How many times have you been watching the evening news about some corporation laying off hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of workers? Usually the reporter goes on about what the corporation or company says about the reason for the layoffs and then at the end perhaps a lame effort at humor with a joke like “well, I guess a few vacations will be getting canceled this year, heh heh heh.” But what does it really mean to the nameless, faceless workers who are going home that day with their last paycheck, trying to figure out how to explain to their families that their whole world is about to be turned on it’s head.
What it means is that they and their families along with the communities they live in have been economically assaulted. And believe me when I say that a severe beating at the hands of a gang of thugs in a dark alley would be preferable to the pain, fear, and devastation experienced by anyone who has faced such a kick in the groin as being laid off your job. But unlike the outpouring of compassion that is bestowed on an innocent victim of a physical assault, innocent victims of economic assault are besieged by their debtors with threats and ultimatums. It’s as if they sense vulnerability and their instinct is to attack.
So why does this hypocrisy exist in the land that espouses as among its highest precepts, justice and the promotion of the general welfare? Just ask yourself who fights hardest for unfettered capitalism, the ultra Right wing of the Republican Party that’s who. They’ve been in war for decades to subvert anything that regulates the behavior of business or favors the workers.
It’s a shame that moderate Republicans have remained silent on this issue in recent decades because it was one of the greatest moderate Republicans, Teddy Roosevelt who was responsible for the anti-trust laws that finally curtailed the economic MURDER big business was committing against America in his day. However, the radical Republicans of his day were so opposed to his positions regarding big business, he was forced to run for his second term as a third party candidate, but won anyway.
But in recent decades the neo-cons have been busy undoing those laws and re-establishing our government’s absolute loyalty to big business. And to be honest our most recent Democratic president, Bill Clinton was nothing but a corporate crony himself. His failure to do anything substantial to reverse the 12 years of deregulation by Reagan and Bush 41’ proves that. And his support and involvement in the Welfare Reform Act along with NAFTA amounted to what I consider an unforgivable betrayal of the American people.
What we need is legislation that will require responsibility and accountability of corporations and businesses regarding the treatment of their workers. Companies that do things like take advantage of a several year tax exemption to build a factory in a particular city and then as soon as the tax exemption expires, pulls out leaving the workers and their support network high and dry need to be punished or prevented from behaving like that. Businesses that owe their success to the advantages to being American that then take jobs overseas should be severely punished if not prevented from doing so at all. And the reckless speculative corporate behaviors that result in massive lay-offs should be curtailed as well.
Workers are human beings and as such are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and these rights should never be overshadowed by corporate interests. Economic assault is just as wrong as physical assault… period.
**********************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent Devin’s column, “Left Of The Right” published twice weekly or more to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin’s columns at http://gather.com/leftoftheright You can keep up with Devin’s postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here:http://kiwina58.gather.com and then select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.
You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 102
1) Will businesses pay any attention to it.
2) Will it be enforced at all or only occasionally when some government bureaucrat wants to get revenge on some businessman or perhaps when a big business wants to squash a smaller competitor.
3) Will there be any loopholes? Odds are there will be plenty.
4) Will the folks who violate this legislation still be with the company when the enforcement does come? They can always switch from one board of directors to another.
5) Will this legislation encourage companies to move production abroad where they can abuse their employees with impunity?
6) How in the world would you get something like this past the lobbiests?
The real solution to this kind of business abuse is found in the science fiction novel "Invisible Hand" which is free on the internet and with no ads at:
http://www.unc.edu/~mason/hand.html
An example of this would be the over forty crowds that lose jobs they've held for decades and who are then turned away (or just not selected) for work opportunities which they are fully capable of performing. Companies tend to favor some one younger who will work for less.
Believe it or not, thousands of people are denied work daily in our country because they have been classified as "over qualified" for a position they have applied for. Part of managements' reasoning for this is that the over qualified person may abandon the company (thus leaving it in a lurch) if they have a chance to take a higher paying position. Ironically, many inexperienced workers will bail on their companies via the same motivation once they have achieved a certain level of experience.
Gave ya a big 10 for this one, Devin.
I thinks it's amazing how companies that are employee freindly tend to do a lot better than those that aren't is never talked about in the media or by economists. These leaders of the corporate world seem to be more obsessed with concentrating on the liability of workers rather than their value. Negative thinking never works, but those who are most guilty of it, are the least likely to recognize how self defeating it is.
Edwards was hired by the Fortress hedge fund company as an advisor to provide support in developing investment opportunities worldwide and strategic advice on global issues. Who would you rather have advising them, Pat Buchanan? Some of the results of his advice was the Fortress company ending its practice of letting managing partners defer their U.S. income taxes by reinvesting profits in the offshore funds. So, it is evident that John Edwards influence on that industry has been a good thing, woudn't you agree?
productivity is or at a level much lower than what their actual productivity is. If you don't like it, then you use the force of government to make sure that person doesn't question they system.
It's that easy,
right Devin?
As usual, you take aim and then overshoot the issue by a hundred miles. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about, nationalizing the private sector and turning the United States into a utopian, liberal, communist, socialist, pinko fag paradise for all us bleeding heart Democrats.
Sure Gary, I guess you got it right there buddy. Do you really think this is some kind of sophmoric game? I'm talking about a serious issue. How about you, just once post a serious comment. I know, try having a productive idea.
On a personal note I have been trying without success for almost a DECADE to get a job as an accounting clerk. I have been a tax preparer for three seasons with excellent results. But there is just no money in that. I'm lucky to make 4 or 5 thousand a year that way. I completed the bulk of my accounting courses in '98, but I needed to complete a few essential courses, delaying my receipt of an Accounting Certificate until 2006. Nevertheless, I always maintained a straight 4.0 GPA. Still no job in that field has materialized.
I just got off the phone with several people. The account executive (fancy title for some 20ish female clerk) says I need experience first, but all the agencies say that, so where do I start? The asst. placement director at my "alma mater" told me flat out "we don't do placement." I called the One Stop center in my town. This is a place that is supposedly a center for NYS Department of Labor efforts to help the unemployed. Again I am directed to an asst. director. This time it's voice mail. Remember when there was always a person at the other end of the line? Anyhow she's on vacation until the 10th. I left a message. Hope she gets back to me.
We're just back to the Hooverish thinking where if you get laid off or can't find a job, it's your own fault. Hooverville, anyone?
I know this may sound simplistic and I know Edwards has chinks in his armor, but if you truly want to improve your employment situation, vote for Edwards in 08'.
I wouldn't go that far, but perhaps offering tax breaks to comapnies who can demonstrate a geniune need may be a way of motivating companies to retain workers instead of laying them off.
Fixing the problem would itself be problematic. After all, "average Americans" don't have lobbyists on retainer. But consider this: If a corporation is willing to carpet DC with greenbacks in order to hire and bankroll a lobbyist, how much of a return do they expect -- and get? There's no way an individual can compete.
First rule: a corporation is not a person - legal or otherwise. Until we insist that our Congressmembers place the interests of people over those of corporations, we'll continue status quo.
That's for sure, they all belong to the "I hate Devin" club.
Hypocrisy?
I'm so glad one of the to Dem's is in touch with the worker and not big corporations!
Oh wait, that might mean the loss of tens of thousands of jobs instead of only a few hundered.
Teddy Roosevelts Anti-Trust laws ended free enterprise for all time. And the fair labor laws from the 1930's turned the United States into a third world country dominated by communists. The reality is that the effect of these laws and regulations was several decades of unprecedented prosperity for working class Americans that only ended when the Reagan administration began the current decades long effort by the Republican Party to subvert those anti-trust and fair labor laws through de-regulation, irresponsible tax cuts and union busting legislation. Today we call it the war on the Middle Class.
And you do know exactly what he did. Were you aware he convinced Fortress to stop tax deferements before I told you about it, I doubt it. So, it would seem I know a little more than you do.
Gary,
It's hard to comment on something I haven't heard anything about. I'll go check it out.
Well, I checked it out and there is NO evidence that Nanci Pelosi had anything to do with the compromise that was struck with Starkist and Chicken of the Sea. The House Of Representatives in Response to Starkists threat to pull it's operations out of American Samoa compromised by agreeing to a fifty cent per hour increase for wokers in American Samoa, 75% of which work for Starkist and Chicken of the Sea. I did see some stories put out by Right wing rages like Faux Noise, but they seemed to base their entire argument on the coincidence that Starkists hedaquarters happen to be in Pelosi's district. By that logic, because the KKK has a branch in Texas, that must mean Bush and Rove must be members of the KKK.
So go ahead Gary, make a fool of yourself with some other piece of scat from Faux Noise.
Publius, you are wearing out the tread with the mileage you hope to get by trying to call everyone a hypocrite ... no wonder you cannot get any traction.
Starting back about 30 years in a concerted attempt to dominate workers and government the corporations of the world began a parallel government ... the think tanks in order to figure out how to manipulate government. The reason goverrnment does not work and people are so powerless is consistant legislative and economic pressure from all sides. If the people do not see it now and do something about it, it is like tacit compliance.
Businesses are tyrannies and the fact that they control goverment now, in a loose confederation does not make it any less so.
In your next statement you speak as if people can simply pick and choose jobs. Perhaps on your home world that's the case, but here on earth, and the United States, most folks take jobs because they have no choice. And of course all companies are on the "who is moral and honest" list. Sorry Rich, but most people find out the company they are working for is corrupt when the pension they worked their whole life earning disappears.
And then there is the magic wand called "work hard." Sure Rich, that's all it takes and all will be wonderful and right. The problem with your premise is that in the REAL world, those who work the hardest, instead of being repaid with better pay or promotions, just end up being given all the work.
Oh, and everyone who tries the entrepreneur road succeeds right. And has plenty of money to invest wisely, as if there were some sort of crystal ball for the wise to keep from making bad investments. Just one problem, 3 out 5 businesses fail in the first year and the chances of the other 2 surviving 5 years is 1 in a hundred. So, no risk here, plenty of room for everyone to do this one... Not.
And if it's not the president's responsibility to make the lives of Americans better, then why have I heard nearly every presidential candidate on both sides ask the voters if their life was better than it was four years prior.
Like always Rich, you're the odd man out on nearly everything.
In some cases we can complain of unfair trade. Those cheep toys from China which apparently have dangerous amount of lead paint, the food that has various toxic elements in it and so forth. (Mind you contaminated food also comes from within the US as well as outside it.) But these problems mask the greater inability for most corporate organizations to grow and adapt.
It is not just major corporations who are filled with dinosaurs unwilling to change but willing to continue consuming the resources that are growing less and less until one day they suddenly find themselves extinct. Unions are guilty of the same problem.
The president can't make magic or economic success out of thin air. Neither can congress. They can make any success an outright failure. They can make or break the climate for economic growth. But the real and only source for economic growth in a global environment is the true wealth of knowledge and invention. Unless our nation can bring forth the true inventions of the 21st century, we will be left behind.
Frankly, I don't see Edwards as the solution to that problem. I don't see him as a hindrance or a cause of the problem either.
Excellent article! I would comment that Clinton had to do what he could with a solid Republican congress for six of his eight years. That he held the line on as much as he did was remarkable. However, no one called Clinton a liberal either. He was pretty much center of the road.
NAFTA was an unknown to everyone involved when it was passed. The unions were against it because the short term clearly showed labor losses. The goal was to make the US more competitive on the world market but I question it has served the workers of America well at all. Clinton's support for this was based on ignorance as was the vote of every person voting for it. The complexity of the legislation was such that no person could read it through and reasonably predict the multiple ramifications of it's enactment.
I agree that Edwards would be most likely to make modifications or develop other legislation to ameliorate the effects of the NAFTA problem. But no one can do it without the congress doing their part first.
I can also see Hillary or Obama making changes if they can get them through. Remember that Clinton was and Hillary is a consummate pragmatist. I can't see any of the Republican contenders doing anything to help here.
Rich,
I can tell you from a lifetime of working for a living, I've always had an easier time under a Democratic president than under a Republican. That's not scientific analysis, it's simply cold, hard, fact! Democrat has always been the party of the working person. In recent years many have been seduced by Republican claims and swift boat tactics on the Democratic candidates to vote Republican, resulting in the mess we've got today.
It's should be clear to everyone that Republicans represent business and Democrats are a little more friendly to the working person. With the union busting and removal of regulation the Democratic base has been eroded and fallen for the Republican line.
What do you work at Rich, that you're unaware of or disagree with, this commonly accepted fact?
Economic assault, theft, and rape are the hallmarks of capitalism as it has been abortively implemented (usually via dictatorship) across the globe. The empire, monarchy, or junta that hasn't resorted to all three in its history is a rare beast. If unemployment is economic assault, then privatization is economic theft, and seigneurage is economic rape.
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is probably bent and bruised from all the mangling it has received from corrupt, manipulative mega-actors (corporations) in the last few hundred years.
Thus, a majority are poor. America allows corporations to run their company efficiently. The dead wood who lose their jobs during belt tightening need to learn to work a little harder next time and not be the one who gets the boot. I've never been fired or laid off from a job... and I'm in the tech/finance industry. How can that be?
It's called luck AND it's obviously why you don't understand this issue. I don't balme you for being lucky, but at least give those who have not been lucky the benefit of the doubt. Lay-offs are not done to weed out the dead wood as you claim, it is always last hired, first fired. Which means those least able to withstand the loss of their job are the ones who most often lose them.
Today it was also reported that one reason the unemployment rate was so high in the last quarter.....many people just gave up trying to find a job!
That's really discouraging to hear.
The mischief springs from the power which the moneyed interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control, from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges which they have succeeded in obtaining.
....and unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interest have been passed into the hands of these corporations.
Andrew Jackson , March 4 1837
I, for one, am glad we now have the FDIC which just had to infuse more than 32 billion dollars into our banks. Without that bailout we would be looking a little more like the 1930's and 40's by now.
My father used to say Capitalism works because neighbors hire their neighbors. I just can't get used to Wal-mart as my neighbor. I've never even met the man.
Good Article, Devon.
You really show your lack of understanding of the legislative process here. No one buys congress. Buying congress is almost impossible for any lobbyist to do. Some industries have sucess but that is more because they are important industries and already have a level of support. Banning lobbyist will be bad for America. Enforce laws, yes ban people is not right. Let me put it this way here is the definition of lobbying and anyone who engages in it is called a lobbyist.
"Lobbying is a concerted effort designed to achieve some result, typically from government authorities and elected officials. It can consist of the outreach of legislative members, public actions (e.g. mass demonstrations), or combinations of both public and private actions (e.g. encouraging constituents to contact their legislative representatives). As a professional occupation it is also known as "government affairs" or "public affairs". Practitioners may work in specialist organizations or as part of government relations or as public relations consultancies."
Well then Ron I am going to have to ban you for trying to get people to sign petitions and try to Impeach. You are now a bad lobbyist.
Whether you like them or not lobbyist serve a fuction and represent groups of people and organizations. Not everyone has time to spend hours in Washington and I think it is wonderful that they can get people to help them reach their goals.
If we are looking for hypocrisy here -- let's look to Devin himself.
Devin has stated several times that he is, or was, a public employee. I believe Devin is from Idaho. I looked up the assets of the Public Employee Retirement System of Idaho (PERSI) in which I assume Devin is vested.
Their assets exceed $9 Billion. This is small potatoes as far as public employee retirement systems go, but I assume that PERSI has five, if not six or eight times the wealth of the wealthiest person in Idaho.
In Minnesota, our public employee retirement systems have some $60 Billion in assets. That makes public employees in Minnesota wealthier than Bill Gates and 30 times wealthier than the richest person in the state.
In California, public employees have over $1 Trillion in wealth. That is Trillion with a 'T".
Let's look at how this plays out on a national scale.
The total assets of all millionaires and billionaires in the United States is $11.3 Trillion. This includes their houses, their cars, and furniture; even the underwear in their dressers.
The total assets of just the retirement funds of very ordinary people in the United States is $14.4 trillion. This does not include homes, cars or underwear. The vast majority of this retirement wealth is held by civil servant pension funds.
Civil Servants are not only the core of The Democratic Party but are the ownerss of, and beneficiaries of the largest pool of capital on the planet
Toss in charitable trusts and guess who owns the majority of corporate stock? Let me give you a clue, the largest stockholder in Exxon is a New York Teacher's Pension Fund.
So let's get down to brass tacks.
Corporations down-size, lay-off, out-source, and move off-shore because they are pressured by their stockholders to maintain a high level of return on investment.
And who are these stockholders?
Who is pocketing the majority of that corporate wealth?
Hypocrites like Devin Barber.
To paraphrase Pogo, Devin has met his enemy, and it is Devin.
This build up in pension wealth is what the management mavin Peter Drucker predicted 40 years ago. He coined the term "Pension Socialism".
It is indeed a form of socialism, and like all socialism -- it does not distribute the wealth evenly or fairly. All Socialism, from the extreme communism in the USSR to the mild two-tiered labor system of France favors the government class above all others
That explains a lot. It explains Devin.
That makes sense in your mind? Corporations don't have to be bad neighbors to turn a profit, but in this day and age they seem to have no mission statement that observes a moral code at all. People being invested in corporations, through their pension funds or otherwise does not mean they endorse the tactics that big business has adopted these days. There used to be such a thing as being a good corporate member of society. Just as being a citizen of this country does not mean I endorse all the patently evil things George w. Bush does, being invested in corporations does not mean we condone their methods, either. We can try to change both our country and our corporations, and your mention of who invests in corporations is not a declaration we should condone the methods of management that corporations of late have employed that cause harm to our country. We'll take the hit in the pension fund, but you know what, I doubt the difference is all that much, in the end. Corporations were racking up profits without being scum bag operations for many years before this present management model was adopted by the CEOs and Boards of our land. In the end I would bet stockholder pressure, since almost none of us know which corporations our retirement funds are invested in, has very little to do with why CEOs and Boards have adopted the morality barren code of conduct of these last two decades or so, and that the truth would be all the massively profitable bonuses and deals they have loaded in their contracts that reward the total lack of conscience they have displayed. The MBA programs at our universities need to ramp up a lot better ethics courses that actually instill some in the managers of this sector.
No, not everyone has the time to spend in Washington convincing government to bend the will of the people to the will of some special interest group or corporation, and that is exactly why we should get rid of lobbyists. The less influence peddling they do, the better the government will reflect the wishes of the electorate, and not some union or corporation. Your attempts to make lobbyists sound like some sort of boon to government are absurd. Any good they do is far overshadowed by the harm they inflict on our country 365 days a year. I, for one would morn their passing, well, not at all. Let organizations hire their own in house liasons, who when they step out of line, result in consequences for the entity, not some lobbyist. By letting them hire their dirty work done, we allow them to break the law with impunity. They want to bribe a congressman, they just give the money to some lobbyist, and if he gets caught, "Oh, we never authorized that! We didn't know he wanted those millions to buy us votes!" how sad is that? They walk, we prosecute some stumble bum lobbyist, and the people he managed to corrupt, and the corporation or special interest group hires another lobbyist and gives him the money to continue the fight. It sucks, and your support of that system sucks.
My fear is that he'll be successful with an appeal, and they will set him free, now that the public has long forgotten Enron....
And Rich,
Your nothing but a bald faced liar who cares about nothing but trying to sound intelligent, yet completely failing at every attempt. Eighty percent were laid off because they weren't carrying their weight?
You sir, are a LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Let organizations hire their own in house liasons"- who by the very definiton are lobbyists.
Yes if we just leave these people in Congress they will work for the people. That is crazy advocay has always been involved in politics you are actually taking the will of the people out of the system. Why are you so scared of a debate of ideas. Bribery is wrong but it is not so widespread. I can only think of William Jefferson and that was for companies in Nigera.
I share your concern, with mega wealthy celebrities getting embarassingly light punishments for things like drunk driving and other very serious infractions like mudering their wives or ex-wives, it wouldn't be hard to imagine this guy getting himself released. When it comes to our legal system you have to remember the golden rule, "those with all the gold make the rules."
"Honestly, how can you count yourselves as working class when you NEVER stand up for or seem to want to defend the working class. And if you're somewhere in between as in somehow financially independent, then as far as I'm concerned you can blather away all you want because in my mind you have nothing to add to this discussion."
yes, if you dont agree I dont know why you want to have your own opinion. Here is the fact devin. The truth is never just on one side. In layoffs some who are not carrying their weight are let go. Some good employees are let go. That is what buisness does. Jobs are not for life anymore. To be honest here Devin I am not sure what you want you want so much regulation that I think the eventual goal is move to a system like France that they cant fire workers. It hasnt worked where there and we should not be going in that direction. Most people are happy here in America. Workers have many opportunites here and if you dont like a company go work for another one or start a buisness and work for yourself. I dont understand why you are so in favor of the government doing everything Freedom is a gift and that means limited government
Let's say we are a shopping center. Before we plan the buildings we plan a parking lot that will hold the number of shoppers on the biggest shopping day(s) of the year. For the remaining 300 plus days of the year, these spaces are wasted space.
A corporation builds quite a bit of wasted space, covering for vacationing employees, being more customer service savy, and agreeing to labor contracts that can't be made sustainable, as Ford and GM did.
In the old agricultural economy, new equiptment lead to larger farms, which lead to corporate farms, which lead to a proposal to cut farm subsidies to the large corporate farms, which was blocked this year.
In short, corporations downsize because they have to, but government subsidized institutions (corporate farms, education, medical specialists, and public employees) don't have to.
May the demise of labor unions and pensions continue, or may these subsidized institutions downsize, or both.
So in other words it is okay to put corporate profits in your pocket, then demand that the return on investment remain high ---- and still sneer at those evil, evil, evil corporations.
job lightly. People who have jobs and maintain them are almost
always productive employees hired at a rate compensurate with
their production. Layoffs are done many times by people who do
not even know the people they are laying off, and often when
production tightens line managers find reason to lay off people
who are the most threatening to their continued managerial
career, which may have been the problem to start with.
Do things change or get out of line over time, perhaps but the
layoffs of most large American corporations have virtually
nothing to do with anything but cutting back on people
for profit. The people left have to pick up all the slack when
they do not get any raises - only more fear of losing their
jobs as well. You find a real incentive to get rid of older very
competent people because they cost the most. On the flip
side look at something like fast food places, do you think they
hire competent people there, or just the cheapest they can
find ... and most of them are illegal. American companies seem
to not care about competence or attitude, they care about the
bottom line - until it affects business, and even after. What is
the point of firing a whole class of people in the US and the
hiring people in India ... I'm talking about technical support.
Anyone notice any great boost in efficiency or competence?
Not me, I do not even call tech support anymore. If something
doesn't work I take it back or trash it. There is no point in
wasting frustrating hours trying to get help from people who
do not know and cannot explain or listen to a problem.
There is a line that Republicans have been replaying for years,
some of them above, that have been repeated so often that
perhaps some people buy into them as truth, but I think more
and more people are starting to question all of these lines
like they should be as many of them now stretch to truth so
far as to be ridiculous, if they were not already.
How about holding the Democrats who own these corporations through their pension funds responsible for their actions? These are the people who enjoy most of the benefits of downsizing, outsourcing, and shipping jobs abroad, and these are the people who drive these ills by DEMANDING a high rate of return on their investments.
Or is this just another instance of Democrats projecting their flaws onto others?
Again, and again, and again. Retirement funds, Union pension funds (primarily civil service pension funds) and charitable trusts own the majority of corporate stock in America.
Your characterizations of Democrats as party of the people, are out
of date. Both Republicans & Democrats are wedded to Corporate America (and Corporate Mexico). The American working class has been abandoned by BOTH parties
in their campaign $$ accepted, and their support of outsourcing (hiring cheap foreign labor). The Republicans support overseas outsourcing, and the Democrats support
domestic outsourcing (AKA hiring illegal aliens). Both of these are costing millions of
Americans their jobs.
See my article "On Illegal Immigration & Outsourcing, Are Democrats & Republicans Hypocrites" ? Sept. 5, 7:43 PM. I'm looking for both sides to come clean on this WHOLE issue, and make no mistake, this is where the greatest amount of layoffs is coming from. I voted for Democrats for decades, but stopped in 1996 when I voted for Nader. Again for Nader in 2000, and Kerry in 2004. Don't know who I'll vote for in 2008 (if anyone), but I'd like to vote for Lou Dobbs or Pat Buchanan. Why ?
Because they are 2 true, left-wing opponents of Corporate America and supporters of the American working class. Don't dispute this unless you've read "State of Emergency" and "War on the Middle Class". You'll think you're reading Ralph Nader. As a matter of fact, I saw Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan on a TV talk show recently, they talked for half and hour, and never disagreed once.
As for Nader's 2000 election candidacy, shame on you Democrats for voting for an international and domestic outsourcer, and draining votes away from Rebel Ralph.
There is a current movement to try to get corporations to be more responsible to shareholders but the corporate officers and boards of directors welcome that about as much as they do government regulation. What we have no are a small number of corporate tyrannies using the laws and the shadow or capitalism and private ownership to exptend their tyrannies to the government with dupes like Greg behind it 110%.
I like what Lou Dobbs has to say quite a bit on many issues. I am
not sure I trust Patrick Buchannon, though he is always good for
a quote and a sound byte and is a very intelligent guy.
The problem with geo-politics is that no one really knows what is
going on. The CIA seem like they know - at least parts of the CIA,
but they were completely ignored by the President in the last 8
years.
I think one of the major problems with the war and the course
the US is on is that not many understand it, and no one at least
in the public has any idea of the full picture.
The main thing that Americans need right now is access to
real information. One of the first things Bush did when took
office was to clamp down on security, as far back as not
releasing documents about the Kennedy assassination.
The people have to know what happened in the past and what
the plans are in the future or we do not have a country, we have
a puppet show.
So what we get instead are internet blogs where instead of real
information we get celebrity wanna-be's and their egos trying
to spin the most interesting stories. Blogs are BS, and the news
is BS, in fact most of the Internet is BS.
Look how hard it is to find something of the importance of the
national Republicans debate held last week the day after on
the Internet ... it is unbelievable that Americans are settiling
for this crap.
There is truth to your statement that the American worker has been abandoned by both parties. However, I'm also aware that, of the two, the Democratic party is far more likely to actually take the working person into consideration.
Pat Buchanan is a "left wing" opponent of corporate America and supports the American working class? Get real! You know as well as I, that Pat is a self styled preachy, right wing parasite who's only thought if of himself!
And my friend, you've got balls bigger than watermelon when you tell anyone they cannot contradict you unless they've read two particular brainwashing books of your choice! Then, to cap that off, you claim physic powers to know what I am or think! I'm not a Democrat and there is no way in hell you know who I've voted for!
I'll admit that I seldom vote for fruitcakes including Nader, Buchanan or their ilk and don't believe in wasting my vote. I'm an independent and never voted a straight ticket in my life but, as such, I'll voter for whoever I want! Granted, after the last seven years, I'll not vote for a republican in 2008.
Their is a "war on the middle class" right now and it is largely being conducted by the Republican party and the PNAC! I believe Edwards is the most likely candidate to bring this "war" to a satisfactory close. If he doesn't make it I'll have to take my chances with Hillary I reckon. I can live with that!
Greg and Rich,
When layoffs are conducted of the depth many of these are, the layoffs cannot possible be a culling of the poor workers. In the first place, if workers are not doing a reasonable job any decent manager will be getting rid of them as the poor ones come along, not waiting for a layoff which might not occur. Second, in many groups it is required that the last hired be the first laid off in any given position. Finally, when you're laying off that high a figure, you don't really have the time or opportunity to be that selective, you've just got to cut.
I've known companies to make smaller layoffs based on which employees had disciplinary problems on their record, but there are not enough of those to go that deep.
My youngest son has just survived two layoffs but he tells me he is going to start looking because he is afraid that within five years, the company is going to move all of their production to China. And he assures me that those who have been laid off where he is were not defective workers but quality employees.
As Bruce mentioned, laying off people is difficult and traumatic all th way around and no one likes to do it. And the companies themselves state that they are simply doing it to increase profits and hopefully, stock price. My son's company recently stated that they could do great and never hire another person in the United States!
And what pension funds are invested in is frequently a matter of law. The fund must invest the money is a particular mix of investments and, as investors, they have virtually no control over the company unless they hold a majority of the stock. So Greg, loose the hangup about this oranges and apples comparison, please!
Corporations make strategic decisions based on what their stockholders demand as a rate of return on investment. If the corporation fails to maintain that ROI, civil service pension funds, union pension funds and charitable trusts will move their money elsewhere.
I love this "OH NO!! It's not our fault!!! Blame it on our mutual fund!!! And by the way could you please move more of those mutual funds toward Overseas Investments? The return there is 18%"
I am sorry if you are intimidated by the truth - maybe that is something you should either research or reflect on.
As for the moral side of the equation -- the minute you put somebody's money in your pocket, you are responsible for where it came from.
If union's don't like the system, they shouldn't milk it.
It is that simple.
If liberals want to howl about corporate misbehavior they ought to push aside Lady MacBeth and wash their hands until all the blood is gone.
The people who people the left are the largest recipient of corporate largesse. It is time that they owned up to it instead of making lame excuses about how they are not responsible for anything that happens --- even thought they enjoy the benefits of everything that happens.
This reminds me of an old Woody Allen joke that goes something like this.
Civil Servants field more lobbyists than all over industries combined in most legislatures in the country. They have a vested interest in how their pension funds are controlled. To suggest that they are not responsible for how their money is invested -- including the choice of mutual funds -- is utterly absurd.
Many states have serious fund deficiets BECAUSE of corrupt pension fund meddling by these unions and their lobbyists.
Insurance companies pulled the rug out from under the feet of those people that thougt they would be taken care of at claim time and you see what happened.
When it comes to health insurance, come down with cancer or some other major illness and see how fast the insurance company will pull the rug out from under your feet too! They may say it's cheaper to let you die.
False. In his first term, he was elected as vice president to President McKinley, who was assassinated.
Because McKinley was assassinated early in his term, Roosevelt completed nearly an entire term before he was elected as president in 1904, for his second term in office.
When he ran as a third party candidate in 1912, he lost.
Is comment necessary?
\\\\Corporations make strategic decisions based on what their stockholders demand as a rate of return on investment.////
Then why did Potlatch pay out million dollar bonuses to their top executives while they had a year of actually loosing money? They had to sell assets to do it! Many corporations seem to be run as the private piggy banks for the CEO, CFO, CIO and other top executives.
Are you aware that when the Medicare Part D was implemented there were over 1000 lobbyists working on that bill? Did the legislature really need that much help? That was bad legislation which I wrote my congressman to vote against! They all voted for it because it was a centerpiece of the Republican president.
I have nothing against lobbyists as such but we've got far too many of them shaping our laws. A lobbyists arranges for a million dollars to a political campaign, do you suppose that the elected person is going to pay more attention to what I want or what the lobbyists wants?
Just think about it a bit and look at it from a pragmatic standpoint. I, as a voter, have no influence on legislation. As a letter writing constituent, I have very little. But if I had millions to give to the party's nominee, I'd have great influence! Only by limiting the power of money in the campaign can we hope to restore government to the "by the people" standard that was intended!
Greg, you're a resourceful and intelligent person, so please come up with answers to defined problems as quickly as you come up with reason why someone else's suggestion is wrong. You're a great writer and have a very able imagination so I'd really like to read your solutions.
So where were the stockholders?
Where were the pension funds who own Potlatch?
Blame the CEO and hear the thunderous applause.
Blame the people who SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBLITY - and hear the crickets chirping.
Thanks for the correction, I had it a little mixed up, but it was still the Radical Republicans response to his Anti-trust laws that forced him into a third party.
It wasn't that Rich and MD are incorrect about the idea lay-offs include culling dead wood, it's that I know they know better, but will still make off the wall claims like that. I guess they think we're all idiots who will believe anything they say.
Start here ->Social Funds: The Largest personal finance site devoted to socially responsible investing
Gosh, maybe I am misinformed about the constitution.
http://www.socialinvest.org/
http://www.firstsustainable.com/
http://www.calvert.com/sri.html
http://www.domini.com/
You know darn well Teddy Roosevelt was behind the drafting of those laws and the movement to get corporate America under controll during his presidency. Why do you make non-starter comments like that?
I've worked as a middle manager and I agree that one does not like to give bad reviews. However, one must do it in certain instances. Generally, the people I've had were worthy of good reviews for the most part. Bad reviews usually resulted in improvement over the next period which is the goal. When things are tight, the most timid of managers will either learn to give bad reviews in a constructive manner or he will fail to survive as a manager. The exception might be in certain technical areas and small crews where there is no need for a bad review.
When I interviewed for my last job one of the questions I was ask was "Are you comfortable taking disciplinary action against an employee?" My response was no, I'm not comfortable doing that and I don't want to work for someone who is. I will do it but don't ask me to be comfortable at it. So you and I feel about the same on that.
However, the "80% of those laid off weren't carrying their weight" you named is totally ridiculous. In most of these cases, the vast majority of those laid off are quality workers! These firms don't lay off based solely on evaluations. Most workers have satisfactory evaluations. But they do monitor problem employees and eventually get rid of them. I've seen it many times. I'll acknowledge that I was referencing the larger corporations and their massive lay offs.
If a company laid off personnel in large numbers every couple of years and kept right on hiring, they might be using the lay off process as you describe. I've not personally seen that happen. It would be pretty obvious to all involved!
These lay offs and transfer of production to overseas sources definitely hurts America and American workers. It's not possible to compete with the costs the company must pay in China or India. Besides, the company doesn't have to worry nearly as much about safety and health problems in foreign countries.
However, your claims about the weakness of middle managers is not without some merit. That is another reason that lay offs to cull bad employees is not reasonable. The paperwork is not there to justify such lay offs if the managers have not been doing their job of evaluating.
Greg,
I followed the links and got articles about socially responsible investing for institutional investors, etc. It was somewhat interesting and I appreciate the links but haven't figured out the relevance of it to this thread or what you're trying to say here. Again, public pension funds have rigid qualifications concerning how they are invested and complying with those laws are the primary consideration of the persons doing the investing.
I really think that you're talking about one thing and I'm focused on a different thing.
Psst Devin, as every child in America knows, or at least those who stayed awake during sixth grade civics know, Presidents do not draft laws.
Since you obviously slept through civics, here is a brief primer. The process of creating laws begins in both the Senate and Congress where a bill is sponsored, then it goes through or fails to go through committees, then onto to floor where it is or is not passed, then the bill has to be reconciled with the other house --- etc, etc, etc.
This process kind of means that a whole lot of other people have to draft, revise, sponsor and ride herd on bills before the president can sign them into law.
As trust busting, if you would read rather than "feel" history, you would know that William Howard Taft, actually began the anti-trust proceedings.
I remember reading something about PERSI distributing "excess funds" to its members. Gosh, they must have laid-off a whole lot of people that year.
The liberal left, through the leverage of its pension funds has the power to DO SOMETHING to reform and restructure corporations worldwide.
I suppose the main reason that they refuse to get involved, and to take responsibility, is that it would demand sacrifice -- and cost them money.
It is simply easier, more profitable, and self-satisfying – to point fingers and howl at "Republicans"
Greg is right, it had become a $500 billion dollar problem of underfunding.
I didn't say he wrote them, I said he was behind the effort. You juat can't stand it can you. You know darn well he was the architect behind those laws, but you just have to keep up your house of cards argument because that's what's all important to you.
PERSI is retirement system for a state that just happens to be THE most conservative Republican state in this country, thanks for proving my point. When Republicans are in charge, working people get screwed... period. If you don't like that, then I suggest you reconsider BEING a Republican.
Yes, Greg is right, if you mean a brain dead "Right" wing Republibot.
Your information about the Idaho PERSI was substantially correct. Now, just who do you think was laid off because of this? The employers got a kick back, money was shared with the current employees, retirees got a share of it and subsequently, the rates employees and employers were paying was reduced to keep it on an even basis. Sounds to me like good management. Show me the holes in my thinking, please.
Where do you come off complaining about the "other side" always complaining about the Republicans? What do you actually propose rather than just bashing Democrats? Actually, both Democrats and Republicans have a lot to be blamed for but please use specifics!
The problem starts and will only stop at the insidious practice we call campaign financing....As long as corporate America is allowed to buy into and virtually own our political process, those clowns will be calling the shots....
There is absolutely no movement on the horizon against this, and people seem totally unconcerned as they are herded over the cliff, so - depressingly - there is no immenent hope for change.
Under normal circumstances, politicians will not cut down their money trees, especially since the system requires the nourishment of those trees for them to be reelected.
Under extraordinary cvircumstances, such as an economic depression which causes a little national self analysis, a change for the better might be possible....but should we hope for such a horrible event? I think it's a good time to be old....
Uh Devin, try again.
From Wikipedia
In other words, McKinley started the process, Taft did the most - but Roosevelt got the most credit.
Bully for him.
I have no idea what that is suppsed to mean James.
My point was simple, and I think you missed it. PERSI was making so much money off demanding a higher rate of return than could be sustained by normal business practices that it wound up with a $155 million dollar surplus.
Oh I see, you blame Republicans for putting money in your pocket.
How much of that ill-gotten Republican pension money have you returned because of your deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class?
Since people have gotten hurt by your pension fund, one would have to conclude that any money you receive from it -- is dirty as hell.
Or doesn't that count?
There has been a lot of defacto regulation about firing people and their wages by forced by unions on companies. If you want to see what that does, just look at the american auto industry and UAW. For years Detroit would keep producing cars that they knew they couldn't sell because it was more expensive to lay off people. They would take these cars, sometimes hundreds of thousands of cars in lots because they couldn't do anything with them. Now, Detroit is building a lot of cars are being produced in Mexico because instead of the U.S because they have to pay about $75 per hour, while the Japanese companies (nonunionized) have to pay $50 per hour--they can't even compete against other companies producing cars in the U.S. I know this wasn't the only problem Detriot had, and a lot of their troubles were put on themselves, but it's hard to compete against rivals that even in your own market have 50% lower wage costs.
Another example of regulation amost killing an industry was the Railroads up to about the 80's. The industry was so highly regulated (mostly from dated regulation that nobody cared to update--YOU GO BUREAUCRACY) that it almost killed the industry. For example, they were forced to keep inter-city passenger service, even though it was completely unprofitable and uncompetitive. A lot of railroads were on the brink of bankrupcy and cut a lot of service, which is bad (more trucks on the road, more pollution, etc) no matter how you look at it. Under the Regan deregulations, the railroad industry was deregulated. Passenger service was encoumpased in Amtrack, and the railroads foccused on profitable freight service. After years of restructuring, the railroads are back on track, profitable, productive, and are expanding services. In fact, they are struggling to keep up with demand. There are few that would argue that this was a bad development.
Other examples: AT&T--regulation (AT&T was given a government sponsored monopoly) made American telephone service terribly expensive. When the telecom industry was deregulated, the industry became much better and prices plumeted.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against regulation. There's a lot of things that need to be much better regulated. The republicans seem to oppose regulation when it's clearly needed because apparently it's one of their principles (one more reason I hate idealists--I don't care if you're following what you believe in if it's a bad idea). Regulation can be important to protect people, but at t