing is that at a general schedule 13 and up, most (I think all, but am not positive) postions are actually exempted positions. Which means you are unable to be represented by a union. Now, even the lower grades in this offices are excluded? Seriously? Gee it's like getting slapped in the face while someone's pissing in your mouth. At what point is enough enough?

Read More...

So, I’m over at OxDown and reading e-mail when I come across this cool piece by Michael Whitney. First, let me just say, dude, right on target, and then let me also say, how much Wal-Mart cash do you think flows into this anti-union campaign of McCain and his sweetheart, Berman? I’m guessing, it’s a whole shitload. I mean, they’re shoveling shit, why couldn’t it be a shit load. (note I covered this a little yesterday, too with Not So Fast CNN)

Okay, I’ve had my say, now hear it from Michael.

McCain's New Stump Speech Stands Up for CEO Contributors over the Middle Class

By: Michael Whitney Wednesday October 15, 2008

Over the weekend, John McCain debuted a new stump speech, filling his usual message to the party faithful with plenty of red meat for conservative activists. Introduced as a "feisty ... comeback" speech, McCain lambasts Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for having the gall to "concede defeat in Iraq" and "raise taxes."

But in the midst of McCain's new message - mixed in-between the traditional conservative mantras of taxing and spending - is a new line in which McCain talks about unions and takes the side of his CEO contributors on the issue. Here's the whole paragraph; I'll bold the key line:

Now, my friends, let me give you the state of the race today and some straight talk," McCain said. "We have 22 days to go. We're six points down. The national media has written us off. Senator Obama is measuring the drapes and planning with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to raise taxes, increase spending — take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections, and concede defeat in Iraq — and concede defeat in Iraq.

So why is McCain saying Obama would "take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections?" First - brace yourself - McCain is lying. Obama supports no such thing.

What Obama does support is the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill backed by Obama and virtually every other Democrat in Congress and across the country. What McCain supports is giving unfettered veto power for CEOs to deny working people the opportunity to follow the American Dream.

The Employee Free Choice Act gives workers the free choice to form a union, taking away businesses' veto power on the matter. Basically, once 50% +1 of workers in a workplace say they want a union, they get their union if the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law. But today, even if 100% of workers want a union, the employer can veto it. Rick Perlstein explains the situation well, via economist Dean Baker:

The only change with the Employee Free Choice Act is whether card check recognition is at the discretion of the employer of the worker. In other words, it changes absolutely ZERO about whether the right of workers to organize is determined by secret ballot or not. The only thing it changes is who gets to decide the manner of certification, workers or employers.

Why do workers need this Free Choice to form unions? And why is McCain all worked up about "secret ballots?" Ezra Klein explains the dire straits in which workers who want to form unions find themselves these days:

About 49 percent of employers openly threaten to close down a worksite when faced with a unionization drive. Untold more tell individual workers, in captive meetings, that jobs will be lost. 30 percent make good on the threat in real time, firing workers who engage in union activities. 82 percent hire unionbusting consulting firms which teach them how to most effectively shutter a union drive while either technically staying in the limits of the law, or breaking it in such a way that the gains will outweigh the eventual fines.

All the concern over the possible implications of EFCA would be fair enough if these same folks evinced even an ounce of anxiety over the reality that workers are being threatened, intimidated, and even fired if they dare try and organize. [...] The space we're currently occupying is brutal, and makes an utter mockery of the idea of elections. Hearing the status quo defended as free and fair is like imagining a presidential election where you can vote however you'd like, but anyone who votes against the incumbent party is informed they will lose all access to Social Security, Medicare, and the protection of their local police and fire departments. Also, they'll be audited. But nevertheless: Folks can vote however they want.

What is at stake here for both McCain and Obama is a choice about creating a new path of economic prosperity for America's workers. By suppporting the Employee Free Choice Act, Obama recognizes that when workers are able to form or join a union, more people have the chance to earn better wages and benefits. Indeed, when more workers are in unions, the wages of workers who aren't in unions rise anyway. The Employee Free Choice Act is part of the solution to get our economy back on track, and John McCain doesn't want that to happen.

It's clear John McCain is more interested in protecting his CEO campaign contributors than he is in giving working families a chance to get ahead. McCain's new anti-worker rhetoric in his stump speech indicates his economic plans leave behind the middle class while enriching the already-rich.

It's disappointing - but not surprising - that McCain's not joining Barack Obama in supporting the Employee Free Choice Act to create a new economic path for working families.

Read More...

Or rather, Health Non-Care Plan. Joe's got the scoop.

Read More...

Loose Lips in the Washington City Paper sure is suggesting just that in the race of Carol Schwartz and Patrick Mara:

Patrick Mara is doing a great job of challenging At-Large Councilmember Carol Schwartz in September’s Republican primary. The first-timer, for starters, has nearly matched Schwartz’s $100,000-plus campaign war chest.

And Mara won’t have to spend a dime of it on negative campaigning—the PACs have it covered.

For one, there’s the Citizens for Empowerment political action committee, the anti-union outfit funded largely by Miller & Long construction and electrical contractor MC Dean. Not only did the PAC donate to Mara’s campaign, but mail has started showing up in Republican mailboxes bearing the “Paid for by Citizens for Empowerment PAC” label.

One such mailer obtained by LL shows a gentleman holding an empty pocket out of his pants alongside a smaller picture of Schwartz, under the headline tax-and-spender: raising our taxes, wasting taxpayer dollars and supporting labor unions.

Then there’s the Nation’s Capital Committee for Good Government, which has yet to spend a significant dime on the race, aside from funding a Web site that declares the group’s “initial goal is to help elect Patrick Mara At-Large Councilmember.”

Rather than the $1,000 limit placed on campaign donations, PACs can accept contributions of up to $5,000 per donor. The Nation’s Capital Committee has taken two such maximum donations, both with connections to the downtown parking industry.

One came from Leonard “Bud” Doggett, the owner of Doggett Enterprises Inc., and formidable political fundraiser who died last week at age 87. The other is from Bear Saint Properties, a Georgetown-based real-estate investment firm headed up by Russell C. Lindner, who is also the top executive for Colonial Parking. Lindner is also active in the Federal City Council and Greater Washington Board of Trade.

Mara says he’s aware of the mailer and the Web site, but declined to comment on the propriety thereof. “I can’t control what others are doing,” he says. “I’m trying to focus on the campaign.”

If Mara wins, does this mean I have to campaign for Michael Brown who's running as an indy? To keep Mara out, I'd have to say, all unionists should.

Read More...

The Washington CityPaper has the money quote:

Mara cited the chamber and Board of Trade nods as further proof of his Republican bona fides, pointing out, “She’s endorsed by SEIU and the AFL-CIO. That just kind of says how we stand on these issues.…That certainly says something to Republican voters.”

Gee, Mara hate workers much? Does this also mean that you hate Republican workers? Really Mara, is that what you’re saying here about the AFL-CIO and SEIU endorsements of Schwartz? If so, I suppose that really is the difference between the two of you. Or as Schwartz put it:

I am a balancer of interests, always have and always will be,” she says, “and I’m very proud of that.”

Eh, I don’t buy her argument, but I’d rather have a moderate republican who cares about all the rest of us than a guy who seems to only care about the Chamber of Commerce.

Read More...